See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250074235

Plastic limit and compaction characteristics of

finegrained soils

Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Ground Improvement · January 2005
DOI: 10.1680/grim.2005.9.1.17

CITATIONS READS

26 4,725

2 authors:

A. Sridharan Nagaraj Honne

Indian Institute of Science BMS College of Engineering
256 PUBLICATIONS 3,936 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 364 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Some innovations in rammed earth construction View project

Acid Rain Intrusion Effects on Slope Failure Phenomena and Mechanisms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nagaraj Honne on 16 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ground Improvement (2005) 9, No. 1, 17–22 17

Plastic limit and compaction characteristics of fine-

grained soils
A. SRIDHARAN* and H. B. NAGARAJ†
*Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India;
†
BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore, India

Laboratory determination of the compaction characteristics La détermination en laboratoire des caractéristiques de

of soils is important for use in earthwork constructions.
The purpose of compacting earth fills such as earth dams
and embankments (highway, railway and canal) is to
produce a soil mass that will satisfy the two basic criteria:
reduction in settlement and increase in shear strength. For
preliminary design and assessment, correlations with the
liquid limit have been attempted by various investigators.
However, from the present study it is seen that the
correlations are not up to a satisfactory level. In this paper
the results of detailed investigations carried out are
examined to find which of the index properties correlate
well with the compaction characteristics. In the analysis,
apart from the authors’ experimental results, results from
the available literature have also been considered. It is
found that the plastic limit bears a good correlation with
the compaction characteristics, namely optimum moisture
content and maximum dry unit weight, much better than
liquid limit or plasticity index.
Keywords : clays; compaction; earth fills; embank-
ments; ground improvement; laboratory tests
compaction des sols est importante pour les constructions
à terrassement. Les remblais de terre compactée comme les
levées de terre et les talus (autoroutes, voies ferrées et
canaux) ont pour but de produire une masse de sol qui
satisfera deux critères de base : la réduction du tassement
et l’amélioration de la résistance au cisaillement. Pour la
conception préliminaire et l’évaluation, divers chercheurs
ont tenté d’établir des corrélations avec la limite liquide.
Cependant, cette étude montre que les corrélations ne sont
pas d’un niveau satisfaisant. Dans cet exposé, nous
examinons les résultats de ces recherches détaillées afin de
trouver celles des propriétés indice qui correspondent le
mieux aux caractéristiques de compaction. Dans cette
analyse, outre les résultats expérimentaux obtenus par les
auteurs, les résultats disponibles publiés ont également
été pris en compte. Nous avons trouvé que la limite
plastique montre une bonne corrélation avec les caractéris-
tiques de compaction, nommément la teneur en eau
optimum et le poids unitaire sec maximum, bien mieux
qu’avec l’indice de limite liquide ou l’indice de plasticité.

Notation Introduction
e void ratio Soil compaction is the process whereby soil particles are
GS specific gravity of soils constrained to pack more closely together through a reduction
IP plasticity index in the air voids, and generally through mechanical means. The
IS shrinkage index ¼ wL
wS
purpose of compacting earth fills such as earth dams and
OMC optimum moisture content
embankments (highway, railway and canal) is to produce a
Sr degree of saturation
w water content
soil mass that will satisfy the two basic criteria: reduction in
wL liquid limit settlement, and increase in shear strength. Many other en-
wP plastic limit gineering structures constructed on soils, such as highways,
wS shrinkage limit railway subgrade and airfield pavements, also require com-
ªd dry unit weight of soils paction. Compaction increases the strength characteristics of
ªd max maximum dry unit weight of soils soils, which in turn increases the bearing capacity of founda-
ªw unit weight of water tions constructed over them. It also decreases the amount of
(ªd )P dry unit weight at plastic limit water content undesirable settlement of structures and increases the stability
of slopes of embankments. Compaction plays a vital role in the
preparation of a good compacted soil liner in waste impound-
ment sites to make them relatively impervious to leachates
and thereby reduce the threat of groundwater pollution. Thus
compaction is used as a practical means of achieving the
desired strength and compressibility and also hydraulic
conductivity characteristics of the soils used.
(GI 3173) Paper received 17 February 2003; last revised 22 March The compaction characteristics of a soil as obtained from
2004; accepted 21 April 2004 a laboratory compaction test are maximum dry unit weight

1365-781X # 2005 Thomas Telford Ltd

Sridharan and Nagaraj

(ªd max ) and optimum moisture content (OMC). In the

content: %
construction of many earth structures, such as embank-

Optimum
moisture

16.2

24.0
31.4
21.2

29.0
35.1
28.0

39.7
44.4
31.2
ments, it is essential to assess the suitability of a soil with
respect to the compaction characteristics. Also, such pro-
jects require large quantities of soil, and it may be difficult
to obtain the desired type of soil from one borrow area
alone. To obtain the compaction characteristics from

Maximum dry

ªd max : kN/m3
unit weight,
laboratory compaction requires considerable time and

17.9

15.2
13.3
16.0

14.1
12.9
14.2

12.2
11.1
13.5
effort. So, for a preliminary assessment of the suitability of
soils required for the project, it is preferable to use the
correlation of engineering properties with simple index
tests.

Kaolinite, montmorillonite,

Kaolinite, montmorillonite,
Attempts have been made in the past to correlate the

Montmorillonite, kaolinite,

Montmorillonite, quartz
compaction characteristics with the liquid limit. However,

Illite, kaolinite, quartz

such correlations appear to be less than satisfactory. In this

muscovite, quartz

muscovite, quartz

muscovite, quartz
paper, based both on detailed experimental investigations

Kaolinite, quartz

Kaolinite, quartz

Kaolinite, quartz
and on an analysis of the published data on fine-grained

Illite, quartz
Mineralogy
soils, a study has been made to discover which of the index
properties correlate well with the compaction character-

Illite
istics.

Clay: %
26.0

5.0
9.5
35.0

32.0
17.5
38.0

11.5
27.5
51.5
Grain size distribution
Correlation of compaction
characteristics with index properties:

Silt: %
38.5

58.5
74.5
57.0

67.0
64.5
42.5

88.5
71.6
35.5
state of the art
Although the compaction characteristics are very impor-
tant for field considerations, few attempts have been made
Sand: %
35.5

36.5
16.0
8.0

1.0
18.0
19.5

0.0
0.9
13.0
in the past to predict them. An early attempt to predict
the compaction characteristics was made by Johnson and
Sallberg (1962). They developed a chart to determine the
approximate optimum moisture content of a soil using the
IS : %

standard compaction test. The chart is a plot of plastic

22.3

11.6
9.0
32.5

21.9
35.4
45.0

12.3
34.4
61.6
GS , specific gravity; wL , liquid limit; wP , plastic limit; wS , shrinkage limit; IP , plasticity index; IS , shrinkage index.
limit against liquid limit. Different zones of optimum
moisture content were indicated by means of numerous
curves. This is a useful chart in predicting only the
IP : %
19.0

9.5
12.4
26.7

23.6
18.3
26.4

13.5
21.5
37.9
optimum moisture content of the soil from its liquid limit
and plastic limit.
Recently Pandian et al. (1997) have proposed a method to
predict the compaction characteristics in terms of the liquid
wS : %
14.7

27.4

15.5

33.1
21.0
13.5

46.4
39.0
11.9

limit. They proposed the following two equations to assess

39

the compaction path on the dry side and wet side of

optimum.
wP : %
18.0

29.5
35.6
21.3

31.4
38.1
32.1

45.2
51.9
35.6

Dry side of optimum:

w
pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 9:46 þ 0:2575w L (1)
Sr
wL : %
37.0

39.0
48.0
48.0

55.0
56.4
58.5

58.7
73.4
73.5

Wet side of optimum:

w
¼ 10:61 þ 0:3615w L (2)
2.70

2.65
2.65
2.70

2.64
2.61
2.66

2.65
2.58
2.70
Gs

S2r
Cochin clay (oven dried)

where Sr is the degree of saturation, wL is the liquid limit in

Table 1. Index properties of soils used

percent, and w is the water content

Black cotton soil 1

Pandian et al. (1997) proposed a series of predicted

compaction curves for Proctor compaction effort. For differ-
Brown soil 1
Red earth 1

Red earth 2
Kaolinite 1

Kaolinite 2

Kaolinite 3

ent values of degree of saturation, in the range of 50% , Sr

Silty soil 1

Illitic soil
Soil type

, 85% on the dry side of optimum and 85% , Sr , 95% on

the wet side of optimum, the water content can be calculated
using equations (1) and (2) respectively. With the help of the
predicted set of compaction curves, the dry unit weight can
Soil no.

10
1

2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

be determined, and hence the dry unit weight–water

contents path.

18
 Plastic limit and compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils

Scope for improvement Results and discussion

Johnson and Sallberg (1962) developed a chart to predict
only the optimum moisture content, but did not suggest
any correlative chart or method to predict maximum dry
unit weight. Without knowing the maximum dry unit
weight the prediction of compaction characteristics is not
complete.
The method suggested by Pandian et al. (1997) predicts
the compaction characteristics in terms of liquid limit alone.
Using liquid limit alone in predicting engineering properties
has limitations, in that soils having the same liquid limit but
different plasticity characteristics will behave differently.
This investigation aims to clarify this aspect.
Figure 1 shows a typical plot of dry unit weight against
moisture content for a pair of soils having nearly the same
liquid limit, but with different plasticity characteristics. It
can be seen from the figure that, although the liquid limit is
nearly the same, the compaction curves are vastly different
(including the optimum moisture content and maximum dry
unit weight). Further, from Fig. 1 it can also be observed that
the soil with the higher plastic limit has a higher optimum
moisture content and a lower maximum dry unit weight
than the soil having a lower plastic limit, although the liquid
limit of both the soils is nearly the same. Similar behaviour
is observed for the other pairs of soils (Table 1). Hence
prediction of compaction characteristics from the liquid limit
alone is not justified.

Methodology 70 Symbol Source Data points

Present study 10
Materials McRae (1958) 18
Johnson and Sallberg (1960) 5
As soil type is important in studying the compaction 60
Foreman and Daniel (1986) 3
characteristics of soils, 10 soils including both natural soils Sridharan et al. (1990) 15
Optimum moisture content, OMC: %
and commercially available kaolinites were selected, cover- Benson and Trast (1995) 13

ing a wide range of liquid limits. The soils selected were in 50

pairs, with each pair having similar liquid limit values but OMC 5 0·37 (wL 1 12·46)
different plasticity properties. This was done to bring out r 5 0·80
the effect of plasticity characteristics on the compaction 40
characteristics of fine-grained soils. The physical properties
of the 10 soils are reported in Table 1.
The 10 soils were characterised for their physical proper- 30
ties—specific gravity, liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage
limit and grain size distribution—using standard procedures
as specified in BS 1377 Part 2 (BSI, 1990a). The test results 20

are reported in Table 1.

A mineralogical analysis of each soil was performed using
10
an X-ray diffractometer. The principal clay minerals present
in each soil type are given in Table 1.
20 40 60 80 100 120
The compaction test was done for the 10 soils using the
Liquid limit, wL: %
standard Proctor mould (BSI, 1990b). For each soil a mini-
(a)
mum of five trials were done with varying initial water
content to get the compaction curve.
Symbol Source Data points
Present study 10
McRae (1958) 18
19 Johnson and Sallberg (1960) 5
Symbol Soil no. wL: wP: ãd max: OMC: 20
Foreman and Daniel (1986) 3
% % kN/m3 % Sridharan et al. (1990) 15
Maximum dry unit weight, ãd max: kN/m3

Benson and Trast (1995) 13

18 4 48·0 21·3 16·0 21·2
3 48·0 35·6 13·3 31·4 ãd max 5 0·09 (218 2 wL)

17 r 5 0·80
Dry unit weight, ãd: kN/m3

ZAV line
G 5 2·70
15
16

15

ZAV line
14 G 5 2·65

10
13
0 50 100
Liquid limit, wL: %
12 (b)
15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture content: %
Fig. 2 (a) Optimum moisture content and (b) maximum dry unit weight
Fig. 1. Dry unit weight against moisture content for a set of two soils with against liquid limit for soils both from the present study and from the
liquid limit 48% (ZAV (zero air voids)) literature

19
Sridharan and Nagaraj

15·0
In order to check the validity of the above finding, Symbol Soil no. wL: wP: ãd max: OMC:
compaction data from the literature (McRae, 1958; Johnson % % kN/m3 %
and Sallberg, 1960; Foreman and Daniel, 1986; Sridharan et 5 55·0 31·4 14·1 29·0
al., 1990; Benson and Trast, 1995) were also plotted along
14·5 7 58·5 32·1 14·2 28·0
with the data from present study. Fig. 2(a) shows a plot of
optimum moisture content against the liquid limit from the

Dry unit weight, ãd: kN/m3

compaction data of the literature and the present study. It
can be seen from the figure that, although there is an 14·0
increasing trend of optimum moisture content with an
increase in the liquid limit, there is considerable scatter,
particularly at higher values of the liquid limit. Similarly
Fig. 2(b) shows a plot of maximum dry unit weight against 13·5
the liquid limit, which shows a decreasing trend with
increase in the liquid limit, but again with a lot of scatter.
Thus the compaction data from the literature also support
the present study that correlation of the compaction charac- 13·0
teristics with the liquid limit is not justified.
Figure 3 shows typical compaction curves for a pair of
soils having nearly the same plasticity index. It can be seen
12·5
that the compaction characteristics are vastly different. 15 20 25 30 35 40
Similar results for other pairs of soils can be observed from Moisture content: %
Table 1. An attempt has been made to correlate the optimum (a)
moisture content with the plasticity index, using data both
from the authors’ experimental results and from the litera- Symbol Soil no. wL: wP: ãd max: OMC:
14·0
ture. Poor correlation has been obtained. % % kN/m3 %
As the plastic limit is an important parameter, it was felt 10 73·5 35·6 13·5 33·2
that the compaction characteristics could be well correlated 3 48·0 35·6 13·3 31·4
with it. Figs 4(a) and 4(b) show plots of dry unit weight
against moisture content for two soil pairs having nearly the 13·5
Dry unit weight, ãd: kN/m3

same plastic limit. From the figures it is clear that the

compaction curves are very similar, and the compaction
characteristics (optimum moisture content and maximum
dry unit weight) are almost the same. Further, to verify this
13·0
observation, the compaction test results from the present
study were plotted relating dry unit weight and the
moisture content, as shown in Fig. 5. The plastic limit water
contents of the soils are marked on the respective compac-
tion curves. It can be seen that the compaction curves of the 12·5
10 soils are placed in the order of their plastic limits, and
that the optimum moisture content of each soil is slightly
less than the respective plastic limits. Figures 6(a) and 6(b)

12·0
20 25 30 35 40 45
17 Moisture content: %
Symbol Soil no. wL: IP : ãd max: OMC:
(b)
% % kN/m3 %
4 48·0 26·7 16·0 21·2 Fig. 4 Dry unit weight against moisture content for a set of two soils with
16 7 58·5 26·4 14·2 28·0 plastic limit approximately: (a) 32%; (b) 36%
Dry unit weight, ãd: kN/m3

show plots of the optimum moisture content against the

15
plastic limit and the maximum dry unit weight against the
plastic limit using data both from the present study and
from the literature. The correlation of the compaction charac-
teristics with the plastic limit is good. Correlation of the
14
optimum moisture content with the plastic limit, as obtained
from Fig. 6(a), is given by the following equation, with a
correlation coefficient of 0.99:
13 OMC ¼ 0:92w P (3)

One can suggest some reasons why OMC should correlate

well with the plastic limit. A close examination of the plastic
12 limit test procedure reveals that, when the water content is
15 20 25 30 35 40
Moisture content: % above the plastic limit, the rolled thread will not crumble,
even on reaching 3 mm diameter. When the water content is
Fig. 3. Dry unit weight against moisture content for a set of two soils with less than the plastic limit, the soil thread will crumble at a
plasticity index approximately 24% diameter more than 3 mm. This suggests that there is an

20
 Plastic limit and compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils

21 60 Symbol Source Data points

Soil no. Soil description wL: wP: (ãd)P:
% % kN/m3 Present study 10
McRae (1958) 18
20 1 Red earth-1 37·0 18·0 17·5
Johnson and Sallberg (1960) 5
2 Red earth-2 48·0 21·3 15·9 50 Foreman and Daniel (1986) 3
3 Silty soil-1 39·0 29·5 14·6 Sridharan et al. (1990) 15
19

Optimum moisture content, OMC: %

5 Kaolinite-2 55·0 31·4 13·8 Benson and Trast (1995) 13
8 Brown soil-1 58·5 32·1 13·6
40
10 BC soil-1 73·5 35·6 13·2
18 OMC 5 0·92 wP --- (3)
4 Kaolinite-1 48·0 35·6 12·8
Line of equality
6 Cochin clay 56·4 38·1 12·5
8 Kaolinite-3 58·7 45·2 11·2 r 5 0·99
17 30
Dry unit weight, ãd: kN/m3

9 Illitic soil 73·4 53·0 10·2

16 Plastic limit
Relationship between wP and ãd 20

15

ZAV line 10
14 G 5 2·70

13 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Plastic limit, wP: %
12 (a)

Symbol Source Data points

11
Present study 10
20
McRae (1958) 18
Johnson and Sallberg (1960) 5
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 Foreman and Daniel (1986) 3
Maximum dry unit weight, ãd max: kN/m3

Moisture content: % Sridharan et al. (1990) 15

18 Benson and Trast (1995) 13

Fig. 5. Dry unit weight against moisture content for all the soils used in the
ãd max 5 0·23 (93·33 2 wP) --- (4)
present study (dry density at plastic limit water content, (ªd )P ) (ZAV (zero
air voids)) 16 r 5 0·93

optimum water content at which the soil thread crumbles

when the diameter is 3 mm. Similarly, in the compaction 14
process, there is a water content (optimum water content) at
which the dry unit weight is maximum for any compactive
effort. Here that optimum water content is observed near to 12
the plastic limit.
Similarly, from Fig. 6(b), the equation for maximum dry
unit weight in terms of plastic limit is 10
ª d max ¼ 0:23(93:3
w P ) (4)
10 20 30 40 50 60
where ªdmax is the maximum dry unit weight in kN/m3 ,
Plastic limit, wP: %
and wP is the plastic limit in percent. (b)
If an assumption is made regarding the degree of
saturation at the optimum moisture content, which is found Fig. 6 (a) Optimum moisture content and (b) maximum dry unit weight
to be around 85% from the present study as well as from against plastic limit for soils both from the present study and from the
the data reported by Pandian et al. (1997), and about the literature
specific gravity of the soil (Gs ), then the maximum dry unit
weight (ªd max ) can be obtained from the following basic However, the plastic limit is shown to correlate well with
relations: the compaction characteristics, namely optimum moisture
Gs ªw wGs content and maximum dry unit weight. Data from the
ªd ¼ and e ¼ literature also support this correlation. Based on both the
1þe Sr
present study and data from the literature, the following
and can be stated as: correlation equations are proposed to predict the compaction
Gs ªw characteristics:
ªd max ¼ (5)
1 þ ð wGs = Sr Þ OMC ¼ 0:92w P (3)
ª d max ¼ 0:23(93:3
w P ) (4)

Conclusions
A compaction study with five different pairs of soils, with
References
each pair having nearly the same liquid limit, has shown Benson C. H. and Trast J. M. (1995) Hydraulic conductivity of
that the compaction characteristics do not correlate well with thirteen compacted clays. Clays and Clay Minerals, 43, No. 6,
either the liquid limit or the plasticity index of the soils. 669–681.

21
Sridharan and Nagaraj
BSI (1990a) British Standard Methods of Test for Engineering
Purposes: Classification Tests. British Standards Institution,
Milton Keynes, BS 1377: Part 2.
BSI (1990b) British Standard Methods of Test for Engineering
Purposes: Compaction-Related Tests. British Standards Institu-
tion, Milton Keynes, BS 1377: Part 4.
Foreman E. D. and Daniel D. E. (1986) Permeation of compacted
clay with organic chemicals. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineer-
ing Division, ASCE, 112, No. 7, 669–681.
Johnson A. W. and Sallberg J. R. (1960) Factors that influence field
compaction of soils (compaction characteristics of field equip-
ment). Highway Research Board Bulletin, No. 272, 14.
Johnson A. W. and Sallberg J. R. (1962) Factors influencing
compaction results. Highway Research Board Bulletin, No. 319,
125.
22
View publication stats
McRae J. L. (1958) Index of compaction characteristics. Symposium
on Application of Soil Testing in Highway Design and Construction,
ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 239, pp. 119–127.
Pandian N. S., Nagaraj T. S. and Manoj M. (1997) Re-examination
of compaction characteristics of fine-grained soils. Géotechnique,
47, No. 2, 363–366.
Sridharan A., Rao S. M. and Joshi S. (1990) Classification of
expansive soils by sediment volume method. Geotechnical Test-
ing Journal, 13, No. 4, 375–380.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the
editor by 1 July 2005