Sensitivity Analysis for Ship-to-Shore Container Crane Design
Source abstract
Abstract
Ship-to-shore (STS) container cranes are important pieces of equipment in container terminals for container handling, so they need to be properly designed to avoid damage or collapse due to natural hazards (i.e., storms or earthquakes). However, the dynamic analyses necessary for this can be cost- and time-consuming because of the need to consider the time history of ground motions and several sources of uncertainty. Thus, sensitivity analysis on the input parameters to the responses of the structures is needed to categorize which sources of uncertainty are significant enough to be considered as random variables. In this study, an investigation is carried out into the sensitivity of some sources of uncertainty to the seismic response of a Korean container crane structure. The input random variables studied include ground motion intensity, ground motion profiles, mass, damping, and elastic modulus of steel. Nonlinear dynamic analyses are conducted using a set of 20 natural ground motions scaled to three ground motion intensity levels, in compliance with the Korean Design Standard. The method of deterministic sensitivity analysis using the so-called tornado diagram is applied for the evaluation of structural systems. For the studied type of Korean container crane, it can be stated that the intensity of ground motions (i.e., spectral acceleration) is the most significant input parameter on the response of the structure, as measured in terms of portal drift, vertical reaction of the crane’s legs, and total base shear. The next most significant influencing factors are the mass of the structure and the characteristics of every ground motion. Damping plays a relatively important role on the total base shear, while it shows almost no impact on the axial reaction of the crane’s legs. Of the three engineering design parameters (portal drift, vertical reaction, and total base shear), the elastic modulus exhibits a low effect, but it should be considered a source of uncertainty in seismic analysis.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Railway Engineering and Dynamics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yeosu, Chonnam-do 59626, Korea
Department of Civil Engineering, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology, Jinju, Gyeongnam 52725, Korea
Department of Civil Engineering, Hanseo University, Seosan-si, Chungcheongnam-do 31962, Korea
Funding
National Research Foundation of Korea · Ministry of Security and Public Administration · Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Kosbab, B.D., Leon, R.T., and DesRoches, R. (2009). Seismic behavior considerations for jumbo container cranes. Structures Congress 2009: Don’t Mess with Structural Engineers—Expanding Our Role, American Society Civil Engineers.10.1061/41031(341)111 ↗
2. Jordan, M.A. (2001). Future-Proof Your Crane, Liftech Consultants Inc.. Available online: http://www.liftech.net/wp-content/uploads/2001/10/Future-Proof-Your-Crane.pdf.
3. Bhimani, A., and Soderberg, E. (2006, January 11). Crane Loads & Wharf Structure Design: Putting the Two Together. Presented at AAPA Facilities Engineering Seminar, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
4. Sensitivity of Building Loss Estimates to Major Uncertain Variables10.1193/1.1516201 ↗
5. Kosbab, B.D. (2010). Seismic Performance Evaluation of Port. Container Cranes Allowed to Uplift, Georgia Institute of Technology.
6. Lee, T.-H., and Mosalam, K.M. (2003, January 6–9). Sensitivity of Seismic Demand of a Reinforced Concrete Shear-Wall Building. Presented at Ninth International Conference on Application of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP 9), San Francisco, CA, USA.
7. Lee, T.-H., and Mosalam, K.M. (2006). Probabilistic Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structural Components and Systems, University of California.
8. Porter, K.A., Beck, J.L., and Shaikhutdinov, R.V. (2002). Investigation of Sensitivity of Building Loss Estimates to Major Uncertain Variables for the Van Nuys Testbed, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.10.1193/1.1516201 ↗
9. Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based on nonlinear time-history analysis10.1007/s13296-016-3017-9 ↗
10. Haldar, A., and Mahadevan, S. (2000). Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
11. An Evaluation of Uplifting Behavior of Container Cranes Under Strong Earthquakes
12. Experimental Verification of the Container Crane Natural Frequancies
13. (2016). Korean Building Code, Architectural Institute of Korea.
14. Davoodi, M., Sadjadi, M., Goljahani, P., and Kamalian, M. (2012, January 24–28). Effects of Near-Field and Far-Field Earthquakes on Seismic Response of SDOF System Considering Soil Structure Interaction. Presented at 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
15. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2003). Time History of Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures, Department of the Army.
16. Comparing Response of SDF Systems to Near-Fault and Far-Fault Earthquake Motions in the Context of Spectral Regions Earthq10.1002/eqe.92 ↗
17. (2007). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures: Training and Instructional Materials.
18. Properties of Steel for Use in LRFD10.1061/JSDEAG.0004988 ↗
19. Expected Yield Stress and Tensile Strength Ratios for Determination of Expected Member Capacity in the 2005 AISC Seismic provisions10.62913/engj.v44i1.899 ↗
20. Kohama, E., Takenobu, M., Sugano, T., and Ohya, Y. (2012, January 24–28). Field Experiment on a Damping Characteristic of Actual Container Cranes. Presented at 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
21. Taoko, G. (1981, January 15–16). Damping Measurements of Tall Structures. Proceedings of the Second Specialty Conference on Dynamic Response of Structures: Experimentation, Observation, Prediction, and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA.
22. Seismic Behavior of a Jumbo Container Crane Including Uplift10.1193/1.3610238 ↗
23. Comparative Study of Nonlinear Static and Time-History Analyses of Typical Korean STS Container Cranes10.1155/2018/2176894 ↗
24. Balkema, A.A. (2001). Seismic Desing Guidelines for Port Structures, PIANC.
25. Effect of Uncertainty in Frequency Content and Strong Motion Duration on Structural Seismic Risks
26. Wilson, E. (1998). Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, Computers and Structures Inc.. [2nd ed.].
27. (2006). Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of 3D Structures, Computers and Structures Inc.
28. Huh, J., Tran, Q.H., Haldar, A., Park, I., and Ahn, J.-H. (2017). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of a Shallow Two-Story Underground RC Box Structure. Appl. Sci., 7.10.3390/app7070735 ↗
29. (2013). ASCE/SEI 41, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers.
30. Caltrans (2013). Seismic Design Criteria (Version 1.7).
31. Sullivan, L. The Role of Probability, Boston University. Available online: http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/BS/BS704_Probability/.