A. Sridharan1 and K.

Prakash2

Shrinkage Limit of Soil Mixtures

REFERENCE: Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K., Shrinkage Limit

of Soil Mixtures, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol.
23, No. 1, March 2000, pp. 38.

Of late, the shrinkage properties are assuming greater importance as the soil is being used as backfill material in many instances, e.g. the nuclear fuel waste disposal systems. The backfill
material is often designed as soil mixtures primarily requiring low
shrinkage property along with other stringent requirements (Yong
et al. 1986). Thus, further understanding of the mechanism controlling the shrinkage of soil mixtures leads to increasing the confidence level before adopting the mechanism in the field. In this
context, this article gives an account of the experimental investigation of the shrinkage property of soil mixtures, including non-cohesive soils. The outcome of this study will give insight into the design of soil mixtures used as backfill materials in various waste
disposal projects in general and nuclear fuel waste disposal
schemes in particular.

ABSTRACT: Shrinkage limit, one of the Atterberg limits, is

widely linked with many plasticity-based soil behaviors. However,
in a great majority of these cases, such correlations have been found
to exhibit poor performance. Recently, it has been brought out that
the shrinkage limit of a natural soil does not depend upon plasticity
characteristics, and it is primarily governed by the relative grain size
distribution of the soil. The present study confirms this mechanism
with the results obtained using clay-clay, clay-non-cohesive soil,
and non-cohesive soil mix systems. The present study gains importance from the point of view of criteria with respect to the design of
back fill materials to be used in various applications, such as nuclear
waste disposal projects.
KEYWORDS: shrinkage limit, soil mixtures

Experimental Program
The soils used in the present study can be grouped in to three series:
Series 1: clay-clay mixtures
Series 2: sand-clay mixtures
Series 3: non-cohesive soil mixtures
Even though the shrinkage limit determination is done on minus
425 m soil fractions, for conducting some of the confirmatory
tests, sand fractions of maximum size 2 mm were also used. The
shrinkage limits of soils were determined by working the soils at
about their liquid-limit water contents into shrinkage dishes
(ASTM designation D427-83 1989). In those cases where the liquid limit values were not available (i.e., non-cohesive soil mixtures), the amount of water added was such that no segregation and
liquefaction occurred during the sample preparation. The wet soil
pats were allowed to air dry and were then dried at a temperature of
40C for 24 h and again at 110C for 24 h.

When a soil-water system traverses from liquid to solid state,

three characteristics limiting water contents with well-defined and
unique mechanisms controlling them can be identified. The lowest
limiting water content is the shrinkage limit: the first two being the
free-swell limit and the settling limit (Sridharan and Prakash
1998a). Sridharan and Prakash (1998b) have conducted a detailed
study on the factors and mechanisms controlling the shrinkage
limit of soils and have proposed the following hypothesis to explain the mechanism governing the shrinkage limit of soils.
Shrinkage is a process of volume reduction that takes place due
to capillary pressures induced by the evaporation of water from the
soil. As the evaporation continues, the radius of the meniscus developed in water in every pore where there is air-water interface
continues to decrease, and the menisci will retreat into the soil mass
until the shear stresses induced by the capillary pressures are equalized by the shear strength at the particle level. The natural finegrained soils have sand, silt, and clay-size fractions in some proportions. During the shrinkage process, larger void spaces between
sand particles are filled with finer sand and silt particles, and
smaller void spaces between silt particles are filled by finer clay
particles. Hence, relative grain size distribution plays a dominant
role.
Sridharan and Prakash (1998b) have shown that the shinkage
process is a packing phenomenon and that the shrinkage limit of a
natural soil is primarily a function of the relative grain size distribution of the soil, irrespective of the principal clay mineral of the
soil and that the shrinkage limit does not depend on plasticity characteristics of the soil.

Results and Discussions

In the first series, the liquid limit, which is considered as one of
the plasticity characteristics of fine grained soils, is compared with
the corresponding value of the shrinkage limit of clay-clay mixtures.
Clay-Clay Mixtures
Table 1 gives the details of the fine-grained, clay soils used in the
preparation of clay-clay mixtures and sand-clay mixtures. Figure 1
shows the grain size distribution curves for the same soils. Figure
2 presents the variation of liquid and shrinkage limits for different
proportions of two constituent soils forming the mix. If the shrinkage limit is a plasticity characteristic of a soil, then the shrinkage
limit is expected to decrease with the increase in the liquid limit of
the mixture. However, it can be noted from Fig. 2 that even though

1
Honorary professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, 560 012, India.
2
Former research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore, 560 012, India.

2000 by the American Society for Testing and Materials

3

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

TABLE 1Details of the clayey soils used in the present study.

Grain Size Distribution, %
Soil No.

Soil

Liquid
Limit, %

01
02
03
04

Bentonite
Black cotton soil
Brown soil-1
Red earth-1

393.4
90.8
64.6
38.6

Plastic
Limit, %

Shrinkage
Limit, %

Clay Size

Silt Size

Sand Size

Principal Clay Mineral(s)

50.1
44.0
26.6
18.0

13.7
09.4
14.5
14.7

65.5
62.5
40.0
40.5

34.5
37.5
41.6
23.9

zero
zero
18.4
35.6

Montmorillonite
Montmorillonite
Montmorillonite, Kaolinite
Kaolinite

FIG. 1Grain size distribution of cohesive soils.

the liquid limit increases from a minimum value to a maximum

value, the shrinkage limit first decreases and then starts increasing.
This indicates that the shrinkage limit is not a plasticity characteristic.
In the second series of the investigation, the results obtained
from the tests on sand-clay mixtures are analyzed. The non-cohesive soils used in the second and final stages of tests included
washed and graded river sands, sand flour of predominantly silt
size (i.e., clay size fractions 2%), and the rock flour (granite) of
silt size (Table 2). The grain size distributions of these non-cohesive soils are indicated in Figs. 3a and b.
Sand-Clay Mixtures
Two sand-clay mixtures were prepared and examined: (1) The
minus 75-m fractions of the black cotton soil (Soil No. 2) were
mixed with different proportions of fine sand fractions (Table 3).
By conducting various trials, the percentage of the fine sand fraction to be added with the black cotton soil to achieve minimum
shrinkage limit was found to be 12.4% (the proportions of different
sized sand particles composing the 12.4% fine sand were also
worked out likewiseTable 3). Keeping this ratio of the percentage of the different-sized sand particles to the percentage of total

fine sand fraction the same, different sand-clay mixtures were prepared and their shrinkage limits were determined. For the sake of
presentation, a term mix ratio-1 (i.e., MR1) is defined herein as
the ratio of fine sand content to the silt clay (black cotton soil)
content.
Percentage fine sand content
MR1
(1)
Percentage (silt clay) content
Figure 4a shows the variation of the shrinkage limit with MR1.
There is a decrease in the shrinkage limit with a decrease in the
black cotton soil content up to a certain value. Below a certain limited black cotton soil content, the shrinkage limit shows an increasing trend. It is important to observe that changing the internal
distribution of different-sized particles keeping the total fine sand
content the same as that resulted in minimum shrinkage limit, has
resulted in a considerable increase in the shrinkage limit (i.e.,
Points A and B in Fig. 4a). This highlights the importance of the
relative grain size distribution in controlling the shrinkage limit of
soils.
The bentonite clay was mixed with fine sand fraction (150 m
D 212 m) in different proportions. The shrinkage limits of
these mixtures were determined (Table 4). Figure 4b shows the
variation of the shrinkage limit of bentonite-sand mixture

SRIDHARAN AND PRAKASH ON SOIL MIXTURES

with MR1, the trend of which is very similar to that indicated in

Fig. 4a.
These illustrations add to the argument in favor of a packing phenomenon controlling the shrinkage limit rather than the plasticity
controlling it.

Non-Cohesive Soil Mixtures

The third series of confirmatory testing involves non-cohesive
soil mixtures. Even though the conventional shrinkage limit test is
done on soil fractions having minus 425 m size, to verify the hypothesis proposed to explain the mechanism governing the shrinkage limit, medium sand (Soil Nos. 49 and 50) were also used. In order to overcome practical difficulties in carrying out the shrinkage
limit test on only fine and medium sands, sand flour of predominantly silt size was also used in preparing the sand mixtures. Utmost care was exercised in conducting the tests so as to avoid possible segregation and liquefaction during testing. Different
non-cohesive soil mixtures prepared and studied are indicated in
Table 5. For the sake of convenience, a term mix ratio-2 (i.e.,
MR2) is defined as
MR2
Percentage of non-cohesive soil (0.425 mm D 2 mm) (2)

Percentage of non-cohesive soil (D 0.425 mm)

Shrinkage limits of mixtures for different values of MR2 (0 MR2
1) were obtained and plotted as shown in Fig. 5. The observations made from the study of Fig. 5 and Table 5 are indicated below.
1. When the soil is essentially silt sized with no sand sized particles, maximum shrinkage limit was obtained.
2. With the inclusion of medium and fine sand fractions, the relative grain size distribution gets improved, resulting in decreased shrinkage limit.
3. With proper proportioning of the non-cohesive soil fractions
in the mix, a lower shrinkage limit can be obtained which can
be even less than those obtained for cohesive soils (the minimum value of 12.6% of the shrinkage limit so obtained is less
than that for highly plastic bentonite clay).
4. Any further increase in the proportion of the coarser fraction
results in an increase in the shrinkage limit.

FIG. 2Variation of the liquid and shrinkage limits with the percentage
of soil in the clay-clay mix: (a) bentonite and brown soil-1 mix; (b) brown
soil-1 and red earth-1 mix.

Different combinations of non-cohesive soil fractions can be had

with the same value of mix ratio-2, resulting in different shrinkage
limits. Hence, the results listed in Table 5 are purely qualitative.
These results clearly rule out the possibility of considering the
shrinkage limit as one of the plasticity characteristics of a soil. Instead, they highlight the validity of the hypothesis that explains the
shrinkage limit based on the relative grain size distribution of the
soil.

TABLE 2Properties of the non-cohesive soils used.

Soil No.

Soil

Size

Liquid
Limit, %

Shrinkage
Limit, %

D10, mm

D30, mm

D60, mm

Cu

Cc

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Medium sand-1
Medium sand-2
Fine sand-1
Fine sand-2
Fine sand-3
Fine sand-4
Sand flour
Rock flour

1.180 mm D 2.000 mm
0.425 mm D 1.180 mm
0.075 mm D 0.425 mm
0.212 mm D 0.425 mm
0.150 mm D 0.212 mm
0.075 mm D 0.150 mm
D 0.075 mm
D 0.075 mm

30.5
33.2
35.9
31.4
39.4

26.6
32.6

1.24
0.480
0.205
0.212
0.154
0.076
0.0086
0.0205

1.380
0.600
0.245
0.222
0.162
0.080
0.024
0.0348

1.600
0.760
0.310
0.270
0.177
0.098
0.047
0.052

1.290
1.583
1.512
1.274
0.149
1.289
5.465
2.537

0.960
0.987
0.945
0.861
0.963
0.859
1.425
1.136

* obtained by core penetration method.

Cu coefficient of uniformity.
Cc coefficient of curvature.

A
FIG. 3aGrain-size distribution of non-cohesive soils.

B
FIG. 3bGrain-size distribution of non-cohesive soils.
TABLE 3Details of tests conducted on black cotton soilsand mixtures.
Proportion of Black
Cotton Soil
(Combining Silt and
Clay Size Fraction
Only) and Sand Size
Particles in the Mix, %

Split up proportion in c, %

Soil No.

c*

d**

(0.425 mm0.212 mm)

(0.212 mm0.150 mm)

(0.150 mm0.075 mm)

MR1 c/d

Ws, %

02
57
58
59
60

00
12.4
12.4
25.0
50.0

100
87.6
87.6
75.0
50.0

05.25
08.00
10.585
21.169

2.25
3.00
4.536
9.073

04.9
01.4
09.879
19.758

00
0.142
0.142
0.333
1.000

09.4
08.7
11.6
10.8
15.3

* c Fine sand (combination of soils 52, 53, and 54 of Table 2).

** d Black cotton soil (Soil No. 2 of Table 1).
NOTE: The ratio of percentage of the soils 52, 53, 54 constituting c for soils 57, 59, and 60 to the percentage of c is the same.
6

SRIDHARAN AND PRAKASH ON SOIL MIXTURES

Effect of Angularity of Soil Grains

The most common shape of clay size particles is platy and most
of the particles in the range of silt size and coarser are approximately equi-dimensional. The study of the effect of the shape of
clay size particles on the shrinkage limit is very complex. However,
the effect of shape of particles in the range of silt size and coarser
on the shrinkage limit can be studied. The lesser the angularity, the
denser will be the packing of the particles and lower will be the
shrinkage limit expected.
Two soils of silt-size particles, equi-dimensional in shape, were
used in the present work. One is crushed river sand (i.e., sand
flourSoil No. 55) and the other is the crushed granite (i.e., rock
flourSoil No. 56). The particles of the sand flour are relatively
more rounded than those of rock flour. Hence the shrinkage limit of
sand flour is expected to be less than that of rock flour. The experimental results indicate that the shrinkage limit of the sand flour is
26.6% while that of rock flour is 32.6%. This trend is as expected
since rock flour has higher frictional properties at the particle level
and, hence, lesser shrinkage. So, if two natural soils have identical
grain size distribution, the one that has higher shearing resistance
at the particle level will have higher shrinkage limit than that of the
other whose shear resistance at the particle level is lesser. In otherwords, the shearing resistance at the particle level also governs the
shrinkage limit (Sridharan and Venkatappa Rao 1971).

TABLE 4Details of the tests conducted on bentonite-sand mixtures.

Proportion of (ClaySilt)
Size and Sand Size
Particles in the Mix* (%)
Soil No.

MR1 c/d

ws (%)

01
61
62
63
64

00
25
50
75
85

100
75
50
25
15

00
0.333
1.000
3.000
5.667

13.7
11.8
25.2
32.0
35.2

* c : Fine sand (Soil No. 53 of Table 2).

d : Bentonite (Soil No. 1 of Table 1).

FIG. 4Variation of shrinkage limit of clay-sand mixture with the mix

ratio-1: (a) Black cotton soil and sand mixtures; (b) Bentonite and sand
mixtures.

TABLE 5Details of the non-cohesive soil mixtures studied.

Proportion of sands in the mix (%)
Soil
Number

a*

c$

d#

f (a b) (%)

g (c d) (%)

MR2 f/g

w%

55
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

0
9
11
13
15
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
21
24

0
11
13
15
17
18
19
19
20
21
21
22
23
26

0
23
26
26
26
25
24
26
26
25
26
24
23
18

100
57
50
46
42
41
40
38
36
35
34
34
33
32

0
20
24
28
32
34
36
36
38
40
40
42
44
50

100
80
76
72
68
66
64
64
62
60
60
58
56
50

0
0.250
0.316
0.389
0.471
0.515
0.563
0.563
0.613
0.666
0.666
0.724
0.786
1.000

26.6
15.8
16.5
16.0
14.2
14.6
13.5
13.3
12.9
12.6
12.6
12.7
12.8
13.0

* a size range: 1.180 mm D 2 mm (Soil No. 49)

b size range: 0.425 mm D 1.18 mm (Soil No. 50)

$
#

c size range: 0.075 mm D 0.425 mm (Soil No. 51)

d size range: D 0.075 (Soil No. 55)

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

FIG. 5Variation of shrinkage limit of non-cohesive soil mixtures with mix ratio-2.

Conclusions

References

The results obtained from extensive testing program conducted

on cohesive soil mixtures, cohesive-non-cohesive soil mixtures
and non-cohesive soil mixtures prepared in the laboratory, highlight the following facts.

ASTM designation: D427-83 (1989), Standard Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
4.08, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K., 1998a, Characteristic Water Contents of Fine Grained Soil-Water System, Geotechnique, Vol.
48, No. 3, pp. 337346.
Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K. (1998b), Mechanism Controlling
the Shrinkage Limit of Soils, Geotechnical Testing Journal,
GTJO DJ, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 240250.
Sridharan, A. and Vekatappa Rao, G, 1971, Effective Stress Theory of Shrinkage Phenomena, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 503513.
Yong, R. N., Boonsinsuk, P., and Wong, G., (1986), Formulation
of Back Fill Material for a Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Vault,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 216228.

1. The shrinkage limit of a soil is not a plasticity characteristic

of the soil.
2. The shrinkage limit of a soil is the result of packing phenomenon and is primarily controlled by the relative grain size
distribution of the soil.
3. For the systems having the same grain size distribution, the
one which has higher shearing resistance at the particle level
will shrink less.
These observations enchance the ability to design most effectively and efficiently the soil mixtures as the back fill materials to
meet various functional requirements.