A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Revisiting the Liquid Limit Determinations Using Casagrande Percussion Cup Method vs. Fall Cone Device
Atterberg limits are the index properties determined in almost every site investigation when plastic soils are encountered. They are used in soil classification as well as in estimating important soil properties needed in the design and analysis of many common geotechnical engineering problems. Results from the conventional method of quantifying the liquid limit (LL) via Casagrande percussion cup device are influenced by repeatability issues due to various factors like the operator dependency among others. The fall cone device offers many improvements over the Casagrande cup, including simplicity in test performance, easier maintenance, lower sensitivity to equipment manufacturing variations, reduced operator dependency, and it allows LL determination on low-plasticity soils. In this paper, a review of previous studies on the comparative results from the two devices is presented. Based on extensive laboratory testing on soil samples collected from Indiana state, fresh results from the two devices are compared and contrasted with those from previous studies. The findings will incentivize practitioners to employ a simpler device for routine laboratory testing that leads to greater reproducibility and reliability in the fundamental measurements needed for every geotechnical site investigation.
Revisiting the Liquid Limit Determinations Using Casagrande Percussion Cup Method vs. Fall Cone Device
Atterberg limits are the index properties determined in almost every site investigation when plastic soils are encountered. They are used in soil classification as well as in estimating important soil properties needed in the design and analysis of many common geotechnical engineering problems. Results from the conventional method of quantifying the liquid limit (LL) via Casagrande percussion cup device are influenced by repeatability issues due to various factors like the operator dependency among others. The fall cone device offers many improvements over the Casagrande cup, including simplicity in test performance, easier maintenance, lower sensitivity to equipment manufacturing variations, reduced operator dependency, and it allows LL determination on low-plasticity soils. In this paper, a review of previous studies on the comparative results from the two devices is presented. Based on extensive laboratory testing on soil samples collected from Indiana state, fresh results from the two devices are compared and contrasted with those from previous studies. The findings will incentivize practitioners to employ a simpler device for routine laboratory testing that leads to greater reproducibility and reliability in the fundamental measurements needed for every geotechnical site investigation.
Revisiting the Liquid Limit Determinations Using Casagrande Percussion Cup Method vs. Fall Cone Device
Niazi, Fawad S. (author) / Pinan-Llamas, Aranzazu (author) / Sulaman, Bilal (author)
Geo-Congress 2022 ; 2022 ; Charlotte, North Carolina
Geo-Congress 2022 ; 152-161
2022-03-17
Conference paper
Electronic Resource
English
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2022
Critical appraisal of the Casagrande percussion and fall cone liquid limits of fine-grained soils
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2022