Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Equivalent static wind loads for cantilevered grandstand roofs

a,* b
C.W. Letchford , G.P. Killen
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
b
Ove Arup and Partners, Brisbane, 4000, Australia

Received 20 March 2001; received in revised form 22 August 2001; accepted 22 August 2001

Abstract

In an earlier paper a parametric study of wind loads on cantilevered grandstand roofs was reported. The effects of grandstand
geometry, sub-roof venting, leading edge fascias and upstream structures were investigated in a comprehensive wind tunnel study.
This paper takes this data and derives equivalent static wind load distributions for the design of simple cantilevered grandstand
roofs. A trapezoidal load distribution is recommended over the current triangular distribution. Correlations measurements are reported
which may be used to obtain equivalent static wind load distributions for other grandstand roof structural systems. 2002 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Grandstand roofs; Wind loads; Equivalent static loads

1. Introduction response-correlation (LRC) [4] are employed to obtain

Grandstand roofs form a unique group of structures
from a wind loading perspective. Their extensive and
winglike forms often cause them to be wind sensitive.
In addition, they are often in complex surroundings,
making windstructure interaction also complex. Indeed
wind tunnel studies of such structures are often under-
taken, however designers need preliminary wind loading
information and presently the Australian Wind Load
Code [1] offers some advice to them. In an earlier paper
[2], a comprehensive wind tunnel study of cantilevered
grandstand roofs was reported. The effects of grandstand
geometry, height and roof pitch; sub-roof venting; fas-
cias; surrounding structures; and wind direction, were
reported, and maximum root bending moment coef-
ficients presented. In this paper these results are reinter-
preted to obtain equivalent static wind load distributions
based on several established techniques. The usefulness
of these distributions is that a designer can apply them
directly in a finite element analysis of a structure rather
than assume a distribution that gives the maximum root
bending moment or shear as reported in the earlier paper.
In particular, covariance integration [3] and load
design recommendations. This analysis requires that a
structural system be know for the grandstand roof. For
the purposes of this paper a simple cantilever has been
used. However, pressure measurements, mean and fluc-
tuating, and pressure cross correlations are presented
such that, given other structural systems, corresponding
equivalent static loads may be obtained.
The full details of the study are presented in Ref. [5]
and full experimental details are covered in Ref. [2]. The
parameters investigated are summarised in Fig. 1. Of
these only the roof span or length, L and the height,
H are dealt with in Ref. [1]. A brief summary of the
experimental arrangements is presented in the following
section. In Section 3, the techniques for obtaining equiv-
alent static loads are presented. Section 4 presents the
results for a cantilever structural system and leads to
some design recommendations. Section 5 summarises
the conclusions of this work. Appendix A presents some
data that may be used with other structural systems to
estimate corresponding equivalent static loads.
2. Experimental arrangement

The generic grandstand roof chosen for the study was

* Corresponding author. in fact modelled on the Castlemaine Street Grandstand
E-mail address: chris.letchford@coe.ttu.edu (C.W. Letchford). at Suncorp Metway Stadium in Brisbane. The grandstand

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 8 5 - 2
208 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217
Fig. 1. Parameters investigated and sign convention for lift and moment coefficients.
is a trussed cantilever type structure supported by an
over roof tie and backstay system. The roof is rectangu-
lar in plan with a width of 140 m and a span of 30 m.
The roof is 35 m above ground level with an upward
pitch of 3. The seating is in two tiers. Full details of
the experimental apparatus and procedure are described
in Ref. [2], and only a brief summary is given here.
A 1:200 scale model was constructed with the roof
manufactured from a sandwich of perspex sheets
machined so that pneumatically averaged panels on both
the top and bottom could be analogue differenced to
obtain the net pressure acting on the roof. The model
was rigid and only net pressures were measured. Each
panel contained 12 pressure taps (six above and six
below). Four panels made up one bay of the structure,
which consisted of 14 bays on a 10 m grid. Panel 1 was
at the leading edge, Panel 4 at the rear. Pressures were
area-averaged within each panel. Fig. 2 shows the tap-
ping and panel configuration. The sandwich construction
of the roof allowed pressure tubes to be contained
within, but resulted in a 9 mm thick roof, somewhat dis-
torted from the full scale. The frequency response of the
pressure measurement system was good (half power) to
150 Hz which according to Letchford et al. [6] would
lead to a maximum attenuation of mean extreme area-
averaged pressure coefficients of 5%.
The effect of the distorted roof thickness was dealt with
in the earlier paper [2] and the conclusion from surface oil
flow visualization was that the area-averaged pressures
would not be significantly affected by the over thick model.
Fig. 2. Cross-section of model with full-scale dimensions and roof pressure tapping arrangement.
The tests were conducted in the University of Queens-
land, Department of Civil Engineerings Boundary Layer
Wind Tunnel, which is 3 m wide by 2 m high and has
some 12 m of upstream fetch for boundary layer develop-
ment. Full details of the boundary layer simulation, a sub-
urban terrain at 1:200, are described in Ref. [2]. Good
agreement with mean velocity and turbulence intensity pro-
files as well as longitudinal component velocity spectrum
was obtained. The 0 wind direction (f) was defined as
normal to the leading edge of the grandstand roof.
Net pressures were sampled at 400 Hz for 15 s and
repeated 10 times. The 15-s sampling time corresponded
to ca 15 min full scale. A FisherTippett type 1 extreme
value distribution was fitted to the peak pressures. Mean,
rms and hourly mean extreme (maxima and minima)
were obtained and non-dimensionalized by the mean
dynamic pressure at roof height. Cross correlation coef-
ficients were also obtained between various panels. The
peak bending moment coefficient per unit width of roof
about the cantilever support is defined in Eq. (1). Posi-
tive is defined as corresponding to uplift (refer to Fig.
1). The earlier paper [2] reported extensively on this
moment coefficient as a function of the parameters
investigated.
M
CM . (1)
1/2rV2hL2
 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217
3. Analysis techniques
3.1. As1170.2 provisions
The Australian wind load code [1] presents a model
for the equivalent static pressure distribution for the root
bending moment on a cantilever grandstand roof. The
distribution is triangular in form as shown in Fig. 3 with
a leading edge peak pressure coefficient of Cp,c=5 for
relatively stiff cantilevers. For more flexible structures,
this is modified by the natural frequency of the cantilever
as illustrated in Eq. (2). Pressures are obtained by multi-
plying by the mean dynamic pressure at roof height.
Melbourne [7,8] pioneered this approach with measure-
ments on aeroelastic models of several grandstand roofs.
V h
Cp,c5.0 for 0.4
Lnc
Cp,c5.02.5 V h
Lnc
0.4 for
V h
Lnc
0.4
where, Vh is the design mean hourly wind speed, and L
the length and nc the first mode cross wind natural fre-
quency of the cantilever, respectively.
Although Ref. [1] only gives recommendations for
upwards loads, Melbournes later studies [8] of actual
grandstand configurations incorporating upstream struc-
tures indicate downwards loads of approximately half
the magnitude of the uplift are possible.
3.2. Covariance integration
The covariance integration method proposed by
Holmes and Best [3] was used to estimate both peak roof
uplift and bending moment coefficients in Ref. [2]. This
method employs mean and standard deviation pressure
coefficients, cross correlations, peak factors (typically 6
for upward loads and 3.5 for downward loads) and struc-
tural influence coefficients for the load effect. Root
bending moment peak factors were obtained by weight-
ing individual peak panel pressures by their influence
coefficient, thus the leading panel was weighted more
highly than the trailing edge panel. An alternative
Fig. 3. Assumed triangular equivalent static pressure distribution
from AS1170.2 [1].
209
approach is presented in Ref. [13]. For uplift, each panel
contributes equally to the uplift and the peak factors
were weighted accordingly.
A simple equivalent static pressure distribution is one
that causes simultaneous peaks in both uplift and bend-
ing moment. Killen [5] proposed a trapezoidal equivalent
static peak pressure distribution, which led to the simul-
taneous maxima in uplift and root bending moment. This
is shown schematically in Fig. 4. The relationship
between peak moment and uplift coefficients and the
assumed trapezoidal pressure distribution is shown in
Eq. (3).
C12(3CMCL) (3a)
C22(2CL3CM) (3b)
where CM and CL are the mean extreme (maxima and
(2a)
minima) moment and uplift coefficients obtained from
(2b)
covariance integration. Thus both upwards and down-
wards equivalent static peak pressure distributions are
obtained while pressures are calculated by multiplying
by the mean dynamic pressure at roof height.
3.3. LRC technique
The LRC technique proposed by Kasperski and Niem-
ann [4] was used to estimate equivalent static loads for
individual load effects. The technique employs the same
data as covariance integration, mean and standard devi-
ation coefficients, cross correlations, peak factors and
structural influence coefficients but extracts the expected
pressure distribution that leads to the mean extreme
(maxima and minima) load effect coefficient. Thus sep-
arate equivalent static peak pressure distributions for
bending moment and uplift for both positive and nega-
tive going loads are obtained and again pressures are
calculated by multiplying by the mean dynamic pressure
at roof height.
Appendix A gives an example calculation for each
method and fluctuating pressure coefficient data for other
structural load effects to be examined.
Fig. 4. Simplified trapezoidal equivalent static pressure distribution
after Killen [5].
210 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Roof pitch and wind direction
It was shown in the earlier paper [2] that there was
little relationship between peak roof moment coefficient
and roof pitch (7) on a centre bay. This result was
supported by an aeroelastic study of grandstand roofs by
Kawai et al. [9]. The maximum upward moment
occurred for a roof pitch of +3 and wind direction per-
pendicular to the leading edge of the cantilever. It was
also noted that for low reduced velocities (Vh/Lnc0.4)
the Australian wind loading code [1] was unconservative
for most angles of attack.
The variation of peak bending moments on an end bay
of the roof with wind direction and as a function of roof
pitch revealed that it was slightly more sensitive to pitch
than the central bay, but still not as sensitive as a free
roof [10]. The uplift increases as the wind direction is
increased to about 30 and then decreases slightly. This
variation is due to conical vortices forming along the
edges of the roof. Surface oil flow visualisations con-
firmed this interpretation. The maximum end bay
moments occurred for the higher positive pitches and for
a wind direction of 30.
For all subsequent tests the roof pitch was +3 and
centre bay results were analysed for 0 wind direction
while end bays were analysed for 30.
Fig. 5 shows the results for the centre bay at 0 wind
direction. The figure shows the mean and extreme
(maxima and minima) panel pressure coefficients as well
as the LRC distributions for peak upwards and down-
wards moment and uplift, and the simplified trapezoidal
distribution. They are plotted as a proportion of the can-
tilever span with x=0 at the root/base of the cantilever.
It is clear that the peak upwards panel pressure coef-
ficients represent the upper envelop of panel pressures
and that by incorporating the reduced correlation
Fig. 5. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, iso-
lated grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=0.
between these pressures both the LRC and the trap-
ezoidal distributions produce lower values. It is seen that
the trapezoidal distribution is a good approximation to
the LRC expected peak panel pressures and represents
a simple model for implementation in wind load codes.
Both these equivalent static pressure distributions are
considerably larger than the triangular distribution
assumed in the Australian Wind Load Code AS1170.2
[1]. For the centre bay in an isolated grandstand there is
no downwards load due to wind loading.
Fig. 6 shows the corresponding results for the end bay
at a wind direction of 30. Once again the trapezoidal
distribution represents a good approximation to the LRC
peak panel pressures and the actual peak panel pressures
measured on the model. Also the AS1170.2 result is
included for comparison and indicates an unconservative
loading distribution. For this wind direction there is also
no downward load apart from on the leading panel.
4.2. Leading edge fascias
Fascias are becoming common features on grandstand
roofs because they provide highly visible signage. In the
earlier paper [2], various fascia scenarios were tested and
peak moment coefficients reported. Two fascia depths,
F/L=0.1 and 0.2, were studied and the effects of position,
either fully above, fully below the roof level or in-
between, the effects of gaps behind the fascia and wind
direction were examined. Fig. 1 shows the geometry
associated with a leading edge fascia. In this study the
fascia extended the full length of the grandstand roof
leading edge. Here the peak pressure distributions in the
presence of the larger fascia (F/L=0.2) on the centre bay
for 0 wind direction and on the end bay for 30 are
presented. Both fascias above, and below the roof have
been analysed while the contribution of the fascia load-
ing to the root bending moment has been ignored
because of the very small lever arm.
Fig. 6. End bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, isolated
grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=30.
 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217 211

Fig. 7. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, iso- Fig. 9. End bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, isolated
lated grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=0, leading edge fascia grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=30, leading edge fascia mounted
mounted above the roof. above the roof.

Fig. 7 shows the variation of peak pressure distri-

butions on the centre bay for the case of a leading edge
fascia above the roof. Again, peak panel pressure coef-
ficients, mean pressure coefficients and the equivalent
peak static pressure coefficients from the trapezoidal dis-
tribution and LRC analyses are presented. Both upwards
and downwards distributions are evaluated. Fig. 8 shows
the same results for the case of the fascia located below
the roof level. While Figs. 9 and 10 show the corre-
sponding results for the end bay panel for a wind direc-
tion of 30. AS1170.2 triangular distribution is also
shown.
As noted in the earlier paper [2] the presence of a
fascia tends to reduce load effects on the centre bay and
Fig. 10. End bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, iso-
this is seen in the reduced peak panel pressure coef-
lated grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=30, leading edge fascia
ficients in comparison to the no fascia case of Fig. 5. mounted below the roof.
Indeed, the presence of a fascia causes a downward wind
load on the centre bay with the fascia mounted above
the roof. For the end bay the fascia mounted above increase in peak panel pressures near the leading edge
enhances the leading edge conical vortex causing an compared to the no fascia case of Fig. 6. In all cases
the equivalent static peak pressure distribution is almost
uniform across the span of the cantilever and the trap-
ezoidal distribution remains a good approximation to the
LRC and actual peak panel pressures.

4.3. Shielding by upstream grandstands

The isolated grandstand case is unusual and more fre-

Fig. 8. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions, iso-
lated grandstand H/L=1.1, wind direction=0, leading edge fascia
mounted below the roof.
quently there are other grandstands around the field of
play. The earlier paper [2] reported on a parametric study
of upstream shielding by a same height grandstand, by
a higher H/h=0.58 and a lower H/h=2 grandstand. Fig.
2 defines the parameters including the spacing distance,
s, which in the tests varied from 2s/L8. It was
observed that over the common spacing of grandstands
(2s/L8), significant downwards loads are generated
on the roof. This effect is more pronounced when the
upstream structure is taller.
212 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217
Fig. 11. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions,
same height upstream shielding grandstand H/h=1, s/L=6, H/L=1.1,
wind direction=0.
Fig. 12. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions,
higher upstream shielding grandstand H/h=0.58, s/L=6, H/L=1.1,
wind direction=0.
Fig. 11 shows the peak panel pressure coefficients on
the centre bay for a wind direction of 0 for the case of
an upstream grandstand of the same height at a spacing
s/L=6. Figs. 12 and 13 show the peak panel pressure
Fig. 13. Centre bay equivalent static peak pressure distributions,
lower upstream shielding grandstand H/h=2, s/L=6, H/L=1.1, wind
direction=0.
coefficients on the same centre bay, wind direction and
grandstand spacing for a higher H/h=0.58 and a lower
grandstand H/h=2.
In each case the trapezoidal distribution represents a
good approximation to the LRC and actual peak panel
pressures. Also the maximum downwards loading is
approximately half that of the triangular upwards loading
of AS1170.2 [1] as noted by Melbourne [8].
4.4. Eigenvalue analysis
Killen [5] undertook extensive eigenvalue analyses of
the pressure cross correlations and found that the first
mode shape was well approximated by a trapezium. In
addition, the first mode typically contributed in excess
of 75% of the fluctuating pressure energy and the simi-
larity with the mean pressure distribution indicated a sig-
nificant quasi-static response. In addition, the work of
Kawai et al. [9] indicates that any aeroelastic response
of a cantilevered roof is significantly reduced in the pres-
ence of underneath blockage and this would tend to
extend the applicability of the present results beyond the
reduced velocity limit (Vh/Lnc0.4) proposed by Mel-
bourne [8]. Furthermore, measurements on four large
grandstand roofs (19 mL44 m) by Mallam and col-
leagues [11,12] found that damping was in excess of 1%
and reached 3% of critical in tests that actually saw rela-
tively small amplitude motion. Mallam also found that
purely cantilevered grandstand roofs had higher damping
than those supported with over-roof backstays. Thus
although this analysis has assumed ONLY a quasi-static
response from the cantilevered roof, it is likely that this
response will dominate most practical structures and
therefore the trapezoidal equivalent static wind load dis-
tribution should be preferred over the triangular distri-
bution.
4.5. Design recommendations
It has been shown that for the simple cantilever roof
structural system a trapezoidal distribution for the equiv-
alent static peak pressure distribution represents a good
approximation to the expected distributions obtained
from various analytical techniques. This distribution
was obtained such that it reproduced both the maximum
uplift and root bending moment on the cantilevered roof.
Should other structural systems be employed, then the
appropriate influence coefficients can be used with these
data to obtain corresponding equivalent static peak
pressure distributions. In all cases, the peak pressure
coefficient distributions are converted to design press-
ures by multiplying by the design mean dynamic press-
ure at roof height. This can be obtained from the peak
gust dynamic pressure by dividing by a suitable gust fac-
tor for the height and surrounding terrain as shown by:
 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217 213

Table 1
Worst case upward peak pressure coefficients for roof internal bays, excluding dynamic effects

Configuration Equivalent static Proportion of Proportion of

peak pressure BASE load effect AS1170.2 load
coefficient for coefficients effect coefficients
trapezoidal
distributiona

C2b C1b Moment Uplift Moment Uplift

(%) (%) (%) (%)

BASE: Isolated grandstand pitch, a7 (maximum at f=0, H/L1.4) 3.6 6.0 100 100 156 192
For H/L1.4 4.6 4.5 87 95 136 182
Any fascia on leading edge F/L=0.1c 3.8 4.2 78 83 122 160
Maximum effects on shielded grandstands at f=0 and s/L=6, only
Maximum uplift with half height grandstand upstream H/h=2 2.6 5.8 91 88 142 168
Maximum uplift with same height grandstand upstream H/h=1 1.7 2.9 48 48 75 92
Maximum uplift with approx. double height grandstand upstream H/h=0.58 1.0 2.6 40 38 62 72

a
For a grandstand with a sub-roof vent of 1% of the total elevation area of the structures, a further reduction of load resulting in a 10%
reduction of the total roof moment at the support is allowed [2].
b
C1 is at the leading edge and C2 the trailing edge of the cantilever, respectively.
c
The loads from the fascia itself must be added to the roof system to establish the total wind load effect.

p V h are given. These values are indicative only as the

C p and
V h . (4)
1/2rV 2h G reduction in load quickly diminishes with increasing
wind direction if the arrangement is not a fully
Tables 1 and 2 give upward peak pressure coefficients enclosed stadium.
for grandstands with negligible aerodynamic response Tables 3 and 4 give design recommendations for
based on trapezoidal peak pressure distribution. In each
downwards loading in the same form as Tables 1 and
table, results for a basic configuration of an isolated
2. Here, the percentage of the upward wind load effect
grandstand are given. These are followed by values for
coefficient (uplift and moment) for each corresponding
variations in the basic configuration leading to signifi-
configuration is given for comparison. It is clear that the
cant changes in loadings. The percentage of the base
presence of upstream structures significantly affects the
configuration load effect coefficients are also given. In
addition, the proportions of the uplift and moment load wind load on cantilevered roofs.
effect coefficients predicted by the current Australian
Standard [1] are shown for comparison. In the lower por-
tion of Tables 1 and 2 values for shielded grandstands

Table 2
Worst case upward peak pressure coefficients for roof end bays, excluding dynamic effects

Configuration Equivalent static Proportion of Proportion of

peak pressure BASE load effect AS1170.2 load
coefficient for coefficients effect coefficients
trapezoidal
distributiona

C2 C1 Moment Uplift Moment Uplift

(%) (%) (%) (%)

BASE: Isolated grandstand pitch, a7 (maximum at f=30, H/L1.4) 3.4 4.4 100 100 122 156
For H/L1.4 3.7 6.3 134 128 163 200
Any fascia on leading edge F/L=0.1 and m/L=0.03b 3.5 5.7 122 118 149 184
Maximum effects on shielded grandstands at =0 and s/L=6, only
Maximum uplift with half height grandstand upstream H/h=2 1.5 3.7 73 67 89 104
Maximum uplift with same height grandstand upstream H/h=1 1.2 4.5 84 73 102 114
Maximum uplift with approx. double height grandstand upstream H/h=0.58 1.9 2.9 63 62 77 96

a
No reduction in load for a grandstand with sub-roof venting is permitted for end bays [2].
b
The loads from the fascia itself must be added to the roof system to establish the total wind load effect.
214 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217

Table 3
Worst case downward peak pressure coefficients for roof internal bays, excluding dynamic effects

Equivalent static Proportion of

peak pressure Proportion of corresponding
Configuration coefficient for BASE load effect configuration
trapezoidal coefficients upward load effect
distribution coefficients

Moment Uplift Moment Uplift

C2 C1
(%) (%) (%) (%)

BASE: isolated grandstand pitch, a7 (maximum at f=90) 0.5 0.8 100 100 13 14
Maximum download with half height grandstand upstream H/h=2, s/L=6, f=0 0.5 0.6 33 8 5 2
Maximum download with same height grandstand upstream H/h=1, s/L=6, f=0 0.0 1.4 133 108 37 56
Maximum download with approx. double height grandstand upstream H/h=0.58,
0 2.6 248 200 84 126
s/L=6, f=0

Table 4
Worst case downward peak pressure coefficients for roof end bays, excluding dynamic effects

Equivalent static Proportion of

peak pressure Proportion of corresponding
Configuration coefficient for BASE load effect configuration
trapezoidal coefficients upward load effect
distribution coefficients

Moment Uplift Moment Uplift

C2 C1
(%) (%) (%) (%)

BASE: isolated grandstand pitch, a7 (maximum at f=90) 2.2 1.8 100 100 48 51
Maximum download with half height grandstand upstream H/h=2, s/L=6, f=0 0.1 0.7 22 15 15 20
Maximum download with same height grandstand upstream H/h=1, s/L=6, f=0 0.5 1.8 53 33 30 38
Maximum download with approx. double height grandstand upstream H/h=0.58,
0 2.4 83 60 62 94
s/L=6, f=0

5. Conclusions coefficients employed here, would need to be under-

This paper has sought to reinterpret the vast quantity
of experimental data obtained in an extensive parametric
study of cantilevered grandstand roofs [2,5] to determine
equivalent static peak pressure distributions for design-
ers. Covariance integration and LRC have been used to
determine these peak pressure coefficient distributions
for a simple cantilever structural system. Additional dis-
tributions can be derived for other structural systems, for
example, over-roof backstays, from the data contained
in Appendix A by adjusting the influence coefficients to
suit the structural system under consideration.
It is clear that the recommendations contained in the
current Australian wind load code [1] are unconservative
for some roof and wind direction configurations and that
the assumed triangular distribution is inadequate for rep-
resenting the actual peak pressure distributions. This is
certainly the case where there is no resonant response
from the cantilever roof, as might be expected from the
work reported in Refs. [11,12]. However, if the roof sys-
tem is sufficiently responsive then additional calcu-
lations incorporating mode shapes, akin to the influence
taken. Additionally since the first mode shape of a cantil-
ever will approach a triangle, the current recommen-
dation may be appropriate for these situations. Despite
this, a simple trapezoidal distribution is recommended
here for the quasi-static part of wind loading and Tables
14 contain peak pressure coefficient values for a range
of grandstand configurations. While this data will be use-
ful for preliminary design, it has been shown that the
presence of upstream structures significantly affects the
wind loading on grandstand roofs and wind tunnel tests
will remain a crucial tool in accurately predicting wind
loads on large grandstand structures.
Acknowledgements
The second author wishes to acknowledge the support
of Connell Wagner Pty. Ltd. for their assistance during
the measurement and analysis stages of this project. The
comments of several reviewers are also acknowledged.
 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217 215

Appendix A gb12.657 gb22.46 gb32.395 gb42.34

(gb1psi1+gb2psi2+gb3psi3+gb4psi4)
A.1. Data and Mathcad analysis for centre bay for a gmin:= gmin
wind direction of 0 (psi1+psi2+psi3+psi4)
2.526
Correlation analysis for cantilever grandstand roof,
data from Killen [5]. Isolated grandstand, H/L=1.1.

A.1.1. Centre bay A.1.2.3. Calculation of mean and standard deviation

q=0. moment coefficients
A:=diag(Area)
A.1.2. Root bending moment analysis
Cpsigma:=diag(Cpsd)
A.1.2.1. Pressure coefficients
CMmean:=psiTACpmean

1.75 0.591 CMmean(0.884)
1.85 0.618
Cpmean:= Cpsd:= Cpmax: CMsigma:=(psiTACpsigmCpsigmapsi)0.5
1.74 0.572
CMsigma(0.263)
1.57 0.5

5.59 0.18
6.19 0.33 A.1.2.4. Covariance integration gives CMmin as
Cpmin:=
5.23 0.37 CMmin:=CMmeangminCMsigma
4.63 0.4 CMmin(0.219)

0.25 1 0.8 0.61 0.42 0.875
0.25 0.8 1 0.74 0.42 0.625
Area:= rho:= psi: A.1.2.5. Covariance integration gives CMmax as
0.25 0.61 0.74 1 0.7 0.375
CMmax:=CMmeangmaxCMsigma
0.25 0.42 0.42 0.7 1 0.125
CMmax(2.613)

A.1.2.2. Calculation of weighted gust factor for

moments A more complex determination of an appro- A.1.2.6. Simultaneous peaks gives CMmin as
priate gust factor may be found in Ref. [13]. CMsimmin:=psiTACpmin
ORIGIN1
CMsimmin(0.138)
ga:=CpmaxCpmean
gp1:=ga1 gp2:=ga2 gp3:=ga3 gp4:=ga4
r1Cpsd1,1 r2:=Cpsd2 r3Cpsd3 r4:=Cpsd4 A.1.2.7. Simultaneous peaks gives CMmax as

|gp1| |gp2| |gp3| |gp4| CMsimmax:=psiTACpmax

g1:= g2:= g3:= g4:=
r1 r2 r3 r4 CMsimmax(2.825)
g16.497 g27.023 g36.101 g46.12
(g1psi1+g2psi2+g3psi3+g4psi4)
gmax:= gmax6.564 A.1.2.8. Quasi steady gives CMmax as
(psi1+psi2+psi3+psi4)
G:=1.74
gbCpminCpmean
gb1:=gb1 gb2:=gb2 gh3:=gb3 gb4:=gb4 CMQSmax:=G2CMmean

|gb1| |gb2| |gb3| |gb4| CMQSmax(2.677)

gb1:= gb2:= gb3:= gb4:=
r1 r2 r3 r4
216 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217

0.524 0.45

A.1.2.9. LRC effective static pressure distribution 0.334 0.641
Cpmin
0.579 0.364 0.598 0.417
LRCp:=psiTACpsigmarhoCpsigma EigvecCM
0.52 0.38 0.601 0.473
LRCp(0.145 0.152 0.123 0.074) 0.345 0.722 0.41 0.438
gmin
CpLRCmin:=CpmeanLRCTp
CMsigma
A.1.3. Roof shear analysis

0.357
0391

CpLRCmin 1
0.561
1
0.86 psi:=
1
CMminck:=psiTACpLRCmin 1
CMminck(0.219)
Which is the same as CMmin.
A.1.3.1. Calculation of weighted gust factor for shears
A.1.2.10. LRC effective static pressure distribution
Cpmax (g1psi1+g2psi2+g3psi3+g4psi4)
gsmax:= gmax6.435
(psi1+psi2+psi3+psi4)
gmax
CpLRCmaxCpmeanLRCTp (gb1psi1+gb2psi2+gb3psi3+gb4psi4)
CMsigma gsmin:= gmin
(psi1+psi2+psi3+psi4)

5.37
2.463
5.642
CpLRCmax
4.803
3.414 A.1.3.2. Calculation of mean and standard deviation
shear force coefficients
CMmaxck:=psiTACpLRCmax
CSmean:=psiTACpmean
CMmaxck(2.613)
CSmean(1.728)
Which is the same as CMmax.
CSsigma:=(psiTACpsigmarhoCpsigmaApsi)0.5
A.1.2.11. Eigenvalue analysis of the covariance matrix CSsigma(0.483)

CovCM:=CpsigmarhoCpsigma
A.1.3.3. Covariance integration gives CSmin as

0.349 0.292 0.206 0.124
CSmin:=CSmeangsminCSsigma
0.292 0.382 0.262 0.13
CovCM CSmin(0.537)
0.206 0.262 0.327 0.2
0.124 0.13 0.2 0.25

EigvalCM:=eigenvals(CovCM) A.1.3.4. Covariance integration gives CSmax as

CSmax:=CSmeangsmaxCSsigma

0.959
0.213 CSmax(4.837)
EigvalCM
0.045
0.092 A.1.3.5. Simultaneous peaks gives CSmin as
EigvecCM:=eigenvecs(CovCM) Cssimmin:=psiTACpmin
 C.W. Letchford, G.P. Killen / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 207217 217

CSsimmin(0.32) CSmaxck:=psiTACpLRCmax
CSmaxck(4.837)
A.1.3.6. Simultaneous peaks gives CSmax as Which is the same as CSmax
T
CSsimmax:psi ACpmax
A.2. Data for end bay at a wind direction of 30
CSsimmax(5.41)
G:=1.74
1.81 0.533 5.23 0.28

A.1.3.7. Quasi steady gives CSpeak as

2
CSQSpeak:=G CSmean
Cpmean:=

1.5
1.46

1.62
Cpsd:=
0.457
0.507

0.555
Cpmax:=
3.62
4.03

4.06
Cpmin:=
0.275
0.07

0.02

CSQSpeak(5.23) 0.25 1 0.71 0.48 0.4 0.875

Area:=

0.25

0.25

0.25
rho:=
0.71

0.48

0.4
1

0.88

0.79
0.88

0.91
0.79

0.91

1

psi:=
0.625

0.375

0.125
A.1.3.8. LRC effective static pressure distribution
Cpmin
LRCp:=psiTACpsigmarhoCpsigma
LRCp(0.243 0.266 0.249 0.176)
gsmin References
CpLRCmin:=CpmeanLRCpT
CSsigma
[1] Standards Australia, AS 1170.2, SAA loading code Part 2: Wind

0.512 Loads; 1989.
[2] Killen GP, Letchford CW. A parametric study of wind loads on
0.493 grandstand roofs. Engineering Structures 2001;23:72535.
CpLRCmin [3] Holmes JD, Best RJ. An approach to the determination of wind
0.472
load effects on low rise buildings. JWEIA 1983;7:27387.
0.673 [4] Kasperski M, Niemann HJ. The LRC (loadresponse-correlation)
method a general method for estimating unfavorable wind load
CSminck:=psiTACpLRCmin distributions for linear and non-linear structural behavior. JWEIA
1992;4144:175363.
CSminck(0.537) [5] Killen GP. A parametric study of wind loads on grandstand roofs.
MEngSt thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University
Which is the same as CSmin. of Queensland, 1997.
c1min:=2(3CMminCSmin) c1min(0.237) [6] Letchford CW, Sandri P, Levitan ML, Mehta KC. Frequency
response requirements for fluctuating pressure measurements.
c2min:=2(2CSmin3CMmin) c2min(0.838) JWEIA 1992;40:26376.
[7] Melbourne WH, Cheung JCK. Reducing the wind load on large
c1max:=2(3CMmaxCSmax) c1max(6.004) cantilevered roofs. JWEIA 1988;28:40110.
[8] Melbourne WH. The response of large roofs to wind action.
c2max:=2(2CSmax3CMmax) c2max(3.671)
JWEIA 1995;54/55:32535.
c1 is at the free end of the cantilever; c2 is at the support [9] Kawai H, Shimura M, Yoshie R, Wei R. Wind induced response
end of cantilever. of a large cantilevered roof. In: Proceedings 4th Asia-Pacific
Symposium on Wind Engineering, 1416 July, 1997, Gold Coast,
University of Queensland; 1997:1914.
A.1.3.9. LRC effective static pressure distribution [10] Ginger JD, Letchford CW. Wind loads on planar canopy roofs,
Cpmax Part 2: fluctuating pressure distributions and correlations. JWEIA
1994;51:35370.
gsmax [11] Mallam A. Structural dynamics of cantilevered grandstand roofs.
CpLRCmax:=CpmeanLRCpT
CSsigma Unpublished BE thesis, University of Queensland; 1998.
[12] Letchford CW, Denoon RO, Johnson G, Mallam A. Dynamic

4.985 characteristics of cantilever grandstand roofs. Engineering Struc-
5.397 tures (accepted).
CpLRCmax [13] Holmes JD, Rains GJ. Wind loads on flat and curved roof low-
5.053 rise buildings application of the covariance integration
method. In: Proc. Colloque Construire avec le vent, Nantes,
3.914 France; 1981:V.1.118.