Discussions and Closures
behavior of the structure, and that the degree of the interaction
Discussion of “Vibration Serviceability of
a Building Floor Structure. I: Dynamic Testing
and Computer Modeling” by Mehdi Setareh
December 2010, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 497e507.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000134
Carla Freitas de Andrade1 and José Carneiro de Andrade,
M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
Adjunct Professor, Dept. de Engenharia Mecânica e de Produção, Univ.
Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará 60455-900, Brazil.
2
Professor, Dept. de Engenharia Estrutural e Construção Civil, Univ.
Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará 60455-900, Brazil (corresponding
author). E-mail: carneiro@ufc.br
The author is to be complimented for providing opportune and use-
ful information concerning the results of a modal testing conducted
on a long, cantilevered office building floor structure and the analy-
sis of the collected vibration measurements, during and after the
building construction. The reported results of the field-testing are
compared with the structural response using computer analysis. In
addition, a sensitivity study to assess the importance of various struc-
tural parameters on the floor dynamic response is also presented.
Over the past several years, considerable effort has been devoted
to developing innovative approaches associated with numerical
modeling, experimental research, structural serviceability, and ac-
ceptable design criteria for the evaluation of the performance of floor
systems under the action of normal occupant walking activities, in
attempts to prevent or control objectionable vibrations. However,
before such approaches can be reliably and efficiently used, impor-
tant practical and conceptual aspects deserve attention and discus-
sion because there is a lack of practical and clear information on
human-structure interaction for buildings that involve unusual con-
figurations, innovative structural systems, and high-performance
materials. Therefore, the lucid and valuable contribution of the au-
thor is applauded.
To elucidate some of these aspects, we would like to request the
comments of the author regarding the following points:
1. It is generally well accepted, and the author is well aware (e.g.,
see Reynolds et al. 2004; cited in the original paper), that
normal human activities—such as people standing, walking,
swaying sideways, swaying back and forth, bobbing (bouncing
or jouncing) in place, or dancing (randomly or rhythmically)
—may affect and modify the modal properties of the support-
ing structural system, i.e., human occupancy may consider-
ably affect the damping ratios and natural frequencies of the
structure. Therefore, because the occupants act as a dynamic
system interacting with the supporting structural system, and
the interaction between occupants and structure depends on
the arrangement and behavior of the occupants, the clear and
appropriate space-time characterization of the activity and the
resulting dynamic action induced by the occupants seem to be
a matter of great importance, particularly for the large struc-
tural steel cantilevered building studied in the paper, which
involved unusual and innovative architectural and structural
configuration and design. In this context, Duarte and Ji (2009)
recently investigated a load model and experimentally identi-
fied that when bouncing, an individual interacts with the sup-
porting structural system, clearly affecting the dynamic
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 849
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:849-850.
is less significant than that between a standing person and the
structure. To further support this reasoning, recall, for exam-
ple, the results reported by Reynolds et al. (2004) that a crowd
has a significant effect on both the damping ratios and the
natural frequencies of stadia structural systems compared with
when they are empty and that the changes in damping ratios
and natural frequencies vary according to the configuration of
the crowd of spectators. Also, the results obtained from the
occupied structure provided a very realistic understanding of
the crowd-structure interaction.
2. In the Introduction (p. 497), the author states, “Therefore, the
dynamic properties of the built floor systems should be mea-
sured and compared to their analytical counterparts in order to
better understand how to create accurate numerical represen-
tation of the structure.” For the modal and vibration decay tests,
an electrodynamic shaker was used to generate controlled force
excitations (see p. 499). However, it can be inferred from the
considerations mentioned previously that occupant-induced
vibration serviceability evaluation of a specific building floor
structural system, as indicated by data collected in floors
under construction and in unoccupied conditions using shak-
ers or inertial impact loading delivered by external devices
(hammers)—a common procedure for the dynamic evaluation
of many existing troublesome structures—may not provide
completely reliable information. Such an approach may not
adequately consider the alteration in the dynamic properties
of the structure produced by natural in-service occupancy ex-
citation. Moreover, it does not take into account the interaction
between the floor structure and the occupancy mass. Such
human-structure interaction is quite important, and it can be
clearly identified when the effect of structural flexibility on the
forces produced by a single person jumping on a rigid platform
and on a flexible platform is analyzed, indicating clear differ-
ences between the rigid and flexible platform results.
3. On page 498, the author states, “Therefore, a number of mod-
ifications were made to the original design with the goal of
increasing the natural frequencies of the structure. The first
four natural frequencies of the modified structure were com-
puted as f1 5 2:61 Hz (vertical bending mode), f2 5 3:41 Hz
(lateral sway mode), f3 5 5:36 Hz (torsional mode), and
f4 5 7:32 Hz (local floor vertical bending mode), respec-
tively.” However, the reported natural frequencies of the mod-
ified structure are still too low, and it seems that higher values
should have been targeted for avoiding difficulty with
occupant-induced vibrations (e.g., see Bachmann et al. 1995).
In the “Preliminary Dynamic Analysis and Design” section,
the author also states, “The natural frequencies were outside
the normal walking range, however, since there was still a pos-
sibility that due to the construction variations the structure
would have been susceptible to walking vibrations, provisions
were made for the possible installations of tuned mass damp-
ers (TMDs) within the raised floor plenum.” Indeed, the nat-
ural frequencies of the structure were outside the normal
walking range, i.e., outside the range from 1.6 to 2.3 steps/s.
However, it has long been well accepted that minimum guid-
ance and simple design criteria may be preliminarily used for
avoiding difficulty with occupant-induced vibrations—for ex-
ample, requiring that the lowest natural frequency of the floor
system be greater than the frequency range of the second
 harmonic (for floors with high damping), i.e., .4.6 Hz, and
the lowest natural frequency should be greater than the fre-
quency range of the third harmonic (for floors with low damp-
ing), i.e., .6.9 Hz. Therefore, on the basis of these simple
design rules, it appears that, indeed, the building structure
may be susceptible to perceptible or even to annoying
occupant-induced vibrations.
4. In the “Conclusions” section (p. 506), the author states,
“. . . and considering the practical limitations involved with
the testing of such large size structure, the MAC might not
be considered as a reliable criterion to check the accuracy of
the computer model.” Indeed, the modal assurance criterion
(MAC) is a commonly employed technique for providing a sta-
tistical indicator—a real-valued scalar quantity, taking values
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
from zero (modal vectors are not consistent and mode shapes
are fully uncorrelated) to 1 (modal vectors are consistent
and mode shapes are fully correlated)—used in experimental
and analytical structural dynamics to estimate the degree of
correlation between mode shape vectors. It is considered to
be a powerful criterion—particularly efficient for small and
medium-sized structures—when used correctly and judi-
ciously, but is quite misleading when used incorrectly and
carelessly (see Allemang 2003). In fact, it appears that for very
large structural systems, experimental modal procedure may
not be entirely appropriate because it may become quite ex-
pensive and, in many cases, prohibitively time-consuming, as
a result of the enormous number of sensors that must be in-
stalled and the tremendously large amount of data that must be
collected and analyzed. Moreover, the structural system may
not be easily and properly excited using shakers or external
devices (hammers) to provide appropriate inertial impact
loading. In addition, in cases of in-service operational modal
analysis, human occupancy may substantially affect and
modify the modal properties of the supporting structural sys-
tem (see discussion point 1). Therefore, on the basis of the
these considerations, it is expected that a number of seri-
ous drawbacks associated with the MAC technique when
comparing modes for very large structures creates severe
difficulties—such as insufficient numbers of measurement
locations during the modal testing, low quality measured
data, and changes in the modal properties of the structural
system during the modal testing—because the system may
become nonstationary.
5. In conclusion, further experimental and in-service operational
research, numerical modeling, and discussion are needed on
occupant-structure interaction to provide reliable information
regarding eventual anomalous changes in the modal proper-
ties, as well as more accurate estimation of such dynamic prop-
erties. It then becomes possible to establish more reliable criteria
to verify the accuracy of computer models, to establish clear
structural serviceability criteria to control objectionable vibra-
tions, and to better clarify and more realistically evaluate the
dynamic behavior of structural systems under the action of
occupant-induced excitation.
References
Allemang, R. J. (2003). “The modal assurance criterion—Twenty years of
use and abuse.” J. Sound Vib., 37(8), 14e23.
Bachmann, H., et al. (1995). Vibration problems in structures: Practical
guidelines, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Duarte, E., and Ji, T. (2009). “Action of individual bouncing on structures.”
J. Struct. Eng., 135(7), 818e827.
850 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:849-850.
Reynolds, P., Pavic, A., and Ibrahim, Z. (2004). “Changes of modal prop-
erties of a stadium structure occupied by a crowd.” Proc., 22nd Int.
Modal Analysis Conf. (IMAC XXII), Dearborn, MI.
Closure to “Vibration Serviceability of
a Building Floor Structure. I: Dynamic Testing
and Computer Modeling” by Mehdi Setareh
December 2010, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 497e507.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000134
Mehdi Setareh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1
1
Professor, School of Architecture and Design, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: setareh@vt.edu
The writer appreciates the interest of the discussers in the paper.
As requested by the discussers, the following are the comments
of the writer about the issues raised:
1. This writer agrees with the discussers that the human-structure
dynamic interaction is an important issue that needs to be
considered in the evaluation of the serviceability performance
of structures when occupied by large crowds. Unfortunately,
there are only very few published research studies in this
area, which contain mostly conflicting results. The discussers
should note that the references that they cited conducted stud-
ies on systems with high human-to-structure mass ratios.
2. It is true that human-structure dynamic interactions can affect
the dynamic properties of structures, such as their natural fre-
quencies and damping ratios; however, the discussers need to
consider two important points. First, the dynamic interactions
between the structure and humans depend on the mass ratio
between the humans and the structure. The research work in
this area has been limited to large grandstands, which are
usually occupied by large crowds. Most office buildings are
usually lightly occupied, and, therefore, the effects of human-
structure interactions are minimal. The second point that the
discussers need to note is that the level of human-structure
interaction depends on the natural frequency of the structure.
Sachse et al. (2004) found that for structures with low natural
frequencies ( f , 4 Hz), the presence of humans reduces the
natural frequency and minimally affects the damping ratio,
technically acting as added mass. Therefore, the experimental
modal testing used here is applicable to the structure under
study, and the measured parameters are valid.
3. The discussers should note that the increase in the natural
frequencies of the structure was limited as a result of the ar-
chitectural requirements. Any further increase in the natural
frequencies required significant architectural modifications,
which were not acceptable to the building owners. For this
reason, as indicated in the paper, tuned mass dampers (TMDs)
were planned as a backup system. The simple natural fre-
quency limitation rule mentioned by the discussers does not
always work and cannot be used as a general requirement. The
discussers should note that the floor accelerations depend on
the excitation duration and the effective mass of the structure.
As shown in the companion paper, the floor under study was
not expected to have any annoying vibrations, and the sub-
jective evaluations of the occupants corroborated this con-
clusion.
4. The discussers should note that during the modal tests, the struc-
ture was well-excited. All of the frequency response functions
(FRFs) had high coherences, which provided evidence for the
 high quality of the measurements. In addition, there were no
human occupants, except for the research team, to possibly affect
the dynamic behavior of the structure. The only drawback to
using the modal assurance criterion (MAC) for comparing the
analytical and experimental mode shapes was the spatial aliasing,
as indicated in the paper. Other possible problems mentioned by
the discussers did not exist for any of the measurements.
5. The methods used for the experimental evaluation of the office
floor under study were adequate and acceptable, as indicated
previously. However, this writer agrees with the discussers that
there are a number of areas related to floor vibration service-
ability that require further research studies. This writer looks
forward to future contributions by the discussers in these areas.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Reference
Sachse, R., Pavic, A., and Reynolds, P. (2004). “Parametric study of modal
properties of damped two-degree-of-freedom crowd-structure dynamic
systems.” J. Sound Vibrat., 274(3e5), 461e480.
Discussion of “Vibration Studies
of a Cantilevered Structure Subjected
to Human Activities Using a Remote
Monitoring System” by Mehdi Setareh
April 2011, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 87e97.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000125
José Carneiro de Andrade Filho1 and José Carneiro de
Andrade, M.ASCE2
1 using an electrodynamic shaker to excite the unoccupied can-
Doctoral Candidate, Centre de Recherche sur le Transport et la Logistique
(CRET-LOG), Univ. de la Méditerranée Aix-Marseille II, F-13625
Aix-en-Provence, France; and Univ. Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza,
Ceará 60455-900, Brazil.
2
Professor of Structural Engineering, Departamento de Engenharia Estrutural
e Construção Civil, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará
60455-900, Brazil (corresponding author). E-mail: carneiro@ufc.br
The author has presented valuable and opportune detailed informa-
tion regarding a remote vibration monitoring system designed and
installed to collect the vibration records generated by rhythmical
crowd activities on a large cantilevered balcony structure. Also,
the results of a series of modal tests conducted on the empty struc-
ture to estimate the modal properties of the structural system were
reported. In addition, variations in the structure’s natural frequency
during energetic events were also presented. The author’s meritori-
ous contribution is particularly useful inasmuch as there is a lack of
conclusive and practical information regarding human-structure in-
teraction and remote health monitoring systems to evaluate perfor-
mance and serviceability of structural systems. Therefore, from the
point of view of the practicing structural designer, the author’s
timely and commendable contribution is applauded.
While broadly agreeing with the important approach and findings
presented, we would greatly value the author’s views and comments
regarding the following points:
1. The author states, “Based on the low-level excitations gener-
ated by the shaker, the structure performed linearly with con-
sistent dynamic properties. However, this may not hold true
when the structure experiences large movements because of
rhythmic crowd actions.” In fact, it should be strongly empha-
sized that dynamic evaluation of large crowd structural sys-
tems, such as stadia, based on data collected by using shakers
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 851
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:849-850.
or severe inertial impact loading transmitted by external me-
chanical devices (hammers) may not provide complete and
entirely reliable information. As the author is well aware—
see statement on page 87 (second column, second paragraph)
of the original paper—such a procedure does not take into
consideration the important interaction between the structural
system and the crowd mass. Furthermore, the aforementioned
procedure may not realistically contemplate the quite well-
known alteration in the modal properties of the structural sys-
tem produced by natural in-service crowd activity excitations.
Moreover, the structure may not be easily, promptly, and ap-
propriately excited. Besides, to appropriately excite the entire
structure, the level of the dynamic loading transferred by the
external device cannot be so high as to produce unacceptable
local nonlinearities or damages in the structural system.
2. The author states that natural frequencies up to approximately
6 Hz were of interest. This natural frequency limiting value is
approximately the frequency of the second harmonic, that is,
5.6 Hz, by considering that people can sustain rhythmical ac-
tivities of up to approximately 2.8 Hz. It seems more prudent,
however, to target a higher natural frequency limiting value, that
is, natural frequencies up to 8.4 Hz should be considered of
interest in the analysis, for avoiding possible troublesome
occupant-induced vibrations. The last aforementioned natural
frequency limiting value corresponds to the frequency of the
third harmonic (Bachmann et al. 1995). It does not seem judi-
cious to expect—and this assumption may be quite restrictive
from a practical point of view—that the structure is subjected
to excitations “for events with some audience participation
with singing to musical accompaniment but without impacting
motion,” to justify the use of only two harmonics.
3. Based on vibration records collected during modal testing
tilevered balcony structure, the estimated values of the natural
frequencies and the corresponding damping ratios are shown
in Table 1 of the original paper. The reported natural frequen-
cies for the first four modes are: 2.8, 4.2, 5.1, and 6.4 Hz. It can
be inferred that the cantilevered balcony is a potentially trou-
blesome structural system in terms of vulnerability to strongly
perceptible or even to annoying occupant-induced vibrations
caused by rhythmical impact loading. The natural frequencies
for the first four modes are quite low, and therefore the struc-
ture can be excited to objectionable vibrations for even mod-
erately slow (at a walking pace) and moderate (not fast, but not
slow) tempo popular urban music. By considering, for exam-
ple, a pop-style music tempo of about 84 beats per minute—or
1.4 Hz—the first four harmonic frequencies of the activity
representative forcing function are: 1.4, 2.8, 4.2, and 5.6 Hz.
A comparison of the values of the harmonic frequencies
(i.e., 1.4, 2.8, 4.2, and 5.6 Hz) with the estimated values of
the structure natural frequencies (i.e., 2.8, 4.2, 5.1, and 6.4 Hz)
clearly shows strong evidence of the possibility of a detrimen-
tal near coincidence of one of the harmonic frequencies of the
dynamic occupant-induced excitation loading with one of the
natural frequencies of the structure. Such vulnerability to ob-
jectionable occupant-induced vibrations may become even
more accentuated because of the fact that the reported damping
ratios of the balcony structure when unoccupied are also rel-
atively small—even though it is generally recognized that
occupant-structure interaction may increase the damping ra-
tios of the structural system. Moreover, because occupant-
structure interaction decreases the natural frequencies of the
structural system—and this fact is corroborated by the values
shown in Tables 1 and 2 and lucidly reported in the original
 paper—the balcony structure may become vulnerable to ob-
jectionable occupant-induced vibrations for even slower-
tempo popular music. For instance, popular music at a tempo
within the range of 66e78 beats per minute, that is, 1.1e1.3
Hz, generates harmonic frequencies very close to the natural
frequencies reported in Table 2 of the original paper for the in-
service structural response.
4. The author also states that “the camera images were used to
correlate the data-logger recordings to the events in progress
and to evaluate the size of the crowd, its posture, and the type
of activities that may cause large structural responses.” Indeed,
it appears to be beyond much doubt that a crowd of occupants
acts as a dynamic system interacting with the structure, and
human occupancy affects and modifies the modal properties of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the supporting structural system in a nondeterministic manner
—that is, the crowd occupancy may substantially affect the
damping ratios and natural frequencies of structures. Because
crowd-structure interaction depends strongly on crowd ar-
rangement, size, behavior, and type of activity performed by
the occupants, a consistent and detailed vibration monitoring
of natural in-service crowd occupancy vibration excitation
becomes of paramount importance. Therefore, it would be of
interest to structural designers to have a comparison and
discussion of data collected for spectator-induced vibrations
imposed on large crowd structures, such as stadia, during
sporting events caused by (1) abrupt spectator response to
an exciting play; (2) abrupt spectator response followed by
rhythmical cheering; and (3) rhythmical cheering alone. Fur-
thermore, a remote monitoring system appears to be very ap-
propriate for collecting vibration data for distinct loading and
excitation phases with different vibration levels, namely, (1)
ambient vibrations when the grandstands are empty; (2) crowd
entrance; (3) development of the event during the regular time;
(4) midtime break (not existing in some events); and (5) exit of
the crowd. In this context, Cigada et al. (2008) have presented
valuable and useful information regarding a vibration testing
and health monitoring system for evaluating the structural in-
tegrity of a large crowd stadium structural system.
5. The author presents a comparison of the estimated damping
ratios of the balcony structure when unoccupied (see Table 1
of the original paper) and the damping ratios of the balcony
with the presence of the audience (see Table 2 of the original
paper). The author states that “the modal damping ratios gen-
erally increased when the structure was occupied with the
exception of the first mode, when most people were standing
and dancing. For this case, the estimated damping during the
performances was approximately 1.2e1.8% compared with
1.4% in the empty structure (see Table 1 of the original paper).
Reynolds et al. (2004) and Reynolds and Pavic (2006)
reported an increase in damping for similar cases. This dis-
crepancy can be attributed to several differences between their
studies and this work.” The author also states that “for this case
the damping ratio did not change substantially owing to the
presence of the human occupants, and even though it is clear
that a dynamic interaction between the humans and the struc-
ture is present, there is no evidence that this may result in any
large increase in the damping ratios of the excited modes.”
From both a logistics and a more practical perspective in prop-
erly designing large crowd structural systems to avoid objec-
tionable occupant-induced vibrations, it would be of interest
and useful to practicing structural engineers if additional and
more detailed pertinent information and discussion could be
provided to further clarify some practical aspects related to the
occupants’ posture, behavior, and configuration, focusing, in
852 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:849-850.
particular, on the influence of both passive (or stationary) and
active occupants participating during the rhythmical excita-
tion on possible modifications and an increase of the damping
ratios of the occupant-structure dynamic system.
6. A long-term remote monitoring system to evaluate perfor-
mance and serviceability of very large crowd structural sys-
tems may become a large, complex, time-consuming, and
costly endeavor. A logistics system—with significant subsid-
iary contribution of operations research techniques—appears
to be an important and useful tool to support such a complex
operation, focused on improving the effectiveness of the over-
all fluent and dynamic process. In this particular case, logistics
may be defined quite simply as a process of systematically
planning, implementing, organizing, controlling, upgrading,
maintaining, and efficiently and effectively managing activi-
ties to ensure reliable and consistent data acquisition and sub-
sequent analysis necessary to sustain the operation of the
system, for the purpose of evaluating the dynamic behavior,
performance, and serviceability of the structural system.
7. Finally, it has become quite clear that further research and
discussion are needed on the dynamic behavior of large crowd
structural systems to better clarify, consolidate, and more re-
alistically and conclusively provide reliable and more accurate
data and information regarding crowd-structure interaction
and consequential alteration in the modal properties of the
supporting structure under crowd dynamic excitation caused
by different occupant activities during the various phases of
each specific event. In this particular context, the author’s
paper is a valuable and welcome addition to the rather scarce
literature on remote vibration monitoring systems, which can
be considered a very promising procedure for appropriately
collecting the aforementioned data generated by human occu-
pancy on large crowd structural systems.
References
Bachmann, H., et al. (1995). Vibration problems in structures: Practical
guidelines, Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland.
Cigada, A., Caprioli, A., Redaelli, M., and Vanali, M. (2008). “Vibration testing
at Meazza Stadium: Reliability of operational modal analysis to health
monitoring purposes.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 22(4), 228e237.
Reynolds, P., and Pavic, A. (2006). “Vibration performance of a large
cantilever grandstand during an international football match.” J. Per-
form. Constr. Facil., 20(3), 202e212.
Reynolds, P., Pavic, A., and Ibrahim, Z. (2004). “A remote monitoring
system for stadia dynamics.” Struct. Build., 157(SB6), 385e393.
Closure to “Vibration Studies of
a Cantilevered Structure Subjected to Human
Activities Using a Remote Monitoring
System” by Mehdi Setareh
April 2011, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 87e97.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000125
Mehdi Setareh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1
1
Professor, School of Architecture and Design, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: setareh@vt.edu
The author appreciates the interest of the discusser in the paper.
As requested by the discussers, the author makes comments on
the issues raised:
 1. The discussers should note that the main objective of this
paper has been to study the effects of human-structure inter-
actions in a high-occupancy floor structure. The modal testing
was conducted as a reference to compare with the results of the
analysis of the recorded measurements during events with
high occupancies. It was possible to excite the structure with
a shaker. The measured frequency response functions were of
high quality, which was evident from the high coherences. The
studies presented used an output-only method to study the
variations of the dynamic properties of the system because
of the presence of the audience and excitation of the structure
during various musical performances.
2. Limiting the natural frequencies up to 6 Hz to cover the second
mode of the structure was quite adequate. The discussers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/16/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
should pay attention to the mode shapes of the structure shown
in Figs. 5 and 13 of the original paper. To excite the third or
higher modes of the structure, the crowd on each side of the
balcony should have moved out of phase (which is not prac-
tically possible) or only part of the crowd be in motion (which
results in small excitations). In fact, the vibration mea-
surements during various performances showed that only the
first mode of the structure was excited by the crowd. The
second and higher modes had negligible contributions toward
the measured vibrations.
3. Lower-beat excitations by the crowd could not excite the
structure, because they would have resulted in smaller
dynamic factors. The measured vibration showed that the first
mode was mainly excited when rock music was played at
about 130e150 beats per minute. The discussers should note
that based on the limited research available (Sachse et al.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 853
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:849-850.
2004) for structures with natural frequencies less than 4 Hz,
humans act mainly as added mass.
4. The discussers should note that the effects of human-structure
dynamic interaction on the dynamic properties of structures
are not yet well understood. The results of the research in this
area are not yet conclusive. Even though the author agrees that
the evaluation of the dynamic properties of the structure dur-
ing various activities of the crowd can provide interesting
results, the main objective of this research was to evaluate
the most critical conditions affecting the dynamic performance
of the structure. These results are of practical importance to the
structural designers. The reported values of the parameters
were measured when the activities resulted in the largest
vibration levels of the structure.
5. Based on the study conducted here, it is prudent to assume that
the occupants act as added mass and do not contribute to the
structural damping for structures with similar dynamic prop-
erties. As indicated in the original paper, more research in this
area is needed.
6. The author agrees with the discussers that more research in
the area of floor serviceability using long-term monitoring of
structures and the study of human-structure dynamic interac-
tions are needed. The author looks forward to future contribu-
tions by the discussers in these areas.
Reference
Sachse, R., Pavic, A., and Reynolds, P. (2004). “Parametric study of modal
properties of damped two-degree-of-freedom crowd-structure dynamic
systems.” J. Sound Vibrat., 274(3e5), 461e480.