Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2018, Article ID 6527307, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6527307

Research Article
Probability Analysis of Crane Load and
Load Combination Actions

Jitao Yao, Hui Gu , and Liuzhuo Chen

School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Hui Gu; [email protected]

Received 11 April 2018; Revised 13 June 2018; Accepted 4 July 2018; Published 17 July 2018

Academic Editor: Luis Martı́nez

Copyright © 2018 Jitao Yao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This study presents probability models of crane load and load combination actions for reliability analysis of the industry buildings.
Crane load values are simplified here only varying in time, and load combination actions only vary in space. With the feasible
survey program and K-S test, the Gumbel distribution is chosen as the probability distribution of the arbitrary point-in-time crane
load values with the statistical investigation data. With the simple stationary binomial random process model hypothesis and the
block maxima method, it determined that the maximum value of crane load during the design reference period also follows the
Gumbel distribution, with the peaks-over-threshold method evaluation. For multiple crane load combination actions, the modified
Turkstra rule is improved to determine the probability distribution of the actions as the Gumbel distribution by considering the
occurrence probability, numbers, location, and values of each crane load acting on the influence line, evaluated by the Monte Carlo
simulations. Design standard values for crane loads and load combination actions, as specified in building codes, are evaluated
based on these distributions in probability significance. The calculation results illustrate that the design standard values for crane
loads are relatively safe and conservative.

1. Introduction of the industry buildings designed with these above codes of

considering the crane loads is unknown.
Crane load is a free dynamic action, which has arbitrary In the Probabilistic model code of the Joint Committee
spatial distributions over crane supporting structures within on Structural Safety (JCSS) [5], it proved the basis method
given limits and causes significant structural acceleration. on building the probability models for load and load actions.
Crane load is a random variable varying in time and space That is, determining the probability distribution of the arbi-
dimensions within the design reference period and is denoted trary point-in-time values with the statistical investigation
as random field model [1, 2]. General specifications stipulate data in independent statistical interval, and the probability
the design value of the crane load and load capabilities, distribution of the maximum values during the design ref-
such as EN1991-3: Eurocode 1-actions on structures-Part 3: erence period by being simplified to the stationary binomial
actions induced by cranes and machinery [1], ACSE/SEI 7- random process. When more than one variable loads act
05: minimum design loads for buildings and other struc- in combination, simplified rules such as JCSS or Turkstra
tures [3], and GB50009-2012: load code for the design of combination rule applied to the reliability calculation of the
building structures [4]. However, these codes do not give first-order second-moment method (FOSM) are applied to
an acceptable load probability models except GB50009-2012 the load action probability model. But crane load is much
[4] which have done some traditional statistical surveys and different with other live loads when using the model code. In
load experiments while lacking theoretical analysis to give industry building, crane load and their combination actions
instructions on the validity of these data. That is to say, for the are functions of both time and space [6]. The time variable
dynamic action in these codes, there are no acceptable load shows the different crane load values in different points
probability models for crane load and load actions have been in time. The space variable includes the position of the
approved for reliability analysis. It means the actual reliability crane and the crab (Figure 1). To determine the probability
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

１Ｌ,Ｇ；Ｒ １Ｌ,Ｇ；Ｒ ∑１Ｌ,Ｇ；Ｒ ∑１Ｌ,(Ｇ；Ｒ) １Ｌ,(Ｇ；Ｒ) １Ｌ,(Ｇ；Ｒ)

① ①
②
②
③ ③
１Ｂ,ＨＩＧ
K K
？ＧＣＨ
B B
l

(a) Load arrangement of the loaded crane use to obtain the maximum vertical load on the runway beam
g+Q
①
②
（４,1 （４,2
②
G
① K B
K
B （４,1 （４,2

（，,1 （，,2
l

(b) Load arrangement of longitudinal and transverse horizontal wheel forces caused by acceleration and
deceleration

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of load arrangements of the vertical load and horizontal force, where A is the crab; B is the crane bridge; C is
the crane beam. Qr,max is the maximum load per wheel of the loaded crane. Qr,(max) is the accompanying load per wheel of the loaded crane.
∑ Qr,max is the sum of the maximum loads Qr,max per runway of the loaded crane. ∑ Qr,(max) is the sum of the accompanying maximum loads
Qr,(max) per runway of the loaded crane. Qh,nom is the nominal hoist load. emin is the minimum distance between the hoist point and the crane
wheel. 𝑙 is the span of the crane bridge. K is the wheel distance of the crane. B is the width of the crane. g is the self-weight of the crab. G
is the self-weight of the crane. Q is the hoist load. HT,𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2) is the transverse horizontal wheel forces. 𝐻L,𝑖 (𝑖 = 1, 2) is the longitudinal
horizontal wheel forces.

distribution of the point-in-time crane load values, the worst- of the investigation data of [4], to obtain the probability
case situation should be considered in the simplified analysis, distribution of the arbitrary point-in-time crane load values
considering the actual measured maximum load for the with the time-space exchange method theory and the time-
crab worst-case position (in Figure 1), but the independent space-dimensional variable separation method. And it mod-
statistical interval is too long to do the investigation and ified the Turkstra rule to determine the probability model
obtain enough samples (with the operating period as 20 of the multiple crane load combination actions based on
years). And to determine the probability distribution of the the actual operating case. The probability model of crane
crane load actions with multiple cranes acting on a beam, the load and load combination actions can be improved as
traditional JCSS or Turkstra combination rule considering follows. Firstly, simplifying a crane load action process as
the different load actions is not effective, for multiple cranes the stationary binomial random process, the design reference
with respective crane loads acting different with multiple period is divided into equal independent intervals, using
loads. It is much more dependent on the actual production the time-space exchange method theory and the time-space-
process, and with little uncertainty with survey results. With dimensional variable separation method to determine the
actual investigation, if multiple cranes are acting on beam, executable observation interval. With the actual survey data,
the synchronous occurrence probability of two cranes on the the probability distribution of the arbitrary point-in-time
span beam is 1 (it means in the operating period, two cranes crane load values is determined, considering only time and
will simultaneously act on the same span beam more than crab position variability. Secondly, the probability distribu-
once) and the synchronous occurrence probability of three tion of the random maximum process load during the design
cranes is almost 0. That is to say, two cranes are certainly reference period is derived with the stationary binomial ran-
synchronous at least once. If two cranes are synchronous, the dom process theory and the block maxima method [7]. Lastly,
possible computational maximum load (with ‘full load’ for the crane position variable is considered with the occurrence
each crane) is almost zero. When determining the probability probability along the crane beam influence line during the
model and statistical parameters for crane load combination operation period [4]; the modified Turkstra rule is improved
actions, these above two points need to be considered. to calculate the multiple crane load combination actions con-
In this paper, the available method was improved to sidering the occurrence probability, occurrence load values,
obtain the enough samples and certificate the availability and occurrence position. The influence line is ensured by the
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

worst-case effect of the load actions (Figure 1(a)). What is location of each crane having only space randomness. That
more, the above simple methods obtained the distribution is to say, the macroscopic statistical law for the crane action
expression formulas of the crane loads and multiple crane (the number and location on the influence line) has nothing
load combination actions can be directly used for FOSM to do with time, but the position of adjacent cranes with
reliability calculation. With the peaks-over-threshold method respect to each other is restricted. Considering the above
(more precise but could not prove expression formula) to features of crane load through time, it can be simplified to
verify the distribution of the crane loads and the Monte Carlo a stationary binomial random process to improve probabil-
simulations (more precise but could not prove expression ity distributions of the arbitrary point-in-time values and
formula) to verify the distribution of the multiple crane maximum values during the design reference period. And
load combination actions; these above simple methods and considering the space randomness features of crane load
distribution functions are acceptable. action, crane load combination actions can be calculated
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 using the combination method on the influence line [4].
states the arbitrary point-in-time distribution and the max- This study only discusses the overhead traveling crane
imum value distribution during the crane load design refer- and crane beams to illustrate this method. With different
ence period and improves the distribution of multiple crane characteristics and load conditions for different crane clas-
load combination actions using the influence line method. sifications, eight working levels of overhead traveling cranes
Section 3 constructs the evaluated results of the above dis- are used in China. Within the same working level, cranes
tribution with the peaks-over-threshold method for crane have different weight classes, hoisting heights, and working
loads and Monte Carlo simulations for multiple crane load speeds. To ensure a proper probability analysis for crane load
combination actions. The probability evaluated significance and actions, different working levels should be distinguished.
of the design standard crane load and load combination Crane load includes a vertical load and horizontal force with
methods specified in Chinese load code are introduced in different load directions. The vertical load is composed of
Section 4. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions. the weight of the hoisted block and the hoist load, generally
shown as vertical wheel loads on a runway beam [4]. The
2. Probability Models of Crane Load and Load maximum vertical load is determined by considering the load
Combination Actions arrangements shown in Figure 1(a). Horizontal forces include
the longitudinal horizontal force and transverse horizontal
2.1. Methods of Building Crane Load Model. Multiple esti- force. The longitudinal horizontal force acts horizontally at
mation methods for building load models during the design the traction surface of the runway beam in either direction
reference period have been developed, including the block parallel to the beam. The transverse horizontal force acts
maxima method [8, 9] and peaks-over-threshold (POT) horizontally at the traction surface of the runway beam in
method [8, 10]. The block maxima method is based on the either direction, perpendicular to the beam, and is equally
stationary binomial random process model hypothesis and distributed on each side of the crane bridge (Figure 1(b)).
the extreme value distribution theory of random variables. It Here we only consider the transverse horizontal force.
divides the complete time history sample into equally sized
blocks and extracts the maximum load values from each 2.2. Crane Load Arbitrary Point-In-Time Distribution. When
block. Assuming that the block maximum is independently considering a single crane load on the influence line, the
and identically distributed, the distribution of extremes is following assumptions of a stationary binomial random
then determined. In order to ensure model accuracy, the process for the crane load (vertical loads and horizontal
load, as a broad stationary stochastic process, should be forces) are necessary:
independent during the block maximum [9, 11, 12]. This (1) The design reference period 𝑇 is divided into 𝑟 equal
block maxima method can prove an expression formula statistical intervals 𝜏 (𝑟 = 𝑇/𝜏), and the maximum crane load
of the maximum value distribution during the crane load in each interval is independent.
design reference period for FOSM reliability calculated. The (2) In each statistical interval, the occurrence probability
POT method deals with multiple independent peaks above for the maximum crane load is 1, while the nonoccurrence
a preselected high threshold, and the extreme value theory probability is 0.
warrants use of a generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) as an (3) The probability distribution for the maximum crane
adequate model for peaks over the threshold [10, 13, 14]. The load 𝑄max (𝜏) in interval 𝜏 can be denoted with
POT method contains a more precise theory than the block
maxima method, but with much more complex calculations 𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥) = 𝑃 [𝑄max (𝜏) ≤ 𝑥] (1)
and without expression formula [15, 16]. In this paper, the
block maxima method was used to build the crane load model where the function 𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥) can be called the arbitrary point-
with an expression formula, and the POT method was used in-time value probability distribution, which is determined
to evaluate the model result. by the magnitudes of the maximum crane load in different
Crane load is only determined using the hoist weight intervals.
and the crab position from the survey results. To simplify, For a general crane beam in China, the design reference
the crane load value only considers time randomness and is period is commonly 50 years [4]. The longer the design life,
seldom of immediate relevance to the crane position. And the higher the probability that the maximum load occurs.
crane load actions are affected by crane position, with the This is related to the design reference period and is affected
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

by the frequency of crane replacement, the operating cycle, data. Using the above-mentioned method, the statistical
vacancy time, nominal hoist load, and crane working level. results from [4] can be used to improve the probability
Generally, crane vacancy is not considered during the design distribution of the arbitrary point-in-time crane load values.
life. The replacement frequency and operating cycle are For the vertical load and transverse horizontal force of
determined according to survey results. To ensure indepen- overhead traveling cranes, the probability distribution of the
dence of the maximum crane load in each interval 𝜏, the arbitrary point-in-time crane load values are expressed as
operating period should be regarded as the statistical interval 𝐹VS (𝑥) and 𝐹HS (𝑥). These two loads, respectively, refer to
of crane replacement. The operating period, including the the maximum wheel pressure and the maximum transverse
nonoperating and operating period of time, depended on the horizontal force caused by acceleration or deceleration of
crane replacement time. According to the design code for the crab in relation to its movement along the crane bridge.
Actually, the transverse horizontal force here includes the
cranes: the GB/T 3811-2008 [17], the D\bf 27584-88 [18], and
force caused by the skewing of the crane in relation to its
the D\bf 22827-85 [19], the operating period for an overhead
movement along the runway beams. At different working
traveling crane is 20 years. Thus, the equal statistical interval levels, nominal hoist loads result in large divergences, and
𝜏 should be taken as 20 years. the ‘unified standard for reliability of building structures’
Normally, during each operating period, the nominal uses dimensionless quantities to normalize the original data
hoist load and work level of the crane and other main with actual measured values (𝑊Cmeasured or 𝐷HKmeasured ) for the
technical parameters do not change after replacement [4]. corresponding standard design value (WC or DHK ) [20]. WC
Crane load values and maximum crane load values are is the nominal maximum wheel pressure; DHK is the sum of
random and need to be considered for structural reliability the nominal hoist load QHK ; and g is the self-weight of the
analysis. To simplify, the maximum crane load value in each crab [17]. Statistical results for different working level cranes
statistical interval is assumed to follow the same probability are discussed below. According to survey results in [4] and K-
distribution [12]. Meaning the maximum crane load 𝑄max (𝜏) S test, the Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of the
in each interval is a nonnegative random variable, and the 𝐹VS (𝑥) and 𝐹HS (𝑥) are expressed as
probability distribution during different intervals is identical.
Load through, in theory, should be obtained with the maxi- −𝛼VS (𝑥 − 𝛽VS 𝑊C )
𝐹VS (𝑥) = exp {− exp [ ]} (2)
mum crane load values in each statistical interval by statistical 𝑊C
investigation, but the statistical interval 𝜏 is too long to obtain
enough samples. A feasible method for effective investigation −𝛼HS (𝑥 − 𝛽HS 𝐷HK )
𝐹HS (𝑥) = exp {− exp [ ]} (3)
should be put forward. 𝐷HK
As a tool of moving and transporting material, cranes are
where the subscripts VS and HS refer to the arbitrary point-
used in various fields to handle heavy objects [6]. Generally,
in-time values of the vertical load and the transverse hori-
when the crane structure is engaged in regular heavy work, zontal force; 𝛼VS , 𝛼HS and 𝛽VS , 𝛽HS are the scale and location
there is a small observation interval Δ𝜏 in which all possible parameters, respectively, calculated as 𝛼VS = 1.2825/𝜎VS ,
crane operating conditions within a complete operating 𝛽VS = 𝜇VS − 0.5772/𝛼VS , 𝛼HS = 1.2825/𝜎HS , and 𝛽HS =
period can be observed. The observation interval Δ𝜏 should 𝜇HS − 0.5772/𝛼HS , where 𝜇VS , 𝜇HS , and 𝜎VS , 𝜎HS are the total
be determined according to the nominal hoist load, work means and standard deviations approximated by the sample
level, and production cycle to ensure that crane loads in means and standard deviations. The values of these statistical
this small observation interval provide the sufficient record results and model parameters for different working levels and
with a complete load history. Additionally, the chosen Δ𝜏 nominal hoist loads are listed in Table 1 [4]. Considering the
should ensure that crane loads in every observation interval fact that transverse horizontal forces are primarily affected by
are identical and completely relevant. The values of Δ𝜏 are the nominal hoist load, the statistics of the working level are
empirically estimated from observations and consultations not distinguished.
with operators and factory employees. The maximum crane
load in the observation interval is determined by statistical 2.3. Maximum Crane Load Distribution during the Design Ref-
surveys and load experiments. erence Period. Using the stationary binomial random process
According to the time-space exchange method theory, model described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the crane load sample
the maximum crane load samples during the statistical function can be represented as a rectangle wave function with
intervals 𝜏 (actually measured in observation interval) for equal intervals [5]. The maximum value in random process
many similar crane types (but not the same crane) in their 𝑄max (𝑇) during the design reference period 𝑇 should be the
respective working plants with spatial-dimension statistics, maximum statistical interval 𝑄max (𝜏). 𝑄max (𝑇) is a random
can be approximated using samples from several statistical variable of 𝑄max (𝑇) = max0≤𝑡≤𝑇 [𝑄max (𝜏)], whose probability
intervals of the same crane through time. The distribution distribution is [5, 20]
can be determined from these samples and validated using 𝐹𝑄𝑇 (𝑥) = 𝑃 {𝑄max (𝑇) ≤ 𝑥}
the K-S test. Reference [4] did the actual survey on 57
cranes with the light, medium, and heavy working level = 𝑃 { max [𝑄max (𝜏)] ≤ 𝑥}
in different factories with different production process in 0≤𝜏≤𝑇 (4)
Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang, Anshan, Dalian, and so on. It 𝑟
𝑇/𝜏
choose the maximum crane load in about 5 years (means the = ∏𝑃 {𝑄max (𝜏) ≤ 𝑥, 𝜏 ∈ 𝜏𝑗 } ≈ [𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥)]
observation interval Δ𝜏 here is taken as 5) as the statistical 𝑗=1
 Table 1: Crane load probability model and statistical parameters.
The arbitrary point-in-time value distribution The maximum value distribution (𝑇 = 50𝑎)
Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Working level QHK /t statistical results [4] model parameters Moments model parameters
𝜇VS 𝜎VS 𝛼VS 𝛽VS 𝜇VM 𝜎VM 𝛼VM 𝛽VM
2 0.520 0.055 23.318 0.495 0.559 0.055 23.318 0.535
Light A1-A3 3 0.460 0.071 18.063 0.428 0.511 0.071 18.063 0.479
5 0.370 0.069 18.587 0.339 0.419 0.069 18.587 0.388
5 0.610 0.037 34.662 0.593 0.636 0.037 34.662 0.620
10 0.520 0.045 28.500 0.500 0.552 0.045 28.500 0.532
Medium A4-A5
15/3 0.490 0.050 25.650 0.467 0.526 0.050 25.650 0.503
THE VERTICAL LOAD
20/5 0.420 0.041 31.280 0.402 0.449 0.041 31.280 0.431
5 0.640 0.071 18.063 0.608 0.691 0.071 18.063 0.659
10 0.490 0.069 18.587 0.459 0.539 0.069 18.587 0.508
Heavy A6-A7 15/3 0.500 0.056 22.902 0.475 0.540 0.056 22.902 0.515
30/5 0.460 0.065 19.731 0.431 0.506 0.065 19.731 0.477
50/10 0.380 0.050 25.650 0.357 0.416 0.050 25.650 0.393
QHK /t 𝜇HS 𝜎HS 𝛼HS 𝛽HS 𝜇HM 𝜎HM 𝛼HM 𝛽HM
5 0.079 0.028 45.804 0.066 0.099 0.028 45.804 0.086
10 0.053 0.016 80.156 0.046 0.064 0.016 80.156 0.057
THE HORIZONTAL FORCES
20 0.046 0.014 91.607 0.040 0.056 0.014 91.607 0.050
30 0.043 0.011 116.591 0.038 0.051 0.011 116.591 0.046
75 0.038 0.013 98.654 0.032 0.047 0.013 98.654 0.041
Note. The actual statistical results for vertical load and transverse horizontal force should be multiplied by WC and DHK , respectively. The crane nominal hoist load is represented by QHK . The horizontal forces here
refer to the total forces on the two sides of the crane bridge.
5
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

The first crane The second crane

Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2
＋1 ＞ＧＣn ＋2

＂1 ＂2
A C B

(a) The position of the two cranes in a combination action

Q0.5,Ｇ；Ｒ, (or Q0,Ｇ；Ｒ,)
QＧ；Ｒ,４ QＧ；Ｒ,４

The first crane The second crane

A C B

(b) The values of two cranes' combination with modified Turkstra method

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of two cranes acting in combination on a runway beam. Note: L is the adjacent column spacing (the span of the
crane beam); point 𝐴 and point 𝐵 are the crane beam bearing connections; point 𝐶 is the mid-span position of the beam; Bi (i = 1, 2) is the
width of the crane; Ki (i = 1, 2) is the wheel distance of the crane; and 𝑄𝑖 (𝑥) (𝑖 = 1, 2) expresses the load (vertical load or horizontal force)
for each crane.

The maximum value probability distribution of vertical on the influence line must be confirmed. Then a combi-
load and horizontal force during the design reference period, nation probability model using influence line method can
obtained using (4) and the corresponding arbitrary point-in- be determined. This paper uses the influence line of the
time value distribution given by (2) and (3), is expressed as a crane beam mid-span bending moment (point 𝐶 in Figure 2)
Gumbel (type Ι) distribution of 𝐹VM (𝑥) and 𝐹HM (𝑥) as an example to illustrate the theoretical method. Other
combination crane actions on the crane beam or column
𝑇/𝜏
𝐹VM (𝑥) = [𝐹VS (𝑥)] should be the same.

−𝛼VM (𝑥 − 𝛽VM 𝑊C ) (5)

= exp {− exp [ ]} 2.4.1. Number and Location of Cranes. Although we assume
𝑊C that the random number of cranes on the influence line
𝑇/𝜏
has nothing to do with the time interval, the most possible
𝐹HM (𝑥) = [𝐹HS (𝑥)] case with the number of cranes on a crane beam should
(6) be obtained by observation over each observation interval.
−𝛼HM (𝑥 − 𝛽HM 𝐷HK ) The number of cranes on a span crane beam is an uncertain
= exp {− exp [ ]}
𝐷HK variable; however, it is simplified as the certain number about
the most frequent maximum number in the observation
where the subscripts VM and HM represent the mean maxi- interval for reliability analysis [20]. Cranes that operate
mum value of vertical load and horizontal force, respectively, together should be treated as a single crane to determine the
during the design reference period. 𝛼VM , 𝛼HM and 𝛽VM , 𝛽HM combination actions. If several cranes operate independently,
are the scale and location parameters, calculated as 𝛼VM = meaning the combination action varies in time, the number
𝛼VS = 1.2825/𝜎VS , 𝛼HM = 𝛼HS = 1.2825/𝜎HS , 𝛽VM = 𝛽VS + of cranes to be considered in the worst-case position may
ln(𝑇/𝜏)/𝛼VS , and 𝛽HM = 𝛽HS + ln(𝑇/𝜏)/𝛼HS . Mean values and be specified by an engineering survey. Considering the
standard deviations 𝜇VM , 𝜇HM and 𝜎VM , 𝜎HM are calculated design load such as EN1991-3 [1], ASCE/SEI 7-05 [3], and
using 𝜇VM = 𝛽VM + 0.5772/𝛼VM , 𝜇HM = 𝛽HM + 0.5772/𝛼HM , GB50009-2012 [4], and the survey of [21] in China, two-
𝜎VM = 1.2825/𝛼VM , and 𝜎HM = 1.2825/𝛼HM . Parameters crane combination on the same crane beam is considered.
for different working levels and nominal hoist loads are listed Additionally, if the maximum number in each observation
in Table 1. The design reference period 𝑇 and the statistical interval is recommended as the sample for investigation, the
intervals 𝜏 are taken as 50 years and 20 years, respectively. two-crane load occurrence probability is approximately 1.
This would be the worst-case statistical interval for analysis,
2.4. Probability Distribution of Multiple Crane Load Com- having nothing to do with time. Therefore, two cranes should
bination Actions. To determine the probability distribution be considered when determining the distribution of the crane
of multiple crane load combination actions, the occurrence load combination actions on the bending moment influence
probability as well as the number and emergence location line [21].
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

One crane is taken as always located at the worst-case minimum distance between the adjacent wheels of the two
position on the crane beam, and the second crane moves different cranes, depending on the size of the cranes (Bi
based on a uniform distribution along the adjacent operating and Ki in Figure 2). The means and standard deviations of
range (Figure 2(a)). the distance 𝑑 are calculated as 𝜇𝑑 = (L + 2dmin )/4 and
𝜎𝑑 = (L − 2dmin )/4√3, respectively. The outer wheel of the
2.4.2. The Modified Turkstra Method for Crane Load Combi- first crane near the second crane is always located at the
nation Actions. When multiple cranes act on the influence maximum bearing moment value position on the bearing
line, it is almost impossible that each crane operated at moment influence line (point C) (Figure 3). The influence
their respective maximum load values. If these maximum line ordinate of the first crane is expressed as 𝑦1 = 𝑦1,max =
values are used together, the combination result will be (L − K1 )/2. The influence line ordinate of the second crane 𝑦2
too conservative. Therefore, when determining the design follows a piecewise uniform distribution:
combination coefficient of multiple crane loads, short-term 1 L
crane loads should be taken into account [21]. The heavy {
{ 2 (L − 2𝑑 − K2 ) 𝑑 ∈ [dmin , 2 − K2 )
working level (A6-A7) cranes are considered to be “one 𝑦2 = { 1 (7)
{ L L
full and one-half”; medium and light working level (A1–A5) (L − 2𝑑) 𝑑 ∈ [ − K2 , ]
{4 2 2
cranes are considered as “one full and one empty.” Here the
“full,” “half,” and “empty” terms refer to the crane hoist load These two stages are shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(b),
being full, half, and zero compared to the nominal hoist load respectively. If the case probability shown in Figure 3(a) is
QHK [2, 4]. This suggestion comes from engineering research calculated as 𝑃1 = 1−2K2 /(L−2dmin ), and the case probability
[21] and takes the impact of the crane working level into shown in Figure 3(b) is calculated as 𝑃2 = 2K2 /(L−2dmin ), for
account. 𝑃1 +𝑃2 = 1, the influence line ordinates 𝑦2 can be transformed
To determine the distribution for multiple crane load as
combination actions, the Turkstra method is modified as
𝑃1 𝑃
follows. With two cranes acting on the beam, the main crane 𝑦2 = (L − 2𝑑 − K2 ) + 2 (L − 2𝑑)
(commonly with the larger crane load) is taken as the first 2 4
crane located at the worst-case position, and the adjacent (8)
(1 + 𝑃1 ) L 𝑃1 K2 (1 + 𝑃1 ) 𝑑
crane is taken as the second crane, whose position is regarded = − −
as a uniform distribution along the operating range. The 4 2 2
occurrence probability of each crane on the influence line is The mean and standard deviation of 𝑦2 can be calculated as
1. The first crane takes the “full load,” meaning the maximum
load during the design reference period 𝑇. The second crane (1 + 𝑃1 ) L 𝑃1 K2 (1 + 𝑃1 ) 𝜇𝑑
takes the “half load” or “empty load,” respectively, for A6- 𝜇𝑦2 = − −
4 2 2
A7 or A1–A5 working levels, meaning reduced arbitrary
point-in-time values within the statistical interval 𝜏. The L − 2dmin − K2 K2 (L − 2dmin − 2K2 )
= − (9)
modified Turkstra combination method shows the worst-case 4 2 (L − 2dmin )
combination of the two cranes for the bending moment of the
mid-span (point 𝐶), where 𝑄max,𝑇 is the maximum value of (L − 2dmin ) 3K2 K2 2
“full load” during the design reference period (the vertical = − +
4 4 (L − 2dmin )
load 𝑉max,𝑇 and the horizontal force 𝐻max,𝑇) (Figure 2(b)).
𝑄0.5,max,𝜏 and 𝑄0,max,𝜏 are the “half” and ‘empty’ loads of the (1 + 𝑃1 ) 𝜎𝑑 L − 2dmin − K2
reduction arbitrary point-in-time values (the vertical load 𝜎𝑦2 = = (10)
2 4√3
𝑉0.5,max,𝜏 , 𝑉0,max,𝜏 and the horizontal force 𝐻0.5,max,𝜏 , 𝐻0,max,𝜏 ).
The crane load combination action 𝑆 applied by multiple
2.4.3. Probability Models for Multiple Crane Combinations. cranes on the crane beam is a function of the crane loads
When the first and second cranes are located at the worst- and their corresponding influence line ordinates. Probability
case position along the influence line, the sum of the influence distributions and moment parameters of these independent
line ordinates is expressed as 𝑦1,max = (L − K1 )/2 and 𝑦2,max = variables are known. To calculate reliability index, these
(L − K2 )/2 − dmin . Considering the probability combination, variables can be considered as independent random variables,
the actual values are expressed as 𝑦1 and 𝑦2 . With the or simplified into a comprehensive variable 𝑆 for convenience:
modified Turkstra method, 𝑦1 = 𝑦1,max , and 𝑦2 is taken 𝑆
as a random value in the random interval [0, 𝑦2,max ]. When (11)
the second crane position follows a uniform distribution = {(𝑦1 𝑄max,𝑇 + 𝑦2 𝑄0.5,max,𝜏 ) 𝑜𝑟 (𝑦1 𝑄max,𝑇 + 𝑦2 𝑄0,max,𝜏 )}
within its operating range, 𝑦2 follows a piecewise uniform
distribution, expressed as a function of distance 𝑑 between All random variables in (11) are assumed as mutu-
the adjacent wheels of the two different cranes. Based on ally independent and uncorrelated. The 𝑆 distribution type
the analysis in Section 2.4.2, the first crane is fixed, and depends on the distribution types of these independent
the second crane follows a uniform distribution of distance variables. Considering the fact that crane load plays a decisive
U[dmin , L/2], where dmin = (B1 + B2 − K1 − K2 )/2 is the role in the distribution type of the combination action, the
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

The first crane The second crane

Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2
＞ＧＣn

A C B

Q1 Q2 Q2
，/2-＋2

，/4-＋1 /2 ，/4-d/2-＋2 /2
L/4-d/2
L/4
(a) 𝑑 ∈ [dmin , L/2 − K2 )
The first crane The second crane
Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2
，/2-＋2

A C B

Q1 Q2 Q2
L/2

，/4-＋1 /2 ，/4-d/2-＋2 /2
L/4 L/4-d/2

(b) 𝑑 ∈ [L/2 − K2 , L/2]

Figure 3: Schematic diagram showing the two stages function of the influence line ordinate 𝑦2 .

Gumbel (type Ι) distribution is assumed as the distribution are determined according to the error transfer formula.
type, which simplifies the type of crane load combination The assumed distribution and calculated parameters are
action 𝑆 for FORM analysis [5]. Distribution parameters evaluated in Section 3.2.

𝜇𝑆 = {(𝑦1 𝜇𝑄max,𝑇 + 𝜇𝑦2 𝜇𝑄0.5,max,𝜏 ) 𝑜𝑟 (𝑦1 𝜇𝑄max,𝑇 + 𝜇𝑦2 𝜇𝑄0,max,𝜏 )} (12)

0.5 0.5
𝜎𝑆 = {(𝑦1 2 𝜎𝑄max,𝑇 2 + 𝜇𝑦2 2 𝜎𝑄0.5,max,𝜏 2 + 𝜇𝑄0.5,max,𝜏 2 𝜎𝑦2 2 ) 𝑜𝑟 (𝑦1 2 𝜎𝑄max,𝑇 2 + 𝜇𝑦2 2 𝜎𝑄0,max,𝜏 2 + 𝜇𝑄0,max,𝜏 2 𝜎𝑦2 2 ) } (13)

3. Assessment of the Assumed Distribution 3.1. Checking the Maximum Crane Load Value Distribution
and Calculated Parameters of 𝑆 Using the Peaks-Over-Threshold Method. As a discontinu-
ous stochastic process through time, crane load should be
In Section 2, the maximum value distribution of the crane regarded as Poisson rectangular wave if the load amplitude
loads during the design reference period is established. Using changes to a rectangular form during the design period
the modified Turkstra method, the probability model of
and the amplitude is constant for each time interval. This
multiple crane combination actions on the crane beam is
improved. In this section, these expression formulas distribu- process assumes that both the amplitude change (𝑘) during
tions will be estimated by the POT and Monte Carlo methods the design period and action time interval (𝑡𝑖 = 𝜏𝑖 ) are
(much more precise theory but without expression formula random variables. The average number of action changes per
method), respectively. unit-time is represented as 𝜆 = 1/𝜏.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

Table 2: Statistics of combination actions.

Experimental results Calculated results
Crane load STD STD Mean relative STD relative
category Mean (Standard Skewness Median Mean (Standard error error
Deviation) Deviation)
vertical loads 202.87 18.91 0.28 202.01 200.11 22.66 0.014 0.198
horizontal forces 26.86 7.64 0.98 25.73 28.04 7.90 0.044 0.034

The magnitude of the maximum crane load is a nonnega- using the Poisson rectangular wave process). The maximum
tive value in each operating time, whose probability distri- value is larger than the arbitrary point-in-time value for the
butions in different time intervals are identical. Maximum same guarantee rate. The maximum value method and the
crane load values during each action time interval (𝜏𝑖 ) are POT method for the tail of the distribution functions are in
changeless, and the probability distributions in each 𝜏𝑖 are approximate agreement. The maximum value method has the
the same. The number of action changes 𝑘 during the design highest quotient representing the most reliable result.
reference period follows a Poisson process [22]
3.2. Checking Crane Load Combination Distribution Actions
(𝜆𝑇)𝑘 Distribution Using Monte Carlo Simulation. To estimate the
𝑃 [𝑁 (𝑇) = 𝑘] = exp (−𝜆𝑇) (14)
𝑘! assumed distribution and the calculated parameters of the
If the arbitrary point-in-time value probability distribu- crane load combination action 𝑆, some adequate sample
tion is 𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥), the mean upcrossing rate at any threshold 𝑥 data are directly collected from the random data using the
per unit-time is Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) method. Considering the
probability distributions of these random variables in (11)
𝜐+ (𝑥) = 𝜆 (1 − 𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥)) (15) and the actual cases in Figure 3, as well as using the example
crane mentioned in Section 3.1, let two identical cranes act
Invoking the Poisson assumption of upcrossings, the on a beam with a span of 12 m. Through calculations, the
extreme value distribution during the design reference period reduction factors for the arbitrary point-in-time values of
𝑇 is calculated in terms of a generalized extreme value (GEV) the vertical loads and the horizontal forces with the “empty
distribution [23]. The maximum crane load is a pulse-type load” considering about A5 working levels here are 0.61 and
load not a continuous-type load during each action time 0.25, respectively. We wrote a MATLAB program to obtain
interval (𝜏𝑖 ); the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the combination action date. To ensure simulation error is
the maximum crane load during the design reference period less than 0.005, the simulation must be larger than 1537
𝐹𝑄𝑇 (𝑥) is times [2]. For 10000 times simulation and 10000 empirical
samples, the empirical histograms and CDFs are shown in
𝐹𝑄𝑇 (𝑥) = Prob {𝑄max (𝑇) ≤ 𝑥} = exp [−𝜐+ (𝑥) 𝑇] Figure 5. The assumed distributions (PDFs and CDFs) with
(16) the calculated parameters are shown in Figure 5. Using the
= exp [−𝜆𝑇 (1 − 𝐹𝑄𝜏 (𝑥))] Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, the data does not reject the
null hypothesis of the Gumbel (type Ι) distribution at the
With (16), the maximum value CDFs of the vertical default 5% significance level. Distribution parameters of the
load and horizontal force calculated by (5) and (6) can be random experimental combination actions and the calculated
evaluated. Here a crane load with a medium working level results are summarized in Table 2. For the comparison results
(A5) and 𝑄HK =5t is chosen as an example for analysis. With of the vertical load in Figure 5(a), when the crane load
this crane designed by the Dalian Lifting Machinery Group, combination action 𝑆 is less than 225, the probability of 𝑆
the corresponding performance parameters are 𝑙 = 19.5 m, B appearing is slightly higher than in the Gumbel distribution
= 4.77 m, K = 4 m, G = 13.9 t, g = 1.698t, and WC = 69 kN [24]. mode; and when it is more than 225, the probability is slightly
The CDFs and PDFs (Probability Distribution Functions) of lower. That means with the improved load model here, the
the arbitrary point-in-time value and maximum value during calculated value of reliable indicator is slightly lower than
the design reference period are determined by the maximum actual value with smaller load values (conservative for the
value method in Section 2.3. The POT method for vertical project), and slightly higher with larger load values (not
load and horizontal force is shown in Figure 4. Other crane conservative for the project). With the conservative reliability
cases demonstrate similar results. calculation method of FOSM [23], and the less deviation of
In Figure 4, the distribution of the arbitrary point-in-time the distribution parameters (in Table 2), the final calculation
value is plotted in (2) and (3) with the statistical parameters should be acceptable. For the comparison results of the
listed in Table 1 (the black line). The distribution of the horizontal force in Figure 5(b), the improved load model and
maximum value during the design reference period 𝑇 = 50 the actual value are almost consistent. So, the Gumbel (type
years is plotted using (5) and (6) with the maximum value Ι) distribution and the distribution parameters determined
method (the red line, using the stationary binomial random in Section 2.4.3 for the crane load combination actions are
process) and (16) with the POT method (the blue line, satisfactory.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

PDF CDF
0.2 1

0.18

0.16 0.8

0.14

0.12 0.6

0.1

0.08 0.4

0.06

0.04 0.2

0.02

0 0
30 40 50 60 70 30 40 50 60 70
value of the vertical loads value of the vertical loads

Line 1 Line 1
Line 2 Line 2
Line 3 Line 3
(a) Validation of the vertical load model
PDF CDF
1

0.9
0.25
0.8

0.7
0.2
0.6

0.15 0.5

0.4
0.1
0.3

0.2
0.05
0.1

0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
value of the horizontal forces value of the horizontal forces

Line 1 Line 1
Line 2 Line 2
Line 3 Line 3
(b) Validation of the horizontal force model

Figure 4: CDF and PDF of the arbitrary point-in-time distribution, the maximum value distribution during the design reference period
determined by (a) the maximum value method and (b) the POT method for the vertical load and the horizontal force (for interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article). Note. Line 1: distribution of the arbitrary
point-in-time value. Line 2: distribution of the maximum value determined by POT method. Line 3: distribution of the maximum value
determined by the maximum value method.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

PDF CDF
1

0.9
X: 225
0.8 Y: 0.8718

0.7

0.6
300 0.012

F(x)
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
the vertical loads combination action the vertical loads combination action

Empirical Histogram Empirical CDF

Gumbel PDF Gumbel CDF
(a) The comparison results of the vertical load
PDF CDF
1000 0.07 1

0.8

0.6
F(x)

500 0.035

0.4

0.2

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
the horizontal force combination action the horizontal force combination action

Empirical Histogram Empirical CDF

Gumbel PDF Gumbel CDF
(b) The comparison results of the horizontal force

Figure 5: The distributions of multiple crane load combination actions simulated using the MCS method (empirical histogram and CDF
(the blue line)) and the approximate method described in Section 2 (Gumbel PDF and CDF (the red line)) for the (a) vertical load and (b)
horizontal force (for interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

4. Code Design Standard Values and combination actions for runway beam design. For overhead
Quota Levels traveling cranes, the nominal maximum wheel pressure WC
provided by the crane supplier is taken as the design standard
China “load code for the design of building structures” [4] vertical load value. WC is calculated as the sum of the bridge
provides the design load and their actions for structure weight, the rated capacity, the trolley weight, and the actual
design and engineering projects. The load code specifies maximum load effect (Figure 1). Considering the induced
the value principle for crane load and multiple crane load vertical impact or vibration force, WC is increased by a
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

dynamic factor, about 1.05 for A1-A5 working level cranes China. If some of the used assumptions are modified or some
and 1.1 for A6-A8 working level cranes. The design standard of the different chosen value parameters are changed with
value of the longitudinal horizontal force is calculated as 10% reliable survey results, it can be calculated with the same
of the maximum wheel loads of the crane. The transverse method.
horizontal force for electrically powered trolleys is calculated After crane load probability models improved, the design
by the following percentages for the sum of the rated capacity standard values specified in China load code for runway
and the weight of the hoist and trolley [4]. beam design are assessed with probability significance. With
For soft hook cranes: QHK ≤ 10t 12% high quota levels, the specified crane load and combination
10t< 𝑄𝐻𝐾 <75t 10% actions are conservative and redundant for design. For the
QHK ≥ 75t 8% standard codes used in China, the combination coefficients
For hard hook cranes: 20% to calculate the design value of the multiple crane load
When calculating multiple crane load combination combination actions could be reduced appropriately after
actions for beam design, two cranes simultaneously located analysis of the design reliability calibration results of the crane
in the worst-case positions are considered. Moreover, consid- beams and columns with different plant spans, component
ering the occurrence probability in this case, the combination sizes, various load combinations, and crane working levels.
results are reduced by a coefficient, approximately 0.9 for A1- It will be discussed in further research and another paper.
A5 working level cranes and 0.95 for A6-A8 working level
cranes. Data Availability
With the specified crane load and combination principles
for runway beam design, characteristic design values can be The data used to support the findings of this study are
calculated. With the determined distribution of crane load included within the article and [4].
and multiple crane load combination actions, the design
values can be evaluated with a quote level for exceeding
probability towards an unfavourable value during the refer- Conflicts of Interest
ence period [25]. Considering the example in Section 3, the The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
standard design values of the vertical load and the transverse
horizontal force reach 99.98% and 80.69% of quota levels, and
the design crane load combination actions of the vertical load Acknowledgments
and the transverse horizontal force reach 99.9% and 97.43%
of quota levels. The characteristic value of vertical load is The support for this work was provided in part by the
excessively conservative. The standard value of the horizontal National Key R & D Program of China Grant no. 2016YFC
force is somewhat excessive and hazardous because forces 0701301-01. This support is greatly appreciated.
caused by skewing of the crane in relation to its movement are
not considered. However, the crane load combination action References
is much safer and conservative.
[1] S EN1991-3: Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures - Part3: Actions
induced by cranes and machinery. CEN, European Committee
5. Summary and Conclusion for Standardization; 2006.6.ISBN 0580401863.
Crane load, as a two-dimensional stochastic process, is [2] Y. Wei-jun, Y. Zhi-jian, and Z. Chuan-zhi, “Statistical analysis
analysed using probability methods. The arbitrary point- of the effect of crane load in one-story industrial buildings,”
in-time value distribution of the crane load values varying Journal of Changsha Communications University, p. 01, 1995.
in time follow the Gumbel (type Ι) distribution improved [3] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
with engineering surveys and K-S test results. The maximum American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2013.
value distribution of the crane load values during the design [4] Load code for the design of building structures (GB 50009-
reference period is determined as the Gumbel (type ) dis- 2012, China Architecture Building Press, Beijing, 2012, Book
tribution using the block maxima method of the stationary number:15112.21878.
binomial random process hypothesis and evaluated with the [5] T. Vrouwenvelder, “The JCSS probabilistic model code,” Struc-
POT method for the filtration Poisson process. The maximum tural Safety, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 245–251, 1997.
value is larger than the arbitrary point-in-time value with the [6] X. Fan and X. Bi, “Reliability-Based Design Optimization for
same guarantee rate level. Crane Metallic Structure Using ACO and AFOSM Based on
The probability distribution of multiple crane load combi- China Standards,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol.
nation actions is taken as Gumbel (type ) distribution using 2015, pp. 1–12, 2015.
the modified Turkstra rule and the influence line methods. [7] J. Ding and X. Chen, “Assessment of methods for extreme value
The probability distribution is accepted by evaluation with analysis of non-Gaussian wind effects with short-term time
the Monte Carlo simulations method and the Chi-square history samples,” Engineering Structures, vol. 80, pp. 75–88, 2014.
goodness-of-fit test. [8] E. P. Smith, “An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme
The model parameters of the above distribution with Values,” Technometrics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 397-397, 2002.
the used assumptions and the chosen value parameters are [9] A. Bücher and J. Segers, “Extreme value copula estimation
determined by statistical surveys and load experiments in based on block maxima of a multivariate stationary time
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

series,” Extremes. Statistical Theory and Applications in Science,

Engineering and Economics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 495–528, 2014.
[10] S. Caires, “A comparative simulation study of the annual
maxima and the peaks-over-threshold methods,” Journal of
Offshore Mechanics Arctic Engineering, Article ID 4033563, pp.
10–1115, 2016.
[11] C D, “Maximum likelihood estimators for the extreme value
index based on the block maxima method,” Physica D: Nonlin-
ear Phenomena, Article ID 00780279, 2013, https://hal.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-315.
[12] A. Naess and O. Gaidai, “Estimation of extreme values from
sampled time series,” Structural Safety, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 325–
334, 2009.
[13] S. Saeed Far and A. K. Abd. Wahab, “Evaluation of Peaks-Over-
Threshold Method,” Ocean Science Discussions, pp. 1–25.
[14] J. Beirlant, A. Guillou, and G. Toulemonde, “Peaks-over-
threshold modeling under random censoring,” Communica-
tions in Statistics—Theory and Methods, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1158–
1179, 2010.
[15] N. Bezak, M. Brilly, and M. Šraj, “Comparison between
the peaks-over-threshold method and the annual maximum
method for flood frequency analysis,” Hydrological Sciences
Journal, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 959–977, 2014.
[16] S. Solari and M. A. Losada, “A unified statistical model for
hydrological variables including the selection of threshold for
the peak over threshold method,” Water Resources Research, vol.
48, no. 10, 2012.
[17] Design rules for cranes (GB/T 3811-2008), China Standard Press,
Beijing, 2008.
[18] “Bridge and gantry cranes. General specifications (GOST
27584-88). State Committee of the USSR. Interstate standard,”
2003, http://www.twirpx.com/file/1445854/.
[19] “Self-propelled cranes of general purpose. Specifications
(GOST 22827-85). State Committee of the USSR. Interstate
standard,” 2004, http://www.twirpx.com/file/1144880/.
[20] Unified standard for reliability design of building structures (GB
50068-2001)., Beijing, China Architecture and Building Press,
2001.
[21] Y. Jitao and G. Hui, “Probability model and combination
method of crane load of industrial building,” Journal of Building
Structures, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 160–166, 2016, in Chinese)., DOI,
10.14006/j.jzjgxb..11.020.
[22] E. Castillo, A. S. Hadi, N. Balakrishnan, and J. M. Sarabia,
Extreme value and related models with applications in engineer-
ing and science, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Wiley-
Interscience John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2005.
[23] L. Jihua, L. Zhongmin, and L. Mingshun, “Probability limit state
design of building structures,” in Probability limit state design of
building structures, China Architecture Building Press, Beijing,
1990.
[24] Reinforced Concrete Crane Beam Atlas (Annex 4) (GJBT-
759:04G323-2), Beijing: First Design & Research Institute, MI
CHINA, 2004.
[25] ISO 2394: General principles on reliability for structures.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2015.
Advances in Advances in Journal of The Scientific Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi
Decision Sciences
Hindawi
Applied Mathematics
Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Sciences

Journal of

Hindawi
Optimization
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

International Journal of
Engineering International Journal of
Mathematics
Hindawi
Analysis
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of Advances in Mathematical Problems International Journal of Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi
Numerical Analysis
Hindawi
in Engineering
Hindawi
Differential Equations
Hindawi
Nature and Society
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of Journal of Journal of Abstract and Advances in

Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematics
Hindawi
Function Spaces
Hindawi
Applied Analysis
Hindawi
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018