Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Clay Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/clay

Review article

Review and critical examination of fine-grained soil classification systems

based on plasticity
José Manuel Moreno-Maroto a, *, Jacinto Alonso-Azcárate b, Brendan C. O’Kelly c
a
Department of Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School of Linares, University of Jaen, Scientific and Technological Campus of
Linares, 23700 Linares, Jaén, Spain
b
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Biochemistry, Avenida Carlos III, s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain
c
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil classification systems represent powerful tools not only to facilitate soil identification, but also to predict its
Soil classification possible behavior. While the use of arbitrary standards based on particle size distribution may be applicable to
Fine-grained soils coarse-grained soils, those approaches based exclusively on textural principles are ineffective in classifying fine-
Atterberg limits
grained soils, where clay content and its mineralogy dictate the general properties. In this sense, the measure­
Plasticity
Casagrande chart
ment of plasticity represents a more appropriate parameter than particle size. This fact has led various authors
and technical committees to develop fine-grained soil classification systems based on plasticity. However, the
disparity of criteria makes it necessary to review them in order to glimpse the weaknesses and strengths of each
of them. This paper includes the review of the six main existing proposals together with the possible variants
arising from them: Casagrande (1947)-Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), Saito and Miki (1975), Poli­
dori (2003, 2007, 2009) and Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) classification charts, which are
designed on the basis of Atterberg limits. After conducting a complete and thorough examination, it is shown that
although the Casagrande (1947)-USCS approach is the most widely known, of all the proposals examined, only
that of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) is based on well-founded criteria, presenting a strong
predictive capacity, as well as being simple, precise and adaptable to needs.

1. Introduction Therefore, a short and appropriate definition may be that of Prakash

Soil, whether as an environment (e.g. crop medium in agriculture),
raw material (e.g. in the ceramic industry) or object of study in
geotechnical engineering (e.g. in soil mechanics), is characterized by a
high degree of complexity due to the interaction of solid, liquid and gas
phases of different nature, which makes its behavior difficult to predict.
To address these difficulties, scientists, engineers and technicians from
different disciplines have used various classification systems over the
years for two main purposes (Liu, 1970):
i) as a systematic means of studying soil more effectively;
ii) as a common, simple and concise language enabling professionals to
understand the general characteristics and likely behavior/proper­
ties of the soil without the need for lengthy explanations and in-
depth investigations.
and Sridharan (2012), which points out that “a soil classification is a
systematic method of categorizing soils into various groups and subgroups
according to their probable engineering behavior but without detailed
description”.
A correct classification can be essential from an engineering point of
view. For example, an inadequate classification of a silty soil as if it were
a plastic clay could lead to cost overruns associated with the stabiliza­
tion or discarding of certain soils for use in civil–geotechnical works by
incorrectly considering the soil as not meeting the necessary material
specifications, when in fact the opposite is the case. On the contrary, the
reverse could also occur, considering an unsuitable soil as suitable fill
material for use in civil engineering. For the ceramic industry, if an
inadequate fine-grained soil classification system is used as raw material
evaluation method, this could mistakenly lead to selecting, for example,
silty soils as suitable for use, when they really are not, while for other

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jmmaroto@ujaen.es (J.M. Moreno-Maroto), jacinto.alonso@uclm.es (J. Alonso-Azcárate), bokelly@tcd.ie (B.C. O’Kelly).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105955
Received 7 August 2020; Received in revised form 11 December 2020; Accepted 14 December 2020
Available online 29 December 2020
0169-1317/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al. Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

approaches the clays required by this industry could be incorrectly classification system presented in Table 1 for agricultural purposes, in
discarded. which plasticity was used for the first time as an essential parameter in
In this regard, although the classification approaches have been distinguishing different soils. Although it is true that this classification
adapted to the particular fields of interest of each discipline (Horn, did not present quantitative values of plasticity that would allow an
1978), many scientists share the common objective of developing a objective separation between soil groups, it did show the way to develop
universally understood and accepted system (García-Gaines and Fran­ future proposals.
kenstein, 2015), something that has not been achieved to date. An The present paper aims to review the various approaches put forward
opposing viewpoint is that this may not be feasible given the different since then, by both scientists and standards committees, to classify soils
end-use objectives and applications of the various presently applied according to Atterberg limits. For this purpose, the six main plasticity-
systems in different disciplines. based soil classification systems that can be found in the literature are
Due to its relative simplicity of both interpretation and experimental examined, together with their variants: Casagrande (1947)-Unified Soil
execution, the study of particle size became from the beginning the Classification System (USCS; standardized), American Association of
origin of the first soil classifications. For this purpose, initially, different State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO; standardized),
authors and institutions developed arbitrary scales for the separation of Federal Aviation Agency (FAA; withdrawn), Saito and Miki (1975),
soil fractions. For example, although in the case of clays an upper par­ Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) and Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
ticle size limit was generally established at 2 μm (e.g. Atterberg, 1905; (2017, 2018).
Terzaghi, 1925; Glossop and Skempton, 1945; Gilboy, 1930; BSI, 1957), This review includes a detailed analysis of the criteria used by each
other scales placed this limit at 5 μm also including a distinction for author when designing their proposal and the verification of their
particles smaller than 1 μm, which were called colloids (e.g. Goldbeck effectiveness when classifying soils of different nature from experi­
and Jackson, 1921; AASHTO, 1950; ASCE, 1957). Obviously, this vari­ mental data. Likewise, each proposal has been analyzed from the point
ety of criteria was applicable to other grain sizes, such as those referring of view of soil toughness, as it is a property closely related to plasticity,
to silts, sands or gravels, indicating the arbitrariness associated with the and therefore typical of clays and clayey materials.
use of a particle size (textural) perspective. Despite this, these grain-size
scales subsequently led to different textural classification systems, such 2. Classification systems for fine-grained soils
as the widely-known USDA triangle, which is still in use, mainly for
agricultural purposes (USDA, 2017). In the following, the classification systems developed for fine-
Several authors, such as Casagrande (1947), would soon realize the grained soils will be shown in chronological order, first explaining the
shortcomings of the textural approaches, noting that soils with equal fundamentals and classification criteria and then critically examining
particle size distributions can have very different physical properties. them.
This points out that although particle size distribution is important, it
does not entirely dictate the general behavior/properties of the soil.
2.1. Casagrande (1947) and the Unified Soil Classification System
However, there is another parameter that could very well define soil
(USCS)
behavior: that is, plasticity. Plasticity is the ability of the material to be
molded to any shape without rupture or cracking, which is provided by
2.1.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria
the clay minerals (mainly represented by platy habit phyllosilicate type
The first version of Casagrande (1947) classification was drawn up in
minerals) and it is, therefore, a typical property of clays (Guggenheim
1942, and was part of the so-called Airfield Classification (AC) system.
and Martin, 1995). The most common way to study soil plasticity is
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, in cooperation
through the widely used Atterberg limits (Atterberg, 1911), and more
with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, improved the original AC system in
specifically by the determination of the Plastic Limit (PL) and the Liquid
1953 (USAEWES, 1953) and then modified it in 1960 to develop what is
Limit (LL), which respectively mark the lower and upper value of
now known as the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), applicable
moisture content between which the soil can present plasticity. The
not only to pavements, but also to soil foundations, earthen dams and
magnitude of this range is the Plasticity Index (PI), calculated as PI = LL
other constructions (USAEWES, 1960; Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).
− PL. The definition of plasticity shown above would be in line with the
According to Table 2, Casagrande was able to summarize the main
concept of toughness, which is related to the work required to make a
geotechnical behaviors that can be observed in soils as a function of how
soil deform, so that the greater the effort required, the greater the
Liquid Limit varies with respect to Plasticity Index and vice versa.
toughness and plasticity of the material (Casagrande, 1947; Barnes,
Considering that clays can exhibit plasticity, whereas silts do not, or only
2009, 2013a, 2013b).
to a limited extent, from what is indicated in Table 2, Casagrande was
Regarding plasticity, although particle size is a relevant parameter
that affects it, clay mineralogy is a more critical factor, since the pres­
Table 1
ence of highly active clay minerals, such as those of the smectite group,
Soil Classification of Atterberg (1913).
can significantly affect plasticity, even in low proportions (Skempton,
1953; Schmitz et al., 2004; Polidori, 2009). Similarly, plasticity is not Major divisions Secondary Description
divisions
only affected by the size and shape of the particles, but also by the
chemical composition, pH, cation adsorbed, degree of crystallinity, A) Clays (Plastic Soils) I) Sticky Clays This group contains only the
(Highly Plastic) heaviesta clays
aggregate nature of the particles in the material (Guggenheim and
II) Loamy Clays Subdivided into medium heavya
Martin, 1995; Polidori, 2015) and the pore fluid’s dielectric constant (Not Sticky) and fairly heavya clays
(Spagnoli et al., 2017), so it is a parameter that provides much more B) Loams (Nonplastic, I) Fairly Heavya Clayey loams
information on soil behavior than obtained just from the grain size More or Less Cohesive Loams
distribution. Consequently, while the identification and classification of Soils) II) Lighta Loams Sandy loams and loess soils
C) Sand, Mob and Silt Soils I) Capillary Fine-grained sandy soils, dust
coarse-grained materials is usually relatively simple through the estab­
(Noncohesive Soils) Greater than 34 loess, subdivided by mechanical
lishment of arbitrary particle size thresholds, the use of a texture yard­ cm analysis
stick loses its predictive ability for fine-grained soils, as well as in the II) Capillary Less Coarse, dry sandy soils, useful
fine fractions of the coarse-grained ones, where plasticity becomes the than 34 cm only for forestry
dominant factor. a
Soil that consists of over 50% clay particles is referred to as “heavy”, while
In view of the shortcomings of the approaches based exclusively on the term “light” is given for the opposite case.
particle size distribution, Atterberg (1913) suggested the soil b
Mo means “flour” in Swedish.

2
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
Table 2
Variation of some key soil properties as a function of Liquid Limit and Plasticity
Index (Casagrande, 1947).
Characteristic Comparing soils at equal LL Comparing soils at equal PI
with PI increasing with LL increasing
Compressibility About the same Increases
Permeability Decreases Increases
Rate of volume Decreases – the symbols VL, VH1 and VH2, the latter two being delimited by the E-
change
Toughness near Increases Decreases
plastic limit
Dry strength Increases Decreases
able to infer that clays are characterized by exhibiting low permeability,
high toughness near the Plastic Limit and high dry mechanical strength,
the opposite occurring for silts and sandy soils with low plasticity.
Based on these concepts, Casagrande tested a multitude of samples
from different soil deposits and presented them in a PI vs LL chart,
observing that, in general, the “belts” encompassing all the samples from
the same soil deposit followed a straight path whose slope was very
similar to those obtained for other deposits. Taking into account the
characteristics indicated in Table 2, and therefore based on qualitative
principles, Casagrande drew a dividing line (the so-called “A-Line”),
which obeyed the equation PI = 0.73 (LL − 20). Thus, the soils
considered by Casagrande as inorganic clays were located above the A-
Line, with the rest of the materials (silts, organic soils and fine sandy
soils) appearing below it.
Casagrande established a series of symbols that allowed the soils to
be classified into different groups (Fig. 1). Thus, clays were represented
by the letter C, while silts and very fine sands were represented by the
letter M (mo and mjala, which means flour in Swedish). The letter O was
used for organic soils. A second term grouped each fine-grained soil
according to its Liquid Limit (as indicative of compressibility); that is, of
low to medium compressibility, symbol L, or of high compressibility,
symbol H, arbitrarily establishing the value of LL = 50 as the separator
between both categories. Despite not being really indicative of the
deformation capacity of the soil, the value of the LL was also used by
Casagrande as a synonym for plasticity, so the terms L and H would also
refer to low to medium and high plasticity, respectively. For highly
organic soils (peat), the term Pt was used, although this does not appear
on the fine-grained soil classification chart. In one of the sections of his
work, Casagrande even raises the possibility of further refining the
classification, including term I, for those soils with LL ranging between
35 and 50, whose compressibility (and “plasticity”) would be interme­
diate. Although this suggestion was not applied in the American stan­
dards (e.g. ASTM D2487-17, 2017), such differentiation appears in
Fig. 1. USCS classification chart for fine-grained soils according to ASTM
D2487-17 (2017) standard, which is based on Casagrande (1947) proposal.
3
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
standards elsewhere, such as the Indian IS 1498:1970 – Reaffirmed
(2007) and the British BS 5930:1999 +A2 (2010). The latter even in­
cludes the terms V and E to refer to soils of very high plasticity (LL =
70–90) and extremely high plasticity (LL > 90), respectively. Another
variant of the Casagrande (1947) chart is detailed by Shimobe and
Spagnoli (2019a) about the Japanese Geotechnical Society Standards
JGS 0051 (2000), which includes for cohesive volcanic soils the use of
Line, located vertically at LL = 80.
Casagrande observed that when the LL was less than 25, it was
complicated to make an accurate classification of the soil, as there was a
significant overlap of properties of different soil types. With the subse­
quent revisions that gave rise to the definitive USCS system (USAEWES,
1953, 1960), an ad hoc solution was carried out for this zone, in which a
horizontal area was delimited between the PI values of 4 and 7 when
they intersect the A-Line at values of LL equal to 25.5 and 29.6,
respectively, that is, the boundary group area called the CL–ML zone in
the ASTM D2487-17 (2017) standard classification chart shown in
Fig. 1, for which the material would be of the silty clay type.
Although Casagrande’s classification has traditionally been linked to
civil and geotechnical engineering, its use in other fields, such as the
ceramic industry, is also widespread. An example of this is shown in
Fig. 2, in which Sembenelli (1966), showed a series of approximations
derived from the Casagrande chart, in order to have a better control of
certain variables involved in the ceramic and brick manufacturing
process, such as the workability of the dough, the shrinkage by drying or
the energy consumed during such drying. Other authors have used PI vs
LL type schemes, similar to those of Casagrande (1947), to define which
ceramic raw materials are suitable for extrusion. An example of this is
the work of Gippini (1969), that established a square area for acceptable
extrusion within the range of PI between 10 and 30 and LL between 40
and 60, the extrusion being optimal when the raw material is delineated
by PI between 15 and 25 and LL between 45 and 55.
2.1.2. Critical examination of Casagrande (1947)-USCS
The fine-grained soil classification chart elaborated by Casagrande
(1947), the final version of which is reflected in the USCS, is probably
the most popular and widely used of the proposed ones, to date, for
engineering purposes (García-Gaines and Frankenstein, 2015). This is
largely due to the balance between its simplicity and its reasonable
capability to predict the soil type and likely engineering behavior. As
early as the 1970s, some authors, such as Liu (1970) and Horn (1978),
described such advantages of the USCS system compared to those of the
FAA and AASHTO. Despite this, it is also known that the Casagrande-
USCS chart may lead to inaccuracies when classifying fine-grained
soils (something admitted by Casagrande himself).
Based on the assumptions of Li and White (1993), Gutiérrez (2006)
maintained that Casagrande’s A-Line was not correctly defined from a
statistical point of view. According to the author, the use of a PI vs LL
graph as a starting point in the representation of the data, would imply
obtaining artificial correlations, which have apparently higher statistical
significance than those obtained when representing, for example, PL vs
LL. However, the Atterberg limits results obtained by Gutiérrez (2006)
in soils from Libertad and Dolores (Uruguay) showed almost totally
parallel disposition to Casagrande’s A-Line (PI = 0.72LL + 9.757 vs PI =
0.73LL − 14.6), so the weaknesses of Casagrande’s chart do not seem to
be associated with these statistical connotations. In fact, this result
further supported that soils with the same geological origin tend to
follow an arrangement approximately parallel to the A-Line, which does
not necessarily mean that all the soils in that deposit are clays.
In the absence of a quantitative criterion to differentiate clays from
silts other than textural, Casagrande first considered in a qualitative way
what a clay or a silt material was according to certain characteristics that
he could observe subjectively, such as toughness near the Plastic Limit
(high in clays and low in silts), mechanical strength in the dry state (also
high in clays and low in silts) or response to the shaking test (rapid water
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al. Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

Fig. 2. Some parameters that can be deduced from the Casagrande chart for application to the ceramic industry according to Sembenelli (1966).

drainage in silts and no or very limited water drainage in clays), among
others. Once the samples were represented on the classification chart,
Casagrande drew the A-Line for separating the clays from the silts that
he had previously “classified” as such. This A-Line, drawn according to a
qualitative and rather subjective approach, therefore, aimed to establish
a new criterion based on quantitative terms (the measurement of the LL
and the PI). For this reason, it can be said that Casagrande carried out an
ad hoc solution based on a ‘circular reference’, since in order to establish
his definitive PI-LL-based criterion for the classification of fine-grained
soils, the author first had to subjectively “classify” various soil samples
for initial guidance.
Another aspect to be highlighted is the fact that Casagrande drew the
A-Line assuming that the plot of PI vs LL values for those soils from the
same deposit followed a slope that was usually parallel to that line. This
may be true in some cases. However, there are many studies (some of the
samples studied by Casagrande (1947) are examples) that show how
there are soils and materials of different types which do not follow this
rule, and therefore, would suggest that the Casagrande criterion is not
valid in this sense.
Another point is that although the Casagrande and the USCS system
allows the use of double symbols for border cases (soils with interme­
diate properties), only a small CL-ML region appears on the chart, spe­
cifically for soils with LL below 30. Actually, soils with intermediate
properties (such as clayey silts or silty clays) extend along any LL value,
so the use of double symbols groupings based on the operator’s own
criteria would add subjectivity to the classification. Therefore, it appears
that the Casagrande-USCS system could include CL-ML and CH-MH type
groups in the chart in order to facilitate a more accurate and less
operator-dependent classification.
Undoubtedly, these aspects show important weaknesses of the
Casagrande chart included in the USCS system, which are potentially
capable of leading to errors when classifying fine-grained soils.
in ASTM D3282-15 (2015) (Fig. 3). The AASHTO system is mainly
applied to the classification of soils for use in pavements, particularly for
highway construction purposes. This textural-plasticity classification
consists of 7 main groups, from A-1 to A-7, which are in turn subdivided
into other subgroups, up to a total of 12. The fine-grained soils (more
than 35 wt% of the material less than 75-μm particle size) are framed in
groups A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 (Fig. 3). The classification criterion be­
tween silts and clays is based on whether the PI is below 10 (silt) or
above this value (clay). Thus, groups A-4 and A-5 would correspond to
silts, while groups A-6 and A-7 to clays. The A-7 grouping comprises of
two subgroups, A-7-5 and A-7-6, the former having less plasticity and
volumetric change than the latter. The vertical line corresponding to the
LL of 40 marks the lower limit above which the materials can present a
high elasticity (A-5 and A-7) and volumetric change (A-7) characteris­
tics. The ASTM D3282-15 (2015) standard also includes subgroups A-2-
4, A-2-5, A-2-6 and A-2-7, which are typical of coarse soils but with
characteristics of the fine soils corresponding to the last term of the
subgroup name.
After the group symbol, the group-index, calculated according to Eq.
(1), can be included in parentheses.

2.2. AASHTO soil classification

2.2.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria

The first proposal of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classification system was initially
developed between 1927 and 1929 by the Public Road Administration
(Hogentogler and Terzaghi, 1929). The original classification has un­
dergone various improvements over the years, from the AASHTO (1961) Fig. 3. AASHTO classification chart for fine-grained soils according to ASTM
proposal, to the latest revision of the classification, which can be found D3282-15 (2015) standard.

4
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
Group index = (F − 35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL − 40) ] + [0.01(F − 15) (PI − 10) ]
(1)
where F is the percentage passing 75-μm sieve, expressed as a whole
number.
For subgroups A-2-6 and A-2-7 the group-index is calculated using
only the PI portion of Eq. (1) (ASTM D3282-15, 2015). The group-index
serves to define the relative quality of the soil material for use in
earthwork structures, particularly embankments, subgrades, subbases
and bases, so the lower its value, the better (e.g. 0 = good and > 20 =
very poor).
2.2.2. Critical examination of AASHTO classification
Beyond that the type of alphanumeric coding of this system is
unintuitive, the establishment of a fixed value for the Plasticity Index, in
this case PI = 10, as the only differentiating indicator between silt and
clay, shows the arbitrariness of such a classification criterion, an aspect
already reported in the literature (Liu, 1970). A more detailed analysis
of the weaknesses of AASHTO classification is shown in Section 3.
2.3. Federal Aviation Agency system
2.3.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria
The FAA (1964) classification (now withdrawn) consisted of 13 soil
groups, designated by the letter “E” followed by a number from 1 to 13,
which should provide guidance on the design and evaluation of pave­
ments used by aircraft at civil airports. According to FAA criteria, fine-
grained soils contain more than 45 wt% particles of size less than
0.050 mm on the portion of material passing the 2 mm sieve size. Based
on the FAA system, fine-grained soils are classified in groups E-6 to E-12,
the arrangement of which in the FAA chart (Fig. 4) corresponds to totally
arbitrary criteria, in which no separation between silt and clay is indi­
cated. Group E-13 is also fine-grained, but refers to muck and peat,
which are examined in the field, so it does not appear in the chart of
Fig. 4.
2.3.2. Critical examination of FAA classification
The shortcomings of the FAA classification system were described in
the literature by some authors. In the review paper by Liu (1970), a
comparison was made between the USCS, AASHTO and FAA systems, in
which the author stated the following about the FAA system: “The FAA
system is the least logical and concise as well as the most complicated scheme
of the three systems being compared. No clear-cut step-by-step breakdown is
provided by the FAA system, particularly the fine-grained soils. Moreover,
there is no clear distinction between the granular [coarse-grained] and fine-
grained soils because of the allowance for upgrading and the special re­
quirements for the E-5 group (…) It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
Fig. 4. FAA classification chart for fine-grained soils.
5
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
memorize the classification scheme of the FAA system”.
Yoder (1974) and Horn (1978) also pointed out the shortcomings of
the FAA system with respect to the AASHTO and USCS systems, espe­
cially regarding the latter. Thus, these authors indicated that the FAA
system is the worst of them in terms of describing the plastic behavior of
the soil, mechanical resistance, permeability or susceptibility to frost. In
addition, their work includes the results of questionnaires answered by
qualified personnel in the sector, in which they all agreed on the need to
replace the FAA system with a more precise system (at that time, the
USCS), an aspect that was taken into account, appearing in the final
recommendations of these publications. In fact, the U.S. Department of
Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration no longer uses its
original system, but the USCS, as reflected in its recent publications (e.g.
FAA, 2016).
2.4. Saito and Miki (1975)
2.4.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria
The proposal of Saito and Miki (1975) focused on the use of a new
parameter, called Plastic Ratio (Pr), which is obtained as Pr = PI/PL. The
aim of using this new variable in a classification chart of the Pr vs LL type
would allow certain consistency and mechanical properties of the soil to
be estimated quantitatively, something which, according to these au­
thors, was not possible with the Casagrande classification of the PI vs LL
type.
The chart developed by Saito and Miki (1975) is shown in Fig. 5, and
was based simply on translating the Casagrande A-Line into Pr terms,
which constitutes the ordinate axis. When applying the Plastic Ratio, it
can be seen that the A-Line follows a rising hyperbolic path from a
minimum Pr value of 0.3 to a maximum of approximately 2. In the case
of the CL-ML zone of the Casagrande-USCS system, the trajectory would
be inverse, with a marked decrease in Pr until the A-Line is cut at its
minimum. Like the USCS and Casagrande (1947) systems, this classifi­
cation included a vertical line at LL = 50, which Saito and Miki (1975)
called B-Line.
In their article, Saito and Miki (1975) showed a series of results
relating different soil properties to their new parameter. The common
behaviors they observed were the following:
- In soils with the same activity, A, (where A = PI/% < 2 μm fraction,
Skempton, 1953), but different Liquid Limit, Pr will also be different,
and the higher the Pr, the more cohesive the soil.
- For equal values of Pr, the compressibility will be greater as the LL
increases.
Fig. 5. Saito and Miki (1975) classification chart for fine-grained soils based on
Plastic Ratio.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al. Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

- The higher Pr, the greater the volumetric change experienced by

swelling in compacted soils at their optimum moisture content,
which can exceed 10% when Pr ranges between 1 and 2 and for LL
greater than 50.
- The swelling capacity increases with the increase of the LL, as well as
with the Pr, although the latter affects this phenomenon to a greater
extent.
- In contrast, the residual shear strength of soils decreases if the LL and
the Pr increase, especially with the latter.

Another reinterpretation very similar to that of Saito and Miki (1975)

is the one published by Shimobe and Spagnoli (2019b), who used a
parameter called Plasticity Ratio Rp (Rp = PL/LL) to draw the A-Line in a
Rp vs LL type chart. Shimobe and Spagnoli (2019b) found some generic
trends on the basic engineering properties of fine-grained soils. The
authors observed that Rp decreases with modified Specific Surface Area
(SSA × 2-μm fraction/100). In contrast, the correlation between Rp and
clay fraction was less pronounced, while they detected that Rp was
associated with the Liquidity Index within a range of 0.2–0.8.

2.4.2. Critical examination of Saito and Miki (1975) classification

Something that can be deduced from the work of Saito and Miki
(1975) is that their proposal (Fig. 5) does not really imply any change
with respect to the USCS classification, since their chart still represents
Casagrande’s A-Line. Therefore, drawing the A-Line in terms of Pr vs LL
instead of PI vs LL does not imply any progress in the distinction of clays
and silts. Saito and Miki (1975) chart (Fig. 5) really shows certain de­
ficiencies of the criterion of Casagrande (1947), since Pr does not present
a fixed value in the A-Line, but changes with the LL. This is important,
since if Pr is directly related to properties such as cohesion, compress­
ibility, volumetric change, expansion capacity or residual shear
strength, this means that the A-Line “demands” different values for these
properties depending on the LL of the sample, i.e. it systematically
changes the criteria for separation between silts and clays.
The authors of the present study suggest that a more accurate
approach may have been to take a value of Pr = 1 as the lower limit of
clays, since, in general, according to the results of the Saito and Miki
study, typical characteristics of clays, such as high cohesion,
compressibility and volumetric change and low residual shear strength,
appear for values of Pr > 1. It is interesting that Pr = 1 corresponds
exactly to PI/LL = 0.5, which, as will be seen in Section 2.6, defines the
C-Line of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018), above which the
clays are located.
2.5. Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009)
2.5.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria
For the design of his chart (Fig. 6a), Polidori (2003) first took as
reference the plasticity data of two “pure” clays, namely a kaolinite and
a montmorillonite, from the work of Mesri and Cepeda-Diaz (1986). He
then made the following theoretical assumptions, presumably supported
by the literature based on sand-clay mixture tests (Seed et al., 1964b;
Nagaraj et al., 1987; Tan et al., 1994; Kumar and Muir Wood, 1999):
1) LL, PL and consequently PI are proportional to the percentage of clay
fraction (<2 μm fraction) for percentages of clay not too low.
2) The regression line obtained by representing the LL, PL or PI against
the percentage of clay passes through the origin of the graph.
Taking into account this supposed relationship of proportionality
between the parameters of plasticity and the <2 μm fraction (defined by
a simple straight regression line), following the criteria of Seed et al.
(1964b), Polidori (2003) estimated the values of LL, PL and PI of the
abovementioned kaolinite and montmorillonite samples for a wide
range of theoretical percentages of clay fraction.
The final stage in the elaboration of this classification consisted in
Fig. 6. Soil classification charts for fine-grained soils proposed by Polidori: (a)
plasticity charts from Polidori (2003) (dashed gray lines) and Polidori (2007)
(solid black lines); (b) latest version based on clay activity (Polidori, 2009).
representing the data of PI and LL obtained for both clay types in a chart
similar to that of Casagrande (1947), connecting with a straight line the
points corresponding to the same theoretical percentage of clay. Thus,
based on purely textural criteria, Polidori considered that those samples
classified as clays (C groups) should present a percentage equal to or
greater than 50% of <2 μm fraction. On the other hand, silts and sandy
soils (groups M), would present percentages lower than 50% of clay
fraction. This boundary was obtained simply by drawing the line that
connected the point corresponding to the 50% kaolinite content with the
50% montmorillonite content, the so-called 0.5C-Line. Following the
same criterion, the percentages of 100% clay were connected to obtain
the C-Line. Similarly, Polidori (2003) traced the U-Line as the upper
limit of the existence of plastic soils, in which the lowest clay contents
would be located. Therefore, the clays would be classified within the
zone delimited between 0.5C-Line and C-Line and the silts and sandy
soils between 0.5C-Line and U-Line. After following this approach,
Polidori obtained a chart in which the groups corresponding to silts and
sandy soils appeared above the clay groups, totally breaking with the
precepts of the Casagrande (1947) classification, of which only the de­
limitation between low (L) and high (H) plasticity for LL = 50 was
preserved. Below the clays, Polidori (2003) included the organic soils,
with symbols OL and OH. In his 2007 publication, Polidori further
studied the relationship between LL, PL and clay content in artificial soil
mixtures, implementing some little improvements in the design of his
chart (Fig. 6a). Under the C-Line he included the NPC group to refer to
non-platy clay minerals. In line with his previous works, Polidori (2009)

6
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
found an interdependence relationship between LL, PL, PI, the per­
centage of clay and the activity, A, of Skempton (1953), which helped
him to design the chart presented in Fig. 6b. In it, the C-, 0.5C- and U-
Lines remain unchanged, but the groups C or M are no longer divided by
criteria of plasticity (value of LL), but according to their activity, so that
the second term L, M or H would indicate low (<0.5), medium (0.5–1.0)
or high (1.0) values of A.
2.5.2. Critical examination of Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) classifications
Although Polidori (2007, 2009) made some modifications, the
criteria for separation between silts and clays (C-Line, 0.5C-Line and U-
Line) remained practically intact with respect to his first work (Polidori,
2003), so a joint evaluation can be made. The Polidori (2003, 2007,
2009) proposal represents the most controversial approach of all those
found in the literature, due mainly to the representation of the clay
groups (CL and CH) below the silts and sandy soils (ML and MH).
However, a meticulous analysis of the criteria used by Polidori (2003)
reveals important errors of concept and interpretation that led to such an
anomalous chart:
1) Contrary to what is stated by Polidori (2003), the plasticity param­
eters (LL, PL and PI) do not have to follow a linear relationship with
the percentage of fraction <2 μm, and most importantly, such rela­
tionship does not go through the origin of the PI vs LL graph. In their
discussion, Prakash and Sridharan (Polidori, 2004) already noticed
this fact showing some examples like those taken from Sivapullaiah
and Sridharan (1985), among others. Moreover, some tables in
Polidori (2003) showed results from other studies (Seed et al., 1964a;
Lupini et al., 1981; Nakase et al., 1988; Di Maio and Fenelli, 1994;
Lemos and Vaughan, 2000) with Atterberg limits and clay fraction
data that do not meet the precepts of the author.
2) The use of a textural criterion, based on the percentage of fraction
less than 2 μm to separate clays from silts, makes little sense from a
technological or engineering standpoint. Prakash and Sridharan
(Polidori, 2004), also noticed this deficiency in the classification of
Polidori, criticizing his adopted textural criterion, since, for example,
at equal percentage, montmorillonite has much greater plasticity
than kaolinite (the first being a far more active clay than the second),
and therefore will affect the properties of the soil containing them in
totally different ways. Although the Polidori (2009) approach seems
to represent an attempt to correct this through the inclusion of A in
the chart (Fig. 6b), the criterion of separation between silts and clays
was not modified, maintaining the clay percentage as the main
differentiating element.
3) The classification criterion is statistically inconsistent. The author
used only two clay types as a model (Polidori, 2003), whose partic­
ularities do not necessarily resemble other fine-grained soils, even
with similar mineralogy. The choice of other materials may be
associated with some regression lines of different slope, affecting the
final design of the chart.
In view of the previous points, from an engineering point of view,
probably the most positive contribution of Polidori’s classification is the
incorporation of the NPC group to refer to those clays without platy
habit, and which usually present relatively low PI values with respect to
LL.
2.6. Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018)
2.6.1. Fundamentals and classification criteria
The first version of the classification proposed by Moreno-Maroto
and Alonso-Azcárate (2017) (Fig. 7) was developed based on a new
thread bending method for determining Plastic Limit (PL) and the
changes in soil consistency (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2015,
2016, 2017). Apart from the PL, a series of new parameters were derived
from this work, among them the so-called bend-breaking limit (BL),
7
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
Fig. 7. Classification charts for fine-grained soils developed by Moreno-Maroto
and Alonso-Azcárate (2017) (dashed gray lines) and Moreno-Maroto and
Alonso-Azcárate (2018) (solid black lines). The terms C and M are replaced by
O for organic soils.
which is the moisture content above which a 3-mm-diameter soil cyl­
inder is capable of bending completely without breaking.
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2015, 2017) observed that
there was a direct relationship between the position of LL with respect to
BL and the type of soil, such that low plasticity soils, such as silts, were
characterized by presenting values of BL higher than the LL (i.e. LL/BL
< 1), and for these no development of any sticky consistency was
observed when water content exceeded the BL, as occurs in clays. In this
sense, it was observed that sticky consistency was only significantly
detected in those soils where LL/BL > 1.3, which could be considered as
clays. When LL/BL was between 1 and 1.3, the soil was considered to
have intermediate characteristics between silts and clays. Statistically, it
was observed a relationship of proportionality between PL and BL (BL/
PL = 1.495), which made it possible to translate the ratios LL/BL = 1.3
and LL/BL = 1 into the common PI vs LL axes chart shown in Fig. 7
through the C-Line (PI = 0.4855 × LL) and the M-Line (PI = 0.3311 ×
LL), respectively (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2017).
The symbols used by Casagrande (1947) are respected in the new
fine-grained soil classification proposal: C for clays, M for silts, L for low
compressibility and H for high compressibility, so that clays appear
above the C-Line, silts and other low plasticity soils lie below the M-Line,
and soils with intermediate characteristics (clayey silts, silty clays,
clayey sands, etc.) between both lines. Based on the concept and defi­
nition of plasticity, unlike what is indicated by various authors and
standards, Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) did not
attribute the degree of soil plasticity only to the value of LL, since as
indicated in Table 2, this parameter alone can only be indicative of its
compressibility, in this case defined by the terms L (low) or H (high).
Also, in accordance with Casagrande-USCS, the terms M and C should be
replaced by O in organic soils. It is worth noting not only the presence of
a CL-ML group, but also a CH-MH one, something that allowed for the
first time a clear classification of those soils with intermediate properties
when the LL is high.
In the paper published a year later, Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2018) validated and improved their classification proposal, in
this case analyzing the relationship between toughness (the property
that best defines soil deformation capacity, and therefore plasticity) and
Atterberg limits. To this end, Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
worked with the results obtained using a thread rolling device and re­
ported in Barnes (2009, 2013a, 2013b), observing a strong correlation
between the PI/LL ratio and Maximum Toughness, which allowed them
to define Eq. (2), with which the various classification systems included
in this review are examined in Section 3.1.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
PI/LL = 0.0077 Tmax + 0.3397 (2)
where Tmax is the Maximum Toughness; that is, the toughness corre­
sponding to the moisture content at the PL obtained by the Barnes
thread-rolling apparatus (Barnes, 2009, 2013a, 2013b), which emulates
the standard PL test, but being able to determine toughness from the
work required to deform the material by measuring the stresses and
strains during rolling of the soil cylinders.
Considering that toughness (plasticity) is an exclusive property of
clays and clayey materials, a value of Tmax = 0 kJ/m3 corresponds to PI/
LL = 0.3397, which would be the upper limit for silts and other non-
cohesive materials, with PL and the corresponding Tmax value deduced
using the Barnes (2009, 2013a, 2013b) thread-rolling device and
methodologies. Similarly, taking into account that clays present high
toughness (Casagrande, 1947) a Tmax value of 20 kJ/m3 was adopted
based on Barnes (2009, 2013a, 2013b) toughness classification as a
boundary between moderately or slightly clayey materials (e.g. clayey
silts) and actual clays, which results in PI/LL = 0.4937 according to Eq.
(2). Therefore, those materials with intermediate characteristics, pre­
senting toughness greater than 0 kJ/m3 but not exceeding 20 kJ/m3,
would be in between the two lines. The lines obtained through such
expressions almost coincided with those obtained in the first (2017)
proposal for the M-Line and C-Line, showing that the original classifi­
cation of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017) was also sus­
tained in terms of toughness. In view of this similarity, Moreno-Maroto
and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) decided to slightly refine the slope of these
lines, so that the rule to follow would be much easier to remember and
apply. Thus, the new C-Line corresponds to PI = 0.5 × LL (i.e. PI = LL/
2), while the M-Line is defined by PI = 0.33 × LL (i.e. PI = LL/3) (Fig. 7).
2.6.2. Critical examination of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
(2017, 2018) classification
The classification developed by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
(2017, 2018) for fine-grained soils has its M-Line and the C-Line derived
from the observation and quantitative measurement of properties such as
thread bending capacity, the detection of sticky consistency and above
all soil toughness, being a characteristic that is exclusive to clays.
It is important to note that the use of two lines (C-Line and M-Line),
instead of just one (e.g. Casagrande’s A-Line) allows for greater sensi­
tivity when classifying soils of low-medium plasticity (CL-ML and CH-
MH groups in Fig. 7). An important asset of the new classification of
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) is the fact that the
demarcation for separating silts from materials with some clay influence
is clear. The M-Line plainly identifies those materials for which the
parameter BL (explained in previous section) coincides with the LL.
Conversely, the M-Line represents the boundary above which toughness
and a slight adhesive consistency can be appreciated for certain degrees
of moisture (adhesiveness is typical of clays).
Regarding the C-Line, above which the really clayey materials would
plot, the established criteria present certain arbitrariness, since, for
example, the perception of the sticky consistency was assessed in a
qualitative way in the first of the papers (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate, 2017). Similarly, the establishment in the second work
(Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2018) of a Tmax value of 20 kJ/
m3 as a high value of toughness (typical of clays) is based on an arbitrary
classification on the degree of soil toughness proposed by Barnes (2009,
2013a, 2013b). Despite this, the fact that the two C-lines obtained by
these separate development approaches are almost coincident (Fig. 7)
would indicate that the criteria used for drawing the lower limit of
actual clay behavior seem right.
As PL, LL and PI are interconnected parameters (PI = LL − PL),
knowing any two of them, the third can be determined accordingly.
Therefore, if the PI/LL ratio used in Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcá­
rate (2018) is translated into the form of Plastic Ratio, Pr = PI/PL (see
Section 2.4), it is deduced that the C-Line corresponds to an equi-plastic
ratio line of 1 and the M-Line of 1/2. This would also be applicable to the
8
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
Plasticity Ratio, Rp = PL/LL after Shimobe and Spagnoli (2019b), so that
the C-Line corresponds to a value of Rp = 1/2 and the M-Line of Rp = 2/
3. The general trends detected for these parameters (described in Section
2.4) would be applicable to the classification of Moreno-Maroto and
Alonso-Azcárate (2018), so the suitability is even more confirmed if, as
indicated in Section 2.4.2, some characteristics typical of clays, such as
high cohesion, compressibility and volumetric change and low residual
strength, appear for values of Pr > 1, i.e. above the C-Line of Moreno-
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018).
On the other hand, applying Mayne (1980) equation (Eq. (3)) that
relates PI/LL to the effective-stress friction angle (ϕ’) for normally-
consolidated and overconsolidated soils, ϕ’ values of 26.8◦ and 31.3◦
are obtained for C-Line and M-Line, respectively.
(3)
sin ϕ’ = 0.656 – 0.409 (PI/LL)
Although the correlation coefficient obtained by Mayne (1980) was
relatively low (r = 0.583), these ϕ’ values would be within the expected
ranges for the type of materials that the C-Line and M-Line delimit. This
is a further indicator of the adequate design of the chart by Moreno-
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018).
3. Comparison of classification systems for fine-grained soils
3.1. Predictive capacity of soil toughness
A summary of the main characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of
the various fine-grained soil classification systems under review in the
present paper is shown in Table 3. One of the key methods for measuring
the quality of the criterion employed in each of the investigated classi­
fication system will be the application of the Eq. (2) introduced in
Section 2.6.1.
The toughness analysis has not been applied to the FAA (1964) chart,
firstly, because such classification does not separate silts from clays and,
secondly, because even if it did, according to the arrangement of the
dividing lines of the groups presented in Fig. 4, the change in Maximum
Toughness of the sample would not follow any logical and homogeneous
pattern.
When Eq. (2) is applied to the group demarcating lines of each of the
classifications (Fig. 8), it can be seen that the Casagrande (1947) A-Line
(also applicable to USCS and Saito and Miki (1975)) as well as the
Polidori (2007) U-, C- and 0.5C-lines, all adopt trajectories in which the
Tmax value, and hence the plasticity, increases with the LL, describing
various parabola. This indicates, for example, that the criterion followed
for a soil to be classified as clay becomes increasingly demanding for
higher LL. In the case of the PI = 10 line of AASHTO as well as for the CL-
ML area of USCS, the opposite occurs, with Tmax decreasing as LL in­
creases. Such curves present sections with Tmax values below the ab­
scissa axis (as negative Tmax values do not make physical sense, they
should be considered as zero, according to Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2018)), which are representative of the deficiency of the
classification criteria adopted by the systems mentioned above. These
aspects show important weaknesses of the abovementioned proposals,
which are potentially capable of leading to errors when classifying fine-
grained soils (investigated in the next section). By contrast, in the case of
the Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) classification system
(also representative of their 2017 study), the fact that the Tmax values for
the M-Line and the C-Line remain fixed, very close to 0 and 20 kJ/m3,
respectively (Fig. 8), indicates that their classification criterion does not
fluctuate, as occurs for the classification systems proposed by other
authors. This aspect is fundamental to objectively classifying fine-
grained soils.
3.2. Application to soils with different characteristics
Fig. 9 shows the locations in the main classification chart systems
under review of 31 soils of different origin, plasticity, particle size
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al. Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Summary of classification criteria, strengths and weaknesses of the plasticity- Classification Classification Strengths Weaknesses
based classification systems for fine-grained soil reviewed in this paper. system criteria
Classification Classification Strengths Weaknesses chart domain. criticized in the
system criteria - Arbitrariness: literature.
Casagrande - Classification - Popularity: the - Ad hoc high. - In disuse
(1947) – based on the most widely used classification based (withdrawn).
USCS observation of and standardized on a circular - Completely
qualitatively classification of reference type unintuitive and
determined those systems solution: confusing.
properties proposed to date. Casagrande (1947) Saito and Miki - Same criteria as - The relationships - No new
(permeability, - In general, good “classified” the (1975) Casagrande-USCS observed by the classification is
toughness and dry reviews in the original soils before but replacing the authors between proposed, but a
mechanical literature. depicting them on PI-LL axes chart by Pr and various soil reinterpretation of
strength) and their - Defines his chart, drawing Pr-LL, where Pr = properties may be the axes in the
connection with reasonably well the A-Line PI/PL. useful for other Casagrande chart.
Atterberg limits. the nature and according to the - Arbitrariness: purposes or to - The same
- Clay-silt behavior of position occupied moderate. corroborate other technical
boundary: A-Line certain soils, if one by these original proposed deficiencies
(PI = 0.73 (LL − does not seek too samples, although classifications. regarding the
20)). much precision. not all soil deposits design of the
- CL-ML area at 4 - Group symbols were parallel to the Casagrande-USCS
< PI<7 and LL < are quite intuitive. A-Line. The CL-ML chart are
29.6. - It supports region is also an ad attributable to the
- 7 groups (5 flexibility in hoc solution in the approach of Saito
inorg. + 2 org) + 1 making changes to absence of a specific and Miki (1975).
for peat out of the the system. criterion for Polidori (2003, - Main criteria: - Same - The texture-
chart. - Simplicity. classifying 2007, 2009) Texture-plasticity. nomenclature and plasticity criteria
- Arbitrariness: boundary groups. Separation type of chart as used are incorrect
moderate. - The toughness between silts and Casagrande and misleading.
(plasticity) criterion clays based on a (1947) – USCS in - Statistically
varies according to hypothetical Polidori (2003, inconsistent:
the LL. relationship 2007). classification
- System between the - It incorporates designed from only
particularly fraction <2 μm the NPC group two model samples.
imprecise and little and the Atterberg (non-platy clay - Unrealistic
sensitive for soils limits, which minerals). classification chart,
with intermediate should be defined in which silts
characteristics by a straight line appear above clays.
between clays and that should cut the - The classification
silts (e.g., silty coordinate origin areas of clays and
clays, clayey silts, of the graph. silts are very
or clayey sands), -Clays: >50% narrow.
which tend to be particles <2 μm - It does not
classified as clays if - Second distinguish soils
LL < 50 and as silts classification with intermediate
if LL > 50. criterion: Polidori properties.
- Clays can be (2003, 2007): LL - It tends to classify
classified as silts for as an indicator of clays in the silt
LL > 65. the degree of groups (especially
AASHTO - Clay-silt - Some popularity - Clay-silt boundary plasticity. Polidori when LL < 50),
boundary: PI = (e.g., standardized does not correspond (2009): Skempton while for LL < 60,
10. classification in to the actual soil (1953) Activity. silts may be
- 5 groups (all ASTM D3282-15 behavior. - Polidori (2003): classified as clays.
inorganic). (2015)). - It especially tends 6 groups: 4 inorg.
- Arbitrariness: - Reasonably good to classify all soils + 2 org; Polidori
high. classification for (including silts) as (2007): 7 groups
soils with LL < 30 clays when LL > 30. (inorg. NPC is
and clays. - It does not added); Polidori
distinguish soils (2009): 8 groups
with intermediate (7 inorg. + 1 org.)
properties. - Arbitrariness:
- Negatively high.
criticized in the Moreno-Maroto - Classification - Precision: the - Relatively new
literature. and Alonso- based on the classification proposal and
- Little used. Azcárate relationship groups emerge therefore less
- Alphanumeric (2017, 2018) between Atterberg naturally from widely known than
coding of groups, limits and quantitative others, such as that
which makes it quantitative measurements of of Casagrande
unintuitive. measurements of plasticity. (1947)-USCS.
FAA - No distinction -None from a - The delimitation plasticity through - Easy to - Although it has
between clays, practical point of of the groups does the study of understand: Same been developed on
silts or other type view. not correspond to maximum nomenclature and the basis of a
of soils. any specific nature toughness and type of chart as statistically
- 7 groups (inorg) or behavior of the bending capacity, Casagrande consistent number
+ 1 for peat, soil. as well as the (1947)-USCS of soil samples, its
locating out of the - Negatively perception of - Simplicity: the validity should be
sticky consistency. rules for checked on a larger
(continued on next page)

9
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al. Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955

Table 3 (continued ) classified. Those soils with intermediate properties and LL < 50 tend
Classification Classification Strengths Weaknesses to be classified as clays, while for LL > 50, they are classified as silts.
system criteria The silts are distributed among the areas of clay, silt and silty-clay
- Two lines: differentiating one number of samples
soils.
considering the type of soil from by other researchers - In general terms, the AASHTO classification favors a good classifi­
improved version another are easy and for different cation of clays and silts with LL < 40. However, soils with interme­
of 2018, these are to apply and scenarios. diate properties and LL > 50 are classified as high elasticity clays
C-Line (PI = LL/2) remember.
(group A-7-5).
and M-Line (PI = - High sensitivity,
LL/3). including not only - Regarding the classification of Polidori (2007) (also applicable to his
- Clays above the conventional clay 2003 and 2009 versions) for values of LL < 50, all soils tend to be
C-Line; silts and (CL, CH) and silt classified as silts, including clays and soils with intermediate prop­
other soils of low (ML, MH) groups, erties. Above LL > 50, clays are correctly classified, but not soils with
plasticity below but also others for
the M-Line; soils soils with
intermediate properties, which appear either as clays or within NPC
with intermediate intermediate group (the two NPC soils are inorganic).
properties (CL-ML properties in the - The classification of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018)
and CH-MH) whole range of LL (also applicable to their 2017 version) does classify soils correctly in
between the two values (CL-ML and
most cases: clays in C groups, silts in M groups, and soils with in­
lines. CH-MH).
- 8 groups: 6 inorg. - The classification termediate properties in C-M groups, and on its basis making it the
+ 2 org. groups reliably most accurate of those soil classification systems studied.
- Arbitrariness: represent the
low. nature and Therefore, considering that the approach of Moreno-Maroto and
expected behavior
of the soil.
Alonso-Azcárate (2018) is the most precise, their C-Line and M-Line
have been superimposed on the demarcating lines of silts and clays
employed by the other classifications investigated (Fig. 10) to study in
more detail their strengths and weaknesses. It is corroborated that none
of these other classifications are suitable for classifying soils with in­
termediate properties, except for a very small zone in the CL-ML area of
Casagrande (1947)-USCS. The Casagrande (1947)-USCS could incur in
errors when classifying clays, especially for LL > 65, which may be
classified as silts instead. With respect to the classification of silts, the
Casagrande (1947)-USCS chart would cover a larger area of success than
those of AASHTO (only effective if the silt has a PI<10) and Polidori
(2003, 2007, 2009). The latter is the most deficient of all, and only
seems adequate for classifying silts in very low ranges of LL and PI, and
clays with relatively high LL values (approx. LL > 50), but along a very
narrow zone. In general, this classification tends to classify clays in the
silt groups (especially when LL < 50), while for LL < 60, silts may be
classified as clays.
Therefore, in terms of precision, the proposals could be ordered from
highest to lowest performance as:
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) >> Casagrande
Fig. 8. Estimated trajectories of Maximum Toughness with respect to Liquid
(1947)-USCS-Saito and Miki (1975) > AASHTO > > Polidori (2003,
Limit for the classification lines of each of the fine-grained soil classification 2007, 2009) > FAA.
systems reviewed in this study.
4. Summary and Conclusions
distribution and mineralogy, 7 of them published by Casagrande (1947)
and 24 by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2015), in the case of After reviewing the existing literature, six main proposals of fine-
the latter, before the authors developed their classification systems. grained soil classification can be highlighted, some of them including
These soils have been selected because, in general, their description is other possible variants. In chronological order, they are Casagrande
sufficiently detailed to be able to discern whether the soil is clearly clay, (1947)-USCS (standardized), AASHTO (standardized), FAA (with­
silt (or silty sand) or a soil with intermediate properties (silty clay, drawn), Saito and Miki (1975), Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) and Mor­
clayey silt or clayey sand). The complete soil information is detailed in eno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018). After examining them,
Table S1 (see supplementary material). Thus, the characteristics the following conclusions can be drawn:
described for the soil in comparison with the coding assigned by each
classification system will allow an evaluation of their precision and - Most of the proposed systems advocate the use of charts in which the
suitability and, in this way, checking if the aspects described in Section abscissa axis represents the Liquid Limit and the ordinate axis rep­
3.1 on the study of toughness for the different proposals, affect the resents the Plasticity Index, with the exception of Saito and Miki
classification of soils. The FAA approach has not been considered (1975), whose chart shows the so-called Plastic Ratio (PI/PL) on the
because it is in disuse and does not differentiate between soil types ac­ vertical axis.
cording to their nature. - The classifications proposed by Casagrande (1947)-USCS, Saito and
The distribution of the experimental points in Fig. 9 shows the Miki (1975), Polidori (2003) and Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcá­
following information for each classification proposal: rate (2017, 2018) use a similar system of group coding (C for clays, M
for silts, O for organic, L for low plasticity/compressibility and H for
- In the case of the Casagrande (1947)-USCS chart (also applicable to high plasticity/compressibility), which is intuitive and easy to
Saito and Miki (1975)) it can be seen that the clays are correctly remember, an aspect that contrasts with the complexity of the al­
phanumeric coding of AASHTO and FAA systems.

10
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
Fig. 9. Location in the main classification system charts under review of 31 soils of different characteristics. Data extracted from Casagrande (1947) and Moreno-
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2015) (see Table S1 in supplementary material). The A-2 (sandy) prefix groups of the AASHTO have been removed for simplicity. The
bentonite shown in Table S1 (soil 20) has not been represented to improve the visualization of the rest of the data as it presents very high LL and PI values. In any
case, all investigated systems correctly classify it as clay.
- The separation of the groups in the FAA classification is complex, not
following any logical rules, and the chart does not distinguish be­
tween clays and silts. Its shortcomings are so pronounced that it is in
total disuse.
- The Casagrande (1947) classification, later improved and integrated
into the USCS, represents the best known and most widely used
proposal. Despite this, the A-Line layout responds to an ad hoc so­
lution based on a ‘circular reference’, applied to the original samples
with which Casagrande designed his first graph. Both the A-Line and
the CL-ML area do not conform to fixed Maximum Toughness, Tmax
(plasticity) behaviors, which leads to potential errors of interpreta­
tion. Soils with intermediate characteristics (e.g., silty clays, clayey
silts, or clayey sands) tend to be classified as clays if LL < 50 and as
silts if LL > 50. Clays can be classified as silts for LL > 65.
- Regarding the AASHTO system (standardized in ASTM D3282-15
(2015)), the clay-silt separation is simplified to a value of PI = 10,
regardless of the LL value, which does not match the actual charac­
teristics of the soil in many cases. It especially tends to classify all
soils (including silts) as clays when LL > 30.
- In the case of Saito and Miki (1975), these authors reinterpret the
Casagrande (1947) chart, representing the soils in a Plastic Ratio Pr
(Pr = PI/PL) vs LL graph, rather than PI vs LL. Although the A-Line
adopts a curvilinear shape when changing its axis, the classification
does not bring any novelty with respect to that of Casagrande (1947),
being on the contrary, arguably more complex.
11
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
- The Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) classification is possibly the most
controversial of all those found in the literature. The soil grouping
follows a sequence according to the arrangement silts/clays/organic
or non-platy habit clays, with the location of silts above clays
completely breaking the rule of increasing toughness with the PI/LL
ratio. Besides, the classification areas of clays and silts in his chart are
very narrow. This work has shown that the textural criteria under­
pinning the Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) approach have major con­
ceptual, statistical and data management shortcomings, which
would explain the unusual arrangement of the soil groups. It can be
highlighted that the Polidori (2003, 2007, 2009) proposal tends to
classify clays in the silt groups, while for LL < 60, silts may be
classified as clays.
- The classification system of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
(2017, 2018) was developed according to objective criteria, based on
the quantitative measurement of properties such as toughness,
thread bending capacity and the observation of adhesive consis­
tency. The study of the relationships of these properties to the
Atterberg limits allows different groups of soils to emerge in a natural
way, without applying ad hoc solutions, as in other proposals, mak­
ing this classification much more realistic. The incorporation of
groups for soils with intermediate properties, CL-ML (for LL < 50)
and CH-MH (for LL > 50), gives the approach high precision. The
experimental data support that the Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2017, 2018) proposal correctly classifies clays, silts and
those soils with intermediate characteristics between clays and silts.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
Fig. 10. Representation of the C-Line and M-Line of Moreno-Maroto and
Alonso-Azcárate (2018) on the charts of Casagrande (1947)-USCS, AASHTO
and Polidori (2007, 2009). The areas that do not agree with the classification of
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) appear in gray color.
Therefore, if the fine-grained soil classification systems reviewed are
ranked in order from highest to lowest suitability when classifying the
soils, this order is:
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018) >> Casagrande
(1947)-USCS-Saito and Miki (1975) > AASHTO > > Polidori (2003,
2007, 2009) > FAA.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
12
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
Acknowledgements
This research has been funded by the research project PEII-2014-
025-P of the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105955.
References
AASHTO, 1950. Standard methods of mechanical analysis of soils. In: Designate T-88-49.
American Association of State Highway Officials.
AASHTO, 1961. The classification of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway
construction purposes. In: Highway Materials, Part 1, Specifications. American
Association of State Highway Officials.
ASCE, 1957. Progress report of the committee on significance of tests for highway
materials of the highway division. J. Highway Div. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 83 (HW14),
1–37. Paper 1385.
ASTM D2487-17, 2017. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D3282- – 15, 2015. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate
Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Atterberg, A., 1905. Die rationelle klassifikation der sande und kiese. Chemiker—Zeitung
15, 1905.
Atterberg, A., 1911. Über die physikalische Bodenuntersuchung und über die Plastizität
der Tone. Int. Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde 1, 10–43.
Atterberg, A., 1913. Internationale Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde (rept., Meeting of the
International Comm. for Mech. and Physical Soil Investigations, October 31, 1913),
IV, p. 1914 no. 1.
Barnes, G.E., 2009. An apparatus for the plastic limit and workability of soils. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 162 (3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geng.2009.162.3.175.
Barnes, G.E., 2013a. An apparatus for the determination of the workability and plastic
limit of clays. Appl. Clay Sci. 80-81, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2013.04.014.
Barnes, G.E., 2013b. The Plastic Limit and Workability of Soils [Ph.D. Thesis]. The
University of Manchester, p. 427.
BS 5930:1999 +A2, 2010. British Standard: Code of Practice for Site Investigations. BSI,
London.
BSI, 1957. British Standard Code of Practice - CP 2001: Site Investigation. British
Standards Institution, London.
Casagrande, A., 1947. Classification and identification of soils. ASCE Trans. 113,
901–991.
Di Maio, C., Fenelli, G.B., 1994. Residual strength of kaolin and bentonite: the influence
of their constituent pore fluid. Géotechnique. 44 (4), 217–226. https://doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1994.44.2.217.
FAA, 1964. U.S. Federal Aviation Agency. Airport Paving. Advisory Circular 150/5320-6.
FAA, 2016. U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Aviation Administration.
Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5320-6F.
García-Gaines, R.A., Frankenstein, S., 2015. USCS and the USDA Soil Classification
System: Development of a Mapping Scheme. UPRM and ERDC Educational and
Research Internship Program. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC). ERDC/CRREL TR-15-4. Final Report.
Gilboy, G., 1930. Notes on Soil Mechanics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA.
Gippini, E., 1969. Contribution à l’étude des proprietés de molage des argiles et des
mélanges optimaux de matières premières. L’Industrie Céramique. 619, 423–435.
Glossop, R., Skempton, A.W., 1945. Particle-size in silts and sands. J. Inst. Civil Eng. 25
(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijoti.1945.13927.
Goldbeck, A.T., Jackson, F.R., 1921. Tests for Subgrade Soils. Public Roads. 4 (3), 15–21.
Guggenheim, S., Martin, R.T., 1995. Definition of clay and clay mineral: joint report of
the AIPEA nomenclature and CMS nomenclature committees. Clay Clay Miner. 43
(2), 255–256. https://doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1995.0430213.
Gutiérrez, A., 2006. Determination of Atterberg Limits: uncertainty and Implications.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 132 (3), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:3(420).
Hogentogler, C.A., Terzaghi, C., 1929. Interrelationship of Load, Road and Subgrade.
Public Roads, p. 1.
Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 07632. ISBN-0134843940.
Horn, F., 1978. Abridgement: Soil Classification Systems. Research in Airport Pavements
- Transportation Research Board special Report, 175. Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Georgia, United States, pp. 60–61. ISSN: 0360-859X.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr175/175-008.pdf.
IS 1498:1970 – Reaffirmed, 2007. Indian Standard: Classification and Identification of
Soils for General Engineering Purposes. BIS, New Delhi.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto et al.
JGS 0051, 2000. Japanese Geotechnical Society Standards: Engineering Soil
Classification System of Geomaterials. The Japanese Geotechnical Society, Tokyo (in
Japanese).
Kumar, G.V., Muir Wood, D., 1999. Fall cone and compression tests on clay–gravel
mixtures. Géotechnique 49 (6), 727–739. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1999.49.6.727.
Lemos, L.J.L., Vaughan, P.R., 2000. Clay-interface shear resistance. Géotechnique. 20
(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2000.50.1.55.
Li, K.S., White, W., 1993. Use and misuse of regression analysis and curve fitting in
geotechnical engineering. In: Li, K.S., Lo, S.-C.R. (Eds.), Probabilistic Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 145–152.
Liu, T.K., 1970. A Review of Engineering Soil Classification Systems (STP479-EB/Jun.
1970). Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engineering Purposes, , 5th
ed.1970. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 361–382 https://doi.or
g/10.1520/STP38527S.
Lupini, J.F., Skinner, A.E., Vaughan, P.R., 1981. The drained residual strength of
cohesive soils. Géotechnique. 31 (2), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1981.31.2.181.
Mayne, 1980. Cam-Clay predictions of undrained strength. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 106
(GT11), 1219–1242.
Mesri, G., Cepeda-Diaz, A.F., 1986. Residual shear strength of clays and shales.
Géotechnique 36 (2), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.2.269.
Moreno-Maroto, J.M., Alonso-Azcárate, J., 2015. An accurate, quick and simple method
to determine the plastic limit and consistency changes in all types of clay and soil:
the thread-bending test. Appl. Clay Sci. 114, 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2015.06.037.
Moreno-Maroto, J.M., Alonso-Azcárate, J., 2016. A bending test for determining the
Atterberg Plastic limit in soils. J. Vis. Exp. 112, e54118 https://doi.org/10.3791/
54118.
Moreno-Maroto, J.M., Alonso-Azcárate, J., 2017. Plastic limit and other consistency
parameters by a bending method and interpretation of plasticity classification in
soils. Geotech. Test. J. 40 (3), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20160059.
Moreno-Maroto, J.M., Alonso-Azcárate, J., 2018. What is clay? A new definition of “clay”
based on plasticity and its impact on the most widespread soil classification systems.
Appl. Clay Sci. 161, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2018.04.011.
Nagaraj, T.S., Murthy, B.R.S., Bindumadhava, V., 1987. Liquid limit determination –
further simplified. Geotech. Test. J. 10 (3), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1520/
GTJ10946J.
Nakase, A., Kamei, T., Kusakabe, O., 1988. Constitutive parameters estimated by
plasticity index. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 114 (7), 844–858. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:7(844).
Polidori, E., 2003. Proposal for a new plasticity chart. Géotechnique 53 (4), 397–406.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.4.397.
Polidori, E., 2004. Discussion: “Proposal for a new Plasticity Chart. Géotechnique, 53 (4),
397–406”. Géotechnique. 54 (8), 555–560. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2004.54.8.555.
Polidori, E., 2007. Relationship between the Atterberg Limits and clay Content. Soils
Found. 47 (5), 887–896. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.47.887.
13
Applied Clay Science 200 (2021) 105955
Polidori, E., 2009. Reappraisal of the activity of clays. Activity Chart. Soils Found. 49 (3),
431–441. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.49.431.
Polidori, E., 2015. Proposal for a new classification of common inorganic soils for
engineering purposes. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 33 (6), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10706-015-9922-4.
Prakash, K., Sridharan, A., 2012. Classification of non-plastic soils. Ind. Geotech. J. 42,
118–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-012-0007-5.
Saito, T., Miki, G., 1975. Swelling and residual strength characteristics of soils based on a
newly proposed “Plastic Ratio Chart”. Soils Found. 15 (1), 61–68. https://doi.org/
10.3208/sandf1972.15.61.
Schmitz, R.M., Schroeder, C., Charlier, R., 2004. Chemo–mechanical interactions in clay:
a correlation between clay mineralogy and Atterberg limits. Appl. Clay Sci. 26,
351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2003.12.015.
Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J., Lundgren, R., 1964a. Clay mineralogical aspects of the
Atterberg limits. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 90 (SM4), 107–131.
Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J., Lundgren, R., 1964b. Fundamental aspects of the Atterberg
limits. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 90 (SM6), 75–105.
Sembenelli, P., 1966. Los límites de Atterberg y su significado en la industria cerámica y
ladrillera. Mater. Constr. 16 (124), 5–16.
Shimobe, S., Spagnoli, G., 2019a. A global database considering Atterberg limits with the
Casagrande and fall-cone tests. Eng. Geol. 260, 105201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2019.105201.
Shimobe, S., Spagnoli, G., 2019b. Some generic trends on the basic engineering
properties of fine-grained soils. Environ. Earth Sci. 78, 281. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-019-8266-4.
Sivapullaiah, P.V., Sridharan, A., 1985. Liquid limit of soil mixtures. Geotech. Test. J. 8
(3), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10521J.
Skempton, A.W., 1953. The colloidal activity of clays. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich. 1,
pp. 57–61.
Spagnoli, G., Sridharan, A., Oreste, P., Di Matteo, L., 2017. A probabilistic approach for
the assessment of the influence of the dielectric constant of pore fluids on the liquid
limit of smectite and kaolinite. Appl. Clay Sci. 145, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.clay.2017.05.009.
Tan, T., Goh, T., Karunaratne, G., Lee, S., 1994. Shear strength of very soft clay–sand
mixtures. Geotech. Test. J. 17 (1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10069J.
Terzaghi, K., 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage. Franz
Deuticke, Leipzig und Wien 1925.
USAEWES, 1953. The Unified Soil Classification System. Technical Memorandum No.
3—357. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
USAEWES, 1960. The Unified Soil Classification System. Technical Memorandum No.
3—357. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
USDA, 2017. Soil Survey Manual. In: Soil Survey Division Staff; Soil Conservation Service
Volume Handbook, 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture (chapter 3).
Yoder, J., 1974. Review of Soil Classification Systems Applicable to Airport Pavement
Design. Federal Aviation Administration, Rept. FAA-RD – 73-169, May 1974. NTIS,
Springfield, VA. AD-783-190.