You are on page 1of 10


Ivan Glisovic1, Bosko Stevanovic2

ABSTRACT: A complete design methodology for timber floors must address the problem of annoying vibration
caused by the occupants themselves. Proper controlling relies on good understanding nature of floor vibrations induced
by human movements. This paper reviews the major findings on characteristics of the footstep forces and discusses
mechanism of footstep-induced vibrations in timber floors. A numerical modelling procedure, which is based on the
finite-element method, for obtaining the natural frequencies, mode shapes and vibration response of timber floor
systems is presented. Using this numerical model, the effect of change in various floor parameters on vibrational
performance of timber floors is investigated.
KEYWORDS: Timber floor, Footstep, Vibration response, Finite element modelling, Construction details

Annoying floor vibrations are common in many types of
building structures. Problems of this nature have been
reported in private dwelling houses, office buildings,
schools, restaurants, etc. Although floor vibrations can
result from many sources (e.g. use of machinery,
explosions, external traffic) the most common and
problematic are caused by the occupants themselves by
their everyday activity. Such forces are particularly
problematic because they cannot be easily isolated from
structure and they occur frequently. Therefore, excessive
floor vibrations due human-induced loading have been
characterized as probably the most persistent floor
serviceability problem encountered by designers [1].
For heavy floors which utilize concrete as a deck,
vibrations produced by normal human movements are
generally less noticeable. In comparison the amplitudes
of vibration response found in timber floors are
relatively high. This is because amplitudes of response
are inversely proportional to the self-weight of the
structure being vibrated. As human bodies are generally
sensitive to vibrations, this high level response can cause
discomfort and undue disturbance of occupants.
Consequently, the requirement for designing against
disturbing vibrational performance is particularly
important for light-weight floors built from materials
such as wood.
In past, many design guides and codes of practice have
used point load deflection and fundamental frequency as
a measure of acceptable floor performance [2]. However,

Ivan Glisovic, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of
Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia. Email:
Bosko Stevanovic, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University
of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade,
Serbia. Email:

modern standards have now moved away from these
traditional measures of vibration performance and
require that designer make realistic estimation of level of
floor response that will be encountered in practice by
considering the walking excitation directly and
comparing this with human annoyance criteria. This is
primarily a result of a considerably reduced cost of
computing, but also reflects an increasing awareness that
floors are dynamically very difficult structures to model
heaving complex geometry, boundary and continuity
conditions, stiffness distribution and interaction of close
modes of vibration requiring multiple degree of freedom
The general goal of this research is to gain a better
understanding of timber floor vibration phenomena in
order to apply it to a better prediction then what exists
for real systems. A finite-element approach is utilized to
model timber floor systems under dynamic loads
resulting from normal human activities. The numerical
model takes into account the various complexities in
timber floor construction: orthotropic sheathing and
semirigid sheathing-to-joist connections. Using this
numerical model, the influence of construction variables
on floor performances is evaluated. Evaluation is based
on comparison between the reference and modified

Acceleration and deceleration of the (mass of) human
body during various human activities is causing dynamic
forces. Forces depend upon many factors including the
characteristics of the person or persons, the activity
being undertaken (e.g. walking, running, jumping), the
number of people, whether activities of different people
are coordinated and the characteristics of the floor

As the individual’s gait increases from a walk to a run. but the duration shorter.8 s. Activities generating synchronized rhythmic movements such as those due to several or more people dancing or exercising are especially problematic.There are very many variations of rhythmic body movements leading to large variety of dynamic loads.75 As can be seen.0 2. The force is composed of two different component types: – Low-frequency components (0-8 Hz) which origin from the step frequency and its harmonics. Most timber floors employ equidistant joists as primary structural members. Vertical forces due to an individual foot impact have been measured and characterized (Table 1 and Figure 1). and has duration of between 0.6 0. higher frequency floors are more responsive to the impulsive component of walking.2 Stride length L (m) 0. frequency content and “time function”. the low-frequency loading components may create a strong “resonant” vibration response. Joists are sheathed (overlain) by a wood or non-wood layer of structural material. In addition to the type of movement (walking or running). the excitation would lack coherence unless the group was walking in step.3 Forward speed V (m/s) 1.5 times the static force. Several people acting synchronously for 20 seconds or more can lead to approximately periodic loads that produce almost steady state structural vibration [3]. the weight of a walker plays a significant role in determining the magnitude.1 1. [3]. 1987) [4] Activity Slow walk Normal walk Fast walk Slow running (jogging) Fast running (sprinting) Pacing frequency f (Hz) 1. Table 1: Data on walking and running (Bachmann and Ammann. The static deflection of the floor naturally would increase. On the other hand. a certain general conclusion can be made that individual excitation represents an adequate model for development of vibration serviceability criterion. However.5 1. For normal walking the peak force is about 1.5 s and 0. for running than for walking. On the other hand. Dynamic forces from groups of people walking about the floor at random would seldom cause serviceability problems [5]. – High-frequency components (8-40 Hz) which origin from impacts when the heel contacts the floor surface. in periods of normal walking forces induced by left and right leg overlapped.75 1. there are two peaks in a force-time history with the first corresponding to “heel strike” contact and the second to “toe-lift off” contact. Annoying vibration of timber floors is commonly associated with walking and running forces. and thus the dynamic component of motion would be small. Frequency content of walking excitation was studied by Ohlsson [6]. Therefore.5 2. The type of footwear and traversing surface were found to have little effect on the forces applied by human movements [1]. in running. the peaks merge and peak force is much higher. the top of which is the floor surface. but has less effect on the actual shape of the force fluctuation.3 >3.0 2.5 3. 3 DEFINITION OF THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM A typical arrangement of components in a joisted floor is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1: Detailed forcing patterns for different types of human activities (Wheeler.2-1.2 5.7 2. 1982) [1] .3 1. Also. periods when both feet were off the ground were clearly observable between the forcing peaks. which means that both legs were periodically on the ground. Therefore. Loads differ in their nominal frequency. if the floor is low-frequency having a first mode of vibration which is less than approximately 8 Hz.

4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING Numerical analysis was carried out using the finite element method (FEM).8 cm 1000 / 86 / 51. The stiffness of connectors controls the level of composite action between the sheathing and joists. uy. numerical modelling allows easier and more accurate treatment of human-induced walking excitation. The presented numerical model is intended primarily for dynamic analysis of timber floors. The floor cover (sheathing) was assumed to be semirigidly fastened to equidistant joists to produce an assembly capable of composite action. which is typical residential timber floors. Physical and mechanical properties of structural and non-structural components take effect on modal characteristics of a floor system (stiffness.6 m 60 cm 9 16 cm 12 cm 1000 kN/cm2 500 kg/m3 4. This floor. φx. In general. In this study. Consider a reference floor with the dimensions and Figure 2: Typical joisted floor construction: a) sheathing on lumber joists. needs to be known. definition of the dynamic system for any floor is often not simple. Use of finite element models for considering floor vibration offers opportunities to the designer. The model can be used for both frequency and time history response analyses of floor systems. by allowing a more realistic consideration of floor structures then can be achieved with simple hand methods of analysis. commercial software packages for static and dynamic structural analysis SAP 2000 was used. Timber joists were modelled using Solid elements (spatial three-dimensional elements with 8 nodes). mass and damping).2 x 109 N/mm 1200 N/mm 180 N-mm 0 (unloaded) No All joist simply supported on both ends Note: *Suggested by Bodig and Jayne [7] **Suggested by Folz and Foschi [8] . Plan geometry. The plate layers can be either isotropic or orthotropic depending upon the material used.37 / 0.1 / 7 kN/cm2 0. Also. b) sheathing on wood I joists [3] properties shown in Table 2. Whenever possible.5 / 69. uz. three displacement and three rotations . as does the nature of the structural system for the building as a whole. φz. usually rectangular. engineers conceptualize systems as simple. Floors are often stiffened in the across-rib (across-joist) direction by addition of row of bridging or blocking. which together vibrates under dynamic loads as a stiffened plate. However. while Shell elements (plane elements with 4 nodes) were used for sheathing.47 500 kg/m3 Nail (two rows) 100 mm 1. Characteristics of both supporting and supported components will influence the response of the floor [3]. was designed to satisfy stress and deformation conditions (l/250) in accordance with current SRPS regulations. Each connector was modelled by vertical Linear Link Table 2: Dimensions and properties of reference timber floor Floor property Span length Joist spacing Number of joist Joist depth Joist width Modulus of elasticity for all joists Mass density of joist Thickness of sheathing Modulus of elasticity for sheathing* EL / ER / ET Shear modulus for sheathing* GLR / GLT / GRT Poisson’s ratio for sheathing* νLR / νLT / νRT Mass density of sheathing Connectors Nail spacing Nail vertical stiffness** Nail horizontal slip stiffness** Nail rotational stiffness** Uniformly distributed load Bridging Support conditions Value 3.ux.42 / 0.In the structural sense whole floors with such construction behave as a thin plate reinforced by series of ribs. including openings for stairs and services.8 kN/cm2 73. plan arrangement with idealized supports. the sheathing has different elastic properties in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the joists and was modelled as an orthotropic plate. The given elements have 6 degrees of freedom in each node. φy. The material properties for the joist were considered isotropic.

but have different shapes across the joists (see Figure 5). i.04 Human pedestrian excitation was considered using timehistory analysis based upon Newmark time integration approach. nail pullout) versus compression. with the second modal frequency often being only 15-20% higher than the first [3]. The force pulses due to successive footsteps will normally overlap by roughly 0.74 76.47 32. span and width. The adopted assumption that the connectors are characterized by a loading-slip linear relationship does not seriously limit the application of this numerical model. damping was included by use of Rayleigh damping. Modal clustering has the effect of increasing the amplitude of vibration response. It can be noticed that the values of natural frequencies are quite closely spaced. The analysis comprised two excitation cases: walking in place in the centre of the floor and walking across the floor. Because modes are clustered. it is concluded that the two components in walking excitation can initiate two types of vibrations in floors. one vertical stiffness. the model was simplified by using a single value that was very large in comparison with the horizontal and rotational stiffness values [9]. and rotational stiffness. it is not generally reliable to base vibration assessments of timber floors only on the fundamental mode.1 sec. The links had a length equal to one-half of the sheathing thickness. Figure 3: Finite element modelling strategy 5 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Dynamic analysis comprised determination of natural frequencies. These properties are .e.98 19.75 m. The excitation of a floor system by one person walking is shown spatially and temporally in Figure 4b.32 47. since the vibrations of timber floors is a serviceability problem where the structural integrity of the floor is not jeopardized. were not supported. transient vibration and resonance. and thus velocity and acceleration levels experienced by a person or object located on a floor. The finite-element modelling strategy of timber floor is shown in Figure 3. joisted timber floor are inherently orthotropic. b) forces on span from one person walking [5] Based on above understanding of the nature of the footstep force.55 69. mass and its capacity to dissipate vibration energy (damping) [10]. The extent to which modes are clustered depends upon parameters such as floor shape. Despite the propertis of the floor plate and presence of bridging. modes of strongly orthotropic plates exhibit a common shape (usually a single half sine-wave) along the joists. This promotes a tendency towards clustering of the first few modal frequencies.17 23. The step length was taken as 0. corresponding vibration modes and floor response to excitation by human footsteps. because deflections were assumed to be quite small. the vertical stiffness value should be different in tension (i. The presence of bridging was simulated by restricting the torsional deformation of the joists.33 62. primarily. rather the floor system stiffness. The first 10 natural frequencies for a given reference floor are shown in Table 3. For recangular plan floors the first few Figure 4: Force due to walking on floor: a) force from single footstep.e. A typical non-dimensional force-time relation for a single footfall is shown in Figure 4a. For time-step dynamic analysis. pin and roller) at their ends.89 68. In the floors used for this study. in which the material damping matrix is assumed to be directly proportional to both the stiffness matrix and the mass matrix. The sides of the floor (parallel to the joists).39 65. This result is typical for strongly orthotropic structures. However.elements (linear springs) having horizontal slip stiffness (slip modulus) in two directions. Values of nail horizontal slip stiffness and rotational stiffness as suggested by Folz and Foschi are given in Table 2. and flexural stiffness along and across joists.e. depending on the dynamic properties of the floor system. In a strict sense. all joists were assumed to be simply supported (i. Table 3: Natural frequencies of reference floor Mode number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency (Hz) 16.

It can be observed that each transient vibration signal contains a high initial peak and quickly decays. which is above the footstep frequency and its harmonics.Mode 1 f = 16. Therefore. The figure shows that the floor response was a train of transient vibrations.98 Hz Mode 1 f = 17.32 Hz Mode 4 f = 56. Time records of response in the centre of the reference floor are shown in Figure 6. simply supported on all edges (right) determined by floor material.34 Hz Mode 2 f = 19.35 Hz Figure 5: Typical mode shapes for a rectangular joisted floor: simply supported on two edges (left).59 Hz Mode 4 f = 32.47 Hz Mode 3 f = 36.17 Hz Mode 2 f = 23. The fundamental frequency of a floor built with a material having a high ratio of strength to mass such as wood is most likely above 8 Hz. the vibration induced by footstep forces is most likely dominated by a transient response caused by the individual heel impact force from each footstep. design and construction. The peak values of a transient vibration are governed by system stiffness .76 Hz Mode 3 f = 23.

5 -1 -1 -1.5 2 2.004 -0. improvements in floor performance. due walking perpendicular to joists (right) (damping ratio of 3%) and mass.3 -0.e. as well as decaying natural variations due to footstep impulses.01 0.5 0 0 0.02 -0. n-th modal separation factor.5 3 -0.5 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 6: Time history floor response in centre of the floor: due walking in place (left).5 1 1. is defined as [8]: 6 PARAMETRIC STUDY where fn+1 and fn are the (n+1) and n-th floor natural frequencies.5 5 3.5 -0.5 -0. can be achieved by raising the fundamental frequency and increasing the spacing between adjacent frequencies (i. In this study.5 1 1 2 Acceleration (m/s ) 2 Acceleration (m/s ) Time (s) 0.015 0.5 4 4.6 0. When floors are light. A point load stiffness criterion is appropriate for the static deflection component and a criterion based on footstep impulse vibration is appropriate for the impulsive component of loading.5 2 2.006 0 0 0. increasing the MSFn).01 0.002 0 -0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 1 1. The results of parameter analysis given in Tables 4 show the values of the fundamental frequencies of floors and values of first four modal separation factors. Damping is a measure of how quickly the response of vibrating system decay. response includes time variation of static deflection due to a moving repeated load.1 0 0 0.2 -0.5 3 3.4 -0. respectively.01 0.5 -0.5 1 1.5 -0.2 -0. while holding all the other parameters constant at their reference-floor values.002 0 0.005 Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s) 0.8 -0. velocity or acceleration.7 -0.1 0 0 Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) -0.004 0.5 1.5 5 3.006 -0. individually. but not by damping. The procedure for parametric study involved varying each significant floor parameter MSFn = f n +1 fn (1) .5 -0.5 4 4.012 0.5 3 -0.4 -0.5 1 1. the In order to investigate the influence of different floor parameters on natural frequencies and on vibration response of a referent floor. The levels of vibration can be represented by displacement.5 4 4.5 5 -0.3 -0.008 -0.005 -0.5 1 1.9 Time (s) Time (s) 0. MSFn.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 0 0 0.6 -0.015 -0.5 2 2. a parametric study was carried out using the previously described procedure of numerical modelling.008 0.5 0.01 Time (s) 1. from the perspective of human perception.1 -0. Clearly.5 2 2.0.

Results obtained by parametric study completely correspond to the results of this research.25 1.19 1. A heel-drop test was developed to achieve impacts similar to those resulting from human footfall impacts.54 1.32 1.37 1. the factor is equal to 8/f0. Thus Table 4: Results of parametric study Floor parameter Fundamental frequency f (Hz) Joist spacing (cm) 40 18.22 1.49 0.8* 16.380 0.98 6. Reducing the joints spacing mainly increases the stiffness of a floor in the joist span direction.13 1. reduction in the spacing between frequencies may have a negative effect on vibration response as closely spaced vibration modes may interact to produce motion with relatively high amplitudes.380 0.72 Joist depth (cm) 12 12.44 1.380 0. the calculated rms acceleration is frequency weighted by an appropriate factor.37 1. The duration of vibration was taken as 1 sec.98 Supported four edges 17.value of root mean square (rms) of acceleration was adopted as a referent value in accordance with ISO standard.0 15.07 s and P0 can be taken as 70% of the weight of the person applying heel-impact.54 1.13 1.38 1.22 1. for frequencies between 8 and 80 Hz.22 1.08 16* 16. The Arms value is calculated as: ⎡1 T ⎤ Arms = ⎢ ∫ a 2 ( t ) dt ⎥ 0 T ⎣ ⎦ 1 2 (2) where a(t) is the frequency-weighted acceleration in time t and T is total duration of the vibration.49 0. In the given analysis. The “size” of the rectangular impulse varies according to such factors as the weight and build of the person producing it.03 Note: *Reference floor values Modal separation factor MFO1 MFO2 MFO3 MFO4 Rms acceleration Arms (m/s2) 1.98 20 22.11 1.266 1.05-0.46 1.292 .19 1.47 1.45 1.4 19.15 1.98 80 15. was adopted.13 1.38 1.11 1.18 1.85 Nail spacing (mm) 50 17.13 1.66 60* 16.42 1. According to international standard ISO 2631-2: 1989 [11].98 Bridging 17.38 1.408 1.15 1.39 1. The person produced impacts standing on his toes then dropping his heels rapidly through a distance of about 65 mm. Figure 7: Shape of forcing function of a heel-drop impact The root-mean-square values of frequency-weighted acceleration (Arms) of a vibration caused by a footfall impact are shown in Table 4 (damping ratio of 3%).46 1.380 1. and reduction in the spacing between natural frequencies. t1 = 0.46 1.8. Construction details have a strong influence on the dynamic behavior of lightweight timber floors and the acceptability of particular floors to users of buildings.37 1.23 1. This results in an increase in the fundamental natural frequency.13 1.22 1.11 1.380 0.46 1. This parameter is able to account for human sensitivity to amplitude.46 1. which implies an improvement in floor performance.49 0.46 1.22 1.38 1. Intensive laboratory measurements as well as in situ measurements were performed on real floors in order to evaluate the influence of various structural parameters on static stiffness and transient response of the floor [3.94 4.07 1.20 1.34 Bridging No bridging* 16.38 1.22 1.55 1. which is 70% of the weight of a man whose mass is 70 kg.27 1. As already mentioned.37 0. Experiments by Chui and Smith [12] have shown that t1 is in the range 0.17 1.40 100* 16.291 0.15 1.38 1.33 1.51 1.10 1.13 1.284 1. where f0 is the floor fundamental natural frequency in Hz.21 1.26 1.380 0.12 0.05 0.41 1.12-18]. A typical shape of the force-time function for heeldrop impact is represented graphically in Figure 7 together with the simplified rectangular representation used in following analysis.08 Sheathing thickness (cm) 2.98 200 16.323 1.05 s and P0 = 500 N.61 Support condition Supported two edges* 16. Since people can tolerate higher vibration magnitude at higher frequencies versus lower frequencies. rate of decay and frequency components of the vibration. This approximation leads to a considerable simplification in computation but only a small conservative error in the final solution.13 1.

M. Fridley K.: Structural serviceability: floor vibrations. In: 10th International Congress on Sound and Vibration. or reducing the amplitudes of the response. It is advantageous and less costly to consider the effect of vibration on the building and its contents during the design process. Sweden. Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration: Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz). Stockholm. Onysko D. 2003.smaller joist spacing does not.: Finite-strip free-vibration analysis of wood floors. Reducing the mechanical connectors spacing (which is equivalent to increasing both horizontal and rotational stiffness of connectors) increases the fundamental frequency and the modal separation factors. Desjardins R. improvements in floor performance may be attained by raising the natural frequencies. (eds) Timber Engineering. Although this practice has little effect on the fundamental mode of vibration it stiffened the floor in the direction perpendicular to the span and thereby raises the higher natural frequencies.. [5] Ellingwood B. 1999. Human-induced footstep loading has proved to be major source of floor vibration disturbance. as it happens frequently and. Based on the foregoing.vibration of wooden floors. The choice of appropriate structural arrangements and detailing is also important in order to achieve good results. Journal of Structural Engineering. M.: Pedestrian excitation of bridges recent results. When the joists are tall and slender and have low torsional rigidity.. The mean level of response is also observed to be lower in the floor with all edges supported. [11] ISO 2631-2:1989. but increases the modal separation factors. A. Considering the influence of various floor parameters. 1984. [3] Smith I. Due to exceptional orthotropic of the floor observed in the parameter study the given effect is not expressed. 2003. Portland. O. Switzerland. It has been noted that annoying vibrations of timber floors can be effectively controlled through a design approach that accounts for stiffness and mass. but can human annoyance and malfunction of sensitive equipment. New York. H.. Although bridging has little influence on the first three natural frequencies. an increase in the mechanical connector rotational stiffness has little effect on the fundamental frequency. response and acceptability of resultant vibrations. A. 2006. [6] Ohlsson S. as commonly believed always ensure satisfactory vibrational performance. It is also interesting to observe that increasing the depth of the joist increases the fundamental frequency. and Larsen H.: Serviceability limit states . 125(12):1401-1406.: Vibration of timber floors: serviceability aspects. USA. Johan Wiley & Sons Ltd.. This potential problem cannot be detected from a static analysis. 1995. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 116(8):2127-2141. 242-266. In: 9th World Conference of Timber Engineering. J. J. Geneva. Chui Y. 7 CONCLUSIONS Dynamic behaviour of timber floors in buildings is complex and interdisciplinary in nature. In: STEP 1. Tallin A.. REFERENCES [1] Pavic A. 34(3):191-211. E. . with many factors contributing to their excitation. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials. [7] Bodig J. An increase in the mechanical connector horizontal stiffness increases the fundamental frequency. A18/1-A18/8.. Journal of Structural Engineering. V. in practice. a general conclusion can be made that the fundamental frequency of a floor is the predominant function of stiffness in the span direction. it improves the modal separation of the higher natural frequencies. The given conclusion is contradictory to the opinion in practice that the vibration problem can be simply solved by increasing the thickness of the sub-floor. cannot be isolated. 1982. H. Vibrations induced by footsteps in floors do not cause damage or structural failure. Between joist bridging (blocking or cross-bracing) in the interior of the span often has a very beneficial influence on the stiffness in the across joist direction. [2] Hu L. Jayne B. An awareness of the nature of vibration can help avoid or alleviate vibration-related problems. Increasing the thickness of the sheathing can greatly reduce static deflection under concentrated load. 1989. [4] Newland D.: Vibraion design criterion for wood floors exposure to normal human activities. Part 1: Review of background information.. but also causes a clustering of all the frequencies... [9] Al-Faqaha’a A. Cofer W. The Shock and Vibration Digest. This does not automatically mean that dynamic behaviour is improved. because the mass increases as well as the stiffness and natural frequencies can actually reduce. J. [8] Filiatrault A.: Vibration serviceability of timber floors in residential construction. Chui Y. The benefits of having all four edges supported instead of two are demonstrated. The degree of reduction depends primarily on the relationship between modulus of elasticity of the sheathing in two orthogonal directions and it is larger for larger anisotropy of the sheathing material. Chichester. Foschi R. 110(2):401-418. Reynolds P: Vibration serviceability of long-span concrete buildings floors. J. Centrum Hout. while the interval between adjacent floor frequencies is governed by the ratio of stiffnesses in two orthogonal directions and that the intensity of the dynamic response depends on the mass of the entire system. 1990. 2002. On the other hand. F. In: Thelandersson S.. bridging is necessary to prevent torsional movement in joints. International Organisation for Standardization.: Mechanics of wood and wood composites.. 3:228-237.: Nature of vibrations induced by footsteps in lightweight and heavyweight floors. The Netherland. Folz B. but little effect on the modal separation factors. Journal of Structural Engineering. increasing the spacing between adjacent frequencies. [10] Hu L. England.

: Construction methods for minimizing vibration levels in floors with lumber joists. Seattle. . Gupta A.: Reliability of floors under impact vibration. 4.378-4. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 1988. 4. H. 1991. [14] Foschi R..: Design of lightweight wooden floors to avoid human discomfort. Chui Y. 1987. Smith I. H.. 1988.. O. V.[12] Smith I. 19:833-841. USA. Washington State University. Vol. 722-729. UK. USA. 2006.: Evaluation of vibration performance of light-weight wooden floors. USA. 14:683-689. [13] Smith I. Chui Y. Proceeding of the 1991 International Timber Engineering Conference. [17] Ohlsson S. 1.385. 1992. H. Vol. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.: Assessment of vibrational performance on timber floors.: Dynamic response of lightweight floors with wood I-joists. [15] Chui Y. Proceeding of the 1988 International Conference of Timber Engineering. H. Seattle. 1988. [16] Chui Y. Vol. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering.: A design approach for footstepinduced floor vibration. In: 9th World Conference of Timber Engineering. [18] Weckendorf J. 1. 15:254-262. et al.. London. Washington State University. Proceeding of the 1988 International Conference of Timber Engineering. Portland. 707-715.