FIGURES

Fig. 1 Sonic Echo(SE)/Impulse Response (IR) method

Fig. 2 Methods of propagating ultrasonic pulse (Instruction Manual for Model C-4902 and Model C-4901 V-meter, Jan'80)

Fig. 3 Basic wave elements

Fig. 4 Freedom NDTPC Family of Instruments (Olson Engineering, Inc.)

Fig. 5 PILELOGs - Full Waveform Cross-hole Sonic Logging System (InfraSeis, Inc.)

Fig. 6 PISA - Pile Integrity Sonic Analyzer (Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc.)

Fig. 7 (a) Full waveform stacked traces (InfraSeis, Inc.) and (b) CSL log plot - first arrival time (FAT), Apparent Velocity and Relative energy versus depth (GRL & Assoc., Inc.)

Fig. 8 CSL method and various kinds of defects - anomalies ((a) Olson Engineering Inc. and (b) Stain, R.T., 1982)

Fig. 9 Typical signal recorded through concrete

Fig. 10 Project location - (a) local overview, (b) regional overview

Fig. 11 Arroyo Seco Bridge boring (a) boring B-5, (b) boring B-6, (c) boring B-7

Fig. 12 Schematic Arroyo Seco Bridge plan and subsurface profile

Fig. 13 Drilled shaft (a) vertical cross-section, (b) horizontal cross-section

Fig. 14 (a-e) Drilled shaft installation and CSL measurements

Fig. 15 Project location - (a) local overview, (b) regional overview

Fig. 16 Drilled shaft details (a) vertical cross-section, (b) horizontal cross-section

Fig. 17 Schematic Carson River Bridge plan and subsurface profile

Fig. 18 (a) Abutments, center piers and drilled shafts, (b) CSL equipment field setup

Fig. 19 (a-c) UPV testing equipment and procedure

Fig. 20 Scattered results of UPV testing (green dots) and best-fitting curve (red line)

Fig. 21 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 1&2)

Fig. 22 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 2&3)

Fig. 23 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 1&3)

Fig. 24 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 1&2)

Fig. 25 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 2&3)

Fig. 26 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 1&3)

Fig. 27 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 1&2)

Fig. 28 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 2&3)

Fig. 29 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets (Tubes pair 1&3)

Fig. 30 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 1&2)

Fig. 31 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 2&3)

Fig. 32 Correlation of Tomographic cross-sections for different offsets combinations (Tubes pair 1&3)

Fig. 33 Project location (a) local overview, (b) regional overview

Fig. 34 Schematic Piney Creek Bridge plan and subsurface profile

Fig. 35 Drilled shaft details (a) horizontal cross-section, (b) vertical cross-section

Fig. 36 Variations in apparent velocity due to non-uniform tube spacing (red triangle)

Fig. 37 (a) Initial CLS test of the A2-4, (b) CSL test of the A2-4 after 16 days of curing

Fig. 38 Difference tomograms between pre-grouting test #2 and pre-grouting test # 1

Fig. 39 2-D and 3-D tomographic interpretation of the geometry and location of the defect at the A2-4

Fig. 40 Location of the SW and SE core holes and CSL tubes of the A2-4

Fig. 41 Coring procedure of the A2-4 "Piney Creek Bridge"

Fig. 42 (a-c) Cores from the SE core hole (in between CSL tubes 2-3) and (d-g) Cores from the SW core hole (in between CSL tubes 1-3) of the A2-4 "Piney Creek Bridge"

(a) Depth from 0 m to 3.20 m

(b) Depth from 3.20 m to 5.64 m

(c) Depth from 5.64 m to 8.38 m

(d) Depth from 0 m to 2.74 m

(e) Depth from 2.74 m to 5.72 m

(f) Depth from 5.72 m to 9.14 m

(g) Close up look at the sand pocket

Fig. 43

(a). Close-up look at the defect with velocity reduction counters (40% & 50% reduction) and

(b) Close-up look at the defect with velocity reduction counters (20% reduction and combination of all)

Fig. 44 (a) & (b) Mechanism used for pressure grouting

Fig. 45 CSL retest results after pressure grouting

Fig. 46 Difference tomograms in between post-grouting test and pre-grouting test # 2