buildings

Review
Review of Vibration Assessment Methods for Steel-Timber
Composite Floors
Najmeh Cheraghi-Shirazi 1,2 , Keith Crews 3 and Sardar Malek 1,2, *

1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada
2 Centre for Advanced Materials and Related Technology (CAMTEC), University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty
Road, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada
3 School of Civil Engineering, Advanced Engineering Building, The University of Queensland, Staff House
Road, St. Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
* Correspondence: smalek@uvic.ca

Abstract: Human comfort is recognized as an essential serviceability requirement for timber floors.
Although several standards and design criteria are available for designing steel and concrete floors,
there is no consensus among researchers on the applicability of such design methods to timber
composite floors. Adding steel to timber floors is intended to create long spans, however, vibration is
still a major challenge in achieving longer spans. To highlight the extent of this issue, a comprehensive
search in the literature was conducted. The most common vibration criteria that may be used to assess
the performance of steel-timber composite floors under human-induced vibrations were reviewed.
For lightweight composite floors, the 1 kN deflection limit was found to be the most suitable vibration
limit based on a wide range of subjective evaluation studies. For composite floors comprising steel
and heavier timber subfloors, the relevance of 1 kN deflection criterion and other criteria suggested
in the literature are questionable due to the lack of subjective evaluation studies. In the advent of
advanced computing and data analysis, conducting detailed numerical analysis validated by accurate
on-site measurements is recommended. Special attentions should be given to accurate estimation of
connection stiffness and damping ratio according to the findings of this study.
Citation: Cheraghi-Shirazi, N.;
Crews, K.; Malek, S. Review of Keywords: vibration; finite element analysis; timber; steel; frequency; deflection; standards
Vibration Assessment Methods for
Steel-Timber Composite Floors.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122061
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Jan Fořt As steel-timber composite floors are emerging as a solution in the construction of
Received: 30 October 2022
mass timber buildings with longer spans, human comfort is becoming an important ser-
Accepted: 15 November 2022
viceability concern for the designers of such buildings. In the context of available design
Published: 24 November 2022
standards and code requirements, designing composite floors according to vibration limits
can be debatable. There are some general design guides such as the Design Guide for
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Footfall Induced Vibration of Structures (CCIP-016 [1]) and AISC Design Guide 11 [2] that
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
practitioners commonly use for vibration assessment of concrete, steel, and composite
published maps and institutional affil-
floors. In addition to general design guides, specific standards for timber structures such
iations.
as Eurocode 5 [3], Canadian Wood Council (CWC) [4], Canadian Standards Association
(CSA O86-19) [5], CLT Handbook [6], and the American Engineered Wood Association
APA–E710 [7] have specific provisions for the vibration performance of timber floors. Some
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
researchers also recommend SCI P354 [8] for lightweight cold-formed steel floors including
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. those with timber floorboards.
This article is an open access article To the authors’ knowledge, there is still no consensus among researchers on the appli-
distributed under the terms and cability of different criteria for the vibration performance of composite flooring systems
conditions of the Creative Commons comprising steel joists and wood-based flooring panels. However, it should be noted that
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// some vibration criteria and assessment methods have gained more attention for timber and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ composite floors in the literature recently [9–17]. To better understand the discrepancy of
4.0/). such methods, some commonly used vibration criteria are briefly described below. The

Buildings 2022, 12, 2061. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122061 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 2 of 26

validity of such criteria in the context of experimental and numerical studies are explained
in Sections 2 and 3. Some future works are highlighted in Section 4.

1.1. Vibration Criteria for Lightweight Timber Floors

The most important criterion for lightweight joisted timber floors was introduced by
Onysko et al. [18]. Static deflection of the floor under 1 kN concentrated load was found
to be an appropriate parameter to assess the vibration performance of short-span timber
floors, including solid timber joists and conventional subfloors [9]. Onysko and co-workers
suggested the following limits (Equations (1-a) and (1-b)) for the floor deflection due to
1 kN force:
∆ ≤ 2 mm for L < 3 m (1-a)
∆ ≤ 8/L1.3 for L ≥ 3 m (1-b)
where L is span length (m). Equation (1-b) has been modified in Canadian Wood Council
(CWC [4]) for the span length of more than 5.5 m as:

∆ ≤ 2.55/L0.63 f or L ≥ 5.5 m (2)

Applied Technology Council (ATC) Design Guide [19] provides similar equation
(Equation (3)) to limit the deflection of lightweight floors with a fundamental frequency of
more than 8 Hz:
∆ ≤ 0.61 + 2.54e−0.59( L−1.95) ≤ 2.0 mm (3)
It should be highlighted that Swedish [20] and Australian [21] methods use constant
values of 1.5 mm and 2 mm to limit the 1 kN deflection of the floors, respectively. According
to these standards, the frequency of the floors should be greater than 8 Hz.
Dolan et al. [22] defined the frequency of more than 14 Hz and 15 Hz as the criteria for
acceptable floors in occupied and unoccupied buildings, respectively. Combining frequency
and 1 kN deflection, Hu and Chui [23] proposed a different vibration criterion for wood-
based floors ( f /d0.44 ≥ 18.7). Employing a different approach, SCI P354 [8] presented
vibration criteria for lightweight cold-formed steel composite floors with wood-based
subfloors to limit the frequency, deflection, and response factor (or VDV) of such floors (see
Appendix A).
Based on the deflection and unit impulse velocity response of timber floors with a
frequency more than 8 Hz, Eurocode 5 [3] considers the following two vibration criteria.
w
≤∆ (4)
F

v ≤ b ( f 1 ζ −1) (5)
where w is the floor’s vertical deflection (mm) under a concentrated load of F (kN), v is the
unit impulse velocity response (m/(Ns2 )), and ζ is the modal damping ratio. Recommended
damping ratios for timber floors are 1% in Eurocode 5 [3] and 2% in the UK National Annex
(UKNA) [24] to Eurocode 5. More details have been provided in Appendix B. According
to UK National Annex (UKNA) to Eurocode 5, the floor deflection due to the 1 kN force,
∆ (mm), should satisfy the following requirements [25]:

∆ ≤ 1.8 (mm) for L < 4 m (6-a)

∆ ≤ 16, 500/L1 .1 (mm) for L ≥ 4 m (6-b)

where L is the floor span (mm).
The relationship between ∆ and b can be formulated as follows [25]:

b = 180 − 60∆ ∆ ≤ 1 mm (7-a)

b = 160 − 40∆ ∆ > 1 mm (7-b)

Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 3 of 26

Toratti and Talja [26] defined vibration criteria through a comprehensive study on the
lightweight steel and timber floors. Different classes were defined for offices and residences,
and limits were assumed for each class in terms of aw,RMS , vRMS , vmax, umax and deflection.
Peak velocity limit of 8 mm/s and 1 kN static deflection limit of 0.5 mm and aw,RMS limit of
0.075 m/s2 were defined for a normal apartment. They found for high-frequency floors
(f > 10 Hz), peak velocity and static deflection limits are appropriate parameters to limit
the floor’s vibration.

1.2. General Vibration Criteria for Other Floors

In addition to the criteria described in Section 1.1, the vibration performance of
timber floors under human-induced force may also be evaluated by other indicators;
Peak (or RMS) acceleration, peak velocity, and Vibration Dose Value (VDV) have been
recommended to assess the performance of floors according to ISO [27,28], BS 6472-1 [29],
CCIP-016 [1] (see Appendix C), and AISC design guide 11 [2] (see Appendix D). AISC
design 11 [2] and CCIP-016 [1] provide two distinct approaches (simplified equations
and finite element (FE) analysis method) to address floor vibration. Although simplified
equations can be used for rectangular floors, they have been calibrated for concrete and
steel floors and may not be applicable to timber composite floors. Furthermore, such
equations cannot be used for irregular floors with large openings or cantilevers. Thus,
using such simplified equations for long-span timber composite floors is currently not
recommended. AISC DG 37 [30] recommends the U.S. mass timber floor vibration design
guide [31], including CCIP-016 [1] and AISC design guide 11 [2], for steel frame structures
with timber floors. However, the accuracy range of the equations in these design guides
has not been investigated experimentally for steel-timber composite floors to the authors’
knowledge. For mass timber floors, Canadian CLT Handbook [6] and CSA O86-19 [5]
suggest an empirical equation (Equation (8)) for the vibration-controlled span design of
CLT floors. This simplified equation has been proposed based on testing several one-span
simply supported floors:
 0.29
( EI )e f f
106
L ≤ 0.11 (8)
m0.12
Here, m is the floor mass per panel width (kg/m) and (EI)eff is its effective bending
stiffness (Nmm2 ).
As will be demonstrated in this paper, there are disparities between various perfor-
mance indicators and the limits set in existing standards and design guides. Currently,
deciding whether an existing composite floor passes a certain analytical serviceability
check is quite subjective to structural engineers. Different criteria require calculating the
floor response (e.g., the floor’s acceleration, velocity, and deflection) due to a dynamic
(e.g., walking or running) or static load. As an alternative to simple equations provided
in standards, a FE model may be used to carefully investigate the floor response due to
walking in terms of deflection, acceleration, or velocity [32].
Based on different vibration design criteria suggested in the literature, a steel-timber
composite (STC) floor may be acceptable according to some standards, while it is unac-
ceptable according to a few others. Hence, it is necessary to review all experimental and
numerical studies on such floors to better understand the source of disparities between var-
ious standards. As construction of mass timber buildings with composite floors comprising
steel and engineered wood products is becoming popular, a review of design methods
could guide structural engineers in choosing the most relevant vibration design method(s)
to a specific project.

2. Experimental Studies on Vibration Performance of Lightweight Steel-Timber Floors

Kraus [33] conducted an experimental study on the vibration performance of cold-
formed steel floors with 19 mm OSB subfloors. Static tests, heel drop tests, and walking
tests were performed to find the 1 kN deflection, frequency, and time-history acceleration
 2. Experimental Studies on Vibration Performance of Lightweight Steel-Timber
Floors
Kraus [33] conducted an experimental study on the vibration performance of cold-
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 formed steel floors with 19 mm OSB subfloors. Static tests, heel drop tests, and walking 4 of 26
tests were performed to find the 1 kN deflection, frequency, and time-history acceleration
of floors due to walking on floors with the span length of less than 6 m. Walking tests
were
of conducted
floors by a 240
due to walking on lb (109with
floors kg) the
human
spanwalking
length ofparallel
less thanand 6 m.perpendicular
Walking teststo werethe
steel joists. Measured floor responses were employed to evaluate
conducted by a 240 lb (109 kg) human walking parallel and perpendicular to the steel joists. the floors’ vibration ac-
cording to Canadian [4], American [19], Swedish [20], and Australian
Measured floor responses were employed to evaluate the floors’ vibration according to [21] standard. Based
on human[4],
Canadian subjective
Americanevaluation,
[19], Swedish the[20],
Canadian standard[21]
and Australian [4] standard.
was recommended for the
Based on human
studied STC floors. Further research on floors with longer
subjective evaluation, the Canadian standard [4] was recommended for the studied spans and a wider range ofSTC
joist
spacing
floors. were suggested.
Further research on floors with longer spans and a wider range of joist spacing were
To
suggested. better understand the effect of various parameters on the vibration performance
of lightweight steel-timber
To better understand thefloors,
effect researchers at the University
of various parameters of Waterloo
on the vibration conductedofa
performance
multi-phase study on the vibration performance of cold-formed steel
lightweight steel-timber floors, researchers at the University of Waterloo conducted a multi- floors [34–37]. Light-
weight composite floors comprising cold-formed steel C-shape
phase study on the vibration performance of cold-formed steel floors [34–37]. Lightweight joists with and without
web openings
composite floors were examined;
comprising plywood, oriented
cold-formed strand
steel C-shape board
joists (OSB),
with fiber-reinforced
and without web open- ce-
mentwere
ings panels, and cold-formed
examined; steel decks
plywood, oriented wereboard
strand considered
(OSB), as subfloors. Thecement
fiber-reinforced effectspanels,
of var-
iouscold-formed
and parameters steel on the floors’
decks were frequency,
considered maximum deflection,
as subfloors. andof
The effects damping were inves-
various parameters
on the floors’ frequency, maximum deflection, and damping were investigated.were
tigated. Additionally, the vibration behavior of in situ and laboratory floors com-
Addition-
pared. Subjective evaluation tests were conducted on floors with
ally, the vibration behavior of in situ and laboratory floors were compared. Subjective a span length of around
6 m and the
evaluation results
tests werewere presented
conducted in thewith
on floors master’s
a spanthesis
lengthof Liu [37]. The
of around 6m experiments
and the resultsand
the key
were findingsinofthe
presented themaster’s
comprehensive
thesis ofstudy conducted
Liu [37]. at the University
The experiments and theofkey Waterloo
findings[34–of
37]comprehensive
the are summarized below.
study conducted at the University of Waterloo [34–37] are summarized
below.The vibration characteristics of lightweight cold-formed steel-timber residential
floorsTheof vibration
various span lengths were
characteristics measured by
of lightweight Xu and Tangorra
cold-formed [34]. residential
steel-timber The typicalfloors
plan-
view of their floors is presented in Figure 1. Two types of tests, i.e., static and dynamic
of various span lengths were measured by Xu and Tangorra [34]. The typical plan-view
tests,
of theirwere
floorsperformed on each
is presented floor. From
in Figure 1. Two static
typestests, each floor’s
of tests, load-sharing
i.e., static and dynamic capability
tests,
and its
were maximum
performed ondeflection
each floor.underFromastatic
statictests,
load each
of 1 kN wereload-sharing
floor’s determined.capability
In addition andto
static
its tests, dynamic
maximum tests
deflection wereaconducted
under static loadto offind
1 kNdynamic responses of
were determined. In the floors,tosuch
addition as
static
their dynamic
tests, frequencytests andwere
damping ratio. to find dynamic responses of the floors, such as their
conducted
frequency and damping ratio.

Figure1.1.Plan-view
Figure Plan-viewofofthe
the cold-formed
cold-formed steel-timber
steel-timber composite
composite floors
floors tested
tested byand
by Xu Xu Tangorra
and Tangorra
[34].
[34]. Tongue-in-groove OSB sheathing was used as the subflooring. Reproduced with permission.
Tongue-in-groove OSB sheathing was used as the subflooring. Reproduced with permission.

From laboratory testing, the effects of the several construction details such as floor
span and support condition at the boundaries (i.e., the effect of the joist ends or all four
edges supported), joist end restraints (free or restrained to rotate), blocking, bridging, screw
pattern, ceiling, and gluing subfloor on the static and dynamic performance of the floor
were quantified and compared in terms of the natural frequencies, maximum deflection,
and damping ratio. In addition to laboratory testing, on-site testing was also conducted.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 5 of 26

The results of laboratory and on-site tests are summarized in Table 1. Due to different
restraints at the joist ends in the laboratory tests, on-site results exhibited generally higher
first natural frequencies and smaller maximum deflections. It should be emphasized that
the on-site floors had more damping, most probably due to non-structural components.
Additionally, less acceleration was measured in the response of a finished floor compared
to an unfinished floor. However, as shown in Table 1, the frequency of fully finished floors
is less than that of unfinished floors. Hence, it can be concluded that the frequency is not
an appropriate indicator to evaluate the vibration of lightweight timber floors.

Table 1. Summary of laboratory and on-site results obtained from static and dynamic tests reported
in Xu and Tangorra [34].

Floorboard Maximum
Cold-Formed Steel Frequency Damping
Thickness and Span (m) Deflection
Joist Type (Hz) Ratio (%)
Type (mm)
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 27
C-203 × 41 × 1.22
Laboratory floors * 16 mm OSB 4.12–6.754 10.51–15.98 1.01–1.69 1.29–2.59
C-254 × 41 × 1.91
On-site unfinished C-254 × 41 × 1.91
floors * Table 2. Laboratory
16 mm plywood
C-254 ×and
41 in situ construction
× 1.52 configuration
5.089–5.912 tested by Parnell
14.9–18.0 et al. [35]. See
0.91–1.20 Figure 3
5–6
for a typical cross-section of the floors.
On-site fully
16 mm plywood C-254 × 41 × 1.52 5.302 12.3–13.6 - 6–6.5
finished floors Floor Support
Span (m) Joist Section Subfloor Framing
* All floors had two supported edges. System
OSB, FC, FC with
4.42 CSW&TDW
The subjective evaluation tests on floors with span lengths of 6.112 m and 6.754 m
Laboratory LR Balloon framing
were conducted by Liu [37]. The floors were classified free support
as acceptable, non-acceptable, and
floors A person sitting evaluated the floor vibration whilst a 185framing
UFS with LR FC Platform
5.18–5.94
marginal floors. TDW lb person
with LR
was walking in directions parallel, perpendicular, and diagonal to the joists. It is worth
FC with
mentioning that a simple calculation shows LRthat the
supported
examined onfloors
all do not satisfy the ATC
In situ floors 4.51–6.46 TDW Balloon framing
UFS with
vibration limit of 1 kN force. Hence, goodLR agreementfour sides subjective evaluation and
between
Notes: vibration prediction based on ATC’s criterion was expected.
 Subfloors: To understand the effect of various subfloor types, Parnell et al. [35] investigated
OSB: 19 mm oriented-strand board
the static and dynamic responses of 43 full-scale floors ranging from 4.4 to 6.5 m long.
FC: 19 mm fiber-reinforced cementof the floors, including the floor span, joist section, floor system, joist-end
The details
FC with LR: 19 mm FCrestraints,
structural and the
panel type of
topped subfloor,
with a 19 mmarelift
listed in Table 2. Cold-formed
of LEVELROCK steel deck, OSB,
floor underlayment
and fiber-reinforced cement (FC) were used as a subfloor. To evaluate the effects of joists’
UFS with LR: 0.75 mm Dietrich cold-formed steel deck (UFS) topped with a 38.1 mm lift (to bottom flute) of LR
web openings on the modal properties of the floors, two joist types, i.e., Dietrich C-stud
floor underlayment.
joists (CSW) and Dietrich TradeReady joists (TDW), with the same depth but different web
 The LR floor underlayment was a gypsum-based, self-leveling floor topping.
openings, were used as illustrated in Figure 2. The plan-view and cross-section of the tested
 All floors were constructed
floorswith
are blocking
providedand strapping.
in Figure 3.

Figure 2.2. Cold-formed

Figure Cold-formed steel
steel joists
joistsused
usedininParnell
Parnelletetal.al.[35]:
[35]:(a)(a)
Dietrich C-stud
Dietrich C-studjoists (CSW);
joists (b)
(CSW);
Dietrich
(b) DietrichTradeReady
TradeReadyjoists
joists(TDW).
(TDW).The Thefigures
figures are
are reproduced
reproduced from the company
from the company website
website
(www.clarkdietrich.com(accessed
(www.clarkdietrich.com (accessedon on11January
January2022)).
2022)).
 free support
floors UFS with LR FC Platform framing
5.18–5.94 TDW
with LR
FC with LR supported on all
In situ floors 4.51–6.46 TDW Balloon framing
UFS with LR four sides
Notes: 2022, 12, 2061
Buildings 6 of 26
 Subfloors:
OSB: 19 mm oriented-strand board
FC: 19 mm fiber-reinforced
Tablecement
2. Laboratory and in situ construction configuration tested by Parnell et al. [35]. See Figure 3
FC with LR: 19 mm FC for structural
a typicalpanel toppedofwith
cross-section a 19 mm lift of LEVELROCK floor underlayment
the floors.
UFS with LR: 0.75 mm Dietrich cold-formed steel deck (UFS) topped with a 38.1 mm lift (to bottom flute) of LR
Floor Support
floor underlayment.
Span (m) Joist Section Subfloor Framing
System
 The LR floor underlayment was a gypsum-based, self-leveling floor topping.
4.42 CSW&TDW OSB, FC, FC with LR
All floors
 Laboratory were constructed with blocking and strapping.
floors free support
Balloon framing
5.18–5.94 TDW UFS with LR FC with LR Platform framing

FC with LR supported on all

In situ floors 4.51–6.46 TDW Balloon framing
UFS with LR four sides
Notes:
• Subfloors:
OSB: 19 mm oriented-strand board
FC: 19 mm fiber-reinforced cement
FC with LR: 19 mm FC structural panel topped with a 19 mm lift of LEVELROCK floor underlayment
UFS with LR: 0.75 mm Dietrich cold-formed steel deck (UFS) topped with a 38.1 mm lift (to bottom flute) of LR
floor underlayment.
• The LR floor underlaymentFigure
was a 2. Cold-formed self-leveling
gypsum-based, steel joists used
floorintopping.
Parnell et al. [35]: (a) Dietrich C-stud joists (CSW); (b)
• Dietrich TradeReady joists
All floors were constructed with blocking and strapping. (TDW). The figures are reproduced from the company website
(www.clarkdietrich.com (accessed on 1 January 2022)).

Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
The plan-view
plan-view and
and cross-section
cross-section of
of the
the cold-formed
cold-formed steel
steel floor
floor in
in Parnell
Parnell et
et al.
al. [35].
[35]. Repro-
Repro-
duced
duced with permission.
with permission.

The maximum static deflection of the floor under a point load of 1 kN was measured at
mid-span. Heel drop and sandbag tests were first performed to obtain the natural frequency
and damping ratio. Then, a walking test was conducted to evaluate the floor response
under footfall force. For this purpose, an 82 kg human walked parallel and perpendicular
to joist directions. Additionally, Parnell et al. [35] assessed the effects of construction
details such as large lip-reinforced web openings, subfloor material, strongback, and
the end framing condition on modal properties and center deflection of the floors. The
highest frequency, 26.3 Hz, was reported for a floor with the OSB subfloor, and the lowest
frequency, 10.6 Hz, was recorded for the UFS with the LR subfloor. Table 3 summarizes
the dynamic and static results of laboratory and in situ tests based on the floor system and
span length. The in situ floor systems had a higher first natural frequency and damping
ratio than corresponding laboratory floors. The authors noted that the in situ floors had
better responses in terms of frequency and damping, most probably due to the presence of
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 7 of 26

non-structural components and connections between different parts of floors. It is worth

mentioning that the recommended damping ratio for timber floors is 1% in Eurocode 5 [3].
However, the measured damping ratio for lightweight steel-timber floors tested by Parnell
et al. [35] was more than 2% and 7% in laboratory and in situ tests, respectively (see Table 3).

Table 3. The static and dynamic results for laboratory and in situ floors with various conditions of
subfloor, joist type, ceiling, and strongback, evaluated by Parnell et al. [35].

Damping Ratio, Maximum Deflection

Span (m) Frequency, f 1 (Hz)
β (%) (mm)
Laboratory floors
4.42–5.94 11.4–26.3 2.1–4.7 0.25–0.59
(Balloon framing)
Laboratory floors
4.42–5.94 11.1–17.9 3.5–7 0.25–0.67
(Platform framing)
Laboratory floors
4.42–5.94 10.6–19.1 2.3–7.7 0.26–0.71
(Simple support)
In situ floors
4.51–6.46 14.4–16.6 7.1–8.8 0.28–0.46
(Balloon framing)

All measured static deflections were found to be less than 0.71 mm, which is acceptable
according to ATC Design Guide [19]. In addition to deflection, the RMS acceleration
response of the tested in situ floors showed satisfactory floor performance according to the
ISO [28] criterion; ISO recommends using RMS acceleration as a vibration performance
indicator. The RMS acceleration considers changes in vibration amplitude over time and
hence could be different from peak values predicted in transient vibration analysis. Figure 4
shows agreement between the results of ATC [19] and ISO for in situ floors. Floors with
acceptable vibration performance according to the deflection limit prepared in ATC
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of[19]
27
(Figure 4a) were also acceptable according to the RMS acceleration limit provided in ISO
for offices and residences [28] (Figure 4b).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Investigation
Investigation of
of floor
floor vibration
vibration for
for in
in situ
situ floors
floors tested
tested by
by Parnell
Parnell et
et al.
al. [35]
[35] according
according to
to
(a) ATC [19] and (b) ISO [28]. Reproduced from [35] with permission.
(a) ATC [19] and (b) ISO [28]. Reproduced from [35] with permission.

AA general
general discussion
discussion comparing
comparing the
the results
results of
of all
alllaboratory
laboratoryand
andin
insitu
situtests
testson
oncold-
cold-
formed
formed steel floors conducted at the University of Waterloo has been presented in Xu[36].
steel floors conducted at the University of Waterloo has been presented in Xu [36].
The range of measured frequencies and maximum deflections obtained from more than
100 floors tested in the laboratory and 25 in situ floors are included in Table 4. All reported
frequencies and deflections were more than 8 Hz and less than 1.9 mm, respectively. In
addition to conducting experiments, Xu [36] also examined several design methods for
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 8 of 26

The range of measured frequencies and maximum deflections obtained from more than
100 floors tested in the laboratory and 25 in situ floors are included in Table 4. All reported
frequencies and deflections were more than 8 Hz and less than 1.9 mm, respectively. In
addition to conducting experiments, Xu [36] also examined several design methods for
vibration performance of lightweight cold-formed steel floors. The fundamental frequencies
and span deflections of the laboratory tests were compared to those estimated using
CWC [4], ATC [19], Swedish [20], and Australian [21] method. Except the CWC method [4],
all other methods overestimated the floor frequency. Table 5 summarizes the performance
of the designed floors in Xu [36]. The results prove that a design based on only the
deflection limit of L/480 may not be conclusive, as some floors with that limit failed to
satisfy the requirements in some standards. On the other hand, floors designed based on
the ATC’s deflection method showed satisfactory performance according to other three
methods. The ATC [19] was found to provide the most restrictive limits compared to other
design methods.

Table 4. The results of the frequency and maximum deflection obtained from the multi-phase study
on the vibration performance of cold-formed steel floors prepared by Xu [36].

Fundamental Frequency (Hz) Maximum Deflection (mm)

Laboratory floors 9.8–26.3 0.17–1.89
In situ floors 9.9–35.7 0.2–1.20

Table 5. Vibration assessment of laboratory floors with span lengths designed based on the ATC
method [19] and the deflection limit of L/480, according to various design methods considered in
Xu [36]. Data reproduced from Xu [36] with permission.

Criteria Used for Span Design

ATC L/480 with L/480 with
Deflection [19] Living Room Bedroom
CWC method [4] satisfactory unsatisfactory unsatisfactory
ATC method [19] satisfactory unsatisfactory unsatisfactory
Swedish method [20] satisfactory satisfactory unsatisfactory
Australian method [21] satisfactory satisfactory satisfactory

Subsequently, the measured fundamental frequency and span deflection of the floors
tested by Xu and Tangorra [34] with and without lightweight subfloor topping were
evaluated based on the ATC [19], AISC Design Guide 11 [38], and Smith, Chui, and Hu’s
method (SCH) [23,39]. The fundamental frequencies of all laboratory floors with simple
support conditions were over-predicted by the three methods. However, the frequency
results of in situ floors with simple support conditions were either under- or over-predicted
by these methods. It is worth mentioning that the peak acceleration response of the in situ
floors due to walking excitation was examined in Xu [36]. A simplified equation from AISC
Design Guide 11 [38] was used for this purpose:

ap Po e−0.35 f n
= (9)
g βW

where Po is the constant force of 0.29 kN, fn is the fundamental frequency of the floor, β is the
modal damping ratio, and W is the effective weight of the floor. The comparison between
the acceleration predictions from Equation (9) and the measured acceleration response
showed a significant difference. The authors noted that the underestimated damping
and the excitations provided by a person with a weight of 0.8 kN instead of the weight
recommended by AISC might contribute to this discrepancy. However, it should be noted
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 9 of 26

that Equation (9) can only be used for low-frequency floors (<9 Hz) according to the AISC
Design Guide 11 [38], while the floors examined in Xu [36] were mainly high-frequency
floors, and they required assessment based on equivalent sinusoidal peak acceleration
(aESPA ) instead of Equation (9). Accurate estimation of both the fundamental frequency and
the peak acceleration is an essential part of using the simple approach provided in AISC
Design Guide 11 [38]. For floors with complex boundary conditions, AISC recommends
using a FE analysis that identifies various vibration modes.
In summary, researchers at the University of Waterloo have conducted what to date
is the most comprehensive study on the vibration performance of lightweight floors com-
prising cold-formed steel joists and wood-based subfloors. According to their study, in
situ floors provided less acceleration due to walking and more damping than laboratory
floors and, therefore, demonstrated more acceptable behavior in terms of vibration perfor-
mance. They also demonstrated that partially constrained laboratory floors represented
the beam-to-column connection found in actual building floors. They did a subjective
evaluation of the floors with a span length of around 6 m and found ATC 1 kN deflection
criterion is appropriate for the evaluation of lightweight floors comprising cold-formed
steel joists and OSB subfloors. The results of 1 kN deflection and RMS acceleration of three
lightweight in situ floors due to walking showed good agreement between the ATC [19]
and ISO limits [28].
Similar to Hu and Chui [23], Zhang and Xu [40] collected all data from [33,37,41–43] to
create new criteria for cold-formed steel floors. For this purpose, they used the combination
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27
of measured 1 kN deflection and floor frequency of 65 floors, considering the subjective
evaluation of the floors. The span of all floors was between 2.16 m to 8.8 m. Their proposed
criterion ( f /d0.44 ≥ 15.9) against the subjective evaluation of all floors are presented in
presented
Figure 5. Thein Figure
accuracy5. The accuracy
of the proposed of the proposed
criterion criterion
( f /d0.44 ≥ 15.9) (𝑓to .
⁄𝑑predict≥ 15.9
floor) tovibration
predict
floor vibration
for floors with for floors
a span withless
length a span
thanlength
6 m andlessbetween
than 6 m6and m andbetween
8.8 m6was m and65%8.8 andm 80%,
was
65% and 80%, The
respectively. respectively.
accuracyThe accuracy
of the proposedof thecriterion
proposed forcriterion
all floors forwas
all floors
aboutwas about
72.3%. It
72.3%.
should Itbeshould be noted
noted that thatfloors
marginal marginal
were floors wereacceptable
considered consideredfloors. acceptable
Although floors. Alt-
t Zhang
hough
and Xut Zhang and Xu a[40]
[40] provided newprovided a new
criterion, criterion,
according according
to Section 1.1,totheSection
authors 1.1,ofthe authors
this paper
of this paper
believe believe
that the 1 kNthat the 1 kN
deflection candeflection canbest
still be the stillindicator
be the best forindicator for the
the vibration vibration
assessment
assessment
of wood-based of lightweight
wood-based lightweight
floors. floors. criterion
The new proposed The new proposed
( f /d0.44 ≥ 15.9) and criterion
1 kN
(𝑓 ⁄𝑑 .
deflection 15.9) for
≥ limits andevaluating
1 kN deflection limits performance
the vibration for evaluating the vibrationlightweight
of wood-based performance of
floors
wood-based
will be comparedlightweight floors
in detail in thewill be compared
discussion in detail in the discussion section.
section.

Figure
Figure 5.5. The
The new
new vibration
vibration criteria
criteria proposed
proposed by
by Zhang
Zhang and
and Xu
Xu [40]
[40] for
for lightweight
lightweight cold-formed
cold-formed
steel
steel floors
floors versus
versus subjective
subjective evaluation.
evaluation. Reproduced
Reproduced from
from [40]
[40] with
with permission.
permission.

3.
3. Experimental
Experimental and
and Numerical
Numerical Studies
Studies onon Mass
Mass Timber Composite Floors
Timber Composite Floors Comprising
Compris-
ing Steel
Steel Beams
Beams andand
CLTCLT Panels
Panels
In
In addition
addition to
to lightweight
lightweight wood-based
wood-based floorboards,
floorboards, heavier
heavier new
new products
products such
such as
as
CLT
CLT and
and NLT can be
NLT can be used
used as
as subfloors
subfloors in
in timber
timber composite
composite floors.
floors. CLT
CLT can
can be
be used
used to
to
construct long-span floors because it can be combined with other building materials, such
construct long-span floors because it can be combined with other building materials, such
as steel and concrete [6]. In lightweight, long-span floors, vibration is often a serviceability
concern. The vibration performance of mass timber composite floors comprising steel
beams and CLT panels has been studied by Huang et al. [44] and Wang et al. [45]. They
developed numerical (FE) models to examine the effects of some parameters such as the
floor’s boundary conditions and multi-person loading on the vibration behavior of CLT
 Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 10 of 26

as steel and concrete [6]. In lightweight, long-span floors, vibration is often a serviceability
concern. The vibration performance of mass timber composite floors comprising steel
beams and CLT panels has been studied by Huang et al. [44] and Wang et al. [45]. They
dings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW developed numerical (FE) models to examine the effects of some parameters 11 of 27 such as the

floor’s boundary conditions and multi-person loading on the vibration behavior of CLT
floors. In each work, experimental tests were conducted to validate the numerical models.
componentsThose
and the measured
numerical damping
studies will beratio of 3%inwere
discussed considered
the following in the In
sections. numerical
order to investigate
model. Validation
the floorofvibration
numericalduemodel againstHuang
to running, experiment wasused
et al. [44] conducted
the Open in Software
terms of for
theEarthquake
floor frequency (see Table
Engineering 6) and time
Simulation history acceleration
(OPENSEES) framework of atopoint at theacenter
simulate of CLT
CLT floor system under
floor due tohuman-induced
running. force. The finite element (FE) model was based on a real two-story steel
framing system comprising CLT panels as subfloors. The plan view of this system is
depicted in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Plan of the6.CLT

Figure Planfloor
of theconstructed at the University
CLT floor constructed Centre Farnborough
at the University by Huang
Centre Farnborough byetHuang
al. et al. [44].
[44]. Reproduced with permission.
Reproduced with permission.

Table 6. The floorIn details

theirand frequency
study, Huangresults investigated
et al. [44] by Huang
used beams et al. [44]to(see
and springs Figure
model 6 for layers of
different
plan view of the
the CLT
floor).panel. Additional springs were employed to model the connection between steel
beams and CLT panels. A large value of stiffness was assigned to springs to inhibit any slip
Floorboard Hot-Rolled
between layers andSteel I- Floor
eliminate theDimen- First
effects of the Natural
screws. Frequency
It should (Hz)that choosing a
be noted
Type very high value
Beams for spring stiffnesssion and assumingNumerical
zero slip are Experimental
not common practices in
3-Ply CLT floor UB 406 × 140 × 46
industry as they could lead9.0 to m
unsafe designs. The location of screws and their spacings in
× 6.6 m 7.6 7.5
(t = 120 mm) UB 203and
CLT-to-CLT × 133 × 30
CLT-to-steel beams connections were not specified. The beam-to-column
connection was considered by defining restrains at two ends of the beam in three directions.
The developed
However,FEthe model
effectinof[44]
thiswas employed on
assumption to investigate
the vibration the behavior
effects of of
some
thepa-
floor was not
rameters, such as the size The
investigated. and number
FE model of was
steelused
beams to as well as athe
simulate beam supporting
person’s con-a weight of
running with
dition (in one-way
1 kN in or two-way),
a straight path onofthe
theCLT floors
floor vibration.
through According
15 points; the load to was
FE simulations,
applied to every point,
removing the middle beam (the beam on axis (2) in Figure 6) significantly decreased
step-by-step, using a force function. The weight of the non-structural the
components and
natural frequency to 2 Hzdamping
the measured while increasing
ratio of 3% thewere
steelconsidered
beam size in increased the natural
the numerical model.fre-
Validation of
quency to 9numerical
Hz from about
model 7.5against
Hz as experiment
expected. Anwas analytical model
conducted was employed
in terms based
of the floor frequency (see
on EquationTable
(10) to
6) obtain
and timethehistory
naturalacceleration
frequency ofofCLT floors.
a point Thecenter
at the analytical results
of CLT floorwere
due to running.
claimed to agree with the results of the FE model. However, some errors (less than 20%)
were reported. The authors employed VDV method in ISO 10137 [27] and BS 6472-1 [29]
to assess the vibration performance of their floors. The VDV was calculated based on
Equation (11).

1 𝑘
𝑓 = (10)
2𝜋 𝑚
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 11 of 26

Table 6. The floor details and frequency results investigated by Huang et al. [44] (see Figure 6 for
plan view of the floor).

Floorboard Hot-Rolled Steel Floor First Natural Frequency (Hz)

Type I-Beams Dimension Numerical Experimental
3-Ply CLT floor UB 406 × 140 × 46
9.0 m × 6.6 m 7.6 7.5
(t = 120 mm) UB 203 × 133 × 30

The developed FE model in [44] was employed to investigate the effects of some
parameters, such as the size and number of steel beams as well as the beam supporting
condition (in one-way or two-way), on the CLT floors vibration. According to FE simula-
tions, removing the middle beam (the beam on axis (2) in Figure 6) significantly decreased
the natural frequency to 2 Hz while increasing the steel beam size increased the natural
frequency to 9 Hz from about 7.5 Hz as expected. An analytical model was employed based
on Equation (10) to obtain the natural frequency of CLT floors. The analytical results were
claimed to agree with the results of the FE model. However, some errors (less than 20%)
were reported. The authors employed VDV method in ISO 10137 [27] and BS 6472-1 [29]
to assess the vibration performance of their floors. The VDV was calculated based on
Equation (11). s
1 ke f f
fn = (10)
2π m
Z T
0.25
VDV = a4w (t)dt (11)
0

where aw (t) is the weighted acceleration according to the frequency-weighting curve

presented in BS 6472-1 [29]. All tests were assessed for probabilities of adverse comments
for people. Removing the middle beam (on axis (2) in Figure 6) made the floor discomforting
to residents, as expected. Quantitatively, removing the middle beam changed VDV from
0.6 m/s−1.75 to 1.9 m/s−1.75 and made the floor discomforting to residents according to BS
6472-1. The acceptable ranges of the VDV values in BS 6472-1 [29] are given in Table 7. It
should be noted that the effects of some important parameters such as the type of screws
and spacing between them, CLT-to-CLT connections, thickness of CLT panel as well as
different beam to column connections were not considered in the numerical model. The
results of frequency, RMS acceleration, and VDV for each specimen due to running are
listed in Table 8. Interestingly, some specimens with different frequencies (e.g., No.3 and
No.11) had similar RMS accelerations while different VDVs were noted. Hence, different
standards and indicators for vibration performance can lead to contradictory results and
subjective evaluation is still needed.

Table 7. The ranges of the VDV values presented in BS 6472-1 [29].

Low Probability of
Adverse Comment Adverse Comment
Place and Time Adverse Comment
Possible (m/s−1.75 ) Probable (m/s−1.75 )
(m/s−1.75 )
Residential buildings
0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6
(16 h daytime)
Residential buildings
0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8
(8 h nighttime)
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 12 of 26

Table 8. Floor responses in terms of frequency, RMS acceleration and VDV due to running as
described in Huang et al. [44].

Floor Frequency (Hz) aRMS (m/s2 ) VDV (m/s−1.75 )

No.1 7.6 0.321 0.613
No.2 7.9 0.318 0.602
No.3 2 0.615 1.9
No.4 9.7 0.306 0.513
No.5 9.8 0.321 0.528
No.6 9.8 0.32 0.527
No.7 9.7 0.309 0.514
No.8 7.2 0.585 1.149
No.9 7.7 0.339 0.667
No.10 7.1 0.608 1.205
No.11 7.2 0.614 1.212

Employing the FE model developed by Huang et al. [44], Wang et al. [45] investigated
the vibration behavior of the one-way CLT floor under multi-person loading. The floor was
excited by defining a footfall force; the schematic of human-induced force applied to the
floor has been shown in Figure 7. The location of CLT-to-CLT panel and CLT-to-steel beam
connections, and the walking path along 9 points have been provided. However, some
details regarding the spacing between spring elements and stiffness of spring/connection
were not reported in Wang et al. [45]. General details of the experimental specimen
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27
comprising five 1.2 × 6.0 × 0.105 m CLT panels have been provided in Table 9. The
authors considered the weight of the furniture as a constant load applied to the floor.
The natural frequency of the floor was obtained using the heel drop test. The numerical
experimental
and results
experimental for the
results forfirst
thenatural frequency
first natural (see Table
frequency (see 9) and 9)
Table time history
and time acceler-
history
ation of pointofApoint
acceleration (see Figure
A (see7)Figure
due to7)
thedue
slow
to walking
the slowofwalking
one person showed
of one good
person agree-
showed
ment.
good agreement.

Figure7.7. The
Figure The scheme
schemeof
ofhuman-loading
human-loadingused
usedby
byWang
Wangetetal.
al.[45].
[45].Reproduced
Reproducedwith
withpermission.
permission.

Table 9. The floor details and frequency results of STC floors studied by Wang et al. [45]. A mass
of 0.5 ton was applied to represent the presence of the furniture.

First Natural Frequency (Hz)

CLT Panels Hot-Rolled Steel Beams Span (m)
FE Model Experiments
3-Ply CLT with
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 13 of 26

Table 9. The floor details and frequency results of STC floors studied by Wang et al. [45]. A mass of
0.5 ton was applied to represent the presence of the furniture.

First Natural Frequency (Hz)

CLT Panels Hot-Rolled Steel Beams Span (m)
FE Model Experiments
3-Ply CLT with
the thickness of HN 450 × 200 mm 6.0 5.16 5.21
105 mm

In addition to frequency, Wang et al. [45] examined their numerical results under the
one-person excitation based on the Vibration Dose Value (VDV) method. The different
types of motion of 1 to 5 persons were considered to investigate the accuracy of the
numerical model under multi-person loading. Slow walking, fast walking, and running
were simulated using different step frequencies of 1.3 Hz, 1.8 Hz, and 2.2 Hz. The VDV
results from numerical models and experimental tests are shown in Figure 8. The most
significant difference was related to the running of 5 persons. In almost all fast walking
and running models, the measured VDVs were higher than the numerical ones. In
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 other
of 27
words, the numerical model was unconservative in predicting VDV of the floor for fast
walking and running.

Figure
Figure 8.
8. VDVs
VDVsof ofthe
theone-way
one-wayCLT
CLTfloor
floor in
inexperimental
experimental testing
testing and
andnumerical
numerical modelling
modelling prepared
prepared
by Wang et al. [45]. Reproduced with permission.
by Wang et al. [45]. Reproduced with permission.

It should be
It should benoted
notedthat
thatthe
theabove
above FEFE models
models werewere developed
developed based
based on certain
on certain as-
assump-
sumptions and simplifications, validated against the experimental test of a specific floor.
tions and simplifications, validated against the experimental test of a specific floor. More
More
studiesstudies are required
are required to quantify
to quantify the effects
the effects of simplification
of simplification on theon the dynamic
dynamic response
response of the
floor [46]. The main simplification in [44] and [45] was to consider isolated substructures,
of the floor [46]. The main simplification in [44] and [45] was to consider isolated substruc-
including
tures, one span
including oneorspan
panel,
or regardless of the effect
panel, regardless of spring
of the stiffness
effect of springand distances,
stiffness real
and dis-
connections of beams to columns, and partitions on the floor vibration. Thus,
tances, real connections of beams to columns, and partitions on the floor vibration. Thus, the accept-
ability
the or unacceptability
acceptability of vibration
or unacceptability behavior of
of vibration a simple
behavior of one-span floor according
a simple one-span to
floor ac-
available standards may not be applicable for a whole floor in a real building.
cording to available standards may not be applicable for a whole floor in a real building. On the other
hand,
On theunderpredicted acceleration and
other hand, underpredicted VDV valuesand
acceleration highlight the need
VDV values for morethe
highlight detailed
need forFE
models and further combined numerical-experimental campaigns. Furthermore, subjective
more detailed FE models and further combined numerical-experimental campaigns. Fur-
evaluation of long-span STC floors under multi-person loading is needed to prove the
thermore, subjective evaluation of long-span STC floors under multi-person loading is
relevance of VDV limits to such floors.
needed to prove the relevance of VDV limits to such floors.
In a comprehensive research similar to Wang et al. [45], Chiniforush et al. [47] evaluated
In a comprehensive research similar to Wang et al. [45], Chiniforush et al. [47] evalu-
the behavior of steel-timber composite (STC) beams through a combined experimental-
ated the behavior of steel-timber composite (STC) beams through a combined experi-
numerical campaign. Six simply supported STC beams with a span of 5.8 m were con-
mental-numerical campaign. Six simply supported STC beams with a span of 5.8 m were
structed using steel girders (310UB32 grade) and CLT panels. The details of experimental
constructed using steel girders (310UB32 grade) and CLT panels. The details of experi-
mental specimens are summarized and provided in Table 10. The specimens had different
shear connectors and two CLT panel orientations. An impact hammer was employed to
excite the bending and torsional modes of the floors. The modal characteristics such as
mode shape, frequency, and damping ratio were obtained using the Enhanced Frequency
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 14 of 26

specimens are summarized and provided in Table 10. The specimens had different shear
connectors and two CLT panel orientations. An impact hammer was employed to excite
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27
the bending and torsional modes of the floors. The modal characteristics such as mode
shape, frequency, and damping ratio were obtained using the Enhanced Frequency Domain
Decomposition (EFDD) technique. The frequencies of the flexural mode of specimens with
Table CLT
different 11. Natural frequency (flexural
configurations, mode)and
i.e., parallel andperpendicular,
damping ratio ofare
various
givenSTC floors measured
in Table 11. Due by
to discrete CLT panels in STC floor with perpendicular configuration (see Figurewere
Chiniforush et al. [47]. CLT panels with different shear connectors and configurations tested.
9), the
natural frequency of such specimen was smaller than that of floors with parallel CLT panels.
Parallel CLT Perpendicular CLT
Floor Panel Span (m) Steel Joist Damping Ratio
Configuration Configuration
Table 10. The details of the six STC floors constructed and tested by Chiniforush et al. [47].
CLT 5.8 310UB32 21.40–24.73 Hz 17.19 Hz less than 2%
Panel Dimension (m) Shear Connector *
Floor Panel Parallel Panel orientation and continuity of panels were reported to have the
Perpendicular most significant
CLT-to-CLT
Connection
effect on the frequency
Configuration of the STC floors, while the effect of the shear connector type was
Configuration
Type Spacing (mm)

CLT
found to be6negligible.
2 pcs 3.0 × 1.0 × 0.12
This is consistent
pcs 1.0 × 1.0 × 0.12
with the findings
bolt/screw 250/300
of other researchers
-
who ana-
lyzed long-span timber composite and TCC floors [48–50]. To better understand the dy-
* The laminated timber panels are connected to the top flange of the steel through shear connectors.
namic behavior of floors, a FE model was created in ABAQUS©. Twenty-two unknown
variables
Table of one
11. Natural floor (flexural
frequency (E, G, μ,mode)
k) wereanddetermined
damping ratio using an updating
of various STC floorsprocedure.
measured byAfter
Chiniforush et al. [47]. CLT panels with different shear connectors and configurations were tested. of
calibration, the model was used to predict the frequency of other models. The results
the first bending mode obtained from the numerical model agreed well with the experi-
mental results. In other words,
Parallel CLTthe numerical model CLT
Perpendicular was well-calibrated using experi-
Floor Panel Span (m) Steel Joist Damping Ratio
mental data. Configuration Configuration
CLT 5.8 310UB32 21.40–24.73 Hz 17.19 Hz less than 2%

Figure 9. Schematic plan of steel-timber floors in (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel configuration by
Figure 9. Schematic plan of steel-timber floors in (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel configuration by
Chiniforush et al.et[47].
Chiniforush al. [47].

Panel orientation and continuity of panels were reported to have the most significant
In addition to numerical and experimental results, the accuracy of some available
effect on the frequency of the STC floors, while the effect of the shear connector type
analytical equations was also investigated by Chiniforush et al. [47]. The first natural fre-
was found to be negligible. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers who
quency of STC beams was estimated analytically using different equations and compared
analyzed long-span timber composite and TCC floors [48–50]. To better understand the
with experimental and numerical results. Wyatt [51] and Murray [38] equations are iden-
dynamic behavior of floors, a FE model was created in ABAQUS©. Twenty-two unknown
tical to the equation provided in Eurocode 5 [3]. Hence, only two different analytical equa-
variables of one floor (E, G, µ, k) were determined using an updating procedure. After
tions (Allen [52] and Eurocode 5 [3]) were considered. The comparison between the fre-
calibration, the model was used to predict the frequency of other models. The results of the
quency obtained from experimental tests and analytical equations showed that the Euro-
first bending mode obtained from the numerical model agreed well with the experimental
code 5 [3] equation was more accurate in estimating the natural frequencies of STC floors,
results. In other words, the numerical model was well-calibrated using experimental data.
with a mean error of 9.5%. In Chiniforush et al. [47], the high frequency of 24 Hz and the
lower weight compared to conventional steel-concrete beams were reported to be among
the main benefits of utilizing steel and timber for floors. Hassanieh et al. [53] employed
the calibrated FE model of Chiniforush et al. [47] to assess the effect of different parame-
ters on the dynamic response of STC floors. The effect of different parameters/conditions
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 15 of 26

In addition to numerical and experimental results, the accuracy of some available

analytical equations was also investigated by Chiniforush et al. [47]. The first natural
frequency of STC beams was estimated analytically using different equations and compared
with experimental and numerical results. Wyatt [51] and Murray [38] equations are identical
to the equation provided in Eurocode 5 [3]. Hence, only two different analytical equations
(Allen [52] and Eurocode 5 [3]) were considered. The comparison between the frequency
obtained from experimental tests and analytical equations showed that the Eurocode 5 [3]
equation was more accurate in estimating the natural frequencies of STC floors, with a
mean error of 9.5%. In Chiniforush et al. [47], the high frequency of 24 Hz and the lower
weight compared to conventional steel-concrete beams were reported to be among the
main benefits of utilizing steel and timber for floors. Hassanieh et al. [53] employed the
calibrated FE model of Chiniforush et al. [47] to assess the effect of different parameters
on the dynamic response of STC floors. The effect of different parameters/conditions on
the frequency of STC floors was examined numerically (see Table 12). The steel joists’ span
length significantly affected the natural frequencies of the STC floors whilst the aspect ratio
of the floor and CLT-to-CLT connection effect was found to be negligible. More importantly,
the CLT slab thickness had a negligible effect (less than 3%) on the first natural frequency of
the STC floor. Their numerical results also showed that the orientation of CLT slab panels
could impact the frequency up to 20%.

Table 12. Effect of various parameters on STC floor frequency studied numerically by Hassanieh
et al. [53].

CLT Connection
Aspect CLT-to-CLT Slab Connection
Parameter Support Span (m) Steel Joist Thickness Spacing
Ratio Connection Orientation Type *
(mm) (mm) *
Pined, Continuous,
360UB44.7, Screw 16,
Type/ Continuous, Double screws, Parallel, 125,
6, 8, 10 310UB32.0, 1, 2, 3 140, 160, 180 Screw 12,
Value Discontinu- Without Perp. 250, 500
250UB25.7 BGP12
ous connection
Frequency
9.8–12.4 6.8–15.7 8.6–11.9 9.8 9.8 9.6–9.9 7.5–9.8 8.8–10.8 9.5–10.4
(Hz)
* The laminated timber panels are connected to the top flange of the steel through shear connectors.

Hassanieh et al. [53] employed their model to assess the vibration performance of
STC floors based on AISC design guide 11 [2], Eurocode 5 [3], and the ECCS report [54].
The fundamental frequency, deflection under a 1 kN point load, and maximum impulse
velocity were calculated and compared to the Eurocode 5 criteria. FE results showed that
almost all specimens met the requirements of maximum deflection and velocity according
to Eurocode 5 [3]. However, specimens with a perpendicular configuration or span length
of 10 m had a natural frequency of less than 8 Hz. Eurocode 5 does not have any provisions
for floors with a frequency of less than 8 Hz. It should be noted that the velocity limit did
not govern the design of STC floors. It means that the deflection criterion is more critical
than the velocity criterion. This finding is consistent with those of [11,55,56] regarding
the applicability of Eurocode 5 to timber floors. There was good agreement between
Eurocode 5 and ECCS for the vibration performance of the STC floors. The acceleration of
STC floors was obtained from the numerical model and compared with peak acceleration
limits provided in AISC design guide 11 [2]. Results demonstrated that some of the STC
floors considered in the parametric study were unacceptable according to the AISC design
guide 11 [2] and acceptable according to Eurocode 5 [3]. Hence, the AISC design guide 11 [2]
criteria for the vibration assessment of the STC floors were reported to be a more restrictive
one compared to other guides. As no human walking test or subjective evaluation was
conducted in Hassanieh et al. [53], further research to check the relevance of AISC design
guide 11 [2] to STC floors is recommended.
As a final note on the experimental and numerical works on mass timber floors and
joisted timber floors, including steel joists/beams, it is crucial to investigate the procedure
and equations in standards and design guides to predict the floor response due to walking.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 27

the relevance of different standards in this area. It should be noted that Basaglia et al. [32]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061
employed numerical models to simulate walking on the floor using a single trace footfall. 16 of 26

The simulation of walking on the floor using a single trace footfall function overestimated
the floor response (RMS acceleration) with an error of less than 3%. Hence, it can be con-
cluded that as antimber-timber
For long-span alternative to the approach
composite presented
floors, Basagliain each
et al.standard or guideline,
[32] evaluated a
the floor
finite element
response due(FE) model may
to walking be used
according to as a powerful
different tool toThey
standards. determine the floor
investigated theresponse
procedure
dueandto equations
a specific footfall
presented forcein more
AISCaccurately.
design guide 11 [2], CCIP-016 [1], and SCI P354 [8] to
define the response of timber floors due to walking. RMS acceleration and velocity obtained
4. from
Discussion
different standards were compared to the measured responses. It was found that
CCIP-016 [1] was reports
The literature the mostthat accurate
1 kN of all three and
deflection underestimated
is the best vibrationthe RMS velocity
indicator for light-with
an error of approximately 8%. The AISC design guide 11 [2] underestimated the RMS
weight timber floors; however, some researchers have attempted to develop new criteria.
acceleration of the floor by an error of around 25%. A similar approach is recommended
In fact, studies in [18] and [26] showed that for lightweight joisted flooring systems, the 1
to evaluate the human-induced vibration response of steel-timber composite floors and
kN deflection limit is able to control the floor vibration accurately. By reviewing several
the relevance of different standards in this area. It should be noted that Basaglia et al. [32]
studies, Figure 10 has been created in this paper to demonstrate that 1 kN deflection is
employed numerical models to simulate walking on the floor using a single trace footfall.
still the best vibration indicator for the lightweight timber floors studied in [33,37,41–43]
The simulation of walking on the floor using a single trace footfall function overestimated
and a new criterion may be redundant. Figure 10 compares the subjective evaluation of
the floor response (RMS acceleration) with an error of less than 3%. Hence, it can be
lightweight cold-formed steel-timber floors tested in [33,37,41–43] with the limits pro-
concluded that as an alternative to the approach presented in each standard or guideline, a
vided in the CWC [4], ATC [19], Swedish [20], and Australian standards [21]. The CWC
finite element (FE) model may be used as a powerful tool to determine the floor response
method [4] is found to be the most accurate of all four in predicting the vibration perfor-
due to a specific footfall force more accurately.
mance of lightweight cold-formed steel-timber composite floors.
According to Table 13, the accuracy of the CWC method [4] in predicting the vibra-
4. Discussion
tion performance
The literatureof reports
such floors
that is about
1 kN 89%. Figure
deflection is the 10
bestshows that indicator
vibration constant for
values of 1.5
lightweight
mm and 2 mm proposed in Swedish and Australian standards to limit
timber floors; however, some researchers have attempted to develop new criteria. In fact, the floor deflection
are too conservative.
studies in [18] andThe[26]newshowedcriterion
thatpresented
for lightweightin Zhang and Xu
joisted [40] predicted
flooring systems,the thefloor
1 kN
vibration
deflectionwith an is
limit accuracy of about
able to control the74%,
floorwhile the CWC
vibration [4] criterion
accurately. seems more
By reviewing severalaccurate
studies,
with an accuracy
Figure of around
10 has been created89%. It is
in this worth
paper to mentioning
demonstratethat thatmarginal floors were
1 kN deflection is stillconsid-
the best
ered
vibration indicator for the lightweight timber floors studied in [33,37,41–43] 1and
as acceptable floors in [40] while unacceptable in Figure 10. Although the kNade-new
flection hasmay
criterion beenbeidentified
redundant. as the best10
Figure vibration
compares limit
thefor wood-based
subjective joistedof
evaluation lightweight
lightweight
floors, for heavier
cold-formed compositefloors
steel-timber floorstested
comprising steel and thick
in [33,37,41–43] withtimber subfloors,
the limits providedthis sim-
in the
ple criterion
CWC may[19],
[4], ATC not be sufficient
Swedish [20],asandnoted in [56]. For
Australian long-span
standards [21].STC
Thefloors
CWCwith method mass[4]
timber products
is found to be such as CLT,
the most there isofstill
accurate all no
fourreference to suggest
in predicting which standard
the vibration may beof
performance
the most relevant one to floor vibration.
lightweight cold-formed steel-timber composite floors.

Figure 10. Evaluation of the floor vibration based on 1 kN deflection criteria for lightweight cold-
Figure 10. Evaluation of the floor vibration based on 1 kN deflection criteria for lightweight cold-
formed steel floors according to reported data in [33,37,41–43].
formed steel floors according to reported data in [33,37,41–43].
According to Table 13, the accuracy of the CWC method [4] in predicting the vibration
performance of such floors is about 89%. Figure 10 shows that constant values of 1.5 mm
and 2 mm proposed in Swedish and Australian standards to limit the floor deflection
are too conservative. The new criterion presented in Zhang and Xu [40] predicted the
floor vibration with an accuracy of about 74%, while the CWC [4] criterion seems more
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 17 of 26

accurate with an accuracy of around 89%. It is worth mentioning that marginal floors were
considered as acceptable floors in [40] while unacceptable in Figure 10. Although the 1 kN
deflection has been identified as the best vibration limit for wood-based joisted lightweight
floors, for heavier composite floors comprising steel and thick timber subfloors, this simple
criterion may not be sufficient as noted in [56]. For long-span STC floors with mass timber
products such as CLT, there is still no reference to suggest which standard may be the most
relevant one to floor vibration.

Table 13. The accuracy of CWC [4] (Equation (2) in predicting the vibration performance of
lightweight cold-formed steel-timber floors.

Span Length 2.16 < L < 8.8 m

Number of tested floors 65
Correctly predicted by CWC method * 58
Method’s accuracy 89%
* Marginal floors considered as unacceptable floors.

Vibration performance of STC floors comprising hot-rolled steel beams and CLT
panels based on different standards and guidelines has been investigated through some
experimental and numerical studies. The UNSW team in [47,53], worked on STC floors and
reported relatively good agreement between the Eurocode 5 and ECCS guide predictions.
For such floors, the AISC Design Guide 11 [2] provides the most restrictive limits compared
to the other guides. Subjective evaluation is still required to define which standard or
guideline is suitable to evaluate the vibration performance of STC floors, e.g., those studied
in [47,53]. Similar to the UNSW team [47,53], Huang and co-workers [44,45] evaluated
the vibration behavior of the STC floors with CLT panels based on a numerical model
validated against the experimental results. Huang and co-workers [44,45] examined the
vibration performance based on different vibration indicators such as RMS acceleration
and VDV (Eq. (11)). It should be noted that RMS acceleration is the square-root of the
sum of accelerations over footstep period while VDV considers the combined effect of
the magnitude and duration of the vibration. The results showed that the conclusion
based on RMS acceleration might differ from VDV. In addition to prior research [47,53], the
authors evaluated the probabilities of adverse comments from people using VDV analysis
based on the BS 6472 [29] and ISO 10137 [27]. They also evaluated the vibration behavior
of the STC floors under multi-person loading through a numerical model, experimental
test, and analytical approach. Multi-person loading increased the VDV by about 30%
compared to one person walking on the floor. Similar to the UNSW team [47,53], the
subjective evaluation was not conducted to evaluate the prediction of floor vibration under
multi-person loading based on VDV.
Due to the similar CLT properties and floor span in [45] and [47], a frequency com-
parison can be made between the above two studies. The frequency comparison reveals a
significant difference between the floor frequency of experimental studies conducted by
Chiniforush et al. [47] and Wang et al. [45]. For a typical floor, the results are provided in
Table 14 where the predicted frequency by Eurocode 5 is also shown for comparison. The
frequency differences in Chiniforush et al. [47] and Wang et al. [45] can be attributed to
different boundary conditions and the addition of steel beams which increase the floor’s
flexural stiffness, and its frequency, consequently.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 18 of 26

Table 14. The details and frequency results of the STC floors studied in Chiniforush et al. [47] and
Wang et al. [45].

Flexural Predicted Measured

CLT Panel Size (m)
Work Span (m) Stiffness Frequency * Frequency ** Support
Length × Width × Thickness
(N· m2 ) (Hz) (Hz)
Chiniforush 2 pcs 3.0 × 1.0 × 0.12 (S1CSk),
5.8 1.97 × 107 21.7 24.16 simply support
et al. [47] Figure 9
6.6 × 5.6 × 0.105, partial simply
Wang et al. [45] 6.0 6.02 × 106 6.24 6.68
Figure 6 support
* Estimated from the Eurocode 5 [2] equation based on floor’s geometry. ** Measured for floors without any
additional mass.

In addition to all standards and guidelines used in literature for vibration design of
STC floors comprising steel beams and CLT panels, it would be interesting to investigate
the accuracy of the vibration controlled-span equation for STC floors according to the CLT
handbook [6] and CSA O86-19 [5]. It is worth mentioning that calculation of EIeff (needed
for the controlled-span equation) for STC floors with different connection types between
steel and timber parts needs more assessment. This study reviewed several experimental
and numerical studies on the vibration behavior of STC floors. Various standards and
guidelines were used in the literature to investigate floor vibrations. It was demonstrated
that researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the applicability of such design methods
to timber composite floors. Therefore, before the practical implementation of vibration
design methods, the accuracy of those methods for STC should be specified. In future
research, two main areas can be explored:
First, it should be highlighted that for STC floors comprising steel beams and CLT pan-
els, subjective evaluation is necessary to prove the appropriate criteria based on available
standards and guidelines. In fact, in this review, only the comparison between different
standards were conducted and some standards were found to be more conservative. How-
ever, without consideration of subjective responses of occupants, it cannot be determined
which standard is more appropriate for STC floors. Several studies have focused on the sub-
jective evaluation of timber-timber composite floors comprising engineered wood products
such as Glulam, LVL, and CLT to find which available criteria are appropriate to predict
the vibration performance of such floors [10,57–60]. The requirements according to Dolan
et al. [22], Hu and Chui [23], Onysko et al. [18], CCIP-016 [1], and ISO 10137 [27] were
evaluated in those studies. Recently, Shahnewaz et al. [59] found that although the RMS
acceleration for CLT—glulam composite floors with different span lengths met the require-
ment of ISO 10137 [27], some of them were unacceptable according to subjective evaluation.
Interestingly, the floors’ vibration control span obtained from CSA O86-19 [5] agrees well
with the subjective evaluation of such TTC floors, most probably due to conservative nature
of span equation in CSA O86-19 [5]. Similar studies on STC floors and further research on
composite floors in mass timber buildings are needed.
Second, as different criteria are based on the floor response due to walking, more accu-
rate assessment of acceleration, velocity, deflection of STC floor under walking is required.
Basaglia et al. [32] evaluated the prediction of timber floor response due to walking using
different standards and guidelines such as AISC design guide 11 [2], CCIP-016 [1], and
SCI P354 [8]. Comparison between RMS acceleration and velocity obtained from different
standards and those measured responses showed that in some cases, the methods in the
standards could not correctly predict the floor’s response due to footfall force. However, a
numerical model using a single trace footfall function predicted the acceleration of the floor
very accurately (less than 3% error). Based on the findings of Basaglia et al. [32], a similar
detailed numerical model can be insightful for understanding the STC floor response due
to footfall force.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 19 of 26

5. Conclusions
The following conclusions for evaluation of the vibration performance of steel-timber
floors can be drawn from the literature:
• ATC [19] and CWC [4] standard evaluate the vibration of lightweight timber floors
due to walking based on very simple deflection limits. Although these limits can be
employed in the design of conventional wood-frame floors with high frequencies (i.e.,
more than 8 Hz), they may be sufficient for STC floors with heavier subfloors such as
CLT, NLT, or LVL.
• Very limited studies have examined the validity of Eurocode 5 equations in designing
STC floors. According to Eurocode 5, floors with a frequency less than 8 Hz need a
special investigation, while floors with a frequency of more than 8 Hz can be designed
based on the vibration limit provided in this standard.
• CCIP-016 [1] was originally proposed for concrete structures and is currently being
used in the vibration design of floors in mass timber buildings. Although using CCIP-
016 [1] for the vibration assessment of timber floors is recommended by some experts
in industry (e.g., see [31]), its accuracy for STC floors has not been clearly investigated
within the research community.
• Both AISC design 11 [2] and CCIP-016 [1] provide two different approaches (simpli-
fied equations and FE analysis methods) to address floor vibration. To the authors’
knowledge, the simplified equations in these guides have been calibrated for concrete
and steel floors and may not be applicable to all timber composite floors. Furthermore,
such equations cannot be used for irregular floors with large openings or cantilevers.
Thus, using such simplified equations for long-span timber floors is currently not
recommended. As an alternative to general equations, FE analysis is suggested for
such systems. FE models enable the structural analyst to consider more details in their
vibration assessment of composite floors. For this purpose, it is vital to conduct a
proper modal analysis and capture higher modes of vibration correctly to evaluate the
behavior of such floors with confidence.
• SCI P354 [8] presented vibration criteria for cold-formed steel framing floors. Such cri-
teria are based on frequency, 1 kN deflection, and response factor (or VDV). However,
in the case of using hot-rolled steel joists or heavy subfloors such as CLT, LVL, or NLT,
there is no recommendation or criterion in SCI P354 [8]. Hence, SCI P354 [8] may not
be applicable to STC floors.
• Canadian CLT Handbook [6] and CSA O86-19 [5] use an analytical equation for the
vibration-controlled span design of CLT floors. This simplified equation is intended
for only a one-span simply supported floor. The applicability of this equation for STC
has not been examined. It is believed that this equation is too conservative for STC
floors with CLT subfloors.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, AISC Design 11 [2] and CCIP-016 [1] currently
provide the most comprehensive approach to evaluate the vibration performance of timber
composite floors. However, such approaches still need to be validated using more subjective
evaluation studies on STC floors. Developing parameterized 3D finite element models that
include several key parameters (e.g., boundary conditions, discontinuity of panels, slip
modulus, and damping ratio) and conducting sensitivity analyses will enable researchers
to investigate the validity range of these approaches. Special attentions should be given to
accurate estimation of connection stiffness and damping ratio according to the findings of
this research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.C.-S. and S.M.; methodology, N.C.-S. and S.M.; vali-
dation, N.C.-S. and S.M.; formal analysis, N.C.-S. and S.M.; investigation, N.C.-S., K.C. and S.M.;
resources, S.M.; data curation, N.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.C.-S. and S.M.; writing—
review and editing, N.C.-S., K.C. and S.M.; visualization, N.C.-S.; supervision, S.M. and K.C.; project
administration, S.M.; funding acquisition, S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 20 of 26

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any new data.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Min Sun for his valuable feedback in the course
of this research. Financial support received from the University of Victoria (Canada) through graduate
fellowship award to Najmeh Cheraghi-Shirazi is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Analytical Equations for the Floor Vibration according to SCI P354
SCI P354 provides vibration criteria for lightweight cold-formed steel composite floors
to limit the frequency and deflection. According to this design guide, the frequency of
floors without and with linking corridors should be more than 8 Hz and 10 Hz, respectively.
Additionally, the second moment of area criterion limiting 1kN deflection for each joist can
be defined as follows:
L3y × 10.16
Ib ≥ (A1)
Ne f f × δj
where Ly is the span of joists (m), Neff is the number of effective joists, and δj is the deflection
limit according to Table A1.

Table A1. 1 kN deflection limit of lightweight cold-formed steel composite floors based on SCI P354.

Span length (m) 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.6 5.3 6.2

Deflection (mm) 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2

SCI P354 also provides an equation to predict aw,RMS of floors. The floor’s response
factor can be calculated by aw,RMS divided by a base value of 0.005 m/s2 . There is a limit of
16 for the floor’s response factor.
This design guide suggests using the VDV method based on the limits in Table A2 for
floors with a response factor greater than 16.

Table A2. VDV values to control the vibration performance of lightweight cold-formed steel floors
according to SCI P354.

Place VDV Value for Low Probability of Adverse Comment

Buildings: 16 h day 1.6
Buildings: 8 h night 0.51

Appendix B. Analytical Equations for the Floor Vibration according to Eurocode 5

Based on Eurocode 5, residential floors fall into two categories: floors with a fun-
damental frequency of less than 8 Hz and those with a fundamental frequency of more
than 8 Hz. According to this standard, the former floors require special investigation and
are not covered in this standard. For floors with a fundamental frequency greater than
8 Hz, Eurocode 5 presents the following equations to limit the vertical deflection and unit
impulse velocity response.
w
≤a (A2)
F
v ≤ b ( f 1 ζ −1) (A3)
where w is the floor maximum instantaneous deflection (mm) under a point load of F
(kN), v is the unit impulse velocity response (m/(Ns2 )), and ζ is the modal damping ratio.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 21 of 26

Eurocode 5 recommends damping ratio of 1% for timber floors, while the UK National
Annex (UKNA) to Eurocode 5 recommends 2%.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Two constant floor vibration parameters, a and b, and the relation between them
22 ofare
27

obtained from the graph in Figure A1.

FigureA1.
Figure A1.The
Therelation
relationbetween
betweentwo
tworecommended
recommended floor
floor vibration
vibration parameters,
parameters, a and
a and b, according
b, according to
to Eurocode 5. Reproduced from [53] with permission.
Eurocode 5. Reproduced from [53] with permission.

The relationship
The relationshipbetween
betweenaa and
and bb in
in Figure
Figure A1
A1 can
can also
also be
be formulated
formulated [25]
[25] as
as follows:
follows:

= 150−−(30(𝑎
𝑏 =b 150 −0.5
(30( a − 0.5)/0.5) = 180
)/0.5) = 180 − 60𝑎
− 60a 𝑎 ≤ 1mm
a ≤ 1mm (A4)
(A4)
𝑏 = 120 − (40(𝑎 − 1)) = 160 − 40𝑎 𝑎 > 1mm (A5)
b = 120 − (40( a − 1)) = 160 − 40a a > 1mm (A5)
According to UK National Annex (UKNA) to Eurocode 5, the floor deflection due to
According to UK National Annex (UKNA) to Eurocode 5, the floor deflection due to
1 kN force, a (mm), should satisfy the following requirements [25]:
1 kN force, a (mm), should satisfy the following requirements [25]:
For floors with a span length of less than 4000 mm:
For floors with a span length of less than 4000 mm:
a ≤ 1.8 (mm) (A6)
a ≤ 1.8 (mm) (A6)
Otherwise:
Otherwise:
a ≤ 16,500/l1.1 (mm) (A7)
a ≤ 16,500/l1 .1 (mm) (A7)
where l is the floor span length (mm).
where l is the floor span length (mm).
AppendixC.
Appendix C.Analytical
AnalyticalEquations
Equationsfor forthe
theFloor
FloorVibration
Vibrationaccording
accordingto toCCIP-016
CCIP-016
CCIP-016categorizes
CCIP-016 categorizesthe
thevibration
vibrationbehavior
behaviorofofstructures
structures based
based onon
thethe response
response fac-
factor
tor (R). The response factor is the ratio of the peak acceleration to the ISO
(R). The response factor is the ratio of the peak acceleration to the ISO baseline limit on baseline limit
on the
the peakpeak acceleration.
acceleration. There
There areare different
different criteriafor
criteria forcommercial
commercialbuildings,
buildings,residential
residential
buildings, hospitals,
buildings, hospitals, bridges,
bridges, ramps,
ramps, and and walkways.
walkways. As As shown
shown inin Table
Table A3,
A3, the
theresponse
response
factorderived
factor derivedfrom
fromBSBS6472
6472is is used
used to to specify
specify thethe vibration
vibration behavior
behavior of buildings.
of buildings. CCIP-
CCIP-016
016 recommends
recommends twicetwice the value
the value shown shown in Table
in Table A3 forA3 for residences
residences under under footfall-induced
footfall-induced forces.
forces.
Table A3. Critical vibration levels at which the probability of adverse comments is low, presented in
Table A3.and
CCIP-016 Critical vibration
BS 6472 (1992).levels at which the probability of adverse comments is low, presented
in CCIP-016 and BS 6472 (1992).
Environment Response Factor
Environment
Critical working areas Response
1 Factor
Critical working areas 1
Residence-day 2–4
Residence-day 2–4
Residence-night 1.4
Residence-night 1.4
Office
Office 44

Workshop
Workshop 88

CCIP-016 presents a procedure to determine the response factor (R) which can be
used for steel, concrete, timber, and composite structures. According to this standard,
floors are divided into high-frequency floors (floors with lowest natural frequency more
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 22 of 26

CCIP-016 presents a procedure to determine the response factor (R) which can be used
for steel, concrete, timber, and composite structures. According to this standard, floors
are divided into high-frequency floors (floors with lowest natural frequency more than
10.5 Hz) and low-frequency floors (floors with lowest natural frequency less than 10 Hz).
First, the following procedure is used for floors with a natural frequency of less than
10 Hz. This procedure is applied only for structures with a vertical natural frequency of less
than 4.2 times the maximum footfall rate. The maximum footfall rate is defined according
to Table A4. It should be noted that all modes with a frequency of less than 15 Hz need to
be included in calculations.

Table A4. The maximum footfall rates related to different environments according to CCIP-016.

Environment Maximum Footfall Rates footfalls/s

Footbridges 2.5
Corridor and circulation zones in any building 2.5
Within office bays and residential rooms
2.0
(i.e., not corridor zones)
Within laboratories, operating theatres, and
1.8
the like

R factor for each of four harmonics is introduced as:

| ah |
Rh = (A8)
a R=1,h

where h is the harmonic number, |ah | is the magnitude of the acceleration and a R=1,h is
calculated by following relations:

0.0141
I f f h < 4Hz, a R=1,h = p m/s2 (A9)
fh

I f 4 Hz < f h < 8 Hz, a R=1,h = 0.0071 m/s2 (A10)

I f f h > 8 Hz, a R=1,h = 2.82π f h × 10−4 m/s2 (A11)
Finally, R factor related to all four harmonics is expressed by:
q
R= R21 + R22 + R23 + R24 (A12)

For structures with a lowest natural frequency of more than 10.5 Hz, the following
procedure should be followed. All modes with a frequency of less than twice fundamental
frequency should be included in calculations.
The total velocity response at time t, for all N modes can be defined by

N
V (t) = ∑ Vm (t) (A13)
m =1

Over a period of one footfall, T, the total RMS velocity response would be
s
Z T
1
VRMS = V (t)2 dt (A14)
T 0

So, the response factor is presented as

VRMS
R= (A15)
VR=1
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 27
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 23 of 26

where, for a fundamental frequency, f1, the baseline RMS velocity for R = 1, 𝑉 , can be
obtained
where, forby
a fundamental frequency, f 1 , the baseline RMS velocity for R = 1, VR=1 , can be
obtained by
5 × 10
𝐼𝑓 𝑓 < 8Hz 𝑉 =5 × 10−3 (A16)
I f f 1 < 8Hz VR=1 = m/sm/s (A16)
2π2𝜋𝑓
f1
𝐼𝑓
I f 𝑓f 1 > 8HzV𝑉
> 8Hz = 1.0 ×−10
R=1 = 1.0 × 10
4
m/sm/s (A17)
(A17)

Appendix
AppendixD.
D.Analytical
AnalyticalEquations
Equationsfor
forthe
theFloor
FloorVibration
Vibrationaccording
accordingtotoAISC
AISCDesign
Design
Guide 11
Guide 11
AISC
AISCdesign
design guide 11 categorizes
guide 11 categorizesall
allfloors
floorstotoLow-Frequency
Low-Frequency (<9(<9
Hz)Hz)
andand High-
High-Fre-
Frequency
quency (>9(>9
Hz).Hz). Floors
Floors underunder walking
walking excitation
excitation are designed
are designed based
based on two
on two methods:
methods: sim-
simplified design criteria, which is not applicable to irregular framing or cantilevers,
plified design criteria, which is not applicable to irregular framing or cantilevers, and fi-
and finite element analysis method, which is used for all floors. The vibration tolerance
nite element analysis method, which is used for all floors. The vibration tolerance acceler-
acceleration limit for all floors is presented in Figure A2.
ation limit for all floors is presented in Figure A2.

FigureA2.
Figure A2.Recommended
Recommendedtolerance
tolerancelimits
limits
forfor human
human comfort
comfort as published
as published in AISC
in AISC design
design guide
guide 11.
11. Reproduced from [53] with permission.
Reproduced from [53] with permission.

ForLow-Frequency
For Low-Frequency(<9 (<9Hz)
Hz)floors,
floors,the
thesimplified
simplifieddesign
designcriterion
criterionbased
basedon
onthe
thepeak
peak
acceleration is defined by
acceleration is defined by
ap Po e−0.35. f n ao
𝑎 = 𝑃 𝑒 ≤ 𝑎 (A18)
g = βW ≤g (A18)
𝑔 𝛽𝑊 𝑔
where Po is the constant force (65 lb), W is the effective weight of the floor (lb), β is the
where Poratio,
damping is theaoconstant force (65
is the vibration lb), W isacceleration
tolerance the effective weight
limit of the to
according floor (lb),A2,
Figure β isand
the
adamping ratio,
p is the peak ao is the vibration
acceleration tolerance acceleration limit according to Figure A2, and
of the floor.
ap isFor
the High-Frequency
peak acceleration (>9ofHz)
the Floors,
floor. the equivalent sinusoidal peak acceleration (aESPA )
For High-Frequency
is defined by (>9 Hz) Floors, thesequivalent sinusoidal peak acceleration
(aESPA) is defined by a 1.43
!
f step 1 − e−4πhβ
 
ESPA 154 ao
= 0.3
≤ (A19)
g W fn . hπβ g
𝑎 154 𝑓 1−𝑒 𝑎
where W is the effective weight= of the floor (lb), (A19)
≤ natural frequency
fn is the fundamental
𝑔 𝑊 . ℎ𝜋𝛽 𝑔
𝑓
(Hz), and fstep is step frequency (Hz) while fn = hfstep . h is the step frequency harmonic
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 24 of 26

matching the natural frequency (See Table A5). ao is the acceleration limit, according to
Figure A2.

Table A5. Harmonic matching the natural frequency of high-frequency (>9 Hz) floors adopted from
AISC design guide 11.

f n (Hz) h
9–11 5
11–13.2 6
13.2–15.4 7
h is step frequency harmonic matching the natural frequency.

References
1. Willford, M.R.; Young, P.; CEng, M. A Design Guide for Footfall Induced Vibration of Structures; Concrete Society for The Concrete
Centre: London, UK, 2006.
2. Murray, T.M.; Allen, D.E.; Ungar, E.E.; Davis, D.B. Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity: AISC Design
Guide 11; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, LI, USA, 2016.
3. EN 1995-1-1; Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Structures-Part 1-1: General-Common Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2004.
4. Canadian Wood Council. Development of Design Procedures for Vibration Controlled Spans Using Engineered Wood Members; Canadian
Wood Council: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1997.
5. CSA O86-19; Engineering design in wood. Canadian Standards Association: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019.
6. Karacabeyli, E.; Gagnon, S. Canadian CLT Handbook; FPinnovation: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2019.
7. E710-Minimizing Floor Vibration by Design And Retrofit; APA—The Engineered Wood Association: Tacoma, DC, USA, 2004.
8. Smith, A.L.; Hicks, S.J.; Devine, P.J. Design of Floors for Vibration: A New Approach; Steel Construction Institute Ascot: Berkshire,
UK, 2007.
9. Hu, L.J.; Chui, Y.H.; Onysko, D.M. Vibration serviceability of timber floors in residential construction. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater.
2001, 3, 228–237. [CrossRef]
10. Negreira, J.; Trollé, A.; Jarnerö, K.; Sjökvist, L.-G.; Bard, D. Psycho-vibratory evaluation of timber floors—Towards the determina-
tion of design indicators of vibration acceptability and vibration annoyance. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 340, 383–408. [CrossRef]
11. Weckendorf, J.; Toratti, T.; Smith, I.; Tannert, T. Vibration serviceability performance of timber floors. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2016, 74,
353–367. [CrossRef]
12. Basaglia, B.M. Dynamic Behaviour of Long-Span Timber Ribbed-Deck Floors. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, Australia, 2019.
13. Movaffaghi, H.; Pyykkö, J. Vibration performance of timber-concrete composite floor section—Verification and validation of
analytical and numerical results based on experimental data. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2022, 39, 165–184. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, L.; Zhou, J.; Chui, Y.H.; Li, G. Vibration Performance and Stiffness Properties of Mass Timber Panel–Concrete Composite
Floors with Notched Connections. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022136. [CrossRef]
15. Ussher, E.; Arjomandi, K.; Smith, I. Status of vibration serviceability design methods for lightweight timber floors. J. Build. Eng.
2022, 50, 104111. [CrossRef]
16. Thai, M.-V.; Elachachi, S.M.; Ménard, S.; Galimard, P. Vibrational behavior of cross-laminated timber-concrete composite beams
using notched connectors. Eng. Struct. 2021, 249, 113309. [CrossRef]
17. Zhao, X.; Huang, Y.; Fu, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Sayed, U. Deflection test and modal analysis of lightweight timber floors.
J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2021, 6, 266–278. [CrossRef]
18. Onysko, D.M.; Hu, L.J.; Jones, E.D.; Di Lenardo, B. Serviceability design of residential wood framed floors in Canada. In
Proceedings of the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 31 July–3 August 2000.
19. ATC. Design Guide 1: Minimizing Floor Vibration; Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1999.
20. Ohlsson, S. Springiness and Human-Induced Floor Vibrations: A Design Guide; Swedish Council for Building Research: Stockholm,
Sweden, 1988.
21. AS 3623; Domestic Metal Framing. Standards Association of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 1993.
22. Dolan, J.D.; Murray, T.M.; Johnson, J.R.; Runte, D.; Shue, B.C. Preventing annoying wood floor vibrations. J. Struct. Eng. 1999, 125,
19–24. [CrossRef]
23. Hu, L.J.; Chui, Y.H. Development of a design method to control vibrations induced by normal walking action in wood-based
floors. In Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Lahti, Finland, 14–17 June 2004; Volume 2, pp. 217–222.
24. BSI. NA to BS EN 1991-1-1:2002; NA: UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part 1-1: General Actions—
Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed Loads for Buildings. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2002.
25. Porteous, J.; Kermani, A. Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
26. Toratti, T.; Talja, A. Classification of Human Induced Floor Vibrations. Build. Acoust. 2006, 13, 211–221. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 25 of 26

27. ISO 10137; Bases for design of structures Serviceability of buildings and walkways against vibrations. International Standards
Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
28. ISO 2631-2; Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration—Part 2: Human Exposure to Continuous Shock-Induced
Vibrations in Builidngs (1 to 80 Hz). British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1989.
29. BS 6472-1:2008; Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings–Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting.
British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2008.
30. Barber, D.; Blount, D.; Hand, J.J.; Roelofs, M.; Wingo, L.; Woodson, J.; Yang, F. Design Guide 37: Hybrid Steel Frames with Wood
Floors; American Institute of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL, USA, 2022.
31. U.S. Mass Timber Floor Vibration Design Guide, 1st ed.; WoodWorks—Wood Products Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
32. Basaglia, B.M.; Li, J.; Shrestha, R.; Crews, K. Response Prediction to Walking-Induced Vibrations of a Long-Span Timber Floor.
J. Struct. Eng. 2021, 147, 04020326. [CrossRef]
33. Kraus, C.A. Floor Vibration Design Criterion for Cold-Formed C-Shaped Supported Residential Floor Systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 1997.
34. Xu, L.; Tangorra, F. Experimental investigation of lightweight residential floors supported by cold-formed steel C-shape joists.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 2007, 63, 422–435. [CrossRef]
35. Parnell, R.; Davis, B.W.; Xu, L. Vibration Performance of Lightweight Cold-Formed Steel Floors. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 136, 645–653.
[CrossRef]
36. Xu, L. Floor Vibration in Lightweight Cold-Formed Steel Framing. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2011, 14, 659–672. [CrossRef]
37. Liu, W. Vibration of Floors Supported by Cold-Formed Steel Joists; University of Waterloo: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2001.
38. Murray, T.M.; Allen, D.E.; Ungar, E.E. Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity; American Institue of Steel Construction: Chicago, IL,
USA, 1997.
39. Smith, I.; Chui, Y.H. Design of lightweight wooden floors to avoid human discomfort. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 1988, 15, 254–262.
[CrossRef]
40. Zhang, S.; Xu, L. Vibration serviceability evaluation of lightweight cold-formed steel floor systems. Structures 2022, 38, 1368–1379.
[CrossRef]
41. Wiss, J.F.; Linehan, P.W.; Kudder, R.J. Report of Laboratory Tests and Analytical Sudies of Structural Characteristics of Cold-Formed
Steel-Joist Floor Systems; Janney, Elstner & Associates, Inc.: Rolla, MO, USA, 1977.
42. Kullaa, J.; Talja, A. Vibration tests for lightweight steel joist floors–subjective perceptions of vibrations and comparisons with
design criteria. In Proceedings of the Finnish R&D Conference on Steel Structure (Teräsrakenteiden tutkimus-ja kehityspäivät),
Lappeenranta, Finland, August 1998.
43. Samuelsson, M.; Sandberg, J. Vibrations in Lightweight Steel Floors; Swedish Institute of Steel Construction: Stockholm, Sweden,
1998; p. 190.
44. Huang, H.; Gao, Y.; Chang, W.-S. Human-induced vibration of cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor under different boundary
conditions. Eng. Struct. 2019, 204, 110016. [CrossRef]
45. Wang, C.; Chang, W.-S.; Yan, W.; Huang, H. Predicting the human-induced vibration of cross laminated timber floor under
multi-person loadings. Structures 2020, 29, 65–78. [CrossRef]
46. Cai, Y.; Gong, G.; Xia, J.; He, J.; Hao, J. Simulations of human-induced floor vibrations considering walking overlap. SN Appl. Sci.
2020, 2, 19. [CrossRef]
47. Chiniforush, A.A.; Alamdari, M.M.; Dackermann, U.; Valipour, H.; Akbarnezhad, A. Vibration behaviour of steel-timber
composite floors, part (1): Experimental & numerical investigation. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 161, 244–257. [CrossRef]
48. Khorsandnia, N.; Valipour, H.; Bradford, M. Deconstructable timber-concrete composite beams with panelised slabs: Finite
element analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 163, 798–811. [CrossRef]
49. Bernard, E.S. Dynamic Serviceability in Lightweight Engineered Timber Floors. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 258–268. [CrossRef]
50. Labonnote, N.; Rønnquist, A.; Malo, K.A. Prediction of material damping in timber floors, and subsequent evaluation of structural
damping. Mater. Struct. 2014, 48, 1965–1975. [CrossRef]
51. Wyatt, T.A. Design Guide on the Vibration of Floors; SCI Publication: London, UK, 1989.
52. Allen, D.E. Building vibrations from human activities. Concr. Int. 1990, 12, 66–73.
53. Hassanieh, A.; Chiniforush, A.; Valipour, H.; Bradford, M. Vibration behaviour of steel-timber composite floors, part (2):
Evaluation of human-induced vibrations. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 158, 156–170. [CrossRef]
54. Feldmann, M.; Heinemeyer, C.; Butz, C.; Caetano, E.; Cunha, A.; Galanti, F.; Goldack, A.; Hechler, O.; Hicks, S.; Keil, A.; et al.
Design of Floor Structures for Human Induced Vibrations; JRC–ECCS joint report; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels,
Belgium, 2009.
55. Zhang, B.; Rasmussen, B.; Jorissen, A.; Harte, A. Comparison of vibrational comfort assessment criteria for design of timber floors
among the European countries. Eng. Struct. 2013, 52, 592–607. [CrossRef]
56. Hu, L.J. Serviceability Design Criteria for Commercial and Multi-Family Floors; Canadian Forestry Service: Canada; Australia, 2000.
57. Ebadi, M.M. Vibration Behaviour of Glulam Beam-and-Deck Floors; Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa: Ottawa, ON,
Canada, 2017.
58. Ebadi, M.M.; Doudak, G.; Smith, I. Evaluation of floor vibration caused by human walking in a large glulam beam and deck floor.
Eng. Struct. 2019, 196, 109349. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2061 26 of 26

59. Shahnewaz, M.; Dickof, C.; Zhou, J.; Tannert, T. Vibration and flexural performance of cross-laminated timber—Glulam composite
floors. Compos. Struct. 2022, 292, 115682. [CrossRef]
60. Christian, S.; Carla, D.; Fast, T. Evaluation of a long span mass timber floor under footfall vibration loads. In Proceedings of the
CSCE 2022—CSCE Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 25–28 July 2022.