FLOOR VIBRATION SERVICEABILITY:
TIPS AND TOOLS FOR NEGOTIATING
A SUCCESSFUL DESIGN
Linda M. Hanagan is an assis-
tant professor of Architectural
Engineering at Penn State. She
received her Bachelor of
Architectural Engineering in
1985 and began a career as a
structural engineer. In 1989, she
resumed her formal education
and received her MS from Penn
State and her PhD from Virginia
Linda M. Hanagan Tech in 1994. Dr. Hanagan's
area of specialization is structur-
al engineering with a particular emphasis in the analysis and
design of buildings. During her academic career, Dr.
Hanagan has been active in teaching, research, and service.
Dr. Hanagan's primary research focus has been on the ser-
viceability of building floor systems.
2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5
SUMMARY
Concerns about floor vibration serviceability seem to be
increasing along with the number of problem cases being
reported. This paper and session reports on several recent
case studies in an attempt to provide guidance on prevent-
ing similar situations in the future. These case studies high-
light the need for integrating user/owner expectations into
design decisions. To this end, new research on a prelimi-
nary assessment procedure for office floors is presented.
This procedure was developed to help engineers make early
design decisions that will make floors less susceptible to
annoying walking vibrations.For floors subjected to rhyth-
mic activities, insights are provided to illustrate that vibra-
tion serviceability is usually a controlling limit state. Space
planning and careful consideration of the activities expect-
ed is the key to avoiding a problem structure. Owners and
architects are often in control of the decisions that affect
floor vibration serviceability. Engineers must be proactive
to avoid bearing the responsibility for design conditions
they cannot control.
Session D6 – Page 1
 FLOOR VIBRATION SERVICEABILITY:
TIPS AND TOOLS FOR NEGOTIATING A SUCCESSFUL DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

Floor vibrations in steel buildings are increasingly a condition of consideration for structural engineers, architects,
owners and users. In most cases, the responsibility for supplying a building free of objectionable vibrations has
been placed solely on the structural engineer. To assist the structural engineer in designing for this serviceability
condition, AISC published Design Guide 11, Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity (Murray, et al. 1997). The
evaluation criteria presented in the Design Guide can be broken down into three areas: 1) vibration due to walking,
2) vibration due to rhythmic activities, and 3) vibration due to sensitive equipment. As this document has come into
widespread use, engineers are finding that, in some cases, the criteria are difficult to meet within the constraints
imposed by budget, space layout, and other factors to be discussed throughout this paper.

Assessing floor vibration serviceability requires that three fundamental questions be answered.
1. Who or what will object to excessive vibration? Answering this question helps to define appropriate
vibration limits within the occupied spaces.
2. Who or what is expected to cause the vibration? The answers to these question help to define the expected
dynamic forces.
3. What is the expected response at the location of those objecting? The answer to this question provides a
means to establish whether vibration limits will possibly be exceeded.

The first two questions need to be answered either directly or indirectly by the building owner. The third question,
generally needs to be answered by the structural engineer, within the scope of understanding our industry has with
respect to building floor vibrations. The negotiation often begins when the answer to number three indicates
unacceptable performance. When such an evaluation, like that recommended Design Guide 11, requires an
adjustment to the floor system design to meet vibration serviceability requirements, owners sometimes balk at the
“additional” expense or the alterations necessary to make the system work. Sometimes, it is as if they don’t believe
that meeting serviceability requirements is important enough to make alterations from that necessary to meet
strength design requirements. If this scenario sounds familiar, this paper will provide some case studies that
illustrate just how problematic excessive vibration can be when not incorporated into the original design. To assist
engineers in negotiating a successful design, this paper is presented to increase the understanding of the vibration
phenomenon, answer some common questions, resolve some misconceptions, and provide some additional tools to
design for the floor vibration serviceability condition.

VIBRATIONS DUE TO WALKING

When designing office floors, vibrations caused by walking should be considered. As design procedures and
stronger steels yield smaller cross sections to satisfy strength requirements, the need to evaluate floors for excessive
walking vibration becomes more important as a design condition because it is more likely to control. When a
strength design does not meet vibration requirements, the common solutions are to increase the member sizes,
increase the slab thickness, or switch to normal weight concrete. Often, the owner comes back and says, “why is
this system so heavy?” and the engineer explains the need to meet vibration criteria. Then the owner explains just
how many buildings they have built with more economical floor systems without any vibration problems. They
don’t know what the problem is with the assessment, but it must be wrong. In time, these same owners might find
that the assessment of “prone to objectionable vibrations” was exactly right. Often the difference between an
acceptable floor and an unacceptable floor is in the architectural features. In office buildings, these features can
vary over the life of the structure.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 2

Case Studies

To illustrate the difference in vibration characteristics attributed to architectural features, a recent case study is
described. An eight-story office building, built in 1974, just recently developed a vibration problem on one floor.
Each of the upper seven floors is framed similarly with composite steel (A36) beams, metal deck and concrete. The
cause of the problem is what it always is after so many years of successful operation, a change in tenant layout.
Prior tenants had, what might have been described many years ago as, a typical office layout. That is, many
individual offices, particularly around the perimeter, framed with metal stud partition walls, thus modifying the
expected vibration behavior. The new tenants have what seems to be the new standard office layout, the cubicle.
Interior partitions, have a very positive effect on the vibration behavior of framed floor systems (Pernica 1987).
Partitions have been shown to provide additional support to the floor system and also provide some dissipative
characteristics. Careful consideration of the effect of non-structural walls might be included in a vibration
assessment; however, this is not recommended because these elements may not endure. Additionally, methods of
modeling the effect provided by lightweight partition walls are not well documented in the literature. There has
been some suggestion that they can be considered as providing additional damping (Murray, et al. 1997), but this
approach does not correlate well with measured results.

Problem vibrations after the tenant occupies the space can prove very costly. In the case mentioned above, the rent
for the area in question is going into an escrow account until the owner “fixes” the problem. An active control
solution is currently being implemented. Another building, with an open cubicle layout, was repaired by extending
the partitions in the office space below to the underside of the problem floor. Because the floor below was slab-on-
grade, there was no risk of transmitting the vibration problem to that floor. This owner was very lucky that the
tenants below were so cooperative. Another owner deemed his building, contracted as a design-build project, as
unacceptable in one area because of excessive vibration and refused to take ownership until the problem was
resolved. After expensive vibration studies, a solution was proposed, the cost estimated, and the owner decided not
to fix the problem but rather take a considerable discount on the building cost and live with the problem.

On the Issue of Damping

Damping in office floor systems is provided mostly by non-structural elements (such as, hung ceilings, ductwork,
file cabinets, desk contents, and people) and can vary widely. The recommendation in Design Guide 11for typical
cubicle office layouts, where the floor supports a hung ceiling and ductwork below, is to assume a damping ratio of
0.03 of critical. Where the floor supports few non-structural elements, a damping ratio of 0.02 should be assumed
for office areas. More specifically, if there is no hung ceiling supported by the floor system, a damping ratio of not
more than 0.02 should be assumed. Additionally, when the office layout is very spacious and few paper files exist, a
damping ratio of not more than 0.02 should be assumed (Murray 1998) even in the presence of a hung ceiling below.
It is very unlikely that values for damping will ever be conveyed more precisely than the descriptions above. Like
partitions, the elements that provide damping can vary over the life of the structure and, as such, recommended
damping values are to used identify structures that might be “prone to excessive vibrations”. Misinterpretation of
the literature has resulting in assumed damping values that did not exist in reality, thus resulting in complaints.
Unless supplemental damping is provided, more than 0.03 should not be assumed for office floors. Supplemental
damping is not presently an economical choice in new structures where other alterations are possible to meet
serviceability requirements.

Preliminary Assessment Procedure for Office Floors

When negotiating a successful design, it is usually best to consider vibration serviceability very early in design
development when changes to slab depth and weight or member depth are easier to make. The following
preliminary assessment procedure applies to steel-framed office floors where the framing is the result of a strength
design utilizing the most economical cross section. Additionally, framing members should meet a live load
deflection limitation of L/360. The primary use of this evaluation is to determine whether a floor system, that has
been designed to meet strength and live load deflection requirements, should be altered to meet walking vibration
serviceability requirements.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 3

Limitations and Assumptions
The limitations expressed below are the result of the strength design assumptions used in developing the database
from which the preliminary assessment procedure is derived. More details on the formulation of the database can be
found in Kim and Hanagan (2002). Additionally, a manuscript (Hanagan and Kim 2003) detailing the supporting
research has been submitted to the AISC Engineering Journal and is currently under review. Acceptable deviations
from the stated assumptions are noted below; however, it should be noted that the accuracy of the results, discussed
later in this paper, are based on floors that satisfy the assumptions below.
1. Floor system must be defined by one of the six classes in Table 1.
2. Strength design based on LRFD methods except for K-series joist systems which are based on ASD – Since
LRFD design usually results in either the same, lighter, or shallower members, ASD designs can be
conservatively evaluated with this procedure.
3. Grade 50 steel – Because this procedure will produce very conservative results for A36 steel, systems using
A36 steel that are evaluated as being unacceptable should be re-evaluated by the Design Guide 11
procedure before any changes are considered.
4. Design loads are 15 psf superimposed dead load, 145 pcf for normal weight concrete, 110 pcf for light
weight concrete, 50 psf live load and 20 psf partition live loads with no live load reduction applied.
Systems designed for heavier loads can be conservatively evaluated. If heavier live loads were used, some
live load reduction can be conservatively considered.
5. Specified concrete strength is 3000 psi. Concrete strengths in the range of 2500-5000 psi can be considered
with little loss in accuracy.
6. All members are assumed simply supported. The procedure will yield a conservative result for moment-
connected members.
7. Composite steel framing is designed for un-shored construction.
8. For non-composite beam/steel joist and girder designs, the most economical cross section is used unless a
live load deflection limit of L/360 controls member selection. When several beam depths exist for a
particular beam weight, the deepest cross-section is selected.
9. Floors have at least three bays in each direction and the beam span is the same on each side of the girder.
Systems where beam/joist spans differ on either side of the girder can be reasonably evaluated for each
beam/joist span.
10. Common architectural elements are attached, thus assuming a damping value of 0.03. The evaluation
assumes that a hung ceiling, ductwork, etc. are suspended below and that some paper files or books exist in
the office cubicles. When office areas are very lightly loaded, as in electronic offices, or when few
attachments are made below, the preliminary assessment procedure should not be used. Extensive full-
height partitions enclosing offices are assumed not to exist.
11. Beam/joist spans range from 20 – 40 ft and girder spans range from 15 – 40 ft. Shorter spans can be
conservatively considered by assuming the minimum span noted. Longer spans should not be considered
using this procedure.
12. Beam spacing is assumed to be equal within a bay and is determined to be the largest deck span allowed for
the 20 GA, 3 span, un-shored condition.

Preliminary Assessment Procedure

1. Define design class from Table 1.
2. Select C1 from Table 2 according to class, deck thickness, and topping thickness. If a “U” is noted, all
floors were found to be unacceptable for the spans studied. If an “A” is noted, all floors were found to be
acceptable for the spans studied when damping is assumed to be 3% of critical. See assumption #10 above.
3. If step 2 did not result in a “U” or “A” rating, select C2 according to class determined in step 1 from Tables
3 – 8.
4. Evaluate:
For C1 + C 2 ≤ 0.5 , floor should be acceptable for normal office environments.
For C1 + C 2 > 0.5 , floor may be found unacceptable for office environments.

It should be reiterated that the assessment procedure above is to determine whether a floor system, that has been
designed to meet strength and live load deflection requirements, should be altered to meet walking vibration
serviceability requirements. An example illustrating the strength design assumptions and limitations and the
application of the preliminary evaluation is presented in the next section.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 4

Table 1. Summary of Database Classes
Class Concrete weight Steel frame type Construction type Deck type
1 Normal weight Rolled beams/ girders Non-Composite Form or Composite
2 Light weight Rolled beams/ girders Non-Composite Form or Composite
3 Normal weight Rolled beams/ girders Composite Composite
4 Light weight Rolled beams/ girders Composite Composite
5 Normal weight Steel joist/rolled girders Non-Composite Form deck
6 Light weight Steel joist/rolled girders Non-Composite Form deck

Tables 2-8 appear at the end of this paper.

Example: Office Floor Design

The numbers shown in parentheses indicate the governing assumptions and limitations, as presented in an earlier
section, that apply.

• Given (#8, 11):

Beam span = 30’- 0”
Girder span = 28’- 0”

• Select slab/deck configuration:

Try 1.5VLI20 deck (#12) with 2” light-weight topping (3.5” total slab thickness)

Preliminary evaluation of vibration serviceability assuming 3% damping (#9):

1. Select class from Table 1: Class 2
2. Select C1 from Table 2: 0.448
3. Select C2 from Table 4: 0.108
4. Evaluate: C1 +C2 =0.448 + 0.108 = 0.556 > 0.5∴ not OK
Options: a) Proceed with the strength design with an understanding that the beam sizes will probably need
to be increased to meet vibration serviceability requirements.
b) Select a different slab/deck configuration so that the strength design will most likely meet
vibration serviceability requirements without increasing member sizes beyond those required
for the strength design.

Proceed with Option b: Try 1.5VLI20 deck with 2” normal-weight topping.

Preliminary evaluation of vibration serviceability:

1. Select class from Table 1: Class 1
2. Select C1 from Table 2: 0.377
3. Select C2 from Table 3: 0.110
4. Evaluate: C1 + C2 = 0.377 + 0.110 = 0.49 < 0.5∴ OK, proceed with the strength design with an
understanding that the beam sizes will probably be satisfactory to meet vibration serviceability
requirements. Since the evaluation indicates a borderline floor and there is some error in the
preliminary evaluation procedure, it is possible that the Design Guide 11 procedure will result in an
unacceptable floor evaluation.

• Strength Design:

The strength design portion of this example is presented to illustrate the assumptions and limitations applied in
formulating the database from which the preliminary evaluation procedure was derived. The numbers shown in
parentheses indicate the governing assumptions and limitations, as presented in an earlier section, that apply.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 5

 Design Beam:

From deck catalog (#12): maximum beam spacing = 8’-4”; slab/deck weight = 33 psf
For 28’ girder span, maximum beam spacing = 28/4 = 7.0’
wu = [(33+15)(1.2)+(50+20)(1.6)](7.0) = 1187 plf (#1,3)
Mu =1.19(302)/8 = 134 ft-k (#5)
Try W16x26 where φbMpx = 166 ft-k; Ix = 301 in4 (To properly apply assumption #7, a W16x26 was chosen
even though a W12x26 will work for the moment due to the loads)
Add beam self weight: Mu = 134 + 0.026(302)/8 = 137 ft-k < 166 ft-k ∴ OK
4
Check deflection (#7): I req = 5(0.07 )(7)(30 )(1728) = 308 in4 > 301 in4 ∴ increase size.
384(29000)(30 * 12 / 360)
Use W16x31, A992 beams spaced at 7’-0” O.C.

Design Girder:

Pu = (1.19)(30)+0.031(30) = 36.6 k (#1,3)

Mu =1.5(36.6)(14) - 36.6(7.0) = 512 ft-k (#5)
Try W24x62 where φbMpx = 578 ft-k; Ix = 1560 in4 (To properly apply assumption #7, a W24x62 was
chosen even though a W21x62 will work for the moment due to the loads)
Add beam self weight: Mu = 512 + 0.062(282)/8 = 515 ft-k < 578 ft-k ∴ OK
4
Check deflection: ∆ LL (estimated ) = 5(0.07 )(30)( 28 )(1728) = 0.642” < L/360=0.93” ∴ OK.
384(29000)(1560)
Use W24x62, A992 girders.

Design Guide 11 Evaluation (not shown): ap/g = 0.465 %g < 0.5% g ∴ OK

• Design Summary:

1.5VLI20 composite deck w/ 2” normal weight concrete topping (3 ½” total slab thickness)
W16x31, A992 beams spaced at 7’ – 0” O.C.
W24x62, A992 girders

VIBRATIONS DUE TO RHYTHMIC ACTIVITIES

Rhythmic activities, such as dancing, aerobics, foot stomping, and hand clapping, can create large synchronized
forces at a steady beat. These forces result in a steady-state motion in the structure that can cause complaints and
even fear in the occupants. The frequency of rhythmic activities is usually in the range of 1.5 to 3 Hz. Excessive
vibrations due to rhythmic activities can occur at or, perhaps more surprisingly, below resonant frequencies of the
structure. Because resonance can occur at multiples of the activity frequency, resonance is not just a problem in low
frequency structures. The dynamic force that exists at multiples of the activity frequency are commonly referred to
as harmonics of the force, that is, the dynamic force can be expressed a sum of many sinusoidal forces. For jumping
activities, like aerobics, the second harmonic of the dynamic force can actually be more problematic than the first,
because, it is more difficult to avoid resonance with the second harmonic. In this section, two case studies are
presented to provide compelling evidence that vibration serviceability is an important design condition. Then some
insights on designing for rhythmic excitations are shared in the interest of creating some “engineering judgment” on
the topic. Finally, some strategies for negotiating a successful design are discussed.

Case Study 1: Long Span Ballroom Floor

The operator of a facility with a long-span ballroom floor was seeking advice on whether their floor was unsafe and
what could be done to reduce vibration levels caused by dancing. The floor, with a bay area of more than 10,000 sq.
ft., is framed with truss-like members having a span-to-depth ratios of 9.5 and 12.6 for the joists and girders,
respectively. The floor slab is light-weight concrete on composite metal deck. The natural frequency of this system

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 6

is around 3.25 Hz and therein lies the problem. Many popular dance tunes elicit movement acting in resonance, or
close to resonance, with the floor.

When the excitation occurs at resonance, it doesn’t take very much to get the floor going and we took some data to
prove it. With a metronome set to 3.25 Hz, one person jumped in resonance at the floor mid-span. A steady-state
acceleration level of 0.01g was measured. Repeating this test with three people produced almost 0.03g. To put this
data into context, the vibration limit-state for this facility, as prescribed by Design Guide 11 (Murray, et. al 1997), is
0.02g. A bay weighing more than 750,000 lbs was driven by the rhythmic activities of three people to exceed the
acceptable limit by almost 50%.

As far as the owner’s concern for safety, the levels of vibration causing complaints are rarely near the strength limit
state. To use this floor as an example, assume the vibration levels reached 0.1g (5 times the acceptable limit) at
resonance, 3.25 Hz. Converted to displacement, the peak amplitude would be 2.35 mm (0.09 inches). Under this
condition, people would perceive the vibration as being so large that the activity causing it would probably be
discontinued as people feared for their safety. An acceptable, affordable solution for this facility has been evasive.

Case Study 2: Whole Building Vibration

The building investigated in this case has an office suite on the 10th floor and a dance studio on the floor below.
During certain activities in the dance studio, the vibration levels in the 10th floor office suite were large enough to be
disturbing to the workers.

Measurements indicated that the disturbing vibrations on the 10th floor had a frequency of 4 Hz. Since most
rhythmic activities (jumping, dancing, etc) have a fundamental frequency between 1.8 and 2.8 Hz, the motion was
thought to be a resonance phenomenon occurring at the second harmonic of the activity frequency. To create the
same phenomenon under a more controlled environment, simultaneous acceleration measurements were taken at
several locations on the dance studio floors and the 10th floor while 4-6 people jumped to the beat of a metronome in
the studio. A jumping frequency of 2 Hz caused the largest response at the 10th floor. A significant portion of the
motion at the 10th floor was found to be the result of column shortening.

From the experimental results, it was estimated that an equivalent weight of 3.3 million pounds was experiencing
peak acceleration levels of up to 0.01g, twice the level considered acceptable in an office environment, with only six
people jumping. That is approximately 1000 lbs of people moving 3.3 million lbs!

Insights

Discussing floor vibration serviceability requirements in terms of acceleration levels and natural frequencies does
not seem to lend itself well to the development of engineering judgment. Perhaps a discussion in terms of
displacement will illustrate the impossibility of making some floor systems acceptable. The Design Guide 11
rhythmic vibrations criterion for an area used for dining and dancing is stated as follows:

wp
1.3α
ap wt
= ≤ 0.02g for dining and dancing
g 2 2
§ f n2 · § 2β f n ·
¨ − 1¸ + ¨ ¸
¨f2 ¸ © f ¹
© ¹

where ap/g is the expected acceleration from dance loads, α = 0.5 for dance loads, wp is the participant weight (12.5
psf) for dancing, wt is the weight of the system (psf), including participants, fn is the natural frequency of the floor
structure, f is the critical forcing frequency (must be less than fn, 3 Hz for dancing) and β is the damping ratio (0.06
is recommended because of the damping provided by the participants) (Murray, et al. 1997).

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 7

Because the equation above represents the peak steady-state acceleration, it can be converted to a peak displacement
for a simply-supported system, shown in Fig. 1, as follows:

5αw p L4
ap 384E s I t
∆ dyn = ≈ = DLF ⋅ ∆ p ≤ 0.022" for dining and dancing
2 2
(2πf ) 2
§
¨1 −f2·¸ + §¨ 2βf ·
¨ f ¸¸
¨ f2¸ © n ¹
© n ¹

where Es is the modulus of elasticity of steel, It is the transformed moment of inertia for the same width as load wp,
∆p is the static deflection due to a uniform load equal to αwp, as shown in the numerator and DLF is the dynamic
load factor (inverse of the denominator) and is plotted in Fig. 2.

f ( t ) = αw p sin 2πf ⋅ t

ap
wt
L

Fig. 1. Simply-supported floor system subjected to rhythmic load

10
9
Dynamic Load Factor, DLF

8
7 6% damping
6
5
4
20% damping
3
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Driving Frequency/Natural Frequency (f/fn)

Fig. 2. Dynamic Load Factor for 6% and 20%

Two important observations should be made from Fig. 2. First, unless the frequency of the dynamic load is at or
near resonance, increased damping has no effect on reducing the response. Second, the smallest possible value for
the dynamic load factor is 1. Therefore, if ∆ p is greater than 0.022”, stiffening is the only possible solution.

Humans are acutely sensitive to vibrations in the frequency ranges caused by rhythmic activities. Time and time
again, perception and reality are way out of line. On one long span floor there was a report that “when the place is
really rocking, the floor moves up and down 6 inches” or ± 3" from the static position. If this is true, one may
question the safety because in many structures, loads causing an additional 3” displacement over the static loads
would result in excessive stress in the members. To illustrate the improbability of the 6” ( ± 3" peak) steady-state
motion, a conversion to acceleration is useful. After recalling a bit of differential calculus, acceleration (a) is the
second derivative of displacement (y), the following relationship is established:

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 8

 d 2 y( t ) d2
a (t) = = y peak sin(2πf ⋅ t ) = −(2πf ) 2 y peak sin(2πf ⋅ t )
2 2
dt dt
a peak (2πf ) 2 y peak
=
g g

where g is the acceleration of gravity. For ypeak = 3” and a common activity frequency of 2 Hz, the peak acceleration
is:

a peak (2π ⋅ 2) 2 (3" )

= = 1.22g
g 386.4in / sec 2

Remembering that the limit of acceptability for a dining and dancing area is 0.02g, 1.22 g seems highly unlikely.
From a physical perspective, more than –1g would result in complete weightlessness and when cyclical could
literally bounce people out of their seats. Additionally, it has been noted that acceleration levels above 0.35g could
possibly cause panic in grandstand structures (Kasperski 1996). This further illustrates that the extreme sensitivity
of the human body results in an exaggerated perception of the actual motion. While it is possible that jumping
crowds could create a safety problem (Ellis and Ji 2002), it is more likely that the question of safety will simply
hang as a dark cloud over the facility (Smith 1995, Hopkinson 1995).

Live Load Deflection Limit for Ballroom Floors

Using the displacement based criterion noted above, a live load deflection limit can be established for ballroom
floors. Consider the following relationships and definitions:

WLL = 100 psf: design live load, minimum uniformly distributed live load for ballroom floor (ASCE7-98)
Wt = expected weight; expected weight is largely due to the self-weight of the structure, some superimposed dead
load and some fraction of the design live load. For steel structures, the expected weight is usually in the range
of 50-150 psf.
αWp = (0.5)(12.5) = 6.25 psf: from Design Guide 11; peak dynamic force caused by the participants due to dancing.
∆ t = total deflection of beams, girders and columns due to Wt assuming composite properties for beams and girders.
∆ LL = total live load deflection of beams, girders and columns due to WLL assuming composite properties for beams
and girders.
∆ p = total static deflection of beams, girders and columns due to αWp assuming composite properties for beams
and girders.
µ = ∆ p = αWp = 6.25psf = 0.0625 or ∆ p = µ∆ LL
∆ LL WLL 100 psf
γ = ∆ t = Wt
∆ LL WLL
g = 386.4 in/sec2: acceleration of gravity.
fn2 = (0.18)2 g = (0.18)2 g = 12.5 : square of the fundamental natural frequency as noted in Design Guide 11.
∆t γ∆ LL γ∆ LL
f = 3 Hz: activity frequency for dancing as recommended in Design Guide 11.
1 12.5
DLF = = : simplified from previous section for fundamental frequencies > 1.2f.
f 2 12.5 − 9 γ∆ LL
1−
f n2

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 9

Substituting into the displacement-based criterion from above ( DLF ⋅ ∆ p ≤ 0.022" ), the following live load
deflection criterion is established:

0.275 0.275
∆ LL ≤ = = 0.30"
12.5µ + 0.2 γ 12.5(0.0625) + 0.2(0.75)

The reader is cautioned that ∆ LL in the expression above is the sum of the live load deflections for the beam, girder
and column using composite properties. Contrary to the usual span related limit, it should be carefully noted that
even longer spans must maintain this absolute limit. Deflection limits for other reasonable values of αWp and Wt
are shown in the table below. Also noted in the table below are the fundamental natural frequencies that would
result from imposing this limit. The reader will find that some of the frequency values are the same as those noted
in Table 5.3 of Design Guide 11.

αWp (psf) Wt (psf) ∆ LL max fn min (Hz)

6.25 62.5 0.30” 8.1
6.25 112.5 0.27” 6.4
6.25 162.5 0.25” 5.6
3.1 62.5 0.53” 6.1
3.1 112.5 0.45” 5.0
3.1 162.5 0.39” 4.5

A value of 3.1 psf for the dynamic load (αWp) would be reasonable for a bay where the dance floor would only
cover half of the bay. The values in the table above indicate that as the floor becomes heavier, the live load
deflection limit becomes smaller. From this observation, it can be concluded that stiffening strategies increasing
member depth are much more effective than those which increase member weight as well.

From the perspective of the discussion above, it is interesting to review the details of the ballroom case study, Case
Study 1, described previously. This floor, possessing a fundamental natural frequency of 3.25 Hz, was excited to an
unacceptable level by as few as three people jumping. The value of Wt for this system is 68 psf and the calculated
live load deflection is 1.7”. This is a live load deflection of L/1500, 4 times stiffer than the usual static live load
limit of L/360! It should also be noted that this is not a particularly shallow system. The joist members have a span
to depth ratio of approximately 9.5 and the girders have a span-to-depth ratio of 12.6.

Dynamic Amplitude Prediction for Partially Loaded Bays

The benefit of considering partially loaded bays is illustrated in the previous section. The maximum size of the
dance floor is something that can be established by the owner/operator and possibly negotiated to provide an
acceptable design. A method of determining the effective dynamic load for partially loaded bays is given in a recent
paper by the author (Hanagan 2002). When using this strategy, it is important to remember that avoiding resonance
is still crucial. Again for the purpose of perspective, the ballroom floor in Case Study 1 could only support a 100 sq.
ft. dance floor without exceeding the 0.02g limit prescribed in Design Guide 11. Considering that this is a 20,000
sq. ft. ballroom, this would certainly not be an option.

CONCLUSIONS

Vibration serviceability is best considered in the early stages of design development. Owners and architects must be
made aware of the implications of their decisions. Engineers should not take responsibility for conditions they
cannot control. For office floors, use of thin and/or light-weight concrete slabs can yield vibration complaints either
immediately or at some point in the future. Owners and developers must understand that unless architectural layouts
can be controlled, floors not meeting the walking vibration criterion in Design Guide 11 can ultimately lead to
serious problems and unhappy tenants.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 10

In the case of vibration due to rhythmic activities, resonance with first, second and sometimes even the third
harmonic of the activity frequency should be avoided. Because only very small displacements are tolerated, it is
important that VERY stiff structures are provided. For mid and high-rise buildings, occupancies combining
rhythmic activities with sensitive uses like offices or residences should be considered with great care. Long-span
floors are particularly susceptible to excessive vibrations caused by rhythmic activities. This condition should
generally be approached with the understanding that to meet the criteria of Design Guide 11 is going to take a
massive structure, including a huge steel weight on a pound-per-square-foot basis and very deep members.
Convention center facilities are notorious for having ballrooms located over exhibition halls with 100 ft+ column
spacing. Architecturally, placing one column free space over another is very logical, but, from a vibration
serviceability perspective, this condition is very problematic and should be avoided. In most cases, these floors
cannot be repaired without adding columns below.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described in this paper has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant No.
CMS-9900099. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Additional support has been
provided by the American Institute of Steel Construction. These contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

ASCE (1998). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-98, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
Ellis, B.R.; Ji, T. (2002); “Loads generated by jumping crowds: experimental assessment,” BRE IP4/02, CRC Ltd.,
London, p 1-12.
Hanagan, L.M. and Kim, T. (2003). “Preliminary Assessment for Walking-Induced Vibrations in Office
Environments,” Submitted to the AISC Engineering Journal in January 2003.
Kasperski, M. (1996). “Actual Problems with stand structures due to spectator induced vibrations,” EURODYN
’96, Florence, 1996.
Kim, T. and Hanagan, L.M. (2002). Development of a Simplified Criterion for Walking Vibrations, Report No.
ST02-01, Department of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, July 2002, 130p.
Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E. and Ungar E.E. (1997). "Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity," AISC Steel Design
Guide #11, AISC, Chicago, IL.
Murray, T.M. (1998). “Floor Vibration and the Electronic Office,” Modern Steel Construction, August 1998, 24-28.
Smith, D. (1995). “Convention center’s shakes prompt review by engineers; Engineers say structure is sound,”
Charlotte Observer, April 4, 1995.
Hopkinson, P.J. (1995). Editorial: “Whole lotta shakin’could be perilous,” Charlotte Observer, 1995.

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 11

Table 2: Values for C1
Deck Total Slab Class 1 Class2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6
Thickness Thickness NC/NW NC/LW C/NW C/LW J/NW J/LW
0.5625 2 U U n/a n/a U U
0.5625 2.5 0.476 U n/a n/a U U
0.5625 3 0.392 0.473 n/a n/a U U
0.5625 3.5 A 0.400 n/a n/a U U
0.5625 4 A A n/a n/a 0.496 U
0.5625 4.5 A A n/a n/a 0.434 U
0.5625 5 A A n/a n/a 0.371 U
1 2.5 U U n/a n/a U U
1 3 0.424 0.495 n/a n/a U U
1 3.5 A 0.422 n/a n/a U U
1 4 A A n/a n/a U U
1 4.5 A A n/a n/a 0.454 U
1 5 A A n/a n/a 0.392 U
1 5.5 A A n/a n/a 0.329 0.459
1.5 3.5 0.377 0.448 U U n/a n/a
1.5 4 A 0.375 U U n/a n/a
1.5 4.5 A A U U n/a n/a
1.5 4.75 n/a A n/a U n/a n/a
1.5 5 A A 0.422 U n/a n/a
1.5 5.5 A n/a 0.339 n/a n/a n/a
1.5 5.75 n/a A n/a 0.413 n/a n/a
1.5 6 A n/a A n/a n/a n/a
2 4 A 0.402 U U n/a n/a
2 4.5 A A U U n/a n/a
2 5 A A 0.451 U n/a n/a
2 5.25 n/a A n/a U n/a n/a
2 5.5 A n/a 0.368 0.472 n/a n/a
2 6 A n/a A n/a n/a n/a
2 6.25 n/a A n/a 0.367 n/a n/a
2 6.5 A n/a A n/a n/a n/a
3 5 A A U U n/a n/a
3 5.5 A A 0.426 U n/a n/a
3 6 A A 0.343 0.449 n/a n/a
3 6.25 n/a A n/a 0.414 n/a n/a
3 6.5 A A A 0.379 n/a n/a
3 7 A A A 0.309 n/a n/a
3 7.25 n/a A n/a A n/a n/a
3 7.5 A n/a A n/a n/a n/a
A: Acceptable for all spans studied when damping is assumed to be 3% of critical.
U: Unacceptable for all spans studied. Modification to meet vibration serviceability is suggested.
n/a: Configuration not studied
NC: Non-composite, rolled beams and girders
C: Composite, rolled beams and girders
J: K series joists with non-composite, rolled girders
NW: Normal weight concrete
LW: Light weight concrete

2003 NASCC Proceedings Baltimore, MD – April 2-5 Session D6 – Page 12

Table 3. Non-composite beam and non-composite girder framed floor systems, Normal weight concrete
CLASS 1: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.043 0.044 0.046 0.047 0.048 0.049 0.050 0.050 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.050 0.049 0.047 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.039 0.036 0.033
16 0.066 0.067 0.069 0.070 0.071 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.070 0.069 0.068 0.066 0.063 0.060 0.057 0.053 0.049 0.045
17 0.085 0.086 0.088 0.089 0.089 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.089 0.088 0.087 0.085 0.083 0.081 0.078 0.074 0.070 0.066 0.061 0.055
18 0.101 0.102 0.103 0.104 0.104 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.104 0.103 0.102 0.101 0.099 0.096 0.093 0.090 0.086 0.081 0.076 0.071 0.064
19 0.113 0.114 0.115 0.115 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.115 0.114 0.113 0.111 0.109 0.106 0.103 0.100 0.095 0.090 0.085 0.079 0.072
20 0.122 0.122 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.123 0.122 0.121 0.119 0.117 0.114 0.111 0.107 0.103 0.098 0.092 0.085 0.078
21 0.128 0.128 0.129 0.129 0.129 0.130 0.129 0.129 0.128 0.128 0.126 0.124 0.122 0.120 0.116 0.113 0.108 0.103 0.097 0.091 0.083
22 0.131 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.131 0.130 0.129 0.128 0.125 0.123 0.120 0.116 0.112 0.107 0.101 0.094 0.087
23 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.132 0.132 0.131 0.130 0.129 0.127 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.114 0.109 0.103 0.097 0.089
24 0.133 0.132 0.132 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.131 0.130 0.130 0.129 0.128 0.126 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.114 0.110 0.104 0.098 0.091
25 0.131 0.130 0.129 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.128 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.126 0.125 0.124 0.122 0.120 0.117 0.113 0.109 0.104 0.098 0.091
26 0.127 0.126 0.125 0.124 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.123 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.121 0.120 0.119 0.117 0.114 0.111 0.107 0.102 0.097 0.090
27 0.123 0.121 0.119 0.118 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.116 0.115 0.114 0.113 0.110 0.108 0.104 0.100 0.095 0.088
28 0.119 0.116 0.113 0.112 0.110 0.110 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.109 0.109 0.107 0.106 0.103 0.100 0.096 0.091 0.086
29 0.114 0.110 0.107 0.105 0.103 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.101 0.100 0.098 0.095 0.092 0.087 0.082
30 0.109 0.104 0.100 0.097 0.095 0.094 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.094 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.092 0.090 0.087 0.083 0.077
31 0.104 0.098 0.093 0.090 0.087 0.086 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.086 0.086 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.086 0.084 0.081 0.077 0.072
32 0.100 0.093 0.087 0.083 0.080 0.078 0.077 0.076 0.076 0.077 0.077 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.071 0.066
33 0.096 0.088 0.082 0.077 0.073 0.070 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.071 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.070 0.068 0.065 0.060
34 0.094 0.085 0.077 0.071 0.067 0.063 0.061 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.063 0.064 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.063 0.061 0.057 0.053
35 0.094 0.083 0.074 0.067 0.062 0.058 0.055 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.056 0.053 0.050 0.045
36 0.096 0.083 0.072 0.064 0.058 0.053 0.050 0.048 0.046 0.046 0.047 0.047 0.048 0.049 0.050 0.050 0.049 0.048 0.046 0.042 0.037
37 0.099 0.085 0.073 0.063 0.056 0.050 0.046 0.043 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.042 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.042 0.041 0.038 0.034 0.028
38 0.105 0.089 0.075 0.064 0.055 0.049 0.044 0.040 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.035 0.033 0.030 0.025 0.019
39 0.114 0.096 0.080 0.068 0.058 0.049 0.043 0.039 0.036 0.034 0.033 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.029 0.027 0.023 0.017 0.010
40 0.126 0.106 0.088 0.074 0.062 0.053 0.045 0.040 0.036 0.033 0.031 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.027 0.026 0.023 0.020 0.015 0.008 0.000
*Lj = Beam span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.
Table 4. Non-composite beam and non-composite girder framed floor systems, Light weight concrete
CLASS 2: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.012 0.016 0.019 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.030 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.026 0.023 0.020 0.016
16 0.028 0.032 0.036 0.040 0.043 0.045 0.048 0.050 0.051 0.053 0.053 0.054 0.053 0.053 0.051 0.050 0.047 0.044 0.041 0.037 0.032
17 0.052 0.056 0.059 0.062 0.065 0.067 0.069 0.071 0.072 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.071 0.069 0.067 0.064 0.060 0.056 0.051 0.045
18 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.081 0.083 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.090 0.089 0.088 0.086 0.084 0.081 0.078 0.074 0.069 0.063 0.057
19 0.087 0.090 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.102 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.102 0.101 0.099 0.096 0.093 0.089 0.085 0.079 0.073 0.067
20 0.099 0.102 0.104 0.106 0.108 0.110 0.111 0.112 0.113 0.113 0.113 0.112 0.110 0.108 0.106 0.102 0.098 0.094 0.088 0.082 0.075
21 0.108 0.110 0.112 0.114 0.116 0.117 0.119 0.119 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.119 0.117 0.115 0.113 0.109 0.105 0.100 0.095 0.089 0.081
22 0.114 0.116 0.118 0.119 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.123 0.122 0.120 0.117 0.114 0.110 0.105 0.100 0.093 0.086
23 0.118 0.119 0.120 0.122 0.123 0.124 0.125 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.125 0.124 0.122 0.120 0.117 0.113 0.108 0.103 0.097 0.090
24 0.120 0.120 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.124 0.125 0.125 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.125 0.124 0.123 0.120 0.118 0.114 0.110 0.105 0.099 0.092
25 0.119 0.119 0.120 0.120 0.121 0.121 0.122 0.123 0.123 0.124 0.124 0.123 0.122 0.121 0.119 0.117 0.114 0.110 0.105 0.099 0.093
26 0.118 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.118 0.119 0.119 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.119 0.118 0.117 0.115 0.112 0.108 0.104 0.099 0.092
27 0.115 0.113 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.114 0.115 0.115 0.115 0.114 0.113 0.111 0.109 0.106 0.102 0.097 0.091
28 0.111 0.109 0.107 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.107 0.108 0.108 0.109 0.109 0.109 0.108 0.107 0.105 0.102 0.098 0.094 0.088
29 0.107 0.104 0.101 0.100 0.099 0.098 0.098 0.099 0.100 0.100 0.101 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.102 0.101 0.100 0.097 0.094 0.090 0.085
30 0.102 0.098 0.095 0.093 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.091 0.092 0.093 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.092 0.089 0.085 0.080
31 0.098 0.093 0.089 0.086 0.084 0.083 0.082 0.082 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.086 0.087 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.087 0.086 0.083 0.080 0.075
32 0.095 0.088 0.083 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.075 0.076 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.077 0.073 0.069
33 0.092 0.084 0.078 0.073 0.070 0.067 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.067 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.072 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.067 0.062
34 0.090 0.081 0.074 0.068 0.064 0.061 0.059 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.061 0.062 0.064 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.064 0.062 0.059 0.055
35 0.090 0.079 0.071 0.064 0.059 0.055 0.053 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.053 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.057 0.055 0.052 0.047
36 0.092 0.079 0.069 0.061 0.055 0.051 0.047 0.046 0.045 0.045 0.046 0.047 0.048 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.047 0.044 0.039
37 0.096 0.082 0.070 0.060 0.053 0.048 0.044 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.042 0.043 0.043 0.044 0.043 0.042 0.040 0.036 0.031
38 0.102 0.086 0.073 0.062 0.053 0.047 0.042 0.039 0.037 0.036 0.035 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.038 0.038 0.037 0.035 0.032 0.028 0.022
39 0.111 0.093 0.078 0.066 0.056 0.048 0.042 0.038 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.029 0.025 0.020 0.013
40 0.124 0.103 0.086 0.072 0.061 0.052 0.045 0.039 0.036 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.028 0.026 0.023 0.018 0.012 0.004
*Lj = Beam span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.
Table 5. Composite beam and Composite girder framed floor systems, Normal weight concrete
CLASS 3: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.018 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.035 0.038 0.041 0.044 0.047 0.050 0.052 0.054 0.056 0.057 0.059 0.060 0.061 0.061 0.062 0.062 0.062
16 0.037 0.040 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.047 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.052 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.053 0.052 0.051 0.050 0.049
17 0.056 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.056 0.056 0.055 0.054 0.053 0.052 0.051 0.049 0.047 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.039 0.037
18 0.074 0.073 0.071 0.070 0.068 0.067 0.065 0.063 0.061 0.059 0.056 0.054 0.051 0.049 0.046 0.043 0.040 0.037 0.034 0.031 0.027
19 0.091 0.088 0.085 0.082 0.079 0.076 0.073 0.070 0.066 0.063 0.059 0.056 0.052 0.048 0.044 0.040 0.036 0.032 0.028 0.024 0.019
20 0.107 0.103 0.099 0.095 0.090 0.086 0.081 0.077 0.072 0.068 0.063 0.058 0.053 0.049 0.044 0.039 0.034 0.029 0.023 0.018 0.013
21 0.123 0.117 0.112 0.106 0.101 0.095 0.089 0.084 0.078 0.073 0.067 0.061 0.055 0.049 0.044 0.038 0.032 0.026 0.020 0.014 0.008
22 0.137 0.130 0.124 0.117 0.111 0.104 0.097 0.091 0.084 0.078 0.071 0.064 0.058 0.051 0.045 0.038 0.031 0.024 0.018 0.011 0.004
23 0.150 0.143 0.135 0.128 0.120 0.113 0.105 0.098 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.068 0.061 0.053 0.046 0.039 0.031 0.024 0.016 0.009 0.002
24 0.162 0.154 0.145 0.137 0.129 0.121 0.113 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 0.072 0.064 0.056 0.048 0.040 0.032 0.024 0.016 0.008 0.000
25 0.172 0.163 0.155 0.146 0.137 0.128 0.119 0.111 0.102 0.093 0.085 0.076 0.067 0.059 0.050 0.042 0.033 0.025 0.017 0.008 0.000
26 0.181 0.172 0.162 0.153 0.144 0.135 0.125 0.116 0.107 0.098 0.089 0.080 0.071 0.062 0.053 0.044 0.035 0.027 0.018 0.009 0.000
27 0.188 0.179 0.169 0.159 0.150 0.140 0.131 0.121 0.112 0.102 0.093 0.084 0.075 0.065 0.056 0.047 0.038 0.029 0.020 0.011 0.002
28 0.194 0.184 0.174 0.164 0.155 0.145 0.135 0.126 0.116 0.106 0.097 0.087 0.078 0.068 0.059 0.050 0.040 0.031 0.022 0.013 0.004
29 0.197 0.187 0.178 0.168 0.158 0.148 0.139 0.129 0.119 0.110 0.100 0.090 0.081 0.071 0.062 0.053 0.043 0.034 0.025 0.015 0.006
30 0.199 0.189 0.179 0.170 0.160 0.150 0.141 0.131 0.122 0.112 0.103 0.093 0.084 0.074 0.065 0.055 0.046 0.037 0.027 0.018 0.009
31 0.198 0.189 0.179 0.170 0.161 0.151 0.142 0.132 0.123 0.114 0.104 0.095 0.086 0.077 0.067 0.058 0.049 0.039 0.030 0.021 0.012
32 0.195 0.186 0.177 0.168 0.159 0.150 0.141 0.132 0.123 0.114 0.105 0.096 0.087 0.078 0.069 0.060 0.051 0.042 0.033 0.024 0.015
33 0.190 0.182 0.173 0.165 0.157 0.148 0.140 0.131 0.123 0.114 0.105 0.097 0.088 0.079 0.071 0.062 0.053 0.045 0.036 0.027 0.019
34 0.183 0.175 0.167 0.160 0.152 0.144 0.136 0.128 0.120 0.112 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 0.072 0.063 0.055 0.047 0.039 0.030 0.022
35 0.172 0.166 0.159 0.152 0.145 0.138 0.131 0.124 0.117 0.109 0.102 0.095 0.087 0.079 0.072 0.064 0.057 0.049 0.041 0.033 0.025
36 0.159 0.154 0.148 0.142 0.136 0.130 0.124 0.118 0.111 0.105 0.098 0.092 0.085 0.078 0.071 0.064 0.057 0.050 0.043 0.035 0.027
37 0.144 0.139 0.135 0.130 0.125 0.120 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.099 0.093 0.087 0.082 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 0.050 0.044 0.037 0.030
38 0.125 0.122 0.119 0.115 0.112 0.108 0.104 0.100 0.096 0.091 0.087 0.082 0.077 0.072 0.067 0.061 0.056 0.050 0.044 0.038 0.032
39 0.103 0.102 0.100 0.098 0.096 0.093 0.091 0.088 0.085 0.082 0.078 0.075 0.071 0.067 0.063 0.058 0.053 0.049 0.044 0.038 0.033
40 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.076 0.075 0.074 0.072 0.070 0.068 0.066 0.063 0.060 0.057 0.054 0.050 0.046 0.042 0.038 0.033
*Lj = Beam span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.
Table 6. Composite beam and Composite girder framed floor systems, Light weight concrete
CLASS 4: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.000 0.008 0.016 0.023 0.030 0.036 0.041 0.046 0.051 0.054 0.057 0.060 0.062 0.063 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.063 0.061 0.059 0.057
16 0.022 0.028 0.033 0.038 0.043 0.046 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.059 0.059 0.058 0.056 0.054 0.051 0.048 0.044
17 0.043 0.047 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.059 0.060 0.061 0.061 0.060 0.060 0.059 0.057 0.055 0.053 0.050 0.046 0.043 0.038 0.034
18 0.063 0.065 0.066 0.067 0.068 0.068 0.068 0.067 0.066 0.065 0.063 0.061 0.059 0.056 0.053 0.049 0.045 0.041 0.036 0.031 0.025
19 0.083 0.083 0.082 0.082 0.081 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.073 0.070 0.067 0.064 0.060 0.056 0.051 0.047 0.042 0.036 0.031 0.025 0.018
20 0.102 0.100 0.098 0.095 0.093 0.090 0.087 0.083 0.080 0.076 0.071 0.067 0.062 0.057 0.051 0.046 0.040 0.033 0.027 0.020 0.013
21 0.119 0.116 0.113 0.109 0.105 0.101 0.096 0.092 0.087 0.081 0.076 0.071 0.065 0.059 0.052 0.046 0.039 0.032 0.024 0.017 0.009
22 0.136 0.131 0.127 0.122 0.117 0.111 0.106 0.100 0.094 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 0.061 0.054 0.047 0.039 0.031 0.023 0.015 0.007
23 0.151 0.146 0.140 0.134 0.128 0.121 0.115 0.108 0.101 0.094 0.087 0.079 0.072 0.064 0.056 0.048 0.040 0.031 0.023 0.014 0.005
24 0.165 0.158 0.152 0.145 0.138 0.130 0.123 0.116 0.108 0.100 0.092 0.084 0.076 0.068 0.059 0.051 0.042 0.033 0.024 0.015 0.005
25 0.177 0.170 0.162 0.155 0.147 0.139 0.131 0.123 0.115 0.106 0.098 0.089 0.080 0.071 0.062 0.053 0.044 0.035 0.025 0.016 0.006
26 0.188 0.180 0.172 0.164 0.155 0.147 0.138 0.130 0.121 0.112 0.103 0.094 0.085 0.075 0.066 0.057 0.047 0.037 0.027 0.018 0.008
27 0.197 0.188 0.180 0.171 0.162 0.153 0.145 0.136 0.126 0.117 0.108 0.099 0.089 0.079 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010
28 0.203 0.195 0.186 0.177 0.168 0.159 0.150 0.141 0.131 0.122 0.112 0.103 0.093 0.083 0.073 0.063 0.053 0.043 0.033 0.023 0.013
29 0.208 0.199 0.190 0.181 0.172 0.163 0.154 0.145 0.135 0.126 0.116 0.107 0.097 0.087 0.077 0.067 0.057 0.047 0.037 0.026 0.016
30 0.210 0.201 0.193 0.184 0.175 0.166 0.157 0.148 0.138 0.129 0.119 0.110 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.029 0.019
31 0.210 0.202 0.193 0.185 0.176 0.167 0.158 0.149 0.140 0.131 0.122 0.112 0.103 0.093 0.083 0.073 0.063 0.053 0.043 0.033 0.023
32 0.207 0.199 0.192 0.183 0.175 0.167 0.158 0.150 0.141 0.132 0.123 0.114 0.105 0.095 0.086 0.076 0.066 0.056 0.046 0.036 0.026
33 0.202 0.195 0.187 0.180 0.172 0.164 0.157 0.148 0.140 0.132 0.123 0.114 0.106 0.097 0.087 0.078 0.069 0.059 0.049 0.039 0.029
34 0.194 0.188 0.181 0.174 0.167 0.160 0.153 0.145 0.138 0.130 0.122 0.114 0.106 0.097 0.088 0.079 0.070 0.061 0.052 0.042 0.032
35 0.183 0.177 0.172 0.166 0.160 0.154 0.147 0.141 0.134 0.127 0.120 0.112 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.080 0.071 0.063 0.053 0.044 0.035
36 0.169 0.164 0.160 0.155 0.150 0.145 0.140 0.134 0.128 0.122 0.115 0.109 0.102 0.095 0.087 0.079 0.071 0.063 0.055 0.046 0.037
37 0.151 0.148 0.145 0.142 0.138 0.134 0.130 0.125 0.120 0.115 0.110 0.104 0.098 0.091 0.085 0.078 0.070 0.063 0.055 0.047 0.038
38 0.130 0.129 0.128 0.126 0.123 0.121 0.118 0.114 0.111 0.106 0.102 0.097 0.092 0.087 0.081 0.075 0.068 0.061 0.054 0.047 0.039
39 0.106 0.107 0.107 0.106 0.106 0.104 0.103 0.101 0.098 0.096 0.092 0.089 0.085 0.080 0.076 0.070 0.065 0.059 0.052 0.045 0.038
40 0.078 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.084 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.076 0.072 0.069 0.065 0.060 0.055 0.049 0.043 0.036
*Lj = Beam span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.
Table 7. Non-composite open web steel joist and non-composite rolled girder framed floor systems, Normal weight concrete
CLASS 5: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.099 0.096 0.093 0.090 0.088 0.086 0.084 0.083 0.082 0.081 0.080 0.079 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.079 0.079
16 0.120 0.116 0.112 0.109 0.105 0.102 0.100 0.097 0.095 0.092 0.090 0.088 0.086 0.084 0.082 0.080 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.073 0.071
17 0.139 0.134 0.129 0.125 0.121 0.117 0.113 0.110 0.106 0.103 0.099 0.096 0.093 0.090 0.086 0.083 0.080 0.076 0.073 0.069 0.065
18 0.155 0.150 0.144 0.139 0.134 0.130 0.125 0.121 0.116 0.112 0.108 0.103 0.099 0.095 0.090 0.086 0.081 0.076 0.071 0.066 0.061
19 0.170 0.163 0.157 0.152 0.146 0.141 0.135 0.130 0.125 0.120 0.115 0.110 0.105 0.100 0.094 0.089 0.083 0.077 0.071 0.065 0.058
20 0.182 0.175 0.168 0.162 0.156 0.150 0.144 0.138 0.133 0.127 0.121 0.116 0.110 0.104 0.098 0.092 0.085 0.079 0.071 0.064 0.056
21 0.192 0.185 0.177 0.171 0.164 0.157 0.151 0.145 0.139 0.133 0.127 0.121 0.114 0.108 0.102 0.095 0.088 0.080 0.072 0.064 0.055
22 0.201 0.193 0.185 0.177 0.170 0.163 0.157 0.150 0.144 0.138 0.131 0.125 0.118 0.112 0.105 0.097 0.090 0.082 0.074 0.065 0.056
23 0.207 0.199 0.190 0.183 0.175 0.168 0.161 0.154 0.148 0.141 0.135 0.128 0.121 0.115 0.107 0.100 0.092 0.084 0.076 0.066 0.057
24 0.212 0.203 0.194 0.186 0.178 0.171 0.164 0.157 0.150 0.144 0.137 0.131 0.124 0.117 0.110 0.102 0.095 0.086 0.077 0.068 0.058
25 0.216 0.206 0.197 0.188 0.180 0.173 0.166 0.159 0.152 0.145 0.139 0.132 0.126 0.119 0.112 0.104 0.096 0.088 0.079 0.070 0.060
26 0.218 0.207 0.198 0.189 0.181 0.173 0.166 0.159 0.152 0.146 0.139 0.133 0.126 0.120 0.113 0.106 0.098 0.090 0.081 0.072 0.062
27 0.218 0.207 0.197 0.188 0.180 0.172 0.165 0.158 0.151 0.145 0.139 0.133 0.127 0.120 0.114 0.107 0.099 0.091 0.083 0.074 0.063
28 0.217 0.206 0.196 0.186 0.178 0.170 0.163 0.156 0.149 0.143 0.137 0.132 0.126 0.120 0.114 0.107 0.100 0.092 0.084 0.075 0.065
29 0.215 0.203 0.193 0.183 0.174 0.166 0.159 0.153 0.146 0.141 0.135 0.130 0.124 0.119 0.113 0.107 0.100 0.093 0.085 0.076 0.066
30 0.212 0.200 0.188 0.179 0.170 0.162 0.155 0.148 0.142 0.137 0.132 0.127 0.122 0.117 0.111 0.106 0.099 0.093 0.085 0.076 0.067
31 0.208 0.195 0.183 0.173 0.164 0.156 0.149 0.143 0.137 0.132 0.127 0.123 0.118 0.114 0.109 0.104 0.098 0.092 0.084 0.076 0.067
32 0.203 0.189 0.177 0.166 0.157 0.149 0.142 0.136 0.131 0.126 0.122 0.118 0.114 0.110 0.106 0.101 0.096 0.090 0.083 0.075 0.066
33 0.197 0.182 0.170 0.159 0.150 0.142 0.135 0.129 0.124 0.120 0.116 0.112 0.109 0.105 0.101 0.097 0.092 0.087 0.080 0.072 0.063
34 0.190 0.175 0.162 0.151 0.141 0.133 0.126 0.121 0.116 0.112 0.109 0.105 0.102 0.099 0.096 0.092 0.088 0.082 0.076 0.069 0.060
35 0.183 0.167 0.153 0.142 0.132 0.124 0.117 0.112 0.107 0.103 0.100 0.098 0.095 0.092 0.089 0.086 0.082 0.077 0.071 0.063 0.055
36 0.175 0.158 0.144 0.132 0.122 0.113 0.107 0.101 0.097 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.087 0.084 0.082 0.079 0.075 0.070 0.064 0.057 0.048
37 0.166 0.149 0.134 0.121 0.111 0.102 0.096 0.091 0.086 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.073 0.070 0.066 0.062 0.056 0.048 0.039
38 0.157 0.139 0.123 0.110 0.099 0.091 0.084 0.079 0.075 0.072 0.070 0.068 0.066 0.065 0.063 0.060 0.057 0.052 0.046 0.038 0.028
39 0.148 0.129 0.112 0.098 0.087 0.078 0.072 0.066 0.062 0.059 0.057 0.056 0.054 0.053 0.051 0.049 0.045 0.040 0.034 0.026 0.015
40 0.139 0.118 0.101 0.086 0.075 0.066 0.058 0.053 0.049 0.046 0.044 0.043 0.041 0.040 0.038 0.035 0.032 0.027 0.020 0.011 0.000
*Lj = Joist span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.
Table 8. Non-composite open web steel joist and non-composite rolled girder framed floor systems, Light weight concrete
CLASS 6: C2 Values
Lj (ft)
Lg (ft) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
15 0.048 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.051 0.052 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.047 0.045 0.043 0.041 0.038 0.035 0.031 0.028 0.023 0.019 0.014
16 0.068 0.069 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.067 0.066 0.065 0.063 0.061 0.059 0.056 0.053 0.050 0.047 0.043 0.039 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020
17 0.087 0.086 0.085 0.084 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.077 0.075 0.072 0.069 0.066 0.063 0.059 0.055 0.051 0.046 0.041 0.036 0.031 0.025
18 0.104 0.102 0.101 0.099 0.097 0.094 0.091 0.089 0.085 0.082 0.079 0.075 0.071 0.066 0.062 0.057 0.052 0.047 0.041 0.036 0.030
19 0.119 0.117 0.115 0.112 0.109 0.106 0.102 0.099 0.095 0.091 0.087 0.082 0.078 0.073 0.068 0.063 0.058 0.052 0.046 0.040 0.034
20 0.133 0.130 0.127 0.123 0.120 0.116 0.112 0.108 0.103 0.099 0.094 0.089 0.084 0.079 0.073 0.068 0.062 0.056 0.050 0.044 0.038
21 0.146 0.142 0.138 0.133 0.129 0.125 0.120 0.115 0.110 0.105 0.100 0.095 0.089 0.084 0.078 0.072 0.066 0.060 0.054 0.047 0.041
22 0.156 0.152 0.147 0.142 0.137 0.132 0.127 0.122 0.116 0.111 0.105 0.099 0.094 0.088 0.082 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 0.050 0.043
23 0.165 0.160 0.155 0.149 0.144 0.138 0.133 0.127 0.121 0.115 0.109 0.103 0.097 0.091 0.085 0.078 0.072 0.065 0.059 0.052 0.045
24 0.173 0.167 0.161 0.155 0.149 0.143 0.137 0.131 0.125 0.118 0.112 0.106 0.099 0.093 0.087 0.080 0.074 0.067 0.060 0.054 0.047
25 0.178 0.172 0.166 0.159 0.153 0.146 0.140 0.134 0.127 0.121 0.114 0.108 0.101 0.094 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 0.061 0.055 0.048
26 0.183 0.176 0.169 0.162 0.155 0.149 0.142 0.135 0.128 0.122 0.115 0.108 0.101 0.095 0.088 0.081 0.075 0.068 0.062 0.055 0.049
27 0.185 0.178 0.171 0.164 0.156 0.149 0.142 0.135 0.128 0.121 0.115 0.108 0.101 0.094 0.088 0.081 0.074 0.068 0.061 0.055 0.049
28 0.186 0.178 0.171 0.163 0.156 0.149 0.141 0.134 0.127 0.120 0.113 0.106 0.100 0.093 0.086 0.080 0.073 0.067 0.060 0.054 0.048
29 0.185 0.178 0.170 0.162 0.154 0.147 0.139 0.132 0.125 0.118 0.111 0.104 0.097 0.091 0.084 0.077 0.071 0.065 0.059 0.053 0.047
30 0.183 0.175 0.167 0.159 0.151 0.144 0.136 0.129 0.121 0.114 0.107 0.101 0.094 0.087 0.081 0.075 0.069 0.063 0.057 0.051 0.045
31 0.179 0.171 0.163 0.155 0.147 0.139 0.131 0.124 0.117 0.110 0.103 0.096 0.089 0.083 0.077 0.071 0.065 0.059 0.054 0.048 0.043
32 0.174 0.165 0.157 0.149 0.141 0.133 0.125 0.118 0.111 0.104 0.097 0.091 0.084 0.078 0.072 0.066 0.061 0.055 0.050 0.045 0.041
33 0.167 0.158 0.150 0.141 0.133 0.126 0.118 0.111 0.104 0.097 0.091 0.084 0.078 0.072 0.067 0.061 0.056 0.051 0.046 0.042 0.037
34 0.158 0.149 0.141 0.133 0.125 0.117 0.110 0.103 0.096 0.089 0.083 0.077 0.071 0.065 0.060 0.055 0.050 0.046 0.041 0.037 0.034
35 0.148 0.139 0.130 0.122 0.115 0.107 0.100 0.093 0.086 0.080 0.074 0.068 0.063 0.058 0.053 0.048 0.044 0.040 0.036 0.033 0.030
36 0.136 0.127 0.119 0.111 0.103 0.096 0.089 0.082 0.076 0.070 0.064 0.059 0.054 0.049 0.045 0.041 0.037 0.033 0.030 0.027 0.025
37 0.122 0.113 0.105 0.098 0.090 0.083 0.076 0.070 0.064 0.058 0.053 0.048 0.044 0.039 0.035 0.032 0.029 0.026 0.024 0.021 0.020
38 0.107 0.098 0.091 0.083 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 0.051 0.046 0.041 0.037 0.033 0.029 0.026 0.023 0.020 0.018 0.016 0.015 0.014
39 0.090 0.082 0.074 0.067 0.060 0.054 0.048 0.042 0.037 0.032 0.028 0.024 0.021 0.018 0.015 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.008
40 0.071 0.064 0.056 0.049 0.043 0.037 0.032 0.027 0.022 0.018 0.014 0.011 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
*Lj = Joist span length, ft.
*Lg = Girder span length, ft.