See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252818715

Theory and practice of the fall cone test

Article in Gotechnique January 2001

DOI: 10.1680/geot.51.8.701.40475

CITATIONS READS

103 1,528

2 authors:

Tatsuya Koumoto Guy Tinmouth Houlsby

Saga University University of Oxford
22 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS 263 PUBLICATIONS 7,132 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Constitutive modelling using damage mechanics and plasticity theory View project

Unpaved Roads View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tatsuya Koumoto on 15 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Koumoto, T. & Houlsby, G. T. (2001). Geotechnique 51, No. 8, 701712
Theory and practice of the fall cone test
T. KO U M OTO  a n d G . T. H O U L S B Y {
The fall cone is considered as a more reliable method for
determining the liquid limit than the Casagrande method,
and is standardised in many countries as the preferred
liquid limit test method. In this paper the theory and prac-
tice of the fall cone test are described. First the penetration
mechanism of a fall cone into clay is analysed, introducing
the concept of dynamic strength to the static results. Next
the applicability of dynamic analysis to the fall cone test is
examined with regard to Hansbo's cone factor, K, for var-
ious cone angles. The theoretical K value for the 608 cone
with a semi-rough surface is found to agree better with ex-
perimental results than is the case for the 308 cone. It is
proposed that the liquid limit be redened internationally as
the water content at which a 608, 60 g fall cone penetrates
10 mm. Finally the applicability of the fall cone test as a
device to relate the strength of a clay with the index proper-
ties is examined.
KEYWORDS: clays; laboratory tests; plasticity; shear strength; soil
classication; standards.
INTRODUCTION
The fall cone test was originally developed as a method for
estimating the strength of remoulded cohesive soils in Scandina-
via, and has become widely used as a standard method for
determining the liquid limit of clays. In the past, several
empirical estimates have been made of the strength at the liquid
limit.
Houlsby (1982) made a dynamic analysis of the fall cone
test, in which the single most important factor affecting strength
at the liquid limit was found to be the cone roughness. He also
observed that the predicted strengths were rather higher than
those obtained from experimental estimates, and was unable to
resolve these differences entirely. Fujikawa & Koumoto (1982)
made a static analysis of the fall cone test in which the
theoretical values of cone factor, K (Hansbo, 1957), were rather
lower than experimental values. Koumoto (1989) obtained im-
proved agreement between theory and experiment by introdu-
cing the concept of dynamic strength into Houlsby's analysis,
and reported that the calculated values of K agreed well with
the fall cone test results.
The purpose here is to draw these results together and
resolve the differences between theory and experiment. An
analysis of the fall cone test is presented, in which all the
factors that are believed to affect the test are taken into account.
Reasonable agreement between experimental and theoretical
results is obtained.
STATIC ANALYSIS
As a preliminary to the analysis of the fall cone test, in
which the cone is released and falls under its own weight, an
analysis is carried out of a quasi-static penetration of the soil
surface by the cone. In the following static analysis, the cone is
assumed to penetrate a body of soil with an initially horizontal
surface. As the cone penetrates, the soil is displaced so that the
Manuscript received 4 December 2000; revised manuscript accepted 29
May 2001.
Discussion on this paper closes 1 April 2002, for further details see
inside back cover.
 Saga University, Japan.
{ University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
701
Pour determiner la limite liquide, la methode du cone
tombant est consideree comme plus able que la methode de
Casagrande. Elle est la norme dans de nombreux pays pour
tester la limite liquide. Dans cet expose, nous decrivons les
aspects theoriques et les aspects pratiques des essais au cone
tombant. D'abord nous analysons le mecanisme de penetra-
tion d'un cone dans de l'argile, appliquant le concept de
force dynamique aux resultats statiques. Ensuite, nous exam-
inons l'applicabilite de l'analyse dynamique au test du cone
tombant a la lumiere du facteur K du cone d'Hansbo pour
divers angles du cone. Nous avons trouve que la valeur
theorique K pour le cone a 608 avec surface semi rugueuse
se rapproche davantage des resultats experimentaux que
celle du cone a 308. Nous proposons de redenir la limite
liquide sur le plan international comme la teneur en eau a
laquelle un cone de 608 et de 60 g penetre de 10 mm. Enn,
nous examinons l'applicabilite de l'essai au cone tombant
comme dispositif permettant d'etablir la relation entre la
resistance de l'argile et les proprietes indexees.
surface becomes distorted. The effects of the change of position
of the soil surface are taken into account approximately. A
study is made of the maximum value of the load on the cone
for a given depth of penetration (see Fig. 1).
The penetration is assumed to take place sufciently rapidly
for undrained conditions to apply. It is assumed that the plastic
deformations of the soil are sufciently large for the soil to be
modelled as a rigidplastic cohesive material (with a Tresca
yield surface). Since fall cone tests are usually carried out on
remoulded material, no account is taken of the possibility of
sensitivity: that is, there is no loss of undrained strength with
shear strain.
The geometry of the cone is described simply by two var-
iables: the cone apex angle, , and the depth of the penetration,
hs (Fig. 1). The vertical force exerted by the cone on the soil
is Q, and the properties of the soil are given by the un-
drained shear strength, su , and the bulk unit weight, . The
surface properties of the cone are specied by an adhesion
value au (0 < au < su ), which species the maximum allowable
shear stress on the cone surface. The position of the cone is
referred to a cylindrical set of coordinates (r, z) with the z-axis
vertically downwards. A simple dimensional analysis shows that
the load on the cone must be given by an expression of the
form
 
Q hs
f , , (1)
su h2s su
where is the ratio of adhesion to undrained shear strength,
au /su . In the plastic analysis of cohesive materials with self-
weight, if the soil surface is horizontal, then the additional
resistance due to the self-weight is simply equal to the weight
of the soil displaced. Equation (1) therefore becomes
Q tan2 ==2 hs
2
f , (2)
su hs 3 su
Since the contribution of the self-weight of a typical soil to
the cone resistance will be small (typically 15% for a 308, 80 g
code, and even less for 608 cones (Houlsby, 1982), the effects
of soil self-weight are ignored in the following calculations.
The dimensionless static penetration resistance of a cone is
702 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY

F E O A B
r

hs

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of fall cone test

therefore a function of apex angle of cone and the cone surface

roughness.
The load, Q, may alternatively be expressed in the terminol-
ogy of bearing capacity theory as
Q Nc su A Nc su tan2 =2h2s (3)
where Nc is the cone bearing capacity factor. From equations
(2) and (3):
f , F Nc tan2 =2 (4)
The problem can therefore be re-expressed in terms determina-
tion of the factor Nc as a function of and .

(a)
The inuence of soil displacement
As the cone penetrates the soil, the clay is displaced so that
the soil surface is no longer at. Plasticity calculations for
the factor Nc are much simplied if the soil heave is ignored,
but this results in an underestimate of the cone resistance. A
full analysis accounting for the heave is extremely complex
(Lockett, 1963), and an approximate method is used here
instead. A section through the deformed soil surface is assumed
to be a straight line from the cone surface down to a point on
the original clay surface at the outer extremity of the plastically
deforming region. The inclination of this line can be determined
as a function of the extent of the plastically deforming region,
by making use of the fact that the volume of heave is equal to (b)
the volume of the cone (Houlsby, 1982). An iterative calculation
is necessary since the extent of the plastic region depends in
turn on the inclination of the surface. Bearing capacity factors
in which heave is taken into account will be denoted by Nch .

Analysis to determine Nc and Nch

The soil is assumed to be rigidplastic, and deforms accord-
ing to Tresca's yield condition with a maximum shear stress su .
The calculation is by the method of characteristics, making use
of the Harrvon Karman assumption to allow the hoop stress to
be determined. Details of the method used are given by Houlsby
(1982) and Houlsby & Wroth (1982).
The calculated slip-line nets for semi-rough cones of angle
308, 608 and 908 are shown in Fig. 2. In this gure the slip lines and
on the left side of the cone axis are for the case when heave is
ignored, and those to the right are for the case when heave is
taken into account. The bearing capacity is calculated by sum-
ming the appropriate components of the normal and shear
tractions calculated on the cone surface. The values of Nc , Nch
(c)
Fig. 2. Slip line elds for cones of angle (a) 308, (b) 608 and (c) 908
Nch =Nc calculated for different values of and are
summarised in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows Nc and Nch values for smooth and fully rough
cones as a function of cone angle, . In Fig. 3 the Nch values
for 1808 are calculated by multiplying the Nc values by the
coefcient
 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 703
15

1488
1450
1430
1400
1390
1380
1369
Nc Nch

Smooth cone
Rough cone

1508
10

: deg
509
450
390
350
320
290
251

Nc, Nch
792
805
808
810
818
823
828
5
Nch
1398
1400
1370
1340
1339
1338
1338

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
: deg
1208

: deg

Fig. 3. Calculated bearing capacity factors for smooth and rough

941
780
710
660
620
580
542

cones

 2
6943
7350
7550
7650
7800
7930
8102

c 1
Nch

f
c1 c
where c OB=OA in Fig. 22 (see Appendix 1 for the deriva-
tion of this factor).
1297
1298
1294
1291
1290
1283
1278

Both the Nch and Nc values for rough cones are (as expected)

greater than those for smooth cones, and Nch values are greater
than Nc values for any value.
908

: deg

949
898
867
788
728
1211
1055

The effect of heave

Figure 4 shows the relation between the angle of the heaved
surface, , and the cone angle, . As can be seen, is zero for
6019
6515
6940
7127
7313
7627
7885
Nch

both 08 and 1808, and the maximum values are 12:58

at 738 in the case of a smooth cone and 758 at 798 in
the case of a rough cone.
The effects of heave on the cone bearing capacity factor are
1186
1195
1198
1200
1200
1195
1192

shown in Fig. 5, in which Nch =Nc is plotted against cone

angle. The values of for smooth and rough cones are almost
the same for values up to about 808. Above that value, the
effect for the smooth cone is somewhat greater than that for the
608

: deg

940
898
854
766
706
1216
1061

rough cone. This can be explained by the shapes of the slip-line

elds shown in Fig. 2. The extent of the slip-line eld for
smooth cones increases continuously with an increase in the
Table 1. Calculated values of Nch , and for range of values of and

value of , while for a rough cone the extent of the deforming

5266
5933
6529
6812
7082
7551
7977

region remains about constant for values of greater than about

Nch

908.
1083
1098
1098
1098
1100
1099
1096

20

12.5
308

: deg
787
684
616
577
552
501
449

15 at 73

Smooth cone
7.5 ( 5 0)
: deg
4992
6030
6992
7457
7927
8805
9616

10 at 79
Nch

5 Rough cone
( 5 1)

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
: deg

Fig. 4. Relationship between angle of heaved surface, , and cone

00
02
04
05
06
08
10

angle

704 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY

1.6 values are found to lie in between the theoretical values for
smooth and rough cones. The coefcient F 7:10 for the
regression curve in Fig. 6 corresponds to a value
1.5 Smooth cone
( 5 0) 7:10
N ch 6:80
1.4 tan2 608=2
(5Nch/Nc)

This corresponds closely to the value obtained for 0:5

1.3 (see Table 1), so that the roughness factor for these 608 cones
Rough cone appears to be about 05. Cones manufactured by different pro-
( 5 1) cesses may of course have other roughnesses.
1.2

1.1
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
1 In the above analysis the penetration of the cone was
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 assumed to be quasi-static. To apply these results to the fall
: deg cone, the dynamics of the cone are taken into account. Houlsby
(1982) carried out such an analysis. In the following we in-
Fig. 5. Variation of Nch =Nc with cone angle
troduce the possibility that the undrained strength of the clay
may be a function of the strain rate, and at the high rates of
strain in the fall cone test this may be signicant. We use sud to
Values of cone surface roughness denote the undrained strength under dynamic conditions. The
Figure 6 shows the results of tests of the static cone penetra- dynamic resistance of cone penetrated to a depth z is therefore
tion resistance in remoulded clays for 608. The physical Fsud z 2 , and the dynamic analysis of the fall cone test involves
properties of the clays are given in Table 2 (which also includes solution of the equation
information to be used later). As expected, the experimental
d2 z Fsud 2
g z (5)
3000 dt 2 m

Experiments
where m is the mass of the fall cone assembly, g is gravita-
tional acceleration, z is the penetration, and t is the time from
2500 Clays LL IP
A1 120 43 the beginning of penetration.
M2 168 133 Noting that the results of the static penetration give
2000
B2 318 293 Q mg Fs u h2s , equation (5) may be rewritten as
!
d2 z d sud z 2
Q/su: mm2

Theory
g 1 (6)
1500 Rough cone Smooth cone dt 2 dz su h2s
( 5 1) ( 5 0)
where v is the velocity of the cone. Equation (6) may be in-
1000
Q/su 5 7.10h2s
tegrated to give
( 5 0.5) v
!
u
u sud z 2
500 t
2 gz 1 (7)
5 au/su
3su h2s
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 if v 0 atpz
0. The cone
ptherefore comes to rest (v 0) at
hs: mm z h hs 3su =sud hs 3, where su =sud (typically
will be a factor less than p10). The dynamic cone penetration
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and theoretical penetration of depth, h, is therefore 3 times the static cone penetration
static cone depth, hs .

Table 2. Physical properties of clays

Sample rs : kg=m3 Consistency limits

Casagrande method Fall cone method

wL : % wP : % IP: % wL : % wP : % I P: %
Yagusa clay Y 2650 667 286 377 690 260 430
Ariake clay A1 2580 1200 512 688 1200 510 690
Ariake clay A2 2620 1309 510 799 1270 480 790
Ariake clay A3 2580 1400 540 860 1390 530 860
Clay mixture{ M1 2670 740 360 380 760 340 420
Clay mixture{ M2 2650 1780 406 1374 1680 350 1330
Clay mixture} M3 2660 1800 510 1290 1750 490 1260
Clay mixture} M4 2650 1905 356 1549 2000 310 1690
Bentonite B1 2650 3342 433 2909 2950 390 2560
Bentonite B2 2740 4020 356 3654 3500 290 3210
 Fall cone method uses 608, 60g cone (w is water content at h 11:5 mm, w is water content at h 11:5 mm)
L P
{ M1 mixture is 286% A3, 814% sand
{ M2 mixture is 50% A1, 50% B2
} M3 mixture is 50% A3, 50% B2
} M4 mixture is 663% B1, 333% Yagusa clay
 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 705
The fall cone factor, K standard triaxial test. Extrapolating to higher strain rates, the
Combining the above results, the undrained shear strength (at above expression gives su =su(1%=h) of 160 at _ 1:0 3
low strain rates) may be expressed as a function of the fall cone 106 %=h (for the 308 cone) and 164 at _ 2:5 3 106 %=h (for
penetration, h, as 608 and 908 cones). If standard triaxial tests are adopted as the
3Q 3Q KQ benchmark for comparison of undrained strength values, can
su 2 (8) be estimated as follows:
Fh2 Nch tan2 =2h2 h
1:19
where K is the fall cone factor as dened by Hansbo (1957).  :  0:74 for the 308 cone (11a)
1 60
The above equation results in
1:19
3  :  0:73 for 608 and 908 cones (11b)
K 1 64
Nch tan2 =2
Koumoto (1989) carried out quasi-static penetration tests (at a
rate of 002 mm/s) and standard fall cone tests on similar clay
samples. Accounting for the estimated rate of strain in his
Determination of
quasi-static tests would lead to expected values of of 074 for
To obtain the K values, must be known, and to make a
his tests with 308 cones, and 076 for the tests with 608 and 908
reasonable estimate of this factor the rate of shear strain during
cones. In fact, from the measured ratios of the static cone
the fall cone test is in turn needed.
penetration depth, hs , to the fall cone penetration depth, h, the
The average shear strain rate during penetration, , _ is esti-
experimentally deduced value of was 071 for all three cone
mated by the following equation (see Appendix 2):
angles. The indication is that strain rate effects are in fact
0:671 3 106 deg slightly higher (by 47% than those indicated by the extrapola-
_ %=h  p (9) tion in Fig. 7. Considering that an extrapolation was required to
1 deg=45 hmm
strain rates about two orders of magnitude higher than in any of
where is the angle of the heaved surface of the clay (in the triaxial tests, the agreement is remarkably good.
degrees). For the range of penetration depth measured in practice
in the fall cone test, a typical strain rate value would be 1:0 3
106 %=h for the 308 cone (0:89 3 106 %=h to 1:15 3 106 %=h COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL VALUES
for h in the range 1525 mm) and about 2:5 3 106 %=h for a OF K
608 or 908 cone (1:94 3 106 %=h to 3:37 3 106 %=h for h in the The fall cone factors, K, calculated using the above values of
range 515 mm). These values are approximate only. for different values of cone angle are shown in Table 3, and
A relationship between the normalised strength and the rate compared in Fig. 8 with experimentally determined values of K
of shear strain is summarised in Fig. 7, from results published (Hansbo, 1957; Karlsson, 1961; Wood, 1982, 1985). Note that,
by Berre & Bjerrum (1973), Vaid & Campanella (1977) and as implicitly accepted in the later papers, it appears that
Lefebvre & Leboeuf (1987). The line shown on the gure is Karlsson's gures were reported as too low by a factor of 100.
given by In Fig. 8 the values of K calculated for smooth and rough cones
su are shown for comparison. From Fig. 8, the theoretical K values
1:0 0:1 log10 _ (10) show good agreement with the experiments for . 458, and
su 1%=h
especially for 608.
where _ is in %=h. This line ts the data quite well, and Leroueil & Le Bihan (1996) report that the ratio of penetra-
corresponds to the commonly used rule of thumb that the tion of the 608, 60 g to that of the 308, 80 g cone is on average
undrained strength increases by about 10% for every tenfold 05, and this implies that the K value for the 308 cone is exactly
increase in strain rate.
By interpolation, su =su(1%=h) is 119 at _ 79%=h, which 2
corresponds approximately to the strain rate for a typical
1.8 Experiments
2.5 Hansbo
1.6
Fall cone test l Karlsson
(60 and 90 cone)
1.4 Wood 1982
2 1.64
Theory Wood 1985
at 2.5 3 106%/h
Standard triaxial 1.2
5 0.0
test 1.19
1.5 at 79%/h 1 0.5
K
su/su(1%/h)

1.60 1.0
0.8
at 1.0 3 106%/h |
1 (30 cone)
0.6

Triaxial test 0.4

y 5 1.0 1 0.1 log10x Berre & Bjerrum
0.5
Vaid & Campanella
0.2
Lefebre & LeBoeuf
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
1023 1022 1021 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
: deg
.
: %/h
Fig. 8. Variation of fall cone factor, K, with cone angle: theory and
Fig. 7. Variation of normalised shear strength with strain rate experiments

Table 3. Calculated values of K for different values of

308 458 608 758 908
Smooth 0:0 200 0835 040 0216 0120
Semi-rough 0:5 133 0580 0305 0171 0097
Rough 1:0 103 0495 0250 0152 0090
706 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
three times that for the 608cone. This is entirely consistent with

{ The USSR and Georgia Institute of Technology cones are not fall cones; instead the cone is lowered slowly until the weight is carried by the soil. The K factors are calculated on the basis of ignoring dynamics and
Undrained strength at
the experimental data in Fig. 8. The theoretical values, however,
give a ratio of 1:33=0:305  4:4. The discrepancy between

s uL KQ=h2L :
kPa (theory)
liquid limit,
theory and measured values lies almost entirely with the 308

183
138
183

284
266
266
368

452
446
350
cone. Furthermore, the difference between the theoretical K
values for smooth and rough 308 cones is comparatively large,
so that the cone surface roughness of a 308 cone needs to be
known reasonably accurately.
Given that (a) there is better agreement between theory and
experiment and (b) the 608 cone is less sensitive to the surface

Fall cone factor,

roughness, the 608 cone is expected to provide a more reliable

K (theory)
indication of the strength of a clay in the fall cone test.

0305
0305
0305

0595
0595
124
133
133
133
133
The difference between experiment and theory for the 308
cone has not been resolved completely. Contributing factors
probably include the following:
(a) The buoyant effect of the self-weight of the clay. This can

Penetration at liquid
account, however, for only about a 15% decrease in the

limit, hL : mm
apparent K value.
(b) The shape of the deformed free surface. When the effect of

115
254
soil heave is (approximately) introduced, the effect is to

10
10

20
20
17

10
10
17
decrease the K value by about 10% from the values
obtained ignoring heave. It may be that accounting for the
shape of the free surface more rigorously would further
decrease the value of K.
(c) The strain rates have been estimated simply from a very

Penetration
approximate global estimate of the rates. It may be that, if a

time: s
more precise estimate of the strain rates could be made

10
5
5

5
5

5
5
?

?
(accounting for variation with both time and position), then
a lower value of K would be obtained. It is unlikely, how-
ever, that this would make a very large difference.

Depth: mm

30 or 25
>25
>30

>40
40

30
Undrained shear strength at the liquid limit

?
?
Container details

Table 4 shows national standards adopted for the fall cone

liquid limit test in various countries, together with some pub-
lished methods that are not adopted as national standards. The
Diameter: mm

theoretical K values given above, and the implied undrained

60 or 50

shear strengths at the liquid limit suL , are also tabulated.

>60

>55
50

55

50
Unfortunately, the theoretical suL value varies from 138 kPa to
?

?
?
452 kPa. Wroth & Wood (1978) suggest a strength of suL
1:7 kPa from the synthesis of several sources of data, and
indicate a possible range of 07265 kPa. Theoretical suL
values are all within between this range except for the Indian
Length: mm

and Chinese standards (see Table 4).

3048
.20

>20
20

35
35
35
25
25
?
Table 4. Standards for the fall cone liquid limit test in different countries

THE FALL CONE LIQUID LIMIT

The relationship between w and s u
Cone details

Typical results for undrained shear strength, su , obtained by

Mass: g

vane tests for remoulded clays are shown in Fig. 9 where su has
148
60
60
60

80
80
80
76
76
75

been made dimensionless by dividing by atmospheric pressure

450

400 Clays LL IP
Apex angle,

Y 69 43
: deg

A1 120 69
350
60
60
60
31
30

30
30
30
30
30

A2 129 87
M2 168 133
300 M4 200 169
B2 318 293
250 Hor 30 14
w: %

Lon 73 48
Gos 80 50
Georgia. Institute of Technology{

200
She 97 65
150
Country and/or publication

100
France (Leaive, 1971)

50
Sweden, Norway

0
New Zealand

0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2

rate effects.

su/pa
Canada

USSR{
China
Japan

Fig. 9. Loglinear relationship between undrained strength and

India
UK

water content
 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 707
Table 5. Coefcients in equation (12) 200

Clay a b r 100 Clays LL IP

Y 69 43
Y 2726 0200 0997 40 A2 127 79
A1 6051 0156 0994
M4 200 169
A2 3924 0242 0990 20
B2 350 321
A3 2954 0326 0980 10
M1 4434 0172 1000

su: kPa
M2 3997 0341 0999 4
M3 3814 0336 0990
2
M4 3882 0412 0998 Theory
B1 3245 0535 0970 1 su/pa 5 (183/pa)/h2
B2 3172 0560 0995
0.4
0.2
Pa . The physical properties of these clays are shown in Table 5. 0.1
As can be seen in Fig. 9, the w log su relationship is not 1 2 4 10 20
linear, but curves over the whole range of water content, which h: mm
varies from higher than the liquid limit to near the plastic limit.
This has already been observed by Karlsson (1961) and Youssef Fig. 11. Relationship between su values obtained by vane tests and h
et al. (1965). Fujikawa & Koumoto (1982) and Koumoto (1989,
1990) suggest that the log w log su relationship is more nearly
linear for a wide range of water content. Consequently, the 400
Clays LL IP
w su relation may be expressed as Y 69 43
A2 127 79
w a su = pa )b (12) 200
M4 200 169
where a and b are coefcients that vary with the type of the B2 350 321
clay. The values of a and b obtained by regression analysis are 100
shown together with the regression coefcient, r, in Table 5.
w: %

Note that the values of r are extremely high. In Fig. 10 the

linear equations obtained above are shown by broken lines. 40

20 w 5 AhB
The relationship between w and h
The relationship between w and cone penetration, h, can be
obtained by combining equations (8) and (12) to give 10
1 2 4 10 20 40
 
KQ b h: mm
wa Ah B (13)
pa h2 Fig. 12. Loglog relationship between penetration depth and water
where A a(KQ= pa )b and B 2b. For the 608, 60 g cone K content
is equal to 0305, and A a(183)b .
Figure 11 shows the relationship between su values obtained r is greater than 09). A series of fall cone tests at different
by vane tests and h. Equation (8) is shown by a solid line, and water contents of a clay can be used to give the coefcients A
is in very good agreement with experimental results, so that this and B, and hence also the coefcients a and b in equation (12).
equation could be used to estimate su with reasonable accuracy
from measurements of h.
Equation (13) shows that the w h relationship is linear on
a double logarithmic scale. In Fig. 12 the linear log w log h The value of hL at the liquid limit
equations obtained by regression analysis for each clay are Details of fall cone tests, as adopted in various countries as
shown by broken lines (for each clay, the correlation coefcient the liquid limit test, are summarised in Table 4. For the 608,
60 g cone, the penetration at liquid limit hL 10 mm is usually
2000 adopted. However, if the Casagrande method is taken as den-
Clays LL IP
ing the liquid limit, then for clays of rather high liquid limit
1000 Y 69 43 (wL 70350%) hL increases with wL, and varies between
2b
w 5 a(su/pa) A1 120 69 10 mm and 14 mm, as shown in Fig. 13. Kumapley & Boakye
A2 129 87
M2 168 133
400 M4 200 169 20
B2 318 293
Hor 30 14
200 Lon 73 48
Gos 80 50
w: %

She 97 65 15
100
hL: mm

10
40
hL,average 5 12.0 mm
20 5

10
0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
su/pa
wL: %
Fig. 10. Loglog relationship between undrained strength and water
content Fig. 13. Variation of hL with wL
708 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
(1980) reported that for a 608, 60 g cone, hL varied between 2
10 mm and 12 mm for soils with wL < 90%.
The Japanese Geotechnical Society (2000) has adopted hL
11:5 mm as the Japanese Industrial Standard. The intention is
that fall cone tests should be applicable for all clays with
wL < 160%. A series of tests has been carried out on a number

of Japanese clays. The water contents at hL 11:5 mm on the
log w log h plots are taken as the liquid limit and are shown in
Table 2. As seen in this table, the difference between the
Casagrande liquid limits and the fall cone liquid limit (at
hL 11:5 mm) is less than 4% for all clays with wL < 160%.
The clays tested with higher liquid limits are all Bentonite clays.
Strength at the fall cone liquid limit
Using a 608, 60 g cone, the undrained shear strength at liquid
limit suL is (using the theoretical results) 183 kPa for hL
10 mm and 138 kPa for hL 11:5 mm. Fig. 14 shows the
variation of undrained shear strength at liquid limit with the
plasticity index. In the gure the above suL values are shown as
a dotted broken line and a broken line respectively. The use of
hL 115 mm as the penetration at liquid limit is seen to give
a good estimate of suL .
The strength of 138 kPa is smaller than the 23 kPa sug-
gested by Casagrande (1958), 1521 kPa by Karlsson (1961),
17 kPa by Wroth & Wood (1978) and 16 kPa by Whyte(1982),
but is in the range of the values of 07265 kPa suggested by
Wroth & Wood (1978).
THE FALL CONE TO MEASURE THE PLASTIC LIMIT
The value of h P at the plastic limit
At present the liquid limit and the plastic limit of soils are
determined by two completely different methods. Wood &
Wroth (1978) tried to determine the plastic limit indirectly from
the fall cone tests. If fall cone tests were to be available for the
plastic limit as well as the liquid limit, then the two tests might
become easier, more useful and more meaningful mechanically.
If the fall cone test were to be used to determine the plastic
limit, one of the merits of plotting the data on the log w log h
diagram would be to allow extrapolation to the penetration at
the plastic limit. Fig. 15 shows the relationship between the
extrapolated hP values at the plastic limit on the log w log h
diagram and the plastic limit itself. From Fig. 15, the average
hP value is 13 mm for the 60 g, 608 cone. If a ratio of 100 was
assumed between the strengths at the liquid and plastic limits
(as suggested by Skempton & Northey, (1953), and numerous
subsequent authors), then a penetration of about 115 mm (one
tenth of hL 11:5 mm) would be expected.
It is suggested therefore that the plastic limit for clays could
be dened by extrapolation of the log w log h diagram to the
point at which the penetration is one tenth of that at the liquid
limit. This would establish a rm mechanical basis for the ratio
3
2.5 Theory
suL 5 1.83 kPa
(hL 5 10 mm)
2
suL: kPa
hP: mm
1
hP,average 5 1.3 mm
0
0 20 40 60
wP: %
Fig. 15. Variation of hP with wP
of 100 between the strengths of the two limits. The clear
disadvantage of this approach is that it involves extrapolation.
This could be circumvented by either of two means: (a) the use
of a heavier cone for a new plastic limit test, which would in-
volve rather larger penetrations; or (b) the denition of a new
index value at, say, a strength that is only a factor of 10 higher
than that at the liquid limit.
Undrained strength at fall cone plastic limit
By redening the plastic limit as, for instance, the water
content at hP 1:15 mm for a 608, 60 g cone, the value of suP
given as 100 times the suL value: that is, 138 kPa from equation
(8). Fig. 16 shows the undrained shear strength at this newly
redened plastic limit. However, this requires extrapolation on
the plots already employed (Figs 10Fig. 12) as the very small
penetration is rarely attained. In Fig. 16, the average suP value
for the hP,average is 108 kPa, rather less than the value implied
by the analysis given above.
INDEX PROPERTIES
It is usual to express the form of the critical-state line for a
clay in the form
v ln p9= pa
where v is the specic volume, and this implies a linear
relationship between the water content and the logarithm of
pressure, and implicitly therefore also with the logarithm of the
undrained strength. Buttereld (1979), however, suggested that
the form
ln v ln ln p9= pa
provided a better t to the data. This form is particularly
appropriate for remoulded plastic clays with a wide range of
200
Theory
suP/Pa 5 138
(hP 5 1.15 mm)
150

suP: Pa

1.5
100
Theory
1 suP/Pa 5 108
Theory (hP,average 5 1.3 mm)
50
0.5 suL 5 1.38 kPa
(hL 5 11.5 mm)

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
IP IP

Fig. 14. Variation of suL with I P Fig. 16. Variation of suP with I P
 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 709
water contents. A minor alteration to Buttereld's expression is 80
the use of
ln e ln 1 ln p9= pa 70
Koumoto
where e is the voids ratio, and this form proves to be conveni- Skempton & Northey
ent in the following. This expression can also be written 60 1:1

e 1 p9= pa

Intercept a measured
Since the critical-state line is given by q Mp9, and undrained 50
shear strength is half the deviator stress at failure, su q=2,
then we can obtain 40
   
2 su
e 1
M pa 30

For saturated clays e wGs =100, where Gs is the specic

gravity of the soil particles and w is in %. Substituting also the 20
expression used above for the undrained strength in terms of w 5 a(su/Pa)2b
fall cone penetration, we obtain a 5 wL(0.0136)b
  10
b 5 IPN/4.61
100 1 2KQ 2
w h
Gs pa M
0
Comparing this expression with equation (13) gives 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
    Intercept a predicted
100 1 2 100 1 2KQ
a , b , A Fig. 18. Comparison of measured and predicted a values
Gs M Gs pa M

and B 2 comparison of measured (shown in Table 5) and predicted

values of a by the above expression. As can be seen, measured
Thus the tting parameters a, b, A and B are closely related and predicted values are again in very good agreement.
to the engineering properties of the soil, and in particular to the
compressibility.

Undrained strength from fall cone tests

Combining equations (8), (12) and (13) gives
Determination of the value of a and b : :
From equation (12), wL and wP are given as wL w 1:38 I PN =4 61 wL s
u
I PN =4 61
(14)
asuL b a1:38b and wP asuP b a1:38b (where the units or
are in kPa). The form of these expressions suggests that it 4:61= I PN :
would be convenient to dene a modied plasticity index, I PN , su 1:38w L w 4 61= I PN (15)
as I PN ln wL ln wP (cf. I P wL wP ). Substituting the The undrained shear strength, su , of remoulded clay should be
above gives I PN b ln 100 or b I PN =4:61. The value of a is generally expressed as a function of type and condition of clay.
given as a(kPa) 1:38b wL . Equation (15) is consistent with this notion, since it is expressed
Figure 17 shows a comparison of measured values of b (as as a function of wL and IPN (representing types of clay), and w
given in Table 5) and those predicted from the measured (representing the condition of the clay).
values, and shows that these are consistent. Fig. 18 shows a Figure 19 shows a comparison of measured values of su with
those predicted by equation (15). Measured values of su are in
very good agreement with the predicted ones.
0.8
200

Koumoto 100 Clays LL IP

Skempton & Northey
Y 69 43
0.6 A2 127 69
40
M4 200 169 1:1
Exponent b measured

20 B2 350 321
su: kPa, measured

1:1
10
0.4

2
0.2
1

w 5 a(su/Pa)2b
b 5 IPN/4.61 0.4

0 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200
Exponent b predicted su: kPa, predicted

Fig. 17. Comparison of measured and predicted b values Fig. 19. Comparison of predicted and measured values of su
710 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
The relationship between I LN and su for a remoulded clay from the value of the newly dened
The relationship between w and su is sometimes plotted on liquidity index, I LN .
the liquidity index diagram of IL against ln su . Fig. 20 shows
the relation between IL and ln su for remoulded clays. As can
be seen, the IL ln su relation for different clays gives different STANDARDISATION OF THE FALL CONE TEST
curves, as Wasti & Bezirci (1985) also report for a variety of It is unfortunate that so many different cones have been
soils. adopted worldwide (see Table 4). Such a proliferation is clearly
Consistent with the above discussions of the variation of unhelpful if the fall cone is to be used as a standard test. For
strength with water content, it would be appropriate to dene a any one country to change its standards is a process fraught
new liquidity index, ILN , as with difculties, some of which are not purely related to
technical matters. On the basis of the work reported here, we
I LN ln w ln wP =ln wL ln wP
feel compelled, however, to present the scientic case for cer-
ln w ln wP =I PN (16) tain changes. The views expressed are our own and represent no
interest of outside bodies.
and substituting equations (14) gives There are two widely used cones: the 608, 60 g cone and the
I LN ln su ln suP =ln suL ln suP 308, 80 g cone. Of these we recommend the 608, 60 g cone on
the basis that:
1:070 0:217 ln su (17) (a) the theoretical understanding of this cone is in much better
or accord with the experimental results than is the case for the
308 cone. This agreement gives added condence to the use
su exp1:070 I LN =0:217 (18) of the results.
Figure 21 shows the relationship between I LN and ln su for (b) the results of the 608 cone tests are less sensitive to cone
remoulded clays. In Fig. 21 the theoretical equation (17) is roughness than are those from the 308 cone. This sensitivity
shown as a solid line. As can be seen, the experiments are in is thought to be a major contributor to the variability of 308
fairly good agreement with theory. one test results.
Equation (18) can be used to predict the undrained strength (c) the blunter tip of the 608 cone is, presumably, less prone to
wear.
Against these arguments it must be acknowledged that the
1.4 larger penetration depths for the 308 cone mean that the depth
Clays LL IP can be determined with (proportionally) more accuracy. The
1.2
Y 69 43 authors consider, however, that on balance the 608 cone is sup-
1 A1 120 69 erior, and would strongly recommend that those countries
A2 127 79 (including of course the UK) currently using the 308 cone
0.8 M2 168 133 should consider transferring to the 608 cone as standard.
M4 200 169 The second issue to be resolved is the depth of penetration
0.6 B2 350 321 to be adopted for the liquid limit. There seems little doubt that
IL

the fall cone is a more reliable device for measuring the pro-
0.4 perties of clays than is the Casagrande apparatus. The process
of benchmarking the fall cone against the Casagrande apparatus
0.2 is therefore scientically an indefensible procedure, and can
only be justied on historical grounds. It is clear that the
0
penetration depth at the (Casagrande) liquid limit increases
20.2 marginally with liquid limit. Those countries concerned mainly
0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 with low to medium plasticity clays have typically adopted a
su: Pa penetration depth of 10 mm. Those in which the test is also to
be applied to very high plasticity clays prefer a larger value
Fig. 20. Loglinear relationship between undrained strength and
(e.g. 115 mm in Japan). Such differences are highly undesir-
liquidity index
able. On the grounds of (a) simplicity and (b) historical
precedent we strongly recommend the adoption of 10 mm as
1.6
standard:
The liquid limit should be internationally redened as the
1.4 Clays LL IP water content at which a 608, 60g fall cone penetrates 10 mm.
Y 69 43 Consistent with the well-accepted observation that the
1.2
A1 120 69 strength at the plastic limit is about 100 times that at the liquid
A2 127 79
M2 168 133 limit, then it might seem logical to recommend: that the plastic
1 M4 200 169 limit should be internationally redened as the water content at
B2 350 321 which a 608, 60 g fall cone would penetrate 1 mm. Such a
0.8 recommendation poses a practical problem in that, since meas-
urement of a penetration of 1 mm is clearly unrealistic, then
ILN

0.6 serious consideration needs to be given to (a) the need for

extrapolation to the plastic limit from higher water contents,
0.4 and the limits that need to be set for this, and (b) whether the
use of a heavier cone should be adopted for the plastic limit
0.2 Theory test or (c) whether it would be more appropriate to introduce a
ILN 5 1.070 2 0.217ln Su/kPa new limit corresponding to a higher water content. Options (a)
0
and (c) have the advantage that they avoid the problem of
20.2
compacting a homogeneous sample of clay at near the plastic
0.4 1 2 4 10 20 40 100 200 limit into a suitable container: the friability of samples near the
Su: kPa plastic limit makes this rather difcult. Further work is clearly
required, but nevertheless we recommend that the plastic limit
Fig. 21. Loglog relationship between undrained strength and newly should be redened in terms of a fall cone test, probably
dened liquidity index involving a heavier weight and a smaller penetration than for
 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE FALL CONE TEST 711
the liquid limit. For instance, a 5 mm penetration of a 1500 g or
cone would be a possible combination. 1 a 1 b 11 a b (19b)
When is a very small angle, the inuence of the slightly sloping
surface on the geometry of the failure mechanism will become
CONCLUSIONS innitesimal, so that c (shown on the left-hand side of Fig. 22), will
The fall cone test is a simple and quick method for determin- be equal to the ratio b=a. Substituting this into equation (19a) leads to
ing the undrained shear strength, which can be interpreted in the solution
terms of simple mechanics. Factors affecting the fall cone c 1
penetration are the angle of the cone tip, the cone surface a (20)
c1 c
roughness, and the rate of shear strain during penetration. The
theoretical fall cone factor K 031 calculated here for the 608 (The above solution is strictly applicable only for a . 1:5, but this
cone agrees well with published experimental values, while the always proves to be the case for the problems examined here.) The
coefcient f is simply the ratio of the area of the cone in contact with the
K factor for the 308 cone is slightly greater than the value soil when heave is taken into account to that when heave is not taken into
derived from experimental data. The 608 cone is recommended account: thus f a2 .
as more suitable than the 308 cone to determine strength,
because it is less sensitive to the cone roughness. The theor-
etical undrained shear strengths at the liquid limit are consistent
with those determined experimentally. APPENDIX 2: ESTIMATION OF THE RATE OF SHEAR STRAIN
The relationship between water content, w, and undrained DURING FALL CONE PENETRATION
shear strength, su , for highly plastic remoulded clay is approxi- Examining the right-hand side of Fig. 1, the shear strain of the soil, ,
mately linear on a double logarithmic scale over the whole may be estimated from the change of the angle =4 in the
range of water content from above the liquid limit to near the undeformed state to in the deformed state. Since represents the
plastic limit. Consequently the relationship between w and cone change of an angle that is originally =2, an estimate of the shear strain
penetration depth, h, is also linear on the double logarithmic is therefore 2. This is clearly no better than an approximate
plot. estimate of the order of magnitude of the strain undergone by the soil,
The fall cone liquid limit, wL , can be determined from the since the actual strain pattern will be rather complex.
_ is therefore _ 2=t, where
An estimate of the rate of shear strain, ,
log w log h line as the water content at h 10 mm for a 608, t is time for the cone penetration time, which is given by Houlsby (1982)
60 g cone. The plastic limit could be dened in a similar way, as
but a suitable combination of cone mass and penetration s s
remains to be determined. : hs : h
t 2 44 2 44 p
From the h value for a test on a 608, 60 g cone the su value g g 3
for remoulded clay can be estimated by the relation s u (kPa)
183=h2 (h in mm). The implied su values at the liquid and Thus:
s
p
plastic limits are 183 kPa and 183 kPa respectively.
2 g 3
The intercept A and the exponent B of the log w log h line _ : (21a)
are related to the parameters and , which dene the position 2 44 h
of the critical state line. Since it is convenient to specify in degrees, h in millimetres and _ in
By redening the plasticity index as I PN ln w L ln w P percent per hour, equation (21a) becomes
and the liquidity index as I LN (ln w ln w P )=I PN , the s
p
I LN ln s u relationship is given by the equation I LN 2(deg) 3 (=180) 9:81 3
_
(%=h) 100 3 3600 3
1:070 0:217 ln s u . 2:44 h(mm) 3 103
(deg)
0:671 3 106 p (21b)
h(mm)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research described in this paper was supported partly by
the Japanese Ministry of Education and conducted at the
Department of Engineering Science, the University of Oxford. NOTATION
The rst author is grateful to Saga University, which granted au adhesion on cone surface
him the leave for his research. F non-dimensional cone resistance factor
g gravitational acceleration
h dynamic penetration depth of cone
hs static penetration depth of cone
APPENDIX 1: DETERMINATION OF THE COEFFICIENT f m mass of cone
Examining the right hand side of Fig. 22, the volumes shown in Nc cone bearing capacity factor (not accounting for heave around
section as the two shaded triangles may be equated (making use of cone)
Pappas's theorem): Nch cone bearing capacity factor (accounting for heave around cone)
1
3 131 12[ b 1 3 a 1131 a b Pa atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
2 1 (19a)
Q cone resistance
r, z coordinates
s mean in-plane stress
su undrained shear strength
sud dynamic undrained shear strength
t time
w water content
v velocity of cone
au =su
cone apex angle
unit weight of saturated clay
inclination of heaved surface
( )=2
su =sud
direction angle of s1 slip line to the r-axis
N ch =Nc
Fig. 22. Limiting case of heave solution as cone angle approaches average shear strain in deforming soil around cone
1808 _ average shear strain rate in deforming soil around cone
 712 KOUMOTO AND HOULSBY
REFERENCES
Berre, T. & Bjerrum, L. (1973). Shear strength of normally consolidated
clays. Proc. 8th ICSMFE, Moscow 1(1), 3949.
Buttereld, R. (1979). A natural compression law for soils (an advance
on elog p9). Geotechnique 29, No. 4, 469480.
Casagrande, A. (1958). Notes on the design of the liquid limit device.
Geotechnique 8, No. 2, 8491.
Fujikawa, T. & Koumoto, T. (1982). Three-dimensional analysis of the
penetration of fall cone. J. Jpn Soc. Irrigation, Drainage and
Reclamation Engng 83, 3843 (in Japanese).
Hansbo, S. (1957). A new approach to the determination of the shear
strength of clays by the fall-cone test. Proc. Roy. SGI 14, 748.
Houlsby, G. T. (1982). Theoretical analysis of the fall cone test.
Geotechnique 32, No. 2, 111118.
Houlsby, G. T. & Wroth, C. P. (1982). Direct solution of plasticity
problems in soils by the method of characteristics. Proc. 4th Int.
Conf. Numer. Methods Geomech., Edmonton 3, 10591071.
Japanese Geotechnical Society (2000). The Japanese Geotechnical So-
ciety Standards: Test method for liquid limit of soils by the fall cone,
JGS 0142-2000 (in Japanese).
Karlsson, R. (1961). Suggested improvements in the liquid limit test,
with reference to ow properties of remoulded clays. Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Paris 1, 171184.
Koumoto, T. (1989). Dynamic analysis of the fall cone test. J. Jpn Soc.
Irrigation, Drainage and Reclamation Engng 144, 5156 (in Japa-
nese).
Koumoto, T. (1990). Determination of both liquid and plastic limits of
clay by the fall cone test. J. Jpn Soc. Irrigation, Drainage and
Reclamation Engng 146, 95100 (in Japanese).
Kumapley, N. K. & Boakye, S. Y. (1980). The use of cone penetrom-
eters for the determination of the liquid limits of soils of ow
plasticity. Proc. 7th Regional Conf. for Africa on Soil Mech. Found.
View publication stats
Engng, 167170.
Lefebvre, G. & LeBoeuf, D. (1987). Rate effects and cyclic loading of
sensitive clays. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 113, No. 5, 476489.
Leaive, E. (1971) Les limites d'Atterberg et le penetrometer a cone.
Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chaussees, France,
No. 50, pp. 123131.
Leroueil, S. & Le Bihan, J.-P. (1996) Liquid Limits and Fall Cones,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, No. 5, October, 793798.
Lockett, F. J. (1963). Indentation of a rigid/plastic material by a conical
indenter. J. Mech. Phys. Soils 11, 345355.
Skempton, A. W. & Northey, R. D. (1953). The sensitivity of clays.
Geotechnique 3, No. 1, 3053.
Vaid, Y. P. & Campanella, R. G. (1977). Time-dependent behavior of
undisturbed clay. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 103, No. GT7,
693709.
Wasti, Y. & Bezirci, M. H. (1985). Determination of the consistency
limits of soils by the fall cone test. Can. Geotech. J. 23, 241246.
Whyte, I. L. (1982). Soil plasticity and strength: a new approach using
extrusion. Ground Engng 15, No. 1, 1624.
Wood, D. & Wroth, C. P. (1978). The use of the cone penetrometer to
determine the plastic limit of soils. Ground Engng 11, No. 3, 37.
Wood, D. M. (1982). Cone penetrometer and liquid limit. Geotechnique
32, No. 1, 152157.
Wood, D. M. (1985). Some fall cone tests. Geotechnique 35, No. 1,
6468.
Wroth, C. P. and Wood, D. M. (1978). The correlation of index proper-
ties with some basic engineering properties of soils. Can. Geotech.
J. 15, No. 2, 137145.
Youssef, M. S., El Ramli, A. H. and El Demery, M. (1965). Relation-
ships between shear strength, consolidation, liquid limit and plastic
limit for remoulded clays. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Engng, Montreal 1, 126129.