TRANSPORT A N D ROAD RESEARCH L A B O R A T O R Y

Department of Transport

RESEARCH REPORT 53

GROUND V I B R A T I O N CAUSED BY CIVIL E N G I N E E R I N G

WORKS

by B M NEW M S c PhD

The views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of the Depa~ment
of Transport

Ground Engineering Division

Highways and Structures Department
Transport and Road Research Laboratory
Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG11 6AU
1986
ISSN 0266-5247
Ownership of the Transport Research
Laboratory was transferred from the
Department of Transport to a subsidiary of
the Transport Research Foundation on 1st
April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by

permission of the Controller of HMSO.
Extracts from the text may be reproduced,
except for commercial purposes, provided
the source is acknowledged.
CONTENTS
Page

Abstract 1

1. Introduction 1

2. The effects of vibration 1

2.1 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) as a

measure of damage potential 1

2.2 Current damage criteria 3

2.3 Human perception and intrusion criteria 7

3. The prediction of vibration 8

3.1 Non-explosive sources 8

3.2 Explosive sources 10

4. Blasting trials 11

4.1 Measurement procedures and

equipment 11

4.2 Data processing and presentation 13

4.2.1 Square and cube root scaling

methods 13

4.2.2 Site specific scaling using

multiple regression analysis 14

5. Contractual specification and vibration

control 15

6. Acknowledgements 17

7. References 17

8. Appendix 19

© Crown Copyright 1986

Extracts of the text may be reproduced,
except for commercial purposes, provided the
source is acknowledged.
G R O U N D V I B R A T I O N C A U S E D BY CIVIL
ENGINEERING W O R K S
ABSTRACT
Investigations have been undertaken to improve
techniques for the prediction and control of ground
vibration caused by civil engineering construction
works. Contemporary damage and nuisance criteria
are reviewed and factors affecting the input and
propagation of ground vibration are discussed. Field
data from numerous sites in the UK are summarised
to provide some guidance as to the relative
importance of various sources (eg, traffic, piling,
tunnelling, blasting).
A methodology for trial blasting is given with
recommendations for the deployment and
specification of the equipment. Data processing and
presentation format is described and a 'site specific'
scaling method given which provides improved
correlation between peak particle velocity and scaled
distance. The use of peak particle velocity as a
damage-hazard specifier is discussed in relation to
other dynamic parameters which also effect damage
to structures.
Options regarding the distribution of vibration
associated risks between Employer and Contractor are
considered in the context of legal and contractual
obligations.
1 INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the problem of the specification,
measurement and control of ground vibration which
is caused by civil engineering works. Vibration from
construction sources will generally be of a temporary
nature, but the disturbance caused may result in
permanent damage to property and substantial
nuisance to the local population. Either factor may
lead to restraints on the working method that result
in additional costs or even, in extreme circumstances,
curtailment of activity.
Blasting and piling operations have in the past been
the cause of greatest concern, but in recent years
construction works have utilised larger plant as
economic pressures have forced greater emphasis on
mechanised rather than labour intensive techniques.
These developments have resulted in the use of
machines that dissipate large amounts of energy, in
the form of ground vibrations and noise, into the
environment.
At the present time pre-construction vibration
prediction analyses are often rather hit and miss
affairs and in many instances they are not carried out
at all. This lack of prior knowledge can lead to severe
restrictions being placed on the Contractor during the
actual works.
Most vibration associated problems may be expressed
as two separate questions:
(i) what level of vibration will be produced by
the proposed construction works? This will
depend on the construction method and the
seismic propagation characteristics of the site.
and (ii) what is the acceptable level of vibration? This
will depend on the type of structures at risk
and the sensitivity of the local population to
nuisance.
The answers to both these questions are always site
specific, although an important initial appraisal of
hazard may be made which is based on experience
from other sites. Reference to case history
information will often greatly assist planning
operations although where excavation by blasting is
required in an urban environment it may often be
prudent to carry out trial blasts as part of the site
investigation programme. Procedures are given here
which enable trial blasting works to be rationally
planned and for the data gained to be presented and
used in the most beneficial manner.
The determination of 'acceptable' vibration levels is in
many ways more difficult to deal with owing to its
subjective nature, particularly with regard to nuisance.
A wide variety of contradictory advice on 'safe'
vibration levels is available. The increasing influence
of the environmental lobby has resulted in some
standardising authorities insisting on unreasonably low
levels of vibration from blasting. On the other hand
explosive manufacturing companies and blasting
contractors do occasionally seem rather optimistic in
their assessment of the durability of structures (and
people) subject to dynamic loading. The review and
discussion given below seeks to evaluate and
reconcile these viewpoints and provide guidance for
working damage and nuisance criteria.
2 T H E EFFECTS OF V I B R A T I O N
2.1 PEAK PARTICLE V E L O C I T Y (PPV)
AS A M E A S U R E OF D A M A G E
POTENTIAL
Vibration induced damage thresholds are usually
expressed in terms of peak particle displacement,
velocity or acceleration and sometimes include a
frequency dependent factor. Harmonic vibrations may
be described by any t w o of the following parameters;
frequency, peak particle displacement, peak particle
velocity or peak particle acceleration. The 'peak
particle' preface indicates that it is the maximum
value associated with the motion of a particle at a
point in the ground (or on a structure) that is
considered.
It is most usual for peak particle velocity (PPV) to be
used as it has been found to be the best correlated
with case history data of damage occurrence and has
a theoretical underpinning inasmuch as the strain
induced in the ground is proportional to the particle
velocity. Although PPV is widely used to quantify the
damaging potential of a vibration it must be
recognised that 'velocity', of itself, cannot induce
damaging forces. Such forces are generated in
structures by b o t h : - -
(a) differential displacements which give rise to
distortion as the structure follows movement of the
ground upon which it is founded
or(b) change in the ground particle velocity vector
(magnitude or direction) which produces inertial
forces upon the structure.
In practice the structure will be subjected to both
'distortion' and 'inertial' mechanisms at the same time
and these will be superimposed upon pre existing
stresses and strains from other causes; damage will
occur w h e n the combined effects exceed the
tolerance of the structure. Vibration can also give rise
to longer term ground movements (eg by
compaction) which may also contribute materially to
structural distress; this mechanism is discussed
elsewhere (New, 1978) and is not considered in this
paper.
For convenience Figure 1 separates the distortional
and inertial factors and considers particle motions
normal and parallel to the surface. The ground
distortion (Figures la and b) could be attributed to
vertically polarised shear waves or the vertical
component of Rayleigh surface waves whilst the
dilatation in this case (Figures l c and d) results from
a compressional wave type. It can be shown (see
Appendix) that the shear strain )/ imposed by the
ground distortion at foundation level is a function of
the particle velocity (V) and the velocity of (shear)
wave propagation cs. That is ), = V/cs. Similarly the
strain (~) caused by dilatations depends on the
particle velocity and the compressional wave velocity
Cp. That is ~ = V/cp. This form of calculation will be
appropriate for any structure which closely follows
the movement of the ground eg (pipes, tunnels,
foundations).
For most buildings however the actual distortions will
be heavily dependent on the dynamic response of the
structure. The natural frequencies and damping
characteristics of a building will determine the strains
imposed by the ground motions. To simplify, the case
2
is considered where the ground motion wavelength is
l o n g compared to the length of the structure.
A force is required at the interface of structure and
ground to move the building either up and down or
side to side, Figures l b and d. These forces will
depend on the effective mass of the structure and the
acceleration imposed by the ground wave motions.
Now the acceleration (a) is a function of particle
velocity (V) and the frequency (f) of the motion
(a = 2 ~ V for harmonic motion). The actual forces
transmitted within the structure are dependant on its
particular response characteristics but for a given
structure the ground motion parameters concerning
damage hazard are particle velocity and frequency.
In practice structural damage may result from the
complex interaction of the mechanisms shown and it
is important to emphasise that whilst PPV may be the
single most valuable parameter to observe, the
frequency and propagation velocity of the ground
motions must also be considered. A more detailed
discussion of structural response using single degree
of freedom models is given by Dowding (1985).
The dependence of distortion induced in structures
on wave propagation velocity has been recognised by
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978), who give risk of
damage thresholds which are closely proportional to
the wave propagation velocity of the ground upon
which the structures are founded (see Table 1). Other
velocity criteria given below are varied with respect to
the frequency of the vibrations which will assist the
prediction by making empirical allowance for the
response characteristics of common urban structures.
When Vibration damage is discussed little if any
allowance is generally made for the characteristic
propagation velocity of the wave motionS. For
instance, consider a group of vibrations comprising
compressional waves followed by shear waves of
slightly lower peak particle velocity and similar
frequency. It will be the PPV of the compressional
arrivals that will be used to assess the risk of damage
despite the fact that the dynamic distortions from the
later shear wave arrivals (of slightly lower PPV) may
be significantly larger (owing to their lower
propagation velocity). Further, the wave propagation
velocity in rock may easily be ten times that
associated with a soil; for a given PPV and frequency
this means that the ground distortions will be ten
times greater for a structure founded on soil than that
for one on rock.
Some instruments used to monitor blast vibrations
only show PPV levels and not the full time history of
the vibration wave packet. Where instruments show
the wave packet in detail it should usually be possible
to estimate the frequency of the motions and to
differentiate between compressional and
shear/surface wave arrivals by allowing for their
relative times of arrival and discontinuities in the
waveforms.
 (a) Short wavelength distortion (b) Long wavelength distortion (inertial effect)
Structure distortion ~ Structure ~ Inertial
"7
displacement ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ldeformation
Ground profile L 1 / "~ I
without vibration [ /
with vibration ~ | |
. \ .\ \. \ .\ \ . \ .\ \ . \ .\ -]~-- -- __ -ix ~- ~
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Verticle force on X -- X 1 = mea = me21"rfV
Ground
particle +Wave velocity Cs-~
T t T trajectory--~ : T T T

(c) Short wavelength dilatation (d) Long wavelength dilatation (inertial effect)

Structure elongation ~-~ Structure displacement 4-~ Inertial

n I deformation

\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ [
\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ F[ \\\- ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \
Horizontal force on X -- X 1 = mea = m e 2TrfV
\\\X \\\

Wave velocity Cp
i__=1
N-o H~ ~ Particle r - j -,
trajectory

1 ~ Ground particle displacement

Fig. 1 D e f o r m a t i o n and inertial forces due to ground wave motion

TABLE 1

Risk of damage in ordinary dwelling houses with varying ground conditions (Langefors and Kihlstrom, 1978)

Hard limestone,
Sand, shingle, clay quartzy sandstone
under ground water Moraine, slate, soft gneiss, granite,
level limestone diabase Type of damage

Wave velocity m/s 300-1500 2000-3000 4500-6000

Vibration velocity 4-18 35 70 No noticeable cracks

mm/s 6-30 Insignificant cracking
55 110
(threshold value)
8-40 80 160 Cracking
12-60 115 230 Major cracks

Although it is essential to recognise that the risk of
structural damage is also dependant on frequency
and propagation velocity it seems likely that vibration
damage criteria will continue to be related empirically
with peak particle velocities. An important pragmatic
influence on this is that there is little reliable
information available on the damage induced in
structures related to measured dynamic stresses and
strains. The data that are available on distortions of a
quasi-static nature are not readily interpreted in terms
of dynamic movements as the effective strength of a
material is often critically dependent on the rate at
which the load is applied. (For instance, the dynamic
tensile strength of rock may easily exceed its static
value by an order of magnitude).
2.2 C U R R E N T D A M A G E CRITERIA
The establishment of precise or universal criteria that
define vibration damage thresholds is not possible
and expert judgment based on specific site
knowledge and previous case history data will often

3
be necessary. The possibility or degree of damage
that results from vibration will depend on the nature
of the source, the transmission characteristics of the
intervening geological strata and the inherent strength
and response characteristics of the subject structure.
The dynamics involved will usually be of a complex
nature and many of the variables that control the
resulting structural motions are likely to be unknown.
Any suggested damage criteria are, of necessity, a
compromise on which engineering judgments may be
based; they must not be regarded as hard and fast
rules.
Standardizing authorities throughout the world have
experienced difficulty in defining acceptable standards
to be supported by legislative powers. No British or
International Standard defines vibration thresholds for
damage to structures, although such a document is in
the course of preparation.
Siskind et al (1980) have produced a comprehensive
account of structure response and damage produced
by ground vibration from surface mine blasting. This
work provides damage probability analyses for various
conditions and Figure 2 is, in part, based on their
'alternative safe blasting level criteria' for residential
structures. The 'safe' levels indicated fit British case
history information well and it is suggested that these
levels provide a useful basis for risk assessment. It
must be emphasised that there are many recorded
100
80
60 Safe levels of blasting vibration for houses
40
A
20

10
fro?/
'Drywall' ,,-
" /"
Attempts to establish safe levels of vibration have, E
E 8 y 'Plaster' finish
not unnaturally, tended to be of a conservative nature 6
and the original German Standard DIN4150 (1938,
4 •
revised 1984) is an example that is generally held to O
Disturbing or annoying
be overcautious and unworkable. Recently revisions

-t
have been proposed to this document and some 2
revised guide values are given in Table 2. Barely
1 perceptible
The Swiss Association Standards (1978) again seem (transient)
n
0.8 Perceptible
rather cautious (see Table 3). They provide a guide to 0.6
acceptable levels from blasting or traffic/ machinery 0.4
forms of excitation for various types of structure.
Persson et al (1980) reported vibration limits enforced I
0.2 Imperceptible
in Swedish cities (Table 4). Langefors and Kihlstrom
(1978) provided a risk assessment for ordinary
dwelling houses with varying ground conditions 0.1 I I I I I I I I

(Table 1). Westine et al (1978) and Attewell and Fry 2 4 6 810 20 40 60 80 00

(1983) have investigated the effects of explosive Frequency (Hz)
detonations on buried pipelines and vibration effects
on subsurface structures have also been considered Fig.2 Safe blasting and human perception
(Dowding, 1985; New, 1984). vibration thresholds

TABLE 2

Guide values for peak particle velocity during transient shaking (DIN 4150)

Peak particle velocity guide values (mm/s)

Foundations Top storey on

wall at floor
level (all
Structure Type <10 Hz 10-50 Hz 50-100 Hz* frequencies)

Offices and industrial premises 20 20-40 40-50 40

Domestic houses and similar constructions 5 5-15 15-20 15
Other building sensitive to vibrations 3 3-8 8-10

* At frequencies higher than 100 Hz a higher guide value is allowable.

4
 TABLE 3
Swiss standard for vibration in buildings

Frequency Blasting induced Traffic or machine

Type of structure bandwidth Hz PPV mm/s induced PPV mm/s

Steel or reinforced concrete structures 10-60 30

such as factories, retaining walls, 60-90 30-40
bridges, steel towers, open channels, 10-30 12
underground tunnels and chambers 30-60 12-18
Buildings with foundation walls and 10-60 18
floors in concrete, walls in concrete or 60-90 18-25
masonry, underground chambers and 10-30 8
tunnels with masonry linings 30-60 8-12
Buildings with masonry walls and 10-60 12
wooden ceilings 60-90 12-18
10-30 5
30-60 5-8
Objects of historic interest or other 10-60 8
sensitive structures 60-90 8-12
10-30 3
30-60 3-5

TABLE 4
Some typical vibration limits enforced in Sweden when the foundation is on hard rock. Valid for short duration
construction blasting (Persson et al, 1980)

Limiting vibration parameter (peak value)

Amplitude Velocity Acceleration

Object mm mm/s mm/s 2

Concrete bunker
Steel reinforced 20O
High rise apartment block
Modern concrete or steel frame design 0.4 100
Underground rock cavern roof
Hard rock, span 15-18 m 70-100
Normal block of flats
Brick or equivalent walls 70
Light concrete building 35
Swedish National Museum
Building structure 25
Sensitive exhibits 5
Computer center
Computer supports 0.1 2.5
Circuit breaker control room 0.5-2

instances of particle velocities well in excess of those
indicated not having damaged structures. Conversely,
if a structure is in very poor condition, even the
slightest vibration can cause inherent weaknesses to
become apparent.
Research is being carried out on response spectra
techniques intended to improve prediction of vibration
damage to structures (Siskind et al, 1980; Walker
et al, 1982). These techniques use measurements of
the mass, stiffness (or natural frequency) and
damping characteristics of the subject structures to
assess their likely response to vibration. This
approach is very effective and should be employed
w h e r e specific structures are at risk and the additional
investigations are financially acceptable.
In some respects the conventional form of damage
criteria already incorporate an important element of
response spectra techniques. For instance, the safe
level of PPV (Figure 2) reduces considerably at
frequencies less than 40 Hz. This coincides with the
predominant frequencies ( 5 - 3 0 Hz) associated with
the response of residential structures.
Besides damage to man-made structures,
consideration must sometimes be given to potentially
unstable soil or rock conditions in the vicinity of
construction works. Cohesive soils are unlikely to be
adversely affected by vibration, whereas loose sands
may be caused to settle. In certain circumstances
liquefaction may take place and result in large ground
settlements. A 'state of the art' report on soil
dynamics (and its application to foundation
engineering) has been published by Yoshimi et al
(1977) and it provides a useful background to the
subject with an extensive bibliography. Seed and
Goodman (1964) and Sarma (1975) have provided
analyses concerned with the earthquake stability of
soil slopes.
Blasting vibrations may also impose substantial
dynamic loading on nearby rock slopes, which may
result in rock fall or total slope failure. The analysis of
rock slope stability has received considerable attention
(Hoek and Bray, 1977), but most texts tend to
consider only the 'static' (gravitational, hydrostatic,
etc) Ioadings that affect stability. Although it is
reasonably straightforward to calculate the imposed
dynamic loads due to a given vibration, it is in
practice difficult to assess their effects on the overall
stability of the slope. Allowance for even quite
moderate values of PPV will predict major
destabilizing dynamic stresses in the stability
equations. Calculations of this kind often give very
low values for the slope's 'factor of safety" that are
not evidenced in the field. This may be explained, at
least in part, by considering the oscillating character
of the imposed vibrations in relation to the frictional
properties of the discontinuity plane taken as the
failure surface. The displacements that result from
blast vibrations will almost invariably be very much
smaller than the persistence (or 'wavelength') of the
major interlocking asperities that contribute to the
effective friction along the assumed failure surface.
Thus, in practice, the vibrations may not produce
sufficient relative movement, on either side of the
discontinuity, for the asperities to 'ride over' each
other and result in slope failure. Further research into
this problem would seem to be desirable.
Reports of damage to structures have sometimes
been associated with unexpectedly low vibration
levels, but close reading often reveals that the
vibrations had been monitored in only one or two
directions and almost certainly the maximum particle
velocity that occurred had not been detected. To
determine the maximum particle velocity it is essential
to measure the vibrations in three mutually
perpendicular directions and to establish the resultant
value by vector summation. In the past it has been
common practice to monitor construction blast
vibrations in one direction only. This practice seems
to follow that for measuring the effects of quarry
blasting, where the direction of the predominant
vector component may be predicted with some
confidence. There is, however, often a fundamental
difference in the type of wave motion of concern
during nearby construction in comparison with that
normally associated with quarry workings. Quarrying
will usually involve relatively large rounds of
explosives at substantial distances from residential
structures. It is therefore usual to measure these
vibrations at many tens or hundreds of metres from
the source. At these distances and with a near-
surface source the predominant ground vibrations will
be due to surface wave motions with some refracted
body wave arrivals. The direction of these motions
has become well understood and in practice it has
been found satisfactory (and expedient) to measure
vertical or vertical and radial motions only. This
practice is not acceptable for construction blasting
close to structures. In this situation it will often be
body wave motions that will predominate. It is rarely
possible to predict with any confidence the direction
of maximum particle velocity in these circumstances
and it is therefore essential to use triaxial transducer
arrays.
Where ground vibration is of a continuous nature
potential damage thresholds should be set at rather
lower levels than those discussed above for transient
vibrations. How much lower is a matter for some
speculation, as little research has been carried out to
determine the effects of continuous vibration on
urban structures. Some guidance may be provided,
however, by analogy with damage criteria associated
with road traffic induced vibration. Whiffin and
Leonard (1971) reviewed traffic induced vibration and
concluded that 'architectural' damage may occur at
PPV in excess of 5 mm/sec and that structural
damage may take place at PPV in excess of
10 mm/sec. It should also be noted that much of the
vibration induced in structures from road traffic is
transmitted as sound through the air rather than
vibration through the ground.
Criteria recommended by the Swiss Association of
Standardisation (1978) for sources of a continuous
nature are given in Table 3. Here too 'traffic' and
'machine' sources are grouped together. The
Department of Transport specify site procedures for
the use of explosives and blasting in the
Specifications for Road and Bridge Works
(Department of Transport, 1986).
 TABLE 5
Example vibrations (PPV) in building during normal use
Resultant PPV (ram/s)
Modern masonry dwelling
Vibration source Modern steel framed office
Normal footfalls 0.02-0.2
Foot stamping 0.2-0.5
Door slams 10-15
Percussive drilling 5-25
Table 5 is included to put construction induced
vibrations into an 'ambient' environmental
perspective. The table lists a range of resultant
particle velocities measured in three examples of
common types of structure. The transducers were
located at various positions on walls usually within
1-4 m from the source. Clearly it would be difficult
to justify a limiting level for construction induced
vibrations which is lower than that to which the
structure is subjected in normal use. Temperature
changes and other environmental variations will also
impose potentially damaging strains but these are
difficult to compare with vibrations because their
timescale is usually much longer and failure
mechanisms are likely to be significantly affected.
In reviewing the 'safe vibration levels' given over the
past few decades it is generally apparent that the
more recent the publication the lower the 'acceptable'
value has become. This trend does not appear to be
supported by much new field evidence of damage at
lower particle velocities and indicates a shifting social
climate rather than a change in engineering values.
2.3 H U M A N PERCEPTION A N D
I N T R U S I O N CRITERIA
The fears expressed concerning vibration damage are
often a result of the extreme sensitivity of the human
body to vibration, especially in the low-frequency
range (1-100 hz). Human reaction is more likely to be
influenced by previous experience and understanding
than by the actual level of vibration itself; a person's
state of health, temperament and age will all
contribute to this reaction. Jackson (1967), Soliman
(1968) and Guignard and Guignard (1970) have
published useful works on human response to
vibration.
The work of Reiher and Meister (1931) has stood the
test of time very well and is useful in defining in
quantitative terms subjective descriptions of human
perception of vibration (see Figure 2). ISO Standard
2631 (1978) and BSl BS 6472 (1964) both provide
valuable guidance on acceptable levels of human
exposure to vibration.
Old dwelling house (Thick,
house lime-mortar masonry)
0.05-0.5 0.02-0.3
0.3-3.0 0.15-0.7
11-17 3-9
10-20 10-15
Apart from helping to define thresholds of perception
and annoyance, tolerance scales alone do not provide
sufficient information for defining limits for
construction generated vibrations as they are
generally applicable to situations in which vibration is
an accepted part of the environment. A different type
of criterion has to be considered in areas where
vibration does not normally occur or is at a very low
level. Vibration may then be considered as intrusive.
It is the unpredictability and unusual nature of a
source rather than the level itself that is likely to
result in complaints. The effect of intrusion tends to
be psychological rather than physiological and is more
of a problem at night w h e n occupants of buildings
expect no unusual disturbance from external sources.
A second type of involvement of people with
vibrations is in interpreting the effect on buildings or
their contents. Not surprisingly, this is particularly
true where the person concerned is the owner. Even
the slightest disturbances from an unusual source
may excite anxiety and draw attention to minor
cracking of plaster or similar effects that were pre-
existing or may otherwise have remained unnoticed.
It is the author's experience that when vibration levels
from an unusual source exceed the human threshold
of perception (PPV, 0 . 2 - 0 . 3 mm/sec) complaints may
occur. In an urban situation serious complaints are
probable when PPV exceed 3 mm/sec. Complaints
will increase with the duration of the vibration and
will be most severe w h e n the 'intrusion' occurs
outside normal working hours, particularly at night.
These values apply to vibration of a continuous or
semi-continuous nature. Swedish experience (Persson
et al, 1980) indicates that tolerance levels may be
considerably higher during blasting when the
vibrations occur as infrequent shocks of brief
duration. Peoples tolerance will also be improved
provided that the origin of the vibration is k n o w n in
advance and no damage is done. Wiss and Parmelee
(1974) have shown that levels of perception are
considerably higher w h e n the vibration is of a
transient rather than continuous nature. They
indicated that vibrations at 1.5 m m / s e c are 'barely
perceptible' and it is not until levels exceed
22 m m / s e c that they become 'strongly perceptible'.
These values relate to their 'mean subject response',
their threshold levels being rather lower.
In assessing human response to construction induced
vibrations it should not be assumed that reason will
always prevail. For instance, although a person may
be shaken vigorously for several hours during a coach
journey without considering complaint they may not
tolerate less than one tenth this vibration level for just
a f e w seconds a day during blasting works. The
writer has found that a useful method of allaying the
fears of home owners is to show them the worrying
vibrations (on a floor or wall of their house) being
recorded on a chart recorder and ask them t o c l o s e
the door during the recording. In many cases the
vibrations from the door closing will be seen to be
considerably greater than those from the construction
source and the owner's worries will be abated.
3 THE PREDICTION OF
VIBRATION
3.1 NON-EXPLOSIVE SOURCES
Construction induced vibration may be predicted
either by analogy with information from other sites or
by carrying out site trials prior to the start of works.
Figure 3 provides a summary of measurements taken
by the TRRL which indicates the relative effects of
various construction related sources. Fuller details of
vibrations caused during tunnelling works in urban
areas are given elsewhere (New, 1982).
The Figure provides general guidance only as
conditions that affect the input and transmission of
vibration will vary considerably from site to site. This
form of presentation shows the likely relative
intensities from various sources and highlights the
fact that even a 1 kg charge of dynamite will produce
larger vibrations than those from most 'continuous'
types of source. Fatigue effects that result from
repeatedly taking a structure through a stress cycle
will, however, be more likely to occur under
conditions of 'continuous' vibration. Acceptable levels
will therefore be related to the nature and duration as
well as the maximum level of the vibration.
Spectral analysis of the particle velocity data indicates
that most of the energy from these sources lies in the
frequency band 10-100 Hz. However it is not unusual
to encounter circumstances where considerably
higher frequencies predominate particularly close to
the source. For instance the tunnelling machines
caused vibration peaking at frequencies from
2 0 0 - 4 0 0 Hz a f e w metres from the face and railway
trains in the rock tunnel yielded significant energies at
frequencies over the bandwidth of 200-800 Hz.
8
The vibration caused by the collapse of large
structures is often the cause of concern particularly
where other structures or buried services are nearby.
For instance the demolition of a tower block (Plate 1)
above the London Underground railway has been
recently reported by New (1983) and Skipp (1984)
gives information regarding vibrations caused by the
collapse of cooling towers. A recently introduced
method of demolition utilises the expanding power of
a slurry caused by chemical reaction. This material
takes the form of a powder which when mixed with
water and poured into suitably drilled holes expands
with considerable force, over a period of several
hours, breaking out the concrete or other material.
Recently it was necessary to remove a large
steel/concrete machine foundation in a laboratory at
TRRL. Environmental considerations precluded the
use of explosives and excessive periods of noise and
vibration from pneumatic breakers were highly
undesirable. The process caused very little noise or
vibration (less than 1 m m / s was observed) which was
attributed to the cracking of the concrete and
opening of the fissure. The product is described as a
demolition agent but may be considered for rock
excavation in special circumstances (eg pre splitting)
although this may not be economically viable at
present.
Another non-explosive method of excavation and
demolition uses pressurised carbon dioxide for
dislodging coal and other materials. This technique is
claimed to be particularly suited for use in the
presence of inflammable vapours and gases.
100
80
60
40
20
A
10
E 8
E
6
4
o
1
O. 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
1 2 4 6 810 20 40 6080100
Distance (m)
Fig.3 Relative PPV from various sources
 m m ~ m

ms i f

D
£

~t ~ ~

N e g . no. E 2 2 / 8 2

Plate 1 Demolition of a tower block above the London Underground

9
3.2 E X P L O S I V E S O U R C E S
The magnitude and spatial decay characteristics of
blast-induced vibration have been extensively explored
by numerous authors. For instance, the US Bureau of
Mines publication by Siskind et al (1980) gave a full
discussion of ground vibration and its effects on
some fully instrumented test structures. Their report
is generally concerned with quarry blasting, but it
provides a broad background and bibliography for the
whole subject area. Oriard (1979) gave a very useful
and reasoned account of urban blasting practice and
philosophy based on many years of experience in the
USA. Ambraseys and Hendron (1968) provided a
description of the dynamic behaviour of rock masses
with special reference to blasting vibrations whilst
Skipp (1984) gives a wide range of information on
explosive and other man made vibrations.
Case history records of blasting beneath British
conurbations have been given by Pakes (1976) and
Ashley and Parkes (1976). Both papers described
difficulties associated with vibration damage and
intrusion in residential areas and discussed ways of
minimising disturbance to the local population. More
recently, Persson et al (1980) have described blasting
techniques used to minimise such problems in
Sweden.
Much of the data on blast vibration has come from
the mining and quarrying industries, and great care
must be exercised if this information is to be used in
a civil engineering context. Mineral extraction blasts
generally comprise large rounds which are detonated
at sites fairly remote from habitation. Construction
blasts often involve much smaller rounds but may be
very close indeed to vulnerable environments.
Because of important differences in the character of
the significant wave motions, measuring systems with
a more demanding specification may be required for
civil engineering applications. For instance, triaxial
transducer arrays should be used and the frequency
response of the system should often be able to cope
with at least 500 Hz.
The form of the PPV prediction equations is given in
the next section and in Figure 4 the PPV v 'scaled
distance' (square root format) is used to show the
wide variation of PPV which may be expected from
site to site under various blasting conditions. This
graph is based on experience from various sites in the
United Kingdom and is similar to that observed in
America by Oriard (1979). The amount of energy
from the explosive which is transmitted as vibration is
affected by numerous factors. It will depend on the
type of explosive charge and conditions imposed by
the rock mass. The degree of confinement
(constriction) imposed will be a major factor but other
effects such as explosive/rock impedance match and
stemming and initiation procedures will also be of
importance (Dowding, 1985; New, 1984).
10
Heavily confined charges
(eg early delays of a burn-cut
300 tunnel round, some pre-splitting)
-~ lOO
E
E 'Upper b
> 3O
10
rr
3
1 i .
experience IPPV tends~
0.3 "to decreasewith rock \
strength and charge \
confinement)
0.1
1 10 100
½ ½
riM (m/kgf)
Fig.4 Peak particle velocity as a function of scaled
distance - range of observed field values
Generally the upper bound line in Figure 4 will apply
when an explosive is heavily confined by a strong
rock mass and fragmentation is poor. This will often
occur during the initial delays of a tunnel round or
where the burden is excessive. In general the more
energy used in fragmenting and throwing the rock the
less will be transmitted as ground vibration. Where
blasting procedures allow considerable energy to be
vented to atmosphere (eg plaster shooting, poor
stemming) this will also reduce ground vibration levels
although air overpressures may then begin to
dominate damage assessments.
It has been considered that pre-splitting techniques
also give rise to high levels of ground vibration
(Oriard, 1979) and this is likely to be true where the
pre-split is created by a row of holes tightly packed
with explosive. In this case there is minimal
fragmentation until the subsequent bulk blast removes
the burden beyond the pre-split plane. However a
method of pre-split blasting has been developed
(Matheson, 1983) which uses air decoupled charges
in the plane of the finished rock cut. This method
can provide a relatively undamaged face which
requires a minimum of maintenance, a factor of
considerable importance in the design of major road
schemes. A further advantage is that the decoupled
charges cause considerably less vibration than similar
charges tightly packed. Figure 5 summarises the
results of a series of trials carried out by TRRL (New,
1984) to determine the effect of various degrees of
decoupling. (The decoupling ratio is expressed as the
 If trial blast data are available to contractors at the
Coupled explosives tender stage, it will provide valuable guidance as to
100
(Trimobel and SG80) the maximum charge weight per delay that may be
used during the works. Where no such information is
provided the usual course of action is for the
contractor to use the initial blasts to determine his
own 'safe' charge weights with sometimes
A unexpected consequences. Clearly, the pre-knowledge
10
provided by a trial blast is invaluable to all parties
E
vE concerned.
>
0_ T r i m o b e l decoupled The trials should be designed with a clear concern for
; 75ram hole the factors which will influence the induced PPV
during the excavation works, and wherever possible
.Decoupling
rr the materials and techniques used during the trials
ratio
should simulate those expected for the full-scale
excavations. This will include:
T r i m o b e l decoupled
0.1 ; 100mm hole (i) the type of explosive,
(ii) the drillhole diameter and depth,
(iii) the coupling of the explosive to the rock
(tamping, stemming, water in-hole, hole/
0.01 I I
explosive diameter ratio),
10 100
r / M ½ ( m / k g f½
)
(iv) the confinement imposed by the rock mass on
the explosion
Fig.5 Peak particle velocity as a function of scaled (v) multiple hole shots with appropriate hole
distance with varying decoupling ratio spacing and detonating accessories,
(vi) similar shot point/structure ranges and paths,
(vii) wherever possible full-scale charge weights
ratio of the drillhole to explosive diameter.) These (although the trial blast sequence should
trials were carried out in strong schists at the site of commence with small charges),
a new road scheme which required extensive rock
excavation. Blasting gelatine in plastic sleeves was (viii) the ranges at which PPV is measured should
centred in the drillholes using cruciform spacers with be as broad as possible, not only centred on
the holes tightly stemmed in the top one metre. The those of specific interest,
annular space around the explosive substantially
(ix) where millisecond delay detonators are used
reduced the pressure applied to the drillhole and
the minimum delay period should be sufficient
created a mismatch in the effective rock/explosive
to allow the vibrations from a given delay to
impedences. These factors significantly reduced the
die away before the arrivals from the next,
vibration caused by a given charge weight without
materially changing the spectral distribution (hence (x) changes in site conditions between the time
the propagation characteristics) of the energy of the trials and the works must also be
transmitted by the rock mass. considered. For instance, are there any new
sensitive structures to be introduced or will
seasonal changes in the water table have any
effects?

The vibrations from the trial charges should be

4 BLASTING TRIALS
4.1 M E A S U R E M E N T PROCEDURES
AND EQUIPMENT
Trial blasts should be carried out where initial desk
studies show that nearby structures could be at risk.
Costs and inconvenience will generally be minimised
if the trials are carried out as part of the normal site
investigation programme for the works. This will also
ensure that the information gained will be of
assistance in the preparation of tender documents
and bids for the contract.
measured at several distances in line or lines away
from the source, the transducer locations being
chosen in the light of preliminary site investigation
data to allow for possible directional variations in the
propagating characteristics of the rock mass.
It is recommended that plenty of data points be
obtained. The cost of firing additional charges, or
obtaining measurements at additional ranges, will be
small compared to the mobilisation costs involved and
will probably provide valuable information, or as a
minimum provide greater confidence in the derived
predictive equations.

11

Plate 2 Site of trial blasting for a new road tunnel
Plate 2 shows a typical blasting trial site. A major
road tunnel is to be blasted through the hillside to the
right of the plate and careful consideration had to be
given with regard to the safety of the adjacent main
railway line tunnel. Trial charges were fired in the
vicinity of the new tunnel portal and vibration
measurements taken at various locations on the
hillside and in the rail tunnel. The blasting was
directed from the portable laboratory shown in the
left foreground. Further seismic measurements at this
site provided detailed data on ambient vibration levels
and subsequent wavepacket analysis provided
information on the dynamic properties of the rock
mass.
Transducers are readily available with output voltages
proportional to particle velocity and geophone types
are self-generating (need no power supply) and are
ruggedly designed for field use. Measurement of
particle velocity allows single-process derivation of
acceleration, by differentiation, and of displacement
by integration if required.
Measurement of particle velocity should be made in
three mutually perpendicular directions. This allows
the calculation of the resultant particle velocity, VR,
12
Neg. no. CR604/80/4a
by the vector summation of the component velocities
(V~, V2 and V3):
VR = (V~2 + V22 + V32)1/2 (1)
Vibration measuring instruments that display the
resultant peak particle velocity directly on a chart
record are available. If such an instrument is not
used, the three vectors must be summed by 'hand' or
computer processing. The true resultant is obtained
by summing the three component values at
simultaneous times. The 'pseudo resultant',
sometimes referred to, is obtained by summing the
maximum value obtained for each component during
the period of the vibrations.
It is vital for the specification of the instrument
chosen to be appropriate to the vibrations that it is to
record, particularly in terms of frequency response
and sensitivity. For instance, some instruments are
limited to an upper frequency bound of 200 Hz. This
type of equipment may be satisfactory but will, of
course, be insensitive to vibrations above 200 Hz that
could be present. High frequencies (200-500 Hz) will
often be encountered in the region close to
construction works.
 Range = 10.5m Range = 23.3m Range 45.0m Range 140.7m

,°°It
80
100 L

80-
L
v

III
60-
LU

'~ 40 40-

2O

0
0
iL
400 8oo
Frequency (Hz)
0 400 800
Frequency (Hz)
rr
20-

0
0 1O0 200
Frequency IHz)
0 100 200
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 6 Effect of source distance on energy spectral density (lkgf charge)

Rocks and soils tend to act as low pass filters, that
is, low frequency vibrations are subject to less
attenuation during propagation than higher
frequencies. This effect is particularly noticeable in
the weathered geologic materials close to the surface
rather than at depth where weathering effects are not
present and the in-situ stress field is higher. In
general these frequency dependent losses cannot be
satisfactorily explained in terms of a linear frictional
mechanism and scattering effects are likely to be
significant. Figure 6 shows how the energy spectral
density from a 1 kg dynamite charge (fired in a strong
psammitic rock) varied when measured at various
ranges. Note how, close to the charge, the maximum
energy is in the 200-300 Hz band and significant
energy is present at up to 1 kHz. This changes rapidly
away from the near field and at 23 m the energy peak
occurs at about 100 Hz. At 140 m the energy is
contained in a relatively narrow band between 20 and
60 Hz. Thus equipment suitable for measurements at
ranges of 25 m and beyond (in this particular case)
may not be suitable for use close to the source.
Where doubt exists with regard to the frequencies
present expert opinion should be sought and trial
measurements made with systems sensitive to high
frequencies.
Instruments that record peak particle velocity only
may be left for many days without attention and are
particularly useful for routine monitoring during
construction. Systems that provide high-speed
recordings that show the full vibration waveform will,
however, often prove useful for diagnostic purposes
during initial works. Periodic checking and
recalibration of site measuring equipment is essential
for reference purposes. Bollinger (1971) and Stagg
and Engler (1980) have dealt with the theory and
choice of vibration measuring equipment and Jaeger
and Cook (1976) and Kolsky (1963) have provided an
appropriate background on strain wave propagation in
rock and other solids.
4.2 D A T A P R O C E S S I N G A N D
PRESENTATION
4.2.1 Square and cube root scaling
methods
Broadly, the ground motions resulting from a blast
will depend upon the weight of explosive fired, the
distance between the explosion and the observation
point and the rock mass characteristics. The effect of
each of these factors is complex and at present a
satisfactory theoretical approach for calculating the
form of these motions has not been developed.
Therefore, scaling of field measurements is used
almost exclusively to predict the magnitude and
character of the vibrations from explosions.
A wide range of field data is available and several
similar empirical approaches are in common use. The
principal variables are usually related by an equation
of the form:
PPV = KM"r -~ (2)
where PPV is the peak particle velocity, M is the
charge weight and r is the distance from the
explosion. The constants K, e and /~, are dependent
on conditions imposed by the site and the type of
explosion. T w o special cases of this formulation are
most commonly used:
PPV = K ( r / ~ - M ) - ° (square root scaling) (3)
and P P V = K(r/~-M)-n (cube root scaling) (4)
where again n is an empirical constant. Values of K
and n typically range between 700-2000 and 1 . 5 - 2
respectively (for M in kg and r in metres).
The 'square root' and 'cube root" scaling methods
both allow simple graphical presentation of the
derived site laws. These laws are shown graphically

13

KJ ~ppv = K(r/M1/2or 1/3) --n
o
O.
S,o e --
Scaled distance r/M1/2or 1/3"
*note for site specific scaling the
exponent 1/2or 1/3will become(Z/~
Fig.7 Scaled distance site law format
(Figure 7) as a straight line (on a log-log plot) with a
slope of - n and an intercept of K at unit scaled
distance.
Because of the difference in the forced scaling of r to
M these two methods lead to different predictions of
peak particle velocity based on the same field
measurements. Where extrapolation beyond the
bounds of the field data is not required the
predictions will be similar whichever method is used.
However, where prediction is required beyond the
range of charge weights or distances covered by the
trial blasts, significant differences may result between
the two methods. This situation is clearly
unsatisfactory, as is the somewhat arbitary scaling of
r to M inherent in both methods.
It has been argued that these empirical laws should
be 'shaped' by dimensional analysis (Ambraseys and
Hendron, 1968; Newmark, 1968). The dimensional
analysis results in 'cube root' scaling laws for
explosions of different sizes in the same medium.
This approach has led to equation 4 being used
extensively (Sauer et al, 1964; Newmark and
Haltiwanger, 1962). Note that the size of the charge,
M, is given in terms of explosive weight rather than
energy, this being valid as energy is directly
proportional to charge weight. If, however, data are
scaled from various types of explosive the relative
strengths of the explosives should then be taken into
account.
It has been suggested (Ambraseys and Hendron,
1968) that square root scaling has 'no basis in
dimensional analysis' and that cube root scaling
should be used if estimates of motions are required
which necessitate extrapolations beyond the limits of
existing data. However, experimental evidence
(Devine, 1966; Snodgrass and Siskind, 1974; Devine
and Duvall, 1963) indicates that in certain situations
"square root" scaling does normalise the data very
well. That is, the correlation coefficients were higher
using r / V ~ scaling than for r/~/-M scaling.
In fact because site conditions rarely comply with the
assumptions made for the dimensional analysis
14
neither scaling method is strictly appropriate and the
best estimate of relative scaling between r and M is
site-specific.
It is usual to present blast vibration data in scaled
distance graphical format with a 'best fit' straight line
obtained by linear regression analysis. A great volume
of data in this form is available in the literature and
almost without exception the peak particle velocity is
well represented by a power law decay with scaled
travel distance. That is, the measured PPV decay can
be represented by a straight line with negative slope
on a log-log plot, although the actual slope and
intercept values may vary considerably from site to
site and with different blasting conditions (see
Figure 4 for range of observed field values).
More complex forms of equation have been proposed
in an attempt to include frictional dissipation effects.
Such equations take the form
PPV = K(r/k/--M)- nexp( - ar)
where a is the spatial attenuation coefficient.
This type of equation allows a non-linear regression
line to be fitted to the data thereby improving its
correlation coefficient. However as the majority of
site data are well fitted by linear equations (on log-log
plots) the additional complication is unlikely to find
wide application. Moreover this formulation is only
appropriate at a single harmonic frequency which is
an unacceptable assumption for construction sites
particularly close to the source (see Figure 6). Also
calculations based on the known frictional properties
of rocks indicate that losses from this particular
mechanism are unlikely to be significant at ranges of
interest from most construction sources (New, 1984).
4.2.2 Site specific scaling using multiple
regression analysis
Having obtained field data relating peak particle
velocity to explosive charge weight and range, it is
clearly important to process and present the
information in the best and most useful manner. The
arbitary forced scaling of r to M implicit in equations
3 and 4 may be unsatisfactory to some extent, but
does allow simple graphical presentation of the data
in an easily usable format. However, the exploitation
of equation 2 allows site specific scaling of r to M
which will enable predictions to be made using
equations better correlated with field data. The
improved correlation is the direct consequence of the
more versatile equation with three variables (PPV, M
and r) rather than two (PPV) and 'scaled distance',
rive).
The constants K, ~ and/3 in equation 2 may be
determined by transforming the equation and applying
 a three-variable multiple linear regression analysis to
the data as follows:
from eq 2 (PPV = KMar -~) 100
• " ~ i
Upper bound PPV
/ MO'65)-- 1"81
log PPV=Iog K + , log M - / 3 log r (5)
In this form 'best' values for K, a and/3 may be
calculated based on the usual regression criteria that
the sums of the squares of the deviations shall be Ao~ 10
minimised. For simple regression (two variables) these E
deviations are taken as deviations from a straight line E
whereas for this three variable analysis they are >
o_
0.
represented by deviations from the plane, KABC,
shown in Figure 8. c

Although the projection shown in Figure 8 is useful in rr

visuaiising the equations 5 or 6, it is not appropriate
for routine graphical presentation of data. It is
possible, however, to plot the data, using the 0.1
constants and exponents calculated by the multiple PPV = 4487(r/MO'65) -1'81
regression, in the convenient PPV v 'scaled distance'
format. By transforming equation 2 to the form
PPV= K(r/M ~/~)-~ (6) 0.01 I I

(where the term r / M "/~ is the 'scaled distance') the 10 100

data may be presented in the same convenient format
as for square or cube root scaling (see Figure 7) but
without the forced scaling relationship. General
comparisons of varying site law regressions may
require reduction of the data to a unified scaled
distance.
The coefficient of determination for the three variable
regression will always be better than that obtained
Plane KABC is defined by:
Log PPV = Log K +E'Log M --/~Log r
r/M O'6s(m/kgfO.65)
Fig.9 Example of particle velocity data with
site specific scaling
using the two-variable analysis for square or cube
root scaling. (Except where, by chance, ~//3 is equal
to 1/2 or 1/3 when the correlation will, of course, be
numerically the same.) Routine statistical tests of the
significance of the correlations should be carried out
and confidence limits calculated for the predictive
equation if required.

Figure 9 shows a typical data set from a recent series

of trial blasts at the site of a major rock excavation
for a new road. Note that the 'upper bound' line is

I drawn parallel to the regression line just above the

data points. The calculation of safe charge weight
based on a maximum observed PPV may be made on
I I a safety factor approach rather than by reference to a
statistical 'confidence limits' description. For instance,
I the occupier of a structure might be happier with a
I statement that charge weights are restricted to less
than, say half that associated with possible damage

>
I I (based on the trial blasts), rather than being informed
that there was a 2% probability that the exceptable
Q. vibration level would be exceeded.
D.
.J
-I /
/ 5 CONTRACTUAL
S,ope-- / SPECIFICATION A N D
VIBRATION CONTROL
Log r
Figure 10 provides a flow diagram of questions which
should be asked at the planning stage of major
Fig. 8 3-D site law format construction projects. These procedures have been

15
followed for road construction projects and found to
provide a useful basis for the investigation of
vibration associated difficulties.
A t present there are three basic approaches with
regard to the contractual specification of vibration
control. They are as follows:
(a) No mention of vibration in the contract,
(b) The inclusion of a 'no damage, no intrusion'
clause intended to absolve the Client of any
responsibility, and
(c) The imposition of a limiting value for vibration
usually defined in terms of resultant PPV at some
distance or structure.
Method (a) may be adopted when it is the considered
opinion of the Client and his Engineer that there are
no possible vibration problems. It is also used widely
by default and can lead to serious problems. Notably
these problems will result in claims made under
clause 12 of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Conditions of Contract (5th Edition), and will be
based on additional costs necessarily incurred by the
Contractor due to circumstances unforeseen at the
time of tender.
Method (b) is often used where the Client is not
inclined to incur the additional expense of extending
his site investigation to cover vibration. The inclusion
of the 'no damage/no intrusion' clause may seem to
be of assistance to the Client by passing vibration
linked risks to the Contractor. This approach has two
main drawbacks. Firstly, the Contractor may still feel
that he can recover his additional costs through the
Clause 12 claims procedure. Secondly, bidders for the
Contract may feel obliged to increase their prices to
allow for the vibration associated losses for which
they feel liable. Neither circumstance is conducive to
obtaining the best job at the lowest final cost.
Method (c) should involve an initial desk study
perhaps followed by blasting trials as found
necessary. Where trial blasting is carried out as
suggested in Section 4 and an appraisal of
environmental hazard is made, a considerable element
of uncertainty may be removed from many blasting
contracts. Where full disclosure of trial blasting
results is made to bidders an otherwise unquantified
element of contractual risk is removed and bids may
therefore be made with less allowance for vibration
damage contingencies.
It must be recognised that the specification of
vibration criteria by the Client does result in some
extent of risk-sharing with his Contractor. This
circumstance follows recent trends within the
construction industry which suggest that such risk
sharing m a y be mutually beneficial to Employer and
Employee (CIRIA, 1978).
16
I Will vibration ~---~- No
be caused ?
Yes
Sensitive people
or structures
in vicinity ?
~ No
Yes
I Deskstu'dy. Is /
damage/intrusion~ No
possible ? J
Yes
i
I Site specific trials /
Will damage/ ~ - N o ~
intrusion occur ? /
Yes
odi,v I v0cuate I1
Idesignand/or Irestore
method
II Cancel I
construction I pr°perty afterl I project
I cOnstructiOn I |
I Proceedwith I
construction
Fig.lO Vibration hazard - planning f l o w diagram
The Engineer should also be aware of the legal
aspects relating to vibration from construction sites.
In statutory law vibration is included in the term
'noise' and dealt with by Part III of the Control of
Pollution Act, 1974. These powers are usually
exercised by Environmental Health Officers within
Local Authorities. In particular Section 60 of the Act
deals with the control of noise and vibration from
construction sites and makes the provision that a
local Authority may serve a notice imposing restrictive
requirements prior to, or during construction
operations. Section 61 allows 'prior consent' to be
obtained based on the provision of information
regarding the works, the method and proposed steps
to be taken to minimise noise and vibration. Such a
'prior consent' may be of assistance if problems
occur during the course of the works but will not
necessarily constitute any ground of defence against
proceedings related to nuisance suffered by the
occupier of premises. Offences under the Act will be
dealt with in the Magistrates Court which may impose
an initial fine plus a subsequent daily fine. Noise and
vibration may often be dealt with more quickly
through Common Law procedures, 'Private' and
'Public' nuisance actions may be taken to the High
Court where damages may be awarded, an injunction
served, or in certain circumstances the offender
committed to prison.
As part of his contractual duties to the Client it will
be the Engineer's role to act as the supervising
authority in relation to vibration control and
measurement. If suitable expertise and equipment are
not available in 'in house' he should employ a
specialist sub-consultant with the appropriate
experience. The trial blast data will, of course, only
describe that part of the site in the immediate vicinity
of the trials. Many factors will influence blast wave
propagation and careful measurements should be
made during all construction blasts. The handling of
damage claims will be eased where such records are
available. Structural surveys with photographic
records, made prior to the commencement of the
works, may also prove valuable in the settlement of
claims which may arise.
Some Clients and Engineers are attracted by the idea
of imposing unjustifiably low limits of vibration on
their Contractors. These limits are a form of
regressive conservatism which is to be avoided: A
common example is the use of the 'method of halves'
whereby a specifying engineer halves the limit set by
his predecessor on a similar job. These methods
inevitably impose unreasonable restraints on the
Contractor, thereby increasing costs to the Client. A
large proportion of major civil engineering works are
sponsored by the public sector and, although safe
limits must be imposed to protect the local people,
overconservative limits and unnecessary restrictions
will be a charge on the community as a whole. It is
therefore vital that authorities responsible for setting
vibration limits do so on an informed rather than on
an arbitrary basis.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work described in this Report was carried out in
the Ground Engineering Division (Division Head: Dr
M P O'Reilly) of the Highways and Structures
Department (Department Head: Mr N W Lister) of
TRRL. The author gratefully acknowledges the
valuable contributions made by the employers,
consulting engineers and contractors without whose
permission and cooperation the site measurements
presented in this paper could not have been obtained.
7 REFERENCES
AMBRASEYS N N and HENDRON A J Jr. (1968).
Dynamic behaviour of rock masses. In Rock
mechanics in engineering practice Stagg K G and
Zienkiewicz 0 C eds (London, etc: Wiley), 203-36.
ASHLEY C and PARKES D B. (1976). Blasting in
Urban Areas. Tunnels Tunnell, 8, No. 6, Sept., 60-7.
ATTEWELL P B and FRY R H. (1983). The effects of
explosive detonations and mechanical impacts of
adjacent buried pipelines. In 'Europipe 83'
Conference, Basle, paper 16, 123-128.
BOLLINGER G A. (1971). Blast vibration analysis
(Carbondale, II1: Southern Illinois University Press),
147p.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. (1984). Guide
to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in
buildings (1 Hz-80 Hz) BS 6472.
CIRIA. (1978). Tunnelling--improved contract
practices Report 79. Construction Industry Research
and Information Association, London.
DEVINE J F. (1966). Avoiding damage to residence
from blasting vibrations. Highway Res. Record,
No. 135, Highway Res. Board, Natl. Res. Council--
Natl. Acad. Sci.
DEVINE J F and D U V A L L W I. (1963). Effect of
charge weight on vibration levels for millisecond
delayed quarry blasts. Earthquake Notes, Eastern
Section, Butt. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, No. 2, 17.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT. (1986).
Specification for Road and Bridge Works. 6th Ed.
HMSO.
DIN 4150. (1938). Vibrations in buildings--effects on
structures. Deutsch Norm. April 1984.
DOWDING C H. (1985). Blast vibration monitoring
and control. Prentice-Hall, N J, USA. 297 pp.
GUIGNARD J C and GUIGNARD E. (1970). Human
response to vibration--a critical survey of published
work. University of Southampton, Institute of Sound
and Vibration Research Memo 373.
HOEK E and BRAY J W. (1977). Rock slope
engineering, revised 2nd edn (London: IMM, 1977),
402 p.
INTERNATIONAL S T A N D A R D S ORGANISATION.
(1978). Guide for the evaluation of human exposure
to whole body vibration and shock. ISO 2631. 2nd
Edition.
JACKSON M W. (1967). Thresholds of damage due
to ground motion. Proceedings international
symposium on wave propagation and dynamic
properties of earth materials, University of New
Mexico, 961-9.
JAEGER J C and COOK N G W. (1976).
Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 2nd edn (London:
Chapman and Hall; New York: Wiley, a Halsted Press
Book), 585p.
KOLSKY H. (1963). Stress waves in solids (New
York: Dover Publications) 223p.
LANGEFORS U and KIHLSTROM B. (1978) The
modern technique of rock blasting, 3rd edn (New
York: Wiley, Halsted Press), 438 p.
17
MATHESON, G D. (1983). Pre-split blasting for
highway rock excavation. Transport Road Res. Lab.
Rep. 1094. (TRRL, Crowthorne)
NEW, B M. (1978). The effects of ground vibration
during bentonite shield tunnelling at Warrington.
Transport Road Res. Lab. Rep. 860. (TRRL,
Crowthorne)
NEW, B M. (1982). Vibrations caused by
underground construction. Proc. Tunnelling 82,
(London: IMM), 217-229.
NEW B M. (1983). Explosive demolition works above
a railway tunnel. Tunnels and Tunnelling, July, 15, 7,
18-20.
NEW B M. (1984). Explosively induced ground
vibrations in civil engineering construction. PhD
Thesis, University of Durham.
NEWMARK N M. (1968). Problems in wave
propagation in soil and rock. Proc. Int. Soc. Wave
Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth
Materials, Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
pp 7-26.
NEWMARK N M and HALTIWANGER J D. (1962).
Principles and practices for design of hardened
structures. Tech. Rep. No. AFSWC-TDR-62-138. Air
Force Special Weapons Center, Kirtland Air Force
Base, New Mexico.
ORIARD L J. (1979). Modern blasting in an urban
setting. Atlanta Research Chamber Applied Research
Monographs, interim report. Rep. no. UMTA-
GA-06-0007-79-1, June.
PAKES G. (1976). Edinburgh sewage disposal
scheme; tunnelling work. In Tunnelling '76 Jones M J
ed. (London: IMM), 3-15.
PERSSON P A et al. (1980). Underground blasting in
a city. In Subsurface space: proceedings of the
international symposium (Rockstore '80), Stockholm
Bergman M . e d . (Oxford, Pergamon, 1980), vol. 1,
199-206.
REIHER H and MEISTER F J. (1931). Human
sensitivity to vibrations. Forschung auf dem Gebiete
des Ingenieurwesen, 2, no. 11, 381-6. (German text)
S A R M A S K. (1975). Seismic stability of earth dams
and embankments. Geotechnique, 25, no. 4, 743-61.
SAUER F M, CLARKE G B and ANDERSON D C.
(1964). Nuclear geoplosics-- Part IV-- Empirical
analysis of ground motion and cratering. Stanford
Res. Inst. for the Defence Atomic Support Agency,
Report DASA-1285 (IV).
SEED H B and GOODMAN R E. (1964). Earthquake
stability of slopes of cohesionless soils. J. Soil Mech.
Found Div. ASCE, 90, Nov. 43-73.
18
SISKIND D et al. (1980). Structure response and
damage produced by ground vibration from surface
mine blasting. Rep. Invest. US, Bur. Mines 8507,
74 p.
SKIPP B O. (1984). Dynamic ground movements--
man-made vibrations. In Ground movements and their
effect on structures. Ed Attewell, P B and Taylor,
R K. Surrey University Press.
SNODGRASS J J and SlSKIND D E. (1974).
Vibrations from underground blasting. RI 7937, US
Bureau of Mines, Washington, USA.
SOLIMAN J T. (1968). A scale for the degrees of
vibration perceptibility and annoyance. Ergonomics, 2,
101-22.
STAGG M S and ENGLER A J. (1980). Measurement
of blast-induced ground vibrations and seismograph
calibration. Rep. Invest. US, Bur. Mines 8506, 62 p.
SWISS ASSOCIATION OF STANDARDISATION.
(1978). Effects of vibrations on constructions.
Seefeldstrasse 9, CH8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
WALKER S, YOUNG P A, and DAVEY P M. (1982).
Development of response spectra techniques for
prediction of structural damage from open-pit blasting
vibrations. Trans. Instn Min. Metall. (Sect. A: Min.
industry), 91, A55-62.
WESTINE P S, ESPARZA E D and WENZEL A B.
(1978). Analysis and testing of pipe response to
buried explosive detonations. Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Texas. American Gas
Association No. L51378.
WHIFFIN A C and LEONARD D R. (1971). A survey
of traffic induced vibrations. Transport Road Res.
Lab. Rep. 418. (TRRL, Crowthorne)
WlSS J F and PARMELEE R A. (1974). Human
perception of transient vibrations. J. struct. Div.
ASCE. Div ASCE, 100, ST4, April, 773-87.
YOSHIMI Y et al. (1977). Soil dynamics and its
application to foundation engineering: state of the art
report. In Proceedings 9th conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Tok.yo, vol. 2,
605-50.
APPENDIX dA
As -~- is the particle velocity, V,
y = V/cs (A.6)
STRESS A N D S T R A I N IN A N ELASTIC
SOLID
Consider two particles, within an elastic solid, Also, combining A.2, A.3 and A.6
separated by a distance dx. Let an incident shear T = Vcs~o (A.7)
wave, of velocity cs (propagating in the x direction
parallel to a line joining the particles) cause a
distortion of amplitude dA normal to its direction of
propagation. Similarly, consider the effects of a compressional
wave of velocity Cp which causes a dilatation between
Then the shear strain, y = d A / d x (A.1) the particles of amplitude dA
Now the shear stress, T= G7 (A.2)
and the shear wave velocity Cs= (G/~o)½ (A.3) Then the compressional strain, ~ = d A / d x (A.8)

where G is the shear modulus and ~o the rock density. Now the stress o = (~ +2G)~ (A.9)
The wave propagation velocity may also be expressed
and the compres~i~)nal wave velocity,
as the rate of change of distance (x) with respect to
Cp= [(X + 2G/Lo] (A. 10)
time (t)
where Z and G are Lam~s parameters.
That is, cs= d x / d t (A.4)
Now Cp = d x / d t (A.11 )
Substituting A.4 in A.1
.'.~ = V/cp (A.12)
dA
y = -~-/Cs (A.5)
and o = VCpO (A.13)

Printed in the UK for HMSO by Hobbs the Printers of Southampton

(2736) Dd8222661 3/86 G426

19