Allowable Distance from Impact Pile Driving to Prevent

Structural Damage Considering Limits in Different Standards

Amir Hamidi, A.M.ASCE1; Abtin Farshi Homayoun Rooz, M.ASCE2; and Majid Pourjenabi, S.M.ASCE3

Abstract: Pile driving has usually been the most prevalent method of pile installation, although the ground vibrations generated by pile driving
operations have a high damage potential for structures in the vicinity and are a major concern. Hence, the intention of this study is first to facili-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tate problems associated with the ground vibration issues and then to evaluate the allowable distance of different structures adjacent to an impact
pile driving site to prevent structural damage based on the acceptable vibration levels of reliable standards and a report in terms of peak particle
velocity (PPV). In this regard, the numerical simulation of a continuous impact pile driving process for a case study is executed from the ground
surface using the ALE (arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian) adaptive mesh method rather than common discontinuous pile driving models. Based on
the results, peak vertical velocity is the most appropriate approach for the determination of PPV and the investigation of the ground vibrations
induced during construction activities. Furthermore, the most comprehensive standard is concluded to assess transient vibrations caused by con-
struction activities. For practical applications, maximum peak allowable PPV using the standard resultant was presented to prevent structural
damage to different structures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000354. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Pile driving; Ground vibrations; Structural damage; Peak particle velocity (PPV); Numerical simulation; Maximum
peak allowable PPV.

Introduction
Through the ages, pile driving has been the most efficient method for
pile installation by applying consecutive impacts of a hammer on a
precast pile head. The rapid growth of population along with con-
struction have led to the proximity of various structures to each other,
especially in urban areas; therefore, concerns over possible irrepara-
ble damage to structures in the vicinity of pile driving has been dra-
matically increased. Hence, a number of standards have proceeded to
regulate criteria for avoiding damage to the nearby structures by
increasing the knowledge and understanding of construction vibra-
tions [Swiss Standard SN640312 (SNV1992); Eurocode 3 (CEN
1993); Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999); German Standard
DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999)] The prediction of construction vibrations
prior to inception has been necessitated by these standards.
Retrospectively, Wiss (1981) surveyed the detrimental effects of
construction vibrations by considering the sources of construction
vibrations, transmitting medium, and effects on the vibration
receivers. Uromeihy (1990) proceeded with the ground vibration
measurements with a particular reference to pile driving; thus, the
effect of ground vibrations on buildings was investigated in large-
scale tests. Woods (1997) investigated the dynamic effects of pile in-
stallation on the adjacent structures and concluded that the pile driv-
ing vibrations can be a problem with all kinds of pile drivers and all
kinds of driven piles. It was recommended that detailed knowledge of
1
Professor, School of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., P.O. Box 15614,
Tehran, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail: hamidi@khu.ac.ir
2
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, School of Engineering, Kharazmi
Univ., P.O. Box 15614, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: std_abtinfhr@khu.ac.ir
3
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Engineering, Kharazmi Univ., P.O. Box
15614, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: std_pourjenabi@khu.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 24, 2017; approved on
August 24, 2017; published online on November 28, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until April 28, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
the soil profile near the pile as well as the proximity of adjacent sur-
face and buried structures is essential to avoid structural damage.
Moreover, Athanasopoulos and Pelekis (2000), Thandavamoorthy
(2004), Svinkin (2006), Madheswaran et al. (2009), Zhang et al.
(2013), and Grizi et al. (2016) acknowledged that the ground vibra-
tions originating from pile driving are quite severe and have a signifi-
cant damage potential for the nearby structures. Hence, the acceptable
vibration limits in standards for various structures are perused
through several studies, such as Hiller and Hope (1998), White et al.
(2002), Jones and Stokes Associates (2004), Sylvestre-Williams
(2011), Ekanayake et al. (2013), and Massarsch and Fellenius (2015).
It is virtually impossible to completely perceive the ground
vibration problems unless the entire chain of vibration transmission
is considered; hence, in Fig. 1 the ground vibration transmission
process is illustrated during pile driving operations. In the process,
hammer impact is applied to the pile head, and then the vibrations
are propagated at the pile-soil interface into the surrounding soil
through pile-soil interaction. Wave propagation occurs throughout
the soil layers in the shape of transient vibration from impact pile
driving, or continuous vibration from vibratory pile driving.
Finally, the ground vibrations impact any structure in their path, and
structural damage can occur through soil-structure interaction.
Thus far, numerical modeling of pile driving has been mostly ex-
ecuted through discontinuous pile driving. In other words, a mod-
eled pile was embedded in a prebored hole in the soil (desired
depth) and then just a few hammer impacts or a small displacement
was applied; that is, continuous pile driving from the ground surface
has not been performed (Mabsout and Tassoulas 1994; Ramshaw
2002; Masoumi et al. 2009; Henke 2010; Dijkstra et al. 2011;
Zhang et al. 2013; Lupiezowiec et al. 2014; Liyanapathirana and
Ekanayake 2016). Although the discontinuous pile driving leads to
a considerable reduction of analysis time, the soil conditions and
the results were relatively far from field measurements because of
not simulating the stress and strain changes of surrounding soil dur-
ing pile driving from the ground surface. Therefore, the most supe-
rior part of the numerical modeling in this paper is to simulate the

© ASCE 04017029-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 continuous impact pile driving process from the ground surface to
the final pile installation depth just identical to real works rather
than the prevalent discontinuous pile driving. Subsequently, deter-
mination of the allowable distance of different structures in a case
study of the impact pile driving site was performed based on the
maximum acceptable level of various authentic standards and a
report. Moreover, to overcome the common beginning difficulties
of studying ground vibration issues, basic crucial factors, including
the best parameter of evaluating the ground vibrations, the vibration
construction types, and the best approach of maximum vibration
determination, are meticulously investigated in advance. Finally, a
comprehensive guideline considering the limits of standards was
presented to avoid structural damage in practical applications.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Basic Crucial Factors
To investigate the ground vibrations generated by diverse sources,
researchers are indeed confronted with some common ambiguities
Fig. 1. Vibration transmission process during pile driving
15
Vibration Velocity: mm/sec
10
-5
-10
0 0.1
Fig. 2. Comparison of vibrations for a soil particle adjacent to impact and vibratory pile driving
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029
and difficulties that have particular importance in the beginning
steps. Hence, the understanding of the following concepts seems
certainly worthwhile and should be observed.
First and foremost, it is essential to find out which parameter is
the best option with which to investigate the ground vibrations
induced by various sources. Thus far, the ground vibrations have
been evaluated mostly in terms of peak particle displacement (PPD),
peak particle velocity (PPV), and peak particle acceleration (PPA)
by different researchers (Uromeihy 1990; Mabsout and Tassoulas
1994; Athanasopoulos and Pelekis 2000; Thandavamoorthy 2004;
Çelebi et al. 2009; Ekanayake et al. 2013; Svinkin 2015; Pourjenabi
and Hamidi 2015; Rezaei et al. 2016; Grizi et al. 2016), which are
the maximum displacement, velocity, and acceleration that a soil
particle experiences during a vibration event, respectively. A num-
ber of researchers have shown better consistency of PPV to the ini-
tiation of damage in the structures compared with PPD and PPA,
and PPV has been introduced as the most appropriate descriptor for
evaluation of the ground vibrations (New 1986; Kennedy 1990;
Massarsch and Broms 1991; Jones and Stokes Associates 2004;
Impact Pile Driving (Transient Vibrations)
Vibratory Pile Driving (Continuous Vibrations)
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time: sec
04017029-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Svinkin 2004; Abdel-Rasoul and Mohamed 2006). It is worth noting
that the standards mostly address the ground vibrations based on
PPV that corroborate the conclusion.
Second, it is also crucial to figure out the type of ground vibra-
tions. Generally, ground vibrations can originate from two main
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sources: natural phenomena (e.g., earthquake, landslide, volcanic
eruptions, tsunami, meteorite impact, etc.) and man-made activities
(mostly construction activities). It is worth noting that the ground
vibrations generated from construction activities can be classified
into transient and continuous vibrations.

Fig. 3. Three orthogonal directions (X, Y, and Z) of vibration measurements as velocity components of a soil particle (VR, VT, and VV)

Table 1. Maximum Allowable PPV Values for Transient Vibrations to Prevent Structural Damage in Authentic Standards and Reports

Reference Frequency range (Hz) Structure and condition Maximum PPV [mm/s (in./s)]
AASHTO (1990) — Engineered structures, without plaster 25.4–38.1 (1–1.5)
Residential building in good repair with gypsum 10.16–12.7 (0.4–0.5)
board walls
Residential buildings, plastered walls 5.08–7.62 (0.2–0.3)
Historic sites or other critical locations 2.54 (0.1)
Swiss Standard 10–30 (I) Buildings in steel or reinforced concrete, such as 30.48 (1.2)
SN640312 (SNV 1992) factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers, open
channels, underground chambers, and tunnels with
and without concrete alignment
(II) Buildings with foundation walls and floors in 17.78 (0.7)
concrete, walls in concrete or masonry, stone ma-
sonry retaining walls, underground chambers and
tunnels with masonry alignment, conduit in loose
material
(III) Buildings as mentioned previously but with 12.7 (0.5)
wooden ceilings and walls in masonry
(IV) Construction very sensitive to vibration, objects 7.62 (0.3)
of historic interest
British Standard 4–15 Unreinforced or light framed structures, residential 15–20 (0.6–0.8)
or light commercial type buildings
BS 7385-2 (BSI 1993) >15 Unreinforced or light framed structures, residential 20–50 (0.8–2)
or light commercial type buildings
All frequencies Reinforced or framed structures–industrial and 50 (2)
heavy commercial buildings
Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) — Buried services 40 (1.6)
Heavy industrial 30 (1.2)
Light commercial 20 (0.8)
Residential 10 (0.4)
Ruins, building of architectural merit 4 (0.15)
FHWA Dynamic Compaction — Buried pipes and mains 76 (3)
(Lukas 1995)
German Standard 0–10 Commercial–industrial 20 (0.8)
DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999) 10–50 20–40 (0.8–1.6)
50–100 40–50 (1.6–2)
0–10 Residential 5 (0.2)
10–50 5–15 (0.2–0.6)
50–100 15–20 (0.6–0.8)
0–10 Sensitive–historic 3 (0.1)
10–50 3–8 (0.1–0.3)
50–100 8–10 (0.3–0.4)

© ASCE 04017029-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 The transient (single-event) vibrations rapidly reach a peak
value and then are subjected to a damping effect until it disap-
pears. The transient vibration sources may include only a single
event, such as an explosion, or numerous single events, such as
impact pile driving, dynamic compaction, and so forth. The con-
tinuous (steady-state) vibrations generate uninterrupted oscilla-
tion for a defined period with manifold cycles. The common con-
tinuous vibration sources are vibratory pile driving, roadway and
railway traffic, underground railway, heavy construction equipment
(e.g., jackhammer, scraper, dump truck, bulldozer, etc.), excavation
(e.g., tunnel boring machinery), demolition activity, static and vibra-
tory compaction equipment (e.g., vibratory rollers, wheeled and
sheep foot rollers), factory machinery, and so forth.
Among the construction sources, pile driving is the most prevalent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
independent of their occurrence time. It is evident that the simul-
taneous occurrence of maximum velocity components for a soil
particle during construction work is far from reality. Therefore,
PPV determination using Eq. (2) would be definitely conserva-
tive; nonetheless, several researchers have applied the approach
to their investigations (Head and Jardine 1992; Hiller and Hope
1998; Rockhill et al. 2003).
3. Peak unidirectional velocity: In this approach, PPV is equal to
the component with the highest recorded value during the entire
construction time. Actually, PPV can be each of the three ve-
locity components independent of the two other components.
PPV ¼ Max ðVRmax ; VVmax ; VTmax Þ (3)

source of construction vibrations (Karlsson 2013). It is also important Several valid sources have used the approach [BS 7385-2:1993
to note that the allowable vibration limit in standards was determined (BSI 1993), DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999), and Zhang et al. (2013)].
based on the generated vibration type (transient/continuous); hence, 4. Peak vertical velocity: The maximum vertical component of
it can be concluded that the nature of these two vibration types is velocity obtained from measurements or computations is con-
completely different. Thus, to make the difference clear, in Fig. 2 sidered as PPV according to Eq. (4)
impact pile driving transient vibrations and vibratory pile driving
continuous vibrations are compared. As illustrated in Fig. 2, tran- PPV ¼ VVmax (4)
sient vibrations often have a higher intensity than continuous vibra-
tions. However, even though standards have determined higher lim- In contrast to the former approaches, this approach has been
its for transient vibrations than for continuous vibrations, continuous widely applied by a number of researchers as well as standards
vibrations have greater potential to cause structural damage. Both [Attewell and Farmer (1973); Martin (1980); Massarsch and
vibration types, especially those induced by pile driving, have great Broms (1991); Swiss Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992);
potential to cause structural damage and to annoy residents in adja- Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999); Athanasopoulos
cent structures. and Pelekis (2000); Thandavamoorthy (2004); Ahlquist and
The type of ground vibration originating from impact pile driving Enggren (2006); Whenham et al. (2009); Serdaroglu (2010);
is called a transient vibration. To determine the maximum PPV dur- Schumann and Grabe (2011); Athanasopoulos et al. (2013);
ing construction work at a site through measurements or in numeri- Massarsch and Fellenius (2015); Grizi et al. (2016)].
cal analyses, researchers always face several approaches that make Of the four represented approaches, the last approach (peak vertical
the determination extremely ambiguous. Therefore, great effort was velocity) is the best option because
expended in the current study to gather and evaluate all the existing 1. It was used in most of the previous research studies,
approaches and then, more importantly, identify the valid resources 2. There is better correlation with damage inception,
of using each approach to decide which one is the most appropriate
option. To assess the ground vibrations during a construction pro-
ject, such as pile driving, first the measurements and computations
Table 2. Maximum Allowable PPV Values for Transient Vibrations to
of the vibration velocity at different distances from the source are Prevent Structural Damage in the Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999)
recorded simultaneously in three orthogonal directions of X, Y, and
Z as the velocity components (VR, VV, and VT) at any moment, as Factor Condition Value
shown in Fig. 3. Indeed, VR, VV, and VT are known as radial (or longi- V0 [mm/s (in./s)] Bedrock 15 (0.6)
tudinal), vertical, and tangential (or transverse) velocity compo- Glacial till 12 (0.5)
nents, in which VR must be toward the source. The approaches for Clay, silt, sand, or gravel 9 (0.35)
PPV determination in the scientific studies are as follows: Fb Heavy structures, such as bridges, quay 1.7
1. Peak vector sum (PVS): The most well-known approach for walls, defense structures, etc.
PPV determination in scientific literature is the maximum re- Industrial or office buildings 1.2
sultant of velocity components that a soil particle experiences Normal residential buildings 1
at the same time during construction work, as shown in Eq. (1) Especially susceptible buildings and 0.65
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi buildings with high value or structural
PPV ¼ Max ðVR Þ2 þ ðVV Þ2 þ ðVT Þ2 (1) elements with spans, e.g., church or
museum
Despite being the popular definition, only a few researchers Historic buildings in a sensitive state as 0.5
have used this approach (Uromeihy 1990; Ho and Tan 2003; well as certain sensitive ruins
Liden 2012; Ekanayake et al. 2013). Fm Reinforced concrete, steel, or wood 1.2
2. Square root of squares sum (SRSS): Another approach, as can Unreinforced concrete, bricks, concrete 1
be seen in Eq. (2), is the resultant of maximum velocity compo- blocks with voids, light-weight concrete
nents aside from considering the occurrence time. elements, masonry
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Light concrete blocks and plaster 0.75
PPV ¼ ðVRmax Þ2 þ ðVVmax Þ2 þ ðVTmax Þ2 (2) Limestone 0.65
Fg Buildings founded on toe-bearing piles 1
Buildings founded on shaft-bearing piles 0.8
where VRmax , VVmax , and VTmax = maximum recorded values of
Spread footings, raft foundations 0.6
velocity components during the entire construction period

© ASCE 04017029-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 3. It is relatively easier to measure or compute, and
4. There are close results to the component resultant (PVS).
This approach has been used in the numerical analysis to
follow.
Maximum Allowable PPV in Standards and Reports
Because of the abundant advantages of pile installation by pile
driving compared with other methods, widespread use of the pile
driving method for pile installation is understandable. Despite the
notable advantages of the pile driving method, the adverse effect
of ground vibrations on the surrounding structures is the only rea-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transient vibrations was extracted from well-known and authentic
standards including AASHTO (1990), Swiss Standard SN640312
(SNV 1992), British Standard BS 7385-2 (BSI 1993), Eurocode 3
(CEN 1993), and German Standard DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999) as
well as the report Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995), as shown in Table 1. Also,
Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SNV 1999) as one of the available
comprehensive standards has considered maximum allowable
PPV (millimeters per second) depending on some parameters, i.
e., vibration velocity in different soil types (V0), building type
(Fb), building materials (Fm), and foundation type (Fg), which is
computable using Eq. (5) and Table 2

son for limiting the method. Therefore, many researchers and PPV ¼ V 0  Fb  Fm  Fg (5)
standards have proceeded with the determination of a maximum
acceptable PPV value to prevent the possible structural damage.
They have unanimously expressed the evaluation of anticipated
ground vibrations to be less than the maximum permissible deter- Numerical Modeling and Verification
mined PPV value before initiation of any construction operation
is absolutely indispensable. Indeed, the maximum determined To conduct the numerical simulation of the continuous impact
PPV values correspond to the damage threshold of the structures. pile driving process, the finite-element software Abaqus 6–14-3
Hence, in the present research, the maximum allowable PPV for using an explicit dynamic integration scheme was utilized, in

Fig. 4. Geometry, boundary condition, and finite-element mesh of the axisymmetric model

Table 3. Pile and Soil Properties Used in the Numerical Modeling (Data from Wiss 1981, © ASCE)

Diameter Cohesion Friction angle Density [kg/m3 Elastic modulus Poisson’s

Type Material [m (ft)] Length [m (ft)] [kPa (psi)] (degrees) (lb/ft3)] [MPa (ksi)] ratio
Pile Concrete 0.5 (1.64) 10 (32.8) — — 2,500 (156) 40,000 (5,801) 0.25
Soil Sandy clay — — 15 (2.18) 25 2,000 (125) 80 (11.6) 0.4

© ASCE 04017029-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 which an axisymmetric model space was considered with the pile
centerline located along the axis of the symmetry. The ongoing
numerical model was verified by a reported case study from Wiss
(1981).
Fig. 4 illustrates the geometry of pile and soil models. The
soil is homogeneous sandy clay, and the concrete pile is closed
end with a 0.5 m (1.64-ft) diameter, 10 m (32.8-ft) length, and
conical tip angle equal to 60° in which the properties are fully
represented in Table 3. The elastic and Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion were considered for the pile and soil behaviors, respec-
tively. As shown in Fig. 4, the soil damping was considered 7% and
the artificial boundary of five subzones with 7.5–17.5% Rayleigh
damping was applied to the right side boundary of the model to pre-
vent wave reflection. For the bottom boundary, the soil depth was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extended to the size that waves can completely damp through its natu-
ral damping before reaching the bottom boundary. The finite-element
mesh of the model is also demonstrated in Fig. 4. Four-node quadratic
structured elements (CAX4Rs) were used to mesh the soil and pile
models. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 4, ALE (arbitrary Lagrangian-
Eulerian) adaptive mesh was applied to the limited soil zone meas-
uring 3  13 m (9.84  42.65 ft) in which the large displacements of
Fig. 5. Impact force of the BSP 357 pile driver hammer in terms of
normal stress
1000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s
100
10
1
1 2
Horizontal Distance (r): m
Fig. 6. Comparison of computed and measured PPV values induced by impact pile driving for soil particles at the ground surface and located at dif-
ferent distances from the pile centerline
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029
soil are imminent during the pile penetration process. As a result, the
nodes have an ability to move independently, and it is possible to
make the soil elements smaller during pile penetration if needed with-
out changing the geometry.
Indeed, numerical modeling of the pile penetration process
from the ground surface to a desired depth using the classical
FEM is infeasible due to the expected large deformations of the
soil around the penetrating pile, which leads to excessive element
distortions and cessation of the analysis afterward. Therefore, to
cope with the difficulties, the ALE adaptive mesh method was
applied to the model.
Because the pile driver hammer was a BSP 357 hydraulic impact
hammer, for each hammer impact the hammer force-time curve of
Deeks and Randolph (1993) was applied to the pile head. Because
of the designation of an elastic behavior for the pile, the concen-
trated hammer force was converted to normal stress in advance, as
delineated in Fig. 5. Meanwhile, a 1-s time interval was considered
for each hammer impact.
The pile-soil interaction was defined through a surface-to-
surface contact of master-slave technique, and its properties were
allocated through normal behavior with hard contact ability and tan-
gential behavior using a penalty friction formulation. Also, the fric-
tion coefficient was reasonably considered equal to 0.35 based on
the materials of the pile and soil.
To install the pile in the soil through continuous impact pile driv-
ing in the ongoing numerical analyses, at first, a short time interval
was used on the pile for initial static penetration into the soil due to
its weight right after application of the earth gravity acceleration to
create in situ stresses of the pile and soil. Then, consecutive hammer
impacts on the pile head were performed based on the previously
mentioned hammer stress history for reaching the pile to a 10 m
(32.8-ft) final penetration depth.
Finally, to verify the numerical model of continuous impact pile
driving from the ground surface to the final penetration depth of
10 m (32.8 ft), the field measurements reported by Wiss (1981)
were used to validate the model in terms of PPV at the different hor-
izontal distances of the ground surface, as shown in Fig. 6.
According to Fig. 6, the numerical results are in full accord with the
measured data. To ensure the numerical results, the comparison of
calculated and measured PPV values was surveyed in a wide dis-
tance range of 1–45 m (3.28–147.64 ft).
Measured by Wiss (1981)
Current Study
4 8 16 32 64
04017029-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Comparison of Vibration Components with the PVS with the PVS of the components. For measurement of the maxi-
mum vibration velocity during the impact pile driving process
As previously mentioned, vibration velocity components of a from the ground surface to the final penetration depth of 10 m
soil particle adjacent to a pile driving site are vertical, radial, (32.8 ft), which needed 353 hammer impacts, 1,000 records
and transverse, in which vertical and radial components have were concluded to perform after each hammer impact during the
always been considered as the significant components in previ- 1-s time interval before application of the next hammer impact,
ous studies, and transverse vibration has usually been ignored namely, a velocity record in the 0.001-s time interval. Regarding
because it is very small. Hence, in almost all cases it is sufficient the figure, it can be stated that peak vertical velocity (the fourth
to measure only vertical and radial vibration and ignore the prevoiusly mentioned approach) is in close accordance with PVS
transverse component of the vibration (Uromeihy 1990; (first approach), but peak radial velocity is 40–70% smaller than
Athanasopoulos and Pelekis 2000; Hanson et al. 2006). peak vertical velocity and PVS. Consequently, the peak vertical
Therefore, in Fig. 7 peak vertical and radial velocity compo- velocity can be concluded as the best descriptor to investigate the
nents of the continuous pile driving case study are compared ground vibrations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1000
Peak Vector Sum
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

Peak Vertical Velocity

Peak Radial Velocity

100

10

1
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Horizontal Distance (r): m

Fig. 7. Comparison between two vibration components of vertical (peak vertical velocity) and radial (peak radial velocity) with PVS

1000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

100

(I)
(II)
(III)
10 (IV)

1
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Horizontal Distance (r): m

Fig. 8. Allowable level of ground vibrations for different structures adjacent to the impact pile driving to prevent structural damage based on the
Swiss Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992)

© ASCE 04017029-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 Allowable Distance of Structures for the Considered
Case Study
To avoid likely damage of different structures adjacent to a vibra-
tion generator source, standards have determined the threshold
guidelines for ground vibrations in terms of PPV. In other words,
based on the regulated levels, a maximum safe distance of various
Table 4. Maximum Allowable Distance of Various Structures from the
Pile Driving Site to Prevent Structural Damage Based on the Swiss
Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992)
structures from the pile driving site can be determined; otherwise,
the generated vibrations should be reduced to the maximum allow-
able PPV levels through an efficient method to avoid structural
damage. The prevalent efficient methods are active or passive wave
barriers (open or in-filled trenches), preboring, and water jetting. In
the following subsections, the maximum allowable distance of
structures from the pile driving case study of Wiss (1981) is investi-
gated based on the limits of authentic standards and reports. Also,
the limits in the following investigations are just for transient sour-
ces, such as impact pile driving.

Maximum Maximum
Swiss Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992)
allowable PPV allowable To prevent probable damage of structures adjacent to a pile driving
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Number Structural conditions [mm/s (in./s)] distance [m (ft)] site, Swiss Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992) determined the maxi-
I Buildings in steel or rein- 30.48 (1.2) 7 (23) mum allowable PPV values based on different conditions of differ-
forced concrete, such as ent structures, as shown in Table 1. Based on this standard, more re-
factories, retaining walls, sistant structures less susceptible to vibrations can withstand a
bridges, steel towers, open higher level of vibration without damage; thus, the maximum
channels, underground allowable distance from the source will be smaller (closer to the
chambers and tunnels with vibration source). To reveal the maximum allowable distance of
and without concrete structures from the pile driving site in the case study based on Swiss
alignment Standard SN640312 (SNV 1992), the ground vibrations obtained
II Buildings with foundation 17.78 (0.7) 10.7 (35.1) through continuous impact pile driving simulations as well as maxi-
walls and floors in concrete, mum PPV levels in the standard are delineated in Fig. 8. Evidently,
walls in concrete or masonry, the intercept of the ground vibrations diagram and the maximum
stone masonry retaining allowable PPV line is the maximum allowable distance from the
walls, underground chambers pile driving site, as presented in Table 4. With respect to the results
and tunnels with masonry of maximum allowable distances based on the Swiss Standard
alignment, conduit in loose SN640312 (SNV 1992), it can be concluded that weaker structures
material and structures susceptible to vibrations (IV) require being about
III Buildings as mentioned 12.7 (0.5) 13.5 (44.3) two to three times farther away from the pile driving site than the
previously but with wooden more resistant structures (I and II).
ceilings and walls in
masonry Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993)
IV Construction very sensitive 7.62 (0.3) 19.2 (63)
to vibration, objects of Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993) has undoubtedly been the most prevalent
historic interest and well-known standard in the ground vibrations assessment. It
has provided limits in terms of PPV for various structures exposed

1000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

100

Buried Services
Heavy Industrial
Light commercial

Residenal
10

Ruins, buildings of architectural merit

1
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Horizontal Distance (r): m

Fig. 9. Allowable level of ground vibrations for different structures in the vicinity of the impact pile driving to prevent structural damage based on
Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993)

© ASCE 04017029-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 to transient or continuous ground vibrations. In other words, struc-
tural damage thresholds were defined by the standard; thus, the limi-
tation range was from a maximum allowable PPV of 4 mm/s (0.15
in./s) for structures susceptible to ground vibrations, such as historic
structures, to 40 mm/s (1.6 in./s) for buried services, such as water
pipes, gas or oil pipelines, electricity, and telecommunication
cables. The maximum allowable PPV values for transient vibrations
were assigned as twice greater than the continuous vibrations in the
standard. As shown in Fig. 9, by overlaying the criteria of Eurocode
3 (CEN 1993) for transient vibrations on the resultant ground vibra-
tions obtained from the continuous impact pile driving simulation
of the case study, the maximum allowable distance can be computed
(Table 5). According to the results of maximum allowable distances
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
most of the transmitted energy by Rayleigh waves, the maximum
PPV occurred at the ground surface. Regarding the maximum
allowable PPV of 40 mm/s (1.6 in./s) for buried services, the
maximum allowable distance was obtained as 5.6 m. However,
in practice, buried services are usually located in different
ground depths, so their PPV value is less than the ground sur-
face. Therefore, the maximum allowable distance for buried
services seems conservative.
FHWA Dynamic Compaction Report (Lukas 1995)
Ground vibrations due to the dynamic compaction operations are
transient vibrations. Thus, it is feasible to apply the limit of the

from the pile driving site, the residential buildings should be a dis-
tance greater than 16 m (52.5 ft) from the pile driving site to be safe;
otherwise, ground vibrations should be reduced to the maximum
allowable PPV value of 10 mm/s (0.4 in./s) through an efficient
method. Moreover, the ruins and structures susceptible to ground
vibrations require being about two times farther from the pile driv-
ing site than residential buildings. Additionally, due to carrying
authentic report FHWA Dynamic Compaction (Lukas 1995) to the
ground vibrations induced by pile driving. The report declares that
considering PPV measurements on the ground over buried utilities,
76 mm/s (3 in./s) is the safe level for pipes and mains. Hence, in
Fig. 10 the maximum allowable safe level of PPV is superimposed
on the results of the propagated ground vibrations through pile driv-
ing of the case study, and the maximum allowable distance from the

Table 5. Maximum Allowable Distance of Various Structures from the Pile Driving Site to Prevent Structural Damage Based on Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993)

Number Structure type Maximum allowable PPV [mm/s (in./s)] Maximum allowable distance [m (ft)]
1 Buried services 40 (1.6) 5.6 (18.4)
2 Heavy industrial 30 (1.2) 7.1 (23.3)
3 Light commercial 20 (0.8) 9.7 (31.8)
4 Residential 10 (0.4) 16 (52.5)
5 Ruins, building of architectural merit 4 (0.15) 30.2 (99.1)

1000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

100 Buried pipes and mains

10

1
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Horizontal Distance (r): m

Fig. 10. Allowable level of ground vibrations for different structures adjacent to the impact pile driving to prevent structural damage based on the
FHWA Dynamic Compaction Report (Lukas 1995)

Table 6. Maximum Allowable Distance from the Pile Driving Site to Prevent Structural Damage Based on the FHWA Dynamic Compaction Report (Lukas
1995)

Number Structure type Maximum allowable PPV [mm/s (in./s)] Maximum allowable distance [m (ft)]
1 Buried pipes and mains 76 (3) 4 (13.1)

© ASCE 04017029-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 pile driving site is concluded at 4 m (13.1 ft), as shown in Table 6. It
is evidently important that the FHWA criteria for buried structures,
similar to Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993), are based on the ground vibra-
tion measurements at the ground surface, whereas buried structures
Table 7. Maximum Allowable Distance of Various Structures from the
Pile Driving Site to Prevent Structural Damage Based on the Swedish
Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999)
allowable PPV
Number Conditions
1 Sandy soil–bridge– steel–
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are actually located in the ground and depend on their embedment
depth, these structures certainly experience much fewer vibrations
than the ground surface vibration level. For example, in the pile
driving site considering a maximum allowable distance equal to
4 m (13.1 ft) for a gas pipe located at depths of 1, 10, and 20 m
(3.28, 32.8, and 65.6 ft) sounds irrational. Accordingly, considering
a maximum constant level for buried structures in various ground
depths is definitely a conservative approach. The solution to the
problem suggested in this paper is to use the standards’ application
Maximum Maximum of a reduction coefficient to the maximum allowable PPV based on
allowable the embedment depth of a buried structure.
[mm/s (in./s)] distance [m (ft)]
14.7 (0.6) 12.5 (41) Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999)

founded on shaft–bearing Because it considers several factors affecting the ground vibrations,
piles e.g., soil type, structure type, structure materials, and foundation
2 Clayey soil–office building– 7.78 (0.3) 18.9 (62) type, Swedish Standard SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999) is undoubtedly the
reinforced concrete–raft
most comprehensive standard. However, it is crucial to note that the
foundation
standard criteria are consequences of long-term practical experien-
3 Clayey soil–historic build- 4.5 (0.18) 28 (91.9)
ces with transient vibrations generated by pile driving, sheet piling,
ing–masonry materials–
and soil compaction in Sweden; thus, it should be carefully applied
founded on toe-bearing piles
in other areas. To put it in practical use, five different conditions are
4 Sandy soil–residential 3.6 (0.14) 31.7 (104)
considered in Table 7, and then the maximum allowable PPV is cal-
building–unreinforced
culated through the relevant relationship. Finally, the maximum
concrete–raft foundation
allowable distances can be readily concluded using superimposition
5 Sandy soil–church–light 2.63 (0.1) 36.9 (121)
of limits and the ground vibrations induced by the impact pile driv-
concrete blocks and plaster–
ing, as summarized in Table 7. According to the results, unlike most
raft foundation
of the standards, structure type is not the only important factor in

Table 8. Maximum Allowable Distance of Various Structures from the Pile Driving Site to Prevent Structural Damage Based on German Standard DIN
4150-3 (DIN 1999)

Number Building type Maximum allowable PPV [mm/s (in./s)]a Maximum allowable distance [m (ft)]
I Commercial–industrial 20 (0.8) 9.7 (31.8)
II Residential 5 (0.2) 25.5 (83.7)
III Sensitive–historic 3 (0.1) 34.6 (113.5)
a
For the range of vibration frequencies between 0–10 Hz.

1000
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

100

Commercial / Industrial

10
Residenal
Sensive / Historic

1
1 2 4 8 16 32 64
Horizontal Distance (r): m

Fig. 11. Allowable level of ground vibrations for different structures adjacent to the impact pile driving to prevent structural damage based on the
German Standard DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999)

© ASCE 04017029-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 the determination of the maximum allowable PPV to prevent struc-

Maximum
7.62 (0.3)

20 (0.8)

50 (2)

76 (3)
tural damage. Consequently, the Swedish standard is currently
superior to the other standards due to using a number of significant
factors affecting the ground vibrations.

Minimum
2.54 (0.1)

5 (0.2)

20 (0.8)

40 (1.6)
German Standard DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999)
To avoid structural damage from the ground vibrations of construc-
tion activities, the German standard was initially released in 1970

German Standard
and has since undergone a number of revisions. Finally, the latest

DIN 4150-3
(DIN 1999)
version was issued as German Standard DIN 4150-3 (DIN 1999),

3 (0.1)

5 (0.2)

20 (0.8)

—
which provides guideline levels for the ground vibrations. As
shown in Table 1, the German standard limited the ground vibra-
tions based on the building type and the frequency content of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vibrations as well. It is also important that, according to the stand-

FHWA Dynamic
ard, commercial and industrial buildings can withstand higher

(Lukas 1995)
Compaction
vibration levels than residential, sensitive, and historic buildings.

76 (3)
Furthermore, the vibration levels with a frequency range of 0–

—
10 Hz were adopted in this paper because the pile driving opera-
tions usually have a low vibration frequency. Eventually, as pre-
sented in Table 8, the maximum allowable distance of different

20–30 (0.8–1.2)
buildings from the impact pile driving site for the case study was

(CEN 1993)
Eurocode 3
Table 9. Maximum and Minimum Peak Allowable PPV of the Standard Resultant for Transient Vibrations, such as Impact Pile Driving

4 (0.15)
extracted through superimposition of the results of ground vibra-

10 (0.4)

40 (1.6)
tions induced by impact pile driving and the maximum allowable
PPV levels of the German standard, as illustrated in Fig. 11. Thus,
it can be concluded that residential, sensitive, and historic build-
ings should be three to four times farther from the pile driving site
British Standard

5.08–12.7 (0.2–0.5) 12.7–17.78 (0.5–0.7) 15–20 (0.6–0.8)

than commercial/industrial buildings.

(BSI 1993)
BS 7385-2

50 (2)
—

—
Allowable Vibration Level Considering the
Standard Resultant

25.4–38.1 (1–1.5) 17.78–30.48 (0.7–1.2)

The level of permissible PPV was thoroughly surveyed based on
Swiss Standard

7.62 (0.3)

each standard beforehand. Since each standard has addressed only a

(SNV 1992)
SN640312

few structures or conditions, there is no all-around guideline for

—
practicing engineers who are faced with the various structures
located in proximity to a ground vibration source. Hence, Table 9
was assembled considering the standard resultant. In this table max-
imum allowable PPV was classified based on four major sensitivity
degrees: highly, upper-intermediate, intermediate, and less sensitiv-
a
2.54 (0.1)

ity of various structures. Then the maximum and minimum peak

AASHTO
(1990)

allowable PPVs were obtained, which are compared in Fig. 12. It is

—

necessary to point out that the limits are applicable just for transient
ground vibrations, such as impact pile driving. To put the limits in a
practical way, Fig. 13 was also plotted in such a way that the struc-
tural damage level can be easily seen. Furthermore, the limits of
Telecommunication cable

considered structures in the Swedish standard are superimposed in

Commercial/industrial

Fig. 13. Eventually, it can be concluded that the minimum peak

Residential building

Underground tunnel

allowable PPV is more conservative and the maximum peak allow-

Structure
Historic–museum

Church/mosque/
Hospital–library

Electricity cable
Nuclear–marine

Gas/oil pipeline
Bridge –factory

able PPV is the limit that must be adhered to during construction

Hotel/motel

activities.
Water pipe
synagogue

Concluding Remarks

As a result of urban development, many structures are located in

Intermediate
intermediate
Sensitivity

Units are mm/s (in./s).

degree

close proximity to each other, so construction activities in the vicin-

Upper-
Highly

ity of existing structures are inevitable. On the other hand, pile driv-
Less

ing is undeniably the most prevalent technique of pile installation

due to its inherent advantages except for the vibration damage
potential to nearby structures. Therefore, the main purpose of this
Number

research is to highlight the problems associated with assessing the

ground vibrations; furthermore, numerical evaluation of the
1

© ASCE 04017029-11 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 80
Max. Peak Allowable PPV

Maximum Allowable PPV: mm/s

Min. Peak Allowable PPV
60

40

20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
Less Intermediate Upper-intermediate Highly

Sensitivity Degree

Fig. 12. Maximum and minimum peak allowable PPV values of standards for transient ground vibrations

256
Max. Peak Allowable PPV
Min. Peak Allowable PPV
128 Considered Structures in Swedish Standard
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV): mm/s

64

32

16 (1)

8 (2)

(3)
4 (4)
(5)
2

1
1 2 3 4
Sensitivity Degree

Fig. 13. Structural damage level of transient ground vibrations

allowable distance from the impact pile driving site to prevent likely
structural damage to nearby buildings was performed based on the
limits of different reliable standards in terms of maximum allowable
PPV. Consequently, some of the prominent conclusions identified
in the present investigation are as follows:
1. To investigate the ground vibrations generated by different
construction activities, the PPV is concluded as the best crite-
rion for assessing the ground vibrations.
2. It is very important to classify the ground vibrations caused by
construction activities into two types: transient vibrations (a sin-
gle event or multiple single events) and continuous vibrations.
This is because the intensity and nature of the vibrations are
entirely distinct and, for this reason, standards determine differ-
ent limits for each of the ground vibration types.
3. Thus far, the determination of the maximum PPV induced dur-
ing various construction activities has been performed using
four approaches: PVS, SRSS, peak unidirectional velocity, and
peak vertical velocity. Among the approaches peak vertical ve-
locity is concluded as the best approach because it better corre-
lates with damage and is the most prevalent and easiest
approach in studies.
4. Because of the implementation of a detailed modeling of the
continuous impact of the pile driving process from the ground
surface rather than common discontinuous pile driving meth-
ods, the numerical results of verification are perfectly in accord
with the measured data.
5. Comparison between peak vertical and radial vibrations as
vibration velocity components of the soil particles in the

© ASCE 04017029-12 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029

 vicinity of the impact pile driving site with the PVS of compo-
nents showed that unlike the peak radial velocity, the results of
the peak vertical velocity are in close agreement with the PVS.
In other words, the peak radial velocity was 40–70% smaller
than the peak vertical velocity and PVS.
6. The maximum allowable distance of various structures from a
pile driving site was investigated in terms of the maximum
allowable PPV for transient vibrations existing in well-known
reliable standards and a report including the Swiss Standard
SN640312 (SNV 1992), Eurocode 3 (CEN 1993), FHWA
Dynamic Compaction Report (Lukas 1995), Swedish Standard
SS 02 52 11 (SIS 1999), and German Standard DIN 4150-3
(DIN 1999). It was concluded that Swedish Standard SS 02 52
11 (SIS 1999) had been the most comprehensive standard avail-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
able thus far because it considers factors affecting the ground
vibrations, such as soil type, structure type, structure materials,
and foundation type.
7. The maximum PPV and subsequently maximum allowable dis-
tance for buried structures in the standards are definitely con-
servative because they consider the maximum PPV values at the
ground surface over the buried structures and none of them con-
sidered the reduction due to locating in different ground depths.
8. For practical applications, the maximum and minimum peak
allowable PPVs considering sensitivity degrees were presented
based on the standard resultant. The maximum allowable PPV
must be adhered to so structural damage is prevented.
References
AASHTO. (1990). “Standard recommended practice for evaluation of
transportation-related earthborne vibrations.” Washington DC.
Abaqus 6-14-3 [Computer software]. SIMULIA, Providence, RI.
Abdel-Rasoul, E. I., and Mohamed, M. T. (2006). “Measurement and evalu-
ation of blasting ground vibrations and airblasts at the limestone quarries
of Assiut Cement Company (CEMEX).” J. Eng. Sci. Assiut Univ.,
34(4), 1293–1309.
Ahlquist, A., and Enggren, E. (2006). “Impact on surrounding environment
from vibro driven sheet piles.” M.Sc. thesis, Division of Soil and Rock
Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Athanasopoulos, G. A., and Pelekis, P. C. (2000). “Ground vibrations from
sheetpile driving in urban environment: Measurement, analysis and
effects on buildings and occupants.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 19(5),
371–387.
Athanasopoulos, G. A., Woods, R. D., and Grizi, A. (2013). “Effect of pile-
driving induced vibrations on nearby structures and other assets.” Final
Rep. ORBP Number OR10-046, Michigan DOT, Lansing, MI.
Attewell, P. B., and Farmer, I. W. (1973). “Attenuation of ground vibrations
from pile driving.” Ground Eng., 6(4), 26–29.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (1993). “Evaluation and measurement
for vibration in buildings. Part 2: Guide to damage levels from ground-
bourne vibration.” BS 7385-2:1993, London.
Çelebi, E., Fırat, S., Beyhan, G., Çankaya, I., _ Vural, I.,_ and Kırtel, O.
(2009). “Field experiments on wave propagation and vibration isolation
by using wave barriers.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 29(5), 824–833.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (1993). “Design of steel
structures: Part 5: Piling.” Eurocode 3, ENV 1993-5, Brussels Belgium.
Deeks, A. J., and Randolph, M. F. (1993). “Analytical modelling of hammer
impact for pile driving.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 17(5),
279–302.
Dijkstra, J., Broere, W., and Heeres, O. M. (2011). “Numerical simulation
of pile installation.” Comput. Geotech., 38(5), 612–622.
DIN (German Institute for Standardization). (1999). “Structural vibration–
Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures.” DIN 4150-3, Berlin.
Ekanayake, S. D., Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Leo, C. J. (2013). “Influence
zone around a closed-ended pile during vibratory driving.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 53(Oct), 26–36.
© ASCE 04017029-13
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029
Grizi, A., Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A., and Woods, R. (2016). “Ground
vibration measurements near impact pile driving.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001499, 04016035.
Hanson, C. E., Towers, D. A., Meister, L. D. (2006). “Transit noise and
vibration impact assessment.” FTA-VA-90-1003-06, Federal Transit
Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, Washington, DC.
Head, J. M., and Jardine, F. M. (1992). “Ground-borne vibrations arising from
piling.” Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
London.
Henke, S. (2010). “Influence of pile installation on adjacent structures.” Int.
J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 34(11), 1191–1210.
Hiller, D. M., and Hope, V. S. (1998). “Groundborne vibration generated by
mechanized construction activities.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng.,
131(4), 223–232.
Ho, C. E., and Tan, C. G. (2003). “Vibrations due to driving of large dis-
placement concrete piles in residual granitic soils.” Proc., 6th Int. Symp.
on Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Oslo, Norway, Swets &
Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse, Netherlands, 111–116.
Jones and Stokes Associates. (2004). “Transportation and construction-
induced vibration guidance manual.” Sacramento, CA.
Karlsson, A. B. (2013). “Add the accident commission to investigate con-
struction missions.” hhttp://www.dn.se/debatt/tillsatt-haverikommission
-for-att-utreda-byggmisstagi (Jan. 11, 2013).
Kennedy, B. A. (1990). Surface mining, 2nd Ed., Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, CO.
Liden, M. (2012). “Ground vibrations due to vibratory sheet pile driving.”
M.Sc. thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Liyanapathirana, D. S., and Ekanayake, S. D. (2016). “Application of EPS
geofoam in attenuating ground vibrations during vibratory pile driving.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 44(1), 59–69.
Lukas, R. G. (1995). “Geotechnical engineering circular no. 1: Dynamic
compaction.” FHWA-SA-95-037, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Lupiezowiec, M., Pradelok, S., Betkowski, P., and Poprawa, G. (2014).
“FEM model of vibration propagation in the soil caused by prefabricated
driven piles.” Proc., 14th SGEM GeoConference on Science and
Technologies in Geology, Exploration and Mining, Albena, Bulgaria,
2(1), 363–368.
Mabsout, M., and Tassoulas, J. L. (1994). “A finite element model for the
simulation of pile driving.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 37(2),
257–278.
Madheswaran, C. K., Natarajan, K., Sundaravadivelu, R., and Boominathan,
A. (2009). “Effect of open or concrete-infilled trenches on screening of
ground vibration during pile driving.” Exp. Tech., 33(2), 43–51.
Martin, D. J. (1980). “Ground vibrations from impact pile driving during
road construction.” Supplementary Rep. 544, Transport and Research
Road Laboratory, Crowthorne, U.K.
Masoumi, H. R., François, S., and Degrande, G. (2009). “A non-linear
coupled finite element-boundary element model for the prediction of
vibrations due to vibratory and impact pile driving.” Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Methods Geomech., 33(2), 245–274.
Massarsch, K. R., and Broms, B. B. (1991). “Damage criteria for small am-
plitude ground vibrations.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
Missouri Univ. of Science and Technology, St. Louis, 2, 1451–1459.
Massarsch, K. R., and Fellenius, B. H. (2015). “Engineering assessment of
ground vibrations caused by impact pile driving.” Geotech. Eng. J.
SEAGS AGSSEA, 46(2), 54–63.
New, B. M. (1986). “Ground vibrations caused by civil engineering works.”
Research Rep. No. 53, Transport and Research Road Laboratory,
Crowthorne, U.K.
Pourjenabi, M., and Hamidi, A. (2015). “Numerical modeling of dynamic
compaction process in dry sands considering critical distance from adja-
cent structures.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 56(1), 49–65.
Ramshaw, C. L. (2002). “Computation of ground waves from pile driv-
ing and their effects on structures.” Ph.D. thesis, Durham Univ.,
Durham, U.K.
Rezaei, M., Hamidi, A., and Farshi Homayoun Rooz, A. (2016).
“Investigation of peak particle velocity variations during impact pile
driving process.” Civ. Eng. Infrastruct. J., 49(1), 59–69.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 Rockhill, D. J., Bolton, M. D., and White, D. J. (2003). “Ground-borne
vibrations due to press-in piling operations.” Proc., BGA Int. Conf. on
Foundations: Innovations, Observations, Design and Practice, Thomas
Telford Limited, London, 743–756.
Schumann, B., and Grabe, J. (2011). “FE-based modelling of pile driving in
saturated soils.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics,
EURODYN 2011, European Association for Structural Dynamics
(EASD), K.U.Leuven, and Technological Institute of the Royal Flemish
Society of Engineers, Leuven, Belgium.
Serdaroglu, M. S. (2010). “Nonlinear analysis of pile driving and ground
vibrations in saturated cohesive soils using the finite element method.”
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
SIS (Swedish Institute for Standards). (1999). “Vibration and shock—
Guidance levels and measuring of vibrations in buildings originating
from piling, sheet piling, excavating and packing to estimate permitted
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Manitoba on 02/11/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
vibration levels (in Swedish).” SS 02 52 11, Stockholm, Sweden.
SNV (Swiss Association for Standardization). (1992). “Vibrations—
Vibration effects in buildings.” SN640312, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Svinkin, M. (2004). “Minimizing construction vibration effects.” Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2004)9:
2(108), 108–115.
Svinkin, M. (2006). “Mitigation of soil movements from pile driving.” Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2006)11:2(80),
80–85.
Svinkin, M. (2015). “Tolerable limits of construction vibrations.” Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000223,
04014028.
© ASCE 04017029-14
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2018, 23(1): 04017029
Sylvestre-Williams, N. (2011). “The city of Toronto construction
vibration by-law: An overview and discussion.” Proc., Noise-Con
11, Institute of Noise Control Engineering and Transportation
Research Board Committee, Portland, OR, INCE-USA, Reston,
VA, 119–124.
Thandavamoorthy, T. S. (2004). “Piling in fine and medium sand–A case
study of ground and pile vibration.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 24(4),
295–304.
Uromeihy, A. (1990). “Ground vibration measurements with special
reference to pile driving.” Ph.D. thesis, Durham Univ., Durham,
U.K.
Whenham, V., Areias, L., Rocher-Lacoste, F., Vie, D., Bourdouxhe, M. P.,
and Holeyman, A. (2009). “Full scale sheet pile vibro-driving tests.”
Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Alexandria, Egypt, IOS Press, 1354–1357.
White, D., Finlay, T., Bolton, M., and Bearss, G. (2002). “Press-in piling:
Ground vibration and noise during pile installation.” International Deep
Foundations Congress 2002, ASCE, Reston VA, 363–371.
Wiss, J. F. (1981). “Construction vibrations: State-of-the-art.” J. Geotech.
Eng. Div., 107(2), 167–181.
Woods, R. D. (1997). “Dynamic effects of pile installations on adja-
cent structures.” NCHRP Synthesis 253, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Zhang, M., Tao, M., Gautreau, G., and Zhang, Z. (2013). “Statistical
approach to determining ground vibration monitoring distance during
pile driving.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)SC
.1943-5576.0000156, 196–204.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.