Vibration Characteristics of Modern

Composite Floor Systems

Dr Stephen Hicks
Previous design guidance

SCI P 076 AD 253, 254 & 256

Floor vibrations 2 2
General design guidance (USA & Canada)

AISC/CISC DG11
Floor vibrations 3 3
Why revise P076?

Measurements taken on hospital, office and

residential floors indicated that the first edition
was inconsistent in certain circumstances.
The floor types considered in the development
of the original guide are not representative of
that encountered in modern construction (e.g.
Slimdek®).
Information on some special floors (e.g. dance-
floors) was out-of-step with current
recommendations.

Floor vibrations 4 4
Design procedures for occupant-induced vibrations

General approach using the results from computer (FE)

models
• Based on a modal superposition approach

Simplified (conservative) approach using hand

calculations - for walking activities only!
• Based on FE models of composite floors with regular grids

Floor vibrations 5 5
Finite element and modal superposition results
1 1
DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT
JAN 29 2007 JAN 29 2007
STEP=1 16:58:53 STEP=1 16:57:14
SUB =1 SUB =2
FREQ=11.978 FREQ=12.496
DMX =1 DMX =1

Z Z
Y X Y X

Newton Abbot Physical Rehab Unit Newton Abbot Physical Rehab Unit

12 12
Response Factor

Response Factor
8 8

4 4

0 0
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Pace Frequency (Hz) Pace Frequency (Hz)
1st Harmonic 2nd Harmonic 3rd Harmonic
4th Harmonic Total

Floor vibrations 6 6
Fundamental frequency mode shapes for typical steel-
framed floors

Secondary (floor) beam mode Primary (main) beam mode

Floor vibrations 7 7
 Calculation of fundamental floor frequency

The fundamental frequency is defined as the lowest frequency calculated

from the two mode shapes. The fundamental frequency f0 may be evaluated
from either:

1. Summing the maximum deflexion calculated from each of the elements

(using the appropriate boundary conditions) and placing them in the
following equation:
18
f0 =
 max

2. Direct use of the component frequencies by Dunkerly’s approximation:

1 1 1 1
= + +
f0 2 f1 2 f2 2 f3 2

Floor vibrations 8 8
 Definition of ‘low’ and ‘high’ frequency floors for walking
activities
1
2

Response Ratio, R(t)

Response ratio, R(t)

Time, t Time, t

‘Low frequency floor’ ‘High frequency floor’

3.0 Hz 10.0 Hz >10.0 Hz

Resonance from first four harmonic

Transient response
components of activity frequency

Floor vibrations 9 9
Floor response – ‘Low frequency floors’

For 3.0 Hz  f0  10.0 Hz, the root-mean-square (rms) acceleration is

given by:
0.1P0
arms = e  r
2 2M
where P0 is the weight of the walker taken as 745.6 N (76kg ×
9.81), M is the effective modal mass (kg),  is the damping, μe and μr
are the mode shape amplitudes, normalised to the anti-node at the
point of excitation and response respectively (which may
conservatively be taken as 1.0).

NB the rms acceleration decreases as the mass of the

floor increases. Also, the rms acceleration decreases as the
damping increases.

Floor vibrations 10 10
Damping

For design, it is recommended that the following damping

values may be assumed:

 = 1.1% for bare unfurnished floors.

 = 3.0% for floors in normal use.
 = 4.5% for a floor with partitions, where the designer is confident that
partitions will be appropriately located to interrupt the relevant
modes of vibration.

Floor vibrations 11 11
Modal mass

S e c onda ry be a m P rima ry be a m T ie

n y Ly

S pa n of
Ly
s la b

Lx S e c onda ry be a m
W = n xL x

M = mLeff S
where m is the floor mass per unit area (kg/m²), Leff is the effective
floor length (m) and S is the effective floor width (m)

Floor vibrations 12 12
Modal mass continued - Composite decks ≤ 80 mm deep

Effective floor length

14
n −1  EI b 
Leff = 1.09(1.10) y  
2 
 n y Ly
 mbf 0 

where ny is the number of bays in the direction of the

secondary beam span (ny ≤ 4), b is the secondary beam
spacing (m), EIb is the dynamic flexural rigidity of the
composite beam (Nm²), m is the is the floor mass per unit
area (kg/m²), f0 is the fundamental frequency of the floor
and Ly is the secondary beam span (m).

Floor vibrations 13 13
Modal mass continued - Composite decks ≤ 80 mm deep

Effective floor width

14
n −1  EI 
S = C x (1.15) x  s2   W
 mf 0 

where Cx is a factor that accounts for the floor

frequency, nx is the number of bays in the direction of
the primary beam span (nx ≤ 4), EIs is the dynamic
flexural rigidity of the slab (Nm²/m), m is the is the floor
mass per unit area (kg/m²), f0 is the fundamental
frequency of the floor and W is the building width.

Floor vibrations 14 14
Modal mass continued – Composite decks ≤ 80 mm deep

Frequency factor

Floor properties Cx
f0 < 5 Hz 0.5

5 Hz ≤ f0 ≤ 6 Hz 0.21 f0 – 0.55

f0 > 6 Hz 0.71

Floor vibrations 15 15
Floor response – ‘High frequency floors’

For f0 > 10 Hz, the rms acceleration is given by:

185
arms =  e  r 2 0.3
2 Mf 0

where M is the effective modal mass (kg), f0 is the fundamental

frequency of the floor, μe and μr are the mode shape amplitudes,
normalised to the anti-node at the point of excitation and response
respectively (which may conservatively be taken as 1.0).

NB the rms acceleration can only be reduced by an increase in

the effective mass or an increase in the fundamental frequency of
the floor.

Floor vibrations 16 16
BS6841 & ISO2631 Frequency weighting factors

z-axis vibrations

weighted arms = arms  0.5 f 0 for 3 Hz  f 0  4 Hz 

weighted arms = arms for 4 Hz  f 0  8 Hz 
8 
weighted arms = arms  for f 0  8 Hz 
f0 

x-axis vibrations
2
weighted arms = arms  for f 0  3 Hz
f0

Floor vibrations 17 17
Response factors

z-axis vibrations

weighted arms
Response factor =
5 10 −3

x-axis vibrations

weighted arms
Response factor =
3.57 10 −3

Floor vibrations 18 18
Comparison of design proposal with tests

25 25

20 20
Test Response

Test Response
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Predicted Response Predicted Response

Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 6 Floor 7 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 6 Floor 7

Floor 8 Hospital 1 Hospital 2 Hospital 3 Floor 8 Hospital 1 Hospital 2 Hospital 3

General (FE) approach Simplified approach

Floor vibrations 19 19
Conclusions

Vibration tests on composite floors over the last 9-years

has resulted in the development of new design
approach.

General approach using FE models permits accurate

assessments of floors; in particular, those with unusual
framing arrangements, loading types or areas for
sensitive tasks.

Simplified approach developed from general approach,

which is appropriate for floors subjected to walking
activities with regular grids.

Floor vibrations 20 20
Where can I get further information?

www.steelbiz.org

s.hicks@steel-sci.com

Floor vibrations 21 21
Floor vibrations 22 22