Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX E Chance Find Procedure
Purpose of the chance find procedure The chance find procedure is a project-specific procedure that outlines actions required if previously unknown heritage resources, particularly archaeological resources, are encountered during project construction or operation. A Chance Find Procedure, as described in IFC Performance Standard 8 and EBRD Performance Requirement 8 and law on Cultural Heritage of Georgia, is a process that prevents chance finds from being disturbed until an assessment by a competent specialist is made and actions consistent with the requirements are implemented.
Scope of the chance find procedure This procedure is applicable to all activities conducted by the personnel, including contractors, that have the potential to uncover a heritage item/site. The procedure details the actions to be taken when a previously unidentified and potential heritage item/site is found during construction activities. Procedure outlines the roles and responsibilities and the response times required from both project staff, and any relevant heritage authority.
Induction/Training All personnel, especially those working on earth movements and excavations, are to be inducted on the identification of potential heritage items/sites and the relevant actions for them with regards to this procedure during the Project induction and regular toolbox talks.
Chance find procedure If any person discovers a physical cultural resource, such as (but not limited to) archaeological sites, historical sites, remains and objects, or a cemetery and/or individual graves during excavation or construction, the following steps shall be taken: 1. Stop all works in the vicinity of the find, until a solution is found for the preservation of these artefacts, or advice from the relevant authorities is obtained; 2. Immediately notify a foreman. The foreman will then notify the Construction Manager and the Environment Officer (EO)/Environmental Manager (EM); 3. Record details in Incident Report and take photos of the find; 4. Delineate the discovered site or area; secure the site to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. In cases of removable antiquities or sensitive remains, a night guard shall be arranged until the responsible local authorities take over; 5. Preliminary evaluation of the findings by archaeologists. The archaeologist must make a rapid assessment of the site or find to determine its importance. Based on this assessment the appropriate strategy can be implemented. The significance and importance of the findings should be assessed according to the various criteria relevant to cultural heritage such as aesthetic, historic, scientific or research, social and economic values of the find; 6. Sites of minor significance (such as isolated or unclear features, and isolated finds) should be recorded immediately by the archaeologist, thus causing a minimum disruption to the work schedule of the Contractor. The results of all archaeological work must be reported to the Ministry/Agency, once completed. 7. In case of significant find the Agency/Ministry (Agency for Protection of National Heritage or Archaeological Research Centre, hereinafter referred to as Heritage
402 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
team) should be informed immediately and in writing within 7 days from the find (ref.law on heritage protection). 8. The onsite archaeologist provides the Heritage team with photos, other information as relevant for identification and assessment of the significance of heritage items. 9. The Ministry must investigate the fact within 2 weeks from the date of notification and provide response in writing. 10. Decisions on how to handle the finding shall be taken by the responsible authorities. This could include changes in the layout (such as when finding an irremovable remain of cultural or archaeological importance) conservation, preservation, restoration and salvage; 11. Construction works could resume only after permission is granted from the responsible authorities. 12. In case no response received within the 2 weeks period mentioned above, this is considered as authorisation to proceed with suspended construction works.
One of the main requirements of the procedure is record keeping. All finds must be registered. Photolog, copies of communication with decision making authorities, conclusions and recommendations/guidance, implementation reports ± kept.
Additional information Management options for archaeological site x Site avoidance. If the boundaries of the site have been delineated attempt must be made to redesign the proposed development to avoid the site. (The fastest and most cost-effective management option) x Mitigation. If it is not feasible to avoid the site through redesign, it will be necessary to sample it using data collection program prior to its loss. This could include surface collection and/or excavation. (The most expensive and time-consuming management option.) x Site Protection. It may be possible to protect the site through the installation of barriers during the time of the development and/or possibly for a longer term. This could include the erection of high visibility fencing around the site or covering the site area with a geotextile and then capping it with fill. The exact prescription would be site- specific.
Management of replicable and non-replicable heritage Different approaches for the finds apply to replicable and non-replicable heritage.
Replicable heritage Where tangible cultural heritage that is replicable23 and not critical is encountered, mitigation measures will be applied. The mitigation hierarchy is as follows: x Avoidance; x Minimization of adverse impacts and implementation of restoration measures, in situ; x Restoration of the functionality of the cultural heritage, in a different location;
23 Replicable cultural heritage is defined as tangible forms of cultural heritage that can themselves be moved to another location or that can be replaced by a similar structure or natural features to which the cultural values can be transferred by appropriate measures. Archaeological or historical sites may be considered replicable where the particular eras and cultural values they represent are well represented by other sites and/or structures.
403 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
x Permanent removal of historical and archaeological artefacts and structures ; x Compensation of loss - where minimization of adverse impacts and restoration not feasible.
Non-replicable heritage Most cultural heritage is best protected by in situ preservation, since removal is likely to result in irreparable damage or even destruction of the cultural heritage.
Nonreplicable cultural heritage24 must not be removed unless all of the following conditions are met: x There are no technically or financially feasible alternatives to removal; x The overall benefits of the project conclusively outweigh the anticipated cultural heritage loss from removal; and
Any removal of cultural heritage must be conducted using the best available technique advised by relevant authority and supervised by archaeologist.
Human Remains Management Options The handling of human remains believed to be archaeological in nature requires communication according to the same procedure described above.
There are two possible courses of action: x Avoid. The development project is redesigned to completely avoid the found remains. An assessment should be made as to whether the remains may be affected by residual or accumulative impacts associated with the development, and properly addressed by a comprehensive management plan. x Exhumate. Exhumation of the remains in a manner considered appropriate by decision makers. This will involve the predetermination of a site suitable for the reburial of the remains. Certain ceremonies or procedures may need to be followed before development activities can recommence in the area of the discovery.
EMERGENCY CONTACTS Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection Address: 4 Sanapiro Street, 0105, Tbilisi, Georgia; Fax: 995 32 2999966, 2932235; E-Mail: [email protected]
National Agency for Cultural Heritage of Georgia 27 Atoneli street, 0105 Tbilisi, Georgia: tel/fax: +(99532) 2932411 E mail: [email protected]
Archaeological Research Centre under the Georgian National Museum 3, Rustaveli Avenue0105 Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: +(995 32) 2998022; Fax: +(995 32) 2982133 E-Mail: [email protected]
24 Nonreplicable cultural heritage may relate to the social, economic, cultural, environmental, and climatic conditions of past peoples, their evolving ecologies, adaptive strategies, and early forms of environmental management, where the (i) cultural heritage is unique or relatively unique for the period it represents, or (ii) cultural heritage is unique or relatively unique in linking several periods in the same site. Examples of non-replicable cultural heritage may include an ancient city or temple, or a site unique in the period that it represents.
404 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX F Noise Barrier Locations
405 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
406 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
407 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
408 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
409 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
410 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX G State Forest Fund
Wood Resource Listing
Forest Fund Territorial Authority with the right of management - LEPL Imereti Forestry Service of National Forestry Agency Forest district - Zestaponi - Kharagauli , forest district- Satsable Quarter_31, district - former Sak.forest; area _5086m2, Slope inclination (degree)-15.
Quantity of the wood resources of 8 cm and more taxation diamter subject to recording (in pieces), volume (m3), according to the diameters and varieties of wood resources
# Note Volume (v) Diameter (D) species (Latin) Number of trees Species (variety) (variety) Species
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 zelkova 8 9 0.135 VI-rank 10 6 0.21 (Red list) 12 14 0.714 14 13 0.975 16 12 1.188 18 2 0.27 20 5 0.85
Zelkovacarpinifolia 24 3 0.78 32 1 0.5
Total zelkova: 65 5.622
2 Acacia 8 16 0.336 IV-rank 10 9 0.369 12 15 0.96 16 1 0.123 20 1 0.21 Acacia dealbata
411 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
Total Acacia: 42 1.998
3 ashtree 8 2 0.024 IV-rank 10 3 0.114 12 1 0.056 Fraxinus excelsior
Total ashtree: 6 0.194
4 alder 8 1 0.019 V-rank 10 1 0.038 12 1 0.058 14 1 0.088 16 0.36
Alnus barbata 3 20 2 0.4
Total alder: 9 0.963
5 willow 12 3 0.153 VI-rank 14 2 0.15 16 2 0.198 18 2 0.27 20 12 2.04 24 5 1.3 28 1 0.37
Salix magnifica 32 1 0.5 36 1 0.67
Total willow: 29 5.651
oriental 6 0.238 VIII-rank hornbeam 8 14 10 10 0.3 12 12 0.516 14 10 0.62 16 3 0.246 18 2 0.222 0.288
Carpinus orientalis 20 2
Total oriental hornbeam: 53 2.43
Grand total: 204 16.858 In addition to the above, the wood resource of less than 8 cm diamter Note
412 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
was also recorded with the following quantity: zelkova 150 unit 0.01 m3 Red list Acacia 110 unit 0.008 m3 oriental hornbeam 80 unit 0.01 m3 oak Geo. 15 unit 0.001 m3 hawthorn 40 unit 0.002 m3 holly 22 unit 0.001 m3
total 417 unit 0.032 m3
621 16.89 m3 grand total unit Date of preparation of listing: 20.12.2017.
413 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
414 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
Wood Resource Listing
Forest Fund Territorial Authority with the right of management - LEPL Imereti Forestry Service of National Forestry Agency Forest district - Zestaponi - Kharagauli , forest district- Satsable Quarter_34, district - former Sak.forest; area _34869 m2, Slope inclination (degree) -15-25.
Quantity of the wood resources of 8 cm and more taxation diamter subject to recording (in pieces), volume (m3),according to the diamters and varieties of wood resources
# Note Volume (v) Diameter (D) Number of trees Species (variety) (variety) Species (variety) Species
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 hornbeam 8 18 0.27 VI-rank 10 7 0.231 12 24 1.224 14 6 0.45 16 16 1.584 18 16 2.16 20 31 5.27 24 8 2.08 28 6 2.22 Carpinus caucasica 32 2 1 36 2 1.34 40 1 0.84
Total hornbeam: 137 18.669
2 Oak Geo. 12 2 0.09 VI-rank 14 1 0.068
iberica 16 1 0.09 20 1 0.157 24 1 0.256 Quercus 28 1 0.356
415 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
32 2 1 40 1 0.78 44 1 0.97
Total oak: 11 3.767
3 crab apple 16 1 0.099 VI-rank 20 1 0.17
Malus sylvestris
Total wild apple: 2 0.269
4 alder 8 13 0.247 V-rank 10 2 0.076 12 14 0.812 16 4 0.48 18 13 2.08 20 16 3.2 24 0.3
Alnus barbata 1 28 5 2.05 32 1 0.55 36 1 0.73
Total alder: 70 10.525
5 hazel 8 20 0.3 VI-rank 10 14 0.462 12 14 0.714 20 2 0.34
Total hazel: Corylus avellana 50 1.816
common 6 0.051 VI-rank pear 12 1 20 2 0.34 28 1 0.37 32 1 0.5 36 1 0.67
Pyrus communis Total common pear: 6 1.931
oriental 7 s 0.527 VIII-rank orie inus ntali hornbeam Carp 8 31
416 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
10 17 0.51 12 8 0.344 14 4 0.248 16 1 0.082
Total oriental hornbeam: 61 1.711
8 chestnut 8 13 0.156 VI-rank
10 8 0.184 (red list) 12 3 0.135 14 2 0.136 16 6 0.54 18 8 0.992 20 11 1.727 24 7 1.792 28 6 2.136 32 2 1
Castanea sativa 36 3 1.869 40 8 6.24 48 4 4.76 52 2 2.84 56 2 3.34
Total chestnut: 85 27.847
9 Lime tree 8 1 0.012 V-rank 10 1 0.034 12 7 0.392 14 2 0.168 16 2 0.224 18 3 0.45 20 7 1.323 28 1 0.412 32 1 0.556 36 1 0.723 Tilia caucasica 40 3 2.736 44 1 1.134 56 1 1.93 60 1 2.26
Total lime tree: 32 12.354
417 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
10 maple 8 1 0.012 VI-rank 20 3 0.471 24 1 0.256 32 1 0.5 36 2 1.246 Acer Acer campestre 52 1 1.42
Total maple: 9 3.905
11 taller ash 8 9 0.108 V-rank 12 4 0.224 14 4 0.336 16 5 0.56 18 3 0.45 24 1 0.279 36 1 0.723 Fraxinus excelsior 40 3 2.736 52 1 1.64
total taller ash: 31 7.056
12 bladder nut 8 7 0.126 VII-rank
10 8 0.248 (red list) 12 18 0.846
colchica 0.335 Staphylea 14 5
Total bladder nut: 38 1.555
13 yew-tree 10 1 0.031 VII-rank (red list)
Taxus baccata
Total yew-tree: 1 0.031
VII-rank 14 zelkova 8 4 0.072 10 4 0.124 (red list) 0.094 Zelkova Zelkova 12 2 carpinifolia 16 2 0.18
Total zelkova: 12 0.47
418 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
15 Wild plum 8 2 0.03 VI-rank 10 4 0.132 12 1 0.051 16 2 0.198
insititiaPrunus 32 1 0.5
total wild plum: 10 0.911
16 hawthorn 8 2 0.036 VII-rank 10 4 0.124 12 1 0.047 0.18 Crataegus 16 2 microphylla 32 1 0.466
Total hawthorn: 10 0.853
17 cedar 16 5 0.35 VI-rank 20 19 4.56 24 15 11.55 28 22 13.64 32 29 25.81 36 15 12.45 40 5 5.35 Cedrus deodara 44 6 8.04 48 4 6.6 52 1 1.99
Total cedar: 121 90.34
18 Acacia 8 37 0.777 IV-rank 10 16 0.656 12 41 2.624 14 11 1.034 16 22 2.706 18 25 4.25 20 84 17.64 24 83 25.73 Acacia dealbata 28 47 20.21 32 19 10.83 36 8 6 40 2 1.84
419 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
44 2 2.22 56 1 1.84
total Acacia: 398 98.357
tree of 19 0.242 V-rank heaven 8 11 12 14 0.798 16 11 1.21 18 4 0.56 20 10 1.8 0.84
ailanthus altissima 24 3 28 1 0.4
Total tree of heaven: 54 5.85
20 Elm 8 2 0.036 VII-rank 12 1 0.047 20 5 0.725 24 2 0.466 28 2 0.666 Ulmus foliacea 32 1 0.466
Total elm: 13 2.406
Circassian 21 0.015 VI-rank walnut 8 1 20 1 0.17 (red list) 40 1 0.84
juglans regia
Total Circassian walnut: 3 1.025
22 Fig-tree 12 2 0.094 VII-rank 16 2 0.198
Ficus carica
Total fig-tree: 4 0.292
23 honey-locust 12 1 0.047 VI-rank 20 1 0.17
caspica gleditschia
Total honey-locust: 2 0.217
420 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
24 mulberry tree 8 6 0.108 VII-rank 16 3 0.27 24 3 0.699 28 1 0.333 morus alba
Total mulberry tree: 13 1.41
25 asp 56 1 2.02 V-rank
Populus alba
Total asp: 1 2.02
26 willow 20 1 0.145 VII-rank
Salix magnifica
Total willow: 1 0.145
27 persimmon 8 13 0.234 VII-rank 10 4 0.124 12 9 0.423 14 5 0.335 16 4 0.36 18 4 0.48
Diospyros kaki 20 8 1.16 24 1 0.233 28 1 0.333
Total persimmon: 49 3.682
Grand total: 1224 299.414
In addition to the above, the wood resource of less than 8 cm diamter Note was also recorded with the following quantity: m 25 unit 0.001 hornbeam 3
421 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
m 5 unit 0.001 Oak Geo. 3 m 1550 unit 0.4 hazel 3 m 900 unit 0.002 blackberry 3 m 13 unit 0.001 persimmon 3 m 250 unit 0.005 bladder nut 3 m 7 unit 0.001 Fig-tree 3 m 51 unit 0.002 elm 3 m 80 unit 0.005 tree of heaven 3 m 41 unit 0.002 mulberry tree 3 m 12 unit 0.001 maple 3 m 550 unit 0.03 oriental hornbeam 3 m 2 unit 0.001 pine-tree. 3 m 5 unit 0.001 crab apple 3 m 10 unit 0.002 wild plum 3 m 15 unit 0.001 ash-tree 3 m 5 unit 0.001 wild cherry 3 m 335 unit 0.05 hawthorn 3 m 135 unit 0.005 cornel 3 m 50 unit 0.004 laurel cherry 3 m 55 unit 0.001 winterberry 3 m 1160 unit 0.03 greenbrier 3 m 100 unit 0.02 Acacia 3 m red 9 unit 0.001 zelkova 3 list m red 22 unit 0.002 chestnut tree 3 list
m 5387 unit 0.57 Total 3
m 6611 299.984 Grand total: unit 3
Date of preparation of the listing: 20.12.2017.
422 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
423 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
424 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX H
Noise Barrier Cost Estimate
425 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
426 Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
APPENDIX I
Modeling of Vibration generated by tunneling activities in the calcarenitic formations along the tunnel TUN-4006 of F4 section
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
1. GENERAL APPROACH IN ANALYSIS
This report refers to the study carried out in order to estimate and evaluate the critical environmental issues, in terms of vibration, which will be generated by the construction of the new highway and the related tunneling activities in the carbonatic and volcanic formation formations.
The goal is to estimate of vibration levels during Road construction generated by those processes involving the use of all the categories of machinery (Bull Dozers, Motor Graders, Wheel Excavator, Wheel Loader, Vibro Roller, Tandem Roller, Roller Tire, Pneumatic Hammer, Dump Truck) necessary to complete the work. In particular, the analysis to evaluate the level of vibrations in nearby houses has been carried out by the following steps: x Estimating/determining the vibration levels expected in the buildings as a result of the construction works of the new road, using a forecasting model based reference data sets; x Verifying the reliability of simulated values by comparison with the permissible limits posed by international reference standards; x Identification of monitoring during construction and post-operam and mitigation measures (if necessary).
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
2. FRAMEWORK OF IMPACT PROBLEMS AND PROVIDED ACTIVITIES Vibration problems during the construction phase are the result of the direct emission of vibrations generated by the working activities and by the emission of low frequency noise, as represented in term of cause-effect in Table 1.
Problems Principal causal factors Potential effects
Demolition of rock banks with jackhammers, sledgehammers Vibrations transmitted Excavations by mechanical means from the ground to the Vibration Carryovers by mechanical means structural elements of Compaction embankment substrates buildings, with the made with vibro-rollers or rollers emission of noise Transit of heavy vehicles (Dump Truck, through solids &RQFUHWH0L[HU7UXFN«
Vibrations structural elements (windows and Low frequency IXUQLWXUH¶V ZLWK Machines in the construction site noise emission emission of noise in correspondence of the resonance frequencies Table 1 - Causal factors and potential impacts
In general, the aspects influencing the level of vibro-acoustic noise in receptor buildings are mainly the following (see Table 2):
Factor Mode of influence
Nature and characteristics of the vibrations are more expected in the presence of soil rigid subsoil and rock Distance between plano-altitude vibrations tend to decay by the distance from their of construction sites and building source according to an exponential curve foundations Features of the foundations of The loss of energy of vibration due to the coupling buildings with foundation is greater in case of high-bearing foundations,± i.e. bigger is the bearing capacity of foundation more vibration energy of can be absorbed. The coupling losses also depend on the type of foundation Structural characteristics of the vibrations inside the building are lower with the buildings increasing mass of the building Table 2: Factors and Modes of Influence in Vibration Transmission
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
3. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS
To produce a significant effect, the sources of vibration must be in proximity of to the buildings and according to the scientific literature no more than a few tens of meters.The effects of vibrations in buildings can range from a nuisance to exposed people, to architectural or structural damage.
Vibration sources such as construction activities can cause discomfort to the residents of buildings and in some cases could be of possible of potential damage to structures, especially in the presence of particularly critical structural conformation and/or use).
In general structural damage to the building caused by vibration phenomena are extremely rare and almost generally generated by the contribution of other factors. Other forms of GDPDJH GHILQHG ³WKUHVKROG OHYHO LV WKH RQH WKDW ZLWKRXW FRPSURPLVLQJ WKH structural safety of the buildings, can cause a reduction of the value or the use. The damage threshold takes the form of cracks in the plaster, enhancements of existing cracks, damage of architectural elements.
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
4. REFERENCE STANDARDS
There are several technical standards, which constitute a useful reference for the evaluation of the disturbance and damages caused by vibration phenomena.
For the disturbance to people, the main references are: ƒ ISO 2631 / Part 2 "Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration ", ƒ UNI 9614 regulation "Measurement of vibrations in buildings and evaluation criteria of the disorder."
For damage to the buildings the main references are: ƒ UNI 9916 "Criteria for measuring and assessing the effects of vibration on buildings", ƒ DIN 4150 and BS 7385.
The above standards provides a guide for the selection of appropriate methods of measurement, data processing and evaluation of the vibratory phenomena for the evaluation of the effects of vibration on buildings (risk of structural damage), with reference to their structural response and architectural integrity.
The physical quantities used to quantify the effects of vibration on humans and on building structures are described below. Induced Vibratory phenomena are the motions of structures (in this case building and constructions) at frequencies ranging from 1 to and 80 Hz. The characterization is carried out in terms of effective average value (RMS) of the speed (in mm/s) or the acceleration (in mm/s2). Speed is usually used to evaluate the effects of vibrations on buildings, and acceleration (weighted) to assess the human perception. Measurement, are normally done by accelerometers, providing the level of acceleration, or "geophones", providing a signal proportional to the speed. ConYHUWLQJ WKH DFFHOHUDWLRQ YDOXHV³D´WR WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ YDOXHV RIVSHHG³Y´ FDQ EH GRQHKDYLQJWKHIUHTXHQF\³I´E\WKHUHODWLRQY DʌI According to the noise analysis, both speed values and acceleration are evaluated on the scale of dB, by the relations: a L 20log where a 0.001mm = 10-6 m/s2 acc 0 s 2 a0
v L 20log where v 1106 mm vel 0 s v0
ACCELERATION LEVEL (dBpa) VELOCITY (mm/s) (mm/s2) DESTINATIO Z XY N OF USE Long Crossin Long Crossin Axi Axe . g . g s s
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
Critical 74 71 5.0 3.6 0,10 0,28 areas Residential buildings 77 74 7.0 5.0 0,14 0,40 (night) Residential buildings 80 77 10.0 7.2 0,20 0,56 (day) Offices 85 83 20.0 14.4 0,40 1,10
Factories 92 89 40.0 28.8 0,80 2,20
Table 3: Values and limit levels of acceleration in weight of vibration disturbance (UNI 9614 ± DIN 4150-2).
Velocity of vibration in mm/s * Measur ement Measurement at the at the foundation last Category Types of constructions floor Frequency ranges (Hz) Various 10 50 ÷ < frequen ÷ 100 10 cies 50 ** Buildings used for 20 commercial purposes, 40 ÷ 1 20 ÷ 40 industrial buildings and 50 40 similar Residential buildings and 5 ÷ 15 ÷ 2 5 15 similar 15 20 Buildings very sensitive to vibrations, not included in the 3 ÷ 8 ÷ 3 3 8 previous categories and of 8 10 great intrinsic value * Is the maximum of the three componentes of the velocity at the point of measurement ** Frequencies greater of 100 Hz should be referred to this column Table 4: Reference values for the speed of vibration to evaluate the action of short duration vibrations on buildings (UNI 9916 ± DIN 4150-3)
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BUILDINGS The present study has the goal to estimate the induced vibrations in the buildings during the construction phase and the evaluation in terms of disturbance to people (UNI 9614, DIN 4150-2) and damage to buildings (UNI 9916, DIN 4150-3). The following lists the procedural steps followed:
1. Identification of the potentially impacted buildings and evaluation of their distance from the construction sites of the new Road. 2. Analysis of the highway project in correspondence of settlements and buildings Analysis of the geotechnical characteristics of the foundation soils and bedrock 3. List of construction machines used in the construction of the highway in correspondence areas of interest. Analysis of about the vibrations spectra generated by the used construction machines. 4. Estimation of surface vibration levels using, in order to evaluate the attenuation due to the propagation of waves in the ground, the formulations proposed in the literature (for example Dong-Soo Kim, Jin-Sun Lee and GP Wilson). 5. Analysis literature data concerning the propagation of vibrations to the interior of buildings, in order to obtain transfer relationships of acceleration levels between exterior and interior building for various types of buildings. 6. Estimate of inside buildings vibration by application of the transfer function evaluation of vibration levels inside buildings by comparison with the limits set by the regulations. 7. Identification of critical points and possible mitigation actions.
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
6. EMISSION SPECTRA OF THE WORKSITE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENTS The vibration emissions in the construction phase are widely variable in relation to the type of equipment/operating machinery employed, to the context of use and to the operator. In this study we were used both data source bibliographic either data directly acquired through measures carried out in construction of large works in Italy.
As regards the bibliographic data, it was in particular used the volume LH Watkins - "Environmental impact of roads and traffic" - Appl. Science Publ., which represents a set of experimental data on the emission of vibrations by various types of construction machines, used in road construction.
On Table below is shown the acceleration levels in dB at various frequencies of certain construction machinery that have greatest impact (Hydraulic Hammer and Roller Compactor), measured at 5m and 2m away from the source of vibration.
Other machinery type Dozer, Motor Grader, Wheel Excavator, Wheel Loader, Dump Truck have lower levels of acceleration and therefore are not able to create vibrations that can exceed the limits set by the standard.
The frequency of vibration produced by equipment is expressed in Hz, and level of vibration is expressed in dB.
H 1.2 3.1 12. 31. 1 1.6 2 2.5 4 5 6.3 8 10 16 20 25 40 50 63 80 z 5 5 5 5 Pneumatic hammer ± reference distance: 5 m d 10 10 10 70 68 70 71 72 76 77 81 87 98 88 85 98 95 97 101 102 B 0 3 1 Roller Compactor ± reference distance: 2 m d 74. 77. 75. 75. 76. 77. 76. 76. 77. 79. 81. 96. 91. 82. 96. 90. 104 97 96 97.6 B 9 5 8 0 2 8 3 7 7 2 9 2 0 6 1 6 .0 .4 .1 Heavy Truck ± reference distance: 10 m d 69. 71. 0 0 0 40 40 41 41 42 47 52 54 56 62 79 73 72 80 78 B 5 6 Wheel Loader ± reference distance: 10 m d 53. 57. 69. 84. 84. 83 0 0 0 52 52 52 55 54 61 62 66 78 83 78 B 6 6 5 6 6 .5 Tracked Machines ± reference distance: 10 m d 79. 78. 75. 91. 0 0 0 69 69 69 69 71 68 92 96 96 96 96 97 96 B 5 5 5 6 Table 5: Levels of vibration of various machinery on respect of the frequency.
Notice that max amplitude of vibration occurs at frequencies range from 25 to 50 Hz. This frequencies range was considered in the analysis.
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
In Picture below are shown acceleration spectrums, of some machinery measured at 5m distance from the source of vibration in which it can be noted that the Hydraulic Hammer and the Drum Roller are machinery greatest impact, with acceleration levels emitted around 100dB for good part of the spectrum.
Figure 1: Acceleration spectrum of different machinery.
Section F4 of Khevi-Ubisa-Shorapani-Argveta section (E60 Highway) Environmental Impact Assessment
7. DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSOIL
Due to vertical in homogeneity of the subsoil, carbonatic and volcanic formations covered by a weathered/alterated material and alluvial soil, it can be assumed that important attenuations and modification of spectrum ±toward lower frequencies- with will occur at the transition between the competent (hard) formation and the alterated layer/alluvia- vegetal soil where the shallow foundations of buildings are inserted.
The situation of the uppermost part of the subsoil ± arable, alterated and alluvial- can be represented by the average values shown below, obtained by the geotechnical investigations and geophysical measurements.
It is also important to consider the below formula and table showing the formula of attenuation and some typical damping parameters attenuation due to the absorption of the ground
ZK xx ª 0 º 2c At 20log «e » ¬ ¼
Where: Ȧ ʌI is the pulsation wave (with f = frequency in Hz) c is the speed of wave propagation in the soil in m / s Ș is the absorption factor of the soil
Soil type Ș Rock 0.01 Sand, 0.1 gravel Silt, Clay 0.2 ± 0.5 Table 7: Values of the damping parameter as a function of the soil type
In the above expression the exponential term represents dissipation phenomena of mechanical energy, which is dependent on the frequency, on the propagation velocity and on the loss mean factor. This means that the high frequencies are extinguished after a short distance, while lower frequencies propagate at greater distances.
In particular for the overburden soil above the calcarenitic formation the level of DFFHOHUDWLRQDWWKHGLVWDQFH³U´IURPDSRLQWVRXUFHRIHQHUJ\LVJLYHQE\