Name: Godwin Chuma

Id: 20000421
Course: Earth and Environmental Science
 MEASURING AND ANALYSING PARTICLE (GRAIN) SIZE BY SIEVING

GODWIN CHUMA
DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMRNTAL SCIENCE,
BOTSWANA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY

ABSTRACT

Geomorphology relies heavily on measuring the particle-size distribution of

sediments. Boulder- and cobble-size material is typically measured directly,
whereas grain-size distributions for sand- to clay-dominated sediments can be
determined using a variety of techniques. A combination of methods is
frequently required, and no single technique can be considered "more accurate"
or "more precise" than another as according to (Wanogho, S., (1987). This chapter
examines the sieving technique used to determine the particle size distribution
of sediment samples and discusses some of its advantages and limitations in
grain-size data. This test is used to determine the percentage of different grain
sizes in a soil. The fineness modulus, effective size, and uniformity are
determined using mechanical or sieve analysis as stated by (Sugita, R. (2001).

Aim

To determine the proportion of different grain sizes found in a soil. And, to

derive the particle size distribution of soils.

INTRODUCTION
The Sieve grain size analysis and the hydrometer method are both used for grain size analysis
as according to (Peech, M., 1947). Sieve Grain Size Analysis can determine particle sizes
ranging from 0.075 mm to 100 mm. Any grain categorization larger than 100mm will be
done visually, whereas particles smaller than 0.075mm can be distributed using the
Hydrometer Method. The sieve analysis method involves performing the test with a set of
sieves with varying mesh sizes. Each sieve has a distinct size of squared openings. The sieve
separates larger and smaller particles, dividing the soil sample into two parts being the
courser and finer quantities. The sieve retains grains with diameters greater than the size of
the openings, while smaller diameter grains pass through. The test is carried out by stacking a
series of sieves with progressively smaller mesh sizes and passing the soil sample through the
stacked sieve "tower." As a result, the soil particles are distributed as they are captured by the
various sieves. A pan is also used to collect particles that have passed through the final sieve
(No. 200). While hydrometer analysis is used for particle sizes smaller than 75 m. These
particles pass through the Sieve Analysis's final sieve (No. 200). A hydrometer is a device
used to determine the relative density of a liquid, which is the ratio of the substance's actual
density to the density of water. The apparatus is made up of a cylindrical stem and a bulb
with a specific amount of mercury or lead at the bottom that is calibrated to float upright in
the liquid. The liquid is poured into a tall glass cylinder, and the hydrometer is placed inside
until it is stabilized. The test is based on the principle that the hydrometer will sink deeper
until it balances in a low-density liquid. A scale on the hydrometer is used to record the
relative density of the liquid based on its submersion as stated by (Peech, M., 1947). The
hydrometer grain size analysis exploits the change in relative density of a soil-water mixture
as soil particles sink. The test assumes that when soil is poured into a liquid, the relative
density of the soil-water mixture rises. The density of the soil particles decreases as they sink
until it reaches the initial density of the liquid. The heaviest particles (those with a larger
diameter) sink first. This experiment is significant because hydraulic conductivity is affected
by grain size. In general, well-sorted coarse-textured sediments have higher hydraulic
conductivity than well-sorted fine-textured sediments as stated by (Bowman, G.M, 2002).
APPARATUS
 Balance
 Set of sieves
 Cleaning brush
 Sieve shaker

PROCEDURE
Wrote down the weight of each sieve as well as the bottom pan to be used in the analysis.
Weighed and recorded the weight of the given dry soil sample. Cleaned and assembled the
sieves in ascending order of sieve numbers (#4 sieve at top and #200 sieve at bottom). Placed
the pan below #200 sieve. Carefully poured the weighed soil sample into the top sieve and
place a cap over it. Placed the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and Shaked it for 2
minutes. Removed the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh and record the weight of
each sieve with its retained soil in descending order including the pan at the bottom. The
recorded results were then taken for data Analysis. There procedure is as shown by figures
below as according to their labelling from fig 1,1 of stacking and arranging in vertical
ascending order to fig 1.3 of weighing and recording using a top pan balance:
Figure 1.1 showing vertical stacking of sieves in ascending order
Figure 1.2 showing the timing of the shaking of the soil sample using the automatic
electromagnetic shaker

Figure 1.3 showing the weighing of the soil sample after shaking

RESULTS
The results are attached to the back of the report
DISCUSSION
Data analysis of results obtained from the lab is done and placed in a table format,
calculations for the mass retained on the sieves are obtained with the total being 505.7g
which when compared to the original mass the value is not equal to it with a difference of
0.2g which is due to inaccuracy during weighing of the soil mass on a top pan balance and
this is due to dampness of the soil, shaking process of the soil using the automatic
electromagnetic shaker as according to ( Wanogho, S., 1987). The graph plotted has a curve
which is almost horizontal in between two points which suggest that the soil is gap graded as
stated by (Kroetsch, D. 2008). The soil percent gravel is 17.4g which suggest that the soil
has large sizes particles, it also shows 485.3g of sand and silt and %fines of 3.0g.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion the grain size differences were unjustifiable because the % gravel, % sand and
silt, and %finer which were found in the soil suggested that the soil distribution is gap graded
and some errors or inaccuracies contributed to the aim being not fully fulfilled.
REFERENCE
1. Wanogho, S., Gettinby, G., Caddy, B. and Robertson, J., 1987. Some factors affecting
soil sieve analysis in forensic science. 1. Dry sieving. Forensic Science International,
33(2), pp.129-137.
2. Peech, M., 1947. Methods of soil analysis for soil-fertility investigations (No. 757).
US Department of Agriculture.
3. Kroetsch, D. and Wang, C., 2008. Particle size distribution. Soil sampling and
methods of analysis, 2, pp.713-725.
4. Bowman, G.M. and Hutka, J., 2002. Particle size analysis. Soil physical measurement
and interpretation for land evaluation, pp.224-239.
5. Sugita, R. and Marumo, Y., 2001. Screening of soil evidence by a combination of
simple techniques: validity of particle size distribution. Forensic science
international, 122(2-3), pp.155-158.