Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
z
y
Gordon Breeze
ii
This work has been funded by BRE Trust. Any views
expressed are not necessarily those of BRE Trust. While
every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and quality of
information and guidance when it is first published, BRE
Trust can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of
this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may
contain.
The mission of BRE Trust is Through education and
research to promote and support excellence and
innovation in the built environment for the benefit of
all. Through its research programmes the Trust aims to
achieve:
a higher quality built environment
built facilities that offer improved functionality and
value for money
a more efficient and sustainable construction sector,
with
a higher level of innovative practice.
Cover images:
Main: BRE laser system used to measure pinnacle
vibration
Top right: Grandstands at Everton Football Club (courtesy
of Everton Football Club)
Middle right: Geocentric coordinate axis system
Bottom right: A grandstand rotary shaker used by BRE
CONTENTS
iii
CONTENTS
Executive summary
iv
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Preamble
Units of acceleration
Coordinate axis systems
Acceleration vectors
Weighting factors
Measures of acceleration
3
3
3
4
4
5
4.1
4.2
4.3
Preamble
Wind criteria
Criteria not related directly to wind
9
9
10
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Preamble
Eurocodes
International (ISO) Standards
British Standards
18
18
21
22
SPECIALISED BUILDINGS
24
Preamble
Introduction
Commonly used test methods
Practical use of dynamic testing
18
24
25
27
28
28
28
32
32
32
33
38
9 CONCLUSIONS
40
10 REFERENCES
41
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
44
46
49
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iNtrOdUC
tiON
page header right page1header
subti
tle
1 iNtrOdUCtiON
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
codes of practice and standards, within which are contained building-related
serviceability criteria. It is not the purpose of this report to compare and
contrast the criteria adopted by each country. Instead, this study focuses on
identifying and reviewing information that is relevant to buildings in the UK.
Nevertheless, where appropriate, attention is drawn and references made to
sources of information from other countries.
The UK falls under the scope of the following codes of practice and
standards: the Building Regulations 2000 (England and Wales)[1], Eurocodes
(including the UK National Annexes), International (ISO) Standards and British
Standards. There are also documents giving advice about specific building
applications; these specialised approaches tend not to be consistent with other
sources. The issue as to which standards and documents have precedence
over others is touched upon in this review. However, a resolution of this matter
is outside the scope of this report.
The aims of this review are:
1. To bring together state-of-the-art knowledge about vibration comfort
criteria that are appropriate for three building-related areas in the UK
where vibration has proved to be an important recurring issue, namely
buildings, floors and grandstand risers.
2. To discuss dynamic test methods presently used.
2 BaCKgrOUNd
iNfOrMat
page header right
page header
subtiiON
tle
2 BaCKgrOUNd iNfOrMatiON
2.1 preaMBle
In the literature, it is generally accepted that peoples perception of vibration
is related to the rate of change of acceleration (or jerk). However, with one
exception all of the vibration comfort criteria found in the literature are related
to acceleration. The continuance of this approach results from the fact that
acceleration levels can be measured relatively easily. This means that both the
measurement and interpretation of accelerations have been undertaken for
many years. Consequently, practising engineers have become familiar with this
method over time, and are therefore reluctant to change.
x
z
y
y
x
y
x
Sitting
Standing
Lying down
Figure 1: Basicentric coordinate axis system
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
Although the basicentric axis system relates to a human body whatever the
activity, the latest trend[2] is a movement towards the use of the geocentric
coordinate axis system. This system relates to the building geometry instead
of the body. In this situation, the z-axis is vertical and the x- and y-axes are in
horizontal (or lateral) directions. Figure 2 illustrates the geocentric coordinate
axis system.
2 BaCKgrOUNd
iNfOrMat
page header right
page header
subtiiON
tle
a function of the vibration frequency. At high and low frequencies, the
acceleration levels shown increase, and this means that greater levels of
acceleration are required before they are noticed. An alternative way of
looking at this is that people are more sensitive to vibration in a middle range
of frequencies. This sensitivity can be expressed mathematically using the
weighting factor approach described above. The point is that the base-line
curves and the weighting factors both perform the same function; that is, they
both correct the actual acceleration values to give the acceleration levels that
people perceive.
A technical point worth making here is that the weighting factors on the
frequency domain need to be applied to a specific type of acceleration
spectrum, which is sometimes referred to as an amplitude spectrum. In this
context, such a spectrum has a positive frequency range (ie between zero and
infinity Hz), and this feature is called a one-sided spectrum. By definition, the
area under a one-sided amplitude spectra is the root mean square (rms) of the
signal; the rms is a fundamental measure of statistical variation, and is defined
in the following section.
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
n is the natural frequency of structural vibration (Hz)
T is the time period within which the peak acceleration occurs (s)
In British Standards, the weighted rms acceleration (awrms) is the usual method
used to assess vibration comfort. However, this method tends to significantly
underestimate the perception of vibration if the acceleration contains
impulsive accelerations (or spikes). A measure of the acceleration spikiness is
the crest factor, which is defined as w/awrms. If the crest factor is greater than 6
then the Vibration Dose Value (VDV) method described below should be used
instead.
For a given exposure time period, the VDV is defined by Equation 4[2, 4]:
(Equation 4)
Note that the weighted time-varying acceleration is used in this expression,
and that VDVs have units of m/s1.75. Methods are given in BS 6472-1:2008[2]
that allow measured VDV values to be corrected for different exposure times.
For continuous vibration that is statistically stationary (ie the statistical
characteristics of the acceleration do not vary with time) and has a crest
factor between 3 and 6, the estimated VDV (eVDV) can be determined using
Equation 5[4]:
(Equation 5)
where N is the number of occurrences of vibration lasting t* seconds; each of
these occurrences has a weighted rms acceleration of awrms. Note that the eVDV
method is not recommended for non-stationary accelerations or for shocks.
Low-frequency vibrations (less than about 0.5 Hz) can induce motion
sickness. As well as using the weighted acceleration rms criteria, the Motion
Sickness Dose Value (MSDV) can be determined using Equation 6[4]:
(Equation 6)
Note that the units of MSDV are m/s1.5 and T is the total period(s) during which
motion occurs. An alternative simple method for estimating MSDV is given in
BS 6841:1987[4]. However, compared with Equation 6, which can be used for
any time-varying acceleration signal, the simplified method has a more narrow
application.
3 geNeral
page header
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
page
dYNaMiC
header
COMfOrt
lef t Criteria
page header
fOr StrUC
subtitUreS
tle
Hence when using measured data, the peak method always has a tendency to
underestimate slightly the actual peak accelerations that occur.
The threshold levels presented in the literature depend primarily upon
the frequency of the vibration and the human activity. The effect of building
rotation is often mentioned as causing a persons response to be more adverse.
However, this effect is not quantified. For continuous low levels of vibration,
the period of time to which a person is exposed to that vibration seems to
be a second order effect. However, for intermittent and shock accelerations,
the number of doses of vibration (which increases with time) does become
an important factor; this is consistent with the likelihood (or return period) of
large-magnitude acceleration events occurring. The effects of human activity
and body orientation are taken into account either by appropriate weighting
of the measured acceleration records (this seems to be the preferred, latest
approach) or by means of sensitivity factors applied to the results.
In the literature, even within a given set of codes of practice, there can be
overlapping acceleration criteria. For example, there are (i) general criteria that
apply to people, (ii) criteria that apply to buildings, (iii) criteria for buildings
constructed using specified materials, and (iv) criteria relating to building
elements.
The complexity of the assessment methodology, coupled with different
evaluation methods and threshold levels, means that it is often not clear
whether any of the above criteria are more or less onerous. In this situation,
the acceleration vibration levels need to be assessed for all of the above
criteria to ensure that the requirements of a given code of practice (or
standard) are met fully.
To ensure that a building structure has satisfactory serviceability
performance, designers should be aware that guidance is available from
the following sources: Approved Document A[8] of the Building Regulations
2000 (England and Wales)[1], Eurocodes, British Standards, International
(ISO) Standards, the National House-Building Council (NHBC), the Steel
Construction Institute (SCI), the Concrete Centre and the Timber Research and
Development Association (TRADA). The latest guidance given in these sources
is described in this report. Many of these sources state that the intended usage
and acceptable limits of vibration need to be agreed by the client and the
designer at the start of the project. The general consensus is that the design
should achieve a low probability of adverse comment.
In several of the specialist publications, expressions are given that enable
a designer to undertake a design process that, in principle, is consistent with
the serviceability requirements given therein. There is no requirement that
such a design is tested once built to ensure that it meets those requirements.
However, in practice what is actually built is not the same as the design. It
is only by dynamic testing that one can be certain that a design performs
according to its intended specification once built.
Finally, there is an unresolved issue about which standard or code of
practice is the most appropriate to use in a given situation. An example is the
situation in the UK where a lightweight steel floor is installed in a commercial
or residential building. Following the phased withdrawal of British Standards
pertaining to the design and construction of civil engineering works, all
structures in the UK should now be designed according to Eurocodes.
However, the SCI and the NHBC both provide different guidance. The
serviceability criteria of these three approaches are different, so which
criteria should a designer or client choose? A pragmatic approach would be
to consider all of the methods and ensure that the design meets every set of
requirements. However, this approach may have financial implications, as well
as necessitating the designer to undertake each set of required calculations.
This is an important issue, and further work is required to consider the
different criteria given, with the ultimate aim of harmonising the different
approaches.
hOriZONtal
page 4header
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
4.1 preaMBle
Horizontal (or lateral) acceleration of a building is caused by that building
swaying due to imposed loading acting on the building. Horizontal
acceleration is most commonly caused by external vibration being transmitted
into and through the building, by internal unbalanced rotating machinery
within the building or by external time-varying forces acting on the building
(eg wind or earthquakes).
The wind-induced horizontal acceleration of tall buildings has been
an important subject of investigation for many years. This has led to the
development of wind-induced acceleration comfort criteria that are presented
in a format that is appropriate to this particular field of activity. Humans react
in similar ways to different sources of vibration, and therefore in principle the
comfort levels derived from the basis of these wind studies should be similar
to, and compatible with, more general horizontal acceleration comfort criteria.
However, the statistical nature of wind (with the occurrence of strong wind
events having a specified return period ) does not appear to be reconcilable
with methods associated with randomly occurring vibrations. This division
is shown clearly in ISO 10137:2007[9], in which there is a separate Annex
relating specifically to wind-induced motion in buildings.
The division between criteria relating to wind and to other sources of
vibration is an important one, and this approach has been adopted below.
However, not all codes of practice and standards adopt the ISO 10137
approach. In particular, it should be noted that neither the Eurocodes nor
the British Standards make this distinction. It could be argued that having
a separate wind approach is not necessary. Nevertheless, the Melbourne
Criteria (see below) use variables that relate to the specific problem being
considered, and are the most commonly used current criteria for the design
and assessment of wind-induced horizontal motion of UK buildings.
10
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
Criteria are now the most commonly used criteria in the field of wind
engineering. Equation 7 relates the (un-weighted) peak horizontal acceleration
threshold level , the natural frequency of the building n, the return period R
(in years) and the time duration T (in seconds):
(Equation 7)
page 4header
hOriZONtal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
1.0 1
11
0.10.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
10
1.0
10.0
0.50
0.5
Offices
Residences
2
Peak acceleration (m/s
)
2
0.2
0.20
0.1
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.10
0.10
2
rms acceleration (m/s
)
2
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
0.5
1.0
12
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
left Criteria
page header
fOr StrUCtUreS
subtitle
4.3.1 eurocodes
Eurocodes consist of a linked set of documents that enable UK buildings
and building elements to be designed. Eurocodes started to replace British
Standards pertaining to the design and construction of civil engineering works
in 2010. An overview of the Eurocodes is presented in Figure 6, which shows
how parts of the Eurocodes relate to each other. Figure 6 is shown here so that
reference to specific parts of the Eurocodes can be understood in the context
of the overall structural design process.
Structural safety,
serviceability
and durability
EN 1991
Actions on
structures
EN 1992
EN 1993
EN 1994
EN 1995
EN 1996
EN 1999
EN 1997
EN 1990
EN 1998
Design and
detailing
Geotechnical
and seismic
design
page 4header
hOriZONtal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
13
depend upon the function of the building and the source of the vibration, and
Frequency Weightings
Frequency weightings
10.010
1.01
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.1
1.0
10
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
10.0
100
100.0
14
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
lef t Criteria
page header
fOr StrUC
subtitUreS
tle
The appropriate ISO Standard relating to vibration in buildings is
ISO 10137:2007[9]. Section 7.1 of this standard states that The designer shall
decide on the serviceability criterion and its variability. In Section 7.2.1 it is
stated that In general, the criteria for the restriction of vibration magnitudes
for ordinary buildings are based on the minimum adverse comments of the
population involved. ISO 10137 also states that guidance on the assessment
of probable human response to vibration in buildings in the frequency range
1 Hz to 80 Hz is given in Annex C of ISO 10137, and in the range 0.063 Hz to
1 Hz in ISO 6897:1984[11].
frequency range 1 hz to 80 hz
In Annex C of ISO 10137:2007[9] it is stated that, if the ratio of the peak value
of the (weighted) acceleration to the rms value is less than or equal to 6, then
the rms lateral acceleration criteria are given by the base-line curve shown in
Figure C2 (reproduced in this report as Figure 8) factored by the multiplying
factors given in Table C.1 (presented below as Table 1). These multiplying
factors take into account the usage, time of day and location, and give
magnitudes of vibration below which the probability of adverse comments is
low.
If the ratio of the peak value of the (weighted) acceleration to the rms value
is greater than 6 (ie for spiky signals), then it is stated that the rms acceptance
criteria described above may not be appropriate, and that VDV values can be
used. The derived VDV values can be compared with the acceptance criteria
given in Table C.2 (presented below as Table 2). Note that these criteria relate
only to residential buildings, and no recommendations are given relating to
other usages shown in Table 1 (ie offices, workshops and critical working
areas). For these applications advice is given in the British Standards, as
described in the following section.
0.144
0.144
0.10.1
1.0 1
0.01
0.01
0.0036
0.0036
0.001
0.001
1
1
10
10
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
100
100
page 4header
hOriZONtal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
15
Time
Day
Night
Day
2 to 4b
30 to 90b, c
Night
1.4
1.4 to 20
Day
60 to 128d
Night
60 to 128
Day
60 to 128d
Night
60 to 128
Day
90 to 128d
Night
90 to 128
b
c
d
e
Doubling the suggested vibration magnitudes can result in adverse comments and this can increase significantly if the
magnitudes are quadrupled (where available, dose/response curves may be consulted). Continuous vibrations are
those with a duration of more than 30 min per 24h; intermittent vibrations are those of more than 10 events per
24h.
Within residential areas, people exhibit wide variations of vibration tolerance. Specific values are dependent upon
social and cultural factors, psychological attitudes and expected degree of intrusion.
Further advice concern [sic] the effects caused by blasting effect are given in ISO 10137.
The magnitudes of for [sic] impulsive shock excitation in offices and workshop areas should not be increased without
considering the possibility of significant disruption of working activity.
Vibration acting on operators of certain processes such as drop forgers [sic] or crushers, which vibrate working places,
may be in a separate category from the workshop areas considered in this table. The vibration magnitudes specified
in ISO 2631-1 would then apply to the operators of the exciting processes.
Table 2: Vibration Dose Values above which various degrees of adverse comments may be expected in residential
buildings
(Sources: BS 6472:1992[7] and ISO 10137:2007[9])
Place
Adverse comment
possible (m/s1.75)
Adverse comment
probable (m/s1.75)
0.2 to 0.4
0.4 to 0.8
0.8 to 1.6
0.13
0.26
0.51
16
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
frequency range 0.063 hz to 1 hz
For buildings used for general purposes with horizontal vibration events having
duration in excess of 10 minutes, satisfactory magnitudes of (weighted) rms
acceleration are the same as for buildings having natural frequencies between
1 Hz and 80 Hz. As noted earlier, these magnitudes of rms acceleration are
shown in Figure 5, which is taken from ISO 6897:1984[11]. ISO 6897 states that
horizontal vibration in different directions should be added vectorally (vector
addition is considered in Appendix A of this report). It is noted that visual
effects of rotation exaggerate the sensation of motion, and the satisfactory
magnitudes of acceleration would be less than those shown in Figure 5.
For buildings used for special purposes with horizontal vibration
events having duration in excess of 10 minutes, satisfactory magnitudes of
(weighted) rms acceleration are shown in Figure 9, which is also taken from
ISO 6897:1984[11]. ISO 6897 states that these values are appropriate for
special buildings where routine precision work is carried out.
For buildings with events with duration less than 10 minutes it is suggested
that analysis of acceleration records begins when the (weighted) rms level
exceeds the Figure 9 levels, and stops when the rms acceleration falls below
this magnitude. However, ISO 6897 does not state how those analysed data
should then be assessed.
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
page 4header
hOriZONtal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
17
Table 3: Vibration Dose Values that might result in various probabilities of adverse comment within residential buildings
(Source: Table 1 of BS 6472-1:2008[2])
Place
Adverse comment
possible (m/s1.75)
Adverse comment
probable (m/s1.75)
0.2 to 0.4
0.4 to 0.8
0.8 to 1.6
0.1 to 0.2
0.2 to 0.4
0.4 to 0.8
Note: For offices and workshops, multiplying factors of 2 and 4, respectively, should be applied to the above Vibration Dose
Values for a 16-hour day.
18
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
5.1 preaMBle
For the purposes of this section, it will be assumed that vertical accelerations
are synonymous with floor accelerations. This section considers floors located
in commercial and residential buildings. Floors in specialised types of building
are considered in Section 6.
5.2 eUrOCOdeS
To repeat a point made earlier, the Eurocodes consist of a linked set of
documents that enable UK buildings and building elements to be designed. An
overview of the Eurocodes is presented in Figure 6, and this figure shows how
parts of the Eurocodes relate to each other.
page header
5 vertiCal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
19
6, the rms values of the (weighted) accelerations can then be compared with
the criteria given below. If the ratio is greater than 6 then the VDV approach
can be used. It is noted that it is not considered appropriate to use the VDV
approach on sensitive floors, such as in an operating theatre. A designer
can also take into account the fact that floor vibrations induced by walking
activities are intermittent; this situation is considered in the rms method
described below.
rms method
The recommended acceptable (weighted) accelerations in buildings are
determined from a multiple of the base rms vertical acceleration levels, which
are given in SN036a[21]. For z-axis (foot-to-head direction) accelerations,
the base rms acceleration is 5 x 10-3 m/s2. Multiplying factors are given in
Table 6.2 of SN036a. With the minor clarifications of usage shown in Table 4,
Table 6.2 is identical to Table 1 presented in this review (which is taken from
ISO 10137:2007[9]). Note that the multiplying factors for all of the usage
categories shown in Table 4 are the same.
Table 4: Minor differences between usage stated in ISO 10137:2007[9] and SN036a[21]
Place (ISO 10137)
Place (SN036a)
Workshops
Multiplying factor
Multiplying factor
66
55
44
Corridor length 5 m
Corridor length 10 m
Corridor length 20 m
Corridor length 40 m
33
22
11
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
10000
10,000
20
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
lef t Criteria
page header
fOr StrUC
subtitUreS
tle
vdv method
VDVs can be determined from a (weighted) vertical acceleration record using
Equation 4 given in SN036a[21]. It is stated in SN036a that, for steel-framed
floors, VDVs can be estimated using Equation 8:
(Equation 8)
where t is the total duration of the vibration exposure time (in seconds). As
shown later, in Section 7.2, the total duration time t shown in Equation 8
can be expressed as the product of the number of times that a given level of
vibration occurs and the time of the walking activity.
The calculated dose values should be less than or equal to the z-axis values
presented in Table 6.3 of SN036a[21], which are reproduced in this report as Table 5.
The VDV values shown in this table correspond to a low probability of adverse
comment.
Table 5: Vibration Dose Values below which there is a low probability of adverse comment
(Source: Table 6.3 of SN036a[21])
Place
Time
Day
0.2 to 0.4
Night
0.13
Day
0.2
General offices
Day
0.4
Day
0.8
Residential
2
rms acceleration (m/s
)
2
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
1
1
10
10
Frequency, f
Frequency (Hz)
100
100
page header
5 vertiCal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
21
Limit
1.8 mm
for l 4000 mm
16,500/l1.2
for l > 4000 mm
where l = joist span in mm
for a 1 mm
for a > 1 mm
b = 180 60a
b = 160 40a
Note: The formulae for b correspond to Figure 7.2 of EN 1995-1-1:2004+A1:2008[13]. With a value of 0.02 for the modal
damping ratio, , the unit velocity impulse will not normally govern the size of floor joists in residential timber floors.
Frequency weightings
10
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.1
1.0
10
Frequency (Hz)
100
22
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
The appropriate ISO Standard relating to vibration in buildings is
ISO 10137:2007[9]. Section 7.1 of this standard states that the designer
shall decide on the serviceability criterion and its variability. Section 7.2.1
states In general, the criteria for the restriction of vibration magnitudes for
ordinary buildings are based on the minimum adverse comments of the
population involved. ISO 10137 also states that guidance on the assessment
of probable human response to vibration in buildings in the frequency range
1 Hz to 80 Hz is given in Annex C, and in the range 0.063 Hz to 1 Hz in
ISO 6897:1984[11]. However ISO 6897 relates only to horizontal accelerations,
which are considered in Section 4 of this report.
The following criteria relate to the frequency range 1 Hz to 80 Hz. In
Annex C of ISO 10137:2007[9], it is stated that if the ratio of the peak value
of the (weighted) acceleration to the rms value is less than or equal to 6,
then the rms vertical acceleration criteria are given by the base-line curve
shown in Figure C.1 (presented earlier in this report as Figure 11) factored by
the multiplying factors given in Table C.1 (presented earlier in this report as
Table 1). These multiplying factors take into account the usage, time of day
and location, and give magnitudes of vibration below which the probability of
adverse comments is low. Stadia and floors of assembly halls are considered
in Section C.2.3 of ISO 10137; to ensure the comfort of the passive part of the
audience, the multiplying factor is 200. Note that an averaging time of 10 s is
recommended when calculating the (weighted) rms. Although it is related to
the safety of the audience (which has a different set of serviceability criteria),
ISO 10137 states that guidance for design of grandstands is given by the
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE)[25].
If the ratio of the peak value of the (weighted) acceleration to the rms value
is greater than 6 (ie for spiky signals), then it is stated that the rms acceptance
criteria described above may not be appropriate, and that VDV values can be
used. The derived VDV values can be compared with the acceptance criteria
given in Table C.2 (presented in Section 4.3.2 of this report as Table 2). Note
that these criteria relate only to residential buildings, and no recommendations
are given relating to the other usages shown in Table C.1 (ie offices, workshops
and critical working areas). This is consistent with the ISO approach to
horizontal accelerations, which are considered in Section 4.3.2. For these
applications, advice about vertical acceleration levels is given in the British
Standards, as described in the following section.
page header
5 vertiCal
right aCCele
pag eratiON
header Criteria
subtitle
Equation 6. Most people become de-sensitised to motion sickness after initial
exposure. Nevertheless, the percentage of un-adapted people who may vomit,
PV, is given by the following expression:
(Equation 9)
where Km varies according to the exposed population. For a mixed population
of unadapted male and female adults, Km = 1/3. This relationship is based
on exposures to motion lasting from about 20 minutes to six hours with the
prevalence of vomiting varying up to about 70%.
Annex A of BS 6399-1:1996[17] contains examples of structures that are
susceptible to dynamic imposed loads. No acceleration criteria are given, but
reference is made to other specialist guidance documents. For buildings with
areas subjected to dancing and jumping, it is stated that Detailed design should
be undertaken to account for the dynamic response of the structure ... with the
help of specialist advice and specialist guidance documents.
For lightweight and long-span structures, BS 6399-1:1996[17] states that
Structural design should be undertaken, with the help of specialist advice
and specialist guidance documents, as required by the appropriate certifying
authority. For buildings containing machinery, it is stated that designers should
seek specialist guidance.
23
24
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
6 SpeCialiSed BUildiNgS
Reaction
< 5%g
< 18%g
Disturbing
< 35%g
Unacceptable
> 35%g
2
2
Note: The values in parentheses are calculated from the values presented in BRE Digest DG 426.
Reaction
< 3.5%g
< 12.7%g
Disturbing
< 24.7%g
Unacceptable
> 24.7%g
Note: The values in parentheses are calculated from the values presented in P354.
6.2 hOSpitalS
6.2.1 information given by the Steel Construction institute
(SCi)
Advice published by the SCI relating to the acceleration serviceability limits
of hospital floors is given in P354[27]. These guidelines are consistent with
achieving the requirements specified in Health Technical Memorandum
(HTM) 08-01[29]. It is noted in HTM 08-01 that, as well as taking into account
requirements associated with normal building floors, hospital floors also need
to take into account the reduced walking speeds that are likely to occur when
a walker is near to or accompanying a patient.
For continuous vibrations, the Wg weighting factor is used (defined in
Appendix C of this report), which is for standing or seated people when hand
control is important. The base (human perception level) acceleration value
25
26
26
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
lef t Criteria
page header
fOr StrUC
subtitUreS
tle
is 5 mm/s2 (0.005 m/s2), and the multiplying factors shown in Table 9 are
reproduced from Table 8.1 of P354. P354 states that these criteria are given in
Section 2.132 of HTM 08-01[29]. It is also stated that these multiplying factors
will result in a low probability of adverse comment for continuous activities in
hospitals.
Multiplying factor
Wards
0.2
0.4
Workshops
0.8
27
28
28
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
lef t Criteria
page header
fOr StrUC
subtitUreS
tle
Multiplying factor
Residential day
2 to 4
Residential night
1.4
3.5
1.7
3.8
1.6
4.2
1.5
4.6
1.4
5.3
1.3
6.2
1.2
The deflection of a single joist is dependent on the overall floor construction and the
number of effective joists that are deemed to share the applied 1 kN point load. The
following table gives typical values:
Number of effective joists
Floor configuration
Joist centres
400 mm
600 mm
2.5
2.35
3.5
29
30
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
Office
Shopping mall
Dealing floor
32
24
1.6 m/s1.75
0.51 m/s1.75
31
32
32
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
8.2 iNtrOdUCtiON
Dynamic testing involves applying time-varying forces to a building (or
structure), measuring the structural response and then drawing inferences from
that response. Hence, dynamic testing is different in nature to static testing
in which time-invariant loads are applied and measured. There is surprisingly
little information in the literature about the test methodologies used, what
can be measured, how the results can be used practically and what is the best
method (or methods) to use in a given situation.
Dynamic testing of buildings ranges from investigating the vibration of the
whole building to testing large or small building elements, or testing vibration
produced by (large or small) machinery within a building. Hence, it can be
seen that the scale of this testing can vary dramatically. The scope of the testing
varies depending on the problem being considered and the budget available
for testing. Specialist skills are necessary to plan and undertake large-scale
testing, and then to analyse and interpret the results. This means that expert
advice is usually sought at an early stage of a project where dynamic testing is
required.
Most dynamic testing of building elements is undertaken in a laboratory.
This is because it is possible to control the experimental parameters, and
this increases the accuracy of the experimental techniques used. Although
laboratory testing of a test specimen (or specimens) is often extremely useful,
such testing does not simulate every aspect of the structural behaviour of
elements when installed in a building. This is because it is not possible to
reproduce exactly the full-scale edge conditions in a laboratory. Therefore,
on-site testing is the only way to demonstrate whether or not the performance
of a building element (eg a building floor) meets its specified dynamic
performance. Nevertheless, laboratory testing can be used to certify that
products do meet specified structural requirements (eg the natural frequency
of a floor is greater than a given frequency).
This review is not a treatise on structural dynamics, but at this point it is
useful to have a brief overview of the relevant parameters that need to be
considered. The motion of a dynamic structure is determined completely
if, for every mode of vibration, the natural frequency, mass distribution (or
structural stiffness), mode shape and damping are known. In theory, any
continuous structure (eg beams or columns) has infinite modes of vibration.
8 dYNaMiC teStiNg
page Of
header
BUildiNg
ri gS
htaNd
page
BUildiNg
headereleMeNt
subti tS
le
33
Nevertheless, for practical purposes it is only the modes that have the lowest
natural frequencies that need to be considered. The principal aim of dynamic
testing is, for each mode of vibration of practical interest, to measure the
aforementioned parameters, thus enabling the dynamic motion of the system
to be predicted.
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0.5
1.0
1.5
Time (s)
2.0
2.5
3.0
34
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
A single degree of freedom (1-DOF) system consists of a vibrating mass, a
damper and a spring. The extension of the spring creates a force that acts on
the mass to oppose the displacement; this force is proportional to the spring
extension. The damping also induces a force that opposes the motion of the
mass, but this force is proportional to the velocity of the mass.
For small levels of system damping (ie much less than 1), consider now
a mass being pulled away from its equilibrium position by a distance (or
amplitude) A1. Releasing this mass will cause it to pass through the equilibrium
position, and then come to rest at a distance (or amplitude) A2 away. Note that
A2 will be less than A1 as a result of the energy dissipated through the effect of
damping.
It can be shown that for a lightly damped system, the damping ratio is
proportional to the amplitude ratio of successive peaks, A1/A2. Thus:
(Equation 11)
This approach is commonly termed the logarithmic-decrement method (or
log-dec method for short). The time period between successive peaks, T, can
also be determined from the decaying signal. This enables the fundamental
natural frequency of the system, f0 (= 1/T), to be estimated.
Figure 13 was chosen deliberately to illustrate some of the practical
difficulties associated with this approach. For example, it is not clear where
the impact occurs, and at what exact time the response starts to decay. The
time interval over which the range of amplitude ratios should be taken is not
obvious, and therefore certain arbitrary decisions have to be made. Note that
some structures have damping ratios that are functions of the amplitude of
the decay. In this situation, a single damping ratio value is not an appropriate
descriptor of the vibration behaviour.
The method described above also assumes implicitly that the structure
tested vibrates as a 1-DOF system. If the structure has two close natural
frequencies there is an interaction between the energy contained in the two
vibrating modes. This interaction causes a beating of the decaying amplitude,
and prevents an accurate determination of the damping ratio.
Having stated the problems associated with this method, it is only fair to
state that the method is popular and in widespread use. It is relatively easy
to undertake the test and to collect the data. Using phase-locked averaging
techniques, it is possible to reduce the inherent variation associated with
impacts (which by their nature are extreme events). Furthermore, transforming
impact time-varying data into the frequency domain enables all of the natural
frequencies of a structure to be identified quickly. Indeed, with regard to
structural investigation, the ability to identify natural frequencies is believed by
the author to be the most appropriate use of impact test methods.
8 dYNaMiC teStiNg
page Of
header
BUildiNg
ri gS
htaNd
page
BUildiNg
headereleMeNt
subti tS
le
35
36
page header
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
left Criteria
page header
fOr StrUCtUreS
subtitle
Non-dimensional
acceleration
Non-dimensional Acceleration
Theoretical curve
Theoretical curve
Measureddata
Data
Measured
8.0
8.0
8.5
8.5
9.0
Frequency (Hz)
9.0
9.5
9.5
Frequency (Hz)
8 dYNaMiC teStiNg
page Of
header
BUildiNg
ri gS
htaNd
page
BUildiNg
headereleMeNt
subti tS
le
37
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1.0 -0.5 0 0.5
Mode shape
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
10
20
30
Damping ratio (%)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Damping ratio (%)
1.0
Non-dimensional height (z/H)
1.0
Non-dimensional height (z/H)
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-1.0 -0.5 0 0.5
Mode shape
0.8
1.0
0
-1.0 -0.5 0 0.5
Mode shape
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Damping ratio (%)
38
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
Ambient vibration testing can also be used to identify outlying behaviour.
BRE is engaged in an ongoing programme of work with the Houses of
Parliament to measure the vibration of the pinnacles. Figure 19 shows the
BRE laser system that measures the pinnacle vibration. By measuring this
vibration in light wind conditions, the natural frequencies of each pinnacle
can be identified. Any pinnacles with natural frequencies that are significantly
different from those of the other pinnacles are brought to the attention of
the relevant authorities. This enables a physical inspection of any identified
pinnacles to be carried out, and remediation work undertaken if necessary.
8 dYNaMiC teStiNg
page Of
header
BUildiNg
ri gS
htaNd
page
BUildiNg
headereleMeNt
subti tS
le
of a structures certification. For example, to allow a floor to be certified by
BRE Global, both the fundamental frequency and the damping ratio must be
measured experimentally.
On its own, mode shape behaviour has limited practical usage. Mode
shapes do provide information about the best locations to install dampers.
However, their principal importance is that they allow the mode-generalised
mass and mode-generalised stiffness of a structure (which can be found by
dynamic testing) to be converted into the actual mass and stiffness of the
dynamic system. Since:
(Equation 12)
it can be shown that:
(Equation 13)
For certain dynamic tests, the applied mode-generalised force and modegeneralised stiffness are measured. Hence, the modal displacement can
be determined using Equation 13. Summing the modal displacements for
all modes of vibration gives the total displacement, so the overall structural
stiffness can be determined by dividing the applied force by the total
displacement. This overall structural stiffness is the same as the static stiffness
of the structure. As shown in the example below, stiffness information can be
useful to compare with specified design deflections.
Example: A common beam deflection criterion used in the construction
industry is that a beam must not deflect more than 1 in 200. If a beam
is 5 m long and the combined live and dead design load at the end
of the beam is 20 kN, using Equation 12 the stiffness must be at least
20 x 200/5 = 800 kN/m.
As described above, dynamic testing can be used to measure all of the
parameters necessary to create dynamic models of a structure. These models
can be used to predict the structural response under any fluctuating load
condition. Hence, such models can determine whether or not specified
deflection or acceleration criteria are exceeded.
39
40
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
9 CONClUSiONS
10 refereNCeS
[1]
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The Building
Regulations 2000 (England and Wales) as amended by Statutory Instrument 2006
No. 3318. London, The Stationery Office, 2000.
[2]
BSI. Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings Vibration
sources other than blasting. BS 6472-1:2008. London, BSI, 2008.
[3]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Mechanical vibration and
shock Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration General requirements.
ISO 2631-1:1997. Geneva, ISO, 1997.
[4]
BSI. Guide to measurement and evaluation of human exposure to whole-body
mechanical vibration and repeated shock. BS 6841:1987. London, BSI, 1987.
[5]
Irwin A W. Design of shear wall buildings. CIRIA Report R 102. London,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, 1984.
[6]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 0: Basis of structural
design. EN 1990:2002+AC:2008. London, BSI, 2009.
[7]
BSI. Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz to
80 Hz). BS 6472:1992 (now superseded by BS 6472-1:2008). London, BSI, 1992.
[8]
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Building Regulations 2000, Approved
Document A: Structure. London, NBS, 2004.
[9]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Basis for design of structures
Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations. ISO 10137:2007. Geneva,
ISO, 2007.
[10]
Melbourne W H and Palmer T R. Accelerations and comfort criteria for buildings
undergoing complex motions. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
1992, 41 (13) 105116.
[11]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Guidelines for the evaluation
of the response of occupants of fixed structures, especially buildings and off-shore
structures, to low-frequency horizontal motion (0.063 Hz to 1 Hz). ISO 6897:1984.
Geneva, ISO, 1984.
[12]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1:2004+AC:2008. London,
BSI, 2009.
[13]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 5: Design
of timber structures General Common rules and rules for buildings.
EN 1995-1-1:2004+A1:2008+AC:2006. London, BSI, 2009.
[14]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1993-1-1:2005+AC:2006+AC:2009.
London, BSI, 2010.
[15]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures General actions Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings.
EN 1991-1-1:2002+AC:2004+AC:2009. London, BSI, 2010.
41
42
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
[16]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures General actions Wind actions. EN 1991-1-4:2005. London, BSI, 2005.
[17]
BSI. Loading for buildings Code of practice for dead and imposed loads.
BS 6399-1:1996 (now superseded by BS EN 1991-1-7:2006). London, BSI, 1996.
[18]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). UK National Annex to
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures General rules and rules for buildings. NA to
EN 1993-1-1:2005. London, BSI, 2008.
[19]
NCCI. Vertical and horizontal deflection limits for multi-storey buildings.
SN034a-EN-EU. Available at: www.steel-ncci.co.uk/Clauses/List_NCCIs.htm (accessed
18 March 2011). Ascot, NCCI, 2006.
[20]
NCCI. Practical deflection limits for single-storey buildings. SN035a-EN-EU.
Available at: www.steel-ncci.co.uk/Clauses/List_NCCIs.htm (accessed 18 March 2011).
Ascot, NCCI, 2006.
[21]
NCCI. NCCI vibrations. SN036a-EN-EU. Available at: www.steelbiz.org (type
Vibrations into the search field; accessed 18 March 2011).
[22]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Mechanical vibration and
shock Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration Vibration in buildings
(1 Hz to 80 Hz). ISO 2631-2:1989 (now superseded by ISO 2631-2:2003). Geneva, ISO,
1989.
[23]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Mechanical vibration and
shock Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration Vibration in buildings
(1 Hz to 80 Hz). ISO 2631-2:2003. Geneva, ISO, 2003.
[24]
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). UK National Annex to
Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures General rules and rules for buildings. NA to
EN 1995-1-1:2004+A1:2008. London, BSI, 2006.
[25]
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), Department for Communities and
Local Government and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Dynamic performance
requirements for permanent grandstands subject to crowd action: recommendations for
management, design and assessment. London, IStructE, 2008.
[26]
Ellis B R and Ji T. The response of structures to dynamic crowd loads. BRE Digest
DG 426. Bracknell, IHS BRE Press, 2004.
[27]
Smith A L, Hicks S J and Devine P J. Design of floors for vibration: a new approach
(revised edition). Publication P354. London, Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
[28]
Ellis B R and Littler J D. Response of cantilever grandstands to crowd loads.
Part 2: Load estimation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Structures and
Buildings, 2004, 157 (SB5) 297307.
[29]
Department of Health. Health Technical Memorandum 08-01: Acoustics. London,
The Stationery Office, 2008.
[30]
Willford M R and Young P. A design guide for footfall-induced vibration of
structures. Camberley, The Concrete Centre, 2006.
[31]
NHS Estates. Health Technical Memorandum 2045: Acoustics design
considerations. London, HMSO, 1996.
[32]
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), Department for Transport, Local
Government and the Regions and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Dynamic
performance requirements for permanent grandstands subject to crowd action: interim
guidance on assessment and design. London, IStructE, 2001.
[33]
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), Department for Transport, Local
Government and the Regions and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Advisory
note: dynamic testing of grandstands and seating decks. London, IStructE, 2002.
[34]
Page A V and Sangarapillai V G. Design methods for domestic floors constructed
using engineering joists. The Structural Engineer, 2008, 86 (17) 3641.
Moore J F A. Monitoring building structures. Glasgow, Blackie and Son Ltd, 1992.
[37]
BSI. Experimental determination of mechanical mobility Measurement using
impact excitation with an exciter which is not attached to the structure. BS 6897-5:1995.
London, BSI, 1995.
43
44
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
ay
ax
x-axis
(Equation A1)
The third orthogonal direction comes out vertically from the page (or x-, yplane), and this direction will be referred to as the z-axis direction. If az is the
magnitude of the vector in the z-axis direction, then by extension of the above
method it is easy to show that in three dimensions:
(Equation A2)
Two vectors in the x, y plane (the green arrows with lengths or magnitudes
a1 and a2) are shown in Figure A2. The sum of these vectors (known as the
resultant) is shown as the yellow arrow, the length of which is aR.
a2x
a2y
a1x
a1y
a1
a2
aR
(Equation A3)
(Equation A4)
45
46
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
(Equation B7)
47
48
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
As described earlier, the expected peak acceleration, , can then be
determined using arms and the gust factor g given in Equation 3 of the main
text. Hence:
(Equation B10)
The approach above can be extended to include the significant
contributions that arise from all building vibration modes.
B4 refereNCeS
[B1]
Melbourne W H and Palmer T R. Accelerations and comfort criteria for buildings
undergoing complex motions. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
1992, 41 (13) 105116.
[B2]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Basis for design of structures
Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations. ISO 10137:2007. Geneva,
ISO, 2007.
49
50
dYNaMiC
COMfOrt
fOr StrUC
tle
page header
lef t Criteria
page header
subtitUreS
are similar, there are significant differences in the weighting curves. At lower
frequencies the International (ISO) Standard weights are lower, and at higher
frequencies the British Standard weights are lower. This means that in general
it is not possible to state whether or not either set of weights gives more, or
less, conservative results. An important point to note here is that codes of
practice and standards are designed to be self-consistent. Therefore mixing
and matching frequency weights from one set of codes with multiplying
factors or VDV values from another set of codes is not recommended.
According to BS 6841:1987[C4], the appropriate frequency weightings to
apply when considering motion sickness (low-frequency vibration) are the Wf
weighting factors. These are shown as the dark blue curve in Figure C1.
Frequency weightings
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Frequency (Hz)
Vertical accelerations
(Wk curve, ISO 2631-1)
Horizontal accelerations
(Wd curve, BS 6841)
Vertical accelerations
(Wb curve, BS 6841)
Horizontal accelerations
(Wd curve, ISO 2631-1)
C5 refereNCeS
[C1]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Basis for design of structures
Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations. ISO 10137:2007. Geneva,
ISO, 2007.
[C2]
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Mechanical vibration and
shock Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration General requirements.
ISO 2631-1:1997. Geneva, ISO, 1997.
[C3]
BSI. Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings Vibration
sources other than blasting. BS 6472-1:2008. London, BSI, 2008.
[C4]
BSI. Guide to measurement and evaluation of human exposure to whole-body
mechanical vibration and repeated shock. BS 6841:1987. London, BSI, 1987.
[C5]
Smith A L, Hicks S J and Devine P J. Design of floors for vibration: a new approach
(revised edition). Publication P354. London, Steel Construction Institute, 2009.
51
FB18
2003. FB 6
FB 7
FB26
November 2005, FB 12
FB 31
WHAT DO I GET?
ALL NEW AND PUBLISHED BRE TITLES
650 books, reports and guides research,
innovation, best practice and case studies,
including:
Homes
Low-water-use fittings
z
y