A/S UPB

Footfall and Time history comparison

v1.0 2017-05-09

Author: Māris Bauers

Liepaja 2017
 Contents
1. Revision table .......................................................................................................... 3
2. Used documents ...................................................................................................... 4
3. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5
4. Calculation scheme .................................................................................................. 5
5. Analysis parameters ................................................................................................ 6
6. Result analysis.......................................................................................................... 8
6.1 Version 1 Steady state ........................................................................................................... 8
6.2. Version 2 Transient state .................................................................................................... 10

Page 2 of 11
 1. Revision table

v1.0 created (2017-05-09)

Date Revision description Revision justification

Page 3 of 11
 2. Used documents

Nr. Document number

1 ISO 10137
2 SCI-P354 Design of Floors for Vibration (Smith 2009)
3 Floor vibration induced by human movements in buildings. Brian R. Ellis, Tianjian Ji

Page 4 of 11
 3. Introduction
In this document is compared floor steel beam (S355) vibration assessment with Robot
structural analysis Pro 2016 (RSAP) using Footfall module and time history analysis using load
function described in [2] formula (19) and table 3.1. Also, there are informative results from [3]
formula (11) and table 2.

4. Calculation scheme
Since there is different floor response depending on its natural frequency, there will be two
version accounted – one has natural frequency <10Hz, other has slightly larger than 10Hz
Version 1 (Steady state, natural frequency fn1=6.11Hz):

Version 2 (Transient state, natural frequency fn2=10.18Hz):

Page 5 of 11
 5. Analysis parameters
For modal analysis, there is used following parameters:

For footfall analysis, there is used following parameters:

Selweight is ignored, but loadcase 1 Dead load is converted to mass

Page 6 of 11
For time history analysis, there is Load case 4 Human in middle:

This static load is applied as dynamic load using two time history load functions:
Method: modal decomposition, Damping 3%, Time step 0.02s, End 15s

5.Time history analysis 2.04Hz (Brian R. Ellis)

1+0.4*sin(2*1*3.1416*2.04*t+0)+0.1*sin(2*2*3.1416*2.04*t-3.1416/2)+0.1*sin(2*3*3.1416*2.04*t-
3.1416/2)
9. Time history analysis 2.04Hz (SCI P354)
1+0.436*(1*2.04-0.95)*sin(2*1*3.1416*2.04*t+0)+0.006*(2*2.04+12.3)*sin(2*2*3.1416*2.04*t-
3.1416/2)+0.007*(3*2.04+5.2)*sin(2*3*3.1416*2.04*t+3.1416)+0.007*(4*2.04+2.0)*sin(2*4*3.1416*2.
04*t+3.1416/2)

Page 7 of 11
 6. Result analysis
6.1 Version 1 Steady state
Footfall analysis

In next page there is acceleration graph for both load functions. SCI gives smaller acceleration
values than Ellis function:
a.peak.ellis=211mm/s2, but a.peak.SCI=180mm/s2 (one impulse peak 234mm/s2).

Root mean square values are determined from 1 second period (two steps) after 4th second,
when resonant state is achieved:
a.rms.ellis~135mm/s2, but a.rms.SCI~100mm/s2.
Both peak and RMS values from SCI are greater than footfall analysis results.

Page 8 of 11
Time history analysis

Page 9 of 11
6.2. Version 2 Transient state
Footfall analysis

In next page there is acceleration graph for both load functions. SCI gives slightly larger
acceleration values than Ellis function:
a.peak.ellis=355mm/s2, but a.peak.SCI=402mm/s2.

Root mean square values are determined from 0.5 second period (one step) after 0th second,
when impulse state is maximum:
a.rms.ellis~120mm/s2, but a.rms.SCI~130mm/s2.

Root mean square values are also determined from 1 second period (two steps) after 0th
second, when impulse state is maximum:
a.rms.ellis~90mm/s2, but a.rms.SCI~100mm/s2.

Acceleration after first impulse is decreasing to approximately 30mm/s2

RMS values from SCI are greater than footfall analysis results (if one step RMS is considered),
but seems similar if two step RMS is considered.
Overall values are similar.

Page 10 of 11
Time history analysis

Page 11 of 11