Critical Comparison of Ultrasonic Pile Testing Standards

Joram M. Amir & Erez I. Amir

Piletest.com Ltd., Israel
info @ piletest.com

Keywords: Crosshole, CSL, ASTM D 6760-02, NF P 94-160-1, JGJ 1062003

ABSTRACT: Over the last three decades, cross hole ultrasonic testing of pile integrity has advanced to
maturity, and is presently considered as the most potent and sophisticated tool for the quality control of deep
foundations. In parallel with the development of the method, different Standards and Codes of Practice
codifying its application have been developed in three continents. These documents dwell to some degree or
other on the following points: test setup and preparation, instrumentation, testing method, definition of test
parameters, real time analysis, reporting format, anomaly definition and acceptance criteria.
This paper compares all available documents item by item, illuminating their strong and weak points. Since
all Standards and Codes of Practice are updated from time to time, the comparison presented may serve as a
convenient starting point in improving the next version. In the global village, piling contractors and testing
laboratories move freely from one country to another. Since piling methods know no borders, there is no
reason why their quality control should not be based on universally acceptable Standards.

1 INTRODUCTION accepted codes. In this paper we present a critical

comparison of the three current Standards for
Producing competent bored piles is one of the most ultrasonic integrity testing of piles we managed to
difficult tasks facing a civil engineer. Since their find: ASTM (2008), Chinese (Chen Fang et al.
production process is carried out in a hostile 2003) and French (AFNOR 2000). By this means we
underground environment and is largely invisible, intend to pave the way for merging all these
bored piles unavoidably contain flaws. On the other documents into an international Standard.
hand, replacement of faulty foundation piles is at The comparison addresses the following items:
best impractical. This is the reason why quality preparation for testing, instrument specification, test
control of finished foundation piles grew to rely on procedure, FAT and energy calculation, presentation
indirect imaging methods. Among these methods, an method and anomaly definition. The main
intensive research and development effort has been requirements of the above documents are
devoted to stress wave methods and in particular to summarized in Appendix A.
the ultrasonic testing of pile integrity. As a result,
this technique has emerged as the most potent and
sophisticated tool for the quality control of deep 2 PREPARATIONS FOR TESTING
foundations (Amir & Amir 1998). In actual field
tests, ultrasonic tests managed to detect flaws
occupying 10% to 15% of the cross section of the 2.1 umber and spacing of access tubes
element (Sarhan et al. 2002, Iskander et al. 2003).
The ultrasonic integrity test is of the intrusive type,
In parallel with the development of ultrasonic
which means it is usually performed in pre-installed
integrity testing, different Standards and Codes of
access tubes. In rare cases the test may also be
Practice codifying its application have been prepared
carried out in drilled holes. Access tubes are usually
in three continents. To keep abreast of technical
made of steel, although plastic tubes are quite
development, all these Standards have been
common in the US. Whatever the material, tubes are
regularly updated with new editions published.
expensive, and the engineer is expected to specify
Globalization has brought with it free international
the minimum number of tubes that will give him an
traffic of both contractors and testing laboratories,
adequate chance to discover all important flaws. Li
who can perform optimally only under universally
et al. (2005) made an attempt to correlate the
number of tubes installed in a pile with detection outside of the tubes and by filling them with water
probability of flaws. Modern ultrasonic equipment prior to concreting. Although the use of plastic tubes
can without difficulty cover a distance of at least must not be ruled out, they should be used with
four meters between emitter and receiver, but the caution. Steel tubes, by comparison, generally
usefulness of such a large spacing is doubtful. We exhibit good contact with concrete and may save
have shown (Amir, 2007) that detectability of a misunderstanding when test results are examined.
given flaw decreases with its distance from an For single-hole testing, the use of plastic tubes as
access tube. The rule provided by ASTM limits the demanded by ASTM is mandatory. In this case,
maximum tube spacing along the perimeter to less testing should be carried out as early as possible.
than 1 m. A finite element analysis we carried out
(Figure 1) shows that a flaw halfway between two
tubes is detectable (increase of 20% in FAT, 12 dB
in attenuation) only if its size is at least 40% of the 3 EQUIPMENT PROPERTIES
tube spacing. Thus the ASTM rule ensures detection
of flaws in the order of 400 mm. Moreover, for tube
spacings below 1m, oblique readings for 3.1 Emitter frequency
tomography (which involve longer range) can be
taken without difficulty.
To detect an inferior material inclusion of dimension
d, it should be much larger than the wavelength
FAT (%) attenuation (dB) (Santamarina et al. 2001). The emitter frequency
specified by the various Standards varies between 20
20 kHz and 100 kHz. Table 1 lists the prescribed
18 frequencies with the respective wavelengths and size
16 of the smallest detectable inclusion:
14
Table 1: Detectable inclusion
12
Emitter frequency (kHz) 20 30 50 100
Increase

10 Wavelength (mm)* 210 140 84 42

8 Detection threshold (mm)** 420 280 168 84
6 * - Based on a typical P-wave velocity of 4,200 m/s
4 ** - Assuming d >2
2
If, as we mentioned above, we aim at the 400 mm
0
detection threshold, then the lower-end emitter
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
frequencies allowed by the Standards, are
Inclusion size/tube spacing acceptable. The higher end frequency, on the other
hand, produces wavelengths approaching the size of
individual aggregates and causing high attenuation.
Figure 1 - Detectability of an inclusion halfway between tubes From our experience, frequencies in the order of 50
to 60 kHz combine long range with good resolving
power.
By this reasoning, the use of only four tubes for
very large diameter (3-4 m) piles, as allowed by the
Chinese Standard, is far from providing sufficient 3.2 Depth measurement accuracy
covering. At this distance, even large flaws may
escape undetected, and tomographical techniques A ratio of 5:1 exists between accuracies required by
may become inapplicable. ASTM and French standard. From our experience,
current depth encoders are capable of the 0.2%
2.2 Tube material accuracy or 50 mm required by the French Standard.
However, since the size of detectable inclusions is
While plastic access tubes offer installation much larger than these values, this accuracy seems
convenience, they may undergo debonding unnecessary. Moreover, under typical site conditions
(separation from the concrete) with time. This reference levels (tube stickup or concrete surface)
phenomenon is noticed especially close to the top. are also not very accurately defined. We may
As a result, testing carried out in such tubes may conclude, therefore, that the depth measurement
exhibit anomalies that have nothing to do with accuracy may be relaxed and 0.5% or 100 mm (the
concrete quality. It has been suggested that this larger of the two) seems a practical compromise.
phenomenon can be mitigated by roughening the
3.3 Time measurement accuracy Both ASTM and the Chinese Standard keep silent
as to FAT picking method, and leave it to the
As we have stated above, an emitter frequency of 50
discretion of the equipment manufacturers.
to 60 kHz. is optimal for ultrasonic pile testing.
According to the NyquistShannon sampling
4.2 Signal amplitude
theorem (Gaydecki 2004), exact reconstruction of a
continuous-time band limited signal from its Besides FAT, signal energy or amplitude can serve
samples is possible if the sampling frequency is as a meaningful flaw predictor. The French Standard
greater than twice the highest frequency component defines this parameter as the mean absolute
of the signal. Accordingly, for an emitter frequency amplitude of first 10 cycles following FAT. In the
of 100 kHz a sampling rate of 250 kHz should be Chinese Standard it is defined as the peak voltage of
totally adequate. Anything beyond that produces the first cycle. Both approaches have their
oversampling which carries its price in the form of drawbacks: in the French Standard both FAT and
larger, more cumbersome files and brings marginal energy are interdependent and have to be determined
benefit, if any. by an iterative process. The Chinese suggestion of
Analysis of the error factors involved in cross taking the amplitude of the first cycle is even more
hole testing (Amir et al. 2004) has proven that the problematic: deciding which cycle is the first one
uncertainty in FAT determination is 10% of the FAT depends on the FAT selected, while the amplitude of
value plus 27 s. With this in view, it is unclear why the first cycle is often not representative of the
the French and Chinese Standards demand a time whole pulse. ASTM leaves the definition of energy
measurement accuracy of 1 s or even 0.5 s. Such to the equipment manufacturers.
accuracy is of theoretical interest only and has no ASTM also keeps silent with regard to the accuracy
practical justification. of amplitude measurement. The French Standard
sets the allowable error at 10% of the maximum, and
the Chinese Standard to a relative error of 5%. When
4 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS viewed against the anomaly definition of these
documents (an amplitude drop of 80% and 50%,
respectively) these criteria look reasonable.
4.1 FAT picking
Effective FAT picking is not a simple task, 4.3 oise
especially with noisy signals. When the number of Excessive noise (electronic and other) can seriously
pulses to be inspected is small, the task can be best limit the maximum usable range between probes.
done manually using some judgment. Since pile From our experience with the STA/LTA
testing produces many thousands of pulses, manual algorithm for FAT picking (Allen 1982), an
FAT picking is not a practical proposition and the STA/LTA threshold ratio between 2 and 3 gives
task must be performed by a suitable algorithm. satisfactory FAT picking in cross hole testing. This
Except for the CHUM Automatic FAT picking means that where noise exceeds one third of the
described by Amir & Amir (1998), all existing amplitude of the first cycle, accurate FAT picking is
algorithms have to be fed by one or more not possible. Where noise is larger than the
parameters. maximum pulse amplitude, FAT cannot be
Among documents that we examined for this determined at all.
work, the French Standard prescribes a complex Considering this, it is not clear why none of the
procedure for FAT picking. In essence, the first three Standards addresses this issue.
period is defined as the one in which the amplitude
exceeds 0.05 times the maximum amplitude Amax of
the whole profile (Amax is FAT-dependent as 4.4 Calibration and verification
discussed below). This is basically fixed threshold
algorithm, with the threshold level set automatically For any testing system, the need (or lack of it) for
by each profiles Amax. Our experience has proven calibration and verification should be clearly stated.
that this algorithm never performs well. While ASTM does not address this issue, the other
The main weakness in the French approach is the two Standards dictate the necessity to measure the
interdependence of FAT and amplitude which we "dead" time of the system. This "dead" time may be
would prefer to see as two separate parameters. It an intrinsic property of the system, which may be
also complicates the calculations since they have to found by determining FAT in either air or water at
be done by iterations. Other drawbacks are related to predetermined transducer spacings and extrapolating
tomography, since oblique readings have a longer the graph obtained back to zero distance. Another
distance and weaker energy and may be wrongly contributing factor is the delay time caused by the
classified as defects when compared to the stronger access tubes and the water inside. Amir et al. (2004)
horizontal pulses of the same profile.
measured this delay time for a particular case and In the third millennium, with free
got a result of about 20 s. international traffic of equipment and testing
Depth encoders used in the system should be laboratories, national Standards should be
calibrated when replaced or refurbished, and replaced by globally accepted ones. With
whenever there is a dispute on site regarding the contributions by experts from around the
accuracy of the measured depth. world, ASTM International appears to be the
most appropriate body to face this challenge.
4.5 Anomaly definition
Admittedly, test Standards are supposed to specify
both the properties of the testing equipment and the
REFERENCES:
procedures to be followed. The question whether
Standards should also address interpretation is open
for discussion. Allen, R (1982): Automatic Phase Pickers: their Present Use
Both French and Chinese Standards set down and Future Prospects, Bull. Seismological Soc. America,
rigid rules as to what constitutes an anomaly, based Vol 72 No. 6 pp. S225-S242
on the analysis of both FAT and energy values. Such
a mechanistic approach that disregards other factors AFNOR Association Francaise de Normalisation (2000): NF P
94-160-1 Auscultation d'un element de foundation, partie 1:
may be abused by unqualified personnel. One should Methode par Transparence, Paris
never forget that anomalies may result from factors
not related to the pile proper, such as tube Amir, J.M. (2002): Single-Tube Ultrasonic Testing of Pile
debonding, tubes out of parallel and dry tubes. Integrity, ASCE Deep Foundation Congress, Vol 1 pp. 836-
In view of the complexity involved in producing 850, Orlando
bored piles, and since rigid rules often fail under
Amir, J.M. (2007): Discussion of "Reliability Evaluation of
special circumstances, we prefer the ASTM Cross-Hole Sonic Logging For Bored Pile Integrity" by
approach which advocates that "interpretation D.Q. Li, L.M. Zhang and W.H. Tang, J. Geotech. and
(therefore) must contain proper engineering Geoenvir. Engrng. ASCE, Vol. 133 No. 3, pp. 342-343
judgment and experience. Any evaluation of
integrity is to be made by an engineer with Amir, E.I & Amir J.M. (1998): "Recent Advances in Ultrasonic
Pile Testing", Proc. 3rd Intl Geotechnical Seminar on Deep
specialized experience in this field, and is beyond Foundation On Bored and Auger Piles, Ghent, pp. 181-185
the scope of this standard".
Amir, J.M., Amir, E.I and Felice, C.W. (2004): Acceptance
Criteria for Bored Piles By Ultrasonic Testing, Proc. 7th
CONCLUSIONS Int. Conf. on the Application of Stress Waves to Piles,
Kuala Lumpur, pp. 259-267
The number of access tubes per pile should
be not less than one per each 300 mm of ASTM (2008): Standard Test Method for Integrity Testing of
diameter. Concrete Deep Foundations by Ultrasonic Crosshole
Steel tubes, 50 mm diameter, should be Testing, Designation D 6760-08, West Conshohocken PA
preferred unless single-hole testing is
Chen Fang et al. (total 17 persons) - (2003): Technical Code
performed in which case plastic tubes should for Testing of Building Foundation Piles, PART 10 - Test
be used. Method for Integrity Testing of Concrete Deep Foundations
For best performance, the emitter frequency by Ultrasonic Cross hole Testing. JGJ 1062003, China
should be in the order of 50 to 60 kHz. Academy of Building Research, Beijing
Depth measurement accuracy should be
0.5% or 100 mm the larger of the two. Gaydecki, P. (2004): Foundations of Digital Signal Processing:
Theory, Algorithms and Hardware Design, IET, London, p.
Sampling rate of 250 kHz is fully satisfactory 199
for the above mentioned emitter frequency
range. Iskander, M., Roy, D., Kelley, S. and Ealy, C. (2003): Drilled
Rules for establishing FAT and energy Shaft Defects: Detection, and Effects on Capacity in
should be simple, automatic and independent Varved Clay, J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrg, Vol. 129,
No. 12, pp. 1128-1137
of each other. Li, D.Q., Zhang L.M. and Tang, W.H. (2005): "Reliability
Standard should limit maximum noise to Evaluation of Cross-Hole Sonic Logging for Bored Pile
ensure sufficient range and accurate Integrity" J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrng. ASCE, Vol.
determination of first arrival. 131 No. 9, pp. 1130-1138.
The definition of what constitutes an
anomaly should preferably be omitted from Santamarina, J.C., Klein, K. A. and Fam, M.A. (2001): "Soils
and Waves", Wiley, Chichester, p. 198-201
the Standard and provided in the
specification of the project.
Sarhan, H.A., O'Neill M.W. and Hassan, K.M. (2002): in Stiff Clay" J. Geotech. and Geoenvir. Engrng. ASCE,
"Flexural Performance of Drilled Shafts with Minor Flaws Vol. 128 No. 12, pp. 974-985

APPENDIX A - SUMMARY TABLE

Table 2 - Overview of subject dealt with in the Standards

Item French Chinese ASTM Suggested

Preparation for testing
Number of access tubes If D600 mm two If D800 mm If D1 m three If D1 m three
If 600<D1.2 m three two If D>1 m one per 250 If D>1 m one per 250 to
If D>1.2m four or If 800<D2m to 300 mm of diameter 300 mm of diameter
more three
Tube spacing 0.3 1.5 If D>2m - four
m
Tube material Steel - Steel or plastic Steel for cross, plastic for
single- hole
Inner tube diameter (mm) > 40 50-60 Typically 38-50 40-60
Dummy testing Required - Required Required
Functional inspection - - Required Required
Power and gain setting Required - If necessary If necessary
Calibration/verification "dead" time calibration, System delay -
semi-annual verification time
Instrument specification
Emitter voltage (V) - 200-1000 - Not specified
Emitter frequency (kHz) 20-100 30-50 30-100 40-100
Depth measurement 0.2% or 50 mm - 1% or 250mm 1% or 50 mm
accuracy
Time base accuracy 1 s or 2% 0.5 s 2 s 2 s
Amplitude accuracy 10% of maximum 5% of maximum - 10%
Testing Procedure
Cross hole Bottom to top - Usually bottom to top Bottom to top

Single hole - - Described Specify

Tomography - - Hinted Specify
Vertical spacing between 10 mm 250 mm 50 mm 10-100 mm, 50 mm
pulses recommended
for routine testing
FAT picking Special algorithm Not defined Not defined Automatic w/o user input
Energy calculation Mean absolute value of Peak voltage of Not defined Total energy off all
first 10 cycles 1st cycle captured signal from
time=0
Presentation of results
FAT or wave speed FAT vs. depth Wave speed vs. FAT or wave speed vs. FAT (s) vs. depth
depth depth
Energy or amplitude Fraction of maximum vs. Amplitude vs. Relative energy or Attenuation (in dB)
depth depth attenuation vs. depth
"Waterfall" Option - Required when using Optional
filter
Auxiliary parameters - Frequency, PSD - -
Anomaly definition velocity and energy velocity and Not defined Leave to project
reduction energy reduction specification