DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

CE411: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

LABORATORARY REPORT #1

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST & ATTERBERG TEST OF

SOIL SAMPLE

Name: YAWA KIMIN

ID#: 19300382
C/CODE: BECV/4
Lecturer. SHIVA
PRASHANTH KUMAR
Date:7/05/2022
 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST

INTRODUCTION

Particle size distribution Test (PSD) also known as gradation, refers to the proportions by dry
mass of a soil distributed over a specific particle size range. PSD test involves sieving of
coarse soil to determine the composition of soil particle in a soil sample and sieve analysis
helps to determine the particle size distribution of the coarse and fine aggregates. The grain
size analysis test is performed to determine the percentage of each size of grain that is
contained within a soil sample, and the results of the test can be used to produce the grain
size distribution curve. This information is used to classify the soil and to predict its behavior.
The methods generally used to find the grain size distribution is: Sieve analysis which is used
for particle sizes larger than 0.075 mm in diameter. This paper will outline and discuss the
Particle sizes distributions of the soil samples and its behavior of coarse grain soil.

OOBJECTIVES
(a)This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes
contained within a soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to
determine the distribution of the coarser, larger-sized particles.
(b)The data this test will be represented in graphical form to determine whether the soil is
coarse grained or fined -grained.
(c) From the graphical data, uniformity and gradation calculations will be performed to
determine if the so soil sample is poorly, gap or well graded.

THEORY

There are some formulas or derived formulas that are used to attain certain calculated values.
Mass retained are obtained after the soil goes through different sieve sizes. The sieve sizes
range from 0.075mm to 150mm. To obtain the individual percentage retained, simply divide
the mass retained in each sieve by the total mass retained including the mass of the pan.
Percentage finer or percentage passing is obtained by subtracting the percentage retained by
100% and then each time by the percentage retained. Cumulative % retained is the
cumulative of each retained % and same as the cumulative mass. Each of their simplified
formulas and equations are shown below;
Total mass of oven dry soil , Ms=M 1+ M 2 … equation … 1
Ms – is the total mass of the oven dry
M1 – is the total mass of the coarse grain
M2 – is the total mass of the intermediate fraction
For the fine fraction the;
 M6
% retained=mass retained x x 100 … equation … 2
M 7 xMs
M6 – is the mass of the pan for the intermediate fraction
M7 – is the total mass for the fine fraction.

Mass retained=mass that ¿ the seive

mass retained
Percentage Retained= × 100 … … … … … Equation… 3
Total mass retained
Total mass retained=∑ of the individuals mass retained … … … equation … . 4
C umulative mass retained=accumulation of each mass retained … equation … 5
cumulative percentage=stacking of percentage retained each time … equation …6

APPARATUS/EQUIPMENTS
The experiment conducted have used some of the equipment and tools that made the
experiment to be successful and have accomplished what have been desired for. Every
experiment cannot go without tools and equipment. Without them there won’t be any
practical experiments going on. Hence experiment done have used some tools and equipment.
The common equipment used are different sieve sizes, weighing machine that weighs soils
that retained from the sieves, brush to brush off the retained soil that stick to the sieve so that
correct mass of the soil can be fall to the tray for weighing and also a mallet to hit on the
sieve to shake off the soil, and a sample splitter which splits the mass of the soil that remain
from the tray after the intermediate test was made.
This equipment and tools as explained above are listed below:
 Different sieve sizes (quantities – 15)
 Weighing machine (quantities – 1)
 Mullet hammer (quantities – 1)
 Brush (quantities – 1)
 Sample Splitter
 Density Bottle
 MOULD
 Plastic bags
 Cups of containers of different sizes
 Rammer
 Shrinkage mould

Some of the picture of the mentioned apparatus /equipment’s are given in figure 1.
below.
Figure 1. Different sieving instruments /equipment’s.

PROCUDURES
The standard procedure AS 1289.3.6.1.2009. given in the lab. sheet was used to conduct the
experiment.
There are various procedures being taken when going through the lab practical. Actually,
there were two different tests that have been done.
The approach taken to accomplish the soil sample was quite simple but is very important as
particle size influences how fast or slow water or other fluid moves through a soil. This
would help the engineers and agricultural to classify soil.
Therefore, there are approach and procedures taken to do the experiment. Firstly, all that have
mentioned above meaning the equipment and the soil sample were thoroughly checked to see
that they all available and function properly. After the check done, the sieve sizes were
stacked starting with the pan to 0.075mm to 53mm. Secondly, the soil sample was poured
into the top stacked sieve. The soil particles dropped down from the top to the next and all the
way to the bottom. The fines dropped all the way to the pan. The sieve captured the particles
depending on the diameter of the soil. To make sure that the right amount of the mass
retained, the stacked sieve was shake thoroughly for some minutes. After this, each sieve
sizes were removed and the amount of soil remain in the sieve was then taken and weighed.
The weight of the amount measured is called the retained mass. The amount of soil remain
was poured into a tray and then was laid on the weighing machine and was weighed. To
thoroughly the soil particles from the sieve mullet hammer and brush were used. These were
all done to obtain the retained mass which from these percentage retained and the percentage
passing can be determined. Finally, all the equipment and the tools used were collected and
reset to their initial positions and stages before leaving the laboratory.
Precautions
- Following safety and lab instructor instructions and procedure are vital for the lab to
be accomplished in a successful way.
- Wear safety gears before conducting the experiments to avoid accidents and
unexpected faults in the lab.
- Always listen to the lab instructor when he or she gives instructions.
- Follow up with time to get the experiments accomplished on time.

RESULTS
The total oven dry mass of the sample used is 2531 grams. There were three sieving being
done; Coarse Fraction sieving, Intermediate Fraction and Fine fraction. After intermediate
fraction, the mass retained on the pan is 1160g which is greater than 500g so sample splitter
was used to split into half and further half to 250g. and so for fine fraction this mass is used
to do the sieving. The lab.sheet is given in Appendix B
The table 1.0 below. presented the different sieve sizes, the recorded mass with their
calculated percentage mass retained, cumulative mass retained and the percentage passing.
 Table 1.0. values for coarse, intermediate and fine fraction of soil sample
Coarse Grain Fraction
Seive Size(mm) Mass Retained(g) % retained
Cumulative % retained
% passing
150 - - - - Total mass, Ms(g) = M1 + M4
75 - - - - Ms(g) 2531
63 - - - -
53 - 0 0 100
37.5 134 5.29 5.29 94.71
26.5 289 11.42 16.71 83.29
Total m1(g) 423 - -

INTERMEDIATE FRACTION
Seive Size(mm) Mass Retained(g) % retained
Cumulative % retained
% passing
19 321 12.68 29.40 70.60
13.2 230 9.09 38.48 61.52
9.6 158 6.24 44.73 55.27
6.7 135 5.33 50.06 49.94
4.75 104 4.11 54.17 45.83
Pan(m6) 1160 45.83 100.00 0.00
Total(g) 2108

FINE FRACTION
Fine Fraction Calculation
Seive Size(mm) Mass Retained(g) % retained
cumulative % retained
% passing Total Mass for fine Fraction,M7 168.2
2.36 41 6.64 60.81 39.19 % retained =( mass retained *M6*100)/(Ms*M7)
1.18 42 6.80 67.61 32.39
600µm 60 9.72 77.33 22.67
425µm 38 6.15 83.48 16.52
300µm 32 5.18 88.66 11.34
150µm 43 6.96 95.63 4.37
75µm 20 3.24 98.87 1.13
Pan 7 1.13 100.00 0.00
Total(g),M7 283
168.2
Table 1. Showing the results of the calculated values of mass, percentage and cumulative
retained and percentage passing of the sample.
Seive Size(mm) Mass Retained(g) % retained Cumulative % retained% passing
150.00 - - - -
75.00 - - - -
63.00 - - - -
53.00 - 0.00 0.00 100.00
37.50 134.00 5.29 5.29 94.71
26.50 289.00 11.42 16.71 83.29
19.00 321.00 12.68 29.40 70.60
13.20 230.00 9.09 38.48 61.52
9.60 158.00 6.24 44.73 55.27
6.70 135.00 5.33 50.06 49.94
4.75 104.00 4.11 54.17 45.83
2.36 41.00 6.64 60.81 39.19
1.18 42.00 6.80 67.61 32.39
600µm 60.00 9.72 77.33 22.67
425µm 38.00 6.15 83.48 16.52
300µm 32.00 5.18 88.66 11.34
150µm 43.00 6.96 95.63 4.37
75µm 20.00 3.24 98.87 1.13
Pan 7.00 1.13 100.00 0.00
TOTAL 1654.00 100.00

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRBUTION CHART

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE OR

GRADATION CURVE

120

100

80
% PASSING

60

40

20

0
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)

Figure 2. The graph of the particle size distribution test (gradation curve)
From the figure 2. above which shows the Particle size distribution curve, ehe particle size
distribution curve (gradation curve) is a graph of percent of particles finer than a given sieve
size (not the % retained) as the y-axis against the logarithmic scale for particle size.

DISCUSSION

Throughout the observation of the results, the table 1.0 and table 2.0 present all the
experimental data and calculated data which were clearly highlighted in different colors as
presented. From the tabulated results the Percentage passing and sieve sizes(mm) are used to
sketch the Particle size distribution curve, figure 2.0 which will be using to identify the type
of soils for better engineering and agriculture purposes. Particle size analysis is widely used
in classification of soils. The data acquired from particle size distribution curves is used in the
design of filters for earth dams and to determine suitability of soil for road construction, air
field, and others. Also, information obtained from particle size analysis is useful in describing
the permeability, compaction, and other properties of soils.
The experiment performed focuses on generating the particle size distribution of the
soil sample. The generated particle size distribution graph is used in a lot of ways
such as identifying the grading of the soil and the percentage of coarse materials and
the fines. However, the technical fault faced is with the result published above. The graphed
is quite massive as the horizontal scale was not called properly. The fault was with the MS
excel used. It couldn’t scale to logarithmic scale and that is why the graph is like that. It
would look better if the horizontal scale is scale to logarithmic scale. All in all, the laboratory
experiment was carried out successfully and the test objective archived.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the objectives of the experiment are achieved. The particle size and size
distribution of the soil sample are successfully determined using sieving method According to
the experiment the soil is medium coarse grain and is good for construction purposes.
REFERENCE
1.https://www.ktu.edu.tr/dosyalar/maden_630ac.pdf1.
2. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/university-of-wollongong-in-dubai/
construction-of-materials/lab-report-1-particle-size-analysis-of-s/7777368
3. https://www.academia.edu/28124221/Lab_Report_1_Particle_Size_Analysis_of_Soils
 ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST
INTRODUCTION
The Atterberg limits are the 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 and behavior of the soil is different and thus are its engineering
properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based on a change in the
soil’s behavior. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it
can distinguish between different types of silts and clays. The water contents at which the soil
changes from one state to another are known as consistency limits or Atterberg’s limits. The
five limits include:
1. Liquid Limit (LL, WL): It is the water content at which the soil on a verge (border) to
become viscous fluid.
2. Plastic Limit (PL, WP): It is the water content at which the soil just fails to behave
plastically.
3. Shrinkage Limit (SL, WS): It is the water content at which the soil stops shrinking
further and attains a constant volume.
4. Sticky Limit: It is that moisture content which soil crumbles just stick together.
5. Cohesion Limit: It is that moisture content which soil just sticks metal surface such
as spatula blade.
 These limits were created by Albert Atterberg, a Swedish chemist. They were later refined
by Arthur Casagrande. This paper will outline and discuss the different Atterberg limits and
make conclusions of given soil samples.
AIM
To determine the liquid and plastic limits of the given soil samples.
THEORY
The definitions of the consistency limits produced by Atterberg are not by themselves,
adequate for the determination of the numerical values in the laboratory, especially in view of
the arbitrary nature of these definitions. In view of these, Arthur Casagrande and others
suggested more practical definitions with special reference to the laboratory devices and
methods developed for the purpose of the determination of the consistency limits. In this sub-
section, the laboratory methods of determination of the liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage
limit and other related concepts and indices will be studied, as standardized and accepted by
the Indian Standard Institution and incorporated in the codes or practice.
APPARATUS:
1. FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
The apparatus required are the mechanical liquid limit device, grooving tool, porcelain
evaporating dish, glass plate, spatula knives, balance, oven wash bottle with distilled
water and containers.

Figure1.0. Liquid limit apparatus.

2. FOR PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION

The apparatus consists of a porcelain evaporating dish, about 12cm in diameter (or a glass
plae,10 mm thick and about 45 cm square ),spatula, about 8cm long and 2cm wide (or
palette knives, with the blade about 20cm long and 3cm wide, for use with flat plate for
mixing soil and water),aground-glass plate, about 20x15cm,for a surface for
rolling ,balance,oven,containers and a rod,3mm in diameter and about 10 cm long.

Figure 2.0. plastic limit apparatus

PROCEDURE
The standard procedures AS1289 C1.1, C2.1, C3.1, C4.1 -1997 for Atterberg limits was
used for the Atterberg experiment.
Liquid Limit:
(1) Take roughly 3/4 of the soil and place it into the porcelain dish.
Assume that the soil was previously passed though 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 secondd.
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
centre 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 containing the soil, record it. Immediately weigh the
moisture can 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.
(9) 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 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
Analysis: Liquid Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the liquid limit moisture cans
after they have been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Plot the number of drops, N, (on the log scale) versus the water
content (w). Draw the best-fit straight line through the plotted points
and determine the liquid limit (LL) as the water content at 25 drops.
Plastic Limit:
(1) Calculate the water content of each of the plastic limit moisture cans
after they have been in the oven for at least 16 hours.
(2) Compute the average of the water contents to determine the plastic
limit, PL. Check to see if the difference between the water contents is
greater than the acceptable range of two results (2.6 %).
(3) Calculate the plasticity index, PI=LL-PL.
Report the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index to the nearest
whole number, omitting the percent designation.
RESULTS
The table 1.0 below presents the laboratory results and calculated plastic limit with its
average value. The result sheet of the experiment is given in Appendix B.
Table 1.0.
No. of blows 37 30 23 16 PL PL N.M.C
Container number 27 11 50 14 88 74
Mass of wet soil & 12.7 13.7 13.8 13.9 21.3 21.1
container
(g)
Mas of dry soil & 11.9 12.6 12.7 12.6 20.6 20.3
container (
g)
Mass of container 10.0 10.1 10.5 10.1 18.4 18.1
(g)
Mass of water 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.8
 (g)
Mass of dry soil 1.9 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.2
(g)
Moisture content 42.10 44% 50% 52% 31.8 36.3
(%)

Average value = 33.5

 The graph of the number of blows against the moisture content to determine the
plastic limit, liquid limit and plastic index are given in figure 4 below.

Figure 4. LIQUID LIMIT CHART

From the above graph (figure 4.0) the Liquid Limit (WL) = 48
Final Results
Liquid Limit (WL) =48
Plastic Limit (wp)=33.5
Plastic Index (IP) = 48 -33.5 =14.5

ANALYSIS AND 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.
From the data analysis the the liquid limit (LL) is 48 and 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 or wPL) calculated is 33.5 from the data analysis and is the water
content at which a soil changes from the plastic state to a semisolid state. The Plastic limit
test is performed by repeated rolling of an ellipsoidal-sized soil mass by hand on a non-
porous surface. Casagrande defined the plastic limit as the water content at which a thread of
soil just crumbles when it is carefully rolled out to a diameter of 3 mm (1/8”). If the thread
crumbles at diameter smaller than 3 mm, the soil is too wet. If the thread crumbles at a
diameter greater than 3 mm, the soil is drier than the plastic limit. However, the procedures
followed carefully and the experiment has been successfully completed.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, the values of the liquid limit, plastic limit and plastic index has been determined
successfully which means the experiment achieve its purpose. The Liquid Limit (LL) results
shows that the moisture content at which a fine-grained soil no longer flows like a liquid and
The Plastic Limit (PL) value shows that is the moisture content at which a fine-grained soil
can no longer be remolded without cracking.
 REFERENCE
1.https://uomustansiriyah.edu.iq/media/lectures/5/5_2018_03_06!05_05_48_PM.pdf
2. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-services-
repository/GTM-7b.pdf
3. https://uomustansiriyah.edu.iq/media/lectures/5/5_2018_03_06!05_05_48_PM.pdf
4. https://www.slideshare.net/malithwijaya1/atterberg-limits-test
APPENDIX A

Particle size Distribution Lab sheet.

APPENDIX B

ATTERBERG LIMIT RESULTS OF LAB SHEEP.

THE END.