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

net/publication/319672399

Design methods for drive-in steel storage racks

Article in ce/papers · September 2017

DOI: 10.1002/cepa.207

CITATION READS

1 8,462

2 authors:

Mahmoud S.A. Shaheen Kim J.R. Rasmussen

The University of Sydney The University of Sydney
6 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 315 PUBLICATIONS 8,220 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud S.A. Shaheen on 26 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EUROSTEEL 2017, September 13–15, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

DESIGN METHODS FOR DRIVE-IN STEEL STORAGE RACKS

Mahmoud S.A. Shaheen*,a, Kim J.R. Rasmussena
a
University of Sydney, Dept. Civil Engineering, Australia
Mahmoud.Shaheen@Sydney.edu.au, Kim.Rasmussen@Sydney.edu.au

ABSTRACT
The European racking federation design guidelines FEM10.2.07 (2012) contains provisions for the
analysis and design of drive-in and drive-through racks. It specifies different methods for carrying
out the design, and the design verifications differ depending on the method chosen. However, there
appears to be no published studies that compare the analysis and design methods specified in
FEM10.2.07 and give recommendations for using a particular method over the other. In addition,
the design guidelines are unclear about the definition of the effective length to use in the design of
uprights. Depending on the way the effective length provisions are interpreted it leads to
significantly different solutions. This paper studies the different design methods specified in
FEM10.2.07 and exemplifies the differences, advantages and disadvantages of each method, and
puts forward recommendations for design depending on drive-in rack characteristics.

Keywords: Drive-in racks, Pallet racking, Cold-formed steel, Storage racks.

1 INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, steel storage racks are used extensively in industry for storing goods on pallets. They
are heavily loaded and resist significant forces; yet are designed to be as light as possible. Among
the many types, drive-in racks are storage rack configurations that allow forklift trucks to drive
directly into storage lanes of stacked rows as shown in Figure 1.

Goods

Pallet

Forklift
Rails truck

Upright
frame

Fig. 1. Drive-in steel storage rack configuration

Drive-in racks can typically be 3 to 7 pallets deep. To allow forklift passage, drive-in racks in the
down-aisle direction can be only braced at the back (spine bracing) and at the top (plan bracing). As
a result, uprights have substantial unbraced lengths which make them prone to buckling in the
down-aisle direction. Whereas, in the cross-aisle direction, each two uprights are interconnected by
diagonal bracings members to form upright frames, thus producing higher shear stiffness in the
cross-aisle direction as compared to the down-aisle direction. In addition, owing to the friction
between the pallets and the supporting rail beams, the pallets are believed to act partially as an
elastic structural member. Yet, their interaction with the rack is not guaranteed. Therefore, the
European racking federation design guidelines FEM10.2.07 [1] does not permit taking into account
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
the stabilizing effects provided by the pallets. Adding further complexity, the nonlinear behaviour
of the critical connections such as: a) upright to base plate assembly, and b) upright to portal beam
has to be accounted for in the design of racks.

2 INTERNATIONAL DESIGN STARNDARDS FOR DRIVE-IN RACKS

The design of drive-in racks is not very well covered or documented in the literature compared to
other types of storage racks such as selective racks. However, selective racks have many features
that apply equally to drive-in racks. In America, selective storage racks are designed to the Rack
Manufacturer Racking specification RMI [2], in Europe to the Euronorm standard EN15512 [3]
while in Australia they are designed to the Australian standard AS4084 [4] which is inspired in
many aspects by the EN15512. Whereas, for drive-in and drive-through storage racks the only
available design specification is the European Racking Federation design guideline FEM10.2.07
(2012) [1], in which drive-in racks can be analysed and designed using three main methods.

According to FEM10.2.07, Method 1, the most involved method, is a nonlinear 3D analysis which
takes into account second order effects both at the global frame (P- ∆) and local member (P- δ)
levels. Also, it requires the global geometric (frame) imperfection and local member (bow)
imperfections to be included in the global analysis model. Method 2, which is similar to Method 1,
requires a 3D second order analysis with global frame imperfections to be included in the model.
However, Method 2 does not take local member imperfections into account in the analysis but
rather uses design buckling curves to account for bow imperfections implicitly. Method 3 is a 3D
first order analysis method which is considered to be the simplest and least accurate among the
specified analysis methods, and hence has not been included in this study. In the literature, there
appears to be no published studies that compare the analysis and design methods specified in
FEM10.2.07 or give recommendations for using a particular method over the other. In addition, the
design guidelines are unclear about the definition of the effective length to use in the design of
uprights as far as Method 2 is concerned. This paper presents a case study through which the
different design methods are examined to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each method,
and also to present recommendations for the most accurate definition of the upright effective
(unbraced) length to use in the design of drive-in racks.

3 ANALYSIS CASE STUDY

The storage rack configuration chosen for this study represents a common drive-in racking
configuration used in practice. The rack includes four drive-in lanes, with four pallets in depth,
three levels of storage, and a top plan brace that is located in the same lane where the spine brace
exists. An illustration of the drive-in rack arrangement studied is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

3.1 Geometric Properties

The drive-in rack components are made of cold-formed open steel sections and circular hollow
sections (CHS) joined together using connectors. The rack components (Fig. 2) consist of:
a) uprights; b) cross-aisle plan bracings; c) frame diagonal bracings; d) portal beams; e) horizontal
spine bracings; f) diagonal spine bracings; g) plan bracings; and h) rail beams. AS4084 (2012)
stipulates that if structural analysis programs are used to perform global structural analyses, as is the
case in this research project, the model results shall be validated against benchmark analytical
solutions, well documented experimental tests, or similar benchmark results. To validate the
analysis models used in this research, reference is made to the work by Gilbert and Rasmussen [5,
6] which describes static tests on a complete drive-in rack system similar to the one studied in this
project. Using second-order geometric nonlinear analyses, the finite element model used by Gilbert
and Rasmussen was found to accurately reproduce the 3D behaviour of the rack. Therefore, the
same validated FE models are used in this research. The profiles of the open sections and the cross-

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
section properties used in the finite element models are shown in Figure 4 and listed in Table 1
respectively.

Fig. 2. Illustration of the drive-in rack FE model Fig. 3: Plan dimensions for the drive-in rack

RF12519 C7515 DR10019 SB15019

Fig. 4. Cross-section profiles for the drive-in rack studied

Table 1. Section properties used in the FE models

Member Name Gross area Imajor axis Iminor axis J Warping constant
mm2 mm4 mm4 mm4 mm6
Upright and cross- RF12519(1) 727.9 1.328×106 6.852×105 780.6 2.51×109
aisle plan bracing
Frame diagonal C7515(2) 283.7 2.662×105 9.928×104 212.8 1.337×108
bracing
Portal beam and SB15019(2) 559.1 1.746×106 1.683×105 672.8 1.011×109
hor. Spine bracing
Diagonal spine and CHS26.2x2(2) 156.5 1.217×104 1.217×104 2433.0
plan bracing
Rail beam DR10019(3) 640.8 1.449×106 6.067×105 771.1 4.638×108
(1) (2) (3)
: From experimental results, : From nominal dimensions, From measured dimensions.

3.2 Actions and Combinations of Actions

FEM10.2.07 (2012) requires different types of actions to be considered in the design of the racks.
These actions shall be considered either individually or in combinations. FEM10.2.07 gives
reference to EN15512 (2009) which stipulates that the weight of unit loads and global rack
imperfections shall together constitute a single action. According to Table 2 of EN15512, the
ultimate limit state load factors γG and γQ are taken as 1.3 and 1.4 respectively for permanent and
variable loads respectively. Permanent actions according to EN15512 shall include the weight of all
constructions such as walls, floors, ceilings, stairways, and fixed services. In this case study, the
only permanent action considered is the self-weight of the rack. The variable action on the other
hand as per EN15512 shall include unit loads, vertical placement loads, and other types of loads not
applicable to this research project. Therefore, only unit loads and vertical placement loads have
been considered. The pallet (variable) loads applied on the drive-in rack consisted of 2 tons pallets
applied to the first and second levels of rail beams, and 1.2 tons pallets applied to the third level. To
account for the case where an empty pallet may exist in a fully loaded rack, FEM10.2.07 requires an
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
additional pattern load case to be considered such that a single upright near the middle of the rack at
the lowest level is unloaded. The load arrangements for the two load cases are shown in Figure 5.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Pallet load arrangement for (a) fully loaded case, and (b) pattern loaded case.

3.3 Global Imperfection

As part of the global analysis procedures required by Methods 1 and 2, global frame imperfections
shall be included in the global analysis models. Global frame imperfections are considered to take
into account the possible out of plumb of the frame during construction due to erection tolerances.
FEM10.2.07 (2012), in the same way as EN15512 (2009) and AS4084 (2012), specifies different
global frame imperfections depending on whether the frame is braced or unbraced. For braced
systems, as in the case of the rack studied, FEM10.2.07 specifies the global frame imperfection as,

1 1
𝛷 = √(2 + 𝑛 ) × (2𝛷𝑠 + 𝛷𝑙 ) ≥ 1/500 (1)
𝑙

where Φs = maximum specified installation out of plumb divided by the height, Φl = looseness of
the top tie (portal) beam end connector, and nl = number of interconnected lanes per drive-in block.
However, FEM10.2.07 permits Φl to be set to zero if the connection looseness is taken into account
in the global analysis model. Gilbert and Rasmussen [7] studied the influence of the portal beam to
upright bolted moment connection on the behaviour of drive-in racks. Through four different
connection models, the most accurate model was to consider the multi-linear moment rotation curve
(as shown in Fig. 19 in [7]) in the global analysis model, which therefore has been adopted in the
FE models used in this research. The maximum specified installation out of plumb angle Φs is taken
as 1/500 as per Annex C of FEM10.2.07. Consequently, the global out-of-plumb sway angle Φ is
calculated as 0.00346 radians. The global sway imperfection then has been applied using an
equivalent closed system of horizontal loads acting on the uprights at the rail beam levels.

3.4 Local Member Imperfection

Appropriate allowance should be incorporated in the structural analysis to cover the effects of lack
of straightness which is referred to in FEM10.2.07, EN15512 and AS4084 as local member (bow)
imperfection. FEM10.2.07 takes into account local member imperfection in two different ways
depending on the analysis method used as described in Section 2. If the global analysis is carried
out in accordance with Method 2, the FEM10.2.07 guidelines do not require any local member
imperfection to be considered in the analysis since the design verification as per this method is
based on using buckling curves as per Clause 6.3 of EN1993.1.1 [8], or similarly the design
capacity tables in Section 6 of AS4100 [9], which implicitly includes member imperfections.
However, if the global analysis is carried out as per Method 1, FEM10.2.07 requires the local
member imperfection to be calculated as per the recommendations of Clause 5.3.2(11) of
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
EN1993.1.1 [8], as also required in AS4084 (2012). In this method the calculation of the member
imperfection is based on scaling the buckling mode shape with a pre-defined amplitude, and then
superimposing the scaled buckled mode shape onto the straight geometry to start the global analysis
with a pre-deformed geometry. Method 1 also requires; (a) the calculation of the relative
slenderness of the rack for each design load case which can be determined by performing a buckling
analysis of the rack, (b) cross-section analyses to determine the characteristic axial and bending
strengths of the cross-section studied, (c) the determination of the curvature of the buckling mode
shape at the critical cross-section of the upright (i.e. the cross-section at which the normalized
lateral displacement from the buckling analysis is maximum, Fig 6a), and (d) gravity analysis for
determining the most critically loaded upright (i.e. the upright with the worst combination of axial
force and bending moment) as determined from the interaction equation (Eq. 3).

To determine the rack buckled mode shape, an elastic buckling analysis was carried out using the
finite element program ABAQUS with the ultimate design loads shown in Figure 5. In the buckling
analysis (Figure 6a), the structure was fully laterally braced at the top of the rack, and the rotational
restraints at the top and bottom connections of the uprights were modelled as per the rotational
stiffness presented in [7, 10]. Also, Figure 6a shows that the upright on grid B4 is the most critical
upright with the critical cross section as highlighted. Figure 6b shows the pre-load and post-load
deformed geometries: the grey lines represent the scaled buckled shape imposed onto the structure
before applying the load, whereas the green lines represent the deformed geometry after the load
was applied. It is obvious that this method is far more sophisticated than Method 2 as it requires
greater effort in calculating many different parameters. For more details about the method for
calculating the amplitude of local member imperfections, the reader can refer to Clause 5.3.2.1(11)
of EN1993.1.1 and Shaheen [11].

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Illustration showing the pre-load and post-load deformed geometries of the DIR: (a) Buckling load
analysis (b) Pre-load and post-load deformed shapes for the gravity load analysis.

4 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR THE RACK STUDIED

This section presents the analysis results for the fully loaded rack (case 1) and pattern loaded rack
(case 2), as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively for the most critical upright (at grid B4).
Figure 7a and Figure 8a demonstrate that the axial force magnitude and distribution are almost
independent of the method of analysis chosen. Whereas for case 1, including the local member
imperfection as per Method 1, as shown in Figure 7b, caused an increase of 59% in the bending
moment at the location of the critical cross-section and a 37% increase at the base plate connection
when compared to Method 2 results. However, there was a small reduction in the bending moment
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
in the upright at the portal beam level. Similarly, including local member imperfection in case 2, as
shown in Figure 8b, caused a 4% increase in the bending moments at the location of the critical
cross-section and a 16% increase at the base plate connection when compared to Method 2 results.
Contrary to the fully loaded rack (case 1), in case 2 the bending moment in the upright at the portal
beam level increased slightly.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Fully loaded case (a) axial load diagram, and (b) bending moment diagram for the critical upright at grid B4

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Pattern loaded case (a) axial load diagram, and (b) bending moment diagram for the critical upright at grid B4

5 DESIGN VERIFICATION
According to FEM10.20.07 (2012), the design verification calculations mainly depend on the
method of analysis chosen. If the global analysis model is created according to Method 1 then
FEM10.2.07 requires the design verifications to be only based on the nominal cross-section
capacity. Whereas, if the analysis model is created according to Method 2, FEM10.2.07 requires the
design verification to be based on the member capacity. According to Method 2, the member
capacity checks require the determination of the effective length of the upright that shall be used to
calculate the critical buckling stress in either a flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional buckling
mode. The determination of the effective buckling length is discussed in the following section.

5.1 Determination of The Effective Length of Uprights in Drive-in Racks

According to Method 2, FEM10.2.07 (2012) stipulates that the determination of the buckling length
in the down-aisle (sometimes referred to as cross-lane direction) shall be based on a strut that is
fully laterally restrained at the top and at the base. Also, the strut shall take into account the
rotational stiffness of the top tie beam (sometimes referred to as portal beam) end connectors as
well as the rotational stiffness of the upright to floor connection. FEM10.2.07 (2012) permits the
buckling length of the upright to be calculated either by means of the analysis of a single upright in
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
2D or by means of a 3D model. Figure 9(a) shows a schematic diagram for the 2D model
arrangement to determine the effective length of the upright according to FEM10.2.07 (2012). In
the literature, the effective length is determined by different methods. One method is by evaluating
the elastic critical buckling load Pcr or what is sometimes referred to as the “Euler load”. Once the
elastic critical buckling load is determined, the effective length can be back-calculated as follows:

𝐸𝐼
𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝜋√𝑃 . (2)
𝑐𝑟

The elastic buckling load can be determined using different approaches. One approach is the
analytical evaluation by which the differential equation of the deformed shape is defined and solved
in terms of the buckling load and the amplitude of deformation. Another approach for determining
the buckling load is by numerical calculation which is sometimes called linear eigenvalue analysis.
Nowadays, the numerical calculation of the elastic critical buckling load of a structure is a standard
feature of most commercial softwares. The second method for determining the effective length is
based on direct evaluation using the curvature of the column. Based on the latter method, the
effective length is calculated as the distance between the contra-flexure points as shown in Figures
9(b) and 9(c).

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. (a) Upright 2D model for the determination of the effective length as per FEM10.2.07, (b) buckling
shape of the upright, (c) determination of the effective length between points of contra-flexure.

5.2 Design Check and Utilization Ratio

A 2D buckling analysis of the rack subjected to gravity loads has been carried on the critical upright
with the top and bottom joints assigned rotational springs corresponding to the initial stiffnesses of
the joints. In the analysis, the vertical loads on the critical upright were applied at the levels of the
rail beams. The axial force in the upright is shown in Figure 7(a), whereas the buckled shape and
the corresponding curvature along the upright were determined as shown in Figures 9(b) and 9(c).
Using the curvature method, the effective length of the upright is determined as 3420mm measured
between the points of contra-flexure, which is about 70% of the upright height. However, when the
effective length was determined using Equation 2 it was found that for each value of axial load in
the upright, a different effective length was obtained. From top to bottom, the axial compression
force in the different segments of the upright, as shown in Figure 7(a), was equal to 23kN, 62kN,
and 101kN which corresponded to effective lengths equal to 4150mm, 2520mm, and 1975mm
respectively. Obviously, the three values are substantially different and each one would produce
different design strength. To resolve this ambiguity, an advanced analysis was performed using the
GMNIA analysis method as per AS4084 [4], which takes into account second order effects,
geometric imperfections (global and local), and material nonlinearity. The material behaviour was
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
modelled using an elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain relationship with a yield stress of 450MPa.
Figure 10(a) shows the results of the GMNIA analysis results with the incremental gravity load
factor plotted on the vertical axis and the rack top lateral sway plotted on the horizontal axis. The
structure behaved essentially linearly up to 50% of the design load, while beyond that second order
effects started to govern the behaviour and caused the structure to respond nonlinearly. The point of
interest in this plot is at the ultimate load factor of 2.27, at which the structure started to loose
stiffness and shed load. Using a system resistance factor of 0.9 as required by AS4100 and AS4084,
then from the GMNIA analysis results it can be concluded that the maximum load that could be
applied to the structure before failure is about twice the design load. The design verification
outcomes using Method 1 and particularly Method 2 with different effective lengths were compared
to the GMNIA analysis result (which is considered to be reference point for comparison) in order to
identify the most accurate approach for calculating the effective length.

According to Method 1, the utilization ratio is calculated as

𝑁∗ 𝑀∗
+ , (3)
Φ𝑁𝑠 Φ𝑀𝑠

whereas, according to Method 2 the utilization ratio is calculated as

𝑁∗ 𝑀∗
+ Φ𝑀 . (4)
Φ𝑁𝑏 𝑏

In Eqs (3) and (4), M* is the 2nd order elastic moment with and without the additional moment due
to local member imperfection, as per Method 1 and Method 2 respectively, Ns is the axial capacity
of the cross-section, Ms is the moment resistance of the cross-section, Nb is the member axial
capacity, Mb is the member moment resistance, and Φ is the strength reduction factor. As shown in
Figure 10(b), the stress ratio in the advanced analysis was capped at 100% utilization ratio since the
failure of the rack was triggered by material yielding. In contrast, the stresses at failure according to
Method 1 exceeded 100% because the FEM10.2.07 guidelines do not consider material nonlinearity
in the global analysis model but instead they compensate for the effect of these by using an inflated
local member imperfection amplitude which is about four times the admissible local bow
imperfection specified in AS4100 for vertical columns. However, as shown in Figure 10(b),
Method 1 reaches 100% utilization at a load factor of 1.95 which is very close to the ultimate load
factor obtained using the advanced analysis method. According to Method 2, two curves were
plotted using two different effective lengths (i.e. 3420mm and 1975mm). When using Leff =
3420mm, the critical cross-section reaches its ultimate strength at a load factor of 1.3. Whereas,
when using Method 2 with Leff = 1975mm the critical cross-section reaches its ultimate strength at a
load factor of 1.7. This implies that using Method 2 with the effective length of the upright
determined by the curvature method in conjunction with using the design interaction equations in
the standards underestimates the load carrying capacity of the upright by 50% ((1.95-1.3)/1.3) when
compared to Method 1 results. Whereas, determining the effective length based on the maximum
axial load in the upright underestimates the upright’s capacity only by 15% ((1.95-1.7)/1.7) when
compared to the results of Method 1. It is therefore concluded that the latter approach is more
appropriate if Method 2 is used for the design of drive-in racks.

Figures 11a and 11b show the utilization ratios for the drive-in rack when the failure of the structure
is governed by global buckling of members in either the flexural, torsional, or flexural-torsional
buckling modes. For the two cases studied, viz. full load (Figure 11a) and pattern load (Figure 11b),
the stress utilization ratios based on Method 1 are consistently lower than the values obtained by
Method 2. For instance, when the full design load is applied (i.e. at 100% of the load), the stress
ratios, according to Method 1 and Equation 3, for the fully loaded and the pattern loaded models are
approximately 59% and 66% respectively, whereas the stress ratios, according to Method 2 and
Equation 4, are approximately 66% and 74% respectively. This means that by using Method 1 the
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
rack structure can resist an additional 12% of the applied loads in the fully and pattern loaded racks
before reaching the same utilization ratios achieved by Method 2.
Another case study was performed in which the uprights were governed by the local distortional
capacity of the upright cross-section. It was found that Method 2 could give very different results
when compared with the case when the uprights were governed by the global flexural behaviour of
the uprights as presented in the previous sections. More details about the distortion failure of the
upright cross-section can be found in [11].

(a) (b)
Fig. 10. (a) Load displacement curve based on the GMNIA analysis method, (b) Load factor-utilization
ratio curve for upright B4 at the critical section (RL+0.00) for the fully loaded case model.

(a) Critical section at the base (b) Critical section at RL+1.078m from the base
Fig. 11: Utilization ratio curve for upright B4 at the critical section for (a) fully loaded case, and (b) pattern loaded case

6 SUMMARY
The design of drive-in racks as per FEM10.2.07 was carried out using Method 1 and Method 2.
Different load cases were examined including fully racks and pattern loaded racks. It was found that
carrying out the design according to Method 1 was sophisticated as it required more calculations for
determining the design actions in the members, especially the uprights. Whereas, Method 2 seemed
to be computationally more efficient when compared to the analysis procedures required by
Method 1. According to Method 1, the design verification is based on the cross section capacity as
compared to Method 2 which is based on the member capacity. Different approaches were used to
define the effective length for determining the member capacity of the uprights according to
Method 2. When the effective length was defined as the distance between the points of contra-
flexure of the deformed shape of the uprights it showed that the capacity of the uprights were
underestimated by 50% when compared to GMNIA analysis results. Whereas, when the effective
length of the upright was back calculated based on the maximum force in the upright segments, it
showed that the capacity of the uprights were underestimated by 15%. Thus, this proposes that the
© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)
 latter approach is more appropriate to adopt if the designer prefers to use Method 2 due to its
computational efficiency.

When using Method 2, If the stress utilization ratio at the ultimate design loads is less than or equal
to the ultimate capacity (i.e. utilization ratio ≤ 100%) then the design can be verified to be adequate
and there is no need for further refinements. However, if under full ultimate loads the utilization
ratio using Method 2 exceeds the design capacity by a small amount about (i.e. 10% ~ 12%), then
the designer has the option either to increase the capacity of the uprights, or to re-analyze the rack
using Method 1 which could demonstrate that the design of the uprights is adequate, thus leading to
a more economic design.

REFERENCES
[1] FEM10.2.07, The Design of "Drive-in and Drive-through racking" Pallet Racking, European
Racking Federation- ERF/FEM R&S. 2012, European Racking Federation, Birmingham.
[2] RMI, Specification for the design, testing, and utilization of industrial steel storage racks-2008
edition, Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI), Charlotte, USA. 2008.
[3] EN15512, Steel static storage systems - Adjustable pallet racking systems - Principles for structural
design, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium. 2009.
[4] AS4084, Steel Storage Racking, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia. 2012.
[5] Gilbert, B.P. and K.J.R. Rasmussen, Finite Element modelling of steel drive-in rack structures.
Research Report R901. 2009, School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Australia.
[6] Gilbert, B.P. and K.J.R. Rasmussen, Drive-In Steel Storage Racks I: Stiffness Tests and 3D Load-
Transfer Mechanisms. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012. 138(2): p. 135-147.
[7] Gilbert, B.P. and K.J.R. Rasmussen, Bolted moment connections in drive-in and drive-through steel
storage racks. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2010. 66(6): p. 755-766.
[8] EN1993.1.1, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures. General rules and rules for buildings. 2005.
[9] AS4100, Steel Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia. 2012.
[10] Gilbert, B.P. and K.J.R. Rasmussen, Determination of the base plate stiffness and strength of steel
storage racks. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2011. 67(6): p. 1031-1041.
[11] Shaheen, M.S.A., Comparison between the analysis and design methods for design of steel drive-in
rack structures, Masters of Engineering thesis. Univeristy of Sydney. Australia. 2013.

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin ∙ CE/papers (2017)

View publication stats