.

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

MODULE CODE: GLEN 313

TITLE: ATTERBERG LIMITS MOISTURE CONTENT
STUDENT NAME: JESSICA THEBE 21000317
PROGRAMME: MINING ENGINEERING
LEVEL OF STUDY: 300

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………..3
INTRODUCTION AND THEORY…………………………………………4
PROCEDURE………………………………………………………………...7
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS…………………………………………………8
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………….11
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………..12
RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………..13
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..14

2
ABSTRACT
The experiment was conducted to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and the plasticity index
of a fine-grained soil specimen passing through No. 40 sieve. This was done using the
Casagrande method to determine the atterberg limits. This was done by missing the soil sample
with water then putting it in the Casagrande cup and do the blows, the water content that
corresponded to 25 blows is the liquid limit, since this cannot be found by doing it just once it
was repeated many times by adjusting the soil paste. The plastic limits were found by making the
soil paste into a cylinder of 3.2mm diameter and it was rolled applying pressure evenly if it
breaks at 3mm then that’s its plastic limit. The liquid limit was found to be 16.7 and the plastic
limit is 12.17 and the plastic index was found to be 4.52%.

3
INTRODUCTION
Atterberg a Swedish agricultural scientist (1911) developed a method to describe the consistency
of fine-grained soils with varying moisture content, and he proposed three limits for fine-grained
soils with varying water content, namely Liquid limit, Plastic limit and Shrinkage limit.
The water contents at which the soil changes from one state to another are known as consistency
limits or Atterberg’s limits. In particular, the Atterberg Limits test is used with fine soils like
clays. According to this test, the water content at the soil's boundaries can be found in four
different states: solid, semi-solid, plastic, and liquid. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL)
can be determined from these four states. The liquid limit is reached when the soil's water
content acts like slush and is not subjected to shear stress. The soil's water content will start to
permanently distort when it reaches the plastic limit. The difference between the liquid and
plasticity limits can be used to calculate the plasticity index (PI) using these numbers. This
number represents the quantity and concentration of clay minerals in the soil.

4
Figure 1: Showing the graph with attterberg limits
(https://www.geoengineer.org/education/laboratory-testing/atterberg-limits)
THEORY
Casagrande method- consists of brass cup which is connected so that it is in the inclined position
when resting on the rubber base. We'll be utilizing a Casagrande Cup with a groove through the
middle for this practice. The cup will mechanically rise and fall as the device's hand crank is
turned until the soil mass completely fills the gap in at least a half-inch zone. The determination
of the liquid limit depends on how many drips or strikes are made in succession.
The water content in % corresponding to 25 blows is termed the liquid limit. Practically it is
difficult to get exactly 25 blows for the 12.5 mm groove closure, therefore, tests for different
water contents are conducted in order to get number of blows in the range 15 and 35. At least 3
more test should be carried out by adjusting the water contents in such a way that 15 to 35 range
is achieved. The moisture content of the soil and corresponding number of blows are plotted on
semi logarithmic graph paper.

Figure 2: Showing the images of the casagrande method (https://civilblog.org/2013/05/14/liquid-

limit-test-of-soil-using-casagrande-apparatus)
The amount of water at which soil transitions from its plastic form to its semisolid state is known
as the Plastic Limit (PL). The Plastic limit test is carried out by manually rolling an ellipsoidal-
sized soil mass on a non-porous surface several times. Casagrande identified the plastic limit as
the water content at which a carefully laid out 3 mm diameter thread of soil just crumbles. The
soil is too damp if a thread with a diameter of less than 3 mm crumbles. The soil is dryer than the
plastic limit if the thread breaks at a diameter of more than 3 mm. The sample can be remolded
and the test repeated.

5
Figure 3: Showing the plastic limit test (https://legitcivil.com/what-is-plastic-limit-plasticity-
index-of-soil/)
Objective
To determine the liquid limit, plastic limit and the plastic index of the soil sample.
Materials used:
Liquid test
 Casagrande liquid limit device
 Grooving tool
 Moisture cans
 Porcelain evaporating dish
 Spatula
 Oven
 Balance, sensitive to 0.01g
 Plastic squeeze bottle
 Paper towels
Plastic test
 Moisture cans
 Porcelain evaporation dish
 Spatula
 Ground glass plate
 Balance sensitive to 0.01g
 Plastic squeeze bottle
 Oven

6
PROCEDURE
Liquid limit
Mass for the empty cans (M1) was determined and 250g of air-dry soil that was passed through a
N0.40 sieve was put into an evaporating dish and water was added and thoroughly mixed with
the soil to form a uniform paste. A portion of the paste was placed in the brass cup of the liquid
limit device and the surface of the soil was smoothed using a spatula so that the maximum depth
is 8mm. A groove was cut along the centerline of the soil pat using a grooving tool. The crank
was turned at the rate of 2 revolutions per second. The liquid limit cup rised and droped through
a vertical distance of 10mm once for each revolution. The soil from the two sides of the cup
began to flow towards the center. The number of blows (N) for the groove in the soil to close
through a distance of 13mm were counted. The three different samples were collected from the
cup to moisture cans when N = 15-20, 20-25, 25-20 and, 30-35. The cover of the can was closed
and the mass of the can and the moist soil (M2) was determined. The rest of the soil paste was
removed from the cup to the evaporating dish and paper towels was used to clean the cup
thoroughly. When N<25 the soil was placed back to the evaporating dish and the device was
cleaned. The soil was stirred with the spatula. Steps 3, 4, 5 was repeated to get higher reading of
N. When N>25, the moisture content was increased to attain smaller numbers of drops. The soil
from the cup of Casagrande device was removed and cleaned. Samples were placed in the oven
over 18 hours and placed in the desiccators to cool off. The samples were weighed and the dry
mass (M3) was noted.
Plastic limit
About 30g of the dried soil which has passed through a No.40 sieve was taken and put into an
evaporating dish. Water was added and the soil was mixed thoroughly. The mass of the empty
moisture cans (M1) was taken. The moist soil was squeezed with fingers to prepare several
ellipsoidal shaped masses. One of the ellipsoidal shaped soil masses was taken and rolled by
hand on the glass plate with sufficient pressure to form a thread. When the thread became 3.2mm
by diameter the soil was kneaded together and rolled out again. The process was repeated until
the thread crumbles when its 3mm diameter. The small, crumbled pieces were collected into the
moisture can and the cover was put on the can. The mass of the moisture cans plus wet soil (M2)
was taken. The moisture cans were placed into the oven to dry to constant mass (M 3). The
procedure was carried out on 3 samples and the average value of moisture content was taken as
the plastic limit.

7
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Table 1
Test No.
item 1 2 3

Can No.
Mass of can M1(g) 23.74 3.61 3.69
Mass of can + moist
soil M2 25.84 4.65 4.55
Mass of can + dry soil
M3 25.62 4.63 4.39
Mass of moisture M2+
M3 0.22 0.02 0.16
Mass of dry soil M3+
M1 1.88 1.02 0.7
Moisture content
M2- M3/ M3- M1*100 11.70 1.96 22.86

Calculations
Mass of moisture = M2-M3
=25.84-25.62
=0.22 g
Mass of dry soil = M3-M1
= 25.62-23.74
=1.88g
Moisture content = M2-M3/ M3-M1*100
0.22
=1.88 × 100

=11.7%
11.7+1.97+22.86
Average moisture content= =12.17%
3

8
Table 2
Test No.
item 1 2 3 4
Can No.
Mass of can 25.02 10.63 3.73 3.5
Mass of can + moist soil 61.79 51.13 19.22 31.24
Mass of can + dry soil 55.55 44.46 16.93 28.22
Moisture content 20.4 19.7 17.3 12.3
Number of blows 16 23 26 32

Graph 1 for the liquid limit test

Liquid Limit = 16.7%

9
 𝑤1−𝑤2
Flow index = log 𝑁2−log 𝑁1

20.4−19.7
=log 23−log 16

=4.44%
Table 3
Test No.
item 1 2 3
Mass of can m1 (g) 23.74 3.61 3.69
Mass of can + moist soil m2
(g) 25.84 4.65 4.55
Mass of can + dry soil m3(g) 25.62 4.63 4.39
Moisture content 11.70 1.96 22.86
Average value of w (%) 12.17

Plastic limit PL=Average value of w

= (20.4 + 19.7 + 17.3 + 12.3) ÷ 4
= 12.17%
Plasticity index = LL-PL
=16.7-12.17
=4.52%

10
DISCUSSION
Atterberg Limits are an inexpensive and well documented way of predicting the engineering
properties of silt and clay soils. From table 2 as the moisture content increased, the number of
blows need to close the gap decreased. According to graph 1 which is moisture content against
number of blows, the corresponding moisture content for 25 blows is 16.7%. The magnitude of
slope, or flow index, of a linear flow line is 4.44%.
Consulting this standard approach, it can be found that twenty-five blows yields a moisture
content w2 =16.7%. Therefore, using the linear flow index approach, or a polynomial approach,
the moisture content at twenty-five blows is approximately between 16.5% and 20%. This liquid
limit is just under the acceptable range to state that the soil is most likely a clay soil, based on the
Atterberg limits table. Although, considering the numerous human errors involved with the
procedure, and the apparent plastic response of the soil while working with it, it would be
reasonable to conclude it falls under this category.
The liquid limit is 16.7, plastic limit is 12.17%, and plasticity index is 4.52%. These numbers
were acquired by using the Casagrande method for figuring out a soil's liquid limit. The soil has
a low water-holding capacity, which implies it will not easily retain water, according to the
liquid limit value of 16.7, it has a low water holding capacity. The soil has a low plasticity,
which means it will not deform easily under stress, according to the plastic limit value of 12.17.
The plastic index is 4.52% which is less than 7, this implies that the soil is silt, with low
plasticity and partly cohesive.

11
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this exercise is to determine the moisture content of both the liquid limit and the
plastic limit tests. Additionally, the liquid limit, plastic limit, flow index, and plasticity index
were calculated in this experiment. The moisture content for the liquid limit tests for trials 1, 2,
and 3 were 11.7, 1.97, and 22.96, respectively. This makes logical sense because the moisture
content had to be higher for the divided soil to close, and the number of blows decreased with an
increase in moisture content. The higher moisture content alludes that the soil increasingly had
more fluid-like properties. The liquid limit in this experiment was 16.7. The liquid limit was
determined from the moisture content vs. number of blows graph, using a linear calculation, also
known as the flow index. The liquid limit is defined as the moisture content at which the groove,
formed by a standard tool into the sample of soil, closes over a span of 1cm after receive 25
blows. The flow index is 4.44%. The moisture content for the plastic limit was 12.17, and the
plasticity index is 4.52. This makes sense because the plastic limit is supposed to have the lowest
moisture content, as it is the moisture content where the soil begins to behave as a plastic
material.
Human error is a source of inaccuracy in the liquid limit test. This is largely due to the manual
turning of the device's crank, with the goal of achieving 2 revolutions per second. Another point
of contention is the visual evaluation of groove closure in the soil sample. In addition, as the
thickness of the soil layer in the cup increases, the number of blows required to seal the groove
in the soil reduces. With hand applications and spreading, it is difficult to obtain a uniform
depth. In addition to the numerous human errors that could create a discrepancy in the data, the
results of a thicker soil sample would indicate its moisture content to be larger than it actually is.

12
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the experiment proper there has been error on the computation of the moisture content because
the container also gained moisture from cleaning and hence the total mass after oven drying will
include both deductions from the soil sample and the container. It is also recommended to use a
scale of higher accuracy especially when measuring moisture contents of small mass such as 6
grams, the weighing scale that was used is only accurate up to 0.5 grams which has caused errors
in the calculated moisture content.

13
REFERENCES
 Shimobe, S. and Spagnoli, G., 2019. A global database considering Atterberg limits with
the Casagrande and fall-cone tests. Engineering Geology, 260, p.105201.

 Niazi, F.S., Pinan-Llamas, A., Cholewa, C. and Amstutz, C., 2020. Liquid limit
determination of low to medium plasticity Indiana soils by hard base Casagrande
percussion cup vs. BS fall-cone methods. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 79(4), pp.2141-2158.

 Di Matteo, L., 2012. Liquid limit of low-to medium-plasticity soils: comparison between
Casagrande cup and cone penetrometer test. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 71, pp.79-85

 CivilBlog.Org .“ LIQUID LIMIT OF SOIL – WHAT, WHY & HOW?” Published March
8, 2015. Retrieved March 8, 2016 at civilblog.org/2015/03/07/liquid-limit-of-soil-what-
why-how

14