Section: BSCE-4B Date: OCTOBER 18, 2018

Group No: 3 Date Submitted: OCTOBER 29, 2018

SIEVE ANALYSIS
Objective:
To determine the various sizes of soil particles ad their percentage to that of a given soil
sample. To plot the grain size distribution for further classification of the sample.
Definition:
Sieve is a mechanical analysis or grain size distribution of coarse materials by pouring a
sample through a sieve and weighing the amounts retained on each sieve.
Apparatus:
One set of standard sieve (Nos. 10, 40, 100 and 200), balance pan, plastic, brush, rubber
covered pestle.
1. Container- used in keeping the soil safe from dust and getting wet. This is were
experiment no.2’s result were put.

2. Pan balance- used in weighing the sieves

and soil sample.

3. Set of Sieves- used in sieving the soil samples rang to

determine the amount of soils that passed and retained on a
particular sieve.
 4. Toothbrush- used in cleaning each set of sieve however this is not the
right tool. Steel brush is the right tool in cleaning sieves.

5. Cellophane- serves as a conatiner to distinguish the

retained samples from other sizes.

Procedure:
1. Clean each sieve using brush and weigh each to 0.1 g sensitivity.
2. Use the sample prepared in experiment no. 2 intended for sieve analysis.
3. Arrange the sieve from biggest to the smallest diameter and pour the sample
into it.
4. Sieve the soil through a nest of sieves by hand shaking using a motion of
horizontal rotations or using a mechanical shaker, if available. At least 10
minutes of sieving is desirable for soil with small particles.
5. Weigh to 0.01 gram each sieve and the pan with the soil retained on them.
6. Subtract the weight of sieve from weight obtained in number 5 in order to obtain
the weight of soil retained on each sieve. (The sum of its retained weight should
be checked and compared to the original soil weight.)
7. If greater amount of sizeable portion of soil is retained on No. 10 sieve, it should
be washed. Recover the soil which is washed through, dry and weigh it.
8. Tabulate the results and compute the other required date in order to plot the
grain size distribution.
Documentation:

Preparing all the materials and equipment needed for the activity.
Cleaning each sieve using brush and weighing each to 0.1 g sensitivity.

Sample prepared in experiment no. 2 was used intended for sieve analysis.

Arranging the sieve from biggest to the smallest diameter and pouring the sample into it.

Sieving of soil samples by hand shaking for at least 10 minutes. Put the retained mass of soil
sample on a cellophane and labeled them according to its sieve size ranging from sieve #10, #40,
#100 and sieve # 200.
Weighing each cellophane with soil sample inside retained from the various sizes of the sieves
stated above.

Obtained data from the activity written in a scratch paper.

Test Remarks:
Time: 2:43 PM, October 18, 2018
Weather: Sunny Day
Venue: CE LAB
Condition of Equipment:
The sieves used were in good condition, except for sieve #200 where big amounts of
particles could possibly pass during hand shaking because its net-like edge inside is already
damaged. This may cause greater amount of soil passing to the pan than soil being retained to sieve
# 200.
Our group performed the activity at the same time with the other groups causing the activity
to be delayed which results to the continuation of the said activity next week. Since we have to
wait for our turn because the tools and equipment are good for only two groups.
Group Attendance:
A group attendance was made to check if all the members present. If they are not they can’t
make a reaction paper. Their attendance of course is the first basis.

Test Results:
The soil sample was exactly 1000 g or 1 kg before it was sieved. However after the soil
samples were sieved with sieve #10, #40, #100 and # 200 the mass of the soil sample became 1006
grams. It may seem impossible but there were few factors that caused this result to happen. (It will
be discussed on the conclusion stated below.)
Since the final weight of the soil was greater than that of the initial. The effect can be seen
on the % retained, cumulative % retained and especially to the % finer where the percent passing
was greater than 100%.
Discussion:
Before the activity start, each group were asked to make an attendance for each group. Our
lab teacher told us beforehand that those who are not around cannot make a reaction paper since
they wouldn’t have any idea what happened during the activity. Group 3 then prepared all the
materials and equipment they will be needing for the activity. The soil sample from experiment
no. 2 was also the same sample to undergo sieve analysis. Since it was initially intended for sieve
analysis.
Group 3 need to wait for their turn because the equipment used is good for only two groups.
Once group 3 starts performing the activity they first cleaned all the sieves to be used. This is to
remove remaining soil particles from the group who first used the set of sieves. After cleaning the
sieves the group weighed each sieve using the balance pan. This is just to get the mass of each
sieve since the data sheet below requires the data for each mass of sieve. We didn’t bother getting
the weight of each sieve and getting the weight of the soil sample by subtracting the weight of the
sieve from the weight of the sieve + weight of the soil sample. What we did was, we put each mass
retained from each size of the sieve in a cellophane provided by the other section and weighed the
cellophane with the mass of soil sample retained inside.
Each data obtained from the activity was written on a scratch which will be encoded later.
However after summing up all the data of the mass gathered. The discrepancy was 6 grams greater
than the original weight. Though we were actually expecting that the result would be less than its
original weight we were optimistic enough to accept the data we’ve gathered.
Conclusion:
Group 3 was confident enough that it is not their fault why they came up with such result.
Instead there were few factors that they’ve considered. The following factors were the balance pan
itself and the set of sieves. Using pan balance was hard enough to gathered accurate data because
the ceiling fan as on during that time so when the pan balance stop on a particular measure, it is
not accurate. The weight or the force of the fan could’ve attributed an effect to the measurement.
Using a digital weighing scale would be accurate enough especially the small one where it is
sensitive enough even in small amount of particles being weighed. The set of the sieves on the
other hand were also one of the main factors. Although the sieves were cleaned before the activity
start we cannot ensure if the sieves were already free from particles remained from the first group.
The brush used was a toothbrush used in cleaning teeth. It is soft that’s why some particles may
remain on the sieve. The right tools on cleaning a sieve is a steel brush.
There are the reasons why we considered it as the main reason why our original weight of
soil increased rather than decreased. The remaining particles from the sieve joined our soil samples
while we were sieving thus causing our result to increase.
Ironically we admit that we were reckless enough when we were transferring the soil from
the sieves to the cellophane that may also lead on loosing few particles. But then, this factor will
be disregarded since the result is greater than the original weight

Appendices:
A. Data Sheet
Dry weight of original sample in grams _____________1006 grams_____________

Sample prewashed Yes____________ No

Dry weight after washing ____________________________

Washing loss ____________________________
 Sieve Weight Weight Weight of % Cumulative % Finer
No. of Sieve of Sieve Soil Retained % Retained
in grams + Soil in Retained
grams in grams
10 467 767.5 300.5 29.8708 29.8708 70.1292
40 362 743.5 381.5 37.9225 66.7933 32.2067
100 340 534 194 19.2843 86.0776 12.9224
200 330 382 52 5.1690 92.2466 7.7534
pan 362 440 78 7.7535 100 0
T=1006
Discrepancy: 6 grams.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING USCS:

% Passing No. 200 = 7.7534 %
<50% passing No. 200
COARSE GRAINED SOIL
% Sand > % Gravel
5-12% passing no. 200 sieve
CU = D60 / D10 = 0.42 /0.074 = 5.68
CC = D30^2 / [D60 X D10] = 0.5077^2 / [0.074 X 0.42] = 8.29
Referring to the flow chart for classification of coarse-grained soils:
Cu is ≥ 4 = 5.68 ≥ 4; Cc > 3 = 8.29 > 3; ML or MH / CL,CH or CL-ML; SP-SM or SP-SC
Using table for USCS:
5-12% pass No. 200 sieve = Boarder line Classification using usedof dual symbols.

B. Computation:
1. % retained on sieve = (wt. of retained sieve/total soil wt.) multiplied by 100.
2. Cumulative % retained on any sieve = sum of percentage retained on all coarser
sieves.
3. % finer than the sieve size = 100 % minus cumulative percentage retained.
SOLUTION:
% RETAINED:
Sieve #10: (300.5g/1006g) x (100) = 29.8708 %
 Sieve #40: (381.5g/1006g) x (100) = 37.9225 %
Sieve #100: (194g/1006g) x (100) = 19.2843 %
Sieve #200: (52g/1006g) x (100) = 5.1690 %
Pan: (78g/1006g) x (100) = 7.7535 %

CUMULATIVE % RETAINED:
Sieve #10 29.8708
Sieve #40 29.8708 + 37.9925 = 66.7933
Sieve #100: 66.7933 + 19.2834 = 86.0776
Sieve #200: 86.0776 + 5.1690 = 92.2466
Pan: 92.2466 + 7.7535 = 100. 0001 = 100

% FINER:
Sieve #10: 100 – [(300.5/1006) x 100] = 70.1292
Sieve #40: 100 – [(682/1006) x 100] = 30.2068
Sieve # 100: 100 – [(876/1006) x 100] = 12.9225
Sieve # 200: 100 – [(928/1006) x 100] = 7.7535
Pan: 100 – [(1006/1006) x 100] = 0

Using the computation given above:

% FINER:
100 - 29.8708 = 70.1292
100 - 66.7933 = 30.2067
100 - 86.0776 = 12.9224
100 - 92.2466 = 7.7534
100 – 100 = 0
Desiree M Malapote
BSCE-4B
REACTION PAPER
Each group were asked to make an attendance for each group to verify if a particular
member has the rights to make a reaction paper regarding the activity. Group 3 members were
enthusiastic enough to perform the activity except for one person who sits in the corner while
others are on hands on the activity. The soil sample prepared from experiment no. 2 was also the
same sample to be used in sieve analysis.
Group 3 need to wait for their turn because the equipment used is good for only two groups.
Once group 3 starts performing the activity they first cleaned all the sieves to be used. This is to
remove remaining soil particles from the group who first used the set of sieves. After cleaning the
sieves the group weighed each sieve using the balance pan. This is comply with the data asked in
the data sheet. Instead of subtracting the weight of the pan with soil to the weight of the pan we
just directly weighed the mass of the soil by weighing the cellophane where it was put.
The data being gathered was written on a scratch paper temporarily it was encoded. After
getting the total mass of the data the final weight was 6 grams heavier than the original weight.
Meaning, the weight increased rather than decreased. Although the result can either increased or
just decreased only. The result we were expecting was for the weight to decrease.
Instead of being shocked and cheat on our results I encouraged our group to accept our
result since increasing was one of the possibilities that may happen when it comes to sieving. I
told them that it is possible since it was discussed on DPWH during our on the job training
experienced.
The following factors to consider were the balance pan and the set of sieves. Using pan
balance was not that accurate especially that the ceiling fan is moving. It can have a significant
effect on the result. Using a digital weighing scale is more accurate. The set of the sieves on the
other hand was the main factor. Despite of cleaning the sieves, we cannot guarantee that the
particles from the first group were all gone. The remaining particles joined our soil sample causing
it to increase.
Although our data is more than its original weight, the data shows that there were greater
amount soil sample passing a sieve #10 and retaining on sieve # 40 than any other size of the sieve.
It can also be seen that the sand is not that fine since 7.75% of 1006 grams only passed on #200.
On the other hand almost 70.13% of the soil sample passed on sieve no. 10.