mississippi river commission
TRANSCRIPT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
CORRELATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
WITH GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
REPORT NO. 1
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE LIQUID
LIMIT TEST PROCEDURE
Fluids la &±. Dijfciuwi. IM-1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3-286
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI
PRICE $1.00
JUNE 1*49
EC CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION
CORRELATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES
WITH GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
REPORT NO. 1
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE LIQUID
LIMIT TEST PROCEDURE
icgi 1 0 1
a
'5=2?
B
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3-286
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
VICKSBURG, M I S S I S S I P P I
MRC-WES 100
JUNE 1949
PROPERTY OF U. S . XJRJST OFFICE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS LIBRARY
CONTENTS
PREFACE i
PAST I: INTRODUCTION 1
PAET II: PRESENT AND PROPOSED LIQUID LIMIT TEST PROCEDURES . . . . 3
Present Test Procedure . . • . . . . . • • 3
Proposed Method of Simplifying Test Procedure . . . . . . . . 3
PAET III: DATA ANALYSIS AND EESULTS . 5
Sources of Data . . 5 Conversion of Data . • • • . . • • • • •• 5 Methods Used in Analysis of Data 6 Nomenclature and Definitions 7 Analysis of Data with Eespect to Geology 9 Analysis of Data with Eespect to Geography 10 Analysis of Eesults • 12 Eecommended Simplified Liquid Limit Procedure . . . . . . . . 19 .
PAET IV: CONCLUSIONS AND EECOMMENDATIONS 21
TABLES 1-3
PLATES 1-22
PREFACE
In a memorandum to the President, Mississippi River Commission,
dated 18 May 19hQ, subject "Special Projects for the Fiscal Year l<&9/!
the Waterways Experiment Station proposed an investigation entitled
"Correlation of Soil Properties with Geologic Information." The project
was approved in the 1st Memo Indorsement dated Ik June 19^8. This report
is the first of a series to be published on this investigation.
The concept upon which this report is based was contributed by
Dr. A. Casagrande, whose valuable assistance is hereby acknowledged.
Acknowledgement is also made to the New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Memphis
Districts, CE, for the use of their laboratory data files which aided
materially in the accomplishment of the investigation.
The study was performed by the Embankment and Foundation Branch
of the Soils Division, Waterways Experiment Station. Engineers connected
with the study were Messrs. W. J. Turnbull, S. J. Johnson, A. A. Maxwell,
S. Pilch and C. D. Burns. This report was prepared by Mr. Pilch.
CORRELATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES WITH GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE LIQUID LIMIT TEST PROCEDURE
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1, The general project of correlating soil properties with
geologic information, one phase of which is described in this report,
consists in comparing soil properties with soil types and with their
geologic history and environment in order to determine what correla
tions are possible. If correlations are found to exist, it would be
possible to reduce laboratory testing materially at sites where geo
logic information is available, and to obtain a better understanding
of the behavior and properties of the soils. The purpose of this report
is to present data and analyses from liquid limit tests, and correla
tions which may materially reduce the cost of performing this test.
2. Dr. Arthur Casagrande suggested that flow lines determined by
liquid limit tests, plotting both water content and number of blows to a
logarithmic scale, might have a constant slope for soils of the same
geologic origin. The basis for the idea that a logarithmic plot would
give a constant flow-line slope, which the currently-used semilogarith-
mic plot does not, is as follows: On a semilogarithmic plot, flow lines
of higher liquid limit values have, in general, steeper slopes than flow
lines of lower liquid limit values. However, a logarithmic plot reduces
the slope of the higher liquid limit flow lines more than it does the lower,
thus tending to make them equal as is clearly illustrated by figure 1.
2
I 2 LIQUID LIMIT 110 81 TAN oi 0498 0.308
15 20 25 30 40 50 NUMBER OF BLOWS(N)
l a . STANDARD SEMI-LOGARITHMIC PLOT
150
T 100 2 90 UJ
\- 80 I 70
a 60
1 1 a
1
' ?
K
I 2 LIQUID LIMIT 110 81 TAN ^ 0.122 0.109
15 20 25 30 40 50 NUMBER OF BLOWS ( N )
I b. LOGARITHMIC PLOT
Fig. 1, Semi-logarithmic and logarithmic liquid limit flaw
line plots
3. It was apparent that this
suggested procedure had practical
possibilities that could be ex
plored rather rapidly. Since the
liquid limit test is a desirable
but costly type of classification
test, it was decided to determine
the feasibility of using the liquid
limit test procedure simplification
suggested by Dr. Casagrande.
k. This report describes the
results of analyses of 7&7 liquid
limit tests. The tests were per
formed by the New Orleans, Vicks-
burg and Memphis Districts, and
the Waterways Experiment Station,
CE, in connection with various projects under the jurisdiction of the
Mississippi River Commission and the Lower Mississippi Valley Division.
3
PART II: PRESENT AHD PROPOSED LIQUID LIMIT TEST PROCEDURES
Present Test Procedure
5. The Atterberg liquid limit test has been standardized as to
procedure and equipment*. The testing device consists essentially of a
small brass dish which can be raised a distance of one centimeter by a
cam arrangement and allowed to drop on a hard rubber base. The soil
specimen is placed in this dish and a groove is cut in the specimen with
a special grooving tool. The dish is then dropped on the base at a rate
of two drops) or "blows/' per second until a l/2-in. length of the
groove is closed by the flowing together of the soil on each side of the
groove. The liquid limit is the water content of the soil when the
groove closes with 25 blows. It would be too time-consuming to adjust „
the water content of a soil specimen so that the groove would close at
exactly 25 blows. Hence the test is made at several water contents, and
the water content at 25 blows is found by straight-line interpolation on
a graph, plotting the number of blows on a logarithmic scale and water
content on an arithmetic scale; figure 1-a is a typical plot. The line
determined by the plotting of number of blows versus water content is
called a flow line.
Proposed Method of Simplifying Test Procedure
6. It can be seen from figure 1-a that six points have been used
to define a flow line on a semilogarithmic plot. If it can be shown
* Casagrande, A,, "Research on the Atterberg Limits of Soils," Public Roads, Vol. 13, No, 8, October 1932.
k
that the slope of the flow lines for soils in the same geologic formation
is a constant on a logarithmic plot, then the liquid limit can "be deter
mined from one test point for each soil. The point can he plotted on
logarithmic paper, and the flow line, with its predetermined slope, drawn
through this point. The liquid limit would be the water content at the
intersection of the flow line and the 25-blow line. A nomographic chart
could also be made representing the relationship between the liquid limit,
water content, and number of blows for a given flow line slope.
5
PART III: DATA ANALYSIS AMD RESULTS
Sources of Data
7. The soils for which liquid limit test data were analyzed fall
into three main geographical groups: the Alluvial Valley of the Missis
sippi River, the West Gulf Coastal Plain, and the East Gulf Coastal
Plain. A few project locations lie outside of these groups and are
listed as Miscellaneous• Plate 1 shows the locations of the projects
from which data were analyzed,
8. Geologically, the soils tested fall within the following major
groups: Recent (alluvium, "backswamp, natural levee, channel filling,
marsh, and marine), Pleistocene, Tertiary, and glacial till. Tables 1
and 2 show the locations and geologic types of soils at the projects
from which data were used.
9. All of the tests were also classified as to their plasticity
characteristics. For this purpose, Casagrande's plasticity chart of
liguid limit versus plasticity index was used (plate 2), The plasticity
charts for all the projects and tests used are presented on plates 3 to
7» The plasticity charts were consolidated according to the three major
geographic groupings, and these charts are shown "by plates 8, 9 and 10.
In general, the soils analyzed were medium to highly plastic inorganic
clays, and a few silts and sandy clays.
Conversion of Data
10 . Data examined for this study were of the form shown on figure
1-a where the number of blows is plotted logarithmically and the water
6
content arithmetically. To determine the slope of a flow line on a fully
logarithmic plot, it was not necessary to replot the data. The slope of
a flow line on a logarithmic plot can he computed from the semilogarith-
mic plot by the following relationship:
^10
log v1Q - log w 3 0 l o g W30
t a n p a log 30 - log 10 = 0.1+77
where tan p = the slope of the flow line on a logarithmic plot with reference to the horizontal,
v10 a the water content at 10 blows ) from flow line on ) semilogarithmic
w30 = the water content at 30 blows ) plot
Ten and 30 blows were arbitrarily selected for convenience. This method
is not theoretically exact, as a straight line (except a vertical or
horizontal one) on a semilogarithmic plot will not be a straight line
when plotted logarithmically. However, within the range in water con
tents and number of blows of a single flow line for the data utilized,
the variation from a straight line is so small as to be of no conse
quence. Figure 1-b shows data from figure 1-a plotted logarithmically.
Methods Used in Analysis of Data
11. All of the data examined were used except for a few tests in
which it was obvious that the test points were so erratic that a reason
ably precise flow line could not be determined. The data were also
limited to tests for which the liquid limit was less than 150.
12. It should be noted that liquid limit test results depend to a
considerable extent on individual technique; and since the tests analyzed
were performed by many technicians, some degree of control over the data
7
was lost. However, it is "believed that the methods used in the analysis
give results which accommodate a large part of the variations in the data
due to differences in technique,
13. The large number of tests utilized made it necessary to adopt
methods to present the data in a concise, yet complete form. To fill
this need, statistical methods were used in analysis of the data and
presentation of results. The statistical methods and nomenclature used
are those recommended by the American Society for Testing Materials.*
Nomenclature and Definitions
Ik. For purposes of clarity, the nomenclature and definitions used
in this study are given below:
tan P , tan p ^> * a n (3 v * a n 3 * observed values of
tan (3 ; slope of flow line on a logarithmic plot.
n: the number of observations,
f: the frequency, the number of observations for a given
value, or . interval, of tan p .
tan p : the arithmetic mean or average, referred to as the
mean in this report,
n
5 tan Pi * n tan p =s -i5± , where ^ tan p . means the
n i=l
sum of all the values of tan p from tan 3 1 to
tan p , inclusive.
* A.S.T.M. Manual on "Presentation of Data," April 19^5 (reprint).
a : the standard deviation, the moat significant and efficient
measure of dispersion of data about a mean* For a nor
mal frequency curve, the mean plus and minus the stand
ard deviation includes 68.3 per cent of the total
number of observations,
T[
a =
(tan p. - tan p )
n
v: the coefficient of variation, a measure of relative disper
sion of data about a mean. Useful in comparing distrib
utions with different means,
v# = -zzzzzr* x 10° •
tan (3
k: Hazen's coefficient of skewness, a measure of the non-
symmetry of a distribution about a mean, A positive
value of k generally means that the observed values
extend farther to the right of the mean than to the
left; a negative value of k, vice versa. For a sym
metrical normal frequency curve k =: zero.
*L o ^> (tan (3 . - tan 3 )-*
k . & L n o J
Normal frequency curve: the curve defined by the equation
(tan B ) 2
ay 2 n
It is the familiar bell-shaped curve and represents a
9
theoretically correct frequency distribution (see
figure 2, page 10).
Analysis of Data with Bespect to Geology
15. The individual values of tan (3 were computed to the nearest
thousandth "by the method discussed in paragraph 10. To show graphically
the distribution of tan (3 for each geologic soil type within the proj
ects, frequency histograms were plotted (plates 11-22). The frequency
histograms have as their abscissas values of tan 3 grouped in classes
with intervals of 15 thousandths, and as their ordinates, the frequency.
16. The mean tan (3 for each project was computed by the equation
in paragraph 14-. These means are listed in tables 1 and 2 and are
plotted on the histograms; the means from all the various geologic types
and projects range from 0.094 (White River Levee District, Recent
alluvium, 25 tests) to 0.1^3 (Algiers Lock, Recent marine, 3 tests), a
range of O.Olj-9. The range of tan (3 within each geologic soil type
averages about 0.1; maximum range O.168 (Grenada Dam Tertiary, Eocene),
minimum range 0.050 (Greenwood Protection Levee, Recent alluvium). The
range of tan 3 within soil groups of the same geologic classification
is greater than the range of the means of all geologic soil types. Also,
an inspection of the means in tables 1 and 2 shows no tendency for each
geologic type to group itself about a single mean tan 3 • From these
observations it appears that, for the soil types studied, the slope of
the flow line is not directly related to the geologic classification of
the soil.
10
Analysis of the Data with Respect to Geography
17. The data were also analyzed by grouping the tests according to
their geographical location: Alluvial Valley of the Mississippi River,
West Gulf Coastal Plain, and East Gulf Coastal Plain. Histograms shoving
the distribution of tan (3 for the tests from these areas are shown in
fig ires 2, 3, and 4. These histograms have as their abscissas values of
tan (3 grouped in classes with intervals of 15 thousandths and as their
ordinates, per cent frequency. The mean tan (3 , standard deviation, co
efficient of variation, and skewness were computed for these areas and
the results are listed in table 3 in addition to the number of tests and
ranges in tan (3 and plasticity. The means range from 0.115 to 0.130, or
J /
L
V
LEGEND
MEAN 0.116 5TD DEVIATION 0 032
SKEWNESS +0 55
^ \
\
NORMAL FREQUENCY CURVE
V
0.100 0.150 TAN 0
Fig. 2. Histogram of the Al luvia l Valley of the Mississippi River - -
if32 t e s t s
Fig. 3. Histogram of the West Gulf Coastal Plain — 136 tests
11
1 1 LEGEND
MEAN 0 130 STD SKEW
DEVIATION NESS + 0 . 4
0.035 4
MEA
/
3 -i
r
Ji i \ * r - N 0
7 F R E Q U E RMAL NCY CURVE
1 K / \
*s / U^
^ 0 100 0 150
TAN (3
Fig, k* Histogram of the East Gulf Coastal Plain -- 135 tests
expressed in degrees of p represent
a range of 0.75 degrees. The stand
ard deviations range from 0,028 to
0.035, and the coefficients of vari
ation from 22.4 to 27.8 per cent.
The skewnesses range from +0.42 to -
+0.55# All three histograms are
skewed to the right, as indicated by
the positive values of skewness.
Using the means and standard devia
tions, it was possible to compute
normal frequency curves which best
fitted the distributions, and these -
curves are superimposed on the his
tograms of figures 2-4.
18. The means, standard
deviations, coefficients of varia
tion, and skewnesses were so close
together for the three areas that
it was believed that a more accurate
representation of the data could be
obtained by combining all 7^7 tests
in one histogram, figure 5« This
histogram contains, in addition to
the tests from the Alluvial Valley
0.100 0 1 TAN 0
50 0.200
Fig. 5. Histogram of a l l 767 t e s t s
12
of the Mississippi Eiver and the East and West Gulf Coastal Plains, the
tests from the two projects outside these three general areas: Garrison
Dam, N#D., mean 0,123, and Blakely Mountain Dam, Ark., mean 0.123. The
mean for all 767 tests is 0.121, the standard deviation 0.032, the coef
ficient of variation 26.4 per cent, and the skewness +0.42 (table 3).
The normal frequency curve was computed and superimposed on the histogram,
figure 5» This histogram "best fits its normal frequency curve, as a com
parison with the histograms of figures 2-4 shows. This was to "be expected
because of the large number of tests used in its development. The fact
that the skewness coefficient is lower for the histogram of all the tests
than for any of the three principal geographic areas is also indicative
of a better fit to the normal frequency curve.
Analysis of Results
Equation for the liquid limit on a logarithmic plot
19. It can be shown that the value for the liquid limit using a
logarithmic plot and one point on the flow line is determined by the
equation:
/ H \ tan 3
where LL = liquid limit,
VJJ a water content at N blows from the liquid limit device,
tan p =» slope of the flow line on a logarithmic plot.
13
Effect of variations in the slope of the flow line on the value of the liquid limit
20. The method of differentials is applicable to measuring the
effect of variations in tan (3 on the value of the liquid limit. The
expression for per cent change in the liquid limit is derived as follows:
tan 3
( .T \ tan 3 N
JLJ x l n | x d (tan 3 )
(in refers to logarithms to the base e)
and —:*=—*• a l n ^ x d (tan (3 ).
This may also be written as: A (LL) $ = In iL x A (tan 3 ) x 100, LL F 25
in which — = ^ — * $ is the per cent change in the liquid limit for a change
A (tan 3 ) in the slope of the flow line on a logarithmic plot. An in
spection of this equation shows that the per cent change in the liquid
limit is independent of the actual values of both the liquid limit and
the slope of the flow line. It depends only on a given variation in the
slope of the flow line and the number of blows. The above equation is
plotted on figure 6 (page Ik) for various values of N and A (tan 3 ).
Comparison of mean slopes
21. The pertinent results determined for the geographical areas
are summarized on the following page (from table 3):
14
J 7 J 7 A ( LL ) N 1 %= Ih X ATAN3 X 100
25 1 - LL
) N 1 %= Ih X ATAN3 X 100 25
1 8
o _ > 5 5 o
Y 7 ' - j io .A—
V 7 * • &/ L
4 Z V \ 1 o
V
o Ul > o V
&
o
V o-S £^ z 3
< \X / ^ I
o > ^
2 »-z v 0
fc T
UJ O i ^J
fc J O^i^-
cr 1 ^J r r^ 5n? & ««« = o01
n 1 rSi ^ . htf^
& 1
10 20 25 30 40 NUMBER OF BLOWS (N)
50 60
Fig. 6. Per cent change in liquid limit vs number of blows for changes in tan (3
No. Mean Standard Coefficient of Skew-Tests tan (3 Deviation Variation (jo) ness
Alluvial Valley of the Mississippi Eiver
^32 0.115 0,032 27.8 +0.55
West Gulf Coastal Plain 136 0.125 0.028 22.4 +0.52
East Gulf Coastal Plain 135 0.130 0.035 26.9 +0.44
Al l t e s t s (including 64 from the Miscellaneous group)
767 0.121 0.032 26.4 +0.42
The magnitude of the differences between the mean for all tests and for
the three principal geographic areas is best understood by reference to
the change in the liquid limit due to these variations. The mean of all
the tests, 0,121, differs from the mean of the Mississippi Eiver Alluvial
Valley, 0,115, by 0.006. This would make a difference in the liquid
limit determination of 0.3 per cent, using 15 blows, figure 6. This
15
illustrates that the differences between the means in the above table are
of an extremely small magnitude when referred to the differences that
they would make in computing liquid limits. The means of the West Gulf
Coastal Plain and the East Gulf Coastal Plain, although from relatively
small numbers of tests, differ from the mean of 0.121 by 0.00*4. and 0.009,
respectively. The dispersion of data about the four individual means is
least for the West Gulf Coastal Plain, as is seen by an inspection of the
coefficients of variation and standard deviations* This is not necessar
ily conclusive, however, as the smaller number of tests involved means a
greater probability for a narrower range in tan (3 , which in turn results
in a smaller coefficient of variation. For practical purposes the meas
ures of dispersion and skewness are essentially the same for all group
ings. Based on the above factors it
is believed that the histogram of
all the tests, figure 5, with its
mean of 0.121 best represents all
the data studied, and the remainder
of this report will be referred to
this value.
Per cent error involved in liquid limit determinations^
22. The histogram and normal
frequency curve for all 767 tests
were plotted on arithmetic probabil
ity graph paper, figure 7. The ordi-
nates of this graph are so spaced
< 8 5 0
> ui < » 0 0 o < 8 0 0 I t-
tf> 7 0 0 <n
-i ©0 0
z 5 0 0 < h 40 0 X g 3 0 0
£ 2 0 0 Ui
O 10 0
UJ 5 0
/ o
/ f • LEGEND
MEAN 0 121
STD DEVIATION (0) 0 0 3 2
S K E W N E S S + 0 . 4 2 ' t
i FREC
NOR UENC
rfAL Y CU RVE -
o 1 . /
Ml A N - H / I t
A / f I
I o
/ I
; - - I % 1 / | \
i
J f t
-a I
F * 2 o
i '| 1 q
| /
/ I 0 0 5 0 0.100 0.150 0 .200 0 . 2 5 0 O.KK) TAN (%
Pig. 7. Arithmetic cumulative frequency curve — 7^7 tests
16
that a normal frequency curve will plot as a straight line when cumula
tive per cent frequency is used as the ordinate and the quality being
measured as the abscissa. An inspection of figure 7 shows that the plot
ted points generally lie above the normal frequency curve and tend to
define a smooth curve rather than a straight line. Both of these facts
are indicative of the skewness to the right of the distribution,
23. This cumulative frequency graph facilitates the calculation
of the per cent error involved in liquid limit determinations for a given
per cent of the tests* The standard deviation, o , is defined so that,
for a normal frequency curve, the mean JH 0 includes 68.3 per cent of
the observations and the mean + 2 a includes 95*5 per cent. The mean,
tan (3 ss 0.121, tan (3 ± a, and tan (3 ± 2 a, (a = 0.032), were plot
ted on the cumulative frequency curve, figure 7> making it possible to
pick off actual percentages of observations included within the ranges
noted in the table below. The per cent error in the liquid limit for
tests within the given ranges was obtained from figure 6 where per cent
change in liquid limit also means per cent error in liquid limit, and
A (tan (3 ) is the variation of the mean slope from the true flow line
slope. (Fifteen blows were used for the following table.)
Percentages of Total
Observations Lying Per Cent Within Given Ranges Error in
(all 767 tests) Liquid Limit Bange in tan 6 Theoretical Observed TJs
tan p + a 0.089-0.153
tan (3 + 2 o 0.057-0.185
min tan (3 - max tan (? 0.027-0.235
68.3 67.7
95.5 95.1
99*9 100.0
less than + 1.5
less than + 3«3
less than + k.8 (tan {3 « 0.027) less than -5»8 (tan (3 » 0.235)
17
Factors affecting the liquid limit determination using a mean slope
2k. An examination of figure 6 shows that the per cent error in
the liquid limit determination depends on the variation of the true slope
from the mean slope and on the number of "blows used to determine a point
on the flow line. The preceding paragraph showed that the error due to
variations in the slope of the flow line is small* To keep errors due
to number of blows to a small magnitude, the desirability of keeping the
number of blows as close as possible to 25 is readily apparent. For
example, from the preceding table the error for tan 3 + 2 <j using 15 or
kl blows is less than 3.3 per cent for 95.1 per cent of the tests; if 20
or 31 blows were used the error would be reduced to less than 1.1*. per
cent, (kl and 31 blows give the same error as 15 or 20 blows respective
ly, figure 6.) The limiting of the number of blows to between 20 and 31
reduces the error to less than 2.5 per cent for all 767 tests as compared
to less than 5*8 per cent for between 15 and kl blows.
Discussion
25. In the analyses of the data it was found that the values of
the slopes of the flow lines on a logarithmic plot exhibited a definite
tendency to group themselves about a central value, in a distribution
which is approximated by a normal arithmetic frequency distribution.
While this is satisfactory for analysis of the data, it is pointed out
that theoretically a normal frequency distribution cannot represent the
data because the values of tan 3 cannot extend to - oc and to + cc , but
are limited to the range of 0 to + oc # This in itself indicates that
some skewness to the right in the observed distribution of values of tan (3
18
< 95.0
> Ui J «00 < Z 8 0 0
*~ 70.0 <n m * «0.0
• so.o z < 400
X *" 30.0
* <0 20.0 S 15.0 u. 10.0 o
i / -
1
1 t. I _ zt _ ___7_ .
p -: z::j :
i
—t- -_y____ .
,,
/
6.010 0.020 0.030 0.05& 0.100 ai50 0.200 0.300 TAN 3
Fig. 8. Logarithmic cumulative frequency curve — 7^7 tests
should be expected, and it is likely
that the distribution may be better
approximated by a logarithmically
normal frequency distribution* As a
check on this possibility, the data
shown on figure 7 were plotted on
logarithmic probability paper, fig
ure 8 (identical to the arithmetic
probability paper except for the
substitution of a logarithmic scale
for the arithmetic one). On this
type of plot all the points, except
those for tan 3 equal 0.025 and
0.0^0, lie on a straight line, in
dicating that the distribution of values of tan 3 is logarithmically
normal rather than arithmetically normal. However, for the purpose of
this investigation it was considered that an arithmetically normal fre
quency distribution could be used.
26. The observed variations of tan 3 from the mean may *be due to
a natural distribution of tan 3 as a property of the soils studied.
However, the variations from the mean may also be due, in part, to errors
involved in performing the tests rather than to any property of the soil
itself. All technicians in the soils laboratory of the Waterways Experi
ment Station are, at intervals, requested to perform the liquid limit
test on the same material. Study of the results so obtained indicates a
variation in values of both the liquid limit and tan 3 , with a grouping
19
of the test results in such a way as to suggest that they follow a natu
ral error distribution; a distribution of the same form as the normal
frequency curve. However, this report is not concerned with which
explanation best describes the observed variations, since the variations
themselves are of limited significance.
27. The results obtained from the analyses described herein are
not intended to apply to soils other than those tested, and no generali
zation to other soils is made. As regards the soils of the Alluvial
Valley of the Mississippi River and the East and West Gulf Coastal Plains,
however, sufficient tests have been analyzed to warrant consideration of
a simplified liquid limit test procedure for work in the laboratories of
the Mississippi Eiver Commission and Lower Mississippi Valley Division.
For soils from other areas the procedure may be just as applicable, but
the values of tan (3 should first be determined by preliminary tests. To
take full advantage of the fact that, for the soils studied, the disper
sion of the flow line slopes is of such small magnitude that errors aris
ing from the use of a mean slope are negligible, the liquid limit test
procedure outlined in the following paragraphs is presented.
Recommended Simplified Liquid Limit Procedure
28. The simplified liquid limit procedure is as follows:
a. The test should be run in a humid room if the air is dry* Mix the soil to be tested with water to a consistency as close to the liquid limit as possible, A technician can, with experience, judge this very closely. Extreme care should be taken in the mixing to obtain a uniform water content throughout the sample,
b. Operate the liquid limit device and determine the number of blows necessary to close a l/2-in. length of the groove.
20
Take a 15-20 gm wet weight sample at the closed groove for a water content determination. Water content weights should be accurate to 0.01 gm.
c. Add enough soil paste at the water content of step a to replace that removed, and remix the soil slightly in the liquid limit cup without the addition of water. Eegroove and operate the device again. The number of blows necessary to close l/2 in. of the groove should either be the same as before or not more than two blows different, (if it is not, it is a sign of insufficient mixing in step a, and the entire procedure should be repeated.) Take another sample at the closed groove for a water content dot er minat ion •
d. The liquid limit is determined from the equation:
where w is the water content at N blows. Figure 9 is
a nomographic chart useful in solving this equation, A straightedge laid on a given water content at a corresponding number of blows determines the liquid limit. Two initial liquid limit values should be computed using the data from steps b and c. The average of the two is the final liquid limit. The difference between the two initial values should be less than 2 per cent of their average to consider the test valid.
29. If the liquid limit is being used for classification purposes,
the number of blows should be kept between 15 and kl, but if the liquid
limit is being used for quantitative correlation with other tests, e.g.,
consolidation, it is desirable that the number of blows be kept between
20 and 31.
WATER CONTENT AT N BLOWS ( U J N )
150 -T-—LIQUID LIMIT 140 —
130 4 -
120
no -h
100
90 - -
80 -EE-
70 -jr-
60 - -
50
4 0 —
30 —
20 - 1 -
CLL). 150
- - 140 = - 130
-+- 120
110
- h 100
4§- 80
iF 70
iz 6 0
- - 50
— 4 0
3 0
-L- 2 0
LL=u,N(-iL) 0.121
NUMBER OF
BLOWS (N)
4 0
3 5
— 30
— 2 5
KEY
LL - - 20 N
-L- 15
ENTER CHART WITH UJN AND N-, STRAIGHT EDGE DETERMINES LL
NOMOGRAPHIC CHART TO DETERMINE LIQUID L IMIT USING MEAN SLOPE METHOD
21
PAET IV: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
30. Based on the data and analyses presented in this report, the
following conclusions are warranted for the soils studied — namely,
medium to highly plastic inorganic clays with liquid limits less than 150
from the Alluvial Valley of the Mississippi River and the East and West
Gulf Coastal Plain areas,
a. The slopes of liquid limit flow lines, when plotted to a logarithmic scale, tend to group around a central value which appears to be independent of soil type and geologic classification.
b. The variations of the slopes of the flow lines for the soils studied, without regard to geologic origin, satisfactorily approximate a normal frequency distribution. This result makes it possible to use the simplified liquid limit procedure.
c. Liquid limits computed using a mean flow line slope of 0.121 and one liquid limit test point give results well within the accuracy required in normal work.
d. It is recommended that the simplified liquid limit procedure described in paragraphs 28-29 be adopted for soils from the Alluvial Valley of the Mississippi River and the East and West Gulf Coastal Plain areas. This procedure will result in a substantial reduction in the cost of liquid limit determinations.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF DATA. FROM THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Range Range Liquid Plasticity
No. Mean Range tan <3 Limit Index Project and Location Geologic Description Tests tan 3 Min Max Min Max Min Max
Upper St. Francis Levee District, Recent alluvium 40 0.112 0.027 0.193 33 104 4 74 vicinity mi 900 AHP rt "bank
Reelfoot Levee District, Recent alluvium 30 0.122 0.071 O..I76 30 102 9 73 vicinity mi 900 AHP It bank
Tiptonville-Obion River Levee Recent alluvium 25 0.107 0.06l 0.130 59 147 35 97 Extension, vicinity mi 850 AHP It bank
Lower St. Francis Levee District, Recent alluvium 25 0.123 0.071 0.186 34 94 7 62 vicinity mi 750 AHP rt bank
Upper Yazoo Levee District, Recent alluvium 25 0.122 O.O63 O.I76 35 106 14 80 vicinity mi 700 AHP It bank
White River Levee District, Recent alluvium 25 0.094 O.O65 0.130 43 107 22 77 vicinity mi 65O AHP rt bank
Cold-water River Leyee, Yazoo River Basin, 15 0.097 O.O69 0.130 50 99 31 73 Coldwater River, Mississippi recent alluvium
Greenwood Protection Levee, Yazoo River Basin, 13 O.O98 0.072 0.122 56 100 32 69 Greenwood, Mississippi recent alluvium
Bougere Levee, Recent alluvium 22 0.101 0.074 0.129 59 122 34 86 vicinity Natchez, Miss., rt bank
Bayou Cocodrie, Lower Tensas Basin, 23 0.128 0.097 O.I85 47 115 26 87 vicinity Shaw, Louisiana backswamp and natural
levee deposits
Morganza Floodway Area, Atchafalaya River Basin, La.
Bayou Sorrel Lock, Backswamp deposits 13 0.121 0.037 0.192 66 136 40 96 approx 10 mi SW Plaquemine, La.
Texas & Pacific RR Embankment Backswamp deposits 49 0.127 0.070 0.202 28 122 6 90 (Port Allen branch), runs NW fm Morganza, La., about 5 mi long
N.0.T.& M. RR Embankment, runs Backswamp deposits 10 0.108 0.084 0.148 34 103 11 67 between Krotz Springs & "Cortableau, La.
Morganza Control Structure, Backswamp deposits 55 0.128 O.O63 0.222 30 117 3 79 approx 5 mi north Morganza, Channel filling 13 0.123 0.080 0.228 30 115 5 88 La. deposits
Veterans Administration Hospital, Recent marsh deposits 8 0.109 0.084 0.132 60 82 35 54 New Orleans, La. Marine deposits 12 0.115 0.070 0.180 24 83 9 52
Pleistocene-Prairie 8 0.104 O.O38 0.212 59 82 35 54 deposits
Algiers Lock, Recent marsh deposits 18 0.100 0.070 0.171 58 99 37 71 vicinity of Algiers, La. Marine deposits 3 0.143 0.128 0.154 54 66 38 44
Alluvial Valley of Mississippi River 432 0.115 0.027 0.228 24 147 3 97
Table 2
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE EAST AND WEST GULF COASTAL PLAINS "AMD MISCELLANEOUS GROUP
Project and Location
Texarkana Dam, Sulphur River, vicinity Texarkana, Ark.
Wallace Lake Dam, Red River, approx 15 mi south Shreveport, La.
Red River Lateral Canal, vicinity of Marksville, La.
Schooner Bayou, approx 18 mi south Abbeville, La.
Range Range Liquid Plasticity
No. Mean Range tan P Limit Index Geologic Description Tests tan ft Min Max Min Max Min Max
WEST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
106 0.122 0.073 O.I82 25 99 9 Pie istocene-Terrace deposits
Red River Valley, recent alluvium
Red River Valley, recent alluvium
Pleis tocene-Prair ie deposits
13 0.127 0.09^ 0.170 57 85 33
10 0.120 0.07^ 0.212 30 Jk 11
7 0.133 O.O65 0.210 31 83 5
West Gulf Coastal Plain 136 0.125 O.O65 0.212 25 99
16
59
k8
kQ
16
Grenada Dam,, v i c in i t y Grenada, Miss.
Mississippi River Basin Model, Clinton, Miss.
EAST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
Yalobusha River Valley Ter t iary (Eocene) 69 0.133 O.067 0.235 17 100 Recent alluvium 25 0.129 O.O69 0.192 29 121
Ter t iary (Eocene)
East Gulf Coastal Plain
kl 0.128 0.073 0.179 32 108
135 0.130 O.O65 0.235 17 121
73 9k
16 87
.*
Garrison Dam, vicinity Garrison, N. D.
Blakely Mountain Dam, 10 mi NW Hot Springs, Ark,
MISCELLANEOUS
Missouri River Valley Recent alluvium Glacial till
k2 0.121 0.063 0.197 30 99 3 76 7 0.138 0.100 0.207 26 ko 10 22
Average k9 0.123
Ouachita River Valley Residual and Alluvial 15
Miscellaneous 6k
0.123 0.074 0.151 20
0.123 0.063 0.207 20
33
99
16
76
Table 3
CONSOLIDATED DATA EROMt THE P^OTOim GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
Coefficient Range Range Standard of Liquid Plasticity-
No. Mean Range tan ft Deviation Skevness Variation Limit Index Area Tests tan f Min Max (a) (is) (v 4) Min- Max, Klin Max
Alluvial Valley of ^32 0.115 0.027 0.228 0.032 +0.55 27.8 2k lVf 3 97 Mississippi River (Table l)
West Gulf Coastal Plain 136 0.125 O.O65 0.212 0.028 +0.52 (Table 2)
East Gulf Coastal Plain 135 0.130 O.O65 0.235 0.035 + 0 . ^ (Table 2).
Miscellaneous (Table 2) 6k 0.123 O.O63 0.207 - -
All Tests 767 0.121 0.027 0.235 0.032 +0.1*2
22 A 25 99 5 16
26.9 IT 121 2 <*
- 20 99 3 16
26.k IT ihl 2 9T
32° 3 , c 30°
^7777-777-' • / • • • - / / / / / • '
^C-A////Xv> ' ' AA/AA _ 37c
36«
35'
sr
A L L U V I A L V A L L E Y OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER
I - U P P E R ST FRANCIS LD 2 - R E E L F O O T LO 3 - T IPTONVILLE OBION R. LEVEE EXT. 4 - LOWER ST FRANCIS LD 5 - UPPER YAZOO LD 6 - WHITE RIVER LD 7 - COLDWATER R. LEVEE 8 - GREENWOOD PROTECTION LEVEE 9 - BOUGERE LEVEE
1 0 - BAYOU COCODRIE 1 1 - MORGANZA CONTROL STRUCTURE 1 2 - T . i R R.R. EMBANKMENT 1 3 - NOTM R.R. EMBANKMENT 14 - BAYOU SORREL LOCK 1 5 - V.A. HOSPITAL 1 6 - ALGIERS LOCK
WEST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
1 7 - TEXARKANA DAM 1 8 - WALLACE LAKE DAM 1 9 - RED RIVER LATERAL CANAL
2 0 - SCHOONER BAYOU
EAST GULF COASTAL P L A I N
21 - GRENADA DAM 2 2 - MISS. R. BASIN MODEL
MISCELLANEOUS GARRISON DAM N.D.
2 3 - BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM
A ix / ' l / k p l a r Bluffy
Ac;/
/A/// 'A// Cape Gira
A •Golccndal
rard«
?bes- / ,
fcdvance/
Commerced
Charleston o
^MoundCityl tCAlRO
Wickliffe Paducah
V-A loomfield 0 ^ V/ Morehouse
°Sikeston r$\
[New Madrid l°Malden |
/ i
Portagevilleo )\ (
/) rS' ' Caruthersville ^ ~
J*7s ''
\r%
« Columbus
o •Ob'*
. . A Jonesborol
btytheville<
i i
Osceola p((
5 Marked Tree
jltori
/
Lake^ W / / / / V /
V/A//A/A /
T E N N / / V / /
/ /
/
^chL'/
'/<z&y
V>DesAix / ,
/ZAA RiVi & * '
. L I T T L E ROCK
/ / /
kV
«v Mariar»n»2^ 7°Clarendor!
«
• /
/ / vZr
/
Stuttgart o Marvel^
, / ' BLUFF A ^
' / , V>
A,
A
A
/ .
Helena^
'ito \Mark« o(
'Clarksdale
' . - V .
'A /.rt
A, /
X n /
'/•.
/ /.
/ ' A / A
* / , A
'S Z*o /
/ / / .
Monti eel to
Arkansas City
/ ^Charleston'
Tutwiler/ '•' ' •
&%>
A
V/AAAAA/y A A/A, //A/A
Giendora
Lake Villi !g*C<
C GREENVILLE
ireenv
I Bel ton
Eudc iorao
/ . . / ./' A / A : / . k/
1/ / / JO
&0 Lake" Prwiden
.MONROE
'0 :/A
9 ^Tsllulah
f Winnsboro
/
vA w A / / / A/ Harrisonbui
/ A / A A J A ' A
St.Jowph
} SlClt Y
/ /
/
SLAND ' / S V / ' / S A' " ~ " "
/ / . v//// Jonci _ . N_._ r , , _ , .
' ' ^ ^ r r i < S X ^ N A T C H E 2 /
Lake
Tchula/
/ / :
/ . MISS
'/.
/
/
/
Rolling Fork ?Yazoo 9r^A
<w / / A A/
.A
'A. / / /
v/A: /
-JACKSON
/. A / A A / ~7~r
"ALEXANDRIA^
Marksville"
( ^ / A /
, >Woodvilie/
VA/A A
Simmesport
lousas •
Melville
1 3 ,
4 1 12
y <&i
A '/
_ /
AAAA
/ / ,
ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ADJACENT AREAS OF THE EAST AND WEST
GULF COASTAL PLA4NS
PROJECT LOCATIONS
2 0 2 0
SCALE 4 0 60 8 0 Ml
/ , •
/
[BATON ROUGE
/ , / / / .
' / / \
'Lafay*
laquemine 14
2Q>
>onaldsonville /
o ^Franklin
wton; \/ A' . , Slkteit
LAKE V PONTCHARTRAtJ\
\i TWEW
/ . -^ulfport 'Vf&A'A A t
Mississippi S0on</
%
37°
36°
34°
33°
32°
3J€
<3 oThibodaux
Morgan City
o F
oHouma
, t ^ S 9 ^ = ^ P
M B X
l(H£AO OF PASS£S
c 0
30°
29°
3l f l 90°
to
<
& /
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM PLASTICITY
SANDY CLAYS INORGANIC SILTS
SIL7Y SANDS CLAYEY SANDS
ORGANIC CLAYS AND HIGHLY ELASTIC SILTS SANDY CLAYS INORGANIC SILTS
SIL7Y SANDS CLAYEY SANDS
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SILTS
20
10
10 20 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY CHART AFTER A. CASACRANDE
100
X 80 UJ o z "* 60 >-
JU to < a! 20
B_
m g s — - - - - -
;ii ; ; *
;_: ;_
, u u - .,T,J
_ : _ " i " ~ " ^ X A D - - . - - - - - ^ -- . m j — - — . _ — _ . - _ _ _ - , . _
S 3 U * ^ ~~ z ±: - i -" " f i O - - - - - - - - >t +-• -
o o - - - - ~ c ^ ^ - : £ - fr__^Sd' i *~ - ^?+l O - ~ -« 4^Z ._. * . ? 1 r
h- 4 0 : "ii _ : s : : (0 2 __r _ _ < - d£s : _i _ _ „ _ : ^ __ : ^ po - : _.-_• j g£_» ___ _ _:_. : ___ LL _:u - — — — J5rw7 ~ "
- - - - i $ * - -: _ : n^ *• • _ • _ ~ • _ _ _„_ _ _ _ • • _ _ _ _
A _ _ _ _ _ _ - ± _ _ — _ • • — • „ • - - _ . - - - . '0 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140
L IQUID L I M I T
U P P E R S T F R A N C I S L E V E E D I S T R I C T
100
£ so a z
60
4 0 to <
2 0 ^ _ ! : _
; ? ; ?fa * . :
;_: ;& z.
0 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID L I M I T
L O W E R S T . F R A N C I S L E V E E D I S T R I C T
N O T E : A L L TESTS RECENT ALLUVIUM
2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID L IMIT
R E E L F O O T L E V E E D I S T R I C T
7 x no _!__,,*_! G _ _ _ — : - - r - £ - ^
^ z ~~ i _t~2±_: ~" #50 - - - __2— J L L L
OU - - - - - 5 - - J H W - - . - - = h- _ :_ ^: _t ! ± z - _ I_ ^ ? y ? " - - -o . * *t : : :_ __ _ r~ _LO - - ' - - -_ • ' _« -, J_ _ _ _ _ . -__ f- * ° __ rt % * «o : : _^:_ _ : _ : : : : : :~~ _ < _ _ _ y? _ _
o_ 20 • ' _ _ _ - _ - _ - -_ " - _ ' _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ' _ ' • ' ' .
? • _ * _ _ • • • I ; " I - I - I I - I - I
n — - - — - — _ — _ — „ _ . : . : : : : : :
.. i uu - - - • • - - — - - - - — . . - - - ' . . - - - — . - - -
: ; . . , . . . . , - . '•''•£?
X B O - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - • - • * - : - - 7 f c - -UJ _ _ ° V *T Q - -. lit- -Z
D U — — — — - - — — — - — - — — . -* - - —•. — — — — — — - — — >" _ -J7
h* a ' £<£ — ,» ? o A n _ : . . : _ _ ^ J L __ ____ P
4 0 : __ _ _o ^in^ S _ ^ ,?"!• ^ - - - - ^ u ^ ^ L i . X
r1 p o l - - • I - - I - - S 2 f _ - _ - - _ _- _. °- 2 0 „_ ,^^r _ _ -~ - - - - -
: : I*L _ „ _ : „ : _ : IZ*?ZL :•• — „ : _ :^^_ : ^ : « _ A I - . — _ : _ I _ - _ _ _ I
20 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120 140 LIQUID L IMIT
U P P E R Y A Z O O L E V E E D I S T R I C T
PLASTICITY CHARTS
PROJECTS IN THE A L L U V I A L VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
2 0 4 0 60 8 0 100 1 2 0 LIQUID L I M I T
T I P T O N V I L L E O B I O N R I V E R L E V E E E X T E N S I O N
140
• _ • ' _ _ _ _ _ _ - ; _ _ _ ^
i , ° _ ZsZ " ^ ~ ^ _ _ _ _ _ - . t i l - - - 2 1 " -9 - _ i : _ _ _ _ o : i i ^ : ^ z . ; -•_ :~ z : , « i z 7 ~ -- 6o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - , : : - - - : z : - - . : : : . . >. " w ;:":_- • < c . i„f r\
t _ : _!: f : ::""_ u _ _ < _ , ^ 5 _ _ -AC\ — - - - - - . J u , < * 3 - . - I - - I - I H 4 0 - - - — ^ : " ^ ^ 2 _ - - : ~ : : : : ~
^ * _ ^ S n b _ : __ _ < _ ?-, _:t _ :_ : : _: S ! P O - - - - - - s * _ j ^ - i - i i : - : - . : _ . : _ . _ : _ - : - . - .
_ ^ ^ _ _ _ . _ ; _ ; • : • : • • : ~ _ • : r :
_ _ , _ : • _ • _ . _ _ • _ _ _ :
.. _ 7 . , L . . . . . : - - -*Y™ ^ - — - — . : — : - . : - _ . : _ - : _ - . _
2 0 4 0 6 0 80 100 120 140 L IQUID L I M I T
W H I T E R I V E R L E V E E D I S T R I C T
100
X 80 UJ Q Z ~ 60
to < Q! 20 lii r.
'41 Z. ** \z
S-
2 0 4-0 60 8 0 100 120 L I Q U I D L I M I T
C O L D W A T E R R I V E R L E V E E
100
x 80 UJ Q Z
60
U ( I 4 0 <0
< o! 20
140 ° 0
1
_ ^2 .__: _ __„£-
- • • ' • • •• ' • ^ . .
_ __ „ ? i ^ : „ _
_ £ * _ „ ^ _ _ ___ - e -^ --_. *<> _ | L - ^ _ _ _
: _ A _„? - - -_ _. _ . j * . * ^ ? _ I -_ : ___- > -.- _ , < J K ____- — ___ : : — J> -,2 v * - - - :— - < h - - , ^ j i & -
. - j ;? ^ _ __ _ _ : _ _ : _ • - ^ i - i - . - _ : : - _ - _ : •
— : s - - - :- ;" • • • - - - ^ . • » • _ - _
: :^~^_ - :_ : : _ • - • : i 7 - _ : : : : _ — - . ^ _ - ^ . — — — _ ._ _—___ —
100
x 80 UJ Q
Z
O P"40 (0 < o! 20
2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID L IMIT
G R E E N W O O D P R O T E C T I O N L E V E E
: ^ <>_ y ^ e r _5L. >£
: _ _ •L8' Sz~ ^ S > , ^ . _ vto. + Z
±ir S. _: _ ^ _ _: _-^<_ _ /^ .U . ^ C i _ , . : , . . . : - : _ *rt*--c ±'_ *| _
y -' £ -
• p ., ••'.-. > •
> •
S ~ — __ &t-JL"l-- — -2 0 4 0 60 8 0 100 1 2 0 140
LIQUID L I M I T
B O U G E R E L E V E E
100
-2 80 Q Z
60
CO
< a 20
• " " " " " * " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • . , < = . - .
" B A C K S W A M P D E P O S I T S ^ ~Z ^ " : " " " " : • " — - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - ^ ^ c r - - - 2 ^ - -
- - - : •* : : -^zSz •_ ^ _ : _ <• , 2 _ _ . - , . - - . . . : • . - , - , - • . • > • * - • - , - •
_ -___ -_ . F -_ - _ r r ^ - * — " __ J?
_ - S • _ _ - - * V ^ '
_ : _ : _ : i - - . : ? * : ^ . . : . - Jo - ^JL -V -
_oS , < ^ p : _ _ _ : : : ; E * -- _ - __ : _ v*S •• -_ _ __ : _: ::*:__: :______: __.. : : ; * : : : - - - - - - - - - _-_; ___ . _-^ __ __ _ _ __ - „ „ ? • _ • • __._ - • _ . - - • _
: ^ ^ : _ • • _ • • - • — • - . - • • - •
• ^ ^ • • " . _ • - • : : _ . . ^ _
100
x so UJ
a z - 60 > -
ho to < Q! 20
I ! B A C K S W A M P D E P O S I T S
2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 "b LIQUID L I M I T
B A Y O U X O C O D R I E
N O T E : A L L T E S T S RECENT A L L U V I U M
iz z?l
zz *t
Z
• o «
iziii fi
7'. III T.
:z
100
X 80 UJ o z - 60 >' h; O P 4 0 <0 < ci 20
: : BACKSWAMP DEPOSITS
20 4 0 60 8 0 100 120 140 LIQUID L IMIT
B A Y O U S O R R E L L O C K
m s S-
^ ^ ;*£
_
2 0 4 0 6 0 80 100 120 140 L IQUID L I M I T
T E X A S A N D P A C I F I C j
R A I L R O A D E M B A N K M E N T T:
PLASTICITY CHARTS PROJECTS IN THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
100
x 80 LU
Q
z 60
^ 4 0
2 0
11II111111111 11111 111II — BACKSWAMP DEPOSITS I ?
, J? ^ • "?
- Z
^ \ / _ _ r- S . . .. - >r ^
_<^ r_Z _ ^.x. ^ X ^K - +Z*& v-t^*-
„<5 F . ^ j dT
*' yy
• &£ s>
s • - ^ * ' -
2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 L IQUID L I M I T
N . O . T . & M. R.R. E M B A N K M E N T
100
X 80 LtJ Q
6 0
4 0
-Q-. 20
L E G E N D
S r 5~ 7 " 9 BACKSWAMP D E P O S I T S ^ ^ _ Q ^ ^ *
± ± - -*:^ ±L I s? ^ " ~ ~ ""• ~"P >r , " >
° «: -.' >8fc>g* » ^ r ^ ' - L
•» J^^^ru v * v I • y ° uf* 1 - • . . . . . - - ^ ^ - • • . - | - - — * -
• . > j sJ<
- ^ • • ^ * 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120
LIQUID L IMIT M O R G A N Z A C O N T R O L S T R U C T U R E
1 4 0
100
x UJ Q Z
8 0
60
^ 4 0 <0
< 2 0
• i i i
L E G E N D
o RECENT MARSH DEPOSITS
• MARINE DEPOSITS
S-
\z± ;i?
8x
§*E
^1 ;?"
; ?
2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID L I M I T
A L G I E R S L O C K
100
X 80 UJ Q Z C 60
4 0
Q. 20
L E G E N D
o RECENT MARSH DEPOSITS ? s . - M A R I N E DEPOSITS JL ?
/ s * PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS . ^ - ^
- - - - - - - - - y *% z
- , ' L . ^ '
-rlr S t-MZ't
* ! ^ * J X « »5'"-i Y
• ?^f~^ • " S*l —i\—£ « ?
- S -i u,Z
£ 2 0 40 60 80 100 I
LIQUID L I M I T
V E T E R A N S H O S P I T A L
2 0 140
PLASTICITY CHARTS PROJECTS IN THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
100
x 80 id Q Z
601
4 0
2 0 -
Y t' 1 1 1 T 1 1 '1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 T T ' l 1' 1 I T T 1 1 1 1 1 1—1 1 1 1 r -
- PLEISTOCENE - T E R R A C E DEPOSITS I
"" " — " ~J? _ _ _ S ^ - - t . * • - _ ^ ~
s ± A ^ _t -s s > ~~l. £
. s ? a k X
X — ^ ^ yZSy _ ;_ : : : : : - a^-S^-i:: : = = = : : : -*•£*-*%-£ A*m$ ^
^ 3 ? ' a S i ^ § ES!-.
_^Z I t s _. _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ - - - „ __ _ _ _ _
0 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140 L IQUID L I M I T
T E X A R K A N A D A M
100
x 80 _J
60
4 0
Q. 20
i M i 111 i M i i i " i i i i ~ r T | [ | g r~ j~n i M l 1! - • RFCFNT Al 1 UVIIllM
_ _ __ _ l -
- ^ s J? 1 . '
_ IE - - - - _.' * £
e- ^ ' l -^J$' ,r _rll -• ^ T ' -
»-",- 4 ^ £
_^p'f F r- ^ S
^r ? » "-*
J? • _ _ • • _ .
0 2 0 4 0 60 8 0 100 120 140 LIQUID L I M I T
R E D R I V E R L A T E R A L C A N A L
100
x 80
60
4 0
£L 2 0
111 1 111 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 !! 1 1 1 -RECF NT Al 1 UVIUM - _
I I i s"-^
i s -i t _r i_ — . ^ > - 7 - _ t + - - - -,ja __r :
• oc J*' . • •' _£_ i i_ ^ '
" " a.»,_*LiS~ r ~~ ~ i t ^.^t^ _ -*• j ? ^ * - - ^ - . -
• S*l i t 4- -. -^^ - -•• • .• .y
• -,2 • _ * 7
—.:• _<_:: ± i _ _ « _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140
LIQUID L IMIT
W A L L A C E L A K E D A M
500
X Hi Q Z
> •
I-
80
6 0
-f 4 0
< 2 0
- P L E I S T O C E N E - P R A I R I E DEPOSITS '•-_ _ _ _ _ - - - _— - - - T - — " 7
' • _ _ _ _ ^ . _ _ _ ^ L _
l i t _,_: 4_ ^ _t _t± ^ i t „-:
-___tt--- ----- -- - - -,-£--JZ-^
„_- __ ___ E_ * ,^ i _E _ _ y j * * . - j -
>i> ^ * ^ ?
:_ _*_^ __ _ „ _ _ r „ -: -tJ _t i t
_.?
- i ' _^ „ „ - ___. , . ;__, 0 2 0 4 0 60 80 100 120 140
LIQUID L I M I T
S C H O O N E R B A Y O U
PLASTICITY CHARTS PROJECTS IN THE WEST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
100
X 80 UJ Q Z
60
P 4°
20
i n i n II n i l H i l l I I I I - - — — - —
LEGEND ~ 7 __ ^ _ ^ TERTIARY TEOCENE'i - ,^
• RFPFMT Al 1 UVIUM - 4-*-
1,11 H I I , i H i l l M I I , I , ' ' V W 5 ,
14^ H^g^?- - . - - - - - - -
" " -,* r- r
: - : „ _ • S . J L .
1 « ^ 5 - ^ - —
J K % >
- - " - . p r g p * - - - - - - - - = H sJSE . • - -,^Jh-- j - - - __ 20 4-0 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT GRENADA DAM
120 140
100
* 80 UJ
60
4 0
Q- 20
1111111111II1111111 - TFRTIARY TrrirrMr^ • - - - • — —*• | • r i i i i . i : n- " 7^
" s " 3 [ ^ " ' e?3 5i ^ - ^ _
± _, _ s i. __ _ _ __ ^iL--m*—— - - t - - 7 t "
* \ $* : : •- - «L 3 ? : : :
__- _ ___ _ _ - ^ . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _v z7+tr - — - - - * s ^ i . . - - I •
?- 22' »— - - - - - -j ' l ^ s B ~~ I -"
_ _ * 5 ^ _ _ _ _ *, - - _ ^ * ; " :__ _ iv - _ _ ^ ,**_ _ " ^
_ • ^ _ _ ^ - * ? -- ^ - — - . _ _._-._ :_ : __ :_.._
2 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID LJMIT
MISSISSIPPI BASIN MODEL
100
x 80 UJ Q
60
4 0
a- 20
LEGEND ' -__ _ _ - „ ' ' . o RECENT ALLUVIUM ; _ _ ^ _
- • GLACIAL TILL - ? --" i — z ~ ' — - - - - - - - - - - £ --^z - - _
_ : _ _ : : : _ i i _z :? : — : : — : — : — i j ; — * 1 _ : i -• ?
: : _ __•_ ~_ : < _ ^ ^ J S E _ : : _ _ : _ : _ J* _e.*^x.tx _ _ _ _ • _ •
_ :d2;^2^ i - - - -i £ £ ^ j r _ - _ -jic32 - - - -
* 3s? : _ . E L ^ _ _ _ _ -_ * - S - - " - -
At - - - - - - -SVL _ — _ _ :
100
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID LIMIT
GARRISON DAM
80
60
X UJ a z
>-
y 40 H
< 20
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ALLUVIAL & RESIDUAL DEPOSITS
m V
s-t:
Yd
2 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 LIQUID LIMIT
BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM
PLASTICITY CHARTS
PROJECTS IN THE EAST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
AND MISCELLANEOUS GROUP
100
90
60
o o
100
90
60
o o o
o o
o o
o
o
o o
e
70
K «° I t l O z
» -• V < - J IL
o o o o O
o
It o o o o ^ o ^ o, o o ofe o o o oo
• V o ^ r
70
K «° I t l O z
» -• V < - J IL
e
g " % " o i f o
o o o o
1 o ° 9 j « I > o o o o o o o ^
9J< o © o v ^ o o e o< OOOAO O > ^
70
K «° I t l O z
» -• V < - J IL
o
o o * o * o o, o i o * y
i i 9 W 0 » 9 0 o OOj o o
i o-^o o o o O U O O
*%° A ; ( io° • 9. • ° * * ° J >°JO% A
o v
o ^ ^
70
K «° I t l O z
» -• V < - J IL o
1
e e e ! e e e
e o%oo „ o o o OO % o e ^ 4 . o
•r-O 0 > o ^ ^
~ o J / r
e ^ ^
30
20
10
o<
o
V O O tf»
O O O O J o e o *
i o e e o
O 0
o
°°A / o ^ r
30
20
10
* *
o o o
• o
o % e % o o o oo % • o
o o ^ 0 o o > ^ o ^ ^
r o
LEGEND o R E C E N T - A L L U V I U M . BACK SWAMP, CHANNEL
F I L L I N G . NATURAL L EVE E, MARINE.AND MARSH DEPOSITS.
A PLEISTOCENE-PRAIRIE DEPOSITS.
30
20
10
0
• o ^ ^
LEGEND o R E C E N T - A L L U V I U M . BACK SWAMP, CHANNEL
F I L L I N G . NATURAL L EVE E, MARINE.AND MARSH DEPOSITS.
A PLEISTOCENE-PRAIRIE DEPOSITS.
0
o o,
o o
10 20 30 4 0 50 60 70 80 LIQUID LIMIT
90 100 no reo 140 ISO 160
PLASTICITY CHART ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI R IVER-432 TESTS
^ ' / A
r v >
A
A
A
A
6 A °
A ^
A A
A
A A ° ^ ° A A •A A
A >
A yS
A A A
A
* A A A . A °A. AA^A Ao A
1 0 0
A o A
o A >
A
A A i
I AA A M A
A A ^
AA A . °A ^
1A s LEGEND RECENT ALLUVIUM
A PLEISTOCENE-TERRACE AND PRAIRIE DEPOSITS
A
A i
\ A
A A A
A A A A I L A O A > *
A > ^ A A
A
A
A
20 70 80 90 LIQUID LIMIT
P L A S T I C I T Y CHART WEST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
136 TESTS
100
90
7
o
80
70
7
7 .. ^ / 80
70
7 7
7 7 7
7
V7 _
*iy 80
70
7
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
60
50
7 7
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
60
50
7
o
7
7
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
60
50
• vv
7
7 7 > ^
o
7 o
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
30
20
10
0
77
7 " 7 X
/ ^ e
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
30
20
10
•C 7 v
LEGEND • RECENT ALLUVIUM 7 TERTIARY (EOCENE)
X Ul Q
2
>• O (0 < -J 0.
30
20
10
7
* 7
70
? V1
7ooV >
w J f l 7
oo ^ ^ ^ 7
7
0
(
< 7
7 7 „
7
0
( ) 10 20 30 4 0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 LIQUID LIMIT
P L A S T I C I T Y CHART EAST GULF COASTAL PLAIN
135 TESTS
10
>-u z u D a u cr
i MEAN 0.107 —
r^U. S .025 .050 .075 .100 .12 5 .150
TAN |3 .175 .200
TIPTONVILLE OBION RIVER LEVEE EXTENSION RECENT ALLUVIUM 2 5 TESTS
10 M EAN 0.1
[p. u ,r J
i° J
i° J
n ) .025 .050 .075 .100 .125 .150 .175 .200 TAN (3
REELFOOT L D - R E C E N T ALLUVIUM 30 TESTS
10 ! MEAN 0 .112 -
. r8-i
! MEAN
'i . r8-i • ~ u V H
• ~ u V .025 .050 .075 .100
TAN ^ .125 .150 .175 .200
UPPER ST FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT RECENT ALLUVIUM 4 0 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE II
10 1 1 —tP~
MEAN 0 . 0 9 4 - — * ,
•—•" i • 1
~1 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.12 5 0.150 0.175 0.200
T A N p
WHITE RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT RECENT ALLUVIUM 25 TESTS
10
>-o z UJ D a Id u.
1 1 .tcr- MEAN 0.122
X ^ L 0 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200
TAN /3
UPPER YAZOO LEVEE DISTRICT RECENT ALLUVIUM 25 T E S T S
-i r MEAN 0.123
ttrf% 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.1
TAN £
75 0 .200
LOWER ST FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT RECENT ALLUVIUM 25 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATg 12
u z u
a (Z
10
o
MEAN 0.101
GxJ 0 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 2 0 0
TAN P
BOUGERE L E V E E - R E C E N T ALLUVIUM 2 2 T E S T S
10
J e M o
MEAN 0.098
0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 TAN p
0.150 0.175 0.200
GREENWOOD PROTECTION LEVEE RECENT ALLUVIUM 13 TESTS
10
rH •MEAN 0.097
Uh 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200
TAN 0
COLDWATER RIVER L E V E E RECENT ALLUVIUM 15 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 13
^r—MEAN 0. 21
r°- i poJ Lo-f"i-o-1 | j L o - | 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
5 TAN £
^ BAYOU SORREL LOCK-BACKSWAMP 2 13 TESTS a.
~ME
I
AN 0.1 28
0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 TAN |3
BAYOU COCODRIE BACKSWAMP AND NATURAL LEVEE
23 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 14
2 0
15
10
l ^ ^ - M E A N 0.108
r"~i. l
1 1 Q p 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
$ TAN 3 Z £ N.O. T. AND M. R.R. EMBANKMENT o BACKSWAMP 10 T E S T S
20
15
10
1
n f MEAN ( D.I27
U L 1 S-
0 1 •
S-f 1
0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 .200 0.225 TAN &
T E X A S AND PACIFIC R.R. EMBANKMENT BACKSWAMP 49 T E S T S
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 15
20
15
10
1
^ r - — M E A N 0.123
. .1 r-i . .1 r-i f ' r-i > o z Id D O UJ a u.
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.12 5 0.150 0.175 0.200 0 .225 0.250 TAN 0
MORGANZA CONTROL STRUCTURE CHANNEL FILLING 13 TESTS
20
15
10
MEAN 0 .128
1 1 4, -LJ ~u 1 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.12 5 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
TAN P
MORGANZA CONTROL STRUCTURE BACKSWAMP 55 T E S T S
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
..... in t
PLATE 16
10
MEAN 0.104
X 1 cr^k Jl O O
L 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0J50 0.175 0.200 0.225
TAN ^
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL PLEISTOCENE PRAIRIE DEPOSITS 8 T E S T S
10
u z UJ
d UJ
n n v . i i v
i r f ° i r 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
TAN 3
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL MARINE DEPOSITS 12 T E S T S
10
— MEAN 1 0.109
- * 1 n 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.12 5 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
TAN p
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL RECENT MARSH 8 T E S T S
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 17
20
15
10
M E A N 0.143 — ^
r • 1
> o z UJ D
a UJ IE u.
0 0 .025 0 .050 0.075 0.100 0 . f25 0.J50 0.175 0 .200 TAN 3
ALGIERS LOCK-MARINE DEPOSITS 3 T E S T S
20
15
10
- * • K rfEAN 0. 100
~i r i "-n
~i r i 0 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 .200
TAN f3
ALGIERS LOCK-RECENT MARSH 18 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 18
MEi fcN 0.12 _j T ^
- •
KL _+J
r* 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200
TAN <3
TEXARKANA DAM-PLEISTOCENE TERRACE DEPOSITS 106 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL T Y P E S
10
.MEAN 0.133
n i
0 .025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 2 2 5 TAN (B
SCHOONER BAYOU-PLEISTOCENE PRAIRIE DEPOSITS 7 TESTS
10
>• o z UJ
D 5 UJ A
- M E A N 0.120
JtU 0 . 0 2 5 0 .050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 2 2 5
T A N f3
RED RIVER LATERAL CANAL RECENT ALLUVIUM 10 TESTS
10
L*~ M£ AN 0. 12 >7
' .1 fu W-H ^
A 0 . 0 2 5 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 . 2 0 0 0 . 2 2 5 T A N (3
WALLACE LAKE DAM RECENT ALLUVIUM 13 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 20
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 TAN £
MISSISSIPPI BASIN MODEL-TERTIARY (EOCENE) 41 TESTS
10 >-u z UJ D a Id CC
— MEAN f
0.129
^s* • n J ° u_ 'U,
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 TAN £
GRENADA DAM-RECENT ALLUVIUM 25 TESTS
10 I— MEAr J 0.133 I— MEAr J 0.133
0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0 .200 0.225 0 .250 TAN P
GRENADA DAM-TERTIARY (EOCENE) 69 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
10
r s -MEAN 0.123
i 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225
TAN (3
BLAKELY MOUNTAIN DAM RESIDUAL AND A L L U V I A L 15 TESTS
10
>-o z UJ D a UJ
cr u.
MEAN 0.136
r* -n 1
-^i f^i 0.025 0.050 0.075 0,100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.2 00 0 . 2 2 5
TAN (3
GARRISON D A M - G L A C I A L T ILL 7 TESTS
MEAN 0.121
^ i & (> o
0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 TAN (3
GARRISON D A M - R E C E N T A L L U V I U M 4 2 TESTS
HISTOGRAMS OF GEOLOGIC SOIL TYPES
PLATE 22