General: Correlation of Liquid Limit Using Cone Penetrometer and Casagrande Apparatus

Correlation of liquid limit using Cone penetrometer and Casagrande apparatus
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The liquid limit test, first proposed by Atterberg in 1911 and later
standardized by Casagrande (1932, 1958), is one of the oldest and most
commonly used soil test for the classification of fine grained soils in
geotechnical engineering. In addition, a number of engineering properties of
soils, such as untrained shear strength, compressibility, permeability, swelling
behavior, surface area, cat ion exchange capacity and liquefaction have direct
or indirect correlations with the liquid limit value.
Two methods are used to determine the liquid limit of soils, namely the
Casagrande method and cone penetration method. Although the cone
penetration method was accepted as the standard method in many countries,
e.g. UK, India and Canada, the Casagrande method is still widely used.
British Standards (BS1377: Part 2, 1990) give the cone penetration method as
the “definitive” method and the Casagrande method as an alternative”.
However, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM D 4318-
2000) recommend the Casagrande method. The important difference is that
the Casagrande apparatus defined in BS 1377: Part 2 (1990) has a relatively
softer base than that defined in ASTM (D 4318-2000). In practice, both types
of Casagrande apparatus are being used in geotechnical engineering in
different parts of the world.
1.2 Desirable properties of soil
 Stability
 Incompressibility
 Permanency of strength
 Minimum change in volume and stability under adverse condition
 Ease of compaction
RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 1

1.3 Objective of present study
i) To establish the fundamental criteria for liquid limit using Casagrande

apparatus.
ii) To establish the fundamental criteria for liquid limit using Cone
penetrometer.
iii) To compare the liquid limit obtained from Casagrande apparatus and
Cone penetrometer.
1.4 Scope of present study
Present study deals with the correlation of liquid limit values obtained from
Casagrande apparatus and Cone penetrometer.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
The engineering behavior of fine grained soil depends on factors other than
particle size distribution. It is influenced primarily by their mineral and
structural composition and the amount of water they contain, which referred
as moisture content on fine grained soils and help to classify fine grained soils
and help to classify fine grained soils and also to assess their mineral
composition and engineering properties.
The liquid limit and plastic limit are known collectively as the Atterberg limits,
after the Swedish scientist Dr A.Atterberg, who first defined them for the for
the classification of agricultural soils in 1911. Originally they were determined
by means of simple hand test using an evaporating dish. The procedures
were defined more precisely for engineering purposes by professor
A.Casagrande in 1932. The mechanical device he designed for determining
the liquid limit is still known as the Casagrande apparatus, although more
recently a cone penetration apparatus has been developed for routine use.
The tests for determining the liquid and plastic limits are specified in BS
1377:1975 and the most widely used of the index test.
(Reference 1)
The liquid limit of a soil can be determined using the cone penetrometer or the
Casagrande apparatus (BS 1377:1990: part 2, clauses 4.3, 4.5). One of the
major changes introduced by the 1975 British Standard (BS 1377) was that
the preferred method of liquid limit testing became the cone penetrometer.
This preference is reinforced in the revised 1990 British Standard which refers
to the cone penetrometer as the ‘definitive method’. The cone penetrometer is
considered a more satisfactory method than the alternative because it is
essentially a static test which relies on the shear strength of the soil, whereas
the alternative Casagrande cup method introduces dynamic effects. In the
penetrometer test, the liquid limit of the soil is the moisture content at which
an 80 g, 300 cone sinks exactly 20 mm into a cup of remolded soil in a 5s

period. At this moisture content the soil will be very soft. When determining
the liquid limit with the Casagrande apparatus, the base of the cup is filled
with soil and a groove is then made through the soil to the base of the cup.
The apparatus is arranged to allow the metal cup to be raised repeatedly
10mm and dropped freely on to its rubber base at a constant rate of two drops
per second. The liquid limit is the moisture content of a soil when 25 blows
cause 13mm of closure of the groove at the base of the cup. The liquid limit is
generally determined by mixing soils to consistencies just wet and dry of the
liquid limit and determining the liquid limit moisture content by interpolation
between four points BS 1377: part 2:1990, clause 4.6 provides factors which
allow the liquid limit to be determined from one point (Clayton and Jukes
1978)
The plasticity of soils is determined by using relatively simple remolded

strength tests. The plastic limit is the moisture content of the soil under test
when remolded and rolled between the tips of the fingers and a glass plate
such that longitudinal and transverse cracks appear at a rolled diameter of 3
mm. At this point the soil has a stiff consistency.
2.2 Influence of Testing Method in the Determination of Liquid Limit

(reference 2)
Conventionally, the Casagrande method has been widely used for
determining the liquid limit of soils. However, numerous shortcomings in
Casagrande method have been recognized such as reliability, reproducibility
and variation of apparatus (Soweretal., 1959, Casagrande, 1958, Sherwood &
Ryley, 1970). The fall cone method, which originated in Sweden in 1915, had
been proposed as an alternative method to determine the liquid limit to
overcome these shortcomings. In BS 1377 (1990), both Casagrande and fall
cone method are permitted as liquid limit test while ASTM (1993) only
recognized the Casagrande method. However, it is well recognized that
Casagrande and fall cone method yield different results (e.g. Sherwood &
Ryley, 1970, Wood, 1982, Leroueil & Le Bihan, 1996, Shibata & Nishihara,
1997, etc.).Liquid limit for PT clay in this study was determined by
Casagrande method by PARI while liquid limit for other data set that will be
used to supplement the analysis of this study was determined by fall cone
method. In addition, the intrinsic framework proposed by Leroueil et al. (1983)
was based on fall cone liquid limit and no clear definition of liquid limit was
given in Burland (1990)’s intrinsic framework (Eq. 2.5 and Eq. 2.6). Therefore,
it would be useful to express the relationship between Casagrande and fall
cone liquid limit value for making possible their mutual conversion so that data
from different sources could be compared consistently. Although some
relationship between Casagrande and fall cone liquid limit value had been
proposed in the literatures, no systematic study has been undertaken to
establish if these proposed relationships are applicable to Singapore marine
clay. More importantly, it would provide a basis for the evaluation of the
applicability of Leroueilet al. (1983) and Burland (1990) intrinsic framework in
PT clay in the next section.
2.3 Relationship between LLCasagrande and LLcone
Numerous studies have been conducted in many countries to compare the

Casagrande fall cone liquid limit values and various relationships had been
proposed and summarized in Table 4.4. All relationship is obtained by linear
regression except the relationship proposed by Shibata & Nishibara (1997).
They derived the relationship for British cone and Swedish cone by studying
the general characteristics of fall cone penetration in soils with different
Casagrande liquid limit. However, these reported experiments were
conducted in accordance to different standards with different device
specification (either Casagrande apparatus or cone penetrometer) and
different liquid limit definition (see Tables 4.4 and 4.5), which had been proven
to have an effect on the measured liquid limit values. A clear example was
given in Table 4.4 in which the relationship proposed by Wasti & Bezirci
(1985) is not consistent with the others. Their fall cone liquid limit values were
higher than the Casagrande liquid limit values. In their paper, they stated that
the Casagrande device they used in their experimental program has a harder
base than the other studies. Thus, in this study, only relationship proposed by
Sherwood & Ryley (1970), Budhu (1985) and Shibata & Nishibara (1999) will
be examined with the data in PT clay, as they were determined in accordance
to British Standard. In order to establish the relationship between Casagrande

liquid limit (LLCasagrande) and fall cone liquid limit (LLcone) for PT clay,
Casagrande and fall cone method have been used to determine the liquid limit
for seven soil samples taken from seabed near Pulau Tekong. The samples
were obtained from upper and lower PT clay layer. The Casagrande device,
fall cone and testing procedures are in accordance to BS 1377: 1990 (Part 2:
4.3 and 4.5). In order to obtain representative properties of natural soil, the
soil samples were tested without drying. All tests were performed by the same
person and same equipments to avoid operator and equipment error. The
liquid limit values are reported as the average of three tests. The relationship
and difference between the LLCasagrande and LLcone for the tested PT clay
is shown in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3, respectively. Data from literatures were
also plotted for comparison. In Figure 4.2, it is clearly shown that fall cone
method yields lower liquid limit than Casagrande method in PT clay. The
LLCasagrande for the tested soil samples are ranging from 54% to 138%
while the LLcone for the tested soil samples are ranging from 51% to 117%.
These data in PT clay generally agreed well with the data reported by
Sherwood & Ryley (1970) and Budhu (1985) except one data point with the
LLCasagrande of 138%. Figure 4.3 shows that the differences between
LLCasagrande and LLcone for PT clay increase from 2% to 22% with
increasing LLCasagrande. Similar trends were also observed from other data
reported in literatures. It might also be noticed in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3
that fall cone method generally yields lower liquid limit than Casagrande
method when the LLCasagrande exceeds about 50%.Among the published
relationships shown in Figure 4.2, the relationship proposed by Shibata &
Nishibara (1997) appears to give a slightly better conversion between two
liquid limit values in PT clay with the average error less than 2%.However,
these relationships should be used with care as it had been shown in the
literature that the relationship begins to deviate considerably from linearity
when the LLCasagrande exceeds 100% (Skopek & Ter-Stepanian, 1975,
Littleton & Farmilo, 1977,Wasti & Bezirci, 1985). These observations might
explain the deviation of the data point with the LLCasagrande of 138% from
trend for the data set reported by Sherwood &Ryley (1970) and Budhu (1985).
However, the liquid limit for PT clays is generally less than 100%. Hence,
these published linear relationships, particularly the one proposed by Shibata

& Nishibara (1997), are probably sufficiently accurate for the practice.
2.4 Cause(s) of the Difference between LLCasagrande and LLcone
Several proposals could be found in the literature on the cause(s) of the

difference between LLCasagrande and LLcone. Budhu (1985) observed that
the relationship between LLCasagrande and LLcone appears to be influenced
by the clay fraction (percentage by the weight of particle finer than 2 μm) of
the soil. He observed that the LLcone is higher than LLCasagrande when the
clay fraction of the soil specimen is lower than 50%.However the
representation of cohesive soil behavior with the clay fraction is rather crude
as not all the soil particle less than 2 μm is true clay mineral. On the other
hand, Sridhar an and Prakash (1998) suggested that in addition to the clay
fraction, the dominant clay mineral type might also play a role in determining
the relationship between the LLCasagrande and LLcone. They observed that
the fall cone method yields a higher liquid limit than the Casagrande method
for kaolinitic soils while the Casagrande method yields higher liquid limit than
fall cone method for montmorillonitic soils. However, the present study shows
that the Casagrande method yields a higher liquid limit than fall cone method,
although the dominant mineral in PT clay is kaolinite (Tan et al., 2002b).
Leroueil & Le Bihan (1998) has opined that the dominant clay mineral type is
probably not the only factor that governing this difference between
LLCasagrande and LLcone. As a summary, attempts to account for the
difference using clay fraction and clay mineralogy appear to be not quite
successful. Based on the data reported by Youssef et al. (1965) and
Sherwood & Ryley (1970), Wood (1982) suggested that the difference in the
liquid limit values is attributed to decreasing remoulded undrained shear
strength (sur) at LLCasagrande as the liquid limit increases. To examine this
behaviour in PT clay, a method of correlating cone penetration with sur is
required because laboratory vane shear tests were not performed on the PT
clay samples in conjunction with the liquid limit test. Hansbo (1957) made an
extensive study of cone penetration testing with the Scandinavian fall cone
device. He attempted to correlate penetrations of essentially four different
cones (60º cones weighing 10g and 60g and 30º cones weighing 100g and
400g) with field vane shear strengths of a number of Scandinavian,
particularly Swedish soils. He established the following relationship, which can
also be deduced from dimensional analysis (Wood & Wroth, 1978):
Su = Kmg/d*d (4.1)
Where,
Su is the undrained shear strength of the clay, kPa;
m is the mass of the cone, g;
g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2);
d is the depth of penetration of the cone in the soil, mm and
K is a constant, a function of the apex angle of the cone tip, the cone surface
roughness and the rate of shear strain during penetration (Houlsby, 1982,
Koumoto & Houlsby, 2001).
For remoulded clays, Karlsson (1977) suggested K values of 0.8 and 0.27 for
cone with an apex angle of 30  a nd 60 , respectively. Wood (1985) also
suggested a very similar value of 0.85 and 0.29, respectively. In Figure 4.4,
LLCasagrande is indicated by the solid circle. As indicated in Figure 4.4, the
depth of cone penetration increases from 21.9 to 35.2 mm when the
LLCasagrande increases from 54% to 138%. Using Eq.4.1 and K = 0.85 as
suggested by Wood (1985), this corresponds to a decrease in sur at
LLCasagrande from 1.39 kPa to 0.54 kPa. Such a variation in sur at
LLCasagrande is similar to that observed on the basis of vane shear tests
reported by Youssef et al. (1965) in which sur at LLCasagrande decreases
with increasing LLCasagrande.In order to compare the data in present study
with the published data, Figure 4.5 was reinterpreted after Wood (1982) using
K = 0.85 in Eq. 4.1, instead of K = 1.2 adopted by Wood (1982), to convert sur
at LLCasagrande data from Youssef et al. (1965) to the corresponding depths
of cone penetration and depth of cone penetration data from Sherwood &
Ryley (1970) to the corresponding sur at LLCasagrande. Figure 4.5a shows
the variation of undrained shear strength at LLCasagrande with
LLCasagrande while Figure 4.5b shows the variation of depth of cone
penetration at LLCasagrande with LLCasagrande. The data from Youssef et

al. (1965) show a slight systematic difference from the other two data sources.
This might be due to the use of a Casagrande device that does not comply
fully with that specified in BS 1377 (1990). Although a significant amount of
scatter is observed, the PT clay data follow the general trend reported by
Sherwood & Ryley (1970), i.e. there is neither a single depth of cone
penetration nor a single undrained shear strength associated with
LLCasagrande.
For a 30/80 g fall cone with a depth of cone penetration = 20 mm (i.e. at

LLcone), the value of sur calculated using Eq. 4.1 with K = 0.85 would be 1.67
kPa.Lines corresponding to sur = 1.67 kPa and depth of cone penetration =
20 mm representing LLcone are shown in Figures. 4.5a and 4.5b for
reference, respectively. The general trends shown in these figures are similar
to that shown in Figure 4.3, indicating that Wood (1982)’s hypothesis is
probably valid for PT clay as well.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Testing of selected materials:

Various lab tests that are conducted on the soil samples are as follows:
Grain size analysis

Atterberg limits using
Casagrande apparatus
Cone penetrometer
3.2 Grain size analysis [As per IS: 2720 (Part 4) - 1985]
Fig.1
Preparation of sample
1. Soil sample, as received from the field shall be dried in air or in Sun. In wet
weather the drying apparatus may be used in which Case the temperature of
the sample should not exceed 60 ºC. The clod may be broken with wooden
mallet to hasten drying .the Organic matter, like tree root and pieces of bark
should be re-moved from the sample.
2. The big clods may be broken with the help of wooden mallet. Care should
be taken not to break up the individual soil particles.
3. A representative soil sample of required quantity (As per Table-3 of IS:
2720-I) is taken and dried in oven at 105 -120 ºC

Procedure
1. The dried sample of 500g is taken in tray and soaked with water, The
soaking of soil continued for 10 -12 hours.
2. Sample is washed through 0.075 mm IS sieve with water till substantially
clean water comes out. Retained sample on 0.075 mm IS sieve shall be oven
dried for 24 hours.
3. The material retained on 75 µ IS sieve is collected and dried in oven at 105
- 120 ºC for 24 hours. The dried soil sample is sieved through 4.75mm,
2.36mm, 1.18mm, 0.60mm, 0.425mm, 0.15mm and0.075mm IS sieves. Soil
retained on each sieve is weighed.
3.3 Atterberg limit
By consistency is meant the relative ease with which soil can be deformed.
This term is mostly used for fine grained soils for which the consistency is
related to a large extent to water content.consistancy denotes the degree of
firmness of the soil which may be termed as soft, firm, stiff or hard. In 1911
Atterberg divided the entire range from liquid to solid state. he set arbitrary
limits known as consistency limits or Atterberg limits, for these divisions in
terms of water content. Thus the consistency limits are the water contents at
which the soil mass passes from one state to the next.
Liquid Limit Test
A) Cone penetrometer
Equipments
1. A flat glass plate.
2. Two spatulas.
3. Penetrometer
4. A cone of stainless steel approximately 35 mm long, with smooth, polished
Surface and an angle of 30 +1

5. One or more metal cups not less than 55 mm in diameter and 40 mm deep
with the rim parallel to the flat base.
6. Apparatus for moisture content determination (moisture tin and oven).
7. A wash bottle containing distilled water.
Test procedures
1. Take a sample of about 300 g from the soil which passing 425 mm sieve.
2. Place the soil sample on the glass plate and mix well with distilled water
using spatulas until it becomes paste from. If necessary, add more water so
that the first cone penetration reading is about 15 mm.
3. Push a portion of the mixed soil into the cup with spatulas taking care not to
trap air. Strike off excess soil with straightedge to give a smooth level surface,
4. With the penetration cone locked in the raised position lower the supporting
Assembly so that the tip of the cone just touches the surface of the soil. When
the cone is in the correct position a slight movement of the cup will just mark
The soil surface. Lower the stem of the dial gauge to contact the cone shaft
and record the reading on the dial gauge to the nearest 0.1 mm.Release the
cone for about period of 5 second. After locking the cone in
5. Position lower the stem of the dial gauge to contact the cone shaft and
record The reading of the dial gauge to the nearest 0.1 mm. record the
difference between beginning and the end of the drop as the cone
penetration.
6. Take about 10 gram of the soil specimen from the cup to determine its
moisture content.
7. Repeat the same procedure for at least 4 times using same specimen with
adding more distilled water. Choose for the specimen that only shows the
reading between 14 mm to 28 mm.
8. Plot a graph of moisture content versus penetration. Moisture content
corresponding to penetration of 20 mm is the Liquid Limit (LL).
B) Casagrande apparatus
Equipment:
Liquid limit device, Porcelain (evaporating) dish, Flat grooving tool with gage,
Eight moisture cans, Balance, Glass plate, Spatula, Wash bottle filled with
distilled water, drying oven set at 105 C.
Fig.2
Test Procedure:
(1) Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Assume
that the soil was previously passed though a No. 40 sieve, air-dried, and then
pulverized. Thoroughly mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until
it appears as a smooth uniform paste. Cover the dish with cellophane to
prevent moisture from escaping.
(2) Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the

Respective weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(3) Adjust the liquid limit apparatus 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 10mm. The block on the end of the grooving tool 10 mm high and
should be used as a gage. Practice using the cup and determine the correct
rate to rotate the crank 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
apparatus 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 (See Photo B).
(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 (See Photo C).
(6) Make sure that the base of the apparatus 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 drops, 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 13 mm (1/2 in.) (See Photo D). If the number
of drops exceeds 50, then go directly to step eight and do not record the
number of drops, otherwise, record the number of drops on the data sheet.
(7) Take a sample, using the spatula, from 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
req to close the groove decrease.
(9) Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional
trials producing successively lower numbers of drops to close the groove.
One of the trials shall be for a closure requiring 25 to 35 drops, one for
closure between 20 and 30 drops, 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
balance for all weighing.

CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
4.1 Grain size analysis

Table.1
Sl Results
no Test MH&OH SC SP
% % %
1 Grain size Gravel 4.22 Gravel 4.96 0.954
analysis Sand 10.75 Sand 65.66 71.458
Fines 85.04 Fines 29.36 27.58
Table.2
1 Results of Liquid Limit
Test MH&OH SC SP
% % %
Casagrande 59 29 17
Cone 66 32 26
Penetrometer
Weight of sample taken: 500g MH&OH
Sieve size %fine Remark

passing %
g
4.75mm 95.78 Gravel
2.36mm 94.28 4.22
1.18mm 91.16 Sand
0.60mm 89.76 10.74
0.425mm 88.26 Fines
0.150mm 86.92 85.04
0.075mm 65.04
Table.3
Fig.3

Weight of sample taken: 500g SC
Sieve size % fine Remark

passing %
g
4.75mm 95.04 Gravel

4.96
2.36mm 90.76
1.18mm 75.92 Sand

65.66
0.60mm 61.28
0.425mm 48.24 Fines

29.36
0.150mm 33.75
0.075mm 29.38
Table.4

Fig.4
Weight of sample taken: 500g SP
Sieve size % fine Remark

passing %
g
4.75mm 99.046 Gravel

0.954
2.36mm 97.796
1.18mm 85.21 Sand

71.458
0.60mm 46.522
0.425mm 35.916 Fines

25.28
0.150mm 32.774
0.075mm 27.588
Table.5

Fig.5

Liquid limit
MH&OH
DEPTH M/C
IN mm IN (%)
14.1 59.94
15.0 61.35
15.6 61.67
16.9 62.84
20.1 65.84
22.2 67.24
22.8 61.35
23.4 61.67
23.9 62.84
25.4 59.94
Table.6

Fig:6 Showing Liquid limit of MH&OH

(Cone penetrometer)
LIQUID LIMIT
MH&OH
BLOWS M/C
IN no’s IN (%)
12 62.16
15 60.11
18 59.65
21 58.92
25 58.48
29 58.21
31 58.10
33 57.82
RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY

36 57.50 Page 21
39 56.30
Table.7
63.00
62.00
61.00
M/C (%)
60.00 Series1
59.00
58.00
57.00
56.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
NO OF BLOWS
Fig:7 Showing Liquid limit of MH&OH

(Casagrande)
Liquid limit
Clayey sand (SC)
DEPTH M/C
IN mm IN (%)
14.3 29.08
15.6 29.39
17.2 30.16
18.1 31.01
19.0 31.43
20.0 31.87
21.3 32.09
21.9 32.16
25.8 32.78

Table.8
33
32.5
32
31.5
31
Series1
30.5
30
29.5
29
28.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fig:8 Showing Liquid limit of SC

(Cone penetrometer)
Liquid limit
Clayey sand (SC)
BLOWS M/C
IN no’s IN (%)
10 31.14
14 30.88
15 30.77
20 30.03
22 29.89
24 29.71
26 28.58
29 28.17
32 27.28
Table.9
32
31
30
MC(%)
29
28
27
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
NO OF BL OW S
Fig:9 Showing Liquid limit of SC

(Casagrande)
Poorly graded sand

DEPTH M/C
IN mm IN (%) (SP)
14.3 23.70
15.2 24.13
16.8 24.3
19.1 25.2
21.0 26.01
22.6 26.25
24.0 26.8
25.8 27.3
26.4 27.5
27.6 27.82
Table.10
Fig:10 Showing liquid limit of SP

(Cone penetrometer)
Poorly graded sand (SP)
No of
Blows M/C(%)
2 28.45 Table.11
4 25.1
6 23.47
15 20.99
18 20..61
22 18.10
28 16.20
30
25
20
M/C (%)
15
10
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
NO OFBLOWS
Fig:11 Showing liquid limit of SP

(Casagrande)
CORRELATION CHART

Cone penetrometer vs Casagrande

70 y =0.9872x +6.7821
LL - Conepenetrometer 60
2
R =0.9801
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LL - Casagrande
Fig.12
M/Cvs LL
70
60
50
40
LL
Casagrande
30
20
10 Cone
penetrometer
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
M/C
Fig.13

CONCLUSION
From the tests conducted and the results obtained using Casagrande and Cone
penetrometer it can be concluded that the variation in terms of percentage in the
Liquid Limit is observed and is given as follows:
For Poorly graded sand percentage variation obtained was 35% with respect to
Casagrande.
For Clayey sand percentage variation obtained was 10% with respect to
Casagrande.
For Inorganic silt and Organic clay percentage variation obtained was 11% with
respect to Casagrande.

REFERENCES
1) Engineering Properties of Soils Based on Laboratory Testing

Prof. Krishna Reddy, UIC.
2) Journal of Islamic Academy of Sciences 1:1, 74-78, 1988.
3) INTRINSIC FRAMEWORK OF PULAU TEKONG CLAY.
4) Soil mechanics. Dr B C Punmia.
5) IS 2720 (part-5) 1985
6) IS 11196 1985

General: Correlation of Liquid Limit Using Cone Penetrometer and Casagrande Apparatus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

General: Correlation of Liquid Limit Using Cone Penetrometer and Casagrande Apparatus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Correlation of liquid limit using Cone penetrometer and Casagrande apparatus

1.2 Desirable properties of soil

 Minimum change in volume and stability under adverse condition

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 1

1.3 Objective of present study

i) To establish the fundamental criteria for liquid limit using Casagrande

1.4 Scope of present study

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 2

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 3

The plasticity of soils is determined by using relatively simple remolded

2.2 Influence of Testing Method in the Determination of Liquid Limit

2.3 Relationship between LLCasagrande and LLcone

Numerous studies have been conducted in many countries to compare the

to British Standard. In order to establish the relationship between Casagrande

these published linear relationships, particularly the one proposed by Shibata

2.4 Cause(s) of the Difference between LLCasagrande and LLcone

Several proposals could be found in the literature on the cause(s) of the

penetration at LLCasagrande with LLCasagrande. The data from Youssef et

For a 30/80 g fall cone with a depth of cone penetration = 20 mm (i.e. at

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 9

3.1 Testing of selected materials:

Grain size analysis

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 10

3.3 Atterberg limit

Liquid Limit Test

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 11

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 13

Respective weights and can numbers on the data sheet.

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 14

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 15

4.1 Grain size analysis

Weight of sample taken: 500g MH&OH

Sieve size %fine Remark

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 16

Weight of sample taken: 500g SC

Sieve size % fine Remark

4.75mm 95.04 Gravel

1.18mm 75.92 Sand

0.425mm 48.24 Fines

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 17

Sieve size % fine Remark

4.75mm 99.046 Gravel

1.18mm 85.21 Sand

0.425mm 35.916 Fines

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 18

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 19

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 20

Fig:6 Showing Liquid limit of MH&OH

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY

Fig:7 Showing Liquid limit of MH&OH

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 22

Fig:8 Showing Liquid limit of SC

Fig:9 Showing Liquid limit of SC

Poorly graded sand

Fig:10 Showing liquid limit of SP

Poorly graded sand (SP)

Fig:11 Showing liquid limit of SP

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 26

Cone penetrometer vs Casagrande

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 27

RASTA – CENTRE FOR ROAD TECHNOLOGY Page 28

1) Engineering Properties of Soils Based on Laboratory Testing