Evaluation of Floor Vibration Existing in Apartment Building

Min Jung Lee1, a, Ja Ock Cho1, b, Sang Whan Han1, c

1
The College of Architecture, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea, 133-791
a
mjrabbi@hanyang.ac.kr, bjuliettoscar@naver.com, cswhan@hanyang.ac.kr

ABSTRACT

In recent years building floors become larger and more spacious due to the development of new design
methods and high strength and light weight materials. Such long span floor systems may provide
smaller amount of damping and have a longer period so that may be more vulnerable to the floor
vertical vibration. In Korea when floors are to be checked against the floor vertical vibration, the
provisions developed in foreign countries have been used. However these guide lines have been
developed based on human perception, which may vary from country to country. Also, Korea has
particular floor systems, such as flat plate floor system of apartment building. This study attempts to
evaluate the vibration performance of the floors in typical apartment buildings. Two different floors
and the perception levels developed in the previous study were used to check the acceptability of the
floor vertical vibration.

KEYWORDS: Floor Vibration, Serviceability, Walking, Heel drop, Damping ratio

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years building floors have become larger and more spacious due to the development of new
design methods and high strength and light weight materials. However, such long span floor system
may provide smaller amount of damping and have longer period so that they would be more
vulnerable to the floor vibration. In current design procedures, floors have been designed according to
strength requirements and serviceability requirement for static loads. Such design procedure can not
guarantee the satisfactory floor to man induced floor vibration, which is dynamic loads.
In Korea when floors are to be checked against the floor vibration the provisions developed in
foreign countries such as Japan, U.S. and Canada have been commonly used. Since the provisions in
each country have been developed based on human perception, the provisions in other countries may
not be applicable to the floors in Korea. Human perception may vary country to country. Moreover, in
Korea structural systems and floor systems are quite unique. For example, apartment buildings with
bearing wall systems and flat plate slab systems are very common. Recently, building complex used
for commercial and residential purpose becomes popular.
This study attempts to evaluate the performance of the floors in typical apartment buildings. Two
different floors with the area of 28 m2 and 32 m2 were investigated. The guideline provided by AISC
(1997), AIJ (1991) and human perception level of Korean people developed by previous study are
used to check the acceptability of the floor vibration.

447
2. FLOOR VIBRATION CRITERIA

2.1 AISC design guide series 11

Allen and Murray observed that walking induced vibration could be more annoying to the occupants
in residence building, and proposed design criterion for walking vibration for broad applications. The
AISC design guide series 11 adopted these criteria, and proposed acceleration thresholds by
multiplying ISO baseline curve as shown in Figure 1 (a).
According to this criterion acceleration limitation is lowest for natural frequency from 4 to 8 Hz,
the value for residence building is 0.5 %gravity. Above 8Hz the acceleration thresholds rise according
to natural frequency.

100 100
(a)

'
(b)
'
Acceleration (% gravity)

Acceleration (% gravity)
10 Rhythmic activity 10
V-30
Shopping
V-10
1 Office, Residence 1 V-5
V-3
V-1.5
0.1 0.1
V-0.75

0.01 0.01
1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(a) AISC criterion (b) AIJ criterion

Figure 1. Floor vibration criterion

2.2 AIJ criterion

The AIJ criterion (1991) proposed acceleration limitations for 6 degree according to vibration source,
usage of building, and damping ratio as shown in Figure 1 (b). The criterion divided the serviceability
by three ranks, which provided upper and lowest limit for serviceability. The acceleration limitations
according to the type of vibration source, usage of building, and serviceability rank were arranged in
Table 1.

Table 1. AIJ Criteria According to Force Type and Occupancy

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Usage
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 3 Rank 3

Residence V-0.75 V-1.5 V-3 V-5 V-10

Conference V-1.5 V-3 V-5 V-10 V-30
Office V-3 V-5 V-5 V-10 V-30

Note) Type 1: continuous and repeated intermittently vibration, Type 2: impact vibration in case that damping ratio is less

than 0.03, Type 3: impact vibration in case that damping ratio is from 0.03 to 0.06

448
2.3 Previous study

Since the life styles and the common floor systems are different country to country, the human
perception level on the same floor vibration could be different. The previous study proposed
acceleration thresholds of floor vertical vibration due to heel drop and walking using shaking table test.
Korean twenty subjects with different ages, sex, and social backgrounds were tested. The acceleration
threshold obtained by this study using Korean subjects was significantly different from that obtained
by former study using American subjects. Test subjects were more sensitive to walking induced
vibrations than heel drop-induced vibrations.

3. FLOOR VIBRATION TEST

3.1 Method

According to AIJ criterion (1991), floor vibration evaluation was conducted using acceleration,
frequency and damping ration obtained from measurement. Heel drop and walking-induced vibration
were measured in apartment building. The sensor was set on the center of the floor.
Waking force was characterized by weight
of people and pace. In this study walking force
was performed by one person weighting about
700N with normal walk pace of 2Hz using
electronic metronome (Murray et al., 1997).
The heel drop impacts were performed by
the same people weighting about 700N. He rose
up on his toes, 50~60 mm above the floor
surface seen in Figure 2, and then impacted the
floor by suddenly shifting his weight to his
heels (Allen et al., 1976, Fatield, 1992 and
Foschi et al., 1995).
The subject people walked and
impacted without shoes. The shoes may
role damper, and the damping values are Figure 2. Heel drop impact
different according to the kind of shoes.

3.2 Subject floor

In Korea apartment buildings with bearing wall systems and flat slab systems are very common. Two
apartment buildings under construction were selected for the subjects. Since living room was the most
spacious in residence building, the vibration was measured on the living floor with area of 28 m2 and
32 m2 . These two subject floors are represented by 64RC-L and 71RC-L, respectively.
Design criteria ACI 318-05 (2005) and KCI (2003) proposed minimum thickness to consider the
serviceability for static displacement. In bearing wall system building, the average value ( a fm ) for
am is regarded as over 2.0, am means the ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural
stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally by centrelines of adjacent panels. This case the minimum
thickness h is determined according to following Eq. (1).

 f 
ln  0.8 + y 
1400 
h≥  ≥ 90 (mm) (1)
36 + 9β

449
where, ln is the length of clear span in the long direction, β is ration of long to short
dimensions. At discontinuous edges, Eq. (1) shall be increased by at least 10 percent in the
panel with a discontinuous edge. The subject floors satisfied Eq. (1), but not 10 percent
increasing. The characteristics of subject floors were summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of Subject Floors

Classification Structural Size of Conditions Slab thickness Minimum Increased by
details living room thickness 10%
64RC-L Constructed 4.6 m x 6.15 m Ceiling 150 144 158
ceiling (28 m2)
71RC-L Constructed 5.2 m x 6.15 m Ceiling and 150 148 163
ceiling and (32 m2) outer window
outer window

3.3Test result

The natural frequency and damping ratio are obtained from heel drop vibration response. Figure 3
shows the response of 64RC-L for heel drop and walking vibration and frequency. The frequency
response shown in Figure 3 (c) is obtained from FFT using acceleration-time domain response shown
in Figure 3 (a) and (b). The damping ratio( ξ ) is derived using Figure 3 (a) and Eq. (2) (Chopra, 2001).
1 ai
ξ= ln (2)
2π j ai + j
where, ai is the i th amplitude of the floor response for heel drop vibration. The dynamic properties,
natural frequency and damping ratio, and peak acceleration for heel drop and walking vibration are
arranged in Table 3.
'

2 2 3.E-05
'

'

2.E-05
A ccelera tio n (% g ra v ity )

A ccelera tio n (% g ra v ity )

1 1

2.E-05
A m p litu d e

0 0
1.E-05

-1 -1
5.E-06

-2 -2 0.E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (sec) Time (sec) Frequency (Hz)

(a) For heel drop vibration (b) For walking vibration (c) Frequency domain response
Figure 3. Floor response of 64RC-L

Table 3. Dynamic properties and maximum accelerations

Classification Natural frequency Damping ratio Peak acceleration Peak acceleration
( fn ) - walking -heel drop
64RC-L 21.5 (Hz) 0.033 1.69 (%gravity) 2.33 (%gravity)

71RC-L 17.6 (Hz) 0.037 1.72 (%gravity) 2.44 (%gravity)

450
4. EVALIATION OF FLOOR VIBRATION PERFROMANCE

The peak accelerations obtained from measurement were compared with AISC criterion (1997), AIJ
criterion (1991), and perception level developed by previous study. Figure 4 (a) shows the
comparisons of the responses for walking vibration with AISC criterion. The peak accelerations to
walking vibration were represented by 64-W and 71-W for 64RC-L and 71RC-L respectively. The
peak accelerations of two subject floors for walking vibration exceeded the AISC acceleration
limitation for residence.
According to AIJ criterion (1991), walking vibration is applied to Type 1. The peak accelerations
for walking vibration have to be below V-3 level. Since two subject floors have damping ratio above
0.03, the peak accelerations for heel drop vibration have to be below V-10 level. Figure 4 (b) shows
that the peak accelerations to walking and heel drop vibration do not satisfy the AIJ limitations except
for the peak acceleration to heel drop vibration for 64RC-L(64-H).

10 10
Peak acceleration (% gravity) '

Peak acceleration (% gravity) '

V-30

1 1
V-10
V-5
V-3
V-1.5
0.1 0.1
V-0.75
AISC for Offices, Residences AIJ
71-W 71-H 64-H
64-W 71-W 64-W
0.01 0.01
1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(a) AISC criterion (b) AIJ criterion

Figure 4. Comparisons of the peak accelerations with floor vibration criteria

Figure 5 (a) shows the comparisons of the peak accelerations with perception level developed by
previous study for heel drop vibration. The peak accelerations of subject floors are located between
“distinctly perceptible” and “slightly perceptible” level. The peak acceleration to heel drop vibration
for 71RC-L(71-H) is close to “distinctly perceptible” level. The comparisons for walking vibration are
shown in figure 5 (b). The peak accelerations for walking vibration are also located between
“distinctly perceptible” and “slightly perceptible” level. Since “imperceptible” level means lower limit
of perception for floor vibration, occupants perceive human induced vibration on the subject floors.

100 100
P eak acceleration (% gravity)
P eak acceleration (% gravity)

10 10

1 1

Strongly perceptible Strongly perceptible

Distinctly perceptible Distinctly perceptible
0.1 0.1
Slightly perceptible Slightly perceptible
Imperceptible Imperceptible
71-H 71-W
64-H 64-W
0.01 0.01
1 10 100 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(a) Heel drop vibration (b) Walking vibration

Figure 5. Comparisons to the peak accelerations with perception level developed by previous study

451
5. CONCLUSIONS

This study attempted to evaluate the performance of the floors in typical apartment buildings using
walking and heel drop. Two different floors were investigated, which satisfied minimum thickness
criterion of ACI and KCI, but do not satisfy the term of increasing 10 percent. Test results were
compared with AISC-11 (1997), AIJ (1991), and perception level proposed by previous study. The
subject floors did not satisfy AISC and AIJ criteria except for heel drop vibration response of 64RC-
L(64-H). According to the perception level of previous study, occupants could be annoyed by floor
vibration on the subject floors. Serviceability criterion for static displacement is not enough for the
serviceability for floor vibration. Engineer is required to check the serviceability for floor vibration
with minimum thickness.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318, 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI318-05,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 1585-1590.
Architectural Institute of Japan, 1991. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Habitability to Building
vibration, AIJ, pp. 1-17.
Architectural Institute of Korea, 2003. Korean Building Code and Commentary, AIK, pp. 303-310.
Allen, D. E. and Rainer, J. H., 1976. “Vibration Criteria for Long Span Floors.” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, National Research Council of Canada, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 165-173.
Chopra, A. K., 2001. Dynamics of structures: Theory and application to earthquake engineering.
Prince-Hall. 2nd Edition, pp. 1207-1213.
Fatfield, F. J., 1992. “Design Chart for Vibration of Office and Residential Floors,” Engineering
journal, AISC, Fourth Quarter, pp. 141-144.
Foschi, R. O., Neumann, G. A., Yao, F., and Folz, B., 1995. “Floor Vibration Due to Occupants and
Reliability-Based Design Guidelines.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, pp. 471-
479.
Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Unger, E. E., 1997. Floor Vibration Due to Human Activity. AISC
Steel Design Guide Series No. 11, pp. 1303-1308

452