6.

INTEGRITY TESTING

The most common types of integrity tests performed on completed drilled shafts are the
following:

Sonic Echo Test

This test consists of striking the head of the drill shaft with a hand-held hammer. A sonic wave is
generated that travels down the shaft, is reflected from the shaft base or from a defect in the shaft,
and is picked up by an accelerometer. This is a very crude test which can only detect major
defects such as a major soil inclusion or bases of shafts that were drilled to the wrong depth.

Impulse-Response Test

This test is similar to Sonic-Echo testing except that a more sophisticated method of processing
the data is used. In addition to recording the motion at the head of the shaft versus time, the
force applied by the hammer is also recorded versus time. The same limitations that apply to
Sonic Echo testing apply to Impulse-Response testing, but the data is usually easier to interpret.

Impedance Log

Further computer processing of data from a Sonic Echo/Impulse-Response test can be performed
to produce a graph of the cross-sectional area of the shaft as a function of depth. The result of
this processing is an impedance log, which will provide a clear indication of average shaft
diameter versus depth. Impedance Log testing has the same general limitations of the previous
two tests, but is less prone to false positive results.

Parallel Seismic Test

A water filled tube is installed parallel to the shaft, then a piezo-electric receiver is lowered down
the tube, and lastly, the shaft is struck with a hand-held hammer. The receiver can be moved up
and down the tube to test the shaft at any point. The shaft does not have to be struck on its top, so
the test is useful when the top of a shaft is not accessible. A change in arrival rate from the
hammer blow indicates the presence of a major defect. The base of the shaft can also be
determined in this way. As with the previous small-strain tests, small defects are not likely to be
detected.

Internal Stress Wave Test

This test is the same concept as Sonic Echo, except that the receivers are embedded in the shaft
at varying depths. This test will give clearer results as the noise level is much reduced when
compared to Sonic Echo testing. The test has the same general limitations as Sonic Echo testing,
and since the receivers are embedded in the shaft, the decision to use the test must be made
before construction.

EB 15-025 Page 12 of 30
Crosshole Acoustic (Sonic and Ultrasonic) Test

Crosshole Acoustic testing or Crosshole Sonic Log testing consists of installing several metal or
plastic tubes attached to the rebar cage of the drilled shaft. The tubes have sufficient diameter to
admit probes and are filled with water (to better transmit energy from the wall of the tube to the
probe). To perform the test, an acoustic transmitter is lowered into one of the fluid filled tubes,
and a receiver is lowered to the same depth, in another tube. The transmitter emits an acoustic
signal which is picked up by the receiver. The test is repeated at many depths along the entire
length of the shaft. The travel time of the signal is measured. If there is a defect in the shaft, the
travel time increases. By testing all combinations of tubes, a defect, its magnitude, and its
location in the shaft can be mapped out. The two limitations of the test are that the access tubes
are installed during construction of the shaft, so the decision to use the test must be made before
construction, and the test cannot detect defects outside of the rebar cage, as only concrete
between tubes can be tested.

Gamma-Gamma Testing

As with Crosshole Sonic Log testing, access tubes are installed in the shaft during construction.
A source of ionizing radiation is lowered down the tubes. The tubes cannot be made of steel as
this would prevent the gamma rays from penetrating the concrete. The instrument containing the
radioactive source also contains a gamma ray detector. The gamma rays emitted are reflected
back by the surrounding concrete. The reflected gamma ray count per unit time is calibrated to
the concrete density. If the density measured falls below the expected density of normal concrete,
a defect in the concrete is indicated. The access tubes must be installed during construction of the
shaft, so the decision to use the test must be made in design. The only other limitation of the test
is that the area of concrete tested is relatively small, no more than 4 in. (100 mm) from the edge
of the access tube. So even with several access tubes, most of the concrete area of a shaft cannot
be tested. Note that the area outside of the rebar can however, be tested with this method.

Coring

If a shaft is suspected of having a major defect, it can be cored and the concrete sampled along its
entire length. Coring is expensive and time consuming. Since the area cored is small when
compared to the shaft area, small defects will not be detected.

New York State DOT Practice

The New York State DOT practice is to specify Crosshole Sonic Log testing on all production
drilled shafts. If the testing indicates a major defect, the shaft is then cored at various locations to
determine the nature and extent of the defect.

As Crosshole Sonic Log testing is our primary method of determining a shaft’s integrity, the
inspector should pay close attention to the installation of the access tubes. The tubes should be
undamaged and should comply with our specifications. They should be attached to the rebar cage
securely at the designed locations. During lowering of the rebar cage into the hole, care should be
taken to avoid damage to the tubes (such as crushing them against the sides of the shaft or

EB 15-025 Page 13 of 30