EXPERIMENT NO.

4
SIEVE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION:
A sieve analysis (or gradation test) is an extensively used procedure in civil engineering to assess the particle size
distribution (also called gradation) of a material.

The size distribution is of critical importance in determining material performance and utility. A sieve analysis can
be performed on any type of non-organic or organic material including sands, crushed rock, clays, granite, feldspars, coal,
and soil, a wide range of manufactured powders, grain and seeds. Being such a simple technique of particle sizing, it is
probably the most commonly employed procedure for determining the distribution of particle sizes in a granular sample.
Moreover, it granular material from fine particles (clay and silt size).

OBJECTIVE:
The experiment aims to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil. The mechanical
or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the coarser, larger-sized particles.

SPECIMEN:
 2 kg oven dried soil (500g min.)

APPARATUS AND SUPPLIES:

Set of sieves with pan and cover
Brush
Balance
Mortar and pestle

PROCEDURE:
1. Write down the weight of each sieve as well as the bottom pan to be used in the analysis.

2. Record the weight of the given dry soil sample.

3. Make sure that all the sieves are clean, and assemble them in the ascending order of sieve numbers (#4 sieve at
top and #200 sieve at bottom). Place the pan below #200 sieve. Carefully pour the soil sample into the top sieve
and place the cap over it.

4. Place the sieve stack in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 minutes or manually but carefully shake the stack.

5. Remove the stack from the shaker and carefully weigh and record the weight of each sieve with its retained soil. In
addition, remember to weigh and record the weight of the bottom pan with its retained fine soil.

COMPUTATIONS:

DATA ANALYSIS

1. Obtain the mass of soil retained on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the empty sieve from the mass of the
sieve + retained soil, and record this mass as the weight retained on the data sheet. The sum of these retained
masses should be approximately equal to the initial mass of the soil sample. A loss of more than two percent is
unsatisfactory.

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 1

2. Calculate the percent retained on each sieve by dividing the weight retained on each sieve by the original sample
mass.

3. Calculate the percent passing (or percent finer) by starting with 100 percent and subtracting the percent retained
on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.

4. Make a semi logarithmic plot of grain size vs. percent finer.

5. Determine D10, D30 and D60. Compute Cc and Cu for the soil as well as the %gravel, %sand, and %fines.

FORMULAS
( weight of sieve+retained soil ) – weight of sieve
% Retained ¿ × 100
total weight

Cumulative % Retained ¿ Σ % Retained

Cumulative % Passing ( Finer ) ¿ 100 % – Cumulative% Retained

Unified Soil Classification System

Parameters
% Gravel ¿ 100 %−%Passing No.4
% Sand ¿ %Passing No. 4−%Passing No .200
% Fines ¿ %Passing No. 200
Cu ¿ D 60
D 10
Cc ¿ D30
2

D60 × D 10

TABLE U.S. Standard Sieve (Number Designation and Opening Sizes)

Sieve No. Opening (mm) Sieve No. Opening (mm)

4 4.75 45 0.355
5 4.00 50 0.300
6 3.35 60 0.250
7 2.80 70 0.212
8 2.36 80 0.180
10 2.00 100 0.150
12 1.70 120 0.125
14 1.40 140 0.106
16 1.18 170 0.090
18 1.00 200 0.075
20 0.85 230 0.063
25 0.71 270 0.053
30 0.60 325 0.045
35 0.500 400 0.038
40 0.425

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 2

 EXPERIMENT NO. 4
SIEVE ANALYSIS

Year and Section 4CE-D Date Started September 21, 2021

Group Number 3 Date Finished September 24, 2021
Group Members Date Submitted October 2, 2021
Caño, Raphael Nidgil S.
Custodio, Adam P.

Cruz, Melvin C. Custodio, Angelika Mae L.

I. DATA AND RESULTS:

Table 4.1 Sieve Analysis of Soil Sample

Weight of
Opening Weight of Weight Cumulative
Sieve + Cumulative
Sieve No. Size, Sieve, Retained, % Retained % Passing
Retained, % Retained
mm kg. Kg. (Finer)
kg.

4 4.75 0.505 0.585 0.080 4.703 4.703 95.297

10 2.00 0.481 0.612 0.131 7.701 12.404 87.596
12 1.70 0.466 0.588 0.122 7.172 19.577 80.423
16 1.18 0.443 0.679 0.236 13.874 33.451 66.549
20 0.85 0.506 0.620 0.114 6.702 40.153 59.847
30 0.600 0.405 0.753 0.348 20.459 60.611 39.389
40 0.425 0.385 0.539 0.154 9.053 69.665 30.335
60 0.250 0.367 0.586 0.219 12.875 82.540 17.460
100 0.150 0.420 0.554 0.134 7.878 90.417 9.583
200 0.075 0.344 0.449 0.105 6.173 96.590 3.410
Pan 0.069 0.127 0.058 3.410 100.00 0.000
TOTAL 1.701

Table 4.2 Grain-size curve parameters (USCS)

% Gravel = 4.703% D10 = 0.155 mm
% Sand = 95.297% D30 = 0.420 mm
% Fines = 0.000% D60 = 0.858 mm

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 3

 Cu = 5.522% Cc = 1.327%

Figure 4.1 Grain Size Distribution Curve

Particle - Size Distribution Curve

100.000
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
10 1 0.1 0.01

II. FORMULAS AND COMPUTATIONS

Formula for Weight Retained:

Weight Retained=Weight of Sieve with Retained−Weight of Sieve

Weight Retained 4 =0.585−0.505 Weight Retained 30 =0.753−0.405

Weight Retained 4 =0.080 Weight Retained 30 =0.348

Weight Retained 10 =0.612−0.481

Weight Retained 10=0.131 Weight Retained 40=0.539−0.385

Weight Retained 12 =0.588−0.466 Weight Retained 40 =0.154

Weight Retained 12 =0.122 Weight Retained 60 =0.586−0.367

Weight Retained 16 =0.679−0.443 Weight Retained 60=0.219

Weight Retained 16=0.236 Weight Retained 100 =0.554−0.42

Weight Retained 20 =0.62−0.506 Weight Retained 100 =0.134

Weight Retained 20=0.114 Weight Retained 200 =0.449−0.344

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 4

 Weight Retained pan =0.058
Weight Retained 200 =0.105
Weight Retained T =0.08+0.131+0.122+0.236+ 0.114
Weight Retained pan =0.127−0.069
Weight Retained T =1.701
Formula for % Retained:

Weight Retained
% Retained= x 100
Weight Retained T

0.080
% Retained 4 = x 100 % Retained 30=20.459
1.701

% Retained 4 =4.703 0.154

% Retained 40= x 100
1.701
0.131
% Retained 10 = x 100 % Retained 40=9.053
1.701

% Retained 10 =7.701 0.219

% Retained 60= x 100
1.701
0.122
% Retained 12= x 100 % Retained 60=12.875
1.701

% Retained 12 =7.172 0.134

% Retained 100 = x 100
1.701
0.236
% Retained 16 = x 100 % Retained 100 =7.878
1.701

% Retained 16=13.874 0.105

% Retained 200 = x 100
1.701
0.114
% Retained 20= x 100 % Retained 200 =6.173
1.701

% Retained 20 =6.702 0.058

% Retained pan = x 100
1.701
0.348
% Retained 30= x 100 % Retained pan =3.410
1.701

Formula for Cumulative % Retained:

Cumulative % Retained=Σ % Retained

Cumulative % Retained 4=4.703

Cumulative % Retained10 =4.703+7.701 Cumulative % Retained12 =19.577

Cumulative % Retained10=12.404 Cumulative % Retained16 =19.577+13.874

Cumulative % Retained12=12.404 +7.172 Cumulative % Retained16 =33.451

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 5
 Cumulative % Retained20 =33.451+ 6.702 Cumulative % Retained60 =82.540

Cumulative % Retained20 =40.153 Cumulative % Retained100 =82.540+ 7.878

Cumulative % Retained100 =90.417

Cumulative % Retained30 =40.153+20.459

Cumulative % Retained30 =60.611 Cumulative % Retained200 =90.417+6.173

Cumulative % Retained 40=60.611+9.053 Cumulative % Retained200 =96.590

Cumulative % Retained 40=69.665 Cumulative % Retained pan =96.590+ 3.410

Cumulative % Retained60 =69.665+12.875

Cumulative % Retained pan =100.000

Formula for Cumulative % Passing (Finer):

Cumulative % Passing ( Finer )=100−Cumulative % Retained

Cumulative % Passing4=100−4.703 Cumulative % Passing 30=39.389

Cumulative % Passing 4=95.297 Cumulative % Passing 40=100−69.665

Cumulative % Passing 10=100−12.404 Cumulative % Passing 40=30.335

Cumulative % Passing 10=87.596 Cumulative % Passing 60=100−82.540

Cumulative % Passing 12=100−19.577 Cumulative % Passing 60=17.460

Cumulative % Passing 12=80.423 Cumulative % Passing 100 =100−90.417

Cumulative % Passing 16=100−33.451 Cumulative % Passing 100 =9.583

Cumulative % Passing 16=66.549 Cumulative % Passing 200 =100−96.590

Cumulative % Passing 20=100−40.153 Cumulative % Passing200 =3.410

Cumulative % Passing 20=59.847 Cumulative % Passing pan =100−100

Cumulative % Passing 30=100−60.611 Cumulative % Passing pan =0

Unified Soil Classification System:

% Gravel =100−% Passing No. 4

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 6

 % Sand=% Passing No . 4−% Passing No . 200

% Fines=% Passing No .200 ; % Fines=0

D60
Cu=
D10
2
( D¿¿ 30)
Cc= ¿
( D60)(D10 )

% Gravel =100−95.297
0.858
Cu=
% Gravel =4.703 0.155

Cu=5.522
% Sand=95.297−0
Cc=¿ ¿
% Sand=95.297

Cc=1.327

III. PROCEDURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

A. APPARATUS AND SUPPLIES

Figure 4.1.2. Bottom Pan and Cover

Figure 4.1.1. Stack of Sieves

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 7

 Figure 4.1.4. Laboratory Drying Oven

Figure 4.1.3. Sieve Shaker (Optional)

Figure 4.1.5. Balance Scale Figure 4.1.6. Flat Pan

Figure 4.1.7. Sieve Brush

B. PROCEDURE

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 8

 Figure 4.2.2. Level the Scale Balance
Figure 4.2.1. Check Sieves for Defects and Cleanliness

Figure 4.2.3. Weigh and Record the Weight of Figure 4.2.4. Record the Initial Weight of Dried Soil
each Sieve and Pan

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 9

Figure 4.2.5. Arrange the Stack of Sieves Figure 4.2.6. Pour the Soil into the Stack of Sieves

Figure 4.2.8. Weigh each Sieve with Retained Soils

Figure 4.2.7. Shake the Sieves for 10mins

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 10

IV. SAFETY HAZARDS

a. Dust Mask

The experiment involves shaking and sieving of soil samples which can be inhaled, thus, causing
various health complication such as nose irritation, allergic reactions, infections, and/or even triggering
respiratory diseases such as asthma. Wearing dust mask can aid on preventing this kind of hazard.

b. Safety Goggles

The samples that are used in this experiment are soil samples that are collected from various or
unknown locations. This soil samples may or may not contain organic/foreign elements with them which can
be hazardous if it enters a human system. Since the samples are lightweight, it may be blown away during
transporting, sieving, or handling the samples and enter the experiment performer’s system through their
eyes. It may carry foreign elements along with it such as bacteria, fungi, virus that can either result to injury,
irritation, and/or infections. It can also affect the experiment performer’s activity due to the discomfort it may
cause which may lead to further injury of the performer/s. Wearing a personal protective equipment such as a
safety goggles can help prevent this hazard.

c. Heat Resistant Gloves

The experiment involves the use of laboratory drying oven which is used for drying the soil samples
under extreme heat. This can be hazard for the experiment performers that may lead to accidents if not
handled properly. Injuries such as degree burns can be the result of the accident that this hazard may lead to.
Wearing a personal protective equipment that is used especially for this instance such a thing as a heat
resistant glove can be used to prevent this hazard.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Soil may contain various particles, which can have different classifications and sizes that affect the
project quality. A sample may consist of coarse-grained material such as gravels and sands, which typically
range from 4.75 mm to 76.2 mm and 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm, respectively, based on the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). Other soil types that can cause construction difficulties are silts and clays, which
have less than 0.0075 mm in diameter. These various aggregate sizes significantly influence the performance
and utility of soil, such as concrete durability and workability, the cohesive bond of each particle, and the void
ratio. 

Students conducted a sieve analysis to determine the percentage of different particle sizes present in
the soil sample. Sieve analysis is a widely used technique in the engineering field as it provides information
regarding soil gradation, which will help engineers plan, design, and control the impact of aggregate sizes.
Additionally, the result will ascertain the reaction of different soil types according to their sizes when
subjected to certain environmental and field factors that may alter their properties.

In conducting the experiment, the procedure started with weighing the bottom pan and each sieve
with the calibrated balance to help the students calculate the weight of the retained soil after the experiment.
This step must always be first before starting to sieve to avoid additional work as each sieve does not have
stuck soil grains, assuming prior students cleansed it. These excess particles may include in the weighing
process and tamper with the results of the experiment. Thus, the computed weight would not tally with the
weight of the given soil sample.

The next step would be recording the weight of the specimen. This weight will serve as the actual
value and can be used to determine the percentage error of the data. If the computed weight were not within
the range of tolerance value, it would be highly recommended to repeat the said experiment as something
went wrong in the process.

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 11

 After recording all the necessary weights, the students proceeded on arranging the sieve in an
ascending manner, sieve #4 being at the top and sieve #200 at the bottom. The pan would be beneath the
#200 sieve, which will collect soil particles with a diameter smaller than 0.075 mm. The placing of the sieve
must be strictly in order to filter the sample according to their sizes. Placing a smaller sieve on top of a larger
sieve would disrupt the flow of gradation by not allowing the supposedly sand particles for the next sieve/s to
pass through. Thus, the soil sample would not be distributed accordingly.

With all equipment ready, students poured the soil sample into the top sieve and placed the sieve
stack to a mechanical shaker. The mechanical shaker will operate for 10 minutes to ensure the gradation of
the specimen throughout the sieve chambers. Aside from the mechanical shaker, students can perform the
gradation by manually shaking the sieve stack. The #4 sieve (top) should be covered to keep the amount of soil
in the equipment and prevent unwanted scattering. This process will distribute the specimen from the top
sieve to the bottom pan, wherein the mass retained per sieve will be calculated. The accumulated mass should
be equal to the recorded initial mass of the given soil sample.

Based on the data collected, the amount of specimen retained on sieve #4 (4.75 mm opening size)
was limited, with less than 5% of the total soil distribution. The top sieve had accumulated 4.703% amount of
soil only and a mass of 0.080 kg, indicating that most specimens passed through sieve #4 and had a diameter
less than 4.75 mm. In line with this, students concluded that only a small amount of gravel or rocks were
present in the soil sample. Gravel is a coarse-grained soil with little cohesiveness compared to finer aggregates
as it has a less specific surface to adsorb water.

As for the remaining sample that passed through sieve #4, they were classified as sand particles with
diameter ranges from 0.075 mm up to 2 mm. The bottommost sieve, sieve #200, had an opening size of 0.075
mm, and only a small percentage (3.41%) passed through the last sieve, which means that these particles were
considered silts and clays or, as the USCS referred to as fines. Hence, the soil sample consists of coarse-grained
and fine-grained particles. Moreover, the result shows that the sample mainly contains coarse-grained, having
96.59% of the total mass.

Furthermore, as the students observed the result, it was evident that the percentage of retained soil
particles on the remaining sieve chambers was not proportionate, and some had significant changes in mass,
such as a sudden increase/decrease in mass retained. Some of the sieves retained a more considerable
amount of soil. For example, sieve #30 retained the most quantity of soil with 20.459% and a mass of 0.348 kg.
It indicates that 20% of the soil sample had a diameter within 0.6 mm and 0.85 mm. On the other hand, the
least mass of soil retained was in the bottom pan, with 0.058 kg only, which was 3.41% of the total sample.
These particles were the finest grains in the soil sample and fine enough to be considered as silts nor clays.

After observing the gradation of mass, the results were plotted on a semi-logarithmic graph. The
graph presents the grain size and its corresponding percentage. Students concluded that the curve had a well
graded distribution curve as the percent finer seemed to contain almost all particle diameters, especially the
sand grains. Other than looking at the curve, the calculation also proved that the specimen was a well graded
soil as the coefficients of uniformity and curvature were equal to 4.66 and 1.12, respectively. It indicates that
soil samples had different sizes and were well distributed. Well graded soils are preferred in the construction
field as they provide higher friction angles due to their varying sizes and interlocking properties.

For this experiment, students proceeded with caution and followed the instructions thoroughly to
obtain an accurate gradation percentage of the soil sample. However, some errors may still exist while
conducting the experiment. Some of the possible errors were the following but not limited to:

1. Mishandling of the soil sample and pouring into the top sieve,
2. Stuck grains on the sieves' mesh,
3. Flocculated specimens, 
4. Incorrect stack order, and
5. The accuracy of plotting the necessary diameters in the graph.

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 12

 First, the given soil sample should have a cover on top to prevent wind from blowing small particles.
Once the weight is recorded, the amount of specimen should remain constant throughout the experiment. A
discrepancy in the calculated mass and recorded mass may also be caused by losing some particles during the
pouring of the soil sample to the top sieve, which will lead to inaccuracies. 

Second, some soil particles may still be present in sieves, especially those with small opening sizes.
These stuck soil grains may damage the mesh as the mechanical shaker operates, increasing the opening size.
Thus, allowing larger particles to pass even though they were not supposed to. Students must check and
gently brush each sieve to ensure it is free of soil.

Next would be the presence of flocculated specimens in the sample. Some particles tend to cohere
together, forming larger granules. With bigger diameters, flocculated soils would retain on sieves with large
opening sizes. Thus, gradation would not be accurate, and the sample would seem to have more gravel than it
has.

As mentioned above, the order of the sieve must be in ascending manner, largest opening size at the
top and the smallest at the bottom. This order will allow the sieve to filter the sample corresponding to the
particle sizes. Refraining from checking the order could lead to potential errors, and some chambers may not
retain any mass at all.

Lastly, the process of determining the diameter size of a particular percent finer may not be that
accurate. The trial-and-error method may not provide the exact value, but it should be close or precise to the
actual value. This method will highly depend on the students' judgment. A slight mistake can lead to
miscalculations of coefficients of uniformity and curvature. Thus, conflicts in the evaluation of the curve would
emerge.

In line with these possible sources of errors, students recommend conducting the experiment
competently, cautiously, and with perseverance, as it may take some time to perform. Students should also
check the calibration of the balance before weighing the specimens and equipment. Furthermore, increasing
the time for the sieving process, either manually or by mechanical shaker, may distribute the sample more
accordingly to their diameter sizes.

VI. REFERENCES:

Editor. (2017, June 22). Sieve Analysis – Particle size analysis procedure. Basic Civil Engineering.
https://basiccivilengineering.com/2017/06/sieve-analysis-test.html

Step-by-Step Guide for Grain Size Analysis. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2021, from
https://www.geoengineer.org/education/laboratory-testing/step-by-step-guide-for-grain-size-analysis

VII. ATTENDANCE:

MEMBER NAME DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES STATUS

Caño, Raphael Nidgil S. Formulas and Computations Present

Cruz, Melvin C. Conclusion and Recommendation Present

Custodio, Adam P. Identification of Hazards Present

Custodio, Angelika Mae L. Procedures and Illustrations Present

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 13

VIII. PROOF OF MEETING:

CE2218L: Soil Mechanics Laboratory | Experiment No. 4: Sieve Analysis 14