Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252818715
CITATIONS READS
103 1,528
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Constitutive modelling using damage mechanics and plasticity theory View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tatsuya Koumoto on 15 April 2016.
The fall cone is considered as a more reliable method for Pour determiner la limite liquide, la methode du cone
determining the liquid limit than the Casagrande method, tombant est consideree comme plus able que la methode de
and is standardised in many countries as the preferred Casagrande. Elle est la norme dans de nombreux pays pour
liquid limit test method. In this paper the theory and prac- tester la limite liquide. Dans cet expose, nous decrivons les
tice of the fall cone test are described. First the penetration aspects theoriques et les aspects pratiques des essais au cone
mechanism of a fall cone into clay is analysed, introducing tombant. D'abord nous analysons le mecanisme de penetra-
the concept of dynamic strength to the static results. Next tion d'un cone dans de l'argile, appliquant le concept de
the applicability of dynamic analysis to the fall cone test is force dynamique aux resultats statiques. Ensuite, nous exam-
examined with regard to Hansbo's cone factor, K, for var- inons l'applicabilite de l'analyse dynamique au test du cone
ious cone angles. The theoretical K value for the 608 cone tombant a la lumiere du facteur K du cone d'Hansbo pour
with a semi-rough surface is found to agree better with ex- divers angles du cone. Nous avons trouve que la valeur
perimental results than is the case for the 308 cone. It is theorique K pour le cone a 608 avec surface semi rugueuse
proposed that the liquid limit be redened internationally as se rapproche davantage des resultats experimentaux que
the water content at which a 608, 60 g fall cone penetrates celle du cone a 308. Nous proposons de redenir la limite
10 mm. Finally the applicability of the fall cone test as a liquide sur le plan international comme la teneur en eau a
device to relate the strength of a clay with the index proper- laquelle un cone de 608 et de 60 g penetre de 10 mm. Enn,
ties is examined. nous examinons l'applicabilite de l'essai au cone tombant
comme dispositif permettant d'etablir la relation entre la
KEYWORDS: clays; laboratory tests; plasticity; shear strength; soil resistance de l'argile et les proprietes indexees.
classication; standards.
F E O A B
r
hs
(a)
The inuence of soil displacement
As the cone penetrates the soil, the clay is displaced so that
the soil surface is no longer at. Plasticity calculations for
the factor Nc are much simplied if the soil heave is ignored,
but this results in an underestimate of the cone resistance. A
full analysis accounting for the heave is extremely complex
(Lockett, 1963), and an approximate method is used here
instead. A section through the deformed soil surface is assumed
to be a straight line from the cone surface down to a point on
the original clay surface at the outer extremity of the plastically
deforming region. The inclination of this line can be determined
as a function of the extent of the plastically deforming region,
by making use of the fact that the volume of heave is equal to (b)
the volume of the cone (Houlsby, 1982). An iterative calculation
is necessary since the extent of the plastic region depends in
turn on the inclination of the surface. Bearing capacity factors
in which heave is taken into account will be denoted by Nch .
1488
1450
1430
1400
1390
1380
1369
Nc Nch
Smooth cone
Rough cone
1508
10
: deg
509
450
390
350
320
290
251
Nc, Nch
792
805
808
810
818
823
828
5
Nch
1398
1400
1370
1340
1339
1338
1338
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
: deg
1208
: deg
cones
2
6943
7350
7550
7650
7800
7930
8102
c 1
Nch
f
c1 c
where c OB=OA in Fig. 22 (see Appendix 1 for the deriva-
tion of this factor).
1297
1298
1294
1291
1290
1283
1278
Both the Nch and Nc values for rough cones are (as expected)
greater than those for smooth cones, and Nch values are greater
than Nc values for any value.
908
: deg
949
898
867
788
728
1211
1055
angle. The values of for smooth and rough cones are almost
the same for values up to about 808. Above that value, the
effect for the smooth cone is somewhat greater than that for the
608
: deg
940
898
854
766
706
1216
1061
908.
1083
1098
1098
1098
1100
1099
1096
20
12.5
308
: deg
787
684
616
577
552
501
449
15 at 73
Smooth cone
7.5 ( 5 0)
: deg
4992
6030
6992
7457
7927
8805
9616
10 at 79
Nch
5 Rough cone
( 5 1)
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
: deg
angle
704 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
1.6 values are found to lie in between the theoretical values for
smooth and rough cones. The coefcient F 7:10 for the
regression curve in Fig. 6 corresponds to a value
1.5 Smooth cone
( 5 0) 7:10
N ch 6:80
1.4 tan2 608=2
(5Nch/Nc)
1.1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
1 In the above analysis the penetration of the cone was
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 assumed to be quasi-static. To apply these results to the fall
: deg cone, the dynamics of the cone are taken into account. Houlsby
(1982) carried out such an analysis. In the following we in-
Fig. 5. Variation of Nch =Nc with cone angle
troduce the possibility that the undrained strength of the clay
may be a function of the strain rate, and at the high rates of
strain in the fall cone test this may be signicant. We use sud to
Values of cone surface roughness denote the undrained strength under dynamic conditions. The
Figure 6 shows the results of tests of the static cone penetra- dynamic resistance of cone penetrated to a depth z is therefore
tion resistance in remoulded clays for 608. The physical Fsud z 2 , and the dynamic analysis of the fall cone test involves
properties of the clays are given in Table 2 (which also includes solution of the equation
information to be used later). As expected, the experimental
d2 z Fsud 2
g z (5)
3000 dt 2 m
Experiments
where m is the mass of the fall cone assembly, g is gravita-
tional acceleration, z is the penetration, and t is the time from
2500 Clays LL IP
A1 120 43 the beginning of penetration.
M2 168 133 Noting that the results of the static penetration give
2000
B2 318 293 Q mg Fs u h2s , equation (5) may be rewritten as
!
d2 z d sud z 2
Q/su: mm2
Theory
g 1 (6)
1500 Rough cone Smooth cone dt 2 dz su h2s
( 5 1) ( 5 0)
where v is the velocity of the cone. Equation (6) may be in-
1000
Q/su 5 7.10h2s
tegrated to give
( 5 0.5) v
!
u
u sud z 2
500 t
2 gz 1 (7)
5 au/su
3su h2s
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 if v 0 atpz
0. The cone
ptherefore comes to rest (v 0) at
hs: mm z h hs 3su =sud hs 3, where su =sud (typically
will be a factor less than p10). The dynamic cone penetration
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and theoretical penetration of depth, h, is therefore 3 times the static cone penetration
static cone depth, hs .
wL : % wP : % IP: % wL : % wP : % I P: %
Yagusa clay Y 2650 667 286 377 690 260 430
Ariake clay A1 2580 1200 512 688 1200 510 690
Ariake clay A2 2620 1309 510 799 1270 480 790
Ariake clay A3 2580 1400 540 860 1390 530 860
Clay mixture{ M1 2670 740 360 380 760 340 420
Clay mixture{ M2 2650 1780 406 1374 1680 350 1330
Clay mixture} M3 2660 1800 510 1290 1750 490 1260
Clay mixture} M4 2650 1905 356 1549 2000 310 1690
Bentonite B1 2650 3342 433 2909 2950 390 2560
Bentonite B2 2740 4020 356 3654 3500 290 3210
Fall cone method uses 608, 60g cone (w is water content at h 11:5 mm, w is water content at h 11:5 mm)
L P
{ M1 mixture is 286% A3, 814% sand
{ M2 mixture is 50% A1, 50% B2
} M3 mixture is 50% A3, 50% B2
} M4 mixture is 663% B1, 333% Yagusa clay
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 705
The fall cone factor, K standard triaxial test. Extrapolating to higher strain rates, the
Combining the above results, the undrained shear strength (at above expression gives su =su(1%=h) of 160 at _ 1:0 3
low strain rates) may be expressed as a function of the fall cone 106 %=h (for the 308 cone) and 164 at _ 2:5 3 106 %=h (for
penetration, h, as 608 and 908 cones). If standard triaxial tests are adopted as the
3Q 3Q KQ benchmark for comparison of undrained strength values, can
su 2 (8) be estimated as follows:
Fh2 Nch tan2 =2h2 h
1:19
where K is the fall cone factor as dened by Hansbo (1957). : 0:74 for the 308 cone (11a)
1 60
The above equation results in
1:19
3 : 0:73 for 608 and 908 cones (11b)
K 1 64
Nch tan2 =2
Koumoto (1989) carried out quasi-static penetration tests (at a
rate of 002 mm/s) and standard fall cone tests on similar clay
samples. Accounting for the estimated rate of strain in his
Determination of
quasi-static tests would lead to expected values of of 074 for
To obtain the K values, must be known, and to make a
his tests with 308 cones, and 076 for the tests with 608 and 908
reasonable estimate of this factor the rate of shear strain during
cones. In fact, from the measured ratios of the static cone
the fall cone test is in turn needed.
penetration depth, hs , to the fall cone penetration depth, h, the
The average shear strain rate during penetration, , _ is esti-
experimentally deduced value of was 071 for all three cone
mated by the following equation (see Appendix 2):
angles. The indication is that strain rate effects are in fact
0:671 3 106 deg slightly higher (by 47% than those indicated by the extrapola-
_ %=h p (9) tion in Fig. 7. Considering that an extrapolation was required to
1 deg=45 hmm
strain rates about two orders of magnitude higher than in any of
where is the angle of the heaved surface of the clay (in the triaxial tests, the agreement is remarkably good.
degrees). For the range of penetration depth measured in practice
in the fall cone test, a typical strain rate value would be 1:0 3
106 %=h for the 308 cone (0:89 3 106 %=h to 1:15 3 106 %=h COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL VALUES
for h in the range 1525 mm) and about 2:5 3 106 %=h for a OF K
608 or 908 cone (1:94 3 106 %=h to 3:37 3 106 %=h for h in the The fall cone factors, K, calculated using the above values of
range 515 mm). These values are approximate only. for different values of cone angle are shown in Table 3, and
A relationship between the normalised strength and the rate compared in Fig. 8 with experimentally determined values of K
of shear strain is summarised in Fig. 7, from results published (Hansbo, 1957; Karlsson, 1961; Wood, 1982, 1985). Note that,
by Berre & Bjerrum (1973), Vaid & Campanella (1977) and as implicitly accepted in the later papers, it appears that
Lefebvre & Leboeuf (1987). The line shown on the gure is Karlsson's gures were reported as too low by a factor of 100.
given by In Fig. 8 the values of K calculated for smooth and rough cones
su are shown for comparison. From Fig. 8, the theoretical K values
1:0 0:1 log10 _ (10) show good agreement with the experiments for . 458, and
su 1%=h
especially for 608.
where _ is in %=h. This line ts the data quite well, and Leroueil & Le Bihan (1996) report that the ratio of penetra-
corresponds to the commonly used rule of thumb that the tion of the 608, 60 g to that of the 308, 80 g cone is on average
undrained strength increases by about 10% for every tenfold 05, and this implies that the K value for the 308 cone is exactly
increase in strain rate.
By interpolation, su =su(1%=h) is 119 at _ 79%=h, which 2
corresponds approximately to the strain rate for a typical
1.8 Experiments
2.5 Hansbo
1.6
Fall cone test l Karlsson
(60 and 90 cone)
1.4 Wood 1982
2 1.64
Theory Wood 1985
at 2.5 3 106%/h
Standard triaxial 1.2
5 0.0
test 1.19
1.5 at 79%/h 1 0.5
K
su/su(1%/h)
1.60 1.0
0.8
at 1.0 3 106%/h |
1 (30 cone)
0.6
{ The USSR and Georgia Institute of Technology cones are not fall cones; instead the cone is lowered slowly until the weight is carried by the soil. The K factors are calculated on the basis of ignoring dynamics and
Undrained strength at
the experimental data in Fig. 8. The theoretical values, however,
give a ratio of 1:33=0:305 4:4. The discrepancy between
s uL KQ=h2L :
kPa (theory)
liquid limit,
theory and measured values lies almost entirely with the 308
183
138
183
284
266
266
368
452
446
350
cone. Furthermore, the difference between the theoretical K
values for smooth and rough 308 cones is comparatively large,
so that the cone surface roughness of a 308 cone needs to be
known reasonably accurately.
Given that (a) there is better agreement between theory and
experiment and (b) the 608 cone is less sensitive to the surface
K (theory)
indication of the strength of a clay in the fall cone test.
0305
0305
0305
0595
0595
124
133
133
133
133
The difference between experiment and theory for the 308
cone has not been resolved completely. Contributing factors
probably include the following:
(a) The buoyant effect of the self-weight of the clay. This can
Penetration at liquid
account, however, for only about a 15% decrease in the
limit, hL : mm
apparent K value.
(b) The shape of the deformed free surface. When the effect of
115
254
soil heave is (approximately) introduced, the effect is to
10
10
20
20
17
10
10
17
decrease the K value by about 10% from the values
obtained ignoring heave. It may be that accounting for the
shape of the free surface more rigorously would further
decrease the value of K.
(c) The strain rates have been estimated simply from a very
Penetration
approximate global estimate of the rates. It may be that, if a
time: s
more precise estimate of the strain rates could be made
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
?
?
(accounting for variation with both time and position), then
a lower value of K would be obtained. It is unlikely, how-
ever, that this would make a very large difference.
Depth: mm
30 or 25
>25
>30
>40
40
30
Undrained shear strength at the liquid limit
?
?
Container details
>55
50
55
50
Unfortunately, the theoretical suL value varies from 138 kPa to
?
?
?
452 kPa. Wroth & Wood (1978) suggest a strength of suL
1:7 kPa from the synthesis of several sources of data, and
indicate a possible range of 07265 kPa. Theoretical suL
values are all within between this range except for the Indian
Length: mm
>20
20
35
35
35
25
25
?
Table 4. Standards for the fall cone liquid limit test in different countries
vane tests for remoulded clays are shown in Fig. 9 where su has
148
60
60
60
80
80
80
76
76
75
450
400 Clays LL IP
Apex angle,
Y 69 43
: deg
A1 120 69
350
60
60
60
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
A2 129 87
M2 168 133
300 M4 200 169
B2 318 293
250 Hor 30 14
w: %
Lon 73 48
Gos 80 50
Georgia. Institute of Technology{
200
She 97 65
150
Country and/or publication
100
France (Leaive, 1971)
50
Sweden, Norway
0
New Zealand
su/pa
Canada
USSR{
China
Japan
water content
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 707
Table 5. Coefcients in equation (12) 200
su: kPa
M2 3997 0341 0999 4
M3 3814 0336 0990
2
M4 3882 0412 0998 Theory
B1 3245 0535 0970 1 su/pa 5 (183/pa)/h2
B2 3172 0560 0995
0.4
0.2
Pa . The physical properties of these clays are shown in Table 5. 0.1
As can be seen in Fig. 9, the w log su relationship is not 1 2 4 10 20
linear, but curves over the whole range of water content, which h: mm
varies from higher than the liquid limit to near the plastic limit.
This has already been observed by Karlsson (1961) and Youssef Fig. 11. Relationship between su values obtained by vane tests and h
et al. (1965). Fujikawa & Koumoto (1982) and Koumoto (1989,
1990) suggest that the log w log su relationship is more nearly
linear for a wide range of water content. Consequently, the 400
Clays LL IP
w su relation may be expressed as Y 69 43
A2 127 79
w a su = pa )b (12) 200
M4 200 169
where a and b are coefcients that vary with the type of the B2 350 321
clay. The values of a and b obtained by regression analysis are 100
shown together with the regression coefcient, r, in Table 5.
w: %
20 w 5 AhB
The relationship between w and h
The relationship between w and cone penetration, h, can be
obtained by combining equations (8) and (12) to give 10
1 2 4 10 20 40
KQ b h: mm
wa Ah B (13)
pa h2 Fig. 12. Loglog relationship between penetration depth and water
where A a(KQ= pa )b and B 2b. For the 608, 60 g cone K content
is equal to 0305, and A a(183)b .
Figure 11 shows the relationship between su values obtained r is greater than 09). A series of fall cone tests at different
by vane tests and h. Equation (8) is shown by a solid line, and water contents of a clay can be used to give the coefcients A
is in very good agreement with experimental results, so that this and B, and hence also the coefcients a and b in equation (12).
equation could be used to estimate su with reasonable accuracy
from measurements of h.
Equation (13) shows that the w h relationship is linear on
a double logarithmic scale. In Fig. 12 the linear log w log h The value of hL at the liquid limit
equations obtained by regression analysis for each clay are Details of fall cone tests, as adopted in various countries as
shown by broken lines (for each clay, the correlation coefcient the liquid limit test, are summarised in Table 4. For the 608,
60 g cone, the penetration at liquid limit hL 10 mm is usually
2000 adopted. However, if the Casagrande method is taken as den-
Clays LL IP
ing the liquid limit, then for clays of rather high liquid limit
1000 Y 69 43 (wL 70350%) hL increases with wL, and varies between
2b
w 5 a(su/pa) A1 120 69 10 mm and 14 mm, as shown in Fig. 13. Kumapley & Boakye
A2 129 87
M2 168 133
400 M4 200 169 20
B2 318 293
Hor 30 14
200 Lon 73 48
Gos 80 50
w: %
She 97 65 15
100
hL: mm
10
40
hL,average 5 12.0 mm
20 5
10
0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
su/pa
wL: %
Fig. 10. Loglog relationship between undrained strength and water
content Fig. 13. Variation of hL with wL
708 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
(1980) reported that for a 608, 60 g cone, hL varied between 2
10 mm and 12 mm for soils with wL < 90%.
The Japanese Geotechnical Society (2000) has adopted hL
11:5 mm as the Japanese Industrial Standard. The intention is
that fall cone tests should be applicable for all clays with
wL < 160%. A series of tests has been carried out on a number
hP: mm
of Japanese clays. The water contents at hL 11:5 mm on the 1
log w log h plots are taken as the liquid limit and are shown in hP,average 5 1.3 mm
Table 2. As seen in this table, the difference between the
Casagrande liquid limits and the fall cone liquid limit (at
hL 11:5 mm) is less than 4% for all clays with wL < 160%.
The clays tested with higher liquid limits are all Bentonite clays.
0
0 20 40 60
wP: %
Strength at the fall cone liquid limit
Using a 608, 60 g cone, the undrained shear strength at liquid
Fig. 15. Variation of hP with wP
limit suL is (using the theoretical results) 183 kPa for hL
10 mm and 138 kPa for hL 11:5 mm. Fig. 14 shows the
of 100 between the strengths of the two limits. The clear
variation of undrained shear strength at liquid limit with the
disadvantage of this approach is that it involves extrapolation.
plasticity index. In the gure the above suL values are shown as
This could be circumvented by either of two means: (a) the use
a dotted broken line and a broken line respectively. The use of
of a heavier cone for a new plastic limit test, which would in-
hL 115 mm as the penetration at liquid limit is seen to give
volve rather larger penetrations; or (b) the denition of a new
a good estimate of suL .
index value at, say, a strength that is only a factor of 10 higher
The strength of 138 kPa is smaller than the 23 kPa sug-
than that at the liquid limit.
gested by Casagrande (1958), 1521 kPa by Karlsson (1961),
17 kPa by Wroth & Wood (1978) and 16 kPa by Whyte(1982),
but is in the range of the values of 07265 kPa suggested by
Wroth & Wood (1978). Undrained strength at fall cone plastic limit
By redening the plastic limit as, for instance, the water
content at hP 1:15 mm for a 608, 60 g cone, the value of suP
THE FALL CONE TO MEASURE THE PLASTIC LIMIT given as 100 times the suL value: that is, 138 kPa from equation
The value of h P at the plastic limit (8). Fig. 16 shows the undrained shear strength at this newly
At present the liquid limit and the plastic limit of soils are redened plastic limit. However, this requires extrapolation on
determined by two completely different methods. Wood & the plots already employed (Figs 10Fig. 12) as the very small
Wroth (1978) tried to determine the plastic limit indirectly from penetration is rarely attained. In Fig. 16, the average suP value
the fall cone tests. If fall cone tests were to be available for the for the hP,average is 108 kPa, rather less than the value implied
plastic limit as well as the liquid limit, then the two tests might by the analysis given above.
become easier, more useful and more meaningful mechanically.
If the fall cone test were to be used to determine the plastic
limit, one of the merits of plotting the data on the log w log h
diagram would be to allow extrapolation to the penetration at INDEX PROPERTIES
the plastic limit. Fig. 15 shows the relationship between the It is usual to express the form of the critical-state line for a
extrapolated hP values at the plastic limit on the log w log h clay in the form
diagram and the plastic limit itself. From Fig. 15, the average v ln p9= pa
hP value is 13 mm for the 60 g, 608 cone. If a ratio of 100 was
assumed between the strengths at the liquid and plastic limits where v is the specic volume, and this implies a linear
(as suggested by Skempton & Northey, (1953), and numerous relationship between the water content and the logarithm of
subsequent authors), then a penetration of about 115 mm (one pressure, and implicitly therefore also with the logarithm of the
tenth of hL 11:5 mm) would be expected. undrained strength. Buttereld (1979), however, suggested that
It is suggested therefore that the plastic limit for clays could the form
be dened by extrapolation of the log w log h diagram to the ln v ln ln p9= pa
point at which the penetration is one tenth of that at the liquid
limit. This would establish a rm mechanical basis for the ratio provided a better t to the data. This form is particularly
appropriate for remoulded plastic clays with a wide range of
3
200
Theory
2.5 Theory
suP/Pa 5 138
suL 5 1.83 kPa
(hP 5 1.15 mm)
(hL 5 10 mm) 150
2
suL: kPa
suP: Pa
1.5
100
Theory
1 suP/Pa 5 108
Theory (hP,average 5 1.3 mm)
50
0.5 suL 5 1.38 kPa
(hL 5 11.5 mm)
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
IP IP
Fig. 14. Variation of suL with I P Fig. 16. Variation of suP with I P
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 709
water contents. A minor alteration to Buttereld's expression is 80
the use of
ln e ln 1 ln p9= pa 70
Koumoto
where e is the voids ratio, and this form proves to be conveni- Skempton & Northey
ent in the following. This expression can also be written 60 1:1
e 1 p9= pa
Intercept a measured
Since the critical-state line is given by q Mp9, and undrained 50
shear strength is half the deviator stress at failure, su q=2,
then we can obtain 40
2 su
e 1
M pa 30
20 B2 350 321
su: kPa, measured
1:1
10
0.4
2
0.2
1
w 5 a(su/Pa)2b
b 5 IPN/4.61 0.4
0 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200
Exponent b predicted su: kPa, predicted
Fig. 17. Comparison of measured and predicted b values Fig. 19. Comparison of predicted and measured values of su
710 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
The relationship between I LN and su for a remoulded clay from the value of the newly dened
The relationship between w and su is sometimes plotted on liquidity index, I LN .
the liquidity index diagram of IL against ln su . Fig. 20 shows
the relation between IL and ln su for remoulded clays. As can
be seen, the IL ln su relation for different clays gives different STANDARDISATION OF THE FALL CONE TEST
curves, as Wasti & Bezirci (1985) also report for a variety of It is unfortunate that so many different cones have been
soils. adopted worldwide (see Table 4). Such a proliferation is clearly
Consistent with the above discussions of the variation of unhelpful if the fall cone is to be used as a standard test. For
strength with water content, it would be appropriate to dene a any one country to change its standards is a process fraught
new liquidity index, ILN , as with difculties, some of which are not purely related to
technical matters. On the basis of the work reported here, we
I LN ln w ln wP =ln wL ln wP
feel compelled, however, to present the scientic case for cer-
ln w ln wP =I PN (16) tain changes. The views expressed are our own and represent no
interest of outside bodies.
and substituting equations (14) gives There are two widely used cones: the 608, 60 g cone and the
I LN ln su ln suP =ln suL ln suP 308, 80 g cone. Of these we recommend the 608, 60 g cone on
the basis that:
1:070 0:217 ln su (17) (a) the theoretical understanding of this cone is in much better
or accord with the experimental results than is the case for the
308 cone. This agreement gives added condence to the use
su exp1:070 I LN =0:217 (18) of the results.
Figure 21 shows the relationship between I LN and ln su for (b) the results of the 608 cone tests are less sensitive to cone
remoulded clays. In Fig. 21 the theoretical equation (17) is roughness than are those from the 308 cone. This sensitivity
shown as a solid line. As can be seen, the experiments are in is thought to be a major contributor to the variability of 308
fairly good agreement with theory. one test results.
Equation (18) can be used to predict the undrained strength (c) the blunter tip of the 608 cone is, presumably, less prone to
wear.
Against these arguments it must be acknowledged that the
1.4 larger penetration depths for the 308 cone mean that the depth
Clays LL IP can be determined with (proportionally) more accuracy. The
1.2
Y 69 43 authors consider, however, that on balance the 608 cone is sup-
1 A1 120 69 erior, and would strongly recommend that those countries
A2 127 79 (including of course the UK) currently using the 308 cone
0.8 M2 168 133 should consider transferring to the 608 cone as standard.
M4 200 169 The second issue to be resolved is the depth of penetration
0.6 B2 350 321 to be adopted for the liquid limit. There seems little doubt that
IL
the fall cone is a more reliable device for measuring the pro-
0.4 perties of clays than is the Casagrande apparatus. The process
of benchmarking the fall cone against the Casagrande apparatus
0.2 is therefore scientically an indefensible procedure, and can
only be justied on historical grounds. It is clear that the
0
penetration depth at the (Casagrande) liquid limit increases
20.2 marginally with liquid limit. Those countries concerned mainly
0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 with low to medium plasticity clays have typically adopted a
su: Pa penetration depth of 10 mm. Those in which the test is also to
be applied to very high plasticity clays prefer a larger value
Fig. 20. Loglinear relationship between undrained strength and
(e.g. 115 mm in Japan). Such differences are highly undesir-
liquidity index
able. On the grounds of (a) simplicity and (b) historical
precedent we strongly recommend the adoption of 10 mm as
1.6
standard:
The liquid limit should be internationally redened as the
1.4 Clays LL IP water content at which a 608, 60g fall cone penetrates 10 mm.
Y 69 43 Consistent with the well-accepted observation that the
1.2
A1 120 69 strength at the plastic limit is about 100 times that at the liquid
A2 127 79
M2 168 133 limit, then it might seem logical to recommend: that the plastic
1 M4 200 169 limit should be internationally redened as the water content at
B2 350 321 which a 608, 60 g fall cone would penetrate 1 mm. Such a
0.8 recommendation poses a practical problem in that, since meas-
urement of a penetration of 1 mm is clearly unrealistic, then
ILN