Experimental Study on Axial Stress and Hammer Impacting Energy of Offshore Standard Penetration Test
Source abstract
Abstract
Standard penetration test (SPT) has been widely used in offshore exploration because of its unique advantages. Unlike onshore exploration, offshore construction areas are characterized by high waves and water depths ranging from several meters to tens of meters. As a result, the reliability of offshore SPT is significantly reduced compared with onshore SPT. Currently, the probe rod length correction of SPT is not involved in geotechnical engineering investigation codes and related research, which greatly limits the application of this method in offshore exploration. Therefore, a series of SPTs were carried out in offshore environments with different water depths, with a maximum rod length of 65 m. The acceleration and axial stress at each test point of the rod were monitored by the dynamic signal data acquisition system, and the hammer impacting energy at each test point was obtained by Force–Velocity (F-V) method. The test results show that the correction of the rod length of the offshore SPT is different from that of the traditional SPT, and it needs to be further corrected for the water depth. In this paper, a modified method of rod length for offshore SPT is proposed, which can provide reference for the application of offshore SPT.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures · Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Powerchina Huadong Engineering Corporation, Hangzhou 311122, China
College of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, China
Funding
“Pioneer” and “Leading Goose” R&D Program of Zhejiang
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Correlative study of cone penetration test parameters and physico-mechanical properties of the seabed soil on the East China Sea Continental Shelf
2. Penetration test and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils
3. SPT-CPT correlation10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:11(1449) ↗
4. Estimation of relative density of sand with normalized standard penetration N value
5. Use of SPT Blow Counts to Estimate Shear Strength Properties of Soils: Energy Balance Approach10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016 ↗
6. The influence of SPT procedures in evaluating soil liquefaction resistance10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425) ↗
7. Standard penetration test procedures and the efforts in sands overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and over-consolidation10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425 ↗
8. Review of Standard Penetration Test Short Rod Corrections10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(489) ↗
9. (2005). Geotechnical Investigation and Testing-Field Testing-Part 2: Dynamic Probing (Standard No. ISO 22476-2).
10. (2001). Standard Penetration Test Method (Standard No. JIS A1219-2001).
11. (2010). Standard Test Method for Stress Wave Energy Measurement for Dynamic Penetrometer Testing Systems (Standard No. ASTM D4633-10).
12. Velocity measurement of free-fall SPT hammer10.1061/AJGEB6.0000748 ↗
13. Influence of soil aging on SPT-Vs correlation and seismic site classification10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105653 ↗
14. Energy Dynamics of SPT10.1061/AJGEB6.0000839 ↗
15. Evaluation of SPT energy for Donut and Safety hammers using CPT measurements in Egypt10.1016/j.asej.2013.04.001 ↗
16. Energy transfer in standard penetration test10.1061/AJGEB6.0001346 ↗
17. Significance of two-point strain measurement in SPT10.3208/sandf1972.32.2_67 ↗
18. Correlations between Vs and SPT-N by different borehole measurement methods: Effect on seismic site classification10.1007/s10518-019-00767-1 ↗
19. Effect of hammer shape on energy transfer measurement in the standard penetration test10.3208/sandf.44.3_103 ↗
20. Energy efficiency for standard penetration tests10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:10(1252) ↗
21. An assessment of the effect of rod length on SPT energy calculations based on measured field data10.1520/GTJ11959 ↗
22. SPT hammer energy ratio versus drop height10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:3(397) ↗
23. Effect of Secondary Impacts on SPT Rod Energy and Sampler Penetration10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000236 ↗
24. Hammer Efficiency and Correction Factors for the TxDOT Texas Cone Penetration Test10.1007/s10706-017-0234-8 ↗
25. Study of modified coefficient of dynamic penetration rod length
26. Model tests on modified coefficient of heavy dynamic penetration rod length
27. Experimental study on axial impacting force and hammer impacting energy in rod of heavy dynamic penetration test
28. Adaptation and correction of dynamic penetration rod length
29. Influence of drill rod’s flexural deflection on standard penetration test in deep bore-holes in maritime spaces
30. Jakeman, D., Smith, B.L., and Heer, W. (1984). Propagation of Pressure Waves through Airwater Mixtures (No. EIR-534), Eidgenoessisches Inst. fuer Reaktorforschung.
31. Wave propagation through a viscous incompressible fluid contained in an initially stressed elastic tube10.1016/S0006-3495(66)86671-7 ↗
32. Yu ST, J., Chen, Y.Y., and Yang, L. (2012). Wave Processes in Classical and New Solids, IntechOpen.
33. Moradi, S., and Lawton, D.C. (2023, June 10). Velocity-Stress Finite-Difference Modeling of Poroelastic Wave Propagation. Available online: https://www.crewes.org/Documents/ResearchReports/2013/CRR201361.pdf.
34. Propagation velocity model of stress wave in longitudinal section of tree in different angular directions10.15376/biores.14.4.8904-8922 ↗
35. Research on stress wave wood nondestructive testing technology10.1088/1742-6596/2366/1/012035 ↗
36. Stress wave propagation and incompatible deformation mechanisms in rock discontinuity interfaces in deep-buried tunnels10.1002/dug2.12016 ↗
37. SPT dynamic analysis and measurements10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:10(921) ↗