Classification

53:030 Class Notes;C.C.
Swan, University of Iowa
Period #6: Soil Classification Systems and Usage

A. Fundamental Idea:
Collect soil samples from the field.
Perform easy and inexpensive tests on the soil samples (typically
GSD tests and Atterberg Limit tests)
Based on the results from these tests, classify the soil(s) in question
Based on the classifications of the soil(s), determine whether or not the
might be appropriate for the intended usage.
If yes, perform more extensive lab tests on the soil(s) (shear strength,
consolidation, compaction, etc.) as needed.
MAJOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS USED IN THE U.S.
USDA Textural Classification: Used primarily in agriculture, but not much
by civil or geotechnical engineers.
AASHTO Classification System: Used quite extensively by civil
engineers in selecting soils for usage in roads and highways.
Unified Classification System (UCS) : Used by geotechnical engineers
for selecting appropriate soils in nonhighway projects.
1
53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa
B. USDA Textural Classification

This system is based entirely on the GSD of a given soil sample.
Soil Type
Cobbles & Boulders
Gravels
Sands
Silts
Clays
Diameter Range
d > 75mm
2mm d 75mm
0.05mm d < 2mm
0.002mm d < 0.05mm
d 0.002mm
The classification in this system is based on the relative % sand, % silt, and % clay.
% with 0.05mm d 2mm
relative % sand =
100% % with d 2mm
% with 0.002mm d 0.05mm
relative % silt =
100% % with d 2mm
% with d 0.002mm
relative % clay =
100% % with d 2mm
Using these relative percentages, the soils are then classified according to
a USDA Classification Chart.
2
Example #1: Classify the following soil by the USDA Textural Classification System.
Given: % gravel = 18; % sand = 51; % silt = 22; % clay = 9;
Solution:
rel. % sand = 51/82 = 62%
rel. % silt = 22/82 = 27%
rel. % clay = 9/82 = 11%
Using these values in USDA chart > sandy loam
However, due to the presence of 18% gravel in the soil, it is
called "gravelly sandy loam."
Example #2: Classify the following soil by the USDA Textural Classification System.
Given: % gravel = 0; % sand = 30; % silt = 30; % clay = 40;
Solution:
rel. % sand = 30/100 = 30%
rel. % silt = 30/100 = 30%
rel. % clay = 40/100 = 40%
Using these values in USDA chart > clay loam
3
C. The AASHTO Classification System

Considers both texture (GSD) and Atterberg Limits.
Originally proposed in 1919; the system was last modified in 1945.
This system is widely used by highway and transportation engineers.
Performed on that part of a soil sample that falls in the gravel <> clay size range.
Using Table 5.1 of the textbook, the idea is to classify a soil as high as is possible
based on the GSD and Atterberg Limits.
Once an AASHTO Group Classification has been found, a socalled "group index" (GI)
can be computed to further classify soils within a given group.
For soils in AASHTO group A3 or lower:
GI = (F35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL40)] + 0.01(F15)(PI10)
For soils in A1 or A2:
GI = 0.01(F15)(PI10)
In both formulas, F is the percent of the soil sample passing the #200 sieve.
Example #3: Classify the following soil by the AASHTO System.

Given: % passing No. 10 = 100; % passing No.40 = 80;
% passing No. 200 = 58; LL = 30; PI = 10.
Solution:
From Table 5.1, the group classification is A4.
From the given data, F=58.
GI = (F35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL40)] + 0.01(F15)(PI10)
= (23)[0.2 + 0.005(10)] + 0.01(43)(0)
= 3.45 > 3
Thus, the AASHTO Classification is A4 (3).
Example #4: Classify the following soil by the AASHTO System.
Given: % passing No. 200 = 95; LL = 60; PI = 40.
Solution:
From Table 5.1, the group classification is A76.
From the given data, F=95.
GI = (F35) [0.2 + 0.005(LL40)] + 0.01(F15)(PI10)
= (60)[0.2 + 0.005(20)] + 0.01(80)(30)
= 42
Thus, the AASHTO Classification is A76 (42).
D. The Unified Classification System (UCS)

First devised in 1942.
Last modified in 1991.
Like the AASHTO system, it uses both GSD and Atterberg Limit data.
Required Information:
% of sample that is gravel
:
% of sample that is sand
:
% of sample that is silt & clay:
Uniformity coefficient
:
Coefficient of gradation
:
4.75mm d 75mm
0.075mm d 4.75mm
d 0.075mm
Cu = D60/ D10
2
Cc = (D30) /[D60*D10]
LL and PI on portion passing #40 sieve

UCS Classification Procedure:
Step (1): Determine F200 (% finer than #200 sieve)
If F200 < 50 % > Step (2)
If F200 50 % > Step(3)
Step (2): Coarse Fraction is R200 =100 F200
F1 is the % passing #4, but retained on #200 (i.e. sand)
If F1 < (R200)/2, then the coarse fraction is more gravel than sand.
Go to Table 5.2 and Figure 5.3 of the text.
If F1 > (R200)/2, then the coarse fraction is more sand than gravel.
Go to Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 of the text
Step (3): Finegrained soils. Go to Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 of the text.
6
Example #5: Classify the following soil using UCS

Given:
gravel fraction (% retained on #4)

= 30%
sand fraction (passing #4, retained on #200) = 40%
silt and clay fraction (passing #200)
= 30%
LL = 30; PI = 12
Solution:
F200 = 30%, therefore go to Step (2).
F1= 40% and (R200)/2 = 35%
Since F1 > (R200)/2, coarse fraction is more sandy than gravelly >Table 4.3.
From Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3:
Group symbol is SC
From Figure 4.4, group name is "Clayey sand with gravel"
Example #6: Classify the following soil using UCS
= 0%
Given: gravel fraction (% retained on #4)
sand fraction (passing #4, retained on #200) = 14%
silt and clay fraction (passing #200)
= 86%
LL = 55; PI = 28
Solution:
F200 = 86%, therefore go to Step (3).
From Table 4.4 and Figure 4.3:
Group symbol is CH Inorganic Clay
From Figure 4.4, group name is "Fat Clay"
E. Summary
The attractive aspect of soil classification systems is that they permit
engineers to do a rapid, inexpensive preliminary assessment of a
given soils adequacy for usage in a construction project.

Classification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Classification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

53:030 Class Notes;C.C.

Swan, University of Iowa

Period #6: Soil Classification Systems and Usage

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

B. USDA Textural Classification

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

C. The AASHTO Classification System

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

Example #3: Classify the following soil by the AASHTO System.

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

D. The Unified Classification System (UCS)

LL and PI on portion passing #40 sieve

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

Example #5: Classify the following soil using UCS

gravel fraction (% retained on #4)

53:030 Class Notes;C.C. Swan, University of Iowa

You might also like