Vibration Assessment Report PDF

REPORT
Report prepared for:

Watercare Services Ltd
Report prepared by:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Distribution:
Watercare Services Ltd 1 copy
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy
July 2012
T&T Ref:27993
ii
Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

Watercare Services Ltd July 2011
Table of contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Methodology 1
2 Central Interceptor project 4
2.1 Geology and Construction Ground Conditions 5
2.2 Description of Proposed Works 5
2.2.1 Main tunnel 6
2.2.2 Link sewers 6
2.2.3 Deaeration tunnels 6
2.2.4 Shafts 6
2.2.5 Shallow connections to existing networks 7
2.3 Other Structures 8
3 Construction methodology and construction plant requirements sources of
vibration 9
3.1 Shaft and manhole excavation 9
3.2 Main tunnels 9
3.3 Link Sewers 10
3.4 Deaeration tunnels 10
3.5 Phase 3 Ancillary works 10
4 Vibration criteria 11
4.1 Vibration Standards 11
4.1.1 Human Response Standards 11
4.1.2 Application of Human Response Standards 13
4.1.3 Building Damage Standards 14
5 Current Operative District Plans 17
6 Assessment of vibration effects 19
6.1 Vibration effects and site characteristics 19
6.2 Site testing 20
6.2.1 Background monitoring 20
6.3 Blast vibrations 22
6.4 Operational Vibrations 24
7 Construction vibration estimates 25
7.1 Drop shafts 26
7.2 Main tunnelling works 27
7.3 Link Sewer 28
7.4 Trench and underground structures excavation (excluding drop structures) 28
7.5 Other works 29
8 Mitigation options 30
9 Consideration of sensitive receivers and potential for damage to neighbouring
properties 31
10 Construction Vibration Management Plan 40
Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

iv
11 Applicability 41
12 References 42

Tables
Table 2.1: Shaft Locations, Details and Expected Geological Conditions ............................ 6
Table 4.1: BS 5228-2:2009. Guidance on effects of vibration levels ................................. 12
Table 4.2: Vibration Dose Values for Residential Buildings (m/s1.75) as given by BS 6472-
1:2008 12
Table 4.3: Dwelling Classification and the Likelihood of Moderate to High Annoyance.... 13
Table 4.4: Vibration Damage Threshold (mm/s) after Siskind et al (1980) ....................... 14
Table 4.5 Guideline values of vibration velocity, for evaluating the effects of short-term
vibration, DIN4150-3:1999 ................................................................................................. 14
Table 4.6: BS7385-2 Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage1................... 16
Table 6.1: Summary of Background Vibration Monitoring ............................................... 22
Table 6.2: Safe Blasting Distances (97.5% Confidence Limits) .......................................... 23
Table 7.1: Safe design distances for construction activities ............................................. 25

vi
Executive summary
Watercare Services are proposing to construct a new wastewater tunnel to collect flows
from the Auckland isthmus and transfer them to the Mangere Wastewater Treatment
Plant. It will be designed to provide future trunk sewer capacity to Central Auckland and
reduce wet weather wastewater overflows.
Engineering and environmental studies have been undertaken to support the gaining of the
necessary RMA approvals for the project. This includes a vibration assessment of effects of
construction and operations of the project.
The principal works include construction of approximately 13 km of tunnels of around 4.5 m

diameter and located up to 110 m below ground. This will be supplemented by a series of
link sewers and connections to existing sewers. Other major works include access shafts of
up to 35 m diameter for installation of the tunnelling equipment and a number of inground
and above ground structures.
The main tunnel alignment will be constructed in East Coast Bays Formation rock (ECBF)
and excavation is expected to be undertaken using an earth pressure balance tunnelling
machine (EPBM). These have been used in similar geological conditions on other recent
sewer tunnels in Auckland, including Rosebank and Hobson Bay Sewers.
Basalt rock from the Auckland volcanic field extends over parts of the tunnel routes and this
will require excavation for shafts up to 25m in dimension and other underground
structures. Work is expected to involve use of explosive charges and heavy rock breaking
equipment to fragment the rock.
Where ECBF or more recent alluvial sediments are present, excavation will be by
conventional construction plant but retention of the ground may involve use of heavy
bored piling equipment and driven sheet piling.
An assessment of the level of vibrations generated by the equipment types has been
undertaken including analysis of the expected rate of attenuation with distance from the
sources. A review of the vibration criteria for physiological effects on people and potential
for damage to structures has also been undertaken to provide recommended controls for
the work. These have been used to determine the potential effects of transmitted vibration
on people and properties from the construction activities and identify where mitigation
measures are likely to be required. These will generally involve use of modified methods
that reduce vibration levels but also include strengthening, isolation and temporary
relocation.
The properties most likely to be affected have been determined and specific
recommendations provided. A Construction Vibration Management Plan has been also
recommended for the project to minimise discomfort and the effects on health as well as
ensure risk of damage to structures is less than minor.

An assessment of the effects of vibrations of operation was carried out by monitoring
several existing pump stations. The effects of these operations beyond the pump station
structures was determined to be less than minor.

1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Watercare Services Ltd (Watercare) is planning to construct a new wastewater tunnel to collect
wastewater flows from the Auckland isthmus area and transfer them across the Manukau
Harbour to the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWWTP). The Central Interceptor Project
(the Project) arose out of the Three Waters Plan (2008) which identified the need to provide trunk
sewer capacity to central Auckland to reduce wet weather wastewater overflows and provide
capacity for growth.
The project extends across the Auckland isthmus from Western Springs in the north to the
Mangere WWTP in the south. The general layout is shown on Figure 1.1 and the Drawing Set AEE-
Main Series.
Watercare appointed an AECOM led team to progress the engineering and environmental studies
to support the gaining of the necessary RMA approvals for the project. This vibration assessment
forms one of a series of specialist environmental investigations commissioned by Watercare in
2011. It addresses the effects of vibrations of construction and operations of the main tunnel and
link sewers. The effects of vibrations caused by construction of the Combined Sewer Overflows
are addressed in a companion report. It is intended that this report provides technical input to
supplement the AEE Report.
1.2 Methodology
The scope of work undertaken as part of this assessment is summarised below and described in
detail in the following sections:
briefing and site tour with Central Interceptor project team;

review of concept designs including site construction yards and operation layouts;
review of geotechnical information and assessment of ground conditions for excavation of
shafts and tunnels;
discussions with Central Interceptor project team to identify expected range of
construction equipment for excavation of shafts and tunnels as well as surface works;
discussions with Central Interceptor project team on programme for the works;
discussions with Central Interceptor project team on construction traffic expected for
ingress and egress of construction yards;
discussions with Central Interceptor project team to identify operating plant that may
generate vibrations;
site monitoring to determine background vibration levels at a number of the construction
and operating access sites;
site testing to assess Attenuation characteristics;
identification of sensitive receivers;
review of vibration standards and development of Project criteria;

2
review of vibration database and assessment of vibration levels expected to be generated

by construction works and operating plant;
assessment of likely effects on receivers including Effects of Distance from vibration
generating sources;
assessment of mitigation measures;
outline of Vibration Management Plan for construction and operations.

3
fig 1.1

4
2 Central Interceptor project

The overall concept proposed for the Central Interceptor is a gravity tunnel from the Western
Springs area to the Mangere WWTP with various link sewers and connecting pipelines connecting
the existing network to the main tunnel at key locations along this route.
The key elements of the project include:
An approximately 13 km long 4.5 m diameter main tunnel from Western Springs to

Mangere WWTP, up to 110 m below ground.
Four link sewers connecting the main tunnel to the existing sewerage network.
Associated connections to existing sewers including 16km of tunnels and trenched
pipelines with access shafts on the CSO collector ranging from 15 m to 48 m.Associated
structures at key sites along the route and at connections. At each site facilities include
access shafts, drop shafts, and flow control structures. Grit traps, air intakes, air vents, or
air treatment facilities are proposed at some sites.
A limited number of overflow structures in nearby watercourses to enable the safe
discharge of occasional overflows from the tunnel.
A pump station located at the Mangere WWTP.
Other associated works at and in the vicinity of the Mangere WWTP, including a rising
main to connect to the WWTP and an emergency pressure relief structure to enable the
safe discharge of flows in the event of pump station failure.
The main tunnel, link sewers, connection pipes and many of the associated structures will be
underground. The tunnel and link sewers will be constructed by tunnelling methods, with access
provided from around 19 surface construction sites. These surface construction sites include:
Three primary construction sites (at Western Springs, May Road and Mangere WWTP);
16 secondary construction sites to provide connections to the main tunnel and link
sewers.
The primary construction sites will be used for launching or retrieving the tunnel boring machine
and materials for tunnel construction would be delivered and stored, tunnel spoil removed and
permanent facilities constructed. Activities at the secondary sites on the main tunnel will include
shaft sinking and the construction of surface facilities and at the link sewer sites will also include
launching or retrieving the microtunnel boring machine.
Other construction activities include removal of vegetation, service relocations, establishment of
construction yards, lay down areas and site accessways, traffic management, earthworks and site
reinstatement.
The duration of construction will range from generally around 5 to 6 years at the primary sites,
and 6 to 18 months at the secondary sites. Due to the nature of construction at the secondary
sites the total period of occupation will be longer than this (ranging between 2 and 5 years) with
some periods of time where no active construction works will occur at the sites.

5
The project has been developed to a concept design stage. It is likely that some details may
change as the project moves through the detailed design process. Detailed construction method
will be determined following appointment of a construction contractor.
The general project arrangement is shown in the AEE-Main Drawing Set. It shows the main tunnel
of the Central Interceptor, the connector (link) tunnels and CSO pipes as well as the locations of
the key sites for shafts and structures. The main tunnel will be excavated with a gravity fall from
Western Springs at an RL starting at about RL-12m and ending at the Mangere WWTP at RL-22m.
The main tunnel route currently includes 2 alignment options for the section from Kiwi Esplanade
to Mangere Pump Station (WS3).
The primary (potential) launching and recovery shafts are located at Western Springs (WS1), May
Rd (WS2) and the Mangere Pump Station (WS3). These are expected to require deep shafts of up
to 25 m diameter excavated to tunnel level (25-70 m below ground level). The access shafts at
the connector points on the primary tunnel will range in depth from 20-65 m, while shafts on the
connector and CSO collector tunnels range from 15 m to 48 m.
2.1 Geology and Construction Ground Conditions

The geological conditions along the tunnel routes have been determined by geotechnical
investigations undertaken by the Central Interceptor project team and are described in detail in
the T&T report entitled Central Interceptor Project Effect of Tunnels on Groundwater and
Surface Settlement (2012).
The developed long section along the main tunnel is shown in the abovementioned T&T report.
The long section shows the East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) underlying the full length of the
route. In summary, this is a weak rock comprising interbedded sandstones and sandstones of
Tertiary Age that form the basement rock over much of the Auckland urban area. At the southern
(Mangere WWTP) end, a zone of Kaawa Formation weak rock has been identified overlaying the
ECBF and a series of faults are inferred. Tauranga Age sediments have been deposited on the
eroded rock surface during periods of fluctuating sea levels. These materials range from
moderately to highly over consolidated soils with strengths that are still too hard. These in turn
have been overlain by basalt lava flows and ash deposits from the series of volcanic eruptions that
occurred across the Auckland Isthmus. The basalt ranges in strength up to 200 MPa (very strong).
Recent sediments are found locally around Mays Road and at the Manukau Harbour crossing.
Some fill has also been placed at the Mangere WWTP.The link sewer tunnels and deaeration
tunnels have been located to generally be constructed within the ECBF or the overlying Tauranga
Age sediments.
2.2 Description of Proposed Works

6
2.2.1 Main tunnel

The vertical alignment of the main 4.5m diameter tunnel has been located to remain in ECBF
along the route, maintaining clearance beneath the strong basalt lava flows and remote from any
known volcanic vents. On the southern side of the Manukau Harbour, the geology is more
complex as shown on detail in Figure 2.4. The tunnel route may encounter ECBF with coarser
grained fractions and some faulting is inferred. The upper surface of the Kaawa Formation is also
present and the tunnel will extend into the Tauranga Group soils which are logged as Puketoka
Formation. All these materials are relatively low strength and tunnelling equipment will generally
be equipped with soft ground cutting tools for these conditions.
2.2.2 Link sewers

The link tunnels are expected to be excavated within weak ECBF rock. They will generally be 2.4
diameter except for a section from May Rd where the tunnel will be 4.5m diameter. The tunnels
are not expected to encounter strong basalt rock but may locally approach the interface with the
Tauranga Group Sediments.
2.2.3 Deaeration tunnels

These short tunnels connect the drop shafts to the main tunnels and are to be constructed at
main tunnel level. Tunnel conditions for all these tunnels are expected to be ECBF rock except at
Pump Station 23 (AS6) where Puketoka Formation may be present. Thrusting methods may be
used for this connection.
2.2.4 Shafts
A range of shafts are to be constructed at each access point extending from the surface to tunnel
level. Dimensions range up to 25 m in widest dimension for the working shafts. A series of drop
shafts are also proposed for the connections to the existing network. The shafts for the link
tunnels will generally be smaller ranging up to 10m.
The geological conditions expected to be encountered by the shafts on the main tunnel and link
tunnel alignments is highly variable and are summarised in Table 2.1. Conditions for excavations
range from recent alluvium to very strong basalt rock.
Table 2.1: Shaft Locations, Details and Expected Geological Conditions
Location Shaft Ground conditions approx. base depth b.g.l. (m)

types
Depth Fill/recent Basalt / Tauranga Kaawa ECBF
to Alluvium tuff Group Formation
tunnel
invert
WS1 Western Springs WS, DS 27 3 16 8
AS1 Mt Albert Mem AS, DS 38 11 18 9

Reserve
AS2 Lyon Ave AS, DS 45 2 5 17 19
AS3 Haverstock Rd AS, DS 50 2 3 6 39

7
AS4 Walmsley Park AS 67 4 10? 8? 45?
WS2 May Rd 70 5 8? 5? 52?
AS5 Keith Hay Park AS, DS 80 5? 75?
AS6 Belfast Res AS, DS 28 3 25
AS7 Option A - Kiwi AS, DS 28 4 11 10 3

Esplanade
Option B AS 32 12 15 5
Ambery Park
WS3 Mangere Pump WS 32 26 6

Station
L1S1 Motions Rd AS, DS 21 2 ? 19
L1S2 W.Springs Depot AS 23 5 3 15
L2S1 Rawalpindi Rd AS 28 28
L2S2 Norgrove Ave AS 30 4 26
L3S1 PS25 AS, DS 28 12 16
L3S2 Miranda Res AS 30 10 20
L2S3 Whitney St DS 45 5 43
L3S4 Dundale Ave AS 39 8 31
L3S5 Haycock Ave DS 42 42
WS Working Shaft; DS Drop Shaft; AS Access Shaft
2.2.5 Shallow connections to existing networks

A series of connections are required between the existing network and the new Central
Interceptor works. These are shown on the AEE-Main drawing set and are summarised in Figure
1.1. The connection works will involve a range of methods including trenching, micro-tunnelling
and above surface bridging.
Micro-tunnelling is proposed at WS1, beneath Gt North Rd, where depth to tunnel is about 24m
and tunnelling will be in ECBF.
The trenching works also varies greatly in depth with inverts up to 8 m bgl. Ground conditions are
variable but generally located within soft sediments or ECBF except at Western Springs, Mt Albert
War Memorial Reserve and Lyon Ave where basalt rock is close to the surface. At Mt Albert War
Memorial Reserve the proposed works include a deep trench extending up to 8 m to pipe invert.

8
2.3 Other Structures

A number of other shallow underground structures are proposed. These include diversion
chambers, manholes, control chambers, and grit traps. These are generally relatively shallow
structures which will be excavated within soft sediments or ECBF. Exceptions will be the control
chamber at Mt Albert War Memorial Reserve (AS1) which will be fully excavated in basalt rock at
the base of the chambers at Western Springs (WS1) and Lyon Ave.

9
3 Construction methodology and construction plant

requirements sources of vibration
The methods of construction and types of plant selected will have a major impact on the level of
vibrations generated by the work. The following provides a general overview of construction
methods that will enable an appreciation of expected vibrations. This is based on experience of
tunnelling methods used in the Auckland region. Details of the plant used will vary somewhat
from these projects.
The work has been considered in three phases of construction. The first phase involves
establishment and construction of access shafts for the main tunnel equipment. The second
phase will include excavation of the main tunnel and link tunnels as well as construction to the
deaeration tunnels. Phase 3 will involve completion of the drop shafts, CSO collector pipelines,
excavation of trenches and shallow structures, installation of plant and commissioning of the
works.
3.1 Shaft and manhole excavation

The methods of shaft excavation will vary depending on the size and depth as well as the geology.
Small diameter shafts for small pipelines and manholes up to 2-2.5m may be constructed using
pile boring equipment. This will be relatively rapid and generate low levels of vibration that
attenuate rapidly.
Larger shafts will require alternative methods that are expected to involve construction of a
secant pile, diaphragm wall, or sheet pile retention rings to support the ground through the upper
zones of soft sediments. Where basalt is encountered, the ground is expected to be initially
supported by rock bolting and shotcrete while excavation will be undertaken using either rock
breakers or blasting methods. Excavation of the basalt is expected to be the principal cause of
vibrations in most of the shaft areas. This will include vibrations from drilling, blasting and rock
breakers. Beneath the basalt, the Tauranga Group and ECBF will be excavated by conventional
excavators and the latter will be supported by bolting and shotcrete. Some additional support
may be necessary for the Tauranga Group soils and this may include additional perimeter piling
works. Removal of spoil during construction of the shafts is expected to be by craneage.
3.2 Main tunnels

The main tunnels are expected to be constructed using Earth Pressure Balanced tunnelling
machines (EPBM), of larger diameter but similar to the machines used for the recently completed
Hobson Bay and Rosebank Sewer tunnels. These machines successfully excavated in materials
similar to those expected in the Central Interceptor tunnels.
The operation of these machines in ECBF and Tauranga Group Sediments is expected to generate
low levels of vibrations below perception levels for most people. However, some sensitive
receivers may detect regenerated (also called reradiated or structure-borne) noise which is
caused when continuous vibrations excite the structure of the dwelling and is detected as a hum.
This will be addressed by the noise assessment report.

10
Other potential significant sources of vibration from the tunnel operations may include the use of
rolling trains for spoil removal and transporting of lining segments, staff and equipment to the
face. The use of conveyors is generally found to be low vibration generators but they may
become a source if vertical conveyer or muck bucket systems are used to remove spoil at the
shafts. The alternative use of craneage methods for removal of spoil and for transporting plant,
people and materials to the tunnel level may also generate varying levels of vibrations.
3.3 Link Sewers

Micro-tunnelling methods are expected to be used for excavation of the smaller link (connector)
tunnels. Where the tunnels extend beyond about 1400 m intermediate shafts have been
provided. The micro-tunnelling methods are expected to generate low levels of vibration with the
most significant levels being limited to materials and plant handling at the shaft locations.
3.4 Deaeration tunnels

These short tunnels will be most likely constructed by directional drilling or small excavators with
bolting and shotcreting for temporary support until final lining is constructed. These tunnels are
at the same depth as the main or connector tunnels and vibration levels are expected to be low.
3.5 Phase 3 Ancillary works

The phase 3 works are principally at the surface at the shaft locations. This involves construction
of underground chambers, connection pipelines constructed in trenches and other structures.
In most cases the excavations required will be in soft sediments or residual soils. Conventional
excavation plant will be used but retention works may also require construction of walls and may
include driving of sheet piling or bored piles.
Basalt rock is expected to be encountered for the phase 3 works at Western Springs Depot, Mt
Albert War Memorial Reserve, Lyon Ave and Motions Road. Excavation is likely to utilise rock
breakers but, where deep excavations of up to 8 m into basalt are required, as at Mt Albert War
Memorial Reserve, the use of blasting may be necessary.

11
4 Vibration criteria
4.1 Vibration Standards
A number of Standards are applied for vibrations generated by construction activities and
operation of equipment in NZ. These standards are applied to limit the discomfort or impact on
well-being of occupants of nearby properties as well as provide protection from damage of
structures. A summary of the relevant standards is provided below.
4.1.1 Human Response Standards

The principal physiological effect standard that has historically been applied in New Zealand was
NZS/ISO 2631-2:1989 Evaluation of human response exposure to whole body vibration Part 2:
Continuous and Shock Induced Vibrations in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz). The standard provided
factored curves for vibration limits for activities based on time of day, duration as well as level of
potential impact on receivers. The combined direction peak velocity curves are reproduced in
Appendix A, together with the evaluation criteria. The criteria corresponds to a ppV of about 0.3
mm/s for continuous vibrations during the day (curves 2-4), which is at perception levels, while 5-
10 mm/s is recommended for transient events (curves 30-90). The recommended limits are
provided to ensure that receivers are not subject to significant discomfort. The limits are above
perception levels, particularly the higher limits recommended for daytime activities, but they
should not result in disturbance and are about 10% of the levels likely to cause fatigue or affect
health.
ISO2631-2:1989 was easily applied and was included in a number of District Plans including
Auckland City Isthmus and Manukau District Plans. It was particularly useful as it provided ranges
of magnitudes ranging from sensitive conditions to circumstances where short term activities and
well informed receivers could permit increased vibration limits. These higher levels would be
clearly perceptible but ensure they should not cause unacceptable levels of discomfort to
receivers. The Standard was superseded in 2003 by an informative Standard which contains no
vibration criteria. This standard was subsequently withdrawn by Standards NZ but has continued
to be referenced by Councils.
BS6472-2:2008 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings, Blast Induced

Vibration includes similar criteria for vibration to ISO2631:1989 but its application is limited to
blasting. A separate standard applies to other activities (see below). It is also noted that the
criteria for human response in these standards are closely aligned to the building damage criteria,
see Section 4.1.2 below.
The British Standard BS 5228-2:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on
Construction and Open Sites Part 2 Vibration- Annex B contains human response Standards,
see Table 4.1 The criteria are set to avoid adverse comment and are therefore generally lower
than BS6472-2:2008. They correspond closely to the low range in the ISO2631 Standard. It is
therefore puzzling why the standards have varied from the more broadly applied ISO2631 criteria.

12
Table 4.1: BS 5228-2:2009. Guidance on effects of vibration levels
Vibration level Effect
0.14 mm.s-1 Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration
frequencies associated with construction. At lower frequencies, people are less sensitive
to vibration.
0.3 mm.s-1 Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments.
1.0 mm.s-1 It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint.
10 mm.s-1 Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level.
BS6472-1:2008 Guide to assessing the human susceptibility impacts of vibration from traffic and
intermittent events adopts an entirely different approach to its companion standard for blasting.
It utilises an index known as vibration dose value (VDV) which is frequency weighted and
dependent on the amplitude of the event relative perception levels, the frequency of occurrence
and time of day.
The following formula is used to determine vibration dose
0.25
T
VDVb / d ,day / night o
a 4 (t ) dt
Where VDV b/d day/night is the vibration dose (value in m/s1.75)
b/d is the weighting curves for vertical (b) or horizontal (d) vibration
a(t) is the frequency weighted acceleration (in m/s2)
T is the total period of the day or night (in s) when vibration can occur.
Table 4.2 shows vibration dose ranges that might result in probability of adverse comment within
residential buildings. For offices and workshops, increased factors of 2 and 4 apply respectively to
the dose value ranges for a 16 hour day.
An estimate of VDV may be obtained from the following
eVDV = 1.4 a(rms) xt0.25
Table 4.2: Vibration Dose Values for Residential Buildings (m/s1.75) as given by BS
6472-1:2008
Place and Time Probability of Adverse Comment
Low Moderate High
Residential Building (16 0.2 to 0.4 0.1 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

hour day)
Residential Buildings (8 0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8

hour night)

13
This Standard has been applied on several roading projects in NZ but the Norwegian Standard
NS8176E is generally more favoured. The Norwegian Standard NZ8176 E:2005 Vibration and
Shock Measurements of Vibrations in Buildings from Land based Transport and Guidance to
Evaluation of its Effects on Human Beings has been applied on recent NZTA projects including
operating traffic for the Waterview Connection consents conditions. This standard specifically
addresses vibration induced by transport, including road traffic. The performance criteria are
given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Dwelling Classification and the Likelihood of Moderate to High

Annoyance
Type of Vibration Class A 8% Class B 10% Class C 15% Class D 25%
Statistical Maximum Value for Weighted 0.1 0.15 0.3 0.6

Velocity Vw, 95 (mm/s)
Statistical Maximum Value for Weighted 3.6 5.4 11 21

Acceleration Aw, 95 (mm/s)
The majority of residences are expected to be Class C receivers in terms of the standards criteria
which applies to new (transportation) infrastructures. This corresponds to conditions where
about 15% of affected persons will be disturbed by the levels of vibration but less than 15% will
experience discomfort. This Standard is widely used for roading but is not applicable over the full
range of activities for this project.
4.1.2 Application of Human Response Standards

Our experience is (as expected for such experience based Standards), there is little difference in
the levels of recommended vibrations to avoid adverse comment between the human response
Standards. Most standards, however, do not provide for an increase in permitted levels of
vibration if the work is undertaken in accordance with a well developed management plan that
recognises that some minor discomfort may be acceptable by receivers provided close controls
are implemented. This includes good communication and notification and, if necessary mitigation
to assure receivers they are not at risk. Only the BS6472-2:2008 and ISO2631:1989 Standards
provide for this. The former standard only applies for blasting.
For ease of application, as well as reference to the existing District Plans, ability to apply to a
range of activities, and ability for the public to readily understand the criteria, we prefer the ISO
2631:1989 Standard for at least the construction phase. If it is not acceptable to utilise this
superceded standard, we would recommend use of the BS6472-2:2008 Standard for blasting and
BS5228-1:2009 for other activities but note that the latter is more restrictive where high levels of
control are provided. This BS5228-1:2009 standard may also be used for operational vibrations
but we note that BS6472-1:2008 is being promoted by CIRIA (2011) in the UK and CIRIA has a
strong influence on construction practice in NZ.

14
4.1.3 Building Damage Standards

The Standards addressing susceptibility of damage to buildings invariably reference work
undertaken by Siskind et al (1980) as the basis for setting criteria. They applied probabilistic
methods to damage threshold from blasting. This work is summarised in Table 4.4 and shown on
Figure 4.1.
Table 4.4: Vibration Damage Threshold (mm/s) after Siskind et al (1980)
Damage Type Probability %
5 10 50 100
Threshold for cosmetic damage e.g. cracking 13 18 64 228

of untapped plaster joints
Minor Damage: loosening of plaster and 46 56 127 406

hairline cracks in plaster, and in masonry
around openings
Onset of structural damage affecting load 64 76 152 430

support elements
The CIRIA (2011) guidelines recommend that extrapolation of the data be undertaken to reduce
the probability of damage (due to transient events) with a confidence limit greater than 95%.
The standards have adopted factors applied to these thresholds to limit the potential for damage
to acceptable levels. The most commonly used Standard for structural damage is the German
standard DIN 4150-3:1999 Structural Vibration Part 3: Effects of Vibration on Structures. The
DIN 4150 guidelines for vibrations are summarised in Table 4.5 and shown in Fig 4.2. They include
guidelines for residential buildings together with criteria for both commercial/ industrial buildings
and high sensitivity structures. The guidelines provide for increased levels of vibration as the wave
frequency increases, recognising that structures will generally have increased response in the low
(1 to 10Hz) range. Conversely, the body has increased sensitivity at increased frequency which
tends to cap the level of vibration able to be tolerated for construction activities.
Table 4.5 Guideline values of vibration velocity, for evaluating the effects of short-
term vibration, DIN4150-3:1999
Vibration Velocity (mm/s)
Plane of Floor of
Foundation Frequency
Line Type of Structure Uppermost Storey
Less than 10 to 50 50 to
Frequency Mixture
10 Hz Hz 100* Hz
Buildings used for commercial

1 purposes, industrial buildings and 20 20 to 40 40 to 50 40
buildings of similar design

15
Dwellings and buildings of similar

2 5 5 to 15 15 to 20 15
design and/or use
Structures that, because of their

sensitivity to vibration, do not
correspond to those listed in lines 1
3 3 3 to 8 8 to 10 8
and 2 and are of great intrinsic value
(eg buildings that are under a
preservation order)
* For frequencies above 100Hz, at least the values specified in this column shall be applied
Figure 4.2 Baseline Curves Representing Short-Term Vibartion Effects to Structures in

Relation to Recorded Data
60
50
Commerical Structures
40
PPV (mm/s)
30
20
Residential Structures
10
Sensitive Stuctures
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequency (Hz)
For continuous (steady state) levels of vibration DIN 4150-3:1999 recommends a limit of 5mm/s
as measured in the plane of the uppermost storey be applied to all buildings other than Category
3 (sensitive or high intrinsic value) structures.
The use of statistical design approaches for developing construction methods is being increasingly
used for management of vibrations. There are clear benefits in applying best practice methods to
blasting and other activities that generate significant levels of vibrations that may impact on
adjacent properties. Where works are undertaken to a well developed methodology and
management plan, staff are well trained, outcomes are monitored and results analysed to assess
statistical parameters, then the designs can be targeted closer to the limits. This rewards good
practice by reducing cost, controlling risk and generally achieving a better outcome for both the
project and receivers. The application of the method is described further in Section 6.3.
The AS2187.2-2006 Explosives - Storage, Handling and Use cites more conservative guideline
values from British Standard (BS) 7385-2 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings;
Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration for cosmetic and minor structural
damage to residential and commercial structures. Table 4.6 presents vibration criteria for
commercial and residential buildings.

16
Table 4.6: BS7385-2 Transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage1
Type of Building Peak component particle velocity
4Hz to 15Hz 15Hz and above
Reinforced or framed structures. Industrial and heavy 50 mm/s at 4Hz and above
commercial buildings
Unreinforced or light framed structure. Residential of light 15 mm/s at 4Hz 120 mm/s at 15Hz
commercial type buildings increasing to increasing to
20 mm/s at 15Hz 50 mm/s at 40Hz
and above
Note 1: Reproduced from Appendix J of AS2187.2:2006
While this standard is widely referenced in New Zealand for storage, handling and monitoring
methods for works using blasting methods, the DIN 4150:1999 criteria is the most widely applied
guidelines for vibrations limits. The accepted use of statistical design methods with this standard
also favours its application for this project. It should be noted, however, that lower limits may
apply for highly sensitive plant such as some hospital and laboratory equipment.

17
5 Current Operative District Plans

The Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) includes a rule for vibration, Rule 5.18.4.1,
to ensure vibration from a business activity does not cause significant nuisance. This rule requires
that at or within the boundary of any adjacent site zoned for residential, Papakainga or Maori
Purpose no activity shall create vibration exceeding the following average levels.
Vibration Performance Standards
Time Maximum Weighted

Vibration Levels (Wb or Wd)
Monday to Saturday 7.00 am to 6.00 pm 0.045 m/s2 1.0 m/s2
At all other times 0.015 m/s2 0.05 m/s2
The weighted vibration levels Wb and Wd shall be measured according to BS6841:1987 and
measurements are to be obtained at any point where it is likely to affect the comfort or amenity
of persons occupying an adjacent site or where damage is the primary concern, measurement is
to be undertaken on the ground near the building. The District Plan also references the ISO 2631-
2 Standard but considers it is not suitable as it was a draft Standard at the time of preparation of
the Plan.
The Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) addresses vibrations arising
from blasting in Section 8.8.2.7 for Development Controls for Business 7, 7A and 7B Zones. In
Clause 8.8.2.7(a) it requires the Peak Particle Velocity should not exceed the limits set out in
Table 1 of DIN 4150 Part 3:1986. (This is the same as DIN 4150 - 3: 1999 as included in Table 4.5).
The District Plan qualifies the above requirement in Section 8.8.2.7(e) as follows.
Notwithstanding 8.8.2.7(b) above, blasting activities undertaken at Mt Wellington Quarry and

Three Kings Quarry and any extensions of these quarries shall be conducted so that 95% of the
blasts undertaken (measured over any 20 blasts on the foundation of any building in the Business
7 Zone) shall produce peak particle velocities not exceeding 5 mm/s and 100% of the blasts
undertaken shall not exceed 10mm/s irrespective of the frequency of the blast measured. This
recognises the utilisation of best practice methods by these quarries.
The District Plan also references the ISO 2631:1989 Standard in Section 8.8.3.9 where for
vibrations in buildings it states in 8.8.3.9(a):
Activities shall not generate vibrations which may cause discomfort or adversely affect the health
and well being of the occupants of adjacent premises. Vibrations which do not exceed the limits,
referred to below as set out in the provisions of the International Standard ISO 2631-2:1989
Evaluation of Human Exposure to whole body vibration Part 2 Continuous and Shock Induced
Vibrations in Buildings (1 to 80 Hz), will be deemed to meet this requirement.
The limits referenced in the Plan are applicable factored curves defined in Annex A and Table 2 of
the Standard (included in Appendix A).

18
The Conditions of Consent for the Manukau Harbour Crossing Project is of relevance as they were
jointly agreed in 2007 by the Auckland and Manukau City Councils. The Conditions required a
Construction Vibration Management Plan (CVMP) to be prepared. The Condition includes:
The CVMP shall include details relating to the control of vibrations associated with all Project
Works. It shall, as far as practicable, be formulated to achieve compliance with the vibration
Standards of the German Standard DIN4150, and shall address the following aspects
a) Vibration monitoring measures
b) Existing vibration levels
c) Possible mitigation measures
d) Complaint response
e) Reporting procedures
f) Notification and information for the community of the proposed works
g) Where appropriate vibration testing of construction processes (eg piling) to confirm that
the vibration limit will not be exceeded
h) Location for vibration monitoring when construction activities are adjacent to critical
buildings
i) Operational times
j) Preparation of dilapidation reports on critical dwellings prior to, during and after
completion of the works.
Also of relevance is the recent decision for the Waterview Connection Project. The Conditions of
Consent require that a Construction Noise and Vibration Management plan (CNVMP) be prepared
and describe the measure adopted to meet the criteria set out in Conditions CNV 1, 4, 5, 6, 8-13.
These are included in Appendix B.
The Standard referenced for limiting construction vibrations was DIN 4150-3:1999. Of particular
relevance was the Boards decision to permit the use of statistical methods for blasting and other
construction activities such as piling, excavation, compaction and drilling provided there is no
exceedance of a ppV of 10 mm/s irrespective of the frequency of the activity measured. Also of
note in CNV.13 is the following advice note:
It is accepted that the Criteria for CNVZ (Noise) and CNV.4 (Vibration) may not be met at all
times, but that the NZTA will take all practical steps to achieve compliance, taking into account
the hierarchy of mitigation options outlined in Condition CNV.1 (ix).

19
6 Assessment of vibration effects

6.1 Vibration effects and site characteristics
Ground borne vibrations are generated by oscillating motion that is transmitted by contact
between particles in the ground. The vibration wave forms in the ground propagate as either
compression (P) waves or shear (S) waves. The interaction of these waves with the ground
surface produces Rayleigh (R) and Lowe (L) waves. The Rayleigh waves are particularly important
as they generally produce the largest particle velocities which directly impact on the imposed
strain in structures. Measurements of vibration for the assessment of risk to structures are
therefore generally measured in terms of peak particle velocity, ppV. The human body is
primarily responsive to the forces imposed on it. Hence the effect on the human body is usually
measured in terms of acceleration. By assuming a regular sinusoidal wave form, the
corresponding limits may be expressed in either acceleration or ppV for any given frequency.
The magnitude of the vibrations are influenced by a number of factors, the principal variables
being the energy of the source and the distance to the receiver. Other variables which are
generally less significant include the geology, the surface topography and groundwater.
The general prediction model that is used for propagation of vibrations with distance is:
n
D
ppV k
E
where k = site constant
D = distance from the source to the receiver
E = Energy of source (often expressed as Maximum Instantaneous Charge Weight (MIC)

for blasting)
n = attenuation factor, primarily dependent on geology and groundwater, generally

between 0.9 to 1.5 for Auckland geological conditions.
Where the energy source is constant then the equation reduces to:
n
ppV k d
The site constants are generally determined for each activity based on trials or using experience in
similar areas. The predictive models may then be utilised to assess the effects on receivers. For
design it is useful to establish the confidence limits of the activities and establish a compliance
approach based around these limits (e.g. for blasting design, the upper 95% confidence limit is
targeted to meet the conservative recommendations of limits to protect property from minor
damage). As noted above, this promotes and rewards the use of best practice in the construction
industry, whereby constructors which apply high levels of quality control can benefit by targeting
higher charge weights. The application of this method, together with an upper regulatory limit,
has been accepted for the Waterview Connection Project, see Appendix C, and this is applied on
many of the quarries in the Auckland region, see Auckland City District Plan 8.8.2.7(b).

20
A typical flow chart setting out the control systems and the response requirements for any
exceedance is included in Appendix C.
6.2 Site testing

A series of site monitoring tests have been undertaken to determine background vibration levels
on the tunnel alignment and to assess the typical attenuation levels for the ground. Monitoring
has also been carried out to establish typical vibration levels at the Orakei pump station at
Victoria Ave drop shaft to determine the effects of an operating system.
6.2.1 Background monitoring

Vibration measurements have been undertaken at 5 representative sites. These locations
include:
WS1 Western Springs Depot

AS4 Walmsley Park
AS6 Kiwi Esplanade
L352 Miranda Reserve
L354 Dundale Ave
The monitoring was undertaken with transducers located for periods close to roads which are
currently the most likely source of vibrations in the area. At Western Springs the tramway was
also monitored. For each location instruments were placed in close proximity to the source (1-
2m) as well as at distance to provide a measure of attenuation.
Results of the monitoring are included in Appendix D and summarised in Table 6.1. They indicate
the maximum source of vibrations is generally heavy vehicles, particularly buses. However, these
are relatively infrequent at most sites and, while peak particle vibrations of up to 3.1 mm/s were
measured close to the kerb, the level of vibration attenuated rapidly to less than 0.5 mm/s at a
distance of 10 m.
The maximum level of vibrations recorded was at Walmsley Park where heavy traffic occurred at a
relatively high frequency (30 HCV vehicles/hour). The monitoring site was at a low point in the
road where the irregular surfacing adjacent to a pedestrian crossing caused increased levels of
vibration of up to 3.1 mm/s close to the kerb. At the other sites the road surfacing was in good
condition and vibration levels were generally less than 1.5 mm/s and attenuated rapidly to less
than perception levels within 10 m.
At Motions Rd, where the Museum of Transport and Technology operate a tram ride, maximum
recorded vibrations with a ppV of up to 9.0 mm/s were measured close to the rails. A number of
events were recorded for the tram and these are summarised in Table 6.1. The attenuation
relationship for these results has been analysed to determine a best fit line which can be
expressed in the form.
1.44
ppV 9.26(d )

21
The attenuation exponent is relatively high for a site where basalt is present and may reflect the
properties of the soft soils overlying the rock.

22
Table 6.1: Summary of Background Vibration Monitoring
Access Location Transducer distance Peak Particle Source Notes

Shaft from Kerb / track Velocity
(m) (mm/s)
WS1/LISI Motions Rd 1 9.0 Tram Attenuation
5 0.76 Characteristics
Measured
10 0.36
15 0.2
Motions Rd 3 0.25 Truck

(6m)
7 -
12 0.19 Truck
(6m)
17 -
AS4 Walmsley Park 0.5 3.09 Bus Heavy trafficked

(Sandringham Rd road and irregular
10 1.43
Extension) road surfacing (ppV
exceeding 1mm/s
due to heavy
vehicles every 2
minutes on average)
AS6 Mangere (Kiwi 1 0.254 Van Light traffic. No

Esplanade) heavy vehicles
10 0.445
recorded
L352 Miranda Res 1 0.445 Light Truck
10 0.143
L354 Dundale Ave 1 1.46 Bus
10 1.01
6.3 Blast vibrations

No site specific testing has been undertaken for blasting for the Central Interceptor Project.
Tonkin & Taylors database includes a number of projects where blasting of basalt has been
undertaken and good records have been kept of Maximum Instantaneous Charge (MIC) and
distance of monitoring from the blast. A typical set of results showing blast monitoring plotted on
a log-log plot is shown in Figure 6.1. Regression analyses of results have provided indicative
constants typical of basalt rock vibration characteristics. These are:

23
1.19
D
ppVmean 206
1
E 2
Results of blasting, where good control has been applied, generally achieve a statistical Standard
Deviation of about 0.22-0.25. The corresponding upper 97.5% confidence limits (representing 2
standard deviations from the mean) are:
1.03
D
ppV97.5% 345
1
E 2
When these results are applied to achieve the 5mm/s recommended DIN4150 criteria for
residential properties, with 97.5% probability of compliance, the following typical safe blasting
distances are determined for MIC weights of AN60 explosive.
Table 6.2: Safe Blasting Distances (97.5% Confidence Limits)
Maximum Instantaneous Charge Design Distance

(MIC) kg (MPa)
1 61
2 86
3 106
5 136
10 193

24
To achieve economic blasting, alternative explosive options may need to be considered for areas
where sensitive receivers or residential structures are within 80-90 m of the shafts.
The tolerance to blasting is often affected by the cumulative effect of the associated airblast
pressure wave. This is a sub-audible low frequency wave that causes rattling of windows and
loose ornaments. Depending on the blast design, the confinement of the blasts in the shaft may
result in amplification or damping of this effect. This has been addressed further by the noise
consultants.
The use of good practice blasting methods also reduces the potential for flyrock. This is often
associated with poor control of drilling and loading of holes particularly where there is a free face
in close proximity to the hole (lack of adequate burden). The potential for flyrock in a bottom
driven shaft is very low and, if there is any potential for this, the use of blasting mats is
recommended to contain the fragmented rock.
Construction planning needs to be developed around a regular programme of blasting.

Experience indicates blasting at 1 to 3 blasts/day is practical and enables residents to be well
prepared for the events.
Blasting often generates air pressure waves (air blast noise). These cause rattling of windows and
disturbance to sensitive receivers. The effects of air pressure waves are addressed by the noise
assessment. It is noted that the level of disturbance felt by people can be enhanced if the ground
vibrations are accompanied by a high level of air blast noise.
6.4 Operational Vibrations

Measurements of vibration levels from operations of plant were undertaken on the Orakei Main
Sewer at the Orakei Pump Station and the Victoria Ave drop shaft. The objective of this study was
to assess the magnitude of vibrations that could be expected after commissioning of the Central
Interceptor.
The measurements at the Orakei Domain Pump Station (PS64) were undertaken on 14 July 2011.
The weather conditions had been showery. Two pumps were operating at the time of monitoring,
Nos 2 and 6. Monitoring was carried out with transducers mounted on the No. 2 pump casing,
on the concrete floor immediately below the pump and at a location within the pump station
building about 18 m laterally from the pump (approx. 25 m direct path). ppV vibration levels on
the pump casing were typically in the range of 4-5 mm/s at a frequency of 43H z. The pumps are
supported by heavy structures and the vibrations did not transmit far into the building structure
with levels of about 0.14 mm/s detected immediately beneath the pump and also 0.14 at 18m
from the pump. It is concluded that the levels of vibration beyond the pump station building
would be imperceptible to the majority of people.
Measurements at the Victoria Ave Drop Shaft were undertaken on 14 July 2011 to assess levels of
vibration from the shafts during operations. The transducer was set up on top of the shaft
structure. The levels of vibration were generally low, less than 0.1 mm/s and hence are unlikely
to be discernible to people beyond the shaft housing.

25
7 Construction vibration estimates

The works will involve the use of heavy construction methods that will utilise plant that generates
vibrations at a range of levels. This section identifies the main construction activities, and
associated plant, and assesses the likely effects on nearby receivers. It includes consideration of
the likely magnitude of any generated vibrations, the duration of the work, the potential effects
on sensitive receivers and property, as well as discusses potential mitigation measures that may
be required.
It is assumed in this assessment that surface works undertaken in the initial establishment of the
tunnel access works, including excavation of shafts, will generally be limited to daytime hours.
The completion works, including construction of trenched pipelines and subsurface chambers, will
also be limited to daytime work hours. Only work directly associated with continuous tunnelling
will include night-time operations and, if necessary, this may impose limits to surface support
activities such as spoil removal and material delivery.
The activity sources that are expected to be the potential generators of the highest levels of
vibrations from the project are listed in Table 7.1. The table also identifies the expected distance
where the recommended vibration limit criteria are likely to be exceeded. Note it does not
consider effects of noise or regenerated noise.
The vibration design distance includes consideration of duration of the activities, allows for
increased vibration levels for short term works such as establishment activities and the short time
a property will be affected as the tunnel excavation rapidly progresses. The distances also include
adopting limits that are low in the recommended range for longer activities such as shaft
excavation.
This information has been used to identify those sites where the activities may require
modification to normal construction practices or the use of mitigation measures, see Section 8.
Table 7.1: Safe design distances for construction activities
Work Type Source Ground type Design Distance (m) Comments
Structures People
Site Diggers, Loaders, TG 3-5 5 Higher tolerance for

Establishment Trucks etc short term access
works.
Site Buildings TG 3 3
Construction
Access Roadworks TG 3 3
Shaft Diggers, Cranes, TG 5 5

Excavation Trucks
soft to hard
Piling / Diaphragm TG / ECBF 10 20 Higher vibrations may

26
ground Wall Equipment be generated by

dropping buckets to
Sheetpile driving Alluvium/TG/ECBF 10 15
expel spoil.
(Soft to hard ground)
Shaft Rock breaker Av 10 15

Excavation or
trench - Hard
Rock (Basalt)
Blasting Av Depends on MIC see Need to also consider

Table 6.2 air over pressure.
Drilling and Av 10 10
Shotcreting
Tunnelling EBPM ECBF 5 10 Possibility of

regenerated noise,
see Noise
Consultants Report
Micro-tunnelling ECBF/TG 10 10
Small Road Header ECBF 6 10
Muck Cars and TGins - 5 10 May increase where

shunting occurs
Vertical Conveyor - 3 5
Crane - 3 5
Tunnel Segments - 5 10
Handling
Surface Works Shored Trenches and TG/ECBF 3 5

Shallow
AV See blasting criteria Blasting
Underground Table 6.2 - OR
Chambers
10 15 Rockbreaker
Sheetpiled Trench Alluvium/TG/ECBF 10 15
Vibrating Rollers - 10 15 Road and Site

Remediation
Note: The safe design distances are based on a combination of published information, experience
and the site characteristics measured. Some further information on the effects of different types
of equipment is included in Appendix D. The safe distances for critical operations need to be
confirmed on site. Works that need to be undertaken within these distances should also give
consideration to methods and plant that could reduce generated vibrations at the source or
mitigate effects.
7.1 Drop shafts

The drop shafts are expected to involve a range of construction methods dependent on ground
conditions encountered. Where soft alluvial soils are present in the upper sections of the shafts,

27
ground retention will generally be provided by contiguous piles or diaphragm walls for the large
shafts or casing for the smaller shafts. These options all have potential to generate high levels of
vibrations that will need to be managed to achieve the recommended vibration limits.
Basalt is present over sections of many of the shafts for the main tunnel and some of the
connector tunnels.
The practical minimum charge level for blasting of basalt in the shafts may necessitate either
liaison with closest receivers on regular exceedance of the recommended limits for vibration or
use of alternative low energy explosives to fragment the rock.
Below the basalt, excavation will be in Tauranga Group or ECBF. This will be undertaken with
conventional excavation plant with support provided by Shotcreting and bolting. The vibration
levels experienced by the closest receivers from these works is expected to be below perception
levels.
The thickness of basalt in a number of the shafts is likely to require the use of blasting to fragment
the rock and enable removal of the rocks. The alternative use of rock breakers is likely to be
limited to thin zones of basalt as it will be slow and increase the level of disturbance due to the
continuous noise and vibrations.
The effects of blasting can be controlled by using best practice methods which limit the number of
blasts to regular times, provide good notice of blasting, use decked charges with measured
Maximum Instantaneous Charge Weights (MIC) per delay, electronic detonators and careful
monitoring to enable changes to be made if geology varies.
7.2 Main tunnelling works

The main tunnels are expected to be excavated using an Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM).
In the ECBF weak rock this equipment will generally produce low level vibrations that would be
expected to attenuate quickly and be below the perception threshold within 10 m for most
people. The main tunnel is generally at a depth of over 25 m so there is unlikely to be any
vibration effects from boring. The rate of excavation is also expected to be high, averaging over
10m/day. The time that any sensitive receiver would be subject to any vibration is therefore very
short.
Associated with tunnelling is the potential for regenerated noise. This is caused by low levels of
vibration that are transmitted into the building structure and sets up a low level humming noise
that may cause nuisance (but not structural damage). The potential effects of regenerated
(structure-borne) noise are addressed by the noise consultant.
The installation of the segmented lining will provide a number of potential sources for vibration.
The delivery and handling of segments at the surface will need to be managed to limit impacts on
neighbours. It is expected that vibrations from this source if well managed should attenuate
below accepted levels within 5-10 m.
The segments will be transferred to the face on rail carriages. These heavy concrete sections may
cause vibrations if the rail is not well maintained, otherwise the levels of vibration should be

28
below perception within 10-15m. Similarly it is expected the operation of the segment erector
should generate vibrations that are below perception within 10 m.
The removal of spoil will be by muck wagon or conveyor. If the former is utilised the largest
potential for vibrations are from poorly maintained rail joints and shunting of the wagons.
Operations need to be carefully managed and maintained to limit these effects over the duration
of the works.
7.3 Link Sewer

The microtunnelling equipment expected to be used for the smaller link sewer tunnels will
generate low levels of vibrations during excavation. The depth of cover is reduced for some
sections of these tunnels but at the ground surface, as these are smaller machines, it is unlikely
that significant vibrations will be experienced from the excavation. The potential for regenerated
noise may still be significant, however, the rate of tunnelling progress would mean that any
effects would be of a short duration.
The installation of the precast tunnel lining or pipe sections is by launching from the jacking pits.
This is a low vibration source process. The handling of the heavy precast sections may result in a
level of generated vibrations from the lifting equipment, delivery vehicles and on site
transporters. It is expected the levels of vibrations generated by this equipment will be below
perception level within 10 m.
7.4 Trench and underground structures excavation

(excluding drop structures)
The excavation of trenches for shallow pipelines and underground structures will generally
encounter soft soil conditions at most of the sites. Conventional diggers may be utilised for these
earthworks and shields or retention works may need to be mobilised to achieve stable
excavations.
These operations generally generate low levels of vibrations except for driving and removal of
sheet piling where a clearance of 10 m is typically required to achieve damage vibration
standards. If the work is extended beyond several days physiological criteria for vibrations may
also need to be met.
The excavations for trenched pipelines and underground structures are expected to encounter
basalt rock in a number of locations. These include Western Springs (WS1), Mt Albert War
Memorial Reserve (AS1), Lyon Ave (AS2), Kiwi Esplanade (AS7), Motions Rd (L1S1) and Western
Springs Depot (L1S2). Basalt rock may also be found within the depth of excavations in May Rd
(WS2).
Where the remaining depth of basalt to be excavated is small, less than 2 m, rock breakers are
expected to be utilised. Generally a set back distance of 15 m will ensure vibration limits for
damage are achieved. If the duration extends beyond several days, the physiological criteria may
also impact on the works.

29
7.5 Other works

The primary cause of vibrations from other works will be the operation of heavy vehicles
delivering heavy equipment, tunnel segments or pipes and removing tunnel spoil. The levels of
vibrations generated by such operations are highly dependent on the condition of the access
roadways. The background monitoring undertaken as part of this study on nearby roadways
determined that vibration levels generated by trucks operating on city roads, was generally less
than 2mm/s at a distance of 2 m from the source and attenuated rapidly to below 0.5 mm/s
within 10 m. If the roadway is not well maintained or includes a sharp bump, as was present at
the pedestrian crossing on Sandringham Rd Extension, the levels of vibration can increase
markedly.
The operation of cranes, hoists and conveyors can all contribute to levels of vibrations but these
are generally small and should not exceed the recommended limits beyond the working areas.
Maintenance works during operations will also require access and use of trucks, pumps and other
plant. Vibration levels from this equipment will need to be controlled within normally applied
vibration criteria.

30
8 Mitigation options
It is expected that works will be designed to be undertaken to comply with vibration limits
proposed for the project. However, construction processes contain inherent risks such that the
targeted vibration levels are not always achieved. This requires that a margin of safety is
provided in the target levels for outlier conditions. Where monitoring of activities is undertaken
that enables the distribution of vibration levels generated, a statistical approach may be adopted
to provide a high level of confidence that limits will not be exceeded. A requirement for 95%
compliance with the limits of DIN 4150:1990 has been recommended as a suitable criterion. This
means that construction methods that adopt best practice and exercise a high level of control of
activities will benefit by utilising higher target vibration levels while activities which have lower
levels of control or singular events need more conservative target levels to ensure compliance.
It is noted that the recommended control limits also include an upper regulatory limit for
vibrations which, if exceeded, triggers activation of a response procedure which is designed to
ensure there are no repeats of unplanned events. A flow chart demonstrating how this is applied
is included in Appendix C.
This requires that the cause of any exceedance of consented levels is investigated and changes
are made in the methodology where practicable to address the magnitude of vibrations
generated by the source.
If full compliance with the vibration criteria cannot be achieved by modifying the method, it may
be necessary to consider other methods to reduce the effects. These could include:
communication with adjacent affected residents

coordination with residents to carry out works when they are likely to be out
use of an alternative method of construction with reduced vibration effects
isolation of the source e.g. use of elastic or rubber packers beneath rails over critical section
of rail
construction of a vibration attenuation barrier between the source and receiver, e.g.
excavation of a trench (depth at least half the wavelength of the transmitted vibrations
(Rayleigh) wave form), installation of a barrier or series of piles or open holes to interfere
with the transmission of the vibrations
where other mitigation is not feasible, possible temporary relocation of residents during
the activity where it is close to property
modification of the affected building structure to change the response characteristics e.g.
installation of bracing to modify the building response frequency
isolation of very sensitive equipment such as utilising an airbag or floating slab.
It is noted that the recommended standards include substantial margins to limit the risk of
damage and no structural damage is likely within a distance of half that given in Tables 6.2 and
7.1.

31
9 Consideration of sensitive receivers and potential

for damage to neighbouring properties
An initial assessment of the effects on adjacent properties of vibrations generated by construction
and operations of the project has been undertaken. This has involved review of the likely
construction methods, the levels of vibration that they will generate and estimation of the
distances where vibration levels will exceed the proposed limits for both structural damage and
sensitive receivers.
A summary of construction activities and safe distances for vibration design has been provided in
Table 7.1. This is based on the expected distance required to achieve the proposed vibration
limits. Table 9.1 sets out an assessment of potential vibration effects on neighbouring properties.
A list of properties most affected by the construction vibrations is provided in Table 9.1. The risk
of vibrations impacting on residents or structures has been assessed for the critical activities
according to the following criteria:
Low Risk May be perceptible to residents but should not cause disturbance. Risk of
damage less than minor
Moderate Risk May cause minor discomfort and should be acceptable for limited
periods. No risk to health. Minor risk of cosmetic damage to dwellings but no risk of
structural damage. Condition surveys of closest structures recommended.
High Risk May be acceptable to receivers for occasional short term events. Likely to
cause significant discomfort if vibrations are continuous. Minor risk to health to sensitive
receivers and may require relocation. Moderate risk of cosmetic damage but low risk of
damage to structural elements. Condition surveys of all potentially affected structures
recommended.
Very High Risk Potential risk to health and relocation recommended. Significant risk to
sensitive structures. Condition surveys of all structures and application of mitigation
measures recommended.
Generally the effects of vibration on these properties can be managed by control of construction
methods to limit vibration levels at the source. However, where the works are to be undertaken
over a short period and there is low risk of structural damage, there is the option to also consult
with residents on a level of acceptable exceedance. If necessary, other mitigation measures may
also be considered, see Section 8.

32
Table 9.1: Design safe distances for specific properties

Location Properties Distance to Risk of Notes Potential Mitigation Options Residual Effect Post
closest to dwellings Damage/ Mitigation
proposed works Disturbance
without
mitigation
WS1 MOTAT 140 m Very Low1 Blasting of shafts and Nil, Monitor Less than minor
Western 42 Sefton Ave 120 m Very Low underground chambers in Nil, Monitor Less than minor
Springs 3 Bullock Track basalt rock (also shaft in
basalt proposed 20m from
commercial property south
side of Great North Rd and 60
m from MOTAT)
AS1 65 Asquith Ave (2 15 m High to very Deep trench in basalt, Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
Mt Albert rear dwellings) high blasting of thick layer of limited use of blasting structures but disturbance
Memorial Park basalt in shaft operated within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
be mitigated through
measures as described in
Section 8.
9 - 17 Wairere 30 m 50 Moderate Blasting of shaft Small charge weights to Minor, some disturbance to
Ave m limit blasting vibrations to residents
within Din 4150
9 Wairere Ave 10 m Very High Deep trench in basalt Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
limited use of blasting structures but disturbance
operated within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Section 8.

33
without
mitigation
AS2 11-27 Morning 15 m High Trenching and blasting of Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor, no damage to
Lyon Ave Star Place shafts in basalt limited use of blasting structures but likely
operated within Din 4150 disturbance to residents
which can be mitigated
through measures as
described in Section 8.
12-28 Morning 40 m Moderate Trench in basalt Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor
Star Place limited use of blasting
operated within Din 4150
1 Wagener Pl 30 m Moderate Blasting of shafts in basalt Small charge weights to Minor, some disturbance to
limit blasting vibrations to residents
within Din 4150
15 Lyon Ave 15 m Mod. - High Trench in basalt Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
limited use of blasting structures but disturbance
operated within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Section 8.
AS3 98 Haverstock Rd 40 m Low Possibility of thin zone of Small charge weights to Less than minor
Haverstock Rd basalt in shafts limit blasting vibrations to
within Din 4150
7 Camden Rd 50 m Low See above Less than minor
AS4 3 ODonnell Ave 20 m High Small charge weights to Minor. No damage to

34
without
mitigation
Walmsley Park limit blasting vibrations to structures but disturbance
within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Section 8.
5-9 ODonnell 33 m Moderate See above Minor
Ave
WS2 51a Marion Ave 25 m Mod - High Large 20m diameter shaft. Small charge weights to Minor. No damage to
May Rd Risk dependent on extent of limit blasting vibrations to structures but disturbance
basalt in shafts within Din 4150 possible to residents
53a-55a Marion 20 m Mod - Very Small charge weights to Minor. No damage to
Ave High limit blasting vibrations to structures but disturbance
Section 8.
AS5 20 & 22 Gregory - N/A Purchase and remove
Keith Hay Park Pl dwellings
19 Gregory Pl 12 m Low Secant piles to ECBF monitor Less than minor
18 Gregory Pl 16 m Low monitor Less than minor
AS6 Manukau 6/41 Fredrick St 20 m Moderate Secant piles to ECBF. New Small charge weights to Minor. No damage to

35
without
mitigation
Harbour dwelling limit blasting vibrations to structures but disturbance
Section 8.
52a Frederick St 40 m Low Less than minor
AS7 (Option A - Trench - Kiwi 5-20m Low to high Shallow Trench in basalt Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
Eastern Route) Esplanade, limited use of blasting structures but disturbance
Kiwi Esplanade Yorkton Rise, operated within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Muir Ave, Villa be mitigated through
Court measures as described in
Section 8.
85 - 89 Kiwi 120 m Low Blasting of Shaft in basalt Nil, Monitor Less than minor
Esplanade
AS7 (Option B - Trench Ambury 5-20m Low to high Shallow Trench in basalt Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
Western Route) Rd, Muir Ave, limited use of blasting structures but disturbance
Villa Court) operated within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Ambury Park be mitigated through
Section 8.
20, 26 Andes Ave 65m Low Blasting of shaft in basalt Monitor and limit vibrations Minor. No damage to
to DIN 4150 structures but some
disturbance to residents

36
without
mitigation
which can be mitigated
through measures as
described in Section 8.
WS3 Mangere Pump >200m Low Large Diameter shaft in weak Nil, monitor Less than minor
Station materials
L1S1 100-102 Motions 140 m Low Rock Breaker or blasting of Hydraulic rock breakers & Less than minor
Motions Rd Rd Western thin layer of basalt rock limited use of blasting
Springs College operated within Din 4150
Auckland Zoo2 50m Moderate Hydraulic rock breakers & Minor. No damage to
limited use of blasting structures but minor
operated within Din 4150 disturbance possible to
residents and animals
L1S2 WS Depot 20 m Mod - High Blasting of basalt in shaft Small charge weights to Minor. No damage to
Western Buildings limit blasting vibrations to structures but disturbance
Springs Depot within Din 4150 likely to residents which can
Section 8.
L2S1 19 Rawalpindi 37 m Low ECBF, secant piles to ECBF Nil, monitor Less than minor
Rawalpindi 17 Rawalpindi 30 m Low Nil, monitor Less than minor
Reserve
L2S2 16 Norgrove Ave 12 m Mod - High ECBF, high potential to Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
Norgrove Ave disturb residents by piling to limit vibrations to within damage, piling closest to

37
without
mitigation
works DIN4150 dwelling likely to result in
some disturbance to
residents
14 Norgrove Ave 15 m Moderate Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
to limit vibrations to within damage, piling closest to
DIN4150 dwelling likely to result in
some disturbance to
residents
27 Verona Ave 12 m High Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
some disturbance to
residents
L3S1 30a Miranda Pl 55 m shaft Low Secant piles to ECBF. (New Nil, monitor Less than minor
Pump Station dwelling)
PS25 3/28 Taylors 40 m Low ECBF Nil, monitor Less than minor
Close Chamber
L3S2 353 Blockhouse 50 m Low Secant Piles to ECBF Nil, monitor Less than minor
Miranda Bay Rd Units
Reserve 373 Blockhouse 27 m Low- Piling equipment operated Minor
Bay Road Moderate to limit vibrations to within
DIN4150
356 East side of 30 m Low Piling equipment operated Minor

38
without
mitigation
Blockhouse Bay to limit vibrations to within
Rd DIN4150
L3S3 124 Whitney St 22 m Low - 6 m shaft, Secant Piles to Piling equipment operated Minor
Whitney St Moderate ECBF to limit vibrations to within
DIN4150
128 Whitney St 15 m Moderate - Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
High to limit vibrations to within damage, piling closest to
(disturbance) DIN4150 dwelling likely to result in
130 Whitney St 15 m Moderate - Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
High to limit vibrations to within damage, piling closest to
(disturbance) DIN4150 dwelling likely to result in
L3S4 66D Dundale Ave 30 m Low 2.4 m shaft (cased hole ?), Piling equipment operated Less than minor
Dundale Ave to limit vibrations to within
DIN4150
68-78 Dundale 50m low Preschool facility Nil, monitor Less than minor
Ave
L3S5 2 Haycock Ave 6m High Secant piles to ECBF rock Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
Haycock Ave to limit vibrations to within damage, piling closest to
4 Haycock Ave - N/A. House

39
without
mitigation
to Be
Removed
6 Haycock 3m Very High Piling equipment operated Minor. Low risk of vibration
79b White Swan 25 m Low Piling equipment operated Less than Minor
Rd to limit vibrations to within
DIN4150
Tunnels3 >20m low Excavation in ECBF (see note Monitor. Machine expected Less than minor, short
2) to period of perceptible
vibrations
Note 1. The vibration levels generated by the MOTAT tram are expected to exceed transmitted vibrations from construction works at the Western Springs
site (WS1).
Note 2. The potential for disturbance to animals in the zoo has previously been considered by Tonkin & Taylor during an assessment of effects for the
MOTAT tram. This study concluded that animals in zoos adjust quickly to levels of vibration which are below human perception levels (about 0.3mm/s).
Most would also not be highly alarmed by low frequency events which transmit vibrations up to 1mm/s such as blasting. The effects of air blast noise would
also need to be considered.
Note 3. The depth of the tunnels generally exceeds 20m. It is concluded the risk of damage to dwellings due to tunnelling beneath the properties is less
than minor. The levels of vibrations should not cause disturbance to people but may be perceptible to sensitive receivers, particularly if also associated with
regenerated noise. The tunnelling excavation will progress rapidly (about 10-20m/day) and the short period of any felt effects are not expected to result in
any significant discomfort. Intermittent higher levels of vibration may be generated by tunnel support activities such as shunting of muck wagons, handling
of segments, etc. These activities will need to be managed to limit vibrations, particularly if these are undertaken regularly at the same locations.

40
10 Construction Vibration Management Plan

It is recommended that a construction vibration management plan (CVMP) identifying the
minimum standards be prepared to be complied with during the works. These will be designed to
minimise the effects on health and limit discomfort to people as well as ensure the risk of damage
to structures is less than minor.
The CVMP is recommended to include the following:
Vibration criteria for the project

Hours of operation for construction activities likely to generate significant levels of
vibrations
List of plant that is likely to generate significant levels of vibration
Requirements for vibration monitoring including trials for establishing attenuation
characteristics and the associated statistical parameters for design of safe operating
distances
Requirements for condition (dilapidation) surveys on potentially affected properties prior
to, during and after completion of the works
Requirements for background vibration monitoring in advance of the works
Notification and information for the community
Reporting requirements including response flow chart identifying actions and reporting
protocols in the event of any exceedences
Roles and responsibilities of key personnel on site including contact details and
qualifications of staff responsible for handling, design and use of explosives
Procedure for storage, handling and use of explosives on the project
Construction operator training procedures for activities likely to generate significant levels
of vibrations
Construction vibration mitigation options, and
Recording system for receiving and handling of complaints.

41
11 Applicability
This report has been prepared for the benefit of Watercare Services Ltd with respect to the
particular brief given to us and it may not be relied upon in other contexts or for any other
purpose without our prior review and agreement.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Environmental and Engineering Consultants
Report prepared by: Authorised for Tonkin & Taylor Ltd by:
..........................................................
Peter J Millar
Senior Geotechnical Consultant
PJM/mcs
p:\26145\26145.100\issueddocuments\vibrationmain 030712.docx

42
12 References
CIRIA C693 Noise and Vibration from Road and Rail. Lawrence T, Dakin J, Norris P, Farni
M. Ciria 2011
BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Vibration

Sources Other Than Blasting.
BS 6472-2:2008 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Vibration

Sources Other Than Blasting Blast Induced Vibration.
BS 5228-1:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open
Sites.
ISO 2631-2:2003 Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-
Body Vibration. Part 2: Vibration in Buildings (1Hz to 80 Hz).
NZ/ISO 2631-2:1989 Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-
Body Vibration. Part 2: Vibration in Buildings (1Hz to 80 Hz) Withdrawn
Standard.
Siskind DE, Stagg MS, Kopp JW, and Dowding CH 1980 Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. Report on
Investigations 3507 USBM Washington DC, USA.
NZ 8176:2005 Vibration and Shock. Measurement of Vibrations in Buildings from

Landbased Transport and Guidance to Evaluation of its Effects on Human
Beings. Morsk Standard.
Tonkin & Taylor Central Interceptor Project Vibration Assessment for CSO Collector Sewers


Vibration Assessment Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibration Assessment Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vibration Assessment Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Report prepared for:

Report prepared by:

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (FILE) 1 copy

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

Table 4.1: BS 5228-2:2009. Guidance on effects of vibration levels ................................. 12

Table 6.1: Summary of Background Vibration Monitoring ............................................... 22

Table 6.2: Safe Blasting Distances (97.5% Confidence Limits) .......................................... 23

Table 7.1: Safe design distances for construction activities ............................................. 25

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

The principal works include construction of approximately 13 km of tunnels of around 4.5 m

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

briefing and site tour with Central Interceptor project team;

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

review of vibration database and assessment of vibration levels expected to be generated

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

2 Central Interceptor project

The key elements of the project include:

An approximately 13 km long 4.5 m diameter main tunnel from Western Springs to

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

2.1 Geology and Construction Ground Conditions

2.2 Description of Proposed Works

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

2.2.1 Main tunnel

2.2.2 Link sewers

2.2.3 Deaeration tunnels

Table 2.1: Shaft Locations, Details and Expected Geological Conditions

Location Shaft Ground conditions approx. base depth b.g.l. (m)

AS1 Mt Albert Mem AS, DS 38 11 18 9

AS2 Lyon Ave AS, DS 45 2 5 17 19

AS3 Haverstock Rd AS, DS 50 2 3 6 39

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

AS4 Walmsley Park AS 67 4 10? 8? 45?

WS2 May Rd 70 5 8? 5? 52?

AS5 Keith Hay Park AS, DS 80 5? 75?

AS6 Belfast Res AS, DS 28 3 25

AS7 Option A - Kiwi AS, DS 28 4 11 10 3

WS3 Mangere Pump WS 32 26 6

L1S1 Motions Rd AS, DS 21 2 ? 19

L1S2 W.Springs Depot AS 23 5 3 15

L2S2 Norgrove Ave AS 30 4 26

L3S1 PS25 AS, DS 28 12 16

L3S2 Miranda Res AS 30 10 20

L3S4 Dundale Ave AS 39 8 31

L3S5 Haycock Ave DS 42 42

WS Working Shaft; DS Drop Shaft; AS Access Shaft

2.2.5 Shallow connections to existing networks

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

2.3 Other Structures

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor Job no. 27993

3 Construction methodology and construction plant

3.1 Shaft and manhole excavation

3.2 Main tunnels

Vibration Assessment Central Interceptor T&T Ref. 27993

3.3 Link Sewers