See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267296646

Fall Cone Test Parameters and Their Effects on

the Liquid and Plastic Limits of Homogeneous
and Non- Homogeneous Soil Samples

Article in Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 1,358

3 authors, including:

M.Reza Emami Azadi Rahman Monfared

Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University University of Tehran
14 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M.Reza Emami Azadi on 12 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Fall Cone Test Parameters and Their
Effects on the Liquid and Plastic Limits
of Homogeneous and Non-
Homogeneous Soil Samples
M. Reza Emami Azadi
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., Shahid Madani University of
Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran; Tel/Fax: 0098-411 3340311,dr.emami@azaruniv.edu

S. R. Monfared
Dept. of Civil Eng., Shahid Madani University of Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran
SR.Monfared@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
In this experimental work, we investigated the effects of various fall cone parameters such as
cone apex angle, diameter, overload, cone surface roughness on Atterberg Limits of both
homogeneous and non-homogenous (layered) type soil samples. The liquid limit of cohesive
clayey silt as well as silty-clay soil samples were determined based on fall cone tests with
four different cones with 30o and 60o apex angles, two different diameters and also different
surface roughness. The results showed that the apex angle of cone may play a more
important role in determining the Liquid limit of soil. Furthermore, it is found that the
dropped cone behavior in soil sample changes from a dynamic to quasi-static by increasing
the cone apex angle from 30o to 60o. It is also shown that the penetration vs. moisture content
response curves in non-homogenous type soil samples have changed rather considerably near
the boundary of layers compared to the homogeneous soil counterparts. The results of this
study have also shown that this variation would depend on the layering structure of soil. The
current study has also shown that for non-homogeneous soils 20mm penetration may not be
accurate for determining the liquid limit of soil compared to homogeneous samples. The
findings also indicated that fall cone test results may also be applied for determining the
plastic limit of clayey and silty soil samples. The obtained results based on different cones
might also be used to determine the undrained shear strength (Su) of clayey or silty soil
samples at the lower bound limits of penetration vs. moisture content curves.
KEYWORDS: Fall Cone Tests; Moisture Content; Liquid Limit; Plastic Limit, Cone
Apex Angle, Homogeneous Soil, Layered Soil

- 1615 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1616

INTRODUCTION
In the past decades, several studies have been conducted on fall cone tests to determine
Atterberg Limits of cohesive soils such as works by Karlsson (1961,1977), Wood and Worth
(1978), Lawrence(1980), Wood(1985), Wasti and Bezirici (1986), Harison (1988), Koumoto and
Houlsby (2001), Brown and Downing (2001), Feng (2004), Rashid(2005), Muntohar and
Hashim (2005), Prakash and Sridaharan (2006), Hazell(2008), Landris Lee and Freeman
(2009),Sivakumar et al.(2009), Ying and Wang (2009), Saad (2011) and Kayabali (2012). These
studies showed that the liquid limit of soil samples may be determined more accurately by fall
cone tests or other methods (e.g. Namdar, 2008) in comparison with the test method using
Casagrande device. The differences observed may be attributed to the fact that in Casagrande
test, the dynamic effects during various blows may exist. Also the nature of test may involve
some error due to measurements and rate of blows. Another problem is related to the fact that
Casagrande's test method may not applicable for very silty or sandy soils.
The previous works by Houlsby (1982) and Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) have also
indicated the effects of cones with different weights or apex angles on only homogeneous soils.
The most recent works by Muhunthan and Sariosseiri (2008) and Landris and Freeman (2009)
have also indicated that using the cones with two different weights, the plastic limit of cohesive
soil sample may be determined quite satisfactorily.
More recently studies by Muntohar and Hashim (2005) and Hashim (2010) have also shown
the influence of cone surface roughness on the penetration depth of the dropped cone during
tests. Houlsby (1982) had introduced an adhesion parameter showing the effect of surface
roughness on fall cone performance during tests. Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) have shown that
this effect may be more significant for a penetrometer cone with an apex angle of 60o.
The works by Lawrence (1980) and Wast i(1987) showed that from fall cone tests for a
penetration depth of 2.0-2.2mm, the plastic limit of clayey soil (PL) may be obtained by
extrapolating the penetration depth vs. Liquidity Index Curves. Such works indicated minimum
penetration depths achieved during fall cone tests which were usually much greater than 2.0mm.
The recent technical report by GEONOR (2010) offers a new automated fall cone device
with data acquisition system added and with a different size of mold. This report indicate that
this device can determine the un-drained shear strength of cohesive soil specimens as well as
their Atterberg Limits based on a calibration K parameter, penetration depth and weight of
dropped cone.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Test Procedure
This new experimental work was carried out at the soil mechanics Laboratory of Faculty of
Eng., Azarbaijan T.M. University from 5 Feb.2011 until 15 Jan.2012. The silty clay, clayey silt
and sandy soils were obtained from the university site near Azarshahr (see also Emami Azadi,
2008). We first performed a sieve analysis to determine the grain size diagram and to obtain the
Cc and Cg parameters. Hydrometer analyses were performed on clayey and silty soil samples to
obtain the grain size diagram of the soil used in the subsequent tests. To perform hydrometer
analysis of clayey and silty soils, first Specific Gravity (Gs) values of soil samples were

- 1616 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1617

determin
ned using stan ndard ASTM procedures.
p To
T determine more accuratte values of GGs, initially
PPM of lab water useed in Gs testss were evaluaated in the chhemical synthhesis lab. of A
Azarbaijan
S.M. Unniversity as shhown in Fig.1 1. PPM of so oil has been ddetermined ass 220mg/lit in terms of
Ca2+ and Mg.2+. Theen pH test off tab water sample was connducted indiccating 8.33. T This means
that wateer used has no
o harmful effeect on Gs testts etc.
To evaluate the pllasticity index
x of soil sampples, we furthher conductedd liquid limit tests using
Casagran
nde device fo or clayey silt and silty clay
c soil sam
mples. Then pplastic limit tests were
performeed according to
t ASTM method to determ mine the PL oof soil samplees.
Afterr these initiaal tests, fall cone
c tests weere performedd on homogeeneous clayeyy and silty
soils in a standard mo old according to BS.1377, using a standdard steel allooy cone of 800gr with an
apex ang gle of 30o and d smooth surrface. Then a new round oof fall cone ttests perform med using a
new cone with differeent surface ro oughness andd the same ap ex angle as 330o on uniform
m samples
of clayeyy and silty soiils in a standaard mold.
Subssequently a new
n series off fall cone tessts were perfformed on unniform clayeyy and silty
samples this time in a new larger glass contain ner with 15cmmx30cmx20cm m dimensionss as shown
in Fig.8bb below, usinng first a smoooth cone witth an apex anngle of 30o, tthen a cone w
with rough
w an apex angle of 30 , subsequentlly a smooth ccone with ann apex angle of 60o and
surface with o

w rough surrface with an apex angle off 60o.

finally ussing a cone with
In th
he last part off this study, a series of faall cone tests were perform
med with the latter four
types of cones on speccimens of claayey and silty and sandy sooils (Fig.2) ovverlain in threee different
layers wiith 4cm thickness each inside the new laarge glass moold.

T set up forr determining lab. water pH

Figure 1:a Test H (Azauniv. C
Chemical Labb.)

- 16
617 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1618

Figure 1b: Ultrasonic teest equipmentt for determinning Gs of Sooil (Azaruniv.

Chemiccal Lab.)

Figu
ure 2: Three Different
D Soil Types
Soil-1:
S y Silt Soil--2: Silty Clay Soil-3: Sannd
Clayey

SO
OIL SAM
MPLES CLASSI
C FICATIO
ON
Figs..1a and b sho ow the test equipment
e an
nd set-up for determining the PPM of lab. water
used durring the testss. From test results
r in Ch
hemical Lab.,, PPM of Laab. water 2200mg/Lit of
(Ca2+, Mg2+)
M and the
t pH of water
w 8.33 has been deteermined whicch indicates no acidic
condition
n.

- 16
618 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1619

Table 1: Gs data from pycnometer tests for sand, clay and silt samples

Table 1 shows the specific gravity (Gs) values obtained from pycnometer tests at Azaruniv.
Chemical Lab. for sand, silty clay and clayey silt soil samples. Gs values range from 2.58 to 2.64
for sand to clayey silt and silty clay soils. The results have been used in Hydrometer tests to
determine the fine grain size distribution of the silty clay and clayey silt samples of university
site near the Azarshahr and the Urmieh Lake.

Figure 3: Grain size curve of the sand sample used in one of the layers.

- 1619 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1620

Table 2: Graain sizes/perccentage data from

f sieve anaalysis for sannd sample useed
in one off the layers.

The sieve analysiis results on the

t fine grainn samples useed in our testts have been shown on
Fig.3. As seen in thee grain size diagram,
d the sample
s contaains about 100% particles finer than
sieve sizze 1.18mm and
a 61.5% fin ner than sievve size 0.6mm m, about 46% % finer that sieve size
0.425mmm and about 31.5%
3 2mm and aboout 5% less thhan sieve size 0.075mm.
less thaan sieve 0.212
Hence, thhe correspondding uniformiity and conforrmity coefficiients are com
mputed as folloows:

0.59
4.21 6
0.14
(1)
0.29
9
1.02
2 1
0.14 0.59

Hencce, according g to Unified Soil Classificcation System m, this soil iis considered as poorly
graded sand with smaall proportion n of silt finess (SP-SM). Thhe initial testts which carrried out on
these sannd soil samplees in Casagran nde apparatuss and also EL LE fall cone ppenetrometer ttest as will
be descriibed in the foollowing sectiions which sh howed that thhis soil may nnot be suitablle in either
test methhod. Thus thiss had verified d the fact thatt LL or PL off such soil sammples cannott be known
even if thhey contain some small paart of silty soiil. The main rreason for faiilure of LL tests may be
the liqueefying behavio or of the silty
y sand soil sam mples at smaall water conteent levels duee to loss of
shear strrength which h is mainly due to interrnal friction between soiil particles rather than
cohesionn. This geotecchnical propeerty of sandy y soil may offten be expossed in naturee when the
undergro ound water table is at or ab bove such lay yers so when they experience rapid sheear loading
due to eaarthquakes orr explosion sh hocks etc. tend to liquefy aand not be abble to carry thhe effective
stress reqquired to beaar such shock or dynamic loads. Ying aand Wang (20009) have alsso recently
indicatedd similar finddings. Accord ding to their results
r the falll cone tests m
may not so ssuitable for
silty sandd soils and as well as clayeey silt or sand
d with less thaan 13% clay pparticle size ccontent.

- 16
620 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1621

Figure 4: Grain size curve of the clayey silt sample used in one of the layers.

Table 3: Hydrometer test data for clayey silt sample

Fig.4 shows the grain size diagram of the clayey silt obtained from hydrometer test (see
Table 3 below). It can be seen that the percentage finer than the particle size of 0.002mm (i.e.
clay particle size) are less than 20%. The diagram of grain size distribution in Fig.4 indicates
that slightly more than 75% of the soil is finer than 0.075mm that is silt and clay fines. This
means that about 75% of soil particles are clayey silt and about 25% are very fine sand with size
less than 0.425mm.

- 1621 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1622

Figure 5: Grain size curve of the silty clay sample used in one of the layers.

Table 4: Hydrometer test data for silty clay sample

Fig. 5 also shows the grain size diagram of silty clay soil obtained from Hydrometer test(see
Table.4). The diagram of grain size distribution in Fig.4 indicates that slightly more than 80% of
the soil is finer than 0.075mm that is silt and clay fines. It can be seen that the percentage finer
than the particle size of 0.002mm (i.e. clay particle size) is about 23%. The soil mainly consisted
of about 82% particles with size less than 0.075mm and according to the Atterberg limits
obtained here and using a plasticity chart the soil is classified as (CL).

- 1622 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1623

Figure 6: Casagrande Device

D used for
f determininng the LL of S
Soil samples
accord
ding to ASTMM D4218 test method

Figu
ure 7: Diagraam of Moistu ure Content vs.
v blow num mbers (Liquidd Limit Testt) obtained
using Caasagrande Dev
vice according to ASTM D4218
D test meethod

Fig. 6 shows the Casagrande

C Apparatus
A durring tests and Fig.7 indicattes the Liquidd Limit test
results using the Casaagrande devicce. The best fitted
f linear cuurve to the teest data here iindicates a
liquid lim
mit (LL) valuue of around 38.5%
3 and 27
7% at 25 blow w counts for ssilty clay and clayey silt
samples. Casagrande test has also o proved thaat for silty saand (containiing only 5% silt fines)
sample ofo taken from near Azaruniiv. Lab. the liiquid limit cannnot be determ mined so it has LL near
0.0. The same observaation was maade subsequen ntly using falll cone test devvice, the siltyy sand with
a very litttle amount of moisture haas begun to liqquefy and faill. Such obserrvations durinng our tests
were coh herent with ouur initial undeerstanding of this type of sooil.

- 16
623 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1624

Figure 8a: ELE Fall Cone Test Apparatus (with standard cone) used for
determining LL and PL of soil samples

Figure 8b: ELE Fall Cone Test Apparatus (with modified cone & new
container) used for determining LL and PL of soil samples

- 1624 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1625

Figure 8c: Standard ELE and Modified Cones used for determining LL and PL
of soil samples

Figure 8d: Standard ELE and Modified Holding Bars for Fall Cone Test
Apparatus

Figure 8e: ELE Fall Cone Test with Modified Cone In Homogeneous Soil for
determining LL and PL of soil samples

- 1625 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1626

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

STANDARD FALL CONE TESTS

Fig.8a and b shows ELE fall cone test apparatus used for determining the Liquid Limit and
Plastic Limit of silty clay and clayey silt samples with standard and modified cones and a
standard mold with size of 55mm in diameter and 40mm in depth and also a modified container
with 15cmx30cmx20cm dimensions. Cones 1,2,3 and 4 and the holding bars (see Figs.8c and d)
with a small attached pin together weigh 80.33gr, 80.01gr, 184.97gr and 162.16gr, respectively.
Cone 1 was the standard ELE cone with 1.81cm diameter and an apex angle of 30o and smooth
surface while cone 2 had the same diameter and apex angle but with rough surface. Cones 3 had
diameter twice as standard cone 1 with apex angles of 60o and smooth surface. Cone 4 had the
same dimensions of cone 3 but with rough surface. The test procedure used in this part of study
was according to BS1377. Penetration of each cone is measured within 5sec from its release into
the mold. Fig.8e shows a fall cone test using modified cone on in homogeneous soil sample with
12cm thickness in the modified container of 15cmx30cmx15cm dimensions.

Figure 9: The test results from standard fall cone tests on clayey silt samples
(cone.1)

Table 5: Fall cone tests results for clayey silt soil as a uniform layer using
standard cone and a mold size of 55mm x 40mm

- 1626 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1627

Fig. 9 shows the liquid limit test data obtained from fall cone tests on clayey silt soil
samples. It can be seen that the moisture vs. cone penetration curve has a rather non-linear form
and at 20mm penetration depth of the standard 80.33gr cone, LL is obtained to be about 28.2%.
If the curve is extrapolated by a non-linear curve fitting technique, then at a penetration depth of
about 2.0mm, the plastic limit of this clayey silt sample is found to be about 20.9%. Table.5
indicates the corresponding data obtained during the tests by standard cone for determining LL,
PL and Su of soil. Undrained shear strength of the clayey silt samples are determined here using
formula given initially by Hansbo(1957) as:
/ℎ (2)
where Wc is the weight of the steel cone itself plus the steel bar holding the cone with a small
pin, K is a calibration factor which is obtained as 1.013-1.06 for standard ELE cone with apex
angle of 30o and weight of about 0.78N and hi is the penetration depth of cone into the soil
specimen in the standard mold. The fall cone factor K may be obtained based on Hansbo’s
method as:

(3)

Here ξ can be computed based on the shear strain rate during the fall cone tests as 0.74 for
cone with apex angle of 30o. The calibration factor K may be given as 1.52 for standard cone 1
with apex angle of 30o rather smooth surface and 1.013 for cone 2 with the same apex angle but
with a rough surface. K is obtained to be about 0.325 for cone 3 with smooth surface. For cone
4, K is computed as 0.252. It can be seen that the undrained shear strength (SU) range of
cohesive soil samples can be determined easily using the Eq.2 based on Hansbo's calibration
approach. The results might give an approximate indication of Su and can be compared with the
most expensive and accurate direct shear tests results. Similarly, we have calibrated Eq.2 for the
modified cones (2,3,and 4) with different apex angles, weights and also varying surface
roughness. Karlsson (1977) states that a 10-mm penetration of a 60° cone of mass 60 g
corresponds to a soil shear strength of 1.7 kPa. This value corresponds to the mean value of fall
cone factor K as obtained above for smooth and rough surfaces (cones 3 and 4) as 0.288 which
then gives Su as 1.73kPa which is in very good agreement with his findings and also with the
most recent findings by Hazell (2009). For simplicity and sake of comparison, we adopted
lower-bound values: K=1.013 for cones 1 and 2 (with apex angles of 30o) and K=0.25 for cones
3 and 4 (with apex angles of 60°) based on GEONOR report, respectively.
Plastic Limit value may be obtained based on Lawrence (1980) and Wasti & Bezirci (1987)
as follows:

(4)

where w1,w2, M1 and M2 denote the moisture contents corresponding to 20mm penetration
obtained from fall cone tests using two different cones and the weights of these two cones,
respectively.
Su for the liquid condition of clayey silt sample is computed from fall cone test data to be
around 2.0kPa. While for Su>23.2kPa the clayey silt sample is near its plastic range. At a

- 1627 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1628

penetration depth of close to 2.0-2.3mm the soil is at plastic limit (PL) this may correspond to Su
about 100 times that of LL.

Figure 10: The test results from standard fall cone tests on silty clay samples
(cone.1)

Table 6: Plastic Limit test Data of Clayey Silt Sample

Fig.10 shows the standard fall cone test results as plotted in dotted lines and best fitted
parabolic curve to the data. As seen the fall cone penetration vs. moisture content of the silty
clay soil samples of Azarshahr has a non-linear relationship. The liquid limit obtained in this
case corresponding to hi=20mm is about 36%. Plastic Limit of silty clayey soil may be obtained
in this case by extrapolating the fall cone data up to a hi=2mm to 3mm as PL=18-21% compared
to PL value obtained as 21.22% obtained from plastic limit tests.
Table.6 shows the plastic limit tests data of clayey silt according to ASTM D4218. The
plastic limit of silty clay soil sample (of 20gr in weight) is obtained as PL=23.59% of three
different specimens each divided and converted into four threads of diameter of 3.2mm. This

- 1628 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1629

value can be compared with PL=21-23% range obtained from standard fall cone tests for hi=2-
3mm. In verification tests for PL of silty clay as performed later in March,2012 using the
BS1377 method, the authors obtained average PL value of 22.53% which had shown variations
of about 5-6% compared to the average values of the initial tests. These discrepancies are well
in the range of expected margin as obtained by Brown and Downing (2001) and Sherwood
(1975), Stone and Phan(1995) and Sivakumar et al. (2009). For Clayey Silt soil specimens the
initial tests did not yield a proper PL value due to early shrinkage of the threads during rolling
process and higher sensitivity of silt compared to clay, but later more careful verification tests
gave average values of PL as 23.59% for such soil samples. The latter might also indicate that a
more accurate procedure as discussed by Koumoto and Houlsby (2001), Sivakumar et al.(2009)
and Rashid (2010) might be adopted based on fall cone tests.

Figure 11: The test results from modified fall cone tests on clayey silt samples
(cone.2)

- 1629 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1630

Figure 12: The test results from modified fall cone tests on silty clay samples
(cone.2)

MODIFIED FALL CONE TESTS WITH OVERLOAD

Figs.11 and 12 show the results of fall cone test using modified cone with a rough surface
but the same apex angle as 30o and the same diameter on clayey silt and silty clay soil samples,
respectively. These fall cone test were also performed using a standard mold size 55mm x
40mm. The weight of this modified steel cone (cone.2) was 83.2gr. The test procedure used was
the same as standard cone (cone.1) according to BS.1377. As seen, the penetration depth vs.
moisture content curve for clayey silt soil sample has almost linear form with a LL=28.57% at
hi=20mm. Plastic limit value of this soil may be determined in the range of PL=20.5-21.5% by
extrapolating this curve to a penetration depth of hi=2.0-2.3mm. Fig.14 shows a nonlinear
relationship of hi-w curve for silty clay soil sample. Test results are indicated with dashed blue
line and the fitted parabolic curve has been shown in this graph with a solid dark line. It can be
seen that LL=36.81% may be determined for silty clay soil sample at hi=20mm while PL range
for this soil type may be obtained in the range of 17-20% from extrapolating the hi-w curve for
hi=2.0-3.0mm. Again this silty clay soil has exhibited a semi-plastic condition at hi=5mm.

- 1630 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1631

Figure 13: The test results from modified fall cone tests on clayey silt samples
(cone.1+50gr overload)

Fig.13 shows the fall cone test results on clayey silt soil sample using a standard cone of
ELE with an overload of 50gr. For this cone.2 test, the liquid limit at hi=20mm can be obtained
as 27.4%. The corresponding undrained shear strength can be found as 30kPa from Fig.16. It can
be seen that Su again in this cone tests decreases exponentially from around 200kPa at hi=8mm
to about 10.kPa at hi=34.5mm. Plastic Limit of this clayey silt from extrapolation of hi-w curve
in Fig.13 can be obtained in the range of 17.5-20.0% at hi=2.0-2.4mm range. This is in close
agreement with the results obtained from the standard fall cone.1 tests as described above. From
the plastic limit tests, it is hence found that PL values obtained for the clayey silt soil samples
may correspond to hi=2.3-2.4mm.

Figure 14: The test results from modified fall cone tests on silty clay samples
(cone.1+50gr overload)

- 1631 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1632

Fig.14 shows the modified fall cone tests on silty clay soil samples using a standard cone
plus an overload of 50gr in a standard mold of size 55mm x40mm. As shown, for hi=20mm the
liquid limit from the tests results plotted here is obtained as about 35% for this soil type. The
corresponding undrained shear strength value can be found from about 3.4kPa.

Figure 15: The test results from modified fall cone tests on clayey silt samples
(cone.2+50gr overload)

Figure 16: The test results from modified fall cone tests on silty clay samples
(cone.2+50gr overload)

Figs.15 and 16 show the results of the modified fall cone tests using cone.2 plus a 50gr
overload on clayey silt and silty clay soil samples in a standard mold size 55mm x40mm,
respectively. The liquid limit values for clayey silt and silty clay soil types from Figs.15 and 16
can be obtained at hi=20mm as LL=27.61% and LL=35.27%, respectively. These results are also
in very good agreements with the LL values obtained from the tests using cone.1 plus the same
50gr overload. However, there is a slight discrepancy due to more roughness of the steel cone.2

- 1632 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1633

compared to cone.1. The plastic limit range values can also be obtained approximately by
extrapolating the Figs.15 and 16 as 18-20.5% and 16-20% for hi=2.0-3.0mm range. Table.7
compares the LL values obtained from various fall cone test using cones.1 and 2 with extra
overload of 50gr and without it. It can be seen that with extra 50gr overload the LL values have
shown about 2-3% reduction in clayey silt soil and about 4-5% reduction in silty clay soil
samples.

Table 7: Comparison of LL values from Various Fall Cone Tests

Figure 17: Comparison of the test results from modified fall cone tests on clayey silt samples
using 4 different cones

- 1633 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1634

Figure 18: Comparison of the test results from modified fall cone tests on silty
clay samples using 4 different cones

MODIFIED FALL CONE TESTS WITH

DIFFERENT APEX ANGLE AND ROUGHNESS
IN HOMOGENEOUS SOILS
Fig.17 compares the tests results on clayey silt samples using the cones 1,2,3 and 4 Cone-1
is standard ELE cone made of stainless steel with 30o apex angle and smooth surface. While
cone-2 had the same apex angle and the same diameter as cone-1 but with a rather rough
surface.Cone-3 had a diameter as twice the cone-1 with an apex angle of 60o and cone-4 with the
same dimensions as cone-3 but with a rough surface. The modified cones were also
manufactured of stainless steels with different grades in Tabriz. As shown in Fig.17, the fall
cone penetration vs. soil moisture curves for the cones 1 and 2 with 30o apex angle have non-
linear form in general but are quite close. This might indicate that the effect of surface roughness
is not so dominant in this case. Whereas the fall cone penetration vs. soil moisture curves using
the modified cones 3 and 4 differ considerably from the previous fall cone test results as shown
in Fig.17. For the same amount of soil moisture the penetration depth of falling cones 3 and 4
are much less than cones 1 and 2. This would indicate that the apex angle of cone may have
more pronounced effect on the fall cone test results. Fig.17 also indicates that the effect of
roughness of the fall cone surface for cones 3 and 4 is more significant than cones 1 and 2. This
can be due to larger area and also the different friction and end bearing effects of the cones 3 and
4 with 60o apex angle compared to cones 1 and 2 with 30o apex angle.
Similar trends can be seen in Fig.18 for silty clay soil samples. While the cones 3 and 4
(with larger diameters and weights but with apex angles of 60o) have shown completely different
behavior compared to the cones 1 and 2 with 50gr overload disks. The findings in this case
endorse the inherent fact that the weight of cone has opposite effect compared to apex angle of
falling cone on penetration response curve. In all the test results shown in Figs.17 and 18, near
end of curves (i.e. at moisture content values far above LL) the cone penetrates rapidly into soil

- 1634 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1635

layer ind
dicating a pu
unch-through type failure mechanism. At the failurre point, for clayey silt
samples w values rannge from 33%
% to 37% and d for silty clayy soil samplees, w values rrange from
38.5% too 49.5%.

Figure
F 19: Comparison off the test resu
ults from moddified fall conne tests on Noon-
Homogeneou
H us & Layered Soil using 3 different
d conees(after H. Vaazifeh, 2011)

Figure 20: Fall Cone Testing

T of A Non-Homogen
N neous Soil Saample with 3
Layers (Profile-1)
(

- 16
635 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1636

Figure 21: A Non-Homogeneous Soil Sample with 3 Layers (Profile-1)

Figure 22: Comparison of the test results from modified fall cone tests on Non-Homogeneous
Soil using 4 different cones (Profile-1)

- 1636 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1637

Figure 23
3: A Non-Ho
omogeneous Soil
S Sample w
with 3 Layers (Profile-2)

Figure 24: Comparison

C ults from moddified fall cone tests on Nonn-
off the test resu
Homogeneouus Soil using 4 different coones(Profile-22)

MOODIFIED
D FALL CONE
C TE
ESTS W
WITH
DIFFER
RENT AP
PEX ANGGLE AND ROUGGHNESS
S
IN
N NON--HOMOGGENEOUUS SOIL
LS
Figs..20 and 21 sh how the fall cone
c test on a non-homoggeneous soil ssample with 33-layers of
clayey siilt, silty clay and sand, respectively. Each
E layer of soil sample hhas a thickneess of 4cm

- 16
637 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1638

placed inn a 15cm x 20cm x 15cm container. Fiig.22 comparees the cone ppenetration vss. moisture
content curves
c for co
ones 1,2,3 an nd 4 from ou ur lab test reesults. Similaar to homogeeneous soil
samples tests, the conne apex angle might be seen
s to affectt the results mmore tangiblee than any
other parrameters such
h as roughness, weight orr overload. T The cone peneetration depthh hi varies
from abo out 12-16.5m
mm at w=26% % to near 60mmm at w=34% %-36.5%. Forr the cones 3 and 4, the
hi-w currve has shifteed significan
ntly indicating
g a varying effect of endd-bearing andd interface
friction and
a adhesion with changin ng the apex anngle of the conne.
Fig.223 shows the non-homogeeneous soil saample soil (pprofile-2) witth clayey silt,, silty clay
and sandd layers, respeectively. Fig..24 comparess the fall conee test results for this soil profile for
cones 1,22,3 and 4, resspectively. Fig
g.24 shows thhat hi varies ffrom 11-16mm m at w=33.2% % to about
hi=30-622mm at w=42 2%. The effecct of apex anngle of cone oon penetratioon response oof fall cone
near faillure is absoluutely significaant. While th
he roughnesss of the conee plays a minnor role in
comparisson with apex x angle and allso weight.

Figure
F 25: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.1 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-1)

- 16
638 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1639

Figure
F 26: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.2 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-1)

Figure
F 27: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.3 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-1)

- 16
639 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1640

Figure
F 28: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.4 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-1)

Figs..25 to 28 com mpare the falll cone tests results for hoomogeneous and non-hom mogeneous
soil samp ples using connes 1,2,3 andd 4. It can be seen that the non-homogennous soil effeect is more
apparentt for higher values of hi orr w and also for cones.3 aand 4 comparred to other ccones. The
m be soughtt as the cone falls near to the boundaryy of the seconnd layer afterr hi>40mm
reason may
in non-ho omogenous (llayered) soil then
t the effecct of the seconnd layer alterrs the hi-w cuurves as the
cone pen netrates moree into that layyer. It can bee seen that ffor non-homoogeneous soill profile-1,
cones 1 and
a 2 at hi>40 0mm, the pen netration rate is slower thann that of hom mogeneous soiil-1. While
using co ones 3 and 4 with the same profile-2 samples, tthe trend hass changed w with higher
penetratiion rates com mpared to thee homogeneo ous soil-1. T This may be due to decreeased end-
bearing or o friction in
n the second layer
l of the non-homogen
n neous soil prrofile-1 comppared to its
o
first layeer for cones with
w 60 apex x angle. In co ontrast, cones 1 and 2 withh sharper apeex angle of
30o woulld tend to pen netrate faster into
i the first layer
l of soil pprofile-1 sampples which is clayey silt
compared to their seccond layer as silty clay. Th his might be due to the deecreased end--bearing in
the case of cones 1 an nd 2 with sharrper apex angles comparedd to the cones 3 and 4.

- 16
640 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1641

Figure
F 29: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.1 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-2)

Figure
F 30: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.2 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-2)

- 16
641 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1642

Figure
F 31: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.3 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-2)

Figure
F 32: Comparison
C off the test resullts from fall ccone.4 tests on Homogenous
vs. Non-H
Homogeneous Soil Sampless (Profile-2)

As shown
s in Figss.29 to 32, fo
or profile-2 ty
ype non-hom mogeneous soil samples, innitially the
cone.1 and
a 2 penetraation is lowerr compared to t the homoggeneous soil--2 but with increase of
moisturee content w so
omewhat abo mit, this trendd changes aftter penetration depth of
ove Liquid lim

- 16
642 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1643

hi=40mm again the penetration is greater in non-homogeneous soil profile-2 compared to

homogeneous uniform soil-2. Whereas for cones 3 and 4, a different response is observed during
the tests which indicate that after hi>40mm the penetration in homogeneous soil-2 is faster and
larger compared to non-homogeneous soil-2. This may be due to the increase end-bearing and
skin friction resistance in the case of cones with apex angle of 60o in the second layer of profile-
2 compared to its first layer.

DISCUSSION
Based on dynamics of fall cone tests, it may be perceived that as the moisture content of the
soil varies (say from just above PL to far above LL values), the penetration response of cone
into soil changes from a quasi-static to dynamic behavior. At lower water content of soil sample,
the cone penetrates less and so its speed and acceleration during plunge is less than the case of
soil with higher moisture content say w>LL. At the upper limit of w, the soil sample has
liquefied and hence the cone penetrates more rapidly to greater depths say hi>=60mm. Koumoto
and Houlsby (2001) have modeled this behavior in terms of dynamic equation of motion. The
water's viscosity damps out a part of energy of the plunging cone. However, for the case of
plastic soil or semi-solid state of soil, the falling cone impacts with the soil surface and due to
considerable stiffness of soil layer in this case slows down quickly while it penetrates just few
mm into the upper layer. Most of the kinetic energy of the falling cone in this case is dissipated
in the form of soil's elastic and plastic strain energy. A small part may be transferred into heat
energy due to skin friction between the penetrating cone and the interface soil particles.

CONCLUSION
The present experimental work has shed more light into fall cone test approach and
increased our knowledge to some extent on this particular subject. In particular, for the first time
we conducted successfully the fall cone tests on non-homogeneous soil samples with three
layers. We also used four different types of cones with different apex angle and surface
roughness and also extra overloads to evaluate the effects of these important parameters on
determining the soil's Liquid and Plastic Limits.
The results of the tests conducted here showed that the effect of apex angle of the cone on
LL of soil sample may be quite considerable. The cone penetration vs. moisture content of soil
response curves are significantly influenced by the apex angle of the cone. For cones 1 and 2
with apex angel of 30o , higher penetration depths are usually observed in the same soil samples
tested here compared to cones with apex angle of 60o in The amount of discrepancies in terms of
penetration depth hi increased with an increase of water content of soil samples for different
cones used in this study. The influence of the surface roughness of cone seems to be less for the
cones (1, 2) with apex angle of 30o compared to the cones (3,4) with apex angel of 60o . The
influence of an overload disk on hi-w curves or LL or PL seems to be rather more than the
roughness effect as tested for cones with the same diameter. But for cones with diameter the
influence of cone's weight may overwhelms the surface roughness effect.
It is observed that the effect of cone's weight or overload on LL of silty clay soil samples
was in fact more than that for clayey silt soil samples. The effect of cone surface roughness is
seen to be somewhat higher for silty clay samples compared to the clayey silt samples. It is also
found that for cone with twice diameter and larger weight or overload, the surface roughness
may increase LL more than that for standard cone.

- 1643 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1644

For both homogeneous and non-homogeneous soil samples, the results of fall cone tests
conducted during course of this work showed that the penetration depth hi usually varies non-
linearly with increase of moisture content of soil.
It is shown that PL values of soil samples can be determined rather accurately by
extrapolating the hi-w curves from fall cone test for a penetration depth in the range of 2.0-
3.0mm.
It is also verified that using a method established earlier by Lawrence (1980) and Wasti et
al.(1987) we could determine the plasticity index and so plastic limit of soil samples tested by
means of two different cones (1,3) or (2,4).
It is also shown that the undrained shear strength (SU) range of cohesive soil samples can be
determined easily using the Eq.2 based on Hansbo's calibration approach. The results might give
an approximate indication of Su and can be compared with the most expensive and accurate
direct shear tests results.
The results of fall cone tests on homogeneous soil samples with depth 12cm compared to
standard cylindrical ELE container of 4cm depth which was also used showed an increase in
effective depth corresponding to LL from 20mm to 21.0-23.5mm.
It is concluded that for non-homogeneous and layered soil samples, the penetration depth of
cone (hi) depends on moisture content of soil (w), the type of soil in the first and the second
layer and the boundary conditions or the layers of soil. It is generally observed that after
hi=40mm due to changes in the boundaries the trend of hi-w curve might change.
It is observed that for considerable variations in water content or weight of cone or apex
angle the fall cone response in test soil samples might change from quasi-static to dynamic. It
may be verified that dynamic equations given by Koumoto and Houlsby (2001) can be applied
for varying weight and apex angle conditions for homogeneous soils in the above tests.
However, for layered soil profiles 1 and 2, this computational approach might be rather
approximate due to changes in the soil layers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research work was carried out at Azarbaijan T.M. University Soil Mechanics Lab.
Assistance of Mr. Ziayee at Soil Mechanics Laboratory and Chemical Laboratory of Azarbaijan
T.M. University are greatly appreciated. Gratitude is also given to Dr. H. Soltani for his support
by providing the geotechnical laboratory room and also for his useful comments.

REFERENCES
1. Brown, P. J. and Downing, M. C. (2001) "Discussion of Fall Cone
Penetration and Water Content Relationship of Clays", Geotechnique 51,
No.2, pp.181-187.
2. BS1377 (1990) "Methods of Testing of Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes", Milton Keneys, British Standards Institutions.
3. Casagrande, A. (1958) "Note on the Design of Liquid Limit Device",
Geotechnique 8, No.2, pp.84-91.
4. Emami Azadi, M.R. , Sadein, M. , Jafari, K. and Jajani, S.(2008) "The

- 1644 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1645

Effects of Urmieh Salt Water on the CBR Test Results of GSCW and GSBW
Soil Samples ", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE),
http://www.ejge.com/2008/Ppr0892/Ppr0892.htm.
5. Feng, T. W.(2000) "Fall Cone Penetration and Water Content Relationships
of Clays", Geotechnique 50, No.2, pp.181-187.
6. Feng, T. W.(2004) "Using Small Ring and Fall Cone to Determine the Plastic
Limit " , Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Eng., Vol.130,
No.6, pp.630-635.
7. GEONOR (2010) "Fall Cone Apparatus- New Model Designed by
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute NGI", Oslo, Norway.
8. Hansbo, S. (1957) "A New Approach to the Determination of the Shear
Strength of Clay by Fall Cone Test ", Proc. No.14, Royal Swedish
Geotechnical Society, Stockholm, Sweden.
9. Harrison, J. A. (1988) "Using the BS Cone Penetrometer for the
Determination of the Plastic Limits of Soils", Geotechnique 38, No.3,
pp.433-438.
10. Hazell Edmund (2008) " Numerical and Experimental Studies of Shallow
Cone Penetration in Clay", Ph.D. Thesis , Oxford University, UK.
11. Houlsby, G.T. (1982) "Theoretical Analysis Of Fall Cone Tests",
Geotechnique 32, No.2, pp.111-118.
12. Karlsson, R. (1961) "Suggested Improvements in the Liquid Limit Test with
Reference to Flow Properties of Remolded Clays", 5th Int. Conf. On Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Eng., Vol.1, p.171, Paris, France.
13. Karlsson, R. (1977) "Consistency Limits", In Cooperation with Laboratory
Committee of the Swedish Geotechnical Society), Document D6:1977.
14. Landris, T. L. and Freeman R. B. (2009) "Dual Weight Fall Cone Method for
Simultaneous Liquid and Plastic Limit Determination", J. of Geotech. &
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, Vol.135, No.1, pp.158.
15. Kayabali, K. (2011) "Assessment of Shear Strength at Consistency Limits -
A Reappraisal", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE),
http://www.ejge.com/2011/Ppr11.180/Abs11.180.htm
16. Koumoto, T. and Houlsby, G.T. (2001) "Theory and Practice of the Fall
Cone Test ", Geotechnique 51, No.8, pp.701-712.
17. Lawrence, D. M. (1980) "Some properties associated with Kaolinite soils",
M.Sc. Thesis, Cambridge University, UK.
18. Muhunthan, B. and Sariosseiri, F. (2008) "Interpretation of Geotechnical
Properties of Cement Treated Soils", Research Report FHWA-DTFH61-05-
C-00008, Compaction Control of Marginal Soils in Fills, Washington State
Transportation Center (TRAC), Washington State University, USA.
19. Muntohar A.S. and Hashim (2005) " Determination of Plastic Limits of Soils
Using Cone Penetrometer: Re-Appraisal", J. Teknik Sipil, Vol.11, No 2.

- 1645 -
 Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1646

20. Namdar, A. (2008) "Identification of Mixed Soil Characteristics by

Application of Laboratory Tests", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering (EJGE), http://www.ejge.com/2009/Ppr0939/Ppr0939w.pdf
21. Prakash, K. and Sridharan, A (2006) "Critical Appraisal of the Cone
Penetration Method of Determining Soil Plasticity", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 2006, Vol.43, No.8, pp.884-888.
22. Rashid, A. S. B. A. (2005) "Determination of Plastic Limit of Soil using
Modified Cone Penetration Method", M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Malaysia.
23. Saad, R. (2012) "The Atterberg Limits Resolution Using Seismic Refraction
Method", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE),
http://www.ejge.com/2012/Abs12.018.htm
24. Sherwood, P. T. (1970) " The Reproducibility of the Results of Soil
Classification and Compaction Tests ",Report LR 339, Crowthorne, Road
Research Lab., USA.
25. Sivakumar, V. , Glynn, D. , Cairns, P. and Black , J.P.(2009) "A New
Method of Measuring Plastic Limit of Fine Materials", Geotech. 59, No.10,
pp.813-823.
26. Stone, K.J.L. and Phan, K.D. (1995): " Cone Penetration Tests near the
Plastic Limit", Geotechnique 45, No.1, pp.155-158.
27. Vazifeh H. (2011)" Comparison of Fall Cone Test Results on Various Soil
Profiles", Project Report, Azarbaijan T.M. University.
28. Wasti, Y.(1987) "Liquid and Plastic Limits as Determined from the Fall
Cone and Casagrande Methods", Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM,
Vol.10,No.1, pp.26-30.
29. Wasti, Y. and Bezirci, M. H. (1986) "Determination of the Consistency
Limits of Soils by the Fall Cone Test", Canadian Geotech. J. 23, No.2,
pp.241-246.
30. Wasti, Y. (1987) "Liquid and plastic limits as determined from the fall cone
and Casagrande methods", Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 10, No1,
pp.26-30.
31. Wood, D. M. and Worth, C. P. (1978) "The use of Cone Penetrometer to
Determine the Plastic Limit of Soils", J. of Ground Eng., Vol.11, No.3, p.37.
32. Wood D.M. (1985) "Some Fall Cone Tests", Geotechnique 35, No.1, pp.64-
68.
33. Guo Ying and Qi. Wang (2009) "Experimental Research on Fall Cone Test
to Determine Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of Silts", J. of Rock and Soil
Mechanics, Vol.30, No.9, pp. 2569–2574.

© 2012 ejge

- 1646 -

View publication stats