Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

Collapse of a high storage rack

Ch. Affolter *, G. Piskoty, L. Wullschleger, B. Weisse
EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, Mechanical Systems Engineering, Ueberlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Duebendorf, ZH, Switzerland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 September 2008
Accepted 10 September 2008
Available online 20 September 2008
Keywords:
High storage rack
Buckling
Stability
Finite element analysis
Imperfection

a b s t r a c t
A high storage rack collapsed during operation resulting in one fatality. The investigation
had to prove whether an overloading or an incorrect design, manufacture or installation
of the rack lead to the failure. A failure as a result of excessive external forces could have
had two possible reasons: static failure due to local or global overloading with stored
goods, or a dynamic failure due to an impact load (e.g., collision with forklift), vibrations
or instable loads. At the start of the investigation, a detailed inventory taking of the scene
of the collapse was performed, recording the broken rack components and reconstructing
the loads carried at the time of failure. Based on the collected information, the utilisation of
each rack bay had to be determined.
The load capacity and the stability under load of the rack were investigated by nite element methods (FEM). Buckling analyses of the installed columns were performed and a
sensitivity study comprising several geometric and load imperfections such as asymmetric
loading of the column, local imperfections (dents) and bearing type (support) showed the
impact of these parameters on the stability. The choice of an appropriate model cutaway
and valid boundary conditions presented a major challenge.
The recalculated actual load on the middle frame at the time of accident amounted to
68 kN per column. According to the rack manufacturer, the intermediate upright supports
had a design capacity of 50 kN (comprising an unknown safety factor). The load capacity
calculated by linear FE analysis amounted to 86 kN for the ideal case and less than
60 kN for the assumed imperfect case. Considering imperfections in a nonlinear static analysis, the ultimate load resulted between 67.3 and 70.3 kN. Thus, the failure could be attributed to a static overload of the intermediate frame without the need of any additional
external perturbation. Only the assessment of the effective load capacity proved the causality between the non-compliance of the manufacturer instructions and the collapse.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A high storage rack in a depot for building materials collapsed without any preceding indication. The building materials
falling down with the failed rack injured a warehouseman fatally. At the moment of the incident, the warehouseman had
been operating a forklift in the proximity of the rack, moving pallets from one place to another.
The scene got immediately secured and all evidences backed up by the police, after the workman had been evacuated
from the debris. The scene of accident, as it came across to the police and a technical expert, is documented in Fig. 1. During
the clean-up work, all present masses were recorded in order to allow an accurate reconstruction of the latest loading
situation and care was taken not to add any additional damage to the structure or to erase any traces.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 44 823 45 26; fax: +41 44 823 40 11.
E-mail address: christian.affolter@empa.ch (Ch. Affolter).
1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.09.011

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

1847

Fig. 1. Scene of accident (left: frontal view with the original position of the rack indicated by bright lines, right: side view from the left).

The design of rack components as well as the proper layout and erection of complete storage racks are regularised in various codes (e.g. prEN 15512 [1]; stability of general frame works e.g. in DIN 18800 [2]). Many recent publications deal with
stability issues encountered with this type of complex mechanical systems. Sarawit and Pekz for example compared two
actual design guidelines for complete racks with nite element analysis [3] and Freitas et al. looked at the strength and stability of storage rack columns [4].
Although the present storage rack could be reanalysed with actual guidelines (analytical approaches considering safety
margin), the effective ultimate load of the present storage rack had to be determined, in order to assign the potential failure
cause either to external overloading or to inner instabilities (i.e. insufcient load capacity). The nite element method (FEM)
was found to be the most appropriate tool to establish the ultimate load of this structure. Numerical solutions should be
compared to analytical approaches and the inuence of model size (system borders), choice of boundary conditions (constraints) and analysis type should be examined.
2. Situation and hypothesis
A schematic overview of the installation with all main dimensions is shown in Fig. 2.
Summary of collected information during the inventory taking:







the rack consisted of two elds (three frames)

each eld has six shelves (totally 12 shelves, 6  2  2 = 24 beams with box sections)
the front columns of all three frames were subsequently reinforced with a U-prole up to a height of 1.5 m
the rack was xed to the wall at three points by means of welded proles (approx. height 7.1 m)
the rack was loaded with ceramic goods on wooden pallets (tiling) and with empty hutches
the fork lift did not show any obvious damage indicating a preceding collision with the storage rack

The middle frame showed the highest number of kinks and large plastic deformations, cf. Fig. 3A. The reinforcement
of the front column did not show any dents or kinks, but the rear column was severely damaged even at the base plate
(Fig. 3B and C).
Other ndings and irregularities:
 All the frames had been installed with a single prole for the columns. For this rack height and application, the manufacturers regulations require double proles on intermediate frames (at least for the lower region), as they have to
carry approximately twice the weight of lateral frames (load capacity for single prole according to manuals:
50 kN 5.1 metric tons [to]).
 Different welding zones could be found on the rack components. According to the rack supplier, welding on the load
carrying components is not allowed as it can reduce the local strength. The weld seams were partly of poor quality.

1848

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

left frame

middle frame

right frame

connection
to the wall
columns

vertical
extensions of
the frames

9520

beams

140

cross braces
(struts)

U-profile as
reinforcement of
the front columns

2750

10
00

1500

2 fixations in
the rack plane

Fig. 2. Design and main dimensions of the collapsed storage rack.

Fig. 3. Details of the middle frame.

 Each frame had been assembled of three elements with a max. height of 4.7 m per element. Some screws for the connection of frame segments were missing. Corrosion traces indicated that these screws already had missed before the
accident.
 No instruction plate about the admissible load of the rack was found on-site.

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

1849

The investigation had to provide evidence whether the load capacity (including the stability) of the high storage rack was
too low or reduced by any environmental impact, or whether the loading of the rack was too high. An overloading might
have been static due to:
 too heavy goods stored in the rack
 additional internal stresses (e.g. because of geometric imperfections)
or dynamic due to:
 external stroke over the exible wall or the ground
 operational fault when storing goods (e.g., if palettes were not lifted enough ? friction)
 collision of the fork lift with a column
Hence, the actual loading situation before the accident as well as the load capacity of the storage rack had to be investigated in order to clarify the origin of the failure.
3. Diagnostic inspection on-site and analytical approach
The goods stored in the collapsed rack were collected and weighed after the securing of evidence by the police. The rack
had been highly utilized: although no beam had been overloaded (the maximum capacity per beam was 3450 kg, the highest
present load amounted to 3036 kg), the frames were highly strained. The middle frame carried 13.7 metric tons, or 6844 kg
per column, without the self-weight of the beams. The highest admissible load according to the manufacturer amounted to
10.2 per frame (for a buckling length of 1700 mm, prole not reinforced).
Thus, the present load on the middle frame was 34% above the load approved by the manufacturer:

utilization

130688kg
1:34
100200kg

Nonetheless, a loading which was above the tolerable maximum load indicated by the manufacturer was not effectual
evidence that the current loading had to lead to the collapse of the rack. From the mechanical point of view, an adequate
safety factor would have allowed a certain overload without collapse. Furthermore, the fork lift had been found below
the fallen goods, which could lead to the conclusion that a collision had to precede the collapse, i.e. the warehouseman
would have been to blame partially.
In order to answer this question, the true load capacity of the rack (buckling load) was rst determined by means of an
analytical approach. The rear column of the middle frame was identied to be the most critical concerning buckling, as it
experienced the highest load and featured the highest compliance together with a large buckling length (i.e. free length
in Euler buckling) of 1.54 m. The situation of this column is shown schematically in Fig. 4.
For a calculation of the linear buckling load (eigenmode according to elastic Euler buckling theory), following assumptions were made concerning the active degrees of freedom (DOF):
 No contribution to the stiffness of the structure by the cross brace (strut) in lateral X-direction.
 No rotation of the prole cross section on the top (i.e. full constraint of all rotational DOF).
According to the linear Euler theory, the buckling load is calculated as

Fk

p2 EIy
2

lk

where E is the elastic modulus of the column, Iy the geometrical moment of inertia of the cross section and lK the effective
buckling length, which for the cases described in Fig. 5 results in 2l, l and 0.7l for the rst three load cases. The material properties were applied accordingly for a steel S235 with a Youngs modulus E of 210 GPa and a yield strength ReH P 235 MPa.
The formula is applicable, when the slenderness ratio, which is dened as

k lK =iy ;
q
with iy Iy =A

2
3

as the inertial radius, is above the critical value of kcrit = 104 for S235 [5].
The presumptions made above imply that the entire rack above the column can displace freely in lateral direction. Thus,
the (lowest) Euler buckling load is calculated for the rst case and amounts to 40.2 kN. This value is rather unrealistic as the
rack sustained 68 kN, at least for a short term. With a storage rack fully constrained in lateral direction, one would rather
assume case three to be the correct for calculation of the Euler buckling load. As this would result in a buckling load which

1850

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

3 translational
degrees of freedom

83

41

52

1540

s = 2 mm

90

560

30

fully constrained

41

s = 1.6 mm

X
3 rotational
degrees of freedom

Fig. 4. Dimensions and schematic boundary conditions of model 1 (left), and referring geometry model (right).

Fig. 5. The four Euler buckling cases [5] with individual BCs .

is eight times higher than for the rst case, it became obvious that a more detailed analysis by means of nite elements had
to be performed.
4. Methods
4.1. FEM: models and analysis types
Different analyses were performed for the purpose of disclosing the sensitivity of the calculated buckling load regarding
imperfections and boundary conditions (BC). Two nite element models with differing size and complexity were built:
1. The simpler Model 1 consisted of a single column with a free length of 1540 mm and one cross brace. It was used to calculate the Eulerian buckling load, i.e. the bifurcation load of the column. The analysis was static and linear, assuming linear-elastic material (no plasticity).

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

1851

2. Model 2 consisted of an extended column with a length of 3060 mm. It was used for various static but nonlinear analyses,
considering large deformations and rotations as well as material plasticity for steel (assuming a yield strength ReH of
235 MPa for S235). A linearly increasing displacement at the support plate on the ground was applied and the reaction
force was recorded which lead to a maximum load before the column deected over a critical limit (referred to as the
ultimate load). The model was used to study the inuence of different load and geometric imperfections such as excentric
loading or an initial dent.
In both geometric models with reduced system boundaries, the rear column of the middle frame was modelled, as it did
not feature any additional reinforcement. All models were built up with shell elements ignoring the line of bore holes acting
as connection for the beams (conservative approach). The used nite elements in ABAQUS [6] were shell elements of type S4
and S4R (and C3D8 where continuum elements were used). The model cut-out for the rst FE-mesh is shown in Fig. 4.
The model 2 for the nonlinear (NL) static analyses got extended compared to model 1 and more care had to be taken concerning appropriate boundary conditions. The upper end of the modelled rear column was xed (no degree of freedom, DOF)
and the load was generated over a vertical displacement of the ground considering the contact to the ground plate, see Fig. 6.
The two beams got supported at their free ends. They mainly constrain the rotation in the intersection of the trusses.
4.2. Imperfections
The irregularities considered for the different models consisted in load imperfections and geometric imperfections. For
the linear buckling analysis with the smaller model 1, a load imperfection with an excentric force acting parallel to the column on the corner of the cross section was assumed (model 1.B).
A similar load imperfection was applied to model 2 for the nonlinear static analysis (cf. Fig. 7A), with 20 mm load offset
from the symmetry axis. On the other hand, a geometric imperfection was applied by means of a small localized dent on the
critical column, with a depth of 2 mm placed on a height of 1040 mm from the ground (Fig. 7B). This type of pre-damage
could easily occur during erection of the rack or in service.
Finally, a more standardized approach for the consideration of geometric imperfections was implemented. It uses both
analysis techniques introduced before: with the perfectly symmetric model, a linear buckling analysis was performed.
The resulting shapes of the rst two eigenmodes were scaled in such a way that the maximum amplitude of the lateral displacement amounted to 10% of the columns cross section, i.e. 5 mm in the present case. The thus obtained deformed (and
again unstressed) models were used for a subsequent nonlinear static analysis, where the ultimate load was calculated as
described before. The results of the linear buckling analysis are shown in Fig. 8. On the left side, the 1st eigenmode shows
lateral-torsional buckling (plotted deformed shape is scaled up for better visibility). The right side of Fig. 8 shows the 2nd

Fig. 6. Size of a column in model 2 with two beams and four cross braces (left), and detail of the joint (right).

1852

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

Fig. 7. Imperfections on model 2 (left: excentric load, right: dent with depth of 2 mm).

Fig. 8. Deformed FE-models as input for the NL static analysis. (a) eigenmode 1: lateraltorsional buckling, and (b) eigenmode 2: lateral buckling (S-shaped
bending). Deformations scaled up for visualization.

eigenmode which corresponds to pure bending (S-shape). Wullschleger provides further information on the different analysis techniques [7].
An overview of all calculated models is provided in Table 1.
5. Results
The eigenvalue calculations for model 1.A (ideal) revealed a buckling load of 85.9 kN. With the assumed imperfection of
excentric loading, the rst buckling load dropped to 58.7 kN. The associated eigenmodes for the two cases showed a (symmetric) bending for model 1.A and a lateraltorsional shape for model 1.B, cf. Fig. 9. A comparison of all calculated values is
shown in Fig. 13.

1853

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

Table 1
Overview for all models with respect to analysis type and imperfections.
Model size

Imperfections

Properties/analysis type

Model No.

One column (including one cross brace) Model 1

None (symmetric)
Excentric load (in the corner of the prole)

Linear buckling (elastic)

Linear buckling (elastic)

1.A (Fig. 5)
1.B

Extended column with four cross braces Model 2

None (symmetric)

Nonlinear (NL) static, with contact

to the ground; plasticity
NL static, no contact; plasticity
NL static, with contact; plasticity

2.A (Fig. 6)
2.B (Fig. 7A)
2.C (Fig. 7B)

NL static, with contact; plasticity

3.A (Fig. 8)

NL static, with contact; plasticity

3.B (Fig. 8)

Excentric load (20 mm offset from axis)

Geometric: dent in the middle of the
free length
Extended column with four cross braces Model 3

Geometric: 1st eigenmode from linear

buckling analysis
Geometric: 2nd eigenmode from linear
buckling analysis

Fig. 9. Eigenmodes of the linear static model (left: bending, right: load imperfection resulting in lateraltorsional buckling).

Vertical load F Z vs. Displacement

Vertical load F Z vs. Displacement

120'000

100'000
90'000

100'000

80'000
70'000

Force Fz [N]

Force Fz [N]

80'000

60'000

60'000
50'000
40'000

40'000

FZ Model 2.A

20'000

30'000

FZ Model 2.B

20'000

FZ Model 2.C

10'000
0

0
0

Displacement Z [mm]

Displacement Z [mm]

Fig. 10. Loaddisplacement curve for the nonlinear model No. 2.A (left), and for the models 2.B and 2.C with imperfections (right).

1854

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

Fig. 11. Deformed shape of model 2.B after yielding (legend: equivalent plastic strain).

For the evaluation of all nonlinear models, the resulting loaddisplacement curve had to be evaluated. It can be observed
in the curve for model 2.A (Fig. 10, left) that the structure rst behaves linear-elastic and when yielding starts, the load drops
shortly after. The maximum reaction force was considered as the buckling load. It stands for the ultimate load at collapse. For
the ideal model 2.A, an ultimate load of 103 kN resulted.
Fig. 10 right shows the referring results for the models 2.B and 2.C (both calculations stopped after yielding). The load
imperfection in model 2.B caused a drop of the ultimate load to 67.3 kN which, however, was higher than the referring value
from model 1.B (58.7 kN). Accordingly, the results of model 1.A and 2.A can be compared. The deformed shape of model 2.B is
shown in Fig. 11. The deformations are scaled up for better visibility. An initial lateraltorsional buckling led to local yielding
in the twisted zone.
The models with geometric imperfections derived from the linear buckling analysis (models 3.A and 3.B) produced similar
results as model No. 2, but with resulting ultimate loads laying closer to the actual failure load. The imposed imperfection in
model 3.A (mode 1 of the linear buckling analysis) yielded an ultimate load of 70.3 kN, which is only 3% above the effective
collapse load of 68.3 kN. The predicted collapse load was clearly improved compared to the 86.8 kN produced with the assumed dent in model 2.C. The resulting curves for model 3 are shown in Fig. 12.

Vertical load FZ vs. Displacement

100'000

Vertical Load FZ [N]

90'000
80'000
70'000
60'000
50'000
40'000

perfect

30'000

imperfect (mode 1)

20'000

imperfect (mode 2)

10'000
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Displacement uZ [mm]
Fig. 12. Loaddisplacement curves for the nonlinear model No. 3 with assumed geometric imperfections based on linear buckling analyses.

1855

Ch. Affolter et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 18461855

Calculated vs. actual Load

Model Nr.

1.A

1.B

2.A

2.B

2.C

3.A

3.B

Actual
Loading

80

60

safety?

Buckling Load [kN]

100

40

20

0
Admissible
Loading

L-B_Load
Imperf.
L-B_Ideal

Combined
M ode1 Combined
M ode2
NL-stat Geom

1 NL-stat Load

NL-stat Ideal

(dent)

Fig. 13. Comparison of calculated buckling loads with the effective load.

6. Discussion and conclusions

A rst assessment by an analytical calculation (Eulerian buckling load) resulted in an undermost value of 40.2 kN for a
slenderness ratio of ki = 151. However, this assumed classical Euler case No. 1 did not reproduce the actual boundary conditions accurately enough. On the other hand, the next Euler cases for this model already overestimated the buckling load.
With the linear analysis models, already a reasonable bandwidth for the buckling load of the critical column could be
determined. In the ideal case, the calculated buckling load exceeded the actual loading and in the case with an imperfection,
the estimated load resulted to be lower.
The buckling loads calculated with the nonlinear static analysis model conrmed the rst ndings of the linear buckling
analysis. The calculated buckling load for model 2.B with excentric loading was closest to the present load. With boundary
conditions similar to those in model 1.B, a higher buckling load was produced. The plasticity or the geometric nonlinearities
do not lower the calculated buckling loads. This may be due to the effect of the more sophisticated boundary conditions at
the base plate, where contact to the ground was considered. Stress relocation can then proceed more easily with this nonlinearity, compared to the imposed displacement of a single node in model 1. Consequently, also the ideal model 2.A shows a
rise in the calculated buckling load compared to the similar model 1.A. Model 3 nally produced accurate results for the case
with geometric imperfections, where model 2.C with an assumed pre-damage still had overestimated the ultimate load of a
column.
Thus, it could be concluded that the actual load directly before the collapse was close to the load capacity of the rack
(proof of plausibility), i.e. a collapse only due to the external static load (stored goods) was within the realms of possibility.
A collision with the fork lift was not a necessary precondition.
Local buckling was no issue and was not examined in this study. The linear buckling analysis showed that local buckling
patterns only appear in modes for higher buckling loads. They were not considered to dene local geometric imperfections
either, as they occurred in rather unrealistic areas of the proles for real damages emerging from daily operation of the rack.
The investigation proved that a simple model can provide valuable results with comparably little effort if the model cutout, i.e. the system boundaries are chosen correctly and if possible imperfections are taken into account (in the presented
case load and geometry imperfections). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the results with respect to boundary conditions
(external stiffness at the model boundaries) and rotational stiffnesses of the frame joints has to be assessed carefully.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

prEN 15512 Stationary Rack Systems, 2006.

DIN 18800-2 Steel Structures, 2007.
Sarawit AT, Pekz T. Notional load method for industrial steel storage racks. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(12):12806.
Freitas AMS, Freitas MSR, Souza FT. Analysis of steel storage rack columns. J Constr Steel Res 2005;61(8):113546.
Beitz W, Kttner K-H. Dubbel Taschenbuch fr den Maschinenbau. Berlin: Springer; 1990.
ABAQUS V6.7 Analysis Users Manual. Simulia, Providence, RI (USA). 2007.
Wullschleger L, Meyer-Piening HR. Buckling of geometrically imperfect cylindrical shells denition of a buckling load. Int J Nonlinear Mech
2002;37(45):64557.