Laboratory work No.

TITLE: DETERMINATION OF LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS OF SOIL

OBJECTIVE:

LIST OF EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS:

1. Liquid limit device with grooving tool

2. Moisture cans
3. Plastic limit plate
4. Soil mixing equipment
5. Balance sensitive to 0.01 gram
6. Sieve no. 40
7. Soil pan

PROCEDURE:

1. Each person on each group will pulverize a sufficient quantity if air-dried soil to
obtain a representative sample of material passing #40 sieve of about 250+10
grams. Be sure to discard the residue remaining in the sieve into waste cans, as this
material is no longer representative of the soil from the field site. Be sure to break
the umps down for sieving; one of the major sources of error is the failure to use a
truly representative sample, and many of the “fines” are in the lumps. In the interest
of the student’ s laboratory time, do not presoak the sample prior to performing the
test.

2. Next, each group will check the height of fall of the liquid limit machine it will use
for a fall of exactly 1 cm. Use the 1 cm. Calibration block on the end of the grooving
tool for making the adjustment. Make the adjustment with respect to the worn spot
on the base of the cup, not the shortest fall. If the height of the fall is not calibrated
within this limits a water content error of several percent maybe introduced.

3. Place a 250 gm. Of soil in a porcelain-mixing dish, add a small amount of water
and carefully mix the soil to a uniform color. Another major source of error is poor
mixing of the soil water mixture. When the color is uniform throughout and the
mixture has a creamy appearance, proper mixture has generally been achieved.
Continue to add small amounts of water and mix the mass to a uniform color each
time. When you have the soil to the point of consistency (stickiness) where you
estimate (or by making a trial test) it will take about 50 blows to close the standard
groove 12.7 mm. Remove about 20 grams of thoroughly mixed soil form the dish for
the plastic limit determination. Now add more water and mix to a uniform color
until you have the soil to a consistency that will yield a blow count of from 30 to 40
blows to close the standard groove 12.7-mm.
4. Remove the brass cup from the liquid limit machine and place a small amount of
soil to the correct depth of the grooving tool well centered in the cup with respect
 to the hinge. Smooth the surface of the soil or pat carefully and using the grooving
tool, cut a clean, straight groove that completely separates the soil pat into two
parts. The soil depth should be just barely trimmed with the shoulders of the tool a
the deepest part.

After making the groove, quickly attach the cup to the device and make the blow
count. Unnecessary delay will, if the humidity is low, dry the soil surface, which will
show when plotting the data giving an erratic locus of points. Other test errors will
also do this, however.

5. Take a moisture sample in the pre-weighed moisture can (as large as possible and
of about 40 grams), being sure to take the water content of the sample from the
closed part of the groove. Place the lid on the moisture content container of soil
and set it aside temporarily. Remove the remainder of soil from the brass cup and
return it to the porcelain dish. Wash and dry the cup. Add a small amount of water
to the porcelain dish of soil, and carefully mix to a uniform color and consistency
to yield a blow count of between 25 to 30+ blows. Repeat steps 4 and 5.

6. Repeat the sequence for two additional test for blow counts of the individual trials
of at least 2 and preferably 3 or more to yield a reasonably spread plot – but one
in which the blow count is not far from 25 blows.
Be sure to clean the brass cup after each test and carefully dry it. Be sure to have
about the same time lapse for each test to eliminate laboratory humidity as a
variance. Do not leave the soil in the brass cup for a long period of time. This would
allow adhesion to build up between cup and soil.

7. Weigh the four moisture containers from the test, remove the lids, and place the
cups of the soil in the oven (110 degrees Centigrade) to dry overnight. It is obvious
now that the addition of water in the blow count sequence is done in this manner
so that the soil is well mixed. It is easier to blend water into the mixture rather than
to blend in new soil if the soil mass becomes too wet and must be dried to obtain
the desired spread of blow counts in each side of 25. It is difficult to the novice to
predict the blow count or say 35 and then water is added, it is reasonable to
expect the next test to yield a blow count of 18, how much dry soil does one add
to get a blow count of 22 to 24? The wetter the soil the more nearly it will act as a
viscous liquid.

PROCEDURE: Plastic Limit.

The next step is to determine the plastic limit. To increase the precision by eliminating
weighing errors, the test should be done as follows.

1. Break the 20 to 30 gm. “peanut” of soil set aside earlier into several smaller samples.
 2. Roll the soil between the fingers in a glass plate or on a piece of paper lying on a
smooth surface with sufficient pressure to form a diameter thread using about 80
to 90 rolling strokes per minute (forward and back = 1 stroke). When the diameter
of soil thread become 3mm. (1/8 in.), break thread into several pieces. Re-form into
a ball and re-roll. Continue this alternative rolling and re-balling until the thread
crumbles under the pressure of rolling and the soil can no longer be rolled into a
thread. If the thread crumbles at a diameter of 3mm., this is satisfactory to define
Wp. Thread failure maybe defined as:

a.) Simply falling apart

b.) With the outer tubular (hollow roll) layer that split from ends inward
c.) Barrel – shaped solid pieces 6 to 8 mm. long (for heavy clays)

Do not produce a failure by allowing thread to reach 3 mm. by reducing

the rate of rolling and/or hand pressure. Exception is with soils approaching
nonplasticity; this initial ball may be shaped close to 3mm. by hand prior to
rolling.

3. Repeat this sequence several times adding each test to the same moisture can.
4. Weigh the covered can, remove the lid, and place the can in the oven.

GENERAL DATA:

Liquid Limit Determination

Can No. 1 2 3

Wt. of wet soil + can 70.06 g 54.17 g 50.10 g

Wt. of dry soil + can 55.62 g 44.5 g 42.13 g
Wt. of can 27.97 g 26.07 g 26.25 g

Wt. of dry soil 27.65 g 18.50 g 15.88 g

Wt. of moisture 14.44 g 9.60 g 7.97 g

Water content, w = w1 52.22 % 51.89 % 50.18 %

No. of blows, N 21 22 29

Flow Index = ___________________________

Liquid Limit = __________51.11 %_________________
Plastic Limit Determination

Can No. 1a __ __ __

Wt. of wet soil + can 26.65 g __ __ __

Wt. of dry soil + can 26.34 g __ __ __

Wt. of can 25.50 g __ __ __

Wt. of dry soil 0.84 g __ __ __

Wt. of moisture 0.31 g __ __ __

Water content, w = Wp 36.90 % __ __ __

Plastic limit = _______36.90%____________________

Plasticity Index = __________14.23 %_________________

COMPUTATIONS:

A. Liquid Limit Determination:

𝑵 𝟎.𝟏𝟐𝟏
 BY USING THE FORMULA, LL = w( )
𝟐𝟓

Wdry = Wd+c – Wcan

Wmoist = Wtotal – Wcan – Wdry
Where: Wdry = weight of dry soil
Wmoist = weight of moist
Wd+c = weight of dry soil + can
Wcan = weight of can
Wmoist
w =( Wdry
) x 100

𝑁 0.121
LL = w(25)

Where: w = water/moisture content

LL = liquid limit
N = number of blows

Sample from Can # 1

Wcan = 27.97 g
Wdry = 55.62 – 27.97 = 27.65 g
Wmoist = 70.06 – 27.97 – 27.65 = 14.44 g
14.44
w =( ) x 100 = 52.22 %
27.65

21 0.121
LL1 = 52.22( ) = 51.13 %
25
 Sample from Can # 2
Wcan = 26.07 g
Wdry = 44.57 – 26.07 = 18.5 g
Wmoist = 54.17 -26.07 – 18.5 = 9.95 g
9.95
w= ( ) x 100 = 51.89 %
18.5

22 0.121
LL2 = 51.89( ) = 51.10 %
25

Sample from Can # 3

Wcan = 26.25 g
Wdry = 42.13 – 26.25 = 23.9 g
Wmoist = 50.10 -26.25 – 23.9 = 15.88 g
15.88
w= ( ) x 100 = 50.18 %
23.9

29 0.121
LL3 = 50.18( ) = 51.09 %
25

51.13+51.10+51.09
LL =
3
= 51.11 %

 BY USING THE FLOW CURVE METHOD

Flow Curve For Liquid Limit

54

53
WATER CONTENT, W

21, 52.22
52
22, 51.89

Trend Line Equation: w = -0.2511N + 57.398

51

29, 50.18
50
10 NUMBER OF BLOWS, N
From the flow curve, the equation of the trend line is w = -0.2511N + 57.398
@ N = 25;
w = -0.2511(25) + 57.424
w = 51. 15 %
Using the flow chart curve, LL = 51.15 %
Thus,
51.11+51.15
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐿𝐿 = 2

Average LL = 51.13 %

B. Plastic limit determination:

w = PL
Wcan = 25.5 g
Wdry = 26.34 – 25.5 = 0.84 g
Wmoist = 26.65 – 25.5 – 0.84 = 0.31 g
0.31
w= ( ) x 100 = 36.90 %
0.84

PL = 36.90 %

C. Plasticity Index
PI = LL – PL
PI = 51.13 – 36.90
PI = 14.23 %

D. Liquidity Index Determination

𝑤−𝑃𝐿
𝐿𝐼 = ; w = 38.52 % ,Natural water content
𝑃𝐼
38.52 − 36.90
𝐿𝐼 =
14.23

LI = 0. 11

The Liquidity Index is 0.11 which is greater than zero but less than one. Thus, the
soil is classified to be over consolidated soil.
 E. Soil Classification using AASHTO Classification System
Data:
Description Percentage
Sieve #40 67.32%
Sieve #200 2.91%
A-2-7(0)
LL 51.13%
PL 36.90%
PI 14.23
The soil does not qualify to the groups A-1-a, A-1-b, A- 3 because the % passing
in Sieve #40 exceeded the maximum % passing in S.#40 of each group which are
30%, 50% and 51% consecutively.
The soil does not classify to A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6 because the liquid limit exceeded
the maximum liquid limit of each group which are 40%, 41% and 40% consecutively.
The soil is finally classified under the group A-2-7 since it satisfies three
conditions. First, max of 35% percent passing under sieve #200. Second, minimum of
41% of liquid limit. And finally 11% minimum of plasticity index.
The computation for group index(GI) is as follows:
𝐺𝐼 = 0.01(𝐹 − 15)(𝑃𝐼 − 10)
𝐺𝐼 = 0.01(2.91 − 15)(15.02 − 10)
𝐺𝐼 = −0.19
GI = 0
The soil satisfies the conditions of group A-2-7(0) using the AASHTO
Classification System. This group belongs to a classification of a good general
subgrade rating.

F. Soil Classification using the Unified Soil Classification System

1. R200 = 100 – F200

*F200 = 2.91
R200 = 100 – 2.91
R200 = 97.09
Since R200 > 50, soil is classified to be coarse grained.
2. R4 = 100 – F4
R4 = 100 - 99.98
R4 = 0.02
𝑅4
3. Ratio =
𝑅200
0.02
=
97.09
= 2.05 x10-4
Since Ratio < 0.5, Refer to the Table 3.3 of USCS
From Table 3.3, the soil belongs to sandy soils.
Since F200 = 2.91% which is less than 5 %, the soil is then classified as SP, poorly
graded sandy soil. USCS: Table 3.3
F200 < 5% ____poorly graded sand
 4. Under Sandy soil, Refer to table 3.6 of USCS
SF = R200 – GF ; GF = R4
USCS: Table 3.6
SF = 97.09 – 0.02 SF > 15 ____poorly graded sand
SF = 97.07 with gravel

*Since SF > 15, according to the USCS the soil is then classified as poorly graded
sand with gravel (SP).

Comparison of the AASHTO System with The Unified Soil Classification System and
Vice Versa

Soil Group Comparable Soil Groups In USCS

in AASTHO Most probable Probable Possible but
improbable
_____ _____ _____ _____
A–2-7 GM, GC , SM, SC ____ GW, GP, WS, SP
______ _____ _____ _____

CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY:

AASHTO _____ (A – 2 – 7)(0), Good subgrade Grading

USCS________ SP, Poorly Graded Sandy Soil with Gravel

G. Determination of Shrinkage Limit (Plasticity Chart)

The point of intersection between the x-axis and the line connecting A and c reads
29% which is at point B. The reading at Point B indicates he shrinkage limit of the soil.
SL = 29 %
APPARATUS (DOCUMENTATION)
For liquid limit Determination:
Weight of Empty Cans

Paste Preparation Paste in the Liquid Limit Device

Weight of can with paste

For Plastic limit Determination:

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS:

The liquid and plastic limits are two of five proposed by

A. Atterberg, a Swedish agricultural scientist. These limits are:

1. Cohesion limit – that moisture content at which soil crumbs just stick together.
2. Sticky Limit – that moisture content at which soil just sticks to a metal surface
such as a spatula blade. This would have some significance to the agricultural
engineer since it is related to soil sticking to the sailboard of a plow or disc in
cultivating soil.
3. Shrinkage limit – that moisture content below which no further soil volume
reduction (or shrinkage) occurs. The method of determining this moisture
content is presented in Laboratory Work No. 5.
4. Plastic Limit – moisture content below which the soil is non-plastic.
5. Liquid Limit – moisture content below which the

At this moisture content, the soil is on the verge of becoming a viscous fluid. The
liquid and plastic limits have been widely used all over the world, primarily for soil
identification and classification. The shrinkage limit is used in certain geographical
areas where the soil undergoes large volume changes when going through wet
and dry cycles. The potential volume-change can often be detected from the
liquid and plastic limit tests. The liquid limit is sometimes used to estimate settlement
in consolidation problems, and both limits maybe useful in predicting maximum
density in compaction studies.

The cohesion and sticky limits are used very little worldwide. In fact only recently
has it become widely known that Atterberg proposed five and not three Atterberg
limits.

The relative locations of the shrinkage limit, plastic limit and liquid limit, are shown
on the water content scale as follows.

PLASTIC RANGE OF SOIL BEHAVES AS

SOIL NON PLASTIC SOIL VISCOUS FLUID

Ws Wp W1 WATER CONTENT, w%

Relative locations of shrinkage, plastic, and liquid limits on a water content scale. Note
that the Ws location may vary for some soils to the right.
In order to place definite reproducible values on these limits, it was proposed that the
liquid limit be arbitrarily defined as that water content at which a pat of soil placed in a brass
cup, cut with a standard groove, and then dropped from a height of 1 cm. Will undergo a
groove closure of 12.7mm. when dropped 25 times. Several variables affect the liquid limit
test or the number of blows required to close the standard groove 12.7mm, including:

1. size of soil pat in brass cup (thickness of quantity)

2. rate of blows (should be 120 rpm)
3. time of soil in cup prior to beginning test blow count and how clean cup is prior to
adding soil for test.
4. Laboratory humidity and speed of performing test.
5. Type of material used for liquid limit device base (commonly hard rubber)
6. Accuracy of height of fall calibration(should be exactly 1 cm.)
7. Type of grooving tool
8. Condition of liquid limit device (worn pins, loose connections, etc.)

The plastic limit has been arbitrarily defined as the water content of the soil at which a
thread just crumbles when it is rolled down to diameter of 3mm. This test is somewhat
more subjective (operator dependent) than the liquid limit test since just what
constitutes crumbling and what is a 3mm diameter are subject to some interpretation.
The diameter can be displayed in the laboratory using wire or welding rods for a visual
comparison. With practice, it appears that plastic limit value can be reproduced to
within 1 to 3 percent by different laboratory technicians on the same soil.

REMARKS AND CONCLUSION:

In this laboratory experiment we are able to identify the other properties of our
soil sample and able to classify accordingly to standard classification systems.
The determined Liquid Limit of the soil sample is 51.13% This means that when at
51.13% water content, the soil begins to behave as a liquid material and begins to
flow. And the Plastic Limit is 36.90%, at this water content level the soil starts to behave
like a plastic material.

The Plasticity Index is found out to be 14.23 %. The soil has a medium plasticity
because the plasticity index falls under the range 10-20 which classifies under
medium plasticity.

The Liquidity Index is used as a scale comparing the natural water content to the
Atterberg Limits. The Liquidity Index is determined to be 0.11 which is less than one but
greater than zero. Thus, the soil is classified to be over consolidated soil.

Using the AASHTO Classification System, the soil satisfies the conditions of group A-
2-7(0). This group belongs to a classification of silty or clayey gravel and sand and a
good general subgrade rating.
Using the Unified Soil Classification System, the soil is classified as poorly graded
sandy soil with gravel.

Using the plasticity chart, the shrinkage limit is 29%. Shrinkage Limit defines the
water content at which transition is from solid to semi-solid state.