Why Not Just Use Pile Integrity Testing on Every Pile? The Case for a Smart Testing Strategy

One site with over 50 large foundations

The Case for a Smart Testing Strategy

In the world of deep foundations, Pile Integrity Testing (PIT) using a tester like PET is a familiar friend. It's fast, affordable, and requires minimal setup. But if PIT is so good, why don't we just test every pile on a project with it and call it a day? The answer lies in the limitations of the PIT method itself and the superior diagnostic capabilities of a tiered testing approach.

Relying solely on PIT for all piles is a high-risk strategy, particularly for critical structures. Below, I have written a breakdown of why a more innovative, multi-method approach using PIT, Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL), and Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) is the industry's best practice.

The Problem with a PIT-Only Approach

PIT, also known as low-strain impact testing, is an excellent screening tool, but it's not a definitive diagnostic. It works by sending a stress wave down the pile from the top. When the wave encounters a change in impedance—like a void, crack, or change in cross-section—it reflects back.

The major drawbacks of using PIT exclusively are:

• Limited Depth & Sensitivity: The test signal attenuates as it travels down the pile. For very long or slender piles, the signal may be too weak to detect a meaningful reflection from the toe or a defect deep within the pile.

• Inconclusive Results: Signals can be complex and influenced by soil conditions, which can lead to ambiguous results that require significant interpretation by an expert. It's great for identifying a major anomaly, but can struggle to pinpoint the location and severity of a smaller one. It is also challenging when there is more than one anomaly in the pile, and both reflections interact.

• 
  

The Tiered Testing Solution: Using the Right Tool for the Right Job

A far more effective approach is to implement a tiered testing plan based on the pile's size, depth, and structural criticality.

1. PIT for Screening: When applicable,  PIT as your first line of defense. Test all piles that the PIT method can handle to quickly screen for major, near-surface, or obvious defects. Its speed and low cost make it perfect for this application. If a PIT test comes back with a "questionable" result, you can then proceed with a more advanced method to investigate the anomaly.

2. CSL for Critical Diagnostics: A CSL system, like the CHUM, is the gold standard for deep, large-diameter drilled shafts. It involves placing ultrasonic probes in pre-installed access tubes within the pile. By measuring the travel time and energy of a signal sent between the tubes, CSL can accurately map the concrete quality and pinpoint defects within the pile's core.

• Pros: High accuracy, not limited by pile depth, excellent for diagnosing the location and nature of defects.

• Cons: Requires pre-installed tubes (which adds to material and installation costs), only assesses the concrete between the tubes, and requires the concrete to cure for a minimum of 4-10 days (depending on the pile size) before testing can begin.

3. TIP for Comprehensive Early Assessment: TIP is an innovative method that uses the heat of hydration from the curing concrete to evaluate the pile's integrity. Temperature sensors are attached to the rebar cage before concrete is placed. Since concrete flaws, such as voids or soil inclusions, produce less (or no) hydration heat, they show as colder areas in a temperature profile.

• Pros: Covers a larger portion of the cross-section of the pile, including the concrete outside the reinforcing cage (which CSL cannot do). It can also identify issues with cage alignment. The test can be performed much earlier than CSL, sometimes within 12-48 hours after casting, which accelerates the construction schedule.

• Cons: The sacrificial thermal wires add a significant cost. Results at the very top and bottom of the pile can be difficult to interpret due to boundary effects. Anomalies that are far from the sensors, like at the core of the pile or just in the middle between two sensors, can be missed by the test method. The test must be performed before the pile has cooled after casting has been done, as the method looks at the heat generated by the cementing process. As such, PIT can only be used after TIP. Both are suitable methods for initial screening to the more thorough method of CSL. Hence, TIP is better combined with CSL, yet having both on the same pile makes overall testing much more expensive. From the field input we get, we understand that this is quite common for CSL to complement TIP.

  
  

Conclusion

So, while the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of PIT are tempting, a "PIT-only" approach can leave you with significant blind spots. The most robust quality assurance plans combine the strengths of all three methods. Use PIT for rapid, high-volume screening. If a PIT test raises a flag, follow up with CSL for precise diagnostics of the pile's core. 

For large and slender piles, use TIP for early detection of anomalies, and CSL to get high-resolution detection of anomalies within the reinforcement cage that TIP might miss.

What are your thoughts on this approach? Do you use a similar strategy on your projects? Share your experiences in the comments below! #PileIntegrityTest #GeotechnicalEngineering #DeepFoundations #Piling #Construction #PIT #CSL #TIP #Piletest #CHUM