Software Verification

PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS

REVISION NO.: 0

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001

OFFICE FLOOR WITH CANTILEVER AREA – VIBRATIONS DUE TO WALKING

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this example is to verify the Floor Vibration Analysis implemented
in the program. The methodology adheres to the procedures outlined in Chapter
7—Finite Element Analysis Methods—of the AISC Steel Design Guide 11:
Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity, Second
Edition (referred to as the AISC DG11).

Example 7.1 presented in the AISC DG11 is used to verify the Floor Vibration
Analysis Implementation and will be referred to as the “reference example”. The
model and calculations reproduced with THE PROGRAM will be referred to as
the “verification example”.

The reference example involves evaluating a floor system for vibrations induced
by walking. The floor features a 16 ft cantilever; thus, it is recommended to use
the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) methodology. The floor is part of a steel-
framed building, and its structural system comprises a concrete slab on a steel deck
supported by steel joists and girders. The floor configuration is presented in Figure
1, where the bay to be evaluated is highlighted. Two points of interest are studied.
The middle span of the bay between Gridlines 3-4 and D-E, referred to as the
Backspan Point; and a point close to the cantilever’s edge, at the middle span
between Gridlines 3-4, referred to as the Cantilever Point.

The FEA model for the verification example is created in the program according
to the recommendations presented in section 7.2 of the AISC DG11. Some of these
recommendations include:

• Modeling only a portion of the floor containing the bay(s) being evaluated.

• Treating beams, joists, and girders connected to concrete slabs as fully

composite, meaning they work together to resist loads. Thus, effective
transformed moments of inertia are used.

• Considering beam and girder shear connections as continuous.

• Accounting for orthotropic material behavior for the slabs to consider their
proportional flexural stiffness in each direction. For example, this includes
adding the additional stiffness provided by the steel-deck’s ribs in the
strong direction.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 1

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Figure 1. FEA model of the floor being evaluated for vibrations.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 2

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

FEA MODEL, PROPERTIES, AND LOADING

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Simple (or pinned) supports are placed at the columns locations to simulate the
actual support conditions. Furthermore, as the model represents only a portion of
the entire floor area, roller supports are introduced at nodes on Gridlines 6 and 1,
mimicking the floor's continuity. To similarly reflect continuity, the stiffness of
joist elements at Gridline C is augmented by a factor of 10.

SLAB PROPERTIES
The total slab thickness is 5 ¼ in. using a 2 in. deck. Thus, the concrete slab is
modeled as a thin shell element with a thickness of 3.25 in. To account for the stee-
deck’s ribs, the flexural stiffness in the strong direction is increased using property
modifiers. In this case, the Bending m11 modifier of the shell section is set to 2.97.
This value is obtained from the properties provided in the reference example.

The slab’s material is an elastic isotropic material with modulus of elasticity E =

1.35*Ec = 2700 ksi, Poisson ratio v = 0.2, and shear modulus G = 1125 ksi.

SLAB LOADS
The slab bears a uniform load of 53 psf. This value includes its own self weight,
the vibration live load corresponding to office space (per DG section 3.3), and
additional dead load from ceiling, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical fixtures.
This translates into a total mass of 1.65 psf-s2/ft. For modeling simplicity, the
slab’s material self-weight is neglected, and the total mass is added as “area mass”
to the corresponding shell elements.

JOIST AND GIRDER PROPERTIES

The joists and girders are modeled using frame elements with typical wide-flange
cross-sections, their properties are imported from the AISC15 program database.
Girders utilize section W24x55, while joists use section W16x26. Their properties
are the following:
W16x26 W24x55
Cross-Section Area [in ]
2
7.68 16.2
Moment of Inertia about 3 axis [in4] 301 1350
Moment of Inertia about 2 axis [in4] 9.59 29.1

To account for the composite action, the stiffness of the joists and girders is
increased accordingly. For the interior girders between Gridlines C and E, the
moment of inertia about axis 3 (I3), is increased by a factor of 2.94. For the girders
between Gridlines E and F, I3 is increased by a factor of 2.72.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 3

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

Similarly, for all the joist elements (W16x26 sections), the I3 factor is set to 3.65,
except those joists at the edges. Joists on Gridline C have an I3 factor of 10 for
continuity purposes. Joists on the cantilever edge, at Gridline F, have an I3 factor
of 8.39 that accounts for the composite action and an additional restraint due to
cladding.

The factors used to increase the I3 of the beam elements are derived from the
transformed moment of inertia values given in the reference example.

The material for all steel members is the standard A99Fy50 with modulus of
elasticity E= 29000 ksi, Poisson ratio v=0.3, shear modulus G = 11153.85 ksi, and
density of 490 lb. / ft3.

JOIST AND GIRDER LOADS

The self-weight of the joists and girders is automatically calculated by the program
from the cross-sectional area and material density. In addition to this, a cladding-
induced load of 280 lb./ft is applied at the cantilever’s edge. This is represented as
a “line mass” of 8.70 plf-s²/ft, added to the joist elements on Gridline F.

VERTICAL MASS
It is important to verify that the vertical mass is properly considered in the modal
analysis for the assessment of floor vibrations. The inclusion of the vertical mass
can be modified by simply checking the box “include vertical mass” at the
corresponding mass source definition located at the menu: Define > Mass Source.

MESHING
The meshing strategy ensures that interior bays measuring 24x30 ft are meshed
into 6x8 elements, while cantilever bays of 16x30 ft are segmented into 4x8
elements. The layout of the resulting mesh is shown in Figure 1 (c).

For the analysis of floor vibrations, it is important to include in the mesh the point
where the excitation originated and the point where the vibration’s impact needs
to be checked. In this example, two points of interest are required. The Backspan
Point and the Cantilever Point, both illustrated in Figure 1 (c).

To generate the Backspan Point, the bay between Gridlines 3-4 and D-E is
subdivided into 4 shells. Similarly, for the Cantilever Point, another division is
made between Gridlines 3-4 close to the edge of Gridline F. The meshing settings
in these divided shells are set to ensure uniform mesh size across all bays.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 4

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

WALKING VIBRATION LOADING

Walking vibration loads are introduced through the definition of Excitation Sets
(accessed through the menu: Define > Floor Vibration > Excitation Sets). Their
definition requires specifying the Excitation Joint, the Response Joint, and other
parameters related to the steady-state load case.

The parameters utilized in this verification example are shown on Figure 2, and
summarize as follows.

• Associated Joints: The Excitation and Response Joint labels. In this case,
the Backspan Joint and the Cantilever Joint were automatically labeled by
the program as “56” and “66”, respectively.
• Function: A steady-state function with a uniform magnitude of 1. The
program’s default “UnifSS” function serves this purpose.
• Modal Case: The default “MODAL” case is used, setting the maximum
number of modes to 40 to capture modes up to frequencies of 20 Hz.
• Damping: The Stiffness proportional coefficient applied to the hysteretic
damping in the steady-state load case (or the modal damping). The
references example adopts a viscous damping ratio of 2.5%. This is
equivalent to 5% modal damping according to the following relation:
𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 (𝜔𝜔) = 2𝜁𝜁
where 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘 (ω) is the stiffness proportional coefficient, and ζ is the viscous
damping ratio.
• Last Frequency: This value represents the highest frequency used to run
the steady-state analysis. A value of 20 Hz is utilized as frequencies higher
than 20 Hz are unlikely to cause human discomfort due to floor vibrations.

Figure 2. Definition of the Excitation Sets.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 5

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

NOTES ON MODELING
When creating the FEA model, following the recommendations presented in
section 7.2 of the AISC DG11 is crucial for the proper evaluation of floor
vibrations. However, there are different ways of modeling the floor that will result
in equivalent or similar structural properties and still be in alignment with the
AISC DG11 recommendations. For instance, for steel-decks, instead of using
property modifiers to account for the composite action, another alternative is to
use orthotropic materials for the shell elements and setting the beam insertion point
(or offsets) according to its position relative to the concrete slab.

Therefore, given the variety of modeling styles, engineering judgment should be

used when selecting the most suitable strategy for each project. In this example,
the modeling strategy aims to replicate the results of the reference example as close
as possible.

ANALYSIS
The analysis is run after the Excitations Sets have been defined. The program
automatically generates the required load cases and applies the necessary load
patterns based on the definition of the Excitation Sets. The program-generated load
cases for this particular example are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Program generated load cases.

TECHNICAL FEATURES TESTED

 Serviceability evaluation of a steel-framed floor subjected to vibrations induced
due to walking activities according to the methodologies presented in the AISC
DG 11, Chapter 7.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 6

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

RESULTS COMPARISON
FEA MODEL
The first step is to compare the FEA model created for the verification example to
the model that is presented in the reference example. This is done by looking at the
modal frequencies. Particularly, those of modes 1,3,5,10, and 12, that are some of
the most relevant modes to this example. Their relevance is deduced by noticing
that the maximum vertical displacement appears to be close to either the Backspan
Point or the Cantiliver Point, as seen in Figure 4.

Table 1 presents a comparison between the modal frequencies of both models, and
Figure 4 visually illustrates the deformation of mode 1 and 5.

Reference Verification Difference

Mode
Freq. (Hz) Freq. (Hz) (as %)
1 3.49 3.38 3.15%
3 4.89 4.77 2.45%
5 7.05 7.15 1.42%
10 8.85 8.57 3.16%
12 9.35 9.02 3.53%
avg 2.74%
Table 1. Comparison of Modal Frequencies.

Figure 4. Visual comparison of the deformation of Modes 1 and 5. The reference example images
are taken from the AISC DG11.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 7

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

These comparisons reveal that both models exhibit nearly identical properties and
behaviors. The observed differences are minor, with an average discrepancy of 3%
in the modal frequencies. This suggests a high level of similarity between both
model’s dynamic responses.

Note that reproducing the analytical model with the exact same properties is
difficult to achieve, as the reference example does not explicitly provide the
complete set of input values and strategies utilized to develop the FEA model. As
mentioned in section Notes on Modeling, different modeling strategies may lead
to variations in the model stiffness which may have subtle impact on the modal
properties.

WALKING VIBRATIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS

Floors with low frequencies (below 9 Hz) primarily exhibit a resonant response,
whereas floors with high frequencies (above 9 Hz) are predominantly influenced
by the impulse of individual footsteps. Consequently, the analysis bifurcates into
two distinct calculations to accommodate these different response characteristics.
For frequencies ranging from 0 to 9 Hz, the analysis employs the Frequency
Response Function (FRF) method. For frequencies between 9 to 20 Hz, it utilizes
the effective impulse method. Both approaches are based in the computation of the
FRF, which plots the acceleration measured at the Response Point as a result of
the steady-state load pattern applied at the Excitation Point.

The program performs the corresponding calculations for both the low and high
frequencies values of each FRF. In this verification example, the analysis focuses
on the low frequency response at the Cantilever Point and the high frequency
response at the Backspan Point.

CANTILEVER POINT – (LOW FREQUENCY)

The FRF for both the verification and reference examples is shown Figure 5.

3.38 Hz
0.0339 (%g/lb)

b) Verification Ex.
a) Reference Ex.

Figure 5. FRF Plot for Cantilever Excitation Set. The reference example image is
taken from the AISC DG11.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 8

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

For the Cantilever Point, the dominant frequency 𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛 , at frequencies lower than 9
Hz, is located at 3.38 Hz (Mode 1) and has a magnitude of 0.0339 (%g/lb).
To compute the corresponding equivalent peak sinusoidal acceleration 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 , the
following equations are used:
𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 = 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹Max 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼, (AISC DG11 7-1)

𝛼𝛼 = 0.09𝑒𝑒 −0.075𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛 , (AISC DG11 7-2)

𝜌𝜌 = 12.5𝛽𝛽 + 0.625 if 0.01 ≤ 𝛽𝛽 < 0.03, (AISC DG11 7-3b)

Considering a pedestrian’s bodyweight of 168lb, the calculation is as follows:

𝜌𝜌 = 12.5(0.025) + 0.625 = 0.9375

𝛼𝛼 = 0.09𝑒𝑒 −0.075(3.38) = 0.06985

𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 = 0.0339(0.06985)(168)(0.9375) = 0.373 %g

Verification vs Reference
From the FRF plot, it can be noted that there are two peaks below 9 Hz. The first
peak corresponds to the modal frequency of mode number 1 while the second to
mode number 3. In the reference example, the second peak is slightly higher than
the first one. On the other hand, in the verification example, the first peak is the one
that is slightly higher (see Figure 5).
According to the AISC DG11, the dominant frequency is taken as the frequency
with the maximum FRF value. Therefore, for the reference example the dominant
frequency is 4.89 Hz, and for the verification it is 3.39 Hz. However, the reference
example calculates the predicted sinusoidal acceleration 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 for both peaks. Thus, a direct
comparison of the results at the first peak (corresponding to the frequency of mode
number 1) is possible. Such comparison is provided in Table 2. The acceleration
tolerance limits are taken from the values presented in the AISC DG11, included in
the Appendix as Fig A1. For this case, the tolerance limit is 0.5 %g.

FRF at mode 1 Predicted Acc. Tolerance

DCR
(%g/lb.) 𝒂𝒂𝒑𝒑 (%g) Limit (%g)
Reference (AISC DG11) 0.0344 0.374 0.5 0.750
Verification (SAFE / 0.0339
ETABS) 0.373 0.5 0.746
Table 2. Comparison of results for the Cantilever Point (considering low frequencies)

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 9

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

BACKSPAN POINT – (HIGH FREQUENCY)

The FRF for both the verification and reference examples is shown Figure 6. For
the Backspan Point, the dominant frequency 𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛 , at frequencies higher than 9 Hz, is
located at 11.408 Hz (Mode 19) and has a magnitude of 0.0595 (%g/lb).

11.408 Hz
0.0595 (%g/lb)

a) Reference Ex. b) Verification Ex.

Figure 6. FRF Plot for the Backspan Excitation Set. The reference example image is
taken from the AISC DG11.

To compute the equivalent peak sinusoidal acceleration 𝑎𝑎ESPA , the following

equations are used:
𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝,𝑚𝑚 = 2𝜋𝜋𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛,𝑚𝑚 𝛷𝛷𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚 𝛷𝛷𝑗𝑗,𝑚𝑚 𝐼𝐼eff,𝑚𝑚 (AISC DG11 7-4)

𝑓𝑓step 1.43 𝑄𝑄
𝐼𝐼eff, m = � 1.30 � � �
𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛,𝑚𝑚 17.8 (AISC DG11 1-6)
𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛 /ℎ

𝑁𝑁modes

𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡) = � 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝,𝑚𝑚 𝑒𝑒 −2𝜋𝜋𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛,𝑚𝑚 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠�2𝜋𝜋𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑛,𝑚𝑚 𝑡𝑡� (AISC DG11 7-5)

𝑚𝑚=1

𝑁𝑁
1 𝑇𝑇 1
𝑎𝑎ESPA = �2 � � [𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡)]2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� ≈ √2� � 𝑎𝑎𝑘𝑘2 (AISC DG11 7-6)
𝑇𝑇 0 𝑁𝑁
𝑘𝑘=1

∆𝑡𝑡 = 0.005

At each k-th step, 𝑎𝑎𝑘𝑘 = 𝑎𝑎(∆𝑡𝑡 ∙ 𝑘𝑘).

𝑇𝑇 = 1/𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ,

The calculations involve a summation over the discretized period T (Eq. AISC
DG11 7-6). This equation involves a second nested summation over all the modes

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 10

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

covering frequencies up to 20 Hz (Eq. AISCD G11 7-5). To perform these

calculations, the displacements in the vertical (GLOBAL-Z) direction for both the
Excitation and Response Points are required (𝛷𝛷𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚 𝛷𝛷𝑗𝑗,𝑚𝑚 ). This information is
provided in the Appendix at Table A1.

The harmonic value h, required to compute the step frequency 𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 , is taken as
h=6. This value is linked to the dominant frequency, and it is obtained from Table
7-1 in the AISC DG11, included here in the Appendix as Table A2.

The pedestrian bodyweight is taken as 168 lb. as recommended in the AISC DG11.

Putting all these values into equation AISC DG11 1-6, 7-4, 7-5, and 7-6, the
equivalent peak sinusoidal acceleration is computed as:
𝑎𝑎ESPA = 0.290 %g

Verification Example vs Reference Example

From the FRF, the dominant frequency is identified to match the frequency of mode
number 22 for the reference example, and mode 19 for the verification example.
Despite being a different mode number and having a slightly different modal
frequency, both models are consistent, showing that the max FRF peak corresponds
to the same modal shape in each model, as it is shown in Figure 7.

11.40 Hz

Reference Ex. Verification Ex.

Mode 22 Mode 19
Figure 7. Visual comparison of the deformation of Mode 22 in the reference example to
Mode 19 in the verification example. The reference example image is taken from the
AISC DG11.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 11

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

The acceleration tolerance limits are taken from the values presented in the AISC
DG11, included in the Appendix as Fig A1. For this case, the tolerance limit is
interpolated according to the dominant frequency, which is slightly different for
each model. The results are summarized in the Table 3.

FRF max Predicted Acc. Tolerance

DCR
(%g/lb.) 𝒂𝒂𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 (%g) Limit (%g)
Reference (AISC DG11) ≈0.057 0.314 0.78 0.40
Verification (SAFE / 0.0595
ETABS) 0.290 0.71 0.40
Table 3. Comparison of results for the Backspan Point (considering high frequencies)

COMPUTER FILE
AISC-DG11 2ED Ex001

CONCLUSION
For the low frequency analysis, based on the FRF method, the results are almost
identical with a DCR of 0.75 in both examples. Here it is important to point out
that there is a minor difference in the maximum FRF value which dictates the
dominant frequency. The reason is that the maximum FRF value seems to be
repeated at two different frequencies, corresponding to modes number 1 and 3.
However, the comparison of results is carried on at the same frequency value,
corresponding to mode number 1. Thus, the comparison is valid.

In the high frequency analysis, which employs the effective impulse method, a
notable observation is the shift in the dominant frequency to a different mode
number between the two models. Specifically, the model used in the reference
example identifies the dominant frequency at Mode 22, with a frequency of 12.6
Hz, whereas the verification example locates it at Mode 19 with a frequency of
11.40 Hz. A closer inspection reveals that these modes refer to the same modal
shape (see Figure 7). Thus, validating the comparison. Furthermore, despite the
difference in the mode frequency, both the reference and the verification example
arrive at the same DCR value of 0.40.

In conclusion, the obtained results in the program show good agreement with
example 7.1 presented in the AISC DG11. The minor differences in the results are
likely attributable to the variations in the modal properties that are result of
employing different modeling strategies when constructing the FEA model.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 12

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

APPENDIX
Table A1. Modal information for the Backspan Excitation Set. The field “Modal Uz”
corresponds to the vertical displacement of either the Excitation or Response Joint at the
given nth mode.
Frequency Modal Uz Modal Uz
Mode Period (s)
(Hz) (Excitation) (Response)
1 3.382 0.296 -0.00116 -0.00116
2 3.701 0.27 7.873E-08 7.873E-08
3 4.771 0.21 -0.00131 -0.00131
4 6.575 0.152 6.766E-07 6.766E-07
5 7.154 0.14 -0.00451 -0.00451
6 7.435 0.134 0.0018 0.0018
7 7.695 0.13 7.604E-07 7.604E-07
8 7.858 0.127 9.719E-07 9.719E-07
9 8.217 0.122 -0.00379 -0.00379
10 8.571 0.117 0.00458 0.00458
11 8.898 0.112 3.264E-06 3.264E-06
12 9.021 0.111 -0.00724 -0.00724
13 9.131 0.11 0 0
14 9.482 0.105 -0.00467 -0.00467
15 9.811 0.102 0.00281 0.00281
16 10.23 0.098 0.0018 0.0018
17 10.438 0.096 -5.61E-07 -5.61E-07
18 10.505 0.095 3.188E-07 3.188E-07
19 11.408 0.088 0.00811 0.00811
20 11.762 0.085 -0.0049 -0.0049
21 12.056 0.083 0.00001 0.00001
22 12.177 0.082 0.00275 0.00275
23 12.812 0.078 -1.939E-06 -1.939E-06
24 13.225 0.076 1.196E-06 1.196E-06
25 13.75 0.073 0.00072 0.00072
26 14.099 0.071 -0.00217 -0.00217
27 14.636 0.068 -0.00267 -0.00267
28 15.111 0.066 0.00355 0.00355
29 15.49 0.065 0.00001 0.00001
30 15.778 0.063 -0.00001 -0.00001
31 16.333 0.061 -4.91E-07 -4.91E-07

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 13

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

32 16.697 0.06 0.00126 0.00126

33 17.09 0.059 0.0049 0.0049
34 17.746 0.056 -0.00285 -0.00285
35 18.337 0.055 0.0019 0.0019
36 18.48 0.054 -0.00004 -0.00004
37 19.104 0.052 -0.00002 -0.00002
38 19.637 0.051 0.00569 0.00569
39 19.947 0.05 4.423E-06 4.423E-06
40 20.356 0.049 -3.894E-06 -3.894E-06

Table A2. Harmonic Selection for High-frequency Floors. Based on Table 7-2 from the
AISC DG11.
Dominant Frequency, Hz h
9-11 5
11-13.2 6
13.2-15.4 7
15.4-17.6 8
17.6-20 9

Fig A1. Recommended Tolerance limits for human comfort. Taken from Fig 2-1 in the
AISC DG11.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 14

 Software Verification
PROGRAM NAME: SAFE / ETABS
REVISION NO.: 0

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Murray, Thomas M., David E. Allen, Eric E. Ungar, and D. Brad Davis. 2016, AISC
Design Guide 11 Vibrations of Steel-Framed Structural Systems Due to Human Activity.
2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois: American Institute of Steel Construction.

AISC DG11 Floor Vibration Analysis Example 001 - 15