INSTITUTION: DEDAN KIMATHI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

NAME : MICHAEL KANG’ERI KARINGITHI

REG NO : E034-01-1413/2020
COURSE : BSc CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
UNIT TITLE : PARTICLE MECHANICS
UNIT CODE : ECH3101
TITLE : GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
TOPIC : SIEVE ANALYSIS
TECHNOLOGIST: MR NGENY
LECTURER : MR ERIC KEMEI
DATE OF PRACTICAL:2ND JUNE 2022
DATE OF SUBMISSION:17TH JUNE 2022
INTRODUCTION
Grain size analysis is the determination of the size grain of particles present in a soil. It is
expressed as a percentage of the total dry weight. The distribution of different grain size affects
the engineering properties of soil. Grain size analysis provides grain size distribution and is
required in classifying the soil.
Sieve analysis consists of shaking the soil sample through a set of sieves that have progressively
smaller openings. Soils that are non-cohesive may only require dry sieving. It is usually
considered that the sedimentation procedure is not necessary if the soil contains less than 10%
fines. Soils may be divided on the basis of the dominating particle size, six arbitrary categories
which are called boulders,cobbles,gravel,sand,silt and clay.

OBJECTIVE OF THE EXPERIMENT

 To determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil by use of a
sieve analysis.
 To produce data with acceptable error of less than 2%
 To generate a semi-logarithmic plot that displays the particle size distribution of the soil
and to identify the grading of the soil using the data points on the graph

APPARATUS
 A series of standard sieves of square mesh including cover plate and bottom pan.
 A sieve shaker
 A weighing balance sensitive to 0.1g
 Cleaning brush
 Timer
 A bag of dry sand soil

PROCEDURE
Each sieve was weighed separately as well as the bottom pan and the data recorded. The given
dry sample was also weighed and recorded. All sieves were cleaned and assembled in ascending
of sieve numbers having sieve 1 at the top(with a 4mm diameter) and sieve 7 at the bottom(with
a 38µm diameter).The bottom pan was then placed below sieve 7 and soil was poured carefully
onto the top sieve and a cap placed over it.The sieve stack was placed in a mechanical shaker and
was shook for 5 minutes. The stack of sieves was removed from the shaker and the sieves
separated and each weighed and recorded with its recorded soil. The bottom pan was weighed
and recorded with its retained fine soil.
DATA ANALYSIS
The masses of the soils retained on each sieve was obtained by subtracting the weight of the
empty sieve from the mass of the sieve and the retained soil and recorded on a data sheet as
shown below.
Sieve No Diamete Mass(g) Mass(g) Soil % %
r (Empty sieve) (sieve+particles) retained(g) Retained Passing
(µm)
4mm 4000 457.0 480.8 23.8 3.45 96.55
2mm 2000 414.1 482.2 68.1 9.87 86.68
1mm 1000 393.9 537.2 143.3 20.76 65.92
500µm 500 342.6 556.5 213.9 30.97 34.95
250µm 250 319.1 497.4 178.3 25.38 9.12
125µm 125 283.6 327.4 43.8 6.35 2.77
38µm 38 306.9 322.8 15.9 2.31 0.46
Bottom 274.1 277.7 3.2 0.46 0
pan
Total 690.3

The % retained was calculated for each sieve as:

Weight retained on each sieve
%retained= ∗100
Weight of original sample
The % finer(% passing) was calculated by starting with 100% and subtracting the percent
retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
% passing=%arriving−% retained

The total weight of the dry sample was 699.8g.

% Lost can be calculated as:
Mass of dry sample−Mass of particles recovered
% lost = ∗100
Mass of dry sample
Thus
699.8−690.3
∗100=1.358 %
699.8

Since the percent lost is less than 2%,hence the results arrived at were satisfactory.
A particle size distribution graph was then obtained by plotting the diameters of the
sieves in mm on the x-axis versus the percent passing on the y- axis as presented below.
 In order to classify the grading of the soil sample, the coefficient of uniformity and
curvature were calculated as follows:
D 60 D 30 2
C u= and C c =
D 10 D 60∗D10
Wherein Cu is the coefficient of uniformity is the coefficient of curvature, and D60,D30 and
D10 are particle diameters at 60%,30%and 10% passing.
D 60 0.75 mm
C u= = =3
D 10 0.25 mm
D 30 2 ( 0.45 mm ) 2
C c= = =1.08
D 60∗D10 0.75 mm∗0.25 mm

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Particle size analysis is widely used in classification of soils. The data acquired from particle size
distribution curves is used in the design of filters for earth dams and to determine suitability of
soil for road construction, air field, and others. Also, information obtained from particle size
analysis is useful in describing the permeability, compaction, and other properties of soils. The
experiment performed focuses on generating the particle size distribution of the soil sample. The
generated particle size distribution graph is used in a lot of ways such as identifying the grading
of the soil and the percentage of coarse materials and the fines. As shown in the above section
we were able to calculate the coefficient of uniformity and curvature which were both used to
conclude whether the soil is uniformly graded. The coefficients will be compared based on the
Unified Soil Grading Criteria which is presented in the table below

Criterion Material
Sand
Uniformity Cu>6
Curvature 1<Cc<3

Since the soil particles used all passed sieve 4mm, the soil sample is thus considered as
containing of mostly of sands. Checking the values computed, it is noted the coefficient of
uniformity which is 3is less than 6 while that for the coefficient of curvature which is 1,08 is
between 1 and 3and thus as ,much as the soil passes the criteria for curvature, it fails to pass the
criteria for uniformity and hence it is not uniformly graded.
Unlike the soil sample, uniformly graded soils work best as a construction material.  This is
because of the arrangement of the soil particles that lessens the number of voids and improves
compactability.Shown below is the general formation of uniformly graded soils in contrast to
others
As we can see in Figure above, a uniformly graded soil contains the least number of voids and
thus is the densest in solids. We can also induce that this type of soil has greater strength against
normal forces. Hence, we can say that uniformly graded soils are more suitable as foundation
supports than poorly and gap graded soils.
Other than the grading of the soil, we can also see the percent of fines (particles that are less than
0.125 mm in diameter) are just less than 3% of the total soil mass, hence this would infer that the
soil sample is not mainly affected by the Atterberg Limits are able to be computed in the
experiment , because of the dominant number of sandy particles than the fines.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After thorough analysis it is concluded that the soil sample is not uniformly graded and would
not be advised as a construction material. Also, it is inferred that because of the low number of
fines, Atterberg limit which describes the fines will not be a great concern in contrasts to the
physical properties of the sandy particles that greatly affects the strength of the soil sample.
Note that because of the laboratory constraints, the hydrometer analysis which is used in order to
identify the particle size distribution of the soil was not performed and thus the particle size
distribution that was generated in this experiment is not complete.
Errors present in the experiment could not be assumed to be almost negligible since they affect
the uniformity of the soil and the overall outcome of the experiment.

REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D422:Standard Test Method for
Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. E-book.
2. Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Published on 2002. E-book.
3. Engineers Daily.AASHTO Soil Classification System. Retrieved
inhttp://www.engineersdaily.com/2011/03/aashto-soil-classification-system.htmllast May
08, 2016. Web.
4. Army Engineer. General Engineering Properties. Retrieved
inhttp://armyengineer.tpub.com/En5341a/En5341a0107.htm last May 08, 2016