Laboratory Experiment No.

02
GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS (MECHANICAL METHOD
AND HYDROMETER METHOD)
Submitted by:
Ina Therese R. Ardan
11811250
Justine Eliza N. Rocha
11814985

I. OBJECTIVES
The following are the main objectives of this experiment:
• To plot the grain size distribution curve of a soil sample
• To classify the given soil sample according to the USCS (Unified Soil Classification
System) standards
• To describe the significance of grain-size analysis in the field of civil engineering
II. DATA PRESENTATION
Table 1. Summary of Results for Mechanical Sieve Analysis
Mechanical Sieve Analysis
Mass of Mass of Sieve + Soil Percent Percent
Sieve Diameter
Empty Soil Retained Retained Retained Passing
Number (mm)
Sieve (g) (g) (g) (%) (%)
4 4.75 522.1 525.99 3.89 2.3273 97.6727
8 2.36 476.35 478.55 2.2 1.3162 96.3566
10 2 484.95 488.74 3.79 2.2674 94.0891
16 1.18 434.16 443.41 9.25 5.5340 88.5552
30 0.6 397.36 403.08 5.72 3.4221 85.1331
40 0.425 373.2 382.37 9.17 5.4861 79.6470
50 0.3 375.03 381.24 6.21 3.7152 75.9318
60 0.25 359.02 369.43 10.41 6.2279 69.7039
140 0.106 346.12 404.23 58.11 34.7652 34.9387
200 0.075 323.16 380.93 57.77 34.5618 0.3769
5.9396E-
Pan - 369.69 370.32 0.63 0.3769
15
Total Weight (g) 167.15

Tables 1 shows the summary of results for the portion of the experiment that uses the
mechanical sieve analysis. This procedure allows for the segregation of soil particles which have a
diameter not less than 0.075 mm. The percent of soil retained and passing through each sieve
number, with a corresponding diameter size, has also been calculated and presented on this table.
 Page 2 of 13

Table 2. Summary of Results for Hydrometer Reading

Hydrometer Reading
Hydrometer
Effective
Elapsed Actual Reading with Diameter of Soil in
Composite Temperature Depth of Value of
Time, T Hydrometer Composite Soil Particle, Suspension,
Correction (Celsius) Hydrometer, K
(min) Reading (cm) Correction D (mm) P (%)
L (cm)
Applied, R
0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
2 0 0 0 0 - - - -
5 0 0 0 0 - - - -
15 1.026 0 1.026 25.4 9.4 0.0128 0.0101 31.4978
30 1.018 0 1.018 24.5 11.5 0.0129 0.0080 22.5805
89 1.000 0 1.000 22.9 16.3 0.0132 0.0056 2.6457
155 0.999 0 0.999 22.5 16.6 0.0132 0.0043 1.4530
232 0.999 0 0.999 22.1 16.6 0.0133 0.0036 1.3555
1440 0.997 0 0.997 23.7 17.2 0.0131 0.0014 -0.4011

Table 2 shows the results for the hydrometer analysis, which segregates the grains that have
a diameter less than 0.075 mm or the particles from the soil sample that can pass through the No.
200 sieve. The hydrometer analysis makes us of the principle in Stoke’s law. The law implies that
a larger-sized particle tends to have a higher downward velocity as it settles within a still liquid
medium, compared to a smaller-sized particle of the same material (The Editors of Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 2016). In this experiment, it can be observed that no hydrometer reading was recorded
before the fifteenth minute. Also, for simplification, a composite correction factor of zero was
applied on the actual hydrometer reading. Thus, the actual hydrometer reading is equal to the R
value. Furthermore, temperature was recorded along with each hydrometer reading, mainly because
the temperature was used to determine the value of the constant for the computation of the particle
diameter, and the specific gravity of the liquid.
 Page 3 of 13

Table 3. Measured and Calculated Experimental Data

Hygroscopic Moisture Correction Factor
Mass of container + air-dried soil (g) 52.30
Mass of container + oven-dried soil (g) 51.00
Mass of container (g) 22.30
Hygroscopic Correction Factor 0.96
Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate
Mass of air-dried soil passing through No. 10 sieve (g) m2 146.03
Mass of container (g) 0
Mass of fraction retained on No. 10 sieve (washed and oven-dried) (g) m1 27.72
Hydrometer Analysis
Type of hydrometer used 151H
Specific gravity of the soil 2.65
Total mass of oven-dried specimen (g) mtot 167.422
Percent retained in sieve No. 10 (%) 5.544
Percent passing (%) 94.456
Total hydrometer sample represented by mass of soil dispersed, M (g) 147.9017

Table 3 shows other experimental data collected and computed within the procedures of
the mechanical sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis. This data includes the hygroscopic
correction factor, the specific gravity of the soil, the total hydrometer sample represented by mass
of soil dispersed, also known as the variable M, and other data used in creating the summaries
found in Tables 1 and 2.

III. COMPUTATION AND GRAPHS

Calculating for the mass retained in the sieve/pan (Mechanical sieve analysis)
The following equation shows the computation for the mass of soil retained, as used in
Table 1.
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 + 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒) − 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 Eq. 1
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑜. 4 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 = 525.99 𝑔 − 522.1 𝑔
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑜. 4 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 = 3.89 𝑔
Calculating for the total weight of the soil retained (Mechanical sieve analysis)
To get the total mass of the soil retained, simply sum up the mass retained in each sieve or
pain.

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = ∑ 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

Eq. 2
 Page 4 of 13

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

= 3.89 + 2.20 + 3.79 + 9.25 + 5.72 + 9.17 + 6.21 + 10.41 + 58.11 + 57.77 + 0.63

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 167.15 g

Calculating for the percent of soil retained in the No. 4 sieve (Mechanical sieve analysis)
The following equation demonstrates how to solve for the percent passing through the top
sieve, or the no. 4.
% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔1 = 100% − % 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑1 Eq. 3
% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔1 = 100 − 2.3273

% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔1 = 97.6727%
Calculating for the percent of soil passing through the succeeding sieves (Mechanical sieve
analysis)
Calculating for the percent soil passing through the succeeding sieves requires the same
steps used in Equation 3, except that the percent passing from the previous sieve is used as the
minuend.
% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖 = % 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖−1 − % 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑𝑖 Eq. 4
% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔2 = % 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔1 − % 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑2 = 97.6727% − 1.3162%

% 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔2 = 96.3566%
Calculating for the Hygroscopic Correction Factor (Hydrometer analysis)
The following equation shows how to calculate the hygroscopic correction factor for a
given soil sample.
ℎ𝑦𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

(𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 + 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 − 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙) − 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟

=
(𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 + 𝑎𝑖𝑟 − 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙) − 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 Eq. 5
51.00 − 22.30
ℎ𝑦𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =
52.30 − 22.30
ℎ𝑦𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.96
Calculating for the mass of the oven-dried specimen (Hydrometer analysis)
The next equation demonstrates the solution for the total mass of the oven-dried specimen.
𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑚1 + (𝑚2 × ℎ𝑦𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛) Eq. 6
𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 27.72 + (146.03 × 0.96)
𝑚𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 167.422 𝑔
 Page 5 of 13

Calculating for the percent retained in sieve No. 10 (Hydrometer analysis)

The following equation shows how to calculate the percent retained through the No. 10
sieve, as used in the hydrometer analysis.
𝑚1
% 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = × 100%
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟 − 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝐴 Eq. 7
27.72
% 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 500
× 100%

% 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 5.544%
Calculating for the percent passing through sieve No. 10 (Hydrometer analysis)

To solve for the percent passing, simply subtract the percent retained from a hundred
percent.
% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 100 − % 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 Eq. 8
% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 100% − 5.544%
% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 94.456%

Calculating for the total hydrometer sample represented by mass of soil dispersed, M
(Hydrometer analysis)
The following equation demonstrates how to solve for the total hydrometer sample
represented by mass of soil dispersed, M.
𝑚2 × ℎ𝑦𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑀= × 100%
% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 Eq. 9
146.03 × 0.96
𝑀= × 100%
94.456
𝑀 = 147.9017 𝑔
Calculating for the Effective Depth of the Hydrometer using Extrapolation with Table 4
(Hydrometer analysis)
To determine the more accurate value of the effective depth for a given actual hydrometer
reading with a respective elapsed time, extrapolation was used along with the standard set of values.
𝐻 − 𝐻1
𝐿 = 𝐿1 + (𝐿2 − 𝐿1 )
𝐻2 − 𝐻1 Eq. 10
0.999 − 1
𝐿15 = 16.3 + (16 − 16.3)
1.001 − 1
𝐿15 = 16.6 𝑐𝑚
 Page 6 of 13

where:
𝐿1 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ, 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (𝑐𝑚)
𝐿2 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ, 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (𝑐𝑚)
𝐿 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑐𝑚)
𝐻1 = 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡
𝐻2 = 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡
𝐻 = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Calculating for the Value of K using Interpolation (Hydrometer analysis)
To determine the more accurate value of the effective depth for a given actual hydrometer
reading, interpolation was used along with the standard set of values.
𝑇 − 𝑇1
𝐾 = 𝐾1 + (𝐾2 − 𝐾1 )
𝑇2 − 𝑇1 Eq. 11
25.4 − 25
𝐾15 = 0.01286 + (0.01272 − 0.01286)
26 − 25
𝐾15 = 0.0128

where:
𝐾1 = 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐾, 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡
𝐾2 = 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐾, 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡
𝐾 = 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐾 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝑇1 = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (℃)
𝑇2 = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 (℃)
𝑇 = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (℃)
Calculating for the Diameter of the Soil Particle (Hydrometer analysis)
The following equation demonstrates how to solve for the diameter of a soil particle in
suspension using the hydrometer analysis.

𝐿𝑇
𝐷𝑇 = 𝐾𝑇 √
𝑇
Eq. 12

9.4
𝐷15 = 0.012804√
15

𝐷15 = 0.0101 𝑚𝑚
 Page 7 of 13

where:
𝐷𝑇 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒, 𝑚𝑚
𝐾𝑇 = 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 11
𝐿 𝑇 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 10, 𝑐𝑚
𝑇 = 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, 𝑚𝑖𝑛.
Calculating for the Percent of Soil in Suspension (Hydrometer analysis)
Finally, the following equation shows how to compute for the percent of soil in suspension
for a respective particle size.
(100000⁄𝑀) × 𝐺
𝑃𝑇 = [ ] (𝑅 − 𝐺1 )
𝐺 − 𝐺1 Eq. 13
(100000⁄147.9017) × 2.65
𝑃15 = [ ] (1.026 − 0.99694)
2.65 − 0.99694

𝑃15 = 31.4978 %
where:
𝑃𝑇 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑀 = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 − 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
𝐺 = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
𝐺1 = 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑅 = ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑
Calculating for the Percent Component of Gravel, Sand and Fines in the Soil Sample (ASTM
D2847)
The following equations demonstrate the calculations for the percent component of gravel,
sand and fines in the given soil sample. For the percent of fines, linear interpolation was used.

% 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 = 100% − 97.67275% = 2.32725% Eq. 14

% 𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 = 97.67275% − 0.376907% = 97.29584% Eq. 15

0.1060 − 0.0101 0.075 − 0.0101

=
34.9387 − 31.4978 %𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 − 31.4978

% 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 = 33.83% Eq. 16

Calculating for the Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) and Coefficient of Curvature (Cc)
The following equations are stated in the Unified Soil Classification System found in
Figure 2. The equations for the calculations of the coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of
 Page 8 of 13

curvature are used to further classify clean sands. Using the grain size distribution curve found in
Figure 1, the diameter of the 10, 30 and 60 percent finer can be estimated.

𝐷60 = 0.199 𝑚𝑚; 𝐷30 = 0.0098 𝑚𝑚; 𝐷10 = 0.0063 𝑚𝑚

𝐷60 0.199 𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝑢 = = = 31.39 Eq. 17
𝐷10 0.0063 𝑚𝑚

2
𝐷30 (0.0098 𝑚𝑚)2
𝐶𝑐 = 𝐷 = (0.0063 𝑚𝑚)(0.199 𝑚𝑚) = 0.08 Eq. 18
10 𝐷60

where:

𝐷60 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 60 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐷30 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 30 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐷10 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 10 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐶𝑢 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐶𝑐 = 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒
Table 7. Summary of the Particle Diameter against the Percent Passing from the
Mechanical Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis

Diameter Percent
(mm) Passing (%)
4.75 97.67275
2.36 96.35657
2 94.08914
1.18 88.55519
0.6 85.13311
0.425 79.64702
0.3 75.9318
0.25 69.70386
0.106 34.93868
0.075 0.376907
0.010136 31.4978
0.008009 22.5805
0.005643 2.6457
0.004335 1.4530
0.003559 1.3555
0.001427 -0.4011
 Page 9 of 13

Grain Size Distribution Curve

100
90
80
GSDC –––
Percent Passing (%) D10 ---
70 D30 ---
60 D60 ---
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain size (mm)

Figure 1. Grain Size Distribution Curve

Figure 1 presents the grain size distribution plot using the summarized data of grain sizes
and their corresponding percent passing found in Table 7. However, the percent passing value for
the sieve with 0.075 mm of diameter was excluded from this graph because of its extraneous value
of 0.3769 percent, which was significantly distant from the former and latter values of 34.94 and
31.50 percent, respectively. It may be possible that this value obtained from the sieve analysis was
subjected to human and instrumental error. Thus, from this graph, the diameters corresponding to
10, 30 and 60 percent finer can be estimated. These can be used to solve for the coefficients of
uniformity and curvature of the soil sample.
Table 8. Diameters Corresponding to the 10, 30 and 60 Percent Finer
Percent Finer (%) Diameter (mm)
10 0.0063
30 0.0098
60 0.199

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

One of the classifications of soil particles is through their sizes. Any rock particle less than
3 inches or 75 millimeters in size is considered a soil fragment. According to the ASTM D2847,
these soil particles can be further classified, as shown in the following table (Adajar, 2020).
 Page 10 of 13

Table 9. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Particle Size
Classification (ASTM D2487)
Particle Diameter
Sieve size or number Soil Classification
Inches Millimeter
3 in. 0.75-3.00 19-75 Coarse Gravel
¾ in. 0.19-0.75 4.75-19 Fine Gravel
#4 0.19-0.079 2.00-4.75 Coarse Sand
#10 0.016-0.079 0.425-2.00 Medium Sand
#40 0.0029-0.018 0.075-0.425 Fine Sand
#200 <0.0029 <0.075 Fines (Silt+Clay)

However, a soil sample is not commonly found with only a single soil classification.
Instead, a soil sample will almost always compose of a mixture of different soil particle sizes. The
grain size distribution curve can be used to present the distribution of the various particle sizes
within a given soil sample. The grain size distribution curve of the soil sample in this experiment
can be found in Figure 1.
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a standard method used to classify soil
samples for various purposes. It is patterned after the ASTM D2487 classification of particle sizes
(Adajar, 2020). The following table is a guide from the USCS that was used to determine the
classification of the soil sample in the experiment.
 Page 11 of 13

Figure 2. Unified Soil Classification Chart

According to this chart, a soil sample is classified as a coarse-grained soil if more than 50
percent of the soil sample is retained on the 0.075 mm sieve. In this experiment, more than 50
percent of the soil sample was retained above the No. 200 sieve. Thus, the sample is classified as a
course-grained soil. After this, the soil can be considered as gravel or sand, depending on the
amount of soil particles that pass through the 4.75-mm sieve or the No. 4 sieve. More than 97
percent of the soil sample in the experiment passed through this sieve; thus, the sample can be
classified as sand. If the sand comprises less than five percent of fines, then it can be classified as
a clean sand, and if more than 12 percent, then it shall be considered as a sand with fines. The soil
sample in this experiment contains more than 12 percent of fines (see Eq. 16). Therefore, it can be
classified as a sand with fines. Sands with fines can further be categorized as silty sand or clayey
sand using a plasticity chart (see Figure 3). The plasticity chart requires the values for the plasticity
index and liquid limit for classification. However, the set of experimental data obtained does not
contain the data needed to calculate these values. Tests for the Atterberg limits of the soil sample
must be conducted to finally identify the group symbol and group name to which the sample
 Page 12 of 13

belongs to. For the sake of this experiment, it is concluded that the sample used in the experiment
is sand with fines.

Figure 3. Plasticity Chart Developed by Casagrande

V. CONCLUSIONS
In this experiment, the particles from the given soil sample were segregated according to
their sizes using the mechanical sieve analysis and the hydrometer analysis, with the application of
Stoke’s law. After measuring the percent passing or soil in suspension of each grain size, a grain
size distribution curve was plotted. The grain size distribution curve for the soil sample in this
experiment can be found on Figure 1. With the aid of the Unified Soil Classification System (see
Figure 2), the soil sample was categorized as sand with fines. Tests for the Atterberg limits of the
sample must be conducted to further classify it as silty sand or clayey sand.
Soil classification, especially in the field of civil engineering, is important because
various soil types can have different effects on the structures built above or within the soil.
Moreover, different soil classifications can also have appropriate applications, depending on
compaction characteristics, hydraulic conductivity, value as fill material, and numerous other
characteristics (Adajar, 2020).
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon observing the summary of results for the hydrometer analysis in Table 2, a negative
value was found in the percent of soil in suspension in the last row, or at the elapsed time of 1440
 Page 13 of 13

minutes. The researchers suspect that this is due to the fact that the experiment used a composite
correction value of zero. Therefore, it is suggested that the correction value for the hydrometer test
must be calculated and applied to the actual hydrometer reading to attain accuracy in the data, and
to avoid negative values in the percent of soil in suspension.
In classifying fine-grained soils or coarse-grained soil with fines, it is necessary to
determine the soil’s liquid limit and plasticity index, which was not obtained in the experiment.
Therefore, it is recommended to perform the Atterberg limits test to determine the sample’s liquid
limit and plasticity index to further classify the fines of the soil.
VII. REFERENCE
Adajar, M. (2020). Consistency of Soils and Soil Classification. Lecture presented at Geotechnical
Engineering (CEGEOEN) Lecture.
Adajar, M. (2020). Particle Size and Shapes. Lecture presented at Geotechnical Engineering
(CEGEOEN) Lecture.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (Ed.). (2016, April 11). Stokes's law. Retrieved November
03, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/science/Stokess-law