CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

U N I V E R S I T Y

Experiment No. 5
Atterberg Limits ASTM D-4318 A. Liquid Limit Test

Submitted by

Dayondon,Vin Danzel C.

Group no. 9

Submitted to

Rusty Q. Alegre, M.Eng.Ed.

Instructor
CE461-M02
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
OBJECTIVES -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
PROCEDURE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION -------------------------------------------------- 3-4
CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
APPENDIX A --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
I. Introduction

The purpose of this laboratory experiment is to determine the plastic and liquid limits of a fine-grained
soil sample. The liquid limit (LL) is defined as the percentage of water content at which a portion of soil,
placed in a standard cup and cut by a groove of specified dimensions, flows together at the base of the
groove over a distance of 12.5 mm when subjected to 25 blows from the cup dropped 10 mm in a
standard liquid limit device, operating at a rate of 2 blows per second.

This test procedure adheres to the guidelines outlined in ASTM D 4318, the Standard Test Method for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.

Understanding the liquid and plastic limits is significant in soil science and engineering. Originally
conceptualized by Swedish soil scientist Albert Atterberg, these limits are essential for classifying fine -
grained soils.
In modern engineering practice, only the liquid and plastic limits are commonly used, though
occasionally the shrinkage limit is also considered. The liquid limit signifies the moisture content at
which the soil transitions from a plastic to a viscous fluid state, while the shrinkage limit denotes the
moisture content at which the soil volume ceases to reduce further upon moisture reduction.

The liquid and plastic limits, along with the Atterberg limits, play a pivotal role in classifying fine-grained
soils according to systems such as the Unified Soil Classification System or AASHTO System.
Additionally, a wide array of soil engineering properties can be correlated with these limits.

The equipment required for this experiment includes a liquid limit device, porcelain dish, grooving tool,
moisture cans, weighing scale, spatula, wash bottle filled with distilled water, and a drying oven set at
105°C. Through this experiment, we aim to gain insights into the behavior of fine-grained soils under
varying moisture conditions, contributing to the understanding and characterization of soil properties in
engineering applications.
II. Objective
The objective of this lab is to determine the plastic and liquid limits of a fine-grained
soil sample, following ASTM D 4318 guidelines. Specifically, we aim to establish the
liquid limit (LL), defined as the water content at which soil flows together in a
standard cup under specified conditions. Understanding these limits is essential in
soil science and engineering for classification and design purposes. Equipment
includes a liquid limit device, porcelain dish, grooving tool, moisture cans, scale,
spatula, wash bottle, and oven. The test involves preparing the soil, conducting liquid
limit tests at varying moisture contents, and analyzing the results to determine the
water content at the liquid limit.

III. Procedure
1. Take roughly ¾ of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Prepare the soil that
was previously passed through a No. 40 sieve, air-dried, and then pulverized.
Thoroughly mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it appears a
smooth uniform paste. Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent moisture from
escaping.

2. Weigh the 3 empty moisture cans and record the respective weights and can
numbers on the data sheet.

3. Adjust the liquid limit device by checking the height of drop of the cup. The point
on the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of 10 mm. The
block on the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be used as a gauge.
Practice using the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate the crank or handle
so that the cup drops approximately two times per second.

4. Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit device at
the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to eliminate air
pockets and spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its deepest point.
The soil pat should form an approximately horizontal surface.

5. Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the
cup. The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as groove is
being made. Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the
cup.

6. Make sure that the base of the device below the cup and the underside of the cup
is clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops
per second and count the number of blows, N, it takes to make the two halves of the
soil pat come into contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 12.5 mm
closure of the groove in the soil pat at 25 blows. Hence, at least three tests for the
same soil are conducted at varying moisture contents, with the number of blows, N,
required to achieve closure varying between 15 and 35.

7. Take a sample, using the spatula, from the edge to edge of the soil pat. The
sample should include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact.
Place the soil into a moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can
containing the soil, record its mass, remove the lid, and place the can into the oven.
Leave the moisture can in the oven for at least 16 hours. Place the soil remaining in
the cup into the porcelain dish. Clean and dry the cup on the apparatus and the
grooving tool.
8. Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of
distilled water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required to
close the groove decrease.

9. Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for additional two trials producing successively
lower numbers of drops to close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a closure
requiring 25 to 35 blows, one for closure between 20 and 30 blows, and one trial for
a closure requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial by
using the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use the same
scale for all weighing.

IV. Results and Discussions

DATA:
TRIAL 1 2
Mass of empty can,Mc 26.88g 50.48g
Mass of can + wet soil, 28.88g 51.28g
Mcws
Mass can + oven dry 28.12g 51.24g
soil,Mcds
Water Content,w% 61.29% 5.26%

Computations:

Plastic limit(PL)= AVERAGE W%

61.29+5.26/2 = 33.28%

Discussions:

The results from the two trials of the experiment are surprising and concerning. The
drastic difference in water content percentages between Trial 1 (61.29%) and Trial 2
(5.26%) casts doubt on the reliability of the findings. While the calculated average
water content of approximately 33.28% suggests some plasticity in the soil sample,
the inconsistency between trials is disheartening.

Moving forward, there's a determination to address these issues and improve the
experimental process. Standardizing procedures, ensuring meticulous attention to
detail, and seeking guidance are crucial steps to enhance reliability in future
experiments. Despite the setbacks, there's a resolve to learn from this experience
and strive for more accurate results in the future.
VI. Conclusion:

Using ASTM D 4318 rules, the experiment sought to ascertain the plastic and liquid
limitations of a fine-grained soil sample. Despite the careful execution of the protocol,
questions concerning the validity of the results are raised by the notable difference in
the percentages of water content between Trial 1 (61.29%) and Trial 2 (5.26%). It's
discouraging that there were inconsistent results among trials, even though the
computed average water content indicates that the soil sample may have some
flexibility.

It is imperative that these problems be resolved and the experimental procedure be

improved going future. Enhancing future experiment dependability requires
standardizing protocols, making sure every detail is attended to, and asking for
advice. Notwithstanding obstacles, there's a resolve to take what we've learned from
it and work toward more precise outcomes going forward.
Top of Form
VII.APPENDIX A.