VIBRATIONS FROM FRANKI PILE DRIVING:
MEASUREMENT AND PREDICTION
by
PHILIP JOSEPH TATKO
BSCE, Syracuse University
(June, 1973)
Submitted in partial fulfillment
for the degree of
of the requirements
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June, 1975
Signature
.
...'-.
. -*
.
.
of Author
.
.
.
.
.
9,
Department of Civil Engineering, M
h-..
. .-..
by.··. . T
Certified
Accepted
by
.
.
.
.
-'
1975
E
Thesis Superv/sor
.
-
Chairman, Departmental Committee o Graduate
Students of the Department of Civil Engineering
ARCHIVES
JUN 20 1975
2
ABSTRACT
VIBRATIONS FROM FRANKI PILE DRIVING:
MEASUREMENT AND PREDICTION
by
PHILIP
JOSEPH TATKO
Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering on May 1975
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
Little quantitive data has been assembled
on the damaging effects of pile driving. Although pile driving has been known to cause damage to structures.
The objective of this investigation was to
study the vibration levels resulting from the
driving of a specific type of pile (Franki).
Ground vibrations were monitored at ground
surface at various distances from the pile
driving source. The investigation resulted in the following accomplishments.
1) Dimensionless plots of particle velocity
levels were obtained for various projects,
taking into account soil type and various
driving techniques.
2) Free vibration response was recorded for
two structures. Realistic values of the fundamental frequencies of vibration and critical
damping fractions were obtained from the response of these structures. For one project
free vibration was observed in a firm layer of
soil overlying a peat deposit.
3)
Response spectra have been calculated for
ground motions from pile driving.
4) Seismic site velocities were obtained for
each project study.
3
5) Attenuation relationships for peak particle
velocity have been compared in relationship to
subsurface stratifaction.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Charles H. Dowding
Professor of Civil Engineering
4
Acknowledgements
This investigation
was conducted in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the Massachussetts
nology in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Institute of TechProfessor C. H,
Dowding served as the author's advisor whose inspiration,
ideas, and comments are gratefully acknowledged.
The author also wishes to ackowledge Mr. R. J. Barry
of Franki
Foundation
Company who permitted the gathering
of field data; Mr. V. Murphy of Weston
Geophysics for the
use of their instruments; the Departments of Civil Engineering and Geology at MITfor allowing the use of the
digital
computers-M70 and M80, digitalizer,
equipment used for data analysis;
and other
Haley and Aldrich,
Con-
sultants, for the use of their instruments; and the supervisors and workmenof Franki Foundation Companyfor
their assistance on construction projects.
5
Table of Contents
Page
Title page
!
Abstract
2
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
5
List of'Tables
8
List of' Figures
10
list of Symbols
16
Chapter 1 - Introduction
20
of the Investigation
20
1.1
Objective
1.2
Scope of the Investigation
21
- Literature Review
22
2.1
Nature of Ground Vibration
22
2.2
Response
2.3
Response of Buildings to Vibrations
29
2.4
Previous Studies on Pile Driving Vibrations
33
- FrankiPile- General Driving Procedure
36
3.1
General
36
3.2
Installation Procedure
36
2
Chapter
Chapter
3
of
Humans to Vibrations
Chapter 4 - Attenuation of Particle Velocity
23
42
4.1
Scaling Techniques
42
4.2
Seismic Velocity Calibration
48
6
Table of Contents Continued
4.3
4.4
Chapter
Page
Attenuation Relationships Separated According to Idealized Subsurface Profiles
55
Variation in Particle Velocity Over Depth
62
5 - Response of Buildings to Pile Vibrations
65
5.1
Single-Degree-of-Freedom Model
65
5.2
Response Spectra
69
5.3
Results of Project Studies
74
5.3.1
Introduction
74
5.3.2
Measured Structural Response
75
5.3.3
Comparisons of Response Spectra
78
5.3.4
Simplied Method to Determine the
Response Spectra
79
5.3.5
Response Spectra Causing Damage
81
5.3.6
Problems With Predicting Building
Motion
81
6 - Legal Aspects of Pile Driving
Chapter
84
6.1
Types of Complaints
84
6.2
Author's Solution
87
Chapter 7 - Conclusion
91
7.1
General
91
7.2
Response Spectra
91
7.3
Scaling Relationships - Comparison
91
7.4
Scaling - Conclusions
95
List of
References
97
7
Tables of Contents Continued
Page
Appendices
A.
Details of Field Studies
B.
Digital Computer Analogue of the SingleDegree-of-Freedom System
191
C.
Field and Digitizing Instrumentation
193
D.
Delmag D-30 Hammer Data
195
99
8
List of Tables
Table
Pane
2.1
Constants for Equation 2.1
35
4.1
Variables Considered in Dimensional
Analysis of Explosion or Impact
Phenomena (After Ambraseys and Hendron,
1968)
43
4.2a
Data for Determining Phase and Seismic
Velocities
52
Data for Determining Phase and Seismic
Velocities
53
Typical Shear and Compression Wave
Velocities (After Whitman, 1973)
54
4.4
Constant for the Attenuation Equations
61
5.1
Calculated Versus Measured Structural
4.2b
4.3
76
Response
5.2
Corrected, Particle Velocities and Particle
Displacements With Appropriate amplification
Factors
80
7.1
Conversion Data
92
J1
Joyce Chens Project
104
M1
Mass. Eye and Ear Project
114
N1
NDP Housing Project
123
C1i
Cramer Electronics
131
B1
Brookline Village Project
140
Si
Sagamore Towers Project
150
D1
Drake Village Project
161
CH1
Charlestown High School Project
17)
ME1
Medi-Mart Project
181
Project
9
Page
List of Tables Continued
DE1
Delmag D-30 Data
DE2
Delmag D-30 Tube Driving
196
Rate
197
1'0
List of Figures
Figure
2.1
2.2
Pae
Reiher - Meister Scale of HumanPercep-
tion
(1931)
25
Effect of Vibration UponHumans(After Liu,
Kinner, and Yegian, 1974)
26
Scales of Human Perception (After Wiss and
Parmelee, 1974)
28
Scales of Human Perception With Damping
(After Wids and Parmelee, 1974)
30
Response of Structures in Good Condition to
Vibration (After Koch, 1953)
31
Effect of Vibration Upon Structures (After,
Liu, Kinner, and Yegian, 1974)
32
Maximum Vibration Intensities Expected From
Pile Driving on Wet Sand, Dry Sand, and Clay
(After Wiss, 1967)
34
3.1
Franki Pile Installation Procedure
37
3.2
Franki Pile Installation Procedure
39
4.1
Seismic Velocity Determination
49
4.2
Typical Records for the Determination of the
Phase Velocity
51
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
4.3
Idealized Scaling Graphs of Particle Veloci-
ty Versus
4.4
4.5
4.6
Scaled
Range,
Combined Data
Idealized Scaling Graph of Particle Veloci-
ty Versus Scaled Range. Combined Data
57
Idealized Scaling Graph Of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Combined Data
58
Idealized Scaling Graph of
Particle Veloci-
ty Versus Scaled Range, Combined Data
4.7
56
59
Idealized Scaling Graph of Particle Vloei-
ty Versus Scaled Range, Combined Data
60
11
List of Figures Continued
4.8
Page
Maximum Particle Velocity Versus Depth,
Drake Village Project - Pile No. 31,
h = 32.2 ft.
63
Maximum Particle Velocity Versus Depth,
Medi-Mart Project - Pile No. 1, h = 19.0
ft.
64
5.1
Single-Degree-of-Freedom Systems
66
5.2
Typical Free Vibration Response of a Building (Velocity-Time History)
70
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Cramer
Electronics Project
72
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum With
Damage Bounds
82
Maximum Particle Velocity Expected from the
Driving of Franki Piles
93
7.2
Depth Effect on Vibration Levels
95
J1
Case Study, Joyce Chens, Cambridge, Mass.
105
J2
Case Study, Joyce Chens, Cambridge, Mass.
106
J3
PseudoVelocity Response Spectrum, Joyce
4.9
5.3
5.4
7.1
J4
J5
J6
J7
J8
Chens Project
107
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Joyce
Chens Project
108
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Joyce
Chens Project
109
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Joyce Chens
Project, Transverse Component
110
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Joyce Chens
Project, Vertical Component
111
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Joyce Chens
Project, Longitudinal Component
112
12
List of Figures Continued
M1
N2
M3
M4
M5
M6
N1
Page
Case Study, Mass. Eye and Ear, Boston,
Mass, Subsurface Soil Profile
116
Case Study, Mass. Eye and Ear, Boston,
Mass.
117
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Mass.
Eye and Ear Project
118
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Mass.
Eye and Ear Project
119
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Mass. Eye and
Ear Project
120
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Mass. Eye and Ear
Project
121
Case Study, NDP Housing Project, East Boston,
Mass.
124
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, NDP Housing Project
125
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, NDP Housing ProJect
126
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, NDP Housing
Project
127
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, NDP Housing
Project
128
Case Study, Cramer Electronics, Newton,
Mass.
132
C2
Particle Velocity Ratios Versus Range
133
C3
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Cramer
Electronics Project
134
N2
N3
N4
N5
C1
C4
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Cramer
Electronics Project
135
13
List of Figures Continued
C5
Page
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Cramer Electronics Project, Transverse Component
136
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Cramer Electronics Project, Vertical Component
137
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Cramer Electronics Project, Longitudinal Component
138
Case Study, Brookline Village, Brookline,
Mass.
141
Case Study, Brookline Village, Brookline,
Mass.
142
B3
Particle Velocity Ratios Versus Range
143
B4
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Brookline Village Project
144
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Brookline Village Project
145
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Brookline Village Project, Transverse Component
146
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Brookline Village Project, Vertical Component
147
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Brookline Village Project. Longitudinal Component
148
Case Study, Sagamore Towers, N. Quincy,
Mass.
152
Case Study, Sagamore Towers, N. Quincy,
Mass.
153
S3
Particle Velocity Ratios Versus Range
154
S4
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Sagamore Towers Project
155
C6
C7
B1
B2
B5
B6
B7
B8
Si
S2
14
Page
List of Figures Continued
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Sagamore Towers Project
156
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Sagamore
Towers Project, Transverse Component
157
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Sagamore
Towers Project, Vertical Component
158
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Sagamore
Towers Project, Longitudinal Component
-159
Case Study, Drake Village, Arlington,
Mass.
163
Case Study, Drake Village, Arlington,
Mass.
164
D3
Particle Velocity Ratios Versus Range
165
D4
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Drake
Village ProJect
166
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Drake
Village Project
167
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Drake
Village ProJect
168
S5
S6
S7
S8
D1
D2
D5
D6
D7
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Drake Village
Project,
D8
Scaled,
Transverse
Field
169
Component
Measurements
of Particle Ve-
locity Versus Scaled Range, Drake Village
Project, Vertical Component
D9
CH1
Scaled,
Field Measurements of Particle
170
Ve-
locity Versus Scaled Range, Drake Village
Project, Longitudinal Component
171
Case Study, Charlestown High School Charlestown, Mass.
174
15
Listof Figures Continued
Page
CH2
Particle Velocity Ratios Versus Range
175
CH3
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Charlestown High School Project
176
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Charlestown High School Project
177
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Charlestown
High School Project
178
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Charlestown
High School Project
179
Case Study, Medi-Mart Project, Cambridge,
Mass.
183
Case Study, Medi-Mart Project, Cambridge,
Mass.
184
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Medi-Mart
Project
185
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Medi-Mart
Project
186
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Medi-Mart
Project
187
Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum, Medi-Mart
Project
188
Scaled, Field Measurements of Particle Velocity Versus Scaled Range, Medi-Mart
Project, Vertical Component
189
Driving Records from the Medi-Mart Project
Pile No. 1, Vertical Component
190
CH4
CH5
CH6
ME1
ME2
ME3
ME4
ME5
ME6
ME7
ME8
16
List of Symbols
Aa .
.
Spectrum acceleration bound amplification factor
A 6 . . . Spectrum displacement bound amplification factor
AV . . .
Spectrum velocity bound amplification factor
a
Maximum ground acceleration
. .
·
C1 .
.
Viscous damping coefficient of the single-degreeof-freedom system
c
.
Site wave seismic velocity, also phase velocity
.
·
Shear wave seismic velocity
Cs
·
. .
Cp
·
. . Compression wave seismic velocity
D
. ·
.
d
·
. . Depth of Franki tube
E
Maximum relative displacement (= Ua
x)
. . . Energy released during an explosion or drop of a
pile hammer
·
. . Frequency of motion
g
. ·
. Acceleration of gravity
h
·
. .
k
Horizontal distance of seismic pickup from the pile
or distance between pickups
. . . Linear spring constant of the single-degree-offreedom system
17
List of Symbols continued
Mass of the single-degree-of-freedom system
.
m
.
N
,.. .
*
n
. .
p
*
.
p2D · . .
R
. . .
Travel distance, range (h
*
.
V.
.
2
+ d2 )
. .
·
Number of fundamental independent variables
..
Change in distance
. .·
Damped period
.
.
Time
0
Time of maximum response
tmax
u
Maximum pseudo acceleration
Damped circular frequency of a single-degree-offreedom system
T
t
Maximum pseudo velocity
. . .
r
s
number of fundamental dimensions
Undamped circular frequency of a single-degree-offreedom system
.
. .
pD
Standard penetration 'N' value
Relative displacement between the ground and the
mass of the single-degree-of-freedom system
.
0
Maximum ground particle velocity
18
List of Symbols Continued
Calculated velocity response of a structure
(pseudo velocity)
Vcalc
Vmax
. Maximum velocity response of a structure
Vt .
. Maximum transverse particle velocity
Vv . . . Maximum vertical particle velocity
V1 . . . Maximum longitudinal particle velocity
..
x
. .
Absolute displacement of the mass of a singledegree-of-freedom system
Absolute velocity of the mass of a single-degreeof-freedom system
x
. . . Absolute acceleration of the mass of a singledegree-of-freedom system
y
. . . Absolute displacement of the ground (Ymax
y.
y
. . .
.
3' S
.
=
S)
Absolute velocity of the ground of a singledegree-of-freedom system
Absolute acceleration of the ground of a single-degree-of-freedom system
. . Critical damping fraction of the ground of a
single-degree-of-freedom system
. . Unit weight of soil in the ground
. Maximum ground displacement
19
List of Symbols Continued
.
.
ri .
. Poisson's
.
ratio
A dimensionless product
.
.
.
w.
.
p.
. . Mass density (unit weight of soil divided by
acceleration of gravity)
3.14159
T . . . Variable of integration
w .
. . Circular frequency at which the peak ground
motion occurs
20
Chapter
I
Introduction
1.1
Objective of the Investigation
A measure of the damage potential of earthwaves is nec-
essary in order to extrapolate experience from one building
site to another.
Presently, peak particle ground velocity
is widely used to assess the damage potential of a passing
earthwave.
Peak particle ground velocity assessment is
commonly employed where blasting vibrations is concerned
(Crandell, 1949; Edwards and Northwood 1960, 1963).
In
recent years, response spectrum analysis has been used to
study the effects of earthquake ground-motions upon structures (Veletsos and Newmark, 1964).
Little quantitive data has been assembled on the
damaging effects of pile driving.
Although pile driving has
been known to cause damage to structures.
The object of this investigation was to study the
vibration levels resulting from the driving of a specific
type of pile (Franki).
Ground vibrations were monitored at
ground surface various distances from the pile driving
source.
The investigation has resulted in the following
accomplishments.
1)
Dimensionless plots of particle velocity levels were
obtained for various projects, taking into account soil
type and various driving techniques.
21
2) Free vibration response was recorded for two structures.
Realistic values of the fundamental frequencies of vibration
and critical
damping fractions were obtained from the re-
sponse records of these structures.
3)
Response spectra have been calculated
for ground mo-
tions from pile driving.
4) Seismic site velocities
were obtained for each case
study.
5)
Attenuation relationships for peak particle velocities
have been compared in relationship to subsurface stratifaction.
1.2
Scope of the Investigation
The investigation has been centered around the Franki
pile with some records of blasting vibrations.
Chapter 2
reviews previous work in the assessment of pile driving
damage.
In Chapter 3 the installation of the Franki pile
is explained.
The data upon which the investigation is
based and conclusion from the data are presented in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 gives a discussion of the response
spectra and presents plots of results.
Legal aspects of
pile driving are presented in Chapter 6, while Chapter 7
outlines the major conclusions resulting from the investigation and makes recommendations for future research.
appendices contain the details of the field studies.
The
22
Chapter
2
Literature Review
2.1
Nature of Ground Vibration
When dealing with the problems caused by pile driving,
it is necessary to understand the dynamic behavior of the
Pile driving causes three major types of ground
ground.
waves.
First, there is a pressure wave which is a body
wave of oscillating compression and rarefraction.
This
wave is radiated on a spherical wave front and travels at
a relatively high speed.
The pressure wave attenuates
with distance comparatively quickly owing to its three
dimensional dispersion.
The second wave type is the shear
wave, also a body wave radiated on a spherical wave front.
The shear wave travels at a lower velocity than the compression wave.
The shear wave is similar to a wave travel-
ing along a rope resting on the ground and 'whipped' at
one end.
The third wave type is the Rayleigh wave.
This
is a surface wave similar in nature to a water wave and
travels within the top 6 - 30 feet of soil.
The impact of a weight striking the ground will generate the three types of waves described above.
At any point
on the ground surface the pressure wave arrives first, followed by the shear wave, and finally, the Rayleigh wave.
The pressure and shear waves will travel faster through the
harder materials.
When examining a vibration record
23
generated by pile driving, it is many times difficult to
distinguish the arrival of the three types of waves.
This
difficulty is due to the addition of components reflected
from the boundaries of various strata.
With regard to im-
pact pile driving, soil is set into oscillation by the combination of two phenomena.
First, the initial hammer im-
pact sets the soil into motion producing the three types of
waves described above.
Secondly, the pile tube is set in
vibration in the elastic medium of the soil.
The tube vi-
brates at a frequency which depends on the weight of the
pile and the resilience (or effective spring rate) of the
soil surrounding the pile.
The resilience is due to the
shearing elasticity of the soil surrounding the pile and the
compressional elasticity of the soil under the bulb of the
pile.
As the pile (or pile tube) is driven into the ground,
its length above ground decreases which increases the
natural frequency of the pile remaining above the ground.
From observing driving records, the frequency of the ground
vibration from Franki pile driving is independent of depth
and remains constant.
As a result one concludes the ground
vibration is a function of the soil type surrounding the
pile.
2.2
Response of Humans to Vibrations
Research has been conducted on human response to
ground vibrations.
In 1931 Relher and Meister performed a
24
study in which healthy young people were subjected to a
varying range of frequencies and amplitudes of continuous
sinusoidal vibrations.
The reactions of the people were
classified and are presented in Fig. 2.1.
Measured Franki
pile vibrations are of such intensity that that fall within
the classification
'Just perceptible' to annoying' even
at considerable distance from the source.
possible to be in the
It is even
unpleasant, range with pile driving.
The Reiher and Meister study foundthat
severe vibrations
to persons come at a range 1/5 of that needed to damage
structures.
Fig. 2.2, from Lul, Kinner, and Yegian** (1974),
shows
that particle velocities greater than 0.5 in./sec. are considered to be very annoying to people, while particle velocities of 0.01 in./sec. are Just perceptible to humans.
The Fig. 2.1 study was conducted with a continuous-
ly rotating unbalancedmotorproducingsinusoidal aotions.
As a result,
the maximumvelocity, V, is equal to fumax, and
the maximum
acceleration, a, is equal to f2usaxfor a. given
frequency, f.* In general, the sinusoidal waveapproximaton
is not a correct approximation for a transient wave such
as in pile driving. There is no reason to believe the tran.
*since
u = umax sin ft,
V cos ft, therefore V
= du/dt = fumax cos ft =
fumax, similarly, a- -t:2uaa
**obtained data from personal communicationwith Professor
Whitman, MIT, 1974
I-. '-:_-1."--H__II
., I._*
ttl-I___
__..
1.0
M
I I ;I L Lli 1 1i1I
Hr- .J-Id
ttlt~l
I
-
I rLIH i llriill
i. .. l-
:... ! ..1
S
1i
-_1 1
=1 1 > tggT 1l
4111114 L
L.LLr
1.1__-,rT
L.1
l4
I-I-
-
1 11.
i
T
r-
I
_
1
rLL
1
I11
111
IL ! I 1 11 1 1I 11 11iLlli 11
-
-t-
. i
:-.
. ·-....
1i, t:
I
i-1,I.-!..
- , ll:_ !!!!!! 11 I I I i i tin=
,!~.'1.j -% '.'
,--
1i11111 III'
.-1i--
-;
''
IIII
-5llF~,IIII
i tfI .
0.1
111111Iliil
T
'.004
a
t
-iiiiii
1,119.
-
-
I
."%- 4+1
1111115
IIHIILII.ISVo
J. I I 1.1-11
=I
J., "II"_l
I I II .I . N1 1A WflH -11 Hiiffl fl
I 0I Ii Ii I 11111
a-,V ,
- . .. _.. ----- __i- LW! 116
I,
ei~~~tffll -RO~
I--.
.
i I
-
~~~
!w111ll
i ll
U
k
p 6
m--t-:m3-lllllllr
*~~~~~r
- -1
-i.t1,11111tt
;t+tlti-
W
I,-
zIIJ
I x .,
'...
-t.1:
.
w
-- -.
-Qi,
, .,
j+ . -1 11
IL .!,
I:'
~ll
-~
~~
tr
-ti-tmtT;
*E
0.005
i if
1
{It lN
:_r,
7 ~II, I I
-t:i4.
tjf
b
I I II I
f i
L:
.tlr.
I
14
Ii fti-T2
:.
z
i
i. 1
0
I
! 6
! i I
·
1~~~~~~~4-1I
'
<
I-
iJD!I
v
I I II 1 1l lHI t t 7 li-- t: I
1
- '14L p 1 11 1 11 11It1i 1' IIIi PW444R4 i4- 4-4
- f1lioaH+ H41 11
I 111I I I1,I I I I IPh11111111
I I I I I Ill
- II, II I - I! I- III. I, I. I.II I.,I I, I...11II, , I. ILI
, . .13d
- SI
, ,1,. II, I. I, I. I, .I I.. IN
mt=t=t=t=m
_t7t=t:td
I! l
4 l.1
.. .
I
, , ,.
I
i 1
At
1
I
I
IJ IJt>tt1
·
g
z:t:j:ztjd__
Bi- isg
:44
I I IITliw I I IIla
-I, l \r =Ldzj=ttj
HtLtLt
I I A T.i I
Ii..'.'
.444'
Au
11
1
I
cl,
4.
= -H.....
7I , '
i
.|*
''
!I M-i
ii
i
^,
-v4I
-,t ItI.flll
iW111111
7
i-'
-j1
: T
, T ,7 T ' .~~~~~~~~
s .00
-4-444+4
~~4z1
1
1111114
__II..±.
_
I-
il1111111 Ill - AIU
ll1 .V
II1111S-:
[,
U I I I :I IL I
*
I
·
'~!,~
!.......
:'"~ lil'"
0.01
--
II1
'II
;A
I
A tftl
U"'
,\_
-
0.05
"
N
II11
T
LJ
I ii
-7 -+7+-_1
n
,,'
PLC:= l 1-
I
. IllI- iti
4;
J
]
I I
7 I 1
- . - ;t
I
Ii;
1
ll '
t
l
I
11tt1titIt
JI I I I I
-1
n 'DI
11
1 iI
i
IiiI
I0
FREQUENCY - HZ
FIG.2.1 REIHER-MEISTER
(1931)
-sll7i'w
. .
rris
. -
.-
!IT
t IWH I I
II T i T nI II I r T lil
M
5
I I I11I1II IlT-
I
; I I l
I.
II
I I
SCALE
Ii!1111
I
I111
.
ii
50
OF HUMAN
.Di
I I I I
· _
1
~
100
D.v
w
v
PERCEPTION
26
-4,
3^
0"
.Z
0
03
w
'ia
I
orx
U3
m
--4
1
w
m
rcn
i,
0
0
00
Frequency-Hz
FIG. 2.2
UPON HUMANS
EFFECT OF VIBRATION
(After Liu, Kinner, and Yegion, 1974)
27
sient wave is sinusoidal.
Even though this assumption is
commonly found in the literature.
A study was performed by Wiss and Parmelee (1974)
on human perception to quasi transient waves of limited
duration with decay.
The decay rate called the damping
is usually expressed as a fraction of critical damping.
Critical damping is the minimum amount of damping that
will cause a system to return to its original position
without oscillating, after the system has been displaced
from its equilibrium position and released.
The equation
for computing the critical damping fraction, , is explained in Section 5.1.
Including damped sinusoidal waves of limited duration
in the human perception, results in a more close represent
tation of the transient wave of pile driving or blasting,
Fig. 2.3 compares results of Reiher and Meister with Wiss
and Parmelee for 8= 0.
Note that the Reiher and Meister
study is the same data presented in Fig. 2.1 with velocity,
fumax, plotted against frequency, f.
In the Reiher and
Meister study each person was exposed to steady-state motion
for 5 min., while in the Wiss and Parmelee study the exposure was 5 sec.
The differences in vibration imply
that continuous sinusoidal motion (without noise)a re
more noticeable than sinusoidal motions of limited dura-
1.0 I
II
.....- Jl
AFTER
I I Ii
REIHER-MEISTERji
......
- :4
tf1 -4 -14
I r 1 fl I 1I· ttt
i I .1! ;
1-I ' i 1-!W;
T
i--t:
Fi-i-hi f
tt
ff t -+- I
i]r,..
114
I·I
I
~ PAINFULL
iI U
.,:t;
,
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 i,
·----
-·
III I I
i I II
Iliil
zrll
I
I I
~ ~
f
·3
T
tIII
:
.
I
,
I
j|
f!
4
ii
'. It
. .1. I!11 f I1
''11
_
-
-
-._
....
Iw
zr
PERCEPTIBLE
STRONGLY
_;_
Tccc .
.
T
3]
..
I
T
-
i
L 4 7 Vici
d
-
-
.r
UNPLEASANT
0.1
to
i
t SEVERE i:2
Ike iv._T'
tt__
-
I
4-L_+
II
f:
I II
I
-.lI
.
I 1-
I.1
-1
i .
_
I.
S
.l
:!it!
1 .
It-~i
t
6=O
ff Ili,
I1_t+fm
f"
'
l
S3T
·r
;+ ;
t--4
14
.
t
-
WISS- PARMELEE
[ AFTER
[IlIl . .
-,4
- -
. i i rj . F :I .i.
ii
'
28
__
..
1
-t--
..
-t f d
i- tt- t
DISTII NCTLY
. ANNOYING
I'
I
It I I C-t-l
I.L &.~ &~-J
, I I-*,
I I I. i ! if
p
.J
J
m
?---i
m
i
.:...
7-4
PERCEPTIBLE
,,
·
,
.
,,
,
[
[f !
"r-rT-i
I
Tl
I---I - I--1-,
tttfFt+ffftf:-i+ffffF
i
I
E
!I
o.o11
I-I
I
,
;l
,Jil
II
.'
.;
: JjI
I - ;' L
E N i i H iiiiiiii-
i
t.F'.
-
NOTICEABLE
I
.I
.i
I
II
ILl I
J
I
I i
I
I
1
I
I i
t ' I t 11
I I
iI I .I I
. I. I.. . .
1--4 I
i :
. -.±
i- I i' tt
It1L.,I.:,L
i. .
II
|j1 i'
I .1
I LI ti--4-|-141-4-
+ EA,SILY
111111
I II
BARELY
Iff-.t: I.-H--t+HFi-.
:i
JUST
PERCEPTIBLE
i
I]
PERCEPTIBLE
·
t .C,- ·-
{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
W-:
Pt t
..
.....'"T._.f-- '==".~.~
I_t:-,
I~
;
.
'
-.
I
I
.1.,l11111Il
L
-:'i!'.~~~ ~
2-'-IMPERCEPTIBLE
,-i-
a
~;
. .:~
"~!.
~~~~~~~~~
..A-I
0.001.
i.
f
T'''
....i
.
I**tW11
2.5
ti
l-r-i-l
i- l
j44-- I4
L
IMPERCEPTIBLE
' ,llt,
llll
rf7L
"+R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.4-
j,
FREQUENCY- HZ
FIG 2.3 SCALES OF HUMAN PERCEPTION
(After
Wiss and Parmelee, 1974)
25
29
tion.
Fig. 2.4 shows plots of human perception with
0.02 and 0.04, which are ,
ings.
'
=
values commonly found in build-
In order to form these plots the author had to as-
sume that the vibration ratings or perception levels were
frequency independent, such as the plot directly from Wiss
and Parmelee on Fig. 2.3.
But, Reiher and Meister found
that annoying, unpleasant, and painfull ratings were frequency dependent.
One does find from Fig. 24
that as
increases the vibration ratings increase or become less
disturbing to humans.
Therefore, pure sinusoidal vibra-
tions of limited duration are more annoying to people than
transient vibrations (>0)
for a given amplitude of vi-
bration.
2.3
Response
of Buildings
to Vibrations
Much work has been performed in the area of vibration damage to structures.
Here two figures will be pre-
sented to compare building reponse to human reponse.
Fig.
2.5 is based upon the reasearches of H. W. Koch (1953) and
et. als. for strucures in good repair.
Comparing this fig-
ure with Fig. 2.1 of human reponse shows that damage to
buildings must be anticipated if the vibration comes into
the 'annoying' range of human perception.
Caution is nec-
essary in applying Fig. 2.5 to old buildings which have
1.0
-
r
!
-
---
. . .
. . .
.!1
I! . . . . .
-'''
!0;
.li !i I I II i 1!I
i
-cI.'
Tr
I
t+
!
l
I I +I -t
Illll
, r
I t
ab
I
T I. [
&
;
I
ii.-
-t
l
PERCEPTIBLE
I-
.I
-
I-
I
.I
I
I I I III I
11111
'
n
I-
-
~-].-- [l
-
.
isT
I
I
30
w
|
l
I
I -11
7
1
1
1
1
I I I I.'''
PERCEPTIBLE
I
.
I-t4
-I
,'
H_
1
_
jQo4
ki II· ·. 1
t
_
|
f
s
TI
STRONGLY
.
I
r
|
...I.r-
STRONGLY
ti
.'H
I
I
-- tLi
+
t
l
0. i
=
|
I
I
[ . If I
'I .
M -
'l
I
~tt 4
-- i: :
"
lir
li
I
-
1LL
.
.
- . -I
I .
f i :-e--!
- . . t.1
....
;
! j-
III I
I
11
. .
mill i
I
DISTINCTLY
. .. ...
0.1
r
PERCEPTI BLE
L,
I
11.1
1II
I
II I 1 I I~t I II
~I
rr-r-r
7I I I 1
I
i
T1
PERCEPTIBLE
r DISTINCTLY
I I I I FrrTn'T TII
I I
r
~
IM I I 1 [
I
··- ·---II III1 I I I I I IIIII
r i -'44WH -+H
-H
U)
w
I
l l
LIII _ I.
rr.~~~~~
I .
Iz1
"IT
Hjff'4I
i.
.1
fti
.i..
>
tJ0.01
I
BARELY
i. I
I
-
'
r fit
T
*TT
l,
..
- aIARELY
+t-
t
PERCEPTIBLE
ERCEPTIBLE
,,
I
I
ii.w
~i'
'Ii
ifl1ij-.
f-!I : ---1
i.!
,4
!. i
'
.4
4
1
i' 't~t+ft--t--t-F
11Il
.t
l
1
L
1
i
[I I
1 1 1 11 11
f
i
;w;i
,
i
·
·
1
"iMPERCE 1
IT1,, I
I
.1 r .Irr-
Il
I¶lI1
I Ii I 1 I
I
1I
E !
IMPERCEPTIBLE
I
rIrII11I I I
t
L
II
~~I-
r -?
,1·-I
,.-
.
r
-
~t '~
0.001
1
1;- .!,+;i
IMPERCEPTIBLE
·.;
4 _1tre11t: 1
_,
':i ,:| t
·
II t
Tr
2
I I i i $il T
I i
IIH
-
4I
4~~
I
25
.
FREQUENCY- HZ
FIG. 2.4 SCALES
OF HUMAN PERCEPTION WITH DAMPING
(After Wiss and Prmelee, 1974)
25
31
A
PEOPE NP* iMIFI"!
In M
0.04
l
-| -i.i--i,I-
Illil
_l
.14.
OaM
O.S
-i .,. Ii - 4-
'j
-1
If.:l:1t:
i-
;.11.
--
1 -C-
. I.-1-
-
.
I II
AiO
V 'I pI
-
F i,: --
l
I
Ii I..
0.1
-4
M I
11 11 11 lx
.I.
i--
I I
[. [ ii
I I [- il-
I
-
-
0.05
tc-ts
i
.
I
;0l
1s ^
ffl
.+.
':--' T"T'T'T''
JLHI
H-·
* [--
['+t
11
.i- .'1'1 1 1 111
I-' -Li_
P
V
O~~~~
-7
I
1,~~iC
It
TT
'
-
. t
rC~
Cl
A
7"
[N '-
-[I'-I
AN7I6,.L
'I I %
-LY
\
-HTTI
hil
'_
-11
o.004
0;r
i.,
4,
0
Xt- . ."" '
.
_._.
-
.I
.,'t:-T;;
,
. .
,t
. .
II
.
II
6$
. I .~
tpL
".
I
0.000O
-H
R4
. .
I ,
.?-
II
L '
TT
1
0.002-
_-
i0 i
m
:]-11--
I
II 110.00i4
::::
.
4o
h.1-·
I ! III
4
A
1.1 IA
ffFIBBLU
I
"·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.0
-I
V
'tJH
-
V
-B0
.r,- I
H-- -1
rrmm
z~I I WL
X3'
s-·
0
-
_.
1-
zz~~J
0;
_ e
0.005
I- e----
n
-P
i
. ti4
-- -
0 0.0
I
- ..... I. . . . .- .. .
: 1I .. .1 I .1.,., ..
.
11-i
:7 1; ii I I i I lP-Ji-li+H44
iI!I'
10
11 I I
Ii
I
I
.. Z.
,P
I.
lLAILM
~~~~I
1\ I
i
0VI
I in4
t1
A
:I
; ';
0~f·
II
IL''L - :'S
ijJ
I
I
kJ
4 i
i
I-
0.001
?!.-!I
ml-lmmml-
I I I I
1
I
I| I9,
'- '·
I I
.
. . I . .
,
5
l i 11
. -
- . --.
I 1
! II ! I I I I
- ! I ! 1,
I . . . .-
| i
OF
TO VIBRATION
I
50
·
I
I
II I.i
It I
!
la
1 60P0004
- HZ
STRUCTURES
(After
1
|
I
I. I ....
I0FREUENCY
- HZ
FREQUENCY
FIG. 2.5 RESPONSE
!
I ( gI
IN GOOD CONDITION
Koch, 1953)
32
cs
w
2
0
0
V)
x
0
I
.1
I
-4
i
I
0-j
;i
0.i
0O
I
5
10
FREQUENCY -
HZ
50
100
FIG. 2.6 EFFECT OF VIBRATION UPON STRUCTURES
(After Liu, Kinner, and Yegion, 1974)
33
strained in any way.
2.2 .
Fig. 2.6 is to be compared with Fig.
The theshold of major damage on Fig. 2.6 has been
proposed by many researches to be a particle velocity of
2 inches/sec.
Plotted on Fig. 2.6 are the results from
Hendron and Oriard (1972) for a frequency range of 5 to
100 HZ.
Nicholls and others (1971) have combined the
Bureau of Mines data as well as data from Edwards, North-
wood and Langefors obtaining the same theshold damage limit.
2.4
Nicholls frequency range was from 1 to 1000 HZ.
Previous Studies on Pile Driving Vibrations
A few studies
on pile driving vibrations
performed but none specifically
pile.
have been
toward the Franki type
Somestudies have been theoretical while others,
like the authors, have measured vibration levels and pre-
sented attenuation plots.
Results of a study by Wiss (1967) are shown in Fig.
2.7.
Here the velocity, V, is plotted against the square
root of the piles energy divided by the range, R.
The
data in the graph is a combination of results from the
driving of sheet piling, wood piles, and H piles.
Wiss
claims there is no difference in the vibrations produced
by the various types of piles provided all other variables
are constant.
Fig. 2.7 alsorindicates the levels of vi-
brations at which human react.
34
I
U
w
V)
bJ
C')
i
I-
Z
z
i-.
I
L)
0
.J
w
w
i
0
I
a...
I
R
FIG. 2.7
FT.
INTENSITIES EXPECTED
VIBRATION
MAXIMUM
FROM PILE DRIVING ON WET SAND, DRY SAND,
Wiss, 1967)
AND CLAY (After
35
The author has assembled the constants below from Fig.
2.7 for equation 2.1.
V*
= KFE)
(2.1)
Table 2.1 Constants for Equation 2.1
K
m
wet sand
0.277
0.996
dry sand
0.178
0.996
clay
0.110
1.49
A study was performed by Attewell and others (1973) with
pile vibrations from H piles, driven sheet piles, diesel
hammer driven piles, and driven circular mandrels.
The fol-
lowing equation for design purposes was proposed.
V=
0.2617/E
(2.2)
R
Equation 2.2 is plotted on Fig. 2.7 and falls between Wiss,
curves for wet sand and dry sand.
*Units for V are in inches/ sec., E is in ft.-lbs., and R
is in feet, for this equation
36
Chapter
3
Franki Pile - General Driving Procedure
3.1
General
The Franki pile casing is driven by repeatedly drop-
ping a 7000 pound weight at a typical height of
to a plugged casing (drive tube).
20 feet on-
The height of drop can
be varied and in some cases a 5000 pound hammer is used.
Though, typically, the input energy is 140,000 foot-pounds
(7000 lbs. x 20 ft.).
Once the pile tube is driven to the
desired depth a bulb is formed at the end of the tube.
3.2
Installation Procedure
When installing a Franki pile, the drive tube i
ed at the desired location and aligned vertically.
p-
A quan-
tity of 3 to 5 cubic feet of dry gravel or concrete is
dropped into the top of the tube and tamped with the drop
hammer to form a compacted plug for driving (Fig. 3.1a).
Normally the hammer is then raised to a 20 ft. height and
allowed to drop freely on the plug.
As a result the plug
is forced into the ground causing the tube to be pulled
along (Fig. 3.lb).
The mark on the cable shown in Fig. 3.2c gives an indication of the plug height in the tube.
If the plug was
forced out of the tube during driving, the marking on the
cable would fall below the top of tube and consequently wa-
37
-
_1
.
-
-Z
-Z-xc ALa:
-r IX
mW-A
X.'
r-"
*'--
-0,0
-
*-- -v
---4
-L,.·-~- _.~.
, ~
r_-~_Ir_v- `-:-L--xg ....--
~--~
__
tC;T',34P,~',J~.o- e -6
rL5-;~~~j
rJJ
~
'
~
r.
p
TUBE
(a)
INITIAL PLUG
(b)
DRIVING
(c)
MAKING BULB
(d)
FORMING UNCASED SHAFT
FIG. 3.1
FRANKI
PILE
INSTALLATION
PROCEDURE
38
ter or mudcould enter into the drive tube.
Whenthe tube has reached the design depth, a penetration test is commonlymade. The amount of tube penetration is recorded for 10 blows of a 4 foot drop height
and for 1 blow at a 20 foot drop.
The drive tube is then raised slightly by a hoist on
the pile driver and the plug is partially expelled by dropping the hammer.
Small quantities of zero slump concrete
are poured into the tube as the hammer is dropped from 20
feet.
The space between the hammer and the tube walls is
large enough such that concrete can be poured into the tube
while dropping the hammer.
This process causes an extruded
bulb to be formed at the base of the pile. (Fig. 3.1c).
Generally 5 cubic feet of concrete is needed to form the
bulb.
The number of 20 foot blows required to form a bulb is
recorded in a workments notebook along with the penetration
resistance for each pile.
With uncased shafts, after the bulb is formed the shaft
is built by ramming into the soil successive quantities of
zero slump concrete while progressively raising the tube in
12 to 24 inch increments.
When forming the shaft, the hammer
drop heights are generally 2 to 3 feet and a shaft 20 to 24
inches in diameter is formed (Fig. 3.1d and 3.2a).
This
method causes concrete to come in direct contact with the
soil around the shaft.
Thus, skin friction load resistance
39
-4
-r-'~
t-~
II I
6-4-jFI
T~~~~~~~~~
I--r
(a)
FINISH
--
-a
UI~~~~~p-
UNCASED PILE
(b)
PLACING
SHELL
III
I
%-.AC-0
,
-L0
-Va.
--
I-%*
I.ra
tr rX C
(C)
FINISH
FIG. 3.2
CASED PILE
FRANKI
PILE
(d)
DRIVING TUE WITH
DELMAG HAMMER
INSTALLATION
PROCEDURE
40
can be relied upon with the uncased shaft.
When installing cased shafts, the procedure is the
same as for the uncased shafts through the forming of the
After the bulbis
bulb.
formed, the hammer is pulled out
of the tube and a steel shell is placed into the tube.
Next a concrete plug is placed in the shell and driven to
achieve contact with the concrete in the bulb.
The drive
tube is then withdrawn and the permanent shell is filled
with concrete.
The concrete placed in the shell is typi-
cally of 3000 pounds per square inch compressive strength.
Before the concrete is allowed to set, steel reinforcing
bars are placed at the top of the shell, (Fig. 3.2b and
3.2c).
For uncased shafts water may seep into the pile's
shaft if the tube is withdrawn too quickly as concrete is
placed and tamped in the tube.
Seepage is less likely to
happen with a cased shaft since the tube is withdrawn after
the shell is in firm contact with the bulb.
Note also with
the cased pile that the soil around the shell is loosely
displaced.
Here one does not consider any skin friction be-
tween the shell and the soil to resist the load on the pile.
Other variations in the above installation procedure for
Franki piles have been used.
Many times the drive tube is
installed by a Delmag D-30 Diesel hammer which exerts a
23,870 - 54,000
foot-pound blow to the top of the drive tube
41
thus, forcing the tube into the ground.
A steel cap or
driving shoe is placed over the tube at the ground surface
to prevent soil from entering the tube as it is driven
through
the soil (Fig. 3.2d).
When the drive
tube is
driven to the desired depth, the Delmag hammer is withdrawn
and the bulb of the pile is formed by the Franki hammer.
The Delmag hammer has an advantage in driving the tube
faster than the Franki hammer.
Thus, when placing Franki
piles at depths of 20 - 90 feet, the Delmag hammer is commonly employed.
Another alterative installation method for placing
piles at large depths, is to pre-bore a hole with an
auger.
Auger boring can only be performed when rocks or
boulders are not present.
The purpose of auger boring is
to allow the drive tube to penetrate the ground more easily.
But the augering method requires elaborate equipment for
boring and removing boring muck.
42
Chapter 4
Attenuation of Particle Velocity
4.1
Scaling Techniques
A number of variables effect the values of peak particle
motions of displacement, 6, velocity, V, and acceleration,
a.
These variables are the energy released during the
explosion or impact, E; the coupling of the energy released
within the ground; the configuration of the medium or the
layering effect, the site seismic velocity, c, and the mass
density of the medium, p; and the travel distance, R.
S,
V, and a are called dependent variables, while E, c, p, and
R are called independent variables.
A model similitude approach can be used to relate the
independent variables to the dependent variables even though
the exact functional relationship is not known (Ambraseys
and Hendron, 1968).
The model similitude approach is based
upon the Buckingham P1 theorem, which states when there
are r dependent and independent variables in which there
are n dimensions* or fundamental quantities; these variables
can be expressed in terms of r - n dimensionless products.
Once the dimensionless products are determined the
physical phenomena under study can be better understood
through the relationship among the variables comprising a
Illl-
*Mass, length, and time are three fundamental dimensions.
43
dimensionless product.
Also, the number of comparisons
needed between variables is reduced to r - n dimensionless
The dimensionless products are
products.
graphically.
compared
ommoly
By plotting dimensionless products from one
study, one can extrapolate to other situations with similar
dimensionless products.
Also with dimensionless plots
ea-
suring units are eliminated. Therefore, with a dimensionless plot the ft. - lbs. - sec. or the meter - gram - sec.
unit systems can be used when interpolating the plot.
Recently dimensional analysis has been *uggested for
the interpolation of blasting vibrations (Ambraseys and
Hendron, 1968; Dowding, 1971).
This approach is discussed
below.
Table 4.1 presents a list of significant variables in
determining the ground motions resulting from blasting
operation.
Table 4.1
Variables Considered in Dimensional Analysis
of Explosion or Impact Phenomena
(After Ambraseys and Hendron, 1968)
Variable
Symbol
sion
Dimeni
II I
Independent Variable
Energy released
E
FL
Distance
R
L
c
LT
from the explosion
Seismic velocity of the rock
or soil mass
ml-1
_
Table 4.1 continued
Symbol
Variable
Dimension
Mass density of the
soil or rock mass
FTL
Time
t
T
Maximum ground displacement
6
L
Maximum ground velocity
V
LT- 1
Maximum ground acceleration
a
LT-2
Frequency of the motion
f
' 1
T
Dependent Variable
F = Force
L = Length
T -Time
Applying the Buckingham Pi theorem there are:
r-n=9-3=6
independent dimensionless products.
The P
theorem further states that to form the dimen-
sionless products one choses n variables and combines them
with each of the other variables, one at a time (Li and
Lam, 1964).
If one choses E, R, and c* and combines these
variables with the other variables - V, a, f, a, t, p.
following dimensionless products are obtained:
The
6/R, V/c,
aR/c2 , Rf/c, tc/R, and E/(pc2 R 3 ). Depending on the initial
chosen n parameters other dimensionless products can be
formed.
For example, choosing E, R
with c, a, V, 6, t, p,
and f and combining
one obtains Rf,
, V ,
6, ft,
E
c
f R Rf
R
Rf
*The chosen n variables must not form a dimensionless product by themselves.
z
as the dimensionless products.
45
The Pi theorem further states
that the above six products may be raised to any power, any
two or more products may be multiplied together, and any
one product is a function of the other products.
Even though
, V, and a are dependent variables, that
is, they depend on the independent variables, they also are
functions of themselves.
For the Pi theorem states one
dimensionless product can be written as a function of the
other dimensionless products and makes no distinction in
regard to independent or dependent variables.
Problems can arise with dimensionless analysis by
choosing too few or too many initial variables.
A problem
is in determining what variables enter into the problem.
In
the example shown above, if the variable p was left out of
the original variables, thinking it had no effect on the
other variables of 6, E, f, V, a, R, c, and t, the following
dimensionless products could be formed.
choosing initially - E, R, c
combining with - f, t, a, v, 6
Thus, obtaining the dimensionless products of
Rf/c, R/(ct), a/(c 2 R), V/c, SR
Here the variable E doesn't enter into any of the dimensionless products.
But E is a major variable in the blasting or
pile driving analysis.
with a
force
Since p and E are the only variables
term in them, both of them would have to ap-
pear together in a dimensionless product in order to cancel
46
the 'force' term.
omitting E.
Leaving p out of the analysis results in
Including variables not necessary in the dimen-
sional analysis, that is, a variable that remains constant,
may unnecessary complicate the problem.
Dimensional analysis does not solve any problems, but
helps to eliminate many comparisons by grouping variables
together into one dimensionless product.
The numerical
values of the variables have to be obtained by experimentation and/or measurement and the results plotted.
The cor-
rect method of plotting results is to plot one dimensionless product against all the rest.
Dimensional analysis
gives the following results, for the blasting vibration
example.
2 , Rf/c, tc/R,
V/c = function(aR/c
6/R,
E/(pc R3))
or
Since, plotting can be performed only with one dimensional product plotted against another product, four dimensional products would have to remain constant, while the
two remaining products would change their value during the
experiment.
Such as shown below.
2
Tr.
7r.
-r3
, r-4 , Tr5 are constant
47
A problem is created for a true dimensional analysis
,T,r
3 jT4, and
because
rTI and
rj
;
and
r6
cannot be held constant while
T
5
are allowed to vary since variables in
are also in other
16
T'S .
Instead an approximate analysis is performed by varying
TT
and
-g6
and plotting the results, while the other
dimensionless product are ignored.
Other plots are also
made choosing different combinations of any two dimensionless
is
products.
Though not completely correct, this method
better than plotting one variable against all other
variables.
In this paper plots will be made with two dimensionless
products using log versus log paper.
the log-log comparison
is
The basis for
the supposed exponential attenu-
ation of a, V, and s over distance.
That is,
the dimen-
sionless products vary from each other in a logarithm manner as shown below.
-r
log
(constantX-rrn
-n
log Tij
In which n is the slope of a straight line approximation of
the log lriversus log n-wplot, while 111 and
any two dimensionless products.
j
represent
48
4.2
Seismic
Velocity Calibration
The seismic shear velocity was obtained by first recording the phase velocity.
These pickups
known distance apart, h.
4.1 by the numbers
and 2.
times, a phase time, t, is
locity,
Recording pickups are place a
are shown in Fig.
From the differences in arrival
obtained.
Thus, the phase ve,
c, is h/t.
As explained previously, the compressive wave arrives
first, followed by the shear wave, and finally the Bayleigh
waves arrives.
In practice it is
difficult to distinguish
the arrival times of these three wave types.
This is
be-
cause of the reflection of wave fronts combining to form a
distorted wave pattern.
Instead a phase time, t, was re-
corded base on the first dominant peak of particle velocity
(see Fig. 4.1).
This is
believed to be the shear wave are.
rival time, but may not be for all cases.
With regard to
the dimensional analysis plots, which necessitated the recording of the seismic velocity, any seismic velocity or
phase velocity could be used as a variable as long as consistency is followed.
The author has used the shear seis-
mic velocity, Cs, in the dimensionless plots.
Fig. 4.1 shows the assumed relationship between the
pickup geometry and the pile, from which the calculated
seismic shear velocity was obtained.
Shown in the figure
are two methods for determining the seismic shear velocity.
49
h
I,
PICKUPS
d
I
rI~Os
2
FI ch
I
AE
'9/S
el/
c = PHASE VELOCITY
h
=
t
PICKUP NO. 2
RECORD
CRAMER
FROM
teLCe
PRO4CT
VERTICAL
PARTICLE
VELOCITY
RECORD
----At
=
4t
- '111
FIG. 4.1 SEISMIC
h
c
o
s
or
cs
RI
R - R
t
Cs =m
h
C (COS e")c
(4.2)
VELOCITY DETERMINATION
(4.1)
50
Both methods give slightly different answers. Equation 4.1
was used to determine the Cs values in Table 4.2. Sinoe Cs
is not constant with depth, the Cs.obtained by this method
is only accurate within a few feet below the ground surface.
If one further assumes a uniform soil deposit with onstant
C8 , the Cs obtained would represent an average value over
the depth, d, considered.
In order to determine a C
value which is
more
repre-
sentative of soil the h distance was varied giving different
values of t.
As a result a plot of the h values was plotted
against the corresponding t values.
The slope of this plot
at any point is the phase velocity.
Such a plot is shown in
Fig. 4.2 from which an average phase velocity is obtained.
An average phase velocity can also be obtained for other
case studies, where more than one h and t value are obtained.
In recording the c velocity in the field it is best to
make h as small as possible, so as to make e' and e as equal
as possible, since equality of
analysis.
' and e"is assumed in the
Only the relative geometry of the pile bulb and
the pickup locations are needed to calculate
and
e".
Table 4.2 has the calculated values e' and e"as can be seen,
they vary quite extensively.
This is because of the equip-
ment employed in this study had an limit of accuracy in recording the t values for small h values.
For example, for a
seismic velocity of 5000 ft./sec. the two pickups would have
to be placed a distance of 100 feet apart in order to get an
RECORDS
FROM
CHARLESTOWN
HIGH
SCHOOL
PROJECT
LOCATION
LOCATION
NO. I
NO. 2
LOCATION
NO. I
LOCATION
NO. 3
__
LOCATION
NO. I
PILE
FIG. 4.2 TYPICAL RECORDS FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF THE PHASE VELOCITY
51
52
_C
I I 1.
I I
I
II IIlI
1111
I IIIl l III
I
III III
II
I II
)
I
I
I I
I
I
Cq.
I
I I
4'
I
.P,
cr
4l
II
+4.)
I
II
I
I
I
I
W \0\O \0
0
0%00
H
4-4
C)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
U\U\
1
I
00
HHI
\0 0 \0 \0
O
IrC
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\0 \O0
(C\0
\O
I
0 0
00
0 o
cocococo00
*
n
C4 4
II
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
44
r r r4 44
r rI
N rqN rNr
\0 \
r4HHHq
44I
r
H
I
I
I
00000
\O0 O
I
I
N CQ N C
1
I-I
H
EV
I
I
II
c4 r4 r c
II
4*444
II
I
I I
I I
I I
*
*
*0a
0l
cr'Cr Cer'osoc
o
C
CV CQ
>
I
I
I
0
I I I
III
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0000
00 *
0000
c0
co
co co
00D0000
Hr
HH
*.
H
00o
I
I
I
*
0
H**0000r0 00r r 00rq
CQ CV C C C Q
\ \0.0 \
r- r-
*000
H
$4.
rC,
*
N
0
0
N4
N N
U 000
4000
*
0 0
o* 00
0
0
H
0
C Cl
0
000000
o
0000
*;
0 0
coco00
0 00
ton
0~U
0
CQ
0r
* 0
4 r44r414
00000
\0Z\0 \0
· \03;t444
O
H
cn
HHHH
r0
a: m a:
000
H
I
VVV
44
HHH
H
nQAQQ
In
o
CW)
4)
O
0
0\
0
4)
o
000
4.
H
0>
$4
0a
2
Q
;6Z
r-I
VW3
2 S
m =3
n)
I O
00
H
53
0
·I
IH
IH
0
CN
ncD
Co0
I
I
I
I
I
II IH
I r-I
IC
10
I
..O
U
I
I 0l
I
I
I I
'
_o:
Vo %\l-\
I
1
I
in
I
II
I
I
I
I
4I
II
O
II
I
I I
I
w
I
I
I 0\I
C
N I
I
I
I C-
I0
r.
1o)
0
0
- t\O
cH
\
*O
H
\O
Hq
U.''C
Cl N
CQ N CO -4
4
Cl
.C
H
0Z;
C,
a0)
a)
4%
0
W
WWV
CJ
,.-I 0
c
n
H
-
n n
-- tU\
0 \ \0 \ \0
VI U'l%
U VI
E-
Q
fil
a)
4
·-
o"
00.
\)
. -':t
I
I
I
-4
U
I
0
I
00
4
4
\ \O
c- c--
'
U'lON C I U' I
4-. I 0
I
C rI U'O I
\0 -.4 -'
o
I
I
I
0
I
I 0
ICm
I
I
I
I I
0
la
O'
'3I4'
I
IU.'I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I\I
0
I N1 I
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
II I I
I I 100
I
I
*
I
I
I *
I O
I
I
H
(V
-=t
IL)r
1111
I III
IIII lII
I
I
I
I
I III
III
1
l
1111
I
I
I
0
Io
l
I
I
Io
0
l
CV.4t c\N
r
0
0 000
ll
11
HI u'C\ 0
C0r- 0 C\0
0000
IO
N,, 0'
CN
0*
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
* I I
0 I
01I H*, 0,,* I I1 I1
aO
0 II 0 1 00 11 1
54
accurate t reading.
The seismograph can be accurately inter-
pret only to 0.02 sec. therefore, h
= 100
= 5000ft./sec.
Since compression wave velocities are in this range and
sometimes larger, it was difficult to obtain these values.
It was found that eq. 4.1 or eq. 4.2 gave Cs or Cp
values of the same order.
As a result the criteria of
e'a8" did not seem important.
It is probably best to use the phase velocity, a,
to supply one of the site parameters needed for each
field case in order to normalize the data.
This is because
the phase velocity can be obtained without assumption, whereas, the shear wave velocity, Cs, is dependent upon the
assumption of path linearity and consistency with depth.
Table 4.3 gives values of C s values commonly observed
in earth materials.
This table or the values recorded in
the case studies can be consulted to obtain the Cs value
when field data is not available.
Table 4.3 Typical Shear and
Compression Wave Velocities
(After Whitman, 1973)
Description
Cs(ft./sec.)
Soft clay
Medium clay
Dense sand
Cemented sand
Soft rock
490
820
1150
1480
1970
Cp (ft./sec.)
800
1350
1890
2425
3235
55
The compression seismic wave velocity, Cp, is related to the Cs value by the following formula.
Cp = /2
Using a value of
I+Y
(4.3)
Cs
= 0.35, the Cp values
n Table 4.3 were
calculated from the Cs values with equation 4.3.
Table 4.2a&b presents the seismic velocities gathered
from various field studies.
Only a few Cp values were ob-
tained as explained earilier due to instrument accuracies.
The Mass. Eye and Ear Project
and the NDPHousing Projects
resulted in unusually low Cs values. Noting that in these
projects piles were placed at great depths. Therefore,
the seismic waves travel upward at larger angles (e")
than at other projects.
As a result the cos e" value is
much less than one, thus, resulting in a smaller C
value.
Also, as waves propagate more vertically upward the accuo
racy of the phase velocity is lessen due to reflection of
the seismic wave as it travels upward through the soil layers.
4.3
Attenuation Relationships Separated Accordzln to
Idealized Subsurface Profiles
Scaled plots of data from similar idealized soil profiles are presented in this section.
The graphs can be
used to predict particle velocity when only the soil profile is known.
For cases in which the Cs value is not
known an suggested value is given.
Even when a Cs value
56
TRANSVERSE
>o
E 1/3
FIG. 4.3 IDEALIZED SCALING GRAPHS OF PARTICLE VELOCITY
VERSUS SCALED RANGE, COMBINED DATA
Ilfl
ww
w-i
m- i-
l
Z'.--:E,.
-
r
LONGITUDINAL
"
m
-
*
an
I ',.t4
=E
.1
-~+
H
t-T
-He
-
-
r
57
i
r
1
-...
m W;~fi
..
. -
.
I
_l_
--
L I
L
.
.Lti '.
i
+4j~-1±lIIt.
L1.I I_ L I 4'i~
-I
i Nl:
14-11
:. -F.#t- t IL, i
.t i-: .;.
±.Hit
l
L
I-
-|
--r-:
'-.f
~ ..
11
-
-
_.r
_
t-
_1.
-4..
s-
.1
.
-
.
I ,
3-CI±
lU
l __
-
i-
I
.t:-
I:'
t
I
.r
X
R-
IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILE
!l
t
100
It
f- I
_o
I
II
10
I4
X1 - .
!
. .
T i
.
:
M
. I
..
.
---t". I I I . I I i I
!;-i'
I!
-4 I-. 4-I4--4-4l
-- ..-
.
L
i
. i '-
!
IiI.
: :
.
11,
T -1AI
. ±'~ ...
:
i r,
i.
4...i-l;
I1r!-1
ii:
i·
ir
,l
Iii nj
--
t--' -. .. r
-17tiI
- L-l-.
-i- N-
1-i
t
;1·
i
Iti··l
i
1000
W
EI/ 3
FIG. 4.4
IDEALIZED SCALING GRAPH OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, COMBINED
DATA
TRANSVERSE.
600
li
I
- :
Itl-HrIllt-L11
I
,i
4 1-,
_S ·t
0
i
:: t-
-i
W j I i ,.
I1+IEI fI .41 ,,,·I,,
:. 1: l I~-:l
II
.I!:1 iI
rC fCC iCi C.
1 ; LL .L..
t ! t i I:L
I i,
_ ':' r-
I
-··. t1-.k
'9,_
-- ·I
i
58
VERTICAL. LONGITUDINAL
IDEALIZED
.
SOIL PROFILE
--- l--------.. . I
.!.
A
T-.i
B..1 i
I
._
A
SAND
:f
.
i,
d 417-19 FT.
Iii
ki.IN.
L Lt
t"
-+
100
-..-
Cs = 492 FT/SEC.
I .
X
,:'
,|
DATA FROM
TABLES CI, BI
i
.'
0
O
>10
I:
i t.1 .
.
.
_
i -f.4!
! !
t
Fll-qt
Ii.,
_0
cr-rt-+-y
.
i-I '
::
i
.
i
!-
.
'
.
s
1
.]
z
1.
-I
ri
il
: -t
. ..i-11}.
I-;.
-
-..L. 1.--.- 1- .. , - 4j4.
:.
I
I
i
:i!-
t1
.'..it
1:
g
III
0
10
i- +1" I
-
_
!
I I I I I 111
1 1 1Ilillil!lJll
I Pl I 1s1 111111111111-1
'"
II I I
lr
lU
-
I I 1
I... I
....... I
.....
1
11 11
44I
I
Ii+
mI~
i...4..1-.
I-..-. I+4.
:.,,-+l
H.
.
ig-
... .I· -i .1,
I
,.1
- t :
.L
4Iri
.
Hil-11
ft -4
i ..;-:f
LI i
j
.i! I
i!"11
4'
It
-
.-
I . j
-f
I
.1111111111111
I ccc~
I -i
X
- --1 -i. - , . -:
1 1
. I
t
: f-'tmt
'-
i
tt
' '-t -I..
.. .
. .LU-lLL-
I-I-4.+-HN-
T: 44.l
1
!I
E~IEI3 -~
-. ! I - .1I -t
!7
.
J--1·
..
.
r
Hc ,b.
|
.
I
I : -I
:I
1::
IU
H--4I
_
_
Il- 1 1 1 '
. | ! .
M
{-H·C
I i.-_tt$-fi-t
---!-A
....ll
, I i_---:
C
.
t.
.1
!
i I fl7t. / I i i II:
1.1 *1*
Nf!!; -1r iI
I
i
I
I
. . . . . . . . .- .
. .
. -
. t- i
!
.1 . I
a. I
1-f tf1 1111
I I 1 IIl I I II 11 1 11111
1 1,11
1 11
I
1M
!l
lt
-t
II 1
!tT!TI-1"t-l
; II
. . . - . . .. - . - .
I
- . - .-
II
.
.
.
100
.
.
. .
. . . .
. . . . . .-
.
I
I.
.
I 1 11 111
I
1000
R(p C2) 1/3
El/3
FIG. 4.5
IDEALIZE[ ) SCALING GRAPH OF PARTICLE VELOCITY
VERSUS SCALED RANGE, C;OMBINED DATA
TRANSVERSE. VERTICAL. LONGITUDINAL
IUUJU
X
X
=
_
_
_
JL_
.
|-"*F
.
w
_
_
_
_
.
_
! I
t ltt:I-4~:'4t41
I - -1:4-i
_r.Utl
.
4-
.
.T
I.
.:t-.
-:I4
: i F
*L-
T"'-R-:,
,,-...-
.. .,=
_
'
_J-,.E
-·
.L
_
-
.
.
-"
,- i
MEDIUM SAND
d.1[
i-4- --
1i
_- f.-
.
_
q
;
..-
-I
.I ,
I
.
---
a
-.
-...
-
!
--.
'[IT
ilI
:
0
..t.
I-t,.!-
10
II
,
i i
I
I 1
i I ! _: · '.J
_~
ZTtF17
=T
r
I
I I
a
i
.r-
4
[
i
1'T'-
9
-
V
-r"
*.
JC.= 540 F1[/SEC.
I
_
.,,
.
1.1.--1:
r_1
T
I
l
r r
H
-f
I
i
I[
t
COARSE SAND AND/OR
GRAVEL
IlllII
II!1!
I
I
III
II
ffI
Ii :i
II
Il
:DATA FROM
TABLES
SI, DI
i
I-, ": -T
ill
.:`1
i
j--[ I
i ;11
it -L-
,f.ft
-4.
10
I
*
IMM-7
-
i
s
11>,
-T-
[l
i
!
..- t
~..l
,TT7
:
.d .
....'
_
i ! . l.
.
m
I
[, il1l,T,, I
..,,..
F , l,,,
- I ' or
l !''Iill
" '^""' N
II _-'
1.1 . -10
I
I
ti
I
1
-
- -I,
wL
I
-
I
t'''
I
-'
F
lc
i
-
IDEALIZED SOIL
PRORLE
i; i
--
"
I I
100 -f--tt
.
i . l'-ttt~tt ;'
.i
.,
. . - .--
-e
t: ..
.i-
.f
i
,4-let
- r*4
..
_
I-!
i
-
1
.
.1
Ii
-4rr_
59
_
_
i7H' 1-1
.
i
'i
"
.1 -..
4
it
L ,.i
I I Il-I
. -
I
lT ;
.
.·)·(
:
Itt-tt
i
I
i II
I
I
. ;: .
. I I 1, . 1
I
i'
.44.
-i: t -t.1
i-l-- -~;j
- 44i :.
L^L
I-·i~~~~~~~~~~~T
ivi
.
i
.
d-t.
,I . : ;
,I .i.-
....
i
:11iSflz1e1
H .-.. I
T-'-;'4
-
'. -1
, ,
.. -I - :
. .. : ..
I .
.
-.- I
i
I
.
1 !-1 '-I
-.
rT I-T1-
:-4.
'I1
: - H'
I i I
i
;j -ft..
Till
I
..
.. Ii
I
10
ilz;
...
't
: I !1
.i
.
I
-T.ffifI
i
E
100
I I I
. 7H
1fli
I
I I
1000
R(pC2)1/3
FIG. 4.6
IDEALIZED SCALING GRAPH OF PARTICLE VELOCITY
VERSUS SCALED RANGE, COMBINED DATA
6o
__..
TRAP JSVERSE. VERTICAL. LONGITUDINAL
"'
80uo
_'
...........
.....
--
IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILE
I -
-lF j.
--f+
·-~~~~~~J
-4r-
-- -
5
-L H17r ,,
5_
-4 -i
I
FILL
~!if! H.
""i
i
d=14-30'
iI -it- i
-TI
ilt--11 .u
,
7:-7
:r
L~--
|
-iT7
A- L'
4¶
4:'l
I
PEAT
-
'jj I +F
-
k
i I
-I-44
'
-t-t
I
II.i
t-i-i-HI!:
,
- -·-·-! !
.
:
a
.it-
,
0
-4
I
.'
I
!!
I
I
I0
10
0
44q
-1--'
:11----
*|--1
; 1 1 1 1I
I III
H .-:-
-k-4-4
f l----- t
-
II 111
~
r ! ! [ :fl
-tI
! II II I
i
- 4 .;-.
_
4-- ,t
"[~1H:i
t
!I5
t-t
11! c~+
-1
-
:t
l
I I iI
I
: I 1111
I
I11
i
I ! 11!!11! !1 1 111
-·--0
~I- --I
kr~1
I-
* TABLES JI, MEI
+ TABLE DI
t'
17f
T:H-1 .. t
i
-L-
77
-i· - '......
''
-fA
,.
I I LJ
I
i
I
--- I -I --H-
I
._
I.
-I-
·
to
II LLL.
_JJ.
i JIl
VL-^
;;
.
SAND AND GRAVEL
--
I
L-1I
. t . - ..
.
I
I .r
I
I
~qTcr
.
.1]1-l L.,I-- -.....
j
I
-!- LT-FT
|
NI
!
iI
I
I
i
Elill
II !I
.-
I
11
ll ,
-
;
1T
Fti-
-i I-I11
-i-- itI
.1 -1.-,
*
ctr '
4- 't-1
EL
ll 1- 1 1
! -.(--- -..--+_
--
OR SILT
I
Cs = 300-50FT/SEC
, § 1 |1
1-4 A-
I ill
iI IIIll~
( iI
-
J k-.I
t--I
L-i
F
cl
I-.-l
l
IiII
l· _
*+/
A
.-.I
'I:i: ..+-e
11-Vi:
HI:iI I
100
h-I
I
11 I ...
,Wtct4"'I
-JIr
1
t
-
T
t
7,r
___.__....
4 d FE..'
I_
I
I.
I 1 l-
j,;
I
. '.
-11
T
It 1-I- 4 ---
-,t-ft I
-
I I I
- II
I I I I I I i i r
I
I
100
J--4-1
II-
I II I
I I I
L I. I I
''TtT'tt:+t+-rm-tr
I r I r r r I rl ill 1
'I
+
I I I i I Iil
ll
I I I
J
II. II .. . . I . i IIi m
1000
R(pC2)
c 6 1/
FIG. 4.7
IDEALIZED
SCALING
GRAPH OF PARTICLE VELOCITY
COMBINED DATA
VERSUS SCALED RANGE,
61
is known and it varies largely from the recommended value,
it is best to use the recommended value with the graphs
(particularly when the soil profile is known).
Figures 4.3 and 4.4 presents the combined data from
three projects in which bulbing was performed at depths
of 64 to 86 feet.
The tube was driven in all cases with
the Delmag hammer.
All points plotted on the graph
(represented as dotes) represent vibrations resulting from
bulbing.
The following equation would estimate the par-
ticle velocity for all three components.
The equation
is most conservative, that is overestimates the particle
velocity for most cases.
V/C
-.
IIR(PCs21/31
1
E
-3.041
J
Presented below are constants for attenuation relationships of peak motions in three other frequency encountered idealized soil profiles (Figs. 4.5, 4.6, & 4.7).
Again these equations apply to all components of particle
velocity.
[R( pCS2)1/3lm
E1 /3
V/C s = K
J
TABLE 4.4 CONSTANTS FOR THE ATTENUATION EQUATIONS
Fig.
K
m
4.5
4.6
4.7
0.9919
7.467
0.7478
-2.239
-2.729
-2.194
62
4.4
Variation in Particle Velocity Over Depth
Some particle velocity data was collected as the tube
was being driven with the Franki hammer (Figures 4.8 and
4.9).
The two figures reflect the effect the geology of
an area has on the particle velocity.
For the Drake Village Project the particle velocity
is about constant with depth.
The only large variation was
when the pile's bulb was formed at the base of the pile,
in which the vertical component decreased largely.
This
decrease may be due to the holding of the drive tube during
bulbing which restricts tube motion.
At the Medi-Mart Project large vertical particle velocity was observed as the drive tube was first driven,
while the longitudinal and transverse components were near
zero (see Table ME1).
peat layer.
A layer of fill soil overlies a
This soil profile is analogous to a board
floating on water.
The board can be rocked easily when
struck and so can the fill layer lying oer
the peat.
63
MAXIMUM
PARTICLE
VELOCITY - INCHES/SEC.
0.5
1.0
Y
17,
T
18
w
w
IL.
I
a.
19-
I
w
0
20
V LT
21I
$ .--oBULBING
V
FIG. 4.8
L T
MAXIMUM PARTI( .LE VELOCITY VERSUS DEPTH,
DRAKE VILLAGE PROJECT- PILE NO. 31, h=32.2'
64
MAXIMUM
PARTICLE
VELOCITY - INCHES/SEC.
0.5
1.0
1
0
I
1
+
+
+
10-
DRIVING
TUBE
VERTICAL
DATA
COMPONENT
w
w
I.
I
-.
0
30
r
FIG 4.9
+
MAXIMUM PARTICLE VELOCITY VERSUS DEPTH,
MEDI-MART PROJECT-PILE
NO. I, h= 19'
65
Chapter
5
Response of Buildings to Pile Vibrations
5.1
Single-Degree-of-Freedom Model
To determine the damage potential of a passing earth-
wave it is best to consider the earthwave's effect on a
structure.
Ideally one would like to consider a modeled
structure and to compute displacements of the structure
caused by an earthwave.
If one knows the relative dis-
placements between the ground and the structure, a dynunlcally induced stress can be determined for the structure.
When considering a modeled structure, the model must
incorporate the masses and stiffnesses of the
nents
of the
structure.
main
compo-
The model must also consider the
dissipation of energy that is absorbed by the structure.
Such a simplified
system
shown in
model is the single-degree-of-freedom
Fig.
5.1a.
The spring represents the
stiffnesses
of the main components; the concentrated mass
is analogous to the mass of the whole structure; and the
dashpot models the dissipation of energy. u,
is the dif-
ferential movement between the abolute displacement of
the mass, x, and the absolute displacement of the ground,
y, at any time t.
Fig. 5.lb, which has all the components of Fig. 5.1la,
shows how a modeled structure of a one- or two-story building behaves when movement in one horizontal direction is
66
x
&
CI
x(t) - y(t)
(a)
m
rIwI
I
I I'
r r·
I
u(t)= (t)- y(t)
(b)
(b)
FIG. 5.1
SINGLE-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM
SYSTEMS
67
considered.
The differential equation for the single-degree-of
freedom systems in Fig. 5.1a and 5.lb when considering free
vibration is:
m
+ c
+ ku = o,
(5.1)
where i is the absolute acceleration of the mass, m, clis
the viscous damping coefficient,
is the velocity of the
mass relative to the ground, k is the linear spring constant, and u is the relative displacement between the ground
and the mass.
Using the relationship for the relative displacement, u,
x(t) = u(t) + y(t),
(5.2)
Equation 5.1 becomes
mu + cl
(5.3)
+ ku = -my.
The solution to equation 5.3 for relative displacements
at any time, t, may be expressed in terms of an integral of
the absolute ground-acceleration time-history as
u(t p
11S,62
y('1)e- 8 p(t T) sin( Pd
(t-))
dI
(
where u and fi are zero at t(o) (Veletsos and Newmark, 1964).
p, is the natural circular frequency of the undamped springmass system which is equal to V/k7
damping,
, is equal to
The fraction of critical
cl/(2Ai-).
For/? equal to 1 the
mass will not oscillate when it is displace and released from
its equilibrium position.
The natural circular frequency
68
I-.
of the damped system, Pd' is equal to
2
The ground-
acceleration time-history, is represented by y(t), where,T,
is the variable of the integration.
The ground-acceleration
time-history is integrated from
zero
time
to
time t.
Equation 5.4 yields the response of a single-degreeof-freedom system to a ground acceleration
tory.
If one integrates
time input his-
equation 5.4 by parts and combines
the terms, the results is
t
u(t) =.()
e
f/IB. _
P(t- T) cos(Pd'(t-.[))d'I
sin(Pd(t-l))dT
(5.5)
where u and
are zero at t(o).
Here
(t) is a ground
velocity time-history input.
With the following relationships:
CI
=-~
~7
E _and
p Jk/
(5.6)
with equation 5.3, the following equation can be obtained.
U+2Bp + p 2u =-y
(5)
From the equation 5.7, it can be seen that if p andS are
known, equation 5.7 can be solved without having to assume
the values of m, k, and cl. Values of p and
can be obtained
from an actual free vibration time-history of a structure.
69
Values of m, k, and cl are difficult to quantify, such
as the degree of fixity of the columns which effects k.
A record of free vibration of a structure was measured by the author in Fig. 5.2.
The record is a longitUdi-
nal velocity time-history recorded next to the building
The dampednatural period, T, is ob-
wall on the floor.
tained from the free response part of the velocity-time
history as shown, along with the value of
found to be about 0.03.
6.
# was
Since damping fractions for un-
damaged structures are typically 2 to 3 percent, p will be
about equal to Pd.
For example, if 9 is assumed equal to
,
3 percent, and using the relationship Pd = P J1-obtains Pd = 0.9995P.
Concluding, Pd
=
one
P
Response Spectra
5.2
The previous discussion has dealt with the response of
The re-
of a particular structure to a passing earthwave.
sponse spectra plot enables one to consider the effect of
different types of earthwaves on a wide variety of structure s.
By developing a computer program to evaluate equation 5.5
for a velocity-time input wave motion,
a specified value of
ing this caluation
9
(t), with
and Pd a u(t) is obtained.
for various values of Pd and f9
Repeatone ob-
tains the response of a number of buildings each having a
9 and
Pd value.
These responses are plotted on the re-
70
-I
.E
2e _
cil
*
S~~GI
3
QC
u~I.
a
a,~
~ 'I ~ ~L~ ~~a
0.~~~~~~
b -
I..I~
cX
-~~~
e"U
~ ~K
IL
( §
71
sponse spectrum plot.
The type of response plot used in this study is
shown
The response in this particular spectrum is
on Fig. 5.3.
given in terms of the pseudo-velocity, pD, which is
maximum relative displacement, D (
the
umax), multiplied by
the natural circular frequency, p.
The special type of tripartite paper on which the
response spectra is
plotted has two inclined axes.
One
inclined axis represents the maximum relative displacement, u, and the other inclined axis represents the pseudo
acceleration, p 2 D.*
The two inclined axes and the ordip
nate coordinate, pD, are functions of the relative displacement and the natural frequency of the system.
The pseudo velocity, pD, obtained from the response
spectra can be used to determine flexural
Also, obtained from the
strains in structural components.
response spectra
is
stress and
the pseudo acceleration which approxi-
mates the absolute acceleration,
.
From the absolute
acceleration the base shear acting on a structure can be
determined.
To find how well the pseudo acceleration,
p2 D, approximates the absolute acceleration,
, a zero is
*p2D and pD are called pseudo acceleration and pseudo velocity because they are sinusoidal approximations. Bt these
pseudo values closely approximate the absolute aocele*ation
of the mass and the relative velocity of the system,
(Veletsos and Newmark, 19 64 )
72
a-.
/K {I}/vv~~w
v/,
n
vIA
0
0
cr
w
Qz
C ,O
,' \/5
zm.
.
'X,
?°o:/')05
o'nO
aD
t
doz
tl3
OO
'
0a
IJ
U.xo
_oO
Z
>.
2 -'1/
0
w
-I
ui
-d
/Iw-
a-
w
ar
to
0u
w
a.
Fa,O
9aX
u.)
N
C,
0.
00
00
d
*oes/'u! '4t4!oole^ opnesd -
0
o
d
, OO
0
O
O
0
0
o
o
60
6
U.L
substituted in equation 5.7.
sees that x =-p 2 u.
Most f
are less than 5%, which
73
And using equation 5.2, one
values for building motions
ustifies the assumption
=-p2u.
The response spectra is commonly calculated by a
computer because of the many computational steps involved.
As a result, methods have been devised to simplify the
calculation of a spectrum.
A common method consists of
multiplying values of the maximum ground input acceleration, a, displacement, 6, and velocity, V, by approximate
values of amplification factors.
Three bounds of the response spectra are determined
by the amplification factors which are As, A,
and Aa.
The subscripts on the amplification factors indicates the
the values of 6, v, or a corresponding to the amplification multiplication factor.
The ratio of the natural frequency of the system to
the principal input frequency of the earthwave being analyzed, p/w, indicates which bounds are appropriate.
When
p/w is extremely small or large the system's response is
the same as the input displacement and acceleration, respectively.
For example, at low p/'s
the response spe.-
trum is subparallel to the peak input displacement.
This
portion of the response can be approximated by an amplification factor, A s , multiplied by the peak ground displacement,6.
At values of high p/b's the response spectrum is
74
subparallel to the peak input acceleration.
This portion
of the response spectrum can be approximated by an amplification,
Aa, multiplied by the peak ground acceleration.
The interior region of the spectrum can be specified by
an amplification factor, Av, multiplied by the peak
ground velocity,
V.
For earthquake
motion of A6 , Av and Aa are commonly
determined for various recorded earthwave motions.
The
bounds of the response spectrum are estimated by multiplying the value of
, V, and a by the appropriate ampli
floation factor. The:resultant boundsdelineate-the appropriate
response spectrum for earthquake design.
plification
The' am-
factors vary as a function of the type of
system, that is
9 values
and the type of earthwave input.
, the smaller the amplification
The larger the value of
factor will become.
5.3
Results of ProJect Studies
5.3.1
Introduction
This section summarizes calculated response spectra
from nine project studies of Franki pile driving induced
ground motion.
Also included is one blast-induced grouiu
motion for comparison.
At two Franki sites building mo-
tionswere monitored in which realistic
, were recorded.
damping fractions,
Details of the monitoring of these
75
ground motions are presented in Appendix A.
Other appendices supplying background data for this
section are AppendixC (Field and Digitizing Instrumentation) and Appendix B (Digital
Single-Degree-of-Freedom
Computer Analogue of the
System).
Appendix C contains
further details concerning the effect of the pickup placement and limitations
of the instrumentation.
Appendix B
contains a detailed description of the preparation of the
measured time-histories
of ground motion necessary to
numerically solve equation 5.4 or 5.5, and to obtain the
first integral or the displacement of the ground motion.
5.3.2
Measured Structural ResDonse
As previously mentioned, the author was able to record
the reactions of two structures while recording the ground
motions adjacent to the strucutres. It was therefore possible to comparethe measuredresponse of the structures
with the calculated response of the single-degree-of-freedom model.
The modeled response
was calculated
adjacent ground motion, and the free-vibration
riod, T, and the critical dampingfraction,
structure, as explained in Section 5.1.
Table 5.1 compares the calculated
with the
natural pe-
, of the
and the measured
response, where Vmaxis the maximumvelocity response of
a structure from a ground vibration.
The calculated re-
76
I
0
4 ~E-e
il~~-lilil
C)
H
0
0
z0
*
* l.11
w
r'4
%A
r..I
o
H
*CO
~E
00
0
otrI
'0
oo
0 lii
0
0~~~~0
Cl,
Owu
oJ
0t
I
**I
3
0
nNo 00
0.O)
3v6q
>J4-02.0-
N -4
C4 co 0 U
0000
0
0000
'l
IOZO' NO
e
e-4
O
o,
..-I
C,
E-O
0
0%
-P-
V*4
0
P
0
oh
0
o~
-P
-4 4 -I4
0O
OOO
0000
0
4co
Ed
0
44
0
o
0
~a
u4
%
0*
*
O~$
* C
0
H
4"
O
·. ~ * *
o C
04)-H 0
00r9 00r
P4
bOH'
0
0000
A
mr
CO)
-H
WH
Z
C,
00k 0
zO
011
p4
o~C
'- 0
0
H
-0m
V E
:^e
0H
0
QP
C)
a 0
0-i :C
'4
0000
*
Ow
"'4)
I
H
,~0
0000
0
0
h
Ih-HQ
n li
Ocb*1
E- P
04)
FQ 0
ir4
0
w4
0 -P
r-4
ol
77
sponse, Vealo, is found using a measured a (always equal
to 0.03) and a measured damped fundamental frequency, f,
with the computer program.
V is the particle velocity
adjacent to the structure in the ground.
At the Joyce Chens Project a
8 value of 0.03 was
obtained from the wall motion in the transverse direction
or perpendicular to the wall.
recorded the same value of
8 on
The Drake Village Project
the floor slab of a ga-
rage in the longitudinal direction (toward the pile).
The fundamental frequency, f, of two structures are
shown in Table 5.1.
Comparing these frequencies with a
predicted formula from the Structural Engineers Code of
California gives good agreement for the Drake Village
Project.
The formula recommends that the period, T, may
be estimated by multipling the number of stories of a
structure by 0.1.
With this approximation the fundamental
frequency, f, of a single-story structure is 10 cps.
At
the Drake Village Project motion was recorded in a one
story garage.
The floor slab freely vibrated in the lon-
gitudinal direction only, with a frequency of about 7
ps.
Vertical free vibration was not expected since the floor
slab was heavily damped by the soil under it.
Window sill
motions were the largest in the garage (0.281 in./sec. vertical, bulbing), but no free vibration was recorded.
The
recorder may of been rocking on the window sill and thus
78
not indicating any free vibration.
All free vibration
readings were observed at a depth of about 20 feet when
the pile's bulb was being formed.
The response monitored on the Joyce Chens building
occurred at a frequency of 17 cps.
This two story build-
ing should have a frequency of about 5 cps (f
1/ 2x0.1).
1/T =
Two possible reasons for the high measured
frequency are: a frequency of 17 cps represents a mode of
vibration not considered by the single-degree-of-freedom
model, or the motions recorded are that of the walls and
not of the structure.
The latter explaination is the more
likely case.
5.5.3
Comparisons of Response Spectra
Looking at response spectra in Appendix A, little
noticeable differences in the general shape is observed.
The peak particle velocity always seems to occur at or
near 20 cps frequency.
This seems true for driving the
tube or forming the bulb, or for bulbing in firm soil or
less firm soil.
But, at the Medi-Mart Project the response spectrum
peaked at about
4 to 8 cps (Fig. ME4).
This happened
for an input motion record in which the ground freely
vibrated.
Since one-story buildings freely vibrate close
to 10 cps, response spectra which peak at this frequency
are most harmful to this type of building.
That is, if
79
two response spectra peak at the same pseudo velocity,
but different peak frequencies, the response spectra closer to 10 cps will excite a one-story building more.
It was observed how the frequency of the input motion
affected the response spectrum.
Comparing Fig. ME5 and
ME6 in Appendix A, Fig. ME5 peaked at a frequency of about
8 cps, while Fig. ME6 peaked past l0cps.
Though this dif-
ference is small, a trend is observed in the vibration records.
Records with lower frequencies have a response
spectra which peaks at lower frequencies.
The records
used to calculate Fig. ME5 and ME6 are shown in Fig, ME8(b)&(c).
As can be seen the two records have near iden-
tical V values, but different frequencies.
This lower
peak response trend for low frequencies can also be seen
with Fig. ME8(a) and Fig. ME4.
5.3.4
Simplified Method to -Determine the
espose
Spectra
The response spectrum can be drawn by knowing the
peak ground motions (particle displacement, 6, particle
velocity, V, and particle acceleration, a) along with
the corresponding amplification factors, A s , Av, and Aa.
The author has assembled in Table 5.2 such data for the
projects studies.
Unfortunately no ground acceleration
values were obtained therefore, no A
ed.
could be calculat.
As discussed in Section 5.2 to describe the bounds
80
TABLE 5.2 CORRECTED, PARTICLE VELOCITIES AND PARTICLE
DISPLACEMENTS
WITH APPROPRIATE AMPLIFICATION
FACTORS
Project
Pile
6
(in.)
Joyce
Chens
Mass.
Eye &
Ear
V
Brookline
Village
Sagamore
Towers
Drake
Village
3
0.0177
1..138
109
o. 00179
109
0.00285
0.137
0.221
K-3-C
K-3-C
0.00101
0.113
0. 00136
0.125
1.9
o.0031
0.759
0.339
Cmpo-
nent
V
T
2.5
V
1.7
3.6
.5
L
T
2.3
4.0
T
1.1
2.2
2.7
1.0
1.7
3.2
L
0.321
1.2
0.00237
0.176
1.7
4.5
V
V
V
E-14-C 0. 00943
E-14-C 0.00831
0.741
1.4
2.0
V
0.775
1.2
3.9
L
120
120
0.01076
0.00758
1.106
1.4
0.973
1.4
3.6
2.7
T
L
31
31
0.00556
0.00352
0.678
0.526
1.4
5.3
Di 1(1)
0.00286
0.00535
0.334
0.390
1.4
1.1
0.00193
0.00745
0.00159
0.852
0.339
0.139
1.5
1.6
1.9
1
2
5
Dl (1)
MediMart
2.5
3.8
1.813
O. 00 02
Charles-
town
1.3
1.5
0.0132
0.00241
Cramer
Elect.
Av
1
2
NDP
Housing
A6
(in./sec.)
1
1
2
t.7
T
.9
T
6.3
4.i
T
L
3.0
3.2
3.0
V
V
V
81
of the response spectrum one would multiply the values of
V and 6 by the corresponding amplification factor,
flaty velocity bound stretches between 10 and 20
The
ps,
while the displacement bound would stretch from 0.3 to
10 cps.
5.3.5
Response Spectra Causing Damage
A study by Dowding (1971) included data on response
spectra that caused building damage, in which such response
spectra were calculated and the results plotted.
Fig. 5.4.
shows the damage bounds due to blasting vibrations.
Also,
included on the figure in one of the largest responses recorded from the author's project studies.
The damage
bounds due to blasting vibrations refer only to well constructed single- and two- to three-story structures.
The spectrum bounds have to be reduced for the protection
of old or poorly constructed structures.
5.3.6
Problems With Predicting Building Motion
The response spectrum has been shown to be a useful
tool in estimating structural response and for determining fundamental frequencies of structures
andstructural
components. But someparts of a structure vibrate at different fequencies than other parts.
Care must be exercis-
ed in selecting the proper position for ground-motion
measurement.
Placing the recording instrument outside the
_ ___
I
xS
<%
>X
82
7
G~b
11
lb j
I
is \
--- N
· ___·
I
Is
m
Z
D
11 z
N
0
a
'4
N
9
1,1/
r Ilt
,4aN
'IN
I-
2
oe
S
Vt
'I
4
x
x
lx
,Z7
N0
4-
U)
/
F
x
2
s
I.
s
I
Z
KI
7G,<
\/Y."
i
A
V
(
4
s
h
N
C
Nk
/N
1
aO
'IN
aCz
",-.Z
V
U
o7^
N
C0
1Z
wZ
P 2-
N\
Am
I I
_o
--
gg
bI
O
4Q
O
0
.v
0i,
i I
A#v
.
\i
f r·"i
,0
"Aw~
,17\
,\
,
x,
'.,x.N.t,
,
JN
,.I
_ _,
I
v-
.
f
i,,
5
I
II
C
t a
et4f
X
I
I
C.
3o8/'U! '4!oIA
V
.k
.s
X^4
0
_J
W~i
K
-i
w
i c
?W11111N'
X/N~ VI . .Z I
53
eN
Y
I.XKXIX.
---
o
C
CL
-
11 I
6
Xi I XNNIV
,
3
I
Xklt~~~~~~a
\
II
efY."
LL
4
aP
e "IV
I
;ollllo
&I v XI
A
)1-11x
U-
[-'s
c-
a
11
.4-
I0
i
4
I'
"X
¢
I Z0°o
00
VA
I
o;
\
<
S
4
N1
It
N9~
v
10
t I ;e
C
i
-.
X .4
I'l
II
I
IL
ID
h4
11
t
Z
t
I
11/
ooo,
\
I
L
I
/A
O/ V
\
N
ao
f A'
0.
a)
!
II
\
I
4
l/XCt^'
, /) cr
I
t
4-
I
I
N
N
2
X /,""\W
7 /\
4-'j
N;
Z
7
0
0to
t0
.44
0
t~
II
F
0
>i 1i CD
PC
I \1
.4>"I
X
V
23
4
7,
IO
'I
-W I
, - \ N --
Co
1'
74
N
/
I r, 1-1---
II
9
.
..----- Vt. ·--
..-
\
· -·-····--
Q
co
opnessd-Od
,
X.
· ·---
O
,
I
.
A
X XI3
- ------C
0
'
t
IL
0
cn
83
structure within a couple inches the structure is not
recommended by the author.
Joyce Chens Project.
This is
what was done at the
As a result the calculated response
overestimates the measured response.
This is because the
building motions can effect the ground motions near a
structure by reflection.
Observing Table C1 in Appendix
A, the (*) marked piles indicate the instrument location
was next to a building.
One sees that for the same R and
E, the motions are larger for the (*) marked piles (compare pile 1 with piles 4*, 5*, and 6*).
The transverse
and longitudinal components are larger for piles 4*, 5*,
and 6* even though the scale range, R, is larger.
Onehasto experiment with the recorder location in
order to determine the best input motion for a structure.
From AppendixA, Fig. D5 would predict
better than Fig. D4.
ground motion
the building
motions
Fig. D5 is a response spectrum of
'
15 ft. from a building, while Fig. D4 is
from ground motion 2 in. from the buildings
all.
Based
on observed vibration levels in the building, Fig. D.5
gave a more realistic building response.
84
Chapter
6
Legal Aspects of Pile Driving
6.1
Type of Complaints
Liability resulting from pile driving can occur in
being negligent; the conducting an
three different forms:
intrinsically dangerous operation; and causing a nuisance.
Some states hold that there is no liability for such
vibration damages unless there has been negligence on the
part of the pile driver.
This is the rule in New York,
Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Jersey and Texas.
en in order
Negligence would have to be prov-
for a contractor
Continuing
to be liable
(137 Conn. 562).
to operate a pile driver while knowing
of damages occuring would constitute
negligence.
A e-
fendant might argue that the continuance of the contract
with the only economically praticable method to finish
within the time required is not negligence.
In determining whether the pile driving damage was
inevitable, the test is not whether the method employed
was absolutely necessary, but whether in choosing another
method so as to avoid damage the expense would be so great
as to make any other method impractical.
A quoteon the meaning of an intrinsically
ous
situation comes from a Connecticut case.
danger"A person
who uses an intrinsically dangerous means to accomplish
85
a lawful end, in such a way as will necessarily expose
the person of another party to the danger of probably
injury, is liable if such injury results.
Eventhough
all proper care is used" (98 Conn. 51).
It might be difficult
to label a pile driving opera-
dangerous. For an automobile
tion as intrinsically
be also dangerous if not controlled properly.
can
Intrin-
sically dangerous work is work that is necessarily attendant with danger no matter how skillfully or carefully
it is performed.
It may be proper to impose absolute
liability without fault, whenever a pile driver is used
(137 Conn.
562).
The term "nuisance" as a ground of liability usually
results in confusion and frequently is a method of avoiding precision in analysis.
It might mean interference by
someone with another person's use and enjoyment of land.
Liability in such action should be based on the grounds
the interference was intentional and unreasonable or resulted from conduct which is negligent or reckless.
Public policy allows that private citizens should be
compensated for damages to their property caused by vibrations.
Nearly all
urisdictions accord the right to reoov-
er for damages caused by rocks hurled on one's land from
their neighbors, explosions of dynamite.
Such rock hurl-
ing damages could form a basis of recovering on trespass.
86
Damages for injury caused by vibration could not be recovered in an action of trespass because vibrations are
not a physical invasion of the real property.
Trespass to
real property is the act of directly injuring that property with force (52 Am. Jur. 836).
Such recovery is only
possible where there has been nuisance or negligence.
A defendant may make the claim that public policy
would prevent the application of liability to the case
where blasting or pile driving is done with a contract
with a governmental organization.
The argument is that
the social value of the use of dynamite in a public work
outweights the risk of damage resulting from vibration.
Therefore the rule of liability ought to be relaxed for
such a case.
Looking at the viewpoint of a property owner, damage
to his property is
ust as real when it results from vi-
brations in connection with a public works as with a private enterprise.
The advantages to society of a public
work are not as great as to require that private citizens
should suffer without compensation.
Moverover, there
should be no relaxing of the liability for the public work
case.
The measure of damages would commonly be the diminution in value of the plaintiff's property caused by the
defendant's pile driving.
The diminuation in value could
87
be determined by the cost of repairing the damage.
The
cost of repairs should not exceed the former value of the
property over what is was before it was damaged.
6.2
Authors
Solution
Unlike blasting, pile driving is more of a gradual
damage induced process.
One pile blow at normal distances
will not usually cause severe damage to a building.
There-
fore, when piles are driven next to a building cracks
may slowly appear and any settlement caused by the pile
driving will occur gradually.
If proper monitoring is tak-
ing place, the contractor will know his pile driving is damaging to a nearby building.
Negligence could be an issue here if the contractor
continues his pile driving knowing damages are occurring.
The contractor may have no other means of placing piles
and the specifications call for piles to be used as a foundation.
The contractor has no options to him, but must
continue his driving process in spite of the damages he
is causing.
If there was a contract and the damage was not a necessary result of the contract, and the contractor was negligent then the contractor would be liable.
If the damages
were inevitable as the result of the contract which could
not be changed, then the contractor would not be liable
(342 Mass. 689, 692).
Who would be liable in such a case
88
is difficult to say.
If the owner was a state highway
agency, one might want to pass the blame onto them.
It might be unfair to turn to the owner for fault.
For the owner is the man who knows nothing of the construction process.
He has relied on the architect or
engineer to build for him.
The owner doesn't care whether
the building is on piles or not.
a building which the architect
All the owner wants is
r engineer is to build
at the owner's expense.
In a Connecticut case of Caporale vs. Blakeslee, a
subcontractor was found liable in damages that occurred
due to his pile driving (149 Conn. 79).
Blakeslee and
Sons, a subcontractor, was driving piles in the construction of the Connecticut Turnpike.
The highway depart-
ment of Connecticut was aware of the risk involved and
what they were asking Blakeslee to do.
Blakeslee had no
choice of driving piles; he had contracted to drive piles
and had made his bid based on his pile driving technique.
This could be one case where the owner should accept the
responsibility of damages occurring.
If a damaging situation occurs, due to pile driving,
it may be possible to change the design.
could be placed instead of piles.
Concrete piers
The engineer could de-
cide if there is such an alternative and compute the added cost.
This would be handled in the same way as a field
89
order.
Cost would be passed off to the owner.
But once
a foundation is developed and initiated the cost of replacing portions of an existing foundation may prove any
alternative unfeasible. It may be more desirable to continue the driving procedure knowingthat damagesare oc-
curing. Later, if a suit is filed against the ontractor, the ontractor~ would pay for the damages which the
court decides.
The Caporale case might be a little
unfair to the
contractor, but it is not grossly unfair.
A calculated
risk was undertaken by the contractor in which the innocent party should not bear the cost of the
risk.
contractor's
The defendant should make good any harm that re-
sults by his conduct even though his conduct may be free
from fault.
It may be always proper to allow the contractor to
pay for damages, for he knows better than anyone else
whether his pile driving will be damaging to a structure
or not. The experienced contractor contracts to drive
piles and should know of the risks involed.
If the con-
tractor was not considered liable, he might become careless in his pile driving methods.
In conclusion, it is difficult to develop a standard law dealing with pile driving cases.
On one side
is the innocent party, who should somehow be compensated
90
for damages to his property.
The other side is the con-
tractor and/or engineer trying to construct or design an
economical foundation. I tend to favor the damagedparty
and feel the contractor taking the responsibility is not
highly unreasonable.
Quoting a Connecticut case,
"If
a court concludes vibrations caused by a defendant's
blasting operations has damaged a plaintiff's building,
the defendant is liable for that damage.
Even though the
defendant exercised all proper care and is not guilty of
negligence in the conduct of his operations.
The plain-
tiff is entitled to recover the costs of the repairs"
(Worth vs. Dunn, 98 Conn 51, 59, 118 A. 467).
91
Chapter
7
Conclusion
7.1
General
Field measurements of Franki pile driving induced
ground motions were obtained from field studies.
With
this data scaled plots of particle velocity versus scaled
range were drawn.
Response spectra of a single-degree-of-
freedom system model were calculated from ground motions.
7.2 Response Spectra
The response spectra calculated from the ground
motions generally contained one principal peak with a
well defined displacement bound.
The principal peak oc-
curred at a frequency of about 10 to 30 cps.
The accel-
eration bound of the response spectra did not have a definite shape.
Free vibration
was observed from a wall on the Joyce
Chensbuilding
and in a floor slab in a garage at the
Drake Village site.
At the Medi-Mart site free vibration
was observed at the ground's surface.
Measured building
motion was compared with predicted calculated motion.
7.3
Scaling Relationships - Comparison
Field measurement data was used to form dimension-
less products.
Such scaled products included the vari-
92
ables of V, Cs, R, p, and E.
Separate scaled plots were
formed with the dimensionless products taking into account the geological effect of an area.
The scaled plots have certain limitations.
They
apply only to the Franki pile with energy inputs of
100,000 to 140,000 ft.-lbs. and R values from 20 to 150
/ 13
Thus R/E
ft.
By using the re-
varies from 0.4 to 3.
lationship,
E1/2/R
= E1/ 6(1/(/E
the data from the studies of Wiss
1/3)
(7.1)
ad Attewell, etc.
can be compared with the author's study.
Attewell's
data which approximates the average of Wiss' data, is
presented below in Table 7.1.
TABLE 7.1 CONVERSION DATA
E = 140,000 ft./lbs.
R/E1/3
(ft.)/(ft.-)
0.4
*
1 /3
E1/2/R
R
V*
(ft.-#)1 /2 /ft
(ft.)
(in./sec.)
18.0
20.8
1.0
7.21
51.9
2.0
3.0
3.60
2.40
103.9
155.8
4,7
1.9
0.94
0.63
Data is from Fig. 2.7 from Attewell (equation 2.2).
To compare Fig. 2.7 with the data in-this study the
particle velocity, V, was plotted against R/E1 / 3 .
presents such data from nine project studies.
Fig. 7.1
Certain
6.0
-
-
i
--
-i
-+ 1-!i--H /#
--
-
-4. -* I-+ -. T-4-4-4-4
AFTER
_
cAND
ETC.
h111"
, - , ., _-i
t-
't
-
tt
-,-4-
+'t__--
_;
[I
iii'
. .:
4-
... :
__
s~~I
-
-
,. r
I TW-9"JJ JJM~
"16"Ir
-f -..I l - ·11
-- tt4 t
. ... -I- !-i-;
-. 4-r
---'r· ..II4
_.F-F -'--
..w - f
|
--t - --
4
_
=~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l·
I
I 93
- -
SI, D
* TABLES CI,BI
ATTEWELL
_.
_
TABLE
dl
TABLE
MEI
VERTICAL COMPONENT
.
I:- .
ul NICHI
I eL I
X TABLES MI,
+ TABLES Ml, N4 CH I
DATA
I!
1-
A,
1.0
I
i
!
I
I
i__Jitl
"-P 1 t
II
tt4,t
't
q-Jf'-tf-
!
t-
-
MAKING BULB AND
DRIVING TUBE
I I
CI
-
lf*Ak*'l'bkllll
I'litl[1
-
v
.LI
I
N!
1 H! N
If
15-
I
-
.:
, ...
t-L i
-
I --t . . ..
-- ·
1
_
II
cn
.. .
.
I.
....
=W_:
=
z
t
---- .4
+
·;
_,
L·-. :t:'
4--4--
Z
..i.-. t4--l
.i
i
I -rl i
1--- 1
i-. rt-t~-,ttl
I II
I1-1-Ttl-t!I I El I 1 I I I IL _1tj. . rill-ill ii 1 I i 1I l I 111IIII 71 I I I I I IV 1=1
1.!..
I
0.1 ._
.- 4-
.i ...T-
,
i .!
,I 4
ttm1
I I I I ll I I I I I 1 1 1I I I I I I 11I I I
|e
-
i i. I
4-..,1-.4-.I
i; I I f
Te I
,
i
.
I
!-hi
i .,j t
I
I , II
4-
i
K
I
i
, -l
441+41--
_- -
L:1
,,
-I~~
~ i·~1-I ~ iU:-i
.
-,=-,1
+k,-
:q
..:... :: . . I
,
.........
.
'. :-' i,.. .- . . :. .4-. . .
I.
. 1. . - , 1! ffl! Hp7
.4-- I
~i I
_
~,j )
I , ! i . I.
kF .....
.
1
..·
:
-
_
I
;
_
.
t'. i-: .....
.
0.
----.
_
J
tL
_.---~
1I1ItI1I11M 1
+
V2-;JiI74iliii4Iimll4irilfzt
11 -"
.O;,:
U
R
E I/3
.
7 7MM7I
l
IJ
_
.U +
FT
.
M1111
, . .,,
-+
(FT.-LBS)1/3
FIG. 7.1 MAXIMUM PARTICLE VELOCITY EXPECTED
FROM THE DRIVING OF FRANKI PILES
_Li1
I0
cases with similar soil profiles have their data combined to represent the same point on the figure.
equations represent these plotted points.
Two
Equation 7.2
is from a line drawn directly through all the plotted
points to represent an average line.
Equation 7.3 is from
a line drawn above the plotted points which would predict
the highest possible expected particle velocity levels.
For equation 7.3, two straight lines had to be drawn.
line applies for R/E/1
3
values from 04
One
to 2,0 and the
other line applies for R/E1/3 from 2.0 to 3.0.
These
equations are given below.
R/E1/
3 =0.4-2.0
R/E1/=2.0-3.O
V = 0.1581(R/E1/3)-2.
6 61
' '
V = 0.6124(R/E1/3.)
242
V = 18.75
1
(WE1/3' ) 6 ' 22 9
(7.2)
(7.3)
Also, presented on Fig. 7.1 is the results from Attewell or Wiss' average result.' Such a line lies well.
above all the points from the author's study. -'Thedata
from the Wiss and Attewell was from different types of
piles than the Franki pile.
Energy inputs were almost al-
ways lower than the energy input of the Pranki hammer,
The
final plot from Wiss and Attewell represent the largest
particle velocity readings from the combined pile data.
The author believes that much of the Franki hammer's energy is dissipated in the energy required to displace the
95
soil. Also, unlike the other type piles the Franki hammer energy is released at the end of the drive tube.
Whendriving a H pile energy is released along the entire
pile length.
Though not plotted on Fig. 7.1, the Delmag
hammer data recorded in Fig. DE1 also plots below the
Attewell line.
Observing the data further on Fig. 7.1, one sees that
bulbing at depths of 80 to 90 feet gives larger vertical
particle velocity than bulbing at depths of 20 to 30 feet.
for a given scaled range.
Fig. 7.2 shows two cases of
identical R values but different h and d values.
As the
pickup is more nearly over the bulbing of the pile larger
particle velocity in the vertical direction is observed.
This maybe due to the reflection of waves from the bedrock below the pile and to energy transfered upward
through the pile's tube.
In Section 4.2 this effect has
been isolated with idealized scaling plots with depth, d,
limitations.
L
Fig.
I~~ ~
7.2
h
DEPTH EFFECT ON VIBRATION LEVELS
~ ~I-_hh
5RJ
7.4
Scaling applies best for cases of constant energy, E,
96
identical soil deposits, and constant hammer type.
Using
dimensional analysis scattering of data points is less
than plotting non-scaled variables.
The energy effect can be seen from the Medi-Mart
Project on Fig. ME8(b)&(c).
The figurue shows two records
with identical soil conditions but different drop height.
Yet the maximum particle velocity changes only slightly.
One possible reason for this variation may be the 4 foot
blow excites the soil at its natural frequency.
This
shows that the energy can not be scaled for the Franki
hammer for this case.
This would be an area for further
study.
Soil profile types have been isolated in Section 4.3
to eliminate the geological effect upon vibration intensities.
One sees from Fig. ?.1
that combining different
soil profiles and non-scaled variables results in greater
scattering of the data than the isolated scaled plots of
Figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.
97
List of References
Alpan, I. and Meiday, Ts., (1963), "The Effect of Pile Driving on Adjacent Buildings, A Case History," Proceedings,
Rilem, Budapest, Vol. II. pp. 171-181.
Ambraseys, N. R., and Hendron, A. J., (1968), Dynamic
Behavior of Rock Masses, in Rock Mechanics in Engineering
Practice, Edited by Stagg and 0. C. Zenklewicz, John
Wiley and Sons, London, pp. 203-227.
Attewell, P. B. and others, (1973), "Attenuation of Ground
Vibrations from Pile Driving," Ground Engineering, June,
No. 4, pp. 26-29.
Crandell, F. J. (1949), "Ground Vibration Due to Blasting and
Its Effect upon Structures," Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 36, No. 2.
Dalmatov, B. I., Ershov, V. A., and Kovalevsky, E. D. (1967),
"Some Cases of Foundation Settlement in Driving Sheeting
and Piles," Proceedins InternationalSymposium on Wave
Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials
August, Albuquerque, New exico.
Dowding, C. H., (1971), Response of Buildings to Ground
Vibrations Resulting from Construction Blastin, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of
i'llinos.
Koch, H. W., (1953), "Determining the Effects of Vibration in
Buildings," VDI Z. 95, 21, pp. 744-747.
Li, W. H., and Lam, S. H., (1964), Principles
of Fluid
Mechanics (Dimensional Analysis), Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Mass., pp 8-28.
Liu, T. K., Kinner, E. B., and Yegian, M. K., (1974),
"Ground Vibrations," Sound and Vibrations, October,
Vol. 8, No. 10, pp. 26-32.
Nicholls,
H. R., Johnson,
.
C. F., and Duvall,
W. I.,
(1971),
"Blasting Vibrations and Their Effects on Structures,"
U. S. Bureau of Mines.
Bulletin
656.
Relher, J., and Meister, F. J., (1931) "Die Empfindlichkeit
des Menschen gegen Erschutterungen Human Sensitivity to
Vibration)," Forsch. Gebiete Ingenieurw, 2(11): 381-386.
98
List of References Continued
Veletsos, A. S., and Newmark, N. M., (1964), Design Procedures for Shock Isolation Systems of Underground
Protective Structures, Vol. III. Response Spectra of
Single-Degree-of-Freedom Elastic and Inelastic systems,
Report prepared for the Air Force Weapons Laboratory,
Contract No. A. F. 29(601)-4565.
Whitman, R. V., (1973) Class notes, Soil Dynamics, MIT.
Wiss, J. F., (1967), "Damage Effects of Pile Driving Vibration," Highway Research Report No. 155.
Wiss, J. F. and Parmelee, R. A., (1974), "Human Perception
of Transient Vibrations," ASCE, Journal of the Structural
Division, Vol. 100, April.
99
Appendix
A
Details of Field Studies
This appendix contains soil boring data most ap-
propriate to the piles driven, field measurements,response spectra, and other general data gathered in the
field.
Of the nine field studies, eight used the 7000
pound Franki hammer and one used the 5000 pound hammer
for forming the pile's bulb. In five of the studies the
DelmagD-30 diesel hammerwas used to drive the
tube.
All piles were driven from a level surface.
times the site was graded before driving.
At
Since the
site was level the Pythagorean theorem was used to obtain the travel distance, R, for all
The unit weight of soil,
ases.
, was not known from the
boring data supplied at the site.
Instead an estimated
value was assumed for all cases.
Since the variation of
7is
not more than 20%, the assumed value of 120
bs,/ft, 3
will produce little error.
The following pages give symbols found on figures
and tables in Appendix A.
from the boring records.
The ground water
as obtained
As a result, it may not truly
represent ground water elevation at the time of the pile
driving.
In some cases the ground water elevation varied
with the tide.
In any case, ground water elevations are
100
not expected to vary much from the reported elevation.
Even though scaled plots make no distinction with
regard to the pile resprented by the points, determination of plotted points can be found in the data table
for each case.
With the h value of a plotted point (ob-
tained from the table) one can determine the pile and
pickup location on the plan figure of the site.
The Franki hammer drop rate was about 12 blows/min.
for a drop height of 20 feet.
For a drop height of 4
feet the blow rate was about 42 blows/min.
From observ-
ing repeated blows on the particle velocity-time histories no vibration levels from one blow interfered with a
successive blow.
101
Symbols for Appendix A
Of
Indicates pickup location of three component
seismograph
6
0
*
0
Indicates location of vertical component geophone,
gain unknown
*
0
Indicates pile location
Means pickup reading was recording the bulbing of
the pile's base
B .
.*l
D .
*
*
L .
*
0
T .
*
0
V.
*
-0
Indicates vertical component of the pickup reading
*
0
Indicates ground water elevation
·
0
*
0
Distance from pile to pickup (horizontal)
d .
*
0
Depth of pile tube
R .
*
0
Distance from bottom of tube to pickup,R =h
0
0
xVZ.
h .
*'
Means pickup reading was recording the driving of
the tube of the pile
Indicates longitudinal component of the pickup
reading (movement toward the pile)
Indicates transverse component of the pickup
reading
Indicates ground water elevation varies with
the tide
2
+ d2
A point on a plot that indicates the bulb was being
formed
102
Symbols for Appendix A continued
.
+
*
N
. . .
A point on a plot that indicates the tube was
being driven
Standard penetration N value, number of blows
required to move a 2 inch spit spoon samplier
6 inches, 1 blow is a 140 pound weight falling
30 inches
103
JOYCE CHENS PROJECT - MIT HOUSING
At this project two seismographs were employed.
One
was placed at the base of the Joyce Chens building next
to the outside wall on the ground.
Another seismograph
was strap mounted on the building wall directly above the
seismograph on the ground.
The wall motion was mainly vertical and perpendicular to the wall.
vibrated.
to
Some free vibration was observed perpendictiar
the wall.
a frequency,
Data indicated the wall rarely freely
From pile 2 a
of 0.03 was computed with
f, of 17 cps.
Pile 1 produced the largest particle velocity reading of all the projects which was 1.875 in./sec. in the
vertical direction.
cy104
\0
>
\0o\04
r c0 Co
-0 0'
I
w
o
aO
H
00o
o(
.N
cV a: O\
*
*
0
0 4C
C -\O
.-
oH
0
0
Na,
*
(J2
O.
"~ ,
0r-0
cq
C)
HHO4 :
U
0c Oh
*
\O ·
* 0 0
oo
n0*CIQC
H
r'-4 '
H O OH
O \O
v"~ uzt
r- i o
Or-O
ach
N
*O C
r0
0 O
OOOC1-
UHO
OOO
.H
CICQ
* *
000
0
.I.3
n
O
0
a,
-,
O
O11CM
C
m
*--
re
I0
ir0.
H
4A
4
0\
C
\0
4
\0o
\0
O
O
O
O
o0
q-~WI
C-
C~-
'
C
co
0
(
U
cO
4
as
n0
H .
"o
0
0
0H
C\
0
H
H
r
r
r
CQ
O\
a
-l
0
ItzI
0
0 ;t14
H
I
r4
·
--
r-I
-P
0
o
C-N
\0
*
.U
0
0
C-4
1-
'0
q-i0
rH
4-4
A
C0
N'
N
r-
CH
C
CN
c
c'n
n
0
*
4-4
CO
(I
0
4
4
0
*
0
c>
c
H
N
cq
C0
N
H
H
H4
a
0
H
1*
I\
cO
n
n
n
U
H-
a,
r-q
4-I
rH
H
4
rH
r-
4
j
i-I*
'0
N
.O\
H1
r0
0\
I -.
n
u
SUBSURFACE
PROFILE
FROM A TYPICAL
BORING
N
LOOSE SAND, CINDERS,
2-3-3
SOME GRAVEL FILL
3
WET DARK
I-I-I
GRAY
I
105
8
SILT
15
FIRM TO MEDIUM GRAY SAND
TRACE OF LARGE
GRAVEL
n
.i_
8-10
I
k
12-5
10-10
9-13
24
w
w
L.
I
15-19
HARD FINE TO COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
18-20
12-19
0.
21-20
w
35
13-19
HARD FINE BROWN
28-30
9-13
SAND, TRACE
OF CLAY
13-17
45
FINE TO COARSE BROWN
4-6
SAND AND GRAVEL
13-22
50
2-3
MEDIUM
GRAY
CLAY
3-4
2-3
3-5
3-4
2-3
62
wm
FIG. JI CASE STUDY,JOYCE
CHENS, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
1o61
I
JOYCE
II m
CHENS
I
I
BUILDING
I
I
11 =I1
i
-I
l
l
I
,
I
1
CROSS
2
SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
A
3
.
20
0
SCALE- FEET
RESULTS
OF DRIVING TUBE
RESISTANCE
TEST
AND BLOWS PER BUCKET (I BUCKET=5 CU. FT.)
PILE
NUMBER
10 LOWS
AT 4 DROP
I
2
3
OTHER
DATA:
I BLOW
AT 20' DROP
(INCHES)
(INCHES)
0.75
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.63
0.25
WEIGHT
OF
HAMMER
BLOWS
PER BUCKET
42
43
46
= 7000
LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD=140 TONS, CASED PILES
DRIVING TUBE
WITH
FRANKI
HAMMER
FIG. J2 CASE STUDY, JOYCE CHENS, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
I
107
w
0
cr
z
-l
i
o
Io
W
O
0.
Lr
D
I
F
iv-0,I
w
ci)
z0
. _~
(I0,,9&:
~x~ o qxX
x x >(~-~
< ><;xe
,0
;,~~~~~~~s
''<i
w
S
cr-
X
Zc,
(s
2-(D
>,o w
0>-
00
w
rr)
-,
o3/'U!
6
N
0u
'4!oo01^A OPnlsd -
o
0
d
0
0
0
6
0
0
LL
108
IO
0
t
\o/\,
SX
\>
,. PI "s
o
tSG
5
a.
/,,
zw,)
CID
,i
0
-<~~~~
P0
~~C
,qC/~~ ~¥",,/'%
/~ , fj~f ,/,,%'4,% %.,)X
I xl
0n
w
C,)
z
a:
w
U)
2
0o
a.
z , .,/
;< 7,,
X_
zdb
.. ,
A..
,
'<
nw
,A
o
ZO (E/\A
>a.
t
r
\7°w 04 0
Ur)0
>
0
0
>,
X
w
U)C
w
W
(0
x~
a
lt
DO
0
00
0
.oss/'u! '!:oi*^
0
_
opnesd -ad
C
C
O0
v
0
0
0
<
o
(.
109
O.
0
z
I
-J
O
*-
0 3
0L
-
w
~v ~....~I..
00
o, AF
/ _,,N
:X
/\eIL
X X ,
z,
o2,0
O
2
hi
,I
X
L)
z
X
/Cx:x
<3~~~~~~~>
.
,
>,
a:
0W
0
I
I
0
0
0
0
cl
9
o
*os/u! '4!oolsAone$d - d
,
1
0
)
d6
ct
110
luu
IAA
-· i-- 1-- i -t74
-rt tt-ilr I I[
-j
I I I ! I II [T
I I I I
H!l171Wi~r1~i i
-4ldi
I
. A
Is.,....i.
'r:'1
I- -
t i-il- ,
?tt .,
t e
;-· i
10
i.
-'"-'I
4-!.
DRIVING TUBE
-·
---
,,
I
I
I-
I I . .
I-
i
II
I II I
I li il.l..
illI
.ll.
i
I
I.I
t- II II II I ! l li lil)- c.l I-I
---
1 I....
IIillllII
~ !|~
I
I
I ! -l
ll
1 1 1 1111E
III
I
----- -
'
.
I
l4
.
L14
!__-.
ccr
.
t 111
L
I I
sitt r
.; _: . . 4oi_
,-'i ll
.,.
I
.
- ·
--: ''
""
'''S
.
, ... 1
.-----
II
11-
'
.! .I.
.
.i".i.i
_
I;
II'
'
. ..
d
._.,.:L
. q!
_
.
?.
T~ ·-
FTT-
!.I Hll
1 -
1!
t..i
._
+
it
7'~
. -'.1.}'
..
l
.1- ' FI;
.: l llll
I'I
I
I
>1d.0
....
BULBINe
l i II1
.
. . I :.i.
i
*
4I l
i ] .I.,
W,
it
t-
iH
I-1
.1IL
_1`
If'
11
_i;,
!:F~
F--
-:I
i1ti+ j
.I
II
I
.I
I0
S _
K
.
_
.1 .
.I I 1 1.
-t
I·H -I' I I I t+t+
,
................
I
-
I I I. I' I. t
.fij
.
I
c..
I... I I I iIlllllliillI1:
I I I I It I
lll
...
t C~+-tl II I II II I I I I II
t100
OO0
R( P C2)1/3
E 1/3
FIG. J6
I
|
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, JOYCE
CHENS PROJECT, TRANSVERSE COMPONENT
1ll
100
I
0
K
10
x"
I
R(pC2)1/
FIG. J7
3
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, JOYCE
CHENS PROJECT, VERTICAL COMPONENT
112
U
0
>K
R(p C )
E
11/ 3
FIG. J8 SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY
VERSUS SCALED RANGE, JOYCE
CHENS PROJECT, LONGITUDINAL
COMPONENT
113
MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL PROJECT
Vibration readings were recorded in a level excavation about 6 feet below the sidewalk elevation.
cavation was about 120 x 65 feet in plan.
The ex-
Two existing
buildings bordered two sides of the excavation.
Street
traffic bordered the other two sides of the excavation.
Other points:
1-
Vibration levels were also recorded for the
Delmag D-30 hammer.
This data is presented in Appendix
D, along with the number of blows required to drive the
tube with the Delmag hammer.
2-
Nearby traffic vibrations limited the spacing
of the pickups greater distances than the length of the
excavation.
recorded.
No reading farther than 85.5
feet away was
The closest reading was 10 feet from the pile.
Thus R, varied only from 81 to 122, since the bulb was
formed at about 86 feet.
As a result, a good attenua-
tion plot could not be drawn.
0
> IU2
-
~4
0
W
114
U)O
cn
* * 0
\ZOomo
\DN
0- ,
mm
0 o
0\\O Vl\
\\O O\
*
*
aOrI N
N
Cx =!C
*
*
0
Nt~N
0
C\
*
H
0
C0 U
N
* 0*
aa a
OOO
cl-
H100
*0 5
o
0 0
0
Cr\ 0 Ca
OOH
Cl
>
a
C C CQ
o\ C 0
C- co a\
o
C
000
000
*O*O 000
r'Ir-tr''
0
00
0
*
0
0
*
0*
oco 00
q,
0
0
0
00
O0
O
4.
4r
CW
m
V-4
A
Pi
1
fit
. 0
H
p
C.)
'-#
I
U
Ck
C-
N
C-
ri
r4
-4
4
*
0
0-
CK
C-
C1-c--
-
-
C1-
-t
4
CI--
-
*
rH
14
H-
4
4
4-
- i4
O
O
O *
H4
C0
H
0t:
0
o
4*,
mq
C-.
f:
44,
-
co
0
co
0
c
0
0\
co
co
0\
O
o
d:
'
-4
I.,
C'-
(n
0
C-
0
0
o
m
C)
u
c0
o
C
o CQ 0
* * (;
a-
co
CX
0
H
o o0
*
*
oo A c
com
Q a
mO
E-AUl\ 0
\D c-U-N
V'0
CL
un
0
mu
0o
OcOO
0 o 0o
OO",
,
.-\OOmO
o (,',O'NO
oD
0
O 0-CO
r-i
U; r-4
r*
r
nr
H WN
Cr~INHHr-q
C
l f4 C
CH
NHN
N
NNOO
0 0
.o
0H
^m
p
0
Eu-oo
1-
0
uoN
rl
C.
c
C
0I0
\0
Em4 P^i
o,>
o CH
C$
H
;)
H
,
4C C-I
C;
N
C
14
N~j cf,\
iQ
:
p
oucx:o
n c0f o0
cxo oN
o0'4.,
E- ,'1
a00, H
,, ,oN
mO ,,H
000 000
0t N
0
4
1::
O O O
C1 f-I CVCIO
*
0
r \
00
0 00 000 000
i00
03
u"K
H-
r--
03
u0
0-
0
o
0
0 0 0
00o
o"
V
*0
'
U)
rr P4
-It
431
O 1
I
q-
H
U)
U
r
-t
*
*
4
r4
*
0
H
r
H
H
N
C-
-.
\0O
.
H
43
. $N
- m
C!
N0
C0
0
uoI
rIH
r
H
r
,1
ri
H
N
O
.
c
O\ N
ND
r-
r4
H
H
H-
r.
NO
O
O
r
0
0O
0
4-,
43
I
-P
Enq
o
O,
r-
Ct-
C,-
\0
r
rH
-t
-t
-t . -t
r4 r
*
14
4
r4 r4
\0 H
Ho
0
*
*
H
0*
C-
C>-
vU)
tr
ur
U-N
\Z
\.
IZ
\Z
0
0
VUN
V'
0
\0
Co
0
Co
0
0o
\Z
1D
03
0D
0
o0
00
00
N
C0
H
H
cO
C>-
00
0s
CY"
00 ,O 0
CC)
r-H
0N
ON
0r-H
C- ,
H
H
0
C>-
C%-
H
0
H C
C0
0
N
4 -4
rH
N
v
0,
,
0
\
n
0\
C0
0
Co Co
0
o
0
-.
C.4
'
v
p4
-,a)
43
rI
rI
00 00 00 00
0~
0
'
H
H
Hl
H
0\
O
O 0
0
H H
r4
oH
0\
0O
0O-' H0\
N
0,
_
COARSE SAND, GRAVEL
12-9-4
AND
9-4-4
RED
BRICK
FILL
_
116
+9
2-1-1
SILTY SAND WITH TRACES
1-1-2
OF WOOD AND
4-5-5
SHELLS
5-5-6
-10
-14
- 16
FINE GRAY SILTY SAND
AND SHELLS
HARD BLUE CLAY
1-2-2
HARD YELLOW CLAY
7-11-14
MEDIUM YELLOW CLAY
7-7-8
9-12-14
-26
-30
w
w
1-2-3
LL
SOFT BLUE CLAY
I
2-2-3
2-3-3
a.
-43
3-4-4
MEDIUM BLUE CLAY
3-4-5
3-3-4
-59
MEDIUM
LAYERS
-67
CLAY
WITH
OF COARSE SAND
2-3-3
2-3-12
HARD YELLOW CLAY
WITH
-73
BLUE
LAYERS
OF COARSE
SAND AND GRAVEL
8-10-31
__ ._
-R5
__
VERY HARD COARSE
20-19-27
SAND AND GRAVEL
30-35-41
tJ
30-35-41
_" _
FIG. M I CASE
STUDY,
MASS. EYE AND EAR, BOSTON, MASS.
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE
117
L_ _____ - -
SIDE
OF EXISTING
BUILDING
0
63
C09
+
109
79
la
3
83
+
+!
0
13a
10 20
SCALE- FEET
BLOWS PER BUCKET
(I BUCKET
REQUIRED TO MAKE BULB
= 5 CU. FT. )
PI LE
NUMBER
BLOWS PER
BUCKET
I ST.
63
83
109
34
34
65
58
79
OTHER
64
48
-
-
DATA: WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 7000 LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD = 150 TONS, CASED PILES
94' LONG DRIVE TUBE- INSIDE DIAMETER = 22"
PRE- AUGERED TO 65', THEN DROVE TUBE TO
84-87,
DIAMETER SHELL = 17-5/8"
DRIVING TUBE
C s = 280
FIG. M2
2 ND.
WITH DELMAG D-30
HAMMER
FT./ SEC.
CASE STUDY, MASS. EYE AND EAR, BOSTON,
MASS.
118
O
w
0
0.
b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
,,,.
4
w
>
3a~~~~~~~Y
>0
a
I.
cn
0~~~~~~~6
in d
n
NO
IK
,
,,.
3 F_ S ,AC/I,o°4,NC~c
E B
m
i.
Zj
RB E>
h
o\
nuWXI/h B
.<P4CI WKX~~I
nY\ /h /d
:~,
;Y
~~~~,~
/\ ~_~
'\ ~\
x\ X~<
,,o,,
-,~
Z
S_ i
=Si
>,7Kgi
t'<°
Z
o,
w
'
oo
'
<
X
& /L
'I-
SX
X
to, @1
7 / ~I' _ :/.P X\,. X . \/ I_
r
v
s4
~J m
I \D\\7/>^\t
-I
z
r9CD
8 /><1>
V
1i<
§10i
t)
a
Uo
a.
Al
o-.o o
o'
0
0
o
* el/u! 'u11OO^ op"esd - a d
o
0
q
0
0
9
.0
o
6
CD
U.
119
Vy
;K/ eVI\/ x
N
I\
~ ,/X
N~,% X
/ V V
It
0
%,S
b
O
IN
Zl\
"IN~~~~
"
C~~~~ d //%",
Da5)#f·
g3 \, /%.,x %
,
3',
55
CS
/§
_
W
5
X
z
d/.' X %/%S
X~~ko
2/ar,'
x/%
/
X\2
~~~~~~~~~
/ 0 , ; <~~~~~~
S
a
7-0
o
L
>-
o
7
m
'
K/l~~~~~~~/o
60~~~~~~~~~~
c
r7gt
'Qo
E
4.
,'
a-
YOUJ
S, ,Ne g
<3 z
-m s,
Zd ~~
w
-r
V
0
w
CDg~
.9
b
EL
CL
NS/
O
N~
11 1\.
z
L)
0
FP
C)
w
a.O
O
,,
-i
9 11
):
ino
I
/N
D
N
O
.;
.
o
N/
O
co~t
Q=ItdWII N
\NI
aci 11 11
<
KNA,~~~bp"
:D
w
U)
a.
mu
0.
I
o
o
·*8s/'U!
0
'!O1OA
o
OpUnsd -
o
ad
9
4
O
v
CU
O
06
o
L.
1
n
TRANSVERSE
.
proqram
ii,
_j
!
.. ii
I
I
r
I
I I Ii
lI
,
4-4.
.f --
120
LONGITUDINAL
q
d- II.1
1
..[ 441
t
t-tt
.1
U1A1
TIIIt
,,
[-t
J
t
117,
L!
... -- -4-
-- t -
-+4%
,.
1-t-1
'
I fl
. I .
!
·-..- r .
tti
--3-$--
i.j..
- .. 22.
I·
zI4.
1 -·
|'..;~ -t_
1~
' . .
[t
..._
.'1
i. L 4:
...
1· f;i : t
r
IrrCe
Fm_
S_
... I . I
.,m
V ! I.7...
i ; - -I
-- I-.
1
I
f
X
1.
i, i.
i
_-
-
|'
.
,
I-r
iI
:
x
-
. .I~
~ ~~t'
i
i
ii
Iii!!!!H
1H
. Bi4, L1
L~
I
000
F
.4--i...
II
' -''.'--i
+.
tti~
1 =
.
l,
'..L...|:- 4-t'41,11#l
-', *
.--,-t-l
-2rT^XIIII
415
CD
:
l i,....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
I
11
I411
-
>o
I
VL
-1 1-ttt;
'-'''
100
!,
1 1
IIi 1i
;
i
o:
j_
i
III
:1
!.
I-
!
I 4......*._
H- :
.
i.. l
'11'ii
'
ji,
!i-Ht
'4t -LI ,t-H
I+Ht
i I 1:
. I cu
I
' 'i
I
::'.~1
I ti
I_
II
-
!- -- '
-t·
-- 1
.I..
...-
44-i
.7
. I- I
-;.,.
-: -1
--
H -i.4
It';
Hfti
-
hI
)0
.
m
I
I
.
l
I I;
'
-L
-
.41
-F-
1--:
-7
I_
l
.. ,
i
a-1-
-t
I i
hL
II
::3
4
I
iI
ItI-1-".
3-. Fr-H-IfFF
I
rr
Mai
.- ---
'- '
. - - Hi
.,~
.i
I
·· · I
I I
I
I 11
I
I-J~.--
_ _ _ _ _ _ .........................................................
1000
--t''-t
.;,
I
I
: I 1
I
1
II
10
I!!
I
......
....
,
,
1 i
1000
C2)1/3
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, MASS.
EYE
i A
H4
lI11 I-- _i II
lu
IL.-
37
T
.,
R(
FIG. M 5
1
1I
*I
1I
. II
1..
i
. I i
.
!-!1
II .
+H-1
" i?
In0
-IC
-i i
i .I I
l- !
;
I '
-I
4
I
Lhi--r
I4
-,:
1_
.4
1j:
.. _.
..II.
L
E
p01
_j
I
:
.
_
'-It
!I!
..
.
II
.LL. I. I I
-1
-AI
:.7,
_
I I I I
I-i
f tBF
. I
it
1
-
Irr I
:
.i
i
,.
; II
, i
t
L
-7,·
*J
r
V
...
-
AND EAR
PROJECT
121
VERTICAL
500
100
(o
0
>0
I0
I
1000
'100
R(p
FIG. M6
SCALED, FIELD
VELOCITY
AND EAR
Cs)1 /3
MEASUREMENTS
VERSUS SCALED
PROJECT
OF PARTICLE
RANGE,
MASS. EYE
122
NDP HOUSING PROJECT
1-
The tube was driven with the Deluag D-30 Diesel
hammer to a typical depth of 80 feet.
2-
Driving was in a large level area with boring
elevation the same as the pile driving elevation.
3-
Sometimes encountered large granite stones which
hampered driving.
4-
Like the Mass. Eye and Ear Project, bulbing at a
depth of 80 feet gave a small range of R values.
This is
shown in the table below.
h
d
R
R(pC
V
2)
1/3/ 1/3
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
(in./sec.)
13.5
81.5
82.6
0.125V,B
106.3
85.5
80.0
117.1
0.0348V,B
150.7
On a log plot a poor attenuation curve is drawn due to the
small variation in R(pC2)1/ 3 /E1 / 3.
Even though V varied by
a factor of over 3, increasing h out to 150 ft. produced very
small particle velocity readings.
-t
\ \
\10
I
0
I>
* 0
Hm
q
q
C
J
N.
.cno
-I
C
- Cr\O
U
000
0 o
000
ol* o\0 o
0O
0C
CC_
UC
Cq
,0
.
0
0
.-4(1 00
c- O\al
HE>
Cl CQ o
0o
r4
000
o000
00
rlH
ooOO.H
C
oHoH
H
W
W
u
P?
a,
0 CO
IO ,,00
UCq cq
I:E) *'I
No 00 O
q-
,o
Co,,
r-4
Cy q
J
0
~
C-
O
O
n
\Z
\
U0
04
O
O
II
U]
r'-I
N.
·
0
El
,0
0I-)
P4
I
zH
43
:g
o0
-.t
.
t
-t
-
H
Hr
r-I
H
H
H
H
oO
*
0
(O
a,
co
a,
co
a,
4-)
-.
Hr
HHr-4
co
O
a,
O
a,
O
a,
rH
0
H
O
O
O4
C
A
N
N
H
H
m
m
n
0
0
I
I
I
~d
:g
0
mq
...
v4
C4
O
aO
'O
A
434
.1-4
p-4
-ri
P4
0
a
O
m
I
I
*
I4
In
I4
I
n
I
I
W
I4
CVI
I
123
SUBSURFACE PROFILE FROM
SOIL BORING
CI!
_
·
AUGERED
0-30'
124
A TYPICAL
_
N
-
NO SAMPLES
FILL AND CLAY
30
_
I-
w
w
SOFT
CLAY
I
WASH
a.
BORING
w
a
55
-
SANDY CLAY AND GRAVEL
NO SAMPLES
74
_
.
CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL
77
FINE
81
GRAY SAND AND GRAVEL,
TRACE
44-120-100
CLAY
REFUSAL
OTHER
0
20
DATA:
I
JL
WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 7000
LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD = 150 TONS, CASED PILES
84 LONG DRIVE TUBE - INSIDE DIAMETER= 19"
DRIVING TUBE WITH DELMAq D-30 HAMMER
DIAMETER SHELL = 17-5/8
AND 16I
Cs = 283 FT./SEC
id
C
40
SCALE- FEET
J4
z
cr
N-S
K-3-C
+- 0+
+
K-3-8
-..--
----
9--
LEWIS STREET
FIG. NI CASE STUDY, NDP HOUSING PROJECT,
MASS.
EAST
BOSTON,
a
\a
711-0
IwO
125
~_
-
1
71vlz:
I SR(Wk;i
· x.,x, /\,
;5t
"lX/
<
<"
NY\, N
?s
N 7
Ix
\l
jI
11
A
x'N
NIN
x/%.
/
/\ k
/,
Ix
.1
4-K
'tx.,d
-71~
0
~~ ~ ~
N
I
/C
d
\X
'
>A
,,,x,
\/,
7
Z
PO4kC
/
I--
0el
/'"A
0
V
O
0
,"I,,x~.N\oo.\
a
/.
KN
0
OD
K
1xl
N :\
C
t N',x\
/
' ,w \l
/
N
S
<
x
/ IX
yXIX,'7
~0
"Al
<
x)( IN'//\ 'o,\
X ll \ /111, ,
\l/
IZ
:3
Ao
. X77R~~
N
SI'
I>,
XxX
21
e /
\tC/IY(
J,..A'.XA
o=r
mr
/ / 1I A
(%Ž-7/X/V4
AXo > \
. A
-/X~fL(AV"I'V/\,
X-7 V
9
0
e87,F
00IQ
ol
4
d~lx
z
't
\
IN, \Y\
x
0
/
7
x'/x,
xN"',
/N A',,
//
h4
x,
V
, g',
I/
>5N
j
1>1>
to
\,eI
K
/
V
C .1,
I
,0o
I
(m
D
,
<
Y
z
,
0.
~
~Z
-N
aw3
_c z
row
.c
-aEj~~~!2
zo
?/>~X,.",',,,,
,
o
¢(/,
-U.
o, Wa:
:K,~1
Q:
iJ
*1
.
'NJ
C)
-
0O
oo
l ^A%.,/"
9V
x,I
, "
r)
ZIJIhZLJ
-
.
-
-
_
---
_-
0
-
=--
-
o
0
-
O
0
us/-U!
'4i!jOleA opn*sd -
o
ad
00
0.
-4
w
8
w
aO
II II
.. /vIJ<
C,
I
j>
00
o
6
0o
S
z
U.
126
iE~~~~v
Ivl
A / ,\vStiSE
T3-na~
\X
' A' <
0
x' X
or~vuu
Lcs
·.,~~~~~
,,
0
a.
CD
"I
r
1/1\
7\
Ys
;,)d~r
,K
b
Y\
i)O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O
<YUh
O
ID'2
Z
X CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D
n,
%,, ~ :o.
/N.~.,,.>qi',z'~
V'. XZ>¥/
L3
C,)
La.
z
C)
z
if
,'iX,
fL)
O-W
".
X
x
0OJnVom
.
-
>
0
o~~~~~~~
z',,
,x,V//xX'/"v"
0~\x,,'~. x
'/
p-
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
LL.
cn
CA
0>
0
.C,
o
o
*es/'u!
o
'4!OOlSA oPneOd 0
o
0
d
o
o
0
0
0d
o0
c6
Io
127
100
W
f
TRANSVERSE
I
-I
S-~C
l
iI
fi
.--
I,
-
l
cce
-L
--
i !'
-:
...I.-
I I
1I
I
...,.
T
--i-t
1
-HI-t
i
cc
-
-*i r
..
t-.·
,13
LI
i F
I
.i
._1
I
_
. _..
h-I
-I
i
I
- !I |
i--t.
I
-tI!
I
Ill
-
.
I
LONGITUDINAL
I
I .t T l
4t
I
-i
Hc
-- t
4
I-4:-l'.
.-
t
I
i
rrn
4+ 1ftf --F
ITh
: 4,tt-i
:; .
I
.2
ifl
i,
IIc
-
J_
Hill,
i3
fiil
11- i
:44
-4·4
1
I
4l1i-tt--
t
$:: 1 rf·
I ':
:.i...i. ·
~-I
' -4t.
1 -:- · · -) · ·- ·
CI
i i i i
,....
i i IIIIIIIIIII
_. -rt
-_, -I
I I I II I II:I:I:I
I
-- i : I I
-r
> I
; '' '
i 'I+TTT,,'t
.. I1.
-.X
-
I
I
l l S~~1
11111
TV! ~~~~~I
.
-
Of
.
.
-
l.
.
. .
.
.
I' ''''l
at
1
i
.r . . ' '
I
I
I
bre
r l
r ·· ·
1
Vi.,
t1
Fm I
t
-+l"F
4
41
·+
i-I
ot
.j
i;·r
I
· I -;--
i- I
(g
-I-
'·
44
______
1 1
i · -·r··
I
III
--
100
I
i
it
Itt
: I
e; m+t.T3E
M
_
Ii --
_i~t.
1000
1000 100
R(pC 2 )"1/3
3
EIl/3
FIG. N 4
Ll
-
OF PARTICLE
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, NDP
HOUSING PROJECT
128
IC
0
0
4,
R( p C
) 1
/3
El/3
FIG. N 5
OF PARTICLE
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, NDP
HOUSING PROJECT
129
CRAMER ELECTRONICS PROJECT
The Cramer Electronics Project consisted of driving the
tube and bulbing with a 5000 pound hammer in a large level
parking
This
lot.
is
hammer was employed.
the only project in which the lighter
the
7000 pound
operator agreed to raise the
hammer to
All other projects used
Franki hammer.
The pile
driver
25 feet; thus, giving a 125,000 ft.-lb. blow which could be
compared with the 100,000 ft.-lb. - 20 foot blows.
Little
differences in readings were noticed.
As discussed
in
Section 5.3.6, the placement of the
pickup next to the existing Cramer Electronies building
effected the vibration readings differently than when the
pickup was not next to the building.
In Table C1 the
(*) mark indicates the pickup was located within a few inches
of the Cramer Electronics building.
The values of Vv, V1,
and Vt are effected as well as V 1 /Vv and Vt/Vv by the build-
ing's motions.
From the boring log the
values
penetration
resistance, N,
indicate a loose fine sand and silt deposit at a
depth of 8 to 30 feet.
The pile was bulbed
at
a depth
of approximately 20 feet with an average of 31 blows per
bucket.**
The seismic shear wave velocity was calibrated
Blowsper bucket required to form a bulb at the pile's base
is explained in section 3.2.
130
to be about
550 ft./sec.
Velocity readings were taken as close as 20 feet and
as far as 146 feet (horizontal distance).
The largest
particle velocity recorded was 0.75 inches/see. at 20 feet.
This reading was in the vertical direction and was larger
than the longitudinal and transverse readings by a factor of about 6.
At a distance of about 40 feet vertical
and longitudinal components started to become equal,
being larger than the transverse components.
At greater
distances the longitudinal component tended to become
larger than the vertical component.
C1 for comparison.
See Fig. C2 and Table
coW
I
0H-
wItl
131
r o%4
000
*0 \o
CH
04 '"UCC r-
*0 0
H
m
,-( CO
af a
0
C
..
04H
C)
j
0
C.,
4
I,)
CV
no%'
CY%
.*
00
co
,o3NFo
000
C;.88
o C0 (N
o
H
H
a0
0
0
H
H
H
H
H
H
.4
,-
,-4
O
0
*
4,
0
4.)
n
oc~
*
0
o
o
888V
OOH
IC;C0O9
Cv
Cg.4
0U'
V
'-4
H
w
U
0
II
v\
Hl
Cl
O0.-
mq
0
H4
p
OCU
\0
o
O\
N
.n\
Cr
m
0
4
rs
C
0'Ii
co
II..
O*
r
ON
U
14
O
0
r4*
C-*
O
A
O
0
co
H
0
W
-4
O~
I-
O
r-4
O
O
0
*
O
O
C
.
H
H4
O
U)
0CO
C-
C*
C0
H
0i
H
,1
v
0
4)
\0
N
4
'\0
H
\0
\0
0
O
0
0
H
H
H
\0
\0
\0
:
4
WN
0
O
H
-4
l
O
U
C
w
n
4
H
C
m
N
H
0.4
W4
· \
sr
0
0
V.
fQ
4)
rrr
P: b%
'd
4-
-4
0
C
0
,-4
.-4
a4
H
4
o
4
CW
\0
C0
c0
*
U\
4
,-4
0
132
FROM A TYPICAL
SUBSURFACE .PJOFILE
SOIL BORING
PRESENT
CRAMER
ELECTRONICS
CIp
N
MEDIUM TO FINE GRAVEL
30-2-2
a 0I
BLD.
10-10-6
FINE SAND
0l
81
3-4-5
1
2
03
4 5
PILE-
+
1-1-4
FINE SAND
AND SILT
PICKUP
C1
W
20 40
30
SCALE- FEET
i
GRAY FINE
RESULTS OF DRIVING TUBE
AND BLOWS PER BUCKET
PILE
.NUMBER
-i
i
END
ii
.........
OF
I
BORING
RESISTANCE TEST
(I BUCKET
5 CU. FT.)
I BLOW
AT 20 DROP
(INCHES)
(INCHES)
BLOWS
PER BUCKET
I
1.5
I.5
2.0
1.25
SI
3
1.0
1.75
1.5
2.0
36
5
1.5
1.
34
4
OTHER
_
10 BIOWS
AT 4 DROP
2
DATA:
33
30
WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 5000
CAPACITY PILES,
129 KIPS
38
LONG
5-8-9
SAND AND SILT
MIM=
V
_
LBS.
CASED
DRIVE TUBE-AMETER
DRIVING TUBE WITH FRWAKI HANit!;.
Cs
FIG. C I
CASE
MASS.
k
--.I
2-3-5
0a
0
rk
Z-3-4 _
w
6
A
m-
550 .FT./SE
,pILES
I17
'
:
'
STUDY, CRAMER
ELECTRONICS,
NEWTON,
133
c
c
Vt
Vv. C
C
R-' FEET
I
I
i
V
I
1
0
±
If
I
C
R - FEET
FIG. C 2
PARTICLE
VELOCITY
RATIOS
VERSUS
RANGE,
134,
C[C
02
'.,,G,
' ,.,~'% >
5
X
X:%/
'I
~
"~"% ~ \' X
,.x
t<' X,,X
,/
~,Xo.
,
'
C:
1
-J
w
w
*r
04c
>-
2
I-
T a <$gS§S ) X ' _ sE S _..
,
.
u>
(0
00
"',,/',,./
/\ ,'%/X:>Kx,
. 8"5</,
N,
'uXX
,,xvE,::<
'X'".
,<,, ~X
b \-b R
rtPSISn
D
"
--
-J
0
am
O S S /
'os/!
Ao-
N
!oloo oepAd-(d
U
9
o
0
0
6
.o
6
C)
L)
13S
w
0
0
L.
C)
>
)X
a
V)
"da~~~~~"
co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(
?N:;(
azf/7Nl
7
'77;
1
~r7°.,,
X~
N
M
7s.
r5>dzI5Yc9ZX
V
N;g7c
B7/e7vXz<
A,
w
59~
/\
I'll
>
_ _,<io
*
31*
-
/o.
XSOZt7
\ \1
7
J~~~~~~~~~~~~J
.,,A~
~tC'
Wo,
. 7x
;p
. - xX,<,.,
>(f.,
m
X
w
sl
.
C)
L)
zqL
z0
4.
j~l
: if
o~'Z~s'..~..-aa''.N
,t, O
0X '@
m ~sjA\<[2
>
N U.
)oW
>-V
a~~~~~
_ A . _ _ _ _ _~~~~~
c6
aw
L)
aCu,
0
o.
0-
0
0
*O/' / U!-'4Po!0I
C)
a
-
C
.
ri
d
oPSd - 3 d
,
n
v
I
,
,0
CY
0
c
C
136
IOC n'Ifl
-
-
-t
L-1 i I I I It-
i i.
·I·t-i
t.
--
III
Kt
:0 BULBING
WiB
+DRIVING
.1I].
D
I
4
N
I-H
.I .. 1.I-I
Lii
it gm
@ te2~e2e efe-e2X
-c+t---+e 6~~-~~~-~~IC
o
0
Ht
10 I: I
-
II I 1 -1
I
III
i
4-4-
i I1
I 11
o,
,,,
.·
I
1,
,
1i1
1§11111
1 1111111 1 1
!
'.1-i
I TT-r T77T
Z.
4
.;L
E_
=
i1
##t
-ilUL-tH
1.
-
II0
I_
I I I ; I I III
ni
,
1
'L
II
II 1111111
IIIL·
II
III
I I 11·I
II I·lrl·
I·_1
·
Iyy
~1
100
·
·
· -·
I·I·I·
· II
R(pC2)1/3
El/3
FIG. C5
·
I I I··I
·
1··
Il··lrl·
l I Tlll1il1
·
I··
I· · I·I
·
1 11111
rl~
I·····I
+
OF PARTICLE
SCALED, FIEL_D MEASUREMENTS
VELOCITY VEIRSUS SCALED RANC%E', CRAMER
ELECTRONICS PROJECT, TRANSV E RSE COMPONENT
137
i-
lUo
-
----
-
·-
--
'l
W
r'
'X
'-,-d .
·
----------
Efl
|lX
|
-
1
k...]
·
.
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I I
* BULBING
l7rr
+DRIVING
I I I I
I
.1
TUBE
X
In
I
0
cn
- "t"lll
L,
_-'-' --t--4"4-
llil-
lllft
111~ 1
1
ll
1
lI
1
I
'r""P"'I
I1 1
I I1nllll~
1 1
11 111111111 1 rIj Ium
·
1 1111111111111
1 11·11111111
1 1~ 1 1
11
>1 0
i-
+H
.
I
I
-
f
J
--
-
_ftt
1I
I10
111
111111
III 1111
Iili
I III III I
100
R(Pcj) I/ 3
Illlll11111111
111111!1
I000
'+
E 1 /3
FIG. C6 SCALED,
FIELD
MEASUREMENTS
OF
PARTICLE.
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, CRAMER
ELECTRONICS PROJECT, VERTICAL COMPONENT
138
FIG.C7
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
VELOCITY
VERSUS
ELECTRONICS,
SCALED
OF PARTICLE
RANGE,
CRAMER
LONGITUDINAL COMPONENT
139
BROOKLINE VILLAGE - MBTAAIR RIGHTS PROJECT
Vibration readings were recorded for driving rig
number327 at this project,
even though another rig was
simultaneously driving piles.
Vibration readings were
taken only when the other driving rig was idle.
Other points:
1-
Driving elevation was about 2 feet below soil
boring elevation.
2-
Only one C wave value was obtained.
3-
At this project accurate readings of drop heights of
the hammer were recorded as vibration readings were being
recorded.
The hammer drop height seem to vary more than at
other projects.
4-
The data below indicates the rate of tube penetra-
tion as the Franki hammer was drawing the tube through the
soil.
Pile E-13-A
Depth of
Tube
(ft.)
Number of
Blows
E = (7000# x 19')
11
12
.6
14
15
15
25
16
17
i8
27
.26
27
\O
I
0
H
0\ r%0%
> 0\ 0
N O C
\O (Cnco
N
U\*
0c
a
0%so %
04I -
0ON%
HOH
CHH
0 NV
a a> a
Om
0\o
S S
3
140
NoN
r
C C~
n cM4
C- C- -
m
000
W4
cO CoO
a(
r
NHN
O C U-
0r 00
000 00
C
H
N
H
H
0
U
:t
4.t
4.
UO
\4 U.
co co No
000
0
4;
cn
OCQ
OON
o
C'
II
U)
W
C)
W
H
0
*
SV
4.
4
0
\O
0\
\O
O
U
U
cO
cO
O
o
cN
O
O
O
O
N
co
0
W:
0
C)
k
.,
ni
V4)
rq
t.11.
j4)
.I
i-4
H
>
,)
4-
0
rN
H
'.0
n
N-
r4
O0
\0
cn
(
tVo
04
0
,
r-
0
I
44
o
4-4
q..
4.
. - n1
cO
N)t
CQ
.
4N
C
CN
C
co
H
O
O
O
o
,.
oo
O
a:
-1
r0
I
U
C)
C)
C)
r4
4
\l
\0o
CN
m
Nc-
ap
H
N-
H
r
e~
rl
H
H
H
4-4
4
H
r4
P4
C',-i
I
Wi
m'
r-q
I
Wi
4.
r-4
I
Oai
I
.A
I
W
4.
I
I
(1
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SOIL BORING
ELEVATION
A
0
TYPICAL
FIRM
10
N
SOME
3,33,3,14
LOAM, SAND, GRAVEL
2-4-4-2
AND
BRICKS
LOAMY PEAT
.
LITTLE FINE SAND
Iq
FINE
20
SAND
FIRM
255-7
MEDIUM
SAND. LITTLE
6-6-6-8
GRAVEL, TRACE INORGANIC SILT
LOOSE
MEDIUM
TO COARSE
3-3-5-4
SAND AND GRAVEL
I.-
w
37
MEDIUM
!aI.
FINE SAND
FIRM FINE SAND
TRACE INORGANIC
(L
0.
w
Q
3-4-4-6
TO HARD YELLOW
CLAY, SOME
41
xI
4-6-6-8
TO MEDIUM
FIRM
26
141
17.3'
SAND AND GRAVEL FILL
LOOSE LOAMY SAND
ISOME GRAVEL FILL
7
.
CINDERS,
HARD
4
S
FROM A
5-6-6-7
SILT
49
MEDIUM
FIRM
SAND
SOME GRAVEL AND MICA
55
FIRM FINE SAND, LITTLE
14-10-9-9
GRAVEL
6-9-9-9
TRACE INORGANIC SILT
7-8-9-9
FIRM
7-7- 8-9
iS
vv
8
4mb
AMI
v'-
Is
W
_"
IP
m
MEDIUM
SAND
HARD MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND
AND GRAVEL, TRACE INORGANIC SILT
30-13-18-21
REFUSAL
FIG. B I
i i
.
_
II
CASE STUDY, BROOKLINE
BROOKLINE, MASS.
VILLAGE,
1_
I
142
E-14-C
PILES-E-13-A
PILE
PICKUP-...D
v]
.
E-13-B
.
RAILROAD TRACKS
CAE.
a3w
0
20
---
40
SCALE-FEET
TOP ELEVATION- 15:
PILES E-13-A
AND E-13-C
ARE
BATTERED ON A I TO 10 SLOPE,
ALONG WITH PILE E-14-C
'ION OF BATTER
1
RESULTS OF DRIVING TUBE RESISTANCE TEST
AND BLOWS PER BUCKET (I BUCKET 5 CU, FT.)
PILE
NUMBER
10 BLOWS
AT 4' DROP
(INCHES)
E-13-B
0.25
E-13-A
E-14-C
OTHER
1.00
0.25
DATA:
I BLOW
BLOWS PER
AT 20 DROP
BUCKET
(INCHES)
I ST.
2ND.
0.25
47
57
53
0.5
0.375
4S
?
?
WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 7000 LBS.
I2p TONS PILE DESIGN LOAD CASEQ PILES
27 LONG DRIVE TUBE- DIAMETER
DRIVING TUBE WITH FRANI
DIAMETER SHELL u 17- /
AVERAGE PILE DEPTHt 19
Cs = 435 FT./SEC.
FIG.B2
CASE STUDY, BROOKLINE
BROOKLINE, MAS
SS.
VILLAGE,
19'
HAMMER
2
:~~~
·
1JJ ,
_
.[[[
i
-
l
143
ii
·-
I - !
·
.i
]
''
:
1.5
VI
I
vv
A
IA
-fj*
Ii.
:-·
I
4
1
tti~
0.5
0
i
(
4V
RRU- FEET
FEET
I U
160o
120
160
I
1.
Vt
V,
C
40
80
R- FEET
FIG. B 3
PARTICLE
RANGE
VELOCITY
RATIOS
VERSUS
144
I-
ZI
e ~.~',.,'~..'"(
%~~b~~
rv x.-,x',,x~,- , x, .~s
w.
o
'
'
/., N
N
oe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
/
'
.
(10
_syX,NjY.
i
9.=
2
~
C
-Z
>1
3QDt z
1Z
.").j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
w>
8r M ac
WL/'o
Zm
J8
Z~~~~~~~o
U.
-j, 0
IL
<O
9·
g
> S,
c
wI i
>-DW
CYr
o
*s/
O
o
'U 4!oleA
o* 0
66 o
o
OPInsd - a d
N
o
0
o o
N
ocv
o
m
LL
., ~ . -
,
·
f
145
w
<l
0
w
CD
J
_.
~ o'v2,,~/,.',',X
;,
"X?
,e
X
Ll
N
~>:Oo:;,,/~
Y..\.R
g~~~~~~~~I
X<m 0
:)
\G~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z ¢,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
$->
40
00,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b
J.
LL~~~~~~~~~~~~
0~~~~~~~'GXnKX
/
1
0~~~~~~~pt~e~~~~~'
: _M__~
,,
9Sx
_z8 X X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bZI>~:~o
z
z
a-
__ "
(L2(ALA~~~~~~~(
z
v/~
0-..
<e,:
.......
co
T-s~ n~ r\rxvrr
:~~7° >S
,
rcl~X\
\1I~
9v?
,
'
C)
a)
or)
iD
tn
O.
C.
0
0
oss/'U
! '4!ooa1t
6o
o 00o
OPSsd - a d
0
0
0
0
0
6
CC
0
LL
cI
4'
C1/3
2
R(p C)
E1 /3
EI
FIG B6
ME,ASUREMENTS
OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS RANGE, BROOKLINE
VILLAGE PROJECT, TRANSVERSE COMPONENT
SCALED,
FIELD
w
I1
> I
R(C, )1/3
1/3
FIG. B7 SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS RANGE, BROOKLINE
VILLAGE PROJECT, VERTICAL COMPONENT
C
a
10
100
00
R(pC )
E/
FIG. B8
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
VERSUS
VILLAGE PROJECT,
VELOCITY
OF' PARTICLE
RANGE, BROOKLINE
LONGITUDINAL
COMPONENT
149
SAGAMORE TOWERS PROJECT
1-
The ground water table fluctuated with the tide.
2-
No trend was observed for Vt/Vv and V 1/V v versus
range plots.
3-
Even though no blows/bucket data is given, 2 and 3
buckets were required to make the bulb.
A workmen
said he was trying for 40 blows per bucket without
excessive hammerpentration.
*
0
w-4C
Mi-4
\O0 O
Cr\N 1-
I
0
*.
C.-\O
co
*
0
%oo o
0OO\N
\00
.-II.4
O
000
OOO<
·~..
C( lO
o. (V
C
· E >·
..'C'.
E.-OOO
C- ,.
I,
00t
C-t%c00
4
Q1
000 000
000
000,.
I
C
0O
-00.
000 000 OOO
000
000
,sCQ
-4 (r
150
\O \O
cq
*
0*
--
* crN
C)
n
, N
0
4)
44
N
M M
Q
O*
N
N
o0
0
Vl
u\
VUN
U
',O
\o
*
V
'0:
. 0
*0*
,,,F-4
(v
1-4
C-4
N
ON
%C
M\
C
II
ll
*
'-4
E -,
0
C
W
I
*
'0
',0
0
a0
al
C
00000
00
0
0
O0
-, 0
W
W
Cl)
I
C
14
o
a'4*
cN
U/)_
*
,
aO
*
N
4,)
N
4O*
0
0
4*
'0
lo
*
'-4
C'-
C0
V4
4
%0
CQ
N04
O
ulC
,-4
Cl
N
u0
CQ
4
CQ
C
4
C
N
c,-
x:
0.
4
1.4
0N
°
0
4
0N
.
,
0"
0*
0
'V0
'0
0\
*
aC
-4
V-4
V-4
-.
v
0'
0'..4
t0',
v-.e
v-
0.
0
oci0o
>
-4
oe
C)
o0o
o No
0
0*
* C
*
(
II C
Nt -4f -4
4 00 ci
V-4 YV*
*
SO*
*
*
1-4 (\O
oo %o :
\
e 0S4
1-f
*
pq
0
O
*
*
ooo
Cq
m a
co
mmm o9 o9 o
000 \O
000 0
oJ o o
000 Im~~~~~~~;OC
000 N %c- U'0 000 000
* * 0
000
000 000 U ^t 000
vO U>
C%Us U
I,.
Sl
V-4
4-
-4 -
'-4CQ
*
*
J0o,
*
*
C
0 0
*n
o O
\0
_.
Qrc
II]
'-4
cm
\0
c
N
0
0'
oN
1-4
T-4
N
NQ
C
ao
V41
1-4
0
4
Ch
NOU
-
I
-4
I
~4I
0J
rlUE
ror
U
*
A k
-
N
4
CQ
N
'I)\
0
U
Cr
C
N
1-4
1-f
o
N
T4
C
v-4
C
N
N
C
N
O
O
4
4 -
4
4
4
4
V-4
,-4
V4
t-4
1-4
1-4
00 .
0
rl
-
I
*
:eX
ON
C
N
t-
0
0W
4U0
4
ll
*
0
*
*
4-
161
U)
u
Cs
a:
1-
J4
J-
4
1-4
O
0
0
*
O
r
N)
(V
m
C'
(N
0
ao
(0
(0
OD
40
4-4
0
0
v-4
4)
Pl
4P.,
0
-4
O
-
4
(0
UN
N-
c
0
0
UI
V1
V"
\0
\0
N
\
T-
0
-4
(0
Vo
N
4--
C
4
Nu
1-4
-4
C
(
C
\0
-4
*
e
151
152
SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE
0
N
(LOAM)
TOP SL
MEDIUM COMPACT BROWN AND
GREY FINE TO COARSE SAND, SOME
8-7-6
GRAVEL, FILL(DRY)
8
BROWN
MEDIUM COMPACT
FINE SAND, TRACE OF
5-6-5
GRAVEL AND SILT (DRY)
6-6-7
MEDIUM COMPACT GREY FINE
7-7-8
21
w
w
U.
TO COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL,
OF CLAY AND SILT (WET)
w
TRACE
10-10-10
.
29
19-20-20
COMPACT
GREY FINE
TO
COARSE SAND, GRAVEL, CLAY
TRACE OF SILT (DAMP)
20-17-21
42.5
40-34-42
VERY
COMPACT
GREY
FINE TO
COARSE SAND, GRAVEL, LITTLE
AND OCCASIONAL
BOULDERS
SILT
(DAMP)
42- 47-43
52
REFUSAL
vim
FIG. S
CASE STUDY, SAGAMORE
TOWERS,
N. QUINCY, MASS.
153
SWAMP
+0119
0
+170
e+169
+ 168
o
20
4.0
SCALE - FEET
0
OTHER DATA: WEIGHT OF HAMMER
7000 LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD - 120 TONS, CASED PILES
32' LONG DRIVE TUBE- INSIDE DIAMETER 19"
DIAMETER SHELL= 17-5/8,
DRIVING TUBE WITH
DELMAG D-30 DIESEL HAMMER,
C
547 FT/SEC.
FIG. S2
CASE STUDY, SAGAMORE
NORTH QUINCY, MASS.
TOWERS,
,,
I
I
-i
:l
.!lll
I
I]
I
;. *::..I
~_~:[.
. - ~ :i"k :l.
LL-'+:
.r ....t :;r.!-!
-' r_
."
-
.-. ; i ..- 1 7:
. . " - - i , ;
-MmI-M1- 4-·-`
,
4
-
I ffiS
.
'
.
A..
L
. l c· i.. r 'rs '* ·
; ',; q :
.- -1-...... .....
..
^- · ii
I
!.
.S
.-...
.
,t-,
;
t
· · · ·-·· ·· · I
-..,..i.-i
i-ii
i..;i
I·i
· · · · I -·--Ci-l,;rr.: ·-
L
I. .
··-; ·- i-·
-·· :··
..
·-7.:
.·
i-i _
...
i.-:· ·:
('I
.
Ci
i
__
I
..
. i7.-
:
-
F. : -;M:1
'-
_~·
...
'
I :
' " .':-r-
.'
·
1.:.i
-
:.,
I
I -
I
;
:-.= ...
_j
i?.,:
vW
_.
.
r1.
.
.. ...
', 1
.
I.
'
: 'I1:i
-O
. .
.
i
,
'
.
:'
-t
-
t
-
-
r---
X ,_.r,
-.
,[.j_.
.....,:
'~.....
.
. . ..
--------
-40
-
-
:.
-
I
:.
I
··
-
_
YI
i
r
.. I I .. I;_-
, ..
:'
:
I . 3-4i
!.'iH
....
I..
I
£
__
7. 7
L1
777
_.
Ii a
Y
I... :.i-..
... .t
··
-
[
T ;
;=.I.....: :_I
:.-.... ' . ~.:..
:Ll
·--
.--t - --,-.
r .m__L
-
.·
1
._.
_
:' ..".."-.
· -77q ..:747 ..
. ... ..... ,
.
...
l
L._&:
_
-
.: 4 ... J4.
.....
...
..
: . i
. 7. 71'1';,.
.;
1i
:. .
! 4-'
J ,
|
.
. ._
._
.
._f:'
_. 12_
- 1
.
' '
i ...
___-I
.
.
A.
'.
_;
Li
.
.. T
;.
i
; .
-1.I...
;;-''1,
. .
.
.
...! . '. . . I: ..
1-
i
__
?-
·i
._
1 -t
:.,.
,
I :. .
.
_''
--
.
__-
_-
..
.: . . -. j-!-- -..
.. .r.
.__
_.._
iie:-
,
,. _ ._. . _ Y
----C--L
I-...; . i
=_-r
--t
. ." ,1:4:t1.2.
.. _....
- I
--'
,
1
l-i--:i
,
:
.. . : . : ...
.
-----
;
.:
.- I.- 11.
.1 1s-
'I
:
..,.>.
* -'.- :.... ::
.... j I.
:'r. Li
I
,!-,
.,
'.:T:Z:7
: .
2__
,;-
.
,___.
A,.-
.4;:.
_11
. 4L.ri,
_..
4-i:
i- I
. r
Ed__I1.. .
.:
1 '.
I
-..
I1!!!..
;;it
:
7-..-.
'. 1.
_i
. i:+ V .-- ! ,.,*
__
t.,
.
...... ,
j.
I
.4 ..
.' j'''^_
. . i
aI
.. .
7Pt.:_::.]i~---..; '~-:.' Y-?---t
.7j
Vt
r
.. ,"4
., I
iL '
I
-
. .. __
- -i--:1
1.5
-
~.....
-
_:·I .
'·-·-
·Ltf:I'*.
'
.
· . ';.-.
....f.
:
..
z-.- _ -I_ -tt1"A
.
7.- rm
· ·-11 I·7- .
. . I
~;
..
L.-
:'t;
Lii. sr.-z-
I .;W- . . .:
1
, . . i j..1
C---
-- ~
~-_
Ii
I.
..
. :
t' . I
200
I(
_
.J:ii' .
li
-I
r
i-?
·
c··rr
A..
.
S
q
11 -
., :
T-;l
..... :
·-. · · i·-····;-i· I·;I·.
· · · · r,·:
..:.;
·-e
Fiji: .; .;,,
1. - 1
l
-· r
r
I;20
R- FEET
I.. ',
... .---riA
A
7,
. t-t-t
..
¢.
,
cr,:
? t i'
80
11t
lI
tWfI
t, .~':.':
'
I
"`
j
Lc. ...
--·--- '- i · L.ii
'"
"'
-..
i : it .I
' ·-· : 1····
i-:·
·
·-I · · · -·-· ·
... , ...
· ·-
_:1 r--+--· ·
_f
'
ii-.-·-' ;· --· ·-
-· '-!
·
I
E -. . .,.
''"r TT
.. :r
4~
.r'. .: .
.
··
'""
.
:...
·;
''
40
0I
--t
..
m : ¢ . i.. i_: .- ...;ir+ *!~
,%_. 4-;1
·
-····i·1 · ·' t------·
·-··I?-·-·
.
l:l -"
1. . ; .4.
.
T,::. : ..-...
;.!:.
r--t-'
-t--
I
.
i~it.
1
: : : : i...'.
2.3II
·' '
....
;... ,'I:I-:-''-
-'.
i Xt
. I , +1
.
~m
; ':Xt
2·,
.5
', * i.-~
i/-t.l
..
! ou-
.4.4.:i :
il·;;
I
;. i i i
:..LiTtTT
1
''
.. ,.. ....
· · ",....,.
.
,
.. I...,.
.
It
L
'.t1 =-'dt't-:
i·
.J.i,
411
t. :1... ..i.....
..,.- t t. H'.-ri -·
.e1
-
m
1:
Vv
.
fi
:.j.:
. . -~,...=r,,,,--
· · II :::·II· ·-~r Li
i1#-_
!;
; L.r:
'-- .:. :;:j
.!I 4 · . . ii_
..'::.. L!:'1:±
ri
j.To.. t.- :.
I:
*. t40l
....i:'t: .i,,· ~L~. :4
"'ii :i; l~iii~-::l""q
2
. :
.
.: ..
.
..
-. :!- .
..
.i
. .
: . .:
c · -·
·
--I I..
--- · ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
80
120
160
200
I
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
.
-.
'
R -FEET
FIG. S3 PARTICLE
VELOCITY RATIOS VERSUS RANGE
5%
O
w
3
a-
n
05
,
XXq
Z
gt
o
Q
,E :
IQ
w
a.
U)
w
z0,)
13.
w
O
0
.a
G
Z U) i 0 <
2z5(
so ~
Ela w
o.
_-
EgSBE
-t
N
U)
aI.
Cu
0
0
*oes/'u!
w
,~
O
4 to1le9
6
opnesd -
0
ad
o
O
0O
0
0
V
0
o
U)
5-
LL.
156
I--
(ON
0O.
ly)
ctr
w
0
I--
,
'X~~~~~~~
fi
bJ
0
,tI=k
z>
, O8YL[I
>t
I
eY\
w
/Y\
O.
.1_
gI i
!
0
o
0N
0
7.'
7' -/
Eid~t~t1
O, g l
f,.
w, .
0
Q0
i
g
0
W
CO)
Jsz
-JflJ 7
-O LL
.J0ZWl
t O
Q
8
0 fill
low
~
o
o
0s/.U!
0
o
'401eA
OPsd-ad
opresd -Od
o
o
60
o
CY
0
6
c
DP
Cl)
157
SocI
b
1.
rrC
- --r
B."'N
c
.....
-
-l.t4i1J
.- c
!t-t
.t
I
---
I
E-~t4
1-
'--''-''~4C
;.
+-
--l-CIUi&iI
C
+
lw N--t
R
·
.
.
-4
--
_
.
I I
.
-
- - - - - -
-
.
- -
- - -
_
TI.
I
i
-i
.
I !
-ti .
I
. . . . . . I . . . ..---
.,
,.,V/I I
"--4 _---
I
i.I-
I---
,
,
I
-t - I
0
-I
K
'·
r
12:t-1
. LI·)·
w
>lo
;
',,
i-
-I
.
--!
1I
-.'1 -1
f I .tl.l
c+-cm
!
, 4"-&...-.--
i-,
_.
I0
EH
i
a
-L4
.
. 1-..
L
-
11111-11111111
. .
.--
111
.
np,
111111
.
-..
.-. 4
I
I
!
m
4
,,ri
.
I
I
I
I
rT,.
· .4..-
**
.. <
4.
· i
--o
.
....
.
i -{j.t-t
ti
l-I
.- r[-q
I[ i
I
I
|i
Ii
1- i
[
'--.I...1i i- tFh1:L
.
1.-1,
I,
I
ib. .
B
ITIITI
-, I
i.
i..
i
,
T- 7
tH-ti
r-l
1.4441
-tt
ttl,-l1
IlFI
t.,
,
I i I
i II
IL.i
IT
' '' ''' ' '
t-t~tH~tl~~
'
.......
U'"'~
' ' ' '''"''"''''-''
.,,
.,
_
.
d .,
_
I
I
I
I
_'
1000
I0
ER(PCl/
E 1 13
0
FIG.S6 SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF FRTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, SAGAMORE
TOWERS PROJECT, TRANSVERSE COMPONENT
.,! l**],I.
r-j!.
500
'I
:1 1'
f f.
_'- _
.,t-
' 1 ...I--!-.1
:11
158
'I
!I m
4ff
11l
.. - ......
L-4-l
4-44f
fIi t f
~.J
I
1I
Hf
E --1"
:lIk
I
. .4
t
Ilt iJt.i
*oo1+
-llIIII
1
I
''
.'
I
II
lllllllll
.'":1
,.
+.1
I
. .
..i...
I
,
I I i I i
4
0
.
NE. I
-i
#a
''' - _
7 It
p
i
1--
I..
X
P.
IO_
L1
i
'
i
1.-.i.-
i t i i i i
l ffff
i d i
.
1
'+-t--ftHt.
tff---
,;.-,,...
I
I
I I
'*
I
'
I
II1
'
I IiI
11111!1111 1i
s .M.! !.4 4
I
f-
4----..- 'I-t
... . J
. -..
= -- 4-.t
Iii
.
-
--
-r
-r
,
4i
'
,.. - -
I
1VI- I-- r - -1 - -l-4-11
I I I - I II
I. ··
,- ! ,l. I ·-- II·-- 1
i f.;-,
W
I-.I--l.,.,4.
m1t'
. .' . .'· . '
11111I
'-
.
''
'
- - - - - - - - - - - -.
.
-···U···
·
-
-
ec
-· "
'-
'
·
. -
. . . -
-
I
-I-
I0
.
100
I.
11
-.
· ·
'
''
''
''
.
·
1
·
III
LIIIIIIll·
''
I
r 1
;
7'' 11
iF
'L
1
~
I'
UI IA
III I I r I
1000
1 3
/
R(p$
E 1/I
El/~
FIG. S 7
FIELD MEASUREMEMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, SAGAMORE
TOWERS PROJECT, VERTICAL COMPONENT
SCALED,
'
159
500
.. ... "
. _
. _
-
I-
i 14
i
-
I
. . 18rrn-· . Ir·i
. '.. . it
I I i ,
'
r
- - I- ! '-
i
It-t
tfl--l
11ITM-
I-f-l--- 1I
'!- I
ti.
.t- ++C--
-t
2rT
It~
i
|
l
ll
I
-r
I
I'"
1I
HILUtI
100
!--+-
i
-- I -4.-+
,
4-4e
.. .
-Ii
I
I
_1
. 7.
2
...
K
01
-F I
i
.__!I
.
I
·
:I'I..,
1I
-'
..
''''"
'-
.
j.. ~Eam_.Tdt~
1.mI.- I
.....
11-'' TTTTIT
''
I-_-
.t 1.
l. "ll
1!
.. ft
I
I1111
X.1
III
i JY'
-X . 414
.-- e.i
I
1..-1111111 11 I11 11
1I1I
ii
II
1%1
.
FI
t-++
I -t T -' 1I
I Irl I 111 I
1
1-1 I r
I I I IIIl
j.1-"Tl,,r[1·~ttt)I I - I It+t
I I I I I I I I I i I I I !I I III I II II II II I I I I I I I I II 1 I I I I I I
.!II! I
t 1a! .i:. ...-....
,
.
-
. ..i t
_
4
~
. .- .
.
. -
4 1
1T
-T:1-l -·-t
i:Itlt,
-ti
''1
i ·-
I
I.
- i
. i
tI I
· ·-- .l;-
m-e
i
11_
Ililil!!-l
IIi 1
4 l l - I I I I I.| iIU
I I I I I I II
I I I I I I II I
.l!
- . - . _._ . I. I- - - -. - -~
ci--u.........
I
I
---------------------
cccc
-ec;~
t
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~-~~
---
-------
-------
-----
1000
100
I0
R(PC2)1/3
El/3
FIG. S8
SCALED
FIELD
MEASUREMENTS
OF
PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE, SAGAMORE
TOWERS PROJECT, LONGITUDINAL COMPONENT
160
DRAKE VILLAGE
At Drake Village structural motion was recorded in
a single story garage.
The garage was 31.5 by 29.5 feet
with cinder block and brick walls.
The closest vibra-
tion reading recorded in the garage was when the pile was
11 feet from the corner of the garage (pile #39).
Pile #39
This record resulted in some interesting observations.
When the Franki pile was being bulbed at a depth of 21 ft.,
the following observations were noticed in the garage.
1-
The vertical component was largest next to the
wall.
2-
On the window sill the vertical component was
largest while the transverse component was smallest.
3-
In the middle of the floor all three components
gave lower readings than the next to the..wallon
the floor and window sill readings.
n rl \O
NoD
I
0e-4
O
H \O0
*0 0
CQ
C
C
*
0
fU0%
*
0
O Un
c
00C 00
0
co
CYN H
0
H o
*0
.
OoOO
161
H UI a.
S
CQ
C, O C.
Or C r 00 C C.
OOO( :
00
r4S 0c
NO O W
r,1%0
*; *IC
C4N
,. rl 4 rl H 4
OCo; O
oo
H
*
H
0
C)
4)
0
N
ce.
.-Ip
44
-4
N
'0
ch
'
C
N
T
N
0N
0
C'
C'
O
U)
0
NO
O
NO
C-
't
O
'0
'0
\0
O
C0
0
W
I
C.)N
i
Iz=
cf-'
0co,
0
S
J
C-
I.
V-I
Wx
N1%
N
O
4- 1 4-)
1
4
N
C
V
0'
C
%
N
0
'0
O
O
O
4t
S4
H
H
H
4
O
O
O
4-4
-
4
N
4-
H
4
I
tH
W
CI
4-4
I..
r"
H
H*
C-
4
H
N
ct
O
m
4-4
%0
.r
H
m
0
0'
H
4
aN
0
H
4
0c
H
N
CQ
N
0\
0o
0
0
4n
4
H
0
0'
C0
N
0
50
r4
CQ
C
N4
C
C,
C-
N
N
N
C
C
N~
H
-4
n
rH
O
m
H
4-
ao
4
N
0
H
.4.4
j
H
Cr'
4N
NNmmN
H4
cr%
4CM
CCO Q
CS
r\0 %U
-4
(i
N
O UNo
M
0
\O CO0
CN
.q O-t
0OOD
r
\O\
4 oOH
*
O
I
*
S
0
H
m
C14 C
S
0
4
o
o 0
*
-4
,-4
*
c-00
*oooN
n
4
pq pO
'oo0
o o Co
000
000
o* o* o
o; o; o
000
00
,O
0h
o4
0O
o
*
*
H
4
H
,4
N
H
S
4
o
C
*
crn
00
'4
00
H
I
Er:
II.
*
-P
O
-.4
o
0
0
I
W
-'-40
,-
oI-4
%.O
a
p
2
E)
00
O0
H
\0
H
N
H
0
5
cO
4-)
O
..
I,
0
C::
-P
*
CI
H
\
4
ts
- f
40
40
00 \O
0
H
0~~r
4
4
E41
-4
40
162
163
I
v
1
r
ELEVATION
157.7'
N
2-16 -IS- 18
SAND, LOAM, ASHES, WOOD,
AND GLASS FILL
CINDERS
I-1-2-.2
10
PEAT
1-I-I-I
LOOSE MEDIUM AND
2-3-3-3
14.5
SAND
COARSE
IL18
r
HARD FINE AND MEDIUM
SAND,
0
SOME
GRAVEL,
15-14-15-13
TRACE
INORGANIC SILT
23
HARD TO VERY HARD FINE
AND MEDIUM SAND AND GRAVEL,
SOME COARSE SAND
i
OR
. W . v
28-i7-17-31
k_
V
19
v
REFUSAL
RESULTS OF DRIVING TUBE RESISTANCE TEST
AND BLOWS PER BUCKET (I BUCKET = S CU. FT.)
PILE
NUMBER
10 BLOWS
AT 4' DROP
(INCHES)
I BLOW
AT 20 DROP
(INCHES)
32
31
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
36
0.50
0.50
37
35
FIG. D I CASE STUDY,
MASS.
0.375
0.625
DRAKE
0.50
0.375
VILLAGE,
BLOWS
PER BUCKET
49
48
50
54
50
ARLINGTON,
MAINTENANCE BUIL DING -GARAC;E
riI
b=
I
D
I
CINDER BLOCK CONSTRUCTION
O
o
10
20
SCALE - FEET
+39
+40
0t
31+
*32
+35
4-36
+37
D
OTHER DATA:
WEIGHT OF HAMMER
7000 LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD = 120 TONS, CASED PILES
30' LONG DRIVE TUBE- INSIDE DIAMETER = 19"
DIAMETER SHELL = 17-5/8", DRIVING TUBE WITH
FRANKI HAMMER
Cs = 535 FT./SEC.
FIG.
D2
CASE STUDY,
MASS.
DRAKE VILLAGE,
ARLINGTON,
A
165
SFt
I.
VV
;rf
R- FEET
2. 5
ICR S --
S ^
-
1 i11
[i]
I
;
s
·
!
|
e-
^:
.
I i.
i-
. i
!,..', ,'' '
_.
I ':
7'
i ' .: X
i
_
_
l
--
V,
r- +....
-_
.II
:
:
:__;i: t:
-. t
r JI : i
I
..
H
I ,
.... II t
i. 1 1
+
if
i!l
o-
_4
i-
i~
. ,ii
S
0
,-t
4
l
r
-4
- tI!.
1-1·
t
T'· fl ' tr'
-r
"i-·
44
±iTh -I
ri 4 1.144=1
I
'l;;4-4zT;:q:W4
44 I
40
I
1-j
gmft'
;!?
-
- ;i ·
rv
,t
J
"!< t11' } -i
.'I v
,
rlr
T Fl,
c,, t;
ITT'
-
_T. + T,1;
.;-:44et
-T
4i-: :T
T -1
411,
I r- '11119JEld",
!it _. ii i
,'l 44~i ,r
,~111I
.
_...cu
1-
'.
.-
! : 4.:t1
-'
T::I i
:I
"S -
'
iii.
.il AI,
L,
]. I
1
i
; it-
..
'
I.5
.
i i
I
i. 1;;
I,,;I ;! '!4
!,
_
.
Vt
.
VIr1
. .:.
... I
.
!
b+
'
_LT
iL-; : · :.:!
7f
:
lq s.4
T!Ail
t ~I 't4
Ih;
I: . i I ! t IBI
S'l@ i
.,__.i , . ,:I i 1 l !i iit '
'.
i : ··
* w
lu:
t Liia
.
IFSji
1-
IR
80
.F i T
":
m~
120
R- FEET
FIG. D3
PARTICLE
VELOCITY
RATIOS VERSUS
RANGE
166
---C/],
H
1
14
I9q.
/ '\4
N
Is
S~~~\
I
/
'- A
lt
\I/-
\A
0<
2Ga
4
X
K
4
<
<Z
(t
)c
>
29\\ Y \
0
/
11
.I
/ Zo
z
'..
,0 0
11- ,
A
""I <,
Jo
W110
A
H,I.'<
II II
I.'W
le
X
x,
/tV>Q
)XI
AS
_
.^
-
x
·J
.r
0
·o
W
ov
0
s//'U l
;
o
4!AIg A
N'
N N
"I N
hi
N
.
OPflsd
<
IN
kl
'N
-
1.
/
o 90
-
0
C,)
1t
<
w
U)
z
0
0-
U1)
w
.0
'S
x
q"I
3
a.
,,,,rme
N
IS
s
8
L
K - ,/
-1
e., ,a-
j
I
w-
*o
a2
iiD
>r
f
e 'Y
c
'IT XC IXI'
w=
N fm·
L eXXX
N,
/ /C L
¢\'c-N-I 00
7 r <C
r
,
to
11
L
N LN /IXV
-I...
Vt-
l,.\ I
^
x A \,Z,.1i
A
I
WoO
N
\s
tfN
p vW
x
i
01%
\ r
\;
I !C
X-z<
-
/
x
K
54
<
4v.p~o--,
-'
V
<n
77
/,-
%.,, r\-
Sv
I rl <1 .
N
r11 ,/Z
ASiA
ts stAz
'4 -X
,
7
- A
I
RR
I'11('x
,.X
'
J
-Cx
-j
I
'a.t
''o".^
b
J
to . /
T6;e.lx YO llzm
IN
llI'-
$
lba.
<-
PI
x
k/,
:04
03'
v <
q
A
P3
\-K x
0
<
X LYN, 'A
-70
SQWN
r7v00v
12
V'
<
/K
0
7
a-
11.
'I
Ir
0
o
x 0'1
0/' Ia cCw
111
\MX
"I,
•2
-d
!
X
,-I
, (F
al
>q, ,',b~ ,X
1 ,,
z
f
Z
(1
S
C
aS
w
\
/
X
4 P, S
W
)<KX.
LU
8
kP .;a
4 2~
atv
"I
, 0-
\,
?
S
'L
C,
>)Nl
1 /-\
Z Ix
'f X I V
|
M
7N
9
2
x
/
S
O'
12s
/.L Ins
d
D
K
S/
<K
N
N
t
-IF
o
o
0'
5
0
x.'L
.X,
t
U
'I'
w
xII
0
a
w
%,-.lo
U1)
6
a.
t
"N /NVAX
I
vS
-
0
o
o
'
v
c0
a
.d
EZ
167
O
w
.~
A
z
vN
A%v ,
0
w
C3
UJ
(
KX
z
A
z
ZV
t
Y\
!:
aa
(r
Qn
w
0a.
Cl
w
a:
U)-cr0I
w
i--
C
' J
~.
> 0-.rr,
,a/\:.t
WI
~
,<l,
V
CM
Uj
e
71bU
MrA\/
woU.
H
~
M
11l
o04
p
0
cl
0
w
I1.
04
o0
o/'gU!
o
'4!olgA
N
Cy
0
0
0
Oprstd - ad
,
O
0
0
0
d
0
t
0
o
0
6;
a>
CD
168
c
<
d
ogg
0
I..
0
e,
.cc
a.
CL
>,
XO<
e
oaD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
LU
X
-<,
.AI
\/'\,,," X f '
/'JOX'~." ' _ /_ ,!Vt
7S~~.
a:
-
0.
SfW x// _
z _; ~~~~~~~~~~~~o_V.//CN'
w
C
0~~~~~~~~~~~
k X,/N
,/,~ , oil
i ,
--
0 tBe -
)r
Al~~~~~~O
x
,X
M.]2
gI
V
I
cn
x ,n
,4
~
,>!,
w
-
D- -
0
0
·'ss,/'u!
0
06
0
'41oos1^ oPwsd - d
0
IC
0
0
O
O.
N
0
O
0o
0
C
a¢0
L.
500
.Ln.
- 1:-
'' '
· -I · I ,--·-·
· +:-·
1
I -
169
I
----....·-+l-r
::
i1 r
t4
.·i
.. I .... ,.
i -..
-t-.
74t::-
-.t'- wt' _
___,
i
c
:' II, i -r
_.
I
.
.
-
.t
I·C
I
I
' l ..lu'Ll ;.,i i! ..L4j ilt
..
.I
I''
I I!11!1
--+-+
1!
i ...
i-
:
100 ''
.1.
I
---
I-
_
1-. -r
.,
-
...
I
tt5+-c
. !11
tec-
I
-TL
-i
_
I
I
4-.f
;
&
NH
J ..
1
mI~
J BULB1NG
+ DRIVING TUBE
.
.
L-
_1
_
1
--
_
i
_
_
.' 'I ' '' "
I
--
-
-..
:
I
1-
-*.
:.;
,..
10
±f
1
_
4
_
_
:,
-ftp
! I Ll
....'
t: ..
i
!
r
t
: I i
,1 '
_II
;Li
LI.YVI
---.
-~+·i!-·4.~w-.-.~--
-
...
I .'
--- I1
I
t
aF
- -41I I
.. .
r-!: 1 ... . -i--it- i
i.t -*. 'L
I
.
-[f7.
j fr
:._
.
i-I
1,
I 1
.
1 I
11
r r
I
Ir.
-- 1
. ...
I I 11I I11 1I11 I
1
:,
,,
4
.
;i
--
.
_;'~
_,f =,-.
I
:---c
-
-Il-
.
- -t-
t!H-, i
"A
-it ---
.' .!
''
t
..-
I,,.
f
I
.
.
-
''
m1
1mm
7Mi ;-fr
fl-M· ·-r
.. .!.
1-H;1
.-- . i 1 ..1
T.
!j
.
-lH
+ t-11
,'
.
-- rl
¢
.
I
I i.
T
I
i
I I
-
-11-
-
t-I
'---.
11-
I . . . . ..
1 1 1 I
I I
I I
l l l I
i
I 1-1
l
1 1 1 It
=11-i"'
I·-
-
-
-
_.
.
_.
.!M 7T177 T
1;
l
l
l l l
Ii I -T!
A1
I
i-:
i iI
I !·r·l
;
I1 i :
,.,.:i
tt-i1t-l·t
'''''-:'
. . ,
. .,.
.e,.
- --i
·
41
i
1-·!
: 1I;
.I
. ..
i 1 i f r·! ··) t; ti· -f-l-!
C·-li
' C`
!,
j' ..
_ . ...
..
,
1
---
-
l
_7
_4_
j:
|*;*|-t,
.. + :'C~+
... 0 -*t-t.t--;
- ' 1--- -,
..
t- 'Ii I
l
II
I
I_ I
-
:
I
.
1
-- -I1'
-
i4
-
.
I0
I
·1t-1-·it+--
FlF-;
-t-.
-- ,l
i II I I I
. i . I . I .
.
!
i
!
.
I
!I 1 I I
.
I
ICc+
-
.tlt- t liI
l 11illllll
I I IlI
. . I I . . . I . I . I....
I I
I . .
1 I lit I I
l
I
.
) 1/3
FIG. D7 SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY
VILLAGE
VERSUS
SCALED
-
I I i 1eCC
1 .
-1000
100
R(p
Ii
RANGE,
DRAKE
PROJECT, TRANSVERSE COMPONENT
500
-·
i
-- · -·
-
I
m
-Y
T
.
I-!
L.'...:
i
-;.
711 "'"
:1I
; i1
i . -· ·--
.r I
. . ..1
100
i
.
'
_L
_iS
.'_
_·I
_.
.. .... ._
! ..
1:
I
,I .
]_,
1
, -;
.0 -r
tI
,. --
I '- 1I
.
_
:
.
.i
;
|
i
i
Lt,·
-,
4
..
-.-_
I IH-l:I !li .
I.
-47
.
I ,I
.
t t.H-FF
.-~
It
.4
_
._
-_
'
;
§
,_4]
2
I
I
-·
I
* IL_ -
r
-
ii
I
_I
1.
1-!--H-H..!-_
.
. .;
.
I-T.i
i
I
i
I I
- +I t IIIIIII t t.i t t '
I-
_Il1i
.iii|
i::it>
·
I-1
l,!-
jl:l
,
i
I ! II ~
I
·
1 i'
i
111111
il I11
Ii
I:·
,
r
,
:
.:
;i
7!'
1
rT
!IIfII
't_.
i
ltt
LI l I 1IIIII
I--llll
!I
I
I a
I --
Ir
-.
IIiIi
I
W
;!
.-..· .
4-4-,
::
l
I
I-
i
I
fil
I
1
II:
--
.14
-
i-l$
i·:--l·-
l
gi·~m
A
ll
l{f[
1t1 1~llLIS-4L
IIIII I rX
SW W >ffl0Xt~~~~~~~~i
91f
1+X
r'
II
·
Jr
-t H
.;,ti
t;· i
;
I
1000
100
R(p C
FIG. D8
! I
I
I·
. .: .
1AI;
'10
I
'
tt~~~
.I
!!T;j:
l
l
, ·
__.,..
----
! I
t-t~t
- --- - --. . . . . 1m-1--ml-t-··,~.. t
I-"--t
-- . ----11MMIUM1
- --
55
t;l < -t+T111
Il-~;+. ilrttl~-i
I I
I
I I I1
Ill
Nl I I
m3+ .t
l-lill' .
I
i
i
-- ii;, tI ttj
,.
i
1
-,.i,
'--'i
.. I.
! ...'.
i0
:,
l
i
. . . . . . .-
I -f .
j + DRIVING TUBE
i-·rth
li
,-·- .
I
-··
. .. 1
4t
II_ _'
I
-r
lildIIIIlltF-T'ff
'it'I :.' tfl
II
il
E
ifii
ii
tt7
I
- 0 BULBIN-E'I''' Tl
I WII
' i.
I i ._
.
A
I
J11.._!~,...
I.t
l I I
I
!
,i:q
, -UT
1..ET
- - - : :1-t-.- ! 4-tf
i
-,
,.
I I
-! ...
_
ltv-+
t
ti:ll
'--!
I
i
t 1 .~t·
7
i
I-I
-!---H-
.
- T_- -t
i,-4
.
' '
C'4i
+-I
I-I- i.-t
__
_
.
' .I ..: '..-
0
..I:F~-
N._Mt
.- i
I
'IfTr
Tf'tI--·:-' -- -
I.i
I
-i
I--:17i
i-- !7l
.1
I
.e
. I
..
I j:j :#i il
I I44
'F-"
! 1,+; ' -:. :X__..T
i I:
I
. J
I, I
b
:
.
.7T
I
I
.
-
:i
. ;I
T7 T
.i
I
l l l l Fe
fl 4
rCIC
! ' '- i
i~l;,
.-
j.,L
:lt-t'I
-
.
I
1
I
4II--i-
l.
i
I
LU_I
-t.:
tt-
|
-
'-,,js
vI-t:
--
-l
ii
I
,
-{
170
.__i
-
._
I
I
i
I
-
-e
-1
1.,:
_
-'4-
|
-c-i
__
1-*--:t
:
.-
I1'.
l|- -Ii-I-,.
I
ifW
-I-
I ..
:
I!
I
i
_J
-
_l~4!
| I{ i
il .! .i! I JI.i,
!i i 'I
·+--,'LL4-LI 4-LC
lr-
|_I,=,=lm~l--.~l -00
;.
i;...
-I,.
I
I-
·
*T0--"
;..~
iI
I'-,
-
I'
i
[:
·
,I
i.-,~--.
I'-*
-
.
-
-
.
/
: -,7
m
I
.
i r
-
--
-|
)'/ 3
OF
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
RANGE,
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED
VILLAGE PROJECT, VERTICAL
PARTICLE
DRAKE
COMPONENT
'Vu -- , 4-.,
--.+.
''
. ! -F'
.
I
.
.
.&· .....
[ . .
..- 1&.z· ..
I :
.--
.
X
;
j
_._
-
I
r
- ,.
_!.._
!
i I_r
', r
.i
t
.t..- I .I
Ib
Itt
I
-,
--
4Fi
-
f-
--
t
I
11
' ! -1'
i :ft
Ff
! i
- I
11i I
T
t r.
:. . . !.
: lil;I
-L .
171
.lr4 -'
± 'I-
i I
-- ' t-
.i
t- .
;.
- -;
III-I : ; i! tI
;
r ....
.
t
7-SS
-.I
t
4-
t
..
,*
,
T
L
.... i_ _iLi
-_
I
i !c
-
_-, -I,:
100
-r --
I!
1t1_
.
.
.!!1
-
----
I i
!
! IlW1l I
,
~.-----
Y vI
I I I ^-+
-t
t
. i
.
-
r
-------
RBULRINR
~WE~M
W
L .--
.......
r
'r
. . ..
+- DRIVING TUBE
'
r
C
fc
-
.+---,-
--;
4--.- -:
t
_
t
4,
-.
,
'
+-t-t'-"H
ii I
~
|r
. . . '. .
._ .
I1 1
' -H-T-l'--H-. .
rrrr
|' ! i . .
!!:
, _._
I
-- 4-m
A-
10
i-
-I i i I I t I i i
-F'
,
;I|'-'1
,
;
M
.
I
1f
s
T
I
I
E
M
T
I
I
1
x
I . . .. ..
t-
t-
-
;
! ! i!i
,i-i-
't'H
1
I--t+-Ht
I
1 -t-I-
I
I
IL
i I I le-i
I I
. . . 1
.
-
...
.. . ll
...
- ..
l.I
..
.
I
rIrrili
, .. , -
I
r 1
1
.
1
I
I
TI-:+I .
E'Ilitl
-.
- i-I a I
' -I l I----;
i 1,1[
1;1: 'I--ttlell
' 1I
I
F ! tN - t t M -
; I.!.
·
I
..-
.
-
:1I
r
;1I
I
s
--
f ii
II
I ii* I I 1
I
F
'
1
.144-4-il--
·--i -t
'-f
Er
I t Il
-F..
--- i l
I
-I-*I-.
:1
._. .
>I(
.
_
1
--t--I-!-t-+-t
'
t.
i- -r:i--_
s
'''~~'
_-I
l14_-
--
.
n'
'
i
! I | | | --
CC
.
I
- ?
i
il
i- -. Il il
i tH-.! -IiI
'
--·
i--t---i
1-
t
I · t-'141:i1-t
I~~~~~~
i
. .I
'
_i!,;;
I
!
'
4t
'"
'1
.
II
ri
: !i I
J ..
i
· rliA+!
~
.
_, Ij
! -Ii
.+i
.i.!
[7-I-
-t 1
i .;
'10
1000
100
R(p C)/ 1 3
E 1 /3
FIG. D9
SCALED, FIELD MEASUREMENTS
OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY
VERSUS
VILLAGE
PROJECT, LONGITUDINAL COMPONENT
SCALED
RANGE, DRAKE
172
CHARLESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
At this site vibration levels were monitored for one
pile.
The pile driving was performed in an large level area,
while the nearest building was approximately 40 feet away.
Pile depth in relationship to the soil boring elevation was
not exactly known, but the difference was believed not to
vary by more than a few feet, the pile elevation being lower
than the boring elevation.
Good attenuation plots were obtained, giving a
logarithmic relationship.
But Vl/Vv and Vt/Vv versus range
plots seemed to produce erratic results.
173
3
0 rH--It
4o c- O
O HH H
r
N
N
0 \
rHlHN1 NC
N
N
I
~*n
5O
*~
.
Cl)
00 >
0 5mC
Eco
MHNC
\0
O -
rl
Nc
CvN-
O :t C0- vn fo
4.)-D~~~~)
rl
Hi
C-)4
O.O
E11
4o]
O00H
NN
ao
N0 0
mN00
OO
0. ^
000
^.
r
N
O %4
HHr-
C(N N't
N0
N
\0 O
\0
0000 OOO
q5
C
N"-CONO
UOC\O
C4t
O O _I
OOO
OOO
-lN,
N
n(C NC
0
MC
o"D
O
0 aoC
4>
I\H \
O-1 r
)-00
rtMCQ
000 000 000 000 000 000
K
Q)
m
N rJC0
N
O
0l
0
O
41
C-
(V.
H
H
W
A
H
0Oa'
o*
r\
0
H
O -H
r4
4
c
"l
N *· C-%
.
a0
,-
4
\0
N
C
O
-4
4
4
4
4
H
c
4
4
4
H-
C,
i.)
H
:>
0
\4
_~
\V0
\0
0
'0
H
i
0
Tt
ar
4
4
4
Nr
r
r4
-
H
H
Pr
I
I:
H
CI
4
-4
H
I
H
H
I
H
I
w
SUBSURFACE PROFILE FROM A TYPICAL
v
8
SOI L
BORI NG
ELEVATION
174
17.94'
N
COMPACT
FINE TO COARSE
SAND, GRAVEL, BOULDERS, BRICK,
35-40-32
BLACK TOP, CINDER FILL
ORGANIC SILT, TRACE OF SAND,
GRAVEL AND BOULDERS
7 -10-4
2 - 2' 4
MEDIUM COMPACT FINE TO COARSE
GREY SAND GRAVEL, BOULDERS,
TRACE OF SILT
16-16-19
10-10-8
15- 13-16
15
1.-
w
w
' L
STIFF
I
YELLOW
OF FINE
SAND,
9-10
CLAY, TRACE
LITTLE
9-8-9
GRAVEL
9-8-8-6
35
SOFT BLUE
8-8-3-6
CLAY
45
COMPACT
FINE TO MEDIUM
GREY
I
I
.
SAND, SOME CLAY, FINE TO COARSE
GRAVEL, OCCASSIONAL BOULDERS
16- Z6 -Z6
o2
cae
END
OF
BORING
PILE
D-II(I)+ 0
C
0
20
40
0-ICKUP
SCALE- FEET
OTHER DATA:
WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 7000 LBS.
CASED PILES, 48' LNG DRIVE TUBEINSIDE DIAMETER=19, SHELL DIAMETER- 17-5/8
DRIVING TUBE WITH DELMAG D-30 DIESEL
HAMMER TO 43, THEN DRIVING TUBE TO 46'
WITH
FRANKI
HAMMER,
FOR PILE D-11() = 56
NO DRIVE TUBE
BLOWS
C - 647
RESISTANE
PER
BUCKET
FT/SEC
TEST
FIG. CH I CASE STUDY, CHARLESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL
CHARLESTOWN, MASS.
3
K
___
:
i·i i··:f-i-
i·--·l
''
/i
I"''' ---"-----''
-'c-'. I
2
K
i; i
"I .. I
-
;-----i---
·
.:_'
'
i ''
..11
i
·
·|
, ...
"'il 1':: !
-
l
I
s
*--
: :1q:
L_
|
1::
.
..
--
u w
·
life~.
it :i
-·
I···
·
..''',.
.J
I
-- -
· i
:
.·
... ..
I
...
i: ·
T-
L_
,
i
::.111
_
r ...
.__
__
,
:
!Z'
W ....
l
...
|
. . .. I
..
:
---
~
. .
; .r. ..
...
.
..- - _
-
-
80
-
._
t-
-
.. .
···
40
.
. .. :
i...4
.-
~~ ~~
~
-·;-
'.
' . I
j
..
lll
tI
I~
i
.. .
L
... i....... ,. .,...-.
:-i,.i
..
:·
-
I·
:. ,i'i
....
,
t
. : :. : . .
. i
- I
-7 -
I : i i
. . .
.
- )t !-. - ----.-·
: -·
i ·-
.
I:
'''
:
·I
i
;.-i4L-i:
,E.
:
I,:
i r·
:I.ii
'
t'7
. . ,1 ... '
r- 1,, ' L
.....
S r
...
I
L_
-
-~
1.:
.. =;.
..
;i '
;i!
i.. -
;
jr
4,.
' I Wi-i
.--.
I;';'"
;'
t-
.,
.j .'
::-
I
Vv
I,
.. II-r-.
. ' . .;
; ...
4.
..
i:--·-·
VI
IT_·
,
'··r I.;i-.-'·
175
;I
^
-ii4T t_
II
0
IZO
R- FEET
4I
I:
.
·:
i
,: :
.
ji
1.5
..
,..o.;.
;.
:
i:.........
.
...
-
.';
i
,.
..... ::!. '!
5
Vt
Vv
.
:
:.
__
-
' |
: .i:i
.5
- L
..
i
--:
... ...1
!":.~....·
/_ _'-!::_.i
i'--"~!:...''
* I.
.......
V 'tiI~~i~
~
a
Y1
-o
40
CH 2
PARTICLE
RANGE
,,._
I
i: t
::;7.ii;4
vi4.z2.
80
R-
FIG.
3
...
.,
i
i.·..
120
160
FEET
VELOCITY
RATIOS
VERSUS
176 _J
8
a
C)..
CO
CD
,:
Z
z
D
C
vA
Z.
4t
s_a
I
A
~Zo~~~~~
0
o
P
7oA
Zilo
_
2,
0
Z
i_.~ Q
cn
Lu
Sa
.
a.
U)
IIc
Orr
"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
:n
C,
0
0
0
U'!po1SA
· oSs/;u!
N
(%
oi
o
Opnesd - Od
0
QD
0
0
0
0
d
o
6
d
D0
0.
77
bo
w
3
a.
-J
8
>0
~
/~,,~
~ ~~~~~~~~'6<
,D
z
rO
o
,/
'L771s
,
Y
7 v/ A
z o) \ A _
./N/9,
\
I1-
I
ool X
lo
/X //'%
",Z '
;>7, /XzXXM°
zN~5>\'
X7o~~~~~~~~o
;H
zd,,' ;Z,....
~V_
2.
NXN,,N
V/>/Y.
,,..,
,),<
~ .%,
- 5/\~~'
~Mb.
W "~~ X./7.oi;
5 x<)C
v rz
V \
)
i
9c',X~
'
m'
F
w
UK
H
WLO~:
~
Y
U) II
w
W
U.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
w
0
M.
Wo
w~~~~~
0
0
W
N·
oll
10
mI
0
o
:e06/'u!I
0
'4!OOe1A
00
Oplneld -
ad
0
?
o
.
CS
,
0
cY
0
i
c5o
LL
178
TRANSVERSE
VERTICAL
x
R(p cs)40
FIG. CH 5
SCALED, FIELD
MEASUREMENTS OF PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS
SCALED RANGE,
CHARLESTOWN HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
179
LONGITUDINAL_
lVV.
'l'
l
Owl
1
·0 BULBING
l l ll l l
l
]
l
l
l
]-
s
l
E
l
lo
+ DRIVING
114-
.1 1
1.
l
1
TUBE
I
I EI x
o
1
°
.. t i
I_
100
1000
2/ I 1/3
R(p C)
EI/ 3
FIG.CH6 SCALED, FIELD
PARTICLE
MEASUREMENTS
VELOCITY
CHARLESTOWN
VERSUS
OF
RANGE,
HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT
180
MEDI-MART PROJECT
At this particular project particle velocity reading were the largest as the drive tube was first driven.
The soil profile shows (Fig. ME1), a firm layer of soil
overlies a very soft peat layer.
The soil profile is
analogous to a board floating on water.
The board can
be rocked easily when struck and so can the soil layer
lying above the peat.
Variation in particle velocity
with depth is shown in Fig. 4.9.
Tube pentration was so
rapid in the peat layer (10-30 ft.), that no particle
velocity was recorded.
The top soil layer actually freely vibrated similarly to the record on Fig. 5.2.
A damping fraction was
obtained which was 0.11 for pile 1 with a frequency of
4.9 cps (see Fig. ME8(a))
Little longitudinal and transverse particle velocity readings were recorded.
ly vertical.
The ground motions were large-
Consequently, only one scaled plot was drawn
with the vertical particle velocity.
I
O
T-4
o00
ao
4c-
;o
o QO
Co
o
1-4
4 181
0
C'-
o
o0o
-.
o W co
O .
%...
C
C
C)
:>
C:,
oa , ~o ,.H os 4
&
O
0u'
0
z)
*1-4
o
o
'-*
O O,
E-4.
- UcL
C
n0
o
o
cHCw
0
000
o; n C
CN
v, 'I-,
N
N
\0
xO
o -
a,
r.
cf
CQ
m
H4
cr\
C
cO
U,
U;
0
0
U
con
0
\O~~~w~
r
c~~~ cS1
P:
1-i
\o
0
C-I
I'll
n.
0%
0a%
o
4
*
-1-
U)
C-)
C)
\0
D
4-4
nr
o
C
O
\0
O
n
n
0
0
u0o
aZt
0
0
r4
V4
1-4
O
4
0
4
C
1-4
4
o
4
-4
C4-4
E-
I
-4)
VIN
0
14
aq
E-4
H
4-4
*
14~~
X
4*
_-4.
' .
o
0o
o
O
v
~'d
4-)
a
(
.4.)
o
o
(9.4
OC
Cx
V-4
1-
1-4
1-4
'I)
.6-4
04
oO
u..
un
4
q.C
o
q4
v4
Nw
C"-
O0
O
-
1
-4
o
o
0
0
'-4
V-4
ms
n
cq
m
O
o
tr
1--4
\0
1-4
V-4
C5
r-4
U,
0
U
1I
0
%-4 0
o4
CN C-
4
I
a0
0
0
N4
or- \O
n 0,0 C'rq-4 -4
-0 04 *o
·
·
mm
0
]
CYN> co
,-4*' *,a:
· mmm
c0 00
00
o40\*C
000
ooo,~i0r
mmm
0, 0 000
N 0**
0
000
000 000 000
0
0
v
t.
·
O
.O O
o~0~.~
0,1
* n
c) N'
(D~\
0
o
Ti
~ 0~
·
0if,.
0'
-4.
oo 1
64
40o
4
·
4.*
4- 4
4-
*
0
\0
*
r
c*
4
0o ,
:
4
*
A
C2
T-4
i-4
N~
0.
0*00
N
0o
C
C
4
o0
o
,m
Eq
E
at
I
4)
41-1
0
m
4ts
N
0F
tn1
b
O
0
0\
_v
4
C.-
N;
0
Q
0
0
\9
\O
O\
c
CN
n
C
r)
4)
Nk
04
182
183
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
,SOIL
BORING
FROM A TYPICAL
N
u
FIRM CINDERS,
ASHES,
10-9-9-11
GLASS AND BRICK FILL
LOOSE CINDERS AND
ASHES FILL
2-2- 3-2
10
2-1-1-2
PEAT,
ORGANIC
FIBERS, TRACE
SILT
WITH PEAT
OF SHELLS
I
I.0.
2-1-1-2
31
A
I
HARD MEDIUM
AND
COARSE
K)
SAND
AND GRAVEL, LITTLE FINE SAND
TRACE INORGANIC SILT
k
Ik
18-21-19-19
38
HARD
MEDIUM
SAND, SOME
FINE
'22-24-23-24
SAND, TRACE FINE GRAVEL
FIG. ME I CASE STUDY,
MEDI-MART,
CAMBRIDGE,
MASS.
184
POLES
* MM MM- 0 0 0 0
PA
GA
0
t
+
OTHER
20
40
SCALE-FEET
2
2
DATA: WEIGHT OF HAMMER = 7000 LBS.
PILE DESIGN LOAD = 120 TONS, CASED
34' LONG
DRIVE TUBE - INSIDE
SHELL DIAMETER
FRANKI HAMMER,
DIAMETER
PILE§
= 19
17-5/8',
DRIVING TUBE WITH
Cs= 488 FT/SEC.
FIG. ME 2 CASE STUDY, MEDI-MART, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
185
0
o
8
tooW
\,
Z
Z
l<
,: k
,/
;",
,/)
><.
\,
\X
:
ID
/'Nx
'8
Z.
O
/
0
m
11 0 3
LL
uW,
z'>
/X
",',
.,
,O(
"
rX:/%,x'
sF1':'x
grc~~~~CL
oOxxx~
9x, g-:~~~~
',cx
:.X,
,,<
V':o 72<
LI
Z
C,)
w
U)
0z
~Z /
.
!'
,%A
x,%/2;~
03
V x~,-/,,,x~
..oxq,2
<<x:q~<:.
w
S~
0
a.
w
0tL
UN,
-
.t
0
w
0
'T
o
OsB/ u! '4!oolsA
cu
opnesd -
o
a
d
0
00
0
00
Od
°
0
0
N
o
0
o
0ll
O
186
e/
'v'q.
'/ x~~~~~
x/j~.x%,/V
'/,qx,/.
V\/I\/
./: 'v~
, r,~>,,xz
(\ u A7<
- 5!--
-
,/
- --
'..
79
7
o
g
m
K
z
7
<
v 7Zmd <9~N
"t
<',
N 11\
a.
CL
F~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L x,~.,
\,
I,
~~~~~~~~
/
./ E,
.f,L,'~
, K ,
su-X~'
X<
, q~
wccoi
IX''q,,o;z:~,,A
~~~~~~~~~~&
K\4;00
0 .O.
~~~~~\ "I
7Z~~O
I
I, ",~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(
x
11\ A
">~0
~ "'"~,/
x
-~'.'._xB~,'_
k,;
o\ x
0
0o
U)
O
w
X,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~,
z
:F
go
:::
.,s.,,Z< A0.2i°o.>
a:
z
CD Z
0~~~~~~~~
xX
~
Po p~rsCC~
L)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
c r
w 1 11
>,a
0
m lo
z
W w
\ r
CD
0bi
O0
w
(n
o0
o
o
*oss/.u!
o
'!OOS\A
o
opnesd-Od
0
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
L.
U-
187
8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'
~
*>~~<
R
K 7
_ _· /,/,>K'
N
5\ , wr/
,'
'
~/'v
0~ /
<V\7
~;xNX,",V'k,
<',
A,'',K : LV_Z:'v%Q.~\
w
0
0a
1.
' ~~> 7,ao/
7:'
~'vQX
;~~C <.,
~,xX
"'t
a.
:3og
K->1o
-
eo
itI
a)
In
crbO-i
W
.0~~~~~~~~~O
_tI
OCU.~~~~~~~~~~~C
ci
Sti
C
Xs
a.
0~~~d
7Z
C92
7
izJCda
/o
q~~~~OO
9i,
C
oJ
w
L*1
W
Cc
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F-04o
8 Oi
W
1 1
>VWL
m
g^
0
o
· SS
'u!
o
'41!00ol
6
opned-Cd
0
0
0
00
-
0
d
0
c7;
0N.
d
o
C
I2
188
~~,
' ",XX/X,
,()ef.
A.~:~X~~f/
;/ A,?8
X,/., ,/
n.,~%x,
\./"
./ /; ~ /
IN I
x/
'
gW
_>
5
<XgSW5
5~~
7
;7 7.,',7,)", .X z VJV J
V ,,/?,.ix,~ .",,%,\,,v'V.
/ X ), .x kx'~(X ~,1q ~( ) :. 'K,?, 22
X~~~
'\
/;~ :xxfx ' \
,~.
A
g
I
to wa
,',,a
X',c
d XO,1
/N .X, .. ,,X)[X.'/./
;/\
2
ro~~~~~~~~~~~~c
Xo.
y z
N
i
w
)
d
O
Om
C
C.)
\
· O-
CL
cn
w V)
cr O
i
V
a
<W
<~1XV
.Mv . ('. ·
,F
-o~·Y...
7 ,
(0
0
.
ui
:
>rr
N
.
0
o
a.
n
Wcr a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
0
w
O
C!
0
- d
u !4o01l^ pnewsd
*OO/'u!
0o
0
0
d0
I
'"
0
d
10
0
'{0
189
1uu
--
.
l
I-
t
T r-r
...
^-.--!
'. -t -.t 4
I
I ,
t r, 11-1
14 - -
-:
. - : --Ilj--1
-
r
.
J
I I
1---
·
I
_
.
T
I0
--..
~tF
t-t-: t :
IWIT! I
4ftqh
t.tz -I
I
I
II
-.
. .
.i~i
.
.
,
...
+ DRIMVING
TUBE
rr
'r'~~
. .,rl-l
r ·
t -I
,-r''--~-l
l,
I.I...
111111 1 1 1 11111111f1
TllI I t
l
..
) BUL13ING__
- 1ii-l i
I1.
IIi..1.:
!!I
iII
I
IIII
I I
H II IItllllIIIH
l
. cc
_
I I
Ll.
.
.:I_._ -.-
it
I
1
-ti-_, !
i.L
.tt.
If HA
I,41.LU
i
.
- ,
.
+11
1-11f-+
I I I I - , I , I - I
1
fl
Ill
'--,r
I,
.
-t-t
X
Krr.
.:-
- 1It1
j
+t11
I-k
I
_--+-
-. J.
,.·
._
-'4
-'| -;
''
''
·
"I*
j-r
>[.
4
F
H-4-Hijuu1-I-i·i--.--L·-1.C·l.I1LI;;'
;: I
711
1 ilrf
111111
' '
' '
' ' '·'·
'
`t. I , . It
t itet! 1 1111d
s . i
Fr rl
'
'-C-r-L·;-4cC-""L-"·
A IL
I
Il low ,
-
4t-*~
1111
'1
.
' · ' '·'''"'-L"'
'· .-
..
'
1.
'
--
'
1
'''''"
-
-
I
i
! : i
!i
.I
'-
i:1!,,l
.1f. W
ft
Hf
I:
,
.
Ii
1
- 1 ; 1t i
~~
- !LL tL
+.s
· :· · ·-
a
·!E
X
r
sw
1
I
-4.~~~
- l ·- I I
.-4-1
-
r
- ',,.. 0-!11Mg
_.
.
.
I
iti;Mi-f
1--+
4
..-,4.i
1-
&....~
;,
-: I i
, . . .. - r
:
_.
-'·
M. I.
...
J
I
i
..
LvJ§
v. I 0
-I--.4
_--
t..
rlI.'
.
rIji ,
''
~II I I I li
I I
,
''I
~
~~~
h. ~~~~
-
_.4
. .14. . ..
I
. .
*..-I..~~,~...
-~
I
~
-,ijj 1:1- j - -if
t
atifi t-i
''*'* 1
-
.
lllw-~l
*-*'
I I I I IL
I...
-,-
·
III i i
I
1/3
R
2)
100
i I
l ill
i
I · I I
I I1 1 rI I I i 1 ; I I I I II
I
..
I000
El/3
FIG. ME7
SCALED,
FIELD
MEASUREMENTS 'OF
PARTICLE
VELOCITY VERSUS SCALED RANGE,_MEDI-MART
PROJECT, VERTICAL
COMPONENT
I
190
0
z
)
s
C~~~~L
LLJ
I
II
orII
> M~~
0
co
cr
0
t,
V
LL
z
o
a
wI~~~a
53
w
0
-J0
I
w
I0
mN
~~O
So
)
0
XL
m
L w2
rJt
a
w
000 2
X
R
WOE
or
S
0
_
a:Z
>5
c]
5;
1-
WU
2
(j
LL
191
APPENDIX B
DIGITAL COMPUTER ANALOGUE OF THE SINGLEDEGREE-OF-FREEDOM SYSTEM (After Dowding, 1971)
Introduction
The computer analogue calculates the relative-displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system
to a pile driving-induced ground motion.
The analogue
first corrects for a baseline error, and then calculates
the maximum relative displacement of the single-degreeof-freedom system while subjected to a particular ground
vibration.
Also, computed by the analogue is the first
integral of the time history.
The maximum displacement
can be used in the determination of scaling relationships and amplification factors, while the response
spectra can measure the damage potential of an earthwave.
Baseline Correction
As mentioned, the computer analogue corrects the systematic error which occurs while the time-history is
being digitized.
The error results from the alignment of
the vibration record causing an incorrect integral of the
particle velocity versus time history.
The computer an-
alogue corrects the velocity integral which is the displacement by a linear and a parabolic method.
The correc-
tion is made twice with the corrected values printed by
192
the computer program.
Also printed is the corrected
velocity values along with the corresponding time values.
ResponseSectra
The computer analogue also consists of a numerical
method for the solution of the differential equation defining the motion of the single-degree-of-freedom system.
As mentioned in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 equation 5.5 can be
solved best by a computer,
The computer analogue solves
equation 5.5 for an input velocity-time history of the
ground motion and prints the maximum displacement of the
single-degree-of-freedom model.
As can be seen from equa-
tion 5.5 the damping, A, and the frequency, f,
also have
to be given to the analogue to solve equation
5.5. For
other details of the analogue refer to Dowding (1971).
193
APPENDIX
C
FIELD AND DIGITIZING INSTRUMENTATION
Field Instrumentation
Velocity-time histories were recorded by the author
with a Spregnether VS-1100 seismograph.
This instrument
records three orthogonal particle velocities at one
point on light-sensitive, direct-print paper.
The three
particle velocity components (transverse, vertical, and
longitudinal) are printed on the same paper with trace
widths of 0.01 in.
The paper speed was about 4 irn./sec.
The velocity gages response linearly to particle velocity with
5% accuracy, for a frequency range between
2 and 200 cps.
At the Drake Village Project the Spregnether VS-1200
seismograph was employed which in addition to the capabilities of the VS-1100 could also record particle displacements and particle accelerations.
Both the VS-1100
and VS-1200 have four sensitivity settings or gains which
met particle velocities in the range of 0.006 to 5.0 in./
sec. could be recorded.
A fourth trace on the VS-1100 and VS-1200 seismograph was available.
This channel was attached to a ver-
tical velocity geophone.
The fourth trace was recorded
above the three orthogonal particle velocity traces on the
same direct-print paper.
An example of two recorded
194
traces is shown on Fig. 4.1.
The gain of the fourth
trace was unknown, but it was useful in obtaining the
phase velocity.
By separting the geophone and the three
component seismograph a known diatance apart, h, a phase
time, t, could be obtained from the velocity-time histor-
ies. Thus, the phase velocity is h/t.
This is explain-
ed further in Section 4.2.
Due to wire resistance, the maximum wire length that
could give a signal from the geophone to the recorder was
about 120 feet.
Additional wire length would require an
amplifier.
Digitization Instrumentation
The MIT Digitizer (Co6rdicon, X-Y Coordinate Digital
Converter) transformed the ground vibration time-histories
onto computer cards.
This machine punched on the computer
cards an x coordinate followed by a y coordinate.
Five
pairs of x and y coordinates could be punched on one card.
The card puncher was an IBM 526 type which prepared the
computer cards to be read directly into the computer.
The
computer was the Civil Engineering M70 or M80 series
which could handle the Single-Degree-of-Freedom and Integration program.
195
ADDENDIX
DELMAG D-30
D
HAMMER DATA
Two cases are presented where the Delmag D-30
Diesel pile driving hammer was used to drive the Franki
tube.
Once the tube was driven to the appropriate depth
the bulb of the pile was formed with the Franki hammer.
No scaled ploted were drawn with the Delmag hammer, since
the energy output of the hammer varied.
The firmer the
soil, the larger the blow of the Delmag hammer produce.
Also with the Delmag hammer energy lost exist
hammer's head and tube.
in the
196
TABLE DE1 DELMAG D-30 DATA, E = 23,870 - 54,000 ft.-lbs.
NDP HOUSING PROJECT - C s = 283 ft./sec.
Pile
h
d
R
(ft.)
(ft.)
(ft.)
K-3-B
85.0
-0
85.5
K-3-C
45
44
62.9
V
(in./sec.)
0.0313T,D
0.0234V,D
0. 0381L,D
-0T,D
V
x10-6
9.22
6.89
8.27
0
O.156V,D
46.0
0O0781L,D
23.0
K-3-C
13.5
65
66.4
0.0188T,D
0.0813V,D
0.0375L,D
55.4
23.9
11.0
K-3-C
13.5
65
66.4
0.0438T,D
0.146V,D
0.181L,D
12.9
43.1
53.4
N-5
13.5
-O
135
0.0047T,D
0.0125V,D
0.0094L,D
1.38
3.68
2.77
MASS. EYE AND EAR PROJECT - C s = 280 ft./sec.
109
15.0
80.0
81.4
0.0938T,D
0.0625V,D
0.0938L,D
27.9
18.6
27.9
197
TABLE DE2 DELMAG D-30 TUBE DRIVING RATE
BLOW RATE = about 67 blows/min.
E = 23,870-54,000 ft.-lbs.
MASS EYE AND EAR PROJECT
NDP HOUSING PROJECT
Pile
Depth - d
Blows
Pile
K-3-B
Depth - d
Blows
(fto)
(ft.)
80
--
51
81
23
66
20
82
25
67
15
83
31
68
26
84
48
69
23
85
74
70
23
86
88
71
28
86.5
48
72
30
73
27
74
34
75
34
76
48
77
48
78
50
79
53
80
50
-60
--
65
109