Hydroacoustic Report For PIDP Restrike 0 1263

UNDERWATER SOUND PRESSURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESTRIKE
OF THE PILE IINSTALLATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PILES

Measurements Results for the PIDP Restrike - East Span Seismic Safety Project on the SFOBB
Prepared by
James A. Reyff
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Prepared for
State of California
Department of Transportation, District 4
Division of Toll Bridge Program
111 Grand Avenue - P.O Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Final Report: July 23, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The effectiveness of a two-ring bubble curtain system in reducing underwater sound pressures during marine pile driving was assessed
through underwater sound pressure measurements. This was conducted when the three 108m long, 2.4m diameter cast in steel shell piles
driven in 2000 as part of the PIDP, were restruck in December of 2002. During the measurements, the bubble curtain system was turned
ON and OFF. The restrike involved driving the piles at refusal with the hammer at maximum energy (1,600 to 1,740 kilojoules). This
condition is not anticipated during the east span SFOBB new east span construction.
The reduction in sound pressures provided by the bubble curtain system ranged considerably. The direct reduction in sound pressures,
which is evaluated by comparing bubble curtain ON and OFF measurements, for Piles 1 and 2 was 6 to 17 dB for peak pressures and 3 to
10 dB for RMS sound pressure levels. Piles 1 and 2 were located next to each other. Reductions at Pile 3, which was in shallower water,
were over 20 dB for both peak pressures and RMS sound pressure levels on the north side. However, the reductions on the south side for
Pile 3 were much less. Close to Pile 3 on the south side, the reductions were on the order of 5 to 7 dB. Further away at about 450m south,
the reductions were only about 2 dB. Uneven bottom topography around Pile 3, which could have compromised the bubble curtain
performance near the bay bottom, is suspected to have resulted in the lower reductions to the south. It is important to note that overall
sound pressures associated with Pile 3 were lower than those with Piles 1 and 2.
Analysis of individual pile strike impulses indicates that the bubble curtain reduced sound pressures at all measurement positions at
frequencies above 1000 Hz. There was a reduction in sound pressures below 500 Hz where the bubble curtain worked particularly well
(e.g., 100m north position for Pile 3).
Measurements of peak pressures made at about 100m were consistent with the measurements made during the PIDP in 2000. Those
measurements were the basis for predictions of the maximum peak pressures during SFOBB east span construction. With the exception of
the 450m south position, predicted peak pressures used in the Biological Opinion were lower than those measured. At 450m south,
measured peak pressures were 5 to 8 dB higher than predicted. Conversely, peak pressures at 450m to 500m north were 0 to 6 dB lower
than predicted.
RMS sound pressure levels, which are used to define the marine mammal safety zone, did not exceed 190 dB at any of the measurement
positions (between 65 and 500m) when the bubble curtain system was operating. Levels of 180 dB RMS did extend out to 450m south for
Pile 1, but did not exceed 172 dB at 450m north. With the bubble curtain OFF, the 190 dB RMS sound pressure levels extended out to
somewhere between 200m to 300m for Piles 1 and 2 and less than 100m for Pile 3.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................3
Project description.............................................................................................................................................3
Descriptors used to Describe Underwater Acoustical TRAITs..............................................................................4
Previous Investigations ......................................................................................................................................5
SFOBB PIDP 2000 .......................................................................................................................................5
Hong Kong Aviation Fuel Transfer Facility ....................................................................................................6
Canada Place Cruise Ship Terminal................................................................................................................6
SFOBB Bubble Curtain Design ..........................................................................................................................6
Approach..........................................................................................................................................................7
Measurement Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................8
Peak Sound Pressures and RMS Sound Pressure Levels...................................................................................8
Impulse Analysis.........................................................................................................................................13
Bubble Curtain Performance........................................................................................................................14
Comparison with PIDP Results and Predictions made in the Biological Opinion .............................................15
Marine Mammal Safety Zone.......................................................................................................................17
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................17
Table 1 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 1, reported as dB..............................................................................9

Table 2 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 2, reported as dB............................................................................11
Table 3 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 3, reported as dB............................................................................12
Table 4 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Sound Pressures Pile 1..........................................................15
Figure 1 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Location of PIDP Piles................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Menke MHU1700T Hammer .............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 4 Sound Attenuation Devices Used for the 2000 PIDP ............................................................................ 6
Figure 5 PIDP Restrike Bubble Curtain ............................................................................................................ 7
INTRODUCTION
This report presents results of underwater sound pressure measurements conducted during the restrike of test piles in the
San Francisco Bay. These test piles were previously driven in order to develop design information for the replacement of
the east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) and was known as the Pile Installation Demonstration
Project or PIDP. The PIDP occurred from late September 2000 through mid-December 2000. These piles were restruck on
December 9 and 10, 2002 as part of the PIDP Restrike. Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the new SFOBB East
Span and the accompanying project construction limits..
At the request of the Caltrans, underwater sound pressure measurements were conducted to both reaffirm levels measured
during the PIDP and measure the sound attenuation provided by a bubble curtain design that will be used for production
pile driving on the SFOBB East Span construction project.
Figure 1 Project Location
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 2000 PIDP involved the installation of three piles into the floor of the San Francisco Bay. The plan sheet shown in
Figure 2 shows the location of each pile. The objective of the PIDP was to test and evaluate technical, engineering and
environmental factors associated with driving large hollow steel piles approximately 100 meters long (Caltrans 2001). The
PIDP involved utilization of two sizes of hammers, three different pile alignment configuration, and two different types of
hydroacoustic attenuation systems.
The piles were 108 m (356 ft) long and had an inside diameter of 2.4 meters (8 feet), and an outside diameter of 2.57 m (8.5
ft). The piles were driven in three sections, each approximately 30 meters (108 ft) long. Pile 1 was a vertical pile that had
no hydroacoustic attenuation. Pile 2 was a battered pile (driven at an angle) that was angled to the east and included an
single ring air bubble curtain. Pile 3 was inserted at a different location and was also battered, but angled to the west. A
proprietary fabric barrier system (Gunderboom) was used for Pile 3.
Figure 2 Location of PIDP Piles
Pile 1
Pile 3
Pile 2
The objectives of the PIDP Pile Restrike Project were to conduct a geotechnical evaluation of pile stability and to
demonstrate the effectiveness of a bubble curtain system that was designed to provide protection to fisheries resources in
San Francisco Bay. For the Restrike, a Menke hydraulic hammer, MHU1700T, with a capacity of 1,700 kilo joules or kJ
was used at or near full capacity (Figure 3). The geotechnical evaluation was intended to demonstrate the limits of pile
"takeup" over time verify that the pile elements of the foundation would be strong enough to support the construction
loadings that are anticipated while the footing is still relatively young (Woods personal communications). The criteria for
stability are 670 strikes or 250 millimeters (approximately 1 ft). A secondary objective was to evaluate a bubble curtain
system that was improved over the single-ring system used during the 2000 PIDP. This two-ring bubble curtain discharged
considerably more air than the 2000 PIDP bubble curtain system and was fitted much more tightly around the pile than
either the single-ring bubble curtain or the fabric barrier system.
DESCRIPTORS USED TO DESCRIBE UNDERWATER ACOUSTICAL TRAITS

Several descriptors are used to characterize underwater noise. Two common descriptors are the instantaneous peak sound
pressure and the root-mean-square sound pressure level averaged over the impulse, which is sometimes referred to as the
sound pressure level (SPL) or root-mean-square (RMS) level. The peak pressure is the instantaneous absolute maximum
pressure observed during each pulse and can be presented as a pressure (e.g., Pa) or decibel (dB) referred to some standard
pressure like 1 Pa. The majority of literature uses peak sound pressures to evaluate injuries to fish. The SPL or RMS
level is the square root of the energy divided by the duration of an individual acoustical disturbance (e.g., pile strike). This
level, presented in dB re 1 Pa, is equivalent to the mean square pressure level of the pulse. It has been used by NOAA
Fisheries (formerly National Marine Fisheries Service) in criteria for judging impacts to marine mammals from underwater
impulse-type sounds1 . Except where otherwise noted, sound levels reported in this discussion are expressed in dB re 1 Pa.
In this report, peak sound pressures are referred to as peak levels and the SPL or RMS pressure level during the impulse
is referred to as the RMS level.
The RMS (impulse) level is the criterion used by NOAA Fisheries. Underwater sound measurements from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Pile
Driving Demonstration Project (PIDP) indicated that 90 percent of the acoustic energy for most pile-driving impulses occurred over a 50 to 100msec
period with the energy concentrated in the first 30 to 50msec. Analysis of underwater data gathered during the PIDP demonstrated that the acoustic signal
measured using the standard impulse exponential-time-weighting correlated well with the RMS level measured over the duration of the pulse.
It is important to note that sound pressures measured in air are typically described as decibels referenced to a pressure of 20
Pa, rather than 1 Pa, which is used to describe underwater sounds. The use of 20 Pa in air is a matter of convenience,
since 1 dB re 20Pa is the human threshold of hearing in carefully controlled laboratory conditions. Because the acoustical
impedance is much greater in water, sound intensity and propagation are very different. Underwater and airborne sound
pressures are not comparable.
Figure 3 Menke MHU1700T Hammer
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
SFOBB PIDP 2000

To assess the environmental and technical factors involved in driving the very large piles proposed for the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge East Span Project, a Pile Installation Demonstration Project (PIDP) was undertaken in late 2000 in
which three eight-foot diameter steel pipe pilings were driven into the San Francisco Bay (Illingworth and Rodkin 2001).
The underwater sound measurements were not comprehensive, but important data came from measurements at hydrophone
depths of 1 and 6 m, without a sound attenuation system in place. Using a pile -driver energy of 900 kJ, peak pressures of
207 dB re: 1 Pa at a distance of 103 m and 191 dB at distance of 358 m were measured. Levels were always lowest near
the surface (1-meter depth). A spreading loss formula was derived, which corrected for hammer size and measured excess
attenuation and yielded approximately 30 dB loss per tenfold increase in distance (Greene 2001). Applying the spreadingloss model for received levels and accounting for an almost doubling of hammer energy (from 900 to 1,700 kj), the
corresponding equation for 1,700 kJ is:
RLpeak = 238.9 - 29.6 log(R/10)
(adapted from Greene 2001)
Where RL is the peak received level in dB re 1 Pa and R is the distance from the pile in meters for values of R between 100 and 360
meters.
During the PIDP project, measurements were taken at Pile 2 which had a simple unconfined air bubble curtain system (see
Figure 4). There was no bubble curtain ON/OFF test, so the effectiveness of the system could not be directly measured.
Comparison of measurements between Pile 1 and Pile 2 indicated about 0 to 2 dB attenuation from the system. Fairly
strong currents that swept the bubbles away from the pile were suspected to limit the ABC system performance. A
Gunderboom System was used for Pile 3 (see Figure 4). This system, which is able to confine bubbles close to the pile,
was found to reduce sound pressures by about 5 to 10 dB.
Figure 4 Sound Attenuation Devices Used for the 2000 PIDP
Air bubble ring used for Pile 2
Proprietary fabric air bubble curtain (Gunderboom) used for

Pile 3
Hong Kong Aviation Fuel Transfer Facility

Underwater sound measurements were conducted for the Hong Kong Airport Fuel Transfer Facility project to evaluate the
performance of an underwater bubble curtain (Wursig 1999). An air bubble ring with a diameter of 50 m was placed
around the pile-driving operation. With the bubbles, the RMS sound pressure level was reduced by 3 to 5dB. The greatest
sound reduction provided by the bubble curtain was from 400 to 6400 Hz. The contractor did not measure peak pressures.
Canada Place Cruise Ship Terminal

At the Canada Place Cruise Ship Terminal in Vancouver, B.C., open-ended steel pipe piles 36 inches in diameter with 0.75inch wall thickness were driven, as were 24-inch diameter closed-ended steel pipe piles with 0.75-inch wall thickness
(Longmuir and Lively 2001). An air bubble curtain was developed to protect fish. It was kept as close to the pile as
practical, allowing for battered (slanted) piles to be driven. The authors stated that a proper bubble curtain can reduce
underwater sound overpressures from pile driving by at least 85 percent (16.5 dB) and that their bubble curtain in
Vancouver reduced underwater overpressures during pile driving from more than 22 psi to less than 3 psi (a reduction of
more than 17 dB). They referred to the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans criterion for fish safety of not
exceeding an explosion blast peak pressure of 14.5 psi (220 dB re: 1 Pa). The Canada Department of Fisheries and
Oceans standard for fish safety is based on mortalities immediately after the explosion. The Vancouver study found that,
perhaps due to the repetitive nature of pile driving, the peak pressure should be less than 4.5 psi (210 dB re: 1 Pa) to
protect small fish.
SFOBB BUBBLE CURTAIN DESIGN

Following the PIDP, Caltrans consulted with experts on bubble curtains and effects of underwater sound pressures on Fish
(Greene 2001, Hastings 2001). A review of literature and consultation with experts indicated that a properly designed
bubble curtain could provide about 10 dB of sound attenuation. As a result, Caltrans included a two-stage bubble curtain in
the specifications for the construction project and so a version of this bubble curtain was used for the PIDP restrike. The
bubble curtain was designed and constructed by the contractor KFM, Joint Venture (Woods personal communications).
The bubble curtain frame supported two rings of perforated pipes that encircled the pile. One ring of perforated pipes ran
along the bottom of the frame. The second ring of pipes was 5 meters above the bottom ring. Air was supplied by six
45,326 liter-per-minute (1,600 cubic-foot-per-minute) compressors. During a demonstration on December 4th , the bubbles
raised the water level about a foot above sea level, and rendered the entire area above the bubble curtain frame a froth of
white foam. A matrix of pressure sensor hoses was linked to the air delivery pipes, manifolds and perforated pipes to
determine the pressure at various points in the system. The objectives were to produce a bubble flux density of at least 3
cubic meters per minute per linear meters of pipeline in each concentric ring (32 cubic feet per minute per linear foot) and
to completely surround the pile at all times and in all current conditions with bubbles (NMFS 2002). The bubble curtain
system is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 PIDP Restrike Bubble Curtain
Air bubble curtain system with compressors in background.
Air bubble curtain system in operation during the PIDP

Restrike
APPROACH
The measurement program was designed to quantify the effectiveness of the bubble curtain system in reducing underwater
sound pressure levels and characterize both attenuated and unattenuated sound pressures for each of the three PIDP piles.
This required sound measurements with the system working (ON) and when it was not operational (OFF).
Prior to measurements, plans were developed to measure at 5 different positions. One position was made at about 60m
from the pile on the barge, and four positions were both 100m and about 450m north and south of the pile. At the four
distant positions (100m and ~450m), measurements were made 2m below the water surface and about 2m above the
bottom. A depth of about 8m was made from the barge (60m distance position). Buoys were set at the approximate 100m
and 450m positions; however, exact positions varied due to the influence of tidal currents.
Measurements at the fixed ~100m and ~450m positions were made using G.R.A.S. CT10 hydrophones with PCB in-line
charge amplifiers (Model 422E13) and PCB Multi Gain Signal Conditioners (Model 480M122). The signals were fed into
Larson Davis Model 820 Integrating Sound Level Meters (Type 1) and Sony Model TCD-D100 Digital Audio Data
Recorders (DAT).
At the ~60-meter position from the barge, a PCB Type ICP Pressure Transducer was used to acquire the acoustic signals.
The transducer was connected to both a Larson Davis Model 820 Integrating Sound Level Meter (Type 1) and a Sony
Model TCD-D100 DAT through the PCB multi gain signal conditioner. The pressure transducer was used at this position,
instead of a hydrophone system, since peak pressure signals from the unattenuated piles were predicted to exceed the
hydrophone system limitations. The multi-gain signal conditioner provides the ability to add gain or boost the signal so
that measurements are made within the dynamic range of the instruments used to analyze the signals.
The peak pressures and SPLs or RMS levels were measured, either live or subsequently from DAT recordings using the
SLM. The RMS sound pressure levels were measured with the SLM using the standard impulse exponential-time weighting (35 msec rise time) function of the Larson Davis Model 820 SLM. Additional subsequent analyses of the
acoustical impulses were performed using a Larson Davis Model 2900 Real Time Analyzer. The real time analyzer
provides narrow-band frequency and waveform analysis.
The measurement systems were calibrated prior to use in the field with a G.R.A.S. Type 42AA Pistonphone and
hydrophone coupler. The systems calibration status was checked during post calibrations at the end of the measurement
event. All systems were found to be within 0.5 dB of the calibration levels. Pre- and post-measurement recordings of
calibration tones were made on all DAT tapes.
MEASUREMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Underwater sound measurements were made on December 9, when two PIDP piles (Piles 1 and 2) and on December 10,
2003 when one PIDP pile (Pile 3) were driven as part of the SFOBB PIDP Restrike. The Menke 1700 kj hammer was used
at nearly full energy. Data summaries and graphical representations of measured data are provided in Appendix A.
Hammer and bubble curtain data are provided in Appendix B.
Much of the data collected at the deeper sensor 450 to 500m north of the piles could not be used due to contamination.
These measurements were made from a motorized boat that was holding position near a buoy. The boat movement caused
noise on the deeper hydrophone, and therefore, that data was discarded. Measurements made at the shallow level (2m
deep) from the barge had to also be discarded. Unattenuated levels were quite low at this position, indicating that there
were obstructions from the barge affecting the sound attenuation.
Peak Sound Pressures and RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Pile 1
The pile was driven by the Menke 1,700 kJ hammer in single blow mode instead of stroke sequence mode because of
technical concerns for safe hammer operation. Hammering was in the more regular stroke mode for the other piles.
Hammering started at 10:36 with the bubble curtain in operation at full capacity. Hammering stopped 21 minutes later at
10:57. At 11:03 hammering started again but with the bubble curtain off and continued for about 18 minutes with a number
of brief interruptions in driving activity. Hammer energy was mostly above 1,600 kj and the blow count was about 30
blows per minute. Tidal currents were almost non-existent, but observations of floating buoys at the measurements
positions indicated a light north to south current (flood). This pile driving operation was carried out in a driving rain storm.
A history of pile strikes measured from the DB General (65m from the pile) is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Time History - Pile 1

PILE 1, from Barge at 65m
History of Pile Stikes at the Deeper Sensor
220
Peak
RMS
200
190
180
Time
11:30
11:26
11:22
11:18
11:14
11:10
11:06
11:02
10:58
10:54
10:50
10:46
10:42
10:38
160
10:34
170
10:30
Sound Pressure (dB)
210
The time history of the strikes shown in Figure 6 shows a large variation in the amplitude of sound
pressures, particularly peak pressures from strike to strike. This is possibly due to the large variation
of hammer energy used since the hammer was operating in manual mode. Information provided on the
bubble curtain operation is inconclusive to identify any operational problems that the bubble curtain
may have experienced. There were flow meters that failed during the bubble curtain operation, but this
does not mean that the curtain did not operate as designed. The pile was completely surrounded by
bubbles at the surface during bubble curtain operation.
Table 1 shows the sound pressure levels in terms of peak pressure and RMS sound pressure levels for both the Bubbles ON
and Bubbles OFF condition. Time periods that best represent a particular condition for the pile and each bubble curtain
operation mode were selected.
Peak pressures varied considerably based on direction. Peak pressures measured at 65m were similar to those measured at
100m north. At 450m north, pressures were about 10 dB lower than 450m south with or without the bubble curtain (the
bubble curtain reduced pressures by 8-10 dB at both positions). Peak pressures with the bubble curtain ON were about 5
dB lower 100m south than at 100m north. Without the bubble curtain, peak pressures were similar at both positions.
At 65m, the shallow water measurement appeared to be shielded by the barge or some other underwater obstruction;
therefore, those data were discarded. While peak pressures differed by only 1 dB with and without the bubble curtain, tape
recordings indicated that the impulses with the bubbles sounded different than without the bubbles.
In summary, RMS sound pressure levels were about 3 to 7 dB lower with the bubble curtain ON, while peak pressures were
reduced by 6 to 12 dB. Changes in waveforms and frequency spectra are discussed later in this report.
Table 1 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 1, reported as dB

Peak Pressures
Positions Measured Distance and General Direction from the Pile
Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
Water Depth =
10:46:30
ON
10:52:29 am
10:56:00
ON
10:57:29 am
11:04:00
OFF
11:07:59 am
11:20:00
OFF
11:20:59 am
Estimated Reduction
South
~460m
10m
South
100m
10m
Up = 194
Dn = 196
Up = 185
Dn = 189
North
100m
North
195m
North
~450m
9m
10m
Up = 201
Dn = 201
10m
8m
Dn = 199
Up = 175
Dn = -Up = 182
Dn = --
Dn = 194
Up = 205
Dn = 206
Up = 194
Dn = 198
Up = 9
Dn = 9
North
65m
Dn = 204
Up = 209
Dn = 207
Up = 194
Dn = --
Dn = 208
Up = 11
Dn = 10
Dn = ~9
Up = 8
Dn = 6
Up = 7
Dn = --
RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
ON
10:46:30
10:52:29 am
10:56:00
ON
10:57:29 am
11:04:00
OFF
11:07:59 am
11:20:00
OFF
11:20:59 am
Estimated Reduction
Note:
South
~460m
South
100m
North
65m
North
100m
Up = 183
Dn = 185
Dn = 186
Up = 188
Dn = 189
Up = 175
Dn = 178
North
195m
Dn = 182
Up = 190
Dn = 192
Up = 183
Dn = 185
Dn = 189
Up = 192
Dn = 194
Up = 181
Dn = --
Dn = 193
Up = 7
Dn = 7
Dn = ~7
Up = 4
Dn = 5
Up = upper portion of water column or about 2m below the water surface

Dn = lower portion of water column or about 2-3m above bottom.
North
~450m
Up = 162
Dn = -Up = 168
Dn = -Up = 171
Dn = -Up = 8
Dn = --
Pile 2
The DB General barge was moved into position north of Pile 2 and stabilized with spud piles and anchor lines. The bubble
curtain frame was lowered into the water around the pile and secured in place on the bottom. The hammer was placed on
the pile about 13:18. Pile driving started at 13:55 with the bubble curtain on and continued for 14 minutes stopping at
14:09. Hammering started again at 14:20 and continued for 7 minutes without the bubble curtain OFF. The Menke
hammer was in automatic mode for most of the drive. After about 13:53, the hammer energy was consistently above 1,500
kj and the blow count was about 30 blows per minute. Due to the shorter driving period with the bubble curtain OFF, all

220
Peak
RMS
Sound Pressure (dB)
210
200
190
180
14:28
14:24
14:20
14:16
14:12
14:08
14:04
14:00
13:56
13:52
160
13:48
170
Time
measurements could not be completed (i.e., at distances of 450m south and 200m north). Heavy rain occurred during most
of the driving period. A history of pile strikes measured from the DB General (60m from the pile) is shown in Figure 7.
The history plot of sound pressures shown in Figure 7 indicates that sound pressures were more consistent than Pile 1.
Table 2 presents sound pressures in terms of peak pressure and RMS sound pressure levels for both the Bubbles ON and
Bubbles OFF condition. Time periods that best represent a particular condition for the pile and each bubble curtain
operation mode were selected. There was a light north to south current.
Peak pressures were more consistent during the driving of Pile 2 than they were for Pile 1. All measurement positions
indicated at least 10 dB reduction in peak pressures with the bubble curtain ON, except for the 100m north station at 2m
below the water surface. An explanation for this anomaly cannot be made, except that the tape recording for that position
sounds much louder with the bubbles OFF. In summary, peak pressures were reduced by 9 to 17 dB and RMS sound
pressure levels were reduced by about 6 to 10 dB. At the 450m north position, the reduction was 11-15 dB for peak
pressures and 7-10 dB for RMS sound pressure levels.
10
Peak Pressures
Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
Water Depth =
13:54:00
ON
13:57:29
14:02:00
ON
14:06:59
14:20:00
OFF
14:23:59
Estimated Reduction

South
South
North
North
North
North
~460m
100m
60m
100m
195m
~450m
10m
11m
Up = 194
Dn = 197
Up = 190
Dn = 191
Up = -Dn = --
10m
Dn = 197
11m
Up = 200
Dn = 196
Up = 180
Dn = 184
Dn = 198
Up = 211
Dn = 208
Up = 17
Dn = 11
Dn = 208
Dn = 11
11m
Up = 201
Dn = 205
Up = 1*
Dn = 9
Up = -Dn = --
9m
Up = 175
Dn = 179
Up = 176
Dn = 180
Up = 190
Dn = 190
Up = 15
Dn = 11

Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
Water Depth =
13:54:00
ON
13:57:29
14:02:00
ON
14:06:59
14:20:00
OFF
14:23:59
Estimated Reduction

South
South
North
North
North
North
~460m
100m
60m
100m
195m
~450m
10m
Up = 180
Dn = 180
11m
Up = 183
Dn = 185
10m
Dn = 186
11m
Up = 187
Dn = 184
Dn = 187
Up = 194
Up = 189
Dn = 195
Dn = 192
Dn = 193
Up = -Up = 11
Up = 2*
Dn = -Dn = 10
Dn = 6
Dn = 9
* The levels measured at 100m north at the UP position (2m below the surface) are suspect.
11m
Up =
Dn = 172
Up = -Dn = --
9m
Up = 164
Dn = 170
Up = 166
Dn = 171
Up = 174
Dn = 177
Up = 10
Dn = 7
Pile 3
The DB General barge was moved into position north of pile No. 3 and was ready for driving on the morning of December
10, 2002. Hammering started at 10:02 and continued for 37 minutes with stops to adjust the air delivery system and strain
gages. Hammering restarted at 10:52 and continued until 11:07 without the bubble curtain in operation. Hammer energy
was consistently above 1,600 kj and the blow count was about 30 blows per minute. A history of pile strikes measured
from the DB General (60m from the pile) is shown in Figure 8. Three different conditions were tested with this pile: (1)
bubble curtain system ON with manifold pressure of 70 to 80 pounds per square inch (psi), (2) bubble curtain system ON
with manifold pressure reduced to 50 psi, and (3) bubble curtain system OFF. These three periods are indicated as ON+,
ON-, and OFF. Time periods that best represent a particular condition for the pile and each bubble curtain operation mode
were selected. Pile driving was suspended between each measurement period. There was a light south to north or ebb
current observed, although the predictions indicated a light flood current. A history of pile strikes measured from the DB
General (60m from the pile) is shown in Figure 8.
The history plot of sound pressures shown in Figure 8 indicates that sound pressures were consistent, much like Pile 2. The
Menke hammer was in automatic mode for most of the drive. Table 3 presents the sound pressure levels in terms of peak
pressure and RMS sound pressure levels for both the bubble curtain ON and OFF. Time periods that best represent a
particular condition for the pile and each bubble curtain operation mode were selected. There was a light north to south
current..
11

220
Peak
210
Sound Pressure (dB)
RMS
200
190
180
Data from 1st part

of drive not
collected at barge
170
11:05
11:01
10:57
10:53
10:49
10:46
10:42
10:38
10:34
10:30
10:26
10:22
10:18
10:14
10:10
10:06
10:02
160
Time
Sound pressures associated with this pile were lower than either Pile 1 or Pile 2, probably due to the shallower water. Some
large reductions in peak pressure still occurred on the north side. Reductions were over 20 dB close to the pile on the north
side. On the south side, reductions were about 5 to 7 dB. Although there was little measured reduction at the 450m south
location, levels were 185 dB or lower with the bubble curtain system ON. At ~470m north, levels with the bubble curtain
system ON were too low to measure accurately. It is estimated that peak pressures were less than 170 dB with the bubble
curtain ON and less than 180 dB with the system OFF.
Sound pressures were measured with the bubble curtain air delivery pressure at two settings, as indicated by ON+ and ON-.
Results indicate that there was little difference between the settings. In fact all measurements were within 2 dB of each
setting and some levels were even lower with the reduced delivery pressure.
12
Peak Pressures
Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
Water Depth =
10:04:30
ON+
10:55:59
10:30:30
ON+
10:32:59
10:36:30
ON10:38:59
10:44:15
ON10:47:14
10:52:30
OFF
10:59:59
11:05:30
OFF
11:06:59
Estimated Reduction
(OFF ON+)

South
South
North
North
North
North
~450m
100m
60m
100m
200m
~470m
5m
5m
Up = 193
Dn = 192
Up = 184
Dn = 185
Up = 184
Dn = 184
4m
Up = 179
Dn = 179
Dn = 179
Dn = 180
Dn = 204
Up = 180
Dn = 178
Up = 197
Dn = 198
Dn = 204
Up = 6
Dn = 8
Dn = 25
4m
Up = 178
Dn = 178
Up = 178
Dn = 180
Dn = 180
Up = 194
Dn = 193
Up = 199
Dn = 199
Up = 186
Dn = 187
Up = 2
Dn = 2
6m
Up = 17
Dn = 20
Up = 194
Dn = 195
Up = 15
Dn = 14
4+m
Up = <170
Dn = NA*
Up = 165
Dn = NA*
Up = 166
Dn = NA*
Up = 166
Dn = NA*
Up = 178
Dn = NA*
Up = 177
Dn = NA*
Up = 11
Dn = NA*

Time
Period
Bubble
Curtain
Condition
Water Depth =
10:04:30
ON+
10:55:59
10:30:30
ON+
10:32:59
10:36:30
ON10:38:59
10:44:15
ON10:47:14
10:52:30
OFF
10:59:59
11:05:30
OFF
11:06:59
Estimated Reduction
(OFF ON+)

South
South
North
North
North
North
~450m
100m
60m
100m
200m
~470m
5m
5m
Up = 182
Dn = 181
Up = 173
Dn = 174
Up = 171
Dn = 172
4m
Up = 168
Dn = 169
Dn = 169
Dn = 169
Dn = 204
Up = 168
Dn = 168
Up = 182
Dn = 184
Dn = 191
Up = 6
Dn = 8
Dn = 21
4m
Up = 166
Dn = 168
Up = 168
Dn = 170
Dn = 170
Up = 182
Dn = 182
Up = 186
Dn = 186
Up = 174
Dn = 175
Up = 2
Dn = 2
6m
Up = 17
Dn = 20
Up = 179
Dn = 180
Up = 11
Dn = 10
4+m
Up = <160
Dn = NA*
Up = <155
Dn = NA*
Up = <158
Dn = NA*
Up = <158
Dn = NA*
Up = 162
Dn = NA*
Up = 160
Dn = NA*
Up = >5
Dn = NA*
*NA = data not available due to interference
Impulse Analysis
Analysis of selected impulses measured 100 meters north and south of the pile for each of the piles is presented in this
section. This was done by analyzing DAT recordings using a real time analyzer. Representative time periods for bubble
curtain system ON and OFF conditions were selected for these analyses based on the time history of pressure strikes and
the resulting levels presented in the previous section. Four sets of 8 strikes were analyzed to obtain the pressure time traces
or waveforms and corresponding constant narrow band frequency spectra representative of each set of 8 strikes. The
pressure time traces and frequency spectra are based on 80 msec samples.
The time traces of pressure and frequency spectra for Pile 1 at 100m south are shown in Figure 10. The corresponding data
for 100m north are shown in Figure 11. Pressures are shown in pascals (dB re 1 Pa = 20 Log [pressure in Pa]). The
pressure time traces show that the acoustical disturbance lasted about 80 msec or longer and that most of the disturbance
occurred during the first 25 to 35 msec. In all cases, the reduction in acoustical energy is evident. The bubble curtain
system was effective at reducing sound pressure levels above 1000 Hz in all cases and above 300 Hz in some cases. The
reductions were as high as 20 dB above 2000 Hz. The reduction in higher frequencies is evident by the smoother increase
and decrease in pressure over time. These figures also illustrate the site differences for both bubble curtain ON and OFF
13
conditions between the location of Pile 1 and 2 and the location of Pile3. At Pile 3, sound pressures were much lower even
without the bubble curtain ON. In fact, the bubble curtain OFF condition resulted in similar, but slightly higher, peak
pressures as the bubble curtain ON conditions at Piles 1 and 2. However, the shape of the waveform is much different in
terms of rapid pressure rise/fall times.
Pile 1
The pressure time traces show similar patterns of rapid rise and fall of pressures during the first 0 to 15 msec of the
acoustical event when the bubbles were OFF. With bubbles ON, much of that fluctuation was reduced. Frequency spectra
for the bubbles OFF condition are similar at 100m north and south, where most energy is contained below 1000 Hz. With
bubbles ON, sound pressures were reduced from 500 Hz and above with the greatest reductions above 1000 Hz. The
bubble curtain was more effective at reducing sound pressures at 100m south. The bubble curtain provided about 11 dB of
reduction at the south position and about 6 dB at the north position.
Pile 2
While the magnitude of sound pressure was greater for 100m south, there were more substantial fluctuations at the 100m
north position with the bubble curtain OFF. This appears to be evident in the low frequency spectrum (i.e., below
500Hz).With bubbles ON, acoustic energy above 1000 Hz was attenuated by 10 to 30 dB, especially at the 100m north
position. At the 100m north position, bubbles ON appeared to reduce sound pressures by 5 dB at the lower frequencies.
The resultant frequency spectra at 100m north and south were similar with the bubbles ON, while showing some
considerable differences at the lower frequencies without the bubbles. Overall, the bubble curtain provided about 10 dB of
attenuation at these positions for this pile.
Pile 3
The unattenuated piles at 100m north and south for Pile 3 showed some similar characteristics as the attenuated conditions
for Piles 1 and 2. As a result, the bubbles OFF sound pressures for this pile were similar to those of Piles 1 and 2 when the
bubbles were ON. When bubbles were OFF at Pile 3, sound pressures were reduced further by 5 to 7 dB at 100m south and
15 to 20 dB at 100m north. At 100m south, most reductions occurred above 1000 Hz. At 100m north, reductions of 5 to
10 dB occurred around 200 Hz and reductions of 30 dB occurred between 1000 and 1500 Hz. This was in addition to the
20 to over 30 dB reduction above 1500 Hz. The sound pressure amplitude was reduced to a fraction of the amplitude when
the bubbles were OFF.
Bubble Curtain Performance

The bubble curtain performance was directly measured by making sound pressure measurements with the system ON and
with it OFF. The system performance varied considerably from location to location as a result of differences in
measurement positions and pile conditions. All piles were driven at refusal using full or nearly full hammer energy.
When evaluating ON/OFF conditions for Pile 1, the reductions between ON and OFF conditions were 6 to 10 dB for deep
sensor positions and 6 to 12 dB lower for the shallow sensor positions, excluding the measurements from the barge, where
the shallow sensor was suspected to be shielded by underwater obstructions. The reductions in RMS sound pressure levels
was generally 2 to 4 dB less than peak pressures (i.e., 2 to 7 dB reduction). At 100m, reductions were 4 to 7 dB greater to
the south. Reductions at 450m were similar between north and south, except that levels with the bubble curtain ON or OFF
were 10 dB lower to the north than to the south. This indicates that there is excess attenuation of about 10 dB at 450m
north.
The location of Pile 2 was next to Pile 1 so measurement positions changed very little. Reductions measured for Pile 2
were on the order of 9 to 17 dB for peak pressures and 6 to 11 dB in RMS sound pressure levels. The one exception was
the shallow sensor at 100m north where the measured reduction was only 1 to 2 dB. Again, the bubble curtain appeared to
be more effective 100m south than at 100m north. While OFF measurements could not be made for 450m south, the ON
measurements indicate that reductions were greater at 450m north. The ON pressures at 450m north were 15 dB lower than
they were at 450m meters south.
Pile 3 was at a different location than Piles 1 and 2. Overall sound pressures with the bubble curtain OFF were about 5 to
12 dB lower than they were for Piles 1 or 2. The bottom topography at this pile was rough, where it is likely that there was
a gap of about 5 to 7 feet in the southwest and west directions. This would limit the effectiveness of the bubble curtain due
to flanking of sound underneath in the southwest and westerly directions. Towards the north, the measured reductions were
11 to 25 dB in peak pressures and 14 to 21 dB in RMS pressures (RMS levels could not be measured at 450m north). In the
southerly direction, the reductions were 2 to 8 dB in peak pressures and 1 to 5 dB in RMS sound pressure levels. The
14
differences in attenuation from the bubble curtain in these directions is indicative of a leak in the south side, probably due
to the uneven bottom terrain. It should be noted that the sound pressures in the south with the bubble curtain ON were 10
to 15 dB lower than OFF conditions for Piles 1 and 2.
Comparison with PIDP Results and Predictions made in the Biological Opinion
The restrike involved driving a pile at refusal with the hammer at maximum energy (1,600 to 1,740 kilojoules). This
condition was not encountered during acoustical measurements associated with the PIDP in 2000 and is not anticipated
during construction. For these reasons, the results obtained during the restrike are not directly comparable to results that
were obtained during the PIDP in 2000 or upcoming construction. In addition to the differences discussed above,
measurement positions were slightly different.
Pile 1
During the PIDP, a peak pressure of 207 dB was measured about 100m west of the pile when the hammer energy was about
1,000 kilojoules. During the restrike with the bubble curtain OFF, the highest peak pressures were 206 dB southeast and
209 dB northwest. With the bubble curtain ON, peak pressures were 194-201 dB (6 to 14 dB lower). The PIDP
measurements for Pile 1 (Illingworth & Rodkin, 2001) were used as a basis for predicting impacts to biological resources
(Greene 2001, NOAA 2001). The PIDP Restrike results were lower than predicted for all position except 450m south. At
that position, unattenuated pressures were 8 dB higher than predicted. The basis for these predictions was measurements
for Pile 1 at 103m west and 358m northwest. At distances of 450m, the predictions were 6 dB to high for 450m north and
8 dB to low for 450m south with unattenuated conditions. Predicted and measured sound pressures for Pile 1 are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Sound Pressures Pile 1

Predicted Sound Pressures
with NO Sound Attenuation*
Position
Measured with Bubble

Curtain OFF

Curtain ON
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
65m
203
215
193
208
186
199
100m South
197
209
192
206
185
196
100m North
197
209
194
207
189
201
450m South
178
190
185
198
178
189
450m North
178
190
171
184
162
175
* The Biological Opinion (Caltrans 2001) assumed about 10 dB of sound attenuation.
Pile 2
During the PIDP, measurements were only made at about 200m west with a bubble curtain in operation for Pile 2. Peak
pressures with the PIDP at 200m were 201 dB and 200 dB with hammer energies of 550 and 1000 kilojoules. During the
restrike, peak pressures at 100m were 201, 206, 206, 208, and 211dB. A measurement made with only the bubble curtain
ON at almost 200m during the restrike had peak pressures of 180 to 184 dB. For the restrike, Pile 2 appeared to be slightly
louder than Pile 1 when comparing sound pressures for the bubble curtain OFF conditions. With the bubble curtain ON
during the restrike, peak pressures were 194 to 200 dB at 100m. With the bubble curtain OFF measurements were equal or
less than predicted (by 0 to 7 dB). Measurements with the bubble curtain OFF could not be made at 450m south, but would
probably have been higher than predicted.
With the bubble curtain ON, sound pressures were 1 dB higher than
unattenuated predictions at 450m south and 6 dB lower at 450m north. Closer in, pressures were 12 to 17 dB lower than
unattenuated predictions (see Table 5).
15

Position

Curtain OFF

Curtain ON
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
65m
203
215
192
208
187
198
100m South
197
209
195
208
185
197
100m North
197
209
193
205
184
196
450m South
178
190
NA
NA
180
191
450m North
178
190
177
190
172
184
Pile 3
Measurements from the PIDP in 2000 and the restrike indicate that Pile 3 resulted in lower sound pressures than Piles 1 or
2. This was likely caused by the shallow water conditions at Pile 3. At many of the measurement locations, the water was
about 50% shallower (e.g., 5m for Pile 3 vs 11m for Piles 1 and 2). Measurements made during the PIDP at about 100m
were 193 to 197 dB (with the Gunderboom system not operating) and 189 dB when the Gunderboom was operating and
hammer energies were 1600 kilojoules (comparable to the restrike). Measurements during the PIDP restrike at about 100m
were 197 to 199 dB with the bubble curtain OFF and 179 to 192 dB with the bubble curtain ON (the south side was 192 dB
and the north side was about 179 dB). At 500m north during the PIDP with the Gunderboom ON, peak pressures were
about 170 dB. At about 470m north with the bubble curtain ON, peak pressures were less than 170 dB and about 184 dB
with the bubble curtain OFF.
At all measurements positions, bubble curtain OFF pressures were less than predicted unattenuated pressures, even at 450m
south. At most locations, OFF pressures were about 10 dB lower than predicted. At 450m south, the OFF conditions were
only 3 dB less than predicted. When the bubble curtain was ON, sound pressures were 5 to 35 dB lower than unattenuated
predictions. With the exception of the 450m south position, all bubble curtain ON sound pressures were 20 to 30 dB lower
than unattenuated predictions (see Table 6).

Position

Curtain OFF

Curtain ON
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
RMS
Peak
65m
203
215
191
204
170
180
100m South
197
209
186
199
181
192
100m North
197
209
184
198
169
179
200m North
187
199
180
195
168
178
450m South
178
190
175
187
174
185
500m North
176
189
172
184
<170
<180
16
Marine Mammal Safety Zone

The marine mammal monitoring safety zone is defined as the area where RMS sound pressure levels are less than 190 dB.
Based on the PIDP restrike measurements with the bubble curtain ON, the safety zone extended out to about 100m north
for Pile 1 and was less than 100m for Piles 2 and 3. In fact, RMS sound pressures levels of 190 dB or greater were not
measured at any of the measurements positions for Piles 2 and 3 when the UABC system was ON. When the bubble
curtain was OFF, the limit of the safety zone extended beyond 100m to somewhere between 200 and 300m for piles 1 and
2. For Pile 3 with the bubble curtain OFF, the safety zone did not appear to extend beyond 100m.
CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness of a two-ring bubble curtain system in reducing underwater sound pressures during marine pile driving
was assessed through underwater sound pressure measurements. This was conducted when the three 108m long, 2.4m
diameter cast in steel shell piles driven in 2000 as part of the PIDP, were restruck in December of 2002. During the
measurements, the bubble curtain system was turned ON and OFF. The restrike involved driving the piles at refusal with
the hammer at maximum energy (1,600 to 1,740 kilojoules). This condition is not anticipated during the east span SFOBB
new east span construction.
The reduction in sound pressures provided by the bubble curtain system ranged considerably. The direct reduction in sound
pressures, which is evaluated by comparing bubble curtain ON and OFF measurements, for Piles 1 and 2 was 6 to 17 dB for
peak pressures and 3 to 10 dB for RMS sound pressure levels. Piles 1 and 2 were located next to each other. Reductions at
Pile 3, which was in shallower water, were over 20 dB for both peak pressures and RMS sound pressure levels on the north
side. However, the reductions on the south side for Pile 3 were much less. Close to Pile 3 on the south side, the reductions
were on the order of 5 to 7 dB. Further away at about 450m south, the reductions were only about 2 dB. Uneven bottom
topography around Pile 3, which could have compromised the bubble curtain performance near the bay bottom, is
suspected to have resulted in the lower reductions to the south. It is important to note that overall sound pressures
associated with Pile 3 were lower than those with Piles 1 and 2.
Analysis of individual pile strike impulses indicates that the bubble curtain reduced sound pressures at all measurement
positions at frequencies above 1000 Hz. There was a reduction in sound pressures below 500 Hz where the bubble curtain
worked particularly well (e.g., 100m north position for Pile 3).
Measurements of peak pressures made at about 100m were consistent with the measurements made during the PIDP in
2000. Those measurements were the basis for predictions of the maximum peak pressures during SFOBB east span
construction. With the exception of the 450m south position, predicted peak pressures used in the Biological Opinion were
lower than those measured. At 450m south, measured peak pressures were 5 to 8 dB higher than predicted. Conversely,
peak pressures at 450m to 500m north were 0 to 6 dB lower than predicted.
RMS sound pressure levels, which are used to define the marine mammal safety zone, did not exceed 190 dB at any of the
measurement positions (between 65 and 500m) when the bubble curtain system was operating. Levels of 180 dB RMS did
extend out to 450m south for Pile 1, but did not exceed 172 dB at 450m north. With the bubble curtain OFF, the 190 dB
RMS sound pressure levels extended out to somewhere between 200m to 300m for Piles 1 and 2 and less than 100m for
Pile 3.
17
REFERENCES
Greene, C.R., Jr. 2001. Proposed Construction Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Regarding the
interaction between fish and sounds from pile driving while building the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay
Bridge. Produced by Greeneridge Sciences and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. under contract to the California
Department of Transportation, Task Order No. 2, Contract No. 43A0063. September.
Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2001. Noise and Vibration Measurements Associated with the Pile Installation
Demonstration Project for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span, Final Data Report. Produced
by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. under contract to the California Department of Transportation, Task Order
No. 2, Contract No. 43A0063. June.
Longmuir, C. and T. Lively. 2001. Bubble Curtain Systems for Use During Marine Pile Driving. Produced by
Fraser River Pile & Dredge, Ltd.
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. Biological Opinion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
East Span Seismic Safety Project. Ref: 151422-SWR99-SR-190
Reyff, J., P. Donavan, C. R. Greene Jr. 2002. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Construction of the
Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Produced by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and Greeneridge Sciences under contract
to the California Department of Transportation, Task Order No. 18, Contract No. 43A0063. August.
Reyff, J. 2003. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Seismic Retrofit Construction of the Richmond-San
Rafael Bridge. Produced by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc under contract to the California Department of
Transportation, Task Order No20, Contract No. 43A0063. January.
Wursig, B., C. R. Greene, Jr., T. A. Jefferson. 1999. Development of an Air Bubble Curtain to Reduce
Underwater Noise of Percussive Piling. Marine Mammal Research 49 (2000) 79-93.
18
Appendix A
Data Summary and
Time History of Sound Pressures
19
20
21
Pile 1
Pile 1
Pile 3
22
220
Pile1 12-09-2002
210
ON
450mdn
450up
100mSdn
100mSup
60mdn
100mNdn
100mNup
200mNup
450mNup
200
190
180
170
OFF
160
10:30
10:34
10:38
10:42
10:46
10:50
10:54
10:58
11:02
11:06
11:10
11:14
11:18
220
Pile2 12-09-2002
210
ON
ON
450mdn
450up
100mSdn
100mSup
60mdn
100mNdn
100mNup
200mNdn
450mNdn
450mNup
200
190
180
170
OFF
160
13:54
13:55
13:56
14:02
14:03
14:04
14:05
14:06
14:20
14:21
14:22
14:23
220
Pile3 12-10-2002
OFF
OFF
210
ON
ON
ON
ON
450mdn
450up
100mSdn
100mSup
200
190
60mdn
100mNdn
100mNup
200mNdn
200mNup
450mNup
180
170
160
10:04:30
10:30:57
10:32:57
10:38:24
10:45:36
23
10:52:48
10:54:48
10:56:48
10:58:48
11:06:15
Appendix B
Summary of Hammer Performance Data and Bubble Curtain Operation
Pile 1
Time:
hh:mm:ss
Blow
No.
Blows/min
Stroke
cm
Energy
kNm
Activity
10:35:52
11:37:15
11:17:34
11:17:59
11:18:22
11:18:42
11:19:03
11:19:23
11:19:43
Stop key in cabin pushed

Start: single blow mode
Start : stroke sequence mode
19
29
39
49
59
69
23.9
28.2
29.9
30.5
29.7
28.9
86
86
86
86
86
86
1623
1699
1730
1730
1724
1696
C2 reported hammer not on pile
Pile 2
Time:
hh:mm:ss
Blow
No.
Blows/min
Stroke
cm
Energy
kNm
13:51:37
13:51:52
13:52:03
13:52:04
13:52:37
13:53:11
14:07:37
14:07:36
14:18:42
14:18:59
14:25:13
14:25:20
14:26:05
Activity
Start
12
22
75.9
67.9
38
56
620
903
Stop
Start
32
472
22.3
31.1
86
86
1545
1622
Stop
Start
482
672
30.6
29.9
86
86
1684
1676
Stop
C2 Hammer not on pile
25
Pile 3
Time:
hh:mm:ss
10:01:50
10:02:03
10:02:21
10:04:41
10:05:01
10:29:15
10:31:29
10:31:48
10:35:07
10:38:06
10:43:07
10:46:02
10:51:22
10:59:05
11:04:20
11:05:40
11:07:09
Blow
No.
Blows/mi
n
Energy
kNm
Stroke
cm
Activity
Start in stroke sequence mode
14
24
93
103
116
186
196
215
305
315
405
416
648
659
699
42.1
28.8
31
30.8
30.5
31
31.1
31.1
30.6
30.6
31.3
30.3
29.3
30.2
29.7
40
62
88
88
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
88
88
746
1201
1733
1736
1746
1713
1703
1712
1688
1693
1698
1703
1691
1725
1735
26
Stop
Start
Stop
Start
Stop
Start
Stop
Start
Stop
Start
Stop
C2 reported hammer not on the pile
BUBBLE CURTAIN REPORT

December 9, 2002
PDIP Restrike Data
The Bubble Curtain was used as a noise attenuation device during the re-strike of the PDIP piles. During the re-strike the following
observations were noted:
Pile 1: Two of the four flow meters at the aeration pipe failed during the re-strike. One on meter the top ring and one on the bottom ring. The
two remaining meters at times had significant fluctuations in their readouts.
The flow meters at the compressors were inaccurate because of wide fluctuations in their readouts. This could have been attributed to the
flow characteristics of the distribution manifold. This problem continued throughout the entire project.
Pile 2: The flow meters at the aeration pipe were repaired and reliable readings were obtained at pile 2. Reliable readings were also obtained
at all but one of the pressure gauges. No readings were taken from the flow meters at the compressor due to the constant fluctuation of the
meters.
The manifold pressure was held constant at 70 psi.
Pile 3: Accurate readings were obtained from the flow meters at the aeration pipe during the pile driving operation. One of the pressure
gauges on the bottom ring failed and no readings were obtained from this gauge. No readings were taken from the flow meters at the
compressor due to the constant fluctuation of the meters.
On this particular pile the manifold pressure was kept at constant intervals of 80, 70 and 50 psi in order to change the flow of air through the
system. A higher manifold pressure decreases the flow rate at the aeration pipe and decreasing the manifold pressure increases the flow rate
at the aeration pipe. With decreased flow at the aeration pipe the inlet pressure should also be reduced. An increase in flow by decreasing the
manifold pressure increases the inlet pressure.
The size of the bubble can be determined from the pressure and flow rate. The goal was to determine if bubble size had an influence on
attenuating the sound pressure levels.
27
LOCATION
Pile 1
START TIME
1030 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Top Ring
INLET FLOW METER READING @ ARETION PIPE (cfm)

Reading # 1
1500
Reading # 2
2600
Reading # 3
2740
Reading # 4
2100
MANIFOLD PRESSURE (psi)
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
3100
0
0
0
INLET PRESSURE (psi)

10
0
20
20
20
20
22
22
60
60
68
70
20
25
25
25
12
25
25
25
COMPRESSOR FLOW @ DISTRIBUTION MANIFOLD (cfm)

Reading # 1
Reading not reliable due to constant fluctuation of meters
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
1.
2.
Bubble curtain on for first 400 blows.

Bubble curtain off for remaining 270 blows.
LOCATION
Pile 1
START TIME
1030 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Bottom Ring

Reading # 1
3500
Reading # 2
3600
Reading # 3
3470
Reading # 4
3390
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
60
60
68
70
3100
1700
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
1.
2.

28
25
20
22
20
25
20
22
20
LOCATION
Pile 2
START TIME
1400 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Top Ring

Reading # 1
2600
Reading # 2
2480
Reading # 3
2670
Reading # 4
2600
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
2900
3100
3100
3080

10
10
15
15
15
15
10
15
60
55
55
55
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
1.
2.

LOCATION
Pile 2
START TIME
1400 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Bottom Ring

Reading # 1
3400
Reading # 2
3580
Reading # 3
3580
Reading # 4
3520
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
70
70
70
70
3100
3170
1700
0

20
0
20
0
22
0
22
0

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
1.
2.

29
25
20
22
22
25
25
27
25
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1000 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Top Ring

Reading # 1
1780
Reading # 2
1750
Reading # 3
1760
Reading # 4
1790
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
1900
1890
1890
1910

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
80
80
80
80
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Manifold Pressure: Pressure regulated at valve on exit side of the manifold. Flow and pressure at aeration pipe are
reduced as a result.
1. Bubble curtain on for blows 0 100.
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1000 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Bottom Ring

Reading # 1
2700
Reading # 2
2640
Reading # 3
2640
Reading # 4
2670
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
80
80
80
80
2100
2120
2110
2120

13
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
15
14
15
13
15
15
15
12

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Manifold Pressure: Pressure regulated at valve on exit side of the manifold to maintain a constant pressure of 80 psi.
Flow and pressure at aeration pipe are reduced as a result.
30
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1030 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Top Ring

Reading # 1
2980
Reading # 2
3100
Reading # 3
3060
Reading # 4
3070
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
2700
2710
2740
2660

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
70
70
70
70
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Flow and pressure at aeration pipe show constant readindgs.
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1030 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Bottom Ring

Reading # 1
3200
Reading # 2
3210
Reading # 3
3180
Reading # 4
3240
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
70
70
70
70
2990
3080
3060
3020

18
0
17
0
16
0
18
0
18
17
17
18
20
20
18
20

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Flow and pressure at aeration pipe show constant readindgs.
31
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1035 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Top Ring

Reading # 1
3280
Reading # 2
3220
Reading # 3
3360
Reading # 4
3280
Reading # 1
50
Reading # 2
50
Reading # 3
50
Reading # 4
50
3250
3210
3205
3215

17
19
18
18
17
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Flow and pressure at aeration pipe show constant readings. Flow and pressure at the aeration pipes are increased as a
result.
LOCATION
Pile 3
START TIME
1035 hrs
PIPE SECTION
Bottom Ring

Reading # 1
3585
Reading # 2
3605
Reading # 3
3590
Reading # 4
3580
Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
50
50
50
50
3350
3410
3405
3415

22
0
23
0
23
0
25
0
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

Reading # 1
Reading # 2
Reading # 3
Reading # 4
NOTES:
Flow and pressure at aeration pipe show constant readings. Flow and pressure at the aeration pipes are increased as a
result.
32
Depths around PIDP Piles

PIDP Pile Nos. 1 and 2
8 foot radius
North
Northwest
West
SouthWest
South
SouthEast
East
NorthEast
20 - 30 foot radius
31'
33'
34'
31'
31'
31'
31'
31'
North
Northwest
West
SouthWest
South
SouthEast
East
NorthEast
31'
33'
35'
32'
32'
20'
30'
32'
PIDP Pile No. 3

8 foot radius
North
Northwest
West
SouthWest
South
SouthEast
East
NorthEast
20 - 30 foot radius
24'
24'
25'
30'
25'
20'
20'
21'
North
Northwest
West
SouthWest
South
SouthEast
East
NorthEast
33
23'
27'
29'
26'
22.5'
21'
22'
22'

Hydroacoustic Report For PIDP Restrike 0 1263

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Hydroacoustic Report For PIDP Restrike 0 1263

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNDERWATER SOUND PRESSURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESTRIKE

OF THE PILE IINSTALLATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PILES

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1

Table 1 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 1, reported as dB..............................................................................9

Figure 1 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Location of PIDP Piles

DESCRIPTORS USED TO DESCRIBE UNDERWATER ACOUSTICAL TRAITS

Figure 3 Menke MHU1700T Hammer

SFOBB PIDP 2000

RLpeak = 238.9 - 29.6 log(R/10)

(adapted from Greene 2001)

Figure 4 Sound Attenuation Devices Used for the 2000 PIDP

Air bubble ring used for Pile 2

Proprietary fabric air bubble curtain (Gunderboom) used for

Hong Kong Aviation Fuel Transfer Facility

Canada Place Cruise Ship Terminal

SFOBB BUBBLE CURTAIN DESIGN

Figure 5 PIDP Restrike Bubble Curtain

Air bubble curtain system with compressors in background.

Air bubble curtain system in operation during the PIDP

MEASUREMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Peak Sound Pressures and RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Figure 6 Time History - Pile 1

Sound Pressure (dB)

Table 1 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 1, reported as dB

RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Up = upper portion of water column or about 2m below the water surface

Figure 7 Time History - Pile 2

Sound Pressure (dB)

Table 2 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 2, reported as dB

Positions Measured Distance and General Direction from the Pile

RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Positions Measured Distance and General Direction from the Pile

Figure 8 Time History - Pile 3

Sound Pressure (dB)

Data from 1st part

Table 3 Sound Pressures Measured for Pile 3, reported as dB

Positions Measured Distance and General Direction from the Pile

RMS Sound Pressure Levels

Positions Measured Distance and General Direction from the Pile

*NA = data not available due to interference

Bubble Curtain Performance

Table 4 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Sound Pressures Pile 1

Measured with Bubble

Measured with Bubble

* The Biological Opinion (Caltrans 2001) assumed about 10 dB of sound attenuation.

Table 5 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Sound Pressures Pile 2

Measured with Bubble

Measured with Bubble

* The Biological Opinion (Caltrans 2001) assumed about 10 dB of sound attenuation.

Table 6 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Sound Pressures Pile 3

Measured with Bubble

Measured with Bubble

* The Biological Opinion (Caltrans 2001) assumed about 10 dB of sound attenuation.

Marine Mammal Safety Zone

Stop key in cabin pushed

BUBBLE CURTAIN REPORT

INLET FLOW METER READING @ ARETION PIPE (cfm)

INLET PRESSURE (psi)

COMPRESSOR FLOW @ DISTRIBUTION MANIFOLD (cfm)

Bubble curtain on for first 400 blows.

INLET FLOW METER READING @ ARETION PIPE (cfm)