The possibility of using a commercially available structural analysis program to predict the response of a floor system due to walking excitation as given in AISC Design Guide 11, Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity (Murray, et al., 1997) was explored. This research included ideal floors that did not have measured values as well as several case study floors that do have measured values for the fundamental frequency.
First, multiple model set-ups and loading protocols are applied to the ideal floors and the results compared to results from the Design Guide procedure. A recommendation of the best combination of a model set-up and loading protocol that best matches the Design Guide procedure results is made. Then, case study floors are modeled with the recommended model set-up and loading protocol, and the results compared to the results from the Design Guide procedure and to measured fundamental frequencies. The peak accelerations are also compared to subjective evaluations as to the acceptability of the system.
Next, multiple systems were analyzed using five different modeling techniques, including the Design Guide Method, an alteration of the Design Guide Method, the Rayleigh Method, the Analytical Method, and the structural analysis program method, in an attempt to determine the source of discrepancies between the structural analysis program method and the Design Guide method.
Finally, conclusions are drawn regarding the structural analysis program procedure as well as possible sources of differences. In general, the structural analysis program procedure reliably predicts the fundamental frequency of a floor system, but does not predict the Design Guide peak acceleration under dynamic loading. The difference in the effective mass of a system between the two methods is a source of discrepancy.
