City of Antipolo Institute of Technology

Bachelor of Construction Engineering Technology and Management

CE5: GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
Laboratory Report 05.
Exercise 05: Calibration of the Sand Cone Apparatus

Name: Gatlabayan, Crozzle Mae S. Date of Conduction: 05/05/2023

Student Number: 2021-767 Date of Submission: 05/12/2023
Year and Section: 2-O Instructor: Engr. Albert Sabado

I. INTRODUCTION
The sand cone method utilizes a homogeneously graded sand to
occupy a testing hole. The excavation of the hole is performed manually,
whereby the soil is carefully removed and subsequently collected in a
receptacle for preservation.
The cavity is occupied by unconfined sand of a predetermined density,
and the magnitude of the space is ascertained.
The wet density of the soil can be computed through the assessment of
the water content of the material extracted from the hole. Subsequently,
the in-situ dry density can be derived.

II. OBJECTIVES
 To determine the in-place density/unit weight of soils of natural soil.
 To determine the density and water content of compacted soils. It often
is used as a basis of acceptance for compacted soils.

III. INSTRUMENTS AND ACCESSORIES

 Sand-cone density apparatus  Sand cone (funnel)

 Sand container  Base plate.

IV. PROCEDURES
Calibration of the Sand Cone Apparatus:
1. Fill the sand cone container with dry sand by placing the funnel on the
container. Record the mass of the filled sand cone device, M1.

1
 2. Place the base plate on a clean, flat surface and place the inverted sand
cone device over the base plate.
3. Open the control valve fully and allow the sand to fill the base plate and
funnel until the sand flow stops. Close the valve.
4. Remove the sand cone device from the base plate and record the mass
of the device with the remaining sand, M2.

V. DATA AND RESULTS

TABLE 1: Observed and Acquired Values of Liquid Limit

Number of 1 2 3 Average
Trials
No. of blows 27 22 19 22.67

Wt. of container 15.09 14.89 15.07 15.02

in gm
Wt. of container 25.93 23.16 26.56 25.22
+ wet soil, gm
Wt. of container 22.40 20.33 22.37 21.7
+ dry soil, gm
Wt. of water, 3.53 2.83 4.14 3.5
Ww in gm
Wt. of dry soil, 7.31 5.44 7.3 6.68
Ws in gm
Water Content, 115.76 113.92 118.73 116.14
w in %

TABLE 2: Observed and Acquired Values of Plastic Limit

Number of 1 2 3 Average
Trials

2
 Wt. of container 14.93 14.72 15.27 14.97
in gm
Wt. of container 15.86 15.43 15.88 15.72
+ wet soil in gm
Wt. of container 15.60 15.22 15.72 15.51
+ dry soil, gm
Wt. of water 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.21
In gm
Wt. of dry soil in 0.67 0.5 0.45 0.54
gm
Water Content, 38.81% 42% 35.56% 38.79%
w in %

Plastic limit = 38.79% Plasticity Index = 11.53%

Figure 1: Atterberg Limit Graph and Calculation

3
 ATTENBERG LIMIT GRAPH

70

60

f(x) = − 1.13622445504478 x + 78.9378678347276

50
WATER CONTENT

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

nO. OF BLOWS

Figure 2: Shrinkage Limit

4
V. FORMULA AND CALCULATION

Liquid Limit Sample Calculation

For trial No. 1
Number of Blows N, = 27
Wt. of container = 15.09g
Wt. of container + wet Soil = 25.93g
Wt. of container + dry soil = 22.40g
Wt. of water, Ww = 25.93g – 22.40g = 3.53g
Wt. of dry soil, Ws = 22.40g – 15.09g = 7.31g
Water Content w = 3.53g / 7.31g *100 = 48.29%

Plastic Limit Sample Calculation

5
 For trial No. 1
Wt. of container = 14.93g
Wt. of container + wet Soil = 15.86g
Wt. of container + dry soil = 15.60g
Wt. of water, Ww = 15.86g – 15.60g = 0.26g
Wt. of dry soil, Ws = 15.60g – 14.93g = 0.67g
Water Content w = 0.26g / 0.67g *100 = 38.81%

Average plastic limit: 38.81+42+35.56 / 3 = 38.79%

Plasticity Index: 50.32% - 38.79% = 11.53%

VI. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The objective of the investigation that was carried out was to ascertain
the liquid limit (LL), the plastic limit (PL), and the plasticity index (PI) of the
soil sample that was provided. When a dry soil is mixed with water, it will
eventually achieve a plastic condition, and when additional water is added,
it will reach a liquid state. The soil can also reach a liquid state when more
water is added. The point at which the soil changes from a semi-solid or
solid state to a plastic state is known as the soil's plastic limit, and the
point at which it changes from a plastic state to a liquid state is known as
the soil's liquid limit.
In order to conduct the liquid limit test, we measured three different
containers and made a note of their respective weights. After that, we
transferred the dirt to a bowl dish and mixed it thoroughly while gradually
adding water. When the soil had reached the point where it contained an
adequate amount of water to finish the percussion cup test, it was placed
inside the Casagrande device, scraped with the grooving tool, and then
dropped until the groove closed. This process was repeated until the
groove was completely closed. After noting the total number of drips, the
soil was removed, repackaged, and baked in the oven after being placed
in the appropriate containers. After that, more water was added to the soil
that was contained inside the bowl dish. After that, the soil was put within

6
 the apparatus so that it could be subjected to a second test with a larger
water content than the first. This procedure was carried out until each of
the three containers contained a sample of soil with a distinct level of
water content.
For the purpose of the plastic limit test, water is added to the soil that is
contained in a bowl dish, and it is then properly mixed. In the same
manner as the liquid limit test, the weights of three different containers are
measured and recorded. The instructor provided us with a steel rod of a
specific diameter, and we proceeded to shape the soil into rods of the
same diameter. After finishing the procedure, we put it in the oven, waited
anywhere from 16 to 24 hours, and then used a scale to figure out how
much moisture was in each sample, including the soil from the liquid limit
test.
After completing the steps outlined in the following process, the
moisture content of each soil sample was weighed, the data were
tabulated, and then the computation to calculate the plastic limit and liquid
limit of the given soil sample was carried out.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The LL and PL of the supplied soil sample were calculated using the
data in the table above. We also calculated the plasticity index (PI) and
arrived with a value of 11.53%. Using the above formula, we were able to
not only draw the shrinkage limit, but also calculate the liquid limit and the
plastic limit. Practical significance comes from the liquid limit and the
plastic limit's capacity to represent the various clay mineral kinds and
amounts present in the fine fraction. The soil likely contains a lot of clay
and colloidal-sized, more active-type minerals because of its high plasticity
index and liquid limit. These soil conditions are not suitable for supporting
a building's foundation or the weight of foot traffic. Furthermore, the results
of the test are very useful for soil classification, footing design, and
consolidation settling prediction.
The outcomes of the experiment performed were not entirely reliable.
This is due to the fact that problems with the percussion cup method of

7
 determining the liquid limit persisted even as the experiment was being
carried out. The first problem is that the original test attempt recorded an
incorrect number of blows since the dirt and water weren't fully mixed. This
resulted in a dry clump of soil forming, and the groove closed in either a
larger or smaller number of strikes than would have been expected from
the dirt alone.
The groove may also break if it were dropped from an improper height
during the test. As a result, the moisture content is estimated incorrectly
since the number of blows needed to close the groove is off by more than
its true value. To successfully complete the laboratory experiment, it is
imperative that you adhere to both the directions and the protocol. This will
guarantee proper execution of the experiment. If you don't want to get
wounded, it's important to avoid doing things like fiddling with the tools and
equipment and keeping an eye out for visible and hidden faults that could
happen during the activity. Use them wisely and exclusively for their
intended purposes.

VIII. APPENDIX
DOCUMENTATION

8
Figure 1. Adding of water to Soil Sample.

Figure 2. Adding wet soil

sample to Casagrande’s liquid limit
device

Figure 5. Counting the number of blows. Figure 6. Execution of Plastic Limit

test.

9
IX. REFERENCES
file:///C:/Users/gatla/Downloads/Geotechnical-Engineering-Laboratory-
https://uta.pressbooks.pub/soilmechanics/chapter/atterberg-limit-test/

https://www.humboldtmfg.com/liquid-limit-atterberg-limits.html#:~:text=Plastic
%20limit%20is%20a%20test,to%20a%20very%20narrow%20diameter.

https://basiccivilengineering.com/2017/05/plastic-limit-test-procedures-
sample-calculations.html

10