Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Call for innovation in Liquid Limit testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

ONENGINEER

Geotechnical
Oct 13, 2011
284
Albert Atterberg invented the test apparatus for liquid limit with a porcelain bowl in 1900 that was then upgraded to a metal bowl in 1932. These two great engineers still remain pioneers. The attached picture may indicate the state of the art of industry during Atterberg-Casagrande marvelous invention. But despite so many university PhDs, postdocs and work in research centers with advancements in data acquisition systems, transducers, as well as advanced testing techniques we are still using the same apparatus made in the early 1900s in harmony with the industry standards at the time. This has been in my thought since sometimes ago that I worked in a great small geotechnical engineering firm in Texas conducting 40-50 Casagrande tests daily in their lab while listening to the sounds of the bowls hitting the bases by very hard-working technicians who had to meet their quota at the end of the day. I was thinking why instead of some repeat PhDs (in concept) sometimes insipid academic research that has minimal tangible value for the industry, one does not attempt to spend time on developing an apparatus in line with the current state of the art of industry. If I were an engineering professor, I would ask my research students to study the rheology of various soil-water mixes inside a tube, identify solid -liquid status interface and try to develop an index at the transient moment using transducers and many available sensors and equipment used in experimental research.

I wish this post is read by engineering researchers in MIT, in particular, other universities e.g. Cambridge or research centers that do fundamental research work, while we remember Atterberg and Casagrande's original work.
 
 https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=49915c4a-9d80-4c22-9f50-2aedfc90027c&file=AIRCAFT.png
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

I think that there are not enough well-documented well instrumented-investigated large-scale field trials for one. In some countries fall cone tests are used for liquid limits and plastic limits.

Much can be gained from say, seismic CPT and seismic marchetti dilatometer testing, along with higher-quality borehole investigations and sampling / laboratory testing. Also running multiple MASW lines along and across the site. NZ practice is very imperfect and very light on advanced laboratory testing but a common investigation here is one fully cored HQ borehole per 5-7 CPTs. Usually there is enough budget to get some seismic CPTs as well.

An uncomfortable truth is that the state of the practice in many countries is such that the profession is pretty stagnant and not overly useful, and we mainly get used as liability sponges. Designers frequently - perhaps almost always - ignore geotech reports and derive their own parameters (and you can't blame them since most of the time you don't get anything better than 'clay in this city in Utah all has a friction angle of 29 degrees').

Engineering researchers cannot do much; the disconnect between the state of the art in research and the average state of practice in geotechnical engineering is astronomical. This is the current state of the practice: Many reputable large tier one consulting firms have geotech practices run by people who struggle to create and understand linear elastic-perfectly plastic mohr-coulomb FE models using parameters copy-pasted from the burt look book. Basic mistakes like not understanding stress path / contraction-generated PWP are common. Even that is asking for alot - plaxis might get rolled out only on a large project; real projects are done with much simpler, cruder methods (aka, stone mason - ' this is what we did list time'), and meanwhile the guy in the corner office already made a deal for a certain pile diameter and length before even signing the contract. A typical site investigation comprises a small number of solid stem auger boreholes, 'standard' penetration tests, water contents, and as you've mentioned, casagrande cups.

Universities, meanwhile, moved through more advanced non-linear FE models 50-60 years ago which have only really started getting some traction within the last decade. The university have since moved on to discrete element modeling etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor