See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228720291

Design of Vibration-Sensitive Laboratory Floors:

Vibration Criteria and Prediction Methods
Compared with Measured...

Article September 2003

DOI: 10.1061/40699(2003)4

CITATIONS READS

0 250

5 authors, including:

Anders Carlson
University of Southern California
10 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Facade Retrofit View project

Seismic Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anders Carlson on 19 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DESIGN OF VIBRATION-SENSITIVE LABORATORY FLOORS: VIBRATION CRITERIA AND
PREDICTION METHODS COMPARED WITH MEASURED VIBRATIONS
Amir Yazdanniyaz
Associate Principal, Arup Acoustics,
2440 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 180,
Los Angeles, CA 90064, (310) 312-5040,
amir.yazdanniyaz@arup.com
Sean Bui Catherine Wenger
Associate, Arup Acoustics, Los Senior Engineer, Arup,
Angeles, 901 Market St., Suite 260,
sean.bui@arup.com San Francisco, CA 94103,
(415) 957-9445,
catherine.wenger@arup.com
ABSTRACT
A vibrating floor can have a direct impact on the usability
of sensitive equipment, ranging from mildly annoying, to
rendering the equipment readings unusable. Structural
vibrations can be caused by mechanical equipment,
transportation systems, and building occupants (i.e., footfall
traffic) and affect all structures to differing degrees. This paper
addresses footfall induced vibrations and their effect on
sensitive laboratory equipment.
In designing a floor for a vibration-sensitive laboratory the
first step is to select the appropriate vibration criterion. Since
there are several sources of vibration criteria and prediction
methods, this paper provides a discussion of these criteria and
methods with respect to measured vibration levels.
The accurate selection of vibration criteria and prediction
of vibration levels is important in laboratory design because
laboratory cost increases as floor vibration levels decrease.
Vibration criteria can be determined based on published
vibration limits, manufacturer-provided criteria, and subjective
tests of vibration-sensitive equipment. For design purposes,
floor vibration levels can be predicted by several methods,
which include the AISC method, the BBN method, and
analytical modal analysis. The accuracy of these prediction
methods are compared against measured vibration levels in
both a composite and a concrete laboratory floor. In addition,
the effect of damping on floor vibrations was analyzed through
vibration measurements before and after the installment of
interior wall partitions and furniture.
NOMENCLATURE
V maximum floor velocity (ips or mps)
fn natural frequency (Hz)
Xmax maximum floor displacement (in. or m)
Fm maximum force due to walking (lb. or N)
Copyright ASCE 2004
Downloaded 11 Oct 2006 to 128.118.88.141. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright, see http://www.ascelibrary.org/
Anders Carlson
Associate, Arup, Los Angeles,
anders.carlson@arup.com
Aimee Lalime
Consultant, Arup Acoustics, Los
Angeles,
aimee.lalime@arup.com
p floors deflection under a unit concentrated load (m/N
or lb./in)
fo footstep pulse frequency (inverse of the footstep pulse
rise time) (Hz)
to pulse rise time (s)
c constant coefficient (lb/s 2 ) that is based on person
weight and walking speed (paces per minute)
k point stiffness of the floor (Kips/in. or kN/m)
N constant coefficient based upon the damping level of
the floor (unitless)
INTRODUCTION
Research involving actual measurements of the structural
floor vibrations can be used to subjectively define vibration
criteria and to validate and improve prediction methods.
As background, this paper will present the established
performance criteria and prediction methods in use. It will then
describe these criteria and methods in light of measured floor
vibration levels.
Measurement of actual floor performance levels can be
used in a number of ways. By providing a real environment
for the users to test for sensitivity it can establish a benchmark
for the final design. It also provides vital feedback on the
various prediction methods used in the floor design and greater
understanding of the influence of the specific parameters.
There are many sources of vibration performance criteria
ranging from published tables and curves such as ASHRAE and
ISO, to equipment-specific limits set by manufacturers. There
is also the option to set subjective targets based upon the end
users specific project requirements and expectations.
The challenge is to interpret this range of data from
different sources and recorded values using differing
parameters and extract a clear direction for the numerous pieces
of design required in production of a laboratory facility.
Architectural Engineering 2003
 These design elements traditionally fall into a variety of vibration criteria. The other building parameters are kept
domains: equipment selection by the user, space planning constant and 3-1/4 in. light-weight concrete is used on a 3 in.
driven by the architects, vibration requirements set by the deck. A typical laboratory column grid of 21 ft. by 30 ft. was
vibration consultant, and structural framing by the structural used in calculations. The base-line framing is governed by
engineer. Rather than viewing these as disparate pieces they structural requirements, not vibration criteria.
must be brought together to realize an optimal design.
For example, consider the positioning of a corridor. If the Table 1: Increased Cost of Laboratory Construction to
main thoroughfare can be located away from the most sensitive Meet Vibration Criteria
equipment (architectural and user concerns) and coordinated
with structural elements separate from those beneath the labs Beam Girder Increased
(structural concern) then a better solution will ensue. Or a lab Vibration Nominal Nominal Weight Cost of
bench could be located above primary pieces of structure Criteria Depth Depth of Steel Steel
(architectural planning and structural coordination) with the (ips) (in.) (in.) (lbs./sqft) ($/sqft)
users involved in selecting the appropriate equipment and 16000 12 21 3.98 $6/sqft
layout. 8000 16 21 4.99 $7.50/sqft
4000 18 24 6.96 $10.00/sqft
2000 24 24 9.51 $13.00/sqft
1000 27 30 13.14 $18.00/sqft

Designing an entire laboratory for a vibration criterion that

Figure 1: Design parameters for consideration in floor
vibration
CHOICE OF VIBRATION CRITERIA
Cost Implications. The choice of vibration criteria can
have a significant impact on building cost. The most cost
effective solution is to locate the areas with stringent vibration
control requirements on the ground floor (where slab-on-grade
systems would provide a significant attenuation of the footfall-
generated vibration). However, space planning frequently
requires laboratory areas on the suspended floors. The vibration
performance criteria are then likely to be the controlling
structural design criteria for the floor system.
Lower vibration levels can be achieved by altering the
structural framing, for example: reducing the column or beam
spacing, or increasing the slab thickness, beam depth, or beam
weight. Reducing the column spacing reduces the flexibility of
the space and increases the building cost by increasing the
material volumes and number of connections. A thicker slab or
deeper beam will increase the ceiling depth cavity. This could
impact the ceiling height and service distribution and may
require an overall increase in the building height. There will
also be an increased material cost.
One example of increased building cost due to meeting
vibration criteria is shown in Table 2. In this table, the beam
and girder depths are increased in order to meet various
need only be locally applied will add a significant cost. For
example, if 4000 ips were used in place of 8000 ips, an
additional $2.50/sqft would need to be spent on steel, reducing
the budget for finishes and other desired features.
In addition to investigating the impact of framing changes
on the building costs, the compatibility of the building
structures and interior space layout with dedicated vibration
isolation areas must also be considered. For instance, use of a
vibration isolation table as a tool to support vibration-sensitive
equipment is widely employed in the buildings in which the
floor structure does not support the low-vibration environment.
However, the building infrastructures (i.e., lifts, corridor width
and methods of transportation) may not be able to support the
wide use of isolation tables. Another more costly option would
be to design the floor structure to keep vibration levels low in
every place in a laboratory where the microscope may be used,
eliminating the need for a vibration isolation table. However,
designing for low vibration levels throughout all areas of a high
tech research building can lead to a very expensive design. The
client, architect, and consultants must weigh the conflicting
values of flexibility and low cost in order to determine the best
design for each application.
Published Criteria. Generic vibration criteria for
laboratories can be found in the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE,
1999) and the American Institute of Steel Construction Inc.
(Murray, 1997) guides/manuals. Performance criteria are given
in terms of rms velocity (ips or mps) and are measured in
1/3-octave frequency bands. Different vibration levels are
given for different types of generic equipment. For example, a
vibration velocity limit of 4000 ips is set for bench
microscopes operating at up to 100 power magnification, and a
velocity limit of 2000 ips is set for bench microscopes
operating at up to 400 power magnification and for optical
balances (ASHRAE, 1999). These generic criteria are often
used in building design unless the building is being designed
for a specific piece of equipment and the equipment
manufacturer is known.
Manufacturers Criteria. When a laboratory is being
designed for a particular piece of equipment, more specific

Copyright ASCE 2004 Architectural Engineering 2003

Downloaded 11 Oct 2006 to 128.118.88.141. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright, see http://www.ascelibrary.org/
 criteria can be found from the equipment manufacturers.
However, criteria provided from manufacturers can often be
ambiguous, in different forms that make comparisons difficult,
and err on the conservative side. To illustrate this, consider the
vibration criteria provided by two different manufacturers of
1.5 Tesla (T) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines.
Manufacturer A has the following vibration limits: from 0 to 7
Hz maximum acceleration must be less than 0.3 mm/s 2 , from 8
to 50 Hz the maximum displacement must be less than 0.2 m,
and from 51 to 100 Hz the maximum displacement must be less
than 0.3 m. Manufacturer B provides the following vibration
limits for their 1.5T MRI machines: 10mG maximum peak-to-
peak acceleration as measured in the vertical, horizontal, and
longitudinal directions for the frequency range of 1 to 5000 Hz.
The criteria provided by Manufacturers A and B differ in
terms of frequency range and waveform (i.e., acceleration vs.
displacement), which makes comparisons difficult. In addition,
these Manufacturers criteria are ambiguous. It is unclear
whether the frequencies are considered in a discrete sense, by
octave bands, by 1/3 octave bands, etc. Also, Manufacturer A
does not specify whether the vibration is defined in peak-to-
peak or rms.
Such differences in form are common among criteria
provided by manufacturers of sensitive equipment. Greater
uniformity in the form of manufacturer-reported vibration
limits is needed if they are to be used as consistent performance
criteria. For instance, all manufacturers could provide vibration
criteria in terms of rms velocity as measured in 1/3-octave
frequency bands. This would be a particularly useful format for
vibration criteria reported by manufacturers of sensitive
equipment since this format is consistently used in published
vibration criteria.
Subjective Criteria. The most specific type of vibration
criteria is project-specific criteria. These criteria are
determined by considering the precise needs of the projects
end user. When these criteria are interpreted by informed
consultants, project-specific criteria can result in a design that
accurately matches the users needs.
For example, at one teaching laboratory, a new lab was
being designed to relocate some of the researchers and
instructors from an existing laboratory to new laboratories in a
new building. Since the existing building had satisfactory
vibration levels (and satisfactory operation of 400x
microscopes), the users requested that the floor vibration levels
of the new building be designed to a level equal to or less than
those of the existing building. The vibration levels in the
existing building were measured and found to be 500 ips
(rms) as measured in 1/3-octave frequency bands. This
vibration velocity is lower than the published criteria of 1000
ips for microscopes with greater than 400 power
magnification. In addition, it would be costly to build a
laboratory to meet a vibration criterion of 500 ips, as
discussed in the cost implications section.
Rather than designing the floor to meet 500 ips, the
occupants were invited to operate their microscopes in several
other laboratories while measurements were conducted
regarding the vibration velocity of each floor. The researchers
determined that a lighter floor, with a vibration velocity of 2000
ips, was also acceptable for their particular equipment, so the
Copyright ASCE 2004
Downloaded 11 Oct 2006 to 128.118.88.141. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright, see http://www.ascelibrary.org/
new laboratory was designed to meet the 2000 ips velocity
criteria.
As occurred in this case, sometimes the user suggests
vibration criteria that are lower than necessary (and would
result in over-design). In addition, the specific equipment and
use may be tolerant of higher or lower vibration levels than the
published values. In any case, project-specific vibration criteria
can ensure that the new facility meets the needs of the intended
application.
As with any vibration criteria, the appropriate criteria can
only be selected when good communication exists between the
user, architect, and consultants with regards to the building and
laboratorys intended function in both the near and distant
future.
VIBRATION LEVEL PREDICTION METHODS
In addition to selecting the appropriate floor vibration
criterion, the floor vibration due to footfall traffic must be
predicted based on design parameters such as column spacing,
bay size, etc. With this predicted floor vibration level, the
design elements of the building can be adjusted to meet the
vibration criterion (as well as other design criteria). There are
several vibration prediction methods available, including
empirical formulas, finite element analysis, and modal analysis.
AISC Method. One method (Equation 1) for predicting
the footfall-induced vibration for frequencies greater than 5 Hz
is published in the AISC Design Guide 11 (Murray, 1997):
V = 2fn X max (1)
where V is the maximum floor velocity (in ips or mps), fn is
the natural frequency (in Hz), and Xmax is the maximum floor
displacement (in m or in.) under a specified point load,
defined as:
Xmax = F mp fo 2 /(2fn 2 ) (2)
In this equation, Fm refers to the maximum force due to walking
(based on the walkers weight) (lb.), p is the floors deflection
under a unit concentrated load (in./lb.), and fo is the inverse of
the pulse rise time (1/to , where to is the pulse rise time) (Hz).
BBN Method. The footfall-induced vibration can also be
predicted using Equation 3, which was developed at BBN by
Gordon (1987) and based on work by Ungar and White (1970).
Vc = Cfn k (3)
In Equation 3, the variable Vc refers to the floor velocity (in
ips or mps, 1/3 octave band rms), c represents a constant
coefficient (lb/s2 ) that is based on person weight and walking
speed (paces per minute), and k represents the point stiffness of
the floor (Kips/in.). The frequency and point stiffness can be
found through finite element analysis or empirical equations
(Murray, 1997) relating the critical mode of the floor to other
parameters of the floor (i.e., moment of inertia). Although the
authors mention the effects of damping, this formula does not
actually take into account the floor damping.
In order to account for floor damping, Equation 4 can be
used, which was published through Stanford University
(Gordon, 1988):
Vc = Cfn kN (4)
where N is a coefficient based upon the damping level of the
floor. Specifically, N = 1 represents a Lightly Damped floor,
N = 2 represents a Medium Damped floor, and N = 4
represents a Heavily Damped floor. A Lightly Damped floor
is described as an essentially open bay; medium damped refers
Architectural Engineering 2003
 to structures with some ceiling height partitions; and heavily
damped refers to full height partitions. However, the authors
recommend that N=1 be used in floors for any floors in which a
short disturbance could cause significant problems.
Footfall Modal Analysis. In addition to empirical
formulas, modal analysis can be used to predict the floors
vibration response. Arup has developed and is in the process of
validating a modal analysis based predictive tool. This is based
on modal analysis of a floor with the peak floor velocity being
calculated from an equivalent footfall impulse (which varies
with footfall rate and floor frequency), which has been obtained
by dynamic analysis of a large number of measured footfall
force records.
The vibration contributions of all relevant modes are
summed and the rms velocity obtained by the analysis of the
resulting simulated floor velocity time history.
This modal analysis method has two noticeable advantages
over other methods. First, it is more flexible. The time history
response is easily translated into rms, peak, or peak-to-peak and
frequency domain depending on the form of the criterion (i.e.,
manufacturers criteria). Second, it could potentially be more
accurate. Rather than estimating the footfall input force,
measured footfall impulse responses are used. Also, the modal
analysis takes into account more than just the first mode of the
structure.
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED
FLOOR VIBRATIONS
A comparison of the prediction methods described in the
previous section was achieved by predicting and measuring the
floor vibrations of a composite floor and a concrete floor. In
both cases, the tested floor was a newly constructed floor in a
teaching laboratory building.
The composite floor was constructed of 3.5 in. normal
weight concrete (145 pounds per cubic foot) fill on top of a 2
6
in. thick metal deck. The bay size (bounded by four columns)
was 21 ft.-4 in. by 32 ft.-10 in.. The beams and girders were
1
W27X84 and W30X116, respectively. The floor framing for
the composite floor are illustrated in Figure 2.
1
W27X84
X
1
0
DO
Q
3
DO
W
DO
32-10
Figure 2: Design Parameters of Composite Floor for
Consideration in Floor Vibration
Copyright ASCE 2004
Downloaded 11 Oct 2006 to 128.118.88.141. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright, see http://www.ascelibrary.org/
The concrete floor was 5 in. thick normal weight concrete
(145 pounds per cubic foot) with a bay size of 21 ft. by 27 ft.
The beam and girder dimensions were 12 in. by 19 in.
(including the slab) and 30 in. by 24 in., respectively, and the
beam spacing was 42 in, center to center.
30W x 24D
12W x 19D
1 2
3
27-0
Figure 3: Design Parameters of Concrete Floor for
Consideration in Floor Vibration
For both floors, measurements were conducted with
footfall excitation at a rate of 100 steps per minute by a 175 lb.
walker. The floor vibration was measured with the transducer
placed at the center of the bay. The person was walking at a
distance of about 2 feet from the transducer. In addition to the
footfall-induced vibration measurements, the floors natural
frequency and stiffness were measured using a dynamic shaker
with reaction mass.
The resulting measured and predicted floor velocities (in
rms) are shown in Table 2. The natural frequency and stiffness
of the composite floor were measured to be 12.5 Hz and 220
Kips/in. and those of the concrete floor were measured as 12.5
Hz and 400 Kips/in. These measured natural frequencies and
stiffness values were used as inputs in both of the prediction
methods in order to yield a consistent comparison of the
prediction methods. (Measured natural frequency and stiffness
values are typically not available in the design process and
these values can be predicted through modal analysis or other
methods.)
Table 2: Predicted and Measured Floor Velocities
Calculation Footfall Induced Vibration Velocity, uips
Method Composite floor Concrete Floor
AISC 8600 4750
BBN (N=1) 4250 2350
Measured 2400 1300
Notice in Table 2 that the floor velocities predicted through
the AISC and BBN methods are over-conservative as compared
with the measured floor velocities. This conservativeness may
be due to the fact that floor damping is not considered in the
AISC calculation and N=1 is conservatively suggested in the
BBN method. The following section describes the effects of
damping on two composite floors.
Architectural Engineering 2003
 IMPACT OF DAMPING ON FLOOR VIBRATION
PREDICTIONS
To quantify the importance of damping, vibration levels
were measured on two laboratory floors before and after the
installment of interior partition walls and furniture (such as the
laboratory benches). Both floors were constructed of a
composite of steel and concrete.
Floor A was similarly sized at 21 ft. by 28 ft. 1 in. The
beams were W21x44 and W21x73 at a spacing of 84 in. The
girders were W24x70 and W24x84 at a spacing of 28 in.. The
composite structure was 3.25 in. light weight concrete on top of
3 in. steel decking.
Floor B was constructed of 3.5 in. normal weight concrete
on top of a 3 in. steel deck. It had a bay size of 20 ft. by 24 ft.
3-5/8 in. The beams were constructed of W14x22 and the
girders were W18x35 and W18x40.
Comparison of the floor vibration levels (Table 3)
measured at Facility A before and after construction of the
interior partition walls and the installation of the lab furniture
showed the damping increased from 2% to 6% (percentage of
critical damping). As a result, the floor vibration levels due to
the footfall traffic decreased from 5200 ips to 2000 ips
(rms), about two-and-a-half-fold reduction in vibration levels.
Similarly, vibration measurements were conducted at Facility B
before and after installment of partitions and furniture. Floor
damping was found to increase from 2% to 8%. In addition,
floor vibrations due to footfall traffic decreased from 17,000
uips to 5,000 uips (rms), a more than three-fold reduction.
Footfall Induced
Damping Ratio
Vibration Velocity
(% of Critical)
(uips)
Floor A Floor B Floor A
Measured
Before 5200 17000 2%
Partitions
Measured
After 2000 5000 6%
Partitions
Table 3: Floor Vibration and Damping Levels Before and
After Installation of Laboratory Partitions and Furntiture
Copyright ASCE 2004
View publication stats Downloaded 11 Oct 2006 to 128.118.88.141. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright, see http://www.ascelibrary.org/
Based on the comparison of the measured floor vibrations
and the theoretical prediction analyses, these laboratory floors
would conservatively fall in the Medium Damped category
(N = 2), rather than in the Lightly Damped category (N = 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Over-conservative prediction of vibration levels or choice
of vibration criteria can increase building cost. In order to
avoid over-design, more research is needed into vibration
prediction methods, specifically, more measurements are
needed with respect to floor damping ratio in order to validate
and improve the prediction methods. In addition, greater
uniformity is needed among manufacturer-provided criteria.
To achieve a design satisfying all of the clients
requirements and budget is a challenging task. However with
the early involvement of appropriate consultants and informed
dialogue between the team members, it is achievable. The
increased understanding of the factors influencing the floor
performance enable an integrated approach to the challenge of
creating a building suitable for the use of vibration-sensitive
equipment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Mike Willford (Arup) for his review of
this paper, and to him and Peter Young (Arup) for their work
on the footfall impulse modal analysis prediction tool.
REFERENCES
1999 ASHRAE Handbook Heating, Ventilation, and Air-
Conditioning Applications, p. 46.38.
Gordon, Colin, The Design of Low-Vibration Buildings
for Microelectronics and Other Occupants, Presented at the
Floor B First International Conference on Vibration Control in Optics
and Metrology, February 1987, London.
2% Gordon, Colin, Mark Saunders, and David Cooper,
Vibration: A Quantitative Approach to Building Design,
Stanford University, November 23, 1988.
8% Murray, Thomas, David Allen, and Eric Ungar, Floor
Vibrations Due to Human Activity, Steel Design Guide Series
11, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 1997, p. 46.
Ungar, Eric, and Robert White, Footfall-Induced
Vibration of Floors Supporting Sensitive Equipment, Sound
and Vibration, October 1970, p. 10.
Architectural Engineering 2003