See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269083259

Deflection Limits in Tall Buildings—Are They Useful?

Conference Paper · April 2011

DOI: 10.1061/41171(401)45

CITATIONS READS
6 19,094

1 author:

Rob J. Smith
Arup
9 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Damping View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rob J. Smith on 13 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Deflection Limits in Tall Buildings – Are they useful?
Rob Smith
Associate Principal, Arup, 12777 West Jefferson Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90066,
USA; PH +1 310 578 4598;; email: rob-j.smith@arup.com

ABSTRACT
Serviceability criteria in the form of lateral deflection and acceleration limits under
wind loading are often the governing structural issues for tall buildings. Whilst the
basis for acceleration criteria has been the subject of research, rational refinement
and consensus over recent years, deflection limits are still rather arbitrary. Current
guidance on deflection limits in international design codes is very limited and is
based primarily on experience with typical low and medium -rise buildings. The
issues with lateral deflection in very tall buildings are different to those of low-rise
buildings, and depend on structural form. Rational choice of deflection criteria for
tall buildings therefore requires further consideration of the nature of the
deformations and the effects they have on the functional aspects of the building.
This paper identifies the functional issues, the relevant deflection measures, and
reviews current international practice. New design approaches are challenging
previous design norms, and the paper proposes a performance-based approach,
which allows greater freedom in choosing appropriate constraints for structural and
non-structural components. Whilst the subject matter is not new, the use of new
design tools and processes leads us to re-examine rules of thumb previously used.
The paper focuses primarily on wind events, but comparisons with more-frequent
seismic events are drawn.
INTRODUCTION
Lateral loading effects from wind and seismic sources usually dominates the
structural design of tall buildings. As well as strength considerations, stiffness and
its’ effect on deflection is usually the governing criteria which determines structural
element size and cost.
Structural design codes are generally written with conventional types of low-rise and
medium-rise buildings in mind. High-rise buildings often have different structural
forms such as outrigger systems, bundled tubes, megabracing etc. The nature of the
deflection with these structural types often differs to that in low-rise buildings.
At the time of writing there are a large number of buildings around the world being
designed above 300m in height, with a few significantly higher than that. In order to
justify the performance of these buildings, it is essential to understand the nature of
lateral deflections.
The first part of this paper discusses the functional issues that are affected by
deflections in high-rise buildings. The next part discusses factors that affect the
prediction deflections. Finally, a review of recommended deflections and a design
approach is given. This paper describes a performance-based approach for deflection
limits, whereby the limit should be defined by consideration of the performance of
all the associated non-structural and structural items.
PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO DEFLECTION
Cladding and Facade
Cladding systems must be designed to accommodate the movements imposed upon
them so as to maintain the functionality of weather-tightness, acoustic and thermal
insulation and structural / mechanical integrity.
The movements of concern to cladding are local deformations, not overall
deflections. The relevant local deformations are affected by the arrangement and
types of fixing and the design of the joints, but may be categorised broadly as
vertical compression/extension, in-plane shear and warping.
All aspects of sources of deformation are of concern. These include
Movements associated with continuing construction of the building after
panels have been installed
Long term (quasi-static) effects due to gravity loads, creep and shrinkage
Medium term effects (e.g. thermal)
Short term and dynamic effects (wind and earthquake)
Movements from all sources must be combined to determine the effect on individual
panels. This is common practice amongst many specifiers of facade systems.
The movements tolerated by cladding panels are then limited by:
Maximum movement joint size (limited by manufacturing or architectural
preference)
Size of panels
Detailing of movement joints and connections
Ductility of panels – typically low
Interior fit-out : partition walls, architectural finishes etc
Broadly the same considerations apply to internal fit out as apply to cladding.
However there may be additional racking deformations associated with:
Relative vertical gravity and thermal shortening between internal and
exterior cores, walls and columns
Additional racking due to lateral deformation shapes of walls/cores and
frames
It is common in seismic zones for partition walls to be designed for movement. For
instance, soft layers can be placed at the end and head of walls, allowing inplane
movement, but restricting out of plane. Where brittle finishes are applied, and
movement joints are not specified, the designer can assess shear drift for an
appropriate panel size and limit drift based on guidance for low-rise buildings.
Lifts / Elevators
The considerations for lifts are different. Lifts are contained within shafts and are
only sensitive to lateral deflections due to wind (and earthquake). Lift cars and
counterweights are laterally restrained by vertical rails within the shaft and systems
can be designed to accommodate significant lateral ‘slope’. However, a major
consideration is the profile of the cables and deflected lift shaft, and the need to
prevent the cables from snagging on fittings in the shaft. Cables respond
dynamically to lateral vibration of the building and it is important to avoid
significant resonance by ensuring the natural frequency of the cables is well
separated from the natural frequencies of the building. This is often managed by
parking the lifts during high winds so that the cable lengths are reduced.
The shaft size may need to be increased in order to provide adequate clearance
between the cables and the shaft during strong winds to accommodate the lateral
curvature (related to deflection) of the lift shaft (and therefore building as a whole)
and the sag and vibration of the cables. The geometry of the lift shaft and its
deflected shape should be considered on a case by case basis and there is no single
limiting value – the height is likely to be governed by the size and strength of cables.
Therefore, if lateral deflection limits are relaxed the sizes of lift shafts may have to
increase.
Occupant comfort
Occupant comfort is related to the perceived movement of buildings. In isolation
from visual cues, humans cannot detect the quasi static lateral deflection of a tall
building, sensing only the motion, normally quantified in terms of acceleration rather
than displacement. Whilst there is no universally agreed limit for lateral
accelerations, there are various guidelines in different design standards which are
broadly similar. Deflection checks should be used in assessing damage to buildings,
and not occupant comfort. For this reason the historic specification of a lateral
‘deflection limit’ (e.g. the Hong Kong concrete design code (2004) recommends a
limit of H/500) as a means of guarding against excessive human perception of
motion is at best indirect and empirical, and at worst could be either unsafe or
uneconomic. For buildings with supplementary damping, it is possible to make a
building more flexible and still achieve satisfactory accelerations.
In extreme cases, the ‘slope’ of a building may be noticed by the occupants as the
building floor becomes non-horizontal. Perception might be might be triggered by a
ball or marble starting to roll across a floor or table top, or a pendulum light fitting
moving out of line with a ‘vertical’ feature. Criteria for such phenomena have not
been developed, as traditionally it has been ‘motion’ (i.e. lateral accelerations) that
has governed. However, this may not be the case in future for very tall buildings
where human sensitivity to acceleration is lower and where slopes at the top of a
building inevitably become relatively high.
Acceptable damage
Normal design practice assumes that the structure will remain near-elastic for the
ultimate (factored) wind load. It is also assumed that the non-structural elements will
also remain largely undamaged for the unfactored wind load – typically 50 or 100
years. For seismic loading, more damage is acceptable. ASCE 41-06 (2006) provides
guidance on how different shear drifts relate to different damage levels. The
“immediate occupancy” damage category (typically relating to a 30-70 year seismic
event) allows a small degree of damage, but the “service wind” (50 years) allows no
damage. The difference relates to the high frequency of wind storms.
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE PREDICTION OF DEFLECTIONS
Structural modelling of frame
Typically, structural modeling is performed with the intent of calculating force
distribution within a building. A conservative approach is made which often over
estimate deflections. Therefore realistic assumptions would need to made relating to
items such as Non-structural elements, P-delta effects, Construction sequence,
Cracking of elements, Short term elastic modulus, Stiffness degradation, Modelling
of joints. While there are numerous text books written on this subject, there is little
standardized guidance.
Loading and return period
Wind
Deflections under wind loading are normally taken at the “design wind speed”.
The design wind loading for tall buildings is usually taken as either 50 year (non-
typhoon regions) or 100 year (typhoon regions). This is sometimes reflected in the
load factors used and care should be taken when selecting a return period.
For certain types of building, the peak wind loading may be associated with a lower
wind speed. This occurs when the critical wind speed for vortex shedding is lower
than the 50 year wind speed. In this case, the design should not only use the peak
wind load for estimating deflections, but should also consider increasing this. The
reason for the that the probability of the building experiencing this force is higher
than for a building which does not see this vortex shedding peak.
Damping
Damping is a big factor in determining the dynamic response, which will often
contribute a significant proportion of the overall deflections in wind. As discussed in
Smith, Willford and Merello (2010) the values of damping conventionally
recommended are typically too optimistic for very tall buildings, and appropriate
values based on high-quality measurements should be adopted.
Seismic
Seismic response is usually based on either the 475 or 2475 year event. The nature
of seismic loading is such that a much greater shear drift is seen within the building
than in wind. Interstorey drift largely matches shear drift (racking deformation) in
this case. See later for definitions of drifts.

DEFINITIONS OF DEFORMATION UNDER WIND OR EARTHQUAKE

The following are useful definitions to describe how a building deforms.
Total building drift ratio is defined as the peak lateral deflection at the top of a
building divided by the height of the building (excluding items such as masts etc)
under the design wind load. This is a crude measure of assessing the stiffness of a
building and its likely performance.
Interstorey drift is defined as the difference in horizontal displacement over one
storey (floor) divided by the storey height. This is the most commonly used form of
deformation criterion and many structural design standards refer to this. This can be
seen as in Figure 1.
Floor Slope. In the context of building deflections, the slope can be defined as the
average angle of the floor plate at the lower part of a panel that is considered. The
slope may vary in each bay, depending on the relative vertical deflection of the
columns or walls at each side of the bay. In Figure 1, this is – and may vary from
panel to panel.
Panel deformation is a measure of the in-plane shear deformation of a wall panel.
It is the difference between the interstorey drift and the local floor slope. Whilst in
framed perimeter structures the floor slope will generally mean the panel
deformation is less than the interstorey drift, in some cases the effect of floor slope is
additive ( e.g. between a core and a perimeter structure). This is a measure of the
deformation that would cause damage to non-structural elements. This is in Figure
1. If one compares figures b and c, it can be seen that panel deformation may vary
across a storey. A famous example of a building with a high floor slope and high
interstorey drift but no panel deformation is the leaning tower of Pisa. All the
deformation is in the foundation.
Racking deformation can be defined as the average panel deformation over a
storey.
Inclination may be defined as the slope of a nominally vertical element such as a lift
shaft in wind. It is the same as interstorey drift.

a/ Low rise building – interstorey drift same as b/ Tubular building – interstorey drift
panel deformation higher than panel deformation

c/ Core building – interstorey drift can be lower d/ Example of building with high
than panel deformation interstorey drift and low panel
deformation

Figure 1 - Definitions of drift - based on CTBUH (2008)

SAMPLE DATA FROM BUILDINGS
The following gives examples of tall building designs.
Table 1 - Design deflections

Source Max
Name of Lctn of data Ht Structural System Max Interstore
building (m) Lateral y Drift
Deflect
Arup 374 H/785
Central Plaza Hong perimeter tube core
Kong
Arup 432 H/575 h/500
West Tower Guangzh RC Core + CFT
ou Diagrid
Taranath 421 H/575
Jin Mao Shanghai RC Core + SRC (Chinese
Tower Column frame code
wind)
International Arup 480 H/400 h/300
Commerce Hong RC Core + Outrigger +
Centre Kong SRC Column frame
Arup 420 H/466 h/315
2IFC Hong RC Core + Outrigger +
Kong SRC Column frame
Petronas Taranath 452 H/560
Tower Kuala RC Core + Outrigger + (50 year
Lumpur SRC Column frame wind)
Elysian Hotel Chicago Taranath 208 RC Core + outrigger + H/800
RC Mega columns
Pinnacle London Arup Braced steel perimeter h/300
with viscous dampers
St Francis Manila Arup 210 RC core, moment H/230 h/250
Towers frame, Damped
outrigger
Al Bateen Dubai Taranath 204 Coupled shear wall h/300
Towers (reported
as 10 year
wind)
SRZ Tower Dubai Taranath 265 RC Core + outrigger + Approx
frame h/350 (10
year wind)
Sources of data : Arup – internal Arup correspondence
Taranath – see Taranth (2009)
EXISTING CODES AND STANDARDS
The following data has been taken from various international design and loading codes.
Many modern design codes do not apply limits on lateral deflection of buildings.
Table 2 - deflection limits in international standards
Standard/ Reference Effect Type Inter-storey Top
Drift Ratio Deflection
Limit Limit
Chinese Standard
JGJ3-2002 Technical Wind Concrete/ Steel/ 1/500 No
specification for concrete Composite guidance
(H>250m)
structures of tall building
Seismic Concrete/ 1/500 No
(50yrs) Steel/Composite guidance
(H>250m)
JGJ 99-98 Technical Wind Steel Structure 1/400 No
specification for steel guidance
structure of tall building Seismic Steel Structure 1/250 No
(50yrs) guidance
DG/TJ08-015-2004 Code for Wind Composite 1/500 No
design of steel – concrete (H>250m) guidance
hybrid structures for high – Seismic Composite 1/500 No
rise buildings (Shanghai) (50yrs) guidance
(H>250m)
Hong Kong Code
Code of practice on Wind Wind RC/Steel No guidance No
Effects in Hong Kong 2004 guidance
Code of Practice for Wind RC No guidance 1/500
Structural use of Concrete
2004
Code of Practice for Wind Steel 1/400 1/500
Structural Use of Steel 2005
Eurocode
Eurocode 3 Wind Steel No guidance No
ENV 1993-1-1:2005: guidance
Eurocode 8 Seismic Steel / Concrete 1/200 – 1/100 No
EN 1998-1-2004 (approx 95 (limits depend guidance
year) on finishes)
British Standards
BS 5950 – structural steel in Wind Steel 1/300 No
buildings guidance
BS 8110 – structural use of Wind Concrete No
concrete (limit applies unless 1/500 guidance
partition, claddings have
been specifically detailed ..)

American Standards
ASCE 7-05 – Minimum Wind No guidance No
design loads for buildings guidance
and other structures
Seismic Steel / Concrete 1/100 – 1/200 No
(2/3 of guidance
2475 event)
 Standard/ Reference Effect Type Inter-storey Top
Drift Ratio Deflection
Limit Limit
Los Angeles Tall Building Seismic All 1/33 No
Structural Design Council, (MCE) guidance
An alternative procedure for
Seismic analysis and design
of
Tall buildings located in the
Los Angeles region (2008)
Japanese Code
Building Codes of Japan Seismic Steel Typically: No
and (100yr): 1/200 guidance
Recommendations from the (500yr): 1/75 -
Special Approval Process by 1/100
a Selected Expert Review
Panel Concrete Typically: No
(applies to any building over (100yr): 1/500 guidance
60m) (500yr): 1/200
Guidelines for the Evaluation Wind Steel Same as above No
of Habitability to Building guidance
Vibration

LITERATURE REVIEW
Interstorey drift
Recommendations for criteria on drift limits have been in existence for many years.
For instance “The stability of tall buildings” (Wood, 1958) gives a table of racking
tests. From this, it can be seen that typically first cracks in a masonry wall would
occur at around H/400, although there is considerably more movement before
ultimate load is reached.
Similarly, tests by Freeman (1977) on plasterboard partitions indicated that first
cracks would occur around H/300 to H/400. The paper also discusses how partitions
may effect the overall damping and stiffness of the building.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the drifts is published by the Council of
Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (1980) includes a study of the state of the art in the
1970s. Limits for interstorey drift from literature range from H/333 to H/666. Note
that the latter is based upon a wind pressure of 958 Pa (20 lb/ft2) at 30m height,
rather than a specific return period. Most of the drift values in this book refer to those
in common usage, but little mention is made of physical testing. A later study by
ASCE (Ellingwood et al 1986) shown in table 4 compiled the results of various tests
to ascertain the effect of drift on damage to non-structural components. As can be
seen, the critical point where damage becomes visible would appear to be H/500 to
H/300.
Table 3 - test data from Wood (1958)
Type of frame and infill First visible First crack Ultimate
crack : deflection deflection deflection
/ height (inches) (inches)
Frame type 1
Horizontal girders 10 in x 4.5 in (I25)
Vertical stanchions 10 in x 8 in (I 55) (weak direction)
6 in x 3 in x 0.5 in bolted cleat connections to top and bottom flanges of each beam
Open bare frame n/a 1.0 6.0
Encased frame 1/100 1.0 2.3
Encased frame with 4.5 inch 1/350 0.3 2.5
brick panel
(repeat test) with 4.5 inch brick 1/400 0.28 2.8
panel
Brick on edge in filling 1/400 0.27 2.0
3 in hollow clinker block 1/450 0.25 0.8
(repeat test) 3 in clinker block 1/400 0.28 0.7
3 in hollow clay block 1/275 0.4 1.5
3.5 inch brick 1/425 0.26 0.6
4.5 inch brick with door 1/1000 0.11 2.1
opening
Frame type 2 (stiffer)
Horizontal girders 13 in x 5 in (I35)
Vertical stanchions 10 in x 8 in (I 55) (strong direction)
6 in x 4 in x 3/8 in bolted cleat connections to top and bottom flanges of each beam
Encased frame 1/100 1.0 2.2
4.5 inch brick infilling 1/400 0.28 1.5
Table 4 - Serviceability performance levels published by ASCE (Ellingwood 1986)
Deformation as a Visibility of Typical behavior
fraction of span deformation
or height
< 1/1000 Not visible Cracking of brickwork
1/500 Not visible Cracking of partition walls
1/300 Visible General architectural damage
Cracking in reinforced walls
Cracking in secondary members
Damage to ceiling and flooring
Façade damage
Cladding leakage
1/200 – 1/300 Visible Visual annoyance
Improper drainage
1/100 – 1/100 Visible Damage to lightweight partitions, windows,
finishes
Impaired operation of moveable components
such as doors, windows, sliding partitions
Galambos and Ellingwood (1986) suggest that the serviceability criteria based upon
50 year winds are too onerous and it would be more suitable to use a reliability
method based around the 8 year period (8 years being a typical lease period in a tall
building), such that the design deflections are not exceeded more than once in that
period. We do not believe that this suggestion was ever taken up in building codes.
A further study by the ASCE (1988) conducted a survey of US structural engineering
practices. The study focussed on engineers treatment of drift in tall buildings.
Typically (41% of respondents), engineers designed to H/400 interstorey drift for the
50 year wind. A number used different numbers between H/600 and H/200.
Of course, the above has focussed on determining a deflection limit for a defined
wind event, ie a deterministic approach. In reality, a probabilistic approach is more
realistic, although not practical in normal building design. Reid and Turkstra (1981)
reviewed this process and concluded the most important variable was the damage
limitation threshold (ie the drift limit!) The other conclusion that can be drawn from
their work is rather simple – flexible buildings are more likely to suffer damage if
not detailed correctly. This is a sliding scale and not based on a single number.
Examples of buildings which have been designed outside of “normal” drift limits are
given in Taranth (2009) The SRZ tower in Dubai (265m high office building,
designed by Lemessuirier Consultants) did not meet a limit of H/500 in design, and
this requirement was relaxed owing to the nature of the deflection (bending rather
than shear). The same argument was applied to the Al Bateen Towers in Dubai
(204m). See table 2.
Another building designed (but not built) with high drifts is the 600m Chicago Spire.
While the drifts are not reported publicly (Burns et al, 2008) the first natural period is
– 18 seconds. This is an indication of a very flexible building which could not meet
traditional deflection limits.
Total building drift
Much of the older literature (CTBUH, 1980) focused on total building drift limits,
discussing occupant comfort and dynamics. At that time, the use of damping to
control building dynamics was in its infancy, as was the understanding of the
sensitivity of building occupants to lateral movement. A survey of engineers in
Boston, Ma indicated that total building drifts used in the 1970s was between H/1000
and H/200, with the majority using a limit of H/400. Two companies reported that
buildings designed with a limit of H/200 had performed adequately in the past,
although no details are given.
A key point to note that in the 1970s US design practice, there was no fixed
deflection criteria. This remains true in today’s practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Stiffen building for the appropriate us and wind event
The degree of stiffening required for a building should consider the contents (brittle
finishes, flexible panels etc) and the climate (typhoon, non-typhoon)
In a typhoon climate, it may be more appropriate to take a lower return period wind
with a tighter deflection criteria (for brittle finishes). This might be H/600 for a 10
year wind. The rationale is to concentrate on ensuring no damage in a more realistic
service state. Although, in this case, the 50 or 100 year wind deflection may be high,
the accumulated damage over the life of the building would be similar to that of a
structure designed in a non-typhoon region.
Similarly, for certain buildings, the vortex shedding peak may occur at a low return
period. This means that the wind loading would be higher for a medium wind speed
than higher wind speed and the peak load may occur at a speed corresponding to say,
the 10 year event. Again it would make sense to design for a lower return period.
For synoptic wind climates (non-typhoon), where detailing cannot accommodate
higher deflections, panel deformations should be limited to between 1/300 and 1/500
in the 50 year wind.
Accommodate movements
In many case, non-structural items can be designed to accommodate deflections.
Items which can be designed for this are cladding panels, partitions, lift cables,
services etc.. As has been discussed previously, overall deflection limits and
interstorey drift limits can in general be a crude measure the functional requirements,
and specific ‘performance based’ approaches offer greater flexibility and make more
sense particularly for very tall buildings. In seismic zones construction details are
modified to permit greater movement than normal without damage to cladding and
fit-out. .
Measure “panel” deflections
Deflections should be measured in appropriate panel sizes, which represent cladding
panels or non-structural walls. Interstorey-drifts, even when considering the
differing effects of shear and bending are fairly meaningless as they do not consider
the internal deformation of the building.
Design for occupant comfort
Quantitative criteria for occupant comfort are expressed in terms of acceleration, not
deflection, and traditional deflection limits are not a good way of attempting to
satisfy comfort criteria.

REFERENCES
ASCE, “Wind Drift Design of Steel-Framed Buildings: State-of-the-Art Report”
(1988) ASCE Task Committee on Drift Control of Steel Building Structures of the
Committee on Design of Steel Building Structures, James M. Fisher, chmn. Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 9, September 1988, pp. 2085-2108,
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2006) ASCE Standard 41 – 06, Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.
Buildings Department, Hong Kong. (2004) Code of practice for structural use of
Concrete
Burns J, Irwin P, Bacon D, Cicci M, Tomasetti R, Steele N. (2008) “Wind
Engineering of the 600m Chicago Spire”, IABSE 2008 conference Chicago. Pub
International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineers, Zurich, Switzerland
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) (1980) Planning and Design
of Tall Buildings ,5 vols., , ASCE ,New York, N.Y ch SB-5
 Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. (2008) Recommendations for Seismic
Design of High-Rise Buildings, (available at www.ctbuh.org)
Ellingwood, B., Allen, D. E., Elnimeiri, M., Galambos, T. V., Iyengar, H.,
Robertson, L. E., Stockbridge, J. and Turkstra, C. J. (1986). “Structural
Serviceability: A Critical Appraisal and Research Needs” (By the Ad Hoc
Committee on Serviceability Research, Committee on Research of the Structural
Division). Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 112, No. 12. 2646-2664.
Freeman (1977), “Racking Tests of High-Rise Building Partitions”, Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 103, No. 8, August 1977, pp. 1673-1685
Galambos T and Ellingwood B (1986) “Serviceability Limit States Deflections”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 1, January 1986, pp. 67-84,
Reid, S. G., and Turkstra, C. J.,(1981) "Codified Design for Serviceability,",
Structural Safety and Reliability, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Amsterdam, ,pp.
583-592.
Smith R, Merello R, Willford M (2010). “Intrinsic and Supplementary Damping in
Tall Buildings”. Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings April
2010 163(SB2), 111-118
Taranath B (2009), Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Buildings, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Fl, USA
Wood R. (1958) “The Stability Of Tall Buildings”, Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, 1958, 11, September, 69–102

View publication stats