PPV Measurement

8/12/2019 PPV Measurement

1/39

MINGJIANG TAO, PH.D., P.E.

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

JANUARY, 2011

Update LADOTD Policy on Pile Driving

Vibration Management (09-1GT)


2/39


3/39

Research Incentives

http://www.georisk.se/web/page.aspx?pageid=29013

How large a vibration monitoring area is enough?

Strongly dependent on:

soil conditions

dynamic sources

susceptibility ofstructures


4/39

Research Objectives

Update current LA DOTD policy, and provide

implementable recommendations for monitoringand control of ground and structure vibrations


5/39

Methodology


6/39

Methodology

Literature Review

Questionnaire Survey

Collect data from case history project in Louisiana

Data analysis


7/39

Pile driving, wave propagation, & wave

attenuation

Scaled-distance concept


8/39

Preconstruction survey distance vs.

vibration monitoring distance

Pile

Rsurvey

Rmonitoring

structural damage:PPV


9/39

Determine pre-construction survey

distanceEstimate the Monitoring Area Range

1. Upper limit PPV

2. Determinethreshold PPV

value

3. SDcorresponding to

threshold PPV

Chart PPV vs. SD

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

PPV(in./s

)

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

Scaled Distance(horizontal, Max Rated Energy)-PPV

k=0.93, n=1

0.5

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3


10/39

Determine pre-construction survey

distance

MonitoringDistance(f

t)

Rated Energy (ft-lbs)

Monitoring Distance vs. Rated Energy

Rated Energy of the

Hammer Applied

Vibration Monitoring

Distance

Step 44. Vibrationmonitoring

distance


11/39

Step 1: Determine vibration monitoring

distance

A statistical approach:

Best-fit line Confidence level line

Prediction level line

Back-calculation approach (best-fit line)


12/39

Determine vibration monitoring distance:

Step 1

Confidence level line: 95 % Confidence Interval

if you collected ground vibration data many times, 95times out of 100, the mean of the dataset would be inthis range.

Prediction level line: 95 % Prediction Interval

means that about 95 % of the time, the next groundvibration measurement you make will be inside thisinterval.


13/39

Step 2: Threshold PPV value

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity That Varies withFrequency

0.1

1

10

1 10 100

PARTICLE

VELOCITY,

in/sec

FREQUENCY, Hz

RI 8507 APPENDIX B. -- ALTERNATE BLASTING LEVELCRITERIA

0.5 in/s Plaster

0.75 in/s Drywall

OSM Modificaton

0.03 in

0.008 in

2 in/s

0.5 in/s

0.75 in/s

1. USBM criteria

Current LA DOTDspecification


14/39

Determining threshold PPV value

2. Germany criteria

Current LA DOTDspecification


15/39


3.The Swedish Standard


16/39

Determining threshold PPV value- The

Swedish Standard

Residential house:

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:

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 builtwith reinforced concrete, steel, and pile foundations.

Too conservative


17/39

Determining threshold PPV value-Russia

criterion

4. Russia Limits of Structure Vibration

The frequency-independent safe limit of 51 mm/s (2in/s) can be chosen for the PPV of structural (notground) vibrations for multi-story residential,

commercial and industrial buildings.

There will be practical obstacles for LA DOTD

implementing this criterion


18/39


5.Maximum Peak Particle Velocity Independent ofFrequency (by Woods 1996)

Structure and ConditionLimiting Particle Velocity

(in./sec) (mm/sec)

Historic and some oldstructures

0.5 (12.7)

Residential structures 0.5 (12.7)

New residential structures 1.0 (25.4)

Industrial building 2.0 (50.8)

Bridges 2.0 (50.8)


19/39

Threshold PPV limits for LA DOTD

Structure and ConditionLimiting Particle Velocity

(in./sec) (mm/sec)Historic and some old

structures0.1 (2.5)

Residential structures 0.5 (12.7)

New residential structures 1.0 (25.4)

Industrial building 2.0 (50.8)

Bridges 2.0 (50.8)

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


20/39

Threshold PPV limits-Further confirmation

with dynamic FEM simulations


21/39

Results


22/39

Collected Available Data

(a) a list of necessary data and information required

for pile-driving vibration risk managementAvailable Information Huey P. Long

Bridge WideningProject

Millerville Roadover Honey CutBayou

Bayou PlaquemineBridge ReplacementProject

The RigoletsPass BridgeProject

Project Description

Hammer and Pile Details

Penetration Depth Data

Energy transferred to Plies

Vibration Monitoring

Soil Profile

PPV 3 directional Velocity

Velocity Vector

Max PPV


23/39

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

PeakParticleVelocity(in./s)

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

Millerville Bayou Road Rigolets Bayou Degleises

Causeway Tickfaw Amite HPL

PPV = 0.080(SD)-0.679

R2=0.404

PPV = 0.015(SD)-1.494

Woods & Jedeles, Soil II

PPV = 0.081(SD)-1.11

Woods & Jedeles, Soil III


24/39

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

PeakParticleVelocity(in./s)

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

Millerville Bayou Road Rigolets Bayou Degleises

Causeway Tickfaw Amite HPL

PPV = 0.350(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.080(SD)-0.679

R2=0.404

PPV = 0.211(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.015(SD)-1.494

Woods & Jedeles, Soil II

PPV = 0.081(SD)-1.11

Woods & Jedeles, Soil III

PPV = 0.1(SD)-1.0


25/39

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.1 1 10

PeakParticl

eVelocity(in./s)

Scaled Distance, SD (ft/sqrt(ft-lbs))

Millerville Bayou Road Rigolets

Bayou Degleises Causeway Tickfaw

Amite HPL

PPV = 0.350(SD)-1.0

PPV = 0.211(SD)-1.0

0.5

0.70.4

Pre-Construction Survey Distance


26/39

Determine vibration monitoring rangeStep 4 ( , PPV=0.5 in./s, (Hammer energy

transfer efficiency=50%)

HammerModel

Ratedenergy

(W)(ftlbs)

Monitoring

distance(ft)

Monitoring

distance(ft)

Monitoring

distance(ft)

BruceSGH3013hydraulichammer 282,100 158.5 262.9 133

DELMAGD4623,DieselHammer 105,000 96.7 160.4 81

PILECO,D19

42,

Diesel

Hammer 42,480 43.8 72.6 52

Boh/Vulcan08 24,000 50.0 82.9 39

Boh/Vulcan09 27,000 56.0 92.9 41

Boh/Vulcan010 32,500 61.5 102.0 45

Conmaco300E5,AirHammer 149,600 46.2 76.7 97

I.C.E42S,SingleActingDiesel 42,000 49.0 81.3 51

I.C.E60S,

Single

Acting

Diesel 60,000 53.8 89.2 61

I.C.EI46v2,SingleActingDiesel 10,700 115.4 191.4 26

APEModelD3042

37,824 61.2 101.4 49

67,274 73.1 121.2 65

74,750 30.9 51.2 68

I.C.EI30DieselHammer 35,385 58.0 96.3 47

71,700 70.2 116.4 67

99%PL k=0.35;n=-1

FLDOTk=0.21; n=-1


27/39

10

100

10,000 100,000

Monitoringdistance(ft)

Rate energy of driving hammer (ft-lbf)

99% Prediction level BackCalculation (k=0.35; n=1)

Fl DOT specification

0.25W

Use the chosen pile driving hammer to determine Vibration MonitoringDistance (based on 50% energy transfer efficiency of hammer and

threshold PPV=0.5 in/s)

0.30W

0.49W

Current LADOTDspecification

W(ftlbs) D(ft)

100,000 79.1

100,000 94.4

100,000 156.5

200

500

200,000


28/39

10

100

1000

10,000 100,000

Monitoringd

istance(ft)

Rate energy of driving hammer (ft-lbf)

99% prediction level (k=0.211, n=-1);

threshold PPV=0.1 in./s

Use the chosen pile driving hammer to determine Vibration MonitoringDistance (based on 50% energy transfer efficiency of hammer and

threshold PPV=0.1 in/s) for special conditions

500

1.49W


29/39

Conclusions and Recommendations


30/39

Vibration Monitoring Distance for LA

DOTD

The current LA DOTD specification is too

conservative (500 ft)

Use 200-ft for general conditions

Use 500-ft for special cases (loose sand deposits;historic buildings; etc.)


31/39

Foragivenpiledrivingprojectwith:Designedpile

bearingcapacity&chosendrivinghammer

o Preconstruction

survey

o EstimatedVibrationMonitoringDistance(VMD)

Incorporatesitespecificconditions:

oDistancesof

surrounding

buildings

from

driven

piles

oAnyhistoricbuildingswithinEVMR

oAnybuildinghousingsensitiveequipmentwithinVMD

Verifyadequacy

of

actual

VMD

duringdrivingtestingpiles

UseverifiedVMDfordriving

productionpiles

ModifyVMDand/ordrivingdesign

ifactualVMDisnotadequate

Implementation Flow-chart


32/39

Engineering Mitigation Measures

Pre-poring prior to pile installation

Selecting proper hammers to reduce hammersenergy

Using cast-in-place piles or non-displacement piles

Drilling shaft foundation instead of driven piles


33/39

Conclusions and Recommendations

Threshold PPV limits are determined for LA DOTD.

A procedure to determine Pre-construction surveyarea & Vibration Monitoring Distance is developed.

An updated specification to managing pile-drivinginduced risk has been developed.


34/39

Questions


35/39

Acknowledgements

The project is financially supported by the LouisianaTransportation Research Center and LouisianaDepartment of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) (09-1GT).

Gavin Gautreau, Dr. Doc Zhang, Dr. Ching Tsai, and

other PRC members Mo Zhang (WPI graduate student)

Mark Svinkin (Vibroconsult)


36/39

Dynamic settlement (presence of loose sand)

Consolidation settlement (presence of soft clay)

Threshold shear strain concept


Relativedensity,Dr(%) Description

020 Very

loose

2040 Loose

4060 Medium

6080 Dense

80100 Very

dense

NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization


37/39


38/39

Compare of loose sand to

the t (0.01%).

Determineifloose

sand

exists

based

on

CPTorSPTresults

Dynamic settlement is not

a concerned issue.

No Yes



39/39

0.01%>The shear wave velocities are in therange of 300-500 ft/s for mostsands

The threshold PPV values forpreventing dynamic settlement are

calculated as a range of 0.36-0.6in/s

Replaced withPPV =k(SD)(-n)


Documents

PPV Measurement