Lab Report #5:

ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS

ABSTRACT
This laboratory report is made to analyze the particle-size characteristics, the liquid limit, and
the plasticity index obtained from the past experiments in order to classify the soil sample.
With the data and results obtained from the two previous experiments (i.e. Sieve analysis and
determination of Atterberg Limits), we can conclude that the soil sample can be classified as
SP-SC (poorly graded sand, gravelly sand, little or no fines, with clayey sand or sand-clay
mixtures) based on Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and A-2-7 (silty or clayey
gravel and sand) based on AASHTO standards.

Submitted by: Angel U. Gacutan

Group Mates:
Francis Bianes
Kathlyn Jane Madrid
Michelle Monelle Quilatan
Jan Kenneth Salvacion
John Carlo Villar

Date Performed: August 1, 2011

Date Submitted: August 19, 2011

1|Page
I. OBJECTIVES
This experiment is performed:
 To classify the soil sample in the laboratory using the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) and ASSHTO standards.
 To determine the precise characteristics of the soil sample according to its
classification.

II. MATERIALS USED

The following are the instruments and materials utilized in this experiment:

Sieve Analysis:
 Sieves. Various numbers of sieves with specified diameter, a bottom pan and a lid
(cover for the sieves).
The following are the selected sieve numbers used for this experiment.
Sieve Number Diameter (mm)
4 4.750
8 2.360
12 1.700
16 1.180
40 0.425
50 0.300
200 0.075

 Soil Sample. Must have an initial mass of at least 2500 grams.

Determination of Atterberg Limits

 Sieve. A 200 mm (8 in.) diameter, 4.25 mm (No. 40) sieve and having a rim at least 5
cm (2 in.) above the mesh.
 Soil Sample. Must have an initial mass ranging from 200-250 g of soil passing the
No. 40 sieve.
 Water. Either distilled or demineralized.
 Water Content and sample cups and containers. Small corrosion-resistant
containers with snug-fitting lids for water content specimens. Aluminum or stainless
steel cans 2.5 cm (1 in.) high by 5 cm (2 in.) in diameter are appropriate.

2|Page
a) Determination of Liquid Limit:
 Flat Graving Tool. A tool made of plastic or non-corroding metal. The design of the
tool may vary as long as the essential dimensions are maintained. The tool may, but
need not, incorporate the gauge for adjusting the height-of-drop of the liquid limit
device.
 Liquid Limit Device Cup. A mechanical device consisting of a brass cup suspended
from a carriage designed to control its drop onto the surface of a block of resilient
material that serves as the base of the device. This device may be operated by either a
hand crank or electric motor.
 Mixing and Storage Container. A porcelain, glass, or plastic dish container to mix
the soil specimen (material) and store the prepared material. During mixing and
storage, the container shall not contaminate the material in any way, and prevent
moisture loss during storage. A porcelain, glass, or plastic dish about 11.4 cm (41⁄2
in.) in diameter and a plastic bag large enough to enclose the dish and be folded over
is adequate.
 Spatula and Mixing Tools. A spatula or pill knife having a blade about 2 cm (3⁄4 in.)
wide, and about 10 to 13 cm (3 to 4 in.) long.

b) Determination of Plastic Limit:

 Ground Glass Plate. A ground glass plate of sufficient size for rolling plastic limit
threads.
 Metal Rod, 3.2 mm diameter

For all the test methods:

 Digital balance. Must be sensitive to 0.001 g and a basic tolerance of ± 0.1 % of the
mass of the sample to be weighed for weighing the material.
 Drying oven. Thermostatically controlled, preferably of the forced-draft type, capable
of continuously maintaining a temperature of 110 ± 5°C (230 ± 9°F) throughout the
drying chamber.

3|Page
III. METHODOLOGY
The following steps are the procedures for classifying of soil sample:

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Note: Please refer to Table 11. Unified Soil Classification System: Soil Classification Chart

 If Fine Grained Soils (more than 50% by weight passes the sieve No. 200)

 If Coarse Grained Soil (more than 50% by weight retained on sieve No. 200)

4|Page
AASHTO Classification System

Note: Please refer to Appendix Table 12. AASHTO Soil Classification System (from AASHTO M
145 or ASTM D3282)

Prepare at least 2500 grams of soil sample.

Oven dried for 24±hours.

Perform Sieve Analysis and determine the

Percent Passing at Sieve No. 10, 40, 200

If the soil sample is compose mainly of If the soil sample is compose mainly of
Granular Materials (35 % or less Silt-Clay Materials (More than 35 %
passing No. 200) → passing No. 200) →
Subgroups A1, A2, and A3 Subgroups A4, A5, A6, and A7

Evaluate if the values of the Percent Passing at Sieve No.

10, 40, 200 satisfy the criteria of each subgroups.
Eliminate subgroups that are not.

Evaluate if the values of the Liquid Limit and Plasticity

Index satisfy the criteria of the remaining subgroups.
Eliminate subgroups that are not.

According to the classified subgroup, determine the usual

types of significant constituent materials of the soil
sample

5|Page
IV. DATA AND RESULTS

A. EQUATIONS USED. The following formulas are used to evaluate the gathered data:

 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE ANALYSIS

Soil Retained in Sieve and Percent Error. Compute for the mass of the soil sample retained
on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the empty sieve from the mass of the sieve +
retained soil, and record this mass as the weight retained on the data sheet.

𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 = (𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 + 𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝑺𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆) − (𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆) (Equation 1)

Percent Retained. Calculate the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight
retained on each individual sieve by the initial sample mass.

(𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝑺𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆)

𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎% (Equation 2)
𝑾𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆

Percent Passing (or Percent Finer). Calculate the percent passing by starting with 100
percent and subtracting the percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative method.

For the first sieve, Sieve No. 4:

𝑷𝑭#𝟒 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎% − (𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝑺𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝑵𝒐. 𝟒) (Equation 3)

For the succeeding sieves:

𝑷𝑭𝒊 = 𝑷𝑭𝒊−𝟏 − (𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅)𝒊 (Equation 4)

To be able to analyze the Grain Size Distribution, computed data are graphed to plot the Soil
Gradation Curve – by setting the Percent Passing (%) as the values for the y-axis while its
corresponding Particle Diameter (mm) of each sieves are the values for the x-axis.

With the help of the graph and calculated values of the Percent Passing (%), used linear
interpolation to determine the diameters when the percent passing of the soil sample is equal
to 10%, 30% and 60% — denote the computed diameters as D10, D30 and D60, respectively.

6|Pa g e
The obtained values of the diameters (indicated as D10, D30, and D60) are used to compute the
following grading characteristics:

Coefficient of Gradation or Compaction, 𝑪𝑪 . It is also called as Coefficient of

Curvature. It is a measure of the shape of the particle size curve and is calculated using
the following equation:
(𝑫𝟑𝟎 )𝟐
𝑪𝑪 = (Equation 6)
(𝑫𝟔𝟎 𝒙 𝑫𝟏𝟎)

Uniformity Coefficient, 𝑪𝒖 . It is also called as Hazen Coefficient. It is a measure of the

particle size range and is calculated using the following equation:
𝑫𝟔𝟎
𝑪𝒖 = (Equation 7)
𝑫𝟏𝟎

 DETERMINATION OF ATTERBERG LIMITS

Percent Water Content. It is also called Total Evaporable Moisture Content or Surface
Moisture Content. It is equal to the difference between the mass of the moist soil sample and
its oven dried mass, with all values based on the mass of a dry sample.

(𝑨−𝑩)
% 𝑾𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 = × 𝟏𝟎𝟎 (Equation 11)
𝑩

Where: 𝐴 = (mass of pan + moist soil sample) - (mass of pan)

𝐵 = (mass of pan + oven dried soil sample) - (mass of pan)

Plastic Limit, PL. The water content, in percent, of a soil at the boundary between the plastic
and semi-solid states. It is the average of the computed values of the water content of the soil
sample in different number of trials.

(∑𝒏𝟏 𝒏)𝑷𝑳�
𝑷𝑳 = 𝐧 (Equation 12)

Where: (∑𝒏𝟏 𝒏)𝑷𝑳 = summation of water content of sample tested for Plastic Limit
𝑛 = number of trials

7|Pa g e
 Liquid Limit, LL. The water content, in percent, of a soil at the arbitrarily defined boundary
between the semiliquid and plastic states.

To be able to calculate the Liquid Limit, gathered data are plotted on a semi-logarithmic
graph. The Percent Water Content is set as the values for the ordinates; while, its equivalent
Number of Blows are the values for the abscissas. Once the data are plotted, obtain the Trend
Line (in linear function) of the plotted Liquid Limit data series with the help of MS Excel.
The Trend Line function is used to determine the values of the Liquid Limit at 25 drops.

Plasticity Index, PI. It is a numerical measure of the plasticity of a soil − the range of water
content over which a soil behaves plastically. Numerically, it is the difference between the
liquid limit and the plastic limit.
𝑷𝑰 = 𝑳𝑳 − 𝑷𝑳 (Equation 14)

Where: 𝐿𝐿 = Liquid Limit

𝑃𝐿 = Plastic Limit

B. GATHERED DATA

 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS: SIEVE ANALYSIS

Using Equations 1 to 4, the following table shows the recorded data and the computed
parameters needed to plot the Soil Gradation Curve:

Table 1. Sieve Analysis Data of the Soil Sample

SIEVE MASS IN GRAMS
Nominal Soil
Sieve + Soil Percent Percent
Number Diameter Sieve Retained in
Sample Retained % Passing %
(mm) Sieve
4 4.750 497.00 562.40 65.40 2.55 97.45
8 2.360 475.50 782.80 307.30 11.96 85.49
10 2.000 - - - - 80.89*
12 1.700 440.80 677.10 236.30 9.20 76.29
16 1.180 435.50 778.30 342.80 13.34 62.95
40 0.425 401.80 1072.80 671.00 26.12 36.83
50 0.300 376.50 737.60 361.10 14.06 22.78
200 0.075 308.80 773.30 464.50 18.08 4.69
Bottom Pan - 202.59 323.20 120.61 4.69 -
SUM TOTAL = 2569.01

8|Pa g e
*Note: Due to the lack of availability of the laboratory materials, we have failed to use Sieve
Number 10. So, we just determined the equivalent percent passing of the said sieve by linear
interpolation.
10 − 8 𝑦1 − 85.49
=
12 − 8 76.29 − 85.49

Where: 𝑦1 = equivalent percent passing of Sieve Number 10

Solving for the value of the unknown: 𝒚𝟏 = 𝟖𝟎. 𝟖𝟗 %

Figure 1. Grain Size Distribution Curve of the Soil Sample

100.00
97.45
90.00
85.49
80.00 80.89
76.29
70.00
Percetnt Fineness

62.95
60.00

50.00

40.00
36.83
30.00
22.78
20.00

10.00
4.69
0.00
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010
Particle Diameter (mm)

By interpolation, the values of the diameters needed to compute for the grading
characteristics are:

Table 2. Computed Diameter for 10%, 30%, 60% Percent Passing

PERCENTAGE PASSED DIAMETER (mm) DENOTATION

10 % 0.1410447761 D10
30 % 0.3642348754 D30
60 % 1.0947300920 D60

9|Pa g e
Knowing the values of D10, D30, and D60, and using equations 6 and 7 the values of the
grading characteristics are:
Coefficient of Gradation:
(0.3642348754)2
𝑪𝑮 = = 0.8592093456
(1.0947300920 𝑥 0.1410447761)

Coefficient of Uniformity:
1.0947300920
𝑪𝒖 = = 7.7615784311
0.1410447761

Table 3. Values of Grading Characteristics

COEFFICIENT OF GRADATION, 𝑪𝑪 0.86

UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT, 𝑪𝒖 7.76

 DETERMINATION OF ATTERBERG LIMITS

Table 8. Data for Liquid Limit

Mass (grams) LIQUID
Number Water
TRIAL Pan + Soil LIMIT
of Drops Pan Content
Before Oven-dry After Oven-dry (LL)
1 32 8.98 61.81 45.29 45.497
2 30 9.18 47.53 34.74 50.039 54
3 20 9.23 66.10 45.12 58.456

Figure 3. Liquid Limit Determination

60.000
58.456 Trendline function:
y = -1.0031x + 78.749

55.000
Percent Water Content

53.672

50.039 50.000
Liquid Limit

45.497 45.000 Liquid Limit at 25

drops
Linear (Liquid
40.000 Limit)
100 10 1
Number of Drops

10 | P a g e
Liquid Limit. Based from the graph, the Trendline function is 𝑦 = −1.0031𝑥 + 78.749
Let x be equivalent to the 25 drops and y be the value of Liquid Limit (LL) of the soil
sample. Substituting, we will have:
𝑦 = 𝐿𝐿 = (−1.0031 × 25) + 78.749 = 53.6715
𝑳𝑳 = 𝟓𝟒

Table 9. Gathered Data for Plastic Limit

Mass (grams)
Pan + Soil % Water PLASTIC
TRIAL
Pan Before Oven- After Oven- Content LIMIT (PL)
dry dry
1 9.48 15.48 14.19 27.389
2 8.54 14.54 13.19 29.032 28
3 9.20 15.20 13.93 26.850

Plastic Limit. Using Equation 12 and based from Table 9, the plastic limit is computed as:
27.389 + 29.032 + 26.850
𝑃𝐿 = = 27.7569
3
𝑷𝑳 = 𝟐𝟖

Plasticity Index. The difference between the computed Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit, using
Equation 4:
𝑃𝐼 = 53.6715 − 27.7569 = 25.9146
𝑷𝑰 = 𝟐𝟔

Table 10. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index

Rounded-off to Nearest
Computed Parameters Computed Value
Whole Number
LIQUID LIMIT 53.6715 54
PLASTIC LIMIT 27.7569 28
PLASTICITY INDEX 25.9146 26

11 | P a g e
V. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

Soil classification system is the understanding and arrangement of different soils

having like properties into sets and subsets based on their use. It gives a universal language to
communicate briefly the general characteristics of soils. Classifying soils helps describe how
a sample could greatly affect the strength and properties of any structures that are to be
constructed.

There are two soil classification systems in common use for engineering purposes.
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is used for virtually all geotechnical
engineering work except highway and road construction, where the AASHTO soil
[1]
classification system is used. Both systems utilize the results of grain size analysis
distribution and determination of Atterberg limits (i.e. Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index) in
order to determine the soil’s classification.

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

In this system, a soil sample falls within one of these major categories: coarse-
grained, fine-grained, and highly organic soils. Under these categories, soil is further
classified into 15 sub-categories and until they are grouped according to their major
description. The various groupings have been devised to correlate in a general way with the
engineering behavior of soils. This standard provides a useful first step in any field or
laboratory investigation for geotechnical engineering purposes.

According to Table 1, there is more than 50 % of the total soil sample that retained on
the No. 200 Sieve and most of the sample is composed of sands since there is more than 50
% of its coarse fraction that passes No. 4 Sieve. Accordingly, based on the USCS standards,
the soil sample can be classified under ‘sands’ criteria of the ‘coarse-grained soils’.
Considering the computed values of the CU (Coefficient of Uniformity) and CC (Coefficient
of Gradation) based on Table 3, which are equivalent to 7.76 and 0.86, respectively, we could
then classify the soil sample as SP or poorly graded sand with gravel.

12 | P a g e
Figure 4. Plasticity Chart

To further categorize the soil sample, evaluate the computed values of the Atterberg
Limits. The obtained values of the Liquid Limit and the Plasticity Index based on Table 10,
are 54 and 26, respectively. Having a LL>50 and the Plasticity Index which is above the ‘A’
line as observed from the plasticity chart, the sample’s fine materials can be classified as CH
or fat clays – inorganic clays of high plasticity. Therefore, based on USCS, we can infer that
the soil sample is classified as SP-SC (poorly graded and gravelly sands, with little or no
fines and also with clayey sands or sand-clay mixtures). [2]

AASHTO Classification

The AASHTO Soil Classification System was developed by the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and is used as a guide for the
classification of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes. The
classification system was first developed by Hogentogler and Terzaghi in 1929, but has been
revised several times since then. [3]
According to the Percent Passing of Sieve No. 200 from Table 1, we could say that
the sample is composed more of granular materials because there is less than 35 % of the
total sample that passed through the No. 200 sieve – in our case, only 4.69 % passed the
0.075 mm sieve. From here, we are limited to classify the soil sample among A-1, A-2, or A-
3 subgroups (please refer to Appendix Table12). Furthermore, from Table 1, the percent
passing of Sieve No. 10, No. 40, and No. 200 are equivalent to 80.89 %, 36.83 % and 4.69 %,
respectively. Based from these values, we are now limited to classify the soil among A-1-b or
A-2 subgroups.

13 | P a g e
 Now consider the computed values of the Atterberg Limits. The obtained values of
the Liquid Limit and the Plasticity Index based on Table 10 are 54 and 26, respectively.
Evaluating the criteria of each subgroup and eliminating those that was not satisfied, our soil
sample can be classified under A-2-7. Therefore, based on AASHTO Soil Classification
System, we can conclude that the soil sample is composed of silty or clayey gravel and
sand. In addition, it has also a good general subgrade rating.

To further describe the soil sample, according to ASTM standards, materials under
subgroup A-2-7 are similar to those under subgroups A-2-4 and A-2-5 (i.e. such materials as
gravel and coarse sand with silt contents or plasticity indexes in excess of the limitations of
Group A-1 and fine sand with non-plastic silt content in excess of the limitations of Group A-
3) except that the fine portion contains plastic clay having the characteristics of the A-6 or A-
7 group.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Soil Classification System is important especially to geotechnical practices because it
provides standard for soil grouping and categorizing. As for engineering purposes, soil type
and characteristics must be checked before doing or constructing things in the field. Soil
characteristics should be determined to be able to correlate them with various engineering
behaviors.

With this particular soil sample used, the Gradation Curve, Atterberg Limits, the
Procedure for Classification of Soils and the Plasticity Chart show that based on USCS, the
material is poorly-graded sand with gravel (SP-SC). While according to the AASHTO
standards, the soil sample can be classified as silty or clayey gravel and sand (A-2-7). Both
of the two soil classification systems somehow describe similar characteristics of the soil
sample.

14 | P a g e
VII. APPENDIX
Table 11. Unified Soil Classification System: Soil Classification Chart

Table 12. AASHTO Soil Classification System (from AASHTO M 145 or ASTM D3282)

15 | P a g e
VIII. REFERENCES
[1]
 http://www.aboutcivil.com/Sieve-analysis-and-soil-classification.html
[2]
 http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/Modules/04_design_parameters/astm_terms.htm
[3]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AASHTO_Soil_Classification_System
 AASHTO M 145: The Classification of Soils and Soil Aggregate Mixtures for Highway
Construction Purposes
 Angel Gacutan. Laboratory Reports #2 (Particle Size Analysis: Sieve Analysis) and #4
(Atterberg Limits: Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils)
 ASTM D 75/75M–09: Practice for Sampling Aggregates
 ASTM D 422–63: Standard Test Methods for Particle Size Analysis of Soils
 ASTM D 2487–10: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
 ASTM D 3282–93: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate
Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes
 ASTM D 4318–10: Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils
 Braja M. Das. “Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering”. Iowa State University Press.
 Braja M. Das. “Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering”. Iowa State University Press.
 Giovanna Bisconntin 2007. “CVEN365 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering
Laboratory Manual”. Texas A&M University.

16 | P a g e