A. Sridharan1 and H. B.

Nagaraj2

Absorption Water Content and Liquid Limit of Soils

REFERENCE: Sridharan, A. and Nagaraj, H. B., Absorption Water Content and Liquid Limit of Soils, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 1999, pp. 121127. ABSTRACT: Consistency limits are extensively used in geotechnical engineering practice. Besides the consistency limits, the plasticity index, liquidity index, and consistency index have been used to correlate with engineering properties. The test procedures that have been developed to determine liquid limit are based on the strength criterion, and the liquid limit corresponds to a shearing resistance of 1.7 to 2.0 kPa. However, the mechanisms controlling the test procedures do not simulate the mechanisms controlling the water-holding capacity of soils that the liquid limit is supposed to represent. In this paper an attempt has been made to devise a test procedure, known as the absorption test, which simulates the mechanisms controlling the water holding-capacity of soils. The equilibrium water content reached by the dry soil pats starting at shrinkage limit void ratio is found to have a good correlation with the conventional liquid limit obtained from the cone penetrometer method. KEYWORDS: Atterberg limits, clays, laboratory tests, plasticity, soil classification

Liquid Limit Liquid limit of soils is defined as the water content above which the soil behaves as a viscous liquid (a soil-water mixture with no measurable shear strength). Casagrande (1932) deduced that the liquid limit corresponds approximately to a water content at which the soil has a shear strength of about 2.5 kPa. Subsequent studies have indicated that the liquid limit for all fine-grained soils corresponds to a shearing resistance of about 1.7 to 2.0 kPa (Wroth and Wood 1978; Whyte 1982). Since the consistency of soil is associated with its strength in the remolded saturated condition, it became possible to devise tests using the strength criterion to express the state of consistency or limit of the soil. Based on the strength criterion, many methods of finding liquid limit were developed. Currently two methods are in vogue for the determination of the liquid limit of a fine-grained soil. They are: 1. Percussion cup method. 2. Fall cone method. In the percussion cup method, liquid limit is defined as the moisture content corresponding to a specified number of blows required to close a specified width of groove for a specified length (Casagrande 1932, 1958). This conventional liquid limit device has a serious disadvantage, as concluded by Casagrande (1958) himself. It does not provide a uniform basis of comparison for finegrained soils that differ in their reaction when subjected to a shaking (dilatancy) test. In addition to this, Casagrandes method has certain other shortcomings such as the difficulty of cutting a groove in soils of low plasticity and the tendency of soils to slip rather than flow. Casagrande (1958) also indicated, among other alternatives, that the static penetration test was one way to eliminate some of the difficulties posed by the original liquid limit device. Further, the percussion cup test has been proved to have relatively poor reproducibility (Whyte 1982). A more reliable and reproducible indirect measure of soil strength at liquid limit is water content provided by the cone method. In the fall cone method, liquid limit is the moisture content corresponding to a specified depth of penetration for a cone of known geometry and weight. A detailed examination of the potential of this method has been made by Karlsson (1961), Sherwood and Ryley (1970), Campbell (1975), Leroueil and Le Bihan (1996), and Farrell et al. (1997). The advantages claimed in favor of the cone penetration method are easy simple operation coupled with good reproducibility. Due to the inherent advantages, UK, India, Canada, and many European countries have identified the cone penetration method also as a standard method of determining the
127

Historically, some characteristic water contents have been defined for soils. In 1911, Atterberg proposed the limits of consistency for agricultural purposes to get a clear concept of the range of water contents of a soil in the plastic state (Casagrande 1932). They are liquid limit (wL), plastic limit (wP), and shrinkage limit (wS). Atterberg limits for a soil are related to the amount of water attracted to the surface of the soil particles (Lambe and Whitman 1979). Therefore the limits can be taken to represent the waterholding capacity at different states of consistency. The consistency limits as proposed by Atterberg and standardized by Casagrande (1932, 1958) form the most important inferential limits with very wide universal acceptance. These limits are found with relatively simple tests, known as index tests, and have provided a basis for explaining most engineering properties of soils met in engineering practice. Based on the consistency limits, different indices have been defined, namely, plasticity index (IP), liquidity index (IL), and consistency index (IC). These indices are correlated with engineering properties. In other words, all these efforts are primarily to classify the soils and understand their physical and engineering behavior in terms of these limits and indices.
1 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. 2 Research associate, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India.

1999 by the American Society for Testing and Materials Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 www.astm.org Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

128

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

liquid limit of fine-grained soils. There are two types of cone penetration testing in use. Some codes of practice like the British Standard Methods of Test for Soil for Engineering Purposes (Part 2: Classification Tests: BS:1377-Part 2 (1990)), and Indian Standard Methods of Test for Soils (Part 5: Determination of Liquid and Plastic limit; IS:2720Part 5, 1985), specify a 30/80-g cone (British cone) and a depth of penetration of 20 mm at the liquid limit, while countries like Canada and Sweden (Leroueil and Le Bihan 1996; Farrell et al. 1997) adopt a 60/60-g cone (Swedish cone) and a depth of penetration of 10 mm at the liquid limit. However, the recent studies have demonstrated that both types of cone penetration testing essentially give identical results (Leroueil and Le Bihan 1996; Farrell et al. 1997). In the case of soils of low plasticity, there is a tendency for the soil in the cup to liquefy at the surface during the preparation of the sample for tests in the cone penetrometer. Sherwood and Ryley (1970) reported difficulties in some soils when striking off the excess soil to get a smooth level surface of soil in the cup. They also mention that no other method could give a smooth level surface that did not result in a fatting up of the surface layer. While liquid limit is an important physical property for use in soil classification and for correlations with engineering properties, the existing methods of determining the same have their own limitations and practical difficulties. Further, the mechanisms controlling the test procedures also do not simulate the mechanisms controlling the water-holding capacity of soils. Hence, it is desirable to devise a test procedure that can simulate the mechanisms controlling the water-holding capacity of soils. This paper describes such an attempt. Basic Considerations Plastic clays under zero confining pressure will imbibe water until their water absorption capacity becomes zero and reach an equilibrium condition. Croney and Coleman (1954, 1961) discuss at great length the quantity of water held in a soil at a given suction and the quantity that will be transferred by a change of suction. This can be determined from the knowledge of the relationship between soil suction and moisture content. Soil in an oven-dried condition has found to have a suction pressure of 106 kPa (Croney and Coleman 1954, 1961). The same authors have conducted suction measurements with soil in its natural condition as well as remolded condition. Further, they have reported that at plastic limit and liquid limit two heavy clays have been found to have a suction pressure of 246 kPa and 0.3 to 0.98 kPa, respectively. Nelson and Miller (1992) have reported a similar range of values of suction pressures at plastic limit, and a suction pressure value of above 10 000 kPa at the shrinkage limit of soils. Further, Croney and Coleman (1954, 1961) have considered the nature of the relationship between suction and moisture content and with the hysteresis effect that may arise. The shape of the relationship is found to be a function of the grading of soil, its compressibility, its density, and the mineral nature of the soil particles. From the above discussion it is clear that the suction pressure changes significantly from an oven-dried condition to a liquid limit water content state condition. At the liquid limit state, it has negligible suction pressure and is nearer to the equilibrium water absorption state. The equilibrium water content, however, strongly depends upon the test procedure, the way in which water is allowed to absorb, and the initial condition and the state of the soil. It may be reasonable to conclude that the water absorbed under zero confining pressure will bear a good correlation with the liquid limit water content.

In order to make use of this water-absorbing capacity and arrive at a test procedure to quantify the same, it is necessary to standardize the test procedure and obtain the water-holding capacity of a soil. By its very definition, there will not be any decrease in volume on drying a soil below the shrinkage limit. Obviously this forms the lower limit of the water-holding capacity. Starting at the lowest water-holding capacity (i.e., shrinkage limit), dry soil pats can be allowed to imbibe water, and their water content can be determined when they reach equilibrium. The so-obtained equilibrium water content should be comparable with the conventional liquid limit, and, hence, it is worth examining as to whether any correlation exists. Based on the above consideration, absorption tests have been carried out starting at the shrinkage limit void ratio, allowing the samples to imbibe water till they reach equilibrium and the results compared with the liquid limit water content. In the following paragraphs, the experiments conducted for this purpose have been presented and the results analyzed. Materials and Methods A number of natural soils along with commercially available kaolinite, bentonite, and kaolinite-bentonite mixtures covering a wide range of liquid limit (31.5% wL 232%) were selected, tested for their physical properties, and reported in Table 1. The specific gravity was determined using a pycnometer (stoppered bottle having a capacity of 50 mL) as specified by the ASTM Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soils (D 854-92, 1995). The specific gravity values are an average of three tests; individual determinations differed from the mean by less than 0.01. The liquid limit of the soils was determined by the cone penetrometer method as specified by BS: 1377-Part 2, 1990. The liquid limit tests were carried out to obtain a minimum of five points for plotting the flow curve. The consistency of the soil specimens was adjusted such that the cone penetration ranged between 15 and 25 mm. The plastic limit of clay specimens was determined by the rolling bead method as outlined in the ASTM Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (D 4318-93, 1995). The shrinkage limit of soil specimens was determined as per ASTM Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Mercury Method (D 427-83, 1995). While placing the wet soil at its liquid limit water content into the shrinkage dish, care was taken to expel entrapped air. Cracking due to fast drying was prevented by first allowing the soil to air dry under controlled conditions, and then oven-drying to a constant mass. The shrinkage limits reported are the average of three determinations; the variation between individual determination was less than 0.5%. Grain-size analysis was done as per ASTM Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D 422-63, 1995), by wet sieving of 100 g of dry soil using a 75- m sieve. The portion retained on the 75- m sieve was oven dried and sieved using sieves of 300, 212, and 150- m sizes. The soil passing through 75 m was collected carefully, air dried, and the grain-size distribution analysis was performed by the hydrometer method. The results are presented in Table 1. The mineralogical analysis of the soils was performed using an X-ray diffractometer with Cu-k radiation. The principal clay minerals present in the soils are given in Table 1. Water Absorption Test Since the magnitude of water absorption will depend upon the equilibrium suction pressure in the sample, which will depend on the height of the sample above the water source and the properties

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

SRIDHARAN AND NAGARAJ ON LIQUID LIMIT OF SOILS

129

TABLE 1Physical properties of soils used in the study. Grain Size Distribution (7) Soil No. (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Soil Description (2) Red earth1, Bangalore Red earth2, Bangalore Silty soil, Ooty Black soil1, Tadapatri Coarse kaolinite, Bangalore Red earth3, Devanahalli Silty clay, Koramangala Black soil2, Tadapatri Cochin clay (oven dried) Black soil3, Tadapatri Brown soil, Bangalore Fine kaolinite1, Bangalore Black soil4, Tadapatri Illitic soil, Bangalore B C soil1, Belgium Black soil5, Tadapatri Black soil6, Tadapatri B C soil2, Davanagere Fine kaolinite2, Shimoga 10% Bentonite 90% soil No. 19 20% Bentonite 80% soil No. 19 30% Bentonite 70% soil No. 19 40% Bentonite 60% soil No. 19 50% Bentonite 50% soil No. 19 60% Bentonite 40% soil No. 19 80% Bentonite 20% soil No. 19 Bentonite, Kolar Gs* (3) 2.68 2.70 2.65 2.67 2.65 2.70 2.70 2.68 2.61 2.69 2.66 2.65 2.70 2.58 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.71 2.64 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.70 2.72 wL , % (4) 31.5 37.0 39.0 47.0 48.0 48.0 52.5 55.7 56.4 58.3 58.5 58.7 72.0 73.4 73.5 75.0 75.5 98.0 55.0 61.0 74.0 87.0 125.0 147.0 173.0 232.0 320.0 wP , % (5) 16.5 18.0 29.5 NP# 23.2 23.6 24.6 27.7 38.1 28.8 32.1 45.2 35.0 53.0 35.6 35.2 37.9 48.7 31.4 33.0 32.5 35.5 38.3 40.8 44.7 48.1 56.6 wS, % (6) 11.02 14.7 27.4 23.6 39.0 15.5 10.1 11.7 21.0 11.1 13.5 46.4 11.6 39.0 11.9 11.8 11.8 10.8 33.1 30.5 29.3 28.1 25.2 22.5 19.8 12.9 10.5 Sand, % (7a) 45.0 35.5 36.5 16.0 8.0 12.1 18.0 19.5 0.0 0.9 13.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Silt, % (7b) 33.0 38.5 58.5 74.5 57.0 50.0 64.5 42.5 88.5 71.6 35.5 67.0 60.3 53.4 46.5 40.2 33.5 26.8 13.4 0.0 Clay, % (7c) 22.0 26.0 5.0 9.5 35.0 27.9 17.5 35.0 11.5 27.5 51.5 32.0 38.8 45.9 53.1 59.6 66.4 73.1 86.6 100.0 wA , % (8) 22.9 35.2 38.4 48.2 46.6 42.0 50.5 52.6 58.8 49.6 45.0 53.0 68.0 54.4 73.5 73.0 74.4 96.8 47.1 48.3 51.7 61.0 120.0 141.5 175.4 207.3 292.0 Mineralogy (9) K,Q** K,Q I,Q M,Q K,Q K,Q,M I,Q M,Q H,Mi M,Q M,K,Q K,Q M,Q I,K,Q M,Q M,Q M,Q M,Q K,Q K,Q,M K,Q,M K,Q,M K,Q,M M,K,Q M,K,Q M,K,Q M

NOTE:
*GS Specific gravity. wL Liquid limit. wP Plastic limit. wS Shrinkage limit. wA Absorption water content. **H Halloysite. I Illite. K Kaolinite. Mi Mica. Q Quartz. # NP Non-plastic.

of porous stone and filter paper used in the test, they have been standardized in the following way to get reproducible results. For each soil sample three trials of shrinkage limit tests were carried out as per standard procedure (ASTM D 427-83, 1995), and the shrinkage limit pats thus obtained at the end of the tests were used for the water absorption test. The size of the pats varied depending upon the shrinkage limit of the soil, but the initial size of the sample is 45 mm in diameter and 15 mm in height. A desiccator containing properly levelled fine sand ( 425 m) was taken. Two big filter papers (Whatman No. 1) were placed one above the other on the levelled sand and later saturated with distilled water. Saturated porous stones that are used in a standard oedometer test (6 cm in diameter and 0.5 cm in height) were placed on the filter paper. Another set of small-size filter papers (Whatman No. 42) were placed on each porous stone as shown in Fig. 1. The oven-dried shrinkage pats were weighed and placed on the top of porous stones. The desiccator was covered with the lid on the top, and the pats were allowed to absorb water. The weight of the absorbed sample along with the porous stones

was determined at regular intervals of time. The water absorbtion test was continued until the samples reached equilibrium as indicated by the constant weight of the water-absorbed samples along with saturated porous stone for three consecutive weighings. Normally the time taken to reach equilibrium is found to be between 2 to 24 h. However, for many samples, readings were taken even up to three days to understand the time-absorption behavior better. Results and Discussion Figures 2, 3, and 4 show a typical plot of water absorbed, w (%) versus time, t, for silty soil (Soil No. 3), fine kaolinite-1 (Soil No. 12), and B C soil-2 (Soil No. 18), respectively. From the figures it can be seen that the absorption curves follow a typical rectangular hyperbolic plot. Further, the final absorbed water content gets reached almost within 400 to 500 min itself. In order to obtain the final absorbed water content from the initial time versus water absorbed data itself, without waiting for equilibrium, the results were

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

130

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 1Absorption test apparatus.

FIG. 2Time versus water-absorbed relationship for silty soil.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

SRIDHARAN AND NAGARAJ ON LIQUID LIMIT OF SOILS

131

FIG. 3Time versus water-absorbed relationship for fine kaolinite-1.

FIG. 4Time versus water absorbed relationship for B C soil-2.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

132

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

replotted in terms of time versus time/water (t t/w) absorbed as illustrated in Figs. 5, 6, and 7. It may be seen that almost a perfectly straight line is obtained, justifying the assumption that the absorption curve is hyperbolic. Further, the final absorbed water content predicted by the inverse slope of the straight line matches the measured absorbed water content obtained for the samples upon reaching equilibrium. Thus, from the straight line fit of the plot of t/w versus t with the initial results of the absorption test, one can obtain

FIG. 7Time/water absorbed versus time relationship for B C soil-2.

FIG. 5Time/water absorbed versus time relationship for silty soil.

FIG. 8Absorption water content versus liquid limit relationship for all soils.

FIG. 6Time/water absorbed versus time relationship for fine kaolinite-1.

the final quantity of water absorbed on reaching equilibrium by obtaining the inverse of the slope of the straight line, thereby reducing the time of conducting the test, if need be. The results of water absorbed expressed as a percentage of dry weight of the sample (wA) is tabulated in Table 1. Figure 8 is a plot of wA versus wL obtained by the cone penetrometer method. It is clear that dry shrinkage pats on absorbing water reach a water content very near to the liquid limit water con-

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

SRIDHARAN AND NAGARAJ ON LIQUID LIMIT OF SOILS

133

tent. Also, it can be seen that a very good correlation (r 0.99) exists between wA and wL as given by the following equation: wA 0.92wL (1) where wA and wL are in percent. In the bulk of the soil engineering practice, the maximum liquid limit of soil ranges up to about 100. In view of this, the absorbed water content obtained from absorption tests for soils having a liquid limit up to 98% were taken and compared with the liquid limit of the soils as presented in Fig. 9. Here, also, a good correlation (r 0.93) exists between wA and wL as given by the following equation: (2) wA 0.91wL Thus, the difference between Eqs 1 and 2 is minimal. Hence, either of these equations can be used or one of them depending upon the value of the liquid limit. Earlier it has been brought out that several limitations and practical difficulties exist in the use of Casagrandes apparatus or the fall cone apparatus to determine the liquid limit of a soil. Further, the mechanisms controlling these two methods do not identify the mechanisms controlling the water-holding capacity of soils. Hence, the water absorption test, which is a relatively easy test, and the mechanisms involved in the test represent the waterholding capacity of soils, can be used to determine the liquid limit of soils. An additional advantage is that after carrying out a shrinkage limit test, the same soil pat could be reused to determine the

water absorbed and liquid limit from the correlation given either by Eqs 1 or 2. Conclusions Guided by the mechanisms involved in the water absorption test, the liquid limit of a soil may be defined as the water-holding capacity of the soil, and the same can be quantified as approximately equal to the water content absorbed by a dry soil pat at shrinkage limit void ratio when it is allowed to absorb water under no confining stress till it reaches equilibrium. The absorbed water content thus obtained is found to have a good correlation with the conventional liquid limit determined by the cone penetrometer method. References Campbell, D. J., 1975, Liquid Limit Determination of Arable Topsoil using a Drop-Cone Penetrometer, Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 234240. Casagrande, A., 1932, Research on the Atterberg Limits of Soils, Public Roads, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 121130, 136. Casagrande, A., 1958, Notes on the Design of the Liquid Limit Device, Geotechnique, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 8491. Croney, D. and Coleman, J. D., 1954, Soil Structure in Relation to Soil Suction (pF), Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7584. Croney, D. and Coleman, J. D., 1961, Pore Pressure and Suction in Soil, in Proceedings, Conference on Pore Pressure, Butterworths, London, pp. 3137. Farrell, E. R., Schuppener, B., and Wassing, B., 1997, ETC5 FallCone Study, Ground Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 3336. Karlsson, R., 1961, Suggested Improvements in the Liquid Limit Test, with Reference to Flow Properties of Remoulded Clays, Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on SM & FE, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 171184. Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 31. Leroueil, S. and Le Bihan, J. P., 1996, Liquid Limit and Fall Cones, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 793798. Nelson, J. D. and Miller, D. J., 1992, Expansive SoilsProblems and Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 110. Scherrer, H. V., 1961, Determination of Liquid Limit by the Static Cone Penetration Test, Proceedings, Fifth International Conference on SM & FE, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 319322. Sherwood, P. T. and Ryley, M. D., 1970, An Investigation of a Cone-Penetrometer Method for the Determination of the Liquid Limit, Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 203208. Whyte, I. L., 1982, Soil Plasticity and StrengthA New Approach using Extrusion, Ground Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1624. Wroth, C. P. and Wood, D. M., 1978, The Correlation of Index Properties with Some Basic Engineering Properties of Soils, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 137145.

FIG. 9Absorption water content versus liquid limit relationship for soils having liquid limit less than 100%.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:05:10 EDT 2009 Downloaded/printed by National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.