Consistency of Casagrande Liquid Limit Test

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/282815950
Consistency of the Casagrande Liquid Limit Test
Article in Geotechnical Testing Journal · October 2015

DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20150093
CITATIONS READS
14 6,654
1 author:
Stuart Kenneth Haigh

University of Cambridge
141 PUBLICATIONS 1,180 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Offshore Wind Foundations View project
Atterberg limits determination View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stuart Kenneth Haigh on 13 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotechnical Testing Journal
Consistency of the Casagrande Liquid Limit Test
Journal: Geotechnical Testing Journal
Manuscript ID: GTJ-2015-0093.R1

Fo
Manuscript Type: Technical Manuscript
Date Submitted by the Author: 20-Jul-2015

r
Complete List of Authors: Haigh, Stuart; University of Cambridge, Schofield Centre

Re
ASTM Committees and

D18.03.02 Plasticity < D18 Committee on Soil and Rock
Subcommittees:
Texture, Plasticity and Density Characteristics of Soils, Plasticity,

Keywords:
Identification and Classification of Soils
vi
The liquid limit test is one of the most widely used tests in soil mechanics,
with the value obtained being correlated against a variety of soil properties
ew
such as soil strength. The percussion test for liquid limit originally
described by Casagrande (1932) is the standard test for liquid limit in
much of the world. The apparatus to be used is described in many design
codes including ASTM D4318-00. While it is well known that two classes of
these devices exist, those with hard and soft bases, the true picture is
more complex; International design codes contain a great variety of
On
specifications for the devices, some much more prescriptive than others.
This paper uses the analysis described by Haigh (2012) to investigate the
Abstract:
effects of base hardness and resilience on specific strength at liquid limit. A
survey of devices in use worldwide was also carried out, indicating that
both the variability in national design standards and potential degradation
ly
of bases over time leads to a large variability in the specific strength

observed at liquid limit when different devices are used.
The paper demonstrates that both base hardness and resilience must be
regularly monitored in order to achieve consistency of liquid limit test
results and that international standards should be more closely aligned if
measured values are to be used within regressions based on liquid limit
tests carried out with apparatus based on a different standard.
https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/astm-gtj
Page 1 of 21 Geotechnical Testing Journal
1
2
3 Consistency of the Casagrande Liquid Limit Test
4
5
6
7 Stuart Haigh, Cambridge University Engineering Dept, Trumpington St, Cambridge, UK
8 Email: skh20@cam.ac.uk
9
10
11
12 ABSTRACT
13
14
15 The liquid limit test is one of the most widely used tests in soil mechanics, with the value
16
17 obtained being correlated against a variety of soil properties such as soil strength. The
18
Fo
19
20
percussion test for liquid limit originally described by Casagrande (1932) is the standard test
21
22 for liquid limit in much of the world. The apparatus to be used is described in many design
r
23
24 codes including ASTM D4318-10e1. While it is well known that two classes of these devices
Re
25
26 exist, those with hard and soft bases, the true picture is more complex; International design
27
28 codes contain a great variety of specifications for the devices, some much more prescriptive
vi
29
30
31 than others.
ew
32
33
34 This paper uses the analysis described by Haigh (2012) to investigate the effects of base
35
36 hardness and resilience on specific strength at liquid limit. A survey of devices in use
On
37
38 worldwide was also carried out, indicating that both the variability in national design
39
40 standards and potential degradation of bases over time leads to a large variability in the
41
ly
42
43
specific strength observed at liquid limit when different devices are used.
44
45
46 The paper demonstrates that both base hardness and resilience must be regularly monitored in
47
48 order to achieve consistency of liquid limit test results and that international standards should
49
50 be more closely aligned if measured values are to be used within regressions based on liquid
51
52 limit tests carried out with apparatus based on a different standard.
53
54
55 KEYWORDS: Plasticity, Identification and Classification of Soils, Texture Plasticity and
56
57
Density Characteristics of Soils
58
59
60 1
Geotechnical Testing Journal Page 2 of 21
1
2
3 INTRODUCTION
4
5
6 Atterberg (1911) first proposed a test for measuring the water content at which soil changed
7
8 from a plastic to a liquid state, involving striking a porcelain bowl containing soil in which a
9
10
groove has been cut on the palm of the hand. This test was subsequently standardized by
11
12
13 Casagrande (1932) who developed equipment to drop a brass cup containing soil through
14
15 which a standardized groove had been cut through a fixed distance onto a hard rubber base;
16
17 the liquid limit being the water content at which 25 blows were required to close the groove.
18
Fo
19 While the plastic limit test, (determined by thread rolling as described in ASTM D4318-10e1
20
21
22 determines a genuine observable transition in soil behaviour from a plastic to semi-solid state,
r
23
24 as discussed by Haigh et al. (2013), the liquid limit is essentially arbitrary in nature; no
Re
25
26 distinct change in soil behaviour being observable at this water content. The liquid limit of a
27
28 soil is thus dependent on the precise characteristics of the method and device used to
vi
29
30
determine it.
31
ew
32
33
34
It has been widely recognised that different procedures for determining liquid limit may
35
36 result in different values being obtained for the same soil. Casagrande (1958) recognised that
On
37
38 since its inception 26 years earlier the liquid limit device that he had invented had evolved
39
40 differently in different countries, those in use in the USA having hard Micarta bases and
41
ly
42 those in the UK having softer rubber bases, base hardness not having been rigidly determined
43
44
45 in the original specification. These differences in specification have persisted since, with the
46
47 added complexity of liquid limit being determined using fall-cone methods in much of
48
49 Europe. The influence of these three testing methodologies, (hard base cup, soft base cup and
50
51 fall-cone) have been investigated widely to determine the differences in liquid limit
52
53
54
measured. A synthesis of investigations by Norman (1958), Sridharan and Prakash (2000)
55
56 and Dragoni et al. (2008), resulting in the 35 data points shown in Figure 1, shows the soft-
57
58
59
60 2
1
2
3 base cup to give a higher liquid limit value than the hard-base cup, a linear regression to the
4
5 data yielding equation 1.
6
7
8 = 0.904 + 0.44% [1]
9
10
11
The cone penetrometer has been shown to give broadly comparable results to the hard-base
12
13
14 cup for soils with low liquid limits but to diverge substantially for high liquid limit soils,
15
16 (Wasti and Bezirci 1986), the liquid limit measured by the fall cone test being substantially
17
18 lower than that measured using the Casagrande cup. Haigh (2012) analysed the Casagrande
Fo
19
20 liquid limit test by measuring the acceleration of the cup during impact on the base of a hard-
21
22
base device and using this as an input to a Newmarkian sliding block analysis (Newmark
r
23
24
Re
25 1965) of the slopes of the groove through the soil. This analysis showed the liquid limit to be
26
27 associated with a value of specific soil strength (ratio of strength to density) of approximately
28
vi
29 1 m2/s2, comparable with reported strength in the literature for vane shear strengths at liquid
30
31
limit. This explained the observed trend in strength data such as that by Youssef et al. (1965),
ew
32
33
34 in which strength at liquid limit decreased with increasing liquid limit and hence also the
35
36 divergence between cone and cup liquid limit values. The data from multiple sources still,
On
37
38 however, showed a large degree of scatter, especially when comparing data from different
39
40 sources. This raised questions as to the similarity between liquid limit devices in operation
41
ly
42
43 worldwide and hence to the replicability of liquid limit test results between different
44
45 countries and laboratories.
46
47
48 WORLDWIDE SPECIFICATION OF CASAGRANDE LIQUID LIMIT APPARATUS
49
50
51 As most large countries worldwide rely on their own design standards, there are a plethora of
52
53 descriptions available describing the precise specification of a Casagrande liquid limit device.
54
55 The specifications from 15 countries for which this data was collected are summarised in
56
57
58
Table 1. The base hardnesses for these devices are specified using one of three scales; Shore
59
60 3
1
2
3 A, Shore D or IRHD. Whilst these hardnesses are uniquely defined only by the method used
4
5 to derive them, approximate conversions from each of the hardness scales to Young’s
6
7
Modulus are given by Gent (1958) and Hertz and Farinella (1998). These were used to
8
9
10 calculate the comparable stiffness values in Table 1.
11
12
13 It can be seen that while there are two major classes of liquid limit device, those with hard
14
15 and soft bases, the precise nature of a device within each of these categories is not rigidly
16
17 defined. More worryingly, two countries, New Zealand and Switzerland, either give no
18
Fo
19 guidance as to the base hardness or give such a broad range of hardness values as to
20
21
22 essentially cover both types of device, (an IRHD value of 100 corresponding to a rigid
r
23
24 material). The French code NFP94-051 (1993) is also peculiar in defining the base
Re
25
26 characteristics based on compressive strength and density, which will have only an indirect
27
28 relationship to the shock loading experienced by the cup.
vi
29
30
31 In addition to the base hardness, the base resilience is also an important parameter in
ew
32
33
34
determining the nature of the impact between the cup and the base. The resilience is defined
35
36 as the ratio between the rebound height and the initial height of a ball-bearing dropped
On
37
38 vertically onto the base. This ratio is typically close to 90% for hard-based devices with
39
40 relatively rigid plastic bases such as those defined by ASTM, and around 30% for the rubber
41
ly
42
bases of soft-based apparatus, for example those defined by the British standard.
43
44
45
EFFECT OF BASE HARDNESS ON LIQUID LIMIT
46
47
48
The impact between the cup of the Casagrande device and the base could be approximated as
49
50
51 the impact of a spherical body on an elastic half-space. This problem was investigated
52
53 analytically by Hertz (1881) from whose work it can be shown that the force F exerted on a
54
55 rigid sphere of radius R indenting an elastic half-space with Young’s modulus E and
56
57 Poisson’s ratio ν is related to the indentation d by:
58
59
60 4
1
2
3 √
4 = [2]
5 ( )
6
7
8
9 By integrating this equation and noting that the kinetic energy of the cup at impact with the
10
11 base of the liquid limit device K is constant regardless of the device specification (drop height
12
13 always being defined as 10 mm), it can be shown that the maximum penetration dmax is given
14
15 by:
16
17
18
$%( ) (
Fo
19
!" =# ' [3]
20 &√
21
22
r
23 And hence the maximum acceleration is given by:

24
Re
25 /
26 *+,- √ $%( ) ( .. % (
)!" = = !( ) # ' = #( )' [4]
27 ! &√ !
28
vi
29

30
31
)!" ∝ 1 ( [5]
ew
32
33
34 Numerical solution of the equation of motion for the cup results in the acceleration pulse that
35
36 the cup is subjected to having a normalised shape as shown in Figure 2. As the integral of the
On
37
38 acceleration is equal to the change in velocity of the cup through the bounce, stiffer bases will
39
40 typically exhibit higher maximum accelerations amax, but lower durations T in order to keep
41
ly
42
the integral approximately constant. Changes in the resilience of the base may alter the
43
44
45 rebound velocity and hence change the value of the integral. The assumption of a purely
46
47 elastic behaviour of the base results in an implied base resilience of 100%, a reasonable
48
49 assumption for hard-based apparatus but excessive for soft-base devices. The effects of this
50
51 assumption will be discussed later.
52
53
54 It can be seen from Table 1 that the prescribed base stiffness in the liquid limit test apparatus
55
56
57 ranges from 8-500 MPa, dependent on the precise code being utilised. Utilising the
58
59
60 5
1
2
3 acceleration pulse shown in Figure 2, the analysis described by Haigh (2012) involving a
4
5 Newmarkian sliding block analysis of slope failure within the liquid limit test device can be
6
7
carried out. The peak acceleration measured by Haigh (2012) of 310 g for an ASTM device is
8
9
10 utilised as the value of amax at the centre of the range of stiffnesses prescribed for an ASTM
11
12 device in Table 1 (353 MPa). It can be seen from figure 3 that while hard base devices exhibit
13
14 a specific strength at liquid of 0.98 ± 0.05 m2s–2, soft base devices exhibit a specific strength
15
16 of 0.58 ± 0.07 m2s–2. Values calculated by measurement of the acceleration pulse using new
17
18
hard and soft based devices were found to be 0.932 and 0.376 m2s–2 respectively, Haigh &
Fo
19
20
21 Vardanega, (2014), showing good agreement for hard base devices but an overestimate for
22
r
23 soft devices where the base resilience is lower.

24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29 EFFECT OF BASE RESILIENCE ON LIQUID LIMIT

30
31
ew
32 In order to quantify the effect of base resilience on liquid limit, the acceleration pulse shown
33
34 in Figure 2 was modified such that less than 100% of the stored energy was returned to the
35
36
cup as it rebounded from the base. This was achieved by leaving the loading portion of the
On
37
38
39 pulse unchanged, but increasing the unloading stiffness by the reciprocal of the resilience.
40
41 This has the effect of compressing the time axis on the unloading portion of the pulse, as
ly
42
43 shown in Figure 4.
44
45
46 The analysis was then repeated for resilience values from 10-100%. The results of these
47
48
analyses can be seen in Figure 5. It can be seen that resilience has a profound effect on the
49
50
51 predicted specific strength at liquid limit, an increase from the 30% value typical of soft-base
52
53 devices to the 90% value typical of hard-base devices increasing the specific strength at
54
55 liquid limit by around 80%. The predicted specific strengths at liquid limit can be adequately
56
57 predicted by:
58
59
60 6
1
2
3
3 2 46 = 0.254(log< 1 + 0.1391)(? + 0.1448) + 0.1892 [6]
4 5
5
6
7 Where E is the base Young’s modulus in kPa and r is the resilience.
8
9
10 The shaded areas on Figure 5 indicate the combinations of base stiffness and resilience
11
12 specified by typical hard and soft-base design codes. It can be seen that once the effect of
13
14 resilience is incorporated into this analysis the specific strengths at liquid limit are 0.86 ±
15
16
17 0.09 m2s–2 and 0.35 ± 0.07 m2s–2 for hard and soft-base devices respectively. The values
18
experimentally measured for these devices, 0.932 and 0.376 m2s–2 respectively, fall within
Fo
19
20
21 these tolerances.
22
r
23
24 SURVEY OF DEVICES IN-USE WORLDWIDE
Re
25
26
27 In order to study the veracity of this analysis, impact acceleration traces were measured for
28
vi
29 twenty-nine Casagrande devices of all types in laboratories in four countries, (UK, India,
30
31
ew
32 Turkey & Singapore). A high degree of variability was found between devices, even those
33
34 which were nominally identical. The eighteen soft-based devices studied showed specific
35
36 strengths at liquid limit ranging from 0.30 – 0.66 m2s–2 with an average value of 0.47 m2s–2
On
37
38 and a standard deviation of 0.11 m2s–2. The eleven hard-based devices tested showed specific
39
40
strengths at liquid limit ranging from 0.61 – 1.12 m2s–2 with an average value of 0.87 m2s–2
41
ly
42
43 and a standard deviation of 0.16 m2s–2. The standard deviation for both species of liquid limit
44
45 device is thus approximately 20% of the average. It is noteworthy that a set of five devices
46
47 purchased from the same manufacturer gave three almost identical results of 0.87 m2s–2 with
48
49 two outliers at 0.63 m2s–2 and 1.12 m2s–2.
50
51
52 Whilst the sample size is relatively small, there is some evidence that soft-based devices tend
53
54
55 to give increased specific strengths with age whereas hard-based devices tend to give lower
56
57 specific strengths. This variation in the properties of Casagrande devices over time
58
59
60 7
1
2
3 emphasises the need to follow the procedure set out in ASTM D4318-10e1 to check the
4
5 resilience of the base and its hardness as part of the annual check of the liquid limit device’s
6
7
“wear and critical dimensions” mandated under ASTM D3740-12. These checks are often not
8
9
10 explicitly mandated at regular intervals under other national standards.
11
12
13 IMPACT OF BASE CHARACTERISTICS ON LIQUID LIMIT VALUE
14
15
16 As changing the base characteristics changes the specific strength implied by requiring 25
17
18 blows for groove-closure (i.e. the liquid limit), different devices will give different liquid
Fo
19
20 limits for the same soil. In order to convert from the changes in specific strength at limit for
21
22 different devices described earlier to changes in implied liquid limit water content, certain
r
23
24
assumptions have to be made with regard to the variation of soil strength and density with
Re
25
26
27 water content. Vardanega and Haigh (2014) based on a large database of fall-cone tests on a
28
vi
29 variety of soils demonstrated that close to the liquid limit the strength variation of soils could
30
31 be estimated using:
ew
32
33
34 AB = A 35(CD ) (where, cL =1.7kPa) 0.2 < IL < 1.1 [7]
35
36
On
37 FFG
E = F [8]
38 D FG
39
40
41 It can also be shown that the density of a saturated soil varies with water content according to:
ly
42
43
44 1+ w
ρ = Gs ρ w [9]
45 1 + Gs w
46
47
48 Utilising the values of specific strength at liquid limit for the different apparatus measured by
49
50
Haigh and Vardanega (2014) with typical values of liquid and plastic limits of soils, it can be
51
52
53 shown that the relationship between liquid limits with hard and soft-based devices can be
54
55 approximated by:
56
57
58 = 0.845 + 4.7% [10]
59
60 8
1
2
3 It can be seen from figure 6 that within the range of most soils’ liquid limits, equations 1 and
4
5 10, (the observed and predicted relationships respectively), both pass through the centre of
6
7
the available data.
8
9
10
Similarly, a variation of 20% in the specific strength at liquid limit, (the standard deviation
11
12
13 found for a given species of Casagrande equipment) would result in a change in the measured
14
15 liquid limit by approximately 2.6% of its value, very similar to the 2-3% standard deviation
16
17 reported in ASTM D4318-10e1 as the results of multi-laboratory triplicate tests on clay liquid
18
Fo
19 limits. Much of this reported error may thus be due to the variation between devices used in
20
21
22 practice.
r
23
24
CONCLUSIONS
Re
25
26
27
28 While the Casagrande liquid limit test has been accepted as the standard method of
vi
29
30 determining liquid limit for over 80 years, international variations in both codal provisions
31
ew
32 and the devices themselves can have significant effects on the liquid limit measured.
33
34
35 Both the hardness and resilience of Casagrande device bases have been shown to be very
36
On
37 important in determining the value of the liquid limit of a soil determined using that device.
38
39
40 Analysis based on the work of Haigh (2012) using an acceleration trace derived from
41
ly
42 Hertzian contact mechanics has been shown to adequately model the variation of specific
43
44 strength at liquid limit predicted using devices with different characteristics.
45
46
47 In order to achieve consistent results between laboratories, both base hardness and resilience
48
49 should be controlled. It is hence troubling that the specification of liquid limit devices in
50
51
international standards is so variable, even within each of the two classes of device (hard and
52
53
54 soft-base) and that regular base testing, as mandated in ASTM D4318-10e1 is not a part of
55
56 many international design codes. In the absence of further information on the rate of change
57
58
59
60 9
1
2
3 of base properties, annual checking of the base hardness and resilience to ensure proper
4
5 performance is recommended.
6
7
8 REFERENCES
9
10
11
12 ASTM D4318-10e1: Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index
13
14 of soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
15
16 PA
17
18
Fo
19 ASTM D3740-12: Standard practice for minimum requirements for agencies engaged in
20
21
22 testing and/or inspection of soil and rock as used in engineering design and construction,
r
23
24 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA
Re
25
26
27 AS1289 3.1.1, 2009: Determination of Liquid Limit of a Soil – Four Point Casagrande
28
vi
29
Method, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
30
31
ew
32
33 Atterberg, A., 1911, “Die plastizität der tone,” Int Mitteilungen der Bodenkunde, Vol.1, pp.
34
35 4–37.
36
On
37
38 BS 1377-2:1990: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests,
39
40
41 British Standards Institute, London, UK.
ly
42
43
44 CAN/BNQ-2501-090, 2005: Soils - Determination of Liquid Limit by the Casagrande
45
46 Apparatus and Determination of Plastic Limit, Standards Council of Canada, Ottawa,
47
48 Canada.
49
50
51
52 Casagrande, A., 1932, “Research on the Atterberg Limits of Soils,” Public Roads, Vol.13, pp.
53
54 121–136.
55
56
57
58
59
60 10
1
2
3 Casagrande, A., 1958, “Notes on the design of the liquid limit device,” Géotechnique Vol.8,
4
5 No.2, pp. 84–91.
6
7
8
9 DIN 18122-1, 1997: Baugrund, Untersuchung von Bodenproben - Zustandsgrenzen
10
11 (Konsistenzgrenzen) - Teil 1: Bestimmung der Fließ- und Ausrollgrenze, Deutsches
12
13 Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany.
14
15
16 Dragoni, W., Prosperini, N., and Vinti, G., 2008, “Some observations on the procedures for
17
18
the determination of the liquid limit: An application on Plio-Pleistocenic clayey soils
Fo
19
20
21 from Umbria region (Italy),” Ital J Eng Geol Environ, pp. 185–198.
22
r
23
24 Gent, A. N., 1958, “On the relation between indentation hardness and Young’s modulus,”
Re
25
26 Inst Rubber Ind – Trans, Vol.31, pp. 46–57.
27
28
vi
29
30 Haigh, S. K., 2012, “Mechanics of the Casagrande liquid limit test,” Can Geotech J, Vol.49,
31
ew
32 pp. 1015–1023.
33
34
35 Haigh, S. K. and Vardanega, P. J., 2014, “Fundamental basis of single-point liquid limit
36
On
37
38
measurement approaches,” Appl Clay Sci, Vol.102, pp. 8–14.
39
40
41 Haigh, S. K., Vardanega, P. J. and Bolton, M. D., 2013, “The plastic limit of clays,”
ly
42
43 Géotechnique Vol.63, pp. 435–440.
44
45
46
Hertz, D. L. and Farinella, A. C., 1998, “Shore A durometer and engineering properties,” Fall
47
48
49 Technical Meeting, New York Rubber Group, New York, NY.
50
51
52 Hertz, H., 1881, “Über die Berührung fester elastischer Körper,” J. für die reine und Angew
53
54 Math, Vol. 92, pp. 156–171.
55
56
57
58
59
60 11
1
2
3 IS2720 (Part 5) 1985: Determination of liquid limit by Casagrande Apparatus, Bureau of
4
5 Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
6
7
8
9 ISO/TS 17892-12:2004:Geotechnical investigation and testing -- Laboratory testing of soil --
10
11 Part 12: Determination of Atterberg limits, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
12
13
14 JIS A1205, 1999: Test method for liquid limit and plastic limit of soils, Japanese Standards
15
16 Association, Tokyo, Japan.
17
18
Fo
19
20 Kazama, H. and Shimobe, S., 1997, “Influence of testing devices and experimental methods
21
22 on the liquid limit,” Soils Found, Vol.37, pp. 145–153.
r
23
24
Re
25 KSF-2303:2000: Test method for liquid limit and plastic limit of soils, Korean Standards
26
27
28
Association, Seoul, Korea
vi
29
30
31 NBR6459, 1984: Solo –Determinação do limite de liquidez, Associação Brasileira de normas
ew
32
33 Técnicas, São Paulo, Brazil.
34
35
36
Newmark, N. M., 1965, “Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments,” Géotechnique,
On
37
38
39 Vol. 15, pp. 139–160.
40
41
ly
42 NFP94-051, 1993: Sols : reconnaissance et essais - Détermination des limites d'Atterberg -

43
44 limite de liquidité à la coupelle - Limite de plasticité au rouleau, AFNOR Groupe, Paris,
45
46
France.
47
48
49
50 Norman, L. E. J., 1958, “A comparison of values of liquid limit determined with apparatus
51
52 having bases of different hardness,” Géotechnique, Vol.8, pp.79–83.
53
54
55 NZS4402:1986: Methods of Testing Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, Standards New
56
57
58 Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
59
60 12
1
2
3 SANS 3001-GR10, 2013: Civil engineering test methods Part GR10: Determination of the
4
5 one-point liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage, South African
6
7
Bureau of Standards, Pretoria, South Africa.
8
9
10
11 Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K., 2000, “Percussion and cone methods of determining the liquid
12
13 limit of soils: controlling mechanisms,” Geotech Test J., Vol. 23, pp. 236–244.
14
15
16 SN670345a, 1989: Konsistenzgrenzen, Vereinigung Schweizerischen Strassenfachleute,
17
18
Zurich, Switzerland.
Fo
19
20
21
22 SS27119, 1989: Geotechnical tests - Percussion liquid limit, Swedish Standards Institute,
r
23
24 Stockholm, Sweden.
Re
25
26
27
28
TMH1, 1986: Standard methods of testing road construction materials. National Institute for
vi
29
30 Transport and Road Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
31
ew
32
33 UNE 103103:1994: Determination of the Liquid Limit of a soil by the Casagrande apparatus
34
35 method, AENOR, Madrid, Spain.
36
On
37
38
39 Vardanega, P. J. and Haigh, S. K., 2014, “The undrained strength-liquidity index
40
41 relationship,” Can Geotech J., Vol.51, pp. 1073-1086.
ly
42
43
44 Wasti, Y. and Bezirci, M. H. H., 1986, “Determination of the consistency limits of soils by
45
46
the fall-cone test,” Can Geotech J., Vol. 23, pp. 241–246.
47
48
49
50 Youssef, M. S., El Ramli, A. H. and El Demery, M., 1965, “Relationships between shear
51
52 strength, consolidation, liquid limit and plastic limit for remoulded clays,” International
53
54 Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, Canada, pp.
55
56
126–129
57
58
59
60 13
1
2
3 Table 1: Specifications for Casagrande liquid limit test devices
4
5
6 Equivalent
7 Young’s
Country Code Base Hardness Resilience Other
8 Modulus1
9 (MPa)
10 ASTM D4318
11 USA 80-90 D 260-446 77-90 %
(2010)
12 CAN/BNQ
13 Micarta or hard
Canada 2501-090 - 75-85%
14 rubber
(2005)
15 NBR6459
16 Brazil ebonite ~500 74-92 %
(1984)
17
Hard Base
DIN18122-1
18 Germany >80 D >260 80-90 %
(1997)
Fo
19
Superseded by
20
SS27119 ISO/TS 17892-12
21 Sweden ebonite ~500 -
(1989) (2004)
22
Fall-cone test
r
23
24 UNE 103103
Spain 80-90 D 260-446 75-90 %
(1994)
Re
25
26 SANS3001-
Hard rubber - 80-90 %
27 South Africa GR10 (2013)
28 TMH1 (1986) 85-95 D 340-585 -
vi
29 KSF2303
South Korea 83-93 A 11-31 -
30 (2000)
31 Resilience typically
ew
32 JIS A1205 15-40%

Japan 83-93 A 11-31 -
Soft Base
33 (1999) (Kazama and

34 Shimobe 1997)
35 BS1377-2 Fall-cone test
36 UK 84-94 IRHD 11-28 20-35 %
(1990) preferred
On
37 AS1289.3.1.1
38 Australia 86-94 IRHD 13-28 -
(2009)
39 India IS2720 (1985) 86-90 IRHD 13-18 30-40 %
40 NZS4402
41 New Zealand 79-99 IRHD 8-221 -
ly
(1986)
42 SN670345a
43 Switzerland Not specified - -
(1989)
Either
44
Density
45
1250-1300 kg/m3
46 NFP94-051
France Not specified - - Compressive
47 (1993)
strength
48
180-220 MPa
49 1
50 Equivalent Young’s Modulus values are estimated from rubber hardness using formulae
51
52 from Gent (1958) for durometer hardness and Hertz and Farinella (1998) for IRHD.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 14
1
2
3 Figure 1: Comparison of measured hard and soft base liquid limits
4
5
6 Figure 2: Vertical acceleration predicted during impact with base.
7
8
9 Figure 3: Effect of base stiffness on specific strength at liquid limit with 100% resilience
10
11
12 Figure 4: Effect of resilience on applied acceleration pulse.
13
14
15 Figure 5: Influence of base resilience on specific strength at liquid limit.
16
17
18 Figure 6: Prediction of liquid limit variance using equation 10.
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 15
1
2
3
120
4
5
6
7
8 100
9
10
11
12
13 Fo
14
15
16
80
rR wL hard = 0.90wL soft + 0.44
17
18
19 ev
60
iew
wL hard %
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
40 On
27
28
29
30
ly
Dragoni (2008)
Sridharan & Prakash (2000)
31 20
32
33 Norman (1958)
34
35
36
37 0
38
39 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
40
41
wL soft %
42
43
44
45 https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/astm-gtj
46
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27 Figure 2: Vertical acceleration predicted during impact with base.
28 153x91mm (300 x 300 DPI)
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24 Figure 3: Effect of base stiffness on specific strength at liquid limit with 100% resilience
Re
25 306x151mm (300 x 300 DPI)

26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
Figure 4: Effect of resilience on applied acceleration pulse.
27 114x65mm (300 x 300 DPI)
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32
33
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fo
19
20
21
22
r
23
24
Re
25
26
27
28
vi
29
30
31
ew
32 Figure 5: Influence of base resilience on specific strength at liquid limit.

33 211x159mm (300 x 300 DPI)
34
35
36
On
37
38
39
40
41
ly
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
120
4
5
6
7 wL hard = 0.90wL soft + 0.44
8 100
9
10
11
12
13
80
Fo
14
15
16 rR
17
18
19
60
ev
iew
wL hard %
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
40 On Dragoni (2008)
27
28
29
30
ly
Sridharan & Prakash (2000)
31 20 Norman (1958)
32
33
Eqn 10
34
35
36
37 0
38 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
39
40
41
wL soft %
42
43
44
45 https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/astm-gtj
46
47 View publication stats

Consistency of Casagrande Liquid Limit Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consistency of Casagrande Liquid Limit Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Consistency of the Casagrande Liquid Limit Test

Article in Geotechnical Testing Journal · October 2015

Stuart Kenneth Haigh

Offshore Wind Foundations View project

Atterberg limits determination View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Consistency of the Casagrande Liquid Limit Test

Journal: Geotechnical Testing Journal

Manuscript ID: GTJ-2015-0093.R1

Manuscript Type: Technical Manuscript

Date Submitted by the Author: 20-Jul-2015

Complete List of Authors: Haigh, Stuart; University of Cambridge, Schofield Centre

ASTM Committees and

Texture, Plasticity and Density Characteristics of Soils, Plasticity,

of bases over time leads to a large variability in the specific strength

23 And hence the maximum acceleration is given by:

23 soft devices where the base resilience is lower.

29 EFFECT OF BASE RESILIENCE ON LIQUID LIMIT

42 NFP94-051, 1993: Sols : reconnaissance et essais - Détermination des limites d'Atterberg -

32 JIS A1205 15-40%

33 (1999) (Kazama and

25 306x151mm (300 x 300 DPI)

32 Figure 5: Influence of base resilience on specific strength at liquid limit.

You might also like