Cold-Formed Steel Frame and Beam-Column Design PDF

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Cornell University
HOLLISTER HALL, ITHACA NY 14853-3501
October 6, 2000
TO:
Prof. T. Pekz
FROM:
Rao Kotha. S., Ph. D.
SUBJECT:
COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAME AND BEAM-COLUMN DESIGN

Final Report
INTRODUCTION
Design of cold-formed steel pallet rack frames has traditionally been empirical due to
their complex behavior and lack of information with regard to the influence of various
parameters on the overall system strength. The behavior and ultimate strength of a typical
pallet rack frame are characterized by many parameters such as flexibility of beam to
column joints, column base fixity, perforations in their column members, local buckling
of member components, geometric and material imperfections and complex buckling
behavior of column members.
The recommendations of the current American pallet rack frame design specification
(RMI 1997) are not very different from its earlier versions which were formulated based
on limited experimental studies carried out at Cornell University (Pekz 1975). Since its
earliest edition, many developments have taken place in the manufacturing and use of the
rack frames. However, very little efforts are made to improve their design procedure
reflecting the changes in the technology. A review of the current specification (RMI
1997) reveals that its design recommendations are empirical and conservative with regard
to the estimation of frame strength under static loading condition. With the help of new
analytical methods available today such as FEM, it is possible to study the behavior of
rack frames more easily and with greater reliability. This would result in more accurate
and economical designs of the rack frames.
As an attempt towards achieving this objective, the RMI and the AISI have jointly
sponsored a project on Cold-Formed Steel Frame and Beam-Column Design with Prof.
Pekz of Cornell University as principal investigator. This report presents the results of
the research carried out during October 1998 September 2000 on the above project.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The following are the objectives of the present work.

1. To quantify the beam to column joint flexibility of commonly used pallet rack frames
and develop a general M relationship for the same
2. To study the column base stiffness characteristics of pallet rack frames and its
influence on overall system strength
3. To quantify the approximations in the current RMI (1997) design procedure
4. To verify the beam-column interaction equation of the current American cold-formed
steel design specification (AISI 1996) in the context of pallet rack frame design and
make modifications, if required.
Experimental and Numerical (FE) procedures are used to achieve the above objectives.
The scope of the present study is restricted to analysis and design of 2D pallet rack
frames. Only lipped channel columns are considered in the study. Various parameters
considered in the study include: the type and configuration of pallet rack frames,
perforations in the columns, beam-to-column joint flexibility, column base fixity,
warping in the column members and global imperfections. The local buckling of beam
and column members - another important parameter is ignored in the present study.
DETAILS OF THE WORK
This section presents the details and results of the present work in two parts (i) Analysis
and (ii) Design.
3.1
Analysis
Experimental methods and Finite element technique are the two procedures available to
study the complex behavior of pallet rack frames. In the present study it is proposed that
the experimental methods be used to understand the behavior of components of rack
frames (e.g. beam-to-column joint, column base etc.) and finite element method to study
the overall system behavior. The details of the work are presented below.
3.1.1
Behavior of frame components
Behavior of beam-to-column joints and column bases of different types of pallet rack
frames are studied in the present work as described below.
3.1.1.1
Beam-to-Column Joint Flexibility
The connection between the shelf beam and column members of pallet rack frames is
generally flexible. The influence of joint flexibility on the overall frame behavior and
strength is significant. However, due to a very large variety of connection types used in
practice no attempt has been made so far to standardize these joint types nor to develop a
general expression for the joint stiffness which could be used for all types of connections.
The current RMI specification accounts for the effect of joint flexibility on column
strength by modifying the pallet beam stiffness and in turn modifying the column end
restraint offered by the beam member. The joint stiffness required to do so is to be
determined experimentally by individual manufacturer. The specification suggests using
the secant stiffness corresponding to 0.85 times the ultimate moment capacity of the joint
as determined from physical tests. While the specification procedure is simple to use,
there may be cases where the above assumption/simplification does not hold true. Hence,
it is always rational and safe to use the correct joint stiffness value in the frame analysis
by adopting joint M relationship valid through the entire load history.
In the present study such an expression for joint stiffness which can be used in the frame
analysis is developed. For this purpose, the experimental data available in terms of joint
moment-rotation history of a variety of joints as provided by different manufacturers is
used. The following six types of joints are considered in the study.
Type of Frame/Joint
Column
ALDR
Type B
Type C
Type D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
Beam depth (in)
3.0 x 1.57 x 0.71 x 0.091

2.92 x 2.36 x 0.71 x 0.077
2.93 x 1.61 x 0.71 x 0.073
3.75
4.09
5.22
3.0 x 3.0 x 0.71 x 0.091

3.0 x 3.0 x 0.71 x 0.091
3.0 x 3.0 x 0.71 x 0.091
3.00
3.50
5.00
In each of the Type D joints, again two different shapes are considered. They only differ
in the configuration. Their geometric dimensions are same as given above.
By trail and error, a tri-linear M equation has been established to fit the experimental
data of the above joint types. The corresponding joint stiffness is given by the following
equations.
K = 88.5 xDb
= 34. 5xDb
= 0.0
for
for
for
0. 0 M < 0.75M u
0. 75M u M < 0.99M u
0.99 M u M
(3.1)
where Db is depth of the shelf beam.
The joint stiffness as given by Eq 3.1 is expressed in terms of the beam depth and
ultimate moment capacity of the joint as it was understood from previous experimental
and numerical studies that the joint stiffness is primarily due to distortion of a small
portion of the column member confined to the region of magnitude equal to beam depth
as shown in Fig 3.1.1.1.1 (This figure is taken from study on FE models presented in
section 3.1.2.1).
Finite Elemnt Model of

Beam-column Joint
As shown, Joint flexibility is mainly due to

distortion of small portion of the column
flange connected to pallet beam.
Joint Deformation at P = 0.75 P ult
Fig 3.1.1.1.1
Eq 3.1 is compared with the experimental results in Fig 3.2.
Beam-column joint stiffness

AHDR
Proposed
Type B
25
20
20
16
Moment (kip-in)
Moment (kip-in)
ALDR
15
10
Proposed
12
0
0
0.05
0.1
Joint Rotation (rad)
(a)
0.15
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
(b)
4

Type C

Proposed
U 3.0 (Type 1)
24
Proposed
10
MOment (kips-in)
Moment (kip-in)
20
16
12
8
4
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.02
(c)
0.04
0.06
Rotation (rad)
0.08
0.1
(d)

U 3.5 (Type1)
U 3.5 (Type 2)
Proposed
U 5.0 (Type 1)
12
14
10
12
MOment (kips-in)
MOment (kips-in)
U 3.0 (Type 2)
12
8
6
4
2
U 5.0 (Type 2)
Proposed
10
8
6
4
2
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Rotation (rad)
Rotation (rad)
(e)
(f)
Fig 3.1.1.1.2
It should be noted that the proposed expression for joint stiffness is not a general equation
applicable for all types of joints. This can be used only after validating with more
experimental data of wider range of joint types. It may also be noted that the above
equation requires the ultimate moment capacity known a priory. The joint stiffness as
given by the above expression also needs to be validated against the effect of moment to
shear ratio on the joint.
3.1.1.2
Column Base Fixity
The column base stiffness of pallet rack frames is characterized by the base plate
dimensions, number, dimensions and layout of bolts, ratio of moment to axial load at the
column base and foundation characteristics. The degree to which each parameter effects
the base stiffness depends on the way the column is connected to the foundation. The
total base rotation can be divided into the following three components.
1. Base rotation due to deformation of foundation : Until no tension is developed at the
column base, the entire base rotation is due to deformation of foundation. The effect
of deformation of bolts is negligible in this case as they dont resist any external load.
An exception to this case is separation of base plate (due to lifting of plate ends
along the periphery of plate) from the foundation under very high axial load
especially when thick base plate is used. Such cases need to be analyzed carefully.
2. Base rotation due to bending of base plate : When the lateral load on the column (or
eccentricity of axial load) is large enough to cause tension at the column base, the
base plate separates from the foundation in the tension region. This happens so
irrespective of the number and arrangement of bolts. In such cases, the joint rotation
will primarily be due to the bending of plates. The effect of deformation of bolts on
base rotation could be neglected for all practical purposes under the assumption that
they are overdesigned. In such case, perfect contact between the base plate and
foundation at the locations of the bolts may be assumed for analysis purpose.
However, if the bolts fail in tension no contact between the base plate and foundation
in the tension zone can be assumed.
3. Base rotation due to deformation of bolts : The effect of extension of bolts on the
base stiffness is considerable when some portion of the column base experiences
tension. However, it is always accompanied by bending of base plate and as the
moment to axial load ratio increases, this effect becomes negligible. In order to study
the effect of bolt extension on base stiffness, the problem can be divided into the
following two cases.
When the bolt tension is smaller than the bolt capacity : In this case both the bolt
deformation and bending of base plate contribute to the base rotation. The lay out
of bolts also influences the base flexibility.
When the bolt tension exceeds the bolt capacity : This is a special case of category
2 as discussed above
In the present work, the base stiffness characteristics due to bending of base plate
(category 2) is studied. The following assumptions are made in the study.
Bolts are overdesigned against strength and bond

Deformation of bolts is negligible
Base plate is in contact with the foundation at discrete points (i.e. at the
location of bolts) in the tension zone until failure.
6
The details and results of the work are described below.

Objectives : Following are the objectives of the study on column base flexibility due to
bending of base plate.
To study the effect of various parameters on column base stiffness

To quantify the stiffness characteristics of various types of commonly used column
bases and establish the range of variation for the same in terms of the base stiffness
value recommended by the current RMI specification
For this purpose, a parametric study involving a large number of nonlinear finite element
analyses of a 3x3x0.091 lipped channel cantilever column has been carried out. The
length of the column is taken as 30``. All the influencing parameters are considered in the
study. They include : Axial and lateral loads on the column, base plate configuration and
number of bolts. Four types of base plates (8x5, 8x8, 6x6 and 7x7) with 3
thickness values (0.25, 0.375 and 0.5) in each category are considered in the study.
Each column was analyzed for 4 different lateral load to axial load ratios, ranging from
1.5% to pure moment case. Fig 3.1.1.2.1 shows the schematic diagram of the model used
in the parametric study.
P
= 0.0, 1/3, 1/6, 1/60
C.G
Top End Plate
3.0``x3.0``x0.7`` Column
Spring (Bolt)
Base Plate
Contact Elements
(To model gap)
Foundation block
(Fixed at bottom)
Fig 3.1.1.2.1
7
For the purpose of analysis, ABAQUS, a general purpose FE commercial software has
been used. The features of the FE model used in the study are described below.
Four noded shell element (S4R5) : Used to model the cantilever column and base and top
plates.
3D solid elements : To model the foundation. The foundation was assumed made of steel
and 1.0`` deep. The base of the foundation was assumed to be fixed in the study. (A later
study of one column case (wherein the base was modeled as 6`` deep concrete block with
fixed base) showed that the influence of the depth and material of the foundation is
insignificant. However this needs to be verified by further study).
Nonlinear spring elements : To model the anchor bolts. Two springs are used to model
each bolt one to model shear and one to model the stiffness in the axial direction.
However, the stiffnesses of the springs in both the directions are taken to be very high in
the present study assuming that the connections are over designed as discussed before.
Contact elements : To model the gap between the base plate and the foundation.
The moment-rotation relationships for various base plate configurations as obtained from
the finite element analysis are plotted in Figs 3.1.1.2.2-5. Each of Fig. 3.1.1.2.2(a)-5 (a)
contains 12 graphs showing the effects of axial load and plate thickness on column base
flexibility for a given plan area of base plate. Graphs corresponding to very high axial
load (Plat =1.6% of Pax) case are shown in larger scale separately in Fig 3.1.1.2.2(b)-5 (b).
The base moment used to develop these graphs includes the P- nonlinear effect. Also
shown in the above plots is the column base stiffness value as recommended by the
current American pallet rack design specification (RMI 1997).
The following are a few observations made based on the study.
The moment-rotation relationship of a typical pallet rack frame base is generally nonlinear
Higher the axial load on the column stiffer is the column base.
While the axial load increased the base stiffness by about 20% when the base plate is thin
(0.25``, thinnest of plates studied), its effect is found to be insignificant in the case of thicker
plates (Figs 3.1.1.2.2(a)-5 (a)).
when the axial load on the column is accompanied by only a small amount of lateral load
(1.6% of axial load), the column base stiffness is found to be very close to that of RMI
specification value (Figs 3.1.1.2.2(b)-5 (b )).
For lateral load to axial load ratios other than 0.016, the initial stiffness of column base is
found to vary from 0.3-0.7 times the RMI specification value, depending on the base plate
configuration and amount of axial load on the column (Figs 3.1.1.2.2(a)-5 (a)).
The effects of base plate configuration (plan dimensions) and number of bolts on the base
stiffness are found to be negligible. However in the case of thinner plates, smaller plate
configurations seem to help increase the base stiffness slightly.
Further study aimed to verify the above observations over wider range of parameters and
to quantify the base flexibility caused by the deformation of foundation and extension of
bolts is underway. The future study will consist of both experimental and finite element
studies.
Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (6 x 6 plate)

(P_ax=0.0)
(P_lat=0.016P_ax)
K_RMI
(P_lat=0.33P_ax)
(P_lat=0.16P_ax)
50
Moment (kips-in)
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Support Rotation (rad)
Fig 3.1.1.2.2a
Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (6 x 6)
K_RMI
(P_ax=60P_lat)
10
Moment (kips-in)
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Fig 3.1.1.2.2b
Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (7x7 plate)
(P_ax=0.0)
(P_lat=0.016P_ax)
K_RMI
(P_lat=0.33P_ax)
(P_ax=6P_lat)
50
30
20
10
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Fig 3.1.1.2.3a
Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (7x7)
K_RMI
(P_ax=60P_lat)
10
Moment (kips-in)
Moment (kips-in)
40
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Fig 3.1.1.2.3b
10
(P_ax=0.0)
(P_lat=0.016P_ax)
K_RMI
(P_lat=0.33P_ax)
(P_lat=0.16P_ax)
50
30
20
10
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Fig 3.1.1.2.4a
K_RMI
(P_ax=60P_lat)
10
8
Moment (kips-in)
Moment (kips-in)
40
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Fig 3.1.1.2.4b
11
(P_ax=0.0)
(P_lat=0.016P_ax)
K_RMI
(P_lat=0.33P_ax)
(P_lat=0.16P_ax)
50
30
20
10
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Fig 3.1.1.2.5a
K_RMI
(P_ax=60P_lat)
10
8
Moment (kips-in)
Moment (kips-in)
40
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
Fig 3.1.1.2.5b
12
3.1.2
Frame Behavior
The objective is to establish guide lines to prepare FE models of CFS pallet rack frames
to study their behavior considering various influencing parameters. The following two
models are proposed in the present study. ABAQUS a commercial finite element
software is used to validate the proposed models.
3.1.2.1
Shell-contact element model
In this model the entire frame is modeled using thin shell elements. All the important
parameters that effect the frame behavior are automatically accounted for in the model
resulting in an accurate numerical model very similar to physical model of the frame. The
features and validation of this model as developed in the present study are discussed
below in detail.
Modeling features
Column and Beam members : General thin shell elements with 6 dof are used to model
the columns, beams and base plates. Holes in the columns are modeled by defining the
thickness of the corresponding elements very small (~ 0.0000001 inch).
Beam-to-column joint : This is the most critical part of the modeling. The 3D nature of
the connection behavior makes the exact joint modeling very complex, computationally
expensive and practically prohibitive. Moreover, in the case of cold-formed steel
members, very small or negligible out of plane stiffness of the plate element of the
column (like flange or web) to which the beam is connected is the primary source of the
joint flexibility. Hence, modeling of tabs/keys and other accessories could be ignored
without any loss of accuracy. The following two joint models are experimented in the
present study.
Joint model-1: In this model the end of the beam is connected directly to the flange or
web of the column and the connection is treated as continuous. The end plates and
tabs/keys are ignored completely. This is also termed as continuous model. This
model is simple to use and will be of great help when modeling large scale frames.
Joint model-2 : In this model the beam ends are connected to end connecting plates
which in turn are connected to columns at a few points. The gap between the column
and endplate is modeled using contact elements. This model is also called
discontinuous model. Tabs are not included in this model.
Column base : It is suggested to use contact elements to model the discontinuity between
the base plate and the foundation. The foundation bloc and the anchor bolts can be
modeled by using solid and beam elements respectively.
13
Validation
The following pallet rack components and sub-assemblies are chosen for the validation
study. The results of the analytical study obtained based on complete nonlinear
(geometric + material nonlinearities) FE analysis are compared with their experimental
results (Pekz 1975).
List of analyses carried out :
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Stub column
1 case
Cantilever beam test
2 cases
(a)
Direct connection between the beam end and the column flange
(b)
Using Contact element between the beam end and the column
flange
ALDR type frame under gravity load
3 cases
(a)
(b)
flange
(c)
flange with 1 inch in 10 ft out of plumb of columns
ALDR type frame under (gravity load + Lateral load)
2 cases
(a)
(b)
flange
AHDR type frame under (gravity load + Lateral load)
1 case
Fig 3.1.2.1.1 shows the details of the column and beam members of ALDR and AHDR
frames. The corner radius and the effect of cold forming are neglected in the present
study.
Column post-ALDR frame
Column post-AHDR frame

3.0"
3.00"
0.687"
0.72"
1.57"
0.531"
2. 91"
0.534"
0.091"
0.71"
0.71"
0. 091"
14
Beam (all pallet racks)

1.875"
0. 070"
0. 133"
1. 50"
3. 75"
2. 0"
0.063"
1. 675"
2. 75"
Column perforations
Fig 3.1.2.1.1
* Shape of the perforations is assumed to be rectangular in the present FE study.

15
Discussion of results
Stub column
Analysis on the stub column of an ALDR (Fig. 3.1.2.1.1) column was carried out under
pure compression. The objective is to test the models performance against estimating the
section strength of columns accounting for the effect of local buckling and holes.
Residual stresses and imperfections are not included in the study.
The ultimate load of the stub column as obtained by the FE analysis is found to be 25.7
kips as against to its experimental value of 22.8 kips with a difference of +10%.
The deformed shape and von-Mises stress (equivalent uni-axial stress for a combined
state of stress; determined from the maximum distortion energy theory of failure,
according to which the failure by yielding occurs when, at any point, the distortion
energy for unit volume in a state of combined stress becomes equal to that associated
with yielding in simple tension) of the stub column at failure are shown below in Fig
3.1.2.1.2 and Fig 3.1.2.1.3 respectively.
Fig 3.1.2.1.2 Stub column Deformed shape at failure
16
Fig 3.1.2.1.3 Stub column von-Mises stress at failure

To study the effect shear locking due to use of negligibly thin elements (0.0000001) to
model the holes, the analysis was repeated by removing the elements at the holes. The
behavior of the stub column as predicted by the two models is compared in Fig 3.1.2.1.4.
with elements
with out elements
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
Fig 3.1.2.1.4
*
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
COMPARISON OF STUB COLUMN BEHAVIOR

( Continuous Vs Discontinuous * )
Continuous Thickness of elements corresponding, Discontinues No elements at holes
17
The difference in the load estimates of the two models is found to be very small (3.5%).
Hence, the difference in the experimental and analytical strengths is attributed to
ignorance of the geometric imperfections and the residual in the analytical study. It may
also be noted from the plot that on contrary to the suspicion, the behavior is softer when
the holes are modeled with very thin elements. This may be due to greater loss of section
stiffness caused by out of plane bending of the negligibly thin elements in the first model.
Hence, it can be concluded that the holes could be modeled successfully with negligibly
thin elements with out appreciable error to predict the behavior and ultimate load.
However it may be advisable to do a similar study in more complicated situations as well
before proceeding to the actual analysis. This is further explained in the following
sections.
The objective is to study the performances of different shell element models in predicting
the beam-to-column joint behavior of pallet rack frames. The details of the model used
(joint between ALDR column and beam Fig 3.1.2.1.1) for this purpose are shown Fig
3.1.2.1.5.
30. 0"
24. 0"
Fig 3.1.2.1.5
FE model of beam-to-column joint
The following are a few observations made with regard to the models performance in
predicting the joint behavior.
18
The load versus deflection behavior is non-linear as shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.6.
Fig 3.1.2.1.6
Comparison of P behavior Experimental Vs Analytical
A very good correlation is found between the Analytical and Experimental results
with respect to the deflection at the tip of the cantilever beam as shown in Fig
3.1.2.1.6.
The difference between the strength estimates of the two joint models is negligible.
However, the P behavior as predicted by the joint model-2 is found to be softer

as compared to Model-1. This is expected because, unlike in Model-1, in the case of
Model-2 the load is transferred from the beam to column at far fewer points (through
two points on the web and through the contact between the compression flange of
beam and the column flange) resulting in flexible behavior.
Figs 3.1.2.1.7 and 3.1.2.1.8 show the deformation configurations of the joint as
predicted by the two models in subultimate and near failure.
19
(Joint Model-1)
(Joint Model-2)
Fig 3.1.2.1.7
Joint deformation in sub-ultimate range
20
Fig 3.1.2.1.8
Deformed shape of the joint at failure
As shown in Figs 3.1.2.1.7 and 3.1.2.1.8, irrespective of the joint model adopted, the
two flanges of the column distorted to different amounts reflecting the semi-rigid
nature of the joint. This is due to small out of plane stiffness of the column flanges.
The failure was initiated by the yielding of the material near the beam-to-column joint
as expected. The distribution of von-Mises shear stress at failure is shown in Fig
3.1.2.1.9.
The model is also able to predict the failure load with sufficient accuracy as compared
to the experimental load. The ratios between the analytical load and the experimental
load are found to be 1.09 (corresponding to vertical deflection=4.5 inch, which is very
large) and 0.98 for the Joint model-1 and Joint model-2 respectively. The failure
mode as predicted by the finite element analysis (yielding of the beam-column joint)
is also found to be in agreement with the experimental observation.
From the results discussed above it is clear that the proposed shell element model is able
to predict the behavior and strength of pallet rack frame components and subassemblages accurately. This model could be used as an alternative to physical tests in
future studies.
21
Fig 3.1.2.1.9
Fig 3.1.2.1.10
Von-Mises stress distribution at failure
Deformed shape of beam-to-column joint model

at failure
22
Pallet rack frames

A total of 6 analyses as discussed in the beginning of the section in section were carried
out on two different frames (ALDR and AHDR). The cross section details of the
components of frames are as shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.1. The schematic diagram of overall
frame is given in Fig 3.1.2.1.11.
62. 0"
62. 0"
56. 0"
93. 0"
93. 0"
Fig 3.1.2.1.11 Details of Pallet Rack Frames

Fig 3.1.2.1.12 shows the FE mesh used to model the pallet rack frames and beam-to-
column joints. As shown in fig., the frame was restrained with respect to the out of plane
deflection at each story level.
23
Fig 3.1.2.1.12a
FE model of type A-LDR frame
Fig 3.1.2.1.12b
FE model of a typical interior joint (Model-1)
24
The ultimate loads and failure modes of all the frames as obtained from nonlinear finite
element analysis are summarized in Table 3.1.2.1.1 along with their experimental
observations.
Table 3.1.2.1.1
Frame
Loading
ALDR
Gravity
ALDR
Gravity +
Horizontal
AHDR
Gravity +
Horizontal
Joint Model
Model-1
Model-2
**
Model-2
Model-1
Model-2
Model-1
* with respect to the lateral load
Pult ,ana
P
ult , exp t
1.58
1.47
1.10
*
1.12
*
1.09
*
1.13
Failure Mode
Analytical
Exptl
Yd of joints
Yd of joints
Yd of joints
Yd+LB
of lowest
story beam
Permanent
sway
Permane
nt sway
Permanent
sway
Permane
nt sway
** (1/120) out of plumb
LB Local Buckling
These results are discussed below in greater detail.

ALDR Frame under Gravity Load
First, the frame was analyzed using Joint model-1. As shown in Table 3.1.2.1.1, the
ratio between the analytical and experimental failure load was found to be very high
(1.58). Interestingly, the failure modes as predicted by the FEM analysis and that
observed in the test are also noted to be different.
The frame was re-analyzed using the Joint model-2 (though the earlier experience with
the cantilever beam problem (section2.3) showed only 10% difference in the ultimate
loads of the two joint models). The ratio between the analytical and experimental failure
loads with joint model-2 is found to be 1.47, with an improvement of about 10% as
compared to the joint model-1. While it is consistent with the previous observation made
at component level (cantilever problem), the reasons for a large difference in
experimental and analytical values remained undetermined at this time
While no convincing reasons could be seen for poor performance of the model, it was
decided to re-analyze the frame considering the out of plumb of the column uprights,
which was ignored, in the previous analyses. The initial configuration of the frame was
remodeled with columns 1 inch out of plumb for 10 ft of height as recognized in the RMI
specification. The Joint model-2 was used to model the connection. The ratio between the
analytical and experimental failure loads was found to be 1.10. The local imperfections
and the residual stresses are attributed for the conservative analytical estimates (by 10%).
It is learned from the above 3 analyses that the frame is very sensitive to the
imperfections, which must be included in the analytical study.
The vertical deflections at mid section of the bottom story beam as estimated by the
FE analysis is compared with the experimental observations in Fig 3.1.2.1.13.
25
Fig 3.1.2.1.13
Load-Deflection behavior Analytical Vs Experimental
The von-Mises stress contour (at failure) in the bottom story beam and in the interior
column joint is shown below in Fig 3.1.2.1.14. It may be noted that while the stresses
in the beam were below the yield stress (49 kips), the stress in the joint exceeded the
material stress indicating the joint failure which is in contrary to the experimental
observation. This is different from the failure mode observed in physical test (Table
2.4.2.1).
26
Fig 3.1.2.1.14a
von-Mises stress contour in the bottom story beam (at failure)
Fig 3.1.2.1.14b
von-Mises stress contour in the interior column joint

(at failure)
The deformed shape of the frame bottom interior joint at failure are shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.15.
27
Fig 3.1.2.1.15a
Deflected shape at failure
Fig 3.1.2.1.15b
Deflected shape at failure
28
ALDR Frame under ( Gravity + Lateral ) Load
The frame was analyzed for gravity and lateral load combination. The loading was
applied in the same sequence as it was applied in physical test. The connection was
modeled using both the joint models and the results are compared with experimental
values in Table 3.1.2.1.1.
As reported in Table 3.1.2.1.1, the difference between the failure loads of the two
joint models is negligibly small, both are found to be close to the experimental value.
The conservative estimates of FE analysis could be attributed to the ignorance of
imperfections.
As shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.16-17, the performance of the model in predicting the loaddeflection behavior is very satisfactory.
The failure of the frame was found to be due to large lateral deformations associated
with yielding of interior joint of the lowest storey. This agrees with the experimental
failure mode.
The deformed shapes of the frame at failure as observed in the analytical and
experimental studies are shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.18-20.
Fig 3.1.2.1.16 Load Vs Vertical deflection at the midsection of bottom story beam
29
Fig 3.1.2.1.17
Load Vs Lateral displacement
Fig 3.1.2.1.18
Deflected shape at failure (FEM)
30
Fig 3.1.2.1.19
Deflected shape at failure (Experimental)
31
Fig 3.1.2.1.20
Deflected shape at failure (Experimental)
32
AHDR Frame under ( Gravity + Lateral ) Load
The frame was analyzed for gravity and lateral load combination as in the previous
example. However, in view of negligible difference in the performance of the two
joint models as noted in the previous examples, joint model-1, which is simple to use,
was adopted in this analysis.
As noted in Table 3.1.2.1.1, the comparison between the analytical and experimental
estimates of frame strengths is very good.
The lateral displacement at the top story beam level and the vertical deflections at
the mid section of bottom story beam are plotted against the load in Fig 3.1.2.1.21. As
shown in the figure, the model is able to predict the frame behavior through the entire
load history.
Fig 3.1.2.1.21a
Load vs Lateral displacement
33
Fig 3.1.2.1.21b
Load vs Vertical deflection at the midsection of bottom story

beam
Conclusion
The foregoing results demonstrate clearly the accuracy of the proposed shell element
model to predict the behavior and strength of pallet rack frames accounting for various
parameters. However, it was also observed that modeling of full frame by shell elements
is tedious, time expensive and requires experienced analysts. These drawbacks limit the
use of shell element model to a reference/benchmark numerical model. This model best
serves in validation studies (as an alternative to experiments) to evaluate the performance
of other simpler numerical or analytical techniques.
3.1.2.2
Beam-spring element model
While the shell element model discussed above is versatile, rational and accurate, it is not
suitable for routine design works and in situations where large number of frames are
required to be analyzed. Hence, there is a need of a simpler analytical model. Such a
model is explored below.
The objective of the study presented in this section is to develop a simple finite element
model capable of estimating the behavior and ultimate load capacity of pallet rack frames
accurately. This helps to generate large amount of data of Pu and Mu of pallet rack
frames, more efficiently, required to quantify the approximations in the current RMI
specification and suggest modifications if required.
34
Modeling Features
The influencing parameters and how they are incorporated in the present FE model
developed in ABAQUS are described in the following table.
Table 3.1.2.2.1
Parameter
Column members
Pallet beams
Joint Flexibility
Column Base Fixity
Holes in the column

(Section`)
Warping d.o.f.
(at column base)
Local Buckling
Imperfections
Details of Beam element model

Modeling features
Remarks
B31OS-thin walled beam element The seventh dof models the
with 7 dof/node
warping of the section
important property of the
open section columns of
rack frames.
B31-general beam element with 6 As the shelf beams of pallet
dof/node.
rack frames are generally
closed section type, the
warping effect could be
neglected.
Flexible joint model : Beam
The
joint
stiffness
ends are connected to columns characteristics are assumed
through nonlinear springs with to be same in both loading
stiffness characteristics defined by and unloading.
Eq 3.1, discussed in Sec 3.1.1.1.
Flexible base :
Linear* spring element with a
stiffness equal to 0.5 times the
RMI specification value.
*
Effect
of
nonlinear
characteristics on frame strength
is discussed in Appendix
Equivalent thickness calculated
based on I_avg is used to define
the geometry of the column
members.
This is average value of the

upper and lower bound base
stiffnesses of the column
base types studied in the
present study (Please refer to
section 3.1.1.2 for details).
Simple average principle is
used in the present study.
1. Fixed
2. Free
The two extreme conditions

are used to quantify the
effect of warping on the
failure strength.
Ignored completely
Justified since the members
are found to be stable with
The study is restricted to, at this respect to local buckling
stage, the frames locally stable from FE analysis with shell
members.
element model and theory.
1/120 out of plumb in the columns As specified by RMI (Also
used in shell element
models).
35
Validation
The two pallet rack frames (ALDR and AHDR) used before in the validation study of
shell element model are analyzed using the beam element model with the above features
and the results are summarized in Table 3.1.2.2.2. In the case of ALDR frame the frame
capacities as evaluated by the current RMI design rules are also compared. The results
presented for AHDR frame correspond to warping fixed case. (It was observed later that
in the case of frames made of AHDR type columns, the end condition wrto warping dof
does not have significant effect on the frame strength).
Table 3.1.2.2.2a
Comparison of Analytical, specification and Experimental results

ALDR Frame
Ratio = (Pu,cal /Pu,exptl )

Beam Element Model
Load
combination
Gravity
Free
Fixed
Shell
element
model
0.75
1.08
1.10
Warping (at base)
Gravity +
0.80
Lateral
*
with respect to lateral load
Table 3.1.2.2.2b
**
0.91*
1.09*
**
0.98
1.06**
with respect to gravity load
RMI
Specification
0.43
0.52
0.42
0.50
Comparison of Beam and Shell element models - AHDR Frame
Load Combination
(Pu,beam /Pu,shell )
Gravity + Lateral (0.75%gravity)
1.10
Gravity + Lateral (1.5% of gravity)
1.05
The following are a few observations made in this regard.
The effect of warping constraint on the frame strength depends on the type of column
members. The difference between the strengths of warping free and warping fixed
cases may vary from 4% (AHDR type columns) to 25% (ALDR columns).
The limited parametric study shows that the warping fixed case simulates the
experimental condition better (Table 3.1.2.2.2a).
The beam element model with the proposed features (Table 3.1.2.2.1) is capable of
estimating the frame strengths accurately as compared to experimental and rational
shell element based FE results.
The current RMI specification underestimates the strengths of pallet rack frames by
about 50% (more results on RMI procedure are presented in section 3.2.1). This
establishes the need to review and improve the current design procedure (RMI 1997).
The foregoing discussion qualifies the proposed use of beam element model in future
studies on development of design procedures for rack frames. The following section
discusses the details of the work done in this direction.
36
3.2
Design
Work carried out under this heading consists of two parts :

1. Study of the current RMI design procedure
2. Development of a new design procedure
3.2.1
Current pallet rack design procedure (RMI 1997)
As noted before, the current American pallet rack design procedure (RMI 1997) is very
conservative. This is attributed to the following inconsistencies in the procedure. The
st
specification suggests linear (1 order elastic) frame analysis to obtain the member
forces. It uses effective length procedure to include the frame effect. The effective length
factors are calculated either from rational buckling analysis or by using the alignment
charts. It also suggests a set of fixed effective length factors in lieu of the above
procedures. The effect of beam-to-column joint flexibility is accounted for indirectly by
reducing the beam stiffness in the calculation of column effective factor. The
specification recommends the linear beam-column interaction equation of the current
cold-formed steel design specification (AISI 1996) to check the member safety. To
account for moment magnification due to the presence of axial load on the column it uses
the simple amplification factor derived from linear elastic buckling analysis. The effects
of local buckling and holes in the columns are considered using effective section and
Q-factor approaches respectively. While the specification procedure has been made
conservative in the absence of knowledge of the effect of various parameters on the
overall frame behavior, it is not known to what magnitude each of these parameters
effects the accuracy of the design procedure.
To quantify the conservatism in the current procedure caused by the use of approximate
effective length factors, linear beam-column interaction equation and linear moment
amplification factor, a large parametric study involving nonlinear finite element analysis
of five types of frames has been carried out. The details of the analyses are given below.
Frame Type
AHDR
Type B
Type D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
Column
Beam
2.87 x 2.91 x 0.091

3.0 x 2.36 x 0.077
3.75
4.09
3 x 3 x 0.091
3 x 3 x 0.091
3 x 3 x 0.091
3.00
3.50
5.00
In each category, 6 frame configurations (BxS : 2x3,4x3,6x3,4x4,4x6 and 6x6) subjected

to three load combinations: Gravity only, (Gravity+lateral equal to 1.5% of Gravity) and
(Gravity+lateral equal to 15% of Gravity) are analyzed for two column base stiffness
values (K base=KRMI, KRMI/2 ). The beam element model described in previous section with
nonlinear beam-to-column joint stiffness as defined by Eq 3.1 has been used in the finite
element study.
37
The frame capacities as estimated by the RMI specification are compared with the finite
element results in Tables 3.2.1.1-6.
Table 3.2.1.1a
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.75
Evaluation of RMI approach ( Kb = KRMI )

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
0.75
0.75
0.72
Remarks
U 5.0
0.70
4Bx3S
0.66
0.66
0.70
0.68
0.66
6Bx3S
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.67
4Bx4S
0.81
0.80
0.82
0.75
0.67
4Bx6S
0.62
0.56
0.74
0.74
0.72
6Bx6S
0.63
0.56
0.69
0.86
0.85
AISI Beam-column Interaction equation
Table 3.2.1.1b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.55
Loading
Gravity only (all but
one span case)
Notional load = 0.0
Base fixity
Kb = KRMI
Effective length factors
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
0.65
0.63
0.62
Remarks
U 5.0
0.63
4Bx3S
0.49
0.57
0.59
0.59
0.59
6Bx3S
0.53
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.60
4Bx4S
0.59
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.60
4Bx6S
0.46
0.49
0.62
0.64
0.65
6Bx6S
0.46
0.49
0.58
0.74
0.76
Loading
Gravity only (all but
one span case)
Notional load = 0.0
Base fixity
Kb = KRMI
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
38
Table 3.2.1.2a
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.76

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
0.70
0.93
0.84
Remarks
U 5.0
0.69
Loading
Gravity+ 1.5% Lateral
4Bx3S
0.80
0.72
0.96
0.85
0.72
6Bx3S
0.88
0.84
0.91
0.80
Kb = KRMI
4Bx4S
0.84
0.76
0.96
0.88
0.75
4Bx6S
0.90
0.75
1.00
0.95
0.82
6Bx6S
0.88
0.86
0.95
0.90
0.88
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Base fixity
Table 3.2.1.2b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.57

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
0.61
0.80
0.74
Remarks
U 5.0
0.63
Loading
4Bx3S
0.60
0.62
0.82
0.74
0.66
6Bx3S
0.68
0.75
0.80
0.73
Kb = KRMI
4Bx4S
0.63
0.67
0.82
0.77
0.69
4Bx6S
0.68
0.66
0.86
0.83
0.74
6Bx6S
0.68
0.77
0.82
0.79
0.81
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Base fixity
39
Table 3.2.1.3a
Frame
AHDR
R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
Remarks
U 5.0
Loading
2Bx3S
0.86
0.80
0.78
0.84
0.85
4Bx3S
0.84
0.70
0.87
0.72
0.87
6Bx3S
1.17
0.80
0.83
0.93
0.93
Kb = KRMI
4Bx4S
0.92
0.69
0.92
0.90
0.97
4Bx6S
0.87
0.87
0.92
1.04
0.95
6Bx6S
0.89
0.90
0.90
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Gravity+ 15% Lateral

Base fixity
Table 3.2.1.3b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.72
R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
B-type
U 3.0
U 3.5
0.73
0.72
0.78
Remarks
U 5.0
0.81
Loading
4Bx3S
0.71
0.65
0.80
0.67
0.83
6Bx3S
1.03
0.75
0.78
0.88
0.89
Kb = KRMI
4Bx4S
0.78
0.64
0.84
0.83
0.92
4Bx6S
0.75
0.81
0.85
0.97
0.90
6Bx6S
0.82
0.84
0.85
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Base fixity
40
Table 3.2.1.4a
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.64
Evaluation of RMI approach ( Kb = KRMI /2)

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.76
0.71
0.76
Remarks
4Bx3S
0.71
0.73
0.70
0.65
6Bx3S
0.78
0.76
0.73
0.67
4Bx4S
0.85
0.66
0.78
0.71
Loading
Gravity only
(All spans)
Notional load = 0.0
Base fixity
Kb = KRMI/2
4Bx6S
0.92
1.04
0.94
0.71
6Bx6S
0.95
1.04
0.93
0.93
Table 3.2.1.4b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.50
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.67
0.64
0.66
Remarks
4Bx3S
0.52
0.61
0.61
0.59
6Bx3S
0.57
0.64
0.63
0.60
4Bx4S
0.62
0.55
0.67
0.64
4Bx6S
0.68
0.88
0.80
0.64
6Bx6S
0.70
0.88
0.80
0.84
Loading
Gravity only
(All spans)
Notional load = 0.0
Base fixity
Kb = KRMI/2
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
41
Table 3.2.1.5a
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.79

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.79
0.69
0.83
Remarks
Loading
4Bx3S
0.79
0.79
0.87
0.71
6Bx3S
0.82
0.84
0.89
0.76
4Bx4S
0.85
0.84
0.88
0.84
Kb = KRMI/2
4Bx6S
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.91
6Bx6S
0.92
0.98
0.99
0.96
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Notional load = 0.0

Base fixity
Table 3.2.1.5b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.59

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.67
0.63
0.72
Remarks
Loading
4Bx3S
0.59
0.67
0.76
0.65
6Bx3S
0.63
0.73
0.78
0.68
4Bx4S
0.65
0.72
0.77
0.76
Kb = KRMI/2
4Bx6S
0.72
0.83
0.85
0.82
6Bx6S
0.70
0.84
0.87
0.86
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Notional load = 0.0

Base fixity
42
Table 3.2.1.6a
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.90

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.91
0.74
0.93
Remarks
Loading
4Bx3S
0.81
1.08
0.90
0.85
6Bx3S
1.12
0.92
1.11
1.64
4Bx4S
0.92
0.98
1.33
1.47
Kb = KRMI/2
4Bx6S
0.95
0.97
1.01
1.92
6Bx6S
1.10
1.01
2.00
Kx = 1.7
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
Notional load = 0.0

Base fixity
Table 3.2.1.6b
Frame
AHDR
2Bx3S
0.76

R = (Ucal / UFEM)
Product D
U 3.0
U 3.5
U 5.0
0.82
0.69
0.86
Remarks
Loading
4Bx3S
0.70
0.99
0.83
0.81
6Bx3S
0.93
0.85
1.02
1.56
4Bx4S
0.79
0.89
1.24
1.40
Kb = KRMI/2
4Bx6S
0.81
0.89
0.94
1.83
1.89
Kx = Align. charts
Kphi = 0.8
Ky = 1.0
6Bx6S
0.95
1.30
0.94
Notional load = 0.0

Base fixity
43
From the above comparative study, it may be noted that :

(For the purpose of discussion, the RMI design procedure is deviled into two methods based on
the effective length factors used. They are referred below as Procedure I (Kphi = 0.8 and Kx =
1.7) and Procedure II (K phi = 0.8 and Kx = from alignment charts)).
If the column base fixity is equal to the RMI stiffness value
The strength estimates of the RMI by procedure I are generally good

for the Gravity+lateral load cases. The specification capacities in
these cases are conservative by 10%-15% (except in a few frames) as
compared to finite element results. However, in the Gravity load
only case, the specification is found to be conservative by as much as
40%.
Procedure II of RMI is found to be 20%-50% conservative when the

load on the frame is either gravity or gravity+small lateral load and
about 15%-25% for large lateral load (+gravity) case.
If the column base is equal to half the RMI stiffness value
Procedure I is found to be less conservative in this case as to the case

of frames with stiffer column bases (case discussed above). The RMI
strengths are about 10%-35% conservative as compared to FE results.
However, in the case of a few frames subjected to gravity+large
lateral load (Table 3.2.2.6a) the specification results are found to be
unsafe. The FE results corresponding to these frames may need to be
reviewed to verify the abnormality.
Strengths estimated by Procedure II are 20%-40% conservative when

the load on the frame is either gravity or gravity+small lateral load
and about 15%-25% for large lateral load (+gravity) case. However, a
few frame strengths are overestimated under large later loads.
In order to quantify the net effect of various approximations in the RMI procedure (i.e.
other parameters such as local buckling, holes in the column etc. as well), the results of
ALDR frame presented in previous section (Table 3.1.2.2.2) could be used. As noted
before, the net effect of all the approximations is to underestimate the frame strength by
40%-50%. However, as this observation is based on single frame analysis, a more
detailed study in this direction covering wider range of products is required to quantify
the actual effect of the approximations.
From the foregoing discussion it may be said that the RMI specification rules are not
adequate to model various parameters accurately. Though the numbers shown above as to
the unconsrvatism of the RMI are based on the preliminary study and need verification,
they do give approximate idea and it could be said that the net effect of approximations of
RMI will not be less than 30% with regard to strength estimates. This suggests the need
of a better design procedure which is developed in the following section.
44
3.2.2
Development of Design Procedure
The objective is to develop a more rational and accurate design procedure for CFS pallet
rack frames by making use of the existing design equations. The beam-column
interaction equations and moment amplification factors of the current AISI and AISC
specifications are used for this purpose. A total of five possible methods devised by
different combinations of these equations are experimented to arrive at the most
acceptable procedure. The details of the procedures are presented in table 3.2.2.1. It may
be noted that the effect of local buckling is not included in the study.
Table 3.2.2.1
Method
Method 1
Evolution of possible design procedure

Interaction Equation
P M
+
= 1. 0
Pn M n
(RMI-Proc.I)
Method 2
Kx = 1.7; Kphi =0.8 & Ky = 0.85
M = Mlin = Elin *P
= 1 / (1P/P ex)
Elin = Linear Eccentricity

= (Mlin /P lin) from linear analysis
Kx = 1.0; Kphi =0.8 & Ky = 0.85
All other parameters as in

Method 1.
(RMI- Proc.II
with modified Ks)
P
M
+
= 1. 0
2Pn M n
for
Method 3
(AISC proc. I)
Remarks
P
0 .2
Pn
P 8 M
+
= 1.0
Pn 9 M n
for
Kx = 1.0; Kphi =0.8 & Ky = 0.85
M = Mlin = Elin *P
= 1 / ( 1(P/H)(/L) )
= Inter-story drift at first

floor level determined from linear
FE analysis with initial Beamcolumn joint stiffness
P
> 0 .2
Pn

Method 1
Method 4
= Inter-story drift at first

floor level determined from linear
FE analysis with secant Beam-
(AISC proc.II)
column joint stiffness corresponding

to 0.99 Mu (of joint moment capacity)

Method 3
Method 5
: M-P equation and effective length factors as in method 2 and

45
the moment amplification factor as in method 4.

Comparative study
The axial load and moment capacities of a large number of rack frames of different types
as estimated by these methods and nonlinear FE analysis are compared in tables 3.2.2.23.2.2.7. The details of the frames are as given in section 3.2.1. The simple beam element
model described in sec.3.1.2.2 was used to obtain the reference FE strengths. However,
the following linear beam-to-column joint stiffness values were used to model joint
flexibility instead of nonlinear stiffness characteristics (Eq 3.1) originally suggested in
the model. In all the FE analyses, the column base stiffness was assumed to be half the
RMI value and the warping at the column base was restrained.
Beam-to-column joint stiffness characteristics
The beam-to-column joints are modeled using linear spring elements with two different
stiffness characteristics : (i) Initial joint stiffness until Mu and (ii) Secant stiffness
corresponding to 0.99Muas described in the following Fig.
Beam-to-column joint Stiffness Characteristics

Ki = Initial stiffness (methods 1,2,3)
Ks = Secant stiffness (methods : 4,5)
M
O
M
E
N
T
Mu
0.99M u
0.75 M u
Ki
Ks
ROTATION
46
Table 3.2.2.2 Comparison Of Design procedures ( Gravity+0.0075% lateral to trigger failure )

Method 1 : AISI M_P Eqn. & AISI Amplification factor
Method 2 : AISI M_P Eq. & AISI Amplification factor
Method - 3 : AISC M_P En. & AISC B2 factor (deflection based) - initial stiffness
Method 4 : AISC M_P Eq. & AISC B2 factor (deflection based) secant stiffness
Method 5 : AISI M_P Eq. & AISC B2 factor secant stiffness
(K x = 1.7; K phi =0.8) in Method 1 & (Kx = 1.0; K phi =0.8) in Methods 2,3,4,5.
(P,M)r = [ (P,M)cal / (P,M)fem ]
Frame
Type
Confg
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
2x3
0.68
0.12
0.89
0.11
0.88
0.46
0.85
1.42
0.84
1.16
4x3
0.71
0.13
0.94
0.12
0.90
0.77
0.86
2.36
0.85
2.14
6x3
0.78
0.14
1.03
0.13
0.99
1.28
0.90
3.07
0.90
3.07
4x4
0.85
0.15
1.11
0.14
0.98
1.32
0.87
2.42
0.86
2.19
4x6
0.92
0.16
1.21
0.15
0.91
1.32
0.75
1.85
0.75
1.69
6x6
0.95
0.17
1.25
0.16
0.90
1.73
0.74
2.42
0.74
2.17
2x3
0.80
0.15
1.06
0.13
1.05
0.43
1.04
0.78
1.04
0.78
4x3
0.72
0.13
0.96
0.13
0.96
0.73
0.94
6.26
0.93
5.6
6x3
0.76
0.14
1.02
0.13
1.00
0.99
0.93
4.14
0.93
3.55
4x4
0.66
0.12
0.87
0.11
0.83
1.69
0.72
6.7
0.72
5.62
4x6
1.05
0.19
1.40
0.18
1.03
3.66
0.79
5.77
0.79
5.37
6x6
1.04
0.19
1.40
0.12
0.97
2.09
0.74
5.19
0.74
2.91
( BxS )
A
H
D
R
U
3.0
Data Needs verification
2x3
4x3
0.70
0.07
0.93
0.06
0.93
0.34
0.93
1.12
0.92
0.86
6x3
0.73
0.13
0.97
0.12
0.97
1.04
0.93
3.85
0.93
3.71
3.5
4x4
0.78
0.14
1.03
0.13
0.96
0.89
0.89
1.50
0.88
1.41
4x6
0.94
0.17
1.26
0.16
6x6
0.94
0.17
1.25
0.16
2x3
0.72
0.13
0.95
0.12
0.95
0.25
0.95
0.39
0.95
0.39
4x3
0.66
0.12
0.87
0.11
0.87
0.29
0.87
0.62
0.86
0.56
6x3
0.67
0.12
0.89
0.11
0.89
0.33
0.89
0.91
0.88
0.81
5.0
4x4
0.71
0.13
0.95
0.12
0.90
3.42
0.91
2.03
0.91
2.03
4x6
0.71
0.13
0.95
0.12
0.89
0.83
0.71
3.13
0.71
2.91
6x6
0.93
0.16
1.25
0.16
0.95
2.33
0.79
3.35
0.79
2.89
Data Needs verification
47
Table 3.2.2.3 Comparison Of Design procedures ( Gravity+0.75% lateral load)

Method - 3 : AISC M_P Eq. & AISC B2 factor (deflection based) - initial stiffness
Frame
Type
Confg
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
2x3
0.73
0.32
0.95
0.32
0.84
0.60
0.78
0.71
0.77
0.68
4x3
0.83
0.35
1.10
0.35
0.93
0.72
0.87
0.79
0.86
0.76
6x3
0.81
0.34
1.06
0.34
0.88
0.71
0.83
0.79
0.81
0.72
4x4
0.85
0.34
1.12
0.34
0.89
0.73
0.82
0.85
0.81
0.80
4x6
0.96
0.37
1.26
0.37
0.91
0.92
0.80
1.11
0.79
1.01
6x6
0.95
0.32
1.25
0.32
0.87
0.84
0.76
0.99
0.74
0.86
2x3
0.72
0.27
0.96
0.27
0.86
0.49
0.82
0.54
0.81
0.52
4x3
0.81
0.32
1.08
0.32
0.94
0.62
0.88
0.70
0.86
0.67
6x3
0.81
0.30
1.08
0.30
0.92
0.59
0.86
0.68
0.83
0.62
4x4
0.87
0.33
1.15
0.33
0.94
0.70
0.86
0.82
0.84
0.77
4x6
0.91
0.34
1.21
0.35
0.85
0.87
0.71
1.10
0.70
0.99
6x6
0.91
0.34
1.21
0.34
0.83
0.92
0.68
1.09
0.66
1.00
2x3
0.90
0.25
1.21
0.25
1.09
0.45
1.06
0.50
1.03
0.47
4x3
0.93
0.27
1.24
0.27
1.09
0.54
1.05
0.60
1.02
0.55
6x3
0.94
0.27
1.26
0.28
1.07
0.54
1.02
0.61
1.00
0.56
3.5
4x4
0.92
0.31
1.23
0.32
1.02
0.67
0.96
0.78
0.94
0.71
4x6
0.98
0.36
1.30
0.36
0.95
0.92
0.84
1.06
0.83
0.99
6x6
1.01
0.37
1.34
0.38
0.93
0.96
0.83
1.16
0.81
1.05
2x3
0.70
0.30
0.94
0.30
0.88
0.47
0.85
0.56
0.83
0.52
4x3
0.74
0.30
0.99
0.30
0.90
0.51
0.86
0.61
0.84
0.57
6x3
0.72
0.33
0.95
0.33
0.87
0.57
0.82
0.68
0.79
0.63
5.0
4x4
0.75
0.30
1.00
0.30
0.89
0.54
0.83
0.68
0.80
0.62
4x6
0.82
0.32
1.09
0.32
0.92
0.69
0.72
0.92
0.76
0.87
6x6
0.94
0.32
1.25
0.32
0.91
0.86
0.80
0.99
0.79
0.90
( BxS )
A
H
D
R
U
3.0
48
Table 3.2.2.4
Comparison Of Design procedures ( Gravity+1.5% lateral load)

Frame
Type
Confg
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
2x3
0.78
0.49
1.03
0.50
0.89
0.79
0.84
0.88
0.82
0.82
4x3
0.79
0.46
1.03
0.47
0.87
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.79
0.75
6x3
0.83
0.48
1.09
0.50
0.90
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.80
4x4
0.85
0.47
1.11
0.49
0.88
0.82
0.82
0.90
0.80
0.84
4x6
0.95
0.49
1.22
0.51
0.89
0.93
0.80
1.03
0.78
0.94
6x6
0.92
0.46
1.20
0.47
0.85
0.87
0.76
0.97
0.74
0.88
2x3
0.78
0.43
1.04
0.44
0.92
0.67
0.88
0.73
0.86
0.69
4x3
0.79
0.40
1.04
0.41
0.89
0.65
0.84
0.72
0.81
0.65
6x3
0.85
0.48
1.11
0.50
0.94
0.80
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.80
4x4
0.84
0.40
1.10
0.41
0.89
0.69
0.83
0.86
0.81
0.71
4x6
0.96
0.48
1.26
0.50
0.91
0.92
0.78
1.07
0.75
0.93
6x6
0.98
0.49
1.29
0.51
0.91
0.97
0.76
1.07
0.74
0.97
2x3
0.83
0.36
1.11
0.38
0.99
0.57
0.95
0.59
0.92
0.56
4x3
0.88
0.44
1.15
0.45
0.98
0.72
0.95
0.75
0.92
0.71
6x3
0.90
0.38
1.17
0.40
0.99
0.64
0.96
0.68
0.92
0.62
3.5
4x4
0.89
0.38
1.17
0.40
0.96
0.67
0.91
0.72
0.89
0.67
4x6
0.98
0.50
1.29
0.52
0.95
0.96
0.85
1.04
0.83
0.95
6x6
0.98
0.48
1.29
0.50
0.92
0.92
0.83
1.02
0.81
0.93
2x3
0.70
0.45
0.92
0.47
0.86
0.65
0.82
0.73
0.79
0.68
4x3
0.72
0.40
0.95
0.41
0.86
0.60
0.81
0.67
0.79
0.62
6x3
0.75
0.41
1.00
0.43
0.87
0.63
0.84
0.72
0.81
0.66
5.0
4x4
0.83
0.44
1.11
0.46
0.97
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.88
0.75
4x6
0.91
0.42
1.20
0.44
0.99
0.73
0.86
0.89
0.84
0.81
6x6
0.95
0.47
1.25
0.49
0.92
0.91
0.82
1.02
0.80
0.93
( BxS )
A
H
D
R
U
3.0
49
Table 3.2.2.5
Comparison Of Design procedures ( Gravity+15% lateral load)

Frame
Type
Confg
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
Pr
Mr
2x3
0.90
0.85
1.03
0.89
0.99
1.01
0.96
1.03
0.89
0.93
4x3
0.81
0.86
0.89
0.89
0.87
0.99
0.86
1.00
0.80
0.92
6x3
1.13
0.81
1.30
0.84
1.22
0.99
1.17
0.99
1.10
0.90
4x4
0.93
0.83
1.04
0.88
0.98
1.00
0.94
0.99
0.88
0.91
4x6
0.95
0.86
1.07
0.89
0.96
1.02
0.92
1.02
0.86
0.94
6x6
1.11
0.82
1.25
0.86
1.12
0.98
1.07
0.93
1.00
0.91
2x3
0.91
0.83
1.05
0.88
1.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.91
4x3
1.09
0.79
1.24
0.83
1.21
0.96
1.18
0.97
1.09
0.87
6x3
0.92
0.85
1.05
0.90
1.01
1.02
0.99
1.03
0.91
0.94
4x4
0.99
0.88
1.12
0.92
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.07
0.95
0.96
4x6
0.98
0.88
1.10
0.92
0.99
1.05
0.92
1.05
0.87
0.97
6x6
1.42
0.84
1.59
0.88
1.42
0.99
1.32
1.00
1.25
0.93
2x3
0.94
0.85
1.08
0.89
1.05
1.02
1.04
1.03
0.96
0.93
4x3
0.90
0.82
1.03
0.86
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.90
0.89
6x3
1.12
0.79
1.28
0.83
1.23
0.95
1.20
0.95
1.11
0.86
3.5
4x4
1.34
0.76
1.55
0.81
1.45
0.92
1.43
0.94
1.32
0.85
4x6
1.02
0.86
1.14
0.89
1.04
1.04
0.99
1.03
0.92
0.95
6x6
1.01
0.86
1.14
0.89
1.02
1.06
0.97
1.03
0.91
0.94
2x3
0.74
0.83
0.86
0.88
0.85
0.98
0.83
1.00
0.77
0.91
4x3
0.86
0.81
0.99
0.86
0.97
0.97
0.95
0.99
0.88
0.89
6x3
1.65
0.73
1.90
0.77
1.86
0.87
1.81
0.89
1.67
0.80
5.0
4x4
1.49
0.73
1.71
0.78
1.67
0.88
1.58
0.88
1.48
0.81
4x6
1.93
0.76
2.23
0.80
2.09
0.91
1.96
0.93
1.81
0.84
6x6
2.01
0.78
2.28
0.82
2.06
0.94
1.98
0.96
1.83
0.86
( BxS )
A
H
D
R
U
3.0
50
Table 3.2.2.6
Summary of Comparitive study -
Axial load capacities

The ratios reported are with respect to the axial load capacity : (Pr = Pcal / Pfem )
Loading
Gravity
Gravity+
0.75% lat.
Gravity+
1.5% lat.
Gravity+
15% lat.
Table 3.2.2.7
Statistics
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
0.66
1.05
0.80
0.72
1.01
0.85
0.70
0.98
0.86
0.74
2.01
1.13
0.87
1.40
1.06
0.94
1.34
1.14
0.92
1.29
1.13
0.86
2.28
1.29
0.87
1.05
0.93
0.83
1.09
0.92
0.85
0.99
0.92
0.87
2.09
1.21
0.71
1.04
0.86
0.68
1.06
0.85
0.76
0.96
0.85
0.86
1.98
1.17
0.71
1.04
0.85
0.66
1.03
0.83
0.74
0.92
0.82
0.80
1.83
1.09
Summary of Comparitive study - Moment capacity

The ratios reported are with respect to the moment capacity : (Mr = Mcal / Mfem )
Loading
Gravity
Gravity+
0.75% lat.
Gravity+
1.5% lat.
Gravity+
15% lat.
Statistics
Method - 1
Method -2
Method - 3
Method - 4
Method - 5
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
Min
Max
Avg
0.12
0.19
0.14
0.25
0.37
0.32
0.36
0.50
0.44
0.73
0.88
0.82
0.06
0.18
0.13
0.25
0.37
0.32
0.38
0.51
0.46
0.77
0.92
0.86
0.25
3.66
1.25
0.49
0.96
0.69
0.57
0.96
0.77
0.87
1.06
0.98
0.39
6.26
2.82
0.54
1.16
0.81
0.59
1.07
0.85
0.88
1.07
0.99
0.39
5.62
2.47
0.47
1.05
0.74
0.56
0.97
0.78
0.80
0.97
0.90
51
While the results presented in the above tables are based on preliminary investigation, it
appears at this stage that the AISC procedure with Kx = 1.0; Kphi =0.8 in conjunction with
either initial joint stiffness (method 3) or with secant joint stiffness (method 4) may be
used to predict the pallet rack frame capacities with sufficient accuracy.
4
PLANS FOR FURTHER STUDY
The following objectives have been set for the future study.
The effect of beam end shear and the ratio of the shear to moment on the beam-tocolumn joint stiffness by modeling the joints more accurately. A more refined finite
element modeling including the endplates, tabs and actual hole shape is required for this
purpose. Such a study will shed light on several important topics as
the correlation of the results from a cantilever test and a portal test
behavior under reversal of loading on the joint (such as the case when the
beams are subjected to reverse curvature).
The study of column base flexibility by means of experimental investigation and

more refined finite element analysis to include the contribution of foundation and anchor
bolt deformations
The rotation restraint offered by the adjacent members to the columns against twisting
at shelf beam level by 3D finite element analysis using shell-contact and simple beamspring element models.
The work done so far has been empirical in nature. Having developed reasonably
good empirical design procedure (AISI M-P+AISC B2 factor or AISC M-P+AISC B2
factor) to estimate the frame capacities, in the future work, the behavior of pallet rack
frames will be studied in more detail enabling to explain the working of the above
procedures more rationally and convincingly.
The future work will also account for the effects of other parameters such as local
buckling etc., which were not considered in the present study.
5
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
The behavior of pallet rack frames with semi-rigid beam-column joints and flexible
column bases was studied by experimental and numerical (FEM) investigations. A
general M relationship was established to model the beam-to-column joint stiffness
of pallet rack frames. The column base flexibility of rack frames caused by base plate
bending was studied in detail and quantified in terms of the current specification value.
Guidelines were framed to carry out nonlinear FE analysis of rack frames accounting for
various influencing parameters.
52
A critical review of the current American rack frame design specification (RMI 1997)
was carried out and found to be conservative by about 30% with regard to strength
estimates. The sources of conservatism in the specification were identified and an attempt
was made to improve the same. A few suggestions were made to deal with the buckling
and nonlinear behavior of frames in a more rational way. These include modified
effective length factors, beam-column interaction equation and moment amplification
factor. The use of Kx = 1.0; Kphi =0.8 as effective length factors in conjunction with the
AISC (or AISI) beam-column design procedure and AISC B2 -fator was found to give the
most acceptable frame strengths. Plans for the future work were discussed.
53
References
1. AISC (1998), LRFD Manual of steel construction - second edition, American

Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chicago, IL, USA.
2. AISI (1996), Specification or the Design of Cold-formed steel structural members,
American Iron and Steel Institute, NW, Washington D.C., USA.
3. Pekz, T. (1975) Pallet rack tests, Department of Structural Engineering Report,
Cornell University, September 1975.
4. RMI (1997), Specification for the design testing and utilization of industrial steel
storage racks, Rack Manufacturers Institute, Charlotte NC, USA.
Bibliography
1. ASCE (1997) Effective length and Notional load approaches for Assessing Frame
Stability : Implications for American Steel Design, Special publication of ASCE
(Task Committee on Effective length factor).
2. Chen, W. F. (1985) Connection Flexibility and Steel Frames, Proceedings of a
session sponsored by structural Division of the ASCE in conjunction with the ASCE
Convention in Detroit, Michigan.
3. Chen, W. F. and Atsuta, T. (1975) Theory of Beam-Columns Volume 1: In-plane
Behavior and Design, Advanced Book Program, Mc Graw Hill Book Company.
4. Chen, W. F. and Atsuta, T. (1976) Theory of Beam-Columns Volume 2: Space
Behavior and Design, Advanced Book Program, Mc Graw Hill Book Company.
5. Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M. (1991) Stability Design of Steel Frames, CRC Press.
6. Christopher, J. E., and Bjorhovde, R. (1999) Semi-rigid Frame Design Methods for
Practicing Engineers, Engineering Journal AISC, Vol.36, No. 1, 12-28.
7. Galambos, T. V. (1960) Influence of Partial Base Fixity on Frame Stability, Journal
of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 86, No. ST3, May 1960.
8. Lau, S. M., Kirby, P. A. and Davison, J. B. (1999) Semi-rigid Design of Partially
Restrained Columns in Non-sway Steel Frames, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol.50, 305-328.
9. Narayanan, R. (1985) Steel Framed Structures : Stability and Strength, Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers.
54
10. Ronald D. Zieman, William McGuire and Gregory G. Dierlein (1992) Inelastic Limit
States Design. Part I: Planar Frame Studies, Journal of Structural Engineering
ASCE, Vol. 118, No.9, 2532-2549.
11. Ronald D. Zieman, William McGuire and Gregory G. Dierlein (1992) Inelastic Limit
States Design. Part II: Three-Dimensional Frame Study, Journal of Structural
Engineering ASCE, Vol. 118, No.9, 2550-2568.
12. Salmon, C. G., Schenker, L. and Jhonston, B. G. (1955) Moment-Rotation
Characteristics of Column Anchorages, Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 81, No. ST3,
April 1955.
13. White, D. W., and Clarke, M. J. (1997) Design of Beam-columns. I: Philosophies
and Procedures, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 123, No.12, 15561564.
14. White, D. W., and Clarke, M. J. (1997) Design of Beam-columns. II: Comparison of
Standards, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, Vol. 123, No.12, 1565-1575.
55
APPENDIX
Effect of Nonlinear base stiffness on frame strength
As shown in the report (sec 3.1.1.2), the column base stiffness of a typical rack frame is
nonlinear in nature. Hence, the corresponding moment-rotation relationship through
complete load history is required for proper consideration of its effect on the behavior
and failure strength of a frame. However, before developing such an expression, it is
deemed to quantify the effect of nonlinear base stiffness on the frame strength as
compared to the capacity of the frame with linear base stiffness. This study enables to
assess the actual need of a nonlinear expression for base stiffness.
For this purpose, a large number of pallet rack frames of different types are analyzed by
FEM for two base stiffness characteristics: Linear and Nonlinear. The details of the study
are discussed below.
Parameters
Types of Frames
Frame configuration
Loading
Column base stiffness
4 types
6 types
4 types
(AHDR, U3.0, U3.5, U5.0)

(Bays : 2-6 ; Stories : 3-6)
(Gravity load + Lateral load)
(Lateral load = 0.0%, 0.75%, 1.5% and
15% of axial load)
Linear / Nonlinear as per the case
This resulted in FE analyses of 192 rack frames (96 in each of the two base stiffness cases).
FE modeling features : Used beam element model with the following features.
Shelf Beams
Columns
Column perforations
Beam-column joints
Column base fixity
Linear column base
General beam element with 6 dof/node

Special beam element with 7 dof/node
Average section properties
Nonlinear Spring elements with stiffness
characteristics as defined in Section 2.2.
Stiffness equal to half the RMI specification value.

i.e. a stiffness value equivalent to (I/L = bd2 /2880).
This is also the average base stiffness value of a typical
rack frame whose stiffness may range from 0.35 to 0.7
times the RMI value, as discussed in section 2.3.
This is an approximation only.
Nonlinear column base : The following tri-linear moment-rotation relationship,

which approximates the base stiffness of a column
with 0.35`` thick base plate, is used in the analysis.
K = (6*E*I/L)
= (3*E*I/L)
~ 0.0
for
for
for
0.0 < M < 0.75 Mu

0.75 Mu < M < 0.95 Mu
0.95 Mu < M
56
The nonlinear base stiffness as expressed by these expressions is compared with the
actual moment-rotation relationship (as obtained by FEA) in the following figure.
Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (7x7x0.375)
K_RMI
Approx. (nonlinear)
FEM
Approx. (linear)
50
Moment (kips-in)
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Results and Discussion

Comparison of the FE results of the two cases showed that the frame strengths are not
effected significantly by nonlinear characteristics of the column base stiffness. The
maximum difference between the frame strengths corresponding to the linear and
nonlinear base stiffness cases was found to be about 5%. The column base moments at
failure are found to be smaller than 0.75 Mu in both cases and this is understood to be the
reason for the negligible effect of the nonlinear base stiffness characteristics.
Conclusion
From the above results, it may be said that the column base stiffness of pallet rack frames
could be assumed as linear in nature without any loss of accuracy in estimating the frame
strengths.
57
APPENDIX
Notional load Approach

Isolated member
Objective:
Possible application of notional load method as an alternative to
effective length method to estimate the design strength of cold-formed steel beamcolumn members.
Result :
A parametric study was carried out on isolated cold-formed steel singly
symmetric lipped channel beam-column members with different end conditions to verify
the application of notional load approach. This approach involves the use of the actual
unsupported length of the member, instead of effective length, to calculate the strength of
the member.
While the method was found to be promising in predicting the strength of members that
may fail in flexural buckling mode, the method failed to be encouraging in the case of
members sensitive to torsional-flexural bucking failure. However, it was decided to
continue the work to check the validity of the method in the context of full frames and
sub-assemblies. This was taken up in the following period and the results are briefly
described in section 2.2.
System level
Objectives
Feasibility study of the application of Notional load approach to estimate the failure
strength of cold-formed steel frames with semi-rigid beam column joints and flexible
column bases.
Results
A parametric study on 5 types of unbraced (sway allowed) frames with 5 types of flexible
beam-column joints and two column base stiffnesses (hinged and RMI value) subjected
to two different load combinations (Gravity+Lateral (1.5% and 15% of Gravity) load)
was carried out to study the possible application of Notional load approach. The
following observations had been made based on the comparative study between the
Notional load approach and Nonlinear finite element analysis of frames.
The failure strength of cold-formed steel frames with semi-rigid joints could be estimated
by using the AISI (1996) member strength interaction equation with effective length
factors Kx = 1.0, Kphi = 1.0 when the column base fixity is equal to that of RMI value (I/L
58
= bd2 /1440) and Kx = 1.5, Kphi = 1.5 for hinged base. The results were found to be
accurate enough for all practical purposes.
It was also found, based on parametric study (the base stiffness as the variable) on AHDR
frames of two configurations (2Bx3S and 4Bx4S), that the effective length factors Kx =
1.0, Kphi = 1.0 could be used to predict the frame strength accurately when the base
stiffness is in the range of fixed to 1/10th of the RMI value. As the base stiffness
approaches hinged case the effective length factors are found to be increased to Kx = 1.5,
Kphi = 1.5 in order to estimate the frame strengths accurately.
For column base fixities between hinged and 1/10 th of RMI value, a relationship
between the column base stiffness and the effective length factors needs to be established.
However, it was deemed to quantify the practical range of column base stiffnesses before
taking up further work in this direction.
Objectives
To evaluate the performance of the Notional load approach (considering it as a required
or an acceptable alternative procedure) in the case of frames with practical column base
fixities and other load combinations that have not been covered so far.
59
INTERIM REPORT
By
Kotha S. Rao, Ph.D.
Professor Teoman Pekz
(Proncipal investigator)
October 6, 2000
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
60
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
INTERIM REPORT
By
Kotha S. Rao, Ph.D.
Professor Teoman Pekz
(Proncipal investigator)
October 6, 2000
A Research Project sponsored by
The American Iron and Steel Institute

and Rack Manufacturers Institute
61
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
DETAILS OF THE WORK
3.1
Analysis
3.2.1
3.2.2
Behavior of Frame Components

3.2.1.1 Beam-to-Column joint flexibility
3.2.1.2 Column base fixity
Frame Behavior
3.2.2.1 Shell-contact element model
Modeling features
Validation study
3.2.2.2
3.2
Stub column
16
18
Pallet rack frames

Beam-spring element model
Modeling features
Validation study
Design
3.2.1
3.2.2
2
3
6
13
13
13
14
23
34
35
36
37
Current pallet rack design procedure (RMI 1997)

Development of Design Procedure
37
45
PLANS FOR FURTHER STUDY
52
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
52
REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY
54
APPENDIX
55
62

Cold-Formed Steel Frame and Beam-Column Design PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cold-Formed Steel Frame and Beam-Column Design PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Rao Kotha. S., Ph. D.

COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAME AND BEAM-COLUMN DESIGN

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

The following are the objectives of the present work.

DETAILS OF THE WORK

Behavior of frame components

Beam-to-Column Joint Flexibility

Beam depth (in)

3.0 x 1.57 x 0.71 x 0.091

3.0 x 3.0 x 0.71 x 0.091

where Db is depth of the shelf beam.

Finite Elemnt Model of

As shown, Joint flexibility is mainly due to

Joint Deformation at P = 0.75 P ult

Beam-column joint stiffness

Joint Rotation (rad)

Beam-column joint stiffness

Beam-column joint stiffness

Joint Rotation (rad)

Beam-column joint stiffness

Beam-column joint stiffness

Column Base Fixity

Bolts are overdesigned against strength and bond

The details and results of the work are described below.

To study the effect of various parameters on column base stiffness

= 0.0, 1/3, 1/6, 1/60

Top End Plate

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (6 x 6 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (6 x 6)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (7x7 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (7x7)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (8 x 8 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (8 x 8 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (8 x 5 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Base Fixity RMI vs FEM (8 x 5 plate)

Support Rotation (rad)

Shell-contact element model

Column post-AHDR frame

Beam (all pallet racks)

* Shape of the perforations is assumed to be rectangular in the present FE study.

Fig 3.1.2.1.2 Stub column Deformed shape at failure

Fig 3.1.2.1.3 Stub column von-Mises stress at failure

COMPARISON OF STUB COLUMN BEHAVIOR

Continuous Thickness of elements corresponding, Discontinues No elements at holes

FE model of beam-to-column joint

The load versus deflection behavior is non-linear as shown in Fig 3.1.2.1.6.

Comparison of P behavior Experimental Vs Analytical

However, the P behavior as predicted by the joint model-2 is found to be softer

Joint deformation in sub-ultimate range

Deformed shape of the joint at failure

Von-Mises stress distribution at failure

Deformed shape of beam-to-column joint model

Pallet rack frames

Fig 3.1.2.1.11 Details of Pallet Rack Frames