See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302955476

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF FULL SCALE PUSH OVER TESTS OF PROJECT

SEISRACKS2 (SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF STEEL STORAGE PALLET RACKING
SYSTEMS)

Conference Paper · August 2014

CITATIONS READS

5 311

6 authors, including:

Carlo Andrea Castiglioni Giovanni Brambilla

Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
171 PUBLICATIONS   1,345 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gian Paolo Chiarelli Claudio Bernuzzi

Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
11 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   664 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

FASTCOLD View project

LASTEICON View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Andrea Castiglioni on 12 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF FULL SCALE PUSH OVER
TESTS OF PROJECT SEISRACKS2 (SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF STEEL
STORAGE PALLET RACKING SYSTEMS)

Carlo Andrea CASTIGLIONI1 Alper KANYILMAZ2 Marco ANGERETTI3 Giovanni

BRAMBILLA4 Gian Paolo CHIARELLI5 Claudio BERNUZZI6

ABSTRACT

This is a presentation of the results of full scale push over tests of EU research project SEISRACKS2:
“Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage Pallet Racking Systems”, RFSR-CT-2011-00031. After a
general overview of the project, experimental results achieved to date in Politecnico di Milano are
summarized. The push over tests has been carried out on 7 different pallet racking systems with 4
levels and 2 bays. A monotonically increasing horizontal force with a triangular distribution has been
applied in the longitudinal direction (down-aisle). The global force-deformation behavior of the racks
has been investigated, and some preliminary conclusions about their ductility in the down-aisle
direction have been reached.

INTRODUCTION

CEN TC344 is currently developing a preliminary normative document based on European Racking
Federation (ERF) FEM 10.2.08 v 1.04: 2011 and on recent research works. The current version of
FEM 10.2.08 (v.1.04: 2011) is fundamentally based on the experimental results obtained within the
frame of the EU-RFCS project SEISRACKS 1(RFS-PR-03114:2007).
To solve the remaining lacks of knowledge leading to conservative design rules and
consequently to strong technical limitations when designing static steel pallet racks with respect to
seismic safety, the EU sponsored through the Research Fund for Coal and Steel a research project
titled SEISRACKS2 (RFSR-CT-2011-00031).
The objective of the SEISRACKS2 project is to increase knowledge on actual structural
behavior and ductility of racks in seismic areas, and to assess design rules for earthquake conditions.
The main expected outcomes of the research are:
• Detailed reports on the different aspects investigated
• Validation or invalidation of the rules in the current draft of FEM 10.2.08, v 1.04: 2011
• Improvements and extension of the current rules in order to optimize the seismic behavior of
structures designed according to European rules

1
Full Professor, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, carlo.castiglioni@polimi.it
2
Phd Candidate, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, alper.kanyilmaz@polimi.it
3
MSc Student, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, angeretti@hotmail.com
4
MSc Student, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, giovanni-brambilla@libero.it
5
MSc Student, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, gian.chiarelli@mail.polimi.it
6
Associate Professor, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, claudio.bernuzzi@polimi.it

1
• Definition of standardized experimental procedures to qualify structural elements of rack
structures to be used in seismic areas
• Development of a software tool for the design of rack structures under seismic loads

Partners of the project are: Politecnico di Milano, Architecture, Building and Construction
Department (Coordinator) (I), University of Liege, Depatment ArGenCo (B), RWTH Aachen, Institute
of Steel Construction (D), National Technical University of Athens, Department of Civil Engineering
(GR), SCL Ingegneria Strutturale (I), MODULBLOK S.p.A. (I), NEDCON Magazijninrichting B.V.
(NL), FRITZ SCHAFER GmbH (D), STOW INTERNATIONAL N.V (B) and CCS COMPUTER
CONTROL SYSTEMS S.A. (GR).

This article is a presentation of the results of full scale pushover tests carried out at Politecnico
di Milano within the project SEISRACKS2. The pushover test is useful to investigate the behavior of a
structure under horizontal loads; it consists in “pushing” the structure until it collapses or a controlled
deformation parameter reaches a predefined limit value. The pushing effect is obtained by applying a
progressively increasing load pattern and plotting the total load applied versus the monitored point’s
displacement to obtain a characteristic force-displacement graph named “capacity curve”. This type of
test is named static because the load increases in a long time span, so that no dynamic forces arise, and
non linear because it takes into account both geometrical non linear properties (such as P-delta
effects,) and material non linear properties (i.e. plastic deformations of elements). The application of
lateral forces in a pushover test is preferred to applying a prescribed displacement pattern because the
former allows softening of the structure and storey collapse mechanisms to develop.
By elaborations of experimental results, capacity curves have been plotted in order to estimate
the global ductility resources. Furthermore the failure mechanisms of the different rack typologies
have been observed and discussed.

CASE STUDIES

The objects of study are adjustable pallet racking structures characterized by frames with semi-rigid
joints in longitudinal direction and lattice beams in transversal directions (upright frames).
A total of seven specimens provided and designed by four industrial partners (conventionally
named IPA, IPB, IPC and IPD for privacy reasons, according to a non-disclosure agreement) were
tested along their longitudinal direction (down aisle direction):
• 4 unbraced racks (IPA, IPB, IPC, IPD)
• 3 braced racks (IPA, IPB, IPD)

The geometry of the racks is characterized by maximum height nearly 8m, representative of
most of the real configurations on the market. The position of beams and of the upright frames is
determined with respect to the unit load size. The most severe configuration for the rack structure is
without beam near the floor (the first pallet at the bottom is placed on the ground) as usually happens
in logistic warehouses. To maximize the mass respect to the stiffness of the rack, and the local effects
on the pallet beams, the configuration with 3 pallets per bays has been chosen.
The distance between the beams is regular and corresponds to 2m, with four loaded levels in
height. In the practice, for 3 pallets each 800mm wide, the distance between center to center of the
uprights is nearly 3m, and is related to the width of the upright, that changes for each manufacturer.
The upright frame depth, for a pallet 1200mm deep, is 1,1m. Upright frames consist of two columns
made of thin gauge cold formed profiles linked together by a system of diagonal and/or horizontal
members according to different configurations as shown in Table.1.

2
 C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, M. Angeretti, G. Brambilla, G.P. Chiarelli, C. Bernuzzi 3

Table 1. Summary of the configurations to be tested (made by the composition of vertical and horizontal bracing
type), and the IP that will provide them.

A B C F
1 IP C IP D IP B
2a
2b IP D
4 IP A

Upright frames to be used in the tests and numerical Configuration of upright frames provided by
analyses. the different Industrial Partners.

The Fig.1 and Fig.2 show the overall geometry of the two structural typologies tested:

Figure 1. Example of unbraced rack Figure 2. Example of braced rack

The brace racks are characterized by the presence of vertical and horizontal bracing systems
(Table. 2). They increase the stiffness of the rack against horizontal loads (in particular for seismic
forces).The design data and seismicity parameters were the same for all case studies and for all
Industrial Partners.
Table 2. Summary of the configurations to be tested (made by the composition of vertical and horizontal bracing
type), and the IP that will provide them.
X bracing X bracing
cable tension tension/
only compression
1b IP D
1c IP A
2b IP C
3b IP B

Horizontal bracing system configuration. Bracing configuration provided by the

different IP

The mass of the unit loads of 800kg is representative of a medium- high value of merchandise
and it is quite common in practice. In the experimental tests, the unit loads will be represented by
concrete blocks (Fig.3) that according to FEM 10.2.08 correspond to the stored good class “compact
and constrained”. Thus the parameter ED2 has been set equal to 1,0 in the calculations.

Figure 3. General rack geometry and pallet configuration

The seismic design rules and the basic parameters are given by the design reference code FEM
10.2.08. The design parameters and geometrical properties to be used in the tests are summarized in
Table.3.
Table 3. Geometrical configuration of the racks and design parameters
Height of the frame 8m
Number and height of the beam levels 4 levels @ 2 m nearly
Length of the rack 6 bays; 3 pallets per beam
Max Acceleration (Low Seismicity) 0.12g-0.15g (Soil C, Type 2)
Max Acceleration (High Seismicity) 0.25g-0.30g (Soil C, Type 1)
Pallet mass 800 kg
Ed2 1.0
β (spectrum cut-off) 0.2
Friction coefficient 0.375 (wooden pallet on steel beams – normal warehouse conditions)
CµL 0.67
CµH 1.5
Importance Class 2
Design life 30 years → γ1=0.84 (normal use of the racks)
Ed3 0.67

4
 C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, M. Angeretti, G. Brambilla, G.P. Chiarelli, C. Bernuzzi 5

TEST PROCEDURE

All the tests were performed outdoor, in a testing facility owned by Marcegaglia Buildtech and
managed by Politecnico di Milano where full scale racks could be easily mounted and loaded.
The racks were mounted over a specially designed support structure. This particular support,
shown in Figure , is made with steel beams and has been designed in order to:
• avoid deformation during the tests
• allow easy installation of the racks bases

Figure 4. Rigid base: rendering plan, rendering front view, on site lateral and front view
Pushover tests will be performed by pulling the structure by means of an hydraulic jack. In
order to balance the reaction force and transmit it to ground, a steel reaction tower has been designed
and built on a rigid foundation (Fig.5).

Figure 5. Rigid tower, front and lateral view

The load has been designed to have a triangular pattern (Fig.6), with loads acting on each level,
increasing from the lowest to the upper. Since the pulling force is generated by one hydraulic jack
only, a specially designed load balancer is required to distribute the force with such a pattern. This
load balancer (Fig.7) has been designed as a series of three double supported beams, placed in such a
way that reaction forces at their ends are proportionally increasing from the first support to the fourth.
 Figure 6. Triangular load pattern Figure 4. Load balancer static scheme
The load is transferred from the jack to the structure through a steel strand; to monitor the
effective load in the strand, a load cell is installed between the end of the jack and the strand itself.
This is useful for a real-time monitoring of the applied load that, together with the monitoring of the
displacements, can offer a good indication of plasticization and collapse’s limit, so that the test can be
easily stopped in case of danger or imminent instability.
To perform a static pushover test, not only the proper load must be applied to the structure but
also the displacements of significant nodes must be monitored and recorded, so that the load-
deformation curve, useful to investigate racks’ deformed shape and ductility properties, can be plotted.
For this purpose twelve potentiometric displacement transducers were used. A total of 8 transducers
was placed, two for each level of the rack, in order to monitor the longitudinal backside and front side
displacements, while 4 transducers were placed backside at the second and fourth floor on the left and
right side of the rack, to control the displacements in down aisle direction. This configuration was
adopted to register the out-of-plane displacements due to torsional deformations expected in braced
racks. The general test layout is shown in the Fig.8.

Figure 8. General test layout

RESULTS

A characteristic force-displacement diagram named “capacity curve” is obtained by plotting the total
load applied versus the top displacement.
As the global behaviour of racking system is governed by the behavior of their components
(such as base plates and beam-to-upright connections), whose design and detailing are proprietary, for

6
 C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, M. Angeretti, G. Brambilla, G.P. Chiarelli, C. Bernuzzi 7

privacy reasons, it was decided, among the partners, to avoid any divulgation and dissemination of
“proprietary” data, by undersigning a “non-disclosure agreement”.
Due to such a nondisclosure agreement among the partners, the graphs have been normalized
following the procedure reported below:
• Base shear force F has been normalized on the yield shear force Fy Eq.(1):

F
F* = (1)
FY

• Displacements d have been normalized on the yield displacement dy Eq.(2):

d
d* = (2)
dY

According to ECCS:45 [1986], the conventional limit of elastic range Fy and the corresponding
displacement dy may be deduced as follow (Fig.9):
• evaluate the tangent at the origin of the F-d curve; it gives a tangent modulus E = tgαy
• locate the tangent that has a slope of E/10
• the intersection of the two tangents defines the level of Fy
• dy is the displacement corresponding to that intersection

Figure 9. Assessment of yielding force

The capacity curves obtained by the tests for the unbraced racks are shown in the Fig.10-13:

Figure 10. IP A unbraced rack Figure 11. IP B unbraced rack

 Figure 12. IP C unbraced rack Figure 13. IP D unbraced rack
The capacity curves obtained by the tests for the braced racks are shown in the Fig.14-16:

Figure 14. IP A braced rack Figure 15. IP B braced rack

Figure 16. IP D braced rack

The pushover curves of all the cases examined are now superimposed in order to enable their
comparison and to draw some general comments. At first, diagrams of unbraced structures are shown.
For clarity of the graphics they are presented according to their similar behavior.

8
 C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, M. Angeretti, G. Brambilla, G.P. Chiarelli, C. Bernuzzi 9

Figure 17. Group_1 racks capacity curves Figure 18. Group_2 racks capacity curves
The two different structural responses are immediately evident by observing Group_1 and Group_2,
respectively the left and right diagrams, the following conclusions can be reached.
• Group_1 (Fig.17): Both structures develop non linear behavior before the yield point is reached. In
fact, neither of the two curves passes through the point of coordinates (1; 1). This behavior is due
to a diffused joints plasticization that occurs since the beginning of the test. After the flat line is
reached and the structures unloaded, they show a permanent deformation. The unloading branch is
parallel to the initial loading one. It can be deduced that the racks still have little plastic resources,
at least in terms of displacement.
• Group_2 (Fig.18): In this case the tests show a different behavior with regard to the previous ones.
The initial branch seems to be perfectly elastic until the yield value is reach. A short flat line can
be observed before collapse occurs. The structural failure is highlighted by the absence of the
elastic unloading branch that is replaced with an increase of displacement during the unloading
phase. The lack of plastic deformation is probably due to a local collapse mechanism (softstory)
that spreads during the tests with the formation of plastic hinges both on base plates and on the top
of first interstory as shown in Fig.20.

Figure 19. Last step deformed shapes of IP A Figure 20. Last step deformed shapes of IP C
As an example the last step deformed shape of IP A (Group_1) and IP C (Group_2) are
presented in Fig.19-20. The two opposite behaviors can be noticed.
Also the braced structures presented different behaviors as reported in the Fig.20.

Figure 20. Braced capacity curves superposition

The racks of company B and D showed a response that can be defined as “brittle”:
• The IP B structure suddenly collapses due to shear failure of the bolted connection of the vertical
bracing diagonal at ground level, while the rack is still in the elastic phase.
• The IP D structure reaches failure because the particular joint’s configuration causes the spreading
of additional bending stresses in the bolted connection of the vertical bracing diagonal member, at
the top of the first level, due to the eccentricity of the shear planes. The mentioned deformations
affect the global behavior of the structure that is not purely elastic; therefore the pushover
experimental diagram draws a slightly marked curved shape instead of a straight line.
On the contrary, the behavior of IP A rack can be considered “ductile”. Failure of the
connections of the diagonal members did not occur during the test, so that all plastic resources of the
lower level diagonal have been exploited and the rack could reach high displacements.
The results shown in this document are only partial because the research project isn't finished
and some structures must be still tested. The global results will be shown elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

In this study the seismic behavior of steel storage pallet racks has been investigated through full scale
pushover tests in down-aisle direction performed within the research project SEISRACK2 (RFSR-CT-
2011-00031).
After an exhaustive introduction about the setting up of the testing facility and the procedure
followed for test execution, the results of pushover tests have been analyzed. For every specimen,
experimental capacity curve are presented in detail. By observing the capacity curves it can be
generally stated that braced racks can sustain greater horizontal loads than unbraced ones, though
collapse is reached in different ways.
The behavior of the seven structures tested up to now (April 2014) is influenced by the design
choices adopted by the producers. In particular it is observed that the structural response is highly
influenced by the base and beam end connections, by the diagonals and how they are connected to the
main frame. The most significant results are obtained from a comparison among the structures of the
same type. In fact, two characteristic structural behaviors occurred: in some cases an effective ductile
behavior of the racking has been observed, corresponding to diffuse development of plastic resources
and a global collapse mechanism. These specimens showed a progressive loss of stiffness associated
to accumulation of plastic deformations in the column base, in the beam-end connections as well as in
the diagonal bracings.
In other structures a brittle response occurred. In some unbraced structures a collapse
mechanism that exploits post elastic resources localized in few joints only is observed. In fact
interstorey drifts of the upper level are smaller than those of the first level; this is characteristic of the
softstorey type of collapse mechanism that may lead to global instability also due to second order
effects. Brittle behavior of braced racks occurred when the vertical brace connections collapsed due to

10
 C. A. Castiglioni, A. Kanyilmaz, M. Angeretti, G. Brambilla, G.P. Chiarelli, C. Bernuzzi
11

a sudden bolt failure. The importance of structural detailing is therefore highlighted: brittle collapse
can be easily avoided at low cost with a small improvement of connections detailing, leading to a great
enhancement of the structural performance.

REFERENCES

Agatino M R, Bernuzzi C, Castiglioni C A “Joints under cyclic reversal loading in steel storage pallet racks”,
Proc. XVIII C.T.A. Conference, Venezia, September 2001, vol. 2, pag. 105-114
ANSI MH16.1 (2008) “Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks”
RMI-2008
Ballio G, Bernuzzi C, Castiglioni C A, “An approach for the seismic design of steel storage pallet racks”,
Stahlbau, Nov. 1999
Bernuzzi C and Castiglioni C A (2001) “Experimental analysis on the cyclic behaviour of beam-to-column
joints in steel storage pallet racks”, Thin-Walled Structures, n. 39, pag. 841-859
Brescianini J C, Castiglioni C A, Panzeri N (2003) “Dynamic experimental tests on steel pallet racks”,
Proceedings of CTA, Genova, pp. 107-116
Calado L, Castiglioni C A, Drei A (2012) “Cyclic tests of beam-upright connections in racking systems with a
new hybrid procedure”, Proc. of STESSA 2012, Chile, paper n. 006, pp. 53-59
Castiglioni C A, Panzeri N, Brescianini J C, Carydis P (2003) “Shaking table tests on steel pallet racks”, Proc.
STESSA 2003, Napoli, pp. 775-781
Castiglioni C A (2003) “Dynamic tests on steel pallet racks”, Costruzioni Metalliche n. 3, pp. 35-44
Castiglioni C A (2003) “Seismic behaviour of steel storage racks”, Proceedings of the IV Congresso de
Construcao Metalica e Mista, Lisbon, pp 41-62
Castiglioni C A (2008) Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage Pallet Racking Systems, , PhD Thesis, University of
Genova
Castiglioni C A, Calado L, Carydis P, Degee H, Negro P, Rosin I (2009) “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage”
Racking Systems Proceedings of STESSA09, paper 0158, Philadelphia,
Castiglioni C A, Calado L, Carydis P, Degee H, Negro P, Rosin I (2009) “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage
Racking Systems” Proceedings of XXII CTA, Padova,
Degee H, Denoel V, Castiglioni C A (2008) “Seismic Behaviour of Storage racks made of Thin-Walled Steel
members”, VII European Conference on Structural Dynamics, Eurodyn 2008, Southampton
ECCS (1986) “Recommended Testing Procedure For Assessing the Behaviour of Structural Steel Elements
under Cyclic Loads”, European Convention for Constructional Steelworks, Publication N° 45
EN 15512 (2009) “Steel static storage systems - Adjustable pallet racking systems - Principles for structural
design”
FEMA (2005) “Seismic Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible to the Public”,
FEMA 460
FEM 10.2.08 (2011) “Recommendations for the design of static steel pallet racks in seismic conditions”,
Federation Europeen de la Manutention, Version 1.04
RFS-PR-03114 (2007) Final report, Storage racks in seismic areas (SEISRACKS),
RFSR-CT-2011-00031, Mid-term Report, Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage Pallet Racking Systems
(SEISRACKS2)

View publication stats