applied
sciences
Article
Shake Table Testing of Standard Cold-Formed Steel
Storage Rack
Ahmad Firouzianhaji 1 , Nima Usefi 1, * , Bijan Samali 1 and Peyman Mehrabi 2






Citation: Firouzianhaji, A.; Usefi, N.;
Samali, B.; Mehrabi, P. Shake Table
Testing of Standard Cold-Formed
Steel Storage Rack. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11,
1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11041821
Academic Editor: Amadeo
Benavent-Climent
Received: 19 January 2021
Accepted: 14 February 2021
Published: 18 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041821
1 Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Sydney 2747, Australia;
A.Firouzianhaji@westernsydney.edu.au (A.F.); b.samali@westernsydney.edu.au (B.S.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4416, Iran;
p.mehrabi@email.kntu.ac.ir
* Correspondence: n.usefi@westernsydney.edu.au
Abstract: Full-scale shake table investigations are strongly required to understand the actual perfor-
mance of storage racks and to improve the rack design guidelines. This paper presents the results of
full-scale shake table tests on New Zealand standard storage rack frames with two-bay and two-level
to determine the dynamic characteristics of a standard rack structure and to measure the damping
of the system. The experimental program was conducted in three phases. First, the identification
parameters including the natural frequency and damping of the system were determined through a
series of preliminary tests. Then, shake table tests were performed to capture the inelastic response
of rack frames under low to medium intensities of El-Centro ground motion. Finally, the shake-table
tests were repeated with scaling down the time domain and broader ranges of ground motion inten-
sities to consider the performance of taller rack systems. In addition, a comprehensive discussion on
the damping of the system is also provided based on the test results. The performance of the rack
frame is described through an extensive set of measurements, including rack displacement, pallet
sliding, the acceleration of a concrete block and rack frame and the damping of the system in the
down-aisle direction. The results indicate that the standard rack frames are able to endure large
inelastic deformations without loss of stability.
Keywords: storage rack; cold-formed steel; shake table; damping; ground motion; earthquake;
frequency; pallet
1. Introduction
Being part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is geologically active, New Zealand has
experienced many large earthquakes in the past decades. One of the recent large earth-
quakes was the 2010 Canterbury earthquake (also known as the Christchurch earthquake
or Darfield earthquake) that rocked the south island of New Zealand with a magnitude of
7.1 on the Richter scale. Figure 1 illustrates the various rack failure mechanisms observed
and recorded after this earthquake. Some of the frames collapsed (Figure 1a) when a plastic
hinge was formed in the uprights, which resulted in further drift and the amplification of
second-order effects and thereby caused the failure of the system. It was also observed that,
despite the basic assumptions for seismic design and stability analysis, “linear deformation
of the frame” is not an accurate assumption and therefore not all the connections experience
the same rotation along the frame height (Figure 1b). The use of an insufficient number of
bolts in typical baseplate connections also led to excessive rotation and failure of the base
plate, as shown in Figure 1c. The cyclic deterioration of such connections also triggered
a progressive collapse of all frames in the warehouse [1–5] (Figure 1d), which indicates
that the current racking codes and specifications are still weak about the cyclic features of
the connections.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 2 of 20

warehouse [1,2,3,4,5] (Figure 1d), which indicates that the current racking codes and
specifications are still weak about the cyclic features of the connections.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Different rack failure
Different rack failuremechanisms
mechanismsduring
duringthe
theChristchurch
Christchurch earthquake:
earthquake: (a)(a) down-aisle
down-aisle mechanism,
mechanism, (b) down-
(b) down-aisle
aisle mechanism, (c) baseplate deterioration in cross-aisle direction, (d) progressive collapse of the entire
mechanism, (c) baseplate deterioration in cross-aisle direction, (d) progressive collapse of the entire system. system.

Storage
Storage rack structuresare
rack structures aremainly
mainly designed
designed for for seismic
seismic actions
actions basedbased
on rack onprovi-
rack
provisions, including the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) specification
sions, including the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) specification [6], European code [6 ], European
code (EN 16681)
(EN 16681) [7], Australian
[7], Australian standardstandard (AS [8],
(AS 4084) 4084) [8], Federal
Federal EmergencyEmergency
ManagementManagementAgency
Agency
(FEMA (FEMA
460) [9],460) [9], Canadian
Canadian Standards Standards Association
Association (CSA A344) (CSA and [10]
A344)
[10] and American
American National
National
StandardsStandards Institute
Institute (ANSI MH16) (ANSI[11]. MH16) [11]. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, in many regions, in the
manydesignregions, the
of racking
design
framesof is racking
still basedframes is still seismic
on general based on general
design codesseismic
due todesign
the lackcodes due to the
of enough lack of
guidelines
enough guidelines
for the dynamic for the
design dynamic
of rack frames. design of rack frames.
Additionally, some ofAdditionally,
the current seismicsome designof the
current
standardsseismic
allowdesign
the use standards allow thestatic
of the equivalent use ofmethod
the equivalent static
to estimate themethod
seismictoforces
estimate
and
the seismic
do not forces
consider theand
slidingdo ofnottheconsider
frame (or the sliding
only of the
consider theframe
rocking (orofonly
palletsconsider
on the rackthe
beams) of
rocking forpallets
the design
on the procedure.
rack beams) It should
for thebedesign
notedprocedure.
that a significant
It shouldcontribution
be noted that to thea
seismic response
significant of rack to
contribution frames can be rocking
the seismic response [12,13].
of rack Therefore,
frames can to examine
be rocking whether the
[12,13].
principals provided
Therefore, to examine in the codes the
whether are adequate
principalsand sufficiently
provided accurate
in the codes forarerack systems,
adequate andit
is worth investigating their performance under severe seismic ground
sufficiently accurate for rack systems, it is worth investigating their performance under motions.
severeAlthough static and
seismic ground cyclic tests and analyses can reveal the failure mode of rack
motions.
components
Although[14–20]static andand cyclic
the associated
tests andbase shearcan
analyses of areveal
rack structure,
the failurea modemore realistic
of rack
structural response
components (such as acceleration)
[14,15,16,17,18,19,20] can be attained
and the associated base shearthrough full-scaled
of a rack structure,shakea more ta-
ble tests [21]. One of the first shake-table studies on storage racks
realistic structural response (such as acceleration) can be attained through full-scaled shake was conducted by
Chen
table et al.
tests [22–24]
[21]. One of whothetested four typesstudies
first shake-table of full-scale industrial
on storage rackssteel
was storage
conducted racksby under
Chen
scaled ground motions of El-Centro (ELC) and Parkfield earthquakes.
et al. [22,23,24] who tested four types of full-scale industrial steel storage racks under The shake table tests
demonstrated that the P-delta effects meaningfully influence the response
scaled ground motions of El-Centro (ELC) and Parkfield earthquakes. The shake table tests of the racks in the
down-aisle direction.
demonstrated that the In another
P-delta shake-table
effects study, Filiatrault
meaningfully influence ettheal.response
[25] tested of five
the different
racks in
rack frames in both cross-aisle and down-aisle directions and reported
the down-aisle direction. In another shake-table study, Filiatrault et al. [25] tested five that the ductility
and energy
different rackdissipation
frames in both capacity of the frame
cross-aisle were significantly
and down-aisle directionsmoreand in the down-aisle
reported that the
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the frame were significantly moreprogram
direction than in the cross-aisle direction. A comprehensive shake table in the down- was
carried out at the University of Buffalo on four steel storage rack configurations, and it
was stated that the rotational stiffness of beam-to-upright connections was significantly
affecting the down-aisle performance of pallet racks under seismic actions [26]. In another
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 3 of 20

attempt, Filiatrault et al. [27] characterized the seismic performance of the rack frames
under earthquake excitation and identified the pallet shedding fragility under a series of
ground motions through shake table testing. In addition to the classical design of rack
frames against seismic loads, the isolation systems, such as fuse elements, can also be
adopted for a rack frame, which brings benefits in terms of a reduction in the structural
damage and improving the safety of the stored items [28–33].
Shake table tests performed by Rosin et al. [34] also revealed that the eccentric bracing
configurations could lead to a significant torsional response. Gilbert and Rasmussen [35]
evaluated a complete drive-in rack system under loaded and empty conditions using
a full-scale shake table, and provided the relative stiffness under different ground motion
conditions. Recently, new shaking table tests were conducted on storage racks in the cross-aisle
direction in order to obtain the seismic characteristics of the system in this direction [36,37].
Considering the current increasing demand on rack storage systems as well as the
improvements of storage rack regulations, the need for understanding the dynamic re-
sponse and seismic characteristics of the standard rack frames, i.e., damping of the system,
under actual strong ground motions has been intensified. Therefore, the objective of this
paper is to provide the results of shake table tests on a New Zealand standard rack frame
with two bays and two levels under increasing seismic base excitation in the down-aisle
direction, aiming to reveal the dynamic features of a standard steel storage rack under
actual seismic actions. The experimental program was conducted in three stages. In the first
stage, identification tests were carried out to determine the fundamental period of vibration
and the damping ratio of the system. In the second stage, the frame was tested by 20–80%
intensities of El-Centro earthquakes in an actual time domain. In the third stage, the tests
were repeated with a wide range of intensities, 40–220% of El-Centro earthquakes, with
scaled records in the time domain to consider the performance of taller rack systems. The
damping of the system is also determined and the results are presented for both the scaled
and non-scaled time-domain conditions. The test results of this study can be valuable data
for the calibration of finite element models as well as seismic provisions for the design
of racks.

2. Experimental Program
2.1. Rack Geometries
To evaluate the seismic performance of the storage rack systems in the down-aisle
direction, fifteen full-scale shake table tests were conducted at different stages. The con-
figuration and geometry of the specimens were defined based on New Zealand standard
storage rack pallets to simulate the behaviour of actual pallets used in seismic areas.
The racks were of conventional two-bay and two-level rack frames, as shown in
Figure 2. The width of each bay in the down-aisle and cross-aisle was 1440 mm and 900 mm,
respectively. The height of each level was 1275 mm. All rack specimens were built from
typical cold-formed steel (CFS) sections with G350 grade steel. Bracing elements were of C
channel profiles with 25 mm depth, 30 mm flange and 1.8 mm thickness and were installed
in the cross-aisle direction with 600 mm pitches. The upright profiles of 90 mm depth and
2.5 mm thickness were connected in the down-aisle direction by 1.6 mm thick 105 × 50 mm
box beams. The geometry of the section as well as the perforation details are indicated
in Figure 3. Due to commercial confidentiality reasons, all geometries are presented in
non-dimensional form—the same as other studies in this area [38]. Table 1 tabulates the
cross-sectional properties of the structural elements used in the rack specimens. The beam
to upright connections were of boltless type (hooked connectors), which are commonly
utilized in most rack systems due to the easier and faster installation of frames. The frames
were anchored to a 30 mm thick steel plate, which was placed on the shake table using
bolted connections. The base-plate used in the tests is shown in Figure 4. To simulate
the actual condition of palletized merchandise, each pallet was accommodated with two
standard precast concrete blocks. Each concrete block weighed approximately 500 kg with
dimensions of 755 mm × 565 mm × 510 mm, which is a normal value for the merchandise
 whichare
which arecommonly
commonlyutilized
utilizedininmost
mostrack
racksystems
systemsdueduetotothe
theeasier
easierand
andfaster
fasterinstallation
installation
of frames. The frames were anchored to a 30 mm thick steel plate,
of frames. The frames were anchored to a 30 mm thick steel plate, which was placed which was placedon on
theshake
the shaketable
tableusing
usingbolted
boltedconnections.
connections.Two Twotypes
typesofofbaseplates
baseplateswerewereused
usedininthe
thetests,
tests,
for the side and middle spans, as shown in Figure 4. To simulate the actual condition ofof
for the side and middle spans, as shown in Figure 4 . To simulate the actual condition
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 palletizedmerchandise,
palletized merchandise,each eachpallet
palletwaswasaccommodated
accommodatedwith withtwotwostandard
standard4precast
precast
of 20
concreteblocks.
concrete blocks.Each
Eachconcrete
concreteblock
blockweighed
weighedapproximately
approximately500 500kgkgwith
withdimensions
dimensionsofof
755 mm × 565 mm × 510 mm ,
755 mm × 565 mm × 510 mm, which is a normal value for the merchandise used ininpractice.
which is a normal value for the merchandise used practice.
Therefore,
Therefore, eachspecimen
each
used in practice.
specimen couldcontain
Therefore,could
containeight
each specimen
eight contain
concrete
couldconcrete
blocks
blocks
eight
overits
over
concrete
itstwo
two
blocks
beam
beam
over
levels,
its levels,
two
which
which provided
provided a a 4000
4000 kgkg pallet
pallet load
load inin total
total and
and simulated
simulated a a fully-loaded
fully-loaded
beam levels, which provided a 4000 kg pallet load in total and simulated a fully-loaded service
service
condition.
condition. Therack
The rack
service condition. specimen
specimen
The andthe
and
rack specimen the concrete
concrete
and blocksblocks
blocks
the concrete areshown
are shown ininFigure
are shown Figure 5.5. 5.
in Figure

Figure2.2.Schematic
Figure
Figure Schematic viewsand
Schematicviews
views anddimensions
and dimensionsofofthe
dimensions thethe frame.
frame.
frame.

Figure 3. Section and perforation details.

Table 1. Section details.

Element
Element
Element Section
Section
Section Length
Length
Length (mm)
(mm) (mm) Area
Area
Area (mm (mm
2 ) (mm 2)2) Ix
Ix (mm 4Ix (mm
) (mm 4)4) Iy(mm
Iy(mm Iy(mm
4) 4)4)

Beam
Beam
Beam
Box105 ×50-1.6
Box105 50-1.6
Box105 ××50-1.6 mm
mm 1350 1350
mm 1350 597 5971,023,099
597 1,023,099
1,023,099 237,210
237,210
237,210
Upright
Upright 9090Upright
Upright2.35
2.35mm
mm 2800 578.6 700,217 325,825
325,825
Upright 90 Upright 2.35 mm 2800 2800 578.6 578.6 700,217700,217325,825
Brace
Brace 25 ×
25 × 3030 × 1.8 (C Channel)
× 1.8 (C Channel) 1062
1062 217
217 19,956
19,956 11,388
11,388
25 × 30 × 1.8
Brace 1062 217 19,956 11,388
(C Channel)

Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2021,
2021, 11,11,
x.x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 5 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 4. Baseplate connection.

Figure 4. Different baseplate connections: (a) middle frame, (b) side frame

Figure 4. Different baseplate connections: (a) middle frame, (b) side frame

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Rack
Rack frame
frame with
with block
block weights:
weights: (a)
(a) cross-aisle
cross-aisle direction,
direction, (b)
(b) down-aisle
down-aisle direction.
direction.

Figure 5. Rack frame with block weights: (a) cross-aisle direction, (b) down-aisle directio
TestSetup
2.2. Test SetupandandInstrumentation
Instrumentation
tests were
All tests were performed
performed on
2.2.on aa 33Setup
Test mm× ×3 uniaxial shake table
m Instrumentation
and uniaxial table at
at the
the University
University of of
Technology, Sydney.
Technology, Sydney. The The shake
shake table
table used
used for
for the
the tests
tests is
is aa uni-directional
uni-directional table
table and
and is
is
All tests were performed on a 3 m × 3 m uniaxial shake table
digitally programmable with feedback control to simultaneously
to simultaneously control control displacement,
displacement,
Technology, Sydney. The shake table used for the tests is a uni-dire
velocity,and
velocity, andacceleration.
acceleration.
digitally programmable with feedback control to simultaneously co
shake table
The shake table hadhad aa payload
payload capacity of of 10
10 tonnes
tonnes andand an an overturning
overturning moment
moment
velocity, capacity
and acceleration.
capacity of
capacity 10-tonne meter.
of 10-tonne meter.
The shake table had a payload capacity of 10 tonnes and an o
Two different
Two different types
types ofofinstrumentation,
instrumentation, including
including accelerometers
accelerometers and and displacement
displacement
capacity of 10-tonne meter.
transducers,
transducers, werewere employed
employed for for recording
recording the the response
responseof of rack
rack frames.
frames. Six
Six accelerometers
accelerometers
Two different types of instrumentation, including accelerometer
were
were attached
attached to to the
the frame
frame (three
(three for
for the
the rear
rear and
and three
three for
for the
the front
front of
of the
the rack)
rack) and
and the
the
transducers, were employed for recording the response of rack frames
other two were installed to the concrete blocks. In addition, four
other two were installed to the concrete blocks. In addition, four Linear Variable Linear Variable Differential
were attached to the frame (three for the rear and three for the front
Transformer (LVDT)s were
Differential Transformer employed
(LVDT)s were to employed
record the to displacements of the rack frames,
record the displacements and
of the rack
other two were installed to the concrete blocks. In addition, fo
one LVDT
frames, and was
oneused
LVDT to measure
was usedthe todisplacement of a typical pallet
measure the displacement of a during
typical the tests.
pallet The
during
Differential Transformer (LVDT)s were employed to record the displa
LVDTs
the tests.andTheaccelerometers were attachedwere
LVDTs and accelerometers to both sides of
attached the frames
to both (front
sides of and rear)
the frames to
(front
frames, and one LVDT was used to measure the displacement of a t
identify
and rear)the toprobable
identify therotation
probableof therotation
rack in ofeach
thelevel.
rack in The shaking
each level.table actuator table
The shaking was
the tests. The LVDTs and accelerometers were attached to both sides
also equipped
actuator withequipped
was also an LVDT and withananaccelerometer
LVDT and an to record the tabletodisplacement
accelerometer and
record the table
and rear) to identify the probable rotation of the rack in each level
the ground acceleration in the direction of motion. The location
displacement and the ground acceleration in the direction of motion. The location of the of the instrumentations
is illustrated in Figure actuator
6. A typical was also equipped
accelerometer with
andaccelerometer
LVDT an LVDT
connected and an accelerometer
instrumentations is illustrated in Figure 6. A typical and to the frame
LVDT and
connected
concrete block areconcrete
also shown displacement
inare
Figure and the ground acceleration in the direction of motion.
to the frame and block also7.shown in Figure 7.
instrumentations is illustrated in Figure 6. A typical accelerometer an
to the frame and concrete block are also shown in Figure 7.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.m

Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2021,11,
11, 1821 PEER REVIEW 666of
of 20
Appl. Sci.2021,
2021, 11,xxFOR
FOR PEER REVIEW of 21
21

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Location of
Locationof Linear
ofLinear Variable
LinearVariable
Variable Differential
Differential Transformers
Transformers (LVDTs)
(LVDTs) and
and accelerometers:
accelerometers: (a)
(a) front
front frame,
frame, (b) back
(b)frame.
back
Figure 6. Location Differential Transformers (LVDTs) and accelerometers: (a) front frame, (b) back
frame.
frame.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Instrumentations:
Instrumentations: (a,b)
(a,b)accelerometer
accelerometerattached
attachedto
toframe
frameand
andconcrete
concreteblock,
block,(c,d)
(c,d)LVDT
LVDT attached
attached to
to frame
frame and
and
Instrumentations: (a,b) accelerometer attached to frame and concrete block, (c,d)
concrete block.
concrete block.

The
The concrete
concrete blocks
concreteblocks were
blockswere
were fixed
fixed to
to the
to the
fixed timber
the timber pallets
pallets
timber by
by means
by means
pallets of steelof
means steel
ofrods and
steel rods and
bearing
rods and
bearing
plates toplates
bearing prevent
plates to prevent
tothem from
prevent them from
sliding
them fromonsliding on
on the
the pallets.
sliding The
the pallets.
palletsThe
pallets. were
The pallets were
were also
also chained
pallets chained
to the
also beam
chained
to
tothe
to the beam
avoid
beam to
themto avoid
avoid them
falling falling
off the
them frame,
falling off
offasthe frame,
shown
the frame, in as shown
Figure
as shown5. in
in Figure
To Figure 5.
minimize 5. To
theminimize
To catastrophic
minimize the
the
catastrophic
catastrophic collapse
collapse of the of the
rack subjected
collapse rack subjected
of the racktosubjected to
higher seismic higher
to higher seismic
records,
seismic records,
support
records, support
structures structures
were also
support structures
were also
alsodesigned
designed
were and and
andconstructed
constructed
designed to allow the
constructed to
toallow the
structure
allow thestructure to
tolean
to lean against
structure leaninagainst
case ofin
against in case
caseof
failure. failure.
ofFigure
failure.8
Figure 8
displays displays
the rack the rack
frame frame
and and
supporting supporting
structure.
Figure 8 displays the rack frame and supporting structure. structure.

Figure
Figure 8. Schematic
8.Schematic
Figure8. plan
Schematicplan view
planview of
viewof rack
ofrack frame
rackframe and
frameand support
andsupport structures.
supportstructures.
structures.

Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2021,
2021,11,
11,x.
x.https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 7 of 20

2.3. Testing Protocol

The experimental tests on the rack specimens were performed in three phases. Phase
one of the experimental test was conducted to determine the dynamic characteristics of the
rack system, including the natural frequency and damping coefficient of the rack, which
are named as system identification tests. Phase two and three of the experiment were
undertaken to evaluate the seismic response of the rack frames through the actual shake
table tests under non-scale and scaled time-domain conditions, respectively. Table 2 shows
the details of each experimental phase.

Table 2. Summary of the experimental tests.

Test Phase Time Scaling Factor * Earthquake Record Intensities (%)

Northridge (1994) 10
One
1 20
Two 20, 40, 60, 70, 80
El-Centro (1940)
40, 60, 80, 100, 120,
Three 2
140, 160, 180, 200, 220
* The earthquake record’s scaling factor in the time domain.

2.3.1. Phase One: System Identification Tests

Identification of frequency and natural period: The identification phase requires the adop-
tion of a suitable identification algorithm [39,40]. In this study, Sine sweep tests were
performed to identify the natural period of the rack system in its original condition—same
as other studies on CFS rack frames [41].
Therefore, a full-cycle acceleration time-history at frequency ranges of 0.5 to 20 Hz
with a rate of one octave per minute and an amplitude of 0.025 g was generated by the
shake table in the down-aisle direction of the rack. LVDTs and accelerometers were also
used for the identification test.
Identification of damping: Damping is an essential factor in the seismic field. A hammer
test and a hand exciting test were conducted to measure the preliminary damping coeffi-
cient of the system before performing the shake table tests. In the former method, different
parts of the rack were excited by hammer impact, while in the latter approach, the rack
was shaken for three cycles and then was left to have free vibration. It should be noted that
the damping ratio was also determined by the sine sweep test after each shake table test, to
compare the damping ratio before and after motion.

2.3.2. Phase Two and Three: Shake Table Tests

The objective of these two phases was to capture the seismic response of the standard
rack system under various intensity ground motions and different time-domain scales. The
excitation intensity was therefore applied in an incremental fashion. The loading schedule
in phase two and phase three of the experiment was as follows:
• In phase two, the tests started at a Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 20% of the 1940
El-Centro earthquake record, and then the earthquake record was increased by steps
of 10% or 20% (increasing 10–20% of the PGA for shake table excitation in each step)
up to 80% intensity of the El-Centro earthquake. The shake table tests were conducted
without scaling time domain.
• In phase three, the shake table testing program was carried out to subject the rack frame
under a range of intensities between 40% and 220% of the El-Centro earthquake record.
The increment increase was continued until a significant drop in the fundamental
period of the system was observed, which indicates the formation of local plastic
deformation in the structure. In this phase, the time domain was scaled down by a
factor of 2 to better simulate the sensitivity of taller racks with elongated periods.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 8 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

As stated earlier, sine sweep tests with a low intensity (0.02 g) were also conducted
As stated earlier, sine sweep tests with a low intensity (0.02 g) were also conducted
after every seismic excitation (eachtestsincrement) to evaluate the damping ratioconducted
as well as
after As stated
every earlier,
seismic sine sweep
excitation with a low
(each increment) to intensity
evaluate (0.02 g) were also
the damping ratio as well as
monitoring possible
after every seismic period elongation due to damage in the system.
monitoring possibleexcitation (each increment)
period elongation to evaluate
due to damage in thethe damping ratio as well as
system.
monitoring possible period elongation due to damage in the system.
3.3.Test
TestResults
Results
3.1.Test
3.
3.1. Results
Results
Results of PhaseOne:
of Phase One:System
System Identification
Identification TestsTests
3.1. The
Results
The preliminary test schedule of phase 1 wasTests
of Phase
preliminary One:
test System
schedule Identification
of phase 1 was only
onlyconducted
conductedto toprovide
providean anindicative
indicative
understanding
understanding of
The preliminaryof the rack
thetest natural
naturalofbehaviour
schedule
rack phase 1 was
behaviour under dynamic
dynamic actions.
only conducted
under Sine
to provide
actions. answeep
Sine sweep test
indicativetest
results presented
understanding
results presented ofin Figure
the
in rack 9a
Figure 9aarearein
natural in the
the form
form of
behaviour of Fast
under Fourier
Fourier transform
Fastdynamic actions. Sine
transform (FFT)sweep
(FFT) to
to easily
test
easily
determine
determine the
results presented frequencies
in Figure
the frequencies of9a
of vibration
are in the
vibration (using
form
(using aofpre-programmed
Fast Fourier transform
a pre-programmed laboratory
laboratory (FFT) software).
to easily
software). The
The
sine sweep results indicate that the fundamental frequency of vibration is around 1.6 1.6
sine
determinesweepthe results indicate
frequencies of that the
vibration fundamental
(using a frequency
pre-programmed of vibration
laboratory is around
software). Hz,
Hz,
Thewhich
which sine corresponds
sweep
corresponds results to
to the the
indicatevibration
that the
vibration period of 0.63
fundamental
period of 0.63 seconds.
frequency
seconds. Mode shapes
of vibration
Mode shapes iswere
were aroundsimilar
similar 1.6to
to those
Hz,
those reported
which
reported bybyKrawinkler
corresponds Krawinkler [42].The
to the vibration
[42]. The first and
period
first and second
of 0.63 seconds.
second modesMode of vibration
shapes were
vibration were
were quite
similar
quite
to those
visible;
visible; reportedthe
however,
however, by third
the Krawinkler
thirdmode
modewas [42].
wasnotThevisible
not first and
visible to second
tothe
the nakedmodes
naked eye. of vibration
eye.Figure
Figure 9b were quite
9bschematically
schematically
visible;
shows
shows however,
the
the first
firstand
andthe third modes
second
second mode
modes was
of not visible to the naked eye. Figure 9b schematically
ofvibrations.
vibrations.
shows the first and second modes of vibrations.

Figure
Figure9.9.(a)
(a)Fast
FastFourier
Fouriertransform
transform(FFT)
(FFT)ofofsine
sinesweep
sweeptest
testof
ofthe
thespecimen
specimenbefore
beforebeing
beingexposed
exposedtotoany
anyseismic
seismicactions,
actions,
Figureand
(b) 9. (a) Fast Fourier transform (FFT) of sinein
sweep sweep
test of the specimen before being exposed to any seismic actions,
(b)first
first andsecond
second modes
modes of of vibration
vibration observed
observed in sine
sine sweep test.
test.
(b) first and second modes of vibration observed in sine sweep test.
The damping
The damping coefficient
coefficient was also
also obtained
obtained fromfromthe thedecay
decayofofthe free
the vibration
free re-
vibration
The damping coefficient was also obtained from the decay of the free vibration
sponse from
response fromthethe
handshake
handshaketest test
and and
the hammer test, astest,
the hammer shown in Figure
as shown in 10. The damping
Figure 10. The
response from the handshake test and the hammer test, as shown in Figure 10. The
of aroundof9%
damping was captured
around from these
9% was captured tests.
from It istests.
these notable
It isthat damping
notable values could
that damping be
values
damping of around 9% was captured from these tests. It is notable that damping values
higherbeifhigher
could more practical pallet weights
if more practical pallet had beenhad
weights usedbeen
in lieu of in
used rigid
lieuconcrete
of rigidblocks. In
concrete
could be higher if more practical pallet weights had been used in lieu of rigid concrete
addition, the weight of the pallets would also influence the damping values.
blocks. In addition, the weight of the pallets would also influence the damping values.
blocks. In addition, the weight of the pallets would also influence the damping values.

Figure 10. Hand exciting and hammer test to measure damping.

Figure 10. Hand exciting and hammer test to measure damping.

Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2021,
Sci. 11,11,
2021, x.x.
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 9 of 20

Precaution needed to be taken to ensure safety and avoid the global instability of the
rack specimen during shake table tests. Therefore, prior to conducting the shake table tests,
preliminary numerical models of the rack specimens were developed in order to find the
critical parameters of “overall overturning moment” and “top-level displacement” and
to check them against the maximum allowable values of the shaking table device. The
numerical model was verified using the frequency and damping coefficient obtained in
phase 1 of the experiment.

3.2. Results of Phase Two: Shake Table Tests (Non-Scaled in The Time Domain)
Figure 11 shows the structural responses under 20% to 80% intensity of the El-Centro
earthquake record without scaling the time domain in terms of accelerations in the top and
bottom levels and the lateral displacement of the rack frame. The experimental data of
the back frame are only shown in this figure since the results of the front and back frame
were almost identical, indicating that no rotation occurred during the tests. It was decided
not to subject the specimen to a record greater than 80% of the El-Centro earthquake
as the recorded acceleration of the top-level indicated a peak acceleration near “1.0 g”,
which was close to the capacity of the shake table under a 4-tonne structure. As shown in
Figure 12, pallet sliding occurred in all specimens; however, no significant pallet movement
was observed during the tests with intensities of 20% and 40%. Sliding was much more
pronounced for intensities of 70% and 80%, with maximum sliding of around 27 mm and
18 mm in the top pallet, respectively. For this reason, the top pallet acceleration (Effective
Design Acceleration (EDA) started to deviate from the acceleration that was recorded from
the accelerometer mounted to the upright, as shown in Figure 12.
Measured peak responses of the rack structure under seismic actions are tabulated in
Table 3. A comparison between first and second level accelerations and displacements as
well as the base shear of the rack system is also provided in Figure 13. The deformation
of the structure under seismic actions indicates that the inter-storey drift of the first level
is significantly higher than the second level inter-storey drift. This trend becomes more
obvious by increasing the seismic intensity, which was indicative of a soft storey failure
mode of the structure [43–45]. The base shear shown in Figure 13 is also calculated from
the two accelerometers placed on the pallets at two levels times the mass of the pallets
(rack mass is negligible). The base shear results demonstrate that the rate of increasing
base shear is lower at higher intensities, though the base shear is generally enhanced by
increasing the earthquake intensities. The difference between pallet and rack accelerations,
presented in Table 3, is mainly due to the sliding of the pallet on the frame where this
difference is more significant at higher intensities (owing to greater sliding of the pallet).

Table 3. Peak responses of rack structure under seismic actions—Non-Scaled in time domain.

Intensity Top Level Disp. 1st Level Disp. Top Level Acc. 1st Level Acc. Top Level Pallet 1st Level Pallet
(% ELC) (mm) (mm) (a/g) (a/g) Acc. (a/g) Acc. (a/g)
20 16.4 10.0 0.15 0.086 0.15 0.083
40 47.5 39.1 0.31 0.23 0.33 0.23
60 60.6 47.7 0.52 0.29 0.5 0.285
70 68.4 52.6 0.61 0.35 0.54 0.327
80 76.2 58 0.69 0.425 0.545 0.396
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821
Appl. x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 21
of 20

Figure
Figure 11. Structural response
11. Structural response under
under 20–80%
20–80% intensity
intensity of of El-Centro
El-Centro (ELC)
(ELC) earthquake
earthquake record—Non-Scaled
record—Non-Scaled in
in time
time domain:
domain:
(a)
(a) accelerations
accelerations in
in first
first level,
level, (b)
(b) accelerations
accelerations in
in top
top level,
level, (c)
(c) displacements
displacementsininframe.
frame.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 11 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Figure 12. Pallet sliding of rack specimens—Non-Scaled in the time-domain.

Table 3. Peak responses of rack structure under seismic actions—Non-Scaled in time domain.

Intensity (% Top Level Disp. 1st Level Disp. Top Level Acc. 1st Level Acc. Top Level Pallet 1st Level Pallet
ELC) (mm) (mm) (a/g) (a/g) Acc. (a/g) Acc. (a/g)
20 16.4 10.0 0.15 0.086 0.15 0.083
40 47.5 39.1 0.31 0.23 0.33 0.23
60 60.6 47.7 0.52 0.29 0.5 0.285
287
70 68.4 52.6 0.61 0.35 0.54 0.327
288 Figure 12. Pallet sliding of rack specimens—Non-Scaled in the time-domain.
80 76.2 58 sliding of rack
Figure 12. Pallet 0.69specimens—Non-Scaled
0.425 0.545
in the time-domain. 0.396
289 Table 3. Peak responses of rack structure under seismic actions—Non-Scaled in time domain.

Top Level 1st Level

Intensity (% Top Level 1st Level Top Level 1st Level
Pallet Acc. Pallet Acc.
ELC) Disp. (mm) Disp. (mm) Acc. (a/g) Acc. (a/g)
(a/g) (a/g)
20 16.4 10.0 0.15 0.086 0.15 0.083
40 47.5 39.1 0.31 0.23 0.33 0.23
60 60.6 47.7 0.52 0.29 0.5 0.285
70 68.4 52.6 0.61 0.35 0.54 0.327
80 76.2 58 0.69 0.425 0.545 0.396

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Comparison
Comparisonofofrack results—Non-Scaled
rack results—Non-Scaled in in
thethe
time domain:
time (a) frame
domain: acceleration,
(a) frame (b)
acceleration,
frame base shear, (c) frame lateral displacement.
(b) frame base shear, (c) frame lateral displacement.

3.3. Results of Phase Three: Shake Table Tests (Scaled Down in Time Domain)
As the test specimen was limited to 3 meters height, the results may not be extendable
for taller racks with a period longer than 0.63 s of the tested specimen. For this reason, to
estimate the behaviour of taller rack frames under the same seismic actions, a similar rack
configuration was subjected to the same El-Centro earthquake record, but scaled down in
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
the time domain by a factor of 2. By using this technique, instead of changing the structure
to obtain a more extended period (two times longer), the same structure was subjected to
290
a faster earthquake. Therefore, the behaviour of a system with a given natural frequency
291 Figurea13.
under Comparison
squeezed timeofhistory
rack results—Non-Scaled
record (e.g., fasterinearthquake)
the time domain: a) frame
simulates theacceleration,
behaviour of b) a
292 frame base shear, c) frame lateral displacement.
virtual structure with the longer period under a non-scaled earthquake in the time domain.
293 3.3. Results of Phase Three: Shake Table Tests (Scaled Down in Time Domain)

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 12 of 20

Figure 14 shows the structural responses for the ground motions with 40% to 220%
intensities of El-Centro earthquake records with 20% increments in the scale time-domain
condition. As shown, increasing the excitation intensity typically resulted in an increase
in the acceleration of the system and the lateral displacement of the rack. In addition,
from the test data, it was found that the front frame responses were almost identical to the
back-frame results for all specimens. This indicates that the frames tended to deform as
rigid bodies at each level with equal deformations at either side. As shown in Figure 15,
pallets started to significantly slide on the beam after 160% intensity tests. This can be
explained by the reduction in the friction coefficient between the timber pallet and the
beam due to the large number of tests using the same pallets and beams, which smoothed
the contact surfaces of the timber pallet with the beam flange. The tests were continued
until the automatic acceleration sensor raised an alarm of reaching a high acceleration at
the top level close to the table capacity during the 220% intensity test. The peak responses
of the rack structure under the scaled time domain are given in Table 4.
Figure 16 shows the displacement time history measured at the top and first level of
the rack starting from 40% intensity to 220% intensity of the El-Centro earthquake. Despite
the large inelastic deformations in the down-aisle direction, the racks could still provide
stability without compromising their vertical load-carrying capacity. The structure’s lateral
displacement again showed higher inter-storey drifts at the first level, as illustrated in
Figure 16. The primary reason for higher drifts at the first level is attributed to the loss of
stiffness at upright and beam connections below the first level, where the plastic hinges
were formed and consequently led to a soft storey response. Figure 17 indicates the failure
of the specimen at the upright to beam connection, which can be attributed to the soft
storey mechanism. At the end of the test with 220% intensity, local failures were visible in
the uprights along the first and second level.
The absolute peak acceleration of each level and the base shear for each seismic
intensity are also shown in Figure 16. It is seen that the peak acceleration and base shear
do not vary linearly with increasing the intensity of the earthquake. The peak acceleration
recorded for specimens with a non-scaled time domain was between 0.15 and 0.7, while the
corresponding peak acceleration for specimens under a scaled time domain was within a
range of 0.1–0.5. In terms of peak lateral displacement, the peak displacements of specimens
with a non-scaled time domain were between 15 mm and 78 mm, while for specimens
with a scaled time domain the corresponding values were between 8 mm and 40 mm. By
comparing the results of Figures 13 and 16, it can be seen that decreasing the time domain
by a factor of 2 resulted in lower acceleration magnitudes and, consequently, lower rack
displacements and base shear values. This is due to the fact that taller rack systems with a
longer period of vibration attract less seismic forces.

Table 4. Peak responses of rack structure under seismic actions—Scaled down in time domain.

Intensity Top Level Disp. 1st Level Disp. Top Level Acc. 1st Level Acc. Top Level Pallet 1st Level Pallet
(% ELC) (mm) (mm) (a/g) (a/g) Acc. (a/g) Acc. (a/g)
40 9.21 5.76 0.132 0.08 0.078 0.068
60 14.56 8.95 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.11
80 19.31 11.84 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.14
100 22.94 13.81 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.16
120 26.36 15.70 0.36 0.21 0.22 0.18
140 29.43 17.45 0.42 0.23 0.23 0.19
160 31.85 19.05 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.21
180 33.42 20.20 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.22
200 35.39 21.19 0.50 0.27 0.28 0.23
220 37.82 22.91 0.52 0.28 0.29 0.24
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 13 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Figure14.
Figure 14.Structural
Structural response under
under40–220%
40–220%intensity
intensityofofEl-Centro earthquake
El-Centro record—Scaled
earthquake down
record—Scaled in time
down domain:
in time (a)
domain:
accelerations in first level, (b) accelerations in top level, (c) displacements in frame.
(a) accelerations in first level, (b) accelerations in top level, (c) displacements in frame.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 14 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure15.
Figure 15.Pallet
Palletsliding
slidingof
ofrack
rackspecimens—Scaled
specimens—Scaleddown
downin
intime
timedomain.
domain.

Table 4. Peak responses of rack structure under seismic actions—Scaled down in time domain.

Intensity (% Top Level Disp. 1st Level Disp. Top Level Acc. 1st Level Acc. Top Level Pallet 1st Level Pallet
ELC) (mm) (mm) (a/g) (a/g) Acc. (a/g) Acc. (a/g)
40 9.21 5.76 0.132 0.08 0.078 0.068
60 14.56 8.95 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.11
80 19.31 11.84 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.14
100 22.94 13.81 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.16
120 26.36 15.70 0.36 0.21 0.22 0.18
140 29.43 17.45 0.42 0.23 0.23 0.19
160 31.85 19.05 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.21
180 33.42 20.20 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.22
200 35.39 21.19 0.50 0.27 0.28 0.23
220 37.82 22.91 0.52 0.28 0.29 0.24

(c)

Figure 16.Comparison
Figure16. Comparisonofofrack
rackresults—Scaled down
results—Scaled in in
down time domain:
time (a)(a)
domain: frame acceleration,
frame (b) (b)
acceleration, frame
base shear,
frame base(c) frame
shear, (c)lateral
framedisplacement.
lateral displacement.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

 (c)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 15 of 20
Figure 16. Comparison of rack results—Scaled down in time domain: (a) frame acceleration, (b)
frame base shear, (c) frame lateral displacement.

Figure 17. Failure

Figure 17. at beam at
Failure tobeam
upright connection.
to upright connection.

4. Damping
4. Damping of of the
the System
System
Another important
Another important dynamic
dynamic characteristic
characteristic is is the
the structure’s
structure’s damping,
damping, which which could
could
be aa significant
be significant source
sourceof ofenergy
energydissipation.
dissipation. The The damping
damping of ofrack
rack structures
structuresattributes
attributestoto
the dissipated
the dissipated energy
energy of of the
the rack
rackcomponents
componentsdue duetotoyielding
yieldingand anddeformations
deformations asas
well as
well
thethe
as friction
frictionin in
connections
connections and
andthethe
sliding
slidingof of
thethe
pallets. However,
pallets. However, it is hardly
it is hardly possible
possibleto
identify or mathematically describe each of these energy dissipation
to identify or mathematically describe each of these energy dissipation mechanisms in mechanisms in an
actual
an building
actual building [46]. Limited
[46]. investigations
Limited investigations on theon damping
the damping of rack structures
of rack havehave
structures been
reported
been so far
reported so from previous
far from previousshake
shake table
tabletests.
tests.Previous
Previousstudies
studies emphasized
emphasized that the the
effect of
effect of the
the amplitude
amplitude of of motion
motion on on the
the damping
damping ratio ratio isissignificant,
significant, andandthethestructural
structural
dampingis
damping is affected
affectedby bythe
the looseness
loosenessof of the
the connections.
connections. However,
However,aadampingdampingratio ratiofor
forthe
the
seismicdesign
seismic designof of rackrack structures
structures hasyet
has not not
beenyetproposed
been proposed
with a highwith a high
level level of
of confidence.
However, proposing a precise damping ratio is beyond the scope of this study and indeed
needs more in situ testing of loaded and unloaded racks.
The damping characteristic of structures and buildings is mathematically known as the
damping ratio (ξ), which is the normalized damping coefficient ofwww.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx the structure with respect
to its critical damping. The fundamental period of vibration, T, and its corresponding
damping ratio are the main parameters to predict the behaviour of buildings and structures
under given dynamic loads. One of the few practical ways to determine the fundamental
period of a structure and the damping ratio related to that period is by obtaining the
frequency-response curve experimentally. This task can be carried out by performing
sinusoidal sweep testing (a forced vibration test) using sinusoidal (harmonic) loading
over a range of frequencies. The concept is to excite the structure with harmonic loading
such that at certain periods (periods of vibration, Ti ) the structure experiences resonance.
Damping ratios corresponding to each frequency of vibration can be determined by using
the half power band method, as displayed in Figure 18.
Then, the damping ratio can be calculated by the equation below:

fb − fa
ξ (%) = (1)
2 fn

where fn is the forcing frequency at resonance and fa and fb are the calculated frequencies at
√
a response amplitude of 1/ 2 of the peak response amplitude [47].
As mentioned earlier, after every step of the shake table tests, the structure was
subjected to a sine sweep wave with an acceleration amplitude of “0.02g” in order to
evaluate the damping ratio and vibration period elongations due to cumulative damage in
the system. Table 5 shows the damping ratios as well as the fundamental vibration period
of the system calculated from the sine sweep tests conducted after each of the test steps for
both non-scaled and scaled time-domain conditions. Damping ratios were then calculated
by applying the half-power band method on the sine sweep test results. The results of
this table show an increase in the damping ratios after each increment of the shake table
 The damping characteristic of structures and buildings is mathematically known as
the damping ratio (ξ), which is the normalized damping coefficient of the structure with
respect to its critical damping. The fundamental period of vibration, T, and its
corresponding damping ratio are the main parameters to predict the behaviour of
buildings and structures under given dynamic loads. One of the few practical ways to
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 16 of 20
determine the fundamental period of a structure and the damping ratio related to that
period is by obtaining the frequency-response curve experimentally. This task can be
carried out by performing sinusoidal sweep testing (a forced vibration test) using
sinusoidal
test (harmonic)
with increasing loading
seismic over aThe
intensity. range of frequencies.
corresponding The in
increase concept is to excite
the amount the
of lateral
structure with
movement harmonic
of the frame isloading such
basically the that at of
result certain periods (periods
the interactions of vibration,
of the hooks Ti) the
in the beam
structure
end experiences
connectors resonance.
and upright slots. AsDamping ratios corresponding
the displacement to each
amplitude in the scaledfrequency
tests in the of
vibration
time canwas
domain be determined
smaller thanbyinusing the half power
the non-scaled band method,
tests, lower dampingasratios
displayed in Figure
were obtained
18.the former condition.
for

Figure18.
Figure 18.Evaluating
Evaluatingdamping
dampingfrom
fromthe
thefrequency-response
frequency-responsecurve .[47]
curve[47].

Then, the
Table 5. Dynamic damping
features of theratio canunder
system be calculated by the
1940 El-Centro testequation
record. below:
𝑓 −𝑓 (1)
Time–Domain Scale Intensity (%ELC) Frequency (Hz) 𝜉 %Damping
=
2𝑓 Ratio (%) Top Level Displacement (mm)
where
60 fn is the forcing 1.5
frequency at resonance 16.7and fa and fb are the calculated
60.4 frequencies
Non scaled 70
at a response amplitude of1.4 1 18.6
of the peak response amplitude [47]. 68.4
80 1.35 √2 19.2 76.2
As mentioned earlier, after every step of the shake table tests, the structure was
Before Tests 1.85 5.3 0
subjected
40
to a sine sweep
1.85
wave with an acceleration
6.8
amplitude of “0.02g”
9.21
in order to
evaluate
60 the damping ratio
1.85 and vibration period
6.8 elongations due to cumulative
14.56 damage
in80the system. Table 51.85 shows the damping 7.4 ratios as well as the fundamental
19.31 vibration
period
100 of the system calculated
1.85 from the sine7.4sweep tests conducted after
22.94each of the test
Scaled
120 for both non-scaled
steps 1.85 and scaled time-domain
7.5 conditions. Damping 26.36
ratios were then
140 1.80 7.7 29.43
calculated by applying the half-power band method on the sine sweep test results. The
160 1.80 7.3 31.85
results
180
of this table show
1.75
an increase in the7.7damping ratios after each33.42
increment of the
shake
200 table test with1.70 increasing seismic intensity.
8.1 The corresponding 35.39increase in the
amount
220 of lateral movement
1.65 of the frame is8.0
basically the result of the37.82
interactions of the
hooks in the beam end connectors and upright slots. As the displacement amplitude in
the scaled tests in the time domain was smaller than in the non-scaled tests, lower
Figure 19 shows the frequency–response curves of the sine sweep test results used
damping ratios were obtained for the former condition.
to obtain the damping ratio as well as the fundamental period of vibration. For the non-
scaled tests, the period was visibly changed due to the apparent damage of the system
in dissipative zones (e.g., connections), and the system lost stiffness. The increase in the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
damping ratio due to enhancing the intensity of the earthquake www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
can also be seen in the
graphs by focusing on the width of the curves that were broadened.
 Scaled 120 1.85 7.5 26.36
140 1.80 7.7 29.43
160 1.80 7.3 31.85
180 1.75 7.7 33.42
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 17 of 20
200 1.70 8.1 35.39
220 1.65 8.0 37.82

Figuretest
Figure 19. Sine sweep 19.results:
Sine sweep test results:
(a) non-scaled (a)innon-scaled
test test (b)
time domain, in time domain,
scaled (b) scaled
test in time test in time
domain.
domain.
However, unlike damping ratios, the fundamental period of the structure has not been
However,
significantly unlike
shifted damping
after higher ratios,
seismicthe fundamental
records. periodboth
Nevertheless, of the
thestructure
effects ofhas not
“sharp
been
dampingsignificantly
increase”shifted after higher
and “negligible seismicperiod
vibration records. Nevertheless,
change” cannot be both the effects to
extrapolated of
“sharp damping increase” and “negligible vibration period change”
the overall nonlinear behaviour of every rack structure. This is because all these results cannot be
extrapolated
are derived fromto thesine
overall nonlinear
sweep behaviour
tests with a very lowof every rack structure.
acceleration intensityThis
of is because
“0.02 all
g” dur-
ing small
these displacements,
results are derived fromand hence the system
sine sweep behaves
tests with elastically.
a very On the other
low acceleration hand,
intensity of
increasing
“0.02 the acceleration
g” during intensity is and
small displacements, unsafe andthe
hence impractical due to the
system behaves uncertainties
elastically. of
On the
the system
other hand,atincreasing
resonance.theThe damping ratios
acceleration determined
intensity is unsafefrom
and structural
impracticalmotions
due to that
the
are small are not representative of the
uncertainties of the system at resonance. The larger damping expected at higher amplitudes
ratios determined from structural of
structural motion [47].
motions that are small are not representative of the larger damping expected at higher
Under such
amplitudes low-intensity
of structural motion [47sweep
sine ]. tests, the hooks mainly slide in the slots, which
causeUnder such low-ratios
high damping duesine
intensity to the
sweephook-to-slot
tests, the friction. After slide
hooks mainly running slots, which
high-intensity
in the
seismichigh
cause records in which
damping thedue
ratios structure
to the experiences
hook-to-slotgreater lateral
friction. Aftermovement,
running highthe-intensity
hooks in
the connection area cut into the upright slots and create a higher travel pass for the next
hook-slot interactions. This may explain why the damping ratios calculated from the sine
sweep tests performed after high seismic shake table tests are drastically higher. The above
explanation can be supported by the phenomenon of making loud
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx noises while running
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
sine sweep tests. The noise was possibly because of sliding and the relative movement
between the hook and the upright slot. However, the system still showed more damping
after it was subjected to higher seismic intensities, or in general, when the system is no
longer linear, it shows more damping.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Details of the experimental results of shake table tests on standard storage racks in
the down-aisle direction were presented in this paper. To generate data on the seismic
inelastic response of a standard rack system in New Zealand, a 2 level—2 bay frame was
subjected to El-Centro earthquake records with different intensities in an increasing fashion
from low to high intensities. The test results were measured and the data were analysed in
terms of natural frequency, rack frame deformations and accelerations, pallet sliding and
accelerations as well as the damping of the system. Shake table test results proved that
the inter-storey drift at the first level of the structure was greater than that of the second
level (soft storey mechanism), and this effect became more obvious at higher intensity
earthquakes. This effect could have been justified by the low stiffness of connections,
which needs to be considered for the design of rack structures. Pallet sliding was also
observed during all seismic tests. The test proved that the pallet slid significantly on top
of the beams, but the movement was not that much to push the pallet off the beam. The
difference between the recorded acceleration data from the accelerometers mounted on the
beams and the data from accelerometers mounted at the concrete blocks (on the pallets)
highlighted the effect of sliding in reducing the seismic base shear for seismic design. It
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 18 of 20

was observed that the rack lateral displacement, base shear and accelerations, as well as
pallet sliding under actual time-domain conditions, are higher than when the time domain
is scaled down (owing to shrunk ground motion acceleration history). The damping ratio
of the system at each step was also calculated, and an increasing trend in the damping
ratio versus the maximum lateral displacement of the systems was discovered. However,
much higher damping values are expected for larger response amplitudes caused by strong
ground motion excitations.
It should be noted that the specimens in this study were defined based on New
Zealand standard storage rack pallets. Therefore, the discussion provided in this study
is specific for this presented configuration. Although the results may be applied to other
similar racks, each rack frame has its own characteristics, some of which can significantly
change the results under the seismic loading.
The experimental data of this study can be utilized for developing numerical simula-
tions [48] or numerical algorisms [49] to perform a parametric study on storage rack frames
and evaluate the dynamic behaviour of rack frames under different conditions. The effects
of loading in the transverse direction must also be considered in future studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F. and B.S.; methodology, A.F. and N.U.; formal analysis,
A.F. and N.U.; investigation, A.F.; resources, A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.F. and
N.U.; writing—review and editing, A.F., N.U. and P.M.; visualization, N.U. and P.M.; supervision,
B.S.; project administration, B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution by Dexion Australia
for providing the materials of rack frames and Ali Saleh in supporting this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ng, A.L.Y.; Beale, R.G.; Godley, M.H.R. Methods of restraining progressive collapse in rack structures. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31,
1460–1468. [CrossRef]
2. Javidan, M.M.; Kang, H.; Isobe, D.; Kim, J. Computationally efficient framework for probabilistic collapse analysis of structures
under extreme actions. Eng. Struct. 2018, 172, 440–452. [CrossRef]
3. Mohajeri Nav, F.; Usefi, N.; Abbasnia, R. Analytical investigation of reinforced concrete frames under middle column removal
scenario. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2018, 21, 1388–1401. [CrossRef]
4. Ahmadi, R.; Rashidian, O.; Abbasnia, R.; Mohajeri Nav, F.; Usefi, N. Experimental and numerical evaluation of progressive
collapse behavior in scaled RC beam-column subassemblage. Shock Vib. 2016, 2016, 3748435. [CrossRef]
5. Shayanfar, M.A.; Javidan, M.M. Progressive collapse-resisting mechanisms and robustness of RC frame–shear wall structures. J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 2017, 31, 04017045. [CrossRef]
6. RMI. Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks; RMI: Basalt, CO, USA, 1997.
7. ECS. Steel Static Storage Systems—Adjustable Pallet Racking Systems—Principles for Structural Design, EN 16681; European Committee
for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
8. Liu, P.; Peterman, K.; Schafer, B. Test Report on Cold-Formed Steel Shear Walls; Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012.
9. FEMA. Seismic Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible to the Public, FEMA460; Federal Emergency
Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
10. User Guide for Steel Storage Racks, CSA A344; Canadian Standards Association: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017.
11. Rack Manufacturer’s Institute. Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage Racks, ANSI MH16; Rack
Manufacturer’s Institute: Charlotte, CA, USA, 2012.
12. Vassiliou, M.F.; Mackie, K.R.; Stojadinović, B. A finite element model for seismic response analysis of deformable rocking frames.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2017, 46, 447–466. [CrossRef]
13. Di Egidio, A.; Alaggio, R.; Aloisio, A.; de Leo, A.M.; Contento, A.; Tursini, M. Analytical and experimental investigation into the
effectiveness of a pendulum dynamic absorber to protect rigid blocks from overturning. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 2019, 115, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 19 of 20

14. Elias, G.C.; de Almeida Neiva, L.H.; Sarmanho, A.M.C.; Alves, V.N.; Castro, A.F.B.E. Ultimate load of steel storage systems
uprights. Eng. Struct. 2018, 170, 53–62. [CrossRef]
15. Yin, L.; Tang, G.; Zhang, M.; Wang, B.; Feng, B. Monotonic and cyclic response of speed-lock connections with bolts in storage
racks. Eng. Struct. 2016, 116, 40–55. [CrossRef]
16. Taheri, E.; Firouzianhaji, A.; Usefi, N.; Mehrabi, P.; Ronagh, H.; Samali, B. Investigation of a Method for Strengthening Perforated
Cold-Formed Steel Profiles under Compression Loads. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5085. [CrossRef]
17. Taheri, E.; Firouzianhaji, A.; Mehrabi, P.; Hosseini, B.V.; Samali, B. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of a Method for
Strengthening Cold-Formed Steel Profiles in Bending. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3855. [CrossRef]
18. Kanyilmaz, A.; Castiglioni, C.A.; Brambilla, G.; Chiarelli, G.P. Experimental assessment of the seismic behavior of unbraced steel
storage pallet racks. Thin-Walled Struct. 2016, 108, 391–405. [CrossRef]
19. Bernuzzi, C.; Di Gioia, A.; Gabbianelli, G.; Simoncelli, M. Pushover analyses of hand-loaded steel storage shelving racks. J. Earthq.
Eng. 2017, 21, 1256–1282. [CrossRef]
20. Adamakos, K.; Vayas, I.; Avgerinou, S. Estimation of the behavior factor of steel storage pallet racks. In Proceedings of the 4th
ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island,
Greece, 12–14 June 2013.
21. Campiche, A. Numerical Modelling of CFS Three-Story Strap-Braced Building under Shaking-Table Excitations. Materials 2021,
14, 118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Chen, C.; Scholl, R.; Blume, J. Earthquake simulation tests of industrial steel storage racks. In Proceedings of the Seventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–13 September 1980; pp. 379–386.
23. Chen, C.; Scholl, R.; Blume, J. Seismic Study of Industrial Storage Racks, Report Prepared for the National Science Foundation for the Rack
Manufacturers Institute Automated Storage Retrieval Systems; URS/John A. Blume & Associates: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1980.
24. Chen, C.; Blume, J.A.; Scholl, R.E. Seismic-Resistant Design of Industrail Storage Racks. In Proceedings of the Dynamic Response
of Structures: Experimentation, Observation, Prediction and Control, Atlanta, GA, USA, 15–16 December 1981; pp. 745–759.
25. Filiatrault, A.; Higgins, P.S.; Wanitkorkul, A. Experimental stiffness and seismic response of pallet-type steel storage rack
connectors. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2006, 11, 161–170. [CrossRef]
26. Filiatrault, A.; Wanitkorkul, A. Shake-Table Testing of Frazier Industrial Storage Racks; Report No. CSEE-SEESL-2005-02; Structural
Engineering and Earthquake, University at Buffalo: Buffalo, NY, USA, 2004.
27. Sideris, P.; Filiatrault, A.; Leclerc, M.; Tremblay, R. Experimental investigation on the seismic behavior of palletized merchandise
in steel storage racks. Earthq. Spectra 2010, 26, 209–233. [CrossRef]
28. Simoncelli, M.; Tagliafierro, B.; Montuori, R. Recent development on the seismic devices for steel storage structures. Thin-Walled
Struct. 2020, 155, 106827. [CrossRef]
29. Mohammadi, M.; Kafi, M.A.; Kheyroddin, A.; Ronagh, H. Performance of innovative composite buckling-restrained fuse for
concentrically braced frames under cyclic loading. Steel Compos. Struct. Int. J. 2020, 36, 163–177.
30. Mohammadi, M.; Kafi, M.A.; Kheyroddin, A.; Ronagh, H.R. Experimental and numerical investigation of an innovative buckling-
restrained fuse under cyclic loading. Structures 2019, 22, 186–199. [CrossRef]
31. Sharafi, P.; Mortazavi, M.; Usefi, N.; Kildashti, K.; Ronagh, H.; Samali, B. Lateral force resisting systems in lightweight steel
frames: Recent research advances. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 130, 231–253. [CrossRef]
32. Azandariani, M.G.; Rousta, A.M.; Usefvand, E.; Abdolmaleki, H.; Azandariani, A.G. Improved seismic behavior and performance
of energy-absorbing systems constructed with steel rings. Structures 2021, 29, 534–548. [CrossRef]
33. Azandariani, M.G.; Azandariani, A.G.; Abdolmaleki, H. Cyclic behavior of an energy dissipation system with steel dual-ring
dampers (SDRDs). J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 172, 106145. [CrossRef]
34. Rosin, I.; Proenca, J.; Calado, L.; Carydis, P.; Mouzakis, H.; Castiglioni, C.; Brescianini, J.C.; Plumier, A.; Degee, H.; Negro, P.; et al.
Storage Racks in Seismic Areas, EUR 23744EN; European Commision: Luxembourg, 2009.
35. Gilbert, B.P.; Rasmussen, K.J. Drive-in steel storage racks I: Stiffness tests and 3D load-transfer mechanisms. J. Struct. Eng. 2012,
138, 135–147. [CrossRef]
36. Shaheen, M.S.; Rasmussen, K.J. Seismic tests of drive-in steel storage racks in cross-aisle direction. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019,
162, 105701. [CrossRef]
37. Maguire, J.R.; Teh, L.H.; Clifton, G.C.; Tang, Z.; Lim, J.B. Cross-aisle seismic performance of selective storage racks. J. Constr. Steel
Res. 2020, 168, 105999. [CrossRef]
38. Baldassino, N.; Bernuzzi, C.; di Gioia, A.; Simoncelli, M. An experimental investigation on solid and perforated steel storage
racks uprights. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 155, 409–425. [CrossRef]
39. Rainieri, C.; Fabbrocino, G. Operational Modal Analysis of Civil Engineering Structures; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014;
Volume 142, p. 143.
40. Aloisio, A.; Di Pasquale, A.; Alaggio, R.; Fragiacomo, M. Assessment of seismic retrofitting interventions of a masonry palace
using operational modal analysis. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 1–13. [CrossRef]
41. Jacobsen, E.; Tremblay, R. Shake-table testing and numerical modelling of inelastic seismic response of semi-rigid cold-formed
rack moment frames. Thin-Walled Struct. 2017, 119, 190–210. [CrossRef]
42. Krawinkler, H. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Industrial Storage Racks; Blume Earthquake Engineering Center: Stanford,
CA, USA, 1978. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229100879.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2021).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1821 20 of 20

43. Javidan, M.M.; Kim, J. Seismic Retrofit of Soft-First-Story Structures Using Rotational Friction Dampers. J. Struct. Eng. 2019,
145, 04019162. [CrossRef]
44. Javidan, M.M.; Kim, J. Steel hysteretic column dampers for seismic retrofit of soft-first-story structures. Steel Compos. Struct. 2020,
37, 259–272.
45. Javidan, M.M.; Kim, J. Variance—Based global sensitivity analysis for fuzzy random structural systems. Comput. Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 34, 602–615. [CrossRef]
46. Carneiro, J.; Demelo, F.; Jalali, S.; Teixeira, V.; Tomas, M. The use of pseudo-dynamic method in the evaluation of damping
characteristics in reinforced concrete beams having variable bending stiffness. Mech. Res. Commun. 2006, 33, 601–613. [CrossRef]
47. Chopra, A.K. Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering; Prentice—Hall, Englewood Cliffs: Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1995.
48. Usefi, N.; Sharafi, P.; Ronagh, H. Numerical models for lateral behaviour analysis of cold-formed steel framed walls: State of the
art, evaluation and challenges. Thin-Walled Struct. 2019, 138, 252–285. [CrossRef]
49. Mehrabi, P.; Honarbari, S.; Rafiei, S.; Jahandari, S.; Bidgoli, M.A. Seismic response prediction of FRC rectangular columns using
intelligent fuzzy-based hybrid metaheuristic techniques. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]