13th International Symposium of Macedonian Association of Structural Engineers Ohrid, 14th 17th October, 2009

ASPECTS REGARDING THE VIBRATIONS INDUCED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN COMPOSITE STEEL FLOOR DECKS Dan Creu, Elena Tulei, Cristian Ghindea
Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest Romania

Outline

Effect of human activities on building floors Vibration limitation in code provisions Case study Conclusions

Effect of human activities on building floors

Educational areas Commercial areas Long-span floors Light materials
strength damping

Factories

Effect of human activities on building floors

Ordinary buildings:
moderate spans stiff r. c. floors f 10 - 14 Hz

No discomfort to the building occupants

Special buildings:
long spans light and flexible composite floors f f of dynamic actions/human activities

Effect of human activities on building floors

Walk of people
Dance Aerobics Malfunction of electro-mechanical equipments Disturbing vibrations

Effect of human activities on building floors

Frequencies of equivalent harmonic excitation Walk: 1.6 2.4 Hz
Force

1 second

1 cycle (beat of music)

Group weight

Jogging: ~ 2.5 Hz
Running: ~ 3 Hz Dance

Time

Effect of human activities on building floors

Floor vibrations - Occupants comfort Unacceptable accelerations: 0.5% g: sitting/lying persons Acceptable accelerations: 2% g: people standing in stores/ sitting near a dance floor 10% g: people doing aerobics

Effect of human activities on building floors

steady accelerations > 20% g Fatigue phenomenon Floor collapse Resonance

Vibration limitation in code provisions

National Buildings Code of Canada:

floor dynamic analysis for f1 < 6 Hz

Eurocode 5, Design of timber structures:

floors with timber beams in residential buildings special investigations for f1 < 8 Hz

WORKSHOP Eurocodes: Background and Applications Eurocode 4. Serviceability limit states of composite beams Hanswille, G., Brussels, 2008:

floor dynamic analyses for f1 < 7.5 Hz

Vibration limitation in code provisions

SSEDTA CD Release 2001: Structural Steelwork Eurocodes: Development of a TransNational Approach, EC3, lecture 03, 2001:
f1

> 3 Hz for floors with normal access f1 > 5 Hz for gymnastics and dancing halls certain stiffness small deflections SLS

Vibration limitation in code provisions

25

Standard ISO10137, Basis for the Design of Structures Serviceability of Buildings against Vibrations, ISO, Geneva, 1992

Rythmic Activities, Outdoor Footbridges

Peak Acceleration [%Gravity]

Indoor Footbridges, Shooping Malls, Dining and Dancing

Offices, Residences

0.2 ISO Baseline Curve for RMS acceleration

0.04 1 2 4 8 16 32

Frequency [Hz]

Vibration limitation in code provisions

ALLEN, D.E., PERNICA, G., Control of Floor Vibration, Construction Technology Update No. 22, National Research Council of Canada, 1998:
residential and office buildings floor PGA < 0.5% g

Case study
r.c. slab
2m

thmed = 12 cm C24/30: Ec = 325 N/mm2

2m 14 m 14 m

steel beams
HEA450 S235

perimeter beams r.c. walls

Case study

Analyses results:
natural frequencies; maximum deflections.

Models of the composite floor:

M1: equalized with a grid of steel beams; M2: fixed on the boundary; M3: elastically supported by the perimeter beams and r.c. walls.

Case study

M1
equivalent beam

Hypotheses on steel beams and r.c slab:

1)

connector 11 3
44

2)

do not work together (Ec = 0) work together

30

beam equivalent cross section:

n ES EC 2100 325 6.46

equivalence coefficient for short-term actions

Case study

M2

M3

fixed

fixed

Case study

M1, M2, M3

Concrete stiffness:

non-degraded EC = EC * EC = 0.5 EC degraded

Loads:
dead load live load

p1 = 6.8 kN/m2 p2 = 3 kN/m2 (rooms) p2 = 4 kN/m2 (corridors)

Case study

M1, M2, M3

Load combinations (EC1):

G
j1

k, j

1,1Qk,l

SLS:

LC1: q1 = p1 LC2: q2 = p1 + 0.4 p2 LC3: q3 = p1 + p2 LC4: q4 = 1.35 p1 + 1.5 p2

ULS:

Case study

Floor modal shapes M1

dead + live load (q3) / EC

= EC

f1 = 10.19 Hz

f2 = 19.44 Hz

Case study

Floor modal shapes M2

dead + live load (q3) / EC

= EC

f1 = 10.82 Hz

f2 = 20.1 Hz

Case study

Floor modal shapes M3

dead + live load (q3) / EC

= EC

f1 = 7.69 Hz

f2 = 14.84 Hz

Case study

Maximum deflections of the floor, dmax [mm]

LC
q1 q2 7.40 3.10 q3 9.00 3.80 q4 12.50 5.20

EC = 0
Model M1

6.30 2.60

EC
* EC

3.00

3.60

4.30

6.10

EC
Model M2
* EC

2.40

2.79

3.50

4.80

2.50

2.90

3.60

5.00

EC
Model M3
* EC

4.32

5.13

6.28

8.80

5.52

6.50

7.95

11.15

Case study

First natural frequency of the floor, f1 [Hz]

14 q1 12 10
Frequency [Hz]
8 7.5 q1 q2

q1 q3 q1 q2 q4 q1
q2 q3 q4 q2 q3

Minimum acceptable frequency NBC[3]

q1 q2 q3 q4

q2 q3 q4

q3 q4

Minimum acceptable frequency [6] WS-EC4

q4

q1
q2 q3

6 4 2 0
M1

q4

M1

M2

M3

M1

M2
* EC

M3

Model type

EC 0

EC

Case study

Approximate formula for the first frequency of a composite floor:

f1 20 dmax

f1

limiting >> deformability condition generally applied in floor designing,

dmax da l 350

* M3 ( EC

= 0.5 EC

dmax 8 mm da 14000 350 40 mm

Conclusions

Check of dynamic characteristics is mandatory. beam depth storey clear height

f1

Conclusions

Correct evaluation of the natural frequencies depends on the floor modeling. Considering rigid supports gives large values of the frequencies, situation that may be not conservative in reality. Even considering in the model the real geometrical and supporting conditions will not give the exact values of the natural frequencies.

Conclusions

Physico-mechanical characteristics of the materials, especially of the concrete, are different of those considered in analyses.

Experimental measurements in situ are absolutely necessary.

Thank you for your attention!