City of Antipolo Institute of Technology

Bachelor of Construction Engineering Technology and Management

CE5: GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
Laboratory Report 04.
Exercise 04: Determination of Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit

Name: Gatlabayan, Crozzle Mae S. Date of Conduction: 02/17/2023

Student Number: 2021-767 Date of Submission: 02/31/2023
Year and Section: 2-O Instructor: Engr. Albert Sabado

I. INTRODUCTION
The Atterberg limit is the soil's liquid limit and plastic limit.
Internationally, these two limitations are employed for soil identification,
categorization, and strength correlations. When fine-grained soil contains
clay minerals, it can be reshaped in the presence of moisture without
disintegrating. Its cohesiveness is created by the water surrounding the
clay particles that has been absorbed. At extremely low moisture level,
earth acts more like a solid; at extremely high moisture content, soil and
water may flow like a liquid. In accordance with the soil's moisture content,
its behavior can be arbitrarily classified into the four categories depicted in
Figure 5-1: solid, semisolid, plastic, and liquid.

Figure 5.1: Qualitative positions of Atterberg limits on a moisture content scale

1
 The percentage of moisture content at which a substance changes
from solid to semi-solid is known as the shrinkage limit (SL). The moisture
content at the point of transition from semi-solid to plastic state is the
plastic limit (PL), whereas the moisture content at the point of transition
from plastic to liquid state is the liquid limit (LL) (LL). These parameters
are sometimes referred to as Atterberg limits. The liquid and plastic limits
of a soil as well as its moisture content can be utilized to determine its
relative consistency or liquid index. The plasticity index and proportion of
particles smaller than 2 m can be utilized to calculate its activity number.
The liquid limit of a soil containing significant amounts of organic matter
is drastically reduced when the soil is baked in an oven prior to testing.
Comparing the liquid limit of a sample before and after oven-drying can
therefore be used as a qualitative indicator of a soil's organic matter
concentration.

II. OBJECTIVES
 To obtain the grain size distribution curve for a given soil sample.
III. INSTRUMENTS AND ACCESSORIES

 Casagrande’s liquid  Spatula

limit device  Oven
 Grooving tool  Plastic limit rolling
 Mixing dishes device set

IV. PROCEDURES

 Determine the mass of each of the three moisture cans (W1).

 Calibrate the drop of the cup, using the end of the grooving
 tool not meant for cutting, so that there is consistency in the
 height of the drop.
 Put about 250 g of air-dried soil through a # 40 sieve into
 an evaporating dish and with a plastic squeeze bottle, add
 enough water to form a uniform paste.
 Place the soil in the Casagrande’s cup and use a spatula to
 smooth the surface so that the maximum depth is about

2
 8mm.
 Using the grooving tool, cut a groove at the center line of
 the soil cup.
 Crank the device at a rate of 2 revolutions per second until
 there is a clear visible closure of 1/2” or 12.7 mm in the soil
 pat placed in the cup. Count the number of blows (N) that
 caused the closure. (Make the paste so that N begins with
 a value higher than 35.)
 If N= 15 to 40, collect the sample from the closed part of
 the cup using a spatula and determine the water content
 weighing the can + moist soil (W2). If the soil is too dry, N
 will be higher and will reduce as water is added.
 Perform a minimum of three trials with values of N-15 to 40,
 cleaning the cap after each trial.
 Determine the corresponding w% after 24 hours (W3) and
 plot the N vs w%, which is called the “flow curve”.
PROCEDURE OF PLASTIC LIMIT
 If the soil crumbles forming a thread approximately the size
 of the opening between the plates (around 3 mm diameter),
 collect the crumbled sample, and weigh it in the moisture
 can (W2) to determine the water content. Otherwise, repeat
 the test with the same soil, but dry it by rolling it between
 your palms.
 Determine the weight of the dry soil + moisture can, (W3).
 The water content obtained is the plastic limit.
 A reduction in the amount of moisture past the plastic limit does not
decrease the volume of the soil.
 The sample changes from semi-solid to solid state at the
shrinkage
 limit (boundary water content). Beyond this point the sample begins
 to dry up.
 The figure below depicts the phenomena of volume
change.

3
  Plot point A, using the values of LL and PI determined
 experimentally, and extend it to meet O.
 The intercept of the line AO on the X- axis gives the
shrinkage limit.
V. DATA AND RESULTS

TABLE 1: Observed and Acquired Values of Liquid Limit

Number of 1 2 3 Average
Trials
No. of blows 27 22 19 22.67

Wt. of container 15.09 14.89 15.07 15.02

in gm
Wt. of container 25.93 23.16 26.56 25.22
+ wet soil, gm
Wt. of container 22.40 20.33 22.37 21.7
+ dry soil, gm
Wt. of water, 3.53 2.83 4.14 3.5
Ww in gm
Wt. of dry soil, 7.31 5.44 7.3 6.68
Ws in gm
Water Content, 115.76 113.92 118.73 116.14
w in %

TABLE 2: Observed and Acquired Values of Plastic Limit

Number of 1 2 3 Average
Trials
Wt. of container 14.93 14.72 15.27 14.97
in gm
Wt. of container 15.86 15.43 15.88 15.72
+ wet soil in gm

4
 Wt. of container 15.60 15.22 15.72 15.51
+ dry soil, gm
Wt. of water 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.21
In gm
Wt. of dry soil in 0.67 0.5 0.45 0.54
gm
Water Content, 38.81% 42% 35.56% 38.79%
w in %

Plastic limit = 38.79% Plasticity Index = 11.53%

Figure 1: Atterberg Limit Graph and Calculation

Figure 2: Shrinkage Limit

5
VI. FORMULA AND CALCULATION

Liquid Limit Sample Calculation

For trial No. 1
Number of Blows N, = 27
Wt. of container = 15.09g
Wt. of container + wet Soil = 25.93g
Wt. of container + dry soil = 22.40g
Wt. of water, Ww = 25.93g – 22.40g = 3.53g
Wt. of dry soil, Ws = 22.40g – 15.09g = 7.31g
Water Content w = 3.53g / 7.31g *100 = 48.29%

Plastic Limit Sample Calculation

For trial No. 1
Wt. of container = 14.93g
Wt. of container + wet Soil = 15.86g
Wt. of container + dry soil = 15.60g
Wt. of water, Ww = 15.86g – 15.60g = 0.26g
Wt. of dry soil, Ws = 15.60g – 14.93g = 0.67g
Water Content w = 0.26g / 0.67g *100 = 38.81%

Average plastic limit: 38.81+42+35.56 / 3 = 38.79%

Plasticity Index: 50.32% - 38.79% = 11.53%

VII. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The objective of the investigation that was carried out was to ascertain
the liquid limit (LL), the plastic limit (PL), and the plasticity index (PI) of the
soil sample that was provided. When a dry soil is mixed with water, it will
eventually achieve a plastic condition, and when additional water is added,
it will reach a liquid state. The soil can also reach a liquid state when more
water is added. The point at which the soil changes from a semi-solid or
solid state to a plastic state is known as the soil's plastic limit, and the

6
 point at which it changes from a plastic state to a liquid state is known as
the soil's liquid limit.
In order to conduct the liquid limit test, we measured three different
containers and made a note of their respective weights. After that, we
transferred the dirt to a bowl dish and mixed it thoroughly while gradually
adding water. When the soil had reached the point where it contained an
adequate amount of water to finish the percussion cup test, it was placed
inside the Casagrande device, scraped with the grooving tool, and then
dropped until the groove closed. This process was repeated until the
groove was completely closed. After noting the total number of drips, the
soil was removed, repackaged, and baked in the oven after being placed
in the appropriate containers. After that, more water was added to the soil
that was contained inside the bowl dish. After that, the soil was put within
the apparatus so that it could be subjected to a second test with a larger
water content than the first. This procedure was carried out until each of
the three containers contained a sample of soil with a distinct level of
water content.
For the purpose of the plastic limit test, water is added to the soil that is
contained in a bowl dish, and it is then properly mixed. In the same
manner as the liquid limit test, the weights of three different containers are
measured and recorded. The instructor provided us with a steel rod of a
specific diameter, and we proceeded to shape the soil into rods of the
same diameter. After finishing the procedure, we put it in the oven, waited
anywhere from 16 to 24 hours, and then used a scale to figure out how
much moisture was in each sample, including the soil from the liquid limit
test.
After completing the steps outlined in the following process, the
moisture content of each soil sample was weighed, the data were
tabulated, and then the computation to calculate the plastic limit and liquid
limit of the given soil sample was carried out.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7
 The LL and PL of the supplied soil sample were calculated using the
data in the table above. We also calculated the plasticity index (PI) and
arrived with a value of 11.53%. Using the above formula, we were able to
not only draw the shrinkage limit, but also calculate the liquid limit and the
plastic limit. Practical significance comes from the liquid limit and the
plastic limit's capacity to represent the various clay mineral kinds and
amounts present in the fine fraction. The soil likely contains a lot of clay
and colloidal-sized, more active-type minerals because of its high plasticity
index and liquid limit. These soil conditions are not suitable for supporting
a building's foundation or the weight of foot traffic. Furthermore, the results
of the test are very useful for soil classification, footing design, and
consolidation settling prediction.
The outcomes of the experiment performed were not entirely reliable.
This is due to the fact that problems with the percussion cup method of
determining the liquid limit persisted even as the experiment was being
carried out. The first problem is that the original test attempt recorded an
incorrect number of blows since the dirt and water weren't fully mixed. This
resulted in a dry clump of soil forming, and the groove closed in either a
larger or smaller number of strikes than would have been expected from
the dirt alone.
The groove may also break if it were dropped from an improper height
during the test. As a result, the moisture content is estimated incorrectly
since the number of blows needed to close the groove is off by more than
its true value. To successfully complete the laboratory experiment, it is
imperative that you adhere to both the directions and the protocol. This will
guarantee proper execution of the experiment. If you don't want to get
wounded, it's important to avoid doing things like fiddling with the tools and
equipment and keeping an eye out for visible and hidden faults that could
happen during the activity. Use them wisely and exclusively for their
intended purposes.

IX. APPENDIX
DOCUMENTATION

8
Figure 1. Adding of water to Soil Sample.

Figure 2. Adding wet soil

sample to Casagrande’s liquid limit
device

Figure 5. Counting the number of blows. Figure 6. Execution of Plastic Limit

test.

9
X. REFERENCES
file:///C:/Users/gatla/Downloads/Geotechnical-Engineering-Laboratory-
https://uta.pressbooks.pub/soilmechanics/chapter/atterberg-limit-test/

https://www.humboldtmfg.com/liquid-limit-atterberg-limits.html#:~:text=Plastic
%20limit%20is%20a%20test,to%20a%20very%20narrow%20diameter.

https://basiccivilengineering.com/2017/05/plastic-limit-test-procedures-
sample-calculations.html

10