Abstract
This paper investigates the dynamic response of a composite structural system known as Profiled Steel Sheet Dry Board with Concrete infill (PSSDBC) to evaluate its vibration serviceability under human walking load. For this point, thirteen (13) PSSDBC panels in the category of Low Frequency Floor (LFF) were developed using Finite Element Method (FEM). The natural frequencies and mode shapes of the studied panels were determined based on the developed finite element models. For more realistic evaluation on dynamic response of the panels, dynamic load models representing human walking load were considered based on their Fundamental Natural Frequency (FNF), and also time and space descriptions. The peak accelerations of the panels were determined and compared to the limiting value proposed by the standard code ISO 2631-2. Effects of changing thickness of the Profiled Steel Sheet (PSS), Dry Board (DB), screw spacing, grade of concrete, damping ratio, type of support, and floor span on the dynamic responses of the PSSDBC panels were assessed. Results demonstrated that although some factors reduced dynamic response of the PSSDBC system under human walking load, low frequency PSSDBC floor system could reach high vibration levels resulting in lack of comfortableness for users.
Highlights
Serviceability in modern structures constructed by high strength and lightweight materials is the most important issue and should be considered in addition to the strength/safety criteria [6, 12]
Gandomkar et al / Dynamic response of low frequency PSSDBC floor system under human walking load limited to SPAN/360 (A58, 1982) or between SPAN/180 and SPAN/480 in different specifications (ACI 318-77, 1977 and AISC, 1978), and second is the minimum of DEPTH/SPAN for flexural members depending on the end restrains (ACI 318-77, 1977) [14]
Al-Foqaha et al [2] reported a number of researchers (Onysko 1970, 1985, 1988; Polensek 1970, 1971, 1975, 1988; Polensek et al 1976; Allen 1974, 1990; Allen and Rainer 1976; Allen and Murray 1993; Murray 1979; Chui 1986; Smith and Chui 1988; Ebrahimpour and Sack 1989; Ohlsson 1988, 1991; Kalkert et al 1993; Dolan et al 1995, Lenzen 1966; Wiss and Parmelee 1974, Filiatrault et al 1990; Foschi et al 1995; Kalkert et al 1995) have declared that evaluation of the floor vibration serviceability may not be performed by control of the static deflection such as SPAN/360 [2]
Summary
Serviceability in modern structures constructed by high strength and lightweight materials is the most important issue and should be considered in addition to the strength/safety criteria [6, 12]. Smith and Chui [31] presented a usable method for designers based on a flow chart to evaluate the dynamic response of lightweight wood-joist floor by determination of natural frequency and RMS acceleration of the system under the heel-drop impact load. 24 F.A. Gandomkar et al / Dynamic response of low frequency PSSDBC floor system under human walking load. Dynamic responses of the studied panels were determined in terms of peak acceleration and compared to limiting values proposed by the ISO 2631-2 [22] to show their vibration acceptability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
