12 AISC_PART 16_Comm L-N (477-503)_15Ed.

_July_2016 2016-12-26 1:53 PM Page 478 (Black plate)

16.1-478 GENERAL PROVISIONS [Comm. L1.

indicate impending structural damage or failure. Such signs of distress may be

viewed as an indication that the building is unsafe and diminish its economic value
and, therefore, must be considered at the time of design.
Service loads that may require consideration in checking serviceability include: (1)
static loads from the occupants, snow or rain on the roof, or temperature fluctuations;
and (2) dynamic loads from human activities, wind effects, the operation of mechani-
cal or building service equipment, or traffic near the building. Service loads are loads
that act on the structure at an arbitrary point in time and may be only a fraction of the
corresponding nominal load. The response of the structure to service loads generally
can be analyzed assuming elastic behavior. Members that accumulate residual defor-
mations under service loads also may require examination with respect to this
long-term behavior.
Serviceability limit states and appropriate load combinations for checking confor-
mance to serviceability requirements can be found in ASCE/SEI 7, Minimum Design
Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, Section 1.3.2,
Commentary 1.3.2, Appendix C, and Commentary Appendix C (ASCE, 2016).

L2. DEFLECTIONS
Excessive vertical deflections and misalignment arise primarily from three sources:
(a) gravity loads, such as dead, live and snow loads; (b) effects of temperature, creep
and differential settlement; and (c) construction tolerances and errors. Such defor-
mations may be visually objectionable; cause separation, cracking or leakage of
exterior cladding, doors, windows and seals; and cause damage to interior components
and finishes. Appropriate limiting values of deformations depend on the type of
structure, detailing and intended use (Galambos and Ellingwood, 1986). Historically,
common deflection limits for horizontal members have been 1/360 of the span for
floors subjected to reduced live load and 1/240 of the span for roof members.
Deflections of about 1/300 of the span (for cantilevers, 1/150 of the length) are visible
and may lead to general architectural damage or cladding leakage. Deflections
greater than 1/200 of the span may impair operation of moveable components such
as doors, windows and sliding partitions.
Deflection limits depend very much on the function of the structure and the nature of
the supported construction. Traditional limits expressed as a fraction of the span
length should not be extrapolated beyond experience. For example, the traditional
limit of 1/360 of the span worked well for controlling cracks in plaster ceilings with
spans common in the first half of the twentieth century. Many structures with more
flexibility have performed satisfactorily with the now common, and more forgiving,
ceiling systems. On the other hand, with the advent of longer structural spans, serv-
iceability problems have been observed with flexible grid ceilings where actual
deflections were far less than 1/360 of the span, because the distance between parti-
tions or other elements that may interfere with ceiling deflection are far less than the
span of the structural member. Proper control of deflections is a complex subject
requiring careful application of professional judgment. AISC Design Guide 3,
Serviceability Design Considerations for Steel Buildings, 2nd Edition (West and
Fisher, 2003) provide an extensive discussion of the issues.
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, July 7, 2016
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
12 AISC_PART 16_Comm L-N (477-503)_15Ed._July_2016 2016-11-09 10:50 AM Page 479 (Black plate)

Comm. L3.] DRIFT 16.1-479

Deflection computations for composite beams should include an allowance for slip,
creep and shrinkage as discussed in Commentary Section I3.
In certain long-span floor systems, it may be necessary to place a limit, independent
of span, on the maximum deflection to minimize the possibility of damage of adja-
cent nonstructural elements (ISO, 1977). For example, damage to non-load-bearing
partitions may occur if vertical deflections exceed more than about 3/8 in. (10 mm)
unless special provision is made for differential movement (Cooney and King, 1988);
however, many components can and do accept larger deformations.
Load combinations for checking static deflections can be developed using first-order
reliability analysis (Galambos and Ellingwood, 1986). Current static deflection
guidelines for floor and roof systems are adequate for limiting superficial damage in
most buildings. A combined load with an annual probability of being exceeded of 5%
is appropriate in most instances. For serviceability limit states involving visually
objectionable deformations, repairable cracking, or other damage to interior finishes,
and other short-term effects, the suggested load combinations are:

D+L
D + 0.5S

For serviceability limit states involving creep, settlement or similar long-term or per-
manent effects, the suggested load combination is:

D + 0.5L

The dead load effect, D, may be that portion of dead load that occurs following
attachment of nonstructural elements. For example, in composite construction, the
dead load effects frequently are taken as those imposed after the concrete has cured.
For ceiling related calculations, the dead load effects may include only those loads
placed after the ceiling structure is in place.

L3. DRIFT
Drift (lateral deflection) in a steel building is a serviceability issue primarily from the
effects of wind. Drift limits are imposed on buildings to minimize damage to
cladding and to nonstructural walls and partitions. Lateral frame deflection is evalu-
ated for the building as a whole, where the applicable parameter is the total building
drift, defined as the lateral frame deflection at the top of the most occupied floor
divided by the height of the building to that level, Δ / H. For each floor, the applica-
ble parameter is interstory drift, defined as the lateral deflection of a floor relative to
the lateral deflection of the floor immediately below, divided by the distance between
floors, (δn − δn−1) / h.
Typical drift limits in common usage vary from H / 100 to H / 600 for total building
drift and h/ 200 to h / 600 for interstory drift, depending on building type and the
type of cladding or partition materials used. The most widely used values are
H (or h) / 400 to H (or h) / 500 (ASCE, 1988). These limits generally are sufficient to
minimize damage to cladding and nonstructural walls and partitions. Smaller drift
limits may be appropriate if the cladding is brittle. AISC Design Guide 3 (West and
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, July 7, 2016
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
12 AISC_PART 16_Comm L-N (477-503)_15Ed._July_2016 2016-12-14 12:33 PM Page 480 (Black plate)

16.1-480 DRIFT [Comm. L3.

Fisher, 2003) contains recommendations for higher drift limits that have successfully
been used in low-rise buildings with various cladding types. It also contains recom-
mendations for buildings containing cranes. An absolute limit on interstory drift is
sometimes imposed by designers in light of evidence that damage to nonstructural
partitions, cladding and glazing may occur if the interstory drift exceeds about 3/8 in.
(10 mm), unless special detailing practices are employed to accommodate larger
movements (Cooney and King, 1988; Freeman, 1977). Many components can accept
deformations that are significantly larger. More specific information on the damage
threshold for building materials is available in the literature (Griffis, 1993).
It is important to recognize that frame racking or shear distortion is the real cause
of damage to building elements such as cladding and partitions. Lateral drift only
captures the horizontal component of the racking and does not include potential ver-
tical racking, as from differential column shortening in tall buildings, which also
contributes to damage. Moreover, some lateral drift may be caused by rigid body
rotation of the cladding or partition which by itself does not cause strain and, there-
fore, damage. A more precise parameter, the drift damage index used to measure the
potential damage, has been proposed (Griffis, 1993).
It must be emphasized that a reasonably accurate estimate of building drift is essen-
tial to controlling damage. The structural analysis must capture all significant
components of potential frame deflection, including flexural deformation of beams
and columns, axial deformation of columns and braces, shear deformation of beams
and columns, beam-column joint rotation (panel-zone deformation), the effect of
member joint size, and the P-Δ effect (Charney, 1990). For many low-rise steel frames
with normal bay widths of 30 to 40 ft (9 to 12 m), use of center-to-center dimensions
between columns without consideration of actual beam-to-column joint size and
panel zone effects will usually suffice for checking drift limits. The stiffening effect
of nonstructural cladding, walls and partitions may be taken into account if substan-
tiating information (stress versus strain behavior) regarding their effect is available.
The level of wind load used in drift limit checks varies among designers depending
upon the frequency with which the potential damage can be tolerated. Many designers
use a 50-year, 20-year or 10-year mean recurrence interval wind load when checking
serviceability limit states (Griffis, 1993; ASCE, 2016).
It is important to recognize that drift control limits by themselves, in wind-sensitive
buildings, do not provide comfort of the occupants under wind load. See Section L5
for additional information regarding perception of motion in wind sensitive buildings.

L4. VIBRATION
The increasing use of high-strength materials with efficient structural systems and
open plan architectural layouts leads to longer spans and more flexible floor systems
having less damping. Therefore, floor vibrations have become an important design
consideration. Acceleration is the recommended standard for evaluation.
An extensive treatment of vibration in steel-framed floor systems and pedestrian
bridges is found in AISC Design Guide 11, Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, July 7, 2016

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION