Scribd
Upload
54 views29 pages

Wind Design for Large Billboards

A large billboard structure collapsed in Bangkok, Thailand during a severe thunderstorm in June 2002. Suksit Sinthuwong of the Asian Institute of Technology presented research on wind loads on large billboard structures using a rigid scale model tested on a multi-component force sensor. The presentation examined factors like the billboard's aspect ratio, clearance ratio, wind direction, and proximity to other structures that influence aerodynamic forces on the billboard, helping to understand why the structure failed. Understanding wind loads is important for safely designing large billboard structures to withstand severe weather.

Uploaded by

trong
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views29 pages

Wind Design for Large Billboards

A large billboard structure collapsed in Bangkok, Thailand during a severe thunderstorm in June 2002. Suksit Sinthuwong of the Asian Institute of Technology presented research on wind loads on large billboard structures using a rigid scale model tested on a multi-component force sensor. The presentation examined factors like the billboard's aspect ratio, clearance ratio, wind direction, and proximity to other structures that influence aerodynamic forces on the billboard, helping to understand why the structure failed. Understanding wind loads is important for safely designing large billboard structures to withstand severe weather.

Uploaded by

trong
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

n

g
i
s
e
D
t
n
a
t
s
i
s
e
R
d
n
i
W
of
s
e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
S
d
r
a
o
b
l
l
i
B
e
Larg
y
b
d
e
t
n
e
s
e
Pr
Suksit Sinthuwong

hai
c
it
n
r
a
W
g
n
u
n
n
Pe
nd, g
2
y004
2
l
lo
ri
o
p
A
n
h
c
e
T
f
o
te
Asian Institu

Collapse of a large billboard (50 m high) in Bangkok


during a severe thunderstorm on June 2002

A rigid model fixed on the multi-component force sensor


Wind

Fy (Side force)

My (Overturning moment)

Fx (Drag force)
Mx
(Transverse moment )

Mz (Torsion)
Fz (Vertical force)

High Frequency Force Balance Technique

60-degree Wind Direction

Model Geometry and Wind Attack Angle

Aspect Ratio

b/d

Clearance Ratio =

d/h

Mean Drag Force Coefficient


Mean Normal Force

Fx
CD =
1 U 2 bd
2
Reference Velocity Pressure

Billboard Area

Aerodynamic Normal Force Coefficient CD


2.0

CD

d/h=0.33 b/d=1
d/h=0.50 b/d=1
d/h=0.67 b/d=1

1.8
1.6

d/h=0.33 b/d=2
d/h=0.50 b/d=2
d/h=0.67 b/d=2

d/h=0.33 b/d=3
d/h=0.50 b/d=3
d/h=0.67 b/d=3

AS/NZS Code

1.4

ASCE 7-02

CD

1.2
1.0
0.8

Wind

0.6

Fx

=0

0.4
0.2

Plan view of a billboard

0.0
0

15

30
45
60
Wind Direction (Degree)

75

()

90

Drag

Drag

Drag x e = Torsion

Normalized Dynamic Drag Force

Fx (t )
C d (t ) =
1 U 2 bd
2
Normalized Dynamic Torsion

M z (t )
Ct (t ) =
1 U 2 b 2 d
2

Wind Attack Angle = 0o


Normalized
Torsion

e = 0.2 b
e = 0.1 b

Normalized Drag

Wind Attack Angle = 45o


Normalized
Torsion

e = 0.2 b
e = 0.1 b

Normalized Drag

Peak horizontal eccentricity as a function of wind attack angle


0.40

e/b

d/h=0.33 b/d=1
d/h=0.50 b/d=1
d/h=0.67 b/d=1

0.35

d/h=0.33 b/d=2
d/h=0.50 b/d=2
d/h=0.67 b/d=2

d/h=0.33 b/d=3
d/h=0.50 b/d=3

0.30

Cook

0.25

ASCE7-02 & AS/NZS

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0

15

30

45

60

75

Wind Attack Angle ( O )

90

Interference Effects from Nearby Structures

Billboard
Streamline
flow

Elevated express way

Equivalent to Cg = 1.0 for 3-sec Basic Wind Velocity

Drag

Drag

Drag x e = Torsion

Case A:

DL

WL

Case B:

DL

WL

Ministerial Regulations No. 6:


+

LL

which is equal to 0.75 DL + 0.75 WL + 0.75 LL

with a 33 % increase in allowable stresses


with no increase in allowable stresses

Case A:

DL

WL

Case B:

DL

+ 0.75 WL + 0.75 LL + 0.75 ( Lr or RL )

Case C:

0.6 DL +

WL

ASCE 7-05

which is equal to (1/1.6)x ( 0.9 DL + 1.6 WL )

Case A:

0.75 (1.7 DL + 2.0 WL + 2.0 LL )

Ministerial Regulations No. 6

which is equal to 1.275 DL + 1.5 WL + 1.5 LL


+

1.3 WL

Case B:

0.9 DL

Case A:

1.25 DL + 1.4 WL + 0.5 LL

Case B:

0.9 DL + 1.4 WL + 0.5 LL

Case C:

1.25 DL + 1.5 LL + 0.4 WL

Case D:

0.9 DL + 1.5 LL + 0.4 WL

Case A:
Case B:
Case C:

NBCC 2005

1.20 DL + 1.6 WL + 0.5 LL + 0.5 (Lror RL )


0.9 DL + 1.6 WL
1.20 DL + 1.6(Lr or RL) +

Dead Load Principal Load

( 0.8 WL or 0.5 LL )

Companion Load

ASCE 7-05

Principal Load: The specified variable load or rare load that dominates
in a given load combination.
Companion Load: The specified variable load that accompanies the
principal load in a given load combination.
Load Factor: A factor that accounts for
Deviations of the actual load from the nominal load,
Uncertainties in the analysis that transform the load into a load effect,
The probability that more than one extreme load will occur simulteneously

Strength Reduction Factor: A factor that accounts for


Deviations of actual strength from the nominal strength
(due to the variability of dimensions, material properties, workmanship, and
uncertainty in the prediction of strength)
Consequences of failure

Nominal Loads: about 50 to 100 years return period


Factored Loads: about 500 to 1000 years return period

Instantaneous external pressure distributions


and Simplified code distributions

Wind

Low-rise building

0.75
Reduce to the corresponding return
period of about 10 to 20 years

You might also like