TECHNICAL NOTES Effect of Secondary Impacts on SPT Rod Energy and Sampler Penetration ‘Changho Lee’; Jong-Sub Lee®; Shinwhan An®; and Woojin Lee* Abstract: This paper explores the standard penetration test (SPT) hammer-anvil behavior and investigates the effect of secondary impact ‘on SPT energy and sampler penetration. I is observed that the hammer-anvil behavior alter the impact depends om the characteristics of the wave reflected from the sampler. The type-1 secondary impact, which is dominant for N'<2 is induced due to the rapid downward movement ofthe anvil and the recontactof the following hammer on the rebounding anvil. The maximum energy’ calculated by integrating force and velocity (EFV) is achieved immediately after the occurrence of the type-l secondary impact and an additional sampler penetration is triggered by the type-I secondary impact, The type-II secondary impact, which js dominant for \'> 50, is produced by the restrike of the pushed-up hammer on the resting anvil. The type-II secondary impact causes only recoverable anvil deformation and does not contribute to the maximum EFV energy. For N-values of 25-50, both of either types of secondary impacts happen. As N-value increases, the type-I secondary impact fade away progressively and the type-II secondary impact bee DOK: 10.1061/,ASCEIGT:1943.5606.0000236 CE Database subject headings: Impact; Penetration tests; Energy. Author keywords: Secondary impact; Standard penetration test (SPT); Energy t es more distinctive, fer ratio. Introduction ‘The standard penetration test (SPT) is one of the most widely used geotechnical subsurface exploration methods. The measured Nevalues provide geotechnical properties and parameters for the design of various structures as well as the evaluation of the liq: ‘efaction potential (De Mello 1971; Meyerhof 1956: Robertson et al, 1983: Seed and De Aiba 1986; Skempton 1986). Even though the N-values help engineers understand the in situ soil conditions, they are unlikely 0 consistently represent the soit properties or parameters. Because the test standards specify only the hammer ‘weight, drop height. sampler size, and procedures. the engineers tnd technicians have modified the hammer and its lifretease sys- tem, without realizing the change in the SPT energy uansferred to the rod While the theoretical potential energy (PE) of the SPT hammer Js 475 J, energy loss is caused by factors interfering with the free fall of the hammer and by enersy dissipation during the harnmner- Postdectoral Fellow, School of Chil Engineer (oF Technology. Atlanta, GA 30332 “Associate Professor, Schoo! of Civil Environmental, and Architee: ‘ural Engineering, Kore Univ, Seo 136-701, Kore "PAD, Student, Schoo! of Civil. Enviomneml ok) Architectural Ene sneering. Korea tiv. Seal 186-701. Kore ‘Associate Professor, School of Civil, Environmental, and Archit: tural Engineering, Kovea Univ, Seoul 136-701. Korea teoeresponding tutor) E-mail woojingPkovea. a kr ‘Note, This manuscript was submited on October 28, 2007: approved ‘ow Aupust 31, 2009: published online on September 2. 20. Discussion petiod open unl August 1, 2010: separate discussions mun be subynited For individu papers. This technical note is port of the Journal af Gene vironmental Engineering. Nol. 136.0. 3, March NOMAD /2OLNG-S22-526825 00, ‘Georgia Insite anvil impact. Kovacs (1979) reposted that the energy loss causes the variation ofthe energy ratio, The energy’ transfer ratio (ETR) is defined as a ratio of the measured enersy transferred to the dill ‘0d to the theoretical PE of the hammer (Kovacs 1979: Skempto 1986; ASTM 2005), ‘The energy transfered 10 the rd is assessed by the FV method (Sy_and Campanella 1991) as described! by ASTM 4633.05, (ASTM 2008) Where EFV=maximum energy tsinsmired 10 the drill od. FC) Sforee wave, V(j)=partcle velocity: and s=time, Sehnmertmann and Palacios (1979) showed thatthe blow. count is inversely pro portional to the delivered encray. See et al, (1985) and Skempion 1986) recommended correcting the mcusired N-vulue with re- spect to 60% of the theoretical BTR Nae 2 06 ° where Nu=correeted value and N, Since the possibilty exists fw measur: (00h due 10 the early arrival of the upward tensike wave, Seed et al (1985). Skempton (1986), and Youd et al correction Factors for rod lengths Mh an, Saacin and Bray (2005) suggested that the FV energy integrated fom 1=0 0 1 =2 Lie iy affected only by the charseterstics of the Hise com: Put not hy the soil resistance. Note somipeession wase in the rads, However pression wave, ute is the theoretical velocity o it is impossible to distinguish the fist vompression wave suet rately from the measures! F and waves an! the duration of the fist compression wave is unlikely be ex the Hane Hen 522/ JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010,Dean Release ype Manat Aolase system sate toe chain Rope-palley Ns size We $8 105 HH ms an Anvil weight 1S 2410 40 2 Lie, Sancio and Bray’ (2008) also showed that the fenergy is independent of she rex! Lengthy when N> 10 but itis atfeeted by the rod length sehen N10, Daniel eta (2008) obs Served that the masianan thinstoved enersy is independent of the rex! length and the Sevondts impacts can cause the sampler pen tration, However, no experimental evidence indicating contribution of secondary impaets tv « sampler peneteation was provided by Daniel etal. 2485), Odebrecht etal. (2005) showed that rod length has incon SPT increases asthe ru le longer rod could parislly compensa In this study, a series of SPT tess are performed att sites in Korea to investigate the effect af secondary impact on the tans: ferred energy and sanypler penetration, The impact waves induced by the SPT hammer are masa using an insteumented rod and a pile driving analyzer (PDI to study wave characteristies and ‘evaluate the enerav transfered to the wd, The hammer-anvil mo- tions ace monitored by os line-sean camera. By and lyzing the variations in the y and hammers movements, the effect of secondary impact on the transferred en ergy and sampler peneteation is studied, eflects: the ferred ene Field Test Program Field tests ate conducted 10 sites in Korea: Yosung and Yon- gin, The subsurface soils are mainly composed of 9-13 m of ‘weathered residual soil, which is classified as sity sand (SM) according to the Unified Soil Chssification System (USCS), above weathered rock. At the Yusung site, the shear wave velocity and the measuted N-values (Np) generally increase with depth and they are varied within the range of 100-400 and 7-50 mis, respectively. The N-values at the Yongin site also increase from 6 to 136 (50/11 crm} with depth, Table | gives the features of the hammer systems used in this study. The donut hammer is the conventional SPT equipment with the donut shape hammer and the manila rope-pulley system. The modified automatic donut (MAD) hammer system lifts the donut shape hammer by pulling up the wire rope connected to the hydraulic motor and releases the hammer by opening the finger unit to produce a true free fall ‘with a drop height of 760 mon. The SPTs are performed every 1.5 sm to a depth of 15.0-16.0 m with a MAD hammer atthe Yusung site and a donut hammer at the Yongin site “The impact waves are measured using an instrumented rod and a PDA, which are commercially available from Pile Dynamics Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. The PDA model PAK catches the signals from the strain gages and accelerometers attached to the mid- center of a 600-mm-long AW instrumented rod, and digitizes the signals with a 5 kHz data acquisition sampling rate (Pile Dynam- ies Inc. 2000). Digitized force-velocty data are retrieved from the PDA and the EFV energy is recalculated. ‘The hammer-anvil mo- tions during the impact are monitored using a digital line-scan camera, as shown in Fig. The line-scan camera takes consecu- Dilton scan canara “Swot pave Computer for Esvectray / | Lf Fig. 1. Setup of the di line-sean camera system tive photographs of the black-white stip markers on the target surfaces, with a 2 kHz frequency. and the haunmer-anvil displace- ments are evaluated by processing the images of markers. The resolution of displacement with a fine-sean camera is less than 0.12 mun. The specification of the digital line-scan camera system and the digitizing process are given by Lee etal. (2002). Hammer-Anvil Motions during SPT Figs, 2 and 3 are the data obiained for a donut hammer at \N-values of 6 and 71 (S0/21 em). The upper and lower strips in Figs, 2(a) and 3a) present «typical image of the hammer-anvil motions during SPT, The black and gray lines in Figs. 2(b) and 3(b) are the hammer-anvil displacements, which are evaluated From Figs. 2(a) and 3a). The hammer-anvil velocities shown in Figs. 2(¢) and 3(c) are calculated as a first derivative of the location-time curve, The force wave and the EFV energy are also given in Figs. 24) and 3(@), The hammer velocity increases al- ‘most linearly with time up to the first hammer-anvil contact. At the beginning of an impact, the hammer velocity dramatically decreases; the anvil begins an instantaneous downward move- rent; and the magnitude of the force wave immediately in- creases. The similarity between the anvil velocity from line-scan camera and the panicle velocity from the PDA confirms the reli ability of both measurements It s observed from Fig. 2 that, for a small N-valu, the initial hhammeranvil contact (point ©) is maintsined until 142 Le {point B), where 1 (point A) isthe initial rising of the force and Velocity Wave, The arrival ofthe tensile wave reflected from the sampler accelerates the downward anvil movement at time +2 Lic, which induces the hammer-anvil separation. After the separation, the anvil is pulled down by the tension wave faster than gravity and the hammer continues to descend after the anvil under gravity only. The anvil reaches the lowest postion at point C by the first impact when the velocities of the anvil and the particle velocity become zero. The recontact of the hammer on the rebounding anvil results in the secondary impact at point D ‘which is about 40 ms after 1,+2 Lie. The hammer and anvil almost stop at point E and no futher impacts are observed. The first secondary impact appears to induce additional sampler pen- ‘tration because total displacement is observed to increase after JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010523Fig. 2. Donut hammer-anvil motions during the hammer impact at 75 m sod length: (a) an image taken using the Tine-scan camera; (b) the hammeranvil movements; (@) the hammeranvil velocities; and (@) foace wave and FV energy the occurrence of the secondary impact. Therefore, that most of the sampler penetration is induced by the primary impact and the relatively small penetration (4.2 mm) is added by the first secondary impact. As shown in Fig, 20, the fist secondary impact induces about 3.2% point increase in PTR. The secondary impacts observed in Fig, 2 are defined as “type-1 see- ‘ondary impact. Fig. 3 shows that, for large W-valle, the upward compressive wave rellected from the sampler pushes the hammer and anvil up together at time +2 Lic (point BY. After the hammer-anvil Separation at point C, the hammer vontinues to move up to reach its top postion while the anvil almost stops after a slight upward movement (~1.3. mm). The first secondary impact (point E) ap- pears to cause the slight recoverable anvil movement without per ‘manent penetration. Similar phenomena are repeated until no further hammer rebound occurs (point F and G), One primary and at least three secondary impacts can be identified. The sampler penetration (6p) is defined as the difference between the maxi- ‘mum downward anvil displacement (8,) and the recoverable de: formation {8} caused by the elastic shortening of drill vod, and the quake ofthe ground. This type of secondary impact appears 10 produce no additional permanent penetration because of large penetration resistance, Its also observed that the maximum ETR is achieved near 1,42. LJe and the sampler penetration is com: pleted within 50 ms. The secondary impacts observed in Fig. 3 tre defined as “type-II secondary impact.” Fig. 4 shows the donut hammer-anvil displacements, force wave, and EFV energy for rod lengths of 6.0 to 16.5 m. The type-l secondary impact ean be observed for N 25, whereas the type! secondary impacts are dominant for N'> 50: the frst secondary impact occurs atleast 14) ms ster the initial contact the time to type-II secondary impact incteases with ineveasing Nevalue; no additional sampler penetration ix caused by the type-II secondary impacts; the simpler penetration is completed within 50 ms; the maximum ETR is achieved hefore the occur rence of the type-II secondary impact. From the above observa tions, it can be concluded that the hammer-anvil behavior alter the impact depends on the characteristics of the wave reflected at the sampler, which is mainly affected by the penetration resis: tance, Fig, 5 is the MAD hammer-anvil displacements, or and EFV energy for rod lengths of 7.5 10 15.2 m. It ean be ob: served from Figs. S(a and d) that, For corresponding N-values of N25 and N>50, the hammer-anvil behavior is quite similar for both donut and MAD hammers. For 25<.N=< 50, both ov either lypes of secondary impacts could oceur and theie effects vary gradually with the N-valuc. As the N-value incre: tude of additional anvil penetration by the type-l secondary inn pact decreases: the type-Il secondary impact becomes more 524 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010,0x) teeeage ‘nmstasm Fig. 4. Donut hammeransil movements. force wave and FV ene ray for ro Te tn (4) 9.0 ms) 108 m: () 12.0 mand (3) 16.5 m Te ee) . a" “Tne on) 27" Fig. 5. MAD hammeranvil movements, force wave and FY energy for rod lengths (8) 7.5 mb) 88 mu: (€) 1.4 ms and (@) 15:2 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010/'525distinctive and appears to make no contribution to the maximum, ETR and the sampler penetration Daniel et al. (2008) observed the breaks in the hammer-am ‘contact prior to 2 Lic. However, itis observed in this study that the hammer and anvil move together without separation until at least +2 Lie and both types of secondary impacts occur some- time after f)+2 Lée. The type-I secondary impact appears to con: tribute to the maximum ETR and trigger additional sampler penetration Conclusions A series of field measurements is performed during SPTS to in- vestigate the effect of the secondary impacts on the transfered ‘energy and sampler penetration. By analyzing the data obtained, the following conclusions are drawn. For both donut and MAD equipments itis observed that 10 types ofthe secondary impact oceur. depending on the penetration resistance of the ground, The type-I secondary impact. which is dominant for N25, is induced by the hammer-anvil separation at 1,42 Lie and the recontact of the following hammer on the rebounding anvil; the first cype-I secondary impact occurs within 4 few tens of milliseconds after 1,+2 Lie, The type-II secondary impact, which is dominant for N>50, is caused by the hammer anvil separation sometime after 1,+2 Le and the restrike of the rebounded hammer on the resting anvil; the frst type-lI secondary impact occurs at least 100 ms after +2 Lie For N<25, the type-I secondary impact uiggers additional sampler penetration, which is completed within 50 ms. and the maximum ETR is achieved immediately alter the occurrence of the type-I secondary impact. For N> 50, the sampler penetration is caused by a primary impact and the type-lI secondary impact ‘causes only recoverable anvil movement. Although the type-I secondary impact occurs at Jeast 100 ms after the initial impact. the sampler penetration appears to be completed within 50 ms and the maximum ETR is achieved near +2 Lie. For N-values be- tween 25 and 50, both or either types oF the secondary impacts could aceur a the W-valuve ineveases, the type secondary impact fades away progressively and the type-I secondary impact be- comes more distinctive, For all Nevalues, the type-t secondary {appears to contribute to the uation and the maxinium energy transferred to the Jmpact as well as the primary imp sampler pet rod while the type-II secondary impact has no effeet on them. Acknowledgments ‘This research was supported by Grant No, 06 R&D-BOS from the Construction Technolosy Innoxation Progeam Funded by the Min- istry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of Korean Govern ‘ment. It was also supported by a Korea University Grant References ASTM, (2005). “Standard test method for energy measurement for dy namie penetrometers.” D 4633-05, West Conshohocken, Pa Daniel C.R,, Howie, J. A. Jackson, 8. and Walker, B. (2005). "Review ‘of standard penetration tet shor ro corctions."J. Geotech. Geoen ‘iron, Bng., 131(8), 489-497 De Mell, VF, (1971). “The standard penctation tet A state-ofhe-at report.” Proc. sth Pan-American Conf. om Sol Mechanics and Foun dation Engineering, Vol. 1, San Joan, Puerto Rico. 1-86. Kovaes, W.D. (1979). "Velocity measurement of fce-fall SPT harm.” J. Geotech. Engrg. 105(0), 1-10. Les, S. You, B, Lim, M., Oh, 5, Han, Sand Lee, S.H. (2002) “Visual ‘measurement of ple penetration and rebound movement using high ped line-scan camera” Proc, 2002 JEEE Iu. Conf on Robories and Auromation, Washington. D.C, 4307-4312. Meyerhof,G. G. (1956), “Penetration tet and bearing capacity of eohe: slonlss soil.” Sol Mech, Found. Eng. (Engl. Trams), 82(1), 1-19 Odebrecht, 6, Sensi, F, Rocha, M. M., and Bemarées, GP. (2005). Energy efficiency for standard penetration tess" J. Geoteck. Geven ‘ron. Bg., 131110), 1252-1268. ite Dynamics, Ine (2000). Pile diving amalszer ners manual, Clever and Roberson, P. Kx Campane, R. G. and Wightman, A. (1983). “SPT CPT contelation” J. Geowech, Engrg. VOI, 1449-1489. Sanco, RB, and Bray, J (2005). "An assessment of the effect of rod length on SPT energy esletations based on measured Rild data.” Georech, Test. 2811). 1-8. SSchmertmann, 1H. and Palacios. A. (1979). “Energy dynamics of SPT." J. Georech, Engrg. 1058), 909-926. ‘Seed, HB. and De Alba, P.M. (1986). “Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction cesistance of sands” Proc: ln Test, ASCE, Reston, Vit. 281-302, Seed, H, By Tokimats, K., Haze. Land Chung, RM, (1985). “The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefsetion resisiance evalu tions.” J. Geotech, Engrg. IM(I2), 25-1445, Skempion. A. W. (IS. "Standard penetration test procedures andthe fects in sans of overburden presse ageing and overcomolidtion” Gevtelanique, 36031, 425-847, Sy. A. and Campanella, RG. (1991), "Aa alteentive method oF mea suring SFT energy.” Proc. 2d dat. Conf on Recent Advances in xive density, particle size Geotechnicel Eertxuake Engineering and Soll Donanies, University fof Missouri, Rois, Mo, 499-505, Youd, Tbe eal (2001). “Liguetaction resistance of soils: Summary {eps from the 199% NCEER and NCEER/NSF workshops on evale- ion of liguetiction resstonce of soils.” J. Gooterh Genention Eng. 12110). 817-833, 526! JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2010,