Floor Vibrations and Cantilevered Construction

THOMAS M. MURRAY AND WILLIAM E. HENDRICK

A previous paper by the senior author presented a design floor systems supported by simply supported beams: bare
method to estimate the acceptability of a proposed floor floor, 1%-3% (lower limit for thin slab of lightweight
system from the standpoint of occupant induced floor concrete, upper limit for thick slab of normal weight
vibrations.1 The procedures developed therein are applicable concrete); ceiling, 1%-3% (lower limit for hung ceiling,
only to steel beam-concrete slab floor systems where the upper limit for sheetrock or furring attached to beams);
beams can be considered simply supported at each end. ductwork and mechanical, 1%-10%, depending on amount;
However, some of the most severe vibration problems have partitions, 10%-20%, if attached to the floor and spaced not
occurred in construction involving free cantilevers, to which more than every five floor beams. These values were
the proposed method of Ref. 1 is not applicable. The purpose originally suggested in Ref. 1 and are based on observation
of this paper is to present modifications to the method only, not on the results of a systematic study.
suggested in Ref. 1, so that cantilever floor systems and
Frequency —From test results presented in Ref. 2, the
systems with overhanging beams can be analyzed for
frequency of a cantilevered system can be estimated using a
annoying floor vibrations. The modifications were verified by
single tee-beam, if the transformed moment of inertia is
tests on seven floor systems reported in Ref. 2. One of the
computed assuming:
tested systems is used to demonstrate the suggested analysis
procedure. (a) Composite action, regardless of the method of
construction.
DESIGN PROCEDURE (b) An effective slab width, S, equal to the sum of half
the distance to adjacent beams.
Human sensitivity to vibration has been shown to depend on
(c) An effective slab depth, de, based on an equivalent
three parameters: frequency, amplitude, and damping. Scales
slab of rectangular cross section, is equal in weight
relating these parameters to human reaction have been
to the actual slab including concrete in the valleys of
developed. The modified Reiher-Meister and the Wiss-
decking and the weight of decking.
Parmelee scales are probably the most suitable for occupant
induced floor vibration analysis (see Ref. 1 for a complete
discussion). The use of either scale requires an estimate of
the frequency and amplitude for a specified impact. In
addition, an estimate of the critical damping is required. The
following sections describe methods that can be used to
estimate the three parameters for cantilever and overhanging
floor systems. For brevity, both types of systems will be
referred to as "cantilevered" floor systems in the following
discussion.
Damping —The damping in a cantilevered floor system can (a) Tee-beam model
be estimated as the sum of the damping of the separate
elements in the system. From the guidelines suggested for
Thomas M. Murray is Associate Professor, School of Civil
Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Okla.
William E. Hendrick is Design Engineer, Star Manufacturing (b) Cantilever beam (c) Overhanging beam
Company, Oklahoma City, Okla. Fig. 1. Analytical models

85
THIRD QUARTER / 1977

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Figure 1(a) shows the tee-beam model for computing the Table 1. Dynamic Load Factors for Heel-Drop Impact
transformed moment of inertia.
f, Hz DLF f, Hz DLF f, Hz DLF
The first natural frequency of a cantilevered tee-beam,
Fig. 1(b), is given by: 1.00 0.1541 5.50 0.7819 10.00 1.1770
1.10 0.1695 5.60 0.7937 10.10 1.1831
1/ 2
 gEI  1.20 0.1847 5.70 0.8053 10.20 1.1891
fb = 1.875  3t  (1) 1.30 0.2000 5.80 0.8168 10.30 1.1949
 WL 
1.40 0.2152 5.90 0.8282 10.40 1.2007
where 1.50 0.2304 6.00 0.8394 10.50 1.2065
g = 386 in./sec2 1.60 0.2456 6.10 0.8505 10.60 1.2121
1.70 0.2607 6.20 0.8615 10.70 1.2177
E = modulus of elasticity, psi
1.80 0.2758 6.30 0.8723 10.80 1.2231
It = transformed moment of inertia, in.4 1.90 0.2908 6.40 0.8830 10.90 1.2285
W = total weight supported by the tee-beam, lbs 2.00 0.3058 6.50 0.8936 11.00 1.2339
L = length of cantilever, in. 2.10 0.3207 6.60 0.9040 11.10 1.2391
The first natural frequency of a simply supported beam 2.20 0.3356 6.70 0.9143 11.20 1.2443
2.30 0.3504 6.80 0.9244 11.30 1.2494
with one overhanging end, Fig. 1(c), is given by:
2.40 0.3651 6.90 0.9344 11.40 1.2545
1/ 2 2.50 0.3798 7.00 0.9443 11.50 1.2594
 gEI 
fb = K  3t  (2) 2.60 0.3945 7.10 0.9540 11.60 1.2643
 WL  2.70 0.4091 7.20 0.9635 11.70 1.2692
where g, E, It, and W are as defined previously, L = backspan 2.80 0.4236 7.30 0.9729 11.80 1.2740
length, in., and K is a coefficient which depends on the 2.90 0.4380 7.40 0.9821 11.90 1.2787
3.00 0.4524 7.50 0.9912 12.00 1.2834
overhanging length to backspan ratio, H/L. The coefficient K
3.10 0.4667 7.60 1.0002 12.10 1.2879
is determined by setting the determinant of the coefficient 3.20 0.4809 7.70 1.0090 12.20 1.2925
matrix of the boundary condition equations equal to zero. A 3.30 0.4950 7.80 1.0176 12.30 1.2970
closed form solution for K is not possible and values for 3.40 0.5091 7.90 1.0261 12.40 1.3014
specific H/L ratios were obtained numerically. The value of 3.50 0.5231 8.00 1.0345 12.50 1.3058
the coefficient K can be determined from Fig. 2. 3.60 0.5369 8.10 1.0428 12.60 1.3101
Equations (1) and (2) were derived for free lateral 3.70 0.5507 8.20 1.0509 12.70 1.3143
vibration of prismatic, straight, elastic beams considering 3.80 0.5645 8.30 1.0588 12.80 1.3185
bending deformations only. 3.90 0.5781 8.40 1.0667 12.90 1.3227
4.00 0.5916 8.50 1.0744 13.00 1.3268
In practice, overhanging beams are usually supported by
4.10 0.6050 8.60 1.0820 13.10 1.3308
flexural members rather than rigid supports. The flexibility
4.20 0.6184 8.70 1.0895 13.20 1.3348
of these members can significantly affect the frequency of the 4.30 0.6316 8.80 1.0969 13.30 1.3388
floor system. In Ref. 2, it is shown that the system frequency 4.40 0.6448 8.90 1.1041 13.40 1.3427
for such cases can be approximated by: 4.50 0.6578 9.00 1.1113 13.50 1.3466
4.60 0.6707 9.10 1.1183 13.60 1.3504
1 1 1
= + (3) 4.70 0.6835 9.20 1.1252 13.70 1.3541
f s2 fb 2 f g 2 4.80 0.6962 9.30 1.1321 13.80 1.3579
4.90 0.7088 9.40 1.1388 13.90 1.3615
where 5.00 0.7213 9.50 1.1454 14.00 1.3652
fs = the system frequency, Hz 5.10 0.7337 9.60 1.1519 14.10 1.3688
fb = overhanging beam frequency, Hz 5.20 0.7459 9.70 1.1583 14.20 1.3723
1/ 2 5.30 0.7580 9.80 1.1647 14.30 1.3758
 gEI g  5.40 0.7700 9.90 1.1709 14.40 1.3793
fg = 1.57  3
 (4)
 Wg Lg 
Amplitude —The "heel-drop" impact has been used to
where develop acceptability criteria when the modified Reiher-
Wg = total supported weight, lbs Meister scale is used. The amplitude of a single tee-beam
Ig = girder moment of inertia, in.4 subjected to a heel-drop impact can be computed from:
Lg = girder span, in.
Aot = (DLF)max ∆s (5)
In the computation of Ig, composite action should not be
assumed unless the slab or deck rests directly on the girder where
flange. The effective slab width should be estimated as for Aot = amplitude
normal composite construction, even if shear connections are (DLF)max = maximum dynamic load factor
not used. ∆s = static deflection caused by a 600-lb force

86
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Fig. 2. Frequency coefficients for overhanging beams

Therefore, for a cantilever tee-beam, Unless L/S is very large, i.e., greater than 10, Neff can be
approximated from:
600L3
Aot = (DLF)max × (6)
3EI t S L4
Neff = 2.97 – + (10)
17.3de 135
. EI t
and for an overhanging tee-beam,
where E = 29 × 106 psi and S, de, L, It are in inch units. As a
600H 2 ( L + H ) design approximation, it is assumed here that the number of
Aot = (DLF)max × (7)
3EI t effective tee-beams for cantilevered construction is the same
as for simple supports and no overhang.
Equations for (DLF)max are given in Ref. 1 and values of
Equation (9) was developed assuming at least five
(DLF)max are given in Table 1.
identical tee-beams exist and the impact location is at the
Usually more than one tee-beam is effective in resisting
center of the five beams. Frequently, the framing for
an impact. The first maximum amplitude of a floor system
cantilevered balconies is irregular and Eq. (9) cannot be
can be estimated from:
used. For such cases, it is suggested that a static finite
Ao = Aot/Neff (8) element analysis be used to determine Ao. A computer
where Neff = number of effective tee-beams. For a series of program such as STRUDL4 can be used by dividing the slab
tee-beams with equal effective flange width and simple into a mesh and treating the beams as line elements with a
supports, it was shown in Ref. 3 that: moment of inertia equal to the transformed moment of inertia,
and determining the maximum static deflection caused by a
Neff = 2.967 – 0.05776(S/de) + 2.556 × 10–8(L4/It) 600-lb concentrated load. In lieu of a finite element analysis,
+ 0.00010(L/S)3 (9) the designer may conservatively take Neff = 1.

87
THIRD QUARTER / 1977
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 Fig. 3. Modified Reiher-Meister scale

Proposed Design Method conservatively use Neff = 1.

1. Estimate the damping in the finished floor system; if 6. Compute the amplitude of the floor system, using Ao =
greater than 8%-10% there is no need for a vibration Aot/Neff.
analysis. 7. Estimate perceptibility, using the modified Reiher-
2. Compute the transformed moment of inertia of a single Meister scale, Fig. 3.
tee-beam, It, using the guidelines presented. 8. If the system plots below the lower half of the distinctly
3. Compute the frequency from Eqs. (1) or (2) and (3), as perceptible range, the system is satisfactory if the
applicable. damping is less than 3%-4%. If the system plots in the
4. Compute the heel-drop amplitude of a single tee-beam, upper half of the distinctly perceptible range and the
Aot, using Eq. (6) or (7) and Table 1. damping is relatively low, less than 6%-8%, complaints
5. If the effective slab widths are equal, estimate the from occupants may occur. If the system plots above the
number of effective tee-beams, Neff, using Eq. (10); distinctly perceptible range, the system will be
otherwise, perform a static finite element analysis or unacceptable if the damping is less than 10%-12%.

88
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 (a) Initial amplitude (b) Frequency

Fig. 4. Comparison of theoretical and experimental results

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION EXAMPLE

Tests were conducted in seven buildings at a total of 15 Figure 5 shows structural details of a test location on the
locations to verify the proposed design method.2 Nine of the upper level of the shopping mall.2 The floor is 1½-in. clay
locations were on church balconies, three were on the upper tile laid over a 2½-in. concrete slab on a steel deck. The slab
level of a shopping mall, two were on the second floor is supported by W8 × 15 beams at 30 in. on center, which
exterior walkway of a motel, and one location was on the rest on the top flange of a W27 × 94. The beams are assumed
second floor exterior balcony of an office building. At each to act compositely with the concrete slab and the clay tile for
location the floor was impacted by an approximately 190-lb transformed moment of inertia calculations. Composite action
man executing a heel-drop. The resulting floor motion was is not assumed for the girder.
recorded, together with timing lines, on light sensitive paper
using an engineering seismograph. From the record, it was Damping: Slab and beam 2%
possible to determine the initial amplitude, frequency, and Soffit 3
damping of the floor system. 5% < 8%
Comparisons of predicted and measured frequencies and
∴ Need to investigate floor system.
amplitudes are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), respectively.
Considering there was no laboratory-type control of the floor Beam Transformed Section Properties (see Fig. 5):
system construction or tolerances, the results are considered de = 3.5 in.; n = 7.6
to be excellent. Furthermore, some of the beams supporting
Ac 30(3.5)
the church balconies were not prismatic, varying in both = = 13.82 in.2
section and slope to meet pew location and walkway n 7.6
requirements, and engineering judgment was used to obtain W8 × 15: A = 4.43 in.2; I = 48.1 in.4;
equivalent stiffness for use in the proposed design formulas. d = 8.12 in.

89
THIRD QUARTER / 1977
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 (a) Framing plan

(b) Section

(c) Tee-beam model

Fig. 5. Framing system for example

. 2) + 13.82(812
4.43(812 . + 05
. + 1.75) Beam Frequency:
Yb =
4.43 + 1382
. Floor Weight:
= 8.84 in.
Clay tile = 20 psf
1382
. (35. )2 Concrete = 150 pcf
It = + 13.82(1.53)2 + 48.1
12
2
 . 
812   2 
+ 4.43  8.84 −  W = 150   + 20 (23.34)(2.5) + 23.34(15)
 2    12  
= 195.8 in.4 = 2976 lbs

90
ENGINEERING JOURNAL / AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION
© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.
 H
=
9.20
= 0.65 30 . (12)]4
[1414
N eff = 2.97 − +
L 1414. (17.3)(35 . (29 × 106 )(1958
. ) 135 .)
From Fig. 2: K = 0.72 = 2.58
1/ 2
. )
 386(29 × 106 )(1958 Ao = 0.072/2.58 = 0.028 in.
f b = 0.72  
. (12)]3 
 (2976)[1414 Perceptibility:
= 884
. Hz With a frequency of 4.09 Hz and an initial amplitude of
0.028 in., the system plots in the upper third of the
Girder Frequency:
"distinctly perceptible" range on the modified Reiher-
W27 × 94: I = 3270 in. 4 Meister scale, Fig. 3.
 (2334
. ) 2  2(150) 15  
W=  + 20 +  + 94 3883
. Field Measurements:
. )  12
 2(1414 2.5  The system was measured before the soffit was
= 41,796 lbs completed:
1/ 2 Damping = 1.39 %
 386(29 × 106 )(3270) 
f g = 157
.  3 
f = 4.72 Hz
 (41796)[38.83(12)]  Ao = 0.029 in.
= 4.62 Hz
System Frequency: REFERENCES
1 1 1 1. Murray, Thomas M. Design to Prevent Floor Vibrations
2
= 2
+ = 0.0596 Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction,
fs (4.62) (8.84) 2 Vol. 12, No. 3, Third Quarter, 1975.
fs = 4.09 Hz 2. Hendrick, William E. Floor Vibrations in Cantilevered
Construction A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in
Amplitude: partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
Neglect influence of girder. of Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla., 1976.
3. Saksena, S. K., and T. M. Murray Investigation of a Floor
600[9.2(12)]2 (9.2 + 1414
. )(12)
∆s = = 0120
. in. Vibration Parameter School of Civil Engineering and
3(29 × 10 )(1958
6
.) Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Okla., Feb. 1972.
From Table 1, with fs = 4.09 Hz: 4. ICES STRUDL-II, The Structural Design Language Civil
(DLF)max = 0.604 Engineering Systems Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of
Aot = 0.604(0.12) = 0.072 in. Technology, Cambridge, Mass., June 1972.

91
THIRD QUARTER / 1977

© 2003 by American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher.