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

Groundborne Vibration from Percussive Piling

Chi-tong WONG* Man-kit LEUNG* Man-kie WONG* and Wing-chi TANG*
* Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government, 38/F Queensway Government Offices, Hong Kong SAR E-mail: wongct@archsd.gov.hk

Abstract Groundborne vibration induced by piling operation may sometimes attract complaints from the public due to human discomfort perceived by the occupants in the surrounding building or structural damage or distress to a building. The amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements: input driving energy, attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the receptor. Empirical formulae that have been devised and published overseas have been used in Hong Kong to predict the maximum vibration induced by piling operation. One of the widely adopted formulae is that in BS 5228-2: 2009, which relates the peak particle velocity (ppv) with the parameter kp, depending on the types of soils and the types of piles. This paper presents the in-situ measurements for the ground vibration induced by percussive steel H-piles in some recent projects in Hong Kong. It was found that rather than to designate soil in a particular site into different types, this paper suggests correlating the values of kp with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values of the soil from the ground investigation. Key words: Ground vibration; percussive piling; in-situ measurements

1. Introduction
Ground vibration and noise induced by percussive piling are commonly considered as nuisance to the public in the neighbouring area. The vibration induced by piling operation from time to time attracts complaint from the public due to human discomfort felt in a building or distress caused to a building. Though percussive steel H-pile is one of the most economical foundation types among different types of deep foundation systems if the site and geological condition permits, it is unfortunate that many practicing engineers avoid using this system just because of the fear of potential social resistance without the conduction of a detailed study of the genuine vibration effects beforehand. This paper reviews criteria on human perception and response, structural damage, and statutory acceptance level of ground vibration to structures and utilities. It presents the actual ground vibration data induced by percussive piling in some Architectural Service Department (ArchSD) projects.

2. Generation of Groundborne Vibration

When a hammer hits a pile, there is resistance at the pile toe which will generate vibration to the ground. The ground vibration can be divided into body waves and surface waves. Body waves propagate through rock or soil and can be further divided into shear wave (S-wave) and compressive wave (P-wave). Both P-waves and S-waves travel outward from the tip of the pile on spherical wave fronts. When P-wave and S-wave encounter the ground surface, part of their energy is converted to Rayleigh waves (R-wave) (Figure 1) (Woods 2004)

2007

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

The proportion of total energy propagated in P-wave, S-wave and R-wave are approximately 10%, 25% and 65% respectively (Head and Jardine 1992). The energy density of both P-wave and S-wave attenuates rapidly with distance from the source. R-wave has the slowest propagation velocity and its effect decreases rapidly with depth. However, R-wave propagation is planar, rather than hemispherical, and as a result, the decay of energy is much slower and will therefore contribute the highest proportion of total energy transmission (Head and Jardine 1992). Besides the spherical (P wave) / shear wave (S wave) generated from the resistance at the toe, the resistive shear forces on the pile shaft will induce vertically polarized shear waves which would propagate outwards as cylindrical wave fronts centred on the pile shaft (Figure 1). The commonly accepted criterion for quantifying ground vibration and human evaluation of transient vibration is Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The measuring unit of PPV is in mm/s.

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

3. Prediction of Groundborne Vibration Induced by Driving of Pile

The amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements: input driving energy, attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the receptor. Empirical formulae (e.g. Attewell and Farmer 1973, Head and Jardine 1992, Jongmans 1996, Hope and Hiller 2000, and Massarsch and Fellenius 2008) have been proposed to predict the maximum vibration induced by piling operation. One formula that is widely used nowadays to predict ground vibration induced by percussive piling is given by BS 5228-2:2009. In BS 5228-2:2009 Appendix E, information from Hiller and Crabb regarding the prediction of vibration levels from construction activities is reported. The empirical formula derived by Hiller and Crabb (Equation [1]), which has been validated against a number of other parameters from field measurements, was then adopted by BS 5228-2:2009 to estimate the ground vibration induced by percussive piling.
v kp W r 1.3

(1)

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

2008

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

BS 5228-2:2009 recommends the range of kp to be adopted for different driving conditions and soil types (Table 1). One of the limitations in employing the suggested kp value is that the hammer energy W shall lie within 1.5kJ and 85kJ (BS 5228-2:2009 Table E.1).
Table 1: Recommended values of kp for use in predicting vibration from percussive piling

Ground Conditions All piles driven to refusal Pile toe being driven through: Very stiff cohesive soils Dense granular soils Fill containing obstructions which are large relative to the pile cross-section Pile toe not being driven through: Stiff cohesive soils Medium dense granular soils Compacted fill Pile toe being driven through: Soft cohesive soils Loose granular soils Loose fill Organic soils
(Source: BS 5228-2:2009 Table E.2)

Value of 5

1.5

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

The results of groundborne vibration induced by driving steel H piles with hydraulic hammers from six numbers of ArchSD projects, including Sun Yet Sen Swimming Pool, Tseung Kwan O Velodrome, Kwun Tong Swimming Pool, Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Development, Joint Users Complex at Bailey Street, and Victoria Park Swimming Pool, were collected. Field data of groundborne vibration (mm/s) and horizontal distances (m) of the projects, Sun Yet Sen Swimming Pool, Tseung Kwan O Velodrome and Kwun Tong Swimming Pool, were plotted in Figure 2 through 4.

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

2009

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

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

Figure 4: Kwun Tong Swimming Pool ground vibration data

With the measured PPV (mm/s) and the known energy input together with the radial distance, the constant kp can be calibrated and validated using the Equation [1] (with W = 90% of the rated energy). Measurements of groundborne vibration of 26 piles at 6 different ArchSD sites were carried out. Measurements were carried at different distances from each pile to obtain an average kp value for each pile. The kp values were found within the range of 0.24 to 1.50 ( Table 2). The results reveal that the values of kp stated in BS 5228-2:2009 may not be applicable to ground conditions in Hong Kong. Furthermore, it is also difficult to classify a site by single type of soil for the full depth of a pile. In view of the difficulty in the estimation of the value of kp, this paper has therefore correlated the values of kp against the equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values from the ground investigation results. SPT N-value is basically a measure of the compactness of the soil, and this is, in turn, a measure of the soil shear strength as well as its deformation characteristics. It is the most commonly available soil testing data that is adopted in deep foundation design. In order to correlate the values of kp against the different N-values of the actual soil profile, the equivalent N-value is computed as illustrated in Figure 5.

2010

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

Equivalent N

( N 1D1 D1

N2D2 D2

N 3D3 D3

.... N n D n )

.... D n

Fig 5: Computation of equivalent N-value

Table 2 and Figure 6 summarise the relationship between average kp and equivalent N-value of each of the 26 piles at 6 different ArchSD sites. The results show that the value of kp increases with the increase in equivalent SPT N-value. This is in line with the trend shown in Table 1 (BS 5228-2:2009).
Table 2: Relationship between average kp and equivalent N-value
Site Pile No FC123 P1 FC99 P1 FC85 P1 FC127 P1 FC103 P1 P99 P217 P186 PC151 P1 PC107 P1 PC94 P2 PC107 P2 PC97 P1 H71 H208 H16 C12E 4 C12H 1 C12B 2 C9A 1 C5A 3 C4A 3 C6B 3 C8A 3 C11D 2 P245 Depth
34.86 34.19 34.25 33.81 33.66 54 54 57.6 18.2 17 15.2 17.2 14.2 53 59 24 59.8 57.3 56.7 58.6 60.3 60.35 60 66 63.3 58.3

Avg k p 0.24 0.39 0.40 0.68 0.55 1.240 0.6 0.5 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.43 0.49 1.50 1.14 0.75 0.97 1.10 0.89 0.66 1.36 1.10 0.65 0.49 1.03 1.44

Eq. N 22.2 18.7 19 51.8 51.1 57.5 57.5 57.5 13.7 13.7 13.7 12.8 10.2 44.55 50.4 12 59.2 53.1 59.4 70.3 59.7 59.8 73.4 84.2 80 103

G.I. No. BH 16 BH 16 BH 16 BH 15 BH 15 BH 4 BH2 BH1 KSB19 KSB19 KSB19 KSB19 KSB23 ABH9 ABH17 ABH9 BH8 BH8 BH12 BH11 BH10 BH10 BH11 BH11 BH11 DH5

Velodrome TKO

Bailey Street

Kwun Tong Swimming Pool

Cruise Terminal

Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex

2011

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

Relationship between Average kp and Equivalent N

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0

Upper Limit

Avg. kp

Mean kp value

20

40 60 Equivalent. N
Bailey Street

80

100

120

Velodrome TKO Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Sun Yat Sen

Cruise Terminal Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex

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

For the best and conservative estimate of the vibration effect, this paper suggests adopting the upper limit line ( with the odd data excluded) (Figure 6). In Figure 6, the upper limit of kp values vary linearly from 0.5 to 1.8 as the equivalent SPT N-values increase from 20 to 80. The suggested range also matches with the values 0.1 to 1.5 as quoted in CIRIA Technical Note 142 and those quoted by Sarsby (2000) which suggested values 0.25 and 1.5 for loose and very stiff or dense soil respectively. It should further be noted that kp is in fact an empirical parameter which has lumped all the factors not properly addressed in the empirical energy formula, including interaction between P-, S-, R- and cylindrical waves, the pile/soil impedances, the distribution of pile shaft and toe resistance, and propagating distances. The accuracy of the prediction of groundborne vibration therefore tends to be crude and the method is subject to further research. It should further be commented that the prediction of vibration using the empirical formula Equation [1] is not very accurate for the vibration within a distance less than 10m. As noted from Figure 2 to 4, the measured vibrations show abnormal variation at this distance and it is difficult to predict the vibration by a single formula for such close vibration.

5. Relationship between Peak Particle Velocity and Horizontal Distance from Pile for a given Soil Condition and Pile Depth
Based on the upper limit of kp values as suggested in Figure 6, the relationship between the peak particle velocity and horizontal distance from a pile can be established for a given soil condition (equivalent N-value) and pile depth (Figure 7). It is observed that a higher equivalent N-value will give a higher groundborne vibration and a shallower pile will also give a higher groundborne vibration than a deeper pile if same equivalent N-value is

2012

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

encountered. For the case illustrated in Figure 7, it is noted that a lower equivalent N-value (N = 30) for a shallow pile (25m) will have a higher ground vibration than a high equivalent N-value (N = 60) for a deeper pile (60m) from a distance less than 30m. A possible reason is that there would be a higher degree of R-wave measured at the ground surface within a shorter travel distance.

Fig 7: Predicted ground vibration versus plan distance for different soils conditions and pile depths (with all measured vibration in the six ArchSD sites )

From Figure 7, it can also be seen that the magnitude of groundborne vibration depends on equivalent N-value, depth of pile and the distance from the pile. In driving of steel H piles, it is not usual to use a single size of hammer throughout the whole installation process. For example, contractors tend to use a lighter hammer for pitching of piles at shallow depth, and then use a heavier hammer to drive near the final set. The input hammer energy is therefore smaller during pitching and the induced groundborne vibration will be smaller . During the final set, the input hammer energy will be larger and the induced groundborne vibration will be increased.

6. Conclusions
This paper presents a new and simple approach in estimating the groundborne vibration effect due to percussive piling. From the results of groundborne vibration measurements of driven steel H-piles installation using hydraulic hammers of 26 piles at 6 different ArchSD sites, an upper limit of kp values for groundborne vibration prediction correlated with the equivalent SPT N-values is developed. The kp values vary linearly from 0.5 to 1.8 as equivalent SPT N-values increase from 20 to 80. The suggested range matches with various research studies and is applicable in prediction of groundborne vibration in soil conditions of Hong Kong. It is noted that the prediction of vibration using the empirical formula Equation [1] is not very accurate for the vibration within a distance less than 10m. For such a close vibration, abnormal variations are observed and it is difficult to predict the vibration by a single formula. It is also observed that a higher equivalent SPT N-value gives a higher groundborne vibration and a shallower pile also gives a higher groundborne vibration than a deeper pile if same equivalent SPT N-value is encountered.

2013

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

References
(1) Athanasopoulos, G.A. and Pelekis, P.C. (2000), Ground vibrations from sheetpile driving in urban environment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants, Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, 19, pp 371-87. Amick, H. and Gendreau, M. (2000), Construction Vibrations and Their Impact on Vibration-Sensitive Facilities, Presented at the ASCE Construction Congress 6, Orlando, Florida, 22 February 2000. Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W. (1973), Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile driving, Ground Engineering, 6(4), pp. 269. BSI (1990), BS 7385-1:1990 - Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings Part 1: Guide for measurement of vibration and evaluation of their effects on buildings (London: BSI). BSI (1993), BS 7385-2:1993 - Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration (London: BSI). BSI (2009), BS 5228-2:2009 - Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites Part 2: Vibration (London: BSI). Clough, G. W. and Chameau, J. (1980), Measured effects of vibratory sheet pile driving, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(GT10), pp. 1080 - 99. Federal Transit Administration (2006), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Washington DC: Department of Transportation). Hope, V.S., Hiller, D.M. (2000), The prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive piling, Canadian Geotech. Journal, 37, pp 700-11 Head, J.M. and Jardine, F.M. (1992), Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Technical Note 142 - Ground-borne Vibrations Arising from Piling (London: CIRIA). Jongmans D. (1996), Prediction of ground vibration caused by pile driving: a new methodology, Engineering Geology, 42, pp. 25-36. Lacy, H.S. and Gould, J.P. (1985), Settlement from pile driving in sands, in Michigan, G. Gazetas and E.T. Selig (eds) (1985), Proceedings of ASCE Symposium on Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Detroit, pp. 152-73. Massarsch, K. R. (2000), Settlements and damage caused by construction-induced vibrations, Proceedings, Intern. Workshop Wave 2000, Bochum, Germany 1315 December 2000, pp. 299 315. Massarsch K. R. and Fellenius, B.H. (2008), Ground Vibrations Induced by Impact Pile Driving, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, Virginia, 12-18 August 2008. Mohamed, R. and Dobry, R. (1987), Settlements of cohesionless soils due to pile driving, Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 7-23 30. Sarsby, R.W. (2000), Environmental Geotechnics (London: Thomas Telford Ltd). Saurenman H.J., Nelson J.T. and Wilson G.P. (1982), Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control (Report UMTA-MA-06-0099-82-1) (Oakland, California: Wilson, Ihrig & Associates). Wiss, J. F. (1981), Construction Vibrations: State-of-the art, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(GT2), pp. 167-81. Woods, R.D. and Sharma V.M. (2004), Dynamic Effects of Pile Installations on Adjacent Structures (Washington, DC: Balkema Publishers). Yeung, A.T., Tham, L.G., Yang J. and Li, K.S.V. (2005), Ground vibration induced by percussion piling, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 4, pp. 2205-8. Zapfe J.A., Saurenman H.J. and Fidell S.A. (2009), Contractors Final Report for TCRP

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(11) (12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16) (17)

(18) (19) (20)

(21)

2014

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

Project D-12 - Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board).

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to record their thanks to the Director of Architectural Services for her kind permission of publishing the paper. The authors would also like to record their thanks to the staff in Division One of the Structural Engineering Branch in the Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government for their help in preparing the manuscript.

2015

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

Building Vibration Induced by Percussive Piling

Chi-tong WONG* Man-kit LEUNG* Wing-chi TANG* and Heung-ming CHOW*
* Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government, 38/F Queensway Government Offices, Hong Kong SAR E-mail: wongct@archsd.gov.hk

Abstract Due to the complex phenomenon of propagation of vibration from the ground through the foundation to the building, modelling and predicting building vibration due to piling operation is always a difficult task. Empirical formulae are therefore used to predict the vibration amplitude. However, few publications have been documented for the applicability of these empirical formulae in Hong Kong. This paper presents a prediction method and in-situ measurements for building vibration induced by installation of percussive steel H-piles from a construction site. The prediction makes use of calibrated Hong Kong soil data and the empirical method proposed by the US Federal Transit Administration. The results show that the approach provides a reasonable estimate of the building vibration due to percussive piling work. Key words: Building vibration; percussive piling; in-situ measurements

1. Introduction
Vibration and noise induced by percussive piling are commonly considered as nuisance to the public in neighbouring areas. The vibration induced by piling operation from time to time attracts complaint from the public due to human discomfort felt in a building or cosmetic damage or structural distress caused to a building. For example, on 31 January 2011, when the foundation work was being carried out on a Wan Chai redevelopment site in Hong Kong, more than a dozen residents on the nearby six-storey building was asked by the police to evacuate, as many of them felt the shaking of the building and the furniture for at least twice in three days (The Standard, 1 February 2011). Therefore, though percussive steel H-pile is one of the most economical foundation types among various types of deep foundation if the site and geological condition permits, it is unfortunate that many projects avoid using this system just because of the fear of potential social resistance without carrying out an estimation of the genuine vibration effects beforehand. The vibration on the ground surface due to percussive piling has extensively been studied and documented. However, the interaction between the ground and the foundation causes reduction in vibration amplitude. The amount of reduction depends on the building mass and stiffness of the foundation. A more massive building has lower response to the ground vibration. The vibration amplitude also decreases as the vibration energy propagates through the building to upper floors. However, in some cases, amplification of the vibration amplitude may occur due to resonance of the floor systems. Because there are so many factors to be considered in the estimate of building vibration due to piling operation, the propagation of vibration from the ground through the foundation to the building is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to model and predict accurately. Hence, empirical formulae are widely used to predict the vibration amplitude. However, few publications have been documented for the applicability of these empirical formulae in Hong Kong. This

2016

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

paper therefore presents a prediction method and the in-situ measurements for the building vibration induced by percussive piling work from a construction project of the Architectural Services Department of Hong Kong SAR Government.

2. Generation of Groundborne Vibrations

When a hammer hits a pile, there is resistance at the pile toe which will generate vibration to the ground. The ground vibration can be divided into body waves and surface waves (Woods, 2004). The amount of groundborne vibration depends on three elements: input driving energy, attenuation rate and attenuation distance between the source and the receptor. It is further subdivided between the energy (resistance) generated from the pile shaft and toe, which depends on the pile and soil impedance (Massarsch and Fellenius, 2008). The rate of attenuation depends on the ground condition and the distance. Vibration level is affected by the penetration resistance, and will be increased when dense strata or boulder are encountered. In stiff or dense soils, smaller amount of energy is dissipated, as elastic deformation of the soil and penetration is small, resulting in higher groundborne vibration. In soft soils, most of the energy is used in overcoming soil friction and in advancing the pile, resulting in low level of ground vibration. The commonly way for quantifying ground vibration is Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The measuring unit of PPV is in mm/s. Extensive studies (Attewell and Farmer, 1973; Head and Jardine, 1992; Jongmans, 1996; Hope and Hiller, 2000; and Massarsch and Fellenius, 2008) have been carried out on correlating the ground vibration against different piling installation methods. Most methods are based on energy approach and are basically empirical. There have been many such formulae in slightly different format developed over the years. One of the wisely used formulae for percussive piling was proposed by Hiller and Crabb (2000), as shown in Equation 1:
v kp W r
1.3

(1)

where W is the hammer energy; r is the slope distance (i.e. pile toe and the receiver, rather than the horizontal distance); and kp is the most important parameter, which varies with different ground condition (and is greater in stiff, dense soils than in loose, soft soils). Though there are numerous values proposed for kp (e.g. BS 5228), there are no such data for Hong Kong soil. Wong et al (2011), based on a number of piling sites in Hong Kong, summarizes the relationship between average kp and equivalent N-value as shown in Figure 1. The result shows that the value of kp increases together with the increases in equivalent SPT N-value. With the availability of SPT N-value, kp can be determined readily for the prediction of PPV on the ground. Equation 1 was adopted in BS 5228 in predicting the ground vibration due to percussive piling, and BS 5228 Part 4 also specifies limits on the ground vibration. For residential premises, the limit on PPV for continuous vibration is 5mm/s and for transient vibration is 10mm/s. The PPV can also be expressed in terms of vibration velocity level (Lv) which is defined as shown in Equation 2 (Harris Miller, 2006):
Lv 20 log10 v v ref

(2)

where Lv is the velocity level in decibels, v is the PPV, and vref is the reference velocity which is usually taken as 2.54x10-5 mm/s (Harris Miller, 2006).

2017

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

Relationship between Average kp and Equivalent N

1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0

Upper Limit

Avg. kp

Mean kp value

20

40 60 Equivalent. N
Bailey Street

80

100

120

Velodrome TKO Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Sun Yat Sen

Cruise Terminal Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex

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

3. Vibration of Buildings
The previous paragraph discusses the prediction of ground vibration due to percussive piling. However, occupants of a neighbouring building are more concerned about the resulting building vibration due to the percussive piling. The limits specified by BS 5228 represent that for structural damage. However, far before structural damage, occupants will have experienced annoyance and discomfort well below such limits. BS 6472 gives detailed guidance on human response to vibration in buildings. For residential premises, human will start to feel vibration with magnitude of 0.3 mm/s and 1.0 mm/s for continuous vibration and transient vibration, respectively (Sarsby, 2000). When considering the effects of piling vibration on buildings, foundations are initially excited by the ground vibration. For a typical reinforced concrete floor, the fundamental resonance is usually in the range of 20-30 Hz. Amplification is negligible if the excitation frequency is well below that of the fundamental floor resonance. However, typical vibration produced by percussive piling is in the range of 10-30Hz, and hence the potential of amplification is not negligible. The prediction of building vibration is therefore even more difficult than for ground vibration. Most numerical approaches are still in the early stages of development. The approach presented by the US Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Harris Miller, 2006) is widely employed in the industry. The method basically follows that suggested in the Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control (Saurenman et al., 1982). It relies on a heuristic predictive model for predicting train-induced vibrations in buildings. As the method is devised for vibration from mass transit projects, it may not be entirely applicable for piling work. Yet it is difficult to find a handy method and there are no available numerical methods to compute the vibration. Hence, though the method is very crude, designers prefer this method, especially that it is very easy to use and able to give the

2018

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

estimate quickly. Hence, it was determined to validate its applicability in Hong Kong with the project site in this paper. One-third-octave analysis is commonly used to analyze the vibration signals. In such an analysis, the time domain vibration signal is passed through a series of band-pass filters whose upper and lower frequency bands are defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI, 2004). FTAs method consists of adding a number of adjustments, including building coupling loss (Figure 2), transmission through the building and floor resonances, to the 1/3-octave band spectrum of the projected ground-surface vibration. For estimating floor-to-floor vibration attenuation, -2dB/floor (1-5 floors above ground) and -1dB/floor (5-10 floors above ground) are suggested. The FTA manual also points out that some floors may exhibit resonant behaviour, amplifying vibrations by up to 6dB. According to the Study Report for TCRP Project D-12 sponsored by FTA (Zapfe et al., 2009), there are a number of areas where there is less confidence in the data and assumptions. These areas include: (1) the attenuation of vibration as the vibration energy travels from the ground into the building foundation and then propagates throughout the building, and (2) the amplification resulting from resonances of floors and other structural elements. Hence, the current practice in the US is that the resulting predictions are augmented with a factor of safety to account for these uncertainties. An allowance of up to 5 dB is therefore commonly adopted (Zapfe et al., 2009).

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

4. Case Study
In-situ measurements in one project at Bailey Street, Hung Hom, Hong Kong (location plan in Figure 3) were carried out to validate the predicted vibration level using FTA method. Percussive steel H-piles were used as the foundation system in the project. Field measurements were performed on the site and the building nearby (Peninsula Square), during the installation of the steel H-piles. Peninsula Square is a high-rise commercial reinforced concrete building with piled foundation.

2019

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

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

The following is the information of the pile at the time of measurements: Hammer weight = 16t Height of drop = 1.5m Pile size = 305305180kg/m Grade S460J0 H-pile Efficiency = 90% Depth of pile at final set = 54m below ground Distance of the building from the pile = 25m Ground vibration is measured using vibrograph (Figure 4), which houses triaxial geophones of sensitivity and frequency range of 0.127-254mm/s and 2-250 Hz, respectively. Histogram mode was used for recording ground vibration under piling operation. In order to have better contact between the triaxial geophones and the ground surface, a sand bag was put on top of the vibrograph during measurement.
Fig. 4 Vibrograph.

5. Prediction and Verification of Building Vibration

Typical frequency spectra of the measured velocity are shown in Figure 5. It can be observed that the dominated frequency due to percussive piling is around 10-20Hz. The spectral vibration magnitude corresponding to vertical direction is the largest one among the three orthogonal directions. However, the translational velocities should not be ignored when considering vibration problem due to piling operation. PPV taken as the vector sum of the three orthogonal components is therefore used in the measurement. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the mean value estimate and the upper limit estimate of the vibration level against the measured vibration levels respectively. There is no amplification due to floor resonance at span of G/F, as G/F slab is on-grade. The measured PPV is the mean values of the measured data. There are four cases in total. Case 1 considers the mean kp value without any allowance for the uncertainty, while Case 2 uses the same kp value but with +5dB allowance for the uncertainty. For Case 3, the upper limit of kp value is applied with no allowance for the uncertainty. Case 4 is same as Case 3 except allowing only +2dB instead of +5dB as the upper limit of kp value has been chosen.

2020

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

Fig. 5 Typical frequency spectra of measured velocity induced by percussive piling (transverse PPV=1.28mm/s; vertical PPV=3.18mm/s; longitudinal PPV=1.14mm/s )

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

Location Outside building Measured PPV (mm/s) 1.4 Case 1 (kp=1.0) Attenuation 2dB per storey 2.3 mm/s (99dB) Attenuation / resonance ( /+ dB) 6 6 8 2 10 4 PPV (mm/s) 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.8 0.7 1.4 Case 2 (kp=1.0) Attenuation 2 dB per storey + 5dB (allowance) 2.3 mm/s (99dB) Attenuation / resonance ( /+ dB) 1 1 3 3 5 1 PPV (mm/s) 2.0 2.0 1.6 3.2 1.3 2.5

dB 93 93 91 97 89 95

dB 98 98 96 102 94 100

G/F 1/F 2/F

column span column span column span

0.9 1.0 0.9 2.3 0.9 2.8

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

Location Outside building Measured PPV (mm/s) 1.4 Case 3 (kp=1.3) Attenuation 2dB per storey 2.9 mm/s (101dB) Attenuation / resonance ( /+ dB) 6 6 8 2 10 4 PPV (mm/s) 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.3 0.9 1.9 Case 4 (kp=1.3) Attenuation 2 dB per storey + 2dB (allowance) 2.9 mm/s (101dB) Attenuation / resonance ( /+ dB) 4 4 6 0 8 2 PPV (mm/s) 1.9 1.9 1.5 2.9 1.2 2.3

dB 95 95 93 99 91 97

dB 97 97 95 101 93 99

G/F 1/F 2/F

column span column span column span

0.9 1.0 0.9 2.3 0.9 2.8

2021

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

6. Discussions
In Case 1, the calculated PPVs are quite close to the measured data except mid-span of 2/F where the predicted vibration level is only half of the measured one. In Case 2, +5dB allowance is added to cater for the uncertainty in the reality. It is found that the large discrepancy between the calculated and the measured vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is greatly reduced. The relatively large uncertainty in the empirical parameter of kp justifies an allowance of +5dB. In Case 3, where the upper limit of kp is used, most of the estimated vibration levels are slightly larger than or equal to those measured except mid-span of 2/F. It is observed that the amplification of vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is quite large that +5dB allowance of uncertainty may not be enough if mean value of kp is adopted (e.g. Case 2). However, the estimated vibration level in Case 4 is 3.2mm/s (102dB) if +5dB instead of +2dB is employed. In this case, the estimated vibration level (3.2mm/s) is slightly larger than the measured value (2.8mm/s), which is conservative. Therefore, it can be concluded that +5dB allowance is generally good enough to cover the uncertainty provided that the upper limit of kp is used.

7. Conclusions
The measured field data match quite well with the estimated results based on FTA method, if adequate allowance has been made for the uncertainty. It is concluded that the approach suggested by FTA, although crude, provides a reasonable estimate of the building vibration due to percussive piling work. For the allowance of uncertainties, 0-5dB is well representing the uncertainty, provided that the upper limit of kp (Figure 1) is used. In this particular case-study, the amplification of vibration level at mid-span of 2/F is relatively large, and the limit of +6dB suggested by the FTA manual may not be enough to cater for the amplification. More data should be collected for further investigation in this area.

References
Amick, H. and Gendreau, M., Construction vibrations and their impact on vibration-sensitive facilities, Presented at the ASCE Construction Congress 6, Orlando, Florida, 22 February 2000 (2) ANSI, Specification for octave-band and fractional-octave-band analog and digital filters, In S1.11-2004, American National Standards Institute, New York, 2004 (3) Athanasopoulos, G.A. and Pelekis, P.C., Ground vibrations from sheetpile driving in urban environment: measurements, analysis and effects on buildings and occupants, Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 19, 2000, pp 371-87 (4) Attewell, P.B. and Farmer, I.W., Attenuation of ground vibrations from pile driving, Ground Engineering, 6(4), 1973, pp. 269 (5) BSI, BS 5228-2:2009 - Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites Part 2: Vibration, BSI, London, 2009 (6) BSI, BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings-Part 1: Vibration sources other than blasting, BSI, London, 2008 (7) BSI, BS 7385-1:1990 - Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 1: Guide for measurement of vibration and evaluation of their effects on buildings, BSI, London, 1990 (8) BSI, BS 7385-2:1993 - Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2: Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration, BSI, London, 1993 (9) Clough, G. W. and Chameau, J., Measured effects of vibratory sheet pile driving, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 106(GT10), 1980, pp. 1080 99 (10) Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc., Transit noise and vibration impact assessment, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. (11) Head, J.M. and Jardine, F.M., Construction industry research and information association (1)

2022

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

(12) (13) (14) (15)

(16)

(17)

(18) (19)

(20) (21)

(22) (23)

(24)

(CIRIA) technical note 142 - groundborne vibrations arising from piling, CIRIA, London, 1992 Hiller D. M. and Crabb G. I., Groundborne vibration caused by mechanized construction works, TRL Report 429, Transport Research Laboratory, Berkshire, 2000 Hope, V.S. and Hiller, D.M., The prediction of groundborne vibration from percussive piling, Canadian Geotech. Journal, Volume 37, 2000, pp 700-11 Jongmans D., Prediction of ground vibration caused by pile driving: a new methodology, Engineering Geology, Volume 42, 1996, pp. 25-36 Massarsch K. R. and Fellenius, B.H., Ground vibrations induced by impact pile driving, International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, Virginia, 12-18 August 2008 Massarsch, K. R., Settlements and damage caused by construction-induced vibrations, Proceedings, Intern. Workshop Wave 2000, Bochum, Germany, 1315 December 2000, pp. 299 315 Mohamed, R. and Dobry, R., Settlements of cohesionless soils due to pile driving, Proceedings, 9th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 1987, pp. 7-23 30 Sarsby, R.W., Environmental geotechnics, Thomas Telford Ltd, London, 2000 Saurenman H.J., Nelson J.T. and Wilson G.P., Handbook of urban rail noise and vibration control (Report UMTA-MA-06-0099-82-1) Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Oakland, California, 1982 Wiss, J.F., Construction vibrations: state-of-the art, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 107(GT2), 1982, pp. 167-81 Wong, C.T. Wong, M.K., Leung, M.K. and Tang, W.C, Groundborne vibration from percussive piling, To be presented at the 14th Asia Pacific Vibration Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 5-8 December 2011 Woods, R.D. and Sharma V.M., Dynamic effects of pile installations on adjacent structures Balkema Publishers, Washington, DC, 2004 Yeung, A.T., Tham, L.G., Yang J. and Li, K.S.V., Ground vibration induced by percussion piling, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 4, 2005, pp. 2205-8 Zapfe J.A., Saurenman H.J. and Fidell S.A., Contractors final report for TCRP project D-12 - groundborne noise and vibration in buildings caused by rail transit, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2009

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to record their thanks to the Director of Architectural Services for her kind permission of publishing the paper. The authors would also like to record their thanks to the staff in Division One of the Structural Engineering Branch in the Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong SAR Government for their help in preparing the manuscript.

2023