FACULTY OF Engineering

Civil Engineering Department

Soil lab - ENCE 311
Experiment NO. 6

FALL CONE METHOD

Group D

Mahmoud Sehweil

1110744

Islam Assi

1122300

Rouya Arnaout

1121852

Mohammed Jubran

1122148

Instructor: Dr. Sahem Murshed

Eng. Montaser AlWarasna
Date of Conducting the Experiment
Date of Submitting the Report

14 .Mar.2015
23.Feb.2015

FALL CONE M ETHOD

Partners Names and IDs:

Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Index

__

Introduction

__

Objectives

__

Background (Theory)

__

Instruments

__

Procedure

__

Measurements and Calculation

__

Conclusion

__

Engineering Use
References
Copy of Data signed

__

8
__

__

8
9

Page | 2

INTRODUCTION

At 1900, Atterberg developed a method to describe consistency of fine grained soil. Depending on the
water content (w%), he divided soil into four basic states:
1.
Solid state.
2.
Semisolid state.
3.
Plastic state.
4.
Liquid state.
Through these states he determined three limits:
1.
Shrinkage limit: is the water content at the minimum volume of the soil.
2.
Plastic limit: which turns soil from plastic into semisolid state.
3.
Liquid limit: the water content at which the behavior of a clayey soil changes
from plastic to liquid.
These limits determined experimentally at the lab, for our experiment we will determine both plastic and
liquid limits.
To apply this description for a certain soil, several method are used, such as Casagrande apparatus for
liquid limit, and rolling method for plastic limit, in this experiment we used to apply fall cone method, which
stands over penetration principle using cone at 30 degrees with 80 g for liquid limit, and 240 g for plastic limit.
According to this test, liquid limit defined as the w% corresponding to penetration of 20mm after 5
seconds. While plastic limit depend on a formula as will be pointed to it in theory.
This test considered as more accuracy than other tests, because human error is less, and it is portable
and easy to use.

AIMS AND O BJECTIVES .

Determine plastic limit and liquid limit, in order to describe the consistency of fine-grained soil.

Page | 3

THEORY .

Liquid Limit (LL): The water content at which the soil will transformed from plastic state to liquid state. &
(LL) is the moisture content at which a standard cone of apex angle 30 and weight of 0.78N will penetrate a
distance d=20 mm in 5 seconds when allowed to drop from a position of point contact with the soil surface.
The Determination of the water content can be by the equation:
W (%) = (weight of can and moist soil- weight of can and dry soil)/ weight of can and moist soil
The relation between the penetration (x-axis) and the moisture content (w %) (Y-axis)
Should be drawn after many trials, from this graph we determine the value of liquid limit (L.L.).
All the consistency limits depends on the type and amount of clay mineral so the liquid limit of the soil will
change from clay to another as shown in the following table.
Clay mineral
Kaolinite
IIlite
Montmorillonite

L.L
35-100
55-120
100-800

Flow index: is the slop of the flow line.

= 1 21 2
D is the penetration.
Plastic limit test:
Plastic limit: The moisture content at the point of transition from semisolid to plastic state. & it is the moisture
content at which a cone of apex angle 30 and weight of 2.35N will penetrate a distance d=20mm in 5 seconds
when allowed to drop from a position of point contact with the soil surface.
Plastic limit (P.L)=Liquid limit(L.L) -4.2*w
W: is the difference in w% at penetration equal to 20mm between the two lines from L.L test and P.L test.
Plasticity index: is a number giving an indication about the degree of plasticity of the soil. And we can use it to
determine if the soil is good or bad to the structural projects, as the value of plasticity index increase this means
that the soil particles become finer so the soil become bad for the structural projects.

Page | 4

PI
0
1-5
5-10
10-20
20-40
>40

Description
Nonplastic
Slightly plastic
Low plasticity
Medium plasticity
High plasticity
Very high plasticity

PI=Liquid limit (L.L) - plastic Limit (P.L)

INSTRUMENTS .

o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Balance sensitive to 0.01 gm .

Sample of soil passed sieve #200.
Oven.
knife to mix soil with water.
Fall cone device with timer.
6 water cans.
Plastic squeeze bottle

PROCEDURE .

o Taking the sample of passing sieve No.40 , we smash using hammer to obtain a fine soil passes
through No. 20.
o Bring cans moisture, and weight this cans was taken.
o Sample was mixed with water until the paste is uniform.
o After that, the weight of moist soil was taken(W2).
o The soil sample was taken to the fall cone device , the cone was just touching the soil surface, here
we measure the initial reading then , the penetration test was done, by releasing the cone for just 5
sec, finally the final penetration was known.
o The penetration during the 5 seconds is d = d2 d1.
o The soil sample was placed on the oven for 24 hours, to calculate the percent of water.
o The test was done 3 times for P.L samples, and other 3 for the L.L.

DATA AND C ALCULATIONS .

TABLE 1-2. PLASTIC LIMIT DATA.

Test
No.

Can
No.

Mass Of Can ,
W1 (g)

Mass Of Can
+ Moist Soil
,W2 (g)

Mass Of Can
+ Dry Soil ,
W3 (g)

Initial
Penetration

1
2
3

99
23
98

28.3
25.6
27.2

291.8
272.1
286.9

207.7
195.9
209.7

43
11
45

Penetration
Final
Penetration

300
191
174

25.7
18.0
12.9

Page | 5

Sample Calculations Plastic limit.

Trail No. 1, Can No.99

Water content is determined by W(%) =

W(%) =

291.8 207.7
100% = 46.87%
207.7 28.3

Penetration =

(Final reading First reading)

10

2 3
3 1

(300 43)
10

100%

= 25.7

Trail No. 2, Can No.23

W(%)2 = 44.74
Penetration =18.0 %

Trail No. 3, Can No.98

W(%)2 = 42.30 %
Penetration =12.9

TABLE 2-2. LIQUID LIMIT DATA.

Test
No.

Can
No.

Mass Of Can
, W1 (g)

Mass Of Can
+ Moist Soil,
W2 (g)

Mass Of Can
+ Dry Soil ,
W3 (g)

Initial
Penetration

1
2
3

16
54
4

26.8
28.2
32.6

317.2
297.7
324.4

223.8
218.8
234.0

113
117
107

Penetration
Final
Penetration

336
235
282

22.3
11.8
17.5

Sample Calculations Liquid limit.

Trail No. 1, Can No.16

Water content is determined by W(%) =

W(%) =

317.2 223.8
100% = 47.41%
223.8 26.8

Penetration =

(Final reading First reading)

10

2 3
3 1

(336 113)
10

100%

= 22.3

Trail No. 2, Can No.54

W(%)2 = 41.40
Penetration = 11.8

Trail No. 3, Can No.4

W(%)2 = 44.90
Penetration = 17.5

Page | 6

Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit

48

47

Liquid limit
46

Plastic Limit
W(%)

45
Plastic Limit

44

Liquid Limit

43

42

41
0

10

15

20

25

30

PENETRATION

Liquid limit = (w %) corresponding to penetration of 20mm after 5 seconds

Liquid limit (L.L) Form the graph = 46.2 %
Plastic limit (P.L) Form the graph = 45.0 %
(. ) = =

FI =

47.4141.41
22.311.8

% %

= 45.14

Plasticity Index (P.I) = L.L P.L = 46.2 45.0 = 1.2 %

ANALYSIS A ND CONCLUSION .

Knowing the Atterberg limits of the soil (P.L & L.L) is important because it is used for classification of
the soil, by finding L.L, P.L, and to calculate some necessary values such that plasticity index.

By looking at our data above and our curves we can notice some important things.
o This method is more accurate than the last one used to find P.L and L.L , because the human error was
less than the first one.
o The slop of the liquid curve is the Flow Index (F.I) = 45.14 %
Page | 7

o The Plasticity Index in our experiment equals 1.2 which give an idea about soil description and here our
soil sample is Slightly Plastic.
o L.L and P.L are used in USCS (Unified Soil Classification System) to classify the soil into silt or clay.
o Since L.L for our soil = 46.2 % , we can conclude that Kaolinite is the main component of our soil.
The A-line Equation
. = 0.73 (. 20)
P.I = 0.73 (46.220) = 19.126 %
and our P.I = 1.2 % so our P.I lies above the A Line , there for our soil sample is In Organic Silt with
High Plasticity or Organic Silt with High Plasticity .
The U Line Equation
P.I = 0.9 (LL 8 )
P.I = 0.9 (46.2 8 ) = 34.38
and our P.I = 1.2 % so our P.I lies below the U Line , therefor our results are accepted.

There are some sources of errors that should be discussed.

o The soil paste was not mixing uniformly with water.
o Balancing errors.
o Not looking vertically at fall cone method device may cause positive error or negative one.

ENGINEERING USE .

Fall cone method is another method to find L.L & P.L, which used in USCS classification, for fine-grained
fractions and this helps us as engineers to know the properties of soils and its behavior with water. And used for
knowing soil shear strength, permeability and other soil parameters and properties.
The values discussed ultimately help us to evaluate soils to be used in various construction applications
such as structural fill for dams, embankments and landfills

REFERENCES :

Braja M.Das, Principles of geotechnical engineering ,7th edition

Das, Braja M. (2002) Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual, 6th Ed.

Page | 8

Page | 9