Lab Report #1
Particle Size Analysis (Sieves and Hydrometer) & Atterberg
Limit Tests (LL and PL)
Team4 mates:
Ibrahim Mohamed-4028023……………. B
Feras al-saadi 3901984………………….. A
Ibrahiem bin Hussien 3902680………….. A
Mohammed Shindi 4002063…………….. A
Ammar Mohammed Alahmadi 3701831… A
Ahmed Sobhy Abdelbar 4029156……….. B
Instructor:
Dr. Sharif Gushgari
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1:
Particle Size Analysis (Sieves and Hydrometer) ………………….…4
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..…4
2. Test procedure…………………………………………………………….….4
2.1 Procedure of Sieve Analysis………………………………………..….4
2.2 Procedure of Hydrometer Analysis………………………………..….4
3. Test results……………………………………………………………………5
4. Analysis………………………………………………………………….…...7
5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………9
6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…....10
7. References………………………………………………………………. ….10
8. Appendices…………………………………………………………….……11
8.1 Appendix I…………………………………………………………….11
8.2 Appendix II……………………………………………………………12
8.3 Appendix III………………………………………………………….13
8.4 Appendix IV…………………………………………………………14
8.5 Appendix V……………………………………………………….…15
8.6 Appendix VI…………………………………………………………16
PART 2:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Atterberg Limit Tests (LL and PL)…………………………………17
Introduction…………………………………………………………….…..17
Test Procedure…………………………………………………………….17
Test Result…………………………………………………………………19
Analysis……………………………………………………………………..20
Discussion…………………………………………………………………..20
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….…22
References…………………………………………………………………22
Appendices………………………………………………………………….23
8.1 Appendix I……………………………………………………………….23
8.2 Appendix II………………………………………………………...……24
8.3 Appendix III……………………………………………………………..25
PART1
Particle Size Analysis (Sieves and Hydrometer)
1. Introduction
1.1
We will demonstrate how to conduct particle size analysis in accordance
with ASTM specifications. A particle size analysis is used by geotechnical
engineers to help easily classify soils. The particle size analysis consists of two
procedures. The mechanical sieve analysis involves the use of a series of
mechanical sieves to help determine the grain size distribution within the coarse
grain fraction of the soil. The hydrometer analysis is conducted on the finegrained portion of material. Material that passes the number 200 sieve is
considered fine grained material. The resulting curves from these two tests can be
used to characterize a soil and use to reject or accept the material for engineering
applications. The practical applications of the particle size analysis and
geotechnical engineering include soil description quantitative soil classification in
correlations to permeability based on the Hazen's equation. The soil samples we
tested were collecting from Madinah city in KSA. They were enough tests carried
out to be representative of the soil available at the site.
2. Test Procedures
ASTM D422: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
see Appendix V
2.1. Procedure of Sieve Analysis
2.1.1 Putting the sample in the oven, and then take 500g of it after taking it out
of the oven.
2.1.2 Recording the weights of the sieves and the pan when they are empty.
2.1.3 Place the stack of sieves in the mechanical shaker in order, as the largest
opening is at the top and ends with the pan. Then shake it for 10 min.
2.1.4 Take it out of the shaker & calculate the weights of the samples by
subtracting the weight of the sieves from the total weight and recording them.
2.2. Procedure of Hydrometer Analysis
2.2.1 We take a sample of the previous soil that exceeded sieve No. 200 and
grind it well. Then we mix it with 125 ml quantity of 4% solution of sodium
metaphosphate.
2.2.2 Allow the mixture to stand about 1 hr. Transfer the mixture to the malt
mixer cup and add distilled water until the cup is two thirds full, mix for min.
2.2.3 Transfers all the contents of the cup to the sedimentation cylinder. The
volume of dispersed soil suspension is increased to 1000 ml by adding distilled
water.
2.2.4 Use the palm of your hand over the open end of the sedimentation cylinder
and carefully agitate for about 1 min. Set the cylinder down, immediately insert
the hydrometer, and take hydrometer reading at elapsed time 0.5, 1, 2, 4 min also
take temperature reading of sedimentation cylinder and control jar, then take
meniscus correction and zero correction from the control jar.
2.2.5 Repeat step 4 take another series of hydrometer readings at 0.5, 1, 2, 4min.
(take the average between a pair of the readings).
2.2.6 Collect additional hydrometer and temperature readings at elapsed time of
8, 15, 30, min followed by 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 48, 96 hr.
3. Test Results
Forward tables are given to us as follow:
Sieve Number
Diameter (mm)
#4
#10
#20
#45
#60
#140
#200
Pan
4.76
2
0.85
0.35
0.25
0.105
0.075
Time
10
15
30
45
60
120
1440
L Hydrometer
Reading
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
Mass of Empty
Sieve (g)
578
528
481
447
438
414
412
382
T (c)
Tc
K
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
Rc
Mass of sieve +
Soil Retained (g)
1100
600
750
650
500
480
460
450
%
Finer
D
P
As a result of those respectively
Sieve
Number
#4
#10
#20
#45
#60
#140
#200
pan
Diameter
(mm)
4.76
2
0.85
0.35
0.25
0.105
0.075
0
Soil
Retained
(g)
522
72
269
203
62
66
48
68
Accumulative
Retain (gm)
522
594
863
1066
1128
1194
1242
1310
% Mass
Retain
% Passing
39.8473
45.3435
65.8779
81.3740
86.1069
91.1450
94.80916031
100
60.1527
54.6565
34.1221
18.6260
13.8931
8.8550
5.190839695
0
We can easily find D10, D30, and D60 by linear interpolation method in order to
get the Cu & Cc uniformity coefficient and curvature coefficient.
Gradation Curve
70.0000
60.0000
% Passing
50.0000
40.0000
30.0000
20.0000
10.0000
0.0000
10
1
0.1
0.01
Particle Dia (mm)
Accordingly, D10= 0.138mm, D30= 0.728mm, and D60= 4.745mm
Therefore, Cu= D60/D10 = 34.384
Cc= D30^2/D10*D60 = 0.809
These coefficients help to classify the soil as well graded or poorly graded ones.
For the hydrometer analysis results;
Input Parameters
Viscosity of water at 25 C temperature
Specific gravity of soil
Weight of dry soil
Zero Correction
Meniscus Correction
Time
(MIN)
Ra
T
Tc=4.85+0.25T
10
15
30
50
48
47
25
25
25
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.00000922 g s/cm2
2.65
45 g
7g
1
Rc=RaZc+Tc
% finer =
(Rcxa)/Ws
Rcorrected
for
miniscous
44.4
42.4
41.4
98.66666667
94.22222222
92
51
49
48
L=16.30.164Ra
K
D
(mm)
20 0.012947 0.0183
18 0.012947 0.0142
16 0.012947 0.0095
Actual
%
finer
wrt to
total
fines
in soil
mass
8.737
8.343
8.147
45
60
120
1440
46
45
44
42
25
25
25
25
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
40.4
39.4
38.4
36.4
89.77777778
87.55555556
85.33333333
80.88888889
47
46
45
43
14
12
10
8
0.012947
0.012947
0.012947
0.012947
0.0072
0.0058
0.0037
0.0010
4. Analysis
Percentage retained on any sieve:
Cumulative percentage retained on any sieve:
Percentage finer than an sieve size:
Effective Size, Uniformity Coefficient, and Coefficient of Gradation
The particle-size distribution curves can be used for comparing different soils.
Also, three basic soil parameters can be determined from these curves, and they
can be used to classify granular soils. Them parameters are:
•
Effective size
•
Uniformity coefficient
•
Coefficient of gradation
The diameter in the particle-size distribution curve corresponding to 10% finer is
defined as the effective size, or D10. The uniformity coefficient is given by the
relation:
where Cu is the uniformity coefficient and D60 is the diameter corresponding to
60% finer in the particle-size distribution
The coefficient of gradation may he expressed as:
7.950
7.753
7.556
7.163
where Cc is the coefficient of gradation and D30 diameter corresponding to 30%
finer.
Where,
Ra
T
Tc
Rc
Zc
L
D
Actual Hydrometer reading
Temperature
Temperature Correction
Corrected Hydrometer reading
Zero correction
Effective depth
Diameter of particles in mm
K = 0.0133
Percent Finer = (PA x % Passing #200) / 100
L is corrected length
5. Discussion
The method of weighing the sieve plus soil rather than attempting to remove the soil
from the sieve for weighing is suggested because it has been found that soil is often
lost during the removing. Even using this suggested procedure, be careful to minimize
the loss of soil during the sieving.
Step 2.1.4 in the procedure recommends that the sieving consist of approximately 10
minutes of horizontal shaking. A horizontal motion was suggested instead of a
vertical one since it has been found more efficient and since less soil escapes from the
nest of sieves during horizontal shaking. The amount of shaking required depends on
the shape and number of particles. As an example of the fact that the shaking time
required is increased as the number of particles is increased, for crushed quartz it was
found that, in a given time, the percentage passing was 25% less for a 250-g sample
than it was for a 25-g sample. Since a given weight of a fine-grained soil contains
more particles than an equal weight of a coarse-grained one, more shaking time is
necessary for the finer-grained soils.
Figure 1. (i) Uniformly or Well Graded Soil Structure, (ii) Poorly Graded Soil, (iii)
Gap Graded Soil
As we can see in Figure 1, a uniformly graded soil contains the least number of voids
and thus is the densest in solids. We can also induce that these type of soil has greater
strength against normal forces. Hence we can say that uniformly graded soils are more
suitable as foundation supports than poorly and gap graded soils.
Other than the grading of the soil, we can also see the percent of fines (particles that
are less than 0.075 mm in diameter) are just 5 to 6% of the total soil mass, hence this
would infer that the soil sample is not mainly affected by the Atterberg Limits that we
were able to compute in Experiment 2, because of the dominant number of sandy
particles than the fines.
Classifying the sample that we were given from the lab sheet-see Appendix III- we
find the symbol and the name tracing the USCS system-see Appendix IV- as follow,
Symbol, SP-SM & named, 'Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel'
Although, there is opportunity being SP-SC, ''Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel
(or silty clay and gravel) since we won't be given the LL or PL for this sample.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the particle size analysis (sieves and hydrometer) tests are important
for us to know the properties of the soil that we want to use. Whether it’s a grain or a
fine coarse. Soil classification and name the groups of it. All of it is in detail which
makes it easier to know exactly what to want, and what to avoid.
7. References
CEEN 341 Laboratory instruction- office hours channel from youtube
Principles of Geotechnical Engineering - Eighth Edition, SI Book
agg-net.com/resources/articles/ancillary-equipment/principles-and-procedures-ofsieving-analysis
https://aandastone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/bit200.pdf
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cst/TMS/200-F_series/pdfs/bit200.pdf
7. Appendices
Appendix I
Sieve
Diameter Mass
Number (mm)
of
Empty
Sieve
(g)
#4
4.76
578
#10
2
528
#20
0.85
481
#45
0.35
447
#60
0.25
438
#140
0.105
414
#200
0.075
412
Pan
382
Mass of
Soil
%
sieve +
%
Soil
Retained
Mass
Accumulative Retain Passing
Retained (g)
Retain (g)
(g)
1100
522
522
39.847 60.153
600
72
594
45.344 54.657
750
269
863
65.878 34.122
650
203
1066
81.374 18.626
500
62
1128
86.107 13.893
480
66
1194
91.145 8.855
460
48
1242
94.809 5.191
450
68
1310
100
0
Particle Size Distribution Curve
70
60
Percent Finer, %
50
40
30
20
10
1
D10= 0.138
10
D30= 0.728
100
D60= 4.745
0
0.1
Particle Size, D, mm
0.01
0.001
Appendix II
Appendix III
Lab data sheet signed by all members in team4,
Lab 1:
Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis
Sieve Diameter
Number
(mm)
#4
#10
#20
#45
#60
#140
#200
Pan
Time
Mass of Empty Sieve (g)
4.76
2
0.85
0.35
0.25
0.105
0.075
L Hydrometer T
Reading
10
20
15
18
30
16
45
14
60
12
120
10
1440
8
• Weight of Sample is 45 (g)
578
528
481
447
438
414
412
382
Mass of
sieve +
Soil
Retained
(g)
1100
600
750
650
500
480
460
450
(c)
Tc
K
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
0.0133
Rc
%
Finer
Ibrahim Mohamed.... ……………………signed…………………
Mohammed Shindi… ……………………… signed ………………
Ibrahiem bin Hussien ………………………… signed …………...
Ammar Mohammed Alahmadi ………………… signed ………...
Ahmed Sobhy Abdelbar ………………………… signed ………..
Feras al-saadi ……………………………………… signed ………
D
P
Appendix IV
Appendix V
ASTM D422: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
Appendix VI
PART2
Atterberg Limit Tests (LL and PL)
1. Introduction
We will be going over the laboratory procedures on performing an Atterberg limit
tests. These tests include the liquid limit and the plastic limit tests. They are used
to classify the fine-grained portion of a soil. The practical application of Atterberg
limits in geotechnical engineering includes soil description, quantitative soil
classification, and correlations to engineering properties such as shear strength.
The Atterberg limits our index tests and they are designed to give an idea or
indicate how a soil will act under certain conditions. Furthermore, we will
demonstrate how to conduct a liquid limit test and a plastic limit test in
accordance with ASTM specifications. The soil that we will be performing the
limits test is coming from the KSA Madinah city. This soil has been mechanically
pulverized and then passed through a number 40 sieve to remove all large
particles. For the purpose of the lab experiment we were limited rather to add
bentonite clay or not in order to increase the plasticity of the soil. ASTM D 4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils.-see Appendix I & II.
2. Test Procedure
Each photo mentioned is on Appendix I & II.
Liquid Limit,
(1) Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish. Assume that
the soil was previously passed through a No. 40 sieve, air-dried, and then
pulverized. Thoroughly mix the soil with a small amount of distilled water until
it appears as a smooth uniform paste. Cover the dish with cellophane to prevent
moisture from escaping.
(2) Weigh four of the empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the
respective weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(3) Adjust the liquid limit apparatus by checking the height of drop of the cup. The
point on the cup that comes in contact with the base should rise to a height of
10 mm. The block on the end of the grooving tool is 10 mm high and should be
used as a gage. Practice using the cup and determine the correct rate to rotate
the crank so that the cup drops approximately two times per second.
(4) Place a portion of the previously mixed soil into the cup of the liquid limit
apparatus at the point where the cup rests on the base. Squeeze the soil down to
eliminate air pockets and spread it into the cup to a depth of about 10 mm at its
deepest point. The soil pat should form an approximately horizontal surface
(See Photo B).
(5) Use the grooving tool carefully cut a clean straight groove down the center of
the cup. The tool should remain perpendicular to the surface of the cup as
groove is being made. Use extreme care to prevent sliding the soil relative to
the surface of the cup (See Photo C).
(6) Make sure that the base of the apparatus below the cup and the underside of the
cup is clean of soil. Turn the crank of the apparatus at a rate of approximately
two drops per second and count the number of drops, N, it takes to make the
two halves of the soil pat come into contact at the bottom of the groove along a
distance of 13 mm (1/2 in.) (See Photo D). If the number of drops exceeds 50,
then go directly to step eight and do not record the number of drops, otherwise,
record the number of drops on the data sheet.
(7) Take a sample, using the spatula, from edge to edge of the soil pat. The sample
should include the soil on both sides of where the groove came into contact.
Place the soil into a moisture can cover it. Immediately weigh the moisture can
be containing the soil, record its mass, remove the lid, and place the can into
the oven. Leave the moisture can in the oven for at least 16 hours. Place the soil
remaining in the cup into the porcelain dish. Clean and dry the cup on the
apparatus and the grooving tool.
(8) Remix the entire soil specimen in the porcelain dish. Add a small amount of
distilled water to increase the water content so that the number of drops
required to close the groove decrease. Repeat steps six, seven, and eight for at
least two additional trials producing successively lower numbers of drops to
close the groove. One of the trials shall be for a closure requiring 25 to 35
drops, one for closure between 20 and 30 drops, and one trial for a closure
requiring 15 to 25 drops. Determine the water content from each trial by using
the same method used in the first laboratory. Remember to use the same
balance for all weighing.
Plastic Limit,
(1) Weigh the remaining empty moisture cans with their lids, and record the
respective weights and can numbers on the data sheet.
(2) Take the remaining 1/4 of the original soil sample and add distilled water until
the soil is at a consistency where it can be rolled without sticking to the hands.
(3) Form the soil into an ellipsoidal mass (See Photo F). Roll the mass between
the palm or the fingers and the glass plate (See Photo G). Use sufficient
pressure to roll the mass into a thread of uniform diameter by using about 90
strokes per minute. (A stroke is one complete motion of the hand forward and
back to the starting position.) The thread shall be deformed so that its diameter
reaches 3.2 mm (1/8 in.), taking no more than two minutes.
(4) When the diameter of the thread reaches the correct diameter, break the thread
into several pieces. Knead and reform the pieces into ellipsoidal masses and
re-roll them. Continue this alternate rolling, gathering together, kneading and
re-rolling until the thread crumbles under the pressure required for rolling and
can no longer be rolled into a 3.2 mm diameter thread (See Photo H).
(5) Gather the portions of the crumbled thread together and place the soil into a
moisture can, then cover it. If the can does not contain at least 6 grams of soil,
add soil to the can from the next trial (See Step 6). Immediately weigh the
moisture can be containing the soil, record its mass, remove the lid, and place
the can into the oven. Leave the moisture can in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(6) Repeat steps three, four, and five at least two more times. Determine the water
content from each trial by using the same method used in the first laboratory.
Remember to use the same balance for all weighing.
3. Test Result
The data acquired for the liquid limit test it given in the table below. Furthermore,
check Appendix III.
Trial
1
2
3
4
No. of Drops
18
22
27
30
Moisture
Content %
35%
27%
22%
20%
Mass of Soil
(wet) (g)
Mass of Soil
Trial
No. of Drops
container (g)
(oven dried),
g
25
26
27
28
24
25
26
27
4. Analysis
If either the liquid limit or plastic limit cannot be determined, the plasticity index
cannot be computed and should be reported as “NP” (indicating sample is
nonplastic). The plasticity index should also be reported as “NP” if the plastic
limit turns out to be greater than or equal to the liquid limit. For very sandy soil,
the plastic limit test should be performed before the liquid limit test; if it cannot be
determined, both the liquid and the plastic limit should be reported as “NP”.
Note: The Excel spreadsheets do the PL and LL calculations and plot the graphs
for the sample as the lab technician enters the weights and number of blows
obtained from each test.
Liquid Limit, LL
Plot the relationship between the water content and the corresponding number of
drops of the cup on a semi-logarithmic graph with the water content ordinates on
the arithmetical scale, and the number of drops as abscissas on the logarithmic
scale. Draw the best straight line through the three or more plotted points.
Obtain the water content corresponding to the intersection of the line with 25
drops on the abscissa as the liquid limit, LL, of the soil.
Plastic Limit, PL
Compute the average of the water contents obtained from the two plastic limit
tests. The plastic limit, PL, is the average of the two water contents.
Plasticity Index, PI
The plasticity index is determined by subtracting the plastic limit from the liquid
limit. In equation form, PI = LL – PL.
5. Discussion
Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil.
Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid,
semi-solid, plastic, and liquid. In each state the consistency, behavior, and
properties of the soil are completely different. The boundary between these states
can be defined using the change in behavior of the soil. The Atterberg limits are
commonly used to distinguish between silts and clays, and also types of silts and
clays. Atterberg limits like the liquid limit, the plastic limit and the plasticity
index of soils are also used widely, either individually or together, with other soil
properties to correlate with engineering behavior such as compressibility,
permeability, shrink swell, shear strength, and compaction.
The liquid limit (LL) is defined as the water content at which the separation of soil
in a standard cup which is cut by a groove of standard dimensions will flow
together at the base of the groove for a distance of 13 mm when subjected to 25
drops of the liquid limit device. In nature, this describes the change of state of a
clayey soil from plastic to liquid. Liquid limit of soil is a very important property
of fine grained soil or cohesive soil, its value is used to classify fine grained soil.
It also gives information regarding the state of consistency of soil on site. Liquid
limit of soil can also be used to predict the consolidation properties of soil while
calculating allowable bearing capacity and settlement of foundation. Also, liquid
limit value of soil is also used to calculate activity of clays and toughness index of
soil.
The plastic limit (PL) is determined by rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a
soil on a flat, non-porous surface. If the soil is at moisture content where its
behavior is plastic, this thread will retain its shape down to a very narrow
diameter. The sample can then be remolded and the test repeated. As the moisture
content falls due to evaporation, the thread will begin to break apart at larger
diameters. The plastic limit is defined as the moisture content where the thread
breaks apart at a diameter of 3.2 mm. A soil is considered non-plastic if a thread
cannot be rolled out down to 3.2 mm at any moisture. Plastic limit is also the
lower limit of the plastic state. Thus, a small increase in moisture above the plastic
limit destroys cohesion of the soil.
Table 5 shows the typical values of liquid and plastic limits of soils in the
laboratory.
Soil type
Liquid limit
Plastic Limit
Sands
20
0
Silts
27
20
Clays
100
45
Colloidal clays
399
46
Table 5. Common values of liquid and plastic limits of common soils
Plasticity index is an important parameter that can be used to classify soil. Soils
that have high plasticity index are considered to tend to clay. Adding even modest
quantities of water to such soils may cause unusually large and frequent slope
failures.
If this value is in lower range the soil tend to silt. In case of zero value, soil are
considered to have little or no clay and silt and called non-plastic soil. A low
plasticity index is indicative to have high organic matter in soil. Soil plasticity is
also a field indicator of slope stability. The engineering concept of soil plasticity
has evolved to explain why some soils are more failure prone than others. Graph 2
shows the plasticity chart for USCS, in which will be used to classify the type of
soil sample in the experiment.
6. Conclusion
As moisture contents increase, clay and silt soils go through four distinct states of
consistency: solid, semi-solid, plastic, and liquid. Each stage exhibits significant
differences in strength, consistency, and behavior. Atterberg limit tests accurately
define the boundaries between these states using moisture contents at the points
where the physical changes occur. The test values and derived indexes have direct
applications in the foundation design of structures and in predicting the behavior
of soil infills, embankments, and pavements. The values assess shear strength,
estimate permeability, forecast settlement, and identify potentially expansive soils.
7. References
•
geoengineer.org
(www.geoengineer.org/education/laboratory-testing/atterberg-limits)
•
sciencedirect.com
(www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/atterberg-limit)
•
dot.ny.gov
(www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-servicesrepository/GTM-7b.pdf)
•
Principles of Geotechnical Engineering - Eighth Edition, SI Book
7. Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Lab data sheet signed by all members in team4,
Lab 2:
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit
N
18
22
27
30
Plastic Limit Experiment
Weight of Sample Before Oven
(g)
25
26
27
28
Liquid Limit Experiment
Moisture Content %
35%
27%
22%
20%
Weight of Sample After (24 hr) Oven
(g)
24
25
26
27
Ibrahim Mohamed.... ……………………signed…………………
Mohammed Shindi… ……………………… signed ………………
Ibrahiem bin Hussien ………………………… signed …………...
Ammar Mohammed Alahmadi ………………… signed ………...
Ahmed Sobhy Abdelbar ………………………… signed ………..
Feras al-saadi ……………………………………… signed ………