VIBRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR OF TIMBER FLOORS

Ivan Glisovic1, Bosko Stevanovic2

ABSTRACT: A complete design methodology for timber floors must address the problem of annoying vibration caused by the occupants themselves. Proper controlling relies on good understanding nature of floor vibrations induced by human movements. This paper reviews the major findings on characteristics of the footstep forces and discusses mechanism of footstep-induced vibrations in timber floors. A numerical modelling procedure, which is based on the finite-element method, for obtaining the natural frequencies, mode shapes and vibration response of timber floor systems is presented. Using this numerical model, the effect of change in various floor parameters on vibrational performance of timber floors is investigated. KEYWORDS: Timber floor, Footstep, Vibration response, Finite element modelling, Construction details

1 INTRODUCTION 12
Annoying floor vibrations are common in many types of building structures. Problems of this nature have been reported in private dwelling houses, office buildings, schools, restaurants, etc. Although floor vibrations can result from many sources (e.g. use of machinery, explosions, external traffic) the most common and problematic are caused by the occupants themselves by their everyday activity. Such forces are particularly problematic because they cannot be easily isolated from structure and they occur frequently. Therefore, excessive floor vibrations due human-induced loading have been characterized as probably the most persistent floor serviceability problem encountered by designers [1]. For heavy floors which utilize concrete as a deck, vibrations produced by normal human movements are generally less noticeable. In comparison the amplitudes of vibration response found in timber floors are relatively high. This is because amplitudes of response are inversely proportional to the self-weight of the structure being vibrated. As human bodies are generally sensitive to vibrations, this high level response can cause discomfort and undue disturbance of occupants. Consequently, the requirement for designing against disturbing vibrational performance is particularly important for light-weight floors built from materials such as wood. In past, many design guides and codes of practice have used point load deflection and fundamental frequency as a measure of acceptable floor performance [2]. However,
1

modern standards have now moved away from these traditional measures of vibration performance and require that designer make realistic estimation of level of floor response that will be encountered in practice by considering the walking excitation directly and comparing this with human annoyance criteria. This is primarily a result of a considerably reduced cost of computing, but also reflects an increasing awareness that floors are dynamically very difficult structures to model heaving complex geometry, boundary and continuity conditions, stiffness distribution and interaction of close modes of vibration requiring multiple degree of freedom modelling. The general goal of this research is to gain a better understanding of timber floor vibration phenomena in order to apply it to a better prediction then what exists for real systems. A finite-element approach is utilized to model timber floor systems under dynamic loads resulting from normal human activities. The numerical model takes into account the various complexities in timber floor construction: orthotropic sheathing and semirigid sheathing-to-joist connections. Using this numerical model, the influence of construction variables on floor performances is evaluated. Evaluation is based on comparison between the reference and modified floors.

2 DYNAMIC LOAD
Acceleration and deceleration of the (mass of) human body during various human activities is causing dynamic forces. Forces depend upon many factors including the characteristics of the person or persons, the activity being undertaken (e.g. walking, running, jumping), the number of people, whether activities of different people are coordinated and the characteristics of the floor surface.

Ivan Glisovic, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: ivang@grf.bg.ac.rs 2 Bosko Stevanovic, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: bole@imk.grf.bg.ac.rs

There are very many variations of rhythmic body movements leading to large variety of dynamic loads. Loads differ in their nominal frequency, frequency content and time function. Activities generating synchronized rhythmic movements such as those due to several or more people dancing or exercising are especially problematic. Several people acting synchronously for 20 seconds or more can lead to approximately periodic loads that produce almost steady state structural vibration [3]. Annoying vibration of timber floors is commonly associated with walking and running forces. Vertical forces due to an individual foot impact have been measured and characterized (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1: Data on walking and running (Bachmann and Ammann, 1987) [4]

Activity Slow walk Normal walk Fast walk Slow running (jogging) Fast running (sprinting)

Pacing frequency f (Hz) 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 >3.2

Forward speed V (m/s) 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.3 5.5

Stride length L (m) 0.6 0.75 1.0 1.3 1.75

that both legs were periodically on the ground. In addition to the type of movement (walking or running), the weight of a walker plays a significant role in determining the magnitude, but has less effect on the actual shape of the force fluctuation. The type of footwear and traversing surface were found to have little effect on the forces applied by human movements [1]. Dynamic forces from groups of people walking about the floor at random would seldom cause serviceability problems [5]. The static deflection of the floor naturally would increase. However, the excitation would lack coherence unless the group was walking in step, and thus the dynamic component of motion would be small. Therefore, a certain general conclusion can be made that individual excitation represents an adequate model for development of vibration serviceability criterion. Frequency content of walking excitation was studied by Ohlsson [6]. The force is composed of two different component types: Low-frequency components (0-8 Hz) which origin from the step frequency and its harmonics; High-frequency components (8-40 Hz) which origin from impacts when the heel contacts the floor surface. Therefore, if the floor is low-frequency having a first mode of vibration which is less than approximately 8 Hz, the low-frequency loading components may create a strong resonant vibration response. On the other hand, higher frequency floors are more responsive to the impulsive component of walking.

As can be seen, there are two peaks in a force-time history with the first corresponding to heel strike contact and the second to toe-lift off contact. For normal walking the peak force is about 1.2-1.5 times the static force, and has duration of between 0.5 s and 0.8 s. [3]. As the individuals gait increases from a walk to a run, the peaks merge and peak force is much higher, but the duration shorter, for running than for walking. Also, in running, periods when both feet were off the ground were clearly observable between the forcing peaks. On the other hand, in periods of normal walking forces induced by left and right leg overlapped, which means

3 DEFINITION OF THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM

A typical arrangement of components in a joisted floor is shown in Figure 2. Most timber floors employ equidistant joists as primary structural members. Joists are sheathed (overlain) by a wood or non-wood layer of structural material, the top of which is the floor surface.

Figure 1: Detailed forcing patterns for different types of human activities (Wheeler, 1982) [1]

In the structural sense whole floors with such construction behave as a thin plate reinforced by series of ribs. The plate layers can be either isotropic or orthotropic depending upon the material used. Floors are often stiffened in the across-rib (across-joist) direction by addition of row of bridging or blocking. Whenever possible, engineers conceptualize systems as simple, usually rectangular, plan arrangement with idealized supports. However, definition of the dynamic system for any floor is often not simple. Plan geometry, including openings for stairs and services, needs to be known, as does the nature of the structural system for the building as a whole. Characteristics of both supporting and supported components will influence the response of the floor [3]. Physical and mechanical properties of structural and non-structural components take effect on modal characteristics of a floor system (stiffness, mass and damping).

Figure 2: Typical joisted floor construction: a) sheathing on lumber joists; b) sheathing on wood I joists [3]

4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

Numerical analysis was carried out using the finite element method (FEM). Use of finite element models for considering floor vibration offers opportunities to the designer, by allowing a more realistic consideration of floor structures then can be achieved with simple hand methods of analysis. Also, numerical modelling allows easier and more accurate treatment of human-induced walking excitation. In this study, commercial software packages for static and dynamic structural analysis SAP 2000 was used. The presented numerical model is intended primarily for dynamic analysis of timber floors. The model can be used for both frequency and time history response analyses of floor systems. Consider a reference floor with the dimensions and
Table 2: Dimensions and properties of reference timber floor

properties shown in Table 2. This floor, which is typical residential timber floors, was designed to satisfy stress and deformation conditions (l/250) in accordance with current SRPS regulations. The floor cover (sheathing) was assumed to be semirigidly fastened to equidistant joists to produce an assembly capable of composite action, which together vibrates under dynamic loads as a stiffened plate. The stiffness of connectors controls the level of composite action between the sheathing and joists. In general, the sheathing has different elastic properties in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the joists and was modelled as an orthotropic plate. The material properties for the joist were considered isotropic. Timber joists were modelled using Solid elements (spatial three-dimensional elements with 8 nodes), while Shell elements (plane elements with 4 nodes) were used for sheathing. The given elements have 6 degrees of freedom in each node, three displacement and three rotations - ux, uy, uz, x, y, z. Each connector was modelled by vertical Linear Link

Floor property Span length Joist spacing Number of joist Joist depth Joist width Modulus of elasticity for all joists Mass density of joist Thickness of sheathing Modulus of elasticity for sheathing* EL / ER / ET Shear modulus for sheathing* GLR / GLT / GRT Poissons ratio for sheathing* LR / LT / RT Mass density of sheathing Connectors Nail spacing Nail vertical stiffness** Nail horizontal slip stiffness** Nail rotational stiffness** Uniformly distributed load Bridging Support conditions

Value

3.6 m 60 cm 9 16 cm 12 cm 1000 kN/cm2 500 kg/m3 4.8 cm 1000 / 86 / 51.8 kN/cm2 73.5 / 69.1 / 7 kN/cm2 0.37 / 0.42 / 0.47 500 kg/m3 Nail (two rows) 100 mm 1.2 x 109 N/mm 1200 N/mm 180 N-mm 0 (unloaded) No All joist simply supported on both ends Note: *Suggested by Bodig and Jayne [7] **Suggested by Folz and Foschi [8]

elements (linear springs) having horizontal slip stiffness (slip modulus) in two directions, one vertical stiffness, and rotational stiffness. The adopted assumption that the connectors are characterized by a loading-slip linear relationship does not seriously limit the application of this numerical model, since the vibrations of timber floors is a serviceability problem where the structural integrity of the floor is not jeopardized. In a strict sense, the vertical stiffness value should be different in tension (i.e. nail pullout) versus compression. However, because deflections were assumed to be quite small, the model was simplified by using a single value that was very large in comparison with the horizontal and rotational stiffness values [9]. Values of nail horizontal slip stiffness and rotational stiffness as suggested by Folz and Foschi are given in Table 2. The links had a length equal to one-half of the sheathing thickness. In the floors used for this study, all joists were assumed to be simply supported (i.e. pin and roller) at their ends. The sides of the floor (parallel to the joists), primarily, were not supported. The presence of bridging was simulated by restricting the torsional deformation of the joists. The finite-element modelling strategy of timber floor is shown in Figure 3.

modes of strongly orthotropic plates exhibit a common shape (usually a single half sine-wave) along the joists, but have different shapes across the joists (see Figure 5).
Table 3: Natural frequencies of reference floor

Mode number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Frequency (Hz) 16.98 19.17 23.47 32.32 47.33 62.39 65.89 68.55 69.74 76.04

Human pedestrian excitation was considered using timehistory analysis based upon Newmark time integration approach. A typical non-dimensional force-time relation for a single footfall is shown in Figure 4a. For time-step dynamic analysis, damping was included by use of Rayleigh damping, in which the material damping matrix is assumed to be directly proportional to both the stiffness matrix and the mass matrix. The analysis comprised two excitation cases: walking in place in the centre of the floor and walking across the floor. The excitation of a floor system by one person walking is shown spatially and temporally in Figure 4b. The force pulses due to successive footsteps will normally overlap by roughly 0.1 sec. The step length was taken as 0.75 m.

Figure 3: Finite element modelling strategy

5 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
Dynamic analysis comprised determination of natural frequencies, corresponding vibration modes and floor response to excitation by human footsteps. The first 10 natural frequencies for a given reference floor are shown in Table 3. It can be noticed that the values of natural frequencies are quite closely spaced. This result is typical for strongly orthotropic structures. Despite the propertis of the floor plate and presence of bridging, joisted timber floor are inherently orthotropic. This promotes a tendency towards clustering of the first few modal frequencies, with the second modal frequency often being only 15-20% higher than the first [3]. Modal clustering has the effect of increasing the amplitude of vibration response, and thus velocity and acceleration levels experienced by a person or object located on a floor. Because modes are clustered, it is not generally reliable to base vibration assessments of timber floors only on the fundamental mode. The extent to which modes are clustered depends upon parameters such as floor shape, span and width, and flexural stiffness along and across joists. For recangular plan floors the first few

Figure 4: Force due to walking on floor: a) force from single footstep, b) forces on span from one person walking [5]

Based on above understanding of the nature of the footstep force, it is concluded that the two components in walking excitation can initiate two types of vibrations in floors, i.e. transient vibration and resonance, depending on the dynamic properties of the floor system, rather the floor system stiffness, mass and its capacity to dissipate vibration energy (damping) [10]. These properties are

Mode 1 f = 16.98 Hz

Mode 1 f = 17.34 Hz

Mode 2 f = 19.17 Hz

Mode 2 f = 23.76 Hz

Mode 3 f = 23.47 Hz

Mode 3 f = 36.59 Hz

Mode 4 f = 32.32 Hz

Mode 4 f = 56.35 Hz

Figure 5: Typical mode shapes for a rectangular joisted floor: simply supported on two edges (left); simply supported on all edges (right)

determined by floor material, design and construction. The fundamental frequency of a floor built with a material having a high ratio of strength to mass such as wood is most likely above 8 Hz, which is above the footstep frequency and its harmonics. Therefore, the vibration induced by footstep forces is most likely dominated by a transient response caused by the

individual heel impact force from each footstep. Time records of response in the centre of the reference floor are shown in Figure 6. The figure shows that the floor response was a train of transient vibrations. It can be observed that each transient vibration signal contains a high initial peak and quickly decays. The peak values of a transient vibration are governed by system stiffness

0 0 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0.1

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Displacement (mm)

-0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9

Displacement (mm)

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

Time (s)
0.015 0.012 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.006

Time (s)

0.005

Velocity (m/s)

0 0 -0.005 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Velocity (m/s)

0.004 0.002 0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.008 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

-0.01

Time (s)
1.5

Time (s)

1.5

Acceleration (m/s )

Acceleration (m/s )

0.5

0.5

0 0 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0 0 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

Time (s)

Time (s)

Figure 6: Time history floor response in centre of the floor: due walking in place (left); due walking perpendicular to joists (right) (damping ratio of 3%)

and mass, but not by damping. Damping is a measure of how quickly the response of vibrating system decay. When floors are light, response includes time variation of static deflection due to a moving repeated load, as well as decaying natural variations due to footstep impulses. A point load stiffness criterion is appropriate for the static deflection component and a criterion based on footstep impulse vibration is appropriate for the impulsive component of loading.

individually, while holding all the other parameters constant at their reference-floor values. The results of parameter analysis given in Tables 4 show the values of the fundamental frequencies of floors and values of first four modal separation factors. MSFn, n-th modal separation factor, is defined as [8]:
MSFn = f n +1 fn

(1)

6 PARAMETRIC STUDY
In order to investigate the influence of different floor parameters on natural frequencies and on vibration response of a referent floor, a parametric study was carried out using the previously described procedure of numerical modelling. The procedure for parametric study involved varying each significant floor parameter

where fn+1 and fn are the (n+1) and n-th floor natural frequencies, respectively. Clearly, improvements in floor performance, from the perspective of human perception, can be achieved by raising the fundamental frequency and increasing the spacing between adjacent frequencies (i.e. increasing the MSFn). The levels of vibration can be represented by displacement, velocity or acceleration. In this study, the

value of root mean square (rms) of acceleration was adopted as a referent value in accordance with ISO standard. This parameter is able to account for human sensitivity to amplitude, rate of decay and frequency components of the vibration. Since people can tolerate higher vibration magnitude at higher frequencies versus lower frequencies, the calculated rms acceleration is frequency weighted by an appropriate factor. According to international standard ISO 2631-2: 1989 [11], for frequencies between 8 and 80 Hz, the factor is equal to 8/f0, where f0 is the floor fundamental natural frequency in Hz. The Arms value is calculated as:
1 T Arms = a 2 ( t ) dt T 0
1 2

given analysis, t1 = 0.05 s and P0 = 500 N, which is 70% of the weight of a man whose mass is 70 kg, was adopted.

Figure 7: Shape of forcing function of a heel-drop impact

(2)

where a(t) is the frequency-weighted acceleration in time t and T is total duration of the vibration. The duration of vibration was taken as 1 sec. A heel-drop test was developed to achieve impacts similar to those resulting from human footfall impacts. The person produced impacts standing on his toes then dropping his heels rapidly through a distance of about 65 mm. A typical shape of the force-time function for heeldrop impact is represented graphically in Figure 7 together with the simplified rectangular representation used in following analysis. This approximation leads to a considerable simplification in computation but only a small conservative error in the final solution. The size of the rectangular impulse varies according to such factors as the weight and build of the person producing it. Experiments by Chui and Smith [12] have shown that t1 is in the range 0.05-0.07 s and P0 can be taken as 70% of the weight of the person applying heel-impact. In the
Table 4: Results of parametric study

The root-mean-square values of frequency-weighted acceleration (Arms) of a vibration caused by a footfall impact are shown in Table 4 (damping ratio of 3%). Construction details have a strong influence on the dynamic behavior of lightweight timber floors and the acceptability of particular floors to users of buildings. Intensive laboratory measurements as well as in situ measurements were performed on real floors in order to evaluate the influence of various structural parameters on static stiffness and transient response of the floor [3,8,12-18]. Results obtained by parametric study completely correspond to the results of this research. Reducing the joints spacing mainly increases the stiffness of a floor in the joist span direction. This results in an increase in the fundamental natural frequency, which implies an improvement in floor performance, and reduction in the spacing between natural frequencies. As already mentioned, reduction in the spacing between frequencies may have a negative effect on vibration response as closely spaced vibration modes may interact to produce motion with relatively high amplitudes. Thus

Floor parameter

Fundamental frequency f (Hz)

Modal separation factor MFO1 MFO2 MFO3 MFO4 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.19 1.13 1.10 1.07 1.13 1.11 1.15 1.13 1.11 1.13 1.37 1.13 1.13 1.20 1.22 1.25 1.37 1.22 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.32 1.27 1.22 1.19 1.22 1.54 1.22 1.23 1.33 1.38 1.41 1.55 1.38 1.26 1.18 1.38 1.51 1.39 1.38 1.37 1.38 1.54 1.38 1.44 1.42 1.46 1.49 1.47 1.46 1.37 1.21 1.46 1.12 1.45 1.46 1.49 1.46 1.05 1.46 1.49

Rms acceleration Arms (m/s2) 0.291 0.380

Joist spacing (cm) 40 18.66 60* 16.98 80 15.72 Joist depth (cm) 12 12.08 16* 16.98 20 22.08 Sheathing thickness (cm) 2.4 19.94 4.8* 16.98 6.0 15.85 Nail spacing (mm) 50 17.40 100* 16.98 200 16.61 Support condition Supported two edges* 16.98 Supported four edges 17.34 Bridging No bridging* 16.98 Bridging 17.03 Note: *Reference floor values

0.380 0.284 0.380 0.323 0.380 0.408 0.380 0.266 0.380 0.292

smaller joist spacing does not, as commonly believed always ensure satisfactory vibrational performance. It is also interesting to observe that increasing the depth of the joist increases the fundamental frequency, but also causes a clustering of all the frequencies. This potential problem cannot be detected from a static analysis. Increasing the thickness of the sheathing can greatly reduce static deflection under concentrated load. This does not automatically mean that dynamic behaviour is improved, because the mass increases as well as the stiffness and natural frequencies can actually reduce. The degree of reduction depends primarily on the relationship between modulus of elasticity of the sheathing in two orthogonal directions and it is larger for larger anisotropy of the sheathing material. The given conclusion is contradictory to the opinion in practice that the vibration problem can be simply solved by increasing the thickness of the sub-floor. Reducing the mechanical connectors spacing (which is equivalent to increasing both horizontal and rotational stiffness of connectors) increases the fundamental frequency and the modal separation factors. An increase in the mechanical connector horizontal stiffness increases the fundamental frequency, but little effect on the modal separation factors. On the other hand, an increase in the mechanical connector rotational stiffness has little effect on the fundamental frequency, but increases the modal separation factors. Due to exceptional orthotropic of the floor observed in the parameter study the given effect is not expressed. The benefits of having all four edges supported instead of two are demonstrated. Although this practice has little effect on the fundamental mode of vibration it stiffened the floor in the direction perpendicular to the span and thereby raises the higher natural frequencies. The mean level of response is also observed to be lower in the floor with all edges supported. Between joist bridging (blocking or cross-bracing) in the interior of the span often has a very beneficial influence on the stiffness in the across joist direction. Although bridging has little influence on the first three natural frequencies, it improves the modal separation of the higher natural frequencies. When the joists are tall and slender and have low torsional rigidity, bridging is necessary to prevent torsional movement in joints. Considering the influence of various floor parameters, a general conclusion can be made that the fundamental frequency of a floor is the predominant function of stiffness in the span direction, while the interval between adjacent floor frequencies is governed by the ratio of stiffnesses in two orthogonal directions and that the intensity of the dynamic response depends on the mass of the entire system. Based on the foregoing, improvements in floor performance may be attained by raising the natural frequencies, increasing the spacing between adjacent frequencies, or reducing the amplitudes of the response.

factors contributing to their excitation, response and acceptability of resultant vibrations. Human-induced footstep loading has proved to be major source of floor vibration disturbance, as it happens frequently and, in practice, cannot be isolated. Vibrations induced by footsteps in floors do not cause damage or structural failure, but can human annoyance and malfunction of sensitive equipment. An awareness of the nature of vibration can help avoid or alleviate vibration-related problems. It is advantageous and less costly to consider the effect of vibration on the building and its contents during the design process. It has been noted that annoying vibrations of timber floors can be effectively controlled through a design approach that accounts for stiffness and mass. The choice of appropriate structural arrangements and detailing is also important in order to achieve good results.

REFERENCES
[1] Pavic A., Reynolds P: Vibration serviceability of long-span concrete buildings floors. Part 1: Review of background information. The Shock and Vibration Digest, 34(3):191-211, 2002. [2] Hu L. J., Chui Y. H., Onysko D. M.: Vibration serviceability of timber floors in residential construction. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 3:228-237. [3] Smith I.: Vibration of timber floors: serviceability aspects. In: Thelandersson S. and Larsen H. J. (eds) Timber Engineering, Johan Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England, 242-266, 2003. [4] Newland D. E.: Pedestrian excitation of bridges recent results. In: 10th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Stockholm, Sweden, 2003. [5] Ellingwood B. M., Tallin A.: Structural serviceability: floor vibrations. Journal of Structural Engineering, 110(2):401-418, 1984. [6] Ohlsson S. V.: Serviceability limit states - vibration of wooden floors. In: STEP 1, Centrum Hout, The Netherland, A18/1-A18/8, 1995. [7] Bodig J., Jayne B. A.: Mechanics of wood and wood composites. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1982. [8] Filiatrault A., Folz B., Foschi R. O.: Finite-strip free-vibration analysis of wood floors. Journal of Structural Engineering, 116(8):2127-2141, 1990. [9] Al-Faqahaa A. A., Cofer W. F., Fridley K. J.: Vibraion design criterion for wood floors exposure to normal human activities. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(12):1401-1406, 1999. [10] Hu L. J., Desjardins R., Chui Y. H.: Nature of vibrations induced by footsteps in lightweight and heavyweight floors. In: 9th World Conference of Timber Engineering, Portland, USA, 2006. [11] ISO 2631-2:1989. Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration: Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings (1 to 80 Hz). International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.

7 CONCLUSIONS
Dynamic behaviour of timber floors in buildings is complex and interdisciplinary in nature, with many

[12] Smith I., Chui Y. H.: Design of lightweight wooden floors to avoid human discomfort. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 15:254-262, 1988. [13] Smith I., Chui Y. H.: Construction methods for minimizing vibration levels in floors with lumber joists. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 19:833-841, 1992. [14] Foschi R. O., Gupta A.: Reliability of floors under impact vibration. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14:683-689, 1987. [15] Chui Y. H., Smith I.: Dynamic response of lightweight floors with wood I-joists. Proceeding of the 1991 International Timber Engineering Conference. London, UK, Vol. 4, 4.378-4.385, 1991.

[16] Chui Y. H.: Evaluation of vibration performance of light-weight wooden floors. Proceeding of the 1988 International Conference of Timber Engineering. Washington State University, Seattle, USA, Vol. 1, 707-715, 1988. [17] Ohlsson S. V.: A design approach for footstepinduced floor vibration. Proceeding of the 1988 International Conference of Timber Engineering. Washington State University, Seattle, USA, Vol. 1, 722-729, 1988. [18] Weckendorf J. et al.: Assessment of vibrational performance on timber floors. In: 9th World Conference of Timber Engineering, Portland, USA, 2006.