DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations

Institute

ISSN: 1937-5247 (Print) 1937-5255 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ydfi20

A comparison of quality management for bored

pile/drilled shaft (BP/DS) foundation construction
and the implementation of recent technologies

B. Hertlein, G. Verbeek, R. Fassett & M. Arnold

To cite this article: B. Hertlein, G. Verbeek, R. Fassett & M. Arnold (2016) A comparison of quality
management for bored pile/drilled shaft (BP/DS) foundation construction and the implementation of
recent technologies, DFI Journal - The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute, 10:2, 87-94, DOI:
10.1080/19375247.2016.1255426

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19375247.2016.1255426

Published online: 15 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1727

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ydfi20
A comparison of quality management for bored
pile/drilled shaft (BP/DS) foundation
construction and the implementation of recent
technologies
B. Hertlein1, G. Verbeek*2, R. Fassett3 and M. Arnold4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements and the test results generated through the
requirements have been the catalysts to the development of many innovations and improved
practices used by contractors today to install bored piles/ drilled shafts (BP/DS). While the need for
sophisticated QA/QC practice is acknowledged around the world, practices applied for these kinds
of deep foundations differ significantly owing to local, state or federal requirements. This paper
reviews QC code and standard guidelines frequently implemented in North America and Europe,
along with technological developments over the past decade to assure the installation of a high-
quality BP/DS. An overview of common non-destructive and destructive test methods is provided
and the implementation in both continents evaluated through survey results.
Keywords: Bored piles, Drilled shafts, Quality control, Quality assurance technological developments, Test standards

applicable, to ensure that all parties understand the design

Introduction
While the need for quality management (QM) in the con-
struction of deep foundations is recognised around the
world, differing opinions exist as to what a QM programme
is, and what distinguishes Quality Assurance (QA) from
Quality Control (QC). Simultaneously, with the evolution
of the bored pile/drilled shaft (BP/DS) industry, new technol-
ogy is continuously introduced in North America and
Europe to help ensure the quality and performance. Consid-
ering the differences in the market forces between North
America and Europe, it is to be expected that the advent of
a new technology differs between these markets. This
paper discusses similarities and differences in QA/QC prac-
tice on both continents and reviews the technologies used to
assist foundation practice and ensure foundation perform-
ance in North America and Europe. For the purposes of
the ensuing discussion, the following distinctions are used:
QM is considered a cooperative programme involving all
parties throughout the site exploration, design, construc-
tion, testing and acceptance processes. Ideally, it also
includes the architect and the structural engineer, where
1
GEI Consultants, Inc., 400 N. Lakeview Parkway, Suite 140, Vernon Hills, IL
60061, USA
2
Verbeek Management Services, Tyler, TX 75703, USA
3
Condon-Johnson & Associates, 651 Strander Blvd. Ste 110, Seattle, WA
98188-2953, USA
4
BAUER Foundation Corp., 13203 Byrd Legg Dr, Odessa, FL 33556, USA
*Corresponding author, email gverbeek@verbeekservices.com
intent, the site conditions and the factors affecting the con-
struction of the selected foundation type.
QA is referred to as documented procedures for ensuring
quality in both the design and the construction processes,
with the purpose of eliminating flaws and defects. QA is a
QM tool utilised by both the design and the construction
teams. Much of the design and construction process for
bored pile/drilled shaft foundation construction involves
tools and techniques for ensuring the quality of materials
and the quality and accuracy of workmanship during the
construction process, thus providing QA. The techniques
applied during construction are evaluated in the ‘Tools of
the Trade’ section of this paper and include visual inspec-
tion from the top of the excavation, visual inspection by
downhole entry, Koden monitor (Ultrasonic Caliper),
mechanical caliper, plumb bob, downhole camera, shaft
inspection device (SID) and base grouting. These tools
enable the contractor to ensure shaft verticality, the shape
of the shaft as well as the cleanliness of the base of the exca-
vation, whether drilled ‘in the dry’ or under a drilling fluid.
QA is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and is
generally performed by the contractors’ own personnel,
both in Europe and in the US, although the contractor
may also use an inspection firm, especially for more
advanced QA techniques.
QC is defined as the verification of foundation integrity
and capacity after construction and utilises technologies
for verifying the quality of constructed foundations by

© 2016 Deep Foundations Institute

Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute
Received 28 May 2016; accepted 12 September 2016
DOI 10.1080/19375247.2016.1255426 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL 10 NO 2 87
Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
locating and identifying flaws in materials and/or geometry,
or by employing techniques to assess known flaws in order
to determine if they are considered unacceptable defects in
the finished product, and aid in the design of acceptable
repairs. QC is a quality verification methodology typically
performed by a third party after completion of the BP/DS
foundation. Practices for engaging the QC firm vary, but
relevant survey responses indicated that for both public
and private projects in Europe, the QC firm is typically
engaged by the contractor. In North America, QC for pub-
lic (state or municipal) projects is typically performed by
the owner’s personnel, or a third party engaged by the
owner. For private projects, the owner usually engages a
third-party QC firm, but occasionally the contractor
engages them.
Most of the commonly practised methods are recognised
in regional or national standards, as noted in the following
paragraphs. However, the choice of method(s) and the way
in which they are applied varies considerably. In North
America, private projects are typically governed by the
practices recommended in the International Building
Code, or the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual
of Concrete Practice. Publicly funded projects run by fed-
eral, state or municipal agencies are usually governed by
specifications based on documents published by the Amer-
ican Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) or the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHWA). European practices are similar in that
there are various European Standards (designated by the
letters EN), such as the Eurocode 7 (EN 1997), which cov-
ers the design and construction of foundations (incl. the QA
and QC requirements). This standard is supplemented by
various other European Standards dealing with more
specific topics that include the following:
. EN 1536 – execution of special geotechnical work –
bored piles
. EN 12063 – execution of special geotechnical work –
sheet piles
. EN 12699 – execution of special geotechnical work –
displacement piles
. EN 14199 – execution of special geotechnical work –
micropiles
. EN 22477 4 – Pile load test by dynamic axially loaded
compression test (in preparation)
. EN 22477 10 – Testing of piles: rapid load testing (RLT)
While the members of the European Standardization
Committee (CEN)1 are bound to comply with these stan-
dards, national practices may vary as the Eurocode permits
national variations within certain limitations to suit local
practice and environments, which are to be documented
in National Annexes.
Since not all testing methods are covered by a European
Standard at this time, various local standards are still used.
As an example, in France, the Association Française de Nor-
malisation (AFNOR) has published various standards for
integrity testing of deep foundations (NFP94-160-1 –
1
CEN members are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United
Kingdom.
88 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL 10
Crosshole Sonic logging (CSL), NFP94-160-2 – Impulse-
Echo (sonic echo), NFP94-160-3 – Parallel Seismic,
NFP94-160-4 – Impulse Response (sonic mobility) and
XP94-160-5 – Gamma/gamma Logging), while in Germany,
engineers rely for CSL, the most commonly used integrity
testing method, on the ‘Recommendations on Piling’, pub-
lished by the German Geotechnical Society (DGGT
2014), while others adopt the French standard (NFP94-
160-1). Other European respondents mentioned that stan-
dards by the American Society of the International Associ-
ation for Testing and Materials and guidelines by the ACI
were often used in the absence of a specific local or national
code. The use of these standards will come to an end as soon
as a European Standard will have been released.
Overview and comparison of QC
methods and technologies employed in
North America and the EU
QC methods and applicable standards for BP/DS foun-
dations can be categorised into (1) QC for shaft acceptance,
(2) static load testing to verify capacity and (3) dynamic
load testing to verify capacity.
QC for shaft acceptance
QC for shaft acceptance is performed via visual obser-
vation/inspection of the construction process, which is
common practice in both Europe and US, as well as non-
destructive testing (NDT) such as low-strain integrity
testing, CSL, gamma/gamma logging (GGL) and thermal
integrity profiling (TIP). In its simplest form, QA during
shaft construction is provided through verification of posi-
tioning and the implementation of vertical survey tools. The
as-built location of a drilled shaft/bored pile potentially
affects its response to applied loads, hence pile placement
requires a high level of accuracy between the installation
location and the design location as well as the identification
of any significant deviation during installation. The drilled
shaft/bored pile is composed of two important data sets: (1)
the top of the pile/shaft, and (2) the tip of the shaft/pile
which is affected by the verticality of the drill rig and the
stiffness of the drill string/Kelly bar. While GPS-based posi-
tioning has previously been used in other branches of the
construction industry, GPS-based horizontal positioning
systems directly attached to the drill rig are relatively new
to the foundation industry. Examples of currently employed
positioning systems are depicted in Figs. 1 and 2. Figure 1
shows an Automatic Positioning System (integrated into
Soilmec’s Drilling Mate System) and an Assistant Position-
ing System (B-APS, integrated into Bauer B-Tronic). Both
systems use GPS/GLONASS to provide the horizontal
positioning of the drill rig. The drill rig operator utilised
the system to position the drill mast and ultimately the dril-
ling tool into the pre-designated location. While European
contractors appear to have adopted the automated posi-
tioning systems provided by the equipment manufacturers
more frequently, there seems to be limited implementation
in North America.
In addition to automated positioning systems, state-
of-the-art drill rigs are equipped with inclinometers
NO 2

1 Screenshot Automatic Positioning System (Soilmec S.p.A.
2010)
2 Schematics and Bauer – Assistant Positioning System
(Bauer 2015)
attached to the drill mast and monitored by the operator to
ensure the verticality of the mast. The front-end person will
also use a 4-ft level placed directly on the Kelly bar or casing
at two locations at 90 degrees apart to verify the verticality
3 a Koden monitor with winch unit, b probe and c Koden recorder unit (Koden 2013)
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
of the mast. The approach to making measurements for the
verticality of a drilled shaft/bored pile depends on whether
the drilled shaft/bored pile is excavated using the dry
method or using the slurry method (Fig. 2).
If the shaft/pile is excavated using the dry method, the
bottom of the drilled shaft/bored pile can be sighted from
the top. On the basis of the percentage bottom shaft visible
to the inspector, the verticality of the shaft can be verified
and either approved or rejected. If this method does not
provide sufficient accuracy to validate the verticality, meth-
odologies used for shafts with slurry should be used. Latest
technological advances employed, when verifying the bot-
tom verticality of bored piles/drilled shafts filled with
water or slurry, are ultrasonic methods. In ultrasonic
methods, the travel time of a sound wave travelling from
shaft top to a sensor located at the shaft bottom is
measured. Ultrasonic equipment currently employed
includes the Koden, the Sonicaliper. Both devices provide
indirect measurements and require interpretation and jud-
gement by the testing agency. The Koden monitoring sys-
tem consists of a weighted sensor that is lowered into the
excavation (Fig. 3).
While the sensor is lowered or raised to/from the bottom
of the shaft, ultrasonic signals are emanated in either two or
four directions. The hole geometry is interpreted from
measurements of the time it takes for the signals to travel
back to the sensor as the signals are reflected off the exca-
vation sides. The four vertical profiles generated using this
approach are conceptually depicted in Fig. 4. These profiles
are then plotted and provide a graphical representation of
the verticality and diameter over entire length of the
shaft/pile. In the case of larger deviations from plumb,
more accurate results on verticality and actual diameter
can be obtained by post-processing the data using circle fit-
ting procedures. Beyond immediate analogue printouts,
digital data are recorded for long-term retention or further
analysis of the results.
The SoniCaliper, as shown in Fig. 5, is an ultrasonic echo
device for interpreting the verticality and cross-sectional
dimensions of the excavation. In addition, it can be used
to verify the drilled shaft/bored pile volume. Beyond these
functions, correlations to the cleanliness of the slurry have
been developed by evaluating the interruption or loss of sig-
nal during testing of a particular zone.
2016 VOL 10 NO 2 89
Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
4 Schematics of sensor action (left) and vertical profiles cre-
ated by the Koden monitor (right)
Figure 6 shows the areas within the United States where
the usage of the SoniCaliper was reported. Figure 6 also
presents a comparison of the usage with the US as well as
between the US and Europe (see bottom of Figure). Both
regions, i.e. US and EU, estimated similarly frequent
implementation of this device namely about 25% (Fig. 6).
For clarification, the reader is reminded that the incidence
of respondents indicating either their use of or their obser-
vation of the use of these devices is about 25%. This does
not mean that 25% of the drilled shafts/bored piles in the
area are installed on projects using these devices. Most of
the ‘measuring’ methods presented here are indirect.
The Rope Inclinometer, as shown in Fig. 7, is a frequently
used device in the European market. Its primary use applies
to fully cased bored piles/drilled shafts, and relies on a
measurement of the verticality of the rope on which the car-
riage is lowered into the drilled shaft/bored pile. This device
measures the inclination of the rope in two dimensions in
order to provide the inclination and orientation of the
shaft/pile.
The verification of the shaft cleanliness and end-bearing
capacity is common practice in the industry. Visual inspec-
tion is a widely accepted method for verifying excavation
cleanliness and base conformity (Fig. 8). As is illustrated
by the map, most states in the US and some of the Provinces
of Canada use some type of visual verification during the
drilling of a shaft/pile.
For dry shafts, visual inspections are the most common
way of inspecting a bored pile/drilled shaft for cleanliness
of the bottom. For non-end-bearing piles/shafts, on the
5 SoniCaliper equipment (left; Loadtest 2012), schematics of sensor action (centre) and created horizontal profiles (right)
90 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL
West Coast of North America, visual inspection is typically
performed from the ground surface using a mirror to direct
sunlight into the bottom of the shaft to allow the inspector
position at the shaft top to examine the cleanliness of the
shaft. If a shaft is designed for end-bearing, a more strin-
gent visual inspection may be required. On the East
Coast of North America, where most bored piles/drilled
shafts are designed for end-bearing, the bottom of the
shaft is often directly observed requiring a downhole
entry for the inspection, hand cleaning as required and
even coring at the bottom of the pile/shaft to verify the bot-
tom material.
When it is not feasible to enter the excavation for inspec-
tion, or when the drilled shaft/bored pile is constructed
under slurry displacement methods, visual inspections
have to be replaced with other approaches. The conven-
tional practice involves sounding the excavation bottom
with a heavy weighted tape. In some cases, the SID or Min-
iature Drilled Shaft Inspection Device (Mini-SID, see
Fig. 9) or a downhole camera can be used to provide a
video of the bottom conditions. The SID or mini-SID con-
sists of a bell with a camera and a lighted system with a
measuring probe which permits inspection of the bottom
of the excavation and verification/measurement of the
amount of loose sediment. The contract specifications typi-
cally provide criteria such as the maximum amount of sedi-
ment allowed over a particular area along with an average
depth.
Figure 10 illustrates the downhole camera usage in North
America according to survey results. A comparison of
Figs. 8 and 10 suggests that the downhole camera usage is
not as widely employed. Figure 11 compares the use of
visual inspection, downhole camera and the SID (or
Mini-SID). Visual Inspection is, by far, the most widely
used method for ensuring shaft cleanliness. The SID is
essentially unknown in Europe. Generally, we find that
those types of inspections are much less popular in Europe
than throughout North America. To reiterate, comparison
is based on the survey respondents who have witnessed
the use or the respective methodology and does not indicate
that there is 100% use of any technique for all drilled shafts/
bored piles.
In order to evaluate the quality of the finished concrete
pile, pre-concrete placement inspections (such as rebar and
spacing inspections), as well as co-placement inspection
10 NO 2

6 Reported usage of SoniCaliper throughout North America (left) and ratio of responses stating the usage of the SoniCaliper and
total responses per region
(i.e. verification of concrete placement procedures, slumps
tests, etc.), and post-placement inspections are performed.
Typical methods utilised to assess the in situ concrete pile
are destructive (coring) and NDT methods. Non-destructive
methods are generally preferred and include GGL, which is
also known as Gamma Density Logging (GDL), CSL,
which in Europe is also known as Sonic Coring, and TIP.
NDT requires the implementation of inspections tubes at
pre-determined locations before shaft construction and
rebar placement. For this, proper clearances must be guaran-
teed. The AASHTO recommends a minimum clearance of
five inches between inspection tubes and reinforcing steel
but provides spacing guidance based on the aggregate size.
GGL and CSL both require inspection tubes to be installed
into the reinforcing cages.
Guidance in North America for low-strain integrity test-
ing is provided through ASTM D5882, while Europe fol-
lows recommendations from ASTM D5882 as well as
local or national codes (such as NFP94-160-2, NFP-160-
4, ICE 2007. In North America, CSL follows ASTM
7 Rope inclinometer system: top unit (left) and carriage (right),
both BAUER Spezialtiefbau (2009)
The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute
Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
D6760 recommendations and is frequently performed on
public and private work in most states and provinces of
North America. In Europe, CSL is performed in France,
Germany and in the UK according to local codes
(NFP94-160-1) or the ASTM standard. GGL is commonly
employed in California and Arizona (usually with CSL for
confirmation in the event of anomalies). Little to no use was
observed in other states. GGL/GDL is not typically per-
formed in Europe, even though a French standard docu-
ment exists – XP-160-5. Figure 12 presents a comparison
of all test methods using the survey response. It is evident
that CSL is the primary non-destructive test method per-
formed in both North America and Europe. Note that
these methods are rarely used for dry method construction
and predominantly implemented in shaft construction
involving slurry displacement procedures.
TIP represents a relatively recent method which can be
conducted using the access/inspection tubes, or preferably
without the installation of tube by placing thermal wire
cables before concrete placement. TIP per ASTM D7949
8 Reported application of visual shaft inspection throughout
North America
2016 VOL 10 NO 2 91
Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
9 Miniature Drilled Shaft Inspection Device (GPE 2001)
is currently applied in Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio
and Washington. Some states in the Midwest of the US
are exploring the usage of TIP in parallel with CSL. In
Europe, TIP is widely used in London and slowly gaining
acceptance and implementation in parts of Austria, France,
Germany and Switzerland.
Static load testing to verify capacity
Conventional Tension, Compression and Lateral Load
Testing in North America is guided by ASTM D1143 –
Axial Compressive Load, ASTM D3689 – Axial Tension
Load Testing, and ASTM D3966 – Lateral Load. In
Europe, the Eurocode 7 defines the application of these
tests and for each test a dedicated European Standard is
currently under preparation as part of EN 22477:
. Part 1: Pile load test by static axially loaded compression
(in preparation)
. Part 2: Pile load test by static axially loaded tension (in
preparation)
. Part 3: Pile load test by static transversally loaded tension
(in preparation).
10 Reported usage of downhole camera throughout North
America.
92 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL
11 Ratio between responses stating the usage of visual
inspection, downhole camera and shaft inspection to total
responses per region.
Until these documents are released, the tests are per-
formed in accordance with either the ASTM standards or
various local codes or standards.
Static load tests using conventional ballast methods (i.e.
Kentledge method) were common on bored piles for low
to moderate design/test loads (typically, less than about
300 tons (2.7 MN)). However, as test loads increased, this
type of testing became too cumbersome (i.e. construction
of large reaction frames and tiedown anchors/reaction
shafts) and dangerous (i.e. stacking weights higher and
higher), and it became evident that this method had reached
its practical limit. An alternative to ‘stacking weights’ on
top of the test specimen is the usage of anchor piles, or
the combination of anchor piles and weights, also referred
to as compound method (anchor–kentledge) as shown in
Fig. 13.
Static load tests utilising the bi-directional Load Cell
(e.g. O-Cell, Fig. 14) are widely used in North America;
however, no guidance standard is currently published.
The ASTM committee D18 is currently working on the
development of a standard document. Bi-directional
Load Cell testing is rather rare in Europe, and until a
European Standard is issued most European
countries will adopt the ASTM standard when published.
Dynamic and RLT to verify capacity
As an alternative to static load testing, the shaft capacity
can also be verified through High Strain Dynamic Testing
or force-pulse testing, also known as rapid load testing
(RLT). The first method is regulated in the US by ASTM
D4945 and in Europe by the same standard, albeit that
work is continuing on a European Standard for this test
(EN 22477 part 4). While this test is widely accepted in
the US as a reliable alternative to static load testing, in
Europe there is still the perception that high strain dynamic
testing is a complimentary test to static load testing, and
should be correlated to static load tests, especially in case
of cast in-situ piles. At the same time this type of testing
is a good method of increasing the population of piles to
be tested and to give greater confidence in the design, and
10 NO 2
 Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile

12 Ratio between responses stating the usage of coring, CSL, TIP and GGL to total responses per region

it works well on pile shafts with uniform section and construction – i.e. CSL or GGL access tubes, bi-directional
material quality. At the same time the accuracy of test is load cells, strain gages, displacement telltales etc. In those
much dependant on the skill and experience of both the tes- cases, additional QA measures are necessary to ensure
ter and the analyst and there is also some controversy
within the industry about the factors that affect the accu-
racy of the capacity predictions.
RLT is conducted in North America per ASTM D7383
and in Europe per EN 22477 part 10.
When the capacity is not confirmed by a static load test,
some codes require higher factors of safety (or capacity
reduction factors), albeit that this change can be minimised
by increasing the number of tests performed.

QA/QC influence on test results

QA/QC requirements can affect the design and construc-
tion processes when the proposed QC methods require
installation of materials within the foundation during

13 Compound (anchor–kentledge) load test. (Figure taken

from www.piletest.eu) 14 Schematics Osterberg load cell test (Loadtest 2016)

The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL 10 NO 2 93

Hertlein et al. A comparison of quality management for bored pile
that the equipment and materials are correctly and accu-
rately installed and documented. For example, the DFI
Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Manual advocates measuring
and documenting the locations of all splices or joints and
the fixing points of CSL access tubes before reinforcing
cage installation, because they are likely to show up as
‘anomalies’ in CSL or GDL data. Similarly, CALTRANS
specifications allow the use of adobe or cement blocks as
reinforcing cage spacers/centralisers. Those blocks may
appear as density variations in GDL data. Where plastic
spacers are used, they may cause some localised pockets
of segregation which will also show up as density variations,
so specifications also require that the spacer or block
locations be accurately documented for correlation with
test results. Where bi-directional load cells are installed at
locations other than the base of the shaft, some US specifi-
cations require that CSL testing be performed before the
load test, to verify that no deleterious material has been
trapped under the cell that could adversely affect the load
test result.
QA/QC specifications
QA/QC requirements and the test results generated through
the requirements have been the catalysts to the development
of many innovations and improved practices used by con-
tractors today. However, issues arise when owners issue
specifications for construction and QM procedures using
a cut-and-paste approach, or specifying outdated methods
or technologies. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for spe-
cifications. Contractors and testing agencies must be pre-
pared to educate the owners if they issue a poorly
worded, outdated or inappropriate specification.
Typical practice with respect to the BP/DS QA/QC speci-
fications in North America can be distinguished as follows:
Government and state agencies (FHWA, DOTs, etc.):
QM specifications for many Federal and State foundation
projects are often buried in the contract specifications
(and sometimes even in the Special Provisions attached to
the specifications), and are then part of the foundation con-
tractor’s responsibilities.
Municipalities: Larger municipalities like the cities of
Chicago and New York have developed their own codes
and specifications for deep foundation construction and
QA/QC. Smaller municipalities tend to follow either the
local State DOT policies, or FHWA guidelines.
Private owners: Unless the local municipal code prevails,
private owners tend to rely on their engineer of record for
QA/QC recommendations.
In Europe, QA/QC practices were difficult to assess.
Among practices recommended by Government and State
Agencies (DOTs etc.), QA/QC requirements and rec-
ommendations varied widely. However, with further devel-
opment and adaption of the Eurocodes, the practices are
anticipated to become more uniform. No specific infor-
mation was obtained on municipal regulations; however,
for private owners, similar observations as in the US were
made, unless prevailed by municipal standards or state
regulations. It was noticed that private owners tend to
rely on their engineer for the QA/QC decision making.
94 The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute 2016 VOL
Summary
Evidently, there exist many similarities between QA/QC
practices for BP/DS construction in Europe and North
America and technologies are readily available on both con-
tinents. Nevertheless, their application varies widely for a
variety of reasons. For critical foundations with no redun-
dancy, such as single piles supporting individual bridge
piers, Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL or Sonic Coring) is
used both in Europe and in North America, but TIP is win-
ning converts on both sides of the Atlantic. For groups of
piles with some redundancy, as often found in bridge abut-
ments or tank and silo bases, low-strain integrity tests are
the norm, often with a selective test programme, such as
testing the first 10 or 20 shafts constructed, then selecting
a percentage of the remainder at random, or when some-
thing unusual is noted by the contactor or inspector during
the construction process.
In short, there is as much variation in preferred QA/QC
practices between North American states and provinces as
there is between European countries. However, one common
and concerning observation made on both sides of the Atlan-
tic was the significant number of testing firms with no or very
limited understanding of the drilled shaft construction pro-
cess, which therefore failed to ask for critical and readily avail-
able construction records before interpreting their test data,
or provide any opinion as to the nature and cause of any
anomalies. Another concern is related to the ‘cut-and-paste’
practice of specifications or special provisions compiled by
engineers who had little or no knowledge of the test methods,
which resulted in specification of tests that were either inap-
propriate for the site conditions or for the information
required. In either case, the test results are likely to be incon-
clusive at best, and misleading at worst. Therefore, great
opportunity exists for continuing professional education
and further development of specification and standards to
improve current QA/QC practice on both continents.
References
ASTM D7383. Standard test methods for axial compressive force pulse
(rapid) testing of deep foundations. West Conshohocken, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
BAUER Maschinen GmbH. 2015. B-APS BAUER – assistant positioning
system. Promotional information PI 117 03/2015. https://www.bauer.
de/export/shared/documents/pdf/bma/datenblatter/B-APS_DE-EN_
PI117.pdf
BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH. 2009. Rope Inclinometer “Seilneig” (Type
IV) – Verticality measurements in cased boreholes. http://www.bst-
messtechnik.de/export/sites/www.bst-messtechnik.de/pdf/pdf_mit_sc
hutz/rope-inclinometer_en.pdf
DGGT German Geotechnical Society. 2014. Recommendations on piling
(EA-pfähle). Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany.
GPE, inc. 2001. Miniature Drilled Shaft Inspection Device (Mini-SID).
http://www.gpe.org/products/miniSID.htm
Koden Electronics Co., Ltd. 2013. Koden Ultrasonic Drilling Monitor
DM-602/604.http://www.koden-electronics.co.jp/eng/industrial/pdf/
industrial/dm602604-e130920.pdf
Loadtest. 2012. SoniCaliper. http://www.loadtest.com/services/SoniCaliper.
pdf
Loadtest. 2016. O-cell Load Testing. http://www.loadtest.com/services/
ocell.htm
Soilmec S.p.A. 2010. APS Automatic Positioning System. http://www.
soilmec.com/downloads/2329/95/1362__aps.pdf
10 NO 2