buildings

Article
Ground Vibration Response to Vibratory Sheet Pile Driving
and Extraction
Feng Guo 1 , Cangqin Jia 1, *, Zuochun Li 1 , Yajian Wang 2 , Feng Huang 1 , Guihe Wang 1 and Shuo Yang 3

1 School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China;
[email protected] (F.G.)
2 National Center for Materials Service Safety, Beijing University of Science and Technology,
Beijing 100083, China
3 Beijing Municipal Road and Bridge Co., Ltd., Beijing 100045, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Sheet piles are extensively used as foundation structures in urban environments. However,
the vibrations associated with sheet pile construction can potentially adversely affect existing build-
ings, as well as cause discomfort to nearby residents. This study aims to analyze ground vibration
response during the driving and extraction of sheet piles. To this end, field tests of U-shaped sheet
piles were conducted in Beijing silty clay, during which ground vibrations in the near-field were
monitored. Subsequently, a numerical model was developed using the coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
method to simulate the pile–soil interaction characteristics and to investigate ground vibration inten-
sity in the far-field. The research results indicate that the ground vibration response modes during
the driving and extraction of sheet piles are distinctly different. Due to the entry effect, the critical
depth during pile driving typically occurs in shallow soil layers, while during pile extraction, the
critical depth generally corresponds to the pile’s embedded depth to overcome the soil locking
effect. Ground vibrations rapidly decrease in the near-field (<6 m), while in the far-field (>6 m),
the attenuation rate significantly slows down. Vibrations can be widely perceived by residents at
radial distances of less than 12 m. Through a systematic assessment, it was concluded that sheet pile
construction is unlikely to directly damage surrounding buildings but may inconvenience nearby
residents. Additionally, a parametric analysis of the vibration source revealed that appropriately
adjusting the driving frequency and amplitude can effectively reduce vibration levels.
Citation: Guo, F.; Jia, C.; Li, Z.; Wang,
Y.; Huang, F.; Wang, G.; Yang, S.
Ground Vibration Response to Keywords: sheet piles; ground vibration; peak particle velocity; critical depth; parametric analysis
Vibratory Sheet Pile Driving and
Extraction. Buildings 2023, 13, 2897.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings13112897 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Carmelo Gentile Vibratory pile driving is an increasingly popular foundation method. In comparison
to jacking and impact driving methods, vibratory driving offers higher drivability, faster
Received: 20 October 2023 penetration rates, reduced noise levels, and reduced risk of pile damage [1–3]. Variable
Revised: 14 November 2023 vibratory drivers allow for adaptability to various site-specific conditions. However, the
Accepted: 17 November 2023
practical application of this approach is often limited. One critical factor is that driving piles
Published: 20 November 2023
into the ground generates vibrations that may potentially damage surrounding buildings
and cause discomfort to nearby residents [4–7].
During vibratory driving, piles commonly exert high-frequency (>25 Hz) cyclic loads
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. on the soil within a short duration [8]. In each cycle, the displacement of the pile tip
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. generates outward-propagating spherical compression waves. Simultaneously, shear waves
This article is an open access article generate from the pile sides due to friction between the pile and the soil, propagating in a
distributed under the terms and cylindrical shape. When reaching the ground surface, these waves transform into Rayleigh
conditions of the Creative Commons waves, which are the primary source of ground vibrations [9]. For environmental safety
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// considerations, it is essential to assess the potential impacts of ground vibrations and to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ take suitable measures to mitigate the vibration levels.
4.0/).

Buildings 2023, 13, 2897. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13112897 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 2 of 16

Pile driving is a complex dynamic process [10], and extensive efforts have been made
for several decades to improve understanding of this process. Daryaei et al. [2] compared
the behavior of granular soils during impact and vibratory installation involving changes
in horizontal stresses, void ratios, and pile displacements inside and outside the pile.
Ekanayake et al. [11] conducted a numerical study on vibratory driving of closed-end
piles, investigating the influence of various driving frequencies, amplitudes, soil stiffness,
and material damping on wave propagation. Rooz and Hamidi [12] concluded through a
parametric study that factors such as hammer impact force, pile diameter, pile tip angle,
and soil damping ratio significantly affect ground vibrations during impact pile driving.
Aforementioned studies demonstrate that the assessment of ground vibrations requires a
comprehensive consideration of vibration source characteristics and soil properties.
Tavasoli and Ghazavi [13] reported that pile geometry has a significant influence on
pile driving efficiency, energy consumption, and wave propagation. However, the existing
research has predominantly focused on pipe piles (open-ended and closed-ended) [14,15].
In foundation projects, apart from pipe piles, sheet piles are also widely employed. They
are versatile, cost-effective, and have excellent soil retaining and waterproofing capabilities,
and are therefore often used as cofferdams, breakwaters, and retaining walls, etc. [16–18].
Lee et al. [19] conducted vibration-driven field tests on full-scale U-shaped piles to investi-
gate the dynamic characteristics of the piles with and without clutch friction. Qin et al. [20]
conducted field experiments on vibration-driven sheet piles in various soil conditions and
investigated the effect of driving force, resistance, amplitude, and energy consumption on
pile penetration rates. Grizi et al. [21] presented ground motion measurements during the
driving of full-scale H-shaped piles using a diesel hammer, revealing the propagation and
attenuation of the wave source. Massarsch et al. [22] carried out field tests to investigate
the impact of operational parameters (frequency and eccentric moment) on the interaction
between vibrating sheet piles and the surrounding ground. Table 1 provides a compara-
tive overview of the key conditions for the aforementioned studies on driving-induced
ground vibrations.

Table 1. A comparison of key conditions in recent research on ground vibrations induced by pile driving.

Literature Geometry Length (m) Testing Process Main Soil Type

[11] Pipe pile 5 Vibratory driving London clay
[12] Pipe pile 10 Vibratory driving Sandy clay
[21] H-type 16.8 Impact driving Sand, silt
[22] Z-type 13.8 Vibratory driving Sand, gravel
Vibratory driving
The present study U-type 12 Beijing silty clay
and extraction

Recently, sheet piles are commonly used as temporary supports in engineering practice
and will be removed after the completion of construction, which leads to issues associated
with pile extraction. However, to date, documented cases of the pile extraction process are
still relatively limited [23,24]. Therefore, thorough investigation of the ground vibration
behavior during pile extraction and assessment of the potential impacts of these vibrations
is essential.
The purpose of this study is to investigate ground vibration responses during the
vibratory driving and extraction of sheet piles, to analyze the negative impacts on existing
buildings and potential disturbances to nearby residents, and to provide guidance for
environmentally friendly construction. To achieve this objective, field tests of U-shaped
sheet piles were conducted in Beijing silty clay, including both pile driving and extraction.
Ground vibrations were monitored during the testing process. A numerical model was
established based on the actual site conditions, utilizing the coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
(CEL) method to simulate the pile–soil interaction characteristics. The ground vibration
response modes induced during pile driving and extraction were investigated, and vi-
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

[21] H-type 16.8Impact driving Sand, silt

Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 [22] Z-type 13.8
Vibratory driving 3 of 16
Sand, gravel
Vibratory driving and ex-
The present study U-type 12 Beijing silty clay
traction
bration levels were assessed. Subsequently, a parametric study of the vibration source
was conducted.
2. Field Testing
2.1. Project Overview
2. Field Testing
A sheet
2.1. Project pile wall exceeding 3.7 km in length was installed to a depth of 12 m below
Overview
the ground surface in an underground utility tunnel project located outside the Expo Park
A sheet pile wall exceeding 3.7 km in length was installed to a depth of 12 m below
in Beijing, China. It was designed to be dismantled upon project completion. To assess
the ground surface in an underground utility tunnel project located outside the Expo Park
and minimize the environmental impact during the construction of the sheet pile wall,
in Beijing, China. It was designed to be dismantled upon project completion. To assess
project planners and contractors decided to conduct comprehensive field tests before the
and minimize the environmental impact during the construction of the sheet pile wall,
project.planners
project These fieldandtests employed
contractors Larsen
decided IV sheet comprehensive
to conduct piles, characterized by a before
field tests U-shapedthe
cross section with dimensions of 400 mm in width, 170 mm in height, 15.5
project. These field tests employed Larsen IV sheet piles, characterized by a U-shaped mm in thick-
cross
ness, and
section an dimensions
with area of 96.99ofcm
400; see
2
mmFigure 1. Each
in width, 12 minlong
170 mm sheet
height, pile
15.5 mm weighs 913 kg. and
in thickness, The
driving
an and
area of extraction
96.99 of Figure
cm2 ; see sheet piles were12performed
1. Each using
m long sheet a hydraulic
pile weighs 913 vibratory
kg. Thehammer
driving
(PCF350, manufactured by FangFu Machinery, Tainan, China). This vibratory
and extraction of sheet piles were performed using a hydraulic vibratory hammer (PCF350, hammer
generated an exciting
manufactured by FangFuforce (Fc) through
Machinery, the counter-rotation
Tainan, of eccentric
China). This vibratory masses
hammer within an
generated its
main body. The magnitude of the exciting force depends on the frequency and
exciting force (Fc ) through the counter-rotation of eccentric masses within its main body. eccentric
moment.
The The nominal
magnitude parameters
of the exciting forceofdepends
this vibratory
on the hammer
frequencyareanddetailed in Table
eccentric moment.2. The
nominal parameters of this vibratory hammer are detailed in Table 2.

Figure 1. Cross section and dimensions of Larsen IV sheet piles.

Figure 1. Cross section and dimensions of Larsen Ⅳ sheet piles.
Table 2. PCF350 vibratory hammer parameters as specified by the manufacturer.
Table 2. PCF350 vibratory hammer parameters as specified by
Parameter the manufacturer.
Unit Value
Parameter
Eccentric moment N·m Unit 65 Value
Main body weight
Eccentric moment kg N·m 2873 65
Maximum frequency Hz 47
Main body weight kg 2873
Maximum centrifugal force kN 580
Maximum
Maximum operating frequency
pressure MPa Hz 30 47
Maximum
Maximum amplitude centrifugal
excluding clamp force mm kN 14 580
Maximum amplitude
Maximum including clamp
operating pressure mm MPa 10.8 30
Maximum amplitude excluding clamp mm 14
2.2. Soil Conditions
Maximum amplitude including clamp mm 10.8
Comprehensive information about the site’s soil conditions were provided by project
2.2. Soil Conditions
engineers based on boreholes, in situ tests (such as standard penetration tests, shear wave
velocity tests [25], etc.),
Comprehensive and laboratory
information abouttests
the (such as triaxial
site’s soil tests,were
conditions etc.).provided
The soil conditions
by project
at the test site include plain fill, silty clay, clayey silt, and fine
engineers based on boreholes, in situ tests (such as standard penetration tests, sand. Table 3 presents the
shear wave
physical and mechanical properties of each soil layer. Figure 2 illustrates the thickness
velocity tests [25], etc.), and laboratory tests (such as triaxial tests, etc.). The soil conditions of
each soil layer, along with corresponding N-values obtained from standard
at the test site include plain fill, silty clay, clayey silt, and fine sand. Table 3 presents the penetration
tests (SPT).
physical andSince no otherproperties
mechanical results were available
of each for cohesive
soil layer. Figure 2 soils, it was
illustrates assumed
the thicknessthat
of
consistency index values are low for low N-values. The SPT results
each soil layer, along with corresponding N-values obtained from standard penetration indicate that within
the
testssediments at depths
(SPT). Since no otherranging
resultsfrom to 20 m, N-values
were1 available varysoils,
for cohesive fromit5 was
to 30. Specifically,
assumed that
the
consistency index values are low for low N-values. The SPT results indicate thatthan
silty clay and clayey silt at depths of 1–18 m have relatively low N-values, less 10,
within
indicating a relatively soft or lose state. At greater depth, approximately
the sediments at depths ranging from 1 to 20 m, N-values vary from 5 to 30. Specifically, 18–20 m (where
fine sand is present), the N-values reach 30, indicating a denser state.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 4 of 16

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of each soil layer.

Elastic Friction Shear Wave

Soil Density Cohesion Poisson’s
No. Modulus Angle Velocity
Type (g/cm3 ) (kPa) Ratio
(MPa) (◦ ) (m/s)
1 Plain fill 1.98 27.4 26.5 15.2 - 138
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
2 Silty clay 1.96 18.9 25.2 15.8 0.45 188
3 Silty clay 1.97 20.7 28.4 14.5 0.43 219
4 Clayey silt 1.98silty clay and
the 37.5
clayey silt at13.8
depths of 1–1824.2 0.39 low N-values,
m have relatively 226less than 10,
5 Silty clay indicating
1.98 a relatively
27 soft or 27.9
lose state. At greater
14.6 depth, approximately
0.42 18–20
232 m (where
6 Fine sand fine
2.05 sand is present),
67.5 the N-values0 reach 30, indicating
30 a denser
0.35 state. 267

Figure 2. In
Figure 2. In situ
situtest
testsite
siteand
andborehole
boreholeprofile.
profile.

2.3.
TableTest Procedures
3. Physical and mechanical properties of each soil layer.
The field test comprised two phases: pile driving and pile extraction. During pile
Elastic Friction
Soil Density the applied forceCohesion
driving, consisted of the exciting force and the combined Shear weight of the
Wave Velocity
No. vibrator Modulus
and the pile, as shown Angle Poisson’s Ratio
Type (g/cm 3) (kPa) in Equation (1). For pile extraction, the applied (m/s) force
included the(MPa) exciting force and the pull force, (°) as shown in Equation (2). Throughout the
1 Plain fill 1.98 27.4
testing, the vibratory hammer 26.5
operated at15.2a constant frequency - of 45 Hz. 138
2 Silty clay 1.96 18.9 25.2 15.8 0.45 188
Fd = Fc ·sin(2π f t) + Fsd (1)
3 Silty clay 1.97 20.7 28.4 14.5 0.43 219
4 Clayey silt 1.98 37.5 13.8 24.2 0.39 226
Fe = Fc ·sin(2π f t) + Fse (2)
5 Silty clay 1.98 27 27.9 14.6 0.42 232
6 Fine sand where Fc is the67.5
2.05 exciting force; Fd0is the driving30 force; Fe is the extraction
0.35 force; f is the267
frequency;
t is the time; Fsd and Fse are the static forces during pile driving and extraction, respectively.
The Procedures
2.3. Test test site setup is depicted in Figure 3. Integrated Electronics Piezo-Electric (IEPE)
accelerometers (DH186, DongHua Machinery Manufacturing, Jingjiang, China) were em-
ployed Theto field
monitortestvertical
comprised
groundtwovibration
phases: pileduringdriving and
the pile pile extraction.
driving During
and extraction. Thepile
technical specifications of the acceleration sensor are as follows: it has a sensitivityofofthe
driving, the applied force consisted of the exciting force and the combined weight
vibrator
100 mv/g,and the pile, as shown
a measurement range of in±Equation
50 g, and (1). For pile extraction,
a monitoring frequency the
range applied force in-
that extends
cluded
from 0.5the exciting
to 5000 force
Hz. To andthis,
install thethepull force,subsurface
shallow as shown soilin Equation (2). Throughout
was excavated to a depth ofthe
testing,
0.25 the vibratory
m, then the sensorshammer operated
were inserted intoatthea constant
soil profilefrequency of 45 with
and backfilled Hz. soil. The sen-
sors wires were connected to a multichannel data acquisition system (DH5909, DongHua
𝐹 𝐹 ∙ sin 2𝜋𝑓𝑡 𝐹 (1)
Machinery, Jingjiang, China). This data acquisition system documented the voltage outputs
of all accelerometers and stored the data in a computer. The velocity signals were obtained
𝐹 𝐹 ∙ sin 2𝜋𝑓𝑡 𝐹 (2)
by a digital integration of the voltage signal through a data analysis system (DHDAS,
where Fc is the exciting force; Fd is the driving force; Fe is the extraction force; f is the fre-
quency; t is the time; Fsd and Fse are the static forces during pile driving and extraction,
respectively.
The test site setup is depicted in Figure 3. Integrated Electronics Piezo-Electric (IEPE)
 chinery, Jingjiang,
obtained China).has
velocity signals Tobeen
capture the ground
thoroughly vibration
verified by itscharacteristics
manufacturerin the near field,
(DongHua Ma-
accelerometers
chinery, were
Jingjiang, positioned
China). at radial
To capture distances
the ground of 2 m,characteristics
vibration 4 m, and 6 m, in asthe
illustrated in
near field,
Figure 4.
accelerometers were positioned at radial distances of 2 m, 4 m, and 6 m, as illustrated in
Figure Due4. to construction schedule constraints, the time interval between driving and ex-
tracting
Duethe to sheet piles was
construction set at 24constraints,
schedule h. During the theexperimental
time intervalprocess,
betweena driving
stopwatch andwith
ex-
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 5 of 16
a precision
tracting of 0.01piles
the sheet s was
wasused
set atto24record the time
h. During history of pile
the experimental driving
process, and extraction.
a stopwatch with
aEach moment
precision whens was
of 0.01 the sheet
used piles werethe
to record penetrated or raised
time history of pilebydriving
0.25 m and
increment was
extraction.
identified.
Each momentAdditionally,
when the asheetvideo camera
piles werewas fixed to document
penetrated or raised by the0.25
entire process forwas
m increment fu-
Jiangsu
ture
identified. Donghua
examination. Machinery,
Within
Additionally, aeach Jingjiang,
video0.25 China).
m depth
camera It is
wasincrement,
fixed toworth noting
the maximum
document thethat the process
reliability
velocity
entire valuefor offu-
from
the obtained
sensors
ture examination.velocity
was identified signals
Withinas the has
eachpeak been
0.25 m thoroughly
particle
depth velocityverified
(PPV)
increment, thebymaximum
for its manufacturer
that range,(DongHua
depthvelocity thus
valueallow-
from
Machinery,
ing for awas
sensors Jingjiang,
correlation
identified China).
between To capture
the pile’s
as the peak the
time
particle ground vibration
history(PPV)
velocity and the characteristics
for ground
that depth PPV data.
range, inthus
the near
allow-
field,
ing foraccelerometers were positioned
a correlation between the pile’sat radial distances
time history andof the
2 m,ground
4 m, and 6 m,
PPV as illustrated
data.
in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Test site setup.

Figure 3. Test site setup.
Figure 3. Test site setup.

Accelerometer arrangement
Figure 4. Accelerometer
Figure arrangementatatthe
thetest
testsite.
site.
Figure 4. Accelerometer arrangement at the test site.
Due to construction schedule constraints, the time interval between driving and
extracting the sheet piles was set at 24 h. During the experimental process, a stopwatch
with a precision of 0.01 s was used to record the time history of pile driving and extraction.
Each moment when the sheet piles were penetrated or raised by 0.25 m increment was
identified. Additionally, a video camera was fixed to document the entire process for
future examination. Within each 0.25 m depth increment, the maximum velocity value
from sensors was identified as the peak particle velocity (PPV) for that depth range, thus
allowing for a correlation between the pile’s time history and the ground PPV data.

2.4. Test Results

In the field, achieving accurate control of the horizontal motion of sheet piles during
both driving and extraction can be challenging. Grizi et al. [20] reported that the amplitude
 proximately 16 mm/s, which occurred at penetration depths of 0.5–1 m. Although the soil
properties, pile types, and vibration sources in their research are different from this article,
the field observations are similar.
Extraction of the pile embedded at a depth of 11.5 m took about 50 s (2250 cycles). At
the beginning of the pile extraction process, the highest ground vibration amplitudes were
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 6 of 16
observed. At depths of approximately 11.25 m, A1 and A2 recorded their respective max-
imum ground PPV values of 13.65 m/s and 8.70 m/s. A3 recorded a maximum ground PPV
value of 5.57 m/s, which was also at a depth of 11.5 m. Subsequently, as the sheet pile was
of the horizontal motion components of sheet piles is typically less than 30% of the vertical
gradually raised, the vibration velocity progressively decreased. Thereafter, when the ex-
motion component. Therefore, the horizontal motions in this article are not considered.
traction depth reached approximately 2 m, an upward trend in vibration velocity was once
Figure 5 presents the relationship between pile depths and ground PPVs during the driving
again observed.
and extraction processes.

Figure5.5. Relationship
Figure Relationship between
between pile
pile depth
depthand
andground
groundPPV:
PPV:(a)
(a)pile
piledriving
drivingprocess;
process;(b)(b)
pile extrac-
pile
tion process.
extraction process.

The sheet pile reached a final penetration depth of 11.5 m and generally took 80 s
(3600 cycles). As expected, the sensor closest to the driven sheet pile exhibited the highest
vibration amplitude (velocity value), with the order being A1 > A2 > A3. The amplitude of
ground vibration decreased with increasing radial distance from the driven sheet pile, due
to the soil damping and energy dissipation. At further distances from the driven sheet pile,
the amplitude of ground vibration continued to decrease until it eventually disappeared.
In general, the amplitude variations for A1, A2, and A3 followed similar trends. Within a
radial range of 6 m, the vibration velocity initially increased with penetration depth. Next,
a significant decline was observed after reaching a penetration depth of approximately 2 m.
As the penetration depth extended to around 6 m, the vibration velocity began to stabilize.
Within a penetration depth of 10.0 m to 11.5 m, there was a slight increase in vibration
velocity due to encountering soils with higher stiffness and shear strength (clayey silt layer).
Generally, vibration velocity gradually decreased with increased penetration depth. During
the driving tests, both A1 and A2 recorded their maximum ground PPV values at a depth
of 1 m, measuring 13.06 mm/s and 9.71 mm/s, respectively. A3 recorded this value at a
depth of 1.5 m, measuring 2.67 mm/s. It is evident that within the near-field range, the
maximum ground PPV values are primarily occurred within the 1.5 m penetration depth
range. Massarsch et al. [22] conducted field tests of vibratory sheet pile driving in sandy
soils, in which a vibrator with a frequency of 38 Hz was used to drive Z-shaped sheet
piles. They recorded a maximum ground PPV of approximately 16 mm/s, which occurred
at penetration depths of 0.5–1 m. Although the soil properties, pile types, and vibration
sources in their research are different from this article, the field observations are similar.
Extraction of the pile embedded at a depth of 11.5 m took about 50 s (2250 cycles).
At the beginning of the pile extraction process, the highest ground vibration amplitudes
were observed. At depths of approximately 11.25 m, A1 and A2 recorded their respective
maximum ground PPV values of 13.65 m/s and 8.70 m/s. A3 recorded a maximum ground
PPV value of 5.57 m/s, which was also at a depth of 11.5 m. Subsequently, as the sheet pile
was gradually raised, the vibration velocity progressively decreased. Thereafter, when the
extraction depth reached approximately 2 m, an upward trend in vibration velocity was
once again observed.
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 7 of 16

3. Numerical Analysis
During field testing, due to site limitations, acceleration sensors were only arranged
3.
inNumerical Analysis
the near-field range of the sheet pile, at a radial distance of 2, 4 and 6 m. In this section,
During field testing,
the investigation rangeduewastoexpanded
site limitations, acceleration
to the sensors were
far-field through only arranged
numerical in
simulation to
the near-field range of the sheet pile, at a radial distance of
gain a better understanding of ground vibration characteristics.2, 4 and 6 m. In this section, the
investigation range was expanded to the far-field through numerical simulation to gain a
better understanding
3.1. Numeriacal of ground vibration characteristics.
Methods
VibratoryMethods
3.1. Numeriacal pile driving is a typical dynamic problem, where large soil deformations
occur within apile
Vibratory short period
driving is aand stress
typical wavesproblem,
dynamic propagate rapidly.
where large To
soileffectively
deformations address
this issue, an explicit time integration scheme was employed [26,27]. This
occur within a short period and stress waves propagate rapidly. To effectively address this scheme utilizes
the central
issue, difference
an explicit time integration
time integration scheme rule, which can[26,27].
was employed efficiently
This execute a largethe
scheme utilizes number
of small-time
central increments
difference with relatively
time integration low computational
rule, which costs. For
can efficiently execute pile driving,
a large number of solving
small-time
this problemincrements
using thewith relatively
classical low element
finite computational costs. Forbased
(FE) method pile driving,
on the solving this for-
Lagrangian
problem
mulation using the to
leads classical
meshfinite elementaround
distortion (FE) method basedThe
the pile. on the Lagrangian
coupled formulation
Eulerian–Lagrangian
leads to mesh distortion around the pile. The coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
(CEL) method proposed by Noh [28] provides an effective solution. This method (CEL) method
does not
proposed
rely on a fixed mesh or coordinate system but tracks the displacement and velocityaof the
by Noh [28] provides an effective solution. This method does not rely on
fixed mesh or coordinate system but tracks the displacement and velocity of the material.
material. Hence, it can effectively deal with situations involving large deformations [29–
Hence, it can effectively deal with situations involving large deformations [29–31]. The
31]. The CEL method enables the coexistence of Eulerian and Lagrangian elements within
CEL method enables the coexistence of Eulerian and Lagrangian elements within one
one model.
model. The CEL
The CEL methodmethod has been
has been incorporated
incorporated sincesince commercial
commercial FE software
FE software Abaqus Abaqus
version 6.8. Figure 6 presents the conceptual CEL model used to simulate
version 6.8. Figure 6 presents the conceptual CEL model used to simulate the vibratory pile the vibratory
pile driving
driving process.
process.

Figure6.6. Conceptual
Figure Conceptual CEL
CEL model
modelfor
forsimulating
simulatingthe
thevibratory
vibratorypile
piledriving
drivingprocess
processunder
underfield
field test
conditions.
test conditions.

3.2.
3.2.Model
ModelGeneration
Generation
The
Themodeling
modelingofofdynamic
dynamic response
responseof vibratory pilepile
of vibratory driving is challenging,
driving and aand a
is challenging,
trade-off was made between numerical accuracy and computational
trade-off was made between numerical accuracy and computational cost, and then, cost, and then, an an
installation depth of 3 m for the sheet pile wall was considered. Heins and Grabe
installation depth of 3 m for the sheet pile wall was considered. Heins and Grabe [32] [32] found
that
foundfor that
pile installation simulations,
for pile installation when the horizontal
simulations, distance of distance
when the horizontal the Eulerian region
of the Eulerian
exceeds 9.5 times the pile’s outer diameter and the vertical model height exceeds 1.5 times
region exceeds 9.5 times the pile’s outer diameter and the vertical model height exceeds
the pile’s length, wave reflections at the truncated boundaries as well as potential impacts
1.5 times the pile’s length, wave reflections at the truncated boundaries as well as potential
on the computational results are effectively eliminated. To this end, adequate dimensions
impacts
of on theregion
the Eulerian computational resultsa are
were adopted: effectively
horizontal eliminated.
distance To this
exceeding end, the
20 times adequate
pile di-
width (15 m) and a vertical distance greater than twice the depth of pile penetration (24 20
mensions of the Eulerian region were adopted: a horizontal distance exceeding m).times
the pile width (15 m) and a vertical distance greater than twice the depth
Additionally, a gradually coarsened mesh was employed to effectively absorb the waves of pile penetra-
tion (24 m). Additionally, a gradually coarsened mesh was employed to effectively absorb
the waves generated. The soil was divided into two regions: the upper 1 m consisted of
 Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 8 of 16

generated. The soil was divided into two regions: the upper 1 m consisted of void Eulerian
elements, allowing the subsoil to enter this region under a squeezing effect. The lower 23 m9 of 16
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of the Eulerian elements were fully filled with material. Figure 7 depicts the geometry and
meshing of the CEL model.

Figure7.7.Geometry
Figure Geometryand
and meshing
meshing of the
of the CELCEL model.
model.

In the model, all piles were discretized using Lagrangian elements, while the soil was
discretized using Eulerian elements. The constitutive parameters for the materials utilized
in the model are presented in Table 4. The pile materials were steel and were modeled
using a linear elastic model. Due to technical constraints of the Eulerian elements, the entire
soil profile was modeled using one Eulerian body. The subsoil within the 0–12 m depth
of the test site (corresponding to soil layers 1–4) was simplified as a homogeneous silty
clay layer. These soil domain parameters are mainly derived from the mean values of these
four soil layers. The soil is assumed to follow the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion and
its associated flow rules. The analysis was conducted using the total stress formulation.
Constraints were imposed on the horizontal and bottom boundaries of the model.

Table 4. Constitutive parameters of the materials used in the model.

Constitutive Density Elastic Modulus Cohesion Friction Angle

Material Type Poisson’s Ratio
Model (g/cm3 ) (MPa) (kPa) (◦ )
Silty clay Mohr Column 1.97 26.2 0.42 23.5 17.4
Steel Linear elastic 7.89 2.09 × 105 0.25 - -
Figure 8. Time history of dynamic loads applied to the top of the sheet pile in the model.

Table 4. Constitutive parameters of the materials used in the model.

Density Elastic Modulus Cohesion Friction Angle

Material Type Constitutive Model Poisson’s Ratio
(g/cm3) (MPa) (kPa) (°)
Silty clay Mohr Column 1.97 26.2 0.42 23.5 17.4
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 9 of 16

In CEL analysis, interactions are enforced using a general contact algorithm. The
Coulomb
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW friction model was employed to describe the tangential behavior of materials, 9 of 16
while the hard contact was used to describe the normal behavior. Ko et al. [14] indicated
that the friction coefficient at the soil–pile interface typically falls within the range of 0.21
to 0.42. In this study, a friction coefficient of 0.25 was defined.
In the model, Rayleigh damping provided by Abaqus was employed to simulate
the soil damping effect. This damping mechanism includes two components as shown in
Equation (3). The mass-related component reflects energy dissipation due to external factors,
while the stiffness-related component represents material resistance to dynamic response,
dependent on both strain and strain rate. Only the stiffness-proportional damping was
introduced because the model’s external boundaries were constrained. The coefficient βR
can be calculated using Equation (4). Ekanayake et al. [5] recommended a critical damping
fraction associated with the first natural mode between 2% and 20% for numerical studies
of vibratory pile driving. The natural frequency of this soil model was extracted using
Abaqus/Standard, with a critical damping fraction ξ of 2%, resulting in ω 1 of 2.396 Hz and
ω 2 of 2.467 Hz. Thus, the value of βR was determined to be 0.02.

[C ] = αR [ M ] + β R [K ] (3)

where [C] is the damping matrices; αR and βR are the Rayleigh mass proportional damping
coefficient and stiffness proportional damping coefficient, respectively; and [M] and [K] are
mass matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively.

β R = 2ξ/ω1 α R (4)

where ξ is the critical damping fraction, and ω 1 is the first natural mode.
Appropriate dynamic and static loads were applied to the top of the sheet piles during
vibratory pile driving and extraction. The dynamic load was an exciting force of 45 Hz, as
shown in Figure 8. The static load was provided by the weight of the sheet pile, vibrator,
and additional pressure. An implicit Lagrangian model was used to simulate the locking
effect of the soil on the sheet pile after installation. The transfer of state variables was
performed through a Python script. In this script, the state variables at the integration
points of the CEL model were transferred to the integration points of the Lagrangian model.
Subsequently, the obtained
Figure 7. Geometry stressoffield
and meshing wasmodel.
the CEL integrated into the pile extraction model.

Figure8.8.Time
Figure Timehistory
historyofof dynamic
dynamic loads
loads applied
applied to the
to the toptop of the
of the sheet
sheet pilepile in model.
in the the model.

Table 4. Constitutive parameters of the materials used in the model.

Density Elastic Modulus Cohesion Friction Angle

Material Type Constitutive Model Poisson’s Ratio
(g/cm3) (MPa) (kPa) (°)
Silty clay Mohr Column 1.97 26.2 0.42 23.5 17.4
Steel Linear elastic 7.89 2.09 × 105 0.25 - -
 proximately 1–2 m, there is a slight deviation between the numerical and measured val-
ues. This difference is likely due to the transition boundary between the plan fill layer and
the silty clay layer within the test site. The varied soil properties in this transition zone
would lead to wave reflection and refraction, thereby causing variations in ground vibra-
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 tion velocities. Considering the complexity of the vibratory pile driving process, some 10dis-
of 16
parities between the two datasets are reasonable and understandable, as mentioned in
References [31,33]. Figure 10 compares the results of numerical simulation and field mon-
itoring during vibratory extraction (maximum ground PPV was extracted at each 0.5 m
3.3. Validation and Analysis
depth increment). Similarly, the consistency between these two datasets is slightly worse
in theFigure
1–2 m 9depth
compares the results
soil layers, of numerical
as explained simulations
earlier. and parts,
For the other field monitoring during
the consistency is
vibratory driving. Overall, these two datasets show consistent trends. At a depth of
good. By comparison, the reliability of the developed models is confirmed.
approximately 1–2 m, there is a slight deviation between the numerical and measured
It can be concluded that the ground vibration amplitude changes from large to small
values. This difference is likely due to the transition boundary between the plan fill layer
as the sheet piles penetrate deeper. The higher vibration levels near the ground surface
and the silty clay layer within the test site. The varied soil properties in this transition
are mainly attributed to the pile’s entry effect. When the vibration source is located within
zone would lead to wave reflection and refraction, thereby causing variations in ground
the shallow subsoil, its impact on the ground is prominent. As the sheet piles penetrated
vibration velocities. Considering the complexity of the vibratory pile driving process, some
deeper, the vibration energy is gradually dissipated in the deeper soil layers. During the
disparities between the two datasets are reasonable and understandable, as mentioned
initial stage of vibratory extraction, the amplitude of ground vibration induced is at its
in References [31,33]. Figure 10 compares the results of numerical simulation and field
maximum to overcome the soil locking effect. The linear vibration of sheet piles leads to
monitoring during vibratory extraction (maximum ground PPV was extracted at each 0.5 m
the softening of the surrounding soil. Consequently, the ground vibration levels gradually
depth increment). Similarly, the consistency between these two datasets is slightly worse
decrease in the later stages. When the sheet pile is pulled upwards into the shallow soil,
in the 1–2 m depth soil layers, as explained earlier. For the other parts, the consistency is
the ground
good. vibration levels
By comparison, increase again.
the reliability of the developed models is confirmed.

Figure
Figure9.9.Comparison
Comparison between
between the numerical calculation
calculationresults
resultsand
andthe
thefield
fieldmonitoring
monitoringdata
dataduring
dur-
ing sheet
sheet pilepile driving
driving (maximum
(maximum ground
ground PPVPPV
waswas extracted
extracted at each
at each 0.5 0.5 m depth
m depth increment).
increment).

It can be concluded that the ground vibration amplitude changes from large to small
as the sheet piles penetrate deeper. The higher vibration levels near the ground surface are
mainly attributed to the pile’s entry effect. When the vibration source is located within
the shallow subsoil, its impact on the ground is prominent. As the sheet piles penetrated
deeper, the vibration energy is gradually dissipated in the deeper soil layers. During the
initial stage of vibratory extraction, the amplitude of ground vibration induced is at its
maximum to overcome the soil locking effect. The linear vibration of sheet piles leads to
the softening of the surrounding soil. Consequently, the ground vibration levels gradually
decrease in the later stages. When the sheet pile is pulled upwards into the shallow soil,
the ground vibration levels increase again.
In order to observe the propagation trend of ground vibration with radial distance,
the ground PPV versus radial distance curves were extracted as shown in Figure 11. The
numerical results indicate that in the near-field range (<6 m), the ground PPV decreases
rapidly. In the far-field range (>6 m), the attenuation rate slows down significantly. As the
radial distance gradually increases to 12 m, the vibration levels are decreased to 1–2 mm/s.
However, complete elimination of vibrations requires a greater distance.
Buildings
Buildings 2023,
2023, 13,
13, x2897
FOR PEER REVIEW 1111ofof 16
16

Figure 10.
Figure Comparison
10.Comparison between
between the numerical
the numerical calculation
calculation results results
and the and
field the field monitoring
monitoring data dur-
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
ing
datavibratory sheet pile sheet
during vibratory extraction (maximum(maximum
pile extraction ground PPVground
was extracted
PPV was at extracted
each 0.5 matdepth
each incre-
0.5 m
ment).
depth increment).

In order to observe the propagation trend of ground vibration with radial distance,
the ground PPV versus radial distance curves were extracted as shown in Figure 11. The
numerical results indicate that in the near-field range (<6 m), the ground PPV decreases
rapidly. In the far-field range (>6 m), the attenuation rate slows down significantly. As the
radial distance gradually increases to 12 m, the vibration levels are decreased to 1–2 mm/s.
However, complete elimination of vibrations requires a greater distance.
Sheet piles are commonly used in urban environments. Vibratory methods for driv-
ing and extracting sheet piles generate significant vibrations that may damage surround-
ing buildings and cause discomfort for local residents. To achieve the goal of environmen-
tally friendly construction, many countries and regions have established standards and
guidelines that specify allowable vibration levels for analyzing building damage issues,
as displayed in Table 5. These standards typically use the PPV threshold as assessment
criteria. Figure 12 presents a comparison between field vibration measurements in this
study
Figure and
Figure11. allowable
11.Variation
Variationof of vibration
ground
groundPPV levels
with
PPV fordistance
radial
with residential
radial as theasstructures.
distance sheet It can
pile located
the sheet pile be at
seen
at different
located that due
depths
different to
depths
the
in relatively
inthe
the models:(a)thin
models: cross
during
(a) during section
pile driving;
pile and light
andand
driving; (b)weight
(b) during pileof
during sheet
extraction.
pile piles, their construction activities
extraction.
generally do not result in direct damage to surrounding buildings. Additionally, Table 6
Sheetguidance
provides piles are oncommonly
analyzing used in urban environments.
vibration-level effects on human Vibratory methodsThe
annoyance. for driving
British
and extracting sheet piles generate significant vibrations that may
Standards Institution (BSI) states that even vibrations with frequencies of about 1 Hz can damage surrounding
buildings
lead and cause
to complaints in discomfort for local residents.
residential environments. It canTo beachieve
concluded the that
goalwhen
of environmen-
the radial
tally friendly construction, many countries and regions have
distance between the vibratory sheet pile construction and the residential area established standards and
is less than
guidelines
12 that specify
m, the vibration allowablecan
disturbance vibration
be widelylevels for analyzing
perceived by thebuilding
residents. damage
In other issues,
words, as
displayed
when in Table
the radial 5. Thesefrom
distance standards typically use
the residential areatheis PPV
morethreshold
than 12 m, as assessment
the vibrationcriteria.
dis-
Figure 12topresents
turbance the locala residents
comparison between
is within thefield vibration
acceptable measurements in this study and
limits.
allowable vibration levels for residential structures. It can be seen that due to the relatively
thin cross section and light weight of sheet piles, their construction activities generally
do not result in direct damage to surrounding buildings. Additionally, Table 6 provides
guidance on analyzing vibration-level effects on human annoyance. The British Standards
Institution (BSI) states that even vibrations with frequencies of about 1 Hz can lead to
complaints in residential environments. It can be concluded that when the radial distance
between the vibratory sheet pile construction and the residential area is less than 12 m, the
vibration
Figure disturbance
12. Comparison of can be widely
maximum perceived
PPV values by the
measured in residents.
the field withIn allowable
other words, when the
vibration
levels:
radialindistance
residential structures.
from the residential area is more than 12 m, the vibration disturbance to the
local residents is within the acceptable limits.
Table 5. Allowable vibration levels to prevent structural damage in Standards.

Frequency Allowable PPV

Reference Type of Structure
Range (Hz) (mm/s)
Buried services 40
 Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 12 of 16

Table 5. Allowable vibration levels to prevent structural damage in Standards.

Reference Frequency Range (Hz) Type of Structure Allowable PPV (mm/s)

Buried services 40
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW Heavy industrial 30 12 of 16
Europe Standard
Light commercial 20
ENV 1993-5 [34]
Residential 10
Ruins, building of architectural merit 4
British Standard Unreinforced or light framed structures,
>15 20–50
BS 7385-2 [35] residential or light commercial buildings
Commercial–industrial 20
German Standard
Residential 5
DIN 4150-3 [36]
Sensitive–historic 3
Buildings in steel or reinforced concrete 30.48
Swiss Standard Buildings with foundation walls and floors in
SN640312 [37] concrete, walls in concrete or masonry, stone
masonry retaining walls, underground chambers 17.78
and tunnels with masonry alignment, conduit in
loose material
Buildings as mentioned previously but with
12.7
wooden ceilings and walls in masonry
Construction very sensitive to vibration, objects
7.62
of historic interest
Industrial Buildings, Public Buildings 12
China Standard
50 Residential Buildings 6
GB50868 [38]
Figure 11. VariationBuildings
of groundsensitive
PPV with to radial
vibration, of historic
distance as theorsheet pile located at3 different depths
cultural
in the models: (a) during significance
pile driving; and (b) during pile extraction.

Figure 12. Comparison of maximum

Figure maximum PPV
PPVvalues
valuesmeasured
measuredininthe
thefield
fieldwith
withallowable vibration
allowable vibration
levels: in
levels: in residential
residential structures.
structures.

Table 5.
Table Guidance on
6. Allowable effects of
vibration vibration
levels levels structural
to prevent (British Standard
damageBSin7385-2 [35]).
Standards.

Vibration Level (mm/s) Frequency Effect Allowable PPV

Reference Type of Structure
Range (Hz) might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies
Vibration (mm/s)
0.14
associated with construction
Buried services 40
0.3 Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments
Heavy industrial 30
Europe Standard
1.0
It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be
Lightwarning
tolerated if prior commercial
and explanation has been given to residents 20
ENV 1993-5 [34]
Residential
Vibration is likely 10
to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level in most
10
building environments
Ruins, building of architectural merit 4
British Standard Unreinforced or light framed structures, residential or light
>15 20–50
BS 7385-2 [35] commercial buildings
Commercial–industrial 20
German Standard
Residential 5
DIN 4150-3 [36]
Sensitive–historic 3
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 13 of 16

3.4. Parametric Study

In addition, numerical analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of vibration
sources on ground vibration levels to mitigate potential risks. Six models were established,
including both driving and extraction processes, and the driving frequency and amplitude
were varied. Table 7 presents the results of the parametric study. During vibratory or
impact pile driving, there exists a critical depth indicating the point at which ground
vibration reach its maximum PPV [12,39,40]. The investigation of this critical depth helps to
understand how pile vibration at different depths affects the ground surface, contributing
to engineering planning and design.

Table 7. Parametric study results for the models.

Frequency Amplitude Max. PPV (mm/s) Critical Depth

Model Process
(Hz) (kN) 2m 4m 6m (m)
1 Driving 45 500 14.12 8.95 2.75 0.58
2 Driving 45 400 14.48 8.96 2.75 0.56
3 Driving 36 500 14.63 9.10 2.76 0.63
4 Extraction 45 500 15.14 9.25 4.93 11.30
5 Extraction 45 400 14.98 9.24 4.93 11.33
6 Extraction 36 500 15.30 9.26 4.93 11.25
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16
It was observed that during vibratory driving, as the amplitude of vibration sources de-
creases, the ground PPV slightly increases, and the critical depth moves upward.
Figureof13the
depth displays the Adisplacement
sheet pile. curves that
comparison reveals of the
whensheet piledriving
both in the frequency
models. Itand canam-
be
seen that with the decrease in amplitude, the pile’s penetration rate
plitude are varied by 20%, the change in frequency has a more significant impact on thealso decreases. The
morepenetration
pile cycles of loading theground
rate and soil experiences
vibrationwithin
levels.the same time frame, the more intense the
ground vibration becomes. When the vibration source is located in shallow soil layers, the
vibration
Table energy isstudy
7. Parametric moreresults
easilyfortransmitted
the models. to the ground surface, resulting in an increase
in the ground PPV. Additionally, as the driving frequency decreases, the ground PPV
increases, Frequency Amplitude Max.mayPPVbe(mm/s) Critical
to theDepth
Model and the critical
Process depth is located deeper. This attributed driving
frequency approaching the(Hz) (kN)
resonance frequency of 2the
m pile–soil
4 m system,
6m (m)
facilitating the
pile 1penetration
Driving
process but45resulting in 500 14.12 8.95 2.75
vibration amplification. The numerical0.58 results
indicate
2 thatDriving
during vibratory45sheet pile driving,
400 the 14.48
critical depth
8.96 typically
2.75 falls0.56
within the
range3 of 0.58–0.63
Drivingm below the 36 ground surface 500 within 14.63a radial
9.10distance
2.76 of 6 m.0.63
Rooz and
Hamidi
4 [12] conducted a numerical
Extraction 45 study500
on impact15.14pipe pile
9.25driving
4.93 in sandy clay soils
11.30
and 5concluded that
Extractiongenerally 45within a radial
400distance of 7 m from
14.98 9.24 4.93 the pile, ground particles
11.33
usually
6 reach their
Extractionmaximum 36 PPV value when
500 the pile depth is
15.30 9.26 4.93 in the range of
11.25to 1 m.
0.5
The numerical results are consistent with their conclusion.

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Displacement
Displacement curves of the
the sheet
sheetpile
pilein
inthe
themodels:
models:(a)
(a)during
duringpile
piledriving;
driving; and
and (b)(b) dur-
during
ing
pilepile extraction.
extraction.

4. Conclusions
Ground vibrations generated during sheet pile construction in urban environments
is directly related to the infrastructure safety and environmental concerns. In this study,
ground vibration response modes of driving and extracting sheet piles were investigated
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 14 of 16

Conversely, during vibratory extraction, as the amplitude of the vibration source

decreases, the ground PPV also decreases, and the critical depth moves downward. Ad-
ditionally, with a decrease in driving frequency, the pile’s extraction rate significantly
increases, leading to an increase in ground PPV and an upward shift in the critical depth.
The reasons for these phenomena were discussed earlier. During sheet pile extraction, the
critical depth in the model belongs to 11.25–11.33 m, corresponding to the embedding
depth of the sheet pile. A comparison reveals that when both driving frequency and
amplitude are varied by 20%, the change in frequency has a more significant impact on the
pile penetration rate and ground vibration levels.

4. Conclusions
Ground vibrations generated during sheet pile construction in urban environments
is directly related to the infrastructure safety and environmental concerns. In this study,
ground vibration response modes of driving and extracting sheet piles were investigated
through field experiments and numerical simulations. The objective is to gain a compre-
hensive understanding of ground vibration behavior so as to effectively assess its poten-
tial impacts and take appropriate measures to mitigate the vibration levels. The results
indicate that:
(1) Ground vibration response modes are distinctly different during the driving and
extraction of sheet piles. During pile driving, the critical depth typically belongs to
the shallower soil layers (<1 m) due to the pile’s entry effect. During pile extraction,
sheet piles need to overcome the soil locking effect, leading to a critical depth usually
corresponding to the embedment depth of the sheet pile.
(2) A systematic assessment reveals that ground vibrations caused by sheet pile construc-
tion activities generally do not directly damage adjacent buildings or structures, but
may cause annoyance to nearby residents. Ground vibrations rapidly decrease in
the near-field (<6 m), while in the far-field (>6 m), the attenuation rate significantly
slows down. Vibration disturbance can be widely perceived by local residents within
a radial distance of less than 12 m.
(3) Appropriate adjustments to vibration source parameters can effectively reduce ground
vibration levels. Rapidly driving sheet piles into shallow soil layers with higher
frequencies and larger amplitudes can effectively mitigate vibrations. During pile
extraction, it is recommended to initially vibrate the sheet pile at higher frequencies
and smaller amplitudes for a period to soften the surrounding soil before slowly
extracting it.

Author Contributions: Investigation, methodology, software, validation, and writing—original draft

preparation, F.G.; writing—review and editing, C.J., Z.L., Y.W. and F.H.; project administration and
supervision, C.J. and G.W.; data curation, S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The first author of this research was funded by the China Scholarship Council (No.
202206400056) and the 2023 Graduate Innovation Fund Project of China University of Geosciences,
Beijing (No. ZD2023YC037). The third author was funded by the “Urban Geological Environment
and Engineering” High-Precision Discipline Construction Project of the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 41772326).
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: Data from the site were generously provided by Beijing Municipal Road and
Bridge Co., Ltd., the entity responsible for designing and executing the sheet pile project. The authors
would like to express their gratitude to the project team for their valuable support.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Shuo Yang was employed by the Beijing Municipal Road and Bridge
Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 15 of 16

References
1. Staubach, P.; Machacek, J.; Bienen, B.; Wichtmann, T. Long-term response of piles to cyclic lateral loading following vibratory and
impact driving in water-saturated sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022097. [CrossRef]
2. Daryaei, R.; Bakroon, M.; Aubram, D.; Rackwitz, F. Numerical evaluation of the soil behavior during pipe-pile installation using
impact and vibratory driving in sand. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 134, 106177. [CrossRef]
3. Tsetas, A.; Tsouvalas, A.; Gómez, S.; Pisanò, F.; Kementzetzidis, E.; Molenkamp, T.; Elkadi, A.S.K.; Metrikine, A.V. Gentle Driving
of Piles (GDP) at a sandy site combining axial and torsional vibrations: Part I—Installation tests. Ocean. Eng. 2023, 270, 113453.
[CrossRef]
4. Molenkamp, T.; Tsouvalas, A.; Metrikine, A. The influence of contact relaxation on underwater noise emission and seabed
vibrations due to offshore vibratory pile installation. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1118286. [CrossRef]
5. Ekanayake, S.D.; Liyanapathirana, D.S.; Leo, C.J. Attenuation of ground vibrations using in-filled wave barriers. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 2014, 67, 290–300. [CrossRef]
6. Colaço, A.; Costa, P.A.; Parente, C.M.; Cardoso, A.S. Ground-borne noise and vibrations in buildings induced by pile driving: An
integrated approach. Appl. Acoust. 2019, 179, 108059. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, Z.; Yu, H.; Li, C.; Liu, R.; Li, Q.; Su, C. Ground and pile vibrations induced by pile driving. Buildings 2023, 13, 1884. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, W.; Wei, J.; Wu, J.; Zhou, R. Field test and analysis on effects of pile driving with high—Frequency and resonance—Free
technology on surrounding Soil. J. Build. Struct. 2021, 42, 131–138. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
9. Wood, R.D. Dynamic Effects of Pile Installations on Adjacent Structures; NCHRP Synthesis 253; Transportation Research Board;
National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
10. Cui, C.; Liang, Z.; Xu, C.; Wang, B. Analytical solution for horizontal vibration of end-bearing single pile in radially heterogeneous
saturated soil. Appl. Math. Model. 2023, 116, 65–83. [CrossRef]
11. Ekanayake, S.D.; Liyanapathirana, D.S.; Leo, C.J. Influence zone around a closed-ended pile during vibratory driving. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2013, 53, 26–36. [CrossRef]
12. Rooz, A.F.H.; Hamidi, A. Numerical analysis of factors affecting ground vibrations due to continuous impact pile driving. Int. J.
Geomech. 2017, 17, 04017107. [CrossRef]
13. Tavasolia, O.; Ghazavib, M. Wave propagation and ground vibrations due to non-uniform cross-sections piles driving. Comput.
Geotech. 2018, 104, 13–21. [CrossRef]
14. Ko, J.; Jeong, S.; Lee, J. Large deformation FE analysis of driven steel pipe piles with soil plugging. Comput. Geotech. 2016,
71, 82–97. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, Y.; Yin, J.; Bai, X.; Cui, L.; Sang, S.; Liu, J.; Yan, N.; Zhang, M. Study on damage constitutive relationship of mudstone
affected by dynamic pile driving. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 164, 107653. [CrossRef]
16. Tang, L.; Cong, S.; Xi, W.; Ling, X.; Geng, L.; Nie, Z. Finite element analysis of lateral earth pressure on sheet pile walls. Eng. Geol.
2018, 244, 146–158. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, J.; Xiang, H.; Yan, J. Numerical simulation of steel sheet pile support structures in foundation pit excavation. Int. J. Geomech.
2019, 19, 05019002. [CrossRef]
18. Qu, L.; Luo, H.; Hu, H.; Jia, H.; Zhang, D. Dynamic response of anchored sheet pile wall under ground motion: Analytical model
with experimental validation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 115, 896–906. [CrossRef]
19. Lee, S.; Kim, B.; Han, J. Prediction of penetration rate of sheet pile installed in sand by vibratory pile driver. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2012, 16, 316–324. [CrossRef]
20. Qin, Z.; Chen, L.; Song, C.; Sun, L. Field tests to investigate the penetration rate of piles driven by vibratory installation. Shock.
Vib. 2017, 2017, 7236956. [CrossRef]
21. Grizi, A.; Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A.; Woods, R.D. Ground vibration measurements near impact pile driving. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016035. [CrossRef]
22. Massarsch, R.; Wersäll, C.; Fellenius, B.H. Dynamic ground response during vibratory sheet pile driving. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 2021, 147, 04021043. [CrossRef]
23. Sun, T.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, J.; Yang, J.; Zhang, X. Dynamic characteristics of the surrounding soil during the vibrational pulling
process of a pile based on DEM. Shock. Vib. 2020, 2020, 5092102. [CrossRef]
24. Inazumi, S.; Kuwahara, S.; Nontananandh, S.; Jotisankasa, A.; Chaiprakaikeow, S. Numerical analysis for ground subsidence
caused by extraction holes of removed piles. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5481. [CrossRef]
25. Aloisio, A.; Totani, F.; Totani, G. Experimental dispersion curves of non-penetrable soils from direct dynamic measurements using
the seismic dilatometer (SDMT). Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 143, 106616. [CrossRef]
26. Walker, J.; Yu, H. Adaptive finite element analysis of cone penetration in clay. Acta Geotech. 2006, 1, 43–57. [CrossRef]
27. Pucker, T.; Grabe, J. Numerical simulation of the installation process of full displacement piles. Comput. Geotech. 2012, 45, 93–106.
[CrossRef]
28. Noh, W.F. CEL: A Time-Dependent, Two-Space-Dimensional, Coupled Eulerian-Lagrange Code; Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,
University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1963. [CrossRef]
29. Hamann, T.; Qiu, G.; Grabea, J. Application of a Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach on pile installation problems under
partially drained conditions. Comput. Geotech. 2015, 63, 279–290. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 2897 16 of 16

30. Staubach, P.; Machacek, J.; Moscoso, M.C.; Wichtmann, T. Impact of the installation on the long-term cyclic behaviour of piles in
sand: A numerical study. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 138, 106223. [CrossRef]
31. Staubach, P.; Machacek, J.; Skowronek, J.; Wichtmann, T. Vibratory pile driving in water-saturated sand: Back-analysis of model
tests using a hydro-mechanically coupled CEL method. Soils Found. 2021, 61, 144–159. [CrossRef]
32. Heins, E.; Grabe, J. Class-A-prediction of lateral pile deformation with respect to vibratory and impact pile driving. Comput.
Geotech. 2017, 86, 108–119. [CrossRef]
33. Qiu, G.; Henke, S.; Grabe, J. Application of a Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach on geomechanical problems involving large
deformations. Comput. Geotech. 2011, 38, 30–39. [CrossRef]
34. ENV 1993-5; Design of Steel Structures-Part 5: Piling. Eurocode 3. CEN (European Committee for Standardization): Brussels,
Belgium, 1993.
35. BS 7385-2; Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings-Part 2: Guide to Damage Levels from Groundbourne Vibration.
BSI (British Standards Institution): London, UK, 1993.
36. DIN 4150-3; Structural Vibration–Part 3: Effects of Vibration on Structures. DIN (German Institute for Standardization): Berlin,
Germany, 1999.
37. SN640312; Vibrations—Vibration Effects in Buildings. SNV (Swiss Association for Standardization): Winterthur, Switzerland, 1992.
38. GB50868; Standard for Allowable Vibration of Building Engineering-Part 8: Building Construction Vibration. MOHURD (China
Standards Institution): Beijing, China, 2013.
39. Rooz, A.F.H.; Hamidi, A. A numerical model for continuous impact pile driving using ALE adaptive mesh method. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2019, 118, 134–143. [CrossRef]
40. Hamidi, A.; Rooz, A.F.H. Efficiency analysis of open trench for impact pile driving through a single-variable method. Mar.
Georesour. Geotechnol. 2019, 39, 82–102. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.