Laboratory Report #2

Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis

CE 162
Group D

Tiqui, Mary Elisha D.G.

Chua, Charissa Allyana
Dela Cruz, Carlos Alfonso
Gubantes, Gerry Mike

Date of Experiment:
Deadline: 04 November 2019

Date Submitted: 04 November 2019

I. Objectives
Generally, the experiment aims to
• Determine the particle size distribution of the soil sample
• Describe the gradation of the sample
• Measure percentage of sample remaining in suspension
The general objectives can be attained if the students are able to
• Perform the Standard Method of Sieve Analysis properly
• Determine the needed measurements with Hydrometer Analysis

II. Materials and Equipment

1. Soil Sample
2. Sieve Set (No. 4, No. 8, No. 10, No. 16, No. 20, No. 50, No. 200, and Pan)

Photo 1. Set of Sieves

3. Brush
4. Balance (measuring up to 0.01g)
5. Drying Oven
6. Hydrometer (ASTM Type 152H)

Photo 2. Sample of a Type 152H Hydrometer

7. Graduated Cylinder (1000mL)

Photo 3. Sample of Sedimentation Cylinder

8. Stirring Rod
9. Distilled Water
10. Plastic Cover
III. Methodology

A. Sieve Analysis

Dry at least 5 kg of the Weigh each sieve and

START soil sample for 24 hours in arrange in order, with the
the oven. No. 200 at the bottom.

Gradually pour the soil Measure the weight of Place pan below
at the top of the sieve the dry soil using the Sieve No. 200 to
set. (Sieve No. 4) balance. collect the soil.

Shake the sieve set by moving it sideways or

in a circular motion to let the sample pass Check if the pan contains at
through the sieves. Do this for 10 minutes. least 50 g of soil. If not,
weigh more soil and pour
again at the top, or shake the
set for a longer time until 50
Measure weight of each sieve with the soil g is reached. If yes, proceed
retained in each, and get summation of the to next step.
total weight of soil retained.

Compare with the weight If the percent error of the weight does not
recorded before the soil was meet the required error, repeat the process. If
poured in the sieves. it does, record the data.

END Repeat whole process

for another trial.
B. Hydrometer Analysis

From the sample that retained Stir 6 g of Sodium

START on the pan, place the soil on a Hexametaphosphate
beaker. in 125 mL of water.

Slowly put the hydrometer in the solution and Pour solution in graduated
let it settle. Record the measurement on the cylinder and add water
hydrometer, and this will be the calibration. until the 1000 mL mark.

Stir another 6 g of Sodium

Add the sample in the solution and let it
Hexametaphosphate in 125 mL
settle for 10 minutes.
of water.

Cover the mix with plastic using a Pour the slurry in another
rubber band and agitate it for a minute, graduated cylinder and add water
making sure it doesn’t spill out. until the 1000 mL mark.

Place graduated cylinder on level surface After initial reading, get

and slowly put the hydrometer inside and readings at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 5, 8,
let it settle. Record the measurement. 30, and 60 min, and 24 hours.

Calculate resulting Grain Size

END
Distribution from the readings.
IV. Data and Results

Table 1. Multipoint Liquid Limit Test Results

TRIAL 1

Weight of Container (g) 189.22

Weight of Container + Soil (g) 3287.91
Weight of Dry Soil (g) 3098.69

Table 2.1. Sieve Data for Trial 1

TRIAL 1
Mass of Mass of Sieve + Soil
Sieve Diameter Percent Percent
Empty Soil Retained Retained
# (mm) Retained Passing
Sieve (g) (g)
4 4.75 512.44 1702.74 1190.3 38.424 61.576
8 2.36 474.83 1192.24 717.41 23.159 38.417
10 2.00 478.80 662.05 183.25 5.916 32.501
16 1.18 423.46 782.14 358.68 11.579 20.922
20 0.84 404.52 592.60 188.08 6.071 14.851
50 0.30 373.41 655.53 282.12 9.107 5.744
200 0.075 310 435.89 125.89 4.064 1.679
Pan - 361.16 413.2 52.04 1.679 0
Total Weight: 3097.77 100
% Deviation 0.029689966

Table 2.2. Sieve Data for Trial 2

TRIAL 2
Mass of
Mass of Sieve + Soil
Diameter Percent Percent
Sieve # Empty Soil Retained
(mm) Retained Passing
Sieve Retained (g)
(g)
4 4.75 512.44 1758.15 1245.71 40.2251973 59.7748027
8 2.36 474.83 1046.24 571.41 18.45138916 41.32341354
10 2 478.8 719.35 240.55 7.767595355 33.55581819
16 1.18 423.46 799.86 376.4 12.15432505 21.40149313
20 0.84 404.52 581.93 177.41 5.728742848 15.67275029
50 0.3 373.41 667.85 294.44 9.507756294 6.164993994
200 0.075 310 448.48 138.48 4.471654977 1.693339017
Pan - 361.16 413.6 52.44 1.693339017 0
Total Weight: 3096.84 100
% Deviation 0.059702649
Table 1 shows the recorded dry weight for the soil sample after it was oven-dried for 24
hours. The indicated weight of the dry soil was the one used in calculation for the percent
deviation in the sieve analysis.

Meanwhile, Table 3.1 and 3.2 describe the acquired results from the sieve analysis of the
soil sample for both trials. The calculated percentage of deviation is also stated above.

Figure 1.1. Particle Size Distribution Curve for Trial 1

Figure 1.2. Particle Size Distribution Curve for Trial 2

Figures 1.1, and 1.2 show the particle size distribution curve for the trials. This was done
by plotting the diameters of the sieves against the percent that passed through it.

In order to formally classify the gradation of the sample, the Coefficient of Gradation and
Uniformity was obtained using the results from Trial 2. Subsequently, D60, D30 and D10
were noted from the curve presented in Figure 1.2. For simplicity, D60 was taken to be 4.75
mm, as the percent passing through the said diameter is 59.77, which is close to 60. For D30,
interpolation was performed using the equation below,
 !"# − 1.18 30 − 21.401
=
2 − 1.18 33.556 − 21.401
which would give a D30 OF 1.76 mm. The same process was done to obtain D10, with a
result of 0.555 mm.

Using the acquired values, the equation below was used to calculate for the Coefficient of
Gradation,

(!"# )3
/0 =
(!4# )(!5# )

giving a CC of 1.176. This number falls between 1-3, which is the standard Cc for well-
graded gravel and sand soils, which means that the soil sample used is well-graded.
Furthermore, the equation below was used to get the coefficient of Uniformity,

(!4# )
/6 =
(!5# )

resulting to a Cu of 8.564. This number meets the requirement for well-graded soils as well,
which is a minimum of 6 for sand, and a minimum of 4 for gravels.

Table 3. Data for Hydrometer Analysis

Elapsed
Actual Hydrometer Composite Corrected time,
Reading Correction Reading T (sec)
1.029 0.001 1.028 0
1.0275 0.001 1.0265 20
1.027 0.001 1.026 60
1.0265 0.001 1.0255 90
1.026 0.001 1.025 120
1.024 0.001 1.023 300
1.0215 0.001 1.0205 900
1.02 0.001 1.019 1800
1.0185 0.001 1.0175 3600
1.0135 0.001 1.0125 86400

Moving on to the hydrometer analysis, Table 3 shows the readings recorded from the
experiment. The values were then used to obtain the R-value (R), the effective length (L),
the specific gravity (GS), and the diameter (D). The equations for each are given below.

7 = /899:;<:= ?@=98A:<:9 7:B=CDE − 1 F 1000

G = 16.29 F 0.1647

KL
IJ =
KL + (KN − KO )
 where Wo is the weight of oven-dried sample, WA is the weight of pycnometer with water,
and WB is the weight of the pycnometer with water and soil.

18P G
! = 100 F F
QR E IJ − 1 S

where P is the viscosity of water, QR is the density of water, and T is the time elapsed in
seconds.
Once the said variables are acquired, the percent passing of the respective D is obtained,
and also the percent passing as a fraction of the total soil sample given by the following
formulas.
IJ 7
% UBVVCDE = F F 100
(IJ − 1) 52.44

where 52.44 (g) represents the total weight of the soil used in the hydrometer analysis.

% UBVVCDE BV B W9B;<C8D 8W <ℎ: <8<BY V8CY VBAUY: ABVV = % UBVVCDE F 1.693%

where 1.693% represents what percentage is 52.44 g of the total sample used from the start
of the sieve analysis.
Applying all the equations above, the following results are calculated.

Table 4. Data Analysis of the Hydrometer Analysis

Corrected L T % passing as
Reading R GS (cm) (sec) D (mm) % passing a fraction
1.028 28 2.514 11.698 0 #DIV/0! 88.66012338 1.501316462
1.0265 26.5 2.514 11.944 20 0.085085795 83.91047391 1.420888794
1.026 26 2.514 12.026 60 0.049292647 82.32725742 1.394079572
1.0255 25.5 2.514 12.108 90 0.040384259 80.74404093 1.367270349
1.025 25 2.514 12.19 120 0.035092022 79.16082444 1.340461126
1.023 23 2.514 12.518 300 0.022490754 72.82795849 1.233224236
1.0205 20.5 2.514 12.928 900 0.013195978 64.91187604 1.099178124
1.019 19 2.514 13.174 1800 0.009419324 60.16222658 1.018750456
1.0175 17.5 2.514 13.42 3600 0.006722366 55.41257711 0.938322789
1.0125 12.5 2.514 14.24 86400 0.001413498 39.58041222 0.670230563

Table 4 provides more details that could supplement the initial distribution curve in Figure
1.2 with more data points given the values under D and % passing as a fraction of the total.
This provides a detailed size distribution for the finer particles, with the diameter ranging
from 0.085 mm and 0.0014 mm. Noticeably, these are already very small particles, but this
would still help refine the distribution curve for a more accurate result.
 Table 5. Combined Data from Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
D (mm) % passing
4.75 59.7748027
2.36 41.32341354
2 33.55581819
1.18 21.40149313
0.84 15.67275029
0.3 6.164993994
0.075 1.693339017
0.085085795 1.420888794
0.049292647 1.394079572
0.040384259 1.367270349
0.035092022 1.340461126
0.022490754 1.233224236
0.013195978 1.099178124
0.009419324 1.018750456
0.006722366 0.938322789
0.001413498 0.670230563

Figure 2. Combined Distribution Curve from Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis

Table 5 and Figure 2 show the combined data for the sample using the analysis from the
sieve and hydrometer experiments. Compared to Figure 1.2, this curve shows a more
detailed curve as it approaches the smaller diameters. Looking at the final curve, it agrees
with the expected outcome of a gradually decreasing trend line, and the smoothness of the
curve attests to the well-graded quality of the sample.
V. Analysis and Discussions

From the sieve analysis of the sample, the deviations that were acquired are 0.03% and 0.06%
for the two trials, which means that the sieve analysis performed had minimal losses or
inconsistencies. The total mass retained may have differed from the previously recorded dry
mass due to some particles falling out during the shaking of the sieves, but the minimal
deviation implies that the procedure was properly done for both trials. From the values shown
on Table 2, it is noticeable how an average of 40% of the soil was retained in Sieve No. 4,
which means that a big portion of the soil was of a 4.75 diameter or bigger while the rest
were considerably spread out in sizes.

The curve acquired from the sieve analysis for both trials is considerably smooth in nature,
agreeing with what was previously said that the sizes of the sample is quite spread out
between the sizes of the sieves with the exception of the top sieve. This implies that through
no formal calculations, one can predict that the sample is probably well graded since the
curve shows roughly a smooth transition in sizes (Budhu, 2010).

As shown in the results, the computation for the coefficient of gradation and uniformity
confirmed the inference that the sample is well-graded. A well-graded sample is defined to
be soil that acquires a good representation of all varying sizes from the sieves used. This
means that the smaller particles of a well-graded soil can fill up the spaces in between the
larger particles, giving it a low porosity and low permeability. This is a type of soil that is
very fit for foundations of structures, especially in flood-prone areas, as it lessens the risk
that the soil is penetrated by the water (Das, 2009). With that being said, the sample is
deemed to be fit for such purposes.

Moreover, for the distribution of the soils finer than 0.075 mm, the hydrometer analysis data
was used. Using sieve analysis for finer particles would be ineffective, because the finer
particles easily fly away, making it difficult for the sieving process to account for the total
sample.

Hydrometers measure the relative density of a liquid, and these readings allow for the
calculations of the grain size distribution of finer samples. Observing the data on Table 4,
the values for the % passing is very smooth in its decrease, in the sense that there are no
sudden jumps in the data. This supports the claim that the soil is well-graded, and this would
mean that even the finer soils are still well-graded, giving the soil a very wide range of sizes.
Some inconsistencies that could have been present in the hydrometer analysis may be due to
the difficulty of giving the accurate reading at the exact time recorded, as it is in seconds.
This was especially difficult at the initial reading at T=0, because it must be immediately
read without letting the slurry settle. Nonetheless, both analyses were done properly and the
data gathered tells that the soil sample used in the experiment is good for construction
purposes because of its gradation.

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

The experiment aimed to determine the particle size distribution curve and the grading of the
sample, and this was successfully done by the Standard Method of Sieve Analysis and
Hydrometer Analysis. The sieve analysis was performed first, and in the process of sieving,
a percent deviation of 0.3% and 0.6% was calculated for the trials 1 and 2, respectively. Both
deviations are within the required range given, meaning the sieve analysis performed was
 successfully done with minimal errors. From the sieving data acquired and data analysis, the
particle size distribution curve was obtained for both trials, and was used to estimate the
grading of the samples. The curves shown depict a smooth curve for the sample, giving an
idea that the sample is well-graded. From there the coefficients of gradation and uniformity
were calculated to be 0.555 and 8.564, both confirming that the sample is truly well-graded.
Given the process of the sieving analysis, it may be described to be simple, but it results to
a good description of the sample’s nature that is important in complying with requirements
for construction materials.

The hydrometer analysis was performed after to obtain the grain distribution curve for the
particles that passed through Sieve No. 200. The readings from the hydrometer were
recorded at different times and the data was used to calculate the diameter and % passing of
the finer particles. The data here was combined with the data from the sieve analysis to be
able to have a more accurate and complete particle size distribution curve. The said curve
presented as Figure 2 depicts the well-graded quality of the sample better given the
smoothness and shape of the curve. From the results of the experiment, it can be said that
the sample tested is suitable as a foundation for structures, especially in the Philippines,
given the weather here and the number of typhoons in the country.

For further improvement, it can be suggested to ensure the quality of the equipment used,
especially the sieves. From experience, some sieves tend to deform or develop holes over
time, so it must be made sure that the sieves used would not garner the deviations of the
experiment. Secondly, the sieves can be shaken for a prolonged time to have a certainty that
all the finer aggregates have been successfully sieved through. For the hydrometer analysis,
it is suggested that only one person is assigned to read the readings, to keep one bias in the
data. Also, this must be an individual with a quick eye because the readings observed are
time sensitive.

VII. References

1. Budhu, M. (December 2010). Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 3rd Edition. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Karl Terzaghi, Ralph B. Peck, & Gholamreza Mesri. (1996). Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition. Third Avenue, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Das, B. (September 2009). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 7th Edition.
Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
4. ASTM Standard C136-06, 2003, "Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine
and Coarse Aggregates”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI:
10.1520/C0033-03, [Link].

VIII. Peer Evaluation

1. Mary Elisha Tiqui (me)

- Score: 25
- Helped in experiment and did all the tasks needed
2. Charissa Chua
- Score: 25
- Helped in experiment and did all the tasks needed
3. Carlos Dela Cruz
- Score: 25
 - Helped in experiment and did all the tasks needed
4. Gerry Mike Gubantes
- Score: 25
- Helped in experiment and did all the tasks needed