Steeldeck Coil/Drum

Bracing channel

Frame upright Adjustable beam

Slotted timber deck

Typical pallet racking system [3,4]

LITERATUREREVIEW

LURIE,1952 Investigated the relation of instability to structural stiffness (experimental and analytical work). t t l tiff ( i t l d l ti l k) BOKIAN,1988 Studied the natural frequency of the beams subjected to compressive axial load. LEE,1965 Developed a linear relationship
P fL + f =1 Pcr o
2

Ideal Equation

METHODOLOGY

Numerical Analysis

Theoretical

Experimental
Three Specimens

One Dimensional Two Dimensional Frame Three Dimensional Frame

RESULT&DISCUSSION

ONE DIMENSIONAL
Specimen 1 Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) 25.34 1.56 457.7 2 25.34 1.59 3 25.38 1.59 Specimen 2 Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) L th ( ) 25.24 1.98 508.2 508 2 2 25.20 1.97 3 25.20 1.98 Specimen 3 Location Description 1 Width (mm) Thickness (mm) Length (mm) 25.41 3.19 711.0 2 25.38 3.19 3 25.36 3.20 4 25.37 3.21 5 25.36 3.22 25.38 3.20 711.0 Average 4 25.18 1.96 5 25.24 1.94 25.21 1.97 508.2 508 2 Location Average 4 25.33 1.58 5 25.36 1.59 25.35 1.58 457.7 Location Average

ONE DIMENSIONAL

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3

ONE DIMENSIONAL
Buckling Load 1 2 3 [3-2]/2% [3 2]/2% 1 Natural Frequency 2 3 [3-2]/2% [3 2]/2%

Expe eriment (N)

Expe eriment (N)

Theoretical (N)

Theoretical (N)

erential Diffe (%)

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 S i Specimen 3

90 140 238.75

82.05 128.3 128 3 282.8

82.63 128.28 128 28 282.8

0.70 0.016 0 016 0

8.943 19.31 19 31 13.90

17.65 17.90 17 90 14.86

17.65 17.85 17 85 14.81

0.28 0 28 0.34

Table 1: Buckling load and Natural Frequency for specimens g q y p

Diffe erential (%) 0

LU USAS (N)

LU USAS (N)

ONE DIMENSIONAL
Buckling Load 1 2 [1-2]/1% 1 Natural Frequency 2 [3-2]/2%

Theoretical (N N)

Theoretical (N N)

Differ rential (% %)

Simply supported column Cantilever column One pin ended and other fixed ended

89.66 22.42 183.51

89.67 22.42 183.5

0.011 0 0.005

54.075 19.26 84.89

54.23 19.32 84.71

0.29 0.3 0.26

Table 2 : Buckling load and Natural Frequency for columns with various end conditions

Differ rential (% %)

LUS SAS (N N)

LUS SAS (N N)

ONE DIMENSIONAL
Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for columns
200
Simply supported column

180

Cantilever column One pin ended and other fixed ended column
P

160

140

Axial Load ( N )

120
P

100

80

60
P

40

20

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Squared-frequency ( Hz2)

Figure 1 : Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for columns with various support conditions

ONE DIMENSIONAL
Dimensionless plot of axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for columns
1.00

Simply supported column

0.90 0.80 0 80 y = -1.0007x + 1.0156 2 R = 0.9998

Cantilever column One pin ended and other fixed column

Ratio of total axia load (P/Pcr) al

0.70 0.60

y = -0.9971x + 0.9972 2 R =1

0.50 0.40

y = -0.9948x + 0.9997 2 R =1

0.30 0.20

0.10 0.00 0 00 0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

Ratio of frequency squared (f/fo)

Figure 2 : Relationships between non-dimensional load versus squared frequency for different support conditions

TWO DIMENSIONAL FRAME

mmmmmmmmmm

EI1 EI1 EI1

EI1=20.44GNmm2 H=Hs=1.5m

Lb=2.7m

Figure 3 : Details of the Single steel racking 2D frame used for study

SHS (mm)

Dimension (m) As shown

Area ( m2 ) 4.34x10-4

Second moment of area about y axis, Iyy ( m4 ) 9.78x10-8

Second moment of area about z axis, Izz ( m4 ) 9.78x10-8

40x40x3.0

Table 3 : Section properties for a simple racking frame

TWO DIMENSIONAL FRAME

Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for a simple racking frame
60 55 50 45

Axial Load (kN/m)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

y = -0.3105x + 52.565 R2 = 0.9657

Squared-frequency ( Hz2)

Figure 4 : Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for a simple steel racking 2D frame

TWO DIMENSIONAL FRAME

Dimensionless plot of axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for a simple racking frame
1 0.9 0.8

Non-dimension load (P/Pcr) nal

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.00 0 00

Ideal Equation
y = -1.3849x + 1.3174 2 R = 0.9657

0.10 0 10

0.20 0 20

0.30 0 30

0.40 0 40

0.50 0 50

0.60 0 60

0.70 0 70
2

0.80 0 80

0.90 0 90

1.00 1 00

Non-dimensional squared frequency (f/fo)

Figure 5 : Comparison non-dimensional versus squared frequency determined using LUSAS and the ideal equation

TWO DIMENSIONAL FRAME

Buckling Load 1 2 [1-2]/1% 1 Natural Frequency 2 [3-2]/2%

Theoretical (N)

LUSAS (N)

Differential (%)

Theoretical (N)

LUSAS (N)

Differential (%)

Single storey racking frame

42.17

39.99

5.17

13.77

13.44

2.4

Table 4 :Comparison of buckling and natural frequency using different methods for a Simple racking frame

THREE DIMENSIONAL FRAME

Axial load versus calculated squared-frequency using LUSAS for racking 3D frames
14
1 2

12
H=3Hs H=3Hs

Axial Lo (kN/m) oad

10
2 1

Lb

Lb 4Lb

Lb

8 y = -0.8965x + 10.284 R2 = 0.9999 6 y = -1.1967x + 13.149 R2 = 1

Single Bay Three storey Multibay three storey

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Squared-frequency ( Hz2)

Figure 6 : Axial load versus the calculated squared-frequency determined using LUSAS for 3D steel racking frame

THREE DIMENSIONAL FRAME

Dimensionless plot of axial load versus calculated squared-frequency p q q y using LUSAS for racking 3D frames
1 0.9 0.8 08

Single Bay Three storey Multibay three storey

Non-dimensiona load (P/Pcr) al

0.7 y = -1.0111x + 1.0147 2 R = 0.9999 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2

y = -1.0069x + 1.0088 2 R =1

0.7

0.8

0.9

Non-dimensional squared frequency (f/fo)

Figure 7 : Comparison non-dimensional versus squared frequency determined using LUSAS and the ideal equation for 3D steel racking frame

CONCLUSION

A strut regardless of the type of end support condition satisfied th id l equation diti ti fi d the ideal ti The simple 2D frame provides a linear relationship between axial load and squared frequency which are not in good agreement with the ideal equation The 3D frame agreed closely with the ideal equation