Author
Reidar Bjorhovde graduated from the
Technical University of Norway in 1964
with the degree of Sivilingenior (equiva-
lent of M.S.), and received the degree
of Dr. Ing. from the same institution in
1968. He was awarded a Ph.D, in Civil
Engineering from Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa. in 1972. His previous
experience includes many years on
various university faculties, and serving
as AISC Boston regional engineer and
then research engineer.
Reidar Bjorhovde Bjorhovde's past research work
includes fire stability and fire protection
of steel structures; strength, stability
and load and resistance factor design
of steel structures; welded and bolted
connections; composite structures;
residual stresses in steel members; and
analysis and design of columns. Many
Wind Drift Criteria of his research findings are being
applied extensively in practice, in partic-
for Steel-framed ular those dealing with design criteria
for stub-girders, gusset plates and steel
Buildings: columns. His work on the stability and
an Introduction strength of columns was adopted into
the Canadian limit states design stand-
ard for steel building structures in 1974,
and is now the basis for AISC's 1986
LRFD Specification.
Author
James M. Fisher is vice president and
principal of Computerized Structural
Design, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisc. The
1984 recipient of AISC's TR. Higgins
Lectureship Award, Fisher has pub-
lished many technical publications,
as well as four books.
Fisher previously was a 1st lieuten-
ant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, a research assistant and then an
instructor for the University of Illinois,
with U.S. Steel Applied Research Labo-
ratory in Monroeville, Pa., as assist-
James M. Fisher ant professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a lecturer at
Marguette University.
In 1962, Fisher received a B.S. in
Civil Engineering from the University of
Wisconsin, in 1965, an M.S. in Civil
Engineering, and in 1968, Ph.D, in
Structural Engineering both from the
University of Illinois.
Co-winner of the Military Bridge
Design Contest and an AISI fellow,
Fisher is also an active member of
ASCE and the Advisory Board for the
Wisconsin State Building Code. He is
associated with Sigma Xi, Tau Beta Pi,
Chi Epsilon and Phi Kappa Phi.
7-1
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
A member of numerous professional
organizations, Bjorhovde is a fellow in
ASCE and a member-at-large of the
Structural Stability Research Council.
He is a member of the AISC Commit-
tee on Specifications, as well as AISI's
Advisory Group on the Specification
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structures. He serves as chairman or
member of many committees of ASCE,
SSRC and other societies, and is the
recipient of several awards. He has
published widely in the U.S., Canada
and Europe, and is a registered profes-
sional engineer.
Summary
As part of a larger effort in developing
solutions to many commonly encoun-
tered design problems, the ASCE
Committee on Design of Steel Build-
ing Structures in 1984 decided to
undertake an intensive investigation
of current wind drift design practices
in the U.S. Following the investigation,
the committee intended to present a set
of cohesive recommendations as to the
procedures and criteria that should be
followed.
As a first step, a survey question-
naire was mailed to approximately 135
U.S. design firms, asking for detailed
information on their current approaches
to wind drift analysis and the parame-
ters that were included. The design
firms represented a very broad spec-
trum of the profession.
This presentation will provide an
introduction to the in-depth analysis
of the wind-drift considerations that
are the consensus of the members of
the committee. In this part, the survey
questionnaire and the responses to
the questions will be reviewed in detail.
Items included are static vs. dynamic
analysis criteria, use of wind tunnel
tests, methods of structural analysis
and modeling of the components of the
structure, and the various building
codes that are used. A central part of
the drift design survey was the mag-
nitudes of drift indices that are being
used by designers for different appli-
cations. These data are evaluated
and their impact on current design
approaches is discussed.
The presentation of Horatio Allison,
which follows this introduction, will
give the committee's evaluations of
the survey responses, comments
and opinions.
WIND-DRIFT CRITERIA FOR STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS: AN INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The principles of design of steel structures for strength are well known, in particular
as they are presented in design specifications such as the AISC Specification for allowable
stress design or the recently issued Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification (1,2).
The criteria that are given by these specifications are well-defined formulations that are
based on accurate or simplified strength models, and the underlying limit states are in most
cases clearly definable characteristics of member or structural behavior. Some typical ex-
amples are tension member gross cross section yielding, laterally supported beam yielding
in the extreme fibers (yield moment) or reaching the fully plastic moment, or column buck-
ling, to mention a few prominent cases. Common to all of these is the fact that given the
loading or internal moment condition, the corresponding response of the member or struct-
ure can be determined and understood; the results are relatively unambiguous.

The design criteria are considerably less well defined when it comes time to deter-
mine how the structure or any of its parts will respond under service loads, and even more
so if it is required to give an assessment of how the occupants of the structure will per-
ceive the response of the building to a variety of loading situations. However, it is clear
that such knowledge should be a part of the designer's package of criteria that are to be
used in evaluating the design for future performance. Now commonly referred to as service-
ability criteria or parameters that express how the structure will behave under service or
working loads, it appears that there are no unified conditions that can be or are used by
"all" designers, basically because the understanding of how structures behave and how to de-
termine this behavior vary from engineer to engineer. In other words, the loads and the
structural models that are formulated may differ from firm to f i r m and from individual en-
gineer to individual engineer.

Among the serviceability criteria, the deflection limitations for gravity loads seem
to be generally understood and accepted, although their backgrounds are not always obvious.
Thus, the well-known " L / 3 6 0 " limitation for the live load deflection of a bending member
in an office or similar type building is widely used. However, there is widespread confusion
about how it was developed, prompting some designers and textbooks to apply the limit to
all gravity load deflections. On the other hand, designers of a variety of structures are cog-
nizant of the fact that it is quite reasonable to place less restrictions on the expected de-
flections in a structure that will be used only rarely for human occupancy, not to mention
what can be tolerated by the structure if no human usage is intended. Thus, designers of
industrial structures and components routinely utilize much more liberal gravity deflection
criteria.

Although difficult to quantify in terms of what is acceptable f r o m a service stand-

point for gravity loads, such deflection limitations are nevertheless relatively well under-
stood, and the loads that cause the deflections are possible to estimate, especially within
the current limit states design formats. However, when it comes to determining how a
structure responds to lateral loads, such as wind or seismic loads, the approaches that are
used to evaluate the structural behavior can be at great variance with each other, and the
way the loads themselves are found may vary even more. Whether building code-mandated
values and procedures are followed, the fact remains that current approaches to analysis of
structures under the action of lateral loads are legion, and there are no cohesive criteria to
use to evaluate and compare the performances of different designs.

Responding to a universally felt need to establish rational procedures and the factors
that influence the response of steel structures to lateral loads, as well as to determine if

7-2
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
it is possible or even advisable to specify response criteria for structures under lateral loads,
members of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Design of Steel Build-
ing Structures, chaired by the author, set out to examine current procedures and techniques
for lateral load evaluation of steel-framed building structures. The members also intended
to provide their own evaluation of currently used versus needed criteria, with the aim of
giving the profession a cohesive reference document on lateral load serviceability of steel
structures.

It was decided at an early stage that it would be necessary to separate the consider-
ations that applied to wind loads and seismic loads. In the following only wind load service-
ability is dealt with; seismic criteria are not addressed.

A Task Committee was selected from the main committee to carry out the investi-
gation. The effort was chaired by James M. Fisher of Computerized Structural Design, Mil-
waukee, with the following as members: Horatio Allison, Allison, McCormac & Nickolaus,
Rockville, Maryland; William F. Baker, Jr., Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago; Reidar
Bjorhovde, University of Arizona; Robert O. Disque, AISC, Chicago; Lawrence G. Griffis,
Walter P. Moore & Associates, Houston; Carl W. Hatmaker, TVA, Knoxville; Enrique Mar-
tinez Romero, EMRSA, Mexico City; Donald R. Strand, Brandow & Johnston, Los Angeles;
and Kenneth B. Wiesner, LeMessurier Consultants, Cambridge.

CURRENT WIND DRIFT APPROACHES

As a first step in the investigation, it was decided to undertake a comprehensive sur-

vey of current wind drift practices in design firms around the United States. An extensive
survey questionnaire was developed by the group, and was subsequently mailed to some 135
structural design firms around the country. For completeness, a copy of the questionnaire is
given in the Appendix to this paper.

Briefly, the survey aimed at finding the approaches that are in current use, and the
questions that were asked can be grouped into the following primary categories:
(1) Should wind drift criteria be codified, and in what form?
(2) Height of buildings where drift control becomes a consideration.
(3) Methods of drift analysis and the input parameters that are used.
(4) Overall versus interstory drift values.
(5) Influence of structural system, exposure, wind speeds, etc.
(6) Influence of building code and corresponding wind loads.
(7) Dynamic versus static wind drift criteria; use of wind tunnel tests.
In addition, the survey respondents were asked to provide wind drift data for a number of
buildings that they had been responsible f o r , as well as to give their drift limits and asso-
ciated wind load criteria for a given type of structure.

A total of 35 responses were received, which is considered a respectable return for

any survey, and especially one as involved as the survey questionnaire indicates. The com-
panies that responded varied in size from one-man firms to organizations employing more
than 50 engineers. It is believed that the response is representative of a cross section of
the structural design community, with no preponderance of firms or types of structures in
any fashion. Thus, the responses do not all represent high-rise construction, nor do they all
represent office- or similar forms of structures. In fact, the group was especially interested
in determining the criteria that were used for industrial structures.

7-3

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
FINDINGS OF SURVEY OF DRIFT DESIGN PRACTICES

The following descriptions are limited to paraphrasing the comments and other an-
swers that were offered by the survey respondents. More detailed discussions and evaluations
are provided in the forthcoming ASCE committee report (3). The topics are those that were
used in the survey questionnaire, as indicated by the Appendix.

Codification of Drift Criteria

Although not representative to the survey of current practices of wind drift design,
the committee was interested in establishing the opinions of the structural engineering com-
munity insofar as drift criteria codification were concerned. Many pros and cons have been
voiced by various designers; the survey responses indicated that although a majority of the
engineers would like to see some form of codified drift criteria, almost all voiced a need
for detailed qualifications of same. Thus, it would appear that although it is considered an
advantage to be given the limits of drift, at the same time most engineers recognize that
the problem is considerably more complicated than that. In other words, it is not sufficient
to prescribe a drift index without at the same time also giving a number of conditions that
apply for the particular limit. For example, several respondents indicated that it is necess-
ary to tie drift values to the type of human occupancy of the building, type of cladding, and
so on. A large number of engineers also noted that they regarded drift limitations as the
purview of the designer, since only he/she is fully conversant with the performance require-
ments of the individual structure. In other words, these designers felt that codification has
the potential of being too restrictive or limiting, especially towards new analysis approaches
or methods of construction.

It is of some interest to note that several designers appeared to "want to have their
cake and eat it, too" : while at the same time requesting rigorous drift limitations within
the codes, presumably for the protection of the public, these engineers also preferred to be
left free to use their own approaches to determine drift values. Clearly, such opinions are
contradictory.

Use of Different Drift Criteria for Strength and Serviceability

Somewhat surprising, the responses of the survey engineers were almost equally di-
vided between "often", "sometimes", and "never". It was only surprising because a two-level
drift approach implies a level of design consideration that is quite advanced, and reflects a
clear understanding of what governs strength and serviceability. These designers clearly in-
dicate the proper understanding that the wind loads that are used to size the members of
the structure require a different wind load treatment than when the sway is computed. The
philosophy is in agreement with current thinking among load study experts (4).

Building Height and Drift Considerations

This portion of the questionnaire specifically asked the designers to indicate when
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
they would start considering
This publicationchecking drift,
or any part thereof asbeareproduced
must not function in any of
form the
withoutheight
permissionof the
of the building. It
publisher.
was interesting to note that many of the respondents indicated that they felt that drift
should be computed regardless of the height of the structure. This is in agreement with the
opinions of the committee, reflecting the need to clearly establish the lateral load resistance
capacity of the structure through a positive system.

Parameters for the Lateral Deflection Calculations

It was deemed very important to establish the basic parameters for the analysis of
the bare steel frame, recognizing that this was the frame that formed the basic one for the

7-4
evaluation of the frame response (i.e. not influenced by cladding type and similar elements).
The final results are clearly influenced by a number of geometric and other parameters, and
the following items were addressed:
(a) Influence of Shear Deformations of Beams and Columns: About one half of the re-
spondents indicated that they included shear deformations in their drift analyses. It is felt
that the response reflects a misunderstanding of what shear deformations are, and that the
answers rather indicated that the computations incorporated panel zone deformations.
(b) Panel Zone Deformations: About two thirds of the answers were "no", and of the
remainder, some of the responses indicated that the panel zone deformations were only tak-
en into account when certain sizes of the zones were encountered, or when certain systems
were used for the structure (such as large panels, tube-type structure, etc.).
(c) Axial Deformations of the Columns: As expected, a large percentage of the engi-
neers indicated that they always incorporated the effects of column axial deformations. Some
reservations were expressed about using this for very low-rise frames, for example, but the
respondents generally exhibited good appreciation of this effect.
(d) Width of the Beam-to-Column Joints: Most answers were in the affirmative, al-
though some were in contradiction to the answers given under item (g). Clearly, one cannot
at the same time base these computations on both center-to-center dimensions and include
the effect of the width of the joints.
(e) Second Order Analysis: More than two thirds indicated that they run second order
analyses as a matter of course, although a number of qualifying statements were made. On
the other hand, about 40 percent said that they would not do such evaluations for 1 to 3
story buildings, making no reservations in this regard.
(f) Connection Flexibility: Approximately two thirds of the answers indicated that no
account were made for connection flexibility, as expected. For the number that answered in
affirmative, it is believed that they did not understand the nature of the question. Clearly,
it is extremely rare to see that such effects are taken into account in the design of struct-
ures today, even by the most advanced design firms.
(g) Center-to-Center Dimensions: A majority said that they considered only the center-
to-center dimensions of the frames. This is in contradiction to the responses given to item
(d), as discussed above.

Allowable Drift Criteria

In a broad question, the designers were asked for their opinions as regards the use of
allowable drift limitations, and how the latter could be determined. Specifically, the respon-
dents were asked for their thoughts on the influence of the structural system for the build-
ing, the building use and height, the cladding type, the design wind speed, the terrain expo-
sure, the method of drift calculation, and the use of probable versus maximum expected
winds. Briefly, most answered "no" to the question regarding the use of a drift that was a
function of the type of structural system, and a majority also answered in the negative in
response to the influence of terrain exposure. The answers were about evenly divided be-
tween "yes" and "no" on the© 2003 question regarding
by American the
Institute of Steel method
Construction, ofrights
Inc. All calculating
reserved. the drift, presum-
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
ably considering different methods and levels of accuracy in the frame analyses. The majo-
rity answered "yes" to all of the other questions, including, as expected, the effect of build-
ing height, cladding, building use, and design wind. The positive responses also incorporated
the answers to item (h) on the questionnaire, dealing with a two-level design approach. This
would appear to be in agreement with the responses to the item dealing with design wind.

Story Drift Limitations

This part of the questionnaire focused on the calculations of story drifts, including
the special criteria that are sometimes used for first stories of buildings. There appeared
to be no general agreement with respect to either of the two parts of the question, and the
impressions was left that story drift values essentially were chosen as close to the overall
structural drifts. A few of the answers indicated that they recognized that the first stories

7-5
of some buildings exhibit large drift values; special considerations are used in such cases.
However, there seemed to be little recognition of the fact that story drifts in some types
of framing systems tend to be much larger than the average (overall) building drift, which
is what most designers use in their evaluations.

Drift Index Based on Code Wind Loads

An important part of the survey addressed the level of wind loads that was pre-
scribed by the various model codes that are used in the United States today. As illustrated
by Question 8 in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix), the respondent was asked to indi-
cate a variety of preferred drift ratios for different types of structures, occupancies, loca-
tions, commercial versus industrial, and so on.

The responses to this questions varied a great deal, as expected, although it is inte-
resting to note that the most frequently occurring drift ratio for all types of structures and
model codes was 0.0025 (= building height/400), and the minimum and maximum values were
0.0015 and 0.003, respectively. Other than that, the data are not very conclusive, other than
to show that there is a distinct trend - as expected - to use lower drift values for residen-
tial buildings than commercial, for obvious reasons. There are no clearcut differences be-
tween the different model codes.

Use of Dynamic Criteria for Wind Design Criteria

Two thirds of the engineers indicated that they felt that dynamic criteria should be
used for establishing lateral vibration characteristics. On the other hand, a large percentage
mentioned that they had never utilized such criteria in practice, but rather felt that the
dynamic response would be a better measure of the structures' characteristics. For those of
the respondents that had used the dynamic solutions, accelerations of 10 to 30 m-g for a ten
year return period seemed to be the norm.

It is clear that the state-of-the-art of dynamic lateral vibration criteria for building
structures is not very advanced, and much research needs to be conducted.

Use of Wind Tunnel Tests

This portion of the questionnaire addressed the possible uses of wind tunnel tests to
establish wind pressure distributions on structures, as well as vibration characteristics for
the structures (aeroelastic studies) and the overall wind forces. Fifty percent of the engi-
neers indicated that they had utilized wind tunnel tests of some form at one time or other,
although mostly to establish the wind loads for complex structures in heavily built urban
areas. It appears that more tests have been run to determine wind pressure distributions (ri-
gid models) than vibration characteristics (dynamic models). Most respondents indicated that
they would routinely specify wind tunnel testing if there were anything unusual about the
building and its location, or if it were of great height. Other considerations that were men-
tioned were large aspect ratios for the building (height to width greater than 4 to 1 or 6 to
1), unusual structural geometries and exposure conditions.

Drift Criteria for Industrial Buildings

Whether the industrial buildings had no cranes, pendant operated cranes or cab ope-
rated cranes, there did not appear to be any clearcut trends or unique drift data that were
used for industrial buildings. Several respondents indicated that drift was not a valid criteri-
on for such structures; others mentioned that they used the same numbers as for commer-
cial buildings, and still others said that drift indices of H/500 were used (H= building height).

7-6
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
It is apparent that a concerted effort should be undertaken for industrial buildings as well
as for residential/commercial structures insofar as drift considerations are concerned. It is
somewhat surprising that many designers did not indicate concern for building stiffness
under service conditions that can be very severe, and demand a great deal from the res-
ponse of the structure itself.

Drift Limitations for a Sample Building

To illustrate the approaches of the various respondents to drift analysis and design, they
were asked to indicate their preferred drift limitations for a 30 story, 380 foot high multi-
story frame with lightweight exterior cladding, along with the average wind pressure level
for the projected area of the building (this is given as Question 12 in the questionnaire, as
shown in the Appendix). Analysis of the responses showed that more than one half of the
engineers would use a drift index of 0.0025 (= H/400) for wind pressures of 20 to 35 psf. The
answers ranged between low: and high values of 0.0015 and 0.0050.

SUMMARY

The paper has presented the results of a survey of practicing engineers in the United
States, examining their preferred wind drift analysis approaches and associated considerati-
ons. It is shown that by and large, a drift index of 0.0025 appears to be the most common
value, with extremes of around 0.0015 and 0.005, depending on the type of structure, the
level of the wind loading, structural geometry, and so on. It is evident that no cohesive
approaches are currently in use in the US; it is also clear that much misunderstanding per-
sists as regards the needs/requirements for lateral load analysis.

REFERENCES

1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), "Specification for the Design, Fabri-
cation and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings", AISC, Chicago, Illinois, Novem-
ber 1, 1978.

2. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), "Specification for the Load and Re-
sistance Factor Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings",
AISC, Chicago, Illinois, January, 1986.

3. Task Committee on Drift Control of Steel Building Structures, ASCE, "Wind Drift
Criteria for Steel-Framed Buildings", Committee Report in Preparation, February,
1986.

4. Galambos, T. V., and Ellingwood, B. R., "Serviceability Limit States - Deflection",

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. ST1, January, 1986.

7-7
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
 DRIFT CRITERIA QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Information on you and your firm.

a. Number of structural engineers in your firm who design buildings.

b. Provide appropriate percentages in the categories below to

represent you or your firm's design practice.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

No. of Stories 1 & 2 3-5 6-10 11-20 >20 46-65 >65
(A) Institutional
(B) Commercial
(C) Residential
(D) Industrial
(E) Other

2. Should drift criteria be codified rather than being left to the

judgement of structural engineers?
YES NO
Why or Why not? Please Explain.

3. For wind loads do you use a different lateral-load criteria for

strength versus serviceability:

Often Sometimes Never

4. At what building height do you begin to consider drift to be a

design consideration? (Check One)

No. of stories: 1 &2 3-5 6-10

Other
(Specify)

7-8
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
5. In your bare-frame lateral-deflection calculations, do you consider:

YES NO (EXPLAIN WHEN)

a. Shear deformation of
beams and column?

b. Panel zone deformation?

c. Axial deformation of
columns?

d. Width of beam-to-column
joints?

e. Second-order drift
analysis?

f. Connection flexibility?

g. Center to Center
dimensions only?

6. Should allowable wind drift be a function of:

YES NO COMMENTS

a. Type of Structural System

(i.e. trussed core, rigid
frame, etc.)

b. Building Use?

c. Building Height?

d. Cladding Type?

e. Design Wind Speed

f. Terrain exposure

g. Method of calculating
drift?

h. Two-level design, i.e.

most probable vs. maximum
expected.
7. A. What interstory drift limits do you use?

B. Do you use a different criteria for the first story?

7-9
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
8. Check the drift ratio (total drift/total height) for wind which you
would use for each of the categories below. Indicate on what wind
code you are basing your answers (e.g. ANSI A58.1-1982, UBC, BOCA)
CODE: __________

BUILDING TYPE RECURRENCE INLAND CITY GULF COAST

INTERVAL
YEARS
USE

*CLADDING: "Heavy" would reduce actual drift (e.g. masonry precast concrete,
brick, stone, granite). "Light" represents light curtain walls
(e.g. metal stud facia, marblecrete, artcraft, etc.). __
Do you design for drift for a 100 year recurrence level?
7-10
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.
This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
9. Please provide wind design criteria and performance information for actual buildings that you or your firm has designed,

NO. BLDG. BLDG. HEIGHT ASPECT RATIO BASIC WIND RECURRENCE CODE, YEAR LOCATION CLADDING
TYPE FEET STORIES (HEIGHT/WIDTH) SPEED (10 yr, 50 yr) (UBC, BOCA CODE TYPE
(1) (MPH) @30' ETC.) ANSI, ETC.) (2)

(1) See question 1, Part C for categories (e.g. A = Institutional, etc.)

(2) 2-A = Coastal City (I = Inland, 2 = Coastal, A = city center, B = Suburban and wooded, C = Flat open terrain)

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
10. For wind design, dynamic criteria relative to lateral vibration might
be used.

a. Do you favor criteria based on dynamic limitations?

YES Explain:

NO

b. Have you or your firm used dynamic criteria? If yes, explain

under what conditions this is done, and what criteria are used.

YES Comments:

NO

11. (a) Have you or your firm ever had building designs model-tested in
a wind tunnel?

YES

NO

(b) Was the model rigid or dynamic?

Rigid Dynamic

(c) Under what circumstances would you specify a wind tunnel study
using a rigid wind tunnel model and an aeroelastic model?
(Building height, cross section, location, aspect ratio, etc.)

7-12

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.
12. For a 380 ft. high 30-story office building with lightweight
cladding, please state you or your firm's design drift limit and the
associated average wind force level in pounds per square foot of
building projected area.

Drift Index

Average Wind Pressure

Check one: Hurricane Zone Inland City

13. Considering all the foregoing questions, state what you believe to be
a drift criteria recommendation that should be presented as guidance
to the profession.

7-13

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved.

This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher.