Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32727
Effect of Testing Device Calibration on Liquid Limit Assessment

Authors: M. O. Bayram, H. B. Gencdal, N. O. Fercan, B. Basbug


Liquid limit, which is used as a measure of soil strength, can be detected by Casagrande and fall-cone testing methods. The two methods majorly diverge from each other in terms of operator dependency. The Casagrande method that is applied according to ASTM D4318-17 standards may give misleading results, especially if the calibration process is not performed well. In this study, to reveal the effect of calibration for drop height and amount of soil paste placement in the Casagrande cup, a series of tests were carried out by multipoint method as it is specified in the ASTM standards. The tests include the combination of 6 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm drop heights and under-filled, half-filled, and full-filled Casagrande cups by kaolin samples. It was observed that during successive tests, the drop height of the cup deteriorated; hence the device was recalibrated before and after each test to provide the accuracy of the results. Besides, the tests by under-filled and full-filled samples for higher drop heights revealed lower liquid limit values than the lower drop heights revealed. For the half-filled samples, it was clearly seen that the liquid limit values did not change at all as the drop height increased, and this explains the function of standard specifications.

Keywords: Calibration, Casagrande cup method, drop height, kaolin, liquid limit, placing form.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 255


[1] A. Atterberg, “Leronas Forhallande till Vatten, deras plasticitetsgranser och plasticitetsgrader (The behavior of clays with water, their limits of plasticity and their degrees of plasticity)”, Kungliga Lantbruksakademiens Handlingar och Tidskrift 50(2):132–158, 1911.
[2] K. Terzaghi, Simplified soil tests for subgrades and their physical significance. Public Roads 7(8):153–170, 1926-a.
[3] K. Terzaghi, Determination of the consistency of soils by means of penetration tests. Public Roads 7:230–247, 1926-b.
[4] A. Casagrande, Research on Atterberg limits of soils. Public Roads, Vol. 13(8): pp.121–136, 1932.
[5] A. Casagrande, “Notes on the design of the liquid limit device”, Geotechnique 8(2):84–91, 1958.
[6] T. W. Lambe and B. V. Whitman, “The role of effective stress in the behaviour of expansive soils”, 1st Ann. Soil Mech. Conf., Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, pp. 33-36, 1959.
[7] R. D. Holtz and W. D. Kovacs, An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, P 733 pp, 1981.
[8] S. Hansbo, “A new approach to the determination of the shear strength of clay by the fall cone test”, Proceed. Royal Swedish Geotech. Inst. 14, 1–48, 1957.
[9] AASHTO T89-13, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils. AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
[10] ASTM D4318-17e1, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
[11] P. V. Sivapullaiah and A. Sridharan, "Liquid limit of soil mixtures", Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 8, No3 pp. 111-116, Sept 1985.
[12] G. Kollaros, Liquid Limit Values Obtained by Different Testing Methods. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, Proceedings of the 14th International Congress, Vol. 50, pp. 778-787, May 2016.
[13] E. Uyetürk and N. Huvaj, Power Coefficient in One Point Liquid Limit Test for Soils of Northern Turkey at Various Temperatures. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 6(4), pp. 643-653, 2018.
[14] E. Karakan and S. Demir, "Liquid Limit Determination of Various Sand Clay Mixtures by Casagrande and Fall Cone Test Methods," J. BAUN Inst. Sci. Technol., Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 361-371, June 2018.
[15] F. S. Niazi, A. Pinan-Llamas, C. Cholewa, and C. Amstutz, Liquid limit determination of low to medium plasticity Indiana soils by hard base Casagrande percussion cup vs. BS fall-cone methods. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol. 79, pp. 2141–2158, December 2019.
[16] P. Jain, J. Gandhi, S. Trivedi, and R. P. Shukla, Comparison between Casagrande method and Cone penetrometer method for determination of liquid limit of soil. Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, Springer, Vol. 133, pp 39–48, Singapore, 2021.
[17] E. Karakan, Relationships among plasticity, clay fraction and activity of clay–sand mixtures. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, Vol. 15, February 2022.
[18] B. C. O’Kelly, P. J. Vardanega, and S. K. Haigh, Discussion of “Mohajerani method: Tool for determining the liquid limit of soils using fall cone test results with strong correlation with the Casagrande test” by E. Hrubesova, B. Lunackova and M. Mohyla (Engineering Geology 278 (2020) 105852). Engineering Geology, 302, 106623, 2022.
[19] E. Altıntaş, "An investigation on liquid limit of clays by differently shaped penetration cones", Master's thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, October 2013.
[20] L. G. Crevelin, and K. V. Bicalho, Comparison of the Casagrande and fall cone methods for liquid limit determinations in different clay soils. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo., Vol. 43, 2019.