Viljoen Investigation 2004 PDF

INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOP
FLANGE AND WEB DEFORMATION IN A

CRANE GIRDER PANEL
P. De K. Viljoen
Assignment report presented in partial fulfilment o f the requirement for the

Degree o f Master o f Civil Engineering at the University of Stellenbosch
Study Leader: Prof. P.E. Dunaiski
December 2004
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za/
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this assignment
was my own original work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part
submitted it at any university for a degree.
Signature:
Date: .
SYNOPSIS
INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOP FLANGE AND WEB DEFORMATION OF A

CRANE GIRDER PANEL
The purpose o f this project was to study the deformations o f the top flange and web of
a girder panel resulting from loads, which have been imposed by an overhead
travelling crane. This was achieved by designing a crane girder that represents
dimensional ratios occurring in practice.
The first part o f this project attempts to determine the properties o f the crane girder.
The crane girder was built from drawings in the workshop of the University of
Stellenbosch’s Civil-Department. Positions were identified where the strains were to
be measured on the crane girder. The crane girder was subjected to loads according to
SABS 0160 - 1989 and measurements were taken. The same beam was also modelled
with finite elements. The numerical model was subjected to the same loads as the
experimental crane girder.
Comparisons were then made between the results o f the experimental investigation
and those of the numerical model. Good comparisons were achieved between the
results and the numerical model was assumed to be correct.
Other students could now use this model for investigating local stresses and strain
effects that might cause fatigue and other in-service problems o f electric overhead
travelling cranes support structures in practice.
SAMEVATTING
ONDERSOEK NA DIE BOONSTE FLENSE EN WEBVERVORMING VAN ’N

KRAANBALKPANEEL
Die doel van hierdie projek was om die vervormings van die boonste flense en web
van ’n kraanbalkpaneel te ondersoek, as gevolg van laste wat onderworpe was aan ’n
oorhoofse kraanbalk. Dit was bereik deur ‘n balk te ontwerp wat dimensionele
verhoudings in die praktyk verteenwoordig.
In die eerste gedeelte van die projek word die eienskappe van die kraanbalk bepaal.
Die kraanbalk was vanaf tekeninge in die werkswinkel van die Universiteit van
Stellenbosch se Siviele Departement gebou. Posisies was geidentifiseer waar die
vervormings op die kraanbalk gemeet sou word. Die kraanbalk was onderwerp aan
laste volgens SABS 0160 - 1989 en meetings was geneem. Dieselfde balk was ook
gemodelleer met eindige elemente. Die numeriese model was aan dieselfde laste as
die eksperimentele balk onderwerp.
Vergelykings was toe verkry tussen the resultate van die eksperimentele ondersoek en
die numeriese model. Goeie vergelykings tussen die resultate was behaal en die
numeriese model word as korrek aanvaar.
A nder studente kan nou hierdie model gebruik vir die ondersoek na lokale spannings
en vervormingseffekte wat moontlik vermoeidheid en ander in-diens probleme van
elastiese oorhoofse kraan ondersteunende strukture in the praktyk kan veroorsaak.
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES IV
LIST OF FIGURES V
LIST OF PHOTOS VII
LIST OF SYMBOLS VIII
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 GENERAL 1-1
1.2 LOADS INDUCED BY OVERHEAD TRAVELLING CRANES 1-2
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH PROJECT 1-3
CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN OF CRANE GIRDERS 2-1

2.1 GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH 2-1
2.1.1 DESIGN LOADS 2-2
2.1.1.1 Classification o f the Crane 2-2
2.1.1.2 Vertical wheel loads 2-2
2.1.1.3 Transverse wheel loads 2-4
2.1.1.4 Longitudinal wheel loads and loads on end stops 2-5
2.1.2 TYPICAL DIMENSIONAL RATIOS 2-6
2.1.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2-7
2.1.3.1 Crane Girder 2-7
2.1.3.2 Gantrex® MK6 Rail Pad 2-8
2.1.3.3 Rail 2-9
2.2 DESIGN 2-10
2.2.1 CRANE DATA 2-10
2.2.2 GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2-11
2.2.3 CRANE GIRDER PROPERTIES 2-12
2.2.3.1 Span of girder 2-12
2.2.3.2 Top flange 2-12
2.2.3.3 Bottom flange 2-12
2.2.3.4 Web 2-13
2.2.3.5 Intermediate and Bearing Stiffeners 2-13
i
2.2.3.6 Summary 2-14

2.2.4 RAIL PROPERTIES 2-15
2.3 CRANE GIRDER DESIGN 2-16
2.3.1 CALCULATION OF VERTICAL DEFLECTION 2-16
2.3.2 CALCULATION OF LATERAL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION 2-18
2.3.3 CALCULATION OF STRESSES 2-19
2.4 SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL DESIGN RESULTS 2-20
CHAPTER 3 - EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 TEST LOADS AND LOAD POSITIONS 3-3
3.3 TESTING APPARATUS 3-5
3.3.1 LOADING EQUIPMENT 3-7
3.3.1.1 Sway Frame 3-7
3.3.1.2 Load Application Equipment 3-8
3.3.2 MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION 3-9
3.3.2.1 Amplifier 3-9
3.3.2.2 Load Cells 3-9
3.3.2.3 LVDT 3-9
3.3.2.4 Strain gauges 3-11
3.4 RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 3-15
CHAPTER 4 - NUMERICAL MODEL 4-1

4.2 TEST LOADS 4-2
4.3 MODEL DESCRIPTION 4-3
4.3.1 GENERAL 4-3
4.3.2 CRANE GIRDER 4-4
4.3.3 GANTREX PAD 4-5
4.3.4 RAIL 4-6
4.4 MODEL SIZE AND COMPUTATIONAL LIMITS 4-8
4.5 RESULTS OF NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION 4-9
CHAPTER 5 - VERIFICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL 5-1

5.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS 5-2
CHAPTER 6 - EXTRACTION OF ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM NUMERICAL MODEL 6-1

6.2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS 6-2
6.3 ADDITIONAL RESULTS 6-2
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS 7-1
CHAPTER 8 - REFERENCES 8-1
CHAPTER 9 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9-1
APPENDIX A - TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF CRANES AT SALDANHA STEEL A-l
APPENDIX B - MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL USED FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF

THE CRANE GIRDER B-l
APPENDIX C - DESIGN FILE FOR THE CRANE GIRDER C-l
APPENDIX D - DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

CRANE GIRDER D-l
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: TYPICAL DIMENSIONAL RATIOS FROM CRANE GIRDERS AT SALDANHA STEEL
PLANT 2-6
TABLE 3.1: DEFLECTION MEASURED DURING EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 3-15
TABLE 4.1: CRANE GIRDER MODEL SIZE 4-4

TABLE 4.2: ELASTOMERIC PAD MODEL SIZE 4-5
TABLE 4.3: CRANE GIRDER MODEL SIZE 4-7
TABLE 4.4: DEFLECTION DETERMINED DURING NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION 4-9
TABLE 5.1: DEFLECTION COMPARISON 5-2
TABLE B 1: TEST SPECIMEN SIZES (STEEL) B -1
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1: PLAN OF CRANE INDICATING TRANSVERSE WHEEL LOAD DIRECTIONS 2-4
FIGURE 2.2: MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CRANE GIRDER STEEL 2-7
FIGURE 2.3: STRESS STRAIN CURVE OF ELASTOMERIC PAD 2-8
FIGURE 2.4: GENERAL CRANE CRAB AND CRANE BRIDGE LAYOUT 2-10
FIGURE 2.5: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2-11
FIGURE 2.6: GIRDER CROSS SECTION 2-14
FIGURE 2.7: RAIL SECTION 2-15
FIGURE 2.8: COMBINED SECTION USED FOR VERTICAL DEFLECTION 2-16
FIGURE 2.9: SECTION USED FOR LATERAL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION 2-18
FIGURE 2.10: EXPECTED STRESS DISTRIBUTION OVER DEPTH OF GIRDER AT MIDSPAN 2-20
FIGURE 3.1: POSITION 1 - LAYOUT AND FORCE EFFECTS 3-3

FIGURE 3.2: POSITION 1 - LAYOUT AND FORCE EFFECTS 3-4
FIGURE 3.3: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 3-5
FIGURE 3.4: SWAY FRAME WITH LOAD CELLS AND ACTUATORS INDICATING SETUP 3-7
FIGURE 3.5: CROSS SYSTEM SHOWING PATH OF LOAD ONTO RAIL 3-8
FIGURE 3.6: POSITIONS OF LVDTS ON TEST BEAM 3-10
FIGURE 3.7: POSITIONS OF STRAIN GAUGES 3-12
FIGURE 3.8: GENERAL STRAIN ROSETTE 3-13
FIGURE 3.9: VON MISES STRESSES OVER DEPTH OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN AS
DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY 3-17
FIGURE 3.10: VON MISES STRESSES AT FLANGES OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN AS
DETERMINED EXPERIMENTALLY 3-18
FIGURE 3.11: VON MISES STRESSES OVER DEPTH OF BEAM AT END PANEL 3-20
FIGURE 4.1: CRANE GIRDER MESH LAYOUT 4-4

FIGURE 4.2: GANTREX MK6 ELASTOMERIC RAIL PAD MESH LAYOUT 4-5
FIGURE 4.3: LAYOUT OF 30 kg/m RAIL 4-6
FIGURE 4.4: 30 kg/m RAIL MESH LAYOUT 4-7
FIGURE 4.5: VON MISES STRESSES OVER DEPTH OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN AS
DETERMINED NUMERICALLY 4-11
V
FIGURE 4.6: VON MISES STRESSES AT FLANGES OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN AS

FIGURE 4.7: FEM RESULTS INDICATING VON MISES STRESSES DUE TO VERTICAL LOAD
ONLY AS DETERMINED NUMERICALLY 4-13
FIGURE 4.8: FEM RESULTS INDICATING STRESSES IN DIRECTION 3 DUE TO VERTICAL
AND HORIZONTAL LOADS (MISALIGNMENT) AS DETERMINED NUMERICALLY 4-14
FIGURE 4.9: FEM RESULTS INDICATING VON MISES STRESSES DUE TO VERTICAL-
AND HORIZONTAL LOADS (MISALIGNMENT) AS DETERMINED NUMERICALLY 4-15
FIGURE 4.10: VON MISES STRESSES OVER DEPTH OF BEAM AT SUPPORT AS
FIGURE 5.1: VON MISES STRESSES-VERTICAL LOAD ONLY OVER DEPTH OF BEAM AT
MIDSPAN 5-3
FIGURE 5.2: VON MISES STRESSES-VERTICAL AND MISALIGNMENT LOADS OVER
DEPTH OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN 5-4
FIGURE 5.3: VON MISES STRESSES-VERTICAL LOADS ONLY AT FLANGES OF BEAM AT
MIDSPAN 5-5
FIGURE 6.1: ADDITIONAL LOAD POSITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 6-2
FIGURE B 1: TEST PIECES - DRAWINGS ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION B-3

FIGURE B2: STRESS STRAIN CURVE B-4
vi
LIST OF PHOTOS
PHOTO 3.1: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 3-1

PHOTO 3.2: INSTALLATION PROCEDURES OF CLIPS 3-2
PHOTO 3.1: SHEAR ZONE IN END PANEL 3-19
PHOTO B 1: TEST PIECES BEFORE TESTING B-2
vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
X Factor
Ao Displacement sideways o f the bottom flange such as sweep
P Warping torsion coefficient modifier

Pi Factor
P2 Factor
Px Factor
C0 2 Factor
Abot Displacement sideways of the bottom flange due to

torsion and horizontal bending
Auk Sum o f A0, Atop and Abot

At0p Displacement sideways of the top flange due to vertical
wheel loads, torsion and horizontal bending
Ax Maximum deflection of a beam or girder
AxTest Test if maximum deflection were in bounds
Atxest Test if maximum deflection were in bounds

A Area o f cross section
a Distance from left support to centre o f two applied loads
Av Area o f web stiffeners
b Distance from right support to centre o f two applied loads
bfb Width o f bottom flange
b r a il Width o f rail
bft Width o f top flange
c Distance from centre o f gravity o f two applied loads to applied load
Ciass Class o f section
Ciassf Class o f flange
Ciassw Class o f web
C o m b in e d S tr e sse s Combined strength test
ComstBoi Compression strength o f bottom flange test
viii
ComstTop Compression strength op top flange test

Cw Warping torsional constant
e Eccentricity o f load
E Elasticity Modulus of steel (200GPa)
fb Stress due to bending
fb B o t Total bending stress of bottom flange
fbTop Total bending stress of top flange
fbw Local wheel bending stress in the top flange o f a crane girder
f Cre Elastic critical plate-buckling stress in shear
FCn Inelastic critical plate-buckling stress in shear
fCri Local applied compression (bearing) stress o f the top o f the web
Ft Force required to brace a column
fvu Ultimate shear strength
fxBot Yield strength o f bottom flange
fxTop Yield strength o f top flange
fy Yield strength (300MPa)
fy B o t Total bending stress in the bottom flange due to bending as a result of
lateral loads
fyTop Total bending stress in the top flange due to bending as a result of
lateral loads
G Shear modulus o f steel
hraii Height o f rail
htot Distance from the centroid o f the top flange to centroid o f the bottom
flange
hw Height o f web
Iraii Moment o f inertia o f rail
Ix Moment o f inertia o f section over neutral x axis
W Moment o f inertia o f bottom flange over neutral x axis
Ix to p Moment o f inertia of top flange over neutral x axis
Ixweb Moment o f inertia o f web over neutral x axis
IxxTop Moment o f inertia o f top flange over top flange neutral axis
ix
Iy Moment o f inertia of section over y axis

IyB Moment o f inertia o f bottom flange over y axis
IyT Moment o f inertia of top flange over y axis
J St. Venant’s torsion constant
K Effective length factor
kv Shear buckling coefficient
1 Span o f beam (a+b)
Mcr Critical elastic moment of laterally unbraced beam
Mp Plastic moment = Zpify
Mr Factored moment resistance o f member or component
Mri2 Factored moment resistance for class 1 and 2
Mr 3 4 Factored moment resistance for class 3 and 4

Mxx Moment, bending moment in member or component under
serviceability load
My Yield moment = Zefy
MyBot Moment applied to the strong axis o f the bottom flange o f the crane
girder
Myjop Moment applied to the strong axis o f the top flange o f the crane girder
Myy See Mxx
NA Neutral axis o f section measured from bottom
P Concentrated externally applied load
v Poisson’s ratio
a Ratio o f the span length to the applied torque
s Centre to centre distance between transverse web stiffeners
Stabilityweb Test for stability o f web
T Applied crane thrust
tfb Thickness o f bottom flange
tft Thickness o f top flange
tw Thickness o f web
Vr Factored shear resistance o f a member or component
V iest Test if resist to shear
V ui Ultimate shear
x
W Nominal horizontal load

W, Equivalent thrust generated at top flange from applied force W
Wio Factored W 6
W2 Equivalent thrust generated at bottom flange from applied force W
W3 Equivalent thrust generated at top and bottom flange from
applied torsion, T
W4 Equivalent thrust generated at top flange from applied
force W. (W at y0)
W5 Equivalent thrust generated at bottom flange from applied
force W. (W at y0)
W6 Equivalent thrust generated at top and bottom flange from
applied load P if applied with eccentricity e
W 7 Same as W4
W8 Same as W 5
W9 Factored W3
Wgbcrip Web crippling test

y0 Distance from the bottom of girder to shear centre of girder
Ze Elastic section modulus o f steel section
Zpi Plastic section modulus o f steel section
xi
1-1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This Project was a Subproject of Project 1 - Electric overhead travelling (EOT)

Cranes Support Structure Investigation. The purpose o f Project 1 - EOT Cranes
Support Structure Investigation, was to determine the in-service problems experienced
with EOT Cranes. Examples o f these problems are:
• Fatigue cracking o f the flange-to-w eb weld
• Fatigue cracking local to the top ends o f the welds connecting the
stiffeners to the web
• Cracking o f the welds at the top o f the bearing stiffeners, at the
columns, where they were connected to the top flange
The purpose o f this study was to establish and verify a finite element model for
current and future research.
University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

1-2
1.2 LOADS INDUCED BY OVERHEAD TRAVELLING CRANES
According to SABS 0160-1989[1\ the following loads were generally applied to the
overhead travelling crane rail:
1 Vertical loading: Crab weight, bridge weight and hoisted load.

2 Transverse loading: Crab surge or braking, misalignment o f crane wheels or
gantry rails, and skewing o f the crane.
3 Torsional loading: The forces acting transversely, at the railhead, produce a
torsional moment in the flange web region, which may be aggravated by the
eccentric application of the vertical load referred to earlier.
[l] SABS 0160 - 1989, South African Bureau of Standards, Private bag X191, Pretoria.

1-3
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH PROJECT
This study required the application o f analytical theory and numerical techniques, i.e.
theory o f mechanics and finite element method and experimental verification in order
to determine the following:
1 Web deformations and forces (strains and stresses) developing in a crane girder
due to concentrated vertical and horizontal crane wheel loads
2 Top-flange deformation and forces (strains, stresses and rotation) in a crane

girder panel due to concentrated vertical loads and torsional loading
3 The determination of the deformations and forces in (1) and (2) with analytical
numeric model, i.e. finite element method
4 Verification of the analytical and numerical models and results by comparison

with experimental results obtained in the laboratory. For the comparison o f the
different models, the following had to be taken into account:
Deflection Elastic Deflection

Stresses Von Mises Stresses

2-1
CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN OF CRANE GIRDERS
2.1 GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH
A girder that could be tested in the laboratory o f the University o f Stellenbosch,

together with the use of elements o f previous tests (i.e. Gantrex® pad and Rail) had to
be designed. With these constraints in mind, a crane girder was sized and designed.
Constraints:
The limitations o f the laboratory o f the University o f Stellenbosch Civil Engineering
Department and the availability of material placed restraints on the design. These
included the following:
Rail Size: The rail size used in other studies conducted at the University at
the stage o f testing was 30 kg/m. It was decided that the same rail size had to be used
since the material was available. The rail size has a direct influence on the top flange
width.
Design Loads: The maximum load that could be measured was 20 tonnes,
since load cells with a capacity exceeding 20 tonnes were not available. The design
loads will be discussed in more detail under Design Loads in Chapter 2.1.1.
Maximum Span: The test support structure could support a beam with a
maximum span o f 11.0 meters. It could have been possible to have a crane girder
exceeding this length, but not without designing a bigger support structure.
Wheel Size: A crane wheel with a diameter o f 265 mm was available. It was
decided that the same wheel should be used. See chapter on experimental setup.
Type o f Rail Pad and Clips: As for rail size, type and size of pad, as well as clips, it
was decided to use those that were available. The type o f rail pad used was the
Gantrex ® MK6 Rail Pad, while the clips used were o f the Stelcam ® 13 Boltable
Clip type.

2-2
Typical Dimensional Ratios: A crane girder that could represent crane girders used in
practice, had to be designed. Typical dimensional ratios (depth to thickness o f web,
top flange to bottom flange, etc.) were gained from an investigation into crane girders
in practice in South Africa. These dimensional ratios were presented in Appendix A.
M aterial Properties: The steel used in South Africa was normally mild steel with
yield stress of 300 MPa. Testing o f the materials was done on a Material Testing
M achine. The material properties were summarised in Chapter 2.1.3 - Material
Properties.
A lex Perez-Winkler[2] also conducted testing on the pad material and clips during
previous studies.
2.1.1 DESIGN LOADS
SABS 0160-1989[l1 was used to determine the design loads that would be used in both
the experimental and numerical models. Paragraph 5.7 - Loads due to Overhead
Cranes takes the designer through the following design steps:
2.1.1.1 Classification of the Crane
The classification of the crane was done in accordance with SABS 0160-1989[1]
Paragraph 5.7.2 - Classification o f EOTCs. The different classes were numbered from
1 to 4, where 1 has the lowest service classification to 4 having the highest service
classification. It was decided, for the purpose o f this research, that a crane with a
classification o f 4 should be used. This resulted in higher transverse loads.
2.1.1.2 Vertical wheel loads
For the determination o f the test loads reference to SABS 0160-1989[1] Paragraph
5.7.3 - Vertical Loads were made. This paragraph in SABS indicates that the owner
m ust specify the vertical wheel load. In the absence of an owner, it was decided to use
111 SABS 0160 - 1989, South African Bureau o f Standards, Private Bag X191, Pretoria.
(21 An Investigation of Overhead Crane Wheel/Rail/Girder Interaction, A.R. Perez Winkler, 2003.

2-3
SASCH[3] to determine the allowable crane wheel forces to be used as the test loads.
SASCH uses Crane Class, rail size and wheel diameter to determine the maximum
load for each wheel. With all o f the above parameters fixed (from previous studies),
the maximum wheel load was calculated.
Also, according to SABS 0160-1989[2]; Paragraph 5.7.3 - Vertical Loads, the impact
factor for Class 4 cranes was equal to 1.3.
This can be shown as follows:
W = Cdlf
where
W = Vertical wheel load
C = 0.29 (for class 4 crane with rail size o f 30 kg/m)
D = 265 mm
If = 1.3
thus
W = lOOkN
131 SASCH, South African Steel Construction Handbook, Third Edition, 1997.

2-4
2.1.1.3 Transverse wheel loads
According to SABS 0160-1989[2], paragraph 5.7.4 - Horizontal Transverse Loads,

these loads can be classified as misalignment and skewing.
For a Class 4 crane, the load scale factor for misalignment o f the crane wheels o f the
rail and for skewing of the crane was 0.20. The direction these loads were imposed in
can be seen in Figure 2-1: Plan of crane showing direction o f transverse wheel loads.
□ □ □
□
□ □ □ □ -
M ISALIG N M EN T
□ □— - -— □ □
□ □
□
□
S K E W IN G
FIGURE 2.1: PLAN OF CRANE INDICATING TRANSVERSE WHEEL LOAD

DIRECTIONS
This can be shown as follows:

P = WXi
where:
P = Transverse wheel load
W = Vertical wheel load
Xj = 0.2 (Scale factor for misalignment and skewing)
Thus
P = 20 kN

2-5
2.1.1.4 Longitudinal wheel loads and loads on end stops
According to SABS 0160-1989[2], paragraph 5.7.5 - Horizontal longitudinal loads, the

load scale factor for the acceleration and braking o f the crane was equal to 0.1.
According to SABS 0160-1989[2], paragraph 5.7.6 - Loads on end-stop, the load that
must be used for the design were the smallest o f (a) load equal to the weight o f the
crane bridge and the crab, and (b) the load when the crane travels at the maximum
speed into the end-stop, taking the characteristics o f the buffer and end stop into
account.

2-6
2.1.2 TYPICAL DIMENSIONAL RATIOS
Typical EOT crane girder dimensions from the Saldanha steel plant were used for the
preliminary sizing o f the experimental crane girder. Since this plant has more than
forty EOT cranes, a good correlation between the typical relationships of the
following could be drawn.
i - Height o f web to thickness o f web
ii - Top flange width to thickness of top flange
iii - Bottom flange width to thickness o f bottom flange
iv - Span to spacing o f web stiffeners
v - Span to height o f web
Plans from the Saldanha steel plant were studied and the following information was
recorded. See Appendix A for the complete table. As can be seen in the table in
Appendix A, cranes with surge plates were also included in the calculation o f these
ratios. The averages were affected in a minor way than when the surge plates were not
used in the calculation o f the averages. This is due to the small number of cranes with
surge plates in the sample investigated.
Min Max Average

hw/tw 89.0 184.2 148.2
bft/tft 12.5 22.0 17.9
bfb/tfb 12.5 35.7 21.8

Span/s 7.8 24.0 13.7
s/hw 0.5 1.3 0.8
Span/h 5.9 31.6 10.3
TABLE 2.1: TYPICAL DIMENSIONAL RATIOS FROM CRANE GIRDERS AT
SALDANHA STEEL PLANT
These ratios were used to determine the preliminary crane girder dimensions. As can
be seen in Appendix C, not only these dimensional ratios were used in the calculation
o f the final element sizes.

2-7
2.1.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
2.1.3.1 Crane Girder
The steel used in the manufacturing of the crane girder was tested with the material
testing machine at the University o f Stellenbosch, and the results were shown in the
figure below. The same properties were used in the numerical model. See Chapter 4 -
Numerical Model. Only the elastic properties were identified, since all the girder tests
had to take place in the elastic zone o f the steel.
Stress - Strain Curves for Material Used in Crane Girder

Stress (MPa)
Strain (mm/mm)
FIGURE 2.2: MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CRANE GIRDER STEEL
Elastic:
M odules o f Elasticity 203.5 GPa
Poison ratio: 0.3 (This ratio was not determined, but was used in the
numerical model.)
Yield Stress 310.5 MPa
The test procedures for determining the material properties were given in Appendix B.

2-8
2.1.3.2 Gantrex® MK6 Rail Pad
The material properties were identified in the Structural Laboratory, Department of

Civil Engineering, during a previous study, as was explained in Chapter 2.1.1 -
Restraints. The pad was the only item expected to reach non-linear elastic state. It was
thus decided to include the plastic properties of the Gantrex® pad. The properties that
were used were as follows:
Elastic:
Modulus o f Elasticity: 20 MPa
Poisson ratio: 0 (This ratio was not determined, but was used in the
numerical model. A more accurate value would have
been 0.5. This would only complicate the model, and no
more accurate results (in the region o f inspection) was
expected.)
Plastic:
Stress (MPa) Deformation (mm/mm)

0 0 0
1 0 .8 0.04
2 2 .1 0.09
3 2 2 .8 0.39
Strain (mm/mm)
FIGURE 2.3: STRESS STRAIN CURVE OF ELASTOMERIC PAD

2-9
2.1.3.3 Rail
Material properties relating to the rail were also determined by Alex Perez-Winkler,
and were as follows:
Elastic:
Modules of elasticity: 200 GPa
Poisson ratio: 0.3 (This ratio was not determined, but was used in the
numerical model.)
Yield Stress: 360 MPa

* o s
2-10
2.2 DESIGN
W ith the dimensional ratios as discussed in the previous section, and with other
criteria, for example classification, a preliminary crane girder was designed. The
com plete design was shown in Appendix C.
2.2.1 CRANE DATA
The basic crane data was discussed in this section.

The number o f wheels: Four wheels, two wheels on each side, were used, as
shown in Figure 2.4 General crane crab and crane
bridge layout.
— CRANE G IR D E R W ITH R A IL
y— END C A R RIDGE
y / y -------- C R A N E B R ID G E
— 1 1
■ ■ ■
_ 1 1
" \
'- - C R A B
FIGURE 2.4: GENERAL CRANE CRAB AND CRANE BRIDGE LAYOUT
Class o f Crane: A Class 4 Crane was used. See Chapter 2.1.1 Design Loads.
Rail size: A 30-kg/m rail was used. See Chapter 2.1. General Design
Approach.
Wheel diameter: A 265 mm diameter wheel was used. See Chapter 2.1. General
Design Approach.
Wheel spacing: A wheel spacing o f 900 mm was used. See Chapter 2.2.2.
General Assembly

2-11
2.2.2 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The rail was connected to the top flange of the crane girder through rail clips. A
bearing pad (Gantrex ® MK 6 ) was installed between the rail and crane girder. The
purpose o f the pad was to:
- Distribute the wheel load over a large surface area;
Eliminate load concentrations and the resulting fatigue stresses;
- Compensate for the uneven surface between the rail and its
support;
- Reduce impact, vibration and noise;
- Eliminate fretting corrosion (wear) o f the support surface under
the rail.
The clips used were Stelcam ® 13 Boltable Clips and the purpose o f the rail clips was
to,
- Connect and align the rail to the crane girder;
Give resistance to lateral force.
The clips were spaced according the clip supplier, at 720 mm for the internal clips and
620 mm for the end clips. The required torque to the bolts connecting the clips to the
top flange of the girder was also according to the supplier’s specifications and was
equal to 280 N.m.
FIGURE 2.5: GENERAL ASSEMBLY

2-12
2.2.3 CRANE GIRDER PROPERTIES
The following section gives a summary o f the general layout and sizes o f members.
The calculation of the crane girder sectional properties was shown in Appendix C.
2.2.3.1 Span of girder
The length o f the girder was fixed at 4.5 m (4500 mm). This length was less than the
m axim um allowable length of the test structure o f the support system.
2.2.3.2 Top flange
The width o f the top flange (bft) was 300 mm. The following criteria was used in
calculating the width of the top flange o f the plate girder:
- Minimum width for the 30 kg/m rail and Stelcam ® 13 boltable
clips.
The thickness o f the top flange (tft) was 20 mm. The thickness was calculated using
the following criteria:
- Dimensional ratios (see Chapter 2.1.2 Typical dimensional
ratios).
- Flange classification criteria (class 3 flange was used).
Serviceability criteria (limits to horizontal deflection caused by
misalignment using the top flange and rail only for resistance).
2.2.3.3 Bottom flange
The w idth o f the bottom flange (bfb) was 200 mm. The following criteria were used in
calculating the width of the bottom flange.
- The minimum support width o f crane column had to be greater
or equal to h alf the top flange width.
- The correct second moment o f the area o f the bottom flange, as
determined by the maximum vertical moment, to satisfy the
required second moment o f the girder had to be used.
University of Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

2-13
The thickness o f the bottom flange (tfb) was 10 mm. The thickness was calculated
using the following criteria:
- Dimensional ratios (see Chapter 2.1.2 Typical dimensional
ratios).
- Flange classification criteria (Class 3 flange was used).
2.2.3A W eb
The depth o f the web (hw) was calculated to be 450 mm. The following criteria was
used in calculated the depth of the web.
- Vertical deflection limit.
The thickness o f the web (tw) was 10 mm. The following criteria were used in
calculating the thickness o f the web.
Dimensional ratios (see Chapter 2.1.2 Typical dimensional
ratios).
Slenderness limit (web classification)
2.2.3.5 Intermediate and Bearing Stiffeners
The thickness o f the intermediate and bearing stiffeners was 10 mm. SABS 0162 - 1:
1993[4], par 13.4.11 was used to calculate sizes and spacing o f the intermediate
stiffeners. The spacing o f the stiffeners was 900 mm internally and 815 mm for the
end stiffeners.
[4] SABS 0162 - 1: 1993, South African Bureau o f Standards, Private Bag X I91, Pretoria.

2-14
2.2.3.6 Summary
y
y
FIGURE 2.6: GIRDER CROSS SECTION
Section properties:
A = 12,50 x lO 6 mm 2
yc = 311,00 mm
I c ir d e r ,x x = 1650,00 x 106 mm 4
lG ird er,y y , T op Flange — 45,00 X 10 mm
Complete design drawings were presented in Appendix D.
University of Stellenbosch, Department of Civil Engineering

2-15
2.2.4 RAIL PROPERTIES
As discussed in Chapter 2.1 General design approach, a 30 kg/m rail was used. The
sectional properties of the 30 kg/m rail were shown in Figure 2.7: Rail section.
109.54
FIGURE 2.7: RAIL SECTION
Section properties:
A = 3,85 x 106 mm 2
yc = 53,13 mm
I R ail,xx
= 6,27 x 106 mm 4
4
lR a il,y y = 1,57 x 106 mm

2-16
2.3 CRANE GIRDER DESIGN
2.3.1 CALCULATION OF VERTICAL DEFLECTION
No slip between the rail and the test girder was expected to take place at the test loads.
The moment o f inertia of the combined section:
(
L =
where: Io ird er,x x = Moment o f inertia o f crane girder
AGirder = Area o f girder
lR a il,x x = Moment o f inertia of rail

ARail = Area o f rail
y = 363,3 mm (Centroid o f combined section)
FIGURE 2.8: COMBINED SECTION USED FOR VERTICAL DEFLECTION

2-17
The moment of inertia of the “slipped” section:
I Slip ~ i f Girder, xx )+ Rail, xx )
where: iGirder.xx - Moment o f inertia of crane girder

I R ail,xx = Moment o f inertia o f rail
The expected deflection will hence be:
--------( 3 - 4„a 2 )<

\
A* < ----------
P l2a (3(*>- 4Aa 2 \I
24EIc V ' 24EIslip V 7
where: P = 100 kN
a = 1800 mm (Distance from support to applied load)
I = 4500 mm (Span)
E = 203.5 GPa (Modules o f Elasticity)
I, = 592.6 x 106 mm 4 (Moment of Inertia o f the combined
section)
ISlip = 447.3 x 106 mm 4 (Moment o f Inertia o f the “slipped” section)
a a/1
2.97 < A < 3.94mm
This range was used for the calculation o f the deflection meter instrumentation in the
measurement o f the deflections during the experimental setup. See Chapter 3 -
Experimental Investigation.

2-18
2.3.2 CALCULATION OF LATERAL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
It could be assumed at this stage that only the top flange o f the crane girder and the
rail would provide stiffness against the lateral horizontal deflection.
Based on this assumption, the horizontal deflection was calculated.
where: P = 20 kN
a = 1800 mm
I = 4500 mm
E = 203,5 GPa (Modules o f elasticity)
lyy ,,
= IrGirder
j yy Top
t Flange
fi Rail,yy 5 x 106
= 46,57
a a/1
FIGURE 2.9: SECTION USED FOR LATERAL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
The calculated horizontal deflection was 7.56 mm.

2-19
2.3.3 CALCULATION OF STRESSES
The stresses in the flanges were calculated next. These forces and force effects can be
summarised as the following:
(1) Vertical wheel loads
(2) Transverse wheel loads due to Misalignment
With these and the maximum moment due to the load in position 1 (refer to Chapter
3.2 Test Loads for the definition o f load position 1) calculated to be equal to 180
kN.m known, the stresses in the top and the bottom flange could be calculated using
the formulas below:
^ , - = ” = -110,35 MPa
’
_ M Jh y) _
Top T
The stresses due to misalignment were calculated, using only the top flange o f the
crane girder and the rail. The maximum moment due to the lateral horizontal load
(misalignment) in load position 1 was equal to 36 kN.m.
M wy
a Left = a Top "* ~ 151,39MPa
yy
M y
<JRight = 11Top = -80.5 IM Pa
yy
A complete design can be seen in Appendix C.

2-20
2.4 SUMMARY OF THEORETICAL DESIGN RESULTS
The following results were used in determining the required type and size o f the
deflection meters (LVDTs1) as well as the required capacity o f the strain gauges.
These results were obtained from the vertical load case in load position 1.
Maximum vertical deflection: 2.97 mm
Maximum compression stress in top flange: 35.44 MPa
Maximum tensile stress in bottom flange: -110.35 MPa
Theoretical Stress over Depth of Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 6 0 -
/
- - 440
/
/
f
.
■ ' - •
/ ■
E
a
a> . . . . ...................................................... ......................................................../ OflA ... , .................................
OQ /
. . . -
4 -
o / 240 :
■C
/ -0 0
a
a> „ '■ ' ” ■ ' ” .
a S 160
/
.
/ io n
/
/ o n
/ 80
/ 40
/
y
-----------T-------------------- 1---------------------1------ -------------- --------------------
\
- 1 5 0 .0 0 - 1 2 0 .0 0 - 9 0 .0 0 - 6 0 .0 0 - 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 1 2 0 .0 0 1 5 0 .0 0
S tress (MPa)
FIGURE 2.10: EXPECTED STRESS DISTRIBUTION OVER DEPTH OF GIRDER

AT MIDSPAN
The deflection and stresses in the top flange due to the lateral horizontal load case o f
misalignment were:
Maximum horizontal deflection: 7.56 mm
Maximum compression stress in top flange: 151.39 MPa
M inimum tension stress in top flange: -80.51 MPa
1LVDT - Linear variable displacement transducers

3-1
CHAPTER 3 - EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose for the experimental investigation was to verify the Finite Element
Model With the selected load cases and combinations sufficient results were available
to verify the Finite Element Model.
PHOTO 3.1: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Two identical test beams were constructed to eliminate construction defects. By using
the averages between the two beams, a more accurate representation of a beam
without defects could be achieved.
The design drawings o f the test beam were presented in Appendix D - Design
drawings fo r the construction o f the experimental crane girder.

3-2
The test beams were assembled by placing the bearing pad on the girder and then
placing the 30-kg/m rail on top of the bearing pad. The clips were positioned and
fixed as indicated on the photos below. The bolts were tensioned to a torque of 280
N.m. The following photos were from the web page of Gantrex ®,
www.gantrex.co.com. For the spacing o f the clips, refer to Chapter 2.2.2: General
assembly.
i . Position clip on bolt or stud, 2. Position self-locking cam. Install and lightly tighten nut.
3. Adjust self-locking cam to ensure 4. Tighten nut to required torque,

tight contact between the rail and clip.
PHOTO 3.2: INSTALLATION PROCEDURES OF CLIPS

3-3
3.2 TEST LOADS AND LOAD POSITIONS
Following were a number o f combinations o f different load cases that were

investigated in the experimental setup. For the determination o f the values used for
each load case, refer to Chapter 2.1.1: Design Loads.
Position 1
In the first position, the maximum moment affect was measured:
• Vertical loads at midspan
• Vertical loads at midspan with horizontal loads representing
misalignment
• Vertical loads at midspan with horizontal loads representing
skewing
Figure 3.1: Position 1 - Layout and force effects, indicates the layout of the loads in
position 1 and also the load effects.
Load diagram Shear force diagram Bending moment diagram
« K UI 1( 0 Ml
Vertical load only A Ik

, 1800 .9 0 0 , 1800
f i l l
+500
20 kN 20 kN
36 kILra
Horizontal l I Y // f/ T 77 \
Y/////T7\
^ y - t t t T T T T I 11 111 n T T r m r . ---
(Misalignment) , 1800 .900 , 1800
-20 kN
20 kN „ 1800
Horizontal I 1f " ..1 p y ///777 ZZZZZZZ1 </nnTTTicrrte»-

(Skewing) , 1800
21 kM
FIGURE 3.1: POSITION 1 - LAYOUT AND FORCE EFFECTS

3-4
Position 2
In the second position, the high shear effect was measured:
• Vertical loads at endspan
• Vertical loads at endspan with horizontal loads representing
misalignment
• Vertical loads at endspan with horizontal loads representing
skewing
Load diagram Shear force diagram Bending moment diagram
100 kN 100 t)
Vertical load only ^gnU H l............ Ik

3150 900
m-
160kN
+500
20 kN 2C kN
m “ j S ___ 14.4 kNjn
Horizontal 1 ^^r-r-n T T T T I iTTTTTTTrt-^-
(Misalignment) 3 1 5 0 .., ,900 >5C
+500
f
Horizontal
(Skewing) 3150
FIGURE 3.2: POSITION 1 - LAYOUT AND FORCE EFFECTS

3-5
3.3 TESTING APPARATUS
All the equipment used was available at the University of Stellenbosch, Civil
Engineering Department. The following figure indicates the general layout o f the
experimental setup, with reference to the apparatus and loading equipment.
FIGURE 3.3: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
(The above drawing can also be viewed on the attached CD, under the file name
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP.dwg)
A support frame that can be used for the purpose o f testing different systems was in
place in the laboratory. This consists of rails, beams and columns. The support frame
can be tied back to the main building.

3-6
Two stub columns were positioned 4500 mm apart. On top o f these columns glacier
bearings were used to represent pinned support boundary conditions.
Columns were then positioned on either side o f the stub columns. These columns
were fixed back to the main building and were used for lateral support of the top
flange o f the test girder at the support points.
Columns were also fixed on either side of the sway frame (see Section 3.3.1.2, Sway
Frame). These columns were fixed back to the main building, and were used to apply
horizontal forces at the position o f the vertical loads.
Even though the support frame was fixed back to the main building, no deflection
measurement equipment was fixed to any member o f the support frame.

3-7
3.3.1 LOADING EQUIPM ENT
The following loading equipment was used.
3.3.1.1 Sway Frame
The Sway Frame was used to make sure that the vertical load was always vertical,
independent of the possible rotation or sway o f the test beam. This needed to be used
since the theoretical design (Chapter 2) and the Numerical Model (Chapter 4) both
used a constant vertical force, and did not take rotation into account. The sway frame
also follows any horizontal deflection o f the beam, thus always applying the load
through the horizontal shear centre.
INDICATING SETUP
University o f Stellenbosch, Department of Civil Engineering

3-8
3.3.1.2 Load Application Equipment
The load was transferred onto the test girder with a pump and load actuator system.
The pump with load actuator was connected to the sway frame. The load cell was, in
turn, fixed to the load actuator. A rod fixed to the wheel via a cross-and-rod system
(see Figure 3.5: Cross fo r distributing load to top o f beam) was connected through the
load actuator and load cell.
• For the vertical loads, the Enerpac 60 ton RCH 603 actuator with
the Enerpac Type P39 pump was used.
• For the horizontal loads, the Enerpac 20 ton RCH 202 actuator with
the Enerpac Type P228 pump was used.
FIGURE 3.5: CROSS SYSTEM SHOWING PATH OF LOAD ONTO RAIL

3-9
3.3.2 MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION
3.3.2.1 Amplifier
For the amplification of the electronic signal received from the measurement
equipment, the Spiders with analogue/digital interface was used. The spiders come
with computer software that enables the user to take readings o f the change in the
electronic signal directly in the required units, for example, taking measurements from
load cells directly as kN. Once the test has been completed, the user can save the
information in electronic format for later use.
A total o f 64 amplified channels were available on the Spiders. All 64 were used.
A total o f four channels were used for the load cells - refer to chapter 3.3.2.2: Load
cells.
A total o f four channels were used for the LVDT’s - refer to chapter 3.3.2.3: LVDT.
A total o f 48 channels were used for the strain gauges and strain rosettes - refer to
Chapter 3.3.2.4: Strain gauges.
3.3.2.2 Load Cells
For the vertical loads, the HBM U2/20-ton load cells were used, and for the horizontal
loads the ULP/S 5-ton load cell was used.
3.3.2.3 LVDT
LVDT was used to measure the displacement.
The positions o f the LVDTs were fixed where the maximum deflection, vertical and
horizontal, was expected. The positions can be seen in Figure 3.6: Positions o f LVDTs
on test beam.

3-11
3.3.2.4 Strain gauges
Strain gauges measure the change in strain on the surface o f the member/structure
being subjected to loads.
Two types o f strain gauges were used:

• One directional strain gauges - KYOWA k f g ' 2 ' i2 0 ' C ! ' 1 1
• Three directional strain rosettes - KYOWAkfg’5’120"DI7"' 1
The following questions were asked to determine the positions o f the strain gauges on
the test girder:
• Where will the maximum stresses occur in the girder?
• What will the stress distribution over the depth o f the beam look like?
• What will the stress distribution look like over the width o f the top and
bottom flange under the load cases for skewing and misalignment?
The positions o f the strain gauges were shown in Figure 3.7: Position o f strain
gauges.

3-13
The measured strains were converted to Von Mises Stresses. The following formulas
indicate the process of manipulation to convert from the strains (as measured) to the
Von Mises stresses.
Theory o f Strain Rosettes:

Arrangements of gauge lines at a point in a cluster, as shown in Figure 3.8: General
Strain Rosette , were called strain rosettes. If three strain measurements were taken at a
rosette, the information was sufficient to determine the complete state of plane strain
at a point.
— J te /
^ .. 1' ' k
1r
FIGURE 3.8: GENERAL STRAIN ROSETTE
If angles 0i, 02 and 83 , together with the corresponding strains sei, S0 2 , and 803 , were
known from measurements, three simultaneous equations can be written.
£ e\ = £ x c o s 2 ^1 + s y s i n2 ^1 + Yxy s ^n ^1 c o s ^1
Ee2 = s x cos 2 02 + e y sin 2 d2 + sin # 2 cos # 2
S 63 = e x C O s2 ^ 3 + e y S i n 2 ^ 3 + Y xy S*11 ^ 3 C O S ^ 3

3-14
To m inimise computational work, the gauges in a rosette were usually arranged in an

orderly manner. For example, KYOWAKFG‘5' 120‘D17' U strain rosettes (chosen to be
used for this experimental setup) were 45° from one another.
By direct substitution into previous equations, it was found that, for this rosette;
£x — £o, £ y — £ 90> Yxy — 2845 - (80 "I" £ 90)-
The maximum normal strain was 81 ; the minimum was £2 . These were the principal
strains, and no shear strains were associated with them. The directions o f the normal
strains coincide with the directions o f the principal stresses. Thus, from Mohr’s circle,
the analytical expression for the principal strains is:
In m ost problems where strain rosettes were used, it was necessary to determine the
principal stresses at the point of strain measurement. In this problem, the normal stress
on the surface was zero, i.e. crz = 0. Therefore, this was a plane stress problem. The
principal stresses were:
cr, E I \
-—
\-v
r t a +V£>)
The Elastic constants E and v were determined earlier (see Chapter 2.1.3: Material
Properties. Von Mises stresses could be calculated from the principle stresses using
the following formula:
Where
( 1 ^
7 — y.
and

3-15
3.4 RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The results shown in Table 3.1: Deflection measured during experimental

investigation were taken from a list o f data created by the amplifiers (Spiders). The
deflection measured for each load case was presented in table form below:
Vertical Horizontal Horizontal

Deflection at Deflection of Top Deflection of
midspan Flange Bottom Flange
mm mm mm
Vertical - Position 1 3.50 0.51 0.11
Misalignment - Position 1 4.05 -6.20 1.44
Skewing - Position 1 3.42 0.17 0.44

Skewing - Position 2 2.22 -1.85 0.96
TABLE 3.1: DEFLECTION MEASURED DURING EXPERIMENTAL

INVESTIGATION

3-16
With the strain gauges and rosettes and the use o f the amplifiers, the change in the
strain against the applied load (also continuously measured) could be plotted for each
strain gauge. The strains were converted to stresses and the Von Mises stresses were
calculated for comparison with the results from the finite element analysis.
Some o f the results from the experimental investigation can be seen on the following
pages. More results were available in table form, and can be seen on the attached
compact disc. (The file name on the disc was Von Mises Stresses.xls.)
The following two graphs were from the load in the first load position (representing
maximum moment). The first graph indicates the stress distribution over the depth of
the beam at midspan, while the second graph indicates the stress distribution over the
width o f the flanges.
From these graphs the following were clear:

• The horizontal load case for skewing does not impact on the overall
beam stresses, but was a more local effect due to the two loads
working in opposite directions.
• The drop in the stresses in the top flange during the skewing load
case can be explained by the fact that strain gauges were used on
the flanges, and the stresses in the longitudinal direction were
reduced due to torsional effects on the top flange, while they were
increased in the transverse direction. Due to the complexity o f the
stresses in the top flange, in hindsight, it might have been a better
choice to use rosettes on the top flange as well.
• The horizontal load case for misalignment has a major impact on
the top flange and minor impact on the rest o f the beam.

3-19
The following results were the results from the second load position. As can be
expected, the stresses due to bending were much lower than the stresses in the
previous graphs for load position one.
The following can be seen clearly from the graphs:

• Slight variations were seen between the different load cases.
• A jump in the stresses can be seen in the central area o f the beam;
this can be explained due to the shear stresses in this region. Below
was a photo[5] from a previous study indicating the shear zone in
the end panel.
PHOTO 3.1: SHEAR ZONE IN END PANEL
AR Ingraffea, WH Gerstle, KI Mettam, P Wawrzynek & AK Hellier. “Cracking o f welded crane

runway girders: Physical testing and computer simulation”. Iron and Steel Engineer. AISE. December
1985. P 4 6 - 5 2 .

4-1
CHAPTER 4 - NUMERICAL MODEL
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A numerical model o f the crane girder, pad and rail system was modelled using finite
elements. The program used was the commercially available ABAQUS[6].
The purpose o f this model was to serve other students in numerically analysing
different layouts and sizes of the crane girder. This numerical model needs to be
verified so that further research can be done with confidence.
[6] Abaqus, Version 5.8, Habbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Finite element analysis services (Pty) Ltd,
The Waverley, Mowbray 7700.

4-2
4.2 TEST LOADS
The same load cases as discussed in Chapter 3 for the experimental model were used
in the numerical model. The purpose was to compare the results from the different
models.
These load cases were shown in Chapter 3.2: Test Loads.
The load cases were normally applied with two or more steps. The first step was the
“assembly o f the model”. In this step all the parts were put together, and the load for
the clips (refer to Chapter 4.3: Model Description) were applied. In the second step,
the vertical load was applied. And in the third step (if applicable) the transverse loads
were applied.

4-3
4.3 MODEL DESCRIPTION
4.3.1 GENERAL
Classical beam or plate theories were not suited for modelling the crane girder-pad-
rail interaction problem. For this reason, it was decided to model the whole system in
3D. The model consisted of a rail, elastomeric pad, and the crane girder. The clips
were omitted (a load representing the pressure exerted by the clips onto the rail were
used - this reduced the size and complexity o f the model considerably).
Also, instead o f modelling a wheel through which the loads were to be applied, only
point loads were applied onto the rail. It was believed that the difference in the
stresses on the top flange, when the loads were applied with the wheel, versus when it
was applied with a point load, was negligible. The reason for this assumption was due
to the path that the load travels (Rail to pad to top flange).
All solid elements used were 20 node hexagonal, quadratic bricks.
As explained earlier, material tests were performed on samples o f rail, electrometric

pad and the crane girder steel (see Appendix B). For the properties used in the
numeric model, please refer to Chapter 2.1.3: Material Properties.
The model was constructed with 20-node solid hexagonal brick elements. These
elements had mid-side nodes and were based on quadratic shape functions. Most 3-D
structural problems that involve bending can be modelled very accurately with a
modest number o f elements that deform quadratically. Other quadratic elements, like
the 10-node tetrahedron and the 15-node wedge, give similar results but lead to larger
computational workloads.
These elements made up the different parts (crane girder, Gantrex pad and rail). These
parts were held together by constraint functions along the interfaces.

4-4
4.3.2 CRANE GIRDER
The crane girders, as used in the experimental investigation, were modelled using the
finite element method. These measurements were given in Appendix D - Design
Drawings fo r the Construction o f the Experimental Crane Girder. For the fillet welds,
a 10 mm chamfer was included in the steel layout. The drawing below indicates the
finite element mesh of the crane girder with web stiffeners.
FIGURE 4.1: CRANE GIRDER MESH LAYOUT
The beam consisted o f a total o f eight (four on each size) intermediate stiffeners and
four (two on each side) bearing stiffeners. The model size can be summarised as
follows:
No. of Nodes No. of Elements No. o f DOF
Beam with Stiffeners 39,263 6,528 117,789

TA BLE 4.1: CRANE GIRD ER MODEL SIZE

4-5
4.3.3 GANTREX PAD
Between the rail and the girder was an elastomeric rail pad (Gantrex MK6). This pad
was also modelled to give a more accurate representation o f the real setup. The size of
the pad in the model was:
Thickness: 7 mm
Width: 98 mm
Length: 4500 mm
The finite element mesh for the elastomeric pad was shown in Figure 4.2: Gantrex
M K6 elastomeric rail pad mesh layout.
J-
FIGURE 4.2: GANTREX MK6 ELASTOMERIC RAIL PAD MESH LAYOUT
No. o f Nodes No. o f Elements No. o f DOF

Pad 1,508 180 4,524
TABLE 4.2: ELASTOMERIC PAD MODEL SIZE

4-6
4.3.4 RAIL
It was also decided to model the rail to ensure a representative distribution of the point
loads through this member, The rail used in the model was a 30 kg/m rail and the
dimensions were as follows:
Length: 5000 mm
Size: See figure below.
FIG URE 4.3: LAYOUT OF 30 kg/m RAIL

4-7
The finite element mesh of the rail was shown in Figure 4.4: 30 kg/m rail mesh layout.
FIGURE 4.4: 30 kg/m RAIL MESH LAYOUT
No. o f Nodes No. o f Elements No. o f DOF
Rail 17,147 3,300 51,441
TA BLE 4.3: CRANE GIRD ER MODEL SIZE

4-8
4.4 MODEL SIZE AND COMPUTATIONAL LIMITS
It was necessary to limit the size o f the model so that no unrealistic computational
times were needed to solve a model without compromising the accuracy o f the results.
The size o f a finite element model was usually defined in terms o f the total number of
degrees o f freedom. The size o f the model that was constructed had 3786 degrees of
freedom. This translated to about six hours CPU time for a machine with 733 MHz
clock speed and 1000 Mbytes Ram.
PROBLEM SIZE
NUMBER OF ELEMENTS 9728

NUMBER OF NODES 56372
NUMBER OF NODES DEFINED BY THE USER 56372
TOTAL NUMBER OF VARIABLES IN THE MODEL 169116

4-9
4.5 RESULTS OF NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
The following figures indicate the Von Mises stresses over the flanges and depth of
the beam, as shown in Chapter 3: Experimental Investigation, but also included in this
section were figures o f the different loaded beams. See Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.9.
Firstly, the deflections determined during the numerical investigation in table form
are:
Horizontal Horizontal
Vertical Deflection
Deflection of Deflection of
at midspan
Top Flange Bottom Flange
mm mm mm
Misalignment - Position 2 1.80 -3.57 -2.90
Skewing - Position 2 1.79 -1.18 1.39
T A B L E 4.4: DEFLECTIOlV DETERMINED DlURING NUMERICAL
INVESTIGATION
More results than those shown below were available in table form, and can be viewed
on the attached compact disc under the file name Von Mises Stresses.xls.

4-10
Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 were the results from the load in position 1 (refer to chapter
3.2: Test loads and load positions). The first graph indicates the stress distribution
over the depth o f the beam at midspan, while the second graph indicates the stress
distribution over the width o f the flanges.
From these graphs the following were clear:

• The horizontal load case for skewing does not impact on the overall
beam stresses, but was a more local effect due to the two loads
working in opposite directions. This local affect can be seen clearly
in Figure 4.7 to Figure 4.9.
• The horizontal load case for misalignment has a major impact on
the top flange and a minor impact on the rest of the beam.

4-16
Figure 4.10 shows the results from the load in position 2 (refer to Chapter 3.2: Test
loads and load positions). As could be expected, the stresses due to bending were also
much lower than the stresses in the previous graphs for load position one.
The following can be seen clearly from the graphs:

• Slight variations between the different load cases
• A jump in the stresses in the central area o f the beam; this can be
explained as due to the shear stresses in this region. This was
explained in Chapter 3.4: Results.

5-1
CHAPTER 5 - VERIFICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The numerical model has to be verified for future research. While the theoretical
investigation was used to size the test beam and determine expected results for the
experimental investigation, only the experimental investigation will be used to verify
the numerical model. By comparing the following results, the numerical model can be
assumed to be correct. The data to be compared were as follows:
• Vertical deflection under vertical wheel loads at midspan

• Horizontal deflection under vertical and horizontal wheel loads at midspan
• Von Mises stresses on bottom flange under vertical and horizontal wheel
loads
• Von Mises stresses on Top flange under vertical and horizontal wheel
loads
• Von Mises stresses through depth o f beam under vertical and horizontal
wheel loads at midspan

5-2
5.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS
For purposes o f clarity, the comparisons were presented in graph form. (More data
were available on the attached compact disc; refer to file Von Mises Stresses.xls).
Comparison between the experimental and numerical deflections:
Deviation between
Experimental Numerical Experimental and
Numerical
mm mm %
Misalignment - Position 1 4.05 3.97 2.0
Misalignment - Position 2 2.21 1.80 18.6
TABLE 5.1: DEFLECTION COMPARISON
The following three graphs were from the load in the first position (refer to Chapter
3.2: Test loads and load positions). Figures 5.1 and 5.2 indicate the stress distribution
over the depth o f the beam at midspan, while Figure 5.3 indicates the stress
distribution over the width o f the flanges. These stresses were for both the
experimental and numerical models and it can be seen that the results o f the different
models compare well. Additional graphs and tables showing these results can be
viewed on the attached compact disc (refer to the file Von Mises Stresses.xls).

6-1
CHAPTER 6 - EXTRACTION OF ADDITIONAL RESULTS

FROM NUMERICAL MODEL
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose o f this project was to design and verify a numerical model of a crane
girder for further research.
Warren'7J was currently doing another research project through which the fatigue
stresses due to eccentric loads were investigated. These stresses were determined
theoretically, but needed to be determined numerically as well. The model that was
created assisted in determining stresses at the required positions using the finite
element method.
It should however be noted that the type o f elements chosen and the node layout
worked well for the purpose o f the model. But it is the responsibility o f the researcher
using this model to make sure that it is also applicable for his/her requirements.
171 Juliet Warren, Fatigue research o f Crane Girders when subjected to Loads imposed by Overhead
Travelling Cranes.

6-2
6.2 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
The numerical model was loaded with two additional loads as can be seen in the
following figure:
FIGURE 6.1: ADDITIONAL LOAD POSITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL

RESEARCH
The purpose of these load positions was to determine the effect on the stresses in the
weld connecting the top flange and the web of the crane girder. Both these point loads
were applied at midspan.
6.3 ADDITIONAL RESULTS
The researcher would need to be familiar with Abaqus should he need to do farther
analyses. The model, however, was implemented in such a way that the researcher can
easily create further steps for additional load combinations.

7-1
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS
The investigation into the top flange and web deformation in a crane girder panel was
a success. This can be stated due to the good comparisons between the experimental
and numerical results. These comparisons were however not achieved without some
difficulty. Some o f the problems experienced during the experimental investigation
and how they were overcome, can be briefly noted:
• Lateral support o f the experiment:

A support frame supported the complete experiment setup. It was
experienced that this frame gave insufficient resistance to lateral loads.
Thus originally when a horizontal load was applied to the test beam,
the support frame would give way due to the reaction forces. This
problem was overcome by tying the support frame back to the main
building.
• Measurement equipment supports:

Due to the slenderness o f the support frame, additional supports were
designed for the measurement equipment. Reference to the deflection
meters was made here.
If a recommendation to the University o f Stellenbosch can be made, it will be the

following:
• Network points in the laboratory:

The majority o f the equipment was up to date with the exception o f
sufficient storage and transfer o f data. The researcher needs portable
storage devices to be able to transport data from the laboratory to the
workstation where this information will be used. These network points
will also enable lecturers and other researches to review experiments
by remote.

7-2
Other researchers can use the numerical finite element model with confidence. This
will enable the researchers to do relative quick and inexpensive investigation in the
behavior o f a crane girder panel when subjected to loads imposed by an overhead
traveling crane. Examples o f these can be summarized as follows:
• Stresses and strains at the top flange and web connection

• Stresses and strains at the top flange and web stiffener connection
• Stresses and strains at the web and web stiffener connection
• Stresses and strains at the crane girder supports
• Horizontal deflection o f the crane girder panel
• Vertical deflection of the crane girder panel
• Rotation o f the crane girder panel
All o f the above would be difficult to determine without either an experimental

investigation or this finite element model. The model was also designed with this in
mind. The researcher will find that the model has been put together to allow changes
without difficulty.

8-1
CHAPTER 8 - REFERENCES
1 SABS 0160 - 1989, South African Bureau o f Standards, Private Bag X191,
Pretoria.
2 A.R. Perez Winkler, An Investigation o f Overhead Crane Wheel/Rail/Girder

Interaction, University o f Stellenbosch, 2003.
3 SASCH, South African Steel Construction Handbook, Third Edition, 1997.
4 SABS 0162 - 1: 1993, South African Bureau o f Standards, Private Bag X191,
Pretoria.
5 AR Ingraffea, WH Gerstle, KI Mettam, P Wawrzynek and AK Hellier. “Cracking

of welded crane runway girders: Physical testing and computer simulation”.
Iron and Steel Engineer. AISE. December 1985. P 46-52.
6 Abaqus, Version 5.8, Habbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. Finite element analysis
services (Pty) Ltd, The Waverley, Mowbray 7700.
7 Juliet Warren, Fatigue research o f Crane Girders when subjected to Loads imposed
by Overhead Travelling Cranes, University o f Stellenbosch, 2004.
8 J Collins, R Mackenzie, K Pospisek and W James. “The design and Long Term
Performance o f Heavy Duty Crane Beams”. SA institute o f steel construction. P
473-487.
9 AR Ingraffea, WH Gerstle, KI Mettam, P W awrzynek and AK Hellier. “Cracking

o f welded crane runway girders: Physical testing and computer simulation”.
Iron and Steel Engineer. AISE. December 1985. P 46-52.

8-2
10KH Frank and JW Fisher. “Fatigue Strength o f Fillet Welded Cruciform Joints”.
Journal o f the Structural Division. September 1979. P 1727-1741.
11 HS Reemsnyder and DA Demo. “Fatigue cracking in welded crane runway girders:

causes and repair procedures”. Iron and Steel Engineer. April 1978. P 52-56.
12 DA Demo and JW Fisher. “Analysis o f Fatigue Welded Crane Runway Girders”.

Journal o f the Structural Division. P 919-933.
13 G Maas. “Investigations Concerning Craneway Girders”. Iron and Steel Engineer.

March 1972. P 49-58.
M AG Senior and TR Gurney. “The design and service life o f the upper part o f
welded crane girders”. The Structural Engineer. October 1963. P 301-312.
15 F Sedlmayer. “Stresses on top Flanges o f Crane Girders Caused by Crab Wheel

Loads”. Iscor Library. April 1973.
16 A Korvink, JM Barsom and R Bjorhovde. “Deformation Capacity Demands o f

Structural Steel Elements”. Journal o f Constructional Steel Research. 1998.
46:1-3. Paper No. 130.
17 F Lagomaggiore. “Numerical analysis o f the stresses in girders for heavy-duty

overhead crane runways”. Costruzioni Metalliche. 1981. N.6. P 328 - 339.

9-1
CHAPTER 9 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I should like to thank the University o f Stellenbosch for the opportunity to do
this research.
I should like to thank Prof. P.E. Dunaiski o f the Department o f Civil Engineering at
the University o f Stellenbosch for his guidance and support.
I should like to thank Mr H. Barnard, o f the Department o f Civil Engineering at the

University of Stellenbosch; without his help this project would not have been
possible.
I should like to thank Messrs A. Rossouw, L. Frederiks and A. Layman for the
physical help during the construction and setup o f the experiments.
Finally, I should like to thank my parents for their continuous support and motivation.

A-1
APPENDIX A - TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF CRANES AT

SALDANHA STEEL
The following pages contain a summary of the typical dimensions o f cranes at the
Saldanha Steel plant. These dimensions were used to determine representative
dimensional ratios for the design o f the experimental girder.

B-1
APPENDIX B - MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL USED

FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF THE
CRANE GIRDER
Material Tests on Steel.
Test pieces were manufactured from the top flange, bottom flange and web o f the
beam. The dimensions and test procedures were in accordance with SABS ISO
6892:1984 . The dimensions o f the test pieces were as follows.
Section Dimensions
L (mm) b (mm) t (mm)
Top Flange 300 40 20
Bottom Flange 300 40 10
Web 300 40 8
TABLE B l: TEST SPECIMEN SIZES (STEEL)
The results of these tests were given in Figure B2: Stress Strain Curve. In summary
however, the following can be noted:
E-Modul es 203.50 GP a
Yield Stress 310.50 MPa
2 SABS ISO 6892:1984 Metallic materials - Tensile testing

B -2
<r'
PHOTO B l: TEST PIECES BEFORE TESTING

C-l
APPENDIX C - DESIGN FILE FOR THE CRANE GIRDER
The following design was created using commercially available software called
MathCAD 2000 Professional.

Crane Girder Design

2004/07/27
Crane Data
General Crane Properties:
NumWheels := 4
NumSideWheels := 2
CraneClass := 4
r.,,,3 0 (S)
Sasch: Parr 10.7 Static wheel load factor:
C := 0.29
<t>Wheel “ 265 <t>Wheel = 265 (mm)
W := C-<t>W heel' 10 (Maksimum on each wheel) W= 76850 (N )
Crane Wheel Forces
Vertical Wheel Forces:
VmM := W Vmax = 76850 (N)
SABS 0160: 1989 LLF := 1.0 (Serviceability factor) LLF = 1.0

Parr 4.4.2
SABS 0160-1989 D LF := 1.1 (Serviceability factor) DLF = 1.1

Parr 4 .4 .2
SABS 0160:1989, IFV := 1.3 IFV = 1.3

Parr 5.7.3
Vi := IFV Vmax (Unfactored wheel force with impact) V| = 99905 (N )
Vv u -. 1 1 F VV m a x (Factored wheel force without impact) vu= 76850 (N )
Vu i:= L L F I F V V max (Factored wheel force with impact) vui= 99905 (N)
Vui:= 100 0 0 0 (Rounded up) vui= 100000 (N)

Transverse Wheel Forces:
(1) Acceleration and Braking of Crab:
SABS 0160:1989, X] := 0 .2 (Load Scale factor for class 4 cranes) X i = 0 .2

Parr 5.7.4
M, := V„i M]= 100000 (N)
P,ln:= X,M, ptln = 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
I'.lsLLF Ptin p„5 = 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
(2) Misalignment of Crane Wheels of Rails:
SABS 0160:1989, X2 := 0 .2 (Load Scale factor for class 4 cranes) X2 = 0 .2 (N)

Parr 5.7.4
M2 := Vui m2 = 1 00000 (N)
PCn:=X2-M2 pt2n = 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
Pt2s := L L F P t2n Pt2s = 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
(3) Skewing of Crane:
SABS 0160:1989, x3 := 1 .0 This will normally be 1.5, but due X3 = 1

Parr 5.7.4 to capacity of jacks 1.0 will be used)
I’t.m■ X3*?121: Pt3n = 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
^t3s := I -I-.F*P[3:i P,3S= 2 0 0 0 0 (N)
Longitudinal Wheel Forces:
SABS 0160:1989, XL:= 0.1 0

Parr 5.7.5 XL= 0.1
PLn := XL-NumSideWheels-Vmax pL„= 15370 (N)
P L s := L L F -P Ln pLs= 15370 (N)

Crane Rail Assembly
Rail Size:
Size:= 30
SASCH Parr 2.96 pRaiiBase:= 109.5 (mm) F R a ilB a s c = 109.5 (mm)
Rail Pads:
Gantrex: tpad •— *1 (m m ) Elastometric Pad
Gantrex: Rail Clips:
Use Boltable Clips in order to allow for

Clip spacing adjustment.
Clip Series: StelCam13

Lateral Adjustment = 1 0 mm
Bolt Diameter = 1 2 mm
Resistance to lateral side thrust = 34.41
15
TrClipBltW := FRailBase + 25.4 TrClipBltW = 163.929 (mm)
17
MinRSW := F RailBas<. + 25.4 MinRSW = 217.45 (mm)
Crane Girder Design

Page: 4
Crane Girder Desiqn
Prelim inary Girder ProDertv Selection:
Desiqn Parameters:
SAISCH P10.17 Profile: Monosymmetric l-Section use

no intermediate stiffeners, use no surge
plate, use structural steel - grade 300WA
Fy := 300 (M Pa) Fy = 300 (M Pa)
4>b := 0 - 9 4>b = 0.9
O
CO
v := 0.3
>
II
E := 203 .5 -103 (M Pa) E= 203.5E +003 (M Pa)
E
G = 78E +003 (M Pa)
2 .( 1 + v)
SASCH Table 1 3 .1 1 Y300 WA := 7850 Y3oow a = 7850

Vm , Vm ,
Crane Girder Properties:
L c g := 45 0 0 (Crane Girder Span)

Lcg = 4 5 0 0 (mm)
Crane Girder Top Flange Width:
tfb := 150 if M inRSW < 1 5 0 tfb = 250 (mm)

200 if 150 < M inRSW < 200
250 if 200 < MinRSW < 250
300 if 250 < M inRSW < 300
350 if 300 < M inRSW < 350
4 0 0 otherwise
(Enlarge so the thicknes of the
top flange can be reduced)
tfb := 300 (mm)
Crane Girder Design

Page: 5
Crane Girder Top Flange Thickness:
(1) Thickness governed by statistical limits:
11.3 < — < 2 2

tft
tfb
tft, (Avarage from dimensional ratios) tftpreUn,] = 18.182 (mm)
16.5
(2) Thickness governed by flange classification criteria - class 3 flange:
SABS 0162:1993, WTRpiangc:= 2 0 0 (Width to thickness ratio) WTRpi^ge = 200

Table 1
tft,prelim2 •
(tfb-V^) ‘ftprelim2 = 12.990 (mm)
2 •WTRpiangc
(3) Thickness governed by serviceability criteria - deflection:
SABS 0162:1993 At jmh := 600 (Deflection Limit) ALimh = 600

Appendix I
(3.1) Misalignment:
Wheelbasem := 900 (Distance Between Wheels) Wheelbase,,, = 900 (mm)
Lcg Wheelbase,,,
a= 1800 (mm)
a '= ~2 2
2 ___a__
SASCH Table 5.7 Am := Pt2s'LcG
24-E 3 -4f c )
A „, = 352260442
(Vmm5)I
Leo
A M a*H := A M axH = 7.500 (mm)
Ih 1prelim -— Ih Iprelim = 4 6 9 68059 (m m 4)
tftprelim3 = 20.875 (mm)

tfb
(3.2) Skewing:
W hee!bases := W heelbase,,, Wheelbases = 9 0 0 (mm)
Leo . ,
a3 := - y *>3 := I- c g ~ a3
2 2
Pi3s-a3 b3
SASCH Table 5.7 Am = 186578624 ( m5)/
\m
3-e-Lcg
Ah2 (Vm m 4)/

^H2Prclim •“ ■n2Prclim = 24877150
A MaxH
^H 2P relim ' 1 2
tft,p re lim 4 : tftprelim4 = 1 1 - 0 5 7 (m m )
tfb 3
tft,prelim 5 • tftprelim l ^ p re lim 1 — ^ p re lim 2 A ^ p re lim 1 - ^ p re lim 3 A ^ p re lim 1 - ^ p re lim 4
tftprelim 2 tftprelim 2 — tf t prelim 1 A tftprelim 2 — tftprelim 3 A tftprelim 2 - *ftprelim4
tftprelim 3 i f tftprelim 3 — tftprelim 1 A tftprelim 3 — ^ p r e lim 2 A tftprelim 3 - tftprelim4
tftprelim 4 otherwise
tftp re lim 5 = 2 0 .8 7 5 (mm)
tft := 1 4 if tftprejjm5 < 1 4 tft = 2 0 (m m )
1 6 if 1 4 < tftpreiinrf < 1 6
1 8 if 1 6 < t f t prelira5< 1 8
2 0 otherw ise
Crane Girder Bottom Flange Width and Thickness
(1) Min Bottom Flange Width
b ffy n in P re lim 150 Choose 150 because: Estimate support bfb,„lnprctjm = 1 5 0 (mm)
width of crane column, bfb greater or
equal to half of top flange width.
(2) Use Flange classification criteria (class 3 flange) with web stabilisation
requirements to determine initial (preliminary) flange properties:
Determine load case that provides
worst case of concentrated force:
(2.1) Determine equivalent force for case: Misalignment with two

vertical wheel forces on the span.
Maximum Vertical Moment:
-----------------------------------------------------
f
- : :
Lcg Wheelbase,,,
b, := a,
2 2
Lcg Wheelbase^
a2 := b 2 ~ a2
Vui-(b; + bi)
Rl~ Rl = 1 0 0 0 0 0 (N)
Log
M, := RLai Mi = 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (N m m )
M2 := Ri, a2 - Vui-(a2 - ai) M2 = 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (N m m )
M mex := Mi if M i > M 2 Mmox = 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (N m m )
M2 otherwise
4-MMax
^ E q u iv a le n t PV Equivalent = 1 6 0 0 0 0 (N )
Lcg
(Rosswell vormula for single load P.
Crane Girder Design

Page: 8
OPFABRatio := 1 2 5 0 Span to out-of-plane straitness ratio for OPpABRaiio = 1250

girder bottom flange
L eo
"—OPFA B Ratio A0 = 3.600 (mm)
SABS 0160: 1989 SHDL := 6 0 0 Span to horizontal deflection limit SHDL = 600
Tabel 1.1
Lcg
^BotFlangeLim ~ ' '5 (mm)
SHDL
5 .8 9 < S G D R < 31.58 Span to depth Ratio: From Dimensional Ratios
SGDRAvt := 10.31 Span to depth Ratio Average: SGDRAvr= 10.31

From Dimensional Ratios
Lcg
M inGirderD:= ------------- MinGirderD = 436.469 (mm)
SGDRAvr
Requiered stiffeness of bottom flange:
PvEquivalent
PBotFli
;2 n g c MinGirderD \
(l+ — — ---- ) PBotFlange —542.535
(Vmm
- )J
^B o tF la n g e L im /
BotFlangcReq •“ •BotFlangcReq = 5061272.73 (mm4)

48e
SABS 0162:1993 WTRn^ge = 2 0 0 Width to thickness ratio WTRpjangg=2 0 0

Table 1
! (24-WTRnange-lBotFlangeRcq)
bfbpreiimi •“ bfbpreHml = 193.524 (mm)
JTy
bfbprciiiii2 *= Prelim ^ ^m in P re lim — ^ ^ p re lim I b t v , im2= 193.524 (mm)
bfoprelim l o th e r w is e
bfb := 100 i f bft>prelim2 S 1 0 0 bfb = 2 0 0 (mm)
150 if 1 0 0 < bfbprelim 2 — 150
200 if 150 < b fb p relim 2 —2 0 0
250 i f 2 0 0 < b fb p rclim2 — 250
300 if 250 < bfb p reijn ^ — 300
350 otherwise
Crane Girder Design

Page: 9
bfb-JFy
bftprelim1-- bftprdiml = 8 .6 6 (mm)
2.WTRHange
12.5 < WTRuotpiauge <35.7 Width to Thickness Ratio of Bottom

Flange: From Stats
WTRQotFianggAv,.35.7 Span to depth ratio maksimum for WTRBotFlmgeAve = 35 .7

slander beam: From Dimensional Ratios
bfb
bftprelim 2 ■“ bftprelim 2= 5 .6 0 2 (mm)
W TR fJotFlangeM e
bftprelim3 bftprelim I ^prelim I — bftpreUm2 bftprelim3 = 8 -6 6 (mm)
bftprelim2 otherwise
b f t := 5 if bftpreiim3 <5 bft = 10 (mm)
6 if 5 < bftpreHm3 < 6

8 if 6 < bflprei,m3 < 8
10 if 8 < bftprdlm3 < 10
12 if 10 < bftpjei,^ < 12
14 if 12<bttpre|im3< 14
16 if 14 < bftpre|im3 < 16
20 otherwise
Crane Girder Design

Page: 10
Crane Girder Web Depth:
Determine the depth of the web from a calculation of the vertical deflection
considering only the flanges when calculating the second moment of area.
V ui .
A v i '= T ~ A H1 Av i= 1761302211.3 (mm5)
* t2s
SABS 0162:1993 ALimv := 600 Crane capacity is < 22.5 Tonne ^ L im V = 600
Appendix I
Lcg
A MaxV • - ' AMaxV= 7.500 (mm)
^ L im V
T ^vi
WPrelimRcq •“ . IvPrelim Req = 234840294.8' (m m 4 )
A MaxV
hwprelim l := MinGirderD hw prelim 1 = 43 6.4 7 (mm)
hprelim l := tf t + hw prelim l + b f t hprclim ! = 4 6 6 .4 7 (mm)
Yn a i tfb * ” + b f b - b f t- ^ tf t + h Wprc]jm ] + ^ ^
(Without web and rail)
Y n a 2 := tfb - tft + b f b + b f t
Y - YNA' Yna = 158.283 (mm)

na - -
* NA2
( tf b - t f t 3 ) (b fb -b ft3)
IV2Prelim — ^ ^ •v 2 P rd im = 21 6666.67
Iv 3 P re lim := tfbtft'^YNA - ^ P re lim = 131927508.1
Iv4Prelim b fb b ft ^ tf t + h wpre|Irn i — ^ ^
lv 4 P re lim = 183843757.5
Iv5Prelim := Iv2Prelim + ^ 3 Prelim + IV4Prelim Iv5Prelim= 315987 93 2.2 7 (mm4)
IVPrelim := OK if Iv5Prelim — WPrelimReq I v P rd im = " O K "
"Fail” otherwise
Crane Girder Design

Page: 11
h\vprelim 2 j^ w p re lim l ^w prelim l — M in G ir d e r D ^wprclim2 —4 3 6 .4 6 9 (mm)

I M inG irderD otherwise
hw 200 f h wprelim2 5 200 hw = 4 5 0 (mm)
250 f 2 0 0 < hwprdim2 £ 2 5 0
300 f 2 5 0 < hwprcijm2 s 3 0 0
350 f 3 0 0 < hwprelintf < 3 5 0
400 f 350 < h wprclim2 < 400
450 f 4 0 0 < lvpna.,2 < 4 5 0
5 0 0 otherwise
h := hw + tft + bft h = 480 (m m )
C rane G irder W eb Thickness
(1) W eb Slenderness Limit:
SABS 0160:1993 WTRwcb := 1 9 0 0 Width to Thickness ratio: Web W T R Wcb = 1 9 0 0

Tabel 1
(hw^y)
•wpreliml • ^wpreliml = 4 .1 0 2 (mm)
W T R Web
(2) W eb Stability under Vertical Crane Wheel Forces
Sum N um Wheels := 2 Number of wheels between stiffeners Sum N um Wheels = 2
v TotalStatic := Sum N um W heels- V UI ^T olalStatic = 200000 (N)
S := L cg S = 4500 (mm)
S s := I hw if hw < S Sg = 4 5 0 (mm)
| S otherw ise
FwebR.esMin •“ ^T otalStatic Fw ebResM in = 200000 (N )
3
SABS 0162:1984 FwebResMin
twprelim2 = 8 .6 6 4 (mm)
SS E
1 +•
1.5
^wpreliml ^ ^wpreliml — ^wprelim2 tw = 8 .6 6 4 (mm)
^wprelim2 otherw ise
tw := 1 0 (m m )
Crane Girder Design

Page: 12
Crane Girder Design Properties:
tfb tft , „ , „ (, bft

Avl : = ----------+ bfb-bft- h --------
y 2 V 2 Ayi = 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 (m m 3
hw
Ay2 := hw-tw- tft Ay2 = 1 1 0 2 5 0 0 (m m 3)
A = 12500 ( m m 2)
(Ay] + Ay2)
Y n a := YNa = 1 6 9 . 0 0 0 (m m )
( tf b tf t3) ( tft
= — 12— + I A- ~2
(bfb-bft3) .. b ft^ 2
Ixx2 := -----— -------h bfb bft l h - YNA + —
( ) f __ hi
Ixx3:= — — — + bfb-hw-l tft - YNA + —
•xx := Ixxl + [xx2 + !x x 3 lxx = 4 3 4 3 9 2 1 6 6 . 6 7 ( 4)

\m m I
Zx,:= Zj , = 2 5 7 0 3 6 7 .8 5 (mm3)
Y na
Zxb:= (h - Zxb = 1 3 9 6 7 5 9 . 3 8 (mm3)

Yn a )
Crane Girder Design

Page: 13
( t f t t f b 3)
1^ = 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 (mm4)
12
(bft-bfb3)
lyb iyb= 6 6 66 66 6 .6 7 (mm4)
12
Zy,:= Zy, = 3 00000 (mm3)

tfb
Zyb lyb
Zyb = 6 6 6 6 6 .6 7 (\mm3)/
bfb
2
ly = 5 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 .6 7 (mm4)
Structural Steel Design p := 0.129

Par 4 .4 4.9
l+l-^l - P
,b fb J V bft
Y „:= Y0 = -8 9 .0 0 0 (mm )
I := — (tfb -tfl3 + hw tw3 + bfb-bft3) j= 1016666.67 (mrn4)
, tft bft 1 3 „ „
h ----------------tfb tft-B
2 2)
cV-w •=
• Cw = 1.256E +012 (mm6)
12
Crane Girder Design

Page: 14
W eight of Crane Girder:
Y300WA kg
™CGwpm•“ Q Wcowpm = 98E -003
10
Dead Load For Desiqn Purposes:
30
W RaillO -'= ------ I WRaillO= 0 .0 3 0 [ ——
Vi—
10
bpad •—63.5 Elastrometric Pad Width bpad = 63.5 (mm)
WPad:= w Pad= 0.001

10
g := 9.81 g= 9.81
W CGservkg = 0 .1 2 9
kg
W cG scrvkg “ ^ R a il 10 + W CGwpm + W Pad
mm
W cGserv W cGservkg'g W C G serv = 1-267

(-
Vmir
N
Wcoul. := DLF WcGserv w cGuit = 1 -393
mm
Lcg
Rcgsctv= 2850.11 (N)
rccW = W cg~ v —
Leo
R CGult := W CGult' Rcoui. = 3 1 3 5 .1 2 (N)
Crane Girder Design

Page: 15
Vertical Bending:
Case 1: Misalignment with crane end carriage wheelbase:
Lcg
WcGult' + Vui-(bi + bj)
Rviuim = 1 0 3 1 3 5 .1 2 (N)
Lcg
Mmitm = 185641966.84 (N mm)
Rvlultm'a2 | WcGull' ^ [ Vui‘( a2 al) MRuitm = 1 8 8 4 6 2 9 5 0 .2 7 (N m m )
^Lultm - MRuitm MVuitm= 1 8 5 6 4 1 9 6 6 .8 4 (N m m )
MRultm otherwise
Mvultm
Mvultm
FvBotultm= 1 3 2 .9 0 9 (MPa)
Zxb
Case 2: Scewing with crane end carrige Wheelbase:
Lcg
W CGult---- ------ + V ui-b3
R-Vults •“ RVuits= 53135.12 (N)

Lcg
M L u 1is := R V u lts a 3 - WCGulf“ MLuits= 116027013.06 (N m m )
M Vults M Lults Myults= H6027013.06 (N m m )
Myults
FvTopults= 4 5 .1 4 0 (N)
Myults FVBotuits= 83.069 (N)

^vB otults ■"
^xb
Crane Girder Design

P age:16
Transverse Bendina:
h R a i l3 0 ~ 109.5 h R a il3 0 = 109.5 (mm)
hsc “ hRaiBO + tpad + Y NA + Yo hs,. = 196.5 (mm)
eRaji := 0.5 tw + O.OOI-Lcq eRaii = 9 .5 0 0 (mm)
Case 1: Misalignment:
:= Pt2s Hm = 20000 (N )
100000
>6
>3
Vm = (N)
II
C ase 2: Skewing:
Hs := P,3s Hs = 20000 (N )
Vs := v ul v s= 100000 (N)
R esultant Torsional Moments:
^niH Hm'hgc TmH= 3 9 3 0 0 0 0 (kN-mm)
1'rrlV *= Vjn'eRaji TmV = 9 5 0 0 0 0 (Nmm)
T sH := Hs- hsc TsH = 3 9 3 0 0 0 0 (Nmm)
TSV -= Vs. eRaii TsV = 9 5 0 0 0 0 (Nmm)

Crane Girder Design

Page: 17
Calculate horizontal deflection, flange forces, moments, and stresses due to the following
applied forces and force effects at crane wheel positions:
(1) O ut-of-straightness tolerance due to fabrication practices.
(2) Transverse displacem ent due to transverse wheel forces at rail head ievel.
(3) Transverse deflection due to the force effect:torsion about the shear centre
caused by the transverse wheel forces.
(4) Transverse deflection due to the force effect torsion due to vertical wheel forces
offset by m isalignm ent of the crane rail.
(5) Transverse deflection due to the force effect: stabilisation forces for the web,
which acts as a column under the vertical wheel forces.
Note:
(a) Transverse thrusts / forces are resolved as equivalent horizontal forces and
torsional m om ents about the centroid of the girder section.
(b) The equivalent horizontal force at the centroid o f the girder section is resolved
into equivalent horizontal forces at the top and bottom flange (by taking
m om ents about the centroid of the top and bottom flange).
(c) Torsional m om ents are resolved as equal horizontal force couples. The lever
arm is the distance between the top and bottom flange centroids.
(d) Horizontal flange forces resolved from torsional m om ents are adjusted to obtain
the warping torsion com ponent, which contributes to the longitudinal stresses
and deflections.
Crane Girder Design

Page: 18
(1) Transverse out-of-plane straightness of the girder:
a0 = 3 .6 (Transverse out-of-plane straightness of A0 = 3 .6 (mm)

the bottom flange:)
(2) Transverse displacements due to transverse w heel forces applied at rail head level:
tft bft
hff := h ■ hff = 4 6 5 (mm)
2 2
^scti = ~ Y0 — tft hsctf = 6 0 (mm)
bft ,
^scbfh ~ ^ —Yna + Y0 h Scbf = 3 9 5 .0 0 0 (mm)
Take m om ents about the centerline of the bottom flange:
HTFm,:= Hn-
hscbf HTFm, = 1 6 9 8 9 .2 5 (N)
hff
HTFs, := Hs-
hscbf HTFst= 1 6 9 8 9 .2 5 M)
Take m om ents about the centerline of the top flange:
HBFm,:= Hm -
hsctf HBFmt= 2 5 8 0 .6 5 (N)
h ff
HBF,. := Hs-
^sctf h b f s1= 2 5 8 0 .6 5 (N)
"hfT
HTF«
H B F mt <
Crane Girder Design

P a g e :19
Crane Girder Design

Page: 20
(3) &(4) Transverse Deflection due to the force effect: Torsion about the
shear centre caused by the transverse wheel forces and transverse
deflection due to the force effect: Torsion due to vertical wheel forces
offset by m isalignm ent of the crane rail.
Case 1: M isalignm ent
— if — < 0 .5 “ ml = 0 -4 0 0
Lcg Lcg
1 -------— I otherwise
Lc g J
a m2 •“ — if — < 0 .5 “ m2 = 0 .4 0 0
Lcg LCg
1 ------ —- otherwise
LcgJ
Ctm i if Ctm ] 5; Ctm2 a m = 0 .4 0 0
a m2 otherw ise
G-J
X :=
ECW
X L:= X -L co XL = 2 . 5 1 1 (m )
Salmon & Johnson Pm := 0 .7 With am and XL known 3m = 0 .7 0

Table 8.6.1
Case 2: Skewing
a* = 0 .5 0 0
L cg
Salmon & Johnson 0.88 With as and XL known p s = 0 .8 8

Table 8.6.2
Crane Girder Design

Page: 21
Equivalent Flange Forces And Deflections:
HTFmhft:= HTFmhft= 5 9 1 6 .1 3 (N )
hff
HTFshft := HTFshft = 7 4 3 7 .4 2 (N )
hff
HTFmvft:= ^ . p n HTFmvft= 1 4 3 0 .1 1 (N )
hff
Tsv
HTF svf, := — ps HTFsvft= 1 7 9 7 .8 5 (N )
hff
HBF mhft := -H T Fmhft HBFmhft = - 5 9 1 6 .1 3 (N )
HBFshft := -H T F shft HBFshft = - 7 4 3 7 .4 2 (N )
HBFmvft:= —
HTFmvft HBFmvft = - 1 4 3 0 .1 1 (N )
H B F := —HTFsvft HBFsvft = - 1 7 9 7 .8 5 (N )
H T F m h ft
H B F m h ft
Crane Girder Design

Page: 22
Top and Bottom Flange Deflection:
Lcg a. ( HTFmhft
STFmhft := 3 -4
24 Lcg I E Iyt
8TFmhft= 2 .3 1 6 (mm)
.Lcg2 -ai f HBFmhft

3-4-f —
24 VLco. \ E-Iyb
8BFmhf, = -1 5 .6 3 0 (mm)
. 2
f HTFmvft
Lcg ai
5TFmvft •- 3 -4
24 Lcg I ^
8TFmvft= 0 .560 (mm)
. 2
Lcg ai f HBFmvft
5BFmvft 3 - 4-!
24 Lcg I E'lyb
8BFmvft = -3 .7 7 8 (mm)
f 2 2) / \
a 3 -b 3 f H T F d ,^
8TFshft := 8TFshft= 1.542 (mm)
v3-Lcg ^ I E Iy. J
f
a3
2
b3
2) __
(/ HBFshftA \
8BFs),ft = -1 0 .4 0 7 (mm)
SBFshf, :=
^3-LcG/ I E-lyb J
( 2 2 s]
a3 b3 ( HTFsvfA
8TFsvft:= STFshft= 1.542 (mm)
v3-LcG/ I E Iyt J
( 2 2 \
a3 -b3 ( HBFsvlA
8BFsvft : - SBFgyfj = -2 .5 1 6 (mm)
V 3 'Lc g , I E Iyb J
Crane Girder Design

Page: 23
(5) Transverse deflection due to the force effect: Stabilisation forces for the web,
which acts as a column under the vertical wheel forces.
Assum e stabilisation flange force:
H T F mwcbst := 1 0 0 0 HTFmwebst= 1000 (N)
H B F m w e b s t -= ^ I F jr.w cbst HBFmwcbst = -1 0 0 0 (N)
H T F swebst:= 1 0 0 0 HTFswebst= 1000 (N)
H B FswebSt := —H TFswebst HBFswebst = -1 0 0 0 (N)
• 2
l CG al f H T F mwebst
STF, 3 -4 -1 -5 -
24 l cg \ ~ eTiyt
STFmwebst= 0.391 (mm)
,Leo2-a| ( HBFmwebst
3-4-
24 l cg I E-Iyb
5BFmwebst = -2 .6 4 2 (mm)
( 22 '] / _____ \
j H TFgwebst j
a3 V
5TFswebst: STFswcbst = 0.207 (mm)
V3 l Co J I Ely. J
( a32 b32 \ j/ ____ \

H B F swebst |
5BF«swebst • 8BFswebst = -1 .3 9 9 (mm)
v 3 -L c g , I E1yb J
Crane Girder Design

P age:24
Perform Iteration Prosess to determ ine final value Fwt and

Horizontal Flange Deflection.
Iteration 1:
^T opFlangeM STFmt + 5TFm(1ft + 5TFmvft + 8TFmwebst ^ 'iopF langcM — 9 .9 1 6 (mtn)
^B otFlangeM SBFmt+ SBFjjjhft + 8 BFmvft + 8 BFmwebst ABotFlangeM = -1 5 .2 3 2 (mm)
AmTiit = 2 8 .7 4 9 (mm)
^mTilfPir HTFmwebst = 4 3 2 7 .7 7 (N)

hff
HBFm w e b s t HTFmwebst HBFmwebst = -4 3 2 7 .7 7 (N)
^TopFlangeS ^TFst + 5TFshft + 5TFsvft + 8TFswebst ^TopFlangeS : 5 .6 4 4 (mm)
^B otFlangeS •“ SBFst + SBF^ft + 8BFsvft + SBFswebst ^BotFlangeS — 10.711 (mm)
A$Tiit = 19.955 (mm)
^s' AsTilt'Ps HTFswebst = 3 7 7 6 .4 9 (N)

HTFswebst •—
h ff
HBF sweb s t HTFswebst HBFswebst = -3 7 7 6 .4 9 (N)

Crane Girder Design

Page: 25
Iteration 2:
.L 2
cg 'a i H^mwebst
STFmwcbs,
24 I Ely,
STFmwebst= 1 . 6 9 4 (mm)
, 2
J HBF mwebst
Lcg ai
8 BFmWebst 3-4| —
24 Lcg V E-I,
'' Ayb
SBFmwebst = - 1 1 . 4 3 4 (m m )
^ T opFlangeM := ^ T F mt + 5TFmhft + §TFmvft + 8TFmwebst ^T opFlangeM = 1 1 * 2 1 9 (m m )
^B otFlangeM -= SBFmt + 8BFmhft + SBFmvft + §BFmwebst ^B otFlangeM = —2 4 . 0 2 4 (m m )
^ m T i l t := |^TopFlangeM | + |^BotFlangeM | + Am Tilt = 3 8 . 8 4 3 (m m )
HTFmwebst H T F mWebst = 5 8 4 7 . 3 4 (N )
h ff
H BFmwebst I— HTFmwebst H B F mwebst = - 5 8 4 7 . 3 4 (N )
( 2 2 s) / ____ \
a3 t>3 j H T F swc),st |
8 T F SWebst :~ ST F sw ebst = 0 . 7 8 3 (m m )
^ 3 -L c g ^ I E-1^ J
( a32 b 32s]
SBFs,
f HBFSwebst |
SBFswebst = - 5 . 2 8 5 (m m )
^ 3 -L c Gy I EIyb J
^T opF langeS := ^T F ^ + ST F^ft + 8TFsvft + 5T Fswebst ^TopFlangeS — 6 . 2 1 9 (m m )
^B otF langeS := $BFst + 8BF shft + 5BFsvft + SBF^g^st A BotFlangeS = —1 4 . 5 9 7 (m m )
^ s T i l t := I^TopFlangesj + |^ B o tF lan g es| + A sT ilt = 2 4 . 4 1 6 (m m )
^s’^sTilt'Ps
HTF sweb s t := H TF swebst = 4 6 2 0 . 6 9 (N )
h ff
HBF sweb s t HTF swebst h b f Swebst = - 4 6 2 0 . 6 9 (N)

Iteration 3:
Lcg f HTFmwej,st
24 I E-Vt
STFmwebst = 2 .2 8 9 (mm)
, 2
8BFm
l cg “i
3 -4 ai
24 lcg V E I‘yb
:
5BFmwebst = -1 5 .4 4 8 (mm)
^TopFlangeM := 8T Fmt + S T F ^ f t + 5 T F mvfj + 8T FmWebst ^T opFlangeM —11*814 (mm)
^BotFlangeM -= 8BFmt -I- 5B Fmhft + 8B Fmvft + 8B FmwebS{ ^B otFlangeM = “2 8 .0 3 9 (mm)
^ m T ilt *= | ^TopFlangeM ) + | ^ BotFlangeNl| + A 0 A m Tilt = 4 3 .4 5 2 (mm)
^ m ' ^ m T ilt'P iT
HTFmwe5st := H TFmwebst = 6541.23 (N )
hfT
HBFmwe5st HTFmwei)St H B Fmwebst = -6 5 4 1 .2 3 (N )
( 2 2 ) j/ H___ X
a3 V T Fgw ebst j
8TFswebst •- 5TFswebst = 0 .9 5 8 (mm)
^3-LcGy I E'ty. J
( a32 b /2 s) /■____ \
| HBF swebst j
8BF*, 8BFswebs, = -6 .4 6 6 (mm)
^ 3 - L cg J I E I yb J
^TopFlangeS := 8T Fst + 6T Fshft + 8 T F svft + ST Fswebst ^T opFlangeS = 6.395 (mm)
^B otFlangeS *= 8BFst + 8B Fshft + 5B Fsvfj + 8B Fswebst ^B otFlangeS = "15.778 (mm)
^ s T i l t := | A Top Flanges) | A BotFlangeS | + A 0 A sT ilt = 2 5 .7 7 3 (mm)
V s ’^ s T il f P s
HTFswebst = 4 8 7 7 .3 8 (N)
h ff
H B Fs w e b s t H TFSWC5St HBFswebst = -4 8 7 7 .3 8 (N)

Verify Girder Resistance to Buckling:
Trahair ,:= 0.9-hfr] 2 -j- - 1 1 - Px = 306.11 (mm)
K := 0.1 Effective Length Factor K= 0 .1
it-px H-L
p! = 12.282
2-K Lcg v GJ
2 Cr
7t - E -C u
P2 := p2 = 156.490
(K -L cg ) GJ
SABS 0162-1:1993 (02 '= 1 0)2 =1

Par 13.6 a.
Mcr:= E-Iy-GJ^P, + J 1 + p2 + p,2) Mcr = 190.564E+009 (N-mm)

^•LCG
^ T o p x x Y ie ld ^ y '^ x t M TopxxYield = 771.11E+006 (N m m )
y := 0.67 y = 0.67
yMy := 0 .6 7 -M TopxxYield yMy = 516.644E+006 (N m m )
'I’M rxT op := 1 .1 5 i|)b MTopxxYield-^l - 0 . 2 8 if Mct t yMy

MC1
(<t>b-MTopxxYiew) otherwise
cj>MrxTop = 797194963.7 (N-mm)
M BotxxYield == F y Z x b MBoKxYicld= 419E+006 (N m m )
'I’MrxBot^ K'MBotxxYield ^MjxTop = 797194963.7 (N mm)
<t>MrxTop
^rxTop FrxTop = 310.15 (MPa)
Zx,
<l>MrxBot
FrxBot FrxBo.= 270 (MPa)
Zxb
Combined Stresses:
W eb Shear Strength:
W eb Buckling:
Vui(Lco + (Lcg - Wheelbasem)J

^ShearU ltLeft R ShearUltLeft = 180000 (N )
Lcg
V ShearUltLeft := R ShearUltLeft V ShearUltLeft = 1 80000 (N )
hw
HTDActllfli:= — HTDActua] = 4 5 .0 0 0
1100
HTDLimi, = 3.667
S = 900 (mm)
5.34
SABS 0162-1:1993 kv:= if - L s l kv = 7.340
Par. 13.4.11
5.34 + otherwise
( 2 9 0 / f7Tv)
fcri- fcri= 3 0 2 .4 09 (MPa)
HTD^ctual
Fvu := (o.66-Fy) if HTDActual < 440- ~

VFv
[~k~ Ik
feri if 440- < HTDActual < 500-
^n + (o.5-Fy- 0 .8 6 6 -fen)- if 500- I — < HTDActual < 620- —
1 +
Fvu= 198.000 (MPa)
4>v := 0.9 <t>v = 0.9
Ay := hw-tw Av = 4500 (m m l
VshearUltRes:= ^ v P v u 'h w 't’ V shearUltRes = 8 01900 (N )
V SBuckCheck := "OK" if VshearUltRes s V ShearUltLeft V SBuckCheck = "OK"
"FAIL" otherwise
Crane Girder Design

Page: 29
SABS 0162:1993 W eb Crippling:

Parr. 15.9
Interior Loading Condition
N := (tiRaiBO + 'p ad + tft)-2 N = 273 (mm)
1.5
B c r := 3 0 0 d .b C - 1 + 3-
N i l 1' tft
B c r= 1 0 8 6 9 2 7 .1 1 ( H )
hw ) Vtft,
BcrCheck = "OK"
"FAIL" otherwise
SABS 0162:1993 W eb Yielding:

Parr. 15.9
Awy := tw-N A ^ = 2730 ( m2)I

\m
Bjy:= l.l-<(ibFyAwy B py= 810810 (N )
°ryCheck • "OK" if > vui BryCheck = "OK"

"FAIL" otherwise
sabs 0162 W eb Stability:
v Total Ult := SumNumWheels-V„j
Total sum of vertical wheel forces VT0talU1.= 2 0 0 0 0 0 (N)

between stiffeners
S s := hw if hw S S Ss = 4 5 0 (m m )
S otherwise
1 + F w cb R e s = 4 5 2 2 2 2 .2 2 (M P a )
WebS := "OK" if FWcbRes > VTotalult WebS = "OK"
"FAIL" otherwise
Crane Girder Design

Page: 30
Bearing Stiffeners at Girder Ends:
(1) Design Load Check:
R ShearUitLeft = 1 8 0 0 0 0 Maximum Girder end Reaction RshearUltLeft = 1 8 0 0 0 0 (N)
*BearStiff “ 4 *BearStiff " 4 (mm)
2
A BearStiff == tB e a rS tifrM b + 1 2 - t w A BearStiff = 2000 (mm2)
( l2 -tw)-tw3 tBearStiff'bfb3
^BearStiff •— lB e a rS tif f= 2 6 7 6 6 6 6 .6 7 (mm4)
12 12
^BearStiff
ABearStiff = 3 6 .5 8 3 (mm)
A BearStiff
hw I Fv
^-BearStiff = 0 . 1 5 0
r BearStiff .1 n ^ . £
(<|)b*Fy) if 0 < A,BearStiff ^ 0 .1 5
[ ♦ b - F y 'O - 0 3 5 - 0 . 2 0 2 - ^ B e a r S t i f f - 0 - 2 2 2 - > . BearStiff2) ] i f 0 . 1 5 < ^-BearStiff — 1
0 otherwise
F B e a rS tiff= 2 6 9 .9 (MPa)
C rB earStiff := FBearStifi" A BearStiff C r B e a rS tiff = 5 3 9 7 9 2 .1 6 (MPa)
ResBearStiff := "OK" if RshearUltLeft - CrBearStiff ResBearStiff = "OK"
"FAIL" otherwise
(2) Local Buckling Check:
WTR := 2 0 0 Width to Thickness Ratio WTR = 2 0 0
bft)- y J T y
^BearStiffMin — 8 .6 6 0 (m m )
2 WTR
^BearStiff i f *BearStiff — tBearStiffM in ^BearStiffPrelim — 8 .6 6 0 (mm)
^BearStiffMin o th e rw is e
tB earStiff := 7 if tlJearStiffPrelim “ ^ tBearStiff = 10 (mm)

^ i f 7 < tBearStiffPrelim — 8
10 i f 8 < tBearStiffPrelim ^ 1 0
12 o th e r w is e
Crane Girder Design

Page: 31
Welds:
W eld between web and stiffeners:
Load to be carried =>
•^material -= 0 .9 5
4*weld := 0 .6 7
fy.Mat:= 3 0 0
fy.Weld:= 4 1 0
Vr.Mat ■“ 0 .6 7 -(j)material1 Vr.Mat = 9 0 4 .5
( 71
^r.Weld 0 .67 -(J)wcid-[ cod j I'C'fy.Weld Vr.Weld = 6 5 0 .7 1
Length™ := Length™ = 153.68
W eld between web and flange:
Q bot := bft bfb-f hw - Yna + tft + bft
Vui'Qbot
V\veld.bot Vweld.bot = 7 0 .4 4 3
2 -Ixx
Q to p tft-tfb-j Yna 2
Vui'Qtop
Vweld.top -= V w e .d ,o P = 1 0 9 .8 0 9
2 -Ixx
Vweld.top
e:= 3 . 15- e = 0 .8 4 4
•y.Weld
For Plate Thickness of 20mm

Summary of Girder Properties:
tfb = 3 0 0 (mm)
tft = 2 0 (mm)
hw = 4 5 0 (mm)
tw = 10 (mm)
bfb = 2 0 0 (mm)
bfl = 1 0 (mm)
tBrarStiff = 10 (mm)
S = 900 (mm)
Leo = 4 5 0 0 (mm)

Viljoen Investigation 2004 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viljoen Investigation 2004 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOP

FLANGE AND WEB DEFORMATION IN A

Assignment report presented in partial fulfilment o f the requirement for the

Study Leader: Prof. P.E. Dunaiski

INVESTIGATION INTO THE TOP FLANGE AND WEB DEFORMATION OF A

ONDERSOEK NA DIE BOONSTE FLENSE EN WEBVERVORMING VAN ’N

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1

CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN OF CRANE GIRDERS 2-1

2.2.3.6 Summary 2-14

CHAPTER 3 - EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 3-1

CHAPTER 4 - NUMERICAL MODEL 4-1

CHAPTER 5 - VERIFICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL 5-1

CHAPTER 6 - EXTRACTION OF ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM NUMERICAL MODEL 6-1

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS 7-1

CHAPTER 8 - REFERENCES 8-1

CHAPTER 9 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9-1

APPENDIX A - TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF CRANES AT SALDANHA STEEL A-l

APPENDIX B - MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF STEEL USED FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF

APPENDIX C - DESIGN FILE FOR THE CRANE GIRDER C-l

APPENDIX D - DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

TABLE 3.1: DEFLECTION MEASURED DURING EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION 3-15

TABLE 4.1: CRANE GIRDER MODEL SIZE 4-4

TABLE 5.1: DEFLECTION COMPARISON 5-2

TABLE B 1: TEST SPECIMEN SIZES (STEEL) B -1

FIGURE 3.1: POSITION 1 - LAYOUT AND FORCE EFFECTS 3-3

FIGURE 4.1: CRANE GIRDER MESH LAYOUT 4-4

FIGURE 4.6: VON MISES STRESSES AT FLANGES OF BEAM AT MIDSPAN AS

FIGURE 6.1: ADDITIONAL LOAD POSITIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 6-2

FIGURE B 1: TEST PIECES - DRAWINGS ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION B-3

PHOTO 3.1: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 3-1

PHOTO B 1: TEST PIECES BEFORE TESTING B-2

Ao Displacement sideways o f the bottom flange such as sweep

P Warping torsion coefficient modifier

Abot Displacement sideways of the bottom flange due to

Auk Sum o f A0, Atop and Abot

AxTest Test if maximum deflection were in bounds

Atxest Test if maximum deflection were in bounds

ComstTop Compression strength op top flange test

Iy Moment o f inertia of section over y axis

Mr 3 4 Factored moment resistance for class 3 and 4

W Nominal horizontal load

Wgbcrip Web crippling test

This Project was a Subproject of Project 1 - Electric overhead travelling (EOT)

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

1.2 LOADS INDUCED BY OVERHEAD TRAVELLING CRANES

1 Vertical loading: Crab weight, bridge weight and hoisted load.

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH PROJECT

2 Top-flange deformation and forces (strains, stresses and rotation) in a crane

4 Verification of the analytical and numerical models and results by comparison

Deflection Elastic Deflection

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN OF CRANE GIRDERS

2.1 GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH

A girder that could be tested in the laboratory o f the University o f Stellenbosch,

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

2.1.1 DESIGN LOADS

2.1.1.1 Classification of the Crane

2.1.1.2 Vertical wheel loads

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

This can be shown as follows:

University o f Stellenbosch, Department o f Civil Engineering

2.1.1.3 Transverse wheel loads