# Vibration Analysis and Empirical Law Definition for Different Equipment in a Civil Construction
## 1 Introduction
### Literature Review
Besides, it analyses individual vibration effects, not the global effect of several equipment working at the same time. In this regard, [PERSON] et al. [28] suggested different \(\gamma\) coefficients for rock depending on the type of wave, body or surface, and for poor rock mass that still needs blasting operations. The effect of vibration to constructions has attracted the attention of many researchers over time, focused primarily on the potential damage from mining and blasting [29]. [PERSON] et al. [30] gathered an interesting revision of the empirical equations developed in recent decades to improve the vibration prediction caused by blasting. Currently, there are many different standards used depending on the type of construction, structural conditions and age [24; 31], including specific criteria for sensitive and historic buildings [2; 32]. There is also an extensive knowledge of vibrations generated in linear constructions such as roads or railways. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [33] measured vibrations from several types of construction equipment in a controlled experiment, while [PERSON] et al. [26] and [PERSON] et al. [34], provided a national approach to assessing vibrations from construction equipment in the USA. Some literature is focused on defining the peak particle velocity (PPV) depending on the type of equipment [35; 36]. For instance, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [37] and [PERSON] et al. [38] developed an expression to determine the vibration generated by a roller drum at a short distance, taking into account the length of the roller drum. Moreover, [PERSON] et al. [34] proposed an empirical equation to predict vibration from pile driving. [PERSON] [2] also proposed an expression for the impact hammer based on experimental data. However, several machines work at the same time usually, which is necessary to analyze the overall vibration impact. All this knowledge has fostered the development of international standards to provide guidance for building damage from mechanized construction, as well as blasting. The most common are the following: German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999, British Standard BS 7385-2:1993 and Swiss Standard VSS-SN640-312a:1992, all taking into account the effect on sensitive or historical constructions in all of them, but with different approaches. Additional research has been done regarding the maximum allowable vibration velocity, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [39], that defines different allowable velocities for transient sources and continuous or frequent intermittent sources. On the other hand, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40] considered that the maximum velocity permitted depends on the type of ground where the historical building is placed. Several methods to reduce the vibration are proposed. One of the most common among them is a wave barrier, which cut the wave transmission from the source to the receiver. Wave barriers must be very deep and long to be effective, and they are not cost-effective for temporary applications such as pile driving vibration mitigation [15]. Other measures or elements, like crushing equipment when working in concrete or hard rock can be used to reduce the vibration from a hydraulic breaker, however, it cannot always be applied [15]. Other more general measures such as maintenance of the machines, reducing the time that different equipment are working simultaneously or their size can also be evaluated, but it is impossible to avoid the whole problem, and it is often not feasible [14].