Abstract
Occupant footfalls are often the most critical sources of floor vibration on the elevated floors of buildings, especially if rhythmic activity is expected (e.g. dancing or aerobics). Achieving reasonable vibration levels on these floors requires sufficiently stiff and massive floor structures to effectively resist the forces exerted by larger groups of people. In many cases, further vibration control is provided by Tuned Mass Dampers (TMDs). A difficulty for engineers in modelling buildings for these scenarios can be exacerbated due to the uncertainty provided by non-structural elements (e.g. non-load bearing partitions, floor toppings, curbs or railings).
In this paper, three case studies are presented of modelling structures in order to predict vibrations due to rhythmic activity. The first structure is a sports arena which features a large cantilevered balcony upon which dancing by 600 people was expected to occur. The structural design included TMDs to control these expected vibrations. Validation testing conducted once construction was complete indicated that the balcony was significantly stiffer than expected, and a complete redesign of the TMDs was required. The second structure is a long-span floor office tower that was designed with light steel trusses. Modelling predicted excessive vibration from aerobic activity on the amenity floor, which was proposed to be mitigated with TMDs. Validation testing indicated that the measured frequencies were almost 250% higher than those in the model, completely removing the need to implement TMDs. The third case study is a project consisting of two hospital towers that were nearing completion. Peer-review modelling indicated expected marginal exceedance of the required criteria, so the decision was made to measure the as-built floors. Measurements showed that frequencies were considerably higher than predicted, and extraordinarily high damping.
In all three case studies, it was concluded that non-structural elements were the cause of the large discrepancies between modelled and measured dynamic properties.
Keywords
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
BS 6472:1992: Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz). British Standards Institution (1992)
Amick, H., Gendreau, M., Busch, T., Gordon, C.: Evolving criteria for research facilities: I – Vibration. In: Proceeding of SPIE Conference 5933: Buildings for Nanoscale Research and Beyond, San Diego, CA, July 31 to August 1, 2005 (2005)
ISO 2631-2: Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration—Part 2: Human exposure to continuous and shock-induced vibrations in buildings (1 to 80 Hz). International Standard, ISO 2631-2 (1989)
Smith, A.L., Hicks, S.J., Devine, P.J.: Design of Floors for Vibration: A New Approach – Revised Edition (SCI P354). Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Berkshire, UK (2009)
Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E., Ungar, E.E.: Floor Vibration Due to Human Activity, AISC Design Guide, Series No. 11. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wesolowsky, M.J., Wong, M., Raun, A., Swallow, J.C. (2019). Why a Curb Shouldn’t Be Kicked to the Curb: The Importance of Non-Structural Elements in Dynamic Modelling. In: Pakzad, S. (eds) Dynamics of Civil Structures, Volume 2. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74421-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74421-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74420-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74421-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)