Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Modal analysis of cold-formed pallet rack structures with semi-rigid connections

Kamal M. Bajoria ∗ , Keshav K. Sangle, Rajshekar S. Talicotti
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India

article info abstract

Article history: The three dimensional (3D) model of conventional pallet racking systems were prepared using the finite
Received 23 December 2008 element program ANSYS and free vibration modal analysis carried out on conventional pallet racks with
Accepted 10 October 2009 the 18 types of column sections developed along with semi-rigid connection. The stiffness of the connector
was tested using the conventional cantilever method and also using a double cantilever method. Non-
Keywords: linear finite element analysis of both the tests was carried out. From the experimental study on connection
Finite element modal analysis
and finite element modal analysis, a simple analytical model that captures the seismic behavior of storage
Cold-formed steel
Semi-rigid connections
racks in their down aisle direction is proposed. The model is aimed at developing simplified equation for
the fundamental period of storage racks in their down aisle direction. A parametric study was carried out
to find out fundamental mode shape and time period. Finite element method is used for the accuracy and
appropriateness of cold-formed steel frame.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The most important parameter in the analysis and design of any
structure subjected to seismic load is the fundamental time pe-
riod of the structure. In addition to the fundamental time period,
understanding of the fundamental and other mode shapes of the
structure under seismic load is also equally important. For steel
structures made up from hot rolled sections and for reinforced con-
crete structures, significant research has been done on fundamen-
tal time period and mode shapes of the structure. For these types
of structures analysis and design for seismic load is well set and
almost in all the codes this procedure is given. Rack structures are
very similar to the framed steelworks traditionally used for civil
and commercial buildings, but great differences exist in member
geometry and in connection systems. The structural behavior of
industrial storage racks under seismic load depends on how the
individual components like beam to column connections, column
bases and members perform interactively with each other. The be-
havior of 3D frames under seismic load is very complex because of
many parameters such as semi-rigid nature of connections, pres-
ence of significant perforations in uprights and susceptibility to lo-
cal buckling and torsional–flexural buckling. As to which method of
analysis is most suitable to solve this problem will certainly depend
on the tools available with the designer. The analysis model can be
as simple as using a sub-structure model such as isolating the col-
umn and using the alignment chart, or as sophisticated as using
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 9821129187.
E-mail addresses: kmb@civil.iitb.ac.in (K.M. Bajoria), sangle@iitb.ac.in
(K.K. Sangle).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.10.005
numerical methods to analyse the entire frame. With the avail-
ability of powerful computers and software, the latter approach
has become more attractive, allowing more complex and efficient
analysis.
The dynamic analysis and design of thin walled cold-formed
steel pallet racking structure with perforated open upright section
and semi-rigid joints presents several challenges to the structural
engineers. Therefore understanding of the structural behavior of
rack structures is very important.
Carlos Aguirre [1] performed non-linear analyses of the rack
structure under different seismic conditions, considering the mea-
sured moment–rotation curves. Results showed that non-linear
calculated displacements were more than twice the displacements
predicted with the classical linear analysis. Beale and Godley [2]
performed sway analysis of spliced rack structures. The structures
were analyzed by considering an equivalent free-sway column and
using computer algebra generated modified stability functions to
incorporate the non-linear P-∆ effects. The effect of semi-rigid
beam to upright, splice to upright connections are fully included
in the analysis. Each section of upright between successive beam
levels in the pallet rack is considered to be a single column ele-
ment. The results of the analysis have been compared with a tra-
ditional finite element solution of the problem. Godley et al. [6]
performed analysis and design of un-braced pallet rack structures
subjected to horizontal and vertical loads. The structures are an-
alyzed by considering an equivalent free-sway column and solv-
ing the differential equations of flexure, including P-∆ effect. Initial
imperfections within the frame are allowed. Results of the analysis
are compared with a traditional non-linear finite element solution
of the same problem. Danny and Raymond [4] have carried out an-
alytical work by modeling the pallet rack and merchandise in the
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 429

Fig. 1. Medium weight section 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0 mm.

Fig. 2. Heavy weight section 2.0, 2.25 and 2.5 mm.

analysis software and run this model for the elcentro earthquake
data’s. The objective of this work is to perform a preliminary study
of dynamic behavior of a typical storage rack loaded with merchan-
dise subjected to earthquake ground motion using finite element
simulation. ABAQUS finite element code was used for this study
and the structural improvement was recommended based on the
simulation outcome. Blume et al. (Fema-460-2005) [3] performed
static and response spectrum analyses to investigate the applica-
bility of the eccentric braced frame concept to storage racks in or-
der to improve their seismic behavior in the cross aisle direction.
The results of the study indicated that aside from a considerable
savings in steel material, the eccentric bracing system could un-
dergo significantly more inelastic deformations without structural
instability than conventional bracing systems. Although the ana-
lytical results were promising, the authors recommended also that
experimental investigations needed to be conducted before imple-
menting the eccentric bracing system in storage racks. Such exper-
imental results are not available to date.
Lewis [5] worked on the down aisle stability of rack structures.
In his analysis, a single internal upright column carrying both
vertical and horizontal loads was used. The model allowed for
semi-rigid connections between beams and uprights and between
the bases of uprights and the floors. However, the model only
allowed for column flexibility below the level of the second beam,
the rest of the column being treated as rigid. This assumption
becomes increasingly unsafe as the number of storey levels
increases.
This paper deals with the free vibration finite element modal
analysis of 3D frame of a cold-form steel storage rack structures,
with semi-rigid connections. Results are presented from the 3D
analysis carried out on 3D frames with 18 types of column sections
developed. Based on these results simplified mathematical model
is proposed to find out the fundamental time period of the cold-
formed steel conventional pallet rack structure.
2. Column sections used in the study
In this paper open sections and torsionally strengthened sec-
tions were used. Original open sections were strengthened by pro-
viding channel and hat stiffeners to avoid the local buckling of
430 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Fig. 3. Torsionally strengthened MW and HW sections with channel and hat stiffeners.

125

50

Fig. 4. Details of box beam section (Thickness of web of the beam = 2 mm and
thickness of flange of beam = 4 mm).

uprights. These sections are MW (Medium Weight) column section

having three thicknesses 1.6 mm, 1.8 mm and 2.0 mm each with
hat and channel stiffener and HW (Heavy Weight) column section
having three thicknesses 2.0 mm, 2.25 mm and 2.5 mm each with
hat and channel stiffener. Their cross sectional geometry is given
in Figs. 1–3. Purpose of choosing three different thicknesses is to
know the change in behavior when the sections are made locally
stable by having higher thickness.

3. Calculations of sectional properties

For the above sections, sectional properties are calculated based

on weighted average section. A weighted average section is a sec-
tion that uses an average thickness in the web portion to account
for the absence of the material due to the holes along the length Fig. 5. Connection details.
of the section and additional thickness for the additional material
of channel and hat stiffener. Excel program is developed to calcu-
late the sectional properties of sections used in this study. Sectional
based on the experimental and non-linear finite element analysis
properties of the sections are given in Table 1 and material prop-
erties of the same sections are given in Table 2. study. The stiffness of the connector developed was tested using
the conventional cantilever method and then also using a double
4. Stiffness of the connection cantilever method. To verify the results obtained from both the
tests, a full scale frame test was carried out. Non-linear finite
Stiffness of the connections for semi-rigid racks is considered element analysis of both the tests and also of the full scale test was
as shown in Table 3 in proposed analytical model. This stiffness is carried out using ANSYS software(Fig. 6).
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 431

Table 1
Properties of column section.
Type of section Section properties
A (mm2 ) Ixx (mm4 ) Iy (mm4 ) J (mm4 ) C.G (mm)
(x, y)

MWS 1.6 389.53 269 028 302 208 311.6 0, 46.31

MWS 1.8 438.21 302 626 339 983 443.58 0, 46.32
MWS 2.0 487.00 336 369 377 784 608.774 0, 46.31
MWCS 1.6 512.80 426 500 330 300 463 300 0, 39.12
MWCS 1.8 561.70 463 000 369 200 512 000 0, 40.01
MWCS 2.0 610.60 498 800 408 000 559 300 0, 40.75
MWHS 1.6 611.60 432 400 405 600 521 200 0, 38.21
MWHS 1.8 660.40 469 800 444 400 570 700 0, 39.03
MWHS 2.0 709.30 506 500 483 200 618 300 0, 39.74
HWS 2.0 593.02 514 270 854 484 744.669 0, 54.66
HWS 2.25 667.06 578 437 961 214 1060.02 0, 54.66
HWS 2.5 741.21 642 731 1 068 050 1454.09 0, 54.67
HWCS 2.0 783.80 825 550 990 900 1 065 000 0, 45.03
HWCS 2.25 856.90 891 300 1 099 000 1 163 000 0, 46.09
HWCS 2.05 929.90 955 400 1 208 000 1 255 000 0, 46.98
HWHS 2.0 887.90 830 300 1 175 000 1 156 000 0, 44.85
HWHS 2.25 960.90 896 500 1 283 000 1 252 000 0, 45.81
HWHS 2.5 1030.0 961 100 1 392 000 1 343 000 0, 45.13

Table 2
Material properties used in FEA.
Yield stress (σy ) (MPa) Ultimate stress (σu ) (MPa) Modulus of elasticity (E) (GPa) Density (Kg/m3 ) Percentage elongation. (%)

365 569 212 7860 29

Table 3
Stiffness of the connections for semi-rigid rack.
Type of section HWS 2.0 HWS 2.25 HWS 2.5 MWS 2.0 MWS 1.8 MWS 1.6

Stiffness of connection (KN m) 50 70 90 80 60 40

(a) Finite element model of double cantilever test. (b) Four nodes monitored to determine the rotation (Double cantilever
test).

Fig. 6.

Rotational stiffness of the type of connection used in the pallet members is much lower than yield stress. In light of the above
rack solely depends upon the geometry and engagement length explanation, results obtained from the double cantilever test on
of the joint. Further design of rack structures mainly governed semi-rigid frame for static load are used for the time dependent
by stability analysis therefore actual stress level present in the analysis (Fig. 7).
432 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Table 4
Properties of the finite elements used in the analysis in brief.
Element name Shell 63 Solid 45 Conta 173

Position of connector Upright, beam, beam connector Connector hook, spacer bar, Contact between connector and upright
element bracing
Description Plastic shell element 3D structural solid element 3D surface-to-surface contact element
Number of nodes 4 8 4
Degree of freedom x, y and z translation and rotational displacements x, y and z translation displacements x, y and z translation displacements

fundamental mode of vibration is always seen to be in down aisle

Fig. 7. Finite element simulation Von Misses stress (Double cantilever test).
5. Development of a single degree of freedom analytical model
For these types of frames, the stiffness in the down aisle direc-
tion is almost always less than cross aisle direction. Therefore the
direction. Therefore it is proposed here to develop an equivalent
single degree of freedom analytical model. Analytical model pre-
sented in this paper is developed on the same line which is given
in FEMA-460 [6] with a little modification. Analytical model used
in the Fema-460 is based on the experimental study conducted on
two bay 3D pallet racks made up of hot rolled sections by Filia-
trault and Wanitorkul. In the proposed single degree of freedom
analytical model of this paper, stiffness of connection is taken from
experimental and non-linear finite element study conducted on
cold-formed section. Free vibration analysis result of this analyt-
ical model is compared with the results obtained by free vibration
finite element modal analysis carried out on total 192 3D frames
with different configurations by using Ansys software (Fig. 8(a, b,
c, d)).
In order to derive simplified expressions for the down aisle
fundamental period, of storage racks, the following assumptions
are made.
• Uniform beam to upright connection is used throughout the
frame.
• The beams are spaced uniformly along the height of frame with
height except that bottom beam.
• All connections of the racks experience simultaneously similar
rotations at all times. This assumption implies that the connec-
tion rotational stiffness is smaller than the rotational stiffness
of the beams and uprights.

(a) M–θ curve by finite element analysis (Load on left side of (b) M–θ curve by experiment (Load on left side of upright).
upright).

(c) M–θ curve by finite element analysis (Load on right side of (d) M–θ curve by experiment (Load on right side of
upright). upright).

Fig. 8.
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 433

(a) Kinematics assumption for storage racks in (b) Idealization of

down aisle direction. single degree of
freedom system.

Fig. 9.

a b

Fig. 10. (a) Single bay without mass. (b) Single bay with mass.

Fig. 11. Double bays with mass.

434 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Fig. 12. Details of 3D frame in study.

Table 5
HWS semi-rigid without mass, 6.05 m height (Single bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.377 0.411 0.917 0.033

HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.371 0.417 0.890 0.045
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.358 0.406 0.881 0.048
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.358 0.390 0.917 0.032
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.353 0.397 0.889 0.044
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.342 0.387 0.883 0.045
HWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.338 0.368 0.920 0.029
HWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.337 0.376 0.896 0.038
HWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.326 0.367 0.888 0.040
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.352 0.370 0.952 0.017
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.349 0.376 0.929 0.026
HWHS 2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.339 0.368 0.920 0.029
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.334 0.351 0.949 0.017
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.333 0.359 0.928 0.025
HWHS 2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.324 0.351 0.921 0.027
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.282 0.332 0.850 0.049
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.284 0.340 0.834 0.056
HWHS 2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.276 0.334 0.828 0.057
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.336 0.337 0.995 0.001
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.334 0.343 0.973 0.009
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.326 0.338 0.966 0.011
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.318 0.321 0.990 0.003
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.318 0.328 0.970 0.009
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.311 0.323 0.963 0.011
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.299 0.309 0.968 0.009
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.302 0.311 0.968 0.009
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.295 0.307 0.963 0.011

• The fundamental period of vibration therefore be calculated by
an equivalent single degree of freedom system corresponding
to an assumed first down aisle mode of deformation of the rack.
• In the present analytical model stiffness of the base plate is as-
sumed as stiffness of the upright connected to the base plate.
• It is assumed that the semi-rigid beam to upright connection
has been designed with sufficient ductility so that the static
joint properties can be assumed to remain same during time
dependent analysis (Table 4).
Fig. 9(a) illustrates the assumed lateral first mode deformation
of a three level storage rack in its down aisle direction according
to the assumption listed above. It is assumed that the rotational
stiffness (kc ) of the beam to upright connections is known at the
target displacement ‘u’. The total rotational stiffness between the
beam and uprights (kbu ) indicated in Fig. 9, is the sum in series of
the rotational stiffness of the connection (kc ) and of the flexural
rotational stiffness of the beam end (kbu ).
kc kbe
kbu = . (1)
kc + kbe
Similarly, the total stiffness at the base of each upright (ku )
indicated in Fig. 9(a) is the sum in series of the rotational stiffness
of the base plate (kb ) and of the flexural stiffness of the base upright
end (kce ).
kb kce
ku = . (2)
kb + kce
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 435

Table 6
MWS semi-rigid without mass, 6.05 m (Single bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

MWS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.408 0.417 0.977 0.009

MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.420 0.430 0.976 0.010
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.412 0.423 0.975 0.010
MWS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.383 0.395 0.971 0.011
MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.397 0.408 0.971 0.011
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.391 0.402 0.972 0.011
MWS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.358 0.370 0.967 0.012
MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.373 0.385 0.968 0.012
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.370 0.381 0.970 0.011
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.350 0.340 1.027 0.009
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.361 0.351 1.030 0.010
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.359 0.348 1.033 0.011
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.326 0.322 1.011 0.003
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.339 0.334 1.016 0.005
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.338 0.331 1.020 0.006
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.302 0.304 0.995 0.001
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.316 0.316 1.001 0.000
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.317 0.314 1.007 0.002
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.350 0.340 1.027 0.009
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.361 0.351 1.030 0.010
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.359 0.348 1.033 0.011
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.326 0.322 1.011 0.003
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.339 0.334 1.016 0.005
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.338 0.331 1.020 0.006
MWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.302 0.304 0.995 0.001
MWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.316 0.316 1.001 0.000
MWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.317 0.314 1.007 0.002

Table 7
HWS semi-rigid without mass, 4.5 m height (Single bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.256 0.268 0.955 0.012

HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.249 0.269 0.927 0.019
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.239 0.260 0.919 0.021
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.243 0.254 0.957 0.010
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.238 0.256 0.931 0.017
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.229 0.248 0.923 0.018
HWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.230 0.239 0.962 0.008
HWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.227 0.242 0.938 0.014
HWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.218 0.235 0.930 0.016
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.240 0.242 0.989 0.002
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.236 0.244 0.965 0.008
HWHS2.25 mm Tk 2.4 0.228 0.238 0.957 0.010
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.228 0.230 0.989 0.002
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.225 0.233 0.967 0.007
HWHS2.25 mm Tk 2.0 0.218 0.227 0.959 0.009
HWS 2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.215 0.217 0.991 0.001
HWCS 2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.214 0.220 0.970 0.006
HWHS2.25 mm Tk 1.6 0.207 0.215 0.964 0.007
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.229 0.222 1.031 0.006
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.226 0.225 1.006 0.001
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 2.4 0.220 0.220 0.999 0.000
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.217 0.211 1.028 0.006
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.216 0.214 1.007 0.001
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 2.0 0.210 0.210 1.000 0.000
HWS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.205 0.199 1.027 0.005
HWCS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.205 0.203 1.009 0.001
HWHS 2.5 mm Tk 1.6 0.200 0.199 1.002 0.0009

5.1. Simplified equation for fundamental period of vibration hpi = the elevation of the center of gravity of the ith pallet with
respect to the base of the storage rack.
The applied moment about the base (Mbi ) caused by the lateral g = the acceleration due to gravity.
inertia forces is given by NL = the number of loaded level.
The resisting moment about the base (Mbr ) is given by
NL NL
X Wpi 1X
Mbi = ühpi = Wpi h2pi θ̈ (3)
Mbr = − Nc kbu + Nb Ku θ


g g i=1 (4)
i =1

where where
Wpi = the weight of ith pallet supported by the storage rack. Nc = the number of beam to upright connections.
436 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Table 8
MWS semi-rigid without mass, 4.5 m height (Single bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

MWS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.303 0.296 1.022 0.006

MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.308 0.302 1.022 0.006
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 2.4 0.307 0.300 1.023 0.007
MWS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.268 0.265 1.013 0.003
MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.276 0.272 1.012 0.003
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 2.0 0.270 0.266 1.013 0.003
MWS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.250 0.248 1.008 0.002
MWCS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.260 0.256 1.012 0.003
MWHS 1.6 mm Tk 1.6 0.255 0.252 1.014 0.003
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.271 0.266 1.016 0.004
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.277 0.271 1.020 0.005
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 2.4 0.277 0.271 1.020 0.005
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.244 0.239 1.020 0.004
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.252 0.246 1.025 0.006
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 2.0 0.249 0.242 1.029 0.007
MWS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.227 0.224 1.012 0.002
MWCS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.236 0.232 1.019 0.004
MWHS 1.8 mm Tk 1.6 0.234 0.229 1.024 0.005
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.254 0.243 1.046 0.011
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.260 0.247 1.052 0.012
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.261 0.248 1.050 0.012
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.237 0.229 1.034 0.007
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.244 0.234 1.042 0.009
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.245 0.235 1.039 0.009
MWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.219 0.214 1.023 0.005
MWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.227 0.220 1.033 0.007
MWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.228 0.220 1.036 0.007

Table 9
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 4.5 and 6.05 m height (Single bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 6.05 m height

HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.722 1.931 0.891 0.208
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.614 1.889 0.854 0.275
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.531 1.815 0.843 0.284
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.551 1.756 0.883 0.205
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.458 1.709 0.853 0.250
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.385 1.643 0.843 0.257
HWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.368 1.550 0.882 0.181
HWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.289 1.509 0.854 0.219
HWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.226 1.451 0.845 0.224
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.910 1.910 0.999 0.000
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.873 1.875 0.998 0.002
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.819 1.822 0.998 0.002
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.697 1.728 0.982 0.030
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.667 1.696 0.982 0.029
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.621 1.648 0.983 0.026
MWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.472 1.528 0.963 0.055
MWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.449 1.500 0.966 0.050
MWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.411 1.457 0.968 0.045
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 4.5 m height
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.163 1.290 0.901 0.127
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.083 1.248 0.868 0.164
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.022 1.191 0.858 0.169
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.051 1.167 0.900 0.116
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.980 1.129 0.868 0.148
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 0.926 1.079 0.858 0.152
HWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.929 1.031 0.900 0.102
HWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.868 0.998 0.870 0.129
HWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.821 0.953 0.861 0.132
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.307 1.300 1.005 0.007
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.278 1.272 1.004 0.006
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.225 1.220 1.004 0.005
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.167 1.176 0.991 0.009
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.142 1.151 0.992 0.008
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.0 1.097 1.112 0.987 0.014
MWS 2 mm Tk 1.6 1.017 1.046 0.973 0.028
MWCS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.998 1.018 0.980 0.020
MWHS 2 mm Tk 1.6 0.9616 0.984 0.976 0.022
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 437

(a) First mode shape—sway in down aisle (b) Second mode shape—torsion. (c) Third mode shape.
direction.

(d) Fourth mode shape—sway in cross aisle (e) Fifth mode shape—torsion. (f) Sixth mode shape—torsion, buckling of
direction. bracing and sway in cross aisle direction.

Fig. 13. Mode shape of 3D frame in modal analysis.

v
Nb = the number of base plate connections. u NL
Wpi h2pi
u P
Equating the applied moment to the resisting moment yields the
u
i=1
T = 2π .
t
equation of motion for the equivalent single degree of freedom (6)
g (Nc kbu + Nb ku )
system.
Substituting Eqs. (1) and (2) into Eq. (6) yields
NL
1X
v
Wpi h2pi θ̈ + (Nc kbu + Nb ku ) θ = 0.
u NL
(5) u
Wpi h2pi
P
g i =1 u
u
i=1
T= 2π t  (7)
u    
kc kbe kb kce
The fundamental period of vibration (T ) is expressed as g Nc kc +kbe
+ Nb kb +kce
438 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

(g) Seventh to seventeenth mode (h) Eighteenth mode shape—third sway in

shape—buckling of beam. down aisle direction.

(i) First mode shape—sway in down aisle direction.

(j) Second mode shape—torsion.

Fig. 13. (continued)

 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 439

(k) Third mode shape—second sway in down aisle direction.

(l) Fourth mode shape—sway in cross aisle direction.

(m) Fifth mode shape—second sway in cross aisle direction and torsion.

Fig. 13. (continued)

where kb = rotational stiffness of each base plate connection assuming

Wpi = the effective seismic weight of the Ith pallet supported by kb = kc.
the storage rack.
hpi = elevation of center of gravity of the Ith pallet with respect Nc = the number of beam to upright connection.
to the base of the storage rack. Nb = the number of base plate connection.
g = acceleration of gravity.
NL = number of loaded level. The beam end and the base upright end rotational stiffness are
kc = rotational stiffness of each beam to upright connection. given by
440 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441

Table 10
HWS and MWS semi-rigid without mass, 4.5 m and 6.05 m height (Double bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

HWS and MWS semi-rigid without mass, 6.05 m height (Double bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.344 0.373 0.921 0.029
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.341 0.383 0.889 0.042
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.333 0.385 0.866 0.051
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.319 0.321 0.993 0.001
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.328 0.329 0.998 0.000
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.333 0.339 0.983 0.005
HWS and MWS semi-rigid without mass, 4.5 m height (Double bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.259 0.266 0.974 0.006
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.253 0.266 0.950 0.013
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.241 0.258 0.934 0.016
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.251 0.243 1.033 0.008
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.256 0.245 1.044 0.011
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.258 0.246 1.046 0.011
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 6.05 m height (Double bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.535 1.480 1.037 0.055
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.449 1.442 1.005 0.007
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.382 1.390 0.994 0.007
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.657 1.559 1.062 0.098
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.630 1.437 1.134 0.193
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.590 1.397 1.138 0.193
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 4.5 m height (Double bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.261 1.362 0.926 0.100
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.183 1.310 0.903 0.126
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.123 1.263 0.889 0.139
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.366 1.368 0.998 0.001
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.341 1.335 1.004 0.005
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.292 1.285 1.005 0.007

6EIb 7. Finite element modeling and analysis

kbe =
L
4EIc
kce = Finite element analysis of the 3D frames was developed with the
H help of APDL (Ansys parametric design language) to run the same
where in Ansys and get the results of the desired analysis. The structure
E = Young’s modulus of the beams and columns. of the program is developed in APDL.
Ib = moment of inertia about the bending axis of each beam. Finite element analysis was done for 192 frames. Uprights
L= clear span of the beam. (Fig. 3) of the frames and flange and web of box beam (Fig. 4) are
Ic = moment of inertia of each base upright. modeled in shell 63 element with mesh size 5 mm. The spacers
H = clear height of the upright. used for connecting the upright and bracing are modeled using
solid 45 elements. Spacer bar are created at the hole of flange
part of the upright at a distance 600 mm center to center. Four
6. Parameters used in the study for conventional pallet rack corner of holes on both the flange of upright and four nodes of
structure the spacer bar on each side of flange are connected to each other.
Bracings are connected to spacer bar of each upright. At the level
Finite element analysis was done for 192 frames braced with of beam, beam connectors in the form of angle section are created
combination of horizontal and diagonal bracing. Parameters used in shell 63 element. One leg of the beam connector is directly
in the study are connected to the beam end and on other leg 3 hooks (Fig. 5) in
connectors are created in solid 45 element and these hooks in
(a) Height of the frame = 4.55 and 6.05 m.
connector are connected to the four corner of the holes on web part
(b) 18 types of column sections.
of upright. These connections represent actual connection between
(c) One type of bracing systems i.e. Horizontal with inclined. beam and uprights. These connections are considered as semi-rigid
(d) Hollow stringer beam = 150 mm deep × 50 mm wide and connection (Figs. 10–12).
2.0, 2.5, 2.75 and 3 mm thick.
(e) Center to center distance between beams = 0.83 and 0.9 m.
(f) Depth of frame = 1 m. 8. Results and observations
(g) Three length of bay = 1.6, 2.0 and 2.4 m.
(h) Vertical distance between the horizontal brace axis = 0.6 m. 8.1. Results
(i) Cross sectional area of horizontal brace = 0.00316 m2 .
(j) Cross sectional area of diagonal(inclined) brace = 0.00316 m2 . Results of 3D frames are tabulated in Appendix. Mode shapes of
(k) Horizontal distance between neutral axis of the columns = 1 m. the frame are shown in Fig. 13. Most of the frame has same type of
(l) Angle between horizontal and diagonal braces = 32◦ . mode shape.
 K.M. Bajoria et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 428–441 441

Table 11
HWS and MWS Semi-rigid with mass, 4.5 m and 6.05 m height (Six bay).
Type of frame Length of bay Time period from Time period from FE free Ratio = MM/FEFVA Actual difference
mathematical model (s) vibration analysis (s)

HWS and MWS semi-rigid without mass, 6.05 m height (Six bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.353 0.382 0.923 0.029
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.347 0.385 0.901 0.038
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.337 0.379 0.888 0.042
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.312 0.315 0.989 0.003
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.321 0.321 0.998 0.000
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.319 0.318 1.003 0.001
HWS and MWS semi-rigid without mass, 4.5 m height (Six bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.262 0.262 0.999 0.000
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.256 0.265 0.967 0.008
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.247 0.257 0.963 0.009
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.248 0.234 1.057 0.013
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.253 0.244 1.036 0.008
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 0.255 0.245 1.040 0.010
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 6.05 m height (Six bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.816 1.979 0.917 0.162
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.725 1.931 0.893 0.206
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.652 1.866 0.885 0.213
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.917 1.944 0.986 0.026
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.890 1.904 0.992 0.013
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.850 1.855 0.997 0.004
HWS and MWS semi-rigid with mass, 4.5 m height (Six bay)
HWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.344 1.422 0.944 0.078
HWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.269 1.378 0.920 0.109
HWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.210 1.323 0.914 0.112
MWS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.411 1.423 0.991 0.012
MWCS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.389 1.387 1.001 0.002
MWHS 2 mm Tk 2.4 1.343 1.336 1.005 0.007

8.2. Observations
1. Fundamental time period of rack structures of semi-rigid
connections from finite element free vibration modal analysis
are very close to fundamental time period from proposed
analytical model.
2. Though the percentage variation of fundamental time period is
1 to 10 the actual difference between time periods is very less.
3. With the help of simulation of double cantilever test of
connection, stiffness of the connection can be found. There is no
need to always conduct the experiments to find out the stiffness
of the connection.
4. Percentage difference between times period of frames made
up from original open section is less as compared to frames
made up from torsionally strengthened sections (i.e. Section
with channel and hat stiffener).
5. Proposed mathematical model has been checked for single, two
and six bays of frames with and without mass. For all the frames
results from mathematical model are very close to the free
vibration modal analysis result. That means this model can be
used for any number of bays.
9. Conclusions
To study the various mode shapes and to find the fundamental
time period, finite element free vibration model analysis of 3D
conventional pallet rack structures was carried out. Simplified
mathematical model is proposed to find outthe fundamental time
period of semi-rigid conventional pallet rack structure. Result of
simplified mathematical model and finite element free vibration
model analysis was compared so that this simplified mathematical
model can be implemented in the design of these frames.
Appendix
See Tables 5–11.
References
[1] Carlos Aguirre. Seismic behavior of rack structures. Journal of Construction Steel
Research 2005;61:607–24.
[2] Beale RG, Godley MHR. Sway analysis of spliced pallet rack structures. Journal
of Computer and Structures 2004;83:2145–6.
[3] FEMA-460. Seismic considerations for steel storage racks located in areas
accessible to the public; September 2005.
[4] Chan DannyH, Yee RaymondK. Structural behavior of storage rack under seismic
ground motion. CA: San Jose State University; 2003.
[5] Lewis GM. Stability of rack structures. Journal of Thin-Walled Structures 1991;
12:163–74.
[6] Godley MHR, Beale RG, Feng X. Analysis and design of down aisle pallet rack
structures. Journal of Computer Structures 2000;77(4):391–401.