Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SEBGL OTH5
Page 1 of 49
File -code
1 -Page
: PartIII.doc
1 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
CONTENTS
Content Page
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3
2.
3.
4.
Page 2 of 49
File -code
2 -Page
: PartIII.doc
2 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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 humaninduced 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
Page 3 of 49
File -code
3 -Page
: PartIII.doc
3 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
(London: IStructE, 3rd 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/.
Page 4 of 49
File -code
4 -Page
: PartIII.doc
4 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 5 of 49
File -code
5 -Page
: PartIII.doc
5 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 6 of 49
File -code
6 -Page
: PartIII.doc
6 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 7 of 49
File -code
7 -Page
: PartIII.doc
7 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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-
Page 8 of 49
File -code
8 -Page
: PartIII.doc
8 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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
Page 9 of 49
File -code
9 -Page
: PartIII.doc
9 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Crowd Behaviour
Minimum
Vertical
Frequency
3.5Hz
3.5Hz
6Hz
6Hz
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.
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 10 of 49
File- 10
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
10 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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)
1.00
1.25
1.60
2.00
2.50
3.15
4.00
5.00
6.30
8.00
Weighting
Value
0.5000
0.5590
0.6320
0.7070
0.7910
0.8870
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
(Source: BS 6841)
R T R 12 R 22 R 32
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 11 of 49
File- 11
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
11 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
where RT is the total response rms acceleration, and R1, R2 and R3 are respectively
the rms accelerations due to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd 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
Page 12 of 49
File- 12
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
12 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Willford (2005)
Formula
A
where A lies between 15 and 20, and
f
Page 13 of 49
File- 13
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
13 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 14 of 49
File- 14
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
14 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
where F(t) is the time varying force, G is the load density of the crowd, t is the
time, fp is the frequency of the load, rn is the nth 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 90o can be assumed for harmonic contributions below the
resonance frequency of the grandstand.
Page 15 of 49
File- 15
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
15 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Forcing frequency fp
(Hz)
1.5-3.0
Coordinated
jumping
(without seats)
Coordinated
jumping (with
seats)
1.5-3.5
1.5-3.5
Crowd Density1
One person per
seat
1.25m2 per person
Coefficients
r1
r2
r3
0.5 0.25 0.15
1.7
1.0
0.4
1.7
1.0
0.4
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:
3
F (t ) mg Gi sin( 2ift i )
i 1
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, Gi is ith harmonic
load generated by activity of the crowd, and i is the phase lag (and
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS (2008) recommends to set them as zero). (the crowd
effectiveness factor) and Gi (ith 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).
Page 16 of 49
File- 16
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
16 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
e 2( f 1.8)
e 2( f 1.8)
1
cosh( f 2)
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 overconservative, 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)
b)
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
Page 17 of 49
File- 17
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
17 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
suggested the use of spring-mass models to model the crowd. Figure 5 shows two
such models.
Page 18 of 49
File- 18
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
18 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Step 2: Lump the mass of the cantilever member mi 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 1st mode are given Table 6.
Table 6 Displacements at 1st mode for uniformly loaded cantilever beam
Total
number
of
node
n=5
0
0.097
0.34
0.658
0.064
0.23
0.641
0.725
0.045
0.166
0.34
0.547
0.771
0.034
0.125
0.26
0.425
0.61
0.804
0.026
0.097
0.205
0.34
0.493
0.658
0.021
0.079
n=6
n=7
n=8
1
n=9
0.828
n=10
0.166
0.277
0.406
0.547
0.695
0.847
Page 19 of 49
File- 19
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
19 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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.
i 1
i 1
i 1
W r
i 1
n
m g
i 1
Modify the modal properties by using the factors from Figures 7(b) and
7(c).
Page 20 of 49
File- 20
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
20 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
M 2
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).
Page 21 of 49
File- 21
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
21 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Step 2:
Lump the mass of the cantilever member mi at nodal point i, and obtain
the relative displacement i at the nodal point i for the mode shape.
Step 3:
Step 4:
mi
Step 5:
m i i2
Step 6:
Read the rms acceleration from the following charts for different natural
frequency fs, and scenarios:
Scenario 2
Page 22 of 49
File- 22
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
22 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Step 7:
Multiply the value of the rms acceleration by /1.5 to get the predicted
rms acceleration.
In-Situ Testing
Page 23 of 49
File- 23
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
23 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
1.
2.
3.
4.
grandstands for pop-concerts and other similar events, where high energy
synchronized rhythmic crowd movement is expected;
grandstands where significant complaints have been received concerning
motion; and
grandstands where there is a change of use to one involving significantly
greater dynamic crowd activity.
Page 24 of 49
File- 24
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
24 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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
Sensitivity 1200 mV/g
(uni-axial)
Noise floor level: 5.7g
Frequency range: 0-2000Hz
Acceleration range: 3g
Dytran 7523A1
550mV/g
(tri-axial)
Noise floor level: 3mg
Frequency range: 0-1500Hz
(x- and y-directions), 0500Hz (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
Page 25 of 49
File- 25
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
25 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 26 of 49
File- 26
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
26 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
EI
= 3.79Hz
mL4
mi
(tones)
Modal mass
Mi= mi i2
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.0
0.725
0.641
0.23
0.063
0
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
6.15
4.81
0.62
0.05
0
M = 23.33 t
Occupant
Weight
Wi (kN)
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.8
15.8
Modal Force
DLFWi i
6.32
4.58
4.05
1.45
0.40
0
F = 17.07 kN
Assuming that 50% of the occupants will remain passive, i.e. r = 0.5. Calculate
human-mass ratio using:
n
W r
i 1
n
m g
i 1
0.5 15.8 6
0.06
11.7 6 9.81
Page 27 of 49
File- 27
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
27 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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:
F r 1 17.07 0.5
1
a
Mode Shape i
1.0
0.725
0.641
0.23
0.063
0
mi (tones)
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
m = 0.33
Modal mass ratio =
m
m = 1.33
Crowd location factor
m
2
i
2
i
Page 28 of 49
File- 28
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
28 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 29 of 49
File- 29
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
29 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
3.
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
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 30 of 49
File- 30
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
30 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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.
Page 31 of 49
File- 31
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
31 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
VC-A
VC-B
VC-C
VC-D
VC-E
3.4
Acceptable
rms velocity
200m/sec
100m/sec
50m/sec
25m/sec
12.5m/sec
6.25m/sec
3.13m/sec
Intermittent Vibration
VDV a(t) 4 dt
0
where T is the total period of the day during which vibration may occur. The VDV
(in m/s1.75) 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%.
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 32 of 49
File- 32
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
32 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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
Critical areas
Residences
Office
Workshops
Grandstands
3.5
Adverse comment
probable
0.4
0.8-1.6
1.6
3.2
2.4-4.8
Sources of Vibration
wind-induced;
ground motions due to road and rail traffic, or nearby construction activities;
machinery; and
human-induced (e.g. footfall vibration).
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.
Page 33 of 49
File- 33
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
33 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
3.6
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:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Uv (kN.Hz2)
110
25
6.8
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.
Calculate the ratio of fn/fo. Here, it is necessary to distinguish a highfrequency 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=2fnXmax
Page 34 of 49
File- 34
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
34 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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).
b)
c)
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.
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 35 of 49
File- 35
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
35 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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:
v
L v 20 log 10
v ref
where Lv is the velocity level in decibels, v is velocity, and vref 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
Structural Engineering Branch, ArchSD
Guidelines on Grandstands and Sensitive Equipment
Issue No./Revision No. : 1
Page 36 of 49
File- 36
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
36 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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:
and
Page 37 of 49
File- 37
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
37 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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.
Page 38 of 49
File- 38
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
38 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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
Vehicle Speed
Speed of Vehicle
Effect of Vehicle
60 mph
50 mph
40 mph
30 mph
20 mph
Vehicle Parameters
Vehicle with stiff primary
suspension
Characters of Track 1
(for trains only)
Resilient Wheels
Worn Wheels or Wheels with Flats
Resiliently Supported Tiers
Track Conditions
Worn or Corrugated Track
Special Trackwork
Jointed Track or Uneven Road
Surfaces
Track Treatments
Type of Track Structure
Note:
Reference Graph
50 mph
30 mph
+1.6 dB
+6.0 dB
0.0 dB
+4.4 dB
-1.9 dB
+2.5 dB
-4.4 dB
0.0 dB
-8.0 dB
-3.5 dB
-10 dB
0 dB
-5 dB
-3 dB
- 15 dB
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.
Page 39 of 49
File- 39
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
39 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Adjustment
Efficient propagation in soil3
Efficient propagation
in rock layer4
Note:
Distance
50 ft
100 ft
150 ft
200 ft
+10 dB
Adjustment
+2 dB
+4 dB
+6 dB
+9 dB
-5 dB
-7 dB
-10 dB
-10 dB
-13 dB
0 dB
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.
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.
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.
Coupling loss represents the vibration attenuation when vibration energy is transmitted from ground into the
building foundation.
Adjustment
1 to 5 floors above grade:
5 to 10 floors above grade:
+6 dB
-2 dB/floor
-1 dB/floor
Page 40 of 49
File- 40
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
40 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 41 of 49
File- 41
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
41 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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:
2.62mm
384E s I j 384 205000 28.9 10 6
The deflection of the primary steel girders due to the floor weight is
5w g L4g
5 (3.1 4.0) (12000) 4
g
14.58mm
384E s I g 384 205000 1120 10 6
The axial shortening of the columns c is calculated from the axial stress due to the
weight supported. Assuming an axial stress, a, of 40MPa,
L
40 5000
c a c
0.98mm
E
205000
Page 42 of 49
File- 42
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
42 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
The total deflection is 2.62 + 14.58 + 0.98 = 18.18mm, and the fundamental natural
frequency
9.81
g
0.18
4.18Hz
f n 0.18
j g c
18.18 10 3
After calculating fundamental natural frequency, it is necessary to calculate the
maximum displacement due to the footfall using:
Fm p f o2
X max
2f n2
To calculate 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:
L3j
4000 3
j
2.25 10 -4 mm
6
48E s I j 48 205000 28.9 10
and
L3g
48E s I g
12000 3
7.84 10 5 mm
48 205000 1120 10 6
2.64 10 6 mm
2
2
2f n
2 4.18
Moderate walking:
Fm = 1.25kg, fo=2.5Hz, Uv=25 kN.Hz2
Fm p f o2 1.25 10 2 2.64 10 4 2.5 2
X max
5.90 10 7 mm
2
2
2f n
2 4.18
Fast walking:
Slow walking:
X max
1.63 10 7 mm
2f n2
2 4.18 2
Here, fn/fo is approximately 1, and hence, the peak and the rms velocities are:
V=2fnXmax
Fast walking:
V= 24.182.6410-6 = 69.310-6mm/s = 69.3m/sec
Rms velocity = 0.769.3 = 48.5m/sec
Moderate walking:
V= 24.185.9010-7 = 15.510-6mm/s = 15.5m/sec
Rms velocity = 0.715.5 = 10.9m/sec
Slow walking:
V= 24.181.6310-7 = 4.310-6mm/s = 4.3m/sec
Rms velocity = 0.74.3 = 3.0m/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
Page 43 of 49
File- 43
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
43 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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)
10
0.59
20
0.49
40
0.58
100
0.91
120
0.29
Frequency (Hz)
4
5
6.3
8
10
ai (ms-2)
f (Hz)
Weighting
Wi
0.59
0.49
0.58
0.91
0.29
4
5
6.3
8
10
1
1
1
1
0.8
Frequency
weighted
acceleration
a(t) (ms-2)
0.59
0.49
0.58
0.91
0.23
Duration
T (s)
a(t)4T
10
20
40
100
120
1.21
1.15
4.53
68.57
0.33
75.79
Page 44 of 49
File- 44
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
44 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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:
v
L v 20 log 10
v ref
Page 45 of 49
File- 45
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
45 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Values of FB
1.9
1.3
v = VTFSFDFRFB (mm/s)
0.099
0.067
Page 46 of 49
File- 46
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
46 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Values of FB
1.9
1.3
4.
v = VTFSFDFRFB (mm/s)
0.497
0.340
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).
Page 47 of 49
File- 47
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
47 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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. 25362.
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, 3rd 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,
Page 48 of 49
File- 48
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
48 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
Page 49 of 49
File- 49
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
49 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011
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 CrossStrait Conference on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, 1, pp. 20-9.
Zapfe, J A, Saurenman, H and Fidell, S (2009), TCRP Web-Only Document 48: GroundBorne Noise and Vibration in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit (Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board) (available: www.trb.org; accessed: 24 August 2011).
Page 50 of 49
File- 50
code
-Page
: PartIII.doc
50 of 50
CTW/MKL/CHL/HMC/KYL/MMT
Issue/Revision Date : September 2011