building vibration induced by percussive piling

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

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

building vibration induced by percussive piling

Documents