PSI - Issue 44

Marius Pinkawa et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 2342–2349 Marius Pinkawa, Cristian Vulcu, Benno Hoffmeister / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

2345

4

diagonals). These structural members and connections were deemed to be the most critical. Moreover, the possibility of pallet sliding was monitored, which however did not occur for the considered low seismicity accelerograms.

Montopoli, Italy

0.45

Elastic spectrum XY-Geometric mean X-Component CA frames (1st Periods)

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.05 Spectral acceleration S a [g] 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

Period T [s]

Fig. 3. Response spectra of accelerograms: Elastic code spectrum, geometric mean of all 15 accelerograms, mean of X-component of accelerograms and position of fundamental periods of case study CA frames.

Cross section verification (uprights)

Member stability verification (uprights)

Connection verification (brace to upright connections)

Fig. 4. Regional spread of D/C utilization ratios for different failure modes in CA direction for Case Study 2 (CS-2).

2.3. Seismic performance of cross-aisle (CA) frames The outcomes of the seismic performance evaluation for the cross-aisle direction (i.e. the frame typologies illustrated in Fig. 1) are presented within the current section. Table 1 summarizes the utilization ratios of the key structural members for each case study. Key structural members are foremost uprights and braces and the brace-to upright connections. Spacers, which interconnect adjacent upright frames, as well as the roof truss, have also been evaluated. The roof truss is made of lower and upper chords mainly stressed in shear and bending and the vertical and diagonal braces, which are only axially stressed due to their hinged connections. The hierarchy of criticalities for each case study is shown in Table 2. Overstressing of key elements (uprights, braces, connections) has occurred for case studies CS-4 and CS-5. These two case studies have the largest mean base shear forces (312 kN and 324 kN, respectively), while the remaining case studies CS-1, CS-2 and CS-3 have much lower mean base shear forces (219 kN, 234 kN, and 164 kN, respectively).