Prediction of Vibration Amplitudes

  • Milutin SrbulovEmail author
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 12)


Prediction of ground vibration amplitudes and their comparison with legislative values is a frequent engineering task. Different methods for prediction of ground vibration amplitudes exist: (1) Empirical methods are widely used in practice (as shown later in this chapter) and are based on available attenuation relationships of measured ground vibration amplitudes with distance from the source. Problem with their use is that the existing attenuation relationships may not be available and if they are then complementary data about ground condition and vibrating source to which they apply may not be specified so that it is difficult to assess their relevance to a problem at hand. (2) Simplified analyses can always be used but they require knowledge of properties of vibration source and of ground conditions, which may not be available in part or in total. (3) Numerical analyses are expected to provide accurate solutions of the problem but they require the use of proprietary software (e.g. listed in, expertise in its use and frequently detailed ground properties. Lack of expertise and/or detailed ground properties affect the accuracy of the results of numerical methods. (4) Small and full scale testing is most convincing method for assessment of future ground vibration amplitudes but requires the use of a specialist laboratory or field instruments and the expertise. Therefore, the testing is not so frequently used in practice.


Stone Column Peak Ground Velocity Excess Pore Water Pressure Peak Particle Velocity Attenuation Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ambraseys NN (1988) Engineering seismology. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 17:1–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahrekazemi M (2004) Train-induced ground vibration and its prediction. PhD thesis, Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  3. Barneich JA (1985) Vehicle induced ground motion. In: Gazetas G, Selig ET (eds) Vibration problems in geotechnical engineering, Proceedings of ASCE convention in Detroit, Michigan, pp 187–202Google Scholar
  4. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2007) Evaluation of cyclic softening in silt and clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 133:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kiureghian AD, Tokimatsu K, Harder LH Jr, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 130:1314–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eldred PJL, Skipp BP (1998) Vibration on impact. In: Skipp BO (ed) Ground dynamics and man-made processes. Institution of Civil Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Finn WDL (1985) Aspects of constant volume cyclic simple shear. In: Khosla V (ed) Advances in the art of testing soils under cyclic conditions. Proceedings of Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE Convention in Detroit, Michigan, pp 74–98Google Scholar
  8. Gandhi SR, Dey AK, Selvam S (1999) Densification of pond ash by blasting. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(10):889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gohl WB, Jefferies MG, Howie JA (2000) Explosive compaction: design, implementation and effectiveness. Geotechnique 50:6576–665Google Scholar
  10. Hungr O, Morgenstern NR (1984) High velocity ring shear test on sand. Geotechnique 34:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahriman A (2004) Analysis of parameters of ground vibration produced from bench blasting at a limestone quarry. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24:887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladd CC, Foot R (1974) New design procedures for stability of soft clays. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 100:763–786Google Scholar
  13. Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1979) Soil mechanics, SI version. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee KL, Focht JA (1976) Strength of clay subjected to cyclic loading. Marine Geotechnol 1:305–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liao SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 112:373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (2001) Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Parathiras A (1995) Rate of displacement effects on fast residual strength. In: Ishihara K (ed) The 1st international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Tokyo, vol 1, pp 233–237Google Scholar
  18. Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH (1974) Foundation engineering, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Rix GJ, Stokoe KH (1992) Correlation of initial tangent modulus and cone resistance. Proceedings of the international symposium on calibration chamber testing, Potsdam, New York, 1991. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 351–362Google Scholar
  20. Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Gillespie D, Greig J (1986) Use of piezometer cone data. Proceedings of the ASCE specialty conference in situ ’86: Use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Blacksburg, pp 1263–1280Google Scholar
  21. Skempton AW (1957) Discussion: The planning and design of new Hong Kong airport. Proc Inst Civil Eng 7:305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and over consolidation. Geotechnique 36:425–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Svinkin MR (2002) Predicting soil and structure vibrations from impact machines. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 128(7):602–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tomlinson MJ (2001) Foundation design and construction – 6th edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolf JP, Deeks AJ (2004) Foundation vibration analysis: a strength-of-materials approach. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soil. Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 127:297–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. API RP 2A-WSD (2000) Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms – working stress design, 21st edn. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 111:1425–144Google Scholar
  30. Hiller DM, Crabb GI (2000) Groundborne vibration caused by mechanised construction works. Transport Research Laboratory Report 429, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayne PW (1985) Ground vibrations during dynamic compaction. In: Gazetas G, Selig ET (eds) Vibrations problems in geotechnical engineering. Proceedings of ASCE convention in Detroit, Michigan, pp 247–265Google Scholar
  32. List BR, Lord ERF, Fair AE (1985) Investigation of potential detrimental vibrational effects resulting from blasting in oilsands. In: Gazetas G, Selig ET (eds) Vibration problems in geotechnical engineering. Proceedings of a symposium of Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE, Detroit, Michigan, pp 266–285Google Scholar
  33. Caltrans (2001) Ground vibration monitoring for construction blasting in urban areas, Report F-00-OR-10. State of California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  34. U.S. Bureau of Mines (1971) Blasting vibrations and their effects on structures. Bulletin 656, by Nicholiss HR, Johnson CF, Duvall WIGoogle Scholar
  35. U.S.-D.O.T. (1995) Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. United States Department of Transport Report DOT-T-95-16, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. U.S.-D.O.T. (1998) High-speed ground transportation noise and vibration impact assessment. Office of Railroad Development. United States Department of Transport Report 293630-1, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Kogut J, Degrande G, Lombaert G, Pyl L (2004) Measurements and numerical prediction of high speed train vibrations. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, New York, Paper No. 4.02Google Scholar
  38. CP 2012-1 (1974) Code of practice for foundations for machinery – part 1: foundations for reciprocating machines. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. DIN 4024-1 (1988) Maschinenfundamente; Elastische Stützkonstruktionen für Maschinen mit rotierenden MassenGoogle Scholar
  40. DIN 4024-2 (1991) Maschinenfundamente; Steife (starre) Stützkonstruktionen für Maschinen mit periodischer ErregungGoogle Scholar
  41. BS 5228-2 (2009) Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration. British Standard Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IsleworthUK

Personalised recommendations