Real-time Measurement of the Impact of Pile

Driving Vibrations on Adjacent Property During

Construction
Hesham Ali, Ph.D., P.E.1, Juan Castellanos, P.E.2, Daniel Hart, P.E.3, Bensa Nukunya, Ph.D., E.I.4

Abstract
The purpose of this study, which occurred during the course of approximately 21 months, was to
evaluate whether construction related vibrations may have impacted existing structures proximate
to the areas of the construction of a large construction site in Palm Beach County, Florida. This
construction project is a Florida Department of Transportation project that has been performed in
concert with other local agencies. The main sources of construction related vibrations on this
project include different sizes of dynamic impact pile driving equipment and vibratory sheetpile
installation equipment. Vibrations were monitored at numerous locations and various distances
from different sources of vibrations. Relationships were established between distance from the
source, energy and vibrations levels. Regression analyses were performed on the data to arrive
at the attenuation rates for the surrounding soil. Tolerable vibration levels were determined
based on observation of the structures behavior under these vibrations, as well as allowable
levels observed by others. Influence distances were established beyond which no damage should
be expected from driving operations. The results of this study were to be utilized by the Florida
Department of Transportation to assess the legitimacy of individual damage claims that may be
made by local private property owners. The study found that, for this project, structures located
beyond 80 to 125 meters from the source of vibrations should not have experienced any damage.

Background
Vibrations produced during construction operations become a concern since they can disturb
people and induce some damage on adjacent structures. However, it has been documented that
vibrations levels which are perceptible to humans, or even moderately annoying, are typically well
below the threshold at which structures are damaged. Several researchers have found that
humans are much more sensitive to vibrations than structures.
According to Marr (2001), people can typically perceive vibrations above 0.25 mm/s (See Table
1). This is approximately one-hundredth the level at which structural damage might occur
according to Marrs research indicating potential for structural damage at vibrations at, or above,
25 mm/s. Researchers in this area have developed various wave propagation models that
describe vibrations extensively. However, it appears that the two most widely accepted formulas
for the calculation of how vibrations dissipate with respect to distance (attenuation rate) in soils
are as follows:
n - (r -r )

A2 = A1 (r1/r2) e
Where:

(1)

A1 = Vibration amplitude at a distance of r1 from the source.

A2 = Vibration amplitude at a distance of r2 from the source.
= Coefficient of attenuation.
n = Geometrical attenuation rate.

District Materials Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation

Assistant Geotechnical Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation
3
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Williams Earth Sciences
4
Geotechnical Engineer, Williams Earth Sciences
2

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

In this vibration dissipation (attenuation) model the value of n ranges between 0.5 and 2.0
depending upon wave types and where the waves are propagating relative to the ground surface.
The first term in the solution, A1 (r1/r2)n, is referred to as the radiation, or geometric, damping
factor, and the e- (r -r ) part of the equation is the material damping between the two points r1 and
r2. Woods and Jedele (1985) present a series of expected values for the coefficient of
attenuation, , based upon soil types and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values. However,
this model does present several unknowns and would be difficult to analyze, due to the number of
assumptions and estimations that would be incorporated into the solution for this study.
2

The other typically accepted model for vibration attenuations was presented by Wiss (1981), and
is as follows:
-n

and
where:

v = KD
log(v) = log(K) n log(D)

(2)
(2a)

v = Peak Particle Velocity (ppv).

K = Value of velocity at one unit distance.
D = Distance from the vibration source.
n = Attenuation rate, (also the slope when plotted on log-log scale).

It should be noted that in Wiss expression, the attenuation rate n includes both geometrical and
soil damping.
Wiss, 1981 also developed a chart for several types of equipment. Wiss also indicated that the
exponential n varies between 1.0 and 2.0 with a relatively common value 1.5. A value close to
one is thus conservative as it results in lower attenuation rates. A lower attenuation rate indicates
that vibrations would propagate more readily. In this study similar curves, following Wiss model,
were determined.
When a pile is being driven, the hammer produces vibrations and noise with each blow delivered
to the pile. The resulting vibrations are caused by waves of energy traveling through the ground
away from the pile. The oscillating ground can induce stresses that can damage structures. The
wave energy is measured by recording the particle velocity.

Study Objectives
Claims from property owners came from residents whose houses were as close as 5 meters from
the sources of vibrations and others were as far as 700 meters, or more in some isolated cases.
Vibration analyses were performed in an effort to ascertain the attenuation rate of the vibrations
for this particular project location and soil types. It would have been a monumental undertaking
to complete vibration monitoring at each of the structures during each construction activity, too
many to consider, within the range of the reported complaints.
The objectives of this study were the following:
1. To develop and model propagation/dissipation rates of construction induced vibrations. The
main sources of construction related vibrations on this project include different sizes of dynamic
impact pile driving equipment and vibratory sheetpile installation equipment.
2. To evaluate if construction related vibrations may have influenced existing structures proximate
to the areas of construction.
3. To establish a criteria for filtering invalid claims of damages by property owners.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Scope
To achieve the above objectives, vibration levels were measured from several potential sources
within the area of the construction project. As referenced, these sources included dynamic
impact pile driving equipment, vibratory sheetpile installation equipment, and extended to include
other potential sources including vibratory rollers, automobile and heavy equipment traffic, and
trains. The vibration levels were recorded, along with distance from source, and the source that
was being monitored. The data that were collected during the 21 month period was analyzed and
tabulated so that an evaluation of the data set could be conducted.
Subsurface Conditions
From the geological point of view, the project site is located in a flat area underlain mainly by
quartz sands that were deposited by several fluctuations of the sea level that occurred during the
Pleoistocene epoch. The majority of this sand is clean and unconsolidated but it may be partially
cemented and may contain shell.
Geotechnically speaking, based on numerous soil borings (up to 30.0 m deep) drilled in the
project, the soils of the area consist typically of clean loose to medium dense sands, mostly finegrained sized, in the upper 10.0 to15.0 m. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) blow counts are
typically less than 15. Below a depth of 10.0 to 15.0 m, medium dense to very dense, mostly
medium to fine-grained, clean sands, cemented sands and sands with shell are typically
encountered. Relative densities of these deeper sands are significantly greater, with SPT blow
counts ranging typically between 15 and greater than 100. The water table was typically
encountered between 2.0 to 2.5 m below surface.
Evaluation of Settlement Potential
Because vibrations can induce densification (and structure settlement) in certain soils types,
particularly in the sandy soils that were present at this project location, settlement investigations
were performed. There were two separate investigations conducted to determine if cracking or
damage to structures was not actually a result of the buildings vibrating, but rather the results of
the vibrations inducing some localized differential settlement of the foundations.
The first settlement analysis program was conducted by simply surveying elevations of some of
the structures at specific reference points before, at regular intervals during, and again after
construction. This settlement analysis indicated that there were not any settlements that could be
correlated to structures that experienced vibration levels that were below 10 mm/s, ppv.
However, settlement readings and vibration readings at corresponding structures and times were
limited to only the few structures that were immediately adjacent to the project. Although,
settlement at one particular location did apparently occur, this structure was approximately 5
meters from the project and vibrations were monitored at this location and occasionally exceeded
75 mm/s (damage was noted at this location). Therefore, it was desired to determine at what
level of vibration will the concern with settlement be elevated.
For this purpose, another separate study was conducted on an abandoned house that was
scheduled for demolition as part of this project. A source of vibrations that has the ability to
increase loading, and therefore induced vibrations, with subsequent cycles, was desired. This
would allow for the evaluation to start at relatively low vibration levels then slowly increase the
vibration levels, to determine at what level of vibrations settlement of this structure may begin to
occur. It was decided to utilize a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) equipment (used to
evaluate existing pavements behavior) for this separate study.
The FWD equipment was used to induce repeated and consistent vibrations near the foundation
of the structure. Three monitors were set up near the foundation to measure vibrations and two
survey levels were set-up approximately 25 and 35 meters from the FWD. These levels were set-

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

up with the intention of being outside the radius of influence of the FWD. The levels monitored
three specific references that were attached to the bearing wall on the foundation and as a
reference, there was a verification ruler attached to a fence post approximately 120 meters away.
The test was completed over the course of two days. On the first day, vibrations were induced for
approximated 1.5 hours, with a relatively consistent ppv measurement of 5.3 to 5.5 at the closest
monitoring location. On the second day, vibrations started at 7.0 mm/sec and were maintained
for most of the day above 10 mm/sec. Vibrations levels were typically maintained for about 30
minutes, and if there were not any settlements noted, the induced vibration amplitudes were
increased. By days end, the FWD was located approximately 1.5 meters from the structure and 2
meters from the nearest vibration monitoring location. At this distance, and dropping the
maximum weight possible from the maximum height possible, the FWD was inducing vibration
levels consistently in excess of 22 mm/s. However, there were no measurable settlements, even
with consistent vibrations levels above 20 mm/s.
The result of this experiment, which occurred over the course of numerous hours of virtually
continuous vibrations, indicated that this structure did not experience any settlement. It should be
noted that this structure was typical of some of the houses in the areas proximate to the
construction site and was schedule for demolition because of location, not because of age or
condition.
With the concerns of vibration induced settlement reduced, the evaluation focused on two main
objectives regarding potential damage as a result of the propagation of vibrations through the
ground as a result of construction activities. These two main objectives of this study were to first
determine the minimum threshold vibration level below which potential damage to any of the
existing structures would be minimized, or eliminated, and the second was to determine at what
distance this minimum threshold would not have been exceeded as a result of the activities on
the construction site. The following paragraphs detail the approach taken to resolve these
objectives.
Determination of A Vibration Level Threshold

The determination of the threshold, the vibration level below which the risk of potential damage is
believed to be excessively low, was carefully evaluated. Several agencies and investigators have
provided threshold vibration values, below which no structural distress, or increase of existing
distress, should occur. This project did also consider that there are indeed residents living within
these structures, and although there would not likely be any structural damage to the houses
even at vibration levels two to three times higher than the threshold level that was determined for
this project, consideration was given to human perception levels, levels of discomfort, and the
potential for non-structural damage (i.e. cracking paint or dry wall). Because it not uncommon for
people to complain of severe vibrations and impending damage when in reality the vibration
levels are well below the threshold that could be withstood by the structure, many sources outside
of this study were reviewed.
Table 1 illustrates the findings of several researchers with regards to human perception of
vibrations and the potential for damage to structures.
Table 1 illustrates that several researchers have determined that vibrations are troublesome to
people before they are typically troublesome to structures. However, the question remains as to
what vibration levels may affect structures surrounding a project area. There are numerous other
sources which may be utilized when attempting to determine this threshold vibration level. Table
2 provides a brief summary of several additional sources:

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

The lowest threshold vibration levels recommended for non-critical or non-historical structures
that was located in the reference materials is 5 mm/s. Therefore, using this conservative
approach, it was determined that vibration levels which do not exceed 5 mm/s should not induce
damage to the structures surrounding the project area. It was believed to be unlikely, due to the
age, construction type, and condition of most of these houses, that vibration levels less than 10 to
12 mm/s would cause damage. These structures, although several are somewhat older by our
standards, would not typically be considered old (and certainly not historical) by German or
Swiss standards.
Determination of Maximum Distance of Influence
Vibration levels were recorded during construction activities at the project location between the
months of June of 2000 and February of 2002. Analyses were performed to ascertain at what
distance the threshold of vibration will not likely be exceeded. This distance would then be
considered as radius of influence beyond which no damage should be reasonably expected. The
analyses represented in this paper focuses on the three most significant vibration sources; pile
driving hammers (two sizes) and the vibratory installation of sheetpile walls.
The vibration monitors used in the data collection process typically record only the maximum
vibration reading during a specified time interval (usually one minute, or less) and they scan for
vibrations as frequently as 1000 times per second. The Analysis presented herein presents
graphical summaries of approximately 650 peak vibration levels which were recorded during each
individual activity in the construction of this project.
The first step towards determining a zone of influence as it relates to the construction activities is
to determine an attenuation rate for the vibrations induced at this project site. The attenuation
rate is the rate at which the induced vibrations dissipate with distance. Vibrations were typically
recorded, during the first portion of the project, only at the structures closest to the construction
activity of interest. Additional data was collected over a three month period (December, 2001 to
February, 2002) with the specific intent of measuring the attenuation rates.
It may be important to note that this study utilized the vector method of peak particle velocity
measurement, typically considered more accurate than the maximum uni-directional method. By
incorporating all three components of movement into the equation, there is much less
dependency on the equipment set-up and the wave source type and origination. This is important
in this case, as pile driving and sheetpile installation induce both surficial (Rayleigh) waves and
subterranean, or shear and compression body waves. However, this approach can be overly
conservative. The reason that this approach is considered by some to be overly conservative is
that for the resultant vector to actually occur in the magnitude calculated using the above method,
all three directional readings must be maximum at the exact same instant during the specified
time interval. Because the vibrations can be modeled as sinusoidal waves, it would be expected
that there is likely some phase shifting between the waves as they propagate to the monitoring
location.
Earlier in this report it was mentioned that the recording devices scan for vibrations as frequently
as 1000 times per second, they then report the maximum of each of the directional components
measured in each specific time interval (typically one minute). Therefore, the vector will
represent a conservative approach in every case unless it happens that the three directional
components were all maximum at the exact same instant (1/60,000th of minute) in time. With this
understanding, the vector was utilized in the analysis presented herein.
For the purpose of this study all of the peak particle velocity measurements, for each specific
construction activity were plotted on log-log scale versus the distance from the three main
sources of vibrations for this project. On these plots, the attenuation lines were established
according to the trend of the data, basically to correspond to the rate that the measured vibrations
dissipated with distance. Then a parallel line was offset to develop an envelope to include

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

essentially every peak particle velocity that was recorded for this project. The figures (Figs. 1, 2,
and 3) illustrate the data collected and the attenuation lines. The equation of the offset
attenuation line was then be used to determine at what distance the vibration levels would not
have exceeded 5 mm/s (see previous section for commentary with regards to the 5 mm/s).
These figures also display the measured average attenuation line, as well as the equation for the
attenuation lines. Along with the equation for the attenuation line, the R-squared value is
presented. The Delmag pile driving hammers have fewer measured data points and good
correlation coefficients, R, of approximately 0.91 and 0.95, respectively, for the D30 and the D46
pile driving hammers. However, the R value for the sheetpile driving hammers is slightly lower
than desired (approximately 0.76). This is likely a result of the represented data including more
than one size of vibratory hammer and the fact that the vibratory hammers for this project were
used at a significantly wider range of energy input levels than were the pile driving hammers, and
it was not uncommon that the contractor would pair up (to drive two sheets at one time along
the alignment of the wall) the sheetpiles at a distance much closer to the monitor locations than
was measured to the actual wall locations, resulting in a higher degree of scatter
The attenuation lines illustrated in these figures are presented in the form of the Wiss (1981)
attenuation equation (equation 2):
v = KD-n
Wiss (1981) also indicates that the attenuation rate typically ranges between 1 and 2, and that a
relatively common value of 1.5 can usually be used. However, the previous figures illustrate that
attenuation rates for this project site vary between approximately 0.88 and 1.02. Lower
attenuation rates yield larger zone of influences, thus these measured attenuation rates appear to
be conservative, as would be expected for this site and the chosen approach. The published
attenuation rates of other researchers are provided in Table 3.
Wiss (1981) also indicated that attenuation rates are somewhat site specific and should be
measured for each individual project site. It could also be assessed that the very slight variation
in the measured attenuation rates are results of slight variations in soils, or more than likely
elevations, across the project site. The slight variation in elevations supposedly results in varying
depths to groundwater. It is known that moist soils tend to dissipate vibrations at a quicker rate
than do dry soils. Also, this report noted only minor variations in subsurface soil conditions,
especially above the groundwater table.
The subsurface soils in the study area, consisted of relatively clean sands, with little silt or clay
sized particles present. Therefore, it was expected that these soils would transmit vibrations,
particularly above the water table, more readily than most of the soil types listed in Table 3
Although, the attenuation rates measured for this site, when compared to those in Table 3,
appear to be conservative for the sandy soils encountered, they do not appear to be completely
unreasonable.
The following charts (Figures 1, 2, and 3) illustrate the peak particle velocities measured for the
three respective sources. The data has been incorporated into these charts to illustrate overall
trends with regards to the relative attenuation rates. Each of these figures also illustrates the
Offset Attenuation Line, which has been shifted in a parallel fashion to encompass virtually
every data point measured. These lines have been offset such that regardless of input energy,
as it relates to this site and these particular pieces of equipment, all vibrations, as a result of the
construction activities on this site, should be included within the envelopes established by these
Offset Attenuation Lines.
Figure 1 illustrates a total of approximately 250 data points that were collected and referenced the
Delmag D30 pile driving system as the source of the vibrations. There is only one data point that
falls outside the established envelope. It is suspected to be due to excavation, earthwork, or

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

other non-construction related activities in the proximity of the location on that particular day that
actually induced the excessive vibration recorded. Therefore, it was considered that this data
point should not be included in the construction of the envelope.
The compiled data chart for the Delmag D46 pile driving system (Figure 2) illustrates a total of
approximately 200 data points, again with one point falling outside the envelope created by the
Offset Attenuation Line. This data point was considered to be in error in the distance
measurement and was not included in the construction of the envelope. If this point were actually
reported at a distance of 25 meters, or less, it would also fall inside the Offset Attenuation Line.
Figure 3 illustrates the Measured Attenuation Line, the Offset Attenuation Line, and
approximately 140 compiled data points established for sheetpile installation at the project site.
All of the 140 individual data points fall within the envelope created by the Offset Attenuation
Line established for the sheetpile installation on this project site. It is worth noting, that while the
2
sheetpile data series illustrated the lowest correlation coefficient, R , it is also accompanied by
the greatest increase in offset to accommodate all of the data points.
Model Verification
FDOT adopted the models described above and sent letters to property owners who submitted
damage claims advising them of the established radii of influence. To date, and six months after
those letter were sent, the authors are not aware of any residents who challenged the
Departments decision.
The Attenuation Lines while based upon relatively small data sets when compared to the whole,
appear to be relatively consistent and conservative, as would be expected for this site. There
were numerous actual simultaneous attenuation measurements, recorded during the time period
between December, 2001 and February, 2002. Each of these attenuations was based upon nonimpact (i.e. pile driving) activities, mostly sheetpiles. For the sheetpile, three individual vibration
monitors were set up at varying distances, typically 10, 50, and 100 meters, from the sheetpile
installation and/or removal and took simultaneous ppv measurements. Attenuation rates based
upon these individual and isolated tests were typically between 0.8 and 1.2, which compares
favorably to the attenuation rates found in the rest of the study.
Summary and Conclusions
This study was aimed at studying the rate of dissipation of pile-driving vibrations to determine a
radius of influence around vibration sources, beyond which damage to existing structures should
not occur. The study also addressed the potential for settlement due to vibration
Based upon the conservative approach, the attenuation data provided, and the conservative
maximum allowable vibration level of 5 mm/s, the following are the recommended radii of
influence that should be considered for construction related activities under the existing soil
conditions:

The Delmag D30 pile driving system yielded an Offset Attenuation Line with an equation of
v = 235D-0.8784. This yields a distance, D, approximately equal to 80 meters, corresponding to
a peak particle velocity of 5 mm/s.
The Delmag D46 pile driving system yielded an Offset Attenuation Line with an equation of
v = 535D-1.0174. This yields a distance, D, approximately equal to 100 meters, corresponding
to a peak particle velocity of 5 mm/s.
The sheetpile vibratory hammers yielded an Offset Attenuation Line with an equation of v =
550D-0.9726. This yields a distance, D, approximately equal to 125 meters, corresponding to a
peak particle velocity of 5 mm/s.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

Field observations and subsequent data collection and analysis confirmed that the above models
are reasonably accurate, conservative and consistent with FDOTs approach to give the residents
the benefit of the doubt.
It is recommended that, on future projects, the determination of attenuation rates be considered
prior to the start and regularly monitored during projects where construction related vibrations
might be a concern.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

REFERENCES
Amick, H. and Gendreau, M. Construction Vibrations and Their Impact on Vibration-Sensitive
Facilities, Presented at the ASCE Construction Congress 6, Orlando, Florida, February 22,
2000.
Amick, H. and Ungar, E. Evaluation of Ground and Structural Vibrations from Pile Driving, BBN
Report No. 6427, January 1987.
Attewell, P. and Farmer, I. Attenuation of Ground Vibrations from Pile Driving, Ground
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 7, July 1973, pp 26-29.
Brenner , R. and Chittikuladiok, B. Vibrations from Pile Driving in the Bangkok Area, Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 5, 1975, pp 167-197.
Chae, Y. Design of Excavation Blasts to Prevent Damage, Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 48, No.
4, 1978, pp 77-79.
Edwards, A.T., and Northwood, T.D. Experimental Studies of the Effects of Blasting on Structures,
The Engineer, Vol. 210, Sept. 1960, pp. 538-546.
Langefors, U., et. al. Ground Vibrations in Blasting, Water Power, Feb., 1958.
Marr, W. Allen, Dealing with the Vibrations and Noise of Pile Driving PILEDRIVERS.ORG, The
Official Publication of the Pile Driving Contractors Association, Winter 2001, Volume 2, No. 1,
pp. 17-20.
Martin, D. Ground Vibrations from Impact Pile Driving During Road Construction, TRRL
Supplementary Report 554, Transportation and Road Research Laboratory, 1980.
Nicholls, H.R., et al. Blasting Vibrations and Their Effects on Structures, BuMines Bulletin 656,
1971.
Siskind, D., et. al. Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibrations from Surface
Blasting, Report of Investigations 8507, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. (1980)
Wiss, J.F. and Parmelee, R.A. Human Perception of Transient Vibrations, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. st4, Proc. Paper 10495, Apr., 1974, pp. 773-787.
Wiss, J. F., Construction Vibrations: State-of-the art, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 107, No. GT2, February,
1981, pp 167-181.
Woods, R.D. Dynamic Effects of Pile Installation on Adjacent Structures Synthesis of Highway
Practice 253, TRB, NRC, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1997.
Woods, R. and Jedele, L. Energy-Attenuation Relationships from Construction Vibrations,
Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
Detroit, Michigan, October 1985, pp 229-246.

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Paper revised from original submittal.

TABLES

Table 1 Vibration Levels vs. Perception/Damage Levels

ppv
(mm/s)
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25

Marr
Destroy walls

Reference Source
Edwards
Nicholls, et. al
Major damage
Damage

Langefors
Serious
cracking
Cracking

Fine cracks
Crack walls
Troublesome to
people

Minor damage

Caution
No noticeable
damage

Use caution

Caution

Safe limit

Safe

10
2.5
0.25
0

Perceptible to
people
Imperceptible

Table 2 Sources of Vibration Thresholds

Agency/investigator
Maximum PPV (mm/s)
FDOT (1999 Specification)
Office of Surface Mining
(OSM)
Office of German Standards
(DIN)

15
5 50
5 20
3 10

Chae

50
25
12.5

Swiss Standard

5 12.5
3

Siskind

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Wiss
Severe to people

12.5

10

Strongly
perceptible
Distinctly
perceptible
Barely
perceptible
Imperceptible

Comment

All Structures
Depending on predominant
frequency of imparted waves
Residential
Sensitive/old, Historic
Structures
Residential, New Construction
Residential, Poor Construction
Residential, Very Poor
Condition
Typical Buildings and
Residences
Sensitive construction and
objects of historical value
Less than 1% chance that
damage will occur

Paper revised from original submittal.

Table 3 Published Attenuation Rates for Various Soil Types.

Researcher
Soil Type
Attenuation Rate
Amick and Unger
Attewell and Farmer
Brenner and Chittikuladiok
Martin
Nicholls, Johnson, and Duvall
Wiss
Woods and Jedele

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

Clay
Various soils, generally firm
Surface sands
Sand fill, over soft clays
Clay
Silt
Firm soils and rock
Sands
Clays
Dense compacted sands (15<N<50)
Most sands (5<N<15)

11

1.5
1.0
1.5
0.8 1.0
1.4
0.8
1.4 1.7
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.5

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figures
Figure 1
Figure 1
Pile Driving Vibrations
Rated Hammer Energy 70,000 Ft-Lbs
1000.0

OFFSET ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 235x-0.8784

PPV (mm/s)

100.0

10.0

MEASURED ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 123.47x-0.8784

1.0

0.1
1

10

100

1000

Distance (m)

Figure 2
Figure 2
Pile Driving Vibrations
Rated Hammer Energy 107,000 Ft-Lbs
1000.0

OFFSET ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 535x-1.0174

PPV (mm/s)

100.0

10.0

1.0

MEASURED ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 146.09x-1.0174
0.1
1

10

100

1000

Distance (m)

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

12

Paper revised from original submittal.

Figure 3
Figure 3
Sheet Pile Peak Vibrations
Vibratory Hammers
1000.0

OFFSET ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 550x-0.9726

PPV (mm/s)

100.0

10.0

1.0

MEASURED ATTENUATION LINE

Y = 139.34x-0.9726
0.1
1

10

100

1000

Distance (m)

TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM

13

Paper revised from original submittal.