Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Introduction forklift truck to enter the rack, drive-in racks can only be braced at
the back (spine bracing) and at the top (plan bracing), while drive-
Rarely seen by the general public, steel storage racks are through racks can only be braced at the top.
extensively used in industry for storing goods on pallets. They The stability of steel storage racks is sensitive to the stiffness
are freestanding structures mainly made from cold-formed steel of the base plate to floor connection, the pallet beam to upright
profiles and are able to carry heavy loads while being designed connector stiffness (for selective racks) [2] and the portal beam
to be as light as possible. Different racks are available on the to upright connector (for drive-in and drive-through racks). The
market and they are described in [1]. Selective racks are the most main international racking design specifications such as those of
common type of rack, in which each racking structure is separated the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) [3], Australian Standard
from another by aisles, allowing each pallet to be always accessible. AS 4084 [4] and European Standard EN 15512 [5] only deal with
Fig. 1 shows a typical selective rack. selective racks and require testing for determining the stiffness
Drive-in and drive-through racks are less common types of rack, and strength of the pallet beam to upright connectors, and propose
where pallets are stored on beam rails one after the other. When alternative test set-ups referred to as cantilever tests and portal
frame tests. EN 15512 [5] has recently been published and it
storing the same good or in a limited and expensive storage area
supersedes the FEM (Fdration Europenne de la Manutention)
(e.g. industrial freezers), drive-in and drive-through racks are often
Specification [6]. While the FEM [6] Specification proposed either
an attractive alternative to selective racks. In the two systems, the
the cantilever test or the portal frame test, only the cantilever test
forklift truck drives into the rack to place or remove pallets; it can
has been retained in EN 15512 [5]. The cantilever test can also be
only access the rack on one side in drive-in racks but it can access
used to determine the initial connector looseness.
on both sides in drive-through racks (see Fig. 2). By allowing the A literature review of the behaviour of pallet beam to upright
connectors shows that the portal frame test is an accurate way to
determine the stiffness of the pallet beam/portal beam to upright
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9351 4393. connector when analysing the stability of the rack in the down-
E-mail addresses: b.gilbert@usyd.edu.au (B.P. Gilbert), aisle direction (sway motion). This paper reviews the method for
k.rasmussen@usyd.edu.au (K.J.R. Rasmussen). determining the pallet beam/portal beam to upright connection
1 Tel.: +61 2 9351 2125. characteristic from the main racking design specifications.
0143-974X/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.013
756 B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766
2. Literature review
determined under the sway motion of the frame, results from the
portal frame tests are generally used for sway analysis while results
from the cantilever tests are usually used for the design of beams
and connectors [11].
Harris [10] compared the two experimental set-ups and found
that the connector stiffness values obtained from the cantilever
test are typically half the connector stiffness values obtained
from the portal frame test. Harris explained the difference by the
closingopening effect of the connector in the portal frame test.
Indeed, when the portal beam is loaded with its service pallet
load, the left and right connectors are closing up, as shown in
Fig. 6(a), and when the portal frame is subsequently subjected to a
horizontal load the left connector in Fig. 6(b) keeps closing up while
the right connector starts opening. Typically, cyclic cantilever tests
Fig. 5. Portal frame test set-up from [4].
show that, when reversing the load, the stiffness does not follow a
linear path and the unloading stiffness is significantly higher than
at the force location and/or the rotation of the pallet beam
the loading stiffness [12,13], resulting in two different stiffness
near the connector. Even if the test set-ups in the previously
values for the right and left connectors when performing a portal
mentioned design codes are very similar, slight differences in the frame test and explaining the difference between the stiffness
test set-up dimensions, procedure and position of transducers are values obtained from the cantilever and portal frame tests.
encountered, as described in [10]. The test set-up allows forces
to be applied cyclically to measure the opening stiffness, closing
2.2. Bolted moment connections between cold-formed steel members
stiffness and looseness of the connector. Examples of earthquake-
related cyclic tests on beam end connectors are reported in [9]. Investigations to determine the momentrotational behaviour
In the second test set-up, referred to as the portal frame test, of bolted moment connections between cold-formed steel mem-
two lengths of upright are connected by a pallet beam to form bers have been reported using gusset plates between mem-
a portal frame, pinned at its base. This alternative set-up is not bers [1417], and with members bolted directly together [18,19].
included in EN 15512 [5]. The pallet beam is loaded with its service These investigations were motivated by the growing trend of using
load; typically, pallets are used to load the beam, requiring the use cold-formed steel members in buildings in the 1990s and the lack
of two parallel portal frames. A horizontal load is then applied at of design rules for this type of connection [14].
the level of the top of the pallet beam and horizontal displacements Studies in [1416] showed that bolted moment connections
are recorded at the same elevation. The FEM [6] requires the test between cold-formed steel members are feasible and economical
to be performed to failure while the RMI [3] and AS 4084 [4] with an ultimate capacity of the connection up to 85% of the
only require the maximum applied load to be twice the maximum capacity of the connected members. The stiffness of bolted
horizontal design load. Other minor differences in the test set-up moment connections can also be used to reduce the effective
dimensions and procedures are reported in [10]. Fig. 5 shows the length in member design [18].
portal frame test set-up from AS 4084 [4]. A typical experimental momentrotation curve of a bolted
As the portal frame test allows the average stiffness of moment connection is given in [20] and is reproduced in Fig. 7.
one connector closing up and of one connector opening to be High initial connection stiffness followed by a slippage of the
Fig. 6. Portal frame test deformation: (a) application of pallet load and (b) application of lateral load.
758 B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766
Table 1
Section properties.
Member Name Gross area Thick Yield stress Ultimate Imajoraxis Iminoraxis J Warping
(mm2 ) (mm) (MPa) strength (MPa) (mm4 ) (mm4 ) (mm4 ) (mm6 )
Upright RF12519 727.9 1.9 459a 513a 1.328 106 6.852 105 780.6 2.510 109
Portal beam SB15019 559.1 1.9 450b 1.746 106 1.683 105 672.8 1.011 109
a
From average coupon test values.
b
Nominal value.
3. Experimental analysis
Fig. 9. Portal frame experimental test set-up: (a) schematic of the set-up and (b) photo of actual set-up.
Fig. 10. Portal frame deformation broken into two parts: (a) portal sway and (b) connection stiffness.
The lateral load is applied through a pinned joint at the shear where h is the vertical distance from the bottom hinge to the top
centre plane of the upright using a stroke-controlled 100 kN of the portal beam, d is the width of the face of the upright and
hydraulic jack. Due to misalignments, the jack applies the lateral L is the distance between the centrelines of uprights. The FEM [6]
load 17 mm below the centreline of the portal beam. The portal expresses the rotation FEM of the beam end connector as
beam is bolted to the upright applying a 20 N m torque per bolt
h2
following the manufacturer standard procedures. hL
For each upright, two linear variable differential transformers FEM = F + (6)
h 12EIc 24EIb
(LVDTs) record the horizontal displacements at the centreline
of the portal beam. Two additional LVDTs record the horizontal where is the average lateral displacement at the top of the portal
displacements of the hinge above the strong floor beam rail to beam. The MFEM FEM experimental curve can be used to either
indicate if sliding occurs. The LVDT numbering is given in Fig. 9(a). derive a bilinear curve in which the connector stiffness kFEM is
calculated as a line through the origin which isolates equal area
3.3. Connection stiffness between it and the experimental curve, below the design moment . . .
MRdc or a multi-linear curve. The design moment MRdc is defined
3.3.1. International racking design codes in Sections 13.3.3 and A.2.4.5.1 of EN 15512 [5].
The main racking Specifications give similar approaches to Eqs. (3)(6) remain valid for the beam and uprights in the elastic
determining the average beam end connector stiffness. The RMI [3] range; however, the connection can exhibit a non-linear behaviour
and AS 4084 [4] calculate the lateral displacement at the top of and the actual connector stiffness can be obtained by plotting the
the horizontal beam for one portal frame loaded with a lateral load momentrotation curve using Eqs. (5) and (6) while, in the inelastic
of 2H in terms of the average beam end connector stiffness kRMI ,AS range, Eq. (4) would correspond to an equivalent elastic, or secant,
as stiffness.
Hh3 Hh2 L Hh2
= + + (3) 3.3.2. Modified stiffness equations
3EIc 6EIb kRMI ,As
The above equations are modified to consider the height of
where E is the Youngs modulus, h is the vertical distance from the
the hinges at the bottom of the uprights in the test set-up
floor to the top of the portal beam, Ib and Ic are the second moments
shown in Fig. 9, and the beam connection stiffness k is calculated
of area of the portal beam and the upright, respectively, and L is
with respect to the intersection of the upright and portal beam
the horizontal distance between the upright centrelines. By solving
Eq. (3), the average beam end connector stiffness kRMI ,AS is given for centrelines.
a regular test with two portal frames with a lateral load of 2H as The total sway deformation of the portal frame can be broken
into two parts with identical internal forces: a portal sway
1 deformation with rigid connections as shown in Fig. 10(a) and a
kRMI ,As = 2 h L
. (4)
Hh2
3EIc
6EIb
portal frame deformation due only to the connection rotations as
shown in Fig. 10(b). In Fig. 10, points A and F represent the centre
When no vertical load is applied to the portal beam, the FEM [6]
of the hinges, points B and E represent the bottom of the uprights
gives the moment MFEM in the connector when a lateral force F is
applied to a test set-up with two portal frames as and points C and D are the intersections of the centrelines of the
uprights and portal beam.
Fh d The vertical eccentricity F of the point of application of the
MFEM = 1 (5)
4 L load in Fig. 10 represents less than 2.5% of the upright height and
760 B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766
Table 2
Values used in Eq. (9).
h (mm) h1 (mm) L (mm) EIc (kN mm2 ) kc (kN mm) EIb (kN mm2 ) kb (kN mm)
690 625 1475 2.899 108 4.639 105 3.608 108 2.471 105
and
EIb
kb = (11)
L
where E is the Youngs modulus, Ic and Ib are the second moments
of area of the upright and portal beam, respectively, and L is the
horizontal distance between the centrelines of the uprights.
For h equal h1 , Eq. (9) simplifies to Eq. (4) for the RMI [3] and AS
4084 [4] connector stiffness kRMI ,AS .
Table 3
Connection stiffness.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
k1 (kN mm/rad) Mi,1 (kN mm) k2 (kN mm/rad) M2 (kN mm) k3 (kN mm/rad) M3 (kN mm)
a
96 326 3289 286 59 345 2091
a
Mi,1 depends of the point of change between loading and unloading.
a b
Fig. 17. Phase 3 behaviour for first and second loading cycles: (a) portal frame no. 3 result and (b) grooves cut in upright.
B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766 763
a b
Fig. 18. Test performed on portal frame no. 3 (a) experimental result (b) local yielding of upright bolt hole.
Table 4
Section properties for the finite element rack.
Member Gross area (mm2 ) Imajoraxis (mm4 ) Iminoraxis (mm4 ) J (mm4 ) Warping (mm6 )
a 3500 b 3500
3000 3000
2500 2500
Pallet load (kg)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Top displacement at the front of the rack (mm) Moment at the base of the upright (kN.mm)
Fig. 22. Drive-in rack FE results for different portal beam to upright stiffness models: (a) top front displacement and (b) moment in the critical upright at floor elevation.
B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766 765
a 2500 b 2500
2000 2000
Pallet load (kg)
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Top displacement at the front of the rack (mm) Moment at the base of the upright (kN.mm)
Fig. 23. Drive-through rack FE results for different portal beam to upright stiffness models: (a) top front displacement and (b) moment in the critical upright at floor
elevation.
with action-to-capacity ratios equal to 0.64 for member check racking specifications require the connector looseness to be
and 1.00 for serviceability check. Fig. 23 plots the corresponding incorporated in the design, especially for unbraced racks. Contrary
curves to those shown in Fig. 22 but for the drive-through to tab connectors in which the looseness is initially present in the
rack configuration. It can be observed that incorporating the connection, finite element results on drive-in and drive-through
portal beam to upright connection looseness in the out-of-plumb racks show that it is likely that at the design load, the moment
(approach (ii)) still leads to excessive displacements of the rack and in the bolted portal beam to upright connection is lower that
bending moment in the upright compared to the accurate approach the one inducing slippage in the connection, and consequently
(i). It can also be observed that considering a linear stiffness the looseness in the connection can be disregarded. If this is not
k1 (approach (iii)) in the design leads to similar results to the the case, connection looseness must be considered in the design.
accurate solution at the design load of the rack, emphasising that Finally, this paper presents methods for the design of drive-in and
slippage does not occur in the portal beam to upright connections drive-through racks with bolted moment portal beam to upright
at the design load. However, in contrast to the drive-in rack connections.
configuration, the stability of the rack now depends solely on the
rotational stiffness of the base plate connection and the portal Acknowledgements
beam to upright connection, and releasing the moment between
portal beams and uprights (approach (iv)) leads to excessive The authors would like to thank Dr. Murray Clarke and Dr. Lip
displacements and moments compared to the accurate solution. Teh from Dematic Pty. Ltd. for their valuable comments to this
The behaviour of the bolted moment connection between portal research program. The authors are grateful to Dematic Pty. Ltd. for
beams and uprights can then be incorporated in the design of supplying all testing materials at no cost, and making RAD design
drive-in (braced) and drive-through (unbraced) racks using two software available for the research program.
alternative approaches. First, a linear stiffness k1 , associated with
the initial stiffness of the connection before slippage occurs, can References
be used to design the rack without an additional out-of-plumb due
[1] Pekoz T, Winter G. Cold-formed steel rack structures. In: Yu WW, editor. 2nd
to looseness in the connection. In this approach, it needs to be specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures, St Louis (Missouri, USA);
checked that at the design load the moment in the portal beam 1973. p. 60315.
to upright connection is less than the moment initiating slippage. [2] Baldassino N, Bernuzzi C. Analysis and behaviour of steel storage pallet racks.
Thin-Walled Structures 2000;37(4):277304.
Second, the complete moment rotational curve can be modelled [3] RMI. Specification for the design, testing and utilization of industrial steel
using a multi-linear curve, as shown in Fig. 21 (approach (i)), thus storage racks. Charlotte (USA): Rack Manufacturers Institute; 2008.
ensuring representative displacements and internal forces in the [4] AS 4084. Steel storage racking. Standards Australia. Sydney (Australia); 1993.
[5] EN 15512. Steel static storage systems Adjustable pallet racking systems
rack members. Especially for drive-through racks, these design Principles for structural design. Brussels (Belgium): European Committee for
recommendations would lead to lighter structures than if designed Standardization (CEN); 2009.
with an additional out-of-plumb 1 and/or a pinned connection [6] FEM. Section X Recommendations for the design of steel static pallet racking
and shelving. Brussels (Belgium): Fdration Europenne de la Manutention;
between the upright and portal beam. 1998.
[7] Markazi FD, Beale RG, Godley MHR. Experimental analysis of semi-rigid
boltless connectors. Thin-Walled Structures 1997;28(1):5787.
6. Conclusions [8] McConnel RE, Kelly SJ. Structural aspects of the progressive collapse of
warehouse racking. The Structural Engineer 1983;61A:3437.
This paper reviews the current practices for determining [9] Bernuzzi C, Castiglioni CA. Experimental analysis on the cyclic behaviour of
beam-to-column joints in steel storage pallet racks. Thin-Walled Structures
the pallet beam/portal beam stiffness for storage racks and the 2001;39:84159.
characteristics of bolted moment connections between cold- [10] Harris E. Sway behaviour of high rise steel storage racks. Ph.D. thesis.
formed steel members. By combining high moment capacity and University of Sydney. 2006.
[11] Sarawit AT, Pekoz T. Design of industrial storage racks. In: LaBoule RA, Yu WW,
stiffness, bolted moment connections represent an economical editors, 16th international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structure
and feasible alternative to tab connectors for portal beam to Orlando (FL, USA); 2002. p. 36984.
upright connections for drive-in and drive-through storage racks. [12] Abdel-Jaber M, Beale RG, Godley MHR. Numerical study on semi-rigid racking
frames under sway. Computers & Structures 2005;83(2830):246375.
Experimental test results show significant looseness in the bolted [13] Abdel-Jaber M, Beale RG, Godley MHR. A theoretical and experimental
connection after a high initial rotational stiffness. Current research investigation of pallet rack structures under sway. Journal of Constructional
on bolted moment connections focus on structures not sensitive to Steel Research 2006;62(12):6880.
[14] Chung KF, Lau L. Experimental investigation on bolted moment connections
second-order P effects and ignore looseness in the connector. among cold formed steel members. Engineering Structures 1999;21(10):
Yet, the P effect is important for storage racks and international 898911.
766 B.P. Gilbert, K.J.R. Rasmussen / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 755766
[15] Wong MF, Chung KF. Structural behaviour of bolted moment connections in [23] Kitipornchai S, Al-Bermani FGA, Peyrot AH. Effect of bolt slippage on ultimate
cold-formed steel beamcolumn sub-frames. Journal of Constructional Steel behavior of lattice structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994;120(8):
Research 2002;58(2):25374. 22817.
[16] Lim JBP, Nethercot DA. Ultimate strength of bolted moment-connections [24] Sato A, Uang C. Seismic design procedure development for cold-formed steel-
between cold-formed steel members. Thin-Walled Structures 2003;41(11): special bolted moment frames. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2009;
101939. 65(4):8608.
[17] Lim JBP, Nethercot DA. Stiffness prediction for bolted moment-connections [25] Fisher JW. Behaviour of fasteners and plates with holes. Journal of the
between cold-formed steel members. Journal of Constructional Steel Research Structural Division 1965;91:26586.
2004;60(1):85107. [26] Crawford SF, Kulak GL. Eccentrically loaded bolted connections. Journal of the
[18] Zaharia R, Dubina D. Stiffness of joints in bolted connected cold-formed steel Structural Division 1971;97:76583.
trusses. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006;62(3):2409. [27] Gilbert BP, Rasmussen KJR. Experimental test on steel storage rack compo-
[19] Uang C, Sato A, Hong J, Wood K. Cyclic testing and modeling of cold-formed nents. Research report R899. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Syd-
steel special bolted moment frame. Journal of Structural Engineering (2009) ney, Australia. 2009.
(submitted for publication). [28] Godley MHR, Beale RG. Investigation of the effects of looseness of bracing
[20] Dubina D, Zaharia R. Cold-formed steel trusses with semi-rigid joints. Thin- components in the cross-aisle direction on the ultimate load-carrying capacity
Walled Structures 1997;29(14):27387. of pallet rack frames. Thin-Walled Structures 2008;46(79):84854.
[21] Yu WK, Chung KF, Wong MF. Analysis of bolted moment connections in [29] Dematic. RAD User manual. Sydney (Australia): Dematic Pty. Ltd.; 2006.
cold-formed steel beamcolumn sub-frames. Journal of Constructional Steel [30] Abaqus ver. 6.5-4 User manual. Providence (USA): ABAQUS, Inc.; 2005.
Research 2005;61(9):133252. [31] Gilbert BP, Rasmussen KJR. Finite Element modelling of steel drive-in rack
[22] Lim JBP, Nethercot DA. Finite element idealization of a cold-formed steel portal structures. Research report R901. School of Civil Engineering, The University
frame. Journal of Structural Engineering 2004;130(1):7894. of Sydney, Australia. 2009.