Round Table 1

Integrity Testing of
Piles

June 18, 2012

Jorge W. Beim
Pile Dynamics, Inc.
•  Must have adequate capacity: assess by
•  Static Load Tests
•  Dynamic Load Tests
•  Dynamic Analysis (Wave equation or Formula)
•  Static Analysis

•  Must have adequate structural strength

•  Sufficient cross section
•  Sufficient material strength
•  Integrity - Lack of major defects
•  how to assess? Focus of this presentation
Integrity - Deep
Foundations
What ?
•  Driven Piles
•  Drilled Shafts (bored piles)
•  CFA – augercast Piles
When ?
•  Test during installation
•  Test soon after installation
•  Test existing foundation (years after installed)
•  Element free from structure ?
•  Element embedded in structure ?
 Simple traditional
methods

Extraction,
Excavation

Visual inspection
•  High Strain Integrity Testing
•  Low Strain Integrity Testing
•  Pulse Echo
•  Transient response
•  Cross-hole Sonic Logging
•  Single-hole Sonic Logging
•  Gamma-gamma logging
•  Thermal Integrity Profiling
All methods have advantages and
disadvantages/limitations
Therefore:
• Important to choose the proper method
• Important to understand and accept the
method limitation
• May need to use more than one kind of
test on the same pile
•  Test uses heavy (1.5% to 2.0% of Ru) hammer
impacts
•  Detects and quantifies changes in impedance
Z = A√Eρ
•  Attach strain & acceleration sensors to pile
12 x 53 H, 36.5 m (120 ft) spliced in
middle. Splice failed and tore flanges.
Extraction confirmed damage.

2L/c

Early
return
 2L/c 2L’/c

consecutive blows at EOD for 43.6 m (143 ft) pile length

Advantages
•  Generally definitive integrity answers
•  Stress information to avoid damage
•  Assesses pile capacity
•  Only integrity method with this ability

Limitations / Disadvantages
•  Best use: uniform Driven Piles (can also be
used with cast-in-place piles)
•  Relatively high test cost (needs impact device)
•  Pile Integrity Testing (time domain)
•  Sonic Integrity Test
•  Impact Echo
•  Pulse Echo
•  PIT, etc.
•  Transient or Impulse Response (frequency
domain) – different way of interpreting the
same data
 Pile Integrity Testing (PIT)
Small hammer
impact device
looks for major defects
Accelerometer
measures response

er
me t
lero

mer
acce

ham
(defect)
 Pile Preparation

Remove fractured or
contaminated concrete
Grind a flat spot to
attach accelerometer
 PIT – (time domain)
Basic Interpretation

Local Defect
Good Pile

Bad
Pile

Local Bulge
Classification of Results
  AA – Good pile, clear toe
  ABx – No defect to Depth x, no toe signal
(long pile, high resistance, major bulges)
  PFx – Probable Flaw at Depth x, toe apparent
  PDx – Probable Defect at Depth x, no toe signal
  IVx – Inconclusive below Depth x due to
Vibrations (machinery, reinforcement)
  IR – Inconclusive Record
 “Pile Profile”
in ideal conditions may estimate pile shape
5: # 13 40 FT BAD
1.55 LB
-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 in/s

0 0 High Pass: 100.0 ft 63.5 Hz

Low Pass: 2.00 ft 3175 Hz
5 5

10 10

15 15

20
20

25
25
30
30
Relative Vol.: 0.96
35 Construct. Vol. 1.00
35 Max Profile: 1.08 at 14.53 ft
40 Min Profile 0.79 at 30.08 ft
40.00 ft (12700 ft/s)
40
x2
45

Toe 45

sign 50
50
al re
55
quir
55
60 ed
60
Magn V 0.076 in/s (0.080) ft diam
Advantages
•  Cost and Time Effective - Test all concrete piles/shafts (by
far the best method in that regard)
•  Finds “major” defects
•  Sometimes can test piles in structure

Limitations / Disadvantages
•  Best use: augercast or drilled shafts
•  Solid section of concrete needed
•  Limited to 30 to 50 L/D
•  Difficult interpretation for very non-uniform shafts
•  Does not distinguish reductions in cross-section from
reductions in material strength
•  Cannot locate defect quadrant
 Low Strain Integrity Test
Hammer:
Pulse Echo: Instrumented Accelerometer
Velocity vs Time for TRM

Transient Response:
Mobility vs Frequency
Determine: Dynamic stiffness
& Characteristic mobility
Pulse echo (time domain)
•  Requires exponential magnification and filtering
•  Subjective interpretation; relies heavily on
operator’s expertise
Impulse response (frequency domain)
•  Works on “raw” data with no enhancements
•  Based on numeric results (dynamic stiffness and
mobility) – less subjective and less dependent on
operator judgment
•  Results depend on velocity-force proportionality –
should be used only as relative indication
•  More sensitive to defects near top
Most popular integrity test
method in many countries
In Brazil, from 1990 to this date:
 More than 120,000 piles tested
 More than 30 systems in use
 Pull
Probes
From
Cross-hole Sonic
Bottom
To Top
Logging
Widely accepted for drilled shafts –
the “standard” for QC in the USA

Top view of shaft

with 4 access tubes

Fill Tubes
with water
emit
One tube for each is re
foot (300 mm) of shaft if co
Transmit Receive diameter
 Survey of State DOT Practice:

94% use CSL

3% use G-G
3% use PIT

Ref: Khamis Haramy, FHWA Denver 2008

 How to find defects ?

Good

Defect

1.  Reduced signal strength ( lower “energy” )

2.  Delayed FAT - First Arrival Time (low wavespeed)
 Cross-hole Data

Signal

Arrival Arrival
 1-2

PDI test shaft

CSL Tomography
Single Hole Sonic Logging

To test smaller diameter

augercast piles
with wave path shown
through concrete

and wave path shown

through water
SSL compares with PIT
for defective CFA pile
MUST use PVC tubes
(could “debond” near
pile top)
bad good
pile pile
Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Advantages
•  Locates defect by depth and quadrant
•  Straight forward interpretation of data
•  No depth limitation
•  Can detect multiple defects; not affected by bulges
•  Can establish criteria based on FAT delay and energy
reduction to avoid false positives
•  Tomography available

Limitations / Disadvantages
•  Requires tubes attached to rebar cage before casting
•  Evaluates inside cage only, not concrete cover
•  Wait minimum of 3 to 7 days prior to test (PIT between 7
and 15 days)
• The probe consists on a source of radioactive material
and a detector of gamma photons separated by
insulating material.
• The probe is lowered and raised inside PVC tubes,
similar to the ones also used in CSL testing.
• During testing the gamma particles are dispersed in
the concrete around the tube, but some particles
return to the tube and can be detected.
• The larger the concrete density the smaller the
particle count in the detector.
• The test is performed continually, and the particle
count is done in regular intervals along the tubes.
Gamma-Gamma Logging (California)
Advantages
•  Gives data on concrete cover
perhaps to 75 mm (3 inch) range
•  Complements CSL testing

Disadvantages
•  Needs many PVC access tubes (3 inch range)
•  Uses radioactive materials
•  Major problem if probe becomes stuck in tube
(long probe vs. bent tubes)
 Thermal Integrity
Profiling
  Evaluate concrete by heat of hydration
 temperature vs. depth vs. quadrant
  Infra-red probe scans via CSL tubes, or
  Thermal wires on cage cast in shaft
  Test reveals anomalies both inside and
outside the reinforcing cage
  Assesses cage alignment
 Minimum cover can be evaluated
 Thermal Testing Timeframe
4000-P Mix Design
4ft Diameter
160
6ft Diameter

8ft Diameter
140
10ft Diameter
Temperature (deg F)

120

100

80
Optimal Testing Window
Acceptable Testing Window
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (hrs)
 80
Shaft Heat Signature

70
Temperature 

60
70-80
60-70
50-60
50 40-50
30-40
20-30

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4

S10
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
34
37
40
43
46
49
 Data Interpretation
Cage alignment Data Interpretation
110 120
Degrees F
130 140 150
Cage Alignment
0

10

15

20 A1
Depth (ft.)

A2
25 AVG

30

35

40

45

50
 Data Interpretation
Local Defect near C2 Data Interpretation
0
90
Degrees F
110 130 150 Local Defect
5

10

15

C1
20 C2 C1
C2
Depth (ft.)

25
Average
30

35

40

45

50
To Test Procedure - probes
Depth
Encoder •  Remove water from tube

•  Insert IR probe into tube

•  Lower probe to collect data

CSL
Tubes (top  bottom)

•  Repeat for all tubes

Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP) - probe testing
R W Harris site – 48 inch x 25 ft shaft

B
3-D Image of Shaft 2-D Thermograph of
underground with Shaft underground
cover loss with cover loss
 Thermal Wires
TAP transmits
thermal data
TAP TAP
to computer

Computer
Transmit Data
offsite via air card

Thermal Wires
Attach to rebar cage
40
How to determine cover?
  Correlate temp. with concrete volume
  Measure temperature “gradient”
  Offset parallel measurement
  Model concrete mix to get the “gradient”
Gradient
 “Gradient”
Position (m)
cage
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

90
190 Tube 6
Normal
Centered Cage
80
170 Temp Tube 1
Highest Measured Temp
70
150
Lowest Measured Temp

Temperature (C)
Temperature (F)

60
130
50

110 Lateral Temp

40
Distribution (model)
90
30
Cage Diameter at Tubes
70 20
Excavation Diameter

50 10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Position (ft)
 Cage Alignment
Position (m)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

90
190 Tube 6
Normal
Centered Cage
80
170 Temp Tube 1
Highest Measured Temp
70
150
Lowest Measured Temp

Temperature (C)
Temperature (F)

60
130
50

110 Lateral Temp

40
Distribution (model)
90
30
Cage Diameter at Tubes
70 20
Excavation Diameter

50 10
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Position (ft)
 Bridge 100718
3 Pier 6-6 Shaft 3
3
Thermal Integrity
Profiling
Advantages - same as CSL plus:
 Evaluates concrete outside rebar cage
as well as inside the cage
vs. depth and vs. quadrant
  Evaluates concrete cover & cage alignment
  Evaluate within 24 hours after casting
(speeds construction)
Limitations / Disadvantages
  Preplan CSL tubes or thermal wires
What to do if a “problem” is found?
Question applies to all tests
•  Compare with other observations
•  Re-test with PIT (trim to good concrete)
•  Re-test with CSL after wait (more curing)
•  PDA test or static test
•  Excavate if near top
•  Core and pressure grout
•  Replace pile
Type of Main use Can also be Advantages Limitations/Disadvantages
test with used with
High strain Driven piles Drilled .Definitive answers . Needs heavy weight
shafts, CFA .No length limit . Cannot detect defect quadrant
. Can quantify reduction . High cost
.Provides additional information: stress and
capacity
Low strain Drilled shafts, Precast . Low cost . Maximum L/D ratio of 30 to 50
CFA concrete . Very fast . Can only detect first major defect
piles . Can sometimes test piles in structure . Difficult interpretation with very
non-uniform piles
. Sometimes gives inconclusive
results
.Cannot locate defect quadrant
Cross-hole Drilled shafts CFA (single- . Locates defect by quadrant . Requires pre-installation of access
hole) . No length limit tubes attached to rebar cage
. Can detect multiple defects . Does not evaluate concrete cover
. Can detect defects close to toe .
. Easier to interpret
. Numeric criteria available – avoids false
positives
. Can quantify reduction using tomography
Gamma- Drilled shafts . Can evaluate concrete cover to 75 mm . Requires installation of PVC
gamma access tubes
. Uses radioactive material
Thermal Drilled shafts CFA . Locates defect by quadrant . Requires pre-installation of access
. No length limit tubes or thermal wires attached to
. Can detect multiple defects rebar cage
. Can evaluate concrete cover and cage
alignment
. Not affected by debonding
. Short wait after casting (24 hours average)
 Conclusions
  All kinds of foundations can have “hidden” defects

  Testing finds major defects (reduces risk)

  High strain (PDA) evaluates integrity for driven piles

  Low strain (PIT) used for augercast or drilled shafts

  AME (not covered here) useful to prevent defects for

augercast

  CSL for drilled shaft evaluates integrity of the concrete core

  Thermal for drilled shaft evaluates cover & cage alignment