Matt Wade

with Sarah Rohm and Seth Fink

CE 185 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory
Laboratory Experiment 3
Particle Size Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
October 3, 2007
1 Objective
The goal of the experiment is to bring the student in contact with operations related to particle
size distribution measurement of a soil. Specically, this experiment deals with silts and clays,
which were saved from the previous experiment, which separated soil particles mechanically using
sieves. This method further separates ne soil particles so that a complete grain size distribution
curve can be produced by the end of this experiment. From this curve, many important aspects
of the soil can be determined and a general classication of the soil can be made.
2 Materials and Equipment
To successfully complete the experiment, the following materials are required:
about 50g of nes from previously sieved soil sample
about 2.5L distilled water
125mL Calgon (sodium hexametaphosphate, NaPO
3
)
and the following equipment is required:
electronic scale accurate to 0.01g
ceramic dish
mixer (in this case, milkshake mixer with included cup)
squirt bottle containing distilled water
large rubber stopper
152H hydrometer
31000mL cylinders
stop watch
clock or watch
thermometer (and paperclip to hang by)
3 Procedure
First, take one cylinder and pour in 125mL Calgon. Fill the cylinder with distilled water to the
1000mL mark. The Calgon will act as a deocculating agent, neutralizing the charges on particles
2
and keeping them from clumping. Retrieve the ne particles (those which passed through sieve
#200 during the previous experiment). Place a ceramic dish on the scale and tare it. Weigh
roughly 50g of soil and record the exact weight. In the ceramic dish, mix in about 50mL of the
Clagon mix. Pour the dishs contents into the mixer, using the squirt bottle to make sure all soil
particles are transferred. If necessary add another 20 to 50mL of Calgon mix into the mixer.
Mix the contents for about 4 min. While mixing, ll one cylinder with 1000mL of distilled
water. Hang the thermometer on the inside of the cylinder and carefully place the hydrometer
in the cylinder. When the hydrometer has stopped bobbing, read the value along the top of the
meniscus and also along the bottom and record the readings. The reading from the top of the
meniscus is called the zero correction (C
0
) and the dierence between the two readings is called
the meniscus correction (C
M
). Also record the temperature. When mixing is complete, add the
contents to the another cylinder and use the squirt bottle to help transfer all of the mixture to the
cylinder. Fill the remaining space in the cylinder with Calgon mix so the nal reading is 1000mL.
Place the rubber stopper on the cylinder containing the soil mixture. With a frequency of once
per second, mix using a side-by-side motion making sure that no soil remains stuck to the sides
or bottom. Mix for 60 seconds. While one team member is mixing, another needs to make sure
the stop watch is set to zero and ready to start. Once mixing is complete, the timer is started
immediately. If some settling is noticed in the rst minute, it is advisable to start readings at
the one minute mark, otherwise start readings at two minutes. Take the hydrometer and gently
place it in the soil mix. Take the reading above the meniscus and also read the temperature in
the water cylinder.
Repeat reading at 2, 4, 8, 16, 30, 60, 120 and 1440 min from starting the stopwatch. After
reading the hydrometer each time, it is advisable to remove it from the soil mixture, as soil can
settle upon it and distort readings. Keep the hydrometer in the water cylinder and make sure to
clean it each time it is removed from the soil mixture. After the last reading, the soil mixture can
be disposed of.
There are many correction factors that must be considered in this experiment. As previously
mentioned, the zero correction factor will take a role. The value the hydrometer reads in clean
water is the value that will be considered zero for the soil mixture. For this reason, the value
that is read for water will be subtracted from the values read for the soil mixture. The meniscus
correction factor makes up for the fact that readings are done above. The meniscus travels up the
3
Date Time (min) Elap. Time (min) Temp (

C) R
a
9/26/07 4:22 0 27
9/26/07 4:23 1 27 47
9/26/07 4:24 2 27 42
9/26/07 4:26 4 27 37
9/26/07 4:30 8 27 32
9/26/07 4:38 16 27 29
9/26/07 4:52 30 27 26
9/26/07 5:22 60 26 24
9/26/07 6:52 150 26 21
9/27/07 4:24 1440 23 20
Table 1: Recorded data
hydrometer, and this value is not accurate. The true value of the reading comes from looking up
from below the water level. For convenience, it is advised to read from above and just subtract the
dierence from between the above and below values to get the true values. The temperature
is important because the values of the hydrometer are calibrated to be used only at 20

C. If the
water temperature is not 20

C, a simple calculation must be done that includes this correction

factor (C
T
). The hydrometer is also calibrated for a specic gravity (G
s
) of 2.65 for the soil
sample. In the event that G
s
is not exactly 2.65, another correction factor must be included in
calculations.
4 Results
Found in Table 1 are the values that were recorded during the experiment. Table 2 contains
the correction factors that were assumed based on recorded information. Table 3 contains all
calculated values taking into account the values from both Tables 1 and 2.
Table 3 requires intensive explanation. R
c
is dened as the corrected hydrometer value, and
the value that will be used later in determining the average particle size at that time. The value
of R
c
is calculated using Eq. 1.
4
Mass of soil, M
s
50.03g
F
e
34.1%
Zero Correction 4
a 0.99
Meniscus Correction 1
Temp Corrections:
23

C 0.70
26

C 1.65
27

C 2.00
Table 2: Correction factors and constants
Time (min) R
c
F
h
(%) F
200
(%) R L (cm)
L
t
K D (mm)
1 45.00 89.0 30.4 48 8.8 8.8 0.0124 0.0368
2 40.00 79.2 27.0 43 9.6 4.8 0.0124 0.0272
4 35.00 69.3 23.6 38 10.4 2.6 0.0124 0.0200
8 30.00 59.4 20.2 33 11.2 1.4 0.0124 0.0147
16 27.00 53.4 18.2 30 11.7 0.731 0.0124 0.0106
30 24.00 47.5 16.2 27 12.2 0.407 0.0124 0.0079
60 21.65 42.8 14.6 25 12.5 0.208 0.0125 0.0057
150 18.65 36.9 12.6 22 13.0 0.087 0.0125 0.0037
1440 16.70 33.0 11.3 21 13.2 0.009 0.0130 0.0012
Table 3: Calculated data
5
Figure 1: Hydrometer dimensions and terms
R
c
= R
a
C
0
C
T
(1)
To nd the percent ner of the of each smaller-diameter particle (F
h
), one must make use of
R
c
and the original mass of the soil sample used in this analysis (M
s
). But this is assuming that
the specic gravity of the soil (G
s
) in question is exactly 2.65, which is what the hydrometer is
calibrated to. A correction factor a is used to x the source of error and a table of values can be
found in Table 62 in the laboratory manual. As the value of G
s
increases, so too does a and vice
versa. The corrected value of F
h
is dened in Eq. 2.
F
h
= a
R
c
M
s
100% (2)
The nal curve that will be made is based on a percent ner, but not that of F
h
. F
h
considers
the total mass of the ne sample weighed out in the beginning of this experiment (M
s
) to be the
100% value. But in sieving, a percent ner was found for sieve #200 (F
e
). This is the value is
what we want to base our percentages on and this new value, F
200
, is dened in Eq. 3.
F
200
=
F
h
F
e
100
= % (3)
The fully corrected value for R must take into account the meniscus correction factor, C
M
.
To do this, the value of R
c
is added to the value of C
M
. But R is not what is wanted. As seen in
6
Figure 1, L is the value that is required. But from R, L can easily be found and Table 65 in the
Laboratory Manual contains L values corresponding to known R values.
L
t
is simply the velocity of the settling particles in units of
cm
min
. This value is important
because the two nal values that are required for the curve are percent ner, which is already
calculated, and the corresponding diameters, which can be calculated using Stokes Law. Stokes
Law is a function of settling velocity, among other things. Stokes law is dened in Eq. 4.
v =
2
9
r
2
g

r =

9
2
v
g(
s

w
)
(4)
Considering g is specic gravity (G), v is
L
t
, and D is 2r, Eq. 4 changes to Eq. 5.
D = 2

9
2

G
s
G
w
L
t
(5)
Eq. 5 can be split to consider
L
t
more clearly, and all other values can be combined into a
single constant, which will be a function of the temperature (which plays an important role in the
value of G
w
) and the value of G
s
, found in Experiment 1. This new value can be represented as
K, and values for such can be found in Table 64 in the Laboratory Manual. Eq. 6 expresses the
change. Assuming L is given in cm and t in min, D will result in mm.
D = 2

9
2

G
s
G
w

L
t
K = 2

9
2

G
s
G
w
D = K

L
t
(6)
5 Discussion and Conclusion
The values of F
200
and D can now be added to the curve found in the previous experiment where
F
200
is the percent ner value and D is the particle diameter value. Figure 2 displays the
outcome of this curve. The hydrometer analysis goes along with the wet sieve analysis because
most of the nes were removed from the soils during the wet sieve analysis. The dry sieve analysis
is still shown on the chart, but is given less importance because the values of the uniformity
coecient (C
u
) and coecient of gradation (C
c
) were already found. Note that the hydrometer
values stray from the curve as the particle diameter increases. This is explained by the fact that
D was calculate using Stokes Law. Stokes Law is based on particles that are spherical, not oddly
shaped soil particles. As particles get larger, the variance from spherical increases, causing a
minor error.
7
It is now time to calculate C
u
and C
c
for the wet sieve-hydrometer analysis, as this was
previously impossible until the hydrometer test was done. The necessary information includes the
diameters that correspond to 60%, 30%, and 10% ner (D
60
, D
30
, and D
10
, respectively). These
values are estimated as D
60
= 0.31, D
30
= 0.065, and D
10
= 0.0012, based on the lines drawn on
Figure 3.
The theoretical explanations of C
u
and C
c
were given in the previous experiment report and
wont be duplicated here, but the calculations can be found in Eqs. 7 and 8.
C
u
=
D
60
D
10
=
0.31
0.0012
= 258.33 (7)
C
c
=
D
2
30
D
60
D
10
=
0.065
2
0.31 0.0012
= 11.36 (8)
These values are not really all that eective because they are based on soil that has been
washed and nes that were articially kept separate, which is not what occurs in nature. These
values will have less importance than those found in the previous experiment. A value of 9.69 for
C
u
(as found in Experiment 2) is much more reasonable that 258. The same is true for a value of
1.7 for C
c
instead of 11.4.
Something that can be determined more accurately using the combination of the hydrometer
analysis and sieve analysis, though, is the soil classication. Based on the USDA classication
system, the particle sizes are split up into coarse fragments, sand, silt, and clay. The corresponding
diameters are D 2mm for coarse fragment, 0.05mm D < 2mm for sands, 0.002mm D
< 0.05mm for silts, and D < 0.002mm for clays.
Next the percentages of each constituent can be found from Figure 2, in a similar way that
D
60
was found: coarse fragments = 8.7%; sand = 62.3%; silt = 18%; clay = 11%. Eventually,
a percentage by mass must be found for sand, silt, and clay, considering only those three types
of soil. Starting from the wet sieve analysis, the mass of sand must be found. Data from the
previous experiment is necessary for these calculations, and these values can be found in Table 4.
The total mass in wet sieving was 329.52g. Coarse grains made up 43.53g of that, leaving 285.99g
of sand. But some of the ne sand is found mixed in with the silts and clays. Considering the
50.03g of nes tested in this experiment, the total mass of soil is 379.55g. Based on the previously
mentioned percentages, the total mass of sand is 236.46g, the total mass of silt is 68.32g and the
8
Sieve No. Diameter (mm) Cum. Mass (g) Mass Retained (g) % Retained % Passing
4 4.75 13.68 13.68 2.74 97.26
10 2.00 43.53 29.85 5.97 91.29
20 0.840 84.33 40.80 8.16 83.14
40 0.425 165.245 80.92 16.18 66.95
60 0.250 230.21 64.97 12.99 53.96
140 0.150 306.11 75.90 15.18 38.78
200 0.075 329.52 23.41 4.68 34.10
Table 4: Recorded and calculated data for wet sieving (Experiment 2)
total mass of clay is 41.75g. From these values (considering only sand, silt, and clay), the mass
percentages are as follows: sand = 68.2%; silt = 19.7%; clay = 12.1%
From this, the USDA Soil Classication diagram can be used to classify the soil. Because the
diagram is not exact to 0.1%, let us reevaluate the percentages to the nearest 1%: sand = 68%;
silt = 20%, clay = 12%. And from Figure 4, it is determined that this soil is a sandy loam. From
the previous experiment, the soil was roughly determined to be a coarse sand with nonuniform
range (C
u
), that is well graded (C
c
). With the outcomes from this experiment and the previous
experiment, the soil can be more specically classied as a nonuniform, well graded, coarse,
sandy loam.
9
Figure 2:
10
Figure 3:
11
Figure 4: USDA Soil Classication Chart with marked percentages
4
12
References
1. Bowles, Joseph E. Engineering Properties of Soils. 4th. Boston: Irwin McGrawHill, 1992.
2. Das, Braja M. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 6th. Toronto, ON: Thomson Canada
Ltd., 2006.
3. ASTM Standard D 42263, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils,
ASTM INternational, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org
4. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil
Texture Calculator. Accessed 29 Sept 2007.
http://soils.usda.gov/technical/aids/investigations/texture/
13