Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 5280 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doe ID : 013170210008 Type : REL Kind : ORDINANCE Recorded : 11/ 17/2009 at 03 : 27 : 12 PM Fee Amt : $40 . 00 Pace 1 of 8 Washington Countv . AR Bette Stamps circuit Clerk I Flle2009-00036590 I ORDINANCE NO. 5280 AN ORDINANCE TO PREVENT INJURY OR ANNOYANCE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF FAYETTEVILLE BY REGULATING ROCK QUARRYING FACILITIES SO THAT THESE FACILITIES WILL NOT BE NUISANCES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas recognizes the need for rock quarries to supply necessary road building material within and near the corporate limits of Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has listened to experts and citizens and determined that rock blasting, rock breaking, rock crushing, and dump truck tailgate banging could cause nuisance effects upon nearby structures (especially homes) and their inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has also learned and determined that without the reasonable regulations required by this ordinance an operating rock quarry can cause vibrations, dust, ground upheaval, loud noises, fumes and other deleterious effects within a mile from the quarry to such an extent that the quarry would be a nuisance to Fayetteville citizens; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has also heard from citizens living near an existing and operating rock quarry and determined that unregulated rock blasting, rock breaking, rock crushing, dump truck tailgate banging and other rock quarry activities would be a nuisance to Fayetteville citizens and potentially damaging to their property and city streets; and j WHEREAS, unless the frequency of rock blasting, rock breaking, rock crushing, dump truck tailgate banging and the hours and days of rock quarry operation near residences is I regulated and controlled to prevent noise, dust and fumes (in excess of ADEQ permitted limits) from escaping the quarry, such a rock quarry would constitute a nuisance to Fayetteville residents and citizens and should be abated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: 1 I Page 2 Ordinance No. 5280 Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby enacts Chapter 113 Rock Quarries and Red Dirt Mining Facilities of the Code of Fayetteville, Article I Rock Quarry Operating License as shown below: ARTICLE I, Rock Quarry Operating License "§113.01. Finding of Nuisance and Need for Abatement. The City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas determines and finds that the I operation of a rock quarry would be a nuisance to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas if operated or used other than as prescribed in § 113 .02 and, therefore, should be abated by the reasonable regulations required by this ordinance. I "§113.02. Regulations To Abate Nuisance. (A) Rock Blasting/Use of Explosives. ( 1 ) No rock blasting shall be allowed within 60 yards of any house within the city limits of Fayetteville. (2) No rock blasting explosive charge or location shall exceed the most restrictive limitations within federal, state and Washington County regulations or laws. (3) All rock blasting within the permitted quarry shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. on the first and third Wednesday of each month unless such Wednesday is a federal or city holiday. If such Wednesday is a holiday, the permitted blasting day will be moved to the next day (Thursday). If the permitted blasting day would be unsafe or not feasible or practical because of inclement weather or other condition beyond the reasonable control of the quarry operator, the Director of Development Services may designate another weekday during the next five weekdays as a permitted blast day. I (4) Upon timely request by the rock quarry operator, the Director of Development Services or designee is empowered to grant a variance of the time limitations for rock blasting if inclement weather or other condition beyond the reasonable control of the operator has caused a safety issue that requires rock blasting outside the 10:00 a.m. until 3 :00 p.m. permitted period. Re-notification is not required unless the blasting is moved to another day. 2 I Page 3 Ordinance No. 5280 (5) The rock quarry operator shall notify by telephone the Director of Development Services and any Fayetteville neighbor within a mile of his quarry who has requested such notification at least two hours prior to rock blasting. (B) Operation of Rock Quarry. (1 ) All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall only be allowed to operate during the period of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and during 7:00 a.m. until noon on Saturday. No major noise producing activities shall occur before 8 :30 a.m. or after 4:30 p.m. on a weekday or anytime on Saturday or Sunday. No rock quarry shall be allowed to operate on a federally recognized holiday or Sunday. (2) All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall be prohibited from any operations until the owner/operator of such quarry has obtained a valid, annual Rock Quarry Operating License. This license to operate shall be issued by the Fayetteville Planning Department on a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) schedule with no fee assessed. C) Dust, Mud and Rock Control Measures. All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall only be allowed to operate with the following safeguards and measures to ensure that dust, dirt, mud, loose rock and gravel, and all other possible irritants or nuisance substances do not adversely affect Fayetteville residents. It is the express continuing duty of the licensed rock quarry operator to ensure all of these safeguards, requirements and measures are constantly enforced. (1 ) Dust control measures. Water or other substances or measures must be fully effective during the operation of the rock quarry to ensure the quarry is in full and continual compliance with the requirements of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act as administered by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. A violation of the permit conditions required by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality can be grounds for a suspension or revocation of the City' s Rock Quarry Operating License. (See § 133 .05) (2) Dirt and mud control measures. The rock quarry operator is required to ensure that any and all vehicles leaving the rock quarry shall have all mud and dirt removed from the tires and exterior parts of the body of the vehicles prior to exiting the site onto public roads. (3) Loose rock and gravel. The rock quarry operator is responsible to ensure that all dump trucks leaving the rock quarry site that may utilize any city street and are II 3 d Page 4 Ordinance No. 5280 carrying more than half a truck load of gravel, rocks or dirt have their load fully and properly covered. (4) Dump truck identifying number. In order for citizens to easily and correctly identify dump trucks and their owner/operators who are servicing the rock quarry, the rock quarry operator shall require any dump truck accessing or servicing his facility j to have an easy to read four digit number at least six inches high and twelve inches wide on the tail gate of the dump truck. The rock quarry operator shall maintain an up-to-date and accurate log of the owner and operator of each numbered dump truck and shall immediately supply the owner and operator's name, address and contract information to any Fayetteville employee, official or citizen who requests such iinformation. (5) Only dump trucks with proper identifying number may be loaded. The rock j quarry operator shall not load or permit to be loaded or permit to exit the rock quarry any dump truck unless the identifying number specified in subsection (4) is clearly legible, easy to read and not obscured by dirt, mud or otherwise. I (D) Control of Dump Truck Tailgate Banging. It is the express duty of the rock quarry operator to prevent a dump truck delivering anything to the quarry or receiving rock from the quarry to engage in Dump Truck I Tailgate Banging as defined in § 113 .04 (E) at any time upon its property. The rock quarry operator shall keep a record of the owner/operator and number of the offending dump truck to include the date and time of the occurrence. No dump truck which has banged its tailgate shall be loaded or otherwise serviced for a full operational day of the quarry after the incident to include all day Monday if the tailgate banging occurs after 4:30 p.m. Friday or anytime on Saturday or Sunday. Loading or servicing such dump truck during this suspension shall constitute a violation of this ordinance and the Rock Quarry Operating License. "§113.03: Jurisdiction of This Ordinance. Pursuant to A.C.A. § 14-54- 103( 1 ), this ordinance to abate a nuisance shall be applicable to any and all rock quarries located within the corporate limits of Fayetteville and for one ( 1 ) mile beyond the city limits as prescribed in A.C.A. § 14-262- 102. i "§113.04: Definitions. (A) "Rock Quarry" means any open excavation used for obtaining building stone, slate, limestone or other type of rock used for paving or building purposes. I I 4 I I i Page 5 Ordinance No. 5280 (B) "House" means any habitable structure including a mobile or manufactured home, a dwelling, a residence, an apartment, a condominium, a dormitory, a hotel or motel. (C) "Operation of Rock Quarry" means any blasting, operation of any mechanical equipment on the premises of the rock quarry or any operation of dump trucks or other large vehicles on the premises of the rock quarry site. Starting, running the engine or moving any equipment or dump truck on the premises shall constitute operation of the rock quarry. (D) "Major Noise Producing Activities " means blasting, rock breaking, dump truck tailgate banging, and the use by the quarry operator of non-static backup warning devices on its loader, breaker or other major equipment. Rock crushing within a half mile of a house within the city limits of Fayetteville is also a major noise producing activity. (E) "Dump Truck Tailgate Banging " means the avoidable and loud banging of a dump truck tailgate used to vibrate the bed to loosen material in the bed sought to be dumped. The relatively quiet bang that might be unavoidable when a dump truck load is dumped and the truck moves away from the pile without applying the truck's brakes is not regulated by this ordinance. "113.05: Issuance, Suspension or Revocation of License. (A) Issuance. The Director of Development Services or designee shall prepare and issue an annual Rock Quarry Operating License upon proper application of an owner/operator of a rock quarry within the jurisdiction of this ordinance after ensuring the rock quarry operator will be in full compliance with all requirements of this ordinance and has all other current and valid federal, state and county permits required for rock quarrying operation. (B) Suspension. The Director of Development Services may suspend a Rock Quarry Operating License for up to thirty (30) days for violations of the terns of the license after a due process hearing. (C) Revocation. The Director of Development Services may revoke a Rock Quarry Operating license for repetitive, continuing, intentional, or substantial violations of the requirements of this ordinance. The Director of Development Services may require adequate assurances that any operator whose license has been revoked will fully comply with the Rock Quarry Operating License before reissuing another license. (D) Appeal. Any person whose license has been suspended or revoked pursuant to this section, may appeal such suspension or revocation to the City Council by providing the City Clerk' s Office with a written request for City Council review within ten business days of the issuance of suspension or revocation. The City Council may then determine i� 5 Page 6 Ordinance No. 5280 whether the rock quarry operator violated the requirements of the ordinance and, if so, whether suspension (up to 30 days) or revocation is appropriate for such violation. "§113.06: Penalty. (A) Any owner, lessor or lessee of real property upon which is located a rock quarry and any operator, manager, or employee of such rock quarry shall ensure such quarry is operated within the limits of this ordinance and shall be guilty of a criminal violation for any violation of the requirements of this ordinance. (B) The Rock Quarry Operating License may be suspended or revoked by the Director of Development Services after a due process hearing for an owner's, manager's, operator's, employee's, or lessee's violation of any terms or limits within this ordinance or for operating the rock quarry not in conformity with its Rock Quarry Operating License. (C) Any owner, operator, manager, lessee or employee of a rock quarry shall be guilty of a criminal violation if such person operates the rock quarry in violation of any of the Terms of this ordinance, without a current and valid Rock Quarry Operating License, or in violation of any of the terms of his Rock Quarry Operating License. (D) Each violation of the operational hour limitations or the number of rock blasting events allowed by this Ordinance or the applicable Rock Quarry Operating License shall constitute a separate violation of this ordinance and shall be punishable by a fine of up to $500.00. I "§113.07: No reduction in property owner's right to sue for nuisance. Nothing in this ordinance removes or reduces a property owner's right to sue or seek an injunction against any owner or operator of rock quant' if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that such facility constitutes a private or public nuisance to that property owner." PASSED and APPROVED this the 20'h day of October, 2009. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: 14 or Z�._ By: O ELD JOWAN, Mayor SONDRA E. S ' ,Clerk/Treasurer =Ci • • � = : FAYETTEVILLE : � ys,9RKANSP�%j� ,,y� i 6 -,,,NcrOtA • ils „�.. liall" I l AGENDA REQUEST FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 FROM: Shirley Lucas, Council Member Sarah Lewis, Council Member i ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: An Ordinance To Prevent Injury Or Annoyance Within The Corporate Limits Of Fayetteville By Regulating Rock Quarrying Facilities So That These Facilities Will Not Be Nuisances APPROVED FOR AGENDA: Shirley Lucas D to Council M her zs a S ah Lewis Date Council Member Kit Williams Date City Attorney (as to form) I I � l cm �ncc d ad u lou coq Yk -0 I FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS i KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney C JR DATE: August 19, 2009 RE: Proposed Chapter 113 Rock Quarries and Red Dirt Mining Facilities of the Code of Fayetteville i Several months ago, City Council members Sarah Lewis and Shirley Lucas asked me to j attend atmeeting of .yard 4 residents who were concerned and unhappy about problems caused to their :neighborhood by a Rock Quarry and Red Dirt Mining Facility near their homes. These city residents described regular disturbing activities that operation of the quay and red dirt mine rr j were inflicting upon them in their homes and on their property. These nuisance type activities included: (1 ) the dust, noise and vibration from frequent blasting of the rock for quarrying; (2) the noise, dust and fumes from the machines operating at the quarry and red dirt mine; (3) the large number of dump trucks which serviced the quarry and red dirt farm which often immediately entered city streets and caused traffic problems and safety issues during morning and afternoon school rush hours; (4) the amount of red dirt and rocks that fell from these dump trucks onto city streets and right-of•wa.Y. These trucks were often uncovered with very little freeboard. The City Council Ordinance Review Committee held several meetings to fine time the initial ordinances I drafted pursuant to the requests of City Council Members Lucas and Lewis. Neighbors attended these public meetings and also provided input information and suggestions. The owners or managers of the rock quarry and red dirt mining operation did not attend to provide any input. I recommend that the ordinances be left on the first reading so that the rock quarry and red dirt mining owners and operators can review these ordinances for fairness and utility. i I� I� I� �I i These ordinances would mandate that each operator of a rock quarry or red dirt mining facility within the city and within one mile of the city limits must obtain a license from the City to operate their facility. The ordinances prescribe measures that an operator must take to prevent his facility from being a nuisance to Fayetteville residents. These measures restrict: (1 ) the frequency of allowed explosions; i (2) require dust control measures; (3) restrict the days of operation to regular workdays (Monday-Friday); (4) restrict the hours of operation with longer hours allowed in the summer when school is out; (5) require dump trucks servicing the facility to have their loads covered more frequently than now allowed; and (6) require other measures to abate the potential of the facility to be a nuisance to our citizens. i it I I ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE TO PREVENT INJURY OR ANNOYANCE WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF FAYETTEVILLE BY REGULATING ROCK QUARRYING FACILITIES SO THAT THESE FACILITIES WILL NOT BE NUISANCES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas recognizes the need for rock quarries to supply necessary road building material within and near the corporate limits of Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has listened to experts and citizens and determined that rock blasting could cause damaging or nuisance effects upon nearby structures (especially homes); and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has also teamed and determined that an operating rock quarry can cause vibrations, dust, ground upheaval, loud noises, fumes and other deleterious effects within a mile from the quarry; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council has also heard from citizens living near an existing and operating rock quarry and determined that unregulated rock blasting, rock crushing and other rock quarry activities are offensive and potentially unhealthy and dangerous to Fayetteville citizens and damaging to their property and city streets; and WHEREAS, unless the frequency of rock blasting, its distance from houses and the hours and days of rock quarry operation near residences is regulated and controlled to prevent noise, dust and fumes (in excess of ADEQ permitted limits) from escaping the quarry, such a rock quarry would constitute a nuisance to Fayetteville residents and citizens and should be abated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby enacts Chapter 113 Rock Quarries and Red Dirt Mining Facilities of the Code of Fayetteville, Article I Rock Quarry Operating License as shown below: ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 ARTICLE 1, Rock Quarry Operating Licensee 6`6 "§113.01. Finding of Nuisance and Need for Abatement. The City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas determines and finds that the operation of a rock quarry is a nuisance to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas if operated or used other than as prescribed in § 113 .02 and, therefore, should be abated by the reasonable regulations required by this ordinance. "§113.02. Abatement of Nuisance. (A) Rock Blasting/UseofExplosives. (1 ) No rock blasting shall be allowed within 60 yards of any house within the city limits of Fayetteville. (2) No rock blasting explosive charge or location shall exceed the most restrictive limitations within federal, state and Washington County regulations or laws. (3) All rock blasting within the permitted quarry shall only be allowed one day per month between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3 :00 p.m. during a single weekday (non-holiday) pursuant to the Rock Quarry Operating License. (B) Operation of Rock Quarry. I ( 1 ) All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall only be allowed to operate during the period of 8 :30 a.m. until 3 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday from August 20`h through June 5`h and during the period of 8:00 a.m. until 5 :30 p.m. Monday through Friday from June 6`h through August 19`h. No rock quarry shall be allowed to operate on a federally recognized holiday. (2) All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall be prohibited from any operations until the owner/operator of such quarry has obtained a valid, annual Rock Quarry Operating License. This license to operate shall be issued by the Fayetteville Planning Department on a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) schedule with no fee assessed. (C) Dust, Mud and Rock Control Measures. All rock quarries within the city limits of Fayetteville or within one mile beyond the city limits of Fayetteville shall only be allowed to operate with the following safeguards and measures to ensure that dust, dirt, mud, loose rock and gravel, and all other possible irritants or nuisance substances do not adversely affect Fayetteville residents. It is the express continuing duty of the licensed rock quarry operator to ensure all of these safeguards, requirements and measures are constantly enforced. I ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY THE DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 i (1 ) Dust control measures. Water or other substances or measures must be fully effective during the operation of the rock quarry to ensure the quarry is in full and continual compliance with the requirements of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act as administered by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. A violation of the permit conditions required by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality can be grounds for a suspension or revocation of the City' s Rock Quarry Operating License. (See § 133 .05) (2) Dirt and mud control measures. The rock quant' operator is required to ensure that any and all vehicles leaving the rock quarry shall have all mud and dirt removed from the tires and exterior parts of the body of the vehicles prior to exiting the site onto public roads. (3) Loose rock and gravel. The rock quarry operator is responsible to ensure that all dump trucks leaving the rock quarry site that may utilize any city street and are carrying more than half a truck load of gravel, rocks or dirt have their load fully and properly covered. (4) Dump truck identifying number. In order for citizens to easily and correctly ;I identify dump trucks and their owner/operators who are servicing the rock quarry, the rock quarry operator shall require any dump truck accessing or servicing his facility to have an easy to read four digit number at least six inches high and twelve inches wide on the tail gate of the dump truck. The rock quarry operator shall maintain an up-to-date and accurate log of the owner and operator of each numbered dump truck and shall immediately supply the owner and operator's name, address and contract information to any Fayetteville employee, official or citizen who requests such information. (5) Only dump trucks with proper identifying number may be loaded. The rock quarry operator shall not load or permit to be loaded or permit to exit the rock quant' any dump truck unless the identifying number specified in subsection (4) is clearly legible, easy to read and not obscured by dirt, mud or otherwise. "§113.03: Jurisdiction of This Ordinance. Pursuant to A.C.A. § 14-54- 103( 1 ), this ordinance to abate a nuisance shall be applicable to any and all rock quarries located within the corporate limits of Fayetteville and for one ( 1 ) mile beyond the city limits as prescribed in A.C.A. § 14-262- 102. "§113.04: Definitions. (A) "Rock Quarry" means any open excavation used for obtaining building stone, slate, limestone or other type of rock used for paving or building purposes. (B) "House" means any habitable structure including a mobile or manufactured home, a dwelling, a residence, an apartment, a condominium, a dormitory, a hotel or motel. `I I APPENDIX A Understanding Ground Vibration/Airblast Levels and Damage UNDERSTANDING GROUND VIBRATION/AIRBLAST LEVELS AND DAMAGE by R. Frank Chiappetta, BSc., MSc. Explosives Applications Engineer © Copyright, 1998, Blasting Analysis International, Inc. All Rights Reserved 1. Ground Vibration Levels Required to Cause Damage to Residential Structures There are two issues which need to be addressed regarding residential owners located in the vicinity of blasting operations. The first is physical property damage which may result from the blast disturbances in the form of ground vibrations that propagate through the ground, and airblast (i.e. overpressure) which travels through the air. In order for these two disturbances to cause real damage, they would have to contain certain specific traits in terms of their amplitudes, durations and frequency relative to the structure of concern.The second issue is related to homeowner complaints in terms of their perception of blasting activities, regardless of whether any real damage resulted or not. The latter issue is always more problematic in trying to define or control through a simple set of guidelines and/or Local/State/Federal regulations governing all blasting activities. The United States Bureau of Mines, (USBM), published the results of an extensive series of tests regarding ground vibration levels which could cause damage to residential 1 to 2 story homes in a Report of Investigation, RI 8507 (1981). In this study, direct ground vibration and airblast measurements were made in 76 homes for 219 production blasts. A typical home, using common construction materials, such as concrete, blocks, brick, drywall, plaster and a wood frame, was also built near a blast site and monitored as the blasts got progressively closer. The test home was monitored with extensive sensors and instrumentation systems to measure ground vibrations, airblast, structural response, displacements, accelerations and the breaking strains of individual component members of the home in drywall, plaster, ceilings, walls, structure corners, doors and windows. Results were submitted for peer review by other industry experts, including the Office of Surface Mining, and finally published in 1981. This study was no doubt one of the best, most scientific and comprehensive studies performed by an independent government organization, which correlated blast induced ground vibrations to a damage potential for residential dwellings. Although the USBM study is still one of the best in existence, it does not cover all possible 1 to 2 story residential structures, such as historical, log cabin, all masonry and mobile home structures. These structures may require a different set of damage thresholds. BAI,. 1 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC A safe ground vibration damage criteria was recommended by the USBM in the form of a graph which is illustrated in Figure 1.1. This is a plot of ground vibration amplitude versus frequency. The ground vibration amplitude (particle velocity) is measured in inches/seconds or how fast a point on the ground or a structure moves around its original rest position. The frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz) or how many oscillations the point makes around its original rest or start position over one second. Both the combined particle velocity and its associated frequency are important in determining if this combination has a high or low probability of damage to a residential dwelling. Figure 1-1 BAI,. 2 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Basically, the USBM graph says that if a measured ground vibration point and its associated measured frequency falls below the safe vibration limit line, (shown in the solid and partly dashed lines), the probability of physical damage is extremely low or non existent. The safe vibration limit line represents the threshold or beginning of cosmetic damage, such as very small, barely visible hairline cracks in plaster and/or drywall. If a vibration point falls above the safe vibration limit line, (i.e. above the threshold line of cosmetic damage), the probability of real damage will increase. It does not, however, necessarily mean that physical damage is guaranteed to occur. But, the higher the vibration point is above the safe limit line, the higher the probability of damage. Another way to look at this is in terms of a structure's elasticity, brittleness and breaking strain. If the ground vibration amplitude and frequency causes any structural component member of a home to exceed the breaking strain just once, permanent damage will occur. All parts of a home are designed to flex with some degree without damage, similar to the springs on a car. As long as the flex, twisting and bending is within the object's elastic limit, no damage will occur regardless of the number of times it is distorted. But, pull the spring beyond its elastic, brittleness or breaking strain just once, and permanent deformation damage will occur. Also, all homes go through natural settling in periods throughout its life due to a host of factors related to the construction, thermal strains and aging, etc. Other than major structural or construction problems, minor defects, hairline cracks, separations, corner/wall/ceiling detachments and differential settling are often expected, regardless of whether the home is located near blasting operations or not. BAI,. 3 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 2. Ground Vibration Perception and Annoyance The psychological response to blasting is an entirely different matter. Human perception to ground vibrations and noise usually occurs well below the damage threshold line recommended by the USBM. (Refer to Figure 2.1.) In addition, noise is often interpreted by the lay person as also being ground vibrations. Blast induced ground vibrations and airblast (or noise) are two entirely different disturbances caused by blasting. Figure 2-1 BAI,. 4 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC ral damage will generally not occur in residences until ground vibrations Although real structu are well over 0.5 to 2.0 in/sec, (Figure 1.1) and then only under specific frequency levels and conditions, humans will respond to ground vibrations and airblast at considerably lower levels, (Figure 2.1). The human perception is very complex because it depends on each person's tolerance level, the ambient noise level, displacement, velocity, acceleration, frequency, condition of the structure and rattling effects from loose construction, etc. Extensive studies by Chae in 1978, Nitro Nobel, United States Bureau of Mines (USBM), Blasting Analysis International, Inc., White Industrial Seismology, Inc., and others determined that human response to ground vibrations and airblast are actually many orders of magnitude less than the levels that would even come close to producing actual damage. For example, the following effects were documented on humans from blasting activities: Ground Vibration Level Effects on Humans inch/second mm/s Imperceptible 0.001 - 0.003 0.025 - 0.076 Barely Perceptible 0.003 - 0.01 0.076 - 0.254 Distinctly Perceptible 0.01 - 0.03 0.254 - 0.762 Strongly Perceptible 0.03 - 0.1 0.062 - 2.540 Disturbing0.1 - 0.3 2.540 - 7.620 Very Disturbing 0.3 - 1.0 7.620 - 25.400 It is evident from this data that ground vibration levels received at a structure in the order of 0.03 - 0.10 inch/sec is quite perceptible, but the probability of damage is usually nonexistent. Likewise, levels in the range of 0.10 - 0.3 inch/sec can be disturbing and levels over 0.5 inch/sec can be very unpleasant, although permanent damage rarely occurs. 3. Ambient Normality Another factor that can affect one's perception of an event is "ambient normality". For example, blasting is a normal activity to a quarry operator in his operation, and thus, the ground vibration/airblast sensed by employees within the quarry properties is a normal and expected activity. Likewise, the continuous noise generated from drilling, processing and vehicle traffic is often oblivious to employees because these are normal and expected in a quarry. However, if a low flying jet plane suddenly and unexpectedly flew over the quarry, this could startle the quarry operators into filing a complaint, even though the noise level may be well below the damage threshold. Similarly, a blast event is usually perceived by residential homeowners as abnormal, especially if the disturbance occurs during periods of the day when ambient levels are low, and/or when the blast event is unexpected. In any case, the human perception is so acute that even very low ground vibrations can be felt within the community, but no structural damage generally occurs. This is always a very difficult concept for homeowners to grasp, understand and/or accept. BAI,. 5 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 4. Surface Blast Vibration Levels to Damage Steel and PVC Transmission Pipeline A number of studies were conducted by various researchers and organizations on the effects of blasting near steel and/or PVC pressurized pipelines. The explosive weight per delay varied from as low as 3 lbs (1.7 Kg) to as high as 9 tons (9000 Kg) at distances of 6 ft (1.8 m) to well over 1000 ft (305 m). Materials consisted of soils, rocks and coal mine overburdens. Pipeline diameters varied from 6 inches (152 mm) to 30 inches (762 mm). In all cases, the levels required to cause permanent damage, deformation, depressurization and/or breaks were at least an order of magnitude greater than the ground vibration levels generated from typical commercial blasting operations, (i.e. quarries, construction, coal mines and open pits.) In the USBM studies (Siskind et all 1992), it was concluded that buried pipelines are relatively resistant to blast vibrations. In fact, it was reported that no failures or damage of any kind occurred from blasting as close as 50 ft (15 m), which produced ground vibration levels of over 24 in/sec (600 mm/s). 5. Typical Ground Vibration and Airblast Levels Produced by Non-Blasting Activities and Events Tables 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate typical vibration levels produced from normal household activities and other events. Note that normal household activities, such as running, exercising, door/window slams can generate vibration levels between 0.10 to 1.30 in/sec. Even the simple act of just hammering nails into a wall to hang pictures up can produce vibration levels between 0.50 to 3.90 in/sec. Daily environmental strains on a dwelling resulting from changes in humidity, temperature, wind and precipitation, etc. can produce vibration levels ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 in/sec. If the dwelling is constructed during periods of rain or high humidity and not allowed to properly dry or drain during each phase of the construction, a higher frequency of irregularities would be expected during the initial settling-in period. Lightning and thunder during an electrical storm is also a direct vibration source, which is often overlooked because this is a natural phenomenon. In some cases, electrical storm activity has produced ground vibration levels up to 0.40 in/sec and airblast levels exceeding 140 dB. These often exceed the levels produced by blasting. BAI,. 6 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC TABLE 5.1 Typical Ground Vibration and Airblast Levels Produced by Non Blasting Activities and Events Human Household ActivitiesExpected Vibration Level (in/sec) 1Walking 0.03 - 0.16 2Running 0.10 - 0.50 3Heel Drop 0.14 - 0.65 4Low to high jump on floor 0.12 - 1.20 5Entrance door slam 0.15 - 1.90 6Sliding glass door slam 0.50 - 1.00 7Hammering nails to hang pictures 0.50 - 3.90 Induced Strain on StructureExpected Vibration Level (in/sec) Daily environmental strains on structure resulting from changes in humidity, 1.0 - 3.2 temperature, wind and precipitation. Lightning and ThunderExpected Vibration & Airblast Levels Country Wide Up to 0.4 in/sec Up to 140 + dB BAI,. 7 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC TABLE 5.2 OTHER NON BLASTING SEISMIC SOURCES Equivalent Vibration Velocities based on Measurements on House Wall Responses and/or Strains (Various Sources) Inch/Sec. From USBM fatigue study test-house in Indiana (RI 8896, Stagg, et al., 1984) Jumping on the floor & walking 0.10 - 0.50 Humidity change inside (10 pct) 1.0 - 2.4 o 1.0 - 3.2 Temperature change inside (10F) Wind 0.6 - 2.6 From five homes in Penna (Fang, 1976) Temp. and humidity over 7 days 1.75 - 3.1 Auto traffic 0.04 - 0.20 Pushing on the wall 0.025 - 0.36 From UK studies at Leeds University (White et al., 1993) o >0.34 F) Outside temperature changes (18 Pushing on wall near doorway 0.6 - 1.2 Pushing on wall next to window 2.4 Heel drop and jumping 0.15 - 0.9 From ISEE paper by Simms, et al., 1994 Closing door 0.3 - 0.45 From Sutherland, et al., 1968 Wind (50 mph) 1.1 - 6.7 From ISEE paper by Siskind, et al., 1996 o 0.5 - 1.7 Temperature outside (10F) From Dowding, 1996 Temperature and humidity 0.75 - 2.6 BAI,. 8 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 6. Repeated Blasting A legitimate concern which often comes up with homeowners is that of repeated blasting. Even when ground vibration levels are kept low, could repeated blasting over the years cause fatigue and ultimately damage? The USBM also investigated this and published a report with their main conclusions as follows: "Cosmetic or hairline cracks 0.01 to 0.10 mm wide occurred during construction of the house and also during periods when no blasts were detonated. The formation of cosmetic cracks increased from 0.3 to 1.0 cracks per week when ground motions exceeded 1.0 in/s. Human activity and changes in temperature and humidity caused strains in walls that were equivalent to those produced by ground motions up to 1.2 in/s. When the entire structure was mechanically shaken, the first crack appeared after 56,000 cycles, the equivalent of 28 yrs of shaking by blast-generated ground motions of 0.5 in/s twice a day." For example, if we take the average vibration level of 0.2 in/sec generated from blasting activities in the Northeast USA, structure fatigue from blasting alone would not set in for at least a few hundred years. For most residential dwellings, this period of time is well within the structure's natural aging and degradation fatigue. BAI,. 9 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 7. Airblast Levels Required to Cause Damage Airblast or impulse noise is generally the number one cause of complaints because this is what a homeowner hears and senses, even at very low non damaging levels. Table 7.1 lists typical airblast levels versus human responses. Cracked windows are usually one of the first signs of airblast damage, but require minimum levels of 145 - 150 dB. However, levels between 125 - 140 dB can be extremely loud and in many cases quite intolerable. Loose window panes, doors and/or poor construction will usually enhance the startling effect, making the disturbance sound much more devastating than it really is in terms of permanent damage, particularly when the blast is unexpected. TABLE 7.1 TYPICAL OVERPRESSURE, AIRBLAST AND NOISE LEVELS Sound Pressure (dB)Source, Activity, Response and Damage 90OSHA maximum for 8 hours 90 - 100 Normal to loud conversation 110Perceptible, complaints begin 112Complaints vary depending on ambient levels 115Perception increases, complaints increase 120Threshold of pain for continuous sound 125 - 130 Sounds very loud, rattling effect, no damage 140OSHA maximum for impulse sound, intolerable 150Some windows begin to break 170Most windows break 180Structural damage BAI,. 10 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Natural Construction Causes of Cracks in Walls and Ceilings 8. The architect's Small House Service Bureau of the United States published a list of 40 reasons why walls and ceilings crack: 1.Building a house on a fill 2.Failure to make the footings wide enough 3.Failure to carry the footings below the frost line 4.Width of footings not made proportional to the loads they carry 5.The posts in the basement not provided with separate footings 6.Failure to provide a base raised above the basement floor line for the settling of wooden posts 7.Not enough cement used in the concrete 8.Dirty sand or gravel used in the concrete 9.Mortar, plaster, or concrete work allowed to freeze before setting 10.Wood Beams spanned too long between posts 11.Wooden beams used to support masonry over openings 12.Failure to protect beams and sills from rotting through dampness 13.Braces omitted in wooden walls 14.Sheathing omitted in wooden walls (except in "back-plastered" construction) 15.Wooden walls not framed so as to equalize shrinkage 16.Setting floor joists one end on masonry and the other on wood 17.Floor joists too light 18.Floor joists placed too far apart 19.Failure to use double joists under unsupported partitions 20.Floor joints not bridged. 21.Subflooring omitted 22.Supporting posts too small 23.Cross beams too light 24.Failure to erect trusses over wide wooden openings 25.Rafters too light and too far apart 26.Laths placed too close together 27.Laths run behind studs at corners 28.Metal reinforcement omitted in plaster at corners 29.Metal reinforcement omitted where wooden walls join masonry 30.Metal lath omitted on wide expanses of ceiling 31.Poor materials used in plaster 32.Plaster applied too thin 33.Plaster applied directly on masonry at chimney stock 34.First coat of plaster not properly keyed to backing 35.Plaster applied on laths that are too dry 36.Too much cement in the stucco 37.Stucco not kept wet until set 38.Too few nails used 39.Subsoil drainage not carried away from walls 40.Drainage water from roof not carried away from foundations BAI,. 11 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 9. Common Defects which Occur in Homes and are Completely Unrelated to Blasting A number of common and normal defects in newly constructed homes and throughout the structure's life cycle are listed below. Every home will experience some of these defects regardless of whether it is located near blasting activities or not. 9.1 Masonry and Concrete 1.Concrete foundation wall cracks. Shrinkage or settlement cracks within 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) are common and should be expected within certain tolerances. 2.Cracks in blocks or veneer walls (blocks, bricks and mortar joints). Settlement cracks up to 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) are common and should be expected within certain tolerances. 3.Cracks in concrete basement floors. Shrinkage (i.e. hairline cracks are common and should be expected within certain tolerances. Any cracks greater than 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) in width or 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) in vertical displacement are abnormal and should be investigated further. 4.Vertical or horizontal movement of concrete floor slabs at joints. Concrete floor slabs are engineered to move at expansion and contraction joints. Thus, some differential displacement can be expected. 5.Cracks in attached garage or patio slab. Shrinkage cracks within 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) in width or 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) are common and should be expected within certain tolerances. 6.Concrete floors in rooms designed for living having pits, depressions or unevenness. These can occur for slopes specifically created for drainage. 7.Concrete slab cracks which cause finished floor coverings to rupture. These are generally rare, but could occur for a number of reasons. 8.Powdering, scaling or pitting of concrete (aggregate showing or loose). These can be caused by poor materials or erosion due to salt, chemicals or unusual weather. 9.Vertical or horizontal separation of stoops away from the house. Minor separation is normal as is minor puddling of rain water. Separation of more than 1 inch (25 mm) or excessive water puddling is not normal and should be investigated further. BAI,. 12 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Lot Grading and Drainage 9.2 1.Ground settlement around foundation, utility trenches, or other filled areas. Ground settlement should not disrupt water drainage away from the house. Settlement around the foundation, at utility trenches and other filled areas of up to 6 inches (152 mm) should be expected in new homes less than 3 years old. 2.Improper grades and swales. These can cause standing water and could affect drainage in the immediate area surrounding the home which in turn could affect the foundation. After a normal rainfall, water should not stand in the yard for more than 24 hours nor 48 hours in swales. 3.Drainage. Water not properly collected and channeled away from the foundation walls, stairs, walkways and driveways, etc. can cause differential settling and some damage can be expected. This is usually the number one cause of most minor and major damage claims. 9.3 Chimney and Fireplaces 1.Chimney separated from home. Minor separations of up to 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) over a 10 ft (3 m) measurement are normal and should be expected within certain tolerances. 2.Cracking of firebrick. It is expected that heat and thermal strains will eventually cause cracking. 3.Fireplace brick veneer cracking. Some cracking up to 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) is expected. 9.4 Interior Walls and Trim 1.Separation at joists. Some separation at joists in moldings and between moldings and adjacent surfaces is normal and should be expected up to 1/4 inch (6.4 mm). 2.Wall or ceiling cracks. Hairline cracks, seams or tape cracks and slight imperfections up to 1.8 inch (3.2 mm) are normal and should be expected within certain tolerances. 3.Nail pops. These are quite common in homes and are due to contraction and expansion of lumber products. 4.Cracking of ceramic tile. Cracking of grout joints is common and should be expected. 5.Cracks at corners. Window and door corners are stress points in any structure and minor horizontal, vertical and diagonal cracking can be expected. BAI,. 13 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Walls 9.5 Exterior 1.Cracks in stucco wall finish. Cracks in stucco wall finishes up to 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) are common and should be expected. 2.Bricks separating or cracked. Minor separation and isolated cracking of individual bricks are normal and should be expected. 3.Separation of caulking. All caulking will eventually shrink and some separation from wall, window, door, chimney, etc. is expected. 4.Bulged siding. Some minor bulging is expected due to warping of underlying materials. 9.6 Cabinets and Counter Tops Some separation up to 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) is common and should be expected within certain tolerances. BAI,. 14 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 10.0 References Borg, D.G., Chiappetta, R.F., Morhard, R.C. & Sterner, V.A., 1987. Explosives and Rock Blasting. Chapter 11, pp 321-410, Atlas Powder Company, 662 pp. Dowding, C.H., 1996. Construction Vibrations. Prentice Hall, 610 pp. Fang, H.Y., 1976. Field Studies of Structural Response to Blasting Vibrations and Environmental Effects. Lehigh University. Simms, D.R., 1994. "A Good Neighbors Policy", the Evolution of O & G Industries, Inc.'s Public Relations Policy Working with Local Towns. Proc. 12th Annual Conf. On Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Society of Explosives Engineers, Austin, TX, pp 467-478. Siskind, D.E., Stagg, M.S., Kopp, J.W. & Dowding, C.H., 1980. Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8507, 74 pp. Siskind, D.E., Stachura, V.J., Stagg, M.S. & Kopp, J.W., 1980. Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8485, 111 pp. Siskind, D.E. & Stagg, M.S., 1994. Surface Mine Blasting Near Transmission Pipelines. Mining Engineering Journal, December Issue, Volume 46, No. 12, pp 1357-1360. Siskind, D.E., Stagg, M.S., Pierce, W.E. & Crum, S.V., 1996. Low-Frequency Blast Vibrations at a High Water Table Site. Proc. 12th Annual Symp on Explosives and Blasting Research, Society of Explosives Engineers, Orlando, FL., pp 21-31. Stagg, M.S., Siskind, D.E., Stevens, M.G., & Dowding, C.H., 1984. Effects of Repeated Blasting on a Wood Frame House. U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8896, 82 pp. Sutherland, L.C., 1968. Sonic and Vibration Environments for Ground Facilities…A Design Manual. Report for NASA, Contract NAS8-11217, 633 pp. Thoenen, J.R. & Windes, S.L., 1942. Seismic Effects of Quarry Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin, 442, 83 pp. White, T., Farnfield, R., & Kelly, M. 1993a. The Effect of Low Level Blast Vibrations and the Environment on a Domestic Building. Proc. 9th Annual Symp. On Explosives and Blasting Research, Society of Explosives Engineers, San Diego, CA, pp 71-81. White, R., Farnfield, R, & Kelly, M., 1993b. The Effects of Surface Mine Blasting on Buildings. Proc., 4th International Symp. On Rock Fragmentation by Blasting (Fragblast 4), Vienna, Austria, pp 105-111. File:appendix-a-020305 BAI,. 15 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC APPENDIX B Selected Particle Velocity Damage Criteria SELECTED PARTICLE VELOCITY DAMAGE CRITERIA Selected particle velocity damage criteria are listed as follows: 1.Langefors, Kihlstrom, and Westerberg (1957): Particle Velocity Damage 2.8 in./sec No noticeable damage 4.3 in./sec Fine cracks and fall of plaster 6.3 in./sec Cracking of plaster and masonry walls 9.1 in./sec Serious cracking 2.Edwards and Northwood based their criteria in connection with the St. Lawrence Project in Canada (1959): Particle Velocity Damage Safe; no damage 2 in./sec 2 - 4 in./sec Caution > 4 in./sec Damage 3.USBM (1971): Particle Velocity Damage < 2 in./sec No damage 2.0 - 4.0 in./sec Plaster cracking 4.0 – 7.0 in./sec Minor damage > 7.0 in./sec Major damage to structure 4.Canmet, Bauer, and Calder (1977) established damage for equipment and structures: Particle Velocity at Type of Structure Type of Damage which Damage Starts Rigidity mounted mercury switches Trip out 0.5 in./sec HousesPlaster cracking 2 in./sec Concrete blocks in a new home Cracks in block 8 in./sec Cased drill holes Horizontal offset 15 in./sec Mechanical equipment, pumps, compressors Shafts misaligned 40 in./sec Prefabricated metal building on concrete pads Cracked pads, building 60 in/sec twisted and distorted File:appendix-b-020305 APPENDIX C Farmington, AR Quarry - USBM Data Plot (03/09/09 to 09/08/09) - Seismic/Airblast Measurements Obtained in the Surrounding Community Vibration Level (in/sec) CONTINUOUS SEISMIC RECORDER TRIGGER 0.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.0100.0200.0200.0200.020 0.0080.0080.0080.0200.0200.0200.0200.0200.020 IPS FREQ 14332328123636461217101013101910114613 6 LONG 0.4550.3380.3000.3950.1230.0700.0550.1630.0280.1780.5250.028 0.0180.0530.0250.2250.1600.0430.1400.185 PPV FREQ 2533245010145639462012131813122812162512 VERT 0.2700.2700.2900.4230.0180.2030.0430.0500.1350.0300.1350.6630.025 0.0380.0180.1750.0850.0480.1250.160 PPV FREQ 46311563173946561831223314134224143926 7 TRAN 0.4200.3650.3730.6480.0250.0400.0480.0550.1900.2330.0150.1930.5600.035 0.0250.1330.0930.0330.0750.195 PPV 0.00350.00440.00290.00480.00310.00250.00020.00270.00230.00200.00390.00540.00640.00030.00330.00090.00070.00490.00230.0013 psi VIBRA-TECH EVENT SUMMARY AIR FARMINGTON QUARRY dBL 121 123120124120119119118117122125127101121110108125118112 90 ROGERS GROUP MAX POUNDS PER DELAY 434.9 196.9 490 435461461461461461461461400524440404420415 453446 DISTANCE 3094 Ft.2305 Ft.1822 Ft.2591 Ft. 4375 Ft.1452 Ft. 706 Ft. 780 Ft.709 Ft.709 Ft.819 Ft.861 Ft.932 Ft.913 Ft.961 Ft. 968 Ft810 Ft910 Ft677 Ft894 Ft #5 - NEAR THE GALLAGER RES. #6 - NEAR THE CRUMLEY RES. #3 - NEAR MARK RICH RENTAL #4 - NEAR THE AUSTIN RES. #1 - NEAR THE WARD RES. #2 - NEAR THE MAIN RES. LOCATION SEISMOGRAPH NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NE OF PIT NO. 95649564956498878588873285969455961798879887988798879887 855698879887988798879887 09:53 AM 09:53 AM01:30 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM02:52 PM09:17 AM08:11 AM11:41 AM01:31 PM02:10 PM12:14 PM12:16 PM12:13 PM11:11 AM11:12 AM TIME 03/09/0904/21/0905/05/0905/19/0905/19/0905/19/0905/19/0905/19/0905/19/0906/29/0907/10/0907/21/0908/18/0909/08/0909/08/09 05/19/0907/23/0907/29/0908/04/0908/04/09 DATE 2009 DATA EVENT NO. APPENDIX D Farmington, AR Quarry - Linear Regression Analysis (03/09/09 – 09/08/09) GROUND VIBRATION/AIRBLAST DAMAGE INSPECTION Ward Residence 1048 North Hamstring Road Fayetteville, AR 72704 (Claim No. P413 129 779) Prepared by R. Frank Chiappetta, BSc., MSc. Explosives Applications Engineer BAI,I. LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL NC Explosives, Seismic & Mining Specialists 371 Daniel Street, Allentown, PA 18104 (610) 530-7415 fax (610) 395-5552 blastinganalysis@rcn.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS.........................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................6 1.1 Ward Residence..............................................................................................................7 1.2 Concerns Voiced by the Owners.....................................................................................7 2.0 RESULTS OF INSPECTION – EXTERIOR OF HOME..................................................9 2.1 North Side.......................................................................................................................9 2.2 West Side......................................................................................................................13 2.3 South Side.....................................................................................................................17 2.4 East Side........................................................................................................................21 2.5 Crawl Space..................................................................................................................23 2.6 Water Well....................................................................................................................25 3.0 RESULTS OF INSPECTION – INTERIOR OF HOME.................................................28 3.1 Living Room.................................................................................................................29 3.2 Kitchen-Dining Area.....................................................................................................31 3.3 Hall to Bedrooms..........................................................................................................34 3.4 Bathroom.......................................................................................................................35 3.5 Bedroom No. 1..............................................................................................................37 3.6 Bedroom No. 2..............................................................................................................37 3.7 Bedroom No. 3 (Master Bedroom)...............................................................................38 4.0 BLAST DESIGN REVIEW AND SEISMIC/AIRBLAST ANALYSIS..........................40 4.1 Seismic/Airblast Results...............................................................................................40 4.2 Vibration Levels Plotted on USBM Damage Criteria..................................................40 4.3 Linear Regression.........................................................................................................42 4.4 Airblast Results.............................................................................................................45 4.5 Vibration/Airblast Regulations.....................................................................................45 APPENDIX A Understanding Ground Vibration/Airblast Levels and Damage APPENDIX B Selected Velocity Damage Criteria APPENDIX C USBM Data Plot Seismic/Airblast Measurements Obtained in the Community APPENDIX D Linear Regression Analysis GROUND VIBRATION/AIRBLAST DAMAGE INSPECTION Bradley Ward Residence 1048 North Hamstring Road Fayetteville, AR 72704 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS Blasting Analysis International, Inc. (BAI) completed a full blast damage inspection of the Ward residence and water well on August 27, 2009 with an emphasis on the major areas of concern voiced by the owners. Analysis consisted of a complete external and internal on-site inspection of the home and water well, a review of the blast design parameters used at the quarry, seismic/airblast measurements taken in the community between 03/09/09 and 09/08/09, comparison of the data against the USBM damage criteria and a linear regression analysis. The Ward home was located approximately 3,100 feet (0.6 miles) from the blast zones. Primary conclusions, opinions and recommendations are summarized as follows: 1.Blasting did not contribute to any of the claimed structural damages pertaining to the Ward residence or water well, even as a minor aggravating factor. 2.No local, State or Federal laws were violated pertaining to the maximum allowable ground vibration or airblast levels. 3.According to the owners, the claimed structural damages to their home occurred within the first two months after they moved into their new home during the January-February, 2009 time frame. Blasting from the Rogers Group Farmington quarry in 2009 did not start until 03/09/09. 4.A total of 20 verifiable seismic/airblast measurements and their accompanying relevant blast design parameters were reviewed and analyzed for the period between 03/09/09 and 09/08/09. All of the seismic measurements were obtained at distances varying from approximately 680 to 4,375 feet from the blast zones. The maximum explosive weight per delay used on the blasts varied between 34 and 524 pounds. This data were analyzed in two ways. First, the seismic data was plotted against the USBM damage criteria graph for 1 – 2 story residential structures, to determine the blast damage potential. Second, a linear regression analysis was performed on the data to determine BAI,. 1 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC the worst possible vibration levels to reach the Ward residence, even if no direct measurements were obtained at the Ward residence. 5.Direct ground vibration measurements at the Ward residence ranged from No Trigger to 0.025 in/sec. 6.According to the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) damage criteria established for 1 to 2 story residential structures, minimum vibration levels of at least 0.50 in/sec would be required to cause cosmetic surface hairline cracks in plaster; 0.75 to 2.00 in/sec to cause drywall cracks depending on the wave frequency; 3 to 4 in/sec to cause cracks in mortar fill, mortar finish or bricks; 2.0 to 2.4 to cause cracks in freshly poured concrete (0 - 4 hours); 4 to 8 in/sec to cause cracks in fully cured concrete (7 - 10 days); and 10 to 40 in/sec to cause structural distortions, such as walls/ceilings to separate, frames to distort, floors to sag or lift up and doorways to go out of alignment, etc. The correct combination of the vibration wave frequency matching the resonant frequency of the structure, and very long shot durations must also be present to nucleate the onset of any new cracks. 7.A plot of all the seismic data against the USBM damage threshold graph clearly showed that none of the vibration levels exceeded the damage threshold for drywall. This applies to any residential or commercial structure in the surrounding community, including the Ward residence. 8.The weakest structural component member in the Ward home was the drywall, which required minimum vibration levels of 0.75 to 2.0 in/sec., depending on the predominant frequencies, to cause cracks. None of the vibration levels in the surrounding community exceeded the damage threshold for drywall at the Ward home. In addition, no blast induced drywall cracks were found anywhere in the Ward home. Since blasting did not contribute to any drywall cracks, it negates all of the claimed damages pertaining to the Ward home, because all of the other material and structural damages required considerably higher levels than the vibration levels required to cause drywall cracks. 9.A linear regression analysis was also performed on the data to estimate or predict what the average and worst case vibration levels could be expected at the Ward home. Linear regression is a reliable statistical mathematical means of predicting the expected BAI,. 2 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC vibration levels at distances which were closer, in between, or farther away from where the actual seismic/airblast measurements were taken, within reasonable tolerance limits. Both the average and upper 95% confidence intervals were used in the analysis. However, only the more conservative and restrictive upper 95% confidence interval was used in forming the final conclusions. 10.If we take the largest weight of explosives used per delay on the blasts as 524 pounds, and a distance of 3,100 feet, the home would have received on average, a vibration amplitude of 0.04 in/sec. This seismic disturbance would be equivalent to the vibration levels measured on a kitchen floor from an adult walking normally across the floor. 11.If we now assume the worst possible case condition by using the more restrictive 95% upper confidence limit line of the regression analysis, the maximum weight of explosives used on a blast as 542 pounds, and a distance of 3,100 feet from the blast zones; the maximum possible vibration level which the Ward home could have received would have been no more than 0.07 in/sec. This is a very conservative estimate because the calculations assume that allof the shots between 03/09/09 and 09/08/09 were fired with 524 lbs per delay, even though the majority of the blasts were fired with much less explosives. The linear regression analysis also clearly showed that the highest possible ground vibration levels to reach the Ward residence could not have caused any damage to the home or water well. 12.The vertical mortar cracks along all of the block foundation walls were most likely caused by a combination of weathering, mortar fill shrinkage, and inadequate drainage around the foundation walls of the home. Vibration levels between 3 and 4 in/sec would be required to cause mortar fill cracks. If we assume that blasting caused the mortar cracks along the foundation wall blocks, extensive drywall cracks would be expected in every room in the home, but this was not the case. 13.The home was situated on flat ground, and there were no gutter or downspouts installed anywhere on the home to drain run-off roof water away from the foundation walls of the home. Although the crawl space was dry at the time of the blast damage inspection, it was obvious that water had accumulated in the crawl space in the past, particularly along the back South foundation wall. There was no drainage system in the crawl space to channel water away from underneath the home. BAI,. 3 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 14.Water getting under the foundation base of any structure will eventually lead to some settling through wet/dry, freeze/thaw and thermal cycling over prolonged periods. Minor settling was beginning to show by the stepped hairline mortar fill crack in the foundation wall blocks along the back South wall near the SW corner. Stepped mortar cracks are indicative of some settling. Unless the inadequate water drainage problem is permanently corrected, the owners can expect accelerated settling along the foundation walls, new mortar fill cracks to develop, and existing cracks to widen and elongate over time. Moderate to severe foundation wall settling will cause floors to go off level, corner wall junctions to separate, and doors/windows to become offset from their frames. Vibration levels of between 2 and 20 in/sec would be required to affect the integrity of the soil around the concrete poured footers for the foundation walls and the center block supports in the center of the crawl space, depending on the soil characteristics and footer depths below the frost line. 15.What appeared to the owners as corner wall separations in the NE corner of the dining room and in the SE corner of the master bedroom were nothing more than paint shrinkage. Vibration levels of between 10 and 40 in/sec would be required to cause corner wall junctions to separate. 16.The straight-line drywall crack found on the South wall open entrance to the hallway was along a tape seam. Blasting does not cause perfectly straight-line cracks in drywall. Typical blast induced drywall cracks are always diagonal in nature, because all walls are planar structures. Vibration levels of between 0.75 and 2.0 in/sec would be required to cause drywall cracks, depending on the associated frequency with the peak vibration level. 17.Blasting had nothing to do with the water well filter having to be replaced on a weekly basis. The well was 70 – 80 years old, and the floor of the water shed was completely water saturated, implying that there could be a leak in the system. This problem was strictly related to the age and maintenance schedule of the water well. Blasting did not cause the water table to drop, damaging the well or causing the dirty water. Minimum vibration levels of at least 5 in/sec would be required to affect the well casing, fittings or water containment reservoir. BAI,. 4 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 18.In terms of airblast, levels of at least 150 dB would be required to cause structural damage, usually starting with cracked windows. The highest airblast level recorded in the residential community was 127 dB on 07/21/09, at a distance 932 feet from the blast zones. The Ward residence was 3,100 feet from the blast zones. This level was not high enough to have caused any of the claimed structural damages. However airblast levels of 125 dB or greater could have been "felt, heard or sensed" by occupants in the home. Sensing, hearing or feeling the effects of airblast does not mean that permanent structural damage was sustained. This is perhaps one of the most difficult concepts for most homeowners to accept or understand. Refer to Appendix A for a more detailed account of the psychological response to airblast. 19.The homeowners can rest assured that blasting from the Rogers Group Farmington quarry is not causing any structural damage to their home or causing the dirty water in their water well. BAI,. 5 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 1.0 INTRODUCTION Blasting Analysis International, Inc. (BAI) was commissioned by the Rogers Group insurance company to conduct an independent blast damage inspection of the Ward dwelling, which was located at 1048 North Hamstring Road, Fayetteville, AR 72704. The dwelling was located approximately 3,100 feet (0.6 miles) from the blast zones. The investigation also included a review of the detailed blast design parameters and seismic/airblast measurements obtained in the surrounding community during 2009. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if the alleged damages resulted from the quarry blasting and/or if the damages were caused by other sources and/or activities. This report is based and qualified on the following: 1.An on-site inspection of the Ward dwelling on August 27, 2009. 2.A review of the blast design parameters used at the quarry. 3.A review of all seismic/airblast measurements obtained in the surrounding community in 2009. 4.Meetings and/or discussions with representatives from the Rogers Group, Austin Powder Company, Vibra-Tech Engineers, and one of the homeowners. 5.Digital photographs and field notes pertaining to the Ward home. BAI is an international engineering consulting group specializing in blast damage assessments for residential and commercial structures, blasting audits, custom blast designs, blast monitoring instrumentation and training. To date, BAI has evaluated, monitored, designed and/or supervised over 6,700 full-scale blasts spanning 25 countries, including hundreds of blast related property damage claims. Such projects included the entire first major Expansion and Deepening of the Panama Canal between 1995 and 2002. BAI certifies that it is completely independent and is not associated with the financial business activities of the Rogers Group, the homeowners, the Austin Powder Company or Vibra-Tech Engineers, nor in the sale of explosives and/or rock products. Our services were retained strictly as an independent engineering firm to assess the alleged damages from an engineering and scientific standpoint. BAI,. 6 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 1.1 Ward Residence The Ward residence is a one story structure built over a crawl space on concrete block foundation walls. The center supports were grouted concrete blocks, which were placed on concrete poured footers. The siding along the exterior walls of the structure consisted of a decorative concrete based material which looked like wood siding. The home was completed in early 2009, making it approximately 8 – 9 months old. The current owners moved into the dwelling in the January-February, 2009 time frame. A 70 -80 year old water well was also on the Ward property. Common materials used in the construction of the home were concrete blocks, mortar fill, concrete based siding, asphalt shingles, wood board flooring, drywall, wood frames, and wood/aluminum framed doors and windows. Utilities consisted of central electric heat, central A/C, well water and a septic tank system. 1.2 Concerns Voiced by the Owners A number of concerns were voiced by the owners regarding blasting from the quarry: Exterior of Home -Cracks on all sides of the home, along the mortar fill in the block foundation wall blocks. -Some mortar fill deterioration along the foundation wall blocks. Interior of Home -Corner wall junction separations in the dining area and master bedroom. -Drywall crack at the hallway entrance. Water well -Filter needed to be replaced every week due to dirty water. BAI,. 7 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC According to Mr. Ward, his initial main concerns were with mortar cracks/separations along the foundation wall blocks of the home, and the necessity of having to replace the water well filter every week. According to the owners all of these problems occurred within 1 – 2 months after they moved into their new home in January-February, 2009. It should be noted that the first blast at the Farmington quarry in 2009 did not take place until 03/09/09. Mr. Ward stated that the water well was at least 70 -80 years old, which went back to his grandmother’s day. Mr. Ward does not recall ever having to replace the water well filter as frequently as every week. He believes that blasting affected the water table, damaged his well, and was the cause of the dirty water. Mr. Ward stated that he was very pleased with the blast levels from the quarry within the last 2 to 3 months, compared to blasting within the first quarter of 2009. If the blast levels could remain as they are currently, Mr. Ward stated he would have no blasting concerns. Mr. Ward stated that his greater concern with blasting was from the nearby dirt farm. Mr. Ward observed the dirt farm blasts to throw material very high up into the air, causing excessive airblast and dispersed dust all over the neighborhood. Mr. Ward would like the dirt farm to conduct controlled blasting similar to that done at the Rogers Group quarry within the last 2 to 3 months. BAI,. 8 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 2.0 RESULTS OF INSPECTION Î EXTERIOR OF HOME A complete internal and external inspection of the Ward dwelling was completed, with an emphasis on the major areas of concern voiced by the owners. The investigation was partially accompanied by one of the owners, who was very accommodating, cooperative and patient throughout the entire inspection process. Documentation was achieved with digital photographs, a video and field notes. For reference purposes, the front of the home facing North Hamstring road has been designated as North, although it may not necessarily represent true North. All digital photographs have been labeled as “Px”, where x is the photograph number. Some sections in Appendices A and B may be referred to throughout this report to put some things into perspective, and to also help the reader in understanding the seismic/airblast levels which can and cannot cause damage. Detailed seismic/airblast results taken in the community and comparison of the data to the USBM damage criteria are presented in Appendix C. A linear regression analysis of the data is presented in Appendix D. 2.1 North Side P 1 P1 North side – Overall view of the home, front walkway, and the terrain. The terrain was completely flat on all sides around the home. Although the exterior siding appears to be wood, it was actually a concrete based siding. No major structural problems were found anywhere along this side of the home. BAI,. 9 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 2 P2 North side – Close up of the concrete based siding and roof overhang. No structural or cosmetic defects were noted in any of the roof overhangs or along the siding. P 3 P3 North side – NE corner of the front porch roof underside. No problems were noted along the corner junctions in the porch roof or in any of the vertical roof supports. BAI,. 10 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 4 P4 North side – Top left-hand corner of window W1. The window frames consisted of wood and aluminum. No blast induced problems were found in either of the two windows on this side of the home. P 5 P5 North side – Top left-hand corner of the front door. No structural, offset or alignment problems were found around the front door. All of the exterior and interior doors opened and closed freely with no problems. BAI,. 11 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 6 P6 North side – Top right-hand corner of window W2. No problems were noted around the window frame or along the surrounding siding. According to the owners, the broken window pane was caused by a lawn mower kicking debris/rocks up into the air. P 7 P7 North side – Front steps and deck area in front of the front door entrance. The steps, deck boards, rails and vertical roof supports were all treated wood. No obvious structural or cosmetic problems were found along any of the wood works. BAI,. 12 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 2.2 West Side P 8 P8 West side – Overall view of the dwelling, terrain and gravel driveway. The terrain was flat on this side of the home. Note that there were no gutters installed on the home. The main concern here was related to four mortar cracks along the block foundation walls. The owners claimed that these cracks developed within the first 1 to 2 months after they moved into the new home P 9 P9 West side – NW corner of the front porch area. No gutters were installed on this side or the opposite East side of the home. BAI,. 13 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 10 P10 West side – Top right-hand corner of window W2. No structural problems were found in any of the windows. All of the windows on the home opened and closed freely. The corner condition shown here was typical of the other windows on this side of the home. P 11 P11 West side – Bottom section of window W2. Damage to the inside blind was not related to blasting. BAI,. 14 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 12 P12 West side – Foundation wall area in the NW corner. A vertical crack separation was noted along the corner block. These types of cracks were a major concern to the owners. P 13 P13 West side – Foundation wall area below window W2. A hairline vertical mortar crack was noted in the top block set. BAI,. 15 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 14 P14 West side – Foundation wall area below vent No. 4. A vertical hairline crack was noted in the block works. P 15 P15 West side – Foundation wall area in the SW corner. Here some of the mortar fill had deteriorated and fallen out around the top corner block. Note that the horizontal mortar fill was still completely intact. BAI,. 16 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 2.3 South Side P 16 P16 South side – Overall view of the house and terrain. The terrain on this side of the home was flat. The main concern in this area were three mortar cracks along the foundation wall blocks. No structural problems were noted around the windows or along the siding. P 17 P17 South side – Top section of the roof overhang. No obvious problems were noted along the siding or roof overhangs. BAI,. 17 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 18 P18 South side – Bottom left-hand corner of window W1. All of the windows on this side of the home were structurally intact. The corner condition shown here was typical of the other windows on this side of the home. P 19 P19 South side – Foundation wall area in the SW corner around vent No. 1. A hairline mortar crack was noted to the immediate left of the vent. Again, these types of cracks were a major concern to the owners. BAI,. 18 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 20 P20 South side – Foundation wall blocks to the right of the crawl space entrance door. A stepped mortar crack was noted in the block works. Stepped mortar cracks are indicative of some settlement. P 21 P21 South side – Close up of the siding between windows W1 and W2. No problems were found with any of the siding of the home. BAI,. 19 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 22 P22 South side – Foundation wall area in the SE corner. A vertical separation was noted along the mortar fill in the top corner block. Note that the horizontal mortar fill was completely intact, and that the corner top block is still in place. This implies that the mortar fill separation was due strictly to the quality of the mortar fill and shrinkage. P 23 P23 South side – Close up of the mortar fill shrinkage shown in P22. BAI,. 20 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 2.4 East Side P 24 P24 East side – Overall view of the dwelling and terrain. The terrain on this side of the home was also perfectly flat, as was the terrain on all sides of the home. Note that no gutters were installed on this side of the home. The main concern here was a single hairline mortar crack along the foundation wall blocks. P 25 P25 East side – SE corner of the roof overhang. Note the lack of a gutter and downspout system to channel roof water away from the foundation walls of the home. BAI,. 21 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 26 P26 East side – Bottom right-hand corner of window W1. All of the window frames on this side of the home were in excellent structural condition. The corner condition shown here was typical of the other windows on this side of the home. P 27 P27 East side – Foundation wall area below vent No. 2. A barely visible vertical mortar fill crack was noted below the vent. BAI,. 22 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 28 P28 East side – Top section of the side door. No problems were found around the door frame or along the surrounding siding. 2.5 Crawl Space P 29 P29 Crawl space – Overall view looking at the North wall. No obvious structural problems were found along any of the exterior foundation walls or along any of the center block supports. BAI,. 23 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 30 P30 Crawl space – Close up of a section of the West wall foundation blocks. No obvious structural problems were found along any of the foundation walls in the crawl space. Also, none of the exterior mortar cracks along the outside of the foundation wall blocks had penetrated through the wall into the crawl space. P 31 P31 Crawl space – Example of one of the center block supports. All of the center block supports were grouted and placed over concrete poured footers. No obvious structural, settlement or leaning problems were found in any of the center supports. BAI,. 24 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 32 P32 Crawl space – Close up of the floor section along the South wall. This was a low spot in the crawl space for the collection of water, but the crawl space had no drainage system to channel water out of the crawl space. At the time of this inspection the floor was dry, but it was obvious in this low spot that water had gotten into the crawl space in the past. Water getting underneath the foundation walls of any structure can lead to settling over prolonged periods of wet/dry and freeze/thaw cycling. 2.6 Water Well P 33 P33 Water well – Overall view of the shed housing the water well. According to the owners, this well was at least 70 – 80 years old. The main concern here was that the owners had to replace the water filter weekly. The owners believed that blasting caused the water table to change, causing damage to their well and thus creating the dirty water. BAI,. 25 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 34 P34 Water well – Wall section to the left of the door. A number of paint filled mortar cracks were noted in the block works. But, the owners had no concerns with damage to the block works from blasting. P 35 P35 Water well - Wall section to the right of the door. A number of paint filled mortar cracks were also noted in the block works. Again, the owners had no concerns with damage to the block works from blasting. BAI,. 26 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 36 P36 Water well – Overall view of the inside of the shed housing the water well. The floor was completely water saturated. Because there were a number of storage items on the floor, it was not clear if the water on the floor resulted from recent rain falls or from leakages in the water well/pumping system. It was obvious that the shed and well system were very old. P 37 P37 Water well – Close up of the water filter, which was very discolored, blackened and dirty. According to the owners, the water filter has to be changed every week. The owner believes that blasting caused the water table to change, resulting in damage to their well system, and the cause of the dirty water. BAI,. 27 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 3.0RESULTS OF INSPECTION Î INTERIOR OF HOME Figure 3.01 illustrates a generalized plan view of the room layout in the Ward home. Note that the drawing is not to scale, and that some of the door entrances and/or windows may have been purposely left out for clarity. The drawing is only intended to show where the rooms are relative to each other for reference purposes. North Front Door Dining Area Living Room Kitchen WE Washer Closet Dryer Room Bedroom Bathroom No. 1 Bedroom Bedroom No. 3 No. 2Master South Ward Residence, Fayetteville, AR Figure 3.01 Generalized plan view of the home layout. Not to scale. BAI,. 28 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 3.1 Living Room P 38 P38 Living room – Overall view looking at the entrances into the hallway and kitchen/dining room. The floor was wood boards, and the walls/ceiling were drywall.Everything in the living room was in excellent structural condition. P 39 P39 Living room – Close up of the NW ceiling/wall corner junction. No cracks, separations or other problems were found in any of the corner junctions in the room. The corner condition shown here was typical throughout the room BAI,. 29 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 40 P40 Living room – Sloped ceiling section over the South wall. All of the corner junctions were intact. The discoloration along the corner junctions was due to incomplete painting, not from water leaks. Paint discolorations were found in many rooms of the home. P 41 P41 Living room – Level placed on the floor in a West – East direction in front of the front door exit. All of the rooms with wood floors were found to be level in all directions. BAI,. 30 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 3.2 Kitchen-Dining Area P 42 P42 Kitchen/Dining area – Overall view looking at the East wall dining area. The floor was a continuation of the wood boards from the living room, and the walls and ceiling were all drywall. The main concern in this area pertained in a perceived partial separation in the bottom half of the NE corner wall junction. P 43 P43 Kitchen/Dining area – Overall view of the kitchen area looking at the South wall entrance door into the washer/dryer room. Everything in the kitchen was in excellent structural condition. BAI,. 31 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 44 P44 Kitchen/Dining area – NE corner ceiling/wall junction. The top section of this corner wall junction was completely intact, but according to the owners the bottom section near the floor had separated. P 45 P45 Kitchen/Dining area – NE corner wall junction near the floor. What appeared to the owners as a wall junction separation was due only to paint shrinkage. The gap between the floor molding ends had nothing to do with blasting. BAI,. 32 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 46 P46 Kitchen/Dining area – Close up of the West wall cupboards against the wall. All of the cupboards and counter tops were intact against the walls. P 47 P47 Kitchen/Dining area – South wall entrance door into the washer/dryer room. No problems were noted with any of the mitered door corners in the home. Everything in the washer/dryer room was in excellent structural condition. BAI,. 33 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 3.3 Hall to Bedrooms P 48 P48 Hallway to bedrooms – Overall view of the hallway leading into the bedroom area. The floor was wood boards, and all the walls and ceiling were drywall. The first door on the right of the hallway was a closet, the second room on the right was bedroom No. 1, and the last door on the right was bedroom No. 2. The first door on the left of the hallway was the bathroom, and the second door on the left was bedroom No. 3 (Master bedroom). The main concern at the hallway entrance was related to a drywall crack. P 49 P49 Hallway to bedrooms – South wall open entrance into the hallway. A small barely visible stress crack was noted at the corner, which connected to a straight-line tape seam separation. BAI,. 34 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 50 P50 Hallway to bedrooms – Ceiling and corner junctions at the end of the hallway. All of the corner junctions, crown moldings and mitered door frame corners were intact. 3.4 Bathroom P 51 P51 Bathroom – Overall view looking at the SE corner. Here the floor was carpeted, and the walls/ceiling were drywall. No major structural problems were found in this room. BAI,. 35 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 52 P52 Bathroom – SE corner ceiling/wall junction. No cracks, separations or other problems were found in any of the corner junctions. The corner condition shown here was typical of the other junctions in the room. Buckling out of the wallpaper trim had nothing to do with blasting. This was due primarily to condensation. P 53 P53 Hallway – NW corner ceiling/wall junction over the bathtub/shower area. All of the corner junctions in the room were completely intact. BAI,. 36 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 3.5 Bedroom No. 1 At the time of the inspection for this room, the owner’s two young daughters were taking their afternoon nap. The owner did not want their daughters disturbed while they were sleeping, and thus no digital images were taken in bedroom No. 1 at the request of the owner. However, a walk through this bedroom earlier in the morning with the owner did not reveal any structural problems. 3.6 Bedroom No. 2 P 54 P54 Bedroom No. 2 – Overall view looking at the SW corner. The floor was tiled, and the walls/ceiling were all drywall. No significant structural problems were found anywhere in the room. BAI,. 37 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 55 P55 Bedroom No. 2 – SE corner ceiling/wall junction. All of the corner junctions in the room were intact with no problems. The corner condition shown here was typical throughout the room. 3.7 Bedroom No. 3 (Master Bedroom) P 56 P56 Bedroom No. 3 – Overall view looking at the SE corner. The floor was carpeted, and the walls/ceiling were drywall. The main concern here was related to a separation in the SE corner wall junction. BAI,. 38 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC P 57 P57 Bedroom No. 3 – Close up of the SE corner wall junction. What appeared to the owners as a corner separation was due only to paint shrinkage. P 58 P58 Bedroom No. 3 – Top section of the North wall door. No structural, offset or alignment problems were found around the door. All of the doors and windows in the home opened, closed, and locked freely with no problems. BAI,. 39 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 4.0 BLAST DESIGN REVIEW AND SEISMIC/AIRBLAST ANALYSIS The seismic data was analyzed in two ways. First, the data were plotted against the USBM (United States Bureau of Mines) damage criteria to determine the probability of any structural damage. Second, a linear regression analysis was performed on the data to determine what the highest possible vibration level the Ward residence could have received, even if no monitoring was done directly at the Ward residence 4.1 Seismic/Airblast Results A total of 20 seismic/airblast measurements and their accompanying blast design parameters were reviewed and analyzed for the period between 03/09/09 and 09/08/09. No blasting occurred at the quarry in 2009 prior to 03/09/09. The owners moved into their home in January- February, 2009. The maximum verifiable weight of explosives per delay used on the shots ranged from 34 to 524 lbs. The measured seismic amplitudes in terms of the peak particle velocity ranged from 0.015 to 0.66 in/sec, at frequencies ranging from 6 to 63 Hz. Airblast levels ranged from 90 to 127 dB. All measurements were taken over distances ranging from approximately 680 to 4,375 feet from the blast zones. The Ward residence was located approximately 3,100 feet (0.6 miles) from the actual blast zones. Detailed seismic/airblast results, and a plot of the data results against the USBM damage criteria, are presented in Appendix C. 4.2 Vibration Levels Plotted on USBM Damage Criteria According to the latest United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) damage criteria established for one to two story residential dwellings, and from other researchers, ground vibration levels of over 0.50 in/sec would be required to cause cracks in plaster, 0.75 to 2.0 in/sec to cause drywall cracks depending on the frequency, at least 3 in/sec to cause mortar cracks, 2.0 to 2.4 in/sec to cause cracks in freshly poured concrete (0 - 4 hours old ), 4 to 8 inch/sec to cause cracks in fully cured concrete (7 - 10 days old), and well over 10 in/sec to cause structural distortions. In addition, the correct combination of vibration amplitude, resonant frequency energy and very long shot durations would be required to cause permanent damage. Refer to Appendices A1 and B for more technical details. BAI,. 40 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Figure 4.21 illustrates a plot of all the vibration measurements on the USBM graph, which were collected in 2009 since 03/09/09. The USBM graph is a plot of ground vibration amplitude versus frequency. As long as a vibration measurement is not above the solid or dashed red lines within a specific frequency range, no structural damage is possible. The USBM damage criteria is very stringent, but also a very conservative threshold of damage. It does not mean that damage is guaranteed to occur just by going over the damage threshold limit. It simply means that the probability of damage goes up. The higher the threshold limit value is exceeded, for a particular building material, the higher is the probability of damage. If the vibration measurement falls below the solid or dashed red lines for specific frequency ranges, no structural damage is possible. Note that none of the seismic amplitudes exceeded the damage threshold lines for either plaster or drywall at their respective frequencies. Farmington Quarry Vibration Measurements 03-09-09 to 09-08-09 10.000 Potential Structural Damage Zone is Above Solid Red Line 2.0 in/sec 1.000 0.75 in/sec for Drywall 0.50 in/sec for Plaster No Damage Zone is Below Solid/Dashed Red Lines at 0.100 Respective Frequency 0.010 110100 Frequency (Hz) Figure 4.21 Î USBM graph plot for seismic measurements obtained between 03/09/09 and 09/08/09 in the surrounding community. None of the blasts resulted in vibration amplitudes which exceeded the damage threshold lines for either plaster or drywall. BAI,. 41 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC The weakest structural component member in the Ward home was the drywall, which required minimum vibration levels between 0.75 and 2.0 in/sec to cause permanent damage. None of the vibration levels from the quarry blasting exceeded the damage threshold for drywall at any time, and no blast induced drywall cracks were found anywhere in the home. Since blasting did not exceed the drywall damage threshold in the home, it negates all of the other structural damage claims, because those material damages, structural distortions and displacement tolerances required much higher vibration levels than the levels required to cause drywall cracks. Direct vibration measurements at the Ward residence were between No Trigger to 0.025 in/sec. Thus, the vibration levels were not high enough to have caused any of the mortar cracks along the block foundation walls, or any corner wall junctions to separate in the interior of the home. 4.3 Linear Regression Linear regression analysis allows one to predict what the expected vibration levels would be at distances or at homes in which no direct vibration/airblast measurements were available. For example, the seismic measurements taken from the quarry blasts were collected at distances between 680 and 4,375 feet away. Linear regression allows one to confidently predict the vibration levels for homes which might be located closer than 680 ft, father away than 4,375 ft, or any distance in between. The Ward home was located 3,100 feet (0.60 miles) from the blast zones. This type of analysis also allows one to predict the worst possible levels of vibrations which could have reached the home. Linear regression develops a plot of the peak particle velocity versus scaled distance. Scaled distance relates the measured or predicted ground vibration level to the distance from the shot point, and to the maximum weight of explosives per detonation used on each blast. BAI,. 42 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Results are presented in Figure 4.31, with the general regression equation as: 1/21.68 PPV = 145.19 (D/W) Where: PPV = Peak particle velocity (in/sec) D = Distance from shot (ft) W = Maximum weight of explosives per detonation (lbs) The values 145.19 and -1.68 are the calculated geologic site constants for the area. The basis of this equation was used to predict both the average and worst case seismic levels expected at the Ward home. If we take the largest verifiable weight of explosives per delay used on the blasts as 542 lbs, and the distance from the shots as 3,100 feet, the estimated average vibration level to reach the Ward residence would have been 0.04 in/sec. This would be equivalent to the vibration levels measured on a kitchen floor from an adult walking normally across the floor. If we now assume the worst possible case condition, by using the same maximum weight of explosives of 542 lbs, but with the 95% upper limit line equation shown in Figure 4.31, the vibration levels at the Ward home would NOT exceed 0.07 in/sec. This is a very conservative estimate because it assumes that allof the shots were fired with a maximum weight of explosives of 542 lbs, even though the majority of the shots were fired with less explosives. Using the upper limit line 95% confidence interval also accommodates for low correlation coefficients in the data analysis. However, it is important to note that the conclusions contained within this report relied on only the more restrictive and conservative 95% upper confidence interval, and were not based on the average. Based on the linear regression analysis, the ground vibration levels could not have caused any damage to the home or water well, even in the worst case scenarios. BAI,. 43 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC Figure 4.31 Î Linear regression analysis BAI,. 44 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC 4.4 Airblast Results In terms of airblast, minimum levels of at least 150 dB would be required to cause physical damage, usually starting with cracked windows. No blast induced broken window panes were found anywhere on the Ward residence. The broken window pane at the front of the home was caused by a lawn mower kicking up rocks and debris. The highest airblast level recorded in the community was 127 dB on 07/28/09 at a distance of 932 feet from the blast zones. The Ward residence was located 3,100 feet away from the blast zones. Direct airblast measurements at the Ward residence were between No Trigger to 120 dB. Thus, the airblast levels were also not high enough to have caused any structural damage to the home or water well. However, airblast levels of 125 dB or over could have been "felt, heard and/or sensed" by the homeowners, but they would not high enough to have caused any of the claimed structural damages. 4.5 Vibration/Airblast Regulations No local, State or Federal regulations pertaining to the maximum allowable vibration and airblast amplitudes were violated by the Rogers Group Farmington Quarry. File:rg-Ward-Fayetteville-AR-09-22-09 BAI,. 45 LASTING NALYSIS NTERNATIONAL INC