SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES OF TIMBER FLOORS

Vibrations and Comfort

Margarida Maria Bebiano Coutinho Winck Cruz
[email protected]

Instituto Superior Tcnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

October 2013
Abstract: The goal of the current work is to study and evaluate the empirical formulas presented in
Eurocode 5 in order to verify timber floors to the serviceability limit state of vibration. Hence,
numerical models using the finite element method were developed to analyse those formulas on
different floors. Using these models and the Eurocode 5 expressions, a parametric study was
conducted to determine the factors affecting the vibration characteristics of the floors. At last, the
static and dynamic requirements used to verify the serviceability limit state of vibration were applied
to the studied floors.

Keywords: Timber floors, serviceability limit state of vibration, finite element modelling.

Being light and flexible structures makes

INTRODUCTION

vibration a significant problem for timber floors.

Timber is one of the most traditional materials

Vibration is a source of discomfort in the use of

used in buildings construction around the

this floor systems and its major cause are

world. Applied on floors, walls and roof

dynamic movements produced by human

systems, timber has the great advantage of

activities, such as walking.

being a renewable natural resource and having

a high strength-weight relation. However,

In this paper the principal factors affecting

because

and

vibration and the design method for its

biological attacks and its natural imperfections,

limitation, referred in Eurocode 5 as the

timber

These

serviceability limit state of vibration, are

limitations led to the development of wood-

analysed. Numerical models for the timber

based materials with higher strength and less

floors were developed for a proper study of the

imperfections; however the use of timber in

empirical formulas presented in the regulation.

of

must

its

be

sensibility to

used

water

carefully.

structures became less common.

Despite the decay of its use in most countries

NUMERICAL MODELS

in the last century, being replaced by concrete

Numerical analysis was carried out using the

and steel, timber structures are still important,

finite element method. The numerical models

mostly in rehabilitation constructions. Floors

pretend to simulate a basic timber floor system

are the main structural timber system in old

with the main beams and the wood sheathing.

residential buildings, so they need to be

Three different models were developed using

preserved and properly designed.

1

the finite element program ADINA (ADINA

R&D, 2001). A detail of each model is
represented in Figure 1.
(i)

i. Frame elements the beams and the

sheathing

were

modelled

as

(ii)

(iii)

Figure 1 Detail of each model

frame

elements. These elements have three

The model adopted to run the numerical tests

degrees of freedom per node: x, x and y.

in this paper is the one with the frame

elements, since it is the model associated to

ii. Frame and shell elements the beams

the lowest computational effort.

were modelled as frame elements and the

sheathing as a continuous shell element.

In this paper three different floors (5,0x5,0 m ,

The given elements also have three

4,0x5,0 m and 3,0x3,0 m ) are analysed, each

degrees of freedom per node: x, x and y.

one

with

three

different

beam

sections

iii. Frame and solid elements the beams

(0,075x0,15 m , 0,10x0,20 m and 0,15x0,25

were modelled as frame elements and the

m ). The beams must have an equivalent T-

sheathing as a continuous solid element.

section so that the sheathing is considered in

This model has six degrees of freedom per

the beam properties (Figure 2). Table 1 lists

node: x, y, z, x, y and z.

the properties of each beam element of the

model (beam and sheathing).

The value of the fundamental frequency of the
The distance between the edges of the beams

structure and the results obtained for the

is 0,30 m and the sheathing is constituted by

maximum moment and displacement at the

boards with a 0,10x0,02 m section.

centre of the conditional beam due to an

uniformly

distributed

load

allowed

the

The material considered in this study is a

comparison of the three models. As those

timber with E0,05=6,0 GPa and mean=380 kg/m ,

3

results are similar, it can be considered that

which corresponds to a strength class of C18.

the models are equivalent (Cruz, 2013).

(c)

(b)

(a)

Figure 2 T-section beams

Table 1 Properties of the frame elements in the finite element model
2

Section [m ]
Beam (a)
Beam (b)
Beam (c)
Sheathing

0,075x0,15
0,10x0,20
0,15x0,25
0,10x0,02

Ix [m ]

Iy [m ]
-5

-5

5,39 x 10
-4
1,36 x 10
-4
3,28 x 10
-8
6,94 x 10

9,32 x 10
-4
1,23 x 10
-4
2,22 x 10
-6
1,67 x 10

A [m ]

J [m ]

0,0150
0,0240
0,0420
0,0010

8,49 x 10
-4
2,67 x 10
-4
7,82 x 10
-7
1,33 x 10

-5

SERVICEABILITY LIMIT

STATE

higher frequency components and the timber

OF

floor response is governed by its stiffness,

VIBRATION

mass and damping. This dynamic criterion is

The first and only code that specifies rules for

translated to the limitation of the maximum

timber structures design to be used in Portugal

initial value of the vertical floor vibration

is Eurocode 5 (EC5) (EN 1995-1-1:2004). The

velocity (v), measured in m/s, caused by an

section 7 of this code is devoted to the

ideal unit impulse (1 Ns) applied at the point of

verification of the serviceability limit states,

the floor giving maximum response by the

where the vibration problem is included.

combination between a parameter b, the floor

The rules presented in EC5 are applied to

fundamental frequency (f1), in Hz, and its

residential floors with fundamental frequency

modal damping ratio ().

greater than 8 Hz. This limit was defined after

(2)

several researches where it was concluded

that floors with natural frequency with a lower

These

value have a higher risk of resonance effects

be considered.

serviceability limit state of vibration consists in

requirements.

The

The values for the parameters a and b are not

first

specified in EC5. It is only presented a graphic

requirement (1) is related to the displacement

with the recommended range of limiting values

caused by a static point load and should be

and the recommended relationship between

limited by a parameter a, so that movements

the parameters (Figure 3). It is also pointed out

due to low-frequency components (f<8Hz),

that more information about this parameter

caused by walking, are supressed. Since the

are

frequencies

considered
higher

applied

the floor and other permanent actions should

The method defined by EC5 to verify the

floors

be

the mass corresponding to the self-weight of

in a special investigation.

two

should

assuming that the floor is unloaded, i.e., only

caused by walking, so they should the studied

satisfying

requirements

to

than

have
8

choice should be included in the National

natural

Hz,

Annex.

these

movements are semi-static in nature; hence

the static criterion is adequate. Hence, the
quotient between the maximum displacement
(w), measured in mm, and the vertical point
load that causes it (F), applied at any point of
the floor and measured in kN, should be lower
than the value of a parameter a.
Figure 3 Recommended range of and
relationship between a and b (EN 1995-1-1:2004)

(1)

Each variable defined in criteria (1) and (2) will

The

second

requirement

(2)

limits

the

be studied through the formulas presented in

magnitude of the transient response due to the

EC5 and through the numerical model to

heel impact of a footstep. This impact excites

3

determine the factors that affect them the

higher the stiffness of the structure is, the

most. Then, a comparison of the analytical and

higher its fundamental frequency is and the

numerical results will be presented.

lower its vibration magnitude is. An undamped

free vibration system is considered to compute

As previously stated, the dimensions l x b

the frequencies and vibration modes of a

(Figure 4) of the floors studied in this paper are

2

structure.

5,0x5,0 m , 4,0x5,0 m and 3,0x3,0 m , being

the beams span (l) always the smallest length.

In Eurocode 5 the fundamental frequency (f 1)

The section of the analysed beams are

of a timber floor is given by the formula (3). Its

0,075x0,15 m , 0,10x0,20 m and 0,15x0,25

value depends of the dimension of the beams

m (Figure 2) and the values of the properties

span (l), in meters, the mass per unit area, in

used in the EC5 formulas are displayed in

kg/m , and the equivalent plate bending

Table 2. In (Cruz, 2013) more types of floors

stiffness

with other dimensions and beam sections were

perpendicular to the beam direction ((EI)l), in

analysed. It should be noted that all formulas

Nm /m.

of

the

floor

about

an

axis

consider rectangular floors simply supported

along all four edges.

(3)

Through the analysis of the expression it can

be verified that, since it only depends of the
dimension of the beams span, the value of the
natural frequency is

Figure 4 Timber floor

independent

of

the

dimension b of the floor. So, all the floors with

Table 2 Properties of the floor elements

the same beam length and section have equal

2

Beams sections [m ]
0,075x0,15
4

Ix [m ]

5,39 x 10

A [m ]
2

m [kg/m ]
2

(EI)l [Nm /m]

-5

0,10x0,20
1,36 x 10

-4

frequencies. The results of the formula for the

0,15x0,25
3,28 x 10

0,01875

0,02800

0,04650

19,00

26,60

39,27

8,62 x 10

2,04 x 10

defined floors are presented in Table 3.

-4

4,37 x 10

Table 3 Fundamental frequencies, in Hz,

obtained through the formula (3)
6
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

Sheathing
4

-6

Ix [m ]

3,33 x 10

4,00 x 10

(EI)b [Nm /m]

Beams sections [m ]
0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20
0,15x0,25
37,17
48,36
58,24
20,91
27,20
32,76
13,38
17,41
20,97

Comparing the results it can be verified that

Frequencies and vibration modes

the value of the frequency decreases with the

The fundamental or natural frequency of a

increasing of the beams span, effect that can

structure is the frequency of the first vibration

be justified by the decreasing stiffness of the

mode. The natural frequency is the most

floor. The frequency is also lower for smaller

important characteristic in the study of the

beam sections, meaning that the decrease of

structure response to a dynamic action. The

4

the floors stiffness is bigger than the increase

linked to the fundamental frequency, is the one

of its mass.

with the lowest frequency value of the

structure.

The analytical values for the natural frequency

are now compared with the results obtained

Table 4 and Table 5 display the values for the

with the numerical models. For each floor two

natural

models were developed, based on the model

numerical models for floors with four supported

with frame elements previously described, one

edges and floors with only two supported

with all four edges simply supported and the

edges, respectively.

other with only two edges simply supported.

frequencies

obtained

with

the

Table 4 Natural frequencies, in Hz, from the

numerical model supported along four edges

The ends of the beams are the two supported

edges of the second model, being the l edges

Beams sections [m ]

of the Figure 4 not supported.

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

Figure 5 represents the two firsts vibration

modes of the floors with all four edges

0,075x0,15

0,10x0,20

0,15x0,25

41,86
23,42
16,40

51,61
29,01
19,91

59,36
33,61
22,29

supported (a) and the floors with only two of

Table 5 Natural frequencies, in Hz, from the
numerical model supported along two edges

the edges supported (b). These vibration

modes are representative for all the floors
studied, because all 1

st

Beams sections [m ]

vibration modes are

similar, the same happening with the 2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

nd

vibration modes.

0,075x0,15

0,10x0,20

0,15x0,25

37,51
21,04
13,47

48,59
27,28
17,48

58,29
32,81
21,02

With the analysis of results listed above, the

conclusion

previously

made,

about

the

increase of the value of the frequency with the

st

st

1 mode

1 mode

increase

of

the

beams

cross

section

dimensions and the decrease of the beams

span, is strengthened. The factor that affects
frequency the most is the length of the floors
beams, being the second factor the section of
the beams.
2

nd

mode

nd

mode

From the comparison of the formula results

(a)

(b)

with the numerical results it is possible to verify

Figure 5 Vibration modes of the floors

that they are quite similar for the model with

st

As previously stated, the 1 vibration mode is

two supported edges. In fact, since the formula

the deformed configuration of the floor with the

(3) only considers the equivalent bending

lower stiffness and it also is the one that

stiffness for the floors beams, its results

mobilizes more mass. It is then simple to

represent a floor with cylindrical bending,

st

despite the fact that EC5 states that the

conclude that the 1 vibration mode, which is

formula is applied to floors simply supported

The displacement values are higher for floors

along all four edges. The frequency values

with bigger beam spans and smaller beam

obtained with the model with four supported

sections. This was expected and is easily

edges are slightly higher than the others due to

deduced from the analysis of the formula.

the higher stiffness introduced by the two

The displacements were also determined by

additional supports. Therefore, it can be

the numerical models for the same static point

considered that the formula is on the safety

load and for the models supported along four

side since it gives lower frequency values for

or only two edges. The corresponding results

floors with all supported edges than it was

are presented in Table 7 and Table 8,

expected.

respectively.

Static displacement

Table 7 Displacements, in mm, obtained using

the numerical model with four supported edges

The Eurocode 5 does not define how to

2

Beams sections [m ]

determine the displacement due to a static

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

point load. Hence, the displacement was

computed using the formula defined for simply
supported beams, for a point load (F) applied
at the centre of the beam, in N, and an

0,075x0,15
0,437
0,716
1,051

0,10x0,20
0,256
0,416
0,602

0,15x0,25
0,154
0,274
0,411

Table 8 Displacements, in mm, obtained using

the numerical model with two supported edges

uniformly distributed load (p) equivalent to the

beam weight per unit length of the floor, in

Beams sections [m ]

N/m . The value of the displacement also

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

depends of the beams span (l), in meters, and

the equivalent plate bending stiffness of the
floor about an axis perpendicular to the beam

0,075x0,15
0,443
0,728
1,129

0,10x0,20
0,257
0,417
0,621

0,15x0,25
0,154
0,274
0,413

direction ((EI)l), in Nm /m, as showed in the

The difference between the values obtained

expression (4).

with both models is small. The highest

differences appear for the more flexible floors
(4)

and decrease with the stiffness increase. This

same tendency is verified in the difference

The displacement caused by a static load of

between the analytical and the numerical

700 N applied at the middle of the floor is

values. The displacement values given by the

presented in Table 6 for several test cases.

formula are higher than the values obtained

with the numerical models as the adjacent

Table 6 Displacement, in mm, obtained using

formula (4)

beams considered in the model increase the

stiffness of the floor. Therefore, it can be

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

0,075x0,15
0,457
1,084
2,117

0,10x0,20
0,193
0,457
0,894

considered that the formula is from the safety

0,15x0,25
0,090
0,214
0,418

side from the structural point of view.

controls the spacing of two adjacent natural

Unit impulse velocity response

frequencies, that increases with increasing

An impulse not only represents the variation of

(EI)b. This concept is introduced in EC5 by the

a force in a period of time but it can also be

number of first-order modes with natural

related to the linear momentum variation. For a

frequencies

system initially at rest, the impulse is equal to

up

to

40Hz

(n40),

given

in

expression (6), which depends of the floors

the linear momentum, which is the product of

dimensions l and b, in meters, its fundamental

the system mass and its velocity at the mass

frequency (f1), in Hz, and its along and across

centre. Hence, for the same impulse value, the

beam stiffness, (EI)l and (EI)b in Nm /m.

increase of the system mass leads to the

decrease of its velocity.

{[(

]( )

(6)

The unit impulse velocity response (v), in m/s,

is determined in EC5 through the formula (5),

The results of the formulas (5) and (6) applied

which depends of the mass of the entire floor,

considered

by

the

product

between

to the defined floors are presented on Table 9.

its

The formulas only apply to floors with values of

dimensions l and b, in meters, and its mass per

natural frequency bellow 40Hz, reason why the

unit area, in kg/m , and also its number of

table is not completely filled.

modes with natural frequencies up to 40Hz

Table 9 Results from the formulas (5) and (6)
for v, in m/s, and n40

(n40). The floors referred in the code are lightweight floors, which mean that the presence of

Beams sections [m ]

a human occupant modifies their modal

2

l x b [m ]

properties. Therefore, an additional mass of

3,0 x 3,0

50kg at the middle of the floor is considered to

simulate the partial mass of an occupant,

4,0 x 5,0

translated into the expression (5) by the 200/4

ratio.

5,0 x 5,0

(5)

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

n40

2,42

0,01994

n40
v
n40
v

6,12
0,02807
6,43
0,02523

6,17
0,02241
6,84
0,02082

6,02
0,01628
7,33
0,01624

In order to obtain the same results with the

numerical models (Table 10 and Table 11) an

The restriction of the peak velocity response

unit impulse was applied at the middle of each

value due to an unit impulse has the purpose

model, with a time function of magnitude

of limiting the dynamic effects caused by the

1000N and duration of 0,001s, and a mass of

heel impact of a footstep, as previously stated.

50kg. The Rayleigh damping (Clough, et al.,

Depending

1995) was applied to the models with the

on

the

intervals

between

modal damping ratio defined in EC 5 as 1%.

successive impacts and damping of the

vibration, adjacent transient vibration response

To compute the value of the velocity response

may interact with each other (Hu, et al., 2001).

to the impulse, an implicit dynamic analysis

This interaction is denoted by the ratio of the

across-joist

direction

stiffness

((EI)b)

was performed using the Newmarks method

and

(Clough, et al., 1995). The number of first-

along-joist direction stiffness ((EI)l), which

7

order modes with natural frequencies up to

to lower velocity values. This tendency can be

40Hz was determined using the previous

verified either in the formulas results or in the

defined models considering undamped free

numerical results.

vibration properties.
It was expected that the velocity value would
Table 10 Results obtained with the model for
four supported edges (v, in m/s, and n40)

decrease with the increase of the floors

dimensions (l and b), due to their higher mass,

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

which was verified in some cases. In other

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

n40
v
n40
v
n40

0
0,02290
3
0,02287
3

0
0,02015
2
0,01979
3

0
0,01623
3
0,01540
4

0,02277

0,01987

0,01547

cases, however, the velocity value was higher

for larger floors in the analytical and the
numerical results. These results could be
explained by the effect of interaction of
adjacent transient vibration response.
Comparing the results obtained using the

Table 11 Results obtained with the model for

two supported edges (v, in m/s, and n40)

formula (5) with the ones obtained with the

numerical models, it can be noticed that the

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

firsts are lower than the seconds for smaller

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

n40
v
n40
v
n40
v

1
0,02289
4
0,02285
5
0,02293

0
0,02016
4
0,01978
5
0,01980

floor

0
0,01623
4
0,01541
6
0,01546

dimensions.

The

opposite

situation

happens for floors with bigger dimensions.

Verification

of

the

serviceability

limit state of vibration

Based on the values presented in the previous

The results obtained with the finite element

sections, the formulas (1) and (2) were applied

models are very similar for the models with

to the studied floors in order to determine the

four and two supported edges. This means that

values of the parameters a and b and to

the support conditions of the floor are not

perform the verification of the serviceability

important when determining the value of the

limit state of vibration. Table 12, Table 13 and

velocity response to an impulse.

Table 14 present the values for parameters a

From the analysis of all results, it can be

and b computed using the EC5 expressions

concluded that the decrease of the floors

and considering the numerical model with four

dimensions decreases the number of vibration

supported edges and the numerical model with

modes below 40Hz. This was expected as

two supported edges, respectively.

smaller floors have higher frequency values, as

Analysing the values of the parameters and

previously concluded in this paper.

having as only reference the graph in Figure 3,

The factor affecting the velocity value the most

it can be concluded that all floors verify the

is the dimension of the beams cross section.

serviceability limit state of vibration, since there

Larger cross sections mean higher mass

is no value of a higher than 4,0 mm/kN and no

which, by the linear momentum theory, leads

value of b lower than 50.

Table 12 Parameters a and b determined with

the results from the formulas of EC5

The limit of the static criterion (a) depends of

the stiffness of the floor, corresponding the

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

lower values of a to the floors with the higher

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

stiffness. The limit of the dynamic criterion (b)

0,65

0,28

0,13

b
a

508,3
1,55

0,65

0,31

b
a

91,6
3,02

184,4
1,28

456,8
0,60

higher mass and higher stiffness.

70,0

108,6

183,7

From the comparison of the values obtained

depends of the floors mass and stiffness,

associating its higher values to the floors with

using Eurocode 5 formulas and considering the

Table 13 Parameters a and b determined with

the model with all edges supported

numerical models it is possible to conclude that

the EC5 equations are conservative. For the

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]

same floor, the value of a is higher and the

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

3,0 x 3,0

a
b

0,62
662,2

0,37
1031,7

0,22
25336,3

4,0 x 5,0

a
b

1,02
138,9

0,59
251,0

0,39
536,8

5,0 x 5,0

a
b

1,50
92,2

0,86
133,3

0,59
213,7

value of b is lower when using the results from

the expressions present in the code. This
tendency is perceptible in the graph presented
in Figure 6 and is valid for the majority of the
floors, except for those with higher beam
sections, i.e., with higher stiffness, where the

Table 14 Parameters a and b determined with

the model with two edges supported

parameter a is lower when the EC5 method is

used.

Beams sections [m ]
2

l x b [m ]
3,0 x 3,0
4,0 x 5,0
5,0 x 5,0

0,075x0,15 0,10x0,20 0,15x0,25

a

0,63

0,37

0,22

b
a

421,7
1,04

1986,8
0,60

19519,1
0,39

b
a

119,8
1,61

220,2
0,89

498,0
0,59

78,5

115,9

196,2

CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this paper was to study the
methodology defined by Eurocode 5 for the
verification of the serviceability limit state of
vibration and the main factors affecting it.

Figure 6 shows that all parameters a and b

The finite element models used to obtain the

respect the specified limits. These are the

results displayed in this paper were developed

values that appear with a grey shade in the

with frame elements simulating both the floors

tables displayed above.

beams and sheathing. An equivalent T-section

150
140
130
120
110
b 100
90
80
70
60
50

has been considered for the beams to ensure

EC5

the correct evaluation of the stiffness of the

beam and the sheathing. In spite of the

Model 4
supports

simplicity of the models, the results are similar

Model 2
supports

to the ones determined with more sophisticate

models using shell or solid elements and have

the advantage of requiring much less computer

a [mm/kN]

effort. This model type is considered to give

Figure 6 - Relationship between a and b for the

studied floors

good

results

when

developing

dynamic

designers should be careful when designing a

timber floor so that the increase of the floors

analysis of timber floors.

mass does not lead to a decrease in its natural

The formula present in EC5 to determine the
fundamental

frequency

is

frequency. Hence, the increase of the mass

considered

value should always predict the increase of the

appropriate for timber floors, since its results

stiffness.

are similar to the numerical results. It was

concluded that this formula was developed for

The application of Eurocode 5 techniques

floors with cylindrical bending since it is

presents some practical problems. One issue

independent of the dimension of the floor in the

is related to the determination of the static

across-beam direction and its results are

point load displacement, because no guidance

closer to the ones obtained with numerical

is given about how to proceed. The formula (4)

models with two supported edges. The beams

used gave good results and should be

length and section are the factors affecting

considered as an option for the displacement

frequency value the most, being the first the

value

most conditioning.

related to the definition of the value of the

determination.

Another

difficulty

is

parameters a and b. These are the values that

The formula for the calculation of the unit

limit the requirements that allow the verification

impulse velocity response is simple to use. It

of the serviceability limit state of vibration and

was shown that the mass of the floor is the

the range of possible values is too big. The

most important factor affecting the velocity,

information given by the EC5 is considered

being its value lower in floors with higher mass.

insufficient. These difficulties should be studied

It is then concluded that the floors with the

in order to make possible the presentation of

higher mass and the higher stiffness have the

an

best response to vibration problems. This

serviceability limit state of vibration, which can

statement is confirmed by the values obtained

be included in the National Annex of this

for

building code.

parameters

a and

b.

However,

the

unified

procedure

to

assess

the

REFERENCES
ADINA R&D, Inc. 2001. ADINA User Interface. Report ARD 01-6. Watertown, MA, USA : s.n., 2001.
Clough, Ray W. and Penzien, Joseph. 1995. Dynamics of Structures. Computeres & Structures, Inc. Berkeley,
CA USA : s.n., 1995.
Cruz, Margarida W. 2013. Estados Limites de Utilizao de Pavimentos de Madeira. Vibraes e Conforto.
Instituto Superior Tcnico - Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa, Lisboa : s.n., 2013.
EN 1995-1-1:2004. Design of Timber Strutures - Part 1-1: General - Common rules and rules for buildings.
Hu, Lin J, Chui, Ying H and Onysko, Donald M. 2001. Vibration serviceability of timber floors in residential
construction. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials. 3: 228-237, 2001.

10