Press-in piling: Ground vibration and noise during pile installation

David White*, Tim Finlay**, Malcolm Bolton*** and Grant Bearss****

* Research Fellow, Cambridge University Engineering Department, Trumpington Street,

Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK. e-mail: [email protected]
** MEng student, Address as above, e-mail: [email protected]
*** Professor of Soil Mechanics, Address as above, e-mail: [email protected]
**** Vice-President of Operations, Giken America Corporation, 5802 Hoffner Avenue,
#707, Orlando, Florida 32822, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Conventional dynamic piling methods are ill-suited to the urban environment. The press-
in method offers an alternative technique of pile installation, which allows pre-formed
piles to be installed with minimal noise and vibration.
Field measurements of noise and ground vibrations during press-in piling are
presented and compared to existing recommended limits. Based on this initial database,
tentative prediction curves are presented. Equipped with these tools, designers can assess
the relative environmental impact of each installation method when planning piling
works.

Introduction

Pile driving is an activity that is ill-suited to the urban environment. The noise and
ground vibrations created during the installation of pre-formed piles by dynamic methods
can lead to human disturbance and structural damage. Stringent regulations now virtually
preclude the installation of steel tubular piles by dynamic methods in urban Europe, and
bored cast-in-place piles have become the most common design solution.
Steel tubular piles offer a number of advantages over bored piles, particularly
relating to issues of sustainability (Table 1). The embodied energy of a pile is the sum of
the energy required to extract the raw materials, carry out any manufacturing or
construction processes, and transport the material between and within these processes. A
steel pile contains less embodied energy than a concrete pile of similar capacity.
This advantage can be extended if the pile is extracted and re-used. Chapman et
al. (2001) report that many sites in the City of London already contain multiple sets of
old deteriorating bored piles, with little remaining space for future new foundations. Re-
use of the pre-existing layout of bored piles is inconvenient, extraction is virtually
impossible, and the construction of fresh piles is unsustainable.
Historically, the noise and vibration pollution created by conventional pile
driving methods has prevented the advantages of steel piles being realised. However, a
novel technique for installing large tubular steel piles without noise and vibration has
recently been developed. The technique of press-in piling makes use of hydraulic rams to
provide the force necessary to jack pre-formed piles into the ground. The hydraulic rams
form part of a robotic machine that uses previously installed piles to provide a reaction

Proceedings of the International Deep Foundations Congress. Orlando, USA. ASCE Special Publication 116 pp363-371
force (Figure 1). This technique of pile installation and extraction is known as the ‘press-
in method’.
Although originally designed to install sheet piles, a range of machines have been
developed to install steel tubular piles up to 1500 mm in diameter with a maximum force
of 400 tonnes (4 MN). Since a continuous measurement of jacking force is provided
during press-in installation, the bearing capacity of the pile can be verified. The press-in
method is relatively unknown in Europe and the US, but dominates the Japanese sheet
pile installation market.
This paper presents the results of field monitoring from two job sites at which the
press-in method was used. Measurements of noise and ground vibration are presented
and compared with other pile installation techniques and current European recommended
limits.

Table 1: Comparison of pile types

Pile type Stiffness Embodied Re-cycle / Suited to urban construction?
energy extract ?
Steel tubular High Low Yes No: noise and vibration created
piles by dynamic piling
Bored cast-in- Low High No Yes: less noise and minimal
place piles vibration

Figure 1. A row of 914 mm diameter tubular piles being

installed by a press-in piler (New York, USA).

2
Piling-induced noise pollution

Noise pollution created during construction operations can present a health hazard to site
operatives and cause annoyance to neighbours. Noise levels are expressed in decibels,
and are derived from the fluctuating air pressure (Equation 1).

Air pressure, p (µPa) = 20 x 10(dB / 20) (1)

If a standard pressure transducer is used to record noise, frequencies outside the

range audible to humans will be recorded. Noise meters are usually ‘A-weighted’ to give
measurements which are relevant to the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise levels
decrease with the logarithm of radius, r, from their source. The noise level of a source,
Lsource, can be attenuated using Equation 2 to deduce the attenuated noise level which
neighbours will experience (Lequivalent).

Lequivalent = Lsource – 20 log (r) - 8 (Selby, 1997) (2)

In the UK, British Standard BS5228 (1992) provides guidance on acceptable

noise levels during construction. In urban areas, Lequivalent should not exceed 75 dB at the
outside of a noise sensitive building (i.e. a residential or office building), with a lower
limit of 70 dB applying in rural areas.
Table 2 compares some environmental noise levels with the source noise levels
(Lsource) of typical piling equipment. Note that the logarithmic scale obscures the true
variation in loudness. The human ear perceives a 10 dB increase in noise level as a
doubling in loudness.

Table 2: Typical ambient and piling-induced noise levels

Environment (Selby, 1997) Noise level (dB)
Inside a metro train 90-100
Inside a city bus 80-90
Street corner traffic 70-80
Conversational speech 60-70
Business office 50-60
Suburban living room 40-50
Library 30-40

Piling machinery (from BS5228) Noise source level, Lsource (dB)

Double acting diesel hammer (37 kJ) 135
Double acting air hammer (5.6 kJ) 134
Enclosed drop hammer (3 t) 98
Hydraulic drop hammer (60 kJ) 121

Press-in piler: Giken Seisakusho ‘Silent Piler’ Observed noise (dB)

Power pack (loudest component) 75 @ r = 1m (Selby, 1997)

3
 140
BS5228 predicted noise levels:
Double acting diesel (37 kJ) or air (5.6 kJ) hammer
120 Hydraulic drop hammer (60 kJ)
Enclosed drop hammer (3 t) }Inside a metro train
100
}Inside a city bus
}Street corner traffic
80
} Conversation
}Business office
60
} Living room
} Library
BS5228
40 noise limits:
Urban areas
Rural areas Giken Seisakusho ‘Silent Piler’
20
1 10 100 1000
Distance from piling operation (m)

Figure 2. Variation of noise level with distance from various types of piling operation.

By combining Equation 2 with the data in Table 2 and the BS5228 acceptable
limits, the minimum separation of piling works from a sensitive building can be
estimated (see Figure 2). It should be noted that the layout of the site and neighbouring
buildings will have an influence on the actual noise levels. Furthermore, the duration of
piling during a typical working day, and the pre-existing ambient noise levels will
influence whether the noise level is acceptable.
In order not to exceed the BS5228 noise limits, Figure 2 shows that diesel and air
hammers should not be operated closer than 100m from a sensitive building. In contrast a
press-in piler does not exceed the rural noise limit (70 dB) at a distance of 2m. The
noisiest part of the press-in rig is the power pack, which can be located away from the
line of piling and shielded to further reduce noise if necessary.

Piling-induced ground vibrations

Piling-induced ground vibrations can lead to human disturbance and structural damage.
Ground vibrations are usually quantified by the peak velocity of particles in the ground
as they are disturbed by the passing wave (peak particle velocity- ppv). Instantaneous
particle velocity consists of three orthogonal components which are usually measured
independently using a tri-axial geophone.
The most commonly used definition of peak particle velocity is the simulated
resultant ppv; this is the vector sum of the maximum of each component regardless of
whether these component maxima occurred simultaneously (Hiller & Hope, 1998). The
vibrations induced by dynamic piling methods typically influence a zone stretching 10-
50m from the operation, and can be easily measured using geophones.
The draft Eurocode 3 provides guidelines for acceptable human exposure to
ground vibrations depending on the length of the construction period (Figure 3).
Structural damage thresholds are also provided. These range from a maximum ppv of 2
mm/s for buildings of architectural merit, to 15 mm/s for industrial buildings (figure 4).

4
 100

Unacceptable:
Construction period < 6days
Construction period 6-26 days
10 Construction period > 26 days

1
Acceptable if warning is given:
Construction period < 6days
Construction period 6-26 days
Construction period > 26 days
Laboratories, hospitals and libraries

0.1
1 10 100
Distance (m)

Figure 3. Eurocode 3: Maximum acceptable vibrations to prevent human disturbance.

100

Buried services
Heavy industrial
Light commercial
10
Residential

Architectural merit

0.1
1 10 100
Distance (m)

Figure 4. Eurocode 3: Maximum acceptable vibrations to avoid structural damage.

A database of previously published measurements of ground vibrations during

dynamic piling has been assembled (Head & Jardine, 1992). These measurements are
plotted in Figure 5 on the same axes as used in Figures 3 and 4. By overlaying these
figures, the distance from the piling operation at which ground vibrations fall below the
Eurocode thresholds can be found. The ground vibrations reduce in an approximately
linear fashion with log radius. A number of empirical methods for predicting ground
vibrations follow this trend, the most popular being that proposed by Attewell & Farmer
(1973), and subsequently adopted by BS5228 and Eurocode 3 (Equation 3).

5
 100

10

Impact hammer
Vibrator

0.1
1 10 100
Distance from piling operation (m)

Figure 5. Measured ground vibrations during dynamic piling

(data from Head & Jardine, 1992).

100
Impact hammer range from
soft (C=0.5) to hard soil (C=1.0)
25 kJ/blow

10 5 kJ/blow

ppv (mm/s) = C /W / r
Attewell & Farmer (1973)
1 C : Empirical parameter related
to soil type and hammer Vibrator
2 kJ/cycle
W: Hammer energy per blow
10 kJ/cycle
or cycle (J/blow, J/cycle) 50 kJ/cycle
r: Distance from piling operation (m)
0.1
1 10 100
Distance from piling operation (m)

Figure 6. Predicted ground vibrations during dynamic piling (after Eurocode 3).

The empirical parameter C relates to soil and hammer type. Eurocode 3

recommends a value of 0.7 for vibratory piling, and values ranging from 1.0 in dense or
stiff soil to 0.5 in loose or soft soil for impact piling. W refers to hammer energy per
blow or cycle (J/blow or J/cycle). R is the horizontal distance from the piling operation in
metres, and v is the predicted peak particle velocity in mm/s. The predicted attenuation of
ground vibrations with distance for various types of piling are shown in Figure 6. These
curves match well with the field observations shown in Figure 5 and thus represent a
useful tool for engineers when planning piling operations in urban areas.

v = C (W0.5 / r) (3)

6
Field monitoring

Since the press-in method is a recently developed technology, no database of field

measurements exists, and consequently no predictive method of the form of Equation 3
has been proposed. In order to provide a similar predictive tool for designers who wish to
assess the suitability of the press-in method for a given job, field measurements of
ground vibrations during press-in piling have been obtained. These form a limited
database from which a tentative prediction curve is derived.

Site 1: New Orleans, USA

A demonstration of the press-in method was carried out by Giken America for the US
Army Corps of Engineers in October 2000. A row of 30 interlocked U-shaped LX-16
sheet piles was installed along the west bank of the Grand Cross Canal in New Orleans
using a UP-150 Silent Piler. A borehole investigation revealed ground conditions
consisting of:

0m to 1m: Soft brown and grey clay with silt lenses, roots and wood
1m to 4m: Very soft grey and brown clay with organic material
4m to 4.5m: Brown and black peat with clay lenses
4.5m to 10m: Very soft grey clay with silt lenses (SPT Nmax = 2)
10m to 20m: Soft to medium stiff grey clay with silt lenses (SPT Nmax = 10)

Vibration monitoring was carried out by Eustace Engineering (Metairie,

Louisiana, US). Three monitoring stations were established close to the line of sheet
piling. The most distant two locations, at 18 and 24m from the line of piling, did not
provide useful data since the vibration amplitude experienced at these locations was
similar to the resolution of the seismographs. The resultant peak particle velocities
measured 4.8m from the piling operation were in the range 2.5-4.3 mm/s (Eustis
Engineering, 2000) (see Figure 7).

Site 2: Utrecht, Netherlands

A wall of 500mm U-shaped sheet piles was installed beside Meester Tripkade, Utrecht,
Holland as temporary works during the widening of the Utrecht to Blauwkapel railway
line during July 1992. Vibration monitoring was carried out by Dutch Railways to assess
any disturbance to the foundations of nearby properties (Dutch Railways, 1992). Tri-axial
geophones were attached to the foundations of three houses 15 cm above ground level,
located 7.15m from the piling line. Local regulations recommended that ground
vibrations be limited to 3mm/s around residential buildings.
Construction of the wall commenced using a diesel hammer. However, the
measured resultant peak particle velocity was 15.2 mm/s, significantly exceeding the
local limit. A subsequent pile was installed using a vibratory method, with a resultant
peak particle velocity of 8.3 mm/s being recorded. A press-in piler (Giken Seisakusho
UP150 ‘Silent Piler’) was brought onto site and the remaining piles were installed by the

7
press-in method. Peak particle velocities in the range 0.3 to 0.7mm/s were recorded
during this stage of the construction.
This field data provides a direct comparison of the ground vibrations created by
different methods of piling. The influence of soil conditions and pile type can be ignored
since identical piles were being installed in identical soil. Figure 7 shows that replacing
the dynamic piling equipment with a press-in pile driver lead to a 10-50 times reduction
in ground vibrations.

Prediction of press-in piling vibrations

This limited database of field measurements taken from two press-in piling sites allows a
tentative prediction curve to be proposed. Although the ground vibrations during press-in
piling are created through a different mechanism to dynamic piling vibrations, their
attenuation with distance from source will be comparable since attenuation rate is a
function of geometric spreading and soil damping.
Hence, a relationship of the form shown in Equation 3 is proposed. The empirical
factor, C, and the energy per blow, W, are combined into a single empirical parameter.
The best-fit line shown in Figure 7 is:

vpress-in (mm/s) = 7 / r (m) (4)

100

Diesel hammer at site 2

10 Vibrator at site 2
Press-in piling at site 1

10-50 times reduction

in ground vibrations
1
Best-fit line for press-in vibrations
Press-in piling at site 2 v (mm/s) = 7 / r (m)

0.1
1 10 100
Distance from piling operation (m)

Figure 7. Measured vibrations at sites 1 and 2.

Comparison of this prediction curve with the Eurocode 3 limits shown in Figures
3 and 4 offers designers a tool to establish whether the press-in method is suitable for a
given site (see table 3). It should be noted that the actual magnitude of vibrations will
depend on soil properties and the local subsurface profile. Also, ambient ground
vibrations, for example due to passing traffic or trains, could exceed both the press-in
piling vibrations and the recommended limit.

8
Conclusions

Pre-formed steel piles offer a number of advantages over bored cast-in-place piles,
particularly in relation to issues of whole life cost and sustainability. However, the noise
and vibration created by conventional dynamic methods makes them ill-suited to the
urban environment. The press-in method offers an alternative technique of pile
installation, which allows piles to be installed close to existing structures and without
disturbing human activity.
Field measurements of noise and ground vibrations during press-in piling are
presented and compared to existing design codes. A direct comparison of dynamic and
press-in piling at one site revealed a 10-50 times reduction in ground vibrations when
using the press-in method. Based on this initial database, prediction curves for the noise
and ground vibrations created by the press-in method are presented. Equipped with these
tools, engineers can make an assessment of the relative environmental suitability of each
installation method when planning piling works.

Table 3: Predicted minimum separation between piling operations and sensitive buildings
Building type Piling method
Press-in Impact hammer (stiff Vibrator
(vibration method clay / medium dense (Eurocode 3)
limit from (Eqn 4) sand; (C=0.75) kJ/cycle
Eurocode 3) (Eurocode 3)
5 kJ/blow 25 kJ/blow 2 kJ/cycle 10 kJ/cycle 50 kJ/cycle
Architectural 3.5 m 26.5 m 59 m 16 m 36 m 78 m
merit (2 mm/s)
Residential 1.75 m 13 m 30 m 8m 18 m 39 m
area (4 mm/s)
Light comer- 0.7 m 5m 12 m 3.1 m 7m 16 m
cial (10 mm/s)
Heavy Indust- 0.5 m 3.6 m 8m 2.1 m 5m 10 m
rial (15 mm/s)

References
Attewell, P.B. & Farmer, I. (1973) “Attenuation of ground vibration from pile driving” Ground Engrg. (4) 26-29
BS5228 (1992). “Part 4: Noise control on construction and open sites, code of practice for noise and vibration
control applicable to piling operations.” British Standards Institute, London.
Chapman, T., Marsh, B. & Foster, A. (2001). “Foundations for the future.” Proc. Inst.Civil Engineers (144) 36-
41.
Eurocode 3 (1992). “Design of steel structures, chapter 5, piling.” DD ENV 1993-1-1:1992 (draft).
Head, J.M. & Jardine, F.M. (1992) “Ground-borne vibrations arising from piling.” Technical note 142,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), UK.
Hiller, D.M. & Hope, V.S. (1998). “Groundborne vibration generated by mechanized construction activity.”
Proc., Inst. Civil Engineers (131) 223-232
Eustis Engineering. (2000). “Report of vibration monitoring services.” Report to the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Eustis Engineering Job no. 16457E.
Dutch Railways. (1992). “Onderzoek naar optredende trillingen gemeten aan de fundamenten van woonhuizen
aan de Mr. Tripkade tijdens het inpersen van damwandelementen.” Report CTO/6/10.116/0003 of the Dutch
Railways Centrum voor Technisch Onderzoek.
Selby, A.R. (1997). “Control of vibration and noise during piling.” Brochure publication, British Steel, UK.