Republic of the

Philippines Central
Mindanao University
University Town, Musuan, Bukidnon

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING

Date: November 19, 2022

CE 34

LABORATORY REPORT

ACTIVITY NO. 5

‘ANALYSIS OF GRAIN SIZE’

Submitted by:

CARLOS LYNNARD G. MERCOLINO

Submitted to:
DR. MA. CATHERINE Q. ARCA
INSTRUCTOR
 LABORATORY ACTIVITY NO. 5
ANALYSIS OF GRAIN
SIZE

Purpose of the experiment

Grain size analysis is done on the various Earth Sciences branches such as Archaeology and Geoarchaeology.
Grain size analysis is described as the process of determining the percentage of each of the different grain
sizes contained within a soil sample. Since soil is made up of different materials, and grain sizes, performing
grain size analysis allows engineers to know exactly the properties of the soil wherein structures will be built
upon.

Analysis of grain size is done by either the Sieve Grain Size Analysis or the Hydrometer method, and are
normally done inside a closed laboratory, free from outside particles that could skew the data. Performing a
grain size analysis of soil samples allows engineers to develop mathematical relationships that will allow
them to determine the porosity and packing of the soil that they will be working with.

Adding to this, it will also allow them to determine if the soil is suitable for building dams, embankments,
roads, or high-rise buildings. Also, data from the analysis could also be used to predict the soil-water-
movement, data from this analysis could also determine the uniformity of the soil sample. Lastly, data from
the grain size analysis will also enable engineers to determine the type of soil that they will be working with,
allowing them to create structures will strong foundations that will make them safe for the general public to
use.
 Background/Theory of the Experiment
Grain size analysis can be done using two different methods, specifically the mechanical or the hydrometer
method. The mechanical method of analysis the grain size of a soil sample is carried out by utilizing different
sieves with varying mesh sizes, which are placed from the biggest opening to the smallest one.

Each sieve has a specific diameter size opening corresponding to their sieve number. The sieve separates the
larger particles from the smaller ones, if the grain size is bigger than the mesh size, they are retained on that
sieve, while the ones smaller than the mesh size passes through, and goes to the next sieve with a much
smaller mesh size. Performing the mechanical grain size analysis is done using a set number of sieves of
gradually smaller-opening sieves, with the sieve with the biggest opening at the top, the smallest opening
sieve at the bottom, and a pan to catch all the fine particles at the very bottom.

Data from determining the soil weights retained on each sieve enables for the calculation of percent retained
on each sieve, and the percent passing to the next sieve number which will allow for the plotting of the
different percentage of the different grain sizes included in the soil sample via a gradation curve.

Equipment/Apparatus Used

Shovel
Digital Metal Stack of
Weighing trays sieves
Scale

Rubber mallet
Pycnometer Ziplock bags Drying
Oven
Oven-dried
Cling wrap
samples Air compressor Brush
Schematic diagram

Grain Size Analysis

Drying oven to dry

the moist soil
samples

Rubber mallet to
disintegrate soil
samples

Weighing scale to
measure 750 grams
of dried soil samples

Compressor and
brush to clean the
sieves

Set of sieves in
decreasing opening
sizes order

Weighing scale to
measure retained soil
 Test Procedure
Approximately 1400-1500 grams of disturbed soil samples collected at a depth of 1.5 meters were prepared
and put into two different oven-safe racks to oven-dry the soil samples for 24 hours. Once the soil samples
were fully dry, they were disintegrated into smaller, uniform sizes using a rubber mallet. After all the soil
samples were disintegrated into smaller pieces, they were placed in a rack and was covered with a cling wrap.

The stack of sieves was then prepared, and each sieve was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. After weighing each
sieve, they were then prepared in a descending order, with the biggest mesh size opening (No.4 Sieve) placed
at the top, and the smallest mesh size opening at the bottom (No.200 Sieve), and a pan at the bottom to catch
all the fine-sized soil. 750 grams of the disintegrated soil was then placed on the No.4 Sieve and was covered
with a lid. The tower of sieves was then shaken, mimicking the rotational shaking of a sieve shaker for 10
minutes.

Once the sieves were finished being shaken for 10 minutes, the stack of sieves was allowed to rest for 5
minutes to allows the dust particles to settle. After this, each sieve was taken from the tower and was weighed
individually. For the soil particles that got stuck in between the mesh openings, a brush was utilized to push
them back up the previous sieve, as they did not fully pass the mesh opening.

After weighing the individual sieves with soil on them, they were added altogether to make sure that the soil
weights before and after being sieved was approximately the same. Since there was only a small error between
the weights before and after the experiment, there is no need to repeat the process.

After the soil masses have been obtained and stored appropriately, the sieves were cleaned thoroughly and
carefully as to not increase the mesh sizes of the sieves using a soft-bristled brush along with the help of a
compressor.
 Results
I. General Information

Group Number: 1 Date Tested: November 18, 2022

Type of Soil Sample: Disturbed Recovery Depth: 2.5 meters

Sample Number: 1 Soil Description: The soil has a specific gravity of

2.4 and has a moisture content of 73%.

II. Test Details

Sieve Shaking Method: Manual Shaking duration: 10 minutes

Total sample mass before sieving (M1): 750 grams Percent loss during sieving (%): 1%

Total sample mass after sieving (M2): 742.8 grams

III. Measurements and Calculations

Sieve Weight of Diameter Mass of soil Accumulated Percent Cumulative Cumulative
Number sieve (g) (mm) retained (g) mass (g) retained (%) percent percent
retained (%) passing (%)
4 476.8 4.75 0 0 0 0 100
10 682 2 36 36 4.847 4.847 95.153
40 368.6 0.425 254.8 290.8 34.303 39.149 60.851
60 424.2 0.25 137 427.8 18.444 57.593 42.407
100 342.8 0.15 133.2 561 17.932 75.525 24.475
140 318.2 0.105 92.2 653.2 12.412 87.938 12.062
200 293.2 0.075 49.4 702.6 6.651 94.588 5.412
Pan 365.2 - 40.2 742.8 - - -

Table 1.1 General information, test details, and measurements and calculations before and after sieving

Table 1.1 shows the general information, test details, and measurements and calculations performed before
and after sieving. As shown, the type of soil sample used for the experiment was the disturbed soil samples
collected at a depth of 2.5 meters which has a specific gravity of 2.4 and a moisture content of 73%.

The tables also show some of the test details which shows that the 750 grams of dried soil samples were
shaken manually for 10 minutes, and after the experiment was done, approximately 742.8 grams were left,
indicating a percent loss during sieving of 0.96 or 1%, which is within the acceptable range of percent loss
during sieving.

The last table shows the sieve number, weight of the sieve, its corresponding opening diameter size, the mass
of soil retained in that sieve, the accumulate mass, percent retained and percent passing. To determine the
weight of the sieves, they were weighed individually before the experiment. To determine only the soil
retained on that sieve number, the mass of sieve along with the retained soil was subtracted by the weight of
the sieve itself.

The accumulated mass in grams was calculated by adding up the current and the previous retained masses,
which was then used to determine the accumulated percent retained by dividing the accumulated mass on that
sieve number by the total mass of the soil sample. The percent passing was calculated by subtracting the
percent retained on the sieves by 100.
From the table shown, it can be observed that there were no soil masses that were retained on sieve number
4, which indicates that there were no coarse aggregates on the original soil sample. Also, it can be observed
that 5.412% of the original soil masses passed through the number 200 sieve, indicating that silt and clay was
present in the sample, which were all collected at the bottom pan.

Results also indicate that the sieve number 40 with an opening of 0.425 mm retained the most amount of soil
equaling to 254.8 grams, while the sieve number with the least amount of soil retained was sieve number 4
with an opening of 4.75 mm that retained no soil samples.

Calculations:

To solve for the soil mass retained on each sieve:

𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 = 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆 − 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆

Sample for Sieve number 10:

𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 = 𝟕𝟏𝟖. 𝟎 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒔 − 𝟔𝟖𝟐. 𝟎 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒔

𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 = 𝟑𝟔 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒔

To solve for the cumulated percent retained on each sieve:

𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 + 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒔𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅
𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔

Sample for Sieve number 10:

𝟑𝟔 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒔
𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝟕𝟒𝟐. 𝟖 𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒔

𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝟒. 𝟖𝟒𝟕%

To solve for the cumulated percent passing on each sieve:

𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 − 𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅

Sample for Sieve number 10:

𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 − 𝟒. 𝟖𝟒𝟕

𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆 = 𝟗𝟓. 𝟏𝟓𝟑%

 Particle Size Distribution Curve
100
90
80
Percentage Passing (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)

Figure 1.1 Particle Size Distribution Curve

Figure 1.1 shows the particle size distribution curve of the soil samples after sieving. The curve on the graph
is used to clearly illustrate the average particle size, as well as the smallest and largest particle size present
on the original soil sample. The curve illustrates the percentage of the original soil sample passing through
the different sized sieves.

From the graph, it can be seen that the largest particle size among the soil samples is greater than 2 mm while
the smallest particle size is smaller than 0.075 mm, indicating either clay or silt.

Conclusion
Based from raw data shown above, the following can be concluded. Firstly, there is only a small percentage
of 0.96% or 1% soil lost during the sieving process. Another conclusion to be made is that the largest amount
of soil mass retained can be located on sieve number 40 with an opening of 0.425 mm. While the least amount
of soil retained can be located at sieve number 4 with an opening of 4.75 mm that retained no soil samples.

Also, it can also be concluded from the particle size distribution curve that the largest particle size on the soil
sample is larger than 2 mm, while the smallest particle size is smaller than 0.075 mm. Lastly, it can also be
concluded that there were no coarse aggregates in the soil samples, but there were silt and clay included.

Possible sources of error from the experiment could stem from improper cleaning of the sieves using the
brush and compressor, leaving some soil particles to stick within the sieves, skewing the results. Another
could also come from the imperfect sieving of the soil samples that did not correctly copy the motion of a
mechanical sieve shaker. Lastly, inaccurate reading of the weighing scale could also result in inaccurate data.