GSP 158 Contemporary lssues in Deep Foundations

Defect Analysis for CSL Testing

Garland Likins', P.E., M.ASCE, Frank Rausche ', PhD., P.E., M.ASCE,
Karen Webster', P.E. and Anna Klesney" E.I.T., A.M.ASCE

ABSTRACT: Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) has become a common method to

evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts. However, the interpretation of test
measurements by this method requires some judgment and experience. Many
previous proposals rely solely on the arrival time, or wave speed. A proposed method
which takes into account both arrival time and signal strength is presented. If defects
are detected, then in some cases a tomography analysis may be helpful to further
quantify the result. The situations where tomography is useful will be discussed.
Recommendations are given for the type and amount of data required for a
tomography analysis. This discussion is illustrated with a case history of a test shaft
with purpose built defects to demonstrate the advantages of these evaluation methods.

INTRODUCTION
Drilled shafts are an option for deep foundations. Since they often have larger
diameters, they usually carry large loads and are relatively few in number compared
to a driven pile foundation to support the same total load. Therefore, the integrity of
each shaft is critical to the overall performance of the structure, and good construction
procedures and supervision improve quality assurance (O'Neill and Reese, 1999).
Unfortunately, such "inspection only" has proven to be inadequate to assure quality.
Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is widely used to evaluate the concrete and shaft
construction quality of drilled shafts, and its use has been rapidly expanding (O'Neill
and Reese, 1999). State Departments of Transportation are increasingly relying on, in
addition to available information on installation, the CSL testing for acceptance or
rejection of drilled shafts for their projects. The CSL test results search for changes
in concrete wave speed, which is attributed to changes in concrete quality or strength
due to the presence of a defect. The defects identified by CSL include but are not
limited to lower quality concrete due to mixing with drilling slurry, honeycombing,
necking and soil intrusions, and soft toe conditions.

1
President. Pile Dynamics. Inc .. 4535 Renaissance Parkway, Cleveland OH 44128,
PH: (216) 831-6131. email: [email protected]
2
President. GRL Engineers, Inc .. 4535 Renaissance Parkway, Cleveland OH 44128
3
Engineer, GRL Engineers. Inc .. 9912 Colvard Circle. Charlotte NC 28269
4
Engineer, GRL Engineers. Inc., 4535 Renaissance Parkway, Cleveland OH 44128
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

O'Neill and Sarhan (2004) in a survey of over 10,000 shafts reported detection of
"flaws" in about 20% to 25% of aJI shafts using various Non-Destructive Evaluation
(NOE) methods such as Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL) or Gamma Gamma
Logging (GGL), and assert that "since these flaws are identifiable by NOE, they are,
by definition, not 'minor."' They further noted that 20% of the shafts tested by
CAL TRANS were rejected. From this survey, they found the most probable location
for a flaw is in the upper 5 shaft diameters, which is critical structurally but
fortunately the easiest to repair by excavation or other means. Obviously, their study
demonstrates the necessity for good construction inspection, but also for post
construction NOE inspection of the shaft to assure its integrity.

CSL TESTING METHOD

The CSL test is performed on drilled shafts with access tubes installed during
construction, or cored after construction. The recommended number of tubes for a
shaft is at least one tube for each 0.3 meter of shaft diameter, with ideally a minimum
of 4 tubes. The tubes may be either steel or PVC, but must be filled with water
during curing to insure proper bonding of the tube to the concrete, and during testing
to facilitate transmitting the signal. During the CSL testing, a transmitter probe is
lowered into one of the access tubes while a receiver probe is lowered simultaneously
into a second access tube. Both probes are centered in the tubes by flexible
"centralizers", which have the added benefit of providing a cleaner signal by
eliminating the receiver rubbing the tube. The transmitter probe generates ultrasonic
vibration pulses which travel from the transmitter through the concrete to the receiver
which converts this vibration back to an electrical signal. The probes are typically
placed at the bottom of the access tubes and then simultaneously pulled to the top.
The signals are transmitted and recorded typically every 50 mm and the locations of
the individual probes are separately recorded by digital encoders. The test is repeated
for each tube pair combination, or "profile", to look for defects in different quadrants
of the shaft. The test is well described in ASTM 06760 (2002).
The cost of access tubes and even the cost of CSL testing are modest compared to
the cost of the shaft itself, particularly for larger shafts. Installing access tubes in
every shaft allows testing any shaft should doubts arise during its installation, and the
mere fact that a shaft could be tested often will lead the contractor to more careful and
better construction practices since a failed test might result in a rejected shaft.

CSL EVALUATION
While the testing procedure for CSL is relatively well defined, the appropriate
method for interpretation of the results is not as well defined and improves over time
due to advances in theory and software. The most common criterion for shaft quality
assesses the first arrival time (FAT). First arrival time (FAT) may be determined by
when the signal first exceeds simple amplitude thresholds, or preferably by using
special advanced image processing tools. The wave speed of the concrete, which is
related to concrete strength, can be calculated from the tube spacing divided by this
first arrival time. Another indicator of concrete quality is the signal strength.
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

Integrating the absolute value of the signal for a defined time results in the signal
"energy." Low energy is usually the result of a defect or poor concrete quaJity. As
seen in Figure la, the signal strength is large and the well defined first arrival time
occurs relatively early compared to the signal in Figure J b, from a location of a
known defect. The data presented here is from a special test shaft constructed with
known defects for the purpose of furthering CSL development. The first arrival time
for this defect is not as well defined, and engineeringjudgment is then helpful.

.
--------------·-- - --------~--------------------------------------------
Figure la (top): signal at J 0 m depth (top) at location of good concrete

---------------------~--------------~-------------------------------------
Figure lb (bottom): signal at 7 m depth (bottom) at location of known defect
(vertical scale is normalized "signal strength")

FAT (or derived wave speed) and the received signal "energy" both indicate relative
quality of the concrete between the transmitter and the receiver. Unfortunately wave
speed alone cannot be used as an absolute indicator since the tubes are often not
parallel, particularly for PVC tubes. Since arrivaJ time also varies with tube spacing,
FAT is usually assessed by comparing it to FAT in a nearby zone of good concrete.
Therefore, looking for relative increases in FAT within relatively short distances
along the shaft length is the generally accepted method of locating areas of concern,
often called "anomalies".
In Figure 1 b, the obvious deJay and signal reduction results from the purpose built
defect, created by inserting a substantial piece of Styrofoam within the reinforcing
cage, thus blocking the direct signal path. The small signal is likely caused by signal
travel outside the cage with reflections from the concrete-soil interface. The engineer
can use judgment to manually override the automatically selected FAT in any CSL
testing system (and is required for systems with manual only selection ability), since
any FAT selection is subject to selection of the image processing control parameters.
In Figure I b, arguments can be made for either a slightly earlier selection, or a
considerably later selection. The relative energy can influence the engineer's
judgment when deciding how aggressive to be on the selection of FAT. An early
"aggressive" or later "conservative" selection of FAT approach may be taken.
GSP 158 Contemporary Jssues in Deep Foundations

Whether an aggressive or conservative approach is taken will affect the FAT, but will
have little influence on the relative energy. Therefore, relative energy can be a good
tool for assisting the engineer in FAT selection. In the present example, a later
conservative selection seems appropriate for the known defect. However, even the
very earliest aggressive selection would clearly indicate a defect. In this case the very
low relative energy is due to the reduced signal transmission in the general region;
signals travel not only on the direct path but also indirectly through a bulb or cone
due to particle refractions. When part of the full signal transmission path zone is
blocked by a defect, as in this case, the resulting energy clearly reflects this defect
condition. Low energy can alternatively be due to poor quality concrete. Repeating
the CSL test after a longer waiting period may be helpful if the concrete was not
sufficiently cured at the time of the first CSL test. If the second test after a much
longer curing time confirms the earlier test, then the anomaly is real.
Once the FAT and signal energy/strength reduction have been determined for the
entire profile length, the shaft integrity may be evaluated with the following scale:

(G) Good - FAT increase 0 to 10% and Energy Reduction < 6db
(Q) Questionable - FAT increase JO to 20% and Energy Reduction « 9db
(P/F) Poor/Flaw - FAT increase 21 to 30% Q!. Energy Reduction 9 to 12 db
(PID) Poor/Defect- FAT increase> 31% or Energy Reduction> 12db

Flaws (P/F) should be addressed if they are indicated in more than 50% of the
profiles. Defects (PIO) must be addressed if they are indicated in more than one
profile. Addressing a flaw or defect should include, at a minimum, an evaluation by
tomography if the area of concern is localized, and/or additional measures such as
excavation, core drilling, or pressure grouting. Defects or flaws indicated over the
entire cross section usually require repair or shaft replacement. This scale, based on
the author's experience, adapts a common scale used by many State departments of
transportation, separates the more marginal Flaw from the more serious Defect, while
assigning actual numerical values to the Energy Reduction rather than current USA
practice of vague statements about energy. Both French (2000) and Chinese (2003)
national standards use numerical values of Energy Reduction when evaluating CSL.

DEFECT ANALYSIS
After data collection, the engineer must compare the processed results with the
rating scale and present a report. When multiple shafts are tested, particularly for
shafts with many tubes creating multiple profiles, an automatic evaluation technique
is helpful to summarize the results. Since tubes are often not parallel and sometimes
not even straight, a method that follows the general FAT trend improves finding the
location of local defects. This process can be accomplished with "filters" that take a
running average as a "baseline." Using the average of typically 75 consecutive data
samples at the typical 5 cm vertical resolution represents the trend for the local 3.75
m of shaft length. If the actual FAT compared with this moving baseline is
significantly increased, or the energy significantly reduced, compared with its
baseline and user input limits, an anomaly is defined at that depth location.
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

Figure 2 shows the analysis for tube combination 3-5 for the same test shaft with
purpose built defects. The "waterfall diagram" at the right presents a "nesting" of the
data. Sections of low color intensity, such as at l , 7 and I 0.5 m depths, indicate
relatively low signal strength. The left edge of the waterfall maps the FAT. The
processed data at the left in Figure 2 displays the computed wave speed (thick line)
and the relative energy (thin line) plotted on a log-energy graph, with lower values to
the right. The horizontal dashed lines identify locations of peak concern based on the
FAT increase limit of 10% and energy reduction limit of 6 dB. With the proposed
rating scale, the FAT increases of 29, 28 and 12, and energy decreases of 7.3, 9.4, and
7.5 dB for approximate depths of l, 7 and 10.5 m respectively would rate the upper
two anomalies as Poor/Flaw, and the lower one as Questionable. The 9.4 dB at 7 m
might cause an engineer to judge the local FAT selection more conservatively and
might easily result in a Poor/Defect rating.

!--
C> C>

------~-·
J
...
?
1] ' f
1
j, .
..
i§.,'!
0 I -- ---- ___ (_____,
... .,

J
i---
~
~

::!

ewv~·~~l
{__
low
::!
I
Figure 2: CSL "waterfall" diagram in right, processed results in left (wave speed
heavy left line, energy thin right line)
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

TOMOGRAPHY
Although CSL data can be evaluated for each tube combination profile, combining
and reviewing all available profiles leads to the best engineering evaluation. If a
defect is found at the same depth in every profile, it is clear that the shaft has a defect
covering the entire section and that remedial action is then required. Such action
might include excavation and repair if the defect is near the top of the shaft, or
perhaps coring and pressure grouting if the defect is at depth, or in some cases
abandoning the shaft and constructing a replacement shaft(s). If no defect is found in
any profile, then the entire shaft is satisfactory and acceptable and no additional
analysis is necessary.
However, some CSL tests reveal defects in some profiles, but not in all profiles, and
then the question arises as to the lateral extent and location of the defect. Certainly
the magnitude of any FAT delay or energy reduction in any profile would enter into
any evaluation. But the lateral extent of the defect across the section is also
important. By visually reviewing all the profiles, the engineer can assess the possible
size and depth of a defect. If the defect covers many profiles, or is near the shaft top,
making it significant, it might seriously compromise the shaft integrity.
Since concrete strength is related to the concrete wave speed, a determination of
wave speed at each point in the shaft can help assess the shaft acceptability. The
severity of a local defect, defined by substandard concrete wave speed, can be
assessed by both magnitude and lateral extent perhaps most easily by tomography.
Arrival time data from all profiles, locations of each probe for each signal record, and
tube geometry can be input into a single three dimensional analysis. For a grid of
node points, the wave speeds in each node can be adjusted to minimize the errors
between calculated and observed arrival times for all travel paths (Jie et al, 1998).
Although there are other methods of tomography, this node matrix method, although
computationally intensive, is the most reliable and therefore this paper focuses on this
method. The tomography analysis results in a profile of wave speeds as a function of
cross section and shaft length.
Tomography results can be shown in an overall 3-D presentation, or 2-D "slices"
can be made either horizontally or vertically in the shaft. A horizontal 2-D slice at
the depth of interest probably shows the most clear presentation of defect extent and
location within the section, and is useful to guide the construction team into better
selections of coring locations for verifications or remedial procedures. If a lower
bound threshold of acceptable wave speed is defined, the analysis can calculate the
percentage of the slice of cross section falling below this limit.
The data required for a tomography analysis depends on several factors. The more
data that is available, the more accurate the analysis is likely to be. However, the
amount of data available is practically limited by the number and locations of the
access tubes. The more tubes that are available, typically true for larger diameter
shafts, the more information that can be naturally available for the tomography
analysis. For shafts with only 4 tubes, 6 possible tube combinations are possible with
only 2 crossing the shaft interior, making the quadrant location of an interior defect
difficult to determine with precision, while for 8 tube shafts there are 28 tube
combinations, including 20 crossing the interior. Table 1 and Figure 3 relate the
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

number of perimeter and the number of interior paths relative to the number of access
tubes. Thus for shafts with preferably at least 6 tubes, any interior defect can be
located quite well since it likely crosses many interior paths.

Table I. Number of paths versus number of access tubes

Tubes Perimeter paths Interior paths Total paths

4 4 2 6
5 5 5 10
6 6 9 15
8 8 20 28
10 10 35 45

Figure 3: Potential scan paths for 4, 6 and 8 tube shafts

The exterior or perimeter paths however require extra considerations when locating
a defect. When a defect is located in the perimeter in normal testing (probes being
"parallel" or "level" in the tubes), it is generally not possible to tell if the defect is
located closer to one tube or the other. However, if additional scans are made with an
"offset" (e.g. one probe raised in relation to the other, and then repeated with the
opposite probe raised), then these three measurements of parallel scans and two offset
scans for each tube combination can help locate the defect relative to the tested tubes
since the apparent depth location of the defect will shift as seen in Figure 4.
Although interior offset tests offer little benefit to tomography when the number of
access tubes is 6 or more, offset tests are useful for the interior profiles in tomography
for shafts with few tubes. The general suggested rule for shafts with 5 or fewer
access tubes is that "offset scans" be performed for aJI tube combinations when a
defect is located in that tube combination, while for shafts with 6 or more tubes,
parallel scans are sufficient for the interior and the extra offset scans are necessary
only for the perimeter. Of course there is no benefit to any offset scan for any tube
combination if the para.llel or level data does not reveal any defect. The goal is to
obtain necessary and sufficient data for the analysis, without having to collect useless
extra data that adds to the testing cost but provides no real resolution improvement.
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

Figure 4: Effect of "probe offsets" in apparent defect location for transmitter (T) and
receiver (R) in access tubes

ln a perfect world, spacings between aJI tubes are equal and known with precision,
the tubes are precisely parallel, and the probes are centered in the tubes. In the real
world, tubes are often not uniformJy spaced and not even parallel. Smart logic is
required to correct for non-parallel tubes. The most accurate wave speed is
determined by the main cross diagonals since the tubes are more parallel and the
percentage distance traveled in concrete is larger due to tbe large spacing. Since the
depth to each probe is measured, the actual travel distance in the concrete is also
known from geometry, and the arrival time can be adjusted to compensate for the
wave travel in water.

CASE HISTORY
The shaft with purposely instaJled defects built at the author's Ohio office for
developing and testing the hardware and software can be effectively used to evaluate
the methods. The shaft is 1.5 m in diameter and J 2.2 m in length. It was cast with six
steel and 2 PVC tubes, and it can be mentioned that even over three years later there
is absolutely no evidence of "debonding" of the PVC tubes (cast in the dry method,
and water in the tubes has been continuously maintained). Four major defects were
installed in this test shaft. A soft toe was created on one quadrant only using sand
bags. The previously mentioned defect at about 7 m depth was a I 50 mm thick
Styrofoam insert covering half the interior cage (e.g. "half moon" shape). Two 400
mm diameter buckets were inserted, one about 1.5 m above the bottom filled with
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

soil, and one al I m below the top that was a true void. Both buckets and the half
moon Styrofoam were seen in Figure 2, because they were located on the "direct
path" between the tested access tubes for that profile. However, the soft toe defect
was out of that plane, although a hint of a natural soft toe is observable in the energy
graph. Because part of the wave front may pass outside the shaft bottom and thus
reduce the energy content, the arrival time is given more emphasis at the shaft roe.

..
upu; •
I '

--4 I

I I

-
- I

•
I

Figure 5: Tomography results for drilled shaft with four purpose builr defects.

Because even numbered tubes had additional impediments attached to the tubes to
test the tube-concrete interface, data from only the odd number tubes was subjected to
a tomography analysis. Because only 4 tubes were selected, parallel and two offset
scans were input for each tube combination as per the general recommendation.
Results are shown in Figure 5 (usually results are in vivid colors, rather than the black
and white required for this publication). "Black" was assigned to any wave speed
less than 3300 m/sec, and "White" to wave speeds above 3500 m/sec, with transition
"gray" in between. This wave speed scale is shown at the extreme left. Next on the
left is a selected horizontal slice at the top and a selected vertical slice at the bottom
(profiling tubes 3-5 in this case). The four large circles, or "slices", perhaps show
best the analysis results at the depths of the four main defects. The soft toe defect is
in the lower right, the half moon defect is in the upper right, and the bucket defects
are the two on the left. While the buckets are not perfectly round, they do convey the
general shape. The far right diagram is a 30 presentation showing the main defects.
This frame can be animated, rotated, tilted, and zoomed/enlarged to view defects in
the best angle. Other than one small "ghost" image (with wave speeds in the gray
GSP 158 Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations

range) at the location of the upper bucket defect, no other defect can be observed. It
is possible that the "ghost" could be some unplanned soil inclusion caused by
removing the temporary casing (a common occurrence in drilled shaft installation).

CONCLUSIONS
CSL testing is an efficient tool to evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts. Since the
occurrence of defects is relatively common, and is related to the skill of the contractor
and the soil conditions of the site, CSL testing is also routinely applied. An improved
evaluation standard is proposed that considers not only the traditional arrival time
changes but also the signal strength, or signal energy reduction. The extra
information is useful when the engineer evaluating the data applies judgment to
selection of the arrival time, and to consider defects not on the direct path between
tubes. A sufficiently large energy reduction, perhaps from a large defect not on the
direct path, would define a defect even if the first arrival time were normal.
In cases of local defects which cover only part of the cross section, tomography
analysis is very helpful to visualize and quantify the extent and location of the defect.
Such information is useful when coring is required to assist remediation efforts, or
when the structural engineer must assess the adequacy of the shaft to resist the
applied loads.
The use of the new evaluation scale and tomography promise to provide the
engineer with better evaluation tools for CSL test measurements.

REFERENCES

ASTM International, (2002). " ASTM D6760, Standard Test Method for Integrity
Testing of Concrete Deep Foundations by Ultrasonic Crosshole Testing",
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
China CSL code, 2003, (in Chinese) "Technical Code for Testing of Building
Foundation Piles", JGJ 106
French Standards Association, 2000, (in French) "Soils: Investigation and Tests,
Sonic Testing of a Foundation Element", NF P94-160-l, AFNOR
Jie Zhang, ten Brink, U., and Toksoz, M.N., 1998. Nonlinear Refraction and
Reflection Travel time Tomography, Journal of Geophysical Research of the
American Geophysical Union, Vol 103, No. Bl2, Dec.
Jie Zhang, and Toksoz, M.N., 1998. Nonlinear Refraction Traveltime Tomography,
Geophysics, Vol 63, No. 5, Sept-Oct
O'Neill, M.W. and Reese, L.C., (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and
Design Methods, FHWA Publication FHW A-IF-99-025, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield VA
O'Neill, M.W., and Sarhan, H.A., (2004). "Structural Resistance Factors for Drilled
Shafts Considering Construction Flaws." Current Practices and Future
Trends in Deep Foundations, ASCE Geolnstitute Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 125, 166-185.