PILE DRIVING VIBRATION ISOLATION USING

GEOFOAM
Dedicated to Tor Erik Frydenlund

Karthikeyan Radhakrishnan
CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, CA

Dawit Negussey
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

 Pile driving vibrations in the ground can disturb people or

other activities in the vicinity

Can cause damage to adjacent structures

Peak particle velocity (PPV) due to vibrations is considered as the
design parameter to control the threshold limits for disturbances and
damage

Other problems / effects of pile driving vibrations

Horizontal ground displacements
Change in shear wave velocities
Pore pressure increase
Reduction in shear strength of sensitive clay
Vibration induced settlements

 Scaled distance chart

Developed by Woods
& Jeedle (1985) from
gathered field pile
driving data
Correlates scaled
distance with ground
types and peak particle
velocity (Vibration
criteria)

Enables estimation of
peak particle velocities
at various distances if
energy of source and
soil type are known
Also shows damage
levels related to peak
particle velocities

Vibration attenuation with distance-field data [Adapted from: Woods & Jedele
(1985)]

 Shows the effectiveness of

open trench wave barriers as
contours of velocity amplitude
reduction ratios

Results obtained from

small scale model testing by
Woods (1968)
Considered to be the most
effective of all available
barriers (hollow concrete
panels, solid concrete,
corrugated pile shells, gas
cushions)
Practically, it is hard to
excavate and maintain deep
open trenches, may require
supports and result in loss of
skin friction resistance for
near by piles

Amplitude ratio contours for open trench barrier [Adapted from: Woods, R.D.(1968)]

One dimensional wave transmission through geofoam

Shows theoretically, potential
effectiveness of geofoam in intercepting
vibrations

This versatile function of geofoam is

brought about by its low density
Amplitude of wave transmitted through
a layered body is a function of
impedance ratio between the materials
in the layer

Impedance is the product of density

of a material and its wave propagation
velocity (I = v * )

Since the geofoam density is about

100 times less than that of soil, the
impedance ratio will be very small
when a wave crosses the boundary of
two materials

Smaller the impedance ratio, smaller

will be the amplitude of transmitted
wave.
It is very difficult to obtain a closed
form solution especially when wave
propagation and transmission in three
dimensions and through different
layers need to be considered

Concepts of wave propagation

Types of Waves
Body Waves (P & S waves)

Surface waves (Rayleigh & Love Waves)

Rayleigh waves transmit more than 2/3 of the energy through surface in pile driving
Rayleigh wave velocity (Vr) ~ Shear wave velocity (Vs)
Wave length = Wave propagation velocity / frequency

Vs
f

For pile driving,

Frequency range = 10 30 Hz with a dominant frequency of about 20 Hz.

Wave propagation velocity in top soil (up to about 5m) = 90130 m/s
For other soils that are soft to hard > 130 m/s so used ~ 110 m/s for analysis
Hence wave length ~ 5.5m and about 0.6 times the wave length = 3.5 m for
computer models

Source

Dominant Frequency, Hz

Pile driving

10 30

Dynamic compaction

6 20

Chisel drop

18 32

Pavement breaker

20 - 33

Vibratory roller

22 - 30

Vibroflotation

26 - 33

Heavy truck traffic

10 20

Normal traffic

15 25

Railroad traffic

20 40

Blasting

>40

Frequency ranges for various sources of vibrations (Dowding, C.H., 1996)

Type of soil

Top Soil (up to 5m)

Soft Soils
Profile with more than 10 ft (3 m)

Wave propagation
velocity, Vs, m/s

90 - 130
180

of soft clay defined as soil with

plasticity index PI > 20

Stiff Soils
Stiff soil with undrained shear

180 - 360

strength 1000 psf < Us < 2000 psf

(50 kPa < Us < 100 kPa)

Very Dense (Hard) Soils

360 - 760

Undrained shear strength Us >

2000 psf (Us > 100 kPa)

Rocks

750 - 1500

Shear wave velocities in different soils (International Building Code, 2000)

 Finite difference method

was used to model the
problem

Model (100m x 30m)

shows fine grids in the area
of interest (30m x 10m).
Axisymmetric model
left most edge is the axis of
symmetry (line of soil-pile
interaction).

Loading defined along

this edge to the depth of pile
driving (10m) as a velocity
harmonic wave
Shows geofoam wave
barrier 1m wide x 3.5m
deep (~0.6 of wave length)
Numbers in the model
indicates presumed sensor
locations to register PPV

Model and meshing of soil layer with geofoam barrier

Modeling
Parameters

Initial
analysis

Parametric studies

Size of the model

100m x 30m

100m x 30m

Depth of pile
driving

10m

10m

Depth of trench
barrier

10m

N/A

Depth of geofoam
barrier

10m

Varies for depth parametric studies, 3.5m

for all others

Distance from
source

1m

Varies for distance parametric studies, 1m

for others

Width of barrier

1m

Varies for width parametric studies from

0.5, 1, 2 and 5m, with 1m for others

Monitoring
distances

From 1m to
75m

From 1(not plotted),

2,3,4,5,10,15,20,25,30 plotted and 50,
75m not plotted.

Modeling Parameters

Material parameters
Soil:
Constitutive model
Type
Density
Bulk Modulus
Shear Modulus
Cohesion
Friction angle
Geofoam:
Constitutive model
Density
Bulk modulus
Elastic modulus
Elastic yield stress

Values
Mohr-Coulomb (FLAC in-built)
Uniform coarse sand
2250 kg/m3
58 MPa
27 MPa
0
34
Elastic Hyperbolic (FLAC add on)
20 kg/m3
5.3 MPa
8 MPa
0.1 MPa

 Compares peak particle

velocities at various
distances from source for
no barrier case, open trench
and geofoam barrier cases

Barriers are considered

to be placed close to the
source (1m from source)
and extend to depth of 10m
~ 2 * wave length
12.5 mm/s PPV level is
considered to be the
threshold level for damage
For no barrier conditions
at least 20m distance is
required to protect targets
from damage

When geofoam/ trench

barriers are used targets
can be placed at 3m or less
from the source
Attenuation of PPV with distance with and without wave barrier

 Compares the predicted

results (dashed lines) with
field data (solid lines)

Soil class III hard soils

like consolidated clays
Soil class II competent
soil like silty clays

Co

es
ars
Co

Compared to these soils,

attenuation line for coarse
sand falls below as would
be expected

e
ars
ith

Co
se
ar
nd
sa

rrie
ba

r
rrie
ba

am
ofo
ge

ch
ren
ht
wit

dw
san

d
an

Calculated attenuation results plotted over field data produced

by Woods & Jeedle (1985)

Geofoam and trench

barrier attenuation lines falls
successively below
At the same distance
levels of damaging PPV are
less when geofoam barrier
is used

Assumption for the plot is

that ratio of ppv of source to
target is the same as the
corresponding ratio of the
square root of the energy

PARAMETRIC STUDIES
Depth of the Barrier
Width of the Barrier
Distance of the Barrier from Source
Density of the Foam
Frequency of Vibration

Effect of depth of barrier on amplitude reduction

For depth of barrier ~ wave

length (3.5m), amplitude reduction is
approximately 40%, for ~1 wave
length (5m) ~ 55%, for ~2 * wave
length (10m) ~ 65% & for 4 * (20m)
~ 70%

Differences in amplitude reduction

become less significant from depths
greater than about 2 wave length

Optimum depths of barriers are on the

order of 1 to 1.5 * but at distances where
damaging ppv can occur, barriers of 0.5 to
0.6 * can be adequate

Effect of distance of wave barrier from source on vibration attenuation

Isolation at source placing the barrier close to source

Isolation at target placing the barrier close to target

From figure, barrier placed at 1m from source results in 25% amplitude reduction for target at
10m.
When barrier is placed at 6m, the amplitude reduction for the target position at 10m is 65%

This implies barrier placement near target is much better than placement near the source

Effect of width of geofoam barrier on amplitude reduction

Increase in amplitude
reduction is modest with
increases in width (for
increase in width from 1m
to 5m, difference in
amplitude reduction is only
about 15%)

No Barrier
1

Amplitude reduction ratio

0.9
0.8

0.7
0.6

At larger distances,
width has relatively minor
effect on amplitude
reduction

0.5
Barrier

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

10

100

Distance, m

0.5m wide

1m wide

2m wide

5m wide

Width of geofoam can be

standardized to 1m and
less. The main design
parameters for a specific
case would be the wave
velocity for the soil and
anticipated frequency
depending on the source.

Effect of geofoam density on amplitude reduction characteristics

Four types of geofoam

densities as in ASTM
D6817 are used for
parametric studies

No Barrier

Amplitude reduction ratio

1
0.9
0.8

Lower densities give

lower amplitude reduction
ratios

0.7
0.6

Barrier

Difference in amplitude
reduction ratios between
highest and lowest
densities are not large
(about 10 to 20%)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10

100

Distance, m

Density=12kg/m3
Density=20kg/m3

Density=15kg/m3
Density=29kg/m3

As long as lateral
pressures against the
barrier are within tolerable
limits for the barrier
material density, the
lowest density geofoam
can be used as barrier.

Sensitivity of amplitude reduction to vibration frequency

Difference in amplitude
reduction between 10 Hz
and 30 Hz is about 50%
As the frequency
increases, amplitude
reduction also increases

Geofoam barriers
seem to be more efficient
in attenuating high
frequency vibrations
Though pile driving
frequencies range
between 10 30 Hz,
vibration from other
sources such as traffic,
blasting, etc. involve high
frequency vibrations
So geofoam barriers
may be much more
effective for mitigating
those kinds of problems.

Scope for further studies

Mitigation of recurrent high frequency problems like traffic
Permanent barrier
Isolation for blast effects such as protection of an underground
tunnel or other important structures
Multiple use of same geofoam barrier in addition to vibration
isolation such as ground water cut-off walls

REFERENCES
1. Bozozuk et al.(1978), Soil disturbance from pile driving in sensitive clay,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 346-361.
2. Haupt, W.A.(1995), Wave propagation in the ground and isolation measures,
Proceedings: 3rd International conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol.2, St. Louis, Missouri pp. 9851016.
3. Heckman, W.S., Hagerty, D.J.(1978), Vibrations associated with pile driving,
Journal of the construction division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. CO4, pp.385-394.
4. Hunt, C.E., Pestana, J.M., Bray, J.D, Riemer, M. (2002), Effect of pile driving on
static and dynamic properties of soft clay, Journal of Geotechnical &
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Jan. 2002, pp.13-23.

5. Hwang, J.H., Liang, N., Chen, C.H. (2001), Ground response during pile driving,
Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Nov.2001,
pp939-949.
6. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2008), FLAC v6.0 Dynamic Analysis.
7. Kramer, S.L.(1996), Wave Propagation, Chapter-5, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.

8. Kuhlemeyer, R.L., Lysmer, J. (1973), Finite element accuracy of wave propagation

problems, Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol.
99(SM5), May 1973, pp. 421-427.

9. Lacy, H.S., Gould, J.P. (1985), Settlement from pile driving in sands, Vibration
Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by
the Geotechnical Engg. Division of ASCE at Detroit, Michigan, ASCE, New York,
pp.152-173.
10. Massarsch, K. R. (2005), Vibration Isolation using Gas filled cushions, Keynote
lecture, Geofrontiers 2005 International Conference, American Society of Civil
Engineers, January 24-26, 2005, Austin, Texas.

11. Negussey, D. (1997), Properties & Applications of geofoam, Society of the

Plastics Industry, Inc.
12. Pestana, J. M., Seed, R., Riemer, M., Meymand, P., and Lok, M.-H (2001).
Modeling of soil-pile-superstructure interaction, Geotechnical Engineering Rep.
No. UCB/GT/01-06, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
13. Richart, F.E., Hall, J.R., Woods, R.D. (1970), Vibrations of Soils and Foundations,
Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
14. Wiss, J.F. (1981), Construction vibrations: state of the art, Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, GT 2, Feb., pp. 167-181.

15. Woods, R.D.(1968), Screening of surface waves in soils, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation division, proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 94, No.4, July 1968,
pp. 951-979.

16. Woods, R.D., Jedele, L.P. (1985), Energy attenuation relationships from
construction vibrations, Vibration Problems in Geotechnical Engineering,
Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Geotechnical Engg. Division
of ASCE at Detroit, Michigan, ASCE, New York, pp. 229-246.
17. Woods, R. D. (1997), Dynamic effects of pile installations on adjacent
structures, NCHRP Synthesis 253, Transportation Research Board, National
Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Thank You