groundborne vibration from percussive piling

14th Asia Pacific Vibration Conference, 5-8 December 2011, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Groundborne Vibration from Percussive Piling

Chi-tong WONG* Man-kit LEUNG* Man-kie WONG* and Wing-chi TANG* * Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government,

38/F Queensway Government Offices, Hong Kong SAR

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Groundborne vibration induced by piling operation may sometimes attract

complaints from the public due to human discomfort perceived by the occupants in

the surrounding building or structural damage or distress to a building. The

amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements: input driving energy,

attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the receptor.

Empirical formulae that have been devised and published overseas have been used

in Hong Kong to predict the maximum vibration induced by piling operation. One

of the widely adopted formulae is that in BS 5228-2: 2009, which relates the peak

particle velocity (ppv) with the parameter kp, depending on the types of soils and

the types of piles. This paper presents the in-situ measurements for the ground

vibration induced by percussive steel H-piles in some recent projects in Hong

Kong. It was found that rather than to designate soil in a particular site into

different types, this paper suggests correlating the values of kp with the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) N-values of the soil from the ground investigation.

Key words: Ground vibration; percussive piling; in-situ measurements

1. Introduction

Ground vibration and noise induced by percussive piling are commonly considered as

nuisance to the public in the neighbouring area. The vibration induced by piling operation

from time to time attracts complaint from the public due to human discomfort felt in a

building or distress caused to a building. Though percussive steel H-pile is one of the most

economical foundation types among different types of deep foundation systems if the site

and geological condition permits, it is unfortunate that many practicing engineers avoid

using this system just because of the fear of potential social resistance without the

conduction of a detailed study of the genuine vibration effects beforehand. This paper

reviews criteria on human perception and response, structural damage, and statutory

acceptance level of ground vibration to structures and utilities. It presents the actual ground

vibration data induced by percussive piling in some Architectural Service Department

(ArchSD) projects.

2. Generation of Groundborne Vibration

When a hammer hits a pile, there is resistance at the pile toe which will generate

vibration to the ground. The ground vibration can be divided into body waves and surface

waves. Body waves propagate through rock or soil and can be further divided into shear

wave (S-wave) and compressive wave (P-wave). Both P-waves and S-waves travel

outward from the tip of the pile on spherical wave fronts. When P-wave and S-wave

encounter the ground surface, part of their energy is converted to Rayleigh waves (R-wave)

(Figure 1) (Woods 2004)

2007


The proportion of total energy propagated in P-wave, S-wave and R-wave are

approximately 10%, 25% and 65% respectively (Head and Jardine 1992). The energy

density of both P-wave and S-wave attenuates rapidly with distance from the source.

R-wave has the slowest propagation velocity and its effect decreases rapidly with depth.

However, R-wave propagation is planar, rather than hemispherical, and as a result, the

decay of energy is much slower and will therefore contribute the highest proportion of total

energy transmission (Head and Jardine 1992).

Besides the spherical (P wave) / shear wave (S wave) generated from the resistance at

the toe, the resistive shear forces on the pile shaft will induce vertically polarized shear

waves which would propagate outwards as cylindrical wave fronts centred on the pile shaft

(Figure 1).

The commonly accepted criterion for quantifying ground vibration and human

evaluation of transient vibration is Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The measuring unit of PPV

is in “mm/s”.

Fig. 1 Composite of waves emanating from driven pile (Source: Woods 2004)

3. Prediction of Groundborne Vibration Induced by Driving of Pile

The amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements: input driving energy,

attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the receptor. Empirical

formulae (e.g. Attewell and Farmer 1973, Head and Jardine 1992, Jongmans 1996, Hope

and Hiller 2000, and Massarsch and Fellenius 2008) have been proposed to predict the

maximum vibration induced by piling operation. One formula that is widely used

nowadays to predict ground vibration induced by percussive piling is given by BS

5228-2:2009. In BS 5228-2:2009 Appendix E, information from Hiller and Crabb

regarding the prediction of vibration levels from construction activities is reported. The

empirical formula derived by Hiller and Crabb (Equation [1]), which has been validated

against a number of other parameters from field measurements, was then adopted by BS

5228-2:2009 to estimate the ground vibration induced by percussive piling.

1.3pr

Wkv (1)

where W is the hammer energy and r is generally accepted as the slope distance

2008


BS 5228-2:2009 recommends the range of kp to be adopted for different driving

conditions and soil types (Table 1). One of the limitations in employing the suggested kp

value is that the hammer energy W shall lie within 1.5kJ and 85kJ (BS 5228-2:2009 Table

E.1).

Table 1: Recommended values of kp for use in predicting vibration from percussive piling

Ground Conditions Value of

All piles driven to refusal 5

Pile toe being driven through:

3

Very stiff cohesive soils

Dense granular soils

Fill containing obstructions which are large relative to

the pile cross-section

Pile toe not being driven through:

1.5 Stiff cohesive soils

Medium dense granular soils

Compacted fill

Pile toe being driven through:

1

Soft cohesive soils

Loose granular soils

Loose fill

Organic soils

(Source: BS 5228-2:2009 Table E.2)

4. Relationship between the Value of kp and Equivalent SPT N-Value

The results of groundborne vibration induced by driving steel H piles with hydraulic

hammers from six numbers of ArchSD projects, including Sun Yet Sen Swimming Pool,

Tseung Kwan O Velodrome, Kwun Tong Swimming Pool, Kai Tak Cruise Terminal

Development, Joint Users Complex at Bailey Street, and Victoria Park Swimming Pool,

were collected. Field data of groundborne vibration (mm/s) and horizontal distances (m)

of the projects, Sun Yet Sen Swimming Pool, Tseung Kwan O Velodrome and Kwun Tong

Swimming Pool, were plotted in Figure 2 through 4.

Fig. 2 Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and Swimming Pool Complex ground vibration data

2009


Fig 3: Indoor Velodrome-cum-Sports Centre in Tseung Kwan O ground vibration data

Figure 4: Kwun Tong Swimming Pool ground vibration data

With the measured PPV (mm/s) and the known energy input together with the radial

distance, the constant kp can be calibrated and validated using the Equation [1] (with W =

90% of the rated energy). Measurements of groundborne vibration of 26 piles at 6

different ArchSD sites were carried out. Measurements were carried at different distances

from each pile to obtain an average kp value for each pile. The kp values were found within

the range of 0.24 to 1.50 ( Table 2).

The results reveal that the values of kp stated in BS 5228-2:2009 may not be

applicable to ground conditions in Hong Kong. Furthermore, it is also difficult to classify

a site by single type of soil for the full depth of a pile. In view of the difficulty in the

estimation of the value of kp, this paper has therefore correlated the values of kp against the

equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values from the ground investigation results.

SPT N-value is basically a measure of the compactness of the soil, and this is, in turn, a

measure of the soil shear strength as well as its deformation characteristics. It is the most

commonly available soil testing data that is adopted in deep foundation design. In order to

correlate the values of kp against the different N-values of the actual soil profile, the

equivalent N-value is computed as illustrated in Figure 5.

2010


Equivalent N

n321

nn332211

D....DDD

)DN....DNDNDN(

Fig 5: Computation of equivalent N-value

Table 2 and Figure 6 summarise the relationship between average kp and equivalent

N-value of each of the 26 piles at 6 different ArchSD sites. The results show that the

value of kp increases with the increase in equivalent SPT N-value. This is in line with the

trend shown in Table 1 (BS 5228-2:2009).

Table 2: Relationship between average kp and equivalent N-value

Site Pile No Depth Avg k p Eq. N G.I. No.

FC123 P1 34.86 0.24 22.2 BH 16

FC99 P1 34.19 0.39 18.7 BH 16

FC85 P1 34.25 0.40 19 BH 16

FC127 P1 33.81 0.68 51.8 BH 15

FC103 P1 33.66 0.55 51.1 BH 15

P99 54 1.240 57.5 BH 4

P217 54 0.6 57.5 BH2

P186 57.6 0.5 57.5 BH1

PC151 P1 18.2 0.36 13.7 KSB19

PC107 P1 17 0.33 13.7 KSB19

PC94 P2 15.2 0.28 13.7 KSB19

PC107 P2 17.2 0.43 12.8 KSB19

PC97 P1 14.2 0.49 10.2 KSB23

H71 53 1.50 44.55 ABH9

H208 59 1.14 50.4 ABH17

H16 24 0.75 12 ABH9

C12E 4 59.8 0.97 59.2 BH8

C12H 1 57.3 1.10 53.1 BH8

C12B 2 56.7 0.89 59.4 BH12

C9A 1 58.6 0.66 70.3 BH11

C5A 3 60.3 1.36 59.7 BH10

C4A 3 60.35 1.10 59.8 BH10

C6B 3 60 0.65 73.4 BH11

C8A 3 66 0.49 84.2 BH11

C11D 2 63.3 1.03 80 BH11

Victoria Park Swimming

Pool ComplexP245 58.3 1.44 103 DH5

Velodrome TKO

Kwun Tong Swimming

Pool

Cruise Terminal

Sun Yat Sen Memorial

Park

Bailey Street

2011


0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Avg.

kp

Equivalent. N

Relationship between Average kp and Equivalent N

Velodrome TKO Bailey Street

Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Cruise Terminal

Sun Yat Sen Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex

Upper Limit

Mean kp value

Fig 6: Relationship of average kp versus equivalent N-value

For the best and conservative estimate of the vibration effect, this paper suggests

adopting the upper limit line ( with the odd data excluded) (Figure 6). In Figure 6, the upper

limit of kp values vary linearly from 0.5 to 1.8 as the equivalent SPT N-values increase from

20 to 80. The suggested range also matches with the values 0.1 to 1.5 as quoted in CIRIA

Technical Note 142 and those quoted by Sarsby (2000) which suggested values 0.25 and 1.5

for loose and very stiff or dense soil respectively.

It should further be noted that kp is in fact an empirical parameter which has lumped

all the factors not properly addressed in the empirical energy formula, including interaction

between P-, S-, R- and cylindrical waves, the pile/soil impedances, the distribution of pile

shaft and toe resistance, and propagating distances. The accuracy of the prediction of

groundborne vibration therefore tends to be crude and the method is subject to further

research.

It should further be commented that the prediction of vibration using the empirical

formula Equation [1] is not very accurate for the vibration within a distance less than 10m.

As noted from Figure 2 to 4, the measured vibrations show abnormal variation at this

distance and it is difficult to predict the vibration by a single formula for such close

vibration.

5. Relationship between Peak Particle Velocity and Horizontal Distance from Pile for a given Soil Condition and Pile Depth

Based on the upper limit of kp values as suggested in Figure 6, the relationship between

the peak particle velocity and horizontal distance from a pile can be established for a given

soil condition (equivalent N-value) and pile depth (Figure 7). It is observed that a higher

equivalent N-value will give a higher groundborne vibration and a shallower pile will also

give a higher groundborne vibration than a deeper pile if same equivalent N-value is

2012


encountered. For the case illustrated in Figure 7, it is noted that a lower equivalent

N-value (N = 30) for a shallow pile (25m) will have a higher ground vibration than a high

equivalent N-value (N = 60) for a deeper pile (60m) from a distance less than 30m. A

possible reason is that there would be a higher degree of R-wave measured at the ground

surface within a shorter travel distance.

Fig 7: Predicted ground vibration versus plan distance for different soils conditions and pile depths

(with all measured vibration in the six ArchSD sites )

From Figure 7, it can also be seen that the magnitude of groundborne vibration depends on

equivalent N-value, depth of pile and the distance from the pile.

In driving of steel H piles, it is not usual to use a single size of hammer throughout the

whole installation process. For example, contractors tend to use a lighter hammer for

pitching of piles at shallow depth, and then use a heavier hammer to drive near the final set.

The input hammer energy is therefore smaller during pitching and the induced groundborne

vibration will be smaller . During the final set, the input hammer energy will be larger and

the induced groundborne vibration will be increased.

6. Conclusions

This paper presents a new and simple approach in estimating the groundborne vibration

effect due to percussive piling. From the results of groundborne vibration measurements of

driven steel H-piles installation using hydraulic hammers of 26 piles at 6 different ArchSD

sites, an upper limit of kp values for groundborne vibration prediction correlated with the

equivalent SPT N-values is developed. The kp values vary linearly from 0.5 to 1.8 as

equivalent SPT N-values increase from 20 to 80. The suggested range matches with

various research studies and is applicable in prediction of groundborne vibration in soil

conditions of Hong Kong.

It is noted that the prediction of vibration using the empirical formula Equation [1] is

not very accurate for the vibration within a distance less than 10m. For such a close

vibration, abnormal variations are observed and it is difficult to predict the vibration by a

single formula.

It is also observed that a higher equivalent SPT N-value gives a higher groundborne

vibration and a shallower pile also gives a higher groundborne vibration than a deeper pile

if same equivalent SPT N-value is encountered.

2013


References

(1) Athanasopoulos, G.A. and Pelekis, P.C. (2000), “Ground vibrations from sheetpile driving

in urban environment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants”,

Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, 19, pp 371-87.

(2) Amick, H. and Gendreau, M. (2000), “Construction Vibrations and Their Impact on

Vibration-Sensitive Facilities”, Presented at the ASCE Construction Congress 6, Orlando,

Florida, 22 February 2000.

(3) Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W. (1973), “Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile

driving”, Ground Engineering, 6(4), pp. 26–9.

(4) BSI (1990), BS 7385-1:1990 - Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings –

Part 1: Guide for measurement of vibration and evaluation of their effects on buildings

(London: BSI).

(5) BSI (1993), BS 7385-2:1993 - Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings –

Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration (London: BSI).

(6) BSI (2009), BS 5228-2:2009 - Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites – Part 2: Vibration (London: BSI).

(7) Clough, G. W. and Chameau, J. (1980), “Measured effects of vibratory sheet pile driving”,

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(GT10), pp. 1080 - 99.

(8) Federal Transit Administration (2006), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(Washington DC: Department of Transportation).

(9) Hope, V.S., Hiller, D.M. (2000), “The prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive

piling”, Canadian Geotech. Journal, 37, pp 700-11

(10) Head, J.M. and Jardine, F.M. (1992), Construction Industry Research and Information

Association (CIRIA) Technical Note 142 - Ground-borne Vibrations Arising from Piling

(London: CIRIA).

(11) Jongmans D. (1996), “Prediction of ground vibration caused by pile driving: a new

methodology”, Engineering Geology, 42, pp. 25-36.

(12) Lacy, H.S. and Gould, J.P. (1985), “Settlement from pile driving in sands”, in Michigan, G.

Gazetas and E.T. Selig (eds) (1985), Proceedings of ASCE Symposium on Vibration

Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Detroit, pp. 152-73.

(13) Massarsch, K. R. (2000), “Settlements and damage caused by construction-induced

vibrations”, Proceedings, Intern. Workshop Wave 2000, Bochum, Germany 13–15

December 2000, pp. 299 – 315.

(14) Massarsch K. R. and Fellenius, B.H. (2008), “Ground Vibrations Induced by Impact Pile

Driving”, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,

Arlington, Virginia, 12-18 August 2008.

(15) Mohamed, R. and Dobry, R. (1987), “Settlements of cohesionless soils due to pile

driving”, Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand,

pp. 7-23 – 30.

(16) Sarsby, R.W. (2000), Environmental Geotechnics (London: Thomas Telford Ltd).

(17) Saurenman H.J., Nelson J.T. and Wilson G.P. (1982), Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and

Vibration Control (Report UMTA-MA-06-0099-82-1) (Oakland, California: Wilson, Ihrig

& Associates).

(18) Wiss, J. F. (1981), “Construction Vibrations: State-of-the art,” Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT2), pp. 167-81.

(19) Woods, R.D. and Sharma V.M. (2004), Dynamic Effects of Pile Installations on Adjacent

Structures (Washington, DC: Balkema Publishers).

(20) Yeung, A.T., Tham, L.G., Yang J. and Li, K.S.V. (2005), “Ground vibration induced by

percussion piling”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics

and Geotechnical Engineering, 4, pp. 2205-8.

(21) Zapfe J.A., Saurenman H.J. and Fidell S.A. (2009), Contractor’s Final Report for TCRP

2014


Project D-12 - Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit

(Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to record their thanks to the Director of Architectural Services

for her kind permission of publishing the paper. The authors would also like to record their

thanks to the staff in Division One of the Structural Engineering Branch in the Architectural

Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government for their help in preparing the

manuscript.

2015


Building Vibration Induced by Percussive Piling

Chi-tong WONG* Man-kit LEUNG* Wing-chi TANG* and Heung-ming CHOW* * Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government,

38/F Queensway Government Offices, Hong Kong SAR

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Due to the complex phenomenon of propagation of vibration from the ground

through the foundation to the building, modelling and predicting building vibration

due to piling operation is always a difficult task. Empirical formulae are therefore

used to predict the vibration amplitude. However, few publications have been

documented for the applicability of these empirical formulae in Hong Kong. This

paper presents a prediction method and in-situ measurements for building vibration

induced by installation of percussive steel H-piles from a construction site. The

prediction makes use of calibrated Hong Kong soil data and the empirical method

proposed by the US Federal Transit Administration. The results show that the

approach provides a reasonable estimate of the building vibration due to percussive

piling work.

Key words: Building vibration; percussive piling; in-situ measurements

1. Introduction

Vibration and noise induced by percussive piling are commonly considered as nuisance

to the public in neighbouring areas. The vibration induced by piling operation from time to

time attracts complaint from the public due to human discomfort felt in a building or

cosmetic damage or structural distress caused to a building. For example, on 31 January

2011, when the foundation work was being carried out on a Wan Chai redevelopment site in

Hong Kong, more than a dozen residents on the nearby six-storey building was asked by the

police to evacuate, as many of them felt the shaking of the building and the furniture for at

least twice in three days (The Standard, 1 February 2011). Therefore, though percussive

steel H-pile is one of the most economical foundation types among various types of deep

foundation if the site and geological condition permits, it is unfortunate that many projects

avoid using this system just because of the fear of potential social resistance without

carrying out an estimation of the genuine vibration effects beforehand.

The vibration on the ground surface due to percussive piling has extensively been

studied and documented. However, the interaction between the ground and the foundation

causes reduction in vibration amplitude. The amount of reduction depends on the building

mass and stiffness of the foundation. A more massive building has lower response to the

ground vibration. The vibration amplitude also decreases as the vibration energy propagates

through the building to upper floors. However, in some cases, amplification of the vibration

amplitude may occur due to resonance of the floor systems. Because there are so many

factors to be considered in the estimate of building vibration due to piling operation, the

propagation of vibration from the ground through the foundation to the building is a

complex phenomenon that is difficult to model and predict accurately. Hence, empirical

formulae are widely used to predict the vibration amplitude. However, few publications

have been documented for the applicability of these empirical formulae in Hong Kong. This

2016


paper therefore presents a prediction method and the in-situ measurements for the building

vibration induced by percussive piling work from a construction project of the Architectural

Services Department of Hong Kong SAR Government.

2. Generation of Groundborne Vibrations

When a hammer hits a pile, there is resistance at the pile toe which will generate

vibration to the ground. The ground vibration can be divided into body waves and surface

waves (Woods, 2004). The amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements:

input driving energy, attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the

receptor. It is further subdivided between the energy (resistance) generated from the pile

shaft and toe, which depends on the pile and soil impedance (Massarsch and Fellenius,

2008). The rate of attenuation depends on the ground condition and the distance. Vibration

level is affected by the penetration resistance, and will be increased when dense strata or

boulder are encountered. In stiff or dense soils, smaller amount of energy is dissipated, as

elastic deformation of the soil and penetration is small, resulting in higher groundborne

vibration. In soft soils, most of the energy is used in overcoming soil friction and in

advancing the pile, resulting in low level of ground vibration.

The commonly way for quantifying ground vibration is Peak Particle Velocity (“PPV”).

The measuring unit of PPV is in “mm/s”. Extensive studies (Attewell and Farmer, 1973;

Head and Jardine, 1992; Jongmans, 1996; Hope and Hiller, 2000; and Massarsch and

Fellenius, 2008) have been carried out on correlating the ground vibration against different

piling installation methods. Most methods are based on energy approach and are basically

empirical. There have been many such formulae in slightly different format developed over

the years. One of the wisely used formulae for percussive piling was proposed by Hiller and

Crabb (2000), as shown in Equation 1:

1.3pr

Wkv (1)

where W is the hammer energy; r is the slope distance (i.e. pile toe and the receiver, rather

than the horizontal distance); and kp is the most important parameter, which varies with

different ground condition (and is greater in stiff, dense soils than in loose, soft soils).

Though there are numerous values proposed for kp (e.g. BS 5228), there are no such data for

Hong Kong soil. Wong et al (2011), based on a number of piling sites in Hong Kong,

summarizes the relationship between average kp and equivalent N-value as shown in Figure

1. The result shows that the value of kp increases together with the increases in equivalent

SPT N-value. With the availability of SPT N-value, kp can be determined readily for the

prediction of PPV on the ground.

Equation 1 was adopted in BS 5228 in predicting the ground vibration due to percussive

piling, and BS 5228 Part 4 also specifies limits on the ground vibration. For residential

premises, the limit on PPV for continuous vibration is 5mm/s and for transient vibration is

10mm/s. The PPV can also be expressed in terms of vibration velocity level (Lv) which is

defined as shown in Equation 2 (Harris Miller, 2006):

ref

10vv

vlog20L (2)

where Lv is the velocity level in decibels, v is the PPV, and vref is the reference velocity

which is usually taken as 2.54x10-5 mm/s (Harris Miller, 2006).

2017


3. Vibration of Buildings

The previous paragraph discusses the prediction of ground vibration due to percussive

piling. However, occupants of a neighbouring building are more concerned about the

resulting building vibration due to the percussive piling. The limits specified by BS 5228

represent that for structural damage. However, far before structural damage, occupants will

have experienced annoyance and discomfort well below such limits. BS 6472 gives detailed

guidance on human response to vibration in buildings. For residential premises, human will

start to feel vibration with magnitude of 0.3 mm/s and 1.0 mm/s for continuous vibration

and transient vibration, respectively (Sarsby, 2000). When considering the effects of piling

vibration on buildings, foundations are initially excited by the ground vibration. For a

typical reinforced concrete floor, the fundamental resonance is usually in the range of 20-30

Hz. Amplification is negligible if the excitation frequency is well below that of the

fundamental floor resonance. However, typical vibration produced by percussive piling is in

the range of 10-30Hz, and hence the potential of amplification is not negligible.

The prediction of building vibration is therefore even more difficult than for ground

vibration. Most numerical approaches are still in the early stages of development. The

approach presented by the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Harris Miller, 2006) is

widely employed in the industry. The method basically follows that suggested in the

Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control (Saurenman et al., 1982). It relies on

a heuristic predictive model for predicting train-induced vibrations in buildings. As the

method is devised for vibration from mass transit projects, it may not be entirely applicable

for piling work. Yet it is difficult to find a handy method and there are no available

numerical methods to compute the vibration. Hence, though the method is very crude,

designers prefer this method, especially that it is very easy to use and able to give the

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Avg.kp

Equivalent. N

Relationship between Average kp and Equivalent N

Velodrome TKO Bailey Street

Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Cruise Terminal

Sun Yat Sen Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex

Upper Limit

Mean kp value

Fig. 1 Relationship of average kp versus Equivalent N-value

2018


estimate quickly. Hence, it was determined to validate its applicability in Hong Kong with

the project site in this paper.

One-third-octave analysis is commonly used to analyze the vibration signals. In such an

analysis, the time domain vibration signal is passed through a series of band-pass filters

whose upper and lower frequency bands are defined by the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI, 2004). FTA’s method consists of adding a number of adjustments, including

building coupling loss (Figure 2), transmission through the building and floor resonances, to

the 1/3-octave band spectrum of the projected ground-surface vibration. For estimating

floor-to-floor vibration attenuation, -2dB/floor (1-5 floors above ground) and -1dB/floor

(5-10 floors above ground) are suggested. The FTA manual also points out that some floors

may exhibit resonant behaviour, amplifying vibrations by up to 6dB. According to the Study

Report for TCRP Project D-12 sponsored by FTA (Zapfe et al., 2009), there are a number of

areas where there is less confidence in the data and assumptions. These areas include: (1)

the attenuation of vibration as the vibration energy travels from the ground into the building

foundation and then propagates throughout the building, and (2) the amplification resulting

from resonances of floors and other structural elements. Hence, the current practice in the

US is that the resulting predictions are augmented with a factor of safety to account for

these uncertainties. An allowance of up to 5 dB is therefore commonly adopted (Zapfe et

al., 2009).

Fig. 2 Building coupling loss (extracted from FTA 2006)

4. Case Study

In-situ measurements in one project at Bailey Street, Hung Hom, Hong Kong (location

plan in Figure 3) were carried out to validate the predicted vibration level using FTA

method. Percussive steel H-piles were used as the foundation system in the project. Field

measurements were performed on the site and the building nearby (Peninsula Square),

during the installation of the steel H-piles. Peninsula Square is a high-rise commercial

reinforced concrete building with piled foundation.

2019


Fig. 3 Location plan of Joint-User Complex at Bailey Street

The following is the information of the pile at the time of measurements:

Hammer weight = 16t

Height of drop = 1.5m

Pile size = 305×305×180kg/m Grade S460J0 H-pile

Efficiency = 90%

Depth of pile at final set = 54m below ground

Distance of the building from the pile = 25m

Ground vibration is measured using vibrograph (Figure 4), which houses triaxial geophones

of sensitivity and frequency range of 0.127-254mm/s and 2-250 Hz, respectively. Histogram

mode was used for recording

ground vibration under piling

operation. In order to have better

contact between the triaxial

geophones and the ground

surface, a sand bag was put on

top of the vibrograph during

measurement.

5. Prediction and Verification of Building Vibration

Typical frequency spectra of the measured velocity are shown in Figure 5. It can be

observed that the dominated frequency due to percussive piling is around 10-20Hz. The

spectral vibration magnitude corresponding to vertical direction is the largest one among the

three orthogonal directions. However, the translational velocities should not be ignored

when considering vibration problem due to piling operation. PPV taken as the vector sum of

the three orthogonal components is therefore used in the measurement.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the mean value estimate and the upper limit estimate of the

vibration level against the measured vibration levels respectively. There is no amplification

due to floor resonance at span of G/F, as G/F slab is on-grade. The measured PPV is the

mean values of the measured data. There are four cases in total. Case 1 considers the “mean

kp” value without any allowance for the uncertainty, while Case 2 uses the same kp value but

with +5dB allowance for the uncertainty. For Case 3, the “upper limit of kp” value is applied

with no allowance for the uncertainty. Case 4 is same as Case 3 except allowing only +2dB

instead of +5dB as the upper limit of kp value has been chosen.

Fig. 4 Vibrograph.

2020


Table 1. Mean value estimate (building coupling loss=6dB)

Location Measured

PPV (mm/s)

Case 1 (kp=1.0)

Attenuation 2dB per storey

Case 2 (kp=1.0)

Attenuation 2 dB per storey

+ 5dB (allowance)

Outside

building1.4 2.3 mm/s (99dB) 2.3 mm/s (99dB)

Attenuation

/

resonance

( /+ dB)

dBPPV

(mm/s)

Attenuation

/

resonance

( /+ dB)

dBPPV

(mm/s)

G/F column 0.9 6 93 1.1 1 98 2.0

span 1.0 6 93 1.1 1 98 2.0

1/F column 0.9 8 91 0.9 3 96 1.6

span 2.3 2 97 1.8 3 102 3.2

2/F column 0.9 10 89 0.7 5 94 1.3

span 2.8 4 95 1.4 1 100 2.5

Table 2. The upper limit estimate (building coupling loss=6dB)

Location Measured

PPV (mm/s)

Case 3 (kp=1.3)

Attenuation 2dB per storey

Case 4 (kp=1.3)

Attenuation 2 dB per storey

+ 2dB (allowance)

Outside

building1.4 2.9 mm/s (101dB) 2.9 mm/s (101dB)

Attenuation

/

resonance

( /+ dB)

dBPPV

(mm/s)

Attenuation

/

resonance

( /+ dB)

dBPPV

(mm/s)

G/F column 0.9 6 95 1.5 4 97 1.9

span 1.0 6 95 1.5 4 97 1.9

1/F column 0.9 8 93 1.2 6 95 1.5

span 2.3 2 99 2.3 0 101 2.9

2/F column 0.9 10 91 0.9 8 93 1.2

span 2.8 4 97 1.9 2 99 2.3

Fig. 5 Typical frequency spectra of measured

velocity induced by percussive piling (transverse

PPV=1.28mm/s; vertical PPV=3.18mm/s;

longitudinal PPV=1.14mm/s )

2021


6. Discussions

In Case 1, the calculated PPVs are quite close to the measured data except mid-span of

2/F where the predicted vibration level is only half of the measured one. In Case 2, +5dB

allowance is added to cater for the uncertainty in the reality. It is found that the large

discrepancy between the calculated and the measured vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is

greatly reduced. The relatively large uncertainty in the empirical parameter of kp justifies an

allowance of +5dB. In Case 3, where the upper limit of kp is used, most of the estimated

vibration levels are slightly larger than or equal to those measured except mid-span of 2/F.

It is observed that the amplification of vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is quite large

that +5dB allowance of uncertainty may not be enough if mean value of kp is adopted (e.g.

Case 2). However, the estimated vibration level in Case 4 is 3.2mm/s (102dB) if +5dB

instead of +2dB is employed. In this case, the estimated vibration level (3.2mm/s) is slightly

larger than the measured value (2.8mm/s), which is conservative. Therefore, it can be

concluded that +5dB allowance is generally good enough to cover the uncertainty provided

that the upper limit of kp is used.

7. Conclusions

The measured field data match quite well with the estimated results based on FTA

method, if adequate allowance has been made for the uncertainty. It is concluded that the

approach suggested by FTA, although crude, provides a reasonable estimate of the building

vibration due to percussive piling work. For the allowance of uncertainties, 0-5dB is well

representing the uncertainty, provided that the upper limit of kp (Figure 1) is used. In this

particular case-study, the amplification of vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is relatively

large, and the limit of +6dB suggested by the FTA manual may not be enough to cater for

the amplification. More data should be collected for further investigation in this area.

References

(1) Amick, H. and Gendreau, M., Construction vibrations and their impact on

vibration-sensitive facilities, Presented at the ASCE Construction Congress 6, Orlando,

Florida, 22 February 2000

(2) ANSI, Specification for octave-band and fractional-octave-band analog and digital filters,

In S1.11-2004, American National Standards Institute, New York, 2004

(3) Athanasopoulos, G.A. and Pelekis, P.C., Ground vibrations from sheetpile driving in urban

environment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants, Soil

Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 19, 2000, pp 371-87

(4) Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W., Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile driving,

Ground Engineering, 6(4), 1973, pp. 26–9

(5) BSI, BS 5228-2:2009 - Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction

and open sites – Part 2: Vibration, BSI, London, 2009

(6) BSI, BS 6472-1:2008 – Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in

buildings-Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting, BSI, London, 2008

(7) BSI, BS 7385-1:1990 - Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 1:

Guide for measurement of vibration and evaluation of their effects on buildings, BSI,

London, 1990

(8) BSI, BS 7385-2:1993 - Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2:

Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration, BSI, London, 1993

(9) Clough, G. W. and Chameau, J., Measured effects of vibratory sheet pile driving, Journal of

the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(GT10), 1980, pp. 1080 – 99

(10) Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc., Transit noise and vibration impact assessment,

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006.

(11) Head, J.M. and Jardine, F.M., Construction industry research and information association

2022


(CIRIA) technical note 142 - groundborne vibrations arising from piling, CIRIA, London,

1992

(12) Hiller D. M. and Crabb G. I., Groundborne vibration caused by mechanized construction

works, TRL Report 429, Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, 2000

(13) Hope, V.S. and Hiller, D.M., The prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive

piling, Canadian Geotech. Journal, Volume 37, 2000, pp 700-11

(14) Jongmans D., Prediction of ground vibration caused by pile driving: a new methodology,

Engineering Geology, Volume 42, 1996, pp. 25-36

(15) Massarsch K. R. and Fellenius, B.H., Ground vibrations induced by impact pile driving,

International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington,

Virginia, 12-18 August 2008

(16) Massarsch, K. R., Settlements and damage caused by construction-induced vibrations,

Proceedings, Intern. Workshop Wave 2000, Bochum, Germany, 13–15 December 2000, pp.

299 – 315

(17) Mohamed, R. and Dobry, R., Settlements of cohesionless soils due to pile driving,

Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 1987, pp.

7-23 – 30

(18) Sarsby, R.W., Environmental geotechnics, Thomas Telford Ltd, London, 2000

(19) Saurenman H.J., Nelson J.T. and Wilson G.P., Handbook of urban rail noise and vibration

control (Report UMTA-MA-06-0099-82-1) Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Oakland,

California, 1982

(20) Wiss, J.F., Construction vibrations: state-of-the art, Journal of the Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 107(GT2), 1982, pp. 167-81

(21) Wong, C.T. Wong, M.K., Leung, M.K. and Tang, W.C, Groundborne vibration from

percussive piling, To be presented at the 14th Asia Pacific Vibration Conference, Hong

Kong Polytechnic University, 5-8 December 2011

(22) Woods, R.D. and Sharma V.M., Dynamic effects of pile installations on adjacent structures

Balkema Publishers, Washington, DC, 2004

(23) Yeung, A.T., Tham, L.G., Yang J. and Li, K.S.V., Ground vibration induced by percussion

piling, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 4, 2005, pp. 2205-8

(24) Zapfe J.A., Saurenman H.J. and Fidell S.A., Contractor’s final report for TCRP project

D-12 - groundborne noise and vibration in buildings caused by rail transit, Transportation

Research Board, Washington, DC, 2009

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to record their thanks to the Director of Architectural Services

for her kind permission of publishing the paper. The authors would also like to record their

thanks to the staff in Division One of the Structural Engineering Branch in the Architectural

Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government for their help in preparing the

manuscript.

2023

groundborne vibration from percussive piling

Documents