ASSESSMENT, REMEDIATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF DRILLED SHAFTS

THROUGH THE USE OF CSL TESTS

Bernardo J. Jiménez Vega, H Solís, Costa Rica, bjimenez@hsolis.com

Edy L. T. Montalvan, PhD, edytemon@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The experience gained during more than 900 Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) tests on drilled shafts
shows the importance of establishing proper project acceptance and repair protocols. Drilled shaft
evaluation is a multidisciplinary task that should not be left solely to the outcome of the CSL test. This
test allows characterizing and delimiting areas of different quality of concrete and it is important that
all the parts understand the difference between flaw and defect. The information presented here is
intended to give a guideline to contractors, inspectors, owners and clients on how to deal with
acceptance and remediation of defected drilled shafts, detected using CSL tests. A data base of flaws is
presented depending on its location, intensity and remediation method. Procedures are presented that
allow the flaws to be analyzed in order to dismiss or classify it as a defect. In many cases, the CSL test
may indicate an anomaly, but by coring of the concrete and analysis of the structural demands and
conditions, the flaw can be classified as non-severe. When flaws are classified as defects, their repair
will depend on the area where they are located on the pile. In this document two procedures are
described for repairing defects depending on its location. For defects in the drilled shaft head area, the
procedure takes into account the interaction between the new and old concrete. For repairing the
middle zone of the drilled shaft by grouting, the major concerns are the difficulty of accessing through
the drilled shaft at deep depths and the communication between boreholes. For defects in the drilled
shaft tip two proposed remediation methods are presented. Finally, tomographies test are presented to
compare the effectiveness of remediation by grouting.

Keywords: CSL test, drilled shaft flaws, drilled shaft evaluation, drilled shaft remediation, grouting

INTRODUCTION

Most public infrastructure projects where drilled shafts are used require some control to ensure that the
finished product meets established quality criteria specifications. In a drilled shaft, unlike for example
a precast concrete element, it is not possible to visually verify if the integrity of the concrete is
adequate, i.e., if there are no voids, dirt or disaggregation of the concrete in the drilled shafts. Due to
this circumstance, it is necessary to use methods to verify the integrity and quality of the concrete.
Commonly used nondestructive tests (NDT), allow identifying, imaging and characterizing areas of
lower quality, that must be analyzed to determine if this difference in quality, affects the expected
performance of the drilled shaft.

The crosshole sonic logging (CSL) tests is the most widely NDT used method for quality assurance of
drilled shaft concrete. Basically, the integrity of the concrete is evaluated on the basis of signal travel
time and signal strength between an acoustic transmitter and a receiver probe that travel the drilled
shaft through access tubes. This arrival time in CSL test is known as First Arrival Time (FAT) and can
be correlated to the concrete strength (Jalinoos et al., 2005). Additionally, a tomograph of the shaft can
be created by interpolation of the CSL test, giving a very graphic delimitation of any affected area and

1
can be used to determine where coring might be conducted or to aid in remediation efforts. For CSL
terminology the reader is advised to refer to the document of Sellountou et al.(2019).

In this paper, a base of more than 900 CSL tests from 3 road infrastructure projects from Costa Rica, is
used to summarize ways of approaching the analysis, repair and acceptance of drilled shafts. The
intention of this work is to provide tools and guidelines for the technical discussion that may occur in
conflicting drilled shafts where CSL tests encounter a flaw.

ACCEPTANCE OF DRILLED SHAFT BASED ON CSL TEST

For any infrastructure project where drilled shafts are used, the evaluation and acceptance criteria for
the drilled shaft must be established before the beginning of the project. One of the methods to
evaluate the integrity of the concrete in the drilled shafts is through CSL tests. The evaluation criteria
of this test vary between agencies and projects and its selection must be made by experienced
personnel. For projects with no experience in these tests, it is recommended to review the criterias
presented by Brown et al. (2018) and DFI (Sellountou et al., 2019). A good evaluation criterion should
specify the parameters used, ranges and number of CSL profiles affected for each concrete rating. For
the analyzed cases in this document, the followed used criterion is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – CSL evaluation criteria.

Arrival time reduction
Concrete rating Commentary (m)
(%)
Good 0-20 -
A flaw its indicated if this range of velocities is present on at least
Questionable 20-30
50% of the profiles at the same depth.
A flaw its indicated if this range of velocities is present on at least
Poor/defect >30
two profiles at the same depth

Any discussion about a CSL result, which classifies an anomaly into a flaw, should be analyzed using
Fig 1. This figure modified form the Brown et al. (2018), shows the scope of NDT tests for the drilled
shaft assessment analysis. These tests should be used for the location, characterization and extent of
any flaw in the drilled shaft, it is outside the scope of the test to classify the flaw as a defect.

The assessment phase begins after a drilled shaft is detected with any flaw. The acceptance or not of
any flaw within the drilled shaft corresponds to a multidisciplinary analysis between the geotechnical
and the structural part and also between contractors and designers, where the consequences of the flaw
in the performance of the drilled shaft are verified.

In many cases, during the assessment/evaluation phase, a delay in the project is created because it is
not possible to continue with the superstructure until it is verified the performance of the drilled shaft
affected due to the presence of the flaw. These evaluations must be carried out quickly and the key to
this is having the information available, which can include: updated structural models, drilled shaft
execution reports, tremie concrete test reports and internal coring reports. This data will allow the
team to perform a forensic analysis to best describe the current condition of the drilled shaft. It is
highlighted that due to the type of project, design-build projects may exhibit faster evaluation times
rather than normal bid projects.

All parties involved in the project must be aware that there may be flaws that do not affect the
performance of the drilled shaft, that is, there are no geotechnical or structural major consequences

2
and the drilled shaft should be accepted in this condition. Also, there must be possibility for any
interest party to demonstrate possible false positives of the test. These two cases will be exemplified in
this paper.

Scope and delimitation of

analysis of NDT test

Fig 1. Flow chart of the evaluation and remediation process, adapted from GEC-10 (Brown et.
al, 2018).

Summary of flaws

The information in this document is based on more than 900 CSL test of three major road
infrastructure projects. Drilled shaft’s diameter vary between 1.0 m (3.3 ft) and 1.2 (3.9 ft), and
lengths varied between 7.0 m (23 ft) and 42 m (138 ft). The geological conditions during the
construction of drilled shafts were variable, predominantly silty clays but also sandy and volcanic rock
conditions were encountered. The data base includes 38 drilled shafts (4.2%) CSL tests that were
constructed using polymer to stabilized the excavation and 26 drilled shafts (2.9%) CSL tests that
temporary casing was used.

Table 2 presents the obtained flaws divided into three categories: flaw relative position, FAT delay,
and remediation method. It is advice for the reader to use the number presented in the table as guide
and not as a trend as projects can vary greatly between contractor practices and geological conditions.
A total of 44 test result in a detection of a flaw inside the drilled shaft, this corresponds to 4.9% of the
CSL tests. Flaws located at the tip represented 57% of the cases, these cases were due to one of the
most frequent errors in the construction of drilled shafts, which is the incorrect cleaning of the bottom
of the excavation. The use of proper tools and methods (clean-out buckets and correct drilling fluids
manipulation) are necessary to ensure that no debris or sediment will be left at the base of the shaft.
Body flaws were the second most common cause found in the CSL test with 36% of the cases. The
presence of these flaws was mostly attributed to problems during the pouring of the concrete, which in

3
several cases were due to problems in the work platform that delayed the placement of concrete
between one truck and another, causing a cold joint. In any project, special care should be given to the
issue of working platforms, especially during rainy seasons, since flaws due to cold joints are rarely
repairable due to their severity. For further information about working platforms the reader should
address EFFC/DFI (2019). Only 7% of the cases indicated a flaw at the shaft’s head, caused by the
lack of concrete overflow over the head leaving at this shaft’s segment dirty concrete with low Vp
velocity increasing the FAT arrival time.

Table 2 – Data base flaw summary.

Flaw position
Drilled shaft position Percentage (Number of cases) Most common causes
Lack of concrete overflow or lack of tremie pipe
Head 7% (3)
movement after casing removal
Problems related to working platforms, delays between
Body 36% (16)
concrete trucks or problems in tremie pipes
Lack of bottom cleanliness or long delay between
Base 57% (25)
cleaning and concrete pouring
FAT delay
Range of FAT delay Percentage (Number of cases)
>100 41% (18)
100-50 27% (12)
50-30 27% (12)
30-20 5% (2)
Type of remediation
Percentage (Number
Remediation Commentary
of cases)
E: assessment analysis 90% of these cases corresponded to drilled shafts with
showed no negative effect on 27% (12) considerable lateral load but low axial loads,
shaft’s performance commonly the flaws were encounter at the shaft’s base
G: remediation by grouting In 60% of these cases, it was necessary at least two
50% (22)
procedure grouting attempts
R: replacement of the 80% of these cases corresponded to shafts with
16% (7)
defected shaft problems encountered during concrete pouring
100% of these cases corresponded to drilled shafts
D: demolition and
7% (3) constructed using polymer and the flaw was encounter
reconstruction of shaft’s head
at the shaft’s head

The FAT delay was separated in 4 categories. FAT delays of over 100% the mean arrival time are the
common detected flaws. A FAT delay>100% means a Vp of concrete less than 1800 m/s (5905 ft/s) in
which the expected concrete resistance is lower than 2.5 MPa (360 psi). With this concrete resistance,
it is probable that the structural resistance of the drilled shaft is more critical than the geotechnical
resistance. The remediation of this type of case involves extensive analysis between different parties
and is the most common type of damage for remediation through the construction of additional shafts.
Flaws that present lower FAT delays (<75%) may be suitable to be repair by means of grouting, for
the data presented in this document more than 50% of the detected flaws were repaired by one of two
stages of grouting. A recommendation made is that when the grouting process is used, a longer time
should be allowed to observe important changes in the CSL assay, it is recommended to wait at least 7
days to get better results. The remediation method must consider the execution time, if the drilled to be
repaired is on the critical route of the project, the addition of more elements can bring a better
cost/effectiveness solution rather than a grouting process that takes longer.

The 100% of the cases with head flaws correspond to drilled shafts that required polymer and casing.
When the casing is removed, the concrete drops in level and the load head decreases, increasing the

4
possibility of the presence of dirt or contamination inside the drilled shaft. This effect is shown in the
Fig 2, where a mixture between concrete and mud (soil with polymer) is observed in the vicinity of the
reinforcement. To avoid this, more concrete must be poured after the casing is removed, so the tremie
pipe must remain within the concrete. In this way, a positive head load is created that allows these
external materials to be pushed and expelled from the drilled shaft.

Fig 2. Mud contamination detected in the drilled shaft during demolition.

EVALUATION OF DETECTED FLAWS

To evaluate the flaws found and determine if they are classified as defects, it is necessary to evaluate
the effect of the flaw on the geotechnical performance and on the structural performance. The person
responsible for this analysis must have a good understanding of the project and the function to which
the drilled shaft is going to be subjected (axial, lateral or both loads).

The analysis must include the scope of the test, in this case CSL, where information on the quality of
the concrete outside the reinforcement cage will not be available. A CSL test may indicate a drilled
shaft with good integrity, but in reality the concrete did not flow out of the reinforcement cage due to
its density. Therefore, given the darkness of information in this area, the project must require the best
practices both in the design of reinforcement cages and in the pouring of tremie concrete, on this
subject it is recommended to consult EFFC/DFI (2018). The flaw evaluation philosophy is that it
should not be based solely on an NDT test and various quality aspects should be considered.

Assessment trough coring

NDT tests are used in project quality verification because they are an indirect but fast source to obtain
a quality result of the drilled shaft. The use of coring in drilled shaft to verify the quality of the
concrete is a direct measure of quality, but it is expensive and time-consuming, so it is generally used
only to corroborate NDT test results, as can be seen on Fig 3 a.

5
There is the possibility that an NDT test will give a false positive result, like the one shown in Fig 3 b,
two or three coring samples on the area with the supposed failure should be enough to determine the
real quality of the pile. Since drilling is a direct measurement, if coring result is redundant, it should be
above the NDT result. Coring analysis must perform a visual inspection of the concrete cylinders, to
be classified as a good concrete, cylinders must come without dirt or foreign materials, segregation,
recovery percentages close to 100% and it must be a solid sound element. If the cylinders meet this
condition, simple compression tests are carried out on the samples. A very important aspect is the care
of the samples during transport to the laboratory to avoid alterations in resistance, it is also
recommended to consider scale effects according to the diameter of the extracted cylinder (Arioz et al.,
2007). If the test results indicate strengths of at least the value stipulated by design, then the integrity
of the concrete in the drilled shaft must be classified as adequate. If the cylinders, although they
appear to be intact visually, but their resistance is less than the design one, the analysis must proceed
to a structural analysis phase considering the resistance found. Coring can also be used to analyzed the
effectiveness of grouting remediation process as seen in Fig 3 c.
Flaw

a) b) c)
Fig 3. Observation results from coring a) Concrete flaw b) False positive c) Interaction between
grout and concrete

Structural analysis of drilled shaft condition

The structural analysis consists of verifying the performance of the drilled with the resistance
conditions encountered. If the structural performance is not affected, nor is the geotechnical one, the
integrity of the drilled shaft can be considered adequate.

6
There are some cases, such as cold joints, that due to the length of the flaw it is not worth performing
the analysis, the Fig 4 shows the results of CSL tests on two drilled shafts with cold joint problems
where the non-continuity of the concrete makes impossible for the drilled shaft of transmitting loads.
In this case, the remediation should focus on the structural part of the foundation cap and, at least in
the cases analyzed, it was always necessary to build other elements.

A drilled shaft interaction graph is made using the stipulated reduction factors of the project (e.g., ACI
or AASHTO). In this graph, the real concrete resistance found in the drilled shaft will be placed,
which. With these conditions, the shaft’s resistance is compared against the axial forces and moments
coming from the structural model corresponding to the detected flaw area. If the demand is less than
the strength, the drilled shaft has adequate integrity. The Fig 5 exemplifies two cases of structural
analysis, in the first case (Fig 5 a) a retaining wall drilled shaft has enough strength to withstand the
demand (low axial load) and was classified as adequate. In the second case (Fig 5b), a bridge drilled
shaft where the found strength is insufficient to withstand the demand (high axial load and moments),
for this case it was necessary to build additional elements. In every case, the deformations due to the
reduction in the concrete resistance should be analyzed for the service load combination.

Fig 4. Examples CSL test of cold joints in drilled shafts.

Not enough resistance

a) b)
Fig 5. Interaction graph for drilled shaft structural analysis a) Concrete resistance classified as
adequate b) Concrete resistance classified as defect

7
REMEDIATION PROTOCOL

The flaws that have been defined as defects must be repaired to guarantee the expected performance of
the drilled shaft. The remediation protocol must be previously defined before the beginning of the
project and it is recommended to adapt it to the technologies available for the project. This section will
detail the repair procedure by injection of cement grout, which was the most used method in the
analyzed piles. For further remediation methods, it is recommended to consult section 17.5 of GEC-10
(Brown et al., 2018).

Flaws at the head of the drilled shaft

The defects in the head are characterized by being the upper areas of the drilled shaft where it is
possible to excavate the ground to access the defective area. For the analyzed drilled shafts, it was
possible to repair head defects up to 3.5 m (11.5 ft) deep.

The repair procedure begins with the definition of the depth of the defect. Subsequently, the
excavation of the material around the drilled shaft must be carried out. Once the exposed drilled shaft
area begins the demolition process by using manual hydraulic or pneumatic concrete demolishers, this
process is illustrated in the Fig 6 a). It is not recommended to use mechanical breakers from
excavators, as their impact force can deform and damage the reinforcement. After the demolition
process, it is necessary to carry out a visual analysis of the conditions of the reinforcement and
sometimes it is necessary to replace segments of reinforcement (especially hoops or spirals), it is
recommended to brush the reinforcement with a steel brush to maintain adhesion conditions. After this
step, a casing is placed around the drilled shaft that guarantees the minimum concrete coverage of the
reinforcement, as shown in Fig 6 b), a concrete tube with the same cross-sectional area of drilled shaft
is often used and it is advisable to fill the extern side with material to provide support to the casing.

For the concrete pouring of the head, consideration must be given to the interaction between the old
and new concrete, therefore, it is necessary to place an epoxy on the horizontal surface of the concrete
that manages to join the old concrete with the new concrete. The pouring of the concrete can be done
with tremie concrete or with conventional concrete using vibrators to guarantee the fluidity of the
concrete in the pile.

Within the analysis prior to this repair, it is recommended not to account the geotechnical resistance of
this repaired section.

Flaws at the body or bottom of the drilled shaft

Flaws in the body or bottom of the pile were the most frequent type in the analyzed piles. Most of
them were repaired by injection of cement grout. In order to grout this material, it is necessary to
borehole the drilled shaft up to the affected area. The first method is by drilling through the CSL
access tubes, this is used for tip defects only. The second way is by coring inside the drilled shaft to
the defected section, this method can be used for body or tip defects. This method can be difficult to
execute for long piles, due to the difficulty of drilling long sections of the drilled shaft without
colliding with the reinforcement. It is recommended to make at least 3 boreholes near the affected area
and it is very important that the borehole communicate, that is, that there is flow between them.

8
 a) b)
Fig 6. Demolition and casing of concrete in the head of drilled shaft.

a) b)
Fig 7. Tomograph comparison of remediation grouting process.

Before starting with the grouting, the drilled shaft must be thoroughly washed with clean water, until
verifying that the water coming out is free of dirt. Once the boreholes have been made, the packers are
lowered to guarantee the pressure in the grout. During the injection, the aim is to push any defective
materials that may be in the drilled shaft from one borehole to another, promoting the expulsion of the
material. The grouting should go through the perforations in one direction. It is important to record the
volumes and maximum pressures reached, which is an indication of the effectiveness of the treatment.
For the analyzed cases, the maximum pressure was always close to 1.4 MPa (203 psi) and the injection
volumes varied between 0.15 and 0.9 m3 (5.3-31.8 ft3).

CSL test comparison after grouting

The effectiveness of a grouting treatment can be compared by using CSL tests. For the same drilled
shaft depth, the conditions before and after grouting are analyzed. In this analysis it is important to
focus only on the affected section and be clear about the initial condition, because due to the drilling
process the adherence between the tubes and the concrete can be affected, creating false positives. The
concrete increases its strength over time, so there is no physical sense to find new defects in more
recent periods.

9
The Fig 7 a) shows a grouting remediation which was adequate to almost completely eliminate the
defects, adjusting within the quality criteria of the project. On the other hand, the Fig 7 b) shows a
drilled shaft that does not exhibit a greater improvement in the quality of the concrete after three
grouting processes. For this case, the injection process had to be abandoned and another element was
built.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present document, the results of analysis and evaluation of 900 CSL tests on drilled shaft were
presented. Of the 900 tests carried out, 4.9% indicated some flaw in the drilled shaft. The most
common flaws were found at the tip of the drilled shaft produced by issues of inadequate cleaning of
the bottom, the defects in the middle of the drilled shaft were associated especially with problems
during the pouring of the concrete were also shown. Problems at the drilled shaft head were the least
frequent, but there was a relationship between these flaws and the use of polymer and/or sleeves. After
the detection of the flaw, drilled shaft evaluation and remediation techniques were demonstrated.

In the evaluation of flaws, two tools were presented to confirm or discard the flaw. The first
corresponded to coring, which is a direct measure of the quality of the concrete and can show false
positives of the CSL test. The second tool is the structural analysis of the concrete conditions found in
the drilled shaft. Two drilled shaft repair procedures were presented, the first used for head defects by
demolition and concrete replacement. The second used for defects in the middle or bottom of the
drilled shaft by grouting. Finally, tomographies of CSL tests were presented to evidence the
effectiveness of the grouting treatment in the repair of drilled shafts.

REFERENCES

Arioz, O., Ramyar, K., Tuncan, M., Tuncan, A., & Cil, I. (2007). Some factors influencing effect of
core diameter on measured concrete compressive strength. ACI Materials Journal, 104(3), 291.

Brown, D.A., Turner, J.P., Castelli, R.J, and Loehr, E.J. (2018). Drilled Shafts: Construction
Procedures and Design Methods, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 10 (FHWA GEC 10),
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 754p.

EFFC/DFI: Guide to Tremie Concrete for Deep Foundations. European Federation of Foundation
Contractors (EFFC) and Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) (2018)

EFFC/DFI: Guide to working platforms. European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and
Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) (2019)

Jalinoos, F., Mekic, N., Grimm, R. E., & Hanna, K. (2005). Defects in Drilled Shaft Foundations:
Identification, Imaging, and Characterization (No. FHWA-CFL/TD-05-003). United States. Federal
Highway Administration. Central Federal Lands Highway Division.

Sellountou, A. E., Amir, J., Canivan, G., Chernauskas, L., Hertlein, B., Kandaris, P., ... & Likins, G.
(2019). Terminology and Evaluation Criteria of Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) as applied to Deep
Foundations. Deep Foundations Institute—PIMS Committee.

10