Determination Of ‎Liquid limit ‎(Cone penetration test)‎

1. Determination
Of
Liquid limit
(Cone penetration test)

2. Objective
Student should be able to:-
determine the liquid limit samples of soilby using cone
penetration method

3. Theory
These experiments include the determination of moisture
content where a soil changes from plastic to form a liquid
The liquid limit is defined as soil moisture content which will
begin to flow with its own weight.
With cone penetration testing, the liquid limit is determined
as the moisture content of the penetration value of 20 mm
Soil sample

4. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can
distinguish between different types of silts and clays. These limits were created
by Albert Atterberg, a Swedish chemist. They were later refined by Arthur
Casagrande. These distinctions in soil are used in picking the soils to build
structures on top. Soils when wet retain water and expand in volume. The
amount of expansion is related to the ability of the soil to take in water and its
structural make up (the type of atoms present). These tests are mainly used on
clay or silty soils since these are the soils that expand and shrink due to
moisture content. Clays and silts react with the water and thus change sizes
and have varying shear strengths. Thus these tests are used widely in the
preliminary stages of building any structure to insure that the soil will have the
correct amount of shear strength and not too much change in volume as it
expands and shrinks with different moisture contents.
Mass of water
Moisture content = -------------------Total weight ofSolid mass
or
Mass of water
Moisture content % = -------------------Total weight of Solid mass
x 100

5. Apparatus
Metal container 55mm diameter and 40mm in
Spatula
Porcelain bowl
Distilled water

6. Can
Tray
Cone penetration
British standard sieve (0.425)
Pan Balance – sensitive to 0.1 gram

7. Procedure
PICTURE
DESCRIPTION
200 grams ofsoil transparent0425 mm
sieve prepared
Soil samples included in the porcelain
bowl and mixed with distilled water
until thick
Mixed soil sample added to a vessel
with a spatula and compressed so that
no air is trapped. The top is flattened
with a spatula

8. Adjust the position so as to affect land
in the ground. Cone is released for 5
seconds and locked the cone motion
and a second gauge is taken. Cones
cleaned and repeat this step until the
difference is less than 0.5mm
About 10 gram sample is taken and
stored into the tin and dried for 24 h
and the weight is taken Repeat this
process 4 times with the same soil
samples of distilled water is added to
the range of cone penetration is in the
range of 15-25 mm
.

9. DATA AND ANALYSIS
No of
test
First
transparency
Second
transparency
The average
transparency
No of can
Can weight
Can weight +
wet soil
Can weight
+dry soil
moisture
content
moisture
content %
1
2
3
4
16.1
16.2
19.7
32.2
16.3
16.8
19.9
31.7
16.2
16.5
19.8
31.95
1
0.050
0.064
2
0.051
0.063
3
0.048
0.069
4
0.053
0.069
0.062
0.061
0.064
0.064
0.167
0.2
0.313
0.46
16.7
20
31.3
46

10. Example:

= 16.2
Example:

= 0.167
Mass of water
Moisture content % = -------------------Total weight of Solid mass
Example:

= 0.167
=0.167 x 100
=16.7 %
x 100

11. Discussion
From the graph: Liquid limit is: 26 %
While conducting the experiment, make sure the soil sample does not
contain wood or stone. Make sure the soil is mixed evenly. It is an issue when the
additions of distilled water as it slowly seep into
the observed ground. This situation effects of the cone penetration reading.
The higher reading is taken from the original soil with high moisture. Directly,
proportional of organic content with liquid limit where, the higher
the organic content the higher the liquid limit values of the soil sample.
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) is a simple test and versatile in which it is
more popular in Malaysia and for soft clays and fine to medium sand. It can be
used as a direct method to obtain the bearing
capacity for foundation design. Analysis is performed of the CPT data from the
local site based on the relationship issue. Data categorized into sticky and not
cohesion. Based on the results obtained, it is seen that the relationship of the
issue now is not suitable. Equation
Meyerhof bearing capacity and Schmertmann used to obtain estimates of the
bearing capacity. Values were then plotted into a graph and then for the
best lines available. Two relationships will be evaluated and
displayed. This derived relationship represents the
cohesive andcohesionless soil. Of the two relationships, it can be concluded that the
relationship Schmertmann give a higher value than the value of bearing capacity
of the
calculated using Meyerhof relationship. However, please note that the lack
of data prevents a better relationship developed. One
relationship will be proposed in this study to predict the bearing capacity based
on a given resistance. . Relationship issues are not suitable for estimating the bearing
capacity of shallow foundation. To land under review
relation to the bearing capacity of cohesive
soils andcohesionless not Schmertmann as suggested by the prior estimate of the
value of the actual bearing capacity. This relationship is no longer suitable for use.

12. Conclusion
Fine-grained soils such as clay and silt soil plasticity
characteristics associated with water content. At very low
water content, the soil is solid and when the water content is
high, then the land would be liquid.Land changes from solid
to liquid depend on water content and this phase is called
the shrinkage limit, plastic limit and liquid limit.
Cone penetration test is only a test done to determine the
liquid limit. Manyother methods that can be used to perform
tests such as Casagrande liquid limit and others.

13. Reference
1. Donald Mcglinchey, , Characterisation of bulk solids, 2005, CRC Press DT
Afrika.
2. Mazlan Mohammad Abdul Hamid, Standard aggregate sieve analysis
TEST, ASTM International - Standards Worldwide, (July 2008) ASTM
C136-06, retrived from http://www.astm.org/
3. Norliza Muhammad, concrete laboratory,(2006). Gradation Test. (2007),
NorlizaMuhammad,FajarBaktiSdn. Bhd.

14. Content
no
Title
page
1
Objective
3
2
Theory
4
3
Equipment
6
4
Procedure
8
5
Data and analysis
10
6
Discussion
12
7
Conclusion
13
8
Reference
14