Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 32, No.

4
Paper ID GTJ101960
Available online at: www.astm.org
TECHNICAL NOTE

K. Prakash,1 A. Sridharan,2 and H. S. Prasanna3

A Note on the Determination of Plastic Limit

of Fine-Grained Soils

ABSTRACT: Plastic limit of fine-grained soils is conventionally determined in the laboratory by the soil thread rolling method. Many adverse
comments have been recorded in the geotechnical engineering literature on the method about its reproducibility and operator dependency. The
present experimental study, which is based on a well-planned and meticulously executed experimental program, critically evaluates the effect of size
of the rolled soil thread on the plastic limit of fine-grained soils and the operator dependency of the results. The results have shown that if the plastic
limit tests are performed by a trained operator, then consistent results can be obtained and that the effect of size of the rolled soil thread on plastic
limit is negligibly small.
KEYWORDS: fine-grained soils, fall cone method, plastic limit

Introduction
In the field of geotechnical engineering, the study of fine-grained
soils invariably starts with their Atterberg limits, namely, liquid,
plastic and shrinkage limits. The liquid and plastic limits of fine-
grained soils are conventionally determined in the laboratory by the
Casagrande percussion method and soil thread rolling method re-
spectively (ASTM Designation D4318–05 2007, “Standard Test
Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of
Soils”; BS: 1377-Part 2 1990; IS: 2720-Part 5 1985), both the
methods being quite arbitrary and empirical. The liquid limit is the
limiting water content of the soil slurry, any reduction in which will
induce the development of shear resistance among the soil particles
for their relative flow. The plastic limit is the limiting water content
below which the wet soil mass cannot be molded into the required
shape. The range of water content between liquid limit and plastic
limit is regarded as the soil plasticity (i.e., the capacity of the soil
mass to behave like a plastic material). Recent studies have indi-
cated that the undrained cohesion of the soil mass is responsible for
this soil plasticity, which depends upon the viscosity of the diffuse
double layer water (Prakash and Sridharan 2006). If it is not pos-
sible to determine the liquid limit of the soil by Casagrande percus-
sion method and the plastic limit by the soil thread rolling method,
or both, then such soils must be regarded as nonplastic. Many re-
searchers have suggested the fall cone method to determine the liq-
uid and plastic limits of soils. However, the determined values will
not be the true representatives of the undrained cohesion of the soil,
which is due to viscous shear resistance of diffuse double layer
water and the net interparticle attractive forces among the soil par-
Manuscript received June 20, 2008; accepted for publication February 15,
2009; published online May 2009.
1 rolled soil thread can be slightly less or more than the specified
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of En-
gineering, Mysore 570 006, India, e-mail: kprakash60@yahoo.com
2
Former Professor in Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Banga-
lore 560 012, India.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Engi-
neering, Mysore 570 008, India.
ticles (Sridharan and Prakash 1999). Hence, the liquid and plastic
limits of the soils obtained by the fall cone method cannot represent
the plasticity characteristics of fine-grained soils in the real sense
(Prakash and Sridharan 2006).
The major limitations enforced on the plastic limit determina-
tion by the soil thread rolling method are that the method lacks re-
producibility and that it is operator dependent. This note tries to
provide more information about the following crucial factors on the
plastic limit values:
• variation in the size of the rolled soil thread and
• operator dependency.
Materials and Methods
Several field clayey soils and two commercial clays were used in
this investigation. The liquid and plastic limit values of the soils
were obtained by Casagrande percussion method and soil thread
rolling method, respectively (ASTM Designation D4318–05 2007,
“Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plastic-
ity Index of Soils”). The liquid limit of the soils varied in the
range of 34.7–166 % and the plastic limit varied in the range of
17.1–33.2 %. Two series of tests were conducted during the present
study.
Series 1
In the laboratory, the water content of the crumbling soil thread
when its diameter is 3.2 mm is regarded as the plastic limit of the
soil. The realization of 3.2 mm diameter of the thread is purely by
visual observation. However, it is possible that the diameter of the
value of 3.2 mm. To study the effect of the size of the rolled soil
thread on the plastic limit of the soil, different soils were mixed
with distilled water to form uniform paste and were allowed to
moisture equilibrate, the duration of which varied from about 8–10
days. The equilibrated soil pastes were subjected to plastic limit

Copyright
Copyright by ASTM
© 2009 Int'l (all
by ASTM rights reserved);
International, Thu Jul
100 Barr 9 20:31:49
Harbor Drive, EDT 2015
PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 1
Downloaded/printed by
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE (Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 1—Results of series—1 tests.

Water content in percent when the diameter of the soil thread is

Liquid limit
Soil number (%) 2 mm Percent error 3.2 mma 4 mm Percent error 5 mm Percent error 6 mm Percent error Soil classificationb
1 34.7 17.7 3.51 17.1 16.7 −2.33 16.6 −2.92 16.8 −1.75 CL
2 38.0 18.1 4.02 17.4 17.1 −1.72 17.0 −2.30 17.4 0 CL
3 44.7 20.0 2.56 19.5 19.4 −0.51 20.0 +2.56 20.5 +5.13 CL
4 47.3 21.7 9.04 19.9 19.6 −1.51 19.2 −2.52 20.5 +3.02 CL
5 47.4 22.4 3.22 21.7 21.7 0 22.2 +3.20 22.4 +3.22 CL
6 61.6 28.7 0.35 28.6 28.1 −1.75 27.8 −2.80 28.6 0 CH
7 62.0 26.6 3.50 25.7 23.7 −7.78 23.3 −9.34 24.5 −4.67 CH
8 77.2 35.0 6.71 32.8 31.8 −3.05 31.4 −4.27 33.4 +1.83 CH
9c 48.0 33.7 2.12 33.0 32.2 −2.42 31.4 −4.85 32.7 −0.91 ML
10 54.0 26.8 2.68 26.1 25.3 −3.06 24.7 −5.36 26.3 +0.77 CH
11 55.0 26.6 2.31 26.0 25.5 −1.92 24.8 −4.62 24.9 −4.23 CH
12 67.0 31.4 3.97 30.2 29.6 −1.99 30.3 +0.33 30.9 +2.32 CH
13 68.0 33.8 1.81 33.2 32.6 −1.81 31.4 −5.42 32.4 −2.41 MH
a
The water content corresponding to 3.2 mm thread is the plastic limit of the soil by definition [ASTM Designation D4318–05 2007].
b
ASTM D2487–06 2007, “Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).”
c
Commercial clay.

determination by the conventional soil thread rolling method Operator Dependency

(ASTM Designation D4318–05 2007, “Standard Test Methods for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils”). The Table 2 lists the values of the plastic limit of six soils obtained
water contents of wet soil mass when it was rolled into uniform through the conventional 3.2-mm thread rolling method by two op-
threads with diameters of 2, 4, 5 and 6 mm and crumbles were also erators. In spite of the fact that the tests were conducted by different
operators, the difference between the values of the plastic limit ob-
recorded, the values being the average of three determinations in
tained by them is not appreciable and is well within the acceptable
each case.
range of two results corresponding to multilaboratory test results
specified by ASTM Designation D4318–05 2007, “Standard Test
Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of
Series 2 Soils” (i.e., 6 % points for inorganic clays of high plasticity (CH
In order to study the operator dependency of the plastic limit of soils), 3 % points for inorganic clays of low plasticity (CL soils),
soils, the plastic limit tests were conducted at two different geotech- and 3 % points for inorganic silts of low plasticity (ML soils)).
nical engineering laboratories of the two premier technical institu- It is true that the operator judgment is very important in obtain-
tions in Mysore city, namely, S.J. College of Engineering ing the plastic limit values. However, as long as the test is con-
ducted by a trained operator/qualified technician, there should be
(Operator-1) and National Institute of Engineering (Operator-2) on
no difficulty in getting reasonably consistent values of plastic limit,
the same soils.
which is evident from test results illustrated in Table 2. There
should be no scope for inexperienced personnel to conduct the plas-
tic limit tests.
Results and Discussions Many attempts have been made in the past and are being made
even today to advocate the use of fall cone method to determine the
plastic limit of soil replacing the conventional soil thread rolling
Size Effect method (Wood and Wroth 1978; Belviso et al. 1985; Harison 1988;
Lee and Freeman 2007). In this connection, the following should be
The results obtained from Series 1 tests are presented in Table 1.
noted:
The water contents of the soil threads of 2 mm diameter have
slightly higher value than those having the specified 3.2 mm diam- TABLE 2—Results of series—2 tests.
eter. As the diameter of the soil thread is increased, the water con-
Plastic limit
tent has reduced as expected. When the diameter of the rolled soil (%)
thread is 6 mm, many soils tested showed higher values of water Liquid limit
content than the water content of 5 mm diameter soil threads. This Soil number (%) Operator 1 Operator 2 Soil classificationa
could be possibly due to nonuniform drying of the soil mass from 9b 48 33.0 33.5 ML
the surface of the thread to its interior. 10 54 26.1 28.0 CH
The important point, however, which is to be noted that the dif- 11 55 26.0 28.0 CH
ference between the values of the water content of the soil threads 12 67 30.2 32.0 CH
of sizes other than the specified 3.2 mm diameter and the water 13 68 33.2 33.8 MH
content corresponding to 3.2-mm-diameter soil threads is not much 14b 165 27.0 26.0 CH
a
and, in almost all cases, it can be observed to be negligibly small ASTM D2487–6 2007.
b
(Table 1). Commercial clays.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 9 20:31:49 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE (Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 PRAKASH ET AL. ON DETERMINATION OF PLASTIC LIMIT OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
• The fall cone method is a strength based test wherein und-
rained cohesion plays the least role.
• It is difficult to perform the fall cone test near the plastic
limit water content, as the soil becomes stiffer at that water
content.
• Fall cone test can also be conducted on nonplastic soils.
Use of strength based value (primarily dependent on undrained
frictional resistance) at the onset of nonplastic behavior of soils as
the plastic limit of the soil is not tenable. Plastic limit should be
governed by the soil cohesion only and not by any other strength
related mechanisms.
Conclusions
The effects of the soil thread diameter in plastic limit tests and the
operator dependency on the values of plastic limit of fine-grained
soils have been studied and the study leads to the following conclu-
sions.
• The effect of the soil thread diameter (over a range of 2–6
mm) on the plastic limit of the soil is negligibly small.
• As long as the person conducting the plastic limit test is well
trained, reasonably consistent values of plastic limit can be
obtained, even when the tests are conducted by different per-
sonnel.
• The plastic limit, which is the lower boundary of soil plastic-
ity, is also a measure of soil moldability, which in turn de-
pends upon soil cohesion. It should be determined by con-
ventional soil thread rolling method, however empirical and
crude it is, as the mechanism that comes into play in that
method depends upon the soil cohesion, until any other
method which takes into consideration the soil cohesion is
evolved. The undrained frictional strength based fall cone
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Jul 9 20:31:49 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE (Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador - PUCE) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
3
method of determining plastic limit of fine-grained soil
should be discouraged.
References
ASTM Designation D2487–06, “Standard Practice for Classifica-
tion of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classifica-
tion System),” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
ASTM Designation D4318–05, “Standard Test Methods for Liquid
Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils,” Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA, 2007.
Belviso, R., Ciampoli, S., Cotecchia, V., and Federico, A., 1985.
“Use of the Cone Penetrometer to Determine Consistency Lim-
its,” Ground Eng., Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 21–22.
BS, 1377-Part 2, 1990, “British Standard Methods of Test for Soil
for Engineering Purposes: Classification Tests,” BSI, London.
Harison, J. A., 1988, “Using the BS Cone Penetrometer for the De-
termination of Plastic Limit of Soils,” Geotechnique, Vol. 38,
No. 3, pp. 433–438.
IS 2720-Part 5, 1985, “Indian Standard Method of Test for Soils:
Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit,” BIS, New Delhi.
Lee, L. T., and Freeman, R. B., 2007, “An Alternative Test Method
for Assessing Consistency Limits,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 30,
No. 4, pp. 274–281.
Prakash, K., and Sridharan, A., 2006, “Critical Appraisal of the
Cone Penetration Method of Determining Soil Plasticity,” Can.
Geotech. J., Vol. 43, pp. 884–888.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K., 1999, “Mechanisms Controlling the
Undrained Shear Strength Behaviour of Clays,” Can. Geotech.
J., Vol. 36, pp. 1030–1038.
Wood, D. M., and Wroth, C. P., 1978, “The Use of the Cone Pen-
etrometer to Determine the Plastic Limit of Soils,” Ground
Eng., Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 37.