CONSISTENCY LIMITS

Equipment/Apparatus Needed
a. Liquid Limit Device with Grooving Tool
b. 1 pc - Smooth surface for Plastic Limit Test
c. 1 pc - Spatula
d. 1 pc - Evaporating Dish
e. 7 pcs - Drying or Moisture Cans
f. Distilled Water
g. 1 pc – Graduated Cylinder
h. 1 pc - Hair Dryer
i. 1 pc – Sieve No. 40
j. 1 set - Mortar and Pestle
k. Digital Weighing Scale
l. Tape measure

Testing Procedure

A. Liquid Limit

1) The cup of the liquid limit device was initially adjusted to fall to a 1 - cm vertical height.

2) A smooth paste was formed by combining 100g of soil sample with water.

3) A third of the cup of the liquid limit device was filled with the soil sample mixed with water.

4) The soil sample was then mixed and spread on the cup with a spatula to form a half-inch deep layer in the
front half of the cup.

5) A grooving tool was used to separate the soil sample along the centerline.

6) After the motorized liquid limit device was activated, the number of blows was recorded until the groove closed
to a distance of 13mm.

7) The soil area where contact was made was removed and weighed.

8) Then the soil sample was dried for 24 hours and the weight was recorded.

9) Four different tests were performed, each with a different water content.

10) The results were then plotted on a semi-logarithmic scale.

B. Plastic Limit

1) About 15g of the soil sample was mixed thoroughly with water to form a plastic mass.

2) A small marble of the soil mixture was created.

3) The soil sample was then rolled by hand on a tabletop. The soil was remolded into a ball when it reached a
diameter of about an eighth of an inch.
 4) The soil began to form into a thread after being remolded and rolled repeatedly, and it began to crumble when
the 3mm diameter was reached.

5) After that, the broken pieces were placed in a moisture can. To determine its water content, it was weighed,
dried, and weighed again after drying.

6) The procedure was repeated until three samples were obtained. The average water content of all the samples
is used to determine the plastic limit of the soil sample.

Data and Results

Two of the four Atterberg limits were tested on the soil sample during the experiment. These are the liquid
and plastic limits. For the liquid limit test, four trials were made. The water content of soil samples in each trial were
calculated by taking the mass of the wet soil and the mass of the soil after it has been oven dried. A relationship
between the number of blows and the moisture content is presented in the summary of the data in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of results from the Liquid Limit Test

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

No. of Blows, N 35 30 25 20

Mass of tin cup, g 9.25 9.55 9.76 9.91

Mass of tin cup + wet soil , g 16.49 25.73 26.48 22.54

Mass of tin cup + dry soIl, g 14.00 20.00 21.00 18.00

Mass of wet soil only, m1 7.24 16.18 16.72 12.63

Mass of dry soil only, m2 4.75 10.45 11.24 8.09

Water Content (%) 52.42 54.83 48.75 56.12

Liquid Limit
53.28%
(from the equation in the Figure 1)

The moisture content of the various soil samples was calculated and plotted into a semi-logarithmic graph,
with the x – axis corresponding to the number of blows and the y – axis corresponding to the water content. The
relationship between the water content and the number of blows is visualize in Figure 1, in which, as the number of
blows increases, the water content decreases. According to literature (Das, 2007), the liquid limit is described as the
level of moisture at which the groove formed by a grooving tool into a standard cup sample of soil closes for 13 mm
after 25 standard blows. By substituting x=25 to the line equation of the trend line which was generated by MS Excel,
the liquid limit at 25 blows of the soil sample is determined to be 53.28%. The value of 𝑅 2 , as depicted in the graph,
is close to zero indicating a weak relationship between the variables. Also, the values between the different moisture
contents of the soil samples are very far from the depicted path of the trend line. Other publications show a graph in
which the relationship between the number of blows on the cup of the liquid limit device and the water content of
specific types of soils is precise enough to have an 𝑅 2 value of close to 1. The potential causes of the occurrence were
determined to be human error in taking the partial area in which the groove closes and also in the placement of the soil
mixture into the cup.

57
56
55
Water Content (%)

54
53
52 y = -0.1004x + 55.791
R² = 0.04
51
50
49
48
15
No. of Blows (n)

Figure 1. Plot of moisture content vs. the number of blows for determination of liquid limit.

For the plastic limit test, three trials were made. The water content of soil samples in each trial were calculated
by taking the mass of the wet soil and the mass of the soil after it has been oven dried. By getting the average value
of the water contents of each trial, the plastic limit of the soil sample was obtained. The plastic limit of the soil sample
was determined to be 36.48%. A summary of the data results in the experiment is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of results from the Plastic Limit Test

Description Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Weight of Container, g 9.59 9.55 9.76

Weight of Wet Soil + Container, g 25.64 22.18 26.3

Weight of Dry Soil + Container, g 21.00 19.00 22.00

Mass of wet soil, g 16.05 12.63 16.54

Mass of dry soil, g 11.41 9.45 12.24

Water Content (%) 40.67 33.65 35.13

Plastic Limit 36.48 %

After determining the liquid limit and the plastic limit of the soil sample, the plasticity index can be computed.
The plasticity index (PI) is defined as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit of a soil (Das, 2007).
From literature, the plasticity index can be classified in a qualitative manner. The soil is classified as non-plastic when
PI is at 0%, slightly plastic when PI is between 1% to 5%, low plasticity when PI is between 5% to 10%, medium
plasticity when PI is between 10% to 20%, high plasticity when PI is between 20% to 40%, and very high plasticity
when PI is greater than 40%. From the experiment, it was found that the soil sample has a plasticity index of 16.80%.
This suggests that the soil sample experiences medium plasticity. A sample computation for the plasticity index is
presented below.
Plasticity Index (PI) = Liquid Limit (LL) - Plastic Limit (PL)
PI = 53.28% - 36.48%
PI = 16.80%

Conclusion and Recommendation

In this experiment, it was found that the liquid limit of the soil sample is 53.28% while the plastic limit is 36.48%.
The plasticity index was also determined by getting the difference of the liquid limit and the plastic limit, resulting to a
value of 16.80%. The plasticity index suggests that the soil experiences medium plasticity. It was also observed from
the results in the graph that the 𝑅 2 is closer to 1, suggesting a weak relationship between the variables. The cause of
the weak relationship between the variables was determined to be the experiment's errors, specifically human errors.
These errors are in taking the partial area where the groove closes as well as placing the soil mixture into the cup. The
determination of these limits is necessary in order to predict which state of soil will appear based on its innate water
content. These soil states are important in structural design because each state has a different consistency and
properties that can affect the soil's integrity. The experiment would also be useful in distinguishing silts and clays, as
these types of soil differ in the amount of water they can hold.

Appendix A: Testing Results with Complete Computation

Table A.1: Liquid Limit Test
Trial 1 Trial 2
m1 = (16.49 – 9.25)g = 7.24g
m2 = (14.00 – 9.25 )g = 4.75g
m1 = (25.73 – 9.55)g = 16.18g

m1 − m2 m2 = (20.00 – 9.55 )g = 10.45g

𝑊= × 100
m2
7.24g − 4.75g m1 − m2
= × 100 𝑊= × 100
4.75g m2

= 𝟓𝟐. 𝟒𝟐% 16.18g − 10.45g

= × 100
10.45g
= 𝟓𝟒. 𝟖𝟑%
 Trial 3 Trial 4
m1 = (26.48 – 9.76)g = 16.72g m1 = (22.54 – 9.91)g = 12.63g
m2 = (21.00 – 9.76 )g = 11.24g m2 = (18.00 – 9.91 )g = 8.09g

m1 − m2 m1 − m2
𝑊= × 100 𝑊= × 100
m2 m2
16.72g − 11.24g 12.63g − 8.09g
= × 100 = × 100
11.24g 8.09g
= 𝟒𝟖. 𝟕𝟓% = 𝟓𝟔. 𝟏𝟐%

Determining the Liquid Limit

Formula generated by MS Excel : y = -0.1004x + 55.791

Let x = 25 blows,
: y = -0.1004(25) + 55.791
: y = 53.28%
Liquid limit : 53.28%

Table A.2: Plastic Limit Test

Trial 1 Trial 2
m1 = (25.64 – 9.59)g = 16.05g m1 = (22.18 – 9.55)g = 12.63g
m2 = (21.00– 9.59 )g = 11.41g m2 = (19.00 – 9.55 )g = 9.45g

m1 − m2 m1 − m2
𝑊= × 100 𝑊= × 100
m2 m2
16.05g − 11.41g 12.63g − 9.45g
= × 100 = × 100
11.41g 9.45g
= 𝟒𝟎. 𝟔𝟕% = 𝟑𝟑. 𝟔𝟓%

Trial 3
m1 = (26.30 – 9.76)g = 16.54g
m2 = (22.00 – 9.76 )g = 12.24g

m1 − m2
𝑊= × 100
m2
16.54g − 12.24g
= × 100
12.24g
= 𝟑𝟓. 𝟏𝟑%

Determining the Plastic Limit

40.67 +33.65 +35.13

Average Water Content (%) = = 36.48%
3

Plastic limit : 36.48%

References
Das, B. M. (2007). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering (3rd ed.). (H. Gowans, Ed.) Madrid, Spain: Chris
Carson.
Diaz, Pastor, Rabat, & Tomas. (2021). Machine learning techniques for relating liquid limit obtained by Casagrande
cup and fall cone test in low-medium plasticity fine grained soils. Engineering Geology.
Hrubesova, E., Lunackova, B., & Brodzki, O. (2016). Comparison of Liquid Limit of Soils Resulted from Casagrande
Test and Modificated Cone Penetrometer Methodology. Sustainable Development of Civil, Urban and
Transportation Engineering Conference (pp. 364 – 370). Ostrava: Technical University of Ostrava.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.063
Ma, Q., Hu, Z., Hu, Z., & Li, J. (2022, April 8). Strength characteristics and micro-scale mechanism of high liquid limit
clay treated by recycled construction and demolition wastes (CDW) aggregates. Construction and Building
Materials. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127367
Reddy, K. (2002, September 22). Atterberg Limits. Retrieved October 01, 2022, from
https://cemmlab.webhost.uic.edu/Experiment%207-Atterberg%20Limits.pdf