T E C H N I C A L N O T E

ENGINEERED WOOD SYSTEMS

Minimizing Floor Vibration
By Design And Retrofit
E710 September 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
Floor vibration is a natural phenomenon of a floor system in response to dynamic forces, such as people walking or a
washing machines spinning, applied directly to the floor. In some cases, these forces are transmitted from other floors or
adjacent buildings through columns. All suspended floors vibrate to some degree regardless of the floor type, whether steel,
concrete, or wood. Unfortunately, excessive floor vibration can make people feel insecure, uncomfortable, and afraid of
structural failure. Such fear, of course, is usually unwarranted since the displacement and stresses induced by floor vibration
are generally small in view of the design criteria for structural safety.
The issues associated with floor vibration are not new and have been the subjects of international research. In the
United States, floor vibration is generally considered a serviceability concern and not explicitly regulated in the model
building codes. In Canada, on the other hand, the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) has stipulated a criterion to
control floor vibration of single-family dwellings built since 1990 with solid-sawn lumber. Since 1996, the Canadian
Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) has adopted a similar criterion for approval of engineered wood products, such as
prefabricated wood I-joists, structural composite lumber, and parallel chord trusses.
2. FACTORS INFLUENCING FLOOR VIBRATION
Floor vibration is a complicated phenomenon influenced by a number of parameters, including its subjective evalua-
tion. Studies have demonstrated that people have different sensitivity levels to floor vibration, and these differences are
compounded by the circumstances. For example, a person sitting in a room has less tolerance for floor vibration than the
same person walking around a room, while auditory counterparts to floor vibration, such as rattling dishes in a china cabi-
net, can influence the acceptability of a floor system. The subjective nature of floor vibration perception makes an objective
evaluation standard difficult to achieve.
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
2
Efforts to quantify floor vibration behavior have led researchers to identify many factors influencing human response.
The most prominent factors are the frequency content, damping, and vibration amplitude.
The frequency content is a term used to describe the sum of all frequency modes for a product or system. For floor-
vibration, the first frequency (f
1
), also known as the fundamental natural frequency, is used for design purposes.
With respect to fundamental natural frequencies, humans are more sensitive to a low-frequency than a high-
frequency vibration. The sensitive range for humans in response to floor vibration is typically between 4 and 8 Hz.
The fundamental natural frequency of a floor system can be expressed in the following general form:
1 1 __
___
___
f
1
is a function of
(

2
,

EI
x
,

__
m
)
where f
1
= fundamental natural frequency,
= joist span,
EI
x
= flexural stiffness of floor along the floor joist direction, and
m = unit mass of floor
As shown above, the fundamental natural frequency of a floor is a function of the floor span, floor stiffness in the
joist direction, and unit mass of the floor.
Note that the frequency spacing in Hz of two adjacent natural frequencies in a floor system could also negatively
affect the floor performance if the spacing is close enough to cause extensive interaction. The spacing, governed by
the ratio of joist stiffness in the cross-span direction, EI
y
, to the along-span direction, EI
x
, increases with a larger
EI
y
. Because they contribute to the effective EI
y
, construction details like joist spacing, bridging, ceiling details,
and floor sheathing thickness, material type, and attachment to the joists could affect floor performance.
Floor systems with high damping capacities reduce vibrations from peak amplitude to zero. Each components
material damping and the friction between components contribute to the system damping. Because the damping
ratio for a wood floor system varies widely and cannot be reliably measured in many instances, its effect on floor
vibration is often ignored in vibrational analyses.
Amplitude is the magnitude of the floor movement due to vibration, and it is apparent that a low-amplitude vibra-
tion is less annoying to humans than a high-amplitude one.
Based on the discussions given above, it is reasonable to state that the ideal floor system, from the perspective of
floor vibration control, should have a high frequency content, high damping, and low amplitude.
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
3
3. FLOOR VIBRATION CONTROL BY DESIGN
Many criteria for floor vibration control have been proposed or adopted in different countries. Some of those criteria
are reviewed below. Any one of those criteria, or a combination of multiple criteria, may be used at the design stage to eval-
uate the expected floor performance. Unfortunately, researchers generally agree that no single criterion has proven effective
under all circumstances.
3.1 Uniform-Load Static Deflection Limit
Most building codes use the uniform-load deflection criteria to satisfy the serviceability limit state through the maxi-
mum static deflection of a joist under a specified uniformly distributed live load. The prefabricated wood I-joist industry
recommends a lower deflection than the conventional L/360 limit for live load deflection to address floor-vibration con-
cerns. L/480 and L/600 are both common recommendations for floors constructed with I-joists, offering a generally effec-
tive solution for most floor systems. This approach has not completely eliminated floor vibration problems however,
especially for long-span floors, because this criterion is based on the behavior of a single I-joist rather than the two-way
action of a floor system.
3.2 Point-Load Static Deflection Limit
Some argue that a static deflection under a point load would be a better criterion for floor vibration control because
human activities on the floor, such as footsteps, generally cause the vibration. The NBCCs 1990 change to Part 9 reflects
this philosophy, now requiring floor systems made of solid timber joists to meet the following criteria:
If < 3 m, 2 mm (1)
8.0 ___
If 3 m,

1.3
(2)
where = deflection under a static deflection of 1 kN (225 lbf) at the center of the floor system (mm), and
= floor span (m)
Appendix A of the NBCC gives the equation used to calculate , which accounts for all the stiffness contributions
from the two-way action in the floor system and is based on the empirical relationship between a single joist mid-span
deflection and the deflection of the floor under a point load. CMCC has recognized the same criteria for floor systems made
of engineered wood products like I-joists since 1996, with the following criteria
(2)
:
2.55 ____
If 5.5 m < 9.9 m,

0.63
(3)
If 9.9 m, 0.6 mm (4)
These criteria work well in general but are known to be questionable for floor systems with heavy topping or joists
with bridging.
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
4
3.3 Fundamental Natural Frequency
The range of vibration frequency for wood floors is generally between 8 and 30 Hz. Researchers have proposed limit-
ing the floor vibration frequency as one of several methods to reduce the risk of excessive floor vibration. For example, they
suggested that the fundamental natural frequency of floor joists or girders made of solid timber and engineered wood joists
can be calculated as follows
(4)
:
____
g EI
__ ____
f
1
=
2 W
3
(5)
where f
1
= fundamental natural frequency of the joist or girder (Hz),
g = gravity acceleration = 386 in./sec
2
,
E = modulus of elasticity (psi),
I = moment of inertia of the joist or girder alone without consideration of the composite action with
the subfloor (in.
4
),
W= total weight of the structural system (the weight of the joist and its tributary flooring and subfloor)
without the weight of ceiling, floor covering, furniture, and occupancy for unoccupied floors (lbf).
For occupied floors, W is equal to the total weight of the structural system tributary to the joist or
girder plus 2 psf for lightly loaded floors or 4 psf for heavily loaded floors, and
= joist or girder span (in.)
If the floor system consists of both joists and girders, the fundamental frequency of the floor system should be calcu-
lated as follows:
____________
f
2
1,joist
x f
2
1,girder _____________
f
1,system
=
f
2
1,joist
+ f
2
1,girder
(6)
where f
1,system
= fundamental natural frequency of the floor system (Hz),
f
1,joist
= fundamental natural frequency of the joist alone (Hz), and
f
1,girder
= fundamental natural frequency of the girder supporting the joists (Hz)
Researchers suggested that the fundamental natural frequency of the joists and girders (Equation 5), and the floor sys-
tem (Equation 6) be limited to a minimum of 14 Hz for occupied floors and 15 Hz for unoccupied floors to avoid excessive
floor vibration. These simple criteria work well for lightweight floors, but may be conservative for heavier floors, such as those
with concrete topping and ceiling.
3.4 Combined Criteria
The criteria for floor-vibration control, as mentioned above, are mostly calibrated to a specific type of floor construction
based on empirical data. Therefore, it is obvious that none of the criteria alone can be applied universally to all types of
floors. To account for the various factors affecting the floor vibration, researchers have made an attempt to combine the 1 kN
static point load deflection, fundamental natural frequency, and initial velocity due to unit impulse into the draft of
EuroCode 5. Unfortunately, the combined criteria have not been validated with a wide variety of floor construction methods
and appear to be overly complicated for use in engineering design.
A similar effort to combine multiple factors into a simple floor-vibration criterion has also been reported in Canada
even though the confirmation of the criterion to cover a broad range of floor construction details is still pending. This new
criterion combines the fundamental natural frequency with the 1 kN static point load deflection as follows
(5)
:
f
1 ____

0.44
18.7 (7)
where f
1
= fundamental natural frequency of a two-way floor system (Hz), and
= deflection under a static deflection of 1 kN (225 lbf) at the center of the floor system (mm)
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
5
4. FLOOR VIBRATION RETROFIT
While any of the criteria mentioned above can be used as a design guide to provide a high percentage of acceptable
or high-performance floors, the same principles are applicable to retrofitting existing floors with excessive vibration. This
section provides some general guidelines to remedy floor vibration problems in existing buildings. A variety of options (or a
combination of multiple options) can be taken to correct floor vibration problems, but their effectiveness may vary. It is
important first to identify the cause of floor vibration and then to determine the appropriate action.
Removal of vibrating articles: Vibrating articles in a room, such as rattling dishes, make noise and draw attention to
floor vibration. In this case, the elimination of noise by removing or rearranging the articles may be sufficient to
remedy the floor vibration problem.
Soft-spot correction: Some floor vibration is caused by unsupported joist ends due to support settlement, the
dimensional change of the supporting member, or inadequate attachment of floor sheathing to joists. In this case,
the elimination of soft spots may be sufficient to remedy the floor vibration problem. Soft spots can often be elimi-
nated by the use of shims, additional fasteners, or construction adhesives.
Increase in fundamental natural frequency and reduction in vibration amplitude: If the fundamental natural fre-
quency of the floor system is in the low frequency range, the floor vibration problem may be resolved by increasing
the fundamental natural frequency. On the other hand, if the floor vibration is caused by large vibration amplitude,
the floor vibration problem may be resolved by increasing the floor mass or stiffness. The following is a list of
options even though some of the options may not be feasible due to the available floor space and/or economic
considerations:
a) Floor joist reinforcement: As shown on page 2, the fundamental natural frequency of a floor system can be
increased by increasing the floor stiffness. For I-joist floor systems, the floor joists may be stiffened by attaching
19/32- or 23/32-in.-thick wood structural panels to both sides of each I-joist in the problem area. The struc-
tural panels should have the same depth as the I-joist and preferably be installed with the strong panel axis run-
ning parallel to the joist length. When nailing into the I-joist flanges, the minimum nail spacing should be in
accordance with the recommendations published by the I-joist manufacturer. The use of construction adhesives
in addition to nailing is also recommended at these locations.
b) Floor sheathing/covering: Thicker floor sheathing increases the floor stiffness across the support when properly
attached (i.e., glue-nailed) to the existing floor. On the other hand, it also increases the floor mass, which tends
to lower the fundamental natural frequency and the vibration amplitude. Overall, the added mass of an addi-
tional floor layer to the top of the floor joists has a positive effect on floor performance. Hardwood flooring has
also been reported to improve floor performance by reducing floor vibration.
c) Ceiling-board attachment: The attachment of gypsum ceiling boards to the bottom of the floor joists has a simi-
lar effect as the attachment of an additional floor layer to the top of the floor joists. The addition of gypsum ceil-
ing boards may also improve the fire rating of the floor system. The use of construction adhesives in addition to
nailing is also recommended.
d) Bridging: Between-joist bridging, which is normally achieved by blocking, cross bridging, and bottom strapping,
can significantly increase the floor stiffness in the across-the-joist direction. This bridging has very little effect on
the fundamental natural frequency but can significantly reduce the vibration amplitude if it is achieved with a
continuous bottom strap. For floor systems with a span of less than 14 feet, a single line of between-joist bridg-
ing should be installed at mid-span. For longer spans, it is generally recommended that two lines of between-
joist bridging be installed at the third-span locations.
e) Span reduction: If possible, a reduction in the floor span by adding a support can drastically reduce the floor
vibration problem.
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
6
5. SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Allen, D.E. 1998. Control of floor vibration. Construction Technology Update No. 22. Institute for Research in
Construction, National Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
2. Canadian Wood Council. 1997. Development of design procedures for vibration controlled spans using engineered
wood members. Canadian Construction Materials Centre and Consortium of Manufacturers of Engineered Wood Products
Used in Repetitive Member Floor Systems Concluding Report. Ottawa, Canada.
3. Chui, Y.H. 1994. Vibrational performance of wood floor systems Optimization of performance and retrofitting.
Wood Design Focus, 5(3): 8-11.
4. Dolan, J.D., T.M. Murray, J.R. Johnson, D. Runte, and B.C. Shue. 1999. Preventing annoying wood floor vibrations.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(1): 19-24.
5. Hu, L.J. and Y.H. Chui. 2004. Development of a Design Method to Control Vibrations Induced by Normal Walking
Action in Wood-Based Floors. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vol. II: 217-222, Lahti,
Finland.
6. Hu, L.J., Y.H. Chui, and D.M. Onysko. 2001. Vibration serviceability of timber floors in residential construction.
Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 3(3).
7. Hu, L.J. and Y. Tardif. 2000. Effectiveness of strong-back/wood I-blocking for improving vibration performance of
engineered wood floors. Wood Design Focus, 11(3).
8. Hu, L.J. 1999. Effects of partitions on vibration performance of engineered wood floors. Proceedings of the First
International RILEM Symposium on Timber Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden.
9. Hu, L.J. 2002. Serviceability and acoustic performance of wood-based floors with wood flooring. Proceedings of the
Meeting of the Eastern Canadian Section of the Forest Products Society, Montreal, Canada.
10. ISO. 1978. Guide for the evaluation of human exposure to vibration. ISO Standard 2631. Geneva, Switzerland.
11. National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) Appendix A. 1990. National Research Council of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
12. Ohlsson, S. 1991. Serviceability criteria especially floor vibration criteria. Proceedings of 1991 International Timber
Engineering Conference, 1: 58-65, London, UK.
Minimizing Floor Vibration By Design And Retrofit
We have field representatives in many
major U.S. cities and in Canada who can
help answer questions involving APA and
APA EWS trademarked products. For addi-
tional assistance in specifying engineered
wood products, contact us:
APA THE ENGINEERED
WOOD ASSOCIATION
HEADQUARTERS
7011 So. 19th St.
Tacoma, Washington 98466
(253) 565-6600
I
Fax: (253) 565-7265
PRODUCT SUPPORT HELP DESK
(253) 620-7400
E-mail Address: [email protected]
The product use recommendations in this
publication are based on the continuing pro-
grams of l aboratory testi ng, product
research, and comprehensive field experi-
ence of Engineered Wood Systems. However,
because EWS has no control over quality of
workmanship or the conditions under which
engineered wood products are used, it can-
not accept responsibility for product perform-
ance or designs as actually constructed.
Because engineered wood product perform-
ance requirements vary geographically, con-
sult your local architect, engineer or design
professional to assure compliance with code,
construction, and performance requirements.
Issued September 2004
www.apawood.org
@
W
e
b
Addre
s
s
:
Form No. EWS E710
I
2004 APA The Engineered Wood Association
I
www.apawood.org
ENGINEERED WOOD SYSTEMS