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

net/publication/302963088

The " SEISRACKS2 " EU-RFCS Research Project " Seismic Behaviour of Steel
Storage Pallet Racking Systems " " "

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

10 876

13 authors, including:

Carlo Andrea Castiglioni Giovanni Brambilla

Politecnico di Milano Politecnico di Milano
191 PUBLICATIONS 1,985 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 221 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gian Paolo Chiarelli

Politecnico di Milano
11 PUBLICATIONS 122 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is a presentation of the EU research project SEISRACKS2:
“Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage Pallet Racking Systems”,
RFSR-CT-2011-00031. After a global overview of the project as
well as an identification of lacks and weaknesses of the present
version of FEM Recommendations and definition of the case
studies, this paper presents the experimental results achieved
to date (Work Packages 2 to 4) and summarizes the numerical
studies carried out to date (Work Packages 5 and 7).
Questo articolo è una presentazione del progetto di ricerca europeo
SEISRACKS2: "Comportamento sismico di scaffalature metalliche
porta pallet”, RFSR-CT-2011-00031. Dopo una panoramica
globale del progetto, oltre all'individuazione di carenze e punti
deboli della versione attuale delle Raccomandazioni FEM e alla
definizione dei casi studio, questo articolo presenta i risultati
sperimentali ottenuti (Work Packages 2 a 4) e riassume le analisi
numeriche effettuate fino ad oggi (Work Packages 5 e 7).
1. INTRODUCTION
CEN TC344 is currently developing a preliminary normative docu-
ment (EN16681) [1] based on European Racking Federation (ERF)
FEM 10.2.08 v 1.04: 2011 [2] and on recent research works. The cur-
rent version of FEM 10.2.08 (v.1.04: 2011) is fundamentally based
on the experimental results obtained within the frame of the EU-
RFCS project SEISRACKS 1 [3] [4]. However lacks of knowledge lead
to conservative design rules and consequently strong technical
limitations when designing static steel pallet racks with respect to
seismic safety still remain.
The objective of the SEISRACKS2 project is to solve these limita-
tions by increasing knowledge on actual structural behaviour and
ductility and to assess design rules for earthquake conditions. The
main expected outcomes of the research are:
1. Detailed reports on the different aspects investigated;
2. Validation or invalidation of the rules in the current draft of FEM
10.2.08, v 1.04: 2011;
3. Improvements and extension of the current rules in order to
optimize the seismic behaviour of structures designed according
to European rules;
4. Definition of standardized experimental procedures to qualify
structural elements of rack structures to be used in seismic areas.
5. Development of a software tool for the design of rack structures
under seismic loads
Partners of the project are: POLIMI: Politecnico di Milano, Archi-
tecture, Building and Construction Department (Coordinator)
(I), ULIEGE: University of Liege, Department ArGenCo (B), RWTH:
Aachen University - Institute of Steel Construction (D), NTUA: Na-
tional Technical University of Athens, Department of Steel Con-
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
The “SEISRACKS2”
RICERCA
EU-RFCS Research Project
“Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage
Pallet Racking Systems”
“SEISRACKS2”: Progetto
di Ricerca EU-RECCS
Research Project
“Comportamento sismico di
scaffalature metalliche porta pallet”
Giovanni Brambilla, Carlo A. Castiglioni,
Gian Paolo Chiarelli, Alberto Drei,
Alper Kanyilmaz, Catherine Braham,
Hervè Degee, Cristoph Heinemeyer,
Benno Hoffmeister, Kostantinos Adamakos,
Ioannis Vayas, Barbara Orsatti, Stefano Sesana
struction (GR), SCL Ingegneria Strutturale (I), MODULBLOK S.p.A.
(I), NEDCON Magazijninrichting B.V. (NL), FRITZ SCHAFER GmbH
(D), STOW INTERNATIONAL N.V (B) and CCS COMPUTER CONTROL
SYSTEMS S.A. (GR).
The project is organized in 7 operative workpackages which will
be presented hereafter.
2. WP 1 - DEFINITION OF CASE STUDIES
This work package was carried out by the industrial partners (SCL
and the 4 rack producers) with the help of POLIMI and ULIEGE. It
aims to identify clearly the lacks and weaknesses in the latest ver-
sion of the FEM 10.2.08 and to define the case studies.
2.1. Lacks in FEM 10.2.08 v 1.04: 2011
A reanalysis of FEM 10.2.08 and a comparison of FEM 10.2.08 and
RMI [5] identified the relevant weaknesses of the FEM 10.2.08, re-
quiring the improvement in the knowledge of important aspects
of the seismic behaviour of racks, such as the assessment of:
- the design spectrum modification factors, which are introduced
to take into account the dynamic interaction between the rack
37
 and the supported loads Height of the frame 8m
- the damping of the rack structures Number and height of the beam levels 4 levels @ 2 m nearly
- the behaviour factors indicated for low Length of the rack 2 bays; 3 pallets per beam
ductility design concept
Max Acceleration (Low Seismicity) 0.12g-0.15g (Soil C, Type 2)
- the effects of eccentricities of the
Max Acceleration (High Seismicity) 0.25g-0.30g (Soil C, Type 1)
schemes due to construction
Pallet mass 800 kg
- the proper rules for the ductile design
Ed2 1.0
concept
β (spectrum cut-off ) 0.2
0.375 (wooden pallet on steel beams –
2.2. Definition of typical structural Friction coefficient
normal warehouse conditions)
typologies and of case studies
CμL 0.67
Eight models, covering a wide range of
CμH 1.5
constructive typologies and different
Importance Class 2
static schemes, were identified by the IPs,
Design life 30 years  γ1 =0.84 (normal use of the racks)
focusing on technical solutions for which
Ed3 0.67
current FEM10.2.08 recommendations are
felt less efficient. Design parameters and Table 1 - Geometrical configuration of the racks and design parameters

geometrical properties to be used in the
tests and in the numerical analysis are de-
fined in Table 1; 4 types of upright frames as
well as 4 type of longitudinal frames have
been identified, respectively based on the
geometrical pattern of the diagonals and
on the diagonals’ position and connection
(figure 1). Table 2 shows the configurations
to be tested (made by the composition of
Fig. 1 - Upright frames to be used in the tests and frame’s type and diagonal’s type) and the
numerical analyses
IP that will provide them. As all structural
data and geometry as well as the results are
A B C F
proprietary, in the following, for protection
1 IP C IP D IP B
of knowledge and privacy, the IPs will be
2a
indicated by letters: IPA, IPB, IPC, IPD.
2b IP D
The system of longitudinal bracings will be
4 IP A
composed of vertical and horizontal brac-
ings, at each load level. Three types of hori-
Table 2 - Configuration of upright frames provi-
ded by the different Industrial Partners zontal schemes are identified, whose com-
ponents and connection details are shown
in figure 2, while for the vertical bracings
the following options are identified:
- X bracings with extra uprights and extra
horizontal elements; diagonals working
only in tension (made by reC.T.A.ngular
or circular bars with turnbuckle); diago-
nals working in tension and compression
made either by tubes or channels;
- Bracings made by cables with turnbuckle
and post element.
Table 3 summarizes the configurations to
be tested (made by the composition of ver-
tical and horizontal bracing type), and the
IP that will provide them.
Each partner was asked to design, accord-
ing to daily practice and following FEM
recommendations, two configurations: one
unbraced for low/medium seismicity, and

X bracing X bracing
cable tension tension/
only compression
1b IP D
1c IP A
2b IP C
3b IP B

Table 3 - Bracing configuration provided by the different Indu-

Fig. 2 - Horizontal bracing system configuration strial Partners

38 1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15

Fig. 3 - 3D Test setup
one braced for high seismicity.
The solutions designed for the upright
frames resemble either the normal practice
or new proposal adapted just for seismic
conditions. The aim is to compare the dif-
ferent way of connection of the diagonals,
and to confirm which is the most effective
one in seismic conditions; to confirm the
q factors actually permitted by the Norms;
to identify the weaknesses or skills of com-
monly used constructive typologies.
The solutions designed for vertical bracing
resemble common practice (although the
solution with cables is less used); by the
comparison of different design possibility
and different stiffness of the frame - braced
and unbraced – the most effective solution
shall be found with respect to grade of seis-
micity.
The design is based on low ductility rules;
the checks of components is performed ac-
cording to EN 15512 [6] and EC3 [7].
Fig. 5 - Setup of frictions tests (left: FEM tests; right: performed tests)
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
Fig. 4 - Sketch of test setup
3. WP2 – COMPONENT TESTING
In this work package, assessment of com-
ponent (beam-to-upright, upright-to-base,
upright-to bracing connections) behaviour,
local ductility of cross frames, verification
of applicability of monotonic test results to
the assessment of cyclic performance, and
application of the components method for
characterizing rack connections are to be
accomplished.
3.1. Tests on beam-to-upright
connections
3.1.1. Tests in down aisle direction
Tests were performed at RWTH aimed to
the assessment of the moment rotation
characteristic of the beam to upright con-
nections as well as of the influence of the
loading conditions.
The setup of the down aisle tests is different
from the one proposed in EN 15512 [5] for
beam end connector tests, and was devel-
oped within the scope of this research pro-
ject to provide information about the plastic
deformation capacity under realistic sup-
port and loading conditions (figures 3 - 4).
Influence of loading on the connector be-
haviour is investigated by testing the racks
with different pay load (0%, 50% and 100%
of service load). For each load case and for
each producer (4 producers) one mono-
tonic and one cyclic test were performed.
Tests results provided information related
to failure modes, influence of payload, dif-
ferences between cyclic and monotonic
behaviour, moment rotation characteris-
tic, compatibility of these test results with
those derived from EN 15512 [6] standard
tests and effectiveness of safety bolts.
3.1.2. Tests in cross aisle direction
Tests are carried out at RWTH for the assess-
ment of the moment rotation characteristic
of the beam to upright connectors and of
39
 the influence of pallet loads on the cross
aisle deformation behaviour of the beams.
In addition friction tests have been per-
formed to allow determining the influence
of pallets on the cross aisle deflection resist-
ance, in accordance with FEM 10.2.08 [2]
(figure 5).
In total, 27 friction tests were performed
on the pallets representing the 50% of the
maximum service load (approx. 400kg).
figure 6 summarises the results of the fric-
tion tests on pallets with 50% of the maxi-
mum service load.
The test setup for the cross-aisle specimens Fig. 6 - Test results pallets with 50% max service load
represents a typical rack detail with a bay
width of 2.70 m: two pairs of uprights allow RWTH for the assessment of the moment 3.3. Substructure tests
the installation of beams that can be loaded rotation characteristic of the connection Substructure testing is carried out at ULIEGE
by standard pallets (figures 7 – 8) between the upright and the column base. on cross-frames and braced longitudinal
For the tested products it can be stated that The influence of loading on the base plate frames under horizontal loading, aimed to
the moment resistance in the connectors behavior is investigated by testing the spec- the definition of standardized procedures
for cross aisle bending is negligible and pal- imens with different axial load. for the assessment of the local ductility of
let friction mainly controls the resistance in Down aisle loading causes bending in the cross-frames as well as of the longitudinal
the cross aisle direction. base plate connections. On the contrary, frame bracing properties.
bending in the base plate connection
3.2. Column-base tests seems to be negligible under loading in 3.3.1. Cross frames
The column base tests are carried out at cross aisle direction. 4 types of cross frames have been identified

Fig. 7 - Drawing of setup Fig. 8 - Sketch of test setup

40 1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15

based on the geometrical pattern of the di-
agonals as well as 4 types of diagonals’ posi-
tion and connection. 8 case-studies have
been prepared (2 by each IP plus one extra
for one Partner) with the objective of get-
ting a wide range of situations (design for
low/moderate/high seismicity, D/Z/X type
of cross bracing).
The total number of tests on the substruc-
tures is:
- for unsymmetrical frames: 3 tests = 2
pushover + 1 cyclic;
- for symmetrical frames: 2 tests = 1 pusho-
ver + 1 cyclic;
All cross-frames have been modelled using
a finite element analysis tool developed in
the University of Liège in partnership with
a design office BEG.
The tests have been performed by weld-
ing both uprights to the base-plates. This
procedure aims at avoiding a failure in the
upright-to-base-plate connection by shear-
ing of the connecting bolts.
The following failure modes have been ob-
served during the tests:
• local and global buckling of diagonal in
compression
• shearing of bolt of diagonal in tension
• local shear at diagonal intersection
• bearing of diagonal in tension
• buckling of diagonal in compression
• buckling of diagonal in compression with
local crushing of diagonal’s extremities
• torsional buckling of uprights
• bending of bolts
4. WP 3: WAREHOUSE TESTING
This work package includes the works for
monitoring of a real warehouse on the long
period during operation activities, identifi-
cation of the linear dynamic properties of
racks, and identification of dynamic proper-
ties of pallets/merchandize.
4.1. Continuous monitoring of a storage
structure
During the previous Seisracks1 project [3],
an installation near Athens has been con-
tinuously monitored for a few months to
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
record rate of occupancy, operations and
accelerations. This activity was extended
during the whole Sesiracks2 research. Fi-
gure 12 shows the positions of the accel-
erometers on the rack. Data are recorded
continuously on site, and transmitted to
the remote server of NTUA. A large num-
ber of data related to everyday activities is
being recorded at a 200 Hz sampling rate,
and re-analysed by POLIMI. Because of the
enormous amount of recorded data, it has
been decided to re-analyze only the data
Fig. 9 - Components of stiffness and resistance of
related to “significant” events, in which the
the fixing upright to slab
absolute value of the peak acceleration ex-
ceeds 0,05*g. With reference to the avail-
able “significant” events only, the frequency
of occurrence of acceleration peaks was de-
rived, adopting steps of 0.1 g (as shown in
figure 13). Through this type of re-analysis
performed on the global set of all recorded
data, it will be possible to derive indications
on design values of acceleration to be con-
sidered, in order to keep into account the
storage and retrieval (S/R) activities. Fur-
thermore, based on the total number of
cycles recorded per year, it will be possible
to derive indications about whether or not
fatigue problems might affect the racking Fig. 10 - Sketch of principle test setup
systems and should be accounted for in the
design.
4.2. Identification of the linear dynamic
properties of racks on the base of ambi-
ent vibration or hammer tests
The warehouse testing presented here aims
at identifying the linear dynamic properties
of racks on the basis of free response tests.
The objective consists in defining the range
of periods and damping of a real structure Fig. 11 - Global buckling of 2nd and 3rd diagonals
accompanied with sharing of bolt
and to calibrate numerical models. These
tests are performed by ULIEGE and RWTH method, for one of the monitored struc-
on site, on existing structures in active ware- tures, such a structure was excited at the
houses chosen by the IPs (one warehouse 2nd and 4nd level in order to compare the
for each IP). The geometrical and material response, are shown in table 4.
properties of the structures to be moni- In the transverse direction for the same
tored are chosen very similar to the case structure three possible natural frequen-
studies of this research. cies were identified (table 5) with the cor-
The longitudinal natural frequencies, ob- responding mode shapes.
tained by stochastic subspace identification The first mode corresponds to an in-phase
41
 Fig. 12 - Position of accelerometers on the rack
Shaking at level Mode 1 Freq. (Hz)
2 (4.0 m)
4 (8.0 m)
Table 4 - Longitudinal measurements
Shaking at level Mode 1 Freq. (Hz)
2 (4.0 m) 1.49
4 (8.0 m) 1.59
Table 5 - Transversal measurements
movement. The second and third modes
correspond to a kind of local torsion in the
rack, which can be termed as a “snaking
mode”. This mode cannot be understood
as a global torsion otherwise it would have
resulted in excessive amplitudes at both
ends of the rack.
It can also be noticed that for both types of
excitation (2nd level or 4th level) and for both
direction, the obtained results are in good
agreement (table 4 and 5).
4.3. Identification of dynamic properties
of pallets/merchandize
(mass, frequency, damping ratio, sliding
properties, sensitivity to rocking)
The dynamic properties (frequency, damp-
ing) of a large range of stored merchandizes
were identified on the basis of a push-by-
hand excitation on top of the stored good
with a quick release or an impact given by
the human waist. For each of the chosen
pallet a tri-axial sensor has been fixed on
top of the goods.
The natural frequency of the stored goods
42
Fig. 13 - Frequency of occurrence of acceleration peaks
Mode 2 Freq. (Hz)
0.62 1.87
0.60 1.80
Mode 2 Freq. (Hz) Mode 3 Freq. (Hz)
2.07 2.34
2.01 2.42
on pallets varies from 3.25 Hz to 6.21 Hz; the
damping ratio varies from 3% to 7%.
5. WP 4: FULL SCALE TESTING
This work package aims to the assessment
of the global behaviour of full scale racks in
down aisle. Specimens for longitudinal tests
are 4 levels (8.0 m) and 2 bays (5,6 m). A total
of seven specimens provided and designed
by four industrial partners (conventionally
named IPA, IPB, IPC and IPD for privacy rea-
sons, according to a non-disclosure agree-
ment) were tested, to date:
• 4 unbraced racks (IPA, IPB, IPC, IPD)
• 3 braced racks (IPA, IPB, IPD)
5.1. Test procedure
All the tests were performed outdoor, in
a testing facility owned by Marcegaglia
Buildtech and managed by Politecnico di
Milano where full scale racks could be easily
mounted and loaded.
Pushover tests have been performed by
pulling the structure by means of an hy-
draulic jack. In order to balance the reaction
force and transmit it to the ground, a steel
reaction tower has been designed and built
on a rigid foundation.
The load has been designed to have a trian-
gular pattern (Fig.14), with loads acting on
each level, increasing from the lowest to the
upper. Since the pulling force is generated
by one hydraulic jack only, a specially de-
signed load distributor is required to allow
application of the force with such a pattern.
This load distributor (Fig.15) has been de-
signed as a series of three double supported
beams, placed in such a way that reaction
forces at their ends are proportionally in-
creasing from the first support to the fourth.
The load is transferred from the jack to the
structure through a steel strand; to monitor
the effective load in the strand, a load cell is
installed between the end of the jack and
the strand itself. The displacements at the
nodes are monitored and recorded through
displacement transducers placed both in
down-aisle direction and in cross-aisle di-
rection. The general test layout is shown in
figure 16.
5.2. Experimental tests results
5.2.1. Capacity curve
A characteristic force-displacement diagram
named “capacity curve” is obtained by plot-
ting the total applied load vs. the top dis-
placement.
The data have been normalized as follows:
• Base shear force F has been normalized
on the yield shear force Fy :
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15

Fig. 14 - Triangular load pattern
Fig. 15 - Load distributor
F
F* =
FY
• Displacements d have been normalized
on the yield displacement dy :
d
d* =
dY
All capacity curves of the tests are normal-
ized according to ECCS45 [8] (figure 17).
Fig. 16 - General test layout
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
5.2.2 Behaviour factor
The resistance and energy-dissipation ca-
pacity of a structure are related to the extent
to which its non linear response is to be ex-
ploited and in modern seismic design codes
are kept into account through a behavior
factor (q-factor).
The definition of q-factor is strictly related
to the assessment of the yield strength Fy .
The q-factor is defined as the product of the
overstrength Ω and the ductility ratio μ = q0 .
Three methods have been adopted to esti-
mate these parameters (figures 18-20).
5.2.3. Case studies
5.2.3.1. Unbraced structures
The pushover curves of all the cases exam-
ined are superimposed in order to allow a
better comparison and, for clarity, are pre-
sented according to the similar behavior.
Two different structural responses namely
Type_1 and Type_2 are immediately evi-
dent, as shown in figures 21 and 22.
Behavior Type_1: (Ductile)
Type 1 behavior is typical of structures of
IPA and IPB (which in the following will be
identified as Group 1).
Both structures develop non linear behav-
ior before the yield point is reached. In fact,
neither of the two curves passes through
the point of coordinates (1;1). This behavior
is due to a diffused joints plasticization that
occurs since the beginning of the tests. After
the plateau (indicating maximum capacity)
reached, and the structures unloaded, they
show a permanent deformation. The un-
loading branch is parallel to the initial load-
ing one. It can be deduced that the racks
still have some plastic resources at least in
terms of displacement.
Behavior Type_2: (Brittle)
Behavior type 2 is typical of structures of IPC
and IPD (which in the following will be iden-
tified as Group 2). The initial branch seems
to be perfectly elastic until the yield value
is reach. A short plateu can be observed be-
fore collapse occurs. The structural failure is
highlighted by the absence of the elastic
unloading branch that is replaced with an
accumulation of lateral displacement during
the unloading phase. The lack of plastic de-
formation is probably due to a local collapse
mechanism (softstory) that developed dur-
ing the tests, with the formation of plastic
hinges both on base plates and on the top
of the first interstory.
As an example the deformed shapes of IP A
(Type_1) and IP C (Type_2) at the last load-
ing increment are presented in figure 23.
The two opposite behaviors can be noticed.
The different structural responses (Group_1
and 2) are reflected by the calculated q-fac-
tor values.
Three different values of the q-factor were
identified according to the definitions of Fy ,
Fu , dy and du shown respectively in figures
18-20. Such values are presented in the
following table, where the q-factor values
provided by the producers, according to the
criteria defined in the FEM 10.2.8 [1], are also
reported.
Looking at table 6 it is observed that:
• While the q 1 and q 2 values are quite
similar in all structures, q3 is always much
larger than the previous ones and of-
ten unreali-stic. That is due to the dif-
ferent definition criteria of Fy , dy pro-
vided by method 3 (figure 20). For this
reason the 3 rd method is considered
unreliable for structure showing a non
linear and ductile behavior characte-
rized by strain hardening effects.
43
 17 18 19 20

Fu du Fu du Fu du
Fig. 17 - Definition of Fy and vy . Ω= ; q0 = Ω= ; q0 = Ω= ; q0 =
Fig. 18 - Method 1. Fig. 19 - Method 2.
Fy dʹ Fy dy Fy dʹ
Fig. 20 - Method 3

Fig. 21 - Type_1 racks capacity curves Fig. 22 - Type_2 racks capacity curves

• For structures showing a behavior type_2,

q values are close to 1,00 while for those
showing a behavior type_1 larger values
of q are obtained.
• By comparing the values of q-factor de-
rived by re-analysis of the experimental
results with those adopted during the
design phase, it can be noticed that only
IP A and IP B structures were designed on
safe side. For the other two companies,
the adopted design values of the q-factor
are larger than those derived based on
experimental results.
Fig.23 Deformed shapes at the last loading increment of IP A (left) and IP C (right) structures

44 1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15

5.2.3.1. Braced structures
Also the braced structures presented differ-
ent behaviors.
The racks of IPB and IPD showed a response
that can be defined as “brittle”:
• The IP B structure suddenly collapsed due
to shear failure of the bolt connection di-
agonal member of the vertical bracing at
ground level, while the rack was still in the
elastic phase.
• The IP D structure reached failure be-
cause the peculiar joint’s configuration
(see figure 27) caused the spreading of
additional bending stresses in the bolt
and in the other connection elements,
due to the eccentricity of the shear planes.
The mentioned deformations affect the
global behavior of the structure that is
not purely elastic; therefore the pushover
experimental capacity diagram shows a
slightly marked curve instead of a straight
line.
On the contrary, the behavior of IP A rack
can be considered “ductile”. Failure of the
connections of the diagonal members did
not occur during the test, so that all plastic
resources of the lower level diagonal have
been exploited and the rack could reach
high displacements. To confirm these obser-
vations, in the following table the q-factor
values of the above mentioned structures
(only q1 and q2 are shown for the already
discussed reasons) and the corresponding
design values assumed by the producers are
reported:
As in the case of unbraced racks, not all the
structures showed q-factor values experi-
mentally derived larger than (or equal to)
those assumed by the IPs during the design
phase.
5.3. Numerical modelling
The behavior of the different racking sys-
tems has been simulated through finite
element software, and a comparison of the
response of these models under static non
linear pushover analysis with the results of
full scale pushover tests performed on each
racking system has been carried out [9].
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
The software used for this purpose is obtained by NTUA from Abaqus FEM analy-
SAP2000 [10], which allows to perform static sis (see WP5).
and dynamic analysis taking into account
geometrical and material non linearity that 5.3.1. Simulation of the static pushover
are fundamental parameters for a realistic tests
modelling of a pushover test. Comparing the results obtained from the
It was expressly decided to use a commer- numerical models with the experimental
cial software package, commonly adopted ones it can be observed that:
by professional engineers in their daily • In case of unbraced structures, the nu-
practice applications, and to avoid special merical models of IPA and IPB structures
sophisticated software, specifically devel- correctly estimate the global experimen-
oped for cold formed thin walled profiles. tal response (figure 25), while those of
Among the scopes of the research, in fact, IPC and IPD structures show a clear dis-
is the identification of numerical procedures crepancy from the experimental behavior
that might be standardized, and eventually (figure 26).
introduced in a code of practice and/or • In case of braced structures, the numeri-
guidelines to be developed, representing cal model of IPA structure is in very good
a reference document for engineers, when agreement with the experimental results.
designing racking systems in seismic areas. On the contrary, the numerical models of
The general approach followed for numeri- IPB and IPD structures don’t fit the experi-
cal modelling consists in simulating of the mental results.
different components of the racks (uprights,
beams and diagonals) with frame elements. IP A IP B IP C IP D
Once defined the structural geometry and q1 3,85 2,13 1,06 1,28
the member properties, attention is focused
q2 4,92 2,38 1,06 1,3
on the material and geometric non linearity.
q3 6,65 4,25 1,06 1,47
By a state-of-the-art review [11-23] it can be
noticed that almost all plastic deformations q-design 2 2 1,5 2
in the rack systems are concentrated in four Table 6 - q-factor values of unbraced racks
types of structural elements: beam-end con-
nectors, column base connection, diagonals
(for the braced racks) and on the top of the
first interstorey.
Beam-end connectors, column base con-
nection and diagonals are modelled by
means of non linear link elements. For the
definition of the first two the moment-ro-
tation diagram obtained from the compo-
nent tests performed by RWTH (see WP2)
was used while for the diagonals no experi-
mental results was available, and theoreti-
cal force-displacement diagrams have been Fig. 24 - Braced capacity curves superposition
assumed.
At the top of the lower level of the uprights, IP A IP B IP D
plastic hinges are introduced, in order to q1 2,48 1,00 1,00
take into account the interaction between
q2 2,83 1,00 1,00
axial force and moment resistance of the
q-design 1,50 1,50 1,50
uprights. The constitutive laws for these
hinges were derived based on the results Table 7 - q-factor values of braced racks
45

Fig. 25 - Numerical to experimental comparison
of IPA unbraced structure (left) and IPB unbraced
structure (right)
Fig. 26 - IPD unbraced structure, numerical to
experimental comparison (left) and reduction of
upright’s elastic modulus (right)
46
All the models, showing discrepancies re-
spect to the experimental behavior were
calibrated.
Since the software simulation doesn’t take
into account the distortional buckling phe-
nomena, that was observed during tests for
unbraced racks of IPC and IPD, the relative
models have been calibrated by modifying
the Young’s modulus E of the uprights in the
first and second level, reducing in the order
of the 50% (figure 26).
Regarding to the braced racks of IPB and
IPD, the calibration was needed in order to
simulate the observed brittle behavior. In
fact, only the complete use of elasto-plastic
resources of diagonal profiles, as verified in
the braced structure of company A, allows a
high degree of ductility to be reached.
These structures collapsed due to the brac-
ing connections failure (figure 27), but nei-
ther for this detail nor for the diagonals,
component tests or more sophisticated
modeling has been performed. To solve
these lacks, the force-displacement relation-
ship of the diagonal link has been calibrated,
in order to achieve a good numerical experi-
mental agreement (figure 27).
5.3.2. Incremental Dynamic Analysis
(IDA)
The IDA analysis aims to investigate the dy-
namic behavior of a structure at different
levels of seismic intensity. This study was
carried out for two racks, one unbraced
and one braced, in order to consider both
structural typologies.
Based on their design spectrum, provided
by respective industrial partners, ten spec-
trum-compatible accelerograms through
the use of software Simqke [24] have been
obtained. They constitute the basic set of
the analysis. For each accelerogram a direct-
integration dynamic analysis was run on the
models, considering all nonlinear geometric
and material effects.
This procedure was repeated for the base
set scaled with different incremental values
(SFs) to obtain the IDA results. Then an es-
timation of the q-factors is performed; q-
factors are intended as the ratio of the scale
factor of the accelerograms that lead to first
yield to the scale factor of the accelerograms
that cause the structure to collapse.
For both structures the obtained q-factor
values are very similar to the ones deduced
from the static analysis: in particular for the
unbraced structure the q-factor is equal to
2,77 (against values of 2,48 ÷ 2,83 derived
from the static analysis) while for the braced
one the q-factor is equal to 2,24 (against val-
ues of 2,13 ÷ 2,38). These results can be seen
as a validation of both the dynamic analysis
method adopted and the rack numerical
model itself.
6. WP5 – NUMERICAL ANALYSES
Further numerical models of the 8 case-
studies have been prepared according to
the daily practice using conventional anal-
ysis methods (push-over and time history)
and recommendations of FEM 10.2.08. These
numerical activities were mainly performed
by NTUA.
Inelastic structural properties of beam to
upright connections and base plate to the
upright connections are treated by using
nonlinear link elements in the model. The
input data of the link elements are obtained
from experimental data which are provided
by each IP.
Other parts of the system which exhibits ine-
lastic behaviour are the lower portions of the
uprights. After a severe horizontal displace-
ment the uprights can collapse due to local
or flexural- torsional buckling. This “plastic
hinge” is created by an interaction between
moment and axial force; the M-N interaction
curve is linear, as the member remains in the
elastic region. To simulate buckling failure
in the member, there is a need to introduce
an equivalent plastic hinge However, since
there is an interaction between moments
and axial forces, the relevant capacities are
not fixed values but depend one from the
magnitude of the other. A linear bending
moment-axial load interaction domain has
been adopted.
An accurate FEM analysis is required to pro-
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
Fig. 27 - IPD braced structure, numerical-experimental comparison (left) and plastic deformations in the bracing joint (right)
vide the exact post failure behavior of these
members.
Diagonals in cross aisle direction are respon-
sible for the behavior of the upright frame
and were defined in the numerical model
with “plastic hinges”. The yield strength of
the plastic hinge should be chosen as the
smallest value among the buckling strength
of the member, the yield strength of the sec-
tion, the shear strength of the bolts and the
bearing resistance of the plates. However,
interaction among these failure modes is
possible, in case of a ductile and/or hard-
ening post-failure behavior. Thus, a further
investigation by FEM analysis is necessary to
clarify the exact behavior of each diagonal.
7. WP 7: Software tool development
The current analysis method for racks un-
der seismic loading (the multimodal spectral
analysis) does not allow for the considera-
tion of geometrical nonlinear effects due
to the linear superposition of the modal re-
sponses. To overcome the above limitation
and allow for a multimodal spectral analysis
with due consideration of 2nd order effects,
a new procedure has been developed: a
multimodal spectral stepwise non-linear
analysis, offering the following advantages
against other approaches:
• It uses seismic data that is well defined in
every national design code (parameter-
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15
ized spectra, importance categories, re-
gional acceleration limits etc.).
• It uses fast, reliable and reasonably accu-
rate algorithms and procedures (modified
Newton-Raphson, CQC ).
• It can be combined with existing software
and it is easy to use and understand even
for users without specialized knowledge
(simple presentation of variables and data,
user is not required to know the imple-
mentation details).
The method can be described as follows:
1. Use non-linear static analysis (step by
step) for permanent (G) and live (Q) loads
to compute the RGQ response.
2. Calculation of the critical participating
modes in a seismic direction.
3. For every mode (i) the corresponding
static load Hi is calculated, simulating the
seismic load in the specific direction.
4. Use non-linear static analysis for G, Q
and Hi loads to compute the RGQHi
response.
5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated for every par-
ticipating Eigenmode.
6. The part corresponding to the modal re-
sponse is calculated using the following
expression: RHi = RGQHi - RGQ
7. The total seismic response RH for the
specific direction is obtained with the
application of CQC method:
———————
√
RH = ∑ ∑ βij RHi RHj
—
i j
8 √ ζi ζj (ζi+ρζj )ρ3/2
βij = —————————————————
2
10 4(1-ρ2) + 4ζi ζj ρ (1+ρ2) + 4(ζi2+ζj2)ρ2
Where:
ζi , ζj are the critical damping for i and j
modes respectively, ρ = Tj /Ti and Ti , Tj :
period of i and j modes respectively
8. Calculation of the final response for a seis-
mic direction using: R = RGQ +RH
Steps 1 and 4 require the non-linear analysis
for large displacements.
This approach is being implemented as an
extension to existing solvers, developed and
distributed by CCS.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The project is presently (May 2014) still un-
derway and is expected to be completed
within June 2014, with the development of
design guidelines for seismic design (WP6).
At the present stage, the most relevant con-
clusions that can be derived by the activi-
ties carried out to date is the acknowledge-
ment that the behavior of racking system
is strongly affected by the behavior of their
structural details (such as beams to upright
connections, base plate connections, con-
nections of the bracing members to the
structure and/or the ground) and by the
47
 shape of their structural member (profile
presenting perforations and holes).
All these details are proprietary. Hence, it is
very difficult to generalize rules interpret-
ing the structural behavior of such different
components.
Racking system should be considered as
“industrialized systems produced in series”,
like prefabricated structures, as such, should
be treated.
Their design should be performed either in
the elastic range, or based on results of full
scale tests on specimens where the perfor-
mance of the various specific proprietary
details has to be certified by the producer.
prof. ing. Carlo A. Castiglioni,
dr. ing. Alper Kanyilmaz,
dr. ing. lberto Drei,
dr. ing. Gian Paolo Chiarelli,
dr. ing. Giovanni Brambilla
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architec-
ture, Building and Construction, Milano, Italy,
c.castiglioni@polimi.it
dr. ing. Hervè Degee, Catherine Braham
University of Liege, Department Argenco,
Liege, Belgium
dr. ing. Benno Hoffmeister,
Cristoph Heinemeyer
RWTH Aachen, Department of Steel
Construction, Aachen, Germany
dr. ing. Ioannis Vayas,
Kostantinos Adamakos
NTUA Athens, Department of Steel
Construction, Athens, Greece
dr. ing. Stefano Sesana,
dr. ing. Barbara Orsatti
SCL Ingegneria Strutturale, Milano, Italy
KEYWORDS
Racking systems, Seismic behaviour,
cold formed steel profiles.
Testo pervenuto in Redazione nel gennaio
2015.
48
View publication stats
REFERENCES
[1] EN 16681, “Steel static storage systems –
Adjustable pallet racking systems – Principles
for seismic design”.
[2] FEM 10.2.08 “Recommendations for the
design of static steel pallet racks in seismic
conditions” - Version 1.04 – May 2011.
[3] RFS-PR-03114 – “Storage racks in seis-
mic areas (Seisracks)” – Final report, 2007
[4] “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage Pal-
let Racking Systems”, C.A. Castiglioni, PhD
Thesis, University of Genova, May 2008.
[5] ANSI-RMI-2008 “Specification for the
Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial
Steel Storage Racks” - MH16.1: 2008.
[6] EN 15512 “Steel static storage systems -
Adjustable pallet racking systems - Principles
for structural design”, 2009.
[7] CEN-EN1993-1-1, “Design of steel struc-
tures, 2003”.
[8] ECCS N° 45, “Recommended Testing
Procedure For Assessing the Behaviour of
Structural Steel Elements under Cyclic Loads”,
Technical Committee 1 – Structural Safety
and Loadings Technical Working Group 1.3
– Seismic Design, 1986.
[9] G. Brambilla, G. P. Chiarelli, “Steel storage
pallet racking systems: full scale pushover
testing and numerical analyses”, MSc Thesis,
Politecnico di Milano, April 2014.
[10] Computers and Structures Inc., “CSI
Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000®”,
ETABS®, and SAFE®, Berkeley CA. 2010.
[11] FEMA 460 “Seismic Considerations for
Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Acces-
sible to the Public”, 2005
[12] “Seismic Behaviour of Storage racks
made of Thin-Walled Steel members”, H.
Degee, V. Denoel, C.A. Castiglioni, VII Eu-
ropean Conference on Structural Dynam-
ics, Eurodyn 2008, Southampton, July 2008
[13] “An approach for the seismic design of
steel storage pallet racks”, G. Ballio, C. Ber-
nuzzi, C.A. Castiglioni, Stahlbau, Nov. 1999
[14] “Experimental analysis on the cyclic be-
haviour of beam-to-column joints in steel
storage pallet racks”, C. Bernuzzi, C.A. Cas-
tiglioni, Thin-Walled Structures, n. 39, 2001,
pag. 841-859
[15] “Joints under cyclic reversal loading in
steel storage pallet racks”, M.R.Agatino, C.
Bernuzzi, C.A.Castiglioni, Proc. XVIII C.T.A.
Conference, Venezia, September 2001, vol.
2, pag. 105-114
[16] “Shaking table tests on steel pallet racks”,
C.A.Castiglioni, N.Panzeri, J.C.Brescianini,
P.Carydis, Proc. STESSA 2003, Napoli, June
2003, pp. 775-781
[17] “Dynamic tests on steel pallet racks”,
C.A. Castiglioni, Costruzioni Metalliche n.
3, 2003, pp. 35-44
[18] “Dynamic experimental tests on steel
pallet racks”, J.C. Brescianini, C.A.Castiglioni,
N.Panzeri, Proceedings of C.T.A., Genova,
September 2003, pp. 107-116
[19] “Seismic behaviour of steel storage
racks”, C.A. Castiglioni, Proceedings of the
IV Congresso de Construcao Metalica e
Mista, Lisbon, 4-5 December 2003, pp 41-
62
[20] “Caratterizzazione del comporta-
mento dinamico di scaffalature metalliche
porta-pallets mediante push-over tests”, J.C.
Brescianini, C.A. Castiglioni, Proceedings of
XXI C.T.A., Catania, September 2007, pp.
275-282
[21] “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage
Racking Systems”, C.A. Castiglioni, L. Calado,
P. Carydis, H. Degee, P. Negro, I.Rosin, Pro-
ceedings of STESSA09, paper 0158, Phila-
delphia, August 2009
[22] “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Storage
Racking Systems”, C.A. Castiglioni, L. Calado,
P. Carydis, H. Degee, P. Negro, I.Rosin, Pro-
ceedings of XXII C.T.A., Padova, September
2009
[23] “Cyclic tests of beam-upright connec-
tions in racking systems with a new hybrid
procedure”, L.Calado, C.A.Castiglioni, A.Drei,
Proc. of STESSA 2012, Chile, Jan. 2012, pa-
per n. 006, pp. 53-59
[24] SIMQKE, “Program for Artificial Motion
Generation”, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1976.
1 costruzioni metalliche gen feb 15