Meeting No. 2 : Vibration studies for HL-LHC Civil Engineering

Dr David HillerClaire WilsonMatt Sykes

18/02/2015

2

•Mechanical Excavation- 30-80Hz Region dominates- Tails off to 200Hz

Re-cap: Post-Meeting no.1

•45m away, PPV ~ 2x10-4 m/s, 50Hz- = zero-to-peak displacement of 6x10^-7m (0.6μm) [comparable to 1μm limit?]

2-3% of the max at 200Hz

Sandvik MT360 (60 Tonne)

Proposed Roadheader for Hi-Lumi

Case Study - Roadheader Vibrations

Project Location Geology

Lowest predicted ground borne noise vibration criteria

PPV (where possible at a distance ~40m)

Range of ground borne

noise vibration

recorded PPV

CommentsAny project guidance on

sensitive structures/equipment

Brisbane Airport Link,

2006 1

Brisbane, Australia

Rock (limited info)

0.01mm/s at 40m distance

n/aFocus on

damage/human comfort in buildings

Typical satisfactory vibration levels for sensitive buildings –

Maximum 0.5mm/s

Brisbane Airport Link,

changed project, 2008 2

Brisbane, Australia

Rock (limited info)

0.01mm/s n/aFocus on

damage/human comfort in buildings

n/a

BaT project 3 Brisbane, Australia

Rock (limited info)

0.08mm/s at ~35m distance

n/aFocus on

damage/human comfort in buildings

Sensitive structures identified

Linking Melbourne East-

West Link 4

Melbourne, Australia

Basalt and siltstone

0.15mm/s at 40m distance

n/aFocus on

damage/human comfort in buildings

Typical satisfactory vibration levels for sensitive buildings –

Maximum 0.5mm/s

Sensitive structural project 5

AustraliaWeak rock (sandstone)

0.2 mm/s0.05-0.8mm/s (no distance information)

Safely within vibration criteria for “sensitive

structure”

Road header successfully used in close proximity to sensitive

structural elements

Northern Link 6 Brisbane, Australia

Rock (limited info)

Threshold was assessed as that of human perception

~0.15mm/s

0.02-0.26mm/s (no distance information)

Focus on damage/human

comfort in buildings

Typical satisfactory vibration levels for sensitive buildings –

Maximum 0.5mm/s

Table summarising the vibration levels for different projects, specifically using a road header

Mitsui Miike S300 (95 Tonne)

Sandvik MT720 – Montreal, Canada (135Tonne)

Data from SandvikShale and limestone

Sandvik ATM105 – Pozzano, Italy (135Tonne)

Data from SandvikNo geology information

Vibration data classified according to geology

Conclusions

• Sandvik data as a comparison – lowest values they have presented are in the 0.01mm/s range at 40m distance, or just below – therefore they are capable of reaching the same order of magnitude of vibration as suggested and achieved in the presented past projects.

• But is this within tolerable physics machine limits?

• Possibilities for mitigation are small to none

“Mitigation options for mechanized tunnelling activities are limited. In some circumstances, it might be possible to limit working hours” - British Standard

• Possibility to engage with Sandvik with further detailed geotech parameters and vibration criteria to understand in more detail possibilities and limitations

• Identified conventional vibration limits of existing roadheader machines. Need to understand if these are tolerable, and physics requirements can be compatible at these limits.

HL-LHC Vibration Studies : Meeting No. 2

References:

1. Brisbane Airport Link, Environmental Impact Statement, Construction Noise and Vibration, 2006

2. Brisbane Airport Link Changed Project, Noise and Vibration report, 2008

3. BaT project, Appendix D, Noise and vibration report, 2014

4. Linking Melbourne East West Link, Tunnel Vibration and Noise Assessment, 2013

5. Sensitive project, Noise and Vibration Monitoring Report

6. Brisbane Northern Link, Detailed Feasibility Study, Noise and Vibration, 2008

7. BSI British Standards, BS5228-2:2009, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites, Part 2: Vibration

8. Hiller (2011) The prediction and mitigation of vibration impacts of tunnelling, Paper Number 5, Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011