Human Induced Vib

Human Induced Floor Vibrations
Technical Background
AISC Design Guide 11
Part 1 / 2
Brad Davis, Ph.D., S.E.

University of Kentucky
dbraddavis@uky.edu
1. Introduction
 Problem Statement
 Human activity cause the structure to vibrate.
 Occupants might be irritated or frightened.
 Sensitive equipment might malfunction.
 Designer must be able to evaluate vibration
serviceability during design.
 Serviceability limit state.
 Not a strength or fatigue issue.
 Panic possible in rare and very extreme cases.
2
1. Introduction
 A very realistic limit state
 Steel-Framed Structures: floor vibration is
about as likely to control as strength and
deflection limit states.
 These are especially vulnerable:
 Areas with rhythmic activities.
 Areas with sensitive equipment.
 Monumental stairs.
3
1. Introduction
 Why focus on human induced floor vibration?
 Vibration Due to Equipment
 Can usually be isolated at the source.
 High frequency  more difficult to feel.
 May still be an issue in some cases.
 Wind induced lateral vibration. A different
subject.
 Earthquake design has to do with safety. A
different subject.
4
1. Introduction
 Floor Vibration Evaluation in a Nutshell
 Compare predicted response to the tolerance
limit  OK or No Good
 Predict Response
 Forcing function.
 Dynamic properties of the structure.
 Response prediction method.
 Define Tolerance Limit
 Human annoyance.
 Equipment problems.
5
1. Introduction
 This Presentation
1. Introduction
2. Technical background
3. DG11 Chapter 4
1. Derivation and Implementation
2. Example
3. Accuracy Investigation
Part 2
4. DG11 Chapter 5
5. Remedial Options Case Studies
6
2. Technical Background:
Dynamic Forces
 When humans walk, run, bounce, sway, or
jump, inertial forces cause dynamic loads.
 Example:
2
Ground Reaction / Weight
Knee bends,
Heel Strike weight shifts
1.5 forward
Push off
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time (sec.)
Average Walking (120 bpm) Footstep 7

Dynamic Forces
 Footstep forces are complicated.
0.4
Left Footstep Summation Fourier
0.35
Series
Ground Reaction (kip)
0.3
or
0.25
0.2
0.15
Need Simple
Mathematical
Individual
0.1
Representations Footstep
0.05
Right Footstep Pulse or
Impulse
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (sec.)
8
Dynamic Forces
 Fourier Series vs Individual Footstep
 Fourier series useful for computing resonant
response.
 Pulse or impulse useful for computing
response to one footstep.
9
Dynamic Forces
 Review of Fourier Series
 Any periodic function is a superposition of the
average plus an infinite number of sinusoids.
 Each sinusoid (called a harmonic) has a
different amplitude (Amph), frequency (fh), and
phase lag (h).

F ( t )  Average Value   Amph  sin(2    fh  t  h )
h1
N
 Average Value   Amph  sin(2    fh  t  h )
h1
10
Dynamic Forces
 Example Fourier Series
300 100
250
Footstep Force (lbf)

50
200
0
150
100 -50
50 -100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
F ( t )  185 lbf  79.6 lbf  sin2(2 Hz)(t) ‐ 0 

12.6 lbf  sin2(4 Hz)(t)  /2  10.1 lbf  sin2(6 Hz)(t)   
8.88 lbf  sin2(8 Hz)(t)  /2 11
Dynamic Forces
 Example Fourier Series
 Review spectrum representation.
200
X: 0
F ( t )  185 lbf 
Y: 185

150
79.6 lbf  sin2(2 Hz)(t) - 0 
12.6 lbf  sin2(4 Hz)(t)  /2  100 X: 2
Y: 79.6
10.1 lbf  sin2(6 Hz)(t)   

50
8.88 lbf  sin2(8 Hz)(t)  /2 X: 4
Y: 12.6
X: 6 X: 8
Y: 10.1 Y: 8.88
“Time Domain” or “Waveform” 0

0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
“Frequency Domain” or “Spectrum”
Equivalent Representations 12
Dynamic Forces
 Specialize Fourier Series for Human Induced
Forces Weight of Harmonic Phase
Walker (lbf) Number Lag
4
F ( t )  0   Q  h  sin(2    h  fStep  t  h )
h1
Don’t need or want Harmonic Dynamic Load Step

the “DC Offset” Amplitude Factor (DLF) Frequency
 Therefore, need Q, DLFs, range of step

frequencies, and phase lags.
13
Dynamic Forces
 Sources of Fourier Series Parameters
 Walking on Floors
 AISC Design Guide 11 (DG11) (Murray et al.
1997)
 British SCI P354 (Smith et al. 2007).
 Davis and Murray (2010) AISC NASCC.
 Rhythmic Activities (dancing, concerts, aerobics)

 DG11.
 SCI P354.
 ISO 10137 (2007) Annex A.
14
Dynamic Forces
 Sources of Fourier Series Parameters
 Stair Ascents and Descents
 Davis and Murray (2009) “Slender Monumental
Stair Vibration Serviceability,” Journal of
Architectural Engineering, ASCE.
 Miscellaneous
 ISO 10137 (2007).
 Vibration Problems in Structures by Bachmann
(1995).
15
Dynamic Forces
 Example Fourier Series Parameters
 AISC DG11 Walking
 Bodyweight Q = 157 lbf
  = 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05
 Phase lags not given
 SCI P354 Walking
 Q = 168 lbf
  = 0.46, 0.1, 0.08, 0.07 (+/-)
 = 0, -/2, , /2
16
Dynamic Forces
 Step Frequency
 Depends on activity. Use walking for example.
 fStep usually between 1.6 Hz and 2.2 Hz
 Average is 1.9-2.0 Hz
Source: Zivanovic et al. (2007) “Statistical characterisation of parameters

defining human walking as observed on an indoor passerelle.”
17
Dynamic Forces
 Relevance of Step Frequency Range
 Walking fStep must be between 1.6 Hz and 2.2 Hz.
 Therefore hfStep in the Fourier Series are also
bound. Harmonic Frequency
Number, h Range (Hz)
4 1 1.6 to 2.2
F ( t )  0   Q  h  sin(2    h  fStep  t  h ) 2 3.2 to 4.4
h1 3 4.8 to 6.6
4 6.4 to 8.8
 The maximum walking harmonic frequency is
about 9 Hz.
 If floor natural frequency is less than about 9 Hz,
resonance is possible  “Low Frequency Floor”
18
Dynamic Forces
 Individual Footstep Pulses and Impulses
 Used when resonance not possible. “High
Frequency Floors.”
 Used to compute response to one footstep.
 Example from DG11 Chapter 6.
19
Dynamic Properties of Floors
 Natural Modes of Vibration
 If a structure is displaced, released, and
allowed to move freely, the motion will:
 Be at a specific frequency  natural frequency
 Be in a specific structural shape  mode shape
 Decay at a specific rate  damping
 Natural modes are properties of the structure.
 Natural modes do not depend on the dynamic
load.
20
 Natural Modes
 Structures have many natural modes.
 The lowest frequency mode is referred to as
the fundamental mode.
 Some modes are more responsive than
others. Quantify with the Frequency
Response Function (FRF).
21
 FRF Definition: ratio of steady state response to force input.
1 lbf sinusoidal load
Dominant Frequency
Accelerance FRF Mag. (%g/lbf)

Repeat for
a range of f Natural Frequencies
and plot the
1 lbf
steady state 0.1
acceleration
Width
response.
Related to
Sinusoidal Force Input, Freq. = f 0.05 damping
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Steady state Frequency (Hz)
response
amplitude, %g
Sinusoidal Response, Freq. = f
Equal load applied at each frequency,
(Phase not equal to the force’s phase!)
but the structure responded a LOT more
at the natural frequencies.
22
 Variables That Affect the Response
 Damping (Response Inversely
Proportional)
 Depends mostly on nonstructural components.
 Limited experimental data available.
 Low end: 0.5% of critical damping for bare
slabs.
 High end: 5% of critical damping for floors with
full height drywall partitions. 6% is often used
when crowds are on the floor.
23
 Inversely proportional to effective mass (aka modal mass)
which depends on the psf and extent of motion.
Measured 8.3 Hz Mode Measured 8.9 Hz Mode

Two bays with significant motion. One bay with significant motion.
Larger effective mass. Smaller effective mass.
Less Responsive. More Responsive.
24
 Location on the floor. Proportional to mode shape
amplitude.
#1
#2
#3
Sinusoidal load at #1  Causes higher response Sensor at #1  Detects higher response

Sinusoidal load at #2  Causes lower response Sensor at #2  Detects lower response
Sinusoidal laod at #3  Causes little or no response Sensor at #3  Detects little or no response
25
Response Prediction
 Resonant Responses
4
F (t )   Q  h  sin( 2    h  fStep  t  h )
h 1
Matches a Natural
Frequency
Causes
Resonance
26
Response Prediction
 Low Frequency vs High Frequency Floors
 If fundamental frequency exceeds 9 Hz, then
the fourth harmonic can’t reach it.
9 Hz
Resonance Possible Resonance Unlikely

Low Frequency Floors High Frequency Floors
(LFF) (HFF)
27
Response Prediction
 Low Frequency vs High Frequency Floors
 Maximum response for LFF is from resonant
response.
 Maximum response for HFF is from a single
footstep.
2
Peak Accel. = 1.18%g 0.4 Peak Accel. = 0.386%g
Meas. Acceleration (%g)

1
0.2
0 0
-0.2
-1
Max. 2 sec. RMS Accel. = 0.723%g -0.4

Max. 2 sec. RMS Accel. = 0.136%g
-2
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
LFF With Resonant Build-Up HFF with Series of Individual Footstep Responses
28
Response Prediction
 Example Measured Resonant Response
 Natural Frequency = 5.00 Hz. Walking at 1.67 Hz
 Fourier series terms at 1.67 Hz, 3.33 Hz, 5.00 Hz, 6.67 Hz
F (t )    hQ sin(2    h  fStep  t  h )
 Conclusion: vast majority of response is due to one harmonic
exciting one mode.
1.5 0.35
Peak Accel. = 1.36%g Response to
0.3 3rd Harmonic

1
(5.00 Hz)
0.25
0.5 Response to
0.2 2nd Harmonic
0 (@ 3.33 Hz)
Response to
0.15
4th Harmonic
-0.5 Response to (6.67 Hz)
0.1
1st Harmonic
-1 0.05 (@ 1.67 Hz)
RMS Accel. = 0.531%g
-1.5 0
0 2 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (sec.) Frequency (Hz)
Response Prediction
 Resonant Response Prediction Options
 Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF)
Idealization.
 Closed form solutions.
 Practical for manual calculations.
 Finite Element Analysis.
 Response History Analysis (aka Time History).
 Useful for cases with unusual requirements.
30
Response Prediction
 SDOF Idealization
Driving frequency
a(t ) matches
natural frequency.
K
Psin(2fn t )
M
t
C
P
K aSteadyState 
fn  (Natural Frequency) 2M
M
C The basis for almost all modern
 (Modal Damping Ratio) SDOF approximate methods for
2(2fn )M low frequency floors.
Response Prediction
 SDOF Idealization
 Specialize for low frequency floor vibrations.
 P = the Fourier series term amplitude that causes
resonance. Recall: F (t )    hQ sin( 2    h  fStep  t  h )
 M = an estimate of the effective mass.
 Also need to account for incomplete resonant build-up.
Predicted
P acceleration
aSteadyState  due to
2M
specialize human
activity at
t resonance.
32
Response Prediction
 “Off Resonance” Response of SDOF System
 We’re sometimes interested in the steady-state response of
the system to a sinusoid with amplitude P and f ≠ fn.
P a(t )
aSteadyState(fn )  K
2M Psin( 2ft )
M
C
P /M
aSteadyState (f ) 
2
fn  f 2   f 
2
 n   1   2 n 
 f    f 
Frequency, f (Hz)
33
2. Technical Background: Human
Tolerance
 Depends on the
setting, what
they’re doing, and
the frequency of
vibration.
 Most sensitive in 4
Hz to 8 Hz band.
 0.5%g is the limit
for quiet spaces.
DG11 Figure 2.1 (Murray et al. 1997)

Equipment Tolerance
 Equipment limits much more stringent than
human comfort limits.
 Manufacturers often provide limit in the form
of acceleration spectrum.
4
1. Shape of the spectrum
Acceleration Limit (%g)
3 shows why HFF

preferred for sensitive
2 equipment areas.
No Good 2. In the absence of a
1 specific manufacturer
OK limit, the AISC DG11
0
0 10 20 30 Chapter 6 “generic
Frequency (Hz)
limits” can be used. 35
3. DG11 Chapter 4 Introduction
 Chapter 4 applies to the usual cases.
 Dynamic force from human walking.
 Human comfort is the issue. Legitimate complaints
constitute failure.
 Organization of this section.
 Introduction to the criterion.
 3.1 Acceleration prediction equation—derivation.
 3.2 Acceleration prediction equation—implementation.
 3.3 Acceleration tolerance limits for human comfort.
 3.4 Example.
 3.5 Accuracy.
36
3. DG11 Chapter 4 Introduction
 Criterion in a nutshell
 Under no circumstance can the natural frequency
be less than 3.0 Hz  vandal jumping.
 Predict the peak acceleration due to walking.
Compare that to the human tolerance.
Po e 0.35f
n
ap   ao
W
Human tolerance
Predicted Peak limit, g
Acceleration, g
37
3.1 DG11 Ch. 4 Acceleration
Prediction Equation—Derivation
 Derivation useful to avoid incorrectly
applying the equation.
 Start with the SDOF steady-state acceleration
equation.
a(t ) P
aSteadyState 
K 2M
P  sin(2fnt )
M
(at resonance)
C
t
38
 Specialize by defining P for walking.
 Murray and Allen (1993) analyzed the footstep
force measurements by Rainer et al. (1988).
P = Amplitude =
Harmonic DLF DLF x Bodyweight
0.5 (lbf)
1 0.5 78.5
2 0.2 31.4
3 0.1 15.7
0.2 4 0.05 7.85
0.1
0.05 Assumed Bodyweight = 157 lbf
Could select P from this table, but
Allen and Murray found a more
Figure by Rainer et al. (1988) elegant method.
39
 Specialize by defining P for walking
 Write an equation that works regardless of
which harmonic is applicable.
DLF    0.83e 0.35f n
P  Q
 (Q )(0.83 )e  0.35fn
Practical Application: Engineers

sometime attempt to apply
DG11 Ch. 4 to running, stair
descents, etc. The DLF being
DG11 Figure 2.2 (Murray et al. 1997) used here are not similar to
those for other types of dynamic
forces. 40
 Adjust the equation to account for
 Incomplete resonant build-up.
 Walker and annoyed person are not at the
same location at the same time.
 Use a reduction factor, R = 0.5 for floors with
two-way mode shapes or R = 0.7 for
footbridges.
41
 Effective Mass
 Estimate the weight of plan area participating in
the motion. Call that W.
 Effective mass is 0.5W because the mode shape
is similar to a beam (Allen and Murray 1993).
42
 Putting it all together.
P
aSteadyState 
2M DLF Call this Po
RP RQ0.83e 0.35fn RQ0.83e 0.35fn Poe 0.35fn

ap    g g
2M 20.5W / g W W
Po  (0.5)(157 lbf)(0.83)  65 lbf for floors
Po  (0.7)(157 lbf)(0.83)  92 lbf for footbridges
Poe 0.35fn DG11 Eq. 4.1.

ap  g
W
43
 Observations
 Natural frequency is only used to set the
harmonic load.
RP RQ0.83e 0.35fn
ap    ...
2M 20.5W / g
 Po is in lbf, but is a combination of parameters.
One can’t say “the floor is loaded with a 65 lbf
point load.”
44
3.2 DG11 Ch. 4 Acceleration Prediction
Equation—Implementation
 Natural Frequency
 Approach: Compute fn,b for the beam, fn,g for
the girder, and combine to get the bay’s
frequency, fn.
 Natural frequency in Hz for a simply supported
beam with uniform mass and EI.
E, ksi What mass is used? Use the
I, in.4 absolute best estimate. It’s
m, kip/in. sec.2/in.  E I not conservative to over- or
fn ,b  under-estimate the mass.
2 m  L4
(over-estimation will be
L, in. conservative for fn, but
unconservative for W.)
45
 Another one of these “don’t be misled by…”
items: m is mass attached to the beam, plus
the beam itself. Don’t think of it as load.
(This will clear up questions such as “Does m
include precomposite DL?”)
 E I
fn ,b 
2 m  L4 also applies to
46
 Re-write the equation in a form that’s easier to
remember. fn,b in Hz.
 Note how w creeps in. We’re still dealing with
mass, not load. w is just part of m=w/g.
 E I  g  E  I  g  384  E  I 5
fn ,b   
2 mL 4
2 w L 4
2 5  w  L4 384
 5 384  E  I g g
 g  0.179  0.18
2 384 5w  L 4
 
5wL4 g  386 in./s2

 (in.) 47
384EI
 Girder natural frequency computed using the
same equation. Assume uniform mass over
the tributary width.
 E I g g
fn,g   0 . 179  0 . 18
2 m  L4  
48
 There are usually two girders. Use the one
with the lowest natural frequency. Discard the
other one.
 Spandrel girders supporting cladding are
assumed to be fixed. Modal test data indicates
significant restraint even if cladding has
vertical slip connections.
49
 Bay natural frequency, fn, computed as the
combination of fn,b and fn,g. Use Dunkerley’s
Equation.
1 1 1
  (DG11 Eq. 3.2)
fn2 fn2,b fn2,g
 Similar to before,
g g
fn  0.179  0.18 (DG11 Eq. 3.4)
b  g b  g
50
 Use fully composite transformed MOI.
 Amplitude of horizontal shear between beam and
deck is very small, so won’t overcome deck
puddle welds or friction.
 Exceptions: noncomposite if actual physical
separation between the beam and deck.
 Effective slab width a little different from the AISC
Spec. Ch. I value. See DG11 Section 3.2.
1/2 Beam Spacing
be,EachSide  min 0.2Lb
Edge Distance 51
 Moment of Inertia
 Use dynamic elastic modulus for concrete.
 Same as in the AISC Specification Ch. I except
35% higher. DG11 Section 3.2.
Dynamic elastic Compressive strength, ksi

modulus, ksi
Ec  1.35w 1.5 f 'c
Unit weight, pcf
52
 Modified MOI for open-web steel joists.
 These have significant shear deformation (unlike
w-shapes) and web eccentricities.
 Research by Band and Murray (1996).
2 in. +/-
(Beavers 1998)
53
 Modified MOI for open-web steel joists, continued.
1
Ieff  (DG11 Eq. 3.18)
 1

Ichords Icomp
MOI of chords only Composite transformed MOI
1
  1 (DG11 Eq. 3.19)
Cr Single or double angle webs

Cr  0.90 1  e 
 0.28( L / D ) 2.8
where 6  L / D  24 (DG11 Eq. 3.16)
Cr  0.721  0.00725L / D  where 10  L / D  24 (DG11 Eq. 3.17)
Continuous round rod webs 54

 Modified MOI for open-web steel joists, continued.
 Use Ieff to compute fn,b.
 E  Ieff  g  E  Ieff g g
fn ,b    0.179  0.18
2 m  L4 2 w  L4  
Computed with Ieff
55
 Modified MOI for joist girders.
 Slab is physically separated from the top chord.
 Joist seats provide limited horizontal shear
stiffness between the joist girder and the slab.
Slab
Joist Seat (Deforms Elastically)
Joist Girder Top Chord
56
 Modified MOI for joist girders.
Icomp  Inc
Ieff  Inc  (DG11 Eq. 3.14)
4
where
Inc  Cr Ichords (DG11 Eq. 3.15)

Cr  0.90 1  e 
 0.28( L / D ) 2.8
where 6  L / D  24 (DG11 Eq. 3.16)
1
 1 (DG11 Eq. 3.19)
Cr
57
 Effective Weight
 Recall the acceleration prediction equation.
RP RQ0.83e 0.35fn Poe 0.35fn
ap    g
2M 20.5W / g W
Modal Mass or Effective Weight

Effective Mass (DG11’s term)
 W is double the effective mass.

 Compute as a combination of “beam
mode” and “girder mode” effective weights.
58
 Beam Mode Effective Weight
 Beams bend, girders rigid.
 Bb (perpendicular to beams) depends on ratio of
slab stiffness to beam stiffness.
• Very flexible slab  very small Bb.

• Very stiff slab  very large Bb.
• Reality: varies, but it’s often a little
Bb larger than the girder length.
59
Wb  pb  Bb  Lb (DG11 Eq. 4.2, slightly modified)
where Include the masses that are moving

during the beam bending mode. In
pb  floor weight, psf other words: LL, deck, slab, SDL, and
beams. Not girders or columns.
Lb  beam length, ft
Cb Ds / Db  Lb
0.25
Bb  min , ft (DG11 Eq. 4.3a)
2 / 3 the " floor width"
60
 Cb Determination. Default is 2.0. Other option is
1.0 at a free edge “mezzanine condition.”
Cb = 1.0 for these bays

because beam parallel to
free edge.
Interior Opening
(Atrium)
61
 Floor width: distance perpendicular to the beams
to discontinuity in the framing such as slab edge,
interior opening, or framing direction change.
Checking
this bay.
Floor
Width
62
 Ds and Db are slab and beam transformed flexural
stiffness, respectively, per unit width. See DG11
Section 4.2. Units: in.4/ft
(12 in.)de3 1
Ds  de
12 n
Fully composite transformed MOI for W-shapes.

or
Ibeam Effective MOI for open-web joists.
Db 
Beam Spacing
63
 Continuity Effect. See DG11, bottom, left of Page
18. Increase Wb by 50% if both of the following
are true. (Similar liberalization applies to girders.)
 At least one adjacent beam span is 70% of Lb.
 Beams connect to girder webs (not joist seats).
64
 Girder Mode Effective Weight
 Beams rigid, girders bend.
 Extent of the motion perpendicular to girders
relates to ratio of beam to girder stiffness.
 Very flexible beams  small Bg.
 Very stiff beams  large Bg.
 Reality: varies, but often a little larger to perhaps
double the beam length.
 Calcs almost identical to beam bending mode.
65
Wg  pg  Bg  Lg (DG11 Eq. 4.2, slightly modified)
where Include the masses that are moving

during the girder bending mode. In
pg  floor weight, psf
other words: all of the floor system.
Lg  girder length, ft
Cg Db / Dg  Lg
0.25
Bg  min , ft (DG11 Eq. 4.3b)
2 / 3 the " floor length"
66
 Cg depends on type of connection to girder.
 1.6 if joist seats.
 1.8 if typical beam-to-girder connections.
 Floor length: same idea as floor width except in
the other direction. Floor length is perpendicular
to the girders.
 Continuity effect: same as for beams except only
applies if the girder runs over the column.
Stacked columns, in other words.
67
 Combined Beam and Girder Mode Effective
Weight
 Use weighted average.
 Deflections from the natural frequency
calculations.
b g
W  Wb  Wg (DG11 Eq. 4.4)
b  g b  g
68
 Damping
 Estimate from DG11 Table 4.1, or
 Cumulative
 Structural system: 0.01
 Ceiling and ductwork: 0.02
 Paper office: 0.01
 Electronic office: 0.005
 Churches, schools, malls: 0.0
 Drywall partitions: 0.05
69
 Mass (Typical Values)
 Member self weight
 Slab and deck self weight (nominal)
 Superimposed dead load: 4 psf
 Paper office live load: 11 psf
 Electronic office live load: 8 psf
 Residence live load: 6 psf
 Assembly or mall live load: 0 psf
70
Limits for Human Comfort
 DG11 Fig. 2.1 and Table 4.1.
DG11 authors flatten out

the curve and ignore the
benefit outside the 4 Hz
to 8 Hz range.
5%g
1.5%g
No Good
0.5%g
3 Hz to 10 Hz
Bandwidth OK
71
References
Allen, D.E., Rainer, J.H., and Pernica, G. (1985). “Vibration Criteria for Assembly Occupancies.” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(3), September.
Allen, D.E., and Murray, T.M. (1993). “Design Criterion for Vibrations Due to Walking.” Engineering Journal, AISC,
4th Qtr, 117-129.
Band, B., and Murray, T.M. (1996). MS Thesis: Vibration Characteristics of Joist and Joist-Girder Members,
Virginia Tech.
Bachmann, Hugo, et al. Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser
Verlag, 1995.
Davis, B. and Murray, T.M. (2009). “Slender Monumental Stair Vibration Serviceability.” Journal of Architectural
Engineering, ASCE, 15:4 (111).
Davis, D.B. and Murray, T. M., (May 2010). “Simplified Finite Element Method for Predicting Low Frequency Floor
Vibration due to Walking.” NASCC Presentations. AISC, Chicago, IL.
International Standards Organization, (2007). International Standard ISO 10137, Bases for design of structures –
Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations, 2nd Ed, International Standards Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Murray, T. M. (1975). “Design to Prevent Floor Vibrations.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 3rd Qtr, Chicago, Illinois,
pp. 82-87.
72
References
Murray, T. M. (1981). “Acceptability Criterion for Occupant-Induced Floor Vibrations.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 2nd
Qtr, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 62-70.
Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E., Ungar, E.E. (1997). Steel Design Guide Series 11: Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, Illinois.
Pabian, S., Thomas, A., Davis, B., and Murray, T.M. (2013) “Investigation of Floor Vibration Evaluation Criteria Using
an Extensive Database of Floors,” Proceedings of ASCE Structures Congress.
Rainer, J.H., Pernica, G., and Allen, D.E. (1988). “Dynamic Loading and Response of Footbridges.” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 15, 66-71.
Smith, A.L., Hicks, S.J., Devine, P.J. (2007). Design of Floors for Vibration: A New Approach. The Steel Construction
Institute (SCI P354), Berkshire, England.
73

Human Induced Vib

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Induced Vib

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Induced Floor Vibrations

Brad Davis, Ph.D., S.E.

Average Walking (120 bpm) Footstep 7

Footstep Force (lbf)

F ( t )  185 lbf  79.6 lbf  sin2(2 Hz)(t) ‐ 0 

Footstep Force (lbf)

10.1 lbf  sin2(6 Hz)(t)   

“Time Domain” or “Waveform” 0

Don’t need or want Harmonic Dynamic Load Step

 Therefore, need Q, DLFs, range of step

 Davis and Murray (2010) AISC NASCC.

 Rhythmic Activities (dancing, concerts, aerobics)

 ISO 10137 (2007) Annex A.

Source: Zivanovic et al. (2007) “Statistical characterisation of parameters

Accelerance FRF Mag. (%g/lbf)

Measured 8.3 Hz Mode Measured 8.9 Hz Mode

Sinusoidal load at #1  Causes higher response Sensor at #1  Detects higher response

Resonance Possible Resonance Unlikely

Meas. Acceleration (%g)

Max. 2 sec. RMS Accel. = 0.723%g -0.4

0.3 3rd Harmonic

Meas. Acceleration (%g)

DG11 Figure 2.1 (Murray et al. 1997)

3 shows why HFF

Practical Application: Engineers

RP RQ0.83e 0.35fn RQ0.83e 0.35fn Poe 0.35fn

Poe 0.35fn DG11 Eq. 4.1.

5wL4 g  386 in./s2

Dynamic elastic Compressive strength, ksi

Ec  1.35w 1.5 f 'c

Unit weight, pcf

Cr  0.721  0.00725L / D  where 10  L / D  24 (DG11 Eq. 3.17)

Continuous round rod webs 54

Computed with Ieff

Joist Seat (Deforms Elastically)

Joist Girder Top Chord

Inc  Cr Ichords (DG11 Eq. 3.15)

Modal Mass or Effective Weight

 W is double the effective mass.

• Very flexible slab  very small Bb.

where Include the masses that are moving

Cb = 1.0 for these bays

Fully composite transformed MOI for W-shapes.

where Include the masses that are moving

DG11 authors flatten out

You might also like