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 dynamic testing of such large numbers is then not

usually practical. There are fortunately several
The ultimate strength of a deep foundation must alternative methods to evaluate integrity of these
satisfy both structural and geotechnical limits for foundations, depending on goals and installation
the foundation to perform as desired. Driven piles methods for the different drilled foundations. This
can be evaluated by dynamic testing for paper will briefly review alternatives.
geotechnical ultimate capacity as well as
installation driving stresses, structural integrity and
hammer energy transferred to the pile. The same 2 DRIVEN PILE CAPACITY
equipment can also be used for testing drilled
shafts (bored piles). Other than static load tests Dynamic pile testing (DPT) of driven piles was
which are performed according to ASTM D1143 first routinely developed following research at
(ASTM 2007), dynamic testing is the only Case Western Reserve University conducted
common method used to estimate capacity from between 1956 and 1977. DPT involves measuring
measurements. The cost of dynamic testing is pile force and pile velocity, usually near the pile
significantly smaller than the costs of static tests, top, as described by Rausche et al. (1985) with a
typically on the order of one tenth the cost. As the Pile Driving Analyzer®. Guide specifications for
testing loads increase, dynamic testing becomes performing the test correctly are given in ASTM
increasingly cost effective. D4945 (ASTM 2010). Testing is now commonly
While individual drilled shafts (and augered performed with wireless transmitters, and often by
CFA piles) can have their capacity verified by engineers at a location remote from the actual
dynamic testing, untested shafts are assumed to project location (Likins et al. 2009). “Signal
have similar geotechnical capacity if they are of matching” CAPWAP® software (Rausche et al.
similar nominal size and length in similar soils. 2010) uses the measured input and an assumed soil
Because the installation process is unique for each, model to create a calculated response that is
with no way to inspect the concrete placed in an compared with the measured response. The soil
open hole, it is often desired to know the structural model is iteratively adjusted, often automatically,
integrity of a large percentage of piles on site and until the calculated and measured responses agree

3
to obtain the full soil model, including the static The low testing cost to benefit ratio in reducing
resistance and its distribution along the pile shaft foundation costs through a lower safety factor has
and toe. Correlations of CAPWAP results with resulted in worldwide acceptance of dynamic
static load tests (Fig. 1) have proven the method testing. The value of testing can be illustrated by
reliable as shown by Likins and Rausche (2004). an example. Suppose we have a 40,000 kN load to
Continued improvements in computation power support and that the ultimate pile capacity is 2,000
now allow signal matching in real time during kN. Dividing the pile capacity by the factor of
testing (Likins et al. 2012). safety (F.S.) for each method of capacity
Pile capacity may change with time after determination yields a design load per pile and
installation of the pile. Capacity is often lower dividing the design load into the total load yields
during driving due to pore pressure effects or the number of piles required to support that load.
arching effects from lateral pile movements; these This is shown for the AAHTO ASD factors in
capacity reductions are temporary and capacity Table 1.
then increases as pore pressure effects dissipate or
as the normal earth pressures are restored. This Table 1. Number of piles required for example case for
capacity gain, described by Bullock et al. (2003) is AASHTO ASD method (prior to 2007).
generally called “set-up”. Komurka (2004) has
shown how set-up can be used both technically and Determination F.S. Design load # of Piles
economically to provide the lowest cost solution. method kN/ pile required
Prior to 2007, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials Dynamic formula 3.5 571 70
(AASHTO 1992) guidelines for factors of safety Wave equation 2.75 727 55
(F.S.) in allowable stress design (ASD) were the
following: Dynamic testing 2.25 889 45
 3.5 for dynamic formula Static testing 2.0 1000 40
 2.75 for wave equation analysis Static & Dynamic 1.9 1053 38
 2.25 for dynamic load testing testing
 2.0 for static load testing
 1.9 for static plus dynamic load testing These ASD factors of safety produced successful
These single factors contain both the reliability designs for several decades of highway bridge
of the determination method to estimate the construction. There was no specific guidance for
capacity, as well as provide for uncertainty in the the amount of static or dynamic testing.
expected
CWloads.
versus SLT combined (N=303) (80, 96, SW) Beginning in 2007, Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) was required by AASHTO (2010)
40,000
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
30,000 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” (Φ) to reflect the
CW [kN]

20,000 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
10,000 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.
0
The example pile capacity (2,000 kN) is multiplied
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 by the resistance factor, and the number of piles
SLT [kN]
required is then determined as shown in Table 2.
Figure 1. CAPWAP (CW) correlation with Static Load Test
Comparing the numbers of piles required for a
(SLT) after Likins and Rausche (2004). design by ASD in Table 1 with the number

4
required by LRFD in Table 2 shows the number established by the test piles, effectively
required by LRFD is only slightly less (max removing site variability.
difference 8%). The equivalent factor of safety can  “Signal matching” (CAPWAP) is required by
be computed from the average load factor divided AASHTO for dynamic tests and has been
by resistance factor. Other noted differences are shown to be conservative (Likins and
that Gates (Hannigan et al. 2006) is the only Rausche, 2004).
accepted dynamic formula, the amount of testing is There is a considerable difference between
specified, and testing all piles dynamically is dynamic testing 2% of all piles and testing 100%.
considered the equivalent of one static test (per site Consideration should be given to an intermediate
condition). resistance factor for an intermediate amount of
testing (e.g. testing 25% might justify a Φ 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 Φ Equiv Factored # of uses Φ 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 req’d 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
Wave equation 0.50 2.75 1000 55 cost of the foundation is generally proportional to
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
Static test or 0.75 1.83 1,500 37 benefit of the testing (43 piles for dynamic testing
100% Dynamic test instead of 69 piles for Gates formula is a 38%
Static test and 0.80 1.72 1,600 35
savings; or 100% dynamic testing is a 46% savings
>2% Dynamic test over Gates), justifying the small 2% cost of the
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
piles . from the measured force, F, and measured velocity,
 Set-up is very common (even in sands) and adds v.
extra safety for driven piles beyond static tests
run after only modest wait times, or dynamic E(t) = ʃ F(t) v(t) dt (1)
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

5
measures the compressive force at the pile top and 4 INTEGRITY TESTING OF DRILLED PILES
allows computation of compression and tension
stresses below the pile top. Maintaining driving Drilled foundations are not easily inspected, and
stresses during installation below safe levels their quality is related to soil conditions and the
compared to the material strength will generally skill of the contractor. They are designed by static
prevent damage. analysis methods with conservative soil strength
Dynamic testing can be used to investigate assumptions, so their geotechnical capacity is not
specific suspect piles for the possibility of damage. questioned. However, the foundation is still subject
For most piles with reasonable length, the velocity to compression or lateral failure if there is a
is positive throughout the first 2L/c time period significant structural weakness.
(where L is pile length and c is the material wave Drilled shafts often have large axial and lateral
speed). In this case the velocity times pile capacities but little redundancy making integrity of
impedance should monotonically decrease relative each shaft very important. As both dry and wet
to the force for this first 2L/c. If a local relative drilled shaft construction methods lack certainty in
velocity increase occurs, particularly if the increase inspection, the possibility of defects in the shafts is
is sudden, then this represents a tension reflection large. O’Neill and Sarhan (2004) found 20% of
from a reduction in cross section. shafts have defects.
This concept is illustrated by Figure 2 for a pile Augered CFA piles are often installed with
before and after damage. The data show blows just minimal inspection and defects are common.
prior to (#476) when some damage has occurred at During the important concreting phase, the drill
the section (indicated by arrows), and just after position is estimated from markings on the leads
(#477) the pile breaks. The solid vertical lines and the concrete volume is calculated from
indicate the initial impact time and 2L/c later. counting pump strokes. Ideally, the rig operator
withdraws the auger from the hole by controlling
the number of pump strokes for each depth
Toe reflection increment. However, many project records show
calculated volume only for the total pile rather than
Blow by critical incremental volume as specified by DFI
(2003).
476

5 LOW STRAIN INTEGRITY TESTING

Damage
reflection One of the earliest and most widely used NDT
(Non-Destructive Test) methods to evaluate
Damage reflection structural integrity is pulse echo or low strain
testing. The top of the shaft is impacted by a hand-
Blow 477 held 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
Figure 2. Dynamic testing reveals a pile that is damaged and 2L/c of the pile toe at 25 m. The second record
then breaks completely.
exhibits an early reflection from a depth of 15 m.
In extreme cases the defect is so large that multiple
Monitoring installation by dynamic testing for reflections for many defect cycles are found and
all blows during driving allows for a complete the toe reflection is not observed.
diagnosis of the pile condition to both prevent Data are normally enhanced by various signal
damaging stresses, assure that the hammer is processing methods to bring out record details
performing normally, and to confirm that the (Likins and Rausche 2000). The shaft impedance
capacity required has been reached. profile can be estimated in marginal cases as in the
present example to better quantify the size of the
defect.

6
 (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

200

pressure psi
150

100
.
50

0
1 101 201 301 401 501
250

200

150

100

50
Figure 4. Profile of the defective pile.
0
1 101 201 301 401 501
Figure 4 shows a profile for the defective pile
Figure 5. Pressure measurements versus time: top shows
shown in Figure 3. It should be noted that after the
normal operation, bottom is faulty pump.
first major defect the subsequent signals from the
pile section below the defect may contain extra Figure 5 illustrates both a proper performance
reflections due to the first defect and become less and a faulty performance of the same pump on the
reliable. However, since the first major defect is same pile. The concrete volume delivered to the
the most critical and likely to cause pile failure the pile and verified by the flowmeter measurements
integrity assessment of the lower portion of pile during the seven faulty pump strokes was
below the defect is almost inconsequential. considerably less than the volume calculated from
the pump stokes.
Quality of augered CFA piles is greatly
6 AUTOMATED MONITORING improved by Automated Monitoring Equipment
EQUIPMENT (AME). AME is specified in many codes including
the Federal Highway Administration GEC#8
Augered CFA piles are often installed with (Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 8) (Brown
minimal inspection, increasing the chance for et al, 2007). GEC#8, for example, requires 2 ft
defects. During the important concreting phase, the (61cm) depth increment accuracy and a magnetic
drill position is crudely estimated and the concrete flowmeter to measure volume.
volume is calculated from an assumed volume for AME monitors key elements of both the drilling
each pump stroke, “calibrated” at low resolution and concreting phases. During drilling, AME

7
monitors auger tip position, auger rotations, torque immediately identified and rectified before the
pressure, crowd pressure, and auger advancement auger is completely withdrawn.
speed. During the critical concreting phase, AME
monitors depth and volume to obtain “incremental
concrete volume” (called the most critical quality 7 CROSSHOLE SONIC LOGGING (CSL)
control parameter by the Deep Foundation
Institute) (DFI, 2003) and concrete pressure. Drilled shafts are commonly tested by CSL.
Volume is accurately measured by the magnetic Procedures are described in ASTM D6760 (ASTM
flowmeter rather than estimated by pump strokes. 2008). Several access tubes (one for each 0.3 m of
The AME, installed in the rig, provides shaft diameter) are attached to the reinforcing cage
feedback to the rig operator to guide the drilling prior to casting concrete. Several days after casting
and concreting operations. During drilling, AME a transmitter probe is lowered into one tube and a
provides the auger tip penetration depth and torque receiver probe into another tube. The probes are
pressure, assuring the piles are drilled to the correct generally kept at the same elevation and pulled
depth. During concreting AME guides the operator simultaneously from bottom to top of the shaft to
to fill each increment of the pile. 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 under-
filled, 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 Figure 7. Tests of shaft with defect at 30 ft (9m);
Left is initial test; Right is after pressure grouting.
2003). The sliding bar in the upper portion of the
screen displays the optimum pulling speed to guide Analysis of the data is described by Likins et al.
the rig operator. (2007). Figure 7 presents the waterfall diagram
AME records all pertinent drilling and which is a nesting of the raw data. The left edge is
concreting parameters and provides a field printout the “first arrival time” (FAT) and is the most
for immediate review by the Engineer or Inspector. important feature. The intensity of the graph
If any under-filled depth increments are discovered, reflects the signal strength; the white at 9 m (30 ft)
remedial action can be immediately taken while the indicates a defect. The left half of the plot is the
pile is still fluid. This allows for immediate initial test performed a few days after casting.
acceptance of the piles by qualified site personnel Since basically the same graph was obtained for all
or, if voids or other problems occur, they can be

8
tube combinations, the defect is a layer through the that depth, with the exception of locations within
entire section. A core was then specified and is one diameter from either the top or bottom of the
shown in Figure 8. The shaft was pressure grouted shaft where heat transfer to the surrounding soil is
using the core hole, and the shaft was tested again not exclusively radial.
(right half of Figure 7). While the defect is still Any deficiency in the concrete (e.g. void,
observed, its severity was greatly reduced and the necking or simply weak concrete strength) results
shaft was accepted. 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.
Figure 8. Core of defective shaft showing defect. Temperature measurements can be made either
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 Figure 9. Field data showing cage misalignment.
depth at any time after casting is nominally
proportional to the effective radius of the shaft at

9
 Temperature measurements using a thermal for ASD and higher resistance factors for LRFD,
probe via each access tube should be made near with the result that the better testing practices
peak temperature, typically 12 to 48 hours after results in fewer piles or shorter piles for any given
completion of the shaft. The optimum time design, and thus a significant reduction in
depends on the shaft diameter and mix design. foundation costs.
Larger diameter shafts or mix designs with high Since drilled or augered shaft construction
slag take longer to reach peak temperature. introduces uncertainty, evaluation of shaft integrity
If thermal sensing wires are embedded in the is a key consideration in shaft performance and
shaft, they are tied to vertical members of the acceptance. Several integrity evaluation methods
reinforcing cage. Thermal measurements are taken are available.
automatically at regular time intervals (typically For augercast piles, low strain integrity testing
every 15 minutes) at least until the shaft has with an accelerometer attached to the top of shaft
reached its peak temperature. to measure the response of a small hammer is quite
The overall average temperature of the shaft is common. The test works best for relatively
proportional to an average shaft radius, which is uniform shafts, and should be used to investigate
directly computed from the total concrete volume only for major defects. The first major defect
installed. generally renders the shaft as unacceptable but also
The shaft shown in Figure 9 contains eight prevents evaluation of the remainder of the shaft
access tubes through which this thermal probe data below the defect. A better solution for augered
was obtained. The data indicates that the tube piles is to prevent defects by use of Automated
labeled 2A is considerably cooler than the average Monitoring Equipment including a flowmeter so
temperature, and therefore significantly closer to that concrete volumes are accurately recorded.
the surrounding soil indicating less cover. The CSL tests are commonly used to evaluate the
tubes opposite (5A, 6A, and 7A) are warmer than integrity of larger drilled shafts. CSL can locate
the average at this depth slice selected indicating multiple defects and identify their locations both in
they are all closer to the shaft core. Thus, the cage depth and cross section quadrant. However,
has an alignment issue. The average data shows no detection of defects in the concrete is limited to
local cool zones with a normal temperature roll-off defects that penetrate the cage and affect the core.
at the bottom of the shaft, and hence no local Concrete cover cannot be assessed.
defects are present in the shaft. The thermal method uses the heat of hydration
Compared to CSL, thermal testing accelerates during concrete curing to evaluate the entire cross
the construction process. If no issues are found, section, including both core and cover of drilled
then casting caps can proceed immediately after shafts. Defects of any kind result in relatively cool
testing, often within 24 hours of casting the shaft. temperatures near the defect. Because thermal
testing has its best application at peak temperatures,
testing is performed and results available often
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS within 24 hours of casting the concrete; for good
shafts, this speeds the construction process.
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 REFERENCES
generally required for this testing by most codes
and produces a detailed soil model including total AASHTO (1992). Standard Specifications for Highway
capacity with resistance distribution as well as a Bridges. 15th Edition. American Association of State
simulated static load test curve. Compression Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
stresses are measured, and compression and tension AASHTO (2010). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 5th
driving stresses along the entire shaft length are Edition. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
computed. Based on knowledge of stresses, the
ASTM D1143 (2007a). “Standard Test Methods for Deep
hammer system can be adjusted to prevent pile Foundations Under Axial Compressive Load”. American
damage. Dynamic testing easily detects damaged Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA,
piles. Construction Vol. 04.08.
Different codes recognize that testing reduces ASTM D4945 (2010). “Standard test method for high-strain
uncertainty. More accurate test methods and larger dynamic testing of deep foundations”, American Society
quantity of testing results in lower safety factors

10
 for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Construction Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 3:
Vol. 4:08. Reston, VA, pp.367-383.
ASTM D5882 (2007b). “Standard test method for low-strain Rausche, F., Likins, G. E., Liang, L. and Hussein, M.H.
impact integrity testing of deep foundations”, American (2010). “Static and Dynamic Models for CAPWAP Signal
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Matching”. The Art of Foundation Engineering Practice,
Construction Vol. 4:08. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 198, American
ASTM D6760 (2008). “Standard test method for Integrity Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, pp.534-553.
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
Int’l 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 Int’l Conf. on the Application of Stress-
wave Theory to Piles: São 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.
O’Neill 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

11