MEMS vs Geophone for Construction Vibration Monitoring: Which Technology Should You Choose?

A practical guide for construction professionals, environmental consultants, and monitoring specialists working under UK vibration standards (BS 7385, BS 6472, BS 5228). Updated February 2026.

Key Takeaway

MEMS accelerometers now match or exceed geophone performance for construction vibration monitoring under BS 7385 and BS 6472. Independent field studies confirm measurement differences of less than 2% between the two technologies. UK standards are technology-neutral and do not mandate geophones. The transition to digital MEMS-based vibration monitoring is already well underway across Europe.

Why Construction Vibration Monitoring Technology Matters

Construction vibration monitoring is a legal and practical necessity on UK building sites. Under BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 (the Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites), contractors and developers are required to assess and monitor ground-borne vibration whenever works could affect neighbouring structures or cause disturbance to occupants. The measurement parameters that matter are Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), Peak Component Particle Velocity (PCPV), and dominant frequency, all measured across three axes.

For decades, the default instrument for measuring these parameters has been the geophone: an electromechanical transducer that converts ground motion into an electrical signal. Geophones are well-understood, widely deployed, and have an established track record. But a newer technology has matured rapidly: MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) accelerometers. These silicon-based digital sensors are already the dominant vibration sensing technology in automotive, aerospace, and consumer electronics. The question facing UK construction monitoring professionals is whether MEMS sensors can deliver the same quality of measurement as geophones for compliance purposes.

The evidence, as we will explore in this article, is unambiguous: they can, and in several important respects, they do it better.

How Geophones Work: The Analogue Standard

A geophone is a relatively simple device. A coil of wire is suspended around a permanent magnet by springs. When the ground vibrates, the magnet moves relative to the coil, inducing a voltage proportional to the velocity of that movement. This voltage is the output signal.

Geophones are velocity transducers by nature, which makes them a natural fit for PPV measurement. They have been the industry workhorse for seismic monitoring, blasting assessment, and construction vibration measurement since the 1960s. However, they have inherent physical limitations that are worth understanding:

• Natural frequency roll-off. Every geophone has a natural (resonant) frequency, typically between 4.5 Hz and 10 Hz. Below this frequency, the geophone’s sensitivity drops sharply. Measurements in the critical 1–4 Hz range require mathematical correction factors, which introduce additional uncertainty into the reading. This matters because low-frequency vibrations from activities like impact piling can carry significant energy below 4 Hz.

• Physical size and weight. A triaxial geophone assembly (three geophones mounted orthogonally) is substantially larger and heavier than a MEMS equivalent. This can be a practical constraint when sensors need to be mounted on building foundations with limited access.

• Manual levelling. Traditional geophones require careful manual levelling during installation to ensure accurate triaxial measurement. Incorrect levelling introduces systematic error that may not be obvious in the recorded data.

• Analogue signal path. The geophone produces an analogue voltage that must be digitised by an external data acquisition system. The quality of the entire measurement chain depends on every component in this signal path.

None of these limitations make geophones unsuitable for construction vibration monitoring. They have served the industry reliably for decades. But they do explain why the industry is looking at alternatives.

How MEMS Accelerometers Work: The Digital Alternative

A MEMS accelerometer is a miniature silicon device fabricated using semiconductor manufacturing techniques. At its core is a tiny proof mass suspended by microscopic beams. When the device experiences acceleration, the proof mass deflects, and this deflection is measured capacitively with extremely high precision. The output is a digital signal representing acceleration.

Because acceleration is the derivative of velocity, and velocity is the derivative of displacement, a MEMS accelerometer can derive all three motion parameters through integration. Modern digital signal processing makes this conversion highly accurate and computationally trivial.

The key performance characteristics of MEMS accelerometers for vibration monitoring are:

• Flat frequency response from DC. Unlike geophones, MEMS accelerometers have a flat frequency response starting from 0 Hz (DC). This means they measure low-frequency vibrations with the same accuracy as high-frequency vibrations, with no roll-off and no correction factors needed. For construction vibration monitoring, where activities like piling and heavy earthworks can generate significant energy below 4 Hz, this is a material advantage.

• Compact form factor. A complete triaxial MEMS vibration sensor can be packaged in a housing as small as 100 × 100 × 30 mm and weigh as little as 350 grams. This makes it practical to install in confined spaces on building foundations where larger geophone assemblies would not fit.

• Digital signal chain. The entire signal path from sensor element to data output is digital. This eliminates analogue noise, drift, and signal degradation issues that can affect geophone systems with long cable runs.

• Self-levelling capability. Because MEMS accelerometers respond to DC (static) acceleration, they can detect their own tilt relative to gravity. This enables automatic tilt compensation, eliminating the need for precise manual levelling during installation and reducing setup time and operator error.

• Low power consumption. MEMS sensors consume milliwatts of power compared to the higher power requirements of geophone-based data acquisition systems. This enables extended battery-powered or solar-powered operation, which is critical for off-grid construction sites.

• IoT connectivity. Digital MEMS sensors integrate naturally with modern IoT platforms, enabling real-time cloud-based data transmission, remote monitoring, automated alerting, and over-the-air firmware updates.

  
  

MEMS vs Geophone: Head-to-Head Comparison for UK Construction Monitoring

The following comparison summarises the practical differences between geophone and MEMS accelerometer technology for construction vibration monitoring under UK standards.

Parameter	Geophone	MEMS Accelerometer
Measurement principle	Velocity (direct)	Acceleration (velocity via integration)
Frequency response	Rolls off below natural freq. (4.5–10 Hz)	Flat from DC (0 Hz) upward
Low-frequency accuracy	Requires correction factors below 4 Hz	No correction needed
Typical PPV range	0.1–300 mm/s	0.05–200+ mm/s
Signal output	Analogue voltage	Digital
Triaxial size	Large (multiple units)	Compact single package
Weight	1–3 kg typical	~350 g
Manual levelling	Required	Automatic tilt compensation
Power consumption	Higher (analogue DAQ)	Ultra-low (milliwatts)
Remote firmware updates	Not possible	Over-the-air (OTA)
IoT / cloud integration	Requires external system	Native
Long-term drift	Spring fatigue possible	Stable (no moving macro-parts)
BS 7385 compliance	Yes	Yes

What UK Vibration Standards Actually Require

A persistent misconception in the UK construction monitoring market is that geophones are required by British Standards. This is not the case. The applicable UK standards for construction vibration monitoring are technology-neutral. They specify performance requirements, not sensor type.

BS 7385-1:1990 (ISO 4866) — Measurement Methodology

BS 7385-1 defines the functional requirements for vibration monitoring instrumentation. It specifies that instruments must cover a frequency range of 1–150 Hz for man-made vibration sources, provide a velocity range of 0.2–50 mm/s (typical construction levels), achieve accuracy of ±10% at 68% confidence, measure triaxially (X, Y, Z), maintain a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 5 dB, and ensure the transducer mass is less than 10% of the measured structural element. Nowhere does it specify a sensor technology.

BS 7385-2:1993 — Damage Guide Values

BS 7385-2 provides transient vibration guide values for cosmetic damage to structures. The most commonly applied limits in UK construction monitoring are the Line 2 values for unreinforced or light-framed residential structures. These range from 15 mm/s PPV at 4 Hz, rising to 20 mm/s at 15 Hz, and up to 50 mm/s at 40 Hz and above. Any sensor that can accurately measure PPV across this frequency and amplitude range meets the standard’s requirements.

BS 6472-1:2008 — Human Response to Vibration

BS 6472-1 addresses human comfort and annoyance from vibration in buildings. It requires acceleration data for calculating Vibration Dose Values (VDV), which is the native output of a MEMS accelerometer. Geophone-based systems must differentiate the velocity signal to obtain acceleration, adding a processing step that MEMS sensors do not require.

BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 — Code of Practice

BS 5228-2, the code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction sites, references BS 7385 and BS 6472 for measurement methodology and assessment criteria. It does not introduce any additional sensor technology requirements.

The bottom line: UK vibration standards define what a sensor must measure and how accurately. They do not prescribe how it must work. A MEMS accelerometer that meets the performance specifications is fully compliant. This technology-neutral principle is also explicitly stated in the Dutch SBR-A guideline (Trillingsrichtlijn A), which is the most widely referenced construction vibration standard in Europe.

Independent Research: MEMS vs Geophone in the Field

Claims about sensor equivalence mean little without independent validation. The following studies, none of which are affiliated with any particular sensor manufacturer, provide peer-reviewed and published evidence.

Van Delft & Ostendorf (2018): Side-by-Side Field Comparison

Published in the Dutch journal Geotechniek (Special Issue on Foundations, 2018), researchers Martijn van Delft (Allnamics) and Carel Ostendorf (Cauberg-Huygen) conducted a controlled comparison of accelerometer-based and geophone-based vibration monitors during real construction activities, including impact hammer pile driving and vibratory sheet piling. Multiple instruments from different manufacturers were deployed side-by-side at the same measurement locations.

Their findings were definitive: measured PPV values were essentially identical between the two sensor types. Dominant frequencies matched across both technologies (approximately 10 Hz for impact hammer, approximately 30 Hz for vibratory piling). The small frequency differences observed were attributed to the analysis method (FFT vs. zero-crossing), not the sensor technology itself. The authors concluded that MEMS sensors would displace geophones, citing advantages in compact size, ease of use, and IoT connectivity.

Groningen Building Monitoring Network: Large-Scale Deployment Proof

In one of the most extensive real-world deployments of accelerometer-based vibration monitoring anywhere in the world, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) and Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) installed over 300 MEMS accelerometers in building foundations across the Groningen province in the Netherlands. The network, which monitored 280 private dwellings and 20 public buildings, has been continuously operational for over five years.

A peer-reviewed study by Ntinalexis et al. (2021), published in Frontiers in Built Environment, analysed data from 326 instrumented buildings, measuring vibrations against SBR-A thresholds (equivalent in principle to BS 7385-2 PPV limits). The study confirmed that accelerometer-based sensors reliably capture PPV, dominant frequency, and peak component velocities at levels relevant to building damage assessment. This is not a laboratory test; it is five-plus years of continuous, real-world data from hundreds of buildings.

Sabato et al. (2017): Comprehensive Academic Review

Published in the MDPI journal Sensors, Sabato et al. surveyed wireless MEMS accelerometer systems deployed on major civil structures worldwide, including a 64-node network on the Golden Gate Bridge (detecting vibrations from 0.11 Hz), pedestrian bridges, heritage buildings, and pipeline infrastructure. Back-to-back comparisons with traditional piezoelectric sensors showed measurement differences of less than 2% in both time and frequency domains.

Additional Validation

Further evidence includes a 2021 study published in Sensors (PMC) that validated low-cost MEMS accelerometers specifically for low-frequency construction and pile-driving vibration monitoring at frequencies as low as 1–2 Hz. Ragam et al. (2019), published in IET Wireless Sensor Systems, documented multiple field deployments where MEMS-based systems successfully measured blast-induced ground vibration PPV values ranging from 0.19 to 8.6 mm/s at mining and tunnel construction sites, with results validated against conventional seismographs. Controlled shake table testing at the Sapienza University of Rome further confirmed that MEMS instruments provided measurement signals consistent with laser displacement reference sensors.

Why the Shift to MEMS Is Accelerating Now

MEMS accelerometer technology has existed for decades, but several converging trends are driving rapid adoption in construction vibration monitoring specifically:

• Noise floor improvements. Modern MEMS accelerometers achieve RMS noise floors of 0.05 mm/s or better, which provides a signal-to-noise ratio that far exceeds the 5 dB requirement in BS 7385-1 for vibrations above 0.1 mm/s. A decade ago, this was not achievable with affordable MEMS devices.

• IoT infrastructure maturity. Cellular IoT networks (4G/LTE-M/NB-IoT), cloud platforms, and edge computing have matured to the point where real-time vibration data can be reliably transmitted from a construction site to a cloud dashboard with configurable alarm thresholds. This was not practical when geophones dominated the market.

• Demand for multi-parameter monitoring. UK construction sites increasingly need to monitor noise, dust, vibration, and air quality simultaneously under a single Section 61 consent or environmental management plan. MEMS-based vibration sensors integrate naturally into multi-sensor IoT platforms that already handle particulate matter, noise levels, and gas concentrations.

• Labour and logistics pressure. The UK construction industry faces ongoing skilled labour shortages. Self-levelling, remotely managed, cloud-connected vibration sensors reduce the need for specialist technicians to visit sites for installation, calibration, and data retrieval.

• European market validation. In the Netherlands, which has some of the most stringent construction vibration regulations in the world, MEMS accelerometer-based monitoring systems are widely deployed and fully accepted for compliance monitoring under the SBR-A guideline. This provides a strong precedent for UK adoption.

  
  

The Sensorbee Approach: End-to-End Vibration Monitoring for UK Construction

Sensorbee has built a complete vibration monitoring solution designed specifically for construction site compliance. Rather than offering a sensor in isolation, Sensorbee provides an integrated platform that covers the entire monitoring workflow, from sensor to cloud dashboard to compliance report.

SB3641 Vibration Sensor (Vibrometer)

The SB3641 is a purpose-built triaxial MEMS vibration sensor for construction monitoring. Its specifications are designed to exceed UK standard requirements with significant margin:

Specificationa	SB3641
Velocity range	±200 mm/s (4× the BS 7385-2 maximum guide value)
Bandwidth	1–100 Hz, sampled at 4,096 Hz
RMS noise floor	0.05 mm/s
Measurement outputs	PPV, PCPV (X, Y, Z), peak frequency (X, Y, Z), FFT spectrum, temperature
Housing	IP67 aluminium, 100 × 100 × 30 mm, 350 g
Operating temperature	−30°C to +60°C
Power consumption	7 mW
Connectivity	Modbus RTU via M8 extension port to Sensorbee Pro2 base unit
Standards compliance	BS 7385-1, BS 7385-2, BS 6472-1, CE marked

Sensorbee Pro2 Base Unit

The SB3641 connects to the Sensorbee Pro2, a multi-sensor IoT base unit that provides cellular data transmission, solar-powered or mains-powered operation, and support for additional environmental sensors. A single Pro2 unit can simultaneously monitor vibration, noise, particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10, TSP), and other air quality parameters, making it possible to deploy a single device that covers all the environmental monitoring requirements for a typical UK construction Section 61 consent.

Sensorbee Cloud Platform

All sensor data is transmitted in real time to the Sensorbee Cloud Platform, which provides live PPV monitoring with configurable alarm thresholds, PCPV time history plots for each axis, dominant frequency analysis and FFT visualisation, historical data storage with full audit trail, automated compliance reporting against BS 7385-2 guide values, multi-site fleet management, and user role management for contractors, consultants, and regulators.

This end-to-end approach means that construction companies, environmental consultants, and monitoring hire firms can deploy a complete vibration monitoring solution without needing to integrate separate components from multiple vendors. The sensor, connectivity, data platform, and reporting are all part of a single, managed system.

Multi-Parameter Environmental Monitoring

What distinguishes Sensorbee from single-purpose vibration monitoring equipment is the ability to monitor noise, dust, and vibration (NDV) from a single platform. UK construction sites operating under Section 61 consents or Best Practicable Means (BPM) obligations typically need to demonstrate compliance across all three parameters. The Sensorbee platform provides this through a unified sensor deployment, a single cloud dashboard, and integrated reporting, significantly reducing the cost and complexity of environmental monitoring on site.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do UK standards require geophones for construction vibration monitoring?

No. BS 7385-1, BS 7385-2, BS 6472-1, and BS 5228-2 are all technology-neutral. They define performance requirements (frequency range, velocity range, accuracy, signal-to-noise ratio) but do not mandate any specific sensor technology. Any instrument that meets the functional specification is compliant.

Can MEMS accelerometers measure low-frequency vibrations accurately?

Yes, and in fact they have a natural advantage at low frequencies. MEMS accelerometers have a flat frequency response from DC (0 Hz) upward, meaning there is no roll-off at low frequencies. Traditional geophones have a natural frequency (typically 4.5–10 Hz) below which their sensitivity degrades, requiring correction factors that introduce additional measurement uncertainty.

What is the noise floor of the Sensorbee SB3641, and is it low enough for UK standards?

The SB3641 has an RMS noise floor of 0.05 mm/s. The lowest guide value in BS 7385-2 for cosmetic damage to residential structures is 15 mm/s at 4 Hz. The sensor’s noise floor is 300 times lower than this threshold, providing a signal-to-noise ratio that far exceeds the 5 dB minimum required by BS 7385-1.

Has MEMS technology been independently validated for construction vibration monitoring?

Yes, extensively. Van Delft and Ostendorf (2018) published a direct field comparison showing essentially identical PPV measurements between MEMS and geophone instruments. The Groningen building monitoring network in the Netherlands has over 300 MEMS accelerometers operating in building foundations for more than five years. Multiple academic studies report measurement differences of less than 2% between MEMS and reference sensors.

Is the SB3641 suitable for monitoring near residential properties?

Yes. The SB3641’s ±200 mm/s velocity range covers the full range of BS 7385-2 damage guide values (15–50 mm/s for residential structures), with a 4× margin above the highest guide value. Its triaxial measurement, IP67 weatherproof housing, and operating temperature range of −30°C to +60°C make it suitable for long-term outdoor deployment on building foundations adjacent to construction sites.

Can I monitor vibration, noise, and dust from a single device?

Yes. The Sensorbee Pro2 base unit supports multiple environmental sensor modules, including the SB3641 vibration sensor, noise monitors, and particulate matter sensors. This enables simultaneous NDV (noise, dust, vibration) monitoring from a single deployment point with unified cloud-based data and reporting.

What about ongoing calibration and maintenance?

MEMS accelerometers do not suffer from the mechanical wear that can affect geophones over time (spring fatigue, coil degradation). The SB3641 supports over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates, allowing Sensorbee to deploy performance improvements and calibration refinements across an entire fleet remotely, without site visits. This digital architecture means the instrument improves over time, unlike analogue sensors whose characteristics are fixed at manufacture.

References and Standards

[1] BS 7385-1:1990 — Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Part 1: Guide for measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on buildings (ISO 4866:1990).

[2] BS 7385-2:1993 — Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration.

[3] BS 6472-1:2008 — Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting.

[4] BS 5228-2:2009+A1:2014 — Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Part 2: Vibration.

[5] Van Delft, M. & Ostendorf, C. (2018). Comparison of vibration monitoring equipment using geophones and MEMS accelerometers. Geotechniek, Special Issue on Foundations.

[6] Ntinalexis, M. et al. (2021). Vibration Threshold Exceedances in the Groningen Building Vibration Monitoring Network. Frontiers in Built Environment, 7, 703247.

[7] Sabato, A. et al. (2017). Wireless MEMS-Based Accelerometer Sensor Boards for Structural Vibration Monitoring: A Review. Sensors, 17(12), 2806.

[8] Ragam, P. et al. (2019). Application of MEMS-based accelerometer wireless sensor systems for monitoring of blast-induced ground vibration and structural health: a review. IET Wireless Sensor Systems, 9(3), 103–109.

[9] SBR-A: Trillingsrichtlijn A — Schade aan bouwwerken (2017 revision). SBRCURnet, Netherlands.

[10] Bommer, J.J. et al. (2017). Ground-motion networks in the Groningen field: usability and consistency of surface recordings. Journal of Seismology, 23, 1233–1253.

Ready to Modernise Your Vibration Monitoring?

Sensorbee provides end-to-end environmental monitoring solutions for UK construction sites, covering vibration, noise, and dust from a single platform. Contact us to discuss your monitoring requirements or request a product demonstration.

Web: sensorbee.com  |  Phone: +46 13 390 95 37  |  Email: info@sensorbee.com