Vibrational Date needed for Road Cold Planing equipment

[jatgg]

Ideal would be for a RoadTec Rx500, 50,000 pounds dry and 600 horsepower.
Any vibrational data, calculated or empirical, for similar machines, even if smaller or larger, would be helpful.
I am able to find PPV data for just about every type of road construction machinery except for cold planing/grinding/milling types.
I'd assume any such PPV data would have a min and max range, although again, any would be helpful.

In advance I'll respectfully ask for your tolerance as this is an area outside any expertise I may have and it does boggle my mind to discover this information to seem so very elusive.

ANY help, direction or information is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Ron]

jatgg...the reason you are having issues finding these data is that generally the data are innocuous and do not present an issue in general. The vibrations produced are localized and generally attenuated by adjacent materials or have no significant effect at a distance of 50 feet or so.

 

[dicksewerrat]

Call some large highway contractors and/or equipment sales people. Find out where one might be working . Get some vibration equipment and go measure. Or ask them if they have had to measure some vibrations. They may have some data to share.

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.

http://WWW.amlinereast.com

 

[jatgg]

My situation is quite different than attenuated by isolatory soil and distance.

Video showing it being used within 6 feet in the horizontal plane and about 6 feet in the vertical plane from a hyacinth foundation wall stacked on the creek bed.

http://s1059.photobucket.com/user/InoxRostrofi/media/Tdot2_zps38ad49ef.mp4.html

The weight limit of the bridge was exceeded during the process, zero regard for employee or the motoring public's safety... and the burden of proof is all mine alone.

I have the only de facto seismic data, in the form of this video, and no forensic surveys or studies were conducted prior.

It would seem, engineers do not exist that have this data and can help.

 

[jatgg]

Are there any protocols or guidelines for such a project that is federally funded?

Are there any that have been long standing established as accepted or best procedures and perhaps as such to be encompassed as included in any current language?

Where may I find them?

My research for 'road construction 101 do's and don'ts' seems to indicate the basics or accepted standards were established beginning in 1974 and up as late as 1992. I don't have the books, but, I am planning on taking a trip to the library to see if any of them mention cold planing equipment.

I don't have seismic equipment and after having two professionals consume lots of resources, most egregiously time of which I do not have so much of anymore, I really need the data so this can be wrapped up before the clock expires.

Having spoken with company owners and their respective chief engineers, I've pretty much gotten the 'deer in the headlight' answers and even told they build their machines to not vibrate. The manufacturer's Chief Engineer indicated to me he had no idea what I was asking when I requested PPV or vibrational impact numbers for any of their cold planers.

I would think such data would be a required spec in order to sell these machines to municipalities and military.

Color me pleased to learn that the rotating cutting assemblies of these machines are balanced, however, they do seem to generate, when operating, both high frequency seismic waves as well as a harmonic that seems marginal to be certain that even reinforced concrete would not be compromised by it, especially when the weight limit of the structure is being exceeded during the procedure.

The video shows only the first 2 minutes. Later on the cold planer is being led by a much larger tandem axle truck and again, through traffic is not prevented. Weight limit of the bridge is 80,000 pounds. The RX500 has a 58,000 pound full wet weight.

I can only imagine how severe it would have been had the planer been taking it's full 13" depth of cut. The vibration does appear to be more intense as the planer cut the road surface at the transition between the bridge's road surface and that the roadway not supported by the structure.

 

[jatgg]

"Ron (Structural)
2 Jul 13 21:13
jatgg...the reason you are having issues finding these data is that generally the data are innocuous and do not present an issue in general. The vibrations produced are localized and generally attenuated by adjacent materials or have no significant effect at a distance of 50 feet or so. "

The inconvenient truth in reply to your "should be common sense conclusion and statement" is that cold planers go first where vibratory rollers/compactors follow. PPV ranging from .210-.6 inches/second at various selective frequencies.

Oddly enough, even the whole body and hand arm acceleration numbers all manufacturers provide result in extracted PPV numbers far in excess of that which exceeds the damage threshold criteria prevailing over federally funded projects such as this one and proximate distances considered.

And those numbers are with respect to the operator stations that are isolated by various means to greatly attenuate and dampen them for the protection of the operator. What about the required ground support crew's exposure?

No forensic engineers will even discuss such plain truths. I guess the expert money and sustained position of "respect" is in writing favorable reports for municipalities and insurance companies.

However, cold planing generates accelerations, over a very broad band of frequencies, ranging from 20-325 hz, from 2g proper and well beyond. I did finally obtain some documents to verify as much and the amplitude of destructive frequencies between 100-325 Hz is shocking in comparison to compactors and such.

I can find not one cold planer operator that would affirm he would mill that late 80's designed bridge, much less within 6' of my Federally Designated Class IV structure, assuming they had to be responsible for any and all damages resulting.

However, the norm HERE are forensic engineers that dare not write a report that gives any respect to or mention of Federal Protocols, instead, refusing reverse calculations, even with empirical data from credible un-refuted sources supplied, citing State Blasting Protocls and PPV max of 2 inches per second being acceptable measured or calculated at any type of receiver, with no mention of frequency or durations, and anything less not expected to cause any damages.

Frankly, I'd think such a report, in regards to a federally funded project, should be criminal.

I've seen multiple similar reports which have resulted in many property owners who've been wrongfully forced to suffer the damages of criminal trespasses stemming from federal recovery money grabs, such as the one shown below by following the link.

http://s1059.photobucket.com/user/InoxRostrofi/library/TDOT?sort=3&page=1

First thumbnail to a ~2 minute video.


4 years and not one upright standing mammal willing to write a proof of damages report verifying even the Res Ispa Loquitor causal relationship despite comprehensive and compelling proof of property condition immediately prior and afterwards, not even to mention the obscenity of the non-discretionary and reckless conduct with respect to it's mathematical certain excesses well beyond the pale with regards to damage threshold criteria.

I wonder who lobbies to keep the Strict Liability Doctrines in place.