642

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 642-644

Structural Scrutiny of the Existing Billboards

C.B. Joshi
Post Graduate Student, Applied Mechanics Department, L D College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, 380015 Gujarat (India) Email: joshichetsi@yahoo.com

N.K.Arora
Associate Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, L D College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, 380015 Gujarat (India) Email:narendrakarora@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Looking to the number of failures of billboards in near past in Ahmedabad city, a need was felt to refer
back the structural design of existing billboards. In present paper, a total of 12 billboards existing in various parts of city are analysed and designed as per IS: 800-1984 as well as IS: 800-2007. All these structures were found unsafe for the design wind loads. Most of the failed members exceeded either structural capacity or slenderness ratio limit. KEY WORDS: Billboards, wind, slenderness ratio, capacity, analysis INTRODUCTION Billboards are large outdoor signboards kept on ground and terraces of buildings and are vulnerable to wind forces. The failures of these structures have resulted in fatalities in the past. As these are not considered as important structures, very less attention has been given to their collapse. In India, civic body clearance is required before placing a billboard which requires submission structural design and drawing from a registered structural engineer. However, looking to the loss of properties and lives in various parts of world due to the collapse of billboards has forced to re-examine the structural safety of existing billboards. A total of twelve billboards were modelled and designed as per their structural drawing submitted to the local civic body. GEOMETRICAL DESCRIPTION OF BILLBOARDS The geometrical description including board dimensions, height from ground, total number of members, plan dimensions etc. of the billboards accounted in present study is given in Table.1. All the billboards have almost a similar configuration consisting of horizontal members, vertical members and a trestle system at back. All of these members generally have angular sections. A sample configuration is as shown below: Loads The billboards are liable to fail under combined action of self weight, earthquake loads and wind forces. Self weight The self weight of members is given in Y direction. Wind load The wind loads are calculated as per IS: 875 Part 3-1987. Wind Zone - Zone III (Ahmedabad City). Following parameters are considered: Basic Wind Speed that depends upon the city is taken as per Cl. 5.2. Terrain Category 3 is considered for city area as per Cl. 5.3.2.1. Risk Coefficient factor k1 is taken as 0.76 (considering 5 years design life) as per Cl. 5.3.1. For k2 factor class A is considered for the structure. k3 factor is taken as 1 since the billboards are located within the city. Pressure is calculated as per Cl. 6.3.2.3 according to which a Cf factor is to be applied. It is obtained as follows: Design wind speed (Vz) Vz = Vb x k1 x k2 x k3 Design wind pressure (pz) pz = 0.6 Vz2 Design force: F = Cf x A x pz Where, Cf = Force coefficient that depends upon b/h ratio. The wind load is applied by generating floor loads in +Z and Z directions. Earthquake load The design seismic base shear is computed by STAAD in accordance with the IS: 1893 (Part 1) -2002 equation 7.5.3. Design seismic base shear (Vb) = Ah x W Fig. 1 Sample Configuration ANALYSIS The analysis of billboards is carried out in STAAD-Pro. The geometry of all the billboards is generated as per their structural drawings. The section properties of each of the members are assigned as per the drawing. The supports of billboards are assumed to be fixed at the locations of the pedestal. Where, Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum value as per 6.4.2 using the fundamental natural period T as per 7.6 in the considered direction of vibration W = seismic weight Where, Ah = (Z/2) (I/R) (Sa/g) Different parameters that are required to be given for computation of earthquake are as follows: Zone factor Z = 0.16,

#020410341 Copyright 2011 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved

Structural Scrutiny of the Existing Billboards Response reduction factor R = 3 (for Ordinary RC moment-resisting frame), Importance factor I = 1 Rock and soil sites factor = 2 for medium soil sites. Billboard Designation Table 1 Geometrical Description Total Plan Size Height members dimensions (mxm) of at pedestal bottom level member from G.L L B (m) (m) (m) 12x6 6x6 9x6 9x4.5 6.1x6.1 9x6 12x6 6x6 12x6 6x6 6x6 12x6 12 3 3 9 12 4 12 12 6 6 8 8 144 64 90 68 85 132 138 108 101 101 396 678 10 4 7 7 5 8 11 5 12 6 6 12 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 4 3 3 2.7 2.3 2.3 3 4.5

643

range of 1.1-8.9. Since the design is carried out as per both old and new code it is possible to compare the results which are obtained as per both. Such a comparison is shown in Fig. 2 and Fig 3. Load Combinations Load combinations given are as follows: Table 2 Load combinations Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Combinations 1.5 DL 1.2 DL + 0.6 WL (+Z) 1.2 DL + 0.6 WL (-Z) 1.2 DL + 0.6 EQX 1.2 DL + 0.6 EQZ 1.2 DL + 1.2 WL (+Z) 1.2 DL + 1.2 WL (-Z) 1.2 DL + 1.2 EQX 1.2 DL + 1.2 EQZ 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL (+Z) 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL (-Z) 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQX 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQZ Sr. No. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Combinations 0.9 DL + 1.5 WL (+Z) 0.9 DL + 1.5 WL (-Z) 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQX 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQZ DL + 0.8 WL (+Z) DL + 0.8 WL (-Z) DL + 0.8 EQX DL + 0.8 EQZ DL + WL (+Z) DL + WL (-Z) DL + EQX DL + EQZ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

RESULTS Design is carried out as per IS: 800-1984 as well as IS: 800-2007. The failed members are indicated whenever the section of the member is not sufficient to carry the loads. The failed members are as indicated in Table III. The failure is either in slenderness or capacity. The table also indicates maximum deflection observed under loads. Even though there are no specifications for the deflection limit in case of billboards the value of deflection is very high for billboard 5. The capacity ratio which is the ratio of allowable stress to permissible stress is found in the

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Wind loads are the predominant loads except for a few cases where earthquake loads are also dominating. But that is for only a few members. For each of the case considered all the panel members are failing. Members failing in slenderness and capacity are same for a few cases. However for most of the cases members failing in slenderness are much higher than members which are failing in capacity. Considering the design in both codes, members failing in slenderness are exactly same while the members failing in capacity in are slightly different.

Table 3: Summary of results AS PER IS 800: 1984 Members failure due Total to failed members slenderness 114 54 39 23 59 38 53 32 74 36 60 52 88 72 64 53 41 35 35 35 92 92 222 222 Member failure due to capacity 60 16 21 21 38 8 16 11 6 0 0 0 AS PER IS 800: 2007 Members failure due Total to failed member slenderness 108 54 39 23 59 38 53 32 72 36 58 52 88 72 63 53 39 35 35 35 92 92 222 222 Member failure due to capacity 54 16 21 21 36 6 16 10 4 0 0 0

Designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Total members 144 63 90 68 85 138 138 108 101 101 396 678

Maximum Deflection (mm) 96.56 54.42 40.11 36.21 544.32 5.302 55.63 14.02 2.76 1.37 9.65 7.67

Maximum Deflection (mm) 96.56 51.42 40.11 36.21 544.32 5.302 55.63 14.02 2.76 1.37 9.65 7.67

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 642-644

644

C. B. Joshi, N. K. Arora 1) None of the billboards are satisfying the design criteria and hence they are unsafe. 2) Members failing in slenderness are much higher than members which are failing in capacity. Thus sslenderness of the member is majorly contributing to its failure. Hence there is a need to reconsider the configurations that are currently 3) Popular and suitably change them so that the structure becomes safe. 4) Wind loads are governing for most of the cases. However in few members, the earthquake loads are found to be governing. 5) The design results as obtained by the use of old and new IS 800 code are similar in most of the cases. REFERENCES [1] An Explanatory Handbook on IS: 875 Part 3-1987Wind Loads on buildings and structures. [2] A.P. Robertson, R.P. Hoxey, J.L. Short, W.A. Ferguson, S. Osmond, Wind Loads on Fences and Hoardings, James Cook University, 1998. [3] C.W. Letchford, Wind loads on rectangular signboards and hoardings, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and Received 16 January 1998; accepted 7 July 1999. [4] IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. [5] IS: 875 (Part 3): Wind Loads on Buildings and Structures-Proposed Draft and Commentary. [6] Kobchai Poemsantitham, Interference effects from adjacent structures on wind-induced forces in large Billboard, Asian Institute of Technology.

Fig. 2 Comparison between percentage members failing in slenderness due to IS 800:1984 and IS 800:2007

Fig. 3 Comparison between percentage members failing in capacity due to IS 800:1984 and IS 800:2007 CONCLUSION In present paper, a total of 12 billboards existing in various parts of city are analysed and designed as per IS: 800-1984 as well as IS: 800-2007. The following conclusions are observed:

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp 642-644