CI/SfB (J4)(U1)

October 1997

dıgest The response of

structures to
dynamic
Digest
426

crowd loads

The 1996 edition of crowd movement. structural response to

BS 6399: Part 1 Code of
practice for dead and
imposed loads provides, for
the first time, specific
guidance on dynamic loads
arising from synchronised
This Digest gives the
background information
which supports the
recommendations in the
Code and provides the
equations for calculating
dynamic crowd loads.
The recommendations in BS
6399 are reproduced on
page 12.

Dynamic crowd loads are caused by people calculation of structural response to these loads.
dancing or jumping, usually in response to a It gives the background, discusses items which
musical beat. An example of dance which must be considered and describes the loading and
involved jumping was pogoing which became the evaluation of structural response. The method
popular in the late 1970s. Although usually presented does involve a certain amount of
associated with smaller numbers of people, computation.
activities such as aerobics will cause similar The calculation procedure is summarised on
dynamic effects. page 12 in this Digest; a worked example is on
There are two approaches to the design of pages 10 and 11. Further work is currently
structures to accommodate dynamic crowd underway to simplify the calculation method.
loads. One relies on ensuring
that the fundamental natural
frequency of the structural
system is sufficiently high
that resonances produced by
synchronised crowd
movement will not cause a
safety problem; the other
provides a method for
calculating structural
response to dynamic crowd
loads so that a structural
design can be checked. The
approaches therefore are to
either avoid or design for the
problem.
This Digest deals primarily
with the modelling of
dynamic crowd loads and the
2
Background
As this Digest deals with a relatively new
subject, some designers may be unaware of the
nature of the potential problems caused by
dynamic crowd loads. This section provides a
simple illustration of the problem and records the
developments in UK Standards.
A simple illustration
It is obvious that the load produced by jumping is
significantly larger than the load resulting from
standing still: even a child, trying to crush a
cardboard box, will jump on it. If a person keeps
jumping, the resulting dynamic load will be
cyclic and in certain situations it can generate a
resonant response of the loaded structure. There
are some human activities which involve
repeated jumping, but for crowds the dynamic
loads will be significant only when the
movement is synchronised. In practice, this
usually occurs in conjunction with a strong
musical beat at events such as pop concerts and
aerobic exercise classes.
It is useful to look at some quantitative values
to illustrate the magnitude of the problem. An
equation is given later which determines the peak
load produced by someone jumping; for one type
of jumping this is 4.7 times the static load.
Structures which are designed for static loading
have many safety factors built into the design,
and these allow for most dynamic loads. If a
group of people on a structure were jumping in an
unco-ordinated manner, the load would not be
significantly larger than the static load; it is only
when they are co-ordinated that the load becomes
significant.
The real problem, however, arises when a co-
ordinated jumping load induces a resonant
response in a structure. If the frequency of the
dynamic load occurred at a natural frequency of
the structure, a resonant situation would arise
whereby the response would be amplified
greatly. For example, if a structure with a
damping value of 2% critical were subjected to a
dynamic load coinciding exactly with the natural
frequency of the structure, the displacement due
to resonance would be 25 times the static
displacement. So, it can be appreciated that a
dynamic load occurring at a natural frequency of
a structure can induce significant vibrations. But
it must be recognised that structural resonance
produced by dynamic crowd loads is a rare event
and requires both a specific form of loading and a
structure which is vulnerable to such dynamic
loads.
The history of dynamic crowd loads and their
inclusion in UK Standards
BS 6399 (1996) gives guidance on loads arising
from synchronised crowd movement. It is
interesting to examine the two versions of the
British Standard which preceded it as well as
other guidance for engineers. In the 1967 version
of BS CP3, no mention is made of dynamic loads
generated by crowds: the problem was not
considered important. In the 1984 edition of BS
6399, static design loads were detailed but with a
warning: The values for imposed loads given ...
allow for small dynamic effects ... The loads do
not ... allow for dynamic loads due to crowds. So
although the problem had been recognised, no
guidance was provided on how to deal with it.
In the 1980s, the Greater London Council had
a policy for granting licences for lively concerts
to be held on floor structures deemed capable of
withstanding 10 kN/m2 (twice the normal design
live load). The BS Loading committee was aware
of a problem because an article in New Civil
Engineer in 1981 [1] stated that BSI were
reviewing the design criteria in CP3 and
expected to issue a new draft for comment, and
suggested that: Meanwhile engineers designing
new floors, or assessing existing ones, should
consider the dynamic response which results
from an audience pogoing and GLC’s current
requirement could be used as a guideline.
ISO 10137 was issued in 1992. It deals with
serviceability of buildings against vibrations and
includes a force model for repetitive co-
ordinated activities which is similar to the model
given later in this Digest. Unlike some ISO
codes, it has not been adopted by BSI so has no
official UK status.
The problem of dynamic crowd loads in
temporary grandstands became an issue
following a number of failures. In their 1992
report [2], the UK Standing Committee on
Structural Safety (SCOSS) stated: Current
design guidance is not sufficient to enable
engineers to carry out a theoretical assessment
with regard to sway and vibration caused by
rhythmic crowd movement. The committee
therefore recommends ... that additional
technical guidance be prepared.
Following the SCOSS report, an Institution of
Structural Engineers (ISE) working group
prepared interim guidance dealing with various
aspects of temporary grandstands. This guidance
[3]
was issued by the DoE in 1994 and included
consideration of dynamic loads induced by
crowds and the concept of either ‘avoiding’ or
‘designing’ for the problem. The ISE issued
further guidance in 1995 [4] and finally in autumn
1996 the new BSI loading code (BS 6399) was
published.

As the problem has arisen relatively recently it is
important to understand why. There are two key
factors:
● Loading Significant dynamic loads result from
co-ordinated synchronised jumping
movements, such as aerobics or specific types
of dance; they require the active involvement
of most of those present. Popular dances
follow fashion trends; in the UK, dances
which involved jumping were pogoing in the
1980s and Indie music in the 1990s. Many
dances and concerts will not encounter
problems: it is really the ‘lively’ events which
cause the problem.
● Structures Using modern materials and
technology, long-span structures can be built
to accommodate static design loads and
thereby provide clear viewing; this is
important in some events. It leads to structures
which have relatively low natural frequencies
and which are dynamically sensitive. In the
extreme, this has produced structures such as
cantilevered grandstands, which are desirable
for sports spectating but are particularly
vulnerable to dynamic loads.
It can be appreciated from this that it is recent
trends in design which have produced structures
vulnerable to dynamic loading; this explains why
this form of loading was not mentioned or
thought to be a problem in earlier standards.
However, long-span lightweight structures are
desirable for many reasons and will continue to
be used in many situations. The problem of
dynamic loading will, therefore, remain an
important design consideration.
Crowd activity
To define the loads fully, several factors relating
to the crowd, the crowd activity and the structure
must be considered.
Crowd density
A static design load of 5 kN/m2 is used with many
structures subject to crowd loads. This is about
six people per square metre: quite a densely
packed crowd. Frequently, though, the number of
people in a given area is limited, possibly for
seating or licensing requirements. To determine
dynamic loads, therefore, use actual static loads
appropriate to the activity.
Frequency range
The frequency range for individuals jumping is
about 1.5 to 3.5 Hz, but the higher frequency
cannot be sustained for a crowd and an upper
limit of 2.8 is more realistic. If dancing or
3
exercising involves repeated jumping, the energy
is not only generated at the dance frequency but
is input at whole number multiples of the dance
frequency. This is because the loading is cyclic
but is not a simple sinusoid; if the loading
function is expressed in Fourier series, the cyclic
nature of the activity constrains the Fourier
components to be integer multiples of the dance
frequency.
Dynamic crowd effect
If all the people in a crowd tried to jump at the
same frequency, which happens in some dances,
their co-ordination will not be perfect and there
will be an attenuation of the resulting structural
response. This is called the dynamic crowd effect.
The imperfections in co-ordination may be due
either to individuals not dancing at exactly the
beat frequency, which may be more common at
the extremes of the frequency range, or to phase
differences between individuals. An attenuation
due to phase differences of about one-third has
been suggested [5] for a large crowd. It is difficult
to obtain good experimental results and further
theoretical investigations and experimental
verification are required.
Human-structure interaction
One of the difficulties of modelling structures
with crowds of people is how to account for the
mass of people, since it may affect the structural
characteristics and consequently the response to
any given load. In fact there is a range of different
situations of which the two extremes are
important. First, a stationary crowd acts as an
additional mass-spring-damper system on a
structure so should be modelled accordingly [6].
Second, where people are running and jumping
their mass is not involved in the vibrations of the
structure and the human involvement is simply as
a load. For evaluation of structural response to
dance-type loads, the characteristics of the
unloaded structure should be used in the
calculations.
Loading
Load model
The load-time history for continuous jumping
can be described by a high contact force for a
certain time tp (contact duration) followed by
zero force when the feet leave the floor. It has
been proposed that the load-time function for
running can be expressed by a sequence of semi-
sinusoidal pulses; the load-time histories for
other activities that involve jumping or aerobics
are somewhat similar.
4
The load function in one period for a single Load model in terms of Fourier series
person is given by equation (1): For analysis, it is useful to express equation (1) in
terms of Fourier series and to include equation
(3) in the evaluation. This leads to equation (4):
 K p Gs sin(πt / t p ) 0 ≤ t ≤ tp
Fs (t ) = 
 0 t p ≤ t ≤ Tp
 ∞  2 nπ 
where: Fs (t ) = Gs 1.0 + ∑ rn sin t + φn  
Kp = the impact factor Fmax /Gs  n =1  Tp 
Fmax = the peak dynamic load where
Gs = the weight of the dancer rn = Fourier coefficient (or dynamic load
tp = the contact duration factor)
Tp = the period of the jumping load n = number of Fourier terms
The contact period tp can vary from 0 to Tp φn = phase lag of the nth term
corresponding to different movements and
activities. The contact ratio α is defined as The values for the load factors and phase lags can
equation (2): be determined [9] using these equations (5):
tp when 2nα = 1 n = 1, 2, 3, ...
α = ≤ 1.0
Tp
a 
rn = an2 + bn2 φ n = tan −1  n  0 ≤ φ n ≤ 2π
 bn 
Table 1 shows that different contact ratios α
characterise different rhythmic activities [7]. then an = 0 bn = π / 2
Table 1 Typical values of the contact ratio α otherwise:
for various activities
Activity α
cos(2 nα − 1)π − 1 cos(2 nα + 1)π − 1 
Pedestrian movements, low impact aerobics 2/3 an = 0.5 − 
 2 nα − 1 2 nα + 1
Rhythmic exercises, high impact aerobics 1/2
sin(2 nα − 1)π sin(2 nα + 1)π 
Normal jumping 1/3 bn = 0.5 −
High jumping 1/4  2 nα − 1 2 nα + 1 
Figure 1 shows the normalised load-time history
Experiments have shown [8] that the mean value calculated using equation 4 and including six
of the time-history of a vertical load Fourier terms together with the equivalent load
corresponding to bouncing on toes to music determined using equation 1. Table 2 lists the
(jouncing) or to rhythmic jumping was always first six Fourier coefficients and phase lags for
equal to the weight of the performer. Equating different contact ratios. This shows that more
the mean value of equation 1 over one period Tp terms are required to describe the load to a given
to the weight Gs gives equation (3): accuracy as α decreases.
π
Kp = Crowd loads
2α
So far, the loads produced by individuals have
The loads can be determined from this knowing been considered. This can be extended to cover
the weight of the jumper, the frequency of the crowd loads; this becomes equation (6):
jumping, fp , and the contact ratio. Figure 1 shows
a normalised load-time history for jumping with:
 ∞  2 nπ 
F(t ) = G1.0 + Ce ∑ rn sin t + φn  
α = 1/3 and fp = 1/ Tp = 2.0 Hz.  Tp 
 n =1

The normalised load of 1.0 corresponds to the
static weight of the person. Figure 1 shows that
the dynamic load can be significantly larger than
the static load. Indeed, from equation 3, the peak
dynamic load can be calculated directly: for these
parameters it is 4.71 times the static load. It can
also be deduced that the higher the jumping, the
lower the contact ratio and the higher the peak
dynamic load.
This includes three different parameters from
those in equation 4. The term Gs has been
replaced with G which is now the load density of
the crowd, and so gives F(t): the distributed
dynamic force. The term Ce is introduced. This is
the factor to represent the dynamic crowd effect:
it accounts for the fact that the crowd movement
will not be perfectly synchronised.
 5

Figure 1 Load-time history for jumping

Horizontal loads
Vertical jumping also provides a horizontal load
which is critical for structures such as temporary
grandstands. From a few measurements, the
horizontal load appears to be about 7 – 10% of
the vertical but more work is needed to verify this
figure on a range of structures and for a range of
activities. For safety considerations, only the first
Fourier term is considered for horizontal loads.
Loads generated by co-ordinated stamping may
also need to be examined.
Structural response
Initial considerations
The overall load can be determined given the
number of people involved, the frequency of the
co-ordinated movement and the dynamic crowd
effect. The derivation of the response of a simply
supported floor to dance-type loads is given in
reference [9] and also extended to cover other
structures. This provides formulae to calculate
how the displacement and acceleration vary with
time. It includes all the modes of vibration of the
system and all the Fourier components of the
load. The derivation is not given in this Digest
and only the relevant equations are quoted.

Table 2 Fourier coefficients and phase lags for different contact ratios
n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6

α = 2/3 rn 1.286 0.164 0.133 0.036 0.023 0.032

φn -π/6 π/6 -π/2 -π/6 π/6 -π/2
α = 1/2 rn 1.570 0.667 0.000 0.133 0.000 0.057
φn 0 -π/2 0 -π/2 0 -π/2
α = 1/3 rn 1.800 1.286 0.667 0.164 0.099 0.133
φn π/6 -π/6 -π/2 π/6 -π/6 -π/2
α = 1/4 rn 1.886 1.571 1.132 0.667 0.269 0.000
φn π/4 0 -π/4 -π/2 π/4 0
6
Number of modes of vibration to consider
For a symmetric floor under a symmetric load, no
antisymmetric mode is involved in the vibration.
Therefore, the first higher mode involved in the
vibration is the second symmetric mode: this will
be considerably stiffer than the fundamental
mode. Also, the modal load for the second
symmetric mode will be significantly lower; this
means that the response will be dominated by the
contributions of the fundamental mode.
Consequently, only the response from the
fundamental mode needs to be considered. For
asymmetric structures, or ones with a high aspect
ratio, see reference [9].
Selection of the appropriate mode of vibration
For many structures it will be the fundamental
mode of vibration which is of concern and this
term will be used in the rest of this Digest; for
some, other modes of vibration may be critical.
For example, for a cantilevered tier of a
grandstand, the vertical mode of vibration of the
cantilever should be considered: not necessarily
the fundamental mode of the whole grandstand.
So there is a need to determine the appropriate
mode(s) of vibration for analysis.
Number of Fourier components to consider
For calculation purposes, not all the terms in the
Fourier series are required to describe the load.
The number of Fourier terms to be used depends
on their contribution to the response, including
any possible resonance. Resonance can occur
when the natural frequency, f, of the structure is
equal to the dance frequency, fp , or when it is
equal to integer multiples of the dance frequency.
Basically, the first I Fourier terms should be
included in the analysis, where I is defined as the
first integer bigger than f /fp , which is important
for evaluating acceleration. This ensures that any
resonant excitation of the fundamental mode will
be considered.
For safety assessments, where evaluation of
displacement and stresses is appropriate, it is
recommended that the first three harmonic terms
should be considered.
General solution
The solutions provided in reference [9] can be
applied to structures with different boundary
conditions. The difficulty encountered is in
choosing a suitable mode shape. For a structure
with symmetric boundary conditions, under a
uniformly distributed load, no antisymmetric
modes are involved in the vibration. Therefore,
only the fundamental mode needs to be
considered, and the shape of this mode is
relatively easy to choose with sufficient accuracy
for many common cases. The response of a
structure can be approximated by the
contribution of the fundamental mode, equation
(7):
w(x,y,t) = A(t)W(x,y)
where:
W(x,y) = the dimensionless fundamental
mode with unit peak value
A = the amplitude of vibration
corresponding to that mode and is
a function of time.
The structural factor
B is defined as the structural factor which relates
to the fundamental mode and depends on the type
of structure and boundary conditions. If the
dynamic load is only a function of time, and the
structural mass is uniformly distributed in space,
the structural factor can, according to the
solution procedure, be defined as follows,
equation (8):
∫ ∫ W ( x, y)dxdy
B = s
∫∫W
2
( x, y)dxdy
s
If the mode shape W(x,y) is difficult to find, an
assumed one that satisfies the boundary
conditions can be used, such as a normalised
deflection under uniform static load. Table 3
provides approximate structural factors for
several symmetric structures.
Table 3 Approximate structural factors for several common cases
7
8
Structural response
The structural displacement and acceleration can be expressed as follows, equation (9):
G
A=B (1.0 + Ce D)
mω2

and equation (10):

G
Ä = B m Ce D a

D and D a are defined as dynamic magnification factors for the displacement and
acceleration.
Equation (11):

D = ∑ Dn
3
Dn =
(
rn sin nω pt − θ n + φn )
(1 − n β 2 2
) + (2nς β )
2 2
n =1

Equation (12):

D = ∑D
a
I
a
D =
a (
rn n 2 β 2 sin nω pt − θ n + φn )
(1 − n β ) + (2nς β )
n n
n =1 2 2 2 2

Equation (13):

 2 nςβ  fp ωp 2π
θ n = tan −1   0 ≤θn ≤ π β= = ω p = 2πf p =
 1 − n2 β 2  f ω Tp

Equations (9) and (10) give the steady state response which excludes transient terms,
because the transient response decays quickly in a damped system and generally is of little
interest [10]. A worked example using these formulae is given on pages 10 and 11.

Using dynamic measurements in the analysis

Dynamic tests can be used to check the safety and serviceability of existing structures or
improving the accuracy of theoretical predictions. They provide feedback from the actual
structure, including accurate values of the fundamental frequency, damping, modal
stiffness, and mode shape. The fundamental frequency of most structures is relatively easy
and inexpensive to measure [11]. On the other hand, it may prove difficult to measure the
actual response when a crowd of people is involved.
Equations (9) and (10) can be expressed in the following form to accommodate the
measurements.

Equation (14):

G ∫ ∫ W ( x, y)dxdy
A = s
(1.0 + Ce D )
k∗
Equation (15):

Gω 2 ∫ ∫ W ( x, y)dxdy
˙˙ =
A s
Ce Da
k∗

To use these equations requires the measured
values for:
● modal stiffness k *
● frequency ω
● mode shape W(x,y).
Alternatively, equations (9) and (10) can be used
where the floor mass density needs to be
estimated, but the mode shape W(x,y) and modal
stiffness k * are not required. It is also preferable
to use the measured damping value.
If one person of weight Gs jumps at the centre
of a structure the response is simply:
Equation (16):
Gs
A= (1.0 + D)
k∗
Equation (17)
˙Ȧ = Gsω Da
2
k∗
Design evaluation
Earlier sections provide a method for calculating
structural response for a given load. The design
requirement is to evaluate the maximum
response. This is likely to occur when a resonant
situation arises. If, for example, a floor has a
frequency of 7.2 Hz, loading at either 2.4 Hz or
1.8 Hz would produce a resonant response.
However, if α = 1/2, the third Fourier
component of the load would be zero (see Table
2), so the resonant response would be zero.
Therefore, it is wise to evaluate the response for
several load cases within the given frequency
range.
Simple measures to avoid safety
problems
Frequency limits can be defined for the structure
to avoid safety problems from dynamic loads [12].
This is possible because dynamic crowd loading
is confined to a narrow frequency range, and only
a limited number of Fourier terms have to be
considered to evaluate displacements and
stresses. This may provide simple criteria
convenient for the design of many structures;
however, it does not mean that all structures with
lower frequencies will have problems and, for
some structures, calculation of the actual
response will be appropriate. If the calculations
show an unacceptable response, the likely design
solution will be to increase the frequencies
towards the given limits, or to limit the size or
activities of the crowd. Solutions which seek to
increase the damping may be attractive but they
9
accept that resonance will occur and attempt to
limit the resonant response.
The structural frequency above which vertical
vibration should not pose a safety problem is 8.4
Hz (ie 3 x 2.8 Hz, covering the first three Fourier
components of the load). For horizontal
vibrations, only the fundamental Fourier
component needs to be considered, and 4.0 Hz is
suggested to consider vibrations generated by a
seated audience stamping. It may be necessary to
consider motion in two orthogonal horizontal
directions. These frequencies are for the
appropriate mode of vibration of an empty
structure (without the crowd). These limits will
not necessarily prevent serviceability problems.
References
[1] Double design load needed for concert venues. New
Civil Engineer, April 1981.
[2] Standing Committee on Structural Safety. Ninth
report for July 1989 to June 1992. October 1992.
[3] Department of the Environment. Interim guidance on
temporary grandstands. 27 July 1994.
[4] The Institution of Structural Engineers. Temporary
demountable structures – guidance on procurement,
design and use. Oct 1995.
[5] Ji, T and Ellis, BR. Evaluation of dynamic crowd
effects for dance type loads. Colloquium on Structural
Serviceability of Buildings. Goteborg, June 1993.
[6] Ellis, BR and Ji, T. Human-structure interaction in
vertical vibrations. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Structs &
Bldgs. Vol. 122, No. 1, Feb. 1997, 1-9.
[7] Ellis, BR and Ji, T. Floor vibration induced by dance
type loads – verification. Structural Engineer, 1 February
1994, 72 (3), 45-50.
[8] Tuan, CY and Saul, WE. Loads due to spectator
movements. ASCE Jnl of Structural Engineering,
February 1985, 111 (2), 418-434.
[9] Ji, T and Ellis, BR. Floor vibration induced by dance
type loads – theory. Structural Engineer, 1 February
1994, 72(3), 37-44.
[10] Clough, RW and Penzien, J. Dynamics of
structures. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975.
[11] Ellis, BR. Dynamic testing. Chapter 5 in Monitoring
Building Structures, Ed Moore, JFA. Glasgow, Blackie &
son Ltd, 1991.
[12] Ellis, BR, Ji, T and Littler, JD. The response of
grandstands to dynamic loads induced by crowds.
Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, 457-
462, Sydney, Sept. 1994.
British Standards Institution
BS 6399:— Loading for buildings
Part 1: 1996 Code of practice for dead and imposed
loads
CP3:— Code of basic data for the design of buildings
Chapter V:— Loading. Part 1: 1967. Dead and
imposed loads
International Organization for Standardization
ISO 10137: 1992 Bases for design of structures –
Serviceability of buildings against vibration.
10

Mathcad worksheet
This example exhibits resonance induced by the sixth Fourier component of the
load. The structure is an 8 m square floor, clamped at its four edges.
It is made of reinforced concrete, 2400 kg/m3, and it is 0.15 m thick.
The crowd load is 120 kg/m3.
11
12

Calculating the response of a floor to dance-type loads

The calculated displacements are likely to provide information for safety assessments and the accelerations provide
information for serviceability.
Evaluation of the characteristics of the bare structure
This includes:
● fundamental frequency f
● the structural coefficient B
● the mass m (excluding the mass of the dancers)
● the damping value ζ.
Table 3 gives typical values of the first two items for floors with symmetric boundary conditions. For other structures,
you may have to calculate these values or, for an existing structure, you could use measurements.
Evaluation of the loads
This requires the following:
● the load density G or the number and weight of dancers in a given area
● the dance frequency f p : likely to be in the range 1.5 – 2.8 Hz. You may have to evaluate several dance frequencies
● the contact ratio α for each dance-type activity. Choose from Table 1 for different activities; you may have to
evaluate several values
● the dynamic crowd effect. The likely attenuation of loading due to this effect should be considered (Ce = 2⁄ 3).
Calculation of the dynamic response
Having determined the structural characteristics, calculate the response for each load condition in turn. The following
items enable the response time history to be calculated over a period t and considers only the fundamental mode.
● determine the number of Fourier terms to use in the calculation
● determine the dynamic magnification factors for displacement D and acceleration D a using equations (11) and (12)
● calculate the maximum displacement and acceleration using equations (9) and (10). If test results are available,
use equations (14) and (15) or (16) and (17).

Guidance given in BS 6399 1996 regarding dynamic crowd loads

The code includes sections on dynamic loads from crowds. The relevant section states:
9.2 Synchronised dynamic crowd loads
9.2.1 General
Dynamic loads will only be significant when any crowd movement (dancing, jumping, rhythmic stamping, aerobics
etc.) is synchronised. In practice this only occurs in conjunction with a strong musical beat such as occurs at lively pop
concerts or aerobics. The dynamic loading is thus related to the dance frequency or the beat frequency of the music and
is periodical. Such crowd movement can generate both horizontal and vertical loads. If the synchronised movement
excites a natural frequency of the affected part of the structure, resonance will occur which can greatly amplify its
response.
Where significant dynamic loads are to be expected, the structure should be designed either:
a) to withstand the anticipated dynamic loads (see 9.2.2); or
b) by avoiding significant resonance effects (see 9.2.3)
Dynamic loads or resonance effects in the vertical and also two horizontal directions should be considered.
9.2.2 Design for dynamic loads
For the calculation of dynamic response a range of load frequencies and types should be considered. Some limited
guidance for jumping loads is given in annex A. As the chances of obtaining a resonant situation in combination with
the imposed loads given in BS 6399 table 1 are small, actual static loads appropriate to the activity should be used in
the determination of dynamic loads. For these conditions a partial factor for loads of 1.0 is appropriate.
9.2.3 Design to avoid resonance
Alternatively to avoid resonance effects the vertical frequency should be greater than 8.4 Hz and the horizontal
frequencies greater than 4.0 Hz; the frequencies being evaluated for the appropriate mode of vibration of an empty
structure.
9.3 Other dynamic loads
As there is a wide range of loads from different types of machinery no specific guidance can be given, however potential
resonant excitation of the structure should be considered. Where necessary the designer should seek specialist advice.

BS 6399 Annex A corresponds with the information in this Digest

Technical enquiries to: Digests
BRE Advisory Service Good Building Guides
Garston, Watford, Good Repair Guides
WD2 7JR Information Papers
Telephone 01923 664664 are available on subscription.
Facsimile 01923 664098 For current prices please
contact:
Construction Research Full details of all recent issues Published by Applications to copy all or any
Communications Ltd, of BRE publications are given Construction Research part of this publication should
151 Rosebery Avenue in BRE News, sent free to Communications Ltd by be made to Construction
London, EC1R 4QX. E-mail: subscribers. permission of Building Research Communications
crc@construct.emap.co.uk Research Establishment Ltd Ltd,
Telephone 0171 505 6622 Copyright BRE 1997 PO Box 202, Watford,
Facsimile 0171 505 6606 ISBN 1 86081 174 4 Herts, WD2 7QG