A presentation by

Gavin Gautreau, P.E. Louisiana Transportation Research Center (LTRC)

Sr. Geotechnical Research Engineer

DOTD LTRC

Mingjiang Tao, P.E., Ph.D. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)

Assistant Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering

Updating LADOTD Pile Vibration Monitoring Policy LTRC Project Number: 09-1GT

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?

LADOTD spends millions of dollars annually on pile foundations. Driven piles are common and efficient, but their installation can cause the surrounding ground to vibrate. Perceivable vibrations vs. Actual damaging vibrations? How far do these vibrations waves travel? Department risk vs. a costly over-conservative policy

Vibration Factors
Strongly dependent on: Dynamic sources Soil conditions Susceptibility of structures
There is no consensus on allowable or permissible PPV values to prevent vibration-induced damage to nearby buildings or structures.
http://www.georisk.se/web/page.aspx?pageid=29013

DOTD Existing Policy

Pre-Construction Survey Distance 500 distance from pile The magnitude of ground vibration is often quantified in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) Thresholds Historical Structures0.1 in./sec. Residential Structures0.25 in./sec. Engineering Structures1.0 in./sec.

Pre-Construction Survey - Purpose

Document condition of adjacent structures

Interior & Exterior Photos, Video, etc. Existing cracksand

areas without cracks

Lack of Maintenance, etc.

Baseline record for file

Possible Complaints Comparison

of Structure

New vs. Old (Photos, etc.) Before vs. After Construction

Research Need
Huey P. Long Bridge EXISTING BRIDGE - WIDENING Dense Area /Adjacent Structures

St Francisville Bridge NEW RURAL SITE

~ Same Scale
1000

Construction Survey Areas

Single Pile, ex.

LADOTD Policy of 500 HPL Policy expanded to 750 Led by public concerns No data to stand firm at 500 Increased construction survey & costs exponentially Could policy distance be reduced ?

500 Existing

750 HPL

Radius ft. 500 750

Area ft.2 785,000 1,766,250

State of Practice (Other DOT, etc.) Led to LTRC Research 09-1GT

09-1GT Research Objectives

Update current LA DOTD policy, and provide implementable recommendations for monitoring and control of ground and structure vibrations Identify best practices of managing pile driving risk from federal and state highway agencies through a literature review and survey. Apply the research findings to Louisianas local conditions.

09-1GT Research Sites

Huey P. Long (HPL) Bridge Widening

Huey P Long Bridge Widening DATA East vs West

EAST TP 1 & 2

WEST TP 3 & 4 YES YES NO

Site Plans Boring Logs Driving Records Pile Installation plan, etc. Vibration Data

YES YES YES

YES YES YES

NO YES NO

Locations Plot Peak PPV Detailed Log

 HPL, East Bank Plan: Test Piles 1 & 2

B10 TP-2

TP-1

 East Bank Boring Log #10: TP-1 & TP-2

 East Bank Driving Records: TP 1 & 2

160 H-pile, 2-splices

 East Bank - Vibration Monitoring Data

190
TP-2

185

340 250

280

TP-1

90

Typical Vibration Recorder

Instantel Records in 3 directions

HPL Test Pile 1

 Vibration Data West Bank TP-1

Peak Values by Hour

 Vibration Data East Bank TP-1

 East Bank TP-1 Conclusions

Comparison of Actual Driving vs Vibration shows close correlation At 90 monitor distance: End of Driving caused peak values above 0.10in/sec At 280 monitor distance: All values below 0.05in/sec At 340 monitor distance: Values above 0.10in/sec from traffic, not pile driving Splices (weld time) allowed pile setup and higher resistances

HPL Test Pile 2

 Vibration Data West Bank TP-2

Peak Values by Hour

HPL Vibration Sources

 Vibration Data East Bank TP-2

 East Bank TP-2 Conclusions

Comparison of Actual Driving vs Vibration shows close correlation At 185 monitor distance: End of Driving caused peak values above 0.10in/sec At 190 monitor distance:
End of Driving caused peak values above 0.10in/sec Train caused value above 0.10in/sec

At 250 monitor distance:

Train caused value above 0.10in/sec Peak from 4 to 5 pm above 0.10in/sec from traffic, not pile driving Pile driving values below 0.10in/sec

Determining threshold PPV value

Determining threshold PPV value 1. US Bureau of Mines

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity That Varies with Frequency RI 8507 APPENDIX B. -- ALTERNATE BLASTING LEVEL 0.5 in/s

Nevada Wisconsin Florida Etc.

PARTICLE VELOCITY, in/sec

10

CRITERIA

Connecticut

0.5 in/s Plaster 0.75 in/s Drywall OSM Modificaton

2 in/s

0.75 in/s 0.5 in/s

0.008 in

0.2 in/s

Current LA DOTD specifications

10 FREQUENCY, Hz 100

0.1 1

Determining threshold PPV value 2. The Germany Criteria

Similar to USBM Allow higher PPVs

Current LA DOTD specification

Determining threshold PPV value 3. The Swedish Standard

Determining threshold PPV value 3. The Swedish Standard - Continued

Residential house example: V= 9 x 1.00 x 0.75 x 0.60 = 4.05 mm/s (0.16 in/s) This value is less than 6 mm/s (0.24 in/s) used as a limit for human response in the German Standard DIN 4150 (1986). Industrial building example: V = 9 x 1.20 x 1.20 x 1.00 = 12.96 mm/s (0.51 in/s) This value is very small for industrial building built with reinforced concrete, steel, and pile foundations.

Method too conservative

Determining threshold PPV value 4. Woods 1996 Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) Independent of Frequency
Structure and Condition Historic and sensitive structures Residential structures New residential structures Industrial building Bridges Limiting Particle Velocity (in./sec) (mm/sec) 0.5 (12.7) 0.5 (12.7) 1.0 (25.4) 2.0 (50.8) 2.0 (50.8)

New DOTD Threshold PPV limits

Structure and Condition Historic and Sensitive Structures Residential Structures Industrial Structures Bridges Limiting Particle Velocity (in./sec) 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.0

o Simple and easy to be implemented. o Reasonably conservative: assumed a magnification factor of 4, structural vibration is 2 in./sec.

Determining Survey & Monitoring Ranges

How far away should we conduct our: Construction Site Surveys Vibration Monitoring

Woods and Jedeles Scaled Distance Chart

Peak Vertical Particle Velocity, in/sec

Woods and Jedeles Scaled Distance Formula

v = PPV D = Scaled Distance Wr = rated energy of hammer k = value of velocity at one unit of distance.

0.5

Revised scale-distance model by Svinkin

Example: Estimate the Monitoring Area Range

Scaled Distance(horizontal, Max Rated Energy)-PPV k=0.93, n=1

1. Upper limit PPV

Chart PPV vs. SD

10
Step 1

PPV(in./s)

1 0.5

Step 2

2. Determine threshold PPV value

0.1

3. SD corresponding to threshold PPV

0.01 0.1

Step 3

1 1.86 Scaled distance(ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

10

Example: Determine Vibration Monitoring Distance

1000
Monitoring Distance vs. Rated Energy

Monitoring Distance (ft)

Vibration Monitoring Distance Step 4

4. Vibration monitoring distance

100

Rated Energy of the Hammer Applied

10 1000

10000 100000 Rated Energy (ft-lbs)

1000000

Determine Vibration Monitoring Range

A statistical approach:
Back-calculation

approach (best-fit line)

Confidence level line: 95 % Confidence Interval if you collected ground vibration data many times, 95 times out of 100, the mean of the dataset would be in this range.

Prediction level line: 95 % Prediction Interval means

that about 95 % of the time, the next ground vibration measurement you make will be inside this interval.

10 LOUISIANA DATA Showing Various Scaled-Distance Relationships

Projects' Data Points Woods and Jedele for Soil class 3 Upper 95% Prediction level Back-calculated (Mark) Upper 95% Confidence level Best-fit line (Project data points)

PPV (in./s)

Upper 95% Prediction Level PPV = 0.391(SD)-0.260

0.1

Back-calculated (Svinkin) PPV = 0.300(SD)-1.0

Project Data Points Best-fit Line PPV = 0.08SD-0.679 R = 0.4042

0.01 0.1 1 10

Scaled Distance(ft/sqrt(lb-ft))

188 Louisiana Data Points

10 LOUISIANA DATA Showing Various Scaled-Distance Relationships

Projects' Data Points Woods and Jedele for Soil class 3 Upper 95% Prediction level Back-calculated (Mark) Upper 95% Confidence level Best-fit line (Project data points)

PPV (in./s)

0.5

PPV = 0.391(SD)-0.260

0.1

PPV = 0.300(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.08SD-0.679 R = 0.4042

0.01 0.1

0.39

0.60

10

Scaled Distance(ft/sqrt(lb-ft))

Step 4 ( , PPV=0.5 in./s, (Hammer energy transfer efficiency=50%)

Hammer Model Bruce SGH-3013 hydraulic hammer DELMAG D46-23, Diesel Hammer PILECO, D19-42, Diesel Hammer Boh/Vulcan 08 Boh/Vulcan 09 Boh/Vulcan 010 Conmaco 300E5,Air Hammer I.C.E 42-S, Single-Acting Diesel I.C.E 60S, Single-Acting Diesel I.C.E I-46v2, Single-Acting Diesel APE Model D30-42 Rated energy (W) (ft-lbs) 282,100 105,000 42,480 24,000 27,000 32,500 149,600 42,000 60,000 10,700 37,824 67,274 74,750 35,385 71,700 Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring distance (ft) distance (ft) distance (ft) distance (ft) 252.0 153.7 97.8 73.5 78.0 85.5 183.5 97.2 116.2 49.1 92.3 123.1 129.7 89.3 127.0 225 137 87 66 70 76 164 87 104 44 83 110 116 80 114 300 183 116 88 93 102 219 116 138 58 110 147 154 106 151 133 81 52 39 41 45 97 51 61 26 49 65 68 47 67

I.C.E I-30 Diesel Hammer

Determining Vibration Monitoring Distance

Use the chosen pile driving hammer to determine Vibration Monitoring Distance (based on 50% energy transfer efficiency of hammer) Current LA Too Conservative 500 DOTD 0.56W specification 0.47W 200 0.42W
Monitoring distance (ft)
100

0.25W
W (ft-lbs) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 D (ft) 178.7 150.0 134.2 79.1

99% Prediction level BackCalculation (k=0.4; n=1)

BackCalculation (k=0.3; n=1) Fl DOT specification

10 10,000

100,000

Rated energy of driving hammer (ft-lbf)

Vibration Monitoring Distance for LA DOTD

The current LA DOTD specification (500 ft) is too conservative for normal conditions. Use 200-ft unless the project-specific VMD indicates a larger distance is required. Should historic or sensitive structures be in the area utilize the 500 ft distance.

Construction Survey Areas

Single Pile, ex.
Radius ft. Area ft.2 % Area Reduction

General case 200 500 Historic & Sensitive 750 HPL

Too Much Historic & Sensitive General Case

750 500 200

1,766,250 785,000 84% 125,600 93%

Threshold PPV limit of 0.1 in/s Threshold PPV limit of 0.5 in/s

Monitoring distances may be less, should structures be with in areas. Structures too close may also dictate other mitigation measures.

Engineering Mitigation Measures

A risk management plan should address pile driving induced vibrations prior to any pile driving activity. Methods to reduce vibrations Pre-bore prior to pile installation Utilize other deep foundation types drilled shafts, auger cast piles non-displacement piles, etc. Selecting appropriate hammers to reduce energy

Recommendations

Threshold PPV limits are determined for LA DOTD.

Historic & Sensitive Structures Residential Structures Industrial Structures Bridges

0.1 in./sec. 0.5 in.sec. 2.0 in.sec. 2.0 in./sec.

Pre-construction survey and vibration monitoring distance methods developed.

The Preconstruction survey distance is recommended to be the same as the vibration monitoring distance.

General Sites: Threshold PPV of 0.5 in./sec 200 Historical or Sensitive Sites: 0.1 in/sec 500 Updated specifications are in the approval process.

POTENTIAL FISCAL IMPACTS?

Costs for preconstruction surveys should be significantly reduced, as the area required to be surveyed has been reduced by more than 80%. It is desirable that these cost savings exceed the potential legal ramifications associated with the smaller coverage area.

General Case 200 vs. 500 Previous policy, now only for For Historic & Sensitive Cases

Questions ?
Thanks! Gavin LTRC Project 09-1GT Report #483 http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/pdf/2012/fr_483.pdf