Experiment 5: Atterberg Limits Test

Objective:
To determine the liquid limit and plastic of soils

Theory
When a cohesive soil is mixed with an excessive amount of water, it will be in
a somewhat liquid state and flow like a viscous liquid. However, when this
liquid is dried gradually, with loss of moisture it will pass into a plastic state.
With further reduction of moisture, the soil will pass into a semisolid and then
into a solid state.
The moisture content (in percent) at which the cohesive soil will pass from a
liquid state to a plastic state is called the liquid limit (LL) of the soil. Similarly,
the moisture content (in percent) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a
semisolid state and from a semisolid to a solid state are referred to as plastic
limit (PL) and shrinkage limit (SL), respectively. These limits are referred to as
Atterberg Limits.
In this experiment, the LL is determined by Casagrande apparatus / cone
penetration, the PL is determined by rolling hand method and the SL is
determined by using glass plate.

Apparatus (for LL)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Spatula
Wash bottle (with water)
Moisture content cans (6)
Balance (accurate to 0.01 g or higher)
Oven
Casagrande device and Cone penetration device
Grooving tool

Apparatus (for PL)

1. (1-5 of above) plus
2. Flat glass plate

3. Porcelain evaporating dish

Procedure (LL using Casagrande device)
1. Some air-dried sample which had been matured in an airtight container at
approximately the starting moisture content is prepared (this made it
easier and quicker to mix the soil).
2. For the LL, the sufficient amount of soil between 300-400g is prepared but
for the PL, a few grams (about 20mm ball) should be set aside to dry if it
already plastic.
3. The soil is mixed thoroughly on the glass plate to form soil paste by using
spatula. The starting water content should give about 70 blows
Casagrande. This will have to be trial and error (and later by experience).
More water gives less blow and vice versa.
4. The soil paste is placed in the cup by using spatula and the sample is
pressed slightly to remove air voids. The surface of the sample should be
approximately horizontal.
5. The soil sample is cut at the centre by the grooving tool to from a groove
running across the soil sample towards you.
6. The counter is set at zero and the handle of the tool was winded to close
the groove for 10 mm. The soil from cup is removed and remixed with
additional water if the count exceeded 70 (or beyond the limit of the flow
chart) on the glass plate. After mixing, the soil paste is placed back in the
cup and step 5 above is repeated. The counter is again set to zero and the
blows were counted to close the groove for 10 mm.
7. If the first starting point is obtained (which gives blow counts of about 70),
a little soil is taken from the cup and placed into the moisture content
container for water content determination.
8. The soil sample is removed from the cup and was returned to the glass
plate and is combined with the remaining sample. Water is added and
mixed thoroughly as before. Step 6 is repeated and this time, the blow
counts should be lesser than in the first trial. The aim is to obtain four to
five points spread over the range 70 to 10 blows on the flow curve.
9. The procedure is repeated of at least four to five times at different water
content values. The readings are recorded and the calculation in the form
is provided.
Procedure (LL using Fall Cone Method)

1. The mixed soil is prepared as in previous method, and then the soil
sample is placed in the penetration cup by using the spatula and air voids
is removed by pressing the sample slightly. The surface of the sample is
approximate horizontal.
2. The penetration cup is lowered slightly touching the surface of the soil
before the penetrometer gauge is set to zero.
3. The cone penetrometer is released and penetration depth (in mm) is
taken. This step is repeated for more accurate result.
4. The procedure is repeated of at least four to five times at different water
content values. The readings are recorded and the calculation in the form
is provided.
Procedure for Plastic Limit, PL
1. For the plastic limit test, a few grams (about 20 mm ball) of sample are
set aside. The sample is dried in the hand by rolling it on the glass plate to
form soil thread until it crumbles (or cracks) when its diameter is about 3
mm.
2. Sufficient amount of the sample (say 15 g) is placed directly in the
moisture content container for water content determination.

Schematic Diagram

Casagrande Device

Cone Penetration Device

After grooving

Rolling of sample on the glass plate

Results:
Formulas used in the calculation are

Mass of water=( Mass of container + wet soil )(Mass of container + dry soil)
Mass of dry soil=(Mass of container + dry soil)(Mass of container)

Moisture content ( )=

Mass of water
100
Mass of dry soil

And the results are shown in the tables below.

Liquid Limit (Casagrande Device)
Test no.
No. of blows

14
4

1
14

14

2
7
1
72

3
4
8
52

4
2
7
27

5
1

No. of blows

0
85

8
18

(average)
Container

7.37

6.80

5.81

6.10

7.23

10.42

18.85

27.92

32.46

32.46

9.64

15.59

21.55

24.38

23.96

0.78

3.26

6.38

8.08

8.50

2.27

8.79

15.73

18.29

16.73

34.40

37.10

40.54

44.19

50.85

1
7

no.
Mass of
container
(g)
Mass of
container +
wet soil (g)
Mass of
container +
dry soil (g)
Mass of
water (g)
Mass of dry
soil (g)
Moisture
content (%)

Results for Casagrande Device

Liquid Limit (Fall Cone Method)
Test no.
Penetrat

1
17.

17.

2
15.

20.

22.

3
20.

26.

24.

4
22..

26.

28.

5
25.

31.

31.

31.

ion
(mm)
Average
Penetrat

16.8

21.3

24.5

27.0

31.3

er no.
Mass of

containe

7.09

4.96

6.52

6.80

7.37

19.84

21.40

27.22

42.81

35.86

17.86

17.29

21.55

32.46

27.50

1.98

4.11

5.67

10.35

8.36

10.77

12.33

15.03

25.66

20.13

18.42

33.33

37.74

40.33

41.55

ion
(mm)
Contain

r (g)
Mass of
containe
r + wet
soil (g)
Mass of
containe
r + dry
soil (g)
Mass of
water
(g)
Mass of
dry soil
(g)
Moisture
content
(%)
Results for Fall Cone Method

Plastic Limit
Container No.
Mass of container (g)
Mass of container (g)

1
6.24
9.42

2
7.09
10.71

3
7.37
11.76

4
6.24
10.59

+ wet soil (g)

Mass of container (g)
+ dry soil (g)
Mass of water (g)
Mass of dry soil (g)
Moisture content (%)

8.93

10.06

10.91

9.64

0.49

0.65

0.85

0.95

3.54
24.01

3.40
27.94

2.69
2.97
18.21
21.89
Results for Plastic Limit

Calculations and Discussions:

1. The liquid limit (LL), water content corresponding to 25 blows is 47%.
2. The liquid limit (LL), water content corresponding to 20 mm penetration in
is 35.2%.
3. The average liquid limit,

47+35.2
=41.1
2

The average plastic limit,

PL=

18.21+21.89+24.01+27.94
=23.0
4

Plasticity Index,

PI =PL=41.123.0=18.1

4. The soil (LL=41.1%, PI=23.0%) falls into the region CL or OL in the

plasticity chart (Liu & Evett, 2007, Pg 27, Fig. 2-7). Since the soil sample
does not contain organic matter, it is classified as CL (lean clay).

5. Comparison between Casagrande and Fall Cone Method

Disadvantages of Casagrande Device
1. Soils are difficult to cut in a groove [3]
2. Sensitivity to small differences in the apparatus, such as the form of
the grooving tool, the hardness of base, wear of the tool and the cup
and the shape of cam [3]
3. Sensitivity of operator [3]

Advantages of fall cone method

1. Easier to perform [3]
2. Results are not dependent on the design of the apparatus or the
manner in which it is used [3]
3. Applicable to most type of soils [3]
Casagrande method offers less repeatability and comparability and it is very
difficult to standardize. So, fall cone method is preferable.

Conclusion:
The cone penetration limit (35.2%) is smaller than the Casagrande liquid limit
(45%). The plastic limit was 23.0% and plasticity index was 18.1%. From
plasticity chart, the soil sample is lean clay, CL.

References:
1. Anand, J. P., (2004). Specific Gravity of Soil Solids. Retrieved November 23,
2004 from http://geotech.uta.edu/lab/Main/
2. Liu, C & Evett, J. B. (2005). Soils and Foundations. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
3. Singh, A & Chowdhary, G. R. (1990). Soil Engineering In Theory and
Practice (2nd Ed.) Volume 2: Geotechnical Testing and Instrumentation.
CBS Publishers & Distributors.