2-1

2.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

GRAVEL, SAND, SILT, AND CLAY (SIZE) FRACTIONS

Soil particles found in nature range in size from boulder down to clay size. The commonly cited

components or fractions of soil (gravel, sand, silt, and clay size) are generally associated with

specified ranges in particle size. However, different agencies have proposed different limits as

indicated in Figure 2-1. In this course the ASTM-ASCE limits will be used:

Gravel +4.75 mm1 (U.S. #4 sieve)

Sand -4.75 mm, +0.075 (#200 sieve)

Silt -0.075 mm (75 Pm or 75 microns),

+0.005 mm (5 Pm)

Clay size2 -0.005 mm (5 Pm)

In contrast, note that the border between sand and gravel according to the AASHTO (American

Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials) system is the U.S. #10 sieve

(2.00mm).

1
The symbols + (plus) and > (greater than) are used interchangeably in the literature to signify
material larger than the size indicated. Likewise - (minus) and < (less than) are used
interchangeably to signify material smaller than that indicated.
2
While clay (i.e., clay mineral particles) are typically <5 Pm in size, there can be bulky non-clay
particles <5 Pm and clay particles >5 Pm. For that reason, a prevalent assumption is that the
clay (mineral) fraction is equal to the fraction <2 Pm.
 2-2

Grain size (mm)

1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

ASTM Sand
(D 422) Boulders Cobbles Gravel Silt Clay Colloids
(D653)
se

Medium Fine
ar
Co

300 75 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 0.005 0.001 Wentworth U.S. Standard
(4) (10) (40) (200) Millimeters
Size Class Sieve Mesh #

Sand 4096

GRAVEL
AASHTO 1024
(T 88) Boulders Gravel Silt Clay Colloids Boulder
256
Medium Fine Cobble
64
Pebble
300 75 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075 0.005 0.001 4 5
Granule
2.00 10
Gravel Sand Very coarse sand
USCS Boulders Cobbles Fines (Silt, Clay) 1.00 18
se

Coarse Fine Medium Fine

ar

Coarse sand
Co

300 75 19 4.75 2.0 0.425 0.075

SAND
1/2 0.50 500 35
Medium sand
1/4 0.25 250 60
British Gravel Sand Silt
Standard Boulders Cobbles Clay Fine sand
M.I.T. Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine 1/8 0.125 125 120

200 60 20 6 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.002 Very fine sand
1/16 0.0625 62.5 230
Coarse silt
No. 4 10 40 100 200
1/32 0.031 31
MUD

U.S. Standard sieve Medium silt

1/64 0.0156 15.6
20 60 140 270 Fine silt
1/128 0.0078 7.8
Very fine silt
1/256 0.0039 3.9
Clay

1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Grain size (mm)

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials (1980)

AASHTO = American Association for State Highway and
Transportation Officials (1978)
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System (U.S. Bureau of
(a) M.I.T.
Reclamation, 1974; U.S. Army Engineer WES, 1960)
= Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Taylor, 1948)
(b)

Figure 2-1. (a) Distinction between Components or Fractions by Grain Size Range Proposed by Different
Engineering Groups. (b) Wentworth Scale Commonly Employed by Geologists
 2-3

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

A gradation analysis is performed to determine the distribution of particle sizes and the

percentage of the various components (gravel, sand, silt, and clay). If a soil is primarily coarse,

i.e. +#200, it is weighed dry, washed on the #200 sieve, oven dried, and reweighed (the

difference in weight being the amount of -#200 material), and then subject to a sieve analysis.

On the other hand, the gradation of a soil that is primarily fine, i.e. -#200, is obtained by

hydrometer analysis. A soil that has substantial coarse and fines fractions is washed on the #200

sieve and dried samples of coarse and fines fractions are subject to sieve and hydrometer

analyses, respectively. The gradations of the fractions are then combined in their relative

proportion to the total soil, to obtain the gradation of the soil. (See the example provided at

section end.)

SIEVES

The full list of sieves in the U.S. standard sieve series is given in Table 2-1. While sieve sizes in

this list are a ratio of 4 2 larger or smaller than the next size up or down in the list (with some

exceptions), usually a nest of sieves having a size ratio of 2 is chosen for most sieve analysis

work (e.g., 3/4 in., 3/8 in., #4, #8, #16, #30, #50, #100, #200, and pan) with the #200 being the

finest mesh commonly employed. A commonly employed sequence of sieves that departs

midrange from this ratio is the 3/4 in., 3/8 in., #4, #10, #20, #40, #60, #100, #200, and pan.
 2-4

HYDROMETER

While meant to assess the gradation of the -#200 material, the hydrometer analysis is commonly

performed on -#10 material. (Therefore, in a combined analysis there may be overlapping

information from both the sieve and hydrometer analyses regarding the -#10, +#200 material.3)

As explained in greater detail in the Appendix, the hydrometer analysis relies on Stoke's law

(which relates the terminal velocity of a falling sphere in a viscous fluid to the sphere's diameter

and the unit weights of the sphere and fluid) and the time rate of change of the specific gravity of

the suspension (fluid plus finer size particles still in suspension).

3
However such complimentary information may not be in exact agreement since the measure of
particle size (the square opening through which the particle passes vs. the diameter of an
equivalent sphere of the same terminal settling velocity) is different in these analyses. If this is
the case, one typically accepts the sieve analysis as correct and adjusts the hydrometer results
proportionally to cause a match with the sieve results at the #200 sieve size (i.e., 75Pm).
 2-5

GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION

Once the grain size data has been obtained, it is invariably plotted for presentation. The percent

finer (i.e., passing a given size) by weight is plotted versus the log of particle size in mm.

(Sample grain size curves are presented in Figure 2-2 for reference.) If a number of such plots

are to be prepared, one may wish to employ specially designed semi-logarithmic graph paper of

the type shown in Figure 2-3 with sieve size diameters already located on the grain size scale. In

this regard, note that there is no specific convention for plotting grain size increasing either to

the left or to the right. (See Figure 2-2 (a) vs. (b).) However, such a difference causes no

particular problem relative to the assessment of curve parameters4.

4
On the other hand, beware that the geologist prefers to plot cumulative percent retained (i.e.,
larger than a given size) by weight on the vertical scale. This will lead to errors in the
assessment of engineering curve parameters unless detected and accounted for.
 2-6

G ra ve l Sand F in e s
A S T M -A S C E B o u lde rs C o b b le s

e
rs
C o a rs e F in e M e d iu m F in e S ilt C la y size s

oa
C
U .S . S ta n d a rd S ie ve s
3 " 2" 1 " 3 /4 " 3 /8 " 4 6 1 0 20 4 0 60 10 0 2 00
10 0

90

80
G ap graded
Percent finer by weight

70

60
W eathered unform soil
50

40

30
U niform
20

10 W ell graded
0
1000 100 10 1 0 .1 0 .0 1 0 .0 01 0 .0 0 01

G rain size (m m )
(a)
U .S . S tan d a rd S ieve s
200 1 00 6 0 4 0 20 1 0 6 4 3 /8" 3 /4 " 1 " 2" 3"
100

90

80
G ap graded
Percent finer by weight

70

60

50

40

30
U niform
20

10 W ell graded
0
0 .0 0 01 0 .0 0 1 0 .01 0 .1 1 10 100 1000

G rain size (m m )
(b)

Figure 2-2. Typical Grain Size Curve: (a) Grain Diameter Increasing to the
Left. (b) Grain Diameter Increasing to the Right
 2-7

Microns GRADING ANALYSIS

Sieve Sizes 3" 3"
1 5 10 20 400 270 200 100 50 30 16 8 4 11" 1"
2" 22 3"
8 4 2
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
TOTAL PERCENT PASSING

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

01 5 10 20 400 270 200 170

0
12010080 70 60 50 45 30 25 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 4 3" 1" 3" 1" 11" 3" 3"
1" 2"
40 35 7 6 5 4 7" 2
325 230 140 31"
2
5"
16
8 16 5"
8
4 78" 11"
4
2 14 Square
21"
2
Microns Sieve Sizes Opening
1 5 10 20 50 100 500 1000 5000 10000 50000 Microns
Log Scale
Average
Clear 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 2 3 inches
Opening

Figure 2-3. An Example of Specially Prepared Grain Size Analysis Graph Paper
 2-8

Notice in Figure 2-2 the use of descriptive terms relative to the form of the resulting curves:

x Uniform (or well sorted), corresponding to a curve of a limited range of sizes;

x Well graded (or poorly sorted), relative to a curve reflecting a broad range in
sizes; and

x Gap graded, signifying the combination of two or more uniform materials of

different size.

The creation of a gap graded curve (AB) is further demonstrated in Figure 2-4 corresponding to

the combination of materials A and B on a 60-40 basis.

Gap in AB

This portion is 40%

% Finer (base value from B)
by Wt. plus Curve A scaled
by factor 0.60
Soil B

60 Soil AB
(60% A - 40% B)

Soil A
40

This portion of
Curve B scaled by
factor 0.40

log D

Figure 2-4. Creation of a Gap Graded Soil

CURVE PARAMETERS

The location and form of the grain size curve can be quantitatively expressed with the aid of

certain parameters:
 2-9

D50 = mean size, i.e., 50% coarser, 50% finer

D10 = “effective size", so called because finer sizes tend to control behavior

Cu =
D 60 = uniformity coefficient, a measure of the slope of the curve
D10

D 30 2
Cc = = coefficient of curvature, a measure of its curvature
D 60 D10

For instance, a well graded soil is one with these characteristics:

Cu > 4 to 6, and

Cc between 1 and 3.
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
 2-14

Example 2-1

An oven dry sample of sand weighing 500.0 grams is washed over a #200 sieve. The washed

sample is then oven dried and reweighed; the weight is 487.0 grams. This sample is then sieved

on the following nest of sieves: #4, 8, 16, 30, 50, 100, 200, and pan. The recorded weight

retained on each sieve, respectively, is as follows: 1.4, 20.3, 65.2, 137.4, 145.0, 88.7, 28.2 and

0.8 grams. Sketch the shape of the grain size curve (% finer by weight vs. log of particle size).

Wt. Retained Cumulative

Sieve grams % Retained % Retained % Finer

1 .4 100-0.3
#4 1.4 ( x100) 0.3 0.3 99.7
500
0.3+4.1
8 20.3 4.1 4.4 95.6

16 65.2 13.0 17.4 82.6

30 137.4 27.5 44.9 55.1

50 145.0 29.0 73.9 26.1

100 88.7 17.7 91.6 8.4

200 28.2 5.6 97.2 2.8

pan 0.8 + 13.0 2.8 - -

487.0 500.0
 2-15

Solution

See the accompanying figure. Note that since the sieve openings of the nest of sieves employed

are successive multiples of each other, the log of the sieve sizes plot at even increments on a log

basis. Therefore, if all that is desired is the general shape of the grain size curve (and not

parameter values of Cu and Cc which require the assessment of D10, D60, and D30), one can take

advantage of this convenient choice of sieves and plot the data as shown below.

#4
100

80

% Finer
by Wt.

60

40

20

0
#4 8 16 30 50 100 200

log D
 2-16

Example 2-2

A 2000 gram sample of dry pulverized soil is washed on the #200 sieve and both the coarse and

fines fractions collected and oven dried: 1420 grams + #200, the remainder -#200. A 500 gram

sample of the coarse fraction and a 50 gram sample of the fines fraction give the following sieve

and hydrometer analyses, respectively:

Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis

(500g sample) (50g sample)

% Finer % Finer

#4 100 100 Pm 100

8 96 75 Pm 100

16 80 25 Pm 74

30 62 10 Pm 56

50 21 3 Pm 32

100 10

200 0

What is the combined gradation for the soil?

 2-17

Solution

1420
Coarse fraction, = 0.71 or 71% of total
2000

Fines fraction, 100 - 71 = 29%.

Combined gradation:

Size Coarse Fines % Finer

#4 0.71(100) + 0.29(100)1 = 100.0

#8 .71(96) + .29(100) = 97.2

#16 .71(80) + .29(100) = 85.8

#30 .71(62) + .29(100) = 73.0

#50 .71(21) + .29(100) = 43.9

#100 .71(10) + .29(100) = 36.1

#200(75Pm) .71(0) + .29(100) = 29.0

25Pm .71(0) + .29(74) = 21.5

10Pm .71(0) + .29(56) = 16.2

3Pm .71(0) + .29(32) = 9.3

1
Note that all (i.e. 100%) of the fines fraction (0.29) is finer than all the coarse sizes (#4 through
#200)
 2-18

Microns Example 2-2. Grading Analysis Square

Sieve Sizes 3" 3" Opening
1 5 10 20 400 270 200 100 50 30 16 8 4 11" 1"
2" 22 3"
8 4 2
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
TOTAL PERCENT PASSING

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

01 5 10 20 400 270 200 170

0
12010080 70 60 50 45 30 25 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 4 3" 1" 3" 1" 11" 3" 3"
1" 2"
40 35 7 6 5 4 7" 2
325 230 140 3 1"
2
5"
16
8 16 5"
8
4 78" 1 1"
4
2 14 Square
2 1"
2
Microns Sieve Sizes Opening
1 5 10 20 50 100 500 1000 5000 10000 50000 Microns
Log Scale
Average
Clear 0.001
0.00005 0.0001 0.01
0.0005 0.001 0.1
0.005 0.01 10.05 0.1 100.5 1 2 3100
inches
Opening
 2-19

Example 2-3

Determine D50, D10, Cu, Cc corresponding to the grain size curve in Example 2-2. Is the soil

well graded?

Solution

The following grain size diameters are obtained from the figure:

D60 = 490Pm = 0.490 mm

D50 = 390Pm = 0.390 mm D50 = 0.390 mm

D30 = 78Pm = 0.078 mm

D10 = 3.7Pm = 0.0037 mm D10 = 0.037 mm

D 60 490
Cu = = = 132 Cu = 132
D10 3.7

D 30 2 (78) 2
Cc = = = 3.4 Cc = 3.4
D 60 D10 490(3.7)

While Cu > 4 to 6, Cc is not between 1 and 3. Therefore the soil isn't well graded.

Note that because the curve exhibits a significant range in soil sizes (as indicated by Cu > 4 to 6)

but not a gradually varying curvature (as dictated by Cc between 1 and 3), the curve is indicative

of a gap graded material.

 2-20

Microns Example 2-3. Grading Analysis Square

Sieve Sizes 3" 3" Opening
1 5 10 20 400 270 200 100 50 30 16 8 4 11" 1"
2" 22 3"
8 4 2
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
TOTAL PERCENT PASSING

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
1 5 10 20 400 270 200 170 12010080 70 60 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 7 6 5 4 1" 3" 1" 3" 1" 11" 3"
2" 3"
4 7" 2
325 230 140 31"
2
5"
16
8 16 5"
8
4 78" 11"
4
2 14 Square
21"
2
Microns Sieve Sizes Opening
1 5 10 20 50 100 500 1000 5000 10000 50000 Microns
Log Scale
Average
Clear 0.001
0.00005 0.0001 0.01
0.0005 0.001 0.1
0.005 0.01 10.05 0.1 100.5 1 2 3100
inches
Opening
D10 =3.7Pm D30 =78Pm D50 =390Pm
D60 =490Pm
 2-21

2.2 COHESIVE VS. COHESIONLESS SOIL; ATTERBERG LIMITS

DISTINCTION BETWEEN COHESIVE AND COHESIONLESS BEHAVIOR

A soil composed entirely of clay mineral particles behaves in the following fashion:

x In a saturated condition, it exhibits a perfectly "plastic" behavior, i.e., upon deformation

there is

- no rebound

- no volume change

- no cracking

over a wide range in water content.

x In a saturated, moist, or dry condition, it exhibits shear strength without confinement, i.e.,

it exhibits "cohesion".

By contrast, soil composed entirely of gravel, sand, and/or coarse silt particles behaves like a

disaggregated particulate mass. Such soil develops its shear strength largely from interparticle

friction (not cohesion) that is in turn a function of the material's confinement (as the result of

gravity forces acting upon its overburden). In the dry and unconfined state such "cohesionless"

material falls apart easily.5

Real soils contain a mixture of clay mineral and granular (i.e., cohesionless soil) particles. Even

natural clays are only partly clay mineral particles. A soil is said to be cohesive or cohesionless
 2-22

depending on whether it is the interaction of the clay mineral particles or the granular particles

that dominates behavior.

RELATIVE DIFFERENCE IN PROPERTIES

Soil properties of greatest engineering interest are as follows:

x Permeability

x Shear strength

x Compressibility

With respect to said properties, note the following relative differences between cohesionless and

cohesive soils:

Cohesionless soils vs. Cohesive soils

high permeability low permeability

high strength ½ low strength

¾ when confined
low compressibility ¿ high compressibility

BASIS FOR DIFFERENCE

Coarse grained granular (i.e., cohesionless soil) particles are large and have a relatively small

specific surface area (i.e., ratio of surface area to volume). Therefore, it is gravity forces (and

gravity dependent frictional resistance) rather than surface forces that dominate the interaction of

such particles. Clay mineral particles, on the other hand, are small, have a large specific surface

area, and (more importantly) are both platey in shape and exhibit unbalanced (negative) surface

5
Note that the upper surface of a body of cohesionless material is easily penetrated with a probe
(assuming there is no capillary tension to provide confinement). However, as the tip of the probe
is advanced, resistance develops and increases with increasing depth.
 2-23

charge (Figure 2-5).6 This in combination with the dipolar nature of water leads to highly

oriented regions of water molecules in close proximity to particle surfaces and as a consequence,

a relative domination of electrostatic/electrodynamic surface forces in such soils.

Free void water

(a)

Diffuse
double layer
(adsorbed water)

Note:
Relative size of water molecles Free void water
is greatly exaggerated.
Cation
(b)
Water molecule

Center of
+_ charge
o= charge
°
0.97 A
+ + =
H 105° H

°
1.54 A
(c)

Figure 2-5. (a) Platey Shaped Clay Mineral Particle. (b) Edge View of Clay Particle
with Unbalanced Surface Charge and the Alignment of Water Molecules in
Close Proximity to the Particle Surface. (c) Schematic Representation of
Dipolar Water Molecule

6
Bulky particles of clay size, on the other hand, exhibit no significant unbalanced surface charge.
 2-24

It is the relative domination of either gravity or surface forces that leads to cohesionless or

cohesive behavior. In this regard, note the following:

1. The term "cohesive" is used to signify the relative domination of the clay (mineral
particles and hence surface forces. In fact, the percentage (by weight) of clay to add
to a cohesionless soil such that it behaves as a cohesive soil is in general what would
be required to just fill the voids of the granular particle matrix (at the unit weight of
the clay).

2. Even natural clays contain granular (i.e., bulky and elongated) particles. Clay size
particles (<5Pm) need not be entirely platey clay mineral particles.

CLAY-WATER SYSTEM

The cohesive nature of clay derives from the particle to particle interaction of the highly unusual

(very viscous) water region surrounding individual clay mineral particles (Figure 2-6). For

example, one can visualize that the drag of such "very viscous" water on free void water is a

large factor (in association with the high specific surface area of clay size particles) relative to

the hindered flow of water through the interparticle voids and hence the permeability of such

soil.7

Relative to the different regions of water surrounding a clay mineral particle (Figure 2-6), note

the following:

x B and C water (called the diffuse double layer) is adsorbed.

x Oven drying at 110qC removes C and D water, but not B water.

7
The very low permeability of clay in turn causes the delayed response characteristic of saturated
clay to an imposed stress (i.e., its time rate of consolidation and its time rate of strength change).
 2-25

x C water is hygroscopically affected.8

D
400A and varies C
10 A
A - clay particle
B
0.1 Pm = 1000 A A B - "solid" water
C - "very viscous" water
1 Pm D - free void water

Note:
10,000A (angstroms) = 1 Pm
Particle dimensions will vary considerably.
Relative size of water regions not to scale.

Figure 2-6. Schematic of Clay-Water Regime

IMPORTANT CLAY MINERALS

The clay-water regime is a function of the dipolar nature of the water molecule but only in

association with the clay mineral particle and its unbalanced surface charge (as opposed to a

bulky clay size particle with no surface charge). Note that clay minerals are secondary minerals

in that they form from the decomposition of primary minerals. The sheet structure and

consequent platey shape and surface charge of the clay mineral particle is the result of its

chemical structure (i.e., mineralogy). The more prevalent and, therefore, the more important of

the clay minerals from a geotechnical viewpoint are kaolinite, illite, and montmorillonite. The

structure of these minerals is depicted in Figure 2-7. Note that a single clay mineral particle may

be several basic units thick and that the basic unit of montmorillonite is of variable thickness

depending on the amount of internal adsorbed water.

8
After oven drying, a cohesive soil should be placed in a desiccator to prevent the clay mineral
particles from picking up water from the atmosphere during the time prior to weighing that it
takes to cool off.
 2-26

(a) Silica Sheet Alumina Sheet

7.2 A
10 A Variable

Potassium Water

(b) Kaolinite Illite Montmorillonite

Figure 2-7. Structure of Clay Minerals. (a) Building Blocks. (b) Common Minerals

SWELLING CLAYS
Particle spacing
remains constant
All clays swell and shrink to some at and below the
shrink
shrinkage limit.
degree (Figure 2-8) due to fluctuations

in the C water of Figure 2-6. However,

the "swelling" clays, i.e., the clays that swell

experience significant volume change

and contribute to large soil

movements, are those clays with a

significant montmorillonite content.

Montmo-rillonite particles can

Figure 2-8. Shrinkage and Swell Common to All Clays
experience as much as a fifteen-fold due to Environmental Changes (Wetting and
Drying of Surface Soils)
volume change due to water taken up

within the particle itself (i.e., A in Figure 2-6 or within the basic unit in Figure 2-7).
 2-27

ATTERBERG LIMITS

The Atterberg limits tests are the basis for distinguishing the nature of the fines fraction of a

soil,9 i.e., its relative cohesive "power".

CORRELATION OF COHESIVE CHARACTER AND PLASTIC BEHAVIOR

A ball of clay that has dried out is a hard brittle solid. If it is pulverized and a small amount of

water added, it can be molded into a ball that exhibits cracking when worked. With more water

the clay takes on a plastic consistency; with more water still, a fluid consistency. Conversely,

one could consider these same changes in consistency in reverse, i.e., starting with a clay slurry

and water as shown in Figure 2-9.

w a te r Note:
s o lid s
Between P and S, Vv changes
Volume

0%
10
=
S
p
as water is removed.
Between S and T, Vv holds
SL - s h r in k a g e lim it
constant as water is further
Q
V
S = 0%
PL
LL
-
-
p la s tic lim it
liq u id lim it removed and air replaces the
= V + Vv FL - f lo c c u la tio n lim it
a ir w a te r lost water. Vs holds constant
R throughout. As w decreases
from P to S, D and some C
S water (from Figure 2-6) is
T
S e m i- S e m i-
removed. As w decreases
S o lid P la s tic L iq u id
S ta te S o lid
S ta te
L iq u id S ta te
from S to T, D and then C
S ta te S ta te water is removed. At T only
B water remains.
0 SL PL LL FL
W a te r C o n te n t

Figure 2-9. Changes in Consistency and the Atterberg Limits

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS; PLASTICITY INDEX

9
While the fines fraction is the -#200 material, the Atterberg limits tests are performed on -#40
material, primarily for convenience.
 2-28

The Atterberg limits are the water contents reflecting the changes in consistency. Note,

however, that the liquid and plastic limits (LL and PL) are the more significant limits since the

difference between the two, called the plasticity index (PI), indicates the range in water content

over which the clay exhibits plastic behavior. The greater the PI, the greater the amount and the

activity of clay mineral particles present. On the other hand, silt yields LL and PL values equal

or very close to each other, and therefore a PI value near zero, indicative of its nonplastic to very

slightly plastic behavior. Sands and gravels are incapable of yielding a PL, and therefore a PI.

By convention, Atterberg limit tests are run on -#40 material, i.e. fine sand, silt and clay size

materials.

NATURE AND USE OF LIMIT VALUES

The liquid and plastic limit tests, proposed by the Swedish soil scientist A. Atterberg to assess

water content values for respective changes in consistency from the liquid to plastic and plastic

to semisolid states, assess what seem to be somewhat arbitrary limits. Nevertheless, the fact that

these tests are relatively easy to perform (see the brief presentation of test procedures given

subsequently), and more importantly, yield reproducible results, the difference of which, the PI,

correlates well with the combined effect of the type and amount of clay (mineral particles)

present, makes them an indispensable pair of index tests for relating the relative cohesive power

of different cohesive soils. The fact that the tests are performed on the -#40 fraction implies that

the PI value so determined can be compared directly with values for other soils if the soil is

essentially fine grained (-#200). However, if the -#40 fraction is only a portion of the entire soil,

then the PI values should be weighted before a comparison is made. (See Example 2-7.)
 2-29

Brief presentations of both the liquid and plastic limit test procedures are given below. More

detailed accounts appear in the Appendix.

LIQUID LIMIT TEST

The liquid limit (LL) is measured in a standard liquid limit device as shown in Figure 2-10.

73.0 5.9
10.0 R

Basically the test procedure one follows is this: 149.9

2.22 R 10.0

GROOVING TOOL

All Dimensions in Millimeters

125.0
x Level a pat of soil in the liquid limit cup.
BRASS SOIL PAT
CUP
59.51
x Groove the pat with a standard grooving tool.
50.8 HARD RUBBER

x Count the number of drops of the cup falling

1 cm to cause the groove to close and touch
along a 1/2 inch length. See Figure 2-11. Figure 2-10. Liquid Limit Device

x Take a water content sample of the soil pat.

The liquid limit is the water content at which the soil groove closes under N = 25 blows. (It

represents the water content at which the soil first shows a small but definite shearing resistance

as the water content of the soil in the liquid state is reduced.) This is obtained from a plot of log

N vs. w for the different trials undertaken. See Figure 2-12.

 2-30

Plan 1 " closure

2

Radius = 54 mm

11 mm
Side
2 mm

8 mm

(a) (b)

Figure 2-11. Grooved Liquid Limit Soil Pat: (a) at Beginning of

Test, (b) at Conclusion

W Note:
1 blow ~~ 1 g/cm²
shear strength
LL

25
log N

Figure 2-12. Graphical Determination of Liquid Limit

PLASTIC LIMIT TEST

The plastic limit (PL) is defined as the water content at which a 1/8 inch thick thread of the soil

begins to crumble. To determine this, one uses a ground glass plate and simply rolls out the soil

into a thread, adding water to the soil if it is too dry or letting it dry out if it is too wet. When the

thread just crumbles at a diameter of 1/8 inch several places along its length, the soil thread is

recovered and its water content determined.

 2-31

ACTIVITY

While the combined effects of type and amount of clay mineral particles present, as indicated by

PI, is the best indicator of the relative plasticity and the cohesive nature of the fines fraction,

another index called activity A can be used to help identify the types of minerals present.

Since montmorillonite, illite, and kaolinite exhibit different degrees of cohesive power, it takes

only a small amount of the more active mineral, montmorillonite, mixed with an inert filler of

fine sand,10 to give the same PI value as a much larger amount of a less active mineral mixed

with the same fine sand. If one plots the value of PI achieved for a mix of fine sand and different

amounts of the same clay mineral, a line of a particular slope results as shown in Figure 2-13.

Montmorillonite + Fine Sand

Note:
PI _5
Slopes Can Vary
A~ from Those Shown.
1

Illite + Fine Sand

_ 0.7
A~
1
Kaolinite + Fine Sand
_
1 A ~ 0.2 to 0.4

% Clay

Figure 2-13. PI vs. % Clay for Different Combinations of Fine

Sand and Pure Clay Minerals

10
-#40, +#200.
 2-32

The slopes are indicative of the different mineral types. Therefore, a mixture of clay mineral

types, as is likely in a real soil, would reflect an intermediate value. In particular, a value greater

than one would indicate the presence of montmorillonite.

Note that in assessing the activity A of a given soil, where

PI
A
%  2 Pm

one relies on the following assumptions:

1. The value of PI plotted against the (% - 2Pm, PI)

percentage of clay falls on a line passing PI
through the origin with slope A. See
Figure 2-14. A
1

% - 2Pm
2. The percentage of clay and the percentage
of -2Pm material are identical.11 Figure 2-14. PI vs. % -2Pm

Consider closely the following data regarding values of LL, PL, PI, and A for some
commercially available clays:

Clay LL PL PI % -2Pm A

Wyoming Bentonite 522% 48% 474% 95 5.0 (= 474/95)

(montmorillonite)

Hydrite UF 57 30 27 100 0.27

(kaolonite)

Grundite 56 24 32 4612 0.70

(illite)
Consider the combined effects of type and amount of clay on the cohesive character of a soil that

is only partly clay in the following comparison.

11
Note the use of the value 2Pm. While clay particles are as large as 5Pm (the clay size limit
according to ASTM-ASCE), most clay mineral particles are -2Pm in size. Therefore, in
estimating the percentage of clay for the assessment of activity A, -2Pm is used.
 2-33

Constituents Soil No. 1 Soil No. 2

% kaolinite 5 60

% montmorillonite 20 15
Note13

% -2Pm 21 70

% fine sand 75 25

A 3.0 0.9

Both soils were proportioned to yield the same

LL and PI values:

LL = 85%
PI = 63%

13

If this percentage were double, then probably the PI would double as well.
12
13
The commercially available clays (5 + 20 = 25%) are not pure, hence the percentage of clay
minerals (% -2Pm) is only 21 not 25.
 2-34

Example 2-5

From the lab data given below determine LL, PL and PI:

LL Determination PL Determination

No. of Blows Sample Wt. (grams) Sample Wt. (grams) of 1/8" Thread
Wet Dry

33 23.46 16.51 Wet 18.26 14

22 26.96 17.22 Dry 15.22

12 27.17 15.96

Solution
80
Ww 70
LL N w
Ws 60
Water Content (w), %

52
50
23.46  16.51
33 = 0.421 or 42.1% 40
16.51
30

26.96  17.22 20
22 = 0.566 or 56.6% 10
17.22
0
27.17  15.96 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
12 =0.702 or 70.2%
15.96 No. Blows

LL = water content at 1/2"

closure of slot in 25 blows LL = 52% from graph

18.26  15.22
PL w= = 0.200 or 20.0% PL = 20%
15.22

PI PI = LL - PL = 52 - 20 = 32% PI = 32%
14

14
Weights actually represent three separate trials lumped together.
 2-35

Example 2-6

Two fine grained soils yield the following data:

A B

-#40 (%) 98 100

-2Pm (%) 30 90

w(%) 50 40

LL(%) 94 48

PL(%) 19 21

1513
a. Determine PI, IL and A for soils A and B.

b. Which soil has the highest swelling potential?

c If the activity values of montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite are taken as 5.0, 0.7 and 0.3

respectively, what can be said about the clay mineralogy of soils A and B? Assume that

the percentage clay is equal to the percent -2Pm (i.e., % -2Pm); consider only the

possible combination of montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite.

d. Which deposit, A or B, is closer to a fluid consistency?

15
IL, the liquidity index, is introduced in Section 4.2. At this juncture, suffice it to say that
liquidity index relates the soil’s natural water content w to its limits, LL and PL. A value of zero
implies that w is at the PL; a value of unity implies that w is at the LL.
 2-36

Solution

a. A B where PI = LL – PL = b b
w  PL a
PI 75% 27% IL = = w
LL  PL b
IL 0.41 0.70
PI
A 2.5 0.3 A=
% - 2 Pm

b. Soil A has the higher swelling potential as indicated by its higher PI. Note,
PI Swelling Potential
0 - 15% low
15 - 30% moderate
>30% high
i.e.,
A's potential is high, while
B's potential is moderate.

c. For the given activity values,

A is composed of montmorillonite and kaolinite and/or illite, while
B is composed of kaolinite.

d. A liquidity index IL of unity implies a water content in the natural state at the liquid limit.
On the basis of the IL values, deposit B is the closer to its fluid state.

Note that if the PI value (which is evaluated relative to the -#40 fraction) is determined for a soil
where the +#40 fraction is large, then a combined value relative to the whole soil should be
determined and reported. This is demonstrated in the following example.
 2-37

Example 2-7

Soils A and B yield the following data:

A B

-#40(%) 30 90

PI (%) of -#40 fraction 50 20

Determine adjusted values of PI reflective of the whole soil (+#40 and -#40 fractions combined).

Solution

The adjusted PI value is determined as follows:

PI adjusted = PI-#40 x %-#40 (of whole sample)/100

The adjusted values for soils A and B are

PI = 50% (0.30) = 15% Soil A

= 20% (0.90) = 18% Soil B

One should compare soils A and B based on adjusted values of PI. On that basis, B is slightly

higher.