FLOOR VIBRATIONS:
THE HUMAN TOLERANCE SIDE OF THE EQUATION
Thomas M. Murray, Ph.D., P.E.
Montague-Betts Professor of Structural Steel Design
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24141 USA
ABSTRACT
Humans will accept certain levels of vibration depending
on the environment and activity in which they are
involved. Over the years, a number of tolerance criteria
have been proposed for design use. These criteria have
ranged from static stiffness to limiting acceleration. This
paper gives an historical overview of both North American
and European criteria used for hot-rolled steel - concrete
floors.
NOMENCLATURE
Ao = initial amplitude from a heel-drop impact (in.)
aJg = ratio of peak acceleration limit,
a,Jg = ratio of peak acceleration,
D = percent of critical damping,
f = forcing frequencies = i • fstap
= fundamental natural frequency
fn
(f n)req'd = minimum natural frequency required to
prevent unacceptable vibrations at each
forcing frequency, f
i = number of harmonic = 1, 2, or 3
k = a constant (1. 3 for dancing, 1. 7 for lively
concert or sports event, 2.0 for aerobics).
Po = a constant force representing the
excitation,
w = effective weight supported by the beam or
joist panel, girder panel or combined panel,
as applicable.
= effective weight per unit area of participants
distributed over the floor panel
effective total weight per unit area
distributed over the floor panel (weight of
participants plus weight of floor system),
= dynamic coefficient
= modal damping ratio
INTRODUCTION
Humans are very sensitive sensors to vertical floor
motion. A half sinusoidal amplitude of 1 mm (0.040 in.) or
an acceleration of 0.5%g will be annoying to humans in
quiet environments like residences, offices, and
churches. If the environment becomes more noisy as in
shopping malls and on outdoor footbridges, the tolerance
level increases because of the distractions. When
participating in an active event, such as a lively concert,
fast dancing, and aerobics, the tolerance level further
increases. Sensitivity also varies with the duration of
vibration and the distance from the source.
1
Attempts to quantify the response of humans to floor
vibration have been made for many years. Probably the
earliest was Tregold [1) who in 1828 wrote that girders
over long spans should be "made deep to avoid
inconvenience of not being able to move on the floor
without shaking everything in the room". However, nearly
all of the work has involved the testing of human
response using shaketables or floor motion produced by
specific impacts. Relatively very little research has been
completed concerning perception of motion in everyday
work or leisure environments. Table 1 is a chronological
list of human acceptance criteria for floor vibrations. It
includes two types of design criteria: criteria for human
response to known or measured vibration, and design
criteria related to human response that include an
estimation of dynamic floor response. Three of the
criteria for office/residential environments have been
widely used in North America: the modified Reiher-
Meister scale, the CSA Standard and the Murray
criterion. Allen's criterion for rhythmic activities and
Ellingwood and Tallin's criteria for shopping malls are
also frequently used. The ISO Standard forms the basis
of several European criteria and for criteria recently
recommended in the American Institute of Steel
Construction Design (AISC) Guide 11, Floor Vibrations
due to Human Activity.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ACCEPTANCE
CRITERIA
Modified Reiher-Meister Scale. Reiher and Meister [2) in
the early 1930's subjected a group of standing people to
steady-state vibrations with frequencies of 5 to 100 Hz
and amplitudes of 0.01 mm (0.0004 in.) to 10 mm (0.40
in.) and noted the subject's reactions in ranges "barely
perceptible" to "intolerable". After studying a number of
steel joist-concrete slab floor systems, Lenzen [3)
suggested that the original Reiher-Meister scale is
applicable to floor systems with less than 5% critical
damping if the amplitude scale is increased by a factor of
ten. The resulting modified Reiher-Meister scale is
shown in Figure 1. Lenzen did not suggest limits on
frequency or amplitude to assure acceptable floors.
Murray [4), after testing and analyzing numerous steel
beam-concrete slab floors, suggested that systems with
4% to 10% critical damping which "plot above the upper
one-half of the distinctly perceptible range will result in
complaints from the occupants, and systems in the
strongly perceptible range will be unacceptable to both
occupants and owners". Both Lenzen and Murray used a
single impact to excite the floor systems: Lenzen used
both a mechanical impactor and a heel-drop impact;
Murray used only the heel-drop impact. The
 Table 1
Vibration Criteria over Time

Date Reference Loadiog Application Comments

1931 Reiher and Meister Steady State General Human response criteria

1966 Lenzen Heel-drop Office Design criterion using Modified Reiher and Meister scale

1970 HUD Heel-drop Office Design criterion for manufactured housing

1974 International Standards Various Various Human response criteria

Organization

1974 Wiss and Parmelee Footstep Office Human response criteria

1974 McCormick Heel-drop Office Design criterion using Modified Reiher and Meister scale

1975 Murray Heel-drop Office Design criterion using Modified Reiher and Meister scale

1976 Allen and Rainer Heel-drop Office Design criterion usir~g_ modified ISO scale

1981 Murray Heel-drop Office Design criterion based on experience

1984 Ellingwood and Tallin Walking Commercial Design criterion

1985 Allen, Rainer and Pernica Crowds Auditorium Design criterion related to ISO scale

1986 Ellingwood et al Walking Commercial Design criterion

Residential/
1988 Ohlsson Walking Office Lightweight Floors
International Standard
1989 ISO 2231-2 Various Buildings Human response criteria

1989 Clifton Heel-drop Office Design criterion

Office/
1989 Wyatt Walking Residential Design criterion based on ISO 2631-2

1990 Allen Rhvthmic Gymnasium Design criterion for aerobics

Office/
1993 Allen and Murray Walking Commercial Design criterion using ISO 2631-2
Design criteria for walking and rhythmic excitations and
1997 Murray, Allen and Ungar Various Various for floors supporting sensitive equipment

recommendations of Murray are based on the heel-drop
impact and should not be used with any other types of
impact.
McCormick [5] presented a study of design criteria and
tests for office floor vibrations, aimed at developing
criteria to be used in design of two new steel-framed
office towers. After reviewing some literature and
performing tests on mockups for the proposed buildings,
McCormick concluded that floor systems in which
damping exceeds 3% should prove acceptable if they plot
in or below the lower third of the distinctly perceptible
range, although vibrations caused by normal use may be
perceptible to the occupants. McCormick also suggested
that a higher limit should be acceptable if damping
exceeds about 10%.
GSA Scale. A human response scale based on the work
of Allen and Rainer [6] is presented in Appendix G of the
Canadian Standards Association Standard, CSA S 16.1
[7], to quantify the annoyance threshold for floor
vibrations in residential, school, and office occupancies
due to ·~ootsteps". Walking test data are to be compared
to the annoyance threshold for continuous vibration and
heel-drop test data to the remaining thresholds which
correspond to different amounts of damping. A design
formula to estimate acceleration to be used with the heal-
drop criteria is included in the standard. The scale was
developed with data from tests on 42 long span floor
systems, combined with subjective evaluation by
occupants or researchers.

2
 25.00

15.00
0.1000
10.00
7.50
1'\
>. 4.50
\. 1\ ·~
\ E!
0 2.50
\ ~

\
IS!
z0 !.50

~
a
Ill
0.0100
\ ~
1\ \\ ~ !:::
-<
~
~
1.00
0.7 5

~ "<;. ~ 0.45
u
Q
0 ~0,
u
1\ -< 0.25
~
" i\ ISO baseline curve for rms acceleratio1
-~
\ ff 0.15

0.10
\
0.0010
1
1\
10
\
100
0.07

0.04

1.0 1.5 2.5 4.5 7.510.0 15.0 25.0 40.0

FR.EQOENCY, Hz
FREQUENCY, Hz
Figure 1. Modified Reiher-Meister Scale Figure 2. International Standards Association Scale

Murray's Criterion. Murray [8] recommended that floor Effingwood and Taffin's Criterion for Shopping Maffs.
systems designed to support office or residential Ellingwood and Tallin [11] recommended a criterion for
environments satisfy commercial floor design based on an acceleration
tolerance limit of 0.5%g and walking excitation. The
D > 35Aofn + 2.5 (1) criterion is satisfied if the maximum deflection under a 2
kN (450 lbs.) force applied anywhere on the floor system
Guidelines for estimating the three parameters are found does not exceed 0.5 mm (0.02 in.), that is a stiffness of 4
in Murray [9]. kN/mm (22.5 klin.).

ISO Scale. The International Organization for
Standardization's standard ISO 2631-2:1989 [1 0] is
written to cover many building vibration environments.
The standard presents acceleration limits for mechanical
vibrations as a function of exposure time and frequency,
for both longitudinal and transverse directions of persons
in standing, sitting, and lying positions. Limits for different
occupancies are given in terms of root mean square
(rms) acceleration as multiples of the "baseline" curve
shown in Figure 2. For offices, ISO recommends a
multiplier of 4 for continuous or intermittent vibrations and
multipliers of 60 to 128 for transient vibrations.
Intermittent vibration is defined as a string of vibration
incidents such as those caused by a pile driver, whereas
transient vibration is defined as rare, widely separated
events, for example for blasting. Walking vibration is
intermittent in nature but not as frequent and repetitive as
vibration caused by a pile driver.
European Criteria. European acceptance criteria are
generally more stringent than North American criteria,
probably because of the traditional use of poured-in-place
concrete floors with short spans. For instance, Bachman
and Ammann [12] recommend that concrete slab-steel
framed floor systems have a minimum first natural
frequency of 9 Hz. Most steel framed floor systems in
North American office buildings have first natural
frequencies in the 5-9 Hz range, yet, the vast majority of
these floors are acceptable to the occupants. Since
frequency is proportional to the square root of moment of
inertia, a substantial amount of material is required to
satisfy the 9.0 Hz criterion. Wyatt [13], however, has
recently proposed design criteria for walking vibration for
fundamental natural frequencies less than 7 Hz. His
recommendations are more conservative than those used
in North America. Ohlsson [14] has proposed cnteria for
light-weight floor systems. He recommends that floors
not be designed with fundamental frequencies below 8
Hz.

3
 Table2
Recommended Values of Parameters In Equation (2) and
Constant Force
Po
Offices, Residences, Churches 0.29 kN (65 lb)
Shopping Malls 0.29 kN (65 lb)
Footbridges -Indoor 0.41 kN (921b)
Footbridges -Outdoor 0.41 kN (921b)
..
*0.02 for floors w1th few non-structural components (ce1hngs, ducts, part1t1ons, etc.) as can occur m open work areas
and churches,
0.03 for floors with non-structural components and furnishings, but with only small demountable partitions, typical of
many modular office areas,
0.05 for full height partitions between floors.
A/fen's Criteria for Rhythmic Activities. Allen [15]
presented specific guidelines for the design of floor
systems supporting aerobic activities. He recommended
that such floor systems be designed so that the
fundamental natural frequency is greater than the forcing
frequency of the highest harmonic of the step frequency
that produces significant dynamic load.
AISC Design Guide. The AISC Design Guide 11 [16]
includes design recommendations for walking and
rythymic excitations and for the design of floor systems
supporting sensitive equipment. The walking excitation
criterion in the Guide is based on the dynamic response
of steel beam- or steel joist-supported floor systems to
walking forces, and can be used to evaluate floor
systems supporting offices, shopping malls, footbridges,
and similar occupancies. The criterion is somewhat more
complex than previous criteria, but it has a wider range of
applicability and results in more economical, but
acceptable, floor systems. The criterion was developed
using: (a) acceleration limits as recommended by the
International Standards Organization adjusted for
intended occupancy, (b) a time dependent harmonic force
component which matches the fundamental frequency of
the floor, (c) a resonance response function, and (d) a
minimum static stiffness for floors with a frequency
greater than 9-10 Hz. Basically, the criterion guards
against resonance of the floor system with respect to any
of the first three harmonics associated with walking.
The acceleration portion of the criterion states that the
floor system is satisfactory if the peak acceleration, ap,
due to walking excitation as a fraction of the acceleration,
g, determined from
ap P0 exp(-0.35f n)
(2)
g ~w
is greater than the tolerance acceleration for the
occupancy. Recommended values of Po, ~. and arJg
limits for several occupancies are given in Table 2. The
acceleration limits are multipliers of the ISO baseline
curve in Figure 2. The multipliers are 10 for offices and
4
aolg Limits
Damping Ratio Acceleration Limit
13 aoiQ x 100%
0.02-0.05* 0.5%
0.02 1.5%
0.01 1.5%
0.01 5.0%
..
residences, 30 for indoor footbridges, shopping malls and
dining and dancing, and 100 for rhythmic activities and
outdoor footbridges. However, the upward sloping lines
below 4 Hz and above 8 Hz are not considered.
If the natural frequency of the floor is greater than 9-1 0
Hz, significant resonance with walking does not occur,
but walking vibration can still be annoying. To ensure
satisfactory performance of office or residential floors with
frequencies greater than 9-1 0 Hz, the criterion requires
that the floor have a minimum stiffness of 5. 7 kips per in.
(1 kN per mm).
The rhythmic excitation criterion in the Guide is based on
the dynamic response of structural system to rhythmic
exercise forces distributed over all or part of the floor.
The criterion can be used to evaluate structural systems
supporting aerobics, dancing, audience participation and
similar events. As with the walking criterion, the rhythmic
criterion guards against resonance with harmonics of the
excitation forces. The criterion is:
Recommended acceleration for affected occupancies are
given in Table 3.
APPLICATION OF THE TOLERANCE CRITERIA
Most of the above criteria were calibrated by measuring
the response of floors due a standard impact and then
recording the response of the building occupants.
Adjustments were then made to effect good results.
Obviously, human perception is subjective and any
procedure cannot ensure that no one will ever complain
about floor movement. The aim of the calibration
procedure is to be sure that movement of the floor due to
human activity will not annoy the great majority of the
floor users.
 Table3
Recommended Acceleration Limits for VIbrations
due to Rhythmic Activities (NBC 1990)
Occupancies Affected
by the Vibration
Office and residential
Dining and weightlifting
Rhythmic activity only
Walking Excitation. The Modified Reiher-Meister Scale
and Murray's Criterion, as well as, the Canadian
Standards Association procedure, were calibrated in mid-
1960's and early 1970's when office building framing and
occupancy layouts were very different from that used
today. At the time of these calibrations, beam and girder
spans were shorter and offices were generally enclosed.
Heavy desk and file cabinets were common causing
actual floor loadings to be about 15 psf (0. 7 kPa). Today,
beam and girder spans are considerably longer and office
loadings are significantly less, as low as 7 psf (0.4 kPa).
Also, inherent damping is less because of the general
lack of paper in the modern electronic office. Further,
these approaches are based on curve fitting of field data
without sound theoretical bases. Consequently, these
criteria are not recommended for new construction. The
AISC Design Guide criterion for walking excitation has a
more solid theoretical base and is the recommended
criterion. However, careful estimates of the actual live
load on the floor during normal occupancy and of the
modal damping ratio are required for a successful design.
The European criteria is much more strict than North
American criteria. These criteria predict that a large
proportion of North American floor systems will result in
occupant complaints where no complaints have been
received. Apparently, North Americans are more tolerant
of building floor motion than are Europeans.
Rhythmic Excitation. The rhythmic criterion can be
satisfied by using (a) light-weight concrete decks and
deep structural members resulting in a relatively high
frequency, generally above 8 Hz., or (b) a very heavy
floors (greater than 150-200 psf) resulting in a low
frequency but a relatively large mass with respect to the
weight of the occupants. Long span floor framing, used
in convention centers and similar facilities, require the
latter solution.
REFERENCES
1. Tredgold, T., Elementary Principles of
Carpentry, 2nd edition, publisher unknown, 1828.
2. Reiher, H. and Meister, F. J., "The Effect of
Vibration on People," 1931. Translated from
Forsch. Geb. lng. Wes: 2 (11) 381-6, by U. S.
Air Material Command. Translation F-TS-616-
RE. Wright Field, Ohio, AMC. 1946.
5
Acceleration Limit,
%gravity
0.4- 0.7
1.5-2.5
4-7
3. Lenzen, K. H., "Vibration of Steel Joist-Concrete
Slab Floors," Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, 3'd Otr., pp. 133-
136, 1966.
4. Murray, T. M., "Design to Prevent Floor
Vibrations," Engineering Journal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, 3'd Otr., pp. 82-
87, 1975.
5. McCormick, M. M., Office Floor Vibration:
Design Criteria and Tests, Melbourne Research
Laboratories, The Broken Hill Proprietary
Company Lmt., Melbourne, Australia, 1974.
6. Allen, D. E., "Building Vibration from Human
Activities, • Concrete International: Design and
Construction, 12(6), pp 66-73, 1990.
6. GSA, Canadian Standard CAN3-S16.1-MB9:
Steel Structures for Buildings - Limit States
Design: Appendix G Guide for Floor
Vibrations. Rexdale, Ontario, 1989.
7. Murray, T. M., "Acceptability Criterion for
Occupant-Induced Floor Vibrations,"
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 2nd Otr., pp., 62-70, 1981.
8. Murray, T. M., "Building Floor Vibrations,"
Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 3rd Otr., pp 102-109, 1991.
9. International Standard ISO 2631-2, Evaluation
of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration-
Part 2: Human Exposure to Continuous and
Shock-Induced Vibrations in Buildings {1 to 80
Hz). International Standards Organization,
1989.
10. Ellingwood, B. and Tallin, A., "Structural
Serviceability: Floor Vibrations," Journal of
Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 401-419, 1984.
11. Bachman, H. and Amman, W., "Vibration in
Structures Induced by Man and Machine,"
Structural Engineering Document 3,
 International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, 1987.

13. Ohlsson, S. V., "Springiness and Human-

Induced Floor Vibrations - A Design Guide,"
D12: 1988, Swedish Council for Building
Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 1988.

14. Allen, D. E. and Rainer, J. H., "Vibration Criteria

for Long Span Floors," Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, The National Research Council of
Canada, Vol. 3, No. 2, June, 1976.

15. Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Ungar, E. E.,

Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity, Steel
Design Guide Series 11, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, IL, 69 pages, 1997.