Different Approaches for Estimating Ground Strains from

Pile Driving Vibrations at a Buried Archeological Site

Scott J. Brandenberg, A.M.ASCE1; Joseph Coe, S.M.ASCE2; Robert L. Nigbor, M.ASCE3; and
Kim Tanksley4

Abstract: Ground strains were estimated from vibrations measured during pile driving operations at a buried, prehistoric archeological
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

site to monitor potential construction impacts. Subsurface characteristics of the site were investigated using multiple cone penetration test
共CPT兲 soundings and the shear wave velocity profile was measured using the seismic CPT method. Embedded geophones and surface
accelerometers were then used to measure ground vibrations during pile driving. Displacement gradients were estimated from the
vibrations using the following three methods: 共1兲 the difference between adjacent displacements divided by sensor spacing; 共2兲 peak
particle velocity divided by depth-dependent wave velocity 共i.e., at the depth where the sensor was placed兲; and 共3兲 peak particle velocity
divided by frequency-dependent wave velocity from a measured dispersion curve. Methods 共1兲 and 共3兲 agreed well, while method 共2兲
caused errors that depended on depth of embedment of the sensors and distance from pile driving. Errors in 共2兲 were attributed to a
mismatch between the depth-dependent wave velocity and the wave velocity on the frequency band that carried the largest velocity pulse
through the dispersive soil profile. Ground strains were related to displacement gradients based on theoretical solutions of harmonic body
waves and Rayleigh waves in dispersive elastic media. The peak estimated ground strains were smaller than the threshold volumetric shear
strain, but a few centimeters of settlement were nevertheless observed at the site. The spatial extent of the settlement is characterized using
attenuation rules fit to the vibration data, and by calibration with a settlement gauge. Ground cracking and vertical offsets that could
potentially mask the archaeological history of the site were neither observed nor predicted from the observed vibration amplitudes.
Estimated impact on archeological interpretation of artifacts in their stratigraphic context was likely insignificant except in the immediate
region where the piles were driven. This insight will assist in future planning at sites with similar subsurface stratigraphy.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000031
CE Database subject headings: Vibration; Pile driving; Archaeology; Wave measurement; Foundation construction.

Introduction hicle traffic and below-grade distortion or settlement of the ar-

The California Department of Transportation 共Caltrans兲 widened
Interstate 5 south of Lathrop in San Joaquin County 共Fig. 1兲 im-
pacting a prehistoric Native American site occupied
155– 1,500 years ago. Construction of foundations for four bridge
piers involved the use of a 180 kN impact hammer to drive eighty
0.6-m-diameter steel pipe piles to depths of approximately 20 m,
requiring 1,800–2,500 blows to drive each pile. Federal and state
environmental laws protect significant archaeological deposits by
requiring that impacts be identified, avoided, and/or mitigated.
Impacts may include surface compaction due to construction ve-
1 strains. The measured vibrations were subsequently used to pre-
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, 5731 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: sjbrandenberg@ucla.edu
2
Graduate Student Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental En-
gineering, Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593.
3
Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
California, 6679 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593.
4
Associate Archaeologist, California Department of Transportation,
2015 E. Shields Ave., Suite 100, Fresno, CA 93726.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 20, 2008; approved on
December 9, 2008; published online on February 23, 2009. Discussion
period open until January 1, 2010; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 8, August 1, 2009.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2009/8-1101–1112/$25.00.
cheological layers due to construction-induced vibrations caused,
for example, by pile driving. Differential settlement is of special
concern because depth is a measurement of time for archeologists
and differential settlement will distort the archeological time axis.
Research into construction impacts led the Caltrans project ar-
chaeologist to involve nees@UCLA, which is an equipment site
that is part of the George E. Brown Network for Earthquake En-
gineering Simulation funded by the National Science Foundation.
Cone penetrometer equipment was used to characterize the soil at
the site, and embedded geophones and surface accelerometers
were utilized to measure vibrations caused by pile driving to
quantify the amplitude and spatial extent of transient ground
dict the nature and spatial distribution of soil settlement to help
characterize and provide a record of the impact of construction on
the archeological site.
This paper proceeds by first discussing the archeological back-
ground and geotechnical background, followed by derivations of
the relations between particle velocity and shear strain for shear
waves and Rayleigh waves. The experimental data are then pre-
sented and displacement gradients are estimated using three dif-
ferent methods, and differences among the methods is discussed.
Shear strains are estimated from the displacement gradients, and
the amount and spatial extent of anticipated settlements is esti-
mated from the shear strains.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1101

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Site location
Archaeological Background
Caltrans determined that construction operations required to
widen I-5 near Lathrop, Calif., would impact a National-Register-
eligible prehistoric occupation site 共CA-SJO-003 or the Mossdale
site兲. The Mossdale site occupies approximately 13 ha within the
flood plain of the San Joaquin River. Radiocarbon and obsidian
hydration dating on samples taken from the site indicate occupa-
tion at the site ranged from 155 to 1,500 years ago at a time when
the North Valley Yokuts are believed to have inhabited the area.
The site contains varied artifact assemblages that are characteris-
tic of prehistoric habitation: a significant amount of faunal re-
mains such as bone and shell, burned bone, charcoal, impressed
clay, clay pipes, bone awls, shell beads, pendants, ground stone
pestles and mortar fragments, obsidian, and chert lithics. Human
remains have also been disinterred from the site in the past.
Construction operations at the Mossdale site were governed by
environmental laws in place to protect cultural resources, includ-
ing National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act, and the California
Environmental Quality Act. A “reasonable and good faith effort”
must be made to identify cultural resources that may be affected
by an undertaking, evaluate the significance of each resource, and
determine how the undertaking will impact the resource. Signifi-
cant impacts must be mitigated. Impacts can either be direct 共e.g.,
excavation of artifacts at the site兲 or indirect 共e.g., settlement
induced by nearby construction vibrations兲. Direct impacts are
easy to identify, but indirect impacts are often subjective.
Two basic principles help archaeologists interpret the artifacts
and features they discover. The Law of Association states that
artifacts found together result from a common set of human ac-
tions, and should be interpreted together to tell a story. The Law
of Superposition states that young strata are deposited over old
strata, which is the guiding principle of stratigraphy. Stratigraphy
is the single best method that archaeologists have for determining
relative ages of archaeological materials, and artifacts outside of
their stratigraphic context have little value. Impacts that alter soil
stratigraphy, whether direct or indirect, are therefore significant
and must be mitigated. Past measures to mitigate indirect impacts
have, for example, involved placing fill on top of cultural re-
sources during construction operations to prevent direct contact
with construction equipment. However, it is not clear the extent to
which this mitigation approach is effective, and the Federal High-
way Administration recently stated that an undertaking’s effects
1102 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
are not restricted to the horizontal dimension, and the potential for
vertical impact must be considered as well for compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Direct impacts to the Mossdale site from the Interstate 5 wid-
ening project were limited to excavations where foundations were
constructed to support the four bridge piers. A data recovery ex-
cavation of prehistoric site deposits in the area impacted by the
footings was conducted prior to commencement of construction
operations to mitigate the direct impact to deposits that would be
destroyed by the piles. Indirect impacts to site deposits were still
a concern due to construction equipment, and particularly due to
pile driving. A concern was that the pile driving vibrations would
induce differential settlements in the nearby soils, potentially al-
tering the stratigraphy and causing errors in archaeological inter-
pretation at the site. Hence, the nees@UCLA equipment facility
was utilized to characterize the soil properties at the site and
measure ground vibrations, both on and below the surface, during
pile driving.
Geotechnical Background
Ground vibrations are commonly monitored due to potential im-
pacts on sensitive structures and equipment, and annoyance to
people nearby 共Ju et al. 2007; Svinkin 2002; Hwang et al. 2001兲.
Relations between vibration amplitudes and impacts are important
for establishing tolerable vibration limits for a given vibration
source. For example, the Caltrans vibration manual 共Jones and
Stokes 2004兲 distinguishes between transient vibration sources
and continuous sources 共such as pile driving兲, and specifies a
threshold particle velocity of 2 mm/ s from continuous sources for
fragile historical structures, and specifies that particle velocities
smaller than about 0.3 mm/ s from continuous sources are barely
perceptible. Vibrations that exceed threshold values can be miti-
gated using wave barriers 共Comina and Foti 2007; Hung et al.
2004兲.
Whereas the influence of vibrations on nearby equipment and
structures has been extensively studied, vibration-induced soil
settlement has received less attention. Vibrations induce shear
strains in soil, which can cause cohesionless soil particles to slip
past one another as the soil becomes denser thereby inducing
settlement. Dowding 共1996兲 summarized several case histories
where pile driving caused ground settlements in sandy soil depos-
its. Pile driving vibrations with peak particle velocities of
2.5– 5.0 mm/ s caused the soil near the pile driving operations to
settle as much as 75 mm. Drabkin et al. 共1996兲 summarized case
histories where vibration amplitudes of 1.0– 18.0 mm/ s were re-
sponsible for settlements of 8 – 250 mm. Stewart et al. 共2001兲
documented seismic performance of hillside fills during the 1994
Northridge earthquake, and compiled 250 cases where structures
were damaged by large settlements and ground cracks with ver-
tical offsets approaching 100 mm. They predicted particle veloci-
ties of hundreds of mm/s were responsible for the observed
settlements. The case studies from construction vibrations and
from earthquakes help to bracket the nature of the settlement that
can be anticipated for different strain levels. The cases docu-
mented by Dowding 共1996兲 and Drabkin et al. 共1996兲 were asso-
ciated with smoothly varying settlements and no extensive
cracking, while the cases documented by Stewart et al. 共2001兲
were associated with ground cracking and large differential settle-
ments. Differential settlements like those observed by Stewart et
al. 共2001兲 could potentially distort a site’s stratigraphy and mask
its archaeological history.
 Volumetric strain and settlement potential are known to corre-
late more fundamentally with shear strain than with particle ve-
locity based on an extensive body of laboratory experiments. Hsu
and Vucetic 共2004兲 summarized an extensive laboratory test pro-
gram conducted to determine the cyclic threshold shear strain, ␥tv
defined as the limiting strain above which permanent irreversible
rearranging of the microstructure of the soil occurs. They found
the lower limit of ␥tv from these test data is approximately 0.01%,
surface waves on the ground surface at a distance from the
source. The displacement field of Rayleigh waves in elastic ho-
mogeneous soil is characterized by Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲, where uz
= vertical displacement; uy = horizontal displacement in the direc-
tion of wave propagation; k = Rayleigh wave number= ␻ / vR; ␻
= angular frequency; vR = Rayleigh wave velocity; q2 = k2R − ␻2 / v2p,
s2 = k2R − ␻2 / vs2, v p = p-wave velocity; vs = shear wave velocity; z
= vertical position; y = horizontal position; and t = time

冉 冊
which is widely adopted as a general rule of thumb for sand.
However, settlements have been observed at sites where ground 2qk2 −sz
uz = A e − qe−qz ei共␻t−ky兲 共5兲
strains are lower than 0.01%, indicating that perhaps a large num- s2 + k2
ber of loading cycles can cause settlements even when ground
strains are smaller than ␥tv, or that ␥tv may be lower at frequen-
冉 2iqsk −sz
冊
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cies that are higher than tested in their laboratory program. Mas- uy = A e − ike−qz ei共␻t−ky兲 共6兲
s2 + k2
sarch 共2000兲 presents a guideline wherein strains below 0.001%
would be associated with very low risk of settlement, and strains The strain components ␧yy, ␧zz, ␥yz can be computed by solving
larger than 0.01% would be associated with a high risk of settle- the appropriate partial derivatives
ment. These guidelines reasonably capture the case history obser-
vations. Drabkin et al. 共1996兲 present an equation for predicting
settlement based on soil type, vibration amplitude, static shear
␧zz =
⳵uz
⳵z
冉2qsk2
冊
= A − 2 2 e−sz + q2e−qz ei共␻t−ky兲
s +k
共7兲

冉 冊
stress, confining stress, and number of loading cycles based on an
extensive laboratory test program. The equation reasonably pre- ⳵u y 2qsk2
␧yy = = A 2 2 e−sz − k2e−qz ei共␻t−ky兲 共8兲
dicted settlements from case histories. Shear strain is easy to mea- ⳵y s +k
sure in laboratory experiments, but difficult to measure in the
field, whereas particle velocity is easy to measure in the field and
is therefore often used as a proxy for shear strain. ␥yz = 冉 ⳵uz ⳵u y
⳵y
+
⳵z
冊 冉
2qsk2
= 2A 2 2 e−sz −
s +k
k2 + q2 −qz i共␻t−k y兲
2
e e R 冊
共9兲
Relations between Shear Strain and Particle The peak shear strain, ␥max, taken as the radius of the Mohr circle
Velocity of strain, can then be computed using Eq. 共10兲
It is convenient now to devise relations between particle velocity ␥max = 冑共␧zz − ␧yy兲2 + ␥2yz 共10兲
and shear strain before presenting results from the experimental
study in this paper. A common rule of thumb is that shear strain is The vertical velocity can be computed by differentiating Eq. 共5兲
equal to particle velocity divided by wave speed. This relation with respect to t
was derived for harmonic shear waves propagating through a ho-
mogeneous elastic medium, as shown in Eqs. 共1兲–共4兲, where u
= displacement; A = displacement amplitude; ␻ = angular
u̇z =
⳵w
⳵t
冉
2qk2
冊
= i␻A 2 2 e−sz − qe−qz ei共␻t−ky兲
s +k
共11兲

frequency= 2␲f; t = time; x = position; k = wave number 共k = ␻ / vs兲; The relation between ␥max and u̇z depends on Poisson ratio, ␯,
vs = shear wave velocity; and u̇ = particle velocity because the relation between Rayleigh wave velocity and s- and
p-wave velocity depends on ␯. However, the displacement gradi-
u共x,t兲 = A cos共␻t − kx兲 共1兲
ent, ⳵uz / dy, is equal to u̇z / vR, which can be verified by taking the
partial derivative of Eq. 共5兲 with respect to y.
⳵u
u̇ = = ␻A cos共␻t − kx兲 共2兲 Fig. 2 presents the ratio of peak engineering shear strain 共␥max兲
⳵t to the ratio of peak vertical velocity at the ground surface divided
by Rayleigh wave velocity 关u̇z共z = 0兲 / vR兴 as a function of z / ␭,
⳵u where wavelength ␭ = 2␲vR / ␻. The ratio is near 1.0 at the ground
␥= = − kA cos共␻t − kx兲 共3兲
⳵x surface and decreases quickly to a depth of about 0.06␭ – 0.07␭,
and subsequently increases again with depth before attenuating.
u̇ u̇ ␻ u̇ Niemunis 共1995兲 formulated the equations for relating engineer-
␥= ·k= · = 共4兲 ing shear strain to vertical velocity at the ground surface for Ray-
␻ ␻ vs vs
leigh waves. However, Fig. 2 is different than the relation he
While Eq. 共4兲 provides a simple and useful relation between par- presented due to an error in his implementation 共Niemunis, per-
ticle velocity and shear strain, it is limited to harmonic shear sonal communication兲, and engineering shear strain near the
waves in homogeneous media. Errors arise when waveforms are ground surface is actually larger than implied in his paper. As a
more complex than harmonic body waves and/or the medium is general rule of thumb, peak vertical velocity divided by Rayleigh
heterogeneous. In the field, vibrations are often measured on the wave velocity will provide accurate shear strain estimates at the
ground surface where the ground motion is characterized by a ground surface, and will be within about 0.3 to 1.1 times the true
combination of body waves and surface waves, and at heteroge- strain value within the upper 0.6␭ for planar harmonic Rayleigh
neous sites where a constant wave speed may not adequately waves in elastic homogeneous soil.
characterize the dynamic properties of the soil. Layered soil profiles exhibit frequency-dependent wave speed
Vibration sources 共e.g., pile driving兲 are often characterized by 共and are therefore said to be dispersive兲 because waves of differ-
body waves within the soil near the source, and primarily by ent wavelength mobilize different combinations of soil layers. To

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1103

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Relation between engineering shear strain, ␥max, and: 共a兲
vertical particle velocity at ground surface divided by Rayleigh wave
velocity; 共b兲 vertical particle velocity at depth z divided by Rayleigh
wave velocity
Fig. 3. Theoretical solutions of displacement gradients for broadband
Rayleigh waves in: 共a兲 a nondispersive medium; 共b兲 dispersive me-
dium, with relation between vR and f shown in inset
Fig. 4. Site plan showing measurement locations G1, G2, and G3 and positions of CPT soundings in relation to pile driving operations
1104 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
demonstrate the influence of dispersive soil profiles on the rela-
tion between particle velocity and shear strain, consider the ex-
ample problem in Fig. 3. Broadband Rayleigh waves discretized
into 50 different frequency components and with frequency-
dependent amplitude 共as shown in the inset figure兲 are computed
for: 共1兲 a uniform 共and therefore nondispersive兲 soil profile with a
uniform Rayleigh wave velocity of 200 m / s 关Fig. 3共a兲兴; and 共2兲 a
dispersive profile with Rayleigh wave velocity that varies with
frequency and average Rayleigh wave velocity of 200 m / s 关Fig.
3共b兲兴. For the homogeneous nondispersive soil profile, ⳵uz / ⳵y
= u̇z共z兲 / vR at all depths. Engineering shear strain is lower than or
equal to the displacement gradient, and the minimum strain lacks
the distinct peak at z = 0.06␭ implied by Fig. 2 due to the smooth-
ing effect of superposition of waves of varying frequency 共and
therefore varying wavelengths兲. For the dispersive soil profile,
⳵uz / ⳵y ⬎ u̇z共z兲 / vR, where vR is the average Rayleigh wave veloc-
ity. No single selection of vR can provide accurate displacement
gradients at all depths. Fig. 3共b兲 also shows that the correct dis-
placement gradient is computed when each frequency component
of particle velocity is divided by the corresponding frequency-
dependent wave velocity 关i.e., ⳵uz / ⳵y = u̇z共z , f兲 / vR共f兲兴. Hence, ac-
curate displacement gradients can be computed from surface
velocity measurements in dispersive soil profiles only when the
dispersion curve is known.
Site Investigation
The 20 t nees@UCLA cone penetrometer rig was used to inves-
tigate the soil profiles before, during, and after construction ac-
tivities at the locations shown in Fig. 4. A total of 23 cone
penetration test 共CPT兲 profiles were obtained in a small zone
approximately 6 m by 6 m square, and five adjacent profiles
共sounding numbers 7, 9, 10, 10.5, and 16兲 are plotted together in
Fig. 5. Plotting CPT soundings on top of each other is not stan-
dard practice, but the soundings plotted in Fig. 5 were separated
by spatial distances of at most only 2 m, and the repeated sound-
ings characterize the variability in the soil properties at one spa-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. CPT soundings recorded at positions 7, 9, 10, 10.5, and 16 共see Fig. 4兲

tial position rather than characterizing horizontal trends across the higher frequency vibrations whose wavelength was on the same
site 共as is a more typical objective for CPT site investigations兲. order of size as the cavity 共Razin 1995兲.
The soil profile consists of approximately 1 – 3 m of gravelly sand The shear wave velocity profile at the site was measured using
fill overlying alluvial silty sand to sandy silt with lenses of clay. the geophone embedded in the CPT probe 关i.e., using the, seismic
Many of the soundings resulted in refusal in the fill layer, and cone penetration test 共SCPT兲 method兴 at 0.25 m intervals for
significant amounts of coarse gravel were encountered during depths from 0.75 to 6.5 m. Wave travel time measured at the first
hand augering operations. The groundwater table was not encoun- peak of the waveforms was plotted versus depth and shear wave
tered in the deepest CPT sounding so pore-water pressure read- velocity was computed as the slope of travel distance versus
ings are not presented. The fill layer is highly heterogeneous with travel time 共Fig. 6兲. The profile was divided into three distinct
CPT tip resistance varying sharply over short distances horizon- regions based on the slope of travel time versus depth, and the
tally and vertically. The CPT records in Fig. 5 were separated by average shear wave velocities for the regions, from shallowest to
as little as 0.5 m, yet exhibit significantly different tip resistance deepest, were 135, 175, and 250 m / s. The shear wave velocity
and sleeve friction due to the large heterogeneity at the site. The profile increases with depth, which is a typical effect caused by
underlying alluvium was more uniform than the fill, but still ex-
hibited significant scatter in penetration resistance. The heteroge-
neity of these soil layers complicates the ability to compare
before and after CPT soundings to estimate settlement induced by
pile driving operations because it is impossible to discern whether
differences in records taken in close proximity to each other were
caused by soil settlement or by natural variability in the soil. A
region of very low tip resistance was encountered between depths
of 2 – 5 m for soundings 7 and 16, indicating the presence of a
very soft layer or a cavity. However, the cavity was not encoun-
tered in any other soundings, indicating that its lateral extent must
be on the order of 1 m or less. The presence of a very soft zone or
cavity was subsequently verified during hand augering operations
共the hand auger could be pushed through the soil by hand without
rotating the cutting teeth兲 at position G2 in Fig. 2, but not at
positions G1 or G3. The cavity may have influenced vibrations at
the site by affecting modes of wave propagation, particularly for Fig. 6. Shear wave velocity measurements using SCPT equipment

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1105

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Schematic of experimental setup for measuring vibrations on
and beneath ground surface
ageing and the stiffening of the soil due to confining pressure
from the overlying soils.
While not directly quantified, significant dispersion was ob-
served in the SCPT raw waveforms, with rapid attenuation of
higher-frequency energy. The rapid attenuation of high-frequency
energy is caused by material damping 共which attenuates high-
frequency waves more quickly than low-frequency waves兲, and
by heterogeneities in shallow layers at the site, disturbed by both
the shallow construction and the prehistoric human activity. At-
tenuation of waves in heterogeneous media is known to be a
function of the spatial scale of the heterogeneities relative to
wavelength, and high-frequency waves 共with corresponding short
wavelengths兲 are therefore scattered more easily by embedded
anomalies 共Santamarina et al. 2001; Razin 1995兲.
Measurement of Pile Driving Vibrations
Pile driving vibrations were measured on the ground surface
using shallowly embedded Episensor triaxial accelerometers, and
deeper in the ground using Geospace GS-20DM geophones with
custom packaging to fit in an augered hole. The experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 7, and a closeup of the geophone configu-
ration is shown in Fig. 8. Tables 1 and 2 contain specifications of
the sensors, and more detailed information can be found on the
nees@UCLA website. Transfer functions were applied to the raw
geophone recordings to correct for frequency-dependent sensitiv-
ity and phase lag, which was measured before field deployment
by imposing sinusoidal motion of various known frequency and
amplitude using a shake table in the nees@UCLA laboratory.
Each accelerometer was placed by digging a hole with a shovel,
covering the accelerometer with a plastic bag, and shallowly
burying the accelerometer to prevent acoustic interference. Geo-
phones were placed by hand augering a hole approximately
60 mm 共2.5 in.兲 in diameter to the desired depth, lowering a
50 mm 共2 in.兲 diameter ABS casing into the hole to prevent cav-
ing, lowering the geophone into the hole through the casing,
pressing the geophone anchor spike into the native soil at the
bottom of the hole, and filling the annular gap between the geo-
1106 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
Fig. 8. Experimental detail showing geophone embedded in ground
phone and ABS casing with sand. The experimental layout results
in good coupling between the geophone and the surrounding soil.
The cables from the geophones were contained inside of a 13 mm
共1 / 2 in.兲 diameter polyvinyl chloride 共PVC兲 pipe that extended
from the top of the geophone to above the ground surface. A cloth
was placed between the PVC pipe and the top of the ABS casing
to prevent contact between the pipe and the casing that could
potentially cause erroneous vibration measurements in the geo-
phone. When the ABS pipe was pulled out of the ground follow-
ing vibration monitoring, the geophone was still firmly fixed
inside by the filler sand, indicating that good coupling between
the geophone and casing was obtained. One concern is that the
instrument and casing may affect the wave propagation, thereby
resulting in erroneous recordings. Interaction between the ABS
casing and surrounding soil is believed to be negligible at the
frequencies of interest 共20– 80 Hz兲 because the wavelengths of
the vibrations induced by pile driving were orders of magnitude
larger than the diameter of the casing 共e.g., wavelengths are later
shown to be at least 5 m兲, and the casing is flexible relative to the
soil.
Velocity records from the geophones and accelerometers were
obtained using Quanterra Q330 data loggers. The Q330 is a state-
of-the-art, low-power, true 24-bit analog to digital 共A/D兲 data
logger that samples at 200 Hz with 80 Hz antialiasing low pass
filtering. The data loggers are synchronized by global positioning
system 共GPS兲 signals with time stamp accuracy of less than
0.1 ms.
Holes were augered at positions G1, G2, and G3 共see Fig. 4兲,
and recordings were made at positions G1 and G2 during pile
driving at pier 1 共a distance of 40 m兲, and at positions G2 and G3
during pile driving at pier 2 共a distance of 10 m兲. Pile driving
vibrations were recorded between G1 and G2 at depths of 1.2,
 Table 1. Specifications of Episensor Triaxial Accelerometers
Dynamic range:
Bandwidth:
Full-scale range:
Outputs:
Linearity:
Hysteresis:
Cross-axis sensitivity:
Zero point thermal drift:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
3.7, and 4.6 m as the augered holes were advanced at those loca-
tions. When pile driving operations moved to pier 2 the geophone
was removed from hole G1 and placed into hole G3, and vibra-
tions were measured between G2 and G3 at a depth of 4.6 m.
Measurements at other depths were not made between positions
G2 and G3 due to time constraints. For all cases, surface accel-
erometers were shallowly buried near the location of the holes in
which the geophones were installed, and surface vibration data
were recorded simultaneously with the geophone data.
Figs. 9 and 10 show velocity records collected at a depth of
4.6 m during pile driving at distances of 40 m 共Fig. 9兲 and 10 m
共Fig. 10兲. A pair of figures is shown for each record. The first of
the pair shows a sequence of six pile driving vibrations illustrat-
ing the repeatability of the vibration measurements, and the sec-
ond shows a zoomed in view of only one hit to show the signal
quality in more detail. Records from both geophones are shown in
the zoomed in view to show any difference in the recorded vibra-
tions for adjacent sensor locations. These differences are impor-
tant because they form the basis for computing a dispersion curve
and for computing shear strains, as discussed in the next section.
The coordinate system is defined based on a line running through
the two sensors as follows: y- is parallel to that line, x- is perpen-
dicular to the line in the horizontal direction, and z- is in the
Fig. 9. Velocity records at depth of 4.6 m and distance of ⬃40 m from pile driving
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1107
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
155 dB+
DC to 200 Hz
User selectable at ⫾0.25, ⫾0.5, ⫾1, ⫾2, or ⫾4 g
User selectable at: ⫾2.5 V single-ended; ⫾10 V single-ended;
⫾5 V differential; ⫾20 V differential
⬍1,000 ␮g / g2
⬍0.1% of full scale
⬍1% 共including misalignment兲
⬍500 ␮g / ° C
vertical direction 共see Fig. 7兲. The recorded data show that blows
from the pile driving hammer occurred approximately at 1.5 s
intervals, and generated pulses of velocity that lasted approxi-
mately 0.1 s. The recorded velocity pulses are similar for each
pile blow within a given record, though the amplitudes of the
velocities were observed to vary with depth and with distance
from pile driving. Table 3 summarizes the average peak velocity
for the different depths and distances tested. The peak velocities
exceed the values of 2.5– 5.0 mm/ s that have been associated
with settlement in past case histories, hence some settlement
could be anticipated to accompany the pile driving vibrations.
Frequency content of the vibrations is an important consider-
ation for wave propagation because a dispersion curve can only
be computed accurately on frequency bands with significant data
content, and because wavelength is a function of frequency and
wave velocity. Fig. 11 shows Fourier spectra for the three com-
ponents of ground velocity recorded at the ground surface and at
a depth of 4.6 m for a single pile driving strike at a distance of
40 m from the sensors, and a single pile driving strike at a dis-
tance of 10 m from the sensors. The spectra indicate that the
frequency content is distributed over a band lying primarily be-
tween 5 and 70 Hz. The amplitudes of the spectra are larger at a
distance of 10 m than at 40 m because waves attenuate with dis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Velocity records at depth of 4.6 m and distance of ⬃10 m from pile driving

tance. The sharp cutoff at 80 Hz is due to the low-pass antialias- 2005; Brandenberg et al. 2008兲. The phase, wave velocity, and
ing filters in the Q330 data loggers. Data on frequency bands wavelength are plotted versus frequency in Fig. 12 for sensors
higher than 70 Hz were verified to be lowamplitude based on embedded 4.6 m in the ground with pile driving at a distance of
measurements with a different data logger with higher sampling 10 m. The soil at this site was dispersive since the wave velocity
rate and no antialiasing filter. varies with frequency. The very large and sometimes negative
wave velocities below about 3 Hz are the result of low signal-to-
noise ratio at these low frequencies, and such errors were also
Calculation of Dispersion Curve observed above about 70 Hz 共not shown in Fig. 12兲. These errors
did not adversely affect the calculation of displacement gradients
A dispersion curve relates wave velocity to frequency, and can be
computed by measuring phase lag between two adjacent vibration
records. The relation between wave velocity and frequency is a
function of the soil profile, and dispersion curves form the basis
for spectral analysis of surface waves 共Stokoe et al. 1994兲. The
dispersion curve was computed based on the phase of the cross
correlation of adjacent vertical acceleration recordings. Calcula-
tions were performed in the frequency domain using the Fourier
transform of the signals as outlined in Fig. 12. The signal-to-noise
ratio was improved by averaging the Fourier spectra from a se-
quence of 300 pile driving hits prior to computing the dispersion
curve for each distance-to-pile-driving/depth combination. Signal
stacking improves signal-to-noise ratio because the noise is pre-
sumably random, while the desired portion of the signal is well
correlated among multiple measurements 共Santamarina and Fratta

Table 2. Specifications of Geospace GS-20DM Geophones

Natural frequency: 10 Hz
Sensitivity: 19.7 V / m / s
Height: 2.64 cm
Diameter: 2.22 cm
Mass: 43 g
Typical spurious frequency: ⬎300 Hz Fig. 11. Fourier spectra of velocity records for single pile driving
Open circuit damping: 0.7 blow at distance of 40 m, and single pile driving blow at distance of
Case to coil motion: 0.2 cm 10 m

1108 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.

 共explained in the next section兲 because the significant components
of velocity were carried within frequency bands that were well
characterized by the recorded data 共i.e., on bands with large Fou-
rier amplitude in Fig. 11兲. The smallest wavelength was about
5 m at frequencies near 15 Hz, and between 30 and 45 Hz.

Estimation of Displacement Gradients

The triaxial geophone data recorded at two points aligned along

the y axis are sufficient to provide several important displacement
gradients 共i.e., ⳵uy / ⳵y, ⳵uz / ⳵y, ⳵ux / ⳵y兲, but the data are insuffi-
cient to fully define all components of the strain tensor. Estimat-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing shear strain therefore involves first measuring the

displacement gradients, and second estimating shear strains by
assuming a mode of wave propagation. Displacement gradients
were estimated using three independent methods. For Method 1
关Eq. 共12兲兴, a displacement gradient ⳵un / ⳵y 共where n = x, y, or z兲
was estimated by subtracting adjacent displacement records mea-
sured at some depth z and time t, and dividing by distance be-
tween sensors, ␦ᐉ = 1.075 m. The displacement gradients
computed using Method 1 are averaged over the interval between
the two sensors, and are therefore called, ⳵un / ⳵y, where the over-
bar indicates averaging. Transient displacement records were ob-
tained by integrating the recorded ground motions in time 共single
integration for velocity records from geophones and double inte-
gration of acceleration records from surface accelerometers兲. The
signals were digitally high-pass filtered prior to integration to
remove low-frequency noise effects 共i.e., at frequency bands
below 3 Hz兲
⳵un u1n共t,z兲 − u2n共t,z兲
共t,z兲 =
⳵y ␦ᐉ
For Method 2 关Eq. 共13兲兴, measured particle velocity is divided by
the wave velocity at the depth where the particle velocity was
measured. The Rayleigh wave velocity vR共z兲 was approximated as
being equal to the shear wave velocity at each depth based on the
results of the SCPT test 关i.e., vR共z兲 = 135 m / s between 0 and
1.8 m depth, 175 m / s between 1.8 and 3 m depth, and 250 m / s
below 3 m兴
⳵un u̇1n共t,z兲
共t,z兲 =
⳵y vR共z兲
For Method 3, measured particle velocity is divided by
frequency-dependent wave velocity from the dispersion curve.
Method 3 was performed in the frequency domain as shown in
Fig. 12.
Fig. 12. Phase angle, wave velocity, and wavelength versus fre-
quency for pile driving at distance of 10 m at depth of 4.6 m
Method 1 involves two sensors, and provides the average dis-
placement gradient between the sensor positions, whereas Method
2 involves a single measurement and is therefore a point measure-
ment, and Method 3 involves a dispersion curve obtained between
two points but applied to velocity measured at a single point.
Hence some differences may be anticipated among the methods,
particularly at high frequencies where the wavelengths are short
enough to cause spatial aliasing. The sensor spacing was only
about 1 m, while the shortest wavelengths were about 5 m. Hence
the sampling interval is small enough to prevent spatial aliasing,
共12兲 and differences between Method 1 and Methods 2 and 3 are likely
not caused by averaging.
Examples of the computed displacement gradients at a depth
of 4.6 m are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for pile strikes at distances
of 40 and 10 m from the sensors, respectively. All three methods
of estimating displacement gradients agree reasonably well for
pile driving at a distance of about 40 m, while some differences
arise among the methods when pile driving was at a distance of
10 m. Regarding measurements taken at the ground surface,
Method 2 tends to overpredict ⳵uy / ⳵y and ⳵uz / ⳵y for pile driving
at a distance of 10 m compared with Methods 1 and 3. The cause
共13兲 of the discrepancy is that the peak velocity pulse is carried on
frequency bands associated with a wave velocity that is different
than the wave velocity at the sensor depth. Method 1 overpredicts
⳵ux / ⳵y at the ground surface compared with the other methods,
though better agreement is obtained at a depth of 4.6 m. The
cause of this is unclear, and cannot be explained using the equa-

Table 3. Average Peak Strains and Particle Velocities from Recorded Data
Average peak displacement gradient Average peak velocity

Distance Depth ⳵ux / ⳵ y ⳵u y / ⳵ y ⳵uz / ⳵ y u̇x u̇y u̇z

共m兲 共m兲 共%兲 共%兲 共%兲 共mm/s兲 共mm/s兲 共mm/s兲
40 0.0 0.0007 0.0012 0.0027 0.8 1.7 4.8
40 1.2 0.0028 0.0023 0.0026 2.3 5.0 6.8
40 3.7 0.0019 0.0021 0.0017 2.0 2.8 3.8
40 4.6 0.0027 0.0018 0.0017 2.3 3.1 4.1
10 0.0 0.0013 0.0024 0.0028 1.7 8.3 10.8
10 4.6 0.0027 0.0057 0.0035 4.7 15.6 5.6

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1109

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Displacement gradients: 共a兲 at ground surface, 共b兲 4.6 m
deep at distance of 40 m from pile driving
tions for a Rayleigh wave presented earlier in this paper since
⳵ux / ⳵y would be zero. Nevertheless, ⳵ux / ⳵y is the smallest mea-
sured displacement gradient component, and the focus therefore
lies primarily on the other displacement gradients.
Differences between Method 2 and Methods 1 and 3 are fur-
ther demonstrated in Fig. 15, which plots peak values of ⳵uz / ⳵y
from Methods 2 and 3 versus Method 1. Each data point is a peak
recording for a single pile driving strike, and 300 strikes at each
depth and pile driving distance combination are plotted. Method 2
versus Method 1 shows considerable scatter, with displacement
gradients by Method 2 sometimes lower and sometimes higher
than those by Method 1. In contrast, Methods 1 and 3 agree very
well with the data clustered along the 1:1 line. These data indicate
that errors can arise when strain is estimated at a dispersive site
using a constant depth-dependent wave velocity instead of a
frequency-dependent wave velocity. Various constant values of
wave velocity were also used in Method 2, but the scatter re-
mained regardless of selection of wave velocity.
Fig. 14. Displacement gradients: 共a兲 at ground surface, 共b兲 4.6 m
deep at distance of 10 m from pile driving
1110 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
Fig. 15. Comparison of peak displacement gradients computed using
Method 2 or 3 versus Method 1
Estimation of Engineering Shear Strain Amplitude
The displacement gradients presented thus far are not equal to
engineering shear strain. Since shear strain correlates with settle-
ment, strain must be estimated from the displacement gradients.
The relation between shear strain and particle velocity divided by
wave velocity is often implemented using scaling factors based on
the anticipated type of wave when computing ground strain from
measured surface velocities 共Trifunac et al. 1996兲. For Rayleigh
waves with a single frequency, the scaling factor is approximately
1.0 for measurements at the ground surface, less than 1.0 in the
range from the ground surface to a depth of about 0.4␭, and near
1.0 again below 0.4␭ 关see Fig. 2共b兲兴. Fig. 2共b兲 indicates that the
engineering shear strain can be as low as 0.3 times the displace-
ment gradient at z / ␭ ⬇ 0.06. However, the scaling factor is likely
never as low as 0.3 for field application when multiple frequen-
cies superpose because different wavelengths would superpose at
different depths, thereby smoothing out the kinks in the distribu-
tion of shear strain. Hence, the appropriate scaling factor is fre-
quency dependent, and requires knowledge of the types of waves
present in a vibration record. The appropriate scaling factors can-
not be accurately computed based on the recorded data presented
in this paper. Nevertheless, the displacement gradient provides a
reasonable estimate of shear strain for measurements on the
ground surface, and the gradients likely slightly overestimate the
engineering shear strains at depth. For the purpose of this paper,
taking engineering shear strain as being equal to the displacement
gradient duz / dy 共i.e., with a scaling factor of unity兲 is deemed an
appropriate approximation.
Fig. 16. Average of peak displacement gradients versus depth

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Attenuation of displacement gradients with distance from
pile driving
Attenuation of Amplitude with Distance and Depth
Average peak displacement gradients are plotted versus depth in
Fig. 16, where strain was computed using Method 1. ⳵ux / ⳵y was
consistently smaller than ⳵uy / ⳵y and ⳵uz / ⳵y, which is consistent
with the observation that wavefronts with cylindrical or spherical
geometries are associated with ⳵ux / ⳵y = 0. Regarding ⳵uy / ⳵y and
⳵uz / ⳵y, the following observations can be made: 共1兲 average peak
displacement gradients ranged from 0.001 to about 0.005%; 共2兲
average peak displacement gradients were larger when pile driv-
ing was at a distance of 10 m compared with 40 m. Furthermore,
⳵uz / ⳵y attenuates with depth, which is consistent with the trend
established for Rayleigh waves in this paper. However, ⳵uy / ⳵y is
largest at a depth of 1.2 m 共for pile driving at a distance of 40 m兲,
and subsequently decreases with depth. This trend is not consis-
tent with the trend established for Rayleigh waves, and perhaps
indicates a superposition of P waves, S waves, and Rayleigh
waves.
Peak displacement gradients are plotted versus distance from
pile driving in Fig. 17. Strains attenuate with distance from the
pile driving operations because wave energy attenuates geometri-
cally 共i.e., as the wave propagates through the soil the wavefront
area increases and the amplitude decreases to balance energy兲 and
due to material damping in lossy media 共i.e., hysteretic stress-
strain behavior in the soil, heat generation, etc.兲. Eq. 共14兲 quanti-
fies attenuation of Rayleigh waves in homogeneous lossy media
共Santamarina et al. 2001兲
u̇2 = u̇1 · 冑R1/R2 · e−␣共R2−R1兲
共14兲
where u̇1 and u̇2 = velocity amplitudes at locations 1 and 2, respec-
tively; R1 and R2 = distances from the source to locations 1 and 2;
and ␣ = empirical attenuation coefficient that depends on soil type
and wave frequency. Trend lines based on Eq. 共14兲 with ␣ = 0.01,
selected to be in the range of competent soils in the frequency
range of interest 共Dowding 1996兲, are plotted in Fig. 17 for ref-
erence. The data do not perfectly match the attenuation equation,
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009 / 1111
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
which can be attributed to the fact that: 共1兲 the propagating waves
are not only Rayleigh waves, but rather a combination of different
complex waveforms; and 共2兲 the strains at different distances
were recorded for different pile driving strikes. Ideally, attenua-
tion with distance would be measured by an array of transducers
at different distances synchronized and sampled simultaneously
for the same pile driving strike. Despite these limitations, the data
are consistent with the expectation that at a distance of 100 m the
peak amplitudes of ⳵uy / ⳵y and ⳵uz / ⳵y would recede below
0.001%, which is the threshold below which Massarch 共2000兲
predicts small probability of ground settlement. Hence, ground
settlement could reasonably be assumed to be confined to a region
within about 100 m of pile driving operations.
Observed Settlement and Anticipated Spatial
Distribution
A settlement gauge was installed at the site prior to pile driving
operations with the intent of obtaining repeated survey measure-
ments to track settlements as construction progressed. The settle-
ment gauge consisted of a threaded rod placed inside of a PVC
pipe with a plate attached to the rod at a depth of about 4.6 m.
Unfortunately, the settlement gauge was destroyed during con-
struction operations, preventing accurate measurement of post-
construction ground settlement. Nevertheless the gauge was
useful for qualitatively observing that some settlement had oc-
curred. A visible mark was apparent where the PVC casing had
previously been in contact with the soil, and the mark was
2 – 3 cm above the ground surface halfway through the pile driv-
ing operation. No ground cracks or signs of differential settlement
were apparent. Hence, we can infer that the ground settled by a
few centimeters in a smoothly varying manner in the vicinity of
the pile driving operations. The shear strains induced in the soil
by the construction vibrations likely caused this small settlement
to occur, and the observation is consistent with other case histo-
ries of settlement of sandy soils due to construction vibrations.
Ground cracks and vertical offsets that could potentially mask the
geologic history of the site were not observed.
Conclusions
Ground vibrations were measured during pile driving operations
at a site containing archeological artifacts to monitor any impacts
of the construction operations on the site. Displacement gradients
were computed from the recorded data using the following three
methods: 共1兲 the difference between adjacent displacements di-
vided by sensor spacing; 共2兲 particle velocity divided by average
wave velocity; and 共3兲 particle velocity divided by frequency-
dependent velocity from a dispersion curve. Methods 1 and 3
produced results that agreed well, whereas Method 2 exhibited
errors caused by neglecting dispersion of wave energy at the het-
erogeneous site. A simple analytical solution of planar Rayleigh
waves propagating through dispersive and nondispersive media
demonstrated this potential error. The rather small increment of
effort required to simultaneously record vibrations at two posi-
tions may be justified by the gain in accuracy in ground strains
measured at dispersive soil sites.
The amplitude of recorded strains were similar to previous
case histories where soil settlements were observed, but were
smaller than the threshold shear strain of about 0.01% observed to
be the limiting value associated with permanent volumetric strain
 in laboratory simple shear tests of sand specimens. The cause of
this discrepancy is not well understood, but could be related to the
fact that: 共1兲 construction vibrations induced tens of thousands of
loading cycles on the soil, potentially causing accumulation of
volumetric strains that are immeasurable under typical laboratory
loading conditions; and 共2兲 vibration frequencies are higher than
the frequencies used in the laboratory studies. Whereas some
small settlement was measured as far as 40 m from pile driving
operations, the degree of settlement is believed to have decreased
rapidly with distance based on empirical attenuation trends super-
posed on the recorded data. At a distance of approximately
100 m, the ground strains are predicted to recede beneath
0.001%, which is the strain level associated with small probability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tokyo Univ Seisan Gijutsu on 05/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of settlement by Massarch 共2000兲.
Mitigation of direct impacts in the immediate vicinity of the
pile groups, required by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, was provided by data recovery of representative
deposits conducted prior to pile driving. In addition, data suggest
that differential settlement in the form of ground cracks and ver-
tical offsets at this site was unlikely. Rather, the settlement pattern
varied smoothly with distance from pile driving. Therefore, the
archeological interpretation of artifacts in their stratigraphic and
spatial context was probably affected only due to the direct im-
pacts in the immediate region where the pile foundations were
constructed.
The data presented in this paper demonstrate a valuable
method for quantifying and documenting indirect impacts to in-
tact archaeological deposits. Previous methods for mitigating in-
direct impacts, such as placing fill over the site, provided
improvements that were difficult to quantify and record. Data
from this study have already been used in projects with similar
subsurface stratigraphy to identify and plan for indirect effects on
other cultural resources.
Acknowledgments
Resources used in this study were from the National Science
Foundation-funded George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation 共NEES兲. Assistance by the nees@UCLA
staff, particularly Alberto Salamanca, Steve Keowen, and Steve
Kang, is gratefully acknowledged. Funding for this study was
provided by Caltrans through a subcontract to Far Western An-
thropological Research Group.
References
Brandenberg, S. J., Kutter, B. L., and Wilson, D. W. 共2008兲. “Fast stack-
ing and signal processing for shear wave velocity measurement in a
1112 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / AUGUST 2009
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009.135:1101-1112.
noisy environment.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134共8兲, 1154–
1165.
Comina, C., and Foti, S. 共2007兲. “Surface wave tests for vibration miti-
gation studies.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133共10兲, 1320–1324.
Dowding, C. H. 共1996兲. Construction vibrations, Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, N.J.
Drabkin, S., Lacy, H., and Kim, D. S. 共1996兲. “Estimating settlement of
sand caused by construction vibration.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 122共11兲,
920–928.
Hsu, C-C., and Vucetic, M. 共2004兲. “Volumetric threshold shear strain for
cyclic settlement.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共1兲, 58–70.
Hung, H. H., Yang, Y. B., and Chang, D. W. 共2004兲. “Wave barriers for
reduction of train-induced vibrations in soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenvi-
ron. Eng., 130共12兲, 1283–1291.
Hwang, J.-H., Liang, N., and Chen, C.-H. 共2001兲. “Ground response dur-
ing pile driving.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共11兲, 939–949.
Jones and Stokes 共2004兲. Transportation- and construction-induced vi-
bration guidance manual 共J&S 02-039兲, California Department of
Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management
Office, Sacramento, Calif.
Ju, S.-H., Lin, H.-T., and Chen, T.-K. 共2007兲. “Studying characteristics of
train-induced ground vibrations adjacent to an elevated railway by
field experiments.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133共10兲, 1302–
1307.
Massarch, K. R. 共2000兲. “Settlements and damage caused by
construction-induced vibrations.” Proc., Int. Workshop Wave 2000,
Bochum, Germany, N. Chouw and D. Schmid, eds., Taylor and Fran-
cis, London, 299–315.
Niemunis, A. 共1995兲. “On the estimation of the amplitude of shear strain
from measurements in situ.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 14, 1–3.
Razin, A. V. 共1995兲. “Elastic wave propagation in a randomly stratified
solid medium.” Waves Random Media, 5, 137–143.
Santamarina, J. C., and Fratta, D. 共2005兲. Discrete signals and inverse
problems: an introduction for engineers and scientists, Wiley, Chich-
ester, U.K.
Santamarina, J. C., Klein, K. A., and Fam, M. A. 共2001兲. Soils and
waves: Particulate materials behavior, characterization and process
monitoring, Wiley, Chicester, U.K.
Stewart, J. P., Bray, J. D., McMahon, D. J., Smith, P. M., and Kropp, A.
L. 共2001兲. “Seismic performance of hillside fills.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 127共11兲, 905–919.
Stokoe, K. H., II, Wright, S. G., Bay, J. A., and Roesset, J. M. 共1994兲.
“Characterization of geotechnical sites by SASW method.” Proc.,
13th ISSMFE Technical Committee 10 for ICSMFE, Geophysical
Characteristics of Sites, Balkema, Rotterdam & Brookfield, The Neth-
erlands, 785–816.
Svinkin, M. R. 共2002兲. “Predicting soil and structure vibrations from
impact machines.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128共7兲, 602–612.
Trifunac, M. D., Todorovska, M. I., and Ivanovic, S. S. 共1996兲. “Peak
velocities and peak surface strains during Northridge, California,
earthquake of 17 January 1994.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 15, 301–
310.