STEEL-EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL

TECHNICN. INFORMATiON & PRODUCTSERVICE

SEPTEMBER, 1991

Design Practice to Prevent Floor Vibrations
by Farzad Naeim

Design Practice to Prevent Floor Vibrations

About the Author:
Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S.E., is Director of Research and Development for the Structural Engineering firm of John A. Martin and Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California. He has been in charge of design review and analysis of numerous complex projects across the United States for Vibration as well as other serviceability concerns. Dr. Naeim has regularly lectured on various aspects of structural design and earthquake engineering at University of Southern California and California State University, Northridge. He is an active member of several professional organizations and has more than 30 publications covering a wide spectrum of structural and earthquake engineering applications.

However. the y-axis defines the right side to left side direction. jumping. Consider the human body coordinate system defined in Figure 1. aerobics. the x-axis defines the back-to-chest direction. such as aerobics exercises. and the z-axis defines the foot -(or-buttocks)to-head direction. can cause serious vibration problems. the predictions of the methods presented here are not always consistent. to preventing. have resulted in a significant increase in the number of floor vibration complaints by building owners and occupants. aerobics on one floor of a high-rise building has been reported to cause vibration discomfort at another level in the building. Because of the complexities involved in human response to vibration and the different objectives persued by various investigators. Unfortunately. The vibrations caused by automobiles on parking levels below have been reported to disrupt sensitive laboratory work on upper floors.axes. . However. the frequency range of maximum sensitivity to acceleration for humans is between 4 to 8 Hz for vibration along the z-axis and 0 to 2 Hz for vibration along the x. Heating. drilling. a general consensus on the relative accuracy and reliability of these methods does not yet exist. dancing. Here. Among them are: (a) . FACTORS INFLUENCING VIBRATION PERCEPTIBILITY Several factors influence the level of perception and the degree of sensitivity of people to vibrations. According to ISO9. On more than one occasion. While z-axis vibration is most important in the design of offices and other workplaces. combined with reduced damping and new activities.Position of the human body. and audience participation at music concerts and sporting events are some prime examples of occupant activities which create floor vibrations. if not properly isolated. or reducing floor vibration problems. impact of falling objects. ventilation. The purpose of this publication is to provide design engineers with a practical yet comprehensive review of the criteria and methods available to prevent floor vibration problems. human activities or machinery off a floor can cause significant floor vibrations. Annoying floor vibrations may be caused by occupant activities. all three axes become important in the design of residences and hotels where sleeping comfort should be considered.INTRODUCTION The current trend towards longer spans and lighter floor systems.or y. and comparison of these methods will help to form this seriously needed consensus in the near future.•o. This has increased the degree of attention paid during the design process. Walking. Other equipment and activities off the floor that can contribute to a floor vibration problem are ground or air traffic. it is hoped that collective review. application. and air-conditioning systems (HVAC) as well as washing and drying machines. and other construction related events. Most of the sources contributing to reported human discomfort rest on the floor system itself. Operation of mechanical equipment is another cause for concern.

acceleration in the directions of the x-.v-. TM 2 influencing . . Directions of basicentric coordinate systems for vibrations humans. Qvo Q= x-axiS y-axis z-axis -.Z Y x X surface Suppo•ng surface X Z Sup0orting surface Y •X. z-exes = = right side to left side = foot-(or buttocks-ito-head Figure 1.

such as shortterm health hazard and working efficiency. mass). among which the first two are acceptable as far as design is concerned: (a) Vibration. Tvoe of act/v/tv engaged in. Anxiety and discomfort can be reduced if occupants are made aware of the nature of vibrations and are assured that they are not a threat to their safety and well being. Indeed. human tolerance of vibration decreases in a characteristic way with increasing exposure time9. is not perceived by the occupants. Level of exoectancv. As shown in Figures 2 and 3. Because people expect more vibration in workshops than in hotel lobbies. According to ISO 2631-2•o: "Experience has shown in many countries that complaints regarding building vibrations in residential situations are likely to arise from occupants of buildings when the vibration magnitudes are only slightly in excess of perception levels. dinning. The more one expects vibration and knows about its source the less startling the vibration becomes. (b) Vibration is perceived but does not annoy. (d) Vibration is so severe that makes occupants ill. walking. though present." Murray's • categorization of human response is more design oriented and hence more 3 useful. Floor system characteristi¢• such as natural frequency (stiffness. frequency content and duration.(bi (c) (d) Excitation source characteristics such as amplitude. 3 . He defines four response categories. (c) Vibration annoys and disturbs. in practically all cases the magnitudes are such that there is no possibility of fatigue or other vibrationinduced symptoms. or dancing. Exoosure time. In general. they can put up with more in the former than in the latter. the satisfactory magnitudes are related to the minimum adverse comment level by the occupants and are not determined by any other factors. The level of perception varies with the nature of activity that one is engaged in such as office work. (e) (f) C T G RE O HUMAN R S O S AE O I S F E P N E ISO9 classifies human response to vibrations into three categories: (a) (b) (c) limit beyond which the comfort is reduced ("reduced comfort boundary") limit beyond which the working efficiency is impaired (" fatigue-decreased proficiency boundary") limit beyond which the health or safety is endangered ("exposure limit") These categories were derived from various studies conducted for transportation industries and generally reflect a much higher level of tolerance than what would be acceptable in a building environment. and damping.

. 2S .ee ' • .•" ..5 1..5 1 0 8..25 •b i s•-. Longitudinal (a z) acceleration limits as a function of exposure frequency (fatigue-decreased proficiency boundary).01 .63 0. .0 50 o./ . Cenlte beQu•y o! o•e Ihled octave t)4rKI HI Figure 2.1.6J • • """"- . ... 4 time and .20 1 6 12.• • · I o • • s lo 0.315 0.3 B. .1 0.. 16 1 0 6...25 0. Longitudinal (az} acceleration limits as a function of frequency and exposure time (fatigue-decreased proficiency boundary). • -•g-• 0./ / . ..cea co.0 E ' i ! .63 0.0 6.0 f fe•(x•¥ % 2.. •"• / / / - / / / / / -j / .8 0. .. 1 ...0 0. • • • • • -/ ..k ..•_. _ .' ..0 I 10 12.. "•"1 xgn '• '•.1. i l... 0. i 0. accMerme•n vM• by 2 (6 dB h.o 1.• •..6 1.5 (.0A.15 2. ! 4[ 1... I 0. ..50 0.-...016 0.... / / / .• '0. lilCLe•eteltaO(I values by 2 16 dB h•tjh•l i '•8h • • / I i ' / f / J ./.5 0.6 1.•on bOuKm•" e.• 0O . • .. . . -•- - oJ.5 3.. Figure 3. O 315 ..5 •b •00•.25 ..• . / oo3 16 OO .? 1 1.6 2.063 00 . 25 ...3 : I ~/.' / f / / / •.. I ' I • r ! I i . .0 5./f/•// ' • j / I • .0 5 0.. .16 0.3 • 0 k O 3..16 0.5 2 2.25 1. .0o•.63 0.15 /.. E -:.0 0.5 16 20 I I J I 63 I 80 25 31.25 0.. 0.gh•).5 • ama h i' 6 81 0 1 2 6 • .• .6 / /. - u.. 0.016 • •. / " / / j ' 2.•..6 ) '-. ....40 0.0 6.20 0..- ' 7 : '-5 '-.•.

COMPUTING FLOOR SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Unless otherwise noted the following assumptions are used in this publication for calculating floor system vibration characteristics: (1) (2) (3) Full composite action is assumed to exist between the concrete slab and steel beam regardless of the number of shear studs present •2. Intermittent vibration is defined as a string of vibration incidents.14. ISO divides vibrations into two classes: (a)transient (also called impulsive) and (b)continuous or intermittent. These factors which lead to magnitudes of vibration below which the probability of reaction is Iow are summarized in Table 1. In terms of human response. Notice that the multiplication factors in Table I have already been applied to these curves. or complaints are very rare. separated by intervals of much lower vibration magnitude (for example vibration caused by a group of people walking or elevators operating). It can also consist of several cycles of vibration at approximately the same amplitude. such as vibration caused by the impact of a single heavy object on a floor system.x/•-27t'• m--•-sss . it is better to calculate the first natural frequency.4. They note however. sensations. providing that the duration is short ( less than about 2 seconds). The combined standard curves for acceleration response are presented in Figure 6. residences and hotel guest rooms. . a set of state of the art multiplication factors frequently used with the ISO base curves are presented. The beam is modeled as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. on deflection: [1] f _ I /stiffness I . for example. back-to-chest. Since the magnitude which is considered to be satisfactory depends on the circumstances. Base curves for foot-to-head. The transformed moment of inertia (It) is calculated using Murray's assumptions• 2• 3. Continuous vibration on the other hand is vibration which remains uninterrupted over the time period under consideration. each of short duration. Transient vibration is defined as a rapid build-up to a peak followed by a damped decay. In many situations the same building space. at vibration magnitudes below the base curves.s. based As pointed out by Allen 3.27t . f. ISO suggests specifying satisfactory vibration levels in terms of multiples of these base curves. According to ISO. and side-to-side accelerations are shown in Figures 4 and 5. adverse comments. may be used in both standing and lying positions. In an appendix to ISO 2631-2. For these cases. ISO 2631-2 suggests using a combined standard that represents the worst case combination of zaxis and x/y axes conditions.ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD 2631 PROVISIONS ISO 2631-2 T provides a number of human perceptibility base curves for floor velocity M and acceleration. that this does not mean that the values above the base curves will give rise to adverse comments or dissatisfaction.

0.6 2.002 5.6 2.002 5 0.01 E g < 0. .00• 0.016 0. 0. - 1 1.1 0.001 1 i .001 Figure 4. H z Building v i b r a t i o n z-axis base c u r v e for - acceleration 0. 0.01 : I / ' .063 0.t h i r d o c t a v e b a n d s . 0.0016 0.025 i i g 'tIl 0.0/.6 .016 0.a x i s base c u r v e for T M ..O01 6 I 0.0/..5 Z.063 % .. 6.3 10 16 25 •. t I I f i i 1.3 10 16 25 63 100 acceleration C e n t r e f r e q u e n c y o fo n e .025 % [ i I I / ': Z .006 3 o.oo . O. . 0.1 0.0063 0.and y . Building vibration x.16 0. .< : i [ i 0.t h i r d o c t a v e b a n d s .0 63 100 T M C e n t r ef r e q u e n c y o f o n e .5 I. . 0. 6. H z Figure 5.

•/is the number of events per day.22 for concrete floo• and T is between 1 end 20 Fo .1°) 1) Table leads to magmtudas of vibration below whGch the probability of reaction s Iow.7! 1. a factor o f up to 128 has been found to be satisfactory for residential properties in some countries.6. 10) Doubling the suggested vibration magnitudes for continuous or intermittent vibration and repeated transiam vibration (fourth column) may result in adveme • n and t t • may increase •gn'•. magnitudes as h•gh IS thoGe for residence are satisfactory provided that there is due agreement and warning. 8) The magnitudes for transient vibration in offices end workshop areas should not be increased without considering the Ix•sibility of significant disruption of working activity. and can be estimated from the 10 percentage ( -20 dB) points of the motion time histories. such as drop forges or crushers which vibrate working places. some precision laboratories) TIME Continuous or Intermittent Vibration Transient Vibration (Excitation with several occurrences per day) Day 1 Night Day 2 to 4 1. OthenAtiee only the largest need be considered. This involves further multiplying by a number factor Fn = 1. 7 . Fd : Fd = T .7 N -0 5 where .4 (4! 4 (a) Night Day Night 30 to 90 (4. 7) In hard rock excavation.1. 9) Vibration acting on operators o f certamn processes. This "trade-off" equation does not apply when values are lower than those given by the factors for continuous vibration.Ranges of multiplying factors used in several countries to specify satisfactory magnitudes of building vibrations with respect to human response{1) (from ISO 2631-2: 1989) PLACE Critical Working Areas (for example some hospital operatingtheatres.5. for wooden floors and T i s between I end 60 where T i s the duration of the event. dose/re•koonse curves can be consulted). Shock is definecl in ISO 2041: 1975.4 to 20 60 to 128 (s) 1 (2. Vibration magnitudes.antfy if the levels are t quadrupled (where available.TABLE 1 --. 5) The "trade-off" between number of events per day and magnitudes is not well established. the factors can be adjusted by further multiplying by a duration factor. 4) Within residential areas there are wide variations in vibration tolerance. clause 3. in seconds. 6) For discrete events with durations exceeding 1 s. psychological attitudes and expected interference with privacy..1o) 90 to 128 (8. the arithmetic mean can be used.) 2) Also includes quasi-stationary vibrations caused by repetitive shocks. A t other times. 3) Magnitudes of transient vibration in hospital operating-theatres and critical working places pertamn to periods of t. and is sometimes referred to as transient (impulsive) vibration. which are specified in ISO 2631-1. The following prowsional relationship shall be used for cases of more than three events a day pending further research into human vibration tolerance. T-0.me when ooeratqona are in progress or critical work is being performed.3) Residential Night Day Office Workshop(9) 8(8. (Any acoustic noese caused by vibrating walls is not considered. will then apply. where underground disturbances cause higher frequency vibration. for the operators of the exciting processes. may be in a separate category from the workshop areas comddered here. Specific values are dependent upon social and cultural factors. When the range o f event megnitud# is small (wnthin I haft amplitude of the blrgest).

then the transformed moment of inertia of the floor beam. The above simplified procedures usually provide a good estimate of the first natural frequency. For computation of It. the effective slab depth (de) is assumed equal to the depth of a rectangular slab having the same weight as the actual slab. It is the transformed moment of inertia of the composite beam section. depending on the activity of concern. for most non-rhythmic activities (i. and AS is the shortening of the column or wall support. this might or might not be the natural frequency of greatest concern. For these cases. beam. It. may also be approximated by: [4] 1 I 1 1 + • + f 2 (fb)2 (fg)2 (fs)2 where fb. continuous beams on pin supports should be treated as simply supported. For example. fg.x /gEIt f = K • W L3 for simply supported beams. E is the modulus of elasticity of steel (29000 ksi) and W is total weight supported by the beam. the natural frequencies of great interest are those of the floor beam alone. . girder.e. Usually a sustained portion of the live load (about 10% to 25% of the total design live load) is included in this weight estimate. and column supports each computed individually. walking) it is very unlikely that the column supports will have a significant participation in the response. all three natural frequencies (i.3 + &S where AB is deflection of floor beam due to flexure and shear. & may be approximated by (A8 + AG) [2] = 1. the girder alone. and fs are the natural frequencies of the beam. For fixed-cantilevers a value of 1. beam +girder. and the combined beam and girder system. Values of K for various end conditions are where K = • readily available from tables such as those contained in Reference [7].3 in the above equation applies to both simply Supported and fixed-end beams. The constant 1. However.5 should be used. L is the span length of the beam. beam + girder-i-support) should be considered in design for rhythmic activities. The reader should note that floor systems are complex and have multiple natural frequencies. If shearing deformations are negligible.where A is the mid-span deflection of an equivalent SDOF system due to its own weight and g is the gravitational acceleration (386.e.AG is the deflection of the girder at the beam support due to flexure and shear. may be used to estimate its natural frequency: [3] . In the calculation of A. For a floor system. The effect of girder and column support flexibilities on the first natural frequency of the system. Finally. including the concrete in valleys of the decking and the weight of the metal deck (see Figure 7). On the other hand.4 in./sec2). since vibration nodes exist at the supports.

Combined direction criteria curves for vibration in buildings lo 1.1 %.002 5 0.• 0. L 32 H16 t 0. I Z] :.6 2. - ..63 •c!• -• 0.004 0.016 001 0. .. I ACTUAL 9 T MODEL Figure 7.5 /+ 6.04 '• . · Spacing S · · b · · · 1 · · e e L Beam Spacing S · e e i* · · · .60 ' • 0.063 0. 0.4 0.001 1 1.0016 i t 21. r e li.. _ L_ 3..025 0.3 10 16 25 40 63 100 Frequency •' centre frequency of one-third octave band. • See Table ! 0. Tee-Beam model for computing transformed moment of inertia TM.25 I .0063 0.16 0.• . . Hz Figure 6.

0in 2 = 5. metal deck + 3 fi light weight concrete slab weight = 41 psf f'c = 3000 psi Concrete weight = 115 pc SPAN -.6" The transformed moment of inertia is: _11 10'x12)(4.Ec 29000 ksi 2136 ksi .66in.g.. i S / n i vi de 20..25"-5..3)(5 613.3" = Distance from c. GIVEN: . S 14 • 525".3". ..0 in2) t • + 5..6 + (10'x12)(4.5•-3ksi Es n .66" ..13.3") + 13. to slab top...... BEAM MODEL EC = ( W c ) l ' 5 • c = (115 pcf)l. = de -- ..20. the shearing deformations may be ignored as well and we can use the It formula to calculate f.0in2)(· • + 2648in 4 10 ..20.41' -0" LIVE LOADS: SPACING = 10'-0" Office . The girder and column support motions are small and can be ignored..2 2 I + 843 in 4 + .6 2136ksi 41 psf in 115 pcf (12•) actual slab weight concrete weight = 4.j.25") Yt = (10'x12) 13. BEAM: W21x44 SLAB: 2 in....6 (4. 10 psf .. Yt is calculated as: I 10'x12 . 50 psf Partitions . Hence...EXAMPLE 16: Estimate the natural frequency of the following floor beam.0 in Is =843 d = 20.6 ' 5. .3")3 __ It = ( )( 13..3 )" + (13...6 )(4.--W21 x44 As =13. -.66" + (13.. 20 psf Misc..6") 2 = 4.> Total Live Load = 80 psf SOLUTION: Support motions are negligible and the beam is not deep.66" (2)(' 1•-.

6 k WLL = (0.. (c) using [1] assuming column shortening of AS= 0.50 in. 11 A .3 . (b) using [1] assuming column shortening is inconsequential.1. (a) For the beam: JgEIt For the girder: fg = K WL3 W = (80 psf)(10')(40') = 32.z EXAMPLE 2: For the typical interior beam shown below.080 ksf)(41')(10') = 3.6 + 3..64 in.Assuming that10% of the design live load acts as a sustained load during vibration.. shearing deformations may be ignored.041 ksf)(41')(10') + (0.64 column height is assumed: As .= -.--3 . _ • j : W21x50 (It =3533 in ) Io u d r •m n e D O ' - z ( (• .0.3 = 21.6•2"• = 6. the natural frequency is: _ ! gEIt _ .044 k/ft)(41') = 18. estimate the first natural frequency by: (al using [3] and [4].50• inches should be considered.000 lb = 32 kips (2) "V j1386. Assume the beam self-weight and 10% of the design live load are included in the 80 psf estimate of floor weight.0 " .1.3.4)(29000)(3533) (2) '• /i380 4)(29000)(4485) = W = 2(32 kips)+ (0.36 Hz * Calculated based on a total column height of 130 ft. .9 k Hence.3 k W = WDL + WLL = 18. E 29000 The factor 1. 4 0 ' . . LG (130 ft)(12)(12 ksi) = --". and an average sustained axial stress of 12 ksi. = 5.65 kips (65.0.10)(0.055)(30')= 65. the participating weight is calculated as: WDL = WSlab + WBeam = (0. • 3' Mr LZ • L X 'A DCSIGH LIllE W21x50 (It=3533 in4) SOLUTION: Since both beams and girder are shallow.30 is applicable to A for frequency calculations since uniform mass distribution along the A 0.

3.•.14. the use of the criteria suggested by an ASCE Ad Hoc committee chaired by Ellingwood [1986] and covered later in this publication is recommended.62 in..> f = 4.4 .17018.13. Murray's acceptability criterion TM enjoys the most wide-spread use by structural designers in United States. This is the impulse initiated by a person weighing 170 pounds who supports his weight on his toes with the heels raised about 2.25)2 + 1 (6. For commercial environments.45 in.2to ' • = 2--• '• 1•2 FLOOR VIBRATION DUE TO WALKING To model the impulse caused by a person walking. f - 1 /386..3 1. a standard heel drop impact hasbeen defined2.12" I • 1 38J--•.36)2 .From [4]' (b) 1 f2 - 1 (5.8.5 inches. Among them.62" + 0. In this section.4 . 1 2 .35) = 1. A plot of the resulting heel drop impact and a typical floor response to such impact are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The natural frequency of the system is then determined: A = I • (AB + AG) (0. six such methods are introduced and applied to a sample floor vibration design example. and then suddenly drops his weight through his heels to the floor.2.• 1.97 Hz lc) Adding column shortening to the natural frequency calculation: A = 0.35 in. Murray's Acceptability CritErion Murray TM provides a step-by-step procedure for evaluating potential floor vibration problems in residential and office environments. The method is based on field measurements and human response studies performed on approximately 100 floor systems. Several investigators have suggested methods to evaluate and design for floor vibrations caused by heel drop impacts 2.05 Hz The beam deflection at midspan is: 5wL4 5(32)(40x12) 3 AB = 384Eit = 384(29000) (3533) = 0.3 = = 0. The girder deflection at the beam support (1/3rd point) is: 5PL3 AG .96 Hz f . Design tables have been published which simplify application of this technique 6.45 + 0.50" = 1.162EIt 5(32)(30xl 2)3 162(29000)(4485) 0. respectively.

S ! 3 .•.. upper limit for sheetrock on furring attached to beams Depends on amount and attachment If attached to the floor at three points or more and not spaced more than every five floor beams.Suggested ranges for available floor system damping (after Murray 12..3 % 1% ..13.it ti&Il e.14) Source Bare Floor Damping 1% . 4 TABLE 2 --. 13 'Ceiling Mechanical . upper limit for thick slab of regular weight concrete Lower limit for hung ceiling. - /r t!^t• ^ - f f 6 I I .3% Comments Lower limit for thin slab of lightweight concrete.O Figure 9. Average plot of force versus time for heel impact4 I IINITIAL r i a lA C C l t l l A l l O t t I !: o Z i-i--/' I . MI I 40 %1 SO . Typical floor response to heel impact (High frequencies filtered out).FIO I J I I 600 SUIIO Slit d01 ii d 0 O · I lO I !'0 I 30 1 yI&I{.Systems Partitions 1% .1 0 % 10% 20% .• OA&IPlNGI A I l O t * A .lO Figure 8.

(5) Divide Aot by Nef f to obtain a modified initial maximum amplitude. (4) Account for the stiffness contribution of adjacent beams by estimating the total effective number of beams. Murray's estimates of available damping which are based on observation only are shown in Table 2. Aot..0578Idle] + 2. Neff.The procedure for applying Murray's acceptability criterion is as follows6: (1) Estimate the total amount of damping that will be available. f. both in inches (see Figure 7). Dreqd as: [8] Dreqd = 35Aof + 2. Murray suggests the comparison summarized in Table 4.5 (7) Compare values of DavaiI and Dreqd: [9] If If Dreqd---< Davail Dreqd > Davail . 14 .56x10-8[L-•-tl where S is beam spacing and de is the effective slab thickness.. (2) Compute composite section properties and the first natural frequency of the beam. the beam is satisfactory and further investigation is not necessary. the beam is satisfactory regardless of the damping provided. If the total available damping is greater than 8 to 10%. due to a standard heeldrop impact as: [5] L3 Aot = (DLF)ma x x (8-•-•t ) (3) where all units are in kips and inches and (DLF)ma x is the'dynamic load factor.-> Redesign is recommended If the available damping cannot be estimated. Compute the initial maximum amplitude of the beam. which accounts for the stiffness of adjacent beams: [7] (6) Ao Aot Neff Estimate the required level of damping. where: [6] Neff= 2.> The beam is satisfactory . Values of DLF for various natural frequencies are listed in Table 3. Davai I. Ao.97-0. If f is greater than 10 Hz.

1695 0.2285 1.10 8.90 12.2643 1.10 13.2879 1.7580 0.2339 1.80 10.3058 0.4091 0.30 7.8830 0.50 4.9912 1.20 14.4524 0.00 9.1434 1.60 3.90 DLF 0.1388 1.30 12.30 · 3. Hz 5.9244 0.30 9.3348 1.2065 1.50 5.2121 1.8053 0.30 5.00 4.8282 0.10 12.40 2.Dynamic Idad factors for heel-drop Impact.70 7.50 8.6050 0.9040 0.70 12.00 14.1041 1.50 9.80 2.3615 1.20 10. Hz 10.70 6.0509 1.2007 1.60 13.3143 1.00 2.4809 0.2834 1.0090 1.0969 1.4380 0.3793 15 .7088 0.0176 1.60 8.60 2.0588 1. 14 f.2231 1.60 10.00 8.30 1.3579 1.10 9.3688 1.40 DLF 1.40 6.1541 0.9540 0.30 6.80 7.8505 0.10 11.20 7.60 11.7700 F.20 2.6316 0.9344 0.1709 F.10 7.80 1.4236 0.10 14.70 3.2177 1.80 8.60 5.00 5.10 3.40 11.5781 0.00 6.00 13.8168 0.1583 1.80 4.70 9.70 5.2152 0.10 6.2545 1.3758 1.1252 1.20 9.80 9.40 10.30 14.80 6.6184 0.20 11.9443 0.60 1.5916 0.2391 1.30 10.3798 0.2607 0.50 7.70 10.50 13.0667 1.6448 0.0744 1.40 4.TABLE 3 --.40 9.1321 1.1831 1.3014 1.30 2.1183 1.2740 1.80 11.0002 1.3652 1.5369 0.40 8.1647 1.90 3.90 4.2594 1.1847 0.7337 0.70 8.90 7.6635 0.8723 0.50 12.7937 0.0895 1.3504 1.2000 0.3268 1.90 2.20 6.0428 1.30 4.00 12.5645 0.6962 0.20 5.50 6.3308 1.8936 0.1113 1.50 1.1770 1.8615 0.3427 1.1519 1.40 DLF 0.80 12.50 3.2758 0.50 11.2304 0.3466 1.2970 1.20 13.70 11.5231 0.40 12.70 2.10 1.60 4.80 3.20 8.2908 0.30 13.50 10.3651 0.4950 0.2925 1.01 5.40 1.90 11.3388 1.30 8.9729 0.2456 0.60 7.3207 0.40 7.3101 1.1891 1.3541 1.70 13.20 1.4667 0.90 14.70 4.9143 0.10 10.2787 1.6707 0.6578 0.20 4.3185 1.0820 1.3227 1.40 3.2443 1.9821 0.00 3.50 2.00 11.90 9.0345 1.00 10.80 5.60 12.00 1.30 11.90 5.2494 1.60 6.90 8.3723 1.10 4. Hz 1.5507 0.3058 1.5091 0.00 7.8394 0.7213 0.9635 0.90 6.20 12.0261 1.60 9.80 13.3504 0.3356 0.1949 1.20 3.7459 0.90 13.10 2.40 13.7819 0.3945 0.2692 1.70 1.

Designer must carefully consider the office environment and the intended use. Hz Since f is less than 10 Hz.3" .97.80(29000)(2648)-] = 0. Ao: ao - Aot Neff - 16 .•4) Computed Required Damping Range Dreqd < 3. 3.0578 + 2. This is a floor beam in an office building where the girder and column support motions are small and can be ignored.0.(DLF)max x (8---0-•t ) = (0. (5) oo 0.TABLE 4 --.015 in 1.3 Hz <: 10. redesign is necessary.92 Calculate the modified initial maximum amplitude.5% < Dreqd < 4. the analysis procedure is continued.015 in. Aot: For f = 5. Compute the initial maximum amplitude of the beam.Required damping comparison chart (after Murray 12. SOLUTION: (1) Estimate available damping: (Floor at 1%) + (Ceiling at 1%) + (Mechanical at 3%) > DavaiI = 5% < 8% > Continue the analysis (2) Calculate natural frequency.2% Dreqd > 4. Designer must be able to identify an exact source of damping or artificially provide additional damping to be sure the floor system will be satisfactory. If this can not be accomplished.5% • Comments System will be satisfactory even if supported areas are completely free of fixed partitions.3 Hz from Table 3 (DLF)max = 0.0078" J = 1.56x10 -8 = .2% EXAMPLE 36: Use Murray's acceptability criterion to investigate the adequacy of the floor beam of Example1 for walking induced vibration.0.92 [lOxl J + 2'56x10-8[ 2'•§ l 4. f: from EXAMPLE 1: f = 5.7580) x I.13.7580 L3 (41 'xl 2)3 Aot -. (3) (4) Calculate Neff: Neff = 2.

a vibration criterion for commercial floor systems. for example in shopping centers.0.0 Hz. An empirical formula was developed which related human response to the floor system's maximum displacement amplitude A0.5 .3) + 2. 40 volunteers were subjected to platform motions designed to simulate floor vibrations due to heel-drop impact.96.3.21 Hz is significantly less than Murray's suggested value of 8.girde r = (' 4•-•t ) = 48x29000x4485J = 4. The criterion is considered satisfied if the maximum deflection for a 450 lb force applied anywhere on the floor does not exceed 0." However. 4.> The beam is satisfactory Ellingwood et.450(40'x12) 3)( 1 . f.5 = 35(0. SOLUTION: Examine the maximum deflection due to a 450 lb load on the beam: * . was recommended l.. 4'girder 4'support max = "beam t 2 + 4 0. Both the Canadian Standards Association s and Murray • recommend that the natural frequency of commercial floor 4 systems be kept greater than 8 Hz in order to minimize the possibility of resonance due to walking.450(30'xl 2)3 .450L 3 1 Abeam = (.020 in. DavaiI.(6) (7) Estimate Dreqd: Oreqd = 35A o f + 2. 4--•-•t )(N--•) .265 17 .0078)(5. redesign is recommended. EXAMPLE 4: Determine if the floor system of Example 2(b) satisfies Ellingwood et.. Assume the number of effective tee-beams. such that: fao [10] R = 5.00 2 + 4 .0052 + 0.max = 0.0069 in. and available damping. = t48x29000x3533 1-•-•1 = 0. al.0034 0.s.450L 3 ( 0. al Recommendations for C0mmer•ial Environments As a part of a report issued by an Ad Hoc ASCE committee on serviceability research.0 . interpreted as follows: 0. the first natural frequency. Neff = 1. 0.9% <: DavaiI = 5.K. 0. 0.217] 0. since the floor system natural frequency of 3.08 [ (Davail) where R is the mean response rating.0034 in.02 inches. recommendations as a part of a shopping center floor system.0052 in. < 0. wi88-Parmelee Rating Factor Criterion Wiss and Parmelee• conducted a laboratory study to investigate human perception of s transient floor vibrations.9% Compare the values of DavaiI and Dreqd: Dreqd = 3. > O.

we can directly proceed with calculation of the Wiss-Parmelee rating factor: fao R = 5. SOLUTION: With f.50 > Beam not acceptable according to GSA/PBS provisions. which is also referred to as the GSA/PBS acceptability criterion has been criticized for not being sufficiently sensitive tofloor system damping 13. the resulting scale would be applicable to lightly damped floor systems (damping less than 5% of critical). The main criticism of this scale is its lack of explicit consideration of damping.•7.40 inches.265 = 5.0078")•10.08 [ 0.217 " (0. As a result of studies conducted on numerous beams.59 > 2. Their studies covered a forcing frequency range of 3 to 100 Hz and a displacement amplitude range of 0. which is considered to be the most important factor involved •. is called the Modified Reiher-Meister Scale and is shown in Figure 10. 18 .217 ] (Davai I) 0. The resulting scale which correlates human perceptibility with natural frequency and displacement amplitude. Modified Reiher-Meister Scale As early as 1931. In the early 1960's. EXAMPLE 5: Determine if the floor beam of Example 3 is acceptable according to the GSA/PBS criterion. Reiher and Meister reported results of their investigation of human perceptibility to steady state vibration •s. Lenzen suggested that if the Reiher-Meister amplitude scale was multiplied by a factor of 10. A0. The Wiss-Parmelee rating method.3 Hz)(0.1] [11] R = 3 • imperceptible / barely perceptible = /distinctly perceptible strongly perceptible severe The Wiss-Parmelee rating factor was adopted by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as a criteria for acceptability of floor systems where a limit of R<__ 2.265 0.05) = 2.0004 inches to 0." The Modified Reiher-Meister scale is frequently used by designers along with an additional method (for example Murray's acceptability criterion) to pass judgement on border-line situations. and DavaiI already known from Example 3. and systems in the strong/)/perceptible range will be unacceptable to both occupants and owners. Murray in a 1975 paper 12 suggested that "steel beam-concrete s/ab floors w/th 4% to 10% critica/ damping which plot above the upper one-ha/f of the distinctly perceptible range w/I/result in complaints from the occupants.5 was established.08 [(5.

3)2(0. In contrast to most other methods covered in this section.64 in/sec2 = 2. a floor system is rated acceptable if it satisfies one of the following two conditions: 19 .Limit States Design). Canadian Standards Association Scale (CSA) Based on the extensive research work by Allen and Rainer= an annoyance criteria for floor vibrations in residential. for 3%.EXAMPLE 6: Use the Modified Reiher-Meister scale to determine a vibration perceptibility level for the floor beam of Example 3. SOLUTION: For f = 5. According to this approach. assuming a harmonic floor response at the floor's first natural frequency: 7 = (2tt f)2 (A0) The chart in Figure 11 consists of a base curve for continuous vibration. EXAMPLE 7: Use the CSA scale as devised by Allen and Reiner to determine • acceptability of the floor beam in Example 3. Hence.2 %g Enter the chart of Figure 11 with these values.0078 inches enter the Modified Reiher-Meister chart of Figure 10.0078) = 8. the peak acceleration. office and school room environments was adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and was included as Appendix G to CSA Standard S16. A floor system plotting below the corresponding limit curve is considered satisfactory. and 12% available damping. 3' may be estimated from the now familiar maximum displacement amplitude. the beam is satisfactory.0078 inches. 6%. Tolaymat's Criterion Tolaymat • reviewed •esults of 96 composite floor systems studied by Murray as a basis 7 for his acceptability criterion • . A0. estimate the peak acceleration: y = (2• f)2(A 0) = (2 • x 5. and suggested a new rating system that is claimed to 3 provide a better correlation between test results and reported human perceptibility levels.1-1974 (Steel Structures for Buildings -. The required damping suggested by the chart is less than the 5% provided.3 Hz and A0 = 0. This criteria sets limits on peak acceleration experienced by the floor system in terms of its natural frequency and available damping (see Figure 11). Tolaymat used a series of impacts to simulate excitation caused by walking humans. SOLUTION: With f . which are based on study of a single heel drop impact.3 Hz and A0 = 0. For design purposes.5. and three limit curves for walking vibration. The beam plots below the distinctly perceptible range and hence is acceptable.

% • I S x X i x xlr'"'illii' IQ ZO $0 100 F r e q u e n c y . 2 0 . CPS Figure 10. CSA annoyance criteria chart for floor vibrations 2. 4 Figure 1 1. S I E.X C- / 0. 1 / / ? / / -----C!ITEIIA FOI WALKING VIIIATION$ A GIVEN IY #L I. Modified Reiher*Meister perceptibility chart. .i I i Ill I1! 'x! N III _ • L I l l Il •.1 I 2 I 4 I ir. 10g I S O I I I I / / / D M I G IATIO 12%J A PN 2 0 3. I P C TS M A T ET - 0 tt S Z 0 • 2 IIAIlG 3 % • 1.0 0AMPING lAllC • / / / / / " CIIITIIIIA POI C N I U U VIIRATION O TN O S (10 T 30 CYCLIS) G AVE'AGE 2t• I -• /.$ VVV• 0.J to ! 2 0 F E U N Y N R Q E C .

A rather simple computer program.4. A procedure not suitable for hand calculations. and 5. .25 Hz4. for aerobics and other coordinated jumping exercises. A2 is the second heel drop maximum amplitude and Ama x is the absolute maximum heel drop amplitude. While for most rhythmic activities. the reader should be reminded that determination of A 2 and Amax . B FOURIER TRANSFORM I I 11'IIRO HARMONIC RESONANCE I I -2. Allen3.91 .7 Hz floor system4. Multi-purpose facilities. While on the surface the application of this approach seems simple.4 0. the material presented in this section is mainly based on information contained in References 3. such as floor systems in aerobics gyms and office space on the same floor. pose the most difficult vibration design task. however. _. the second and third harmonics can make significant contributions and should be considered in the analysis. TIME RECORD 5. requires calculation of the dynamic response of a SDOF system (i. Not surprisingly.4.050 and f are as defined previously.48 0 0. can do the job and a diskette containing one such program accompanies Reference 15. s 4 6 FREQUENCY. and the dominant frequencies excited by planned human activities to reasonably assure that resonance will not occur.8 I• 1.32 1. Figure 12 shows such a third harmonic resonance which was caused by aerobics activity at 2.6 2. (Amax)X(f) < 0.015 in.7 Hz floor due to aerobics at 2.15 _ with Amax < _ 0.39 1.0 2 TIME.46 I I · I • 2.28 -4. and most importantly aerobics can result in undesirable levels of vibration. Vibration of a 6.3.25 Hz on a 6.in general. consideration of the first harmonic (main frequency) of the activity is sufficient. it is resonant or near resonant behavior that results in significant dynamic amplification and hence human discomfort. His recommendations have been reflected in the recent serviceability criteria supplement to the National Building Code of Canada. a series of heel drop impacts). The most rational design strategy is to provide enough of a gap between the natural frequency of the floor system.19 .s has reported the most comprehensive design guidelines on this subject. FLOOR VIBRATION FROM RHYTHMIC ACTIVITIES Coordinated rhythmic activities such as dancing.e.e. both in inches. floor beam) to a general excitation (i.[13] [14] where A0 (1) (2) A2 A0 _ < 1.96 0. . Hz 8 10 Figure 1 2. audience participation in arenas and concert halls. 21 . For rhythmic activities.14 V ' [ 0.87 2.

Wp. using an appropriate method such as one of the methods discussed in this publication.3 in [15] should be increased to 2. f. Estimate the distributed weight of the participants. the factor 1. (2) (3) Select a maximum acceptable limit for floor acceleration. Furthermore. the first three harmonics of the forcing frequency should be considered. Notice that for aerobics and jumping exercises.3 in [15] is subject to the same discussion provided for [2]. When only a portion of span is used for the activity the load Wp can be estimated by taking the total load on the partially loaded span and distributing it uniformly over the entire span. wt by adding the normally sustained. determine the dominant range of forcing frequency. (5) (6) Compute the natural frequency of the floor system. since these harmonics add together. For aerobics and jumping exercises. Allen3 recommends that floor systems in assembly occupancies that do not meet the minimum natural frequencies of Table 7 should be evaluated more carefully. the governing criterion for aerobics becomes: . non-active load and Wp. Condition [16] should be satisfied for each of the three harmonics. However. Table 5 may be used to arrive at a reasonable estimate for Wp.3 (ZWp I + ao/g wt where ao/g is the acceleration limit discussed in step 2 above.According to AlienS: "Resonance is the most important factor affecting aerobics vibration. Hence. hence natural frequency is the most important structural design parameter.2. the first three harmonics should be considered. ff (see Table 5). (x. • [16] f • (i)(ff) 2." Design steps to prevent floor vibration from rhythmic activities may be summarized as follows: (1) For each type of activity. (4) Compute the total floor load. The factor 1. The problem is to get the natural frequency away from the three harmonics. • [15] f _> ff • 1. or ISO charts as discussed previously Select a dynamic load factor. Use the values recommended in Table 6. a0. 22 .3 is the harmonic number.0 (x Wp I + a0/g wt where i= 1.0. Check the following criterion for the minimum natural frequency of the floor system: . See Table 5 for guidance. expressed in percent of gravitational acceleration.

3.05 g. Forcing frequency ff.Minimum recommended natural assembly floor frequencies.52 0. Weight-lifting Aerobics.25 Aerobics 1st Harmonic 2nd Harmonic 3rd Harmonic * ** 4.2 (42 ft2/person) *** Density of participants is for commonly encountered conditions.5 . Hz 1.75 4 . Hz3.42 *** Suggested revision to the 1985 supplement of CSA codes.2 (42 ft2/person) *** 4.0 1.2. Dancing.3 (5 ft2/person) Dynamic load factore .5 4to 7 2 m TABLE 7 --.5 (27 ft2/couple) 31.1 6. TABLE 6 --. (z I Dynamic load OrWp.3.Suggested design parameters f o r rhythmic events3. jump dances) or for fewer than 20 participants.5.5 0.4 to 0.0 Activity Dancing Lively concert or sport event Weight of participants* Wp. 23 . Values of (x are based on commonly encountered events involving a minimum of about 20 participants.concrete) Solid Concrete Wood * ** Limiting peak acceleration 0.6 0.25 4. Type o f floor construction Composite (steel. For special events the density of participants can be greater.TABLE 5 --.g.7 1. 2 .25 7. psf 6.Recommended acceleration limits for vibration due to rhythmic activities 4 Occupancies affected by the vibration Office and residential Dining.83 0. Dance f l o o r s * . psf 12. rhythmic activities only Mixed use occupancies housing aerobics Acceleration limit.30 2.50 6 . Values of = should be increased for well-coordinated events (e.5 .02 g.8.2 (42 ft2/person) *** 1. arenas** 6 5 8 EXAMPLE 8: Determine the minimum natural frequency needed for a composite floor system in a gymnasium to be used exclusively for aerobics and other similar exercises.s. Limiting peak acceleration 0.4. gymnasia** 9 7 12 stadia.5 0. percent •lravity 0.5 to 2.

30. Since the floor is to be used for aerobics and rhythmic activities only. Roger M.5 Hz. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author's work on this publication was sponsored in part by •John A. James Marsh is gratefully appreciated. and 0. Critical review of the manuscript by Dr.21 Hz.8. 5 •. SOLUTION: Following the forementioned step-by-step procedure: (1) (2) From Table 5.05 84. (3) (4) (5) (6) + Wp = 80 + 4. Check [16] for each of the three harmonics 1st harmonic: .42 I + 0.50) . Hence. Notice that Table 7 suggests a minimum natural frequency of 9 Hz for this case. dynamic load factors.21 Hz Controls The floor system should be designed to have a first natural frequency larger than 8. select a reasonable value for forcing frequency.•/ f > (1)(2. wt = WD.2 .2 -. respectively.41 Hz 2.50) . • 2. Martin and Associates.2 psf This step does not apply to this problem.84. from Table 6 an acceleration limit of 4% to 7%g is reasonable.5. We use the suggested values from Table 5 for weight of the participants.L.• (2)(2.50) 2nd harmonic: f • 2 . 24 .30 I + 0. Inc. say 2.0 6. DiJulio and Mr.05 84. (3)(2. • 1 + 0 _• 2.52 7.EXAMPLE 8: Determine the minimum natural frequency needed for a composite floor system in a gymnasium to be used exclusively for aerobics and other similar exercises.52. For this example we select an acceleration limit of a0 = 0. The total normally sustained load on the floor including the dead weight and th'e weight of non-participating audience is estimated at 80 pounds per square foot. dynamic loads for the three harmonics are 6.42 psf. 2.0 0.2 .00 Hz 3rd harmonic: f >. and dynamic loads.05g.

Wiss. Wright Field. Dec. No. 12." Van Nostrand Reinhold.Q. "Floor Vibrations in Steel Framed Buildings. D." International Standard ISO-2631/1-1985(E). A. Switzerland. "Building Floor Vibrations.H. 3. B. The National Research Council of Canada. Ellingwood. and Meister. No. Vol.R.E. M. 1989." Floor Vibrations from Aerobics.REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] Ad Hoc Committee on Serviceability Research. 66-73.H.M. Vol... and Tallin. Vol." Van Nostrand Reinhold. Allen..H. Ohio. No. 25. D.. "Vibration of steel joist-Concrete slab Floors. "Building Vibrations form Human Activities. 1974.. "The Effect of Vibration on People. 3. September.. Vol. 4." Journal of Structural Engineering.. No." Canadian Journal of Civ# Engineering. and Rainer. 6. Belvins. Murray.F. 62-70." Engineering Journal. Washington. 1976. June. Tolaymat. mm. "Evaluation o•.M. 1984. Vol 12. 18. Allen... 2.." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 137-143.Structural Dynamics. J. International Organization for Standards." T.. 1979. R. American Concrete Institute. 2.." Engineering Journal. 1949.. No. Air Material Command. No." International Standard ISO-2631/2-1989(E). "Formulas for Natural Frequency and Mode Shapes. No." Engineering Journal. Vol 12. R. G. Allen." Pittsburgh. No. No. AISC. Vol. "Design to Prevent Floor Vibrations'. Geneva. April. Reiher. T. Rainer. Lenzen." Concrete international: Design and Construct/on. 1966. human exposure to whole-body vibration -Part 1: General requirements. 100. J... 1985. 1975. "Acceptability Criterion for Occupant-Induced Floor Vibrations. 3. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] 25 . T.H.E. "Structural Serviceability: Floor Vibrations. 1986. Vol. H. "Structural Serviceability: A Critical Appraisal and Research Needs. Geneva. "Human Perception of Transient Vibrations. 617-623. The National Research Council of Canada. "Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration -Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz). 1981.. 1985." Journal of the Structural Division. PA. AISC. No. . ST4.. Inc. 1991.. 112. Allen.E. 3. Vol.E. The National Research Council of Canada. D. F.M. 2. AISC Marketing.J. Feb. "Vibration Criteria for Assembly Occupancies.. Jun. D. "Vibration Criteria for Long Span Floors.. Murray. 1988. and Parmelee.. J. Murray. 1990. ASCE. "Microcomputer Aided Engineering -. D." Journal of Structural Engineering. English Translation in Report No. 3. Paz. K. Vol 12. AISC. 617-623." Engineering Journal. F-TS-616-R. AISC.C. ASCE. Higgins lectureship paper presented at the AISC National Steel Construction Conference. " A New Approach to Floor Vibration Analysis. 3. . 133-136. No. 12. 1986. 110.and Pernica." Canadian Journal of C/vii Engineering.H. T." Published in German in 1931. ASCE. Vol.E. M.' International Organization for Standards. Switzerland.

No. estimated tonnage. Baresel Corporation Bethlehem Steel Corporation C. The Herrick Corporation Hoertig Iron Works Hogan Mfg. CA 94596 (415) 932-0909 Southern California 9420 Telstar Ave. Stockton Steel Stott Erection. 207 El Monte. Dovell Engineering. Inc. Inc. Bannister Steel. No. Inc. Kaiser Steel Corporation Lee & Daniel McLean Steel. Inc.. fabrication details. Robertson Co. Central Industrial Engineering Co. Inc. cost comparisons. Inc. Allied Steel Co. Inc. H.S R C U A STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL T U T R L Northern California 1250 Pine St. Schrader Iron Works. and delivery schedules. Our assistance can range from budget prices. Inc. Palm Iron & Bridge Works Pascoe Steel Corporation PDM Strocal. CA 91731 (818) 444-4519 S O S R P NO S Ace & Stewart Detailing. Inc.. Cochran-Izant & Co. Inc. The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most economical solution for your products. Inc. Buehen Corporation Butler Manufacturing Co. Martin Iron Works. Inc. Nelson Stud Welding Co.. Funding for this publication provided by the California Field Iron Workers Administrative Trust. Inland Steel Company Junior Steel Co. A. Inc. Reno Iron Works Riverside Steel Construction H. Artimex Iron Co. Inc.. 301 Walnut Creek. .. Verco Manufacturing.