Assessment of Existing Container Terminal

Quay for Increased Gantry Crane Loads

PIANC
The World Association for Waterborne
Transport Infrastructure

Presentation by

Henry Ward, Ports Coastal & Offshore, Mott MacDonald

at the occasion of

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 1.1 Introduction

1.0 – Introduction

2.0 – Project Background

3.0 – Problem Formulation

4.0 – Problem Solution

5.0 – Summary

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 2.0 Project Background
The Cranes

Lifted
Lifted Height
Height 36m+6m
36m

Backreach Gauge Outreach Outreach

25m 30.5m 50m 50m+5m

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 2.0 Project Background
The Cranes

Condition Original Heightened

Landside Waterside Landside Waterside
t/m t/m t/m t/m
Operating 37 45 43 51
Stowed 58 51 66 59
Earthquake 52 60 TBD TBD

• Up to 16% increase in vertical crane loads

• Structures were already >90% utilised

• End of story???

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

2.1 Project Background
The Infrastructure

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.0 Project Formulation
So how were going to get a better answer?

- Load Capacity Diagrams

- Load Combinations

- Seismic Design Damage Criteria

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Condition Vertical Horizontal

t/m t/m
Stowed 58 7 << Not possible
Note: Horizontal =
Perpendicular to berthing line

Crane corner
D A

Landside C B Seaside

Crane boom

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Condition Vertical Horizontal

t/m t/m
Stowed 58 7
Largest Increase
Wind Direction

Medium Increase
D A
Uplift

Landside C B Seaside

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Condition Vertical Horizontal

t/m t/m
Stowed 58 7
Largest Increase

Medium Increase
D A
Uplift

Wind Direction

Landside C B Seaside

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Condition Vertical Horizontal

t/m t/m
Stowed Max Vertical 58 0
Stowed Max Horizontal <58 7

• No singular set of horizontal and vertical loads can describe the

crane loading.

• Therefore can be no single limit loading.

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Optimised Landside Interaction Diagram

1600

1400

1200
Vertical (kN/m)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal (kN/m)

Operation Stowed L2 CRD L2 NC

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams

Rear Crane Beam Operation

1200

1000

800
Vertical (kN/m)

RCR STR ULS

600
RCB STR SLS
EJ STR
400 RCB GEO ULS

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Horizontal (kN/m)

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.1 Project Formulation
Load Capacity Diagrams
Limited by bending
capacity of reinforced Optimised Landside Interaction Diagram
concrete beam 1600
1400

1200
Limited by dowel
capacity at joints
Vertical (kN/m)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal (kN/m)

Operation

Limited by sliding
capacity
AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021
 3.2 Project Formulation
Load Combinations

Original Crane Conditions

- Operation

- Stowed

- Earthquake

- But what are these conditions in a structural design context

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.2 Project Formulation
Load Combinations

- Wheel load combination table typically defined in crane specification with

no reference to the civils designer

- Inconsistent approach to factoring between crane and civils designer

- BS 6349-1-2 suggests 0.7

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.2 Project Formulation
Load Combinations

- Project specific
- Fully consistent with chosen design approach

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.2 Project Formulation
Load Combinations

- Project specific
- Fully consistent with design approach

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.3 Project Formulation
Seismic Design Damage Criteria

Original Earthquake Criteria:

- 0.41g Horizontal
- 0.21g Vertical

Too vague:
- Bedrock or surface acceleration?
- Return period?
- Allowable damage/ performance requirements?
- Response spectrum?

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.3 Project Formulation
Seismic Design Damage Criteria

BS 6349-1-2 supplemented PIANC WG34

Property Level 1 Event – Level 2 Event – Controlled and Level 2 Event –
Serviceability Repairable Damage No Collapse

Nominal Return Period 95 years 475 years 975 years

Surface pga 0.159g 0.284g 0.362g

(BS EN 1998-1, Type 1,
Class D)
Performance Criteria Degree I Serviceable criteria Degree II repairable criteria to No collapse verified by
to WG34 Table 3.1: WG34 & controlled and ultimate limit state check
• Quay structural elements - repairable to BS6349: with combinations of
elastic behaviour of limited • Quay structural elements - actions to BS6349/
residual displacements of ductile behaviour, limited Eurocodes.
apron or wall elements as inelastic response for elements
PIANC 34 Table 4.1 or as that are repairable, and loss of
required to maintain crane serviceability for no more than
operability without several months.
derailment as Table 4.5 & 4.6 • Damage and deformation
of PIANC 34. criteria as PIANC 34 Table 4.2
and consistent with crane
damage and reparability as
PIANC 34 Table 4.5.

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 3.3 Project Formulation
Seismic Design Damage Criteria

Practical example: Rear Crane Beam

L2 Controlled and Repairable Damage:

- Linear Elastic structural analysis
- Yield of reinforcement capacity check considered
- Cracks but no large permanent deformations

L2 No Collapse
- Plastic analysis structural analysis
- Only ULS capacity checks considered
- Permanent deformation and damage would occur

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 4.0 Project Solution

Landside Interaction Curve

1600

1400

1200
Vertical (kN/m)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Horizontal (kN/m)

Operation Stowed L2 CRD L2 NC Operation Stowed L2 CRD L2 NC

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 5.0 Conclusion

Employer
Container Port Developer

Crane Manufacturer/ Civils Works

Designer Designer

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 THANK YOU
I would like to acknowledge the input of the following who were involved throughout this project, Adrian
Douglas, Sean Barker, Rose Richardson, Vasile Maier, Andrew Clarke, Barnali Ghosh, Ringo Tan, Saso
Kanagasabai, Nigel Pye and Ed Russell.

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021

 Q&A

AGA 2021 / 26 & 27 May 2021