UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM

SCHOOL OF MINES AND GEOSCIENCES (SoMG)

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING ENGINEERING

MN 350: MINING ENGINEERING LAB 2

LABORATORY REPORT ON PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT

STUDENT’S NAME: ANTHONY, DAVID LOTH

REGISTRATION NO: 2021-04-00443

DEGREE PROGRAMME: B.Sc. IN MINING ENGINEERING

GROUP NO: III

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2024/2025.

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 0/12/2024

SUPERVISOR: ENG. DEO SAFARI

Assessment Neatness and layout

Lab report
Total marks:
ABSTRACT

This experiment was conducted to determine the particle size distribution of a given soil sample
through sieve analysis. A total of 3988 grams of the sand sample was weighed and added to a
stack of sieves arranged in decreasing particle sizes of 38.1 mm, 19 mm, 9.5 mm, 4.75 mm, 2.36
mm, 1.18 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.3 mm, 0.15 mm, 0.075 mm, and a pan. The sieving process was carried
out for 20 minutes.

Theoretical principles were applied to quantify key parameters used in analyzing the soil
sample's size distribution. The data collected was represented graphically, and the particle size
distribution curve was plotted. This curve was used to determine the coefficient of gradation and
coefficient of uniformity for the soil sample.

From the particle size distribution curve, it was observed that the median particle size (P50) was
0.124 mm, indicating that 50% of the soil sample passed through a sieve with a 0.124 mm mesh
size. The analysis revealed that the soil particle size of 4.75 mm met the requirements for
construction purposes based on Indian standards.

The experiment recommended extending the sieving time to ensure more accurate results and
thoroughly drying the sample to eliminate the effects of moisture content. These measures will
improve the reliability of sieve analysis for similar soil samples.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................5
THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES............................................................................................................................6
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND APPARATUS............................................................................................8
PROCEDURE.............................................................................................................................................8
APPARATUS..............................................................................................................................................9
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................10
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULT............................................................................11
DATA PRESENTATION..............................................................................................................................11
DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULT................................................................................................................14
SOURCE OF ERROR AND WAY TO MINIMIZE..............................................................................................14
SOURCES OF ERROR...............................................................................................................................14
WAYS TO REDUCE ERRORS.....................................................................................................................15
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION.......................................................................................................15
CONCLUSION Based on the experiment conducted, the following conclusions were made:.................15
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................................15
References.................................................................................................................................................16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: sieves............................................................................................................................................8
Figure 2: sieves............................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3: pan................................................................................................................................................9
Figure 4: sieves shaker................................................................................................................................9
Figure 5: show the percentage pass vs. sieves size in (mm)......................................................................11
Figure 7: show the relationship between sand of 4.75 mm size with limit in zone two.............................13
INTRODUCTION

Sieve analysis is a widely used method for particle size analysis, particularly for finer particle
sizes, using test sieves. The procedure involves separating a sample into closely sized fractions
by passing it through a series of sieves and determining the weight percentage of each fraction.
This method is crucial in mineral processing, as the energy required for particle size reduction
depends on the particle size. Additionally, the particle size influences the selection of size
reduction equipment, beneficiation equipment, and other processing equipment (Rao, 2016).

In this experiment, particle size analysis of a given soil sample was performed using sieves of
varying aperture sizes, arranged in descending order from the coarsest to the finest mesh size.
The sieve cloth, made of wire, was used to hold the material. A known weight of the soil sample
was poured into the sieve stack, vibrated for 20 minutes, and the size distribution of the soil
retained on each sieve was recorded as fractions (percentage by weight). Soil textural classes,
such as loam, clay loam, and sandy loam, can be estimated based on particle size and distribution
using sieve and sedimentation analysis.

Particle size analysis is essential in various engineering fields, such as mineral processing and
civil engineering, for the following reasons:

1. Removing oversize materials before sending them to subsequent processing units.

2. Removing undersize materials before sending them to units designed for larger particles.
3. Grading materials into uniform size categories.
4. Preparing closely sized materials for the feed of the next processing operation.

In this analysis, the sieve stack was arranged with the coarsest sieve at the top, progressively
finer sieves below, and a pan at the bottom to collect the smallest particles. The material to be
analyzed was placed on the top sieve, covered with a lid to prevent material loss, and subjected
to a vibration mechanism. The percentage by weight of the sample retained and passing through
each mesh size was determined. This data facilitated the classification of the soil sample into
various soil types based on particle size distribution.
THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES
The particles size analysis test is performed to determine the percentage of each size of particles
that is contained within a soil sample, and the results of the test can be used to produce the grain
size distribution curve. (Tayeh, 2014) Asses that the soil sample can be analyzed by using two
method which include sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis

a) Sieve analysis: the method is used for particles size lager than 0.075mm in diameter, involve
shaking of soil sample through a set of sieves that have progressively smaller openings.

b) Hydrometer analysis: is the method used for analysis of particle sizes smaller than0.075mm
in diameter.

After analysis of the soil samples the data are represented in the graph called particle size
distribution curve and there are parameter to determine from the particle size distribution curve
which are

• Effective size (D10) this is the diameter of particle – size distribution curve
corresponding to 10% finer. It is good to estimate the hydraulic conductivity and drainage
through granular soil
• Uniformity coefficient(CU): is the ratio of diameter of particle corresponding to 60%
(D60) and that of effective size (D10)
Cu=D60/D10 ………………………………………………………………….i
• Coefficient of gradation (Cc): this parameter help to determine the quality, and
performance of the particular aggregate. It is expressed as follow
Cc = D230/ (D60 X D10) ……………………………............................ii

The particle size distribution analysis help to determine the texture and types of soil present in
the given sample depending on the size distributed through each sieves. Also according to
(Frederick K. Lutgens, 2012) Particle size is the primary basis for distinguishing among various
detrital sedimentary rocks. The table below presents the size categories for making up detrital
rocks. Particle size is the one of the method of classifying the soil types that make different
sedimentary rocks, the sizes of the component grains also provide useful information 3 about
environments of deposition. Currents of Common detrital sedimentary rocks, in order of
increasing particle size, are shale, sandstone, and conglomerate or breccia. Consider the table
below show size and name of the soil

Table1: soil classification according to particles size

Particle size in Particles name

(mm)
2–4 Granule
1/16–2 sand
1/256–1/16 silt

<1/256 clay

The following are some of principle used during sieve analysis experiment those include

• The sieve used should be of same bland in order to overcome sample loss during sieving

• Sieves arranged in descending order

• The ratio in size from top sieve to bottom sieve should have a value of √2

Size of top sieve𝑒 /size of bottom sieve = √2 ………………………………………. iii

• The allowable percentage loss of analyzed sample should be not greater than 1.0%

(Mass of given sample − mass of collected /sample 𝑚ass of a given sample) × 100% ≤ 1.0… iv

The other formula which was used in this experiments are

Fraction weight % = (weight retained in respective sieve/ total weight of sample) X 100……..v

Cumulative % undersize = ((total weight of sample − weight retained) /total weight of sample
before sieving) 𝑋 100% … … … . . vi

Cumulative % oversize = 100% − Cumulative% undersize………………………vii

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND APPARATUS
PROCEDURE
The experiment was conducted by following procedure below

• The sieves was arranged in stack with the coarsest sieve on the top and the finest at the
bottom
• 250g of sample to be tasted was placed in the coarsest sieve and the nest in a sieve and
shaker
• Pan was tightly fitted below the finest sieve and that a lid is placed on the top of the
coarsest sieve to prevent samples loses.
• The sample was shacked for 20 minutes to obtain the oversize and undersize of each
sieve
• The nest was taken apart and the particles which was block the openings was removed by
inverting the sieve gently.
• material on each sieves was weighted and the fractional percentage of each weighted
samples was obtained

APPARATUS
I. Sieves
This is one of the apparatus used in this experiment and mainly used to distribute the
particles of given soil sample into several classes depending on the size of particles.

Figure 1: sieves
 II. Pan

This was a tool kept below the finest sieve to hold the remaining sample which
was not contained in any of the sieves. As show in figure 2. Below.

Figure 2: pan
III. Lid

This was a vessel which was placed on top of the upper sieve in a stack to prevent
sample losses during shaking in a sieve shaker, it was steel made.

IV. Sieve shaker

This is machine used to generate vibration in order to initiate shaking of sample in

each sieves

Figure 3: sieves shaker

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The data was collected in laboratory by weighing the sample of sand (kg.) distributed into
different particles size in mm, the sieve of 0.075mm mesh size to 38.1mm was arranged from
coarsest to finest size as shown in table. The analysis of sample was conducted by obtain the
weight of sample retained in each sieves, percentage by weight of undersize and oversize of any
sieves

Sample cumulativ
weight Percentage Nominal e % Cumulative %
(kg.) weight % aperture undersize oversize
0 0.00 38.1 100 0
0 0.00 19 100 0
0.049 1.57 9.5 98 2
0.121 2.30 4.75 96 4
0.197 2.43 2.36 94 6
0.419 7.10 1.18 87 13
1.158 23.64 0.6 63 37
2.548 44.47 0.3 18 82
3.116 18.17 0.15 3 97
3.126 0.32 0.075 0 100

Fitness modulus = total percentage from 0.15 to 38.1 / 100%.

= 99.68/100
= 0.997
There different sieve standard used such as American Standards for Testing and Materials,
British Standard Sieves, BSS 410-2000, French Series, German Standard, DIN (Deutsches
Institut fur Normung) 3310-1: 2000 and, Indian Standard (IS) sieves, however, follow a different
type of designation. For an IS sieve, the mesh number is equal to its aperture size expressed to
the nearest deca-micron (0.01mm). In our experiment Indian standard sieves was used.
Table 2: show the Indian standard sieves

Zone one Zone two Zone three

from to from to from to
100 100 100
90 100 90 100 90 100
60 95 75 100 85 100
30 70 55 90 75 100
15 34 33 59 60 79
5 20 8 30 12 40
0 10 0 10 0 10

DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULT

DATA PRESENTATION
The experimental data was presented in graphical form as shown in figure below

CUMULATIVE %UNDERSIZE Vs SIEVE SIZE (mm)

120

100

80
% UNDERSIZE

60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

LOG(SIEVE SIZE)

Figure 4: show the percentage pass vs. sieves size in (mm)

From the graph (figure 4) above it show the distribution of the particle of the sand sample in
various size of sieves for example from the graph, the 50% of the soil sample was passed in the
sieve of 0.124 mm mesh size.

Table 3: comparison values from zone two

s/size
mm sand GR zone 2 BS882
U/
L/L L
0.075 0 0 0
0.15 3 0 10
0.3 18 8 30
0.6 63 33 59
1.18 87 55 90
2.36 94 75 100
4.75 96 90 100
9.5 98 100 100
19 100 100 100
38.1 100 100 100

CUMULATIVE %UNDERSIZE Vs SIEVE

120
SIZE (mm)
100

80
% UNDERSIZE

sand 4.75mm
60 lower limit GR zone 2 BS882
upper limit GR zone 2 BS882
40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
LOG(SIEVE SIZE)

Figure 5: show the relationship between sand of 4.75 mm size with limit in zone two
The results obtained from the experiment were computed to obtained Value D10, D30 and D60
from figure 7 and confirmed by interpolation method that showing aperture size that will allow
10%, 30%, 50%and 60% of materials passing.

Table 4: D values from the graph

Cumulative % undersize Particle size(mm)

D10 0.22

D30 0.38

D50 0.51

D60 0.58

Then this helped to find coefficient of uniformity and gradation for classification activity as
shown below

 Gradation coefficient
2
Cc=( D 30 ) /¿).
Then coefficient of gradation was found to be 1.1317
 Uniformity coefficient
D 60
Cu=
D 10

The uniformity coefficient was found to be 2.636.

DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULT

 From the graph (figure 4) above it show the distribution of the particle of the soil sample
in various size of sieves for example from the graph, the 50% of the sand sample was
passed in the sieve of 0.124 mm mesh size. Thus the particles size distribution is very
crucial in engineering operation like civil and minerals processing operations.
 The result from table 2 computed and give the Uniformity coefficient is 2.636.
These values indicated that the sample used in whole course of the experiment was poorly
graded since has Cu value of 2.636 that is out of the range for well graded that is 4-6.
 The results also give the coefficient of degradation was found to be 1.1317.
This value doesn’t falls between 0 and 1 which indicates that the sand sample that was
used in was coarse and poorly graded
 From figure 5, the graph show that the soil of 4.75 mm was in between the lower limit
and upper limit of zone two in Indian standard sieves which means the soil is good in
construction purpose.

SOURCE OF ERROR AND WAY TO MINIMIZE.

Below are some errors encountered during the experiment and various ways take to reduce those
errors as follows;

SOURCES OF ERROR
 Poor fittings of the stack which result of sample loss
 Calibration error of the weight balance
 Moistures on the sample that result misleading on the material retained

WAYS TO REDUCE ERRORS

The following was conducted so as to minimize errors during experiment;

 Ensure well coverage of the sieve by lid during sieve analysis process so as to reduce
sample loss
 Ensure proper calibration of the weight balance before any measurement and if there is
error ensure precision throughout the experiment
 Ensure the effective drying of sample for dry sieve analysis method.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION

CONCLUSION
Based on the experiment conducted, the following conclusions were made:

i. The distribution of the sand materials was identified as poorly graded, as indicated by the
soil gradation curve.
ii. Particle size analysis is essential in engineering operations, such as construction, to
determine soil properties. It is also critical in mineral processing to ensure that
operations, such as screening and size reduction, produce the required particle sizes.
iii. The experiment demonstrated that soil with a particle size of 4.75 mm, based on the
given sample, is suitable for construction purposes according to Indian Standard sieves.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are proposed based on the findings of this experiment:

i. Ensure proper monitoring and calibration of the sieve shaker to minimize factors that
could lead to inaccurate results.
ii. Properly fit the stack to ensure the sieves are securely covered, preventing sample loss.
iii. Thoroughly dry the sample to prevent small particles from adhering to the sieve mesh,
which could impact accuracy.

References
Frederick K. Lutgens. (2012). Essantials of Geology.
Rao, D. (2016 ). Minaral and Coal Process Calculations . London New York: Taylor & Francis
Group.

Tayeh, O. A. (2014). oringin of soil and grain size.

Perry, R. (1997). Perry Chemical Engineering Hand Bok. New York.

S.K, N. (2018). Uniformity Coefficient(Cu) and Coefficient of Curvature of Soil.X