Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006

GROUND DEFORMATION RESPONSE OF LARGE CAPACITY CRAWLER

CRANES – A CASE REVIEW
Xiteng Liu, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Dave H. Chan, Department of Civil Engineering – University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Brian D. Gerbrandt, Sterling Crane, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT
Large capacity crawler cranes can exert considerable stress on the ground which can induce significant ground
deformation during a lifting exercise. Normally gravel is used to level the ground and a timber mat is placed on top of
the gravel to provide a working base for the crane. The bearing capacity of the soil is determined using the traditional
bearing capacity formula for shallow footing foundations. However there are a number of differences between the
bearing capacity for crane and footings. The differences are: the duration of crane loading is short, the maximum total
and differential settlement that can be tolerated by the crane is larger than a footing and the ground is subjected to
loading and unloading. In order to study the bearing capacity for cranes, the traditional method of bearing capacity
calculation is examined. The load and ground deformation response of a crawler crane was measured. Computer
simulation of the ground response was carried out using a numerical code to determine the limit load and limit
displacements. It was found that the bearing capacity for crawler cranes can be improved substantially. This paper
presents the results of the field study and the numerical simulation of the crane.

RÉSUMÉ
Les grues sur chenilles peuvent transmettre des efforts considérables aux sols et peuvent ainsi occasionner des
déformations considérables, notamment lors de la montée d’une charge excentrique. Habituellement, pour repartir le
poids de la grue, on utilise une plateforme, construite avec une base en gravier de granulométrie bien étalée surmontée
d’une épaisseur de planches de bois. La capacité portante du sol sous la grue est estimée selon la formule habituelle
utilisée pour les fondations conventionnelles a semelles peu profondes. Cependant, il y a quelques variantes à noter
entre la capacité portante pour une fondation à semelle conventionnelle et une base pour une grue sur chenilles.
Premièrement, le temps d’application des contraintes lors du chargement de la grue est très bref. Deuxièmement, le
tassement maximum total et le tassement différentiel tolérables dans le cas d’une grue sont d’une ordre de grandeur
plus élevée que ceux dans le cas d’une fondation a semelle conventionnelle. Troisièmement, le sol sous la grue est
assujetti à des cycles répétitifs de chargement/dechargement. Dans le but d’établir une formulation plus appropriée
pour la capacité portante à utiliser dans le cas spécifique des grues sur chenilles, la méthode de calcul conventionnel
de la capacité portante est analisee en détail. Les forces exercées sur le sol par la grue sur chenilles ont été mesurées
en chantier ainsi que les déformations dans le sol résultantes de ces mêmes contraintes. Une analyse numérique par
micro-ordinateur a été effectue sur la réponse du sol afin de déterminer les états limites des contraintes exercées sur le
sol et des déformations résultantes. Il a été conclu que la capacité portante requise pour supporter une grue sur
chenille peut être augmentée de façon considérable. Cet essai présente les résultats de l’analyse en chantier ainsi que
ceux de la simulation du cas de la grue sur chenille par les méthodes d’analyse numérique.

1. INTRODUCTION With the increase of lifting capacity of cranes, the

Applying the traditional bearing capacity calculation
method for shallow foundations to crawler cranes is found
to be conservative since there is a difference in the load
duration and allowable settlement between foundations
and cranes. A crane lift usually lasts from several hours
to a few days while the life span of foundations for
permanent structures may vary decades to centuries. For
shallow footings, the total settlement is usually limited to
25 mm, and the allowable differential settlement is in the
range between 1/250 and 1/500, expressed in term of
relative rotation. However, for crawler cranes, there is no
specific limitation on total settlement as long as there is
no obvious failure of the ground and the tilting of the
crane is within ±0.5 percent during its operation, as
suggested by many crane manufacturers.
maximum track pressure of large crawler cranes may
reach about 2000 kPa, which exceeds the allowable
bearing capacity for most soils. In many cases, crane
mats are required to spread the track pressure over a
larger area. Unlike a footing foundation, the track
pressure of a crane changes greatly with the change of
load, radius, and boom orientation during its operation.
Another major feature of the track pressure is that it is
barely uniformly distributed along the track length due to
the eccentricity of the crane load. The maximum track
pressure frequently occurs when the boom is over the
corner of the crane tracks.
Since the allowable bearing pressure of soil for cranes is
controlled by both the shear strength and the deformation
of the soil, which is similar to that for shallow footings, it is
possible to convert the problem of bearing capacity for
cranes to the traditional bearing capacity problem for

991
 Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006

foundations. A series of equations modified from the
traditional bearing capacity calculation method were
proposed. Several crane lift cases were studied to
validate the proposed equations.
2. BEARING CAPACITY EQUATIONS FOR
CRAWLER CRANES
2.1 Basic Dimensions
Typically, the two tracks (or tracks with crane mats) of a
crawler crane can be treated as two spread footings with
a length of L and width of B (or B’ for tracks with crane
mats) as shown on Figure 1.
The L and B denoted on the figure are the effective length
and width of a track, which are taken as the actual
contact are between the crane track and the ground. The
track span S, defined as the distance between the two
tracks, is usually equal to the effective track length L for a
crawler crane.
equivalent track pressure was proven to yield higher
factor of safety than that using the method suggested by
Meyerhof for footing subject to eccentric loading.
For cranes on mats as illustrated on Figure 2, it is of
important to determine the appropriate equivalent footing
width B’, which is affected by many factors including soil
type, the elastic properties and strength of the soil and
mat, the geometry of mat, the track width and the stress
level etc. The equivalent footing width can be estimated
using the following equation from computer simulation
results.
0.29
E 
B' = B + 2d  m 
 Es 
Where Em = Young’s Modulus of Mat
Es = Young’s Modulus of Soil
d = mat thickness
The equivalent footing width B’ calculated using the
above equation should be limited by the available length
and strength of the mat.

Lt Track Pressure Timber Mat

Bt

Soil L
S

Timber Mat

Figure 1 - Typical Crane Track Dimension (Modified
from Becker 2001)
2.2 Simplifications
To convert the bearing capacity problem for crawler
cranes to that for conventional foundations, two major
steps need to be taken: 1) use allowable total settlement
to represent the allowable tilting of the crane; 2) use an
equivalent uniform pressure to represent the non-
uniformly distributed track pressure.
Soil
B'
Figure 2 – Crane Track Pressure Distribution through
Timber Mats (Modified from Shapiro 1999)
2.3 Proposed Bearing Capacity Equations
The allowable bearing pressure for crane is also governs
by the soil strength and the allowable settlement. For
cohesionless soil, settlement usually controls. While for
cohesive soil, it was found that the soil strength usually
dominated.

It was found that an allowable total settlement of Presented below are the equations for cranes on
[δ ] = L / 240 would limit the maximum tilting of a crane cohesionless soil modified from Meyerhof’s equation
within ±0.5 percent for cranes sitting directly on the (Meyerhof 1956) for footings in sand and gravel.
2
ground without mats. For cranes with mats, the allowable  B'+0.3 
qa = 1.2  L ⋅ N for cranes with mats
total settlement of [δ ] = L / 200 was found appropriate.  B' 
2
The equivalent uniform track pressure was found by  B + 0 .3 
and qa = 2  L ⋅ N for cranes without mats
equalling the amount of settlement caused by the non-  B 
uniform track pressure at the location where the Where N = SPT blow count
maximum track pressure taking place. For cranes with
mats, the equivalent pressure can be estimated Since the track width is usually between 1 and 2 m, the
q~ = 0.85q1 + 0.15q2 allowable bearing pressure for cranes without mats
using , where q1 and q2 are the
maximum and minimum pressure of the same track. For should also be checked having a minimum factor of
crane without mats, it is appropriate to use the maximum safety of 2.0 against bearing capacity failure.
track pressure as the equivalent pressure. The proposed

992
 Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006

The allowable bearing pressure for cranes on clay can be less than 6%. The oilsand was in a dense to very dense
evaluated from the ultimate bearing capacity (Vesić 1973) state of consistency with SPT ‘N’ values ranged from 34
with a factor of safety of 2.0 as presented in the following per 300 mm to 70 blows per 270 mm penetration.
equation.
About 1.8 m sand and gravel fill was used to raise the
qu 5.14 + B / L ground elevation after the investigation. The groundwater
qa = = Cu was located at 0.6 m from the borehole logs or at a depth
FS = 2.0 FS = 2.0
of 2.4 m from the final ground surface.
where Cu = undrained shear strength of clay
3.2 Crane and Mats Layout
3. CASE STUDY
A DEMAG crane CC8800 with 1250 mt lifting capacity
was used to carried out the lifts. The crane was mounted
Several crane lift cases in Ontario, Northern B.C. and
on a crawler base with effective track length L of 10.5 m
Alberta were monitored and studied. The results from the
and effective track width B of 2.0 m. The tracks were
filed monitoring provides a useful source in calibrating the
about 2.7 m in height spanning at 10.5 m.
soil parameters used in computer modelling as well as in
validating the proposed bearing capacity equations for
Two rows of crane mats centred beneath each track were
cranes.
used to spread the track pressure as shown on Figure 2.
Each piece of crane mat was formed by bolting 4 or 5
Three heavy lifts utilizing a 1250 mt DEMAG CC8800
pieces of 0.3 m x 0.3 m timber at an interval of about 1.2
crane at the Coker Plant of Syncrude UE-1 project in Fort
m.
McMurray, AB were reviewed. The three lifts included the
th
installation of a 550 mt fractionator on November 26 ,
For the lift of the fractionator, three layers of timber mats
2003; the installation of the upper portion of a burner
th were installed under each track. They were 6 m long
vessel weighting 340 mt on December 08 , 2003; and the
Mora mats, 6m long Fir mats and 9m long Fir mats from
installation of the upper portion of a reactor vessel
th top to bottom.
weighing 390 mt on January 11 , 2004.
For the other two lifts, one layer of 6 m long Mora mats on
3.1 Subsoil Conditions
6 m long Fir mats were placed over the crane working
area. At both ends of each track, the Mora mats were
The Plant Site was investigated by Thurber Engineering
replaced by 300 mm thick 6 m x 3 m steel mats. Another
in year 2001. Four boreholes in the near vicinity of the
special feature of the crane mat layout for the lift of burner
crane lift area were used to evaluate the ground condition
and reactor was that the mats were not perpendicular to
in the crane working area. The borehole layout and soil
the crane tracks but at an angle of about 45° to the
stratigraphy were illustrated on Figure 3.
305.4 tracks.
0.6

TEL00-9 TEL00-8 TEL00-7 TEL00-34

304.8
Sand Fill
1.2 2.2

Clay till
Native Sand
3.3 Field Observation

Oilsand Vertical movements at both ends of each track were

SECTION A-A monitored during the crane operation as shown on Figure
Pos C E7200'
4.
Pos B
Pos A
Pos A -- Crane position for the lift of fractionator

A
TEL00-34
TEL00-8
Typically, four survey targets as shown on Figure 4 were
A Pos B -- Crane position for the lift of burner BX-2
TEL00-9
monitored using two survey levels at both sides of the
N2500'
N3100'

Pos C -- Crane position for the lift of reactor RX-3B

TEL00-7 crane. The displacements of survey targets at critical
N
E6800' crane boom location were also recorded. The levels were
BOREHOLE LAYOUT AND CRANE POSITION
located at 10 to 20 m away from the crane to reduce the
Figure 3 - Borehole location and Soil Stratigrahpy potential disturbance by the crane and a benchmark was
used to calibrate the readings.
The subsoil was generally consisted of sand fill overlying
native alluvial sand to a depth of about 3 m underlain by For the lifts of the fractionator and the reactor, only three
1.2 m clay till and lean oilsand to a great depth. Thin survey targets were measured using one level due to the
mudstone and clay shale intrusions were found within the other side of the crane was not accessible at the time of
oilsand, which is generally referred to as McMurray lifting.
Formation. The sand fill and alluvial sand were fine to
coarse grained, compact to very dense with SPT ‘N’ The measured movements were treated as the ground
values varied from 11 to 44. The till encountered below settlement since the compressive deformation of crane
the sand was silty, sandy, low plastic with trace gravel mats is considered negligible.
sizes. SPT ‘N’ values in the till ranged between 26 and
41, which indicated the till was very stiff in consistency.
The oilsand underlain the till was consisted of fine to
medium grained sand with bitumen contents generally

993
 Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006

actual condition and minimize errors from simplification.

To account for the rigid effect of the crane tracks, steel
blocks with the same dimension of the tracks were placed
onto the timber mats in these models and the track
pressure is applied on the steel block rather than directly
on timber mats. The modulus of the steel block was
reduced properly to yield equivalent rigidity of the crane
track. For the lifts of the burner and the reactor where
steel mats were used, the steel mats were also modelled
accordingly.

Figure 6 illustrated the typical model configuration for

both section A and Section B.

LEVEL Section B
Crane Track
A B

BENCHMARK
Section B
Crane Track
C D

Section A
Figure 5 - Sections for Computer Modelling
LEVEL

Figure 4 - Typical Survey Targets Layout for Field TRACK

PRESSURE
CRANE
Settlement Observation TRACK
2 LAYERS MATS
Lm
3.4 Crane Track Pressure Determination S

SOIL
The actual track pressure distribution during a crane lift
can be monitored using pressure cells or other similar
SECTION A
instrumentations. However, due to the limitation of time
and cost, track pressures were calculated using the TRACK
manufacturer’s software for a given load and crane PRESSURE
CRANE TRACK
configuration. 2 LAYERS MATS
L

During the settlement monitoring, the corresponding load, SOIL

load radius, crane boom orientation and information on
crane configuration were also recorded as the inputs for
track pressure calculation. The calculation is based on SECTION B

the assumption that the crawler frame and car body are
absolutely rigid. Knowing the total vertical force and
moments acting on the crane, the track pressure can be
determined using the principle of equilibrium. Although
the rigid assumption works well in general, the calculated
track pressure never equal to the actual track pressure.
Furthermore, because of the rigidity assumption, both
tracks will have a common value for eccentricity.
Figure 6 - Typical FLAC Model Configuration
Although it is crude to model Section B using a two-
dimensional program, the differential settlement over the
track length can only be evaluated from this model. To
limit the errors caused by the model, the following
measured were undertaken:

3.5 Computer Modelling • Spreading track pressure over a wider area

A 2-dimensional computer program FLAC4.0 was used to
calibrate the soil properties and to further predict the soil
bearing capacity. The calibration procedure involves
using two sets of computer models with one
perpendicular to crane tracks (Section A) and the other
one along crane tracks (Section B) as shown on Figure 5.
Timber mats were included in the models to represent the
The crane track with mats can be treated as a rectangular
footing with a dimension of B’ x L, where L is the track
length and B’ is the equivalent footing width. It is
appropriate to use a reduced track pressure, which is
taken as the actual track pressure distributing over the
equivalent footing width B’, in modelling Section B.

994
 Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006
• Using proper model size
Theoretically, the adequate model depth is about 2 times
of the footing width for simulating a square footing and
about 4 times of the footing width for a strip footing. Since
the typical L/B’ ratio of crane track with mats is usually
between 1.5 to 2.5, the appropriate model depth was
about 2 to 3 times of the equivalent footing width B’. In
this study, the equivalent footing width was about 80
percent of the length of the mat. Therefore, a model depth
of 2 times of the mat length was used for both sections.
• Comparing results with Section A
Since both models use the same soil properties and track
pressures, settlement from those two models should be
close to each other. This is also useful to testify the
validity of using equivalent footing width.
The inputs and outputs of these models are the track
pressures and the corresponding settlements. Although
settlement is recorded at an interval of about 5 minutes in
the field, only several critical situations such as initial
state, load pickup, boom at a special angle are used in
the computer simulation. The soil parameters are then
adjusted by trail and error to yield similar settlements to
those observed for each critical situation.
Since the ground condition and mat layout for the lifts of
the burner and the reactor were the same, only two sets
of computer models were used for the three lifts.
Comparisons of settlements from computer simulations
and field observations for the three lifts were presented in
Table 1. It should be noted that the observed settlements
were the settlement difference from its initial state, while
the settlements from computer models were absolute
settlements. To make these two comparable, the
settlements of initial states were deduced from the
modelling results.
Table 1 - Settlement Comparison – Lift of Fractionator
Survey Target A B C D A B C D
Settlement from Settlement from
Crane Activity
Observation (mm) Simulation (mm)
Initial 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0
Partial load on -2.9 3 - 17.2 -0.3 3.7 1.6 4.7
Full load on -6.2 13 - 31.8 -6.2 15.1 -0.4 18.6
Boom over front
-6.1 13.5 - 35.6 -4.7 12.1 2.6 17.0
right corner
Lowering load -6.3 13.4 - 35.4 -4.0 10.1 4.6 16.4
Although the settlements from computer simulations
generally matched the field observations as shown in the
tables, there were considerable differences. The major
reasons for the difference can be attribute to:
• Errors in track pressure determination
Instead of measuring in field, the track pressures used in
the analyses were calculated using manufacturer’s
software.
995
• Errors in computer modelling
The biggest error in computer modelling is to model a true
3-dimensional problem using a 2-dimensional program.
The procedure involved several simplifications and
decreased the modelling accuracy.
• Errors in field observation
This involved a series of errors from the levels, the
targets, and the observation etc.
• Imperfect site preparation
There might be some unclosed gaps between the crane
track and the mats and/or between the mats and ground
while the crane was sitting on the mats with no load on
hook.
• Assumptions on soil model and parameters
Any simplification or assumptions made regarding to the
soil will cause errors in the simulation results.
The largest discrepancy between the observed settlement
and the settlement from computer simulation was found
at survey target D in Table 1. A maximum settlement of
more than 35mm was observed at the front right corner of
the crane during the lift of the fractionator and only about
18 mm was calculated. This settlement occurred while the
main boom of the crane slewed over its front to the right
corner. At this boom orientation, the settlement of the
front right corner should be equal or a little bit higher than
that of the front left corner. However, the observed
settlement of the front left corner of the crane is only 13.5
mm, which is again far less than the observed settlement
at the front right corner. The existence of open gaps
within layers of the crane mats may be the most probable
reason for this discrepancy. The timber mats might suffer
distortion due to weathering and gaps might exist
between each layer of mats. Most of the gaps may be
closed during preloading of the crane. However, the use
of three layers of timber mats increased the chance of
open gaps and may cause excess movement due to gap
closure. Furthermore, simulation results showed that the
use of the bottom layer 9 m long fir mats for the
fractionator lift did not contributed much in track pressure
distribution. As a result, no more than 2 layers of timber
mats are recommended for a typical crane lift.
3.6 Bearing Capacity Calculation
After matching the simulation results with the field
observations, the computer models were further loaded to
generate a complete load settlement curve as shown on
Figure 7.
 Sea to Sky Geotechnique 2006

4. CONCLUSION
Ground pressure (kPa)
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 The bearing capacity for crawler cranes has been
0 calculated. The equations were modified from the
50 prevailing bearing capacity calculation methods based on
100 theoretical analyses and computer simulations.
Settlement (mm)

150
200 dmax=52mm; qa=597kPa;
A lift case was studied and back analyses of the case
250 (simulation)
300 provide good support on the use of equivalent pressure,
350 equivalent footing width and model size for computer
400 qa=583kPa simulation. It also validated the method proposed in the
450 qa=370kPa (proposed) estimation of bearing capacity for crawler cranes on sand
500 (Mey erhof ) and gravel.
550 qu=2086kPa
600 Results from field monitoring also indicated that using
more than 2 layers of timber mats did not contribute much
Figure 7 - Load Settlement Curve and Bearing in the bearing capacity increase and might even induce
more settlement due to the presence of open gaps
Capacity Determination
between mats.
The allowable bearing pressure was then determined
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
from the curve where the allowable settlement was
reached. In the case, the allowable settlement was L/200
The writers would like to acknowledge the Natural
= 52.5 mm, and the corresponding allowable bearing
Science and Engineering Research Council and Sterling
pressure was 597 kPa.
Crane for funding the research, and Mr. Marv J.
Cherniawski of AMEC Earth & Environmental for his
For traditional footings with same size, an allowable
constructive advices.
bearing pressure of 370 kPa was calculated using
Meyerhof’s method as suggested in CFEM (Canadian
References
Foundation Engineering Manual).
Becker, R. 2001. The Great book of Mobile Cranes
An allowable bearing pressure of 583 kPa was calculated
Volume 1 - Handbook of Mobile and Crawler Crane
using the proposed method illustrated in Appendix A,
Technology, KM Verlags GmbH, Griesheim, Germany
which was well supported by the simulation results.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1956. Penetration Tests and Bearing
Comparing to the ultimate bearing capacity from the
Capacity of Cohesionless Soils. Journal of Soil
computer simulation as shown on Figure 7, this allowable
Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 82(SM1):
bearing pressure corresponded to a factor of safety of
pp. 1-19
3.6. The suggested factor of safety for traditional footings
Shapiro, H. I., Shapiro, J. P., and Shapiro, L. K. 1999.
is between 2.5 and 3.5, which means using factor of rd
Cranes and Derricks, 3 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York
safety only without consideration of settlement could
Vesić, A. S. 1973. Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow
overestimate the soil allowable bearing capacity for
Foundations. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
cranes.
Foundations Division, ASCE, 99(SM1): pp. 45-73

996