Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

DOI 10.1007/s11440-012-0197-0

RESEARCH PAPER

Real-time monitoring of SPT donut hammer motion and SPT

energy transfer ratio using digital line-scan camera and pile
driving analyzer
Changho Lee Shinwhan An Woojin Lee

Received: 26 July 2011 / Accepted: 12 November 2012 / Published online: 13 February 2013
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract In order to investigate the effect of standard

penetration test (SPT) hammer impact on the energy
transfer ratio (ETR) and sampler penetration, the behavior
of hammer and anvil is monitored by using a high-speed
digital line-scan camera and the stress wave is measured by
using a pile driving analyzer during SPTs. By analyzing the
motions of the hammer and anvil, which are digitized using
the image processing algorithm, two types of secondary
impact are observed to exist. Type-I secondary impact is
caused by the rapid downward anvil movement at time
t1 ? 2L/c and the re-contact of the following hammer on
the rebounding anvil. Type-I secondary impact is dominant
for N value smaller than 25 and it contributes to the ETR
and additional sampler penetration. The time elapsed to
type-I secondary impact decreases as N value increases.
Type-II secondary impact is induced by the restrike of the
pushed-up hammer on the resting anvil. Type-II secondary
impact is dominant for N value greater than 50 and it has
no influence on the ETR and the sampler penetration. The
time elapsed to type-II secondary impact increases with the
increase in N value.
Keywords Digital line-scan camera  Energy transfer
ratio  Hammeranvil motion  Secondary impact 
Standard penetration test (SPT)

1 Introduction
Although various in situ test techniques have been developed, the standard penetration test (SPT) is still one of the
most widely used subsurface exploration methods in geotechnical engineering practice. The measured N values help
to estimate various soil properties and strength parameters,
which can be used for the design of geotechnical structures.
Because the test standard does not clearly specify the SPT
equipments and procedures, the engineers and technicians
have modified the hammer and its lift/release system,
without necessarily realizing the significance of their
actions. These modifications to the SPT equipment bring
improved workability and better hammer drop control, but
also cause a significant change in the SPT energy transferred to the drill rods.
Many theoretical and experimental studies have been
performed to investigate how to evaluate the SPT energy
[7, 13, 16], and the outcomes of these studies have become
the outline for standard methods [2, 4, 5]. Schmertmann
and Palacios [13] showed that the blow count is inversely
proportional to the delivered energy. Since many empirical
correlations had been developed based on the old standard
test equipment and procedure, which provide 5060 % of
the theoretical free-fall energy, Seed et al. [14] and
Skempton [15] recommended to correct the measured N
value with respect to 60 % of the theoretical maximum
potential energy (PE):
N60 NF

C. Lee  S. An  W. Lee (&)

School of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: woojin@korea.ac.kr

ETR
0:6

where N60 is the corrected N value with respect to 60 % of

the theoretical hammer energy, NF is the N value measured
in the field, and ETR is the energy transfer ratio. When the
SPT energy is not measured during the test, the energy

123

960

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

transferred to the drill rod is estimated from the database of

the energy transfer ratios for various hammer and lift/
release systems, and N60 is obtained by applying the factors
that correct for the effects of rod length, borehole diameter,
and sampler liner [15, 17]. Although N60 is directly
obtained without applying the correction factors when the
SPT energy transferred to drill rod is measured, controversy still exists on how to evaluate the SPT energy from
measured impact waves [12].
The energy transfer ratio (ETR = EFV/PE) is defined as
the ratio of the calculated energy (EFV) with respect to the
theoretical potential energy of the SPT hammer (PE), 475J
[6, 15]. The energy transferred to the rod can be evaluated
by the forcevelocity (FV) method [16] as follows:
EFV max

Zt
FtVtdt

presumed that this increased energy could contribute to the

sampler penetration. However, no one presents convincing
experimental evidence whether the secondary impact
contributes to the sampler penetration or not.
In this study, a series of SPT tests are performed in
Korea to evaluate the energy transferred to the drill rod and
the real-time histories of hammer and anvil. The motions of
hammer and anvil during and after the hammer impact are
monitored by using a high-speed digital line-scan camera
(DLSC). The force and velocity waves induced by the SPT
hammer impact are also measured by using an instrumented rod and a pile driving analyzer (PDA) to evaluate
the energy transferred to the drill rod. By analyzing the
variations in the transferred energy and hammeranvil
motion after the impact, the effects of primary and secondary impacts on the transferred energy and sampler
penetration are studied.

where F(t) and V(t) are the force and the particle velocity
measured at the instrumented rod, respectively.
Recently, ETR is re-argued with the rod length effect
and secondary impact by many researchers [3, 9, 12].
Sancio and Bray [12] suggested not to use E2E and E2F
methods that are the modified forcevelocity and forcesquared (ASTM D4633-86 [1], withdrawn 1995) methods
constrained for calculating the transferred energy from
t = 0 to t = 2L0 /c, respectively, because these methods are
affected only by the characteristics of the first compression
wave, but not by the soil resistance at the bottom of the
sampler. Note that L0 is the rod length between sensors and
the sampler, and c is the wave propagation velocity of the
rod material. However, it is not possible to accurately
distinguish the first compression wave from the measured
F and V waves, and the duration of the first compression
wave is unlikely to be equal to the time from zero to 2L0 /
c. Sancio and Bray [12] insisted that the force-squared
method may lead to unrealistically high energy ratio calculation due to the false assumption, and E2F method gives
values of energy 1215 % greater than those provided by
E2E method. Sancio and Bray [12] also showed that the
ETR is similar, regardless of the rod length, when the
N value is over 10, but ETR is affected by the rod length
when the N value is less than 10. Although Daniel et al. [3]
and Odebrecht et al. [9] observed the secondary impact,
Daniel et al. [3] suggested, based on results from laboratory
experiments and numerical simulations, that the maximum
transferred energy to the drill rod is independent of the rod
length but stated that more extensive investigation would
be required to assess the effect of rod length in the same
soil using a variety of rod lengths. In contrast, Odebrecht
et al. [9] claimed that a rod length shows inconsistent effect
due to the weight of the rod with length and a second
and late impact produces an increase in energy and they

123

2 Field test program

2.1 Test site and SPT hammer system
A series of field tests are conducted at Yongin in Korea.
Soil profiles for test sites are plotted in Fig. 1. The subsurface profile in the Yongin site consists of 2-m thick fill,
7-m thick deposit, 6-m thick weathered residual soil, and a
weathered rock. The deposit is composed of silty sand
(SM according to the USCS) with some gravel and its
measured N values (NF) increase from 6 to 12 with depth.
The weathered residual soil is classified SM according to
the USCS and its measured N values (NF) increase from 6
to 50/11 with depth. The shear wave velocity for the
weathered residual soil measured by SASW varies within
the range 350600 m/s with depth. The SPTs are conducted every 1.5 m from the ground level with 1.5-m long
AW section rods (Area = 5.9 cm2). A donut hammer,
which has a donut shape hammer with a manila ropepulley lift (rope diameter = 2 cm) and release system, is
used in this study, although automatic hammers are conventional system in North America practice. A borehole is
drilled by a rotary wash boring machine with a 90-mmdiameter drill bit, with casings occasionally used to prevent the borehole from caving in. The split spoon sampler
used at both sites has an external diameter of 51 mm and
an internal diameter of 35 mm. The length of the sampler
is 810 mm.
2.2 Monitoring of impact waves
The time histories of force and velocity are measured using
a commercially available PDA and an instrumented rod,
which is mounted just below the anvil. The stress wave

961

50

100

150

Force & VelocityEA/c (kN)

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

50

2L /c
= 5.27ms

40

NF = 50/21cm
Depth: 12.0m
Rod Length: 13.5m
EFV = 74.32%

30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30

Depth (m)

10

18

Fig. 1 Soil profiles for tested site

measurement is carried out in accordance with ASTM

D4633-10. Two sets of strain gauges and piezoresistive
accelerometers are attached at the mid-center of a 600-mmlong AW drill rod section. Therefore, the strain gauges and
accelerometers are located 300 mm below from the bottom
of the anvil. The PDA model PAK, which is a modified
computer with a data acquisition board, 12-bit A/D converter, and a 5 kHz data acquisition sampling rate, is used
in this study. The PDA catches the strain and acceleration
signals with time from the sensors, displays the real-time
histories of FV waveform, and calculates the rod energy
for each blow during the SPT (Pile Dynamics Inc. [10]).
Digitized data of the forces and velocities for each blow of
the hammer are retrieved from the PDA, and the rod energy
is recalculated by using a commercial spreadsheet program.
Although the evaluation of the energy transferred to the
drill rod by measuring the strain and acceleration has been
successfully employed for several decades, the direct
measurement of stress wave is not enough to understand
the hammer behavior and sampler penetration. With the
advancement in digital technology, the visual measurement
of a target using an optical device can help the engineer the
understand the behavior of the hammer and anvil during
the SPT hammeranvil impact.
Figure 2 presents typical time histories of force and
velocity of a donut hammer for a 13.5-m rod length
(depth = 12.0 m). Based on the wave propagation and

60

90

120

150

180

210

Fig. 2 Typical time history of force and velocity of a donut hammer

for rod length 13.5 m

proportionality theories [11], the relationship between

force F and velocity V can be expressed as
F

16

30

Time (ms)

12

14

Force
Velocity EA/c

EA
V
c

where E is the Youngs modulus of the rod, A is the crosssectional area of the rod, and c is the wave propagation
velocity of the rod (5,120 m/s for steel). As shown in
Fig. 2, the time histories of force and velocity are very
similar. Both force and velocity initially increase up to a
maximum value. After the initial peak, both force and
velocity decrease smoothly toward zero. Although a soil
resistance reflection theoretically could occur at time 2L0 /
c after time of peak value, the proportionality of force and
velocity holds only until the reflections caused by crosssectional changes due to the sampler arrive at the measurement point. Reflected force wave is strongly influenced
by the resisting force of the soil and the incoming force.
Similar results and discussions can be found in Sancio and
Bray [12].
2.3 Visual measurement of hammeranvil motion
The motions of the hammer and anvil during the hammer
impact are monitored using a DLSC, as shown in Fig. 3.
The visual measurement system is composed of two highspeed line-scan charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras
(DALSA CL-P1) and a Pentium IV personal computer
including a frame grabber (Matrox Meteor-2/Digital LVDS
Interface). The resolution of the camera is 4,096 pixels per
line. Since the sensitivity of CL-P1 line-scan camera is not
enough under normal illumination condition with fluorescent lamps, two 500-watt halogen lamps are used for
improving the quality of image processing. A sunlight
brighter than 5,000 lux is required to obtain good images of
hammeranvil motion. The displacements of the hammer
and anvil are evaluated by processing the images of the
black and white strip markers. The hammeranvil velocities are evaluated by differentiating the measured displacementtime histories of the hammer and anvil.

123

962

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

Fig. 3 Setup of the DLSC and PDA systems for field test

Lee et al. [8] developed a technique of visual measurement of pile behavior during pile driving using twodimensional video cameras, with data processing based on
feature analysis in two-dimensional images. Although this
technique has some restrictions such as the sampling frequency and image resolution, it may be very useful for
dynamic motion analysis supported by the development of
suitable software and equipment. By adopting a high-speed
digital line-scan CCD camera with line rate up to 20 kHz,
the quality of the measurement of dynamic penetration is
remarkably improved. In this study, a visual measurement
is carried out to analyze the behavior of hammer and anvil,
using a high-speed DLSC and a specially designed marker
to recognize two-dimensional motion parameters. Lee et al.
[8] developed the marker, in which white and black rightangled triangles, to measure two-dimensional motion of the
object for high-speed line-scan CCD camera as shown in
Fig. 4. The height and width of a triangle in the marker is
40 and 200 mm, respectively. Two cameras are employed
to photograph the hammer and anvil separately. Consecutive photographs of the markers on the target surfaces are
taken with a 20-kHz frequency.
Lee et al. [8] proposed an image processing algorithm,
which is composed of three steps: the threshold of graylevel images, edge detection, and edge tracking. The
threshold of gray-level images is to obtain binary images
from gray-level images. The edge detection is to detect the
white-to-black edges and black-to-white edges after completing the threshold process in the initial stage. Finally the
edge tracking is to follow each edge point when the target
begins to move. The initial edges are set from the binary
image, and the exact locations of each edge are calculated

123

by differentiating images for the small range near the initial

edge point. A total of five edges are acquired for each
target, and three-dimensional motions are digitized with
time by the data processing: the horizontal and vertical
movements and the rotation of the edge. The average
vertical movement of the five edges is regarded as the
motion of a target, which is the hammer or anvil. Figure 5
shows an example of extracted images of hammeranvil
motion, and overlapped diagrams of average motion and
velocity. The upper and lower strips in Fig. 5 present a
typical image, captured by DLSC, of the motions of the
hammer and anvil immediately before and after the hammer impact. These data provide useful information such as
the kinetic energy, dynamic efficiency, time to secondary
impact, and penetration and rebound of the anvil.

W
Fig. 4 Marker on the target (H: 40 mm, W: 200 mm)

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

963

Hammer
Donut hammer
NF: 8

Anvil
Hammer-anvil impacts 1st

2nd

3rd

Anvil

Hammer

Fig. 5 Digitized hammeranvil displacements and velocities

3 Data interpretation and results

Anvil Velocity
PDA V-wave

3.0
2.0
1.0

Depth: 6.0m
NF: 6

0.0
-1.0
-50

50

100

150

200

250

Time (ms)

(b) 4.0
Velocity (m/s)

As each data set obtained by two DLSCs and a PDA has

different timescales, it is required to synchronize the
timescale. Velocitytime histories of the hammer and anvil
are evaluated by differentiating the locationtime curves
measured by DLSC. The particle velocity of drill rod is
calculated by performing a numerical integration of the
accelerationtime curve measured by a PDA. The moment
of abrupt increase in the velocity of targets in the velocity
time curve is defined as the moment of SPT hammer
impact on anvil, which is reset as time = 0. Figure 6
shows typical measurement results for anvil velocity processed from DLSC measurement and the particle velocity
from PDA. As shown in Fig. 6, the anvil velocity from
DLSC agrees very well with the rod velocity from PDA for
SPTs performed on both loose and dense layers. An
excellent similarity of velocities measured by DLSC and
PDA confirms the accuracy of both measurements.

Velocity (m/s)

(a) 4.0

3.1 Verification of data from DLSC and PDA

Anvil Velocity
PDA V-wave

3.0
2.0

Depth: 12.0m

1.0

NF: 50/21cm

0.0
-1.0
-50

50

100

150

200

250

Time (ms)
Fig. 6 Comparison of anvil velocity from DLSC and rod velocity
from PDA for donut hammer: a loose layer, b dense layer

123

964

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

3.2 Real-time hammeranvil behavior during SPT

The plots in Figs. 7 and 8 are the data obtained for NF of 6
and 50/11 cm. Image data captured by two DLSCs are
processed to provide the hammeranvil displacements,
which are presented as the black and gray lines in Figs. 7a
and 8a. The forcevelocity waves measured using a PDA
and the rod energy ratio evaluated by FV method are also
given in Figs. 7b and 8b. The measured hammer velocity,
which is calculated as a first derivative of the locationtime
curve of hammer obtained from DLSC data, immediately
before impact is found to be about 3.643.71 m/s, and it is

slightly smaller than the free-fall velocity of 3.86 m/s.

After the impact (point O), downward anvil motion occurs
immediately after the impact and drill rod force increases
slightly after the impact.
It is observed from Fig. 7 that, for small NF and short
rod, the initial hammeranvil contact is maintained a few
milliseconds until t1 ? 2L/c (point B). The rising time (t1)
is required due to the low-pass anti-alias filtering of PDA
and the elastic deformation of the hammer and anvil. It is
observed from Fig. 7b that the peak FV energy of drill rod
occurs at time t1 ? 2L/c (point B). The arrival of the tensile wave reflected from the sampler accelerates the

Displacement (mm)

(a) -700

Hammer
Anvil

-720
-740
-760

A B

-780

1=43.1mm

p=46.7mm

-800
-820

(b)
Force
VEA/c
EFV

2L/c

0.4
66.68%

80
60

63.50%

0.2

100

40

EFV (%)

Force & VEA/c (100kN)

0.6

20
0.0
-0.2
-30

t1

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

60

70

80

90

100

Time (ms)
Force & VEA/c (100kN)

0.6

2L/c

0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-10

t1

10

20

30

40

50

Time (ms)
Fig. 7 Hammeranvil motions during the hammer impact for donut hammer (depth 6.0 m, rod length 7.5 m, NF = 6): a displacement, b force,
velocity, and energy

123

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

Displacement (mm)

(a)

965

-700

Hammer
Anvil

-720
-740
-760

O
B

-780

C
p=2.0mm

1=7.3mm

-800

Force & VEA/c (100kN)

(b) 0.6
2L/c

0.4

70.74%
60.13%

Force
VEA/c
EFV

0.2

100
80
60
40
20

EFV (%)

-820

0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-30

t1

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

60

70

80

90

100

Time (ms)
Force & VEA/c (100kN)

0.6

2L/c

0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-10

t1

10

20

30

40

50

Time (ms)
Fig. 8 Hammeranvil motions during the hammer impact for donut hammer (depth 15.0 m, rod length 16.5 m, NF = 50/11 cm):
a displacement, b force, velocity, and energy

downward movement of anvil at time t1 ? 2L/c; the anvil

velocity exceeds the hammer velocity to induce the separation between the anvil and the hammer (point B). After
their separation, the anvil moves downward rapidly and
rebounds at point C while the hammer continues to follow
the anvil. The re-contact of the hammer on the rebounding
anvil induces the secondary impact at point D, which is
47.5 ms after initial contact. It is observed from Fig. 7a
that most of the sampler penetration is induced by the
primary impact and the relatively small additional penetration is caused by the first secondary impact. As shown in

Fig. 7b, the FV energy reaches its maximum value after the
first secondary impact and induces about 3.18 % increase
in rod energy ratio. Although at least two secondary
impacts are observed in Fig. 7a, rest of the secondary
impacts appears not to contribute to the sampler penetration and the maximum FV energy. After *120 ms, the
sampler penetration ends and no more secondary impacts
occur. The secondary impact observed in Fig. 8 is defined
as type-I secondary impact.
It is observed from Fig. 8 that, for large NF and long rod,
the hammeranvil velocities become identical at time t1

123

966

4 Analysis and discussions

As N value increases, the type-I secondary impact declines
progressively; the time to the type-I secondary impact
decreases; the magnitude of additional sampler penetration
by the type-I secondary impact decreases; the type-II secondary impact becomes more distinctive; the height of
hammer rebound from initial penetration increases; the
time to the type-II secondary impact increases. The time to
the secondary impact from the initial hammeranvil contact for the donut hammer is plotted with the extrapolated
N60 [i.e., measured sampler displacement (=300/N60)], as
shown in Fig. 9. It can be observed that the type-I secondary impact is dominant at N \ 25 while the type-II
secondary impact prevails at N [ 50. For 25 \ N \ 50,
both or either types of secondary impacts could occur as a
transition zone. The time to type-I secondary impacts
decreases as N increases because the rate at which the anvil
accelerates down, away from the hammer decreases with
increasing N value. Conversely, the time to type-II secondary impacts increases as N increases because the
amount of energy reflected back from the samplersoil
interface that is available to throw the hammer upwards
increases with increasing N value.

123

250

Type - I
Type - II

Transition
Zone

200

150
Time at Secondary Impact (ms)

Time at Secondary Impact (ms)

(point A) when the PDA-measured FV waves reach their

peak values. The hammer and anvil are observed to reach
their lowest position and start to rebound at time t1 ? 2L/
c (point B), since the upward compressive wave reflected
from the sampler pushes the hammer and anvil up together.
The hammeranvil contact is maintained until point C.
After the separation, the hammer continues to move up, but
with decreasing velocity, and reaches its top position at
point D, while the anvil almost stops after a slight elastic
bounce. The secondary impact at point E (204.8 ms after
the initial hammeranvil contact) results in the increase in
the force wave, as observed in Fig. 8b. The slight downward movement of the anvil caused by the secondary
impact is completely recovered and the secondary impact
appears to produce no additional penetration. Similar
phenomena are repeated for successive impacts until no
further rebound of the hammer occurs. The recoverable
deformation (dE) is the sum of the elastic rebounds of the
soil and drill rod, and the sampler penetration (dp) is
defined as d1 - dE. As shown in Fig. 8a, the secondary
impact produces no additional permanent penetration
because of the large penetration resistance. It is also
observed that the maximum FV energy, which is achieved
near t1 ? 2L/c, is not affected by a slight increase in rod
energy caused by the secondary impact. The secondary
impact observed in Fig. 8 is defined as type-II secondary
impact.

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

100

50

250
200
150
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

Measured sampler displacement [mm]

25

50

75

100

125

150

Extrapolated N60
Fig. 9 Variation of time to secondary impact (SI) with extrapolated
N60. N60 in figure is re-calculated using the permanent penetration
value measured by DSCL and EFV energy measured by PDA

From the observations in Figs. 7 and 8, it is found that

the secondary impacts occur sometime after t1 ? 2L/c and
their contribution to the sampler penetration and maximum
FV energy depends on the penetration resistance of the
ground. Table 1 is a summary on the effects of secondary
impact on the energy transfer ratio and sampler penetration
for SPTs performed at the depth of 4.515.0 m. When the
type-I secondary impact is dominant, it contributes to an
increase in the maximum energy transfer ratio and induces
additional sampler penetration. The type-II secondary
impact, which occurs after *100 ms, does not contribute
to the sampler penetration and the maximum energy
transfer ratio. From above discussions based on our limited
data (i.e., for the rod length and the range of blow counts
represented), for all N values, the type-I secondary impact,
as well as primary impact, appears to play a major role in
the sampler penetration and maximum energy transfer
ratio.

5 Conclusions
A series of SPTs are performed in order to assess the
characteristics of energy transfer ratio and monitor realtime hammer motion and sampler penetration. The energy
transferred to drill rod is evaluated by the FV integration of
stress waves measured at a measuring rod below the anvil
by using a PDA. The motions of the hammer and anvil are
directly obtained by the digitization of consecutive images
of targets captured by high-speed digital line-scan cameras
(DLSC). Following conclusions are drawn from this
study.
The velocitytime history of the anvil during SPT
hammer impact, which is obtained by differentiating the

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

967

Table 1 Influence of secondary impact (SI) on energy transfer ratio (ETR) and sampler penetration
SI type

II

Depth (m)

4.5

NF

6.0

7.5

12

ETR (%)
Average

Standard deviation

Before SI

61.52

3.12

After SI

66.66

2.59

Before SI

63.50

2.91

After SI

66.68

2.34

Before SI

64.11

3.31

After SI

70.15

2.67

Energy difference
(afterbefore SI)

Contribution to
additional penetration

5.14

Yes

3.18

Yes

6.04

Yes
Yes

9.0

24

Before SI
After SI

72.28
72.41

3.89
3.78

0.13

10.5

49

Before SI

67.67

2.82

-2.07

No

After SI

65.59

2.99

Before SI

74.32

3.52

-4.05

No

After SI

70.24

2.87

Before SI

70.74

3.18

-10.61

No

After SI

60.13

3.10

12.0
15.0

50/21
50/11

anvil motion processed from DLSC measurement, is

observed to be similar to the particle velocity of drill rod
measured by a PDA. An excellent similarity of both
velocities verifies the accuracy and reliability of a DLSC
measurement and its image processing algorithm.
It is observed from the hammeranvil time histories that
the motions of the hammer and anvil depend on the rod
length as well as the penetration resistance of the ground
and two different types of the secondary impact exist. For
small N values and short rods, the hammer and anvil are
separated at t1 ? 2L/c due to the accelerated downward
anvil movement and the re-contact of the following hammer on the rebounding anvil induces the type-I secondary
impact. For large N values and long rods, the hammer and
anvil are separated sometime after t1 ? 2L/c and the
restrike of the rebounded hammer on the resting anvil
causes the type-II secondary impact. It is also observed
that, in most cases, type-I secondary impacts and thus
sampler penetration occur within the 50 ms following
hammer impact for the rod length and the range of blow
counts represented.
It is also found that the time from t1 ? 2L/c to the type-I
secondary impact decreases as N value increases while the
time from t1 ? 2L/c to the type-II secondary impact
increases with increasing N value. Type-I secondary impact
is dominant for N values smaller than 25, and the type-II
secondary impact appears dominant for N values larger
than 50. The type-I secondary impact produces the increase
in the maximum FV energy and triggers an additional
sampler penetration, while the type-II secondary impact
does not produce the increase in the maximum FV energy
and the sampler penetration. It is, therefore, concluded that

all of the sampler penetration is induced by the primary and

type-I secondary impacts, and that the energy of any type-I
secondary impacts should be included in the energy used to
correct the measured blow count to an (N60) value, as
originally suggested by Sy and Campanella [16].

References
1. ASTM D4633-86 (1986) Test method for stress wave energy
measurement for dynamic penetrometer testing systems (withdrawn 1995). Annu Book ASTM Stand 04:08
2. ASTM D4633-10 (2010) Standard test method for energy measurement for dynamic penetrometers. Annu Book ASTM Stand
04:08
3. Daniel CR, Howie JA, Jackson S, Walker B (2005) Review of
standard penetration test short rod corrections. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):489497
4. Eurocode (1996) Geotechnical design. European Committee for
Standardization
5. IRTP/ISSMFE (1989) Standard penetration test (SPT) international reference test procedure. In: Proceedings of 1st European
symposium on penetration testing (ESOPT 1) 3(26)
6. Kovacs WD (1979) Velocity measurement of free-fall SPT
hammer. J Geotech Eng Div 105(1):110
7. Kovacs WD, Salomone LA (1982) SPT hammer energy measurement. J Geotech Eng Div 108(4):599620
8. Lee S, You B, Lim M, Oh S, Han S, Lee SH (2002) Visual
measurement of pile penetration and rebound movement using a
high speed line-scan camera. In: Proceedings of 2002 IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation, Washington, D.C., pp 43074312
9. Odebrecht E, Schnaid F, Rocha MM, Bernardes GP (2005)
Energy efficiency for standard penetration tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(10):12521263
10. Pile Dynamics, Inc (2000) Pile driving analyzer. Uses manual,
PDI

123

968
11. Rausche F (1981) A short introduction to continuous and discrete
wave mechanics. The second seminar on the dynamics of pile
driving, Boulder, pp 116
12. Sancio RB, Bray J (2005) An assessment of the effect of rod
length on SPT energy calculations based on measured field data.
Geotech Test J 28(1):19
13. Schmertmann JH, Palacios A (1979) Energy dynamics of SPT.
J Geotech Eng Div 105(8):909926
14. Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence
of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation.
J Geotech Eng 111(12):14251445
15. Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and
the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density,

123

Acta Geotechnica (2014) 9:959968

particle size, ageing and overconsolidation. Geotechnique
36(3):425447
16. Sy A, Campanella RG (1991) An alternative method of measuring SPT energy. In: Prakash S (ed) The 2nd international
conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics. University of Missouri, Rolla, Mo.,
pp 499505
17. Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils:
summary report from the 1996 NCEER and NCEER/NSF
workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(4):297313