ENGR 484 ENGINEERING LABORATORY

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

SECTION 2

GROUP (D)
Zamo Hawrami
Zhilwan Kokoiy
Hasan Kamaran

Experiment Date: February 13, 2017

Submission Date: February 20, 2017

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF IRAQ, SULAIMANI

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING

MS. RAGUEZ TAHA

SPRING 2017
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Materials/Equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Procedure ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 7
References ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

2
Abstract
Atterberg limits can be used to find the water content of a fine grained soil sample in
three different methods, which are liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and shrinkage limit
(SL). In this report, only liquid limit and plastic limit have been tested which are used to
determine the behavior and consistency of the sample as water content is increased. The
reason that increasing water content to a sample of soil changes the behavior and
consistency of the soil is that it causes the soil to change its state from solid to liquid.

Introduction
Albert Atterberg, a Swedish agriculturist, in 1911 found a method to test the
behavior and consistency of soil with respect to its water content. Later, Arthur Casagrande
improved the method by using the liquid limit device, so the device named Casagrande. The
aim of these experiments are to check the limit at which soil would start to act like liquid by
checking its percent of moisture content at the arbitrarily defined boundary between the
semi liquid and plastic states, and this is known as the Liquid Limit. The other one is Plastic
Limit and the aim is to check the limit at which soil cannot be deformed anymore by
checking its moisture content percentage at the boundary between the plastic and semi-
solid states. The whole point of these two tests is to classify fine-grained soils and
differentiate between them. Furthermore, the value or the water content of liquid limit is
always higher than the plastic limit because water required for liquid state is more than
plastic or semi-solid state [2]. To clarify, the equation below is used to find the water
content of each Atterberg limit and plasticity index:
Mass of pore water
w% = 100 (Equation 1)
Mass of dry soil

Plastic Index = Liquid Limit Plastic Limit (Equation 2)[1]

Materials/Equipment
Liquid Limit device (Casagrande) (Appendix A, Figure 1)
Porcelain (Evaporating) dish (Appendix A, Figure 2)
Mortar and Pestle (Appendix A, Figure 3)
Flat grooving tool with gauge (Appendix A, Figure 4)
Four moisture cans (Appendix A, Figure 5)
Balance (Appendix A, Figure 6)
Glass Plate (Appendix A, Figure 7)
Spatula (Appendix A, Figure 8)
Wash bottle filled with distilled water (Appendix A, Figure 9)
Drying oven set at 105 - 110 C (Appendix A, Figure 10)
No. 40 Sieve (425 micron IS Sieve) (Appendix A, Figure 11)

3
Procedure
Soil Liquid Limit Experiment
An amount of the air dried soil sample has been taken not exactly 250 g of the soil
sample which has been mentioned in the lab report written by Ms. Raguez [2]. The amount
of the soil should be pulverized using the mortar and pestle. Next, the pulverized soil
should be passed through No. 40 Sieve (425 micron IS Sieve). For this experiment, four
moisture cans are needed, so their masses should be measured individually containing
their lids. The lids should be labeled with the group letters and trial numbers as there may
be more than one group doing the experiment and to differentiate between the trials
because the water content of each trial is different. However, normal water has been added
to a random amount of the pulverized soil until a smooth uniform paste appears, it is
mentioned in the lab report [2] to use distilled water and an amount of of the pulverized
soil. In order to prevent water escaping from the moisture, the moisture cans should be put
in the desiccator as if not the water content will change and gives different results. The soil
paste should be placed in the porcelain dish in a depth of about 1cm at its deepest point;
then the soil has been symmetrically divided into two parts by using the grooving tool.
Then, the Cassandra machine should be turn on and it automatically measures the numbers
of the blows, so the machine should be turned off when the two symmetrically part of the
soil matches in a length of 10mm; a sample of the soil paste, where the groove filled, has
been put in a moisture can and has been measured and recorded in a table. The wet soil
and the moisture cans should be put in oven for about 12 hours and then take it out to cool.
When it gets cool, it have to be measured again as this time the water has been escaped
from the past and gives dry soil; the value of the moisture can and the dry soil should be
recorded in the table. These steps should be repeated for three more times by increasing
water to get the other trials with different eater content; for each trial, the number of blows
should be in these ranges 25-35, 20-30, 15-25, and 15-35 blows. The soil past and any soil
that has been used should be put in a trash can to be dry later; this is to reduce economy as
it can be used again for other experiments. Finally, for obtaining the liquid limit, the
number of the blows should be plotted against the moisture content in log scale. Water
content of each of the trials should be found using (Equation 1).

Soil Plastic Limit Experiment

This experiment requires three moisture cans, so their masses should be measured
with their lids and record in a table; the lids should be labeled by the group letters and the
trial numbers. However, in this experiment two trials have been done. The remaining of
the pulverized soil from the liquid experiment should be used here, but a random amount
has been taken again and normal water not distilled has been added to it in consistency
where it could be rolled without sticking to hands. The soil paste should be put in a
ellipsoidal mass and then rolled with palm and finger with sufficient pressure until it
becomes like thread with the same diameter this should be continuous until when the
diameter reaches 3.2mm and it cannot be rolled anymore. Then, the pieces of the paste
4
should be gathered and continue doing this until the pieces cannot be gather or stick to
each other. This has been done for two times and after this a sample of the thread should
be put in a moisture can and measure its mass directly with the same balance. Then, it has
to be put in oven for about 16 hours in order to dry the soil. Finally, determine the water
content for each trial using (Equation1).

Results
Table1. (Liquid Limit)

Sample No. 1 2 3 4
Moisture can+ Lid # D1 D2 D3 D4
MC=Mass of empty can+ lid (grams) 28.3 30.1 27.9 27.2
MCMS=Mass of can, lid+ moist soil (grams) 46.6 47.7 46.8 42.0
MCDS= Mass of can, lid+ dry soil (grams) 41.6 43.1 42.0 37.9
MS= Mass of soil solids 13.3 13.0 14.1 10.7
MW= Mass of pore water 5.0 4.6 4.8 4.1
W= Water content, % 37.6 35.4 34.0 38.3
No. of drops (N) 20 19 33 29

Sample Calculation: Sample calculations for the water content are as follows using the data
which was taken from trial 1(D1).

MS= MCDS- MC=41.6- 28.3 = 13.3 grams

MW= MCMS- MCDS =46.6- 41.6= 5.0 grams

5.0
W%= 100 = 13.3 100 = 37.6%

5
Table2. (Plastic Limit)

Sample No. 1 2
Moisture can+ Lid # D1 D2
MC=Mass of empty can+ lid (grams) 27.8 36.0
MCMS=Mass of can, lid+ moist soil (grams) 41.0 42.5
MCDS= Mass of can, lid+ dry soil (grams) 38.9 41.4
MS= Mass of soil solids 11.1 5.4
MW= Mass of pore water 2.1 1.1
W= Water content, % 18.9 20.4

Sample Calculation: Sample calculations for the water content are as follows using the data
which was taken from trial 1(D1).

MS= MCDS- MC= 38.9-27.8= 11.1 grams

MW= MCMS- MCDS =41.0- 38.9= 2.1 grams

2.1
W%= 100 = 100 = 18.9%
11.1

Discussion
Liquid Limit

It is important to discuss how the results of the liquid limit test are clearly illogical
given the fact that they are inconsistent with each other. For example, the data taken from
the first trial indicates that a sample of moist soil that contains 37.6% water content takes
about 20 blows to close the gap in the Casagrande machine. Whereas the data in the second
trial showed that in a given sample of moist soil that contains 35.4% water content, it took
about 19 blows to close the gap. Given the fact that the higher the water content percentage
in a given moist soil sample, the less blows it would take to close the gap created in the
Casagrande machine. It is clearly visible that these two trials are in no way related to each
other in terms of water content percentage and the number of blows it would take to close
the 1 cm gap. The error that causes the problem might be because of stopping the machine
one or more blows after the appropriate closing happened or because the depth might not
be exactly 1cm as it has to be. In addition, another error which might happened was the
space that is created in the Casagrande machine was not straight and equally did not
distribute each side of the soil. The cause is that each blow causes the soil to shake within a
force less, equal, or greater than the frictional force between the soil and the machine
which depends on the water content, and if the sides were not equal, the greater volume

6
will get greater force as force equals to mass times acceleration; to clarify, the density of
both sides is equal.

Plastic Limit

In the second test, the important thing to notice and which is not part of the result
data is that the soil sample with the higher water content percentage takes a longer time to
reach its plastic limit where it cannot be deformed anymore. For example, the soil sample
with the 20.4% water content percentage took a longer time to reach its plastic limit than
the sample with the 18.9% water content percentage while rolling it down to 3.2 diameter
threads. The basic error that occurs during plastic limit experiment is not having a machine
to ensure you have reached the plastic limit.

Conclusion
These tests are used to determine the limits in which changes in soil's behavior and
consistency occur. Liquid limit can be defined as the limit in which soil's state changes from
plastic state to liquid state; also, Plastic limit can be defined as the limit in which soil's state
changes from plastic state to semi-solid state. The results show that the average water
content of liquid limit with 36.33% is higher than the average water content of plastic limit
with 19.65% because the Plasticity index is the difference between Liquid limit and plastic
limit.

References
[1] Soil Mechanics class by Dr. Bahzad Rashid, AUIS.

[2] Experiment Report by Raguez Taha, AUIS.

7
Appendices
Appendix A (Figures)

Figure 1. Casagrande Machine Figure 2. Evaporating Dish Figure 3. Mortar & Pestle

Figure 4. Flat Grooving Tool Figure 5. Moisture Can Figure 6. Balance

Figure 7. Glass Plate Figure 8. Spatula Figure 9. Distilled Water Bottle

8
Figure 10. Dry Oven Figure 11. No. 40 Sieve

Appendix B (Data)

It has been attached at the end.

Appendix C (Graph)

It has been attached at the end.