0% found this document useful (0 votes)

48 views59 pages

Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C Construction and Demolition Vibration Study

This document provides a vibration study for the construction and demolition activities associated with the Jersey Future Hospital project. It establishes vibration criteria for sensitive spaces in the existing hospital, predicts vibration levels from demolition and construction activities, and recommends mitigation measures. Comparison of predicted vibration levels to acceptance criteria shows a significant risk of exceeding thresholds without mitigation. Careful selection of contractors skilled in low-vibration techniques and monitoring will be required, as well as potential relocation of sensitive functions.

Uploaded by

Max Shashkin

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

48 views59 pages

Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C Construction and Demolition Vibration Study

Uploaded by

Max Shashkin

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 59

Appendix C-3.

1
Construction and Demolition
Vibration Study
Appendix C-3.1
Construction and Demolition
Vibration Study
States of Jersey
Jersey Future Hospital

Contents
C1 Executive Summary 1

C2 Introduction 2

C3 Vibration Criteria 3
C3.1 Generic or Industry Vibration Criteria 3
C3.2 Manufacturer’s vibration criteria 5
C3.3 Operating Theatres 6

C4 Demolition and Construction Activities 7

C5 Prediction of Vibration at the Hospital during Demolition /

Construction 8
C5.1 Hospital Location relative to zones of Demolition /
Construction 8
C5.2 Pathology Lab location 9
C5.3 Hospital structure 11
C5.4 Construction and Demolition Vibration Estimates 12
C5.5 Comparison of estimated vibration levels to the Criteria 14

C6 Mitigation 17
C6.1 Mitigation at Source 17
C6.2 Mitigation at Receiver 18
C6.3 Relocation 18

C7 Options for further investigation 19

C7.1 Baseline Vibration Levels 19
C7.2 Source to receiver vibration transfer confirmation 19
C7.3 Vibration monitoring 19

C8 Conclusions 20

Final | 15 June 2017

C1 Executive Summary
This report considers the effect of vibration caused by site demolition and
construction activity in the areas at the south west end of the hospital site on the
Pathology Lab and general hospital receivers. At this early programme stage a
contactor appointment has not been made and construction and demolition details
are not available; hence a desktop study has been carried out using published
empirical estimates of vibration sources and their transmission. The study aims to
show how indicative vibration levels derived from empirical data compare with
generic vibration acceptance criteria.
Comparison of vibration levels that are likely to be acceptable with estimated
vibration levels generated from demolition and construction shows that there
would be a significant risk to operation of the Pathology Lab and to other hospital
departments.
Without some form of mitigation the daily operation of the Pathology Lab will
undoubtedly be adversely affected.
It will be necessary to approach and select demolition and construction contractors
who are skilled, equipped and willing to meet the needs of a low vibration
environment of this kind.
Consultation with selected demolition and construction contractors will be needed
to satisfy both the needs of the Pathology Lab, the hospital and the impact of
mitigation measures on project timescales and cost.
Considering the minimum possible vibration that could be expected from
demolition / construction procedures, the level of estimated vibration in the
hospital is predicted to be reasonably low and only the nearest half of Pathology
to the works and Radiology is likely to be adversely affected.
Even if low vibration demolition / construction practices are used then the peak
vibration levels are still likely to adversely affect the whole of Pathology,
Radiology and any theatres that use surgical microscopy.
A number of enabling schemes are necessary for accommodation of various
hospital departments. As a result of demolition/construction activity occurring
during the Courtyard and Temporary Clinic block enabling schemes (ES3 and
ES4) the most onerous vibration levels are likely to occur. Located in the centre
of the hospital and in-front of the hospital respectively demolition / construction
activities are likely to produce perceivable vibration across the entire hospital site.
Detailed conclusions and discussion of mitigation are provided within this report.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A1

C2 Introduction
Ove Arup & Partners (Arup) has been appointed by Gleeds Management Services
Ltd. (Gleeds) as the civil, structural and mechanical engineer for the Jersey Future
Hospital project. Arup has also been appointed to assess the effects of demolition
and construction vibration on the existing hospital buildings, with priority being
given to the Pathology department.
This report provides a qualitative assessment of risk of disruption and suggests
methods for mitigating the disturbance due to vibration.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A2

C3 Vibration Criteria
Demolition / construction vibration has an effect which depends on its magnitude,
for example in order of decreasing vibration magnitude:
 Physical damage to the buildings and/or contents;
 Adverse comment from the building occupants (“human-comfort and
perception”) and,
 Disruption or impairment of experimental results / processes of sensitive
laboratory instruments.
It is inevitable that some of the construction and demolition activity will result in
perceptible vibration in some areas of the hospital, however, priority is given to
vibration sensitive spaces with criteria of response factor (RF) 2 or more onerous.

C3.1 Generic or Industry Vibration Criteria

Equipment functional performance vibration criteria, e.g. the VC criteria, define
the maximum acceptable level of vibration for a given process or piece of
equipment. The recommended VC criteria are defined in Table 1 below in terms
of generic vibration limits for instrument performance (VC) or in terms of human
comfort (RF) and are published in the ASHRAE handbook1.
The VC and RF criteria provide a standard format for expressing vibration criteria
and are typically also used to compare manufacturer’s criteria against.
The different departments in the hospital will have varying tolerances to vibration
for instance labs with precision equipment that carry out sensitive processes e.g.
histological sectioning, wards where comfort during night hours is required,
theatres where it’s critical operations are not disturbed by unwanted vibration and
radiology where sensitive imaging equipment e.g. MRI scanners, are likely to
have low vibration requirements.
A typical precision lab environment would target the VC-A criteria (0.05mm/s).
In the case of Pathology, the VC-A criteria would therefore be applicable and the
maximum tolerable vibration should be at least limited to an RMS velocity
magnitude of less than 0.1mm/s i.e. R=1 in accordance with HTM08012. Further
details on the vibration criteria for the equipment and processes specific to the
Pathology Lab equipment would need to be researched but it would be fair to
assume at this stage that it will be bounded by the generic VC-A and RF 1 criteria.
A typical ward environment should target RF < 2 (0.2mm/s) for comfort in
sleeping areas.

1
American Society of Heating (2011), Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
Handbook.
2
Department of Health, Specialist Services Health Technical Memorandum 08-01: Acoustics,
2013

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A3

A typical theatre environment should target the RF < 1 criteria so that vibration
would not be perceivable during critical work.
A typical radiology department would target the VC-C criteria (0.013mm/s), at
least in areas where low vibration is required to facilitate the precision imaging
that the equipment is required to perform.
Table 1 Generic vibration limits for instrument performance (VC) and human comfort
(RF).
Limit RMS Instrument Requirements / Human Comfort
Velocity
Amplitude
(mm/s)
R<8 0.8 Distinctly perceptible vibration. Appropriate for workshops,
general offices, retail, restaurants, airport terminals and other non-
sensitive areas.
R<4 0.4 Perceptible vibration. Appropriate for premium quality offices and
offices where precision tasks are to be undertaken, residential
buildings.
R<2 0.2 Barely perceptible vibration. Usually adequate for computer
equipment, probe test equipment, and microscopes less than 40x.
Residential buildings including sleeping areas.
R<1 0.1 Vibration not perceptible. Suitable in most instances for bench
microscopes up to 100x magnification, laboratory robots, hospital
operating rooms and critical work areas.
VC-A 0.05 Bench microscopes up to 400x magnification; optical and other
precision balances; micro balances; coordinate measuring
machines; metrology laboratories; optical comparators;
microelectronics manufacturing equipment; proximity and
projection aligners, etc.
VC-B 0.025 Microsurgery, eye surgery, neurosurgery; bench microscopes at
magnification greater than 400x; optical equipment on isolation
tables; microelectronic manufacturing equipment, such as
inspection and lithography equipment (including steppers) to 3
µm line widths
VC-C 0.013 Optical microscopes to 1000x; electron microscopes up to
30,000x magnification; microtomes; magnetic resonance imagers;
microelectronics manufacturing equipment, such as lithography
and inspection equipment to 1 µm detail size
VC-D 0.0064 Electron microscopes at magnification greater than 30,000x (SEM
and TEM); mass spectrometers; cell implant equipment;
microelectronics manufacturing equipment, such as aligners,
steppers, and other critical equipment for photolithography with
line widths of ½ μm; includes electron beam systems
VC-E 0.0032 Un-isolated laser and optical research systems; long path, small
target laser systems; microelectronics manufacturing equipment,
such as aligners, steppers, and other critical equipment for
photolithography with line widths of ¼ μm; includes electron
beam systems; electron-lithography systems working at
manometer scales

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A4

VC-F 0.0016 Appropriate for extremely quiet research spaces; generally

difficult to achieve in most instances, especially cleanrooms. Not
recommended for use as a design criterion, only for
characterisation. High end, high resolution electron microscopes.
VC-G 0.0008 Appropriate for extremely quiet research spaces; generally
difficult to achieve in most instances, especially cleanrooms. Not
recommended for use as a design criterion, only for
characterisation. High end, high resolution electron microscopes.

C3.2 Manufacturer’s vibration criteria

Manufacturer’s vibration criteria are specified by the equipment manufacturer or
vendor and might be published in room installation guidance or otherwise
obtained directly. These criteria might differ from the generic criteria.
For instance the Pathology Lab contains a number of potentially vibration
sensitive instruments. The client lead relocation works has supplied Arup with a
list of Pathology equipment for our review of vibration sensitivity. Other
departments that utilise potentially vibration sensitive equipment should likewise
consider establishing such a list.
The Pathology Lab equipment list can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Pathology Lab Equipment List
ID Description
1 Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Vitros 5600
2 Delfia Express
3 Sebia Capillarys 2/Hydrasys 2
4 Sysmex XN-2000
5 ACL TOP 300/500
6 Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Vision
7 BD BacTec XS
8 BD ProbeTec ET
9 Abbott Architect i2000 SR
10 Biomerieux Mini-Vidas
11 Cepheid Gene expert
12 Tissue-Tek Prisma/Film
13 Leica Bond 3
14 Assorted microscopes
15 Assorted balances
16 Water baths for histological sectioning

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A5

C3.3 Operating Theatres

The ASHRAE3 and HTM08014 guidance suggests that for operating theatres that
the vibration be limited to RF1 (0.1mm/s). However, under certain circumstances
vibration lower than 0.1mm/s can impact on microsurgery. For example, it has
been found5 that for some instances of surgical microscopy where cantilevered
microscope stands are used the vibration should be limited to 0.02mm/s (between
VC-C and VC-B) due to amplification of the vibration in the cantilever arms.

3
American Society of Heating (2011), Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE),
Handbook
4
Department of Health, Specialist Services Health Technical Memorandum 08-01: Acoustics,
2013
5
David Hiller, The prediction and mitigation of vibration impacts of tunnelling, Paper Number 5,
Proceedings of Acoustics 2011

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A6

C4 Demolition and Construction Activities

Demolition and construction activities and equipment are well known sources of
vibration and this is documented in literature such as:
 TRL Report 4296
 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) regression relationships, Hiller7
 Prediction of vibration from demolition activities, Wiss8
 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment report9
 Proceedings of Acoustics 2011, Franklin10
 BS5228-2:200911
The amount of vibration generated varies greatly depending on the different tools
being used or activity being carried out. The vibration generated is transmitted
through the ground in the form of waves. These waves are attenuated as they
travel through the ground, i.e. they decay in proportion to some power of the
distance from the source. This ground vibration is transmitted into the existing
buildings foundations and is then transmitted up through the buildings
superstructure to the first floor and upper levels. Some attenuation of vibration
generally occurs between the ground surface and the foundation slab. Some
amplification of the vibration generally occurs in the superstructure due to
structural modes or resonances.
Some typical demolition vibration sources include:
• Impact forces, due to material being dropped from height in order for
materials to be removed from site at ground level.
• General demolition activities, such as breaking concrete, excavators
grubbing up foundations.
• Concrete crusher, due the large volume of concrete. It is preferred that this
is located off-site because it is likely to produce high vibration, otherwise the level
of vibration it produces should be carefully assessed.
• General site equipment movements. This encompasses heavy machinery
operating over the site to demolish buildings and trucks removing debris from site.

6
D.H. Hiller and G.I. Crabb, Groundborne Vibration Caused by Mechanised Construction Works,
Transport Research Laboratory, 2000
7
Hiller, D M, A comparison of noise and vibration from percussive and bored piling, Proc
Underground Construction 2003, 213-224, 2003
8
Wiss, J F, Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, 1981
9
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. , Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final
Report, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995
10
Burgemeister, Fisher and Franklin, Measurement and Prediction of Construction Vibration
Affecting Sensitive Laboratories, Paper Number 33 Proceeding of ACOUSTICS, 2011
11
BS 5228-1:2009, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open
sitres – Part 2: Vibration, BSI

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A7

C5 Prediction of Vibration at the Hospital

during Demolition / Construction
Vibration levels in the operational hospital buildings surrounding the demolition
and construction works therefore depend on the following factors:
 Site activity (type of activity, type of tools, operation and duration)
 Frequency content of vibration created.
 Ground conditions: soil stiffness and damping, stratigraphy.
 Radiation damping or geometric attenuation.
 Distance between activity and receiver; elevation of activity relative to
receiver.
 Receiver building foundation and super-structure design.
Due to uncertainty in these factors, estimates have been made of the expected
levels of vibration.

C5.1 Hospital Location relative to zones of Demolition

/ Construction
The proposed area of demolition and construction is indicated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 also shows indicative distances of the demolition zone from the
operational hospital. At its nearest point the hospital is approximately 10m from
the demolition zone and extends to up to a maximum of approximately 100m plan
horizontal distance from the demolition boundary. The furthest point of
demolition is approximately 70m plan horizontal distance from the demolition
boundary and so the furthest plan horizontal distance between furthest points is
170m.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A8

~10m

~100m

~170m

Figure 1 - Plan indicating area of proposed demolition at floor level 1 and indicative
distances of demolition / construction from the hospital.

C5.2 Pathology Lab location

The Pathology Lab carries out precision activities that require a low vibration
environment, it is also situated adjacent to the construction zone, hence, is of
particular interest when the effects of vibration from demolition / construction are
considered. The proposed plan area of demolition and construction is indicated in
Figure 2 below. Figure 2 also shows indicative plan distances of the demolition
zone from the Pathology Lab. At its nearest point the Pathology Lab is
approximately 10m from the demolition zone and extends to up to a maximum of
approximately 25m plan distance. I.e. the furthest point in the Pathology Lab is
35m from the nearest point of demolition / construction. At its furthest point the
Pathology Lab is approximately 75m from the demolition zone and extends to up
to a maximum of approximately 25m plan distance. I.e. the furthest point in the
Pathology Lab is 100m from the furthest point of demolition / construction.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A9

Figure 2 - Plan indicating area of proposed demolition at floor level 1 and indicative
distances of construction from the Pathology Lab

The location of the laboratory equipment is shown in Figure 3 below. The

equipment is distributed throughout the floor plan with a number of items in
rooms at the nearest point to the demolition zone.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A10

Demolition Zone

Figure 3 Plan location of Pathology Lab equipment

C5.3 Hospital structure

The hospital has several floors and generally the structure is of reinforced
concrete construction. The design of floor slab is likely to be stiff, of high
frequency in regions requiring a low vibration environment e.g. the Pathology Lab
/ radiology / theatre.
Above ground level superstructure amplification of the ground bourne vibration is
likely to occur between the foundation and the levels above. Given the general
form of the building, it is likely that there will be several structural resonances in
the range 3 – 30Hz, which is likely to coincide with the ground vibration
frequencies.
Detailed analysis and/or testing would be necessary to evaluate the amplification.
Estimates have therefore been made from published literature12 which suggest the
gain would be in the range 5 – 13dB, corresponding to a linear increase on the
vibration levels in the range 1.8 – 4.6, from which we have selected a mean value
of 3.2.
There is also a reduction in vibration due to losses between the ground and the
foundation slab, this is dependent on the foundation structure and building size for
which we have assumed a piled foundation. First estimates have been made from
published literature13 which suggest the attenuation would be in the range -5.9 – -

12
P.M. Nelson, Transportation Noise Reference Book (Chapter 16), 1987
13
P.M. Nelson, Transportation Noise Reference Book (Chapter 16), 1987

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A11

7.8 dB corresponding to a linear factor on the vibration levels in the range 0.50 to
0.41, from which we have selected a mean value of 0.45.

C5.4 Construction and Demolition Vibration

Estimates
Vibration can be measured in a variety of ways and must relate to the specified
vibration limit. Figure 4 shows a time-history of vibration, or a signal, which is
reported as the RMS velocity (VRMS) over time. The vibration varies considerably
over time. Figure 4 shows three different vibration metrics: max max-hold, 1%
exceedance and linear average. The same measured data can be reported as
meeting the VC-A, D or E criteria using different “metrics”. Thus it is important
to specify both a limit and metric when assessing vibration performance.

Figure 4: Influence of different metrics on reported performance for the same data (1 hour
measurement)
Construction and demolition vibration does vary with time in reality and while the
maximum level is often published in the literature, see paragraph below, this level
might occur instantaneously or otherwise at least not all of the time. This varies
with source of course.
Construction and demolition vibration is normally expressed in literature using the
peak particle velocity metric (known as PPV) since it is well correlated to building
damage and can be related to human perception. The PPV is defined as the
maximum velocity during a given time interval, in the ground or on the structure
and considers all frequency content. The literature on construction vibrations
commonly refers to PPV.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A12

However, the PPV metric does not lend itself well to comparisons with equipment
criteria such as the VC criteria which are expressed as RMS vibration velocity.
As shown in Figure 4, the maximum max-hold is the most onerous measure of
vibration. However, since the construction and demolition vibrations are more
intermittent in nature (i.e. many discrete events, such as a truck entering site), the
spikes in velocity may result in a number of (say 10 or more) disruptive events
which may represent a problem for sensitive instruments. Thus, using the
maximum max-hold metric along with a low crest factor, which is the ratio of the
peak velocity to an RMS velocity, is considered an appropriate and conservative
approach which can then be compared directly to the VC vibration limits for this
initial assessment.
We have assumed a crest factor of 1.4 (i.e. VRMS = PPV/1.4), which is
conservative for all types of construction vibration. Using a crest factor of 1.4
relates to a sinusoidal vibration as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Crest factor for sinusoidal vibration signal

A prediction of the order-of magnitude of vibration levels for a range of

construction activities based upon the literature described in Section C4 is given
below in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows an estimate of RMS velocity for different
source to receiver distances on a log-log scale. Figure 6 does not take into account
any amplification that may occur due to structural modes or resonances.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A13

Figure 6: Order-of-magnitude vibration levels for a range of construction activities14

C5.5 Comparison of estimated vibration levels to the

Criteria
The estimated construction and demolition vibration levels within the hospital
buildings are shown in Figure 7, which takes account of amplification due to
structural modes or resonances and attenuation due to interaction with the
foundation structure (as described in Section C5.3).
The figure is further modified with a number of sources excluded. It is clear that
equipment and methods of demolition / construction need to be carefully chosen
to minimise risks to the operation of the hospital. In addition it is therefore
assumed that the following equipment / methods will be avoided:
 Pavement Breaker
 2 Ton Ball
 Vibratory Compaction
Hence, these vibration sources have been excluded from Figure 7.

14
All RF curves and the VC-A curve vary with frequency, in this case we have conservatively
selected the part of the curve with the lowest vibration value. These values assume a crest factor of
1.4 but shall be multiplied by a 3.18 factor if on an elevated floor to account for amplification, and
shall be multiplied by a 0.45 factor to account for attenuation due to interactions with the
foundation structure.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A14

Using Pathology as an example, the nearest region to demolition / construction

occupied by the Pathology Lab is indicated in Figure 7 for the distance range 10 to
35m from the source. It can be seen that the estimated vibration levels are above
both the VC-A and RF=1 vibration criteria that represent the most likely and best
case criteria that are applicable to the Pathology Lab. The furthest region of
demolition / construction from the Pathology Lab is indicated for the distance
range 75 to 100m from the source. It can be seen that the estimated vibration
levels are generally above the VC-A, and below the RF=1 criteria. (Assuming the
pavement breaker, 2 ton ball and vibratory compaction sources are avoided).

Figure 7 Order-of-magnitude vibration levels within the hospital buildings for a range of
construction activities.
Appendix C-3.2 expands upon Figure 7 to incorporate and visualise how the
estimated vibration levels might vary across the operational hospital’s site. The
plots in Appendix C-3.2 show the estimated vibration levels originating from a
line along the boundary. However, this is likely to be conservative and it should
be recognised that in general the vibration will not be occurring simultaneously
along the boundary. To represent this, additional plots have been made for
various discrete points in the demolition / construction zone superimposed upon a
plan of the site. The estimated vibration is plotted for both the maximum and
minimum of the envelope of the sources shown in Figure 7 (excluding the small
bulldozer). Also indicated on the plots are the assessment criteria. These criteria
are not confirmed and would be expected to evolve as the project progresses. The
criteria proposed are suitable for the existing functional space, however, it should
be recognised that the space is supported by an old structure and it is not known
whether the current environment is achieving these criteria levels. This is
something that could be investigated in the future through surveys.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A15

The plots are shown for both the ground and first level. The ground level
vibration estimates do not include the superstructure amplification factor whilst
those at level 1 do. The plots are not repeated for all levels, as the amplification
above level 1 will be similar, as will be the generic criteria assumptions.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A16

C6 Mitigation
It is inevitable that demolition and construction activities will produce a level of
vibration that is likely to be disruptive, especially where such activity is relatively
close to existing building operations and where those buildings house vibration
sensitive equipment. Possible considerations for mitigation are outlined below.

C6.1 Mitigation at Source

Work Scheduling: Where it is possible to schedule construction/demolition and
Pathology and other hospital activity to minimise time overlap then that would of
course remove the vibration source albeit with disruption to the schedule of each.
Arrange a programme of designated times, in coordination with the Pathology Lab
and other departments, when construction/demolition vibration may exceed the
specified criteria/vibration limits. High disturbance construction should be done
outside normal laboratory operating hours where possible or undertaken with
advance knowledge of end users such that they can manage their work
accordingly.
Site Planning: Access for heavy vehicles to the site, drop-off zones, start-up and
run-down of vibration equipment, and the like, shall be strategically positioned
away from sensitive receivers (laboratory instruments). The road surfaces shall be
smooth without bumps or potholes with speed limits (i.e. 10 miles/hour) in place
for all heavy machinery entering and leaving the site.
Demolition: Concrete munchers, saw cutting, hydro demolition, and the like are
preferred over the use of concrete breakers and jack (pneumatic or hydraulic)
hammers. Impact forces can be mitigated through controlling drop weight and
height and providing an impact mat, or can be avoided by removing materials by
lifting from the top-down.
It is noted that there is a balance between careful low vibration demolition
methods and minimizing the time of demolition. As discussed above, scheduling
may be used to agree on periods of high disturbance demolition activities.
However these higher levels of vibration must still be controlled to levels which
do not cause human discomfort/complaints.
Piling: The use of bored, screw piling or hydraulic press-in piles is strongly
recommended. Vibratory and impact piling methods should not be considered.
Excavation and Compaction: For rock excavation, the use of lower vibration
excavation techniques such as rock saws and ripping rather than breakers may be
required. Vibrating ground compaction is to be avoided.
Machinery: Machinery with rubber tyres, instead of tracks, shall be used. Care
shall be taken to avoid collision with walls, columns, and other in-place objects.
Cranes, etc. shall be used to lift and gently place heavy objects (to avoid impacts).

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A17

C6.2 Mitigation at Receiver

Work Scheduling: It may be possible to schedule Pathology and other
department activity to minimise time overlap with the construction/demolition
activities that present a risk.
Isolation of sensitive equipment: Install vibration isolation such as damper pads,
active vibration tables, optical tables, etc., if not already installed and where
practical. It should be noted that whilst pads may be the least expensive option
care should be taken as it is possible to make the situation worse without careful
assessment of the frequency for which isolation is supplied / required.

C6.3 Relocation
Relocation of the Pathology Lab with a view to increasing the distance from
construction as well as moving to the foundation slab level could be considered
where this is possible. Logistical and financial constraints may prevent wholesale
re-location of other hospital departments, however consideration should be given
to re-location of critical activities as far from the vibration source as possible and /
or to foundation level. Even if re-location is possible, the level of vibration may
be greater than under normal operational circumstances and the mitigation
measures described above should still be employed. The figures in Appendix C-
3.2 estimate how the hospital site may be affected by the demolition / construction
activities.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A18

C7 Options for further investigation

The project should consider the following options for further investigation.

C7.1 Baseline Vibration Levels

C7.2 Source to receiver vibration transfer

confirmation
This would involve testing on site to confirm the vibration of critical receiver
floor plates or structures in the existing hospital to a known force excitation
applied within the proposed construction/demolition site boundary. This data
would be used to confirm or correct assumptions made in this assessment.

C7.3 Vibration monitoring

This would involve a vibration monitoring system being installed with sensors
positioned on critical floor plates or structures within the existing hospital
building. This would enable vibration to be recorded throughout the demolition
and construction time periods and would provide objective data indicating
vibration magnitude, e.g. PPV, and other characteristics. The monitoring system
would report the data in the context of the criteria.
This could provide warning if site activity was leading to vibrations that area
approaching or indeed might exceed the criteria. This information would inform
decisions concerning intervention to stop or reschedule site activity.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A19

C8 Conclusions
This desktop study has indicated that vibration generated as a result of demolition
and construction present a significant risk to the processes carried out in the
hospital in general.
The magnitude of vibration as a function of distance from the source for a number
of discrete vibration point sources associated with demolition and construction
activities has been estimated (Section C5.4 and Section C5.5).
The figures in Appendix C-3.2 show that for the discrete vibration point sources,
when the minimum of the vibration source is considered, then the level of
estimated vibration is reasonably low and only the front half of Pathology (with
functional, generic criteria of VC-A to RF1) and Radiology (with a functional,
generic criterion of VC-C) is likely to be adversely affected.
When the maximum source is considered, when demolition / construction activity
is carried out close to the boundary then the half of the hospital nearest the
boundary is likely to be adversely affected. When the demolition /construction
activity is at the furthest point only Radiology (with a functional, generic criteria
of VC-C) is likely to be adversely affected and any theatres that use surgical
microscopy.
The figures in Appendix C-3.2 Section A11, A12, A13, A14 ; A27, A28, A29,
A30 show the results of demolition/construction activity occurring during the
Courtyard and Temporary Clinic block enabling schemes (ES3 and ES4). These
are the most onerous locations for the demolition / construction activity to occur
as they are located in the centre of the hospital and in-front of the hospital
respectively and are likely to produce perceptible vibration across the entire
hospital site.
The plots in Appendix C-3.2 limit the maximum source of vibration to that of a
large bulldozer and exclude equipment such as the 2 ton ball, pavement breaker
and vibratory compaction. If these were included then the vibration across the
entire hospital site would exceed acceptable working limits. This shows the
importance of choosing demolition and construction methods, equipment and
activities that produce as little vibration as possible within reason, and the
importance of choosing contractors who are willing and able to help develop
working practices for low vibration requirements.
It may be impractical to limit all demolition / construction activity to peak levels
similar to that which can be associated with a large bulldozer, and indeed even if
they can be limited to this level, without some form of mitigation the daily
operation of the Hospital will undoubtedly be adversely affected. Consultation
with demolition and construction contractors will be needed to satisfy both the
needs of the Hospital and the impact of mitigation measures on project timescales
and cost.
This report presents the risks associated with vibration from demolition /
construction and as such can be used to inform the discussion with possible
contractors and the hospital incumbents. The report also outlines a number of
mitigation options which should be considered and employed in order to achieve a

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A20

tolerable environment in the hospital. However, it is inevitable that some of the

construction and demolition activity will result in perceptible vibration.

Final | 15 June 2017 Page A21

J:\237000\237035-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-50 REPORTS\ENVIRONMENTAL\EIS MASTER COPY\SS APPENDICES\EIS VOLUME II - APPENDICES\APPENDIC C -
NOISE\APPENDIXC-3.1 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION VIBRATION STUDY.DOCX
Appendix C-3.2
Construction and Demolition
Vibration Study – Estimated
Vibration Levels Overlaid upon
Plans
States of Jersey Jersey Future Hospital Project
Acoustic Terminology

Contents

Appendix C-3.2 1

Construction and Demolition Vibration Desktop Study – Estimated

Vibration Levels Overlaid upon Plans 1

Contents 1
A1 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Maximum Source
Vibration Level 1
A2 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 2
A3 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Maximum Source
Vibration Level 3
A4 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels - Minimum Source
Vibration Level 4
A5 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Maximum Source
Vibration Level 5
A6 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 6
A7 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 7
A8 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 8
A9 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 9
A10 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 10
A11 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 11
A12 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 12
A13 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 13
A14 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 14
A15 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Maximum Source
Vibration Level along a vertical boundary line 15
A16 Level 0 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level along a vertical boundary line 16
A17 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 17

Final | 15 June 2017

J:\237000\237035-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-50 REPORTS\ENVIRONMENTAL\EIS MASTER COPY\EIS VOLUME II - APPENDICES\APPENDIC C - NOISE\APPENDIX C-3.2
ESTIMATED_VIBRATION_LEVELS.DOCX
States of Jersey Jersey Future Hospital Project
Acoustic Terminology

A18 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source

Vibration Level 18
A19 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 19
A20 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 20
A21 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 21
A22 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 22
A23 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 23
A24 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 24
A25 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 25
A26 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 26
A27 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 27
A28 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 28
A29 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level 29
A30 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level 30
A31 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels - Maximum Source
Vibration Level along a vertical boundary line 31
A32 Level 1 Estimated Vibration Levels – Minimum Source
Vibration Level along a vertical boundary line 32