Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liquid limit of low- to medium-plasticity soils: comparison between Casagrande cup and cone penetrometer test

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For liquid limit determination, the European Standards require the cone penetrometer technique or, alternatively, the Casagrande cup method; but the latter is widely used in practice. As most European soil classification systems are not adapted to the new European Standards, a systematic study was carried out to verify the differences between the two techniques for liquid limit determination, examining clayey soils from various geologic units. Comparison of 100 liquid limit values ranging between 20 and 50% indicates that the liquid limit obtained by the fall cone method is generally 2.2% points higher than that obtained by the hard base Casagrande apparatus. Comparison of data from different sources consistently indicates that the equation proposed in this study may be useful in revising existing soil classification systems, avoiding problems of soil classification due to the technique used for liquid limit determination.

Résumé

Pour la détermination de la limite de liquidité, les normes européennes recommandent la méthode du pénétromètre de consistance, ou bien la méthode de la coupelle de Casagrande; mais cette dernière méthode est largement utilisée en pratique. Comme la plupart des systèmes européens de classification des sols ne sont pas adaptés aux nouvelles normes européennes, une étude systématique a été réalisée pour analyser les différences entre les deux techniques pour la mesure de la limite de liquidité, examinant des sols argileux de différentes formations géologiques. La comparaison de 100 valeurs de limites de liquidité comprises entre 20% et 50% montre que la limite de liquidité obtenue à partir du pénétromètre de consistance est généralement supérieure de 2,2 points de pourcentage à celle obtenue à la coupelle de Casagrande. La comparaison avec des données de différentes sources indique clairement que l’équation proposée dans cette étude peut être utile pour la révision des systèmes de classification des sols, évitant ainsi des problèmes, dans ce domaine, qui seraient dus à la technique utilisée pour la détermination des limites de liquidité.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AASHTO T-89 (1996) Determining the liquid limit of soils. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

  • AASHTO M145-82 (1993) Standard method of test for the classification of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

  • ASTM D421-85 (1998) Practice for dry preparation of soil samples for particle-size analysis and determination of soil constant. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Material Standards, West Conshohocken, USA, pp 8–9

  • ASTM D422-63 (1998) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Material Standards, West Conshohocken, USA, pp 10–17

  • ASTM E29 (2008) Standard practice for using significant digits in test data to determine conformance with specifications. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Material Standards, West Conshohocken, USA. doi:10.1520/E0029-08

  • ASTM D 4318 (2000) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of soils. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Material standards, West Conshohocken, USA, pp 561–572

  • Belviso R, Ciampoli S, Cotecchia V, Federico A (1985) Use of the cone penetrometer to determine consistency limits. Ground Eng 18(5):21–22

    Google Scholar 

  • BSI 1377 Part 2 (1990) Liquid limit-cone penetrometer method. British Standard Institution, London

  • Budhu M (1985) The effect of clay content on liquid limit from a fall cone and the British cup device. Geotech Test J 8(2):91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DJ (1975) Liquid limit determination of arable topsoils using a drop-cone penetrometer. J Soil Sci 26(3):234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candio S, Damiani AV, Federico A, Setti M, Veniale F, Vinti G (1992) Caratterizzazione geotecnica e mineralogica di unità argillose dell’Umbria. Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXVII:123–133 (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Casagrande A (1958) Notes on the design of the liquid limit device. Géotechnique 8(2):84–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattuto C, Cencetti C, Gregori L (1988) Il Bacino di Pornello-Frattaguida e l’evoluzione idrografica Plio-pleistocenica tra il Fiume Paglia e il Fiume Tevere. Supplementi di Geografia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria I:161–169 (in Italian)

  • CEN ISO/TS 17892-12 (2004) Geotechnical investigation and testing—Laboratory testing of soil—Part 12: Determination of Atterberg limits. European Committee for Standardization

  • CEN ISO/TS 17892-3 (2004) Geotechnical investigation and testing—Laboratory testing of soil—Part 3: Determination of particle density—Pycnometer method. European Committee for Standardization

  • Christaras B (1991) A comparison of the Casagrande and fall cone penetrometer methods for liquid limit determination in marls from Crete, Greece. Eng Geol 31:131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino RB (1986) Tests for Normal Distribution. In: D’Agostino RB, Stepenes MA (eds) Goodness-of-Fit Techniques. Decker M, New York, pp 367–419

  • Di Matteo L, Brunelli S, Capponi E (2008) Strength parameters of compacted cohesive soils: analysis of sandy-clayey soils of the “Lisciani di Pantalla” (Todi–Central Italy). Ital J Eng Geol Environ 1:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragoni W, Prosperini N, Vinti G (2008) Some observations on the procedures for the determination of the liquid limit: an application on Plio-Pleistocenic clayey soils from Umbria region (Italy). Ital J Eng Geol Environ Spec Issue 1:185–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell E, Schuppener B, Wassing B (1997) ETC. 5 fall-cone study. Ground Eng 30(1):33–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng T-W (2004) Using small ring and a fall-cone to determine the plastic limit. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(6):630–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fojtová L, Marschalko M, Franeková R, Kovář L (2009) Study of compatibility of methods for liquid limit measurement according to Czech State Standard and newly adopted European Standard. GeoScience Engineering LV(1):55–68

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of ‘‘goodness-of-fit’’ measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leroeuil S, Le Bihan JP (1996) Liquid limits and fall cones. Can Geotech J 33:793–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medhat F, Whyte IL (1986) An appraisal of soil index tests. Eng Geol Spec Publ 2:317–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NF P94-051 (1993) Soil inverstigation and testing. Determination of Atterberg’s limits. Liquid limit test using Casagrande apparatus. Plastic limit test on rolled thread. AFNOR: Association Française de Normalisation

  • Özer M (2009) Comparison of liquid limit values determined using the hard and soft base Casagrande apparatus and the cone penetrometer. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:289–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson LR, Netterberg F (1985) The cone penetration index: a simple new soil index to replace the plasticity index. In: Proceedings of 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng., vol 2, pp 1041–1048

  • Sherwood PT, Ryley MD (1970) An investigation of a cone penetrometer method for the determination of the liquid limit. Geotechnique 2:203–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Sridharan A, Prakash K (1998) Liquid limit and fall cone: discussion. Can Geotech J 35:407–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridharan A, Prakash K (2000) Percussion and cone methods of determining the liquid limit of soils: controlling mechanisms. Can Geotech J 23(2):236–244

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI 10006 (2002) Costruzione e manutenzione delle strade - Tecniche di impiego delle terre. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (in Italian)

  • Van Der Merwe DH (1964) The prediction of heave from the plasticity index and percentage clay fraction of soil. Trans S Afr Instr Civ Eng 6:103–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasti Y, Bezirci MH (1986) Determination of the consistency limits of soils by the fall-cone test. Can Geotech J 23(2):241–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentar R, Abriak NE, Dubois V (2009) Effects of salts and organic matter on Atterberg limits of dredged marine sediments. Appl Clay Sci 42:391–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the technical assistance of Giuseppe Vinti and Letizia Binucci. This work was financed by ISTEDIL (funding IST_DM_09).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Perugia, 06123, Perugia, Italy

    Lucio Di Matteo

Authors
  1. Lucio Di Matteo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucio Di Matteo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Di Matteo, L. Liquid limit of low- to medium-plasticity soils: comparison between Casagrande cup and cone penetrometer test. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71, 79–85 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-011-0412-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-011-0412-5

Keywords

Mots clés

Search

Navigation