Determination of Accidental Forklift Truck Impact Forces On Drive-In Steel Rack Structures

School of Civil Engineering
Sydney NSW 2006

AUSTRALIA

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering

Determination of accidental forklift truck
impact forces on drive-in steel rack
structures

Research Report No R902

Benoit P. Gilbert, MScEng
Kim J.R. Rasmussen, MScEng, PhD

October 2009

ISSN 1833-2781

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/

Determination of accidental forklift truck impact forces on
drive-in steel rack structures


Benoit P. Gilbert, MScEng
Kim J.R. Rasmussen, MScEng, PhD

October 2009

Abstract:
The report addresses the problem of determining the accidental forklift truck impact forces on
steel storage racks. Based on first principles of mechanics, simple models of a loaded forklift
truck and a drive-in racking structure are presented. Model masses, as well as stiffness and
damping coefficients are calibrated against experimental results obtained from tests of a forklift
truck and a drive-in racking structure. Comparisons between experimental results and solutions
obtained from the simple mechanical models show that the simple models accurately reproduce
the static and dynamic behaviours of their associated structures. Based on the drive-in rack
impact test results presented in a companion research report (Gilbert et al. (2009)) and the simple
mechanical models for drive-in racks, actual impact forces are calculated and presented. Finally,
using the impact test results and the simple mechanical models, the actual motion of the forklift
truck body is calculated. This motion, being a common characteristic to all drive-in racking
impacts, allows impact forces to be obtained for various pallet loads, impact elevations and rack
characteristics. Thus, the report concludes with a general method for calculating forces generated
under forklift truck impact.

Keywords:
Steel storage rack, drive-in rack, impact force.
Determination of accidental forklift truck impact forces on drive-in steel rack structures October 2009

2

Copyright Notice

School of Civil Engineering, Research Report R902
Determination of accidental forklift truck impact forces on drive-in steel rack structures
2009 Benoit P. Gilbert and Kim J.R. Rasmussen
Email: b.gilbert@usyd.edu.au
k.rasmussen@usyd.edu.au

ISSN 1833-2781

This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original form without the
consent of the copyright owner.

Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must be appropriately
referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the author.

Published by:
The University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA

October 2009

This report and other Research Reports published by the School of Civil Engineering are
available on the Internet:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au


3

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 7
2 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE FORKLIFT TRUCK..................................................................... 7
2.1 TEST SET-UP .................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 TEST RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 General results ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Simple mechanical model of the forklift truck........................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Static test results....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Dynamic test results ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.5 Damping ................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3 ADDITIONAL TESTS........................................................................................................................................ 19
2.4 FORKLIFT TRUCK SIMPLE MODEL SUMMARY................................................................................................. 20
3 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF DRIVE-IN RACK.................................................................................. 20
3.1 SIMPLE MECHANICAL MODEL FOR DRIVE-IN RACKS...................................................................................... 20
3.2 MODEL CALIBRATION.................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Finding m
o
and C
o
.................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Finding m
u
and C
u
.................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.3 Results....................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 VALIDATION OF THE RACK MODEL................................................................................................................ 25
4 IMPACT FORCES.............................................................................................................................................. 26
5 COMBINING THE MODELS FOR THE RACK AND FORKLIFT TRUCK........................................... 27
6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORKLIFT TRUCK BODY ROTATION........................................................ 30
7 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 1: Static test results on forklift truck
Appendix 2: Additional test results on forklift truck
Appendix 3: Rack linear damping vs frictional damping
Appendix 4: Comparison impact test results to Equation 40

4

Nomenclature

The following symbols are used through the report.

C
o
Damping coefficient of the overall rack
C
T
Damping coefficient of the forklift truck mast
C
u
Damping coefficient of the impacted upright
d
52
Displacement of LVDT 52
d
53
d
J
Horizontal distance between one tilt jack to the centreline of the mast
d
o
Overall rack displacement at the impact point in the companion research report
Gilbert et al. (2009)
d
u
Impacted rack relative displacement at the impact point in the companion research
report Gilbert et al. (2009)
d
w
Vertical distance between the floor and the forklift truck front wheel axis
DE Damping energy of the forklift truck
F Jack force
F
imp
Impact force
F
imp,i
Impact force at time it
F
u
Friction force between rail beams and pallets inducing frictional damping of the
impacted upright
h Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the tilt hydraulic jacks
H Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the centreline of the pallet
H
COG
Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the centre of gravity of the load
k
B
Forklift truck mast bending rotational stiffness
k
J
Tilt hydraulic jack longitudinal stiffness
k
o
Overall rack longitudinal stiffness
k
T
Forklift truck mast torsional rotational stiffness
k
u
Impacted upright longitudinal stiffness
KE Kinetic energy of the forklift truck
l
1
Horizontal distance from the forklift truck front wheel axis to the centreline of the
mast
l
2
Horizontal distance from the centreline of the mast to the impact point
l
3
Horizontal distance from the centreline of the mast to the centre of gravity of load
m Combined mass of the forklift truck load, pallet (50kgs) and forks (50 kgs)
m
o
Overall rack associated mass
m
u
Impacted upright associated mass
M
B
Forklift truck mast bending moment
M
T
Forklift truck mast torsional moment
PE Potential energy of the forklift truck
T
o
Overall rack natural period
x
F
Displacement of associated mass m
u
or displacement d
o
+d
u
in the companion
research report Gilbert et al. (2009)
x
F,i
u
at time it
x
o
o
or displacement d
o
in the companion research
x
o,i
o
at time it
X
F,1
, X
F,2
Constants in x
F
solution depending on initial conditions

4

Nomenclature

The following symbols are used through the report.

C
o
Damping coefficient of the overall rack
C
T
Damping coefficient of the forklift truck mast
C
u
Damping coefficient of the impacted upright
d
52
d
53
d
J
Horizontal distance between one tilt jack to the centreline of the mast
d
o
Overall rack displacement at the impact point in the companion research report
Gilbert et al. (2009)
d
u
Impacted rack relative displacement at the impact point in the companion research
d
w
Vertical distance between the floor and the forklift truck front wheel axis
DE Damping energy of the forklift truck
F Jack force
F
imp
Impact force
F
imp,i
Impact force at time it
F
u
Friction force between rail beams and pallets inducing frictional damping of the
impacted upright
h Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the tilt hydraulic jacks
H Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the centreline of the pallet
H
COG
Vertical distance from the centreline of the bottom connection between the mast and
the forklift truck to the centre of gravity of the load
k
B
Forklift truck mast bending rotational stiffness
k
J
Tilt hydraulic jack longitudinal stiffness
k
o
Overall rack longitudinal stiffness
k
T
Forklift truck mast torsional rotational stiffness
k
u
Impacted upright longitudinal stiffness
KE Kinetic energy of the forklift truck
l
1
Horizontal distance from the forklift truck front wheel axis to the centreline of the
mast
l
2
Horizontal distance from the centreline of the mast to the impact point
l
3
Horizontal distance from the centreline of the mast to the centre of gravity of load
m Combined mass of the forklift truck load, pallet (50kgs) and forks (50 kgs)
m
o
Overall rack associated mass
m
u
Impacted upright associated mass
M
B
Forklift truck mast bending moment
M
T
Forklift truck mast torsional moment
PE Potential energy of the forklift truck
T
o
Overall rack natural period
x
F
u
or displacement d
o
+d
u
in the companion
research report Gilbert et al. (2009)
x
F,i
u
at time it
x
o
o
or displacement d
o
in the companion research
x
o,i
o
at time it
X
F,1
, X
F,2
Constants in x
F

5

X
o
,
o
Constants in x
o
Forklift truck body rotation
1
,
2
Beta function continuous boundary parameters
1
,
2
Beta function continuous shape parameters
t Impact tests recording time step
1
,
2
Overdamping constants
1
Bending rotational angle of the forklift truck mast
2
Torsional rotational angle of the forklift truck mast
Forklift truck natural angular frequency
o
Overall rack natural angular frequency
u
Impacted upright natural angular frequency
o
Overall rack average damping ratio


6


7

1 INTRODUCTION

This report addresses the problem of determining the accidental forklift truck impact forces on
steel storage racks. As presented in the companion research report (Gilbert et al. (2009)),
different types of forklift truck impact can occur on steel storage racks. This report focuses on
down-aisle impacts occurring on drive-in racking structures but the methodology and methods
presented herein can be easily extended to any type of rack or steel structure in general.

Contrary to classical selective racks, by storing pallets on rail beams on the first-in, last-out
principle drive-in racks minimise floor space allocation and are often a more economical
alternative solution to selective racks. To allow the forklift passage, drive-in racks can only be
braced at the back (spine bracing) and at the top (plan bracing) leading to slender uprights in the
down-aisle direction, only restrained at the bottom by the base plate assembly and at the top by
the portal beam. When subjected to a forklift truck impact in the down-aisle direction, the
bowing of the upright may trigger progressive failure by allowing the pallets to drop through.

The literature review shows that no investigation is available for determining the accidental
forces that develop between a storage rack and a forklift truck during an impact. International
racking standards only consider arbitrary impact forces which have no scientific justification.
Furthermore these standards only deal with selective racks and are not applicable to drive-in
racks. The present study is motivated by the high failure rate of drive-in racks compared to other
types of racks and steel structures in general. Further details on the behaviour of drive-in racks
and available literature for this type of structure are given in the companion research report
(Gilbert et al. (2009)).

Based on first principles of mechanics, the report first develops a simple model of a loaded
forklift truck. Model masses, as well as stiffness and damping coefficients are calibrated against
experimental results obtained from isolated tests of an actual forklift truck. Subsequently, also
based on first principles of mechanics, a simple model of a loaded drive-in rack is developed.
Model masses, as well as stiffness and damping coefficients are calibrated against experimental
results. Comparisons between experimental results and solutions obtained from the simple
mechanical models show that the simple models accurately reproduce the static and dynamic
behaviours of the forklift truck and the loaded drive-in rack.

Using the result of experimental impact tests and the simple model of the drive-in rack, actual
impact forces are calculated and presented. Finally, using the experimental impact test results
and the two simple mechanical models, the actual motion of the forklift truck body is
determined. This motion, being a common characteristic to all drive-in racking impacts, allows
impact forces to be obtained for various pallet loads, impact elevations and rack characteristics.
Thus, the report concludes with a general method for calculating forces generated under forklift
truck impact.

2 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE FORKLIFT TRUCK

2.1 Test set-up

To measure the static and dynamic behaviour of a forklift truck, tests are performed on a
NICHIYU FB20 forklift truck model, 2 tons load capacity. Three different loads (300 kgs, 775
kgs and 1175 kgs) are placed sequentially on a pallet, with the centre line of the pallet located at
a distance H from the centre line of the bottom connection between the mast and the forklift
truck, as shown in Figure 1. H is set to be equal to the impact elevation associated with the

8

impact tests performed on a drive-in rack structure and presented in the companion research
report (Gilbert et al. (2009)). A hydraulic jack with a quick release system applies a horizontal
load in the impact direction at the location of the impact point with the rack. Two LVDTs
(Linear Velocity Differential Transformer) record the horizontal displacements of the pallet at
the jack location (LVDT 52) and of the forklift truck mast at the jack elevation (LVDT 53), as
shown in Figure 1. The location of the LVDTs allows the bending and torsion of the pallet/mast
system to be measured.

In the first phase, the jack pulls statically on the pallet at a low displacement rate and the static
stiffness of the forklift truck is recorded. In a second phase, the load is quickly released leaving
the system free to oscillate and the dynamic response of the system is recorded at a rate of 50 Hz.
Three tests are performed for each pallet load.

Figure 1: Forklift truck test set-up

2.2 Test results

2.2.1 General results

Figure 2 shows the result of a typical test performed on the forklift truck. During the static phase
of the test both LVDT 52 and 53 increase linearly with the load. During the dynamic phase of the
test, LVDT 52 and 53 have similar displacement frequencies and proportional amplitudes,
indicating that the bending or torsional responses of the mast are coupled. More test results can
be found in appendix 1.

-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Displacement(mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Ti me (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

(a) (b)
Figure 2: Typical forklift test result shown for the second test with a 775 kgs load, (a) Phase 1 -
Static and (b) Phase 2 - Dynamic

9

2.2.2 Simple mechanical model of the forklift truck

Typically, the mast of a forklift truck is attached to the forklift truck body at two distinct points.
A bottom hinge corresponding to the front wheel axis allows the mast to rotate forward and
backward while restraining the mast from rotating sideway. Two hydraulic jacks referred as the
tilt hydraulic jacks positioned at a distance h above the bottom hinge and on each side of the
mast control the tilting motion about the bottom hinge. A forklift truck has usually 2 wheels at
the front and 1 or 2 wheels at the back linked to the body by the means of shock absorbers.
Figure 3 (a) shows a photo of the NICHIYU FB20 forklift truck used in the experimental tests.

Figure 3 (b) shows a simple model of the forklift truck, in which a vertical member at a
horizontal distance l
1
from the bottom hinge represents the mast and a horizontal member at a
vertical distance H from the base of the mast represents the forks. A rotational stiffness k
B

representing the rotational stiffness of the bottom hinge combined with the rotational stiffness
provided by the forklift truck shock absorbers restrains the mast from rotating sideway about its
base. Two horizontal springs with stiffness k
J
, located at a distance d
J
on each side of the mast,
represent the tilt hydraulic jacks and restrain the mast against torsion. Due to the nature of their
connections with the mast, the two tilt hydraulic jacks are considered to be pinned at theirs
extremities, unable to transfer shear.

(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) NICHIYU FB20 forklift truck and (b) forklift truck simple model

The system shown in Figure 3 (b) is simplified to the statically equivalent model given in Figure
4, in which the tilt hydraulic jacks are replaced by an equivalent single torsional spring, stiffness
k
T
. The bending stiffness k
B
is kept as in Figure 3 (b).


10

Figure 4: Forklift truck equivalent simplified model

2.2.3 Static test results

The bending stiffness k
B
and torsional stiffness k
T
of the forklift truck mast are calculated from
the test results as,

H F k M
B B
= =
1
(1)
( )
2 1 2
l l F k M
T T
+ = = (2)
where M
B
and M
T
are the bending and torsional moments induced by the jack force F
respectively, l
1
is the horizontal distance from the forklift truck front wheel axis to the centreline
of the mast and l
2
is the horizontal distance from the centreline of the mast to the impact point.
1

and
2
represent the bending and torsional angles respectively, as shown in Figure 4. For small
displacements,
1
and
2
are given by,

( )
1 2 53 1
.
1
l d
H
= (3)

2
53 52
2
l
d d
= (4)
where d
52
and d
53
are the recorded displacements of LVDTs 52 and 53 respectively. The stiffness
k
B
and k
T
are hence calculated combining equations 1 to 4 as,

2
1
52
2
1
53
2
1
.
l
l
d
l
l
d
H F
k
B
+
= (5)

11

( )
53 52
2 2 1
.
d d
l l l F
k
T
+
= (6)
Table 1 gives the values of k
B
and k
T
found for each experimental test using a linear interpolation
during the static phase and the values of H, l
1
and l
2
given in Table 2. Detailed test results are
given in Appendix 1.

Load = 300 kg Load = 775 kg Load = 1175 kg
k
B

(kN.mm/rad)
k
T

(kN.mm/rad)
k
B

(kN.mm/rad)
k
T

(kN.mm/rad)
k
B

(kN.mm/rad)
k
T

(kN.mm/rad)
Test 1 849150 84251 783666 126992 875916 138953
Test 2 923214 94981 853181 144406 855504 158301
Test 3 973469 86538 868941 137370 877724 147748
Average 915278 88590 835263 136256 869715 148334
Table 1: Static test results stiffness

H (mm) H
CoG
(mm) l
1
(mm) l
2
(mm) l
3
(mm) d
W
(mm)
2425 2648 200 1230 730 250
Table 2: Dimension values for tests

It is observed from Table 1 that while the bending rotational stiffness k
B
is essentially constant
with increasing pallet load, the torsional stiffness k
T
increases with the pallet load. The increase
in stiffness k
T
is related to the increase in oil pressure in the tilt hydraulic jacks required to
prevent the mast from tilting forward when increasing the pallet load. The increase in oil
pressure increases the stiffness k
J
and hence the stiffness k
T
.

In view of the results shown in Table 1, throughout this report k
B
is considered constant for all
pallet loads and equal to its mean value 873418 kN.mm/rad. k
T
is considered to vary with the
pallet load and linear interpolation is performed in Table 1 to obtain k
T
for pallet loads between
300 kg and 1175 kg. For pallet load less than 300 kgs or greater than 1175 kgs, k
T
is taken as
88590 kN.mm/rad and 148334 kN.mm/rad respectively.

2.2.4 Dynamic test results

The mass m representing the combined mass of the load, the pallet and forks is now added to the
static model of the forklift truck to create a combined static and dynamic mechanical model. The
mass m is considered at the centre of gravity of the load, i.e. at a vertical distance H
CoG
from the
base of the mast and at a horizontal distance l
3
from the centreline of the mast. The pallet mass
and the mass of the forks are estimated to be 50 kgs each. The model for the dynamic analysis is
shown in Figure 5.


12

Figure 5: Simple model of forklift truck for dynamic analysis

In the model presented in Figure 5, the kinetic energy KE and potential energy PE for small
displacements are equal to:

( )
2
2 3 1 1
. .
2
1
+ + =

l l H m KE
COG
(7)

2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1

T B
k k PE + = (8)
and using the Lagrange equations (Bangash (1993)), the equations of motion for
1
and
2
under
no external loads are obtained as,

0
1 1
1
=
PE KE KE
dt
d
(9)
0
2 2
2
=
PE KE KE
dt
d
(10)
which gives,

( ) 0 . . . . . .
2 3 1 1 1
2
= + + +

l l H m k H m
COG B COG
(11)
( ) ( ) 0 . . . . . .
1 3 1 2 2
2
3 1
= + + + +

l l H m k l l m
COG T
(12)
The solution to equations 11 and 12 is in the form
1
= A.sin(t +
A
) and
2
= B.sin(t +
B
)
where A and B are constant amplitudes, and
A
and
B
are constant phases. A, B,
A
and
B
are
determined from initial conditions. Substituting this solution into equations 11 and 12, the
natural angular frequencies
i
of the system shown in equations 11 and 12 is found using the
determinant method as,


13

( )
( ) ( )
0
. . . . .
. . . . .
2
3 1
2
3 1
2
3 1
2 2 2
=
+ + +
+ +
T i COG i
COG i B COG i
k l l m l l H m
l l H m k H m

(13)
Equation 13 allows a unique solution given by,

( ) ( )
B T COG
T B
k l l k H m
k k
. .
.
2
3 1
2
+ +
= (14)
and the associated eigenvalue vector is,

( )

+
=
T COG
B
k H
k l l
.
.
1
3 1
2
1
(15)
Table 3 gives the natural frequencies calculated using a Fourier Transform of the dynamic
experimental tests and the natural frequencies calculated using equation 14. In equation 14, the
values of k
B
and k
T
found in Section 2.2.3 are used with the distances (l
1
, l
3
, H
CoG
) given in Table
2 in which H
CoG
is the average value for the 3 different loads.

f (hz) f (hz) f (hz)
Test 1 1.74 1.42 1.27
Test 2 1.73 1.44 1.28
Test 3 1.75 1.35 1.29
Average 1.74 1.40 1.28
Equation (14) 1.91 1.40 1.20
Difference (%) 8.73 0.09 7.04
Table 3: Natural frequency of forklift truck

Table 3 shows an excellent agreement between the experimental test results and solution
obtained from the simple mechanical model introduced in Figure 5.

2.2.5 Damping

To complete the static and dynamic model introduced in Section 2.2.4, damping is now
introduced. Damping is found to be a drag force damping type, i.e. proportional to the square
of the velocity. This type of damping is found when an oscillator is immersed into a fluid and is,
for the forklift truck, related to the action of the tilt hydraulic jacks. Being significant, this
torsional damping from the tilt hydraulic jacks is considered to be the predominant source of
energy loss in the system and all other sources of damping are ignored. Figure 6 shows the
complete static and dynamic forklift truck model where C
T
represents the torsional damping
coefficient.


14

Figure 6: Complete simple model of forklift truck for dynamic model

For the complete model presented in Figure 6, the kinetic energy KE and the potential energy PE
given in equations 7 and 8 respectively are unchanged, while the damping energy DE from the
generalised Rayleigh dissipation function is given as,

=
2
2 2
3
1

T
C DE (16)
The equations of motion for
1
and
2
under external loading are obtained using the Lagrange
equations,

H F M
DE PE KE KE
dt
d
B
.
1
1 1
1
= =
(17)
( )
2 1
2
2 2
2
. l l F M
DE PE KE KE
dt
d
T
+ = =
(18)
which gives,

( ) H F l l H m k H m
COG B COG
. . . . . . .
2 3 1 1 1
2
= + + +

(19)
( ) ( ) ( )
2 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2
2
3 1
. . . . . . . . . l l F l l H m C k l l m
COG T T
+ = + + + + +

(20)
A third equation of motion can be found by linearly combining the two previous equations,

( ) ( )
( )
+
+
=
+
+

2 1
3 1
2 2 2
3 1
1
. . . . l l
l l
H
H F C k
l l
H
k
COG
T T
COG
B
(21)
The damping coefficient C
T
is calculated against experimental test results by numerically solving
equations 19 and 20 using the commercial software FlexPDE (2008). The initial state (t = 0 sec)

15

is considered before releasing the jack load F. The quick release system being not strictly perfect,
the load F was found to decrease linearly from its initial value to zero in 0.16 to 0.26 sec. The
decreasing rate of F is considered for each test when solving equations 19 and 20 numerically.
Figure 7 shows a typical input of the jack load F in FlexPDE. The initial conditions used in
FlexPDE are given in equation 22.
1
is chosen equal to the experimental test value before
releasing the jack load, while
2
is chosen to satisfy equation 21 using
1
and the first time
derivative of
2
equal to 0. The sudden change in the jack force F introduces major
discontinuities in the system which can not be solved by FlexPDE, yet introducing initial minor
oscillations for
1
and
2
allows equations 19 and 20 to be solved numerically. To satisfy
equation 1 and to introduce initial oscillations in the system, F is input as 97% of k
B
.
1
/H, a
difference of 3% between the actual jack load F and its initial value introduced in FlexPDE tends
to be a good compromise between a sufficient amount of oscillations for
1
and
2
and a value of
F close to its actual value.

( ) ( )
( )
= =
+
+

+
=
=
=

0
.
%. 97
, 2 , 1
2 1
3 1
, 1
3 1
, 2
, 1
1 , 1
initial initial
COG T
initial
iniital
T
B
COG
initial
initial B
initial
test al experiment , initial
l l H
H
l l
k
F
k
k
H
l l
H
k
F

(22)

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Time (sec)
F
o
r
c
e
Time needed for the the load to
drop to zero is inputed as per
each individual test charasteristic
Finital =97%.kB.1/H

Figure 7: Input load when calculating C
T

C
T
is found by best matching the numerical results to the experimental test results. The obtained
values of C
T
are given in Table 4. Figure 8 to Figure 10 show the experimental and numerical
results for all tests and for the values of C
T
given in Table 4. Initial minor oscillations introduced
in the system can be noticed in Figure 8 to Figure 10 before the release of the jack force F.

C
T

(kN.mm.s/rad)
C
T

(kN.mm.s/rad)
C
T

(kN.mm.s/rad)
Test 1 330000 800000 1200000
Test 2 270000 1000000 1300000
Test 3 290000 250000 1300000
Average 296667 683333 1266667
Table 4: Calculated damping coefficients C
T


16

-0.007
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)
Test 1 - Theta 1, test result
Test 1 - Theta 1, FlexPDE

(a)
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(b)
-0.007
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)
Test 3 - Theta 1, flexPDE

(c)
Figure 8: Forklift truck dynamic test results and FlexPDE numerical results for a 300 kg pallet
load for (a) test 1 with C
T
= 330000 kN.mm.s/rad, (b) test 2 with C
T
= 270000 kN.mm.s/rad,
(c) test 3 with C
T
= 290000 kN.mm.s/rad

17

-0.004
-0.003
-0.002
-0.001
0
0.001
0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(a)
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(b)
-0.014
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(c)
Figure 9: Forklift truck dynamic test results and FlexPDE numerical results for a 775 kg pallet
load for (a) test 1 with C
T
T
= 1000000
kN.mm.s/rad, (c) test 3 with C
T
= 250000 kN.mm.s/rad

18

-0.0035
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(a)
-0.0035
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(b)
-0.0035
-0.003
-0.0025
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (sec)
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

(c)
Figure 10: Forklift truck dynamic test results and FlexPDE numerical results for a 1175 kg
pallet load for (a) test 1 with C
T
T
= 1300000
kN.mm.s/rad, (c) test 3 with C
T
= 1300000 kN.mm.s/rad

19

It is observed that the damping coefficient C
T
increases with the pallet load which is probably
related to the hydraulic pressure in the tilt jacks increasing with the pallet load. As for k
T
, C
T
can
be linearly interpolated in Table 4 for different pallet loads.

2.3 Additional tests

To check the accuracy of the simple forklift truck model at different fork elevations, three
additional tests with a 1175 kgs load are conducted at an elevation H equal to 4675 mm and H
CoG

equal to 4990 mm. Tests are performed following the same procedure described in Section 2.1,
except that only LVDT 52 is positioned on the structure. Table 5 shows the stiffness F/d
52

obtained from the experimental test results and the predicted stiffness obtained by combining
equations 3 to 4 as,

( )
2 1 2 1 52
. . l l H d + + = (23)
which gives using equations 1 to 2,

( ) ( )
T B
k
l l
k
H
F
l l
F
H
F
d
2
2 1
2
2 1 2 1 52
. . +
+ =
+
+ =

(24)
For equation 24 in Table 5, the values of k
B
and k
T
found in Section 2.2.3 are used with the
distances (l
1
, l
2
) given in Table 2 and the new value of H of 4675 mm.

F/d
52
(kN/mm)
Test 1 0.0147
Test 2 0.0123
Test 3 0.0144
Average 0.0138
Simplified model (equation 24) 0.0257
Table 5: Additional test results, stiffness

The stiffness F/d
52
obtained from the simple forklift truck model is twice the stiffness obtained
from the additional experimental test stiffness. This difference is partially related to the
telescopic mast of the forklift truck, since, unlike the first series of tests, the telescopic mast is
now extended providing an additional looseness in torsion. Moreover, in a forklift truck, in order
to keep the pallet horizontal, the mast has to be slightly tilted backward, moving the centre of
gravity of the load closer to the forklift truck body and hence reducing the pressure in the tilt
hydraulic jacks and stiffness k
T
. If we assume that the difference in stiffness F/d
52
only arises
from the additional looseness in torsion, the new value of k
T
at H equal to 4675 mm can be
calculated from d
52
using equation 24 as,

( )
1
2
52
2
2 1
1

+
=
B
T
k
H
F
d
l l
k (25)
The average k
T
value is found to be equal to 43104 kN.mm/rad for the additional experimental
tests. The natural frequency of each additional experimental test is calculated using a Fourier
transform and is reported in Table 6 as well as the natural frequency predicted from equation 14
using the new value of k
T.


20

The damping coefficient C
T
is also calculated for each additional experimental test based on the
procedure described in Section 2.2.5. The results are reported in Table 6 and detailed in
Appendix 2.

f (Hz) C
T
(kN.mm.s/rad)
Test 1 0.717 600000
Test 2 0.716 300000
Test 3 0.731 600000
Average 0.721 500000
Equation (14) 0.640 --
Difference (%) 11.23
Table 6: Additional test results, frequency and damping

It appears from Table 6 that the simple model predicts the natural frequency of the system well.
However the damping coefficient is less than half the value obtained in the first series of tests as
per Table 4, most likely because of the reduced pressure in the tilt hydraulic jacks.

2.4 Forklift truck simple model summary

To summarise, the proposed simple model of the forklift truck is proved to realistically
reproduce the static and dynamic behaviour of an actual forklift truck. Section 2.3 tends to show
that additional experimental tests should be conducted to accurately capture the forklift truck
behaviour at different load elevations. However, the variation in stiffness k
T
and damping
coefficient C
T
with the pallet elevation is now deliberately ignored and values of k
B
, k
T
and C
T

obtained from Section 2.2, Table 1 and Table 4 are used in the following sections. For a pallet
elevation higher than H = 2425 mm in Section 2.2, this assumption leads to a stiffer forklift truck
at the impact point than the actual forklift truck studied and consequently conservatism results
when determining the impact force in Section 4.

It may be noticed that the value of k
B
, k
T
and C
T
obtained from Section 2.2 are likely to change
with the forklift truck model, however the proposed simple model is found to be realistic.

3 STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR OF DRIVE-IN RACK

3.1 Simple mechanical model for drive-in racks

Impact tests on a drive-in rack structure loaded with two different pallet loading configurations
(namely Impact BC and Impact CD) have been performed using the forklift truck analysed
in Section 2. In impact BC, the pallets are not loaded in the vicinity of the impacted upright
allowing this upright to freely deform under impact. In impact CD, the pallets are loaded in the
vicinity of the impacted upright allowing the investigation of the restraining effect of the pallets
on the upright deformation. The complete test results are presented and detailed in the
companion research report.

When subjected to an impact force, a drive-in racking structure resists the impact by an overall
displacement of the structure and by bending of the impacted upright. The stiffness k
o
associated
to the overall displacement of the rack and the stiffness k
u
associated to the bending of the
impacted upright at the impact point were determined from static experimental tests. The test
results are detailed in the companion research report and values of k
o
and k
u
are reported in Table
7.

21

Impact BC Impact CD
k
o
(kN/mm) k
u
(kN/mm) k
o
(kN/mm) k
u
(kN/mm)
0.762 0.300 0.694 1.124
Table 7: Stiffness k
o
and k
u
from the companion research report

A simple mechanical model of a drive-in racking system is given in Figure 11 where m
o
and m
u

represent the associated masses of the overall rack displacement and the impacted upright
respectively. C
o
represents the damping coefficient of the overall rack and F
u
represents the
damping of the impacted upright in form of a friction force. While the overall damping is linear
due to classical energy loss in the system, the damping associated with the impacted upright is
non-linear and is generated by the friction between the pallets and the rail beams. In Figure 11,
F
imp
represents the impact force on the rack, x
F
represents the displacement of mass m
u
and x
o

represents the displacement of mass m
o
. For comparison, x
F
is equal to the sum d
o
+ d
u
of the
overall rack displacement and upright bending displacement at the impact point in the
companion research report and x
o
is equal to the overall rack displacement d
o
at the impact point
in the companion research report.

Figure 11: Rack simple mechanical model with frictional damping

The equations of motion for x
F
and x
o
of the system presented in Figure 11 are,

( )
imp o F u u
o
F F u
F x x k F x x sign x m = +
+

(26)
( ) 0 =
+ +

o F u u
o
F o o
o
o
o
o
x x k F x x sign x k x C x m (27)
In order to simplify the previous mechanical model, the frictional damper of the impacted
upright can be replaced by a linear damper without loss of accuracy as shown in Appendix 3.
The new simple mechanical model is shown in Figure 12 where C
u
is the linear damping
coefficient of the impacted upright.

Figure 12: Rack simple mechanical model

The new equations of motion for x
F
and x
o

22

( )
imp o F u
o
F u F u
F x x k x x C x m = +
+

(28)
( ) 0 =
+ +

o F u
o
F u o o
o
o
o
o
x x k x x C x k x C x m (29)

3.2 Model calibration

The mechanical model introduced in Figure 12 is now calibrated against the impact tests on a
drive-in rack structure introduced in Section 3.1 and detailed in the companion research report.

For a loaded rack, m
o
corresponding to the associated mass of the overall rack is likely to be
much greater than m
u
leading to k
u
/m
u
being much greater than k
o
/m
o
. In such a case, the two
natural angular frequencies
u
and
o
of the system can approximated by (k
u
/m
u
) and (k
o
/m
o
).

For both loading configurations Impact BC and Impact CD, the overall rack is found to be
underdamped while the impacted upright is found to be overdamped. The characteristic
displacement vector is then in the form,

( ) ( )
o o
t
m
C
o
t
F
t
F
o
F
t e X e X e X
x
x
o
o

+
+ +

cos
1
1
0
1
2 .
2 ,
.
1 ,
2 1
(30)
where X
F,1
, X
F,2
, X
o
and
o
are constants found using the initial conditions and
1
and
2
are
given (Bangash (1993)) as,

u
u
u u
u
u u
u
m
k
k m
C
k m
C
= 1
2 2
2
1
(31)

u
u
u u
u
u u
u
m
k
k m
C
k m
C
+ = 1
2 2
2
2
(32)

3.2.1 Finding m
o
and C
o

m
o
and C
o
are obtained from the experimental test results using the recorded overall rack
displacement d
o
after impact. m
o
is calculated from equation 33 and the natural period T
o

obtained from a Fourier transform on the rack free oscillations, while C
o
is obtained from the
logarithmic decrement given in equation 34 over one period T
o
. Figure 13 illustrates the above
method on a typical test result.

2
2

o
o o
T
k m (33)

23

( )
( )
+
=
o
T at t al experiment
at t al experiment
log
2
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
T
m
C (34)

-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Impact
To
xo at time t
xo at time t+To

Figure 13: d
o
displacement for Test 207 - Impact BC configuration

3.2.2 Finding m
u
and C
u

C
u
is obtained using equation 29 rearranged as,

( )
o
F
o F u o o
o
o
o
o
u
x x
x x k x k x C x m
C

+ +
= (35)
and by averaging the values of C
u
calculated for each experimental recording step t over the
first phase of the impact tests in which the overall rack essentially stays stationary while the
impacted upright bends. The different impact phases can be found in the companion research
report. In equation 35, the first time derivative of x
F
and the first and second time derivative of x
o

are obtained from central differences of the experimental test results as,

( ) ( )
t
t t x t t x
x
+
=
2
(36)

( ) ( ) ( )
2
2
t
t t x t x t t x
x
+ +
=

(37)
Impact experimental tests on a drive-in rack structure are recorded at 50 hz.

m
u
cannot satisfactory be obtained from previous equations and has to be estimated. In Impact
BC configuration only the impacted upright, part of the adjacent frame bracing and part of the
adjacent rail beams are associated with the relative displacement x
F
- x
o
, leading to a light mass
m
u
, estimated to be about 50 kgs. In addition to the previous masses in Impact BC
configuration, part of the adjacent pallets are also associated with the relative displacement of x
F

- x
o
in Impact CD configuration leading to a heavier mass m
u
, estimated to be about 1400 kgs.


24

3.2.3 Results

Values of m
o
, C
o
and C
u
are calculated for 30 tests representing 15 tests for Impact BC
configuration and 15 tests for Impact CD configuration and are reported in Table 8 and Table
9. Average values are summarised in Table 10.

Test Pallet load 1/T
o
(Hz) m
o
(kg)
C
o

(kN/(mm/s))
C
u

(kN/(mm/s))
151 1.131 15089.3 0.00419 0.0127
152 1.130 15116.1 0.00467 0.00797
153 1.123 15305.1 0.00510 0.0126
154 1.129 15142.8 0.00416 0.0142
162
300 kg
1.155 14468.8 0.00505 0.0155
105 1.141 14826.0 0.00576 0.0125
106 1.147 14671.3 0.00362 0.00817
112 1.124 15277.9 0.00395 0.0118
115 1.112 15609.4 0.00507 0.0141
118
775 kg
1.140 14852.0 0.00435 0.00838
205 1.149 14620.3 0.00398 0.00101
207 1.152 14544.2 0.00200 0.0103
212 1.139 14878.1 0.00401 0.0122
214 1.152 14544.2 0.00441 0.0155
218
1175 kg
1.150 14594.8 0.00425 0.00906
Average 1.133 15051.0 0.00425 0.01107
Table 8: m
o
, C
o
and C
u
for Impact BC configuration

Test Pallet load 1/T
o
(Hz) m
o
(kg)
C
o

(kN/(mm/s))
C
u

(kN/(mm/s))
52 1.111 14250.2 0.00598 0.1184
55 1.119 14047.2 0.00539 0.1004
56 1.100 14536.7 0.00693 0.1120
67 1.096 14643.0 0.00477 0.1457
69
300 kg
1.109 14301.7 0.00657 0.1152
8 1.091 14777.5 0.00436 0.0850
11 1.097 14616.3 0.00338 0.0599
21 1.097 14616.3 0.00572 0.1450
23 1.104 14431.5 0.00255 0.0970
27
775 kg
1.118 14072.3 0.00541 0.1200
34 1.119 14047.2 0.00516 0.1050
39 1.118 14072.3 0.00564 0.0668
43 1.113 14199.1 0.00383 0.0642
45 1.080 15080.0 0.00486 0.0795
49
1175 kg
1.122 13972.2 0.00325 0.0546
Average 1.106 14377.6 0.00492 0.0979
Table 9: m
o
, C
o
and C
u
for Impact CD configuration

25

Impact BC Impact CD
m
o

(kg)
C
o

(kN/(mm/s))
m
u

(kg)
C
u

(kN/(mm/s))
m
o

(kg)
C
o

(kN/(mm/s))
m
u

(kg)
C
u

(kN/(mm/s))
15051 0.00425 50 0.01107 14378 0.00492 1400 0.0979
Table 10: Summary of m
o
, m
u
, C
o
and C
u

It is observed from Table 10 that the overall rack average damping ratio
o
defined as in equation
38 is equal to 0.07% which is close to the typical value of damping ratio of 0.1% to 0.9% for
steel structures (Bangash (1993)).

o o
o
o
k m
C
2
= (38)

3.3 Validation of the rack model

In order to validate the simple mechanical model introduced in Figure 12, x
o
obtained from the
equation of motion 29 is compared to experimental test results by using x
F
from experimental
tests as input data. The equation is solved by either using FlexPDE (2008) or simple finite
difference numerical methods, applying central differences in equations 36 and 37 to x
F
and x
o
.
Equation 29 can be rewritten in terms of central differences as,

( )
( ) 0
2 2
2
1
, , ,
1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ,
2
1 , 2 , 1 ,
= +

+

+ + + +
i o i F u i o o
i o i o i F i F
u
i o i o
o
i i o i o
o
x x k x k
t
x x x x
C
t
x x
C
t
x x x
m i
(39)
where x
F,i
and x
o,i
are the values of x
F
and x
o
respectively at time it. x
o
is hence expressed as
the following series,

+ +
+
+
=
+
+
i F b
i F i F
u
i o
u o o
i o u o
o
u o o
i o
x k
t
x x
C
x
t
C C
t
m
x k k
t
m
t
C C
t
m
x i
,
1 , 1 ,
1 ,
2
,
2
2
1 ,
2
2
2
2
1
1
(40)
As the inertia of the overall rack is much greater than the inertia of the impacted upright, the rack
will stay stationary at the beginning of the impact leading to x
o,0
and x
o,1
taken equal to 0 mm as
initial conditions.

Figure 14 compares x
o
for a typical experimental test and the corresponding x
o
calculated from
equation 40. Comparisons for all tests in Table 8 and Table 9 are reported in Appendix 4.


26

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Impact duration
xo from equation (40) numerical
h d
xF or do+du from
experimental test
xo or do from
experimental

Figure 14: Comparison between x
o
from numerical methods and x
o
for Test 207 - Impact BC
configuration

The results show excellent agreement between the two values of x
o
both during and after the
impact, thus validating the simple mechanical model of the rack.

4 IMPACT FORCES

The impact force F
imp
developed between the forklift truck and the drive-in rack is now
calculated by solving equation 28 using FlexPDE (2008) or finite difference numerical methods,
with values of x
F
and x
o
obtained from experimental test as input data. Applying central
differences to x
F
and x
o
, F
imp
is obtained as,

( )
( )
i o i F u
i o i o i F i F
u
i F i F i F
u
x x k
t
x x x x
C
t
x x x
m i
, ,
1 , 1 , 1 , 1 ,
2
1 , , 1 ,
imp,i
2
2
F 0
+

+
=
+ + +
(41)
where F
imp,i
is the value of F
imp
at time it. Considering the impact force to be continuous and
not sudden, x
F,-1
, x
F,0
, x
o,-1
, x
o,0
are taken equal to 0 mm as initial conditions. Figure 15 shows the
impact force F
imp
for all tests reported in Table 8 and Table 9, calculated using the average
values of m
u
, C
u
and k
u
given in Table 7 and Table 10.

-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
300 kg forklift truck pallet load
300 kg pallets sliding
-1
0
1
2
3
4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)

(a) (b)
Figure 15: Impact forces for (a) Impact BC configuration and (b) Impact CD configuration

The sliding of the 300 kgs pallet loads mentioned in the companion research report is observed
in Figure 15 where the impact load increases to a plateau corresponding to the pallet sliding on

27

the forks. The sliding lasts about 0.3 sec, then the impact force increases again until the forklift
loses contact with the rack.

If the pallet sliding effect is omitted, it is observed from Figure 15 that the impact load is rather
consistent for each impact configuration and reaches a maximum between 0.1 sec and 0.12 sec
for Impact BC configuration and between 0.08 sec and 0.1 sec for Impact CD configuration.
The impact loads are greater for Impact CD configuration than for Impact BC configuration,
because of the greater inertia of the impacted upright in Impact CD configuration.

5 COMBINING THE MODELS FOR THE RACK AND FORKLIFT TRUCK

In order to combine the mechanical model of the forklift truck with any rack model representing
different rack configurations, pallet loads and impact elevations, a common characteristic to all
impacts on drive-in racking structures has to be found. Typically the impact of a forklift truck on
a storage rack is induced by the rotation of the forklift truck body about its front wheel axis as
shown in Figure 16. The rotation of the forklift truck body will essentially remain the same for
all impacts on drive-in racking structures and can be taken as a common input into a combined
forklift truck and rack model. Hence impact forces and displacement at the impact point can be
calculated from the combined model.

Figure 16: Forklift impact on drive-in racking structure

Typically the front wheel axis of a forklift truck corresponds to the bottom hinge connection of
the mast with the forklift truck body. Figure 17 shows the simple mechanical model of the
forklift truck introduced in Figure 6 rotated about the front wheel axis by an angle .

For small displacements, the kinetic energy KE of the forklift truck in equation 7 is rewritten as,

( )
2
2
3 1 1
2
1
+ + + =

l l H m KE
COG
(42)
The potential energy PE and damping energy DE in equations 8 and 16 respectively are
unchanged. The equations of motion for ,
1
and
2
under external loading are obtained using
the Lagrange equations,


28

H F M
DE PE KE KE
dt
d
imp B
.
1
1 1
1
= =
(43)
( )
2 1
2
2 2
2
. l l F M
DE PE KE KE
dt
d
imp T
+ = =
(44)

Figure 17: Rotating motion of the forklift truck mechanical model

which gives,

( ) ( ) H F l l H m l l H m k H m
imp COG COG B COG
. . . . . . . . . .
3 1 2 3 1 1 1
2
= + + + + +

(45)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 1
2
3 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2
2
3 1
. . . . . . . . . . . l l F l l m l l H m C k l l m
imp COG T T
+ = + + + + + + +

(46)
Using the geometrical relationship,

( )( ) + + + =
2 2 1 1
. . l l H x
F
(47)
the above equations of motion can be rewritten for
2
and as,

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) H F l l
H
k
l l
H
H
l l H m
x
H
k
x
H
H
m l l
H
k
l l
H
H
l l H m
imp
B COG
COG
F
B
F
COG B COG
COG
. . .
. .
2 1 2 1 3 1
2
2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1
= +
+ + +
+ + +
+ +

(48)

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1
3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 1
.
. . .
l l F l l
H
H
l l l l m
x l l
H
H
m C k l l
H
H
l l l l m
imp
COG
F
COG
T T
COG
+ =
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + +

(49)

29

is obtained solving equations 48 and 49 using the software FlexPDE with x
F
taken from
experimental impact test results, F
imp
calculated as per Section 4 and values from Table 1, Table
2 and Table 4. Involving simpler equations, it is worth noting that convergence in FlexPDE is
only obtained by solving equations 48 and 49 for +
2
and
2
instead of and
2
. is then
retrieved by subtracting
2
from +
2
. The initial conditions of the impact are given in equation
50, i.e. and
2
are taken equal to 0 as are x
F
and F
imp
. The second time derivate of +
2
is
chosen to satisfy equation 48, in which the initial second time derivative of x
F
is calculated by
FlexPDE (2008) from the experimental data.

( ) ( )
=
=
+ +
= +
=
=

0
0
0
0
,
,
2 3 1
,
, 2
, 2
initial imp
initial F
1
COG
initial F
COG
initial
initial
initial
initial
F
x

l l
H
H
- l l
x
H
H

(50)
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show calculated for all tests reported in Table 8 and Table 9
respectively. is only plotted in the domain of validity of equations 48 and 49, i.e. when there is
contact between the pallet and the rack considered to be until the impact force reaches zero in
Figure 15. If the sliding of the pallet is omitted, results show that is consistent for all tests and
reaches its maximum value at about 0.15 sec. After 0.15 sec, starts decreasing progressively
reflecting the loss of contact between the impacting pallet and the rack beyond the first phase of
the impact, where the bay opening is maximum as detailed in the companion research report.

It is observed that when the maximum impact load is reached between 0.08 sec and 0.12 sec in
Figure 15, is still increasing. The maximum average value of at 0.15 sec is equal to 0.023
rad.

is approximated as a multi-linear curve by averaging the results shown in Figure 18 and Figure
19 over the first critical 0.15 sec (see Figure 20), the multi-linear approximation can be used as
input in Finite Element models or in solving the equations of motion 28, 29, 48 and 49 for
1
,
2
,
x
F
and x
o
to obtain the impact force and rack displacement under impact.

-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t

b
o
d
y

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)
Multilinear approximation

Figure 18: Forklift truck body rotation for Impact BC configuration


30

-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t

b
o
d
y

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)
Multilinear approximation

Figure 19: Forklift truck body rotation for Impact CD configuration

0.15, 0.023
0.07, 0.005
0.03, 0.001
0, 0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (sec)
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t

b
o
d
y

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
)

Figure 20: Multi-linear approximation of

6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORKLIFT TRUCK BODY ROTATION

For reliability purposes, the distribution of the maximum forklift truck body rotation is
calculated. This maximum rotation is taken as the rotation at the crest of the curves shown in
Figure 18 and Figure 19. The forklift truck body rotation is obtained following the method
described in Section 5 for all acceptable impact tests mentioned in the companion research report
(Gilbert et al. (2009)). The sliding of the 300 kgs pallet is taken into account by considering the
maximum rotation before or after the slide of the pallet. The obtained distribution is reported in
Figure 21 and Table 11.

A beta distribution is found to provide the best fit for the distribution of the maximum forklift
truck body rotation with continuous shape parameters
1
and
2
and well as continuous boundary
parameters
1
and
2
given in Table 12. The Beta probability density function (PDF) f
B
() is
defined as,
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
1
1 2
1
2
1
1
2 1
2 1
2 1
,
1
+

B
f
B
(51)
where B(
1
,
2
) is the Beta function given as,

31

( ) ( )

=
1
0
1 1
2 1
2 1
1 , dt t t B

(52)

The characteristics of the Beta function are further detailed in the companion report Gilbert et al.
(2009).

Forklift truck body rotation distribution
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
.
2
0
4

-

0
.
4
3
1
0
.
4
3
1

-

0
.
6
5
7
0
.
6
5
7

-

0
.
8
8
4
0
.
8
8
4

-

1
.
1
1
0
1
.
1
1
0

-

1
.
3
3
7
1
.
3
3
7

-

1
.
5
6
3
1
.
5
6
3

-

1
.
7
9
0
1
.
7
9
0

-

2
.
0
1
6
2
.
0
1
6

-

2
.
2
4
3
2
.
2
4
3

-

2
.
4
6
9
2
.
4
6
9

-

2
.
6
9
6
2
.
6
9
6

-

2
.
9
2
2
2
.
9
2
2

-

3
.
1
4
9
3
.
1
4
9

-

3
.
3
7
5
3
.
3
7
5

-

3
.
6
0
2
3
.
6
0
1

-

3
.
8
2
8
3
.
8
2
8

-

4
.
0
5
4
4
.
0
5
4

-

4
.
2
8
1
4
.
2
8
1

-

4
.
5
0
7
4
.
5
0
7

-

4
.
7
3
4
Forklift truck body rotation (10
-2
rad)
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

(
%
)
Mean, r =2.3e-2 rad
Beta function

Figure 21: Maximum forklift truck body rotation distribution

Maximum forklift truck body rotation
(rad)
Occurrence Occurrence (%)
0.00204 - 0.00431 3 2.59
0.00431 - 0.00657 2 1.72
0.00657 - 0.00884 4 3.45
0.00884 - 0.01110 5 4.31
0.01110 - 0.01337 9 7.76
0.01337 - 0.01563 11 9.48
0.01563 - 0.01790 8 6.90
0.01790 - 0.02016 6 5.17
0.02016 - 0.02243 4 3.45
0.02243 - 0.02469 10 8.62
0.02469 - 0.02696 13 11.21
0.02696 - 0.02922 6 5.17
0.02922 - 0.03149 6 5.17
0.03149 - 0.03375 9 7.76
0.03375 - 0.03602 5 4.31
0.03601 - 0.03828 5 4.31
0.03828 - 0.04054 6 5.17
0.04054 - 0.04281 2 1.72
0.04281 - 0.04507 1 0.86
0.04507 - 0.04734 1 0.86
Total 116 100
Table 11: Maximum forklift truck body rotation distribution


32

1

2

1
(rad)
2
(rad)
2.2135 2.5423 0 4.8410
-2

Table 12: Beta distribution parameters

7 CONCLUSION

Based on first principles of mechanics, this report proposes simple models for a loaded forklift
truck impacting with a loaded steel drive-in rack. Model masses, as well as stiffness and
damping coefficients are calibrated against experimental results obtained from tests of a forklift
truck and a drive-in rack structure. The simple models are found to accurately reproduce the
static and dynamic behaviour of the forklift truck and drive-in rack.

The impact forces developed between the forklift truck and the drive-in rack are calculated using
the simple rack model and impact tests on a drive-in rack structure presented in a companion
research report (Gilbert et al. (2009)). Finally, combining the two simple mechanical models and
using the impact test results, the actual forklift truck body rotation during impact is calculated.
This motion, assumed to be a common characteristic to all drive-in racking impacts, allows
impact forces to be obtained for various pallet loads, impact elevations and rack characteristics.
Thus, the report concludes with a general method for calculating forces generated under forklift
truck impact.

REFERENCES

Bangash, M. Y. H. (1993), Impact and explosion, analysis and design, CRC Press Inc., Boca
Raton, Florida, USA
FlexPDE (2008), FlexPDE 5.1.0s, User guide, PDE Solutions Inc.,
Gilbert, B. P., Rasmussen, K. J. R. & Zhang, H. (2009), Research Report R903, Impact tests and
parametric impact studies on drive-in steel storage racks, School of Civil Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Australia

Appendix 1 - 1 -

APPENDIX 1

Static test results on forklift truck
Appendix 1 - 2 -
Static test on forklift truck Test 1 300 kgs load

y =-0.031x +0.0267
y =-0.0961x +0.0176
y =-0.0456x +0.0316
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53


y =-0.0359x +0.0027 y =-0.054x +0.0036
y =-0.1066x +0.0013
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53

Appendix 1 - 3 -

y =-0.0338x +0.0193
y =-0.0492x +0.0253
y =-0.107x +0.0071
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53


y =-0.0424x - 0.0105
y =-0.0722x - 0.0101
y =-0.1025x - 0.0109
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53

Appendix 1 - 4 -

y =-0.0476x - 0.0009
y =-0.0821x +0.0007
y =-0.1127x - 0.003
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53


y =-0.0464x +0.0021
y =-0.0781x +0.0025
y =-0.1125x +0.003
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53

Appendix 1 - 5 -

y =-0.0453x +0.0052
y =-0.0761x +0.0031
y =-0.1114x +0.0087
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53


y =-0.1152x +0.0082
y =-0.0855x +0.0329 y =-0.0492x +0.022
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53

Appendix 1 - 6 -

y =-0.1158x
y =-0.0815x +0.0162
y =-0.0478x +0.0097
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52
LVDT 53
LVDT 52 -LVDT 53

Appendix 2 - 1 -

APPENDIX 2

Additional test results
Appendix 2 - 2 -
Static test on forklift truck Additional test 1 1175 kgs load

y =-0.0147x
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52


y =-0.0123x
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52

Appendix 2 - 3 -

y =-0.0144x
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Displacement (mm)
J
a
c
k

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
LVDT 52

Dynamic test on forklift truck Additional test 1 1175 kgs load CT = 600000 kN.mm.s/rad

-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Appendix 2 - 4 -

-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5


-0.014
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Appendix 3 - 1 -

APPENDIX 3

Rack linear damping vs frictional
damping
Appendix 3 - 2 -
The damping associated with the impacted upright is non-linear and is generated by the friction
between the pallets and the rail beams as shown in Figure 1, where F
u
represents the friction
force.

Figure 1: Rack simple mechanical model with frictional damping

The equations of motion for x
F
and x
o

( )
imp o F u u
o
F F u
F x x k F x x sign x m = +
+

(A3.1)

( ) 0 =
+ +

o F u u
o
F o o
o
o
o
o
x x k F x x sign x k x C x m (A3.2)

To simplify the previous mechanical model, the frictional damper of the impacted upright can be
replaced by a linear damper without loss of accuracy. The new simple mechanical model is
shown in Figure 2 where C
u
is the damping coefficient of the impacted upright.

Figure 2: Rack simple mechanical model

The new equations of motion for x
F
and x
o

( )
imp o F u
o
F u F u
F x x k x x C x m = +
+

(A3.3)

( ) 0 =
+ +

o F u
o
F u o o
o
o
o
o
x x k x x C x k x C x m (A3.4)

As introduced in the report C
u
is calculated using equation A3.4 over the first phase of the
impact test. On the same principle F
u
is calculated using equation A3.2 over the first phase of the
impact test as,

Appendix 3 - 3 -

( )

+ +
=

o
F
o F u o o
o
o
o
o
u
x x sign
x x k x k x C x m
F (A3.5)

Table 1 gives the value of C
u
and F
u
calculated for test 207.

C
u
(kN/(mm/s)) F
u
(kN)
0.0103 0.496
Table 1: C
u
and F
u
Test 207

Figure 3 and Figure A3.4 show x
o
and F
imp
respectively obtained from equations A3.1 and A3.2
and equations A3.3 and A3.4 using x
F
as input data as developed in section 3.3 of the report.
From Figure 3, equations A3.1 and A3.2 and equations A3.3 and A3.4 give similar results in x
o
.
In Figure A3.4, due to the non-linearity of the friction force, jumps are observed for F
imp
when
using equations A3.1 and A3.2, but similar trend for the impact forces is obtained using a linear
or a non-linear damping.

Then to simplify the system shown in Figure 1 linear damping can be used instead of non-linear
frictional damping.

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
XF
xo linear damping
xo non-linear damping

Figure 3: Comparison between x
o
from linear and non-linear damping for Test 207

Appendix 3 - 4 -
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)
I
m
p
a
c
t

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Fimp linear damping
Fimp non-linear damping

Figure A3.4: Comparison between F
imp
from linear and non-linear damping for Test 207

Appendix 4 - 1 -

APPENDIX 4

Comparison impact test results to
Equation 40
Appendix 4 - 2 -
Impact BC configuration Test 151 300 kg load

LVDT displacement Vs Time
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52
LVDT 52 from numerical method


-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 3 -

-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52
LVDT 52 fromnumerical method


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 4 -

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 5 -

-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 6 -

-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 7 -
Impact CD configuration Test 52 300 kg load

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 8 -

-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 9 -

-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 10 -

-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Appendix 4 - 11 -

-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52


-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Time (sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
LVDT 53
LVDT 52

Determination of Accidental Forklift Truck Impact Forces On Drive-In Steel Rack Structures

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Determination of Accidental Forklift Truck Impact Forces On Drive-In Steel Rack Structures

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

School of Civil Engineering

Sydney NSW 2006

Potrebbero piacerti anche