Muhanthan, B. (1991).

Gotechnique
TECHNICAL

41, No. 1, 135-138

NOTE

Liquid limit and surface area of clays

B. MUHUNTHAN*

KEYWORDS: Atterberg limits; clays; mineralogy.

relationship
is validated
using
test
results
published by previous researchers including Sridharan et al. (1988). Such a relationship
holds
promise for future studies into the behaviour of
clays.

INTRODUCTION
Atterberg limits are widely used for the classification of soils. They were standardized
by
Casagrande (1932) who devised methods for measuring them. More recently, various other techniques such as the fall cone (e.g. British Standards
Institution,
1975; Whyte,
1982) have
been
adopted. These limits have been correlated with
different engineering properties such as compressibility, shear strength, permeability,
swell potential, etc. (Wroth & Wood, 1978; Wasti, 1987;
Youssef et al., 1965). These correlations, although
empirical, could be rationalized if the mechanism
controlling the Atterberg limits was better understood.
It is reasonable to assume that the rheology of
clay-water
systems is controlled by interparticle
forces. However, the nature of the forces and the
factors that influence them are still conjectural.
The emphasis hitherto has been to describe these
forces in terms of the electrical double layer
theory (Van Olphen, 1963; Bolt, 1956). In a recent
paper Sridharan et al. (1988) attempted to explain
the mechanism
controlling
the liquid limit of
natural soils and found that little correlation
exists between clay size fraction and liquid limits.
Their emphasis was based on ion exchange phenomena. Recent test results obtained at Purdue
University by Low and his co-workers (e.g., Low,
1987; Muhunthan,
1990) suggest that the diffuse
layer is too weak to have any impact on engineering phenomena
such as swelling and compressibility.
Low (1987) advanced the concept that hydration of the surface plays an important role in the
behaviour
of clays. Because of this the specific
surface area of a clay becomes very important.
The raison dhe of this Technical Note is to
develop a relationship
between the specific surface area of a clay and its liquid limit. This

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Before proceeding
with the derivation
of the
relationship
it will be instructive to consider the
arrangement
of clay particles. Fig. 1 shows the
three primary ways in which planar clay particles
can be arranged: edge to edge, edge to face and
face to face or parallel. It has been observed that
clay particles become parallel as they shear past
each other (Marshall, 1949; Dawson, 1975).
The most widely used means for determining
the liquid limit, such as the Casagrande
apparatus and the fall-cone apparatus, are designed to
perform the test mechanically, the primary action
being one of shearing.
The fall-cone induces
plastic deformation
of the clay as it penetrates
(Houlsby, 1982) and hence during the test the
trace of the fabric in the natural state would be
destroyed and would not have any influence on
the liquid limit. Further, in view of the previously
mentioned observation
on shearing, it is reasonable to assume that during this test on a soft clay
the particles will attain a parallel orientation,
although this alignment may not be perfect.
Goodeve (1939) presented a theory of plastic
flow for colloidal particles. According
to this
theory
F = (fcz)/2

(1)

where F is the shearing force per unit area,fis the

critical force required to break an interparticle
bond or link, c is the number of bonds or links
per unit volume and z is the distance between the
moving plane and the reference plane (i.e., the distance between the particles that are moving relative to each other). It has been remarked
previously that the clay particles become parallel
as they shear past each other during a liquid limit
test. Consequently,
it is reasonable
to identify z
with the average interparticle distance for a parallel arrangement.
Consider
two parallel clay platelets of plan
area A and thickness t, separated by an average

Discussion on this Technical Note closes 5 July 1991;

for further details see p. ii.
* School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA. (Formerly of Peradeniya University, Sri Lanka).
135

MUHUNTHAN

136

mas+then

the volume of the water VWis

VW = AZ

(2)

and the volume of soil V, is

v, = At

(3)

The water content

w can be expressed

as

MW Azp,
w = M, = Atp,

(4)

Neglecting the contribution

specific surface area S is

Combination
z=-

of equations

due to the edges, the

(4) and (5) gives

2w
(6)

PWS
Substitution of this value for z in equation
rearrangement
yields
0)
w=

(1) and

(Fp,S>
fc

Equation (7) holds for all water contents. If the w

value corresponding
to the liquid limit is denoted
by LL, equation (7) can be rewritten as
LL=%

(
Cc)
Fig. 1. Primary arrangement of clay particles: (a) edge
to edge, (b) edge to face and (c) face to face

distance z (Fig. 2). If all the water present lies

between
the
clay
platelets
(i.e. interlayer
waterkp,
being the density of the clay particles,
p, the density of water and S the specific surface
area of the clay particles (i.e. surface area per unit

,.J

fc > L.L

(8)

Since cfc) is the force required to break all of

the bonds or links in a unit volume of the system,
this force must depend linearly on the specific
surface area. Margheim & Low (1978) presented
results of cfc) with S for different clays which plot
on a straight line with an intercept. Accordingly,
it is assumed that the following linear relationship
between cfc) and S holds.

fc = as + y

(9)

where a and y are material constants.

At the liquid limit F has a common value for
all clay-water
systems. Hence at the liquid limit
equation (9) can be rewritten as

=ps+;i
I

Fig. 2. A representative unit of parallel clay platelets

where /I and 1 are constants to be determined and

are related to u and y through a division by Fp,
Substitution of this in equation (8) and rearrange-

LIQUID

LIMIT AND SURFACE AREA OF CLAYS

limits
and
Table 2. Liquid
surface areas of British soils (from
Farrar & Coleman, 1967)

limits
and
Table 1. Liquid
surface areas of South African
soils (from De Bruyn et al., 1957)
Soil

Liquid
limit :

%
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

01

0.02
l/S:

Soil

433
326
324
225
180
169
89
69
48
38

0.01

Surface
area :

Liquid
limit:

Surface
area :

ml/g

81

2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10

79
71
16
70
102
121
47
68
72
77
50
72
69
48
60
28
36
31

91
96
91
80
98
133
186
45
94
79
126
41
88
71
65
15
61
34
38

m2/g

122
105
80
82
61
85
55
52
41
36

137

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

0.03

0.04

g/m2

Fig. 3. Relationship between liquid limit and surface area

of South African soils (from De Bruyn et ul., 1957)

ment yields
01

l/LL = 1(1/S) + /?
Hence a plot of l/LL against l/S should
straight line for clay-water systems.

(11)
give a

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

Test measurements
of specific surface areas and
liquid limits are relatively scarce. De Bruyn et al.
(1957) reported results from tests performed on
several South African soils. Their results are
shown in Table 1. The liquid limit values shown
were obtained from the plasticity chart given on
their paper. A plot of l/LL against l/S is shown
in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the results plot on a
straight line. Farrar & Coleman (1967) reported
measurements
performed
on nineteen
British
soils. Table 2 shows the relevant values. Fig. 4
shows a linear relationship between l/LL and l/S
for this data set as well. Fig. 5 is a plot obtained
using the data reported by Sridharan et al. (1988),

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

1is: g/m2

Fig. 4. Relationship between liquid limit and surface area

of British soils (from Farrar & Coleman, 1%7)

the relevant values for which are given in Table 3.

All plots were drawn using a linear statistical
regression analysis.
The values of /? and 1 for each of these cases is
shown in Table 4 with their respective correlation
factors. It is of interest to note an almost constant
j? value for all clay soils analysed. Reverting back
to equation (IO), it can be observed that the effect
on link or bond breakage is a unique function of
the specific surface area for all clay soils. Consequently the difference in I leading to different
slopes in the straight line plots can perhaps be
attributed
to other factors including those controlled by the particular mineralogy.

138

MUHUNTHAN

limits
and
Table 3. Liquid
surface areas of Indian soils (from
Sridbaran ef al., 1988)
Soil
specimen

Liquid
limit :

Surface
area:
mlg

o/o
25
38
47
47
73
74
75
75
100

01

40.2
42.5
736
84.3
172.8
224.0
125.8
147.4
167.2

O-01

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Author appreciates

with Dr Philip Low.

0.03

0.02
l/S:

such relationship,
that between permeability
and
the specific surface area of a clay-water
system
was shown elsewhere (Muhunthan,
1990). It is
hoped that the relationship
presented here will
provide a further stimulus for the fundamental
study of the engineering phenomena of clays.

0.04

g/m*

Fig. 5. Relationship between liquid limit and surface area

of Indian soils (from Sridbaran et al., 1988)

Table 4.

Values of p and I for each set of test data

Test data

Sridharan

Correlation
r :%

0.006

1.127

92.8

0.006

0.795

76.6

0.0085

0.752

96.8

et al., 1988
Farrar &
Coleman, 1967
De Bruyn
et al., 1957

CONCLUSIONS

An attempt has been made to study the liquid

limit from a rheological point of view. A relationship between specific surface area and liquid limit
has been derived
and was validated
using
published test results for soils of different origin.
This relationship
is useful in obtaining
specific
surface area from liquid limit measurements.
The
specific surface area plays an important
role in
controlling many engineering phenomena such as
swelling, compressibility
and permeability.
One

the discussions

he had

REFERENCES
Bolt, G. H. (1956). Physico-chemical
analysis of the
compressibility
of pure clays. Gtotechnique 6, No. 2,
8693.
British Standards Institution. (1975). Methods of test for
soils for civil engineering
purposes,
BS 1377.
London: British Standards Institution.
Casagrande,
A. (1932). Research on Atterberg limits of
soils. Public Roads, 13, No. 8, 121-146.
Dawson, R. (1975). An activated state model for clay
suspension rheology. Trans. Sot. Rheo. 19,229-244.
De Bruyn, C. M. A., Collins, L. F., & Williams, A. A. B.
(1957). The specific surface,
water affinity, and
potential expansiveness
of clays. Clay Miner. Bull. 3,
12G-128.
Farrar, D. M., & Coleman, J. D. (1967). The correlation
of surface area with other properties
of nineteen
British clay soils. J. Soil Sci. 18, 118-124.
Goodeve, C. F. (1939). A general theory of thixotropy
and viscosity. Trans. Faraday Sot. 35, 342-358.
Houlsby, G. T. (1982). Theoretical
analysis of the fall
cone test. Gbotechnique 32, No. 2. 11 l-l 18.
Low, P. F. (1987). Structural component
of the swelling
pressure of clays. Langmuir 3, 18-25.
Marshall, C. E. (1949). The colloid chemistry of the sib
cate minerals, pp. 85-90. New York: Academic
Press.
Muhunthan,
B. (1990). Discussion
of Influence
of
changes in methanol concentration
on clay particle
interactions,
by Storey, J. M. E., & Peirce, J. J. Can.
Geotech. J. 21, No. 2, 266267.
Sridharan,
A., Rao, S. M., & Murthy,
N. S. (1988).
Liquid limit of kaolinitic soils. GCotechnique 38, No.
2,191-198.
van Olphen, H. (1963). An introduction to clay colloid
chemistry. New York: Wiley.
Wasti, Y. (1987). Liquid and plastic limits as determined
from the fall cone and the Casagrande
methods.
Geotech. Testing J. Am. Sot. Civ. Engrs 10, No. 1,
2630.
Wroth, C. P. & Wood, D. M. (1978). The correlation
of
index
properties
with
some
basic
engineering
properties of soils. Can. Geotech. J. 15, No. 2, 137145.
Whyte, I. L. (1982). Soil plasticity and strength-a
new
approach
using extrusion.
Ground Engineering 15,
No. 1, 16-24.
Youssef, M. F., El Rarnli, A. H., & El Demerey, M.
(1965). Relationships
between shear strength, consolidation, liquid limit and plastic limit for remoulded clays. Proc. 6th Int. Co@ Soil Mech. Fndn Engng,
Montreal, 1, 126129.