OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SPR Quarterly Progress Report

April 1, 2011 through J une 30, 2011
Research Section
200 Hawthorne, B-240
Salem, OR 97301

ph: (503) 986-2700
fax: (503) 986-2844


Date J uly 7, 2011


TO: Technical Advisory Committee Members:
J im Brick, ODFW
Ken Cannon, ODOT
Raymond Cranston, ODOT
David Leal, USFWS
Marc Liverman, NOAA
Tom Loynes, NOAA
Matthew Mabey, ODOT, Chair
Con OConnor, Hamilton Construction Co.
Sharon Rainsberry, WashDOT
Tim Rogers, FHWA
Hormoz Seradj, ODOT
Devin Simmons, NOAA
Friends of the Committee (if any)
Geoff Crook, ODOT
Stuart Myers, Mason, Bruce, Girard
J im Laughlin, WashDOT

1. Project

Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation from Pile Driving
SPR #731

2. Project Investigator

Lisa Zurk
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Portland State University
1900 SW Fourth, FAB 160-17
Portland, OR 97207
Phone: 503-725-5423
Fax: 503-725-3807
E-mail: zurkl@cecs.pdx.edu

Martin Siderius
Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 1 SPR 731
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Portland State University
1900 SW Fourth, FAB 160-11
Portland, OR 97207
Phone: 503-725-3223
Fax: 503-725-3807
E-mail: siderius@pdx.edu

3. Project Coordinator

Matthew Mabey, Research Coordinator
Phone: (503) 986-2847
E-mail: matthew.mabey@odot.state.or.us

4. Key Dates

Project start date: December 2010
Project completion date: J une 2011
[List revised completion dates and corresponding amendment numbers]

5. Project Status (Completed by project investigator)

Task 1: Literature Survey
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 50%
Percent completed after this quarter: 95%

Key Progress-To-Date
Nearly finished.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Nearly finished.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Finalize literature review. A copy of the literature review accompanies this report.

Task 2: Pile Driving Source Model
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 68%

Key Progress-To-Date
Work is underway with no specific conclusions or results as yet.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 2 SPR 731
Work is underway with no specific conclusions or results as yet.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Continue work.

Task 3: Model Sound Propagation
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 13%
Percent completed after this quarter: 85%

Key Progress-To-Date
Work is underway.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Work is underway.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Continue work.

Task 4: Natural Attenuation Mechanisms
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 50%

Key Progress-To-Date
Work is underway with no specific conclusions or results as yet.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Work is underway with no specific conclusions or results as yet.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Continue work.

Task 5: Monitoring for Compliance and Model Validation
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 20%

Key Progress-To-Date
Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 3 SPR 731
Just begun.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Just begun.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Considerable monitoring during construction season.

Task 6: Site Characterization
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 10%

Key Progress-To-Date
Just begun.

Specific Progress This Quarter
Just begun.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Considerable monitoring during construction season.

Task 7: Analysis of Modeling and Data
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 0%

Key Progress-To-Date
None.

Specific Progress This Quarter
None.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
Begin to integrate modeling with measured data.

Task 8: Not SPR

Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 4 SPR 731
Task 9: Not SPR

Task 10: Final Report
Percent completed reported in last quarterly report: 0%
Percent completed after this quarter: 0%

Key Progress-To-Date
None.

Specific Progress This Quarter
None.

Problems
None.

Work Planned for Next Quarter
None.

6. Project Coordinators Comments (Completed by ODOT)

The Principle Investigator has been traveling out-of-the-country and thus wasnt able to
complete this report. I have filled it out the best I can based on what I know about their
work and progress.




















7. Finances (Completed by ODOT)

SPR Project Summary
Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 5 SPR 731
VENDOR FY11 FY'12 FY'13 FY'14 TOTALS
ORIGINAL BUDGET - $
REVISED BUDGET 88,022 $ 99,500 $ 44,478 $ 232,000 $
EXPENDITURES - VENDOR 88,022 $ - $ - $ - $ 88,022 $
BALANCE - $ 99,500 $ 44,478 $ - $ 143,978 $
ODOT FY11 FY'12 FY'13 FY'14 TOTALS
ORIGINAL BUDGET 35,000 $ 118,000 $ 87,000 $ 240,000 $
REVISED BUDGET 10,394 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $ 17,394 $
EXPENDITURES - ODOT 10,394 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,394 $
BALANCE - $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ 7,000 $
PROJECT FY11 FY'12 FY'13 FY'14 TOTALS
ORIGINAL BUDGET 35,000 $ 118,000 $ 87,000 $ - $ 240,000 $
REVISED BUDGET 98,416 $ 103,500 $ 47,478 $ - $ 249,394 $
EXPENDITURES - PROJ ECT 98,416 $ - $ - $ 98,416 $
BALANCE - $ 103,500 $ 47,478 $ - $ 150,978 $

Underwater Noise Generation and Propagation
From Pile Driving 6 SPR 731
1

UNDERWATERACOUSTICNOISEGENERATIONANDPROPAGATION
RESULTINGFROMPILEDRIVINGFOROREGONBRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION

PhaseOne
Update

LisaM.Zurk
MartinSiderius
ScottSchecklman
NathanLaws
JoelPaddock
ElectricalandComputerEngineeringDepartment
PortlandStateUniversity
1900SWFourth,FAB16017
Portland,OR97207
Phone:5037255423

June30,2011

D
R
A
F
T
2

Contents
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3
Task1:LiteratureReview..............................................................................................................................3
Task2:PileDrivingSourceModel.................................................................................................................3
Task3:SoundPropagationModel................................................................................................................5
Task4:NaturalAttenuationMechanisms....................................................................................................6
Task5:MonitoringforComplianceandValidation......................................................................................7
Task6:SiteCharacterization.........................................................................................................................8
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................10
Bibligraphy..................................................................................................................................................11
Appendix:LiteratureReview.......................................................................................................................12

D
R
A
F
T
3

Introduction
Thereisgrowingconcernaboutnoiselevelsfrompiledrivingactivitiesassociatedwiththe
constructionofhighwaybridgesandotherinwaterstructures.Ithasbeendemonstratedthatnoise
generatedfrompiledrivingwithanimpacthammercanbeharmfultoaquaticspeciesprotectedby
thestateandfederalEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA).Thisresearchprojectaddressesseveral
concernsrelatedtohydroacousticimpactsandultimatelyassistshighwayprojectstostayin
compliancewithestablishednoiselevelcriteria.
Thegoaloftheresearchprojectistodeveloppredictivemodelingcapability.Thismodeling
capabilitycouldbeusedtoestimateexpectedsoundlevelsduetovariouspiledrivingactivitiesat
specificlocations.Withthatinformation,sitespecificrecommendationscanbemaderegarding
attenuationstrategies,takingintoaccountthesoundgenerationandpropagationeffects.This
wouldallowhighwayprojectstoimplementtheappropriatelevelofhydroacousticattenuation,
basedonsitespecificconditions,assureregulatorycompliance,andachievebettercostefficiencies.
BridgeconstructionactivitiesandassociatedmonitoringthatisoccurringinOregonprovidesa
uniqueopportunitytoengagethescientificcommunitywiththegoalofimprovingour
understandingandmanagementofhumangeneratedunderwateracousticnoise.
Theprojecthasbeendividedinto10tasks,whicharetobecompletedinthreephases.PhaseOne
(Tasks1,andstarting2through6)isthepreliminaryworkfortheoverallresearchproject.Phase
Two(Task8)isdatacollectionrelatedtotheColumbiaRiverCrossingproject(CRC).Task9was
removedfromtheprojectplan.PhaseThree(completionofTasks26andallofTask7and10)will
completetheworkbeguninPhaseOneandwilltakeplacefromJuly1,2011throughDecember29,
2012.ThisdocumentsummarizesthestatusforeachofthetasksinPhaseOne.
Task1:LiteratureReview
Inrecentyears,studiesoftheeffectsofpiledrivingnoiseonmarinelifeareappearinginthegray
literature.However,thisisstillarelativelynewareaofresearchandthereismuchthatisunknown.
AsurveyofexistingdocumentswasconductedbytheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnologytodetermine
thestateoftheart.Theresultsofthatliteraturesearchareintheappendix.Literaturedetailing
propagationmodelingtechniquesforpiledrivinghavealsobeenidentifiedbyPortlandState
Universityandarecitedinthebibliography.
Task2:PileDrivingSourceModel
Thistaskwilldeterminethemechanism(s)throughwhichpiledrivinggeneratessound.Itisknownthat
thesoundgeneratedbypiledrivingdependsonmanyfactorsincludingpileandhammercharacteristics
aswellassedimentandwaterdepth.Thesefactorsinfluencehowsoundinterfaceswiththewater,
sediment,andsubstrateandthereforehowmuchsoundpropagatesoutintotheenvironment.
D
R
A
F
T
4

Piledrivingwithanimpacthammerresultsinaradialexpansionofthepilewhichtravelsalongthe
lengthofthepile,asillustratedinFigure1(Stockham,2010,Reinhall,2010).Directmeasurementsof
thesoundfieldhaveshownthatimpulsewaveformtravelsatsupersonicspeedinthepile,producing
machconewavefrontsinthewaterandsediment(Reinhall,2010).Thus,piledrivingnoiseconsistsofa
seriesofimpulsewaveformstravelingalongwavefrontsemanatingfromthepileastheimpulse
oscillatesalongthelengthofthepile(Reinhall,2010).

Figure1.Apiledrivingimpulseradiatessoundintothewaterandsedimentasittravelsdownthelengthofthepile.
Morerecentresearchhassuggestedatechniqueformodelingpropagationofthewavefrontsfromthe
sourceimpulseasittravelsalongthelengthofthepile(Reinhall,2011).Inthisfrequencydomain
model,theFourierTransformofanempiricalimpulsewaveformislocatedatdiscretedepthsalongthe
pile,withaphaseshifttoaccountforthevelocityofpropagationinthepile(Reinhall,2011).PSUis
developingasimilarpropagationmodelwhichispresentedindetailinthefollowingsection.
Theshapeoftheimpulsewaveformmaybedependentonanumberoffactors,includingthetypeof
hammerandpile,piledimensions,etc.(Illinworth&Rodkin,2007).Therefore,empiricalwaveform
measurementsmustbeusedtovalidatethemodelwithknownconditions.Forthepredictivemodeling
neededforEnvironmentalImpactStatementsageneralizedmodelfortheimpulsewaveformmaybe
derivedbycalibratingamathematicalimpulsemodelusingmeasuredimpulsesfromsimilarpiledriving
scenarios.TheFriedlanderwaveformprovidesarelativelysimplemodelforimpactnoiseandhasbeen
usedtosimulatetheacousticimpulsesduetopiledriving(Hastings,2005).Foranidealizedimpulse
withfiniterisetimethepressure,p,isgivenby(Hamernik,1991)
p(t) = P
pk
_
t
b
+ [1 -
t-b
c
c
-[
t-b
c

],
whereP
pk
isthepeakpressureofthewaveformandtindicatestime.Theparameters,bandcdefinethe
timeforthewaveformtorisetothepeakpressureandreturntozero,respectively,asillustratedin
D
R
A
F
T
5

Figure2.Thus,apredictivemodelwouldrequirespecificvaluesofP
pk
,bandctobechosenbasedon
measurementdatafromsimilarpiledrivingscenarios.

Figure2.TheFriedlanderwavewithfiniterisetimemaybeusedtomodelanacousticimpulse(Hamernik,1991).
Task3:SoundPropagationModel
Thepropagationofacousticwavesisunderstoodtobeafunctionofwaterproperties(temperature,
flow,etc.),sedimentandsubstratematerials,andbathymetry.Asdiscussedintheprevioussection,the
modelingmustalsotakeintoaccounttheimpulsivenatureofthepiledrivingactivity.
TheRangeDependentAcousticModel(RAM)usestheparabolicequation(PE)tocalculatethe
transmissionlossalongaverticalslice(rangedepthgrid)forasourceatagivenfrequencyanddepth
(Collins,1993,1996).Acylindrical3DsoundlevelmapcanthenbecreatedbyrunningRAMsimulations
alongradialsaroundthesoundsource.TheRAMmodelhasbeenappliedtopiledrivingsimulationsin
Australia(Erbe,2009)andtheUnitedStates(Reinhall,2011).Eachimpactofapiledrivinghammerisa
briefpulsewhichspansawidebandoffrequencies(Stockham,2010).Therefore,theRAMsimulations
mustberunfornumberoffrequencieswiththesourcelevelofeachfrequencyweightedbythepower
spectraldensity(PSD)oftheimpulse(Reinhall,2011).Ithasbeenshownthatafterthehammerstrikes
thepile,theimpulsetravelsdownthelengthofthepileandreflectsupwardfromthesediment
(Reinhall,2010).Thus,eachsetofRAMsimulations,asdescribedabove,mustberunwiththesource
impulselocatedatincrementaldepthsextendingfromjustbelowthewaterssurfacetotheendofthe
pileinthesediment.
Figure3showstwoRAMsimulationsforasourceattwodifferentdepthsneartheInterstateBridgein
theColumbiaRiver.InthesesimulationsthesourcewasacontinuouswavewithSPLof175dBat300
Hz.Asourceat80metersbelowthewatersurface,neartheboundarybetweenthesandandgranite
sedimentlayers,showssignificantpropagationintothewatercolumnaboveit.Bathymetryand
sedimentpropertiesweretakenfromgeotechnicalsurveysintheColumbiaRiver(seeTask6).
D
R
A
F
T
6

Figure3.RAMsimulationsshowtherangedependentSPLcomputedforasourcewithinthewatercolumn(left
figure,greendot)andinthegranitelayer(rightfigure,orangedot).Sedimentandbathymetrydataweretaken
fromtheColumbiaRiver.Thetopwhitelineinthefiguresindicatesthebathymetryboundarybetweenthewater
andthemudatthebottomoftheriver.Thelowertwowhitelinesindicatetheboundariesbetweenlayersofsand
andgranite,respectively.

Analgrorithmisbeingdevelopedtoautomaticallymodelthesourceatmultipledepths,usingthe
FourierTransformoftheFriedlanderwaveasdescribedintheprevioussectionandintheliterature
(Reinhall,2011).Thus,themodelcanprovidethefrequencyspectraforagivenrange,depthand
bearingcoordinate.AninverseFourierTransformthenprovidesatimedependentwaveformformodel
validationwithmeasurementsfromahydrophoneplacedatidenticalcoordinates.Finally,thesimulated
pressurecanbecomparedwithbioacousticthresholdstoestablishthemonitoringzonesneededduring
piledrivingactivitiesinspecificlocations.
Task4:NaturalAttenuationMechanisms
Eachpiledrivingsitemayhavespecificattenuationofpropagatingsoundwavesthatwilldependon
factorssuchassedimentsandwaterdepth.Thesefactorswillneedtobeverifiedthroughsound
monitoring,atspecificsites,whichisdesignedtoobservetheattenuationofthewaves.Thesound
attenuationisalsoacomplicatedfunctionoftheenvironment.Modelingcanbeusedto
understandthevarietyofattenuationmechanismsthatmaybepresentandhowtheycombineto
yieldwhatisobservedinmonitoring.

Indensemedia(suchassediment)acousticwavescanpropagateascompression(primary)wavesand
shear(secondary)soundwaves.Mosthydroacousticmodelsneglectshearwavepropagationandtreat
thesedimentasfluidlayers.Thus,thesemodelsmayoverestimatetheintensityofcompressionwaves.
Thedifferencecreatedbyneglectingshearwavesmustbeestablishedinordertoproperlycalibratea
D
R
A
F
T
7

piledrivingmodel.TheOceanAcoustic&SeismicExplorationSynthesis(OASES)model(Schmidt)may
beusedtocomparecompressionwaveintensitywithandwithoutshearwavesforflatbathymetry.
Figure4showsOASESSimulationswithandwithoutshearwavepropagation.Sedimentpropertieswere
takenfromgeotechnicalsurveysintheColumbiaRiver(seeTask6).

Figure4.TheSPLduetocompressionwavepropagationcomputedwiththeOASESmodelforasourceinthegranite
layer,with(right)andwithout(left)shearwavepropagation.Includingshearwavepropagationinthemodel
reducestheintensityofcompressionwavesinthewatercolumn.
SourceLevel:175dB,Frequency:300Hz,SourceDepth:80m
Task5:MonitoringforComplianceandValidation
Thistaskwillprovideaunifiedobservation,analysis,andinterpretationstrategyforacoustic
monitoringformultipleenvironments(i.e.,differentpiledrivingsites).Althoughthistaskwasnot
scheduledtobeginuntilApril,2011,somepreliminarypiledrivingdatawascollectedduringpile
drivingtestsintheColumbiaRiverinFebruary2011.Figure5showsanexampleofpiledrivingdata
recordedinCanoeBay,1kmdownstreamfromapiledriverneartheInterstateBridgeintheColumbia
River.Recently,newlowsensitivitysensorshavebeenacquiredandcalibratedforuseinfuturepile
drivingmeasurements.Suchmeasurementsmaybeusedtoevaluatemonitoringtechniquesandto
validatepiledrivingmodels.
D
R
A
F
T
8

Figure5.Left.Rootmeansquare(RMS)soundpressurelevel(SPL)forpiledrivingmeasurementsrecorded(Feb.
2011)inCanoeBayontheColumbiaRiverwhileapiledriver1kmupstreamhammereda48inchsteelpile38
times.Right.Aspectrogramofthepiledrivingdataindicatesthefrequencydistributionofthepiledrivingactivity.
Task6:SiteCharacterization
Torobustlymodelsoundpropagation,theriverenvironmentfirstneedstobecharacterized.The
propagationwilldependonwaterproperties,sedimentandsubstratematerials,andbathymetry.
Observationsoftheseparametersatthelocationswherefieldacousticmeasurementsaremade
willbeneededinordertopopulatethecomputermodelswithappropriatedescriptionsofthe
conditionsbeingmodeled.
Waterdepthhasasignificantimpactonunderwateracousticpropagation,andcanbehighly
variableinriverenvironments.Therefore,propagationmodelingrequiresaccuratebathymetry
measurementsintheregionsurroundingproposedpiledrivingactivity.Figure6showsthe
bathymetrydataneartheInterstateBridgeintheColumbiaRiver(DavidEvansandAssociates).
Attenuationofunderwatersoundwavesisalsodependentonlocalsedimentproperties.Thus,
propagationmodelingrequiresaccurateestimatesofthesoundspeed,attenuationanddensityofeach
sedimentlayernearthepiledrivingactivity.Theseparametersmaybederivedfromgeotechnical
surveyswhichtypicallyprecedeanypiledrivingactivities.Duringthesesurveys,severalcoredrilling
samplesareusedtocharacterizethethicknessofeachsedimenttypealongwithitscompressionand
shearsoundspeed.

D
R
A
F
T
9

Figure6.Left.BathymetrymapfortheColumbiaRiverneartheInterstateBridge(DavidEvans&Associates).A
blackxmarksahypotheticalsourcelocation.Right.RangedependentbathymetryextendingdueNorthfromthe
sourcelocationisextractedfromthebathymetrydata.Theriverbottomrisessharplyupthenorthbanktoland
about0.4kmfromthesource.
SedimentthicknessesandpropertiesweremeasuredfortheColumbiaRiverCrossingproject.Figure7
showsthethicknessofsedimentlayersfromseveralboringsneartheInterstateBridgeintheColumbia
River(ShannonandWilson,Inc.,2008).Figure8showstheprimaryandsecondarywavevelocities(Vp
andVs)recordedduringgeotechnicalsurveys(boring#CRCRCSL2)intheColumbiaRiver(Shannonand
Wilson,Inc.,2008).Thegeologicalsurveydatadidnotprovidespecificvaluesforsedimentdensityand
attenuation.Therefore,preliminaryvalueswerederivedfromtheliterature(AppliedPhysics
Laboratory,1994)basedonthegeologicaldescriptionsofthesedimentandthesoundspeeds
measurementsfromeachlayer.Table1summarizesthemodelingparametersfortheColumbiaRiver
sediment.

Figure7.ThethicknessofsedimentlayersfromseveralboringsneartheInterstateBridgeintheColumbiaRiver
(ShannonandWilson,Inc.,2008).
D
R
A
F
T
10

Figure8.Velocitymeasurementsforcompression(primary)waves(V
p
)andshear(secondary)waves(V
s
)belowthe
mudlayerintheColumbiaRiver(boring#CRCRCSL2,Shannon&WilsonInc,2008).Velocitiesincreaseinwhen
thesedimenttransitionsfromsandtogranite.

Table1.PreliminarypropagationmodelingparametersfortheColumbiaRiversediment.Sedimentthickness,
soundvelocitieswerederivedfromtheresultsofgeologicalcoredrilling(Shannon&WilsonInc,2008).Sediment
densityandattenuationwerederivedfromtheliterature(AppliedPhysicsLaboratory,1994).
Sediment Thickness
(meters)
Vs
(m/s)
Vp
(m/s)
Density
(g/cm
3
)
Attenuation
(dB/wavelength)
Mud 7 50 1427 1.149 0.2107
Sand 60 200 1547 1.268 1.0234
Granite 65 1625 3226 2.50 0.7499

Conclusion
Thepurposeofthisresearchprojectistodevelopahyrdoacousticpropagationmodelforpiledriving
activity.PhaseOneconsistsofthepreliminaryworkfortheoverallresearchproject.Aliteraturesearch
documentedrecentresearchofthebiologicaleffects,soundpropagationandmitigationeffectsofpile
driving.Asourcemodelwhichaccountsforanimpulsewaveformoscillatingalongthelengthofthepile
iscurrentlyunderdevelopment.TheRAMmodelcanbeusedtomodelsoundpropagationwithrange
dependentbathymetry.NaturalattenuationduetosedimentpropertiesisbeingexploredwiththeRAM
andOASESmodels.Somepreliminarypiledrivingdatawascollectedduringpiledrivingtestsinthe
ColumbiaRiverinFebruary2011,andnewlowsensitivitysensorshavebeenacquiredandcalibratedfor
useinfuturepiledrivingmeasurementstovalidatepiledrivingmodels.Hydroacousticpropagation
dependsonsitespecificpropertiesdefiningthewaterproperties,sedimentandsubstratematerials,and
bathymetry.Preliminarycomputermodelsarecurrentlybeingpopulatedwithdatatakenfrom
bathymetryandsedimentsurveysneartheInterstateBridgeintheColumbiaRiver.PhaseThreewill
D
R
A
F
T
11

completetheworkbeguninPhaseOneanditisanticipatedthatitwilltakeplacefromJuly1,2011
throughDecember29,2012.

Bibligraphy
AppliedPhysicsLaboratory,TechnicalReportAPLUWTRR9407AEAS9501,APLUWHighFrequency
OceanEnvironmentAcousticsModelsHandbook,SectionIV,pp47,October1994

Collins,M.D.,AsplitstepPadsolutionfortheparabolicequationmethod,J.Acoust.Soc.Am.93,
17361742.1993.
Collins,M.D.,Cederberg,R.J.,King,D.B.andChinBing,S.A.,"ComparisonofAlgorithmsforSolving
ParabolicWaveEquations,"J.Acoust.Soc.Am.100,pp.178182,1996.
ColumbiaRiverCrossing,700WashingtonStreet,Suite300,Vancouver,WA98660,
www.columbiarivercrossing.org
DavidEvansandAssociates,2801SEColumbiaWay,Suite130Vancouver,WA98661,www.deainc.com
Erbe,C.,UnderwaternoisefrompiledrivinginMoretonBay,QLD,AcousticsAustralia,Vol.37.No.3,
pp.8792,2009
Hastings,M.C.andPopper,A.N.,EffectsofSoundonFish,CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation
ContractNo.43A0139,TaskOrder1,2005.
Illinworth&Rodkin,CompendiumofPileDrivingSoundData505PetalumaBlvd.SouthPetaluma,CA
9495,http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/pile_driving_snd_comp9_27_07.pdf,2007

Reinhall,P.G.&Dahl,P.H.,Acousticradiationfromasubmergedpileduringpiledriving,MTS/IEEE
Seattle,OCEANS2010,2010.
Reinhall,P.G.andDahl,P.H.,UnderwaterMachwaveradiationfromimpactpiledriving:theoryand
observation,JournaloftheAcousticSocietyofAmerica,inpublication,2011.
Schmidt,H.,LaboratoryforAutonomousMarineSensingSystems(LAMSS)
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology(MIT),http://oceanai.mit.edu/lamss/
Shannon&Wilson,Inc.,Report802501revA3990SWCollinsWay,Suite203,LakeOswego,Oregon
97035,March19,2008

Stockham,M.L.,Dahl,P.H.&Reinhall,P.G.,Characterizingunderwaternoisefromindustrialpile
drivingatcloserange,MTS/IEEESeattle,OCEANS2010,2010.

D
R
A
F
T
12

Appendix:LiteratureReview

D
R
A
F
T
13

Task 1: Literature Review

Mardi Hastings and Shima Shahab
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 3032-0405
A literature review to identify recent developments pertaining to the effects, propagation, and
mitigation of pile driving sound in the marine environment is nearly complete. The following is
a brief summary of findings to date.

Biological Effects
Popper and Hastings (2009a, 2009b) provide updates on their original 2005 report (Hastings and
Popper, 2005) about the effects of sound on fishes and Kikuchi (2010) reviews effects of sound
on fishes pertinent to development of offshore wind farms in the European Union; however,
there are still no definitive data for the effects of pile driving sound on fish. Current exposure
limits for injury and hearing loss in fishes, which were developed by Carlson, Hastings and
Popper (2007) and adopted for use by NOAA Fisheries and other federal and state agencies in
2008, are primarily based on data from two air gun studies. Hastings (2010) presents
recommendations for new interim criteria for effects of sound from vibratory pile driving on
fishes based on the effects of prolonged exposures to broadband noise previously reported in the
scientific literature. These recommendations are being considered for use by regulatory agencies.

Effects data obtained using a laboratory test chamber which can replicate impact pile driving
pressure waveforms (Halvorsen et al., 2010) are currently being collected and analyzed;
however, this test chamber produces an acoustic particle velocity that is much smaller than that
expected in the near field of a pile (e.g., <30-50 m range between 300 and 500 Hz). In related
studies, Hastings et al. (2008) find no temporary threshold shift in four species of marine reef
fish that received sound exposure levels up to 190 dB re 1 Pa
2
-s from an airgun array during a
seismic survey, and Kane et al. (2010) report no damage to auditory and non-auditory tissues in
two species of fish exposed to low-frequency and mid-frequency military sonars with peak rms
pressures of 193 and 210 dB re 1 Pa, respectively. Although individual exposures lasted
hundreds of seconds in the latter study, no sound exposure levels are reported.

Several studies have focused on the behavior of marine animals in response to pile driving sound
because these effects can occur over a relatively long range. Tougaard et al. (2009) investigate
behavioral reactions of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to noise from pile driving in
shallow water during construction of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea. They find a
potential increase in the time interval between echolocation events during pile driving activities;
however, Thompson et al. (2010) find no significant changes in cetacean behavior during similar
construction activities off the coast of NE Scotland. Mueller-Blenkle et al. (2010) examine the
effect of pile-driving sound in a playback experiment on cod and sole held in large pens by
analyzing movements of the fish using a novel acoustic tracking system. They report significant
movement in response to a pile driving stimulus at received peak pressure levels ranging from
approximately 140 to 160 dB re 1 Pa.

D
R
A
F
T
14

Sound Propagation
Sound propagation from pile driving is not well understood. Most analyses consist of empirical
models based on fairly sparse measurements of acoustic pressure over long distances. Illingworth
and Rodkin (2007) provide a summary of all pile-driving sound data they have measured over
several years during bridge construction projects primarily in California. These data indicate
substantial variation in propagation characteristics from one site to another. Bailey et al. (2010)
measure pile-driving noise at distances from 0.1 to 80 km while two 5 MW wind turbines are
installed off NE Scotland to assess the viability of empirical propagation models. They find that
standard transmission loss models may over predict source levels and under predict sound levels
at long distances from the pile.

Stokes et al. (2010) use virtual sources to represent a large steel pile in a propagation model
formulated to assess the relative importance of the three primary transmission paths (air, water,
and bottom sediment) and potential effectiveness of several mitigation options. They couple a
line array of virtual sources to the Duct Transmission Line (DTL) code (developed by the U.S.
Navy) to capture the nearfield propagation characteristics and then use the OASES code
developed by Henrik Schmidt at SACLANT and MIT for propagation to the farfield of the pile.
Coupling between OASES and DTL is done by replacing the pile with an equivalent array of
acoustic and seismic sources in OASES.

Sound propagation initiates from wall motion of the pile upon impact, which couples with the
surrounding air, water and sediment. Because of the distributed nature of the source and its
contact with three layers of different materials, modeling of this phenomenon is complicated.
Zhou (2009) experimentally studies the structural modes of vibration of a 36-inch diameter steel
pile and the double walled Temporary Noise Attenuation Pile (TNAP) to identify what modes
radiate most of the sound, frequencies that will be prominent in the sound field, and potential
attenuation characteristic of TNAP. Hastings (2007) formulates an analytical structural acoustics
model of far field sound propagation from a fully submerged cylindrical steel pile. Although this
model provides insight into the effects of pile geometry and material properties on sound
propagation, it has limited application. Reinhall and Dahl (2010) develop a finite element model
to determine the transient nature of sound propagation from a 60-inch diameter steel pile
submerged in water and sediment. They determine the path angle of sound waves transmitted
from the pile into the water, and then of waves reflecting upward from the sediment, and find
good agreement of these results with sound pressure data obtained from a vertical hydrophone
array.

Mitigation
Mitigation measures to protect marine mammals and fish from potentially adverse effects have
been applied with varying levels of success. Wrsig et al. (2000) describe one of the first
successful uses of a bubble curtain to reduce transmission of sound during pile driving in shallow
water (6-8 m depth) near western Hong Kong. They report a 3-5 dB reduction in broadband
pulses. With the increase in offshore construction using very large steel piles and the advent of
regulatory sound exposure limits, now more effective mitigation techniques are needed. Reyff
(2005, 2009) describes recent uses of air bubble curtains and a dewatered cofferdam in
D
R
A
F
T
15

California and reports reductions of 20-30 dB with properly designed and installed air bubble
curtains.

ICF J ones & Stokes and Illingworth and Rodkin (2009) and Nehls et al. (2007) provide
summaries of mitigation techniques and guidance related to the environmental permitting of in-
water pile driving projects. Common underwater sound reduction measures fall mainly into two
general categories: treatments that reduce transmission of sound through the water, and
treatments that reduce sound generated by the pile. The first category includes simple unconfined
air bubble curtains, multiple-stage unconfined air bubble curtains, confined air bubble curtains,
and dewatered cofferdams. The second category covers alternative hammer types, such as
vibratory hammers and oscillating, rotating, or press-in systems, and the use of wood, nylon, and
micarta pile caps. Nehls et al. (2007) review experimental performance data of various
approaches and conclude that modification of the pile caps is not effective. They recommend a
well-designed confined bubble curtain or an inflatable sleeve for effective mitigation of sound
produced by pile driving; however, they caution that bubble curtains are not advisable in
offshore locations. They propose an inflatable sleeve, which has the potential to be more
effective than foam filled sleeves, such as the TNAP that was recently developed at the
University of Washington.

J efferson et al. (2009) also recommend mitigating by planning pile driving activities when
animals of concern are not present or to use temporal or geographic closures to protect certain
areas. They also suggest ramp-up of piling hammers as a way to alert animals in the area so that
they have time to move away; however, ramp-up has not been effective mitigation to protect
animals form airgun sound emissions. Stokes et al. (2010) use their virtual source model of
sound propagation from a pile to evaluate three mitigation measures: a bubble screen, a
compliant surface treatment on the outside of the pile, and a dewatered cofferdam. They
estimate that bubble screens and compliant surface treatments will provide a 10 dB reduction in
sound pressure level while a dewatered cofferdam will produce a 20 dB reduction.


References
1. Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J ., Picken, G., Thompson, P. M. (2010).
Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its
potential effects on marine mammals, Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 888897.
2. Carlson, T., Hastings, M. and Popper, A. N. (2007). Update on recommendations for
revised interim sound exposure criteria for fish during pile driving activities.
Memorandum dated December 21, 2007, to Suzanne Theiss, California Department of
Transportation and Paul Wagner, Washington Department of Transportation.
3. Halvorsen, M. B., Casper, B. M., Carlson, T. J ., Woodley, C. M. and Popper, A. N.
(2010). Assessment of barotrauma injury and cumulative SEL on salmon after exposure
to impulsive sound, presentation at the 2
nd
International Conference on the Effects of
Noise on Aquatic Life, Cork, Ireland.
4. Hastings, M. C. (2007). Prediction of underwater noise from large cylindrical piles
being driven by impact hammers, NC07 316, Proceedings of NOISE-CON 2007, Reno,
Nevada, October 22-24.
D
R
A
F
T
16

5. Hastings, M. C. (2010). Recommendations for Interim Criteria for Vibratory Pile

Driving, report to ICF J ones & Stokes for the California Department of Transportation.
6. Hastings, M. C. and Popper, A. N. (2005). Effects of sound on fish, California
Department of Transportation Contract 43A0139 Task Order 1, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/files/Effects_of_Sound_on_Fish23Aug05.pdf.
7. Hastings, M. C., Reid, C. A., Grebe, C. C., Hearn, R. L. and Colman, J . G. (2008). The
effects of seismic airgun noise on the hearing sensitivity of tropical reef fishes at Scott
Reef, Western Australia, Underwater Noise Measurement, Impact and Mitigation
Conference, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, Vol. 30, Pt. 5.
8. ICF J ones & Stokes and Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2009). Technical Guidance for
Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish,
prepared for the California Department of Transportation, 298 pp.
9. Illingworth & Rodkin (2007). Compendium of pile driving sound data, report to the
California Department of Transportation, 129 pp.
10. J efferson, T. A., Hung, S. K., Wrsig, B. (2009). Protecting small cetaceans from
coastal development: Impact assessment and mitigation experience in Hong Kong
Marine Policy. 33, 305311.
11. Kane, A. S., Song, J ., Halvorsen, M. B., Miller, D. L., Salierno, J . D., Wysocki, L. E.,
Zeddies, D. and Popper, A. N. (2010). Exposure of fish to high-intensity sonar does not
induce acute pathology, J . Fish Biol. 76, 18251840.
12. Kikuchi, R. (2010). Risk formulation for the sonic effects of offshore wind farms on fish
in the EU region. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 172177.
13. Mueller-Blenkle, C., McGregor, P.K., Gill, A.B., Andersson, M.H., Metcalfe, J ., Bendall,
V.,Sigray, P., Wood, D.T. & Thomsen, F. (2010). Effects of Pile-driving Noise on the
Behaviour of Marine Fish. COWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08/Cefas Ref. C3371, Technical
Report 31st March.
14. Nehls, G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. & Ros. M. (2007). Assessment and costs of
potential engineering solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise
arising from the construction of offshore windfarms. BioConsult SH report, Husum,
Germany. On behalf of COWRIE Ltd.
15. Popper, A. N. and Hastings, M. C. (2009a) The effects of human-generated sound on
fish Integrative Zoology 4, 4352.
16. Popper, A. N. and Hastings, M. C. (2009b) The effects of anthropogenic sources of
sound on fishes J ournal of Fish Biology 75, 455489.
17. Reinhall, P.G. and Dahl, P.H. (2010). Acoustic radiation from a submerged pile during
pile driving. Proceedings of the IEEE/MTS Oceans Conference, September 2010,
Seattle, Washington.
18. Reyff, J . A. (2005). Underwater sound pressure levels associated with marine pile
driving: assessment of impacts and evaluation of control measures, Transportation
Research Record: J ournal of the Transportation Research Board CD 11-S, 481490.
D
R
A
F
T
17

19. Reyff, J . A. (2009). Reducing underwater sounds with air bubble curtains: protecting
fish and marine mammals from pile-driving noise, Transportation News 262, 3133.
20. Stokes, A., Cockrell, K., Wilson, J ., Davis, D., and Warwick, D. (2010). Mitigation of
Underwater Pile Driving Noise During Offshore Construction: Final Report, Applied
Physical Sciences Corp. Report Number: M09PC00019-8.
21. Thompson, P. M., Lusseau, D., Barton, T., Simmons, D., Rusin, J ., and Bailey, H. (2010).
Assessing the responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind
turbines, Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 12001208.
22. Tougaard, J ., Carstensen, J ., Teilmann, J ., Skov, H. and Rasmussen, P. (2009). Pile
driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena
phocoena (L.)) (L), J . Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 1114.
23. Wrsig, B., Greene, J r., C. R., and J efferson, T.A. (2000). Development of an air bubble
curtain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling, Mar. Environ. Res. 49, 79-93.
24. Zhou, D. (2009). Investigation of the Performance of a Method to Reduce Pile Driving
Generated Underwater Noise, M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

D
R
A
F
T