See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260814173

Vulnerability assessment of container cranes under stochastic wind loading

Article  in  Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · June 2013

DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2013.834943

CITATIONS READS

16 1,297

2 authors, including:

Sourav Gur
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Patna
41 PUBLICATIONS   527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

seismic sustainability of critical facilities View project

TiNi-based materials: Understanding and applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sourav Gur on 02 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Vulnerability assessment of container cranes

under stochastic wind loading

Sourav Gur & Samit Ray-Chaudhuri

To cite this article: Sourav Gur & Samit Ray-Chaudhuri (2014) Vulnerability assessment of
container cranes under stochastic wind loading, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
10:12, 1511-1530, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2013.834943

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.834943

Published online: 30 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 132

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20

Download by: [University of Arizona] Date: 02 February 2017, At: 08:33

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2014
Vol. 10, No. 12, 1511–1530, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2013.834943

Vulnerability assessment of container cranes under stochastic wind loading

Sourav Gur1 and Samit Ray-Chaudhuri*
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, UP, India
(Received 29 January 2013; final version received 27 April 2013; accepted 1 June 2013; published online 30 October 2013)

Container cranes, an essential component in any seaport facility system, are highly susceptible to failure during natural
disasters such as severe windstorms. Damage or collapse of these structures can lead to significant amount of economic loss
in terms of both repair or replacement and downtime. To study how various parameters such as boom position, yaw angle,
gradient height and gradient wind speed affect the failure vulnerability of a crane, in this work, a representative container
crane has been modelled in a commercial software considering both material and geometric nonlinearities. Stochastic wind
fields are simulated as a stationary process by means of the spectral representation method using power spectrum in
conjunction with along- and across-wind coherence functions. Wind fields are also simulated as a non-stationary stochastic
process utilising the modulation functions from the available literature to consider the situations of thunderstorm
downbursts. Nonlinear time history analyses are then performed and a few responses are compared for stationary and non-
stationary wind field cases. It is observed that for the given simulation parameters, the responses considering stationary wind
fields are larger than those of the non-stationary wind fields. Failure vulnerability of the crane is then assessed in terms of
fragility curves. The results of this study show that the failure vulnerability may not be maximum for the set of parameter
values for which the aerodynamic forces are maximum. This study provides a better understanding of crane vulnerability
that may be utilised to achieve a better crane design.
Keywords: container crane; stochastic wind field; non-stationary wind field; nonlinear analysis; vulnerability assessment;
fragility curves

1. Introduction dockside cranes under wind-induced loading is not

Seaports are essential nodes of national and international
transport systems of a country and often serve as regional
economic centres. In addition, when inland transportation
systems become out of operation due to natural or
manmade disasters, ports play a major role by serving as
local transportation lifeline systems for emergency
transportation and rescue operations. Because of these
reasons, it is essential to minimise damage of ports under
natural disasters such as severe windstorms. In a port
facility, container cranes are one of the most important
classes of structures that facilitate the movement of cargos
between a ship and storage yards. Damage or collapse of
such structures can hinder smooth port operation, resulting
in significant economic loss in terms of repair or
replacement, downtime and enduring loss of business
due to permanent traffic rerouting.
Although significant developments in terms of design
and construction of modern-day huge cranes have been
achieved, recent crane failure incidents indicate that these
cranes are highly susceptible to natural hazards. Failure of
cranes due to seismic loading has gained significant
attention in recent years, while the literature on wind-
induced failure is scant. However, failure of modern-day
uncommon. For examples, in 1996, the Zhanjiang port
of Guangdong was severely damaged by a typhoon, where
16 cranes were destroyed, and in 2003, at Pusan port of
South Korea, 8 cranes designed according to a modern
code (BS 2573) were severely damaged due to a typhoon
and resulted in $31 million loss. There are several crane
failure incidents at the US east and gulf coasts (Zhang,
Sun, & Peng, 2009).
Recent damage surveys show that the damage of
container cranes due to severe wind storms is localised in
most cases. Many cranes are found to fail during
windstorms due to failure at their bases and anchoring
systems such as tie-down and stowage-pin even at a wind
speed much less than the design wind speed of non-
operating conditions. It is also observed that usually one
damage incident initiates cascading failure events invol-
ving many nearby cranes and resulting in severe damage
or even collapse of multiple cranes (Jordan, 1995;
McCarthy, Jordan, Lee, & Werner, 2007; McCarthy,
Soderberg, & Dix, 2009; McCarthy & Vazifdar, 2004;
Morris & Hoite, 1997). Furthermore, it was concluded that
container cranes are highly vulnerable to sudden onset
high-speed wind. In addition, to reduce failure of container

*Corresponding author. Email: samitrc@iitk.ac.in

q 2013 Taylor & Francis
1512 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
cranes during wind storm, different types of retrofitting
schemes were suggested and even a modified design
philosophy was proposed for the design of these cranes
(see McCarthy et al., 2007; McCarthy et al., 2009;
McCarthy & Vazifdar, 2004).
Several researchers such as Eden, Iny, and Butler
(1981), Han and Han (2010), Huang, Wang, and Gu
(2006), Lee and Kang (2007, 2008), Lee, Kim, Han, and
Han (2007), Lee, Shim, Han, Han, and Lee (2007), and
Scarabino, Di Leo, Delnero, and Bacchi (2005) conducted
numerical and experimental studies to determine values of
different governing parameters for the design of container
crane due to wind loading. Eden et al. (1981) studied the
effect of oncoming wind field on a container crane
responses by developing numerical models of cranes.
Results show that a 3-s gust factor gives the maximum
value of design wind speed. It is also found that the out-of-
service gust wind speed is more conservative than in-
service gust wind speed. Huang et al. (2006) carried out
both experimental and numerical studies to investigate the
effect of wind load on container cranes. It was observed
that the influence of Reynolds number (Re) at smooth flow
is very less and the most unfavourable wind loading angle
is found to be between 158 and 308. In another numerical
study, Zrnic, Oguamanam, and Bosnjak (2006) investi-
gated the dynamic response of boom girder of a mega
quayside container crane and observed that the deflection
of the end point of boom girder increases with an increase
in wind velocity. Han and Han (2010) performed wind
tunnel tests (1:200 scale container crane model) and
numerically analysed a crane to propose an alarm system
using the uplift force as reference data. Scarabino et al.
(2005) conducted an experimental study on a 1:20 scale
port crane boom girder section and reported that the values
of drag coefficient (C d ) are more in a smooth flow
condition than those of a turbulent flow condition and the
influence of Reynolds number (Re) on drag coefficient is
negligible. Lee, Kim, et al. (2007) and Lee, Shim, et al.
(2007) studied the effect of machinery house and boom
positions on the structural stability of a container crane by
performing experiments on a 1:200 scale model of a
container crane. The results show that the effect of position
of machinery house on the drag and lift coefficients are
almost negligible and the maximum value of uplifting
force at any support occurs either for yaw angles between
208 and 408 or between 1308 and 1508.
Recently, two wind tunnel studies (Lee & Kang, 2007,
2008) were performed on a 1:150 scale container crane
model located in two types of atmospheric boundary layers
(open coast and open terrain). Effect of Re, yaw angle and
boom position of container crane (boom-down and boom-
up) on aerodynamic coefficients were studied. From this
study, it was observed that the drag (C d ) and lift (C l )
coefficients become maximum at angles 408 and 1408,
respectively, and both become minimum at an angle of
908. It is also found that the values of Cd and C l are more
for a boom-up position than those of a boom-down
position.
To simplify the design procedure, most of the modern
codes such as British Standard, BS 2573-1 (1983),
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-05 (2006)
and European Standard, Eurocode 1-4 (2004) recommend
performing static analysis using a representative model of
the container crane that is to be designed. For this purpose,
different code suggestions are to use either the mean wind
field or the gust factor method to compute the wind
loading. However, for a tall and unsymmetric structure
such as a container crane, these methods may not provide
accurate estimation of responses. Recently, a few
researchers have carried out dynamic time history analyses
to determine the influence of different wind field
parameters and structural configurations on response of
container cranes (see Chen & Kareem, 2001; Kim,
Shinozuka, & Ghang, 2004; Sun, Xu, & Ko, 1999).
Although significant research efforts have been
directed to study the effect of wind loading on container
cranes, as per authors’ knowledge, no systematic study has
been performed so far to investigate the effect of different
parameters on the failure vulnerability of a container
crane. The main purpose of this study is thus to investigate
the influence of structural configurations (i.e. boom
positions) and wind field properties (i.e. gradient height,
gradient wind speed and yaw angle) on the failure
vulnerability of a representative container crane by
simulating spatially varying stochastic wind fields with a
set of simulation parameters.
2. Stochastic wind field simulation
Wind loads calculated according to different code
provisions are static in nature, and thus, a static analysis
is usually carried out for design of a structure under wind
load. However, a very high level of temporal wind speed
fluctuation and spatial variation in the wind field can occur
during wind storms. Such effects can only be taken into
account by performing a dynamic analysis. To incorporate
the dynamic effect of wind loading, several design codes
recommended an equivalent static wind load analysis by
means of the gust factor method. But, in the gust factor
method, only the magnitude of mean wind load is
increased by a constant factor, which may not be able to
capture effectively the influence of spatially varying wind
field on the response of structures such as container cranes.
Thus, to investigate the effect of spatially varying wind
field on failure of container crane, wind fields are
simulated in this study.
Wind fields can be simulated as stationary or non-
stationary processes. For simulation of wind fields as a
stationary process, wind speed at any point and any instant
of time Vðx; y; z; tÞ is decomposed into two parts: (i) mean
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
wind speed V m ðzÞ, which is independent of time but varies
along the height only; and (ii) fluctuating wind speed (also
called as mean-deducted) vðx; y; z; tÞ, which varies both in
space and time (see Caracoglia & Jones, 2003; Paola,
1998). Thus, Vðx; y; z; tÞ can be expressed as follows:
Vðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ V m ðzÞ þ vðx; y; z; tÞ:
The fluctuating part of the wind fields is simulated here
by means of the spectral representation method (see
Deodatis, 1996; Gurley & Kareem, 1998; Han & Luo,
2006; Karmakar, Ray-Chaudhuri, & Shinozuka, 2012;
Paola, 1998; Popescu, Deodatis, & Prevost, 1998;
Shinozuka, 1971; Shinozuka & Deodatis, 1991, 1996;
Shinozuka & Jan, 1972; Yamazaki & Shinozuka, 1988). In
this method, a one-dimensional multivariate (1D-mV)
fluctuating wind field surrounding the structure is
simulated. A brief description of simulation procedure
for stationary stochastic wind fields along with the
important parameters is provided in the following
subsections.
Recent studies have highlighted the necessity of
considering non-stationarity of wind fields especially
during the thunderstorm downbursts (see Chen &
Letchford, 2004, 2007; Holmes & Oliver, 2000). In such
cases, the mean wind speed is usually modelled as a
deterministic time-varying function whereas the fluctuat-
ing part is modelled as a evolutionary random process.
Thus, during such events, the total wind fields can be
expressed as follows:
Vðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ V m ðz; tÞ þ v~ ðx; y; z; tÞ
with
V m ðz; tÞ ¼ V m ðzÞf ðtÞ;
where f ðtÞ is the time-modulating function of mean wind
speed and v~ ðx; y; z; tÞ is the non-stationary fluctuating part,
which can be simulated using evolutionary power spectral
density function (see Chen, 2008; Liang, Ray-Chaudhuri,
& Shinozuka, 2007).
2.1 Simulation parameters
Following parameters are considered to simulate the
stationary stochastic wind field:
2.1.1 Mean wind speed
It is considered that the wind is flowing horizontally with
the wind velocity being zero at the ground level and
varying only with the height according to the well-known
power law, which can be expressed in the following form
1513
(Blevins, 1990; Simiu & Scanlan, 1986):

a
z
V m ðzÞ ¼ V g ; ð3Þ
Zg
where V m ðzÞ is the mean wind speed at a height z, V g is the
ð1Þ gradient wind velocity at gradient height Z g (the height at
which wind velocity becomes constant) and a is a power
law exponent that depends on terrain conditions. In this
study, a is taken as 1/7 considering an open terrain
condition. For a systematic study, Z g is assumed to vary
from 7.5 to 20.0 m with an increment of 2.5 m and,
for each case of Z g , V g is assumed to vary from 5.0 to
75.0 m/s. It may be noted that the chosen ranges of Z g and
V g cover a wide range of wind conditions.
2.1.2 Yaw angle (u)
Yaw angle or the wind incident angle is the angle made by
the direction of wind flow with respect to the axis of a
structure. Generally, it is observed that with the change in
yaw angle, the response of a structure changes. In this
study, the yaw angle is measured with respect to the x-axis
of the structure (as shown in Figure 1) and is assumed to
vary from 08 to 1808 at an interval of 308.
2.1.3 Shear velocity of wind field (u* )
Shear velocity, also called the friction velocity, is the
velocity by which shear stress is expressed in the unit of
velocity. It is a useful parameter in wind engineering to
ð2aÞ
compare, for example, true velocity of a flow in a stream
with a velocity that relates shear stress between any two
layers of flow. A shear velocity is used to describe shear-
related motion in a moving wind field. It can be expressed
ð2bÞ as follows (see Ambrosini, Riera, & Danesi, 2002; Hansen
& Krenk, 1999; Lumley & Panofsky, 1964; Zhang, Li, &
Peng, 2008):
kV m ðzÞ
u* ¼ ; ð4Þ
lnðz=z0 Þ
where u* is the shear velocity in m/s; k is the Von Karman’s
constant, usually taken as 0.4, V m ðzÞ is the mean wind
speed at height z in m/s, and z0 is the roughness height,
typically taken as 0.01 for smooth surface.
2.1.4 Power spectrum
Kaimal, Wyngaard, Izumi, and Coté (1972) proposed a
power spectral density function for the horizontal wind
velocity fluctuations, which is suitable for both low and
high frequency spectrum area. This spectrum can be
expressed as (see Ambrosini et al., 2002; Hansen & Krenk,
1514 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri

Figure 1. Model of a container crane at boom-down position showing various nodes.

1999; Harris, 1990; Kaimal et al., 1972; Zhang et al., is ½V m ðzj Þ þ V m ðzk Þ
=2 in m/s; Cx , Cy and C z are constants
2008) that may be taken as 6.0, 10.0 and 16.0, respectively.

1 1 z 1
Su ðv; zÞ ¼ 200 u2*   ;
2 2p V m ðzÞ 1 þ 50ðjvjz=2pV m ðzÞÞ 5=3 2.2 Stationary wind field simulation
ð5Þ For the simulation of mean wind speed, at first, the original
coordinate system ðx; y; zÞ is transformed to the wind flow
where Su ðv; zÞ is the Kaimal and Simiu power spectrum, z direction ðx1 ; y1 ; z1 Þ coordinate system. As it is assumed
is the height of the point in m where the wind velocity is that the wind flow is horizontal, to obtain the wind speed
required, v is the frequency in rad/s, V m ðzÞ is in m/s and u* along the direction of the structure, yaw angle (u, in
is in m/s. In this study, this spectrum has been used to degrees) is used for coordinate transformation (Figure 2).
simulate the wind field. This transformation of structural coordinate system into
the wind flow direction can be given as

2.1.5 Along- and across-wind coherence functions 8 9 2 38 9

>
> x1 >
> cosðuÞ cosð90 2 uÞ cosð90Þ >>x>>
If j and k are two points along and across the direction of >
< = 6> < >
7> =
wind flow, then the along- and across-wind coherence 6
y1 ¼ 6 cosð90 þ uÞ cosðuÞ 7
cosð90Þ 7 y :
>
> >
> 4 5>
> >
between these two points are expressed as (see Ambrosini : z1 >
> ; > >>
cosð90Þ cosð90Þ cosð0Þ : z ;
et al., 2002; Han & Luo, 2006; Hansen & Krenk, 1999;
Harris, 1990; Morfiadakis, Glinou, & Koulovari, 1996; ð7Þ
Zhang et al., 2008)
 
jvjC x dx
hjk ðv; dxÞ ¼ exp 2 ; ð6aÞ
2pV mjk ðzÞ
2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi3
jvj ðC y dyÞ2 þ ðC z dzÞ2
gjk ðv; dy; dzÞ ¼ exp42 5; ð6bÞ
2pV mjk ðzÞ

where hjk ðv; dxÞ and gjk ðv; dy; dzÞ are the along- and across-
wind coherence functions, respectively; dx, dy and dz are Figure 2. Coordinate transformation from structural system to
jxj 2 xk j, jyj 2 yk j and jzj 2 zk j, respectively (in m); V mjk ðzÞ wind flow direction.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1515

Now, all the nodal coordinates of the structure are H jk ðvÞ ¼ H *jk ð2vÞ
transformed in the direction of wind flow and the absolute ð11cÞ
value of difference in coordinates between any two nodes j j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m 2 1; j . k;
and k is calculated. Now, considering a value of gradient
height Z g and gradient wind velocity V g, the mean wind
speed V m ðzÞ at any node with height z of the structure is  !
calculated by using Equation (3). 21 Im H jk ðvÞ
ujk ðvÞ ¼ tan   : ð11dÞ
The fluctuating part of the wind speed is considered as Re H jk ðvÞ
an 1D-mV, zero mean, stationary Gaussian stochastic field
with components vo1 ðtÞ, vo2 ðtÞ, vo3 ðtÞ, . . . , vom ðtÞ. It may be Finally, using the spectral representation method based
noted that a few recent studies have considered the wind on the fast Fourier transform (FFT) technique (Brigham,
field as a non-Gaussian process. However, in this study for 1988), the fluctuating part of the wind speed can be
the simplicity of simulation, it is assumed that the simulated as
fluctuating (mean deducted) part of the wind field may be (  )
considered as a Gaussian process. Thus, for this fluctuating ðiÞ
Xj MX 21
2p
part, the spectral density matrix S o ðvÞ can be expressed as vj ðpDtÞ ¼ Re Bjql exp ilp ; ð12Þ
q¼1 l¼0
M
(Popescu et al., 1998)
2 3 j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m p ¼ 0; 1; . . . ; M 2 1
o
S11 ðvÞ o
S12 ðvÞ ··· o
S1m ðvÞ
6 o 7 l ¼ 0; 1; . . . ; N 2 1;
6 S21 ðvÞ o
S22 ðvÞ ··· o
S2m ðvÞ 7
6 7
S ðvÞ ¼ 6
o
6 .. .. .. .. 7 7; ð8Þ where
6 . . . . 7 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 5
o
Sm1 ðvÞ o
Sm2 ðvÞ · · · o
Smm ðvÞ Bjql ¼ 2jH jq ðlDvÞj Dvexp½2iujq ðlDvÞ
exp½ifðiÞ
ql
; ð13aÞ

vu
Dv ¼ ; ð13bÞ
where N
2p
Sjjo ðvÞ ¼ Sj ðvÞ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; ð9aÞ Dt ¼ ; M ¼ 2N; ð13cÞ
MDv
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sjko ðvÞ ¼ Sj ðvÞSk ðvÞ hjk gjk fql is the random phase angle, which is uniformly
ð9bÞ distributed over 0 to 2p. vu is the upper cut-off frequency
j; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j – k assumed based on previous knowledge or using engineer-
ing judgements.
with Sj ðvÞ and Sk ðvÞ being the Kaimal and Simiu power
spectral density functions at jth and kth points,
respectively. 2.3 Non-stationary wind field simulation
Now, using the Cholesky’s method, the power spectral Spatially varying non-stationary wind fields can be
density matrix S o ðvÞ is decomposed into a lower triangular simulated by slightly modifying the procedure for the
matrix HðvÞ as follows (Popescu et al., 1998): simulation of stationary fields by utilising the evolutionary
power spectral density functions that define the non-
S o ðvÞ ¼ HðvÞH *T ðvÞ; ð10Þ stationary nature of the fields (Chen, 2008; Liang et al.,
2007; Spanos & Kougioumtzoglou, 2012). Thus, for the
where simulation of non-stationary fluctuating parts of wind
2 3 fields, Equations (9a) and (9b) can be modified as follows:
H 11 ðvÞ 0 0 ··· 0
6 7 o 2
6 H 21 ðvÞ H 22 ðvÞ 0 ··· 0 7 Sjj ðv; tÞ ¼ jAj ðt; vÞj Sj ðvÞ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; ð14aÞ
6 7
6 7 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6 7
HðvÞ ¼ 6 H 31 ðvÞ H 32 ðvÞ H 33 ðvÞ ··· 0 o
7; Sjk ðv; tÞ ¼ jAj ðt; vÞkAk ðt; vÞj Sj ðvÞSk ðvÞ hjk gjk
6 .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 7 j; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; j – k;
6 . . . . . 7
4 5
H m1 ðvÞ H m2 ðvÞ H m3 ðvÞ · · · H mm ðvÞ ð14bÞ

ð11aÞ where Aj ðt; vÞ is generally a complex-valued deterministic

modulating function of both t and v for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m.
Thus, once Aj ðt; vÞ is known, the fluctuating non-
H jj ðvÞ ¼ H jj ð2vÞ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; ð11bÞ stationary part of the wind field can be generated using
1516 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
the spectral representation method based on FFT (Liang
et al., 2007).
During thunderstorm downbursts, the time-indepen-
dent mean wind speed is usually modelled by multiplying
the mean speed with a time-varying modulating function
f ðtÞ. Therefore, to simulate a non-stationary wind field,
Aj ðt; vÞ and f ðtÞ are required in addition to those required
for the simulation of stationary wind field. Usually,
mathematical models derived from measured wind fields
are used to approximate Aj ðt; vÞ and f ðtÞ.
2.4 Simulation results
At first, simulation results are presented considering the
wind field as a stationary process. To simulate the
fluctuating part of the wind speed, the values of different
parameters are chosen as: N ¼ 2048, M ¼ 4096 and
vu ¼ 4p. Realisations of wind speed time histories are
simulated for 1023.75 s with an interval of 0.25 s for all
nodes of the structural model. Figure 3 shows a realisation
of simulated wind speed data for Z g ¼ 20.0 m and
V g ¼ 75.0 m/s and for nodes 8, 34, 36, 54, 61 and 66
(see Figure 1). It may be noted that nodes 34, 36, 54 and 61
are located at the same height from the ground with nodes
54 and 61 being in the same line along the direction of
wind flow. However, the time histories are different at all
these nodes. This clearly shows the spatially varying
nature of the wind field. Also, by comparing the wind
speed time histories of nodes 8, 54 and 66, one can notice
the variation of wind speed along with height. Note that the
mean velocities at nodes 54 and 66 are same as the gradient
height that is taken as 30 m, which is lower than the height
of these two nodes. However, the mean velocity at node 8
is lower than that of the nodes 54 and 66 due to the power
law variation.
To check the accuracy of the simulated field, the cross
power spectral density function of wind speed between any
two nodes is calculated from the simulated wind speed data.
Then considering 20 realisations, their average values are
also determined for different node pairs. Figure 4 shows
the comparison of generated power spectral density
functions (a sample and average computed from 20
realisations) with the assumed one (i.e. Equations (9a) and
(9b)). Only significant data are plotted in the graphs, i.e.
data within the range of 0.1 –1.0 Hz are shown. It can be
observed from this figure that, in mean sense, the power
spectral density functions generated from the wind speed
data are in very good agreement with the assumed one.
For the simulation of non-stationary wind fields, the
modulating functions for the mean and fluctuating parts as
mentioned earlier are adopted from Chen and Letchford
(2004). Figure 5 shows a realisation of non-stationary
wind field (Figure 5(a) for node 8 and Figure 5(b) for node
34). It can be observed from this figure that unlike the
stationary fields, the mean wind speed fluctuates
noticeably due to the incorporation of the time-varying
mean speed modulation factor. It can also be observed
from this figure that the amplitude of the fluctuating part
increases with the increase in the mean wind speed, as has
been reported in the previous literature.
2.5 Wind force computation
Only the drag and lift forces at each node are considered in
this study. The drag force F D and the lift force F L at any
node due to wind field are calculated as (Simiu & Scanlan,
1986)
1  2
F D ðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ r Vðx; y; z; tÞ C D A; ð15aÞ
2
1  2
F L ðx; y; z; tÞ ¼ r Vðx; y; z; tÞ CL A; ð15bÞ
2
where r is the density of air taken as 1.225 kg/m3; C D and
CL are the drag and lift coefficients, respectively; and A
is the effective area. The effective area of any node is
given as
A ¼ jAx cosðuÞj þ jAy cosðuÞj; ð16Þ
where Ax is the tributary area perpendicular to x-axis and
Ay is the tributary area perpendicular to y-axis.
3. Numerical modelling and analysis
3.1 Numerical modelling
In this study, a container crane of tower height 72.60 m and
a total boom length of 131.0 m (back reach length 32.0 m,
rail span 29.0 m and outreach length 70.0 m) has been
considered. The lifting capacity of the crane is 65.0 tones.
From the aforementioned properties, the representative
crane is classified as Super-Post-Panamax crane. The
crane is modelled (67 nodes, connected by 109 elements)
in a widely used commercial software known as SAP 2000
(Computer and Structures Inc., 2009). The legs of the
models are assumed to be fixed at their bases. The reason
behind this assumption is the fact that a crane is usually
anchored at their legs during a wind storm. Isotropic
tendon-type steel [unit weight (g): 76; 972:86 N=m3 ,
modulus of elasticity (E): 1:999 £ 1011 N=m2 , Poisson’s
ratio ðy Þ: 0.30, shear modulus (G): 7:690 £ 1010 N=m2 and
minimum yield stress ðF y Þ: 1:493 £ 109 N=m2 ] with 3%
kinematic hardening is considered for material modelling.
Note that the numerical model of the crane used in this
study represents the design model of existing cranes with
similar size. To study the effect of boom positions, two
different boom positions (boom-down and boom-up) are
considered. For the boom-down position, the entire boom
girder is kept horizontal, whereas for the boom-up position
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1517

Figure 3. Wind speed time-histories for stationary wind field at nodes (a) 8, (b) 34, (c) 36, (d) 54, (e) 61 and (f) 66 (see Figure 1).
1518 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri

Figure 4. Comparison of assumed and generated power spectral density functions between nodes: (a) 34 and 34, (b) 34 and 43, (c) 54
and 61 and (d) 61 and 66.

Figure 5. Wind speed time histories for non-stationary wind field at nodes (a) 8 and (b) 34 (see Figure 1).
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 6. Representative container crane model at two different boom positions: (a) boom-down and (b) boom-up.
only the outreach portion of boom girder is kept vertical.
Figure 6 shows the representative crane models at two
different boom positions.
3.2 Eigenvalue and static analyses
An analysis is performed to estimate the natural
frequencies and mode shapes of the models. The Ritz
vector method is used to extract the first few modes of the
model for both boom positions. Table 1 provides the first
six natural periods of the models. It can be observed from
these results that the periods in all modes of boom-up
model are higher than the corresponding boom-down
position. This implies that the boom-up position is more
flexible than the boom-down one. It is worth mentioning
that the fundamental period of these models as obtained
here is comparable with those reported in the published
literature (Soderberg, Hsieh, & Dix, 2009).
Figures 7 and 8 show the first two mode shapes at
boom-down and boom-up positions, respectively. From
these figures, it can be observed that the first mode shape
corresponds to predominantly the lateral vibration of the
outreach portion of the boom girder at boom-down
position. However, at boom-up position, the lateral
vibration of the entire structure corresponds to the first
Table 1. First six natural periods for different boom positions.
Boom-down Boom-up
Mode number position period (s) position period (s)
1 3.14162 3.66817
2 2.38287 2.58208
3 1.30613 2.11273
4 1.06751 1.50134
5 0.80840 0.99998
6 0.71979 0.73545
1519
mode shape. Also, the second mode shape for the boom-
down position corresponds to the lateral motion of the
backreach while, for the boom-up position, the second
mode represents the lateral motion of the outreach portion
of the boom girder. In general, the lower modes
correspond to the vibration of boom.
For a container crane, various sources of static loads
are present in addition to the self-weight of the structure.
These loads are due to the machine house, trolley and
hoisting, staircase and dummy mass. These loads are
applied at each nodes of the crane model and an analysis is
performed to obtain the state of stress and deformation of
the model. It is well known that, when large stresses are
present within a structure or the deformation/rotation are
large, the equilibrium equations differ significantly from
the undeformed configuration to the deformed geometry of
the structure. In addition, due to geometric nonlinearity, a
tensile force in a member tends to resist the rotation of
elements and stiffen the structure, whereas a compressive
force in a member tends to enhance the rotation of
elements (see Chen & Kareem, 2001; Kim et al., 2004;
Sun et al., 1999). Thus, for the static analysis, geometric
nonlinearities (i.e. P 2 D effect and large deformation) are
considered. It has been observed during the static analysis
that the consideration of geometric nonlinearity requires a
moderate amount of iteration highlighting the presence of
geometric nonlinear behaviour.
3.3 Wind load analysis
Wind load analysis is performed after the static load
analysis and holding the states of deformation and stress in
all members. Wind load time histories are applied at each
node in both horizontal and vertical directions to simulate
the drag and lift forces. For computation of wind forces,
the values of ðC D Þ and ðCL Þ are taken from Lee and Kang
1520 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
Figure 7. Mode shapes of the first two modes at boom-down condition: (a) first mode and (b) second mode.
(2007) and provided in Table 2. Note that these values
were obtained from wind tunnel testing of similar crane
structures and were defined with respect to total drag and
lift forces of the crane model, which were obtained from
the base balance measurements. Due to unavailability of
these force coefficients for each member, these values
have been used for each member. In fact, many articles
have followed a similar approach (Ambrosini et al., 2002;
Boonyapinyo, Yamada, & Miyata, 1994; Bourdeix,
Hemon, & Santi, 1998; Harikrishna, Shanmugasundaram,
Gomathinayagam, & Lakshmanan, 1999; Huang et al.,
2006; Karmakar et al., 2012; Scanlan, 1993).
For each boom position and yaw angle, sample
realisations of nodal wind force time histories are obtained
by using the data generated from wind field simulations.
For each boom position, 2% Rayleigh damping is
considered for the first two modes. A nonlinear time
history analysis is then carried out using the direct
integration scheme. For nonlinear analysis, Newmark’s
average acceleration (g ¼ 0.5 and b ¼ 0.25) method with
a time interval of 0.25 s is used to estimate the response.
Figure 8. Mode shapes of the first two modes at boom-up
condition: (a) first mode and (b) second mode.
Note that the analysis was restricted to buffeting forces
alone and the aerodynamic forces due to the self-excitation
phenomenon could not be considered due to software
limitations.
Different force and displacement responses are
recorded from the time history analysis. At first, results
are presented considering wind fields as stationary random
process. Figure 9 shows a sample of different response
time histories when the analysis is performed for a yaw
angle of 908 and considering Z g ¼ 20.0 m and
V g ¼ 75.0 m/s. The response time histories are displace-
ment along y-axis of the top node (node 66), displacement
of node 7 along y-axis and moment rotation curve of
bottom plastic hinge of member 7 about x- and y-axis.
Wind speed time history for the top node is also shown in
this figure. It may be observed from Figure 9(b),(c) that
displacements fluctuate about non-zero mean values
without the change of sign. The moments at the base,
however, show a change in sign implying high-magnitude
stress reversal (Figure 9(d),(e)) about both x- and y-axis.
This is because of the kinematic material hardening
considered for modelling these elements. Once the
member crosses the plastic moment limit and incurs in
the nonlinear range, a large permanent deformation
occurs. Reversals of rotation then produce negative
moments in this member.
Figure 10 shows how the responses differ when non-
stationary fields are considered instead of stationary fields.
Two response parameters, top drift (displacement of node
66) and base moment along with top node wind speed is
plotted in this figure considering stationary and non-
stationary wind fields. A horizontal line is shown in
Figure 10(a) to denote the mean wind speed. Response
time histories of the crane are obtained for the boom-down
position at a yaw angle of 608. One can observe from
Figure 10(b) and (c) that the displacement and moment
responses match well for both stationary and non-
stationary cases near the zone where the non-stationary
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1521

Table 2. Drag and lift coefficients used for different boom positions (Lee & Kang, 2007).

Yaw angle (u, in degrees) Boom-down drag coeff. Boom-down lift coeff. Boom-up drag coeff. Boom-up lift coeff.
0 0.611 2 0.111 0.889 2 0.167
30 0.944 2 0.194 1.139 2 0.167
60 1.111 2 0.167 1.153 2 0.194
90 0.833 2 0.167 0.853 2 0.167
120 1.083 2 0.131 1.193 2 0.111
150 1.000 2 0.167 1.167 2 0.028
180 0.722 2 0.111 0.889 2 0.028

Figure 9. (a) Wind speed at node 66 along y-axis (see Figure 1), (b) displacement of node 66 along y-axis, (c) displacement of node 8
along y-axis, (d) moment– rotation curve of bottom plastic hinge of member 7 about x-axis and (e) moment– rotation curve of member 7
about y-axis.
1522 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
Figure 10. Comparison of stationary and non-stationary wind field cases: (a) wind speed at node 66, (b) displacement of node 66 and
(c) base moment.
responses attain the peak value. This is because the periods
of the first few modes of vibration of the structure, which
dominate the responses, are very small compared with the
dominant period of the mean wind speed modulating
function. It can be noted that the peak displacement and
base moment responses reduce by 22% and 27%,
respectively, due to the consideration of non-stationary
wind fields.
Figure 11 represents the variation of peak response
parameters (i.e. normalised base moment, top drift (node
66) and rotational ductility of member 7) with gradient
wind speed considering stationary and non-stationary wind
fields. Results are obtained for boom-down position of the
crane at a yaw angle of 608 and presented in terms of mean
and mean plus standard deviation responses considering
20 realisations. Results indicate that each of these
responses considering stationary wind fields is always
higher than that of the non-stationary wind fields for both
mean and mean plus standard deviation cases. To get an
idea of dispersion of responses, see Figure 12. One can
observe from this figure that the coefficient of variation
(COV) for non-stationary wind field case is always lower
than that of the stationary wind field case for both boom-
down and boom-up positions. It can also be observed that
the COV increases with gradient wind speed following
almost a linear trend. In addition, the COV of boom-up
position is found to be higher than that of the boom-down
position for a given gradient wind speed. These results
imply that a higher COV is associated with a higher
response with the COV value being , 13% up to a gradient
wind speed of 65 m/s.
4. Vulnerability assessment
To determine the effect of different parameters on the
failure probability of the container crane, a fragility
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1523

Figure 11. Mean and mean plus standard deviation responses in boom-down position considering stationary and non-stationary wind
fields: (a) base moment, (b) top drift (node 66) and (c) support rotational ductility of member 7.

analysis is performed by defining the failure of a crane in
terms of damage states and then generating fragility
curves. A fragility curve provides the probability of
exceeding a particular damage state (which is usually
defined in terms of an engineering damage parameter such
as drift level and force level) when an event with a
specified intensity has occurred. Generally, fragility
curves are expressed by two-parameter (median and log-
standard deviation) log-normal distribution functions. In
the past, fragility curves have been developed for regular
structures such as buildings and bridges subjected to
seismically induced loads (e.g. Pan, Agrawal, & Ghosn,
2007; Pan, Agrawal, Ghosn, & Alampalii, 2010;
Shinozuka, Feng, Lee, & Naganuma, 2000). Recently,
probabilistic and time-dependent fragilities of concrete
bridges, buildings and other structures (such as highway
networks) have also been assessed (Jeong & Elnashai,
2011; Kappos & Panagopoulos, 2010; Sung & Su, 2011;
Torbol & Shinozuka, 2012; Zhong, Gardoni, & Rosowsky,
2012; Zhou, Banerjee, & Shinozuka, 2010). Studies have
also been carried out on seismic fragility of container cranes
and other port structures (Ray-Chaudhuri, Karmakar, Na, &
Shinozuka, 2009).
For generation of seismic fragility curves, peak ground
acceleration of ground motion is typically used as the
intensity measure. In this study, the gradient wind velocity
ðV g Þ is considered as the intensity measure for estimating
the failure probability of a container crane under wind
loading. A brief description of the procedure to generate
fragility curves is given in the following section.
1524 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
Figure 12. COV for peak base moment considering stationary and non-stationary wind fields: (a) boom-down and (b) boom-up
positions.
4.1 Damage state
Wind storms generally sustain for a very long duration
imposing long-duration fluctuating wind load. This
fluctuating wind load may produce significant amount of
stress along with stress reversal (see Figure 9) at different
elements of the structure resulting in low-cycle fatigue
failure. In fact, past experiences have demonstrated that
the sections connected to the supports are prone to failure
due to large moment and axial force acting on them. To
define a failure of container crane, in this study, the
required damage state is considered as the formation of a
plastic hinge at any of the legs connected to the supports.
This assumption implicitly considers that the safety
mechanisms are designed well and the failure of the
structure is not a result of failure of a safety link.
Now, let us consider that the plastic moment-carrying
capacity of any leg connected to a support as M P . Then, the
ratio R of the absolute value of the developed moment (M)
to the plastic moment (M P ) of the section can be used to
define failure of the container crane. In the mathematical
form, this can be expressed as
jMj
MP ¼ FY Z P and R ¼ ; ð17Þ
MP
where Z P is the plastic section modulus and F Y is the yield
stress. Thus, the failure criterion is defined as follows: the
section (and thus the structure) is assumed to have failed, if
the value of this ratio (R) becomes greater than or equal to
unity for any loading case. Note that apart from the base
moments, there may be other factors such as permanent
deformation of the structure and damage in other
components that may render the crane to be non-
operational. Damage states may thus be required in terms
of these factors from an operational point of view. However,
in the absence of such limit states and for simplicity, in
this study, the vulnerability assessment is carried out
considering the limiting value of base moments only.
4.2 Monte Carlo simulation
A Monte Carlo simulation is carried out to obtain the
response statistics. To study the convergence of the
response parameter (in this case, normalised base moment),
a convergence test is performed where mean and standard
deviation values of the base moments are calculated. The
mean and standard deviation of the normalised base
moments for different sample sizes at boom-down and
boom-up positions are shown in Figure 13. It can be
observed from this figure that the response of the crane
converges to a particular value for a sample size of about 70
(shown as a dotted vertical line) or higher for both boom
positions. So, for further studies, for each set of gradient
height and gradient wind speed, 70 different wind fields are
simulated and used to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses
for obtaining response statistics.
4.3 Estimation of fragility parameters
The median and log-standard deviation of fragility curves
for the considered damage state are estimated with the aid
of the maximum likelihood method as proposed by
Shinozuka et al. (2000). To avoid crossing of fragility
curves for increasing intensity, a common log-standard
deviation is used as suggested by Shinozuka et al. (2000).
At first, for a given V g , Z g and u, the mean of maximum
base moment response is estimated using a sample size of
70. Furthermore, these mean values are used to obtain
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1525

Figure 13. Mean and standard deviation of the normalised base moment versus sample size for (a) boom-down and (b) boom-up
positions.

damage states. Finally, the fragility parameters are deviation ðsV g Þ indicates the dispersion of the failure
estimated. gradient wind speeds.

5. Results and discussion 5.1 Effect of gradient height

The fragility parameters (i.e. the median and log-standard
deviation of failure gradient wind speed) are estimated for
different parameters such as yaw angle, gradient height
and boom positions. The median value of fragility curve
ðmV g Þ gives the gradient wind speed value for which the
failure probability is 50%, whereas the log-standard
Figure 14(a),(b) provides the median value of failure
gradient height for different yaw angles and boom
positions. From these figures, it can be observed that,
irrespective of yaw angle, for both boom positions (boom-
down and boom-up), the median value of the failure
gradient wind speed increases almost linearly with the

Figure 14. Median value of failure gradient wind speed with respect to gradient height for (a) boom-down and (b) boom-up positions.
1526 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri

Figure 15. Ratio of log-standard deviation to median failure gradient wind speed with respect to gradient height for (a) boom-down and
(b) boom-up positions.

increase in gradient height. Such trend has been observed log-standard deviation (as mentioned in Section 3) of the
because, at a lower value of gradient height, the mean wind failure gradient wind speed for boom-down and boom-up
speed profile becomes very stiff, i.e. the mean value of positions considering damage corresponding to all six
wind speed reaches very high value at a comparatively gradient heights. It can be observed from Table 3 that for all
lower height causing higher wind load on the container yaw angles, the log-standard deviation values are slightly
crane. It can also be observed that the yaw angle of 608 is larger in the boom-down position than the boom-up
most critical for both boom positions. Furthermore, the position. Overall, the log-standard deviation value remains
boom-up position is more vulnerable than that of the below 20 m/s. Moreover, it may be noted that for both boom
boom-down position. In fact, for u ¼ 608, mV g is about positions, the log-standard deviation is maximum at a yaw
27 m/s at boom-up position for Z g ¼ 10 m, whereas at the angle of 608 and minimum at a yaw angle of 08. Thus, in
same value of Z g , mV g is about 50 m/s for the boom-down general, it can be concluded that the dispersion of fragility
position. curves will be larger for lower gradient height than for
Figure 15(a),(b) provides the ratio of log-standard higher gradient height as the median failure wind speed is
deviation to the median of failure gradient wind speed (i.e. larger for higher gradient height.
normalised log-standard deviation) for both boom
positions. It can be observed that the value of this ratio
is high for low-gradient wind speed. This is because, with 5.2 Effect of yaw angle
the increase in gradient height, the median value of failure Figure 16(a),(b) shows the variation of failure gradient
gradient wind speed increases while the log-standard wind speed with respect to the yaw angle for boom-down
deviation of the failure gradient wind speed remains and boom-up positions, respectively. From these figures, it
constant (see Table 3). Table 3 provides the common is observed that for a particular gradient height, at boom-
down position, the failure gradient wind speed value
Table 3. Log-standard deviation of failure gradient wind speed increases with the yaw angle in the sequence 608, 1208,
for boom-down and boom-up positions. 908, 308, 1508, 1808 and 08. However, at boom-up position,
Log-standard Log-standard the failure gradient wind speed value increases with the
Yaw angle deviation boom-down deviation boom-up yaw angle in the sequence 608, 1208, 08, 1808, 908, 308 and
u (degree) position (m/s) position (m/s) 1508. Note that with the change in yaw angle, the spatially
varying wind field changes imposing varying load at
0 11.560 10.491
30 15.422 11.097 different nodes and exciting different modes of vibration
60 19.932 17.652 of the crane. However, it is also observed that at both
90 16.539 12.503 boom positions, the yaw angle of 608 is most vulnerable.
120 17.895 16.229 Studying the log-standard deviation of the gradient wind
150 14.309 10.610 speed (not shown here), a similar trend as in gradient
180 12.799 11.693
height is also observed for different yaw angles, i.e. a high
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 1527

Figure 16. Median value of failure gradient wind speed with respect to yaw angle for (a) boom-down and (b) boom-up positions.

normalised log-standard deviation is observed for a low
median value of V g .
5.3 Effect of boom position
Figure 17(a),(b) provides the comparison of median failure
gradient wind speeds between the boom-down and boom-
up positions for different gradient heights and yaw angles.
From Figure 17(a), it can be observed that for a particular
value of yaw angle, the median value of failure gradient
wind speed is more at boom-down position than that of the
boom-up position. This implies that the failure of the crane
started earlier at boom-up position than boom-down
position. In other words, the boom-up position is much
more vulnerable than the boom-down position. For a 10-m
gradient height, it can be observed that at boom-up
position, the median value of failure gradient wind speed is
about 46% less than that of the boom-down position at a
yaw angle of 608 and 25% less at a yaw angle of 1208.
5.4 Comparison with previous studies
In most of the previous studies (experimental and
numerical), the emphasis was placed on the aspect of
determination of the drag and lift coefficients or the force
coefficients for a proper design of container cranes. This
study focuses on estimating the failure vulnerability
of container cranes under stochastic wind loading.

Figure 17. Influence of boom positions on the median value of failure gradient wind speed with respect to (a) gradient height and
(b) yaw angle.
1528 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
The results of this study show some important aspects,
which were not observed previously. For example,
previous studies (namely Lee, Kim, et al., 2007; Lee,
Shim, et al., 2007) have shown that at boom-up position,
the force coefficients become maximum at a yaw angle of
208 or 1708 and minimum at a yaw angle of 908. However,
this study shows that the failure vulnerability of container
crane at boom-up position becomes maximum at a yaw
angle of 608 and minimum at a yaw angle of 1508. Also,
Lee, Kim, et al. (2007) and Lee, Shim, et al. (2007) Lee
and Kang (2007) have experimentally shown that at boom-
down position, the drag and lift coefficients become
maximum at yaw angles of 408 and 1408 and minimum at a
yaw angle of 908. However, the present study shows that
the failure vulnerability becomes maximum at a yaw angle
of 608 and minimum at a yaw angle of 08 for the boom-
down position. Thus, it is clear that the most unfavourable
or favourable yaw angles for the force, drag and lift
coefficients are not same with those of the yaw angles
when failure vulnerability is considered. Note that, in
previous studies, the drag and lift coefficients are
evaluated experimentally using scaled model and without
giving much attention to evaluate the behaviour of
members. However, in this study, the vulnerability of a
particular set of members is evaluated considering
simulated spatially varying stochastic wind fields.
The results of this study are limited to the parameter
space considered herein, i.e. (i) crane model, (ii)
simulation parameters for wind field simulation, (iii)
assumed damage states and (iv) fragility model. It is
imperative that the results will be different if a different set
of parameters are considered than those used in this study.
Therefore, the fragility results cannot be generalised for
any crane, wind conditions or type of damage.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, a systematic study is conducted to estimate
the failure vulnerability of a container crane under
spatially varying stochastic wind fields. Emphasis is
placed on understanding the effect of boom positions and
wind field properties on the failure vulnerability of the
crane. For this purpose, numerical models of a
representative (super-post-panamax) container crane in
boom-down and boom-up positions are developed using a
popular commercial software considering both material
and geometric nonlinearities. Stochastic wind fields are
simulated by means of the spectral representation method.
Finally, using the mean responses, vulnerability of the
crane is estimated by means of the fragility analysis
wherein the failure due to flexural behaviour of base
members is considered as a damage state. It is observed
from this study that the failure vulnerability may not be
maximum for the set of parameter values for which the
aerodynamic forces are maximum. It is also concluded that
for a better design of container cranes, a failure
vulnerability assessment should also be conducted. Other
specific findings of this study are as follows:
. A comparison of responses by considering station-
ary and non-stationary wind fields shows that for the
assumed simulation parameters, the responses
considering stationary fields are larger than those
of the non-stationary fields.
. From the nonlinear dynamic analyses, it is found
that although the displacement responses of the
crane under a fluctuating wind field are one-sided, a
stress reversal in flexure for some members can
happen as a result of nonlinear deformations. It may
be noted that such members may be prone to failure.
. From the fragility analysis, it is found that the
median value of failure gradient wind speed
increases almost linearly with an increase in
gradient height.
. It is observed that the failure vulnerability is
maximum at a yaw angle of 608 for both boom
positions.
. For a 10-m gradient height and 608 yaw angle, it is
also observed that the median failure gradient wind
speed is about 46% less for a boom-up position
when compared with a boom-down position.
Note that like other parametric studies, the results of
this study are limited to the parameter space considered
herein, and therefore, generalisation of these results will
require careful considerations.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr Ung Jin Na, Director, ITS
& Road Environment Division, Ministry of Land, Transport and
Maritime Affairs, Gwacheon 427-712, Korea for providing
details of the crane model used in this study. The work described
in this paper is a part of master degree thesis of the first author
and was supported by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), Government of India.
Note
1. Email: sourav.gur.1987@gmail.com
References
Ambrosini, R.D., Riera, J.D., & Danesi, R.F. (2002). Analysis
of structure subjected to random wind loading by simulation
in the frequency domain. Probabilistic Engineering Mech-
anics, 17, 233 –239.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-05) (2006).
Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
New York, NY: ASCE.
Blevins, D.R. (1990). Flow induced vibration (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Boonyapinyo, V., Yamada, H., & Miyata, T. (1994). Wind-
induced nonlinear lateral – torsional buckling of cable-stayed
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 120,
486– 506.
Bourdeix, M.T., Hemon, P., & Santi, F. (1998). Wind induced
vibrations of chimneys using an improved quasi-steady
theory for galloping. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 74 – 76, 785– 794.
Brigham, E.O. (1988). The fast Fourier transform and its
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
British Standard (BS 2573-1) (1983). Rules for the design of
cranes Part 1: Specifications for classification, stress
calculations and design criteria for structures (4th revision).:
BSI.
Caracoglia, L., & Jones, N.P. (2003). Time domain vs. frequency
domain characterization of aeroelastic forces for bridge deck
sections. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 91, 371– 402.
Chen, X. (2008). Analysis of alongwind tall building response to
transient nonstationary winds. Journal of Structural Engin-
eering, ASCE, 134, 782– 791.
Chen, X., & Kareem, A. (2001). Nonlinear response analysis of
long-span bridges under turbulent winds. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89, 1335–1350.
Chen, L., & Letchford, C.W. (2004). A deterministic – stochastic
hybrid model of downbursts and its impact on a cantilevered
structure. Engineering Structures, 26, 619–629.
Chen, L., & Letchford, C.W. (2007). Numerical simulation of
extreme winds from thunderstorm downbursts. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95,
977– 990.
Computer and Structures Inc. (2009). SAP2000 V. 14. Berkeley,
CA, Computer and Structures Inc. Retrieved from http://
www.csiberkeley.com
Deodatis, G. (1996). Simulation of ergodic multivariate
stochastic process. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, 122, 778– 787.
Eden, J.F., Iny, A., & Butler, A.J. (1981). Cranes in storm winds.
Engineering Structures, 3, 175– 180.
European Standard (Eurocode 1-4) (2004). Actions on structures
general actions part 1 –4: Wind actions.
Gurley, K., & Kareem, A. (1998). A conditional simulation of
non-normal velocity – pressure fields. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 77 – 78, 39 – 51.
Han, D.S., & Han, G.J. (2010). Reference data on uplift forces
for an alarm system to prevent an accident of a container
crane due to windblast. Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, 225(Part C), 1373– 1380.
Han, D.J., & Luo, J.J. (2006). Simulation of stochastic fluctuating
wind field using the wave superposition method with random
frequencies. In EPMESC X on computational methods in
engineering and science. Sanya, Hainan, China.
Hansen, S.O., & Krenk, S. (1999). Dynamic along-wind response
of simple structures. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 82, 147– 171.
Harikrishna, P., Shanmugasundaram, J., Gomathinayagam, S., &
Lakshmanan, N. (1999). Analytical and experimental studies
on the gust response of a 52 m tall steel lattice tower under
wind loading. Computers and Structures, 70, 149– 160.
Harris, R.I. (1990). Some further thoughts on the spectrum of
gustiness in strong winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 33, 461– 477.
Holmes, J.D., & Oliver, S.E. (2000). An empirical model of a
downburst. Engineering Structures, 22, 1167– 1172.
Huang, P., Wang, J.Y., & Gu, M. (2006). Wind tunnel test and
numerical simulation of mean wind loads on a container
1529
crane. In The fourth international symposium on compu-
tational wind engineering (CWE2006), Yokohama, Japan.
Jeong, S.H., & Elnashai, A.S. (2011). Probabilistic fragility
assessment method of structural intervention schemes.
Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Perform-
ance, 8, 928– 938.
Jordan, M. A. (1995). Dockside container cranes: Reprinted from
PORTS ’95. In Proceedings, sponsored by the committee on
ports and harbors of the waterway, port, costal, and ocean
engineering division/ASCE, Tampa, FL, USA.
Kaimal, J.C., Wyngaard, J.C., Izumi, Y., & Coté, O.R. (1972).
Spectral characteristics of surface layer turbulence. Quar-
terly Journal of Royal Meteorological Society, 98, 563– 589.
Kappos, A.J., & Panagopoulos, G. (2010). Fragility curves for
reinforced concrete buildings in Greece. Journal of Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management,
Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 6, 39 – 53.
Karmakar, D., Ray-Chaudhuri, S., & Shinozuka, M. (2012).
Conditional simulation of non-Gaussian wind velocity
profiles: Application to buffeting response of Vincent
Thomas suspension bridge. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 29, 167– 175.
Kim, H.K., Shinozuka, M., & Ghang, S.P. (2004). Geometrically
nonlinear buffeting response of a cable-stayed bridge.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 130, 848– 857.
Lee, J.S., & Kang, H.J. (2008). Experimental study of wind load
on a container crane located in a uniform flow and
atmospheric boundary layers. Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 30, 1913– 1921.
Lee, J.S., & Kang, H.J. (2007). Wind load on a container crane
located in atmospheric boundary layers. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96, 193– 208.
Lee, S.W., Kim, Y., Han, D.S., & Han, G.J. (2007). Wind tunnel
study on the structural stability of a container crane
according to the boom shape. In The proceedings of the
fourth WSEAS international conference on fluid mechanics,
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Lee, S.W., Shim, J.J., Han, D.S., Han, G.J., & Lee, K.S. (2007).
An experimental analysis of the effect of wind load on the
stability of a container crane. Journal of Mechanical Science
and Technology, 21, 448– 454.
Liang, J., Ray-Chaudhuri, S., & Shinozuka, M. (2007).
Simulation of non-stationary stochastic processes by spectral
representation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 133,
616– 627.
Lumley, J.L., & Panofsky, H.A. (1964). The structure of
atmospheric turbulence. New York, NY: Wiley.
McCarthy, P., & Vazifdar, F. (2004). Securing cranes for storm
wind: Uncertainties and recommendations. In ASCE ports
conference, Houston, TX, USA.
McCarthy, P., Jordan, M., Lee, K., & Werner, S. (2007).
Increasing hurricane winds dockside crane retrofit rec-
ommendations. In ASCE ports conference, San Diego, CA,
USA.
McCarthy, P., Soderberg, E., & Dix, A. (2009). Wind damage to
dockside cranes: Recent failures and recommendations. In
TCLEE 2009 conference, Oakland, CA, USA.
Morfiadakis, E.E., Glinou, G.L., & Koulovari, M.J. (1996). The
suitability of the von Karman spectrum for the structure of
turbulence in a complex terrain wind farm. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 62, 237– 257.
Morris, C. A., & Hoite, S. (1997). The future of quayside
container crane. In The post conference workshop, China
Ports, China.
 1530 S. Gur and S. Ray-Chaudhuri
Pan, Y., Agrawal, A.K., & Ghosn, M. (2007). Seismic fragility of
continuous steel highway bridges in New York State. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 12, 689– 699.
Pan, Y., Agrawal, A.K., Ghosn, M., & Alampalii, S. (2010).
Seismic fragility of multispan simply supported steel
highway bridge in New York State. II: Fragility analysis,
fragility curves, and fragility surfaces. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, 15, 462– 472.
Paola, M.D. (1998). Digital simulation of wind field velocity.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
74 – 76, 91 – 109.
Popescu, R., Deodatis, G., & Prevost, J.H. (1998). Simulation of
homogeneous non-Gaussian stochastic vector fields. Prob-
abilistic Engineering Mechanics, 13(1), 1 – 13.
Ray-Chaudhuri, S., Karmakar, D., Na, U.J., & Shinozuka, M.
(2009). Seismic performance evaluation of container cranes.
In ATC and SEI 2009 conference on improving the seismic
performance of existing buildings and other structure, San
Francisco, CA.
Scanlan, H.R. (1993). Bridge buffeting by skew winds in erection
stages. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 119,
251– 269.
Scarabino, A., Di Leo, M.J., Delnero, J.S., & Bacchi, F. (2005).
Drag coefficients and strouhal numbers of a port crane boom
girder section. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 93, 451– 460.
Shinozuka, M. (1971). Simulation of multivariate and multi-
dimensional random process. Journal of Acoustical Society
of America, 49, 357– 368.
Shinozuka, M., & Deodatis, G. (1991). Simulation of stochastic
processes by spectral representation. Applied Mechanics
Reviews, ASME Book No. AMR094 44, 191– 204.
Shinozuka, M., & Deodatis, G. (1996). Simulation of multi-
dimensional Gaussian stochastic field by spectral represen-
tation. Applied Mechanics Reviews, ASME Book No.
AMR183 49, 29 – 53.
Shinozuka, M., & Jan, C.M. (1972). Digital simulation of random
processes and its applications. Journal of Sound Vibration,
25, 111– 128.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Lee, J., & Naganuma, T. (2000).
Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of Engineer-
ing Mechanics, ASCE, 126, 1224 –1231.
Simiu, E., & Scanlan, H.R. (1986). Wind effects on structure (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
View publication stats
Soderberg, E., Hsieh, J., & Dix, A. (2009). Seismic guidelines for
container cranes. In TCLEE 2009 conference, Oakland, CA,
USA.
Spanos, P.D., & Kougioumtzoglou, I.A. (2012). Harmonic
wavelets based statistical linearization for response evol-
utionary power spectrum determination. Probabilistic
Engineering Mechanics, 27, 57 – 68.
Sung, Y.C., & Su, C.K. (2011). Time-dependent seismic fragility
curves on optimal retrofitting of neutralised reinforced
concrete bridges. Journal of Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
and Performance, 7, 797– 805.
Sun, D.K., Xu, Y.L., & Ko, J.M. (1999). Fully coupled buffeting
analysis of long span cable supported bridges: Formulation.
Journal of Sound Vibration, 228, 569– 588.
Torbol, M., & Shinozuka, M. (2012). The directionality effect in
the seismic risk assessment of highway network. Journal of
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 1, 1– 14.
Yamazaki, F., & Shinozuka, M. (1988). Digital generation of
non-Gaussian stochastic fields. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, 114, 1183– 1197.
Zhang, L.L., Li, J., & Peng, Y. (2008). Dynamic response and
reliability analysis of tall buildings subject to wind loading.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
96, 25 – 40.
Zhang, C.H., Sun, W., & Peng, X.Q. (2009). Numerical
simulation and analysis of interference effects on the port
container group. In The Seventh Asia-Pacific Conference on
Wind Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.
Zhong, J., Gardoni, P., & Rosowsky, D. (2012). Seismic fragility
estimates for corroding reinforced concrete bridges. Journal
of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 8, 55 – 69.
Zhou, Y., Banerjee, S., & Shinozuka, M. (2010). Socio-economic
effect of seismic retrofit of bridges for highway transpor-
tation networks: A pilot study. Journal of Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management,
Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 6, 145– 157.
Zrnic, N., Oguamanam, D., & Bosnjak, S. (2006). Dynamics and
modeling of mega quayside container cranes. FEM
Transactions, 34, 193– 198.