SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 44, No.

3, 103-114, June 2004

Japanese Geotechnical Society

EFFECT OF HAMMER SHAPE ON ENERGY TRANSFER MEASUREMENT

IN THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

JIIN-SONG TsAiil, YEAN-JHE LIOuii), Fu-CHEN LIUiii)

and CHIN-HUEI CHENiv)

ABSTRACT
The shape of the hammer used for the Standard Penetration Test is not specified in most existing standards, yet the
literature suggests that it does affect the amount of energy transfer. Three cylindrical hammers and a safety hammer in
different geometrical configurations are adopted in laboratory experiments to investigate the effect of hammer shape on
energy delivered to a drill rod. In the experiments, true free-fall blows are employed. Energy transfer during each blow
is measured using a strain-gauged drill rod and a force transducer mounted atop the drill rod. Energy transfer between
the hammer and the drill rod is calculated by the stress-wave force integration of the force-time history measured in
each hammer impact. Measurement data are all corrected to an infinite rod length condition. With a total of 80
controlled blows for the four hammers, the measured energy transfer ratios are all nearly 99%. The tests performed in
this study are fairly repeatable and the measurement data of the two different devices are correlated very well on the
basis of wave mechanics. The measurement test results indicate that the effect of hammer shape on the energy transfer
of the standard penetration tests presented herein are negligible.

Key words: drill rod, energy transfer ratio, force transducer, hammer, load cell, standard penetration test (IGC: C8)

Table 1. Specifications of SPT hammer

INTRODUCTION
ASTM 1586-84* JIS A 1219* ISSMFE* ESCPT* BS*
Do different hammers give the same N-values in the Items (1999) (2001) (1988) (1977) (1975)
Standard Penetration Testing (SPT)? This is a doubt that 140±2 lb
Weight 63.5±0.5 kg 63.5±0.5 kg
has probably been questioned often and is familiar to (63.5±1 kg)
63.5 kg 65.0 kg

most practicing engineers. As shown in Table 1, most H =28mm**

existing standards for SPT, including the present ASTM Size and shape 0D=200mm
ID = 44mm
standard (ASTM D 1586-99), stipulate only the hammer
30±1 in
weight (63.5 kg; 140 lb), fall height (76 em; 30 in), and Drop height
(76±2.5 em)
75 em 76 em 76 em 76 em

release mechanism (for example, free fall, rope and

Way of drop*** Free fall Free fall Free fall Free fall Free fall
pulley, number of rope turns about pulley). The shape
and dimensions of the hammer are not specified except in *ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
JIS Japan Institution of Standard
the Japanese standard (JIS A1219 2001). Figure 1 shows
ISS ME International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer
schematically many different shaped hammers that have ESCPT European Sub-Committee on Penetration Testing
been used by many engineers and exploration companies BS British Standards
around the world since 1920 when this test was first **H: height. OD: outer diameter, ID: inner diameter, ***Free fall is not really
performed in all testings. Rope and cathead release is commonly used in practice
employed for field exploration. Kovacs and Salomone
instead, probably accounts for about 50% of world practice.
(1982) performed field measurements and found that the
hammer geometry does have an influence on the amount
of energy transferred to the sampler. Seed et al. (1984)
summarized factors influencing the results of standard of hammer would affect the energy transfer since the
penetration tests and indicated that differently shaped hammer shape affected the wave transmission in their
hammers operate with different energy-delivery efficien- theoretical modeling. All these previous studies have
cies. Sy and Campanella (1991) indicated that the shape identified the hammer geometry as an important factor

il Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, 70101 Ustsai@mail.ncku.edu.tw).
ii) Ph.D. Candidate, ditto.
iii) Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Nan-Jeon College of Technology and Commerce, Yian-Suay, Tainan County,
Taiwan.
ivJ Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Manuscript was received for review on August 9, 2003.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before January 1, 2005 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, 4-38-2, Sengoku,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0011, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

103

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service

104
(a) donut hammer (b) manual free-fall (c) safety hammer
with rope donut hammer
I tripod
(d) automatic free-fall (e) pinweight (f) free-fall trip
hammer hammer hammer
Fig. 1. Hammers of various shape
for the SPT energy transfer. Nevertheless, there are some
studies which (McLean et al., 1975; Gallet, 1976;
Hanskat, 1978) have not recognized the hammer shape as
having significant effect on the energy transfer.
Documentation stating the most recent experience, such
as ASTM D6066-96, D4633-86 and Farrar (1998), has
clarified that different hammers with different operating
methods result in energy-delivery in significant difference.
This leaves unresolved, then, the question as to the mag-
nitude of influence that affect the energy transfer on the
standard penetration test results, if the hammers differ in
shape yet with the same impact operation. It is therefore
of interest to further analyze the problem by fundamental
experiments in view of energy transfer between the ham-
mer and the drill rod.
In this study, a series of controlled tests have been
conducted in a laboratory using four typical hammers.
The force-time history during each blow is measured
using two methods: a force transducer mounted atop of
the anvil, and a load cell installed in the rod. Energy
transfer between the hammer and the drill rod is calcu-
lated by the stress-wave force integration of the force-
time history measured in each blow. One-dimensional
wave propagation theory is employed to correlate measu-
rement data of the two different methods. All tests in
this study were performed with great care on details (e.g.
free- fall condition, fall height of hammer, inclination of
drill rod, junction tightness between rod segments, align-
ment between hammer and drill rod, ... etc.). These de-
tails exclude most factors that could possibly affect the
energy transfer, leaving the hammer shape as the only
dominant factor affecting the test results. In other words,
all the laboratory tests conducted are to study the ham-
TSAI ET AL.
hoop hammer hammer
guide
anvil
rod
scaffold
rubber
cushion
Fig. 2. Testing facility of SPT laboratory experiment
mer shape effect solely, while factors introduced by the
interaction between the hammer and the guide rod, the
anvil or the rope lifting the hammer, which are easily
committed in the field, are not involved. The following
sections describe the test facility, instrumentation of the
two measurement methods, wave mechanics theory for
hammer /rod pounding, and the comparative test data for
each of the four designated hammers.
TEST FACILITY
As shown in Fig. 2, the testing facility consists of three
main components: a hammer, a drill rod with a tripod,
and installed instrumentation. Throughout the test
program, different hammers are employed, while the drill
rod and the anvil atop the rod remain the same. To
conduct the test safely, a lift crane and auxiliary devices,
i.e. a hammer guard-hoop and a scaffold with safety net,
are equipped. The crane lifts the hammer using a wire
string, and the hammer is released at a height 76.2 em
above the rod by cutting the string to create a true free
fall. The tripod holds the rod in a vertical direction. With
frictionless bearings, the tripod provides a slight lateral
support to the rod, while the movement of the rod in
vertical direction remains free. To eliminate the influence
of rod length, all tests are done using A-size rod 3.0 m in
length, in which a 0.6 m long load cell segment is in-
cluded. During the tests, the drill rod stands on a 10 em
thick rubber cushion representing the ground material
with constant property. The adopted rubber cushion pro-
vides a uniform boundary condition for the testing of all
blows. The tests presented herein are all conducted in the
NII-Electronic Library Service
 HAMMER SHAPE EFFECT IN SPT 105

wire string--

hammer
1

n.
1!1 1
Dimension of hammers, anvil and rod
Diameter Length Weight Remark
force transducer n1 I76cm

Tern
60cm

(mm) (mm) (kg)

Hammer A 196 270 63.5
Hammer B
HammerC
Safety hammer
139
98
13711 00*
80
540
1080
1084
120
63.5
63.5
63.5
4.3
t
240cm
Anvil
Rod 41.2/28.5* 3000 16.5 A-size

* outer diameter/inner diameter

Fig. 3. Hammers, anvil and rod used in the SPT experiment

laboratory. Before each impact, the hammer is suspended

above the rod, long enough for the adjust of a good
alignment, and there is no guide rod or any kind of sleeve
to guide the hammer's fall.
Figure 3 shows hammers in four different shapes,
including one of safety type and three of cylindrical type,
used in the present study. The dimensions of the drill rod
and the anvil are also shown in the same figure. The
safety hammer is a steel tube enclosing the anvil and the
drill rod. This pattern offers a "safety" pounding when
the hammer falls and strikes the anvil. The equipped steel
tube guards worker's thumbs from the impact and avoids
the possible consequent injuries. The safety hammer is
manufactured to fulfill the required weight (63.5 kg or
140 lb) with a dimension of 1,084 mm (42.7 in) in length
and 137 mm (5.4 in) in diameter. The cylindrical ham-
mers are in three different configurations (diameter x
length): hammer A (196 mm x 270 mm), hammer B (139
mm x 540 mm), and hammer C (98 mm x 1080 mm). It is
worth noting that the ratio of rod/hammer cross-section-
al area is closely related to the rod/hammer impedance
ratio (or the characteristic impedance ratio), which has
been regarded in Palacios (1977) as an important factor
affecting induced waveform developed in the rod at
impact. Appendix describes the effect of the impedance
ratio on the waveform development in the rod. It is also
noted that all hammers shown in Fig. 1, except the safety
hammer, are of cylindrical bulk type in chunky or slender
geometry. They may have a hole through to guide the
hammer trip along the drill rod. In fact, Kovacs (1994)
has made an important announcement that both the
pin-guided hammer and the donut hammer should be
prohibited by the profession due to their unsafe and poor
energy performance. Only the safety hammer and the
Fig. 4. Load cell measurement instrumentation
automatic cylindrical hammer are recommended for
practices. It is thus of interest to designate compatible
shapes of the recommended hammers in the tests of the
present study.
INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT
DEVICES
To gain confidence in the accuracy of drill rod
measurements, Abou-matar and Goble (1997) demon-
strated a two-method procedure, measuring acceleration
and force at the same time. Following a similar idea, the
induced force of the hammer's impact of the present
experiments is monitored using both a force transducer
and a load cell installed at different locations of the rod
(Fig. 4). By making these two measurements, both the
accuracy and the correctness of the measurements can
then be crossly examined.
The force transducer mounted atop the rod is 53.9 x
19.0 mm (diameter x thickness) in dimensions, and 279 g
in weight. Using this device, the correlation of force and
output voltage is calibrated linearly to 360 kN. Figure 5
shows that the device is equipped with a quartz crystal
disc to sense the dynamic force and an impact cap (44.5
mm in diameter) is attached atop the device. When
hammer pounds on the anvil/rod, the corresponding
force-time history is recorded as voltage changes of the
circuit with the quartz crystal. The measured history is
visually monitored by an oscilloscope equipped with four
channels, in which sampling rate is set of 50 KS/s, i.e.

NII-Electronic Library Service

106 TSAI ET AL.

.t;)(t)

_.r(---
II!q~.&.l•I. !:_ _ .
~v

I
m
___;;.f..... impact cap
_
L . . __

----~83
mounting stud
i
i
~-- upper base plate

IC amplifier
q lr

housing

mounting stud ----~

coaxial connector
quartz element
1• x

anvil (a) hammer model (b) rod model

Fig. 6. Theoretical model of wave propagation in hammer and rod

Fig. 5. Structure of force transducer

systems as shown in Fig. 6 if only the first compressive

pulse is concerned. Coordinates of the hammer and the
50,000 samples per second, for each channel. During the rod systems are taken upward and downward, respec-
hammer blow test, measurement data are immediately tively, from the hammer-rod impact contact. The govern-
transferred to a computer. ing equation of the wave propagating in the hammer is
The load cell is to measure the transmitting force in the
1 a2 a2 u(x, t)
rod (Fig. 4). This device is manufactured as a strain- -----z-
c at 2
u(x, t)=-
ax 2
(O<x<lh, t>O) (1)
gauged 0.6-meter-long segment of A-sized drill rod. A
total of eight strain gauges are placed around the circum- where xis the coordinate of the hammer, cis the theoreti-
ference of the drill rod to average the measured force. cal velocity of compression wave in steel (usually c =51 00
The strain gauges are at 60 em beneath the anvil. Meas- m/s), and u is displacement. Initial conditions for the
urement data are recorded through a signal conditioner hammer model are
to the oscilloscope. The frequency response of this system
u(x, 0)=0; u(x, 0)= -v (O:;;x:;;lh) (2)
is 500 kHz as limited by the response of the bridge ampli-
fiers used to condition the strain channels. Measurement and boundary conditions are
data is also stored in the computer mentioned above. This
is the method recommended and specified in ASTM
a
ahE-u(O, t)+fo(t)=O; -u(lh, t)=O
a (t~O) (3)
(D4633-86) and ISSMFE (1988) for SPT energy measure- ax ax
ment. Parameters ah and E are sectional area and Young's
modulus of the hammer, respectively. Function fo(t) is
the force-time history at the hammer /rod contact, i.e. at
IMPACT FORCE IN HAMMER AND ROD x= 0, x= 0. Displacement u(x, t) at any point of the
The impact between the hammer and the drill rod hammer can be obtained by employing Laplace Trans-
creates a compression stress wave traveling down the rod form to reduce some routine algebraic manipulations. By
and at the same time up the hammer. To theoretically taking differentiation of u(x, t) with respect to x and
describe this phenomenon, the idealized impact of two multiplying the derivative byE and ah, force fh(x, t) at
rods depicted by Fairhurst (1961) is commonly in- any point of the hammer can then be obtained as:
troduced. Fischer (1984) gave a thorough discussion of
wave mechanics applications in analyzing the impact. /b (X, t) ~ - [to (t- ~ )H ( t- ~ )
Recently, Abou-matar and Goble (1997) illustrated the
stresses generated and propagated in the SPT system
using one-dimensional wave mechanics. They also pro- -fo (t- 2/h:x)H(t-2/h:x)
vided a useful procedure for the analysis of stress wave
propagation, especially for the driving systems of the +/o (t- 2/h;x)H(t-2/h;x)
safety hammer and the CME automatic hammer. In the
present analysis, a similar concept is adopted, and is
described in the following paragraphs.
Considering the wave propagation in the hammer as
-Jo ( t -4/h
-c--X )H (t--c-
4/h -X) + ... l (4)

well as in the drill rod follows the principle of one-dimen- in which, H(t-x/c) is an unit step function, or
sional wave propagation, the hammer pounding on the Heaviside expansion formula (O'Neil, 1987). Detailed
rod can be idealized as two independent one-dimensional derivation of the force in the hammer is described in

NII-Electronic Library Service

 HAMMER SHAPE EFFECT IN SPT 107

Chen (1998). It is noted that a force of the same magni- above analysis in above, especially Eq. (8), can be applied
tude with opposite direction can be obtained using Eq. (4) to the present study, in which the possible errors of the
if x= 0. This shows that the equilibrium of internal force measured force-histories can then be evaluated.
and external loading at the boundary is satisfied when
Eq. (4) is employed to describe the force transmitting in
the hammer. ENERGY TRANSMISSION FROM HAMMER TO
Similarly, the governing equation of the wave ROD
propagating in the drill rod is Energy transfer of SPT can be determined by measur-
ing force or /and acceleration (i.e. velocity) of the drill
1 a2 a2
-z-
c at 2 u(x, t)=-2 u(x, t)
ax
(O<x<lr, t>O) (5) rod during the hammer blow (Schmertmann and Pala-
cios, 1979; Abou-matar and Goble, 1997). Farrar (1998)
in which, xis the coordinate of the rod. Initial conditions has given a detail summary of the currently available
for the rod model are methods. Since force and acceleration are proportional
following the fundamental physics principle, the energy
u(x, 0)=0; u(x, 0)=0 (O=:;x=:;lr) (6)
transmitted from the hammer into the rod evaluated by
and boundary conditions are either of the two measurements should give the same
result, if the quality of the measurement is assured. In
a a2
a
arE ax u(O, t) + fo(t) = m atz u(O, t); ax u(lr, t) = 0 this study, the determination of the energy transfer is
based on the force-measurement concept developed by
{t;::: 0) (7) Palacios (1977), as stated in ASTM (D4633-86) and
Noting that the rod and the hammer are made of the same ISSMFE (1988). The force-time history f(t) of the stress
material, parameters ar and E are sectional area and wave during hammer impact is taken at a designated
Young's modulus of the rod, respectively. The mass of location of the rod, and the energy can be computed by
the anvil mounted on top of the rod is denoted as m. stress-wave force integration using the following
Forcefr(x, t) at any point of the rod can be obtained as formula:
C j:M
arCP[ft
fr(X, t)= ------;;;- J fo(r)H ( t--;;-r
X ) Er=-
arE o
[j{t)f df (9)
0

arCP (
x exp ( ------;;;- t--;;X - r ) ) dr (10)

- Jr~ fo(r)H (t--rc_x_ , )

21- where L1 t is the time duration of the first compression
0 wave, Er is the energy content in the first compression
wave, and Ei is the energy content corrected using factors
K1, Kz and Kc. The factors K1 and K 2 are to account for
the load-cell position in the rod and the finite length of
the rod, respectively. The factor Kc is to correct the total
duration of the first compression pulse in the measured
data, in which the duration is the round-trip time for the
stress wave to travel from the load cell to the bottom of
the rod and return to the load cell. In the present case Kc
arCP ( t - -
x exp ( -----;;;- 2/r+X
c - - r )) dr = 1.0 is adopted according to ASTM 4633-86. The energy
transfer ratios ERr and ERi corresponding to Er and Ei,
respectively, are defined with respect to theoretical free-
- Jrr fo(r)H (t--rc
4/ -x
__ T) fall energy (475 J) assuming a 762 mm (30 in) fall and are
0
shown as a percentage. All comparisons of measurement
X (I -2a;: (t- 41' : X- r) ) data are made in terms of ERr regarding a 3-meter rod
and ERi assuming an infinite long rod.

x exp ( ------;;;- 4/r-

arCP ( t- - c -X - r ) ) dr + · · · · · · (8)
in which p is the mass density of material. Detailed
derivation of the force in the rod is also described in Chen
(1998).
As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, the impact force
measurement is performed on the drill rod using the force
transducer and the load cell installed at different
locations. It is necessary to evaluate the correctness of the
measurement, if reliable conclusions are desired. The
l RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In this study, a total of 80 blows performed in the
laboratory experiments were evaluated. Each shape of
hammer has been tested for 20 blows. Test results are
shown in Figs. 7 through 10 and are summarized in
Table 2. For different hammers, measurement data ob-
tained using both the force transducer and the load cell
are presented in Figs. 7(a), 8(a), 9(a) and 10(a). As can be
seen in these figures, data of different blows for the same

NII-Electronic Library Service

108 TSAI ET AL.

350 350

300 300
250 250
z
c 200 z
c 200
<l) <l)

~ 150 ~ 150
0 0
l.l.. l.l..
100 100

50 50

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time (ms) Time (ms)

(a) Force-time histories (a) Force-time histories

16 16

12
"' 12 ~
~ 0
0
:0 :0
4-o
4-o 0
0 ....
i3 .D
<l)

.D
6 6
::1
z::1 z 4
4

0
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Energy transform ratio with no correction, ERr(%) Energy transform ratio with no correction. ERr(%)
(b) Static distribution of measured energy transform ratio (load cell) (b) Static distribution of measured energy transform ratio (load cell)

12 12

4-o

....0 8
<l)
'0
....<l)
8
.D
.D
E
:::> 6
::1
z 4 z 4

0
123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
The first peak of force-time record (kN)
The first peak of force-time record (kN)
(c) Static distribution of measured pulse amplitude (load cell) (c) Static distribution of measured pulse amplitude (load cell)

Fig. 7. Test results (Hammer A) Fig. 8. Test results (Hammer B)

hammer agree very well as they vary within a very narrow of measurement data show very good agreement. In fact,
band. Average energy ratios of the rod ERr computed both are very close to an idealized energy transmission
using Eq. (9) are summarized in Table 2, in which the case, i.e. 99%. This indicates that the gross errors of the
average energy ratios with corrections ERi computed two measurements are all nearly 1%. This also suggests
using Eq. (10) are also shown. The employed corrections that energy transmission measurement of SPT conducted
account for measuring point in the rod and finite length using a force transducer mounted atop the drill rod can
of the rod. Figures 7(b) to 10(b) show the statistical achieve the same level of accuracy as the conventional
distribution of energy ratios ERr of the load cell data. It is method of using a load cell installed in the drill rod. It is
worthy noting that the test results of energy ratio, for noted that the calculation of the energy ratios for the
each of the chosen hammers, are different from the force transducer and the load cell shown in Table 2 give
average values in a very small range, i.e. the standard the K 1 correction factor of about 1.17 which is essentially
deviations are within 2%. the same as the 1.16 given in the ASTM D4633-86.
Based on the results shown in Table 2, the correlation Results of the present study show the validity of K, factor
between the load cell and the force transducer measure- for the SPT energy measurement.
ment is studied. As can be seen in Table 2, the results of Agreement of the results, as determined using the two
corrected energy ratios ERi determined by the two kinds different methods, is further studied. Dashed lines plotted

NII-Electronic Library Service

 HAMMER SHAPE EFFECT IN SPT 109

350 350

300 300

250 250
z~ 200 ~ 200
I!) I!)
~ !50 ~ 150
0 0
[.I. [.I.

100 100

50 50

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Time (ms) Time (ms)

(a) Force-time histories (a) Force-time histories

12 12
~0
:0
'0 8 b.... 8
~ .n
I!)

"E:::l
§
z 4 z 4

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Energy transform ratio with no correction, ERr(%) Energy transform ratio with no correction, ERr(%)
(b) Static distribution of measured energy transform ratio (load cell) (b) Static distribution of measured energy transform ratio (load cell)

12 12
~ ~
0 0
:0 :0
'0 8 '0.... 8
~ I!)
.n .n
E E
:::l :::l
z 4 z 4

I 13 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 110 Ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
The first peak of force-time record (kN) The first peak of force-time record (kN)

(c) Static distribution of measured pulse amplitude (load cell) (c) Static distribution of measured pulse amplitude (load cell)

Fig. 9. Test results (Hammer C) Fig. 10. Test results (Safety hammer)

in Figs. 7(a) to lO(a) are the representative averages of
analytical results of the load cell measurement computed
using Eq. (8). They are derived from the data of the force
transducer measurement. It is found that the analytical
results agree very well with the experimental data. The
minor differences that have resulted may be simply due to
either the assumption of the one-dimensional wave
employed in the analysis, or the resolution limit of the
measuring devices.
Comparing the data and the force-history curves
shown in Figs. 7(a) to lO(a), it shows found that different
hammers generate different impact peaks and force
waveforms. Figures 7(c) to lO(c) show the statistical dis-
tribution of the force amplitude of the first peaks record-
ed by the load cell. Figures ll(a) and (c) summarize the
representative impact force histories measured using the
two different devices. These comparisons identify the
effect of hammer shape on SPT energy transfer. The
measurement data show that a shorter hammer (with a
larger diameter) generates a higher pulse amplitude (the
first peak of force-time record). As mentioned above and
described in the APPENDIX, this phenomenon is related
to the characteristic impedance ratio, and corresponds to
the ratio of sectional area of the rod to the hammer.
To have a better comparison with previous studies
(such as Schmertmann and Palacios, 1979), Fig. ll(b)
shows the analytical load-cell results, which are derived
from the data of the force transducer measurement
(Fig. ll(a)) using Eq. (8). The average peak values for
different hammers shown in Figs. ll(b) and (c) are sum-
marized in Table 3. Figures 12(a) and (b) present the
correlation between the first peaks and the impedance

NII-Electronic Library Service

110 TSAI ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of average energy ratios of rod 350

Results of load cell Results of force transducer K, 300

Hammer
250
ER,(%) 1" 1 £Ri(%) 1h 1 ER,(%) 1" 1 £Ri(%) 1q
types
(I) (2) (3) (4)
(3)/ (I)
z
0 200
Cylindrical A 59.2±0.67 98.9 69.4±0.80 99.9 1.172 <!)

2 150
0
'-L..
Cylindrical B 59.5±0.59 99.4 69.1 ±0.83 99.5 1.161
100
Cylindrical C 59.6±0.95 99.6 69.7±1.05 100.4 1.170
50
Safety 59.4±0.91 99.2 69.4±1.19 99.9 1.168
0
QO 0.2 Q4 0~ QS 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
(a) Shown numbers are meanER, values with the corresponding standard deviations Time (ms)
of test results.
(a) Force transducer measurement data
(b) Corrections are made for both the length of rod and the location of load cell.
Factors K, = 1.16 and K, = I. 44 are employed according to ASTM 4633-86.
(c) Correction is made for the length of rod, and only factor K, = 1.44 is 350
employed.
300

250

ratios of different hammers. As can be seen in these z

0 200
figures, the first peak data of hammers A, B and C show a <!)

2 150
very good correlation in a form of 0
'-L..
100
!A·(1 +rA)=fs·(1 +rs)=fc·(1 +rc) (11)
50
in which, f and r are the first peak and the impedance
0
ratio, respectively, for the hammer of the corresponding
0.0 Q2 Q4 Q6 Q8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
subindex. The correlation described in Eq. (11) agrees
Time (ms)
very well with previous studies mentioned in the
APPENDIX as shown in Eq. (A-2). Two aspects should (b) Analytical results based on force transducer data
be mentioned upon this finding. Firstly, the presented
correlation is only applicable for the cylindrical ham- 350

mers, while the chosen safety hammer is not involved 300

(Fig. 12). It is simply because the geometrical type of the
250
safety hammer is not in the same category. Secondly,
there are certain differences between the measured first z 200
0
peak data and the theoretical results computed using <!)
u 150
6
Eq. (A-2). As described in APPENDIX, this is because '-L..
100
the impact force measured in the experiment is not in the
form of a stepped square waveform as that of the theoret- 50

ical computation. Nevertheless, the measured first peaks 0

of different cylindrical hammers do indicate a clear 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
correlation with respect to the impedance ratios as shown Time (ms)
in Fig. 12 and summarized in Table 3. (c) Load cell measurement data

Fig. 11. Comparisons of average force-time histories

DISCUSSIONS
The energy transfer of SPT begins with the striking of
hammer onto the anvil, and the drill rod attached
beneath transmits the generated compression wave
downward to the split sampler below. During one
penetration activity, the incident force impulse of the
wave overcomes the soil resistance surrounding the split
sampler, and the transferred energy drives the sampler
penetrating into the soil. Previous studies, such as Kovacs
and Salomone (1982) and Schmertmann and Palacios
(1979), have proven that N-value can be correlated with
the transferred energy in an inversely proportional
relationship. In their theories, the energy delivered by the
compression wave contributes to the work for driving the
sampler advance against the surrounding soil resistance.
It is noted that force impulses of the compression wave
reaching the bottom of the drill rod have to continuously
overcome the soil resistance that holds (or locks) the
sampler. Otherwise the transferred energy will turn into
ineffective to the sampler advance once the force impulses
are unable to break the soil lock. In this case, the wave
bouncing back from the sampler is then in the form of
compression other than tension, and no energy will be
transferred for penetration. Therefore, large enough
force impulses, especially the first peak, are essential to
overwhelm the threshold of penetration governed by the
soil resistance that holds the sampler.
In an earlier paragraph, the first peak of the compres-

NII-Electronic Library Service

 HAMMER SHAPE EFFECT IN SPT 111

Table 3. Summary of average pulse amplitude 120 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 400

- - - - Hammer A
Hammer Sectional Impedance Load cell Force transducer
Hammer length area ratio 131
measurements computed data (b)
types (mm) (mm 2) (10-3) (kN) (kN)

Cylindlical A 270. 30172. 23 127.2 133.9

Cylindrical B 540. 15394. 45 123.6 130.8
Cylindrical C 1080. 7543. 92 117.8 125.7
Safety 1084. 14741. 47 114.8 121.9
(a) Impedance ratio equals the ratio of the cross-sectional area of drill rod to the area
2
of hammer, in which the cross-sectional area of the dlill rod is 695 mm .

(b) Data shown are force of the rod at the load cell location, which are computed
using Eq. (8) based on the force transducer measurements.

140
0 0.4 0.8
Time (ms)
hammer A
135

~ (a) Case of finite-length rod with tension cut-off

.
0
u
.B
130

120 500
~ 125
0
0.. safety hammer 110
0
...s:: +
E-< 100 Hammer A
120 400
-----HammerS
90
- - - - - - HammerC
80
115
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 300~
~70 :::
::::
~ :::::-
lmpendance ratio r e 6o force-time histories
;>,
e.n
c; <l..l
Ll. 50
200 J3
(a) Analytical results based on force transducer data 40

30
100
20
135
10

0 0
130 0 2 4 6 7 9 10

~ hammer A Time (ms)

.
.B
0
u 125
(b) Case of infinite-length rod without tension cut-off

..::.:: Fig. 13. Computed force-time and integrated-energy-time histories for

ci:S
0 120
0.. three cylindrical hammers
0
...s::
E-< safety hammer
115 +
/and a small N-value, although they seem to be compre-
110 ~L-L-L-L-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ hensibly related. Figure 13 shows two examples of the
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 pounding force and the energy generated using hammers
Impendance ratio r
of various sizes, in which theory proposed by Fairhurst
(1961) is employed for the computation of force-time
history. Figure 13(a) demonstrates the cases of rod in
(b) Load cell measurement data finite-length with a tension cut-off at 0.94 ms, while
Fig. 13(b) demonstrates the cases of rod in infinite-length
Fig. 12. Effect of impedance ratio on the measured first peaks
without any tension cut-off. Each example shows that the
transferred energy values of different cases vary negligibly
in spite of the differences the first peaks generated by
sion impulse is known relating to the characteristic im- different hammers. Both of these examples further indi-
pedance ratio, and corresponds to the ratio of sectional cate that the first peak of force and the transferred energy
area of the rod to the hammer, e.g. Eqs. (11) and (A-2). It (or /and N-value) are not clearly related. Results of the
should be mentioned that there is no evidence shown that experiments conducted in the present study and shown in
a large first peak shall introduce a large energy delivery or Table 2 indicate the same findings.

NII-Electronic Library Service

112 TSAI ET AL.
In the present study, the effect of the hammer shape is
investigated mainly by laboratory experiments. Some
idealizations are made to exclude the effects of other
factors, such as the soil beneath the sampler, which could
introduce uncertainty. It has been known that the soil
surrounding the sampler is squeezed and the soil proper-
ties, especially for cohesionless soils, are in fact changed
due to the disturbance introduced by the sampler during
penetration. Nevertheless the interaction between the soil
and the sampler is not within the scope of the present
study, and a rubber cushion instead of natural soil is then
employed for penetration. The choice of rubber cushion
as the penetration object is to give a uniform reflection
condition for the hammer-shape dominated test, and this
shall leave the hammer as the sole variable in the
experiment. Moreover, the rubber cushion is as soft as
commonly seen soil that reflects a tension wave once the
incident compression wave generated by the hammer
impact travels downward. In brief, the present SPT
experiments are representatively similar to the cases in
real practices.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A total of 80 controlled hammer poundings on drill rod
were performed in laboratory experiments to SPT energy
transfer. Hammers of four different shapes, including
one of safety type and three of cylindrical type, were
utilized in the experiments. During each drop, the
hammer was released in a true free fall. To eliminate the
influence of rod length, all experiments were conducted
using A-size rod of 3.0 m in length standing vertically on
a 10 em thick rubber cushion. Energy transfer during
each blow was measured using both the strain-gauged
drill rod (load cell of A-size) and the force transducer
mounted on top of the drill rod. The measurement data
show that the experiments are fairly repeatable and the
test results are reliable. The experimental results indicate
that the effect of hammer shape on the energy transfer
from the hammer to the drill rod (or the corresponding
N-value) is negligible. Detail findings are summarized as
follows:
1. Compared to other researches, the developed tech-
nique in this study for SPT energy transfer measure-
ment has been proven repeatable. The standard
deviation of measured energy transfer ratios for any
hammer is within ± 2%.
2. Measurement results of the SPT energy ratio using
both the ASTM4633-86 recommended strain-gauged
load cell and the force transducer mounted atop the
drill rod exhibit a similar accuracy.
3. The K 1 correction factor obtained by back calcula-
tion of the data measured at two different locations
of the rod (one on top of the anvil and the other at
60 em beneath the anvil) is about 1.17 which is about
the same as the K, factor 1.16 given by ASTM
4633-86.
4. The force-wave propagation in drill rod can be
simulated using one-dimensional wave theory with
sufficient accuracy in the specific laboratory set-up
adopted in this study.
5. For the hammer tested, the shape does not sig-
nificantly affect the energy transfer ratio. The effect
of hammer shape is mainly on the generated force
waveform at impact. The pulse amplitude (or the first
peak) of the force waveform is related to the charac-
teristic impedance ratio, i.e. the ratio of cross-
sectional areas of the drill rod to the hammer of
cylindrical shape.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper derives from the researches done at the
Cybering Construction Research Laboratory, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung
University. The financial support from NSC
92-2625-Z006-006 is acknowledged. The authors are in-
debted to Dr. Moh, Z. C. for his supports in the early
stage of this research.
REFERENCES
1) Abou-matar, H. (1990): Evaluation of dynamic measurements on
the standard penetration test, Thesis presented to the University of
Colorado at Boulder in partial fulfillment of the degree of MS.
2) Abou-matar, H. and Gobel, G. G. (1997): SPT dynamic analysis
and measurements, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 123 (10), 921-928.
3) ASTM (D 1586-99): Standard test method for penetration test and
split-barrel sampling on soils (D 1586-99), Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 04.08, American Society of Testing and Material,
Philadelphia.
4) ASTM (D 4633-86): Standard test method for stress wave energy
measurement for dynamic penetrometer testing system (D 4633-86),
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.08, American Society of Tes-
ting and Material, Philadelphia.
5) ASTM (D 6066-96): Standard practice for determining the normal-
ized penetration resistance of sands for evaluation of liquefaction
potential (D 6066-96), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.09,
American Society of Testing and Material, Philadelphia.
6) BS 1377:1975: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering
purposes, Test 18 Determination of the Penetration Resistance
Using the Split Barrel Sampler, BSI London, 103-104.
7) Chen, M. J. (1998): The influence of hammer type on standard
penetration test energy transmission, Thesis of Master of Science
presented to National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan,
R.O.C. (in Chinese).
8) ESCPT (1977): Report of the subcommittee on standardization of
penetration testing in Europe, Proc. 9th ICSMFE, Tokyo, Japan,
3, 95-120.
9) Fairhurst, C. (1961): Wave mechanics of percussive drilling, Mine
and Quarry Engineering, Mar. 1961, 122-130; Apr. 1961, 169-178;
July 1961, 327-328.
10) Farrar, J. A. (1998): Summary of standard penetration test (SPT)
energy measurement experience, Geotechncial Site Characteriza-
tion, Proc. 1st International Conference on Site Characterization
(ISC98), (eds. by Robertson and Mayne), April 19-22, 1998,
Atlanta, GA, AA Balkema, Rotterdam.
11) Gallet, A. J. (1976): Use of the wave equation to investigate stand-
ard penetration test field measurements, Thesis of Master of
Engineering presented to the University of Florida at Gainesville,
Florida.
12) Hanskat, C. S. (1978): Wave equation simulation of standard
penetration test, Thesis of Master of Engineering presented to the
University of Florida at Gainesville, Florida.
NII-Electronic Library Service
 HAMMER SHAPE EFFECT IN SPT 113

13) ISSMFE (1988): Standard penetration test: international reference

test procedure, ISSMFE Technical Committee on Penetration
l.O
f-,
1
Testing, Proc. 1st International Symosium on Penetration Testing
~r=0.0625
(ISOPT-1), Orlando, Florida, 1, 3-26. "' o.sl-·~~- - + - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - !
14) JIS (2001): Test designation A1219 method for standard penetra- ~ L.-;:.=- r.=D.25
tion test, Japan Institution of Standard, Japanese Standards ---t~-- I

Association, Tokyo, Japan. 0.61----l•i--.-+-!l-_,--r-=0.,-J.4L4---+----+----l

c;
15) Kovacs, W. D. and Salomone, L. A. (1982): SPT hammer energy
measurement, J. of Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 108 (GT4),
.:::!
~
8
.i ·~-·---i
-7
599-620. ~ 0.4 1-----1-iri-:--1:...+---11---+----+-----J
16) Kovacs, W. D. (1994): Effects of SPT equipment and procedures on
.s~
the design of shallow foundations on sand, Proc. of Settlement '94,
lli i
I ......,. ....
v-r=l

ASCE, Geotech. Special Publication, 1 (40), New York, N.Y.,

g L--~""!~ -~
,;-- ' I
..... 0.21-----1-----f~'t~'::t:...d----11-----1-----f
121-131. I
17) McLean, F. G., Franklin, A. G. and Dahlstrand, T. K. (1975): L~~
Influence of mechanical variables on the SPT, Specialty Conference L:f.::::;,J_ ---
0L---~--L-~~L--~;~-~----~-
on the In Situ Measurement of Soil Properties, ASCE, 1, 287-318. 0.4 0.8 !.6 2.0
1.2
18) O'Neil, P. (1987): Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 2nd ed.,
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.
T Time (2h I c)

O
19) Palacios, A. (1977): The theory and measurement of energy
transfer during standard penetration test sampling, Dissertation of
Doctor of Philosophy presented to the University of Florida at
~~ l ~i~'·l ~~,5~~ 0 62 5
'•c:•==r:::=;:/::::=:t!IJo.o625/h
h h h h
Gainesville, Florida.

0 D0 D
20) Schmertmann, J. H. and Palacios, A. (1979): Energy dynamic of
SPT, J. of the Geotech. Engrg. Div., ASCE, 105 (GT8), 909-926.
21) Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. and Chung, R. M.
(1984): The influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction
resistance evaluations, Research Report UCB I EERC-84 I 15, Fig. 14. Effect of impedance ratio on the theoretical waveform shape
University of California, Berkeley, California. (Palacios, 1977)
22) Sy, A. and Campanella, R. G. (1991): Wave equation modeling of
the SPT, Proc. Geotech. Engrg. Congress, 1, 225-240.

Field Data From Palacios ( 1977)

APPENDIX: PULSE AMPLITUDE OF SPT HAM- 100 Blow No.6
MER IMPACT Depth=35' S-AW
80 ~.....,:.:.~----f.-ERi =63%
Adopting Fairhurst's (1961) concept of an idealized
impact of two similar materials, Schmertmann and
Palacios (1979) describe dynamic behavior of the SPT 60 I
~
hammer /rod impact in detail. Compression waves travel ::::,
40
with the same amplitude and velocity down the rod and ~
~
up the hammer from the impact contact. Because of the 0
[.I..
20
relatively short length of the hammer, the compression
wave reaches the upper end of the hammer relatively
0
quickly. On reaching the free, i.e. tip, end of the ham-
mer, this wave bounces back in the hammer as a tension -20 Tension
wave of the same magnitude and form. This tension wave
then progressively erases the continuing, up-coming
compression wave. This process repeats several cycles 0 2 4 6
until finally the hammer carries no stress when the tension Time (ms)
wave returns to the point of hammer /rod contact. With
each cycle of wave transmission and reflection, the Fig. 15. Comparison of theoretical waveform and field measurement
hammer produces a progressively stepped, reduced level (Schmertmann and Palacios, 1979)
of compressive stress in the compression wave originating
at the contact and travelling down the rod. In the mean
time the rod remains in contact with the hammer if a (A-1)
compression wave still exists within the rod.
The shape of the force-time wave that initially travels As described above, each cycle of the wave in the hammer
down the rod depends primarily on the rod /hammer produces a successively reduced magnitude of stress in the
impedance ratio r (Palacios, 1977). For hammer and rod rod. The first cycle has the greatest stress magnitude Umax
of the same material, r equals the ratio of the cross- given by Fairhurst (1961) as
sectional area of the rod ar to the area of the hammer ah,
or
~
am" cp ( I : r ) (A-2)

in which p is the mass density of material; c is the wave

NII-Electronic Library Service

114 TSAI ET AL.
propagation speed in the rod; and v is the velocity of
hammer at impact. For the nth cycle
1- r )n (A-3)
(J = (J max ( 1 + r
Palacios (1977) illustrated the theoretical step-down of
stress delivered to the rod for four rod/hammer im-
pedance ratios while maintaining the same hammer
weight 63.5 kg (140 lb). As shown in Fig. 14, the shorter
the hammer, the higher the magnitude of peak stress and
the smoother the stress wave form. And the magnitudes
of peak stress between the hammers of different r have a
simple correlation factor of 1 /(1 + r). Schmertmann and
Palacios (1979) presented another typical check of theory
against an actual experimental SPT waveform. As shown
in Fig. 15, the solid line of positive force value indicates
that the hammer and rod remain in contact until the
tension cutoff arrives. The tension cutoff is the reflection
of the initial compression wave returning from the
sampler end of a real SPT rod system with finite length.
As mentioned above, the existing compressive stress of
the hammer and rod contact continues step-down due to
the wave travelling in the hammer. The reflecting tension
stress from the SPT sampler end exceeds the existing
contact compressive stress and then produces the tension
cutoff of wave transmission. It is worth noting that the
measured record and the computed data do not agree
thoroughly, especially at the maximum stress of the first
cycle. This is because the impact force measured in the
experiment is not in the form of a stepped square
waveform, as the theoretical results. Similar finding is
also mentioned in Abou-matar (1990). Nevertheless,
these and other examples, such as Fairhurst (1961), show
the preceding as a satisfactory theory for the hammer-rod
interaction.
NII-Electronic Library Service