Introduction

This report will inform you about the sieve analysis test about the soil sample given to us from

Sonoma ranch to analyze. This experiment was conducted in the New Mexico State university

laboratory in the date of September 4th. The soil was very dry like sand and the color was light

brown. We got a sample of 500 grams soil and with this sample it’s enough to run a grain size

distribution test. The sieve analysis is a method used to determine the grains size distribution of a

soil sample. Civil Engineers must have a good knowledge of what kind of soil is on a site.

Knowing what kind of soil is on the site they could say it’s a good place to do construction or it’s

a very bad site to build some structure. The sieve analysis doesn’t provide information about the

shape of the particles. With the sieve analysis we can tell if the ground is good or bad, this

experiment consists in metal sieves that have woven screens that filter the grains of soil through

it, it separates the soil with respect to the size. The sieves are positioned from big to small big

rocks end up caught on top and fine rocks like clay and silt get caught on the bottom. When are

done with this data we can graph it and we get a line graph.

The purpose of this is to get the D 10 and D 60, which are percent finer number which we use to

calculate uniformity coefficient and curvature coefficient. These coefficients are helpful to

determining if a soil is well graded, poorly graded or gap graded. Well graded is a soil that is

very good soil with almost the same quantity of air, water and rocks. It doesn’t contain that much

voids. Poorly graded soil has some irregularities in the soil either too much air or too much

water. Gap graded is a soil that has to many voids which means too many air in the soil it’s not

steady it could sag or move with time.

1
Objective
The objective of this laboratory is to determine the grain size distribution of a soil sample and to

classify the soil sample as well graded, poorly graded, and gap graded. Also with the data

acquired we can calculate the uniformity and curvature coefficient and this will help us to

classify the soil with much more accuracy.

Methods

The equipment used in the experiment

 500 grams of soil

 Scale

 Sieves # 4,10, 20, 40, 60, 140, 200 (pan and lid)

 Mechanical sieve shaker/mixer

Steps in the experiment

1. We cleaned the sieves before staring and then weighed them and calculated there weight.

2. 500 grams of soil was collected, with no error we obtained 500 grams exactly.

3. The sieves were stacked from biggest to smallest with pan on the bottom. They were

stacked as fallows, 4, 10,20,40,60,140,200.

4. The soil was poured through the top and lid was placed on the top.

5. The sieves well stacked were placed in the mechanical shaker for 10 minutes.

6. After the 10 minutes the sieves were separately carefully and were weighed once more

with the dirt in them.

2
 7. After we got the data we calculated mass lost, it was calculated by original mass minus

mass retained divided by mass retained and multiplied by 100. Our group got a .08 %

loss.

8. After that we poured the dirt in a container to be recycled and then we started cleaning

the sieves to be placed in their original spot.

Results

When graphing our data we can come up with our values for the percent finer and can our D10,

D30, and D60 to calculate the coefficient of graduation and the curvature coefficients. The

results of the experiment are the ones that fallow.

Table 1: Coefficients of graduation and curvature

Cu Cc
4.33 1.02

The next table represents the size distribution of the soil that was used in the experiment

Table 2: Size distribution

size percent
distribution %
gravel 2.5
coarsed
grained 7.7
medium
grained 52.6
fine grained 31.1
silts and clays 6.2

3
Discussion

After reviewing the results the soil is a poorly graded soil. Because the uniformity coefficient is

low it should be a bigger than six but it’s less. Also by taking a look at the graph the lines tells us

the soil is poorly graded and this site it’s not very good material to construct something really

big. There’s is too much silt and clay in the soil and when water get in contact with this material

it behaves very unnatural. In this sample there are a lot of fine grained and medium grained

grains so it doesn’t have variety. We want a very good variety so the soil won’t have so many

voids. Again this is a poorly graded soil and not very good soil.

4
References

Soil Mechanics Laboratory Manual. Braja M. Das. seventh edition. Oxford University Press 2009.

5
Appendix

Table 3: Raw Data

Sieve Particle Equipment Full Mass

No. size weight weight retained
# (mm) (gr) (gr) (gr)
4 4.750 604.4 616.7 12.3
10 2.000 477.9 489 11.1
20 0.850 430.2 457.8 27.6
40 0.425 373.8 485.1 111.3
60 0.250 357.6 508.9 151.3
140 0.106 410.8 515.5 104.7
200 0.075 357.3 407.6 50.3
Pan 0.000 334.9 365.9 31
Total 499.6

Table 4: Calulation

Sieve Particle Equipment Full Mass percent cumulative percent

No. size weight weight retained retained percent finer
# (mm) (gr) (gr) (gr) (%) (%) (%)
4 4.750 604.4 616.7 12.3 2.5 2.5 97.5
10 2.000 477.9 489 11.1 2.2 4.7 95.3
20 0.850 430.2 457.8 27.6 5.5 10.2 89.8
40 0.425 373.8 485.1 111.3 22.3 32.5 67.5
60 0.250 357.6 508.9 151.3 30.3 62.8 37.2
140 0.106 410.8 515.5 104.7 21.0 83.8 16.3
200 0.075 357.3 407.6 50.3 10.1 93.8 6.2
Pan 0.000 334.9 365.9 31 6.2 100.0 0.0
Total 499.6 100.0

6
Figure 1: Graph percent finer vs. grain size

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0
Percent Passing (%)

60.0

50.0
Series1
40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle size (mm)

Formulas

Uniformity coefficient
𝐷
𝐶𝑢 = 𝐷60
10

Coefficient of gradation

2
𝐷30
𝐶𝑐 =
𝐷60 ∗𝐷10

Mass retained

(𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 − 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡) = 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑

Percent retained
𝑀𝑛
(𝑀 ) ∗ 100 = %
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

7
Uniformity coefficient
39
𝐶𝑢 = 9
= 4.33

Coefficient of gradation

192
𝐶𝑐 = 39∗9 = 1.02