Finite Element Comparative Analysis of Two

Doorframe Structures in Container Crane

Zhijun Wu, Kailiang Lu, Huiqing Qiu
College of Mechanic Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 201804, P.R.C
E-mail: wuzhijun117420@sina.com

Abstract—In this paper, we build two according 3D finite II. LOAD CALCULATION
element models of the container crane by ANSYS respectively
based on two common doorframe structures of compound type A. Principal Loads
and single brace type. And then stress, deformation, mode shapes
According to F.E.M standard [2] [3] [4], assume that loads
are analyzed and compared. The results present that stress,
deformation and mode parameters of two models make little
is stationary and that the most dangerous state of loading is the
differences in the same load case. Therefore, adopting single case where all movable parts lie in their most unfavorable
brace type doorframe and thus heightening contact crossbeam is position. In this case, principal loads include:
feasible, which could reduce steel cost and enlarge room below
the contact crossbeam. • Dead weight of the Crane skeleton: S G 1
• The loads due to the rated working load: S L
Keywords-container crane; doorframe type; finite element
analysis; contact crossbeam • The weight of the accessories (sheave block, hooks,
grab, etc.): SG 2
I. INTRODUCTION • The shock loads and according dynamic coefficient¸
As dominant heavy lifting appliances in large ports, from vertical hoisting:
container cranes are becoming larger and heavier. Main steel ψ = 1 + ξ vL (1)
structure of the crane takes up one third of overall cost and
therefore there is a great significance on lightweight design. Here we take hoisting speed vL and coefficient ξ
1m/s and 0.3 respectively for this jib crane.
As shown in Figure 1, two common doorframe types are • The loads are largely due to horizontal acceleration or
available in large scale container cranes in practice [1]. Type 1 deceleration:
shows that the doorframe contains a single brace in the upper,
a horizontal braceˈ a V-shaped bracket in the middle and a F = 2TL × a, TL = S L + SG 2 (2)
contact crossbeam in the below. Type 2 simply includes a Where a is the acceleration or deceleration value,
brace and a contact crossbeam. The former uses more links in and 2 is the amplifying factor.
the structure and has good stiffness. On the other hand, the
latter doorframe skeleton is very simple and therefore enlarges B. Load Combination
much room below the contact crossbeam. This paper analyzes Considering the most dangerous case of loading, horizontal
and compares mechanic and dynamic performance of the and vertical loads must be combined respectively as follows:
above two types of doorframe by ANSYS software package.
• Horizontal direction ( Z ):
SWZ = [ S Lψ + SG 2 ] γ C (3)
Where γ C is an amplifying coefficient, which varies
with the types of crane. Here we take 1.2 for the jib crane.
• Vertical direction ( X ):
SWX = F = 2TL × a (4)

III. 3D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF CONTAINER CRANE

A. Model Assumption and Simplification[5]

Figure 1. Two types of doorframe structure • The structure of ladders and walkways in the front
beam, rear beam and in other components will be
neglected but their weight must be distributed
uniformly on the related main structure.

National 863 plans projects. No.2009AA043000

978-1-4244-9439-2/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

302
 • Subsidiary mass, such as electrical room, room 5 waterside crossbeam position
saddler, racket, etc. should be applied on relevant 6 Middle point between landside crossbeam and waterside one
7 landside crossbeam position
positions by means of concentrated loads.
8 maximum rear outreach
• Trolley will be simplified into four concentrated load
applied on every wheel position.
• Four wheels of the gantry will be simplified into four
fully fixed supports.
• The structure of stiffeners inside every box girder
beam and division plates between box girders will
have to be neglected. However, their weight must be
distributed uniformly on every entire beam .If you
want to consider stiffeners’ effect on model, you can
infer to paper [4].
Figure 2. Trolley positions in every case
B. Element Types Selected in the Model[6]
• Beam44: this element is used in crane doorframe and • 3D Finite Element Model of Container Crane
front and rear beam. Specifically, the doorframe is Two types of finite element models are illustrated as Figure
rectangular box beam element, and front and rear 3 and 4 respectively.
beam is trapezoidal box girder one.
• Link10: this uniaxial tension-only (or compression-
only) element is used in forestays and backstays
components.
• Pipe16: all braces in the doorframe, front-and-rear
beams and pylon rackets use this element.
• Mass21: this element is used for electrical room and
other concentrated mass.

C. Material Properties of the Model

The steel of this crane is A709-50-2(Q345-B). Its yield
strength is 345Mpa and average material density is
assumed as 7820 kg/m3. The Poisson’s ratio is held
constant and equal to 0.3, and the elasticity modulus of the Figure 3. Finite model of compound doorframe
steel are assumed as 2.1E11 N/m2. However considering
distributed stiffeners weight inside every beam and other
accessories, such as hand rails and ladders, we revise its
density to 1.5h7820 kg/m3.

D. Neccesary Constraints and Cases

• Necessary constraints
In service, four traveling wheels braked and therefore
can be simplified into full fixed supports, as introduced
above.
• Important cases
Consideration of crane mechanic characterization, we
decide eight most unfavorable cases, that is, related Figure 4. Finite model of single brace doorframe
dangerous positions of lifting trolley. They are shown in
Table ĉand Figure 2. IV. RESULTS
TABLE I. EIGHT IMPORTANT CASES In this section, we determine computation mechanic
No. Case Descriptions parameters, including key points’ stress, deformation and
1 Maximum front outreach modal parameters.
2 Middle point between two bar joints
3 Inside bar joint with front beam
4 Middle point between inside joint and waterside crossbeam

303
A. Stress Analysis
Stress Analysis of key components of container crane is
helpful to decide the entire crane mechanic characteristics. In
this paper, we select ten main target parts shown in Figure 5
below.
B. Deformation Analysis
Like stress calculation is very crucial to structure strength,
deformation analysis also plays an important role in well
performance in service. Similarly we set up nine observation
points in the entire skeleton for deflection results. Their points
are shown in Figure 6. Deformation values of their points are
listed in Table ċ and Č. Note: sign”-” in Table means –Y
direction (refer to Figure 5).

Figure 5. Main parts of crane steel structure

Accordingly, maximum stress results of main parts in every

trolley load case are given in Table Ċ.
From Table Ċ, compared to compound doorframe type,
the maximum stress of landside column of single brace type
crane generally reduces by 10Mpa, however the maximum
stress of waterside column increases by 2Mpa. Moreover, the
stress of contact crossbeam increases by 20Mpa on average.
Differences of other main components’ stress can be neglected.
Figure 6. Schematic map for deformation observation points
• Vertical direction:
From Table ċ , in every case, observation points’
deformation differences between two types of doorframe can
also be neglected except that the deformation value of middle
point of beam (Point 9) increases from -10mm to -14mm.

TABLE II. STRESS VALUE OF MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE CRANE IN EVERY EVERY LOAD CASE

Doorframe Load case No.

Part No. Name of part
type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 137 128 128 160 130 178 137 269
1 Rear beam
2 138 129 128 159 129 178 136 269
1 30.4 33.2 37.4 58.6 41.5 51.2 47.3 69.5
2 Landside column
2 25.1 23.5 27.8 46.7 31.7 42.9 36.4 58.2
1 33.6 31.5 30 23.7 28.7 25.9 27.4 22.1
3 Waterside lower crossbeam
2 56.3 53.4 51.1 42.5 49.1 47.5 48 43.1
1 137 128 120 89.4 110 94.9 99 78.7
4 Waterside column
2 139 130 121 91.3 112 96.4 101 81
1 273 202 140 83.6 183 82 86.9 84.9
5 Front beam
2 273 202 140 83.6 183 81.9 86.9 84.9
1 32.4 18.7 12 12.1 10.6 12.1 12 12.1
6 Outer tension bar
2 32.4 18.7 12 12.1 10.6 12.1 12 12.1
1 7.8 20.7 24.2 9.5 19.5 9.4 9.7 9.6
7 Inner tension bar
2 7.8 20.7 24.2 9.5 19.5 9.4 9.7 9.6
1 151 138 124 83.9 106 98.1 93.7 64
8 Upper tie link
2 152 139 125 85.2 107 99.2 94.4 64.1
1 155 140 128 104 118 80.1 103 109
9 Waterside pylon
2 155 140 128 104 118 80.2 103 109

TABLE III. DEFORMATION VALUE OF OBSERVATION POINTS OF THE CRANE IN EVERY LOAD CASE

Doorframe Load case No.

Part No. Name of part
type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 -397 -131 -203 -145 -119 -212 -183 -79
1 End point of front beam
2 -394 -130 -200 -142 -118 -210 -181 -78

304
 1 -261 -111 -172 -120 -100 -223 -144 -67
2 Hinged point of outer bar
2 -258 -110 -170 -118 -100 -220 -140 -66
1 -124 -60 -107 -66 -54 -112 -94 -36
3 Hinged point of inner bar
2 -122 -59 -105 -65 -53 -110 -93 -35
Hinged point of front 1 -28 -23 -24 -26 -19 -25 -26 -16
4
beam 2 -26 -21 -23 -26 -18 -24 -24 -15
1 -38 -25 -33 -27 -24 -35 -30 -21
5 Top point
2 -37 -25 -32 -26 -23 -35 -29 -20
Joint of fore and rear 1 -27 -31 -28 -28 -28 -27 -28 -27
6
beams 2 -25 -30 -26 -27 -27 -26 -26 -26
Hinged point of rear 1 4 -14 -4 -11 -18 -1 -7 -23
7
beam 2 4 -14 -4 -10 -17 -0.5 -6 -22
1 54 -16 18 -15 -33 34 3 -123
8 End point of rear beam
2 54 -16 17 -15 -33 33 2 -122
1 -10 -10 -10 -10 -11 -10 -11 -11
9 Mid-point of beam
2 -13 -14 -14 -14 -14 -13 -14 -15

• Horizontal direction: Frequency/Hz 0.63440 0.61657

Crane components displacement along trolley travel 4 Doorframe and
Both beam 1st bend
Shape description both beam sway
(X direction) is of great importance to the entire machine along X direction
in XZ plate
working performance. Therefore, we compare two groups
of X-displacement in every observation point listed in Frequency/Hz 1.0627 1.0603
5 Both beam 2nd Both beam 2nd bend
Table ċ above. From this Table, in every case, observation Shape description
bend in XZ plate in XZ plate
point deformation differences between two types of
doorframe can also be neglected except that maximum V. CONCLUSIONS
deformation value along trolley direction (X direction)
increases by 20mm, That is, stationary rigidity reduces a In this paper, we presented two common types of
little in X direction but this doesn’t matter. doorframe of crane, compound type and single brace type. And
3D modeling procedure, stress analysis, deformation analysis
TABLE IV. MAXIMUM X-DIRECTION DEFORMATION IN EVERY CASE and modal parameter analysis is implemented by means of
ANSYS. The result indicates that the differences of mechanic
Case No.
Doorframe Type and dynamic parameters between two types can be neglected.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Therefore, we choose single brace type doorframe in order to
Compound 93 43 67 44 32 79 56 37
economize steel cost and enlarge room under the contact
Single Brace 116 65 90 66 54 101 78 59 crossbeam.
C. Modal analysis ACKNOWLEDGMENT
In order to make container crane work reliably and This paper is based on work being performed under the
efficiently, the crane structure must have good dynamic ZPMC (Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co., Ltd)
performance. Therefore, we do modal analysis on the unmanned wharf program. Moreover, this project is being
structure and arrive at modal parameters, such as natural partly supported by the Chinese National 863 plans
frequency and according modal shape. Here we only list the (2009AA043000). Therefore, both support of both ZPMC and
first five order dominant mode results in Table č. National 863 fund are gratefully acknowledged here.

TABLE V. THE FIRST FIVE MODE RESULTS OF TWO CONTAINER CRANES

REFERENCES
Order Mode parameters Type 1 Type 2 [1] D.J. Fu, quayside container cranes, Hubei Science and Technology
Press, 2007.
Frequency/Hz 0.28220 0.25280
1 [2] Europan Handing Federation, F.E.M.1.001, 3rd rev. EDITION, 1998.
Shape description Front beam sway Front beam sway [3] Z.L.Pan, F.E.M. RULES FOR THE DESIGN OF HOISTING
APPLIANCES, 3RD Rev. EDITION 1998, pp.19~43.
Frequency/Hz 0.33186 0.32540
2 [4] H.B. Zhang, Static and Dynamic Characteristics Analysis and
Shape description Rear beam sway Rear beam sway Lightweight Study for the Metal Structure of Giant Quayside Container
crane.
Frequency/Hz 0.62828 0.37744 [5] Y.J. Zhu, Stiffness Research and improvement of large and efficient
3 Doorframe and both shore crane, 2004, pp. 27-29.
Both beam 1st
Shape description beam sway along X [6] R.B. Yang, Finite method of mechanical structure analysis. Huazhong
bend in XZ plate
direction University of Technology Press, 1989.

305