Guidelines On The Design of Floor For Vibration Due To Human Actions (Part III)

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 49 - 1 -Page 1 of 50 File code : PartIII.
doc
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue No./Revision No. : 1 Issue/Revision Date : September 2011

SEB GUIDELINES
SEBGL OTH5

Guidelines on the Design for Floor Vibration Due to Human Actions

Part III: Vibration Effect to Grandstands, Sensitive Equipment and
Facilities

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 2011

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 2 of 49 - 2 -Page 2 of 50 File code : PartIII.doc

CONTENTS

Content Page
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
2. Grandstand Vibration ............................................................................................... 3
3. Sensitive Equipment and Facilities ......................................................................... 30
4. Design References .................................................................................................... 47

Copyright and Disclaimer of Liability

This Guideline or any part of it shall not be reproduced, copied or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission from
Architectural Services Department. Moreover, this Guideline is intended for the internal
use of the staff in Architectural Services Department only, and should not be relied on by
any third party. No liability is therefore undertaken to any third party. While every effort
has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in
this Guideline at the time of publication, no guarantee is given nor responsibility taken by
Architectural Services Department for errors or omissions in it. The information is
provided solely on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own
assessment or interpretation of the information. Readers are advised to verify all relevant
representation, statements and information with their own professional knowledge.
Architectural Services Department accepts no liability for any use of the said information
and data or reliance placed on it (including the formulae and data). Compliance with
this Guideline does not itself confer immunity from legal obligations.


1. Introduction

1.1 Part I and Part II of this set of Guidelines (available:
http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/) focus on human-induced vibration on
lightweight floors with large span due to rhythmic activities and walking
respectively. Part III of this set of Guidelines will focus on the effect of human-
induced vibration on grandstands and sensitive facilities (e.g. hospital ward, radio
studio, high precision laboratory) or equipment (e.g. high precision microscope,
MRI), especially on delicate and expensive health care and medical equipment
whose accuracy are sensitive to vibration.

1.2 This set of Guidelines will further be divided into two sections. Section 2 will be
on grandstands, and Section 3 will be on the sensitive equipment or facilities.
Again, as in Part I and Part II of this set of Guidelines, design examples will be
included to illustrate the procedures in checking the vibration effects to these
structures, facilities and equipment. However, designers should note that this set of
Guidelines provides basic knowledge on the subject, and designers should therefore
carry out their own research to suit their own problems. A list of design references
is included at the end of this Guideline.

2. Grandstand Vibration

2.1 Types of Grandstand

2.1.1 A grandstand is a structure which provides seating for spectators at entertainment or
sporting events. Grandstands typically have seats, or benches, arranged in tiered
rows with access to the seats from aisles that run perpendicular to the rows of
seating. Grandstands are typically classified into three distinct types: permanent,
demountable and retractable the latter two are sometimes termed as bleacher.

2.1.2 Retractable stands (Photo 1) are typically installed in the indoor arena in indoor
recreation centres. They are used during particular events, and remain retracted at
other times. Retractable stands are most sensitive to front-to-back sway loading as
this is the direction of retraction. Like retractable stands, demountable stands
(Photo 2 and Figure 1) are also lightweight temporary structures whose trussed
appearances are reminiscent of scaffolding systems. Unlike retractable stands,
demountable stands are typically erected for a single specific event and therefore
left in place for a short duration. Usually, demountable stands are proprietary
products designed, supplied and installed by specialist contractor employed by the
event organizers. Because of the limited time for installation, such type of structure,
despite with bracing, remains extremely lightweight and is thus easily excited by
occupant activities. Demountable stands therefore tend to be particularly sensitive to
side-to-side sway loading. Two serious incidents of collapse of demountable stands
occurred in the UK during 1993 and 1994 (IStructE 2007). The UK Department of
the Environment therefore appointed the Institution of Structural Engineers, who in
collaboration with the Steel Construction Institute, published a guide for clients,
contractors, engineers and suppliers of demountable structures. This guide has then
been updated with latest technological and regulatory changes, and designers for
demountable grandstands can now refer its latest version as IStructE (2007),
Temporary Demountable Structures: Guidance on Procurement, Design and Use


(London: IStructE, 3
rd
ed) on the structural aspects for both retractable and
demountable stands. An information paper on the analysis and design of
demountable grandstands is being prepared, and when completed, it will be posted
onto URL: http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/.

Photo 1 Retractable Grandstand at Tsuen Wan Sports Ground

Photo 2 Demountable Grandstand in Bellinzona, Switzerland


Figure 1 Arrangement of Proprietary Demountable Grandstand at
2009 East Asian Games Opening Ceremony

2.1.3 In both retractable and demountable stands, IStructE (2007) recommends a
simplified approach to include the following notional horizontal load to design the
grandstand for the effect induced by different categories of spectator action:
Category 1 6% of the vertical imposed load
Category 2 7.5% of the vertical imposed load
Category 3 10% of the vertical imposed load

Category 1 spectator action includes nominal potential for spectator movement,
which excludes synchronized and periodic crowd movement at golf tournament,
athletic events, etc. Category 2 spectator action includes potential for spectator
movement. Again, this category excludes synchronized and periodic crowd


movement at musical concerts, football matches, etc. Category 3 spectator action
includes potential for synchronized and periodic crowd movement. However, for
grandstands with the natural vertical frequency less than 8.4Hz or the natural
horizontal frequencies less than 4.0Hz, IStructE (2007) recommends a full dynamic
analysis of the grandstand instead of using the simplified approach.

2.1.4 The focus of this set of Guidelines is, however, on permanent grandstands (Photo 3
and Figure 2), as they are usually designed and constructed under the supervision of
our Department, although in theory this set of Guidelines can also be used for the
design of vibration for retractable and/or demountable stands. Permanent
grandstands are used to house spectators around regularly used sports facilities.
Secondary facilities such as toilets, changing rooms, offices, kiosks and meeting
rooms are usually situated beneath the seating deck. Structures of this type have
been increasingly lightweight and flexible using structural steel, gaining height and
utilising multiple cantilever tiers to increase capacities whilst ensuring good lines of
sight.

Photo 3 Permanent Grandstand at Hong Kong Stadium


Figure 2 Structural Layout of Grandstand at Hong Kong Stadium

2.1.5 A typical grandstand with multiple cantilever tiers (Figure 2) consists of a series of
raked beams of reinforced concrete or structural steel construction that support the
seating decks. The seating decks which serve as the bleachers spanning between the
raked beams are usually precast concrete. Upper tier has several of the foremost
rows of seats positioned on a cantilever over the lower tier, and similarly, the lower
tier has several of the foremost rows of seats positioned on a cantilever over the
concourse. Ellis and Ji (2000) note that although sway and front-to-back vibration
in horizontal direction may often be the most important modes for demountable and
retractable grandstands, vertical modes are usually the most important ones for
permanent grandstand for human-induced dynamic crowd loads.

2.1.6 There have been no internationally recognized design standards for grandstand
vibrations and acceptable criteria until recently. In 2006, the Canadian Commission
on Building and Fire Codes published a commentary to Canadian National Building
Code 2005, (commonly known as Commentary D), which contains assessment
method and limits on the peak acceleration for grandstand vibrations. In 2007, ISO
published a new edition of ISO 10137: Bases for Design of Structures
Serviceability of Buildings and Walkways against Vibrations, which contains
acceptance criteria for the limits for such structures. In 2008, the joint working
group formed by IStructE, the UK Department for Communities and Local
Government and the UK Department for Culture Media and Sport and chaired by Dr
J W Dougill published their report Dynamic Performance Requirements for
Permanent Grandstands Subject to Crowd Action (2008) giving recommendations
for management, design and assessment of grandstands. Recently, Jones et al
(2011), after reviewing 162 publications on this subject, summarized the state-of-art
on the acceptable criteria for human-induced vibration for grandstands, the loads
generated by various actions of occupants on grandstands, the methods for predict


the dynamic behaviour of the grandstands, and the various types of in-situ
measurements.

2.1.7 The following discussion on the analysis and design of human-induced vibration on
grandstands will therefore mainly be based on the acceptable criteria contained in
the internationally recognized design standards, and the literature review by Jones et
al (2011). Moreover, the discussion will be supplemented with the latest literature,
especially latest work on this subject by Willford (2005).

2.2 Historical Review

2.2.1 The following historical review was provided by Jones et al (2011). In the late 18th
century, grandstands were rarely recognized as being a unique type of structure. In
1932, the American Standards Agency investigated and documented sway loads
which could arise due to the dynamic actions of occupants. However, there is no
explicit provision on the method to model the human dynamic loads. In 1985, the
Canadian National Building Code recommended that the structure of grandstands
should be designed for forces due to swaying of 0.3kN per metre length of seats
parallel to the row and half this value perpendicular to each row. At that time, it
was still not known the loads generated by dancing or jumping and whether
occupants could act in synchronized manner for a sustained period of time. The
Supplement to the National Building Code subsequently suggested that the human
dynamic load should be referenced to that due to rhythmic activity. This suggestion
was not, however, intended for the design of grandstand.

2.2.2 In 1992, a temporary grandstand, erected to increase the capacity of a stadium from
8,500 to 18,000 in Bastia, Corsica, collapsed killing 17 and injuring over 2,500
people (Ellis and Ji 2000). In the UK, 18 people were injured in 1993 when seating
collapsed at a gospel meeting, and about 1,100 spectators were also involved in the
collapse of a demountable structure at a pop concert in 1994. Following the
collapses, a working group was formed by IStructE to examine the effects of
dynamic loading on temporary grandstands. In 1994, the UK Department of the
Environment issued an interim guide Interim Guidance on Temporary Grandstands
(1994), which specifies the frequency limits for checking temporary grandstands
used at pop concerts. BS 6399-Part 1:1996 was later promulgated to incorporate
the frequency limits with the alternative that safety may be achieved by ensuring
that the structure can withstand the dynamic loads.

2.2.3 BS 6399-Part 1:1996 recognized that dynamic loads are only significant when any
crowd movement is synchronized. In practice, this only occurs in conjunction with
a strong musical beat such as in pop concerts. The dynamic loading is thus related
to the beat frequency of the music and is periodical in both horizontal and vertical
directions. If the synchronized movement excites a natural frequency of the
affected part of the structure, resonance will occur which can greatly amplify its
response. It therefore specifies that in order to avoid resonance effects, the natural
vertical frequency shall be greater than 8.4Hz and the natural horizontal frequencies
shall be greater than 4.0Hz. However, these recommendations were found to be too
onerous for general use. In 1997, Ellis and Ji (1997) published a BRE Digest
(commonly known as Digest 426) to supplement BS 6399-Part 1:1996. BS 6399-


Part 1:1996 was therefore revised in 2002, which suggested designers to follow
Digest 426 instead.

2.2.4 At about the same time, the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport revised the
Guide to Safety at Sports Ground (commonly known as the Green Guide), and the
Green Guide specifies a minimum natural vertical frequency recommendations of 6
Hz based upon observations of successful structures. However, many cantilever
grandstands with less than the 6Hz limit still perform satisfactory under normal
loading (Ellis and Littler 2004). The Green Guide further presents methods for
dynamic assessment, which was also later found to be conservative. As a result,
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS issued Dynamic Performance Requirements for Permanent
Grandstands Subject to Crowd Action: Interim Guidance on Assessment and Design
(2001) (the Interim Guidance), which specified vertical frequency limits for
different categories of use (3.5Hz for new grandstands for normal non-rhythmic
loading and 6Hz for those for pop concerts). Failure to meet the minimum natural
frequencies required by the interim guidance necessitated full dynamic analysis of
the structure be undertaken but, as with earlier documents, no methodology for this
process was provided or explained.

2.2.5 Another limitation of the Interim Guidance was that it only considers the vertical
frequency of the empty grandstand as the single criterion for acceptance, and the
behaviour of the crowd was not considered. In 2008, IStructE/DTLR/DCMS
replaced the Interim Guidance by Dynamic Performance Requirements for
Permanent Grandstands Subject to Crowd Action (IStructE/DTLR/DCMS 2008).
In 2007, ISO published a new edition of ISO 10137: Bases for Design of
Structures Serviceability of Buildings and Walkways against Vibrations, which
contains acceptance criteria on the limits for such structures. Across the Atlantics,
Commentary D contains assessment method and limits on the peak acceleration for
grandstand vibrations. In the following section, the recommendations given in
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) and ISO 10137:2007, which represent the latest state
of the art, will be presented.

2.3 Acceptability Criteria for Grandstand Vibration

2.3.1 Minimum Frequency of the Structure

2.3.1.1 IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) specify two routes for the design and assessment of
grandstand subject to dynamic crowd loading: Route 1 and Route 2, depending on
different types of events and crowd behaviour. Route 1, which is similar to that in
the Interim Guidance, Green Guide, Digest 426, or BS 6399-Part 1:1996, limits
the natural frequency of the grandstand which is empty of people for different
scenarios of use ranging from Scenario 1 (a low profile sporting event with a
relaxed viewing public) to Scenario 4 (high energy events such as pop/rock
concerts with vigorous participation of the crowd) as shown in Table 1.


Table 1 Summary of Minimum Frequency of Empty Grandstand
for Route 1

Scenario Exemplar Event Crowd Behaviour
Minimum
Vertical
Frequency
1 Sporting events with
less than maximum
attendance
Normally relaxed viewing
public predominantly
seated with spontaneous
response to single events
3.5Hz
2 Classical concert, or
well-attended sporting
event
Predominantly seated
audience with minor
excitation
3.5Hz
3 High profile sporting
events and concerts
with medium tempo
music and revival
pop-concerts with
cross generation
appeal
Potentially excitable
crowd standing and
participating during some
part of the programme
6Hz
4 High energy concerts
with periods of high
intensity music
Excited crowd, mostly
standing and bobbing with
some jumping
6Hz
(Source: IStructE/DTLR/DCMS 2008: 3)

2.3.1.2 The acceptable minimum natural frequency in Table 1 is less than the acceptable
minimum natural frequency of 9Hz in Part I of this set of Guidelines. This is
because crowds are particularly dense and the environment is noisy and chaotic in
grandstands, and hence IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) therefore adopt lower
acceptable criteria on minimum vertical frequency.

2.3.1.3 Route 2 is only applicable to Scenarios 2, 3 and 4, in which instead of satisfying
the minimum vertical frequency, designer can limit the acceleration under the
dynamic crowd loading. Such approach is in line with the latest recommendations
in ISO 10137:2007 and Commentary D.

2.3.2 Maximum allowable acceleration

2.3.2.1 In Part I of this set of Guidelines, the baseline curve as recommended by ISO
2631-2: 1989 has been presented, which showed that humans are sensitive enough
to detect vibrations as low as 0.5% g. However, although various allowable peak
accelerations have been specified for different types of occupancy based on this
baseline curve, there has not been a specific criterion for grandstand until the
recent codes and guidelines. As stated in last paragraph, all these latest codes and
guidelines (IStructE/DTLR/DCMS 2008, ISO 10137:2007 and Canadian National
Building Code 2005 now explicitly acknowledge the distinct characteristics of
grandstands, in that crowds are particularly dense and the environment is noisy
and chaotic in a manner rarely found elsewhere. The limits (shown in Table 2)
imposed by these codes and guidelines are therefore higher than other occupancy.


Table 2 Summary of Maximum Allowable Acceleration for Route 2

Codes or Guidelines Limits on Allowable Acceleration
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) 3% g rms acceleration for Scenario 2
7.5% g rms acceleration for Scenario 3
20% g rms acceleration for Scenario 4
ISO 10177: 2007 10% g rms acceleration
Canadian National Building Code
2005
18% g peak acceleration

2.3.2.2 Both IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) and ISO 10177:2007 adopt the root mean
square (rms) acceleration as the acceptance criterion; whilst Canadian National
Building Code 2005 specifies a limit on the peak acceleration. Rms acceleration is
calculated by averaging the square of the acceleration over an interval of time.
The choice of the interval of time is controversial, and this set of Guidelines
suggests adopting the recommended interval of 10 seconds as proposed in ISO
10177:2007 and IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008), which is more common for
checking against comfort.

2.3.2.3 Another controversial issue is whether the rms acceleration shall be weighted
accordingly to the excitation frequency. If the vibration is predominantly at one
frequency, then there is no need to weigh the rms acceleration. However, when
the vibration contains a range of frequencies, then BS 6841 gives different
weighting values for different excitation frequencies as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Weighting Values for Different Excitation Frequencies

Frequency
(Hz)
Weighting
Value

1.00 0.5000
1.25 0.5590
1.60 0.6320
2.00 0.7070
2.50 0.7910
3.15 0.8870
4.00 1.0000
5.00 1.0000
6.30 1.0000
8.00 1.0000
(Source: BS 6841)

However, IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) consider that no weighing values are
required to calculate the rms acceleration for the range of frequencies encountered
with crowd motion. Rather, IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) suggest the rms
accelerations calculated from the first three harmonics of the dominant excitation
frequency are to be combined to give the total response root sum squares of the
rms accelerations as follows:
2
3
2
2
2
1 T
R R R R + + =


where R
T
is the total response rms acceleration, and R
1
, R
2
and R
3
are respectively
the rms accelerations due to the 1
st
, 2
nd
and 3
rd
harmonics of the excitation
frequency.

2.3.2.4 Intermittent Vibration

Ellis and Littler (2004) note that the above criteria may not be applicable to
intermittent vibration, where only there are only isolated incidents of high peak
acceleration for short duration. They therefore propose to limit the vibration dose
value (VDV) instead. Details of the expression to calculate the VDV, the limits on
the VDV, and the procedures of this approach will be described in Section 3.

2.3.3 Suggested Acceptable Criteria for Grandstands

2.3.3.1 This set of Guidelines recommends that a stringent vertical natural frequency of
the grandstand should be adopted, and the vertical natural frequency of the
grandstand empty of people should not be less than 6Hz. Should this stringent
limit on vertical natural frequency be exceeded, the maximum peak or rms
acceleration under dynamic loading should be checked. Either the rms limits
specified in IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) or the peak limit in Canadian National
Building Code 2005 (Table 2) may serve as the reference.

When the vibration contains maximum accelerations over a range of frequencies,
designer can weigh the rms accelerations at different excitation frequencies given
in Table 3, or can calculate the total response by finding the root sum squares of
the rms accelerations at the first three harmonics.

2.3.3.2 In the next section, a method to calculate of the vertical natural frequency of the
grandstand empty of people will be introduced, which will then be followed by the
assessment of the dynamic loading when assessment of the rms acceleration or
peak acceleration is required.

2.4 Method to Assess Dynamic Response of Grandstand

2.4.1 Calculation of the Vertical Natural Frequency

There are two methods to calculate the natural frequency of an empty grandstand,
namely: approximate methods using hand calculation, and numerical methods using
computer software. IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) commented that the approximate
method, although is unlikely to be sufficiently accurate, provides a fast way to
check the results from numerical methods. Moreover, the approximate methods
work well for simple single-span or cantilever structures (which are predominantly
the usual structural forms for grandstand). Table 4 gives the formulae for
calculating the fundamental natural frequency of an empty grandstand.


Table 4 Formulae for Calculating Natural Frequency of Grandstand

Source Formula
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008)
A
=
A
f where A lies between 15 and 20, and
A (mm) is the deflection under dead load
Willford (2005)
4
56 . 0
mL
EI
f = for cantilever structure, which
is the exact solution for a cantilever beam with
uniformly mass m.

Example 1 in Section 2.6 illustrates the procedures of these methods.

2.4.2 Calculation of Acceleration due to Dynamic Loading

2.4.2.1 Types of Dynamic Loading

Ellis and Littler (2004a) note that the most tedious task in calculating the dynamic
response of a grandstand in service is to model the loads produced by crowds. The
dynamic load used in calculating the rms or peak acceleration for grandstand
depends on the types of activity, which include: jumping loads,
bouncing/bobbing/jouncing loads, foot-stamping and hand-clapping loads, and
leaping loads. The following paragraphs will briefly describe the characteristics of
these types of dynamic loading.

Jumping is the launching ones self in the vertical direction, removing the entire
body from contact with the ground. There is a period of zero loading, followed by
a rapid impact load with a significant peak which is several times the static weight
of the jumper (as shown in Figure 4(a)). Jumping occurs typically at a goal at a
football match (Ellis and Littler 2004a). Well coordinated jumping crowds (e.g. as
a result of music being playing) may cause much higher structural accelerations
resulting in more serious repercussions such as panic. However, Ellis and Littler
(2004) questioned whether jumping (which is usually found on dance floor) is a
suitable model for grandstands. Dougill et al (2006) further note that jumping is
usually not a structural problem as compared with bobbing as described below,
because for raked grandstands with limitations on space due to fixed seating,
occupants find it difficult or uncomfortable to jump even with music being played.


Figure 4(a) Force-Time Graph for Jumping
(Source: Jones et al (2011: 1539))

Bobbing (also known as bouncing) and jouncing occur more common than
jumping. Bobbing and jouncing (as shown in Figure 4(b)) are the response of
occupants to aural stimulation, and typically consist of attempting to jump whilst
the feet remaining in contact with the structure. The difference between bobbing
and jouncing is that in jouncing the heels temporarily leave contact with the
structure only to impact later, whilst in bobbing there is no such a heel strike.
Bobbing differs from jumping in that whereas jumping over 3.5Hz is very hard to
achieve, bobbing can reach 6Hz (Yao et al 2004). Hence, grandstands with
relatively high fundamental natural frequency of over 5Hz are still susceptible to
excitation by the bobbing. Another difference is that as the feet of the occupants
are in permanent contact with the structure, they can easily feel the structural
motion and then tune their motion to exacerbate it, similar to what happens on a
swing (Yao et al 2004).

Figure 4(b) Force-Time Graph for Bobbing
(Source: Jones et al (2011: 1539))


Stamping is an activity that can be performed when either standing or seated. It is
characterized by rapid foot motions and negligible motions of the upper body.
Clapping involves forceful large amplitude motions of the upper body, but the
overall centre of mass does not shift significantly. As there is restricted motion in
the centre of mass during these activities, the resulting loading would generally be
less that by more vigorous actions such as bouncing and jumping. However, the
ease of crowd coordination and high frequency of repetition may still result in
noticeable vibrations.

Leaping to the feet is a common response to exciting events that occur frequently
during goals in football matches. Loads generated by this action are mostly in the
horizontal front-to-back direction. A load of this type is transient, and is
dangerous to retractable or demountable structures; but is not a controlling
criterion on permanent grandstands. Occasionally, crowds may engage in
concentrated cheering efforts that feature abrupt rising, such as the Mexican
Wave, when participants rise in turn rather than all at once. This form of
excitation, whilst visually spectacular, is not a particularly onerous form of
dynamic loading.

2.4.2.2 Load Models

The above paragraph has described the characteristics of the various types of
dynamic loading for grandstands, and concluded that bobbing is most relevant
loading for grandstands, although jumping can cause higher structural
accelerations. In the analysis of the dynamic response of the grandstands, it is
necessary to model these two types of loading by a force-time history function. In
Part I of this set of Guidelines, the dynamic loads due to rhythmic activities have
been represented by a Fourier series of the form:
)) 2 sin( 0 . 1 ( ) (
1
n p
n
n
t f n r G t F | t + + =

=

where F(t) is the time varying force, G

is the load density of the crowd, t is the
time, f
p
is the frequency of the load, r
n
is the n
th
Fourier coefficient, and |
n
is the
phase lag. Similarly, both jumping and bobbing can also be modelled by similar
Fourier series with different coefficients and phase angles.

Coordinated Jumping

Table 5(a) summarizes the recommended values given in ISO 10137:2007 for
various types of dynamic loads for modelling the loading due to vertical action for
seated audience and coordinated jumping, and ISO 10137:2007 suggests that the
phase angle for jumping can be assumed to be zero, and that for all other activities,
a phase shift of 90
o
can be assumed for harmonic contributions below the
resonance frequency of the grandstand.


Table 5(a) Recommended Fourier Coefficients for Jumping Activities

Activity
Forcing frequency f
p

(Hz)

Crowd Density
1
Coefficients
r
1
r
2
r
3
Seated audience 1.5-3.0 One person per
seat
0.5 0.25 0.15
Coordinated
jumping
(without seats)
1.5-3.5 1.25m
2
per person 1.7 1.0 0.4
Coordinated
jumping (with
seats)
1.5-3.5 One person per
seat
1.7 1.0 0.4
(Source: ISO 10137:2007)

Notes:
1
The weight of each person may be taken as 75kgf (Smith et al 2009).

2
The dynamic action produced by a group of participants also depends on the degree of
coordination of the participants, and hence a coordination factor C(N) can be applied to the
forcing function F(t) as follows:
F(t)
N
= F(t)C(N), where N is the number of participants.

The following table summarizes the different C(N) values for coefficients r
1
, r
2
and r
3
for
coordinated jumping as suggested in ISO 10137:2007.

Harmonic
coefficients
Values of C(N) for different degree of Coordination
High Medium Low
r
1
0.80 0.67 0.50
r
2
0.68 0.50 0.40
r
3
0.50 0.40 0.30

ISO 10137 states that the values of C(N) are only applicable for a group of at least 50
participants, and all values shall be taken as 1 for 5 participants. Intermediate values can be
obtained by linear interpolation. ISO 10137 further states that for seated audience, the
coordination factor shall be taken as 1.

Bobbing

IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008), based on the work of Dougill et al (2006), give the
following expression for the dynamic loads:
) 2 sin(
3
1
) (
i
ift
i
i
G mg t F u t +
=
=
where F(t) is the time varying force,

is crowd effectiveness factor which is a
measure of whether the crowd is likely to react with discomfort or even panic in
extreme cases, mg is the load density of the crowd, t is the time, f is the frequency
of the load and IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) recommends that a good
approximation of its value is the frequency of the musical beat, G
i
is i
th
harmonic
load generated by activity of the crowd, and u
i
is the phase lag (and
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) recommends to set them as zero).

(the crowd
effectiveness factor) and G
i
(i
th
harmonic load generated by activity of the crowd)
depend on the different activities, and Table 5(b) gives their recommended values
as given in IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008).


Table 5(b) Recommended Values of and G
i

Examples of activity
G
i

i=1 i=2 i=3
Seated audience with occasional
coordinated rhythmic movement from
standing people
0.12 0.15 0
2
) 8 . 1 ( 2
e
f

Active crowd with moderate bobbing 0.188 0.047 0.013
2
) 8 . 1 ( 2
e
f

Active crowd mostly standing and
bobbing with some jumping
0.375 0.095 0.026
) 2 cosh(
1
f

(Source: IStructE/DTLR/DCMS 2008)

In order to help designer to input the time-history functions for different activities
in the computer analysis, these time-history functions have been uploaded onto the
following URL:
http://asdforum/phorum/read.php?f=24&i=209&t=209

2.4.2.3 Human-Structure Interaction

In-situ measurements of grandstands have been carried out by Ellis and Ji (2000).
The results from computer models have found to be heavily overestimated both
in terms of equivalent static loads and acceleration. The previous method of
utilising load coefficients independent of group size, was therefore over-
conservative, especially when used in conjunction with empty structure models.
Ellis and Ji (2000) found that the stationary crowd provides a significant increase
in the damping capacity of the system, and that the stationary crowd also provides
a spring-mass system to the vibration of the grandstand. BRE Digest 426 was
therefore updated in 2004 to consider the phenomenon of humanstructure
interaction, which alters the natural frequencies and damping of the occupied
structure, as well as to recommend the use of Fourier coefficients for dynamic
loading which vary with group size. Subsequent laboratory and full-scale studies
(e.g. Yao et al 2004, Reynolds et al 2004, Dougill et al 2006, Sim et al 2006,
Reynolds et al 2007, Pavic and Reynolds 2008) confirmed that it is necessary to
consider the human-structure interaction especially where there is dense crowd
loading and when the mass of the passive crowd is significant compared with the
weight of the structure.

Sim et al (2006) found that for grandstand structures with natural frequencies
below 2Hz, a passive crowd adds significant mass to the system, whilst for those
with natural frequencies above 2Hz, it adds significant damping. In order to
model the effect of the human-structure interaction, Jones et al (2011) summarized
that there are the following two approaches:

a) reducing the loads and increasing the damping ratios;
b) modelling the behaviour of the crowd by a spring-mass system.

Jones et al (2011), however, commented that the first approach cannot model the
changes in the frequency of the grandstand due to the occupants, and therefore


suggested the use of spring-mass models to model the crowd. Figure 5 shows two
such models.

Figure 5 Modelling Human-Structure Interaction by Spring-Mass Models

The properties of the spring-mass models depend on whether people are
predominantly standing or sitting, and whether the crowd is active or passive. The
details of the various models are outside the scope of this set of Guidelines, and
designers may refer to Jones et al (2011) for the summary.

2.4.2.4 Simplified Formulae

The above paragraphs describe the loading to be included in the accurate
prediction of the peak acceleration due to different types of loading on the
grandstands. The computation is quite tedious, especially to take in account of the
phenomenon of human-structure interaction. In this paragraph, the simplified
methods suggested by Willford (2005) and Parkhouse and Ward (2008) to predict
the peak acceleration will be described.

Willfords (2005) Method

The following steps are suggested to calculate the peak acceleration for a
cantilever grandstand:

Step 1: Divide the cantilever member into different nodal points (usually
corresponding to the rows of the seating decks) as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Nodal Points in a Cantilever Grandstand


Step 2: Lump the mass of the cantilever member m
i
at nodal point i, and obtain
the relative displacement
i
at the nodal point i for the mode shape. The
typical values of relative displacements
i
for uniformly loaded member
at the 1
st
mode are given Table 6.

Table 6 Displacements at 1
st
mode for uniformly loaded cantilever beam
Total
number
of
node
Relative nodal displacement for uniformly loaded cantilever member
at 1
st
mode
n=5

0 0.097 0.34 0.658 1

n=6

0 0.064 0.23 0.641 0.725 1

n=7

0 0.045 0.166 0.34 0.547 0.771 1

n=8

0 0.034 0.125 0.26 0.425 0.61 0.804 1

n=9

0 0.026 0.097 0.205 0.34 0.493 0.658 0.828 1
n=10

0 0.021 0.079 0.166 0.277 0.406 0.547 0.695 0.847 1

Step 3: Calculate the modal mass M
i
at each nodal point by multiplying m
i
by
i
2
, i.e.
2
i i i
m M =
where m
i
is the mass of the cantilever member at nodal point i, and
i
is
the relative displacement at the nodal point i for the mode shape.

Step 4: Calculate the total occupant weight W
i
at nodal point i, and calculate the
modal force F
i
at nodal point i by multiplying W
i
by the dynamic load
factors (DLFs) as follows:
DLF W F
i i
=

The DLFs depend on the natural frequency of the grandstand structure,
the excitation frequency and the type of activity. As stated above, it is
difficult to predict the exact type of activities on the grandstand. There
are also limited in-situ measurements for DLFs for different activities.
Measurements have, however, been reported by Pernica (1990), Allen
(1990) and Ellis and Ji (2002) for jumping - the strongest vertical
excitation. They usually employed a conservative testing frequency of
2Hz. Based on the measured results, Willford (2005) suggested that the
DLFs for the different excitation frequencies as shown Figure 7(a). In


using Figure 7(a), the excitation frequency (or more exactly the
harmonics of the excitation frequency, as it is very difficult if not
impossible to jump at over 3.5Hz) should be chosen to be as close as
possible to the fundamental natural frequency of the structure.

Figure 7(a) DLFs for the Harmonics of Jumping Load
with a Group of N people

Step 5: Calculate the peak acceleration using the following equation:
2
1
M
F
a =
where
=
=
n
1 i
i i
F F ,

= =
= =
n
1 i
2
i i
n
1 i
i
m M M and is the damping ratio of
the structure.

Step 6: To cater for the phenomenon of human-structure interaction, the
following additional steps are suggested:

Estimate the percentage (r%) of passive crowd.

Calculate the human-mass ratio, which is the ratio of the weight of
passive audience to the weight of the structure as follows:
g m
r W
n
1 i
i
n
1 i
i
=
=

Modify the modal properties by using the factors from Figures 7(b) and
7(c).


Figure 7 (b) Modification Factor for Mass
due to Human-Structure Interaction

Figure 7 (c) Modification Factor for Damping
due to Human-Structure Interaction

Step 7: Calculate the peak acceleration taking into account of human-structure
interaction using the modified M and F by the following equation:
2
1
M
r F
a
=

Parkhouse and Wards (2008) Method

Parkhouse and Ward (2008) give a simplified procedure using design charts to
calculate the rms accelerations for different scenarios, once the natural frequency
of the empty grandstand and the modal mass ratio are found. Their method adopts
the two degree of freedom system (i.e. the crowd is represented by a mass
connected by springs and dampers to the structure) as suggested in
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008), and hence incorporates the human-structure
interaction effect in their design charts. The load models are the same as those
given in Table 5(a). Their method has a further advantage that it gives the rms
accelerations for the different scenarios as stated in IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008).


The procedures of their method for calculating the rms accelerations of a
cantilever grandstand are simplified as follows:

Step 1: Divide the cantilever member into different nodal points (usually
corresponding to the rows of the seating decks) as shown in Figure 6.

Step 2: Lump the mass of the cantilever member m
i
at nodal point i, and obtain
the relative displacement
i
at the nodal point i for the mode shape.

Step 3: Calculate the modal mass M
i
at each nodal point by the following
equation:
2
i i i
m M =
where m
i
is the mass of the cantilever member at nodal point i, and
i
is
the relative displacement at the nodal point i for the mode shape.

Step 4: Calculate the modal mass ratio by the following equation:
=
i
2
i i
m
m

Step 5: Calculate the crowd location factor by the following equation:
=
2
i i
i i
m
m

Step 6: Read the rms acceleration from the following charts for different natural
frequency f
s
, and scenarios:

Scenario 2


Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Step 7: Multiply the value of the rms acceleration by /1.5 to get the predicted
rms acceleration.

Example 2 in Section 2.6 illustrates the procedures of these two methods.

2.5 In-Situ Testing

2.5.1 Need for and Purposes of Testing

IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) strongly suggest that in-situ testing of grandstands
should be carried out due to the uncertainties in determining dynamic properties
solely by calculation and the benefits of obtaining confirmation of the values used
in design or assessment. The aims of testing are as follows:


1. to check the natural frequency of the grandstand, especially when Route 1
acceptance criterion is adopted;
2. to validate the modal properties adopted in the calculation;
3. to check the actual performance of the grandstand for specified design
scenario; and
4. to monitor the performance of the grandstand under crowd loading during
actual events.

In the following three circumstances, IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) consider that
testing must be carried out:

1. grandstands for pop-concerts and other similar events, where high energy
synchronized rhythmic crowd movement is expected;
2. grandstands where significant complaints have been received concerning
motion; and
3. grandstands where there is a change of use to one involving significantly
greater dynamic crowd activity.

2.5.2 Types of Tests

2.5.2.1 IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) classify the in-situ measurements into two types:
Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 tests aim at giving the natural frequency, whilst Type
2 tests can give more detailed information, including natural frequencies, mode
shapes, damping ratio, etc. Ambient excitation, heel-drop and drop-weight
hammer are typical Type 1 tests. Ambient excitation measures the response of the
structure that is excited by the ambient vibrations (e.g. wind, traffic). The
advantage of ambient excitation is that the test can be performed while the
structure is occupied, and it is significantly less expensive than any forced
vibration tests. However, the accuracy level of natural frequencies obtained using
ambient excitation is less than that due to forced vibration tests. Ambient
excitation further cannot identify all the modes (especially the higher harmonics),
because of the deficiency of some frequency ranges in the input power spectrum.

2.5.2.2 The more comprehensive Type 2 tests can be performed by the use of shakers.
There are two main types of shakers commonly used for such measurements.
Rotating eccentric mass shakers are capable of generating relatively large forces,
but are typically heavy, limited to harmonic loading, slow and very cumbersome
to use on stadia. Electrodynamic shakers typically produce smaller forces, but
they facilitate the use of broadband excitation signals for improved efficiency of
testing and accuracy. One point to be noted in using shaker to stimulate the
harmonic loading is that the shaker shall be able to generate periodic load with
frequency as low as 1Hz. This may prove to be difficult for the rotating eccentric
mass shakers. One limitation in using shakers in the testing is that it is difficult to
excite the entire grandstand using the shaker(s), and hence if full-scale
performance test is required, project officer may require employing participants to
generate rhythmic loads to measure the actual performance. Our Department had
carried out full-scale performance test in the project of Tin Shui Wai Public
Library cum IRC, and project officer may refer to Li et al (2011), Au et al (2011)
and Wong et al (2011) for the set-up and the details of the test, and the test results.


2.5.2.3 Besides generating the force, it is necessary to measure the acceleration at various
points of the grandstand using accelerometers. For accelerometers, they should be
capable of measuring low frequencies, say as low as 0.5Hz, as human-induced
vibration may be of such magnitude.

2.5.3 Equipment Available in SEB

Two types of accelerometer (Table 7) to measure acceleration have been purchased
by SEB, and project officer can ultilise them to carry out testing of structures
susceptible to human-induced vibration. Both of them can measure low level
acceleration in steady-state or low frequency environment. On site, the
accelerometers can be attached to the test floor system with adhesive or with the
screws.

Table 7 Accelerometers Available in SEB
Brand and model name Photo Detailed specification
Kistler 8330B3
(uni-axial)

Sensitivity 1200 mV/g
Noise floor level: 5.7g
Frequency range: 0-2000Hz
Acceleration range: 3g
Dytran 7523A1
(tri-axial)

550mV/g
Noise floor level: 3mg
Frequency range: 0-1500Hz
(x- and y-directions), 0-
500Hz (z-direction)
Acceleration range: 2g

In Table 7, sensitivity is the output voltage produced by a force measured in g. A
high sensitivity means that for a given change in acceleration, there will be a larger
change in signal. Since larger signal changes are easier to measure, a higher
sensitivity in mV/g means that one can get more accurate readings. For the
frequency range, human-induced vibration on floor structure is usually at low
frequency, usually less than 2Hz. Motion below 10 Hz produces very little
vibration in terms of acceleration, moderate vibration in terms of velocity, and
relatively large vibrations in terms of displacement. At such low acceleration, the
main difficulty in measuring vibrations is to minimize electronic noise. In order to
have adequate voltage signals at the acquisition equipment, the low frequency
accelerometers should have greater output sensitivity (usually 500mV/g) than
general-purpose accelerometers.

The data obtained by the accelerometers need to be processed in order to display the
measured acceleration versus time, and SEB had purchased a data processing
equipment (DeweSoft Dewe-43), which has eight 24-bit input channels and eight
output channels, together with the software to convert the data.

2.6 Design Examples

2.6.1 Example 1 is to calculate the vertical natural frequency of an empty grandstand,
and Example 2 is to calculate the acceleration for grandstand under dynamic load.


2.6.2 Example 1 - Calculation of Vertical Natural Frequency for an Empty Grandstand

This example gives the calculation of the natural frequency of the cantilever
grandstand at the lower tier of the Hong Kong Stadium by the methods of Willford
(2005) and IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008). The structural layout of the cantilever
grandstand is at Figure 2, and the member sizes and properties are as follows:

Slab thickness = 185mm
Beam size = 1000mm945mm
Typical bay width =10.5m
Plan length of cantilever = 7.37m
Inclined length L = 8.073m
Rise of cantilever = 3.296m
Number of rows provided = 6
Number of seats per row = 21 (within a typical bay width 10.5m)
Total number of occupant = 621 = 126
Weight of unit occupant = 75kg
Concrete density = 24 kN/m
3

Finishes plus services = 2 kPa
Youngs modulus of concrete = 23.7kNmm
-2

Damping ratio = 0.05

Willford's (2005) Method

I of beam = 0.07033m
4

Inclined length L = 8.073m
Occupant weight per row = 15.8kN per row
Beam SW = 2.3t/inclined length
Slab SW = 6.1t/inclined length
Other dead load = 0.3t/inclined length
Total weight per unit length = 8.6t/inclined length


Fundamental natural frequency
4
56 . 0
mL
EI
f = = 3.79Hz

IStructE/DTLR/DCMSs (2008) Method

Deflection under dead load A =
8EI
wL
4
= 27.7mm
Fundamental natural frequency
A
=
A
f = 2.85 to 3.8Hz (with A from 15 to 20)

2.6.3 Example 2 Calculation of Peak Acceleration due to Dynamic Load

Example 2 follows from Example 1. As the natural frequency for the cantilever
grandstand is less than 6Hz, IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) specifies that the
acceleration due to the dynamic load is to be checked. The simplified methods of
Willford (2005) and Parkhouse and Ward (2008) will be used. There are 6 rows,
and n is therefore chosen as 6.

m
i
= 11.7t for i = 1 to 6 (since uniform mass along the cantilever structure)

The fundamental natural frequency f = 3.79Hz, and hence choose the excitation
frequency to be 1.9Hz, so that its second harmonic matches with the fundamental
natural frequency of the grandstand.

Willford's (2005) Method

From Figure 7(a), for N=126 and f = 3.79Hz, DLF = 0.4.

Nodal
Point
1
st
Mode Shape
Displacement
i
m
i
(tones)
Modal mass
M
i
= m
i

i
2
Occupant
Weight
W
i
(kN)
Modal Force
DLFW
i

i
1 1.0 11.7 11.7 15.8 6.32
2 0.725 11.7 6.15 15.8 4.58
3 0.641 11.7 4.81 15.8 4.05
4 0.23 11.7 0.62 15.8 1.45
5 0.063 11.7 0.05 15.8 0.40
6 0 11.7 0 15.8 0
E
M = 23.33 t F = 17.07 kN

Assuming that 50% of the occupants will remain passive, i.e. r = 0.5. Calculate
human-mass ratio using:
06 . 0
81 . 9 6 7 . 11
6 8 . 15 5 . 0
g m
r W
n
1 i
i
n
1 i
i
=

=
=
=

The effect of human-structure interaction is not apparent, as this grandstand is
constructed of reinforced concrete, where the self-weight accounts for a large
proportion of the loading.


Then, obtain the effective mass and the additive damping due to human-structure
interaction in Figure 7(b) and (c) respectively.

Modified M = 23.331.05 = 24.50 t, and modified damping ratio = 0.05+0.005 =
0.055.

Calculate the peak acceleration using:
2
ms 31 . 1
055 . 0 2
1
50 . 24
5 . 0 07 . 17
2
1
M
r F
a

=
= (or 13.35 %g)

Parkhouse and Wards (2008) Method

Nodal Point Mode Shape
i
m
i
(tones) Modal mass M
i
=
2
i i
m
1 1.0 11.7 11.7
2 0.725 11.7 6.15
3 0.641 11.7 4.81
4 0.23 11.7 0.62
5 0.063 11.7 0.05
6 0 11.7 0
E
M = 23.33 t

Modal mass ratio =
i
2
i i
m
m
= 0.33
Crowd location factor
=
2
i i
i i
m
m
= 1.33

For Scenario 2, rms acceleration = 1.7% g from the graph.

Therefore, predicted rms acceleration = 1.7% g 1.33/1.5 = 1.51 % g.



Therefore, predicted rms acceleration = 10.5% g 1.33/1.5 = 9.31 % g.


Therefore, predicted rms acceleration = 24.8% g 1.33/1.5 = 22 % g.


3. Sensitive Equipment and Facilities

3.1 Floors that support sensitive equipment (e.g. in surgery rooms, laboratories) and
facilities (e.g. hospital wards, studio) need to have an environment where any
vibration will not affect the equipment or the occupants of the facilities. This has
been becoming more particularly important, as todays medical facilities in
hospitals or laboratories rely on high-tech imaging equipment including MRI, CT,
X-ray equipment that are much more sensitive to floor vibrations than before.
Moreover, occupants and patients of such facilities require a vibration-free
environment to carry out their delicate work or to receive their treatment
respectively. For sensitive equipment, the manufacturers or the suppliers will
usually provide acceptable vibration criteria for the equipment, or such data will be
available in the catalogues or specifications. If several equipment items with
different vibration sensitivities are to be supported on the same floor, the floor
should be designed to accommodate the most sensitive item.

3.2 However, the exact brand and/or model of the equipment to be installed will only be
known at the late stage (usually after the award of the construction contract).
Designers have to limit the vibration response of the floors on generic criteria as
discussed in the following paragraphs, and then check the criteria against those
specified by the equipment actually delivered. They are termed generic because
they were intended to meet the needs of the requirements of most sensitive
equipment generally available in the market rather than a particular model.

3.3 Generic Criteria for Design of Flooring System for Sensitive Equipment and
Facilities

3.3.1 The acceptable criteria due to vibration for sensitive equipment have been studied
extensively (e.g. Ungar and White 1979, Gordon 1991) since the 1970s. The
generic criteria are usually expressed in terms of the root mean square (rms)
velocity of the flooring system due to vibratory sources over the frequency range of
4Hz to 80Hz (Figure 8). In Part I of this set of Guidelines, the base curve of ISO
2931-2:1989 has been discussed. Human discomfort is usually limited to resonant
frequency in the range of 1-8Hz, and the base and the factored curves for different
activities in term of the rms velocity are also included in Figure 8. Unlike human
discomfort, velocity (rather than displacement or acceleration) is usually used as the
measure of vibration acceptance criterion because it has been found that resonance
of equipment usually occurs on a curve of constant velocity at a higher frequency,
typically in the frequency range above 8Hz. Brownjohn and Middleton (2008) note
that part of the logic behind using velocity as the measure of vibration is that for the
short duration of the specific manufacturing operation or measurement,
displacements must be of the same order as the feature sizes of the components
being manufactured or measured.

3.3.2 Gordon (1991), based on his study on different types of sensitive equipment and the
in-situ measurements on the effects of vibration on these different types of sensitive
equipment, developed a set of the widely adopted acceptable generic vibration
curves (VC) for different types of sensitive equipment for a frequency range from
4Hz to 80Hz. These curves increasing in severity from VC-A to VC-E specify
appropriate vibration limits for different types of sensitive equipment. These


criteria specify allowable values of vibration in terms of the rms velocity produced
by the external source. It has further been noted that the lowest resonant frequency
for sensitive equipment is generally higher than 8 Hz, and that above 8Hz, the
allowable values of the vibration limits remain generally constant. Gordon (1991)
further noted that although some manufacturers may specify acceptable rms velocity
above 80Hz, vibration is rarely a problem at such high frequency.

Figure 8 Generic Acceptable Criteria (VC) Curves for
Vibration-Sensitive Equipment

3.3.3 The VC curves specify that rms vibrations should not exceed 3m/s (VC-E), 6m/s
(VC-D), 12.5m/s (VC-C), 25m/s (VC-B) or 50m/s (VC-A) for different
equipment with different sensitivities. Table 8 gives the widely adopted
interpretation of the generic vibration criteria (e.g. NIH 2008; UK Department of
Health 2008; NSW Department of Environment and Conservation 2006) for
different types of sensitivities and activities. These curves and interpretations are
applicable to continuous vibrations.


Table 8 Acceptable Criteria for Vibration-Sensitive Equipment

Generic
Vibration
Criteria
Functional uses of the flooring system
Acceptable
rms velocity
ISO 2631 Public and administrative areas 200m/sec
ISO 2631 Precision laboratories for optical
microscopes to 100X, operating
theatre, animal research facility, or
surgery rooms
100m/sec
VC-A Precision laboratories for optical
microscopes to 400X
50m/sec
VC-B Precision laboratories for optical
microscopes to 1000X, rooms for
micro surgery, eye surgery, or neuro
surgery
25m/sec
VC-C Precision laboratories for optical
microscopes to 30000X, rooms for
MRI
12.5m/sec
VC-D Rooms for electron microscopes, mass
spectrometers and E-beam systems
6.25m/sec
VC-E Rooms for microelectronics equipment
such long path, laser-based, small
target systems
3.13m/sec

3.4 Intermittent Vibration

3.4.1 Intermittent vibration is the interrupted periods of continuous or repeated periods
of impulsive vibration, or continuous vibration that varies significantly in
magnitude (NSW Department of Environment and Conservation 2006). Typical
situations include impulsive vibration occasional dropping of heavy equipment,
occasional loading and unloading, blasting, or passing trains or heavy vehicles,
forging machines, impact pile driving, where the vibration is either not of constant
amplitude or not continuous.

3.4.2 Both NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2006) and Ellis (2001)
propose to adopt the vibration dose value (VDV) as the acceptance criterion for
floors subjected to intermittent vibration. The VDV is calculated from the
frequency weighted acceleration a(t) versus time, using the following equation (BS
6472 Appendix B):
1/4
T
0
4
dt a(t) VDV
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
}

where T is the total period of the day during which vibration may occur. The VDV
(in m/s
1.75
) is related to the fourth power of a(t) and is also related to the duration of
the peak acceleration. Thus, the VDV is related to both the magnitude of the
vibrations and how many times they occur. It therefore doubles the effect of
isolated incidents of high peak acceleration during intermittent vibration much more
than the duration. For example, doubling the peak acceleration will double the
VDV, whilst doubling the duration will only result in an increase of just 19%.


3.4.3 Example 4 in Section 3.8 demonstrates how to calculate the VDV due to
intermittent vibration will be given. Once the VDV is computed, Table 9
summarizes the limits for the maximum VDV for different occupancy as given by
Ellis and Littler (2004), NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2006)
and BS 6472.

Table 9 Limits on VDVs for Different Occupancy Uses

Occupancy Uses
Low probability of
adverse comment
Adverse comment
possible
Adverse comment
probable
Critical areas 0.1 0.2 0.4
Residences 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.8 0.8-1.6
Office 0.4 0.8 1.6
Workshops 0.8 1.6 3.2
Grandstands 0.6-1.2 1.2-2.4 2.4-4.8
(Source: Ellis and Littler 2004)

3.5 Sources of Vibration

3.5.1 Potential vibration sources for typical buildings include:

a) wind-induced;
b) ground motions due to road and rail traffic, or nearby construction activities;
c) machinery; and
d) human-induced (e.g. footfall vibration).

3.5.2 Vibration due to wind-induced or construction activities is random and usually
intermittent. Although the calculation for both vibration sources has not yet been
well-documented, SEB has published the following two set of guidelines (available:
http://asdiis/sebiis/2k/resource_centre/) providing crude methods to predict the
dynamic response of the structure due to wind and construction activities
respectively:

a) SEBGL-OTH3 Guidelines on the Design for Wind-Induced Vibration; and
b) SEBGL-PL13 Guideline on Groundborne Vibration Induced by Piling
Operation.

3.5.3 To deal with vibration due to machinery, machinery should be chosen and placed at
a location such that it will not affect the sensitive equipment, and building layout at
planning stage therefore is critical. Once an inappropriate location is chosen, it will
require tedious modification works to minimize the vibration produced by
machinery. The coordination among project architect, BS engineer and structural
engineer is therefore essential at the early stage of the project.

3.5.4 In the following paragraphs, footfall vibration and traffic-induced vibration will be
discussed, and simplified methods will be presented.


3.6 Calculation of rms velocity of a flooring system due to footfall vibration

3.6.1 The other common source of dynamic load is the footfall vibration induced by the
occupants, where the equipment is housed close to a corridor. Footfall-induced
vibrations are relatively random and continuous in nature, and are generally most
severe at the middle of structural bays and least severe near columns and/or
structural walls. Similarly, walkers in the middle of a structural bay produce more
vibration than do walkers closer to columns and/or structural walls. The vibrations
due to footfalls also generally increase with increased walker speed.

3.6.2 In Part II of this set of Guidelines, procedures to calculate the peak acceleration of a
flooring system due to footfall vibration were described. Instead of calculating the
peak acceleration, the following will describe the steps to calculate rms vibration
velocity due to footfall vibration. Murray et al (1997) give the following steps in
computing the velocity of a flooring system due to footfall vibration.

Step 1: Calculate the fundamental frequency f
n
of the flooring system. For
details, designers may refer to Part I of this set of Guidelines.

Step 2: Calculate the maximum displacement using the following formulae:
2
n
2
o p m
max
2f
f F
X =
F
m
is the maximum force due to a footfall, which depends on the
walking pace speed and the weight of the walker, and f
o
is the footfall
frequency. Both of them can be referenced from Table 10. A
p
(in
mm/kN) is the mid-span flexibility of the flooring system, which is the
deflection at the middle of the flooring system under the action of a unit
load.
Table 10 Values of F
m
, f
o
and U
v
due to a Footfall

Walking Pace
Steps/minute
*
F
m
(kgf) f
o
(Hz) U
v
(kN
.
Hz
2
)
100 (fast) 1.4 5.0 110
75 (moderate) 1.25 2.5 25
50 (slow) 1.1 1.4 6.8
(Source: Murray et al 1997)

Note:
*
Willford and Young (2006) suggest that fast walking pace likely occurs at
corridor and circulation zones and within office bays and residential rooms in
a building, whilst moderate walking pace is usually found within laboratories,
operating theatres, and the like.

Step 3: Calculate the ratio of f
n
/f
o
. Here, it is necessary to distinguish a high-
frequency flooring system from a low-frequency flooring system.
Wyatt (1989) defines a high-frequency flooring system as one where
the natural frequency of the floor exceeds that of the third harmonic of
the walking pace. If it is a high frequency floor, then the maximum
velocity can be calculated from the formula:
V=2tf
n
X
max


However, if f
n
/f
o
>> 0.5, it is a low-frequency flooring system, and the
maximum velocity should be determined by the following formula:
n
p v
f
U
V =
where U
v
is a parameter, which can be referenced from Table 10.

Step 4: Convert peak values to the rms velocity, and to compare the calculated
rms velocity to the appropriate criteria in Figure 8 or Table 10. The
relationship between the rms values and peak values may be taken as
about 70% of the peak values (Ungar, 2007).

Example 3 in Section 3.8 illustrates the above procedures.

3.6.3 If the calculated rms velocity exceeds the appropriate criteria, the possible design
options that can be employed to limit footfall-induced vibrations are:

a) relocation of sensitive equipment and/or corridor, e.g. locate corridors near
columns and/or structural walls, do not locate corridors within sensitive bays;
and locate vibration sensitive equipment near columns and/or structural walls,
away from the middle of structural bays;
b) increasing the structural stiffness of the flooring system to reduce footfall-
induced vibrations. To a good approximation, the floor vibration scales as
floor stiffness to the 3/2 power. Hence, the floor vibration can be reduced by
adopting a stiffer floor system.
c) installing vibration isolator, which places the sensitive equipment on a large
inertial mass supported by a suspension with low rigid body resonant
frequencies. These designs use pneumatic springs, which produced rigid body
resonant frequencies in the 1-3 Hz range.

3.6.4 Crowd Effect

In Part II of this set of Guidelines, the crowd effect due to the flow of pedestrians
have been discussed extensively, and it was noted that the crowd effect depends on
the size of the crowd (which in turn depending on the floor area) and the possibility
of synchronization between people in the crowd. A conservative magnification
factor of N for the peak acceleration due to crowd, where N is the number of
persons on the floor system at any one time, was noted. Indeed, the derivation of
the magnification factor N is based on random vibration theory together with the
assumption that pedestrian loads are modelled as random processes. Given the fact
that the footfall velocity is also generated by the random process of pedestrians, the
magnification factor of N is also applicable to calculate the rms velocity due to
footfall vibration of a crowd of size N.

3.7 Traffic-Induced Vibration

3.7.1 Traffic-induced vibration has recently become a hot topic in both design and
research in Hong Kong, China and overseas. High speed rails are now being
constructed in China, Hong Kong and Europe, leading to the concerns about the
annoying vibration for people living and working in neighbouring buildings.


Studies by Hunaidi (2000) found that traffic vibrations are mainly caused by heavy
vehicles such as trains, buses and trucks, and those passenger cars and light trucks
rarely induce vibrations that are perceptible in buildings. A rule of thumb is that
vibration from vehicles of less than 3.5 tonne gross weight is rarely perceptible in
buildings. Hence, there should be no adverse effect on sensitive equipment in
buildings located within a compound where frequent heavy traffic is unlikely. For
other cases, substantial vibration may be induced, especially if the road surface
rough includes a harmonic component that coincides with the natural frequencies of
the vehicle and/or those of the sub-soil. Such sources predominantly produce
vibration of frequencies in the range from 5Hz to 25Hz, coinciding with the
sensitivities of most sensitive equipment.

3.7.2 Traffic-induced vibration is radiated through the ground, and is measured as particle
velocity in v (in mm/s). In the US, the particle velocity is expressed as vibration
decibels (VdB). The vibration decibels (VdB) can be converted to mm/s by the
following formula:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
ref
10 v
v
v
log 20 L
where L
v
is the velocity level in decibels, v is velocity, and v
ref
is the reference
velocity which is usually taken as 2.5410
-5
mm/s or 110
-6
in/sec .

3.7.3 Ground-borne vibration by traffic, although may be perceived, is not annoying to
pedestrians, as pedestrians are themselves walking at a certain speed. However,
when traffic-induced vibration is perceptible inside buildings, it may affect the
accuracy of sensitive equipment, or the occupants of the facilities. Research notes
that the vibratory effect of road and rail traffic to buildings is fairly complicated, as
it depends on many factors, including: the condition of road (especially any
irregularity); the vehicle weight; sub-soil and geological conditions; distance from
the road; and type of building. Numerical models (such as modelling by finite
elements) have been developed. However, such models are very time consuming
with the capacity and speed of the available computers and even with computers
that will come in the next 10 years. Yang and Huang (2011) commented that 2D
analysis may underestimate the soil damping and ignore wave propagation in the 3D,
and that 3D analysis is extremely time-consuming; whilst Madshus et al (1996)
commented that numerical models can at present mainly serve as development
tools to widen the understanding and to guide the development of empirical models.
Thus, analytical models are mostly suitable for very simple cases where both the
geometry and geological conditions of the site are not too complicated. Empirical
or semi-empirical models are usually used in order to predict ground-borne
vibration due to train traffic especially in the preliminary phase of the projects when
high accuracy in the prediction is not needed.

3.7.4 Semi-empirical simplified procedures in estimating traffic-induced vibration level
inside a building have been given by US Federal Transit Administrations
publication Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Hanson et al 2006) and
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Madshus et al 1996). These procedures are
based on extensive in-situ measurements of vibration propagation, and they are
expected to provide an approximate estimate for the preliminary design phase. The
generation of the vibration is modelled at the source through the medium and


then reception by the receiver. The following flowchart explains the propagation
of the vibratory source to the floor of the building from a transit system:

(Source: Modified from Hanson et al 2006)

The following paragraphs will describe the procedures of these methods, and design
example will be given in Section 3.8.

3.7.5 Method of FTA (Hanson et al 2006)

3.7.5.1 In the method of FTA, the following factors are included: soil conditions, types of
the vehicles, quality of the track or road surface, speed of the vehicles, distance
from the trains or traffic lane to building, and building foundation, structure and
number of floors. It is further assumed that the effects of these factors can be
treated as separable, and hence the resulting vibration on a building can be
estimated by adding and/or subtracting the corresponding factors in the vibration
of the ground. The vibration at the receiver L
v
is therefore modelled by the
following equation (Hanson et al 2006):

L
v
= L
F
+ TM + C
building
+ SF

where L
F
= vibration produced by source;
TM
line

= transfer mobility which accounts for the effect of geology;
C
building
= corrections for building coupling loss and amplification due to
resonance; and
and SF = safety factor.


3.7.5.2 FTA gives three steps in predicting traffic-induced vibration, namely screening,
general assessment, and detailed analysis. Screening method is appropriate during
the preliminary assessment. More detailed analysis will only be required if the
screening identifies any sensitive receiver within the screening distances. A
simplified rule of thumb given by FTA for institutional building is that for
frequent rail traffic and with freight train speed of less than 55mph, the screening
distance is 120 ft (about 37m); whilst for a trunk road with frequent bus service of
less than 50mph, the screening distance is 50 ft (about 16m).

3.7.5.3 For development within the screening distance, a general assessment is required.
The following summarizes the steps in the general assessment:

Step 1: Estimate the ground level rms velocity due to traffic.

Figure 9 gives an estimate of the ground level rms velocity against
distance for different types of heavy traffic. The figure was developed by
in-situ measurements of vibration induced by transit systems in the US.
The top curve applies to trains that are powered by diesel or electric
locomotives. It includes intercity passenger trains and commuter rail trains.
The curve for rapid transit rail cars covers both heavy and light-rail
vehicles on at-grade and subway track. The lowest curve represents that
induced by a typical bus operating on smooth roadway.

Figure 9 Estimate of rms velocity in VdB

Step 2: Once the base curve has been selected, adjustments have to be made due to
speed, wheel and rail type and condition, type of track support system,
geological conditions, type of building foundation, and number of floors
above the basement level. Table 11(a) gives those adjustment factors to
the vibration source.

Step 3: Table 11(b) gives those adjustment factors to the vibration path.

Step 4: Table 11(c) gives those adjustment factors to the vibration receiver.


Step 5: The resulting predictions are then augmented with a factor of safety to
account for the uncertainties in the coupling loss, attenuation through the
building structure, etc, and a uniform adjustment of +5 dB is often adopted
(Zapfe et al 2009).

Table 11(a) Adjustment due to the vibration source
Factors Adjustment
E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

Speed of Vehicle Vehicle Speed Reference Graph
50 mph 30 mph
60 mph
50 mph
40 mph
30 mph
20 mph
+1.6 dB
0.0 dB
-1.9 dB
-4.4 dB
-8.0 dB
+6.0 dB
+4.4 dB
+2.5 dB
0.0 dB
-3.5 dB
Vehicle Parameters
Vehicle with stiff primary
suspension
+8 dB (Include this adjustment when the primary
suspension has a vertical resonance frequency
greater than 15 Hz)
Resilient Wheels 0 dB
Worn Wheels or Wheels with Flats +10 dB
Resiliently Supported Tiers -10 dB
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
s

o
f

T
r
a
c
k

1

(
f
o
r

t
r
a
i
n
s

o
n
l
y
)

Track Conditions
Worn or Corrugated Track +10 dB
Special Trackwork +10 dB
Jointed Track or Uneven Road
Surfaces
+5 dB
Track Treatments
Type of Track Structure

Relative to at-grade tie and ballast:
Elevated structure
Open cut

-10 dB
0 dB
Relative to bored subway tunnel in soil:
Station
Cut and cover
Rock-based

-5 dB
-3 dB
- 15 dB
Note:
1
Both FTA and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute methods are based on the measurements of railway, and
there are no data to account for the pavement condition for motor vehicle. Designers should make judgment
on the effect for pavement when considering traffic-induced vibration by motor vehicles.


Table 11(b) Adjustment due to the vibration path
Factors Adjustment
Geological conditions
2
Efficient propagation in soil
3
+10 dB
Efficient propagation
in rock layer
4

Distance
50 ft
100 ft
150 ft
200 ft
Adjustment
+2 dB
+4 dB
+6 dB
+9 dB
Coupling loss due to building foundation
5

Wood Frame Houses
1-2 Story Masonry
3-4 Story Masonry
Large Masonry on Piles
Large Masonry on Spread Footings
Foundation in Rock
-5 dB
-7 dB
-10 dB
-10 dB
-13 dB
0 dB
Note:
2
Vibration may be efficient or normal propagated by the underlying geological conditions. Some
geological conditions (e.g. shallow bedrock, stiff clayey soil) are found to be associated with efficient
propagation. Investigation of ground investigation records is therefore required to identify whether efficient
propagation is possible. Further details of ground investigation works that can be carried out to validate the
transfer mobility will be given in next paragraph.

3
Soil has been adopted as a basis for the production of the curve in Figure 9, and hence no adjustment is
required for normal propagation in soil. For efficient propagation in soil, the vibration attenuation in Figure
9 should be increased by 10dB.

4
For efficient propagation in rock, although the vibration still attenuates with distance as in Figure 9, this
attenuation rate is different for rock. Positive adjustment is required to account for lower attenuation of
vibration in rock compared to soil. That is, if the distance from the source is longer, the degree of
compensation is more.

5
Coupling loss represents the vibration attenuation when vibration energy is transmitted from ground into the
building foundation.

Table 11(c) Adjustment due to the receiver
Factors Adjustment
Floor-to-floor attenuation 1 to 5 floors above grade:
5 to 10 floors above grade:
-2 dB/floor
-1 dB/floor
Amplification due to resonances of floors,
walls, and ceilings
+6 dB

3.7.5.4 Detailed analysis

FTA recommends that a detailed analysis is required when the general assessment
has indicated potential impact and the project has entered the final design and
construction stage, or when there is particularly a sensitive development within the
screening distances. In the detailed analysis, in-situ measurements will be carried
out to obtain the site-specific frequency components of the vibration signal and the
transfer mobility. Vibration propagation tests are suggested by FTA to validate
the transfer mobility. The theory behind such tests is to create vibration pulses
that travel from the source to the receiver using the same path that will be taken by
the vibration induced by the traffic. A heavy weight is dropped onto the ground or
at the bottom of a drillhole drilled to the depth of the future underground rail, and
the vibration on the ground surface is measured by successive geophones installed
at several distances from the impact. Figure 10 shows the schematic design of the
set-up, and designer is suggested to refer Hanson et al (2006) for the detailed
procedures to compute the transfer mobility from the measured data. The results
from the in-situ measurements give an accurate data on the ground transmission
properties. The subsequent step then involves analytical models or semi-empirical
adjustments in Table 11 to predict the propagation of vibration from the building
foundation to the receiver.


Figure 10 Set-up to validate transfer mobility

3.7.6 Method of Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Madshus et al 1996)

The method of Norwegian Geotechnical Institute are based on the data collected
from measurements at different sites and various building types along the railway
lines in Norway and Sweden. At each site, the vibration was measured
simultaneously at several points on the ground surface in the propagation region, on
building foundations and on floors, and on the railway embankment. The method
then noted that the vibration at mid-spans of a building v (in mm/s) is the results of
the factors given in the following equation:

v = V
T
F
S
F
D
F
R
F
B

where V
T
= vibration level (in mm/s) on the ground at a distance of 15m from the
source from a source at 70km/h;
F
D
= a factor for the distance attenuation = (D/15)
-B
, and D is the distance
from the centre of the source to the receiver and B increases from 0.3
to 0.9 from soft to medium ground condition;

F
R
= a factor for the quality of track, which varies from 0.7 for high quality
track to 1.3 for old track;

F
B
= building amplification factor
*
= 1.3 for timber single storey house and
1.9 for a 2-storey building;
and F
S
= effect of speed of vehicle = (S/70)
-A
, and S is the speed of the train or
vehicle and A varies from 0.9 to 1.1.

Note:
*
Madshus et al (1996) note that the data for F
B
showed great variation, and a typical standard
deviation of 1.2 was recorded. Hence, designers should note such limitation when adopting
the appropriate value to suit the individual case.


3.8 Design Examples

3.8.1 Example 3 calculates the rms velocity in rc flooring system induced by footfall
vibration. Example 4 gives an example to calculate the VDV of a flooring system
subjected to intermittent vibration. Examples 5 and 6 calculate the rms velocity
induced a flooring system induced to traffic.

3.8.2 Example 3 Calculation of rms Velocity due to Footfall Vibration

The structural plan is shown as follows:

The floor construction consists of a concrete slab on secondary steel I-beams at
1.5m c/c supported on primary girders on steel columns at 4m c/c with height 5m.
The weight of the floor is 3.1kPa. Both the secondary I-beams and girders are
assumed to be simply supported. The moments of inertia of the each secondary I-
beam 20310223kg/mUB and each primary girder 610229140kg/mUB are
28.910
6
mm
4
and 1,12010
6
mm
4
respectively. The floor is designed for use of
sugery.

The deflections due to the weight supported by each element (secondary I-beams,
primary girders and steel columns) are determined as follows:

The deflection of the secondary steel I-beam due to the floor weight is
2.62mm
10 28.9 205000 384
(4000) 1.5) (3.1 5
I 384E
L 5w
6
4
j s
4
j j
j
=

= =
The deflection of the primary steel girders due to the floor weight is
14.58mm
10 1120 205000 384
(12000) 4.0) (3.1 5
I 384E
L 5w
6
4
g s
4
g g
g
=

= =
The axial shortening of the columns A
c
is calculated from the axial stress due to the
weight supported. Assuming an axial stress,
a
, of 40MPa,
0.98mm
205000
5000 40
E
L
c a
c
=
= =


The total deflection is 2.62 + 14.58 + 0.98 = 18.18mm, and the fundamental natural
frequency
c g j
n
g
f
A + A + A
= 18 . 0 Hz 18 . 4
10 18 . 18
81 . 9
18 . 0
3
=
=

After calculating fundamental natural frequency, it is necessary to calculate the
maximum displacement due to the footfall using:
2
n
2
o p m
max
2f
f F
X =
To calculate A
p
, apply 1kN at the middle of the flooring system, and Murray et al
(1997) gives the following approximate method:

First, calculate the deflections due to the secondary and main beams are as follows:
mm 10 2.25
10 28.9 205000 48
4000
I 48E
L
4 -
6
3
j s
3
j
j
=

= =
and mm 10 84 . 7
10 1120 205000 48
12000
I 48E
L
5
6
3
g s
3
g
g
=

= =

Then, A
p
=A
j
+0.5A
g
=2.2510
-4
+0.57.8410
-5
= 2.6410
-4
mm/kN

Fast walking: F
m
= 1.4kgf, f
o
=5Hz, U
v
=110 kN
.
Hz
2

mm 10 64 . 2
18 . 4 2
5 10 64 . 2 10 4 . 1
2f
f F
X
6
2
2 4 2
2
n
2
o p m
max

= =
Moderate walking: F
m
= 1.25kg, f
o
=2.5Hz, U
v
=25 kN
.
Hz
2
mm 10 90 . 5
18 . 4 2
5 . 2 10 64 . 2 10 25 . 1
2f
f F
X
7
2
2 4 2
2
n
2
o p m
max

= =

Slow walking: F
m
= 1.1kg, f
o
=1.4Hz, U
v
=6.8 kN
.
Hz
2
mm 10 63 . 1
18 . 4 2
4 . 1 10 64 . 2 10 1 . 1
2f
f F
X
7
2
2 4 2
2
n
2
o p m
max

= =

Here, f
n
/f
o
is approximately 1, and hence, the peak and the rms velocities are:
V=2tf
n
X
max

Fast walking: V= 2t4.182.6410
-6
= 69.310
-6
mm/s = 69.3m/sec
Rms velocity = 0.769.3 = 48.5m/sec
Moderate walking: V= 2t4.185.9010
-7
= 15.510
-6
mm/s = 15.5m/sec
Slow walking: V= 2t4.181.6310
-7
= 4.310
-6
mm/s = 4.3m/sec

The note to Table 10 notes that fast walking pace likely occurs at corridor and
circulation zones and within office bays and residential rooms in a building, whilst
moderate walking pace is usually found within laboratories, operating theatres, and
the like. For surgery purpose, the permitted rms velocity is 100m/sec, and hence


the flooring system is suitable for surgery purpose, where moderate walking is
likely.

Designer may note that this flooring system is still suitable for surgery purpose with
rms velocity of 48.5m/sec, even when it is located near a corridor where fast
walking is likely. However, in the latter case designer should consider the
possibility of crowd movement. Section 3.6.4 suggests that the crowd effect can be
modelled by a factor of N , and hence if there is a group of 5 people likely to walk
at fast pace on the corridor, the rms velocity will become 48.5m/sec 5 =108
m/sec, exceeding the permitted rms velocity of 100m/sec. This tallies with our
usual practice not to locate surgery rooms near corridor where fast walking is likely!

3.8.3 Example 4 Intermittent Vibration

Consider Example 3 again, and in addition to footfall vibration, there are
intermittent vibratory sources, producing the peak accelerations (ranging from
2.9%g to 9.1%g) in the following table:

Duration (seconds) Peak Acceleration (ms
-2
) Frequency (Hz)
10 0.59 4
20 0.49 5
40 0.58 6.3
100 0.91 8
120 0.29 10

The VDV due to the intermittent vibrations are calculated as follows:

a
i
(ms
-2
) f (Hz)
Weighting
W
i

Frequency
weighted
acceleration
a(t) (ms
-2
)
Duration
T (s)
a(t)
4
T
0.59 4 1 0.59 10 1.21
0.49 5 1 0.49 20 1.15
0.58 6.3 1 0.58 40 4.53
0.91 8 1 0.91 100 68.57
0.29 10 0.8 0.23 120 0.33

E
75.79

Therefore,
1/4
79 . 75 VDV = =2.95 m/s
1.75
.

For surgery, the calculated VDV exceeds the adverse comments level (0.4 m/s
1.75
),
and measures have to be taken to reduce the peak acceleration and/or duration of the
intermittent vibration.

3.8.4 Example 5 Calculation of rms Velocity due to External Traffic

Consider a two-storey building located adjacent to a road as shown in the following
figure. There are rubber-tired vehicles on the road, which can travel at a maximum


speed of 70 km/h. The building rests on pad footings on hard sand and gravel soils.
The floor system has a fundamental natural frequency of around 16 Hz.

Method of FTA

From Figure 9, with a distance of 12m (40 feet), the rms of ground-surface
vibration levels = 65 VdB for rubber-tired vehicle at 30 mph.

From Table 11, adjustment factors due to:
1. Speed of vehicle at 70 km/h (44mph) = +3.33 dB
2. Coupling loss to foundation for building on spread footings = -13 dB
3. Floor to floor attenuation at 1/F = -2 dB
4. Amplification due to resonance of floor = +6dB
5. Allowance for uncertainties = +5 dB

Therefore, the adjusted maximum rms of ground-surface vibration levels
= 65 + 3.33 13 2 + 6 + 5 = +64.33 VdB

Hence, rms velocity v can be obtained from:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
ref
10 v
v
v
log 20 L
giving v = 0.042 mm/sec

Method of Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

From Figure 9, with a distance of 12m (40 feet), the rms of ground-surface
vibration levels = 65 VdB for rubber-tired vehicle at 30 mph (48km/h).

With the adjustment by FTA for speed, the rms of ground-surface vibration levels =
68.33 VdB at 70 km/h. Therefore V
T
= 0.065 mm/s on the ground at a distance of
15m from the source from a source at 70km/h. Here, the speed of the source has
been adjusted to 70km/h, and hence F
S
=1.0.

Take B = 0.7 for medium ground condition and F
D
= (12/15)
-0.7
= 1.14.

Assume F
R
=0.7, rms velocities on the building for different values of F
B
are
summarized in the following table:


Values of F
B
v = V
T
F
S
F
D
F
R
F
B
(mm/s)
1.9 0.099
1.3 0.067

3.8.4 Example 6 Calculation of rms Velocity due to Railway

Consider Example 5 again, and instead of a road, there is an on-grade railway
adjacent located at a distance of 15m to the two-storey building. The freight train is
moving at a speed of 70 km/h.

Method of FTA

From Figure 9, with a distance of 15m, the rms of ground-surface vibration levels =
84.5 VdB for a freight train at 50 mph.

From Table 11, adjustment factors due to:
1. Speed of train at 70 km/h (44mph) = -1.14 dB
2. Jointed track = +5 dB
3. High-resilience fasteners used on the track = -5 dB
4. Coupling to foundation for building on spread footings = -13 dB
5. Floor to floor attenuation at 1/F = -2 dB
6. Amplification due to resonance of floor = +6 dB
7. Allowance for uncertainties = +5 dB

Therefore, the adjusted maximum rms of ground-surface vibration levels
= 84.5 -1.14 + 5 5 13 2 + 6 + 5 = +79.36 VdB

Hence, rms velocity v can be obtained from:
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
ref
10 v
v
v
log 20 L
giving v = 0.236 mm/sec

Method of Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

From Figure 9, with a distance of 15m, the rms of ground-surface vibration levels =
84.5 VdB for a freight train at 50 mph.

With the adjustment by FTA for speed, the rms of ground-surface vibration levels =
=84.5-1.14 = 83.36 VdB at 70 km/h (44mph). Therefore V
T
= 0.374 mm/s on the
ground at a distance of 15m from the source from a source at 70km/h. Here, the
speed of the source has been adjusted to 70km/h, and hence F
S
=1.0.

Take B = 0.7 for medium ground condition and F
D
= (15/15)
-0.7
= 1.0.

Assume F
R
=0.7, rms velocities on the building for different values of F
B
are
summarized in the following table:


Values of F
B
v = V
T
F
S
F
D
F
R
F
B
(mm/s)
1.9 0.497
1.3 0.340

4. Design References

Au, S K, Ni, Y C, Zhang, F L and Lam, H F (2011), Field Measurement and Modal
Identification of a Coupled Floor Slab System, Presented at the Twelfth East AsiaPacific
Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Hong Kong, 26-28 January 2011.

Allen, D E (1990), Building Vibration from Human Activities, Concrete International,
ACI, 12 (6), pp. 66-73.

ANSI (1983), American National Institute Standard ANSI 53.29-1983: Guide for the
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (New York: ANSI).

Bennett, R M (1997), Spectator Live Loads during Football Games, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 123(11), pp. 1545-7.

BSI (1987), BS 6841-1987: Guide to Measurement and Evaluation of Human Exposure to
Whole-Body Mechanical Vibration and Repeated Shock (London: BSI).

BSI (1992), BS 6472-1992: Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in
Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz) (London: BSI).

Brownjohn, J (2006), Vibration Control of Ultra-Sensitive Facilities, Structures and
Buildings, 159(5), pp. 295-306 (available: http://vibration.shef.ac.uk/pdfs/; accessed: 30
June 2011).

Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (2005), Commentary D: Deflection and
vibration criteria for serviceability and fatigue limit states, in National Research Council of
Canada (2005), Users Guide - NBC 2005: Structural Commentaries (Part 4 of Division B)
(Ottawa: NRC), pp. D1-D10.

Brownjohn, J and Middleton, C T (2008), Procedures for Vibration Serviceability
Assessment of High-Frequency Floors, Engineering Structures, 30(6), pp. 1548-59.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport, UK (1997), Guide to Safety at Sports Ground
(London: Stationery Office) (available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/; accessed: 30 June
2011).

Department of Health, UK (2008), Health Technical Memorandum 08-01: Acoustics
(London: Department of Health Estates and Facilities Division).

Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW (2006), Assessing Vibration: a
Technical Guideline (Sydney: Department of Environment and Conservation) (available:
www.environment.nsw.gov.au; accessed: 5 July 2011).

Dougill, J W, Wright, J R, Parkhouse, J G and Harrison, R E (2006), Human Structure
Interaction during Rhythmic Bobbing, The Structural Engineer, 84(22), pp. 32-39.

Ellis, B R and Ji, T (1997), BRE Digest 426: the Response of Structures to Dynamic Crowd
loads (London: BRE).


Ellis, B R and Ji, T (2000), The Response of Grandstands to Dynamic Crowd Loads,
Structures and Buildings, 140, November, pp. 355-65 (available: http://personalpages.
manchester.ac.uk/staff/tianjian.ji/; accessed: 30 June 2011).

Ellis, B R and Ji, T (2002), On the Loads Produced by Crowds Jumping on Floors,
Presented at the 5th European Conference on Structural Dynamics, Munich, Germany, 2-5
September 2002.

Ellis, B R and Littler, J D (2004), Response of Cantilever Grandstands to Crowd Loads
Part 1: Serviceability Evaluation, Structures and Buildings, 157(5B4), pp. 235-41.

Ellis, B R and Littler, J D (2004a), Response of Cantilever Grandstands to Crowd Loads
Part 2: Load Estimation, Structures and Buildings, 157(5B5), pp. 297-307.

FGI (2010), Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities (Dallas:
FGI).

Greenwood, R D, and Cowell, R (1992), International Convention Centre, Birmingham:
Structures and Railway Vibration Isolation, Structures and Buildings, 94, August, pp. 253-
62.

Hanson, C E, Towers, D A, and Meister, L D (2006), Report prepared by Harris Miller
Miller & Hanson Inc. for Federal Transit Administration: Traffic Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment (Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation) (available:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/; accessed: 30 June 2011).

Hicks S J and Devine P J (2004), Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors in Hospitals
(Berkshire: SCI).

ISO (2007), ISO 10137-2007: Bases for Design of Structures - Serviceability of Buildings
and Walkways against Vibrations (Geneva: ISO).

ISO (1989), ISO 2631-2: 1989 Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration --
Part 2: Continuous and Shock-Induced Vibrations in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz) (Geneva: ISO).

IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2001), Dynamic Performance Requirements for Permanent
Grandstands Subject to Crowd Action: Interim Guidance on Assessment and Design
(London: IStructE).

IStructE (2007), Temporary Demountable Structures: Guidance on Procurement, Design
and Use (London: IStructE, 3
rd
ed).

Jones, C A, Reynolds, P and Pavic, A (2011), Vibration Serviceability of Stadia Structures
Subjected to Dynamic Crowd Loads: a Literature Review, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
330(8), pp. 1531-66.

Li, W W, Wong C T, Leung M K and Fung S C (2011), Floor Vibration due to Human
Rhythmic Activities: Tin Shui Wai Public Library cum Indoor Recreation Centre,
Presented at the Twelfth East AsiaPacific Conference on Structural Engineering and
Construction, Hong Kong, 26-28 January 2011.

Madshus, C, Bessason, B and Harvik, L (1996), Prediction Model for Low Frequency
Vibration from High Speed Railways on Soft Ground, Journal of Sound and Vibration,


193(1), pp. 195-203 (available: http://notendur.hi.is/bb/BBgreinar/; accessed: 4 September
2011) .

Murray, T M, Allen, D E and Ungar, E E (1997), Steel Design Guide Series 11: Floor
Vibrations due to Human Activity (Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction).

National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2008), Design Requirements Manual for Biomedical
Laboratories and Animal Research Facilities (Maryland: NIH) (available:
http://orf.od.nih.gov/; accessed: 30 June 2011).

Pavic, A and Reynolds, P (2008), Experimental Verification of Novel 3DOF Model of
Grandstand Crowd-Structure Dynamic Interaction, Presented at the 26
th
International
Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, Florida, 4-7 February 2008.

Pernica, G (1990), Dynamic Load Factors for Pedestrian Movements and Rhythmic
Exercises, Canadian Acoustics, 18(2), pp. 3-18.

Reynolds, P, Pavic, A and Carr, J (2007), A Remote Monitoring System for Stadia
Dynamics, Structures and Buildings, 157(6), pp. 385-93.

Reynolds, P, Pavic, A and Carr, J (2007), Experimental Dynamic Analysis of the Kingston
Communications Stadium, The Structural Engineer, 85(8), pp. 33-9.

Sim, J, Blakeborough A and Williams M (2006), Modelling Effects of Passive Crowds on
Grandstand Vibration, Structures and Buildings, 159(SB5), pp. 261-72).

Talja, A, Veps, A, Kurkela, K and Halonen, M (2008), Rakennukseen Siirtyvn
Liikennetrinn Arviointi (Assessment of Traffic-Induced Vibrations in Buildings)
(Kemistintie, Finland: VTT) (available: http://www.vtt.fi/; accessed: 1 March 2011).

Ungar, E E and White R W (1979), Footfall-Induced Vibrations of Floors Supporting
Sensitive Equipment, Sound and Vibration, 13(10), pp. 10-3.

Ungar, E E (2007), Vibration Criteria for Healthcare Facility Floors, Sound and Vibration,
41(9), pp. 26-7 (available: http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0709unga.pdf; accessed: 4
September 2011) .

Willford, M (2005), Dynamic Performance of Stands, in Culley, P and Pascoe, J (eds.)
Stadium Engineering (London: Thomas Telford Publications), pp. 47-54.

Willford M and Young P (2006), A Design Guide for Footfall Induced Vibration of
Structures (Surrey: The Concrete Centre).

Wong, C T, Leung, M K and Chow, H M (2011), Floor Vibration Induced by Human
Rhythmic Activities: Design and Post-Construction Validation at Tin Shui Wai Public
Library cum Indoor Recreation Centre, To be Presented at the 14th Asia Pacific Vibration
Conference, Hong Kong, 5-8 December 2011.

Wyatt T A (1989), Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors (Ascot, Berkshire: SCI).

Yao, S, Wright, J R, Pavic, A and Reynolds, P (2004), Experimental Study of Human
Induced Dynamic Forces Due to Jumping on a Perceptibly Moving Structure, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 296(1-2), pp. 150-65.


Yang, Y B and Huang H H (2011), Ground Vibrations due to Underground Trains by the
2.5D Finite/Infinite Element Approach, in Ni et al (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Cross-
Strait Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, 1, pp. 20-9.

Zapfe, J A, Saurenman, H and Fidell, S (2009), TCRP Web-Only Document 48: Ground-
Borne Noise and Vibration in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit (Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board) (available: www.trb.org; accessed: 24 August 2011).

Guidelines On The Design of Floor For Vibration Due To Human Actions (Part III)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Guidelines On The Design of Floor For Vibration Due To Human Actions (Part III)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD Page 1 of 49 - 1 -Page 1 of 50 File code : PartIII.

= (or 13.35 %g)

Potrebbero piacerti anche