University of Southeastern Philippines
Tagum-Mabini Campus
College of Engineering
Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering
LABORATORY EXERCISE 1:
DETERMINATION OF SOIL
TEXTURAL CLASSES
LWE 322 - IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING
Submitted By:
ESQUIBEL, ALIAH NECOLE
NADONZA, PIO JR
POCOT, LAURENCE
RANIS, PHILLIP JOHN
REQUINO, JEXY
SUGUE, KATE SHANTEL
BSABE – 3B Students
Submitted To:
ENGR. TEOFILO JR U. SEVILLA
Instructor
Date of Submission: ______________
1.0 Overview/Background
Soil texture is a fundamental physical property that influences soil aeration, water
retention, drainage, and fertility. It is determined by the relative proportions of sand, silt, and clay
particles present in a soil sample. The classification of soil texture is essential in agriculture,
engineering, and environmental studies, as it affects plant growth, irrigation requirements, and
soil management practices (Brady & Weil, 2017).
The determination of soil textural classes is commonly performed using the mechanical
analysis method, such as the hydrometer method or sieving and sedimentation methods. These
techniques help quantify the percentage of sand, silt, and clay, allowing classification based on
the USDA soil texture triangle (Gee & Or, 2002).
In this experiment, soil samples are analyzed to determine their textural composition using
different methods (field test and textural triangle), and the results are used to classify them into
different soil texture classes such as sandy, loamy, or clayey soils. Understanding soil texture is
crucial for making decisions on soil amendments, irrigation, and crop suitability.
1.1 Objectives
This laboratory exercise aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. Conduct quick field tests to determine soil texture.
2. Perform bottle test to find the proportions of sand, silt, and clay
3. Rate the soil from fine to coarse using mud-ball test
4. Determine the relative content of soil separates (sand, silt, and clay) in the soil sample
using different methods, to wit
a. Field test
I. The ball shaking test
II. The dry-crushing test
III. The manipulative test
b. Textural triangle
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Location of the Laboratory Exercise
The collection of soil samples and testing were conducted on the campus of the University
of Southeastern Philippines, Tagum-Mabini Campus. The testing was performed at the University
Open court.
Figure 1. University of Southeastern Philippines Satellite View (7°25'7"N 125°49'50"E)
2.2 Materials Used
The materials used in this laboratory exercise were:
1. Soil sample (2kg)
2. 3 soil sample container
3. 1 Soil sampler (shovel)
4. 2 1L water bottle
5. 2 1L empty plastic jars
6. 3 microwavable container (aluminum foil tray)
7. 10 ziplock
8. Kitchen gloves
9. Masking tape
10. Markers
11. Pen and paper
12. Measuring tape
13. Digital scale
14. 1 Stick stirrer
15. Mechanical sieves
16. Oven timer
17. Electric shaker
2.3 Procedures
Site selection
Prior to collecting soil samples, the research team selects a sampling location within the
campus. They identify a site with exposed soil that has no vegetation, is not frequently stepped
on by people, and receives direct sunlight. The selected site must be sufficiently distant from
those chosen by other teams to ensure significant variations in soil texture results. The team
secured the selected location by geo tagging the coordinates of the selected location.
Figure 2. Geographic Coordinates of the Sampling Location
Sample collection
First, the land was marked with a 1-foot by 1-foot boundary to establish the perimeter for
soil collection. After marking the perimeter, the inside of the marked area was cleaned by
removing leaves and large rocks. Then, a 1-foot-deep pit was dug. A 2 kg soil sample was
collected from the pit and stored in a plastic container.
Figure 3. Soil Sample Collection
The soil sample is refined by passing it through a 2 mm sieve to separate the fine soil
particles. Only the soil that passed through the sieve was used for all tests.
Figure 4. Sieving the Soil Sample
All the refined soil samples were stored in a zip-lock bag to prevent contamination by
foreign materials. Two tests were conducted to determine the soil sample's texture. The first was
the quick field test, which involved multiple tests to assess the soil's texture based on its physical
properties and its response to manipulation. To approximate the proportion of sand, silt, and clay,
the bottle test was used.
QUICK FIELD TEST
The quick field test for soil texture is a simple method used to estimate the proportions of
sand, silt, and clay in a soil sample based on its physical properties (USDA, 2021). It includes
tests like the feel test, ribbon test, and bottle test to classify soil texture on-site without laboratory
analysis (Brady & Weil, 2017). Clayey soil feels sticky, forms long ribbons, and retains water,
while sandy soil feels gritty and does not hold shape well (Soil Science Society of America, 2020).
In this laboratory exercise a laboratory guide was given by the instructor to which includes
the following test: Throw-the-ball-test, Squeeze-the-ball-test, The Bottle Test, The Mud-Ball Test,
The Shaking-Ball Test, The Dry-Crushing Test, The Manipulative Test, and The Shaking Test.
QUICK FIELD TEST
Throw- the-ball-test
Procedure Documentation
1. A handful of moist soil was taken and
squeezed into a ball.
2. The ball was then thrown about 50 cm
into the air and caught.
3. If the ball fell apart, it indicated poor soil
with excessive sand. If the ball
remained intact, it suggested good soil
with sufficient clay content.
Squeeze-the-ball-test
Procedure Documentation
1. A handful of soil was wet until it begins
to stick together without sticking to the
hand
2. The ball was squeezed hard. If the soil
retained its shape, it likely contained
enough clay. Otherwise, it had too
much sand.
The Bottle Test
Procedure Documentation
1. A 5 cm depth soil was put into a 11cm
diameter container. The total height of
the container (Rebisco Super stick
plastic container) is 18cm.
2. The container with soil was filled with
tap water until the water level reached
the top lid.
3. The soil water mixture was mixed using
a stick to stir the mixture.
4. The mixture was left for an hour until
the layers of silt sand and clay settled.
5. The layers of silt sand and clay were
measured and were expressed in
percentage with respect to the total
volume of the soil sample.
The Mud-Ball Test
Procedure Documentation
1. A handful of soil was wetted with water
and squished until a dough-like
consistency was achieved.
2. The soil was molded continuously
using the thumb and forefinger until a
mud ball of about 3 cm diameter was
made.
3. The mud balls were then thrown at the
wall to determine their texture. If the
soil splattered, it had a coarse texture.
If it created a shotgun pattern, it had a
moderately coarse texture. If the ball
shattered on impact, it had a medium
texture. If the ball held its shape, it was
a moderately fine-textured soil. If the
ball stuck together when wet, it had a
fine texture.
FIELD TEST
The Shaking Ball Test
Procedure Documentation
1. A handful of soil was taken and wetted.
A ball about 3-5 cm in diameter was
then formed. It was placed on the palm
of the hand, where it appeared shiny.
The ball was then shaken rapidly from
side to side while observing its surface.
2. If the surface of the ball became rapidly
dull and easily broke between the
fingers, it was sand or loamy sand (E).
If the surface became dull more slowly
and there was some resistance when
breaking the ball, it was silt or clay loam
(F). If the surface did not change and
there was resistance when breaking
the ball, it was clay or silty clay (G).
Dry- Crushing Test
Procedure Documentation
1. A small sample of dry soil was taken in
hand and crushed between the fingers.
2. If there was little resistance and the
sample crumbled into dust, it was fine
sand, fine loamy sand, or contained
very little clay. If there was medium
resistance, it was silty clay or sandy
clay. If there was great resistance, it
was clay.
Manipulative Test
Procedure Documentation
1. A handful of soil was taken and wetted
until it began to stick together without
adhering to the hand. The soil was then
rolled into a ball about 3 cm in
diameter. If the ball fell apart, it was
classified as sand. If it held together,
the process continued. The ball was
rolled into a sausage shape, 6-7 cm
long. If it did not maintain its form, it
was classified as loamy sand. If it held
its shape, the process continued. The
sausage was then rolled further to a
length of 15-16 cm. If it did not remain
intact, it was classified as sandy loam.
If it held its shape, further classification
followed.
2. The sausage was then bent into a half-
circle. If it could not be bent, the soil
was classified as loam. If it held its
shape, the process continued. The
sausage was then bent into a full circle.
If it could not maintain this shape, it
was classified as heavy loam. If it
formed a full circle with slight cracks, it
was classified as light clay. If it formed
a full circle without any cracks, it was
classified as clay.
Shaking Test
Procedure Documentation
1. The soil sample was wetted and
formed into a patty about 8 cm in
diameter and about 1.5 cm thick.
2. To identify soil type using a patty, one
observed its surface in the palm. A dull
surface suggested clay. Shaking it side
to side—if it turned shiny, it was silt; if
it remained dull, it was clay.
Confirmation came by bending it; if it
turned dull again, it was silt. Finally, it
was set aside to dry completely.
3. If it was brittle and dust came off when
rubbed with fingers, it was silt. If it was
firm and no dust came off, it was clay.
Textural Triangle
A total of 1.5 kg of soil was oven-dried at a temperature of 105°C for 24 hours to remove
its moisture content. The soil must be oven-dried before sieving because moist soil tends to cling
to the sieve, making sieving difficult. After oven drying, the soil was weighed, and only 1 kg of the
dried soil was used. The initial 1.5 kg of moist soil was dried to account for the weight loss due to
moisture removal.
Figure 5. The Soil Sample was Oven-Dried at 105°C for 24 Hours
Oven-dried soil was passed through mechanical sieves numbered 4, ⅜, 8, 16, 30, 40, and
100, with corresponding sieve opening diameters of 4.75 mm, 9.51 mm, 2.36 mm, 1.8 mm, 0.6
mm, 0.425 mm, and 0.75 mm, respectively.
The soil retained on each sieve is weighed, and its proportion relative to the total weight of the
sample is determined using the equation:
𝑃 = 𝑊𝑜/𝑊𝑡
P= percentage of soil
W0= weight of the soil caught by the sieve
Wt= total weight of the soil sample
The soil is classified based on particle size distribution (Table 1), and its overall texture is
determined using the textural triangle (Figure 6).
Table 1. Size Limit of Soil Separate (Majumdar)
Figure 6. Soil texture triangle
3.0 Observations and Discussions
3.1 Observations
Quick Field Test
Methods Findings
Throw the ball test The ball did break into four large pieces but it
did not break completely indicating poor soil
with too much sand.
Squeeze the ball test The ball retained its shape when squeezed,
thus, it is assumed that the soil has enough
clay in it.
Ball test Based on the experiment conducted, the clay
measured 1.3 cm meanwhile silt was
measured 2 cm and sand with 1.7 cm.
Mud ball test The ball holds its shape for long range shots
and is fairly easy to remove, therefore, the
soil is of moderate fine texture.
Shaking ball test The surface of the ball does not change and
there is resistance when breaking. The soil is
predicted to be silty clay.
Dry crushing test After this particular test, the soil retained its
shape implying there is enough clay in the
soil.
Shaking test Shaking: The surface of the patty appears
dull which means it is clay.
Bending: The surface is dull which means it
is clay.
Sun Dry: The sun dried patty is firm and dust
does not come off when rubbed which means
the soil is clay.
Manipulative test Sausage roll: The sausage-shaped soil
breaks when it is rolled to 6 cm long. The soil
type was concluded to be sandy loam.
Textural Triangle
Sieve Number Opening (mm) Weight (kg) Percentage (%) Remarks
3/8 9.51 27.75 2.775 Gravel
4 4.750 129.89 12.989 Gravel
8 2.36 183.42 18.342 Gravel
16 1.180 178.32 17.832 Very coarse
sand
30 0.6 165.11 16.511 Coarse sand
40 0.425 74 7.4 Medium sand
100 0.150 148.55 14.855 Very Fine sand
Pan None 9.296 9.296 Mix of sand and
silt
Total 1,000 100 100
3.2 Discussion
Quick Field Test
The field test results show that the soil sample is sandy loam or loam soil. The bottle test
indicates that the soil sample consists of 26% clay, 40% silt, and 34% sand.
The proportions of clay, silt, and sand were calculated using the following equation:
𝑧
𝑃= (100)
𝑦
• P= portion of clay, silt, and sand.
• Z = high of the layer (upper layer is clay, followed by silt, and at the
bottom is sand)
• Y= 5 cm: The total high of the soil sample
The results of the various soil tests indicate that the sample contains a mixture of sand,
silt, and clay, with varying proportions affecting its physical properties. The throw the ball test
suggests that the soil has a high sand content, as the ball broke into large pieces rather than
holding together completely. However, the squeeze test contradicts this by showing that the soil
can retain its shape, which suggests the presence of sufficient clay. The mud ball test further
supports this by demonstrating that the ball holds its shape over long-range shots, indicating
moderate fine texture.
Several tests confirmed the presence of significant clay content in the soil. The shaking
ball test showed resistance to breaking, which is characteristic of silty clay. Similarly, the dry
crushing test and shaking test revealed that the soil maintained its shape and had a dull surface,
both of which are typical properties of clay soil. Additionally, the manipulative test (sausage roll
test) demonstrated that the soil broke when rolled to 6 cm, classifying it as sandy loam, which
suggests that while clay is present, there is also a substantial amount of sand.
The soil sample appears to be a combination of sandy loam to silty clay with moderate
clay content. While the presence of clay helps with moisture retention, the significant sand content
reduces cohesion, making the soil less ideal for applications requiring high water-holding capacity.
These findings highlight the importance of conducting multiple tests to accurately determine soil
composition, as different methods provide insights into various textural characteristics.
Sieve analysis
The sieve analysis results provide insight into the soil’s particle size distribution, showing
a mix of gravel, sand, and fine particles. The largest portion of the sample consists of sand-sized
particles, with coarse sand (16.511%) and very fine sand (14.855%) making up a significant
portion. The presence of gravel in the larger sieve sizes, especially in sieves #3/8 (2.775%), #4
(12.989%), and #8 (18.342%), suggests that the soil has a substantial fraction of coarse material,
which influences its drainage and load-bearing properties. The medium sand (7.4%) and very
coarse sand (17.832%) contribute to the overall gradation, making the soil well-graded and likely
to have good compaction characteristics.
The pan fraction (9.296%), which includes the finest particles like silt and very fine sand,
indicates that the sample has some fine material but not an excessive amount. This suggests that
the soil will have moderate water retention without becoming overly compact or poorly drained.
The balanced distribution of particle sizes, with a mix of gravel, coarse sand, and fine sand,
indicates that the soil may be suitable for construction applications such as road bases or concrete
aggregates, as it provides stability while allowing for adequate drainage.
The results from both the soil texture and sieve analysis tests provide valuable insights
into the composition and physical properties of the soil sample. The soil texture tests indicate a
mix of sand, silt, and clay, with varying proportions affecting its ability to retain moisture and its
workability. Some tests, like the shaking ball test and dry crushing test, suggest a significant clay
presence, while others, like the manipulative test, indicate a sandy loam classification. This
combination influences how the soil behaves under different conditions, affecting its strength,
drainage, and suitability for agricultural or construction purposes.
The sieve analysis further confirms this mixed composition by quantifying the distribution
of different particle sizes. The presence of gravel (34.106%), coarse to fine sand (56.94%), and
a small percentage of finer particles (9.296%) suggests that the soil is well-graded, meaning it
has a good balance of particle sizes. This grading improves compaction properties, making the
soil stable while still allowing for drainage. The moderate amount of fine particles ensures some
moisture retention without leading to excessive compaction or poor aeration.
Overall, the combined results suggest that the soil is a well-graded mix of sand, gravel,
and clay, making it suitable for various applications.
4.0 Documentation
5.0 References
1. Bouyoucos, G. J. (1962). Hydrometer method improved for making particle size
analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal, 54(5), 464-465.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x
2. Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (2017). The nature and properties of soils (15th ed.).
Pearson.
3. Gee, G. W., & Or, D. (2002). Particle-size analysis. In J. H. Dane & G. C. Topp
(Eds.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 4 physical methods (pp. 255-293). Soil
Science Society of America.
4. Kettler, T. A., Doran, J. W., & Gilbert, T. L. (2001). Simplified method for soil
particle-size determination to accompany soil-quality analyses. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 65(3), 849-852.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2001.653849x
5. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2017). Soil textural triangle and
soil classification. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
