EDITION ONE

Engineering 3A

SEIVE ANALYSIS
LAB REPORT 1
ASSIGNMENT

SHANINGWA KARLUS N
216099196
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
MATERIALS .............................................................................................................................................................. 4
APPARATUS ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................... 5
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Table of figures
FIGURE 1:GRAIN SIZE / DISTRIBUTION GRAPH...................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2:PARTICLE SIZE RANGE OF GRAIN IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................................... 9
FIGURE 3: TRANSPORTATION AND BOX FIGURE 4: OVEN.................................................. 10
FIGURE 5: SAMPLE COLLECTION STAGE FIGURE 6: SIEVES .......................................... 10
FIGURE 6: WEIGHING PAN WITH SAMPLE AND MEASURING SCALE FIGURE 7: WEIGHING PAN ....................... 10

Tables
TABLE 1 – CHALK AGGREGATES SIEVE DATA RECORDING -TOTAL WEIGHT – 751G ............................................................. 6
TABLE 2 – MASS RETAINED AND PERCENTAGE (%) PASSING DATA OF SOIL SAMPLE. ................................................................ 7

2
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this lab report is to conclude and analyses the results and data collected during the particle size
distribution lab experiment. The experiment focused on determining different particle sizes found in a chalk
aggregates soil sample. The method of sieve analysis was used to classify and was the main focus of the
experiment at hand. The sample was carefully collected from the source containing, ensuring that all particle sizes
are represented to enable us to obtain the most accurate and reliable representative data possible. The aggregates
where passed through 22 different sets of sieve sizes (with the smallest size being 0.063mm and the largest size
75.0 mm) organized in a descending mesh opening sieve sizes including a bottom pan, this means that as the sieve
number increases, the size of the sieve openings decreases. The weight retained on each sieve samples was than
measured and recorded on the table sheet provided.

Objective: 1. To determine the particle size distribution and grading of the chalk soil sample using the sieve
analysis method.

2. To determine the soil classification relative to the fineness modulus and AASHTO CS.

3. To draw the grading curve of the chalk soil sample.

The final data was analyzed and used to calculate the uniformity coefficient, the coefficient of gradient curvature,
fineness modulus, and the percentage passing and retained using their respective formulas.

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒

% Finer (passing) in any sieve size = 100 - ∑ Cumulative of % Retained

% Cumulative Retained = ∑ % Retained

After plotting curves, the data obtained, and the information learned about the soil sample can be used to design
filters for huge water retaining structures such as dams, to determine suitable soil types and characteristics for
road construction and other projects for both large- or small-scale construction. Grain sizes can also be used to
determine the characteristics of the soil, such as the flow of water through various soil types, yielding and
compaction strength and moisture content respectively.

Citations & Reference:

3
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

ABSTRACT

This experiment examined the particle size distribution of a chalk soil sample and determined the
percentage passing in each sieve using Sieve Analysis. After the experiment was concluded, this report
was drafted to report that the soil sample analyzed is non-uniformly distributed. The errors in the experiment
performed are assume to be negligible due to the high level of professionality and care taken throughout the
experiment. A wet sample mass of 1.552 kg was obtained from a pile of chalk a g g r e g a t e s , t h e s a m p l e w a s
l a t e r d r i e d t o a d r y m a s s o f 1 . 5 3 3 k g . A grading curve representing the results is plotted and drawn,
and by plotting the percent passing on the semi-log curve, the distribution of the percentage of aggregates passing
against the sieve number are shown and can be determined. The data collected was used to finally classify the soil
as Poorly Graded-Gravel Sand mixture with little or no fines, group symbol (GP)

MATERIALS

o Aggregates – Chalk aggregates (natural chalk sample materials)

APPARATUS

1. Sieve - no. 0.063 to 75mm, and pan

2. bucket / Box - for soil transportation

3. weighing pan

4. Scale

5. Oven

6. Hand trowel - or sample collection

4
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

1. A chalk soil sample was collected and transported from a pile using a hand trowel and a bucket/ box. During
the collection, care was taken to ensure that the sample collected accurately represent the soil.

2. The sample was than weighed and reduces to a wet mass of 155.2 g, which was then used to carry out the
experiment.

3. 22 sieves of various sizes were placed on top of each other in descending order, with the smallest size being
0.063mm and the largest size 75.0mm and the bottom covered with a pan.

4. The Chalk soil sample was placed in the sieve at the top and then covered. Sieves were checked for cleanness
and tidiness to ensure that they are the right sizes, and don’t contain any faults and tears or left-over materials.

5. After that, the sieve column was shaken for a couple of minutes with care and precaution to allow for soil
sample to appropriately flow through the sieves and for particles to fully disperse to their respective sieve trays.

6. The sample remaining in each of the sieves and the Pan was weighed and recorded and calculated accordingly.

7. The procedure (No. 6) was than repeated until all the data needed was collected and recorded.

8. The entire (155.2 g) sample was than taken to the over and dried for about 24 hours at a 100degree delicious,
the dry mass was calculated to be 153.3g.

9. Calculation where than carried out to determine the required/ missing information

Percent retained = (weight retained/total weight) X 100%

Percent passing = (previous percentage passing - percent retained)

%passing initial = 100% - % retained for each sieve)

D10 X D30 and D60 can be obtained from tracing the 10%, 30% and 60% passing respectively to the curve
and reading the horizontal axis to obtain the value of each.

Fineness modulus = {(number of sieves used X 100) - sum of % passing)} / 100

8. the data was than plotted and analyzed after producing a grading curve for the chalk soil sample.

9. All the equipment and tools used for the experiment were than cleaned and returned to their respective palaces.

5
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

SEIVE SIZE (mm) MASS RETAINED (kg)

75,0 0
63,0 0
50,0 0
37,5 0.073
28,0 0.044
20,0 0.16
14,0 0.145
10,0 0.108
6,30 0.158
5,00 0.063
3.35 0.102
2.36 0.056
1.7 0.048
1.18 0.039
0.85 0.033
0.6 0.035
0.425 0.033
0.25 0.113
0.212 0.037
0.15 0.125
0.075 0.105
PAN 0.037
TOTAL 1.514
Table 1 – Chalk aggregates sieve data recording -TOTAL WEIGHT – 751g

6
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

ANALYSIS

Sieve size (mm) Mass retained (g) % Passing Cumulative % Passing

75 0 100 0

63 0 100 0

50 0 100 0

37.5 0.073 93.178 4.822

28 0.044 92.272 7.728

20 0.16 81.704 18.296

14 0.145 72.127 27.873

10 0.108 64.993 35.007

6.3 0.158 54.557 45.443

5 0.063 50.396 49.604

3.35 0.102 43.659 56.341

2.36 0.056 39.96 60.04

1.7 0.048 36.79 63.21

1.18 0.039 34.214 65.786

0.85 0.033 32.034 67.966

0.6 0.035 29.723 70.277

0.425 0.033 29.543 70.457

0.25 0.113 20.079 79.921

0.212 0.037 17.635 82.365

0.15 0.125 9.379 90.621

0.075 0.105 2..444 97.556

PAN 0.037 0 100

TOTAL 1.514 1104.687

Table 2 – Mass retained and percentage (%) passing data of soil sample.

Fineness modulus = 10.953 mm

Wet mass = mass of pan + mass of wet soil

7
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

DISCUSSION

110 Grading curve for a chalk soil sample

90
80
70
60
50 Series1
40
30
20
10
D10 D30 D60
0
0.01 0.1 Particle size
1 (mm) 10 100

Figure 1:Grain size / distribution graph

The gradual climb Percent indicated by the curve shows a fairly-even aggregate size distribution until particle size
(0.4 mm) is reached, to which the curve begins to shows a more staidly climb and an indent within its climbing,
this shows and indicating the lack of evenly distribution of particles.

The sieve values plotted on the chalk aggregate log graph helped determine the D10 = 0.16, D30 = 0.425 and D60 =
8 on the curve respectively. The D10 value indicates Effective size, this along with the uniformity coefficient,
which is found by dividing D10 by D60.

The D10, D30 and D60 were determine by using a horizontal line and the Percent Passing to Pinpoint and determine
each value. And finally, to determine if the aggregate was course or fine, the fineness modulus was calculated to
serve that very purpose, it was concluded that the aggregated is coarse with as the fineness modules equals to
10.953 mm well with range of the predetermined boundaries.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

With reference to the AASHTO Soil Classification System done in class, the analysis indicated that more than
half of the sample material is larger than 0.075 mm sieve size, about 97.6% to be exact.

About 50.4% of the sample material is larger than 5.00 mm sieve size, 5.00 mm sieve size was used for the
replacement of sieve size 4.75 mm, assumptions were made that 4.75 mm would have retained more than what is
retained by the 5.00 mm sieve size which is 50.4%. this concludes that the soil is a Gravel with fines (appreciable
number of fines).
8
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

By determining the percentage of sand and gravel from the distribution curve, the percentage smaller than (0.075
mm) is about 2.44%, which is less than 5 %indicating that this is a dirty coarse-grained soil.

The soil is than finally classified as a Poorly graded-Gravel Sand mixture with little or no fines, group symbol
(GP)

The particle size distribution graph was also used to determine some of the soil parameters listed below:

1. Effective size (D10): is the diameter in the particle size distribution curve corresponding to 10% finer.

2. Uniformity coefficient (Cu): Measures the slope of the grading curve. It is defined as

𝑫𝟔𝟎 𝟖
Cu = = = 50
𝑫 𝟏𝟎 𝟏𝟎

Where D 60 = Particle diameter at which 60% of the soil mass is finer than this size.

3. Coefficient of gradation or concavity (Cc):

(𝑫 𝟑𝟎)𝟐 (𝟎.𝟒𝟐𝟓)𝟐
Cc = 𝑫 𝟔𝟎 𝐱𝑫𝟏𝟎 = 𝟖.𝟎 𝒙 𝟎.𝟏𝟔 = 0.141

Where D 30 = Diameter through which 30% of the total soil mass is passing.

CONCLUSION

The soil is concluded to be poorly graded Gravel, which makes it more susceptible to soil liquefaction than well
graded soils. Soil particles inside the 5.00 mm sieve size to 0.075 mm sieve size range, would not have been
adequately represented inside the soil sample. The poorly graded soil only has particle inside the silt range and
higher, and nothing in the sand or silt range. This uniformity in gradation, will ensure that voids present inside the
soil sample are higher.

Figure 2:Particle size range of grain identification

There is no adequate number of smaller sized particles lesser than effective size D10 to fill the voids. This will
ensure that the soil will have less amount of shear strength, compared to the well graded soils. There for, this soil
should not be used in important building works as it is not the suitable kind, but it sure can be used in unimportant
works of any kind as long as it will not pose a threat.

9
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

APPENDICES

Figure 3: Transportation and box Figure 4: Oven

Figure 5: Sample collection stage Figure 6: Sieves

Figure 6: Weighing pan with sample and Measuring Scale Figure 7: weighing pan

10
SHANINGWA K.N 216099196

REFERENCES

1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-3091.1997.d01-38.x

2. Das, B. &. (2014). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Delhi: Cengage Learning.

3. Particle Size Analysis of Soils AASHTO Designation T 88 (Mn/DOT Modified) viewed 2 October2016,
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/manuals/laboratory/1302.pdf

4.Shukla,R. L. (2005). Principles of Soil Physics. New York: Taylor & Francis.

11