Civil Engineering Department

College of Engineering

Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan

CE 25 L B3 - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 (SOIL

MECHANICS)

Laboratory Report

Experiment No. 2.1

Title: Determination of Particle Size by Sieve Analysis

Group Members:
Dave Julann Ramiro
Dexter Dave A. Canubas
Dridgely Ric Dy
Shaun Petre
Kurt Mawile

Course & Year: BSCE - 4TH YR

Section: CE25L B3
 I. Objectives:

● To calculate the proportion of various grain sizes present in the soil

II. Materials and Equipment used:

● Set of Sieves
● Cleaning Brush
● Balance
● Sieve Shaker

III. Methodology

1. Record the bottom pan’s weight and the weight of each sieve that will be
used in the analysis.
2. Keep records of the dry soil samples’ weight.
3. Assemble the sieves in ascending order of the sieve number, making sure
that each sieve is clean.
4. Put the pan beneath the #200 sieve. Place the UD on top after carefully
pouring the soil sample into the top sieve.
5. Place the sieve stack in the shaker for 5 minutes.
6. After 5 minutes, remove the sieve stack from the sieve shaker and weigh
each sieve with its retained soil.
7. Record the weight including the bottom pan along with its retained fine
soil.
8. Calculate % retained, 5 fines, and present the gradation curve.
9. Calculate the Cc and Cu.

IV. Data and Results for Sieve Analysis

SIEVE NO. OPENING MASS % SUM OF % % FINER

IN MM RETAINED RETAINED RETAINED
(g)

4 4.75 493 15.51 15.52 84.48

10 2 462 14.54 30.09 69.91

20 0.85 437 13.75 43.73 56.277

40 0.425 408 12.84 56.58 43.42

60 0.25 365 11.49 68.18 31.82

100 0.15 330 10.38 78.37 21.63

 200 0.075 328 10.32 88.71 11.29

PAN Passing 355 11.17 100 0

#200

TOTAL 3178 100

Solving D10, D30, D60

𝐷10 − 0.075 0.15 − 0.075 𝐷30 − 0.15 0.25 − 0.15 𝐷60 − 0.25 0.425−0.25
10 − 11.29
= 21.63 − 11.29 30 − 21.63
= 31.82 − 21.63 60 − 31.82
= 43.42−31.82
D10 = 0.066mm D30 = 0.23mm D60 = 0.675mm

Solving Cu and Cc
𝐷60 0.675
Cu = 𝐷10
= 0.066
= 10. 23
2 2
(𝐷30) (0.23)
Cc = 𝐷10 𝐷60
= (0.066)(0.675)
= 1. 187

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The uniformity coefficient is determined to be 10.23 from the results of the sieve
analysis, and the coefficient of gradation is considered to be 1.187. 3178 grams of soil
sample were utilized in the analysis. The #200 sieve, which will be used to conduct the
hydrometer analysis, was able to filter 360 grams of the material. The group was able to
build a particle distribution curve and a gradation curve from the data tables by charting
the percentage of finer particles against particle size and the percentage of refined
particles against sieve opening size, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Since it is larger than 10, the soil's uniformity coefficient is barely above the well-graded
group. The uniformity coefficient evaluates how evenly the soil sample's grains are
distributed. The soil is mostly made up of gravel and sands since the coefficient of
gradation is between 1 and 3.
 Civil Engineering Department

College of Engineering

Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan

CE 25 L B3 - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 (SOIL

MECHANICS)

Laboratory Report

Experiment No. 2.2

Title: Determination of Particle Size by Hydrometer Analysis

Group Members:
Dave Julann Ramiro
Dexter Dave A. Canubas
Dridgely Ric Dy
Shaun Petre
Kurt Mawile

Course & Year: BSCE - 4TH YR

Section: CE25L B3
I. Materials
- Hydrometer
- Thermometer
- #200 Passing Soil Sample
- Graduated Cylinder
- Dispersing Agent
- Control Cylinder
- Distilled Water

II. Objectives
- Determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within the soil by
Hydrometer Analysis

III. Methodology
1. Take the fine solid from the bottom pan of the sieve set, place it into a beaker, and add
123 ml of the dispersing agent solution. Stir the mixture until the soil is thoroughly wet.
Let the soil soak for at least ten minutes.
2. While the soil is soaking, add 123 ml of the dispersing agent in the control cylinder and
fill it with distilled water to the mark. Take the reading at the top of the meniscus formed
by the hydrometer stem and the control solution. A reading less than zero is recorded as
a negative correction and a reading between zero and sixty is recorded as a positive
correction. This reading is called the zero correction. The meniscus correction is the
difference between the top of the meniscus and the level of solution in the control jar
(Usually about +1). Shake the control cylinder in such a way that the contents are mixed
thoroughly. Insert the hydrometer and thermometer in the control cylinder and note the
zero correction and temperature respectively.
3. Transfer the soil slurry into a mixer by adding more distilled water, if necessary, until the
mixing cup is at least half full. Then mix the solution for a period of two minutes.
4. Immediately transfer the soil slurry into the empty sedimentation cylinder. Add distilled
water up to the mark.
5. Cover the open end of the cylinder with a stopper and secure it with the palm of your
hand. Then turn the cylinder upside down and back upright for a period of one minute.
(The cylinder should be inverted approximately 30 times during the minute).
6. Set the cylinder down and record the time. Remove the stopper from the cylinder. After
an elapsed time of one minute and forty seconds, very slowly and carefully insert the
hydrometer for the first reading.
7. The reading is taken by observing the top of the meniscus formed by the suspension
and the hydrometer stem. The hydrometer is removed slowly and placed back into the
control cylinder. Very gently spin it in the control cylinder to remove any particles that
may have adhered.
8. Take hydrometer reading after elapsed times of 2, 5, 8 ,15, 30, 60 mins and 24 hours.
IV. Data and Results

TIME Slurry Mixture (Hydrometer w/ Soil) Controlled (w/o Soil)

(mins)

Actual Corrected Effective Actual Corrected Effective

Hydrometer Hydrometer Depth L Hydrometer Hydrometer Depth L
Reading Reading (cm) Reading Reading (cm)

2 1.02 1.021 12.15 1.001 1.002 16

5 1.019 1.02 12.6 1.00 1.001 16

8 1.018 1.019 12.9 1.00 1.001 16

15 1.016 1.017 13.1 1.00 1.001 16

30 1.0135 1.0145 13.3 1.00 1.001 16

24hrs 1.006 1.007 14.3 1.00 1.001 16

Temp Correction: 0
Zero Correction: 0.002
Correction due to meniscus: 0.001
For particle diameter:

@ 2 mins: D1=0.034 mm
@ 5 mins: D2=0.022 mm
@ 8 mins: D3=0.017 mm
@ 15 mins: D4=0.0127 mm
@ 30 mins: D5=9.1x10^-3 mm
@ 24 hours: D6=1.36x10^-3 mm

For Percent Finer: Ws = 20g For Percent Fines:

PA1 = 0.05105
PA2 = 0.051
P2 = 5.1 PA3 = 0.05095
P3 = 5.095 PA4 = 0.05085
P4 = 5.085 PA5 = 0.050725
P5 = 5.0725 PA6 = 0.05035
P6 = 5.035
 Time (min) Effective Depth D (mm) % Finer, P % Finer, Pa
(cm)

2 12.45 0.034 5.105 0.05105

5 12.6 0.022 5.1 0.051

8 12.9 0.017 5.095 0.05095

15 13.1 0.0127 5.085 0.05085

30 13.3 9.1x10^-3 5.0725 0.050725

24 hours 14.3 1.36x10^-3 5.035 0.05035

V. Results and Discussion

We were able to examine the grain size distribution of soils through the #200 sieve using
hydrometer analysis. We were able to identify a range of grain sizes ranging from 0.03mm to
0.001mm by applying the fundamentals of how hydrometers function. As a result, the team was
able to plot the particle size distribution curve, which had a similar pattern to the sieve analysis.
Based on the findings, it is reassuring to observe that the soil is dense and well-graded.

VI. Conclusion
The particle size distribution curve demonstrates the evenly distributed nature of the soil.
Since the laboratory used a temperature of 20°C, temperature adjustment was not taken into
account. The hydrometer may not have been correctly calibrated, which could account for the
potential errors. The reading can have been misread due to human mistake as well.
 Civil Engineering Department

College of Engineering

Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan

CE 25 L B3 - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 (SOIL

MECHANICS)

Laboratory Report

Experiment No. 3
Title: Compaction Test (Moisture- Density Relation)

Group Members:
Dave Julann Ramiro
Dexter Dave A. Canubas
Dridgely Ric Dy
Shaun Petre
Kurt Mawile

Course & Year: BSCE - 4TH YR

Section: CE25L B3
 I. Objectives:

● Determine the relationship between moisture/water content and the dry density of
the given soil sample

II. Materials and Equipment used:

● Molds
● Digital Weighing Scalc
● Mixing Pali
● Trowel
● Sieves
● Graduated Cylinder
● Ruler
● Compaction Tool
● Extruder

III. Methodology

1. Take a certain amount of the dried soil sample and place into a mixing
pan. Pound the soil into smaller pieces and pass an adequate quantity
through the sieve.

2. Determine the weight of the soil and the weight of the compaction
mold with its base
.
3. Compute the initial amount of water to add by taking S% of the soil
mass for the first trial. For consecutive additions of water, use 5%
.
4. Measure the water in the graduated cylinder, then add and mix well
into the soil using a trowel until some uniformity is achieved.

5. Place the mixed soil into the compaction mold, and compact the soil
according to the number of blows being specified. In this experiment,
use 56 blows.
6. Remove the collar, and trim the excess soil off the top.

7. Weigh the compacted soil along with the mold and

record its mass. The weight of“ the wet soil can then be
determined by subtracting the weight of the mold from
the total weight.

8. Remove the soil sample from the mold and place it back
into the mixing pan to repeat the previous steps until the
optimum moisture content is achieved'

IV. DATA and RESULTS

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 15. 24𝑐𝑚

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 12. 7𝑐𝑚

3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 2316. 67𝑐𝑚
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 9. 212𝑘𝑔

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 = 6. 8𝑘𝑔

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2. 412𝑘𝑔

Water Compacted Mass of Mass of Soil Wet Density Dry Density

Content Soil and Mold (kg) (g) g/cm^3 g/cm^3
Mold (kg)

9 9.324 6.8 3231 1.32 1.28

14 9.675 6.8 3478 1.39 1.35

16 9.981 6.8 3521 1.52 1.41

25 10.034 6.8 3641 1.61 1.32

27 10.025 6.8 3621 1.61 1.29

V. DISCUSSION
According to the statistics, the dry density of the soil increases as more
water is added. The maximum amount of moisture that a soil sample may
contain is when the soil reaches a threshold where the dry density value
becomes stable. According to our findings, the dry density value is
stabilized around 18%–23% by the moisture content. The graph also
shows that the dry density begins to decline after reaching its highest
level at 18%.

VI. CONCLUSION
A smoother moisture-density relationship curve could have been obtained
by using increments of 3% rather than 5%, and more accurate results
could have been obtained by reducing human error, such as during the
compaction phase. This experiment allowed us to draw the conclusion
that the soil reaches a limit of 18% moisture content.