Lab Report #1:

Plastic Particle Size Analysis of Soils

Abstract

This experiment examined the particle-size distribution of soil using Sieve Analysis
Method and Hydrometer Analysis Method. The experiment was to determine the percentage
passing in each sieve using Sieve Analysis and the percentage finer in suspension using
Hydrometer Analysis. Two hundred-fifty gram sample were obtained from a pile of air-dried
soil. The sample was sieved through a series of sieves with varying opening sizes and
measured the mass retained in each sieve. The soil particles that passed through the sieve
with smallest opening were in suspension in a Sodium Hexametaphosphate solution at a
given time and percentage finer is calculated. Results are plotted in a semilogarithmic graph
and showed that it is relatively well graded because its uniformity coefficient lied within the
set range.

Submitted by: Chrislene D. Calivo

Groupmates:

Romil Cahatol

Arlish Carpio

Ramil Diaz

Mark David Siervo

Niki Jon Tolentino

Date Performed: 22 November 2010

Date Submitted: 03 December 2010

I. Objectives
 To determine the particle size distribution of the soil sample by Sieve Analysis
and Hydrometer Analysis
 To be able plot and analyze the gradation curve of the soil sample

II. Materials
 Balance
 Sieves (Nos. 4, 8, 16, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200)
 Bottom pan
 Lid
 Oven
 Stirring rod
 Hydrometer (type 152H)
 Graduated cylinder
 Graduated beaker
 Sodium Hexametaphosphate
 Distilled water
 Thermometer
 Timer
III. Methodology
A. Sieve Analysis

Sieves (Nos. 4, 8, 16, 30, 40, 50 100, 200) were weighed

Obtained 250 g soil sample (air-dried)

Sieved through a series of sieves for 3 minutes (Nos. 4, 8, 16, 30, 40, 50 100, 200)

Each sieve was then taken and was shook one at a time to ensure that no particle is stuck

Masses of soil sample retained in each sieve were weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g)
sample retained on the bottom pan was set aside for the hydrometer analysis

% Sample passing through each sieve is calculated

Gradation curve is plotted

B. Hydrometer Analysis

Calibration was done first (we forgot to do so)

40 g of sodium hexametaphosphate was mixed with distilled water in a beaker (<1000mL)

Contents of beaker were transferred to the graduated cylinder

Distilled water was added to fill up 1000 mL volume

Hydrometer was placed and read at the upper meniscus

 Retained soil sample at the bottom pan was placed in the graduated cylinder

Mixture was stirred for 60 seconds

Cylinder was set down, the timer was started and readings were taken using the
hydrometer at 4, 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 seconds

Mixed again and readings were taken for a second trial

Timer was again started and the hydrometer was placed in a graduated cylinder filled
with distilled water in a spinning motion

Readings were again taken at 5, 15, 30, 60 and 1440 minutes

Hygroscopic correction factor was computed

Diameter of soil particles os calculated

Percentage of soil suspension was computed

 IV. Data and Results
A. Sieve Analysis

Mass of % %
Mass of Sieve with Soil % Cumulative Cumulative
Sieve No. Sieve (kg) Soil (kg) (kg) Retained Retained Passing
4 0.499 0.523 0.024 9.60% 9.60% 90.40%
8 0.475 0.503 0.028 11.20% 20.80% 79.20%
16 0.432 0.462 0.03 12.05% 32.85% 67.15%
30 0.405 0.442 0.037 14.80% 47.65% 52.35%
40 0.383 0.41 0.027 10.84% 58.49% 41.51%
50 0.367 0.391 0.024 9.60% 68.09% 31.91%
100 0.337 0.376 0.039 15.66% 83.75% 16.25%
200 0.334 0.361 0.027 10.80% 94.55% 5.45%
pan 0.368 0.381 0.013 5.20% 99.75% 0.25%
Sum (kg) 0.249
Orig. Mass
(kg) Difference %
0.250 0.001 40.00%
Table 1. Mass Retained, Percentage Retained and Percentage Passing Using Sieve Analysis

Sieve Diameter (mm) % Cumulative Passing

4.75 90.40%
2.36 79.20%
1.18 67.15%
0.6 52.35%
0.42 41.51%
0.3 31.91%
0.15 16.25%
0.075 5.45%
0.25%
Table 2. Sieve Diameter and % Cumulative Passing Using Sieve Analysis
 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 − 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 0.523 𝑘𝑔 − 0.499 𝑘𝑔 = 0.024 𝑘𝑔

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙
% 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = ∗ 100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

0.024
% 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = ∗ 100% = 9.64%
0.249

% 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 94.78% + 5.22% = 100%

% 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 100% − %𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

% 𝐶𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 100% − 9.64% = 90.36%

𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔. 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 − 𝑆𝑢𝑚

𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ‖ ‖ ∗ 100%
𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔. 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠

0.250 − 0.249
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ‖ ‖ ∗ 100% = 0.40%
0.250

Particle Size Distribution Curve Using

Sieve Analysis
100

80

60

40

20

0
10 1 0.1 0.01

Graph 1. Sieve Diameter vs. %Cumulative Passing Using Sieve Analysis

 B. Hydrometer Analysis

Time elapsed, T (min) Actual Hydrometer Reading

Trial 1 Trial 2 Average

0.067 50 40 45
0.25 48 52 50
0.50 47 50 48.5
1.00 47 50 48.5
1.50 46 50 48
2.00 46 50 48
Table 3. Hydrometer reading during the first two minutes

Actual Composi *Effective

Hydrome te Hydrometer Hydromet
T ter Correctio Reading er Length, Diameter %
(min) Reading n Correction Temp (°C) L (cm) K* (mm) finer
0
0.067 45 0 45 27 8.9 0.01258 0.145352 18
0.25 50 0 50 27 8.1 0.01258 0.071607 20
19.
0.50 48.5 0 48.5 27 8.35 0.01258 0.051409 4
19.
1.00 48.5 0 48.5 27 8.35 0.01258 0.036352 4
19.
1.50 48 0 48 27 8.4 0.01258 0.02977 2
19.
2.00 48 0 48 27 8.4 0.01258 0.025781 2
19.
5.00 49 0 49 27 8.3 0.01258 0.016208 6
19.
15.00 49 0 49 27 8.3 0.01258 0.009358 6
19.
30.00 49 0 49 27 8.3 0.01258 0.006617 6
18.
60.00 47 0 47 27 8.6 0.01258 0.004763 8
1440. 18.
00 47 0 47 27 8.6 0.01258 0.000972 8
Table 4. Diameter and percentage finer in suspension of soil particles less than 0.075 mm in
diameter
*L, K obtained from the table, specific gravity is assumed to be 2.65, since Hydrometers are
calibrated for soils that have a specific gravity of 2.65. (Fundamentals of Geotechnical
Engineering 3rd Ed. by Das, p.29)

Particle Size Distribution Using

Hydrometer Analysis
20.5
20.0
19.5
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010

Graph 2. Particle Diameter (mm) vs. % Finer in suspension

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0 Sieve Analysis

40.0 Hydrometer Analysis

30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

Graph 3. Particle Distribution using Sieve Analysis, superimposed Particle Distribution

Using Hydrometer Analysis

𝐿
𝐷(𝑚𝑚) = 𝐾√
𝑇
 𝐿
𝐷(𝑚𝑚) = 𝐾√
𝑇

8.9
𝐷 (𝑚𝑚) = 0.01258 ∗ √0.067 = 0.145352

Rh α
P= x 100%
W

8.9∗1.0
P= x 100% = 3.56%
250

V. Analysis and Discussion

Table 1 is the result of the sieve analysis. As computed, the percent difference of the
initial mass from the mass after sieving was just 0.40%. It means that the results are
acceptable.

Table 3 is the hydrometer reading done in the two first two minutes of reading.

Table 4 is the summary of the results for the hydrometer analysis of soil. The mass of
the air-dried soil was 13 g, while the oven-dried was 11 g. The composite correction was
computed by subtracting one from the calibration reading. But we were not able to calibrate
the hydrometer therefore assuming that the composite correction is zero. For the diameter and
percent finer, G1 was set to be 1 and Gs was set to be 2.65.

Graph 3 was the combined gradation/particle size distribution curve using hydrometer
analysis and hydrometer analysis of soils.

VI. Conclusion

There are three basic parameters in analyzing the particle size distribution of soils,
namely: Effective size, Coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of gradation. Via Dplot, an
application, D10, D30 and D60 were obtained which are necessary in computing for the
values of the three parameters. D10, D30, and D60 were found to be 0.101 mm, 0.277 mm,
and 0.851 mm respectively.

D60 0.851
𝐂𝐨𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐂𝐮 = = = 8.425
D10 0.101
 D30 2 0.2772
𝐂𝐨𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐂𝐜 = = = 0.893
D60 D10 0.851(0.101)

For soil particles to be classified as well graded, its coefficient of uniformity should
be greater than 4 for gravel and greater than 6 for sands, and its coefficient of gradation
should lie between 1 and 3. Otherwise, it is poorly graded. From above, it can be said that its
uniformity coefficient lies within the pre-set range. But its coefficient of gradation failed to
do so. Results showed that it is neither well graded nor poor graded. Its particle distribution
lies somewhere in between.
But graph 1, using Sieve Analysis showed that there was uniform distribution of size
particles over a wide range. While graph 2, using Hydrometer analysis showed a poorly-
graded soil particles since majority of those particles were of the same size.
Using graph 3, it can be said that relatively, the sample was well-graded. It just
deviated a bit at the hydrometer analysis.
The errors might have come from the non-calibration of the hydrometer. We were not
able to correct our reading because of it. And also, we were not able to check if the
temperature of the mixture varied while doing the reading. We just assumed that temperature
was constant all throughout.

VII. References

ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

Biscontin, Giovanna. CVEN365 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering

LABORATORY MANUAL. “Particle Size Analysis of Soils.” Texas A&M
University.
CE 162 Lecture Notes