SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES; DEFLECTION

By Theodore V. Galambos, 1 F. ASCE and Bruce Ellingwood, 2 M. ASCE

ABSTRACT: The reliability of floor and roof deflections due to occupancy and
snow loads, respectively, and of lateral frame deflections due to wind loads is
examined. These deflections are determined for unfactored code-specified loads,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and they are not to exceed professionally established deflection limits. First-
order, second-moment probabilistic theory is used in the analysis. Values of
the reliability index are calculated for eight- and one-yr reference periods. Rec-
ommendations are made with regard to load levels to be used in the service-
ability analysis of deflection-sensitive and deflection-insensitive structures.

INTRODUCTION

Structural design of buildings (e.g., hospitals, schools, apartments, of-

fices) must include design for serviceability. The structure is propor-
tioned first for conformance with ultimate limit states; next the floor de-
flection due to statically applied live load a n d the lateral deflection (drift)
due to wind load are compared to deflection limits. If the computed
deflection exceeds the allowable value, then the structure is stiffened to
meet the requirements.
Conformance with allowable deflection criteria often is viewed as as-
surance of satisfactory service performance throughout the life of the
structure. Based on the record of satisfactory performance of most struc-
tures, it is believed that the relatively simple act of limiting the deflec-
tions to certain traditional allowable values somehow protects the build-
ing against a set of very complicated serviceability d e m a n d s . However,
there are two major problems with this simple approach: (1) W h e n it
fails (and it occasionally does fail, particularly in m o d e r n flexible build-
ings), remedial procedures may be complicated and costly; and (2) it is
not rational, e.g., w h y should a static deflection limit necessarily control
unacceptable vibrations?
The following is a partial list of common serviceability problems:

1. Local damage to nonstructural elements (e.g., ceilings, partitions,

walls, windows) due to deflections caused by load, temperature change,
moisture, shrinkage or creep.
2. Impairment of normal functions of furniture or equipment (e.g.,
elevators) d u e to deflection u n d e r load.
3. Noticeable deflections causing distress to occupants.
4. Extensive damage to nonstructural elements due to extreme natural
events (e.g., hurricane, tornado, etc.).
5. Deterioration of the structure d u e ot age and use (e.g., deteriora-
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Mineral Engrg., Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN 55455.
2
Research Struct. Engr. and Leader, Struct. Engrg. Group, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC.
Note.—Discussion open until June 1, 1986. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manu-
script for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Jan-
uary 30, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 1, January, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/86/0001-0067/$01.00. Paper
No. 20286.

67

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 tion of parking structures due to de-icing salt).
6. Physical or psychological discomfort or sickness of occupants due
to building motion caused by normal (e.g., floor vibration) or by wind
or earthquake.
7. Connection distortion under service loading (e.g., slip of friction-
grip joints).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Given the diversity of these serviceability conditions, it is evident that

they cannot all be dealt with by the simple expedient of limiting the
flexibility of the structure. Each individual condition must be addressed
by the designer considering the specific performance requirements of
the structure. The stiffness of the structure is an important parameter in
a number of the cited conditions, and a remedy for one condition, say
static live load deflection, may also contribute to the alleviation of an-
other one, say floor vibration. However, there is no guarantee that this
will be so in all situations.
Limit states associated with structural motion and human response,
structural deterioration, or connection slip have been treated extensively
elsewhere (2,5,7,10). The following presentation concerns the service-
ability limit states associated with the static deflection of steel structures
causing damage to nonstructural elements, impairment of function, and
visually observable deflection under load. The context of the presenta-
tion is provided by the philosophy of Limit States Design (LSD) and the
methodology of First-Order Second-Moment (FOSM) reliability theory
(4).
Two specific problems will be considered: (1) Floor deflections under
occupancy live loads, or roof deflections under snow loads; and (2) lat-
eral deflections (drift) due to wind loads.

DEFLECTION LIMITS AND SERVICE LOADS

In considering the probabilistic treatment of deflections, two questions

arise: (1) What should be an appropriate limiting deflection; and (2) what
should be the magnitude and character of the loads at serviceability?
Current design practice gives few answers: Loads are ambiguosly termed
as "service" loads, and the origin of the customary deflection limits can-
not be clearly documented (6).
Excessive static deflections can cause visible cracking of walls and sag-
ging of floors and roofs, which may annoy or alarm building occupants;
damage to nonstructural components and attachments; cladding sepa-
ration or leakage; racking of doors and windows; and, in extreme cases,
the development of secondary forces in walls and columns. Since the
general public knows little about what constitutes safe building perfor-
mance, such behavior may be perceived as a sign of imminent collapse.
Recent widely publicized structural failures have reinforced this percep-
tion.
The point at which unserviceability occurs depends on the nature of
the building structure and the perceptions of the building occupants.
Table 1 provides some guidelines as to what behavior might be expected
at different static deflections. These indicators were obtained from a re-
view of literature on the topic (e.g., Refs. 2, 6, 8). Precise serviceability
68

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 TABLE 1 .—Serviceability Problems at Various Deflection or Drift Indices
Deflection or drift index Typical behavior
(D (2)
<ft/l,000 Not Visible Cracking of brickwork
ft/500 Cracking of partition walls
(" General architectural damage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

//300, ft/300 Visible J Cracking in reinforced walls

1 Damage to ceiling and flooring
I Cladding leakage
C Visually annoying
//200-//300 \ Damage to lightweight partitions, display
I windows
f Damage to finishes
;/100-//200; J Impaired operation of moveable
ft/100-ft/200 I components—doors, windows, sliding
I partitions
Note: ft = story height; / = span of horizontal flexural member.

limits depend on a host of factors that are difficult to define in the design
process.
Floor Deflection Limits.—In customary steel design practice in the
United States, a deflection limit under live load or snow load of 1/360
of the span is used when the steel beam supports a plaster ceiling. A
larger deflection limit, usually 1/240 of the span, is used for other con-
ditions (6). Some codes require a limit of 1/360 of the span for floor
deflections, while permitting a deflection of 1/240 of the span for roofs.
Other countries use similar limits, with minimum allowable deflections
seldom less than 1/360 of the span nor seldom larger than 1/180 of the
span (6). A comparison of these limits with Table 1 suggests that the
customary floor deflection limits used by the designers are reasonable
but imprecise indices of damage or unsightliness. Until a major research
effort is mounted on a worldwide basis to define better limiting criteria,
there seems to be little basis for changing the existing deflection limits
when adopting new design methods based on LSD principles. Thus the
customary time-tested deflection limits will be used herein as determin-
istic allowable floor deflection criteria. These limits are either specified
in building codes or are imposed by the designer based on judgment
for the particular type of building under consideration.
Drift Limits.—Lateral deflection or rotation criteria are imposed on
the design of multi-story buildings to control the displacement under
wind loads. Chapter SB5 of Ref. 2 gives a summary of current practice.
The normally accepted range of drift limits for building frames is from
a low of 0.0014 to a high of 0.004 times the building height. The range
of inter-story drift limits is from about 0.0015 to 0.005 times the story
height. Drift limits vary depending on the occupancy, the cladding type,
the framing, and the judgment of the designer. It is significant to note
that the drift limits are of about the same magnitude as the accuracy
with which the building can be erected. The successful performance of
most buildings seems to indicate that the usual drift limits do provide

69

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 the necessary protection against damage to cladding and other nonstruc-
tural attachments and ensure the proper functioning of the building. The
drift criteria also serve to limit the development of large secondary forces
in walls and columns. As in the case of floor deflection, adherence to
the customary criteria for lateral deflection control may help reduce pe-
riodic motion, but provides no guarantee that under some conditions
the occupants of the building will not experience discomfort (10). A sep-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

arate investigation for motion is thus warranted for tall buildings. Until
future research indicates otherwise, the most reasonable course of ac-
tion, at the present time, is to accept the customary drift criteria as de-
terministic limits in a reliability analysis.
Serviceability Loads.—Allowable deflection limits are matched against
computed displacements in the design process. Deflection computations
are made for an idealized structure, the response of which to the spec-
ified "service loads" is determined by performing a first-order elastic
analysis. Mitigating features, such as beam end-restraints and cladding;
and detrimental effects, such as second-order (or P-delta) deflections,
are usually neglected in this analysis. The "service loads" generally are
understood to be the code-specified (unfactored) live, wind or snow loads
(1,2).
Probabilistic load models are necessary to evaluate serviceability cri-
teria from a reliability viewpoint. It has been customary in most reli-
ability analyses to seek a random variable representation of the struc-
tural load of interest, in lieu of the more complex stochastic process
representations (4). The maximum load to occur within a period of ref-
erence, T, is defined as Q,„ = max Q(t), in which Q(t) is the load which
varies as a function of time. Methods exist for approximating the statis-
tics of Q,„ (3,4,8). The period of reference T must be selected carefully.
Loading criteria for ultimate limit states in the United States (1) are based
on a 50-yr period of reference. It does not seem reasonable to base ser-
viceability criteria on such a severe requirement. Instead, load criteria
for checking deflections might be founded on the premise that the de-
flection limit should not be exceeded more than once, on the average,
during one tenancy. The average period between tenant changes in of-
fice buildings is eight yrs (1). If the serviceability limit state is recover-
able, i.e., there is no permanent damage following removal of the load,
the checking load might instead by chosen to ensure that the deflection
limit is not exceeded annually.
The statistical properties of the loads corresponding to one- and eight-
yr periods of reference were given in Ref. 3, and are reproduced in Table
2 of this paper. Mean values, as fractions of the code-specified nominal
values, and Coefficients of Variation (COV), are given for occupancy,
snow and wind loads. The nominal loads are given in a load code (1)
for a 50-yr reference period; the mean load ratios in Table 1 thus rep-
resent the proportion of the life-time maximum load expected during the
shorter serviceability reference periods. These data will be used in the
subsequent reliability analyses.
FLOOR DEFLECTION
The maximum center deflection of a uniform beam with stiffness EI
and length L under a uniformly distributed load w, having equal rota-
70

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 TABLE 2.—Load Statistics for Serviceability (from Ref, 3)
Time Mean load/ Coefficient
Type of load period (yr) nominal load of variation
(D (2) (3) (4)
Occupancy 8 0.65 0.32
Occupancy 1 0.45 0.40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Snow 8 0.45 0.35

Snow 1 0.20 0.75
Wind 8 0.55 0.50
Wind 1 0.33 0.60

tional end-restraints with spring constant k (Fig. 1), is

5wU 0.4
A=- (1)
384 EI
+ 0.5
k~L
When k = 0, this equation reduces to 5wL4/384E7, and when k —» °°, it
gives a;L4/384EI, the familiar deflections of the simple and the fixed-end
beam, respectively. End restraint derives from continuity or from the
end framing. In usual calculations for nominally simple ends the effect
of end-restraint is not included. However, its presence can affect reli-
ability in a positive manner. Sugimoto and Chen (9) give the following
particular values of the spring constants due to simple framing:

1. For a W12X30 beam connected to the major axis of a W12X65 col-

umn by riveted double-web connections, k = 17,000 in.-kip/rad (1,920
kN-m/rad).
2. For a W10X21 beam connected to the minor axis of a W10X29 col-
umn by web cleats and A325 bolts, k as 5,600 in.-kip/rad (630 kN-m/
rad).

It can be shown (see Appendix I) that for practical beams the effect
of restraint (i.e., the value of the bracket in Eq. 1) is to reduce the beam
deflection to between 80 and 99% of the value for the simply supported
beam. The effect of this restraint on the reliability will be discussed later
in this paper.
The reliability analysis is based on the assumption that: (1) The allow-
able deflection 8„ is a deterministic value specified by a code or by the
designer; and (2) the variability of the flexibility F is negligible when
compared to the variability of the loads. This latter assumption is veri-

W
k^LLLLLLlJ:
rfm~

FIG. 1.—Restrained-End Beam

71

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 fied in Appendix I where the variability of the flexibility was not ne-
glected.
The deflection equation (Eq. 1) can be written as
A = FL (2)
where F is the flexibility; and L is the load. The limit state equation when
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluated at the serviceability checking point (4) is

g = 8a - FL* = 0 (3)
where L* = L(l - aLVL$) (4)
In Eq. 4, the terms are defined as follows: L is the mean load and VL is
its COV; a is a direction cosine (4), which in this case of one random
parameter equals - 1 ; and (3 is the reliability index (4). The mean load is
expressed as

L
"(l)L- (5)
where L/L„ is the ratio of the mean to the nominal load L„. Such ratios
are given in Table 2 for occupancy and snow loads for eight-yr and one-
yr periods of reference (3).. Also given are the corresponding COV's. The
mean loads are obtained by considering current design practice, i.e.
FL„ £ 8„ (6)
Substituting L„ = ba/F into Eq. 5 gives, with Eqs. 4 and 3, the following
expression for (3:
1
-1
L
L„ -
p= (7)
VL
It it is desired to include the end-restraint, then

p = ^ (8)
VL
where Y is the bracket in Eq. 1, i.e.
0.4
Y = l
~m <9>
— + 0.5
kL
Note that the reliability index depends only on the load statistics, L/Lm
and VL, and not on the deflection limits. This is a consequence of as-
suming that the beam deflects precisely to 8„ under L„ (Eq. 6).
The results of this analysis are given in Table 3 for restraint-effects Y
varying from 0.8-1. This range covers the restraint to be expected in
72

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 w
TABLE 3.—Reliability Index p for Floor Deflection
P
y 8 yr Live 1 yr Live 8 yr Snow 1 yr Snow
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
0.8 2.5a (2.9)" 3.8 (4.4) 4.2 (5.1) 5.9 (7.0)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.9 2.0 (2.2) 3.2 (3.7) 3.6 (4.2) 5.2 (6.1)

0.96 1.7 (1.9) 2.9 (3.3) 3.2 (3.8) 4.9 (5.6)
0.99 1.6 (1.7) 2.8 (3.1) 3.1 (3.6) 4.7 (5.4)
1.00 1.5 (1.7) 2.7 (3.1) 3.0 (3.5) 4.7 (5.3)
"These values are determined by Appendix I, assuming that theflexibilityis
also a random variable.
"Values in parentheses are determined by Eq. 8, assuming that the flexibility
is deterministic.

nominally simply framed beams. The reliability indices listed are for an
analysis which neglects the variability of the flexibility (these are the val-
ues in parentheses). The other values of p are determined in Appendix
I where the flexibility is taken to be a random variable. As can be ex-
pected, the latter (3's are somewhat smaller. However, the general trends
are essentially the same whether or not the flexibility is considered to
be random or deterministic.
Most simple beams probably fall into the range of Y = 0.9 to 0.95, and
it can be seen that for a floor designed for a customary live load deflec-
tion of, say, 1/360 of the span, the reliability index is somewhere be-
tween 1.6 and 2, considered for a reference period of eight yrs.
Table 3 also shows that the reliability index for current deflection ser-
viceability designs is larger for a period of reference of one rather than
eight yrs, and that roofs under snow load appear to have more reliable
performance than do floors under live load.
This disparity suggests a possible improvement in current practice, as
follows: If it is assumed that current deflection limits are satisfactory for
inhibiting damage and visual annoyance (this does not include using
deflection limits to control vibration or corrosion—see previous discus-
sion), and if it is postulated that serviceable performance is tantamount
to limiting the probability of exceeding the deflection limit for the period
between occupancy changes, i.e., eight yrs, then approximately the same
level of reliability could be achieved for the live and snow load deflection
checks by taking the loads at the following percentages of their nominal
values (1):

Live load, 8-yr maximum: 100%

Snow load, 8-yr maximum: 75%

LATERAL DEFLECTION

Lateral drifts are determined in current design practice for the unfac-
tored nominal wind forces (1). The drift is computed either by first-order
or by second-order elastic analysis. The former method uses the actual
lateral loads, while the latter includes the additional lateral forces due
73

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 H
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2.—Deflection of Rigid Frame

to the P-delta effect, i.e., the total lateral force is the sum of the wind
force and the force p n 2P, where p„ is the allowable drift limit and EP is
the total gravity load assigned to the story (see Fig. 2).
Appendix II gives the derivations for the determination of the reli-
ability index p for single-story frames. The resulting values of (3 in Table
4 indicate that for all practical purposes the inclusion of the variabilities
due to the flexibility and the gravity loads do not affect the reliability
significantly. Thus the following discussion will consider the lateral wind
load to be the only random parameter.

TABLE 4.—Reliability Index p for Story Drift

P P
8„ L„/D„ S„/D„ W„/D„ 8 yr 1 yr
0)
v
(2)F (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
0.002" 0.08b — — — 1.5 3.2
0.002" 0 — — — 1.6 3.4
0.002 0.08b 0 0 100 1.5 3.2
0 0 0.01 1.5 3.0
0.5 0 0.5 1.5 3.2
0 3 0.5 1.5 3.2
0.3 0.1 0.1 1.5 3.2
0.1 0.1 5 1.5 3.2
0.002 0 0 0 100 1.6 3.4
0 0 0.01 1.5 3.3
0.5 0 0.5 1.6 3.4
0 3 0.5 1.6 3.4
0.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 3.4
0.1 0.1 5 1.6 3.4
0.003 0.08" 0.5 0 0.5 1.6 3.4
0.001 0.08b 0.5 0 0.5 1.6 3.4
"P-delta effect not included,
includes variability of the flexibility.

74

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 3.—Braced Frames

The drift for a single story frame (Figs. 2-4) is

p = FH (10)
where F is the flexibility and H is the random wind force. This equation
is of the same form as Eq. 2 for beams. Following an identical derivation,
it can be shown that
1
-1
H
( )
LUJ -
(11)
v„
where H/H„ is the mean-to-nominal wind load ratio for the desired pe-
riod of reference (eight yr or one yr); and VH is the COV of the wind
load (see Table 1). From Eq. 11, the values of p are equal to 1.6 and 3.4,
respectively, for the eight-yr and the one-yr reference period. The cor-
responding values are 1.5 and 3.2, respectively, if the variation of the
flexibility is also included.
The drift of a two-story frame (Fig. 5) is equal to
Pl = H1F11 + H2F12; p 2 = H1F21 + H2F22 (12)
where Hj and H2 are the lateral forces due to wind acting at story levels

IP
H + ?ZP

FIG. 4.—Rigid Frame with P-A Effect

75

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 H, <£
Hz
^ ^ 22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5.—Multi-Story Frames

1 and 2; and F,y are the flexibilities indicated in Fig. 5. These flexibilities
can be considered deterministic based on the observations for beams and
single-story frames. The statically equivalent wind forces, H,, are com-
puted from an analysis that takes into account the spatial coherence and
temporal variations in the fluctuating wind pressure. Thus, the forces
Hi can be assumed to be perfectly correlated, i.e., they are either equal
or they are proportional to each other. In general, it can be seen that
for any mutli-story frame

Pi = H(F,) (13)
where H is a reference lateral force; and F, is the appropriate frame flex-
ibility which now also includes the deterministic proportionality factors.
For example, for a two story fame under loads Ha = H and H2 = 0.5H,
Pi = H(Fn + 0.5F12) and p2 = H(F21 + 0.5F22).
The form of Eq. 13 is thus the same as that of Eq. 10 for a single story
frame, and so the reliability index is expressed by Eq. 11, regardless of
the number of stories. This is a consequence of the perfect correlation
of the statically equivalent lateral loads. The reliability index for lateral
drift in multi-story frames due to windloads is thus approximately 1.5
for an eight-yr, and 3.2 for a one-yr reference period, respectively.
The reliability indices p for the deflection and lateral drift serviceability
limits described previously can be related, to an order of magnitude, to
a serviceability limit state probability, pf, by

P/=*(-P). (14)
in which <3>( ) is the standard normal probability integral. Substituting
in the value of (J listed in Tables 3 and 4 the probability that a structure
designed to satisfy current deflection or drift guidelines will experience
a serviceability problem of the type described herein is on the order of
5% over an eight-yr period and 0.1% or less on an annual basis.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The reliability current of serviceability deflection guidelines is exam-

ined in this paper. The deflection limits customarily used by designers
for floor deflections under live load, for roof deflections under snow load,
and for lateral deflection sunder wind load appear to inhibit unsightly
deflection and damage to nonstructural elements and to equipment. They
may, or may not, prevent or control the occurrence of other states of

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 unserviceability, such as detectable motion or vibration. Such limit states
must be analyzed by other methods (5,10).
Current practice uses the unfactored code-specified nominal loads to
compute the deflections by elastic analysis. Usually a first-order analysis
is used, although second-order deflections due to the P-delta effect are
also included for taller buildings. These deflections are compared with
code-specified or designer-defined allowable deflection limits.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The reliability index associated with current design practice, using first-
order probabilistic methods is examined. The deflection limits are taken
to be the customary deterministic values which are assumed to provide
protection against unsightly deflections and against damage to nonstruc-
tural elements and equipment. A reference period of eight yrs was as-
sumed for the reliability analyses which represents the average period
of one tenancy in office buildings. Reliability analyses were also made
for a one-yr period, applicable to situations where deflection perception
is not critical or where cladding and equipment is not sensitive to de-
flection.
The following values of the reliability index p were obtained in this
analysis for beams and frames where restraint effects were not included
(the P's are for an eight-yr reference period interval):

Floor beams under occupancy load, p = 1.5

Roof beams under snow load, p = 3.0
Frames under wind load, p = 1.5

These values can be contrasted to p = 3.0 (based on a 50-yr period of

reference) typical of ultimate limit states (4), and p = 1.5 typical of the
slip of friction grip joints (7). Thus live-load deflection and wind drift
give reliabilities which are consistent with other serviceability criteria,
while exceedance of roof deflection limits is considerably less likely. One
possible way to achieve consistency is to use 3/4 of the code-specified
snow load for deflection limit calculations.
The one-yr reference interval loads give the following p's:

Floor deflection, p = 2.7

Roof deflection, p = 4.7
Wind drift, p = 3.2

For deflection-insensitive structures the following percentage of the code-

specified loads could be used to obtain essentially the same reliability as
under the eight-yr period:

Occupany loads: 80%

Snow loads: 50%
Wind loads: 75%

Unaccounted-for restraint increases the reliability of the deflection cri-

terion. If the actual deflection is, say, only 90% of the computed de-
flection, then p increases from 1.5 to 2.0 (see Table 3). Considering that
we know very little about the actual degree of restraint, it seems un-
desirable to take advantage implicitly of such restraint that undoubtedly
77

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 exists. However, if the actual restraint is known, then it could be ex-
plicitly accounted for in the delfection calculations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The financial support of the American Iron and Steel Institute is grate-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fully acknowledged.

APPENDIX I.—RELIABILITY OF BEAM DEFLECTION

The central deflection of a uniformly loaded beam with rotational end

restraint (Fig. 1) is
5wL4 ~~
A = —— : 1 - — (15)
384 EI EI
— + 0.5
kh
The term in brackets represents the effect of the degree of end-restraint;
it varies from 1.0 when k = 0 (pinned end) to 0.2 when k = °° (fixed
end). Its value is controlled by the ratio EI/kL. If we take the extreme
case where the length L equals 24 times the depth d, and use a range
of I/d from 564 (W36X300) to about 20 (light WlO-s), then, approxi-
mately
EI
20,000 < — < 700,000
L
for £ = 29,000 ksi (200,000 MPa). Assuming that the spring-constant k
varies from 5,000 to 20,000 in.-kip/rad (560 to 2,200 kN-m/rad) (9), then,
approximately

0.4
0.90 < <0.99
H
+ 0.5
kL
if the higher spring constant is matched with the stiffer beams. In the
following analysis it will be assumed that the actual deflection may vary
between 80% and 99% of the "simple" beam deflection.
If we denote the flexibility F as
5L4 0.4
F= (16)
384 EI EI
— + 0.5
kL
5L3
and let C= (17)
384
be a deterministic variable while E, I, and k are assigned to be indepen-
dent random variables with mean values E, I and k and COV's VE, Vt
and Vk, then the mean flexibility and its COV are equal to, with S =
EI/L
78

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 0.4
(18)
+ 0.5

0.4S 0.4S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.4
-1 + S
-. + 0,5 ~. + 0.5 + 0.5
k
VF = - (19)
0.4
1 -
S
-= + 0.5
k
Taking the values E = En, VE = 0.06, I = I„, V, = 0.05 (4), w h e r e the
subscript n denotes nominal quantities, then
El
S= — and Vs = Vo.06 2 + 0.05 2 = 0.08
L
If a relatively high COV of Vk = 0.3 is taken for the variability of the
spring constant, then Eq. 19 gives Vr = 0.08 for the practical range of
S/k = 700,000/20,000 and 20,000/5,000. The variability of the end-re-
straint thus has no effect on the COV of the flexibility, and t h u s VF =
0.08 will be used in the following derivations.
In the reliability analysis it is a s s u m e d that the allowable deflection 8„
is a deterministic limit specified by the designer or by a building code.
The limit state equation is
£=5fl-F*L* = 0 (20)
where L* and F * are the "checking p o i n t " values (4) of the load a n d the
flexibility, respectively.
F* = F(l-aFVF\S) (21)
L* = L ( l - a L y L ( 3 ) (22)
The terms in these equations are: F, Vr and L, VL are the m e a n s a n d the
COV's of the flexibility a n d the load, respectively; p is the reliability
index (4), and

af
dF*
a.F = (23)
D

CTL
dV
<*!. = • (24)
D
where CTF = VFF and a t + VLL are the standard deviations of F a n d L,
and
79

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 -^<HiM'
After performing the differentiations of g indicated by Eqs. 23-25,
<*>
-L*<rF
«f = .2 (26)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

VL* <J2F + F*2<J2L

-F*<JL
aL = . (27)
2
VL* <TF + F * V
The contemporary design requirement for checking floor or roof de-
flection is

F„Ln = ^ < 8„ (28)

where the subscripts n denote nominal values. At the limit F„Ln = 8„,
Eq. 28 gives
C8„
Ln = ^ (29)
The mean load is given by
£ L (3o)
=(£) "
where L/L„ is given in Table 1 for occupancy and snow loads. Substi-
tution of Eq. 29 into Eq. 30 gives

"©(?) -
and therefore also
v £ (32
*- ' -"'©(?) : >
Introducing (Eqs. 21 and 22)

F, = -j = 1 - aFVF , (33)
U = j = 1 - aLVL (34)

0.4
and Y=1- (35)
- + 0.5
k
we obtain the following relationships:

i=G=1-{BmLi • (36)
80

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 «f = — . . • • • (37)

«L = 5 (38)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

, 2 , \ 2

,39)
"•^"yid
The determination of p is made in the following manner:

1. Specify load type (occupancy or snow load).

2. Specify tenancy period (annual or eight years).
3. Specify degrees of restraint, Y (Eq. 35), varying from 0.8-0.99.
4. Assume a value of p, say (3 = 2 as a starting point.
5. Compute Fj and Ej (Eqs. 33 and 34), assuming aF = aL = 0 as a
starting value.
6. Compute aF and aL (Eqs. 38 and 39).
7. Repeat steps 5 and 6 until aF and aL converge; convergence to stable
values is rapid.
8. Compute G (Eq. 36) and check if G = 0.
9. Try a new value of p and repeat steps 5-8 until G = 0.

Table 2 gives the results of such a calculation for Y varying from 0.8-
0.99.

APPENDIX II.—RELIABILITY OF LATERAL DEFLECTION

Single Story Frames.—The lateral drift p of a single-story single-bay

rigid frame (Fig. 2) is equal to
p = HF (40)
where H is the lateral force and F is the flexibility

F =^ + ~JL-L (41)
6 EL. 12 EL,
Let Ic = I, the reference moment of inertia; then
1 Ec ECEB-/C
F=— (42)
EI 6 12Z B
The bracketed term in this equation can be considered to be determin-
istic, and thus the COV of the flexibility is

VF = W l + Vj (43)
Since VE = 0.06 and Vl = 0.05 (4), VF = 0.08.
The limit state equation is
g = Pa - F*H* = 0 (44)
81

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 where p„ is the allowable drift limit; and F* and H* are defined as in
Eqs. 21 and 22. If a reliability analysis similar to that shown in Appendix
II is performed, then the reliability index p for the single-story rigid frame
of Fig. 2 is p = 1.5 for a lateral wind force referenced to an eight yr
period (H/Hn = 0.55 and VH = 0.52, see Table 1); and p = 3.2 for a lateral
wind force referenced to a one-yr period (H/H„ = 0.33, VH = 0.60; see
Table 1). By a derivation similar to that given in Appendix I it can be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shown that

H„ (45)
VH
if the variability of the flexibility F is considered negligible (i.e., Vr = 0)
in comparison to the variability of the loads. In this case, p = 1.6 and
3.4, respectively, for the eight-yr and the one-yr reference periods.
Identical results are obtained for X-braced and K-braced simple frames
(Fig. 3), for which, respectively
1 Abr
F= + (46)
EAbr .LCAB cos*-r
t]L, ^L Ac
1 1
I (hi (47)
EAbr 2\LC A •'£
vsm i\ cos r\/
P-delta Effect.—In the presence of gravity load (Fig. 4) the lateral force
is (2) H + P 2P, and thus
p = (H+ p2P)F . (48)
HF
from which p= (49)
1 -FI.P
The limit state equation then is equal to
FH*
Pa = 0 (50)
1 -F2P*
if it is assumed that in comparison with the loads the variability of the
flexibility can be neglected
H* = H(l - a H l/„p) (51)
and 2P* = 2P(1 - a 2P V SP P) (52)
The gravity load 2P is made up of possible contributions from dead
occupancy live or snow loads, and it can be shown that
EP = 2PDN[pD + lpL + sps] (53)

V(p2DV2D + pll2Vt + pss2V2s)

and Vy (54)
pD + lpL + sps
The required flexibility under unfactored design loads is
82

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 Pa
(55)
PDn[lV + Pa(l + I + S)]
The terms in Eqs. 51-55 are defined as follows: Subscripts W, D, L,
and S denote wind, dead, occupancy, and snow loads, respectively.
Subscript n denotes nominal, code-specified loads. Bars over the letter
designations are mean values, and V is the COV
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

PD PL
# , = - £ = 1.05, VD = 0.1(4); ft = —
1 Drc L Ln

H_
Pw (56)
p
The values of pL, ps, and pw, as well as the corresponding COV's are
listed in Table 1.

Pa,. -3L
/ = • (57)
PD,,'

"-PD,,
VXP

aH : __ . aj (58)
d2PD

D = + °"1P (59)
tff' ffH 32P
where crH = VH/H and o-2P = V 2P /XP.
If the terms
X = w + p„(l + / + s); Z = pD + lpL + spsi

Y1 = l-aHVHfr Y2 = l - a E P ^ 2 P p (60)
are introduced, then

(61)
Pa X - PaZY2

and , _ ^ H = - f c | _ _ (62)

-^ OSp -P« (63)

32P7 (x-p„zr2;
The results of the iterative analysis for p, performed in the same man-
ner as in Appendix II, are given in Table 3.

APPENDIX III.—REFERENCES

1. "American National Standard Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other

Structures," ANSI-A58..1-1982, American National Standards Inst., N e w York,
NY, 1982.
2. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, "Structural Design of Tall Steel

83

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.

 Buildings," Planning and Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. SB, ASCE, 1979.
3. EUingwood, B., "Probability-Based Loading Criteria for Codified Design,"
Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Applications of Probability and Statis-
tics to Soil and Structural Engineering, Florence, Italy, June, 1983.
4. EUingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A., "De-
velopment of a Probability-Based Load Criteria for American National Stan-
dard A58," National Bureau of Standard Special Publication 577, Washing-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Sydney on 09/20/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ton, DC, 1980.

5. EUingwood, B., Tallin, A., "Structural Serviceability-Floor Vibrations," Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. 2, Feb., 1984.
6. Galambos, T. V., Gould, P. L., Ravindra, M. K., Suryoutomo, H., Crist, R.
A., "Structural Deflections: A Literature and State-of-the-Art Survey," Build-
ing Science Series 47, US Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
Oct., 1973.
7. Galambos, T. V., Reinhold, T. A., EUingwood, B., "Serviceability Limit States:
Connection Slip," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST12,
Dec, 1982.
8. Reid, S. G,. "Codified Design for Serviceability," Report St 81-6, Department
of Civil Engineering, McGill Univ., Montreal, Canada, Dec, 1981.
9. Sugimoto, H., and Chen, W. F., "Small-End Restraint Effects on Strength of
H-Columns," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, No. ST3, Mar.,
1982.
10. Tallin, A., EUingwood, B., "Serviceability Limit States-Building Vibrations,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 10, Oct., 1984.

APPENDIX IV.—NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = cross-sectional area,
D = dead load,
E = modulus of elasticity,
F = flexibility,
g = checking equation,
h = story height,
J = m o m e n t of inertia,
k = spring constant,
L = span,
L = live load,
P = gravity load,
S = snow load,
V = coefficient of variation,
W = wind load,
w = distributed load,
a = coefficient,
P = reliability index,
A = deflection,
8„ = allowable deflection,
T| = brace inclination, and
p = drift.

84

J. Struct. Eng. 1986.112:67-84.