PAPER

formed where there were none, or adversely affect project economy by

Quality increasing construction cost and programme of the foundation works.

Disputes about the cost of remedial works are common between
clients or main contractors and their piling subcontractors when fur-
ther examination shows a pile with an apparent defect to be subse-

assurance of quently sound.

Therefore, after implementing a QA programme of integrity testing
on up to 100% of the working piles, using an integrity testing system
that may be less than 100% reliable at detecting defective and non-

bored pile defective piles, how confident can a foundation designer be in the con-
struction quality of the entire piling system, and thereby the final
piled foundation? Also, what is the minimum proportion of piles that
should be tested on a project, under certain conditions, to achieve an

foundations
By Gordon Cameron, PhD research student,
acceptable level of quality assurance?
This paper shows how the use of statistics and probability theory
may help answer such questions. Through the use of a statistical
approach, a foundation designer may be able to quantify their level of
confidence in the foundation quality, in addition to deciding on an effi-
Napier University and Tim Chapman, associate director, cient QA programme of integrity testing. Previously developed statis-
tical approaches have not taken into account the inaccuracy of the
Arup Geotechnics. integrity testing process and the likelihood that a wrong diagnosis
could be made regarding the true pile quality. This paper presents and
Abstract discusses the results of analyses performed using a more detailed sta-
The performance of a bored piled foundation is affected by the con- tistical sampling approach, which considers the reliability of the
struction quality of the individual piles comprising the piling system. integrity testing system.
For the purposes of quality assurance, a programme of non-destruc-
tive integrity testing (NDT) is usually implemented on a specified per- Bored piling and the occurrence of defects
centage of the working piles. Traditionally, the proportion of piles to In general, piling contractors produce bored cast insitu piles to the best
be tested is decided upon by the foundation designer based on site-spe- of their ability, following industry best practice to reduce the likeli-
cific knowledge, engineering judgement and his prior experiences of hood of faults. Nevertheless faults can still occur both during and after
NDT. This paper shows how the use of statistics and probability theo- construction in a small proportion of a pile population, with the fac-
ry may help influence this decision. tors in Table 1 influencing the number of piles affected on a given site.
Thorburn and Thorburn (1977) and Fleming et al (1985) provide a com-
Introduction prehensive review of the numerous types of piling fault that can occur
Bored cast insitu piling is regularly specified in the UK to support the in bored piles along with their variety of causes.
ever-taller structures that are being built in urban locations. However The presence of a piling fault does not necessarily imply that a pile
the high degree of contractor workmanship, experience and supervi- cannot be used for its intended purpose. Once constructed, there must be
sion necessary in construction coupled with the naturally variable soil a belief that each and every pile satisfies three general design criteria:
and groundwater conditions on site, makes bored cast insitu piles par- ● Meet serviceability limit state requirements and support a proposed
ticularly vulnerable to structural faults and variable in construction working load without settling by more than is permissible.
quality (Thorburn and Thorburn, 1977). ● Meet ultimate limit state requirements and carry a specified load
The subterranean nature of their formation makes direct, visual with an adequate factor of safety against failure.
inspection of the final product impossible in most cases. Faced with ● Remain durable throughout the design life of the structure, such
uncertain quality, it is unknown whether the piles will be suitable for that the pile is not affected by time dependent activities like corrosion
their intended operational function. Therefore to verify satisfactory of the steel reinforcement or chemical attack of the concrete, which
construction and detect any defective piles that may exist, non-destruc- would affect its ability to continue satisfying the first two criteria.
tive integrity testing is usually implemented on a specified percentage Some faults that occur will be more serious than others, given the
of the pile population. site specific operating conditions of a particular foundation. However,
Blanket inspection of every pile is the most conservative yet widely any fault that is likely to adversely affect performance, safety or dura-
adopted quality assurance (QA) strategy in the UK and internationally. bility of a pile, in either the short or long term, should be considered a
However, when this is impossible, sampling inspection (eg testing less defect, with a pile containing one or more defects being classified as
than 100% of the piles) is conducted. Due to a lack of codified recom- defective.
mendations or quantitative guidance, the number of piles tested in Some information on the frequency of defective bored piles, identi-
such a case is traditionally decided upon by the foundation designer. At fied through NDT inspection, can be taken from the results of surveys
its best, this decision is based on detailed construction observations, published in the technical literature. Davis and Dunn (1974) report
site-specific knowledge and engineering judgement; at its worst, this 9.7% defective out of a total 717 piles tested on five projects; Fleming et
may be little more than a token number of piles chosen purely to satis- al (1985) found 1.5% defective out of a total 5,000 piles tested and 1.9%
fy contractual QA obligations. defective out of a further 4,550 piles tested; Ellway (1987) reports 4.2%
Furthermore, due to the indirect nature of their examination, few defective of a total 4,400 piles tested; Thasnanipan et al (1988) state 3.3%
methods of integrity testing are infallible. A misclassification of the defective of a total 8,689 piles tested; Lew et al (2002) report 7% defec-
true pile quality caused by an inaccurate integrity test or an inaccu- tive within a population of 380 piles tested and 1.5% defective of a total
rate interpretation of a test result can either lead to a defective pile 5,000 piles tested. Preiss and Shapiro (1981) suggest that approximately
going undetected (false-negative result) and being mistakenly incorpo- 5% to 10% of the piles on a project could be defective.
rated into the foundation; a sound pile being wrongly condemned Obviously, there are numerous factors influencing the quality of the
(false-positive result) and subjected to unnecessary inspection; or piling work in each case, some of which may be noted in Table 1, as
remedial work. well as the specific type of integrity test used, the reliability of the con-
Incorporating defective piles
into the foundation system may Table 1: Factors that can influence the quality of piling on a particular site
adversely affect its performance,
safety or durability, and depend- ● The variability of ground conditions across the site and with depth
ing on the redundancy offered by ● Knowledge of the specific ground condiitons gained from a detailed site investigation
the piling layout and the robust- ● Contractor skill and experience with a given pile type under similar operating conditions
ness of the superstructure, result ● Supply of materials of correct quality
in failure with consequential ● Appropriateness of construction procedures for the particular soil and groundwater conditions
remedial costs or even loss of life. ● Level of workmanship and site supervision during construction
Alternatively, implementing ● Intensity of programme pressure on the piling work
unnecessary inspection or reme- ● Effects of ground movements and site traffic during concrete hardening
dial work on sound piles may ● Appropriate method and care in trimming pile head to final cutoff level
cause defects to be inadvertently

GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004 1

 PAPER PAPER

clusions drawn and the threshold definition for defective pile adopted. Reliability of integrity testing
100

Sample size (Number of piles tested)

However the survey results highlight the fact that, in general, defective The most widely specified forms of non-destructive examination in the
bored piles are quite a rare occurrence, nevertheless may still repre- nD = 0 UK are:
90 nD = 1
sent a significant number of the piles on an individual site. External: Sonic Echo (SE) and Transient Dynamic Response (TDR)
nD = 2
80 Internal: Cross-hole Sonic Logging (CSL)
nD = 3
Redundancy offered by the piling layout Position of column load
nD = 4
These are known as indirect testing methods as they infer structur-
Figure 1 shows the layout of a typical piled foundation. The pile popu- 70 al features of a pile from its acoustic response to the test. Weltman
nD = 5
lation comprises 100 piles, with five piles forming each pile group and 60 (1977) and Turner (1997) review the various NDT methods for assessing
20 pile groups forming the piling system. Normally, a project team’s pile integrity along with their attributes under different operating con-
requirements of a piled foundation are that it must be constructed as 50 ditions. With these methods, the indirect nature of the integrity infer-
Pile Pilecap
quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible and perform adequately in ence means that a high degree of judgement and subjective interpreta-
40
operation (Chapman and Marcetteau, 2003). tion is required when evaluating the structural quality of each pile
In the UK piling industry the use of single large diameter bored piles 30 tested.
is now often favoured to support a column instead of several smaller Integrity testing reliability can be defined as the degree to which
piles in a group. In many cases the direct piling costs associated with 20 both the evidence provided by an NDT test and the interpretation of
this type of layout are greater than that for a pile group, but the sub- 10
that evidence corresponds with the true state of a pile insitu. As such,
structure costs attributed to a system of single piles are generally less, an inaccurate claim of (in)sufficient pile integrity may arise through
due to pile caps being unnecessary. The main reason for choosing sin- 0 improper test application or a lack of knowledge and experience in
gle piles is that the substructure tends to be constructed more rapidly 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 data interpretation. Hertlein (1998) has examined the reliability of dif-
so long as the rate of concrete supply to the site is not a constraining Defective piles (allowed) in the population ferent integrity testing methods through numerous case histories.
factor. However as shown in Table 2, the consequence of a defect in an Furthermore, a detailed discussion of the factors influencing the accu-
individual pile depends on the redundancy offered by the piling layout. Figure 1:Typical layout of a piled foundation. Figure 2: Number of piles to be integrity tested, under given conditions, within a racy of internal and external techniques has been provided by Davis
Larger pile groups are inherently more redundant than smaller groups population of 100 piles. Results calculated on the statistical basis suggested by (1999). Some factors influencing the reliability of testing conclusions
or single pile groups due to the reserve capacity offered by neighbour- Preiss and Shapiro (1979). are given in Table 3.
ing piles and the ability to redistribute load through the soil and pile Clearly, the appropriateness of the test method for the particular pile
cap (Zhang et al, 2001; Paikowsky, 2003). features being searched for is vital. SE and TDR techniques are excel-
Table 2 illustrates the likely consequences of a defect causing a loss load this may lead to excessive settlement of the column it supports, by making it feasible to inspect a large proportion, if not every pile on lent at detecting transverse cracks, which can have little engineering
of pile capacity, when single and multiple piles are favoured for the thereby causing significant distortions in the superstructure. Thus, as a given site. significance, so may thereby yield many false-positive results [Lew et
foundation layout. Some pile groups may tolerate the presence of a the level of redundancy offered by a pile group diminishes, it becomes al, 2002]. TDR tests tend to be more detailed than SE tests due to the
defective pile without being significantly adversely affected, due to a more crucial to assure the construction quality of every pile to avoid Integrity testing guidance instrumented hammer used to strike the pile head recording more
higher level of redundancy being offered. Paikowsky (2003) defines a foundation problems. No codified recommendations are given in any UK piling specification quantitative data, and the ability to analyse the results in both the time
non-redundant group as one for which failure of a single pile will (ICE, 1988a, 1988b, 1996) or Eurocode 7 (1997) on what should be the min- and frequency domain.
adversely affect the structural column its supports, with limited or no Pile testing imum number or percentage of piles integrity tested using non- On the other hand, CSL techniques are better at detecting real
ability of other piles supporting the same column to mitigate its There are two fundamentally different uncertainties associated with destructive techniques. However in Ciria Report 144, which is one of defects, however they are considerably more expensive and time con-
effects. foundation piles that tend to be investigated through testing: the principal up-to-date references and industry guides for pile integri- suming and so tend to be reserved for large-diameter piles supporting
Defects are particularly critical for single large diameter piles Pile capacity: Will the pile satisfactorily withstand a specified load- ty testing, Turner (1997) makes reference to a statistical approach expensive buildings, where the consequence of defects occurring are
because if such a non-redundant pile is unable to support its working ing? developed by Preiss and Shapiro (1979, 1981) that aims to give quantita- more severe.
Pile integrity: Is the pile of the tive guidance on the level of testing necessary under certain condi- When interpreting an integrity test result, the threshold beyond
Table 2: Degree of redundancy offered by different pile cap arrangements (see Paikowsky, 2003) for FoS = 2. correct dimensions and structur- tions. which a pile is classified as defective is particularly crucial. Setting a
al quality? Preiss and Shapiro’s statistical approach indicates how many piles tight threshold may produce many false-positive results, whilst a gen-
Number of piles Level of redundancy Consequence of 50% loss of capacity Consequence of 100% loss of capacity Pile capacity is traditionally should be tested to achieve a probability no greater than 10% of there erous threshold could provide numerous false-negative results, that is,
per structural offered by the piling of any one pile of any one pile determined through static load being more than a certain number of defective piles among both the defective piles slipping through the screening process. It is not uncom-
column layout testing. The load test directly tested and untested piles in the population. “If 10 out of 100 piles are mon for NDT contractors, which are normally subcontractors to the
examines pile performance and allowed to be defective and in the tested sample no defective piles are piling contractors, to come under commercial pressure to justify
establishes whether there is detected then 20 piles should be tested” [Preiss and Shapiro, 1979]. thresholds that are seen as too tight (excessively conservative). For this
Non-redundant Working load is equal to failure load Total loss of pile capacity enough strength provided by the Figure 2 shows that by testing 20% of the pile population and detect- reason, industry-wide standardisation of test methods and threshold
Extremely unsafe with potentially Ultimate failure pile and enough resistance pro- ing no defective piles in the sample, the likelihood of there being more criteria based on quantitative assessments is to be encouraged.
very large settlements vided by the surrounding ground than 10 defective piles in the population is less than 10%. Similarly, by Although there is evidence to suggest that NDT methods can on occa-
to support an applied load with testing 70% of the pile population and detecting two defective piles, the sion, be incorrectly specified, misused or misinterpreted, they remain
an acceptable amount of settle- likelihood of there being more than six defective piles in the popula- a valuable tool for quality assurance of bored cast insitu piles once
Non-redundant Deficient pile on the verge of failure Failure is likely ment (Fleming et al, 1985). tion is less than 10%. Therefore in this case, if the foundation can tol- they are built (Hertlein, 1998). They are particularly useful when cou-
Very unsafe Pile integrity is traditionally erate six defective piles and the engineer accepts the 10% likelihood of pled with accurate piling construction records for highlighting piles
determined through non-destruc- there being more than the tolerable number defective, then 70 out of that are more likely to be defective.
tive inspection. An NDT test indi- 100 piles should be tested. In general, to achieve this 90% level of con-
rectly examines pile construction fidence in there being no more than a tolerable number of defective Background to statistical analysis
Non-redundant Just sufficient capacity to avoid Failure still likely as centre of support quality and determines whether piles in the foundation, the number of piles that need to be integrity By inspecting every pile on site using an integrity test that is perfectly
failure by much tilting offset from centre of load the insitu pile is of the necessary tested: reliable, a foundation designer can be certain of detecting all the defec-
specification with correct dimen- ● increases as the number of defective piles detected in the sample tive piles that may exist and, after their repair, be absolutely confident
sions, material homogeneity and increases, for a given proportion of defective piles tolerable; in the structural quality of the foundation. However this is an idealised
free of structural faults. ● decreases as the tolerable proportion of defective piles increases, for situation, as although it is possible and often favoured in practice to
The reliability of a piled foun- a given number of defective piles detected in the tested sample. implement a 100% testing strategy, the integrity testing conclusions
dation (eg its ability to perform Probabilistic and statistical techniques can be useful in dealing with are rarely 100% reliable as previously discussed. Therefore a more
Support reduced to two piles Support reduced to just two piles as intended under operating con- problems of quality assurance in geotechnical engineering (NRC, detailed statistical methodology may be developed by considering the
Logically providing full and two piles providing Factor of safety equals 1.0, therefore ditions (Davis, 1999)) is not only 1995). Weltman (1980), Preiss and Shapiro (1979, 1981) and Paikowsky reliability of the integrity testing system used (Cameron et al, 2002).
non-redundant half support. Likely to be extra stability is marginal affected by the construction qual- (2003) have all proposed statistical approaches to determine a suitable The sequence of events associated with pile construction and
settlement and reduced factor safety ity of each pile in the population number of piles to be tested for quality assurance. However, the integrity testing, accounting for the possibility of an inspection error,
but also the layout of the piling methodologies have assumed the
system. The direct cost of static physical pile test and the inter- Table 3: Factors that can influence the reliability of integrity testing conclusions
Clearly redundant Minimal effect Support reduced to potentially three load testing coupled with the pro- pretation of the test result to be
or four piles, depending on location of gramme disruption caused by the 100% reliable, without account- ● As-built dimensions of the given pile and suitable pile head preparation for testing
deficient pile. Lowered factor of safety test frame’s presence on site ing for the occurrence of a false- ● Easy access to the pile head for the tester and his equipment
but performance may be adequate makes it prohibitively expensive negative or false-positive inspec- ● Ability of a specific type of integrity test to detect various types of piling fault
to test more than a token propor- tion error. Clearly, this is not the ● Tester experience with the given integrity test under similar operating conditions
Clearly redundant Minimal effect Minimal effect tion of piles. case in practice as the results of ● Volume and quality of supplementary construction and site data used to interpret results
As such, load tests are limited non-destructive tests are notori- ● Level of knowledge and experience in signal interpretation
to about 1% to 2% of the working ously difficult to interpret, mak- ● Ability to determine the engineering significance of features in the test results
piles (Turner, 1997). However, ing it impossible to be certain in ● The basis on which threshold values (beyond which a pile is classified defective) are determined
Legend: Pile Pilecap Position of column load non-destructive testing is rapid every case that the correct con- ● Reliability of automated algorithm for detecting whether the threshold has been breached
and cheap in comparison, there- clusions have been reached.

2 GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004 GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004 3

 PAPER PAPER

Figure 3: Event tree of the pile

construction and integrity testing Tolerable number of defective piles: TD = (ND –nD) + ud = (ND – nD) + (nD – dd) = ND – dd
sequence. Unselected defective piles
(ND – nD)
Percentage reliability of integrity testing system
Defective piles Defective piles correctly
in the population Defective detection classified defective
(ND) reliability
(1 – Efn)
Detected defectives
(dd)
Apparently defective 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
Defective piles in the Total number of piles
selected sample classified defective
Defective piles incorrectly (nDt) 1.00 1.00 1.00
(nD) False-negative
1.00 1.00
classified non-defective 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
inspection error Undetected defectives Sample size 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Total number (Efn) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
(ud) (n) 0.70
of piles in the Total number of piles
1
0.60 0.60 0.60
Unselected, hence 0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
population untested piles classified non-defective 0.50

(N) Non-defective piles 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

(N – n) Non-defective (n – nDt) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
correctly 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
detection reliability classified non-defective 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
(1 – Efp) (xx) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non-defective piles 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
in the selected sample
Non-defective piles
(n – nD) False-positive incorrectly
Number of piles tested
inspection error classified defective
Non-defective piles
(Efp) (fp) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
in the population 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
(N – ND) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
Unselected 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

2
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
non-defective piles 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
(N – ND – n + nD) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Observed state based 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.10
True state of nature Testing process on testing process 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Known state

Number of defective piles in the population

Number of piles tested
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

3
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
are modelled in Figure 3. Foundation quality is expressed by the num- If it is assumed that the cost and time required to test a pile is the 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
ber of defective piles remaining, and thus incorporated into the final same for each type of integrity test, then to achieve a predetermined 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
piling system, after the implementation of a programme of integrity level of quality assurance, the more reliable the test is the more effec-
testing and subsequent repair. tive and efficient the testing programme due to the smaller sample of Number of piles tested
As shown in Table 2, it may be possible for a foundation to tolerate a piles to be tested.
number of defective piles without being significantly adversely affect- However in reality, the cost and time to test a pile varies with the dif- 1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
ed, due to the redundancy offered by the piling layout. Therefore, to ferent NDT methods. For example, testing a pile using a SE or TDR 0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
assure foundation quality through a programme of non-destructive method may only take a few minutes (10 to 20 piles tested per hour with
4
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
testing, at least all but a tolerable number of defective piles must be good access (FPS, 1999)) and cost typically £3 to £5 per pile in addition 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
detected. The degree of confidence in satisfying this QA criterion (level to a site mobilisation fee and minimum testing charge, while a CSL test 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
of quality assurance achieved) can be quantified through the use of a may take up to an hour to perform and cost hundreds of pounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

statistical procedure. Referring to Figure 3, the statistical analysis depending on the length of the pile and the number of pre-installed 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

answers the question: access tubes. Number of piles tested

Accounting for such factors in achieving a predetermined level of
What is the probability of detecting at least all but a tolerable number quality assurance, increasing the reliability of the integrity testing 1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
1.00
0.90
of defective piles amongst the (nDt) apparently defective piles detected system improves the testing effectiveness, as a smaller sample of piles 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
and subsequently repaired within a sample of (n) piles tested at random must be tested. However the testing efficiency does not necessarily
using an integrity test with a defective and non-defective detection relia- improve due to the increased time and cost of testing each pile with a
5 0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
bility of 1-Efn and 1-Efp respectively, given that a total of ND defective more reliable test method. 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

piles are assumed to initially exist within a population of (N) piles prior Most foundation designers like to believe that they are achieving 0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
to the programme of inspection and repair? high levels of confidence during integrity testing. However, even when 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

a NDT programme is carried out on an entire pile population, a foun- Number of piles tested Graphs referred to in discussion
This degree of confidence is given symbolically as: Pr[ƒ (ND – TD)]. dation designer can rarely guarantee that there will be absolutely no
defective piles incorporated into the final foundation. 1.00
0.90
1.00 1.00
0.90
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90 0.90
Discussion of results In fact, the results show that even if blanket inspection of every pile 0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.70
The results of statistical analyses, for a range of likely practical val- is performed, in the hope of achieving total quality (ie TD = 0), the inac-
7
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
ues, are given in Figure 4. Each graph shows the number of piles test- curacy in the integrity testing system only allows for low levels of con- 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
ed versus degree of confidence, within a population of 100 piles for a fidence to be achieved. For example, assume that the population con- 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

given number of defective piles in the population, testing reliability tains 5% defectives and the integrity testing system used is 80% reli- 0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
and tolerable number of defective piles. able. If a programme of 100% inspection is carried out under these 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Assume that the pile population contains 5% defectives. If the foun- conditions, the likelihood of detecting all the defective piles in the test- Number of piles tested
dation can tolerate up to four defective piles (TD = 4) and the integrity ed sample is only 32%. Thus, on the basis of these data, foundation
testing system used is 100% reliable at detecting defective piles, then a designers need to allow for either accepting: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
totally competent testing specialist would be 90% confident in detect- ● lower levels of confidence in assuring total quality of the founda- 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
ing at least one defective by testing 37 piles. However if the test is only tion;
60% reliable then the same testing specialist would be only 71% confi- ● that the piled foundation should tolerate a number of undetected 10 0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.50
0.40

dent. Furthermore, to achieve the same 90% level of confidence, with a defective piles. 0.30
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.20
60% reliable test, 62 piles should be inspected. Thus, to achieve the Furthermore, for a given level of confidence, the more defective piles 0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.00
same level of quality assurance with the less reliable integrity test, that can be tolerated, then the less integrity testing is required. Thus, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

almost twice as many piles should be tested. Therefore, the results
show that:
● for a given number of piles tested, a greater degree of quality assur-
ance will be achieved with a more reliable integrity testing system
used;
● a more reliable integrity testing system requires a smaller sample of
piles to be tested to achieve a pre-determined level of quality assur-
ance.
A programme of integrity testing is effective if the QA criteria are
satisfied with an acceptable level of confidence and efficient if these
objectives are accomplished with as little effort as possible.
the amount of in built redundancy offered by the piling system (tolera-
Number of piles tested
ble proportion defective) may influence the decision as to how many
piles should be integrity tested.
It is the general recommendation of many (Turner, 1997; Paikowsky, Legend: Tolerable number of defective piles
2003) that every pile on a given site should be post construction tested
for defects. However, in practice it is often difficult to test 100% of the
working piles due a number of factors including cost, time and access.
As foundation construction is usually on a project’s critical path, any
delays that may occur during pile testing can adversely affect the
progress of all follow-on activities, the direct cost of which may exceed Figure 4: Level of integrity testing necessary, within a population of 100 piles to achieve an acceptable level of quality assurance
the value of the entire piling contract (Chapman and Marcetteau, 2003).

4 GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004 GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004 5

 PAPER

in ensuring quality of piled foun-

0.40 Figure 5: Marginal benefit of dations is to follow the basic prin-
Increase in confidence for every 10 piles tested

TD = 0 testing each additional 10% of ciples laid out by Chapman and

0.35 the pile population. Marcetteau (2003):
TD = 1 ● good site investigation properly
0.30 TD = 2 gathered together
TD = 3 ● careful design appropriate for
0.25 the particular ground conditions
TD = 4 as part of a coherent design
0.20 process
● appropriate choice of accept-
able piling methods
0.15
● clear specification and fair pro-
curement of the piling contract
0.10
● experienced contractor who
has considered all the risks
0.05
● independent supervision to
verify that standards are main-
0.00
(0-10) (10-20) (20-30) (30-40) (40-50) (50-60) (60-70) (70-80) (80-90) (90-100) tained.
Adopting this doctrine should
Number of piles tested
reduce the likelihood of defects
occurring and maximise the like-
lihood that suspected piles will
have already been identified
As such, there is a significant advantage in terms of cost and pro- prior to integrity testing. The findings of this paper reinforce these
gramme if some piles could be omitted from testing. well-accepted principles.
Consider a programme of inspection carried out on a population of
100 piles, assumed to contain 5% defectives, using an integrity test that Acknowledgements
is 80% reliable. Under these conditions, Figure 5 shows the increase in Gordon Cameron gratefully acknowledges the comments given during
confidence (quality assurance) gained for every additional 10 piles the preparation of this paper by Dr Allen Davis, Dr Mike Duncan, Mr
integrity tested. It is shown that where the foundation can tolerate up Bernie Hertlein, Mr Tom Pelnik, Prof Kenneth Preiss and Mr Aaron
to four defective piles, most benefit comes from the initial piles tested. Zdinak.
However, where the foundation cannot tolerate any defective piles with-
in it, most benefit comes from testing the final piles. Therefore, the References
greater the reliance on each individual pile in a population, the more Cameron G, Wamuziri SC, Smith IGN and Chapman TJP (2002) Statistical sampling
schemes for integrity testing of piled foundations, Proceedings of United Engineering
important it is to check the integrity of every single pile, even when Foundation International Conference on Probabilistics in Geotechnics: Technical and
performing 100% testing may be disruptive to the construction pro- economic risk estimation, Graz, Austria, 15-19 September 2002, p129-136.
gramme. Chapman TJP and Marcetteau A (2003) Achieving economy and reliability in geotechni-
Figure 5 shows that in some cases the added value gained by the last cal design for a building project, The Structural Engineer, in print.
Davis AG (1999) Assessing the reliability of drilled shaft integrity testing,
piles tested could be judged by the foundation designer not to be worth Transportation Research Record 1633, TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC,
the time and money involved in the testing. This is particularly true on p108-116.
large projects with a rapid construction programme, where the con- Davis AG and Dunn CS (1974) From theory to field experience with the non-destructive
vibration testing of piles, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 57, Part
struction manager wants the groundwork contractor to follow on 2, p571-593.
directly as the piling contractor leaves site. Ellway K (1987) Practical guidance on the use of integrity tests for quality control of cast
Often on these projects, there is immense pressure not to integrity insitu piles, Proceedings of the first international conference on foundations and tun-
test the final say 20% of the piles to allow an earlier package handover. nels, London, p228-234.
Eurocode 7 (1997) Geotechnical Design – Part 1 - General rules, DDENV 1997-1:1995,
The analysis shows that such an omission may be possible only if the European Committee for Standardisation.
tolerable proportion of defective piles is high. Hence, there could be pro- Federation of Piling Specialists (1999) The essential guide to the ICE specification for pil-
gramme advantages in selecting a more redundant foundation system. ing and embedded retaining walls, The Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford
Limited, London.
Fleming WGK, Weltman AJ, Randolph MF and Elson WK (1985) Piling engineering,
Conclusion Surrey University Press.
Many engineers like to perform 100% inspection in the hope of detect- Hertlein BH (1998) Integrity testing – friend or foe?, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual
ing all the defective piles that may exist on a site. However, the results Members Conference of the Deep Foundations Institute, Geosystems for future trans-
portation systems, Seattle, Washington.
of statistical analyses have shown that even if every pile is tested, the ICE (1988a) Specification for piling, The Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford
inaccuracy of the integrity testing system used does not allow for high Limited, London.
levels of confidence to be achieved. ICE (1988b) Specification for piling – Contract documentation and measurement, The
Institution of Civil Engineers, Thomas Telford, London.
Furthermore, in some cases testing slightly less than 100% of the ICE (1996) Specification for piling and embedded retaining walls, The Institution of Civil
piles may be a viable option, with little reduction in the level of quali- Engineers, Thomas Telford, London.
ty assurance occurring but with potential benefit in terms of cost and Lew M, Zadoorian CJ and Carpenter LD (2002) Integrity testing of drilled piles for tall
programme savings. Nevertheless, it must be highlighted that the only buildings, Structure Magazine, National Council of Structural Engineers and the ASCE,
October 2002.
way that this can happen is by selecting a more redundant foundation National Research Council (1995) Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering, US
design. National Academy Press.
Hence, the redundancy offered by supporting columns on a layout of Paikowsky SG (2003) Load and resistance factor design for deep foundations, Report
NCHRP 24-17, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation
pile groups, as opposed to single large diameter piles, may serve as a Research Board, Due for official publication by National Research Council in 2003.
major reason for a decrease in the amount of integrity testing neces- Preiss K and Shapiro J (1979) Statistical estimation of the number of piles to be tested on
sary for quality assurance of a bored pile foundation. a project, RILEM Commission on Non-Destructive Testing, Stockholm.
As in any modelling activity, assumptions and simplifications have Preiss K and Shapiro J (1981) Statistical considerations in pile testing, Congress on the
Mechanics of Soils, Stockholm, p799-802.
been made to the real life pile construction and integrity testing Thasnanipan N, Maung AW and Baskaran G (1988) Sonic integrity test on piles founded
sequence to model the problem in a statistical manner. in Bangkok subsoil signal characteristics and their interpretations, Proceedings of the
Notwithstanding, the use of these statistical results, supplementing Fourth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St
Louis, Missouri, 9-12 March, p1086-1092.
experience and sound engineering judgement, may provide a more Thorburn S and Thorburn JQ (1977) Review of the problems associated with the con-
rational basis for deciding on a suitable level of integrity testing, there- struction of cast in place concrete piles, DoE and CIRIA Piling Development Group,
by helping to improve foundation construction efficiency. Report PG2.
The paper highlights the folly of absolute reliance on the results of Turner MJ (1997) Integrity testing in piling practice, Construction Industry Research
and Information Association, CIRIA Report 144.
integrity testing as the sole arbiter of quality in bored pile founda- Weltman AJ (1980) Pile load testing procedures, DoE and CIRIA Piling Development
tions. While integrity tests have a valuable role to play in the detection Group, Report PG7.
of defects, statistical analysis accounting for inaccuracies in the tech- Weltman AJ (1977) Integrity testing of piles: a review, DoE and CIRIA Piling
Development Group, Report PG4.
niques, indicates that a high level of dependence should not be attrib- Zhang L, Tang W and Ng CWW (2001) Reliability of axially loaded driven pile groups,
uted to the results of integrity tests alone. Moreover, the best approach Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, No. 12, p1051-1060.

6 GROUND ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2004