Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9536-z
TECHNICAL NOTE
Use of Uniform and Inert Beads for the Determination
of Shrinkage Limit of Fine Grained Soils
K. Prakash • A. Sridharan
Received: 23 January 2012 / Accepted: 3 July 2012 / Published online: 12 July 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Shrinkage limit is one of the important
index properties determined in the laboratory, which
has practical applications such as classification of soils
based on their degree of expansivity and as a measure
of volumetric stability of clayey soils in the field. The
conventional method of its determination requires the
use of mercury, which is a heath hazardous substance.
This paper proposes and discusses the use of beads of
an inert material having uniform grain size for the
determination of volume of dry soil pat, which is
required for calculating the shrinkage limit of the soil.
The shrinkage limit values obtained from the use of
uniform beads of an inert material compare very well
with those obtained from the conventional mercury
displacement method and are within the acceptable
limits.
Keywords Geotechnical engineering  Soil tests 
Atterberg Limits  Granular materials  Safety and
hazards
K. Prakash (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra
College of Engineering, Mysore 570 006, India
e-mail: kprakash60@yahoo.com
A. Sridharan
INSA Honorary Scientist, New Delhi, India
e-mail: asridhran@yahoo.com
1 Introduction
Shrinkage limit is one of the Atterberg limits, the other
two being the liquid limit and plastic limit. Shrinkage
limit is the maximum water content below which any
reduction in the water content of the soil mass will not
cause any decrease in its volume and hence, it
represents the volume stability of the soil mass.
Shrinkage limit is used to calculate the shrinkage
factors such as shrinkage ratio, volumetric shrinkage
and linear shrinkage. These shrinkage factors can be
used to evaluate the shrinkage potential, crack devel-
opment potential and swell potential of earth work
involving cohesive soils (ASTM D 427-04 2007).
Also, shrinkage limit is used by many to classify the
soils based on their degree of expansivity (Holtz and
Gibbs 1956; IS 1498 1970). The measurements taken
during the routine shrinkage limit test have been
successfully used to determine the value of the specific
gravity of the soil in the laboratory (Prakash et al.
2012). Many methods are available to determine the
shrinkage limit of fine-grained soils in the laboratory.
• Mercury Displacement Method: This is the con-
ventional and most accurate of all the methods
available to determine the shrinkage limit of fine-
grained soils (ASTM Designation D 427-04 2007;
BS 1377, Part 2 1990; IS 2720, Part 6 1972). It
makes use of mercury, which is a health hazardous
substance, to determine the volume of the shrink-
age dish and that of the dry soil pat as well. As the
123
1272
use of mercury causes serious health effects and
can be even fatal (ASTM D 427-04 2007), it is very
essential to follow stringent precautionary mea-
sures in using mercury, in disposing off or in
storing contaminated waste materials, including
dry soil pats, which come in contact with mercury.
Realising these facts, many governments and
many national codes of practice have put a ban
on the use of mercury.
• Wax Method: This has been introduced as an
alternate to mercury displacement method (ASTM
D 4943-02 2007; Prakash et al. 2009). This method
uses wax to coat the dry soil pat and water
displacement method to determine the volume of
dry soil pat. However, the wax method also has
certain limitations. It involves the heating of wax
with its associated equipments. The hot wax or
wax melting equipment may burn the unprotected
skin. Overheated wax may burst into flames. In
addition, wax method involves determination of
specific gravity of wax, if the specific gravity value
of wax is not given by the wax manufacturer or the
specific gravity value of wax is unknown. This
method requires utmost care and experienced
operator to get the reliable results. Further, water
displacement method adopted to obtain the dry
volume of wax coated sample is error prone.
• CLOD Test Method: This method was developed
by the researchers at New Mexico Engineering
Research Institute to measure the volume changes
of soils (Nelson and Miller 1992). In this method,
the soil samples are coated with a characteristic
liquid resin. On drying, the resin essentially acts as
a waterproofing material when exposed to water
for a short time. However, it permits gradual water
vapor flow to and from the sample. In CLOD test,
the volume changes can be monitored with grad-
ually changing water content of the soil sample.
This results in the shrinkage curve (i.e., a plot of
void ratio vs. water content), from which the
shrinkage limit can be read out. CLOD test method
has also been successfully used in the field by
many to predict the heave of soils in the field
(Nelson and Miller 1992). However, this method
has its usage restricted to a few countries, possibly
due to the difficulty in getting the resin of required
quality and due to the lack of publicity as well.
• Sand Replacement Method: In the field of geo-
technical engineering, sand replacement method is
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
not new. It is one of the standard procedures
adopted to determine the in situ field density of
soils [ASTM Designation D 4914-99 2007; IS
2720, Part 28 1974 (Reaffirmed 1988)]. According
to ASTM Designation D 1556-00 (2007), clean,
dry un-cemented, durable and free flowing sand of
any gradation which has Cu \ 2 (where Cu is the
coefficient of uniformity) and maximum particle
size smaller than 2 mm and less than 30 % by
weight passing 250 lm sieve should be used to
measure in situ field density. According to IS 2720,
Part 28 (1974), dry, clean and uniformly graded
natural sand passing 1 mm IS sieve and retained on
600 lm IS sieve should be used to measure the in
situ field density. Prakash et al. (2011) have
successfully extended the use of uniformly graded
sand to determine the volume of dry soil pats in the
shrinkage limit determination as a substitute to
both conventional mercury displacement method
and wax method. In this method, the volume of the
dry soil pat is computed using the calibrated
density of the sand and the volume of sand the dry
soil pat replaces. This is a simple and eco-friendly
method as it involves the use of sand, which is non-
hazardous, inert and very safe material for the
determination of volume of dry soil pat and hence,
the shrinkage limit of fine-grained soils. However,
sand is a naturally available material, which has
varied types of grain size composition and hence,
sufficient care is required to be exercised while
selecting a suitable type of sand. Prakash et al.
(2011) have noted that well graded sands can not
be used in this method in view of their tendency to
exhibit grain size sorting during usage and that
only uniformly graded sands suit the requirements.
Even among them, coarser varieties of sand have
been found to be less effective as a consequence of
possible errors that may creep in due to bigger size
particles and void spaces. It is possible that the
results may also get affected by angularity of sand
grains.
In the light of the above discussions, this paper
intends to suggest the use of another inert and safe
material of uniform size, which does not pose
problems similar to those by sands, to determine
the dry volume of the soil pat and hence, the
shrinkage limit of fine-grained soils and to check
its validity.
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
2 Shrinkage Limit
The shrinkage limit test is a routine test, conducted in
almost all geotechnical engineering laboratories. In
this context, attempt is not made here to explain the
step wise procedure of laboratory determination of
shrinkage limit. The shrinkage limit (SL) of soil under
study can be calculated using Eq. (1)
  
ðV  Vd Þ
SL ¼ w  qw 100 ð1Þ
md
where, w = Initial water content of the soil mass in
the shrinkage dish, fraction; md = Mass of the dry soil
pat, g; V = Volume of the wet soil mass in the
shrinkage dish (= volume of the shrinkage dish), cm3;
Vd = Volume of the dry soil pat, cm3; qw = Density
of water, which is normally taken as 1 g/cm3.
The current practice to determine the volume of wet
soil mass in the shrinkage dish (V) is to fill the shrinkage
dish with mercury to over flow, to remove the excess
mercury by pressing a glass plate firmly over the top of
the shrinkage dish and to divide the mass of the mercury
in the shrinkage dish by the mass density of mercury.
Prakash et al. (2009) have suggested the volume of
the shrinkage dish be calculated by measuring the
inner diameter and inner height of the shrinkage dish
with slide calipers (Vcal). Their studies have shown
that the volume of the shrinkage dish measured using
mercury (VHg) and calculated using slide calipers
(Vcal) are almost same.
i:e:; VHg ¼ 0:999 Vcal ð2Þ
Hence, Vcal can be taken as the volume of the wet
soil mass (V).
3 Bead Replacement Method
Following is the suggested procedure of proposed
bead replacement method.
1. Measure the inner diameter and inner height of
the shrinkage dish. i.e., calculate the capacity of
the dish, which is the initial volume of the wet
soil mass in the dish (V). Also record the mass of
the empty shrinkage dish.
2. Mix the soil with distilled water to form a paste
such that its initial water content is slightly above
the liquid limit of the soil. Place the wet soil paste
1273
into the shrinkage dish (whose inner surface is
smeared with a thin layer of silicon grease) in
three layers, ensuring that no air bubbles are
entrapped in the wet soil paste. After recording
the mass of the shrinkage dish with the wet soil
mass, allow the soil paste to air dry, ensuring that
no cracks are formed. After its color changes,
oven dry it to constant mass. Record the mass of
the shrinkage dish with dry soil pat.
3. Calibrate the beads to be used.
• Place the glass cup of internal volume Vc on
a level platform.
• Hold the funnel filled with the beads to be
calibrated near the top of the glass cup, with
its bottom outlet closed with a finger.
• Allow the beads to run down the funnel to fill
glass cup over its capacity by moving the
funnel evenly over the inner portion of the
glass cup.
• Remove the excess beads by horizontally
moving a plane plate over the top of the glass
cup.
• Record the mass of the beads in the glass cup
(Mbead).
• Calculate the density of the beads (g/cc) by
using the following equation,
qbead ¼ Mbead =Vc ð3Þ
4. Place the glass cup of internal volume Vc on a
level platform.
5. Hold the funnel filled with the calibrated beads
near the top of the glass cup, with its bottom
outlet closed with a finger.
6. Allow the beads to run down the funnel into the
glass cup by moving the funnel evenly over the
inner portion of the glass cup until the cup is
filled to approximately one-fifth its height.
7. Gently place the dry soil pat on this layer of
beads.
8. Allow the beads in the funnel to again run down
to fill the glass cup over its capacity, thereby
filling the gap between the glass cup and the dry
soil pat, as well as the portion of the cup above
the soil pat.
9. Remove the excess beads by horizontally mov-
ing the plane plate over the glass cup.
123
1274
10. Record the mass of the beads in the glass cup
(M1).
11. Calculate the mass of the beads of volume equal
to the volume of the dry soil pat (M) by using the
following equation,
M ¼ ðMbead  M1 Þ ð4Þ
12. Calculate the volume of the dry soil pat (Vdbead)
by using the following equation,
Vd ¼ Vdbead ¼ ðM=qbead Þ ð5Þ
13. The shrinkage limit of the soil under study can
then be calculated using Eq. (1).
4 Materials and Methods
Two types of manufactured and commercially avail-
able beads namely bead-1 (glass beads) and bead-2
(plastic beads) were used in this present experimental
work. Bead-1 is cylindrical in shape with a central
opening. Bead-2 is spherical in shape. Figure 1 gives
the grain size distribution of these two types of beads
used. Table 1 gives the gradation characteristics of the
two types of beads, according to which both the
materials are uniformly graded.
Nine soils of varying plasticity characteristics were
used in this work. Sufficient care was taken to see that
the samples cover wide range of plasticity character-
istics represented by their liquid limit (i.e., liquid limit
values of the samples vary in the range 52.4–264.6 %).
The soil types also vary widely in terms of their degree
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curves of beads
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
Table 1 Gradation characteristics of the beads
Material D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc Gradation
type (mm) (mm) (mm) classification
Bead 1 1.080 1.250 1.500 1.380 1.150 Poorly graded
bead
Bead 2 1.080 1.250 1.500 1.380 1.150 Poorly graded
bead
D10, D30 and D60 are the size of diameters such that 10, 30 and 60 % of
the particles are finer than that size, respectively
Cu = (D60/D10) = coefficient of uniformity of granular materials
Cc = (D30)2/(D10 9 D60) = coefficient of curvature of granular materials
of expansivity from negligible to very high, indicating
the presence of extreme types of clay minerals in the
soils such as kaolinite or montmorillonite or both. The
properties of the clayey soils used in this work are
indicated in Table 2.
The shrinkage limit tests were conducted as per the
conventional mercury displacement method (ASTM
Designation D 427-04 2007; BS 1377, Part 2 1990; IS:
2720, Part 6 1972). Shrinkage dishes of different sizes
were used in this work, in addition to shrinkage dishes
of standard dimensions (i.e., 44 mm internal diameter
and 12 mm inner height) as specified by the codes of
practice. Shrinkage dishes of different sizes (i.e., cups
with inner diameter 45 mm, inner height 13 mm and
cups of inner diameter 30 mm and inner height
11.5 mm) were intentionally used to obtain the dry
soil pats of different dry volumes to check the validity
of the proposed method over a wide range of volume.
The volumes of the shrinkage dishes (V), which are
also equal to the volumes of the wet soil masses, were
computed by measuring the inner diameters and inner
heights of the shrinkage dishes with slide calipers. The
volumes of dry soil pats (Vd) were determined by the
conventional mercury displacement method (VdHg).
The volumes of the dry soil pats were also determined
by the proposed bead replacement method making use
of the two types of beads namely, bead-1 (Vdbead-1)
and bead-2 (Vdbead-2) as per the procedure outlined in
the previous section of this paper. The glass cup of
internal diameter of 47.4 mm and a volume of
44.407 cm3 (44,407 mm3) with rounded cornered
bottom, a 75 mm square plane square plate of
thickness 3 mm made of acrylic plastic and a glass
funnel were used in the process. The values of dry
density of bead-1 and bead-2 were obtained as 1.398 g/
 Table 2 Details of soils used in the present work
Soil Specific Atterberg limits Equilibruim Free swell Free swell Grain size ISa Degree of Dominant
number gravity (%) sediment volume ratio index distribution classify- expansivity based clay
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278

(G) (cm3) (FSR) (FSI) (%) cation on FSRb mineralogyb

(%)
Liquid Plastic Shrinkage In In Clay Silt Sand
limit limit limit (SL) distilled kerosene/ size size
(LL) (PL) water CCl4

1 2.57 52.4 31.6 25.6 25.00 43.00 0.58 41.9 66 34.0 0 MH Negligible K
2 2.59 54.4 30.6 24.3 32.50 41.50 0.78 21.7 57 43.0 0 MH Negligible K
3 2.60 64.8 32.2 24.8 37.00 38.00 0.97 2.6 54 46.0 0 MH Negligible K
4 2.65 101.0 34.9 21.6 55.75 35.50 1.57 5.7 56 44.0 0 CH Moderate M
5 2.73 160.4 42.1 17.0 62.00 29.00 2.14 113.8 68 32.0 0 CH High M
6 2.80 203.2 36.7 24.5 91.00 22.75 4.00 300.0 67 33.0 0 CH High M
7 2.85 264.6 44.3 20.0 178.00 18.75 9.49 949.3 66 34.0 0 CH Very high M
8 2.63 44.0 23.0 22.4 12.40 11.50 1.08 7.8 45 34.5 20.5 CI Low K?M
9 2.88 169.2 69.0 22.6 80.00 15.50 5.16 416.1 68 32.0 0 MH Very high M
a
IS: 1498 (1970)
b
Sridharan and Prakash (2000)
K, kaolinitic; M, montmorillonitic; K ? M, mixture of kaolinitic and montmorillonitic
1275

123
1276 Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278

Table 3 Shrinkage limits of soils obtained from the mercury

displacement method and from bead replacement method using
bead-1 and bead-2
Soil (SL)Hg (SL)bead-1 (SL)bead-2
number (%) (%) (%)

1 24.6 25.8 21.7

2 24.3 23.2 21.8
3 24.8 24.1 21.5
4 21.6 27.0 20.5
5 17.0 16.7 17.1
6 24.5 28.0 23.1
7 20.0 24.9 19.4
8 22.4 21.3 22.8
9 22.6 25.4 23.4
Fig. 2 Comparison of volumes of dry soil pats obtained from
conventional mercury displacement method and bead replace-
ment method with bead-1 (Note 1 cm3 = 103 mm3)
VdHg ¼ 0:7732Vdbead1 ð6Þ
VdHg ¼ 0:8114Vdbead2 ð7Þ

The values of shrinkage limit of soils under study,

Fig. 3 Comparison of volumes of dry soil pats obtained from
conventional mercury displacement method and bead replace-
ment method with bead-2 (Note 1 cm3 = 103 mm3)
cm3 (1,398 kg/m3) and 0.852 g/cm3 (852 kg/m3),
respectively.
5 Results and Discussions
Figures 2 and 3 compare the volumes of dry soil pats
obtained from the bead replacement method using
bead-1 and bead-2, respectively with those obtained
from the standard mercury displacement method. The
corresponding regression equations, with correlation
coefficients of 0.999, are
obtained from the mercury displacement method and
from the proposed bead replacement method using
bead-1 and bead-2 are listed in Table 3.
The comparison of the values of the shrinkage limit
obtained from the conventional and proposed methods
is illustrated through Figs. 4 and 5.
It can be seen from Table 3 that the differences
between the values of shrinkage limit determined from
the conventional mercury displacement method and
the proposed bead replacement method using bead-1
and bead-2 have been observed to be less than or equal
to ±5.4 and ±3.3 %, respectively. ASTM Designation
D 427-04 (2007) suggests that the acceptable range of
two results obtained from two properly conducted tests
of the same type (for a multi laboratory determination)
is 4.8 % for mercury displacement method. Hence, the
shrinkage limit values, obtained from mercury dis-
placement method and bead replacement method
using bead-2 are within acceptable statistical bounds.
Even the values obtained by using bead-1 are very
close to the acceptable range of values.
It has been pointed out that relatively more
comparable results are obtained when bead-2 is used.
This is possibly because of the spherical shape of
beads of type-2 in contrast with the beads of type 1,
which are cylindrical in shape. However, it is to be
noted that the bead-2 is of plastic material and is likely
to experience changes in its properties when the

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
Fig. 4 Comparison of shrinkage limits of soils obtained from
conventional mercury displacement method and bead replace-
ment method with bead-1
Fig. 5 Comparison of shrinkage limits of soils obtained from
conventional mercury displacement method and bead replace-
ment method with bead-2
laboratory conditions such as temperature and humid-
ity change. It has been observed that the dry density of
beads of type 2 has varied in the range 0.852–0.829 g/cm3
(852–829 kg/m3) over a period of about 5 months, by
virtue of their plastic nature.
1277
In the light of these observations and discussions, it
is recommended that uniformly graded spherical
beads of inert materials such as glass, which do not
get affected by the variation in temperature and
humidity of the work and storage place, having
smaller and uniform particle size are preferred to be
used in the bead replacement method.
6 Concluding Remarks
The conventional mercury displacement method and
the newly introduced wax method of determining the
shrinkage limit of fine-grained soils, in spite of their
satisfactory performance, have inherent limitations.
The sand replacement method provides a good
substitute to these methods, which involves the use
of sand, a safe and inert material. However, there are
certain inbuilt limitations of sands, which are not that
easy to overcome. In view of this, use of manufactured
materials in place of sands is advocated. Spherical
beads of inert material and of smaller and uniform
size, preferably less than 1 mm, whose shape and
gradation can be controlled during their manufactur-
ing stage itself and whose physical properties do not
vary with changes in temperature and humidity of the
work and storage places best suit the purpose. The
results obtained from the proposed bead replacement
method, particularly with spherical beads, are in good
agreement with those from the conventional mercury
displacement method, and the results are well within
the acceptable statistical bounds.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the help
they received from Mr. Sandesh K., Mr. Sheshashayana M. and
Mr. Yashwanth V. during the experimentation.
References
ASTM Designation D 1556-00 (2007) Standard Test method for
density and unit weight of soil in place by the sand-cone
method. Annual book of ASTM standards, Vol 04.02.
ASTM, West Conshohocken
ASTM Designation D 427-04 (2007) Standard test method for
shrinkage factors of soils by the mercury method. Annual
book of ASTM standards, Vol 04.02. ASTM, West
Conshohocken
ASTM Designation D 4914-99 (2007) Standard test methods for
density of soil and rock in place by the sand replacement
method in a test pit. Annual book of ASTM standards, Vol.
04.02. ASTM, West Conshohocken
123
1278
ASTM Designation D 4943-02 (2007) Standard test method for
shrinkage factors of soils by the wax method. Annual book of
ASTM standards, Vol. 04.02. ASTM, West Conshohocken
BS: 1377-Part 2 (1990) British standard methods of test for soil
for engineering purposes: classification tests. BSI, London
Holtz WG, Gibbs HJ (1956) Engineering properties of expan-
sive clays. Transactions of ASCE 121:641–663
IS: 1498 (1970) Indian standard classification and identification
of soils for general engineering purposes. Reaffirmed 1987,
BIS, New Delhi
IS: 2720-Part 6 (1972) Indian standard methods of test for soils:
determination of shrinkage factors. Reaffirmed 1978, BIS,
New Delhi
IS: 2720-Part 28 (1974) Indian standard methods of test for
soils: determination of dry density of soils, in place, by
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2012) 30:1271–1278
sand replacement method. Reaffirmed 1988, BIS, New
Delhi
Nelson JD, Miller DJ (1992) Expansive soils. Wiley, New York
Prakash K, Sridharan A, Ananth Baba J, Thejas HK (2009)
Determination of shrinkage limit of fine-grained soils by
wax method. Geotech Test J ASTM 32(1):86–89
Prakash K, Sridharan A, Karthik HK, Anand C (2011) Sand
replacement method of determination of shrinkage limit of
fine-grained soils. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste ASCE
15(2):121–126
Prakash K, Sridharan A, Thejas HK and Swaroop HM (2012) A
simplified approach of determining the specific gravity of
soil solids. Geotech Geol Eng, (In print)
Sridharan A, Prakash K (2000) Classification procedures for
expansive soils. Geotech Eng 143:235–240