Response of Heritage Buildings to Excavation-Induced Vibrations

T.G. Carter
Golder Associates, Toronto, Canada.

G. Pernica
National Research Council, Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa, Canada

M.V. van Bers

Golder-VME Limited, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT: Little data is available in the literature on the response of heritage masonry structures to
excavation-induced vibrations. This paper presents unique data and observations relating to deep rock
excavations performed on Parliament Hill, Ottawa, Canada, during the summer of 1997. Some of the
excavations were carried out directly beneath the 80-year old Centre Block building and some were
undertaken immediately adjacent to the 150-year old Library of Parliament. The works were part of an overall
scheme of renovations to renew and upgrade existing mechanical, electrical and telecommunication services
within the Parliamentary complex as part of the construction of a new Underground Services Building. In this
paper, data from the extensive array of monitoring instrumentation is evaluated as a basis for determining
building vibration response characteristics and attenuation rates (decoupling) at the rock-foundation interface.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Parliament Buildings of Canada are situated on

Parliament Hill in the City of Ottawa overlooking
the Rideau River. The original buildings, consisting
of the West, East and Centre Blocks, the latter with
an adjoining Library, were erected between 1859
and 1868. In 1916 the original Centre Block,
housing the main Parliamentary Chambers, was
destroyed by fire although the attached Library was
saved. As part of a major scheme to removate
utilities and services to the old Parliamentary
Buildings, construction of new excavations
adjacent to and below parts of the Centre Block
was completed during the 1997 summer
Parliamentary Recess.

Mechanical excavation methods, including use of a

TBM, were employed beneath the Centre Block
Building (Carter et al. 1999). Outside, blasting was
carried out to remove the majority of the 20,000 m3
of rock excavation required adjacent to the 150
year old Library of Parliament (Figure 1). All of
this work was completed without damage to the
existing heritage buildings or disruption to the Figure 1: Excavation underway adjacent to
proceedings of Parliament. the Library and Centre Block Towers

Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings 1

1.1 Description of Library
The Library of Parliament comprises a circular
masonry loadbearing wall structure consisting of a
stone masonry inner ring wall, a stone masonry
outer ring wall, and 16 stone masonry buttresses
which are connected to the inner ring wall by stone
masonry flying buttresses, (Figure 1). The 16 main
1800 mm thick stone buttresses, which form part of
the outer ring wall (Figure 2), extend 2500 mm out
from the exterior face of the exterior ring wall.
Figure 2: Outline of CBUS blast zones and
mechanical excavation area with relation to
Library and Centre Block.
Freestanding stone pinnacles are sited above the
level of the flying buttresses. These pinnacles add
another 7.3 m to the overall height of the exterior
buttresses. The outer ring wall, which ends at
about the midheight of the inner wall, encloses
several stories of office and storage space around
the outer perimeter of the Library. Structurally, the
inner ring wall assists the outer ring wall and
buttresses in supporting a network of cast iron
trusses and a ring beam to carry the dome portion
of the Library.
The walls and buttresses of the Library are of
random rubble construction, consisting of an
exterior wythe of faced Nepean sandstone, (a high
quality local building stone), within which is a
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
grouted rubble core and an inner face of coursed
random rubble. The inner ring wall is approximately
1500 mm thick throughout its height while the outer
ring wall varies from 1200 mm near its base to about
850 mm near its top. The condition of the masonry
walls and buttresses are largely unknown. However,
exposed portions of the walls and buttresses show
signs of deterioration with mortar missing from
joints between stones and vertical cracks evident in
some of the buttresses.
1.2 Description of Centre Block
The Centre Block, a 6-storey building built between
1916 and 1927, is a multi-element structure. The
perimeter of the structure rests on concrete
foundation walls about 1 m thick. These walls were
poured on concrete foundations placed directly on
bedrock or where the depth to bedrock was
considerable (more than a metre or so) on a coursed
ungrouted masonry wall which filled these localized
depressions in the rock surface.
The superstructure of the building comprises a
variety of structural types. Portions of the interior
superstructure are reinforced concrete frames, steel
frames or a combination of frames and loadbearing
walls (masonry or concrete). The floors are
reinforced concrete slabs supported on walls,
columns or beams.
The exterior loadbearing walls of the building have
an exterior faced wythe of Nepean sandstone. Much
of the wall along the north side of the building in the
area closest to the required excavations for the
Centre Block Underground Services Building
(CBUS), was in relatively good condition with most
of the mortar still in place. At some locations, such
as the 2-storey stairwell at the north-west corner of
the building, conditions were not as good, with
vertical cracks running the full height of the stairwell
within the loadbearing masonry walls; however, the
floors, topped with terrazzo, showed few cracks.
2 EXCAVATION APPROACH
Two main types of excavation method were
envisaged to be used for rock removal exterior to the
Centre Block - blasting and mechanical methods.
2
2.1 Blasting Approach
Prior to undertaking the actual excavation, a series
of test blasts were carried out to determine the
response of the two buildings to blasts occurring
within the CBUS footprint, (Subercaseaux et al.,
1999, Curic et al 1999). The test blasts were
devised to determine propagation rates within the
limestone bedrock and structural responses at
various levels and locations within the buildings.
Throughout, both in designing the excavation
sequencing, and in laying out the required
monitoring for the construction activities, attention
was focused on ensuring minimal damage to the
existing buildings. Accordingly, arrays of vibration
sensors, consisting of velocity transducers and
accelerometers, were installed at strategically
selected locations on the exterior and interior of the
two building structures. Gauges were also placed
across existing masonry cracks and exterior mortar
joints to monitor changes in the width of these
elements. Monitoring of ground behaviour using
extensometers, tiltmeters and VW strain gauges
was also performed and the movements evaluated
in conjunction with the other movements and
motions of the buildings, (Carter et al., 1999).
Vibrations induced by blasting and mechanical
excavation methods (hoe ramming and line drilling)
were monitored and, where required, controls were
imposed on the Contractor to ensure that vibration
levels remained below the established criteria so as
to protect the delicate heritage building fabrics.
As a means to determining the response behaviour
of the building structures, an array of triaxial
geophones were installed on the building at various
locations ranging from the basement to the top of
the gothic buttresses and finials, and strain gauges
and crack plates were installed across identified
pre-existing cracks within the 100 year old
buildings. In order to maximize control on the
excavation activities, the key monitoring locations
were concentrated around the perimeters of the
two buildings, bordering the excavation area, with
a number of installations set on the fragile exterior
masonry cantilevers overlooking the CBUS
footprint. These masonry structures included the
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
North-West Tower of the Centre Block (about 50 m
high) and for the Library, the pinnacles at the top of
the buttresses facing the footprint and the
ornamental chimney at the top of the inner ring wall,
(ref. photograph included as Figure 1).
2.2 Blast Design Methodology
The blast methodology and contract vibration limit
guidelines used throughout the CBUS excavation
works in 1997 were based on comprehensive
analysis of the test blasts and comparison of their
vibration response with data from three-dimensional
structural analysis of the behaviour of the buildings.
As detailed in Subercaseaux et al., 1999, the key
recommendations arising from the analysis of the
trial blast results were:
• Blasthole diameter to not exceed 50 mm.
[Limiting blasthole size was deemed the most
effective way of controlling pattern size and
explosive loads.]
• Only cartridged explosives and non-electric
detonators to be used. [Specifying only
cartridged explosives ensured that total explosive
weights per hole could be controlled and
determined quickly. Non-electric detonators
were a necessity due to the high density of
wireless communication devices and the presence
of radio towers on adjacent structures. To
minimize the potential for cut-offs during the
blast due to pinched shock tubes from the mats,
primacord was used to initiate the non-electric
down-the-hole delay detonators. The primacord
was covered with soil to minimize air-concussion
effects prior to laying the mats.]
• Three layers of blasting mats to be required for
each blast. [These mats were then covered with
a tear resistant filter fabric or felt type material.
This felt material was used to capture any small
rock fragments that may have been contained
within the mats themselves. The presence of
stained glass original windows within 11 m of the
blasting and a high density of tourists around the
site necessitated complete flyrock control.]
• All blasting to be designed with a minimum delay
interval of 25 milliseconds. [The close proximity
of some of the subsurface monitoring sites during
the trial blasting (4.5 m) and the use of wire
triggers and sampling at a rate of 16kHz using a
3
 Blastronics BMX datalogger allowed the delay
timing within many of the blasts to be analyzed.
The highest ground vibration levels recorded
during the 20 test blasts occurred with the one
blast specifically designed to speed up the shot,
during which the delay interval was as short as
9 ms. Delay timing scatter by as much as 10 ms
was observed at least once in each of 5 test
blasts analyzed. The use of a delay interval
shorter than 25 ms was therefore deemed
unacceptable as it would have introduced the
potential for out of sequence or simultaneous
firing of sequential delays.]
• All blasts to be designed based on the vibration
attenuation data determined during the test
blast phase, using the following regression
equation for a 95% confidence level:
PPV = 2104(SD)-1.488
where PPV = peak particle velocity (mm/s)
and SD = Scaled Distance (kg/m0.5)
At the Tender stage, in order to meet the vibration
limitations established for the Library of Parliament
and Centre Block, the approved blasting contractor
divided the CBUS footprint into three excavation
zones, two with differing blast parameters, as
shown in Figure 3. Within these two blasting
zones, a total of 280 blasts were detonated over the
seven-week period for the main CBUS excavation.
Each blast typically involved firing between 21 and
23 x 50 mm diameter holes on a 1.2 m square
pattern. Successive lifts commenced with a small
sinking cut in Zone 1 incorporating two to four 75
to 100 mm diameter relief holes. The majority of
blasts were fired one hole per delay and consisted
of maximum explosive loads per delay period
ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 kg. Only the four initial
sinking cuts had explosive loads greater than 3.0 kg
(5.0 to 6.0 kg. was typical), and decking was only
required for seven of the blasts, with only one blast
suffering a cut-off.
3. CONTROLS
3.1 Condition Surveys
Prior to the commencement of blasting for both the
trial blasts in 1996 and the main excavation in
1997, a pre-condition survey was carried out of
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
both the interior and exterior of the Library of
Parliament, as well as the north and west exterior
walls of the Centre Block. All interior rooms facing
the excavation site and any additional areas specified
by the Heritage Conservation Program, plus Access
Tunnels, the Summer House Pavilion and the base of
the promontory slope were also inspected. In total,
52 hours of video time and 2600 photographs were
required to complete the pre-condition survey. In
places a crane was needed to access upper exterior
walls, towers and roof areas. A complete post-
condition survey was also carried out following the
completion of the bulk excavation works.
3.2 Ground Vibration Limits
A review of internationally suggested vibration limits
to be adhered to for controlling potential damage to
heritage or historically significant structures
indicated considerable differences of opinion on what
was acceptable. The various international guidelines
and standards which are plotted on Figure 3, also
demonstrated a divergence on allowable vibration
dependency with frequency, even to the extent of
disparity with respect to measured limits and
maxima. As is evident from the plot, the German
Institute Standard 4150 is amongst the lowest and
most stringent of the criteria, being frequency
dependent between 3 and 10 mm/s. Some of the
previous USSR and several other European
countries, by contrast, are less restrictive, allowing
permissible vibration limits of 30 mm/s or higher for
occasional blasting.
On the basis of the test blasts maximum ground
vibration limits established for the Centre Block and
Library of Parliament were set appropriately for the
vibration behaviour of the buildings. As shown on
Figure 3, these criteria are quite stringent at the low
frequency end of the range, but fall somewhere in the
middle of the spread of the international standards,
as follows:
Dominant Peak Limit Vibration (mm/s)
Frequency Range Centre Library of
(Hz) Block Parliament
<10 5.0 3.0
10 to 40 5.0 to 40.0 3.0 to 17.5
>40 40.0 17.5
4
As is evident from the table and the plot on Figure
3, two limits were set for the main buildings, the
lower limit being applied to the Library due to the
amplification observed in the exterior pinnacles on
each of the flying buttresses. For any other ancillary
structures or services, ground vibration levels were
specified at normal, standard levels of 50 mm/s.
Figure 3: International Standards for
Vibration Limits for Historic Buildings,
showing guidelines for CBUS.
In order to monitor the vibration intensity in the
bedrock and foundations of the buildings, simple
triaxial geophone arrays were mounted on the
bedrock surface adjacent to the foundations of the
Library, Summer Pavilion, and north and west walls
of the Centre Block. Monitoring results were
reviewed at all stations following every blast. It
was also a requirement to record drill patterns,
explosive loading and initiation sequencing details.
3.3 Crack Monitoring
During the test blast program, 29 existing cracks on
the interior and exterior of the Library and Centre
Block were monitored both prior to and during the
blasting operations. Pins set across eleven of these
cracks (see Figure 4) were measured for lateral and
shear displacement using digital calipers. Readings
were taken at various times throughout the day,
and the average of two sets of readings was
recorded during each visit. The remaining 18
cracks, all interior, were monitored using tape and
glass tell tales. In these locations, pins could not be
installed due to either the locations sensitivity or
the fragile nature of the material in which the
cracks existed. During the CBUS excavation, strain
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
gauges were used rather than pin measurements, so
that real-time data could be gathered more
effectively. In total, 17 representative cracks on and
within the Centre Block and Library were strain
gauged and an additional 16 interior cracks were
also monitored using tape tell tales.
Figure 4: Digital calipers being used for
measurement of typical crack monitoring pins
3.4 Monitoring Instrumentation
Various accelerometers and triaxial sensors and data
recorders were installed to capture the dynamic
response of those portions of the buildings deemed
most prone to excavation-induced vibrations.
Because of proximity to the excavation zones, a
concentration of vibration sensors was placed in the
north-west corner of the Centre Block and across
the western face of the Library.
As part of this instrumentation array, several multi-
directional sensor stations were installed beside the
exterior loadbearing walls of the buildings to capture
the effects of line drilling and hoe ramming activities
along the southern perimeter of the CBUS footprint
immediately adjacent to the buildings. The vertical
masonry cantilevers on both the Centre Block and
Library overlooking the CBUS footprint that had
been monitored for the Test Blasts were again
instrumented for the CBUS excavation works. This
monitoring instrumentation included several Library
pinnacles, as the response of these elements was
found to control the blast parameters for the eastern
portion of the CBUS footprint
5
4. BEDROCK/BUILDING RESPONSE Examination of the vibration response waveforms for
those transducers mounted on the building walls as
4.1 Ground Vibrations – Blasting Influences compared with the waveforms from those
transducers mounted on the bedrock, (as typically
Based on the data collected from the 280 individual
blasts carried out for the CBUS works, peak
ground vibration levels recorded at the Library of
Parliament remained below the prescribed limit of
17.5 mm/s during the entire blasting operation, the
highest level recorded being 17.1 mm/s. Similarly,
all but one blast remained below the 40 mm/s
criteria for the Centre Block. This single high PPV
reading of 43.2 mm/s was attributed to one, over
confined, hole in the second row of the blast, based
on immediate evaluation of blast waveform records. Figure 5: Percentage drop in peak particle
velocity level from bedrock to library
The initial blast results for the CBUS excavations foundation wall.
indicated that peak ground vibration levels could
typically be expected to be 70 to 85% lower than recorded as shown in Figure 6), suggested that the
the levels recorded on the bedrock adjacent to the vertical component of the vibration energy was being
foundation walls. However, during the course of preferentially transmitted to the foundation walls. As
excavation, as the cut became deeper, less of a the depth of excavation increased, though, measured
difference was evident. The comparative results vibration levels became more isotropic, with similar
plotted on Figure 5 shows clearly that by the end of responses in both vertical and longitudinal directions
excavation down to almost 10m depth, typically (perpendicular to the foundation walls). Fourier
only a 30% drop in energy was being measured on analysis of the waveforms, both in the bedrock and
the foundation wall as a percentage of the adjacent foundation walls, however, remained similar,
bedrock velocity response. This suggests that the indicating dominant frequencies consistently higher
coupling between the building’s foundations and than 40 Hz and often in excess of 100 Hz (Figure 7).
the bedrock improved with depth of excavation,
and, as a result, higher responses were being
generated in the building walls for essentially the
same levels of blast-induced rock excitation.

Figure 7: Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) plot

for blast record shown in Figure 6.

4.1 Ground Vibrations – Mechanical Excavation

Figure 6: Typical bedrock vibration response
for close proximity blasting. Similar decoupling characteristics were recorded for
the mechanical excavation equipment, when
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings 6
compared with the blasting responses, apart from
one significant difference in behaviour, that it was
found that the ram-induced vibrations were much
more localized, decreasing rapidly with distance
from the hoe-ram. As a result, even when hoe-
ramming with a large, 10,000 ft-lb. breaker, (with,
of the order of 300 to 400 impacts per minute), the
excavation operations being carried out within the
CBUS footprint (such as are shown in the
photograph in Figure 1), had only a small effect on
the Library, less than 15m away laterally.
Figure 8: Typical bedrock vibration response
for hoe-ramming
The largest vibrations that were measured from the
hoe-ramming operations occurred in the foundation
wall of the Centre Block when the ram was being
operated to break fairly massive, unfractured
limestone bedrock at about the same elevation as
the base of the wall and within a few metres of the
outside of the wall. Recorded velocities under
these conditions exceeded 25 mm/s in the wall with
dominant frequencies at harmonics of the ram
frequency (but significantly >30 Hz). As is evident
from the waveform plot on Figure 8 and the FFT
plot on Figure 9, dominant frequencies in the time
record are a combination of the harmonics of the
ram frequency (in this case about 6Hz) and the
frequencies produced by each of the blows when
several seconds of hoe ram signal (containing many
blows) are analysed.
As a consequence of these high, localized velocities
being measured in the foundation walls a change in
hoe-ramming procedures was implemented for all
areas where it was required that the ram operate
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
near the perimeter building walls. To reduce
vibration levels within the foundation walls, relief
holes were drilled into areas of the bedrock that
were required to be broken by the hoe-ram. This
effectively reduced the energy needed during
ramming to break up the rock. The holes, each
about 2-m deep, which were regularly spaced at
about 1m intervals parallel and perpendicular to the
foundation walls greatly assisted break-up of the
rock and as a result significantly decreased measured
vibration responses.
Figure 9: FFT Plot for hoe-ram vibration
record shown in Figure 8.
The other difference noted between the hoe-ramming
responses and the blasting responses was that with
increased depth of excavation, the hoe-ramming
operations were found to induce less and less of an
effect on the Centre Block foundation wall vibration
levels, almost diametrically opposite to the effect
noted with the blasting that showed better coupling
at the deeper excavation levels.
Examination of the records to check whether
significant signatures could be identified associated
with TBM operations or with the Line Drilling of the
perimeter of the excavation footprint, yielded little
definitive data. Based on the measured responses, it
was concluded that neither source had major
vibration effect on either the Library or Centre
Block, as vibration energy induced by these activities
failed to trigger the data acquisition systems installed
to monitor excavation-induced vibrations. Although
known to be less than 1 mm/s, (the trigger level), no
actual magnitudes or frequencies were recorded.
7
4.2 Crack Displacement
Crack monitoring both during the test blast and
main CBUS blasting programs demonstrated no
evidence of significant movement across any of the
29 cracks monitored. 16 of the 17 strain gauges
installed across selected interior and exterior cracks
on the Library and Centre Block for the main
CBUS excavation showed maximum displacements
not exceeding 0.1 mm between early July and early
November, 1997. Only one strain gauge showed
movement in excess of this. This gauge, which was
sited at an interior location, directly adjacent to the
west intervention, showed displacement of 0.2 mm
attributed to the actual intervention breakthrough.
Apart from this movement, the only other
discernible trend was a consistent opening and
closing on the order of 0.05 to 0.10 mm noted in
the exterior gauges. As this movement was not
evident at any of the interior strain gauge locations
and continued well into the period after external
excavation activities had been completed it is
considered that the movements were related to
regular expansion and contraction of the cracks in
response to temperature and humidity changes.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The comprehensive monitoring of the building
response to excavation by both blasting and
mechanical methods has revealed complex
multimode behaviour of the more frequency
dependent parts of the structure (the flying
buttresses and fragile pinnacles.
Comparison of adjacent bedrock and basement or
concrete foundation wall responses indicated that
the buildings were poorly coupled to the bedrock.
For most of the test blasts, basement/foundation
responses were considerably less than 50% of those
measured on the adjacent bedrock. A further
reduction was noted within the buildings
themselves as the energy propagated upwards and
outwards. Responses overall decreased with
distance from the blast and with elevation within
the buildings. Responses (PPV) in the Centre
Block including those on the towers were
significantly less than those measured in the
foundation wall nearest the blasts. Similarly
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
responses in the upper portion of the Library were
less than those on the basement floor slab.
Responses at most locations in the two structures
including the vertical cantilevers were composed
primarily of high frequencies (>20 Hz). However, as
the response levels of the cantilevers increased
(because of either an increase in the size of the blast
or a decrease in the distance to the blast),
particularly the pinnacles and chimney of the Library,
so did the low-frequency content within these
responses. This downward shift in frequency may be
indicative of a change in the overall response of the
cantilevers from one containing the contributions of
many modes to one dominated by the contributions
of a few of the lower modes. On the other hand,
building responses did not exhibit much low-
frequency or resonance-type behaviour as the
majority of the energy emanating from the blasts
contained frequencies well above the low-frequency
modes of the two buildings (probably less than 5
Hz).
Responses measured in both buildings remained
below the recommended limits for all but a few
blasts indicating that the previously derived criteria
for the footprint, which was obtained from the test
blast program (a 4-m excavation) applied to the full
depth of the 10-m excavation.
Responses measured within the two structures
showed similar attenuation patterns within their
confines for all excavation depths, decreasing with
both building height and distance from the
foundation wall nearest the blast.
Library pinnacle responses stayed below levels
obtained during the test blast program partly because
of the conservative criteria selected for the Library
and partly because the upper 1.5 m of the pinnacles
were removed prior to the commencement of
excavation operations.
It was found that responses due to blasting were
more significant in terms of magnitude but contained
less low frequency harmonics than responses created
by mechanical hoe-ramming. Guidelines for future
excavation-related response monitoring suggest
that….
8
As the lowest natural frequencies of the Library are
below 20 Hz, most of the energy produced by hoe
ramming and blasting was contained in frequencies
well above its dominant lowest modes. As such,
the Library responded to these excitations primarily
as forced vibrations at frequencies well above the
frequency range of its dominant modes. High-
frequency components comprising the majority of
individual responses were attenuated and low-
frequency components close to natural frequencies
amplified. Responses in the Library, therefore,
varied from component to component with
amplifications in vertical cantilevers (such as
pinnacles and chimney) producing responses which
were larger than those measured at the base of the
buttresses.
Based on the vibration data, the lowest natural
frequencies of the Library which control the seismic
response of the building are in the 8 to 12 Hz
range. On the other hand, blasting and hoe
ramming contain very little energy at these low
frequencies. Response to these events will,
therefore, be primarily forced vibrations at the
dominant frequencies induced within the bedrock
adjacent to the building. Response within the
building itself will change as the waves propagate
upwards and outwards from the foundation. Since
there are few if any major components in the
building with significant high-frequency modes,
higher frequencies in the waveform will tend to die
out or dampen at a faster rate than lower
frequencies with increasing distance from the event.
In comparing the tast blast program to the actual
CBUS blasting the overall response of the Library
increased either because of increased blast size or
reduced blast distance, the low-frequency response
of some of the vertical cantilevers closest to the
blast increased. One reason for this change may
have been an increase in energy in the
neighbourhood of the lower modes producing a
resonant-type of response.
7 REFERENCES
Carter, T. G., Webb, G.S., Van Bers, M. V., and
Culham, G. (1999) Design and Construction
Solutions for excavation under and adjacent to the
Carter et al - Response of Heritage Buildings
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa. Proc. 37th U.S. Rock
Mechanics Conf., Vail, pp. 585-592
Curic, A., Van Bers, M.V. and McAnuff, A. L.,
(1999) Blasting on Parliament Hill, Ottawa adjacent
to Canada’s No. 1 Heritage Building. Proc. 25th
Annual Conf. On Explosives and Blasting
Techniques, Nashville
Chae, Y. S., Design of Excavation Blasts to Prevent
Damage, Jnl. Civil Engineering- ASCE, 1978.
Din 4150 Part 3, Deutsche Norm, Structural
Vibration in Buildings, Effects on Structures, 1975.
Dowding, C. H., Blast Vibration Monitoring and
Control, 1985.
Konon, W., Schuring, J. R., Vibration Criteria for
Historic Buildings, ASCE National Convention,
1983.
Rainer, J.H., Effect of Vibrations on Historic
Buildings: An Overview 1982. Proc. Association for
Presentation Technology Bulletin, Vol. XIV, No. 1,
pp. 2-10.
Sedovic, W., Assessing the Effects of Vibration on
Historic Buildings, Association for Preservation
Technology Bulletin Vol. XVI No. 3 & 4, 1984.
Subercaseaux, M. I., Pernica, G., van Bers, M. V.,
(1999) Designing a Test Blasting Program for an
Underground Building on Parliament Hill,
Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin
Vol. XXX No. 2 & 3, pp. 67-73
9