Monitoring neighbouring buildings during construction is the continuous measurement of tilt, crack opening, settlement and vibrations on structures within the zone affected by the works, compared against a documented zero state. It does not remove the contractor's responsibility. It gives the contractor something else: the ability to show what was happening to the building next door at every hour of the works. Without it, every crack reported by a neighbour looks like "yours", and the dispute comes down to an expert opinion written after the fact.
In brief
- Liability for damage to a building next to a construction site is based on fault (Article 415 of the Civil Code) or risk (Article 435 of the Civil Code). Courts classify construction enterprises as being "set in motion by forces of nature", so the defence "we were not at fault" is often not enough.
- A zero-state survey and zero reading of sensors are the only reference point dated before the first movement of the excavator. They cannot be created retroactively.
- Four things are measured on neighbouring buildings: wall tilt, crack opening, settlement and vibrations. Temperature and groundwater are added as context.
- A weekly reading during the excavation phase is too infrequent. A measurement every 15 minutes by default, or more often, with thresholds and SMS provides an answer before the neighbour calls.
- The evidence is not the chart, but the raw data with a timestamp, the communication log and the trail of human decisions after the alarm.
Scenario: a neighbour calls on Monday morning
This is a hypothetical scenario. It does not describe a specific project, but anyone who has managed an excavation in dense urban fabric will recognise it immediately.
Imagine a site manager who left an excavation on Friday at a depth of about six metres, behind a diaphragm wall, a few metres from a century-old tenement building. On Monday at 7:40, the building manager calls: there is a crack in the stairwell, above the second-floor window. The occupants say it was not there on Saturday. The building manager says a letter will go to the investor and a report will be filed with the district building control inspector.
The site manager has three questions to answer quickly: did that crack exist before construction, did it change over the weekend, and what was the wall of the tenement doing in that period.
In the version without monitoring, there is no answer. The survey of neighbouring buildings was not done, or it was done superficially, without photos with a scale. The surveyor levels the benchmarks every two weeks, and the last measurement was nine days ago. The site manager can only say "I do not think it came from us", and that sentence carries no weight. The inspector sees a crack that looks fresh, a deep excavation and no data. A stop order for works in that zone until the matter is clarified is the mildest possible outcome.
In the version with monitoring, the site manager opens the dashboard and within minutes has: a photo of the same wall from a survey done five months earlier with the crack marked on it (for illustration, let us assume it was 0.3 mm wide then), the chart from the crack gauge on that crack, the tilt of the gable wall from the last 72 hours, and the vibration record from the weekend. If the opening follows a daily cycle together with temperature and the tilt is stable, the same day the site manager sends the building manager a written response with an extract of the data. If the data show a tilt jump on Saturday at 14:10, the site manager knows that from Saturday, because an SMS came then, and the decision to stop deepening and stiffen the strutting was made before the neighbour noticed anything.
That is the difference. Monitoring does not make the contractor innocent. It means the contractor knows what is happening and can show it. If you fear two things at once, a neighbour's claim and a stop-work order, those are precisely the two things that can be controlled with data, not assurances.
Who is liable for cracks in the building next door, and on what basis
Liability for damage to adjacent buildings has three layers: civil law (who pays), administrative law (who can stop the construction) and technical rules (what the design and regulation require to be measured). Below are paraphrases, not quotations; legal status as of August 2026.
Civil Code: support, fault and risk
Article 147 of the Civil Code prohibits an owner from carrying out earthworks in a way that threatens neighbouring properties with loss of support. This is a neighbour-law provision: it concerns the threat itself, not only damage that has already occurred, and it is addressed to the owner of the property, usually the investor. The contractor is liable on other grounds, but it is the contractor who actually carries out the works.
Article 415 of the Civil Code sets out the general fault principle: whoever, through their own fault, causes damage to another person is obliged to repair it. The contractor's fault may be, for example, negligence: excavation support that does not match the design, or a lack of monitoring that the design required.
Article 435 § 1 of the Civil Code goes further: a person running, on their own account, an enterprise set in motion by forces of nature is liable for damage caused by the movement of that enterprise, regardless of fault. Only force majeure or the exclusive fault of the injured party or a third party for whom the operator is not responsible will release them.
In Supreme Court case law, construction enterprises have long been included in this category. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court judgment of 17 March 2022 (II CSKP 482/22) in a case concerning damage to a building caused by works on a neighbouring plot: the general contractor was treated as such an enterprise regardless of whether it owned the machines and whether it commissioned subcontractors. The assessment always depends on the actual role of the machines in that entity's business.
What does this mean in practice? Formally, the burden of proving damage and its link to the works lies with the neighbour (Article 6 of the Civil Code). Under Article 435, however, you will not defend yourself by saying "we were not at fault", and a fresh crack a few metres from a deep excavation is strong circumstantial evidence for an expert. You defend yourself by showing, with date and time, what was happening to the building next door.
Construction Law: third-party interests and the duties of the site manager
Article 5(1)(9) of the Construction Law requires a structure to be designed and built with due regard for the legitimate interests of third parties within the structure's zone of impact. The technical condition of someone else's tenement building is such an interest.
Article 22 lists the basic duties of the site manager, including securing the construction site, keeping the construction documentation, directing the works in accordance with the design and regulations, and stopping the works if a threat is found and notifying the competent authority without delay. Article 22 does not explicitly mention protection of neighbouring structures; this follows indirectly from those provisions, from Article 5 and from the Civil Code.
Note the word "found". To find a possible threat, you need something to find it with. A site manager without measurements learns about the threat from a neighbour or from an inspector.
Article 50 allows the building control authority to order a suspension by decision of works carried out in a way that may threaten the safety of people or property; the authority may also order a survey of the works or a technical assessment. A suspension means downtime, contractual penalties and a revised schedule. Working monitoring with proper records is the strongest argument in that discussion that the works are under control.
The 2012 regulation: geotechnical category and monitoring of adjacent structures
The Regulation of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy of 25 April 2012 on determining geotechnical conditions for the foundation of structures introduces three geotechnical categories in § 4. Excavations, retaining structures, embankments and ground anchors, other than the smallest ones classified as category I, are at least category II. Category III includes, among others, structures in complex ground conditions, high-rise buildings designed in existing urban development, tall structures founded deeper than 5 m or with more than one underground storey, as well as heritage structures. The designer determines the category.
For categories II and III, the regulation requires a geotechnical design (§ 7(2)), consistent with Eurocode 7, and this design, according to § 10(10), must define the scope of the necessary monitoring of the built structure, neighbouring structures and the surrounding ground, needed to identify hazards during the works, as a result of the works and during use.
For the site manager, this means two things. In an excavation within a built-up area, monitoring of neighbours is usually not "good practice" but a design-document requirement that must be delivered. And if the design provides for it and it is not present on site, that is ready-made evidence of negligence in a dispute. How excavation design translates into measurement points is described in the guide to deep excavation geotechnical monitoring.
Zero-state survey: without it, every crack is "yours"
A zero-state survey is a documented description of the technical condition of buildings within the zone affected by the construction, prepared before any works begin, in a way that allows what existed and what did not exist to be reconstructed without ambiguity.
The word "any" matters here. Damage in the vicinity does not start with the excavation. It starts with demolition of the old structure, with piling, with sheet pile driving, with lowering the groundwater table through dewatering. Each of these activities can cause settlement or vibrations. A survey done "before the excavation", but after a week of piling, is a survey of a state that is already partly yours.
What it should include
A good survey has several fixed elements. A list of structures in the zone of impact, determined by the designer, not by the site manager "by eye". A description of the structure and age of each building. Photographs of every crack with a scale, date and number, so that the same place can be found a year later. Measurement of crack width and wall tilt, and levelling of benchmarks. A protocol signed by the owner or manager.
If the owner refuses access to the premises, and that happens often, the refusal must be documented: letter, date, witness, exterior photos. A neighbour who did not let the expert in has a weaker position in a dispute, but only if the refusal is on paper.
Who prepares it and what it does not do
The survey should be prepared by an independent expert or engineer with qualifications, not by the site manager personally. The point is the credibility of a document that an expert will read two years later.
A survey is a photograph. It does not show what happens between its preparation and the claim report. That is what monitoring is for, and the link between them is the zero reading of the sensors: the values from the moment of installation, from which all later changes are counted. It is worth installing the sensors several weeks before the first works so that they record the "background": daily and weather-related building movements that exist independently of the construction. Without that background, the first warm afternoon after the works start looks like an alarm.
What this means for you: the survey and the zero reading are the only two documents that cannot be created later. Everything else, sensors, thresholds, procedures, can be corrected during the works. Those cannot.
What to measure on neighbouring structures, and where
On buildings within the zone of impact, four quantities are measured, plus temperature and groundwater as context. The choice of points belongs to the designer of the excavation support; the table is meant to help in discussion with the designer, not replace them.
| What you measure | With what | Where on the building | What it tells you | How often |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wall tilt | wall inclinometer (MEMS or vibrating wire), single- or dual-axis, result in mrad | gable wall and façade facing the excavation, corners, as high as possible (greater lever arm) | whether the building is leaning towards the excavation; trend against daily breathing | automatically every 15 min by default, or more often in all phases; baseline period at least several weeks before works |
| Crack opening | electronic crack gauge (displacement sensor, for example inductive) on selected cracks; tell-tales as a supplement | cracks identified in the survey, especially diagonal cracks near openings, building joints, expansion joints | whether the crack moves seasonally, or opens in one direction | automatically every 15 min by default, or more often; tell-tales during inspections |
| Settlement | geodetic benchmarks and precise levelling (periodic measurement); between level runs, differential settlement is seen indirectly in tilts | plinth, corners, every few metres along the façade facing the excavation | absolute and differential settlement; the differential settlement is what cracks the building | levelling before works, then according to the design, more often during the excavation phase; inclinometers fill the gaps |
| Vibrations | three-axis accelerometer (for example MEMS), dynamic monitoring with event logging | on the foundation or at ground level, in a stiff structural node, on the source side of the vibrations; on a floor if you assess the impact on occupants | structural harmfulness according to PN-B-02170 (SWD scales); every event with time and spectrum | background before works; continuous logging in phases with impact loading (piling, compaction, demolitions, heavy transport) |
| Groundwater | piezometer (vibrating wire) between the excavation and the building | in the ground, on the neighbour's side | lowering of the water table, which causes consolidation settlement of someone else's foundation | every 15 min by default, or more often during dewatering and deepening |
| Temperature | temperature sensor near the inclinometer and crack gauge | the same location as the main sensor | separating daily breathing from a lasting trend | together with the main sensor |
Tilts: mrad to mm
A wall inclinometer is a sensor that measures the angle of deviation from vertical, usually in milliradians; mounted on the wall of a neighbouring building, it shows whether the wall changes its inclination over time. Conversion to millimetres: horizontal displacement at height H is approximately Δ = θ × H, where θ is in mrad, H in metres, and the result is in millimetres. For illustration: a change in tilt of 0.5 mrad on a wall 12 m high is about 6 mm of difference between the plinth and the cornice. That order of magnitude cracks the wall, and nobody will see it with the naked eye.
Cracks: a tell-tale says yes or no, a crack gauge says when and how much
A crack gauge is a displacement sensor mounted across an existing crack, which measures the change in its opening over time. A gypsum tell-tale breaks and that is all: you do not know when, by how much, whether at night after frost, or an hour after the bucket was driven in. An electronic crack gauge gives a continuous history, from which you can see that the crack breathes by tenths of a millimetre between day and night, and whether the weekly trend is zero or not.
Settlement: the surveyor stays, automation fills the gaps
Precise levelling of benchmarks is an absolute measurement and there is no reason to give it up. It has two disadvantages, however: it requires travel to site and it gives a value at the time of measurement. Differential settlement, which in practice creates cracks, shows up as wall tilt, so inclinometers every 15 minutes by default, or more often are a natural complement to levelling.
Vibrations: peak value without frequency is not enough
Piling, compaction, demolition and heavy transport transmit vibrations to a building, and their harmfulness to the structure is assessed according to PN-B-02170:2016-12. In the approximate method, the standard uses SWD-I and SWD-II scales: the assessment covers the maximum values of velocity or acceleration of horizontal components in third-octave bands, measured on the foundation or at ground level on the source side, and the result is assigned to one of five zones, from negligible vibrations to building failure. A peak value alone is therefore not enough: the same amplitude at different frequencies falls into different zones. The impact of vibrations on people is assessed separately by PN-B-02171. More on this in the post about building vibration monitoring according to PN-B-02170.
What this means for you: each row in the table is one question for the excavation support designer: "where and with what do we measure this?" If there is no answer for one of them in the design, ask before the excavation starts, not after a neighbour calls.
Frequency: why a weekly reading is too infrequent during the excavation phase
A construction site next to existing buildings has several phases with different levels of risk for neighbours. Before the works, background is collected. Demolition, piling, sheet piles and diaphragm walls are the phase of impacts and vibrations. Dewatering and excavation deepening with successive levels of strutting or anchoring are the phase of the largest ground movements behind the support, that is, under the neighbour's foundations. Foundations and the shell stage are stabilization. After the works affecting the surroundings are complete, a final survey is carried out.
During the deepening phase, movements of the support and ground occur in response to each layer removed, often within hours, before the next level of strutting is installed. A geodetic measurement once a week gives a "after the fact" value. If something went wrong on Tuesday, you learn it the following Monday, and the neighbour on Wednesday.
The arithmetic is simple: a week is 672 fifteen-minute windows. Between two weekly readings, automation will carry out 672 measurements and check the thresholds each time. Those measurements are not more accurate than levelling. They are just there when something happens.
There is also temperature. A sunlit wall tilts daily and returns. If you measure once a week, at a different time of day each time, you see noise from which no trend can be extracted. Continuous measurement with simultaneous temperature measurement lets you subtract the breathing and see whether there is a drift in one direction underneath. For illustration: a daily amplitude of the order of tenths of a mrad with a weekly trend of hundredths of a mrad is a situation where weekly measurement has no chance, while continuous monitoring shows the trend after a few days.
Access is another issue. Manual measurement of cracks inside a tenement building requires access to the units, and with a neighbour in conflict that may be impossible. A sensor installed once, at the time of the survey, does not need anyone to be let in later. How to calculate the difference between "event and knowledge" on your own site is described by the core guide to structural monitoring.
Thresholds and response procedure: who gets the SMS and what they do
A sensor without a threshold is just a recorder. Monitoring begins where exceeding a value triggers a specific person.
Where threshold values come from
For neighbouring buildings there are three sources. The excavation support designer specifies acceptable displacements of the support and settlements or tilts of neighbours; this is the basis for the ALARM threshold. Vibration standards (PN-B-02170 for structures, PN-B-02171 for people in buildings) set the limits for accelerometers. The baseline period provides background statistics: if, for several weeks before the works, the tilt stayed within a certain band, moving outside it is a signal, even if it is still far from the design value.
A good practice is two levels: WARNING at part of the allowable value (for illustration: half or two thirds), ALARM at the allowable value, both with hysteresis so that a value oscillating around the threshold does not generate a series of notifications. Also watch the rate of change, because 3 mm in a quarter and 3 mm in a day are two different stories; that assessment is made on the trend, not on a single reading. And a third state that is often forgotten: NO_DATA. A sensor that has gone silent during deepening is not a lack of a problem, but a lack of knowledge, and it should trigger concern just like an exceedance.
Worried about false alarms? Rightly so. Every unnecessary SMS at three in the morning lowers vigilance for the one real one. Background from the baseline period, temperature next to the main sensor, hysteresis and temporary muting during planned impact works cover most cases. The methodology is described in the post about warning and alarm thresholds.
Who does what
The response plan should fit on one sheet pinned in the site container. A framework to adapt:
| State | Who receives the notification | What they do first | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| WARNING | site manager, person responsible for monitoring | verification (temperature? damaged sensor? works in this zone?), inspection of the building, denser levelling, entry in the construction log | same day |
| ALARM | site manager, works manager, excavation support designer, supervising inspector | stop works in the zone, assess with the designer (stiffen the strutting, anchor, backfill), decide whether to notify the authority in accordance with Article 22 of the Construction Law, entry in the construction log | immediately, regardless of the time |
| NO_DATA | person responsible for monitoring, site manager | check power supply and connectivity, site visit at the sensor, substitute measurement (levelling, manual reading) | before the next shift in that zone |
Two elements make the difference in a dispute. Alarm confirmation: who received the report and when. And temporary muting: during planned piling, a vibration alarm can be muted for the shift, but with a note of who and until when. Muting without an end date is an alarm that will not come back.
What this means for you: a procedure on one sheet means that at 14:10 on Saturday, nobody wonders whom to call. And in a dispute, it shows that the project had a plan and followed it.
Data as evidence: timestamp, raw data, log
A dispute about a crack starts with the question: "How do you know nothing was happening on Saturday?" A chart pasted into a letter does not answer that question. The answer is a chain in which every link has a date.
The zero reading with the installation document and calibration certificates for the sensors. Raw data from the device with a timestamp, not just converted values. Communication log: from which device, when and what arrived, so it can be shown that the 14:10 measurement arrived at 14:11 and was not added later. A trail of human decisions: who confirmed the alarm, who muted it, and for how long. Export to the contract archive at agreed intervals. And linking this to the construction log: an entry "deepening section 3 to level -4.5 m" next to the chart from the same day tells the expert more than ten pages of opinion.
Electronic records and printouts from measurement systems can be evidence in civil proceedings (Articles 308-309 of the Code of Civil Procedure), and they are usually interpreted by an expert (Article 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The expert will not trust a chart. They will ask about calibration, raw data and whether anyone could have changed it.
In the contract with the monitoring supplier, record data retention, export rights and read access for the parties (investor, supervision, possibly the manager of the neighbouring building). A neighbour who sees the data in real time is less likely to call on Monday morning. The full list of features of a reliable record is collected in the post about monitoring data as evidence in a dispute.
How it works in Inclify
In Inclify, a project with neighbours is managed as one project with separate dashboards for each building. Each channel, wall inclinometer, crack gauge, piezometer, temperature sensor, has its own WARNING and ALARM threshold with hysteresis, states OK / WARNING / ALARM / NO_DATA, and SMS and e-mail go to project users according to their settings (SMS requires a verified number). You confirm an alarm (recorded with who and when) and mute it only for a defined period, not indefinitely. The reference reading (zero) is stored in the platform, and the calibration drift report shows the deviation from it and drift over 7 and 30 days. For the "background" threshold, the platform proposes values from the history of the baseline period; project thresholds are entered manually. There is no separate threshold for rate of change, as trend is assessed on the chart and in the 7/30-day risk assessment report.
The chart panel overlays wall tilt with temperature on two axes. Vibrations from piling go into dynamic monitoring: time history, FFT spectrum and 21 third-octave bands 1-100 Hz with an envelope alarm; the assessment against SWD scales is made by an engineer on the basis of that data, the platform does not replace them. The data SLA report shows completeness and gaps per channel, exactly what an expert will ask about.
Measurements are stored in UTC with no automatic deletion; raw frames from the devices are kept by the communication log for the configured period (default 7 days), so after each alarm the administrator downloads the frames from that period into the contract archive. You export table data to CSV, and save the chart as an image. A read-only account gives the supervising inspector or the investor's representative access; permissions work at the level of the whole organisation, not a single construction site, so the scope of access needs careful thought. Existing recorders are connected through HTTP/JSON in a few days (how is described in the post about connecting existing recorders); turnkey monitoring with installation takes from a few to several weeks. Details: /solutions/buildings.
Site manager checklist (printable)
- Agree with the designer on the zone of impact and the list of structures to be monitored; the basis is the geotechnical design and the excavation support design.
- Commission a zero-state survey from an independent expert before any works, including demolition, piling and dewatering.
- Obtain the owner's or manager's signature on the protocol; document every refusal to allow access to the premises in writing.
- Plan the measurement points with the designer: inclinometers, crack gauges, benchmarks, accelerometers, piezometers, temperature.
- Install the sensors and take the zero reading at least several weeks before the works so that the background is recorded.
- Enter the WARNING and ALARM thresholds from the designer and the vibration standard thresholds into the platform; note the source for each one.
- Decide who gets SMS and e-mail, including substitutes; make sure each of those people has a verified number and notifications enabled.
- Write the response plan for WARNING, ALARM and NO_DATA states and pin it in the site container.
- Set the benchmark levelling schedule according to the works phases.
- Spend a few minutes each day on the dashboard: trend, NO_DATA states, device status.
- At every phase change (start of piling, next excavation layer, dewatering), make an entry in the construction log and review active mutes.
- Confirm each alarm, verify it and describe the decision in the platform and in the construction log; download the raw frames from that period into the archive.
- Receive a neighbour's complaint in writing, compare it with the survey and the data from recent days, and reply in writing with an extract of the data.
- Export data to the contract archive at agreed intervals; in the supplier contract, include retention, export and party access.
- After the works affecting neighbours are complete, commission a final survey and compare it with the zero state.
- Keep the complete data set for at least the limitation period for claims; confirm the period with the contract lawyer.
FAQ
Who is liable for cracks in the building next to the construction site?
Towards the neighbour, liability rests primarily with the person carrying out the works, and the basis may be fault (Article 415 of the Civil Code) or risk related to the movement of an enterprise (Article 435 of the Civil Code); courts classify construction enterprises as being set in motion by forces of nature. The division of liability between the investor and the contractor follows the contract. In practice, the contractor needs data showing that the damage did not arise from its works.
Is monitoring of neighbouring buildings mandatory?
There is no single rule that always requires it. For structures in geotechnical categories II and III, and excavations and retaining structures are at least category II, the 2012 regulation requires a geotechnical design that is to define the scope of monitoring of adjacent structures and the surrounding ground (§ 10(10)). If the design provides for it, the site manager must carry it out. Beyond that, monitoring is simply the cheapest form of evidence.
How does a zero-state survey differ from monitoring?
A survey is a snapshot: a description and record of the state of the buildings from the day before the works. Monitoring is a film: continuous recording of tilt, cracks, settlement and vibrations during the works. One does not work without the other. Without the survey, you do not know what to count from; without monitoring, you do not know what happened between the survey and the claim.
How often should neighbouring buildings be measured during an excavation?
Measure tilt, cracks and groundwater automatically every 15 minutes by default, or more often from the baseline period until the shell stage stabilises; record vibrations continuously during impact-loading phases. Carry out benchmark levelling according to the design, more often during deepening. A weekly manual measurement during an excavation gives an after-the-fact result, and movements behind the support occur in hours, not weeks.
What should you do when the platform raises an alarm on a neighbouring building?
First confirm the alarm so it is clear who received the report. Verify whether it is temperature, a damaged sensor, or works in that zone. For an ALARM, stop the works in the zone, contact the excavation support designer and decide on action and any notification of the authority in accordance with Article 22 of the Construction Law. Record everything in the construction log.
What data should be kept in case of a dispute, and for how long?
The survey with signatures, zero reading, calibration certificates, raw data with timestamps, communication logs with devices, alarm history with confirmations and mutes, exports to the contract archive, and the construction log with entries on the works phases. Tort claims generally become time-barred after 3 years from the date the injured party learned of the damage and the person responsible, but no later than 10 years from the event (Article 442¹ of the Civil Code); keep the data for at least that horizon, and confirm the period with the lawyer.
This text is for information purposes only and is not legal advice; in a specific case, consult a lawyer. Legal status as of August 2026.
Sources and further reading
- Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code (Articles 6, 147, 415, 435, 442¹) - ISAP: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19640160093
- Act of 7 July 1994, Construction Law (Articles 5, 22, 50) - ISAP: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19940890414
- Act of 17 November 1964, Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 278, 308, 309) - ISAP: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19640430296
- Supreme Court judgment of 17 March 2022, II CSKP 482/22 (construction enterprise and Article 435 of the Civil Code) - sn.pl: http://www.sn.pl/sites/orzecznictwo/orzeczenia3/ii%20cskp%20482-22.pdf
- Regulation of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy of 25 April 2012 on determining geotechnical conditions for the foundation of structures (§ 4, 7, 10) - ISAP: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20120000463
- PN-B-02170:2016-12 Assessment of the harmfulness of vibrations transmitted through the ground to buildings - Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, sklep.pkn.pl
- PN-B-02171:2017-06 Assessment of the impact of vibrations on people in buildings - Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, sklep.pkn.pl
- PN-EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design, Part 1 (observational method, monitoring) - Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, sklep.pkn.pl
What next
If you have an excavation next to existing buildings, the cheapest moment to decide is now, before the survey and the first impact, because the zero state and the background cannot be recorded retroactively. We will show you monitoring of neighbouring buildings using an excavation as an example: a project with several tenement buildings, thresholds on tilts and cracks, a vibration alarm from piling and a log that remains afterwards as evidence. If you already have sensors and recorders, we can connect them on a trial basis at one site, without installation, as a pilot, not a commitment. We reply within 24 hours.
Let us talk about monitoring neighbouring buildings on your construction site