See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327987596

Calibration of Ground Improvement Technology on the Basis of Vibration

Control

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 562

1 author:

Jaroslaw Rybak
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
160 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geotechnical Education View project

Pile testing technologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jaroslaw Rybak on 01 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Calibration of Ground Improvement Technology
on the Basis of Vibration Control

J. Rybak
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Wroclaw, Poland

ABSTRACT: The development of soil improvement technologies imposes the necessity of new
control (or calibration) techniques to provide a proper quality and the safe execution of those
geotechnical works. Methods continuously developed by Wroclaw University of Science and
Technology (Poland) enable the preliminary design of work process and current on-site control
of geotechnical works (steel sheet piling, pile driving, soil improvement technologies). Mea-
surements and continuous histogram recording of shocks and vibrations and its dynamic impact
on engineering structures (reinforced concrete and masonry structures) in the close proximity of
the building site help to modify the technology parameters like hammer drop height. Selected
examples of practical applications have already been published and provide a basis for the for-
mulation of guidelines for work on the following sites. This work presents selected aspects of
the active design and technology calibration, using the investigation of the impact of vibrations
that occur during the Rapid Impulse Compaction on the adjacent structures. Selected case stu-
dies (examples) describe ways of proceedings in the case of ruined factory where the old maso-
nry walls were exposed to vibrations and in the case of the historic brick chimney.

1 INTRODUCTION

There are two sources of ground vibrations – natural phenomena or human activities. Ground
vibrations induced by human activities are characterized by a much lower intensity compared
with the natural phenomena like earthquakes, although due to the high infrastructure and urban
development these effects belong nowadays to the rapidly developing area of soil dynamics de-
scribed by various authors (Athanaospoulos & Pelekis 2000, Hwang & Tu 2006). Potentially
the most invasive (harmful) technologies of soil improvement are related to single dynamic im-
pact like in the case of micro-blasting, dynamic consolidation and continually developing tech-
nology of Rapid Impulse Compaction.
Human activities may generate significant ground vibrations and have the influence on the
structures especially in urban environment, due to the close distance of buildings and structures
from the source of vibration. Human activities which can generate ground vibrations were clas-
sified by (Athanaospoulos & Pelekis 2000, Bachmann & Ammann 1987) into the following cat-
egories:
x road and railway traffic,
x operation of machines and construction activities.
The last from the above-mentioned factors is the main topic of the paper. The main construc-
tion or demolition activities causing dynamic problems in close proximity of structures are ac-
cording to works (Hiller & Hope 1998, Srbulov 2011):
x pile or sheet pile driving, dynamic soil compaction,
x demolition of structures,
x rock excavation and soil deep compaction by explosives.
 The second factor is the main objective of case studies presented in the paper. The dynamic
compaction is the ground improvement method which allows to densify the underlying soils by
dropping heavy weight. It may excite significant dynamic effects in the form of the surface
propagating ground waves. In that case, vertical and radial displacement/velocity components
are much more significant than the tangential ones, so the R-waves are dominant. The attenua-
tion rate in radial direction is the highest, in vertical direction – a little smaller, and in tangential
direction - the lowest. That is why for a large distance from the vibration source, the peaks of
the velocity/acceleration values are very similar in each direction. The aspects of the vibration
attenuation in the case of dynamic compaction are discussed in detail by Hwang (Hwang & Tu,
2006) The authors observed also that soil compaction generates greater vibrations but with a
faster attenuation rate the greater the distance, compared to pile driving. Similar remarks were
previously published in the work of the authors (Pieczynska & Rybak 2014).

2 SELECTION OF STRUCTURE CRITERIA

The intensity of vibrations affecting structures is usually described by peak particle velocity
measured at the ground level close to the structure. Permissible values of velocities are usually
given in form of curves, depending on the values of dominant frequencies, the type of structure
and duration of the vibrations.
Generally the allowable values of the peak particle velocities components range from 3 to 70
mm/s. The corresponding frequency range is usually from 1 to 100 Hz. This recommendations
are usually limited to ordinary type of structures and typical ground conditions. In more compli-
cated cases, engineers need to seek advice and help from specialists in soil dynamics – more ad-
vanced numerical simulations are necessary to predict the possible structure damage. Different
standards and codes give various vibration criteria to prevent buildings damage for various con-
struction materials and technologies. The comparison studies and summary for a wide range of
approaches was recently made by various authors (Srbulov 2011, Skipp 1998, Hwang 2006,
Pieczynska & Rybak 2014, Brzakala et al. 2014 or Athanaospoulos & Pelekis 2000). Basic in-
formation about the limits established in international standards were juxtaposed in work (Brza-
kala et al. 2014). In general, in all the cases, the maximum component of the vibration velocity
on the foundation level caused by dynamic loads is compared with the given criteria. The time-
history of the vertical and horizontal vibration is recorded in one of the directions parallel to the
side wall of the building.

60
Amplitude of velocity [mm/s]

cat. L1
50

40

30

20 cat. L2

10 cat. L3

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 1. Acceptable vibration level according to DIN 4150-3:1999-02.

The limits of the vibration velocities are given in the form of curves in frequency domain for
three different types of structures (industrial, residential and sensitive to vibrations). The author
usually relies on DIN. According to DIN4150-3, for short-term vibrations, the threshold values
related to industrial/commercial purpose buildings vary from 20 mm/s for low frequencies to
50mm/s for high frequency range. Lower bound values refer to dwellings (5 mm/s-20 mm/s)
and the strict criteria are related to structures sensitive to dynamics effects (3 mm/s-10 mm/s).
The graphic form of those limits may be seen on Figure 1. The intensity of vibrations may be
amplified significantly along the height of the buildings, that is why the measurements made on
particular storey should be also verified with relevant codes and with the allowable values for
the human exposure to vibrations (Brzakala at all. 2014). For long-term vibrations the require-
ments are much more rigorous.

3 CASE STUDY – RAPID IMPULSE COMPACTION

The main recording device was Minimate® Pro4 vibration control tool made by Instantel®. The
Sample Rate was 2048 Hz. Interval duration was set to 15 s. The minimum recorded value of
vibration velocity was 0.1 mm/s. Minimate® Pro4 sensor was consequently placed on construc-
tion elements of monitored objects. The objects of major importance were newly constructed
residential buildings (S20, S19) and a ruined factory (Figure 3) with a tall brick chimney of his-
torical value (Figure 4). Test points were chosen in order to evaluate the intensity of dynamic
impact (vibrations) on neighboring structures. Test measurements and continuous vibration con-
trol began on December 2nd, 2015. The basic layout of test points is shown on Fig. 2. The con-
struction company TERRA-MIX was informed on-line about the results of the vibration survey.
The machine operator was able to change hammer drop height immediately; but because of rela-
tively low levels of dynamic impact there was no necessity to act like that. After trial tests, the
whole work period could be carried out without any vibration-related threats.

chimney 3
ruined factory compaction sites
2 M7
4 2 location
of accelerometers

5
1
6
7
M8a

M9 - site

Residential S20
Figure 2. Work sites (M9, M8a, M7) and monitored objects S20, S16, S15, factory and chimney

In the second and third stage of the works, measuring points were also chosen again in order to
evaluate the intensity of dynamic impact (vibrations) on neighboring structures close to M8a
and M7 sites. Test measurements and continuous vibration control were carried out on Decem-
ber 8th, 2015. A basic layout of test points is shown on Fig. 2. The construction company was
again informed on-line about the results of the vibration survey and the machine operator al-
tered the drop height from 100% to 80% of the possible energy. When the construction works
moved to M7 site in the close proximity of the chimney, a continuous monitoring was applied
and for the period of 3 working days (December 19th, 21st, 23rd) the whole process was being
controlled and calibrated. The drop height varied from 100% to 40% of the possible energy.
 Figure 3.Test at a ruined factory Figure 4.Test at a chimney
All the results were later on gathered in “Vibration testing report4s U-series no. 145/2015,
153/2015, 2/2016” published at Wroclaw University of Technology.

4 CONCLUSIONS
Modern impact hammers make it possible to change hammer drop height for some part or the
whole duration of the works. Such policy was applied during the compaction works for soil im-
provement at the construction site in Wroclaw. Such procedure made it possible to reduce con-
siderably the amplitudes of vibrations observed on the adjacent structures. However, it must be
remembered that the “switching” of the hammer may limit the efficiency of soil compaction
(depth) and prolong the time of works. The above presented case study showed the situations in
which only after the technology was selected and the works started, the investigation was car-
ried out in order to determine whether the technology may be further applied or whether it
should be switched to some other one. In other cases, when the necessary precautions impose
the works to come to a standstill, the investment costs increase (both of the standstill and the po-
tential technology changes). That often results from the passive attitude on the part of investors
and contractors, while – with a small cost of the survey, both might be saved: time and money.

REFERENCES AND MATERIALS CONSULTED

Athanaospoulos G.A., Pelekis P.C., 2000. Ground vibrations from sheetpile driving in urban environ-
ment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 19, pp. 371-387
Bachmann H., Ammann W., 1987. Vibration in Structures Induced by Man and Machines. International
Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
Brzakala W., Herbut A., Rybak J., 2014. Recommendations for ground vibrations survey in course of
geotechnical works. 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014 :
GeoConference on science and technologies in geology, exploration and mining, Albena, Bulgaria,
17-26 June, Vol. 2, Hydrogeology, engineering geology and geotechnics. pp. 747-754
Hiller, D.M. & Hope, V.S., 1998. Groundborne vibration generated by mechanized construction activity.
Proc., Inst. Civil Engineers (131), pp. 223-232
Hwang J.H., Tu T.Y. 2006. Ground vibration due to dynamic compaction. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering 26, pp. 337-346
Pieczynska-Kozlowska J., Rybak J.,2014.Vibration monitoring as a tool for a calibration of geotechnical
technologies. 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2014 : GeoCon-
ference on science and technologies in geology, exploration and mining, Albena, Bulgaria, 17-26
June, Vol. 2, Hydrogeology, engineering geology and geotechnics. pp. 1043-1050
Skipp B.O., 1998. Ground vibration – codes and standards. In: Skipp (ed) Ground dynamics and man-
made processes. The Institution of Civil Engineers.
Srbulov M., 2010. Ground Vibration Engineering. Simplified Analyses with Case Studies and Examples.,
Springer
Srbulov M., 2011. Practical Soil Dynamics. Case Studies in Earthquake and Geotechnical Engineering.,
Springer

View publication stats