evaluation, modeling, and analysis of shipping container

Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /engstruct

Evaluation, modeling, and analysis of shipping container building structures

Kevin Giriunas a, Halil Sezen a,⇑, Rebecca B. Dupaix b

a Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USAb Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University, 201 West 19 Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 30 December 2011Revised 27 February 2012Accepted 4 May 2012Available online 12 June 2012

Keywords:Shipping containerISO containerContainer buildingContainer structureModular constructionFinite element analysis

0141-0296/$ - see front matter � 2012 Published byhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.001

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected]

edu (H. Sezen), [email protected] (R.B. Dupaix).

a b s t r a c t

Currently, guidelines for safely using shipping containers for building applications do not exist. The ship-ping container’s structural integrity, modification properties, foundation limits, building code regula-tions, and reinforcing limits are mostly unknown. As a result, this research begins the investigation ofshipping containers’ structural limitations thus aiding the development of container building construc-tion and design requirements. The main research objective is to develop structural guidelines for Inter-national Organization for Standardization (ISO) shipping containers used for non-shipping applications.This paper provides insight into the ISO shipping container’s structural strength which is further inves-tigated using finite element computer modeling. The finite element analysis shows how both modifiedand unmodified container models respond under given loading scenarios. The loading scenarios incorpo-rate the effect of gravity and lateral loading, and the computer simulations demonstrate the effectivenessof the container walls and roof to resist the loads. Structural engineering considerations, foundations, andconnections for shipping containers used in building applications are presented.

� 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Many shipping containers used for non-shipping applicationsare modified from their original design, and guidelines for safelyusing these containers for building applications do not exist. Ship-ping container buildings can be economical, durable, fast to con-struct, portable, and can be used for many applications includingpost-disaster housing or military operations and housing. The ship-ping container’s structural integrity, modification properties, foun-dation requirements, building code regulations, and reinforcinglimits are mostly unknown. The focus of the research is the evalu-ation of ISO shipping container’s structural strength using finiteelement computer modeling. The finite element analysis of thecontainer is performed under gravity loads and other loading sce-narios to which the container may be subjected. The research ana-lyzes how both modified and unmodified containers respondunder given loading scenarios. Structural engineering consider-ations, foundation and connection design, and limitations for usingshipping containers in building applications are presented.

The main research objective is to develop structural guidelinesfor International Organization for Standardization (ISO) shippingcontainers used for non-shipping applications. The reviewedliterature includes container documents presenting general

Elsevier Ltd.

(K. Giriunas), sezen.1@osu.

information, standards, engineering building codes, industry infor-mation, and structural testing on shipping containers. Foundationand connection options for shipping container buildings are alsodiscussed. The structural response and limitations of shipping con-tainers under various loading conditions and modifications areanalyzed. The analysis is conducted using finite element computersimulations, container standards, and container industry data.

2. Background information

2.1. Shipping container building documents

Published information on shipping containers used for non-shipping applications is rare, and published data needed for struc-tural modeling and analysis of shipping containers is even moredifficult to find. Many of the available publications do not discussthe structural strength and response of shipping containers underabnormal loading scenarios or modifications. There are severalbooks similar to Kotnik [1] where interesting building projectsusing shipping containers are presented. However, additional rein-forcement is provided to the containers in most cases, because thecontainer’s structural strength is unknown when modified.

Although aesthetics are important for architects and designers,shipping containers cannot be viewed as building blocks if effi-ciency and economics are driving the project. The projects de-scribed in Kotnik [1] and other architecturally driven containerbuilding books are not applicable to this research, because they

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.001

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:sezen.1@osu. edu

mailto:sezen.1@osu. edu

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01410296

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Fig. 1. (a) Impractical container structure from Kotnik [1], and (b) practical barracks container structure during construction from Hermann [2].

K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57 49

typically do not take into account structural considerations. Fig. 1presents examples of impractical and practical container buildings.

Genelin et al. [3], Genelin and Salim [4], Borvik et al. [5], andBorvik et al. [6] performed blast load structural tests on actualISO containers. The available information is relevant and importantto structurally define and evaluate performance of shipping con-tainers. However, the research in this paper does not investigateblast loading scenarios. These documents are likely the only infor-mation publicly available involving modifications and testing offull scale shipping containers.

2.2. Shipping container standards

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) andthe International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) createsdocuments which dictate shipping containers’ specifications,structural strengths, serviceability, and applications. Nearly everyglobally used shipping container conforms to these documents.The research investigates all CSC standards [7], shipping containermanufacturer data, and ISO container standards 668 [8], 830 [9],6346 [10], 1496-1 [11], 1161 [12], 2308 [13], and 3874 [14]. Thesecontainer standards encompass every specification for shippingcontainers including structural limits. Table 1 displays typicalspecifications for a 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container created

Table 1Typical specifications for a standard 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container.

ID codes Length (L) Width (W) Height (H)

22G1 or 2210 6058 mm 2438 mm 2591 mm

Fig. 2. Standard shipping container compo

from ISO, CSC, and container manufacturer standards. Fig. 2 definesa standard shipping container’s components.

The structural limitations of an ISO shipping container are dis-cussed in ISO 1496-1 [11]. ISO 1496-1 [11] describes a series ofstructural tests all ISO containers must pass in order to be in oper-ation, and the required tests are the only source of informationregarding the container’s structural strength characteristics.Fig. 3 presents examples of the structural tests from ISO 1496-1[11]. A more detailed discussion of the container standards andISO 1496-1 can be found in Giriunas [15].

3. Shipping container foundations and connections

3.1. Foundations

Spread footings, mat foundations and piles are three foundationtypes recommended for shipping container structures described inCudato [16]. Spread footings are a reinforced concrete enlargementat the bottom of a column in a structure. Spread footings are idealfor small to medium size structures with moderate to good soilconditions, are very economical, easy to construct, and have a vari-ety of shapes and sizes. Mat foundations are enlarged spread foot-ings encompassing the building footprint. Mats are used whenspread footings would cover more than 50% of the building

Max. weight Empty weight Maximum compressive force

299 kN 48.8 kN 4117 kN

Red: Corner Fittings

Green: Endwall

Blue: Sidewalls

Purple: Roof

Yellow: Corner Posts

Orange: Headers and Sill

Grey: Top and Bottom Siderails

nents (rear side of container shown).

Fig. 3. Structural tests for a 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container in ISO 1496-1 [11].

50 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57

footprint, when unpredictable settlements may occur, if upliftforces are too large for regular spread footings, or if the groundwater table is above the footing. Piles are long columns made ofconcrete, steel, or timber, and can extend well over 20 ft into thesoil. Piles (deep foundations) are used when the surface soils aretoo weak to build on, the spread footing area exceeds one-thirdthe building’s footprint, the soils are subject to scour and potentialflooding, large uplift or lateral load capacity is needed, and com-plex soils are present. Piles potentially could be used in soft soilsor flooded areas to elevate the container structures and providestructural stability [16].

Most of the structures created from shipping containers will useeither concrete spread footings or a mat foundation. Especially un-der low gravity loads, concrete masonry blocks and bricks poten-tially can be used for foundations as shown in Fig. 4. Otherfoundations for container structures include wood beam footings,

Fig. 4. (a) Concrete block foundation, and (b) modifie

Fig. 5. (a) Welded shipping container to base plate and (b) uncomm

weld-on jack stands, concrete masonry units (cinder blocks), andhelical piles.

3.2. Connections

A common connection method attaches a container to anappropriately designed steel base plate with welds as shown inFig. 5a. The underside of the base plate has reinforcing bars (anchorbolts) of varying lengths. The anchor bolts are welded onto theunderside of the plate and are cast into the concrete foundationsor grout while it is still wet. Once the concrete or grout is hardened,the base plate is anchored into the foundations.

here are multiple options for connecting containers to othercontainers or transporting devices presented in ISO 3874 [14].The connection devices lock the containers together by attachingthrough the top or bottom openings on corner fittings. Twist locks

d container on block foundation in Hermann [2].

on connection between shipping containers from Hermann [2].


and latchlocks are connection devices securing two containers atthe corner fittings during stacking, transporting, or lifting emptycontainer situations. Stacking fittings or stacking cones securecontainers only horizontally during stacking or transporting andare always used in junction with other securing devices. The con-nection devices can support lateral and gravity loads under normalshipping operations (150 kN tensile strength and 850 kN compres-sive strength). Depending on the container structure’s application,further modification to the locking connections may need to bedeveloped. The research briefly discusses connection methodsand further investigation is required to design optimum containerstructure connections. Fig. 5b shows a non-locking connectionmethod between two containers used for a structure which isuncommon, and its structural characteristics are unknown.

4. Shipping container computer models

4.1. Container model information

The shipping containers were modeled and analyzed using theprograms SolidWorks [17], Hypermesh [18], and Abaqus/CAE[19]. SolidWorks [17] is a three-dimensional (3D) Computer AidedDesign (CAD) program used to model 3D objects, and most compo-nents of a standard 20 ft ISO shipping container were modeled inSolidWorks [17]. Hypermesh [18] is a computer program used toapply a finite element mesh to the components imported from Sol-idWorks [17]. Abaqus/CAE [19] is the finite element analysis (FEA)program used to analyze the meshed container models importedfrom Hypermesh [18].

Fig. 6 shows a20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container modelcreated from multiple shipping container manufacturer specifica-tions. Simplified shipping container models were created to im-prove computational efficiency while preserving the keystructural features of the container. Simplified models of the actual20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container were used to verify modelassumptions, increase modeling efficiency, and show which com-ponents of the container could be simplified without sacrificingaccuracy.

All of the metal container components have a density of7.85 E 10�9 tonne/mm3, Young’s Modulus (E) equal to 200 E103 MPa (N/mm2), and Poisson’s Ratio equal to 0.3. The yield stresswas 275 N/mm2 for corner fittings, 285 N/mm2 for inner rear cor-ner posts, and 343 N/mm2 for all other components.

4.2. Container model creation

Five simplified container computer models of varying complex-ity and accuracy were created, and similar assumptions were

Fig. 6. Fully modeled 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container.

made. The rear side of the container containing the doors, lockingassembly, and hinges was replaced by an identical wall used forthe front wall section or a non-corrugated wall section with similarproperties. It was assumed that the rear door assembly could with-stand the same loads as the front wall. All of the connections weremodeled to represent fully welded connections which could notfail. The parts excluded from each container model are: flooring,hinges or hinge mechanisms, locking assembly hand bars, lashingfixtures, and most fillets.

Using Hypermesh [18] and Abaqus/CAE [19], the five shippingcontainer models were created from a combination of threedimensional beam elements (B31), linear tetrahedral solid ele-ments (C3D4), and linear quadrilateral or triangular shell ele-ments (S4R or S3). The three dimensional beams contain threetranslational and three rotational degrees of freedom (translationin direction 1–3 and rotation about axis 1–3). Tie and couplingconstraints were applied to each container model componentin Abaqus/CAE [19] to ensure the connections would not fail.Also, the bottom corners of each container were fixed to theground using boundary conditions restricting translation androtation in all directions. Coupling the degrees of freedom ofadjoining parts is viewed as a simplified upper-bound model ofthe overall stiffness of the structure as compared to modelingthe full non-linear contact interactions between the components.This was done so that a linear FE solver could be used, to reducethe computational time, and to avoid the convergence issues thatarise when conducting simulations with contact interactions.Physically, it appears to be a reasonable assumption because ofthe size of the welds connecting the components in containerstructures and the fact that relative motion and friction betweencomponents under the applied loads should not be significant.Increasing in complexity and accuracy, the five simplified con-tainer models are presented in Fig. 7. A comprehensive descrip-tion of the meshing procedure and methodology can be foundin Giriunas [15].

The tie constraint was used in Abaqus/CAE [19] to connect solidelement components together (C3D4 elements to C3D4 elements).The cross members’ wire elements were connected to the face ofthe base side rails using the coupling constraint (B31 elements toC3D4 elements). The edges of the wall and roof were connectedto the container components using a shell-to-solid coupling (S4and S3 elements to C3D4 elements).

The rear assembly of doors and locking assembly were replacedby a wall very similar to the front wall. However, the new rearwall’s length was slightly longer and had a sloped bottom edgein order to connect into the door sill.

Models 1 and 2 were identical except Model 2 replaced many ofthe simplified container cross sections with cross sections similarto Fig. 6. Model 3 had similar beam wire components as Model 2with the addition of corner fittings and more detailed models forthe walls and roof. Models 4 and 5 increased the container’s com-plexity and were comparable to the container model in Fig. 6. Mod-el 5 was exactly the same as Model 4 but with a finer mesh for thewalls and roof. The walls and roof had corrugated profiles with uni-form shell mesh configurations. The cross members which supportthe wooden floor were created and meshed using B31 beam ele-ments in Abaqus/CAE [19]. The corner fittings and every containercomponent (excluding the walls and roof) were created in Solid-Works [17], uniformly meshed in Hypermesh [18] with C3D4 lin-ear tetrahedral elements (3D), and then imported into Abaqus/CAE [19]. The walls and roof were created in SolidWorks [17],meshed in Hypermesh [18] using S3 linear triangular elementsand S4 linear quadrilateral elements (2D), and imported into Aba-qus/CAE [19]. The element designation for a shipping container isshown in Fig. 8, and a close-up view of the corner fittings can befound in Fig. 18.

E1,

47Tot

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

lem,163

7,767tal:

ent3 B37 S4489

s: 31 4R 930

E1

47To

Elem1,167,76otal:

men63 B67 S: 48

nts: 31

S4R 89300

E

84

T

Elem1,06

8,5045,8

29Total

men63B6 C45 S

92 Sl: 55

nts:B313D4S4R

S3 5,25

4R

56 T

5

Tota

Ele7

11,264,0

6al:5

eme8 B215 07768 S76,0

ents:31 C3DS4RS3 038

:

D4R

5

Tot

El7

511,399

1,tal:9

eme78 B215

9,42,289912,

entsB315 C323S49 S3,005

s:

D44R 35

Fig. 7. Simplified Container models of Fig. 6.

RED: Corner Fittings (C3D4 Elements)

YELLOW: Container Components

(C3D4 Elements)

BLUE: Container Walls and Roof

(S3 & S4 Elements)

Fig. 8. Shipping container elements.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Fig. 9. Simplified container models at first yielding (von Mises stress shown).


4.3. Container model analysis and results

In order to verify the accuracy of the container models, thesame loading was applied to each container model, and the resultswere analyzed. Since the container models all varied in complexity,each model was loaded until one component on the container be-gan to yield.

Performing a linear analysis in Abaqus/CAE [19], two lateralpoint loads were externally applied as surface loads on surfacesof the two front top corner fittings of each container model, asshown in Fig. 3. The applied load was increased until an elementon a container component reached its yield strength. At yielding,the maximum reaction force and displacement at the front top cor-ner fitting was determined for each container model. This method-ology allowed accurate comparison between each container model.

All of the models were found to have comparable responses ex-cept Model 3. Model 3 had unique corner cut outs in the walls androof which generated very different stresses than the other modelsand it was determined that this response was the least realisticcompared to the actual container shown in Fig. 6. The displace-ment for the other four models was within 1.0 mm of each other,and the applied forces at yielding ranged from 253 kN to 319 kN.The simulation time to run Model 5 was approximately 2 h, Model4 was 30 min, and Models 1 and 2 were 15 min. Although the sim-ulation time for Model 5 was four times greater than Model 4, bothmodels produced almost identical results. Fig. 9 displays each

container model at yielding, Fig. 10 displays each container’s max-imum force and displacement at yielding, and Table 2 comparesthe results generated from Abaqus/CAE [19] for each containermodel. The stiffness of a structure or model is the slope of thelinear relationship between the applied force and displacementin the elastic zone. Model 2 was the most stiff, and Model 1 wasless stiff than Models 4 and 5 (Fig. 10).

The comparison of results showed that the simplified Models 1and 2 captured the overall stiffness of the structure, but appearedto over-predict the load at first yielding because of the very simpli-fied components and connections. Models 4 and 5, on the otherhand, produced more realistic results and, with such similar re-sults, it was determined that the smaller, and more computation-ally efficient Model 4 would be used for the rest of the simulations.

5. Modified shipping container simulations

5.1. Container Model Information

Based on comparisons of the response from five models, Model4 was selected as the optimum container model in terms of modelcomplexity and accuracy. Model 4 was modified by increasingmesh density and adding reinforcement plates to complete theremainder of the research. The final container model wasconstructed with 5256 beam elements (B31), 3174,025 linear

For

ce (

kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Calculated force displacement relationship for each model up to yielding.


tetrahedral elements (C3D4), 232,914 shell elements (S4R or S4),and 1269 shell elements (S3) for a total of 3413,464 elements.The final model used for the research was more accurate thanModels 4 and 5, and had similar computation times as Model 5.

The base container model was modified and analyzed to inves-tigate the contribution of different components to the total re-sponse of the container. Each modified container model wasmodified by removing full wall sections or the entire roof insteadof cutting out holes for windows or doors, as shown in Figs. 1bor 4b. This was believed to provide a more conservative approachto using the modified shipping containers. Fig. 11 displays the ori-ginal container model (revised Model 4) and seven modified 20 ftISO shipping container models. The connections and mesh densityfor each modified model are the same as the original containermodel, but the modified container components have their connec-tions removed from the models as well.

5.2. Container model analysis

Using the specific loading values from ISO 1496-1 [11] as areference (Table 1) five loading scenarios were applied to the

Table 2Maximum force, displacement, and stiffness for each model at yielding.

Displacement (mm) Force (kN) Stiffness (

Model 1 3.92 299 77Model 2 3.80 319 84Model 3 1.80 50 28Model 4 3.18 253 80Model 5 3.18 253 80

M1 M2

Original Container Sidewalls Removed

M5 M6

Sidewalls and Endwalls Removed

Single Sidewall Removed

Fig. 11. 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO ship

container models until one of the container’s members yielded.The five loading scenarios were selected, because ISO 1496-1[11] was the only reference which the analytical data could becompared to. The analysis followed the linear simulation method-ology presented earlier using an incrementally increasing pointload externally applied as a surface load on the fitting surface inAbaqus/CAE [19]. The externally applied load increases the forceat a constant rate, and the force suddenly stops if stiffness de-creases or the yield strength was reached. The externally appliedsurface loading, an equivalent point load, was applied to the appro-priate face of the corner fittings for each container model. Yieldinglocations, displacements, von Mises stresses, forces, and containerbehavior are discussed and analyzed for each loading scenario andmodification. The five loading scenarios are presented in Fig. 12.For container models with one wall removed, Loading Scenarios2 and 3 were applied over the removed wall section. Structuresusing shipping containers can follow the loading scenarios de-signed for transportation (ISO 1496-1) as long as the containerstructures are not abnormal and stack irregularly (Fig. 1a).

5.3. Analysis results

Figs. 11–15 compare elastic response for each container modelsubjected to Loading Scenarios 1–5. Fig. 18 presents a stress plotand yield location for model M4 when subjected to Loading Sce-nario 4. A more detailed discussion of modeling and analysis re-sults can be found in Giriunas [15].

For Loading Scenario 1 (Fig. 13) the removal of sidewalls or theroof did not have an effect on the maximum applied loading values.For the unmodified container model (M1), the calculated yield ax-ial load of 942 kN was very close to the 942 kN specified in ISO1496-1 [11] (Fig. 3). The end walls under Loading Scenario 1 werethe most critical load resisting components, and were more effec-tive at carrying the loads than the sidewalls. The single end wall

kN/mm) First location to reach yielding

Front wall and roof at corner with loadingFront wall at bottom corner fitting (diagonal from loading)Front wall at bottom corner fitting (diagonal from loading)Front corner post at bottom corner fitting (near front sill)Front corner post at bottom corner fitting (near front sill)

M3 M4

Endwalls Removed Roof Removed

M7 M8

Single Endwall (Doors) Removed

Sidewalls, Endwalls, and Roof Removed

ping container modifications.

Loading Scenario 1

Loading Scenario 2

Loading Scenario 3

Loading Scenario 4

Loading Scenario 5

Compressive Point Loading

(4 corner fittings)


(2 corner fittings short side)


(2 corner fittings long side)

Transverse Point Loading (Inward)

Longitudinal Point Loading (Inward)

Fig. 12. Five loading scenarios simulated on shipping container models.

MaximumApplied Force at

Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Maximum applied force and displacement at yielding (Loading Scenario 1).

MaximumApplied Force at

Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)



removed model (model M7) had a greater reduction in maximumapplied force and stiffness than the model with both sidewallsremoved (model M2) when both were compared to the base modelM1.

The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 2 (Fig. 14) were the mostcritical load resisting components, and the end walls were some-what effective at carrying the loads. The calculated yield load was942 kN for the full model (M1) was equal to an assumed 942 kNspecified in ISO 1496-1 [11]. The modified models with both side-walls removed (models M2, M5, and M8) had an average 10% in-crease in maximum applied load and a 70% reduction in stiffness

when compared to the complete container model M1. However,the model with both end walls removed (model M3) had an 11% in-crease in maximum applied force, but only had a 44% reduction instiffness when compared to M1. The addition or removal of the roofdid not provide much stiffness or strength in Loading Scenario 2.Every container model had the loads from Loading Scenario 2 ap-plied over the front of the container, except model M7. Model M7had results differing from the other models (Fig. 14), because theloading was applied over the rear of the container.

Loading Scenario 3 (Fig. 15) resulted in a distinctive responsepattern. As more components were removed from the container

Maximum Applied Force at

Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)


Applied Force at

Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)


AppliedForce at

Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)



Fig. 18. von Mises stress plot for model 4 with yielding location (Loading Scenario 4).


(beginning with the sidewalls) the maximum applied force valueincreased, and the models became more flexible, which in turn,delayed yielding. The end walls under Loading Scenario 3 werethe most critical load resisting components. The sidewalls also car-ried significant load and provided stiffness, especially in the ab-sence of the end walls. The less stiff models were able towithstand larger applied forces, had larger displacements, andyielded in similar locations compared to the unmodified containermodel M1.

The roof did not have any significant structural contributionwhen subjected to vertical point loads (Loading Scenarios 1–3).When subjected to the vertical point loads from Loading Scenarios2 and 3, the original container model M1 had lower maximum ap-plied forces compared to the other container models. When all fourwalls were present in the container model (M1 and M4), a localizedyield stress in the door header may have occurred resulting in a re-duced maximum applied force compared to the other containermodels. Further FEA modeling may be necessary to determinethe causes of localized yield stress in the door header, as calculatedfrom the analytical model in this research.

For Loading Scenario 4 (Fig. 16) the container models with endwalls (models M1, M2, M4, M6, and M7) had higher maximum ap-plied forces and were significantly stiffer than container modelswithout end walls (M3, M5, and M8). The end walls under LoadingScenario 4 were the critical lateral load resisting components. Thelateral capacity of the sidewalls and roof component was very lim-ited, and the roof component provided little resistance withoutwall components (models M5 and M8). Only the complete model(M1) reached the maximum elastic load of 150 kN listed in ISO1496-1 [11] (Fig. 3).

The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 5 (Fig. 17) were the criticallateral load resisting components. The complete model (M1)reached the maximum elastic load of 75 kN listed in Fig. 3, whichwas well below the maximum load (124.5 kN) resisted by the modelwithout a roof (M4). Models containing both sidewalls and the roof(models M1 and M3) were the most rigid. The container model with-out a roof (model M4) had a 66% maximum applied force increaseand a 26% reduction in stiffness when compared to M1. The con-tainer reached yielding in the roof component near the front headerin the original model M1, but without the roof (model M4) the con-tainer yielded at the front header. The yielding location change mayhave caused the increase in maximum applied loading for M4 (roofremoved) when compared to the original container model M1.

6. Summary and conclusions

This paper demonstrates the research conducted to review con-tainer documents applicable for shipping containers, summarize

foundations and connections, and conduct finite element computermodel simulations of shipping containers. By analyzing these mod-els using the computer programs SolidWorks [17], Hypermesh[18], and Abaqus/CAE [19], an optimized container model wasmodified into seven different configurations. Five different loadingscenario simulations were applied to each of the modified con-tainer models and analyzed. From the comparisons between con-tainer modifications that were presented in this document, thefollowing conclusions have been drawn.

� For all loading scenarios, the calculated maximum elastic loadfor the complete model (M1) reached or exceeded the corre-sponding loads specified in ISO 1496-1 [11] shown in Fig. 3.With the exception of the roof removed model (M4) in LoadingScenario 5, the maximum resisting load for almost all the mod-ified containers was either close or less than the ISO 1496-1 [11]specified loads. Therefore, it is likely that yielding may occur inmodified containers before reaching the capacity required inISO 1496-1 [11]. As long as the container structure stacks thecontainers similar to transportation methods, the ISO loadingscenarios should applicable.� For axial/vertical loads applied on the top corner fittings, end

walls were generally the strongest load resisting components,the sidewalls were the next strongest load resisting compo-nents, and the roof typically did not have any structuralcontribution.� When subjected to the vertical point loads from Loading Scenar-

ios 2 and 3, the original container model M1 had lower maxi-mum applied forces compared to the other container models.When all four walls were present in the container model (M1and M4), a localized yield stress in the door header may haveoccurred resulting in a reduced maximum applied force com-pared to the other container models.� For transverse lateral loads applied on the top corner fittings,

the end walls were the strongest load resisting components.For longitudinal lateral loads applied on the top corner fittings,the sidewalls were the strongest load resisting components. Theroof generally did not have any structural contribution for lat-eral loads. The results from models M2 and M3 for Loading Sce-narios 4 and 5 (Figs. 16 and 17) indicate that a transverse endwall can resist 4.2 kip/ft lateral load at yielding (two 2438 mmlong walls carry 149.2 kN each, Fig. 16) while a longitudinalend wall can resist 0.85 kip/ft lateral load at yielding (two6058 mm long walls carry 75 kN each, Fig. 17).� Original container model (M1) is the strongest for all loading

scenarios because all components are in place to resist appliedloads (Figs. 13–17). The model with no walls (M8) was theweakest in all cases, with the exception of model M7 under


Loading Scenario 2, where the vertical loads were applied overthe rear of the container (Fig. 14). Lateral resistance of the con-tainer structure was significantly reduced when the walls in thedirection of loading were removed.� Using the results from the container modifications, a series of

modified container orientations for specific scenarios can bedeveloped for disaster, military, or residential applications.Once the response of a given modified container is accuratelysimulated, full scale testing of the modified containers can beperformed. A full scale test of a modified shipping containerfor different loading scenarios will validate the computer simu-lations and data.

References

[1] Kotnik J. Container architecture: this book contains 6441 containers. In: KrauelJ, editor. Jonqueres. Barcelona: LINKS International; 2009.

[2] Hermann N, Gehle J. 249th Engineers Company operations building. Speechpresented at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 2007.

[3] Genelin CL, Dinan RJ, Hoemann JM, Salim HA. Evaluation of blast resistant rigidwalled expeditionary structures. Tyndall (FL): Air Force Research Laboratory;2009.

[4] Genelin CL, Salim HA. Evaluation of modular re-locatable buildings subjectedto blast. Tyndall (FL): Air Force Research Laboratory; 2010.

[5] Borvik T, Hanssen A, Dey S, Langberg H, Langseth M. On the ballistic and blastload response of a 20 ft ISO container protected with aluminum panels filledwith a local mass – Phase I: Design of protective system. Eng Struct2008;30:1605–20.

[6] Borvik T, Hanssen A, Dey S, Langberg H, Langseth M. On the ballistic and blastload response of a 20 ft ISO container protected with aluminum panels filledwith a local mass – Phase II: Validation of protective system. Eng Struct2008;30:1621–31.

[7] CSC. International convention for safe containers. 4th ed. London: InternationalMaritime Organization; 1996.

[8] ISO/TC 104. ISO 668:1995 series 1 freight containers-classification, dimensionsand ratings. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization forStandardization; 1995.

[9] ISO/TC 104. ISO 830:1999 freight containers-vocabulary. Geneva(Switzerland): International Organization for Standardization; 1999.

[10] ISO/TC 104. ISO 6346:1995 freight containers-coding, identification andmarking. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization forStandardization; 1995.

[11] ISO/TC 104. ISO 1496-1:1990 Series 1 freight containers-specification andtesting – Part 1: General cargo containers for general purposes. Geneva(Switzerland): International Organization for Standardization; 1990.

[12] ISO/TC 104. ISO 1161:1984/Cor 1:1990 technical corrigendum 1:1990 to ISO1161:1984. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization forStandardization; 1990.

[13] ISO/TC 104. ISO 2308:1972 hooks for lifting freight containers of up to 30tonnes capacity-basic requirements. Geneva (Switzerland): InternationalOrganization for Standardization; 1972.

[14] ISO/TC 104. ISO 3874:1997 series 1 freight containers-handling and securing.Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization for Standardization; 1997.

[15] Giriunas KA. MS thesis. Evaluation, modeling, and analysis of shippingcontainer building structures. Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio, USA; 2012.

[16] Coduto DP. Foundation design-principles and practices. 2nd ed. NewJersey: Prentice Hall; 2001.

[17] SolidWorks [Computer program]. Waltham (MA, USA): DassaultSystèmes;2011.

[18] Hypermesh (version 10.0) [Computer program]. Troy (MI, USA): Altair; 2009.[19] Abaqus/CAE (version 6.10-1) [Computer program]. Providence (RI, USA):

Simulia; 2010.

evaluation, modeling, and analysis of shipping container

Documents