Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper - Interpretation and Misinterpretation of Sonic Logging Test Results
Paper - Interpretation and Misinterpretation of Sonic Logging Test Results
Paper - Interpretation and Misinterpretation of Sonic Logging Test Results
ABSTRACT: Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL) is one of the most powerful methods of assessing the integrity and quality of cast in place foundations. It offers many advantages over low strain methods, in particular
the ability to determine the vertical and lateral extent of anomalies at any depth. In recent years 2 and 3 dimensional tomography is being applied to results to present a graphical visualisation of results, which are
easy for engineers to understand. In addition first arrival times can be automatically picked from response
signals. However, without understanding how these new developments are created, there is a real danger that
results can be misinterpreted. This paper explores the causes and effects of real and apparent defects in cast in
place piles on cross-hole sonic logging results.
1 INTRODUCTION
Cross-Hole Sonic Logging has been a common
method of assessing cast in place concrete foundations since the 1960s. It is now used extensively
throughout the world and on many significant construction projects.
Tube debonding
Poor tube joints
Joint wrapping
Bent tubes
Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on Deep Foundation on Bored and Augered Piles (BAPV), Ghent, Belgium, 8-10th Sept, 2008
E (1-)____ (Equation 1)
(1+ ) (1 2 )
Correlations between test results and excavated/cored defects indicate that an increase in FAT
of 20% or more is significant. This corresponds to a
17% reduction in apparent signal velocity. So, concrete with a normal velocity of 4000 m/sec would
reduce to 3320m/sec.
Reductions in FAT of less than 10% are not considered to be significant. This corresponds to a 9% reduction in apparent signal velocity. So, concrete
with a normal velocity of 4000 m/sec would reduce
to 3640m/sec.
Reductions in FAT between 10-20% are of intermediate significance and the total number of profiles
should be taken into consideration. 2 and 3D tomography can be of assistance in visualising the lateral
extent of anomalies.
Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on Deep Foundation on Bored and Augered Piles (BAPV), Ghent, Belgium, 8-10th Sept, 2008
Figure 8a. CSL result for pile with de-bonded tubes over the
upper 5m of pile.
A problem can occur if you are testing a large diameter pile or diaphragm wall unit with a large path
length, especially if the system is not sensitive
enough or emitter strength is insufficient. Because
of the higher signal to noise ratio, the selection of a
correct threshold is imperative for a correct FAT
measurement. If it is set too high, it will miss the
true first arrival and falsely indicate a problem.
Another reason for a low signal to background noise
ratio is tube debonding. Where tube debonding occurs, the actual path length of the signal through
concrete is unchanged. A small gap is introduced between the tube and the concrete, which effectively
reduces the amplitude of the signal.
Signal amplitude is therefore of secondary importance to FAT and cannot be relied upon on its own,
as a measure of concrete quality. It can however be
used to back up FAT measurements. Figure 8 shows
a sonic logging test result from a pile with tube
debonding over the upper 5m of pile shaft. Signal
amplitude is clearly significantly reduced, however
the first arrival can be seen, albeit very faintly on the
waterfall plot.
Plastic tubes have a tendency to de-bond from concrete more readily than steel. They are also more
prone to damage during breading out. For this reason
metal tubes generally give better results. On deeper
piles, plastic tubing may also suffer from heat of hydration or pressure and collapse.
As you would expect, signals tend to take the shortest and easiest route wherever possible. If the transducers are aligned exactly on the same level as a
very thin crack, then the signal will simply travel up
the tube a little and through the good concrete above
or below. Even if the probes are staggered this will
occur, although a slight shift in FAT and signal energy may be observed.
2.8 So how can thin cracks be detected?
It is recommended that low strain integrity testing is
used if cracks are suspected. The signal from this
type of test is unable to pass cracks and is travelling
in the vertical plane rather than horizontally. This
does presume however that there is good access to
the top of the concrete.
2.9 When to Test?
7 days is the recommended minimum time that concrete should be left to cure before testing. However,
assuming that you are not relying on the test to
measure concrete velocity (which would be inadvisable as discussed above), CSL can be used as a
comparative test and used to test concrete piles at 3
days. This would be purely to check that signal transit times are constant and no changes exist. If that is
the case then anomalous areas are not likely to suddenly appear. If however, an area of increased FAT
is measured, it would be advisable to re-test the pile
again after at least 7 days, during which time concrete strength may have improved.
2.10 Tube Layout what are you missing?
The main drawback of CSL, is the requirement to
pre-install tubes in foundations during construction
(although in emergencies it is possible to core or
drill holes in concrete for testing). The layout and
number of tubes must therefore be chosen to suit the
information that is required by the engineer. For example, if 3 tubes are used and attached equidistant to
the reinforcement cage, then only 3 profiles are possible and it is impossible to take a measurement
across the centre of the pile. This may be critical if
the pile is tremied, when core defects are more likely
to occur. With 4 tubes, 6 profiles are possible,
around the periphery and across the cores which is
why it is the most widely used configuration.
On diaphragm walls, the tube layout will again depend on panel dimensions. It is recommended however that tube spacing does not exceed 1.5m to ensure good strength signals.
The more tubes, the better the lateral extent of defects can be determined.
Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on Deep Foundation on Bored and Augered Piles (BAPV), Ghent, Belgium, 8-10th Sept, 2008
Many systems have a maximum speed that transducers can be raised. The signal acquisition time should
be such that data is processed and stored before the
next signal is triggered. This is governed usually by
warning lights, however with much faster computers
being available, this is less of a problem. If warning
lights are ignored however, signals may not to stored
or processed, before the next one is acquired. This
would lead to shorter profiles than expected.
On long piles, the cables will displace quite a lot of
water. It is therefore necessary to top up the tubes
being tested, before the transducers reach the top.
The signal will not transmit through air and part of
the pile profile will be lost if the water level is low.
To ensure that the full length of the pile is tested, we
would recommend that the tube length is plumbed
with a tape measure (if a metal weight the same size
of the transducer is used, it may prevent jammed
transducers). The tube top level and pile toe level
should also be determined. By comparing all reading it is possible to confirm that the tubes go to the
base of the pile, that the tubes are not blocked and
that the tested length is correct.
3 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the interpretation of cross-hole sonic
logging results has been discussed and potential pitfalls have been explored. Incorrect interpretation can
be caused by many factors if care is not taken.
Users should not rely too heavily on calculated values such as apparent signal velocity, automatically
picked first arrival time plots, signal energy plots
and tomography profiles. Whilst these do give valuable additional information, the severity of any
anomaly should always be assessed mainly on the
change in first arrival time, so the original signal
should always be available for interpretation after
testing.
Where anomalies are suspected, the possibility of
this being caused by the tube bonding, joints, loss of
water, lagging, or bending should also be considered.
REFERENCES
Stain, R.T. and Williams, H.T. (1991) Interpretation of Sonic
Coring Results: a research project, Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations,
Stressa. Vol. 1, pp633-640.
Turner, M.J. 1997, Ciria Report 144, Integrity testing in piling
practice