Profound
Method Statement Sonic Integrity Testing (Pile Integrity Testing)
Profound BV Limaweg 17 2743 CB Waddinxveen Phone +31 182 640 964 Fax + 31 182 649 664 E-mail info@[Link] [Link]
March 2005 [Link] Msc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without the previous written consent of Profound. In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting parties are subject to either the Standard Conditions of Profound, or the relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted.
Project number : Approved by Initials : :
[Link] MPP
: :
Number of pages Number of Appendices
25
Contents 1 Principles of Sonic Integrity Testing 2 Discontinuities in the pile shaft. 3 Signal processing 4 The Characteristic Signal 5 Interpretation Guidelines 6 Interpretation 7 Pile preparation 8 Placing the Sensor 9 Reliable Testing 10 References 11 Appendix, Influence of hammer blow width 12 Appendix, Influence of soil
3 6 7 9 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 24
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 2 of 25
18-03-2005
Principles of Sonic Integrity Testing
A stress wave (sound wave) is introduced into the pile by means of a hammer blow on the pile head (Fig.1.1). This stress wave travels at the speed of sound ( c ) to the pile toe and reflects back to the pile head (Fig. 1.2). The response of the pile head , as a result of the hammer blow and reflections, is measured with an acceleration transducer. The acceleration is integrated and presented as a velocity signal (v) For each pile at least 3 hammer blows are applied to the pile head and the results are presented as 3 traces in a diagram (Fig. 3). To proof the quality of testing the 3 traces should be similar. The time (T) between the start of the hammer blow and the time of arrival of the reflection from the pile toe is measured. The pile length (L) is calculated with:
Time v T= 2L/c Time c
Hammer blow
Figure 1.1. Introducing hammer blows
Pile toe reflectio reflection
L = c.T/2 when the stress wave velocity ( c ) is known To present the measuring results the time axis (t) is scaled to a length (depth) (l) axis with L= c.t/2. Due to shaft friction the toe reflection might be of small magnitude. To make the reflection visible, the measured signal is amplified. To remove noise from the signals a filter value can be applied.
Depth
Figure 1.2
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 3 of 25
18-03-2005
Blow
Peak value blow
Toe reflection
11.5 [mm/s]
12.2 [m]
Indication pile length
Wave velocity
Length axis
14.2
12.2
Filter value
Amplification
13.9
12.1
Zero drift correction type
Site name
Pile ID Date of Testing
1/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 76
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Program Version Figure 1.3. Result of three hammer blows Pile integrity testing analysis is based on the one dimensional stress wave theory. Reflections generated by impedance changes (discontinuities) travel to the pile top and are recorded and analyzed The impedance Z is defined as Z = A (E. ) In which A = cross sectional area E = modulus of elasticity = density Any change in A, E, or or a combination of them will generate a reflection from an impedance change (discontinuity). Potential causes for reflections are: Pile toe Dimensional changes Soil inclusions Cracks Joints Variations in concrete quality Variations in soil layers Overlap of reinforcement (heavily reinforced piles).
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 4 of 25
18-03-2005
Limitations of sonic integrity testing are: Minor impedance changes are not detected Gradually increasing and decreasing pile diameters can not be detected Curved pile shapes can not be detected Small soil inclusions are not detected Local loss of reinforcement cover can not be detected Thickness of debris layer at pile toe can not be detected
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 5 of 25
18-03-2005
Discontinuities in the pile shaft.
Reflections will occur when discontinuities in the pile cross section or pile material properties are present (Fig.2.1) From the time of occurrence of a reflection the location of the discontinuity can be determined. The sign of the reflection indicates an increase or decrease in the pile cross section or an increase or decrease in pile material quality.
Reflection necking Time v t= 2a/c Time c a a
Reflection bulb Time v t= 2a/c Time
Depth
Depth
Figure 2.1.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 6 of 25
18-03-2005
Signal processing
3.1
Signal amplification
Shaft friction (see Appendix) has a strong influence on the pile integrity testing results and has to be taken into account. The signals measured on the pile top are amplified linearly or exponentially to overcome the reduction of the amplitude of the stress wave while traveling to the pile toe and back.
Velocity at Pile Top
Time
11.8
18.7
[mm/s]
[m]
Signal before amplification
Time
9.9
18.7
Signal after amplification
1x
11000x
Time
10.2
18.7
1/3
10
12 f:1
14
16 exp:1
18
20
[m] sr V2.8
SITE NO_SITE PILE #3_11517
4000[m/s]
Fri Oct 17, 1986
Toe reflection not visible Toe reflection visible
Signal before amplification
11.8 18.7 [mm/s] [m]
9.9
18.7
10.2
18.7
Depth
1/3
10
12 f:1
14
16
18 exp:200
20
[m] sr V2.8
SITE NO_SITE PILE #3_11517
4000[m/s]
Fri Oct 17, 1986
Signal after amplification Figure 3.1, Signal amplification
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 7 of 25
18-03-2005
3.2
Signal smoothing
Discontinuities near the pile top or extending reinforcement will generate high frequency reflections, which mask the global shape of the measured signals. To view the global shape of the signals smoothing is applied. It should be taken into account that by smoothing information about discontinuities is lost. For the final interpretation and presentation of the signals, smoothing should be reduced to a minimum .
10.3 15.5
[mm/s]
[m]
9.4
15.5
Reflection of serious defect near pile top
11.0
15.5
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 2K
2.5 4000[m/s]
7.5
10 f:1
12.5
15 exp:20
17.5
20
[m] sr V7.0
Wed Mar 28, 2001
Figure 3.2, Unsmoothed signal
10.3 15.5
[mm/s]
[m]
9.4
15.5
Information about defect got lost
11.0 15.5
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 2K
2.5 4000[m/s]
7.5
10 f:8
12.5
15 exp:20
17.5
20
[m] sr V7.0
Wed Mar 28, 2001
Figure 3.3, Smoothed signal
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 8 of 25
18-03-2005
The Characteristic Signal
To differentiate between a change in soil resistance and a pile discontinuity, the SIT signal from a test pile is compared to a "characteristic signal" deemed to be representative of similar piles in similar soil conditions on site. (The characteristic signal can either be an average of a number of piles on site or the SIT signal of a reference pile chosen prior to testing.) If the test signal is different than the characteristic signal, then any impedance changes are due to the changing pile impedance and not characteristic of the site. Changes not found in the characteristic signal require further analysis to determine the cause.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 9 of 25
18-03-2005
2.5 [mm/s] 3.2
17.4 [m] 17.4
2.8 [mm/s] 2.4
18.0 [m] 18.0
3.6
17.3
2.6
18.2
4/3 PILE 4
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 5
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
3.5 [mm/s] 3.9
18.3 [m] 18.2
2.3 [mm/s] 2.5
18.2 [m] 18.0
3.2
18.2
3.7
18.5
4/3 PILE 6
2.5 5 7.5 4000[m/s]
10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 7
2.5 5 7.5 4000[m/s]
10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
1.7 [mm/s] 2.6
18.2 [m] 17.9
2.4 [mm/s] 2.0
17.6 [m] 17.6
2.5
17.9
2.6
17.6
4/3 PILE 8
2.5 5 7.5 4000[m/s]
10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 9
2.5 5 7.5 4000[m/s]
10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
2.5 [mm/s] 2.6
18.2 [m] 18.3
2.1 [mm/s] 1.4
18.5 [m] 18.6
2.2
18.3
2.8
18.5
4/3 PILE 10
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 11
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:50 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
Figure 4.1 , Example of piles constructed by a similar installation method, in the same ground conditions, of similar age and having the same length.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 10 of 25
18-03-2005
2.5 [mm/s] 2.3
17.9 [m] 18.0
1.6 [mm/s] 1.5
18.2 [m] 18.2
2.5
17.9
2.2
18.2
4/3 PILE 31
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 32
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
1.3 [mm/s] 0.8
18.2 [m] 18.5
2.2 [mm/s] 2.0
17.7 [m] 17.7
1.3
18.3
2.1
17.7
4/3 PILE 33
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 34
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
1.6 [mm/s] 1.6
18.3 [m] 18.3
1.9 [mm/s] 1.9
18.5 [m] 18.5
Pile deviating from Characteristic Signal
1.5
18.3
1.5
18.5
4/3 PILE 35
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 37
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
1.4 [mm/s] 1.4
17.7 [m] 17.6
1.7 [mm/s] 1.0
17.7 [m] 17.6
1.3
17.9
1.1
17.6
4/3 PILE 38
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
4/3 PILE 39
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 4000[m/s] f:7 exp:20 Thu Sep 16, 1999
[m] te V6.1
Figure 4.2, Example of pile with signal deviating from the characteristic signal
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 11 of 25
18-03-2005
Characteristic Signal
3.8
17.9
[mm/s]
[m]
Signal of pile 29
1/3 SITE SITDEMOWIN PILE 29
2.5 5 4000[m/s]
7.5
12.5 15 f:7 Thu Sep 16, 1999
10
17.5 20 22.5 exp:20
[m] te V6.1
Figure 4.3 , Example of a SIT Signal corresponding with the characteristic signal
Characteristic Signal
1.4 17.7
[mm/s]
[m]
Signal of pile 38
1/3 SITE SITDEMOWIN PILE 38
2.5 5 4000[m/s]
7.5
12.5 15 f:7 Thu Sep 16, 1999
10
17.5 20 22.5 exp:20
[m] te V6.1
Figure 4.4, Example of a SIT Signal deviating from the characteristic signal
111
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 12 of 25
18-03-2005
Interpretation Guidelines
Test at least 20 % of the piles on site, with a minimum of 10 at several locations on a site. Never be satisfied testing only piles which appear suspect. Determine the characteristic signal for piles of the same type on a site. The characteristic signal from the site or group average should be compatible with that for other piles of the same type, and should generally correspond with the majority of piles tested on a particular site. The characteristic signal can be established intuitively or made by averaging a number of pile results together, excluding any piles which deviate from the norm. Compare the characteristic signal with the available soil data. Try to understand the causes of deviationsmost often a change in pile cross section caused by soft layers, fill materials, voids in ground, old foundation bases, entry into hard layers, casing lengths, or deliberate pile base enlargements. Note: If a pile enters a rock material, damping will be very high because of greatly increased shaft friction and this will show as an apparent increase in cross section and there will be no reaction from the pile toe.
If possible, try to determine the pile length from the characteristic signal. Carry out individual pile interpretation using all individual signals. Flag as "suspect" signals with important deviations from normal. Determine the level and type of deviation from normal and physically examine the pile. Note: Be aware that three dimensional effects will influence the signals for pile diameters larger than 0.4m.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 13 of 25
18-03-2005
Interpretation
For interpretation six classes are distinguished Class 1 Pile OK Class 2, Pile head problem Class 3, Discontinuity reducing the nominal impedance of the pile shaft (The nominal impedance represents normally the impedance at the pile top) Class 4, Pile seems too short Class 5, Pile seems too long Class 6, Deviating or no pile toe reflection Examples of results for each class are presented below
11.5 [mm/s]
12.2 [m]
14.2
12.2
13.9
12.1
2/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 76
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:10 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.1. Class 1. Pile good, length OK,
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 14 of 25
18-03-2005
12.2 [mm/s]
12.6 [m]
13.6
12.6
13.1
12.6
2/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 36
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.2 Pile head problem, Class 2 Possible reason, crack, necking, low material quality.
8.1 [mm/s] 12.1 [m]
8.7
12.1
8.2
12.1
1/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 40
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.3. Class 3. Reflection from discontinuity at 1.5 m from the pile head. Possible cause, crack, necking, low material quality.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 15 of 25
18-03-2005
10.0 [mm/s]
9.9 [m]
9.4
9.9
8.9
9.9
2/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 19
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.4. Class 4. Pile too short, reflection at 10m, should be 12m Possible cause: made too short, broken, heavily cracked or serious necking at 10 from the top.
9.9 [mm/s] 13.1 [m]
14.9
13.1
13.2
13.0
2/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 81
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.5. Class 5. Toe reflection too late. Possible cause: Pile made too long, lower material quality, pile younger than other piles,
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 16 of 25
18-03-2005
7.0 [mm/s]
12.2 [m]
12.4
12.2
12.3
12.2
2/3 0 SITE 14032-acc PILE 93
2 4 3800[m/s]
10 12 14 f:3 exp:20 Mon Feb 09, 2004
16
[m] te V7.2
Figure 6.6. Class 6. No clear toe reflection Possible cause, large friction, deviating material properties at pile toe
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 17 of 25
18-03-2005
Pile preparation
Driven piles: Cast-in-situ piles: All piles:
Trim pile top if cracked Remove soft pile top to sound concrete Cut away overbreak or overspill at ground level. Pile tops must be clean, though not necessarily flat and smooth
Figure 7.1 Example of pile top with sound concrete
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 18 of 25
18-03-2005
Placing the Sensor
Place the accelerometer with a small amount of Pietoplast to the top of the pile, ensuring that the sensor is vertical. Choose a relatively flat, off-centre spot and press with hand weight. (The Pietoplast helps transfer the signal and damp the resonance from pile to sensor.) Do not position the sensor close to the location of impact. Note: If the pile top is not easily accessible, the accelerometer can also be attached to the pile shaft.
Figure 8.1 Example of placement of transducer
Acceleration Sensor Pietoplast
Figure 8.2 Example of placement of transducer
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 19 of 25
18-03-2005
Reliable Testing
The requirements for reliable testing include: test at least 20 % of piles on site, with a minimum of 10 for the highest confidence, test all piles use proper hammer with a blow length of 1 m or less (see Appendix). record at leas 3 similar signals per pile process all signals in a similar way, with minimal filtering and optimal amplification determine characteristic signal check characteristic signal with soil investigation data (see Appendix) check signals that deviate from the characteristic signal perform qualitative interpretation use all available information Follow the guidelines If necessary, perform quantitative interpretation with integrity testing signal matching using TNOWAVE (SITWAVE). If there are still doubts, excavate the pile, do coring, or conduct a load test (DLT, STN, SLT) or reject the pile.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 20 of 25
18-03-2005
10
References
1. Ulrich, G., Stocker, M., (1983), Integrittsuntersuchung an prparierten Betonpfhle, (Integrity Testing Research on Prepared Concrete Piles), Symposium Messtechnik im Erd- und Grundbau, Germany 2. Reiding, F.J., Middendorp, P., P.J. van Brederode, 1984, A digital approach to sonic pile testing. 2nd International Conference on Stress Waves, The Hague, Netherlands, Balkema 3. Fleming, K, Reidng, F.J., Middendorp, P, 1985, Faults in cast in place piles and their detection. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Structural Faults and Repair, The Institution of Civil Engineers, Westminster London. 4. Middendorp, P., Reiding, F.J., 1988, Determination of Discontinuities in Piles by TNO Integrity and Signal Matching Techniques, 3rd International Conference on The Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles, Ottawa, Canada 5. Starke, W.F., Janes, M.C., 1988, Accuracy and Reliability of Low Strain Testing, 3rd International Conference on The Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles, Ottawa, Canada 6. England, M., 1991, A guide to Low-Strain Integrity Testing , Report Cementation Piling and Foundations Ltd, Field Data Acquisition Department, United Kingdom. 7. ASTM D5882-96 (1996) Standard Test Method for Low Strain Integrity Testing of pile, American Society for Testing and Materials 8. Turner M.J., (1997) Integrity Testing In Piling Practice, CIRIA Report 144 9. German Society for Geotechniques (DGGT) (1998), Recommendations for Static and Dynamic Pile Tests , 10. Chow, Y.K., Phoon, K.K., Chow, W.F., (2004) Three-Dimensional Stress Wave Analysis of Pile Integrity Tests, 7th International Conference on The Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 11. Seidel, J.P., Tan, S.K.,(2004), Elimination of the Rayleigh Wave Effect on Low Strain Integrity Test Results. 7th International Conference on The Application of Stress Wave Theory on Piles, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 21 of 25
18-03-2005
11
Appendix, Influence of hammer blow width
Reference:: Profound report 01-PROF-B0566, SIT Users day. 21 March 2001 (In Dutch)
Pile 9, Reference pile, no defects
Pile 2, with 49% cross section reduction cut
16.3
15.2
[mm/s]
[m]
18.6
16.3
Hammer blow width 0.75 m
16.7
16.3
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 9
2 4200[m/s]
8 f:3
10
12
14 exp:20
16
18
[m] te V6.1
Wed Mar 28, 2001
SIT Results Reference Pile 9, Hammer blow width 0.75m
10.3 15.5
[mm/s]
[m]
9.4
15.5
Reflection defect
11.0 15.5
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 2K
2.5 4000[m/s]
7.5
10 f:1
12.5
15 exp:20
17.5
20
[m] sr V7.0
Wed Mar 28, 2001
SIT Result, Pile 2 , Hammer blow width 0.75m. Defect visible
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link] Page 22 of 25 18-03-2005
5.2
15.9
[mm/s]
[m]
5.2
15.8
Blow length 2m
5.8
15.8
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 9
2 4000[m/s]
8 f:1
10
12
14 exp:5
16
18
[m] te V6.1
Wed Mar 28, 2001
SIT Result, Reference Pile 9 , Hammer blow width 2 m,
9.9 16.2
[mm/s]
[m]
10.2
16.3
10.4
16.2
1/3 SITE NO_SITE PILE 2
2 4000[m/s]
8 f:1
10
12
14 exp:5
16
18
[m] sr V6.1
Wed Mar 28, 2001
SIT Result, Pile 2 , Hammer blow width 2 m, Defect not visible!!!!
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 23 of 25
18-03-2005
12
Appendix, Influence of soil
The shaft friction reduces the amplitude of the stress wave. Stiff soil layers cause a higher damping than soft layers. This means that the detection of the pile toe reflection (pile length) has a limit. For very stiff clays only the first 5 m from the pile head yield information about the pile shaft. Pile toe reflections from 80 m have been detected in soft soils. In the Netherlands the pile toe reflection can be measured up to 35m.
7.0 18.3
[mm/s]
[m]
8.9
18.4
Pile toe reflection, no amplification
9.2 18.4
1/3 SITE PILE_1 PILE #1_11114
4 4000[m/s] av:0
10 f:1
12
14
16 exp:1
18
20
[m] no V2.8
Tue Oct 14, 1986
Precast pile tested before driving
11.8
18.7
Influence from soil layers
[mm/s]
[m]
9.9
18.7
Pile toe reflection, amplification 100x
10.2 18.7
1/3 SITE PILE_1 PILE #3_11517
4 4000[m/s] av:0
10
12 f:5
14
16
18
20
[m] sr V2.8
exp:100
Fri Oct 17, 1986
Precast pile tested afer driving
Soil layers changes act as discontinuities along the pile shaft and resulting reflections are visible in the signals. For this reason it is essential that soil investigation results are included in the interpretation. Reflections from a greater depth are weaker and to make them visible the signals are amplified exponentially with time.
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link] Page 24 of 25 18-03-2005
22.6
12.8
[mm/s]
[m]
25.0
12.8
25.1
12.8
1/3 SITE PREFAB ZOETERMEER PILE 78
0 av:0
2 4200[m/s]
6 f:3
10
12 exp:50
14
[m] te V6.1
Mon Sep 27, 1999
. Integrity testing results of cast in situ pile
Figure Test result cast in situ pile
. Integrity testing results and relation with soil investigation result. (CPT)
Method statement Sonic Integrity [Link]
Page 25 of 25
18-03-2005
