FACULTY OF EARTH SCIENCE

SEDIMENTOLOGY

EGE3083

REPORT LAB 2

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

GROUP MEMBERS

NAME MATRIC ID
ATHIRAH BINTI YAAKOB E21A0461
NURFATIHAH BINTI MOHD ALHATA E21A0635
NUR LIYANA BINTI MOHD ZAID E21A0613
WAN NOOREMILYA ATHIRAH BINTI WAN ROSNAN E21A0692
NORFADZWINILYANI BINTI MOHD EFFANDI E21B0576
NURUL AZWANIE BINTI MOHD AZMI E21B0644

SUBMITTED TO

DR. HAFZAN EVA BINTI MANSOR

SUBMISSION DATE

5TH DECEMBER 2022

1.0 Introduction

Particle size analysis is commonly defined as the process of analysing dry, free-flowing
material to determine the size and shape of individual particles. The particle size can be
determined by several methods such as optical microscopy, sieving, sedimentation,
conductivity, and laser particle size analysis. There are numerous particle-size classifications
and the top two used are the Udden-Wentworth scale and the British standard classification.
In this experiment, we focused on one of the methods which is the sieving method.

Particle size analysis for sediment sample has done to determine the percentage grain
size in different samples, which are sand, silt, and clay that were taken from a separate place.
In this experiment, this report explains that the sediment samples that have been analysed
have different grain sizes. This is because we use the sieving method to measure the particle
size of the sediment sample. Sieving is meant as a method used in a solution to separate two
or more components that differ in size and appearance.

In this study, we used several formulas, one of which is to determine the net weight of
the ZC sample (silt) which is [mass of ZC sample (c) - mass of ZC sample (b) - mass of ZC
beaker (a)]. Next, the net weight of sample C (clay) is [mud-clay] and the net weight of ZC
(clay) is [clay-silt]. In addition, the formula for calculating the percent value of the sample is
[(mass of sample + total mass of sample) x 100]. There are two more calculations in this study,
Ø84 + Ø16 − 2(Ø50) Ø95 + Ø5 − 2(Ø5)
namely the skewness calculation which is [𝑆 = 2(Ø84 − Ø16)
+ 2(Ø95 − Ø5)
] and the
Ø95 − Ø5
kurtosis calculation which is [𝐾 = 2.44(Ø75 − Ø25) ].

2.0 Objectives and Outcomes

The purpose of doing this particle size analysis is to understand the concept of grain
size and the techniques that need to be used to analyse the grain size of the sediments
sample. In this study, we implemented the sieving method by using sievers to separate
samples based on the difference in particle size. In addition, we identified the calculation for
net weight and accumulated weight. Other than that, by doing this analysis we learned the phi-
system is used for the classification of sediment grain size for log-probity plots.
3.0 Materials

• Sediments Sample
• 250 ml 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
• Distilled water
• 60 ml of 50% natrium metaphosphate
• 1000 ml beaker (1)
• 50 ml beaker (2)
• 1000 ml cylinder
• 20 ml conical flask (1)
• Pipette (1)
• Glass rod
• Hot plate/sand bath
• Reciprocating shaker
• Oven
• A stack of Sievers
• Plastic cover
• Stopwatch
• Marker and label

4.0 Methodologies

4.1 Sample Preparation

The sample was The sample then

prepared by drying filtered using 2.00
under sun exposure mm sieve to get
until completely dry 100g samples
4.2 Destroying Organic Materials & Disaggregating Sediments

100g sample was

The sample was
transferred into While frequently
heated on hot plate
1000ml beaker and stirring the mixture to
until the volume
100 ml of 30% avoid bubble, 150ml
reduced to half while
hydrogen peroxide of H2O was added
stirring it from time to
(H2O2) were added into the mixture
time
into the beaker

The samples were Beaker was removed

60ml of 5% natrium
transferred into the from hot plate and left
metaphosphate
conical flask and all for one hour and then
added as dispersing
grains are ensured the sample was
agent
being transferred stirred

Water added until 3/4 The conical flask then

of the conical flask placed on a
volume and then reciprocating shaker
covered the opening and shaken for 2
with a plastic cover hours
4.3 Sedimentation Method for Sampling Silt and Clay (ZC)

The temperature of the

The sample is The sample was shaken
mixture is measured and
transferred from conical for 52 seconds and
mass of the 50ml beaker (a)
flask into 1000ml pipetted immediately to a
weighed and labelled as ZC.
cylinder and distilled depth of 20cm, then
Meanwhile, the pipette is
water was added placed in the ZC beaker
marked on 20cm depth

ZC beaker + ZC sample is
The balance sample in
Mass of the 50ml weighed and placed in
the 1000ml cylinder is
beaker (d) is 105°C oven for one night.
left for 4-24 hours
weighed and After overnight, ZC
before the clay sample
labelled as C beaker + ZC sample is
is taken
weighed again

The sample is After overnight, the C beaker is

immediately pipette at put in 105°C oven for
The mass of
the required depth and overnight. After that, beaker
silt and clay is
transferred into C was allowed to cool and then
beaker, and then weighed, and the weight was calculated
weighed again recorded
4.4 Dry Sieve for Sands (S) Sampling

Sediments at the bottom of All the remaining sediments

The excess water in
the cylinder are ensured not and water is transferred into
the 1000ml cylinder
discarded with the water so beaker (g) after rinsing the
is discarded until
that they are not all wasted. cylinder with distilled water.
only 200ml of its
A 500ml beaker (g) is Water then added up to
volume remains
weighed and labelled as S 500ml

Water is removed The sample is mixed

The beaker and S sample
carefully so that no using a glass rod for
(h) is weighed. Next,
grains come out 30 seconds and then
water is removed until the
together. Water added left for settlement for
total volume of S beaker
continuously until they exactly 4 minutes and
get down to 150ml
become clear 3 seconds

The beaker was placed in

A stack of sievers is
an oven at 105°C overnight. After 15 minutes,
taken and weighed. The
Once done, they were let to the sample that has
sample from the S
be cooled and weighed stuck to each layer
beaker is poured into the
again as beaker + S sample of the sieve is
top sievers and put into
(i). The mass of sand is weighed
the shaker machine
calculated
5.0 Observation

• Clast Roundness
Roundness is an important characteristic of texture of clastic sedimentary rocks.
Roundness is indicating the extent to which the corners of individual grains have been
rounded off. The roundness scale runs from angular through sub-angular to sub-
rounded and well-rounded. All other things being equal, the rounder grain is the greater
distance it has been transported or the more it has been agitated against other grains.

Clast
Roundness

Figure 5 Hand specimens of Sample Z

• Clast Sphericity
This relates to the closeness of grain shape to a sphere (perfect circle). The sphericity
of a clast can be affected by the mineral’s composition and the characteristic shape of
that mineral. Clastic rock may be described as having low, medium, or high sphericity.

Clast
Sphericity

Figure 4 Hand specimens of Sample Y

• Sorting

Sorting refers to the degree of variation in particles size inside a rock and is graded on
a scale from poorly sorted to well-sorted. For example, glacial ice can carry all particle
sizes; hence, when glacier deposit sediment it results in a poorly sorted sediment (a
wide range of clast sizes). In contrast, wind erodes and transport very specific grain
sizes. As a result, wind-deposited sediment is remarkably well-sorted. Clastic rock can
be classified as poorly, moderately, or well sorted.

Sorting

Figure 3 Hand specimens of Sample X

6.0 Results

Table 6 Weight of sand, silt, and clay for sample X

Empty beaker Beaker + Wet Beaker + Sample Net Weight

(g) Sample (g) (after overnight) (g)
ZC (Mud) 26.6515 49.6815 30.0477 Mmud = 3.3962

C (Clay) 25.9838 51.5818 27.1171 Msilt = 2.2629

Mclay = 1.1333
Sand 281.7918 438.2828 341.9108 Msand = 60.119

So, % Silt = 3.5627 ; % Clay = 1.7842 ; % Sand = 94.6529

Table 7 Weight of sand, silt, and clay for sample Y

Empty beaker Beaker + Wet Beaker + Sample Net Weight

(g) Sample (g) (after overnight) (g)
ZC (Mud) 25.3442 48.6341 29.0666 Mmud = 3.7224
C (Clay) 26.1910 52.1432 28.0341 Msilt = 1.8793
Mclay = 1.8431
Sand 277.7901 427.2532 323.6332 Msand = 45.8431

So, % Silt = 3.7915 ; % Clay = 3.7185 ; % Sand = 92.4899

Table 8 Weight of sand, silt, and clay for sample Z

Empty beaker Beaker + Wet Beaker + Sample Net Weight

(g) Sample (g) (after overnight) (g)

ZC (Mud) 24.3266 47.2678 28.1876 Mmud = 3.861

C (Clay) 23.5603 49.38154 25.5770 Msilt = 1.8443
Mclay = 2.0167
Sand 279.2421 436.6142 339.5347 Msand = 60.2926

So, % Silt = 2.8748 ; % Clay = 3.1435 ; % Sand = 93.9816

 Table 9 Grain Size Distribution of Sample X

Grain Diameter Phi Class Term Incremental Weight Cumulative Weight

(mm) unit (g) % (g) %
2.00 -1.0 Very Coarse 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sand
0.850 0.25 Coarse Sand 2.5153 5.1356 2.5153 0.986
0.500 1.0 Medium Sand 7.9653 16.2630 10.4806 4.110
0.250 2.0 Fine Sand 11.7343 23.9583 22.2149 8.712
0.180 2.5 Fine Sand 15.6624 31.978 37.8773 14.855
0.125 3.0 Very Fine Sand 3.7464 7.6491 41.6237 16.324
0.090 3.5 Very Fine Sand 3.1522 6.4360 44.7759 17.560
0.0630 4.0 Coarse Silt 1.7431 3.5589 46.519 18.244
<0.0630 >4.0 Coarse Silt 2.4589 5.0204 48.9779 19.208
Total, W1 = 48.978 100% 254.985 100%

Graph 1 Particle Size Analysis Distribution Curve (Sample X)

25

20
19.208
18.244
17.56
16.324
15 14.855

10
8.712

5
4.11

0.986
0 0
-1 0.25 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 >4.0
 Cumulative (%) Phi Value
0.000 -1
0.986 0.25
4.110 1.0
8.712 2.0
14.855 2.5
16.324 3.0
17.560 3.5
18.244 4.0
19.208 >4.0
100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE X

60 35

50 30

25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10 5

0 0
Granule Coarse Medium Fine Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Very Fine Coarse Silt Coarse Silt
Sand Sand Sand Sand
Incremental Weight (g) Cumulative Weight (g)
incremental Weight % Cumulative weight %
 Table 10 Grain Size Distribution of Sample Y

Grain Diameter Phi Class Term Incremental Weight Cumulative Weight

(mm) unit (g) % (g) %
2.00 -1.0 Very Coarse Sand 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.850 0.25 Coarse Sand 3.5622 6.143 3.5622 1.100
0.500 1.0 Medium Sand 14.3677 24.776 17.9299 5.541
0.250 2.0 Fine Sand 18.4081 31.743 36.338 11.229
0.180 2.5 Fine Sand 9.20825 15.879 45.54625 14.075
0.125 3.0 Very Fine Sand 5.4764 9.444 51.0226 15.767
0.090 3.5 Very Fine Sand 3.8851 6.699 54.9078 16.968
0.0630 4.0 Coarse Silt 1.3982 2.411 56.3060 17.400
<0.0630 >4.0 Coarse Silt 1.6849 2.905 57.9909 17.920
Total, W1 = 57.991 100% 323.604 100%

Graph 2 Particle Size Analysis Distribution Curve (Sample Y)

20

18 17.92
16.968 17.4
16 15.767
14 14.075

12
11.229
10

6
5.541
4

2
1.1
0 0
-1 0.25 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 >4.0
 Cumulative (%) Phi Value
0.000 -1
1.100 0.25
5.541 1.0
11.229 2.0
14.075 2.5
15.767 3.0
16.968 3.5
17.400 4.0
17.920 >4.0
100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE Y

70 35

60 30

50 25

40 20

30 15

20 10

10 5

0 0
Very Coarse Coarse Medium Fine Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Very Fine Coarse Silt Coarse Silt
Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand

Incremental Weight (g) Cumulative Weight (g)

Incremental Weight % Cumulative Weight %
 Table 11 Grain Size Distribution of Sample Z

Grain Diameter Phi Class Term Incremental Weight Cumulative Weight

(mm) unit (g) % (g) %
2.00 -1.0 Very Coarse Sand 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.850 0.25 Coarse Sand 2.7817 4.253 2.7817 0.896
0.500 1.0 Medium Sand 9.7643 14.927 12.546 4.043
0.250 2.0 Fine Sand 7.2455 11.077 19.7915 6.377
0.180 2.5 Fine Sand 17.1788 26.262 36.9703 11.913
0.125 3.0 Very Fine Sand 13.5118 20.656 50.4821 16.267
0.090 3.5 Very Fine Sand 9.1345 13.965 59.6166 19.210
0.0630 4.0 Coarse Silt 3.1226 4.774 62.7392 20.216
<0.0630 >4.0 Coarse Silt 2.6724 4.085 65.4116 21.077
Total, W1 = 65.412 100% 310.339 100%

Graph 3 Particle Size Analysis Distribution Curve (Sample Z)

25

21.077
20 20.216
19.21

16.267
15

11.913
10

6.377
5
4.043

0.896
0 0
-1 0.25 1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 >4.0
 Cumulative (%) Phi Value
0.000 -1
0.896 0.25
4.043 1.0
6.377 2.0
11.913 2.5
16.267 3.0
19.210 3.5
20.216 4.0
21.077 >4.0
100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE Z

70 30

60 25
50
20
40
15
30
10
20

10 5

0 0
Very Coarse Coarse Medium Fine Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Very Fine Coarse Silt Coarse Silt
Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand

Incremental Weight (g) Cumulative Weight (g)

Incremental Weight % Cumulative Weight %
6.0 Analysis & Discussion

6.1 Sample X

Based on table 9 of grain size distribution of sample X that have been calculated and
covert to particle size graph. The graph illustrates the cumulative weight depending on the phi
unit which also will indicate the size of the sample that can be classified in class term of sample
X either it is very coarse sand, coarse sand, medium sand, fine sand, very fine sand, and
coarse silt. From the graph, it shows the relationship between the increases of phi unit along
with cumulative weight until it reaches 100%. The highest cumulative was plotted at 19.208
with phi above 4.0 and was determined as the coarse silt in class term. The lowest was plotted
at -1.0 with class term of very coarse sand. Moreover, if we convert particle size graph to
more complex graph of grain size distribution of sample X, then we get to know that cumulative
weight by (g) of histogram chart, coarse silt was the highest while coarse sand was the lowest.
For incremental weight (g) the lowest was coarse sand while the highest was fine sand. If we
observe details by the frequency line chart of both incremental and cumulative weight by (%),
the peak of chart was totally different. Cumulative weight by (%) indicates a systematic and
gradual increase till the end, while incremental weight (%) depicts a sharp rise to the top where
it was a fine sand and then the reading drops to the second point of reading before rising
slightly at the final point.

6.2 Sample Y

If we looked upon table 10 and relate it to the graph of particle size of sample Y, then
we got to illustrate that the highest cumulative plot for particle size was at 17.920 with phi
above 4.0 and the class term clarified is coarse sand, while the lowest was plotted at -1.0 in
phi unit with the class term of very coarse sand. The second lowest was plotted at 1.1 in
cumulative weight with phi unit were at 0.25. For added information, the phi unit is a constant
variable. If we transferred the data to the combination graph of grain size distribution of sample
Y, the part of histogram graph shows cumulative and incremental weight by (g) where
cumulative weight recorded a steady increase up to the highest point on 57.9909 with the
class term of coarse sand. The highest histogram of incremental weight (g) was recorded at
class term of fine sand at point 18.4081. As for the lowest point of incremental and cumulative
weight (g), both have the same reading at point 3.5622 on class term of coarse sand. Hence,
if we look over on the frequency graph line, for incremental and cumulative weight by (%), both
started at same point which is on class term of very coarse sand. Then, for cumulative weight
(%) the frequent line increasing till the end. As for incremental weight (%) the frequent line
graph recorded a drastic increase till the highest peak of fine sand before plummeting to the
last point at coarse silt. To summarize the frequency part for sample Y, just like sample X,
sample Y also has a different peak and frequency of incremental and cumulative weight (%)
for both since it has a different frequent main grain size that can be observe during lab session.
Because of that, the recorded reading that been transferred to the combination distribution of
graph, we can see the differences frequent in the curve of the graph. As for the phi unit system,
error strength and weakness are same with sample X elaboration since lab and sample for X,
Y and Z were carried out on the same day.

6.3 Sample Z

Particle graph distribution curve (Graph 3) shows a steady rise of phi unit with the
cumulative percentage based on Table 11. The smallest grain size diameter (<0.0630mm)
which classified as the coarse silt recorded at the highest phi unit (>4.0) and cumulative
percentage (21.077%), plotted on the graph. Meanwhile, the biggest grain size diameter
(2mm) of the very coarse sand recorded a lowest phi unit (0) and 0% cumulative percentage
plotted on the graph. Moreover, a slight rapid climb of the curve can be seen between phi
value of 2.0 and 2.5 where fine sand were recorded obtained in both. The differences in
cumulative weight (g) surge from 19.7915g to 36.9703g which mean around 5.536% difference
between the two-phi units though they have the very same class term. Furthermore, a
histogram based on the cumulative percentage and its phi unit was constructed. The
histogram shows a constant increase in the cumulative weight (g) and percentage but there
are some up and downtrend in the incremental weight (g) and percentage. The incremental
weight of sample Z went uphill and back to downhill during the first fine sand stage and resume
increasing once the phi value changes. Correspondingly its incremental percentage where the
percentage dropped at fine sand and suddenly stretched above the cumulative percentage
once the fine sand changes its phi value and then fall off again until coarse silt was obtained,
and they remained slightly constant afterward.

After all, it can be said that the frequency of the line grain size distributions is different
for incremental and cumulative weight (%). It indicates the most frequent grain size for
incremental weight are at fine sand. As for the usage of phi system, the phi scale, defined as
a logarithmic transformation of the geometric Udden-Wentworth grain size scale in a sediment
particle size scale. Basically, it’s widely used in sediment laboratories to accurately measure
particle size of any grain sample.
Experimental error, accuracy, strengths, and weaknesses

In term of experimental error, there might have a slightly experimental error either it
was random or systematic error especially when we need to leave the sample for overnight in
a room temperature of 27 degrees, so sometime there might have a slight change in room
temperature reading without realizing. To relate it with strength and weakness, the strength
during completing this lab was all equipment needed to run the lab are sufficient while the
weakness is, this lab takes a long time for each sample to be prepared according to the method
that has been instructed. In short, the whole data, particle size graph and grain size distribution
graph for sample X has achieved the objective that has been highlighted which the purpose
of doing this particle size analysis is to understand the concept of grain size and the techniques
that need to be used to analyse the grain size of the sediment sample by implementing the
sieving method using Sievers to separate the samples based on the difference in particle size.
After all, it makes it easier to classify all the sample grain size. Factors in these methods that
might affect accuracy is systematic error. Systematic errors reduce accuracy. This is usually
due to an error or bias in the sampling method. For example, when we are measuring the wet
sample and sample overnight. Variables such as temperature, humidity, lighting, and so on
can also influence measurement results and give effect on precision. Some tests and
calibrations are more sensitive to environmental factors than others.

Data indicate about the energy of the system

Next, what data indicate about the energy of the system is the energy is increasing.
This can be seen based on the data in the results for each table and the distribution of curves
according to cumulative weight of grain size particle by (g) and (%) which also means that the
environmental of the sample are taken from was a place where it has a high-energy
environmental. In addition, environment of deposition of our sample is more likely from coastal
deposition. This occurs when waves and tides combine to deposit sand and shingle which
means small pebbles and broken shells, along the coastline. Constructive waves have a
strong up beach movement that pulls material up the beach. As it moves up the beach, the
wave slows and some of the water seeps into the sand. The backwash of down beach wave
movement has lost energy and is weak. It can no longer transport the material all the way back
down the beach, so it deposits the finer particles of sand, resulting in the formation of a beach.
The size of these particle can be different according to the type of sediment itself. For the
sample used in this laboratory was clastic sedimentary that can be found at beach
environment.
Visher’s hypotheses

Last, based on Visher’s hypotheses, it can be related to all data, results and graph of
distribution that emphasizes the detailing of each function from where and how each sample
of sediment achieved its sorting based on their energy environmental. Other than that, aeolian
process also involved in this sample. This is because aeolian processes involve the wind's
erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediment. These processes take place in a variety
of settings, including the coastal zone. Sand dunes, both active and vegetated can be found
along beaches and in arid or semi-arid environments. The most well-known aeolian feature is
dunes, which are mounds of loose sand formed by wind. Dunes are classified into several
types based on their shape. As for coastal area, coastal dunes are essential to the health and
longevity of sandy beaches. The primary dune ridge of foredunes is located near the shore.
Secondary dune fields could be found further inland. Dunes can form anywhere there are
aeolian processes of wind transport. Back-barrier environments benefit greatly from dunes'
protection against severe wave, wind, and storm events. Dune vegetation is critical for the
formation and stabilisation of barrier island dune complexes. The root system and exposed
vegetation both help to secure the dune by restricting sand movement around plants. In short,
all these sample are deposited from the coastal area that gave multiple results that can be
distributed by data and graph.

In a nutshell, grain sizes analysis is commonly used throughout soil classification.

Particle size analysis data can be used to describe the permeability, compaction, and other
characteristics of the soil. The experiment is designed to generate the distribution of grain
sizes of the soil samples. The obtained grain size distribution graph is used in a variety of
applications, including determining soil grading and the percentage of course and fine
materials. As shown in the above section (results) we were able to calculate the cumulative
percentage and phi unit which were both used to conclude whether the soil is uniformly
graded.
7.0 Conclusion

In conclusion based on our experiment, we found that the sieving method carried out
is not suitable for all types of soil. This is because sieving is a method to determine the grain
size of soils larger than 0.075 mm in diameter. This is done for sand, silt, and clay but not for
finer grain sizes of sediment samples. Therefore, this method cannot distinguish between two
materials of the same size in one solution, so this experiment was performed to determine the
type of soil that has been used whether it is sand, silt, and clay. The data plotted refers to the
particle size and mass of the material used for the formula net weight and accumulated weight.
Then, the resulting graph is in the form of a curve. However, the data obtained may not be
completely accurate, this is because some things such as the materials used are not clean
enough.
8.0 References
Aeolian (Dunes) Landforms - Geology (U.S. National Park Service). (n.d.). Retrieved from
www.nps.gov website: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/aeolian-
landforms.htm#:~:text=Aeolian%20landforms%20are%20shaped%20by

Basics--Depositional Environments. (2022). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from Wvc.edu

website: https://commons.wvc.edu/rdawes/g101ocl/basics/depoenvirons.html

Björn, I. N., Folestad, S., Johansson, M., & Josefsson, L. (2002). Multivariate analysis for
product design and control. European Symposium on Computer Aided Process
Engineering-12, 35th European Symposium of the Working Party on Computer Aided
Process Engineering, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1570-7946(02)80050-5

Deposition - Virtual Coastlines. (2022). Deposition - Virtual Coastlines. Retrieved December

5, 2022, from Google.com website:
https://sites.google.com/site/virtualcoastline/Home/deposition

EXPERIMENT 6 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (SIEVE AND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS). (n.d.).

Retrieved from https://cemmlab.webhost.uic.edu/Experiment%206-
Grain%20Size%20Analysis.pdf

Folk, R.L. (1974). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin,
Texas

Hogan, R. (2013, November 20). 6 Influences on Uncertainty in Measurement Results -

isobudgets. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from isobudgets website:
https://www.isobudgets.com/6-influences-on-uncertainty-in-measurement-
results/#:~:text=Variables%20such%20as%20temperature%2C%20humidity,certain
%20environmental%20factors%20than%20others

Hossain, S., Md Azijul Islam, Faria Fahim Badhon, & Imtiaz, T. (2021, January 14). Sieve
Analysis. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from Pressbooks.pub website:
https://uta.pressbooks.pub/soilmechanics/chapter/sieve-analysis/

kpanchuk. (2022). Describing and Naming Clastic Sedimentary Rocks. Retrieved December
5, 2022, from Bccampus.ca website:
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/earthhistorylab/chapter/describing-and-naming-
clastic-sedimentary-rocks/

Laboratory notes

Lab Report 1 Particle Size Analysis of S. (2021). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from StuDocu
website: https://www.studocu.com/row/document/university-of-wollongong-in-
dubai/construction-of-materials/lab-report-1-particle-size-analysis-of-s/7777368
Nur-Ranji Jajurie. (2016, August 30). Lab Report #1: Particle Size Analysis of Soils. Retrieved
December 5, 2022, from Academia.edu website:
https://www.academia.edu/28124221/Lab_Report_1_Particle_Size_Analysis_of_Soil
s

Ribana Hategan. (2021, January 27). Vibration testing equipment. Retrieved December 5,
2022, from Vibration testing equipment website: https://www.etssolution-
asia.com/blog/factors-that-affect-the-accuracy-of-measurements

Roundness. (2012). Retrieved December 5, 2022, from Geology is the Way website:
https://geologyistheway.com/sedimentary/roundness/

Visher, G.S. (1969). Grain size distributions and depositional processes. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 39 (3), 1074-1106

Wolfrom. (2011). The Language of Particle Size. GXP.

https://www.particletechlabs.com/images/articles/the-language-of-particle-size.pdf