Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 5019–5033 | Cite as

Comparison of Grain Size Distribution and Grain Shape of Various Sand Samples

  • Seda ÇellekEmail author
Original Paper


This study aimed to compare grain size distribution and grain shape of sands with different mineralogies and origins. Also, we attempted to investigate the changes in the physical properties of sands with different mineralogical properties. Four different sand samples taken from the Black Sea and Aegean regions were selected for experiments. Sands were named Type 1, Type 5, Type 9, and Type 13. A washing process was applied because clean sand was preferred for the experiments. Grain distributions were determined with wet mechanical analysis, and unwashed and washed samples were compared. The samples were classified as “poorly graded sand.” Mineralogical properties were determined by binocular microscope, X-ray, and SEM. When the samples were chosen, attention was given to selecting those with different source rock properties. Their origins were determined to be sedimentary, magmatic, and metamorphic. It was determined that Type 1 sand is volcanic, Types 5 and 9 sands are sedimentary, and Type 13 sand is metamorphic in origin. Additionally, Types 1, 5, and 9 sands were taken from the seashore, and Type 13 sand was taken from the riverside. Also, it was determined that Type 5 is a mixture of river and sea sand. It was understood that different mineralogical properties result in different physical properties. Besides, not only the mineralogy but also the origin (marine or the river) affects the grain distribution and shape. Marine or the river origin has more effect on grain distribution and shape than does mineralogy. However, mineralogy is important in determining specific gravity.


Sand Mineralogy Sinop Grain size distribution Grain shape 



This work has been carried out within the scope of the METU-DOSAP program as a postdoctoral study in the Civil Engineering Geotechnical Laboratory. I would like to extend my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Kemal Önder ÇETİN.


  1. Aberg B (1992) Void ratio of noncohesive soils and similarmaterials. J Geophys Eng 118:1315–1334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altuhafi F, Baudet BA, Sammonds P (2011) On the particle size distribution of a basaltic till. Soils Found 51(1):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arasan S, Yener E, Hattatoglu F, Akbulut S, Hinislioglu S (2010) The relationship between the fractal dimension and mechanical properties of asphalt concrete. Int J Civ Struct Eng 1:165–170Google Scholar
  4. Arasan S, Akbulut S, Hasiloglu AS (2011) Effect of particle size and shape on the grain-size distribution using image analysis. Int J Civ Struct Eng 1(4):968–985Google Scholar
  5. Buurman P, Pape Th, Muggler CC (1997) Laser grain-size determination I soil genetic studies 1. Practical problems. Soil Sci 162(3):211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabalar AF, Mustafa WS (2015) Fall cone tests on clay-sand mixtures. Eng Geol 192:154–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cabalar AF, Dulundu K, Tuncay K (2013) Strength of various sands in triaxial and cyclic direct shear tests. Eng Geol 156:92–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr MKV (1971) The internal water status of the tea plant (Camellia sinensis): some results illustrating the use of the pressure chamber technique. Agric Meteorol 9:447–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceylan Ç (2015) Determination of the sedimentologic and geotechnical properties of Battalgazi (Malatya) Campus Area Ph.D. Thesis Inonu University Graduate School of Naturel and Applied Science Department of Mining Engineering, MalatyaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang CS, Wang JY, Ge L (2016) Maximum and minimum void ratios for sand-silt mixtures. Eng Geol 211:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cubrinovski M, Ishihara K (2002) Maximum and minimum void ratio characteristics of sands. Soils Found 42(6):65–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds J (2003) Particle shape and stiffness-effects on soil behavior. A Thesis Presented to the Academic Faculty, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Civil Engineering Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  13. Edil TB, Krizek JR, Zelasko JS (1975) Effect of grain characteristics on packing of sands. In: İstanbul conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, İstanbul, vol 1, pp 46–54Google Scholar
  14. Fourie AB, Papageorigou G (2001) Defining an appropriate steady state line for Merriespruit gold tailings. Can Geotech J 38(4):695–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Genç (2011) Soil mechanics and foundations. TMMOB Chamber of Geological Engineers edt, 850 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Green RA (2001) Energy-based evaluation and remediation of liquefiable soils. Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University İn Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor Of Philosophy İn Civil Engineering, Blacksburg, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene M, Power M, Youd MTL (1994) Earthquake, Liquefaction, Earthquake Engineering Research Institu, California, January, 1–8.SGoogle Scholar
  18. Miura K, Maeda K, Furukawa M, Toki S (1997) Physical characteristics of sands with different primary properties. Soils Found 37(3):53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Monkul MM, Ozden G (2007) Compressional behavior of clayey sand and transition fines content. Eng Geol 89:195–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murthy V (2010) Soil mechanics and foundation engineering. CBS Publishers and Distributors, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  21. Nyembwe K, Oyombo D, de Beer DJ, van Tonder PJM (2016) Suitability of a South African silica sand for three-dimensional printing of foundry moulds and cores. South Afr J Ind Eng 27(3 Special Edition):230–237Google Scholar
  22. Özer M (2006) Determination of soil particle size distrubution using laser diffraction method and its comparison with hydrometer method. Ph.D. Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Science and Technology, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  23. Pabst W, Gregorová E (2007) Characterization of particles and particle systems ICT Prague, Tyto studijní materiály vznikly v rámci projektu FRVŠ 674/b Tvorba předmětu Charakterizace částic a částicových soustavGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramsey KW (1999) Beach sand textures from the Atlantıc Coast of Delawarestate of Delaware, Open File Report No. 41, Delaware Geologıcal SurveyGoogle Scholar
  25. Salgado R, Bandini P, Karim A (2000) Shear strength and stiffness of silty sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:451–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santamarina JC, Cho GC (2004) Soil behaviour: the role of particle shape. Adv. Geotech. Eng. Proc. Skempt. Conf. 1–14 March, London.
  27. Selig E, Ladd R (1973) Evaluation of relative density measurements and applications. Evaluation of relative density and its role in geotechnical projects involving cohesionless soils. ASTM International, STP 523,487–504, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959–487–18)
  28. Shaffer NR (2006) The time of sands: quartz-rich sand deposits as a renewable resource. Ph.D. Indiana Geological Survey, USA Indiana University, as published in the University of Idaho’s Electronic Green Journal, WinterGoogle Scholar
  29. Thevanayagam S, Shenthan T, Mohan S, Liang J (2002) Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:849–859. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zdunczyk MJ, Linkous MA (1994) Glass raw materials. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Industrial Minerals and Rocks, Littleton, CO, pp 879–891Google Scholar
  31. Zelasko JSJ, Krizek R, Edil TB (1975) Shear behavior of sands as a function of grain characteristics. In: İstanbul conferrence on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, İstanbul, vol 1, pp 55 − 64Google Scholar
  32. Zobeck NTM (2004) Rapid soil particle size analyses using laser diffractio. Appl Eng Agric 20(5):633–639. ISSN 0883-8542.633Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Engineering and Architecture FacultyKırşehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations