Examination of a New Cross-Hole Sonic Logging System for Integrity
Testing of Drilled Shafts
Samuel G. Paikowsky
Geotechnical Engineering Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts – Lowell
1 University Avenue, Lowell, Massachusetts, 01854, USA
Les R. Chernauskas and Leo J. Hart
Geosciences Testing and Research Inc.
55 Middlesex Street, Suite 225, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts, 01863, USA
Carl D. Ealy and Albert F. DiMillio
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia, 22101, USA
ABSTRACT: Drilled shafts and other mixed or cast-in-place concrete deep foundation elements can be
costly solutions. These foundations usually carry very high design loads, and often serve as a non-redundant,
single load-carrying unit. These conditions have created a need for a high-level of quality assurance and con-
trol applied to each in-place constructed deep foundation element.
The non-destructive testing method, Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL), currently offers the most reliable
technique for assessing the integrity of in-place constructed deep foundation elements. Recent years have
seen progress in CSL instrumentation, taking advantage of the available computer technology. The software
applications, however, have greatly fallen behind, thereby limiting the effectiveness and potential of the CSL
method and deep foundations integrity testing in general.
A new, original CSL testing system by the name of PISA (Pile Integrity Sonic Analyzer) makes use of an
innovative software and data acquisition system, hence representing the state-of-the-art in deep foundation in-
tegrity testing. The PISA has the capability to show real-time graphical information during logging, includ-
ing planar tomography, which can identify the boundaries of a compromised zone within the foundation ele-
ment. The equipment operates completely in a Windows™ graphical environment allowing alphanumeric and
graphical reports to be generated directly into word processing software. The real-time graphical representa-
tion during logging and the ease of reporting enables immediate, extensive on-site evaluation and decision-
making.
The PISA system was evaluated on different construction sites. The case history presented in this paper re-
lates to a class ‘A’ prediction as tests were carried out on shafts in which defects were intentionally planted.
The test results were submitted before the defects locations were known, both presented I the paper. The ob-
tained results demonstrate the ease of use, accuracy of measurements and enhanced capabilities of the PISA.
The systems’ abilities are shown to be superior to any other currently available commercial system.
1 INTRODUCTION Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is a common
testing methods for determining the integrity of in-
Deep foundations integrity testing mostly applies place constructed deep foundation elements, such
to foundations constructed on-site from concrete or as drilled shafts and caissons. A minor variation
grout, such as drilled shafts, drilled mini piles, of this method, called Single-Hole Sonic Logging
pressure-injected footings, and pre-cast concrete (SSL) can also be used on smaller diameter drilled
piles. Drilled shaft foundations usually carry very mini-piles and augercast piles. These methods are
high design loads, and often serve as non- both non-destructive testing (NDT) methods and
redundant, single load-carrying units. The integrity involve generating a sonic pulse with one trans-
testing is required for quality control during con- ducer (transmitter) and picking the signal up with
struction to detect flaws in the pile (e.g. necking, another transducer (receiver). The transducers
cracking, void, poor quality material, etc.) com- typically consist of a geophone or accelerometer.
mon in these cast-in-place concrete piles. As a re- The methods differ only in the number of tests per
sult of the increasing design requirements on these pile and the location/orientation of the transducers
foundations, a need for a high-level of quality as- within the pile.
surance and control has been created. Significant improvements and advances in in-
strumentation, data acquisition hardware, and
computer technology have been made in recent combinations and thereby the resolution of the
years. The software applications, however, have testing zone.
greatly fallen behind and have not taken full
advantage of the existing technological advances,
thereby limiting the effectiveness and potential of
the CSL method, as well as other deep foundations
integrity testing methods (Chernauskas and Pai-
kowsky, 1999).
A new state-of-the-art CSL testing system has
recently been developed that utilizes unique soft-
ware to take advantage of the new hardware (Amir
and Amir, 1998a). This system is called the PISA
(Pile Integrity Sonic Analyzer). The PISA is
based on a lightweight, portable, pen touch, com-
A A'
puter that operates in a Windows graphical envi-
ronment. This system is easy to use and efficient
with regard to its ability to make the collected data
available in a real-time manner. The following
paper provides the basic background theory on the
CSL integrity testing method, a description of the defect
PISA system, and a recent case history including
drilled shafts in which defects were intentionally
fabricated. A - A'
(b)
2 OVERVIEW OF ULTRASONIC INTEGRITY Transmitter Receiver
TESTING METHODS Signal
Path
2.1 Cross-Hole Sonic Logging
(a)
Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is the most
common integrity testing method for drilled or
cast-in-place foundations. A piezoelectric trans-
ducer is used to generate a signal that propagates Figure 1. Typical CSL testing setup showing (a) transmitter
as a sound (compression) wave within the con- and receiver at different depths, and (b) plan view of the CSL
crete, while another transducer is used to detect the tubes with possible test combinations.
signal. Each transducer is placed into a vertical
PVC or steel tube that has been attached to the re- In homogeneous, good quality concrete, the
inforcement cage and filled with water prior to the stress/sound wave speed, C, is around 3,800 m/s
concrete placement. The water acts as a coupling (12,000 to 13,000 ft/s) and is related to the
medium between the transducer and the tube. A modulus, E, and bulk density (unit weight, γ, and
typical tube arrangement and testing principles are gravitational acceleration, g) as follows:
presented in Figure 1.
The source and receiver transducers are lowered
to the bottom of their respective tubes and placed E•g
C= (1)
such that they are in the same horizontal plane. γ
The emitter transducer generates a sonic pulse (on
the order of 10 pulses per second), which is de- If for any reason the condition of the concrete is
tected by the receiver in the adjacent tube. The compromised, the wave speed will be reduced
two transducers are simultaneously raised at a rate relative to that of the sound concrete value. Figure
of about 300 mm/sec (1 ft/sec) until they reach the 2 presents a typical sonic signal for which the
top of the drilled shaft. Typically this process is propagation time between the transducers is meas-
repeated for each possible tube pair combination ured. The vertical axis is the signal amplitude
(perimeter and diagonals). Figure 1b shows the six (microvolts) and the horizontal axis is the time
tube combinations that can be tested (logged) us- (microseconds). The point where the amplitude
ing a configuration of 4 tubes within a drilled begins to rapidly fluctuate indicates the arrival
shaft. Increased shaft diameter calls for a larger time of the signal to the receiver (a.k.a. threshold
number of tubes, which increases the number of time). Since the distance between the two tubes is
known, the wave speed of the concrete between
the tubes can be evaluated by the following rela- tion the transducers in different elevations to cre-
tionship: ate more signals, allowing the development of a
tomographic presentation of the investigated zone.
L The limitations of the method include detection of
C= (2) defects only when they exist between the tubes.
t The testing can be performed only on drilled shafts
for which access tubes were installed. Debonding
The wave speed in equation 2 is only an esti- between the tubes and concrete is common if test-
mate, as the identification of the arrival time, t, is ing occurs long after the concrete placement.
subjective and the distance between the tubes, L, is Testing in fresh concrete is also difficult as certain
known only at the top of the shaft. The signal ar- zones may cure at a lower rate, creating difficulties
rival times can then be plotted with depth to gen- in the interpretation of the threshold time and en-
erate a log for the particular tube combination as ergy. These zones may therefore be interpreted as
presented in Figure 3. In addition to the threshold poor quality concrete.
times, the energy of each signal may also be plot-
ted with depth. This information can be used to
compare signals of one zone to another where
lower energy and/or later arrival times correspond
to a compromised concrete quality and/or defect.
Threshold 1.07 in
Amplitude (volts)
Noise
Time (msec)
Defect
Figure 2. CSL typical testing signal.
Threshold Time (microsec)
De- Transmitter
bonding
Threshold Signal
Path
Receiver
Depth
Defect
Energy
Figure 4. Typical SSL testing set-up showing transmitter and
receiver at different depths.
Defect
Soft
2.2 Single-Hole Sonic Logging
Bottom
Single-hole sonic logging (SSL) is a variation of
Energy (volt-microsec) the direct transmission CSL method in which the
source and receiver are placed in the same tube
Figure 3 Presentations of CSL test results in the form of and the signal travels in a vertical direction (refer
threshold time and energy with depth. to Figure 4). For drilled shafts and caissons, the
method is limited to defects adjacent to the tube
Advantages to this method include the direct as- and is usually used only when a drilled shaft re-
sessment of pile integrity and the ability to posi- quires integrity assessment after construction. Due
to high coring costs, a single hole is advanced (of- zone is detected in this stage and the tomography
ten down the middle) to the bottom of the shaft or option is enabled, the probes are lowered and
slightly below the depth where a defect is antici- raised relative to each other around the suspect
pated. It may also be desirable to perform SSL zone, to further investigate and delineate the area.
during CSL testing to isolate the location of a de- The signals can be examined and adjusted by
fect at a certain depth (i.e. distinguishing whether manually picking the points or using preset algo-
the defect identified using CSL is adjacent to the rithms to automatically determine the first arrival
tube or in between the tubes). Recently SSL has time (FAT) as shown in Figure 7.
been performed within smaller diameter drilled
mini-piles and augercast piles (Amir and Amir,
1998b). The use of SSL in these foundation types
may become more commonplace in the near fu-
ture, as research and experience provide insight for
the most efficient vertical placement of the tubes
to assess the lateral integrity. Brettman and Frank
(1996) describe a comparison between CSL and
SSL tests.
3 THE PISA CSL/SSL TESTING SYSTEM
3.1 General
The PISA (Pile Integrity Sonic Analyzer) is a
modular system allowing for adoption, upgrade
and incorporation of additional integrity testing Figure 5. PISA system components.
technologies. The current integrity testing options
available in the PISA include cross-hole sonic log-
ging (CSL) and single-hole sonic logging (SSL) 4 CASE HISTORY
using CHUM (Cross-Hole Ultra Sonic Module)
and sonic echo (a.k.a. small strain propagation) us- 4.1 Background
ing PET (Pile Echo Tester) module. Additional
modules are currently under development. Four drilled shafts were constructed at the Auburn
In addition to its modularity, two advantages of University in Auburn, Alabama as part of a re-
the PISA integrity testing system over other sys- search study. The shafts are 914mm (36in) diame-
tems include its software and portability. The PISA ter and approximately 11.0m (36ft) long. Each
is the only Windows 95/98 based system and is shaft was equipped with 4 access tubes and various
also compatible with Word 2000. The software is defects were installed during construction. The de-
updated periodically to incorporate new develop- fects were constructed as soil inclusions formed by
ments and algorithms that make data collection, in- sand bags made of a tough material and tied to the
terpretation, and report preparation easier and effi- rebar cage. The cross sectional area of the defect
cient. The PISA is lightweight (only 42.3 N (9-1/2 was based on the measured perimeter of the bags
lb)) and self powered, hence can be easily carried following their installation. The concrete was
around from shaft to shaft or site to site. This fea- poured into a dry hole which was cased the full
ture is also beneficial for air travel. The system can length of the shaft.
be also used as a standard laptop, saving the cost Over a year after construction, Geosciences Test-
and space required for an additional personal com- ing and Research, Inc. (GTR) personnel tested the
puter (PC) when using a dedicated CSL testing shafts using the PISA system and submitted the re-
system. sults to Prof. Dan Brown of Auburn University.
Figure 5 presents a photograph of the PISA sys- The actual "manufactured" defects were then re-
tem, including computer and sensors. As a scale, vealed and comparisons were held between the
the width of the computer screen is 23cm (9 predicted and actual defects.
inches). Figure 6 presents the layout of the pile
screen, where one can enter the pile information 4.2 Detected vs. Planned Defects
and select the tube orientation/locations. Selection Figures 8 and 9 summarize the defects as detected
of the desired tube combinations is accomplished by the PISA testing (on the right hand side) versus
by drawing a line between any two tubes. Real- those planned/manufactured during construction
time graphical presentation of the concrete integ- (on the left hand side).
rity is provided during data collection. If a suspect
Figure 6. Layout of the pile screen.
Figure 7. Data collection screen.
Figure 8. Presentation of manufactured defects with predicted results of PISA CSL testing system for Shaft 4 at the Auburn Uni-
versity test site.
Figure 9. Presentation of manufactured defects with predicted results of PISA CSL testing system for Shaft 9 at the Auburn Uni-
versity test site.
The description of the manufactured defects The challenge of finding the defect seems to be
were for example: "Shaft 4 - soil inclusion at 11 to smaller than its accurate description. The latter,
13ft below the ground surface on the north side however, is of great importance in order to be able
(towards shaft 9), covers 20% of the cross- to conduct structural evaluation of the defected
section." As such, the defects outlined in Figures 8 shaft and hence to assess the need of remedial ac-
and 9 are a reasonable approximation of the tion.
descriptions. In summary, the PISA system represents a new
Shaft 4: Two zones of defects were identified in generation of CSL equipment capable of conduct-
shaft 4 (Figure 8). The center of the upper defect ing non-destructive testing with ease and accuracy
was suggested to be about 0.6m (2ft) above the not available before.
center of the actual defect with overlapping mar-
gins. The area of the defects was correctly identi-
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
fied though the test suggested that it is concen-
trated in two zones which may be the case
The evaluation of the PISA system was possible
following the casting. The lower defect was iden-
with the support of the Federal Highway Admini-
tified in the right location, however was marked as
stration (FHWA). The cooperation of Dr. Dan
approximately 25.6% of the cross-sectional area
Brown of Auburn University enabled the testing of
versus the manufactured defect planned as 10% of
the drilled shafts.
the cross-sectional area.
Shaft 9: Two zones of defects were identified in
shaft 9 (Figure 9). The upper defect was identified REFERENCES
as the right size but at a location approximately
0.6m (2ft) above the center of the actual location. Amir, E.I and Amir, J.M., (1998a), “Testing Piles with Vir-
The lower defect was identified at the right loca- tual Instruments”, Proceedings of the DFI conference,
tion and with the correct size. Vienna, Austria, pp. 4.1.1 - 4.1.4.
Shaft 2: A soft bottom in part of the cross-
Amir, E.I. and Amir, J.M., (1998b) “Recent Advances in Ul-
section was identified in Shaft 2. This was not an trasonic Pile Testing” 3rd International Geotechnical
intentional defect and may have resulted from the Seminar on Bored and Augured piles, Ghent, Belgium.
regular construction process.
Shaft 7: A weaker zone was identified between Baker, C.N., Drumright, E.E., Briaud, J., Mensah-Dwumah,
1.5 to 3.7m (5 to 12ft) along one segment of the F. and Parikh, G., (1992), “Drilled Shafts for Bridge
shaft (tube 2). No intended defect was installed in Foundations”, Final Report Under Contract No.
this shaft. The shaft, however, was laterally loaded DTFH61-88-Z-00040, Federal Highway Administration,
February.
to failure in bending and extensive tension cracks
were expected to be developed on the south side Brettman, T. and Frank, M., (1996), “Comparison of Cross-
around 3.7m (12ft). This information, like all hole and Single Hole Sonic Integrity Logging Methods”,
other information, was provided after the tests re- Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the
sults were submitted. Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles, Orlando,
Florida, September, pp. 698-707.
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chernauskas, L.R. and Paikowsky, S.G., (1999), “Deep
Foundations Integrity Testing: Techniques and Case His-
tories”, Civil Engineering Practice Spring/Summer 1999,
Four relatively small size sand inclusions were in- vol. 14, no. 1, Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Sec-
stalled in two shafts out of four constructed shafts. tion/ASCE, pp. 39-56.
All the defects were identified in the tests con-
ducted over a year after construction. Three out of
four defects were identified in their approximately
correct size, the fourth defect was assumed to be
about 3 times the size of the actual defect. Two of
the defects were also identified within approxi-
mately 0.6m (2ft) of their actual locations.
Overall, the test results of Class 'A' prediction
provided accurate and reliable evaluation. The
tomography feature of the testing equipment cer-
tainly allows an operator to estimate the extent of
the defected zone with a higher accuracy than ever
before.
