JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARYPETROLOGX/,VOL. 35, NO. 2, ee.

381-390
FIGs. 1-4, JUNE, 1965

FORM AND FUNCTION OF SEDIMENTARY PARTICLES 1

N. C. F L E M M I N G
Pembroke College, Cambridge, England

ABSTRACT
Distinction is made between form indices which describe the geometry of a particle in terms of its dimensions
and functional indices which describe its behavior as a ratio of the value of a behavioral characteristic to the
value of the same characteristic for a reference body. No single index of either kind can describe a particle
uniquely. Thirteen dimensional parameters are suggested as necessary to describe a particle, and a range of form
indices is derived from these, such that each index partially closes the gap between the previous approximation
and the true form of the particle. The indices are not completely independent of each other, and roundness is
shown to be geometrically dependent on sphericity.
The form of a particle determines its mode of transport, its abrasion, point of deposition, and its effect on the
resulting sedimentary rock. Each behavioral characteristic depends in a different way on each form index
which defines the particle, and a general correlation can only be obtained by successive experiments in which
performance is tested against mass, volume, axial ratio, asymmetry, and indices defining surface irregularities.
This analysis has been carried farthest in the case of settling velocity.
It is proposed that the system outlined here provides a basis for correlation of other behavioral character-
istics with form.

INTRODUCTION To achieve this it is necessary to develop

Most of the concepts of analysis of particles
by shape, a n d the theory a n d practice of so
doing, can be traced back to the work of Wadell
(1932, 1934). These methods h a v e been devel-
oped with success by K r u m b e i n (1941a, 1941b,
and 1942) a n d Cailleux (194,5, 1946, 1947, a n d
1952). N u m e r o u s a l t e r n a t i v e shape a n d round-
ness factors proposed by various a u t h o r s h a v e
failed to reveal a n y simple and precise relation
between the geometry of a particle and its
dynamic behavior, or the significance of its
occurrence in a s e d i m e n t a r y rock. Recent effort
has been concentrated on derivation of tables
and techniques for rapid evaluation of sphericity
and roundness for large n u m b e r s of particles,
b u t the meaning of the factors being measured
is still not clear.
The purpose of the present work is to outline
a system of shape a n d b e h a v i o r classification
which shall have the following properties:
1) The geometrical form of a particle can be
described to a n y required degree of completeness
by specification of a sutficient n u m b e r of indices
derived from the system.
2) All presently existing indices shall be in-
cluded in the system a n d the relationships be-
tween t h e m made explicit.
3) The difference between, and the connection
between, geometry" of a particle and its d y n a m i c
behavior must be i n h e r e n t in the system.
Manuscript received June 1, 1964; revised Novem-
ber 4, 1964.
concepts, such as skew ellipsoids a n d second-
order corners, which m a y n o t be of i m m e d i a t e
practical use to geologists, b u t which are needed
to show the shortcomings of the present meth-
ods, a n d to indicate practical improvements. In
developing the system several axiomatic as-
sumptions of the present literature are shown to
be misleading, a n d it is suggested t h a t these
assumptions h a v e h a d a dragging effect on
practical progress. T h e y include the assumption
t h a t a particle can be defined by a small n u m b e r
of indices which are geometrically i n d e p e n d e n t
of each other; t h a t sphericity and roundness are
geometrically i n d e p e n d e n t of each other; t h a t
d y n a m i c b e h a v i o r is in simple relationship to
one or two shape factors; and t h a t a cylinder
capped b y hemispheres is as r o u n d as a sphere.
T h e first task is to d e t e r m i n e how m a n y
m e a s u r e m e n t s of a particle are needed to define
its geometry; t h e n to derive functions of the
m e a s u r e m e n t s to help visualize the geometry
and specify analytic forms; and finally to ana-
lyze the relationship between geometry and
behavior.
DEFINITIONS
The term 'shape' will be avoided since it has
been given various defined meanings at different
times. The word 'form' will be used to include all
aspects of the geometry of a particle, including
such concepts as shape, roundness, angularity,
roughness, and others.
T h e word ' p a r a m e t e r ' will be used for the
382 N. C. F L E M M I N G

dimensional attributes of a particle which can
be directly measured, and which cannot be
derived from one another. Parameters are not
always completely independent of each other.
If three axial lengths are specified the volume
cannot exceed a certain value, though it may be
infinitesimally close to zero. If axial lengths
and volume are specified, the surface area can-
not be less than a certain value, but it may be
infinitely large.
The word 'index' will be used for a function
which is derived from a combination of parame-
ters. Krumbein (1942) drew attention to the
difference between indices which describe the
geometrical form of a particle and those which
are designed to predict its behavior. Rosfelder
(1960, p. 174) states that an index is only useful
if it describes the dynamic behavior of a particle,
but much effort has been devoted to deriving
indices which merely aid classification and
description of particles (Wentworth; 1922, Wa-
dell, 1932, 1934; Zingg, 1935; Heywood, 1937 &
Pavilion, 1947), and such indices will be called
'form indices.'
Indices which are constructed by comparison
of the behavior of the particle to that of a
reference body, or from form indices which can
be shown to have a precise relation to behavior
and can thus be measured by measuring behav-
ior, will be called 'functional indices.'
Konzewitsch (1961) has attacked all attempts
to describe particles by indices, and has proposed
a system of numbers and verbal classes in which
geometrical shape, erosional history, and trans-
port properties are all involved.
common point, nor in reality need they intersect
at all. In this paper they will be assumed to in-
tersect at a point.
It is necessary to define a standard geometric
form which is specified uniquely by its axes,
from which deviations of the real form of the
particle can be measured. Krumbein (1942)
proposed the ellipsoid as the reference form,
while Aschenbrenner (1956) has proposed the
kaidekahedron. The ellipsoid is generally ac-
cepted, and has the advantage that it is a
smooth form enclosing the maximum volume
for minimum surface area for given axial
lengths. The disadvantage is that calculations
involving surface areas of ellipsoids or the cir-
cumference of an ellipse require the use of tables
of elliptic integrals or graphic methods. The
surface area of the kaidekahedron is easily
calculated, and thus an approximate formula for
the surface area of a particle is derived from
axial lengths. As a reference form from which to
measure deviations the kaidekahedron is un-
suitable on account of its arbitrary planes and
corners.
Rosfelder (1960, p. 198) considers the hy-
draulic behavior of particles which are asym-
metrical, but does not quantify the property of
asymmetry. For the case where the axes inter-
sect at a point but not at their mid-polnts there
is a convenient solution. Suppose the mid-point
of the a-axis displaced a from the point of inter-
section, and the mid-points of the b- and c-axes
displaced fl, and 77, respectively. Further, let
each octant of the form still be ellipsoidal, (fig.
1), then it follows that the cross-sectional area
in an axial plane is independent of the displace-
ment of the axes, as is the volume of the solid.

In terms of semi=axes,
Area of an ellipse~xab.,
Area of skew ellipse=~r/4, r ( a + a ) ( b + ~ ) + ( a - a ) ( b + ~ ) l
[ + ( a + a ) ( b - 0 ) + ( a - ~ ) ( b --,8)J
'i'-ab.

Volume of ellipsoid=4/3. ~abc

/ (a +a)(b +~)(c +'r) +(a +Y)(b +~)(c -'Y)I
[ + ( a +~)(b - 8 ) ( c + v) + ( a + a ) ( b - 0 ) ( c - v)|
Volume of skew ellipsoid =4/3.7r/8. [ + ( a - a ) ( b + ~ ) ( c + y ) + ( a - a ) ( b + f l ) ( c - , y ) |
L+(a-~)(b-t~)(c+v)+(a-~)(b-0)(c-v)J
= 4/3. ~rabc

The circumference of an ellipse and the sur-

DESCRIPTION OF THE FORM OF A PARTICLE
Necessary Parameters
The definition of the principal axes of a
particle as given by Krumbein (1941b) will be
used. The longest axis is designated 'a,' the
longest axis perpendicular to this, 'b,' and the
longest axis perpendicular to both, 'c.' The axes
need not intersect at their mid-points, nor at a
face area of an ellipsoid are both increased by
increasing axial displacement, but the magni-
tudes can only be derived from elliptic integrals
or graphically. Skew ellipses fit well to the forms
of actual particles, and agree remarkably with
those which are intuitively seen to be well-
rounded but not symmetrical (fig. 2). The word
ellipsoid will be used to refer to a skew form
without specifying axial displacement.
 FORM A N D F U N C T I O N OF S E D I M E N T A R F PA R T I C L E S 383

FIG. l.--The skew ellipsoid with axial displacements of the mid-points a for the a-axls, fl for the b-axis,
and "r for the c-axis. Each octant of the form is an ellipse drawn on the semi-axes bounding the octant. The
volume is independent of the degree of axial displacement.

T h e deviations between a cross-section of the
particle a n d the corresponding section of the
reference ellipsoid could be described as a
fourier-like series, t h o u g h this is impracticable.
Since a particle could be described in this way
there is no necessity to insist on concepts of form
which are held to be completely i n d e p e n d e n t of
one another. Such concepts have been proposed
in the past to distinguish between early a n d late
terms in w h a t is really an infinite series. Since
each term of the series is limited in value by the
preceding terms, a n d since roundness is a con-
cept designed to summarize the later t e r m s of
the series, it is impossible t h a t roundness, in any
of its exact definitions, should be completely
i n d e p e n d e n t of the first terms, which are usually
summarized as shape. Wadell (1932, p. 446)
stated t h a t roundness was geometrically inde-
p e n d e n t of shape, and this has been followed b y
K r u m b e i n (1941a, p. 64), Powers (1953, p. 117),
Andel, Wiggers, a n d Maarleveld (1954), and
most other authors. This will be discussed more
fully in the section on roundness.
Besides the p a r a m e t e r s a, b, c, a, fl a n d %
already described, the following p a r a m e t e r s are
also i n d e p e n d e n t or partially i n d e p e n d e n t of
each other: a n y two of mass (M), density (p),
a n d true volume (Vt) ; the surface area (At) ; the
circumference in a given section (Ct) ; the area of
a given cross-section ( A ' t ) ; the radius of curva-
ture of a n y corner (r); a n d the n u m b e r of
corners (n).
Form Indices
F u n c t i o n s of parameters, though not con-
taining information which was not i n h e r e n t in

/
/
/

J
FiG. 2.--A skew ellipse with axial displacements a/a =0.16, B/b=0.45. The curve of each quadrant is an ellipse
on the semi-axes bounding the quadrant. The area is independent of the degree of axial displacement;,
384 N. C. F L E M M I N G
the parameters themselves, help to visualize the
form of the particle, and aid classification if it is
required. If the thirteen parameters suggested
above are accepted as sufficient, then any thir-
teen independent indices derived from them will
define a particle uniquely. In spite of this, Kon-
zewitsch (1961, p. 3) rejects numerical indices on
the grounds that they vary differently with
changes in form, and because a single index does
not define a particle.
It is proposed that the simplest system of
form indices is one in which an analytic geo-
metrical form defined by the indices is progres-
sively modified by the addition of further in-
dices, so that the defined form approaches that
of the particle.
Axial ratios and asymmetry.--From the three
axial lengths six ratios can be made: a/b, a/c,
b/a, b/c, c/a, and c/b. Any independent pair of
these define the form of the reference symmetrical
ellipsoid. Axial ratios have been selected by var-
ious authors as follows:
a/b, a/c, b/a, b/c, c/a, c/b
Zingg(1935) x X
Heywood (1937) x x
Poser & H6ver-
mann (1952) X X x a finite area can be bounded by an infinite perim-
Valeton (1955) x eter, there is no upper limit to the value of the
L~ttig (1956) x x
Waltz (Hermite,
1959) x x
Blenk (1960) X X
No pair of indices is 'more fundamental' than
any other, but it is convenient to have both in-
dices ranging freely from zero to unity, and this
is only fulfilled by the Zingg system. In the
Blenk system b / a ranges from 0-1, but c / a can-
not exceed b/a, so that a triangular diagram re-
sults on which it is awkward to plot other in-
dices.
Zingg (1935), Pavilion (1947), and Rosfelder
(1960, p. 204) divide the Zingg diagram differ-
ently into named zones (shown in Rosfelder,
figs. 65, 66, 67). These differences are arbitrary
and not critical, since the numerical indices oc-
cupy less space on paper and are more precise.
The parameters of asymmetry can be made
dimensionless by ratios such as a/a, fl/b, &
7/c. Indices of the comparative displacement in
different planes could be made; such as, B/a, 'y/iS,
or ab/#a, & Bc/~/b. In addition the parameters
might be grouped into a single index of total
asymmetry. Any three independent functions of
a. ~, T, preserve the original information.
Deviation from the skew ellipsoid.--The devi-
ation from the reference ellipsoid is not immedi-
ately apparent from the list of parameters, and
indices can be devised to show this more clearly.
Consider the ratios:
1) For a section,
True circumference Ct
Circumference of ellipse Ce
2) For a section,
True Area A't
3 -
Areaof ellipse A'e
3) For a solid,
True surface area At
Surface area of ellipsoid Ae
4) For a solid,
True volume Vt
Volume of ellipsoid Ve
1) This will be called a perimeter index, and can
be determined by measurements of an enlarged
projection. The value for an elliptical particle is
unity, but there is a minimum value less than
unit), for a form which consists of straight lines
joining the ends of the axes. If the form is
smoothly concave the value increases again
reaching a value approximately equal to 4(a
+ b ) / r ~ ( a ~ + b 2) for a four-pointed star. Since
index.
2) This is similar to the 'profile factor' defined
by Heywood (1937), as the ratio of the true
area of an axial section to that of the circum-
scribed rectangle. Rosfelder (1960, p. 217) modi-
fied this to refer to the reference symmetrical
ellipse, thus changing the index only by a factor
of 7r/4. Since the area of an ellipse is not altered
by displacement of the axes as long as each seg-
ment remains elliptical, Rosfelder's 'profile
factor' is applicable to the skew ellipse, and is
equal to 4A't/lrab.
This index ranges from a maximum of about
4/7r for a near-rectangle to almost zero for a
four-pointed star. It indicates whether the form
is on average concave or convex relative to the
reference ellipse, but does not limit the sinuosity
of the perimeter.
If both perimeter index and profile factor are
given, the mean path of the perimeter is deter-
mined from which it may only deviate in such
a way as to include equal areas on each side, and
the total length is determined, thus defining a
mean ratio of amplitude to wavelength of the de-
viations. The size or number of deviations is not
determined. Specification of the number of
corners defines the mean wavelength of devi-
ations from the mean path, and the solution
could be carried further by stating the standard
deviation of the wavelength. The next step
 F O R M A N D F U N C T I O N OF S E D I M E N T A R Y
could only be to define the actual order a n d
m a g n i t u d e of the deviations, and it is difficult to
see w h a t significance should be a t t a c h e d to the
difference between pebbles which are identical
save t h a t the irregularities occur in a different
order.
3) This ratio is similar to the original sphericity
index proposed by Wadell (1932, p. 445), b u t
refers to the ellipsoid instead of a reference
sphere. T h e surface area of an ellipsoid is diffi-
cult to calculate, a n d the ratio appears im-
practicable.
4) T h e ratio of true volume to volume of the
reference ellipsoid is relatively easily calculated,
a n d defines a mean surface of the particle
larger or smaller t h a n the ellipsoid. If indices (3)
a n d (4) were combined they would define the
mean steepness of deviations from the mean sur-
face, and specification of the n u m b e r of corners
would define their mean size as well.
F u r t h e r indices m i g h t be generated of the
type a r e a / v o l u m e 2/3, as required.
Roundness
Roundness is defined as a dimensionless func-
tion of the radius of c u r v a t u r e of one or more
corners. Each stage in the process of defining the
form of a particle as outlined a b o v e places fur-
ther restriction on the m a x i m u m value of radii
of curvature, and hence roundness.
If the axial ratios only are known, the particle
c a n n o t have a larger radius of c u r v a t u r e a t its
corners t h a n an ellipse of the same proportions,
a n d the same applies to a skew ellipse. If the pro-
file factor a n d perimeter index are added, then a t
least one wave of specified a m p l i t u d e m u s t be
superimposed on the perimeter, a n d this will
sharpen corners; however, if the n u m b e r of
corners is specified they will be sharpened still
further. There is no m i n i m u m limit placed on
the radius of curvature, so t h a t a n y particle cart
still have roundness zero.
It has been stated by Wadell (1932, p. 446),
and recently b y P e t t i j o h n (1957, p. 57), t h a t
roundness is geometrically i n d e p e n d e n t of shape.
This claim is supported by the s t a t e m e n t t h a t a
cylinder capped with hemispheres, a frankfurter,
has roundness u n i t y like a sphere. A sphere has
uniform radius of c u r v a t u r e over its entire sur-
face b u t a f r a n k f u r t e r does not, nor does the
radius vary smoothly from point to point. In the
cylindrical section the radius is small in one
direction and infinite in the other, while a t the
ends it is small in both direct.ions. A t the junc-
tion the radius in the longitudinal plane changes
discontinuously from infinity to a small value.
This discontinuity constitutes a pseudo-corner.
PARTICLES 385
A definition of roundness should include such
pseudo-corners, a n d on this basis the ellipsoid is
the r o u n d e s t form after a sphere. Its radius of
c u r v a t u r e is large relative to its linear dimen-
sions, a n d varies minimally with no discontinu-
ities. By the same criteria a form which has un-
equal axes c a n n o t be rounder t h a n a n ellipsoid of
the same axial ratios, a n d so m u s t be less r o u n d
t h a n a sphere. A skew ellipsoid has discontinu-
ities of radius of c u r v a t u r e a t the ends, b u t the
change is from one finite value to a n o t h e r , sug-
gesting t h a t the form is still rounder t h a n a
frankfurter.
If the axial ratios of a particle are unknown,
then the radii of c u r v a t u r e of corners can only be
compared with a n a r b i t r a r y sphere, the exact
choice of which is difficult (see next section). If
the axial ratios are known, a n upper limit is set
on the radii of curvature, if pseudo-corners are
to be avoided, a n d thus the comparison should
be with the reference ellipsoid. T h e radius of
c u r v a t u r e of the end of an ellipse is equal to
b2/2a, so t h a t the mean three-dlmenslonal
radius of c u r v a t u r e of the corners of an ellipsoid
would be a function of b~/2a, c*/2a, a n d c~/2b.
If the form is skew there is a discontinuity in
radius of c u r v a t u r e a t the ends, a n d t h o u g h a
graphic method would give a value to the m e a n
radius of curvature, there is a real discontinuity
in the second derivative of t h e curve, which con-
stitutes a second-order corner, in the same way
t h a t a conventional sharp corner is a discon-
t i n u i t y in the first derivative.
In the case of the frankfurter the radius of
c u r v a t u r e a t the end is greater t h a n t h a t of t h e
ellipsoid with the same axial ratios, a n d it would
appear to have a roundness on this scale greater
t h a n unity. This is because the value to be at-
tached to the discontinuities of radius of curva-
ture is still unknown. Ne-~rertheless, it is clear
t h a t a short f r a n k f u r t e r will a b r a d e to ellipsoidal
form and not vice versa.
T h e conventional definitions of roundness
h a v e referred radii of c u r v a t u r e to the following
linear dimensions of the particle: the a r i t h m e t -
ical mean of the axial lengths (Wentworth,
1922); the diameter of the largest inscribed
circle (Wadell, 1932, p. 448), which is usually
equal to the b-axis; the a-axis (Cailleux, 1937;
a n d Tricart, 1950); a n d the b-axis (Goguel,
1953; and Kuenen, 1956). These indices all have
value u n i t y for a sphere, b u t give differing values
for other regular shapes. W e n t w o r t h (1922),
Kuenen (1956), and Cailleux (1947), measure
roundness in terms of the radius of the sharpest
corner only, and Cailleux (1947) suggests second
a n d third order indices using the second a n d
t h i r d sharpest corners. Wadell (1932, p. 448)
uses mean radius of c u r v a t u r e of corners, a n d to
386 N. C. F L E M M I N G
aid estimation of this a visual chart has been
made by Powers (1953).
Rosfelder (1960, p. 297) suggests that both
smallest and mean radius should be measured,
and the ratio between them called differential
angularity. This, and the next logical step of
measuring mean and standard deviation of radius
of corners, can only be justifiable in exceptional
cases.
For descriptive purposes there is nothing to
choose between these indices save simplicity,
but the elliptical or skew-elliptical roundness has
special significance as a functional index.
FUNCTIONAL INDICES
Introduction
A sufficient number of functional indices de-
fine a particle uniquely, since only one particle
form could be found which would have the spec-
ified values of the different functional indices.
The form could not be calculated, as opposed to
being discovered experimentally, unless the re-
lationship between form and function were
known for each behavior characteristic. If the
relationships were all known, form indices and
functional indices would cease to be independent
as groups, and any combination of a sufficient
number of either type, provided that they were
individually independent of each other, would
define the particle uniquely.
Form indices such as axial ratios are simple to
measure, but functional indices such as that con-
cerning settling velocity are simpler to measure
than the form index involving true surface area.
Thus a practical system for defining particles
might include both types of index.
Rosfelder (1960, p. 281) suggests that the
form of a particle effects its behavior in two
ways; firstly, by determining interaction with
fluids, and hence settling velocity, permeability
of aggregates, entrainment velocity, and so
forth, and secondly, by determining the most
likely points of abrasion, and hence subsequent
forms of the particle. The initial form deter-
mines the initial mode and rate of transport
under known conditions, which determines the
type of abrasion. For a short interval the rate of
movement and the change of form could be
calculated, and in the next short interval a new
rate of transport will be determined by the new
form. Such a progression could be integrated on
a computer to give the final position and form of
the particle after a known time.
Suggested Functional Indices
Since relatively few experiments have been
made to compare behavior of particles with that
of spheres, except for settling velocity, most
functional indices are derived from form indices
or parameters and then correlated with be-
havior.
Size.--A particle has a volume and a form, but
its size, if defined as a linear dimension, is arbi-
trary. Particles are usually categorized for size
by sieving, and hence size is a functional prop-
erty determined by the way in which different
forms pass through sieves (Flemming, 1964, p.
117). If size is defined by measuring settling
velocity it is also a functional property, since the
formulae for converting settling velocity to di-
mensions do not take account of form.
An index used to approximate the behavior of
a particle is the diameter of a sphere of the same
volume,
Dt = _ _ - ~ - = nominal diameter
If it is assumed that the particle is ellipsoidal,
the volume is r . a b c / 6 , even if the axes are dis-
placed, and the approximate nominal diameter is
then,
De = ¢tabc
The nominal diameter states simply the ap-
proximate volume of the particle, and hence the
gravitational force on it. Thus the cross-sectional
area, circumference, and surface area, of the
nominal sphere become factors with which the
corresponding values for a particle are com-
pared to account for the difference in behavior
between the particle and a sphere.
Sphericity.--Wadeil (1932, p, 445) defined
true sphericity as the ratio of the true surface
area of the particle to the surface area of the
nominal sphere, in order to determine the effect
of form on settling velocity.
At
Wadell area sphericity = ~at = - -
7rDt~
This is the comparison of the surface area to
the two-thirds power of the volume as suggested
above. In view of the difficulty of measuring
surface area, Wadell (1934) redefined sphericity
as the cube root of the ratio of the true volume
of the particle to the volume of the circum-
scribed sphere. This is the same as the ratio of
the diameter of the nominal sphere to the longest
axis of the particle. Krumbein (1942, p. 624)
assumes the particle to be an ellipsoid, and de-
rives an approximation to the Wadell volume
sphericity,
v aa ram
Elliptical volume sphericity.
 F O R M A N D F U N C T I O N OF S E D I M E N T A R Y
If t w o particles have identical volumes and
elliptical sphericity this stipulates that they
must have identical long axes and cross-sec-
tional area in the b-c plane. If b = c the surface
area of the particle is a minimum, while if b = a
the surface area is a maximum. Thus the ellip-
tical volume sphericity has very different proper-
ties from the Wadell true area sphericity. This
difference may account for the conclusion of
Krumbein (1942, p. 625) that elliptical volume
sphericity did not determine settling velocity. It
is possible that * ve, which describes that part
of the 'sphere of influence' of the particle which
is actually occupied by material, might be
relevant to porosity and permeability studies.
As already shown the area of an ellipse is in-
dependent of the displacement of the axes, and
thus the elliptical volume sphericity of a par-
ticle is independent of its skewness. Sphericity is
therefore an insensitive measure of the progress
of abrasion of a particle.
Assuming a kaidekahedron reference form
Aschenbrenner (1956) derives a sphericity index
which is the reciprocal of the square root of
Wadell's area sphericity. Because of the as-
sumptions made in its calculation it is difficult
to relate this index to others, but Rosfelder (1960
fig. 71) has plotted its values on a Zingg diagram.
Rosfelder (1960, p. 210) adapts an index de-
vised by Durand and de Lara (1953), which he
defines as 'the ratio of the maximum cross-sec-
tional area of the reference ellipsoid to the
cross-sectional area of the nominal sphere.' This
is called 'portance,' designated 0J.
= ab/(abc)21a = tc , sphere to which an irregular particle could be
This index has been put forward previously as
c / C a b by Corey (1949), and as the reciprocal of
portance by Sneed and Folk (1958). Rosfelder
(1960, p. 222) shows that portance governs
settling velocity because particles settle with
their maximum areas across the direction of
movement, whereas the elliptical sphericity
would apply to particles falling with their small-
est areas across the flow. Rosfelder plots settling
velocity on a Zingg diagram (1960, fig. 77) and
portance on a similar diagram (fig. 72), and the
agreement is excellent. The figures agree with
those of the present author (Flemming, 1964, p.
119).
Other functions of axial lengths. - - T h e flatness
ratio devised by Wentworth (1922) and used by
Cailleux (1945) is defined as ( a + b ) / 2 c , and al-
though it is difficult to show that this is specifi-
cally related to a mode of behavior, it has been ex-
tensively used as a means of investigating trans-
port and abrasional histories of particles.
PARTICLES 387
The following table shows that most possible
ratios and combinations of the axial lengths have
been studied :
(Constants omitted)
abc nominal sphere (Krumbein, 1942,
p. 624)
a+b+c mean diameter (Wentworth, 1922)
ab/c ~ portance (Rosfelder, 1960;
Corey, 1949; Sneed
and Folk, 1958).
bc/a * sphericity (Krumbein, 1942)
ac/b 2 shape factor (Aschenbrenner, 1955)
(a+b)/c flatness (Wentworth, 1922;
Cailleux, 1945)
(a+c)/b isometry (Wentworth, cited by
Konzewitsch, 1961,
p. I.)
(b +c)/a ?
(a-b)/(a-c) ? (Sneed and Folk,
1958).
It appears that the only demonstration that
an index is precisely related to function is
Rosfelder's correlation between portance and
settling velocity.
Krumbein (1942, p. 630) defined a form co-
efficient, which, in the terms of the present
work is a real functional index, as the ratio of the
settling velocity of a particle to that of the
nominal sphere. Briggs, McCulloch, and Moser
(1962) defined a 'dynamic shape factor' as the
square of Krumbein's form coefficient, and
plotted this against Wentworth flatness ratio,
elliptical sphericity, portance, and Aschenbren-
ner shape factor, for a large number of particles.
Roundness.--Roundness as a functional index
is intended to correlate with the severity of abra-
sion. Since the inscribed sphere is the largest
abraded, WadelI roundness, mean radius of
curvature/radius of inscribed sphere, is most
logical. As already shown the radius of curva-
ture of the end of an ellipse is b*/2a in terms of
axial lengths. If we take the radius of the corner
of an ellipsoid as the sharpest curvature, it is
equal to cZ/2a, and since the radius of the in-
scribed sphere is c/2, the Wadell roundness of
the ellipsoid is c/a. This is equal to b / a X c / b ,
and hence lines of constant roundness for ellip-
soids plot on a Zingg diagram as hyperbolae
of the type xy = k (fig. 3).
From the lines of constant sphericity plotted
on figure 3 it is clear that there is a correlation
with roundness. The range of maximum round-
ness for a given sphericity is given by the round-
ness values at each end of the sphericity line,
that is, for b / a ~ 1, and c / b = 1. The range is
plotted against sphericity in figure 4. The lines
limit only the maximum roundness for a par-
ticle, and any particle can have a lower round-
ness. An approximate linear equation for the
388 N. C. F L E M M I N G

I'O

\ \ ~-~ \1
\ ,,\\ ~' ,\ '\ ',~',

\ \ ,, \ ".,

-b

"5

,4 \

-3

i I I I I I I I I
*1 "~- "3 4 "5 "6 "7 .8 .q I,o
c /B

FIG. &--The sphericity and roundness of a smooth ellipsoid compared on a Zingg diagram. The solid lines
are those of constant sphericity with the formula 6=3,~/(b/a)~.(c/b). The pecked lines are those of constant
roundness with the formula R =(b/a). (c/b). For a given sphericity roundness is a maximum if c/b= l, and a
minimum b/a = I.

case b / a = l is R = 2 ¢ , - 1 . 0 , and for c / b = l ,

R = 1 . 2 5 ~ - 0.25.
Though roundness and sphericity have been
held to be geometrically independent it has been
"8
recognized that they are in practice closely re-
lated, by what is termed a functional relation-
'7
ship. Figure 3 includes several experimental plots
of roundness against sphericity, from Pettijohn
(1957, p. 60). The slopes of the lines are similar
R
"5
/
,/ to those for a smooth ellipsoid, implying that the
variation of roundness within the samples is
governed by the geometrical dependence on
axial ratios. However, the actual value of round-
.3 ness is less than that for a smooth ellipsoid, im-
plying many small deviations from that form.
The ratio of the mean radius of curvature to
that of the reference ellipsoid produces a defini-
/ tion of roundness which is geometrically inde-
I
•1
I
"Z
I
"3
I
"4
I
,5
I
.6
I
"7
I
-s
I
-q I.o
pendent of axial ratios, is a true measure of the
deviation from the smooth ellipsoid, and hence a
better measure of abrasional properties.
FIG. 4.--A plot of roundness against sphericity for Kuenen (1956, p. 355) found that in erosional
smooth ellipsoids. For any smooth ellipsoid of known experiments all particles tended towards ellip-
sphericity the roundness will lie between the two solid soids. Krumbein (1941a, p. 498-499) produced
curves. The straight pecked lines are experimentally
derived relationships for sands, from Pettijohn experimental evidence to show that Wadell
(1957, fig. 29). roundness and elliptical sphericity both decrease
 FORAI A ND F U N C T I O N OF S E D I M E N T A R Y PA R T I C L E S 389

exponentially during c o n s t a n t abrasion. The
roundness changed very rapidly a t first, b u t
later a t the same rate as sphericity. This sug-
gests t h a t the particles had reached near ellip-
soidal form, after which roundness was a function
of sphericity.
In the course of abrasion a particle first loses
the irregularities by which its form deviates from
a skew-ellipsoid, this becomes symmetrical, a n d
finally becomes a sphere. Although a function of
the radius of c u r v a t u r e of corners gives a meas-
sure of t h e d e g r e e of abrasion at the beginning of
a particle's abrasional history, the skewness
should be a sensitive indicator later on, and
finally sphericity must be used, or snme other
function of axial ratios alone.
CONCLUSIONS
The form of a particle can conveniently be de-
scribed by thirteen partially i n d e p e n d e n t param-
eters, which m a y be combined to form indices
which are usually dimensionless. T h e indices
bring out geometric properties of the particle,
aid classification, a n d help to i n t e r p r e t function.
An index conveys no information t h a t was not
i n h e r e n t in the parameters, a n d a universally
significant index which will define a particle
uniquely is impossible.
T h e suggested p a r a m e t e r s are the axial
lengths, a, b, c, the axial displacements a,/~, T,
the true volume, the true surface area, cross-
sectional area, perimeter of a section, density or
mass, n u m b e r of corners, a n d radius of c u r v a t u r e
of corners.
The only generally accepted functional index
is the ratio of the settling velocity of a particle
to t h a t of a sphere of the same volume a n d mass.
Settling velocity has been related to spheres b y
Stokes (1850), to axial ratios by K r u m b e i n
(1942), a n d Rosfelder (1960), who started to
analyze the effect of a s y m m e t r y . T h u s eight of
the thirteen p a r a m e t e r s have been related to the
function of settling velocity.
A complete relationship between form indices
a n d functional indices requires the experimental
derivation of thirteen equations, each with thir-
teen variables; hence, the inversion of a 13 × 13
matrix. Since the indices would p r o b a b l y be
multiplied, the matrix would be constructed in
t e r m s of logarithms.
It has been shown t h a t Wadell roundness is
not geometrically i n d e p e n d e n t of axial ratio,
a n d a new index, the ratio of the mean radius of
c u r v a t u r e to t h a t of the reference ellipsoid, is
proposed.
T h e case of settling velocity shows t h a t the
quest for greater accuracy inevitably leads suc-
cessive researchers to extend the set of indices
describing the form of a particle. S t u d y of the
relationships between permeability, porosity,
fabric orientation, bed roughness, rolling veloc-
ity, sliding velocity, a n d rate of abrasion u n d e r
different conditions of transport, depends on
precise numerical description of the form of par-
ticles, and it is hoped t h a t the system proposed
a b o v e will facilitate the task.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
M y t h a n k s are due to M. J. Kirkby, a n d
J. R. L. Allen for discussion a n d criticism of the
manuscript. T h e work was carried o u t while I
was on a D e p a r t m e n t of Scientific a n d Industrial
Research studentship.

REFERENCES
AscnENBRENNE~t, B. C., 1956, A new method of expressing particle sphericity: Jour. Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 26, p. 15-31.
BLENK, M., 1960, Morphologie der nordwestlichen Harzes und seines Vorlandes: Sonderdruck aus Zeitschr.
ftir Geomorphologie, v. 4, no. 3-4, p. 202-242.
BRINGS, L., McCULLOCn, D. S., AND MOSER, F., 1962, The hydraul~c shape of sand particles: Jour. Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 32, p. 645-657.
CAILLEUX, A., 1945, Distinction des galets marins et fluvlatiles: Bull. Soc. GEol. France, v. 5, no. 13, p. 125-138.
--, 1946, Granulom6trie des formations ~ galets: in G~ologle des terrains r~cents de l'Ouest de l'Europe:
Session Extr. Stes. Beiges de G6ologie, 14-26~ Sept. 1946, p. 91-114.
--, 1947, L'indice d'6mouss~: C. R. Somrn., Soc. G6ol. Franc. 10. nov. 1947.
--, 19,52, L'indice d'~mouss~ des grains de sables et gr~s: Revue G~omorph. DYE., v. 3, p. 78-88.
DURAND, R., AND DE LARA, G. C., 1953, Vitesse de chute des grains de sable dans les fluides en milieu infini.
Relation entre le coefficient de trainee et le coefficient de forme: Houille Blanche, t. 8, p. 254-259.
FLEMMlrqG, N. C., 1964, Tank experiments on the sorting of beach material during cusp formation: Jour.
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 34, p. 112-122.
GoGtrr~L, J., 1953, Apropos de la mesure des galets et la definition des indices: Revue G~omorph. DYE., v. 4,
p. 11,5-118.
L'HER1RITE,R., 1959, Trait6 d'expertise et d'essais des materiaux et des construction: Methodes g6n6rales
d'essaix et de controle, v. 1, Eyrolles. Paris.
HEYWOOD, H., 1937, Measurement of the fineness of powdered materials: Inst. Mech. Engrs., v. 140, p. 257-347.
KONZEWITSCE, N., 1961, La forma de los clastos. Secretaria de Marina, Serv. de Hidrog, Buenos Aires, 113 p.
KRUMEEIN, W. C., 1941a, The effects of abrasion on the size, shape, and roundness of rock particles. Jour.
Geology, v. 49, p. 482-520.
390 N. C. F L E M M I N G

--, 1941b, Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles:
Jour. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 11, p. 64-72.
, 1942, Settling velocity and flume-behavior of non-spherical particles: Am. Geophys. Union Trans.,
p. 621-633.
KUENEN, PH. H., 1956, Experimental abrasion of pebbles, 2: Rolling by current: Jour. Geology, v. 64, p. 336--
368.
LOTTIG, G., 1957, Eine neue einfache ger611morphometrische Methode: Eiszeitalter Gegenwart, v. 7, p. 13-20.
PAVILLON, A., 1947, Gravillons routiers, cubicit~ et qualitY: Inst. Techn. Batim. Tray. Publ. Cir. D, no. 20,
19 p.
POSER, H., AND H6VERMANN, 19.52, Beltrage zur morphometrischen und morphologlschen Schotteranalyse:
Abhandl. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges., v. 4, p. 12-36.
POWERS, M. C., 1953, A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles: Jour. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 23,
p. 117-119.
ROSFELDER, A., 1960, Contribution ~ I'analyse texturale des s~diments: Thesis, University of Algiers. 356 p.
SNEED, E. O., AND FOLK, R. L., 1958, Pebbles in the lower Colorado River, Texas; a study in particle morpho-
genesls: Jour. Geology, v. 66, p. 114-160.
STOKES, G. G., 1850, Cambridge, Philos. Soc. Trans., v. 9, p. 8.
TRICART, J., 1950, Premiers r~sultats d'une 6rude des galets fluviatiles actuels du Gabon: C. R. Somm., Soc.
GEol. France, p. 221-226.
VALBTON, I., 1955, Beziehungen zwischen petrografischer Beschaffenheit, Gestalt und Ruudungsgrad einiger
FlussgerSlle: Petermanns Geographischer Mitteilungen, v. 99, p. 13-17.
VANANDEL,T. H., WIGGER$,A. J., ANDMAARLEVELD,G., 1954, Roundness and shape of marine gravels from
Urk (Netherlands): Jour. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 24, p. 100-116.
WADELL, H., 1932, Volume, shape, and roundness of rock particles: Jour. Geology, v. 41, p. 310-331.
, 1934, Some new sedimentary formulae: Physics, v. S, p. 281-291.
~rENTWORTH,C. K., 1922, The shapes of beach pebbles: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper, 131-C, p. 75-83.
ZII,.tGG, T., 1935, Beitrag zur Schottemnalyse: Schweiz. Mineral. Petrog. Mitt., v. 15, p. 39-140.