DIPLOMA IN CIVIL

ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF
CIVIL ENGINEERING COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITI
TEKNOLOGI MARA

ECG 263: SOIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

OEL LEVEL: 1

LAB NO. :4 GROUP: C1

LAB TITLE : ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST – PLASTIC AND LIQUID LIMITS
(CONE PENETRATION OR CASAGRANDE TEST)
PREPARED FOR : NUR ZAIDANI WATI BINTI MOHD DARWIS
DATE OF CONDUCTED LAB : 15/4/2024
STUDENT ID GROUP MEMBER’S NAME
2022489814 MUHAMMAD ADRIANSYAH BIN SAHARUDIN
2022502289 MUHAMMAD EHSAN BIN SAYUTI
2022895082 MOHAMAD FIRDAUS BIN ZULKIFLI
2022492568 MUHAMMAD DANIAL BIN JAMALUDDIN

CO-PO Description
CO3 Perform teamwork skills in task related to soil engineering
Function effectively as an individual, and as a member in diverse
PO9
technical teams.

AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
NO ELEMENTS TO ASSESS RUBRICS
Domain Mark
1 (RECEIVING) Punctuality A1 /4
2 (ORGANIZATION) Report Organization A4 /2
3 (VALUING) Analysis and Interpretation of Data A3 /4
4 (ORGANIZATION) Discussion A4 /4
5 (CHARACTERIZATION) Conclusion A5 /4
6 (VALUING) References A3 /2

TOTAL MARKS / 20

Note:
1. Only the group members who present during lab
session are qualified for evaluation (Group leader
is responsible to cancel absenter in the Group
Member Name section).
RECEIVED & CHECKED BY:
2. Fill up all the particulars clearly and correctly.
Marks will be deducted if the particulars are left
unfilled or wrongly filled.
3. Lab report will not be examined for late
submission.
4. No hand phone allowed during lab session.

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 29/4/2024

©PKA, UiTM MARCH – AUGUST 24
1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

2.0 OBJECTIVE 3

3.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 3

4.0 APPARATUS 4

5.0 PROCEDURES 5-7

6.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 8-10

7.0 DISCUSSION 11

8.0 CONCLUSION 12

9.0 REFERENCES 13

1.0 Introduction

2
Atterberg limit test is the laboratory test used in the soil engineering field to determine the
plasticity characteristic of the soil. Atterberg limit test consists of three laboratory tests which is
plastic limit, liquid limit, and shrinkage limit.
Plastic limit is a process where soil transitions from plastic to semi solid state . It can be
determined by rolling the soil with a specific diameter. Liquid limit is a process where soil
transitions from plastic to a liquid state. It can be determined by using two tests which are
Casagrande method and cone penetration method. Casagrande method is a device consisting
of a brass cup with standardize geometry and dimension. Cone penetration method is an in-situ
testing to evaluate the soil properties and conditions. Shrinkage limit is a condition where soil
experience minimal volume change upon drying.

2.0 Objective

3
The objective of the test is:

 To determine the plastic and liquid limit of soil sample

3.0 Theoretical Background

Soil can be classified according to its moisture content as solid, semisolid, plastic, and liquid.
The two primary Atterberg limits are the plastic limit (PL) and the liquid limit (LL), each indicating
different states of soil consistency. For plastic limit, it is the water content at which soil changes
from a semisolid to a plastic state while liquid limit represents the water content at which soil
changes from a plastic to a liquid state. In addition, we can determine the value of the plastic
limit percentage from the Casagrande Method graph at 25 blows/taps and at 20mm penetration
for Cone Penetration Method graph. The value of plastic limit can be gained from the plastic limit
test and this all value can be used to determine the plasticity index by using formula Plasticity
Index (Ip) = Liquid Limit (LL) – Plastic Limit (PL). By using the plasticity chart in Appendix 1, we
can gain the soil classification from the value we obtain in the Casagrande test or Cone
Penetration test whether it is clay or silt along with the level of the plasticity from low to
extremely high.

4.0 Apparatus

4
Liquid Limit: Casagrande Test

 Casagrande liquid limit device

 Grooving tool
 Spatula & palette knives
 Moisture cans
 Wash bottle containing distilled water.
 Weighing balance
 Glass plate
 Drying oven (105C)

Liquid Limit: Cone Penetration Test

 Cone Penetrometer apparatus

 Stopwatch/timer
 Cylinder cup.
 0.425 mm sieve
 Glass plate
 Spatula & palette knives
 Straightedge
 Moisture cans
 Wash bottle containing distilled water.
 Weighing balance
 Drying oven

5.0 Procedures

5
 Liquid Limit: Casagrande Test

1. Took 200 g of the soil and placed it onto glass plate (passed No. 40 sieve). Thoroughly
mixed the soil with a small amount of distilled water until it appeared as a smooth uniform
paste. The mixture with cellophane was covered to prevent moisture from escaping.
2. Labelled and weighed 3 empty moisture cans.
3. Adjusted the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. Ensured that
the point on the cup that came in contact with the base rose to height of 10mm. Used the
block on the end of the grooving tool, which was 10-13 mm high, as a gauge. Practiced
using the cup and determined the correct rate to rotate the crank so that the cup dropped
approximately two times per second.
4. Placed the portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit apparatus at
the point where the cup rested on the base. Squeezed the soil down to eliminate air
pockets and spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10mm at its deepest point. Ensured
that the soil pat formed an approximately horizontal surface.
5. Used the grooving tool to carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of the cup.
Ensured that the tool remained perpendicular to the surface of the cup while making the
groove and used extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to the surface of the cup.
6. Ensured that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the cup were
clean of soil. Turned the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately two drops per
second and counted the number of drops, N, it took to make the two halves of the soil pat
come into contact at the bottom of the groove along 13 mm (1/2 in.). If the number of
drops exceeded 50, then proceeded directly to step 8 and did not record the number of
drops; otherwise, recorded the number of drops on the data sheet.
7. Took a sample, using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. Included the soil on
both sides of where the groove came into contact. Placed the soil into a moisture can.
Immediately weighed the moisture can containing the soil, its mass was recorded, and
placed the can into the oven. Left the moisture can in the oven for at least 16 hours.
Placed the remaining soil in the cup onto the glass plate. Cleaned and dried the cup on
the apparatus and the grooving tool.
8. Remixed the entire soil specimen on the glass plate. Added a small amount of distilled
water to increase the water content so that the number of drops required to close the
groove decreased.
9. Repeated steps six, seven, and eight for at least two additional trials producing
successively lower numbers of drops to close the groove. Conducted one trial for closure
requiring 30 to 40 drops, one for closure between 20 and 29 drops, and one trial for
closure requiring 10 to 19 drops. Determined the water content from each trial using the
same method used in the first laboratory. Ensured to use the same balance for all

6
 weighing.

Liquid Limit: Cone Penetration Test

1. Took a sample of the soil of sufficient size to give a test specimen weight of at least 300 g
which passed the 0.425 mm test sieve.
2. Transferred the soil to a flat glass plate. Added distilled water and mixed thoroughly with 2
palette knives until the mass became a thick homogeneous paste.
3. If necessary, more distilled water was added so that the first cone penetration reading
was about 15 mm.
4. Pushed a portion of the mixed soil into the cylinder cup with a palette knife, taking care
not to trap air.
5. Struck off excess soil with the straightedge to give a smooth level surface.
6. With the penetration cone locked in the raised position, lowered the supporting assembly
so that the tip of the cone just touched the surface of the soil.
7. Lowered the stem of the dial gauge to contact the cone shaft and recorded the reading of
the dial gauge to the nearest 0.1 mm.
8. Released the cone after a period of 5 + 1 second, as the apparatus was not fitted with an
automatic release and locking device.
9. Recorded the difference between the beginning and end of the drop cone penetration.
10. Lifted out the cone and cleaned it carefully to avoid scratching.
11. Took another two penetration readings at different spots, ensuring that the difference
between the first and second penetration readings was less than 0.5 mm.
12. Took a moisture content sample of about 10 g from the area penetrated by the cone.
13. Repeated steps 2 to 12 at least 2 more times.

Plastic Limit

7
 1. Weighed 3 empty moisture cans and recorded the respective weights and moisture can
numbers on the data sheet.
2. Took the remaining 20 g of the original soil sample and added distilled water until the
soil reached a consistency where it could be rolled without sticking to the hands.
3. Formed the soil into an ellipsoidal mass. Rolled the mass between the palm or fingers
and the glass plate using about 90 strokes per minute to achieve a uniform diameter
thread of 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
4. When the diameter of the thread reached the correct diameter, broke the thread into
several pieces. Kneaded and reformed the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and re-rolled
them. Continued this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading, and re-rolling until
the thread crumbled under the pressure required for rolling and could no longer be rolled
into a 3.0 mm diameter thread.
5. Gathered the portions of the crumbled thread together and placed the soil into a
moisture can, then covered it. If the can did not contain at least 6 grams of soil, added
soil to the can from the next trial (See Step 6). Immediately weighed the moisture can
containing the soil, recorded its mass, removed the lid, and placed the can into the oven.
Left the moisture can in the oven for at least 16 hours.
6. Repeated steps three, four, and five at least two more times. Determined the water
content from each trial using the same method used in the first laboratory. Ensured to
use the same balance for all weighing.

6.0 Result & Data Analysis

8
 Casagrande Test
Liquid Limit

Calculation

LL = 56%
PL = 14.29%

Ip = LL – PL
= 56 – 14.29
= 41.71%

Cone Penetration Test

Liquid Limit

9
Calculation

LL = 56%
PL = 14.29%

Ip = LL – PL
= 56 – 14.29
= 41.71%

Plastic Limit

Casagrande Method

10
Cone Penetration Method

7.0 Discussion

11
The Atterberg limits are crucial in soil mechanics because they determine the soil's behavior
under different moisture conditions. They help understand soil plasticity, shrinkage, and swelling
characteristics, aiding in construction projects, foundation design, and soil classification.

From the experiment, we can observe that the liquid limit value from the Casagrande test is
56%. Meanwhile, from the cone penetration test, the liquid limit value obtained is 51.8%.
Additionally, the plastic limit value from the plastic limit test is 14.29%. The plasticity index for
the Casagrande method is 41.71%, while for the cone penetration test, it is 37.51%. The
method to obtain the liquid limit from the Casagrande graph is to draw a line 25 taps or blows
from the bottom until it intersects the data line, then draw a line until it intersects the moisture
content line. For the liquid limit value, draw a line 20 mm from the edge until it intersects the
data line, then draw a line until it intersects the moisture content line. Each plasticity index can
be obtained using the formula: Liquid limit - plastic limit. Therefore, by obtaining this data, we
can gather information about soil behavior and evaluate soil properties.

Interpreting the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) values using a plasticity chart involves
plotting these values on the chart to determine the soil's plasticity index (PI) and its
classification. Plotting the plasticity index on the y-axis and the liquid limit on the x-axis. All the
data of the liquid limit can be obtained from the Casagrande and cone penetration graph, and
the plasticity index can be calculated using a formula. After plotting the plasticity index and liquid
limit value on the plasticity chart, we can classify the type of soil. From the experiment and
interpreting the values, we can classify the soil as clay of high plasticity based on the
Casagrande and cone penetration experiments' values. By interpreting the LL and PL values on
the plasticity chart and calculating the PI, engineers can determine the soil's plasticity
characteristics and classify it accordingly, which is essential for various engineering
applications.

8.0 Conclusion

12
In conclusion, our group has achieved the objectives that are required, which is to determine the
plastic and liquid limit of soil sample. The value of plastic limit is 14.29% from the plastic limit test
that our group has been constructed while the value of liquid limit can be found both in the
Casagrande graph and Cone Penetration graph which is 56% and 51.8% respectively.
Moreover, our group also gained the value of plasticity index which is 41.71% for Casagrande
method and 37.51% for Cone Penetration method. The soil classification for both Casagrande
test and Cone Penetration test shows that the specimen can be classified as clay with high
plasticity by using plasticity chart.

From the experiment, it may be some possible errors that may have occurred which can affect
the accuracy of the result that our group has obtained. For example, inconsistent testing
conditions such as the presence of wind or an unsuitable temperature that may compromise the
accuracy of Atterberg limit measurements and the soil behavior. In addition, human error can
also occur while constructing the experiment, for example errors in recording the data when
reading the value displayed by the cone penetrometer or when reading number of drops for the
soil path to close.

There are many ways to minimize the errors from possibly happening conducting the
experiments such as double check the measurements and calculations to ensure consistency
and reliability. We can also make sure that there is no air space when placing the soil into
container to avoid inaccurate results. By following these practices and quality control measures,
we can significantly reduce errors and ensure the reliability of Casagrande and Cone
Penetration test results in geotechnical engineering applications.

13
9.0 References

1. MD Sahadat Hossain, 2021, Atterberg limit test

https://uta.pressbooks.pub/soilmechanics/chapter/atterberg-limit-test/#:~:text=The
%20Atterberg%20limit%20refers%20to,of%20some%20moisture%20without
%20crumbling.

2. Geo Engineer, 2024, Cone Penetration Testing

https://www.geoengineer.org/education/site-characterization-in-situ-testing-general/cone-
penetration-testing-cpt

3. Springer Nature, 2024, Casagrande Test

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-73568-9_44

4. HO Abbas, 2018, Assessment of Accuracy in determine Atterberg limit test

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/433/1/012030/pdf

14