American University of Sharjah

College of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering

CVE 202
Construction Materials Lab

Experiment No: 1

Name of Experiment: Sieve Analysis of Aggregate

Date of experiment: 11th of September, 2019

Submitted by: Ahmed Sherif 72493 & Tamim Kabalan 75107

Submitted to: Mr. Arshi Faridi

Date of Submission: 18th of September, 2019

1
Objectives:-
The aim of this experiment is to achieve the following:
 To be acquainted with aggregate and some of its properties.
 To carry out the sieve analysis of aggregate.
 To assess the grading of the aggregate according to ASTN C-33

2
Table of Content:-
Title Page #
Cover Page 1
Objectives 2
Table of Content + Table of Figures 3
Theory 4
List of Equipment 5
Procedure 6
Sample Calculations 7
Results 8–9
Discussion 10
Conclusions + Applications + Recommendations +
11
References
Appendix 12

Table of Figures:-
Title Page #
Figure 1: 4
Figure 2: Sieves
Figure 3: Mechanical Shaker
Figure 4: Electrical Balance 6
Figure 5: Different sizes of Sample Slitters
Figure 6: Sieve Brush
Figure 7: Semi-Log graph for coarse 8
aggregate
Figure 8: Semi-Log graph for fine 9
aggregate

3
Theory:-
Aggregate can be defined as crushed and treated stone used for
engineering purposes. It is extremely demanded for civil engineering-related
projects as essential components such as concrete and asphalt are mainly made
of aggregate. The different uses of it depend on the properties the aggregates
have. In this lab, the focus is on the size of two samples of aggregate; coarse
and fine. Coarse aggregates usually have a particle size more than 4.75 mm,
whereas the particle’s size of fine aggregates ranges from 0.075 mm to 4.75
mm. In this lab, the aim is to carry out sieve analysis of the previously
mentioned aggregates but with specific sample sizes, and to assess the grading
each sample ends up with. In figure 1, different grading results are shown, and
then compared to the ideal case; dense grading.

- The equations used to complete the results are listed below:

𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 (𝒈)
𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 (%) = × 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒈𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 (𝒈)

𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 (%) = 𝟏𝟎𝟎 − 𝑪𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 (%)

4
List of Equipment:-

Figure 2: Sieves

Figure 3: Mechanical Sieve

Shaker

Figure 4: Electrical Balance

Figure 5: Different sizes of Sample Slitters

Figure 6: Sieve Brush

5
Procedure:-
1. The samples of 6957 grams of coarse aggregate and 314.5
grams of fine aggregate were dried, and the sieves were
organized by the lab instructor and the assistant.
2. The sieves were shaken manually so the aggregate may pass
through. (No mechanical shakers were used)
3. For each of the sieve sizes, the mass of aggregate retained on
the sieve was recorded using the electrical balance.
4. Then, the cumulative weight retained, cumulative percentage
passed, and percentage passing are calculated.
5. After that, a semi-log graph is plotted to show the relation
between the sieve size and the percentage passing.
6. Finally, using the graph, the adequacy of grading is judged, and
the modulus of fineness is calculated.
7. Steps 2 to 7 are repeated for the fine aggregate sample.

6
Sample Calculations:-
- A) Coarse Aggregate
(6957.0 − 6904.5)
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = = 0.75 % > 0.3%
6957.0

Sieve size Weight of Cumulative weight Cumulative Percentage passing

(mm) aggregate retained (g) percentage retained (%)
retained (g) (%)
12.5 2893.5 0 + 179.0 + 2893.5 3072.5 100 – 44.0 = 56.0
× 100 = 44.0
= 3072.5 6957.0

- B) Fine Aggregate
(314.5 − 313.5)
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = = 0.32 % > 0.3%
314.5

Sieve size Weight of Cumulative weight Cumulative Percentage passing

(mm) aggregate retained (g) percentage retained (%)
retained (g) (%)
2.36 54.5 0 + 5.0 + 54.5 59.5 100 – 19.0 = 81.0
× 100 = 19.0
= 59.5 314.5

(0 + 2.0 + 19.0 + 33.0 + 40.0 + 47.0 + 74.0)

𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒍𝒖𝒔 = = 2.15 < 2.3
100

7
Results:-
- A) Coarse Aggregate
Sieve size Weight of Cumulative Cumulative Percentage
(mm) aggregate weight retained percentage retained passing
retained (g) (g) (%) (%)
25 0 0 0 100.0
19 179.0 179.0 3.0 97.0
12.5 2893.5 3072.5 44.0 56.0
9.5 1560.5 4633.0 67.0 33.0
4.75 2011.5 6644.5 96.0 4.0
2.36 176.0 6820.5 98.0 2.0
Pan 84.0 6904.5 99.0 1.0
Total 6904.5

Cumulative percentage retained vs Sieve size

120

100
Cumulative percentage retained (%)

80

60

40

20

0
1 10
-20
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 7: Semi-Log graph for coarse aggregate

8
 - B) Fine Aggregate
Sieve size Weight of Cumulative Cumulative Percentage
(mm) aggregate weight retained percentage retained passing
retained (g) (g) (%) (%)
9.5 0 0 0 100.0
4.75 5.0 5.0 2.0 98.0
2.36 54.5 59.5 19.0 81.0
1.18 44.0 103.5 33.0 67.0
0.6 23.0 126.5 40.0 60.0
0.3 20.0 146.5 47.0 53.0
0.15 85.0 231.5 74.0 26.0
0.075 66.5 298.0 95.0 5.0
Pan 15.0 313.5 100.0 0.0
Total 313.5

Cumulative percentage retained vs Sieve size

120
Cumulative percentage retained (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 10
-20
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 8: Semi-Log graph for fine aggregate

9
Discussion:-
- A) Coarse Aggregate
The percentage difference was 0.75% which is more than 0.3%, which
could be due to many sources of errors, hence our results cannot be used for
acceptance purposes. The sources of errors may include the sample not being
dried properly, not using the mechanical shaker and some of the sample falling
when moving it from the sieve to the balance. The grading curve shows an open
distribution, which means that the sample is missing small aggregates which fill
in the holes that the larger ones make. After comparing our results with the size
number 67 of the grading requirement for coarse aggregates, we verified that
our results are fairly accurate, and hence checked for quality control.

- B) Fine Aggregate:
The percentage difference was 0.32% which is just above 0.3%, hence
our results may be used but it would be preferred to do the experiment again.
However, this sample does not pass the grading requirements for fine
aggregates, since for sieve size 0.3mm the required percent passing is anywhere
from 5 to 30, however, our experiment provided us with 53%. Likewise, for
sieve size 0.15mm, the required percent passing is anywhere from 0 to 10,
however, our experiment provided us with 26%. Furthermore, the fineness
modulus was calculated to be 2.15, which is less than 2.3, hence deeming our
sample to be very dense. This could be seen in the graph since it is almost a
straight line.

10
Conclusions:-
In conclusion, since aggregates are a constituent material for a concrete mix, it is
required to assess its suitability. In this experiment, we carried out a sieve analysis test for a
sample coarse and fine aggregate and evaluated the grading results in accordance with the
standards given. We identified in this experiment that our coarse aggregate gave us an open
distribution curve and it passed the size number 67 grading requirement. However, for the
fine aggregate, our sample did not pass the grading requirement, nor did it lie in the range for
the fineness modulus, indicating that our sample was very dense. Also, both aggerates had a
percentage difference of more than 0.3%, hence both results cannot be used for acceptance
purposes.

Applications:-
Sieve analysis is one of the important practices in civil engineering as it is used for
finding particle size distribution of particular aggregate. It is also used for finding the
fineness modulus of aggregate. Particle size distribution helps in finding the different sizes of
aggregates and helps in classification i.e. either fine or coarse. Fineness modulus helps in
finding maximum amount of aggregates lying in one particular size of sieve of given total
aggregate.

Recommendations:-
- Use a mechanical shaker to evenly distribute the aggregate on each sieve.
- Be careful when transporting the aggregate from the sieve to the balance for weighing
purposes to make sure all the aggregate has been transferred.

References:-
 Lab handout provided by Mr. Arshi on iLearn.
 ASTM- C33-03.
 ASTM -C136-06.
 ASTM D-75-03.
 ASTM- C702-98.

11