LBYCV3B – Construction Materials and Testing Laboratory

Group No. Group Members (Surname, First name M.I.)

5 1. Aguilar, John Jose

2. Comendador, Jan Josef G.

3. Guillermo, Lenard Jan C.

4. Isip, Julia Angela R.

5. Seno, Raphael Matthew T.

Experiment No. 2 & 3 Sieve Analysis of Aggregates

A short introduction and experiment objective(s)
Sieve Analysis is performed in order to determine the grain size distribution of a soil
sample. Additionally, the fineness modulus can also be obtained through this test. It is done by
passing a sample through a series of sieves with decreasing opening sizes. The standard
procedure for sieve analysis is thoroughly described in ASTM C136.
Knowing the grain size distribution of a soil sample is very important in determining if it
is suitable for certain projects and if it satisfies the standards needed for the project.
Objectives:
The objectives of this experiment are as follows:
● To determine the grain size of the samples given
● To determine the fineness modulus for both coarse and fine aggregates
● To determine the percent error of the samples
● To be able to plot the grading curve for both coarse and fine aggregates
● To grade the corresponding samples given depending on its grading curves
● To validate the relevance of sieve analysis in civil engineering practice

1. Experiment procedure (step by step in bullet form)

○ With the use of a sample splitter, reduce the field sample to a test sample
○ Proceed to dry the sample until a constant weight is obtained at a temperature of
100±5 degrees centigrade
○ Weigh test samples according to criteria below:
i. Fine Aggregates
1. Aggregate with at least 95% passing a 2.36-mm (No.8) sieve ------
100 g
2. Aggregate with at least 85% passing a 4.75-mm (No.4) sieve
and more than 5% retained on a 2.36-mm (No.8) sieve ------ 500 g
 ii. Coarse Aggregates

● In order of decreasing sizes, nest the sieves of their openings from top to bottom
A. Sieves for Fine Aggregates - 10, 5, 2.5, 1.2, 0.6, 0.3, 0.15, pan
B. Sieves for Coarse Aggregates - 37.5, 25.0, 19.0, 12.5, 9.5, 4.76, 2.38, pan

● Place sample on top sieve

● Agitate sieve with either hand or mechanical sieve machine for a sufficient
amount of time
● Carry out the sieving process until less than 0.1% of the sample passes through
the sieve
● Get the corresponding weight of the sample obtained in each sieve
● Perform the necessary calculations

2. Experiment results (datasheet) including calculation

Sample Code/ Description: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates

Sieve No. Retained in Each Sieve Cumulative Retained Percent

(Sieve Weight Percentage Weight Percentage Passing
opening) (g) (%) (g) (%) (%)
10 mm 1.80 0.31 1.8 0.31 99.69
5 mm 12.6 2.14 14.4 2.45 97.55
2.5 mm 29.8 5.06 44.2 7.51 92.49
1.2 mm 80.2 13.63 124.4 21.14 78.86
0.6 mm 123.8 21.04 248.2 42.18 57.82
0.3 mm 176.1 29.92 424.3 72.10 27.9
0.15 mm 109.8 18.66 534.1 90.76 9.24
* Pan 54.4 9.24 588.5 100 0
Total 588.5 236.45
 * Not included in the calculation of FM

Fineness Modulus = 236. 45 / 100 = 2. 36

Percent Error = 100 × (589. 2 − 588. 5)/(589. 2) = 0. 12%

Sample Code/ Description: Sieve Analysis for Coarse Aggregates

Sieve No. Retained in Each Sieve Cumulative Retained Percent

(Sieve Weight Percentage Weight Percentage Passing
opening) (g) (%) (g) (%) (%)
37.5 mm 0 0 0 0 100
* 25.0 mm 599.6 10.16 599.6 10.16 89.84
19.0 mm 952.3 16.14 1551.9 26.3 73.7
* 12.5 mm 2037.5 34.53 3589.4 60.83 39.17
9.5 mm 1602.5 27.16 5191.9 87.99 12.01
4.75 mm 692.6 11.74 5884.5 99.73 0.27
2.36 mm 4.2 0.07 5888.7 99.80 0.20
* Pan 11.8 0.20 5900.5 100 0
Total 5900.5 313.82
* Not included in the calculation of FM
Note: Calculation of FM includes 1.2, 0.6, 0.3, and 0.15 sieves, hence,
FM = 4.0 + (Total cumulative percentage retained) / 100.
Fineness Modulus = 4. 0 + (313. 82)/(100) = 7. 14
Percent Error = 100 x [(5910.5-5900.5)/5910.5] = 0.17%

3. Conclusions

Sieve analysis was performed for both fine and coarse-grained samples of aggregates. A
mass of 589.2g for fine aggregates were sieved as explained in the procedure. Upon performing
the sieve analysis, the obtained total mass of the retained aggregates was 588.5g which is less
than the original mass of the sample. The error obtained was as small as 0.12% which was
probably caused by certain factors such as human and systematic errors. Because these particles
are exceedingly small, it is possible that inaccurate measurements of the weights of the pan,
sieves, and sample were obtained. This was also affected by particles that might have flown
away from the sieves and the pan. Given that the particles are very little they are susceptible to
spilling or emerging in the air. On the other hand, an error of 0.17% was observed in the sieve
analysis of coarse aggregate, a value higher than that of the fine aggregate sieve analysis.
5900.5g was the total of retained mass from the original mass of 5910.5g. The sample having
larger particles can imply that more mass is lost. There is a likelihood for this to happen since the
particles are still relatively small ( < 37.5mm), still windborne, and prone to spillage.
 Dhir, de Brito, Mangabhai, and Lye (2017) generally explains that a lower fineness
modulus is observed for samples with finer particles. Whereas, a higher fineness modulus is
observed for samples with coarse aggregates. In the sieve analysis, it was obtained that the
fineness modulus for the sample of fine aggregates is as low as 2.36 while the sample of coarse
aggregates obtained a value of 7.14 for the FM. This is consistent with the implication of the
fineness modulus, proving that the former sample has finer particles than the latter sample.

The average value of FM for fine aggregates is ranged from 2.00 to 4.00 while the range
for coarse aggregates is 6.50 to 8.00. According to Buckus (2021), a fine aggregate FM between
a yield of 2.5 and 3.0 for concrete indicates a mix that is easy to place and finish, and it is less
likely to crack. While coarse aggregates are prone to segregation and are more difficult to place
and finish. Determining the FM of fine and coarse aggregates can be used to control and
optimize the FM for the mixture proportions for cement.

4. Things Learned from the Experiment

The determination of the particle size on large samples of aggregates is very necessary in
ensuring that the aggregates will perform well for their specific use. Sieve analysis helps in
determining the particle size distribution of coarse and fine aggregates that will give information
about the specific requirements that are needed to be attained during design and production. The
data that will be gathered from the sieve analysis testing will also help in understanding the
relationship and proportions of aggregates along with other materials that will help in
anticipating the result of each production.

5. References

Buckus, B. E. (2021). Fineness Modulus of Concrete Aggregates. GlobalGilson.com.

https://www.globalgilson.com/blog/fineness-modulus-of-concrete-aggregates.

Dhir, R. K., Brito, J. D., Mangabhai, R., & Lye, C. Q. (2017). Production and properties of
copper slag. Sustainable Construction Materials: Copper Slag, 27-86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100986-4.00003-1

6. Group Members Contributions

Aguilar - Objectives and Procedure

Comendador - Conclusion
Guillermo - Introduction
Isip - Conclusion
Seno - Learnings

Group Members Evaluation

Evaluator Group Members (Surname, First Grade
name M.I.)

Aguilar, 1. Comendador, Jan Josef G. 100%

John Jose
2. Guillermo, Lenard Jan C. 100%

3. Isip, Julia Angela R. 100%

5. Seno, Raphael Matthew T. 100%

Evaluator Group Members (Surname, First Grade

name M.I.)

Comendador, 1. Aguilar, John Jose 100%

Jan Josef G.
2. Guillermo, Lenard Jan C. 100%

3. Isip, Julia Angela R. 100%

4. Seno, Raphael Matthew T. 100%

Evaluator Group Members (Surname, First Grade

name M.I.)

Guillermo, 1. Aguilar, John Jose 100%

Lenard Jan
C. 2. Comendador, Jan Josef G. 100%

3. Isip, Julia Angela R. 100%

5. Seno, Raphael Matthew T. 100%

Evaluator Group Members (Surname, First Grade
name M.I.)

Isip, Julia 1. Aguilar, John Jose 100%

Angela R.
2. Comendador, Jan Josef G. 100%

3. Guillermo, Lenard Jan C. 100%

5. Seno, Raphael Matthew T. 100%

Evaluator Group Members (Surname, First Grade

name M.I.)

Seno, 1. Aguilar, John Jose 100%

Raphael
Matthew T. 2. Comendador, Jan Josef G. 100%

3. Guillermo, Lenard Jan C. 100%

5. Isip, Julia Angela R. 100%