Discussions and Closures

Closure to “Allowable Distance from Impact Pile Driving to

Prevent Structural Damage Considering Limits in Different
Standards” by Amir Hamidi, Abtin Farshi Homayoun Rooz,
and Majid Pourjenabi
Amir Hamidi, A.M.ASCE 1,000
Max. Peak Allowable PPV

Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

Professor, School of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., Tehran 15719-14911, Min. Peak Allowable PPV
Iran (corresponding author). Email: hamidi@khu.ac.ir
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 175.184.248.67 on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abtin Farshi Homayoun Rooz, M.ASCE 100

Senior Geotechnical Engineer, School of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ.,

Tehran 15719-14911, Iran. Email: std_abtinfhr@khu.ac.ir

10
Majid Pourjenabi, S.M.ASCE
Graduate Student, School of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., Tehran
15719-14911, Iran. Email: std_pourjenabi@khu.ac.ir
1
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000354 1 2 3 4
(a) Sensitivity Degree

100
First, the authors would like to deeply express their sincere grati- Max. Peak Allowable PPV
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): in./s

tude and appreciation to the discusser for calling attention to the pa-
per and for his kind recommendations. It is also of great importance
to acknowledge that the paper was mainly provided due to the lack
of a comprehensive reference document applicable for practicing
engineers to adhere the maximum safe ground vibrations generated
by construction activities which are reached to various nearby
structures. Therefore, it is a great honor that the paper has been seri-
ously observed so early after publication.
Furthermore, there are serious recommendations from standards
and researchers to predict ground vibrations prior to the beginning
of every project involving the generation of ground vibration. More
importantly, such standards and most of the previous studies have
emphasized that the ground vibration should be predicted in terms
of velocity [peak particle velocity (PPV)] rather than displacement
[peak particle displacement (PPD)] or acceleration [peak particle
acceleration (PPA)] because of its much better link to the damage-
initiation threshold of structures adjacent to the vibration-
generating sources. However, there is no general guideline that
includes various structures. Hence, the original paper aimed to pro-
vide a comprehensive guideline considering reputable standards
and reports for PPV restrictions of different structures to avoid
structural damage. Thus, Figs. 1(a and b) present the minimum
peak allowable PPV (safe level) and maximum peak allowable
PPV (structural-damage level) with units of both mm/s and in./s,
respectively, for structures with different degrees of sensitivity to
the ground vibrations: 1 = high; 2 = upper-intermediate; 3 = inter-
mediate; 4 = low. To clarify, the high-sensitivity degree (1) includes
historic places, museums, hospitals, libraries, nuclear facilities, and
marine structures. The upper-intermediate-sensitivity degree (2)
contains residential buildings, hotels, motels, churches, mosques,
and synagogues. The intermediate-sensitivity degree (3) consists of
commercial and industrial structures, factories, underground tun-
nels, and bridges. The low-sensitivity degree (4) comprises gas, oil,
and water pipelines as well as electricity and telecommunication
Min. Peak Allowable PPV
10
1
0.1
0.01
1 2 3 4
(b) Sensitivity Degree
Fig. 1. Maximum and minimum peak allowable PPV levels (safe and
structural-damage levels) for different sensitivity degrees of construc-
tions: (a) PPV in mm/s; and (b) PPV in in./s. Sensitivity degree: 1 =
high; 2 = upper-intermediate; 3 = intermediate; and 4 = low.
cables. However, to predict the ground vibrations generated from
different construction activities, the application of numerical model-
ing instead of either small-scale or full-scale physical modeling is
more economical and is the faster way, similar to what was done for
the numerical modeling of impact pile driving in the studies by
Rezaei et al. (2016) and Farshi Homayoun Rooz and Hamidi (2017).
As an appropriate example, Linehan et al. (1992) described con-
cern over the damage of an existing pressurized 300-psi (2-MPa)
gas pipeline during a construction project of pile installation using
impact H-pile driving for a railroad bridge. The steel gas pipeline
with a diameter of 0.9 m (3 ft) and a wall thickness of 8.4 mm
(0.329 in.) was routed beneath the bridge and was buried approxi-
mately 1.2 m (4 ft) below the ground surface. The H-piles were sup-
posed to be installed in loose sand and soft silt river deposits using
diesel impact hammers, and their final installation depth was

© ASCE 07018002-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(1): 07018002

 17.7 m (58 ft). To protect the existing gas pipeline from the ground on Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) and 76 mm/s (3 in./s) based on the
vibrations of impact H-pile driving, it was decided to monitor the FHWA guidelines (Lukas 1995), respectively. Obviously, it should
vibrations at the ground surface and on the pipeline. Figs. 2 (a and be noted that the allowable value should depend on the exact vibra-
b) show the recorded vibrations induced by impact hammer driving tion reaching the buried structure itself, or even the pipeline embed-
of H-piles in terms of PPV (mm/s) and PPV (in./s), respectively. ded depth through considering a reduction coefficient, and it should
Regarding the considerations of the American Gas Association also depend on its content type (water, oil, or gas) due to the risk of
guideline (Esparza et al. 1981), a conservative limit of 2 in./s was flammability, but these aspects have not been considered yet.
set for construction-induced vibration. Thus, it was concluded that, Despite this, the current vibration levels in standards for buried
as shown in Fig. 2(b), all measured vibrations were less than the structures are for the vibration measurements at the ground surface
controlling factor of 2 in./s and were safe. However, it would be above the pipeline. To determine the allowable distance of impact
beneficial to determine the maximum allowable distance without H-pile driving, the regression trend of measured vibrations and the
any concern over structural damage. According to the original pa- safe and structural-damage levels are delineated in Fig. 2. The inter-
per, the gas pipeline has a sensitivity degree of 4 (low). Moreover, section of the ground-vibrations line with the considered-level lines
as depicted in Figs. 1(a and b), the minimum peak allowable PPV will determine the allowable distance. As presented in Table 1, the
(safe level) and maximum peak allowable PPV (structural-damage safe-level distance is 1.92 m (6.3 ft), and the structural-damage dis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 175.184.248.67 on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

level) for the low-sensitivity degree are 40 mm/s (1.6 in./s) based tance is 1.16 m (3.8 ft). That is, to avoid any potential damage, the

Soil particles at ground surface Regression for soil particles at ground surface
Soil particles on gas main Regression for particles on gas main
Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) FHWA Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995)
Intersection with Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) Intersection with FHWA Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995)

1,000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

100 Structural damage level Allowable distance

Safe level Allowable distance

10

0.1
0.1 1 10 100
(a) Distance: m
Soil particles at ground surface Regression for soil paticles at ground surface
Soil particles on gas main Regression for soil particles on gas main
Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) FHWA Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995)
Intersection with Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) Intersection with FHWA Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995)

10
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): in./s

Allowable distance Structural damage level

Allowable distance Safe level

0.1

0.01
1 10 100 1,000
(b) Distance: ft

Fig. 2. Allowable distance of the gas pipeline from impact H-pile driving: (a) PPV in mm/s and distance in m; and (b) PPV in in./s and distance in ft.

© ASCE 07018002-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(1): 07018002

 Table 1. Allowable distance of the gas pipeline from the impact H-pile
driving to prevent structural damage
Allowable
Number Type PPV [mm/s (in./s)] distance [m (ft)]
1 Safe level 40 (1.6) 1.92 (6.3)
2 Structural-damage level 76 (3) 1.16 (3.8)
ideal distance of impact H-pile driving from the gas pipeline is
greater than 1.92 m (6.3 ft); however, it can be reduced to a maxi-
mum amount of 1.16 m (3.8 ft) depending on possible difficulties,
and this is the distance that must be adhered to in whatever the case
might be. Nevertheless, the final maximum recommended allow-
able distance is determined as 1.92 m (6.3 ft) due to the high danger
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 175.184.248.67 on 01/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the facility, which is a pressurized 300-psi (2-MPa) natural gas
pipeline, although so far this factor has not been taken into account
in the standards.
Finally, it is strictly recommended to all engineers whose prac-
tice involves ground vibrations induced by construction activities to
apply the presented vibration levels to avoid the possible damage of
the structures in their vicinity. In other words, the allowable distance
from a construction activity that generates vibrations should be com-
puted and subsequently applied to protect the various adjacent struc-
tures, as in the presented computation herein for the allowable dis-
tance of impact H-pile driving from the gas pipeline. It should also
be noted that the presented restrictions are applicable only to con-
struction activities generating transient vibrations, such as impact
pile driving, impact sheet-pile driving, dynamic compaction, blasts,
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(1): 07018002
and so forth, and they should not be applied to sources generating
continuous vibrations, such as vibratory pile driving, vibratory
sheet-pile driving, machine foundations, roadway and railway traf-
fic, underground railways, excavation, demolition, and so forth.
Hence, proceeding to provide a comprehensive guideline for sources
generating continuous vibrations with a similar trend as presented
herein is highly suggested.
References
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1993. Design of steel
structures: Part 5: Piling. Eurocode 3. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Esparza, E. D., D. S. Westine, and A. B. Wenzel. 1981. Pipeline response
to buried explosive detonations. Rep. No. LS1406. Washington, DC:
American Gas Association.
Farshi Homayoun Rooz, A., and A. Hamidi. 2017. “Numerical analysis of
factors affecting ground vibrations due to continuous impact pile driv-
ing.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (12): 04017107. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001016.
Linehan, P. W., A. Longinow, and C. H. Dowding. 1992. “Pipeline
response to pile driving and adjacent excavation.” J. Geotech. Eng.
118 (2): 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:
2(300).
Lukas, R. G. 1995. Geotechnical engineering circular No. 1: Dynamic
compaction. FHWA-SA-95-037. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Rezaei, M., A. Hamidi, and A. Farshi Homayoun Rooz. 2016. “Investigation
of peak particle velocity variations during impact pile driving process.”
Civ. Eng. Infrastruct. J. 49 (1): 49–69.
07018002-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.