Comparing Conflicting Conclusions from Different Integrity Testing Methods on the Same Drilled Shafts

Several integrity testing methods exist which may be used to evaluate drilled shafts. Each test method has advantages and limitations. On occasion, the results from different test methods may lead to conflicting conclusions, making it difficult to conclusively know which results more accurately represent the quality and integrity of a drilled shaft. This case study focuses on the integrity testing evaluation for two drilled shafts which were constructed using permanent casings and installed through flowing river water. Integrity testing was performed using Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) and Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) on each shaft. During testing, the influence of flowing water and soil layering needed consideration in the collected TIP data. Similarly, concrete curing time influenced the CSL test results and required the CSL tests to be performed multiple times with additional wait times following concrete placement. To aid in the shaft integrity evaluations, Low Strain Integrity testing via the Pulse Echo Method (PEM) was performed on several shafts and concrete coring was also performed to help further assess the acceptance or rejection of the questionable shafts. This paper presents an overview of the testing methods that were applied, their basic methodology, as well as potential limitations that should be considered when evaluating their results.