FACULTY : ENGINEERING

EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY GEOTECHNIC LABORATORY

(MAKMAL TEKNOLOGI KEJURUTERAAN GEOTEKNIK)

LABORATORY INSTRUCTION SHEETS

COURSE CODE AND NAMA
BNP 20903 / SOIL MECHANIC AND FOUNDATION
KOD DAN NAMA KURSUS
EXPERIMENT NO.
E1
NO. UJIKAJI
EXPERIMENT TITLE
SOIL CHARACTERIZATION (DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS)
TAJUK UJIKAJI
DATE OF EXPERIMENT
TARIKH UJIKAJI
NAME MATRIX NO.
NAMA NO. MATRIK
GROUP NO. 1.
NO. KUMPULAN
2.

1 3.

4.

5.

LECTURER / INSTRUCTOR 1.
PENSYARAH / INSTRUKTOR 2.

RECEIVED DATE AND STAMP

TOTAL MARK (FROM RUBRIC

ASSESSMENT)
LAB EXPERIMENT 1
DRY SIEVEMARKAH
JUMLAH ANALYSIS (DARI RUBRIK

PENILAIAN)
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

STUDENT CODE OF ETHICS

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

I hereby declare that I have prepared this report with my own efforts. I also admit to not accept or

provide any assistance in preparing this report and anything that is in it is true.

1) Group Leader __________________________________ (Signature)

Name : __________________________________
Matrix No. : __________________________________

2) Group Member 1 ___________________________________ (Signature)

Name : ___________________________________
Matrix No : ___________________________________

3) Group Member 2 __________________________________ (Signature)

Name : __________________________________
Matrix No. : __________________________________

4) Group Member 3 __________________________________ (Signature)

Name : __________________________________
Matrix No. : __________________________________

LAB EXPERIMENT 2
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

1.0 OBJECTIVES
The sieve analysis determines the grain size distribution curve of soil sample by passing them
through a stack of sieves of decreasing mesh opening sizes and by measuring the weight
retained on each sieve. The sieve analysis is generally applied to the soil fraction larger than
75µm.

2.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this experiment, students are able to:
1) Understand the methods used to determine the size of soil particles in the laboratory;
2) Carry out the calculation processes used in particle size determination;
3) Carry out the calculation and plotting processes used in consistency limit methods of
classification;
4) Appreciate the way in which particle size and consistency properties are used to classify
and predict the probable behaviour of soils and also to indicate the type of tests needed to
assess their engineering characteristics

3.0 INTRODUCTION / THEORY

Particle size is defined by passing a soil mass through several sieves with different sized
openings. Sieve analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in classifying the
soil and to determine the suitability of soils for various engineering purposes. There are two
methods generally used to find the particle size distribution of soil:
1) Sieve analysis - for particle sizes larger than 0.075 mm in diameter, and
2) Hydrometer analysis - for particle sizes smaller than 0.075 mm in diameter.

According to BS1377:Part 2:1990:9.3, sieving can be performed in either wet or dry conditions.
Dry sieving is only applicable for soil that are mostly granular with some or no fines such as
gravels and clean sands, whereas wet sieving is applied to soils with plastic fines. Sieve
analysis does not provide information as to shape of particles.

BS 1377:1990, allows either wet or dry sieving to be used, but the wet method is preferred.
After oven drying, the test sample mass is determine before being separated into two parts, the
first comprises that retained on a 20 mm sieve and the second that passing 20 mm. That
greater than 20 mm is dry sieves, while that smaller is wet sieve prior to being re-sieved dry.
Table 1 gives a list of the standard sieve numbers with their corresponding size of opening.
The mass retained on each sieve is recorded, from which the percentage of the sample
passing each sieve can be calculated. Material passing the 63 micron (0.063 mm) sieve is
retained for a fine particle analysis, if the amount justifies the further test. The combined results
of the coarse and fine analyses are plotted on a semi-logarithmic graph of the form show in
Figure 1, to give the particle size distribution curve.

LAB EXPERIMENT 3
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018
Table 1: Standard Sieve Size

Figure 1: Particle size grading curves of some typical soil

Three basic soil parameters can be determined from these grain size distribution curves:
 Uniformity coefficient
 Coefficient of gradation

LAB EXPERIMENT 4
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018
Use the grain size distribution and the following equations to compute the coefficient of uniformity,
C and the coefficient of curvature, C .
u c

2
𝐷30
𝐶𝑐 =
𝐷60 × 𝐷10

𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 =
𝐷10

where;
D ,D and D are grain diameters corresponding to percent passing/finer of 10%, 30%
10 30 60
and 60% finer, obtained from the particle size distribution curve, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Example of particle size distribution curve

𝐶𝑢 is a parameter which indicates the range of distribution of grain sizes in a given soil
specimen. If 𝐶𝑢 is relatively large, it indicates well graded soil. If 𝐶𝑢 nearly equal to one, it
means that the soil grains are of approximately equal size, and the soil may be referred to as a
poorly graded soil. Figure 3 shows the general nature of the grain-size distribution curves for a
well graded and a poorly graded soil.
The parameter 𝐶𝑐 is also referred to coefficient of curvature. For sand, if 𝐶𝑢 greater than 6
and 𝐶𝑐 is between 1 and 3, it is considered well graded. However, for a gravel to be well
graded, 𝐶𝑢 should be greater than 4 and 𝐶𝑐 must be between 1 and 3.

LAB EXPERIMENT 5
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

Figure 3: general nature of grain-size distribution of well graded, poorly graded and gap graded soil

4.0 TEST EQUIPMENTS

1) Sieves, a bottom pan and a cover

Note: sieve sizes 5mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 0.6mm, 0.425mm, 0.3mm, 0.212mm, 0.15mm,
0.063 mm (Figure 4) are generally used for most standard sieve analysis work.
2) Mechanical sieve shaker
3) Balances sensitive up to 0.1g
4) Mechanical sieve shaker

Figure 4: A stack of sieves for grain size analysis

5.0 PROCEDURE
1. Select a stack of sieves suitable to the soil being tested. Carefully clean the sieves and pan
with brush or air pressure to ensure that all loose material is removed. To prevent damage to
the sieves, use the soft wire brush.
2. Arrange the sieves in the order as shown in table (refer data sheet). Place the set of
standard sieves one above another with the smallest aperture opening at the bottom and
the largest mesh opening at the top. The pan should be placed under sieve size 0.063
mm. (Note: Determine the weight of each sieve as well as the bottom pan to be used
before pour the soil).

LAB EXPERIMENT 6
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018
3. Weight accurately about 500g of oven-dried soil sample accurately to 0.1g (W).
4. Pour the soil sample prepared in Step 3 into the top stack of sieves (refer Fig. 5) and
place the cover plate over it to avoid dust and loss of particles while shaking.

Figure 5: The soil sample is poured on the stack of sieves

5. Place the stack of sieves in the mechanical shaker and shake for 10 min or until
additional shaking does not produce appreciable changes in the amounts of material
retained in each sieve.
6. Stop the sieve shaker and remove the stack of sieves.
7. After that, weigh the soil retained on each sieve and the bottom pan. 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 equals the initial mass of the soil sample. Both weights should be within
about 1% if the difference is greater than 1% too much material was lost and weighing and
or sieves should be repeated.

PRECAUTION: during shaking the lid on the top most sieve should be kept tight to prevent
escape of soils.

6.0 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

1. Calculate the percent of soil retained on the nth sieve (counting from the top)

mass of retained soil

% Mass Retained = × 100
total mass of soil

2. Calculate the cumulative percent of soil retained on the nth sieve

i=n

= ∑ percent of soil retained

i=1

3. Calculate the cumulative percent passing through the nth sieve

i=n

= % finer = 100 − ∑ percent of soil retained

i=1

LAB EXPERIMENT 7
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018
4. Example calculation
Data : Total mass of dry sample = 115.5g
Sieve BS (mm) Mass Retained (g) % Soil Retained (g) % finer by weight
4.75 0.0 0.00 100.0
2.00 0.0 0.00 100.0
0.850 5.5 4.8 95.2
0.600 25.7 22.3 73.0
0.425 23.1 20.0 53.0
0.250 22.0 19.0 33.9
0.180 17.3 15.0 19.0
0.150 12.7 11.0 8.0
0.075 6.9 6.0 2.0
Pan 2.3 2.0 0.0

Total mass = 115.5 g

Lost = 0

% passing @ finer = Total mass – cumulative % retained = 115.5 - 0 = 115.5g

Sieve Mass of soil % Mass of soil Cumulative %

% passing
size (mm) Retained on each sieve (g) retained of soil retained
𝑧1
5.00 z1 r1 =
𝑊1
× 100 C1=r1 n1=100-C1
𝑧2
2.00 z2 r2 =
𝑊2
× 100 C1=r1+r2 n2=n1-C2
𝑧3
1.180 z2 r3 =
𝑊3
× 100 C1=r1+r3+r4 n3=n2-C3

0.600 C1=r1+r3+r4+….n
Total W1 =

*Plot a graph semi-logarithmic of percentage passing vs particle size as shown in Figure 6.

*From the data, compute Cc and Cu for the soil, refer example in Figure 2.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

120

100
% PASSING

80

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
GRAIN SIZE

Figure 6: Plot of % passing vs. grain size distribution from calculation in above

LAB EXPERIMENT 8
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

7.0 DATA SHEET

Soil description: Sample No.

Operator : Date Started :

Grain Size Analysis

Mass of oven dry soil, W = _________ g

Mass of Mass of Mass of soil Cumulative
Sieve % Mass of
Empty Sieve + Soil Retained on % of soil % passing
size (mm) soil retained
Sieve (g) Retained (g) each sieve (g) retained
4.75
2.00
0.850
0.600
0.425
0.250
0.180
0.150
0.075
Pan
Total W1 =

% Passing = 100 - ∑ % Retained.

Total mass of dry sample after sieve, W1= g

Mass loss during sieve analysis = (W – W1) / W x 100 < 1%

*Plot % passing vs. particles size distribution in semi-logarithmic, refer Figure 7. From the chart
determine:

𝐷10 = _________________
𝐷30 = _________________
𝐷60 = _________________

2
𝐷30
𝐶𝑐 = = _________________
𝐷60 × 𝐷10

𝐷60
𝐶𝑢 = = _________________
𝐷10

LAB EXPERIMENT 9
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018
Taburan Saiz Zarah

100

90

80

70
Penjumlahan Kumulatif (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Saiz Zarah (mm)

Figure 7: graph semi-logarithmic

8.0 DATA ANALYSIS (result and calculation)

a. Obtain the mass of soil retained on each sieve by subtracting the weight of the
empty sieve from the mass of the sieve + soil retained, and record this was as the
weight retained on the data sheet. The sum of these retained masses should be
approximately equal the initial mass of the soil sample. A loss of more than one %
is unsatisfactory.
b. Calculate the % retained on each sieve by dividing the weight of soil retained on
each sieve by the actual sample mass.
c. Calculate the % passing (or % finer) by starting with 100% and subtracting the % of
soil retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.
d. Make a semilogarithmic plot of grain size vs. % passing
e. Determine D10, D30 and D60 from the grain size distribution curve
f. Compute Cu and Cc for the soil
g. Classify the type of soil that you use in the laboratory using American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Unified Classification System.

LAB EXPERIMENT 10
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

9.0 QUESTIONS

1) What do you understand by well graded, poorly graded and uniformly graded soils?
2) What do you understand by dry sieve and wet sieve analysis? Which once did you perform
and why?
3) What is the grain size distribution curve? Why do you use a semi-log graph for plotting it?
4) Is the soil used in this test a good foundation material? Justify your answer?

11.0 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – Unified Classification System

Prepared by/Disediakan oleh : Approved by/Disahkan oleh :

Signature/Tandatangan : Signature/Tandatangan :
Name/Nama : DR. TUAN NOOR HASANAH BT Name/Nama :
TUAN ISMAIL

Date/Tarikh : March 2020 Date/ Date/Tarikh : March 2020

LAB EXPERIMENT 11
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS
 FACULTY : ENGINEERING
EDITION: 03
TECHNOLOGY

LABORATORY: GEOTECHNIC REVISION NO: 02

EXPERIMENT: DRY SIEVE EFFECTIVE DATE: OCT. 2017

ANALYSIS AMENDMENT DATE: JAN. 2018

LAB EXPERIMENT 12
DRY SIEVE ANALYSIS