Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Geotechnical Engineering 167 February 2014 Issue GE1

Pages 2839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.11.00094
Paper 1100094
Received 09/10/2011 Accepted 04/04/2012
Published online 03/09/2012
Keywords: dynamics/mathematical modelling/piles & piling
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due to
impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
Numerical study of ground
vibration due to impact pile
driving
j
1
Ali Khoubani MSc
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Department of Civil Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
j
2
Mohammad Mehdi Ahmadi PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
j
1
j
2
Ground vibration due to pile driving is a long-lasting concern associated with the foundation construction industry. It
is of great importance to estimate the level of vibration prior to the beginning of pile driving, to avoid structural
damage, or disturbance of building occupants. In this study, an axisymmetric nite-element model that utilises an
adaptive meshing algorithm has been introduced, using the commercial code Abaqus, to simulate full penetration of
the pile from the ground surface to the desired depth by applying successive hammer impacts. The model has been
veried by comparing the computed particle velocities with those measured in the eld. The results indicate that the
peak particle velocity at the ground surface does not occur when the pile toe is on the ground surface; as the pile
penetrates into the ground, the particle velocity reaches a maximum value at a critical depth of penetration. Some
sensitivity analyses have been performed to evaluate the effect of soil, pile and hammer properties on the level of
vibrations. The results show that increase in pile diameter, hammer impact force, soilpile friction and reduction in
soil elastic modulus can increase the peak particle velocity.
Notation
D pile diameter
d depth of penetration of pile
E elastic modulus
e deviatoric eccentricity
L distance between vibration source and reective origin
of Rayleigh waves at ground surface
L
min
smallest element dimension in mesh
p pressure
r radial distance from pile centreline
V
P
velocity of compression wave
V
R
velocity of the Rayleigh wave
V
S
velocity of shear wave
Rayleigh mass proportional damping
Rayleigh stiffness proportional damping
t stable time increment
angle of deviatoric stress plane axes
coefcient of friction
Poissons ratio
r density
shear stress

crit
critical shear stress
soil friction angle
damping ratio

max
damping ratio in mode with highest frequency

max
highest frequency of model

n
natural frequency associated with 95% of modal mass
of model

1
rst natural frequency of model
1. Introduction
Pile driving is an age-tested method of constructing foundations
where adequate ground support is not directly available. However,
it is also a source of negative environmental effects. Noise and
air pollution are the most commonly expressed concerns, but
these are also relatively easily alleviated. By contrast, vibrations
originating from impact pile driving are both difcult to deter-
mine beforehand and costly to mitigate, while potentially having
serious adverse effects on adjacent structures and their founda-
tions, as well as on vibration-sensitive installations and occupants
of buildings (Massarsch and Fellenius, 2008).
During recent decades, several investigations have been per-
formed to determine the characteristics of pile driving vibrations.
One common method of handling vibrations is to perform eld
measurements in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) during
28
pile driving, to determine the soil attenuation properties. The
PPV is the maximum velocity that a soil particle experiences
during the driving of a pile from the ground surface to the desired
depth. The attenuation properties are then used in vibration
attenuation equations to estimate the distance from the vibration
source beyond which structural damage is unlikely to occur for
that specic site. Extensive work in this area has been carried out
by Wiss (1981), Woods and Jedele (1985), Uromeihy (1990),
Massarsch and Fellenius (2008).
As an alternative method, numerical analysis can be performed to
evaluate the severity of vibrations prior to the beginning of a pile
driving project. In this context, Ramshaw et al. (2000) developed a
nite-element innite-element model using the commercial code
Abaqus to predict the time history of the vibration velocity due to
impact and vibratory pile driving. Elastic behaviour was assumed
for both the pile and the soil. The overall problem was broken
down into three separate stages: a hammer impact model to
simulate the force imposed onto the pile head; a model of the
propagation of the impact waves down the pile shaft (soil response
modelled by springs and dashpots); and imposition of the displace-
menttime functions on the boundary of a model of the surround-
ing ground to simulate the outgoing ground waves. The results of
vibratory pile driving and impact pile driving were in acceptable
agreement with eld data. Since this modelling was time consum-
ing, Selby (2002) used a harmonic computation for a limited
nite-element mesh, which was executed rapidly on a PC using the
commercial code Strand7. The results for vibratory pile driving
were given in terms of the radial and vertical components of
ground vibration that gave acceptable correlations with site data.
Madheswaran et al. (2005) used the nite-element code Plaxis to
investigate ground acceleration time history due to impact pile
driving in sand. The pile and the soil were modelled by means of
elastic and the elasticplastic models respectively. Absorbent
boundaries were used at the bottom and side boundaries to avoid
wave reection. The predicted vertical peak acceleration was in
close agreement with eld data, but the predicted radial peak
acceleration was more than 20% greater than eld data. Later,
they used a similar model to study the effect of concrete-lled
trenches on the screening of ground peak particle acceleration
(PPA) due to impact pile driving. Optimum trench dimensions,
concrete strength and distance from source of vibration to trench
were proposed, so that the trench was most effective in screening
of vibrations for that specic case study (Madheswaran et al.,
2009).
Masoumi et al. (2007) developed a linear coupled nite-element
boundary-element approach for the prediction of free eld
vibrations in terms of PPV due to vibratory and impact pile
driving. A linear elastic constitutive behaviour was considered for
the soil and the pile. The effect of soil stratication on the ground
vibration for the case of a soft layer on a stiffer half space was
also investigated. Although the prediction of near-eld vibrations
was satisfactory, the far-eld vibrations were overestimated.
Later, both the non-linear constitutive behaviour of the soil in the
vicinity of the pile and the resulting non-linear dynamic inter-
action between the pile and the soil were accounted for. It was
shown that considering non-linear behaviour for the soil adjacent
to the pile will lead to a better estimation of the level of vibration
(Masoumi et al., 2009).
Recently, Serdaroglu (2010) developed a non-linear nite-element
model using Abaqus to study impact pile driving vibrations in
saturated cohesive soils. An articially damped non-reecting
boundary consisting of several soil layers with different damping
ratios was dened at the boundary of the model to minimise the
reection of stress waves. The Coulomb frictional contact was
dened at the soilpile interface. This model underestimated the
measured peak vertical and radial velocities.
In all of these analyses, the pile was initially placed at a specic
depth, and hammer impact was then applied on the pile head; so
that soil deformations around the pile and contact stresses
between the pile and the soil were not realistic. In the current
study, penetration of the pile from the ground surface to the
desired depth is modelled using the commercial code Abaqus.
This model takes into account the effects of plastic deformations
in the soil adjacent to the pile and large slip frictional contact
between the pile and the soil on the amplitude of vibrations. The
model also enables vibrations to be predicted at all depths of
penetration of the pile. Moreover, sensitivity analysis was
performed to determine the effect of hammer, pile and soil
properties on the level of vibrations.
2. Mechanism of wave propagation due to
pile driving in homogeneous soils
Just as the support of piles comes about through two mechanisms
skin friction and end bearing seismic waves are generated by
piles through the same two mechanisms. Shear waves (S-waves)
are generated along the surface or skin of the pile by relative
motion between the pile and the surrounding soil as the pile is
driven. Shear waves enter the soil rst near the upper contact point
between soil and pile. As the compression waves in the pile travel
down the pile, the shear waves propagate out from the pile shaft
on a conical wavefront (Figure 1). The cone angle is quite shallow,
because the compression wave velocity in the pile is much larger
than the shear wave velocity in the soil; so, as an approximation,
the wavefront emanating from the pile shaft can be assumed to be
cylindrical in homogeneous soils. The direction of wave travel is
perpendicular to the wavefront in other words, radially away
from the pile for a cylindrical wavefront. Particle motion in this
wavefront is parallel to the pile, as shown by the arrows represent-
ing particle motion in Figure 1 (Woods and Sharma, 2004).
At the tip of the pile, each impact causes a volumetric displace-
ment in the ground, which results in both primary waves
(P-waves, also called compression waves) and shear waves
travelling outwards from the pile tip (here idealised as a spherical
cavity; Figure 2). Both P-waves and S-waves travel outwards
29
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
from the tip of the pile on spherical wavefronts, decaying as the
rst power of distance. The P-wave travels faster than the S-wave,
so its wavefront precedes the shear wave at any given point in the
ground. When the P-wave and S-wave encounter the surface of
the ground, part of their energy is converted to surface waves
(Rayleigh waves, or R-waves), and part is reected back into the
ground as reected P- and S-waves. The Rayleigh wave is the
most damaging to nearby structures. Even if the energy is
inserted at a depth in the ground, the Rayleigh wave develops
quickly at the surface, as shown in Figure 3. The newly formed
R-wave then travels along the surface with the characteristic of
Rayleigh waves, so some distant surface locations will experience
three waves: P-wave, S-wave and R-wave. The amplitude of the
energy associated with each wave will depend on many factors,
including the depth of the pile into the ground, the stiffness of the
ground, the uniformity of the ground, and the energy delivered to
the pile (Woods and Sharma, 2004).
3. Numerical simulation of pile driving
3.1 Mesh and geometry
An axisymmetric model was assumed about the centreline of the
pile. The length and the diameter of the pile were 10 m and 0
.
5 m
respectively. Both the pile and the soil were discretised into four-
node quadrilateral elements, with reduced integration and hour-
glass control. Soil nite-elements were biased radially towards
the pile, and soil innite-elements were placed at the boundaries
(Figure 4). During dynamic steps the innite-elements introduce
additional normal and shear tractions on the nite-element
boundary that are proportional to the normal and shear compo-
nents of the velocity of the boundary. These boundary damping
constants are chosen by Abaqus to minimise the reection of
compression and shear wave energy back into the nite-element
mesh (Hibbitt et al., 2010). The innite-elements provide perfect
transmission of energy out of the mesh just for the case of plane
body waves impinging orthogonally on the boundary in an
isotropic medium. To reduce the effect of the probable reected
waves on the PPV value, the dimensions of the nite-element
mesh were extended 2 m beyond the distance for which the PPV
values were calculated.
Hammer impact
Particle motion
(compression in pile)
Shear
wave front
Particle motion
(shear in soil)
Ray
Transfer from
pile to soil by
friction/shear
Figure 1. Generation mechanism of shear waves due to soil pile
friction (Woods and Sharma, 2004)
Hammer impact
S-wave
Ray
P-wave
S-wave
R-wave
Reflected wave
Figure 2. Combination of seismic waves resulting from impact
pile driving (Woods and Sharma, 2004)
V
2
P
V
2
R

V d
R
r
Rayleigh wave
d
Source
L d r
2 2
d

V
2
R
V
2
P
V
2
R
1
Figure 3. Distance between source and reective origin of
Rayleigh waves at ground surface (Dowding, 1996)
30
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
Numerical simulation of pile driving using the Lagrangian
Eulerian analysis introduced in Abaqus is feasible only by
considering a conical end for the pile, and a gap between the soil
elements and the axis of symmetry of the model (Figure 5).
When the cone angle is larger than 908, the pile cannot be
pressed into the soil in the numerical analysis using Abaqus,
owing to numerical convergence and mesh distortion. On the
other hand, as Sheng et al. (2005) stated, the numerical analysis
for cone angles less than 608 requires very small time steps and
the execution time will be increased. They used a cone angle of
608 in their numerical analyses. In this study, the same cone angle
was used.
As mentioned before, a gap is placed on the axis of symmetry.
This causes the pile to push the soil elements sideways and
downwards, and open its way into the ground. Considering a
smaller gap leads to a better simulation of the real condition;
however, using a gap with a diameter less than a specic value
terminates the analysis owing to excessive distortion of the soil
elements. The required minimum gap distance to maintain
numerical stability is dependent on hammer impact force and
cone angle. In this study, a gap of 10 mm seemed adequate for
most of the analyses. For a pile with a diameter of 500 mm, this
gap corresponds to an area equal to 0
.
16% of the pile toe area,
which is not a signicant error.
3.2 Material properties
Precast concrete piles are commonly used as driven piles. Since
the elastic modulus of the precast concrete (typically about
30 GPa) is much larger than that of the surrounding soil, and
calculation of vibrations in the surrounding soil is the subject of
this study, the pile was considered as a rigid body. A rigid body
is a collection of nodes, elements and/or surfaces whose motion
is governed by the motion of a single node, called the rigid body
reference node. The motion of a rigid body can be prescribed by
applying boundary conditions at the rigid body reference node
(Hibbitt et al., 2010). A reference node was introduced at the pile
head. Applying hammer impact on the pile head is a wave
problem, but here the transmission of the compression wave
along the pile shaft is neglected, and the pile was used just as a
medium to transmit the impact force to the surrounding soil
through two mechanisms: the pile toe force and the shaft friction.
It has been shown that considering non-linear behaviour for the soil
in the vicinity of the pile will lead to a reduction of the level of
vibration (Masoumi et al., 2009), so the soil behaviour was dened
by means of the MohrCoulomb model to take into account
dissipation of vibrations due to plastic deformations in the soil
adjacent to the pile. The MohrCoulomb model used in Abaqus is
an extension of the classical MohrCoulomb failure criterion
proposed by Menetrey and Willam (1995). It is an elasticplastic
model that uses a yield function of the MohrCoulomb form; this
yield function includes isotropic cohesion hardening/softening.
However, the model uses a ow potential that has a hyperbolic
shape in the meridional stress plane, and has no corners in the
deviatoric stress space (Figure 6). This ow potential is then
completely smooth, and therefore provides a unique denition of
the direction of plastic ow (Pan and Selby, 2002).
As the seismic waves, including surface and body waves, travel
outwards from the source of vibration, they encounter larger
volumes of ground, resulting in a reduction of energy per unit
volume in the ground. This phenomenon is known as geometric
or radiation damping. The ground itself has some damping
capacity, known as material or hysteretic damping (Woods and
Sharma, 2004). Material damping has a great effect on the
attenuation of seismic waves. In this study, Rayleigh damping
(Equation 1) was used to model this kind of damping.
10 m
12 m
12 m
27 m 27 m
Figure 4. Axisymmetric nite-elementinnite-element mesh of
model
Pile element
Axis of symmetry
Soil element
10 mm gap
Figure 5. Arrangement of soil element, pile element and axis of
symmetry
31
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi

2
1

n
1a:

2

n
1b:
where is the Rayleigh mass proportional damping, which
damps the lower frequencies; is the Rayleigh stiffness propor-
tional damping, which damps the higher frequencies;
1
is the
rst natural frequency of the model;
n
is the natural frequency
associated with 95% of the modal mass of the model; and is
the damping ratio. Frequency analysis was done for the model
containing the soil elements to obtain the natural frequencies of
the soil model. In this study, values of 4
.
3 and 0
.
00095 were used
for the Rayleigh mass and stiffness parameters respectively,
corresponding to a value of 10% for the damping ratio.
3.3 Loading and boundary conditions
The gravity load was rst applied to the soil elements to establish
the initial in situ stress states prior to pile driving. The pile toe
was initially located at the ground surface, and successive
hammer impacts were applied to the pile head through the
reference node. The horizontal and rotational degrees of freedom
of the pile reference node were constrained to guide the pile
vertically into the soil elements. Hammer impact was modelled
as a transient concentrated force, varying according to the force
time curve shown in Figure 7, which has been reported by Goble
et al. (1980). The time between applying two successive hammer
impacts should be large enough that the resulting vibration from
one impact does not affect the next one. On the other hand, it
should not be too large, because computational effort will be
increased. In this study, one second was assumed as the time
between applying two successive hammer impacts.
3.4 Soilpile interaction
The pure masterslave, kinematic contact algorithm was used to
dene the interaction between the pile and the soil. The outward
surface of the pile was selected as the master surface, and a
region containing soil nodes was chosen as the slave surface.
The Coulomb friction model was assumed for the tangential
behaviour of the soilpile interface. According to this model,
two contacting surfaces can carry shear stresses up to a certain
magnitude across their interface before they start sliding relative
to one another; this state is known as sticking. The Coulomb
friction model denes this critical shear stress,
crit
, at which
sliding of the surfaces starts as a fraction of the contact
pressure, p, between the surfaces (
crit
p). The fraction is
known as the coefcient of friction (Hibbitt et al., 2010).
Kulhawy (1991) proposed a value of 0
.
81
.
0 for the ratio of the
soilpile friction angle to the internal friction angle of the soil
for smooth concrete. In this study, a value of 0
.
8 was chosen for
the aforementioned ratio.
The hard contact model was considered for the normal behaviour
between the pile and the soil. According to this model
(a) the surfaces transmit no contact pressure unless the nodes of
the slave surface contact the master surface
(b) no penetration is allowed at any constraint location
(c) there is no limit to the magnitude of contact pressure that can
be transmitted when the surfaces are in contact (Hibbitt et al.,
2010).
The Coulomb friction model and the hard contact model were
numerically imposed by means of the kinematic method. This
method enforces exactly that there is no slip between two
surfaces until
crit
and no penetration of the master surface
into the slave surface is allowed.
3.5 Arbitrary LagrangianEulerian (ALE) adaptive
meshing
ALE adaptive meshing is a tool that makes it possible to
maintain a high-quality mesh throughout an analysis, even when
large deformation such as penetration occurs, by allowing the
mesh to move independently of the material. In problems where
large deformation is anticipated, the improved mesh quality
resulting from adaptive meshing can prevent the analysis from
0
4 /3
2 /3
/3
Mises ( 1) e
MentreyWillam
(1/2 1) e
Rankine ( 1/2) e
e (3 sin )/(3 sin )
Figure 6. Mene treyWillam ow potential in the deviatoric stress
plane. (Abaqus users manual; Hibbitt et al., 2010)
3
2
1
0
F
o
r
c
e
:

M
N
10 20 30 40
Time: ms
Figure 7. Forcetime curve of hammer impact (Goble et al.,
1980)
32
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
terminating as a result of severe mesh distortion. In these
situations adaptive meshing can be used to obtain faster, more
accurate and more robust solutions than with pure Lagrangian
analyses (Hibbitt et al., 2010).
Experimental results obtained by van den Berg (1994) show that
outside a region of about 1
.
5D in clay and 2D in sand around the
cone no visible deformation can be distinguished. Moreover,
numerical results obtained by Ahmadi et al. (2005) indicate that
penetration of a cone into the sand does not affect the soil located
beyond a distance of 4D from the cone. In this study, ALE
adaptive meshing was used for the soil elements whose distances
from the pile centreline were less than six times the pile diameter.
This can also reduce the execution time in comparison with using
adaptive meshing for the whole model.
3.6 Stable time increment
The explicit time integration method was used to solve the
equations of motion. The central-difference operator is condition-
ally stable, and therefore the time increment is an important
factor in obtaining accurate and reliable answers. An approxima-
tion to the stability limit is often written as the smallest transit
time of a compression wave across any of the elements in the
mesh
t
L
min
V
P
2a:
V
P

1 E
1 1 2 r
s
2b:
where L
min
is the smallest element dimension in the mesh, V
P
is
the velocity of the compression wave, E is the soil elastic
modulus, r is the soil density and is the soil Poissons ratio.
This estimate for t is only approximate, and in most cases is not
safe. In general, the actual stable time increment chosen by
Abaqus will be less than this estimate by a factor between 1/2
and 1 in a two-dimensional model, and between 1/3 and 1 in a
three-dimensional model. Moreover, introducing damping to the
solution reduces the stable time increment chosen by Abaqus
according to the equation
t <
2

max

1
2
max
q

max

3:
where
max
is the highest frequency of the model, and
max
is the
damping ratio in the mode with the highest frequency (Hibbitt et
al., 2010). In this study, 5 3 10
5
s was used as the stable time
increment.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Driving mechanism
In this study, the process of pile driving has been modelled
completely. This means that the pile toe is initially on the ground
surface, and it is driven into the ground by means of applying
successive hammer impacts. Figure 8 shows the deformed mesh of
the surrounding soil with the pile at three different depths, which
have been obtained in one analysis process. For example, Figure
8(a) shows the pile when it has been driven from the ground
surface to a depth of 2
.
5 m. By applying more hammer impacts,
the pile toe moves down to depths of 5 m and 10 m, as shown in
Figures 8(b) and 8(c). This process can be continued until any
desired depth is reached. One advantage of this kind of modelling
is the ability to record the particle velocity continuously, similar to
eld measurements of vibrations during pile driving.
As can be seen, the ground surface is curved, owing to friction
force between the pile shaft and the soil, which is also observed
in the experimental results (van den Berg, 1994). Adaptive
meshing is used for the eight columns of the soil elements
adjacent to the pile. In this region, the mesh moves independently
of the soil material, so the element shape is not representative of
the displacements occurring within the soil. In fact, Abaqus
changes the size of the elements in a way that avoids excessive
distortion of the soil elements. Outside the adaptive meshing
region, the elements deformations are due only to the increased
stresses caused by the penetration of the pile, but, as stated in
Section 3.5, these deformations are very small.
When the pile is driven into the ground, it displaces the soil
elements encountered on its way. In the radial direction, the
points located at the soilpile interface are displaced by a radial
distance equal to the pile radius. Radial displacement decreases
with distance from the pile. In the vertical direction, soil elements
near the ground surface are pushed upwards, whereas elements at
greater depths are pushed downwards. An important feature of
this modelling is the use of adaptive meshing to avoid termination
of the analysis due to excessive distortion of the elements. Test
runs showed that numerical modelling of pile driving by means
of applying hammer impacts (stress-controlled driving) is hardly
achievable without the use of adaptive meshing.
4.2 Verication of the model
Masoumi et al. (2009) used the properties presented in Tables 1
and 2 for the pile and the soil in their numerical simulation to
predict the measured PPV values due to impact pile driving
reported by Wiss (1981). The same parameters were used in this
study in order to compare the results with those of Masoumi et al.
PPV values were computed for the ground surface points located
at various distances from the pile centreline, and were compared
with the line tted to the eld data (Figure 9). To obtain the PPV
value for a specic point, the velocitytime history of that point
was depicted during the penetration of the pile from the ground
surface to a depth of 10 m. The maximum velocity on the time
33
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
history graph was introduced as the PPV. Computed PPV values
are in good agreement with those measured by Wiss (1981).
The PPV values computed in this study were also compared with
the numerical results obtained by Masoumi et al. (2009).
Masoumi et al. used the forcetime history shown in Figure 10
as the hammer impact force, which has been obtained from a two
degrees of freedom model developed by Deeks and Randolph
(1993). The same impact forcetime history was used just for
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 8. Deformed mesh of model during pile installation. Pile
toe at depths of: (a) 2
.
5 m; (b) 5 m; (c) 10 m
Pile type Concrete
Length: m 10
Diameter: m 0
.
5
Density: kg/m
3
2500
Elastic modulus: MPa 40 000
Poissons ratio 0
.
25
Table 1. Pile properties used by Masoumi et al. (2009)
1
10
100
1000
2 20
P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
PPV measured by Wiss
PPV computed in this study
Figure 9. Comparison of computed and measured PPV values for
ground surface points located at various distances from pile
centreline
Soil type Sandy clay
Density: kg/m
3
2000
Elastic modulus: MPa 80
Poissons ratio 0
.
4
Friction angle: degrees 25
Cohesion: kPa 15
Table 2. Soil properties used by Masoumi et al. (2009)
34
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
this analysis, to allow a better comparison between the results of
the two studies. Masoumi et al. did not simulate the full
penetration of the pile: they considered the pile toe only at three
depths, of 2
.
5 m, 5 m and 10 m. Therefore the results were
compared for the case of applying a hammer impact on the pile
head when the pile toe was at a depth of 5 m. Here, the PPV was
dened as the maximum velocity that particles experienced just
as a result of applying this hammer impact. Considering Figure
11, it can be seen that the computed results in this study
overestimate the results obtained by Masoumi et al. at distances
of 59 m from the pile centreline, and underestimate them at
distances of 923 m from the pile centreline. Moreover, in
comparison with the results of Masoumi et al., the computed
PPV values are smaller near the ground surface, and are larger at
greater depths (Figure 12).
4.3. Further investigation of the results
The vertical displacement of the pile toe is shown against time in
Figure 13. As the pile penetrates more into the ground, lateral
pressure at the pile toe and also the shaft area in contact with the
soil, and consequently the frictional force on the pile shaft, are
increased, so more hammer blows are required for a specic
value of penetration of the pile. For example, whereas 1 m of
penetration at a depth of 4 m is achievable by applying 23
hammer blows, 172 hammer blows are required for the same
value of penetration at a depth of 7 m. The reduction in the slope
of the curve conforms to this fact.
This numerical model is capable of predicting the velocity of soil
particles during penetration of the pile. The velocities of two
points, both located at a distance of 5 m from the pile centreline,
but with the rst point on the surface and the second one at a
depth of 5 m below the ground surface, were calculated for each
0
.
1 m of penetration of the pile toe. Figure 14 shows the vertical
velocity of the ground surface point against the depth of
penetration of the pile. As the pile penetrates further into the
ground the particle velocity increases, and reaches a maximum
value at a depth of 4
.
8 m. The velocity then decreases and
becomes constant, with some slight variations. This trend was
also observed in the reported eld data (Thandavamoorthy,
2004). If we dene the depth of the pile toe at which the PPV at
the ground surface occurs as the critical depth of vibration,
Figure 15 shows the variations of critical depth of vibration with
distance from the pile centreline. It can be seen that the critical
depth of vibration changes with distance from the pile, but these
changes are negligible. In other words, for all ground surface
points with radial distances from the pile centreline greater than
5 m, the critical depth of vibration falls within two limits of
4
.
5 m and 5
.
5 m, as shown in Figure 15. This trend was also
observed for piles with other diameters and different hammer
impacts.
The variations of the vertical velocity for the point located
5 m below the ground surface are shown in Figure 16. As the
pile is driven into the ground the particle velocity increases,
and reaches a maximum value at a depth of about 6 m. With
further penetration of the pile toe, the particle velocity
decreases.
2
1
0
F
o
r
c
e
:

M
N
0 25 50 75 100
Time: ms
Figure 10. Time history of hammer impact force (Masoumi et al.,
2009)
25 20 15 10 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
Masoumi . et al
This study
Figure 11. Comparison of PPV values computed in this study with
results of Masoumi et al. (2009) for ground surface points located
at various distances from pile centreline when pile toe is at depth
of 5 m
35
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
PPV values for points located at different depths are depicted in
Figure 17. The PPV values shown in Figure 17 are the maximum
velocity that points experience during the full penetration of the
pile, and do not necessarily occur at the same time. It can be seen
that for points located at distances of 3 m and 5 m from the pile
centreline the PPV value is maximum at a depth of about 8 m,
whereas for points located at distances of 9 m, 15 m and 20 m
from the pile centreline the PPV value is maximum at a depth of
about 1 m.
4.4 Sensitivity analysis
To determine the effect of and the degree of signicance of
each parameter for the level of vibration of ground surface
points, sensitivity analysis was performed on various para-
meters: hammer impact force, pile geometrical properties
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
D
e
p
t
h
:

m
PPV: mm/s
Masoumi . et al
This study
Figure 12. Comparison of PPV values computed in this study with
results of Masoumi et al. (2009) for points located at various
depths at distance of 20 m from pile centreline when pile toe is at
depth of 5 m
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560 640 720
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
:

m
Time: s
Figure 13. Vertical displacement of pile toe with time
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
:

m
m
/
s
d: m
Figure 14. Vertical velocity of ground surface point located at
distance of 5 m from pile centreline against depth of penetration
of pile
27 22 17 12 7
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
:

m
r : m
Figure 15. Critical depth of vibration against distance from pile
centreline
36
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
(including diameter and length), soil elastic modulus and soil
pile friction.
4.4.1 Hammer impact force
Vertical PPV values against distance from the pile centreline are
shown in Figure 18 for hammer impacts of 2, 2
.
5 and 3
.
5 MN . It
can be seen that an increase in the hammer impact force increases
the resultant vibration. When the hammer impact force changes
from 2 MN to 3
.
5 MN, the mean increase in the vertical PPV
values is 24%.
4.4.2 Pile geometrical properties
The effect of pile diameter on the level of vibrations was also
investigated. The results obtained imply that the pile diameter is
an important factor in determining the severity of the vibrations.
An increase in the pile diameter leads to a substantial increase in
the PPV values (Figure 19). When the pile diameter changes
from 400 mm to 600 mm, the mean increase in the vertical PPV
values is 34%.
As previousely mentioned, the level of vibration for points
on the ground surface rst increases and then decreases with
further penetration of the pile toe, so installing longer piles
does not increase the PPV value at the ground surface, as
long as the length of the pile is longer than the critical
depth of vibration, and the pile does not penetrate another
soil layer.
4.4.3 Soil elastic modulus
Figure 20 shows the sensitivity of the level of vibrations to the
elastic modulus of the soil. When the soil elastic modulus
decreases (assuming all the other soil parameters remain con-
stant), the transmission velocity of the stress waves decreases
according to the equations
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
:

m
m
/
s
d: m
Figure 16. Vertical velocity of point located 5 m below ground
surface at distance of 5 m from pile centreline against depth of
penetration of pile
140 120 100 80 60 40 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
D
e
p
t
h
:

m
PPV: mm/s
r 3 m
r 5 m
r 9 m
r 15 m
r 20 m
Figure 17. PPV values against depth for points located at various
distances from pile centreline
26 22 18 14 10 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
20 MN
25 MN
35 MN
Figure 18. Vertical PPV values of ground surface points against
distance from pile centreline for various hammer impacts
26 22 18 14 10 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
D 400 mm
D 500 mm
D 600 mm
Figure 19. Vertical PPV values of ground surface points against
distance from pile centreline for impact force of 3 MN and various
pile diameters
37
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
V
P

1 E
1 1 2 r
s
4a:
V
S

E
2(1 v)r
s
4b:
However, the stress waves cause higher vibratory strains in the
soil mass when they pass through the soil, and therefore the level
of vibration increases. When the soil elastic modulus changes
from 80 MPa to 40 MPa, the mean increase in the vertical PPV
values is 26%; so for loose soils, higher PPV values can be
expected.
4.4.4 Soilpile friction
Part of the vibration of soil particles is due to the passage of
shear waves transmitting on a cylindrical wavefront. These waves
are generated by soilpile friction. So, if the friction between the
soil and the pile reduces, the resultant vibration will be reduced.
Figure 21 shows a comparison of the vertical PPV values for
different soilpile friction coefcients. When the soilpile
friction coefcient changes from 0
.
1 to 0
.
35, the mean increase
in the PPV values is 34%. It can be concluded that, for concrete
piles, a higher level of vibration can be expected than for steel
piles, because the soilconcrete friction is greater than the soil
steel friction.
5. Conclusion
The installation of piles by means of applying successive hammer
impacts was modelled. Adaptive meshing was used to maintain a
high-quality mesh during penetration of the pile. The improved
mesh prevents the analysis from terminating as a result of severe
mesh distortion, and also increases the stable time increment.
This modelling is able to compute the velocity of particles at
every depth of penetration of the pile toe, and gives a close
prediction of the measured PPV values in the eld. Based on this
study, the following conclusions can be drawn.
j The PPVat the ground surface does not occur when the pile
toe is on the ground surface; as the pile penetrates into the
ground, the particle velocity reaches a maximum value at a
critical depth of penetration.
j For points below the ground surface, the particle velocity
increases as the pile toe penetrates closer to the point, and
then decreases as the pile toe moves further away from the
point.
j For points located close to the pile, the PPV value is larger at
greater depths, whereas for points located far from the pile,
the PPV value is larger near the ground surface.
j The level of vibrations is dependent on the properties of the
pile, hammer and soil. An increase in the pile diameter, soil
pile friction and impact force increase the PPV value,
whereas an increase in the soil elastic modulus reduces the
PPV value. Installing longer piles does not increase the PPV
value at the ground surface, as long as the length of the pile
is greater than the critical depth of vibration, and the pile
does not penetrate another soil layer.
Piles are used to support many major structures, including large
railroad and highway bridges and high-rise building throughout
the world. Installing a pile in the ground causes the ground
surrounding the pile to shake. Depending on the intensity of
ground shaking, vibrations may cause direct damage to surround-
ing structures or settlement of the soil, resulting in structural
damage. In urban settings, neighbouring properties are particu-
larly vulnerable to ground shaking due to pile driving, because of
the proximity of structures to the pile driving location. It is
therefore necessary to evaluate the level of vibration prior to
beginning of pile driving project. The numerical simulation of
pile driving introduced in this study can be used to determine the
26 22 18 14 10 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
E 80 MPa
E 60 MPa
E 40 MPa
Figure 20. Vertical PPV values of ground surface points against
distance from pile centreline for impact force of 3 MN and various
soil elastic moduli
26 22 18 14 10 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

P
P
V
:

m
m
/
s
r : m
035
025
01
00
Figure 21. Vertical PPV values of ground surface points against
distance from pile centreline for impact force of 3 MN and various
values of soil pile friction
38
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi
severity of vibrations due to pile driving, and the sensitivity of
the level of vibration to soil, pile and hammer properties.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi MM, Byrne PM and Campanella RG (2005) Cone tip
resistance in sand: modelling, verication, and applications.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42(4): 977993.
Deeks AJ and Randolph MF (1993) Analytical modelling of
hammer impact for pile driving. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 17(5):
279302.
Dowding CH (1996) Construction Vibrations. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Goble GC, Rausche F and Likinis GE (1980) The analysis of pile
driving: a state-of-the-art. Proceedings of the 1st
International Seminar on the Application of Stress-Wave
Theory on Piles, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 131161.
Hibbitt D, Karlsson B and Sorensen P (2010) Abaqus Users
Manual, version 6
.
10. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc.,
Providence, RI, USA
Kulhawy F (1991) Drilled shaft foundations. In Foundation
Engineering Handbook (Fang HY (ed.)), 2nd edn. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USA, pp. 537552.
Madheswaran CK, Natarajan K, Sundaravadivelu R and
Boominathan A (2009) Effect of trenches on attenuation of
ground vibration during pile driving. In Vibration Problems
ICOVP-2007 (Unan E, Sengupta D, Banerjee MM,
Mukhopadhyay B and Demiray H (eds)). Springer
Proceedings in Physics, vol. 126. Springer, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands, pp. 231238.
Madheswaran CK, Sundaravadivelu R, Boominathan A and
Natarajan K (2005) Response of ground during pile driving.
Journal of the Institution of Engineers (India), Civil
Engineering Division 86(May): 2227.
Masoumi HR, Degrande G and Lombaert G (2007) Prediction of
free eld vibrations due to pile driving using a dynamic soil
structure interaction formulation. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 27(2): 126143.
Masoumi HR, Francois S and Degrande G (2009) A non-linear
coupled nite-elementboundary element model for the
prediction of vibrations due to vibratory and impact pile
driving. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 33(2): 245274.
Massarsch KR and Fellenius BH (2008) Ground vibrations induced
by impact pile driving. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering,
Arlington, VA, USA.
Mene trey Ph and Willam KJ (1995) Triaxial failure criterion for
concrete and its generalization. ACI Structural Journal 92(3):
311318.
Pan JL and Selby AR (2002) Simulation of dynamic compaction
of loose granular soils. Advances in Engineering Software
33(710): 631640.
Ramshaw CL, Selby AR and Bettes AR (2000) Computation of
ground waves due to piling. In Application of Stress Wave
Theory to Piles (Niyama S and Beim J (eds)). Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 495502.
Selby AR (2002) Computation of ground waves due to vibro-
driving of piles. Proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium on Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Rome,
Italy, pp. 353357.
Serdaroglu MS (2010) Nonlinear Analysis of Pile Driving and
Ground Vibrations in Saturated Cohesive Soils Using the
Finite Element Method. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA USA.
Sheng D, Eigenbrod KD and Wriggers P (2005) Finite element
analysis of pile installation using large-slip frictional contact.
Computers and Geotechnics 32(1): 1726.
Thandavamoorthy TS (2004) Piling in ne and medium sand: a
case study of ground and pile vibration. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 24(4): 295304.
Uromeihy A (1990) Ground Vibration Measurements with Special
Reference to Pile Driving. PhD thesis, Durham University,
Durham, UK.
van den Berg P (1994) Analysis of Soil Penetration. PhD thesis,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Wiss JF (1981) Construction vibrations: state-of-the-art. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 107(2):167181.
Woods RD and Jedele PL (1985) Energy attenuation relationships
from vibrations. Proceedings of the ASCE Convention on
Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, Detroit, TX,
USA, pp. 229246.
Woods RD and Sharma VM (2004) Dynamic Effects of Pile
Installations on Adjacent Structures, international edition.
Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
WHAT DO YOU THI NK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 20005000 words long (brieng papers
should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also nd detailed author guidelines.
39
Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 167 Issue GE1
Numerical study of ground vibration due
to impact pile driving
Khoubani and Ahmadi