. -.

TECHNICAL NOTE

Jean-Pierre Bardet und Julie Young

Grain-Size Analysis by Buoyancy Method

REFERENCE: Bardet, J.-E? and Young, J., Grain-Size Analysis by BuoyancyMethod, Georechnicaf TesringJournal, GTJODJ, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1997, pp. 481-485. ABSTRACT: A new routine experiment referred to as buoyancy analysis is proposed to determine the grain-size distribution of tine-grained soils. The buoyancy analysis is based on the sedimentation principles of the hydrometer and pipette analyses. It determines the percent by weight finer than a given grain size by measuring the buoyant weight of a 2.5cm-diameter sphere immersed in the soil suspension. The buoyancy analysis is slightly more accurate than the hydrometer analysis, has a shorter duration, and its readings can be fed directly into a computer. It yields results identical to those of the hydrometer analysis when the sphere is immersed within the depth range of the hydrometer bulb. KEYWORDS: sedimentation, particle size, buoyancy, grain-size dis-

(Allen 1990, 1992). However, these methods require a sophisticated experimental setup and are rarely used as routine tests for characterizing soils. This paper proposes a routine test for obtaining the grain-size distribution of fine-granted soils. This method. which determines the density of the soil suspension by measuring its buoyant weight, is referred to as buoyancy analysis.

Experimental Setup
Figure 1 shows the experimental setup for the buoyancy analysis. In the sedimentation cylinder, 1 L of soil suspension is prepared
Scale

tribution, soil testing In geotechnical engineering, the grain-size distribution of finegrained soils is usually determined by performing routine tests such as the hydrometer (Weatherly 1929; ASTM 1995) and pipette (BS 1975; Head 1984) analyses. Both analyses assume that the sedimentation process of small soil particles follows Stokes law (Stokes 1891), and that the soil particles fall under their own weight as non-interacting spheres (Bardet 1997). The hydrometer analysis typically lasts at least 24 h and requires the calibration of the hydrometer and corrections for temperature variation, meniscus, and dispersing agent. The pipette analysis, which is based on the same physical principle as the hydrometer analysis, is about twice as fast because the sedimentation distance can be reduced, but requires additional experimental care, especially when drawing the soil samples and emptying the pipette contents. Some refinements of the pipette analysis were proposed by Moshrefi (1993) to minimize the disturbance of the sedimentation process. The practical shortcomings of both hydrometer and pipette analyses are numerous experimental steps and manual readings, which are difftcult to feed automatically into computers. Such shortcomings prompted Zhang and Tumay (1995) to computerize granulometric analysis by measuring suspension pressure. There are other methods besides hydrometer and pipette analyses for obtaining the grain-size distribution of fine-grained soils. These include the sedimentation balance method, photo-sedimentation, X-ray sedimentation, and centrifugal sedimentation techniques
Professor and research assistant, respectively, Civil Engineering Department, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-253 1.
@ 1997 by the American Society for Testing and Materials

R Sedimentation cylinder

FIG. l-Equipment

for buoyancy analysis.

482

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL

with demineralized water and dispersing agent as recommended for the hydrometer analysis (ASTM (D 422) 1995). The sphere is attached to a thin nylon line and a light frame that rests on the platen of a sensitive scale. The scale, with an accuracy of 1 mg, has a support with about 60 cm of clearance beneath it. A scale with digital output is required for computer data acquisition of the experimental reading. The sphere is made of solid Teflon. It has a smooth surface to prevent soil particles from adhering to it. Its diameter was selected to be 2.5 cm so that it tits easily into the sedimentation cylinder without disturbing the sedimentation process. The sphere volume is 8.54 cm3, which is slightly smaller than the pipette volume (i.e., 10 cm3) but quite smaller than the ASTM 152 H hydrometer bulb (i.e., 67 cm3). Teflon spheres were selected due to their appropriate density, commercial availability, chemical resistance, and smooth surface. It is probable that other plastic or resin materials would work as well. The sphere is attached to the nylon line by a point of rapid glue. The frame supporting the sphere is light so that the total weight of the sphere, frame, and line (about 20 g) does not exceed the scale range. All the materials and equipment in Fig. 1 are readily available from laboratory and hardware suppliers and can easily be assembled, as shown in Fig. 1.
Principle The buoyancy analysis invokes Stokes law (Stokes 1891) to define the particle size in the same way as the hydrometer and pipette analyses. The particle diameter D (mm) is (Bardet 1997):

by immersing the sphere in a cylinder filled with water and in a cylinder filled with a mixture of water and dispersing agent similar to that used for the soil suspension: Pr = (M, -

MJV

and

V= (iii, - &J/p,,,

(5)

where M, is the mass recorded for the sphere immersed in dispersing agent solution (Fig. 2~). and M,,, mass recorded for the the sphere immersed in water (Fig. 26). The unit mass of water pw at the test temperature can be determined from physical property tables (McGraw-Hill 1928). After using Eqs 4 and 5, E.q 3 becomes Pw '=<(G,Experimental Procedure

GA% - MA x loo(9b) 1Wfa GA,, + W -

(6)

The experimental procedure consists of preparing the soil suspension with demineralized water and dispersing agent as recommended in the hydrometer analysis (ASTM D 422-63). The demineralized water used in the test should be at ambient temperature. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the masses M,, M,, h4, and M, can be measured as follows: 1. After the sphere has been cleaned and dried, the mass M, of the sphere suspended in the air (Fig. 2u) is measmed, and the ambient temperature T, is recorded. There should be no air circulation around the sensitive scale to prevent its readout from fluctuating. 2. The sphere is immersed in the cylinder filled with demineralized water, and the mass M,,, 26) and water temperature T, (Fig. are measured. 3. The sphere is immersed in the cylinder filled with demineralized water and dispersing agent, and the mass h4, (Fig. 2c) and solution temperature T,are measured. The temperatures T,, T, and T, should be similar. 4. The sphere is slowly immersed in the soil suspension to a given depth, and the mass M, (Fig. 2d) is measured 0.5. 1. 2, 4, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 min after the beginning of the sedimentation process. For a lO-cm depth, this time series covets the range 1 to 75 pm of grain sizes for most soils. The time r and depth H of sampling can also be selected by using Eq 1 to cover a desired range of grain size. The sphere can be left in the suspension for the readings within 5 min. but should removed, cleaned, and reinserted at each subsequent measurement to remain free of soil particles. As shown in Fig. 2, a small knot can be tied in the nylon line to obtain repeatable sampling depth. 5. After each measurement of Mh the water temperature T, is also measured. It should not vary excessively during the experiment in order to minimize the effect of temperature on the sedimentation process and buoyancy measurement. If T, is largely different from T,, and T,, M,, M,,,, M, must be measured again at T,, then and temperature T,.

(1) where t is the time (min) after the beginning of sedimentation, G, is the specific gravity of soil particles, pw the unit mass of water (g/cm3) at temperature T,, and q the viscosity of water (g/cm/s) at temperature TP The corrected depth HR (cm) accounts for the rise in water level when the sphere is immersed in the sedimentation cylinder of finite size:

HR=H-;

(2)

where H is the distance between the free surface and the sphere center, A the cross-sectional area of the sedimentation cylinder, and V the sphere volume. When the suspension is initially uniform, the percent

p =

Fv x 0

loo(%)

where MI is the mass of soil particles in volume V at depth H at time r, and Co the initial mass of oven-dry soil per unit volume of suspension. As illustrated in Fig. 2, M: can be determined as follows:

MC2

Ermr Analysis

(4)

where pr is the unit mass of dispersing solution made of demineralized water and dispersing agent. As defined in Fig. 2, M, is the mass recorded when the sphere is immersed in soil suspension at time t, and Ma is the mass recorded when the sphere is suspended in air. The unit mass pr and sphere volume V can be determined

In the buoyancy analysis, the absolute error of the percent finer p can be calculated from Eq 6:

loo(%)

(7)

BARDET AND YOUNG ON BUOYANCYMETHOD

483

Mr

Mt

(a)
FIG. 2-Definition

(4

of masses M,, M,. M, and M,, and corwcred sampling akpth Ha.

where AM is the absolute error in measuring M,, M,,M,,and Mh which is equal to the scale accuracy (i.e., AM = 1 mg). AM may become larger when the scale readout fluctuates due to an excessive circulation of air around the scale and hanging frame. Equation 7 implies that Ap is directly proportional to bM, is minimum when Mt = M,, and slightly increases when MIdecreases. In order to minimize Ap, V must be selected as large as possible. However, it must small enough for the sphere to go into the sedimentation cylinder without disturbing the sedimentation process. A 2.5-cm-diameter sphere was found to be convenient for the typical 6-cm-diameter sedimentation cylinder. Equation 7 also implies that the selection of the sphere density does not influence the experimental error and is to be selected based on the scale range and maximum suspension density. For the following typical values: G, = 2.67, pr = 1000 g/L, p,,, = 997 g/L, Co = 50 g& V = 8.54 cm3, hM = 1 mg, Ap was found to vary from 50.7s to 20.8% when the concentration of soil suspension decreases from Cu to 0 g/L. In the hydrometer analysis, the percent finer p is (Bardet 1997):
P +6+(~,-c~+c~+m)~100(%)

Experimental Results
Figure 3 shows the grain-size distribution curves obtained from buoyancy analysis for four different fine-granted soils ranging from silt to clay and compares the results of buoyancy and hydrometer analyses. The sphere was immersed to a depth of 8 to 10 cm, which is comparable to that of the l52H hydrometer bulb (i.e., 8 to 14 cm). The total depth of sedimentation is 36 cm. As shown in Fig. 3, the grain-size distribution curves from the buoyancy and hydrometer analyses are in good agreement. Figure 4 shows the effects of sampling depth on the results of buoyancy analysis for a clay and a silt. Three sampling depths between 7 and 35 cm were selected. The sphere was immersed very slowly to minimize the disturbance of the ongoing sedimentation process. At the specified measurement times, the sphere was successively positioned at the three sampling depths without any specific order to avoid a systematic drift in the readings. The influences of sample preparation and temperature are ruled out because the same suspension is used. As shown in Fig. 4, the results of hydrometer analysis and those of buoyancy analyses at various depths are close for grain sizes larger than 5 p.m, but may become significantly different for particles smaller than 5 p.m. When the sphere is immersed to depths comparable to those of the hydrometer buJb, the results of buoyancy and hydrometer analyses remain in good agreement over the complete range of grain size. When the sphere is immersed below the depth range of the hydrometer bulb, the results systematically differ for particles smaller than 5 km. A deep sampling tends to produce a grain-size distribution with finer particles than a shallow sampling. This tendency increases with the concentration of particles finer than 5 km and becomes more noticeable for clay than for silt. The influence of sampling depth on the grain-size distribution of fine-grained soils, which is pointed out by buoyancy analysis, was not explored in detail but certainly warrants further research. Such research could be useful to explain possible discrepancies when pipette and hydrometer analyses are performed at different sampling depths.

(8)

s-1

where R, is the hydrometer reading at time t, C, the dispersing agent correction, C, the meniscus correction, and m the temperature correction. The absolute error Ap is Ap=c1.87G, &?
_lC

X100(%)

(9)

where the error on temperature correction hm is assumed to be negligible (i.e., Am = 0). For an ASTM 152H hydrometer, the minimum value of hR is approximately equal to 0.3 g/L, which corresponds to aconstant error hp equal to t 1.8% for the following typical values: Gs = 2.67 and Co = 50 &. Therefore the buoyancy analysis yields an experimental error Ap smaller than the hydrometer analysis, provided that the scale accuracy exceeds 1 mg.

484

GEOTECHNICAl TESTING JOURNAL 1OCl

90

---o---LueernVolleySilt(H) -Lueern Valley Silt (B)

- - O- --LopezCanyon

Silt (H)

+Lqez Canyon Silt (B) --il---Bernard Silty Clay (H) -+-Bernard Silty Clay (B) - - -A- - - Densen Clay (H)

Densen Clay (B)

-I

0.01

0.1

Grain Size (mm)

FIG. &Comparison of grain-size distribution curves obtained by buoyancy analysis (B) and hydtwnetet analysis (H) on four different soils.

lo( 9( 8(

20 10

7 r

- - _*- - -Lopez Canyon (Hydrometer) *Lopez Canyon (9 cm) + Lopez Canyon (19.5 cm) +Lopez Canyon (35 cm) - - _*- -. Mohave Desert (Hydrometer) --o-Mohave Desert (7 cm) + Mohave Lksut (17.5 cm)

+Mohave

Desert (28.5 cm)

0 0.001
FIG. &Effect different soils.

0.01

0.1

Grain Size (mm)

of sampling depth on grain-size distnbution measured by buoyancy analysis and comparison with hydrometer analysis results for two

BARDET AND YOUNG ON BUOYANCY METHOD

485

Discussion
In geotechnical engineering, the hydrometer, pipette, and buoyancy analyses are approximate and rapid means to determine the grain-size distribution of fine-grained soiis (Bardet 1997). They assume the non-interference of particles, sphericicy of particles, and infinite extent of fluid, assumptions which may not completely be fulfilled (Bemhardt 1992). For particles finer than 1 km, the displacement due to Brownian motion exceeds the gravitational motion (Allen 1990). The Brownian motion transfers kinetic energy to the suspended particles, creates diffusion, and introduces an error in the measurement of particle concentration. Muta and Watanabe (1970) concluded that the conventional sedimentation analysis of powder samples of wide size range containing submicron particles yielded highly erroneous results. The fact that small soil particles are not spherical is another limitation of sedimentation analyses. As pointed out by Lambe (195 1), soil particles smaller than 5 brn are rarely spherical but look like platelets. To our knowledge, there is also no experimental data on the dra coefficient of spheres for Reynolds number in the range of lo- g to 10m6, which corresponds to 1 to 5 pm diameter spheres falling in a liquid. In summary, sedimentation analyses are questionable for accurately determining the grain-size distribution of soil particles smaller than 5 km. However, they are inexpensive and produce repeatable results for the characterization of soils in engineering practice. Within these limitations, provided that sampling depths are comparable, the buoyancy and hydrometer analyses give comparable results. The experimental setup shown in Fig. 1 could be improved in several ways. In order to decrease the experimental error Ap, elongated objects similar to hydrometer bulbs and lighter than Teflon could be used instead of Teflon spheres. In order to minimize the fluctuations of scale readout caused by the small variation of ambient air pressure, it would be desirable to utilize digital scales that have a hook for measuring hanging weight and that can be laid on the top of the sedimentation cylinder.

a sphere immersed in a soil suspension. For similar sampling depths, the buoyancy analysis gives results identical to those of the hydrometer analysis. The buo$utcy analysis is recommended in the laboratory environment where scales accurate to 1 mg are available. Its advantages are the following: (1) the test duration can be shortehed by reducing the sedimentation distance; (2) it is slightly more accurate than the hydrometer analysis; (3) the experimental procedures and corrections are simpler; (4) there is less disturbance to the sedimentation process when inserting and removing the sphere which is smaller than the hydrometer; and (5) the readings can be directly forwarded to a computer, thus minimizing the operators errors.

References
Allen, T., 1992, A Review of Sedimentation Methods of Particle Size
Analysis, Panic& Size Analysis, The Royal Society of Chemistry, London, pp. 454-476. Allen, T., 1990, Particle Size Measurement, 4th ed., Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. ASTM, 1995, ASTM Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D 422-63). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock (I), Vol. 04.08. AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, p. 981. Bardet, J. P., 1997, Experimental Soil Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Ekmhardt, C., 1992, Factors Causing Apparent Size Distributions in Sedimentation Analysis, Particle Size Analysis, The Royal Society of Chemistry, London, pp. 477-487. BSI, 1975, Pipette analysis, Test 7C, BS 1370. Methodr of TestforSoilfor Civil Engineering Purposes. British Standards Institution, London, UK. Head, K. H.. 1984, Manual of Soil Loboratory Testing, Volume I: Soil Classification and Compaction Tests, Pentech Press, London, UK. Lambe, T. W., 195I, Soil Testing for Engineers, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, NY. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1928. International Critical Tables, Vols. III and
V, New York, NY. Moshrefi, N., 1993, A New Method of Sampling Soil Suspension for Particle-Size Analysis, Soil Science, Vol. 155, No. 4, pp. 245-248. Muta, A. and Watanabe, S., 1970. Proceedings, Conference% Particle Size Analvsis. Societv of Analvtical Chemistrv. Bradford. UK. DD. 178-193. Stokes,-G., i 891, ~athemati~aland Physical Paper III, Cambhhge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Weatherly, W. C.. 1929, The Hydrometer Method for Determining the Grain Size Distribution Curve of Soils, Master of Science thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Zhang, Z. and Tumay, M. T., 1995, Granulometric Evaluation of Particle Size Using Suspension Pressure During Sedimentation, Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 12 I-l 29.

Conclusion
Buoyancy analysis is a new routine test for determining the grain-size distribution of fine-grained soils. Based on the sedimentation principle of hydrometer and pipette analyses, it determines the percent finer by weight by measuring the buoyant weight of