A brief overview of testing of deep foundations

Likins, G., Robinson, B. & Piscsalko, G.

Pile Dynamics, Inc., USA

Keywords: dynamic pile testing, integrity testing, NDT, installation monitoring

ABSTRACT: Deep foundations provide the key support for most heavy structures. The final product often is
highly dependent upon the skill of the installing contractor and the success of the installation can be greatly
influenced by the surrounding soils. It is imperative that these foundations function properly or the supported
structure will be put into distress. The foundation must have adequate geotechnical capacity and its structural
integrity must not be compromised. Unfortunately, the final foundation product lies buried beneath the
ground which makes inspection difficult.
The foundations may be installed by drilling or driving methods. Because each installation technique has
its own difficulties, different inspection methods, each with its unique strengths, are needed. Modern tools
are now available to assess most deep foundations, either as monitoring during installation or inspecting the
foundation in place. Several methods of integrity evaluation are available, and their applicability to the
differing deep foundation types are discussed, and recommendations made. Static or dynamic testing
methods are reviewed for their ability to assess the geotechnical capacity of each deep foundation type.
1

INTRODUCTION

The ultimate strength of a deep foundation must

satisfy both structural and geotechnical limits for
the foundation to perform as desired. Driven piles
can be evaluated by dynamic testing for
geotechnical ultimate capacity as well as
installation driving stresses, structural integrity and
hammer energy transferred to the pile. The same
equipment can also be used for testing drilled
shafts (bored piles). Other than static load tests
which are performed according to ASTM D1143
(ASTM 2007), dynamic testing is the only
common method used to estimate capacity from
measurements. The cost of dynamic testing is
significantly smaller than the costs of static tests,
typically on the order of one tenth the cost. As the
testing loads increase, dynamic testing becomes
increasingly cost effective.
While individual drilled shafts (and augered
CFA piles) can have their capacity verified by
dynamic testing, untested shafts are assumed to
have similar geotechnical capacity if they are of
similar nominal size and length in similar soils.
Because the installation process is unique for each,
with no way to inspect the concrete placed in an
open hole, it is often desired to know the structural
integrity of a large percentage of piles on site and

dynamic testing of such large numbers is then not

usually practical. There are fortunately several
alternative methods to evaluate integrity of these
foundations, depending on goals and installation
methods for the different drilled foundations. This
paper will briefly review alternatives.
2

DRIVEN PILE CAPACITY

Dynamic pile testing (DPT) of driven piles was

first routinely developed following research at
Case Western Reserve University conducted
between 1956 and 1977. DPT involves measuring
pile force and pile velocity, usually near the pile
top, as described by Rausche et al. (1985) with a
Pile Driving Analyzer. Guide specifications for
performing the test correctly are given in ASTM
D4945 (ASTM 2010). Testing is now commonly
performed with wireless transmitters, and often by
engineers at a location remote from the actual
project location (Likins et al. 2009). Signal
matching CAPWAP software (Rausche et al.
2010) uses the measured input and an assumed soil
model to create a calculated response that is
compared with the measured response. The soil
model is iteratively adjusted, often automatically,
until the calculated and measured responses agree
3

to obtain the full soil model, including the static

resistance and its distribution along the pile shaft
and toe. Correlations of CAPWAP results with
static load tests (Fig. 1) have proven the method
reliable as shown by Likins and Rausche (2004).
Continued improvements in computation power
now allow signal matching in real time during
testing (Likins et al. 2012).
Pile capacity may change with time after
installation of the pile. Capacity is often lower
during driving due to pore pressure effects or
arching effects from lateral pile movements; these
capacity reductions are temporary and capacity
then increases as pore pressure effects dissipate or
as the normal earth pressures are restored. This
capacity gain, described by Bullock et al. (2003) is
generally called set-up. Komurka (2004) has
shown how set-up can be used both technically and
economically to provide the lowest cost solution.
Prior to 2007, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO 1992) guidelines for factors of safety
(F.S.) in allowable stress design (ASD) were the
following:
3.5 for dynamic formula
2.75 for wave equation analysis
2.25 for dynamic load testing
2.0 for static load testing
1.9 for static plus dynamic load testing
These single factors contain both the reliability
of the determination method to estimate the
capacity, as well as provide for uncertainty in the
expected
CWloads.
versus SLT combined (N=303) (80, 96, SW)
40,000

CW [kN]

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0

10,000

20,000
SLT [kN]

30,000

40,000

Figure 1. CAPWAP (CW) correlation with Static Load Test

(SLT) after Likins and Rausche (2004).

The low testing cost to benefit ratio in reducing

foundation costs through a lower safety factor has
resulted in worldwide acceptance of dynamic
testing. The value of testing can be illustrated by
an example. Suppose we have a 40,000 kN load to
support and that the ultimate pile capacity is 2,000
kN. Dividing the pile capacity by the factor of
safety (F.S.) for each method of capacity
determination yields a design load per pile and
dividing the design load into the total load yields
the number of piles required to support that load.
This is shown for the AAHTO ASD factors in
Table 1.
Table 1. Number of piles required for example case for
AASHTO ASD method (prior to 2007).

Determination
method

F.S.

Design load
kN/ pile

# of Piles
required

Dynamic formula

3.5

571

70

Wave equation

2.75

727

55

Dynamic testing

2.25

889

45

Static testing

2.0

1000

40

Static & Dynamic

testing

1.9

1053

38

These ASD factors of safety produced successful

designs for several decades of highway bridge
construction. There was no specific guidance for
the amount of static or dynamic testing.
Beginning in 2007, Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) was required by AASHTO (2010)
for highway construction in the USA. In LRFD the
factor of safety is split into two components. The
loads are multiplied by load factors to reflect the
uncertainty of different load types (e.g. Dead, Live,
Wind, Seismic) and different combinations of
loading cases are considered. The capacity is
multiplied by a resistance factor () to reflect the
uncertainty of the capacity determination method
and site variability.
For the example case chosen and a typical dead
load (D) to live load (L) ratio of 3, the typical
controlling load combination is 1.25D + 1.75L, and
the 40,000 kN total load becomes a factored load
of (30,000 x 1.25 + 10,000 x 1.75) = 55,000 kN.
The example pile capacity (2,000 kN) is multiplied
by the resistance factor, and the number of piles
required is then determined as shown in Table 2.
Comparing the numbers of piles required for a
design by ASD in Table 1 with the number

established by the test piles, effectively

removing site variability.
Signal matching (CAPWAP) is required by
AASHTO for dynamic tests and has been
shown to be conservative (Likins and
Rausche, 2004).
There is a considerable difference between
dynamic testing 2% of all piles and testing 100%.
Consideration should be given to an intermediate
resistance factor for an intermediate amount of
testing (e.g. testing 25% might justify a of 0.70).
Table 2. Number of piles required for example case for
Individual state Departments of Transportation
AASHTO LRFD.
(DOT) may adopt their own guidelines. Ohio DOT
Determination

Equiv Factored
# of uses of 0.70 for dynamic testing of typically 2
method
F.S. resistance
piles piles per structure (so 40 piles would be required in
kN / pile
reqd our example), and the testing cost for Ohio DOT
has averaged less than 2% of the piling costs over
Gates formula
0.40 3.44
800
69
the last 5 years (Narsavage, 2011). Since the total
cost of the foundation is generally proportional to
Wave equation
0.50 2.75
1000
55
the number of piles required, the significant
Dynamic test
0.65 2.12
1,300
43
reduction in number of piles demonstrated in Table
(min.2% or 2#)
2 when piles are tested shows the clear economic
benefit of the testing (43 piles for dynamic testing
Static test or
0.75 1.83
1,500
37
instead of 69 piles for Gates formula is a 38%
100% Dynamic test
savings; or 100% dynamic testing is a 46% savings
Static test and
0.80 1.72
1,600
35
over Gates), justifying the small 2% cost of the
>2% Dynamic test
testing.
The reduction in number of piles for the testing
methods is justified considering the following:
Most static tests have considerably more 3 DRIVEN PILE MONITORING
reserve strength beyond the Davisson criterion
usually used to evaluate static tests for driven The energy (E) transferred to the pile is computed
from the measured force, F, and measured velocity,
piles .
Set-up is very common (even in sands) and adds v.
extra safety for driven piles beyond static tests
(1)
run after only modest wait times, or dynamic E(t) = F(t) v(t) dt
tests performed at end of drive or during a
restrike after at most a few days.
The maximum energy transferred during impact
Production piles always meet or exceed the is then determined. Sufficient energy transfer
driving criterion (e.g. driving to a required 47 assures both an efficient installation and that the
blow/foot, often the pile experiences 47 blows pile can be installed to a proper depth for the
well before the full foot).
required capacity. The blow count, or set per blow,
Production pile driving results in densification is usually part of the installation criteria determined
of the soil, improving previously driven piles.
by the test pile program, so it is critical that energy
Preliminary designs often overestimate the transferred to production piles be similar to the test
actual loads. Few piles are actually critically piles.
loaded, yet all are driven to the same higher
Driven piles must have adequate geotechnical
load criterion. The number of piles in a group capacity, but they also must have adequate
is rounded up (8.4 piles required is rounded to structural strength. Usually the structural strength
9).
exceeds the geotechnical strength as long as the
Production piles generally are driven to a pile is not damaged during the installation process.
blow
count
criterion
conservatively Controlling the stresses during pile driving is
important to prevent damage. Dynamic testing
required by LRFD in Table 2 shows the number
required by LRFD is only slightly less (max
difference 8%). The equivalent factor of safety can
be computed from the average load factor divided
by resistance factor. Other noted differences are
that Gates (Hannigan et al. 2006) is the only
accepted dynamic formula, the amount of testing is
specified, and testing all piles dynamically is
considered the equivalent of one static test (per site
condition).

measures the compressive force at the pile top and

allows computation of compression and tension
stresses below the pile top. Maintaining driving
stresses during installation below safe levels
compared to the material strength will generally
prevent damage.
Dynamic testing can be used to investigate
specific suspect piles for the possibility of damage.
For most piles with reasonable length, the velocity
is positive throughout the first 2L/c time period
(where L is pile length and c is the material wave
speed). In this case the velocity times pile
impedance should monotonically decrease relative
to the force for this first 2L/c. If a local relative
velocity increase occurs, particularly if the increase
is sudden, then this represents a tension reflection
from a reduction in cross section.
This concept is illustrated by Figure 2 for a pile
before and after damage. The data show blows just
prior to (#476) when some damage has occurred at
the section (indicated by arrows), and just after
(#477) the pile breaks. The solid vertical lines
indicate the initial impact time and 2L/c later.
Toe reflection
Blow
476

Damage reflection
Blow 477

Figure 2. Dynamic testing reveals a pile that is damaged and

then breaks completely.

Monitoring installation by dynamic testing for

all blows during driving allows for a complete
diagnosis of the pile condition to both prevent
damaging stresses, assure that the hammer is
performing normally, and to confirm that the
capacity required has been reached.

INTEGRITY TESTING OF DRILLED PILES

Drilled foundations are not easily inspected, and

their quality is related to soil conditions and the
skill of the contractor. They are designed by static
analysis methods with conservative soil strength
assumptions, so their geotechnical capacity is not
questioned. However, the foundation is still subject
to compression or lateral failure if there is a
significant structural weakness.
Drilled shafts often have large axial and lateral
capacities but little redundancy making integrity of
each shaft very important. As both dry and wet
drilled shaft construction methods lack certainty in
inspection, the possibility of defects in the shafts is
large. ONeill and Sarhan (2004) found 20% of
shafts have defects.
Augered CFA piles are often installed with
minimal inspection and defects are common.
During the important concreting phase, the drill
position is estimated from markings on the leads
and the concrete volume is calculated from
counting pump strokes. Ideally, the rig operator
withdraws the auger from the hole by controlling
the number of pump strokes for each depth
increment. However, many project records show
calculated volume only for the total pile rather than
by critical incremental volume as specified by DFI
(2003).
5

Damage
reflection

LOW STRAIN INTEGRITY TESTING

One of the earliest and most widely used NDT

(Non-Destructive Test) methods to evaluate
structural integrity is pulse echo or low strain
testing. The top of the shaft is impacted by a handheld hammer and the response measured by an
accelerometer attached to the shaft (ASTM 2007b).
Early tension reflections before 2L/c are the
result of major deficiencies. Figure 3 shows a
sample result for two neighboring piles. The first
record shows initial impact and the return from
2L/c of the pile toe at 25 m. The second record
exhibits an early reflection from a depth of 15 m.
In extreme cases the defect is so large that multiple
reflections for many defect cycles are found and
the toe reflection is not observed.
Data are normally enhanced by various signal
processing methods to bring out record details
(Likins and Rausche 2000). The shaft impedance
profile can be estimated in marginal cases as in the
present example to better quantify the size of the
defect.

(e.g. perhaps as few as 6 strokes for a 55 gallon

barrel). If recorded manually, depth resolution
typically is only every 5 ft (1.5 m). However, many
project records show calculated volume only for
the total pile with no indication at all of the critical
incremental volume as specified by DFI (2003).
Mechanical
pump
operation
may be
inconsistent over time. When pump failures occur,
significant reductions in pile cross-section occur as
there is no way to know when the pump is not
supplying the assumed volume per pump stroke.
Often an inconsistent pump will produce little or
no concrete for many consecutive strokes, leading
to severe necking within the pile.
Figure 3. Low strain records of two piles. Top pile is
acceptable. Bottom pile has major defect (arrow).

250

pressure psi
.

200
150

100
50
0
250

101

201

301

401

501

200
150

100
50

Figure 4. Profile of the defective pile.

Figure 4 shows a profile for the defective pile

shown in Figure 3. It should be noted that after the
first major defect the subsequent signals from the
pile section below the defect may contain extra
reflections due to the first defect and become less
reliable. However, since the first major defect is
the most critical and likely to cause pile failure the
integrity assessment of the lower portion of pile
below the defect is almost inconsequential.
6 AUTOMATED
EQUIPMENT

MONITORING

Augered CFA piles are often installed with

minimal inspection, increasing the chance for
defects. During the important concreting phase, the
drill position is crudely estimated and the concrete
volume is calculated from an assumed volume for
each pump stroke, calibrated at low resolution

101

201

301

401

501

Figure 5. Pressure measurements versus time: top shows

normal operation, bottom is faulty pump.

Figure 5 illustrates both a proper performance

and a faulty performance of the same pump on the
same pile. The concrete volume delivered to the
pile and verified by the flowmeter measurements
during the seven faulty pump strokes was
considerably less than the volume calculated from
the pump stokes.
Quality of augered CFA piles is greatly
improved by Automated Monitoring Equipment
(AME). AME is specified in many codes including
the Federal Highway Administration GEC#8
(Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 8) (Brown
et al, 2007). GEC#8, for example, requires 2 ft
(61cm) depth increment accuracy and a magnetic
flowmeter to measure volume.
AME monitors key elements of both the drilling
and concreting phases. During drilling, AME

monitors auger tip position, auger rotations, torque

pressure, crowd pressure, and auger advancement
speed. During the critical concreting phase, AME
monitors depth and volume to obtain incremental
concrete volume (called the most critical quality
control parameter by the Deep Foundation
Institute) (DFI, 2003) and concrete pressure.
Volume is accurately measured by the magnetic
flowmeter rather than estimated by pump strokes.
The AME, installed in the rig, provides
feedback to the rig operator to guide the drilling
and concreting operations. During drilling, AME
provides the auger tip penetration depth and torque
pressure, assuring the piles are drilled to the correct
depth. During concreting AME guides the operator
to fill each increment of the pile.

immediately identified and rectified before the

auger is completely withdrawn.
7

CROSSHOLE SONIC LOGGING (CSL)

Drilled shafts are commonly tested by CSL.

Procedures are described in ASTM D6760 (ASTM
2008). Several access tubes (one for each 0.3 m of
shaft diameter) are attached to the reinforcing cage
prior to casting concrete. Several days after casting
a transmitter probe is lowered into one tube and a
receiver probe into another tube. The probes are
generally kept at the same elevation and pulled
simultaneously from bottom to top of the shaft to
evaluate the concrete along the full shaft length.
Probes are then moved to other tubes and the test
repeated for all tube combinations.

Figure 6. AME screen showing void at 60 feet.

Figure 6 shows the AME concreting screen

which guides the operator in real time. The
horizontal line in the bar graph is the minimum
concrete target value (typically at least 115% of
theoretical volume). If any increment is underfilled, the increment is displayed in red. Such
violations immediately alert the operator to correct
the deficiency by re-drilling and re-concreting the
pile before exiting the hole. Once the concrete is
seen at the ground surface (vertical line shown at
20 ft in Fig. 6), the target line reduces to 100% of
the theoretical volume as per DFI guidelines (DFI
2003). The sliding bar in the upper portion of the
screen displays the optimum pulling speed to guide
the rig operator.
AME records all pertinent drilling and
concreting parameters and provides a field printout
for immediate review by the Engineer or Inspector.
If any under-filled depth increments are discovered,
remedial action can be immediately taken while the
pile is still fluid. This allows for immediate
acceptance of the piles by qualified site personnel
or, if voids or other problems occur, they can be
8

Figure 7. Tests of shaft with defect at 30 ft (9m);

Left is initial test; Right is after pressure grouting.

Analysis of the data is described by Likins et al.

(2007). Figure 7 presents the waterfall diagram
which is a nesting of the raw data. The left edge is
the first arrival time (FAT) and is the most
important feature. The intensity of the graph
reflects the signal strength; the white at 9 m (30 ft)
indicates a defect. The left half of the plot is the
initial test performed a few days after casting.
Since basically the same graph was obtained for all

tube combinations, the defect is a layer through the

entire section. A core was then specified and is
shown in Figure 8. The shaft was pressure grouted
using the core hole, and the shaft was tested again
(right half of Figure 7). While the defect is still
observed, its severity was greatly reduced and the
shaft was accepted.

that depth, with the exception of locations within

one diameter from either the top or bottom of the
shaft where heat transfer to the surrounding soil is
not exclusively radial.
Any deficiency in the concrete (e.g. void,
necking or simply weak concrete strength) results
in less heat producing cement at that location and
will interrupt the normal temperature signature,
with cooler temperatures near this defect. Any
higher temperature than the average indicates an
increased concrete volume (bulge).
In addition to determining shaft integrity of the
core or cover, thermal testing evaluates the
reinforcing cage alignment by comparing
measurements from radially opposite locations. If
one location is cooler than the average at some
depth and the radially opposite location is warmer,
this indicates that the cooler measurement location
is closer to the surrounding soil while warmer
measurement location is closer to the shaft center.
Temperature measurements can be made either
Figure 8. Core of defective shaft showing defect.
by a thermal probe if access tubes are available, or
The advantages of CSL testing are many. by attaching wires with a series of thermal sensors
Construction may be performed more carefully to the reinforcing cage prior to casting concrete.
when the possibility of definitive testing is possible. One measurement should be made equally spaced
CSL is independent of the pile length or around the reinforcing cage for each 0.3 m of shaft
surrounding soil, and the first major defect does not diameter.
affect measurements at deeper depths along the
shaft. CSL allows detection and quantification of
multiple defects, and can determine the quadrant of
the shaft where the defect is located.
However, CSL also will not detect defects unless
they penetrate the cage, so loss of cover is not
detectable by this method. Construction is delayed
until testing is completed and the shaft approved,
and since testing can only be accomplished in solid
concrete several days after casting, this delay can
be significant.
8

THERMAL INTEGRITY PROFILING (TIP)

Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) measures the heat

of hydration along the shaft length to evaluate the
entire cross-section, including determination of the
concrete cover (Mullins 2010). The thermal
method is not limited by length or by non-uniform
shaft profiles.
The normal heat signature at the cage of curing
concrete depends on the shaft diameter, concrete
mix design, soil conditions, and time after concrete
casting. The average temperature at any particular
depth at any time after casting is nominally
proportional to the effective radius of the shaft at

Figure 9. Field data showing cage misalignment.

Temperature measurements using a thermal

probe via each access tube should be made near
peak temperature, typically 12 to 48 hours after
completion of the shaft. The optimum time
depends on the shaft diameter and mix design.
Larger diameter shafts or mix designs with high
slag take longer to reach peak temperature.
If thermal sensing wires are embedded in the
shaft, they are tied to vertical members of the
reinforcing cage. Thermal measurements are taken
automatically at regular time intervals (typically
every 15 minutes) at least until the shaft has
reached its peak temperature.
The overall average temperature of the shaft is
proportional to an average shaft radius, which is
directly computed from the total concrete volume
installed.
The shaft shown in Figure 9 contains eight
access tubes through which this thermal probe data
was obtained. The data indicates that the tube
labeled 2A is considerably cooler than the average
temperature, and therefore significantly closer to
the surrounding soil indicating less cover. The
tubes opposite (5A, 6A, and 7A) are warmer than
the average at this depth slice selected indicating
they are all closer to the shaft core. Thus, the cage
has an alignment issue. The average data shows no
local cool zones with a normal temperature roll-off
at the bottom of the shaft, and hence no local
defects are present in the shaft.
Compared to CSL, thermal testing accelerates
the construction process. If no issues are found,
then casting caps can proceed immediately after
testing, often within 24 hours of casting the shaft.
9

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic pile testing is now a routine procedure for

evaluating driven piles and can be applied to
drilled shafts. Signal matching of the data is
generally required for this testing by most codes
and produces a detailed soil model including total
capacity with resistance distribution as well as a
simulated static load test curve. Compression
stresses are measured, and compression and tension
driving stresses along the entire shaft length are
computed. Based on knowledge of stresses, the
hammer system can be adjusted to prevent pile
damage. Dynamic testing easily detects damaged
piles.
Different codes recognize that testing reduces
uncertainty. More accurate test methods and larger
quantity of testing results in lower safety factors

10

for ASD and higher resistance factors for LRFD,

with the result that the better testing practices
results in fewer piles or shorter piles for any given
design, and thus a significant reduction in
foundation costs.
Since drilled or augered shaft construction
introduces uncertainty, evaluation of shaft integrity
is a key consideration in shaft performance and
acceptance. Several integrity evaluation methods
are available.
For augercast piles, low strain integrity testing
with an accelerometer attached to the top of shaft
to measure the response of a small hammer is quite
common. The test works best for relatively
uniform shafts, and should be used to investigate
only for major defects. The first major defect
generally renders the shaft as unacceptable but also
prevents evaluation of the remainder of the shaft
below the defect. A better solution for augered
piles is to prevent defects by use of Automated
Monitoring Equipment including a flowmeter so
that concrete volumes are accurately recorded.
CSL tests are commonly used to evaluate the
integrity of larger drilled shafts. CSL can locate
multiple defects and identify their locations both in
depth and cross section quadrant. However,
detection of defects in the concrete is limited to
defects that penetrate the cage and affect the core.
Concrete cover cannot be assessed.
The thermal method uses the heat of hydration
during concrete curing to evaluate the entire cross
section, including both core and cover of drilled
shafts. Defects of any kind result in relatively cool
temperatures near the defect. Because thermal
testing has its best application at peak temperatures,
testing is performed and results available often
within 24 hours of casting the concrete; for good
shafts, this speeds the construction process.
REFERENCES
AASHTO (1992). Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. 15th Edition. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
AASHTO (2010). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 5th
Edition. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
ASTM D1143 (2007a). Standard Test Methods for Deep
Foundations Under Axial Compressive Load. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
Construction Vol. 04.08.
ASTM D4945 (2010). Standard test method for high-strain
dynamic testing of deep foundations, American Society

for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Construction

Vol. 4:08.
ASTM D5882 (2007b). Standard test method for low-strain
impact integrity testing of deep foundations, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
Construction Vol. 4:08.
ASTM D6760 (2008). Standard test method for Integrity
testing of Concrete deep foundations by ultrasonic
crosshole testing, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Vol. 4:08.
Brown, D., Dapp, S., Thompson, R. and Lazarte, C. ( 2007).
Geotechnical Engineering Circular NO. 8 Design and
Construction of Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles,
Report No. FHWA-HIF-07-03, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Bullock, P.J., Schmertmann, J. H., McVay, M. C. and
Townsend, F., (2005). Side Shear Setup. I: Test Piles
Driven in Florida. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 3: Reston, VA; pp. 292-300.
DFI (2003). Augered Cast-in-Place Pile Manual, Deep
Foundations Institute, Hawthorne New Jersey
Komurka, V.E. (2004). Incorporating Set-Up and Support
Cost Distributions into Driven Pile Design, Current
Practices and Future Trends in Deep Foundations, ASCE,
Geotechnical Special Publication 125, 0-7844-0743-6, pp.
16-49.
Likins, G. E., Hermansson, I., Kightley, M., Cannon, J.G. and
Klingberg, D. (2009). Advances in Dynamic Foundation
Testing Technology. Contemporary Topics in Deep
Foundations; Geotechnical Special Publication 185.
American Society of Civil Engineers: Orlando, Florida; pp.
591-598.
Likins, G., Liang, L. and Hyatt, T., (2012). Performance
Study of iCAP, Soils and Foundations IS-Kanazawa
2012 Special Issue, Japanese Geotechnical Society.
Likins, G. E. and Rausche, F. (2004). Correlation of
CAPWAP with Static Load Tests. Proc. of the Seventh
Intl Conf. on the Application of Stresswave Theory to
Piles: Malaysia; p153-165.
Likins, G. E. and Rausche, F., (2000). Recent Advances and
Proper Use of PDI Low Strain Pile Integrity Testing.
Proc. of the Sixth Intl Conf. on the Application of Stresswave Theory to Piles: So Paulo, Brazil; pp. 211-218.
Likins, G. E., Rausche, F., Webster, K., Klesney, A. (2007).
Defect Analysis for CSL Testing. Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 158, American Society of Civil
Engineers: Reston, VA.
Mullins, G. (2010). Thermal Integrity Profiling of Drilled
Shafts, DFI Journal, Vol 4 No 2, Deep Foundations
Institute, Hawthorne New Jersey.
Narsavage, P. (2011). Pile Practice of Ohio Department of
Transportation, powerpoint presentation.
ONeill and Sarhan (2004). Structural Resistance Factors for
Drilled Shafts Considering Construction Flaws, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 125, ASCE, Reston,
VA, pp. 166-185.
Rausche, F., Goble, G. G. and Likins, G. E. (1985).
Dynamic Determination of Pile Capacity. ASCE

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 3:

Reston, VA, pp.367-383.
Rausche, F., Likins, G. E., Liang, L. and Hussein, M.H.
(2010). Static and Dynamic Models for CAPWAP Signal
Matching. The Art of Foundation Engineering Practice,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 198, American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, pp.534-553.

11