HOW ACCURATE ARE CURRENT FLOOR

VIBRATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURES?

Tom Murray is the Montague- ABSTRACT
Betts Professor of Structural
Steel Design at Virginia Tech. A study was conducted to determine the most
He has conducted research, accurate floor vibration criteria available today.
published, and lectured on the Predictions from four procedures (Modified Reiher-
floor vibration problem for over Meister Method, Murray Criterion, the American
30 years. He is the author or Institute of Steel Construction/Canadian Institute of
co-author of three AISC Design Steel Construction Design Guide 11 procedure, and
Guides (4, 11, and 16), is a the Steel Construction Institute criterion) were
member of the AISC and AISI compared to subjective evaluations of building
specification committees, and occupants. Fifty-one bays in 32 buildings were
the AISC Committee on analyzed in the study. It was found that the
Manuals and Textbooks. He AISC/CISC procedure is the most accurate and the
Thomas M. Murray was inducted into the National Modified Reiher-Meister Method the least accurate.
Academy of Engineering in 2002. He received his degrees
from Iowa State University, Lehigh University, and the
University of Kansas. He is a registered professional engineer
in three states.

Michael Boice received his

Bachelor of Science degree in
Civil Engineering from the
University of Florida in 2000
and his Master of Science
degree in Civil Engineering
with emphasis in structural
engineering in 2003. His
Master of Science thesis is the
basis of the work reported in the
paper. Currently, he is a
structural engineer with
Michael D. Boice Campbell & Associates,
Chicago, Illinois.

1
HOW ACCURATE ARE CURRENT FLOOR
VIBRATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURES?

INTRODUCTION

Current trends in technology and construction practices have had an adverse effect on the structural dynamics of
floor systems in buildings. Twenty-first century building designs are lightweight, use high-strength materials, and
have longer spanning floor systems. As a result, the serviceability due to vibrations becomes problematic for floors
with less live loading, damping, stiffness, and mass. Although floor vibrations do not affect the structural integrity
of a building, occupants may feel anxiety and uneasiness due to the motion. Floors that are susceptible to occupant
complaints are costly and tedious to retrofit. The need for accurate floor vibration analysis procedures to eliminate
such problems is apparent.

A number of criteria and design standards have been developed to predict the response of floor systems due to
walking excitations. Each criterion has assumptions as to the nature and relevant properties of the floor system
being analyzed. Due to the assorted techniques, predictions of floor behavior can be significantly different between
the criteria. Examining case studies of floor systems currently being constructed and occupied in the United States
may provide insight on the accuracy of the various prediction criteria. Consequently, a study was conducted
wherein the results of four commonly used criteria were compared to subjective evaluations of the users of the floor
systems. The four criteria are: (1) Modified Reiher-Meister scale (Lenzen 1966, Murray 1975), (2) the Murray
Criterion (Murray 1981), (3) the American Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide 11 Floor Vibrations Due to
Human Activity (Murray, et al. 1997), and (4) the Steel Construction Institute criteria (Wyatt, 1989; Hicks et al,
2000).

BRIEF REVIEW OF FLOOR VIBRATION CRITERIA

Modified Reiher-Meister Scale

Reiher and Meister (1931) subjected a number of people to steady vibration and recorded their reactions in terms of
displacement and frequency. Lenzen (1966) modified the original Reiher-Meister scale by multiplying the
displacement axis by 10 to account for the transient nature of floor motion due to walking. Murray (1975)
recommended that floors plotting above the dashed line in Figure 1 not be constructed. The system displacement
amplitude, Aos, in this criterion is the first maximum amplitude due to a heel-drop impact. determined from

A os = Aob + Aog / 2 (1)

where Aob, Aog are the heel drop amplitudes associated with the beams and girders, respectively.

A ob = A ot / N eff (2)
where
246L 3
A ot = ( 0 .1 − t o ) if to ≤ 0.05 sec (3)
Es It

otherwise

2
 246L 3 1
A ot = 2(1− α sin α − cos α ) + α 2 (4)
E s I t 2πf b

and Neff = number of effective t-beams, Es = modulus of elasticity of steel, It = transformed moment of inertia of the
tee-beam cross-section, fb = fundamental frequency of the tee-beam,

tan −1 α
to = (5)
πf b
and
α = 0.1πf b (6)

The girder amplitude, Aog, is determined using Equations 3 and 4 with the appropriate properties.

It is noted that Modified Reiher-Meister Scale does not include damping of the floor system.

Figure 1 – Modified Reiher-Meister Scale

Murray Criterion

Murray (1981) recommended that floor systems be designed to satisfy

D > 35A o f + 2.5 (7)

where D= estimated log decrement damping in the system, f = first natural frequency, Hz, and Ao = initial
amplitude due to a heel drop impact calculated using Equation 1.

3
AISC/CISC Design Guide 11

The American Institute of Steel Construction/Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (AISC/CISC) Design Guide
11 Floor Vibrations due to Human Activity (Murray et al, 1997) has a procedure for evaluating floor systems due to
walking. The criterion in the procedure states that a floor system is satisfactory “if the peak acceleration, ap, due to
human walking excitation as a fraction of the acceleration of gravity, g, determined from

ap P exp( −0.35f n ) a o
= o ≤ (8)
g βW g

where Po = a constant force representing the excitation, fn = fundamental natural frequency of a beam or joist panel,
a girder panel, or combined panel, as applicable, β = modal damping ratio, and W = effective weight supported by
the beam or joist panel, girder panel, or combined panel, as applicable, does not exceed the acceleration limit a o/g
for the appropriate occupancy”. The acceleration limit for office building occupancies is taken as 0.5% of gravity
and the recommended value of Po is 65 lbs. Actual dead and live loads rather than design dead and live loads are
assumed for weight calculations. A typical office super-imposed dead load of 4 psf, which accounts for ceiling and
mechanical loads, is recommend. Damping and live loading values vary for different types of offices. The typical
fit-out in a “paper” office includes heavy filing cabinets, desks, furniture, computers, and technical equipment.
Consequently, typical assumed values for damping and live loading are 3% and 11 psf, respectively. The typical fit-
out in an “electronic” office includes only desks and computers, typical assumed values for damping are between
2% to 2.5% with live loads of 8 psf.

The effective panel weight for a beam panel mode, Wj, is estimated from

W j = w jB jL j (9)

and similarly the effective panel weight for a girder panel mode, Wg, is estimated from

Wg = w g B g L g (10)

where w = supported weight, B = effective width of panel, and L = span length of the member. For the beam or joist
panel mode, the effective width is calculated using

1/ 4
D 
B j = C j s  Lj (11)
 D j
 

where Cj = 2.0 for joists and beams in most areas or Cj = 1.0 when joists or beams are parallel to an interior edge; Dj
= joist or beam transformed moment of inertia per unit width, Ds = transformed slab moment of inertia per unit
width, and Lj = span length of the member. The effective width of the beam or joist panel mode cannot be greater
than two-thirds of the floor width in the direction perpendicular to the beam or joist span. For the girder mode, the
effective width is calculated using

1/ 4
 Dj
Bg = Cg   Lg (12)
 Dg 
 

where Cg = 1.6 for girders supporting joists connected to the girder flange through joist seats or Cg = 1.8 for girders
supporting beams connected to the girder web, Dj = joist or beam transformed moment of inertia per unit width, Dg
= girder transformed moment of inertia per unit width, and Lg = span length of the girder. The effective width of the
girder panel mode cannot be greater than two-thirds of the floor length in the direction perpendicular to the girder

4
span. The effective panel weight, Wj or Wg, may be increased by 50 % when beams, joists, or girders are continuous
over their supports and a neighboring span is greater than 0.7 times the span under consideration. This increase in
weight applies to hot-rolled sections shear-connected to girder webs and joists that are connected by both top and
bottom chords.

The equivalent panel weight, W, when considering the combined mode is estimated by

∆j ∆g
W= Wj + Wg (13)
∆ j + ∆g ∆ j + ∆g

where ∆j and ∆g = the simple beam deflections due to the loads Wj and Wg, respectivel. The deflection of the girder,
∆g, can be reduced if the girder span, Lg, is less than the joist panel width, Bj. The floor system is stiffened and the
combined mode is constrained, thus justifying the reduction. The reduced girder deflection, ∆g’, is approximated by

Lg
∆ g′ = (∆ g ) (14)
Bj

where Lg/Bj is taken as not less than 0.5 nor greater than 1.0. The predicted natural frequency is increased with a
reduction in the deflection of the girder, and the deflection ∆g in Equation 13 is replaced with ∆g’ .

SCI Floor Vibration Criteria

The Steel Construction Institute publication Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors (Wyatt, 1989), provides the
techniques and criterion used in the United Kingdom for analyzing floor response. In the criterion, the limiting root
mean square acceleration is to satisfy

a rms ≤ 0.005R for 3.0 Hz ≤ fo ≤ 8.0 Hz (15)

and
f 
a rms ≤ 0.005R  o  for fo > 8.0 Hz (16)
 8 

where R = the response factor for the specific office environment, and fo = the fundamental frequency of the floor
system.

The SCI guide recognizes three types of office environments. The “special office”, where R = 14, is “appropriate
for floors where technical tasks that require concentration and precision operations on computers are performed”.
The “general office”, where R = 12 is “appropriate for floors where normal activities and text operations on
computers are performed”. The “busy office”, where R = 12, is “appropriate for floors that are available to many
people, with both visual and audible distractions”.

The root-mean-square acceleration, arms, is

a rms = a peak 2 (17)

where apeak = peak acceleration (m/s). A resonant response is assumed, thus

αnP
a peak = R1 (18)
2Mζ

5
where αn = Fourier coefficient of the nth harmonic component of the walking activity and P = person’s weight taken
as 76 kg. The only Fourier coefficient considered when the fundamental frequency of a floor system is greater than
or equal to 3.55 Hz is α n = 0.10 . This Fourier coefficient is “appropriate for walking frequencies greater than the
first harmonic” (Wyatt, 1989). When evaluating floors with predicted frequencies of less than 3.55 Hz, the first
harmonic is considered and α n = 0.40 . The resonance build-up factor, R1, is given by

R1 = 1 − e−2πfo ςTW ≤ 1.0 (19)

where fo = fundamental frequency of the floor system, ζ = damping ratio, and TW = the walking time in seconds (s)
is

TW = D / V (20)

where D is taken in meters (m) as the longer of the floor’s plan dimensions or, when known, the longest corridor
length. The walking velocity, V, in m/s is

V = 1.67f P2 − 4.83f P + 4.50 for 1.7 Hz ≤ fP ≤ 2.4 Hz (21)

where fP = the walking frequency, Hz, which is taken as the lowest harmonic of the fundamental frequency of the
floor. The damping ratio, ζ, is taken as 1.1 % for bare floors and 3.0 % for normal, well furnished floors. The
resonance build-up factor is conservatively taken as 1.0 when the building parameters are unknown.

The effective vibrating modal mass, M, which accounts for the effective plan area participating in the motion, is
found from

mL eff S
M= (22)
4

where m = total floor distributed mass, kg/m2. Table 1.1 provides equations to estimate the floor beam effective
span, Leff, and the floor effective width, S, for structural systems.

From Table 1.1, the relative flexibility of the primary beam, RFmain_beam, is

∆g
RFmain _ beam = (23)
∆g + ∆b

where ∆g and ∆b are described above. The effective width of the floor participating in the motion, S*, is measured in
meters and is given by

14
 EI 
S* = 4.5 1  (24)
 2 
 mf o 

where EI1 = dynamic flexural rigidity of the slab, Nm2 per meter width. The effective span of the secondary beam
participating in the motion, L*, is measured in meters and is given by

14
 EI 
L* = 3.8 b  (25)
 2 
 mbf o 

6
where EIb = dynamic flexural rigidity of the composite secondary beam, Nm2; and b = the secondary beam spacing,
m. Table 1.1 also defines W as the width of the floor area being analyzed, Lm as the span of the primary beam
measured in meters, and Lmax as the entire length of the secondary beam when considered to act continuously. These
three parameters are measured in meters.

Table 1.1 – Leff and S Dimensions (Hicks, et al. 2000)

Fundamental Frequency

Each of the criteria requires the fundamental frequency of the floor system. For the evaluations, the fundamental
frequency, f, for each framing member was estimated from

g
f j = f g = 0.18 (26)
∆ SS

where fj = frequency of beam or joist, Hz; fg = frequency of girder, Hz; g = acceleration due gravity and ∆ss =
deflection of the joist, beam, or girder. The framing members were assumed to be simply- supported. Therefore,
the maximum deflection, ∆ss, at mid-span is

7
 5wL4
∆ ss = ∆ b = ∆ g = (27)
384 E s I t

where w = total supported weight including an estimation of live loading, Es = modulus of elasticity for steel, L =
member span, and It = composite moment of inertia.

Once the beam and girder frequencies are determined, the combined frequency of the floor system is calculated
using Dunkerly’s relationship given by

1 1 1
= + (28)
fn2 f j2 fg2

where fn, fj, and fg are the bay system, beam, and girder frequencies, Hz, respectively. The system frequency can
also be found with

g
f n = 0.18 (29)
∆ j + ∆g

which is another form of Dunkerly’s equation.

However, there are slight differences between the methods when determining several of the above parameters. For
example when calculating the weight carried by a beam, the SCI method uses a load corresponding to the self-
weight, services, ceiling, and 10 % of the imposed load. The imposed value of 10 % represents “a sensible
permanent load for furnished floors designed in office environments”. The AISC/CISC and the SCI methods also
differ in the definition of effective width for secondary and primary framing members. The AISC/CISC procedure
uses an effective width of the concrete slab equal to the member spacing, but not more than 40 % of the member
span. The SCI procedure takes the effective width of the slab to be the summation of one-eighth of the member
spans either side of the beam providing that this value does not exceed b or the summation of 0.8b/2, where b is the
spacing of the secondary or primary framing. Also, when determining It, in the AISC/CISC method, the concrete
modulus of elasticity is increased 35 % to account for greater stiffness of the concrete during dynamic loading.

Another difference between the AISC/CISC and SCI procedures is that SCI considers the deflection of the
composite slab when calculating the fundamental frequency of the entire floor system. Dunkerly’s approximation
becomes

1 1 1 1
= + + (30)
fn2 f j2 fg2 2
f slab

where fslab = frequency of composite slab, Hz; and fn, fj, and fg are as described previously. The SCI procedure
considers two modes of vibration when investigating a structural floor system. As shown in Figure 2(a), when a
floor system is controlled by the secondary beam mode, primary beams behave as nodal lines allowing no
deflection, and the secondary framing vibrates as simply-supported beams. Fixed-ended boundary conditions are
assumed for slab frequency estimations. When floor systems are controlled by the primary beam mode, as shown in
Figure 2(b), primary framing members vibrate between columns as simply-supported beams. Fixed-ended boundary
conditions are assumed for secondary framing and slab frequency estimations. When the primary beam mode is
considered, the deflection of the secondary beam, ∆b, is calculated by

WL3
∆b = (31)
384EIt

where W = total weight supported by the framing member.

8
 (a) Secondary Beam Flexibility (b) Primary Beam Flexibility

Figure 2 – Governing Mode Shapes (Hicks, et al. 2000)

CRITERIA COMPARISONS

Acceptability predictions using the four criteria were determined and compared to subjective reactions of building
occupants on 51 bays in 32 office buildings in the United States. The framing type was used to differentiate the
structural floor systems. Three framing classifications were used: hot-rolled beams and girders, open web joists and
hot-rolled girders, and open web joists and joist girders. For bays with two girder (or joist girder) sizes, the girder
(or joist girder) which had the lowest frequency was used in the calculations. The subjective evaluations were the
opinions of those occupying the office spaces at the time of testing, as well as the expertise of the measurement team
present.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the results from the acceptability evaluations for the assessed bays. Agreement
between subjective evaluations and the Modified Reiher-Meister scale is based on the chart shown in Figure 1.
According to the criterion, floor systems that plot above the upper one-half of the distinctly perceptible range will
probably result in complaints from the occupants (Murray 1975). Agreement between subjective evaluations and
the Murray Criterion is based on a minimum required damping value needed to limit vibrations of office floor
systems. For the Murray Criterion, building owners with floor systems having a required damping value above 4.5
% will probably receive complaints from the occupants due to the vibrations. Agreement between subjective
evaluations and acceptability criteria presented in the AISC/CISC Design Guide is based on the predicted peak
acceleration of the office floor system. Office floors with predicted peak accelerations above 0.50% of gravity
should exhibit annoying floor vibrations and subsequently complaints from the occupants will be received.
Agreement between subjective evaluations and acceptability criteria presented by the SCI is based on the root-mean-
square accelerations of the office floor systems. Office floors with root-mean-square accelerations above the
acceleration limits from Equations 15 and 16 should exhibit annoying floor vibrations and subsequently complaints
are expected from the occupants.

Floors with Only Hot-Rolled Shapes

Table 1 shows the results of the criteria comparisons for floor systems comprised of hot-rolled shapes for both
primary and secondary members. The bays evaluated using the Modified Reiher-Meister acceptability scale have
the least compliance with only 47% agreement. When the bays were evaluated using the Murray Criterion, there
was 68 % agreement. From the data presented, 17 of 19 or 89% of the bays analyzed using the AISC/CISC Design
Guide criteria agree with the corresponding subjective evaluations. Using the SCI acceptability criteria 68% of the
predictions agreed with the subjective evaluations. In 42% of the cases there was complete agreement between all
four of the acceptability criteria and the corresponding subjective evaluations. In 11 % of the cases there is
complete disagreement between all four of the acceptability criteria and the corresponding subjective evaluations.

9
 Table 1 – Acceptability Criteria Comparison for Floors with Hot-Rolled Shapes
Michael Boice received his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Florida in 2000 and his Master of Science degree in Civil
Engineer with emphasis in structural engineering in 2003. His Master of Science thesis is the basis of the work reported in the paper. Currently, is a structural
engineer with Campbell & Associates, Chicago, Illinois.

Pred. f bay (Hz) f meas. Subjective D.G. 11 Murray Criterion Modified SCI
Building Bay (%) Analysis a peak /g (%) Rqd. Damping (%) Reiher-Meister
D.G. 11 SCI 076 (Hz) a peak /g (%) a rms /g (%) a limit /g (%)

1 1 3.0 3.15 3.23 4.93 N-C 0.34 3.2 N-P 0.80 0.57 0.41
1 2.5 3.19 4.07 3.88 M-C 1.08 4.1 S-P X 0.53 0.37 0.41
2 2,3 2.5 3.82 4.20 3.75 M-C 0.71 4.2 S-P X 0.54 0.38 0.41
4 2.5 3.82 4.12 4.00 M-C 0.71 4.2 S-P X 0.54 0.38 0.41
3 Ext. 3.0 4.64 5.60 6.50 N-C 0.52 4.4 A/D-P 0.55 0.39 0.41
4 1 3.0 4.23 5.68 4.90 N-C 0.42 3.7 S-P 0.58 0.41 0.41
1,2 2.5 3.81 4.89 5.25 C 0.69 4.0 X S-P X 0.39 0.28 0.20
5 3,4 2.5 3.81 4.89 4.13 C 0.69 4.0 X S-P X 0.39 0.28 0.20
5 2.5 3.88 4.93 4.50 C 0.73 4.2 X S-P X 0.38 0.27 0.20
6 Typ. 2.5 3.38 3.84 4.00 N-C 0.46 3.4 S-P 0.34 0.24 0.41
10

7 Typ. 2.5 4.69 5.73 7.00 N-C 0.31 3.6 S-P 0.25 0.18 0.41
8 Typ. 3.0 3.29 3.96 N/A C 0.40 X 3.4 X S-P X 0.25 0.18 0.41
9 Typ. 2.5 4.24 4.24 5.25 C 0.56 3.5 X S-P X 0.71 0.50 0.41
10 Typ. 3.0 4.00 5.08 5.50 M-C 0.43 X 3.8 X S-P X 0.44 0.31 0.41
1 3.0 4.20 5.70 4.25 M-C 0.59 4.4 A/D-P 0.68 0.48 0.41
11
2 3.0 3.65 4.87 4.00 M-C 0.75 4.0 S-P X 0.89 0.63 0.41
1 3.0 4.35 5.32 5.00 N-C 0.38 3.8 S-P 0.43 0.30 0.41
12 3 3.0 3.38 4.68 5.25 N-C 0.37 3.7 S-P 0.20 0.14 0.41
4 3.0 4.35 5.32 5.25 N-C 0.38 3.8 S-P 0.43 0.30 0.41

Notes :
1. The gray shading in the Design Guide 11 column indicates that the apeak/g of the floor system is less than or equal to 0.50 % of gravity and is an
acceptable floor.
2. The gray shading in the SCI column indicates that the arms/g of the floor system is less than or equal to the corresponding alimit/g and is an acceptable
floor.
3. The check marks indicate that the particular criterion complies with the corresponding subjective analysis. The “X” marks indicate that the
particular criterion does not comply with the corresponding subjective analysis.
4. In the Subjective Analysis column, “N-C” represents no complaints, “C” represents complaints, and “M-C” represents many complaints.
5. In the Modified Reiher-Meister column, “N-P” represents not perceptible, “S-P” represents slightly perceptible, “A/D-P” represents acceptable but
distinctly perceptible, “U/D-P” represents unacceptable and distinctly perceptible.
 Table 2 – Acceptability Criteria Comparison for Floors with Hot-Rolled Girders and Joists

Pred. f bay (Hz) f meas. Subjective D.G. 11 Murray Criterion Modified SCI
Building Bay (%) Analysis a peak /g (%) Rqd. Damping (%) Reiher-Meister a peak /g (%) a rms /g (%) a limit /g (%)
D.G. 11 SCI 076 (Hz)
13 1 3.0 5.55 5.55 6.50 N-C 0.29 3.6 S-P 0.57 0.40 0.41
Rm.271 3.0 5.65 6.16 7.00 N-C 0.35 3.5 S-P 0.68 0.48 0.41
14
Rm.273 3.0 5.39 5.88 6.75 N-C 0.35 3.5 S-P 0.62 0.44 0.41
15 1 3.0 3.80 5.46 5.50 M-C 0.74 4.4 X A/D-P X 0.86 0.61 0.41
Mezz. 2.5 3.59 4.45 4.75 C 0.89 4.0 X S-P X 0.55 0.39 0.41
16
11

Int. 2.5 3.19 3.46 4.75 N-C 0.51 4.0 S-P 2.27 1.61 0.41
4 3.0 5.97 6.58 4.50 N-C 0.42 4.9 X A/D-P 0.47 0.33 0.41
17 5 3.0 5.75 6.58 4.50 C 0.45 X 4.9 A/D-P X 0.48 0.34 0.41
7 3.0 4.68 5.47 4.50 C 0.62 4.5 A/D-P X 0.45 0.32 0.41
18 1 2.5 3.97 5.04 4.75 C 0.73 3.9 X S-P X 0.90 0.64 0.41
19 1 2.5 3.93 5.05 4.75 M-C 0.61 4.2 X S-P X 0.78 0.55 0.41
1 (ldd.) 2.5 5.16 5.16 5.25 M-C 0.73 4.9 A/D-P X 1.28 0.91 0.41
20
2 (uldd.) 2.5 5.26 5.26 5.25 M-C 0.73 4.8 A/D-P X 1.32 0.93 0.41
21 Typ. 3.0 2.22 2.52 4.00 N-C 0.47 2.9 N-P 1.20 0.85 0.41
22 Typ. 2.5 4.04 4.04 5.75 N-C 0.57 X 3.6 S-P 0.58 0.41 0.41

Notes :
1. The gray shading in the Design Guide 11 column indicates that the apeak/g of the floor system is less than or equal to 0.50 % of gravity and is an
acceptable floor.
2. The gray shading in the SCI column indicates that the arms/g of the floor system is less than or equal to the corresponding alimit/g and is an acceptable
floor.
3. The check marks indicate that the particular criterion complies with the corresponding subjective analysis. The “X” marks indicate that the
particular criterion does not comply with the corresponding subjective analysis.
4. In the Subjective Analysis column, “N-C” represents no complaints, “C” represents complaints, and “M-C” represents many complaints.
5. In the Modified Reiher-Meister column, “N-P” represents not perceptible, “S-P” represents slightly perceptible, “A/D-P” represents acceptable but
distinctly perceptible, “U/D-P” represents unacceptable and distinctly perceptible.
 Table 3 – Acceptability Criteria Comparison for Floors with Joist Girders and Joist Framing

Pred. f bay (Hz) f meas. Subjective D.G. 11 Murray Criterion Modified SCI
Building Bay ÷ (%) (Hz) Analysis a peak /g (%) Rqd. Damping (%) Reiher-Meister a peak /g (%) a rms /g (%) a limit /g (%)
D.G. 11 SCI 076
23 6 3.0 4.67 4.72 5.00 N-C 0.53 X 3.8 S-P 1.04 0.74 0.41
24 1 2.0 4.53 4.94 5.63 M-C 0.66 3.9 X S-P X 0.86 0.61 0.20
25 1 2.5 3.45 3.83 5.50 M-C 0.95 4.9 A/D-P X 1.15 0.81 0.20
26 Ext. 3.0 3.43 4.02 5.00 M-C 1.12 4.3 X A/D-P X 0.76 0.54 0.41
27 Typ. 3.0 3.74 4.44 6.00 M-C 0.77 4.3 X A/D-P X 0.87 0.62 0.41
28 Int./Ext. 2.5 3.66 3.94 6.25 C 1.08 5.8 A/D-P X 1.45 1.03 0.20
12

29 1 2.5 6.78 6.78 6.00 C 0.54 4.4 X A/D-P X 1.09 0.77 0.20
2 3.0 3.91 4.51 6.25 N-C 0.48 3.7 S-P 0.70 0.49 0.41
30 5,7 3.0 3.91 4.51 6.75 N-C 0.48 3.7 S-P 0.70 0.49 0.41
9 3.0 4.54 4.77 9.50 N-C 0.54 X 4.5 X A/D-P 1.04 0.74 0.41
1 3.0 2.45 2.45 3.50 N-C 0.21 2.7 N-P 0.57 0.40 0.41
31 3 3.0 2.53 2.53 4.25 N-C 0.21 2.7 N-P 0.57 0.40 0.41
5 3.0 2.03 2.03 3.00 N-C 0.22 2.8 N-P 0.51 0.36 0.41
1 2.0 8.54 8.54 9.50 C 0.97 7.6 U/D-P 5.57 3.94 0.44
2 2.0 8.54 8.54 9.75 C 0.97 7.6 U/D-P 5.57 3.94 0.44
32
3 3.0 9.61 9.61 9.75 C 0.68 6.3 U/D-P 3.08 2.18 0.49
4 5.0 6.87 6.87 7.25 C 0.54 6.3 U/D-P 1.56 1.10 0.41

Notes :
1. The gray shading in the Design Guide 11 column indicates that the apeak/g of the floor system is less than or equal to 0.50 % of gravity and is an
acceptable floor.
2. The gray shading in the SCI column indicates that the arms/g of the floor system is less than or equal to the corresponding alimit/g and is an acceptable
floor.
3. The check marks indicate that the particular criterion complies with the corresponding subjective analysis. The “X” marks indicate that the
particular criterion does not comply with the corresponding subjective analysis.
4. In the Subjective Analysis column, “N-C” represents no complaints, “C” represents complaints, and “M-C” represents many complaints.
5. In the Modified Reiher-Meister column, “N-P” represents not perceptible, “S-P” represents slightly perceptible, “A/D-P” represents acceptable but
distinctly perceptible, “U/D-P” represents unacceptable and distinctly perceptible.
Floors with Open Web Joists and Hot Rolled Girders

Table 2 shows the results of the criteria comparisons for bays comprised of open web joist framing for secondary
members and hot-rolled shapes for primary members. For the bays evaluated using the Modified Reiher-Meister
scale there was 47% agreement with the subjective evaluations. When the bays were evaluated using the Murray
Criterion, 67% of the evaluations agree with the corresponding subjective responses. Results from 13 of 15 or 87%
of the bays analyzed using the AISC/CISC Design Guide criteria agree with the corresponding subjective
evaluations. Results from the bays evaluated using the SCI acceptability criteria are in 53% compliance with the
subjective evaluations. For about 7% of the bays, all four of the acceptability criteria and the corresponding
subjective evaluations are in complete agreement. There is no case were there is disagreement between all four of
the acceptability criteria and the corresponding subjective evaluations.

Floors with Open Web Joists and Joist Girders

Table 3 shows the results of the criteria comparisons for floor systems comprised of joist girders for primary
members and open web joists for secondary members. The bays evaluated using the Modified Reiher-Meister
acceptability scale have the least compliance with only 65% of the floor systems agreeing with the subjective
evaluations. When the bays were evaluated using the Murray Criterion, results for 71% of the cases are in
agreement with the corresponding subjective evaluations. Results for 15 of 17 or 88% of the bays analyzed using the
Design Guide criteria agree with the corresponding subjective evaluations. The results for bays evaluated using the
SCI acceptability criteria show 82% agreement with the subjective evaluations. Results for 41 % of the bays are in
complete agreement with all four of the acceptability criteria. The are no results where there is complete
disagreement between all four of the acceptability criteria and the corresponding subjective evaluations.

SUMMARY

Table 4 summarizes the major results from the acceptability criteria comparisons. The methods and criteria
established in the AISC/CISI Design Guide clearly give the best results, 88% compliance, for predicting the
behavior of floor systems for all three types of framing analyzed. With the exception of floor systems comprised of
hot-rolled primary members and secondary open web joist framing, the criteria presented by the SCI is second best
for predicting floor performance. The Modified Reiher-Meister scale and Murray Criterion have the lowest
agreement percentages, 53% and 69% of the four criteria.

Table 4 – Criteria Comparison Summary

Agreement: Agreement:
Agreement: Agreement: SCI
Modified Reiher- Murray
Framing Design Guide 11 Criteria
Meister Criterion
(%) (%)
(%) (%)
Hot-Rolled
47 68 89 68
Shapes
Hot-Rolled
47 67 87 53
w/Joists
Joist Girders
65 71 88 82
w/Joists
Overall 53 69 88 69

Note: Agreement refers to the percentage of cases studies where the subjective evaluation
agrees with the specific criteria.

13
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on findings from the criteria comparisons, the AISC/CISC procedure is the most accurate and it is
recommended that it be used to evaluate the acceptability of office floor systems for occupant-induced vibrations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The study reported here was funded in part by NUCOR Research and Development, Norfolk, Nebraska.

REFERENCES

Hicks, S. J., Lawson, R. M., King, C. M. (2000). “SCI RT803: Design Guide for Vibrations of Long Span
Composite Floors.” Steel Construction Institute, Ascot, Great Britain.

Murray, T. M. (1975). “Design to Prevent Floor Vibrations.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 3rd Qtr., Chicago, Illinois,
pp. 82-87.

Murray, T. M. (1981). “Acceptability Criterion for Occupant-Induced Floor Vibrations.” Engineering Journal,
AISC, 2nd Qtr., Chicago, Illinois, pp. 62-70.

Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., Ungar, E. E. (1997). “AISC/CISI Steel Design Guide Series 11: Floor Vibrations Due
to Human Activity.” American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

Lenzen, K.H. (1966). “Vibration of Steel Joist –Concrete Slab Floors.” Engineering Journal, AISC, 3rd Qtr.,
Chicago, Illinois, pp. 133-136.

Reiher, H. and Meister, F.J. (1931). “The Effect of Vibration on People.” Translated from Forsch. Geb. Ing. Wes:
2(11) 381-6, by U.S. Air Material Command, Translation F-TS-616-RE, Wright Field, Ohio, AMC, 1946.

Wyatt, T. A. (1989). “SCI Publication 076: Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors”, Steel Construction Institute,
Ascot, Great Britain.

14