FLOOR VIBRATIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND MORE. Frequently Asked Question. Questions Concerning Design for Walking Excitation

Similar documents
A Portable Real Time Data Acquisition System for the Comparison of Floor Vibration Data with AISC Design Guide 11 Estimates

STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PREDICTED RESPONSE OF FLOOR SYSTEMS DUE TO WALKING

Dynamical response of composite steel deck floors

25/01/2013. Agenda. Advanced Approaches to Modeling and Assessment of Floors for Control of Human Activity. Ultra-Low Vibration Environments

Chapter 6. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for Future Research. 6.1 Summary

AN EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION OF FLOOR VIBRATIONS

Structures Congress 2011 ASCE Simplified Methods for Estimating the Response of Floors to a Footfall

Chapter 5. Proposed Response Prediction Methods

[N571] Dynamic Load Factor for Floor Vibration due to Lively Concert. Kappyo Hong. Kwang Sup Yoon ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 3 VERIFICATION OF PROPOSED EQUATIONS FOR THE EFFECTIVE MOMENT OF INERTIA OF STEEL JOIST - CONCRETE SLAB SYSTEMS

RFS2-CT Background Document for Floor Vibrations

Codal Provisions IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002

FRAME ANALYSIS. Dr. Izni Syahrizal bin Ibrahim. Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Application of Magneto-Rheological Dampers in Tuned Mass Dampers for Floor Vibration Control

Mass Timber Floor Vibration

Structural Dynamics. Spring mass system. The spring force is given by and F(t) is the driving force. Start by applying Newton s second law (F=ma).

FOOTFALL ANALYSIS GUIDE 2016 FEBRUÁR. Copyright Inter-CAD Kft

on the figure. Someone has suggested that, in terms of the degrees of freedom x1 and M. Note that if you think the given 1.2

Dynamics of structures

AISC LRFD Beam Design in the RAM Structural System

Vibration serviceability assessment of a staircase based on moving load simulations and measurements

A Study of Computer Modeling Techniques to Predict the Response of Floor Systems Due to Walking

DL CMU wall = 51.0 (lb/ft 2 ) 0.7 (ft) DL beam = 2.5 (lb/ft 2 ) 18.0 (ft) 5

Case Study in Reinforced Concrete adapted from Simplified Design of Concrete Structures, James Ambrose, 7 th ed.

DUCTILITY BEHAVIOR OF A STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALL BY EXPLICIT DYNAMIC ANALYZING

Pedro Colmar G. da S. Vellasco Member, ABCM

APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF EXISTING SIMPLIFIED METHODS

Vibration analysis of concrete bridges during a train pass-by using various models

2.003 Engineering Dynamics Problem Set 10 with answer to the concept questions

Copyright. magazine. bearing capacity and modulus of subgrade reaction? Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (Ks)

VibrationsinSteelFrameFloorsduetoHumanActivities

PLEASURE VESSEL VIBRATION AND NOISE FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Investigation of traffic-induced floor vibrations in a building

Suspended high-rise. Suspended high-rise Copyright G G Schierle, press Esc to end, for next, for previous slide 1

Lecture-09 Introduction to Earthquake Resistant Analysis & Design of RC Structures (Part I)

two structural analysis (statics & mechanics) APPLIED ACHITECTURAL STRUCTURES: DR. ANNE NICHOLS SPRING 2017 lecture STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMS

Timber and Steel Design. Lecture 7 - B E A M. Introduction to. Floor Framing System Bending Stresses Compact Sections Lateral Support of Beams

Karbala University College of Engineering Department of Civil Eng. Lecturer: Dr. Jawad T. Abodi

Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (II)

SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE DESIGN

ON THE PREDICTION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM TWO PILE TESTS UNDER FORCED VIBRATIONS

Response Spectrum Analysis Shock and Seismic. FEMAP & NX Nastran

Modal analysis of shear buildings

PLATE GIRDERS II. Load. Web plate Welds A Longitudinal elevation. Fig. 1 A typical Plate Girder

3.2 Reinforced Concrete Slabs Slabs are divided into suspended slabs. Suspended slabs may be divided into two groups:

A REVIEW OF LOAD MODELS FOR THE PREDICTION OF FOOTFALL-INDUCED VIBRATION IN STRUCTURES

Job No. Sheet No. Rev. CONSULTING Engineering Calculation Sheet. Member Design - Steel Composite Beam XX 22/09/2016

Substituting T-braces for continuous lateral braces on wood truss webs

Support Reactions: a + M C = 0; 800(10) F DE(4) F DE(2) = 0. F DE = 2000 lb. + c F y = 0; (2000) - C y = 0 C y = 400 lb

Passive Control of the Vibration of Flooring Systems using a Gravity Compensated Non-Linear Energy Sink

WIND LOADS ON ARENA ROOFS USING AERODYNAMIC MODELS. Daryl W. Boggs 1 and Jon A. Peterka 2

Sabah Shawkat Cabinet of Structural Engineering Walls carrying vertical loads should be designed as columns. Basically walls are designed in

UC Berkeley CE 123 Fall 2017 Instructor: Alan Kren

Steel Cross Sections. Structural Steel Design

Software Verification

A q u a b l u e a t t h e G o l d e n M i l e

Structural Specialization

TORSION INCLUDING WARPING OF OPEN SECTIONS (I, C, Z, T AND L SHAPES)

General Comparison between AISC LRFD and ASD

Characteristics of a Force Loads on Structures. Dead Load. Load Types Dead Live Wind Snow Earthquake. Load Combinations ASD LRFD

Physics Mechanics. Lecture 32 Oscillations II

RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD FOR ESTIMATION OF PEAK FLOOR ACCELERATION DEMAND

Case Study in Reinforced Concrete adapted from Simplified Design of Concrete Structures, James Ambrose, 7 th ed.

Broadband Vibration Response Reduction Using FEA and Optimization Techniques

Failure in Flexure. Introduction to Steel Design, Tensile Steel Members Modes of Failure & Effective Areas

Software Verification

1. Multiple Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) Systems: Introduction

From Table 1 4. DL = [12 lb/ft 2 # in.(6 in.)] (15 ft)(10 ft) = 10,800 lb. LL = (250 lb/ft 2 )(15 ft)(10 ft) = 37,500 lb.

Parametric Identification of a Cable-stayed Bridge using Substructure Approach

A fire resistance assessment case history G.C. and M.E. Giuliani

SHAKING TABLE COLLAPSE TESTS OF TWO SCALE MODELS OF A 4-STORY MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAME

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination Analysis

Simplified Dynamic Analysis of Beams and Slabs with Tuned Mass Dampers

Research on Dynamic Characteristics of Boarding Bridge Under the Crowd Loads

DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS (from Nilson and Nawy)

Chapter 8: Bending and Shear Stresses in Beams

AUTOMATED DESIGN OF STEEL WIDE-FLANGED BEAM FLOOR FRAMING SYSTEMS USING A GENETIC ALGORITHM

Two Way Beam Supported Slab

Static & Dynamic. Analysis of Structures. Edward L.Wilson. University of California, Berkeley. Fourth Edition. Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering

3.4 Analysis for lateral loads

Torsional Analysis of

COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON SEISMIC INCOHERENT SSI ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

INELASTIC SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE PREDICTION OF MDOF SYSTEMS BY EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION

Example 2.2 [Ribbed slab design]

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CHAPTER 2. Introduction

k 21 k 22 k 23 k 24 k 31 k 32 k 33 k 34 k 41 k 42 k 43 k 44

Modelling Low-frequency Vibrations of Light Weight Timber Floors

a 1 ft2 144 in 2 b 26 in.

VIBRATION ANALYSIS IN SHIP STRUCTURES BY FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF FLAT POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE FLOORS: FREQUENCY COEFFICIENT-ROOT FUNCTION METHOD

CIVL 8/7117 Chapter 12 - Structural Dynamics 1/75. To discuss the dynamics of a single-degree-of freedom springmass

Dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall with strain rate effect. Synopsis. Introduction

research report Design Example for Analytical Modeling of a Curtainwall and Considering the Effects of Bridging (All-Steel Design Approach)

NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS OF SOIL-PILE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

PUNCHING SHEAR CALCULATIONS 1 ACI 318; ADAPT-PT

Curved Steel I-girder Bridge LFD Guide Specifications (with 2003 Edition) C. C. Fu, Ph.D., P.E. The BEST Center University of Maryland October 2003

Mitigation of Train-Induced Floor Vibrations in Multi-Story Buildings Using a Blocking Floor

Preferred practice on semi-integral abutment layout falls in the following order:

DYNAMIC INVESTIGATIONS ON REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGES

1. Background. 2. Objectives of Project. Page 1 of 29

Transcription:

FLOOR VIBRATIONS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND MORE Presentation is based on AISC/CISC Design Guide 11 and SJI Technical Digest 5 2 nd Ed. Presented by Thomas M. Murray, Ph.D., P.E. Emeritus Professor Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia thmurray@vt.edu Vibe v2.20 Software for Analyzing s for Vibrations Criteria Based on AISC/CISC Design Guide 11 SJI Technical Digest 5 SEAoT DALLAS CHAPTER Janurary 15, 2015 1/691 SEI Structural Engineers, Inc. 537 Wisteria Drive Radford, VA 24141 540-731-3330 Fax 540-639-0713 tmmurray@floorvibe.com http://www.floorvibe.com 2/69 Questions Concerning Design for Walking Excitation What is the power of Resonance? 3/69 4/69 1

The Power of Resonance Phenomenon of Resonance Response 0 1 2 1-3% Damping 5-7% Damping Natural frequency, f n Forcing frequency, f 5/69 Resonance occurs when a multiple of the forcing function frequency equals a natural frequency of the floor. We are usually concerned with the first natural frequency. Resonance can occur because of walking dancing, or exercising. Note: Walking step frequency range is 1.6-2.2 Hz (96 to 132 bpm) 6/69 Harmonics Footstep = = α i Pcos( 2πif t) 1st Harmonic α 1 P f 1 = 1 step f step Why do some walkers cause more floor motion then other walkers? 2nd Harmonic α 2 P f 2 = 2 f step 3rd Harmonic α 3 P f 3 = 3 f step 7/69 8/69 2

Response from a Lightly Damped Why do some walkers cause more floor motion then other walkers? Because their pace is a sub-harmonic of the floor dominant frequency. That is, a harmonic of their walking speed, i.e. 2 or 3 times their walking speed, matches the floor dominant frequency. Measured Autospectrum (Peak, %g) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Walking Speed 100 bpm System Frequency 5 Hz 3 rd Harmonic 2 nd Harmonic 3.33 Hz 9/69 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Frequency (Hz) 10/69 What is new in SJI TD5? Peak Acceleration (% Gravity) 25 10 5 2.5 1 0.5 0.25 Rhythmic Activities Outdoor Footbridges........................ Indoor Footbridges, Shopping Malls, Dining and Dancing........................ Offices, Residences........................ DG11 TD5 Use the Modified ISO Scale Considering Resonance 0.1 0.05 ISO Baseline Curve _ 11/69 1 3 4 5 8 10 25 40 Frequency (Hz) 12/69 3

DG11 and TD5 Walking Criterion DG11 and TD5 Walking Criterion a g p Predicted Tolerance = P o exp( 0.35f βw n ) a g o a p = peak acceleration a o = acceleration limit g = acceleration of gravity f n = fundamental frequency of a beam or joist panel, or a combined panel, as applicable P o = a constant force equal to 65 lb for floors and 92 lb for footbridges β = modal damping ratio (0.01 to 0.05) ap Po exp( 0.35fn) ao = g βw g W = effective weight supported by the beam or joist panel, girder panel, or combined panel, as applicable 13/69 14/69 DG11 and TD5 Walking Criterion Tolerance Acceleration Limits Updated Tolerance Occupancy Acceleration Limit a o /g x 100% Offices, Residences 0.5% 0.55% Assembly Areas, Churches, Schools 0.5% 0.55% Shopping Malls 1.5% Indoor Footbridges 1.5% Outdoor Footbridges 5.0% DG11 and TD5 Walking Criterion Improved Approach for Estimating Modal Damping Structural System 1% Ceiling and Ductwork 1% Electronic Office Fit-out 0.5% Paper Office Fit-out 1% Churches, Schools, Malls 0% Dry Wall Partitions in Bay 3% to 5% 15/69 Note: Damping is cumulative. 16/69 4

Fit out Condition: Electronic Office. Limited number of file cabinets. No fullheight partitions, suspended ceiling and ductwork below. Estimated Damping: Structure 1% Ceiling & Ductwork 0% Electronic Office 0.5% Damping 1.5% Fit out Condition: Paper Office. Suspended ceiling or ductwork below. No full height partitions. Estimated Damping: Structure 1% Ceiling & Ductwork 1% Paper Office 1% Damping 3% 17/69 18/69 How accurate are the AISC DG11 and SJI TD5 procedures? 19/69 How accurate is the DG11 procedure? Framing No. of Bays Agreement DG11 Procedure Percent Agreement Hot-Rolled Framing 50 48 of 50 96% Joists w/ Hot-Rolled Girders 27 26 of 27 96% Joists w/ Joist Girders 22 22 of 22 100% Castellated Beams 6 6 of 6 100% ALL 105 102 of 105 97% Data from a study being conducted at the University 20/69 of Kentucky by Dr. Brad Davis. 5

No recommendations are given in DG11 for public areas like airport terminals, lobbies, etc. What do you recommend? No recommendations are given in DG11 for public areas like airport terminals, lobbies, etc. What do you recommend? 1.0%g based on personal experience of spending many hours sitting at airline departure gates. (Recommendation will be included in AISC DG11 2 nd Ed.) 21/69 22/69 Why is the full composite moment of inertia used in the frequency calculations even when the beam, joist or girder is non-composite? Why is the full composite moment of inertia used in the frequency calculations even when the beam or girder is noncomposite? f n = 0.18 g/( b + g ) ( ) = 5wL 4 / 384Es It 23/69 Annoying vibrations have displacements of 0.001-0.010 in. Thus, the interface shear is negligible, so its acts as fully composite for vibration analyses. 24/69 6

Does camber affect beam or girder frequency? Prestressing? 25/69 Does camber affect beam or girder frequency? No! Classical frequency equation: 1/ 2 π ge = s It fn wl 4 is not part of equation. 2 Substituting = 5wL 4 /( 384Es It) Results in = 0.18 g/ fn 26/69 Is there a lower frequency limit? Is there a lower frequency limit? To avoid resonance with the first harmonic of walking and rogue or vandal jumping, the minimum frequency should be greater than 3 Hz, e.g. f n > 3 Hz (Required in the British building code.) 27/69 28/69 7

How do I determine floor width and floor length when calculating effective panel weights, W b and W g? Beam Panel: Wj = (w j / s)bjl Beam Panel Width j ap Poexp( 0.35fn) ao = g βw g j W = + j g W j g + + j g W g W B j = Beam Panel Width B j = C j (D s /D j ) 1/4 L j 2/3 Width 29/69 30/69 Effective Girder Panel Width Girder Panel: W g = (w g /L j,avg )B g L g ) B g = Girder Panel Width B g = C g (D j /D g ) 1/4 L g 2/3 Length A B D C Bay A B C D Width and Length Example Width Length 31/69 32/69 8

Width and Length Example Width and Length Example A B C D A B C D Bay Width Length A 90 90 B C D 33/69 Bay Width Length A 90 90 B 150 90 C D 34/69 Width and Length Example Width and Length Example A B C D A B C D Bay Width Length A 90 90 B 150 90 C 150 30 (45?) D 35/69 Bay Width Length A 90 90 B 150 90 C 150 30 (45?) D 30 90 36/69 9

B g = C g (D j /D g ) 1/4 L g 2/3 Length B g = C g (D j /D g ) 1/4 L g 2/3 Length Bays A & B Bg = 59.9 <2/3 L 37/69 38/69 B g = C g (D j /D g ) 1/4 L g 2/3 Length Bays A & B Bg = 59.9 <2/3 L Bays A: Length = 81 e.g. (32.5 + 16 + 32.5 ) Bg=2/3x81 = 54 < 59.9 a p /g=0.46%g < 0.5% B g = C g (D j /D g ) 1/4 L g 2/3 Length Bays A & B Bg = 59.9 <2/3 L Bays A: B g = 54 ap/g=0.46%g < 0.5% OK Bay B: Length = 48.5 e.g. (32.5 + 16 ) 2/3x48.5 =32.3 < 59.9 ap/g=0.61%g > 0.5%g NG 39/69 40/69 10

How do I modify a design that does not satisfy the criterion? How do I modify a design that does not satisfy the criterion? Increase stiffness of the element with the lower frequency to improve performance. 41/69 42/69 W21 44 W14 22 W18 35 S W14 22 W21 44 4 SPA @ 7-6 =30 = L g L = 45 j Example: Bay D of previous example. W14 22 W24 55 d = 3.50 + 2.00 e = 4.50 2 W18 35 Section 3.50 2.00 Width = 30 ft Length = 90 ft Paper Office 43/69 Original Design W18x35 f b = 3.76 hz f n = 3.08 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.37 hz a p /g=0.74%g Improved Design Increase Concrete Thickness 1 in. W18X35 f b = 3.75 hz f n = 3.04 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.28 hz a p /g=0.65%g 44/69 11

Original Design W18x35 f b = 3.76 hz f n = 3.08 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.37 hz a p /g=0.74%g Improved Design Increase Girder Size W18X35 f b = 3.76 hz f n = 3.33 Hz W24x84 f g = 7.17 hz a p /g=0.70%g 45/69 Original Design W18x35 f b = 3.76 hz f n = 3.08 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.37 hz a p /g=0.74%g Improved Designs Increase Beam Size W21x50 f b = 4.84 hz f n = 3.57 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.29 hz a p /g=0.58%g W24x55 f b = 5.22 hz f n = 3.71 Hz W24x55 f g = 5.28 hz a p /g=0.50%g 46/69 Question Concerning Design for Rhythmic Excitation I am designing a floor in a health club that will be used for aerobics. Why are my required members so large? 47/69 48/69 12

I am designing a floor in a health club that will be used for aerobics. Why are my required members so large? Resonance with the first, second and third harmonics of the activity must be avoided. Footstep = α i P cos ( 2π if t) step f step = 1.5 Hz to 2.5 Hz (90 bpm to 150 bpm) i = 1, 2, 3 which means f n > 7.5 Hz Vibrations s and More (as in current research) 49/69 50/69 Long Span (> 25 ft)eck s Long Span (> 25 ft)eck s Single 30 ft by 30 ft bay constructed and tested at the Virginia Tech. Supported only at the perimeter with W21x44 girders an W14x22 beams. 51/69 52/69 13

Long Span (> 25 ft)eck s Long Span (> 25 ft)eck s If the deck is supported by beams, it will probably be a low frequency floor (f n < 9-10 Hz) and provisions in DG11 or TD5 can be used. If the deck is supported by walls, it will probably be a high frequency floor (f n > 9-10 Hz) and further analysis will not be necessary. Low Frequency : Provisions in DG11 or TD5 can be used. Analyze assuming 1 ft width of slab is equivalent to a beam. 1 ft 53/69 54/69 Long Span (> 25 ft)eck s Low Frequency Analysis Model Analysis of Slender Stairs 55/69 56/69 14

Analysis of Slender Stairs Loading is much more severe than walking on floors: Much faster. More synchronization. If linear or near linear model as a beam. Linear Near Linear 57/69 Analysis of Slender Stairs How do I evaluate a slender stair design? 1/2 Frequency: π ge = s It 2 wl 4 Predicted Acceleration: f n 2 L = Stringer Length a p R α Qcos φ (1 exp( 100 β )) a o = g βw g Tolerance Acceleration: 1.7 to 4.6%g 58/69 Analysis of Slender Stairs References Davis, B. and Murray, T.M. (2009). Slender Monumental Stair Vibration Serviceability. J. Architectural Engineering, 15(4), 111 121. Alternate Bay Framing Davis, B. and Avci, O. (2015 In Press) Simplified Vibration Serviceability Evaluation for Slender Monumental Stairs. Journal of Structural Engineering. 59/69 60/69 15

Alternate Bay Framing Alternate Bay Framing Advantages: Eliminates back-to-back connections Improved speed of erection Shallower Girder Depth Added space for MEP Systems Lower floor-to-floor height Improved Vibration Performance Improved occupant satisfaction 61/69 62/69 Alternate Bay Framing Alternate Bay Framing Disadvantages: May be Added Tonnage Minor increase in overall weight Increased Amount of Deck Closure Strips Increased material and labor Odd Shear Stud Layout at Girders Potential for improper layout Coordination of Deck Layout 63/69 64/69 16

Alternate Bay Framing Disadvantages: Better with Bays with Aspect Ratios Close to 1:1 Current AISC DG11 Procedures Over Predict Vibration Response Alternate Bay Framing Modified DG11 Analysis Procedure: ap Poexp( 0.35fn) ao = g βw g f n =min (beam and girder frequencies) Width = Girder Span Length = Beam Span + 1/2 Adjacent Beam Spans 65/69 66/69 Alternate Bay Framing Combined Mode Panel: Strength is essential but otherwise unimportant. Hardy Cross 67/69 68/69 17

Thank You!! 18