Integrity Assessment of

Deep Foundations:
Principles and Limitations
Presented by Brent Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Prepared by Garland Likins, P.E., M.ASCE
Pile Dynamics, Inc.

Distribution of the webinar materials outside of your site is prohibited. Reproduction of the materials and pictures without a written permission of the 
copyright holder is a violation of the U.S. law.

Brent Robinson, Ph.D, P.E.

• Involved with testing of deep foundations since 1997

• Vice President, Pile Dynamics, Inc.
• Vice President, GRL Engineers, Inc.
• Active in technical committees for ADSC, TRB and PDCA

1
For a foundation to be adequate
• Must have adequate capacity: assess by
• Static Load Tests
• Dynamic Load Tests
• Dynamic Analysis (Wave equation or Formula)
• Static Analysis (caution: be very conservative)

• Must have adequate structural strength

• Sufficient cross section
• Sufficient material strength
• Integrity - Lack of major defects
• how to assess? Focus of this webinar

It is obvious why we test              
‐ we cannot afford failures –
Testing reduces risk

Remediation is very expensive ! 4

2
 Prof. Mike O’Neill indicated 20% of shafts
have defects, and “since these flaws
are identifiable by NDE, they are, by
definition, not ‘minor’ ”

20% of shafts tested by CALTRANS

were rejected

O’Neill & Sarhan, 2004, “Structural Resistance Factors for

Drilled Shafts Considering Construction Flaws”,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 125

Percentage of Shafts with “Anomalies”

37% Middle,
10%
Mid 1/3
11% 38%
Top 1/3
44%
Bottom 2D, Top 2D, 58%
32% Bottom 1/3
45%

Billy Camp, S&ME Inc. Jones & Wu, Geotechnology, Inc.

Southeast USA
“Crosshole Sonic Logging of South
Carolina Drilled Shafts: A Ten Year
Summary” - Presentation to ADSC
Expo 2012, San Antonio March 2012
Missouri and Kansas
“Experiences with Cross-hole Sonic
Logging and Concrete Coring for
Verification of Drilled Shaft Integrity”,
ADSC GEO3 Construction Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Technical
Conference, Dallas Nov 2005 6

3
 Augercast pile failed static test
due to defect 7

Integrity ‐ Deep Foundations
What ?
• Driven Piles
• Drilled Shafts
• 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 ?
How ?
• Use indirect nondestructive testing (NDT) methods

4
What NDT tools are available?
• High Strain Integrity Testing
• Low Strain Integrity Testing
• Pulse Echo / Transient response
• Automated Monitoring Equipment
• Cross-hole Sonic Logging
• Single-hole Sonic Logging
• Gamma Gamma Logging
• Thermal Integrity Profiling
• Parallel Seismic
• Parallel Inductive

Let’s take brief look at each 9

Visual Extraction
inspection

10

5
 High Strain Integrity Testing
• Driven Piles can be assessed during construction
• Test uses pile driving hammer impacts
• Adjust procedures or driving criteria
to avoid high stresses or damage
• Preparation: attach sensors to pile
strain and acceleration

ASTM D4945
11

BN 455
β = 90 30 inch PSC
16.5 inch void

2L/c 143 ft length

BN 475
β = 76

BN 477
β = 48

2x/c

6
12 x 53 H, 120 ft spliced in middle.
Splice failed and tore flanges.
Contractor insisted pile was OK.
Extraction proved otherwise.

Early return

2L/c

13

BN 20

BN 65

CSX 34 ksi
CSB 40 ksi

BN 1376

LE 85 ft EX‐123

7
High Strain Integrity Testing
Advantages
• Generally definitive integrity answers
• Stress information to avoid damage
• Assesses pile capacity at same time
• Only NDT method with this ability
Limitations / Disadvantages
• Best use: uniform Driven Piles
• Driven pile integrity usually not of concern
• Relatively high cost

15

Particularly difficult to visually inspect  
cast‐in‐situ drilled shafts or augercast piles

Indirect NDT methods can “see” down the pile

16

8
 Low Strain Integrity Testing
• Pile Integrity Test ASTM D5882
• Sonic Integrity Test (time domain)
• Impact Echo
• Pulse Echo

• Transient Response (frequency domain)

• Application: solid concrete sections

(augercast piles and drilled shafts)

17

Pile Integrity Testing (PIT) 
Small hammer looks for major defects
impact device
Accelerometer
measures response

(defect)

ASTM D5882 18

9
 Pile Preparation

Remove fractured or
contaminated concrete
Grind a flat spot to
attach accelerometer

19

Normal test 800 mm drilled shafts

(pile top “free”)
L = 25 m   (L/D = 31)

Good Pile

Bad Pile

Exponential signal amplification

20

10
 Failed static test often prompts testing

Static test failed to

hold design load
( S.F. < 1 )

Soils: loose silty sand;

N=1 at 25 ft

21

Defect sometimes further down pile “We excavated and I could stick my
hand all the way to the middle of the
pile and pull out handfuls of soil.”

22

11
 Good pile with local bulge
at about 25 ft and clear toe

Major defect
near top

Excavation reveals
23 neck

Testing pile in structure

Tests : pile length 54 ft

24

12
 Low Strain Integrity Testing
Advantages
• Cost Effective
• Apply to any or even all concrete pile/shaft
minimal pile preparation
• Finds MAJOR defects
• Sometimes test piles in structure

Limitations / Disadvantages
• Best use: CFA/ACIP or drilled shafts
• Solid section of concrete needed
• Limited to 30 to 50 L/D
• Difficult interpretation if highly non-uniform
• Cannot locate defect quadrant
25

Automated Monitoring Equipment

• Test during CFA / ACIP installation

• Low incremental volumes

(structural defects) cause
most CFA / ACIP failures

26

13
 Siegel and Mackiewicz, “Failure of Axially Loaded Augered Cast-in-Place
Piles in Coastal South Carolina”, Proc. Pan-Am Conf., Boston, June 2003.

Grout
ratios
1.46 OK
4 of 5 CFA piles failed 1.51 Fail
req’d ultimate 1600 kN 1.41 Fail
 structural failures 1.33 Fail
during static loading. 1.47 Fail
( confirmed by PIT )

27

250

200
.

150
pressure psi

100
Normal
50

0
1
19
37
55
73
91
109
127
145
163
181
199
217
235
253

271
289
307
325
343
361
379
397
415
433
451
469
487
505

Grout line Pressure

250 versus Time
200

150

100

50
Unstable ‐ missed 8 pump strokes
0
1

23

45

67

89

111

133

155

177

199

221

243

265

287

309

331

353

375

397

419

441

463

485

507

529

551

573

28

14
 Incremental volume vs depth during CFA install
1. PIR Computer
2. Depth Monitor
3. Grout Pressure graphical readout
4. Magnetic Flow Meter guides crane operator to
2 more uniform pile

1
3 4

DFI “Augered Cast-In-Place Piles Manual” Section 1.3

“grout volume placed for each increment of depth is the
single most important installation control used during
ACIP pile construction.”

GEC#8 requires AME with 
flowmeter and 2 ft resolution
AME produces very uniform piles
2000 piles (18 inch O.D.)

OK

Geotechnical Engineering Circular (GEC) No.8 – “Design and

Construction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles”, April 2007, prepared
by Dr. Dan Brown et al for FHWA;

15
Automated Monitoring Equipment
Advantages
• Documents installation
• Determines incremental volume vs. depth
(recommended 2 ft increments)
• Preventing defects

Limitations / Disadvantages
• Only use: CFA/ACIP
• CFA rig needs some instrumentation
• Still needs a site inspector

31

Cross-hole Sonic Logging

• Tests only the core of drilled shafts
• Can find multiple defects
• Can locate defect by quadrant

ASTM D6760

32

16
 Pull Probes CSL                              
From Bottom
To Top Cross‐hole Sonic Logging

Top view of shaft

with 4 access tubes

Fill Tubes 
with water

One tube for each

foot of shaft diameter
Transmit Receive

33

CSL tests every

tube combination

34

17
 Cross‐hole Analyzer

Signal

Defect

Arrival Energy Arrival

Defect

Defect

How to find defects ?

Good

Defect

1. Reduced signal strength ( lower “energy” )

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

36

18
 Canary Wharf Testing

Pile 462 (7-1)

37

Top Anomaly

Shaft was  Top Anomaly
rejected

Concrete placed through water for

top 10 ft because of a tremie problem.

19
Repaired by pressure grouting
1 39

Bottom Anomaly

Minimal or No Recovery

40

20
 CSL Tomography

Useful only when some profiles have an anomoly
41

Rating Guide
Relative Energy Reduction

12dB
9dB

A B C

0
0 15% 30%
First  Arrival Time Delay

42

21
 Proposed guidance
Category B:
1. Rule out debonding (flood pile top)
2. Retest after longer wait time
3. Tomography
4. Consider depth location and # of affected profiles
Category C:
1. Rule out debonding (flood pile top)
2. Retest after longer wait time
3. Tomography
4. Consider depth location and # of affected profiles
5. excavation if near ground surface 
6. core drilling if deep location (pressure grout, etc)
7. other test (low strain, high strain)
8. repair or replacement 43

“Debonding”
 Weakening of bond between tube and concrete
 Almost always relatively near top
 Lateral impact on tube
 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion difference
•Concrete & steel – 12 x10-6/oC;
•PVC 50 x10-6/oC
 To minimize:
 Use steel access tubes
 fill tubes with water ASAP

 To mitigate: flood shaft top with water

44

22
 Initial test 30 min later

“Debonding”

Test after
flooding top
Avoid PVC tubes  of shaft
whenever possible

Shaft 2 (C-1)
cast May 4,
CSL May 12
(8 days)

PVC tubes

Shaft 2 (C-1)
cast May 4,
CSL May 15 Other shafts with steel 
(11 days) tubes had no problems
Recommendation is 
Tubes
removed
to use steel tubes

23
Bleed water channel effect

Know the situation

of the test shaft

Canary Wharf Testing

Pile 448 - large shell defect

48

24
Cross-hole Sonic Logging
Advantages
• Checks concrete quality inside cage
• by depth and by quadrant
• Tomography available for complicated cases
Limitations / Disadvantages
• Best Use: Drilled Shafts
• Needs access tubes (steel tubes preferred)
• Wait min 3 days prior to test (7 days preferred)
• Cannot evaluate concrete cover outside cage
• Debonding, bleeding are issues
• unnecessary coring
49

Single-hole Sonic Logging (SSL)

To test small diameter piles

with wave path shown
through concrete

and wave path shown

through water

PVC tubes required
50

25
Single Hole Testing ‐ example
914 mm diameter 
Brettman and Frank 1996

sand bag ring covers 66% of section

Note: all defects are    
completely surrounded 
by the access tubes
51

SSL of samples with full and half cross sections

Full Half

52

26
 Single Hole Testing

ASTM D6760 – 5.2.2 For Single hole tests, the access ducts
must be plastic tubes. Testing must therefore be performed
as soon as practical since plastic tubes are prone to
debonding issues. Because the generated pulses travel
through the concrete around the access duct, unless a
defect is massive and very near the duct, the defect
may not be detected by this method.

Pile Dynamics does NOT recommend SSL tests

53

Gamma Density Logging

Advantages No ASTM
• Gives data on concrete cover
perhaps to 3 inch range
rad.energy halved every 2 in
• Compliments CSL testing

Disadvantages
• Very local range (maybe 4 inch - 100 mm)
near PVC tubes
• Radioactive materials (must retrieve probe)

27
Thermal Integrity Profiling
 Evaluate concrete inside and outside cage
ASTM D7949
Cement
Quantity
Shaft Concrete
Serviceability Temperature
versus depth
Strength during curing
Durability at cage

Cover

low local temperature caused by either
1. Local shaft radius reduction (e.g. low cover)
2. Low cement content   (e.g. weak concrete)
55

28
 THERMAL WIRE® cables

TAP Data Logger
Thermal Wire

Shaft Heat Signature

80

70
Temperature 

60

50

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13

58
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
34
37
0
3
6

29
 Shaft Heat Signature

80

70
Temperature 

60

50

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13

59
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
34
37
0
3
6

Shaft Heat Signature

80

70
Temperature 

60

50

40

30 S46
S37
S28
20 S19
1
4
7

S10
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31

S1
34
37
0
3
6

30
 8.4 ft

8 ft
17 ft 17 ft

16.1 ft

61

Temperature “roll‐off” in top 
and bottom one diameter 1 62

31
 Toe Correction
Temperature (F)
Correcting for end effects 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Hyperbolic tangent curve fitting  80

avg
85 toe
tanh
90

Depth (ft)
95

100

105

110

63

Over pour Concrete

70 90 110 130 150

0
Average
10
Grnd Surf

20
TOS

30 WT

40 BOC
Depth (ft)

50 TOLime

TOR
60

BOS
70
Effective
80 Diam. Truck volume and
Theoretical depth after each truck
Diam.
90 can establish the
100
effective diameter for
each shaft segment.
0 2 4 6 8 10 No Correction for
Shaft Diam (ft) Tremie filling /
volume

64

32
 Over pour Concrete
Method Shaft Temperature (deg F)
70 90 110 130 150
0
Average
10
Grnd Surf

20
TOS

30 WT

40 BOC
Depth (ft)

50 TOLime

TOR
60

BOS
70
Effective
80 Diam.
Theoretical
90
Diam. Average temperature is
related to average radius
100

0 2 4 6 8 10 No Correction for
Shaft Diam (ft) Tremie filling /
volume

65

66 inch diameter shaft - Cleveland

CSL looks only

inside the cage TIP can look outside cage also
and estimate the shaft profile
66

33
66 inch diameter shaft - Cleveland

TIP can look outside cage also

and estimate the shaft profile
67

66 inch diameter shaft - Cleveland

TIP can look outside cage also

and estimate the shaft profile
68

34
 Iowa test shaft – August 2014

Concrete prisms–
5% of X‐section

Clay spoils –
7% of X‐section

Tube 6

72 inch nominal diameter

Iowa test shaft  After peak time it is 
harder to see defects
Top 15 ft – 78 inch dia. 78”
Rest of shaft 72 inch
6 72”

Optimum time 
to see defects

11:12 hrs 19:33hrs 43:52 hrs

Peak temperature One day past peak

35
 South Carolina test shaft ‐ Sept 2014
Defects planned at Depth below top  
• 4ft   (soil bags – 15% of section)
• 21ft (soil bags – 15% of section) 

58’  1.68 m dia.
66” 
Dia. 1

60” 5
44.5’ SC DOT  1.52 m dia.
Dia.
Sumpter SC

16 hours after end of pour – Max temperature  34 Hrs
clearly see planned defects Defects less visible

5 & 1

5 & 1
58’
66” 
Dia.

44.5’
60”
Dia.

South Carolina test shaft

36
 Washington DOT project
November 2015
10 ft diameter shaft 
8.5 ft diameter cage

Core near wires 7 and 8

35oF diff.

“Drilled Shaft Acceptance Criteria Based upon Thermal Integrity 
Profiling”, Piscsalko, Likins, Mullins, DFI Annual Conference, 2016

Thermal Integrity Profiling

Can tell very early if shaft is OK or defective
Wisconsin Project

Pile cored: “Good, clean concrete 
above and below a 6 inch void”
(Due to tremie problem)

2 hours 4.5 hours 8 hours 18 hours

@ half‐peak
Obvious local reduction (serious defect) 

37
 Bottom of Shaft defect example

casing

42”
42”

rock 36”
36”

Verified toe defect – cored, hydroblasted, then grouted 

Bottom of Shaft defect example

casing
Post grouting
42” at peak temp
42”

rock 36”
36”

Verified toe defect – cored, hydroblasted, then grouted 

38
4 ft dia shafts – Michigan

4.5’

dia

bad good 4’

77

1                                              6
Sweden Barrette – 4 x 23 x 60 ft
1.2 x 7 x 18 m

12                                            7
Tremie sections removed 
1, 12 at 15 and 9 m
Cage shifted toward end 
of wires 1 and 12
Unusual roll‐off on 6 (7)
1, 12

1, 12

39
 Augercast pile 
with defect

One Thermal Wire® cable 
on center bar 
easily detects defect

Inclination/alignment 
not quantifiable

Los Angeles – 18 inch augercast pile – July 2017

Pile Diameter in inches
0 10 20 30
0

10

20
Depth in Feet

30

40
measured
peak temp
50

60

70
TIP provided area versus depth to properly convert 
embedded strain data to force for a static load test

40
 Thermal Integrity Profiling
Advantages
 Test early after casting (speeds construction)
 12 to 100 hours (depends on diameter)
 Evaluates concrete quality, cover & alignment
 Evaluates area versus depth (calipers)
 Not susceptible to debonding, bleeding
 Only reports significant defects

Limitations / Disadvantages
 Use: drilled shafts, augercast piles, barrettes
 Preplan thermal wire cables
 Can test only during early curing
81

Why evaluate unknown foundations?

• Scour (public safety of ~80,000 bridges in USA)

• Re-use for new construction
• Modification of use

82

41
Unknown Foundations
How to test them?
• Pile Integrity Test
• Parallel Seismic
• Parallel Inductive

83

Pile Integrity Test

Low Strain

Accelerometer attached to pile side

during testing with structure in place
84

42
 Measurement with one 
accelerometer is often not sufficient.

85
85

FDOT Bridge Duval County, Florida
46 cm (18 “ ) square  concrete piles
Pile: BENT 11 PILE 4 - 3: # 357
0.38

0.19

0.00

-0.19

x5
-0.38 0
18.90 m (4000 m/s)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 m

V↑
12

16

18.9
m

Answer: 18.9m Liang, Webster and Bixler, Recommenations on Two Acceleration 

Measurements with Low Strain Integrity Test, International 
Foundations Congress and Equipment Exposition, 2018: Orlando, FL

43
 Parallel Seismic Test
Time (ms)
1 3 5
0
5
hydrophone
10
15
D ep th (ft)
20
25
30
35
40
87
45

Parallel Inductive Test – Case History
 Settlement at PA Bridge Pier
 Foundations: HP10x42 piles
 Metal detector - Steel piles only
 Boreholes placed close to
pile cap - 18 inch max distance

88
88

44
Parallel Seismic-Parallel Inductive
Advantages
• Best application: unknown foundations
• Determine unknown length

Limitations / Disadvantages
• Detecting defects unlikely
• Requires borehole near test pile
• Parallel Inductive – steel piles only

89

NDT Assessment of Integrity

Application PDA PIT AME CSL GGL TIP PS PI

Driven steel piles 1

Existing steel piles 2 3 3

Driven concrete piles 1 2

Existing concrete piles 2 3 3

Drilled shafts 3 3 2 2 1 3

Augercast piles 2 1 3 2 3

1 - Best Advantages and Disadvantages of

2 - Better each method are given at conclusion
3 - Possible of each method’s presentation

90

45
 Cost Considerations
• High strain tests require help by contractor with
pile hammer or drop weight
• Low Strain tests – test 10 to 100 piles in one day
with minimal assistance
• AME – instrument the ACIP/CFA rig
• CSL – needs access tubes -
potentially test several piles per day
• GGL – nuclear regulations. Needs site calibration
• TIP – thermal cables cost less than CSL tubes
minimal time to look at temp vs depth
• PS / PI – needs close boring installed near @ pile

91

Conclusions
 Testing finds major defects; reduces risk of failure
 Many drilled foundations have anomalies
 Low strain (PIT) for augercast or drilled shafts
 AME helps prevent defects for augercast piles
 CSL evaluates core integrity of drilled shafts
 GGL evaluates very nearby cover of drilled shafts
 Thermal - tests concrete quality, core, cover & align
 PS / PI for unknown foundation – find length only
 Multiple test methods on same pile helps confirm
(e.g. PIT plus CSL or Thermal)
 High strain (PDA) for integrity of driven piles
92

46
 Questions

Thanks for your attention

Garland Likins, P.E.

Pile Dynamics, Inc.

engineer@pile.com

For further study:

www.pile.com/Reference

47