Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

# RE: Lateral Deflection of Masonry Wall Building

• To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
• Subject: RE: Lateral Deflection of Masonry Wall Building
• From: "Sherman, William" <ShermanWC(--nospam--at)cdm.com>
• Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:36:07 -0500

```I'm developing specifications for a pre-engineered building which will
include some masonry veneer walls. I'm currently planning on specifying a
drift limit of H/200 under full design wind load (at service load levels).
This is somewhat of a compromise vs tighter drift limits and design at lower
wind recurrence levels. I prefer to design at full wind load, so I decided
to use a "moderate" drift limit. (I don't want to expect repairs for winds
in excess of 10-year winds.) In my opinion, H/100 at 10-year wind speeds is
not stringent enough. I've heard that drift limits of H/200 are not that
uncommon (Ref NCMA TEK 5-5A).

William C. Sherman, PE
(Bill Sherman)
CDM, Denver, CO
Phone: 303-298-1311
Fax: 303-293-8236
email: shermanwc(--nospam--at)cdm.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rlewistx(--nospam--at)juno.com [mailto:rlewistx(--nospam--at)juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 7:11 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Lateral Deflection of Masonry Wall Building
>
>
>
> Several years ago I asked this question and got a good
> response.  I was thumbing through my 2000 IBC the other day
> and came across Table 1617.3 - Allowable Story Drift.  For
> masonry cantilever shear wall the allowable story drift is
> 0.010*h which is equal to h/100.  For other masonry shear
> wall buildings the allowable story drift is 0.007*h which is
> equal to h/142.  Now I know this is in the seismic design
> section but Section 2108.5.1 refers to this table for story
> drifts in the general strength design section.  I don't have
> the text in front of me but I know there is an AISC manual on
> low-rise steel construction that would agree with these high
> sidesway values for masonry wall construction with steel framing.
>
> From my post several years ago I came away with the
> conclusion that most engineers design for wind sidesway of
> h/400 to h/500 using the 10 year wind when masonry walls are
> present for the majority of the building.  As I wrote in
> other post I sent on slender wall design, I have a
> pre-engineered metal building with a 30 feet eave height.
> The exterior walls will be masonry.  H/100 for this condition
> is a 3.6" sidesway.  This seems too much for me.  H/400 would
> knock this down to 0.9".  I know this will increase the steel
> cost, but it seems to me that this is more appropriate for
> this conditions.
>
> What other opinions are out there regarding sidesway of
> pre-engineered metal building with masonry exterior walls?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rich
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only \$14.95/ month -
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted