Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile

Composite Default screen

700

NOTES

The prediction of groundborne vibration from

percussive piling
V.S. Hope and D.M. Hiller

Abstract: Environmental assessments of proposed infrastructure projects include an appraisal of the vibration that
would be generated by potential construction methods. This paper considers one part of that process: prediction of
groundborne vibration from percussive piling. Various methods for predicting the magnitude of the groundborne vibra-
tion generated by percussive piling have been described in the literature. In general, the accuracy of the predictors is
limited. The paper investigates the reasons for this, through the development of theoretical models and analysis of field
data from an extensive programme of on-site vibration monitoring. It is found that some widespread assumptions about
the relationship between the energy rating of a percussive piling hammer and the vibrational energy developed in the
ground are invalid. Ground conditions are shown to have a dominant influence on the magnitude of the groundborne
vibration generated by percussive piling, and piling vibration predictors which take no account of soil type yield con-
siderably less accurate estimates than site-specific predictions.

Key words: piling, vibration, monitoring, prediction, environmental assessment.

Résumé : Les évaluations environnementales de projets d’infrastructure comprennent une estimation de la vibration qui
serait générée par les méthodes potentielles de construction. Cet article examine une partie de ce processus : la
prédiction de la vibration transmise par le sol durant le fonçage de pieux par percussion. Diverses méthodes pour
prédire la magnitude de la vibration transmise par le sol et générée par le fonçage de pieux par percussion ont été
décrites dans la littérature. En général, la précision des méthodes de prédiction est limitée. Cet article en étudie les
raisons au moyen du développement de modèles théoriques et de l’analyse de données de terrain provenant d’un vaste
programme de mesures de vibrations sur place. On trouve que des hypothèses très répandues sur la relation entre
l’estimation de l’énergie d’un marteau de percussion pour les pieux et l’énergie de vibration développée dans le sol
sont invalides. On montre que les conditions du sol ont une influence dominante sur la magnitude de la vibration
générée par le fonçage de pieux par percussion et transmise par le sol, et que les méthodes de prédiction de ces
vibrations qui ne prennent pas en compte le type de sol donnent des estimations considérablement moins précises que
les prédictions spécifiques au site.

Mots clés : fonçage de pieux, vibration, mesure, prédiction, évaluation environnementale.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Notes 711

Introduction Act 1990). The accurate estimation of likely vibration levels

The groundborne vibration generated by percussive piling
operations is usually insufficient to cause damage to nearby
structures (BSI 1992a) but it may be perceptible to people
living and working around a site (BSI 1992b) or cause con-
cern for vibration-sensitive installations and fragile struc-
tures. Environmental impact assessments of construction
projects include a quantitative estimate of the vibration that
may be caused (EC 1985) and, in the U.K., local authorities
can suspend works if they cause intrusion “so as to be preju-
dicial to health or a nuisance” (Environmental Protection
Received March 15, 1998. Accepted November 12, 1999.
V.S. Hope. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, U.K.
D.M. Hiller. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
Berkshire, RG45 6AU, U.K.
at a site is important (Hiller and Hope 1998); however, the
reliability of empirical piling vibration predictors is variable.
The research presented here forms parts of a larger project
to investigate groundborne vibration arising from construction
operations. At the outset of that project, it was assumed that
the ground vibration effects of percussive piling are relatively
well understood. However, through analysis of the field data
obtained, it became apparent that several questions are still to
be resolved. The aim of this paper is to set out these issues.
The paper considers the factors that have been suggested to
influence the magnitude of ground vibration from percussive
piling and assesses their relevance in the predictive modelling
of piling-induced vibration using field data and theoretical
models. It is demonstrated that the widely assumed depend-
ence of ground vibration magnitude on hammer impact en-
ergy is much less strong than might be expected from its
central role in empirical predictors. The magnitude of piling-

Can. Geotech. J. 37: 700–711 (2000) © 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:30:34 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Notes 701

Table 1. Values of parameters used to generate the prediction curves in Fig. 1.

Predictor Parameters Data fitting

Attewell and Farmer 1973 x = 1, k = 1.5 Upper bound
Whyley and Sarsby 1992 x = 1, k = 0.25 for soft loose soil; k = 0.75 for stiff or Upper bound
medium dense soil; k = 1.5 for stiff or dense soil
Attewell et al. 1992a, 1992b k1 = –0.073, k2 = 1.38, k3 = 0.234 1 SD above mean
Hiller and Crabb 1998 k = 3 for stiff or medium dense soil Upper bound
Lo 1977 α = 0.013 m–1, vo = 80 mm·s–1, r0 = 1 m Deepest penetration
Head and Jardine 1992 x = 1, k = 1.5 (for r > 0.5 m) Upper bound
BSI 1992a x = 1, k = 0.75 Upper bound
CEN 1998 x = 1, k = 1.0 for very stiff cohesive soil; k = 0.75 for Upper bound
stiff cohesive soil; k = 0.5 for soft cohesive soil

induced vibration is shown to be highly influenced by ground  W  W

conditions, and it is recommended that predictions of
groundborne vibration from percussive piling should take ac-
count of both the soil type and the driver energy.
Published prediction methods
Strategies for predicting vibration magnitudes for piling
have taken two forms: (i) empirical predictions, developed
using field data from many sites; and (ii) pilot-scale trials at
the site of interest (for example, Grose 1986). One of the
earliest empirical predictors was developed by Attewell and
Farmer (1973), who analysed piling vibration data from sev-
eral sites and suggested that
x
 W
[1] vv = k   r is the radial distance between the pile and the monitor-
 r 
where vv is the peak vertical particle velocity (in mm/s);
W is the input energy (in J), assumed to be the hammer
impact energy;
r is the radial distance between the pile and the monitor-
ing point (m);
x is an empirically determined index; and
k is an empirically determined (dimensional) constant of
proportionality.
Predictors having the general form of eq. [1] have been
widely adopted (for example, in BSI 1992a; Head and Jar-
dine 1992; Hiller and Crabb 1998), although both BSI
(1992a) and Head and Jardine (1992) recommended that
close to a pile the slope distance from the pile toe, s, is used
rather than the radial distance r. Whyley and Sarsby (1992)
and Hiller and Crabb (1998) reported, as Wiss (1967) had
also shown, that k varies with geology. Whyley and Sarsby
assigned values to k ranging from 0.25 to 1.5, depending on
soil type. A similar approach has been adopted in the Euro-
pean code (CEN 1998).
Using field data presented by Uromeihy (1990), Attewell
et al. (1991) observed that maxima occurred in vibration –
radial distance data plots at about r = 10 m. Figure 1a shows
this effect, which has been attributed to superposition of
body and surface waves emanating from the pile toe and the
shaft, respectively (Jongmans 1996). To reduce overconser-
vatism of predictions at close range, Attewell et al. (1992a,
1992b) recommended that a quadratic relationship be used,
specifically
[2] log v res = k1 + k2 log   + k3 log2  
 r   r 
where vres is the peak resultant particle velocity; and values
for the constants of proportionality k1, k2, and k3 for percus-
sive piling were determined empirically.
Van Staalduinen and Waarts (1992) developed a predictor
using the attenuation formulation proposed by Mintrop
(cited by Bornitz 1931) for Rayleigh surface waves:
r0
[3] vr = v 0 e − α (r −r 0 )
r
where vr is the peak vibration at distance r ;
v0 is the peak vibration at distance r0;
ing point;
r0 is the radial distance from the pile to a point of known
vibration magnitude; and
α is a material damping coefficient (of dimension length–1).
Van Staalduinen and Waarts found that v0 correlated with
cone penetration (CPT) resistance and used CPT data to pro-
vide a degree of site specificity to the prediction at less cost
than a full piling trial. Their method was applied at one site
only so its general validity was not tested. Lo (1977) based a
vibration prediction method on eq. [3] in which values of v0
and α were obtained from piling trials.
Equations [1] and [3] differ fundamentally in their treat-
ment of attenuation. The attenuation model in eq. [1] de-
scribes, for x of unity (Attewell and Farmer 1973),
geometric spreading of body waves. In contrast, eq. [3] mod-
els material damping and the geometric spreading of surface
waves.
Figure 1 compares several of the published vibration pre-
dictors with ground vibration data from percussive piling op-
erations at a site monitored in the present study. Table 1
summarises the parameters used in each predictor (eq. [3]
was implemented in the manner suggested by Lo 1977, and
α was determined from a subset of the field data). The pre-
dictors presented in Fig. 1 use differing models and parame-
ters. To establish effective prediction strategies, it is
necessary to clarify which processes are in operation and
which parameters are important. The following sections
present an examination of the physical basis of possible
parameterizations of the piling vibration problem and the re-
sults of analyses of ground vibration data from percussive

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:30:35 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

702 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Fig. 1. A posteriori predictions, obtained using published predictors, of the groundborne vibration from percussive piling compared
with field data from site A plotted against (a) horizontal radial distance, and (b) slope distance.

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:30:43 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Notes 703

Table 2. Typical acoustic impedance values for pile and ground materials and the corresponding energy transmission coefficients for
normal incidence (eq. [5]).

Mass density P-wave speed, Acoustic impedance, Transmission coefficient, T

Material ρ (kg·m–3) a (m·s–1) ρa (Z) (MPa·s·m–1) Steel Concrete
Steel 7800 5700 44.5 — —
Concrete 2400 5000 12.0 — —
Sand (saturated) 2000 1500 3.0 0.24 0.64
Clay (stiff) 2300 2000 4.6 0.34 0.80
Sandstone 2400 2300 5.5 0.39 0.86

Fig. 2. Schematic of vibrational wave fronts radiating from a
percussive driven pile: (a) shaft source; (b) toe source.
piling in terms of these parameters. Figure 1 is reconsidered
in more detail in the Discussion.
Conceptual models and parameterization
In foundation design, an axially loaded pile can be consid-
ered in terms of a normal force acting on the pile base and
shear forces along the pile shaft. This elementary representa-
tion is used here to develop a conceptual model of how a
blow to the top of a partially embedded, impact-driven pile
may give rise to groundborne vibration during pile installation.
The magnitude of the vibration depends on the amount of
energy imparted to the ground at the source, the rate of
attenuation of the energy as it propagates through the
ground, and the distance over which this attenuation occurs.
The development of the model is therefore treated in three
parts: input energy, attenuation rate, and attenuation distance
between source and receptor.
In the idealised case of a “frictional” pile, with no end re-
straint during driving, the stress pulse induced by the ham-
mer impact propagates along the shaft and is reflected at the
toe. Resistive shear forces on the partially embedded shaft
would induce vertically polarised shear waves in the sur-
rounding ground. These would propagate outwards as cylin-
drical or conical (see Attewell and Farmer 1973) wave fronts
centred on the longitudinal axis of the pile (Fig. 2a). For
such wave fronts, the rate of attenuation of wave energy in-
tensity, due to geometric spreading, would be proportional
to 1/r, where r is the horizontal radial distance from the pile.
Since the peak particle velocity (ppv) of a wave is propor-
tional to the square root of the energy of the wave, the ppv
would diminish as 1/(r)0.5.
For the frictional pile model, the energy imparted from the
pile to the ground would depend on the shear force acting
along the pile shaft and the distance through which this
force moves at each impact. The portion of this energy asso-
ciated with elastic ground deformation is the groundborne
vibrational energy, Wf, per blow, given by
[4] Wf ∝ Ff d
where Ff is the resistive shear force along the pile shaft, and
d is the distance moved by the pile (the “set”) per blow. The
force Ff will vary with the shear stress mobilised at the
shaft–soil interface (Billet and Sieffert 1989; Coop and
Wroth 1989) and, for a given shear stress, will increase with
increasing pile embedment length, l. The set, d, will depend
on the hammer energy, WH, and on the properties of the
ground penetrated, and therefore these factors will also in-
fluence Wf.
In the case of a wholly “end-bearing” pile, with no shaft
resistance effective during driving, the compressive stress
pulse initiated by the impact will propagate down the shaft
to the pile toe (Fig. 2b). Transmission of energy across the
pile–soil interface will occur, governed by the contrast in
acoustic impedance properties of the pile and soil. Spe-
cifically, the ratio of the energy intensities of the transmitted
and incident waves, T, is given by (Telford et al. 1976;
Zoeppritz 1919)
4Z pile Z soil
[5] T =
(Z pile + Z soil ) 2
for normal incidence at the boundary, where the acoustic im-
pedance, Z, of a material is the product of its mass density
and compressional wave propagation speed (Table 2 presents
typical values for Z and T ). In the absence of any other ef-
fect, the energy entering the ground, Web, from an end-
bearing pile would be
[6] Web ∝ TWH
However, part of WH is used to drive the pile; this is consid-
ered further in the Discussion.
In the end-bearing paradigm, the toe is the point at which
energy enters the ground, and therefore the slope distance, s,

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:30:44 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
704
Fig. 3. Near-surface geology at site A, determined at two bore-
holes adjacent to the piling area.
between the toe and a monitoring point (Wiss 1967; BSI
1992a) would be relevant when considering attenuation. At
depth, a pile toe will act as a point source of body waves
having spherically expanding wave fronts (Fig. 2b) for
which, in the absence of material damping, the ppv will di-
minish as 1/s. At the ground surface, the particle velocity of
body waves diminishes as 1/s2 (Ewing et al. 1957; Lo 1977).
In practice, both pile-driving models may operate. In clayey
soils, an increase in pore-water pressure and remoulding of
the soil around the pile shaft occur during driving (Poulos
and Davis 1980; Tomlinson 1980; Coop and Wroth 1989)
and the shear stress mobilised at the soil–shaft interface is
consequently reduced. In granular soils, the displacement of
soil around an advancing pile may increase the skin friction
on the shaft (Tomlinson 1980; Poulos and Davis 1980).
Therefore, in contrast with typical post-installation behav-
iour of piled foundations, during installation a pile driven
into clay may display the end-bearing model of ground vi-
bration generation (i.e., a toe source), whereas in sand or
gravel a pile may show frictional vibration generation (i.e., a
shaft source), or aspects of both behaviour.
Analysis of field measurements
Measurements of groundborne vibration from percussive
piling operations have been made by the second author at
several sites in the United Kingdom. Access to the sites was
predicated on not interrupting construction progress on site,
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:02 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
which necessarily restricted the scope of the investigations
that could be conducted and the experimental control that
could be achieved. However, the range of distances over
which data were acquired and the duration of the data re-
cords were unusually extensive. Three-component measure-
ments of particle velocity were recorded for the full period
of driving, using surface triaxial geophone clusters ranged
between a few metres to about 100 m from each pile.
Distance
The first parameter to be examined is the distance over
which attenuation occurs. For this, data are considered from
site A, at which the same steel H-piles and piling rig were
used for all operations. Figure 3 shows two borehole logs
from site A. Figure 4a presents the peak resultant particle
velocity, vres, plotted against the horizontal distance, r, from
the pile. Figure 4b presents the same data plotted against the
slope distance, s, from the pile toe to each monitoring point
on the ground surface. In Fig. 4a, the relationship between
ppv and r is not linear near the pile. In Fig. 4b, the distribu-
tion of the data is more closely linear, and can be character-
ised as
1
[7] vres ∝
sn
where s is the slope distance between the pile tip and the
monitoring point;
vres is the peak resultant particle velocity; and
n is an attenuation index.
For these data, n = 1.2 with a correlation coefficient of
–0.78. Equation [7] can be applied throughout the range of
distances for which data are available from site A. The use
of s rather than r therefore appears preferable.
Hammer impact energy
From elastic theory, a square-root relationship between
the peak particle velocity (ppv) and energy of a wave is ex-
pected. The energy term, W, in eq. [1] and its variants are
usually taken to be the energy rating of the hammer, WH
(Wiss 1967; Attewell and Farmer 1973; Lo 1977; Whyley
and Sarsby 1992; CEN 1998). To investigate this assump-
tion, an experiment was conducted at a second site (site B)
in which hammer drop heights, h, of 1.0, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, and
then 1.0 m again were used sequentially. Figure 5 presents
the results obtained, including the observed penetration per
blow (set). In Fig. 5b, the ground vibration data are normal-
ized by the ppv from the final 1.0 m drop. From Fig. 5b, it
can be suggested that the magnitude of the groundborne vi-
bration generated by percussive piling is related to the po-
tential energy of the hammer mechanism, WH. However, in
Fig. 5b the relationship between vres and h0.5, and hence
(WH)0.5, is not linear. This is in contrast with the assump-
tions made in vibration prediction formulae (see eqs. [1] and
[2]). As well as ppv, Fig. 5b shows that the set achieved per
blow, d, also increased nonlinearly with increasing hammer
energy. The possible connections between hammer energy,
pile driving energy, and groundborne vibration energy are
considered in the Discussion.
Figure 6a shows ppv and hammer energy data from sev-
eral sites and piling rigs. It includes data published by
Uromeihy (1990), to extend the data range of the present
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Notes 705

Fig. 4. Groundborne vibration data from percussive piling at site A, grouped by pile toe depth: (a) peak resultant particle velocity
against horizontal radial distance; (b) peak resultant particle velocity against slope distance. A Banult 700 piling rig with a 5 t drop
hammer was used to drive steel H-section piles (UBP 305 × 305 × 186 kg/m).

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:05 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
706
Fig. 5. Variation of peak resultant particle velocity and pile set with hammer drop height, h, at site B: (a) unadjusted data; (b) ppv
normalised by final impact from h = 1 m, with set data.
study. In contrast with the results from site B (Fig. 5), no
strong dependence of ppv on WH is discernible in Fig. 6a.
However, the data in Fig. 6a are from pile–receptor dis-
tances ranging from about 2 to 100 m (see Fig. 6b). To at-
tempt to eliminate the effect of distance from the data, in
Fig. 6c the hammer energy has been normalized by the slope
distance, s, raised to the power n (eq. [7]), where a value of
n = 1.1 was obtained from regression analysis of the data in
Fig. 6b (the reciprocal of the distance-normalized hammer
energy ((WH)0.5/s1.1) is used in Fig. 6c to facilitate visual
comparison with Fig. 6b). The scatter in Fig. 6c extends at
least an order of magnitude, and is almost two orders of
magnitude if outliers are considered. This suggests that an
empirical predictive model which incorporates only distance
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:07 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
and hammer energy is unlikely to yield reliable predictions
of groundborne vibration from percussive piling.
Depth of embedment
In Fig. 4, the field data from site A are classified by the
depth of embedment of the pile. There is a trend of increas-
ing ppv with depth. Figure 7 presents data from site A re-
corded at the monitoring station farthest from the piles
(about 100 m distant). At this offset, the slope distance be-
tween the pile toe and the monitoring station increased by
only 4% during driving. Despite the negligible change in at-
tenuation distance (see eq. [7]), there is almost an order of
magnitude rise in ppv during driving. According to eq. [1], a
100-fold increase in W would be required to achieve this.
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

Notes 707

Fig. 6. Field data from several sites and piling rigs, shown as peak resultant particle velocity versus (a) hammer energy, (b) slope dis-
tance, and (c) the square root of the hammer energy adjusted for slope distance.

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:31 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen

708 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000

Fig. 6 (concluded).

However, at site A, aside from “toeing in” the first 4 m of Fig. 7. Variation of peak resultant particle velocity with depth of
shaft, the same hammer energy, WH, was used throughout embedment of pile at 100 m radial distance from percussion-
driving. Figures 4, 6c, and 7 suggest that the groundborne driven piles at site A.
energy generated by percussive piling is more strongly influ-
enced by a factor which varies with depth of penetration
than by WH. This additional factor may explain the apparent
contradiction within the field results in Figs. 5b and 6a con-
cerning the influence of WH on ppv, since the measurements
presented in Fig. 5b were obtained from a pile as it was
driven through about 0.1 m only, whereas for Fig. 6a moni-
toring continued from toeing in to full installation.

Ground conditions
As a pile is driven (i) the length of shaft in contact with
the surrounding soil increases, (ii) the properties of the soil
encountered by the shaft may vary due to heterogeneity, and
(iii) the soil encountered by the pile toe may vary. Each of
these factors could account for the behaviour shown in, for
example, Fig. 7. The data in Fig. 7 can be interpreted as
indicating either that the ppv increases with increasing
embedment length, l, or that the ppv increases as the toe en-
counters different strata. That is, it is difficult to distinguish
between effects at the shaft and at the pile toe.
To attempt to clarify the ambiguity, other data from site A
have been examined. Figure 8 presents the driving record of
a pile at the site (expressed as the number of impact blows the variation of the standard penetration test (SPT) N count
required to drive a pile each additional 250 mm, plotted with depth at two test locations near the pile. In its operation
against the current total depth of penetration). Such records (BSI 1990; Clayton 1995), the SPT apparatus is akin to an
indicate the resistance of the ground to pile penetration. This impact-driven pile that is isolated from the surrounding soil
resistance may be a compound of end resistance and shaft along its shaft. In Fig. 8, the SPT N count and ppv values
friction, or one factor may dominate. Figure 8 also shows both begin to increase at depths below about 12–14 m,

© 2000 NRC Canada

I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:37 PM
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Notes
Fig. 8. Pile driving record from site A compared with nearby SPT N values, and peak resultant particle velocity data.
which corresponds with the onset of denser material under-
lying the soft alluvial deposits at the site (Fig. 3). Both the
SPT and ppv values increase further, and the pile penetration
resistance starts to increase, as the pile begins to penetrate
the stiff Kimmeridge clay, from about 16 m. From these ob-
servations, it can be concluded that, at site A, the magnitude
of the groundborne vibration generated by percussive piling
is affected more by the soil encountered at the pile toe than
that along the shaft. This conclusion is supported by the ear-
lier observation that the geometric attenuation of the
groundborne energy at site A varies with the distance, s,
from the pile toe rather than the distance, r, from the shaft. It
should be noted that, although data from only one site are
presented here, monitoring of percussive piling operations at
other sites also indicated a similar general trend of increas-
ing ppv with increasing pile toe depth.
Discussion
Groundborne vibrations from percussive piling are often
observed to be greater in stiff, dense soils than in loose, soft
soils (refer, for example, to Whyley and Sarsby 1992;
Ciesielski et al. 1980; Hosking et al. 1988; Heckman and
Hagerty 1978; Lo 1977; d’Appolonia 1971; Wiss 1967;
Luna 1967; Baba and Toriuim 1957). Two separate explana-
tions for this behaviour have been proposed in the literature.
D’Appolonia (1971), amongst others, suggested that resis-
tance to pile penetration governs how much, after losses (see
Wiss 1967), of the available hammer energy WH goes into
the work of driving the pile (that is, permanent plastic defor-
mation of the ground) and how much is available to become
groundborne energy (that is, transient elastic deformation).
In resistive soils, it was suggested, the set is low and signifi-
cant groundborne vibration is therefore produced, but in eas-
ily penetrated soils most of the hammer energy goes to
advance the pile and vibration is consequently low. A diffi-
culty of this explanation is that it attempts to compare the
work needed to overcome a large resistive force acting over
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:39 PM
709
a short distance with that needed to overcome a lesser force
which is acting over a greater distance.
The second explanation presented in the literature consid-
ers the partition of energy at the pile–soil interface (Attewell
and Farmer 1973). Since displacement piles are stiffer (and
hence have greater acoustic impedance) than the ground into
which they are driven, the energy transmission ratio at the
pile–soil interface will increase as the acoustic impedance of
the ground increases which, in general, occurs as the ground
stiffness increases (Table 2). With reference to Table 2, for a
given pile material, the range of Zsoil values that may be en-
countered during driving could account for a 30–60% varia-
tion in T, and hence in ppv (eqs. [5] and [6]). This limited
range contrasts with the almost 10-fold variation of ppv with
depth shown in Fig. 7 and suggests that acoustic impedance
effects cannot alone account for observed field behaviour.
It appears that each explanation has some validity, but
some flaws also. Understanding which explanation, if either,
is correct is significant, since they lead to divergent predic-
tions in some situations. For example, for two piles made of
differing materials but which have the same dimensions and
are driven with equal hammer energies into the same
ground, the difference in the acoustic impedance of the piles
would be expected to give rise to differing levels of ground
vibration in each case. In contrast, the resistance to driving
and therefore, according to d’Appolonia (1971), the ground
vibration generated would be expected to be similar for the
two piles, since they have the same dimensions.
It is plausible that both mechanisms operate. Perhaps a
proportion (governed by the transmission ratio T (eq. [5])) of
the hammer energy, WH, is transmitted directly from the pile
toe to the soil as groundborne vibrational energy and, ne-
glecting losses, the remaining energy is available to drive the
pile. Of this energy, some will cause elastic ground deforma-
tion. It is notable that the soil properties relevant to each vi-
bration generation mechanism are different: the transmission
ratio, T, depends on the stiffness and density of the ground,
whereas pile penetration depends on soil strength.
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
710
Figure 1 compared several predictors and their perfor-
mance against field data. In Fig. 1a, most of the prediction
lines lie towards the upper edge of the data spread. Beyond
about r = 11 m, these lines follow the peak values closely
and discrepancies between the predictors are slight. At close
ranges (r ≤ 11 m in Fig. 1a), there is considerable over-
prediction of the vibration magnitudes. The overprediction is
significant when judged against the threshold levels for tran-
sient vibration which may cause cosmetic damage to light-
framed structures (for example, BSI 1993 gives threshold
levels of 20–50 mm/s, depending on frequency). At close
range, the predicted vibration values in Fig. 1a exceed the
threshold levels for cosmetic damage, whereas the observed
groundborne vibrations at site A were well below the thresh-
old. Figure 1b presents predictions which are based on use
of the slope distance, s. For these, the problem of over-
prediction at close range is less marked than in Fig. 1a.
Several of the predictors in Fig. 1 were developed empiri-
cally by upper bound data fitting (see Table 1) and thus are
intentionally conservative. Had the standard installation
depth at site A been less than 30 m (Fig. 4), these predictors
would have overestimated the maximum groundborne vibra-
tion generated at the site.
The lines in Fig. 1 that were generated using soil-
dependent predictors (Whyley and Sarsby 1992; CEN 1998;
Hiller and Crabb 1998) are distinct from those derived using
predictors in which ground conditions are not considered.
For Whyley and Sarsby (see Fig. 1a) and CEN (see Fig. 1b)
three prediction lines have been generated using the pub-
lished k values for generic soil conditions (Table 1). In
Fig. 1b, the prediction lines generated using the CEN predic-
tor overestimate the lowest vibrations and underestimate the
largest vibrations encountered at site A. In Fig. 1a, the pre-
dictions based on the predictor of Whyley and Sarsby
bracket the field data: specifically, k = 0.25 (soft alluvium)
provides a lower bound and k = 1.5 (stiff clay) gives an up-
per bound to the field data. With reference to the site geol-
ogy (Fig. 3) and the pile toe depth data indicated in Fig. 4, it
can be suggested that, at a given site, the highest k value for
the soils likely to be encountered during driving should be
used in predictions of the groundborne vibration from per-
cussive piling.
Conclusions
Accurate prediction of groundborne vibration from per-
cussive piling, whether using empirical predictors or pilot-
scale field trials, requires appropriate parameterization of the
problem within a tractable model. Previous work in this field
has led to several predictive models which have the benefit
of being easy to implement, but which do not in general give
reliably accurate predictions. Based on data analyses pre-
sented here, it is recommended that the geometric spreading
of groundborne vibration from percussive piling should be
modelled using the slope distance, s, between the pile toe
and the monitoring point rather than the horizontal radial
distance, r. The rate of attenuation of ground vibration with s
does not vary greatly between sites and is of the order of
n = 1.1–1.2 (eq. [7]). Although the nominal energy rating of
the hammer driving mechanism serves as a starting point
when estimating the energy that enters the ground from a
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:40 PM
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 37, 2000
pile, the magnitude of groundborne vibration varies signifi-
cantly with soil type and therefore, in heterogenous ground,
with depth of penetration also. A predictor that does not take
account of soil type cannot yield accurate predictions of pil-
ing-induced groundborne vibration. If full trials cannot be
conducted at a site, then published soil-dependent k factors
should be utilised (such as those given by Whyley and
Sarsby 1992). In variable ground, the largest soil-dependent
k factor for the strata encountered should be used.
Acknowledgement
Field data were acquired by the Transport Research Labo-
ratory through funding from the United Kingdom Depart-
ment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Views
expressed do not reflect those of either organization.
References
Attewell, P.B., and Farmer, I. 1973. Attenuation of ground vibra-
tion from pile driving. Ground Engineering, June, 1973, pp. 26–
29.
Attewell, P.B., Selby, A.R., and Uromeihy, A. 1991. Non-mono-
tonical decay of ground surface vibrations caused by pile driv-
ing. In Earthquake, blast and impact. Measurement and effects
of vibration. The Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering
Dynamics, London, U.K. pp. 463–481.
Attewell, P.B., Selby, A.R., and O’Donnell, L. 1992a. Estimation
of ground vibration from driven piling based on statistical analy-
ses of recorded data. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
10: 41–59.
Attewell, P.B., Selby, A.R., and O’Donnell, L. 1992b. Tables and
graphs for the estimation of ground vibration from driven piling
operations. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 10: 61–
87.
Baba, Y., and Toriuim, I. 1957. Vibrations underground by pile-
driving. Technical Report, Osaka University, Vol. 7, No. 239,
pp. 83–94.
Billet, P., and Sieffert, J.G. 1989. Soil – sheet pile interaction in
vibro-piling. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
115(8): 1085–1101.
Bornitz, G. 1931. Über die Ausbreitung der von Groβ kolbenmaschinen
erzeugten Bodenschwingungen in die Tiefe. J. Springer, Berlin.
BSI. 1990. Determination of the penetration resistance using the
split-barrel sampler (the standard penetration test, SPT). BS
1377, Part 9, Section 3.3. British Standards Institution, London.
BSI. 1992a. Noise control on construction and open sites. Part 4.
Code of practice for noise and vibration control applicable to
piling operations. BS 5228, Part 4. British Standards Institution,
London.
BSI. 1992b. Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in build-
ings (1 Hz to 80 Hz). BS 6472. British Standards Institution,
London.
BSI. 1993. Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings:
Part 2. Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration. BS
7385, Part 4. British Standards Institution, London.
CEN. 1998. European Prestandard ENV 1993-5, Eurocode 3: De-
sign of steel structures — part 5: piling. European Committee
for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
Ciesielski, R., Maciag, E., and Stypula, K. 1980. Ground vibra-
tions induced by pile driving: some results of experimental
investigations. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Soils under Cyclic and Transient Loading, Swansea, U.K.
© 2000 NRC Canada
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
Notes
Edited by G.N. Pande and O.C. Zienkiewicz. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Vol. 2, pp. 757–762
Clayton, C.R.I. 1995. The standard penetration test (SPT): methods
and use. CIRIA Report 143, Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London.
Coop, M.R., and Wroth, C.P. 1989. Field studies of an instru-
mented model pile in clay. Géotechnique, 39(4): 679–696.
D’Appolonia, D.J. 1971. Effects of foundation construction on
nearby structures. In Proceedings of the 4th Pan-American Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1,
pp. 189–236.
EC. 1985. Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment (85/337/EEC). Official Journal of the European Commu-
nities, No. L175, 5-7-85, pp. 40–48
Environmental Protection Act. 1990. Chapter 43. Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office, London.
Ewing, W.M., Jardetzky, W.S., and Press, F. 1957. Elastic waves in
layered media. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Grose, W.J. 1986. Driving piles adjacent to vibration-sensitive
structures. Ground Engineering, May, 1986, pp. 23–31.
Head, J.M., and Jardine, F.M. 1992. Ground-borne vibrations aris-
ing from piling. CIRIA Technical Note 142, Construction Indus-
try Research and Information Association, London.
Heckman, W.S., and Hagerty, D.J. 1978. Vibrations associated with
pile driving. Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE,
104(C04): 385–394.
Hiller, D.M., and Crabb, G.I. 1998. Prediction of groundborne vi-
bration from mechanised construction works. Proceedings of the
Institute of Acoustics, 20(2): 25–32.
Hiller, D.M., and Hope, V.S. 1998. Groundborne vibration gener-
ated by mechanised construction activities. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering,
131(4): 223–232.
Hosking, I.A., Mirkov, P., and Deb, P.K. 1988. Predicted, measured
ground vibrations caused by pile driving in sand at the Tuncurry
Unloading Wharf, New South Wales. In Proceedings of the 5th
Australia – New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Sydney,
Australia. pp. 421–426.
Jongmans, D. 1996. Prediction of ground vibrations caused by pile
driving: a new methodology. Engineering Geology, 42: 25–36.
Lo, M.B. 1977. Attenuation of ground vibration induced by pile
driving. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 4,
pp. 281–286.
Luna, W.A. 1967. Ground vibrations due to pile driving. Founda-
tion Facts, Vol. 3, No. 2, Raymond International, Houston, Tex.
Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and
design. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A. 1976.
Applied geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K.
I:\cgj\Cgj37\Cgj03\T99-130.vp
Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:31:40 PM
711
Tomlinson, M.J. 1980. Foundation design and construction. 4th ed.
Pitman, London
Uromeihy, A. 1990. Ground vibration measurements with special
reference to pile driving. Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham,
Durham, U.K.
van Staalduinen, P.C., and Waarts, P.H. 1992. Prediction of vibra-
tions due to pile driving. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 159–166.
Whyley, P.J., and Sarsby, R.W. 1992. Groundborne vibration from
piling. Ground Engineering, May, 1992, pp. 32–37.
Wiss, J.F. 1967. Damage effects of pile driving vibration. Highway
Research Record, 155: 14–20.
Zoeppritz, K. 1919. Über reflexion und durchgang seismischer
wellen durch Unstetigkerlsfalschen. Über Erdbebenwekken VII-
B, Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschafen
zu Göttingen, math.-phys. K1, pp. 57–84. Berlin.
List of symbols
a compressional wave propagation speed
d pile set, i.e., permanent pile penetration achieved per
blow
Ff total resistive force along pile shaft
h hammer drop height
k constant of proportionality (eq. [1])
k1, k2, k3 constants of proportionality (eq. [2])
l depth of pile penetration
n attenuation index (eq. [7])
r horizontal radial offset distance from pile shaft
r0 reference offset distance
s slope distance from pile toe
T ratio of energy transmission to reflectance at a boundary
for normal incidence
v0 peak particle velocity at reference offset r0
vv peak vertical particle velocity
vr peak particle velocity at offset r
vres peak resultant particle velocity
W input energy term (eqs. [1] and [2])
Web theoretical vibrational energy from transmission across
pile toe – soil boundary
Wf theoretical vibrational energy due to shaft friction ef-
fects
WH impact hammer energy per blow
x index (eq. [1])
Z acoustic impedance of a material
α attenuation coefficient, associated with material damping
ρ mass density
© 2000 NRC Canada