huangyhg

lateral deflection
to simplify the structure i'm designing, lets say it is a steel framed 100' x 40' x 22' tall building. each wall is cmu. using cmu walls as shear walls can lead to cracking in the cmu (since to act properly, cmu shear walls crack). instead, i'm forced to use moment frames. the lateral deflection limit is going to make a large difference in my design. i have several questions on it.
1) in ibc table 1604.3, deflection limit for wind for exterior walls with brittle finishes is l/240. that seems like a low limit for cmu. the allowable deflection would be 1.1". aci 530 doesn't give a deflection limit. is l/240 the correct deflection limit for cmu walls?
2) other engineers in my office use the l/240 limit for lateral deflection. however, they calculate it in an interesting way. they say that the building acts like half of a beam. "the top of the wall is equivalent to the midpoint of a beam." saying this, you could say that to properly use a deflection limit of l/240, you'd have to double the building height. or, in other words, use l/120 for the lateral deflection. they have used this same concept for cantilevers. i can understand their reasoning, but have been hesitant to use this method, because i'm not sure what the ibc intends. my gut feeling is to not use this method, and we know what they say about gut feelings.
-i'm thinking of using l/240 (true l/240), and on my cmu wall braces from the steel beams, detailing them so that the steel frames can move without moving the wall or creating a stress in the brace or wall.
thanks in advance for the feedback.
it appears i may have answered my own question. i found this guide which is based on "serviceability design considerations for low-rise buildings", which was apparently sponsored by aisi and aisc.
this metal building supplier provides a very nice summary of different deflection limits.
i'll also assume that the "cantilever" analysis where the limit is l/120 as opposed to l/240 due to the idea of the building being half of a beam is incorrect.
hmmm - i don't know about using h/100 for lateral drift. that seems like a very very high allowable drift. for your 22' high building you'd be able to allow 2.6" of lateral drift - with cmu walls you'd have a mess.
there was either an asce or an aisc (probably aisc) journal article - i've got it at my office and i'll dig it up on monday to see what it says. i do re
you need to get your hands on the aisc serviceability seminar notes from a few years back. i'd be willing to bet that somebody in your office has a copy of this. it has a very good writeup on drift limits. it also has a copy of the aisc ej article by griffis on the subject (probably the one jae is referring to). you could get a copy of this paper free at aisc's website assuming that you're a
as always, thanks for the responses. i'll take a look at finding that design guide 3. i'm not a
aisc design guide 3 is certainly a good resource and as it was co-authored by griffis it contains much of the recommendations in a previous paper. a couple of important points to note:
1. the drift limits in the seismic section of the ibc are just that...drift limits for seismic action. these drift limits are not serviceability limit states but rather help maintain the overall stability of the system under strength based earthquake loads.
2. h/400 is a reasonable servicability type wind load deflection and as someone pointed out you can use this with a load case of 0.7w to take the 50 year code wind down to a 10-year. i wrote about this previously:

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]