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:
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.
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:
ƒ Basic Wind Speed that depends upon the city is taken
as per Cl. 5.2.
ƒ Terrain Category 3 is considered for city area as per
Cl. 5.3.2.1.
ƒ Risk Coefficient factor k1 is taken as 0.76
(considering 5 years design life) as per Cl. 5.3.1.
ƒ For k2 factor class A is considered for the structure.
ƒ 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
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 643

Response reduction factor R = 3 (for Ordinary RC range of 1.1-8.9. Since the design is carried out as per
moment-resisting frame), Importance factor I = 1 both old and new code it is possible to compare the results
Rock and soil sites factor = 2 for medium soil sites. which are obtained as per both. Such a comparison is
shown in Fig. 2 and Fig 3.
Table 1 Geometrical Description
Billboard Size Height Total Plan Load Combinations
Design- (mxm) of members dimensions Load combinations given are as follows:
ation bottom at pedestal
Table 2 Load combinations
member level
from Sr. Sr.
G.L L B No. Combinations No. Combinations
(m) (m) (m)
1 1.5 DL 14 0.9 DL + 1.5 WL (+Z)
1 12x6 12 144 10 2.4 2 1.2 DL + 0.6 WL (+Z) 15 0.9 DL + 1.5 WL (-Z)
2 6x6 3 64 4 2.4 3 1.2 DL + 0.6 WL (-Z) 16 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQX
3 9x6 3 90 7 2.4 4 1.2 DL + 0.6 EQX 17 0.9 DL + 1.5 EQZ
4 9x4.5 9 68 7 2.5 5 1.2 DL + 0.6 EQZ 18 DL + 0.8 WL (+Z)
5 6.1x6.1 12 85 5 4 6 1.2 DL + 1.2 WL (+Z) 19 DL + 0.8 WL (-Z)
6 9x6 4 132 8 3 7 1.2 DL + 1.2 WL (-Z) 20 DL + 0.8 EQX
7 12x6 12 138 11 3 8 1.2 DL + 1.2 EQX 21 DL + 0.8 EQZ
9 1.2 DL + 1.2 EQZ 22 DL + WL (+Z)
8 6x6 12 108 5 2.7
10 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL (+Z) 23 DL + WL (-Z)
9 12x6 6 101 12 2.3
11 1.5 DL + 1.5 WL (-Z) 24 DL + EQX
10 6x6 6 101 6 2.3
12 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQX 25 DL + EQZ
11 6x6 8 396 6 3
13 1.5 DL + 1.5 EQZ
12 12x6 8 678 12 4.5
RESULTS DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Design is carried out as per IS: 800-1984 as well as IS: Wind loads are the predominant loads except for a few
800-2007. The failed members are indicated whenever the cases where earthquake loads are also dominating. But
section of the member is not sufficient to carry the loads. that is for only a few members. For each of the case
The failed members are as indicated in Table III. The considered all the panel members are failing. Members
failure is either in slenderness or capacity. The table also failing in slenderness and capacity are same for a few
indicates maximum deflection observed under loads. cases. However for most of the cases members failing in
Even though there are no specifications for the deflection slenderness are much higher than members which are
limit in case of billboards the value of deflection is very failing in capacity. Considering the design in both codes,
high for billboard 5. The capacity ratio which is the ratio members failing in slenderness are exactly same while the
of allowable stress to permissible stress is found in the members failing in capacity in are slightly different.

Table 3: Summary of results

AS PER IS 800: 1984 AS PER IS 800: 2007

Members Member Members Member
Total failure due failure Maximum Total failure due failure Maximum
Design- Total failed to due to Deflection failed to due to Deflection
ation members members slenderness capacity (mm) member slenderness capacity (mm)
1 144 114 54 60 96.56 108 54 54 96.56
2 63 39 23 16 54.42 39 23 16 51.42
3 90 59 38 21 40.11 59 38 21 40.11
4 68 53 32 21 36.21 53 32 21 36.21
5 85 74 36 38 544.32 72 36 36 544.32
6 138 60 52 8 5.302 58 52 6 5.302
7 138 88 72 16 55.63 88 72 16 55.63
8 108 64 53 11 14.02 63 53 10 14.02
9 101 41 35 6 2.76 39 35 4 2.76
10 101 35 35 0 1.37 35 35 0 1.37
11 396 92 92 0 9.65 92 92 0 9.65
12 678 222 222 0 7.67 222 222 0 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
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
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 3-1987-
Wind 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.