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

net/publication/245293596

Closure to “Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit and Undrained Shear Strength of Soil—
Reappraisal” by Binu Sharma and Padma K. Bora

Article  in  Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · March 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:3(403)

CITATIONS READS

3 110

2 authors, including:

Binu Sharma
Assam Engineering College
34 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Binu Sharma on 11 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES
Discussion of “Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit,
and Undrained Shear Strength of Soil—
Reappraisal” by Binu Sharma and Padma
K. Bora
August 2003, Vol. 129, No. 8, pp. 774–777.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:8共774兲
K. Prakash1
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, S.J. College of
Engineering, Mysore 570 006, India.
A thorough reading of the paper under discussion has forced the
discusser to dwell upon the following issues:
• Eq. 共2兲 of the paper under discussion is wrongly written. 关The
corrected equation is presented in the closure.兴
• Regarding the issue of strength-based tests representing the
plasticity characteristics of fine grained soils, the discusser
wishes to state the following points.
The conventional liquid limit testing procedures, both the
Casagrande percussion method and the cone penetration method
are strength based. However, it should be noted that the plasticity
characteristics are concerned with the water absorption/water
holding capacity of fine grained soils. The liquid limit, in particu-
lar, is regarded as the limiting water content between the liquid
and plastic states when the water content of fine grained soil
slurry is reduced gradually. In other words, the soil at its liquid
limits water content must represent the stress-free reference state.
However, this quality is not exhibited by the soil at the conven-
tionally determined liquid limit value. The undrained shear
strengths observed at liquid limit water contents obtained by the
percussion method vary in between 0.5 and 5.6 kPa 共White 1982;
Wasti and Bezirci 1986, to name a few兲. Even in the case of the
cone method, the variation of undrained shear strength at liquid
limit water content is observed to be between 0.8 and 4.8 kPa
共Wasti and Bezirci 1986兲. Theoretically, it has been proved that
the shear strength at liquid limit water content by the cone method
varies from 2.75 to 5.24 kPa 共Houlsby 1982; 1983兲. Hence, the
conventionally determined liquid limit does not have any rational
basis to be regarded as one of the plasticity characteristics. It can,
at best, be an arbitrary water content depending upon the meth-
odology adopted for its determination 共Sridharan and Prakash
1998兲.
In addition, it has been established that the percussion and
cone methods of determining the liquid limit of fine grained soils
respond differently depending upon the dominant clay mineralogy
of the soil 共Sridharan and Prakash 2000兲. The liquid limit of
montmorillonitic soils is mainly due to the defuse double layer
held water. Also, viscous shear resistance of double layer held
water controls the mechanism in the percussion method of deter-
mining the liquid limit. In the case of kaolinitic soils, the liquid
limit of soils is mainly due to the mode of particle arrangement
determined by the interparticle forces 共i.e., fabric兲 and the shear
resistance at the particle level. The frictional resistance at the
particle level has also been found to govern the mechanism in the
case of the cone method of determining the liquid limit. In other
402 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Downloaded 23 Dec 2011 to 210.212.8.60. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
words, the mechanism governing the liquid limit of montmorillo-
nitic soils and the dominant mechanism in the percussion method
of testing have one-to-one correspondence. Similarly, the mecha-
nism governing the liquid limit of kaolinitic soils and the domi-
nant mechanism in the cone penetration method of testing have a
perfect match. This is the reason why the liquid limit values ob-
tained by the percussion method and the cone method are differ-
ent for the same soil. Hence, the suggestion that the liquid limit of
all fine grained soils is determined by the cone method irrespec-
tive of their dominant clay mineralogy is not tenable.
Similarly, the plastic limit of fine grained soils, whether it is
determined from the conventional 3-mm thread method or from
the cone method, represent another strength-based parameter.
It has also been brought out in the literature that the factors
contributing to the undrained shear strength of kaolonitic soils are
quite different from those governing the undrained shear strength
of montmorillonitic soils 共Sridharan and Prakash 1999兲.
In summary, the discusser would like to state that the liquid
limit, which is a water-holding capacity of fine grained soils, can-
not be correlated with shear strength, which goes against the basic
philosophy behind the very definition of the plasticity character-
istics of soils. The plasticity index determined based on strength
tests, without giving due regards to the controlling mechanisms
and clay mineralogy of soils, cannot be regarded as the plasticity
characteristic of the soil. At best, it can remain just as a difference
between two arbitrary water contents determined from two
strength-based tests, the corresponding strengths, namely 1.7 kPa
and 170 kPa, being arbitrarily fixed without any rationale. The
plasticity index that is widely used in current geotechnical engi-
neering practice is also not an exception to this statement. The
constructive research in the field of geotechnical engineering
should focus its attention toward determining the value of the
plasticity index more rationally, that represents the real plasticity
characteristic devoid of its existing limitations, and should not
blindly support the empirically determined arbitrary quantities on
the pretext that they are already in wide usage.
References
Houlby, G. T. 共1982兲. “Theoretical analysis of the fall cone test.” Geo-
technique, 32共2兲, 111–118.
Houlsby, G. T. 共1983兲. “Discussion.” Geotechnique, 33共4兲, p. 463.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. 共1998兲. “Characteristic water contents of a
fine-grained soil-water system.” Geotechnique, 48共3兲, 337–346.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. 共1999兲. “Mechanisms controlling the und-
rained shear strength behaviour of clays.” Can. Geotech. J., 36,
1030–1038.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. 共2000兲. “Percussion and cone methods of
determining the liquid limit of soils: Controlling mechanisms.” Geo-
tech. Test. J., 23共2兲, 236–244.
Wasti, Y., and Bezirci, M. H. 共1986兲. “Determination of consistency lim-
its of soils by the fall cone test.” Can. Geotech. J., 23共2兲, 241–246.
White, I. L. 共1982兲. “Soil plasticity and strength—A new approach using
extrusion.” Ground Eng., 15共1兲, 16–24.

Closure to “Plastic Limit, Liquid Limit and
Undrained Shear Strength of Soil—
Reappraisal” by Binu Sharma and Padma
K. Bora
August 2003, Vol. 129, No. 8, pp. 774–777.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2003兲129:8共774兲
Binu Sharma1 and Padma K. Bora2
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Assam Engineering
College, Univ. of Gauhati, Assam, India.
2
Retired Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Assam Engineering
College, Univ. of Gauhati, Assam, India. E-mail:
padmaគboraគ35@yahoo.com
The error in Eq. 共2兲 was noted, and the correct version of the
equation is presented at the end of this closure.
The discusser states that a soil at its liquid limit must represent
a “stress-free reference state.” However, there can be no such
state as a stress free reference state and liquid limit defined with
reference to such a state is likely to be in terms of stress, however
small its magnitude may be. Furthermore, it bears repetition that
as soils do not pass abruptly from one state into another, there-
fore, drawing up of a limit in such a transition phase must, of
necessity, involve an element of arbitrariness.
The discusser does not elaborate on a more rationally con-
ceived plastic limit but calls for replacement of the conventional
plastic limit, for it is strength based. However, any attempt at such
a replacement may run into formidable practical difficulties, as
pointed out in the context of the discussion on liquid limit re-
placement at the end of this closure.
Secondly, the discusser states that the undrained shear
strengths observed at liquid limit by both the percussion and cone
methods vary widely. Hence, there is no rational basis for deter-
mination of liquid limit by conventional methods. The writers
have stated in their note that a substantial variation in strength at
liquid limit determined by the percussion method can be attrib-
uted to the deformation of the soil induced by its own self weight,
as pointed out by Wroth 共1979兲. This is not the case with the cone
method where the deformation of the soil is caused by the weight
of the cone, and hence, it is independent of the self weight of the
soil.
Koumoto and Houlsby 共2001兲 showed that the theoretical und-
rained shear strength values at liquid limit as determined by the
cone method vary from 1.38 to 4.52 kPa. This is mainly because
the K values 共cone factor兲 as calculated by them turn out to be
different for the same cone angle. It is also observed from litera-
ture that the K value for the 30° cone varies from 0.8 to 1.2
共Hansbo 1957; Wood 1982, 1985兲 Therefore, what is necessary is
the correct determination of the cone factor K in the Hansbo
共Hansbo 1957兲 equation Cu = KQ / h2 and to decide which cone
angle and weight are to be adopted for liquid limit determination.
It has been shown by Koumoto and Houlsby 共2001兲 that the pen-
etration readings are more susceptible to surface roughness for a
30° cone than for a 60° cone. This is thought to be a major
contributor in the variation of undrained shear strength values at
liquid limit obtained by using the 30° cone. For the note under
discussion, liquid limit was determined by the 0.59 N-60° cone.
For determination of the plastic limit, a reasonably smooth heavy
cone 共3.92 N-30° cone兲 was used with the verified condition
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 403
View publication stats Downloaded 23 Dec 2011 to 210.212.8.60. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
共Hansbo 1957兲 that the penetration h for a 0.98 N-30° cone is
doubled by using a 3.92 N-30° cone.
Thirdly, the discusser states that the mechanism governing the
liquid limit of a soil and the dominant mechanism of the test
method should match. Therefore, the cone method cannot be ap-
plied to all soils. The discusser goes on to say that the liquid limit
of montmorillonitic soils is mostly due to the diffuse double layer
held water. The writers are aware of the characteristic difference
of the montmorillonitic soils and have shown it in Fig. 3 by test-
ing bentonite soils with liquid limits ranging from 210 to 460%.
But, it is remarkable that even with the basic behavior difference,
the liquid limits were still found to be around 1.7 kPa.
Conventionally, liquid limit has been defined as the water con-
tent at which a clay is practically liquid but possesses a certain
small 共presumably the smallest兲 shearing strength that is possible
to measure by a standardized procedure 共Taylor 1948兲: thus origi-
nated the strength-based tests. The clinching question is “how
does such a liquid limit correlate with other relevent soil proper-
ties?” The conventionally determined liquid limit 共along with
other Atterberg limits兲 found to be “most suitable for engineering
purposes” 共Terzaghi and Peck 1967兲 has been in use for a long
time. The authors of the note are in agrement with the statement
made by Scott 共1963兲 that the large body of information collected
with its application precludes its replacement by liquid limit ob-
tained from a more rational testing method. In view of this fact,
attempts have been made 共Prakash and Sridharan 2002兲 to corre-
late liquid limit determined by both the Casagrande percussion
method and the cone method with that obtained by a more ratio-
nal method. The correlation was found to be very good. There-
fore, the conventional liquid limits can continue in soil mechanics
practice not just as a “pretext” for its continued use but also as a
valid and indispensable tool.
Erratum
The following correction should be made to the original paper:
Eq. 共2兲 on page 776 should be as follows:
2
⇒Log ␶ = Log ␶LL + ⫻ Log共wL/w兲
Log共wL/w P兲
References
Hansbo, S. 1957. “A new approach to the determination of the shear
strength of clay by the fall cone test.” Swedish Geotech Institute.
Proc., 14, 1–48.
Koumoto, T., and Houlsby, G. T. 共2001兲. “Theory and practice of the fall
cone test.” Geotechnique, 51共8兲, 701–712.
Prakash, K., and Sridharan, A. 共2002兲. “Determination of liquid limit
from equilibrium sediment volume.” Geotechnique, 52共9兲, 693–696.
Scott, R. F. 共1963兲. Principles of soil mechanics, Addison-Wesley, p. 23.
Taylor, D. W. 共1948兲. Fundamentals of soil mechanics, Wiley, New York,
p. 27.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. 共1967兲. Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, Wiley, New York, p. 32.
Wood, D. M. 共1982兲. “Cone penetrometer and liquid limit.” Geotech-
nique, 32共2兲, 152–157.
Wood, D. M. 共1985兲. “Some fall cone tests.” Geotechnique, 35共1兲, 64–
68.
Wroth, C. P. 共1979兲. “Correlation of some engineering properties of
soils.” 2nd Int. Conf. of Boss, Imperial College, London, 121–132.