Crosshole Sonic Logging Versus Perimeter Sonic Logging: What Have We Learned?

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) only evaluates concrete on the inside of reinforcing cages leaving the outside unevaluated unless other types of testing are performed such as Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL). While there have been some reports of PSL testing having accurately identified anomalies (e.g. Samtani et al 2005), experience by Case Foundation Company has indicated otherwise where false positives were determined with subsequent coring. Numerous cases of PSL false positives are presented as well as a study where a shaft was installed with both inside and outside tubes, and CSL and PSL data were compared. To date, there is very limited data published on perimeter sonic logging, or Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL) with tubes on the exterior of drilled shafts. Several cases will be presented where false positives were experienced where PSL testing was performed. In addition, a direct comparison will also be presented where a shaft was installed with both tubes on the inside and outside where CSL and PSL data is compared. BRIEF HISTORY – CSL TESTING AND TUBES ON INSIDE The general procedure of Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing includes attaching tubes to the reinforcing cage to be able to send a transmitter in one tube and a receiver in another tube with which a sonic pulse is emitted from the transmitter and received in another tube. The time taken for the sonic pulse to travel between the tubes is measured and compared to expected values for the known distance between the tubes. Any increase in time from expected values indicates the sonic pulse traveled through a media other than homogeneous concrete such as objects in the path (spacer wheels, steel bracing, etc.), tube spacing, or soil inclusions. However, variations in arrival time can also result from differences in concrete density. The tubes have traditionally been placed on the interior of the reinforcing cage which protects them during hoisting and placement of the cage and reduces wave refraction caused by modulus of elasticity differences between steel and concrete. This allows the concrete within the interior of the reinforcing cage to be evaluated, but the concrete outside of the cage is excluded from traditional CSL testing. As a result, alternative integrity testing has been developed to not only provide different ways to evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts but to also address the issue of evaluating the concrete outside of the reinforcing cage. These alternative testing methods include Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL), Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP testing) and Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL) which is similar to CSL testing but instead of the tubes placed inside the reinforcing cage, the tubes are placed on the outside of the reinforcing cage as shown in Fig. 1.