mekanika tanah atterberg limits laporan praktikum

BASIC SOIL MECHANICS PRACTICAL REPORT

MODULE 1

ATTERBERG LIMITS

GROUP PI 1

Asti Diar Syafitri 1206292414

Christopher Kevinly 1206223846

Wednesson Lawijaya 1206230593

Date of Practicum : 4th of March 2013

Laboratory Assistant : Rachma Yuliana

Date Approved :

Grade :

Assistant’s Signature :

Laboratory of Soil Mechanics

Department of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering

University of Indonesia

Depok

2013


A. Liquid Limit

A.1. Introduction

A.1.1. Objective

To determine the water content of the liquid limit of the soil sample.

A.1.2. Apparatus

Cassagrande device

Standard Grooving tool

Can

Spatula

Ceramics bowl

Soil sample (passing no. 40 ASTM sieve)

Pure water

Oven

Scale with an accuracy of 0.01 gram

Blower bottle

A.1.3. Theorem and Formula Which is Used

In terms of laboratory testing, liquid limit is defined as the water

content of which the soil sample which has been set in the cassagrande

device and grooved in its center by using standard grooving tool, then the

cassagrande device rolls in a rate of two knocks per second with a falling

height of 10mm, so at the 25th knock the scratch on soil sample will close

by 0.5 inch.

In the water content experiment, we will get the value of water

content in a specific condition. Besides, for the next experiments the soil

will be tested in three phases to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit and

the shrinkage limit of the soil sample, or can be expressed schematically

with the following model:

Liquid Plastic Semi Plastic Solid

Liquid limit Plastic limit Shrinkage limit

1 | A t t e r b e r g L i m i t s


In the diagram, the water content is higher in the left side and

lower in the right side. This liquid limit is determined by doing experiment

using the liquid limit device. This device was developed by Cassagrande

and the value of the liquid limit can be determined by the 25th knock

W =w1−w2

w2−w3

× 100 %

Where:

W = water content

W1 = weight of Wet soil sample + can

W2 = weight of Dry soil sample + can

W3 = weight of can

A.2. Practical Activity

A.2.1. Experiment Preparation

1. Prepare the soil which passed the sieve no.40 ASTM, air dried

2. Ensure the apparatus cleanness

3. Calibrate the scale which is used

4. Prepare the water blower bottle

5. Prepare and dry the can which is used

A.2.2. Experiment

1. Insert the soil sample into the bowl, then mix it with water and stir

with spatula until the sample is homogenous

2. Insert the soil sample into the cassagrande device layer by layer and try

to ensure that no air bubbles is trapped inside the sample in each layer.

The insertion is done by using spatula and the thickness of the sample

is 0.5 inch in the center.

3. Create a pit in the middle of the sample inside the cassagrande bowl

using the grooving tool. Ensure that the grooving tool is perpendicular

with the bowl. Do this carefully so that no cracking will happen in its

middle.



4. Run the cassagrande device with a constant frequency of 2 knocks per

second with a falling height of 1 cm. Do it until the soil pit closes with

a length of 0.5 inch. In that point, the cassagrande device is stopped

and the number of knocks is measured.

Figure 1.1: the closing of the soil pit.

5. Weight the can first, then take some soil sample from the cassagrande

device and inserts it into the can and weights it (can + soil). Than the

can and soil is put into the oven

6. Repeat all the steps above for five samples with the knocking between

10 to 50 knocks; this is done by adding water or soil sample itself.

7. After being heated for 18 hours in the oven, the sample is taken out

and reweighted

8. Determine the water content of each samples.

A.2.3. Comparison with ASTM

In ASTM, the knocking is between 25 to 35 knocks, but in this

experiment the knocking is between 10 to 50 knocks until the soil pit

closes by 0.5 inch.



A.3. Experiment Result

A.3.1. Experiment Data

Can No. 1 2 3 4 5

Wet soil + can weight 29.41 gr 39.05 gr 36.02 gr 32.50 gr 41.24 gr

Dry soil + can weight 20.70 gr 26.97 gr 24.84 gr 23.36 gr 28.09 gr

Can weight 8.04 gr 8.69 gr 8.06 gr 10 gr 8.81 gr

Dry soil weight 12.66 gr 18.28gr 16.78 gr 13.36 gr 19.28 grWater weight 8.71 gr 12.08 gr 11.18 gr 9.14 gr 13.15 gr

Water content (%) 68.7994 % 66.0832 % 66.6269 % 68.4132 % 68.2054 %

Average water content 67.6256 %

knockings 8 18 30 38 52

A.3.2. Calculation

Method 1:

Liquid limit can be determined by plotting the water content into a

logarithmic graph. A vertical graph at N= 25 is then plotted until it cut the

graph. Logarithmic regression between N (number of knocking) and W

(Water Content) need to be done.

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5564.5

6565.5

6666.5

6767.5

6868.5

6969.5

f(x) = − 0.120333793906304 ln(x) + 68.009706382189

Liquid Limit Graph

Number of Knocks

Wat

er C

onte

nt (%

)



From the graph above, the equation of the curve can be determined

as Y = -0.12 ln(X) + 68.01. so, for n = 25, the water content shall be:

Y= -0.12 ln(25) + 68.01 = 67.62%

Method 2:

By using formula:

¿=W n( N25 )

0.121

LL = Liquid Limit

Wn = Water content at nth knock

N = the number of knocking

Can no.

knocking Wn (%) LL (%)

1 8 68.7994

59.9387

2 18 66.0832

63.5079

3 30 66.6269

68.1131

4 38 68.4132

71.9686

5 52 68.2054

74.5254

LL (%) average 67.6108

Relative Error¿|¿ Method 1−¿ method2¿ Melthod1 |×100 %

¿|67.62−67.6167.61 |×100 %

= 0.015%



Flow Index Value (FI):

Flow index indicates the degree of shear strength loss during an

increase of water content

Y = -0.12ln(N)+68.01

At N = 10:

Y = -0.12ln(10)+68.01

Y= 67.73 %

At N = 100:

Y = -0.12ln(100)+68.01

Y= 67.46 %

So, the flow index can be determined by:

FI = WN=100 – WN = 10

FI = |67.46 – 67.73|%

FI = 0.27%

A.4. Analysis

A.4.1. Experimental Analysis

Liquid Limit experiment is aimed to determine the water content of

the liquid limit of the soil sample. In this experiment, the soil which is

used is the soil which has passed sieve no. 40 ASTM. This finely grained

soil is used because it is more easily stirred to gain homogeneity with

water compared to a more largely grained soil. The next apparatus is pure

water, which is used because its stabile specific gravity (1) because of its

lack of mineral contains. Spatula is used to stir the sample and insert it to

the cassagrande bowl, Can is used to vessel the soil sample while its being

stirred, cassagrande is used to knock the soil and the grooving tool is used

to groove the soil to create a pit where the soil closes.



The first step of the experiment is mixing a part of the soil sample

with water and mixes it to homogeneity. Homogeneity has to be archived

because only a very homogenous soil will exactly reflect the behavior of

the soil sample with the specified water content. After the soil has been

homogenous, it is inserted into the cassagrande bowl. There must be no air

content inside the soil sample in the bowl because the air will influence the

rate of closing of the soil sample. 2 knocks per second and 10 mm height

of fall have been determined by the ASTM, and 10 until 50 knocks are set

so a good logarithmic graph can be obtained.

After the soil has fulfilled a certain knocks, it is heated in the oven

in order to flush the water out, so no saturation condition can be archived

to measure how much the solid particles weighted. Note that the porcelain

bowl which is used as the soil’s vessel while in oven has to be weighted.

A.4.2. Result Analysis

In the liquid limit experiment, some data are gained such as: can

weight, wet soil + can weight, and the dry soil + can weight. In order to

process these data, there are 2 methods which are able to be used to

measure the water content at the liquid limit. Then the result from both

methods can be compared to gain the relative error of the experiment.

The first method is using liquid limit graphs, which uses the

logarithmic regression which the x axis represents number of blows and

the y axis represents water content in percent. After the data is plotted, the

line equation which is gained is Y = -0.12ln(10)+68.01. Note that the data

which is gained is a bit scattered due to errors during the experiment. In

order to get the value of liquid limit, the x is set to 25, so x = 25 is inserted

into the equation. This yields to a value of LL = 67.62%. The logarithmic

regression line which has been plotted shows that the number of blows

drops logarithmically in respect to the increase of water content.

The second method is done by using a certain formula

¿=W n( N25 )

0.121

in order to determine the liquid limit from each water



contents. From the calculation using the formula stated, the value of the

LL are scattered because of the low flow index. By averaging the data, the

liquid limit which is gained was LL = 67.61%

By comparing both results from two different methods, the relative

error which was gained was 0.015%, which indicates a low error. The LL

which was gained was LL = 67.615%, which indicates the soil is subject to

deformation and settlement because any soil which has LL > 50% has

highly compressible property, which means the soil requires less

compactive effort to compact. The calculation also reveals that the flow

index of this soil sample is 0.27%. Flow index indicates the degree of

shear strength loss during an increase of water content.

The soil which has a LL of 67.615% also indicates the mineral

content of the soil. According to the atterberg limit table:

Soil type LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)

Silt 30–40 20–25 10–15

Clay 40–150 25–50 15–100

Minerals

Kaolinite 50–60 30–40 10–25

Illite 95–120 50–60 50–70

Montmorillon

ite

290–710 50–100 200–660

Table 1.1. typical atterberg limits for soil (extracted from Soil Mechanics by Muni Budhu)

According to this table, the sample which is gained contains a large

amount of kaolite and a small amount of illite or montmorillonite.

According to the table, the type of this soil is clay. Kaolinite and illite is

usually contained in clay, which possess low supporting capability, large

amount of settlement and easy to be compacted.



A.4.3. Error Analysis

While doing the grooving, the grooving tool is not very perpendicular

with the bowl and the grooving path is not very straight

In some sample, the soil may not completely homogenous, which

influences the data gained.

The closing of the soil pit is not exactly 0.5 inches. The length of pit

closing is only estimated.

The thickness of the soil sample inside the cassagrande bowl may not

reach 0.5 inch, which may impair the experiment result.

A.5. Conclusion

The value of liquid limit is 67.62% through first method, and 67.61%

through second method

The flow index which is gained was 0.27%

The relative error which is gained was 0.015%

The soil which is tested is clay which contains mostly kaolinite and

illite.

The soil which is tested is highly compressible.



B. Plastic Limit

B.1. Introduction

B.1.1. Objective

To determine the water content of the plastic limit of the soil sample

B.1.2. Apparatus

Glass Plate

Container

Soil sample which passed sieve no. 40 ASTM

Spatula

Porcelain bowl

Pure water

Oven


B.1.3. Theorem and Formula Used

In terms of laboratory testing, plastic limit is defined as the water

content of when the soil sample is rolled on the glass plate until its

diameter is 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) and the soil is exactly having fine cracks. In

this experiment, Plasticity index can be determined where:

I p=¿−PL

The water content in the real situation is usually lies between the

plastic limit and the liquid limit. The formula which is used to determine

the water content is the same as used before:



W =w1−w2

w2−w3

× 100 %

Where:

W = water content

W1 = weight of Wet soil sample + container

W2 = weight of Dry soil sample + container

W3 = weight of container

B.2. Practical Activity

B.2.1. Experiment Preparation

1. Prepare the apparatus which are wanted to be used

2. Prepare the blower bottle and the pure water

3. Prepare the soil sample (Passing sieve no.40 ASTM)

4. Weight the containers

B.2.2. Experiment

1. Insert the soil sample into the porcelain bowl and then mix it with pure

water and then stir the sample with spatula until it is homogenous.

2. Take the soil sample little by little and roll it on the glass plate until its

diameter reaches 1/8 inch. If the water content is excessive, when the

diameter reaches 1/8 inch there will not be any cracks. So some other

soil sample needed to be added into the mixture. If the water content is

inadequate, the soil sample will crack before the diameter reaches 1/8

inch, so the experiment has to be repeated by adding more water, so

the soil sample cracks exactly when the diameter reaches 1/8 inch.



3. The soil samples which begin to crack when its diameter reaches 1/8

inches is then inserted into two different container which have been

weighted before. The minimum weight of the soil + container should

be 15 grams.

4. The containers have to be closed immediately in order to prevent water

content loss due to evaporation. The container which contains soil is

then weighted.

5. Insert the container without the caps into the oven for 18 hours.

6. After the soil samples have been heated inside the oven for

approximately 18 hours, the containers and the containing samples are

weighted in order to find out its water content. When calculating the

water content, do not forget to add the weight of the container’s cap so

the weight of the total container is the same as its before when the wet

soil sample was weighted.

B.2.3. Comparison with ASTM

During the experiment, the rolling time of the soil is not specifically

determined. While in ASTM, the rolling time must not exceed 2 minutes.

During the experiment, after the soil is rolled and cracks, so the soil is

inserted into the container. While in ASTM, the soil which has been rolled

will be crushed once more and rolled more, until the soil is difficult to be

rolled again.

B.3. Practical Result

B.3.1. Experiment Data and Calculation

Can No. 1 2Wet soil + can

weight26.19 34.3

Dry soil + can weight 20.81 28.86Can weight 9.4 14.85

Dry soil weight 11.41 14.01Water weight 5.38 5.44

Water content (%) 47.15% 38.83%Average water

content42.99%



Plasticity Index (Ip) = LL – PL

= 67.615% - 42.99%

= 24.625%

B.4.Practical Analysis

B.4.1. Experimental Analysis

Plastic Limit laboratory testing is an experiment which is aimed to

determine the water content of soil in its plastic limit. The soil which is

used is the fine graded soil particles which have passed through sieve no.

40 ASTM. Finely graded soil particle is used because it is easier to archive

homogeneity due to its large cross sectional area. The other apparatus

needed are pure water, which is used due to its neutrality and its lack of

any minerals which make the testing more accurate. Spatula for stirring the

sample to homogeneity can as its container and glass plate where the soil

is rolled. Glass is chosen because its smooth surface and glass is not

permeable, so the water content will not escape during the rolling process.

The first step which is done is to insert the soil sample with an

amount of pure water inside the can, then mix it to reach homogeneity.

The phase which is wanted to be archived is that a condition where the soil

sample is not too liquid or too dry, so it is able to be rolled. After the soil

sample has been mixed, the soil sample is then rolled on the glass plate.

The value of 1/8 inch is gained from ASTM standard. Note that which

cause the fine cracking of the soil is the inability of the water to bind the

soil particle together.

The rolling process is carried on until the weight of the can plus the

container exceeds 15 grams. 15 grams is set in order to reach a good

accuracy, since if the soil + container’s weight are below 15 grams, the

container’s weight will be more dominant and the soil will hardly be read

in the scale, especially after the water content of the soil has been removed

through heating. The next step is heating the soil sample in the oven, in

order to flush the water content out, so the weight of the solid particle of

the soil can be determined.



B.4.2. Result Analysis

In this experiment, there are two data which is gained: the weight

of the wet soil + can and the weight of the dry soil + can. From these data,

the weight of the moisture and the solid particle of the soil and the

moisture content can be determined. The weight of the moisture can be

gained by subtraction of the weight of the wet soil + can and the weight of

dry soil + can, and the water content can be determined by using the

formula:

W =w1−w2

w2−w3

× 100 %

` From the formula above, the water content of the first sample is

47.15% and the water content of the second sample is 38.83%, so the

average water sample is 42.99%. Then, after gaining these results,

plasticity index of the soil can be determined by subtracting the sample’s

liquid limit with its plastic limit, so the plasticity index of this sample is

24.625%.

Based on the liquid limit and the plasticity index which has been

gained, it is possible to determine the type of the soil sample which is

testedGraph

Graph 2.1. Plasticity Chart (Extracted from “Modul Praktikum Mekanika Tanah Dasar”)



According to the plasticity chart above, the soil which is tested is

classified as MH (Silt with high liquid limit) or OH (organic with high

liquid limit). Since the soil that we tested possess very little organic

material, so the soil that we tested should be silt with high liquid limit.

Note that the naming system follows the USCS naming system.

The classification of the soil can be determined by the following

table:

Table 2.1. Soil classification through PI according to Burmister

Minerals

LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)

Kaolinite 50–60 30–40 10–25

Illite 95–120 50–60 50–70

Montmorillon

ite

290–710 50–100 200–660

Table 2.2. typical atterberg limits for soil minerals (extracted from Soil Mechanics by Muni Budhu)



Table 2.3. soil classification according to Atterberg in view of Plasticity Index

According table 2.1, 2.2. and table 2.3, the soil which is tested is

classified as cohesive high plasticity soil and contains mostly kaolinite.

B.4.3. Error Analysis

The soil sample which is tested may not totally homogenous since

the mixing process did not take a long time.

The measurement of 1/8 inch is only an approximation; the real

diameter value may not the same.

The cracking on the soil sample may be rash cracks, which

indicates that the water content of the soil sample may not

accurately reflects the plastic limit of the soil.

B.5. Conclusion

The soil which is tested possess a plastic limit of 42.99%

The soil which is tested possess a plasticity index of 24.625%

The soil which is tested is classified as cohesive high plasticity soil and

contains mostly kaolinite.



C. Shrinkage Limit

C.1.Introduction

C.1.1. Objective

This experiment is conducted in order to determine the water

content of the soil sample in its shrinkage limit.

C.1.2. Apparatus

Mercury (Quicksilver)


Soil sample which passed sieve no. 40 ASTM, oven dried

Shrinkage dish

Coated dish

Cassagrande Device

Oven

C.1.3. Theorem and Formula Used:

In terms of laboratory testing, Shrinkage limit is the water content

where any reduction of water content will not cause a reduction of volume.

Shrinkage limit lies between solid phase and the semi-solid phase. In this

phase, the soil gets dry without any further volume reduction. Shrinkage

limit is shown by the water content in drying condition but it is not

followed by any volume reduction. The formula which is used in order to

find the shrinkage limit is as following:

SL=(W w−W d )−(V w−V d ) ρw

W d

× 100 %

SR=W d

V d

×100 %



With:

SL = Shrinkage Limit

SR = Shrinkage Ratio

Ww = Weight of wet soil

Wd = Weight of dry soil

Vw = volume of wet soil

Vd = volume of dry soil

ρw = density of water = 1 gram/cm3

C.2. Practical Activity

C.2.1. Experiment Preparation

1. Prepare the soil sample that had passed sieve no. 40 ASTM, air dried

2. Weight the coated dish which will be used

3. Prepare the pure water and the blower bottle

C.2.2. Experiment Procedure

1. Insert the dry soil sample into a can, then mix it with pure water then

stir until the sample is homogenous.

2. The soil sample which has been homogenized is tested with

cassagrande device to obtain 20 – 25 knocks through the same method

which is used in liquid limit determination.

3. Take the soil sample from the cassagrande device to a coated dish

which has been coated with Vaseline. Knock the coated dish in order

to take out the air contained inside the soil sample. Ensure that the

surface of the coated dish is flat.

4. Weight the coated dish which contains the soil.

5. Do step 1-5 once again with another coated dish.

6. Leave the coated dish to dry in the open air for approximately 18

hours. This is done to prevent cracking due to sudden shrinkage.

7. After 18 hours, the soil sample in the coated dish is then inserted into

the oven for 18 to 24 hours.



8. After 18 to 24 hours, the coated dish and the dried soil are weighted,

and then the volume of the wet soil and the dry soil is calculated.

a. To calculate the volume of wet soil:

i. Weight the coated dish (w1)

ii. Pour the mercury into the coated dish until the dish is

full, and then flatten it with the glass plate.

iii. Weight the coated dish containing the mercury (w2)

iv. The volume of wet soil sample is:

V w=W Hg

ρHg

=W 2−W 1

13.53

b. To calculate the volume of dry soil:

i. Insert mercury into the shrinkage dish, fulfill it, then

flatten it with glass plate.

ii. Weight the shrinkage dish and its content, the weight of

mercury and the shrinkage dish is obtained (wHg+S)

iii. Soak the dried soil sample into the shrinkage dish

containing mercury, and then press it carefully with the

glass plate. Ensure that the soil’s surface is the same

level with the mercury’s surface. This process is called

submerging soil cake.

iv. Removing the soil sample and reweight the shrinkage

dish and the containing mercury (wHg)

C.2.3. Comparison With ASTM

In this experiment, the coated dish which has been coated with

Vaseline and filled with soil is knocked in order to flush the air

bubbles out, while according to ASTM D-427, the coated dish is

only required to be shake.

In ASTM, the apparatus which is used to vessel the soil sample is a

porcelain bowl which poses a diameter of ±1.75 inch and a

diameter of ±0.5 inch, while in this experiment, coated dish is used.



C.3.Practical Result

C.3.1. Experiment Data:

Can no. 1 2Weight of Wet soil + coated dish 58.93 gr 71.17 gr

Weight of coated dish 31.86 gr 46.00 grWeight of Wet soil 27.06 gr 25.17 gr

Weight of dry soil + coated dish 48.11 gr 60.13 grWeight of dry soil 16.25 gr 14.13 gr

weight of mercury + coated dish 260.06 gr 263.97 grweight of mercury 228.20 gr 217.97 grvolume of wet soil 16.87 ml 16.11 ml

Weight of mercury and shrinkage dish 759.47 gr 755.24 grWeight of mercury and shrinkage dish (after submerging soil cake) 620.55 gr 629.96 gr

weight of displaced mercury 138.92 gr 125.28 grvolume of dry soil 10.27 ml 9.26 ml

C.3.2. Calculation

Shrinkage Limit:

Sample 1:


W d

× 100 %

SL=(27.06−16.25 )−(16.87−10.27 ) 1

16.25×100 %

SL = 25.91 %

Sample 2:


W d

× 100 %

SL=(25.17−14.13 )−(16.11−9.26 ) 1

14.13×100 %

SL = 29.65 %

Average:

25.91 %+29.65 %2



= 27.78 %

Shrinkage Ratio:

Sample 1:

SR=W d

V d

×100 %

SR=16.2510.27

× 100 %

SR = 158.23 %

Sample 2:

SR=W d

V d

×100 %

SR=14.139.26

× 100 %

SR = 152. 59 %

Average:

158.23 %+152.59 %2

= 155.41%

C.4. Practical Analysis

C.4.1. Experiment Analysis

The soil sample which is used has the same condition as liquid

limit experiment which has undergo 20-25 knocks with cassagrande

device by using the exactly same process of liquid limit experiment. By

using the soil sample which water content is within the liquid limit, there

is more water which is contained by the soil sample, which will cause the

shrinkage to be significant and make calculation easier. The insertion of



soil sample into the coated dish has to be done gently. This is done to

prevent any air bubble to be trapped in the soil sample. Knocking the

coated dish is also necessary to flush out all the air, so the coated dish only

contains water and the solid particle. Any entrapped air will impair the

experiment, since the weight measured will not be the same with the

“pure” soil sample.

After the coated dish has been filled with sample, it is air-dried, so

the water will evaporate into the air slowly and cause shrinkage to happen.

The sample is not inserted directly into the oven to prevent cracking which

is caused by sudden shrinkage.

After the soil has been dried perfectly, it is weighted and then the

coated dish is filled by mercury and then weighted. Mercury is used to

measure volume because of its property: always pure, unable to stick and o

any surface and has a significant weight to compare. But note that any

experiment which uses mercury should be carried carefully, since

swallowing mercury can be fatal. In order to measure the volume of the

soil sample, the soil sample itself is soaked into the full shrinkage dish.

This makes the volume of the displaced mercury is the same with the

volume of the soaked soil cake. The volume of the coated dish and the soil

cake can be determined by dividing the mass of the displaced mercury

with its specific gravity.

C.4.2. Result Analysis

After doing the experiment and do the calculation, the first sample

has a shrinkage limit of 25.91% and a shrinkage ratio of 158.53%. The

second sample has a shrinkage limit of 29.65 % and a shrinkage ratio of

152.59%. By averaging both samples, it is known that the sample’s

shrinkage limit is 27.78% and the shrinkage ratio is 155.41%. The value of

27.78% is considered good, because any soil which has a shrinkage limit

below 15% will more likely to develop cracks when dried, and even any

soil which has a shrinkage limit below 10% cannot be used for some



engineering purposes such as embankment due to its likeliness to cracks

due to change of moisture content.

The shrinkage ratio value of 155.41% means that after exceeding

its shrinkage limit, the soil is able to deform to 1.5541 times of its initial

volume due to its water content.

C.4.3. Error Analysis

While stirring the soil for cassagrande device, the soil is not

completely homogenous.

The soil sample may still contain air, so the real dry soil weight

may not be accurate.

While taking out the soil cake from the coated dish, there is some

part of the soil which is left in the coated dish, but the remains are

then added into the shrinkage dish, leaving only a very few excess

soil in the coated dish

C.5.Conclusion

The value of shrinkage limit of this soil sample is 27.78 %

The shrinkage ratio of this soil sample is 155.41%



D. Overall Conclusion

After doing the Atterberg limits experiment, it is known that the liquid

limit is higher than the plastic limit, and the plastic limit is higher than

the shrinkage limit. Thus, the definition and condition of all Atterberg

limits are proven.

E. References

Bhudu, Muni. “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. John Wiley & Sons.

New York. 2010

Basic Soil Mechanics Practicum Module Arranger Team. “Modul

Praktikum Mekanika Tanah Dasar”. Laboratory of Soil Mechanics,

Universitas Indonesia. Depok. 2008

F. Attachments

Adding soil sample to cassagrande device


Rolling Soil in Plastic Limit experiment


Apparatus for shrinkage limit test


mekanika tanah atterberg limits laporan praktikum

Documents