CIVL2006 Soil Mechanics

Topic 2: Soil Testing and Classification

Dr. Fiona Kwok

Room 521, Haking Wong Building
The University of Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2859 2655
Email: [email protected]
 2.1 Field Testing

Relevant Readings:
Knappett & Craig (2012): Chapters 6-7
Atkinson (2007): Chapter 17
Soil sampling and classification – on MARS!

(Grotzinger & Vasavada, 2012)

Site Investigation (1)
Back to the Earth….
Soil Profile
Organic surface layer (Vegetation, organic litter)
Topsoil (Most biological activity occurs here, dark colour)
Eluviation (Leaching occurs – removal of organic/inorganic matters)

Subsoil (Illuviation occurs – accumulation of dense fine materials)

Mineral substratum (Relatively unaltered unconsolidated parent material)

Hard bedrock

As a soil engineer, we need to identify:

 Soil layers
 Groundwater
 Bedrock
 Geometry of subsurface deposits

(http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/lemke/geog101/lectures/12_soil_formation.html)
Site Investigation (2)
Aims of site investigation:
 Determine the sequence, thickness and lateral extent of soil strata and the level
of bedrock.
 Obtain representative samples of soils and rocks for identification and
classification.
 If necessary, carry out in-situ tests on site to assess soil characteristics.
 If necessary, perform laboratory tests on high quality undisturbed sample to
determine relevant soil parameters.
 Identify the groundwater conditions and any contamination locations

Stages of site investigation:

Stage 1: Research + Walkover Desk study report

Stage 2: Site investigation In-situ/ Lab testing Interpretation Report

Stage 3: Construction & Post-construction monitoring

(Knappett and Craig, 2012; Lehane, 2010)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (1)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (2)
 Mostly used for cohessionless soils to collect disturbed samples and its in-situ
strength (Provides very good correlation for angle of internal friction of
cohessionless soils). Also used for cohesive soils to have an estimation of its in-
situ strength.
 A 63.5 kg hammer is used to be fallen on the drill rod and maintain a drop of
approximately 0.762 m to create a blow on the drill rod.
 Due to the blow on the drill rod, the Split Spoon (or Split Barrel) Sampler
attached to the tip of the drill rod penetrates into the soil, and is driven a
distance of 450 mm.
 The test is conducted for 3 consecutive penetrations each consisting of 150
mm. The first 150 mm penetration is ignored to avoid soil disturbances.
 The number of blows required to drive the sampler a distance of 300 mm after
an initial penetration of 150 mm is considered as the SPT (Standard
Penetration Test) N value. This N value reflects degree of densities (Relative
Density) for cohesionless soils (reliable) and also degree of firmness
(Consistency) for cohesive soils (not always reliable).
 If 50 blows are reached before a penetration of 300 mm, no further blows
should be applied but the actual penetration should be recorded.
 By the end of the test, the sampler is withdrawn with the disturbed soil sample
extracted from the Split Spoon.
Corrections made to SPT Blow Count
 Corrections are normally applied to the SPT blow count to account for
differences in:
a) energy imparted during the test: During the free-fall of the hammer,
there will be energy loss due to heat and noise dissipations, as well as
bending of the elements at collisions. It is recommended that the
correction factor for hammer efficiency (CE) is adopted as below:
60% for rod length ≥ 10m 75% for rod length < 10m
b) the stress level at the test depth: Effective overburden pressures cause
a fictitious increase in N values with increasing depth (see graph).
.
where 100/ ′ (Liao & Whitman, 1986)
c) borehole diameter: It is found that lower N values are obtained in 150
and 200 mm diameter boreholes than in those less than 115 mm
diameter
borehole diameter correction factor
1.0 for borehole dia. 65-115 mm, 1.05 for dia. 150 mm,
1.15 for dia. 200 mm
d) rod length: The rod length affects the time of transmission of stress
waves from SPT hammer to split spoon sampler.
rod length correction factor
0.75 for rod length < 4 m, 0.85 for length 4-6 m, 0.95 for
length 6-10 m, 1.0 for length ≥ 10 m

Collectively, we can combine all above to yield a general correction factor

equation for SPT:
(Craig, 2004)
Correlations of SPT for Cohesionless Soils
Soil type SPT, Relative Density, Angle of internal friction, ’
Dr
Peck et al (1974) Meyerhof (1956)
Very loose sand <4 < 0.02 <29 < 30
Loose sand 4-10 0.2-0.4 29-30 30-35
Medium sand 10-30 0.4-0.6 30-36 35-40
Dense sand 30-50 0.6-0.8 36-41 40-45
Very dense sand > 50 > 0.8 > 41 > 45

Correlation between
’, N and v0’ in
graphical form
(Schmertmann, 1975)

Internal Friction
angle (φ), is the
measure of the
shear strength of
soils due to friction

(Craig, 2004; Fang, 1991)

 Correlations of SPT for Cohesive Soils
Soil type Hand test SPT, Saturated Unconfined Undrained
unit weight, compressive shear strength,
sat (kN/m3) strength, Uc Cu (kPa)
(kPa)
Very soft clay Extrudes between fingers 0-2 14.1-15.7 0-24 < 12.0
Soft clay Molded by slight pressure 2-4 15.7-17.3 24-48 12.0-23.9
Medium (firm) clay Molded by strong pressure 4-8 17.3-18.9 48-96 23.9-47.9
Stiff clay Indented by thumb 8-16 18.9-20.4 96-192 47.9-95.8
Very stiff clay Indented by thumbnail 16-32 20.4-22.0 192-384 95.8-191.5
Hard clay Difficult to indent >32 > 19.6 384 > 191.5

Correlation between N
and Uc of cohesive
soils of varying
plasticity in graphical
form (NAVFAC, 1982)

1 tsf = 96 kPa
1 blows/ft = 1.016 blows/300 mm
(Hunt, 2007)
 Quick Quiz
 Read the boring log shown and determine, (1) the location of the phreatic
surface, (2) the depth of the boring and (3) the number of samples taken.
Example 2.1
A Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at 6 m depth of sand layer.
For the first, second and third 15 cm increments, the blow counts were reported
as 7, 8, 9 blows, respectively. The borehole diameter was measured as 150
mm and the SPT sampler used was a standard sampler with constant inside
diameter. The length of the rod from the bottom of the safety hammer to the
sampler at 6 m depth was measured as 8.2 m.
Estimate the corrected SPT blow counts for 300 mm penetration of the sampler
(water table depth is at 2 m and the unit weights of soil above and below water
tables can be assumed as 18 and 19 kN/m3, respectively)
Example 2.1 Solutions
Correction for hammer efficiency:
dry = 18 kN/m3
2m
Rod length = 8.2 m 75% W.T.
Correction for overburden pressure: 6m

18 2 19 10 4 72 kN/m SAND
sat = 19 kN/m3

. 100
100/ ′ 1.18
72
The principle of effective stress is fundamentally important in all soil mechanics problems.
The effective stress represents the average stress carried by the soil skeleton, which is
calculated as the difference between the total stress and the pore water pressure. You will
learn more about this in Topic 4.

Correction for borehole diameter:

Borehole diameter = 150 mm 1.05
Correction for rod length:
Only the last two
Rod length = 8.2 m 0.95 SPT results should
Corrected SPT blow count: be included.

0.75 1.18 1.05 0.95 8 9 15 blows/300 mm

Medium sand
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) (1)
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) (3)
 Developed by the Dutch, CPT is a fast and reliable means of measuring
continuously soil properties in-situ.
 The continuous nature of CPT readings permit clear delineations of various soil
strata, their depths, thicknesses, and extent, perhaps better than conventional rotary
drilling operations that use a standard drive sampler at certain vertical intervals.
CPT can be very effective in site characterization, especially sites with discrete
stratigraphic horizons or discontinuous lenses.
 A cylinder probe with an area of 10 cm2 (36 mm diameter), tipped with a cone that
has a 60 degree apex. There are several configurations of cones that vary mainly
the position of the pore pressure element (see figure).
 The cone is pushed into the soil at a continuous rate of 10-20 mm/s.
 The cone penetrometer is instrumented with load cells to measure point stress and
friction during a constant rate of advancement. These are measured separately at
the tip of the cone (cone resistance, qc) and along the sides (sleeve friction
resistance, qs).
 Piezocells are also equipped to measure in-situ pore pressures, u, in either dynamic
(while advancing the cone) or static (holding the cone stationary) modes. Those
cone penetrometers equipped with piezocells are called piezocones.
 Additional sensors can be readily incorporated with data logged electronically,
including resistivity, inclination, and shear wave velocity, as well as a number of
environmental measurements (gamma, pH, salinity, temperature, etc.).
 The apparatus can be mounted on a variety of platforms, including truck or track
mounts, small portable units, and barges or drill ships.
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) (4)

The Fugro truck for mobile CPT testing Automatic data logging and reporting

Cylinder probe exposed beneath truck Instrumentation room inside the truck
CPT Measurements
1. Cone resistance, qc:
where Fc is the force required to push the cone into ground,
Ac is the plan area of the cone (100 cm2)
Corrections:
a) Because of the geometry of the cone, where pore water pressure acts downwards on
the back of the cone end (see Figure), the cone resistance will be under-recorded.
The corrected, ‘total’ cone resistance, qt is: Fa
1
Fb
where  is the ratio of area of shaft to the area of cone (typically 0.70-0.85)
u is the pore water pressure at the top of the cone
b) In soft cohesive soils, at depth, much of the cone resistance may be derived from the Cone area ratio
effect of overburden, rather than the strength of the soil. In these circumstances the  = Fa/Fb
‘net cone resistance, qn’ may be calculated:

where v is the vertical total stress at which qn is measured

2. Sleeve friction resistance, qs:
where Fs is the shear force on friction sleeve
As is the area of the friction sleeve (150 cm2)

3. Friction ratio, fR:

Wroth (1984) argued that, to compensate for increasing overburden stress with depth, cone penetration test data
should be presented in normalised cone resistance (Q), normalised friction ratio (F) and normalised pore water
pressure (B): ∆
′
where u is the excess pore water pressure generated during driving (Clayton et al, 1995)
General Diagnosis of CPT Measurements
Soil type Cone resistance, qc Friction ratio, fR Excess pore pressure, u
Organic soil Low Very high Low
Normally consolidated Low High High
clay
Sand High Low Zero
Gravel Very high Low Zero

You will learn more on site investigation techniques, instrumentation and in-situ testing
methods if you take CIVL3032 ‘Geotechnical testing, instrumentation and monitoring’ next
year. We will only cover some of the most common field tests in this lecture.
 (Rogers, 2011)

CPT Reporting
Field Measurements of Density (1) Rammer with steel rod

1. The core cutter method

 This method is suitable for soft fine grained soils.
 A steel cylinder is driven into the ground, dug out and
the soil shaved off level.
 The mass of soil is found by weighing and deducting
the mass of the cylinder.
Core cutter
 Small samples are taken from both ends and the water Dolly

content determined.
 This method may be less accurate than the sand
replacement method test (see next page). It is used if
speed is essential and the soil is sufficiently soft and
well compacted for the cutter to be driven easily.
 As a compaction control, the test is normally required
with laboratory compaction test (2.5 kg or 4.5 kg
rammer) to determine the degree of site compaction
relative to laboratory maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content.
Field Measurements of Density (2) Tray

2. The sand replacement method Sand-pouring cylinder

 This method is suitable for stony soils.
 Using a special tray with a hole in the centre, a
hole is formed in the soil and the mass of soil
removed is weighed.
 The volume of the hole is calculated from the mass
of clean dry running sand required to fill the hole.
 The sand-pouring cylinder is used to fill the hole in
a controlled manner.
 The mass of sand required to fill the hole is equal
to the difference in the weight of the cylinder before
and after filling the hole, less an allowance for the
sand left in the cone above the hole.

Bulk density
 = (mass of soil) / (volume of core cutter or hole)
2.2 Soil Classification and Index Properties

Relevant Readings:
Knappett & Craig (2012): Chapter 6
Atkinson (2007): Chapters 5, 7
Soil Classification
 Soil is typically a non-homogeneous material. The solid mineral particles in soils
vary widely in size, shape, mineralogical composition, and surface-chemical
characteristics. This solid portion of the soil mass is often referred to as the soil
skeleton, and the pattern of arrangement of the individual particles is called the
soil structure.
 Particles size and distribution, particle type, density and water content relate to
the shear strength, compressibility, and other aspects of soil behaviour. These
index properties are used to form engineering classifications of soil and can be
measured by simple laboratory or field tests called classification tests.
 An important division of soils for engineering purposes is the separation of
coarse-grained soils, from fine-grained soils.
 Cohesive soils (clay) behave much differently from cohesionless materials (silt,
sand, gravel…).
Note that the category terms ‘cohesive soils’ and ‘fine-grained soils’ are NOT inter-
switchable (and so are ‘cohesionless soils’ and ‘coarse-grained soils’). The term ‘cohesive
soils’ ONLY applies to clays and it describes the attractive forces between particles that is
unique to clays.
In a nutshell,
Fine-grained soils = clay + silt Cohesive soils = clay
Coarse-grained soils = sand, gravel… Cohesionless soils = silt, sand gravel…
Index Properties
 Classifying soils into groups with similar behaviour, in terms of simple index
properties (see table below), can provide geotechnical engineers a general
guidance about engineering properties of the soils through the accumulated
experience.

Soil type Index properties

Cohesionless soils Particle-size distribution
Shape of particle
Clay content
In-place density
Relative density
Cohesive soils Consistency
Water content
Atterberg limits
Type and amount of clay
Sensitivity

Estimate Apply in
Index Soil
engineering geotechnical
Properties Classification
properties design
Soil descriptors The ‘communication
language’ between
geotechnical engineers (Das, 2001)
Soil Classification Systems
 Two commonly used systems for geotechnical engineers based on particle
distribution and Atterberg limits:
1. British Soil Classification System (BSCS) (BS1377-2:1990)

FINE COARSE VERY COARSE

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Stone
fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse cobbles boulders

6 m 20 m 0.2 mm 0.6 mm 6 mm 20 mm 20 cm

2 m 60 m 2 mm 60 mm 60 cm

2. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

FINE COARSE VERY COARSE

Fines (Clay or silt) Sand Gravel Stone
fine medium coarse fine coarse cobbles boulders

0.425 mm 2.0 mm 19 mm 30 cm

75 m
#40 #10
4.75 mm ¾” 75 mm
12”
30 cm
Sieve size #200 #4 3”

Note the differences between BSCS and USCS. 1. Boundary particle sizes between classes
and sub-classes. 2. Gravel is only sub-divided into fine/ coarse sub-classes for USCS. 3.
There are no distinction between clays and silts in USCS.
In this course, we will only be learning USCS – the more popular classification system in
the industry.
Particle Size Tests by Sieving
Sieve analysis on coarse-grained soils Mesh
Size
 This test involves passing soil through a series of sieves of
decreasing mesh size and recording the weight of soil retained
on each. Soil which passes through the finest sieve (#200 or
75 m) collects in a base tray and is also weighed.
 The results are processed and plotted on a semi-log chart of
cumulative percentage passing (y-axis) verses log of particle
size in mm (x-axis).
 Dry sieving analyses: Most sieve analyses are carried out dry.
Samples (with fines removed) are dried and shaken through a
nest of sieves of descending size. This test can sort particles of
size > 75 m.
 Wet sieving analyses: There are situations where wet sieving
is required. This is the case when the sample which has to be
analysed is e.g. a suspension which must not be dried; or
when the sample is a very fine powder which tends to
agglomerate (mostly < 45 µm) – in a dry sieving process this
tendency would lead to a clogging of the sieve meshes. Wet
sieving enables separation of fine grains from coarse grains by
washing the soil specimen on a #200 (75 m) sieve mesh.
(Wikipedia)
USCS Sieve Sizes

COBBLE
Sieve size Opening size (mm) Sieve size Opening size (mm)
4’’ 100 No. 4 4.75
3’’ 75 No. 8 2.36
C
2’’ 50 No. 10 2.00
1½’’ 37.5 No. 16 1.18
C

GRAVEL
1’’ 25 No. 20 0.850
3⁄4′′ 19 No. 30 0.600 M

SAND
1⁄2′′ 12.5 No. 40 0.425
F
3⁄8′′ 9.5 No. 50 0.300
No. 60 0.250
No. 70 0.212
No. 100 0.150 F

No. 140 0.106

No. 200 0.075

(ASTM E-11, Table 1)

SIEVE ANALYSIS
Particle Size Tests by Sedimentation
Hydrometer test on fine-grained soils
 For material passing the #200 (75 m) sieve, particle size distribution is
determined by observing the sedimentation characteristics of the particles as
they settle out of suspension in water.
 The test can take up to several days and is therefore, expensive. It does,
however, give the distribution of particles below the smallest sieve size, from
0.075 mm to 0.002 mm, and can be used to classify fine-grained soil.
 The test is based on Stokes’ Law, which relates the speed of particle falling
out of suspension to its diameter and solid density.
 The larger the particles the greater is the setting velocity and vice versa.
Particle Size Distribution Curve (1)

 An effective way to present particle size data is to use particle size distribution curves.
 The cumulative percentage quantities finer than certain sizes (e.g. passing a given size
sieve mesh) are determined by weighing.
 Points are then plotted of percentage finer (passing) in arithmetic scale VERSUS
particle size in logarithmic scale.
 A smooth S-shaped curve drawn through these points is called a particle size distribution
(grading) curve.
 The shape of such curves shows at a glance the general grading characteristics of soil.
 Geometrical grading characteristics can be determined also from the grading curve.
 Particle Size Distribution Curve (2)
C D E
B A
Percent finer by weight

The particle size axis is

plotted in descending
order in this graph.
Note that in some other
versions the axis is plotted in
ascending fashion. In that case,
the graph will be inverted. Be
careful!

mm
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES

Both the position and the shape of the grading curve for a soil can aid its identity and description
and hence soil class.
A – a poorly-graded medium SAND (probably estuarine or flood-plain alluvium)
B – a well-graded GRAVEL-SAND (i.e. equal amounts of gravel and sand)
C – a gap-graded COBBLES-SAND
D – a sandy SILT (perhaps a deltaic or estuarine silt)
E – a typical silty CLAY (e.g. London clay, Oxford clay)
Particle Size Distribution Curve (3)
 Well graded – It contains approximately equal and wide proportions of particle
sizes, and results in a smooth concave distribution curve spreaded evenly across
the chart. A well-graded soil has a minimum of air spaces to trap and hold water,
and when compacted, achieves a high density and provides good load support.
 Poorly graded (also known as uniform soil) – A high proportion of the particles
have sizes within narrow limits. The grading curve is almost a vertical curve.
 Gap-graded – Particles of both large and small sizes are present but with a
relatively low proportion of particles of intermediate size. Its distribution curve
usually exhibit flat section or plateau.

Grading is critical to the mechanical strength of soils.

More well graded → more compact → finer grains interlock coarser grains at every scale
→ strong, good resistance to loading

The above descriptions just offer some rough definitions on the grading characteristics of
soils. In order to truly classify whether a soil is well graded, poorly graded or gap graded,
we need some quantitative descriptors to characteristise its grading type. This will be
covered in the next slide.
 Grading Characteristics
Percent finer by weight Particle size distribution
(PSD)

d60 d30 d10 mm

 Key statistical particle sizes are:
d10 = the maximum size of the smallest 10% of the sample. It is also roughly the average
void size, and characterises typical grains carrying contact forces.
d30 = the maximum size of the smallest 30% of the sample
d60 = the maximum size of the smallest 60% of the sample. It also characterises typical
“floaters” in a sea of fines.
 Key grading descriptors are:
Single-sized soil: Cu = 1 and Cc = 1
Effective size d10
Well-graded soil: Cu > 4, Cc = 1 – 3 and wide PSD
Coefficient of uniformity C
Uniform soil: Cu < 4 and narrow PSD
Coefficient of curvature C Possible gap-graded soil: Cu < 4 and Cc < 0.1
Example 2.3
Construct the particle size distribution curve for the following sieve analysis and
classify the soil.

Sieve size Mass

(mm) retained (g)
12.5 0
9.5 3.5
4.75 7.6
2.76 16.4
2.00 21.1
1.18 56.7
0.850 65.4
0.600 73.4
0.425 22.2
0.300 26.9
0.212 18.4
0.150 15.2
0.106 10.0
0.075 17.5
Pan 8.5
Example 2.3 Solutions (1)
Determine the cumulative percentage passing the sieves and plot the PSD. Be careful with
what you are calculating – many students mess up the terms ‘percentage retained/ passing’ and
‘percentage/ cumulative percentage’.
Sieve size Mass Percentage Cumulative
(mm) retained (g) retained (%) percentage
passing (finer) (%)
12.5 0 0.0 100
Gravel = 100% – 96.9% = 3.1%
9.5 3.5 1.0 99.0
4.75 7.6 2.1 96.9
2.76 16.4 4.5 92.4
Coarse sand = 96.9% – 86.6% = 10.3%
2.00 21.1 5.8 86.6
1.18 56.7 15.6 71.0
0.850 65.4 18.0 52.9
Medium sand = 86.6% – 26.6% = 60%
0.600 73.4 20.2 32.7
0.425 22.2 6.1 26.6
0.300 26.9 7.4 19.2
0.212 18.4 5.1 14.1
Fine sand = 26.6% – 2.3% = 24.3%
0.150 15.2 4.2 9.9
0.106 10.0 2.8 7.2
0.075 17.5 4.8 2.3
Pan 8.5 2.3
Fines = 2.3%
TOTAL 362.8 100
 Example 2.3 Solutions (2)
Determine the grading descriptors
Percent finer by weight

d 0.151 mm
d 0.544 mm
d 0.958 mm
d 0.958
C 6.34
d 0.151
.
C 2.05
. .

GRAVEL SAND FINES mm

The soil comprises: 3.1% gravel, 10.3% coarse sand, 60% medium sand, 24.3% fine sand,
2.3% fines, and Cu > 4, Cc = 1 – 3 and wide PSD
It is classified therefore as: a well-graded gravelly SAND
Soil consistency
 Soil consistency is the strength with which soil materials are held together or the
resistance of soils to deformation and rupture.
 For coarse-grained soils, the relative density (taught in Topic 1) describes the
state of packing and consistency between the loosest practical state and the
densest.
Densest Loosest
state state
Possible range

1.0 Relative density (ID) 0

Void ratio
emin emax

Limits of consistency for coarse-grained soils

 The consistency limits of fine-grained soils are somewhat more complicated than
those of coarse-grained soils because of the influence of clay minerals.
 The physical properties of clays greatly differ at different water contents. A soil
which is very soft at a higher percentage of water content becomes very hard
with a decrease in water content.
(Atkinson, 2007)
Clay at different
states
 w = 10.9%

12.6%

19.4%

Clay strength decreases with water content

Atterberg Limits
 The consistency of fine-grained soils can range from a dry solid condition to a liquid form
with successive addition of water and mixing as necessary to expand pore space for
acceptance of water.
 The consistency of fine-grained soils can range from (dry) solid to semi-solid to plastic to
liquid (wet).
 In 1911, Atterberg (a Swedish scientist) proposed series of tests for defining the properties
of fine-grained soils. The water contents at which the consistency changes from one state
to the next are called Atterberg limits.
 The Atterberg limits consist of:
Shrinkage limit (SL) – transition from solid to semi-solid. It is also the water content
below which soils do not decrease their volume anymore as they continue dry out.
Plastic limit (PL) – transition from brittle/crumbly (semi-solid) to plastic. PL < 40% normally
Liquid limit (LL) – transition from plastic to liquid. LL < 100% normally.

PI

SL PL LL
Plastic Limit Test
 The plastic limit (PL) is defined as the water content at which the soil when rolled
into threads of 3 mm in diameter, will crumble. It is the lower limit of the plastic
stage of soil.

Test Procesures (ASTM D4318):

 Take 20g of soil passing #40 sieve into a dish.
 Add water until the soil is at a consistency where it can be rolled into a 3 mm
diameter ellipsoidal mass without sticking to the hands.
 Roll the soil with sufficient pressure (90 strokes per minute) to remove moisture.
 Continue rolling until the thread crumbles into several pieces.
 Determine the moisture content of about 6 g of the crumbled soil.
 The average value of the water content for 3 samples is the plastic limit (wP).
 There is no plastic limit for sand and silt.

(Das, 2010)
Liquid Limit Test (Casagrande Test)
 Liquid Limit (LL) is the moisture content at which soil begins to behave as a liquid material
and begins to flow under its own weight.
 There are two standard laboratory tests to determine liquid limits: 1) Casagrande Test and
2) Cone Penetration Test
Test Procedures (ASTM D4318):
 Take 20g of soil passing #40 sieve into a dish.
 Thoroughly mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it reaches a consistency
of a smooth uniform paste.
 Place the mixed sample in the Casagrande cup and the sample is parted in half with a
grooving tool.
 The cup is dropped a distance of 10 mm repeatedly (at a rate of 2 drops per second) until
the two halves of the soil pat has rejoined for a length of 13 mm.
 LL is defined as the water content at which the soil rejoins at exactly 25 blows.
 The test is repeated at different water contents and by interpretation the water content
corresponding to the LL is found.

Grooving
tool
 CASAGRANDE CUP

Go online and watch the video about Atterberg limit tests on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD1LxWWdc1c
Liquid Limit Test (Cone Penetration Test)
Test Procedures (ASTM D4318):
 The cone is released for a period of 5 s and its depth of penetration into the soil is
measured
 The entire test procedure is repeated at least 4 times using the same soil sample but
increasing the water content each time by adding distilled water.
 LL is defined as the percentage of water content (to the nearest integer) corresponding to
a cone penetration of 20 mm
Plasticity Index (PI)
 The consistency of most soils in the ground will be either plastic or semi-solid.
 Soil strength and stiffness behaviour are closely related to the range of plastic
consistency.
 The range of water content over which a soil has a plastic consistency is
termed the Plasticity Index (PI or IP).

PI = Liquid limit – Plastic limit = LL – PL

 Plasticity index is an important indicator of the plastic behaviour a soil will

exhibit.
 Typically, higher PI = greater amount of clays present = soil is more plastic

The more plastic soil will:

- be more compressible
- have higher shrink-swell potential
- be less permeable
Liquidity Index (LI)
 The current state of a clay means the water content relative to the Atterberg
limits.
 The Liquidity Index (LI or IL) provides a quantitative measure of the current
state of a soil.

 The liquidity index indicates the degree of softness of a saturated clay. Values
of LI greater than or equal to one are indicative of a liquefaction or ‘quick’
potential. In other words, the soil structure may be converted into a viscous fluid
when disturbed or remoulded by pile driving, caisson drilling, or helical screw
foundation installation.

LI < 0: semi-solid or solid

0 < LI < 1: plastic
LI > 1: liquid
 Soil consistency for fine-grained soils

Brittle and Soil-like behaviour Flows like a

crumbly liquid

170 Strength (kPa) 1.7

Water
0 Liquidity index (LI) 1.0 content, w
(%)
0 Solid SL Semi-solid PL Plastic LL Liquid
Plasticity index (PI) = LL – PL

Stress-strain
diagrams at
various states:

Limits of consistency for fine-grained soils

(Das, 2010)
Atterberg limit values for some clay minerals (Mitchell, 1993):
Mineral Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Shrinkage Limit (%)
Kaolinite 30-110 25-40 25-29
Ilite 60-120 35-60 15-17
Montmorillonite 100-900 50-100 8.5-15

‘Plasticity’ of fines
Clays and silts are both fine-grained soils. Why do only clays exhibit plastic behaviour with
increasing water content but not silts?

Plasticity is the ability of soil undergoing irrecoverable deformation without cracking or

crumbling.
Silts have the property that their grains stick by surface tension when they are damp but they
turn into a slurry and then sediment if they are mixed with water. These types of soil do not
hold their shape under water because they permit easy drainage. They are ‘non-plastic fines’.
Clays with their tiny, electrostatically sticky grains, on the other hand, can be mixed to high
water contents without becoming structurally unstable, and are very slow to drain and soften
when they are placed underwater. They are ‘plastic fines’.

Silts and clays have very different mechanical properties;

Silts - very low cohesive strength
- absorbs very little water to become a “liquid”
- dries to a powder
Clays - cohesive
- behaves as a plastic material over a wide range of moisture content
- becomes brittle on drying
Example 2.4
Atterberg limit tests were performed on a silty clay. The water contents obtained
in the plastic limit test were 31.6%, 33.5% and 30.9%. The following data were
obtained in the liquid limit test (Casagrande method).
What are the
(a) liquid limit, (b) plastic limit, and (c) plasticity index?

No. of blows Water content

12 54.8%
18 54.2%
23 52.9%
35 51.9%
Example 2.4 Solutions
a) For the liquid limit test, plot the logarithm of the number of blows versus the water
content. The liquid limit is the water content at exactly 25 blows.

53%

b) The plastic limit is the average of the three test results.

31.6% 33.5% 30.9%

32%
3
c) The plasticity index is: 53% 32% 21%
Clay Activity (A)
 So-called 'clay' soils are not 100% clay.
 The proportion of clay mineral flakes (< 0.002 mm size) in a fine soil affects its
current state, particularly its tendency to swell and shrink with changes in water
content.
 The degree of plasticity related to the clay content is called the Activity (A) of the
soil (Skempton, 1953).

% by weight of clay
 Clays can be classified inactive, normal or active according to the A-value:
Inactive clays: A < 0.75
Normal clays: 0.75 < A < 1.40
Active clays: A > 1.40

 The activity of clay is closely related to the specific surface area (SSA) and to the
mineralogy of the clay.
 Typical values for common clay minerals and soils are given in the table below:
Soil Activity
Mineral Specific surface area (m2/g) Activity
Kaolin clay 0.40-0.50
Kaolinite 10-20 ~0.40
Glacial clay and loess 0.50-0.75
Ilite 65-200 ~0.90
Most British clays 0.75-1.25
Montmorillonite Up to 840 >5
Organic estuarine clay > 1.25
(Atkinson, 2007)
 The Casagrande Plasticity Chart (1)
 Casagrande (1932) studied the relationship of the plasticity index to the liquid
limit of a wide variety of natural soils and proposed a plasticity chart as shown:
Plasticity index, PI Low plasticity High plasticity

Increases in
compressibility
and decreases in
permeability

Liquid limit, LL
Lower compressibility Higher compressibility
(Holtz & Kovacs, 1981)
The Casagrande Plasticity Chart (2)
 The A-line separates the inorganic clays from the inorganic
silts.
 Inorganic clay values lie above the A-line, and values for
inorganic silts lie below the A-line.
 Soil samples that cannot be tested for liquid limit or plastic
limit are non-plastic.
 Organic silts (OL) plot in the same region (below the A-line
and with LL ranging from 30 to 50) as the inorganic silts of
medium compressibility (ML).
 Organic clays (OH) plot in the same region as inorganic silts
of high compressibility (MH) (below the A-line and LL
greater than 50).
 The U-line is approximately the upper limit of the
relationship of the plasticity index to the liquid limit for any
currently known soil.
(Touahmia, 2011)
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
 The Unified Soil Classification system (USCS) was first developed by Professor
Casagrande in 1942 for the purpose of airfield construction during world War II.
Afterwards, it was expended and revised several times and subsequently
adopted by ASTM as the standard method for classification for engineering
purposes (ASTM D2487).
 USCS is based on the recognition of the type and predominance of the
constituents considering grain-size, gradation, plasticity and compressibility.

The rationale behind USCS is based on:

 Percentages of gravel, sand, and fines (fraction passing the No. 200 sieve).
 Shape of the grain-size-distribution curve.
 Plasticity and compressibility characteristics. In the USCS, the soil is given a
descriptive name and a letter symbol indicating its principal characteristics.

(Das, 2010)
USCS Procedures
From sieve analysis and the grain-size distribution curve
determine the percent passing as the following:
 First, find percentage passing #200 sieve.
 If 5% or more of the soil passes the #200 sieve, then
conduct Atterberg Limits (LL & PL).
 If the soil is fine-grained (≥ 50% passes #200 sieve), follow
the guidelines for fine-grained soils.
 If the soil is coarse-grained (< 50% passes #200 sieve)
follow the guidelines for coarse-grained soils: Find
percentage of Gravel and Sand, calculate Cu & Cc, LL, PL &
PI

(Das, 2010)
USCS Symbols
Primary symbol Secondary symbol
Soil Symbols: Liquid Limit Symbols: Well-graded soil:
G: Gravel H: High plasticity (LL > 50%) 1 < Cc < 3 and Cu ≥ 4
S: Sand L: Low plasticity (LL < 50%) (for gravels)
M: Silt 1 < Cc < 3 and Cu ≥ 6
C: Clay Gradation Symbols: (for sands)
O: Organic W: Well-graded
Pt: Peat P: Poorly-graded Example:
SW, Well-graded sand
Fines Symbols: SC, Clayey sand
M: Non-plastic fines SM, Silty sand
C: Plastic fines MH, Elastic silt

Group Symbols:
The group symbols for coarse-grained gravelly soils are:
GW, GP, GM, GC, GC-GM, GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, and GP-GC.
The group symbols for fine-grained soils are:
CL, ML, OL, CH, MH, OH, CL-ML, and Pt.

Typically, soil symbol for

GM – Silty gravel with sand
USCS will contain two parts:
Group symbol Group name (Das, 2010)
USCS Classification Table
This compact
classification table
contains all the necessary
information for USCS
soil analysis. It is also
printed in the standard
CIVL2006 data sheet,
which will be available
for use in the final
examination.

(CALTRANS, 2011)
(NAVFAC, 2007)
Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils
(ASTM D2487)
Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for inorganic fine-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for organic fine-grained soils

(ASTM D2487)
Example 2.5
Determine the classification of an inorganic soil with the characteristics listed
using the USCS classification system.
Soil size (mm) Fraction retained on sieve
< 0.002 0.19
0.002-0.005 0.12
0.005-0.05 0.36
0.05-0.075 0.04
0.075-2.0 0.29
> 2.0 0

LL = 53%
PL = 22%
Example 2.5 Solutions (1)
1st step: Determine whether the soil is coarse- or fine-grained by finding the percentage
passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve.

Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 0.19 + 0.12 + 0.36 + 0.04
= 0.71
Therefore the soil is first classified as a fine-grained soil (silts and clays).

2nd step: Conduct Atterberg limits analysis for soils with > 5% fines

LL = 53% > 50%

The Plasticity Index is: 53% 22% 31%

3rd step: For fine-grained soil, look up the Plasticity chart to fine its group symbol (clay or
silt as major material?)

The soil is above the A-line on the Plasticity chart, therefore its group symbol is CH.
Example 2.5 Solutions (2)
4th step: Determine the full group name by finding the percentage of gravel/ sand/ silt in the
soil. Follow the ASTM flow chart for details.

29% retained on #200 sieve % sand (29%) > % gravel

The soil group name is therefore fat clay with sand.

To summarise, the USCS classification of the soil is:

CH – Fat clay with sand

Group symbol Group name
 Example 2.5 Solutions (3)

(CALTRANS, 2011)
 Example 2.5 Solutions (4)

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for fine-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
 2011 Spring Exam Q1b
Example 2.6
Following are the results of a sieve analysis.
US sieve no. Opening (mm) Mass of soil retained on each sieve (g)
4 4.75 0
10 2.00 40
20 0.850 60
40 0.425 89
60 0.250 140
80 0.180 122
100 0.150 210
200 0.075 56
Pan -- 12

(i) Make the necessary calculations and draw the particle size distribution
curve in Figure QA.1.
(ii) Determine the coefficient of uniformity (Cu).
(iii) Given that the soil is non-plastic, classify the soil by using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS).

Explain what the Atterberg Limits (i.e. Shrinkage Limit, Plastic Limit and Liquid
Limit) mean in relation to the moisture content of soil.
Figure QA.1
Example 2.6 Solutions (1)
1st Step: Determine the percentage retained in each sieve (check if they all add up to 100%)
and subsequently fine the cumulative percentage passing for plotting of the PSD curve.

US sieve Sieve size Mass Percentage Cumulative

no. (mm) retained (g) retained (%) percentage passing
(finer) (%)

4 4.75 0 0 100
10 2.00 40 5.5 94.5
20 0.850 60 8.2 86.3
40 0.425 89 12.2 74.1
60 0.250 140 19.2 54.9
80 0.180 122 16.7 38.1
100 0.150 210 28.8 9.3
200 0.075 56 7.7 1.7
Pan 12 1.6 0
TOTAL 729 100
Example 2.6 Solutions (2)

d10 = 0.15 mm
d30 = 0.17 mm
d60 = 0.27 mm
Example 2.6 Solutions (3)
2nd step: Determine whether the soil is coarse- or fine-grained by finding the percentage
passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve.

Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 1.6% (< 5% fines, no need to find
Atterberg limits)
Therefore the soil is first classified as a coarse-grained soil.

3rd Step: Further classify the coarse-grained soil.

Fraction of particles passing #4 (4.75 mm) sieve = 100% (> 50% finer than #4 sieve)
Preliminary: The soil is a clean sand (either SW or SP).
0.27
Coefficient of uniformity: 1.8
0.15

Coefficient of curvature: .
C 0.71
. .

Cu < 6 The soil group name is SP

Example 2.6 Solutions (4)
4th Step: Follow the ASTM flowchart to find the soil’s full group name.

< 15% gravel, and hence the full USCS classification of the soil is:

SP – Poorly graded sand

Group symbol Group name
 Example 2.6 Solutions (5)
2

(CALTRANS, 2011)
 Example 2.6 Solutions (6)

3 4

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
Example 2.6 Solutions (7)
This is a typical
wrong answer
from a student’s script –
the whole PSD is plotted
in a completely opposite
way.

Be clear of what you are

doing in your
calculations and don’t
mix up between
percentage retained (i.e.
coarser than that sieve
size) and percentage
passing (i.e. finer than
that sieve size) for each
sieve.
Be cautious about the
four axes on the standard
PSD graph paper. Look
up the right axis when
you mark down a data
point!
 Example 2.7
Classify the following soils according to USCS. Soils A, B and C are non-
plastic. Soil D is plastic with LL = 31% and PL = 13%
Percent finer by weight

D
C
A
mm
(Prochaska & Drnevich, 2006)
Example 2.7 Solutions (1)
Soil A:
Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 0.7% (< 50% fines, coarse-grained)
Fraction of particles passing #4 (4.75 mm) sieve = 100% (> 50% finer than #4 sieve)
Preliminary: The soil is a clean sand (either SW or SP).
From PSD curve, d10 = 0.26 mm, d30 = 0.34 mm, d60 = 0.52 mm
0.52
Coefficient of uniformity: 2.0
0.26
.
Coefficient of curvature: C 0.86
. .

Cu < 6 The soil group name is SP

< 15% gravel, and hence the full USCS classification of the soil is:
SP – Poorly graded sand
Group symbol Group name
Example 2.7 Solutions (2)

(CALTRANS, 2011)
Example 2.7 Solutions (3)

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
Example 2.7 Solutions (4)
Soil B:
Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 38.5% (< 50% fines, coarse-grained)
Although > 12% fines, most of them are non-plastic silts, no need to find Atterberg limits
Fraction of particles passing #4 (4.75 mm) sieve = 100% (> 50% finer than #4 sieve)
Preliminary: Sands with fines (either SM or SC)
Non-plastic soil must be below A-line in Plasticity chart Soil group name is SM

< 15% gravel, and hence the full USCS classification of the soil is:
SM – Silty sand
Group symbol Group name
Example 2.7 Solutions (5)

(CALTRANS, 2011)
Example 2.7 Solutions (6)

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
Example 2.7 Solutions (7)
Soil C:
Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 8.6% (< 50% fines, coarse-grained)
Between 5-12% fines, borderline case requiring dual symbols
From PSD curve, d10 = 0.12 mm, d30 = 0.38 mm, d60 = 0.91 mm
0.91
Coefficient of uniformity: 7.6
0.12
.
Coefficient of curvature: C 1.32
. .

Cu > 6 and 1 < Cc < 3, fines are inorganic silts Soil group name is SW-SM
< 15% gravel, and hence the full USCS classification of the soil is:

SW-SM – Well graded sand with silt

Group symbol Group name
Example 2.7 Solutions (8)

(CALTRANS, 2011)
Example 2.7 Solutions (9)

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils (ASTM D2487)
Example 2.7 Solutions (10)
Soil D:
Fraction of particles passing #200 (0.075 mm) sieve = 32.7% (< 50% fines, coarse-grained)
> 12% fines Preliminary: Sands with fines (either SM or SC)
The fines are plastic.
LL = 31%, PL = 13% (above A-line in Plasticity chart with PI > 7)
Soil group name is SC

< 15% gravel, and hence the full USCS classification of the soil is:

SC – Clayey sand
Group symbol Group name
Example 2.7 Solutions (11)

(CALTRANS, 2011)
Example 2.7 Solutions (12)

Flow chart to determine group symbol and name for coarse-grained soils (ASTM D2487)