Vibration control
The construction of lighter and longer floor
structures in recent years has resulted in an increasing incidence
of floor vibration. For buildings where users or equipment are
sensitive to movements, tight vibration criteria are appropriate.
Buildings designed for more general purposes will not need to meet
such strict criteria, but the need to correctly analyse and design
for vibration is always more pressing when longer and lighter floor
constructions are used.
Arup vibration study
The NHS set about tackling this with the
introduction of Health Technical Memorandum 2045, which sets out
vibration requirements for hospital design. So how much more does
it cost to design to NHS vibration criteria than to the
specifications used for a ‘normal’ office? This was the question
that The Concrete Centre commissioned Arup to independently find
the answer to.
In order to improve the vibration performance
of such floors, their mass and stiffness needs to be increased.
Because concrete floors are heavier than composite ones, Arup’s
working hypothesis was that concrete floors would meet the
vibration criteria at no or little extra cost, whereas steel and
composite solutions would require significant additional material
to provide mass and stiffness.
Arup was commissioned to undertake the study
because it has developed a method of vibration prediction that has
been extensively validated against measurements on both concrete
and composite floors and has been independently peer reviewed.
The Arup study consisted of four stages:
- 1. Survey of recent hospital structural solutions, exemplar
designs recommended by healthcare clients and published literature
by industry bodies.
- 2. Choice of structural solution (flat-slab, post-tensioned
slab, conventional steel and concrete composite floor and Slimdek
construction).
- 3. Choice of design criteria (grid, loadings, durability, fire
resistance, deflection criteria and vibration criteria from NHS
Estates guidance).
- 4. Design of structures for:
- Strength and deflection criteria only (in office).
- Night-time ward vibration criteria.
The study considered the mass and construction
depth that would be required for a normal design, such as would
generally be suitable for offices. It then assessed the percentage
increase in strength and deflection that would be needed to meet
hospital vibration criteria (see table 1).
Table 1
|
Changes required to upgrade a normal
office
|
|
Structure type
|
Location
|
Total mass and increase
|
Construction depth and increase
|
|
Composite
|
Office
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Night ward
|
131
|
37
|
|
|
Operating theatre
|
188
|
46
|
|
Flat slab
|
Office
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Night ward
|
9
|
10
|
|
|
Operating theatre
|
15
|
17
|
|
Post-tensioned
|
Office
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Night ward
|
12
|
14
|
|
|
Operating theatre
|
27
|
32
|
|
Slimdek
|
Office
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Nightward
|
59
|
34
|
|
|
Operating theatre
|
82
|
49
|
While each of these structural forms can be designed to meet
stringent vibration criteria, the table shows that concrete
solutions can do this with small increases in depth and material –
and minimal additional cost. This is not the case for steel, where
material quantities and structural depth must be significantly
increased in order to meet vibration criteria.
The finding is supported by Peter Young and
Michael Wilford of Arup, who concluded, in the 18 April 2006
edition of Structural Engineer: “Steel-framed floors designed for
the commercial sector have perceptible footfall-induced vibration
and are not suitable for all uses in the healthcare sector without
significant modification.”
Analysis methods
A large number of methods for the assessment
of vibration performance are available to the designer, but in an
area that is unfamiliar to most structural engineers it is
difficult to assess them critically, and tempting to use simplified
methods. Such simplified methods have been incorporated into a
number of codes and guidance documents, but it is important to
remember that, typically, the simpler the method, the less precise
the predication. Therefore, to ensure that safe predictions are
obtained, the simpler methods should be conservative.
The Arup method (published in full in the
revision of the Concrete Society’s TR43,
Edition 2) is based on first principles. The analysis itself uses
accurate dynamic representations of floor structures and the
footfall loading functions have been developed from the analysis of
over 800 footfall force measurements. The overall process has been
calibrated against measurements in scores of buildings in the UK
and the USA.