• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.54 no.5
• /
• pp.937-953
• /
• 2015

This paper investigates the load model for single footfall trace of human walking. A large amount of single person walking load tests were conducted using the three-dimensional gait analysis system. Based on the experimental data, Fourier series functions were adopted to model single footfall trace in three directions, i.e. along walking direction, direction perpendicular to the walking path and vertical direction. Function parameters such as trace duration time, number of Fourier series orders, dynamic load factors (DLFs) and phase angles were determined from the experimental records. Stochastic models were then suggested by treating walking rates, duration time and DLFs as independent random variables, whose probability density functions were obtained from experimental data. Simulation procedures using the stochastic models are presented with examples. The simulated single footfall traces are similar to the experimental records.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.179-196
• /
• 2013

An experimentally measured single footfall trace (SFT) from a walking subject needs to be extended into a continuous force curve, which can then be used as load for floor vibration serviceability assessment, or on which further analysis like discrete Fourier transform can be conducted. This paper investigates the accuracy, applicability and parametrical sensitivity of four extension methods, Methods I to IV, which extends the SFT into a continuous time history by the walking step rate, stride time, double support proportion and the double support time, respectively. Performance of the four methods was assessed by comparing their results with the experimentally obtained reference footfall traces in the time and frequency domain, and by comparing the vibrational response of a concrete slab subjected to the extended traces to that of reference traces. The effect of the extension parameter on each method was also explored through parametrical analysis. This study finds that, in general, Method I and II perform better than Method III and IV, and all of the four methods are sensitive to their extension parameter. When reliable information of walking rate or gait period is available in the test, Methods I or II is a better choice. Otherwise, Method III, with the suggested extension parameter of double support time proportion, is recommended.