Lab Report #1:

Particle Size Analysis of Soils

Abstract

Particle size analysis for soils is performed in order to determine the

percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil sample in
accordance to ASTM D422. After the experiment, this report concludes that
the soil sample that was analyzed is uniformly distributed after it passed the
Unified Soil Grading Criteria. The errors in the experiment performed are
assumed negligible because of the small discrepancy in the results of the two
trials performed.

Submitted by: Nur-Ranji Jajurie

Group Mates:
Prince Intal
Vanessa Gale Marie Natividad
Joshua Rebutiaco
Xerxes Tupag

Date Performed: February 10, 2016

Date Submitted: May 09, 2016

1
 I. Objectives
 To acquire the particle size distribution of the soil sample in accordance to

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

 To produce data with acceptable error of less than 2%

 To generate a semi-logarithmic plot that displays the particle size distribution

of the soil and to identify the grading of the soil using the data points on the

graph.

II. Materials
 Soil Sample  Sieves

 Scale  Oven

III. Methodology

2
IV. Data and Results
Table 1 and 2 shows the measured mass of the sieves, along with the retained masses
of soils after sieving for Trials 1 and 2.

Sieve Opening Mass Retained Mass Retained

Sieve Number Mass of Sieve
Size (mm) (Sieve + Soil)(kg) (Soil)(kg)

4 4.75 487 487 0

8 2.36 474 695.5 221.5
16 1.18 433 755.5 322.5
30 0.6 405.5 765 359.5
40 0.425 384 552.5 168.5
50 0.3 374.5 503.5 129
100 0.15 346 549.5 203.5
200 0.075 336 425 89
PAN N/A 363 469.5 106.5
Table 1. Retained Masses of Soils in the Sieves for Trial 1

Sieve Opening Mass Retained Mass Retained

Sieve Number Mass of Sieve
Size (mm) (Sieve + Soil)(kg) (Soil)(kg)

4 4.75 487 487 0

8 2.36 474 677.5 203.5
16 1.18 433.5 750.5 317
30 0.6 405.5 760.5 355
40 0.425 384 558.5 174.5
50 0.3 374.5 505 130.5
100 0.15 346.5 550.5 204
200 0.075 335.5 429 93.5
PAN N/A 362.5 485.5 123
Table 2. Retained Masses of Soils in the Sieves for Trial 2

Errors of the experiment were calculated by quantifying the deviation of the final total
mass to the initial masses of the soils for each trial, as shown by the equation below:

Equation 1

where and are the initial and final masses of the soils. Using Equation 1, the
errors for trials 1 and 2 are as follows:

3
Since the errors for both trials are below the accepted value of 2.0%, the trials were
both accepted.

The cumulative percent retained in each sieve are also computed as follows:

∑ , Equation 2

While percent finer is computed as:

Equation 3

Using the Equations 2 and 3, the following sets of data were acquired:

Sieve Mass
Sieve Percent Percent
Opening Size Retained
Number Retained (%) Passing (%)
(mm) (Soil)(kg)
4 4.75 0 0 100
8 2.36 221.5 13.84375 86.15625
16 1.18 322.5 20.15625 66
30 0.6 359.5 22.46875 43.53125
40 0.425 168.5 10.53125 33
50 0.3 129 8.0625 24.9375
100 0.15 203.5 12.71875 12.21875
200 0.075 89 5.5625 6.65625
PAN N/A 106.5 6.65625 0
Table 3. Percent Passing Data for Corresponding Sieve Opening Sizes (Trial 1)

Sieve Mass
Sieve Percent Percent
Opening Size Retained
Number Retained (%) Passing (%)
(mm) (Soil)(kg)
4 4.75 0 0 100
8 2.36 203.5 12.71080575 87.2891943
16 1.18 317 19.80012492 67.4890693
30 0.6 355 22.17364147 45.3154279
40 0.425 174.5 10.89943785 34.41599
50 0.3 130.5 8.151155528 26.2648345
100 0.15 204 12.74203623 13.5227983
200 0.075 93.5 5.840099938 7.68269831
PAN N/A 123 7.682698314 0
Table 4. Percent Passing Data for Corresponding Sieve Opening Sizes (Trial 2)

Particle size distribution graph is then obtained by plotting the sieve opening size on
the x-axis versus the percent passing on the y-axis as presented below:

4
 100

90

80
Trial 1
70
Percent Passing (%)

Trial 2
60

50 Sieve #10
40
Sieve #40
30

20 Sieve #200

10

0
10 1 0.1 0.01

Sieve Opening Size (mm)

Graph 1: Over-laid Particle Size Distribution of the Soil Sample for Trials 1 and 2

In order to classify the grading of the soil sample, the coefficient of uniformity and
curvature were calculated as follows:

Equation 4 and 5

Wherein is the coefficient of uniformity, is the coefficient of curvature,

and , , and are particle diameters at 60%, 30%, and 10% passing. Using
Equation 4 and 5, we then computed the coefficients as:

For Trial 1:

For Trial 2:

5
V. Analysis and Discussion

Particle size analysis is widely used in classification of soils. The data acquired from
particle size distribution curves is used in the design of filters for earth dams and to
determine suitability of soil for road construction, air field, and others. Also,
information obtained from particle size analysis is useful in describing the
permeability, compaction, and other properties of soils.

The experiment performed focuses on generating the particle size distribution of the
soil sample. The generated particle size distribution graph is used in a lot of ways
such as identifying the grading of the soil and the percentage of coarse materials and
the fines. As shown in the above section we were able to calculate the coefficient of
uniformity and curvature which were both used to conclude whether the soil is
uniformly graded. The coefficients will be compared based on the Unified Soil
Grading Criteria which is presented in the table below.

Material
Criterion Gravel Sand

Uniformity Cu > 4 Cu > 6

Curvature 1 < Cc < 3 1 < Cc < 3
Table 5. Unified soil grading criteria

Since the soil particles used all passed sieve #4, the soil sample is thus considered as
containing of mostly of sands. Checking the values computed for the two trials, we
see that both coefficient of uniformity, of the two samples which were 10.3158
and 10.8889 are higher than 6. For the coefficient of curvature, , we see that both
values which where 1.6337 and 1.7245 are both more than 1 but less than 3. And
because the two trials of the soil samples were able to pass the criteria for uniformity
and curvature, we then conclude that the soil is uniformly graded.

Uniformly graded soils, like the soil sample, generally work best as a construction
material. This is because of the arrangement of the soil particles that lessens the
number of voids and improves compactability as we will see in experiment 3. Figure
1 shows the general formation of uniformly graded soils in contrast to others.

6
 Figure 1. (i) Uniformly or Well Graded Soil Structure, (ii) Poorly Graded Soil, (iii) Gap Graded Soil
Source: http://www.concretecountertopinstitute.com/

As we can see in Figure 1, a uniformly graded soil contains the least number of voids and
thus is the densest in solids. We can also induce that these type of soil has greater strength
against normal forces. Hence we can say that uniformly graded soils are more suitable as
foundation supports than poorly and gap graded soils.

Other than the grading of the soil, we can also see the percent of fines (particles that are less
than 0.075 mm in diameter) are just 7 to 8% of the total soil mass, hence this would infer that
the soil sample is not mainly affected by the Atterberg Limits that we were able to compute
in Experiment 2, because of the dominant number of sandy particles than the fines.

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

After thorough analysis it is concluded that the soil sample is uniformly graded and probably
works best as a construction material. Also, it is inferred that because of the low number of
fines, Atterberg limit which describes the fines will not be a great concern in contrasts to the
physical properties of the sandy particles that greatly affects the strength of the soil sample.

Note that because of the laboratory constraints, the hydrometer analysis which is used in
order to identify the particle size distribution of the soil was not performed and thus the
particle size distribution that was generated in this experiment is not complete.

Errors in the experiment performed were assumed to be almost negligible as see that the
distribution line of trials 1 and 2 are almost collinear as shown in Graph 1, which validates
the experiment that was done.

VII. References
1. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D422: Standard Test Method
for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. E-book.
2. Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Published on 2002.
E-book.

7
3. Engineers Daily. AASHTO Soil Classification System. Retrieved in
http://www.engineersdaily.com/2011/03/aashto-soil-classification-system.html
last May 08, 2016. Web.
4. Army Engineer. General Engineering Properties. Retrieved in
http://armyengineer.tpub.com/En5341a/En5341a0107.htm last May 08, 2016
5. Concrete Counter Top Institute. Aggregate Gradation. Retrieved in
http://www.concretecountertopinstitute.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/agg
regate_gradation last May 09, 2016