See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/384290961

Update on the state of practice for energy measurements in the Standard

Penetration Test

Conference Paper · September 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 108

4 authors, including:

Scott Hughes Renato Macciotta

MARL Technologies University of Alberta
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 168 PUBLICATIONS 1,829 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Renato Macciotta on 24 September 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Update on the state of practice for energy
measurements in the Standard Penetration
Test
Bruna Oliveira
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Scott Hughes
MARL Technologies, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Chris Daniel
BC Hydro, Vernon, British Columbia, Canada
Renato Macciotta
Civil and Environmental Department – University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an in-situ test widely used to provide information on soil geotechnical properties.
The SPT N-value obtained from the test is commonly employed in various geotechnical design correlations. However, the
test results are greatly affected by inconsistencies in the energy transferred from the SPT hammer to the drill rods. To
minimize these discrepancies, energy measurement during SPT tests is essential. Over the years, the state of practice for
SPT testing has evolved with technological advancements and an increased understanding of soil behaviour. The
importance of measuring energy transferred and energy hammer efficiency has gained recognition among the engineering
community. This paper presents an update on the latest developments for SPT energy measurements and concludes that
the continued development and refinement of SPT testing procedures will provide more accurate and reliable information
about soil properties for use in geotechnical engineering.

RÉSUMÉ
L’essai de pénétration standard (SPT) est un essai in situ largement utilisé pour fournir des informations sur les propriétés
géotechniques du sol pulvérulents et la valeur SPT N obtenue à partir du test est couramment utilisée dans diverses
corrélations de conception géotechnique. Cependant, les résultats de l’essai sont grandement affectés par les
incohérences dans l'énergie transférée du marteau SPT aux tiges de forage. Pour minimiser ces écarts, la mesure de
l'énergie lors des essais SPT est essentielle. Au fil des ans, l'état de la pratique des essais SPT a évolué avec les progrès
de la technologie et une meilleure compréhension du comportement des sols. Cet article présente une mise à jour sur les
derniers développements pour les mesures d'énergie SPT et conclut que le développement et le raffinement continus des
procédures de l’essai SPT fourniront des informations plus précises et plus fiables sur les propriétés des sols granulaires
à utiliser en géotechnique.

1 INTRODUCTION using a 63.5 kg hammer 750 mm to obtain a soil sample

for identification purposes and measure the resistance of
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is an in-situ test the soil to penetration of the 50.8 mm diameter sampler.
widely used to provide information on soil geotechnical The number of blows required to drive the sampler over the
properties. The SPT N-value obtained from the test is depth interval of 150 and 450 mm of a 450- or 600-mm
commonly employed in various geotechnical design drive interval is called the SPT N-value.
correlations, particularly for foundation design and is the However, despite its simplicity and low cost, there are
main index for assessing liquefaction resistance. Although still problems associated with its reliability, including the
the development and adoption of other in-situ testing lack of quality control over the obtained sample and the
techniques, such as the CPTu and a variety of sensors variability of the results due to factors such as the set-up
available for deployment; SPT testing has continued to be used to perform the test including the quality of the shoe,
a standard part of geotechnical practice, especially due to soil heterogeneity, calibration of equipment, operator
its simplicity, ability to collect soil samples and low cost. variability, drilling disturbances, impact energy, among
The global practice has incorporated the use of the SPT for others. For Sy and Campanella (1991), the most significant
both granular and clayey soils. However, it is essential to factor affecting the N-value is the amount of hammer
consider its limitations when applied to different soil types. energy delivered into the drill rods.
For granular soils, the SPT provides relatively reliable data, Over the last decades, several studies have
but in clayey soils, the test can be less accurate due to the investigated the energy transfer mechanism during SPT,
potential generation of undrained responses. including the pioneering work of Schmertmann and
According to ASTM D1586-18, the test consists of Palacios (1979). Through empirical research, they
driving a standard split-barrel sampler into the ground demonstrated that SPT N-values are approximately
inversely proportional to the energy transferred during the theoretical free fall energy, and this standard remains in
test, to N-value equal at least 50. This means that the SPT use today. The corresponding N60, is obtained using Eq. 1:
N-value depends not only on the soil's density and strength
but also on the amount of driving energy transmitted to the E
N60 = N [1]
sampler. E60

Based on this, Odebrecht et al. (2005) show how

important it is to use efficiency coefficients to account for where N is the measured number of blows during the SPT
energy losses during the energy transference process on test, E = energy corresponding to N, and E60 = 60% of the
SPT testing in order to obtain a more reliable SPT N-value. reference energy E*, E* = 474J.
Therefore, to minimize these discrepancies in SPT N- Two methods, known as F2 and FV, can be used to
value, energy measurement during SPT tests is essential. experimentally measure energy transferred by the hammer
Castelli and Lentini (2010) elucidate that the to the drill rods.
susceptibility of a site to seismic-induced liquefaction is
evaluated by comparing the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) 2.1 Energy Measurement Methods
of the soil to the cyclic shear stress ratio (CSR) induced by
ground motion. The CSR is influenced by the seismic The F2 method, called Force Square Method, is based on
parameters, whereas the CRR relies on the soil's shear the force measurement approach developed by
strength, often determined using the SPT. The N-value is Schmertmann and Palacios (1979). According to Howie et
widely utilized for estimating soil resistance to liquefaction. al. (2003), the F2 method relies on the analysis of the force
Therefore, precise measurement of N-values is crucial for history recorded by a load cell installed near the top of the
assessing liquefaction potential, as CSR calculations are drill rod during hammer impact. When the hammer hits the
highly sensitive to these values. Without accurate energy sampler, a compression stress wave is generated, which
corrections, a site could be mischaracterized, potentially travels down the drill rods at a constant speed of
transitioning from liquefaction-prone to non-liquefiable, approximately 5,120 m/s in steel. At the bottom of the
with serious implications. sampler, the compression wave reflects as a tension wave
This paper provides an overview of the research and and travels back up the drill rods. At the top of the drill rods
technological developments related to hammer energy or anvil, the tension wave reflects once more with the
measurement in SPT tests, highlighting the key opposite sign and this time from tension to compression.
developments and their implications for geotechnical The reflected compression wave from the anvil then travels
engineering. down the drill rods for a second time but with a much-
reduced amplitude.
2 BACKGROUND ON ENERGY MEASUREMENT Schmertmann and Palacios (1979) stated that after the
hammer strikes the anvil, the hammer and rods remain in
Since the 1970s, researchers have been investigating contact until the arrival of the tensile wave reflection from
methods for measuring energy during SPT testing, the sampler. This wave causes the rods to pull away from
reflecting the ongoing efforts to improve the accuracy and the hammer and effectively stops the further transfer of
reliability of this geotechnical test. According to Howie et al. energy from the hammer to the rods. The length of the
(2003), the transferred energy depends on the details of hammer-rod contact time, known as 2L/c - where L=L'+ΔL
the hammer, anvil, and rod system connected to the and L’ is the length of the rod section, and ΔL is the
sampler, among others. distance between the instrumentation and the hammer-rod
Standardizing the proper energy reference for the N- contact - is determined by the length of the drill rods, and
value in SPT investigation was a concern for engineers in the longer the rods, the more hammer energy that enters
the 1980s. As part of a broader investigation into SPT the rods.
testing, in 1983, Kovacs et al. measured the rod energy Consequently, Schmertmann and Palacios (1979)
ratios of 56 drill rigs in the United States using both safety demonstrated that the energy transferred from the hammer
hammers and donut-shaped hammers to assess the to the drill rods (E) can be determined by integrating the
impact of the hammer type on energy calibration. Analysis square of the measured force-time history within the time
of the data revealed that the mean energy ratio delivered frame of the first compression pulse (valid up to 2L’/c after
by a safety hammer was approximately 61%, whereas the impact), and multiplying it by a rod material constant,
mean energy ratio for a donut hammer was approximately according to Eq. 2:
45%, resulting in approximately 35% higher blow counts for c
the latter. Therefore, the authors recommended an energy E𝐹2 =
EA
∫[𝐹(𝑡)]2 𝑑𝑡 [2]
ratio of 55%, based on their research into the average
energy delivered by hammers in the United States. where c is the velocity of the longitudinal wave propagation
However, Seed et al. disputed this recommendation in in the rod, E is Young’s modulus of the rod (207 GPa for
1985, arguing that neither the donut hammer nor the safety steel), A is the cross-sectional area of the rod, F(t) is the
hammer produced an energy ratio of 55%. Instead, they measured force time history. The product EA/c is a material
proposed an energy ratio of 60%, which would eliminate property known as the impedance of the drill rods, and it
the need for correction of the data obtained by safety appears as a constant factor in the calculation of energy
hammers, the most prevalent hammer type in the United using the F2 method.
States. Consequently, the authors proposed to set the Eq. 2 assumes that force and particle velocity at the
international reference for SPT investigation as 60% of the measurement point are proportional within the first
compression pulse, which would be true for ideal, elastic integrations for velocity following the steel/steel,
rods of uniform cross-sections. However, with the evolution hammer/rod impact of the SPT, and as a result of this
of studies on the F2 method, it was demonstrated by Sy and limitation, the FV approach was not widely used during that
Campanella (1991) that in a typical SPT safety hammer time. Despite that, Odebrecht et al. (2005) debated that
system consisting of the hammer guide rod, drill rods, and presently, there are no valid reasons to avoid the F-V
sampler connected by couplings and adaptors, this method as accelerometers are now affordable, user-
assumption is not valid due to differences in cross- friendly devices and velocity determination from
sectional areas or impedances of each component, which acceleration measurements has improved considerably
can cause wave reflections that violate the force-velocity due to enhanced frequency response. The utilization of
proportionality assumption in Eq. 2. both accelerometers and load cells provides redundancy to
ASTM D4633 proposed Eq. 3 with three correction measurements and results in a more reliable interpretation
factors, K1, K2, Kc, to account for the load cell location in of dynamic events.
the rods, the finite length of the drill rods, and a correction In 1997, Butler statistically compared energy measured
of the theoretical wave speed in steel to the 'actual' wave by each method. The author collected data from field
speed as determined from the measured force time history, measurements of SPT energy during drill rig calibrations.
respectively: He concluded that the three factors of rod length,
force/velocity proportionality, and blow counts have a
c𝐾1 𝐾2 𝐾𝑐 significant impact on the difference between energy
E𝐹2 =
EA
∫[𝐹(𝑡)]2 𝑑𝑡 [3] measured by FV and F2 methods. Depending on the
combination of these variables, the difference between the
Nonetheless, the F2 method has several theoretical energy transfer ratios of the two methods can be as high
limitations, including the assumption of force-velocity as 15%. F2 method overestimates the energy transfer
proportionality within the first compression pulse. ratios in cases of short rods, poor proportionality, or high
Furthermore, the method only measures the energy within blow counts, giving results 2 to 15% higher than the FV
the duration of the first compression wave, potentially method. Moreover, the study found that rod length has the
failing to capture all the energy generated by the hammer greatest influence on the difference in energy measured by
impact, especially when the duration of the first the two methods, followed by blow counts and
compression wave is shorter than 2L’/c. Additionally, the F2 proportionality. Low blow counts were the only case where
method requires accurate measurement of force over time, the FV method gave higher values than the F2 method.
which can be challenging due to noise, vibrations, and
other sources of interference. Because of these limitations, 2.2 Equipment
Abou-matar and Goble (1997) were among the first
researchers to use force and velocity instrumentation to As the SPT test is used extensively worldwide for soil
enhance energy measurement accuracy. property determination, the SPT equipment utilized across
The force-velocity integration method (FV) of countries varies to meet their specific needs and practices.
measuring SPT energy differs from the F2 method in that it According to Honeycutt et al. (2014), there are two
requires additional instrumentation to record the variation types of SPT hammer systems: manual and automatic. The
of particle velocity with time during stress wave transfer. manual system uses a rope and cathead lift and release
This instrumentation involves the use of strain gauges and mechanism. The cathead is a rotating drum that provides
accelerometers mounted near the top of the drill rods, close the necessary force to lift the drive weight during the SPT.
to the location where force is measured (Howie et al., The operator manually pulls a rope, which is wrapped twice
2003). around the cathead, creating friction between the rope and
The FV method has been suggested to be more the drum to lift the hammer. When the operator releases
fundamental and superior to the F2 method, as it allows for the rope, the friction is relieved, causing the hammer to fall
integration to be made through the complete waveform, and strike the soil. Additionally, the donut hammer and
capturing complete energy in the system instead of being safety hammer are the most commonly used manual
restricted to the duration of the first compression wave as systems.
suggested by the other method. This is particularly The donut hammer consists of a cylindrical 63.5 kg
advantageous when the duration of the first compression mass falling down a guide rod. The hammer is lifted by
wave is shorter than 2L’/c, which may result in the F2 manually pulling on a rope that runs through a pulley and
method not capturing all of the energy generated by the is wrapped around a rotating cathead. The operator drops
hammer impact. In addition, Butler (1997) affirmed that the the hammer by releasing the tension on the rope after
FV approach is more simplified and does not require visually confirming the 30-inch drop height. The safety
correction factors. hammer was created to protect rig operators from injuries
The equation used to calculate energy using the FV by containing the impact point between the falling mass
method is represented by Eq. 4: and the anvil rod. It is usually a long steel tube closed at
the top and employs the same lift and release mechanisms
E𝐹𝑉 = ∫ 𝐹(𝑡) 𝑣(𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 [4] as the donut hammer.
Concerning automatic hammers, the process of lifting
Johnsen and Jagello (2005) discuss that the and dropping the hammer mass is automated by using a
accelerometers available in the 1980s did not have cam on a chain system that grabs the hammer mass at the
sufficient high-frequency resolution to permit accurate bottom of its stroke and lifts it until the release point. This
chain cam system is driven by a hydraulic motor (Howie et Additionally, there has been a controversial debate that
al., 2003). The automatic system, currently the most widely the length of the rods used in SPT testing can affect the
used in North America among these three systems, uses a energy transfer from the hammer to the soil. Studies using
hydraulically driven chain-cam lifting mechanism to the wave equation method in the early days (Schmertmann
repeatedly lift and release the drive weight (Honeycutt et and Palacios 1979) suggested that as the rod length
al., 2014). decreases, the energy transferred to the soil also
Figure 1 represents illustrations of the donut, safety, decreases. However, more recent research has
and automatic hammers, while Figure 2 displays the demonstrated that the SPT hammer strikes the rod multiple
manual and automatic systems. times following the initial impact. For short rods, the energy
Numerous studies (Batchelor et al., 1995; Butler, 1997; transmission may not be completed within the 2L/c time.
Valiquette et al., 2010; Kelley and Lens, 2010, among For instance, Aoki and Cintra (2000) proposed a
others) have been conducted comparing manual and conceptual analysis of energy transfer during the SPT
automatic hammers, and results consistently demonstrate hammer blow event. They demonstrated that the efficiency
the superior efficiency of automatic hammers. In fact, data of energy transfer is inversely proportional to the rod
indicates that manual systems transfer an average of only length, which contradicts previous findings. On the other
60% of the hammer's energy to the rods, whereas hand, some researchers, such as Daniel et al. (2005) and
automatic systems transfer approximately 80%. Santana et al. (2014) argue that the total transferred
A factor that also affects the energy transfer from the energy is shown to be independent of rod length.
hammer to the rods is the type of rod used. In North
America, the most commonly used commercial rods are 3 REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH ON ENERGY
AW, AWJ, NW, and NWJ. The "J" termination indicates MEASUREMENT IN SPT
tapered threads, which are preferred by operators as they
are easier to unthread. However, they tend to loosen during Odebrecht et al. (2005) discussed the need for
the test, resulting in more energy loss and affecting the standardization of measured blow count number N-value
blow counts, and for that reason, it is recommended to into a normalized reference energy value. The study uses
avoid using them. The cross-sectional area of NW/NWJ is wave propagation theory and large displacements to
generally larger than AW and AWJ, respectively. In an SPT quantify the influence of rod length on measured N-values.
test where the only variable is the rod type, the NW/NWJ The energy measurements are monitored below the anvil
will generally have higher forces measured compared to and above the sampler in both calibration chamber and
AW and AWJ, in that order (Howie et al., 2003). field tests. The results obtained show that the effective
sampler energy is a function of the hammer height of fall,
sampler permanent penetration, and weight of both the
hammer and rods. It was concluded that the influence of
rod length has two opposite effects, where wave energy
losses increase with increasing rod length, but the gain in
potential energy from rod weight may partially compensate
for measured energy losses. The authors also proposed an
analytical solution to calculate the energy delivered to the
sampler and efficiency coefficients are suggested to
account for energy losses during the energy transference
process.
In Taiwan, Tsai et al. (2005) conducted laboratory
experiments using three cylindrical hammers and a safety
hammer in different geometrical configurations to
Figure 1. Safety hammer and Donut hammer (from
investigate the effect of hammer shape on energy transfer
ASTM 1586) and Automatic hammer (from Howie et al.,
to the rods. Energy transfer during each of the 80 blows
2003), respectively.
was measured using a strain-gauged drill rod and a force
transducer mounted atop the drill rod. The study found that
the measured energy transfer ratios for all four hammers
were nearly 99%, indicating that the effect of hammer
shape on the energy transfer of SPT is negligible.
Birigen and Davie (2008) reported the results of over
220 energy measurements conducted on automatic
hammers in the United States using a pile-driving analyzer
and the force-velocity method. The measurements were
conducted on various soils at different sampling depths.
The results were compared to those from studies
conducted by Florida DOT and Utah DOT, and an overall
average energy correction factor of 1.36 (E=82%) was
Figure 2. Manual system (from Santana et al., 2015) and obtained. The high and low values were 1.46 and 1.25
Automatic system (MARL copyright). (E = 88 and 75%), respectively, based on the standard
deviation.
 Valiquette et al. (2010) examined the energy efficiency were compared to published results. The study found that
and variability of manual versus automatic SPT hammers, the energy ratio and related uncertainty values depend
as well as the effect of SPT rod length on hammer mainly on the hammer release technique. The proposed
efficiency. The results showed that automatic hammers values for practical use under similar soil conditions were
had an average transferred efficiency of 80.9%, while ERmanual = 46 ± 3.8% and ERauto = 77 ± 4.6%.
manual hammers had an average efficiency of 63.9%. Recently, Miller (2022) presented a study of SPT
Manual hammers were twice as variable as automatic hammer efficiency measurement methods in underground
hammers in transferred energy. The study also found that test chambers. The standard stress wave method was
rod length affected transferred energy, with shorter lengths used along with hammer impact velocity measurement to
resulting in reduced energy transfer, and an empirical create a new database of 1,263 automatic hammer SPT
formula was presented for correcting short rod length blows. The collected data confirm previous research that
energy losses. The authors also concluded that the data measuring impact velocity is a reliable indicator of stress
did not show a strong dependence on SPT N-value, wave energy and is a more cost-effective and simpler
although the data set lacked observations where the N- method than direct stress wave measurement. The impact
value was less than 6 blows per ft. velocity was measured using a combination of instruments,
El-Sherbiny and Salem (2013) assess the energy including a string potentiometer, high-speed camera, and
efficiency and associated energy correction factor of the proprietary sensors that are integrated into an automatic
Donut and Safety hammers commonly used in Egypt. The SPT hammer called eSPT, manufactured by MARL
energy efficiency was estimated by comparing SPT N- Technologies, a Canadian Geotechnical Company. The
values to back-calculated N60 values from the CPT using author concluded that the eSPT is a reliable tool for
established correlations. The results showed that the measuring hammer-anvil impact velocity and the drop
Donut hammer's energy efficiency was approximately heights delivered by the tool are within the ASTM standard.
50%, resulting in an energy correction factor of The coefficient of variation of the impact energy was 1.7%
approximately 0.82. The safety hammer's energy efficiency for all 1,263 blows over four days of testing. The study also
was approximately 60%, resulting in an energy correction proposed two ideas for improving the eSPT's impact
factor of approximately 1.0. velocity measurements.
Honeycutt et al. (2014) analyzed the energy transfer of Anbazhagan et al. (2022) stated that in India, borehole
CME automatic SPT hammers, based on a large database drilling with SPT N-values measurement is widely used in
of SPT energy measurements, which comprised 17,825 geotechnical designs, particularly for estimating safe
energy measurements from 33 CME automatic hammers, bearing capacity and assessing liquefaction potential.
collected over 5 years. The authors obtained an average However, hammer energy is not measured in any of the
ETR for all hammer blows in the database of 82.9% with a SPT tests. Their research measured hammer energy in
COV of ±7.4%. The overall average ETR and standard four boreholes with different depths using two variations of
deviation for CME automatic hammer calibrations was 82.9 SPT equipment at a single location. The measurements
± 5.1%, which is consistent with the literature. were conducted with SPT HEMA, a device created by the
Santana et al. (2015) present the results of the Indian Institute of Science, and SPT Analyzer,
instrumentation of 373 blows using a Brazilian manual manufactured by PDI, USA. The energy readings obtained
system from two SPT deployments conducted in Sarapuí II from SPT HEMA closely matched those from SPT
Test Site, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the hammer drop Analyzer, with only slight variations attributed to joints
height, velocity, rate of blows, and energy transferred to the between instrumented rods. The findings also suggested
rod stem were measured. The study observed a tendency significant discrepancies in energy measurements
for an increase in hammer drop height as the sequence between different equipment setups. These differences
progressed, which was attributed to crew fatigue. Results affected the correction of N-values, leading to the
also showed that the energy transferred to the rod stem is overestimation of the safe bearing capacity. Furthermore,
not significantly impacted by the length of the rod. In the study highlighted the need to revisit SPT investigation
addition, the average energy measured just below the anvil practices and bearing capacity estimation methods,
had a significant variation from 318.1 to 493.5 J in boring 1, especially in regions where hammer energy is not
and from 403.5 to 551.4 J in boring 2, with corresponding measured.
efficiencies ranging from 67 to 103% and from 84 to 115%, Ji et al. (2023) measured the energy transfer efficiency of
respectively. The variation in the energy values was mainly the SPT system used in China. The in-situ test was
due to the variation in the hammer drop height, indicating conducted in Jiangsu Province, and data on stress wave,
that SPT performed by the same crew under similar strain, acceleration, force, velocity, energy, and
conditions can result in N-values with different significance. penetration degree were collected. The energy transfer
The paper by Batilas et al. (2017) presents the results efficiency was found to be between 74.5 and 84.5%, with
of SPT measurements performed at five locations in an average efficiency of 78.7%. The standard deviation
Greece with varying stratigraphy, using manual or was 3.82%, and the coefficient of variation was 4.9%. The
automatic hammer release along with 900 recordings of the authors propose that the energy transfer efficiency of
impact energy transmitted to the string of rods. The 78.7% measured in the study can serve as the benchmark
measured values of energy ratio and associated for the standard energy transfer efficiency of a hammer
uncertainty were reported for the first time in Greek system using a common penetration instrument in China.
practice. The results were analyzed in terms of hammer 3 CONCLUSION
release technique, depth, soil type, and blow count and
Significant advancements have been made in the state of Biringen, E. and Davie, J. 2008. SPT Automatic Hammer
the art of SPT energy measurement in recent years. The Efficiency Revisited. 6th International Conference on
use of innovative technologies, such as high-speed Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington,
cameras, proprietary sensors, and pile-driving analyzers, VA, August 11-16, 2008. Paper No. 4.06, 8 p.
has enabled more precise and reliable measurements of https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/6icchge/session0
SPT hammer energy. Various studies have evaluated the 4/14/.
energy efficiency of different types of hammers and
proposed new methods for measuring hammer energy. Butler, J.J. 1997. Analysis of energy measurement
These studies have also highlighted the importance of methods of standard penetration test driving systems –
considering factors such as hammer release technique, M.S. thesis, Utah State Univ., Logan, UT.
depth, soil type, and blow count when analyzing SPT
energy data. Overall, these advancements offer a wealth Castelli, F. and Lentini, V. 2010. SPT-Based Evaluation of
of knowledge and techniques that can greatly improve the Soil Liquefaction Risk. 5th International Conference on
accuracy and reliability of SPT testing and should be Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
considered by geotechnical engineers. Furthermore, it is Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in
essential to continue research in this field to further Honor of Professor I.M. Idriss, San Diego, CA, May 24-
advance the state of the art of SPT energy measurement 29, 2010. Paper No. 4.26a, 7 p.
and improve our understanding of energy measurement.
Based on recent studies, an average correction factor of Daniel, C.R., Howie, J.A., Jackson, R.S. and Walker, B.
80% for automatic hammers could be adopted, at least in 2005. Review of Standard Penetration Test Short Rod
North America. This approach would help standardize Corrections. Journal of Geotechnical and
measurements and improve the reliability of SPT testing. Geoenvironmental Engineering 131:489–497.
4 REFERENCES https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2005)131:4(489)
Abou-Matar, H. and Goble, G.G. 1997. SPT Dynamic
Analysis and Measurements. Journal of Geotechnical El-Sherbiny, R.M. and Salem, M.A. 2013. Evaluation of
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123:921–928. SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT
https://doi- measurements in Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering
org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1061/(ASCE)1 Journal, 4:701–708.
090-0241(1997)123:10(921). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2013.04.001.

ASTM International. 2018. ASTM D1586/D1586M-18, Honeycutt, J.N., Kiser, S.E. and Anderson, J.B. 2014.
Standard test method for Standard Penetration Test Database Evaluation of Energy Transfer for Central
(SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils. Mine Equipment Automatic Hammer Standard
Penetration Tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
ASTM International. 2016. ASTM D4633-16, Standard test Geoenvironmental Engineering 140:194–200.
method for energy measurement for dynamic https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
penetrometers. 5606.0000988.

Anbazhagan, P., Yadhunandan, M.E. and Kumar, A. 2022. Howie, J.A., Daniel, C.R. and Jackson, R.S. 2003.
Effects of Hammer Energy on Borehole Termination Comparison of energy measurement methods in the
and SBC Calculation Through Site-Specific Hammer standard penetration test: final report, appendices I, II,
Energy Measurement Using SPT HEMA. Indian III, and IV. University of British Columbia. Geotechnical
Geotech Journal 52:381–399. Research Group.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00582-z
Ji, P., Yang, J. and Zhang, N. 2023. Energy Measurement
Batchelor, C., Goble, G., Berger, J., and Miner, R. 1995. in Standard Penetration Tests. Sustainability 15:4763.
Standard Penetration Test Energy Measurements on https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064763.
the Seattle ASCE Field Testing Program”, ASCE
Seattle, Washington Geotechnical Section. Johnsen, L. F. and Jagello, J. J. 2005. Discussion of
“Energy efficiency for standard penetration tests” by
Batilas, A., Pelekis, P., Roussos, P. and Athanasopoulos, Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M. M., & de Paula
G. 2017. SPT Energy Measurements: Manual vs. Bernardes, G. Journal of Geotechnical and
Automatic Hammer Release. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133;131;(4), 486-487.
Geological Engineering 35. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0138-z 0241(2007)133:4(486.2).

Kovacs, W.D, Salmone, L.A. and Yokel, F.Y. 1983.

Comparison of energy measurements in the standard
penetration test using the cathead and rope method:
phases I and II : final report. National Bureau of
Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
 Miller, K.H. 2022. An Investigation of Standard Penetration
Test Hammer Efficiency Through Measurement of
Impact Velocity and Stress Wave Energy. The
University of British Columbia.

Odebrecht, E., Schnaid, F., Rocha, M.M. and de Paula

Bernardes, G. 2005. Energy Efficiency for Standard
Penetration Tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 131:1252–1263.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2005)131:10(1252).

Santana, C.M, Danziger, F.A.B. and Danziger, B.R. 2014.

Energy Measurement in the Brazilian SPT System.
S&R 37:243–255. https://doi.org/10.28927/SR.373243.

Schmertmann, J.H. and Palacios, A. 1979. Energy

Dynamics of SPT. J Geotech Engrg Div 105:909–926.
https://doi.org/10.1061/AJGEB6.0000839.

Sy, A. and Campanella, R .1991. An Alternative Method of

Measuring SPT Energy. International Conferences on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics.

Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung, R.M.

1985. Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction
Resistance Evaluations. 111:1425–1445. https://doi-
org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1061/(ASCE)0
733-9410(1985)111:12(1425).

Tsai, J-S, Liou, Y-J, Liu, F-C and Chen, C-H, 2005. Effect
of hammer shape on energy transfer measurement in
the Standard Penetration Test. Soils and Foundations,
44(3): pp. 103-114.

Valiquette, M., Robinson, B. and Borden, R.H. 2010.

Energy Efficiency and Rod Length Effect in Standard
Penetration Test Hammers. Transportation Research
Record 2186:47–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/2186-06.

View publication stats