Comparison of Liquid Limit of Soils Resulted from Casagrande Test and Modificated Cone Penetrometer Methodology

Hrubešová, Eva; Lunackova, Barbara; Brodzki, Ondrej

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.063

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The slightly lower LL Cone for high plastic samples is in conformity with Hrubesova et al. () who worked on a bentonite (LL Cup = 492%, LL Cone = 374%) and a loam (LL Cup = 45.4%, LL Cone = 38.4%) and showed that the LL in high plasticity soils, measured by cone is significantly lower than LL measured by the cup. Similarly, Mishra et al.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The slightly lower LL Cone for high plastic samples is in conformity with Hrubesova et al (2016) who worked on a bentonite (LL Cup = 492%, LL Cone = 374%) and a loam (LL Cup = 45.4%, LL Cone = 38.4%) and showed that the LL in high plasticity soils, measured by cone is significantly lower than LL measured by the cup. Similarly, Mishra et al (2012) considered the effects of various factors on the differences between LL Cup and LL Cup for very plastic samples (LL: 52 to 678%; PL:29 to 64%) and concluded that the LL Cup was higher than LL Cone irrespective of bentonite type or salt concentration…”

Section: Liquid Limitsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Recently, Shimobe and Spagnoli (), analyzed a large dataset with different fine‐grained soils from literature and found that for samples with LL > 120%, the LL cup produce higher values than the LL cone due to soil type and cone specification. Different studies (Di Matteo, , Hrubesova et al., , Mishra et al., ) have also reported differences between LL Cone and LL Cup , although these differences are still under discussion in the scientific community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…There are different methods for evaluation of these limits. For LL, the Casagrande cup (ASTM, ), drop cone penetrometer (BS, ), and the new calibration lines for the drop cone penetrometer liquid limit methods (Hrubesova, Lunackova, & Brodzki, ) are used in different places. For PL, the thread rolling (PL thread ), rolling device (PL device ) (Bobrowski & Griekspoor, ), modified fall cone (using different cone geometry) (Rashid, Kassim, Katimon, & Noor, ), modified weight (using heavier cone) (Wood & Wroth, ), modified container (using smaller soil container) (Feng, ) and motorized device (Kayabali, ) are used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…penetrometer liquid limit methods (Hrubesova, Lunackova, & Brodzki, 2016) are used in different places. For PL, the thread rolling (PL thread ), rolling device (PL device ) , modified fall cone (using different cone geometry) (Rashid, Kassim, Katimon, & Noor, 2008), modified weight (using heavier cone) (Wood & Wroth, 1978), modified container (using smaller soil container) (Feng, 2004) and motorized device (Kayabali, 2012) are used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Repeatability and agreement between methods for determining the Atterberg limits of fine‐grained soils

Rehman

Pouladi

Pulido-Moncada

et al. 2020

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Atterberg limits (plastic limit [PL] and liquid limit [LL]) of fine‐grained soils are important for civil engineering and agronomic applications. Several methodologies exist to determine the PL and LL, each with associated merits and shortcomings. The reproducibility and uncertainties associated with the various methods have not been evaluated for different samples that differ in terms of clay mineralogy and geologic origin. The objectives were to (i) assess the repeatability of two methods each for determining the PL (thread rolling and rolling device) and LL (Casagrande cup and drop cone penetrometer), and compare the subsequent plasticity indexes for 30 samples from 10 countries; and (ii) evaluate the effect of particle size (2 mm and 425 µm) on the plastic and liquid limits for 28 Venezuelan samples. For the PL, the repeatability (estimated as the repeatability coefficient, RC, among replications) for the thread rolling and rolling device methods was similar (2.28 and 2.39%, respectively). For the LL, the drop cone method was 16% more repeatable than the Casagrande cup method. There was a strong correlation between the two respective methods for PL (r2 = 0.98) and LL (r2 = 0.99). For samples that have LL < 45, the LL from the Casagrande cup was slightly higher than LL from the drop cone, and vice versa for samples with LL > 45%. No significant differences were observed between PL measured on <2‐mm or <425‐µm samples; for samples with LL < 35% the two particle sizes gave similar values. There were however larger discrepancies between the two particle sizes for samples with LL > 36%.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Liquid Limitsupporting

confidence: 87%