2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
An Economical Approach to Floor Vibration through
Appropriate Design Criteria and Analytical Methods
2017 SEAOC Convention
Jeffrey Keileh, PE, SE, LEED AP BD+C, Associate
Mark Sarkisian, PE, SE, LEED, Partner
Abstract
Human response and acceptance criteria to footfall excitations
can be very complex. Each building function carries its own
set of parameters that influence the selected acceptance
criteria, analysis methodologies and design solutions. The
acceptance criteria metrics include accelerations, velocities,
and sometimes frequencies, whereas, the analytical methods
range from simple hand calculations to complex time history
footfall analyses. The objective of this article is to provide
project specific examples that address various acceptance
criteria measures and employment of the appropriate analytical
methodologies. The design examples shown herein will reflect
the full range of applicable acceptance criteria ranging from
laboratories, museums and airports, to typical office and
residential functions.
In addition, recent projects have employed frequency as a
design constraint, however, it is more appropriate to employ
system responses to human activity in lieu of an arbitrary
restriction of the floor system’s frequency and therefore
stiffness. Employing such criteria only restricts the design
solutions and needlessly uses an excess of material to address
human comfort to floor vibration. The use of higher analytical
procedures can provide an enhanced understanding of the
system’s response, thereby assisting the designer to find more
cost effective and sustainable solutions.
Introduction
While footfall induced vibrations on buildings and/or bridges
may not be significant in terms of structural integrity, footfall
vibration can be a critical serviceability condition to address.
As Hardy Cross once wrote, “Strength is essential but
otherwise not important.” Therefore, in modern building
design, the assessment of human-induced vibration due to
occupant specific activities need to be addressed by the
designers to ensure that the floor responses are not perceivable
to the typical occupant. This is particularly important for
hospitals/laboratory floors due to the sensitive tasks and
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
San Francisco, California
equipment being used, as well as museums and residential
floors to not disturb the occupant’s experience.
The employment of the appropriate acceptance criteria
measures, analytical methodologies, and design criteria to
evaluate the acceptance of the floor system all play an equal
role in addressing floor vibration. Such criteria and design
methodologies can be applicable to various types of structures
on which people walk, including floors and bridges, as well as,
to structures of various forms of construction material, e.g.
steel, composite, reinforced/pre-stressed concrete, timber,
etc…
As it relates to Frequency Response Function (FRF) and Time
History Analyses (THA), these two analytical design methods
can be applied to varying systems and material types despite
the complex and/or regular/irregular type structures.
The Basics
When walking excitations are applied to the supporting
structural floors, staircases or bridges, they apply dynamic
forces that cause the structure to vibrate. The displacement
amplitude associated to such excitations are typically small
and not perceptible visually and do not significantly affect the
structural integrity. However, walking excitations can be felt
through other measures such as accelerations and/or velocities.
If such responses are excessive to human perception, the
response of the structure can impair the function of the space.
However, if a walker or group of walkers’ excitation frequency
(step frequency) is aligned with the structural systems’
frequency (structural frequency), resonant build-up can be
activated, thereby, yielding human perceivable displacement
and potentially affect the structures’ integrity.
To evaluate the structures response to walking induced
excitations, it is necessary to understand the following key
items:
 walking excitation/s being applied,
 evaluation criteria,
1
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
 dynamic properties of the structure and
 design methods to obtain the structural response.
Walking Excitation / Footfall
The dynamic excitations applied to a structural systems due to
walking or running can be classified as harmonic, periodic,
transient or impulsive, shown in Figure 1. Harmonic and
periodic can be used in a time history analysis approach for
mechanical equipment if such loading functions are known.
Transient loading can also be used in a time history approach
for structures near trains, or any other variable load function if
such loading functions are known.
This article is focused on periodic and transient type dynamic
excitations as they are more representative of human walking
excitations.
Figure 1: Types of dynamic excitations
To better understand periodic and transient applied loads let’s
start from an impulse load. An impulse load can be used to
define a single footstep, otherwise known as a heal. A heal
drop can be defined in an idealized function as seen in
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Design Guide
(DG) 11-2nd Edition or as defined in the publication by Obata
and Miyamori, 2006, both are shown here-in.
2
(a) AISC DG 11 – 2nd Edition 
(b) Obata and Miyamori, 2006
Figure 2: Walking heal drop excitations
Both functions are represented by plotting force verse time of
a footstep and have key differences which are visibly apparent.
The idealized footstep function defined in AISC DG 11 2nd
Edition starts with an increasing heel loading portion followed
by the constant load transferring from heal to toe, then
reduction in load as the toe left the ground.
Whereas, Obata and Miyamori function further defines the
load transfer portion as seen by the valley in-between the heal
and toe. Similar to an idealized function, there is an increasing
heel loading portion, however, as the heel transfers load to the
toe verse time the load has a slight dip, then increases again as
the toe takes full load. Then similarly to the idealized step, the
load reduces as the toe has left the ground. It should be noted
for the Obata Miyamori footstep function has a larger force at
the toe relative to the heel. This phenomenon occurs from the
double impact (heal then toe) and the slight flicking effect as
the toe leaves the ground.
It is the opinion of the author when using Time History
Analysis approach, both footstep functions should be used and
apply a minimum of five consecutive steps to evaluate
susceptibility of resonant build-up. These footstep functions
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
are defined as a periodic or transient loading function
depending on the selected walking frequencies.
A typical walker frequency ranges from 1.6 to 2.2 Hz which
translates to an approximate 96 to 132 steps per minute. An
average step length is approximately 2.5 feet (762 mm). Table
1 below is a helpful guide of when to employ which walking
speed and step frequency as it relates to Frequency Response
Function and Time History Analysis methodologies.
Application of Walking Speeds
Speed Frequency Applications for Time History
(Step/Min) fstep (Hz) Analysis1
Generally a slow walking speed
should not be used unless it is
known that the space is small,
congested and space has limited
paths of direct travel. A
potential example is an MRI
Very Slow
0.83-1.25 room where the equipment
50-75
takes up the majority of the
space and the technician is
working in another section of
the small room, thereby
limiting movement at the MRI
unit itself.
Moderate walking speeds can
be used for mid-sized rooms
Slow with some obstructions limiting
1.6
96 the paths of direct movement
such as typical offices,
laboratories, etc.
Moderate walking speeds are
recommended for initial design
Moderate unless room sizes with layouts
1.85
111 are known. Moderate walking
speeds can be used for larger
rooms with few obstructions.
Fast walking speeds are
typically reserved for
verification of rooms adjacent
to corridors. However, for very
Fast large rooms with repetitive
2.08-2.2
125-132 modules that provide a central
spine/s about the space with
limited obstructions can
warrant using fast walking
speeds for evaluation.
1
Judgement should be used when selecting the walking
speed/s for evaluated. In addition, such criteria should be
defined and coordinated with the design team early in the
design process.
Table 1: Application of walking speeds
Evaluation Criteria
There are many possible ways in which the magnitude of
vibration responses can be evaluated relative to human
perception, which range from acceleration, velocity and
displacement. As displacements are typically too small to be
perceivable due to walking excitations, accelerations and
velocities are seen to be more prudent for design. Hence past
and current design standards defining acceleration and velocity
criteria values for varying occupancies as it relates to human
perception.
However in a few projects, it seems that frequency has been
creeping into the mix as an evaluation acceptance criterion for
walking excitation floor vibration. When using frequency as
an acceptance criterion shows a limited understanding of
acceleration and velocity based methodologies as frequency
inherently plays a dominant role in the structures response to
human induced floor excitations. Also by using frequency as
an acceptance criterion ignores contributions of all other
variables, such as damping or effective weight, associated to a
structures response to human induced excitation, thereby
limiting the designers’ capacity to solve the project specific
needs in a more cost effective manner.
It is not the intention to ignore the frequency value of a given
floor system, rather, to state that frequency limits should be
used as rules of thumb to evaluate if further investigation is
needed to address the project specific needs, thereby allowing
the designer to use the various factors that affect the structures
response to employ more cost effective solutions.
Peak Acceleration Evaluation Criteria
It is more common to see the evaluation limit criterion defined
in terms of peak acceleration for typical structural responses to
walking excitation, see Figure 3 below, which provides the
AISC DG 11 2nd Edition peak acceleration limits versus
structural frequency. Additionally, the figure shows the
author’s recommendations for typical airport and museum
peak accelerations criteria. Judgement of peak acceleration
criteria should be evaluated and defined on a case by case
basis, as well as, be coordinated with the project expectations
and needs. If more stringent criteria is required, then one shall
employ such evaluation parameters.
It should be noted that the peak acceleration of 0.5%g is the
most stringent criteria defined and applicable to such spaces as
office, residence, and church type occupancies where the
human sensitivity to floor vibrations can be at its’ highest.
Also by applying the stringent peak acceleration one can
provide a performance level equaling an essentially vibration
free floor system where only highly sensitive human can
perceive such an acceleration due to walking excitations.
3
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

The expression  = 0.83e-0.35fn is a recommended dynamic

coefficient from Rainer et al. (1988) and Allen and Murray
(1993). This expression provides a simplified relationship of
the step function and the dynamic coefficient,  with the
structures natural frequency, fn. Therefore, the acceleration
inequality only looks at the dominant harmonic, but is still
appropriate for repetitive and regular structures. When it
comes to non-repetitive and irregular structures, Frequency
Response Functions and/or Time History Analysis should be
used in evaluating the structural response, which are described
later in this article.

Figure 3 Human comfort limits

In order to calculate the peak acceleration we lean on design
standards and research that has been conducted to define such
standards. In AISC DG 11 2nd Edition, the derivation of the
peak acceleration formula used to compare to the peak
acceleration acceptance criteria in evaluating if the structural
system is deemed acceptable is shown to yield the following
acceleration inequality:
Figure 4: Dynamic coefficient versus frequency
With a better understanding of how the equations were
derived, the equations can be tuned to each specific condition,
if required, and provide an understanding of when further
analysis and design methodologies need to be used.
Peak Velocity Evaluation Criteria

. Velocity based design methodologies are typically used for

designing spaces with sensitive equipment, such as
laboratories or hospitals. In such cases where the floor system
supporting sensitive equipment and where criteria are not
Po = amplitude of the driving force, 0.83RQ, lb known, the designer needs to rely on generic criteria. These
R = 0.5 for two-way mode shapes industry standard velocity based generic design criteria are
R = 0.7 for one-way mode shapes expressed in terms of the greatest vibration velocity to which
= 0.83(0.5*157 lb) ~ 65 lb for typical floors various classes of equipment may be exposed. And providing
= 0.83(0.7*157 lb) ~ 92 lb for bridges and staircases such criteria in terms of velocity is convenient because the
criterion for a given class of equipment corresponds to a
Q = bodyweight, lb, 157 lb constant value of velocity over most frequency range of
fn = fundamental natural frequency, Hz interest, as shown in Figure 5.
 = damping ratio
W = effective weight of the floor, lb

= acceleration tolerance limits, see Figure 3

= ratio of peak floor acceleration to gravity

4
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Vibration
Walking
Area of Use (Primary Velocity
Speed
Factor)1,2,3 Maximum
(steps/min)
(inch/sec)
100 to
Corridors 8,000
1251
Lab Offices / Patient Rooms 4,000 100
Surgical Suites (Human) 4,000 75
Laboratories and Laboratory
2,000 100
Support Rooms
Surgical Suites
1,250 75
(40X Surgical Microscope)
Imaging (MRI) / Surgical
Suites 500 50 to 75
(100X Surgical Microscope)
Electron Microscope 250 50 to 75
1
Spacing adjacent to corridors shall be evaluated to consider
vibration excitation from the corridors.
Figure 5: Generic vibration criteria (VC) curves 2
Use local isolation systems for mechanical equipment to limit
structure bone vibration to adjacent occupied areas.
3
Provide additional floating reinforced concrete slab on
isolation pads or mechanical isolation systems at sensitive
equipment where required.
Table 3: Recommended laboratory velocity limits with
respective walking excitation speeds

Frequency Evaluation Criteria

What is frequency? A simple way to understand frequency is

when looking at a sine wave, the frequency is the number of
cycles per unit of time or cycles per second, otherwise known
as Hertz. The higher the frequency the tighter the spacing of
the sine wave peaks, see Figure 6.

Table 2: Generic vibration criteria tolerance limits

Numerous scientific laboratories have been designed by SOM

and many of them required the floor systems to satisfy
stringent floor vibration limits in order to house sensitive
equipment and the needs of the space. Table 3 is a
recommendation on the velocity based criteria with its
respective walking excitation speeds used for design of the
floor systems supporting laboratory and hospital type spaces.

The question can be asked, how do designers appropriately

assess the system for vibration behavior to meet such criteria
with their respective walking speeds? The answer is,
Frequency Response Functions and Time History Analysis
approaches were used on the past projects and described later
in the paper.

Figure 6: Frequency comparison

5
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

In structural engineering, frequency can also be defined as a Therefore when using a peak acceleration based approach,
displacement through its relationship with mass and stiffness. each variable and their appropriate contributions are
Looking at a simply supported beam with a uniformly incorporated in the acceleration inequality expression, thus,
distributed load, one can derive the first natural frequency: allowing a thorough investigation of all parameters when
looking to solve the needs of the project rather than looking at
a singular deflection criteria. That being said, frequency
should be used in the early design phases as rules of thumb in
2 the absence of acceleration and velocity calculations.

By rearranging the expression and substituting the maximum For example keeping the vertical frequencies at about 3 to 5
deflection equation in the first natural frequency formula, it Hz can be a starting point for typical office spaces, 5 to 6 Hz
can be seen that frequency can be distilled down to a for typical lab spaces, and 6 to 8 Hz for lab spaces with
displacement based criteria. sensitive equipment excluding VC-D and VC-E type
equipment. Whereas 2 Hz may be deemed appropriate for
extremely long one-way span type structures where there is a
5 5 5 significant amount of mass that needs to be excited and/or
∆ → →
384 384∆ 2 384∆ dampers are implemented.

0.18 It should be noted for long one-way span type structures, a 3

0.18 → ∆ Hz horizontal frequency rule of thumb is recommended in the
∆
initial phases of design to address potential “lock-in effects.”
It has been experimentally observed that people change their
Therefore, it can be seen that when a frequency limit is used as
walking frequency and step width to adapt to clearly
an acceptance criteria for design, it is essentially providing a
perceptible lateral vibrations of the supporting structure, which
deflection limit that has no relationship to span, location of
may unify the group of walkers as observed on the Millennium
supports/grid system, amount of damping, resonance potential,
Bridge during its opening day in 2000.
harmonic separation, nor amount of mass that needs to be
excited, see table below. Therefore, such limits should be used
Using frequency limits as the acceptance criteria only hinders
as rules of thumb for initial design phases, and not used as a
the ability to attain the more cost effective solution for the
criteria defining if a system is adequate. Adequacy of a floor
project needs. Two quick examples can be seen when applying
system due to walking excitations are defined through the use
frequency as an acceptance criteria for long span structures
of acceleration and/or velocity based approaches.
and/or retrofitting existing structures.
Frequency, Equivalent
For long span type structures, an initial study can be conducted
(Hz) Displacement,
comparing a damped structural system designed for strength
 (in) and deflection where the added damping achieves the
5 0.50 acceptable acceleration criteria, which can then be compared
6 0.35 to a similar system with no dampers, thereby, informing the
7 0.26 designer of the more cost effect solution for the project needs.
8 0.20 Another fault can be seen in retrofitting existing structures, as
9 0.15 using frequency limits would yield adding more
10 0.13 structure/stiffness rather than using dampers or employing
11 0.10 isolation systems for the sensitive equipment. Therefore, by
12 0.09 providing frequency limits prevents the use of such solutions
Table 4: Frequency and displacement in seeking the more cost effective approach for the project
needs.
When looking at the peak acceleration design inequality, one
can see that the frequency plays a dominate role as it takes on For an airport project example, it was stated in the Project
an exponential relationship relative to the peak acceleration Design Document (PDD) that “New designs should strive to
whereas damping and/or effective weight has a linear design floors which will exceed 9Hz.” With such an
relationship. excessively stringent criteria that also doesn’t follow standard
practice criteria for walking excitations, it was brought to the
. reviewers having jurisdiction’s attention early in the design
phase. As shown earlier this article, this 9Hz frequency criteria

6
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

would yield that the floor framing system shall not deflect
more than about 1/8 of an inch no matter what spans are used.
As one can see, this frequency limit will have a dramatic effect
not only on the space, as additional vertical elements will be
required, but also the amount of material needed for the floor
framing to meet the frequency/deflection criteria.

This criteria triggered many discussions as there were long

span conditions to limit foundation touchdown points, budget
constraints and needs for large open spaces for functionality
purposes. The frequency criteria governing the design and
limited the designers’ ability to achieve a cost effective system
that met the requirements of the PDD.

It was later understood that the intent of the statement in the

PDD was to provide an essentially vibration free space.
Therefore, comparison studies were conducted to evaluate the
appropriate floor vibration criteria and was presented to the Figure 8: Initial floor vibration methods used
reviewers having jurisdiction.
Study Two:
Each study started with strength and deflection checks as this Then as an apples to apples comparison, the stringent 9Hz
defined the member’s minimum size prior to evaluating the frequency criteria was applied instead of the 0.5%g
floor as it relates to vibration. The floor system was comprised acceleration criteria.
of a typical 30 foot by 30 foot repeating grid of steel framing
with composite metal deck slab. These results yielded in a significant uptick in steel quantities
relative to the starting point of meeting strength and deflection
Study One: checks. The methods used for the initial studies were Finite
To respond to the floor vibration project needs, the most Element Analysis tools and hand calculations to verify that the
stringent acceleration criteria of 0.5%g, which is reserved for floor systems met the 9Hz frequency criteria.
offices, residences, and churches, was recommend. These
results yielded in a slight uptick in steel quantities relative to Below is a comparison of steel quantities when employing the
the starting point of meeting strength and deflection checks. stringent, essentially vibration free structure, criteria of 0.5%g
acceleration limit versus the 9 Hz frequency criteria. One can
A computer analysis model was built using the SAP Finite see that the steel savings can be significant due to the large area
Element Analysis (FEA) package to conduct an elastic of the repeating structure.
Frequency Response Function (FRF) and Time History
Analysis (THA) with Fourier Series Transform Walking Approximate Budge
Floor Vibration Steel
Functions. Savings Relative to 9
Criteria Quantities
Hz Criteria
0.5%g
12 psf ~ $3.1M
Acceleration
9 Hz Frequency 18 psf $0
Table 5: Summary result comparison

Figure 7: 3D SAP analysis model

7
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Figure 9: 0.5%g limit Figure 10: Frequency 9Hz criteria

Therefore, it is recommended that the frequency evaluation

criteria only be used in the initial design phase as rules of
thumb and additional evaluations with stand practice
acceleration and velocity based approaches be used to verify
acceptance of a floor structure in its response to walking
excitations.

Structural Dynamic Properties

All structures have dynamic properties and natural modes of

vibration. Each of these modes has a spatial distribution of
displacement otherwise known as mode shapes. The natural
modes are a structure’s “preferred” displaced shape if it were
to be excited by a sudden impact. Consider a one-way
spanning floor system in Figure 11, idealized as a uniformly
loaded simply supported beam. Some of the beams lowest

8
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

mode shapes could be excited by someone walking at mid- Recommendations for

Area of Use
span. This would cause the floor to vibrate as shown. Live Loads (psf)1,2,3
Laboratories
As depicted in the figure below, the natural frequency of the
structure depends on the beams, stiffness, supporting weight,
damping, and for concrete, the amount of cracking at service
Live Loads
level loading. The structures response to an impulse load
Range 8-15
generates vibration displacement, velocity and acceleration
amplitudes that all vary in a sinusoidal shape when plotted
against time. The structures amplitude of vibration decaying
with time at its specific rate, which is depended on the amount
of damping that the system has from both structural and non- Office Spaces
structural components.

Live Loads
Range 6-11

Museums, Malls, Airports, and

similar spaces.

Live Loads
Range 0-5

Figure 11: Simple span with mid-span impulse
Stiffness – the stiffness can be calculated for any structural
system. It is important to include all contributions where
applicable such as composite behavior, appropriate damping
ratios, post-tensioned behavior, cracked properties under
vibration loading, etc... Also, note that the correct boundary
support conditions should be used and are important for
smaller models representing larger floor plates as they have a
large effect on the structural response.
Mass – the mass attributed to the floor system response is
typical defined as total dead load of the structure, portions of
the superimposed dead loads and expected service level live
loads. Here are some recommendations for expected service
level live loads for varying floor occupancies.
1
Loads are to be taken on a case-by-case basis and evaluated
for each space.
2
Exterior wall loads should be included as line loads, where
applicable, as dead loads.
3
Be sure to include ceiling, mechanical, electrical and
plumbing weights as part of the superimposed dead loads.
Table 6: Recommended live loads
Damping – damping is variable and difficult to determine.
The damping can largely vary due to the structural system and
how the designated space is being used. The recommended
values from reference (Allen, D.E. and Murray, T.M., 1993)
vary from 2-3% for bare concrete floors to 5-8% with full
height partitions where steel composite floors vary from 1%
for bare structure up to 5% with full height partitions.
It is recommended to use the bare structure damping for open
spaces similar to malls, airports, museum, etc… However, as
larger groups use such spaces, larger live loads and damping
will be present as humans themselves will load the space and
act as great dampers, therefore, group effects should be
considered with the appropriate adjustments to the design
parameters.

Similarly for laboratories with high flexibility, varying

damping studies should be used to provide the designer with a
deeper understanding of the floor systems’ response.

9
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
Natural Frequency – refer to frequency evaluation criteria
section above.
Figure 12: Steady-state response of mass-spring-damper
system to sinusoidal force
Resonant Build-Up – resonant build-up is the phenomenon of
having a step frequency aligned with the system’s natural
frequency, thereby increasing the response of the structure due
to the step excitation. For a retrofit type remedy, reducing mass
while maintain the stiffness can help shift the frequency further
away from the step frequency by minimizing finishes and/or
removing segments of the beam about the web region. Also,
the use of dampers or a floating floor on an isolation plane may
prove to be more cost effective in retrofit cases.
Design Methods and Procedures
Hand Calculations – Single versus Multiple Walkers
Hand calculations are easily programmable in varying
software packages and examples for regular and repeating
structures can be found in many design guides and standards
which are not covered in this article. However, to address
multiple walkers, simplified hand calculations can be useful
when used with FEA analysis models to attain the structure’s
vertical frequencies.
For the given project example, a one story vierendeel steel
truss was used on each face of the walk way to span the 150
foot gap between two steel braced frame core buildings. As a
starting point for floor vibration, the system was first designed
for gravity, seismic and deflection based design criteria.
The agreed upon floor vibration criteria for this specific case
was defined as 0.5%g for a single walker and 1.5%g for a
group of walkers. These acceleration limits may be seen as a
10
bit stringent, but due to the high profile project and vibration
concerns, such criteria was employed.
After generating the analysis model with the appropriate
member sizes for gravity, seismic, and deflection criteria, the
first natural mode for both vertical and horizontal frequencies
were obtained and shown below. As stated before, the
horizontal frequency is important to help reduce the “lock-in”
effect from multiple walkers. Further evaluation can be
conducted if the frequency cannot be met.
Figure 13: 150 foot long span truss framing
By using the following values attained from the analysis model
 First vertical frequency = 3.9 Hz
 Weight = 505 kips
 Damping ratio = 2%
 Constant Force Po = 92 lbs for footbridge
 Acceleration limit = 0.5%g
.
. ∗ .
92 ∗
∗ 100 0.23% 0.5%
0.02 ∗ 505,000
However, when it comes to multiple walkers, the input
variables are adjusted and are as follows.
 First vertical frequency = 3.9 Hz
 Weight = 505 kips (conservatively did not included the
added weight of the occupants)
 Damping ratio = 5%
o Humans work well as dampers, therefore, it can be
seen that damping for multiple walkers can range
from 4 to 8%. The appropriate values should be used
to take into consideration all aspects of the structural
and non-structural components.
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

 Number of walkers
o Full length = 150 feet  utilized the middle half for
active walkers = 75 feet.
o Width = 10’-6” clear allows for about three rows of
passengers, side by side walkers.
o Walking stride = 3 feet.

o Therefore, the number (No) of passengers are 75 feet

* 3 people per row / 3 foot stride = 75 active walkers

Figure 14: FRF flow chart

. ∗ .
92 ∗
√75 ∗ 100 1.3% 1.5% Before embarking on a project specific example a key topic to
0.03 ∗ 505,000
understand is harmonic and sub-harmonic frequencies.
Harmonic and sub-harmonic frequencies are integer
As shown above, hand calculations are still viable for both
representations of the step frequency. For example, the
simple evaluations in the design phase as well as verifying the
harmonic frequency of a 2 Hz step frequency are 4 Hz, 6 Hz,
analysis results from more refined and elaborate analysis
8 Hz, etc… A sub-harmonic frequency is an integer
procedures.
subdivision of a system frequency. For example the fourth
sub-harmonic frequency of an 8 Hz natural system frequency
Frequency Response Functions (FRF)
is 2 Hz (8 Hz / 4th sub-harmonic = 2 Hz). Therefore, the 2 Hz
step frequency is the fourth sub-harmonic of the system
Frequency Response Function (FRF) is a plot of sinusoidal
frequency.
response verse frequency which indicates the dominant natural
frequencies for the floor system. The reason for such analysis
The following project examples are used to elaborate on the
is that FRF procedures can be used to evaluate structural
provided flow chart in evaluating a structural system with the
systems that are not regular, have non-uniform loading, have
FRF method. The project example is from a 20 story
flexible supports, and/or contain cantilevers/balconies. This
residential tower to be located in San Francisco, California.
section presents the methodology and tips when conducting
The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete shear wall
FRF to evaluate a structures response.
core and perimeter gravity columns with two-way flat plate
post-tensioned slab framing. The slab clear spans from the
core to the perimeter columns then typically cantilevers 8’-0”
beyond the perimeter columns.

11
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

d. Define the damping, see sections above for further

discussion.

Define the number of modes.

a. At a minimum take the first frequency and multiply by 2.
b. It is also recommended to have enough mode shapes to
reach about 8 Hz.

Figure 15: Typical floor plan

Generating the Frequency Response Function
Summary Methodology a. Define the frequency band lower limit as 1Hz below the
fundamental frequency.
Define the analysis model b. Define the frequency band upper limit as 1Hz above the
a. Define the geometry, boundary conditions and mesh the maximum computed modal frequency.
model. c. Compute and plot the sinusoidal steady-state response at
i. The mesh should be sufficient if further refinements locations of interested relative to the unit amplitude
do not result in natural frequency changes larger than sinusoidal load at the point of application.
0.05 to 0.1 Hz.
ii. Meshes typically at 1/10 the bay size are usually
adequate.

b. Define material properties, reference design guide 11 2nd

Peak acceleration and compare to acceleration criteria.
edition.
a. Define the respective system frequency and steady-state
i. Include 1.35 factor for concrete modulus of elasticity.
acceleration at all peaks, in this case there were 5.
ii. Include 2.5 stiffness factor about the perimeter beam.
b. Define the harmonic at each peak steady-state
iii. If steel framing is used, all simple shear connections
acceleration.
can be assumed to be fixed.
i. In the example given above, the fifth peak systems
iv. Include cracked properties under service level loads.
frequency and associated peak steady-state
acceleration are 7.2 Hz and 0.03%g respectively.
c. Apply appropriate loading
ii. The typical walker (1.6 Hz to 2.2 Hz) step frequency
i. Include the exterior wall loads, reduced
is the 4th harmonic of the fifth system frequency peak
superimposed dead and live loads to represent
(7.2 Hz / 4 = 1.8 Hz), therefore, the harmonic
realistic day to day loading conditions.
amplitude factor can be obtained (Willford et al.
2007).

12
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

iii. Calculate the resonant build-up factor . peak-to-peak velocity or acceleration, narrowband spectral
1 velocity or acceleration, or one-third octave spectral velocity
or acceleration.
iv. Then calculate the fifth peak acceleration which is the
product of the fifth peak steady-state acceleration Floor evaluations and designs should be based on specific
from SAP, the harmonic amplitude factor, the limits for the equipment to be used in the space when possible.
average body weight (168 lb Willford et al. 2007) and However, if the equipment items or their tolerances are not
the fifth peak resonant build-up factor. known, it has become typical practice to rely on generic
tolerance limits, which can be seen in AISC DG 11 2nd Edition.

Similarly to the FRF methodology, the THA methods are

based on the fundamental mode/s of the floor system,
therefore, for a given floor system, one needs an estimate of
the natural frequency, effective weight, mode shapes, walking
excitation functions and estimated damping. Also similar to
FRF methodologies, this approach can be used to evaluate
structural systems that are not regular, have non-uniform
loading, have flexible supports, and/or contain
v. Then compare the peak acceleration to the cantilevers/balconies. This section presents the methodology
acceleration criteria. and tips when conducting THA to evaluate a structures
response.
The summary of all five peaks and their respective peak
acceleration are shown below. It should be noted that the
largest frequency with the largest separation between a typical
walker (4th harmonic in this case) generated the largest peak
acceleration, therefore, such results further supports that
frequency based design criteria are not appropriate in design
for floor vibration due to walking excitations.

Table 7: Summary acceleration results

Time History Analysis (THA)

The use of Time History Analysis (THA) is more applicable to

evaluating vibration of floors supporting sensitive equipment,
such as precision imaging, measurement, manufacturing
instruments, and floors supporting sensitive occupancies such
as laboratories, hospital patient rooms, and operating rooms.

The tolerance limits relating to human comfort typically are

stated in terms of sinusoidal acceleration or velocities at a Figure 16: THA flow chart
single frequency. In contrast, the suppliers of sensitive
equipment often provide specific tolerance limits in terms of

13
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

The following project examples are used to elaborate on the

provided flow chart in evaluating a structural system with the
THA method. The project example is for a five story
laboratory structure to be located in Merced, California. The
superstructure consists of reinforced concrete shear walls and
gravity columns with two-way flat plate conventionally
reinforced concrete slab framing. The slab spans the typical
31’-6” by 21’-0” grid.

c. Define governing walking scenarios to evaluate the floor

system, examples given below.
Figure 17: Typical floor plan Scenario 1 - Excitation = 100 steps/min in corridor
Measured responses in adjacent lab area
Summary Methodology – Refer to FRF information above Scenario 2 - Excitation = 75 steps/min to lab area
Measured response in lab at 3 feet away
Define the analysis model from point of excitation
a. Define the geometry, boundary conditions and mesh the Scenario 3 - Excitation = 100 steps/min in corridor
model. Measured responses in adjacent to office
area
Scenario 4 - Excitation = 75 steps/min in office area
Measured response in office area at same
location of excitation
Scenario 5 - Excitation = 75 steps/min in lab space
within 5 feet of column lines
Measured response in lab at same
location of excitation to verify response
for more stringent 500 in/sec criteria.

b. Define material properties, reference AISC DG 11 2nd Ed.

i. Include cracked properties under service level loads.

14
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
d. Apply appropriate floor system loading as well as the
footfall loading. It is recommend to conduct both AISC
DG 11 2nd Edition and Obata Miyamori footfall functions
to bound the analysis and attain a better understanding of
the floor responses.
i. Define both footfall functions
Design Guide 11
Obata Miyamori
Define the number of modes.
e. Define the Vibration Criteria
f. Define and verify the damping. It is recommend to
conduct the analysis with pure structural damping and
with assumed additional damping from non-structural
components, thereby providing a bounded analysis. It is
up to the design team to define the appropriate damping to
take in consideration the planned and potential future use
of the space.
The damping can be verified by using simple dynamics.
Plot the acceleration and measure the peaks and time
between peaks after the footfall function has stopped.
a. At a minimum take the first frequency and multiply by 2.
b. It is also recommended to have enough mode shapes to
reach about 8 Hz.
15
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
Generating Velocity Responses Plots and Compare to Criteria
For the case study shown above, five steps were applied at a
particular point and the floor response was either measured
conservatively at the same location or about 3 feet away
mimicking the plan dimension of a human. Five steps were
used to verify that the walking frequency didn’t generate
resonant build-up, therefore the floor response before and after
the stop time of the walking excitation responses are equally
important to the designer.
As it relates to the THA methodology, further refinement can
be used in special cases. The use of walking paths with THA
can be used and allows the designer to model the walker along
a walking path/s to then verify if the response of the floor
system meets the human perceptive criteria of acceleration
and/or velocity, see Figure 18. It is important to mesh the slab
to the approximate stride dimension of 2.5 feet.
16
Figure 18: THA walking path
The use of walking paths are a special case used and should
only be used to supplement the scenario approach. Also, this
effect can be used in studying large long-span structures for
group effects where such verification is warranted.
Additional Considerations
When evaluating floor vibrations, non-structural components
play a large role in the floor response, either by providing a
stiffening effect and/or increasing the systems’ damping.
Therefore, for floor systems that are governed by floor
vibration, additional refinement may need to be incorporated
in the analysis and response. Also the use of field testing is
not an unreasonable request for highly sensitive areas so
appropriate action can be employed if needed.
Exterior Wall Effects
Modeling
As previously stated and defined in AISC DG 11 2nd Edition,
the edge of slab is stiffened to about 2.5 times due to the
exterior wall. Additionally, it should be noted that the
mullions of an exterior wall system may also be used to help
reduce the perceivable accelerations generated from walking
by sharing such load distribution between levels, thereby
achieving the acceleration criteria.
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

An example below is from the same 20 story residential tower

case study defined above. Here you will see a comparison of
floor vibration with and without the vertical exterior wall steel
mullions.

Table 8: Summary acceleration responses

As shown in the tables above, the acceleration effects when

including the mullion contributions are significant. Non-
structural components do play a large role in the structural
performance, and the designer should include such
contributions when warranted.

Testing
As it relates to non-structural components and mass, testing
was conducted for a project in Los Angeles, California. We
also attained Professor Thomas Murray and Brad Davis to
predict and measure the performance of the structural system.
Figure 19: Mullion comparison A summary of key points are shared herein.
The modeling process is simple enough, by adding the steel
The floor vibrations due to walking at the northeast
mullion column element with a moment, shear, and torsional
cantilevered corner were measured during construction. Floor
release at the top and bottom in a staged construction manner,
acceleration measurements were made for the bare slab
after all the appropriate loads are applied to the floor system,
condition, and then with 10.2 psf superimposed dead load,
one can capture the behavior of the component. As the loading
partitions, and simulated curtain wall weight added
from a walking excitation, the friction of the bolted type
incrementally. Also, a finite element model of the structural
connection can be seen an active axial support similarly to steel
framing was developed and tuned using initial measurement
shear tab connections acting as a moment connection. If a more
data. The model was then used to predict floor vibration
refined analysis is needed, a spring can be added instead of this
response of the occupied areas. Architectural and structural
simplified approach to account for the friction of the snug tight
plans of the corner are shown below.
bolted connection.

17
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

1. bare structure

Figure 20: Northeast floor plan

2. Item 1 plus 10.2 psf superimposed dead load (CMU
The primary concern was the vibration of the judicial chamber blocks were used)
at the corner. Therefore the most stringent limit for human
perceptibility and comfort of 0.5%g was incorporated (AISC
DG 11 2nd Edition).

The level 2 structural system consisted of 3 inch metal deck +

4.5 inch normal weight concrete fill supported by wide flange
steel beams and girders. All other levels, the structural system
consisted of 3 inch metal deck + 3.25 inch light weight
concrete fill supported by wide flange steel beams and girders.
Additionally at the corner, a telescoping mullion connection
for the building’s curtain wall was also present.

3. Item 2 plus selected interior dry wall partitions (partitions

were constructed for testing purposes)
(a) Female Connection (b) Male Connection
Figure 21: Typical curtain wall unit

The floor vibration measurements were made on Levels 02 and

04 during construction. Measurements were made for each of
the flour floor conditions:

18
2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS
4. Item 3 plus curtain wall weight (bundled reinforcement
were used to mimic floor line loading)
For each floor condition on each level, ambient and heal drop
measurements were first recoded from which the natural
frequency or frequencies were determined. Then controlled
and natural walking measurements were made along two
paths to determine maximum walking responses.
(a) North-South Walking Path
(b) Corner Walking Path
Figure 22: Walking paths
The comparison between the actual and the initial predicted
models were seen to be close. With the information obtained
through measurement, tuning of the finite element modeling
were then completed to provide a predicted in-service
responses.
(a) Level 02 Comparisons
(b) Level 04 Comparisons
Table 9: Summary comparisons
Conclusion
The objective of this article was to provide project specific
examples to show how to define the appropriate design criteria,
parameters, and conduct varying design methodologies to
achieve a more cost effective solution.
An additional objective of this article was to expose the
limitations generated when using frequency as an acceptance
criteria. Frequency based design limits ignores other
important factors such as damping and the significant impact
that frequency holds in evaluating a floor system with standard
practice acceleration and velocity based methods. Frequencies
should not be ignored, however, they should be used as rules
of thumb in initial design phases, thus, allowing the designer
to use appropriate methods to meet the Client’s expectations
and project needs in a more cost effective manner. Therefore,
using industry standards of acceleration and velocity based
approaches should be the primary method in evaluating if a
floor system is adequate when subjected to walking
excitations.
19
 2017 SEAOC CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS

Acknowledgements References

The authors gratefully acknowledge the forward thinking
leading experts of floor vibration Professor Thomas Murray
Ph.D., P.E. and Brad Davis, Ph.D, S.E. for the joint efforts
conducted on numerous projects here at SOM. The common
pursuit of obtaining a deeper understanding of the appropriate
structural methods of evaluation, design criteria and structural
responses to obtain more cost effective solutions are
paramount. This support is critical in achieving enhanced
designs while meeting the Clients expectations and project’s
needs.
Abbreviations
Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1999. ATC Design
Guide 1 – Minimizing Floor Vibration. ATC. Redwood City,
CA.
Chopra, A.K. (2001). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications of Earthquake Engineering, 2nd Edition, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E., and Ungar, E.E. (1997). Steel
Design Guide Series 11: Floor Vibrations Due to Human
Activity, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),
Chicago, Illinois

AISC - American Institute of Steel Construction Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E., and Ungar, E.E. (2016). Steel
a0 - Peak acceleration tolerance limit Design Guide Series 11: Floor Vibrations Due to Human
- Acceleration tolerance limits, see Figure 3 Activity Second Edition, American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), Chicago, Illinois
ap - Peak acceleration
- Ratio of peak floor acceleration to gravity Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Ungar, E. E., “Floor
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers Vibrations Due to Human Activity,” AISC, 2003.
DG - Design Guide
E - Elastic modulus Murray, T. M., Ungar, E. E., Davis B.D., “Facts for Steel
FEA - Finite element analysis Buildings No 5 – Vibration Steel-Framed Structural Systems
fn - Fundamental natural frequency, Hz Due to Human Activity.” AISC 2017.
FRF - Frequency Response Function
g - Acceleration of gravity Obta, T. and Miyamori, Y. (2006). “Identification of a Human
H - Harmonic Walking Force Model Based on Dynamic Monitoring Data
Hz - Hertz from Pedestrian Bridges.” Computers and Structures.
I - Flexural moment of inertia
in - Inches Willford, M., Field, C., and Young, P. (2006). “Improved
kips - kips = 1000 lbs Methodologies for the Prediction of Footfall-Induced
L - Length Vibration.” Proceedings of the 2006 Architectural
lb - Pounds Engineering National Conference, ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
N - Number of steps
No - Number of walkers Willford, M., Young, P., and Field, C. (2007). “Predicting
Po - Amplitude of the driving force Footfall-Induced Vibration: Part I.” Structures and Buildings,
psf - Pounds per square foot 160(SB2).
Q - Bodyweight, lb, 157 lb
SAP - Structural Analysis Program Willford M., Young P., (2006). “A Design Guide for Footfall
SEAOC - Structural Engineers Association of California Induced Vibration of Structures.” The Concrete Centre.
SOM - Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
THA - Time History Analysis
VC - Vibration Control
w - Distributed load
W - Effective weight of the floor, lb
 - Dynamic coefficient
 - Damping ratio
 - Deflection
inch - Microinches
 - Resonant build-up factor

20