NorEs

29'7

THE CASAGRANDE METHOD VERSUS THE DROP-CONE

PENETROMETER METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF LIQUID

LIMIT
A comparison of the drop-cone
mining the liquid limit of soils

penetrometer and Casagrande methods for detershowed that the former method is simpler, faster
and provides more precise results.

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 2.85.160.213 on 12/03/15

For personal use only.

Key words: Casagrande, drop-cone penetrometer, liquid limit, soil survey

[comparaison entre les m6thodes de casagrande et du p6n6trombtre d c6ne dans
la dtermination de la limite de liquiditd.l
Titre abr6g6: D6termination de la limite de liquidit6.
La comparaison entre les m6thodes du p6ntromdtre i c6ne et de casagrande pour
d6terminer la limite de liquidit6 de certains sols a r6v6l6 que la premidre m6thode
est plus simple, plus rapide et plus pr6cise.

Mots cl6s: Casagrande, p6n6tromEtre d c6ne, limite de liquidit6, prospection

p6dologique

The liquid limit of soil samples is measured periodically in soil survey laboratories in Canada using the Casagrande
method, ASTM 423-66 (McKeague t9't8).
The Casagrande method has many shortcomings such as difficulty of cutting an
ideal groove, the necessity to estimate the
amount of groove closure, slow speed of
operation (Sowers et al. 1960; Hanks

1981). A newer method using a drop-cone

penetrometer is the standard method in soil
mechanics laboratories in Great Britain
(BS 1377, 1975). The drop-cone penetro-

meter yields liquid limit results comparable

to those obtained by the Casagrande
method but with less variability due to op-

erator technique according to Sherwood

and Ryley (1968). The drop-cone penetrometer has not been tested in Canadian soil
survey laboratories though the requirements for measurement of "engineering"
properties of soils is increasing.
The purpose of this work was to compare

the suitability of the drop-cone penetrometer and the Casagrande methods in a soil
survey laboratory where liquid limit deter-

mination would be required periodically.

Simplicity of operation, speed and precision of analysis were considered to be imCan. J. Soil Sci. 642 297-3O0 (May 1984)

portant attributes of a suitable method.

The test samples were four C horizon
materials with texture ranging from loam
to heavy clay; the bulk samples were airdried and sieved to less than 425 pm. The
samples were prepared for testing following the procedure in ASTM 423-66 (1979).
Analysis time (r) was based on predetermined starting and finishing points common to each method. Standard methods BS
1377; 1915 (drop-cone penetrometer) and
ASTM 423-66 (19'19) (Casagrande) were
tested as follows: (i) an operator (A) with
similar experience in using the two methods determined the liquid limit of each soil
material l0 times by each method; (ii) two
operators (C and D) experienced in using
the Casagrande method analyzed each of
the four materials in duplicate by that
method; (iii) an inexperienced operator (B)
analyzed each of the four materials in duplicate using the drop-cone penetrometer
method.
Operator A obtained more precise results
in less time with the drop-cone penetrometer than with the Casagrande method
(Table 1). Mean values by the two methods
were similar for all samples but those by

the

Casagrande method

hieher.

were slightly

298

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

+^
ac
l-

a<

6n:k)dN\O*
N*c)cr,6cOOOAa
k)nn$+\tnnvv

'o:
5
J

oo
dd
il tl
l-E

FS

Oco$rc)-\OS-d
hb-NNNO.O-O
nrjnonhn\tn$
--iA-4;A;dd

nq
OO
il Il

1r<

o
tr

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 2.85.160.213 on 12/03/15

For personal use only.

ook).thnoo6s ^^---NNN\

tr
*N

Iltl

.tr

gg

6G6'AGF6o.qq
h$6-NN\iNN

llll

z
o

r*\oo,rrhN\o
boari6o\;oddo\-
66-ioiroocooo
: : -i,-t ,-t ; -i -i -i -i

!>

E
d

$.o
o-

aoo\o-6\tl!@r$
6,haoaoroo@6o
o\i-+oohoor{'
;:;
-i A; A -i

Ao
ll
rr
ll

-;

o\n
an
do
il tl
l-

F<

6
d

U
!

oonoo"aroon

ss=s::=:J==

o
N

rE

^^-^^no-o1.9!1Yly?
$h6doNNdN-

=r
llrl

r'=
.tr
Ee
JN
lltl

z
6

Qr\ON\OOr\O
d@nr(b6rrr

+++++S+b+n

E:
5v
6

r
rN
$c
A;

o\o$90)r\oro-q'\oac

ue
il

n!n\nnnnnn

tl

6d

nv?

-:

iltl
l-q
X6

+^

n6'b'60'6oobr6o
*Nr*-N*\;d

hhO6-@k)C)r
6hdNod\N-N

llll
iR

Ko

gado

illl

o>_
oc ll
E E*a

.gN

z
U)

E:

@F

r; E
lo.

d
J

nno$-o\ohrr
a i1
:-r6olNNN-N\^Joooo--o+rovev

olo
n?
iltl

nOi

N+O<.\fk)@dO
SOOo*\nNNOO
6oO-Ohe)OOm
<oooc;cjdddcjd

l-

oo
dc;
ilil

o<

'-!q

oE6
ol6
": H.O
EOE
o-o
oEa A.-: x-

Jtre
go 6
eJ

o0

oc

.9

b-e

\a
:do$hrO\O

Q
iido+n\OrO\O

Fo0<

WIRES

LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION

f^

299

o
ON

;-c

.:

,o

!-

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 2.85.160.213 on 12/03/15

For personal use only.

-an

l-

dc; ltt

e->

tr

,n

a+ lDj
6n lil
la
l;

Nnn

ocj

la

.-

13
i-i
lrr

hh

ltt

dd

lr

6n
Od

i-F

,o

v
n

lr

rr
N*

o
d

o
o
o

NF
@@
-J

,N
t@
lo
1A
l-

nO
@6
o6

dd lil
li

cjd

ss

66

,
t@
lt:

IY
l^

N@

nn t-

lrr

li

rl

o
F=

F-

4
@c)
@

*+
dcj

E
J

J
l*
t:

lltt
tl

oO

-6
n+
do

IO
ln
t^'

v?!

ltt
ri

'q{
l"?
l^

t;
I

'1

!o

'J
N

no
oo

hn
o-

h
di

i
.:

.h
lN

i+N
:o:-i;

lllrt

::si

'l-*

s^^

1>

i--

t-

t"

l-

O6l
oo
^':

l-i

t-

1,,

;-i

t"

-i

tql
lol
lil
,al

6
o

'i*

!\\

Yooq

i"3;

L,:
lSQQ

aa

::e
FFS
!$G
s^\s
\)-N
LL

ll

\)-N

O *N

300

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

An inexperienced operator (B) using the

drop-cone penetrometer reported liquid
limit values similar to those of operator A
but required more than double the time to
complete the measurement (Table 2). Ex-

perienced operator

C, using the Casa-

Can. J. Soil. Sci. Downloaded from pubs.aic.ca by 2.85.160.213 on 12/03/15

For personal use only.

grande method, obtained liquid limit values similar to those of operator A, but the
liquid limit values of operator D (also ex-

perienced) were higher than those of operator C (Table 2).

Overall, the data show that similar liquid
limit values are obtained by the two methods, a narrower range in the drop-cone penetrometer data, as compared to the Cas-

agrande data. indicates more precision

with this method. In addition, as shown in
Table 1, an experienced operator can determine liquid limit by the drop-cone penetrometer method in approximately 6OVo
of the time required using the Casagrande

method. The drop-cone penetrometer

method is recommended for the determination of liquid limit in soil survey laboratories in Canada.

Technical assistance provided by B. K. Hohner,

A. M. Pushman and E. Vendette of the Land
Resource Research Institute, Agriculture
Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

ASTM D 423-66. 1979. Standard test method

for liouid limit of soil. Annual Book of ASTM
Standirds, Philadelphia, Pa.

BS 1377. 1975. Methods of test for soils for

civil engineering purposes (Test 2a and 2c).
British Standards Institute, London, U.K.
HANKS, A. J. 1981. Measurement of the liquid
limit of soils using the cone penetration method.

Ont. Ministry of Transportation and Commu-

nication, Engineering Materials Office, Soils

and Aggregates Section, Toronto, Ont.

McKEAGUE. A. J. (ed.) 1978. Manual on soil

sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian
Society of Soil Science, Ottawa, Ont. 212 pp.
SHERWOOD. P. T. and RYLEY, M. D. 1968.

An examination of

cone-penetrometer method

for determining the liquid limit of soils.

Road

Research Laboratory Report LR233.

G. G., VESIX, A. and GRANDOLFI, M. 1960. Penetration test for liquid

limit, ASTM Special Publication No. 254, PhilSOWERS,

adelphia, Pa. pp. 216-226.

K. C. WIRES
Land Resource Research Institute, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0C6. Contribution
no. 82-67 , received 26 July 1983 , accepted
20 Jan. 1984.