1

II.
Physical Properties
2
Outline
1. Soil Texture
2. Grain Size and Grain Size Distribution
3. Particle Shape
4. Atterberg Limits
5. Some Thoughts about the Sieve Analysis
6. Some Thoughts about the Hydrometer Analysis
7. Suggested Homework

3
1. Soil Texture
4
1.1 Soil Texture
The texture of a soil is its appearance or feel and it
depends on the relative sizes and shapes of the
particles as well as the range or distribution of those
sizes.

Coarse-grained soils:
Gravel Sand
Fine-grained soils:
Silt Clay
0.075 mm (USCS)
0.06 mm (BS)
Sieve analysis
Hydrometer analysis
TWO KINDS of Soil...
Two kinds of soil in this
world
COARSE
FINE

Basis for division is...
6
1.2 Characteristics
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
1. Some properties of Coarse Soil (cohesionless)
i. Particle is visible
ii. Particle does not stick each other
iii. Grains transmit loads directly through the contact
points.
iv. Grained structure is preserved for each w
n
and e.
Grain shape is important for behaviour.
v. Solid phase carries the load in both wet and dry soil.
8
2. Grain Size and Grain Size
Distribution
9
2.1 Grain Size
4.75
Unit: mm
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
USCS
BS
0.075
2.0 0.06 0.002
USCS: Unified Soil Classification
BS: British Standard
10
Note:
Clay-size particles
Clay minerals
For example:
Kaolinite, Illite, etc.
For example:
A small quartz particle may have the
similar size of clay minerals.
11
2.2 Grain Size Distribution
(Das, 1998)
(Head, 1992)
Sieve size
12
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)
Coarse-grained soils:
Gravel Sand
Fine-grained soils:
Silt Clay
0.075 mm (USCS)
0.06 mm (BS)
Experiment
Sieve analysis
Hydrometer analysis
(Head, 1992)
Fine-Grained vs.
Coarse-Grained Soils
U.S. Standard Sieve
- No. 200
0.0029 inches
0.074 mm

No. 200 means...

Sieve Analysis
(Mechanical Analysis)
This procedure is
suitable for coarse
grained soils
e.g. No.10 sieve .
has 10 apertures per
linear inch
Hydrometer
Analysis
Also called
Sedimentation
Analysis
Stokes Law

q

18
) (
2
L s w
G G D
v

=
2.2 Grain Size Distribution Curves
17
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)
Log scale
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Effective size D
10
: 0.02 mm
D
30
: D
60
:
18
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)
Describe the shape
Example: well graded


Criteria







Question
What is the C
u
for a soil with
only one grain size?
2
) 9 )( 02 . 0 (
) 6 . 0 (
) D )( D (
) D (
C
curvature of t Coefficien
450
02 . 0
9
D
D
C
uniformity of t Coefficien
2
60 10
2
30
c
10
60
u
= = =
= = =
mm 9 D
mm 6 . 0 D
) size effective ( mm 02 . 0 D
60
30
10
=
=
=
) sands for (
6 C and 3 C 1
) gravels for (
4 C and 3 C 1
soil graded Well
u c
u c
> < <
> < <

19
Answer
Question
What is the C
u
for a soil with only one grain size?

D
F
i
n
e
r

1
D
D
C
uniformity of t Coefficien
10
60
u
= =
Grain size distribution
20
2.2 Grain Size Distribution (Cont.)
Engineering applications
It will help us feel the soil texture (what the soil is) and it will
also be used for the soil classification (next topic).
It can be used to define the grading specification of a drainage
filter (clogging).
It can be a criterion for selecting fill materials of embankments
and earth dams, road sub-base materials, and concrete aggregates.
It can be used to estimate the results of grouting and chemical
injection, and dynamic compaction.
Effective Size, D
10
, can be correlated with the hydraulic
conductivity (describing the permeability of soils). (Hazens
Equation).(Note: controlled by small particles)
The grain size distribution is more important to coarse-grained soils.
21
3. Particle Shape








- Important for granular soils
- Angular soil particle higher friction
- Round soil particle lower friction
- Note that clay particles are sheet-like.
Rounded
Subrounded
Subangular
Angular
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Coarse-
grained
soils
PARAMETERS FOR THE DEFINITON OF PARTICLE
SHAPE

i. Sphericity

alan yzey danenin
alan yzey krenin sahip hacme ayn ile dane
S
s
= = |
0 < | < 1 and for |=1 (spherical), for |=0
(pointedness).
iii. Roundness

yarar teorik iin dane Tm
yarar daire imum min cek izilebile iine Kenarlar
R
r
= =
25
4. Atterberg Limits
and
Consistency Indices
Soil Plasticity
Further classification within fine-grained soils (i.e. soil that
passes #200 sieve) is done based on soil plasticity.
Albert Atterberg, Swedish Soil Scientist (1846-
1916)..series of tests for evaluating soil plasticity
Arthur Casagrande adopted these tests for geotechnical
engineering purposes
Engineering Characterization of Soils
Soil Properties that Control its Engineering Behavior

Particle Size
Particle/Grain Size
Distribution
Particle Shape
Soil Plasticity
fine-grained coarse-grained

COHESIVE SOILS (FINE GRAINED SOILS)
(Clays : D < 2)
Particle shape:
Plate (sheet like)
Pin shape
SPECIFIC SURFACE
Total surface area of the soil grains per unit volume
or weight (unit : cm
2
/gr., km
2
/kg., m
2
/kg.)
For sands S=10
2
cm
2
/gr., for clays S=10
6
-10
7
cm
2
/gr.
CLAY MINEROLOGY

Its structure is very complex, It is hydrated
aluminum silicate crystals. General formula is:
Al
x
Si
y
O
w
(OH)+NH
2
O
Clay minerals occur the decomposition of feldspar and
mica minerals. On the other hand, sands consist of
the seperation of quartz ve silica minerals.
Only 8 elements compose 98% of the Earth's crust
1. O
2
: %46 4. Fe : % 5 7. ??? %2.6
2. Si : %27.7 5. Ca : %3.6 8. ??? %2.1
3. Al : %8.1 6. Na : %2.8
Clay minerals are the complex silicates of Al, Mg and
Fe.
Clay Morphology
Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM)
Shows that clay particles
consist of stacks of
plate-like layers
Soil Consistency Limits
Albert Atterberg (1846-1916)
Swedish Soil Scientist
.. Developed series of tests for
evaluating consistency limits of soil
(1911)
Arthur Casagrande (1902-1981)
Adopted these tests for
geotechnical engineering purposes
Arthur Casagrande (1902-1981)
Joined Karl Terzaghi at MIT in
1926 as his graduate student
Research project funded by Bureau
of Public Roads
After completion of Ph.D at MIT
Casagrande initiated Geotechnical
Engineering Program at Harvard
Soil Plasticity and Soil
Classification (1932)
33
4.1 Atterberg Limits
The presence of water in fine-grained soils can significantly affect
associated engineering behavior, so we need a reference index to clarify
the effects. (The reason will be discussed later in the topic of clay minerals)
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
In percentage
34
4.1 Atterberg Limits (Cont.)
Liquid Limit, LL
Liquid State
Plastic Limit, PL
Plastic State
Shrinkage Limit, SL
Semisolid State
Solid State
Dry Soil
Fluid soil-water
mixture
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
e
n
t


Consistency of fine-grained soil varies in proportion to
the water content
Atterberg Limits
Shrinkage limit
Plastic limit
Liquid limit
solid
semi-solid
plastic
liquid
Plasticity
Index
(cheese)
(pea soup)
(pea nut butter)
(hard candy)
36
4.2 Liquid Limit-LL
Cone Penetrometer Method
(BS 1377: Part 2: 1990:4.3)
This method is developed by the
Transport and Road Research
Laboratory, UK.
Multipoint test
One-point test





Casagrande Method
(ASTM D4318-95a)
Professor Casagrande standardized
the test and developed the liquid
limit device.
Multipoint test
One-point test

Liquid Limit (LL or w
L
)
Empirical Definition
The moisture content at which a 2 mm-wide
groove in a soil pat will close for a distance of
0.5 in when dropped 25 times in a standard
brass cup falling 1 cm each time at a rate of 2
drops/sec in a standard liquid limit device
38
4.2 Liquid Limit-LL (Cont.)
Dynamic shear test
Shear strength is about 1.7 ~2.0
kPa.
Pore water suction is about 6.0
kPa.
(review by Head, 1992; Mitchell, 1993).

Particle sizes and water
Passing No.40 Sieve (0.425 mm).
Using deionized water.
The type and amount of cations
can significantly affect the
measured results.


39
4.2.1 Casagrande Method
N=25 blows
Closing distance =
12.7mm (0.5 in)
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Device
The water content, in percentage, required to close a
distance of 0.5 in (12.7mm) along the bottom of the
groove after 25 blows is defined as the liquid limit
Casagrande Apparatus
Casagrande Apparatus
Casagrande Apparatus
Liquid Limit Determination
44
4.2.1 Casagrande Method (Cont.)
( )
. log
) (
/ log
,
1 2
2 1
cont N I w
value positive a choose
N N
w w
I index Flow
F
F
+ =

=
N
w
Multipoint Method
Das, 1998
45
4.2.1 Casagrande Method (Cont.)
One-point Method
Assume a constant slope of the
flow curve.
The slope is a statistical result of
767 liquid limit tests.

Limitations:
The | is an empirical coefficient,
so it is not always 0.121.
Good results can be obtained only
for the blow number around 20 to
30.
121 . 0 tan
25
tan
= |
=
=
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
content moisture ing correspond w
blows of number N
N
w LL
n
n
46
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method
Device
(Head, 1992)
This method is developed
by the Transport and Road
Research Laboratory.
47
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method (Cont.)
Multipoint Method
Water content w%
P
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
e

(
m
m
)

20 mm
LL
48
4.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Method (Cont.)
44 094 . 1 40 LL , 094 . 1 Factor
%, 40 w , mm 15 depth n Penetratio
~ = =
= =
(Review by Head, 1992)
One-point Method (an empirical relation)
Example:
49
4.2.3 Comparison
Littleton and Farmilo, 1977 (from Head, 1992)
A good correlation
between the two
methods can be
observed as the
LL is less than
100.
50
Question:
Which method will render more consistent results?
51
4.3 Plastic Limit-PL
The plastic limit PL is defined as the water content at which
a soil thread with 3.2 mm diameter just crumbles.
ASTM D4318-95a, BS1377: Part 2:1990:5.3
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
The moisture content at which a thread of soil just
begins to crack and crumble when rolled to a
diameter of 1/8 inches
Plastic Limit (PL, w
P
)
Plastic Limit (PL, w
P
)
Plasticity Index ( PI, I
P
)
PI = LL PL
or I
P
=w
L
-w
P
Note: These are water contents, but the
percentage sign is not typically shown.
Plasticity Chart
USCS Classification Chart
USCS Classification Chart
Plasticity Chart
59
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SL
Definition of shrinkage
limit:
The water content at
which the soil volume
ceases to change is
defined as the shrinkage
limit.
(Das, 1998)
SL
60
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SL (Cont.)
(Das, 1998)
Soil volume: V
i
Soil mass: M
1
Soil volume: V
f
Soil mass: M
2
) 100 )( (
M
V V
) 100 (
M
M M
(%) w (%) w SL
w
2
f i
2
2 1
i

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
A =
61
4.4 Shrinkage Limit-SL (Cont.)
Although the shrinkage limit was a popular classification test during
the 1920s, it is subject to considerable uncertainty and thus is no
longer commonly conducted.

One of the biggest problems with the shrinkage limit test is that the
amount of shrinkage depends not only on the grain size but also on
the initial fabric of the soil. The standard procedure is to start with
the water content near the liquid limit. However, especially with
sandy and silty clays, this often results in a shrinkage limit greater
than the plastic limit, which is meaningless. Casagrande suggests that
the initial water content be slightly greater than the PL, if possible,
but admittedly it is difficult to avoid entrapping air bubbles. (from
Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

62
4.5 Typical Values of Atterberg Limits
(Mitchell, 1993)
63
4.6 Indices
Plasticity index PI
For describing the range of
water content over which a
soil was plastic
PI = LL PL

Liquidity index LI
For scaling the natural water
content of a soil sample to
the Limits.







content water the is w
PL LL
PL w
PI
PL w
LI

=
LI <0 (A), brittle fracture if sheared
0<LI<1 (B), plastic solid if sheared
LI >1 (C), viscous liquid if sheared
Liquid Limit, LL
Liquid State
Plastic Limit, PL
Plastic State
Shrinkage Limit, SL
Semisolid State
Solid State
PI
A
B
C
64
Liquidity index Consistency
1.0 Liquid (viscous)
A 1.0-0.75 Very soft plastic
B 0.75-0.50 Soft plastic
C 0.50-0.25 Medium plastic
D 0.25-0.00 Hard plastic
<0 Semi plastic
65
4.6 Indices (Cont.)
Sensitivity S
t
(for clays)
strength shear Unconfined
) disturbed ( Strength
) d undisturbe ( Strength
S
t
=
(Holtz and Kavocs, 1981)
Clay
particle
Water
w > LL
66
4.6 Indices (Cont.)
Activity A
(Skempton, 1953)



mm 002 . 0 : fraction clay
) weight ( fraction clay %
PI
A
<
=
Normal clays: 0.75<A<1.25
Inactive clays: A<0.75
Active clays: A> 1.25
High activity:
large volume change when wetted
Large shrinkage when dried
Very reactive (chemically)

Purpose
Both the type and amount of clay
in soils will affect the Atterberg
limits. This index is aimed to
separate them.
Mitchell, 1993
67
Soil classification
(the next topic)







The Atterberg limits are usually correlated with some engineering
properties such as the permeability, compressibility, shear strength,
and others.
In general, clays with high plasticity have lower permeability, and they are
difficult to be compacted.
The values of SL can be used as a criterion to assess and prevent the
excessive cracking of clay liners in the reservoir embankment or canal.
4.7 Engineering Applications
The Atterberg limit enable
clay soils to be classified.
68
5. Some Thoughts about the Sieve Analysis
The representative particle size of residual soils
The particles of residual soils are susceptible to severe breakdown
during sieve analysis, so the measured grain size distribution is
sensitive to the test procedures (Irfan, 1996).

Wet analysis
For clean sands and gravels dry sieve analysis can be used.
If soils contain silts and clays, the wet sieving is usually used to
preserve the fine content.


69
6. Some Thoughts about the Hydrometer Analysis
Stokes law

q

=
18
D ) (
v
2
w s

Assumption


Reality

Sphere particle

Platy particle (clay particle) as D
s 0.005mm


Single particle
(No interference
between particles)

Many particles in the suspension

Known specific
gravity of
particles


Average results of all the
minerals in the particles,
including the adsorbed water
films.
Note: the adsorbed water films
also can increase the resistance
during particle settling.

Terminal velocity


Brownian motion as D s 0.0002
mm

(Compiled from Lambe, 1991)
70
7. References
Main References:
Das, B.M. (1998). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition, PWS Publishing
Company. (Chapter 2)
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
Prentice Hall. (Chapter 1 and 2)
Others:
Head, K. H. (1992). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, Volume 1: Soil Classification and
Compaction Test, 2
nd
edition, John Wiley and Sons.
Ifran, T. Y. (1996). Mineralogy, Fabric Properties and Classification of Weathered Granites
in Hong Kong, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, vol. 29, pp. 5-35.
Lambe, T.W. (1991). Soil Testing for Engineers, BiTech Publishers Ltd.
Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons.