Name: Golo, John Emerald D. Date Submitted: Aug.

12, 2017
Group No.: 4 Subject & Schedule: CE 411CL
Task/Designation: Measuring/ Computations M 1:30-4:30
Instructor: Engr. Oliver Dave L. Mag-uyon

Experiment No. 3
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
(For Non-Cohesive Soils)
I. Objective
-To determine the particle size distribution of soil by the method of sieve analysis. To
construct a particle size distribution curve and determine its type of gradation. To determine the
specific gravity of fine grained soils through hydrometer analysis for the determination of the
percent finer for graphing the sample passing the number 200 sieve of the particle size
distribution through determining the correction factors such as temperature and calibrating the
hydrometer bulb.

II. Equipment & Apparatus

A. Sieve Analysis
 Set of sieves (3” - #200)
 Sieve cover and receiver
 Balance sensitive
 Pan
 Mortar and pestle
 Sieve shaker
B. Hydrometer Analysis
 Hydrometer Bulb (ASTM 151H Soil Hydrometer 352864 by H-B Instrument)
 Thermometer
 Dispersion Cup
 Graduated Cylinder
 Ruler
 Dispersion Machine

III. Experimental Procedure

A. Sieve Analysis
A sample of undisturbed soil was oven dried for about 24 hours before performing the
experiment. After oven-drying, the sample was cooled to room temperature and weighed. The hard
lumps present in the sample were then crushed using the mortar and pestle. Set of sieves from
(3/4”- #200) was then individually weighed. The sieves were then stacked from the largest to the
smallest opening size before the pan. The sieves were then placed into the sieve shaker and the
soil sample was placed at the topmost sieve and was then covered. The machine was turned on and
it automatically stopped after about 10 minutes.

1|Page
 Once the process was done, the set of sieves together with the distributed soil samples
were then individually weighed. Lastly, the cumulative mass of each sieve and its corresponding
percent finer were calculated in order to graph the particle size distribution of the soil for further
soil analysis.

B. Hydrometer Bulb Calibration

The volume of the hydraulic bulb was first measured by water displacement method; a
1000ml graduated cylinder was filled with water up to approximately 700 mL and about 20℃. The
hydrometer bulb was then placed inside and the difference between the two readings is the volume
of the bulb plus the part of the stem that was submerged in which the error due to the inclusion of
the stem is negligible. The hydrometer was then weighed up to 0.01gm precision. The area of the
cross section of the graduated cylinder (A) was then determined by measuring the distance between
two graduations in which the volume between the graduations divided by the distance measured
is equal to the cross-sectional area (A). The distance from the lowest calibration mark on the stem
of the hydrometer up to each of the major calibration marks was measured by a ruler and recorded
as R. The distance of the neck of the bulb up to the lowest calibration mark was also measured.
The distance H corresponds to the sum of the distance from the neck to the lowest calibration mark
and the lowest calibration mark to each major calibration. Then, the distance from the neck of the
bulb up to the tip was measured and recorded as (h). After each parameter has been obtained, the
true distance 𝐻𝑅 corresponding to each of the major calibration marks R was computed by:
1 𝑉𝐻
𝐻𝑅 = 𝐻1 + 2 (h - )
𝐴

Lastly, the line showing the relationship between 𝐻𝑅 and R was then plotted in which the
true distance to each major calibration mark is inversely related.

C. Determining the Soil Specific Gravity

All identifying description of the hydrometer was first recorded. About a hundred grams
of oven dried soil sample passing the no. 200 sieve, from the sieve analysis, was placed in a
dispersion cup up to approximately 2-3 inches from the rim to avoid excess water from splashing.
The cup was then placed in the dispersion machine for about 1 minute. After the dispersion, the
slurry was transferred to the graduated cylinder and water was added up to the 1000mL mark.
Before testing, the graduated cylinder was shook vigorously for about 1 minute by covering the
end of the cylinder with one hand and the other holding the bottom. After shaking, the cylinder

2|Page
was set on the table and the hydrometer was carefully inserted to prevent disturbance. Readings
were taken after the 1st and 2nd minute have elapsed. Hydrometer and temperature readings were
also taken after 4, 15, 30, 60, 120 and 1440 minutes

IV. Data & Results

A. Sieve Analysis
Opening/ Mass of Mass of sieve Mass of Cumulative Percent
sieve (g) + Sample (g) sample Mass Finer (%)
Sieve no.

19 mm (3/4”) 549.4 559.8 10.4 10.4 98.75

12.5 mm (0.5”) 532.5 548.6 16.1 26.5 96.82

9.5 mm (3/8”) 539.2 549.1 9.9 36.4 95.64

#4 500.0 643.7 143.7 180.1 78.42

#8 468.4 703.8 235.4 415.5 50.22

#10 476.8 525.3 48.5 464.0 44.40

#16 430.3 579.9 149.6 613.6 26.48

#20 397.5 455.9 58.4 672.0 19.48

#30 393.1 435.2 42.1 714.1 14.44

#40 374.3 401.6 27.3 741.4 11.17

#50 350.0 369.4 19.4 760.8 8.84

#60 340.1 351.2 11.1 771.9 7.51

#70 353.4 359.8 6.4 778.3 6.75

#80 336.7 342.0 4.3 782.6 6.23

#100 328.8 334.6 5.8 788.4 5.54

#200 318.1 337.8 19.7 808.1 3.18

pan 461.8 488.3 26.5 834.6 0

T = 834.6

3|Page
 Table 1. Obtaining the Percent Finer

98.75 100
96.82
95.64

78.42 80
PERCENT FINER (%)

60

50.22
44.4
40

26.48
19.48 20
14.44
11.17
8.84
7.51
6.75
6.23
5.54 3.18
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

Figure 1. Particle Size Distribution Curve

𝑫𝟔𝟎 = 3.05 𝑪𝒖 = 8.714 Weight of pan + sample = 956.6g

𝑫𝟑𝟎 =1.54 𝑪𝒄 = 2.222 Weight of pan = 121.3 g
𝑫𝟏𝟎 =0.35 Weight of sample = 835.2 g

B. Hydrometer Analysis

𝐻1
𝐻2
𝐻3
𝐻4

4|Page
 Figure 2. The Hydrometer Bulb

h= height of neck to the tip of the bulb = 15.4 cm

Volume between two graduations = 50m
Distance between two graduations = 17mm
Cross- sectional Area of Cylinder (A) = 29.4118𝑐𝑚3
Mass of container = 236.1 g
Mass of container + soil = 336.1 g
Mass of soil ( 𝑀𝑠 ) = 100g

𝐻1 10.84 cm 𝐻𝑅1 17.452 cm 𝑅1 2.8 cm

𝐻2 8.04 cm 𝐻𝑅2 14.652 cm 𝑅2 5.59 cm

𝐻3 5.25 cm 𝐻𝑅3 11.862 cm 𝑅3 8.29 cm

𝐻4 2.55 cm 𝐻𝑅4 9.162 cm 𝑅4 10.74 cm

Table 2. Hydrometer Calibration

Hydrometer Calibration Graph

20

18
17.452
16
14.652
14
Height, HR (cm)

12 11.862
10
y = -1.0424x + 20.427 9.162
8

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hydrometer Reading, R (cm)

Figure 2. Hydrometer Calibration Graph

5|Page
 Elapsed Percent Finer Particle
Temp. Hydrometer Corrected Temp.
Time Time Diameter
℃ Reading (R’) Reading (R) Correction
Minutes Partial Final (mm)

3:38 1 27 ---------- ---------- +2.00 ----- ----- -------

3:39 2 27.2 ---------- ---------- +2.00 ----- ----- -------

3:41 4 26.0 1.037 2.687 +1.65 2.6601 0.0846 0.0251

3:45 15 26.3 1.042 2.692 +1.65 2.6651 0.0848 0.0130

4:00 30 26 1.034 2.684 +1.65 2.6572 0.0845 0.00916

4:40 60 26 1.025 2.675 +1.65 2.6483 0.0842 0.00648

6:40 120 26.5 1.096 2.746 +1.65 2.6911 0.0856 0.00458

7:30 1440 26.5 ---------- ---------- +1.65 ----- ----- -------

Table 3. Specific Gravity of Fine Soil

Source: Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering by: Braja M. Das

6|Page
 Source: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Source: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

7|Page
 100
98.75 95.64
96.82
78.42
80

50.22
PERCENT FINER (%)

60
44.4

26.48
40
19.48
8.84
14.44
11.17 7.51
0.0842 20
6.75
6.23 5.54 0.0848 0.0845
3.18
0.0846 0.0856
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution Curve (Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis)

V. Discussion of Results

As what we can see from the graph and data gathered for sieve analysis, there has been a
wide range of sizes from each sieve in our soil sample, which indicates that our soil is well-graded.
The validity of our particle size distribution graph was then checked through computing the
uniformity coefficient (𝐶𝑢 ) and coefficient of curvature (𝐶𝑐 ); the computed 𝐶𝑢 was 8.714; and the
𝐶𝑐 obtained was 2.22 ; such that 𝐶𝑢 > 5 is an indication of a well-graded soil while 𝐶𝑐 between 1
and 3 also indicates a well-graded soil based from further research from NPTEL Soil
Mechanics/Grading Characteristics. We have also observed that there is a little difference or a
slight decrease in the total mass before and after the soil has been sieved due to some residues
being left in the sieves after shaking.

From the hydrometer analysis, we can see from the calibration graph that there is an inverse
relationship between the true distance ( 𝐻𝑅 ) for each corresponding hydrometer reading (R). For
the temperature correction, we have also observed that there is a great increase in specific gravity
for an increase of 1 degree Celsius. A temperature reading of 27℃ will give a corrected reading
of the specific gravity greater than 3 which is out of the range for table 2.9 in solving for the percent
finer of the grains passing the number 200 sieve. Also, the specific gravity readings gets low as
the hydrometer sinks deeper into the cylinder since the lowest calibration mark is near the bottom
of the stem.

VI. Conclusion
The experiment has been effective to know the particle size distribution of the soil sample.
This is very critical in order to know the suitability of soil for road construction and other civil

8|Page
engineering works. It is also significant to predict soil water movement although permeability tests
are more widely used. However, sieve analysis is only limited to the assumption that all particles
are round and will pass through square openings for flat particles, thus sieve analysis will not give
that much reliable results. The temperature correction factors affect greatly in the determination of
the corrected specific gravity. The corrections are limited to whole number temperature readings
only thus rounding off the temperatures would lead to errors; it is recommended that values must
be iterated to find much acceptable values for a particular temperature reading.
Another possible sources of error would be the presence of small amounts of water in each
sieve after washing by the previous user and performing the sieve, weighing and shaking right
after, which would make some particles stick to a particular sieve instead of passing through it. So
it is recommended that sieves used in shaking must be dry. Another error would be in reading the
specific gravities, in which the readings were not measured from the lower meniscus of the sample
thus the readings were much lower than what it should be, Proper care in performing this
experiment should be observed to lessen errors and get much accurate results.

VII. Appendix
A. Calculations
 Sieve Analysis

Mass of sample = Mass of sample w/ sieve – Mass of sieve

Mass of sample 1= 559.8g – 549.4g Mass of sample 2= 548.6g – 532.5g
= 10.4 g = 16.1 g

Mass of sample 3= 549.1g – 539.2g Mass of sample 4= 643.7g – 500.0g

= 9.9 g = 143.7 g

Mass of sample 5= 703.8g – 468.4g Mass of sample 6= 525.3g – 476.8g

= 235.4 g = 48.5 g

Mass of sample 7= 579.9g – 430.0g Mass of sample 8= 455.9g – 397.5g

= 149.6 g = 58.4 g

Mass of sample 9= 435.2g – 393.1g Mass of sample 10= 401.6g – 374.3g

= 42.1 g = 27.3 g

Mass of sample 11 = 369.4g – 350.0g Mass of sample 12= 351.2g – 340.1g

= 19.4 g = 11.1 g

Mass of sample 13= 359.8g – 353.4g Mass of sample 14= 342.0g – 336.7g
= 6.4 g = 4.3 g

9|Page
Mass of sample 15= 334.6g – 328.8g Mass of sample 16= 337.8g – 318.1g
= 5.8 g = 19.7 g

Mass of sample 17= 488.3g – 461.8g

= 26.5

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔−𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒔𝒔

Percent Finer = X 100
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔

𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟏𝟎.𝟒𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟐𝟔.𝟓𝒈
Percent Finer 1 = X 100 Percent Finer 2 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 98.75 % = 96.82 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟑𝟔.𝟒𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟏𝟖𝟎.𝟏𝒈
Percent Finer 3 = X 100 Percent Finer 4 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 95.64 % = 78.42 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟒𝟏𝟓.𝟓𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟒𝟔𝟒.𝟎𝒈
Percent Finer 5 = X 100 Percent Finer 6 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 50.22 % = 44.40 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟔𝟏𝟑.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟔𝟕𝟐.𝟎𝒈
Percent Finer 7 = X 100 Percent Finer 8 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 26.48 % = 19.48 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟏𝟒.𝟏𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟒𝟏.𝟒𝒈
Percent Finer 9 = X 100 Percent Finer 10 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 14.44 % = 11.17 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟔𝟎.𝟖𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟕𝟏.𝟗𝒈
Percent Finer 11 = X 100 Percent Finer 12 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 8.84 % = 7.51 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟕𝟖.𝟑𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟖𝟐.𝟔𝒈
Percent Finer 13 = X 100 Percent Finer 14 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 6.75 % = 6.23 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟕𝟖𝟖.𝟒𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟖𝟎𝟖.𝟏𝒈
Percent Finer 15 = X 100 Percent Finer 16 = X 100
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈

= 5.54 % = 3.18 %
𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈−𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈
Percent Finer 17 = 𝟖𝟑𝟒.𝟔𝒈
X 100

=0
10 | P a g e
 𝑫 𝟑.𝟎𝟓
𝑪𝒖 = 𝑫𝟔𝟎 = 𝟎.𝟑𝟓 = 8.714
𝟏𝟎

𝑫𝟑𝟎 𝟐 𝟏.𝟓𝟒𝟐
𝑪𝒄 = 𝑫 = (𝟑.𝟎𝟓)𝟎.𝟑𝟓 = 2.222
𝟔𝟎 𝑫𝟏𝟎

 Hydrometer Analysis

𝑉𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 2 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 = Distance x Cross-sectional Area (A)

50 𝑐𝑚3 = 1.7cm (A)
A = 29.4118 𝑐𝑚2
𝟏 𝑽𝑯
𝑯𝑹 = H+ 𝟐 (h - )
𝑨
1 𝑉𝐻 1 𝑉𝐻
𝐻𝑅1 = 𝐻1 + 2 (h - ) 𝐻𝑅3 = 𝐻3 + 2 (h - )
𝐴 𝐴
1 64 1 64
= 10.84 + 2 (15.4 - 29.4118 ) = 5.25 + 2 (15.4 - 29.4118 )

𝐻𝑅1 = 17.452 cm 𝐻𝑅3 = 11.862 cm

1 𝑉𝐻 1 𝑉𝐻
𝐻𝑅2 = 𝐻2 + 2 (h - ) 𝐻𝑅4 = 𝐻4 + 2 (h - )
𝐴 𝐴
1 64 1 64
= 8.04 + 2 (15.4 - 29.4118 ) = 2.55 + 2 (15.4 - 29.4118 )

𝐻𝑅2 = 14.652 cm 𝐻𝑅4 = 9.162 cm

Corrected Reading (R) = Hydrometer Reading (R’) + Temp. Correction (𝑪𝑻 )

𝑅3 = 𝑅′3 + 𝐶𝑇
= 1.037 + 1.65

𝑅3 = 2.687 𝑅6 = 𝑅′6 + 𝐶𝑇

𝑅4 = 𝑅′4 + 𝐶𝑇 = 1.025 + 1.65

= 1.042 + 1.65 𝑅6 = 2.675

𝑅4 = 2.692 𝑅7 = 𝑅′7 + 𝐶𝑇

𝑅5 = 𝑅′5 + 𝐶𝑇 = 1.096 + 1.65

= 1.034 + 1.65 𝑅7 = 2.746

𝑅5 = 2.684

11 | P a g e
 𝑪𝒔𝒈 𝒙 𝑹
Partial Percent Finer (P’) = X 100
𝑴𝒔

0.99𝑥 2.687
𝑃′3 = X 100 = 2.6601
100
0.99𝑥 2.692
𝑃′4 = X 100 = 2.6651
100
0.99𝑥 2.684
𝑃′5 = X 100 = 2.6572
100
0.99𝑥 2.675
𝑃′6 = X 100 = 2.6483
100
0.98𝑥 2.746
𝑃′7 = X 100 = 2.6911
100
%𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒓×𝑭𝟐𝟎𝟎
Final Percent Finer (P) = P’ % x
𝟏𝟎𝟎
2.6601 𝑥 3.18
𝑃3 = = 0.0846
100
2.6651 𝑥 3.18
𝑃4 = = 0.0848
100
2.6572 𝑥 3.18
𝑃5 = = 0.0846
100
2.6483 𝑥 3.18
𝑃6 = = 0.0842
100
2.6601 𝑥 3.18
𝑃7 = = 0.0846
100

𝑳
Particle Diameter (D) = K √ 𝒕

16.1 16.1
𝐷3 = 0.0125√ = 0.0251 𝐷6 = 0.0125√ = 0.00648
4 60

16.1 16.1
𝐷4 = 0.0125√ = 0.0130 𝐷7 = 0.0125√ = 0.00458
15 120

16.1
𝐷5 = 0.0125√ = 0.00916
30

12 | P a g e
 B. Documentation

Figure 3. Removal of hard lumps Figure 4. The Sieve Shaker

Figure 6. Obtaining the mass of each sieve

Figure 5. Obtaining the mass of each sieve

13 | P a g e
 Figure 7. The Hydrometer Bulb

Figure 8. Measuring the cylinder

Figure 10. The Cylinder with Soil Figure 11. The Dispersion Machine

14 | P a g e