Sedimentofogy - Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

A REVIEW O F GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS

ROBERT L. FOLK

Deparimeni of Geology, University of Texas, Ausiin, Texas (U.S.A. )

(Received October 9, 1964)

SUMMARY

This paper comprises a review of the many graphical and mathematical techniques
that have been proposed for the statistical summary of grain-size data. Satellitic
problems, such as laboratory techniques, choice of size scales, and interpretation,
are only considered briefly.

INTRODUCTION

The following review concerns mainly the methodology of grain-size statistics, not
the results or practical attainments obtained by use of them. To some extent the type
of graphic and statistical analysis is interwoven with the laboratory technique, so
this is covered briefly. A major controversy is whether one should use graphs and
simple intercept statistics, or computing machine and moment statistics. Each method
has its advantages in determining mean, sorting, skewness and kurtosis.
This summary was prepared as a committee report for W. F. Tanner, who
instigated a group survey of various aspects of grain-size analysis. A preliminary
version was mimeographed and sent for criticism to approximately 100 geologists
known to be interested in size analysis. Despite a few semi-apopleptic replies, the
writer has decided to publish it in wider form. Many of these persons suggested cor-
rections, additions, or supplementary references to the first draft; however, many
of the workers in this field are strong-willed, not all will agree even with the revised
standard version. I gratefully acknowledge the following geologists for their comments
on the mimeographed version: Harvey Blatt, Jiri Brezina, William Bryant, D. J.
Doeglas, Robert H. Dott, Murray Felsher, John C . Ferm, Gerald M. Friedman,
5. C . Griffiths, Miles 0. Hayes, John F. Hubert, Douglas L. Inman, George De V.
Klein, Earle F. McBride, A. John Moss, D. 5. G. Nota, Paul E. Potter, John. E.
Sanders, John S. Schlee, Thomas W. Todd, and L. van der Plas.

Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 13-93

74 R. L. FOLK

LABORATORY ANALYSIS

Grain-size frequency distribution of gravels, sands and muds may be obtained by

many methods, reviewed by KRUMBEIN (1932), KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1 938),
HEKDAN (1960), and IRANI and CALLIS (1963). The long or intermediate dimension of
single particles may be measured directly by measuring-sticks (in 9,GRENDER, 1961),
calipers, or petrographic microscope. Mass-measurement can be ddne by sieving,
settling tube, pipette, or hydrometer. Each of these techniques defines the “size” of a
particle in a somewhat different way, e.g., a rod-shaped piece of porous coral would
have three very different “diameters” when measured by these three techniques. Most
methods use volume-frequency but some counting method use number-frequency.
Sieving has been the most widely used method for sands since the pioneer work of
UDDEN ( I 898, 1914) and appears to have produced the most useful results-if by useful
one means ability to distinguish sand environments-e.g., KELLER (1949, and MASON
and FOLK(1958) in beaches vs. dunes; FRIEDMAN (1961) in rivers vs. beaches vs. dunes;
and ROGERS and STRONG (1959) for beaches vs. rivers. The other methods have been
used to characterize individual formations (GRIFFITHS, 1958, 1959, 1962) or broadly
differing Recent sediment facies (e.g., INMANand CHAMBERLAIN, 1955), or to delineate
lateral or vertical size trends, but have not yet generally accomplished such subtle tasks
as differentiating beaches from dunes (e.g., SHEPARD and YOUNG,1961; FOLK,1962a),
although BIEDERMAN (1958) did distinguish beaches vs. dunes in one New Jersey
locality by grain counting, and HULBE(1957) distinguished beaches vs. dunes by
axial ratios of the grains.
Microscopic measurement of loose grains, or of grains in thin-section (e.g.,
WICKSELL, 1925, 1926; KRUMBEIN, 1935; GREENMAN, 1951; GRIFFITHS, 1958, 1961;
BASUMALLICK, 1964), is adequate to characterize the quartile measures as well as the
mean and standard deviation, although some corrections have to be made to equate
the results with sieving (FRIEDMAN, 1958, 1962a; ROGERS,1959). ROSENFELD et al.
(1953) doubted the validity of a general correction factor between thin-section and
sieving, but FRIEDMAN (1958) demonstrated a linear relationship between the two
and devised a special graph paper to simplify computation. Determinations of skew-
ness and kurtosis as obtained by grain-counting do not correlate well with these
properties as obtained by sieving (FRIEDMAN, 1962a), in part because of the small
number of grains counted relative to the millions utilized in sieving. Similarly, the
settling tube can give a pretty good approximation to sieving results when one con-
siders the median or standard deviation, but skewness and kurtosis are radically
different between the two methods (FOLK,1962a). VAN DER PLAS(1962) is very pessi-
mistic as to comparisons of grain-size made by different techniques. Approximations
to the mean and standard deviation can even be made with binocular microscope
(SWANN et al., 1959), and this writer routinely does it with a hand lens and comparison
set of sand grains spaced ar 1/2 9 intervals, for both rocks and Recent sediments.
Each method has its advantages and its drawbacks, and the choice of method
depends on the nature of the problem to be attacked.
Sediirientolqy, 6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 15

Sieving is probably most accurate for general analysis of sand and gravel,
and the time required for analysis is intermediate. Screens should be spaced at lj2 v,
or 1/4 v, intervals; a 1 v, spacing is virtually useless, especially if one is trying to detect
bimodality or study subtleties of tails. Drawbacks are that it can be used only for
loose to weakly consolidated sediments; soft sand grains (e.g., fossils, metamorphic
rock fragments) may be smashed on disaggregation, although G. M. Friedman
(personal communication, 1963) states that sonic disaggregation reduces this problem;
post-depositional overgrowths increase apparent grain-size; size of oddly-shaped or
odd-densitied grains is not “truly” recorded (i.e., in hydraulic terms). Advantages
are that grains are divided into size classes for subsequent mineralogical or shape
studies.
Settling tube is probably least accurate, but is easily the fastest method. Draw-
backs are that it can also be used only for non-gravelly loose to weakly consolidated
sediments, and similar problems occur with soft particles (during disaggregation)
and overgrowths; skewness and kurtosis are valueless unless present sloppiness of
the method is diminished. Advantages are that it measures a better “hydraulic” size
value for particles of unusual shape (plates or rods), density (heavies), or porosity
(skeletal grains).
Grain-counting is of intermediate accuracy (because of the small number of
grains usually counted) and is the slowest. Drawbacks are the tedium of measuring
each grain individually, and inaccurate determination of skewness and kurtosis; parti-
cles of odd shape or density are not “truly” recorded. VANDER PLAS(1962) has criti-
cized current sampling techniques in counting. Advantages are that it is the only
method possible for quartz-cemented sandstones; there is no problem of disaggre-
gation, grain crushing or overgrowths; and separate minerals (e.g., quartz, feldspar)
can easily be counted to get their individual size distributions.

Calibration of’ screens

If one wants merely to measure the mean and standard deviation, it is not necessary
to calibrate the screens; but if one is looking for subtle differences between environ-
ments (and most differences are indeed very subtle) it is absolutely necessary to use
calibrated screens. Screens may be as much as 0.15 v, off the stated diameter, and this
wreaks horrendous effects on delicate parameters like skewness and kurtosis. For
detailed work 1/4 v, interval should be used and the analysis carried out to 0.1 and
99.9%; for muds, this is not so important, as one can extrapolate to get the distri-
bution. From the last data point at 10 v,, extrapolate linearly on arithmetic paper to
14 v, at 100% (FOLKand WARD, 1957, p.13). Any size data on mud-containing
samples is apt to be distorted by the dispersion process, but this graphic approxi-
mation is probably not too wide of the mark.
Screens can be calibrated by sieving several sands from different areas, say
beaches, which most approach a normal distribution. If each sand has a “kick” at
the same v, reading, suspect the screen; then measure the screen openings under binoc-
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 13-93
76 R . L,. FOLK

4-
Fig.1. Simple method of correcting sieve sizes. The 2.75 v, screen here is faulty, because all curves
(from different regions) show a “kick” at the same grain-size. By projection onto the straight line, it
is seen that the true size of the “2.75 p” screen is really 2.81 p.

ular microscope, or check by projecting a straight line on probability paper (Fig.l),

as was suggested by BAGNOLD(1942, p.124). HERDAN(1960) discusses some of the
other errors involved in screening and MCMANUS (1963b) suggests the use of calibrated
spheres to check screens.

GRAPHIC PRESENTATION

Once the data has been collected by one of the several laboratory methods, two
choices lie open: (I) some type of graph is drawn from the data, and from this graph
quantitative readings may be made; or (2) statistical parameters are obtained directly
from the size data (by hand or by computer) without the intermediary graph-plotting
stage (KANEand HUBERT, 1963). For reasons stated later, this writer is strongly in
favor of plotting a graph for each analysis, even if a computer is available.
In order to plot a graph a grade scale must first be chosen. The majority of
sedimentologists agree that the grain-size distribution of sediments approaches log
normality, because when analyses of single-population sediments (e.g., well-sorted
beach sands or gravels) are plotted on a logarithmic size scale a nearly symmetrical
Gaussian probability curve appears. The problem has been discussed, pro and con,
by DOEGLAS (1 946), HERDAN (1960), WALGER (196 l), FRIEDMAN (1962b), ROGERS and
SCHUBERT (1963), ROGERS et al. (1963), TANNER(^^^^), and MIDDLETON (1965). Almost
all American workers follow the scale devised by UDDEN (1898, 1914), starting at 1 mm
with a constant ratio of 2 (or ‘/J between classes; names of the Udden classes were
changed slightly by WENTWORTH (1922), whose terms are now generally followed.
KRUMBEIN (1934) introduced the v, scale as a log transformation to simplify the arith-
metic involved in computing statistical parameters; he presented a nomogram for con-
version from v, to millimeters (1936a). A more detailed nomogram is given in FOLK
(1959b), and numerical conversion tables have been made by PAGE(1955), and in
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 77

much greater detail by GRIFFITHS and MCINTYRE (1958). MCMANUS (1963a) and
KRUMBEIN (1964) have recently discussed the mathematical meaning of q ~ .
Other laws of size distribution have also been advocated. DOEGLAS (1946) and
his colleagues still adamantly favor an arithmetic size scale and ROGERS et al. (1963)
feel hat silt may be arithmetic-normally distributed. Rosin’s “Law of Crushing”
(ROSINand RAMMLER, 1933; BENNET,1936; GEERand YANCEY,1938; KITTLEMAN,
1964) has been advocated for some materials and on a conventional p probability
plot, powdered industrial materials form a curve gently concave to the right with a
+
skewness (Ski) of about 0.15. BREZINA (1963b) has proposed a new size scale based
on settling velocities.
Graphic methods are thoroughly covered in KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1938).
Histograms (e.g., UDDEN,1898, 1914) mainly have pictorial value as little quantitative
data can be read from them; but they are useful in certain special cases and are
easy to understand. Frequency curves, either constructed by the tangent method of
KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1 938), mathematically (BROTHERHOOD and GRIFFITH:,
1947) or by a sliding-subtraction method (BUSH, 1951; CURRAY,1960) are more
accurate because they are uninfluenced by the artificial size divisions of the laboratory
technique.
Most statistical work is done with cumulative curves. Commonly, these are
still drawn using arithmetic percentage ordinate although this practice has been
protested against strongly by OTTO(1939), INMAN (1952), MASONand FOLK (1958),
ROGERS (1959) and many others. All these workers advocate the use of probability per-
centage ordinate (graph paper invented by HAZEN,1914; use for size analyses suggested
by HATCH and CHOATE,1929) which makes normal curves plot out as straight lines,
and is much superior for interpolation. Values of skewness and kurtosis obtained
from curves drawn on arithmetic ordinate are utterly worthless because of the
uncertainty of interpolating an S-shaped curve between data points.

Omission of the graph

Grain-size parameters may be made directly from the data by hand calculation or by
computer, without the necessity of drawing a cumulative curve.
This is risky and should be done only if one wants to accomplish hasty slop-
piness because by not drawing the curve one does not get the “feel” of the data-he
does not detect bimodality, or “shoulders’’ in the curves; fails to catch experimental
errors in weighing, or caused by faulty screens, etc.; and cannot see genetic relation-
ships that may be brought out by actual inspection of the curves. There is really no
substitute for constructing a frequency curve, if one wants to visualize mixed popula-
tions. No “overall” parameter or combination of them (mean, 0, Sk, or K ) is adequate
to reveal all the properties of a complex frequency distribution; the entire curve must
be seen to be appreciated, just as no anthropologist can adequately characterize
a Brigitte Bardot by four measurements alone.
There is also a more serious error: in making the computations one assumes that
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
78 R. L. FOLK

the center of gravity of the material within a particular size range is at the center of
that class interval. Consider a sand with a mean size of 2.5 p and 0 of 0.5 p-unit, sieved
at whole p intervals. The material that lies between 1.0 and 2.0 q~ enters the moment
computation as if the mean particle diameter of grains within that interval were pre-
cisely 1.5 p, whereas in reality the weight midpoint is at 1.78 p. Similarly, the true class
midpoint for the 3.0-4.0 p sand in this sample is 3.22 p and not 3.5 p. This error has no
effect on mean, but serves to make the standard deviation abnormally large (in the
above example CT = 0.57 p-unit by moment method, but the true CT = 0.50 p-unit).
Fortunately a correction can be applied if the curve is normal (ARKINand COLTON,
1939, p.36):

where CTT is the true standard deviation, O M is o as found by the method of moments,
and C is the class interval in v, units. In obtaining the standard deviation graphically,
no such correction need be applied and the “true” value can be obtained immediately.
Also in punching data into the computer one assumes the screens are exactly
2.00, 2.25, 2.50, 2.75 p . . . . etc. as labeled-but this must be corrected for the truly
calibrated diameter of the screen; again this is much simpler to do if a cumulative
curve is drawn rather than going directly from the weighings to the computer and
cranking out parameters.

METHOD OF MOMENTS

The most mathematically elegant method of obtaining parameters of a frequency

distribution is by use of the method of moments, a computational technique whereby
the entire frequency distribution enters into the determination, rather than a few
selected percentiles. Given a size analysis the frequency (weight percent) within each
size class is multiplied by some power of the distance that size class is from the mean
(Table I).
This technique was proposed for sediment analyses by VANORSTRAND (1925),
HATCHand CHOATE (1929), and WENTWORTH (1929). KRUMBEIN adapted the technique
for use with his p scale (1936a), and it is thoroughly discussed in KRUMBEINand
PETTIJOHN(1938). More recent champions of the method of moments have been
GRIFFITHS (1955b, 1958, 1961) and FRIEDMAN (1962a, b); since the advent of the com-
puting machine, the values are relatively easy to obtain and this should increase the
use of the method (KANEand HUBERT,1963).
However, despite its esthetic satisfactions, for natural sediments the method of
moments does have some serious drawbacks which make it really not much superior
to the percentile-intercept methods:
( I ) Few workers in computer analysis allow for the fact of erroneously-sized
screens, which can badly mess up the sensitive third and fourth moments (skewness
and kurtosis); faulty screens can easily be allowed for in the graphic method.
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 79

TABLE I
EXAMPLE OF MOMENT COMPUTATION

a, Class 9 Midpoint Weipht Product Midpoint Midpoint Product

interval deviation deviation
squared
(Dl (W ) (D W ) (MP-D) (Ma,-D2) W(Ma,-D)’

0-1 0.5 1.1 0.6 - 2.12 4.50 5.0

1-2 1.5 17.9 26.8 - 1.12 1.26 22.5
2-3 2.5 51.0 127.5 -0.12 0.014 0.7
3-4 3.5 27.5 56.3 + 0.88 0.78 21.4
>4 4.5 2.5 11.2 + 1.88 3.55 8.8
100.0 262.4 58.4

Mu, = 2621100 = 2.62 a, oa,= 2/ 58.4jl00 = 0.75 a, units

(2) Many sedimentary distributions are ‘60pen-ended” in that they contain a

large proportion of un-analyzed “fines”, particularly material finer than 4 47 (silt and
clay). Because the method of moments includes the entire distribution (0 - 100
percentile), if the mud fraction is not analyzed, it is necessary to make some arbitrary
assumption about the grain size of the “fines” before a computation can be made-
e.g., all material finer than 4 is arbitrarily considered to be centered about 10 p,
etc. One has the same problem in graphic methods, however, if there is more than 5 %
unarialyzed “fines” using the inclusive measures of FOLKand WARD(1957), or more
than 16% “fines” using the methods of OTTO(1939) or INMAN (1952). Consequently
the “fines” should be analyzed as completely as practicable.
(3) In computation it is assumed that the particles within a given class interval
have a center of gravity at the halfway mark of that class; as shown previously, this
is quite erroneous. In the example given in Table I for the method of moments the fol-
lowing discrepancies (cf. Table 11) occur-and this was a normal distribution, plot-
ting as a perfectly straight line on probability paper.

TABLE I1
DISCREPANCIES I N MOMENT COMPUTATION OF TABLE 1’

a, Class Assumed True weight

interval a, midpoint midpoint for
this sample

0-1 0.50 0.81

1-2 1 .50 1.71
2-3 2.50 2.53
3-4 3.50 3.31
>4 4.50 4.21

The true standard deviation of this distribution is 0.70 p-unit, whereas G as computed by the
moment method is 0.76 punit.
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
80 R. L. FOLK

(4) MCCAMMON (1962b) shows that the moment method (as well as the graphic
method) does not always give the “desired” mental image of the distribution. He
prepared a rectangular distribution and a triangular distribution, and found that
although the triangular distribution had a lower standard deviation (was “better
sorted”), the rectangular distribution had a smaller range between the extreme tails.
He also showed that certain strongly asymmetrical distributions could have v, moment
skewness, which would lead one to think that they were symmetrical (similar
objections can be raised against graphic methods, however.)
This writer agrees with FRIEDMAN (1962b) and MIDDLETON (1962) that the
method of moments measures a slightly different property than the graphic methods,
but that it has no specially sacred aura of fundamentality; each method has its
advantages and its drawbacks, and each is equally valid for comparing a suite of
samples. Presumably the same geologic conclusions would be reached no matter
which method is used, because sample-to-sample variation in most geologic suites is
so large as to outweigh precise hair-splitting over details of statistical orthodoxy.

GRAPHIC MEASURES

Measures ojaverage grain-size

Many graphic measures of average grain-size have been proposed. In deciding

which statistic to use, one has to strike some balance between simplicity and accuracy.
The median, proposed by TRASK(1930), is easiest to determine, being that
diameter which has half the grains (by weight) finer, and half coarser. Jt is read by
finding the intercept of the 50 percentile (v 50) with the cumulative curve. It is the
most commonly used, but least accurate, of the measures of average size.
The mode is the most frequently-occuring grain diameter. Samples of sediments
like pebbly sands may have two or more modes, in which case the most abundant
one is spoken of as the primary mode, the others are secondary or subordinate modes.
There is no simple way to find the mode accurately. Ways it can be approximated
are: ( I ) find the steepest slope (inflection point or points) on the cumulative curve
drawn on arithmetic ordinate; or, similarly, find the grain-size represented by the
peak on the frequency curve; (2) a frequency curve may be computed mathematically
by taking a succession of differences (BROTHERHOODand GRIFPITHS, 1947) and the
mode found on this curve; ( 3 ) one can select an arbitrary grain-size interval (say
1/4 v, or ‘iZ v), and by successively shifting this across the cumulative curve, find
the grain-size interval which includes the greatest percentage of grains (BUSH, 1951;
CURRAY, 1960).

Approximations to the mean

The best measure. of overall average size is the mean as computed by the method of
Sedimentology,6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 81

moments, where the entire size curve enters into the compution. Graphic measures
have aimed at approximating this mean as closely as possible but by much simpler
and quicker methods. In general, the more percentiles read, the more accurate the
approximation to the moment mean. This subject has been covered in great detail
by MCCAMMON (1962a).
+
OTTO(1939) proposed Mu, = (p 16 p 84)/2, as did INMAN(1952). Both these
measures ignore the central third of the distributions and are thus unsatisfactory
in bimodal and/or skewed distributions. To remedy this, FOLKand WARD(1957)
+ +
proposed M , = (p 16 p 50 p 84)/3. MCCAMMON (1962a) added further refinements,
(p 10+ + +
q 30 p 50 q 70 + +
p 90)/5 and (p 5 +
q 15 p 25.. . p 85+ +p 93/10.
+ + + +
One could suggest ultimately (p 0.5 p 1.5 p 2.5. . . q 98.5 p 99.5)/100, at
which point one might as well compute the mean by the method of moments!
MCCAMMON (1962a) in an extremely useful survey has rated these measures
at the following efficiencies (in approximating the moment mean in samples drawn
from normal distributions):
TRASK(1930) Median, p 50 64 %
+
OTTO(1939) and INMAN(1952) Mu, = (p 16 p 84)/2 74 %
FOLKand WARD(1957) +
M , -- (p 16 p 50 p 84)/3+ 88 %
MCCAMMON (1962a) (p10+q30+y,50+p70+q90)/5 93%
MCCAMMON (1962a) (p 5 + + +
q 15 -t p 2 5 . . . p 8 5 p95)/10 97%

Geologic meaning

The mean, or one of its more efficient graphic approximations (certainly not the
inefficient median, which ought to be discarded) reflects the overall average size of
the sediment as influenced by source of supply, environment of deposition, etc.
However, recently attention has been drawn to the modes as being especially useful
in studying mixed sources of material and it has great genetic significance, probably
greater than the mean, in deciphering origin (CURRAY,1960; BREZINA, 1963a).
Nature apparently provides us with three dominant modal populations:
gravel, sand plus coarse silt, and clay, resulting respectively from direct breakage
along joint or bedding planes, from granular disintegration and abrasion, and from
chemical decay. This was partly observed by SORBY(l88Ol p.49) but first definitely
recognized by WENTWORTH (1933) who proposed that there were two strong gaps
in natural size distributions, one at -1 p (2 mm) and one at 8 p (0.004 mm) with a
weaker gap a t 3.5 p (0.09 mm). UDDEN (1914) found a lack of the 3-4 a, sands in
eolian sediments. HOUGH(1942) found gaps at -1 to -11/2 q and 4 to 4l/, p, and
PETTIJOHN (1949, pp.4145; 1957, pp.46-51) also noted gaps at 0 to -2 p and
3-5 p, as did TANNER(1958b, 1959), FOLK(1959a; b, p . 9 , SPENCER (1963l and
ROGERS et al. (1963). BAKKER (1957) found a deficiency of fine silt grains in the
tropics. WOLFF (1964) recently summarized some of the literature. The existence
of gaps is, however, denied by GRIFFITHS (1957) who imputes the apparent gaps to
changes in analytical technique, e.g., direct measurement VS. screens vs. pipette.
SedimentoZogy, 6 (1966) 73-93
82 R. L. FOLK

Dissection of cumulative probability curves into two or more approximately

normally-distributed components has been done by DOEGLAS (1946) and colleagues,
FOLKand WARD(1957), HARRIS (1958), MASONand FOLK(1958), TANNER (1958a,
1959, 1964), CURRAY(1960), WALGER(1961), FULLER (1961, 1962) and SPENCER
( I 963). The sxond, fourth and last article proposed variations in abundance of modes
as the basic cause of sorting, skewness, and kurtosis values of terrigenous sediments.
FOLK(1962) and FOLKand ROBLES(1964) found the same relations to hold in car-
bonate beach sediments of Mexico. These papers clearly reveal the important role
of source material in controlling the statistics of grain-size distributions, although
J. Brezina (personal communication) points out that other sedimentational processes
may produce different modes or shift earlier ones. H E R D A(1948),
~ HARDING (1949),
CASSIE(1950, 1954, 1963) and AHRENS(1963) have used probability-paper plots to
dissect polymodal populations in other fields.

UDDEN(1914) used the ratio between successive classes on a histogram, as well

as the total spread of the histogram as a measure of sorting in his pioneering work.
As early as 1925, VAN ORSTRAND used the standard deviation in millimeters. In
1929, HATCHand CHOATEalso suggested using the standard deviation (0)on a
geometric scale as a measure of uniformity or sorting of particles, using as a graphic
approximation to 0,the value Mm 84/Mm 50; this of course would work only in nor-
mal (symmetrical) curves. A y analogue to this would be ( y 50-y 16). TRASK(1930,
1932) suggested a measure So = 1/Mm 25/Mm 75 using millimeter values, and this
remained the most widely used sorting parameter for sediments until the last few
years, when the standard deviation has finally begun to supercede it except for a
few holdouts. After KRUMBEIN (1934) developed the y scale, he proposed (1936) a v
analogue to Trask’s So, the y quartile deviation or Q D y = (p 75-p 25)/2.
As in graphic approximations to the mean, the more of a curve that enters
into a sorting measure, the more accurate that measure will be. Both So and QDy
measure the sorting only in the central half of the distribution, therefore are very
insensitive since sorting variations between environments are expressed mostly in
the tails, a region beyond the reach of the 25th and 75th percentiles. OTTO(1939)
and INMAN (1952) discuss the inadequacy of these measures, but sadly they seem to
have been largely ignored. It is this writer’s very strong opinion that both So and
QDyl should be immediately abandoned.
GRIFPITHS (195 la) developed a more comprehensive measure, the percentile
deviation (PDy),covering the central 80 % of the distribution. but he later abandoned
this and went over to moments.
Most recent measures have gone back to 0 in order that the uniformity measure
used by sedimentologists might be in harmony with the uniformity measure current
in mathematics and all other sciences; this was made rigorously possible only by
application of the y scale of KRUMBEJN (1934). More properly, one should use s,
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 83

a sample statistic, to designate the standard deviation of ;i sample; in standard mathe-

matical practice, a is the population parameter. OTTO (1939) proposed ay =
( y 84-y 16)/2, as did INMAN(1952). CADICAN(1954) proposed ( y 98-y 2)/4 as
being a closer approach to moment a in natural sediments, because of the common
presence of poorly-sorted tails. FOLK and WARD(1957), feeling these measures were
inadequate for bimodal or skewed distributions, developed the more sensitive measure
+
Inclusive Graphic Standard Deviation GI = ( y 84-y 16)/4 ( y 95-y 5)/6.6 which
made a better coverage of the tails of a distribution, wherein the differences between
beach, river, and dune sands chiefly lie. Based on four intercepts rather than two, it
thereby gave a more accurate approximation to the moment a. TANNER (1958a) gave
formulae for computing a from any pair of percentiles, e.g., a = ( y 90-y 10)/2.56
or a = (y 95-y 5)/3.29. BREZINA(1963a) has proposed a sorting measure based
on the y diameter at which the value of the second derivative of the frequency curve
is zero.
Recently, MCCAMMON (1962a) proposed two new measures of his own and
compared the statistical efficiencies of the various measures in approximating the
moment a for normal distributions:
(Soor Q D y converted to terms of a) (u, 75 - y 25)/1.35 37 %
OTTO(1939); INMAN (1952) (P 84 -Y 16)/2 54 %
FOLKand WARD(1957) (u, 84 -~1 16)/4 + ((0 95 - 5)/6.6 79 %
MCCAMMON (1962a) (u, 85 + V, 95 9 5 - 15)/5.4
- 79 %
MCCAMMON (1962a) ( y 70 + y 80 + y 90 + y 97-y 3 - y 10
--y 20--0, 30)/9.1 87%

Several verbal scales for sorting have been proposed. The scale of TRASK
(1932), using his So, is woefully inadequate for most work since almost all dune,
beach, marine and river sands fall in his “well-sorted” category with So under 2.5.
FOLKand WARD(1957) proposed a new scale as did FRIEDMAN (1962b), as shown
in Table 111.
Folk and Ward’s scale is essentially geometric, with a ratio of 2 between major
classes, subdivided into 1/2 scale for the better degrees of sorting; Friedman’s scale
is essentially arithmetic, with a difference of 0.60 between higher classes. FUCHTBAUER
(1959) has proposed a scale for use with Trask’s So.
Some comparisons have been made between the moment statistics and graphic
approximations thereto. FRIEDMAN (1962b) compared a values obtained graphically
with those obtained by the method of moments; the graphic measure of FOLKand
WARD(1957) showed very close correlation with the moment a over the whole
range of sorting values studied; that of Inman also worked well for better sorting
values, but was less satisfactory for more poorly sorted sands. CADICAN(1954) also
showed that the Otto-Inman a gave poor correlation with moment a for moderately
to poorly-sorted sands.
An atavistic note has been sounded by MILLERand ZEIGLER(1958, p.418)
with their sorting measure ( M m 20-Mm 80)/Mm 50. This disregards most workers
Scdirnentolgyy, 6 (1966) 73-93
84 R. L. FOLK

TABLE 111
SCALES FOR SORTING

0,v, units

Sorting ierm FOLKand WARD FRIEDMAN

(1957) (19626)

Very well sorted

0.35 0.35 -
Well sorted
0.50 0.50 -
Moderately well sorted
0.71 0.80 ~

Moderately sorted
1 .oo 1.40 -
Poorly sorted
2.00 2.00 -
Very poorly sorted
4.00 2.60 -
Extremely poorly sorted

who agree that grain-size distribution in sediments is lognormal; with the Miller
measure, one achieves equal sorting values for a sediment with a 20-80 percentile
range of 2.0-8.0 mm and a median of 4.0 mm-and a sediment with a 20-80 per-
centile range of 0.001-6.001 mm and a median of 4.0 mm-e q u a l sorting values,
yet the first sediment’s 20-80 percentile range includes only two Wentworth-Udden
size classes, and the second sediment contains over twelve classes.
SHARPand FAN (1963) have devised a complex new sorting measure which
represents a radically new concept of sorting; it appears to be specially valuable in
sharply bimodal sediments where each mode is itself well sorted.
Although all commonly-used measures of sorting are geometrically independent
of mean size, usually when a size vs. sorting scatter diagram is made for a series of
samples, a clear association emerges. Generally, sediments of fine sand size are
best sorted, and sorting becomes worse for both coarser and finer sediments (HOUGH,
1942; INMAN,1949, 1953; GRIFFITHS, 1951a, b; FOLKand WARD,1957; FOLK,1959a;
WALGER, 1961; HUBERT,1964) and for carbonates (FOLK,1962b; FOLKet al., 1962;
FOLKand ROBLES,1964). INMAN(1949) explained this as the result of fluid dynamics,
but a polymodal source seems more likely as the relationship between size and sorting
is sinusoidal (FOLKand WARD,1957; BLATT,1958; FOLK,1959a, 1962b; and HUBERT,
1964). This sorting trend is caused by the high frequency of pebbles, sand, and clay in
nature, with a relative lack of granules and finer silt.

Skewness

To measure the non-normality of a distribution, it is necessary to compute both

Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 85

(1932) used:
skewness (or asymmetry) and kurtosis (or peakedness). TRASK
( M m 25) ( M m 75)
Sk =
( M m 50)2
Several modifications of this are discussed by KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1938,
pp.235-238). The latter developed a, quartile skewness SkqP= (a, 25 +
a, 75 - 2 a,
50)/2, but this is not geometrically independent of sorting, therefore is unsatisfactory.
INMAN(1952) presented two skewness measures, one for the central part of
the distribution and another for the tails. His first measure, here slightly recast, was:

up =
0 16 + 8 4 - 2 ~ 50
(O
_ _ _ _ ~
V, 84-a, 16

and second skewness measure was:

aza, =;
a, 5 +~ - 25
9 ____ 50
~ 8 4 - a , 16
A symmetrical curve has aa , -- 0.00; one with a tail in the fines has positive
values up to a mathematical limit of +
1.00; and one with a tail in the coarse grains
has negative values with a limit of -1.00. A skewness measure should be geometri-
cally independent of the sorting; Inman’s aa, satisfies his requirement, but his a2
a,
does not, inasmuch as the skewness of the tails is divided by the sorting of the central
part of the distribution, which can easily lead to unrealistic skewness values over 1.00.
FOLKand WARD (1957) developed a more sensitive skewness measure by
combining Inman’s first skewness with an analogous measure for the tails, giving
Inclusive Graphic Skewness:

Ski =
O, 84 - a, 16 + 2 a, 50 + 95-95 - 2 50
2 (a, 84 - 16) 2(~,95-~55)
As with Inman’s measure, symmetrical curves have Skl = 0.00, and the measure
varies from -1.00 to +
1.00 (though natural sediments with skewness values beyond
& 0.80 are very rare).

Kurtosis

Most measures of kurtosis compute some ratio between the spread in the central
part of the distribution and the spread in the tails.
KELLEY (1924, pp.45, 77) used an equation for kurtosis which was adapted for
use with the a, scale by KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1938, p.238):
V, 75 - ~ 2 5
Kqa =
2(p90-~10)
but this equation has been seldom used for any practical purpose. INMAN(1952)
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
86 R. L. FOLK

proposed:
(9 95 - 9 5) - (9 84 - 9 16)
Pa, =
984-9 16
as a measure of kurtosis, with normal curves having p of 0.65. FOLKand WARD
a,
( I 957) developed a measure of graphic kurtosis:
995-95
KG 1

2.44 (9 75 - 9 25)
l n this measure, normal curves have a KG of 1.00, because the a, 5-9 95 spread is
exactly 2.44 times the 25-75 spread. Very platykurtic distributions (e.g., bimodal
distributions with two equal and widely separated modes: “saddle” distributions)
may have KG values as low as 0.6; while very leptokurtic distributions, containing
coarser and/or finer “tails” may have KG values of 1.5 - 3 or even more. In making
scatter plots, FOLKand WARD(1957) proposed to normalizer the kurtosis function
+
by plotting the transform KG‘ = KG/(KG 1) instead of KG itself. BREZINA (1963a)
has proposed new measures of skewness and kurtosis based on the zero-values of
2nd and 3rd derivatives of the frequency curve.

SigniFcance o j skewness and kurtosis

HOUGH(1942), INMAN (1953), and INMAN and CHAMBERLAIN ( 1955) plotted skewness
vs. mean size for some Recent sediments and obtained good trends. Strongly skewed
samples were obtained from zones of environmental mixing. FOLKand WARD
(1957) did that for Brazos River sediments, and found a doubly sinusoidal association;
when mean size, sorting and skewness were coplotted in three dimensions, a helix
resulted (mean vs. sorting, sinusoidal; mean vs. skewness, sinusoidal; sorting vs.
skewness, circular). Helical trends have since been found for many other distributions,
providing two distinctly separated populations are present and samples analyzed
include the entire range of mixtures, (e.g., BLATT, 1958; NIENABER,1958; FOLK
et al., 1962; FOLK and ROBLES,1964; HUBERT,1964).
Plots of skewness against kurtosis for suites of samples are a powerful tool
in interpreting the genesis of sediments as reflected in the normality of their size
distributions. FOLKand WARD(1957) did this for samples of a bar on the Brazos
River, and showed that skewness and kurtosis were the result of mixing of two
normal populations in various proportions. A dominant fine population and subor-
dinate coarse population gave negative skewness, while a dominant coarse mode gave
positive skewness. A subequal mixture of two populations gave platykurtic (“saddle”)
distributions, while a mixture of one predominant and one very subordinate popu-
lation gave leptokurtic or excessively peaked distributions. MASONand FOLK(1 958)
found that a plot of skewness vs. kurtosis best separated beach, dune and aeolian
flat environments on a Texas barrier bar, and explained it as the result of addition
to or amputation of the tails of the parent distribution because of the geologic
Sedimentology,6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 87

processes operating. The Texas beach samples were negatively skewed because of the
addition of a minute “tail” of coarse grains, while the dune and aeolian flat samples
were positively-skewed because of the amputation of the coarser tail and addition
of a finer tail of silt. FRIEDMAN (1961) confirmed this relation by showing in samples
of many mineraLcompositions from many localities, that beach sands tended to be
negative-skewed and dunes positive-skewed; this difference should show up, provided
sieves, not settling tubes, are used (FOLK,1962a) because the settling tube gives such
erratic skewness and kurtosis readings. CADIGAN (1961) has also used skewness
and kurtosis to aid in environmental discrimination.
This diffefence between beach and dune sands was noticed (non-quantitatively)
by OTTO(1939) who pointed out that probability curves for beach sands were concave
up (i.e., had a coarse tail) and those for dunes were concave down. KELLER (1945)
apparently observed the same effect, though by inspection of histograms.
FRIEDMAN (1962b) showed that most sands are leptokurtic and either (+) or
(-) skewed. MASONand FOLK(1958, p.224) explained this by saying that most
sands consist of one predominant population with a very subordinate coarser (-2%)
or finer (+ Sk)population. The same is true for carbonate sands (FOLK and ROBLES,
1964).
SPENCER (1963) also explains skewness and kurtosis as indicating the degree
of mixing of two lognormal populations. TANNER(1960) has applied the same
reasoning with skewness vs. kurtosis plots in analyzing hypsometric curves in geo-
morphology. BREZINA(1963b) explains some negative skewness by considering
hydrodynamics.
In counts of relatively small numbers of grains or items, one may obtain
skewed frequency distributions simply by accidents of sampling from a normal, non-
skewed population. The question then arises; given a certain number of grains or
items counted, what skewness value must be exceeded in order that the skewness
is significant and not the result of chance sampling? GRIFFITHS (1955b) advocates the
use of FISHER’S (1948) g-statistics to determine the significance of skewness and
kurtosis values. These are based on the method of moments, and are not applicable
to graphic methods nor to results from sieving or settling-tube techniques wherein
the number of grains is effectively infinite.

OTHER METHODS

Only a fanatic would insist that standard statistics are the sine qua non of grain-size
studies. Many other “odd and curious” methods, though away from the main
stream of research, often make special contributions and allow the worker to see
relationships that might be completely hidden by the standard “textbook” statistical
approach .
For example, KELLER (1945), using the simple histogram, compared the per-
centages in the modal class with the percentages in the two size classes adjacent to
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
88 R. L. FOLK

the mode. He discovered that in dune sands, the class finer than the mode was more
abundant, and in beach sands the class coarser than the mode was more abundant.
Although if different sieve intervals had been used, the results might have been altered;
this is an early expression of the fact that dune sands tend to be positively-skewed
with a tail in the fines, and beach sands tend to be coarse-tailed shown later by MASON
and FOLK(1958) who used more conventional statistics.
BAGNOLD (1942) developed a plotting method for dune sands involving a
frequency curve on a logarithmic percentage scale. A common device is to plot
samples on a triangular diagram, say of sand-silt-clay, or gravel-sand-mud, etc.
(PLUMLEY and DAVIS,1956). This is virtually equivalent to using a three-class histo-
gram. BREZINA (1963a) proposed an improved method of estimation from a triangular
plot.
PETTIJOHN (1957) and his students (SCHLEE,1957; PELLETIER, 1958) have
obtained much useful information on paleoslope, direction of transport, and presumed
distance of transport by making areal maps showing the variation in size of
the largest pebble (or mean of the largest ten pebbles) in an outcrop. TOWE(1963)
has done this for sands. KRUMBEIN and LIEBLEIN (1956) applied extreme-value statis-
tics to decide whether large boulders can be thought of as being part of the tail of
a normal distribution, or whether they are extraneously introduced from another
population. GUMBEL (1958) also discusses the statistics of extremes.
The methods developed by DOEGLAS (1946) (see also VANANDELand POSTMA,
1954; NOTA,1958; and KOLDEWIJN, 1958) are unique in that an attempt is made to
decide genesis of deposits from visual inspection of the shapes of curves as plotted
on an arithmetic size scale. Truncations and additions to parent populations are
identified. SPENCER (1963) also recognizes sorted and truncated deposits by the shapes
of the curves. DOEGLAS more recently (1955, 1956, 1962) has developed a rectangular
diagram for showing the familial variation of all size fractions.
PASSEGA (1 957) has attempted to distinguish environments (particularly turbi-
dity-current deposits) by plotting a “CM diagram”, a graph of the 1st percentile
against the median. BULL(1962) applied this technique to alluvial fans. SAHU(1964)
uses an elaborate combination of parameters to differentiate depositional mechanisms.
HAGERMAN (1936) was able to correlate sandstone units by plotting grain length
vs. grain breadth-length ratio, and finding the plots formed fields of characteristic
shape; fields were also claimed (1938, 1954) to be characteristic of certain environ-
ments. FABER(1955, 1956) and MABESOONE (1962) use a combined plot of grain-size
spread and roundness as measured in a binocular microscope in differentiating
environments.
Moss (1962, 1963) plots particle length vs. the length-width ratio, obtains
characteristic curves for different styles of deposition and allots the particles to
different “populations” according to their inferred modes of coming to rest.
It would, I think, be desirable if those workers who do develop highly personal
parameters or plotting methods would also treat their results using more standard
statistics, obtained either by one of the more efficient graphic methods or by the
Sedimentology,6 (1966) 73-93
GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 89

moment method. In this way different workers would be better able to compare
suites of samples from dispositional areas. It is high time to start applying these
measures in a practical way toward environmental or source discrimination; in general,
interpretation of the geologic meaning of the results has lagged far behind because
of our tendency to be preoccupied by methodology.

REFERENCES

AHRENS, L. H., 1963. Element distribution in igneous rocks. VI. Negative skewness of SiOz and K .
Ceochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 27 : 929-938.
ARKIN,H.and COLTON, R. R., 1939. An Outline ofStatisticat Methods. Barnes and Noble, New York,
N.Y., 224 pp.
BAGNOLD, R. A., 1942. The Physics OJ Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. Morrow, New York, N.Y.,
265 pp.
BAKKER, J. P. und MULLER, H. J., 1957. Zweiphasige Flussablagerungen und Zweiphasenverwitterung
in den Tropen unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung von Surinam. Hermann Lautensach-Festscfir.,
Stuttgarter Geograph. Studien, 69 : 365-397.
BASUMALLICK, S., 1964. A note on thin-section mechanical analysis, J. Sediment. Petrol., 34 : 194.
BENNETT, J. G., 1936. Broken coal. J. lnst. Fuel, 10 :22-39.
BIEDERMAN JR., E., 1958. Shoreline Sedimentation in New Jersey. Ph. D. Thesis, Penna. State Univ.,
University Park, Pa.
BLATT,H., 1958. Sedimentation on New Jersey Beaches. M. A. Thesis, Univ. Texas, Austin, Texas.
BREZINA,J., 1963a. Classification and measures of grain-size distribution. (Preliminary report.)
Zvlaitni Otisk Vgstniku Ustredniho ostavu Geologickdho,38 :409412.
BREZINA, J., 1963b. Kapteyn’s transformation of grain-size distribution. J. Sediment. Petrol., 33 :
931-937.
BROTHERHOOD, G. R. and GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1947. Mathematical derivation of the unique frequency
curve. J. Sediment. Petrol., 17 : 77-82.
BULL,W. B., 1962. Relation of textural (CM) patterns to depositional environment of alluvial-fan
deposits. J . Sediment. Petrol., 32 : 211-217.
BUSH,J., 1951. Derivation of a size-frequency curve from the cumulative curve. J . Sediment. Petrol.,
21 : 178-182.
CADIGAN, R. A., 1954. Testing graphical methods of grain-size analysis of sandstones and siltstones.
J . Sediment. Petrol., 24 : 123-127.
CADIGAN, R. A., 1961. Geologic interpretation of grain-size distribution measurements of Colorado
plateau sedimentary rocks. J . Geol., 69 : 121-144.
CASSIE,R. M., 1950. The analysis of polymodal frequency distributions by the probability paper
method. New Zealand Sci. Rev., 8 : 89-91.
CASSIE,R. M., 1954. Some uses of probability paper in the analysis of size frequency distributions.
AusfralianJ . Marine Freshwater Res., 5 :513-522.
CASSIE,R. M., 1963. Tests of significance for probability paper analysis. New Zealand J. Sci., 6 :
474482.
CURRAY, J. R., 1960. Tracing sediment masses by grain-size modes. intern. Geol. Congr., 21st, Copen-
hagen, Rept, Session, Norden, pp.119-130.
DOEGLAS, D. J,, 1946. Interpretation of the results of mechanical analysis. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
16 : 19-40.
DOEGLAS, D. J., 1955. A rectangular diagram for comparison of size-frequency distributions. Geol.
Mqnbouw, 17 : 129-136.
DOEGLAS, D. J., 1956. An exponential function of size-frequency distribution of sediments. Geol.
Mynbouw, 18 : 1-29.
DOEGLAS, D. J., 1962. A graphic approach to the interpretation of variations in the size-frequency
distribution of silty clays. Bull. Groupe Franc. Argile, 13 : 3-14.
EMERY, K . 0. and GOULD,H., 1948. A code for expressing grain-size distribution. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 18 : 14-23.
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
90 R. L. FOLK

EPSTEIN,B., 1947. The mathematical description of certain breakage mechanisms leading to the
logarithmico-normal distribution. J. Franklin Znst., 244 : 471477.
FABER,F. J., 1955. Het duinen strandzand langs de oostkust van de Noordzee. Zngenieur (Utrecht),
21 : M17-26.
FABER,F. J., 1956. Analyse de grains de sable. Verhandl. Koninkl. Ned. Geol. Mynbouwk. Genoot.,
Geol. Ser., GedenXboek H. A . Brouwer, 16 : 92-99.
R. A,, 1948. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 354 pp.
FISHER,
FOLK,R. L., 1959a. Interaction of source and environment in controlling plqts of size versus sorting.
Program of Dallas Meeting-Soc. Econ. Paleontologists Mineralogisfs, pp.67-68.
FOLK,
FOLK,
w.L.,
1959b. fNO/OJJ of iiedmentary ROGh Hemphill’s, Austin, Texas, 154pp.
R.L., 1962a. Of skewness and sands. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32 : 145-146.
FOLK,R. L., 1962b. Sorting in somecarbonate beaches of Mexico. Trans. N . Y. Acad. Sci., Ser. IZ,25 :
222-244.
FOLK,R. L. and ROBLES,R., 1964. Carbonate sediments of Isla Perez, Alacran Reef Complex,
Yucatan. J . Geol., 72 : 255-292.
FOLK,R. L. and WARD,W. C., 1957. Brazos River bar, a study in the significance of grain-size
parameters. J . Sediment. Petrol., 27 : 3-27.
FOLK,R. L., HAYES,M. 0. and SHOJI,R., 1962. Carbonate sediments of Isla Mujeres, Quintana Roo
and vicinity. In: Field Trip to Yucatan-New Orleans Geol. SOC.Guidebook, 19 : 85-100.
FRIEDMAN, G. M., 1958. Determination of sieve-size distribution from thin-section data for sedi-
mentary petrological studies. J. Geol., 66 : 394-416.
FRIEDMAN, G. M., 1961.Distinction between dune, beach, and river sands from their textural charac-
teristics. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31 :514-529.
FRIEDMAN, G . M., 1962a. Comparison of moment measures for sieving and thin-section data in
sedimentary petrological studies. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32 : 15-25.
FRIEDMAN, G. M., 1962b. On sorting, sorting coefficients, and the lognormality of the grain size
distribution of sandstones. J . Geol., 70 : 737-756.
FUCHTBAUER, H., 1959. Zur Nomenklatur der Sedimentgesteine. Erdol Kohle, 12 : 605-613.
FULLER,A. O., 1961. Size-distribution characteristics of shallow marine sands from the Cape of Good
Hope, South Africa. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31 : 256-261.
FULLER,A. o., 1962. Systemic fractionation of sand in the shallow marine and beach environment
off the South African coast. J. Sediment. Petrol., 32 :602-606.
GEER,M. R.and YANCEY, H. F., 1938. Expression and interpretation of the size coniposition of coal.
Trans. AIME, Coal Div., 130 : 250-269.
GREONMAN, N. M . , 1951. The mechanical analysis of sediments from thin-section data. J. Geol.,
59 :447462.
GRENDER, G. C., 1961. Note on measurement of grain size in phi units. J. Sediment. Petrol., 31 : 608.
GRIFFITHS, 5. C., 1948. Size versus sorting in some Trinidad sediments. (Abstract). Bull. Gee[. SOC.
Am., 54 : 1327.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1951a. Size versus sorting in some Carribbean sediments. J. Geol., 59 : 211-243.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1951b. Size and sorting in sediments. (Abstract). Bull. Geol. SOC.Am., 62 : 1551.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1952. Grain-size distribution and reservoir-rock characteristics. Bull. Am. A ~ S O C .
Petrol. Geologists, 36 : 205-229.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1955a. Sampling sediments for measurement of grain size and shape. (Abstract).
Bull. Geol. SOC.Am., 66 : 1568.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1955b. Statistics for the description of frequency distributions-generated by the
measurement of petrographic properties of sediments. Compass Sigma Ganzma Epsilon,
32 : 329-346.
GRIFFITHS, 5. C., 1957. Size-frequency distribution of detrital sediments based on sieving and pipette
sedimentation. (Abstract). Bull. Geol. SOC.Am., 68 : 1739,
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1958. Petrography and porosity of the Cow Run Sand, St. Mary’s, West Virginia.
J . Sediment. Petrol., 28 : 15-30.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1959. Size and shape of rock-fragments in Tuscarora Scree, Fishing Creek, Lamar,
Central Pennsylvania. J. Sediment. Petrol., 29 : 391401.
GRIFFITHS,J. C . , 1961. Measurements of the properties of sediments. J. Geol., 69 : 487498.
GRIFFITHS, J. C., 1962. Statistical methods in sedimentary petrography. In: H . B. M~LNER (Editor),
SedimenfaryPetrography. MacMillan, New York, N.Y.

Sedirnentology, 6 (1966) 73-93

GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 91

GRIFFITHS,J. C. and MCINTYRE, D. D., 1958. A table for the conversion of millimeters to phi units.
Penna. State Univ., Mineral Ind. Expt. Sta., 66 pp.
GRIFFITHS, J. C. and ROSENFELD, M. A., 1953. A furter test of dimensional orientation of quartz
grains in Bradford Sand. Am. J. Sci., 251 : 192-214.
GUMBEL, E. J., 1958. Statistics of Extremes. Columbia Univ. Press, New York, N.Y., 375 pp.
HAGERMAN, T. H., 1936. Granulometric studies in northern Argentine, Part 2. Geogra!. Ann.,
18 : 164-213.
HAGERMAN, T. H., 1938. About the relation between the distribution field of the relative width of the
particles and the genesis of the sediment. Geol. Foren. Stockholm Forh., 60 : 382-391.
HAGERMAN, T. H. and BORELL, R., 1954. Granulometric studies of Scanian sandstones. Geol. Foren.
Stockholm Forh., 76 : 279-298.
HARDING, 5. P., 1949. The use of probability paper for the graphical analysis of polyniodal frequency
distribution. J. Marine. Biol. Assoc., U.K., 28 : 141-153.
HARRIS,S. A., 1957. Mechanical constitution of certain present-day Egyptian dune sands. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 27 : 421434.
HARRIS,S. A., 1958. Probability curves and the recognition of adjustment to depositional environ-
ment. J . Sediment. Petrol., 28 : 151-163.
HARRIS, S. A., 1959. The mechanical composition of some intertidal sands. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
29 :412424.
HATCH,T. and CHOATE, S. P., 1929. Statistical description of the size properties of non-uniform
particulate substances. J. Franklin Znst., 207 : 369-387.
HAZEN,A., 1914. Storage to be provided in impounding reservoirs for municipal water supply.
Trans. Am. SOC,Civil Engrs., 77 : 1539-1669.
HERDAN, G., 1948. Quality Control by SfatisticalMethods. Nelson, New York, N.Y., 251 pp.
HERDAN, G., 1960. SmallParficleStatistics. Academic Press, New York, N.Y., 418 pp.
HOUGH, J. L., 1942. Sediments of Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. J. Sediment, Petrol., 12 : 10-30.
HUBERT, J. F., 1964. Textural evidence for deposition of many western North Atlantic deep-sea sands
by ocean-bottom currents rather than turbidity currents. J. Geol., 72 :757-785.
HULBE,C. W. H., 1957. An Investgation of the Size and Shape of Quartz Grains, Pedro Beach, Cali-
fornia. M.S. Thesis, Penna. State Univ., University Park, Pa., 69 pp., unpublished.
INMAN,D. L., 1949. Sorting of sediments in the light of fluid mechanics. J. Sediment. Petrol,, 19 :
51-70.
INMAN, D. L., 1952. Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
22 125-145.
INMAN,D. L., 1953. Areal and seasonal variations in beach and nearshore sediments at La Jolla,
California. Beach Erosion Board, Ofice Chief Eng., Tech. Mem., No. 39.
INMAN,D. L. and CHAMBERLAIN, T. K., 1955. Particle-size distribution in nearshore sediments. In:
J. L. HOUGHand H. W. MENARD(Editors), Finding Ancient Shorelines-Soc. Econ. Palaeon-
tologists, Spec. Publ., 3 : 106-129.
IRANI,R. R. and CALLIS,C. F., 1963. Particle Size: Measurement, Interpretation and Applications.
Wiley, New York, N.Y., 165 pp.
KANE,W. T. and HUBERT,5. F., 1963. Fortran program for calculation of grain-size textural para-
meters on the IBM 1620 computer. Sedimentology, 2 : 87-90.
KELLER, W. D., 1945. Size distribution of sand in some dunes, beaches, and sandstones. Bull. Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 29 : 215-221.
KELLEY,T. L., 1923. StatisticalMethods. MacMillan, New York, N.Y., 340 pp.
KENNEDY, J. F. and KOH,R. C. Y., 1961. The relation between the frequency distributions of sieve
diameters and the fall velocities of sediment particles. J. Geophys. Res., 66 :42334246.
KITTLEMAN JR., L. R., 1964. Applications of Rosin’s distribution in size-frequency analysis of clastic
rocks. J . Sediment. Petrol., 34 :483-502.
KOLDEWJN, B. W., 1958. Sediments of the Paria-Trinidad Shelf--Reports of the Orinoco Shelf Expe-
dition, Part 3. Mouton, The Hague.
KOLMOGOROFF, A. N., 1941. uber das logarithmisch normale Verteilungsgesetz der Dimensionen der
Teilchen bei Zerstuckelung. Dokl. Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R . , 31 : 99-101.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1932. History of mechanical analysis. J. Sediment. Petrol., 2 : 89-124.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1934. Size frequency distribution of sediments. . ISediment. Petrol., 4 :65-77.
.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1935. Thin section mechanical analysis of indurated sediments. J . Geol., 43 :
482-496.
Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 73-93
92 R. L. FOLK

KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1936a. Application of logarithmic moments to size frequency distribution of sedi-
ments. J . Sediment. Petrol., 6 : 3547.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1936b. The use of quartile measures in describing and comparing sediments. Am.
J . Sci., 32 : 98-111.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1938. Size frequency distributions of sediments and the normal phi curve. J .
Sediment. Petrol., 8 : 84-90.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1964. Some remarks on the phi notation. J. Sediment. Petrol., 34 : 195-197.
KRUMBEIN, W. C. and LIEBLEIN, J., 1956. Geological application of extreme value methods to inter-
pretation of cobbles and boulders in gravel deposits. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 37 : 313-319.
KRUMBEIN, W. C. and PETTIJOHN, F. J., 1938. Manual of Sedimentary Petrology. Appleton-Century-
Crofts, New York, N.Y., 549 pp.
MABESOONE, J. M., 1962. Some application of Faber's method for grain-size analysis by counting.
Geol. Mynbouw, 41 : 409-422.
MARTIN,G., BLYTH,C. E. and TONGUE, H., 1924. Researches on the theory of fine grinding. 1. Law
governing connection between number of particles and their diameters in grinding crushed
sand. Trans. Ceramic Soc., 23 : 17-28.
MASON, C . C. and FOLK,R. L., 1958. Differentiation of beach, dune, and aeolian flat environments by
size analysis, Mustang Islands, Texas. J. Sediment. Petrol., 28 : 21 1-226.
MCCAMMON, R. B., 1462a. Efficiencies of percentile measures for describing the mean size and sorting
of sedimentary particles. J . Geol., 70 : 453465.
MCCAMMON, R. B., 1962b. Moment measures and the shape of size frequency distributions. J . Geol.,
70 : 89-92.
MCMANUS,D. A., 1963% A criticism of certain usage of the phi notation. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
33 : 670-675.
MCMANUS, D. A,, 1963b. Sieve calibration. J. Sediment. Petrol., 33 : 953-954.
MIDDLETON, G. V., 1962. On sorting, sorting coefficients, and the lognormality of the grain-size
distributions of sandstones-a discussion. J. Geol., 70 : 754-756.
MIDDLETON, G. V., 1965. The generation of the log-normal size frequency distribution in sediments.
In: A. B. VisteliusAnniversary Volume, in press.
MILLER,R. L., 1956. Trend surfaces-their application to analysis and description of environments
of sedimentation. Part 1. The relation of sediment-size parameters to current-wave systems
and physiography. J . Geol., 64 : 425-446.
MILLER,R. L. and ZEIGLER, 5. M., 1958. A model relating dynamics and sediment pattern in equili-
brium in the region of shoaling waves, breaker zone, and foreshore. J . Geol., 66 : 4 1 7 4 1 .
Moss, A. J., 1962. Th;: physical nat;re of common sandy and pebbly deposits, Part 1. Am. J. Sci.,
260 : 337-373.
Moss, A. J., 1963. The physical nature of common sandy and pebbly deposits, Part 2. Am. J . Sci.,
261 : 297-343.
NIENABER, J. H., 1958. Shallow Marine Sediments Offshorefrom the Brazos River. Thesis, Univ Texas,
Austin, Texas, unpublished.
NOTA,D. 5. G., 1958. Sediments of the Western Guiana Shelf-Report ofthe Orinoco Shelf Expedition.
Part 2. Mededel. Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen,98 pp.
OTTO,G. H., 1939. A modified logarithmic probability graph for the interpretation of mechanical
analyses of sediments. J . Sediment. Petrol., 9 : 62-76.
PAGE,H. G., 1955. Phi-millimeter conversion table. J . Sediment. Petrol., 25 : 285-292.
PASSEGA, R., 1957. Texture as characteristic of clastic deposition. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists,
41 1952-1984.
PELLETIER, B. R., 1958. Pocono paleocurrents in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Bull. Geol. SOC.Am.,
69 : 1033-1064.
PETTIJOHN, F. J., 1949. Sedimentary Rocks. Harper, New York, N.Y., 526 pp.
PETTIJOHN, F. J . , 1957. Sedimentary Rocks. Harper, New York, N.Y., 718 pp.
PLUMLEY, W. J. and DAVIS,D. H., 1956. Estimation of Recent sediment size parameters from a
triangular diagram. J . Sediment. Petrol., 26 : 140-155.
ROGERS, J. 5. W., 1959. Detection of lognormal size distributions in clastic sediments. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 29 I 402-407.
ROGERS, J. J. W. and SCHUBERT, C., 1963. Size distributions of sedimentary populations. Science,
141 (3583) : 801-802.

Sedimentology, 6 (1 966) 73-93

GRAIN-SIZE PARAMETERS 93

ROGERS, J. J. W. and STRONG,C . , 1959. Textural differences between two types of shoestring sands.
Trans. GulfCoast Assoc. Geol. Soc., 10 : 168-170.
ROGERS,J. J. W., KRUEGER, W. C . and KROG, M., 1963. Sizes of naturally abraded materials. J .
Sediment. Petrol., 33 : 628-633.
ROLLER,P. S., 1941. Statistical analysis of size disttibution of particulate materials with special refe-
rence to bimodal frequency distributions. J . Phys. Chem., 45 : 241-281.
ROSENFELD, M. A., JACOBSON, L. and FERM,J. C., 1953. A comparison of sieve and thin-section
techniaue for size analvsis. J. Geol.. 61 : 114-132.
ROSIN,P. and RAMMLER, E.,’1933. The laws governing the fineness of powdered coal. J. Inst. Fuel,
7 : 29-36.
SAHU,B. K., 1964. Depositional mechanisms from the size analysis of clastic sediments. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 34 :73-83.
SCHLEE,J., 1957. Upland gravels of southern Maryland. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 68 : 1371-1410.
SHARP,W. E. and FAN,P. F., 1963. A sorting index. J. Geol., 71 : 76-83.
SHEPARD, F. P. and YOUNG,R., 1961. Distinguishing between beach and dune sands. J. Sediment.
Petrol., 31 : 196-214.
SORBY,H. C . , 1880. On the structure and origin of non-calcareous stratified rocks. (Anniversary
Address of President.). Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London, 36 :46-84.
SPENCER, D . W., 1963. The interpretation of grain-size distribution curves of clastic sediments. J .
Sediment. Petrol., 33 : 180-190.
SWANN, D . M., FISHER,R. W. and WALTERS, M. J . , 1959. Visual estimates of grain-size distribution in
some Chester sandstones. Ill. Geol. Snrv., Circ., 280.
TANNER, W. F., 1958a. Comparison of phi percentile deviations. J . Sediment. Petrol., 28 : 203-204.
TANNER, W. F., 1958b. The zig-zag nature of type I and IV cui ves. J. Sediment. Petrol., 28 : 372-375.
TANNER, W. F., 1959. Sample components obtained by the method of differences. J . Sediment. Petrol.,
29 : 4 0 8 4 1 1.
TANNER, W. F., 1960. Numerical comparison of geomorphic samples. Science, 131 (3412) : 1525-1526.
TANNER, W. F., 1964. Modification of sediment size distributions. J. Sediment. Pefrol., 34 : 156-164.
TOWE,K. M., 1963. Paleogeographic significance of quartz clasticity measurements. J. Geol., 71 :
790-793.
TRASK,P. D., 1930. Mechanical analysis of sediments by centrifuge. Econ. Geol., 25 : 581-599.
TRASK,P. D., 1932. Origin and Environment of Source Sediments of Petroleum. Houston, Texas,
323 pp.
UDDEN,J. A., 1898. Mechanical composition of wind deposits. AupstanaLibrary Publ., 1 : 69 pp.
UDDEN,J. A., 1914. Mechanical composition of clastic sediments. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 25 : 655-744.
VANANDEL,T. and POSTMA, H., 1954. Recent Sediments of the Gulf of Paria. North Holland Publ.
Co., Amsterdam, 1 :245 pp.
VANDER PLAS,L., 1962. Preliminary note on the granulometric analysis of sedimentary rocks. Stdi-
mentoloKy, 1 : 145-157.
VANORSTRAND, C . E., 1925. Note on the representation of the distribution of grains in sands. Com-
mittee on Sedimentation: Research in Sedimentation in 1924-Natl. Res. Council, pp.63-67.
WALGER, E., 1961. Die Korngrossenverteilung von Einzellagen Sandiger Sedimente und ihre Geneti-
sche Bedeutung. Geol. Rundschazc, 51 :494-507.
WENTWORTH, C . K., 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J . Geol., 30 : 377-392.
WENTWORTH, C . K., 1929. Method of computing mechanical composition types in sediments. Bull.
Geol. Soc. Am., 40 : 771-790.
WENTWORTH, C . K., 1933. Fundamental limits to the size of clastic grains. Science, 77 : 633-634.
WENTWORTH, C . K., 1936. Discussion: The method of moments. J . Sediment. Petrol., 6 : 158.
WICKSELL,S. D., 1925. The corpuscle problem: a mathematical study of a biometric problem.
Biometrika, 17 : 84-99.
WICKSELL, S. D., 1926. Tf e corpuscle problem (second memoir) : case of ellipsoidal corpuscles.
Biometrika, 18 : 151-172.
WOLFF,R. G., 1964. The dearth of certain sizes of materials in sediments. J. Sediment. Petrol.,
34 : 320-327.

Sedimentology, 6 (1966) 7~ - 0 3