Industrial Minerals - Application of the Phi Scale to the Description of Industrial Granular Materials

NDUSTRY needs a generally applicable means of defining average grain size and grain size distribution. Students of sediments hade explored this field, employing methods that might also prove useful in engineering problems. Before attempting to solve specific problems it is well to review the derivation of commonly used grade scales and the reasons for their selection. This aspect of the problem seems largely to have been lost, and a review of basic factors may suggest causes for failures in using size analysis data. Three facts are implicit in selection of a grade scale: 1) Most particulate mixtures are continuous distributions of sizes, and any grade scale that may be employed is an arbitrary means of visualizing that distribution. 2) For purely descriptive purposes, any grade scale, regardless of the rationality of the class intervals, will be satisfactory if it is accepted by a sufficient number of workers. 3) For analytical purposes, class intervals must be small enough to define the continuous distribution accurately. Further, where statistical studies are involved, a fixed relationship should exist between classes or grades. An argument in favor of geometrically related size grades lies in the fact that most particulate mixtures contain such a wide range of sizes that use of an arithmetic diameter scale is practically impossible. Udden, who recognized this fact in 1898,' proposed one of the first grade scales based on a regular geometrical interval. Udden used 1 mm as his basic diameter and a ratio of 2 (or 1/2) between classes. In 1922 Wentworth2 re-examined Udden's grade scale, retaining the same class interval and basic diameter, but extending the scale in both directions and renaming the classes. In 1930 (Ref. 3, p. 82) the American Society of Testing Materials proposed what is now known as the U.S. Standard fine sieve series, also based on the 1 mm diam, with a v2 ratio between sieves. This, then, is a one fourth Udden-Wentworth series in the sizes below the 4 mesh sieve. The U.S. Standard coarse sieve departs from the 1 mm base and uses inches; hence it is not a direct continuation of the fine series. The U.S. Standard series would thus seem to possess all the attributes of a good grade scale, which it is. It has a large number of classes (sieves). in fact too many for practical use in its entirety. This v2 subdivision of the Wentworth grades has led to the common use of two v2 sieve series, the half-Wentworth and the engineers' series. Geologists and sedimentologists favor the half Wentworth, or 18, 25, 35, 45 sieves, etc., whereas the engineers, preferring round numbers, utilize the other half of the U.S. Standard grade scale in the 16, 20, 30, 40 sieves, etc. The fixed geometrical ratio between classes is an advantage in statistical analysis, but the unequal classes cause some complications in calculations. This is especially true when moment measures are used. It was to simplify these calculations that Krumbein in 1934 devised the phi scale. Phi is defined as being equal to —log2 of the diameter in millimeters. Selection of logarithms to the base 2 relate the phi scale directly to the Wentworth grade scale in such a manner that the whole or fractional diameter values 2, 1, 1/2, 1/4 mm, etc., become rational whole numbers, —1, 0,1, 2, etc. Since this is an arithmetic rather than geometric series, calculations are facilitated. When the logarithm is multiplied by —1 the phi values below 1 mm become positive, those coarser than 1 mm negative. Because of its relationship to the Wentworth grade scale (and in turn to the U.S. Standard fine sieve series) it is not necessary to use the transformation equation to calculate the phi value for each individual sieve; this can be done graphically as shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that this graph may be extended in either direction to include the range of sizes most commonly used by the individual worker. Application to Statistical Analysis Any attempt at systematically relating size analysis data to properties involves a statistical study whether it is recognized as such or not. Since this is true it would seem more logical to use measures and devices related to the general body of statistical theory. Several methods are available for studying particulate mixtures. One of the most commonly employed, and also the most often misused, is the histogram or block diagram. If its limitations are recognized and provided for, the histogram is a very useful tool. According to conventional practice, the bars of equal width are plotted and the values noted in terms of diameters, when in point of fact, log diameter is implied by such notation. Further, the histogram is sensitive to choice of grade scale and size of class interval, either of which may color the result. Grade scales whose classes are not related by fixed intervals are particularly difficult. Another basic weakness of the histogram is that it pictures a continuous distribution as a series of discrete grades.