Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Vibrations of Steel-Framed
Structural Systems
Due to Human Activity
Second Edition
by
The information presented in this publication has been prepared following recognized principles
of design and construction. While it is believed to be accurate, this information should not be
used or relied upon for any specific application without competent professional examination and
verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by a licensed engineer or architect. The
publication of this information is not a representation or warranty on the part of the American
Institute of Steel Construction, its officers, agents, employees or committee members, or of any
other person named herein, that this information is suitable for any general or particular use, or of
freedom from infringement of any patent or patents. All representations or warranties, express or
implied, other than as stated above, are specifically disclaimed. Anyone making use of information
presented in this publication assumes all liability arising from such use.
Caution must be exercised when relying upon standards and guidelines developed by other bodies
and incorporated by reference herein since such material may be modified or amended from time
to time subsequent to the printing of this edition. The American Institute of Steel Construction
bears no responsibility for such material other than to refer to it and incorporate it by reference at
the time of the initial publication of this edition.
David E. Allen, Ph.D. is the retired Senior Research Officer, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Eric E. Ungar, Sc.D., P.E. is Chief Engineering Scientist, Acentech Incorporated, Cambridge, MA.
D. Brad Davis, Ph.D., S.E. is an Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
He is a member of the AISC Committee on Manuals.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the American Institute of Steel Construction for funding the development of this document and for assistance
in its preparation. The authors also wish to thank the following AISC reviewers whose contributions significantly improved the
document.
Preface
This is the second edition of Design Guide 11. The first edition was published in 1997 as Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activ-
ity. The scope of this edition has been broadened as reflected in the new title, Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems
Due to Human Activity. Since 1997, a large volume of literature has been published on the response of steel-framed structural
systems, including floors, monumental stairs and balconies due to human activity. Some human tolerance and sensitive equip-
ment tolerance limits have been modified, and updated methods to evaluate high-frequency systems have been proposed. The use
of the finite element method to analyze structural systems supporting human activity has been refined. Also, simplified methods
to evaluate problem floors have been proposed. This second edition of the Design Guide updates design practice in these areas.
This edition of Design Guide 11 is dedicated to Dr. David E. Allen, retired Senior Research Officer,
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada. Dr. Allen made outstand-
ing contributions to the first edition of this Guide but was unable to participate in the writing of this
second edition because of health reasons. Dr. Allen is known worldwide for his research and writing
on floor vibration serviceability. His interest in vibration of structures due to human activity began in
the early 1970s, and since then he has written numerous papers on the subject. He has been the major
contributor to the vibration provisions in the National Building Code of Canada and is the first author
of the Applied Technology Council Design Guide 1, Minimizing Floor Vibration. In 2004, Dr. Allen
received the Julian C. Smith Medal for Achievement in the Development of Canada. His contribu-
tions to the development of guidelines for the evaluation of floor vibration serviceability will be long
remembered by the structural engineering profession.
ii
iii
iv
e 2 fn
e 2 fn
(a) Harmonic load (b) Periodic load
(c) Transient load (d) Impulsive load
(a) Waveform
(b) Narrowband acceleration spectrum (c) One-third octave velocity spectrum
Fig. 1-4. Example waveform, narrowband spectrum, and one-third octave spectrum.
1
(magnitude at peak)
2
1
2
fn
1
f
Fig. 1-5. Steady-state response of Fig. 1-6. Partial resonant build-up due to walking.
mass-spring-damper system to sinusoidal force.
(a) Heel-drop dynamic force waveform (b) Spectrum
(a) Walking dynamic force waveform due to walking at 1.67Hz (b) Spectrum
average velocity as that caused by an actual footstep. It is most of these experimental programs, subjects walked across
proportional to bodyweight and step frequency and inversely instrumented structures or platforms that measured force
proportional to natural frequency, and has lb-s units. Because waveforms. The measured waveforms themselves are not
the velocity of a single-degree-of-freedom system immedi- useful for the development of response prediction equations,
ately after the application of a unit impulse is the recipro- such as in Chapters4, 5, 6 and 7, because they are compli-
cal of the mass, M, of the system, the peak velocity after a cated functions of time for which no closedform solution
footstep application obeys Equation1-4. The corresponding exists. Also, force waveforms cannot be used in response
peak of the system acceleration just after the footstep appli- history analyses to predict the structural response because
cation is approximated using Equation 1-5. This equation small changes in waveform often result in large changes in
with the fundamental modal mass used for M is the basis for force spectrum and thus large changes in predicted vibration
impulse response predictions in vibration evaluation criteria response. For these reasons, waveforms must be converted
for high-frequency systems. to mathematical representations useful toward predicting the
vibration response. A Fourier series is a summation of sinu-
I eff soids and is the preferred force representation for resonant
v () = (1-4)
M response predictions. An effective impulse is the preferred
representation for single footstep peak response predictions.
Fourier series for various individual activities have been
I eff
a p = ( 2 fn )
(1-5) developed as follows. Measured waveforms were Fourier
M transformed to corresponding spectra such as the one shown
where in Figure 1-8(b). Values at harmonic frequencies provided
Ieff = effective impulse, lb-s estimates of the dynamic coefficient for each significant
Q = bodyweight, lb force harmonic. Experiments also provided estimates of the
ap = peak acceleration, in./s2 expected range of step frequencies. In a few cases, phase
= time immediately after a footstep application, s lags were determined. The Fourier series in Equation 1-7
is formed from the experimentally obtained dynamic coef-
and ficients, step frequency range, and phase lags. The step fre-
fstep1.43 Q quency, fstep, that causes the maximum response is selected
I eff = 1.30 (1-6) within the range so that one harmonic frequency matches a
fn 17.8 natural frequency and causes resonance. (Phase lags are only
used in Chapter7.) Equation1-7 is similar to Equation1-1,
but without the constant term, which represents static force
1.6 WALKING, RUNNING AND RHYTHMIC
and is not used in the prediction of vibrational structural
FORCING FUNCTIONS
response. Table 1-1 summarizes Fourier series parameters
Human-induced dynamic loads for walking and running for several common dynamic loads applied by individual
have been measured and reported by several researchers. In walkers and runners. Note that the walking load parameters
by Rainer et al. (1988) are used in Chapter4 and the ones activity participants distributed over the floor bay in psf,
by Willford et al. (2007) and Smith et al. (2007) are used in determined using the anticipated bodyweight and spacing
Chapters6 and 7. It is noted that the Rainer et al. parameters of rhythmic activity participants. Recommended parameters
are included in the data set used to generate the Willford et for use in Equation1-8 are shown in Table1-2.
al. and Smith et al. parameters. They are listed separately
in the table because they were used to develop the Chap- 1.7 USE OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
ter4 criterion, which very accurately predicts acceptability
Vibration response prediction by finite element analysis is
(Pabian et al., 2013).
needed when the structural system or dynamic loads fall
4 outside the limitations of the manual calculation methods
F (t ) = Q i sin(2 ifstept i ) (1-7) described in Chapters4, 5 or 6. Examples are very irregu-
i =1 larly framed areas, areas with significant cantilevers, bays
supporting localized large masses, some monumental stairs,
For rhythmic activities, the Fourier series is specialized for balconies, and grandstands in stadia. Recommended finite
group uniform dynamic loads, P(t), in psf units, as follows: element analysis modeling; analysis procedures; and exam-
N
ple calculations for floors, monumental stairs and balconies
P(t ) = w p i sin(2 ifstept i ) (1-8) are in Chapter7. For the analysis of grandstands in stadia the
i =1 reader is referred to Dynamic Performance Requirements for
Permanent Grandstands Subject to Crowd Motion (IstructE,
where wp is the best estimate of the unit weight of rhythmic 2008).
P
asteadystate = (2-1)
2 M
P sin ( 2fn t )
P
asteadystate =
2M
Fig. 2-1. Recommended tolerance limits for human comfort. Fig. 2-2. Idealized single-degree-of-freedom system.
where where
M = fundamental modal mass, lb-s2/in. h= number of the harmonic that causes resonance
P = amplitude of the driving force, lb
Recommended dynamic coefficients, i , from Rainer et al.
= damping ratio
(1988) and Allen and Murray (1993) are given in Table2-1.
A series of footstep forces as shown in Figure2-3 is rep- A bodyweight of 157 lb was used by the researchers.
resented by a specialized Fourier series for human-induced Walking step frequencies range between 1.6 and 2.2Hz
forces in Equation1-1. However, only one harmonic com- with the average range being approximately 1.9 to 2.0Hz.
ponent of Equation1-1 is used for design because all oth- As shown in Table2-1, the maximum harmonic frequency is
ers produce small vibrations in comparison to the harmonic near 9Hz. Thus, resonance due to walking is not possible if
associated with resonance as shown in Figure1-8. Because the floor natural frequency is above this frequency.
only one term is used, phase lag is not considered. The first The amplitude, hQ, from Equation2-2 is substituted for
term in Equation 1-1, Q, representing the static weight of P in Equation2-1. Also, a reduction factor, R, is introduced
the walker, which is already on the floor when walking com- to account for incomplete resonant build-up from walking
mences, does not need to be considered. (i.e., full steady-state resonant motion may not be achieved),
Therefore, Equation1-1 reduces to and that the walker and the potentially annoyed person are
not simultaneously at the same location of maximum modal
F (t ) = h Q sin (2 hfstept ) (2-2)
after a footstep with an adjustment factor, RM , to account for and predicted ESPA ratios for 89 walking measurements in
contributions of modes above the fundamental mode, result- five bays in three steel-framed buildings were compared
ing in: to determine the accuracy and conservatism of the predic-
tions. The average ratio of measured-to-predicted (using no
2 fn RM I eff calibration factor, R) ESPA is 0.914 with 27% coefficient of
ap = (2-7)
M variation. Introduction of a calibration factor R= 1.3 adjusts
the prediction so that the probability of a measured ESPA
where exceeding the prediction is only 10%.
RM = higher mode factor= 2.0
Ieff = effective impulse, lb-s, from Equation1-6
aESPA 2 fn RRM I eff 1 e 4 h
M = fundamental modal mass of the floor or pedestrian =
bridge, lb-s2/in. g W h
= W/(2g) 154 fstep
1.43
1 e 4 h
W = effective weight of the floor or weight of the pedes- = (2-10)
W fn
0.3
h
trian bridge, lb
All vibration tolerance limits in this Design Guide are where
expressed in terms of sinusoidal amplitudes, so the peak R = calibration factor=1.3
acceleration from Equation 2-7 must be converted to an h = step frequency harmonic matching the natural fre-
equivalent sinusoidal peak acceleration (ESPA) as described quency (Table2-2)
in Davis etal. (2014). This is accomplished by (1)defining Bodyweight, Q, was assumed to be 168 lb in determining Ieff
the waveform of the response to one footstep; (2)computing for the calibration calculations.
the RMS acceleration of that waveform; and (3) multiply- The design criterion for walking on a high-frequency floor
ing the RMS acceleration by 2, which is the ratio of peak is then Inequality 2-11, which is recommended for floor
acceleration to RMS acceleration for a sinusoid. bays with natural frequencies between 9Hz and 15Hz. The
The individual footstep impulse response, which is an ini- authors are not aware of any vibration serviceability prob-
tial peak acceleration, ap, followed by decay, is computed lems, nor of any experimental data related to human com-
using fort, for steel-framed floors with natural frequencies above
15Hz.
a(t ) = a p e 2 fnt sin(2 fn t ) (2-8)
aESPA ao
The RMS acceleration is found from (2-11)
g g
Tstep
1 where
[ a(t )] dt
2
aRMS = (2-9)
Tstep ao/g= tolerance limit acceleration ratio (Figure2-1)
0
where 2.2.3 Lateral Vibration of Pedestrian Bridges
Tstep = footstep period, s The recent lateral vibration problems of pedestrian bridges
= 1/ fstep have resulted in a large volume of literature on the subject,
By evaluating Equation2-9 with Equation2-7, multiply- but no single method of evaluation has been established.
ing by 2 and simplifying, the ESPA ratio is found as shown The AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for the Design of
in Equation 2-10. This equation, which uses the effective Pedestrian Bridges (AASHTO, 2009) has a minimum lateral
impulse from Equation1-6, includes a calibration factor to frequency requirement of 1.3Hz. There is no recommended
adjust the prediction so as to match measured data. Measured lateral acceleration limit recommendation in the Guide.
To the authors knowledge, there are no recommended tol- Using the dynamic coefficients for harmonic numbers 2
erance limits or dynamic coefficients for lateral vibration of through 4, the approximate step relationship between the
stairs. Thus, it is recommended that the stair lateral vibration dynamic coefficients and natural frequencies 4 Hz and
natural frequency be high enough to avoid resonance with greater is
the first harmonic of the lateral force due to a stair descent.
With descending step frequencies as high as 4Hz, the lateral = 1.13e 0.173 fn (2-15)
force first harmonic can be as high as 2 Hz. Therefore, it
is recommended that the lateral vibration natural frequency, Proceeding as in Section 2.2 with R= 0.7, the design cri-
computed using Equation3-1, be greater than 2.5Hz. terion for running is
where and for joists with continuous round rod web members with
Ichords = moment of inertia of the chord areas alone, in.4 10 L/ D
Icomp = fully composite transformed moment inertia of
slab and chord areas, in.4 L
Cr = 0.721 + 0.00725 0.9 (3-9b)
D
3.5 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPEN
WEB JOISTS AND JOIST GIRDERS with
Web shear deformations and eccentricity at joist and joist- D = nominal depth of joist or joist girder, in.
girder panel points cause member flexibility to be more than L = joist or joist-girder span, in.
that computed assuming flexural deformations alone. From It was also found that joist seats are not sufficiently stiff to
research by Band and Murray (1996), the effective moment justify the full transformed moment of inertia assumption for
of inertia, Ie , which accounts for both effects, can be esti- joist girders or girders supporting standard joists. Based on
mated using research by Band and Murray (1996), the effective moment
of inertia of joist girders supporting standard joist seats is
1 estimated using
Ie = (3-7)
1
+
I chords I comp I e Cr I chords
I g = Cr I chords + (3-10)
4
where
Ichords = moment of inertia of the chord areas alone, in.4
Icomp = fully composite transformed moment of inertia of where Cr is from Equation3-9a or 3-9b and Ie is the effective
the slab and chord areas, in.4 composite moment of inertia from Equation3-7.
Ie = effective moment of inertia of the joist or joist The effective moment of inertia of hot-rolled or built-up
girder accounting for shear deformations and girders supporting standard joist seats is estimated using
joint eccentricities, in.4
I comp I x
and Ig = Ix + (3-11)
4
1 where
= 1 (3-8)
Cr Icomp = fully composite moment of inertia of the slab and
girder areas, in.4
For joists or joist girders with single- or double-angle web Ix = moment of inertia of the girder, in.4
members with 6 L/D
The Steel Joist Institute Technical Digest 5, Vibration
(
Cr = 0.90 1 e )
0.28( L / D ) 2.8
0.9
(3-9a)
Analysis of Steel Joist-Concrete Floor Systems (Murray and
Davis, 2015) includes more information on the analysis of
joist and joist-girder supported floors.
where Lg / Bj is taken as not less than 0.5 nor greater than 1.0 bays in resisting walker-induced vibration. These effects are
for calculation purposes, i.e., 0.5 Lg / Bj 1.0. accounted for as follows:
If the beam or joist span is less than one-half the girder 1. The reduced bending stiffness requires that the coef-
span, the beam or joist panel mode and the combined mode ficient 1.8 in Equation 4-4 be reduced to 1.6 when
should be checked separately. joist seats are present.
2. The nonparticipation of mass in adjacent bays means
Damping
that an increase in effective joist panel weight should
The damping ratio, , can be estimated using the component not be considered; that is, the 50% increase in panel
values shown in Table4-2, noting that damping is cumula- weight, as recommended for shear-connected beam-
tive. For example, a floor with ceiling and ductwork sup- to-girder connections should not be used. If bottom-
porting an electronic office area has = i= 0.01+ 0.01 + chord extensions are installed before the concrete
0.005= 0.025, or 2.5% of critical damping. slab is placed, a 30% increase in panel weight can be
used (Avci, 2014).
4.1.3 Design Considerations
Also, the separation of the girder from the concrete slab
Open Web Joists results in partial composite action, and the moment of inertia
As shown in Figure4-1, an open-web joist is typically sup- of girders supporting joist seats should therefore be deter-
ported at the ends by a seat on the girder flange and the mined using the procedure in Section3.5.
bottom chord is not connected to the girders. This support More information on joist-supported floors is found in the
detail provides much less flexural continuity than shear con- Steel Joist Institute Technical Digest 5, Vibration Analysis
nected beams, reducing both the bending stiffness of the of Steel Joist-Concrete Floor Systems (Murray and Davis,
girder panel and the participation of the mass of adjacent 2015).
a small change in the structural system will usually elimi- step frequency is 2.2 Hz, so the maximum lateral forcing
nate the problem. If one beam or joist stiffness or spacing frequency is 1.1 Hz. Synchronization of walking with lat-
is changed periodicallysay, by 50% in every third bay eral sway will not occur if the natural frequency of lateral
the wave is interrupted at that location and floor motion is vibration exceeds 1.1Hz. Thus, it is recommended that the
much less objectionable. Full-height partitions may achieve natural frequency of lateral vibration be not less than 1.3Hz
the same result. (AASHTO,2009).
Designers of pedestrian bridges are cautioned to pay atten-
Summary tion to the location of the concrete slab relative to the beam
height. If the concrete slab is located between the beams
Figure4-3 is a summary of the procedure for assessing typi-
(because of clearance considerations), the pedestrian bridge
cal low-frequency building floors for walking vibrations.
will vibrate at a much lower frequency and at larger ampli-
tude than if the slab is located above the supporting mem-
4.2 RECOMMENDED EVALUATION CRITERIA
bers, because of the lower transformed moment of inertia.
FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES
The following presents recommended criteria and analysis 4.3 RECOMMENDED EVALUATION CRITERIA
examples for indoor and outdoor pedestrian bridges. FOR LINEAR MONUMENTAL STAIRS
The evaluation criterion for floors can also be used to
determine the vertical vibration acceptance of pedestrian Evaluation of linear monumental stairs for walking vibration
bridges supported by beams or joists and girders. Recom- tolerance consists of three checks (see Section2.3): (1)that
mended tolerance acceleration limits are shown in Table44. the vertical natural frequency of the stair is greater than 5Hz,
A reduction factor of 0.7 is recommended in Section2.2 for (2)that lateral natural frequency is greater than 2.5Hz, and
establishing the driving force because pedestrian bridges are (3) that the vertical acceleration due to a descending indi-
one-way systems, and the walker and the potentially affected vidual or group is less than the relevant tolerance limit for
sensor can be relatively close together. The resulting Po people standing on the stairs. Recommended step frequen-
value is 92 lb, assuming there is only one walker. Bachmann cies for normal and rapid descents and acceleration tolerance
and Ammann (1987) have suggested that for marching by limits for people standing on the stairsnot the walkers
a group, the dynamic loading is the number of walkers, n, are shown in Table4-5. Because stair descent accelerations
times that of a single walker, that is, nPo. And, for a group of are always greater than ascent accelerations, only descents
random walkers, it is n times that for a single walker, nPo. need to be considered in design.
The recommended damping ratio for pedestrian bridges The procedures recommended in the following can be
is 0.01, assuming there is only bare structural framing. If used to analyze linear flights of stairs, such as shown in
a soffit or other element that increases damping exists, the Figure 4-4(a). The procedures can also be adapted using
ratio should be increased. The effective weight, W, is taken engineering judgment for stairs, such as the one shown in
as the total weight of the bridge. The acceleration limit for Figure4-4(b). The finite element method in Chapter7 should
outdoor footbridges should not be used for quiet areas like be used for more complex slender stairs.
crossovers in hotel or office building atria. The maximum
Calculate fj = 0.18 g j .
Determine Ds for slab and deck or estimate using Ds = 12de3 12 n. ( )
Calculate Dj = Ij S. /
( )
4
Calculate Bj = C j Ds D j L j (q) (floor width).
Cj= 2.0 for interior panels; 1.0 for edge panels.
Calculate Wj= wj B j L j ( 1.5 if continuous or web connected or 1.3 if joist bottom chords are extended, and an
adjacent beam or girder span is greater than 0.7 times the joist or beam span of the bay).
Calculate fg = 0.18 g g and Dg = Ig Lj. /
Use average of supported joist span lengths, if different, for L j.
If girder frequencies are different, base remainder of calculations on the girder with lower frequency.
For interior panel, calculate
( )
1/4
B = Cg D j Dg L j (q) (floor length)
g
Cg= 1.8 if shear connected; 1.6 if not.
2
For edge panel, calculate Bg = L.
3 j
Calculate Wg= wg Bg Lg ( 1.5 if girder is continuous over the top of supporting columns and an adjacent girder
span is greater than 0.7 times the girder span in the bay).
(
Calculate fn = 0.18 g j + g . )
/
If Bj > Lg, reduce g by Lg Bj 0.5 (Equation4-6).
j g
Calculate W = Wj + Wg.
j + g j + g
Acceptance Criterion
The acceleration acceptance criterion, Inequality 4-8, for
vertical vibration of linear stairs is similar to that for floors
but somewhat more complex as explained in Section 2.3.
The criterion states that the stair is satisfactory if the peak
acceleration, ap, due to a stair descent as a fraction of the
acceleration of gravity, g, does not exceed the acceleration (a) Linear stair
tolerance limit, ao in %/g, from Table4-5:
RQ cos2
ap
g
= 0.62e fn
Ws
(
W R 1 e 100
ao
g
) (4-8)
where
Q = assumed bodyweight= 168 lb
R = calibration factor (see Table4-5)
Ws = weight of stair, lb
= damping ratio (b) Linear stair with intermediate landing
W = unity normalized mode shape value at the excitation
(walker) Fig. 4-4. Linear stairs.
Solution:
From the AISC Steel Construction Manual (AISC, 2011) Table2-4, hereafter referred to as the AISC Manual, the material prop-
erties are as follows:
Beam and Girder
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
From AISC Manual Table1-1, the geometric properties are as follows:
Beams
W1835
A = 10.3 in.2
Ix = 510 in.4
d = 17.7 in.
Ec = w1.5 fc
= (110 pcf )
1.5
4 ksi
= 2,310 ksi
Es
n= (4-3c)
1.35Ec
29,000 ksi
=
1.35 ( 2,310 ksi )
= 9.30
5w j L4j
j =
384 Es Ij
5(595 plf)(35.0 ft)4 (1, 728 in.3 /ft 3 )
=
384(29 106 psi)(1,840 in.4 )
= 0.376 in.
g
fj = 0.18 (3-3)
j
386 in./ s2
= 0.18
0.376 in.
= 5.77 Hz
12de3
Ds = (4-3b)
12n
(12 in./ft )( 4.25 in.)3
=
12 ( 9.30 )
= 8.25 in.4 /ft
The transformed moment of inertia per unit width in the beam span direction with beam spacing of 10 ft is
Ij
Dj = (4-3a)
S
1,840 in.4
=
10.0 ft
= 184 in.4 /ft
The effective beam panel width from Equation4-3 with Cj= 2.0, because it is a typical bay without a free edge, is
4
Ds
Bj = C j Lj (4-3)
D j
4
8.25 in.4 /ft
= 2.0 ( 35.0 ft )
184 in.4 /ft
= 32.2 ft
Per Equation4-3, the effective beam panel width must be less than two-thirds of the floor width. Because this is a typical exterior
bay, the actual floor width is 5 times the girder span, 5(30.0 ft)= 150 ft. With q(150 ft)= 100 ft > 32.2 ft, the effective beam
panel width is 32.2 ft.
The weight of the beam panel is calculated from Equation4-2. Because the adjacent beam span, 35ft, is greater than 0.7 of the
beam span and the beam is shear connected to the girder, the weight of the beam panel is adjusted by a factor of 1.5 to account
for continuity as explained in Section4.1.2:
wj
Wj = 1.5 B j L j (from Eq. 4-2)
S
595 plf
= 1.5 ( 32.2 ft )( 35.0 ft )
10.0 ft
= 101, 000 lb
Assuming that the deck has a symmetrical profile, the effective width of the slab in the deck is taken as 72 in. The transformed
concrete width of the deck is
72.0 in./ 9.30 = 7.74 in.
(50.4 in.2 ) 20.82 in. + 2.00 in. + 3.252 in. + (15.5 in.2 ) 20.82 in. + 2.002 in.
y =
50.4 in.2 + 15.5 in.2 + 14.7 in.2
= 11.0 in. (above c.g. of girder)
(15.5 in.)( 3.25 in.)3 2
( 7.74 in.)( 2.00 in.)3
Ig =
12
(
+ 50.4 in.2 )
20.8 in.
2
+ 2.00 in. +
3.25 in.
2
11.0 in. +
12
2
(
+ 15.5 in.2
2 )
20.8 in. 2.00 in
+
2
(
11.0 in. + 984 in.4 + 14.7 in.2 (11.0 in.)2
)
= 3, 280 in.4
wj
wg = L j + girder weight per unit length
S
595 plf
= ( 35.0 ft ) + 50.0 plf
10.0 ft
= 2,130 plf
5wg L4g
g =
384 Es Ig
5(2,130 plf)(30.0 ft)4 (1, 728 in.3/ ft 3 )
=
384(29 10 6 psi)(3, 280 in.4 )
= 0.408 in.
g
fg = 0.18 (3-3)
g
386 in. / s 2
= 0.18
0.408 in.
= 5.54 Hz
With
4
Dj 2
Bg = Cg Lg floor length (4-4)
Dg 3
4
183 in.4 /ft
= 1.8 ( 30.0 ft )
93.7 in.4 /ft
= 63.8 ft
Per Equation4-4, the effective beam panel width must be less than or equal to two-thirds of the floor length. Because q(105 ft)=
70.0 ft> 63.8 ft, the girder panel width is 63.8 ft. From Equation4-2, the girder panel weight is
wg
Wg = Bg Lg
L j
2,130 plf
= ( 63.8 ft )( 30.0 ft )
35.0 ft
= 116, 000 lb
g
fn = 0.18 (3-4)
j + g
386 in.2 /s
= 0.18
0.376 in. + 0.408 in.
= 3.99 Hz
Because the girder span (30 ft) is less than the joist panel width (32.3 ft), the girder deflection, g, is reduced according to Equa-
tion4-6. Because 30.0 ft / 32.3 ft 0.5,
Lg
g =
Bj
( g ) (4-6)
30.0 ft
=
32.3 ft
( 0.408 in.)
= 0.379 in.
j g
W= Wj + Wg (from Eq. 4-5)
j + g j + g
0.376 in. 0.379 in.
= (101, 000 lb ) + (116,000 lb )
0.376 in. + 0.379 in. 0.376 in. + 0.379 in.
= 109,000 lb
Evaluation
Using Equation4-1 with Po= 65 lb and = 0.03:
a p Po e 0.35 fn (4-1)
=
g W
(65.0 lb) (e0.35(3.99 Hz) )
=
0.03 (109,000 lb )
= 0.0049 equivalent to 0.49%g
The peak acceleration is less than the tolerance acceleration limit, ap/g of 0.5%, as given in Table4-1. The floor is therefore
predicted to be satisfactory.
Example4.2Typical Interior Bay of an Office Building with Open-Web Joist/Hot-Rolled Girder Framing
Given:
The framing system shown in Figure4-8 is to be evaluated for paper office occupancy. The office space will not have full-height
partitions. The superimposed dead load, including mechanical equipment and ceiling, is assumed to be 4psf. The live load is
assumed to be 11psf. The slab is 5in. total depth, normal weight concrete (wc= 145psf, c ,= 3ksi) on 12-in.-deep deck. The
Solution:
From AISC Manual Table2-4, the material properties are as follows:
Beam and Girder
ASTM A992
Fy = 50 ksi
Fu = 65 ksi
From AISC Manual Table1-1, the geometric properties are as follows:
Girder
W2455
A = 16.2 in.2
Ix = 1,350 in.4
d = 23.6 in.
The joist properties are as follows:
Joist
30K12
Ec = w1.5 fc
= (145 pcf )
1.5
3 ksi
= 3, 020 ksi
Es
n= (4-3c)
1.35Ec
29,000 ksi
=
1.35 ( 3, 020 ksi )
= 7.11
As discussed in Section3.2, the effective concrete slab width used for calculation of the transformed moment of inertia is deter-
mined as follows (refer to Figure 4-9):
min[0.4Li, S] = min[0.4(30.0 ft)(12 in./ft), 48.0 in.]
= 48.0 in.
Using an effective concrete slab depth of 3.50 in., the transformed concrete slab area is
From Section3.5, because 6 Lj/D = (30.0 ft)(12 in./ft)/(30.0 in.) = 12.0, Equation3-9a is applicable:
2.8 (3-9a)
0.28( L j / D )
Cr = 0.90 1 e
2.8
= 0.90 1 e 0.28(12.0 )
= 0.815 < 0.9
Using Equation3-8 and then 3-7, the effective joist transformed moment of inertia is
(3-8)
1
= 1
Cr
1
= 1
0.815
= 0.227 (3-7)
1
Ij =
1
+
I chords I comp
1
=
0.227 1
384 in.4 + 898 in.4
= 587 in.4
For each joist, the uniformly distributed loading, including 11 psf live load and 4 psf dead load for mechanical/ceiling loads, is
1 ft
wj = ( 48.0 in.) (11.0 psf + 53.4 psf + 4.00 psf ) + 17.6 plf
12 in.
= 291 plf
5w j L4j
j =
384 Es I j
5(291 plf)(30.0 ft)4 (1, 728 in.3 /ft 3 )
=
384(29 106 psi)(587 in.4 )
= 0.312 in.
g
fj = 0.18 (3-3)
j
386 in./s2
= 0.18
0.312 in.
= 6.33 Hz
Using an average concrete thickness of de= 4.25 in., the transformed moment of inertia per unit width in the slab span direction is
12de3
Ds = (4-3a)
12n
=
(12 in./ft )( 4.25 in.)
3
12(7.11)
= 10.8 in.4 /ft
The transformed moment of inertia per unit width in the joist span direction with joist spacing of 4 ft is
Ij
Dj = (4-3b)
S
587 in.4
=
4.00 ft
= 147 in.4 /ft
The effective beam panel width from Equation4-3 with Cj= 2.0 is
4
Ds 2
Bj = C j L j floor width (4-3)
D j 3
4
10.8 in.4 /ft
= 2.0 ( 30.0 ft )
147 in.4 /ft
= 31.2 ft
Per Equation4-3, the effective beam panel width must be less than or equal to two-thirds of the floor width. Because q(60.0 ft)=
40.0 ft> 31.2 ft, the effective beam panel width is 31.2 ft.
wj
Wj = Bj L j (from Eq. 4-2)
S
291 plf
= ( 31.2 ft )( 30.0 ft )
4.00 ft
= 68,100 lb
Assuming that the deck has a symmetrical profile, the effective width of the slab in the deck is taken as 48 in. The transformed
concrete width in the deck is
48.0 in./ 7.11 = 6.75 in.
To account for the reduced girder stiffness due to flexibility of the joist seats, Ig is reduced according to Equation3-11:
I comp I x
Ig = Ix + (3-11)
4
5,150 in.4 1,350 in.4
= 1,350 in.4 +
4
= 2,300 in.4
wj
wg = L j + girder weight per unit length
S
291 plf
= ( 30.0 ft ) + 55.0 plf
4.00 ft
= 2, 240 plf
5wg Lg4
g =
384 EI g
=
(
5 ( 2, 240 plf )( 20.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
)
( 6
)(
384 29 10 psi 2,300 in. 4
)
= 0.121 in.
g
fg = 0.18 (3-3)
g
386 in./s 2
= 0.18
0.121 in.
= 10.2 Hz
4
Dj 2
Bg = Cg Lg floor length (4-4)
Dg 3
4
147 in.4 /ft
= 1.6 ( 20.0 ft )
76.7 in.4 /ft
= 37.7 ft
From Equation4-4, the effective width must be less than or equal to two-thirds of the floor length. Because q(90.0 ft) = 60.0 ft>
37.7 ft, the girder floor length is taken as 37.7 ft. From Equation4-2, the girder panel weight is
wg
Wg = Bg Lg (from Eq. 4-2)
L j
2, 240 plf
= ( 37.7 ft )( 20.0 ft )
30.0 ft
= 56,300 lb
g
fn = 0.18 (3-4)
j + g
386 in./ s 2
= 0.18
0.312 in. + 0.121 in.
= 5.37 Hz
The girder span (20 ft) is less than the effective joist panel width (Bj= 31.2 ft); therefore, the girder deflection, g, must be
reduced. From Equation4-6 and noting that 20.0 ft / 31.2 ft = 0.641 0.5
Lg
g =
Bj
( g ) (4-6)
20.0 ft
= (0.121 in.)
31.2 ft
= 0.0776 in.
j g
W= Wj + Wg (from Eq. 4-5)
j + g j + g
0.312 in. 0.0776 in.
= ( 68,100 lb ) + ( 56,300 lb )
0.312 in. + 0.0776 in. 0.312 in. + 0.0776 in.
= 65, 700 lb
Walking Evaluation
The peak acceleration is determined using Equation4-1 with Po= 65 lb and = 0.03 as follows:
a p Po e 0.35 fn
= (4-1)
g W
The peak acceleration is equal to the tolerance acceleration limit, ao /g of 0.5%, as given in Table4-1. The floor is therefore pre-
dicted to be satisfactory.
Fig. 4-11. Mezzanine with edge beam member framing details for Example4.3.
Solution:
Beam Mode Properties
From Example4.1:
Bj = 32.3 ft / 2 (because Cj = 1.0)
= 16.2 ft for an unstiffened edge panel
Dj = 183 in.4/ft
Ds = 8.25 in.4/ft
fj = 5.77Hz
wj = 595 plf
j = 0.376 in.
From Equation4-3, because the actual floor width is 30 ft and q(30.0 ft)= 20.0 ft > 16.2 ft, the effective beam panel width is
16.2ft.
The effective weight of the beam panel is calculated from Equation4-2, adjusted by a factor of 1.5 to account for continuity in
the beam direction:
Wj = 1.5wjBj Lj
= 1.5(595 plf /10.0 ft)(16.2 ft)(35.0 ft)
= 50,600 lb
j g
W= Wj + Wg (4-5)
j + g j + g
0.376 in. 0.408 in.
=
0.376 in. + 0.408 in.
( 50,600 lb ) +
0.376 in. + 0.408 in.
(116, 000 lb)
= 84,600 lb
Evaluation
Using Equation4-1, with Po= 65 lb and = 0.03:
The peak acceleration is greater than the tolerance acceleration limit, ao / g, of 0.5%, as given in Table4-1. In this example, the
edge member is a beam, and thus the beam panel width is half that of an interior bay. The result is that the combined panel does
not have sufficient mass to satisfy the design criterion.
Solution:
Beam Mode Properties
From Example4.1:
Bj = 32.3 ft
Dj = 183 in.4/ft
Ds = 8.25 in.4/ft
fj = 5.77Hz
wj = 595 plf
j = 0.376 in.
Fig. 4-12. Mezzanine with girder edge member framing details for Example4.4.
Wj = w j Bj L j (4-2)
595 plf
= ( 32.3 ft )( 35.0 ft )
10.0 ft
= 67,300 lb
Lj wj
wg = + girder weight per unit length
2 S
35.0 ft 595 plf
= + 50.0 plf
2 10.0 ft
=1,090 plf
The transformed moment of inertia, assuming effective slab widths of 72 in. above the deck and 36 in. for concrete in the sym-
metrical profile deck, is Ig= 2,880 in.4 The corresponding deflection is
5wg L4g
g =
384 Es I g
=
( )
5 (1, 090 plf )( 30.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 / ft 3
4
= 0.238 in.
As recommended in Section4.1.3 for interior floor edges, the girder panel width is limited to two-thirds of the beam span and is
determined as follows:
2
Bg = L j
3
2
= ( 35.0 ft )
3
= 23.3 ft
g
fn = 0.18 (3-4)
j + g
386 in./ s 2
= 0.18
0.376 in. + 0.238 in.
= 4.51 Hz
In this case, the girder span (30ft) is less than the joist panel width (32.3ft), and the girder deflection, g, is therefore reduced
according to Equation4-6. Because 30.0 ft / 32.3 ft 0.5 and 1.0,
Lg
g =
Bj
( g ) (4-6)
30.0 ft
= (0.238 in.)
32.3 ft
= 0.221 in.
j g
W= Wj + Wg (from Eq. 4-5)
j + g j + g
0.376 in. 0.221 in.
= ( 67,300 lb ) + ( 43,500 lb )
0.376 in. + 0.221 in. 0.376 in. + 0.221 in.
= 58,500 lb
Evaluation
Using Equation4-1 with Po= 65 lb and = 0.03:
ap Po e 0.35 fn
= (4-1)
g W
The peak acceleration is greater than the acceleration limit, ao/g, of 0.5%g, from Table4-1. The floor is determined to be unsat-
isfactory in this example.
Because the mezzanine floor is only one bay wide normal to the edge girder, both the beams and the girder may need to be stiff-
ened to satisfy the criterion.
Solution:
From AISC Manual Table1-1, the geometric properties are as follows:
Beams
W2144
A = 13.0 in.2
Ix = 843 in.4
Iy = 20.7 in.4
d = 20.7 in.
The properties of the deck are determined as follows:
Ec = w1.5 fc
= (145 pcf)1.5 4 ksi
= 3, 490 ksi
Es
n = (4-3c)
1.35Ec
29, 000 ksi
=
1.35 ( 3, 490 ksi )
= 6.16
Slab weight= 72.5 psf
Because the pedestrian bridge is not supported by girders, only the beam panel mode needs to be investigated.
5w j L4j
j =
384 Es I j
=
(
5 (813 plf )( 40.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
)
(
384 29 10 6
psi )( 5,830 in. )
4
= 0.277 in.
g
f j = 0.18 (3-3)
j
386 in./ s2
= 0.18
0.277 in.
= 6.72 Hz
The effective beam panel width, Bj , is 10 ft because the entire footbridge will vibrate as a simple beam. The weight of the beam
panel is then
Wj = wj Lj
= (813 plf)(40.0 ft)
= 32,500 lb
ap Po e 0.35 fn
= (4-1)
g W
(92.0 lb) (e0.35(6.72 Hz ) )
=
0.01( 32,500 lb )
= 0.0269 equivalent to 2.69%g
The peak acceleration is less than the acceleration limit 5%g for outdoor footbridges per Table4-4. The footbridge is therefore
satisfactory for a single walker. The number of random walkers near the center of the bridge to cause an acceleration of 5%g is:
2
5.0%g
n=
2.7%g
= 3.43
ap 0.79Qe 0.173 fn ao
= (2-16)
g W g
=
(
0.79 (168 lb ) e 0.173(6.72 Hz ) )
0.01( 32,500 lb )
= 0.128 equivalent to 12.8%g
This acceleration ratio exceeds the limit for outdoor pedestrian bridges, as shown in Figure2-1, and therefore is judged unaccept-
able for running activities with stationary people on the bridge.
2
gEs I t
fn = (3-1)
2 wL4
( )( )( )
2
2 6 4
386 in./s 29 10 psi 45,900 in.
=
(
2 (813 plf )( 40.0 ft )4 1,728 in.3 /ft 3)
= 18.8 Hz
The natural frequency of lateral vibration exceeds the minimum recommended lateral frequency for walking, 1.3Hz, by a wide
margin, so the bridge satisfies the lateral vibration criterion. Assuming a minimum lateral frequency for running of 2.5Hz, which
is greater than one-half a running speed of 4Hz, the bridge is satisfactory for this loading case.
Solution:
From AISC Manual Table1-11, the geometric properties are as follows:
Stringer
HSS2012a
A = 21.5 in.2
Ix = 1,200 in.4
Iy = 547 in.4
( )( )( )
2
386 in./s 29 10 psi 2, 400 in.
2 6 4
=
(
2 (15,500 lb )( 36.9 ft )3 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
)
= 7.02 Hz
As discussed in Section4.3, because the stair vertical natural frequency is greater than 5.0Hz, the design is satisfactory for this
check.
( )( )( )
2
386 in./s 29 10 psi 1, 090 in.
2 6 4
=
(
2 (15,500 lb )( 36.9 ft )3 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
)
= 4.73 Hz
As discussed in Section4.3, because the stair horizontal natural frequency is greater than 2.5Hz, the design is satisfactory for
this check.
xW
W = sin (4-9)
Ls
(17.3 ft )
= sin
36.9 ft
= 0.995
xR
R = sin (4-10)
Ls
(15.1 ft)
= sin
36.9 ft
= 0.960
The predicted acceleration ratio from Equation4-8 with R= 0.7 and = 0.29 from Table4-5 is
RQ cos 2
ap
g
= 0.62e fn
Ws
(
W R 1 e 100 )
ao
g
17.5 ft
with = tan 1
32.5 ft
(4-8)
= 28.3
ap
= 0.62e 0.29(7.02 Hz)
(
0.7 (168 lb ) cos 2 28.3 )
( 0.995)( 0.960 ) 1 e 100( 0.03)
g 0.03 (15,500 lb )
= 0.0144 or 1.44%g
The predicted peak acceleration does not exceed the Table4-5 tolerance limit, 1.7%g; thus, individuals descending the stair at
normal speeds are not expected to cause objectionable vibrations from people standing on the stair.
RQ cos 2
ap
g
= 0.62e fn
Ws
(
W R 1 e 100
g
)
ao
(4-8)
The predicted peak acceleration does not exceed the Table4-5 tolerance limit, 3%g; thus, individuals rapidly descending the stair
are not expected to cause objectionable vibrations from people standing on the stair.
This acceleration exceeds the Table4-5 tolerance limit of 4.5%g. Consequently, this loading is expected to cause strongly per-
ceptible vibrations. The stair is unsatisfactory if this load case is to be considered.
vertical vibration of the structure, fn. Also important is the g , j = beam or joist and girder deflections determined as
loading function of the activity (Table5-2) and the transmis- described in Chapter3, in.
sion of vibration to sensitive occupancies of the building.
The contribution of column deflection, c, is generally
Of lesser importance are the supported weight, wt , and the
small compared to joist and girder deflections for buildings
damping ratio, .
with few (one to five) stories but becomes significant for
buildings with many (more than six) stories because of the
Fundamental Natural Frequency, fn
increased length of the column spring. For high-rise build-
The floor fundamental natural frequency is much more ings (more than 15 stories), the natural frequency due to the
important in relation to rhythmic excitation than it is for column springs alone may be in resonance with the second
walking excitation, and therefore, more care is required for harmonic of the jumping frequency (Allen, 1990a; Lee et
its estimation. For determining fundamental natural fre- al., 2013).
quency, it is important to keep in mind that the participat- A more accurate estimate of natural frequency may be
ing structure extends all the way down to the foundations obtained by finite element modeling of the structural system
and even into the ground. Equation3-5 can be used to esti- using the methods described in Chapter7.
mate the natural frequency of the structure, including the
beams or joists, girders and columns, and is repeated here Acceleration Limit, ao / g
for convenience.
The acceleration tolerance limits in Table 5-1 are for the
g affected occupancies on the activity floor. The fundamen-
fn = 0.18 (3-5) tal mode shape can be used to estimate accelerations in
j + g + c
other sensitive locations in the building and those estimated
where accelerations are then compared to the tolerance limits in
c = axial shortening of the supporting column or wall Table5-1.
due to the weight supported, in.
5w j L4j
j =
384 Es I j
=
(
5 ( 75.0 psf ) ( 4.00 ft )( 45.0 ft )4 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3 )
( 6
)(
384 29 10 psi 2,600 in. 4
)
= 0.367 in.
Because there are no girders, g= 0, and because the axial deformation of the wall can be neglected, c= 0. Thus, the fundamen-
tal natural frequency of the floor, from Equation3-5, is approximately
g
fn = 0.18 (3-5)
j + g + c
386 in./s 2
= 0.18
0.367 in. + 0 in. + 0 in.
= 5.84 Hz
( 22.5 ft )( 24.0 ft )
wp = (12.5 psf ) = 2.08 psf
( 45.0 ft )( 72.0 ft )
The peak accelerations due to the 1st and 2nd harmonics of the dynamic force, as required in Table52, are determined from
Equation5-2 with wt= 75.0 psf, wp= 2.08 psf, = 0.06, i= 1, 2 and with 1= 0.50 and 2= 0.05 from Table5-2. The predicted
peak accelerations for step frequencies from 1.5 to 2.7Hz using Equations51 and 52 are shown in Table53 and plotted in
Figure52.
Fig. 5-2. Peak acceleration versus step frequency results for Example5.1.
Evaluation
From Table5-1, a tolerance acceleration limit of 2%g is selected; i.e., ao /g = 0.02. The maximum predicted peak acceleration
occurs at a step frequency of 2.70Hz and is 1.08%g, which is less than this selected tolerance acceleration limit. Therefore, the
framing is satisfactory for dining and dancing for the size of the dance floor shown in Figure5-1.
Solution:
The uniform load supported by a beam is
wb = (4.00 psf + 56.4 psf + 4.20 psf)(7.50 ft) + 35.0 plf
= 520 plf
The equivalent uniform load supported by the girder assuming 11 psf live load on the adjacent bay is
520 plf 36.0 ft 15.0 ft
wg = + ( 4.00 psf + 56.4 psf + 11.0 psf ) + 55.0 plf
7.50 ft 2 2
= 1,840 plf
5wb L4b
b =
384 Es I b
=
( )
5 ( 520 plf )( 36.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
= 0.353 in.
5wg L4g
g =
384 Es I g
=
(
5 (1,840 plf )( 30.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
)
( 6
)(
384 29 10 psi 4, 740 in. 4
)
= 0.244 in.
The axial shortening of the columns is calculated from the axial stress due to the weight supported. Assuming an axial stress, fa,
of 6 ksi and a first floor column length of 16 ft:
a L c
c =
E
=
(6.00 ksi )(16.0 ft )(12 in./ft )
29,000 ksi
= 0.0397 in.
g
fn = 0.18 (3-5)
b + g + c
386 in./s2
= 0.18
0.353 in. + 0.244 in. + 0.0397 in.
= 4.43 Hz
Evaluation
The maximum peak acceleration of 40.1%g, which far exceeds the recommended tolerance limit of 4 to 7%g, indicates that the
vibrations will be unacceptable, not only for the aerobics floor, but also for adjacent areas on the second floor. Furthermore, other
areas of the building supported by the aerobics floor columns will probably be subjected to vertical accelerations that are unac-
ceptable for most occupancies.
Fig. 5-4. Peak acceleration versus step frequency results for Example5.2.
response to walking is shown in Figure1-4(a). In this case, walking applies to areas with clear walking paths, such as
it is appropriate to consider each footstep as exerting an corridors.
impulse, resulting in a vibration that rapidly reaches a peak Table 6-1 includes the average step frequency, fstep, the
and then decays until arrival of the next footstep. fourth harmonic maximum frequency, f4max, and the inter-
Floors with natural frequencies in an intermediate zone mediate zone lower and upper boundaries for each speed. A
around the fourth harmonic maximum frequency probably dynamic load parameter, , based on the Willford et al. (2007)
exhibit behavior between that of low- and high-frequency second through fourth dynamic coefficients in Table1-1, is
floors. also included. Note that the response to very slow walking
Table 6-1 includes the four walking speeds used in this is computed using the impulse response equations in the fol-
chapter. Very slow walking applies to areas with one or lowing sections, thus f4max, fL, fU and are not required.
two walkers and limited walking paths; examples are labo-
ratories with fewer than three workers and medical imag- 6.1.4 Evaluation Against Generic Velocity Limits
ing rooms. Slow walking applies to areas with three or four
The generic tolerance limits are given in terms of root-mean-
potential walkers and limited walking paths. Moderate walk-
square (RMS) spectral velocities in one-third octave bands
ing applies to busy areas with fairly clear walking paths. Fast
of frequency. These limits, typically labeled as vibration cri-
teria (VC) curves, are shown in Figure6-2; Table6-2 pres-
ents a list of equipment and activities to which the generic
Fig. 6-1. Bay showing equipment and footstep locations. Fig. 6-2. Generic vibration criteria (VC) curves.
limits apply (Ungar et al., 2006, adapted from Amick et al., 175 106 fn
2005). The velocity tolerance unit is micro-in./s (mips). The e if fn f L
W fn
curves are valid below 80Hz, but the prediction methods in V3 = (6-3b)
2.43
this chapter have only been verified to approximately 15Hz.
In terms of these velocities, the root-mean-square (RMS)
250 106 fstep
W fn1.8
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) if f n fU
floor vibrations at midbay due to walking at midbay may be
estimated using Equation 6-3a for very slow walking and where , fL, fU and fstep are from Table6-1 and W is the effec-
Equation 6-3b for slow, moderate or fast walking. Equa- tive weight in lb.
tion 6-3a predicts the impulse response. The first expres- The resonant response expression is based on Liu (2015)
sion in Equation 6-3b predicts the resonant response of and pertains to a six-footstep resonant build-up. The impulse
low-frequency floors, and the second expression predicts the response expression is based on Liu and Davis (2015) and
impulse response of high-frequency floors. In the intermedi- the effective impulse approach from Chapter1; it considers
ate zone, the response is predicted using linear interpolation a four-second series of footsteps. The expressions are for a
between the resonant response at fL and impulse response 168-lb walker and a total walking event duration of 8 seconds
atfU. and include an empirical adjustment based on measured data
selected so that the calculated results are exceeded by only
2.43 10% of the measured data.
V3 =
250 106 fstep
W fn1.8
(
1 e 2 fn )
fstep
(6-3a) Figure 6-3 presents design aid plots of V3W versus fn
obtained from calculations based on Equation 6-3 for two
values of damping and the four walking speeds of Table6-1.
2.43 7.2 fn
VNB =
490106 fstep
W fn2.3
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) (6-6a)
ANB W
e if fn f L
= 2.43
(6-7b)
g 8.0 fstep
W fn1.3
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) if f n fU
A3 4.2 fstep
g
=
W fn0.8
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) (6-8a)
6.4 fn
e if fn f L
A3 W
= 2.43
(6-8b)
g 4.2 fstep
W fn0.8
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) if f n fU
where , fL, fU and fstep are from Table6-1 and W is the effec- Fig. 6-10. Example one-third octave velocity spectrum and
tive weight in lb. tolerance limit (narrowband velocity spectrum shown dashed).
3
3
below fL by a factor of 1.6 0.75 1.42 and at frequencies above and thus the response to walking is computed using Equa-
fU by only 1.6 0.1 1.05. The same increase of the effective tion6-9a for very slow walking and Equation6-9b for slow,
weight would decrease ANB below fL by a factor of 1.6 but moderate or fast walking. In Equation6-9b, the first expres-
would increase VNB above fU by a factor of 1.6 0.15 1.07. sion predicts the resonant response of low-frequency floors,
The effects of stiffness changes may be assessed similarly and the second expression predicts the impulse response of
where the exponent on k is greater than that on W. Stiffness high-frequency floors. The response of floors with natural
changes have a greater effect than changes in weight by the frequencies between fL and fU is predicted using linear inter-
same factor. polation between the resonant response at fL and impulse
Note that the tabulated factors do not apply if a floor response at fU. Each expression includes a calibration fac-
parameter change results in changing the natural frequency tor selected such that the predicted and measured responses
from below fL to above fU, or vice versa. Such changes result are equal, on average. (The predicted velocities from Equa-
in large changes in the response, as evident in the design aid tion6-9 are less than those from Equation6-3, reflecting the
charts. subjective nature of human response to vibrations versus the
strict adherence required for sensitive equipment.)
6.1.7 Nonstructural Approaches to Reducing Vibration
2.43
ofEquipment
V3 =
200 106 fstep
W fn1.8
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) (6-9a)
The vibration exposure of sensitive equipment may be
reduced by relocating the equipment to a location with low
mode shape amplitude and, thus, relatively low vibrations,
such as near columns or stiff girders, and away from busy
corridors. It also is advantageous to locate corridors along
column lines. Limiting walking speedse.g., by introduc-
ing turns or obstacles in extended corridorscan signifi-
cantly reduce walking-induced vibrations.
Carpeting, rubber mats and the like do not reduce the
footfall forces transmitted to the structural floor apprecia-
bly and thus are not useful for reduction of walking-induced
vibrations. According to Galbraith and Barton (1970), who
studied the effect of shoe and surface hardness, the variation
from test-to-test using the same footwear and surface was as
great as the variability between tests with different footwear
and surface.
3
200 10 6 fstep
W fn1.8
(
1 e 2 fn fstep
) if f n fU
slow and very slow walking. Most patient rooms and simi-
lar areas have full-height partitions; therefore, the curves are
plotted for 5% damping.
with linear interpolation between fL and fU, and where fL, The computed velocity response is at midbay due to walk-
fU, W, fstep, and are determined as explained in Sections ing at midbay, which is the most severe case. The response
6.1.2 and 6.1.3. can be scaled by unity-normalized mode shape values as
The natural frequency, fn, is computed using Equation6-1. described in Section6.1.2.
Alternatively, it can be computed using the Chapter7 finite
Ec = w1.5 fc
= (115 pcf )
1.5
3 ksi
= 2,140 ksi
Es
n= (4-3c)
1.35Ec
29, 000 ksi
=
1.35 ( 2,140 ksi )
= 10.0
5wb L4b
b =
384 Es I b
=
( )
5 ( 430 plf )( 30.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
= 0.243 in.
386 in./ s 2
= 0.18
0.243 in.
= 7.17 Hz
5wg L4g
g =
384 Es I g
=
(
5 (1,900 plf )( 28.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 / ft 3
4
)
(
384 29 10 6
psi )( 4, 250 in. )
4
= 0.213 in.
g
fg = 0.18 (3-3)
g
386 in./s 2
= 0.18
0.213 in.
= 7.66 Hz
f n = min(f b , fg)(6-1)
= min(7.17 Hz, 7.66 Hz)
= 7.17 Hz
b g
W= Wb + Wg (from Eq. 4-5)
b + g b + g
0.243 in. 0.213 in.
=
0.243 in. + 0.213 in.
( 77.7 kips ) +
0.243 in. + 0.213 in.
( 70.9 kips)
= 74.5 kips
175 106 fn
V3 = e (from Eq. 6-3b)
W fn
175 106 0.08( 7.17 Hz )
= e
0.05 ( 74,500 lb ) 7.17 Hz
= 9,890 mips
For comparison, Figure6-3 indicates V3 W 7.35108 mips-lb for fast walking, = 0.05, and fn= 7.17Hz. Thus, V3= 7.35108
mips-lb/ 74,500 lb= 9,870 mips.
As shown in Figure6-13, the walker is not at midbay, so the predicted response is scaled by the mode shape value at the walker
location, W. Because the beam frequency is lower than the girder frequency, Equation6-2a applies. Taking D-2 as the origin of
the coordinate system and noting that the x-direction is parallel to Gridline D, xW= 8 ft and yW= 14 ft (critical walker location
is at midspan),
xW ( yW + Lg )
W = sin sin (from Eq. 6-2a)
Lb 3 Lg
(8.00 ft ) (14.0 ft + 28.0 ft )
= sin sin
30.0 ft 3 ( 28.0 ft )
= 0.743
As discussed in Section6.1.2, because the sensitive equipment can be anywhere in the bay, W= 1.0, and the predicted maximum
velocity is
V3 = 0.743(1.0)(9,890 mips)
= 7,350 mips
This velocity does not exceed the generic vibration limit of the sensitive equipment of 8,000 mips; therefore, the framing is
considered satisfactory.
Solution:
From the recommended values given in Table4-2, the estimated damping ratio is determined as follows:
= 0.01 (structural system) + 0.01 (ceiling and ductwork) + 0.01 (similar to paper office fit-out) + 0.02 (partitions)
= 0.05
Ec = w1.5 fc
= (145 pcf )
1.5
3.5 ksi
= 3, 270 ksi
5wb L4b
b =
384 Es I b
5(907 plf)(31.0 ft)4 (1, 728 in.3 /ft 3 )
=
384(29 106 psi)(6, 280 in.4 )
= 0.103 in.
g
fb = 0.18 (3-3)
b
386 in./s 2
= 0.18
0.103 in.
= 11.0 Hz
Using the procedures described in Chapter4:
Bb = 32.6 ft
Ds = 64.2 in.4/ft
Db = 841 in.4/ft
Wb = 183 kips
w
wg = Lb b + girder weight per unit length
S
907 plf
= ( 31.0 ft ) + 118 plf
7.50 ft
= 3,870 plf
5wg L4g
g =
384 Es I g
=
(
5 ( 3,870 plf )( 30.0 ft ) 1, 728 in.3 /ft 3
4
)
( 6
)(
384 29 10 psi 19,500 in. 4
)
= 0.125 in.
g
fg = 0.18 (3-3)
g
386 in./s2
= 0.18
0.125 in.
= 10.0 Hz
f n = min (f b, fg)(6-1)
= min (11.0Hz, 10.0Hz)
= 10.0Hz
b g
W= Wb + Wg (from Eq. 4-5)
b + g b + g
0.103 in. 0.125 in.
=
0.103 in. + 0.125 in.
(183 kips) + 0.103 in. + 0.125 in. ( 217 kips)
= 202 kips
( x E + Lb ) yE
E = sin sin L (from Eq. 6-2b)
3 Lb g
With the walker location assumed to be at midspan of the beams, 1 ft-6 in. from the corridor wall, xW= 15.5 ft and yW= 23.5 ft,
( xW + Lb ) yW
W = sin sin L (from Eq. 6-2b)
3 Lb g
This acceleration ratio agrees with the ap/g value obtained using Figure6-6 multiplied by the mode shape values.
Because ap= 0.10%g approximately equals the waveform peak acceleration limit, 0.1%g, the criterion is satisfied, and the fram-
ing is satisfactory to support the sensitive equipment.
Example6.3Evaluation of Framing Supporting Sensitive Equipment with Generic Vibration Criteria (VC) Limit
Given:
The floor of Example6.2 is to be evaluated for its ability to support sensitive equipment with a VC-C limit (see Figure6-2) due
to very slow, slow, moderate and fast walking using the design aid shown in Figure6-15.
From Table6-2, the tolerance limit VC-C is a one-third octave spectral velocity of 500 mips. Figure6-15 is Figure6-3 with the
V3W values at 10Hz shown for very slow, slow, moderate and fast walking.
Solution:
From Example6.2, fn= 10.0Hz, W= 202 kips, = 0.05, and the unity-normalized mode shape values at the equipment and
walker locations are 0.716 and 0.629, respectively.
From Figure6-15, V3W= 1.3108 mips-lb for very slow walking, and the predicted response is
From Figure6-15, V3W= 3.7108 mips-lb for fast walking, and the predicted response is
The velocities for moderate and fast walking exceed the generic 500 mips VC-C tolerance limit, and therefore the framing is not
satisfactory to support the sensitive equipment. If available, specific tolerance limits for specific items of equipment may permit
greater vibrations and result in acceptability of the predicted magnitudes.
3
Solution:
The following are the fundamental modal properties from Example6.1:
Fundamental frequency: fn= 7.17Hz
Effective weight: W= 74.5 kips
Damping: = 0.05
Unity-normalized mode shape at the corridor walking path: W= 0.743
The response to fast walking in the corridor is predicted using Equation6-9b for resonant build-up when fn < fL = 8 Hz, where fL
and are from Table6-1.
120 106 fn
V3 = e (from Eq. 6-9b)
W fn
120 106 0.08( 7.17 Hz )
= e
0.05 ( 74,500 lb ) 7.17 Hz
= 6, 780 mips
As shown in Figure6-13, because the walker is not at midbay, the predicted response is scaled by the mode shape value at the
walker location.
Therefore, the predicted velocity with W= 0.743 is
V3 = 0.743(6,780 mips)
= 5,040 mips
Evaluation
The predicted velocities do not exceed the 6,000 mips tolerance limit; therefore, objectionable vibrations are not expected, and
the framing is satisfactory to support the sensitive-occupancy patient rooms. (For comparison, the predicted acceleration due to
normal walking using the methods in Chapter4 is 0.25%g.)
(a) Load and acceleration response locations (b) Sinusoidal load with unit amplitude and resulting response
Cladding:
280 plf
Line mass =
32.2 ft/s2
= 8.70 plf-s 2 /ft
Member masses:
Computed by the program.
Slab Stiffness
1.35Ec = 1.35wc1.5 fc
= 1.35(110 pcf)1.5 3 ksi
= 2, 700 ksi
= 0.2
Slab moments of inertia were computed using basic mechanics principles. For simplicity, only the concrete area and moment of
inertia are included in the calculations.
Moment of inertia perpendicular to the ribs, considering only the concrete above the ribs= 34.3 in.4/ft
Moment of inertia parallel to the ribs, considering concrete in and above the ribs= 102 in.4/ft
Model Development
The model in Figure7-6 was created in a commercially available structural analysis program. Bay D3/E4 and the cantilevered
area between E3/F4 will be evaluated. The model extends one bay to the west to Gridline C, and two bays to the north and two
bays to the south, to Gridlines 1 and 6. Nodes are vertically restrained along Gridlines 1 and 6 to prevent motion at the boundar-
ies of the model. For the same reason, beams along Gridline C are stiffened by a factor of 10 to prevent vertical movement along
Gridline C. All members are modeled with continuous connections. Uniform mass is assigned to the shells and cladding line
mass is assigned to each member along Gridline F.
= 0.09e0.075fn(7-2)
= 0.09e0.075(3.49)
= 0.069
For = 0.025,
From Figure7-9, FRFMax= 0.0344 %g/ lb, and the predicted peak sinusoidal acceleration due to walking is
ap = FRFMax Q(7-1)
= (0.0344 %g/lb)(0.069)(168 lb)(0.938)
= 0.374%g < 0.5%g no complaints are predicted
Similarly, the predicted peak acceleration due to excitation of the 4.89Hz mode with FRFMax= 0.0362 %g/lb, is 0.351%g, which
does not exceed the 0.5%g tolerance limit. Thus, no complaints are predicted.
= 0.09e0.075fn(7-2)
= 0.09e0.075(7.05)
= 0.0530
Fig. 7-9. Tip Location FRF magnitudes, Example7.1. Fig. 7-10. Backspan location FRF magnitudes, Example7.1.
ap = FRFMaxQ(7-1)
= (0.0207 %g/lb)(0.0530)(168 lb)(0.938)
= 0.173%g < 0.5%g no complaints are predicted.
Similarly, the predicted peak acceleration due to excitation of the 8.85Hz mode with FRFMax= 0.0332%g/lb, is 0.242%g, which
does not exceed the tolerance limit in Figure2-1 at 8.85Hz, which is slightly greater than 0.5%g.
The FRF magnitudes at 7.95Hz and 7.05Hz are approximately equal, and at 7.95Hz is less than at 7.05Hz. Thus, the peak
acceleration due to excitation of the 7.95Hz mode is lower than 0.173%g.
No predicted acceleration exceeds 0.5%g; therefore, the floor is predicted to be satisfactory.
The high-frequency 9.35Hz mode is evaluated for individual footstep impulse responses. The FRF magnitudes for all modes
up to 20Hz are found first. The 38modes between 3.49Hz and 20Hz are summarized in Table7-2. The 22ndmode at 12.6Hz,
shown in Figure7-11, has the highest FRF magnitude; thus, it is used to find the controlling step frequency. From Table7-1, the
sixth harmonic can match the 12.6Hz natural frequency; therefore, fstep, is 12.6Hz / 6= 2.1Hz. Because the program reports
mass-normalized mode shapes, the units are (in./ kip-s2)0.5.
The response of each mode is computed using Equations7-4 and 7-5, where the mode shape values i and j are at the backspan
node.
Using Mode 22 for example, the effective impulse is
fstep1.43 Q
I eff ,22 = (1-6)
fn ,22 17.8
1.30
The peak acceleration due to Mode 22 from Equation7-4, with i,22 from Table7-2, is then
( ) 1,1.01
2 lb-s 100%g
= 2 (12.6 Hz) 3.15 in./kip-s 2
000 lb/kip 386 in./s
2
= 0.206%g
All modal responses are computed and superimposed over the footstep period, Tstep = 1/ fstep = 0.476 s, to obtain the total response.
The Mode 22 and total responses are shown in Figure7-12.
Because the peak acceleration, 0.865%g, is not comparable to sinusoidal acceleration tolerance limits, the equivalent sinusoidal
peak acceleration (ESPA) is computed using Equation7-6. The total acceleration equation is sampled at 0.005 s to generate a
vector of N discrete accelerations, ak, over the footstep period. The ESPA is
2 N 2
aESPA = ak
N k =1
(from Eq. 7-6)
= 0.314%g
7.4.2 Running on Level Floors and Tracks jumping or bouncing in unison); thus, the structure should
also be evaluated for group rhythmic loads per Section7.4.4.
This section provides an evaluation method for level surfaces
Human running force is represented by the Fourier
such as floors and tracks subject to running. Because the run-
series in Section1.6, with step frequency, fstep, equal to the
ning step frequency range is wide (Table1-1), it is usually
dominant frequency divided by the harmonic number, h,
possible for a force harmonic frequency to match a respon-
from Table 7-3. The dynamic coefficient, , is also listed
sive natural frequency and cause a resonant build-up. The
in Table7-3. For typical applications, a bodyweight, Q, of
resonant response can be predicted using the FRF method
168lb is recommended. For other groups, e.g., football play-
described in Section 7.4.1 with several modifications. The
ers, average or maximum bodyweight should be considered.
evaluation is unsatisfactory if the predicted sinusoidal peak
The peak acceleration due to running is
acceleration exceeds the applicable human comfort toler-
ance limit in Section2.1.
The FRF magnitude is computed for unit load at the
[ ]
ap = FRFMax hQ 1 e2hNSteps (7-7)
running load location, and acceleration is computed at the where
affected occupant location. Surfaces subject to running usu- FRFMax = maximum FRF magnitude, %g/lb
ally have few obstructions, and nonparticipating occupants NSteps = number of footsteps required to cross the bay or
can usually be anywhere; therefore, the running load and span 10
affected occupant locations should be conservatively located Q = bodyweight
at the maximum mode shape amplitude. The FRF minimum h = number of the harmonic that causes resonance
frequency should be approximately 1 Hz below the fun- (Table7-3)
damental natural frequency, and the maximum frequency h = dynamic coefficient (Table7-3)
should be at least 17Hz, which is 1Hz above the maximum = viscous damping ratio (Section4.3)
fourth harmonic forcing frequency associated with running.
If runner synchronization is likely, as may be the case
The FRF magnitude must be computed at all natural frequen-
near the beginning of a sprinting race, the response due to
cies, plus 20 to 30 other frequencies between the minimum
an individual in Equation 7-7 should be amplified. Based
and maximum frequencies. The frequency below 17 Hz,
on research by Pernica (1990) and Bachmann and Amman
with maximum FRF magnitude, is referred to as the domi-
(1987), the acceleration due to a group of runners is the prod-
nant frequency. If the dominant frequency is below 3Hz, the
uct of the acceleration due to an individual and the minimum
floor or pedestrian bridge will be vulnerable to vandal jump-
of 2.0 or n where n is the anticipated number of runners.
ing (groups of people intentionally exciting the structure by
If the predicted peak acceleration does not exceed the
applicable tolerance limit discussed in Chapter2 from Fig-
ure2-1, the bay or span is predicted to be satisfactory.
The FRF magnitude is computed for vertical unit load Evaluation Procedures and Example4.6 provide additional
at the walking load location and vertical acceleration at the information.
affected occupant location. The walker load location must The peak acceleration due to an individual descending the
be identified using engineering judgment. Resonant build- stair is
up durations are highly variable, in the range of five to
10steps long; therefore, it is recommended that a seven- or ap = 0.62e fnFRFMax RQ(1 e100)(7-8)
eightstep resonant build-up be used for design. The seven or
where
eight consecutive steps are to be located as close as possible
FRFMax = maximum FRF magnitude, %g/lb
to the maximum mode shape value and are used to select
Q = bodyweight= 168 lb
the walking load location at a node near the middle of the
= viscous damping ratio (Section4.3)
selected steps. The affected occupant location must also be
=0.29 for normal descents; 0.19 for rapid
identified using engineering judgment, noting that occupants
descents
must be stationary to feel the vibrations. Thus, the affected
occupant location is usually at an intermediate landing, if The calibration factor, R, is 0.7 for normal descents. For
one exists, and at midspan, otherwise. The FRF minimum rapid descents, R= 0.5 if fn 8Hz, or 0.7 otherwise.
frequency should be at least 1 Hz below the fundamental The acceleration caused by a rapidly descending group is
natural frequency, and the maximum frequency should be triple the acceleration due to a rapidly descending individual.
approximately 10 to 12 Hz. The FRF magnitude is then
computed at all natural frequencies, plus 20 to 30other fre- 7.4.4 Rhythmic Activity on Floors and Balconies
quencies between the minimum and maximum frequencies.
This section provides an evaluation method for floors and
The maximum FRF magnitude is then identified, and its fre-
balconies subject to rhythmic group loads such as dancing or
quency is referred to as the dominant frequency. If the domi-
aerobics. The resonant response is predicted using the FRF
nant frequency is below 4.5 to 5.0 Hz, the first harmonic
method, in which the predicted peak sinusoidal acceleration
of the walking force might match the dominant frequency
is the product of FRF magnitude and force harmonic ampli-
and cause resonance and very high responses. Therefore, it
tude. The evaluation is satisfactory if predicted sinusoidal
is recommended that stairs be designed with dominant fre-
peak acceleration does not exceed the applicable human
quencies not less than 5 Hz. If the dominant frequency is
comfort tolerance limit from Figure2-1 or Table5-1.
below 3Hz, the stair will also be vulnerable to vandal jump-
It is recommended that the FRF magnitude be computed
ing, and should also be evaluated for group rhythmic loads
for unit uniform load covering the anticipated group load
per Section7.4.4.
area and vertical acceleration be determined at the affected
The presence of stationary occupants on a stair can affect
occupant location. The FRF minimum frequency should be
the descent footstep frequency. Typically, walkers descend
1Hz and the maximum frequency 12Hz, which exceeds the
stairs with step frequencies below approximately 2.5Hz in
forcing function maximum harmonic frequency. The FRF
the presence of stationary occupants; this regular descent
magnitude should be computed at all natural frequencies,
load case should always be considered. If the stair is wide
plus 20 to 30 other frequencies between the minimum and
enough, occupants might be able to descend rapidly, at fre-
maximum frequencies. The frequency at the maximum FRF
quencies between 2.5Hz and 4.0Hz, in the presence of sta-
magnitude is the dominant frequency.
tionary occupants. Similarly, if the stair is wide enough, a
Dynamic forces during rhythmic group loads are repre-
group of occupants might be able to descend rapidly in the
sented by the Equation1-8 Fourier series, with the step fre-
presence of stationary occupants. Engineering judgment and
quency selected such that its minimum possible harmonic
communication with the architect or owner should be used to
has a frequency matching the dominant frequency. The Fou-
decide if a rapidly descending individual or group is a real-
rier series parameters required for the FRF method are given
istic load case. The Section4.3 subsection Recommended
in Table7-4. Participant weight, wp, is an estimate for each
activity and should be adjusted if the anticipated participant harmonic is the product of the FRF magnitude, %g/psf, at the
weight is significantly different from the listed value. The harmonic frequency, ifstep, and the harmonic load amplitude:
harmonic frequencies are determined by (1) selecting the
harmonic, h, to match the dominant frequency; (2)comput- ap,i = FRF(ifstep) iwp(7-9)
ing the step frequency, fstep (taken as the dominant frequency
divided by h); and (3)computing each harmonic frequency, To predict the peak acceleration, the peak accelerations
ifstep, where i is the harmonic number. The harmonic force due to all force harmonics are combined using the 1.5 power
amplitudes are wp i. rule:
If the dominant frequency exceeds the maximum har-
1/1.5
monic frequency, fstep is selected such that the predicted 1.5
response is maximized. This is illustrated in Example7.2. a p = ( a p,i ) (7-10)
The predicted peak acceleration due to each force i
Total deck + Superimposed loads = 38.9 psf + 1.00 psf + 18.7 psf + 5.00 psf + 2.00 psf
= 65.6 psf
65.6 psf
Total deck + Superimposed loads to the shells =
32.2 ft/s2
= 2.04 psf-s2 /ft
Riser walls:
Computed by the program.
Member masses:
Computed by the program.
Damping
6% of critical viscous damping due to crowd presence on the balcony as recommended in Chapter5.
Slab Stiffnesses
1.35Ec= 4,410 ksi
Moment of inertia parallel to the deck= 34.9 in.4/ft
Moment of inertia perpendicular to the deck= 25.3 in.4/ft
Member Stiffnesses
Noncomposite member stiffnesses are used in the model because there are physical separations between the steel members and
the underside of the steel deck.
Model Development
A finite element model was created in a commercially available structural analysis program. Slabs and walls were modeled with
orthotropic and isotropic shell elements, respectively. Frame elements were modeled using regular frame elements. Shells were
connected to frame elements using massless rigid links as shown in Figure7-14. Due to its circular arc (radial) geometry, tan-
gential membrane stresses significantly add to the vertical stiffness. However, minuscule movementspresent in reality, but not
present in the modelwill probably relieve such stresses. Thus, tangential membrane stiffnesses were decreased to nearly zero
along gridlines selected using engineering judgment. Uniform mass is assigned to the shells and cladding line mass is assigned
along the front of the balcony.
Fig. 7-14. Massless rigid links connecting frame members and shells, Example7.2.
The total peak acceleration, computed using the 1.5 power rule, Equation7-10, is
1/1.5
1.5
a p = ( a p ,i ) (7-10)
i
1/1.5
= (1.11)1.5 + (1.88 )1.5
= 2.41%g
From Table5-1, participants in the rhythmic activity will likely tolerate accelerations between 4%g and 7%g; therefore, no com-
plaints are expected, and the balcony framing is satisfactory.
transformation, which will provide the magnitude at each spectral density, ESD, attributed to each narrowband fre-
frequency quency is computed using Equation7-17.
a(t ) = a p
(
cos(2 fn t ) e 2 fnt 1 ) if t TBU ESD( f ) =
[V ( f )]2 (7-17)
cos ( 2 fn TBU ) e 1 ( 2 fn TBU
) f
(7-14a) where
V(f) = narrowband spectral velocity at frequency, f, mips
f = n arrowband frequency resolution, 0.125Hz, if T=
a(t) = apcos[2fn(t TBU)]e2fn(tTBU) if t > TBU 8s
(7-14b)
The energy attributed to each one-third octave band is the
where resonant build-up duration, TBU, is computed using sum of the energies attributed to the narrow bands within the
Equation 7-15, and with Nstep approximately equal to 6, one-third octave band:
adjusted slightly if necessary, to obtain continuity of Equa-
tions7-14a and 7-14b at TBU: f2
E 3 = ESD ( f ) df (7-18)
N step f1
TBU = (7-15)
fstep where
f1 and f2= one-third octave band lower and upper limits
from Table7-5
Predicting One-Third Octave Velocity Spectrum
Finally, the one-third octave spectral velocity in each
The one-third octave velocity maximum RMS magnitude is one-third octave band is the velocity amplitude (RMS) with
approximated by energy equivalent to the total energy in the one-third octave
band:
ANB T
V3 = 0.8 (7-16) V ( fctr ) = 0.8 E3 (7-19)
2 30 fn
where
where ANB and T are defined previously and fn is the domi- V(fctr)= spectral velocity at one-third octave band cen-
nant frequency. tered at fctr, mips
Alternatively, the one-third octave velocity spectrum
can be approximated by converting the narrowband accel- 7.5.3 Impulse Response
eration spectrum to spectral velocities in the standard one- Predicting Peak Acceleration
third octave bands shown in Table7-5 as follows. First, the
narrowband acceleration spectrum is converted to a narrow- The peak acceleration due to an individual footstep can be
band velocity spectrum by dividing the acceleration at each computed using the effective impulse method described in
narrowband frequency, ANB (f), by 2f. Second, the energy Section1.5, based on the research by Willford et al. (2006,
2007) and Liu and Davis (2015).
Uniform Mass
5.25 in.
Slab concrete = (110 pcf )
in.
12
ft
= 48.1 psf
Deck = 2 psf
Mechanical, electrical, plumbing and ceiling= 8 psf
Live load = 8 psf
Total supported load = 48.1 psf + 2.00 psf + 8.00 psf + 8.00 psf
= 66.1 psf
66.1 psf
Total supported load to the shells=
32.2 ft/s2
= 2.05 psf-s2/ft
Cladding:
720 plf
Line mass =
32.2 ft/s2
= 22.4 plf-s2/ft
Member masses:
Computed by the program.
Partitions:
(5.50 psf ) (16.0 ft )
Line mass along the wall =
32.2 ft/s2
= 2.73 plf-s2/ft
Nodes are approximately 3.5 ft apart; therefore, (2.73 plf-s2/ft)(3.50 ft)= 9.56 lb-s2/ft is applied at each node.
Damping
Viscous damping of 5% of critical is assumed because there are multiple full-height partitions in most bays.
Slab Stiffness
1.35Ec= 2,700 ksi
Moment of inertia parallel to the deck= 176 in.4/ft
Moment of inertia perpendicular to the deck= 76.7 in.4/ft
Model Development
The model shown in Figure7-20 was created in a commercially available structural analysis program. The model is terminated
at Gridline4, even though the floor extends several additional bays to the east. All members are modeled as having flexurally
continuous connections. Cladding line mass is assigned to each member along Gridlines1, A and E. Uniform mass is assigned
to shells and partition masses are assigned to nodes along the partition walls as shown in Figure7-21.
fn
fstep =
h
10.9 Hz
=
5
= 2.18 Hz
The response of each mode is computed using Equations7-20 and 7-21. The mode shape values, i and j, at the corridor and
equipment nodes, respectively, are shown in Table7-10. The program reports mass-normalized mode shapes with (in./kip-s2)0.5
units.
For example, the Mode 19 response is
fstep1.43 Q
I eff ,19 = (from Eq. 1-6)
fn ,19 17.8
1.30
= 0.0843%g
Similarly, the responses for the remaining modes were computed and then summed to obtain the total response. Using a footstep
period, Tstep , of 1/ fstep = 0.459 s, Mode 19 and total responses are shown in Figure7-25. The peak uncalibrated acceleration is
0.156%g at 0.075 s. The calibrated peak, ap, is 1.5(0.156%g)= 0.234%g.
Using h= 5 for the fifth harmonic frequency noted earlier, the predicted narrowband spectral acceleration maximum magnitude
is, then,
1 e 2 h
ANB = a p (7-23)
20h
1 e 2 (0.05)(5)
= (0.234%g)
20(0.05)(5)
= 0.0371%g
ANB T
V3 = 0.8 (7-24)
2 30 fn
0.0371%g 8.00 s 386 in/s 2 106 mips
= 0.8
2 30(10.9 Hz) 100%g in./s
= 2,850 mips
The predicted response does not exceed the 4,000-mips tolerance limit; therefore, the evaluation criterion is satisfied.
Note that fast walking in the corridor is shown for illustration of the evaluation process. In an actual design, walking in the adja-
cent room should also be evaluated.