CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE

VIEW

2.1. Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of soil

The liquid and plastic limits are two of five ''limits'' proposed by A.
Atterberg, a Swedish agricultural scientist (ca. 1911). These limits are:
1. Cohesion limit: that moisture content at which soil crumbs just stick
together.
2. Sticky limit: that moisture content at which soil just sticks to a metal
surface such as a spatula blade. This would have some significance to the
agricultural engineer since it is related to soil sticking to the mold bard of a
plow or disc in cultivating soil.
3. Shrinkage limit: that moisture content below which no further soil volume
reduction (or shrinkage) occurs.
4. Plastic limit: moisture content below which the soil is non- plastic.
5. Liquid limit: moisture content below which the soil behaves as a plastic
material. At this moisture content, the soil is on the verge of becoming a
viscous fluid.
The liquid and plastic limits have been widely used all over the world,
primarily for oil identification and classification. The shrinkage limit is useful
in certain geographical areas where soils undergo large volume changes when
going through wet and dry cycles. The potential –volume-change problem can
often be detected from the liquid –and plastic –limit tests. The liquid limit is
sometimes used to estimate settlement in consolidation problems, and both
limits may be useful in predicting maximum density in compaction studies.
The cohesion and sticky limits are used very little worldwide. In fact, only
recently has it become widely known that Atterberg limits. The relative

11
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

locations of the shrinkage limit Ws, plastic limit wP, and liquid limit wL, are
shown on the water-content scale in Fig. 2.2
LIQUID LIMIT DEVICES
[Link] limit device with grooving tool (Fig 2.1)
2. Moisture cups
3. Plastic –limit plate (optional)
4. Soil mixing equipment (porcelain dish, spatula, plastic squeeze bottle to
add controlled amount of water)
5. Balance sensitive to 0.01 g
6. Sieve, pan, and lid

Figure 2-1 Liquid limit and plastic limit test equipment

12
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2-2
Relative locations of shrinkage, plastic, and liquid limits on a water-content
scale. Note that the ws location may vary for some soils to the right of wp.

In order to place definite, reproducible values on these limits, it was

proposed that the liquid limit be arbitrarily defined as the water content at
which a part of soil placed in a brass cup, cut with a standard groove, and then
dropped from a height of 1 cm will undergo a groove closure of 12.7 mm
when dropped 25 times. Several variables affect the liquid-limit test or the
number of blows required to close the standard groove 12.7 mm, including:
1. Size of soil pat in brass cup (thickness and quantity)

2. Rate of blows (should be 120 rpm)

3. Time soil is in the cup prior to beginning test blow count and how clean
cup is prior to adding soil for the test

4. Laboratory humidity and speed of performing test

13
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

5. Type of material used for liquid-limit device base (commonly mica rata or
hard rubber)

6. Accuracy of height-of-fall calibration (should be exactly 1 cm)

7. Type of grooving tool (either ASTM or Casagrande type)

8. Condition of liquid-limit device (worn pins, loose connections, etc.)

These variables are all operator-controlled. The liquid limit (w L) is also

markedly affected by the type of soil and other factors to be considered. To
attempt to reduce the test variables, standard devices are used together with
standard grooving tools. One of the grooving tools is the ASTM standard tool;
the other tool shown was developed by Cassagrande (1932) and has the
advantage of tending to control the depth of the soil pat in the cup. The
ASTM grooving tool is better for soils which have low liquid limits and
difficult to groove, such as sandy and silty materials. For these soils, it may
even be necessary to partially from the groove using a spatula, after which the
groove can be properly shaped using one of the standard grooving tools. To
control the rate of blow occurrence, the crank controlling the blows is rotated
at 120 rpm, that is at a rate of 120 blows per minute. The ASTM Standard for
this test stipulates the use distilled water when mixing the soil for testing.
However, for most laboratory work ordinary tap water is satisfactory. The
atterberg limits tests are performed on soil passing No.40 sieve. Ordinarily,
soil obtained from the field will be too wet to pass through the sieve openings
of the No. 40sieve. It is permissible (and allowed by ASTM D421-58,''Dry
preparation of soil Samples for Grain-size Analysis and Determination of Soil
Constants'') to air-dry the soil to obtain the (-) No. 40 (0.425 mm) soil fraction

14
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

in most cases. Oven drying of the soil to obtain a material which can be
sieved through the No. 40 sieve will generally lower the values of both the
liquid and plastic limits and should never be done. Research by the author as
well as that reported by Casagrande (1932) has shown that ordinary air drying
of many soils will lower the liquid limit by as much as 2 to 6 percent. To
avoid this problem, it is sometimes possible to use the material, at the field
moisture content, which appears to pass the No. 40 sieve based on a visual
inspection. Research also indicates that most air-dried soils will regain their
original limits if the soil is mixed with water and allowed to cure for 24 to 48
hour. It was stated previously that the liquid limit is defined for the water
content at which 25 blows close the standard groove 12.7 mm. It would
fortuitous indeed if one could find this water content within a reasonable
length of time. Since this is next to impossible, some other means must be
used to find this particular value of water content. It has been found that if one
makes a graph by plotting blow counts to a logarithmic scale vs. water content
to a natural scale, the locus of points for any one soil tends to fall on a straight
line. With this phenomenon established, it becomes relatively easy to find the
liquid limit indirectly. All one has to do is obtain three to six points at
different water contents together with corresponding blow (obviously,
distributed on both sides of the blow count of 25for best results), plot these
data to a semilogarithmic scale, and from the blow count of 25 read from the
resulting curve projection the water content (liquid limit) for the soil. It
appears that the linear relationship only holds across one cycle of the semilog
plot (10 to 100 blows). It should be self-evident that the closer the plotted
points are to the blow count of 25, the more reliable the value of liquid limit
obtained from the curve since some extrapolation is inevitably involved.

15
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

2.2. Activity of soil

A term to indicate ;

1. The percentage of clay in the (-) 0 fraction of soil as used for the Atterberg
limits, and

2. The potential swell and shrinkage (volume change) of soil, with larger values
indicating increasing potential

Is the activity of a soil. Activity of a soil is defined as

plastucity index
A= ° Eqn (2-1)
percentage of clay ∈mixture−C

The constant C is 0 or 9, depending on weather Skempton's work or the work of

Seed et al., (1964) is used. The plasticity index I p is defined in fig. 2-3 The
percentage of clay in the mixture [(-) No. 40 fraction] used in the above equation
is based on the percentage of soil grains 0.002 mm and smaller in size, which is
not universally agreed upon as the upper limit of clay sizes. The smaller the
value of A in Eq.(2 -1), the smaller the potential volume change of the soil. The
approximate range of A is from 0.3 to about 5.5 and depends on the type of clay
minerals present; e. g., a predominantly kaolinite clay has a lower activity than
illite or montmorillonite clays. The liquid limit is a measure of the shear strength
of a soil at some water content. The liquid limit is analogous to a shear test, and
Casagrande (1932) has found that each blow to close the standard groove
corresponds to about 1g/cm2 of shear strength. Others have obtained similar
results so that one might say that the liquid limit represents for all soils a
constant shear –strength value of between 20 and 25g/cm 2. That the liquid limit
increases as the grain sizes of the soil mass decrease is another fundamental
16
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

observation from research. The plastic limit, besides being the lower boundary
range of plastic behavior of a soil, tends to increase in numerical value for
decreasing grain sizes. For equal grain sizes, the plastic limit tends to increase
for that soil with the more scale like particles. The plastic limit is also a measure
of the shear strength of the soil. The research by Seed et al. (1964) has also
shown that the A line of the Casagrande classification diagram is essentially
correct. Casagrande proposed this diagram based on plotting large numbers of
values from many clays in the early 1940s. Now that it has been established that
both the wl and wp are dependent upon the percentage of clay in the (-) No. 40
fraction of the soil, the following linear equation can be written for the liquid
limit:

wL= K(PC-a) Eq (2-2)

Rewriting Eq. (2-1), we obtain IP=A (PC-C )

Where PC= percentage of clay sizes ( smaller than 0.002) in the soil fraction
passing the No. 40 sieve.

K,a= constants to be determined

Eliminating PC in the above equations and substituting new constants, we

obtain

IP=N (w l – b) Eq (2-3)

Casagrande's classification diagram uses N=0.73 and b=20.

Since the semi logarithmic plot the water content vs. blow count (log) is a
straight line, the equation of this line can be written in the general form

17
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

W=-Fi log N±C Eq (2-4)

Where w=moisture content at N blows

Fi=flow index, the change in moisture content across one cycle of the plot
(wN=10−¿wN=100); also ,

∆w
Fi= log N / N Eq (2-5)

N=number of blows at water content w

C=constant to be determined

The shearing strength of the soil at the plastic limit is a measure of the
toughness of the clay; the shearing strength of all soils at the w L is constant
(very nearly). Thus we can use Eq. (3-4) as an approximate criterion for the
relative magnitudes of the shearing resistance of different soils at the plastic
limit For example, for two soils of identical I p but different flow indices Fi , if
both soils undergo the same change in water content from the w , the soil with
steeper curve (largest Fi) will require will require the fewer number of blows
to close the standard groove and thus will have the lowest shear strength for
that water a Since performing large numbers of liquid-limit is time-
consuming, the Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., in
Technical Memorandum No. 3-286, June, 1949, analyzed 767 tests and
concluded that the liquid limit could be established from a single test using
the following equation:
tan β
N
WL=wN( ) Eq (2-6)
25

18
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Where wN = water content at the blow count N of the test

β = slope of the semilog plot vs. log N

For this series of liquid-limit values, it was found that tan β = 0.121 was agood

approximation, resulting in
0.121
N
WL=wN( ) Eq (2-7)
25

The value of a tan β is not 0.121 for all soils; however, good results Can
generally be obtained from this equation if the single test to obtain w N is taken
for an N an this Count of between 20 and 30. This is so because in this small
range of the flow curve, the change in vertical movement (or water content) is
small even for steeply sloping curve. The plastic limit has been arbitrarily
defined as that water content of the soil at which a thread just a crumbles
when it is rolled down to a diameter of 3 mm , or approximately3 mm(refer to
Fig. 3-4). This test is somewhat more subjective ( operator-dependent) than
the liquid-limit test since just what constitutes crumbling and what is a 3-mm.
diameter are subject to some interpretation. The diameter can be displayed in
the laboratory using wire or welding rods for a visual comparison. With
practice, it appears that plastic-limit values can be reproduced to within 1to 3
percent by different laboratory technicians on the same soil.

19
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2-3 Liquid limit test equipment. All dimensions are in millimeters.

2.3. Procedures

This will be an individual project

A liquid limit (refer to fig. 2-4)

20
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

[Link] person in each group will pulverize a sufficient quantity of the air-
dried soil (from the 5 kg put out for drying the previous week) to obtain a
representative sample of material passing No. 40 sieve of 250± 10g. Be sure
to discard the residue remaining on the sieve into waste cans as this material
is no longer representative of the soil form the field site. Be sure to break the
lumps down for sieving; one of the major sources of error is failure to use a
truly representative sample, and many of the "fines" are in the lumps.

Do not oven –dry the soil to pass it through the No. 40 sieve as this will
reduce the liquid and plastic limits of the soil.
In the interest of student laboratory time, do not presoak the sample prior to
performing the test.

2. Next each group will check the height of fall of the liquid-limit machine it will
use for a fall of exactly 1cm (not over±0.1mm). Use the 1-cm calibration block
on the end of the grooving tool for making the adjustment. Make the adjustment
with respect to the worn spot on the base of the cup, not the shortest fall. If the
height of fall is not calibrated within these limits, a water-content error of several
percent may be introduced. If the machine is in poor condition or has loose parts,
check with the instructor for repair and or replacement. Figure 2-4

Steps in liquid-limit test.

(a) Carefully blended soil, Note uniform , creamy texture.

(b) Soil placed in liquid-limit cup for test . Note that cup is not nearly full and
that front portion only is used.
(c) Pat of soil grooved with casagrande grooving tool. Depth is such that tool
has only barely trimmed soil pat at deepest part

21
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

(d) Soil grooved 12.7 mm (visual but scale used for numerical comparison in
photograph) while rotating crank at 120 rpm and counting drops of cup
onto base of liquid-limit device.
(e) Water-content sample taken from location of groove closure. Note the
quantity in the moisture cup is approximately 45 g. In any case from this
area of the soil pat take a water-content sample of at least 40 g.

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

22
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2-4 steps of liquid limit test

[Link] the 250 g of soil in a porcelain mixing dish, add a small amount of
water, And carefully mix the soil to a uniform color(refer to Fig. 2-4a).
Another major source of error is poor mixing of the soil –water mixture.
When the color is uniform throughout and the mixture has a creamy
appearance, proper mixing has generally been achieved. Continue to add
small amounts of water and mix the mass to a uniform color each time. When
you have the soil to the point of consistency (stickiness) where you estimate
(or by making atrial test) it will take about 50 blows to close the standard
groove 12.7 mm, remove about 20 g of the thoroughly mixed soil from the
dish for the plastic limit determination. Now add more water and mix to a
uniform color until you have the soil to a consistency which will yield a blow
count of from 30 to 40 blows to close the standard groove 12.7 mm.

4. Remove the brass cup from the liquid-limit machine and place a small
amount of soil to the correct depth of the grooving tool, well centered in the
cup with respect to the hinge, and of the general shape shown in Fig. 3-4b
Smooth the surface of the soil pat carefully, and using the grooving tool, cut
clean, straight groove that completely separates the soil pat into two parts.
The depth of the soil in the deepest part of the pat should be just even with the
top of the ASTM tool (Fig. 2-3b). If the Casagrande tool is used, it should be
held perpendicular to the instantaneous tangent to the cup surface and the tool
so that the soil pat is not trimmed too shallow in depth (Fig. 2-4c). The soil
depth should be just barely trimmed with the shoulders of the tool at the
deepest part. After making the groove, quickly attach the cup to the device
and make the blow count. Unnecessary delay will, if the laboratory humidity

23
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

is low, dry the soil surface, which will affect the blow count. This effect will
show when plotting the data by giving an erratic locus of points. Other test
errors will also do this, however.

5. Take a moisture sample in the pre weighed moisture cups (as large as
possible and about 40 g), being sure to take the water-content sample from the
closed part of the groove (refer to Fig. 2-4e). Place the lid on the moisture-
content container of soil and set it aside temporarily. Remove the remainder
of soil from the brass cup and return it to the porcelain dish. Wash and dry the
cup. Add a small amount of water to the porcelain dish of soil, and carefully
mix to a uniform color and consistency to yield a blow count of between 25
and 30 blows. Repeat steps 4 and 5.

6. Repeat the sequence for two additional tests for blow counts of between 20
and 25 and between 15 and 20, for a total of four test determinations. There
should be a difference between the blow counts of the individual trails of at
least 2 and preferably 3 or more to yield reasonably spread plot −¿ but one in
which the blow count is not far from 25 blows. Be sure to clean the brass cup
after each test and carefully dry it. Be sure to have about the same time lapse
for each test to eliminate laboratory humidity as a variable. Do not leave the
soil in the brass cup for a long period of time. This would allow adhesion to
build up between cup and soil.

7. Weigh the four moisture containers from the tests, remove the lids, and
place the cups of soil in the oven (110 ℃ ) to dry overnight.

It should be obvious now that the addition of water and the blow-count
sequence are done in this manner so that the soil is well mixed. It is easier to

24
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

blend water into the mixture than to blend in new soil mass becomes too wet
and must be dried to obtain the desired spread of blow counts on each side of
25. It is difficult for the novice to predict the blow count of a soil from a
visual inspection, but if he has a blow count of, say, 35 and then water is
added, it is reasonable to expect the next test to yield a blow count of less than
35. On the other hand, at an initial blow count of 18, how much dry soil does
one add to get a blow count of 22 to 24 The wetter the soil, the more nearly it
will act as a viscous liquid.

2.4. Plastic limit

The next step is to determine the plastic limit. To increase the precision by
eliminating weighing errors, the test should be done as follows:

[Link] the 20 to 30 g "peanut" of soil set aside earlier into several smaller
samples.
2. Roll the soil between the figures and a glass plate or on a piece of paper
lying on a smooth surface, with sufficient pressure to form a uniform
diameter thread using about 80 to 90 rolling strokes per minute (forward
1
and back =1stroke). When the diameter of soil thread becomes 3 mm ( 8

in), break thread in to several pieces, re-form in to a ball and reroll,

Continue this alternative rolling and re balling until the thread crumbles
under the pressure of rolling and the soil can no longer be rolled in to a
thread.

If the thread crumbles at a diameter¿ 3 mm , this is satisfactory to define

wP if the previously rolled thread was to 3 mm. Thread failure may be
defined as:
25
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

a. Simply falling apart

b. With outer tubular (hollow roll) layer that splits from ends inward
c. Barrel-shaped solid pieces 6 to 8 mm long (for heavy clays)
Do not produce a failure by allowing thread to reach 3mm by
reducing the rate of rolling and/or hand pressure. Exception is with
soils approaching non plasticity, the initial ball may be shaped closer
to 3mm by hand prior to rolling.
[Link] this sequence several additional times adding each test to the
same moisture can.
4. Weigh the covered can, remove the lid, and place the can in the oven.
Note that you have in effect made the several plastic limit
determinations but have eliminated all but one weighing and
computation.

2.5. Computation

[Link] to the laboratory on the following day and weigh all the dry
moisture samples and compute the moisture contents. Plot the liquid-
limit data on the graph on the data sheet from data sheet section of this
manual and obtain the liquid limit Also compute the plastic limit and the
plasticity index IP as
IP= wL−w
[Link] Eq. (2-6) and compute the liquid limit for each value of N and w N ;
tabulate in your "Discussion" and make a comparison with w L from the
semi log plot.
3. Compute the activity of the soil using the percent finer from the
hydrometer analysis for D=0.002 mm if Experiment No. 5 is done in

26
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

parallel with this experiment. When using Eq. (2-1) for this computation
use C0=9.
[Link] your report "Discussion" give six uses for the w L and wp data you have
just obtained.

2.6. Classification of soil

Different soils with similar properties may be classified into groups and
sub-groups according to their engineering behavior. Classification systems
provide a common language to concisely express the general characteristics of
soils, which are infinitely varied, without detailed descriptions. Most of the
soil classification systems that have been developed for engineering purposes
are based on simple index properties such as particle-size distribution and
plasticity. Although several classification systems are now in use, none is
totally definitive of any soil for all possible applications because of the wide
diversity of soil properties.
2.6.1. Texture classification
In a general sense, texture of soil refers to its surface appearance. Soil
texture is influenced by the size of the individual particles present in it. Table
2.3 divided soils into gravel, sand, silt, and clay categories on the basis of
particle size. In most cases, natural soils are mixtures of particles from several
size groups. In the textural classification system, the soils are named after
their principal components, such as sandy clay, silty clay and so forth. A
number of textural classification systems were developed in the past by
different organizations to serve their needs, and several of those are in use

27
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

today. Figure 5.1 shows the textural classification systems developed by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA). This classification method is based
on the particle-size limits as described under the USDA system in Table 2.3;
that is
• Sand size: 2.0 to 0.05 mm in diameter
• Silt size: 0.05 to 0.002 mm in diameter
• Clay size: smaller than 0.002 mm in diameter
The use of this chart can best be demonstrated by an example. If the particle-
size distribution of soil A shows 30% sand, 40% silt, and 30% clay-size
particles, its textural classification can be determined by proceeding in the
manner indicated by the arrows in Figure 5.1. This soil falls into the zone of
clay loam. Note that this chart is based on only

Table 2.1 Particle-Size Classifications

the fraction of soil that passes through the No. 10 sieve. Hence, if the particle-
size distribution of a soil is such that a certain percentage of the soil particles
is larger than 2 mm in diameter, a correction will be necessary. For example,

28
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

if soil B has a particle size distribution of 20% gravel, 10% sand, 30% silt,
and 40% clay, the modified textural compositions are
10× 100
Sand size: 100−20 =12.5 %

30× 100
Silt size: 100−20 = 37.5%

100× 40
Clay size: 100−20 =50.0 %

On the basis of the preceding modified percentages, the USDA textural

classification is clay . However, because of the large percentage of gravel, it
may be called gravelly clay. Several other textural classification systems are
also used, but they are no longer useful for civil engineering purposes.

29
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2.5 U.S. Department of Agriculture textural classification

2.6.2. Classification by Engineering behavior

Although the textural classification of soil is relatively simple, it is based

entirely on the particle-size distribution. The amount and type of clay
minerals present in fine-grained soils dictate to a great extent their physical
properties. Hence, the soils engineer must consider plasticity, which results
from the presence of clay minerals, to interpret soil characteristics properly.
Because textural classification systems do not take plasticity into account and
are not totally indicative of many important soil properties, they are
inadequate for most engineering purposes. Currently, two more elaborate
classification systems are commonly used by soils engineers. Both systems
take into consideration the particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits.
They are the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) classification system and the Unified Soil Classification
System. The AASHTO classification system is used mostly by state and
county highway departments. Geotechnical engineers generally prefer the
Unified system.
2.6.3. AASHTO Classification System

The AASHTO system of soil classification was developed in 1929 as the

Public Road Administration classification system. It has undergone several
revisions, with the present version proposed by the Committee on
Classification of Materials for Subgrades and Granular Type Roads of the

30
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Highway Research Board in 1945 (ASTM designation D-3282; AASHTO

method M145). The AASHTO classification in present use is given in Table
5.1. According to this system, soil is classified into seven major groups: A-1
through A-7. Soils classified under groups A-1, A-2, and A-3 are granular
materials of which 35% or less of the particles pass through the No. 200 sieve.
Soils of which more than 35% pass through the No. 200 sieve are classified
under groups A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7. These soils are mostly silt and clay-
type materials. This classification system is based on the following criteria:

1. Grain size
a. Gravel: fraction passing the 75-mm (3-in.) sieve and retained on the No. 10
(2-mm) U.S. sieve
b. Sand: fraction passing the No. 10 (2-mm) U.S. sieve and retained on the
No. 200 (0.075-mm) U.S. sieve
c. Silt and clay: fraction passing the No. 200 U.S. sieve
2. Plasticity: The term silty is applied when the fine fractions of the soil have
a plasticity index of 10 or less. The term clayey is applied when the fine
fractions have a plasticity index of 11 or more.
3. If cobbles and boulders (size larger than 75 mm) are encountered, they are
excluded from the portion of the soil sample from which classification is
made. However, the percentage of such material is recorded. To classify a soil
according to Table 5.1, one must apply the test data from left to right. By
process of elimination, the first group from the left into which the test data fit
is the correct classification.
Figure 5.2 shows a plot of the range of the liquid limit and the plasticity
index for soils that fall into groups A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6, and [Link] evaluate

31
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

the quality of a soil as a highway subgrade material, one must also incorporate
a number called the group index (GI) with the groups and subgroups of the
soil. This index is written in parentheses after the group or subgroup
designation . The group index is given by the equation

GI=( F−35 ) [ 0.2+0.005 ( ¿−40 ) ]+0.01 ( F−15 ) ( PI −10 ) Eq (2−8)

PI _ plasticity index
LL _ liquid limit
Where F200 _ percentage passing through the No. 200 sieve

The first term of Eq. (.1)—that is, (F −¿35)[0.2 + 0.005(LL−¿40)]—is the

partial group index determined from the liquid limit. The second term—that
is, 0.01(F200−¿15) (PI −¿ 10)—is the partial group index determined from
the plasticity index. Following are some rules for determining the group
index:

1. If Eq. (5.1) yields a negative value for GI, it is taken as 0.

2. The group index calculated from Eq. (5.1) is rounded off to the nearest
whole number (for example, GI _ 3.4 is rounded off to 3; GI _ 3.5 is rounded
off to 4).
3. There is no upper limit for the group index.
4. The group index of soils belonging to groups A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5,
and A-3 is always 0.
5. When calculating the group index for soils that belong to groups A-2-6 and

32
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

A-2-7, use the partial group index for PI, or In general, the quality of
performance of a soil as a subgrade material is inversely proportional to the
group index.

Table 2-2 Classification of Highway Subgrade Materials

33
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2-6 Range of liquid limit and plasticity index for soils in groups A-2, A-4,
A-5,A-6, and A-7

34
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

2.6.3. Unified Classification System

The original form of this system was proposed by Casagrande in 1942 for use
in the airfield construction works undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers
during World War II. In cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, this
system was revised in 1952. At present, it is used widely by engineers (ASTM Test
Designation D-2487). The Unified classification system is presented in Table 5.2.
This system classifies soils into two broad categories:

[Link]-grained soils that are gravelly and sandy in nature with less than
50% passing through the No. 200 sieve. The group symbols start with a prefix
of G or S. G stands for gravel or gravelly soil, and S for sand or sandy soil.
2. Fine-grained soils are with 50% or more passing through the No. 200 sieve.
The group symbols start with prefixes of M, which stands for inorganic silt, C
for inorganic clay, or O for organic silts and clays. The symbol Pt is used for
peat, muck, and other highly organic soils.
Other symbols used for the classification are:
• W—well graded
• P—poorly graded
• L—low plasticity (liquid limit less than 50)
• H—high plasticity (liquid limit more than 50)

For proper classification according to this system, some or all of the following
information must be known:

1. Percent of gravel— that is, the fraction passing the 76.2-mm sieve and
retained on the No. 4 sieve (4.75-mm opening)
35
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

2. Percent of sand—that is, the fraction passing the No. 4 sieve (4.75-mm
opening) and retained on the No. 200 sieve (0.075-mm opening)
3. Percent of silt and clay—that is, the fraction finer than the No. 200 sieve
(0.075-mmopening)
4. Uniformity coefficient (Cu) and the coefficient of gradation (Cc)
5. Liquid limit and plasticity index of the portion of soil passing the No. 40
sieve
The group symbols for coarse-grained gravelly soils are GW, GP, GM, GC,
GC-GM, GW-GM, GW-GC, GP-GM, and GP-GC. Similarly, the group
symbols for fine-grained soils are CL, ML, OL, CH, MH, OH, CL-ML, and
Pt.
More recently, ASTM designation D-2487 created an elaborate system to
assign group names to soils. These names are summarized in Figures 5.4, 5.5,
and 5.6. In using these figures, one needs to remember that, in a given soil,
• Fine fraction _ percent passing No. 200 sieve
• Coarse fraction _ percent retained on No. 200 sieve
• Gravel fraction _ percent retained on No. 4 sieve
• Sand fraction _ (percent retained on No. 200 sieve) _ (percent retained on
No. 4 sieve)

36
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Table 2-3 Unified Soil Classification System (BasednMaterialPassing.2-

mm Sieve)

37
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

Figure 2-7 Plasticity chart

38
 CHAPTER TWO LETRATURE
VIEW

39