Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting

Cathy Aimone-Martin and Brent Meins

Aimone-Martin Associates, LLC, Socorro, NM

Abstract

A comprehensive instrumentation program was implemented at the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on
Staten Island, NY during proximate underwater rock blasting in 2014. Forty-two blasts took place over a
4-week period to deepen the 1200-ft (366 m) Berth 3 from -45 ft (-14 m) to -50 ft (-15 m) MLW to
accommodate Post-Panamax vessels. Approximately 86,000 yd3 (65,752 m3) were blasted 120 to 9 ft
(37 to 2.7 m) from the wharf to a total depth of -57 ft (-17.4 m). Pre-blast planning included developing
and implementing a comprehensive monitoring plan and setting vibration and strain limits to protect the
wharf. The plan outlined methods to measure vibrations on five corners of four concrete deck sections,
on five concrete-filled pipe piles just below the pile cap near deck corners, and in bedrock adjacent to
pile sockets. Water overpressures were measured near instrumented piles for 19 blasts closest to the
wharf. A total of 19 geophones were secured to the wharf structure and buried 12 ft (3.7 m) in drilled
holes. Blasting seismographs used to record vibrations were connected in series to allow time correlated
velocity measurements within each wharf section. Seismograph event records were remotely
downloaded and time histories were integrated to determine differential displacements and global strains
over deck section and pile caps. Data analysis and reporting occurred within 10 minutes after blasting to
allow on-going drilling and blast preparation.

Dynamic analysis of reinforced pile shear is limited to seismic loading from earthquakes and little
information is available in the published literature regarding high frequency, close-in blasting effects on
terminal docks. Of greatest concern to project designers and terminal operators were blast-induced shear
strains in pile cap regions and strains in concrete decks. This paper describes instrumentation and strain
analyses of a wharf to show that extremely close-in, high amplitude ground motions up to 46 in/s (1068
mm/s) resulting in peak rock displacements of 0.12 in (3.04 mm) at predominant frequencies averaging
200 Hz had little or no impact on the structure due to the lack of time required to transfer blast energy
into the structure.

Maximum deck elongation and bending strains were 15.5 and 9.7 -strains, respectively, while
maximum strain across the pile cap was 435 -strains. Pile strains correlated with high frequency (over
300 Hz) peak water overpressures measuring up to 368 psi (2.54 MPa) as well as low frequency in-rock
peak velocities.

Introduction
The Howland Hook Marine Terminal operated by the New York Container Terminal (NYCT) on Staten
Island, NY is being modernized for the next generation of Post-Panamax container ships which requires
deeper water and larger container cranes. The Terminal location is shown in Figure 1. The NYCT is
upgrading its wharf in combination of the Army Corps of Engineers dredging project to deepen the main
shipping channels in New York Harbor, thereby permitting larger vessels to enter the ports. Underwater
rock blasting was required along approach waterways in the Arthur Kill and at Berth 3 to allow passage
of deeper draft ships. Berth 3 comprises four reinforced concrete deck sections connected with pile caps
to 24-inch (610 mm) and 36-inch (914 mm) diameter concrete-filled steel pipe piles to support four large
container handling gantry cranes.

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 1 of 10
 Figure 1 Location of Howland Hook Marine Terminal

This paper describes the instrumentation program designed for the 1200 ft (366 m)-long Terminal Berth
3 during close-in underwater rock blasting that took place 120 ft (37 m) to 9 ft (2.7 m) away from the
wharf. A total of 19 geophones were mounted on dock section corners, at the top of corner pipe piles,
and placed in drilled boreholes in the rock adjacent to piles. PCB Piezotronics 138A underwater
pressure sensors were suspended in front of piles at dock corners closest to each blast. In-rock velocity
and water pressure measurements were correlated with pile and dock motions evaluated in terms of
strain. Computed strains were compared with recommended strain limits for dock construction
materials.

Forty-two blasts took place over four weeks in November and December of 2014 to deepen the Berth
from -45 to -50 ft (-14 to -15 m) of depth MLW. A total of 86,000 yd3 (65,752 m3) of rock were
excavated. Blast holes 4.5 inch (114 mm) in diameter were drilled 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m) deep. Drill
hole patterns ranged 8 by 8 ft (2.4 by 2.4 m) to 10 by 12 ft (3 by 3.7 m) and holes were loaded with 32 to
82 lb/delay (14.5 to 37.2 kg/delay). Shot sizes varied from 9 to 110 holes.

Instrumentation Plan for Wharf

An instrumentation and monitoring plan developed prior to blasting included suggested guidelines for
vibrations and strains induced in the wharf structure to ensure concrete cracking did not occur.
Seismograph instrumentation of the four dock sections of Berth 3 is shown in the plan view of Figure 2
and includes views of the pile supports. Tri-axial in-rock, pile-mounted, and dock-mounted geophones
are noted. Telemetry-enabled seismographs were connected in series using over 5000 ft (1524 m) of
cabling for time-correlated recording of blast-induced motions within each wharf section. Time-
correlated response of each section was important for strain analysis of wharf structure components
while remote

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 2 of 10
 (a)

(b) (c)

Figure 2 Instrumentation of 19 geophones on the four sections of the wharf including in-rock, dock-
mounted, and pile-mounted geophones (a), side view of wharf looking southwest showing the water-
side (right) and shore side (left) (b), and typical water-side view of pile closest to blasting (c)

monitoring made it possible to commence drilling and loading blast holes for continuous blasting
immediately after each blast.

Five in-rock geophones and five pile-mounted geophones, each potted for underwater use, were placed
at the ends of the wharf and at each section joint in between. Dock-mounted sensors were placed at the

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 3 of 10
two corners of each dock section along the water edge. One additional geophone was placed at the
shore side corner of deck section 1. No other sensors could be placed on the shore side of any other
section because the wharf was still in use during the time of excavation and obstruction of the crane
operation on tracks was not allowed.

In-rock sensors were inserted 12 ft (3.7 m) into drilled holes between the wharf and line-drilled holes.
Pile-mounted sensors were strapped to the upper pile below the wharf deck as shown in Figure 3(a).
Dock-mounted geophones shown in Figure 3(b) were affixed to the concrete deck surface with brackets.
Multiple seismographs for each dock section, batteries, and cellular modems were housed in weather-
proof boxes with solar panels.

When the monitoring team was present during close-in buffer blasting, underwater pressure gages were
deployed adjacent to two piles that were the closest to the blasting. PCB Piezotronics 138A underwater
pressure sensors, shown in Figure 4, were secured to an anchor line and suspended at the mid-height of
the 50 ft (15 m) water depth. Pressure sensors have a maximum range of 1000 psi (6.9 MPa) and a
resonant frequency of 1000 kHz. Pressure time histories were recorded at a sample rate of 100 kHz.
(a) (b)

Figure 3 Potted geophone strapped to pile below wharf deck (a) and dock-mounted geophone affixed to
the concrete deck(b); drill barge in background

Figure 4 Fluid-encased tourmaline pressure gage suspended from anchor line adjacent to piles

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 4 of 10
Vibration and Strain Criteria
Blasting was conducted in three phases: test, production, and buffer, each with different measurement
limits. During test and production blasting, compliance limits were determined using in-rock borehole
geophones placed adjacent to the pile supports. Peak particle velocity (PPV) limits of 10 in/s (254 mm/s)
and 25 in/s (635 mm/s) were imposed during test and production blasting phases, respectively. The 25
in/s (635 mm/s) limit represented a minimum factor of safety of eight for cured concrete cracking
limits based on observations presented by Oriard (2002).

Buffer zone blasting took effect once blast holes came within 45 ft (13.7 m) of the closest pile and
outside the row of line drilled holes 10.5 ft (3.2 m) from the outside dock-edge piles. A strain criteria
was developed for buffer zone blasting based on peak differential displacements computed from time-
correlated velocities measured using geophones mounted on corners of each dock sections and strapped
to the pile tops just below the deck (e.g. below the pile caps). No particle velocity criteria were in force
during buffer blasting. Wharf deck flexure was considered and tensile and bending strains were
computed for the dock sections closest to the blasting. Horizontal shear strain on the pile where it
entered the pile cap in the deck was also computed.

Figure 5 illustrates the four different modes of flexure. In-plane shear deformation is shown in Figure
5(a) where differential horizontal motion between the shore side and the water side of the dock section
in a direction parallel with the shore creates tension along the diagonal of the section in the concrete
deck. Figure 5(b) shows motion parallel with the shore, but differences between the two water-edge
corners of the dock create tension in the deck concrete along the water edge. The side view in Figure
5(c) illustrates out-of-plane vertical motion at the water edge near the blasting creating bending strains
with the deck acting as a cantilever section extending from the shore support. For compliance, the
computed strains for these three flexure modes were compared to the tensile cracking limit of cured
concrete and a factor of safety was applied. A cracking limit of 3000 -strain was assumed for concrete.
This is conservative as it is derived from static loading rather than transient, dynamic loading
represented by blasting. The compliance limit was taken as 750 -strain which represents a factor of
safety of four.

Pile cap shear shown in Figure 5(d) was considered to be the most crucial strain evaluated on the pile at
the base of the pile cap. The blast-induced strain was calculated from differential motions between the
dock-mounted sensor over the pile and the pile-mounted sensor just below the cap. This shear acts over
the entire cross section of the pile is compared to the shear capacity of the pile. The capacity includes
contributions from the steel pipe, the concrete filling, and the longitudinal and shear reinforcing steel.
Two different pile sizes were instrumented and included 24 in (610 mm) and 36 in (914 mm) diameter
piles. Based on the material strengths and geometries, the two piles were estimated to have shear
capacities of 1869 and 1475 -strain, respectively. Applying a factor of safety of four, the allowable
blast-induced shear strains were set at 467 and 369 -strain for the 24 in (610 mm) and the 36 in (914
mm) diameter piles, respectively.

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 5 of 10
 (a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Figure 5 Modes of flexure and associated strain including diagonal elongation (a), water edge
elongation (b), out-of-plane vertical bending (c), and pile cap shear (d)

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 6 of 10
Results
Summary measurements for vibration and underwater pressure along with computed pile cap strains are
given below.
Production blasts Buffer blasts
Maximum Average Maximum Average
In-rock velocity, in/s (mm/s) 16.5 (419) 2.1 (53.3) 46 (1068) 4.9 (124.5)
Pile cap strain, -strain NA 435 71
Water pressure, psi (MPa) 193 (1.3) 98 (0.68) 368 (2.54) 89 (0.61)

Three close in blasts exceeded the 25 in/s (635 mm/s) criteria without adverse effects to the concrete
dock based on the high frequencies of ground motion averaging 200 Hz. Strains computed for deck
concrete tension and bending were considered to be low. Bending strain did not exceed 15.5 -strain
along the dock northwest side shown in Figure 2(b). Along the front edge, the maximum bending strain
was 0.82 -strain. Tensile strains along the diagonal and water edge did not exceed 4.3 and 9.7 -strain,
respectively.

Comparison time histories in terms of in-rock velocity, underwater pressure, and pile cap differential
displacement for a buffer blast are shown in Figures 6 through 8 to demonstrate the effects of water
pressure and in-rock vibrations on pile cap differential displacements and strain. The pile was 24 in (610
mm) in diameter with an allowable strain limit of 467 -strain. The peak transverse velocity of 14.9 in/s
(378 mm/s) with a peak frequency of 25 Hz occurred just after 0.3 s. Peaks in the water pressure time
history of Figure 7, not precisely time correlated with pile or rock motions, occurred between 0.2 and
slightly after 0.3 s. The maximum water pressure, occurring just before 0.2 s, was 115 psi (0.79 MPa) at
a peak frequency of 439 Hz. The pile and dock time histories shown in Figure 8 (top), used to compute
pile cap strain, were time-correlated with in-rock time histories. The upper pile peak displacement was
0.026 in (0.660 mm) and maximum time-correlated differential displacement was 0.0293 in (0.7442
mm). This resulted in a pile cap shear strain of 407 -strain and is below the 467 -strain limit.

The upper pile motions were affected by both the low frequency in-rock vibrations and the high
frequency underwater pressures as indicated in Figure 8. Multiple upper pile displacement peaks
corresponded with water pressure peaks that likely resulted from partially confined detonations.
However, the highest displacement occurred at the time of the low frequency in-rock transverse peak for
the example given.

Attenuation of in-rock vibrations

In-rock velocity measurements were plotted against scaled distance to develop the attenuation model
given in Figure 9. At scaled distances less than 4 ft/lb1/2 (1.81 m/kg1/2) the attenuation slope is -0.414.
At greater scaled distances, the attenuation rate changed to -1.57. A low-slope attenuation model is
typical of ultra-close in blasting in Manhattan as experienced by the authors since 2010. Recognizing
that close-in attenuation may have a different rate is important to the blaster for buffer blast design
where protection of the wharf is critical.

Pile cap shear strain distance relationship

The relationship between scaled distance and pile cap strain can be beneficial to the blaster for the
design of underwater blasts near wharfs. This is demonstrated with the attention model for pile cap
strain given in Figure 10. The use of this model, specific to Howland Hook pile construction, allowed

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 7 of 10
the blaster to adjust charge weights to keep pile cap shear strain below the capacity at a given factor of
safety for varying blast distances to the wharf.

Figure 6 In-rock velocity time histories for radial and transverse components

Figure 7 Underwater pressure time histories adjacent to the in-rock and pile measurements

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 8 of 10
Figure 8 Displacement time histories for the dock and upper pile (top) and differential displacement
(bottom) used to compute pile cap shear strain

Figure 9 Two-part velocity attenuation of in-rock vibrations

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 9 of 10
Figure 10 Pile cap strain attenuation as a function of scaled distance for Howland Hook Terminal piles

Summary and Conclusion

Underwater blasting for the deepening of a container terminal berth was conducted adjacent to the
Howland Hook Marine Terminal at distances ranging from 120 ft (37 m) to 9 ft (2.7 m). Maximum in-
rock vibrations and underwater pressures measured adjacent to wharf piles were 46 in/s (1068 mm/s)
and 368 psi (2.54 MPa), respectively. Pile displacements were affected by both in-ground vibrations and
underwater pressures. Maximum shear strains computed at pile caps were 467 and 369 -strain for the
24 inch (610 mm) and the 36 inch (914 mm) diameter pipe piles. No crack damage to the dock or pile
connections occurred from close in blasting.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Steve Tobin of Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting, Co., LLC, John
Tognazzi and Edward Jimenez of Contract Drilling and Blasting LLC, and Doug Anderson, of Parsons
Brinkerhoff.

References
Oriard, L.L., 2002, Explosives Engineering, Construction Vibrations and Geotechnology,
International Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, OH (pp. 432-433)

Copyright 2016 International Society of Explosives Engineers

2016G - Strain-based Instrumentation for Marine Terminal Rock Blasting 10 of 10