Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Clay Science

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

Research Paper

Evaluation of the USDA soil texture triangle through Atterberg limits and
an alternative classification system
José Manuel Moreno-Maroto a, *, Jacinto Alonso-Azcárate b
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

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

Keywords: Since the texture triangle developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has traditionally been a basic
Soil classification tool in soil classification, a thorough examination of its suitability has been carried out in this research. A total of
Texture triangle 256 soil samples from 21 different countries and 35 publications containing both textural (sand, silt and clay
Atterberg limits
percentages) and Atterberg limits data have been analyzed. The soils were classified according to traditional
Clay factor
particle size criteria using the USDA texture triangle. On the other hand, the Plasticity index / Liquid limit ratio, a
parameter called clay factor (CF) in this research, was calculated and plotted against the percentage of sand to
classify the soil according to the texture-plasticity system proposed by the authors in 2018. The evaluation
through CF and comparison with the authors’ proposal has shown the limitations of the USDA classification,
which only determines soil texture in terms of particle size, but not how this texture affects actual soil properties,
an aspect that could be very useful. It has been demonstrated that a significant percentage (20%) of soils clas­
sified with the USDA system actually exhibit plastic behavior that is completely unrelated to the assigned name
(e.g., non-plastic soils classified as clay). However, the fact that about 80% of the classified soils with both
systems present the same group designation (~37%) or are adjacent groups (~43%), shows that the authors’
classification does not break sharply with the textural criteria accepted to date, which is positive if this new
proposal is intended to be used as an alternative. Therefore, the proposed classification conciliates plastic and
textural properties, allowing to classify the soil in a more accurate way, adjusting it to its real behavior.

1. Introduction
Soil is a complex medium in which solid, liquid and gaseous phases
interact, making its behavior difficult to predict. Considering this sce­
nario, soil classification systems emerged decades ago to provide sci­
entists, engineers and technicians with tools to categorize soils
according to their most likely behavior/properties in a simple manner,
using common terminology to avoid the need for elaborate descriptions
or explanations (Liu, 1970; Prakash and Sridharan, 2012).
Particle size is one of the most basic properties of soil. In general, this
property is characterized by being obtained through relatively simple
easily interpretable methods. Therefore, the use of arbitrary particle size
scales to separate sand, silt and clay has been traditionally accepted to
this day. This is evidenced by the widespread use of one of the best-
known soil classification systems: the texture triangle of the USDA
(1951, 2017), shown in Fig. 1a. Before reaching its final design, the
textural triangle underwent various revisions and edits over the years,
going from a right-angled triangle model with eight classification groups
proposed by Whitney (1911), to the first equilateral triangle with ten
textural classes (Davis and Bennett, 1927), which after various reviews
by different authors was the prelude to the definitive textural triangle of
the USDA, including twelve groups, which was published in 1951 and is
currently in force (USDA, 1951, 2017).
A critical aspect of classifying a soil by the USDA texture triangle is
the methodology for determining the percentages of clay, silt, and sand.
Although sieving is the most appropriate technique to discern the
coarser fractions (sand), sedimentation methods based on the decanta­
tion of aqueous suspensions (e.g., ASTM D7928-21e1, 2021) are those
used to determine the proportion of fine-grained fractions, such as silts
and clays. While the results obtained by sieving are generally reliable,
this is not the case with sedimentation methods, which apart from being
tedious and requiring exhaustive control of the test conditions (e.g.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jmmaroto@ujaen.es (J.M. Moreno-Maroto), jacinto.alonso@uclm.es (J. Alonso-Azcárate).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106689
Received 21 January 2022; Received in revised form 12 July 2022; Accepted 21 August 2022
Available online 31 August 2022
0169-1317/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate
temperature, avoidance of vibrations, use of dispersing agents, etc.) are
subject to a number of assumptions that are far from reality. Thus, for
example, in order to relate settling velocity to particle size (Stokes’ law),
these methods assume that all particles are spherical, which is not true in
the case of clays. As a consequence, these methods generally tend to
overestimate the clay fraction (Buurman et al., 2001; Eshel et al., 2004;
Ferro and Mirabile, 2009). In fact, according to the report of the 6th
Interlaboratory Comparison of the International Co-operative Pro­
gramme - Forest Soil Coordinating Centre, clay content was found to be
one of the most difficult properties to measure consistently (in that case
using the pipette method), with a coefficient of variation of 32% among
the 50 participating laboratories (Cools and De Vos, 2010).
Therefore, the clayey fractions are those that may be more subject to
interpretation error if they are to be determined by the previous
methods. This is indicative that the properties of the finest soil fractions
should be measured by other methodologies. However, the use of other
more precise particle size determination techniques, such as those based
on laser diffraction, have also been shown to be ineffective because they,
in contrast to sedimentation techniques, underestimate the clay fraction
(Buurman et al., 2001; Eshel et al., 2004; Ferro and Mirabile, 2009). To
this must be added the fact that particles of the same size may have
different properties (Casagrande, 1947; Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate, 2018). Thus, the USDA triangle considers as clay any fraction
<2 μm (equivalent spherical diameter, e.s.d), without taking into ac­
count any other properties. This fact for example could lead to very fine
non-plastic silts being classified as clayey materials, even when their
properties and behavior in contact with water are completely different.
In other words, this type of classification (such as that of the USDA) only
determines the particle size of the soil (although also with limitations),
being unable to infer additional information about its possible behavior,
something that would undoubtedly give much more value to the clas­
sification. Such weaknesses, among other, will be revealed in the results
of this investigation.
As a consequence of this disagreement with the limitations of clas­
sification systems based exclusively on particle size, classification sys­
tems based on soil plasticity (namely on Atterberg limits) emerged. The
precursor in this paradigm shift was Casagrande (1947), whose original
classification chart has been revised over the years until reaching the
proposal by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) (Moreno-
Maroto et al., 2021). In fact, the two most important scientific societies
in the world, the International Association for the Study of Clays (AIPEA:
Association Internationale pour l’Étude des Argiles) and the Clay Minerals
Society (CMS), oppose the use of the particle size criterion to distinguish
(a)
Fig. 1. Soil classifications compared in this study: (a) texture triangle (USDA, 2017); (b) texture-plasticity classification chart by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2018). The PI/LL ratio is referred to as clay factor, CF, in this study.
Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689
between clays and other types of soils, advocating plasticity (the ability
of the material to be deformed and retain said shape) as a differentiating
property of clays with respect to silty and sandy soils (Guggenheim and
Martin, 1995; Bergaya and Lagaly, 2013). Thus, the definition of clay
proposed jointly by AIPEA and CMS is: “The term “clay“ refers to a
naturally occurring material composed primarily of fine-grained minerals,
which is generally plastic at appropriate water contents and will harden with
dried or fired. Although clay usually contains phyllosilicates, it may contain
other materials that impart plasticity and harden when dried or fired. Asso­
ciated phases in clay may include materials that do not impart plasticity and
organic matter” (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995). This definition, based
on qualitative criteria, was revised by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2018) in quantitative terms according to plasticity (tough­
ness) criteria, allowing to unequivocally distinguish between clays and
other soil types, as shown below.
Apart from a typical plasticity chart in which the plasticity index (PI:
moisture range in which the soil is plastic) values were compared with
the liquid limit (LL: percentage of water above which the soil is no
longer in a plastic state but in a liquid state), the work of Moreno-Maroto
and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) revealed certain important findings. The
authors analyzed the data published by Barnes (2013) and observed that
there is a direct relationship between the PI/LL ratio and the maximum
toughness (kJ/m3) of the soil (Fig. 2a). It is important to note that Barnes
(2013) investigation covered 59 samples including natural inorganic
and organic clays, brick and ceramic clays, peaty samples, as well as
different mixtures of clay, silt and sand, including kaolinite-
montmorillonite mixtures. Such a finding agreed with the toughness
perceived through a bending method by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate (2015, 2017) on 55 samples of diverse characteristics and or­
igins, including varied mineralogy (smectite, illite, kaolinite, chlorite,
sepiolite and mixed layer clay minerals). Therefore, this relationship
between PI/LL and maximum toughness was originally demonstrated
satisfactorily by the authors in 114 soil samples.
Toughness is a parameter that indicates the opposition exerted by the
soil to being deformed during the plastic limit test, something that
Barnes (2013) determined quantitatively with an apparatus specifically
designed for this purpose. Accordingly, toughness is a parameter
indicative of its deformation capacity, i.e., indicative of soil plasticity,
which according to AIPEA and CMS is an exclusive property of clays
(Guggenheim and Martin, 1995). The existing correlation between soil
toughness and PI/LL observed by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
(2018) (Fig. 2a) revealed that it was not necessary to determine
toughness directly through relatively complex methodologies, but that
(b)
SANDY CLAY LOAM
CLAY SANDY
CLAY
SAND
SILTY CLAY CLAY
SAND
SILTY CLAY LOAM
LOAM
SILT LOAM SANDY
LOAM LOAM
SILT
2
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689

world, something that would undoubtedly help to validate the authors’

(a)
1 proposal, which apart from giving textural information, could provide
more information on soil behavior than the USDA classification.
0.9
y = 0.0077x + 0.3397
0.8 r = 0.8734 2. Methods
Plasticity index / Liquid limit

0.7
0.6 This investigation has been based on an exhaustive search for
0.5 bibliographic information containing both textural (sand, silt and clay
0.4 percentages obtained by traditional sedimentation / sieving tests) and
0.3 Atterberg limits (LL, PL and PI) data. A total of 256 soil samples from 21
0.2 different countries and 35 publications have been analyzed (Table 1 and
Table S1). The soils were classified according to traditional particle size
0.1
criteria using the USDA (2017) classification triangle (Fig. 1a). Simi­
0
larly, CF was calculated and plotted against the percentage of sand to
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
classify the soil according to the texture-plasticity system proposed by
Maximum toughness (kJ/m3)
the authors (Fig. 1b). Skempton (1953) activity, A, has also been
calculated as: A = PI / % clay. Depending on the mineralogy, the pres­
(b) ence of highly active clay minerals (such as smectites) may affect plas­
Non-plasc
CLAY FACTOR Extremely ticity significantly even at low proportions (Skempton, 1953; Polidori,
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 plasc clay 2009), such that plasticity increases generally in the following order in
Clay behavior some representative clay minerals: Na-montmorillonite > Ca-
montmorillonite > sepiolite = attapulgite > illite > kaolinite = hal­
Silt/sand behavior loysite (White, 1949; Bain, 1971).
Some basic statistical parameters of central tendency, dispersion and
Fig. 2. Relevant findings of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018): (a) distribution, such as mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation,
relationship between soil toughness (plasticity) and PI/LL ratio, called clay
maximum and minimum values have also been calculated for each
factor (CF) in this work; (b) simplified interpretation of CF.
investigated variable (Table 2).
Considering CF as a parameter that has been demonstrated to be
Atterberg limits results were simply sufficient for this purpose. This reliable to determine the degree to which a soil presents clayey char­
meant that the PI/LL ratio (called in this research clay factor, CF) is an acteristics (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2018), the relation­
indicator of the clay characteristics of a soil (Fig. 2b). Thus, plastic clays ship between CF and the classification classes obtained by both the
have relatively high CF values (CF ≥ 0.5), soils with intermediate traditional textural triangle and the authors’ texture chart has been
properties between clays and silts and/or sands would have CF values of analyzed, comparing also the degree of coincidence in the classification
0.33–0.5, while if CF < 0.33 (value below which toughness is zero; see groups obtained by both systems.
Fig. 2a), it would be indicative that the influence of clay minerals is very Regarding the particle sizes considered to discern between clay, silt
low or even non-existent, typical of predominantly silty and/or sandy and sand, the boundary between sands and silts has generally been set at
soils (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2018). 63 μm or 50 μm in the different publications reviewed, although it has
Considering both the contrasted validity of CF, together with the also been placed at 75 μm in some cases (e.g., Sharo et al., 2018). These
accepted definition of clay based on plasticity and the supposed limits of
the USDA texture triangle, the authors also presented for the first time an
alternative textural classification system to that of USDA. In this new Table 1
approach (Fig. 1b) the percentages of sand defined by the USDA for each Country of origin, number of samples (n) and bibliographic references of the
group (obtained by sieving) were respected, while to determine the clay soils studied.
or silty character of the soil instead of using deceptive sedimentation Country n References
methods, the PI/LL ratio (CF in this paper) would be used, thus adjusting
Australia 6 Dexter (1977, 1990); Ojeniyi and Dexter (1979)
to the plasticity criteria required by the scientific associations of clay. Cameroon 6 Katte et al. (2019)
Thus, CF values of 0, 0.2, 0.33 and 0.4167 represent the limits in which Canada 27 De Jong et al. (1992)
clay minerals (responsible for plasticity and toughness) have no, very China 2 Qu and Hu (2018)
low, low and medium influence on soil properties, respectively, while Croatia 15 Rubinić et al. (2020)
England 36 Grant et al. (1995); Watts et al. (1995); Watts and Dexter
values equal to or above 0.5 are typical of soils in which clay minerals (1997)
substantially affect their properties (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcá­ France 4 Keller and Dexter (2012)
rate, 2018). Greece 26 Meimaroglou and Mouzakis (2019)
Therefore, the main objective of this investigation is to examine the India 19 Sivapullaiah and Sridharan (1985); Sridharan et al. (1988);
Sridharan et al. (1990), Sivapullaiah et al. (1996);
limitations of the USDA textural triangle using data collected from a
Satyanarayana Murthy (1986); Sridharan and Prakash
large number of samples so that the results are statistically consistent. (1998); Sridharan and Nagaraj (2000); Polidori (2004)
Also considering that the USDA triangle has strong limitations for Italy 21 Polidori (2003, 2007)
inferring soil behavior (it is a classification that is only useful from the Japan 4 Nakase et al. (1988)
point of view of particle size), the in-depth evaluation of the proposal by Jordan 3 Sharo et al. (2018)
Morocco 7 Daoudi et al. (2015)
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) (Fig. 1b) will be another of Netherlands 17 Dexter et al. (1984a, 1984b); Barciela-Rial et al. (2020)
the main objectives of this research, since it may be advantageous in this Poland 1 Keller and Dexter (2012)
regard. This is something especially relevant and differentiating with Portugal 6 Coroado et al. (2005)
respect to the previous work published by the authors (Moreno-Maroto South Africa 9 Diko et al. (2014)
Spain 24 Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2015)
and Alonso-Azcárate, 2018), since the textural classification published
Sweden 11 Keller et al. (2007); Keller and Dexter (2012)
in said article was just a theoretical approximation that needed to be Turkey 3 Aksakal et al. (2013)
contrasted with real data. In this sense, it is critical that these data also USA 9 Dexter et al. (1988); Francisca et al. (2005)
come from a large number of studies with different soils from around the Total 256

3
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689

Table 2 between fine-grained soils and sandy soils, of the total of 256 samples
Basic statistical parameters for the 256 soils studied. n = number of samples; SD studied, 224 are fine-grained (87.5%) and 32 are sandy (12.5%). This
= Standard deviation; CV = Coefficient of variation. disparity between the number of sandy and fine-grained soils studied are
Sand Silt Clay LL PL PI CF A positive for two reasons: 1) as explained previously, fine-grained soils
(%) (%) (%) (particularly clays) are indeed the ones that generate more conflict when
n 256 256 256 238a 254a 256 256 256 classifying them, since clay minerals can most influence the general
Mean 21.6 42.2 36.2 57.8 29.2 26.4 0.40 0.72 properties of the soil even in low proportions, so it is of interest that the
SD 19.7 17.0 19.2 38.5 10.5 33.5 0.18 0.63 number of fine-grained soils is very high to obtain sound conclusions; 2)
CV
although the proportion of sandy samples with respect to the total may
(%) 91.5 40.3 53.1 66.7 35.9 126.8 44.8 87.8
Max 100.0 88.5 92.0 343.0 61.7 301.0 0.90 4.61 seem low, in absolute terms there are a total of 32 sandy soils, an
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 12.5 0.0 0.00 0.00 important number that allows an analysis to be made with guarantees.
a The number and percentage of samples classified in each textural
n < 256 because there are soils in which LL and/or PL could not be
determined.
class by one or the other system is shown in Fig. 3. If the USDA texture
triangle classification is taken as a reference, 11 of the 12 existing
textural classes are represented in the soils studied, so that the only
three reference sizes are valid according to the literature (Wentworth,
group that does not appear is sandy clay. If the classification of Moreno-
1922; Ingram, 1982; ASTM D 2487-11, 2011; USDA, 1951, 2017) and
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) is taken as a reference, all 12 groups
attending to their similarity there should not be significant changes
are represented, including the sandy clay group with 5 samples.
when classifying soil if one or the other is used. The same occurs with the
Although the differences between the classification by one approach and
fraction considered as clay, which in this case has been established as
the other will be discussed later in other sections, the information in
that below 2 μm (e.s.d.), obtained by standardized hydrometer- or
Fig. 3 does provide an objective glimpse of the heterogeneity of the 256
pipette-based sedimentation tests, with the exception of Coroado et al.
soils included in this study, especially those of fine-grained nature.
(2005) who employed SediGraph and Daoudi et al. (2015) who used a
Considering the texture triangle classification, the most represented
Horiba 300 laser diffraction equipment, setting in the latter case the
group would be clay, followed by others such as silt loam, silty clay, silty
upper clay size at 4 μm, the typical benchmark size used by sedimen­
clay loam, loam, clay loam and sandy loam. The remaining groups
tologists (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995). No relevant changes in the
would be the least represented according to this classification: silt, sandy
texture triangle classification are expected because of this either.
clay loam, loamy sand, sand and sandy clay (not represented). Although
there are certain parallels between classifications, the number of sam­
3. Results and discussion
ples for each textural class recorded in the authors’ chart presents some
variations with respect to the USDA classification. In this case, the most
3.1. General characteristics of the data set
represented textural class is also clay, followed by silt loam, silty clay,
silty clay loam, clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam, sandy loam and silt.
All the information regarding the parameters investigated for the
The least represented groups are sandy clay, sand and loamy sandy.
256 soils are listed in Table S1 (see Supplementary Material). Table 2
shows a summary of basic statistical data applied to each of the pa­
rameters analyzed (percentages of sand, silt and clay, LL, PL, PI, CF and 3.2. Analysis of the classification of 256 soils according to the USDA
A). The difference between the maximum and minimum value (range) is texture triangle
very wide. The dispersion of the data is also noticeable, something that is
reflected in the high values of the coefficient of variation obtained. This Fig. 4 shows the 256 soils studied once represented in the traditional
dispersion of the data demonstrates the heterogeneity of the samples, texture triangle of USDA. In order to allow the reader to perceive some
which is very positive for the purposes of this research, which aims to additional information beyond a dot cloud, it has been decided to
cover a wide range of samples with different characteristics. Despite this represent the samples divided into three groups, following the CF
general heterogeneity, it has been observed that most of the soils are boundary values determined by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
fine-grained. Thus, if an arbitrary value of 50% sand is taken as a limit (2018). Therefore, on the one hand, Fig. 4a shows those soils that,
attending to their Atterberg limits, would behave as clays because they

80
29.3

70 USDA triangle
25.0

60 Authors chart
Number of soils

50
15.6
40 13.7
13.3 13.3 13.3
11.7
11.3
30 10.2
9.0 8.6

20
5.5 5.1
4.3 4.3
10 2.0
1.2 1.2 0.8 0.4
0.0 0.4 0.8
0
C1 SiC
2 SiCL
3 CL
4 L5 Si
6 SiL
7 SaC
8 SaCL
9 SaL
10 LSa
11 Sa
12
Classificaon group

Fig. 3. Number of soils classified in each textural group according to the USDA (2017) and Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) classifications. C = Clay; Si
= Silt or silty; L = Loam or loamy; Sa = Sand or sandy. The numbers above each column represent the percentage with respect to the total.

4
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate
Fig. 4. Representation of the 256 soils in the traditional texture triangle (USDA, 2017) differentiating the samples according to their clay factor value: (a) CF ≥ 0.5
(clay behavior); (b) 0.49 ≥ CF ≥ 0.33 (intermediate characteristics between clay and silt and/or sand); (c) CF ≤ 0.32 (silty and/or sandy behavior; non-plastic soils are
also included); (d) CF = 0 (separate location of non-plastic samples).
present CF ≥ 0.5. The second group of samples (Fig. 4b) is made up of
those whose plasticity is medium-low (0.49 ≥ CF ≥ 0.33) due to a lower
influence of clay minerals, thus presenting intermediate characteristics
between clays and other types of soils, such as silts and sands. The third
group (Fig. 4c) is made up of samples in which clay behavior is practi­
cally negligible, which translates into very low or no plasticity, typical of
silts and sandy soils (CF ≤ 0.32). Although the non-plastic samples (CF =
0) are represented in Fig. 4c, it has been decided to show them also
independently in Fig. 4d in order to carry out a specific discussion on
them. In this regard, it is important to remember that a soil is considered
as non-plastic if at least one of these conditions is met (ASTM D 4318-
17e1, 2017): i) the LL and/or the PL cannot be determined and/or ii)
the result of PL is equal to or greater than that of LL, giving PI values
equal to zero or negative. In any of the above cases, the soil can be
considered to have PI = 0, i.e., it is non-plastic. In such scenarios, ac­
cording to Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018), CF has also been
considered 0 for non-plastic soils.
As reflected in Fig. 4a, 75 soils exhibit plastic characteristics typical
of clays (CF ≥ 0.5). However, these samples are not only located in the
clay group, but also appear in other supposedly less plastic groups, such
5
Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689
as silty clay, silty clay loam, clay loam or even, of rather restricted
plasticity, such as loam or silt loam. For the 107 soils whose CF values
are between 0.33 and 0.49 (medium-low plasticity) something similar
occurs (Fig. 4b). Although there are a good number of samples that are
classified as soils with plastic characteristics (the term clay is included in
its name), such as silty clay, silty clay loam, clay loam or sandy clay
loam, most of the soils are classified in textural groups characteristic of
more plastic soils (clay) or less plastic samples, such as silt loam, loam
and sandy loam. The 74 soils presenting very low or even no plasticity
are depicted in Fig. 4c. These soils not only lie in textural classes typical
of soils of low or no plasticity, such as sand, loamy sand, sandy loam,
loam, silt loam, silt, but counterintuitively also as soils of higher plas­
ticity, like silty clay, silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam or even
as clearly plastic materials (clay). In this respect, it is particularly
noticeable that of the total of 19 non-plastic soils (Fig. 4d), 9 samples
(almost 50%) are classified in groups typical of plastic soils, such as silty
clay, silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam and even clay, which is
irrefutable proof that the texture triangle system could be incurring in
important classification errors. Therefore, the USDA system could be
only useful from a particle size perspective (also with limitations linked
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689

to the methodology used), so in general it cannot infer any additional adequate if their plastic behavior is considered, with the predominant
information related to soil behavior from it. Despite this, it is worth values being those of CF between 0.5 and 0.59 (29.7%). However, there
remembering that the presence of clay minerals is a determining factor is also an important representation (26.6%) of samples with moderate
in water retention capacity, cation exchange capacity (which occurs in plasticity (CF = 0.40–0.49), in which there is a minor influence of clay
an aqueous medium), biological activity (also demanding water), etc. minerals. Such impact by clay minerals would be low for samples with
Therefore, although the USDA triangle is based exclusively on particle CF between 0.3 and 0.39 (14.1%), very low for those exhibiting CF values
size, if this system were accurate, it could help to know in a certain way between 0.2 and 0.29 (1.6%) and negligible for those with values be­
how the soil would interact with water, something especially relevant in tween 0 and 0.09 (4.7%), and despite this, these soils are still wrongly
agriculture and soil sciences. Therefore, an inadequate classification classified as clay, when in fact they exhibit silty properties.
may lead to an erroneous interpretation of the expected properties of the Concerning the silty clay group (Fig. 5), it is observed that only
soil under study. 23.5% of the samples would have intermediate plastic characteristics in
These discrepancies between the textural groups obtained by the accordance with the designation of this group (CF = 0.4–0.49). Thus,
USDA triangular system and the plastic behavior of soils can be observed 55.9% of the samples actually behave as clays (CF ≥ 0.5) in which,
in more detail in the histograms of Fig. 5, in which the clay factor has contrary to the name assigned by the texture triangle, the influence of
been subdivided into 10 classes from 0 to 1, indicating the frequency silty particles should not be significant. On the other hand, 20.6% of the
(percentage) of each of these classes for each USDA textural classifica­ remaining particles exhibit CF < 0.4, and 11.8% below 0.3, something
tion group. In general, each classification group has a different distri­ that indicates that in such soils the use of the term “clay” does not seem
bution in terms of CF values. However, in order to avoid redundancy to make much sense.
with what was discussed in the previous paragraph, only some data will Something similar occurs in the silt loam group, whose USDA
be analyzed. Regarding the clay group in Fig. 5, it is important to note textural name suggests that these soils should have low plasticity. Ac­
that 53.1% of the soils exhibit CF values above 0.5, which would be cording to Figs. 5, 25% of the soils classified in this category by the

Clay Silty Clay Clay Loam

35 40

60 34.8
29.7 55.9 35
30
26.6 30.4
50 30
25
25

Frequency, %
40
Frequency, %

Frequency, %

20
20
30
15 14.1
23.5 15 13.0
10.9
10 20
10 8.7 8.7
6.3
4.7 4.7 10 8.8
5 5 4.3
5.9 5.9
1.6 1.6
0 0 0
0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00
Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL

Silty Clay Loam Loam Silt

100.0
35 45 100
40.0
40 90
30 29.4

26.5 35 80
25 70
30
Frequency, %

Frequency, %
Frequency, %

60
20 25 23.3
17.6
20.0
50
15 14.7 20
40
11.8
15 13.3
10 30
10
20
5
5 3.3 10

0 0 0
0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00
Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL

Sandy Loam
Silt Loam Sandy Clay Loam
70
30 40
63.6
27.5

25.0 35 33.3
60
33.3 33.3
25
22.5
30 50
20
Frequency, %

25
Frequency, %
Frequency, %

40

15 20
12.5 30
15 22.7
10 20
7.5
10
10 9.1
5
2.5 2.5 5 4.5

0
0 0
0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00
0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00
Clay factor, PI/LL
Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL

Loamy Sand Sand

100.0
60 100

90
50.0 50.0
50
80

70
40
Frequency, %

Frequency, %

60

30 50

40
20
30

20
10
10

0 0
0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00 0-0.09 0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.89 0.9-1.00
Clay factor, PI/LL Clay factor, PI/LL

Fig. 5. Histograms showing the frequency (%) in which the clay factor values appear (in this case divided into ten classes for simplicity) according to the classi­
fication group obtained in the texture triangle.

6
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate
texture triangle present medium plasticity (CF between 0.4 and 0.49),
more typical of other types of soils, such as silty clay or clay loam, and
even 15% of the soils classified in this category present CF values be­
tween 0.5 and 0.7, plasticity indicators typical of clay and not of a silt
loam. This means that the USDA triangle could be classifying soils with
clayey properties as silt loam. These data show again that no informa­
tion beyond that related to particle size (with limitations) can be
deduced from the classification of the textural triangle. Consequently, if
in addition to having textural information it is intended to know the real
behavior of the soil, it is better to put on the table another alternative,
such as the one presented by the authors in Fig. 1b.
Similar clear examples are shown in the clay loam, silty clay loam
and loam groups, in which relevant percentages of soils appear with CF
values that do not agree with what is expected according to the desig­
nated name (Fig. 5). Such discrepancies will be analyzed case by case
when comparing the texture triangle of USDA (1951, 2017) with the
authors’ proposal in Section 3.4.
3.3. Classification of soils in the texture-plasticity chart of Moreno-
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018)
The discrepancies discussed above between the designated textural
class and the actual plastic properties in the traditional texture triangle
contrast with the arrangement of the samples in the authors’ classifi­
cation in Fig. 6. The fact that CF has been included as an essential
parameter in the classification of soils, prevents that there are in­
congruities such as those observed in the texture triangle, so that for the
studied soils, all those fine-grained samples that present CF ≥ 0.5 are
classified as clay. Those with CF between 0.33 and 0.49 fall into the silty
clay, silty clay loam, and clay loam groups and if they present a more
pronounced sand content, they are classified into the sandy clay and
sandy clay loam groups. In parallel, the soils classified as silt, silt loam,
loam, sandy loam, loamy sand and sand are those with the lowest CF
results of all, because they would be the least plastic.
Apart from what has just been indicated, two aspects to be taken into
consideration with respect to the general distribution of soils can be
discussed in the chart by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018)
(Fig. 6). First, there are hardly any samples located below CF = 0.2,
except for those whose CF = 0 (non-plastic soils). This supports the
statements made by Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2017, 2018),
who already observed that the deformation capacity of soils during
1.0
0.9
0.8
Clay factor, PI/LL
0.7 CLAY SANDY
0.6 CLAY
0.5
SILTY CLAY CLAY
0.4
SILTY CLAY LOAM
LOAM
0.3
0.2 SILT LOAM
0.1 SILT
LOAM
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sand, %
CF ≥ 0.5 0.49 ≥ CF ≥ 0.33
Fig. 6. Representation of the 256 soils in the new texture classification pro­
posal of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) differentiating the sam­
ples according to their clay factor value.
Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689
Atterberg limits tests is negligible when PI/LL ratio is below 0.1896 (this
value was rounded to 0.2 to simplify, so soils with CF < 0.2 can be
considered non-plastic). Therefore, even if the laboratory operator has
performed the plasticity tests (most likely with difficulty), these mate­
rials could be considered as non-plastic in practice due to a deficit in the
content of plastic clay minerals. This could explain why there are hardly
any samples located in this range, since it is very likely that the operator
has directly considered the soil as non-plastic (CF = 0) due to the diffi­
culty in performing the Atterberg limits tests.
On the other hand, a relevant aspect about the distribution of the
samples is that most of them fall in a triangular zone delimited by the
axes of the chart itself, and a line, which in this research has been called
Q-Line (Fig. 6). This line joins the maximum values of the graph axes and
is defined by the equation: CF = − 0.01 × Sand(%) + 1. From a physical
point of view, the Q-Line would therefore show that for each percentage
of sand there is a theoretical maximum CF value. This makes sense, since
plasticity (and thus CF) depends exclusively on clay minerals, which are
found in the fine-grained fraction of the soil. Therefore, the lower the
proportion of fine-grained fraction, the lower the probability that the CF
value will be high. As shown in Fig. 6, out of a total of 256 soils, only 7
are located above this line. Therefore, the Q-line may be useful as a
quality control system for the results, because the fact that 97.3% of the
soils studied fall below this line suggests that the probability of a soil
appearing above it is very low, and if so, the reasons for this should be
studied. As plasticity tests are usually performed on the fraction smaller
than 0.4 mm, specifically using the <0.425 mm (ASTM D 4318-17e1,
2017) or < 0.400 mm fraction (e.g., UNE 103–104-93, 1993; UNE
103–103-94, 1994), a soil location above the Q-Line could be related to a
poorly graded particle size distribution (e.g., due to artificially prepared
sand-clay mixtures), with a proportion of sand in the <0.4 mm fraction
less than expected. Other possible reasons for the location above the Q-
Line could be that the Atterberg limits tests or those for sand content
determination tests have not been performed correctly, or if this is not
the cause, because the soil properties are very particular, for example,
because of the presence of clay minerals with high Skempton activity, A
(typical, for example, of montmorillonite). However, it is important to
note that a high A value does not necessarily mean that the sample will
be located above the Q-Line. In fact, if a differentiation is made ac­
cording to Polidori (2009) criteria to differentiate between low (A <
0.5), medium (A = 0.5 to 1) and high active (A > 1) soils, 85 of the soils
studied would present low activity, 133 medium activity and 38 high
activity. However, only 7 soils are located above the Q-Line, 4 of them
with high A, 2 showing medium A and 1 with low A.
3.4. Examination of the USDA (1951, 2017) texture triangle through the
Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) classification
SANDY CLAY LOAM
A comparison between the textural classification obtained by the
USDA Texture Triangle and that obtained by the authors’ approach for
those same soils is shown in Table 3, which details in percentage terms
the extent to which both approaches coincide when classifying a soil.
SAND
Thus, depending on the location of the sample in each classification, it is
defined whether both systems coincide and if not, the degree of
SAND
disparity, so that if they are neighboring groups, it will be considered a
low degree discrepancy, while if the groups are not adjacent, the
SANDY discrepancy would be considered as important.
LOAM In the case of soils classified as clay, clay loam, sandy clay loam,
sandy loam, loamy sand and sand by the textural triangle, at least 50% of
the samples are also classified with the same name by the Moreno-
70 80 90 100
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) system. This degree of overlap be­
tween the two classifications is reduced to 20–27% in the groups clas­
CF ≤ 0.32 sified by USDA as silty clay, silty clay loam, loam and silt loam, while the
overlap is nil in the three samples classified by the textural triangle as
silt, which are designated as silt loam by the alternative approach. Thus,
the total sum of the number of soils for which both classifications give
the same name is 94, i.e., the degree of coincidence between the two
7
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689

Table 3 complex medium in which water is a fundamental part. Thus, the in­
Comparison between the classification obtained by the USDA (2017) Texture clusion of combined methods of particle size (sand fraction) and plas­
Triangle and the classification of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) ticity in the presence of water could be put on the table to classify the
for those same soils. soil texturally in a simple way, as reflected by the classification data
USDA Texture Triangle Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) obtained by the approach of Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate
Soil group n Soil group n % (2018). Therefore, it is clearly demonstrated that the USDA texture tri­
angle can allow, on the one hand, the overestimation of the influence of
Clay 64 Clay 34 53.1
Silty Clay* 15 23.4
clay by counting as such a fraction of little or no plasticity (for example,
Silty Clay Loam** 8 12.5 silts with particle sizes smaller than 2 μm), or on the other hand, its
Silt Loam** 5 7.8 underestimation by, for example, putting on the same level the influence
Silt** 2 3.1 of clay minerals with very different characteristics (e.g., 30% kaolinite is
Silty Clay 34 Silty Clay 8 23.5
not the same as 30% montmorillonite). Such misinterpretations are
Clay* 19 55.9
Silty Clay Loam* 3 8.8 critical and are the reason why the soil name assigned by the USDA
Silt Loam** 2 5.9 triangle may have nothing to do with its true properties. In other words,
Silt** 2 5.9 the USDA classification (or others like it) only provides information on
Silty Clay Loam 34 Silty Clay Loam 8 23.5 particle size (also with limitations), but not on how these different
Silty Clay* 5 14.7
Silt Loam* 8 23.5
particle sizes may affect soil properties, which limits its interpretation.
Clay** 9 26.5 Likewise, although a preliminary analysis was made at the end of
Silt** 4 11.8 Section 3.1 regarding the general representation of each group in each
Clay Loam 23 Clay Loam 13 56.5 classification approach studied, the data in Fig. 3 show that there are
Clay* 6 26.1
certain groups in the texture triangle that tend to have a very low rep­
Loam* 2 8.7
Silt Loam* 2 8.7 resentation when compared to the alternative proposed system. These
Loam 30 Loam 8 26.7 are the silt, sandy clay loam and sandy clay groups, with 3, 3 and no soil
Clay Loam* 10 33.3 classified, respectively. In contrast, according to the criteria of Moreno-
Silt Loam* 6 20.0 Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018), the number of soils classified in
Sandy Clay Loam* 1 3.3
Sandy Clay** 4 13.3
these three groups was 11, 13 and 5, respectively, proportionally much
Clay** 1 3.3 higher figures. Such results indicate that the texture triangle could have
Silt 3 Silt Loam* 3 100 difficulties when classifying soils into these groups. Obviously, as dis­
Silt Loam 40 Silt Loam 8 20.0 cussed above, although the weaknesses of the traditional USDA system
Silty Clay Loam* 10 25.0
have been evident in all classification groups, this is yet another argu­
Loam* 4 10.0
Silt* 3 7.5 ment supporting that other alternatives, such as the authors’ chart,
Clay Loam* 3 7.5 should be put on the table.
Silty Clay** 6 15.0 Moreover, beyond overcoming the potential weaknesses of the USDA
Clay** 6 15.0 classification detailed above, from a practical point of view, the authors’
Sandy Clay 0 Not applicable
classification has also three important advantages: 1) it is based on
Sandy Clay Loam 3 Sandy Clay Loam 2 66.7
Silt Loam** 1 33.3 Atterberg limits, which are parameters that provide valuable informa­
Sandy Loam 22 Sandy Loam 11 50.0 tion on soil characteristics, since in addition to being conditioned by the
Sandy Clay Loam* 10 45.5 size and shape of particles, plasticity is also influenced by chemical
Sandy Clay** 1 4.5
composition, pH, adsorbed cation, degree of crystallinity and particle
Loamy Sand 2 Loamy Sand 1 50
Sand* 1 50 aggregation, among others (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995; Polidori,
Sand 1 Sand 1 100.0 2015); 2) the determination of such parameters through PL, LL and PI is
fast (test time < 15 min + sample drying), simple and affected by fewer
* Slight disparity (neighboring group: the group borders the one indicated by
variables than sedimentation techniques; and 3) the use of a 2-axis chart
USDA); ** Relevant disparity (distant group: the group does not border the one
indicated by USDA). n = number of soil samples. instead of a triangle with 3 variables facilitates soil classification.

4. Conclusions
systems is 36.7%. Therefore, for the remaining 63.3% (162 soils) there
are discrepancies between the name provided by the texture triangle and
After carrying out a detailed analysis with 256 soils found in the
the designation deduced from the authors’ chart. According to the
literature from 21 different countries and 35 publications, the main
neighborhood criterion indicated previously, and performing again a
conclusions of this study are as follows:
general computation, the sum of soils in which the disparity is low is
111, representing 43.4% of the total. In contrast, in 19.9% of the data
- Although, a priori, taking data from different studies may seem a
(51 samples) there are significant discrepancies between the two clas­
limitation (the results obtained may vary depending on the opera­
sification systems. The fact that the disparity between the two classifi­
tor’s skills and test conditions), in this case, having taken a very large
cations is high in only about 20% of the cases is an indicator that the
number of studies as a reference has served as quality control for this
system proposed by the authors does not abruptly break into the textural
meta-analysis, giving it greater statistical consistency than if the raw
criteria accepted to date, which is positive if this new classification is to
data had been taken from a single study and a single set of authors.
be used as an alternative to the USDA triangle. Nevertheless, it is
- The PI/LL ratio, called clay factor (CF) in this article, emerges as a
necessary to understand the reasons for the differences observed.
parameter that can be essential in the classification not only based on
The mismatching numbers between the two systems should make
plastic properties, something that was already demonstrated in
soil scientists rethink the viability of the texture triangle when classi­
previous papers (Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate, 2017, 2018;
fying soil. A classification criterion based exclusively on particle size
Moreno-Maroto et al., 2021), but also as a differentiating variable to
does not seem to be entirely correct, especially when the methodology
accurately determine its texture.
used to measure the most critical fraction (the clay fraction) does not
- The evaluation of the traditional USDA (1951, 2017) texture triangle
seem to be the most orthodox, including the fact that sedimentation tests
through CF and its comparison with the proposal of Moreno-Maroto
consider clay particles to be spherical, which is totally false. Soil is a
and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) has revealed important findings. The

8
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate
fact that about 80% of the classified soils with both systems present
the same group designation (37% of the samples) or are adjacent
groups (43% of the soils studied), shows that the authors’ proposal
does not break sharply with the textural criteria accepted to date.
This is positive if the new proposal is intended to be used as an
alternative. Despite this, it has been shown that a significant per­
centage (20%) of soils classified with the USDA system actually
exhibit plastic behavior that is completely unrelated to the assigned
name (e.g., non-plastic soils classified as clay). This demonstrates
that the USDA triangle may have significant shortcomings when
classifying certain soil types, which suggests the need to implement
new approaches, such as the one proposed in Moreno-Maroto and
Alonso-Azcárate (2018), reaffirmed in this work.
- The use of particle size criteria based on unorthodox methods, such
as sedimentation-based tests in which clay particles are considered as
spherical, are the main source of uncertainty and error in the texture
triangle because the overestimation or underestimation of the clay
fraction directly influences the final classification.
- From an operational point of view, soil classification using the well-
known Atterberg limits methods can be an easier, faster, more ac­
curate, more useful (it provides more information) and less confusing
alternative (for example, it does not confuse silts with clays in those
cases where they have the same particle size) than using sedimen­
tation methods. In addition, using a 2-axis chart instead of a 3-axis
triangle is easier and more intuitive when locating the classifica­
tion group of a soil.
- Taking plasticity (in this case through CF) as a differentiating prop­
erty of clays (CF ≥ 0.5) and moderately clayey soils (0.5 > CF ≥ 0.33)
with respect to other soils conforms to the definition of clay dictated
by the main scientific associations on the study of clay, AIPEA and
CMS, (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995; Moreno-Maroto and Alonso-
Azcárate, 2018) and thus gives a more realistic view of the clay
characteristics of each soil.
- It has been demonstrated that the classification proposed by Moreno-
Maroto and Alonso-Azcárate (2018) conciliates plastic and textural
properties. This new approach allows the soil to be classified more
accurately, adjusting the name assigned to its actual behavior.
In view of the above, the final conclusion to be drawn is that the
traditional USDA texture triangle does not allow information to be
extracted on soil behavior beyond its particle size (with limitations), so
that the authors’ textural classification could be a good alternative,
which should certainly be taken into consideration for future work and
research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
José Manuel Moreno-Maroto: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing, Visualization. Jacinto Alonso-Azcárate: Writing –
review & editing.
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.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the postdoctoral contract granted through
the Resolution of May 21, 2020, of the General Secretariat for
9
Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689
Universities, Research and Technology of the Government of Andalusia
(Spain), which implements the procedure for the selection of doctoral
research personnel corresponding to the grants awarded to universities
and public research entities by means of Resolution of December 30,
2019 within the scope of the Andalusian Plan for Research, Develop­
ment and Innovation (PAIDI 2020).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clay.2022.106689.
References
Aksakal, E.L., Angin, I., Oztas, T., 2013. Effects of diatomite on soil consistency limits and
soil compactibility. Catena 101, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2012.09.001.
ASTM D 2487-11, 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D 4318-17e1, 2017. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D7928-21e, 2021. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation)
of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis. Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bain, J.A., 1971. A plasticity chart as an aid to the identification and assessment of
industrial clays. Clay Miner. 9 (1), 1–17.
Barciela-Rial, M., van Paassen, L.A., Griffioen, J., van Kessel, T., Winterwerp, J.C., 2020.
The effect of solid-phase composition on the drying behavior of Markermeer
sediment. Vadose Zone J. 19, e20028 https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20028.
Barnes, G.E., 2013. The plastic limit and workability of soils [Ph.D. Thesis]. The
University of Manchester, 427 p.
Bergaya, F., Lagaly, G., 2013. General Introduction: Clays, Clay Minerals, and Clay
Science. In: Bergaya, F., Lagaly, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Clay Science, Developments
in Clay Science, , 2nd editionVol. 5A. Fundamentals, Amsterdam, pp. 1–19 (Chapter
1).
Buurman, P., Pape, Th., Reijneveld, J.A., de Jong, F., van Gelder, E., 2001. Laser-
diffraction and pipette-method grain sizing of Dutch sediments: correlations for fine
fractions of marine, fluvial, and loess samples. Geol. Mijnbouw / Neth. J. Geosci. 80
(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016774600022319.
Casagrande, A., 1947. Classification and identification of soils. ASCE Trans. 113,
901–991.
Cools, N., De Vos, B., 2010. 6 th FSCC Interlaboratory Comparison 2009. Further
development and implementation of an EU-Level Forest Monitoring System
(FutMon), Life+ Regulation of the European Commission, in cooperation with the
International Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of Air
Pollution Effects on Forests (ICP Forests). Action C1-Soil-3(FL): Quality, expertise
and evaluations within soil surveys (INBO.R.2010.4). Instituut voor Natuur- en
Bosonderzoek, Brussel, p. 56. ISSN: 1782–9054.
Coroado, J., Marques, J., Gomes, C., Rocha, F., 2005. Ceramic properties of clay from
Asseiceira quarry at Tomar, Portugal. Mater. Constr. 55 (279), 5–16. https://doi.
org/10.3989/mc.2005.v55.i279.193.
Daoudi, L., Knidiri, A., El Idrissi, H.E.B., Rhouta, B., Fagel, N., 2015. Role of the texture
of fibrous clay minerals in the plasticity behavior of host materials (Plateau du Kik,
Western High Atlas, Morocco). Appl. Clay Sci. 118, 283–289. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.clay.2015.10.006.
Davis, R.O.E., Bennett, H.H., 1927. Grouping of soils on the basis of mechanical analysis.
USDA Department Circular 419.
De Jong, E., Kozak, L.M., Storehouse, H.B., 1992. Comparison of shrink-swell indices of
some Saskatchewan soils and their relationships to standard soil characteristics. Can.
J. Soil Sci. 72 (4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss92-036.
Dexter, A.R., 1977. Effects of rainfall on the surface micro-relief of tilled soil.
J. Terrramech. 14 (1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4898(77)90023-4.
Dexter, A.R., 1990. Changes in the matric potential of soil water with time after
disturbance by moulding. Soil Tillage Res. 16, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0167-1987(90)90020-E.
Dexter, A.R., Kroesbergen, B., Kuipers, H., 1984a. Some mechanical properties of top
soils from the IJsselmeer polders. 1. Undisturbed soil aggregates. Neth. J. Agric. Sci.
32, 205–214.
Dexter, A.R., Kroesbergen, B., Kuipers, H., 1984b. Some mechanical properties of top
soils from the IJsselmeer polders. 2. Remoulded soil aggregates and the effects of
wetting and drying cycles. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 32, 215–227.
Dexter, A.R., Horn, R., Kemper, W.D., 1988. Two mechanisms for agehardening of soil.
Eur. J. Soil Sci. 39, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1988.tb01203.x.
Diko, M.L., Banyini, S.C., Monareng, B.F., 2014. Landslide susceptibility on selected
slopes in Dzanani, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Jamba: J. Disaster Risk Stud. 6
(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v6i1.101.
Eshel, G., Levy, G.J., Mingelgrin, U., Singer, M.J., 2004. Critical evaluation of the use of
laser diffraction for particle-size distribution analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68,
736–743.
J.M. Moreno-Maroto and J. Alonso-Azcárate
Ferro, V., Mirabile, S., 2009. Comparing particle size distribution analysis by
sedimentation and laser diffraction method J. of Ag. Eng. - Riv. di Ing. Agr. 2, 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2009.2.35.
Francisca, F., Yun, T.S., Ruppel, C., Santamarina, J.C., 2005. Geophysical and
geotechnical properties of near-seafloor sediments in the northern Gulf of Mexico gas
hydrate province. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 237, 924–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsl.2005.06.050.
Grant, C.D., Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Frahn, B.S., 1995. An analysis of the
fragmentation of remoulded soils with regard to self-mulching behaviour. Aust. J.
Soil Res. 33 (4), 569–583. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9950569.
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.
Ingram, R.L., 1982. Modified Wentworth scale. In: Walker, J.D., Cohen, H.A. (Eds.),
2007, the Geoscience Handbook: AGI Data Sheets. AGI Data Sheet 8.2, Grain-Size
Scales. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Katte, V.Y., Ngapgue, F., Tsang, J.M., 2019. Mineralogical, geochemical characterization
and application of an alluvial clay material. SN Appl. Sci. 1, 1142. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42452-019-0768-x.
Keller, T., Dexter, A.R., 2012. Plastic limits of agricultural soils as functions of soil
texture and organic matter content. Soil Res. 50, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1071/
SR11174.
Keller, T., Arvidsson, J., Dexter, A.R., 2007. Soil structures produced by tillage as
affected by soil water content and the physical quality of soil. Soil Tillage Res. 92
(1–2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.01.001.
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, Fifth
edition. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 361–382. https://doi.org/
10.1520/STP38527S. 1970.
Meimaroglou, N., Mouzakis, C., 2019. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), texture,
consistency and organic matter in soil assessment for earth construction: the case of
earth mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 221, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.06.036.
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., 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.
Moreno-Maroto, J.M., Alonso-Azcárate, J., O’Kelly, B.C., 2021. Review and critical
examination of fine-grained soil classification systems based on plasticity. Appl. Clay
Sci. 200, 105955 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2020.105955.
Nakase, A., Kamei, T., Kusakabe, O., 1988. Constitutive parameters estimated by
plasticity index. J. Geotech. Eng. 114 (4), 844–858. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1988)114:7(844).
Ojeniyi, S.O., Dexter, A.R., 1979. Soil structural changes during multiple pass tillage.
Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 22, 1068–1072.
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 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.
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.
10
Applied Clay Science 229 (2022) 106689
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. Geotechn. J. 42,
118–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-012-0007-5.
Qu, J., Hu, D., 2018. Influence of fly ash on the engineering properties of silty clay and
heavy loam in Shanghai. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Road and Rail Infrastructures – CETRA 2018. 17–19 May 2018. Zadar, Croatia.
Rubinić, V., Ilijanić, N., Magdić, I., Bensa, A., Husnjak, S., Krklec, K., 2020. Plasticity,
mineralogy, and WRB classification of some typical clay soils along the two major
rivers in Croatia. Eurasian Soil Sci. 53 (7), 922–940. https://doi.org/10.1134/
S1064229320070121.
Satyanarayana Murthy, N., 1986. Factors and mechanisms controlling volume change
behaviour of fine-grained soils. PhD thesis. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India.
Sharo, A.A., Ashteyat, A.M., Alawneh, A.S., Bany Khaled, B.A., 2018. The use of oil shale
fly ash to improve the properties of Irbid soil. World J. Eng. 15 (5), 614–625. https://
doi.org/10.1108/WJE-10-2017-0325.
Sivapullaiah, P.V., Sridharan, A., 1985. Liquid limit of soil mixtures. Geotech. Test. J. 8
(3), 111–116.
Sivapullaiah, P.V., Sridharan, A., Sreepada Rao, A., 1996. Effect of phosphate adsorption
on the permeability of clays. In: Proc. 2nd Int. Cong. Environmental Geotechnics,
Osaka, pp. 597–602.
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.
Sridharan, A., Nagaraj, H.B., 2000. Compressibility behavior of remoulded, fine-grained
soils and correlation with index properties. Can. Geotech. J. 37 (3), 712–722.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-128.
Sridharan, A., Prakash, K., 1998. Mechanisms controlling the shrinkage limit of soils.
Geotech. Test. J. 21 (3), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10897J.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.M., Murthy, N.S., 1988. Liquid limit of kaolinitic soils.
Géotechnique 38 (2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1988.38.2.191.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.M., Joshi, S., 1990. Classification of expansive soils by sediment
volume method. Geotech. Test. J. 13 (4), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1520/
GTJ10181J.
UNE 103-103-94, 1994. Determinación del Límite Líquido de un Suelo por el Método del
Aparato de Casagrande. AENOR Norma Española, AENOR.
UNE 103-104-93, 1993. Determinación del Límite Plástico de un Suelo. AENOR Norma
Española, AENOR.
USDA, 1951. Soil survey manual. In: Soil Survey Division Staff; Soil Conservation Service
Volume Handbook 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA, 2017. Soil survey manual. In: Soil Survey Division Staff; Soil Conservation Service
Volume Handbook 18. U.S. Department of Agriculture (chapter 3).
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., 1997. The influence of organic matter in reducing the
destabilization of soil by simulated tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 42 (4), 253–275. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00009-3.
Watts, C.W., Dexter, A.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Longstaff, D.J., 1995. Pre-inundation
characterisation of soil physical and chemical parameters on the Tollesbury
experimental set-back site. Silsoe Research Institute Contract Report. CR/643/95/
1326.
Wentworth, C.K., 1922. Scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J. Geol. 30
(5), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1086/622910.
White, W.A., 1949. Atterberg plastic limits of clay minerals. Illinois State Geological
Survey, Urbana. Report of Investigation No. 144. Reprinted from the Am. Mineral.
34 (7,8), 508–512.
Whitney, M., 1911. The Use of Soils East of the Great Plains Region. USDA Bureau of
Soils Bulletin No. 78.