Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 1035–1036 | Cite as

Discussion of “Re-examination of Undrained Strength at Atterberg Limits Water Contents” By H. B. Nagaraj, A. Sridharan, and H. M. Mallikarjuna

  • Binu Sharma
Comments/Discussions
  • 147 Downloads

A thorough reading of the paper under discussion has been done. On the writers observations from literature that the undrained shear strengths observed at liquid limit by both the percussion and cone methods vary widely the discusser wishes to state the following points:

Conventionally, liquid limit has been defined as the water content at which a clay is practically liquid but possesses a certain small (presumably the smallest) shearing strength that is possible to measure by a standardized procedure (Taylor 1948): thus originated the strength-based tests. It bears repetition in literature that as soils do not pass abruptly from one state into another, therefore, drawing up of a limit in such a transition phase must, of necessity, involve an element of arbitrariness.

Mitchell (2005) has reported about approximately equal undrained shear strength of about 1.7–2.0 kPa at liquid limit water content and has mainly attributed this to the same average adsorbed water layer thickness on all...

Keywords

Cone Angle Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Undrained Shear Strength Unconfined Compression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ballard GEH, Weeks WF (1963) Human error in determining plastic limit of cohesive soils. Mater Res Stand 3(9):726–729Google Scholar
  2. Belvisco R, Clampoli S, Cotecchia V, Federico A (1985) Use of cone penetrometer to determine consistency limits. Ground Eng 18(5):21–22Google Scholar
  3. Hansbo S (1957) A new approach to the determination of the shear strength of clay by the fall cone test. Swed Geotech Inst Proc 14:1–48Google Scholar
  4. Houslby GT (1982) Theoretical analysis of the fall cone test. Geotechnique 32(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Karlsson R (1961) Suggested improvements in the liquid limit test with reference to flow properties of remoulded clays. In: Proceeding 5th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Paris, vol. 1, pp 171–184Google Scholar
  6. Koumoto T, Houlsby GT (2001) Theory and practice of the fall cone test. Geotechnique 51(8):701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mitchell JK (2005) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New York, p 97Google Scholar
  8. Sharma B, Bora PK (2003) Plastic limit, liquid limit and undrained shear strength of soils—reappraisal. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng Am Soc Civ Eng 129(8):774–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sharma B, Bora PK (2004) Determination of plastic limit of soils by cone penetration method. Indian Geotech J 34(4):297–312Google Scholar
  10. Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York, p 27Google Scholar
  11. Wood DM (1982) Cone penetrometer and liquid limit. Geotechnique 32(2):152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wood DM (1985) Some fall cone tests. Geotechnique 35(1):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wroth CP (1979) Correlation of some engineering properties of soils. In: 2nd int. conf. of boss, Imperial College, London, pp 121–132Google Scholar
  14. Wroth CP, Wood DM (1978) The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering properties of soils. Can Geotech J 15(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Assam Engineering CollegeUniversity of GauhatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations