A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY O F PARTICLES

G. LEES

Graduate School in Highway and Trafic Engineering, University of Biuminyham,

Birmingham (Great Britain)

(Received May 2, 1963

SUMMARY

Particle shape affects many problems in the fields of geology and civil engineering. As
the present numerical methods for describing some aspects of shape are inadequate
the writer has developed a new non-empirical method for measuring the angularity
of particles. The method takes account of what are considered to be the three main
characteristics of angularity, namely the degree of acuteness of the angles of the cor-
ners, the number of angular corners and the degree of projection of the corners from
the main mass of the particle. Values for what has been termed the degree of angular-
ity are given for various geometric shapes and for actual particles of crushed lime-
stone. A chart is included for the rapid visual estimation of angularity.

INTRODUCTION

The influence of particle shape on other physical properties of single or aggregated

particles is very great. Accordingly the list of geological, geophysical or engineering
problems which require to take careful note of this property is long. Some of the most
important are:
( I ) Density, porosity and permeability of naturally deposited, compacted or vibrat-
ed sediments (FRASER,1935; TICKELLand HIATT, 1938; KOLBUSZEWSKI, 1948;
ALYANAK, 1961).
(2) Compressibility of sands (CHAPLIN, 1961).
(3) Passage of grains through sieves (RITTENHOUSE, 1943b).
(4 Shear, compressive and flexural strengths of natural sediments (FREDERICK,
1961; WITTE,1959), stabilised ‘‘soil’’ (GLEESON et al., 1961), concrete (WRIGHTand
MCCUBBIN,1955), and bituminous mixes (HERRINand GOETZ,1954; LOTTMAN and
GOETZ,1956).
(5) Workability of concrete (KAPLAN, 1958).
(6) Adhesion of tar/bitumen to aggregate particles (ROADTAR RESEARCH COM-
MITTEE, 1948).
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 3

(7) Skid resistance of road surfaces (SHUPEand LOUNSBURY, 1958; KNILL,1960).

(8) Screening efficiency of filter beds (TRUESDALE et al., 1962).
(9) Transportation of particles by wind and water (BAGNOLD,1954; DALLA VALLE,
1943).
(10) Erosive power of transported particles.
(11) Settling velocity of particles in water (DALLAVALLE,1943).
(12) Remanent magnetism of rock formations (WRIGHT,1956).
Not surprisingly a good deal of attention has been focussed on this property of
particle shape. Particular attention has been devoted to the measurement and in-
fluence of the two parameters sphericity and roundness (WADELL,1932, 1933, 1935;
KRUMBEIN, 1941; PYEand PYE, 1943; RILEY,1941; RITTENHOUSE, 1943a; POWERS,
1953; ASCHENBRENNER, 1956). While these parameters have generally been considered
to define adequately the two main shape characteristics (overall shape and detailed
surface contour) of most natural sedimentary particles of the pebble and sand sizes,
they have been found to be respectively insufficient and unsuited to the shape analysis of
particles produced by crushing. Such particles are often of sub-cubical or near paral-
lelepiped shapes contrasting markedly with the more sub-spherical, ellipsoidal or
pear-shaped forms of particles which have been affected only by attritional forces.
Similarly any naturally angular deposits such as crush-breccias, scree breccias and
volcanic breccias are only poorly served by a shape description in terms of sphericity
and roundness only.
In the absence of any satisfactory measure of angularity of particles SHERGOLD
(1953) devised an “angularity number” test, now included in BRITISH STANDARD 812
(BRITISHSTANDARDS INSTITUTION, 1960). In this the percentage voids in an aggregate
compacted in a standard manner in a standard cylinder is taken as a direct measure of
the angularity. However it has nowhere been proved that angularity is the only or even
the main, property of an aggregate controlling its porosity in a compacted condition.
In fact there is some evidence to show that in certain ranges of shape an opposite
relationship to that assumed in the test actually holds.
The present paper is concerned with defining the inadequacy of existing methods of
shape analysis in relation to crushed aggregates and natural breccias and with present-
ing a new method for determining the degree of angularity of particles, which is not
based upon the results of any empirical test.

SPHERICITY

In 1932 WADELL defined the degree of true sphericity of a particle as the ratio of the
surface area of a sphere of the same volume as that particle, to the actual surface area
of the particle. While it is not denied that sphericity is a useful concept it is often not
realised that sphericity can be an ambiguous indicator of particle shape unless it is
coupled with ZINGG’S(1935) “shape factor”. This is evident from consideration of
ASCHENBRENNER’S (1956) graph (reproduced with modification as Fig. l), where it is
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
4 G. LEES

OBLATE BlAXlAL
EQUI-

Fig.1. Chart for converting the parameters a, b and c into sphericity v’ and shape factor F (after
ASCHENBRENNER, 1956; reproduced with permission from J . Sediment. Petrol.)

seen, for example, that disc-like bodies can have the same sphericity value as rod-like
or bladed bodies. That is, given the same volume they can be of equal surface area in
spite of being of different shape. Thus a sphericity value does not on its own give any
clear indication of particle shape since the deviation from spherical shape can be in
any one of many directions, i.e. towards a multitude of variously oblate or prolate,
biaxial or triaxial forms.
Clearly if sphericity is to be regarded as a quantity of importance with respect to
particle shape, it can only be used to its fullest advantage if the shape factor, i.e. the
ratio of flatness ratio to elongation ratio, is also quoted. The neglect of the shape
factor hitherto has been due to the rarity of the oblate (discoid or bladed) form in
quartz grains, which have been the particles most studied. So long as the flatness ratio
is small, changes in sphericity do indicate stages along a linear series of changes in
Sedimenfology, 3 (1964) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARlTY OF PARTICLES 5

shape. As a direct consequence of this special case for natural quartz sands, the use
of two-dimensional sphericity charts such as those of RITTENHOUSE (1943a) has arisen.
Rittenhouse’s chart relates inversely prolateness with sphericity, since it is assumed
that the third dimension, perpendicular to the plane of the paper is, in each case, equal
or very nearly equal to the shorter of the two dimensions figured. In other words it is
assumed that the flatness ratio is nearly equal to 1 . Whereas such an assumption may
be justified for uncrushed quartz sands, it is not where minerals of different crystal
habit are present in significant amount, or where a significant quantity of crushed
material is present, even ij this is still all ofpure quartz.
Failure to appreciate the inadequacy of the two-dimensional sphericity chart when
dealing with crushed material invalidates much previous work on the influence of
sphericity on various physical properties of sands, work which has utilised crushed
sands in part, in order to extend the range of shapes studied.
A return to the use of three-dimensional sphericity, combined with a determination
of the shape factor, is therefore needed in all investigations concerned with the behav-
iour of crushed materials, or with uncrushed materials for which a negligeable
flatness ratio cannot be assumed.
It may be noticed in passing, that exactly the same quantitative estimate of shape is
obtained by recording the elongation ratio and flatness ratio, as by recording working
sphericity (iy’) and shape factor. This is not to say that there is no merit in sphericity
determination. It may be especially important where comparisons of surface area are
required. However it perhaps needs emphasising that the statement of sphericity value
alone, gives a less complete picture of general particle shape than does the statement
of elongation ratio and flatness ratio.

ROUNDNESS

In 1932 WADELLclaimed that the image of a solid could be represented faithfully by

the sphericity and roundness. It has been emphasised above that sphericity (without
shape factor) is not a sufficient indicator of a particle’s overall shape. Similarly it has
become clear, especially when dealing with crushed particles, that roundness is not
always an appropriate quantity for aiding the description of the finer detail of particle
contour.
In measuring roundness comparison is made between the radius of curvature of a
projection on the silhouetted outline of a particle and the radius of curvature of the
maximum inscribed circle in the silhouette in the same plane. The immediate objection
can be raised that neglect of surface features with radii of curvature greater than that
of the maximum inscribed circle, may give equal roundness value to two shapes of
apparently quite different roundness (Fig.2). The total roundness (being the average of
the individual roundnesses for those surface features measured) fails, then, to be a true
average roundness of the whole particle. Also, as FREDERICK (1961) has pointed out
“The question of averaging introduces at once the problem of distribution since the
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
6 G. LEES

average value requires to be qualified by an indication of the extent of the deviation,

to provide a unique measure”.
Such a method is also quite unable to differentiate between truly angular corners of
different angle, since the radius of curvature of a circle fitted into an angular corner
is nil irrespective of the size of the angle. Furthermore, circles of identical radius can be
fitted into corners of widely different angle which are rounded off to different extent,
giving identical roundness values to forms of clearly different angularity (Fig.3).
Clearly angularity is not just the absence of roundness but is a distinct conczpt.
Roundness refers only to the character of the corner after it has been modified (e.g.,
by attrition) but is not concerned at all with the angular relationship between the
planes bounding that corner.

A B

Fig.2. Forms of identical roundness value but of visibly different actual roundness (due to neglect of
curves of larger radius of curvature than maximum inscribed circle).

The roundness concept is thus unable to deal satisfactorily with crushed aggregate
or with any naturally brecciated material such as scree deposits and volcanic pyro-
clasts. For example when assessment of crushed aggregates by reference to Krumbein’s
roundness chart (KRUMBEIN, 1941) is attempted, one finds that the majority of parti-
cles would have to be given a value of 0.1 and yet be clearly different in angularity.
Krumbein’s chart illustrates the difficulty further, in that only a compromise solution
could be found for dealing with partly broken pebbles. This consisted of taking half
the total value of roundness, determined by reference to the side away from the
fracture. Krumbein himself recognised the difficulty since, in referring to a study
carried out by students to assess the accuracy of his “rapid method” he notes (p.71)
“that the large errors were due to incorrect evaluation of broken pebbles”.

ANGULARITY NUMBER

As noted above, British Standard 812 (BRITISH STANDARD INSTITUTION, 1960) now
includes Shergold’s angularity number test, as a means of assessing the relative angu-
larity of aggregates in bulk. Tests carried out by SHERCOLD (1953), showed a close
agreement between the angularity number of 6 samples of coarse aggregate, over a
range of shapes from (quote) “angular to rounded”, and the visual estimate of relative
angularity of the aggregates by 25 observers. The small number of samples tested,
combined with the knowledge that an opposite relationship between angularity
number and visually assessed angularity exists for certain regular shapes, makes one
sceptical of the test as an infallible indicator of this aspect of particle shape. Further,
Sedimentology. 3 (1964) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 7

J-( 1 A

Fig.3. Diagrams to illustrate that roundness is not the simple antithesis of angularity. A : Corners of
identical roundmss value but visibly different angularity. B : Forms of identical roundness value but
visibly different angularity.

close correlation was found between angularity number and workability (i.e. ease of
working) of concrete mixes, as measured by the compacting factor test (British
Standard, 1881;BRITISHSTANDARDS INSTITUTION, 1952). This however is not surprising
as in reality what is being tested in both cases is the same thing - namely the “packa-
bility”, which while it may be greatly influenced by the angularity of the particles, is
not wholly controlled by it. Other aspects of particle shape such as flakiness, elonga-
tion, deviation from regular geometric forin, sympathy of form of adjacent surfaces,
modification of surface detail by compression or fracture, and distribution of shapes in
the bulk aggregate affect the density of packing to a greater or less extent also. These
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
8 G. LEES

sometimes result in the higher angularity number being found in aggregates of clearly
lower angularity. As an example of this Shergold himself noted that perfect spheres
emerge from his test with a higher angularity number than do perfect cubes. It is not
sufficient to justify the test by the statement that “It is therefore evident that the
method cannot be applied to bodies of regular shape.” If it does not work for bodies
of regular shape then it is not a measure of some intrinsic shape property, as its title
suggests.
As a “packability number” the percentage voids test has some unquestioned merit
and can be useful for example in concrete mix design (MURDOCK, 1960) but it cannot
properly claim to be a true measure of particle angularity.
Brief mention may also be made of the test for angularity by Fischer, which is
referred to by KRUMBEIN and PETTIJOHN (1938). In this method the angularity of a
particle silhouette is based upon comparison between the total angle subtended from
a central point by the straight sides of the outline and the total angle subtended by the
curved portions of the outline (these two totals add up to 360”). From these measure-
ments Fischer defined his angularity as
sum of angles subtended by plane sides
360”
The method suffers from the serious limitation that it will only serve to describe
sub-angular gravel particles and cannot be used to compare the angularity of particles
of crushed rock which contain no rounded corners or of particles whose angularity is
due to the possession of concave curvatures, e.g., crushed flint.

DEGREE OF ANGULARITY

The method which the writer has developed for the determination of the degree of
of particles takes account of what are considered to be the three main
angularity

Fig.4. Forms with the same number of corners of equal “relative projection” but of different angle.
Sedimentology,3 ( I 964) Z -2 1
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARTTY OF PARTICLES 9

1 2

1 2

Fig.5. Forms with corners of identical angles but of different relative projection.

characteristics of the phenomenon of angularity, where this is defined as the property

of possessing angular or sub-angular corners.
These three characteristics are:
(1) The angle existing between considered faces, measured in the plane of the nor-
mals to these faces (i.e. the degree of acuteness).
(2) The “relative projection”, i.e. the projection of the tip of the corner from, and
relative to the size of, the largest internal spherical mass of the particle.
(3) The number of angular corners.
The importance of all of these characteristics is clearly seen - not only i s a corner
considered more angular if it is acute than if it is obtuse (Fig.4) -but also if it projects
further from the central mass of the particle than another corner of the same angle
(Fig.5). The introduction of this factor “relative projection” into the calculation of
degree of angularity ought also to lead to a correlation between the latter and any
property of aggregate masses which depends on the relative ease with which particles
Sedimentolqqy, 3 (1954) 2-21
10 G . LEES

can be rotated by application of forces on these projections or on the resistance to

movement offered by the interlock of projections on adjacent particles.
These two characteristics, “acuteness” and “relative projection”, govern the angu-
larity of one corner but in considering the angularity of the whole particle the total
number of angular corners must be taken into account. Thus a particle with say, 4
corners of given angle and projection, is clearly more angular than one with 3 corners
of the same type (Fig.6).

Fig.6. Forms with corners of the same angle and relative projection but different number.

Measurement of the degree of angularity

In accordance with the consideration of what constitutes angularity outlined in the

previous section, the formula which has been adopted for the degree of angularity of a
single corner measured in one plane is
x
(180” - a ) ~

r
where a = measured angle, x = distance of the tip of the corner from the centre of
the maximum inscribed circle (if opposite sides are parallel and there are a number of
possible positions for a maximum inscribed circle, then the circle nearest to the consid-
ered angle is taken for the measurement of x), r = radius of the maximum inscribed
circle.
The total degree of angularity ( A ) is the sum of all the values for all corners meas-
ured in three mutually perpendicular planes. The reasons for adopting this formula are:
(1) That by its use an angle of 180”has a degree of angularity of 0.
(2) That the ratio x / r provides a quantitative measure of the degree of projection of
the corner from, and relative to the size of, the largest circular area shown by the
particle silhouette (approximating to the largest spherical mass within the solid
particle).
( 3 ) That the selection of the nearest maximum inscribed circle as the basis of measur-
ement of x, where more than one such circle can be drawn, permits (a) squares and
rectangles and (b)rhombs and parallelograms of equal angles, to have the same value
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 11

Fig.7. Diagram to illustrate that the ratio x / r is equal to the cosecant of a/2 for corners of which the
sides form tangents to the maximum inscribed circle.

of degree of angularity. This would seem to be a necessary condition for any formula
purporting to compare angularity.
It may be noted that x / r is equal to the cosecant of half the measured angle for many
regular forms (Fig.7). This greatly simplifies the task of measurement since it allows
one merely to refer to previously computed tables (such as Table I) in order to read
off the value of degree of angularity directly from the value of the measured angle.
It will be seen from Table I that incorporating this factor x / r into the formula

TABLE I
VALUES OF DEGREE OF ANGULARITY FOR CERTAIN CORNERS WHOSE SIDES FORM TANGENTS TO THE MAXIMUM
INSCRIBED CIRCLE

Cosecant of Degree of atyularity

Angle u 180 - Q
a12 = x / r (I80- a ) x / r

10 170 11.47 1,950

11 169 10.43 1,763
12 168 9.57 1,608
14 166 8.21 1,363
16 164 7.19 1,179
18 162 6.39 1,035
20 160 5.76 922
25 155 4.62 716
30 150 3.86 579
35 145 3.33 483
40 140 2.92 409
45 135 2.61 352
50 130 2.37 308
55 125 2.17 271
60 120 2.00 240
65 115 1.86 214
70 110 1.74 191
80 100 1.56 156
90 90 1.41 127
100 80 1.31 105
110 70 1.22 85
120 60 1.15 69
130 50 1.10 55
140 40 1.06 42
150 30 1.04 31
160 20 1.02 20
170 10 1 .oo 10
180 0 1 .oo 0

Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21

12 G. LEES

allows greater emphasis to be given to the very acute angles. It therefore makes it pos-
sible, for example, for triangles of different shape to have different degrees of angular-
ity, in spite of having the same total angle.
The reasonableness of this is seen by reference to Fig.8, included in which are several
triangles with their calculated degree of angularity (in two dimensions). It is submitted
that the ascending values of this quantity reflzct well the visual appearance of increas-
ing angularity. The figure includes further examples of geometric shapes for which a
degree of angularity in two dimensions (A2D) has bz:n calculated, ranging from a circle
with rotindness of 1 and A,, of 0 through various polygonal forms to the extreme

C
\
'\ /
/

4 0 2560 A, = 36 000
Fig.8. Values of degree of angularity ( A ~ Dfor
) various regular figures.
Sedimentology,3 (196.1) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMlNING THE ANGULARJTY OF PARTICLES 13

stellate form ( J ) . It is not intended by use of these examples of degree of angularity

in two dimensions, to suggest that a two-dimensional angularity can be used with
success as an approximation for total three-dimensional angularity. The examples
in Fig.10 suggest that such an approximation would usually be unsound.
A further reason for taking the sum of the angularity values for each corner, rather
than taking the average value, by dividing by the number of corners, is illustrated by
comparison (of G and H in Fig.8: Although G is a triangle and H a rhonibic
quadrangle the acute angles are the same in both cases. They have every appearance
of being equally angular shapes and therefore merit “equal” values of degree of angu-
larity. It would be illogical to average the total value between three angles in G and
between four angles in H . Only by taking the total is the true similarity in angular
appearance correctly represented by the A value. Tables I1 and 111 illustrate further

TABLE I1
VALUES OF DEGREE OF ANGULARITY ( A ~ D )FOR A NUMBER OF TRIANGLES

An<ylesof triangle dqyrees Dqyree of urplurity A ~ D

10 80 90 2,233
20 80 80 1,233
30 70 80 928
40 70 70 793
50 60 70 740
60 60 60 720 (equilateral)
70 50 60 740
80 50 50 772
90 40 50 844
100 40 40 922
110 30 40 1,074
120 30 30 1,229
130 20 30 1,556
140 20 20 1,885
150 10 20 2,902
160 10 10 3,920

how the formula permits the emphasis of acute angles, so that, for example, it is seen
that in a series of triangles the least “angular” triangle can be held to be the equilateral.
From this minimum value, the degree of angularity increases more rapidly in triangles
with two angles less than 60” than in triangles with only one angle less than 60”.
It will be noted that no attempt has been made to recast the values on a percentage
basis. This is because in the writer’s view, although there is clearly a minimum value
for angularity (in forms with aroundness of 1) there is no absolute maximum angular-
ity which could correspond with 100% degree of angularity. Use of the values as
calculated still enables comparisons to be made, while avoiding the dangers arising
from fixing some arbitrary maximum limit for angularity. Used thus, the degree of
angularity is equally suitable for analysis of such highly angular particles as those
Sediimentolo;.y, 3 (1 964) 2-2 I
14 G. LEES

of diatomaceous earths, radiolarian oozes, crushed pumice and crushed vesicular

slags as well as of the more normal types of crushed rock.
Having decided what characteristics of a particle require to be measured in order to
give an idea of its angularity and having adopted a formula for computation of the
degree of angularity in accordance with these requirements, (which gives apparently
favourable results when tested against drawn geometric shapes), there remains the
problem of how to carry out these measurements on actual particles. The complexity
of the latter as compared with the regular shapes necessitates certain simplifications
and approximations i n order to make the task of measurement possible to tackle.
General problems include the choice of orientation of the particle and the scale of
surface detail down to which measurement is to be made. I n order to simplify the
question as much as possible it has been decided in this study to make all mneasure-

TABLE 111
VALUES OF DEGREE OF ANGULARITY( A ~ D FOR
) A NUMBER OF QUADRANGLES

Angles of quadrangle dqyrees Dqpree of aqpularity (Azo)

90 90 90 90 508
80 100 80 100 520
70 110 70 110 554
60 120 60 120 61 8
50 I30 50 130 726
40 140 40 140 904
30 150 30 150 1,222
20 160 20 160 1,882
10 170 10 170 3,920

ments from photographs taken in the three planes ulh, hlc, ulc, whera u, h and c are
the long, intermediate and short diameters of the particle, and to ignore what might be
termed the detail of surface roughness, concentrating only on angles between major or
clearly defined planes. Although most of the study so far has been upon coarse mate-
rial (0.25 inch nominal size upwards) it is quite easy to carry out the measurements on
enlarged photographs of sand grains. I n order to establish a standard sizg for measure-
ment, it is recommended that enlargement to about 0.75 inch for the longest dimension
in one plane should be tried. It is realised, of course, that what would amount to
negligeable surface detail in a large particle would, if present on a sand particle whose
photograph is enlarged, there appear as a series of major planes, but from a compara-
tive view fine textural detail would appear to be relatively more important as thc
absolute size of the particle is reduced, and converselywith larger particles. The enlarge-
ment or reduction to a standard s i x therefore seems justified, but it does not seem
to matter that the standard size be very strictly observed. Probably maximum length
= 0.75 inch & 0.25 inch would give sufficient uniformity of size to enablz rcsasonably
accurate comparisons of angularity to be made.
In the interests of increasing the speed of computing A values certain compromises
Sedimrntology, 3 ( 1964) 2-1 1
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 15

were considered permissible in measuring angles and in reckoning the distance of the
measured tip from the centre of the maximum inscribed circle. These compromises
were as follows:
( I ) Angles read to nearest 1" below 12"; angles read to nearest 2" between 12" and
20"; angles read to nearest 5" between 20" and 70"; angles read to nearest 10' between
70" and 180".
(2) Distance of tip of corner from centre of the maximum inscribed circle measured
in multiples of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, etc. times the radius of this circle.
C

(180 - a) xlr
Corner a 180-0. ( d c v e e sf
angularity A ~ D )

a 60 120 3.0 3 60
b 150 30 2.5 15
C 80 100 1.56 156
d 130 50 1.5 75
e 140 40 1.5 60
f 170 10 1.0 10

Total 136

Fig.9. Diagram to illustrate the method of calculating the degree of angularity (A2D) for an irregular
particle.

Fig.9 illustrates the method which was used to take the measurements. The photo-
graphs were cut out by hand in such a way as to produce the nearest possible reasona-
bly simple angular outline. Corners which have become truly rounded off present a
problem and it was decided as a third compromise to leave as round those with a
radius of curva-ture greater than one half of the radius of curvature of the maximum
inscribed circle, while "planing off" all those rounded corners of smaller radius. When
measuring these, the corners which are planed off are treated in the normal manner. In
dealing with corners left rounded, since these may have angular junctions with plane
sides, the procedure adopted has been to measure the angle between the adjacent
plane side and the tangent to the curve at their intersection. This procedure is followed
for both ends of the curve but no measurements are made along the curve. This is in
accordance with the compromise (1) above, whereby any angle greater than 175"
would be treated as 180", and a curved line can be thought of as a series of lines at
Sedimentolo<py,3 (1964) 2--21
 G. LEES

I182 780 1037 lla41105

b/C
CVc A== a/c A = m b/c a/c A = ?685 b/c a/c A== b/c

936 877
767 1025 - 152

1007 __ 849 577 645

A== A: 2432

U
1287
6 0 1 0
397
A = _2285

D Q
Q?
570
758
a
895
A = 2223

880- 507
A.2087

"
0 c!
765
530
59 5
A=-
I I

Fig.10. Legend see p.18.

Sedimentology. 3 (1964) 2-21

 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES I7

__
R

4 84

593
A==
~ 592 511
A=EO
577 553
A == 462 540 ~

A==
650

644 455 632 388

Fig.10. Legend see p.18.

3 (1964) 2-21
Sedinientolo~~y,
18 G . LEES

54 1 542 571 479 626 488 575 499

A:= A=- A. 1583 A= 1577

very large angles, which would give zero angularity on this basis. Similarly, two curves
of different centre may meet at a point and the procedure here too has been to measure
the angle between their tangents.
Fig.10 shows that the same comparison between trends of degree of angularity and
of visual estimate of angularity is observed when actual particles are measured as when
drawn geometric shapes are compared. These particles had already been classified

TABLE TV
PARTICLE-CLASSIFICATION, BASED ON ELONGATION RATIO AND FLATNESS RATIO

Number oj
Particie group particles

Sphero-cubes (SjC) 20
Discs (D) 20
Blades (B) 20
Rods (R) 20

Total 80

into the 4 groups, shown in Table IV, based on the elongation ratio and flatness ratio
(as shown in Fig. 1). In this small number of particles measured, there appeared a tend-
ency for the SIC group to possess the lower values of angularity but high values were
found in representatives of all the other three groups.
Sedimentology, 3 (1 964) 2-2 1
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 19

Appreciation of the tedium and time factor involved in measuring particles in the
way described has led the author to pursue the possibility of constructing charts for
the rapid visual estimation of degree of angularity, similar in principle to those pro-
duced by RITTENHOUSE (1943a) and KRUMBEIN (1941) for the estimation of sphericity
and roundness respectively. Such a chart is included as Fig. 11. The figures on the
chart represent a range of shapes from uncrushed gravel, through crushed gravel and
crushed limestone, to crushed vesicular slag.

0-99 100-199 I 200-299 300-399 I 400-499

00
00
00
00
800-899

DO
Fig.1 1 . Chart for determining visually the degree of angularity of particles.

It will be noted that the chart is arranged in blocks, each block representing a range
of 100 in the values of degree of angularity (in two dimensions). For rapid approxi-
mate work the value recorded could then be that of the block number, e.g.:
block number 0 = 0- 99,
block number 1 = 100-199,
block number 2 = 200-299,
block number 3 = 300-399, etc.
The total degree of angularity in this simplified form would be the sum of the three
separately estimated block values. Otherwise a more exact estimate of the value can
be attempted within the range of the block considered, e.g., 680 for a particle towards
the upper limit of block 6.
The procedure to be adopted when making the visual assessment of degree of angu-
larity is to compare the considered particle outline (with or without the aid of photo-
graphs, camera lucida drawings, microscopic examination, etc.) with the figures on the
chart. The value assigned is determined by reference to the figure which approaches
the considered particle most nearly with respect to number, acuteness and relative
projection of the corners. In view of the infinite variation possible in the two-dimen-
Sedimentology, 3 ( I 964) 2-21
20 G . LEES

sional outlines observed, it is not to be expected that a very close similarity between
them and the figures of the chart will be noticed. In spite of this, visual assessment of
the degree of angularity of 50 previously measured photographs of particles, by
reference to the chart, showed the method to be reasonably reliable. Of the 50 photo-
graphs examined :
estimated values of 38 % were within f 50 of the calculated values,
estimated values of 68 % were within f 100 of the calculated values,
estimated values of 90 % were within & 150 of the calculated values,
estimated values of 98 % were within f 200 of the calculated values,
estimated values of 100 % were within f 250 of the calculated values,
(range of calculated values: -540; standard deviation 88; coefficient of variation
14.4%).
The result that 2 out of 3 estimated values were within 100 of the calculated values
and that 9 out of 10 were within 150, suggests that a true comparison of the angularity
of different aggregates could be made by estimating th\e values of a representative
sample of say 25 particles by reference to the chart.

CONCLUSION

The degree of angularity of a particle may be assessed (a) by measurement and calcula-
tion, in accordance with the method and formula proposed in the section on “Degree
of angularity”, or (b) by comparison with Fig. I 1. This chart should only be used for
angularities (AzD) up to 1.200. The examples of crushed slag of higher values than this
are included to illustrate the applicability of the method to extreme cases, but insuffi-
cient particles have been measured to date to justify extending the present use of the
chart beyond this value. It is hoped at some later date to be able to extend its range.
Whichever method is used for determination of degree of angularity of a particle, it is
emphasized that the final value quoted should always be a three-dimensional value.

REFERENCES

ALYANAK, I., 1961. Vibration of sands with special reference to the minimum porosity test. Proc.
Midland Soil Mech. Found. Eny. Soc., 4 : 37-72.
ASCHENBRENNER, B. C., 1956. A’new method of expressing particle sphericity. J . Sediment. Petrol.,
26: 15-31.
BAGNOLD, R. A,, 1954. The Physics of Blown Sands and Desert Dunes. Methuen, London, 266 pp.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, London, 1952. Methods of testing concrete. British Standard 1881,
pp.10-12.
BRrTrsH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, London, 1960. Methods for sampling and testing of mineral aggre-
gates, sands and fillers. British Standard 812, pp, 1 3 4 1 36.
CHAPLTN, T. K., 1961. The compressibility of sands. Proc. Intern. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Ency.,5th,
Paris, 1961, 2 : 3 3 4 0 .
DALLAVALLE,J. M., 1943. Micromeritics. The Technology of Fine Particles. Pitman, New York,
584 pp.
Sedimentology, 3 (1964) 2-21
 A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMlNING THE ANGULARITY OF PARTICLES 21

FRASER,H.J., 1935. Experimental study of the porosity and permeability of clastic sediments. J .
Geol., 43 : 910-1010.
FREDERICK, M. R., 1961. Notes on the shape of particles and its influence on the properties of sands.
Proc. Midland Soil Mech. Found. En?. Soc., 4 : 137-1 61.
GLEESON, P., HARTSHORNE, B. K. and JORDAN.B. F., 1961. Cement Stabilisation qf Coarse Grained
Materials. M.Sc. Course Report, University of Birmingham, Birmingham (unpublished).
HERRIN, M. and GOETZ,W. H., 1954. Effect of aggregate shape on the stability of bituminous mixes.
Proc. Hiphway Res. Board, 33 : 293-308.
KAPLAN,M. F., 1958. The effects of the properties of coarse aggregates on the workability of con-
crete. Mag. Concrete Res., 10 (29) : 63-74.
KNILL,D. C., 1960. Petrographical aspects of the polishing of natural roadstones. J . Appl. Chem.
(London), 10 (I) : 28-35.
KOLBUSZEWSKI, J., 1948. An experimental study of maximum and minimum porosities of sands. Pror.
Intern. Conf Soil Mech. Found. Eng., 2nd., Rotterdam, 1948, 1 : 158-165.
KRUMBEIN, W. C., 1941. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedinien-
tary particles. J. Sediment. Petrol., 1 1 (2) : 6 4 7 2 .
KRUMBEIN, W. C. and PETTIJOHN, F. J., 1938. Manual of Sedimentary PetroLgraphy.Appleton-
Century-Croft, New York, 549 pp.
LOTTMAN, R. P. and GOETZ,W. H., 1956. Effect of crushed gravel fine aggregate on the strength of
asphaltic surfacing mixtures. Natl. Sand Gravel Assoc., Wash., Circ., 63 : 3-22.
MURDOCK, L. J., 1960. The workability of concrete. Ma'?. Concrete Res., 12 (36) : 135-144.
POWERS, M. C., 1953. A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles. J . Sediment. Petrol., 23 (2) :
117-119.
PYE,W. D. and PYE,M. H., 1943. Sphericity determinations of pebbles and sand grains. J . Sediment.
Petrol., 13 (1) : 28-34.
RILEY, N.A., 1941. Projection sphericity. J . Sediment. Petrol., 11 (2) : 94-97.
RITTENHOUSE, G., 1943a. A visual method of estimating two-dimensional sphericity. J . Sediment.
Petrol., 13 (2) : 79-81.
RITTENHOUSE, G., 1943b. The relation of shape to the passage of grains through sieves. Ind. Eny.
Chem., Anal. Ed., 15 (2) : 153-155.
ROADTAR RESEARCH COMMITTEE, 1948. Adhesion. Gt. Brit., Dept. Sci. Ind. Rex, Road Tar Bull.,
4 : 31 pp.
SHERGOLD, F. A., 1953. The percentage voids in compacted gravel as a measure of its angularity. M L ~ .
Concrete Res., 5 (13) : 3-10.
SHUPE,J. W. and LDUNSBURY, R. W., 1958. Polishing characteristics of mineral aggregates. Proc.
Intern. Skid-Prevent. Confi, Ist., Virginia, 1958, pp. 509-537.
TICKELL, F. G. and HIATT,W. N., 1938. Effect of angularity of grain on porosity and permeability of
unconsolidated sands. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists, 22 : 1272-1 274.
TRUESDALE, G. A,, WILKINSON, R. and JONES,K . , 1962. A comparison of the behaviour of various
media in percolating filters. R e p . Water Pollution Res. Lab., 1962 : 24 pp.
WADELL, H., 1932. Volume shape and roundness of rock particles. J . Geol., 40 : 443-451.
WADELL, H.,1933. Sphericity and roundness of rock particles. 3. Geol., 41 : 31CL331.
WADELL, H., 1935. Volume shape and roundness of quartz particles. J . Geol., 43 : 250-280.
WITTE,A. M., 1959. Het beoordelen van de scherpte van zand en de invloed van de scherpte op de
stabiliteit. Tech. Hogeschool, Delft, Rappt., 7-59-I-SZ-1 : 45 pp.
WRIGHT,A. E., 1956. The Relation between Particle Size and the Remanent Mqynetism qf Varved
Sediments. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 1 I3 pp.
WRIGHT, P. J. F. and MCCUBBIN, A. D., 1955. investigations into the design of concrete mixes on the
basis of flexural strength. Gt. Brit., Dept. Sci.Ind. Res., Road Res., Res. Note, 2433 : 5 pp.
ZINGG,T., 1935. Beitrag zur Schotteranalyse. Schweiz. Mineral. Petro,.. Mitt., 15 : 39-140.

Sedimentology, 3 (1 964) 2-21