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, USA
b
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 a b s t r a c t

Article history: Currently, guidelines for safely using shipping containers for building applications do not exist. The ship-
Received 30 December 2011 ping container’s structural integrity, modification properties, foundation limits, building code regula-
Revised 27 February 2012 tions, and reinforcing limits are mostly unknown. As a result, this research begins the investigation of
Accepted 4 May 2012
shipping containers’ structural limitations thus aiding the development of container building construc-
Available online 12 June 2012
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.
Keywords:
This paper provides insight into the ISO shipping container’s structural strength which is further inves-
Shipping container
ISO container
tigated using finite element computer modeling. The finite element analysis shows how both modified
Container building and unmodified container models respond under given loading scenarios. The loading scenarios incorpo-
Container structure rate the effect of gravity and lateral loading, and the computer simulations demonstrate the effectiveness
Modular construction of the container walls and roof to resist the loads. Structural engineering considerations, foundations, and
Finite element analysis connections for shipping containers used in building applications are presented.
Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction information, standards, engineering building codes, industry infor-

Many shipping containers used for non-shipping applications
are modified from their original design, and guidelines for safely
using 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 including
post-disaster housing or military operations and housing. The ship-
ping container’s structural integrity, modification properties, foun-
dation requirements, building code regulations, and reinforcing
limits are mostly unknown. The focus of the research is the evalu-
ation of ISO shipping container’s structural strength using finite
element computer modeling. The finite element analysis of the
container 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 respond
under given loading scenarios. Structural engineering consider-
ations, foundation and connection design, and limitations for using
shipping containers in building applications are presented.
The main research objective is to develop structural guidelines
for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) shipping
containers used for non-shipping applications. The reviewed
literature includes container documents presenting general
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: giriunas.1@buckeyemail.osu.edu (K. Giriunas), sezen.1@osu.
edu (H. Sezen), dupaix.1@osu.edu (R.B. Dupaix).
mation, and structural testing on shipping containers. Foundation
and connection options for shipping container buildings are also
discussed. The structural response and limitations of shipping con-
tainers under various loading conditions and modifications are
analyzed. The analysis is conducted using finite element computer
simulations, 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 more
difficult to find. Many of the available publications do not discuss
the structural strength and response of shipping containers under
abnormal loading scenarios or modifications. There are several
books similar to Kotnik [1] where interesting building projects
using shipping containers are presented. However, additional rein-
forcement is provided to the containers in most cases, because the
container’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 container
building books are not applicable to this research, because they

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.001
 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57
Fig. 1. (a) Impractical container structure from Kotnik [1], and (b) practical barracks container structure during construction from Hermann [2].
typically do not take into account structural considerations. Fig. 1
presents examples of impractical and practical container buildings.
Genelin et al. [3], Genelin and Salim [4], Borvik et al. [5], and
Borvik et al. [6] performed blast load structural tests on actual
ISO containers. The available information is relevant and important
to structurally define and evaluate performance of shipping con-
tainers. However, the research in this paper does not investigate
blast loading scenarios. These documents are likely the only infor-
mation publicly available involving modifications and testing of
full scale shipping containers.
2.2. Shipping container standards
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and
the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) creates
documents which dictate shipping containers’ specifications,
structural strengths, serviceability, and applications. Nearly every
globally used shipping container conforms to these documents.
The research investigates all CSC standards [7], shipping container
manufacturer data, and ISO container standards 668 [8], 830 [9],
6346 [10], 1496-1 [11], 1161 [12], 2308 [13], and 3874 [14]. These
container standards encompass every specification for shipping
containers including structural limits. Table 1 displays typical
specifications for a 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container created
Table 1
Typical 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 components (rear side of container shown).
49
from ISO, CSC, and container manufacturer standards. Fig. 2 defines
a 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 of
structural tests all ISO containers must pass in order to be in oper-
ation, and the required tests are the only source of information
regarding 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 and
ISO 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 foundation
types recommended for shipping container structures described in
Cudato [16]. Spread footings are a reinforced concrete enlargement
at the bottom of a column in a structure. Spread footings are ideal
for small to medium size structures with moderate to good soil
conditions, 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 when
spread 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
50 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57

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

footprint, when unpredictable settlements may occur, if uplift
forces are too large for regular spread footings, or if the ground
water table is above the footing. Piles are long columns made of
concrete, steel, or timber, and can extend well over 20 ft into the
soil. Piles (deep foundations) are used when the surface soils are
too weak to build on, the spread footing area exceeds one-third
the building’s footprint, the soils are subject to scour and potential
flooding, large uplift or lateral load capacity is needed, and com-
plex soils are present. Piles potentially could be used in soft soils
or flooded areas to elevate the container structures and provide
structural stability [16].
Most of the structures created from shipping containers will use
either 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. Other
foundations for container structures include wood beam footings,
weld-on jack stands, concrete masonry units (cinder blocks), and
helical piles.
3.2. Connections
A common connection method attaches a container to an
appropriately designed steel base plate with welds as shown in
Fig. 5a. The underside of the base plate has reinforcing bars (anchor
bolts) of varying lengths. The anchor bolts are welded onto the
underside of the plate and are cast into the concrete foundations
or 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 other
containers or transporting devices presented in ISO 3874 [14].
The connection devices lock the containers together by attaching
through the top or bottom openings on corner fittings. Twist locks

Fig. 4. (a) Concrete block foundation, and (b) modified container on block foundation in Hermann [2].

Fig. 5. (a) Welded shipping container to base plate and (b) uncommon connection between shipping containers from Hermann [2].
 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57
and latchlocks are connection devices securing two containers at
the corner fittings during stacking, transporting, or lifting empty
container situations. Stacking fittings or stacking cones secure
containers only horizontally during stacking or transporting and
are always used in junction with other securing devices. The con-
nection devices can support lateral and gravity loads under normal
shipping 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 be
developed. The research briefly discusses connection methods
and further investigation is required to design optimum container
structure connections. Fig. 5b shows a non-locking connection
method between two containers used for a structure which is
uncommon, and its structural characteristics are unknown.
4. Shipping container computer models
4.1. Container model information
The shipping containers were modeled and analyzed using the
programs SolidWorks [17], Hypermesh [18], and Abaqus/CAE
[19]. SolidWorks [17] is a three-dimensional (3D) Computer Aided
Design (CAD) program used to model 3D objects, and most compo-
nents of a standard 20 ft ISO shipping container were modeled in
SolidWorks [17]. Hypermesh [18] is a computer program used to
apply 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 imported
from Hypermesh [18].
Fig. 6 shows a20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container model
created from multiple shipping container manufacturer specifica-
tions. Simplified shipping container models were created to im-
prove computational efficiency while preserving the key
structural features of the container. Simplified models of the actual
20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container were used to verify model
assumptions, increase modeling efficiency, and show which com-
ponents of the container could be simplified without sacrificing
accuracy.
All of the metal container components have a density of
7.85 E 10 9 tonne/mm3, Young’s Modulus (E) equal to 200 E
103 MPa (N/mm2), and Poisson’s Ratio equal to 0.3. The yield stress
was 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.
51
made. The rear side of the container containing the doors, locking
assembly, and hinges was replaced by an identical wall used for
the front wall section or a non-corrugated wall section with similar
properties. It was assumed that the rear door assembly could with-
stand the same loads as the front wall. All of the connections were
modeled to represent fully welded connections which could not
fail. The parts excluded from each container model are: flooring,
hinges or hinge mechanisms, locking assembly hand bars, lashing
fixtures, and most fillets.
Using Hypermesh [18] and Abaqus/CAE [19], the five shipping
container models were created from a combination of three
dimensional 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 three
translational and three rotational degrees of freedom (translation
in direction 1–3 and rotation about axis 1–3). Tie and coupling
constraints were applied to each container model component
in Abaqus/CAE [19] to ensure the connections would not fail.
Also, the bottom corners of each container were fixed to the
ground using boundary conditions restricting translation and
rotation in all directions. Coupling the degrees of freedom of
adjoining parts is viewed as a simplified upper-bound model of
the overall stiffness of the structure as compared to modeling
the full non-linear contact interactions between the components.
This was done so that a linear FE solver could be used, to reduce
the computational time, and to avoid the convergence issues that
arise when conducting simulations with contact interactions.
Physically, it appears to be a reasonable assumption because of
the size of the welds connecting the components in container
structures and the fact that relative motion and friction between
components 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 found
in Giriunas [15].
The tie constraint was used in Abaqus/CAE [19] to connect solid
element components together (C3D4 elements to C3D4 elements).
The cross members’ wire elements were connected to the face of
the base side rails using the coupling constraint (B31 elements to
C3D4 elements). The edges of the wall and roof were connected
to the container components using a shell-to-solid coupling (S4
and S3 elements to C3D4 elements).
The rear assembly of doors and locking assembly were replaced
by a wall very similar to the front wall. However, the new rear
wall’s length was slightly longer and had a sloped bottom edge
in order to connect into the door sill.
Models 1 and 2 were identical except Model 2 replaced many of
the simplified container cross sections with cross sections similar
to Fig. 6. Model 3 had similar beam wire components as Model 2
with the addition of corner fittings and more detailed models for
the 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 the
walls and roof. The walls and roof had corrugated profiles with uni-
form shell mesh configurations. The cross members which support
the wooden floor were created and meshed using B31 beam ele-
ments in Abaqus/CAE [19]. The corner fittings and every container
component (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 elements
and S4 linear quadrilateral elements (2D), and imported into Aba-
qus/CAE [19]. The element designation for a shipping container is
shown in Fig. 8, and a close-up view of the corner fittings can be
found in Fig. 18.
52 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Elements: E
Elem men nts: E
Elemmennts: Eleemeents:: Elemeentss:
1,,1633 B331 11,1663 B31 1,0663B
B31 78 B31 778 B
B31
477,7677 S44R 477,7667 S S4R 88,506 C3D44 511,2215 C3D D4 5511,2155 C3D4
Tottal: 489930 Tootal:: 4889300 445,845 SS4RR 64,0077S4RR 3999,4223S44R
2992 S
S3 668 SS3 1,,2899 S33
Totall: 555,2556
T Totaal:576,0038
T Tottal:9912,,0055

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, the
same loading was applied to each container model, and the results
were 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 lateral
point loads were externally applied as surface loads on surfaces
of the two front top corner fittings of each container model, as
shown in Fig. 3. The applied load was increased until an element
on 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 and
roof which generated very different stresses than the other models
and it was determined that this response was the least realistic
compared 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, Model
4 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, both
models 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 compares
the results generated from Abaqus/CAE [19] for each container
model. The stiffness of a structure or model is the slope of the
linear relationship between the applied force and displacement
in the elastic zone. Model 2 was the most stiff, and Model 1 was
less stiff than Models 4 and 5 (Fig. 10).
The comparison of results showed that the simplified Models 1
and 2 captured the overall stiffness of the structure, but appeared
to over-predict the load at first yielding because of the very simpli-
fied components and connections. Models 4 and 5, on the other
hand, 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, Model
4 was selected as the optimum container model in terms of model
complexity and accuracy. Model 4 was modified by increasing
mesh density and adding reinforcement plates to complete the
remainder of the research. The final container model was
constructed with 5256 beam elements (B31), 3174,025 linear
 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57 53

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 be
Force (kN)

compared to. The analysis followed the linear simulation method-

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 than
Models 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 was
modified by removing full wall sections or the entire roof instead
of cutting out holes for windows or doors, as shown in Figs. 1b
or 4b. This was believed to provide a more conservative approach
to using the modified shipping containers. Fig. 11 displays the ori-
ginal container model (revised Model 4) and seven modified 20 ft
ISO shipping container models. The connections and mesh density
for each modified model are the same as the original container
model, 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 a
reference (Table 1) five loading scenarios were applied to the
ology presented earlier using an incrementally increasing point
load externally applied as a surface load on the fitting surface in
Abaqus/CAE [19]. The externally applied load increases the force
at a constant rate, and the force suddenly stops if stiffness de-
creases or the yield strength was reached. The externally applied
surface loading, an equivalent point load, was applied to the appro-
priate face of the corner fittings for each container model. Yielding
locations, displacements, von Mises stresses, forces, and container
behavior are discussed and analyzed for each loading scenario and
modification. The five loading scenarios are presented in Fig. 12.
For container models with one wall removed, Loading Scenarios
2 and 3 were applied over the removed wall section. Structures
using shipping containers can follow the loading scenarios de-
signed for transportation (ISO 1496-1) as long as the container
structures are not abnormal and stack irregularly (Fig. 1a).
5.3. Analysis results
Figs. 11–15 compare elastic response for each container model
subjected to Loading Scenarios 1–5. Fig. 18 presents a stress plot
and 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 the
roof 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 ISO
1496-1 [11] (Fig. 3). The end walls under Loading Scenario 1 were
the most critical load resisting components, and were more effec-
tive at carrying the loads than the sidewalls. The single end wall

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

Displacement (mm) Force (kN) Stiffness (kN/mm) First location to reach yielding
Model 1 3.92 299 77 Front wall and roof at corner with loading
Model 2 3.80 319 84 Front wall at bottom corner fitting (diagonal from loading)
Model 3 1.80 50 28 Front wall at bottom corner fitting (diagonal from loading)
Model 4 3.18 253 80 Front corner post at bottom corner fitting (near front sill)
Model 5 3.18 253 80 Front corner post at bottom corner fitting (near front sill)

M1 M2 M3 M4

Original Container Sidewalls Removed Endwalls Removed Roof Removed

M5 M6 M7 M8

Sidewalls and Endwalls Single Sidewall Single Endwall Sidewalls, Endwalls,

Removed Removed (Doors) Removed and Roof Removed

Fig. 11. 20 foot (6.06 m) ISO shipping container modifications.

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

Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Compressive Point Compressive Point

Compressive Point Longitudinal Point
Loading Loading Transverse Point
Loading Loading
(2 corner fittings (2 corner fittings Loading (Inward)
(4 corner fittings) (Inward)
short side) long side)

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

Maximum
Applied
Force at
Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

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

Maximum
Applied
Force at
Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Maximum applied force and displacement at yielding (Loading Scenario 2).

removed model (model M7) had a greater reduction in maximum
applied force and stiffness than the model with both sidewalls
removed (model M2) when both were compared to the base model
M1.
The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 2 (Fig. 14) were the most
critical load resisting components, and the end walls were some-
what effective at carrying the loads. The calculated yield load was
942 kN for the full model (M1) was equal to an assumed 942 kN
specified 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 in
stiffness when compared to M1. The addition or removal of the roof
did 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 M7
had results differing from the other models (Fig. 14), because the
loading was applied over the rear of the container.
Loading Scenario 3 (Fig. 15) resulted in a distinctive response
pattern. As more components were removed from the container
 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57 55

Maximum
Applied
Force at
Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 15. Maximum applied force and displacement at yielding (Loading Scenario 3).

Applied
Force at
Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 16. Maximum applied force and displacement at yielding (Loading Scenario 4).

Applied
Force at
Yielding (kN)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17. Maximum applied force and displacement at yielding (Loading Scenario 5).
56 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57
Fig. 18. von Mises stress plot for model 4 with yielding location (Loading Scenario 4).
(beginning with the sidewalls) the maximum applied force value
increased, and the models became more flexible, which in turn,
delayed yielding. The end walls under Loading Scenario 3 were
the 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 to
withstand larger applied forces, had larger displacements, and
yielded in similar locations compared to the unmodified container
model M1.
The roof did not have any significant structural contribution
when subjected to vertical point loads (Loading Scenarios 1–3).
When subjected to the vertical point loads from Loading Scenarios
2 and 3, the original container model M1 had lower maximum ap-
plied forces compared to the other container models. When all four
walls were present in the container model (M1 and M4), a localized
yield stress in the door header may have occurred resulting in a re-
duced maximum applied force compared to the other container
models. Further FEA modeling may be necessary to determine
the causes of localized yield stress in the door header, as calculated
from the analytical model in this research.
For Loading Scenario 4 (Fig. 16) the container models with end
walls (models M1, M2, M4, M6, and M7) had higher maximum ap-
plied forces and were significantly stiffer than container models
without end walls (M3, M5, and M8). The end walls under Loading
Scenario 4 were the critical lateral load resisting components. The
lateral capacity of the sidewalls and roof component was very lim-
ited, and the roof component provided little resistance without
wall components (models M5 and M8). Only the complete model
(M1) reached the maximum elastic load of 150 kN listed in ISO
1496-1 [11] (Fig. 3).
The sidewalls under Loading Scenario 5 (Fig. 17) were the critical
lateral load resisting components. The complete model (M1)
reached the maximum elastic load of 75 kN listed in Fig. 3, which
was well below the maximum load (124.5 kN) resisted by the model
without 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 increase
and a 26% reduction in stiffness when compared to M1. The con-
tainer reached yielding in the roof component near the front header
in the original model M1, but without the roof (model M4) the con-
tainer yielded at the front header. The yielding location change may
have caused the increase in maximum applied loading for M4 (roof
removed) 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 computer
model 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 was
modified into seven different configurations. Five different loading
scenario 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, the
following conclusions have been drawn.
 For all loading scenarios, the calculated maximum elastic load
for 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 Loading
Scenario 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 in
modified containers before reaching the capacity required in
ISO 1496-1 [11]. As long as the container structure stacks the
containers similar to transportation methods, the ISO loading
scenarios 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 structural
contribution.
 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 (M1
and M4), a localized yield stress in the door header may have
occurred 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. The
roof 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 end
wall can resist 4.2 kip/ft lateral load at yielding (two 2438 mm
long walls carry 149.2 kN each, Fig. 16) while a longitudinal
end wall can resist 0.85 kip/ft lateral load at yielding (two
6058 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 applied
loads (Figs. 13–17). The model with no walls (M8) was the
weakest in all cases, with the exception of model M7 under
 K. Giriunas et al. / Engineering Structures 43 (2012) 48–57
Loading Scenario 2, where the vertical loads were applied over
the rear of the container (Fig. 14). Lateral resistance of the con-
tainer structure was significantly reduced when the walls in the
direction of loading were removed.
 Using the results from the container modifications, a series of
modified container orientations for specific scenarios can be
developed for disaster, military, or residential applications.
Once the response of a given modified container is accurately
simulated, full scale testing of the modified containers can be
performed. A full scale test of a modified shipping container
for different loading scenarios will validate the computer simu-
lations and data.
References
[1] Kotnik J. Container architecture: this book contains 6441 containers. In: Krauel
J, editor. Jonqueres. Barcelona: LINKS International; 2009.
[2] Hermann N, Gehle J. 249th Engineers Company operations building. Speech
presented at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 2007.
[3] Genelin CL, Dinan RJ, Hoemann JM, Salim HA. Evaluation of blast resistant rigid
walled expeditionary structures. Tyndall (FL): Air Force Research Laboratory;
2009.
[4] Genelin CL, Salim HA. Evaluation of modular re-locatable buildings subjected
to blast. Tyndall (FL): Air Force Research Laboratory; 2010.
[5] Borvik T, Hanssen A, Dey S, Langberg H, Langseth M. On the ballistic and blast
load response of a 20 ft ISO container protected with aluminum panels filled
with a local mass – Phase I: Design of protective system. Eng Struct
2008;30:1605–20.
57
[6] Borvik T, Hanssen A, Dey S, Langberg H, Langseth M. On the ballistic and blast
load response of a 20 ft ISO container protected with aluminum panels filled
with a local mass – Phase II: Validation of protective system. Eng Struct
2008;30:1621–31.
[7] CSC. International convention for safe containers. 4th ed. London: International
Maritime Organization; 1996.
[8] ISO/TC 104. ISO 668:1995 series 1 freight containers-classification, dimensions
and ratings. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization for
Standardization; 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 and
marking. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization for
Standardization; 1995.
[11] ISO/TC 104. ISO 1496-1:1990 Series 1 freight containers-specification and
testing – 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 ISO
1161:1984. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization for
Standardization; 1990.
[13] ISO/TC 104. ISO 2308:1972 hooks for lifting freight containers of up to 30
tonnes capacity-basic requirements. Geneva (Switzerland): International
Organization 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 shipping
container building structures. Ohio State, Columbus, Ohio, USA; 2012.
[16] Coduto DP. Foundation design-principles and practices. 2nd ed. New
Jersey: 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.