Estimation of Liquid, Plastic and Shrinkage Limits Using One Simple Tool

Kamil Kayabali
Geological Engineering Department, Ankara University, Ankara 06100, Turkey e-mail: kayabalik@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
There have been a number of attempts to develop alternatives to the conventional tests available to more accurately predict the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limits (PL). One of two major setbacks with conventional methods is the uncertainties inherent to the operator and the apparatus utilized. The second is the fact that critical water contents are strength states, in essence, and these two methods do not measure strength. The reverse extrusion test eliminates both setbacks by yielding undrained shear strengths free of operator effects. Ten experiments were performed on each of 100 soil samples for conventional LL, PL, and shrinkage limits (SL) and reverse extrusion test (RXT), totaling more than 4000 tests in all. The experimental data were utilized in multiple regression analyses to predict consistency limits through empirical relationships. The results indicate that about 90 percent of LL and PL can be predicted with an accuracy of plus/minus 10 percent using the recently introduced soil mechanics testing tool of RXT. Regarding SL, about 90 percent is predicted with a degree of plus/minus 20 percent accuracy. In conclusion, the reverse extrusion method accurately predicts LL and PL; its porential to estimate SL is also promising.

KEYWORDS: Liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limit, reverse extrusion

INTRODUCTION
The engineering behavior of fine-grained soils depends strictly on their moisture content. The liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) are peculiar water contents as well as undrained strength states constituting two important legs of plasticity index (PI), which is, in conjunction with LL, the main index parameter for the classification of fine grained soils. PI has also been used in correlation with many other engineering parameters such as internal friction angle, overconsolidation ratio, coefficient of lateral earth pressure, undrained shear strength, etc. Therefore, the determination of Atterberg limits on a reliable basis is considered crucially important. The shrinkage limit (SL), although less critical than the previous two consistency limits, is also a threshold water content related to soil behavior. It also draws attention in certain ground engineering applications. While those three consistency limits refer to critical levels of moisture content corresponding to certain levels of undrained shear strength in a fine grained soil, they are all performed by totally different testing techniques. This important problem has drawn the attention of many scientists; a number of attempts have been made to combine at least two of the tests, LL and PL, to be determined with the same testing equipment. The fall cone method is most frequently used for this purpose (e.g., Feng, 2004; Lee and Freeman, 2007). The second major problem with the - 2079 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2080

available testing techniques to determine consistency limits are the uncertainties inherent to LL, PL, and SL methods (see, for example, Wroth and Wood, 1978; Holtz and Kovacs, 1981; Whyte, 1982; Cerato and Lutenegger, 2006; Kayabali and Tufenkci, 2007; Kayabali and Tufenkci, 2010a). The total number of uncertainties involved in the three most commonly employed consistency tests indicated by those researchers is approximately 15. There are different opinions as to whether or not the conventional methods to determine LL (i.e., the Casagrande percussion cup method) and PL (i.e., the bead rolling method) represent the plasticity characteristics of soils. For instance, Prakash (2005) argued that because the undrained shear strength at liquid limit water content varies from 0.5-5.6 kPa and the liquid limit cannot be correlated with shear strength, the plasticity index determined based on strength tests cannot be regarded as the plasticity characteristic of the soil. For plastic limit, Whyte (1982) proclaimed that the strength at the PL is not established reliably by the Atterberg-type rolling bead test and therefore bead rolling is not a suitable method. Prakash and Sridharan (2006) stated conclusively that LL and PL of soils measured using the percussion and 3 mm thread rolling methods are contributed by soil cohesion and therefore represent the plasticity characteristics. The authors opinion is that, because the consistency limits are threshold water contents, they should also be the threshold shear strengths since there is a log-linear relationship between water content and the undrained shear strength of soils (e.g., Kayabali and Tufenkci, 2010b). In this regard, the conventional methods of percussion cup and bead rolling cannot be considered thoroughly reliable tests for soil plasticity. The extrusion method appears to have the premise to represent the shear strength of soils. The use of the extrusion method in soil mechanics was first introduced by Timar (1978), who employed direct extrusion to determine both plastic and liquid limits. Whyte (1982) used the reverse extrusion test to establish a relationship between soil strength and water content and concluded that extrusion of soils is a reliable method for determining soil plasticity. The first attempt to determine both the plastic and liquid limits using the reverse extrusion method was carried out by Kayabali and Tufenkci (2007). They followed the principles outlined by Whyte (1982) to determine LL and PL using the reverse extrusion test on twenty soil samples. For the areal ratio of 40 - the cross sectional area of the container divided by the cross sectional area of the orifice of die on the rammer - they tentatively determined liquid limit and plastic limit as the extrusion pressures corresponding to 2250 kPa and 30 kPa, respectively, when a 38 mm diameter container and a rammer with a die orifice of 6 mm diameter were used. Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a) further refined the reverse extrusion test for use in determining consistency limits. They provided a detailed description for conducting the test and investigated its repeatability or operator dependency. Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a), by conducting Casagrande cup, thread rolling, and reverse extrusion tests on thirty soil samples, concluded that the extrusion pressures corresponding to the plastic and liquid limits are 3000 kPa and 35 kPa, respectively. They showed that the reverse extrusion test is operator independent and stated that it also has the potential to determine the shrinkage limit. One point to be addressed on the investigations by Kayabali and Tufenkci (2007) and Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a) is the degree of scatter of extrusion pressures around the mean value. The authors of both investigations employed, particularly for LL and PL tests using the conventional methods, different operators in the same and/or different laboratories to conduct consistency tests to demonstrate the operator effects of LL and PL through conventional methods. It is very likely that a set of LL or PL data constructed by a single operator would yield a better correlation for the respective threshold water contents with much lower scatters. This investigation aims to reassess the reverse extrusion test in order to finalize the determination of liquid limit and plastic limit based on the reverse extrusion pressures. Reverse extrusion is also extended to cover the shrinkage limit. This research differs from previous similar investigations because each of the consistency tests was performed by the same operator by significantly increasing the number of soil samples, as well as the number of tests performed on each sample. - 2080 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2081

MATERIALS
The soil samples used in this investigation came from a lacustrine clay formation. Soil samples were collected in large bags from different locations. They were oven-dried and then pulverized for sieving. One hundred soil samples of different liquid limits were reserved for the investigation. In order for the results of present investigation to be as universal as possible the range of liquid limit was kept as wide as possible. LL of soil samples ranges from 38 to 100.

METHODS
Liquid limit and plastic limit tests were conducted in accordance with the ASTM D4318 standard (American Society for Testing Materials, 2000a). The details of the percussion cup method using the Casagrande bowl is not given here due to space considerations. To minimize the uncertainties involved in this test, all tests were performed by the same operator using the same apparatus. Extreme care was taken regarding the speed of turning the crank and the calibration of drop height. Furthermore, the bench of the testing tool was kept at the same level throughout. Regarding the bead rolling for the plastic limit test, the rolling device shown in Figure 1 was employed. A second operator conducted the plastic limit tests. Care was taken to keep a clearance of 3.2 mm between the lower and upper plates of the rolling device throughout the tests. Also, sliding the upper plate back and forth was applied at nearly the same speed. The shrinkage limit tests involved the mercury method, whose guidelines are given in ASTM D427-98 standard (American Society for Testing Materials, 1998). A third operator performed the shrinkage limit tests on all soil samples. The guidelines of the reverse extrusion tests were well defined by Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a) and will not be repeated here. A fourth operator conducted all reverse extrusion tests using a container of 38 mm inner diameter, along with a rammer of 6 mm die orifice as was done by Whyte (1982), Kayabali and Tufenkci (2007) and Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a).

Figure 1: The rolling device utilized in running the plastic limit tests.

EXPERIMENTS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ten liquid limit tests were run on 100 samples. A sample plot is given in Figure 2. The water contents corresponding to 25 drops using a Casagrande cup for each soil sample are presented under the second column of Table 1. Also, the 100 soil samples were subjected to ten repetitions of the bead rolling test. The mean value of plastic limit per soil sample is given in the fifth column of Table 1. The numbers in the eighth column represent the average of ten shrinkage limit tests per soil sample. The classes of soils are presented as supplementary information in column 11. Concerning the reverse extrusion tests, the results of experiments conducted at ten different water contents were first plotted in the semi-log diagram shown in Figure 3. Then, the y-intercept - 2081 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2082

and the slope of the best fit curve were determined. The resulting coefficients are listed under columns 12 and 13 in Table 1 (here, instead of dealing with so many decimals, the inverse slope was preferred for convenience).

Figure 2: Sample plot for the liquid limit test using the Casagrande cup for soil sample 67.

Figure 3: Sample plot for the reverse extrusion test for soil sample 67.

The y-intercept and slope of each fit was utilized to compute the extrusion pressures corresponding to the conventionally determined LL, PL, and SL values. For instance, the yintercept and the slope of the linear fit for soil number 67 is 5.87 and 0.08 (i.e., 1/12.5), respectively. The respective extrusion pressures computed for LL=53.0, PL=32.7, and SL=21.8 are PE(LL)=43 kPa, PE(PL)=1803 kPa, and PE(SL)=13366 kPa. This computation was repeated for 100 samples. The yielding PE(LL), PE(PL), and PE(SL) values are presented in Table 1 (columns 14-16). Table 1 gives a summary of the experimental data and the results of analytical and statistical evaluations. Column 2: Liquid limit (LL) from Casagrande method; Column 3: LL corresponding to the extrusion pressure of 20 kPa; Column 4: LL from statistical evaluations; Column 5: Plastic limit (PL) from the bead rolling method; Column 6: PL corresponding to the extrusion pressure of 2000 kPa; Column 7: PL from statistical evaluations; Column 8: Shrinkage limit (SL): from mercury method; Column 9: SL corresponding to the extrusion pressure of 12000 kPa; Column 10: SL from statistical evaluations; Column 11: USCS symbol of soils - CH: high plasticity clay; MH: high plasticity silt; CL: low plasticity clay; ML: low plasticity silt - (USCS: Unified Soil Classification System; American Society for Testing Materials, 2000b); Columns 12 and 13: y intercept and the inverse slope of extrusion pressure versus water content curve from reverse extrusion tests; Columns 14-16: Extrusion pressures (kPa) corresponding to LL, PL, and SL, respectively.

- 2082 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2083

Table 1: Laboratory test results

No. (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 (2) 57.1 54.5 57.8 49.3 69.2 57.0 53.7 52.6 53.1 50.3 61.0 56.3 65.2 48.5 57.4 65.2 54.6 58.5 69.0 57.4 62.7 47.7 57.9 55.3 54.0 59.5 55.9 75.5 66.7 63.7 78.1 71.1 77.6 83.9 59.4 81.0 65.0 55.1 58.9 64.3 61.5 64.9 71.4 55.6 67.8 75.9 65.0 61.5 71.8 51.9 62.2 46.4 78.4 LL (3) 59.8 57.9 60.4 50.0 63.9 61.0 56.0 55.0 56.5 51.3 63.0 58.0 61.0 50.1 58.4 64.8 54.8 56.0 61.4 62.0 59.2 48.7 61.9 53.7 53.7 57.7 54.7 79.2 68.5 63.9 80.5 71.8 71.0 82.9 58.0 61.5 64.2 54.7 61.3 62.8 60.8 63.0 69.9 58.5 67.0 69.7 65.1 65.2 70.1 56.0 67.0 51.1 70.7 (4) 60.7 57.5 59.9 47.3 67.3 62.4 53.1 52.8 57.4 49.7 63.5 57.7 61.2 47.3 58.3 64.3 52.4 56.5 61.6 63.4 59.4 46.3 60.3 53.4 52.9 55.9 54.3 83.2 71.3 65.1 84.6 74.7 72.5 88.1 55.9 64.4 65.9 51.7 60.7 65.5 60.4 63.6 72.1 56.2 70.3 73.9 66.7 64.0 72.2 57.8 70.3 48.5 75.5 (5) 24.4 25.6 29.6 29.8 26.6 29.9 33.4 30.5 25.0 24.8 29.9 28.8 27.2 28.6 25.3 33.8 30.9 24.2 29.2 29.2 24.0 25.0 37.0 25.0 29.8 30.3 24.2 35.6 31.6 31.5 38.6 35.7 35.3 35.0 39.0 26.5 35.0 36.3 30.8 27.3 30.1 30.2 31.2 33.7 27.6 32.0 30.5 34.0 30.2 25.2 27.8 28.1 29.1 PL (6) 27.4 28.5 30.2 28.4 26.3 27.4 33.2 30.4 25.3 26.5 30.2 28.4 29.4 28.7 28.2 33.2 30.8 25.8 29.6 28.1 28.2 26.7 33.5 25.7 26.5 31.1 26.5 35.2 30.1 29.7 35.9 32.0 33.8 35.9 32.2 25.5 29.0 35.1 31.1 26.6 30.4 30.0 31.9 33.1 28.4 28.9 29.7 34.8 32.1 23.8 28.4 29.1 28.5 (7) 27.7 28.4 30.5 28.2 28.3 28.0 34.7 30.8 25.1 25.2 30.7 28.3 29.7 28.6 28.2 34.1 31.5 25.3 29.9 28.8 28.3 25.5 34.7 24.6 25.5 31.7 25.6 34.7 31.3 30.4 35.0 32.8 34.5 34.3 33.2 27.2 29.9 37.1 31.6 28.1 30.8 30.6 32.7 34.4 29.9 30.7 30.6 36.1 32.9 24.2 29.9 29.2 30.5 (8) 11.6 14.9 14.0 22.6 18.8 15.2 24.0 22.7 14.9 20.1 16.4 16.6 16.3 25.0 18.2 19.0 26.1 17.2 15.5 15.3 16.5 23.8 23.9 18.5 18.9 18.5 13.8 12.6 12.4 14.5 12.0 14.0 14.6 15.7 21.2 14.0 31.6 30.5 18.2 14.6 18.1 11.9 14.9 24.7 16.9 16.1 14.5 22.8 14.0 12.5 14.6 20.1 14.8 SL (9) 14.8 17.1 18.4 20.0 11.7 14.3 24.3 20.8 13.1 16.9 17.4 16.9 17.1 20.3 16.5 20.9 21.5 14.1 17.2 14.9 16.1 18.2 22.4 14.9 15.9 20.8 15.5 18.1 15.2 16.4 18.5 16.5 19.4 17.6 22.2 11.5 15.3 27.4 19.3 12.5 18.6 17.2 17.1 23.3 13.3 13.1 15.9 23.0 17.3 11.3 13.3 20.6 12.0 (10) 16.0 17.3 17.9 21.4 15.3 15.7 26.3 21.3 16.5 18.6 16.7 17.2 16.8 21.8 16.9 19.7 22.2 16.6 16.8 15.6 16.6 20.1 22.3 17.2 17.5 20.8 17.2 15.2 14.8 16.0 15.4 15.1 17.2 14.6 22.7 15.7 15.4 31.8 18.6 15.3 17.9 16.5 15.6 24.2 14.7 14.3 15.6 22.5 15.7 17.1 14.7 21.8 14.2 USCS (11) CH CH CH ML CH CH MH MH CH CH CH CH CH ML CH MH MH CH CH CH CH CL MH CH MH CH CH MH CH CH MH MH CH CH MH CH MH MH MH CH CH CH CH MH CH CH CH MH CH CH CH ML CH a (12) 4.99 5.24 5.30 5.93 4.70 4.93 6.21 5.77 4.92 5.44 5.14 5.22 5.16 5.98 5.17 5.40 5.87 5.01 5.16 4.96 5.12 5.73 5.66 5.14 5.25 5.64 5.18 4.90 4.87 5.04 4.91 4.91 5.12 4.83 5.80 4.72 4.95 6.88 5.36 4.77 5.30 5.12 4.98 5.91 4.77 4.72 4.98 5.59 4.99 4.78 4.77 5.95 4.65 1/b (13) 16.2 14.7 15.1 10.8 18.8 16.8 11.4 12.3 15.6 12.4 16.4 14.8 15.8 10.7 15.1 15.8 12.0 15.1 15.9 17.0 15.5 11.0 14.2 14.0 13.6 13.3 14.1 22.0 19.2 17.1 22.3 19.9 18.6 23.5 12.9 18.0 17.6 9.8 15.1 18.1 15.2 16.5 19.0 12.7 19.3 20.4 17.7 15.2 19.0 16.1 19.3 11.0 21.1 PE(LL) (14) 29 34 30 23 11 34 32 31 33 24 26 45 11 28 23 19 21 14 7 38 12 25 38 16 19 15 17 30 25 20 26 22 9 18 16 2 18 18 29 16 18 15 17 34 18 10 20 35 16 36 35 54 9 PE(PL) (15) 3074 3187 2210 1468 1937 1409 1909 1962 2092 2777 2075 2468 2774 2034 3138 1818 1957 2574 2123 1745 3751 2848 1139 2276 1145 2296 2938 1934 1675 1559 1511 1320 1661 2190 596 1778 912 1491 2111 1818 2101 1954 2198 1819 2198 1403 1796 2232 2502 1650 2120 2512 1883 PE(SL) (16) 18791 16842 23597 6877 5012 10598 12727 8404 9223 6592 13804 12542 13439 4401 9219 15757 4955 7429 15316 11412 11363 3684 9482 6585 7249 17743 15896 21246 16756 15561 23544 16087 21630 14518 14341 8754 1427 5858 14279 9191 12859 25049 15696 9228 7841 8527 14481 12303 17913 10083 10316 13266 8883

- 2083 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 61.4 62.8 54.4 68.0 64.1 61.9 65.1 52.6 60.7 60.2 62.2 61.7 52.6 53.0 56.7 58.0 54.7 55.2 57.0 53.0 56.3 55.4 59.5 65.1 67.6 63.8 61.6 67.7 60.5 64.6 63.4 78.0
100.2

2084
34.7 30.5 31.6 29.8 37.4 28.8 32.0 30.5 29.7 34.3 36.1 29.2 33.8 33.1 31.3 26.9 30.0 30.6 29.7 27.4 29.9 29.6 35.6 31.0 31.2 30.7 33.3 30.1 29.6 32.6 30.9 33.1 34.2 35.6 32.7 30.7 30.6 33.2 33.2 34.1 32.7 32.1 34.7 30.7 29.6 29.3 23.8 23.9 16.0 22.6 13.7 24.8 16.2 30.3 22.3 15.2 21.3 22.6 16.9 22.7 21.8 17.6 15.3 16.0 18.1 16.1 17.8 16.8 16.5 23.5 18.2 17.9 16.2 20.3 15.7 17.8 19.0 16.1 14.2 13.7 14.8 12.5 14.4 12.5 16.7 13.3 13.7 16.2 15.5 13.7 25.5 26.0 21.7 24.5 22.2 14.9 20.8 14.9 23.5 13.1 19.4 19.6 17.9 21.9 22.3 16.2 22.8 22.4 20.0 13.5 19.3 19.7 17.9 17.8 19.2 17.9 22.7 18.4 18.3 17.8 20.0 11.4 16.9 19.3 17.1 17.1 17.5 19.3 15.9 11.3 13.5 15.8 15.8 17.3 15.8 19.9 18.2 22.9 23.5 21.2 18.6 21.8 15.0 21.0 15.2 22.6 15.1 18.5 19.5 17.6 21.4 21.1 16.2 23.6 23.1 19.8 15.8 19.3 19.6 17.6 18.5 19.2 17.6 22.1 17.7 17.4 17.1 18.8 14.5 16.6 18.1 16.4 15.4 14.5 16.1 13.5 13.1 12.8 13.9 13.9 14.5 13.5 14.8 15.0 25.3 26.8 23.0 23.8 MH CH MH CH MH MH CH MH CH MH MH CH MH MH MH CH MH MH CH MH MH MH MH CH CH CH MH CH CH MH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH CH ML ML ML CL 5.60 4.88 5.67 4.91 5.53 4.79 5.34 5.51 5.27 5.58 5.45 5.07 5.89 5.87 5.52 4.89 5.50 5.53 5.27 5.44 5.49 5.28 5.58 5.26 5.23 5.19 5.33 4.62 5.14 5.27 5.10 4.95 4.82 4.97 4.71 4.52 4.58 4.76 4.76 4.83 4.71 4.79 4.87 6.71 7.43 6.20 6.37 14.6 18.6 13.1 17.9 16.2 18.4 15.4 13.7 15.0 14.6 16.3 16.3 12.6 12.5 13.9 16.6 13.6 13.6 15.0 13.1 13.6 14.9 15.1 15.6 15.9 16.0 16.0 21.0 15.9 16.2 16.8 19.6 23.6 21.7 25.2 25.6 26.9 23.2 23.2 23.0 25.1 28.0 23.0 8.7 7.0 10.0 8.1 25 32 33 13 38 27 13 47 17 28 43 19 52 43 27 25 30 30 29 25 22 36 44 12 10 16 30 25 22 19 21 9 4 3 7 6 10 5 5 6 8 3 18 48 37 49 45 1393 1880 1916 1549 1869 1133 2209 1423 1711 2002 1942 1617 1579 1803 1513 2236 1840 1719 1876 1421 1607 1615 1509 1914 2154 1585 1967 1330 1684 1741 1878 1737 2314 2312 2886 1999 2314 2147 1944 2413 2898 2541 2804 2098 906 2570 3804 9184 10466 8807 13952 9980 8120 2358 7625 18058 13216 11574 10794 12258 13366 17940 9296 21063 15817 15728 12057 17977 14880 10561 12397 12712 15049 11515 7454 10483 12507 13857 16808 17358 19408 16367 9068 13041 10969 15372 17153 11603 17236 18808 6011 5197 10715 2215

97.9 96.6 96.0 95.7 94.0 94.4 93.9 95.0 89.3 83.2 43.8 41.0 45.1 38.2

62.8 66.6 57.2 64.6 68.5 64.2 62.2 57.7 59.5 62.5 67.6 61.4 57.8 57.1 58.6 59.6 57.1 57.5 59.5 54.2 57.0 59.3 64.6 61.8 62.5 62.2 64.5 69.7 61.0 64.3 63.8 71.5 83.0 79.6 85.9 82.4 88.2 80.2 80.2 81.2 85.6 97.7 82.1 47.1 42.9 49.0 41.1

61.4 69.0 55.4 66.6 67.8 67.0 61.7 56.3 59.1 61.2 67.2 62.1 55.5 54.8 57.3 61.1 55.7 56.0 59.1 52.8 55.6 58.8 63.5 61.6 62.5 62.4 64.2 74.7 61.3 64.3 64.6 74.1 88.4 83.2 92.8 90.8 97.0 85.7 85.7 86.1 92.4
105.8

86.8 43.8 40.1 46.0 37.8

35.9 29.9 31.3 30.8 36.6 32.0 30.7 32.3 30.5 33.2 35.3 30.3 33.9 32.7 32.5 25.6 30.4 31.2 29.9 30.0 31.0 30.8 36.3 30.8 30.2 31.8 32.6 31.4 30.4 32.9 30.7 33.5 34.4 34.9 31.4 31.3 32.6 33.2 34.2 33.2 31.3 31.4 32.7 29.5 31.3 27.9 22.6

33.6 29.4 31.0 28.8 36.1 27.4 31.4 30.3 29.5 33.3 35.0 28.8 32.6 32.1 30.8 26.4 29.9 30.3 29.5 28.0 29.8 29.5 34.4 30.6 30.7 30.2 32.5 27.7 29.2 31.9 30.2 32.3 35.8 36.2 35.5 31.2 34.4 33.8 33.8 35.2 35.4 41.7 36.1 29.7 28.9 29.0 24.9

The next step after determining the extrusion pressures corresponding to consistency limits involves setting up the specific extrusion values corresponding to LL, PL, and SL. Histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to liquid limits determined using the Casagrande method (Figure 4) reveals that the majority of extrusion pressures matching liquid limits falls in a range from 10-30 kPa. The arithmetical average of extrusion pressure in this interval is exactly 20 kPa. Histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to plastic limits (Figure 5) determined using the rolling device shows that most of the extrusion pressures in this category fall in range from 15002500 kPa. The average for this interval is computed as 1931 kPa and, because the ordinate of the - 2084 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2085

extrusion pressure versus water content diagram is logarithmic, it is rounded to 2000 for practical purposes. Concerning the histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to shrinkage limits (Figure 6) that were determined using the mercury method, the results fall in a wider range, from 5000-20000 kPa. The average for this interval is computed as 12293 kPa and is rounded to 12000 kPa. Following those observations, the representative extrusion pressures for LL, PL, and SL are fixed as 20, 2000, and 12000 kPa, respectively.

Figure 4: Histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to liquid limit.

Figure 5: Histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to plastic limit.

Figure 6: Histogram of extrusion pressures corresponding to shrinkage limit.

To back calculate the consistency limits from the representative extrusion pressures, the following procedure is employed. The y-intercept, the slope, and the extrusion pressure of 20 kPa for each soil sample are used to determine the liquid limit, and the computed liquid limits are obtained for 100 soil samples. The results are tabulated under column 3 in Table 1. Likewise, the computed plastic limits using the linear equation coefficients of each soil sample, along with the extrusion pressure of 2000 kPa, are obtained and presented in column 6. Finally, the extrusion pressure of 12000 kPa, along with the coefficients of a and b, are included in computations and the resulting predicted shrinkage limits are listed in column 9 of Table 1. Amounts of error involved in back calculation of liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limit using the respective extrusion pressures of 20kPa, 2000 kPa, and 12000 kPa in the form of certain ranges are presented in Table 2, which helps us make the following comments: 58 percent of the liquid limits are predicted with 5 percent error. Ninety percent of all computed liquid limits remain within 10 percent error. The degree of deviations of the computed plastic limits using the extrusion pressure of 2000 kPa along with the coefficients of a and b from those obtained through - 2085 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2086

the bead rolling method is rather significant. Only 38 percent of plastic limits were estimated with 10 percent error. The deviations of computed shrinkage limits from those observed experimentally is also significantly high. This observation puts forward that while liquid limits were predicted in a good success using the constant extrusion pressure of 20 kPa along with the reverse extrusion test coefficients, the same success can not be accomplished for PL and SL using the constant extrusion pressures of 2000 kPa and 12000 kPa, respectively.

Table 2: Distribution of errors for LL, PL and SL from the use of the constant extrusion pressures determined through the reverse extrusion method. Liquid Limit Range % 0-5 58 5-10 32 10-15 7 15-20 2 20-25 1 Plastic Limit Range % 0-10 38 10-20 42 20-30 15 30-40 4 >40 1 Shrinkage Limit Range % 0-15 30 15-30 31 30-45 21 45-60 12 >60 4

Another attempt was made to predict the three consistency limits statistically. This time, the y-intercept (the a coefficient) and the inverse slope (1/b) of extrusion pressure versus water content per soil sample, along with liquid limit data from the Casagrande method, were subjected to multiple regression analyses and the following empirical form with the regression coefficient (R2) of 0.89 was drawn: LL = 1.051 (1.227a) b1.09 (1)

Inclusion of the coefficients of a and 1/b, along with the plastic limit data from the rolling bead method, yield the following relationship (R2=0.76): PL = 185.5 + 3957/a 26891/a2 + 53143/a3 + 6.7b 0.1367b2 (2)

Concerning the determination of shrinkage limit statistically, collective use of the reverse extrusion constants and shrinkage limit data from the mercury method in a multiple regression analysis produced the following form (R2=0.62): SL = 982 7882/a 5725/b + 15946/a2 + 8764/b2 + 23714/(ab) (3)

The results obtained from back calculations to predict the liquid limit, plastic limit, and shrinkage limits using the empirical relationships given in Eqn.s (1), (2), and (3) are presented in columns 4, 7, and 10, respectively, in Table 1. The computed LL, PL, and SL values versus the experimentally determined LL, PL, and SL values were plotted in Figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Table 3 includes percent deviations of the predicted values from the experimentally determined values for LL, PL, and SL, which reveals that the statistical assessment of consistency limit data, along with the reverse extrusion constants, resulted in much better predictions. For instance, 64 percent of liquid limits were predicted with 95 percent accuracy and 90 percent of liquid limits were done so with 90 percent accuracy. This is a remarkably good success. Seventy two percent of plastic limits, which may yield highly variable results even if a single operator performs repetitive tests on the same soil sample, can be predicted with a 95 percent degree of accuracy. Even better than the case for LL, 93 percent of predicted plastic limits were within 90 percent accuracy. Surprisingly, the level of improvement is also higher for the predicted shrinkage limits using the statistical method. Sixty nine percent of shrinkage limits were predicted with a 90 percent degree of accuracy. The fact that 90 percent of shrinkage limits can be predicted - 2086 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2087

with a 80 percent degree of accuracy using the statistical method is highly encouraging for the reverse extrusion method to be used in predicting shrinkage limit.

Figure 7: Comparison between the liquid limits determined using the empirical relationship and the liquid limits from Casagrande method.

Figure 8: Comparison between the plastic limits determined using the empirical relationship and the plastic limits from rolling device method.

Figure 9: Comparison between the shrinkage limits determined using the empirical relationship and the shrinkage limits from mercury method.

Table 3: Distribution of errors for LL, PL and SL from the use of empirical relationships. Liquid Limit Range % 0-5 64 5-10 26 10-15 7 15-20 2 20-25 1 Plastic Limit Range % 0-5 72 5-10 21 10-15 6 15-20 1 Shrinkage Limit Range % 0-10 69 10-20 21 20-30 5 30-40 4 >40 1

Note that some degree of inconsistency exists between the representative extrusion pressures for liquid limit and plastic limit cited by previous studies [e.g., 30 kPa and 2250 kPa in Kayabali and Tufenkci (2007) and 35 kPa and 3000 kPa in Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a)] and this investigation. One further step was taken to examine the likely reason behind this inconsistency. The extrusion pressures corresponding to each LL, PL, and SL show a normal distribution around a mean value. Emphasis should be placed on the fact that if the extrusion pressure (say 20 kPa for LL) is unique for a consistency limit, there should not be any scatter around that specific value. - 2087 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2088

To examine this further, a plot of the extrusion pressure versus liquid limit was constructed, as shown in Figure 10. Interestingly, the extrusion pressures corresponding to liquid limit increases as the liquid limit decreases. This can be attributed to the increasing internal frictional forces due to the increasing granular component as the plasticity decreases. Figure 11 has a similar pattern to Figure 10. That is, the extrusion pressures corresponding to plastic limit somewhat increases as plastic limit decreases. Figure 12 displays a similar comparison for shrinkage limits. This fact compels that some degree of corrections should be carried out to take into consideration the variability of extrusion pressure for LL, PL and SL. This point deserves further investigation and will not be addressed here. It is very likely that such a correction procedure will highly improve the quality of predictions of consistency limits using the reverse extrusion method.

Figure 10: Relationship between extrusion pressures corresponding to liquid limits and liquid limits as determined from Casagrande method.

Figure 11: Relationship between extrusion pressures corresponding to plastic limits and plastic limits as determined from rolling device method.

Figure 12: Relationship between extrusion pressures corresponding to shrinkage limits and shrinkage limits as determined from mercury method.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on more than 4000 tests of consistency limits and reverse extrusion, the present analysis allows drawing of the following conclusions: Liquid limit and plastic limit are both critical water contents corresponding to undrained shear strengths and are determined using techniques which do not measure it. In addition, a number of uncertainties are involved in conventional tests to determine those Atterberg limits. Presumably, reverse extrusion test measures the undrained shear strength and provides operator- 2088 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2089

free results. A large body of data was constituted for LL, PL, SL, and RXT using 100 soil samples. Each kind of test was carried by single person to avoid possible effects introduced by an operator. The first stage of evaluations included determination of specific values of extrusion pressures corresponding to LL, PL, and SL, which were found to be 20 kPa, 2000 kPa, and 12000 kPa, respectively. Back calculations of LL, PL, and SL using the respective extrusion pressures of 20, 2000, and 12000 kPa along with the reverse extrusion coefficients of each soil sample provided a significant agreement with LLs determined using the Casagrande cup method. Nevertheless, the same success can not be achieved for PL. It was not as good for SL either. It is concluded that extrusion pressures corresponding to Atterberg limits are not unique and the use of fixed values of extrusion pressures to determine LL and PL as were done by Kayabali and Tufenkci (2007) and Kayabali and Tufenkci (2010a) may lead to inaccurate results. The second stage of evaluations involved running a multi-regression analysis to establish empirical relationships between the reverse extrusion coefficients and Atterberg limits. Evaluation of those empirical relationships revealed that liquid limit and plastic limit of about 90 percent of 100 soil samples can be predicted within 10 percent error using the reverse extrusion test. Considering the variations inherent with each of the two Atterberg limit test methods, the results of reverse extrusion tests appear to be highly reliable. The shrinkage limit of approximately 90 percent of 100 soil samples was predicted within 20 percent error, which deserves attention regarding the use of reverse extrusion tests to predict the shrinkage limit as well. It turned out that empirical relationships predicted consistency limits much better than did the representative extrusion pressures corresponding to LL, PL, and SL. It appears that the extrusion pressures corresponding to LL, PL, and SL are all affected by soil plasticity. A further investigation considering the variation of extrusion pressure with respect to plasticity is suggested; such a procedure may significantly improve the quality of prediction of consistency limits by introducing a correction procedure for the reverse extrusion method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by Grant No. 09B4343015 from Ankara University.

REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing Materials, 1998, Standard test method for shrinkage factors of soils by the mercury method: ASTM D427-98, West Conshohocken, PA. 2. American Society for Testing Materials, 2000a. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils: ASTM D4318-00, West Conshohocken, PA. 3. American Society for Testing Materials, 2000b. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System): ASTM D2487-00, West Conshohocken, PA. 4. Cerato, A. B. and Lutenegger, A. J., 2006, Shrinkage of clays: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Phoenix, AZ, April 2-6. GSP No. 147. 1: 1097-1108. 5. Feng, T-W., 2004, Using a small ring and a fall-cone to determine the plastic limit: Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 130(6), 630-635. 6. Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D. 1981, An introduction to geotechnical engineering: Prentice Hall, NJ.

- 2089 -

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. N

2090

7. Kayabali, K. and Tufenkci, O. O., 2007, A different perspectve for the determination of soil consistence limits: International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering, Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics for Human Security and Environmental Preservation, Bangkok, Thailand, 423-432. 8. Kayabali K. and Tufenkci, O. O., 2010a, Determination of plastic and liquid limits using the reverse extrusion technique: Geotechnical Testing Journal 33(1), 14-22. 9. Kayabali, K. and Tufenkci, O. O., 2010b, Undrained shear strength of remolded soils at consistency limits: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47(3), 259-266. 10. Lee, L. T. and Freeman, R. B., 2007, An alternative test method for assessing consistency limits: Geotechnical Testing Journal, 30(4), 1-8. 11. Prakash, K., 2005, Discussion of Plastic limit, liquid limit, and undrained shear strength of soil Reappraisal by Binu Sharma and Padma K. Bora: J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131, 402. 12. Prakash, K. and Sridharan, A., 2006. Critical appraisal of the cone penetration method of determining soil plasticity. Can. Geotech. J., 43, 884-888. 13. Timar, A., 1974, Testing the plastic properties of cohesive and intermediate-type soils by extrusion: Acta Tech. Ac. Sci. Hungary, 76 (3-4), 355-370. 14. Whyte, I. L., 1982, Soil plasticity and strength a new approach for using extrusion: Ground Engineering, 15(1), 16-24. 15. Wroth, C. P. and Wood, D. M., 1978, The correlation of index properties with some basic engineering properties of soils: Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15(2), 137-145.

2012 ejge \

- 2090 -