TOHAMA

FOR

ENGINEERING INSPECTION

CO. L.L.C

A REPORT OF
ULTRASONIC CROSS HOLE TESTING OF DEEP
FOUNDATIONS (BORED PILES)

PROJECT OF
NEW NUCLEAR MEDICINE WARD
BASRA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

Test Method: ASTM D6760

November 2020
 This report deals with Ultrasonic Cross Hole Integrity Test which
conducted in the Project of (New Nuclear Medicine Ward-Basra Children’s
Hospital) at 17 November 2020 for 12 Working piles of Bored Type.

The piles are tested according to the American Standard ASTM D-6760
using The CHAMP system instrument and the data are analyzed by CHA
software to generate the required data (curves and tables).

Page 1 of 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2 THE EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUE OF CSL TEST------------------------ 3
3 PILE PREPARATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
4 METHOD OF CSL TEST ------------------------------------------------------------ 6
5 PILE ASSESSMENT------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
6 CURVES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
7 PILES EVALUATION --------------------------------------------------------------- 29
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------- 31
9 REFRERENCES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
10 CERTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ---------------------------------------------- 32
11 PICTURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
12 PILES LAYOUT---------------------------------------------------------------------- 35

Page 2 of 35
1 Introduction
Cross hole sonic logging (CSL) is a method used to verify and check the
homogeneity and integrity of concrete in a deep foundation such as bored piles,
drilled shafts, concrete piles or auger cast piles. CSL measures the propagation
time and relative energy of an ultrasonic pulse between parallel access ducts
installed during pile construction. In addition, CSL test may identify poor
quality concrete, especially concrete that is surrounded by rebar reinforcement
between tested ducts, due to mixing with drilling slurry, honeycombing,
necking, soil intrusions, and soft toe conditions. Therefore, in many
specifications, anomalies determined and observed in the ultrasonic test results
are a sufficient reason to reject a pile [1].
The specification of test is based on ASTM Designation: D 6760
"Standard Test Method for Integrity Testing of Concrete Deep Foundations by
Ultrasonic Cross hole Testing". CSL requires at least access tubes extended
along pile shaft (usually two or more depending on the test specification that are
built with steel and tied to the rebar cage which preferred for CSL than PVC) in
the pile that are intrusive and necessitates the prior installation of pile.
Twelve preliminary bored piles type (of 800mm diameter) are required to
test in Project of (New Nuclear Medicine Ward-Basra Children’s Hospital),
each pile has three profiles, are required to test so that the output results are
presented as graphs for each profile in the pile for the first arrival time (FAT) of
each pulse versus depth, in addition to plots of the relative energy versus depth.
The test was carried out at 17-November-2020. The concrete of piles was more
than 7 days old.

2 The equipment and technique of CSL test

The test equipment comprises an impulse generator, two piezo electric
probes, and a winch (for controlled lowering and raising of the probes) and the
data acquisition and display system, which amplifies, display, and stores the

Page 3 of 35
received signals. The winch is linked via a depth related voltage control to data
acquisition system so that the depth of the probes cab be recorded [2]. Figure 1
[3] depicts a modern system for ultrasonic testing of piles. It consists of the
components that arranged in test as shown in figure 2 [4].
After the signal are captured, the post processing is done using CHA
software Cross-Hole Analyzer Ultrasonic Version 2011.015-2012 that
developed by Pile Dynamics, Inc. (PDI). A CHA software computer program
can provides powerful tools for data analysis which handle the following
functions [5]:
1- Edge Finder for First Arrival Time detection.
2- Defect Analysis for easy defect identification.
3- Two methods of signal strength evaluation (energy or amplitude).
Outputs user customized graphs versus depth and tables for Sonic Map
(traditional waterfall diagram), FAT (First Arrival Time), Wave speed Plot,
Wave speed Table, and Energy or Amplitude Plot.

Page 4 of 35
3 Pile preparation
The access tubes specified for testing purposes are made from
ungalvanized steel and they incorporated into the pile as it constructed.
According to ASTM D 6760, each pile has three access tubes extended along
pile shaft (60 cm). The tubes are usually named according to their orientation
that denoted by numbers (12:23:31) and their location is shown in figure 3. The
outer diameter of the tubes is equal to 50 mm (2.0") with wall thickness 6 mm.
The splicing is done by butt-welding with care in order to prevent welding
material from penetrating into the tubes and cause jamming of the probes. Both
ends of the tube are sealed with suitable screwed caps or with welded plates.
This is mandatory in order to eliminate as possible as penetration of debris or
drilling mud into the tubes, also no bending and hammering is used to close the
bottom of the tube. The tubes are approximately equally spaced, ranging 25±5
cm, inside the spiral reinforcement, and rigidly attached to it by wire or spot
welding [6].

Figure 3: Access Tube Arrangement

Page 5 of 35
4 Method of CSL test
Prior to the test, the access tubes have to be checked for free access and
filled with water in order to provide an acoustic coupling between the probes
and the pile concrete (to obtain good acoustic coupling). Two pulleys are then
inserted into the tubes, at least one of which is equipped with a depth meter.
The probes (emitter and receiver) are then inserted over the pulleys and
lowered into the tubes in which the probes are positioned on the same horizontal
level, as shown in figure 4, therefore the wave path is substantially horizontal.
Thus, the method is suited to detect defects or anomalies which intersect the
sonic waves and have pronounced vertical extent.
After reaching the bottom of the tubes, the operator must first ascertain that
they are at the same level. Probes may be found at different levels because of
poor tube workmanship or because one or both tubes is blocked by debris. The
probes are then pulled simultaneously upwards with smooth motion until they
reach the pulleys. During this time the emitter produces a continuous series of
pulses, sending waves in all directions. The vertical distance between successive
pulses is determined by the operator, with 50 mm being a good typical value (for
short pile 25 mm is considered preferable value [3]. Some of these wave paths
do eventually reach the receiver. The pulses arriving at the receiver are recorded
and processed by the testing instrument. The operator may then see the results
on the screen.
This procedure is repeated for other access tubes in the tested pile. By
comparing the graphs from the various combinations of access tubes, a
qualitative idea of the structural soundness of the concrete throughout the pile
can be gleaned [2].

Page 6 of 35
5 Pile assessment
The appropriate method for interpretation of the CSL results is not as well
defined and improves over time due to advances in the theory and software. The
most common criterion for shaft quality assesses the first arrival time (FAT)
which is defined as the time elapsed between when the signal is generated and
when it is first sensed by the receiver. First arrival time (FAT), the most
common criterion for evaluating CSL data in the USA may be determined by
when the signal first exceed simple amplitude threshold, or preferably by using
special advance 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. Integrating the absolute value of the signal is used for a defined time
results in the signal "energy". Lower energy is usually the result of defect or
poor concrete quality.

Page 7 of 35
 FAT (or derived wave speed) and the received signal "energy" both indicate
relative quality of concrete between the transmitter and receiver. According to
ASTM D6760, both Energy/Arrival time and the Sonic Map are complementary
and recommended and both results will be probably plot in the report cover.
The arrival time varies with tube spacing, FAT is usually assessed by comparing
it to FAT in a nearby zone of good concrete. When discussing pile integrity, it is
important to distinguish between three terms that are often confused [4]:
An anomaly is any irregular feature in the NDT graphic results that may be due
to the testing instrument (such as noise), to the means used (access tube
debonding in a cross-hole test), to the surrounding soil (abrupt changes of soil
friction in the sonic test) or to the pile proper
A flaw is any deviation from the planned shape and/or material of the pile.
A defect is a flaw that, because of either size or location, may detract from the
pile's capacity or durability. The geotechnical engineer and the structural
engineer are jointly responsible to decide which flaw comprises a defect.
The following criteria for evaluation of the concrete from the CSL test may
be considered a starting point for discussion. This criterion which is specified by
Likins et al (2007) [7] as:
Once the FAT increase and signal energy reduction have been determined for
the entire profile, the shaft may be evaluated according to the following criterion
for anomaly definition (Table 1).

Table 1: Evaluation FAT increase Energy reduction

Evaluation FAT increase Energy reduction
(G) Good 0 to 10% and < 6 dB
(Q) Questionable 11 to 20% and 6 to 9 dB
(P/F) Poor/Flaw 21 to 30 % or 9 to 12 dB
(P/D) Poor/Defect >31 % or >12 dB

Page 8 of 35
 Likins et al (2007) [7] recommended that flaws (P/F) be addressed if present
in more than half of the profiles, while Defects (P/D) be addressed if present in
two or more profiles. Addressing a flaw or defect should include tomography
evaluation and could require excavation (if near the top of the shaft), core
drilling, or pressure grouting. Defects or flaws present over the entire cross
section usually require repair or shaft replacement.
Excessive noise (electronic and other) can seriously limit the maximum
usable range between probes especially at tube joints and at the closed end of
tube near the pile toe and top. One should never forget that anomalies may result
from factors not related to the pile proper, such as tube debonding, tubes out of
parallel and dry tubes, probes not being at the same level, air gap or different
material around the tube, measurement resolution, non-appropriate pile head
formation, non-duct pipe alignment, non-leveling pile joints, partially closing
ducts by waste or crashing concreter materials, a method attachment of ducts
pipe with rebar, toe softening, and etc [5,6] in which a great attention must be
given to the effect of pipe welding on signal captured. Therefore, any
anomalies or defects (flaws) found in the concrete piles which are determined by
CSL tests are discussed by detailed studies carried out at different research and
specifications like Webster, K., Rausche, F. and Webster S. in 2010. They
suggested that the shaft integrity is evaluated with the same scale of table 1 [8]:
1- Questionable (Q) profiles require no further action but may be considered
when P/F or P/D also occurs in the same cross section.
2-Flaws (P/F) should be addressed if they are indicated in more than 50% of the
profiles.
3-Defects (P/D) must be addressed if they are indicated in more than one profile
and involving at least 3 tubes.
In addition, flaws indicated over a complete cross section either require that
the shaft is used “as is” (possibly with a reduced capacity) or that it be
remediated over the flaw area or be replaced. The bearing capacity can,

Page 9 of 35
however, be upgraded after load testing the pile either statically or dynamically.
For large shafts it may be worthwhile to perform a dynamic load test which not
only determines the geotechnical capacity, but also the shaft’s structural
strength. Defects indicated over the entire cross section (i.e., if apparent in all
scans) usually require repair or shaft replacement. Quality checks of the pressure
grouting repairs may either be performed by additional revised from CSL tests
and/or dynamic tests. Obviously, if a shaft has been designed without
consideration of end bearing (i.e., as a pure friction pile) then a flaw or defect
near the bottom of the pile can be ignored.
Note [5]:
Because the tubes might not be perfectly straight or even parallel, a fixed
absolute limit of a wave speed value cannot be used for evaluation. It should
also be noted that if the referenced good concrete exceeds the specifications,
then a concrete with a local 20% wave speed reduction might still exceed the
specifications.
In summary [5], CSL can be a useful tool to assess concrete quality, but
ultimately it is the user’s sole responsibility to evaluate the data based on
his judgment.

Page 10 of 35
6 CURVES

Page 11 of 35
Page 12 of 35
Page 13 of 35
Page 14 of 35
Page 15 of 35
Page 16 of 35
Page 17 of 35
Page 18 of 35
Page 19 of 35
Page 20 of 35
Page 21 of 35
Page 22 of 35
Page 23 of 35
Page 24 of 35
Page 25 of 35
Page 26 of 35
Page 27 of 35
Page 28 of 35
 7 Piles evaluation
Table 2 displays a summary of obtained results from output curves in
previous section and CHA software report for each pile, three profiles for each
pile, according to the pile location in the project. This summary includes the
apparent velocity for pile and for its three profiles, in addition the pile
assessment according to the evaluation criterion given in Table 1.

Table 2 Summary of test results and pile evaluation.

Measured Apparent
Pile Pipe length of Profile Velocity Evaluation Result
pipes (m) [m/s]

P1-21 Ave. 3633 (Q) Questionable

Attenuation equals 7.0 appears in one
Pipe 1 27.40 12 3930 profile and FAT increases more than
10% in two profiles at different
Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3548 locations and the signal reading of pile
tip starts from 0.15 m.
FAT increases more than 20% in pile
Pipe 3 27.40 31 3422 top and bottom for one profile.

P6-1 Ave. 4017 (G) Good

Pipe 1 30.35 12 3788
Pass
FAT increases less than 10% in one
Pipe 2 30.35 23 4175
profile at different locations.
Pipe 3 30.15 31 4088

P6-2 Ave. 3585 (G) Good

Pipe 1 30.40 12 3785
FAT increases less than 10% in one
profile at different locations and the Pass
Pipe 2 30.40 23 3452
signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.10 m..
Pipe 3 30.40 31 3517

P6-4 Ave. 4123 (Q) Questionable

Pipe 1 30.80 12 4188
FAT increases less than 10% in two Pass
Pipe 2 30.80 23 4172
profiles at different locations.
Pipe 3 30.80 31 4008

P6-7 Ave. 3874 (G) Good

Pipe 1 30.40 12 3780
FAT increases less than 10% in one
profile at different locations and the Pass
Pipe 2 30.35 23 3643
signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.15 m..
Pipe 3 30.40 31 4198

Page 29 of 35
P6-9 Ave. 4018 (G) Good
Pipe 1 30.40 12 3991
FAT increases less than 10% in one
profile at different locations and the Pass
Pipe 2 30.40 23 4200
signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.10 m.
Pipe 3 30.40 31 3863

P3-10 Ave. 4143 (G) Good

Pipe 1 27.40 12 4224
FAT increases less than 10% in one
profile at different locations and the Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 4005
signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.20 m.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 4200

P3-13 Ave. 3954 (G) Good

Pipe 1 27.40 12 4175
FAT increases less than 10% in one
profile at different locations and the Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3556
signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.15 m.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 4130

P3-7 Ave. 4042 (G) Good

Pipe 1 27.40 12 4105
and FAT increases more than 10% in Pass
two profiles at different locations and
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3917
the signal reading of pile tip starts from
0.25 m.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 4105

P3-9 Ave. 3933 (G) Good

Pipe 1 27.40 12 3957
FAT increases less than 10% in one Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3717
profile at different locations.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 4126

P5-13 Ave. 3559 (Q) Questionable

Pipe 1 27.40 12 3647
FAT increases less than 10% in two
profiles at different locations. Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3304
A missing signal at the pile top in two
profiles.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 3725

P5-7 Ave. 3798 (Q) Questionable

Pipe 1 27.40 12 3778
FAT increases less than 10% in two Pass
Pipe 2 27.40 23 3721
profiles at different locations.
Pipe 3 27.40 31 3895

Page 30 of 35
8 Discussions and conclusions
It appears from the results that the tested 12 piles have been classified into
two categories that are Good and Questionable. Two matters must be taken into
account in evaluation of tested piles which are given below as follows:
1- The first matter, it appears for most profiles a reasonable amount of the
signal noises not at pile ends and these noises results from method of
concrete preparation at pile head that causes separation (debonding) of
some part of concrete at these regions.
2- The second matter is associated to the beginning of the signal reading for
most profiles which starts from number 0.10 m to 0.25 m and in some
profiles, there are partially a missing of watershed such as in the profile of
piles P1-2, P6-4, P3-7 and P5-13 and this result can be attributed to the
debonding of concrete at the head which may be caused by pile head
preparing during hammering.

Therefore, all the tested piles passed the CSL test

9 REFRERENCES
1-ASTM Standard D 6760 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Integrity Testing of Concrete Deep
Foundations by Ultrasonic Crosshole Testing,’’ ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, (2008).
2-CIRIA Report No 144, “Integrity Testing in Piling Practice,” CIRIA, London, 1997.
3- CROSS HOLE ANALYZER Model: CHAMP (DATA ACQUISITION AND REVIEW)
User’s Manual May 2009 from Pile Dynamic, Inc. PDI.
4- Joram M. Amir 2002 Single-Tube Ultrasonic Testing of Pile Integrity, ASCE Deep
Foundation Congress, Vol. 1 pp. 836-850, Orlando 2002.
5- Cross-Hole Analyzer (CHA) Version 2011.015-2012 Operation Manual.
6- Joram M. Amir 2009 Integrity Pile Testing from Piletest.com.
7- Likins, G. E., Rausche, F., Webster, K., and Klesney A Defect Analysis for CSL Testing.
Geo-Denver 2007 New Peaks in Geotechnics: Denver, February, 2007.
8- Webster, K., Rausche, F. and Webster, S. Pile and shaft integrity test results, classification,
acceptance and/or rejection, TRB 2011 Annual Meeting, 2011.

Page 31 of 35
10 Certification of equipment

Page 32 of 35
Page 33 of 35
11 Pictures

Page 34 of 35
12 Piles layout

Page 35 of 35