Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
\
|
+
=
34
d
4 3
12
d
2 1
2
1
b
o o o o
u (2)
where A = mean displacement of the concrete cube;
o
i
= displacement on the i transducer;
l = (l
1
+l
2
)/2 (Fig. 3);
d
12
, d
34
= distances between transducers (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 - Measured displacements in base-plate joint test.
Fig. 4 - Test on base-plate joint at the University of Trento.
In order to verify the influence of the axial load on the joint response, tests have been carried
out by considering at least two representative values of force F
1
. Furthermore, in
correspondence of each values of F
1
three tests have been executed, i.e. for each base-plate
joint at least six tests have been performed.
F
1
F
1
F
2
J
1
J
2
1
4 2
3
5 6
d
34
d
12
l
1
l
2
2.2 The test results
The test data have been analysed in accordance to the criteria previously indicated.
Figure 5 shows a typical outcome in terms of moment-rotation relationships (M
b
-u
b
) for two
different levels of axial load. These curves confirm the non negligible influence of the axial
load on the connection response in terms of both ultimate moment and stiffness. There is
hence a clear need to perform tests at values of the axial load which are significant and
consistent with the purpose to characterise completely the base joint response.
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
0 10 20 30 40
u
b
[mrad]
M
b
[kNm]
Fig. 5 - Moment-rotation relationship of base-plate joints.
Collapse was never achieved at the base fixings but it was associated with an interaction of
plasticity and instability of the upright near to the base-plate. Furthermore, collapse modes
showed that the interaction between the base-plate and the upright could affect remarkably the
whole joint response.
The tested specimens were characterised by a large variability of the type of base-plate
element and of its fixing to both the concrete block and the upright. Therefore, it is difficult to
make a direct comparison between test results. The meaning of such a comparison would also
be generally questionable. Some examples of connections are presented in Figures 6(a)-6(f).
The restraint offered by the base-plate element to the upright appears quite different: in some
cases the base-plate does not restrain effectively the column deformability (Figs 6(a)-6(c)), in
other cases (Figs 6(d)-6(f)) the base-plate element stiffens the upright at the end near the
connection. This is reflected in the collapse mode. In the former case noticeable deformations
occurred at collapse: distortional deformation of the upright section or localised deformations
on the upright (i.e., hole ovalisation, local buckling of the upright) were observed. On the
other hand, when the base-plate element restrains the upright, collapse was generally localised
in correspondence of the connection between base-plate and upright.
Attention was hence focused on the influence on the moment-rotation relationship of the
interaction between the connection element and the upright. Preliminary tests were hence
performed on two sets of specimens characterised by the same upright, the same fixing system
to the concrete cube but different restraint provided to the column. In the following the two
typologies of specimens are identified as A and B respectively. Specimens type A had a base-
plate element as indicated in Figure 6(e), while for specimens type B base-plate as in Figure
6(b) was adopted. The former base-plate differs from the latter only for the restraint imposed
N = 40%N
u
N = 25%N
u
N
u
= upright squash
to the free deformation of the upright. Tests were performed by considering only one level of
axial load F
1
approximately equal to 45% of the ultimate resistance of the upright. For each
type of specimen three test were carried out. Test results are presented in Figure 7, where it
can be noted a different behaviour of specimens A and B mainly with reference to the
stiffness, while a limited increase on the collapse moment is showed.
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f )
Fig. 6 - Typical base-plate connections.
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
0 10 20 30
u
b
[mrad]
M
b
[kNm]
Fig. 7 - Influence of the interaction between the base-plate element and the upright.
The effect of the restraint to the upright deformation in the zone close to the base
connection, is reflected in a higher stiffness of the connection. On the basis of these
preliminary results it appears that the performance of the base-plate joint depend in a non
negligible way by the interaction between the upright and the base-plate element and in a
limited mode on the fixing systems to the concrete cube.
As a preliminary conclusion it can be observed that the moment-rotation experimental
relationship takes into account both the behaviour of the base-plate connection and the
Specimens type A
Specimens type B
interaction between the upright and base-plate element. As a consequence, tests enable to
determine the overall response of the final part of the uprights near to the base-plate.
3. BASE-PLATE JOINT MODELLING
The on-going phase of the research is dedicated to the modelling of the base-plate joint
response. The main aim of the study is to define a simplified design model to represent in a
sufficiently accurate way the experimental response of the base joint.
To this aim the FEM Recommendations alternatively to a multi-linear relationship, adopt the
simplified model showed in Figure 8 which consists of a bi-linear moment-rotation
relationship. Conditions are imposed to the secant stiffness with the purpose to minimize the
difference between the model and the experimental curve and to ensure consistency in terms
of elastic energy.
Fig. 8 - Base-plate connection model as in FEM Recommendations.
With reference to a joint and to the tests related to the same level of axial load, the
FEM criterion can be summarised as follows:
1- calculation of the design moment of the joints as M
k
/
m
, where M
k
is the characteristic
value of the moment and
m
is a partial safety factor (
m
= 1,1). The M
k
value is evaluated
as:
= =
= =
n
1 i
m ti
n
1 1
ti m k
) M M (
) 1 n (
1
k M
n
1
ks M M (3)
where M
m
is the mean value of the joint collapse moments, s is the standard deviation, n is
the number of specimens, k is a parameter function of n (i.e, for n=3 k=3,15);
2- approximation of each experimental curve by means of a polynomial relationship (i.e. by
adopting the least squares fit polynomial);
3- for each polynomial curve definition of the secant stiffness k
ti
by imposing the
equivalence of the areas A
1
and A
2
(see Fig. 8), as:
Rotation
M
o
m
e
n
t
Slope
A
1
= A
2
A
1
k
ti
=
A
2
0 u
ki
M
k
m
M
ti
u
1.15
u
ki
M
Rd
=
( )
}
=
ki
0 ti ki Rd
2
Rd
ti
d ) ( M M 2
M
k
u
u u u
(4)
4- check on the value of the secant stiffness:
m ki
k
ti
M
15 , 1 k
u
s (5)
5- if Equation (5) is not verified, redefinition of the stiffness (Final Stiffness in Fig. 9) so
that the condition (5) is met.
Fig. 9 Redefinition of the base-plate connection stiffness as in FEM Recommendations.
The design value of the stiffness (k
d
) associated to the base-plate connection and to the
considered level of axial load, shall be taken as the average value of the k
ti
values:
= =
=
n
1 i
ti m d
k
n
1
k k (6)
The FEM criterion results in a simplified model which can be easily implemented in
numerical analysis.
The first attempt to evaluate the test data has been carried out following the simplified
criterion proposed by the FEM Recommendations (Figs. 8 and 9). It has been noted that:
- the dispersion of test results within the same set of data appears generally quite limited: the
average coefficient of variation results approximately of 8%. A high value of the
coefficient of variation leads to a great reduction of the design moment with respect to the
mean value of the collapse moment.
- both the FEM requirements (Eq. 4 and Eq. 5) are fulfilled at the first step only in a very
limited number of cases, in fact:
Rotation
M
o
m
e
n
t
A
1
A
2
0
u
ki
M
k
m
M
ti
u
M
Rd =
---- Initial Stiffness
(A1 = A2 but kti > 1,15 MRd/uki)
Final Stiffness
(A1 ! A2 but kti = 1,15 MRd/uki)
k
ti
k
ti
only 4% of the considered curves meet at the same time the requirements of Equations
(4) and (5). This happens only in cases where it has been observed a greater dispersion
of test data (high value of the coefficient of variation). This means that the M
Rd
value
appears remarkably reduced with respect to the experimental moment of collapse.
the remaining cases do not satisfy simultaneously the requirements in Equation (4) and
Equation (5). The related experimental curves appear characterised by a remarkably non
linear behaviour and by a rapid reduction in stiffness which does not allow to meet the
FEM requirements. As a consequence a redefinition of the stiffness has to be considered
(Fig. 9). Test results have showed that assuming as reference the stiffness values which
fulfil the equivalence of the areas (Initial Stiffness in Fig. 9), the stiffness reduction
range between 0,3 % and 69% with a mean value of 19,6%. The relevant reduction of
elastic energy with respect to experimental response appears quite remarkable. The
mean value of the reduction is of 12,5% with a maximum of 34,7%.
These preliminary results point out that in base joints characterised by a notable non linear
behaviour the FEM procedure appears quite penalising in defining the design model of
analysis if compared to the experimental joint response.
A parametric study on the influence of the base-plate response on the overall frame
behaviour [9] showed that both the design moment of resistance and the joint stiffness
associated to a bi-linear joint model influence remarkably the rack performance in terms of
ultimate load carrying capacity and service load. As an example, a reduction of 50% of the
joint stiffness gives a 6% reduction of the ultimate load carrying capacity and of the service
load. Furthermore a reduction of 80% in joint stiffness produces 15% reduction of the frame
performance with respect to both ultimate and service limit states conditions. It is necessary to
point out that the aforementioned results have been carried out by considering a particular
rack frame and hence they can not be extended to other rack configurations.
As a consequence of these preliminary results, further studies have been planned with
the purpose to deeply investigate the influence of the base-plate joints modelling on the frame
response and to identify alternative simplified criteria for the definition of a reliable design
model for base-plate joints. In the framework of these activities test data analyses are currently
in progress following the criteria suggested by the prEN 1993-1-8 document [10] for the
traditional steel column base joints. Classification of base-plate joints and definition of a
simplified bi-linear model are the main feature up to-now investigated. However, it is
apparent that it would be more efficient to approach the problem by means of the
methodology of the component method. The potentially unlimited variety of connection
types makes this method more difficult to be implemented in a standard form than for
traditional frameworks. The concept is in any case the way to be followed also in view of the
definition of overall M
b
-u
b
curves.
4. CONCLUSIONS
At the University of Trento a research on the behaviour of base-plate connection of
steel storage pallet racks under eccentric load is currently in progress. The study which
comprises of both an experimental and a numerical phase has been briefly summarised in this
paper. The testing rig and the test procedure have been presented. The attention has been
focused on test results which have highlighted the main factors affecting the base-plate joint
response. The level of the axial load applied to the upright, the behaviour of base-plate
connection and the interaction between upright and base-plate element play a key role in joint
response. Their influence on the joint performance is captured globally by tests, which appear
able to represent the overall response of the end part of the uprights near to the floor. With
reference to the base-plate joint model to be adopted in numerical analyses, it has been applied
the simplified bi-linear relationship suggested by FEM Recommendations. The preliminary
results point out that in base joints characterised by a notable non linear behaviour the FEM
procedure appears quite penalising in defining the design model of analysis if compared to the
experimental joint response. On the basis of these results future activities have been planned
with the purpose to define alternative criteria to select a model for the joint response which
combine simplicity and accuracy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The data related to the pallets rack frames have been kindly supplied by some Italian
Companies involved in the activities of ACAI-CISI (Italian Association of Steel Constructors
Rack Manufacturing Companies Group).
The authors greatly appreciate the skilful work of the technical staff of the Laboratory of
the Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering of the University of Trento for
assistance during the tests.
The authors wish to tank eng. Davide Vulcan for his help in test data analyses.
REFERENCES
[1] Godley, M.H.R., Storage Racking, chapter 11 of Design of Cold Formed Steel
Members, Rhodes ed., , 1-399, 991.
[2] Hancock, G.J., Distorsional Buckling of Steel Storage Rack Columns, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 111(12), 1985, pp. 2770-2783.
[3] Davies, J.M. and Jiang, C., Design for Distortional Buckling, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 46, (1-3), 1998.
[4] AS, Steel Storage Racking AS4084, Australian Standards,1993.
[5] FEM, Reccomandation for the Design of Steel Pallet Racking and Shelving, Section X of
the Federation Europeenne de la Manutention, 2001.
[6] RAL, Storage and Associated Equipment, Deutsches Institut fur Gutersicherung und
Kennzeichnung German Institute for Quality Assurance and Marketing, 2002.
[7] RMI, Specification for the Design, Testing and Utilization of Industrial Steel Storage
Racks, Rack Manufactures Institute,1997.
[8] Baldassino, N. and Zandonini, R., Industrial steel racks: tests, design and Codes,
Proceedings of the Conference on Advances In Structures: Steel, Concrete,
Composite and Aluminium, ASSCCA '03, Sydney, Australia, June 2003.
[9] Baldassino, N. and Bernuzzi, C., Analysis and Behaviour of Steel Storage Pallet
Racks, Thin Walled Structures, vol. 37, n. 4, 277-304, 2000.
[10] prEN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures Part 1-8: Design of joints,
December 2003.