Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tectonophysics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tecto

Quantication of the spatial distribution of mineral phases and grains in rock using a
2-D multiple-area density map technique
Sungshil Kim, Jin-Han Ree
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 24 March 2011
Received in revised form 12 November 2011
Accepted 26 November 2011
Available online 7 December 2011
Keywords:
Rock fabrics
Spatial distribution
Clustering
Multiple-area density map
Grain growth
Pinning effect

a b s t r a c t
The most widely used method for quantitative analyses of the spatial distribution of grains in a rock body is
the nearest-neighbor method (a position-based method), which recognizes the grain center as the position of
the grain without consideration of grain size or shape. However, the spatial distribution of grains is
inuenced by their size and shape, as well as their position. Here, we propose a multiple-area density map
(MADM) method to quantify the spatial distribution of phases or grains. The method is based on image
analysis and simultaneously considers the position, size, shape, and proportion of grains. The MADM
constructed by overlaying density maps of grain areas with a set of template size produces a normalized
standard deviation (NSD) value of phase area density, which represents the degree to which it is spatially
clustered. The NSD value is used to quantify the distribution of the phase, without considering individual
grains. To identify the spatial distribution of individual grains, the method employs the clustering index
(CI), which is calculated from the ratio of NSD to the reciprocal of the number of grains in a loglog plot.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A key factor in interpreting the origin and evolution of rocks is the
rock fabric, which may be dened as the spatial and geometrical
congurations of its components (Gaillot et al., 1999; Hobbs et al.,
1976). Previous studies have proposed methods for quantifying the
grain size and shape (e.g. Heilbronner and Keulen, 2006; Higgins,
2000; Panozzo, 1983), whereas relatively few studies have sought
to quantify the spatial distribution of mineral phases in the rock
mass (e.g., Higgins, 2000). Such studies have included analyses of
the spatial distribution of phases in the context of constraining the
nucleation processes of various phases in igneous and metamorphic
rocks (Jerram et al., 1996, 2003; Philpotts et al., 1998; Saltzer et al.,
2001), the identication of phases in equilibrium with each other
(Morishita and Obata, 1995), and assessing the effect of one phase on
the static or dynamic grain growth of another phase in metamorphic
rocks (Herwegh and Berger, 2004; Song and Ree, 2007). However,
existing methods for quantifying the spatial distribution of a given
phase do not provide a unique solution, since the quantication is
dependent on several factors that are not always taken into account,
including clustering, fraction, size, shape, and shape-preferred
orientation.
In this paper, we introduce a new method for quantifying the
spatial distribution of a given phase in a rock body using 2-D image

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82 2 3290 3175.

E-mail addresses: neogeo94@korea.ac.kr (S. Kim), reejh@korea.ac.kr (J.-H. Ree).
0040-1951/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.11.025

analysis. Although the method does not provide a unique solution

(i.e., it does not consider all of the controlling factors simultaneously),
it is simpler than existing approaches in that it extracts a simple index
as a reference parameter that is utilized to consider other controlling
factors.

2. Summary of previous methods

In a study of the spatial distribution of a given phase, it is essential
to dene the positions of individual grains, which may be done by
locating the center of each grain. The most frequently used method in
such studies is the distance-to-nearest-neighbor method developed
originally in ecology (e.g., Clark and Evans, 1954). In this method, the
value Big R is dened as the ratio of the observed mean nearestneighbor distance to the expected mean nearest-neighbor distance for
an ideally random distribution. However, the effect of local clusters
and the size, shape, and shape-preferred orientation of individual grains
is not considered in the distance-to-nearest-neighbor method, as
demonstrated by Song and Ree (2007).
Jerram et al. (1996) rened the distance-to-nearest-neighbor
method by introducing a variable for the phase volume fraction, in
addition to the R-value; however, the rened method does not
address the problems outlined above. Jerram and Cheadle (2000)
introduced the method of complete linkage hierarchical cluster
analysis (CLHCA), which involves the construction of a dendrogram
in which the distances between individual grains or local clusters
are represented as height. Although CLHCA effectively expresses

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

177

Fig. 1. (a) Example of the ASCII raster grid le format. Here, 0 represents non-target phase and 1 and 2 indicate target phase. (b) The bitmap image from the grid le of (a).

the effect of local clustering on the spatial distribution, it does not

reect the effect of size and shape of individual grains.
To consider the effect of grain size and shape, Jerram and Cheadle
(2000) developed the method of density linkage cluster analysis
(DLCA), in which the spatial distribution of grains is dened by
their boundaries rather than their centers. DLCA recognizes adjacent
grains or clusters within a certain radius from the boundary of a
grain; however, the results generated by DLCA depend on the radius
of the searching circle.
The wavelet transform technique is an image analysis technique
which extracts information on the orientation and spacing of clusters
in ordered structures (Darrozes et al., 1997; Gaillot et al., 1997, 1999).
Although this method is similar to the method proposed here, in that
both methods calculate spatial parameters through image analysis at
multiple scales, their technique focuses mainly on the orientation of
clusters rather than the spatial distribution of grains within a given
area.
3. Method
The proposed method uses the ASCII raster grid le format for
input and output data. This data structure is similar to digital images,
such as bitmaps, which store information pertaining to the color
scheme in each pixel. Another example of a similar le type is the
grid le format for a digital elevation map (DEM), which contains
topological information, such as the elevation of the land surface, in
each grid cell (Trauth, 2007). The ASCII raster grid le format is

text-based and straightforward to handle; consequently, it is often

used as a basic data structure for numerical computer simulations
or digital image analyses. In the proposed method, the input grid
le contains information pertaining to the phase of the material
present at each grid point. This information is used to distinguish a
specic phase from other phases or voids (Fig. 1), and is dened as
either target phase cells or non-target phase cells. Non-target phase
cells represent all areas not considered after designating target
cells; thus, they include both voids and the other phase(s) present.
We dene an object as an area consisting of grid cells of the target
phase. This can be either a single grain or a grain aggregate of the
target phase. In other words, a single quartz grain cannot be distinguished via this denition from a polycrystalline quartz ribbon, because
the grid cells of the data structure are dened by two types of phase
information only; however, it is possible to distinguish between a
grain aggregate and a grain by including additional information, such
as average grain size or other data set to designate individual grains.
The term area density is used here to represent the degree of
object dispersion (or clustering) in a given area. The area density is
the ratio of the area of the target phase cells within a template to
that of the template (Fig. 2a). The template has a constant size and
shape for each calculation of area density across the grid. To calculate
the area density, the center of the template is located at each cell in
turn, the area of the target phase within the template is measured,
and the ratio is calculated. The resultant area density values are
allocated for each cell in an output grid le referred to as an area
density map (ADM) (Fig. 2b). To carry out the density calculations,

Fig. 2. (a) A template to calculate area density of objects on the input grid. The calculated density value within the template is allocated at the cell that is located in the center of the
template in order to make area density map (ADM). (b) The constructed ADM from (a).

178

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Fig. 3. (a) Single ADMs. The density contrast of an ADM depends on the used template size. (b) 3-D topography of a compiled multiple area density map (MADM) from a set of
single ADMs. This compiled MADM can also be represented as 2-D map as in (a).

we assume that all of the marginal sides of the grid are connected
with their opposite sides, resulting in a repetition of the pattern in
the same manner as decorative tiles are repeated in architecture.
This tiled boundary effect allows the method to calculate a
complete density value for the grid edges, which would otherwise
be missing data.
The calculated area density value depends on the size and shape of
the template used. The smaller the template, the more abrupt the
change in the calculated area density from one cell to the next,
enabling small variations in area density to be distinguished. However,
the larger the template, the easier it is to represent the relationship
between grains, since the method can only express relationships
between grains when they are both within the same template.
To offset these limitations related to the dependence of the calculated area density on the template size, a set of ADMs is produced
using multiple templates, each with a different size. Then, these
maps are combined into a multiple-ADM (MADM) by calculating
the average density value at each grid cell from the set of ADMs
(Fig. 3). The maximum possible size of a given template is the same
as the dimensions of the input grid, and its minimum size should be
the diameter of the smallest grain present, to enable grains of that
size to be distinguished. The size interval between each of the
templates should be constant. The number of templates used to

Fig. 4. (a) and (b) Example of 3-D area density map with two objects. Input image is
shown as a square box in the top-right side. Samples of (a) and (b) have the same
size and shape of objects but different distance between them. (c) Proles of two
MADMs which are cut in the middle of the samples of (a) in broken line and (b) in
line. Notice that the area density curve of the sample (b) having a closer distance
between the objects shows a higher amplitude than that of (a).

Fig. 5. Maximum standard deviation (SD) curve estimated using ideally clustered
objects (i.e. circular aggregate) for a given fraction of object. Open circles represent
the maximum SD of representative samples.

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Fig. 6. Discrimination diagram of spatial distribution using clustering index (CI).

NSD: normalized standard deviation of area density of objects. np: number of objects.
See text for the details.

calculate the MADM can vary, but 10 ADMs per MADM has been
found to be appropriate: the use of more than 10 ADMs results in
excessive calculation time, while the use of too few ADMs results in
discontinuous and abrupt changes in density on the resultant
MADM. When comparing the clustering degree of two or more
samples, the same parameters and the same template sizes should
be used, since a change in the diameter of the template can result in
changes to the calculated density on a map.

179

Fig. 8. (a) Box plots of normalized density (ND) for samples in Fig. 7. The distribution of
ND values is highly asymmetric in clustered samples. (b) Standard deviation (SD) and
average value of area density for samples of (a). The average value of area density is the
same for all the samples since they have the same fraction of grains.

The MADM has two useful characteristics. First, the density values
of the MADM increase in proportion to the concentration of the target
objects. In other words, the MADM represents the spatial distribution
of the objects. Second, if samples contain the same fraction of a target
phase, the average density values of their MADMs are equal to the
fraction of the target phase regardless of its spatial distribution.

Fig. 7. Samples for verication of the multiple-area-density-map (MADM) method. The size, shape and fraction of grains are the same in all of the samples. The standard deviation
(SD) of MADM is shown both in 2-D and 3-D in each sample.

180

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Fig. 4a and b shows samples with two grains (or objects) of the
same size and shape; however, the distance between the grains is
different in each case. Fig. 4c shows the density curve proles, taken
for the center of the samples, for the ADMs for both Fig. 4a and b.
The density curve of the sample with a shorter distance between
grains (Fig. 4b) has a higher amplitude than that of the sample with
a longer distance between grains (Fig. 4a). The distance between
grains in this example is the only dependent parameter causing the
difference in the density value. Therefore, the increased amplitude
is caused by the tighter clustering of the grains. When objects are
dispersed, the amplitude of the density is smaller; it approaches the
average density value as maximum dispersal is approached. Therefore, the spatial distribution of objects can be represented by the
deviation of density values from the average density for the map.
The smaller the deviation of density values from the average density,
the greater the dispersion of objects, and vice versa.

(dashed portion of the line in Fig. 5); this deviation is due to the
above-mentioned tiled boundary effect of the proposed method.
Although the NSD quantitatively denes the spatial distribution of
objects, it does not include any information on the frequency of
individual grains (i.e., the number of grains) or their size. In studies
of natural rocks, the spatial distribution of individual grains may be
more meaningful than that of a given phase (Higgins, 2006). To
extract the spatial distribution of individual grains from the calculated
NSD, we need information on the size of the grains, because the spatial
distribution (or clustering) of the grains is dependent on their size and
size distribution. For example, if each of the two objects shown in
Fig. 4a represents a single grain, the two grains are not strongly
clustered. In contrast, if each of the objects is an aggregate consisting

4. Clustering index using MADM

As explained above, the proposed method calculates the standard
deviation (SD) of the density values for a MADM. This density
contrast represents the spatial distribution of the objects; however,
the SD is dependent on the fraction as well as the spatial distribution
of the objects. Therefore, the SDs of the MADMs containing different
fractions of objects cannot be compared with one another in an effort
to determine their relative spatial distributions. Thus, we need a
fraction-independent index to quantify the spatial distribution.
If the objects are perfectly dispersed, a constant density value will
be obtained for all areas of the MADM and the SD will have a value of
zero (the minimum value). In contrast, the SD will achieve its
maximum value for a given fraction when the objects are perfectly
clustered; this will be achieved when the clustered aggregate, like
the template, is circular in shape (in 2-D, or spherical in 3-D). Thus,
all of the calculated SDs from the MADM will fall between the
maximum and minimum values for that fraction. Once the maximum
SD for a given fraction of objects is dened, the normalized standard
deviation (NSD) is produced by dividing the SD of the MADM by the
maximum SD. This is a fraction-independent value that enables
comparison between samples containing different fractions of objects.
The calculated maximum SDs are plotted against their fractions in
Fig. 5. The best-t curve of the maxima shows a bell shape with its
peak value at a fraction of about 0.45. For fractions above ~ 0.6, the
best-t curve deviates somewhat from a symmetrical bell shape

Fig. 9. Clustering index (CI) value for samples of Fig. 7 in a loglog plot of normalized
standard deviation (NSD) vs. reciprocal of number of grains (np). CI decreases with
increasing the degree of clustering.

Fig. 10. Clustering index (CI) plot for samples with various grain size, fraction and
spatial distribution. (a) Calculated CI of the samples is plotted on the discrimination
diagram of spatial distribution. (b) Sample images used for (a) are shown on the
discrimination diagram. The detailed parameters of the samples are shown in Table 1.

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

of smaller grains, the grains show strong local clustering. Therefore, we

introduce a new index, the clustering index (CI), which takes into
account the effect of local clustering on the bulk spatial distribution.
The CI is the ratio of NSD to the reciprocal of the number of grains in a
loglog plot:
CI

log NSD
log NSD


log np
log 1=np

where np is the number of objects. The reciprocal of np represents the

average size of the individual grains relative to the total area (fraction)
of a target phase. Thus, 1/np has a value between 0 and 1, since it is the
ratio of the average relative area of the individual grains to the total
area of the objects, assuming a uniform size distribution of the grains.
Fig. 6 shows the degree of clustering of the grains (ordered, random,
and clustered) based on CI values (the slope of the lines in the plot). A
low CI indicates a high degree of clustering, and vice versa. The CI line
of 0.75 indicates the maximum possible value for CI; a uniform (or
ordered) distribution lies along (or close to) this line. The CI for a
random distribution ranges from 0.75 to 0.5; the dashed line in Fig. 6
indicates the minimum boundary of random distribution; for CI values
below 0.5 the distribution is clustered.
5. Examples
5.1. Verication of the method using simple patterns
To test the proposed method, we rst applied it to six arbitrarily
dened samples (Fig. 7). For this test we set the size, number,
shape, and fraction of the grains to be the same for each of the samples,
leaving only the grain distribution as a variable; this illustrates the
quantication of the distribution pattern. In the resultant MADMs,
the samples with a clustered distribution show both an increase in
SDs and density contrast with higher clustering, while those samples
with a dispersed distribution of grains (uniform, ordered, and
random) show lower SDs and density contrasts.
Fig. 8 shows the normalized and average density values for these
samples using box plots. The deviation of density increases with
increased clustering. The average density for these samples is constant,
regardless of the distribution pattern of the samples, because it is equal
to the fraction of the grains in the samples. The CIs of the samples are
shown in Fig. 9. The uniform (CI = 0.732) and ordered (CI = 0.725)
distributions are both close to the maximum boundary for CI. The
random distribution (CI = 0.643) falls within the index range for a
random distribution. The clustered samples (CI = 0.436, 0.281, and
0.161) fall within the range for a clustered distribution.
A second test was conducted using a larger pool of samples so that
more than one of the attributes could be varied. The CI values for
representative samples from this large test pool are shown in
Fig. 10. The particle properties of the samples for this test are listed

in Table 1. Samples 006, 007, and 008 form a set with the same size,
shape, and fraction of grains, but have a different spatial distribution.
Other sets with the same properties for their grains, but different
spatial distributions, include the set comprising samples 020 and
023, and the set comprising samples 021 and 024. Samples 028*
and 029* are composed of needle-shaped grains; their grain fraction
and spatial distribution are the same as those of 020 and 023, respectively. As seen in Fig. 10a, the samples with needle-shaped grains
tend to have a higher CI value than their counterparts with circular
grains, although the difference in CI is not signicant. The CI values
for the samples with the same fraction and distribution, but different
grain shapes, tend to become higher with increasing dispersion of
grains, suggesting that the effect of grain shape on the spatial distribution becomes more signicant when the grains are more widely
distributed.
5.2. Analysis of the pinning effect of second-phase particles
Impurities, or second-phase particles, are important for the
stabilization of the grain size of the main phase during dynamic and
static recrystallization, and thus for the rheology of rocks and metals
(e.g., De Bresser et al., 1998, 2001; Etheridge and Wilkie, 1979; Evans
et al., 2001; Herwegh and Berger, 2004; Olgaard, 1990; Song and Ree,
2007). Most of these previous studies focused on the effect caused by
the fraction of second-phase particles present; however, the dispersion of second-phase particles is also an important factor in terms of
the recrystallized grain size of the main phase (Olgaard and Evans,
1986; Song and Ree, 2007; Weygand et al., 2000). In this section,
we test the proposed method in quantifying the effect of secondphase particle dispersion on the recrstallized grain size of the main
phase, using a conventional computer simulation and a natural rock
sample.
We used the Mesoscale Microstructure Simulation Project (MMSP)
to simulate grain growth of the main (matrix) phase using Monte
Carlo simulations (Gruber et al., 2009) and employed the method of
Miyake (2001) to model the pinning effect of the second-phase particles
during static grain growth of the main phase. The size of each input
Table 2
Analyzed results of 2D grain growth simulations.
Sample

MCS

dg

ng

Sample_006

6000
10,000
40,000
6000
10,000
20,000
6000
10,000
30,000
6000
10,000
30,000
6000
10,000
70,000
6000
10,000
70,000
6000
10,000
80,000
6000
10,000
40,000
6000
10,000
60,000

39.7
41.8
46.2
42.7
46.1
48.9
39.3
42.0
46.3
55.5
65.2
91.8
58.3
74.9
117.9
52.3
59.8
74.2
55.9
64.1
91.6
52.7
59.5
85.6
52.1
63.3
79.0

100
86
66
91
80
73
99
82
67
52
38
20
46
29
11
57
44
21
51
37
12
60
45
23
56
38
19

0.440
0.458
0.492
0.465
0.491
0.511
0.437
0.460
0.493
0.337
0.391
0.506
0.242
0.326
0.480
0.316
0.361
0.434
0.228
0.274
0.395
0.319
0.360
0.482
0.315
0.381
0.455

Sample_007

Sample_008

Sample_020

Sample_021
Table 1
Analyzed results of the samples in Fig. 10.
Sample

fp

dp

np

Std. Dev.

NSD

CI

Sample_006
Sample_007
Sample_008
Sample_020
Sample_021
Sample_023
Sample_024
Sample_028*
Sample_029*

0.052
0.052
0.052
0.051
0.052
0.051
0.052
0.051
0.051

10.8
10.8
10.8
20.4
28.6
20.5
28.4
20.5
20.5

91
91
91
25
13
25
13
25
25

0.0165
0.0058
0.0270
0.0101
0.0167
0.0407
0.0516
0.0088
0.0407

0.210
0.075
0.344
0.132
0.213
0.526
0.663
0.113
0.526

0.35
0.58
0.24
0.63
0.60
0.20
0.16
0.68
0.20

*Samples with anisotropic grain shape. fp: fraction of particles, dp: diameter of particles,
np: number of particles, Std. Dev.: standard deviation, NSD: normalized standard
deviation, CI: clustering index.

181

Sample_023

Sample_024

Sample_028*

Sample_029*

MCS: Mote Carlo steps, dg: diameter of grains, ng: number of grains, m: geometric factor
of particles.

182

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

matrix is 500 500 cells. The data from the samples shown in Fig. 10
were used for the second-phase particles during the growth simulations.
The initial matrix grain size (of one or two pixels) was smaller than that
of the second-phase particles in all samples. The growth simulation was
run for each sample until the size of matrix grains stabilized (a
maximum of 100,000 Monte Carlo Steps (MCS)).
When impurities or second-phase particles are present during
grain growth, the relationship between the maximum size of matrix
grains and the properties of the second-phase particles (Zener drag)
can be expressed as follows:
dmax C

dp
fm

where dmax is the stable matrix grain size; C is an empirically

determined constant that depends on the models or experiment
material; dp and f are the size and fraction of the second-phase
particles, respectively; and m is the geometric factor of the particles
(Evans et al., 2001; Herwegh and Berger, 2004; Olgaard and Evans,
1986). The geometric factor (m) has a value ranging from 1/2 to 1/3
depending on the position of the particles on the boundaries of
matrix grains. Computer simulations indicate that the ideal value for
m is 1/2 when the size of the matrix grains has stabilized (Miyake,
2001; Srolovitz et al., 1984; Weygand et al., 2000).

Table 2 summarizes the results of the growth simulations, showing

the average size (dg) and number (ng) of matrix grains, and the value
of m at 6000 and 10,000 steps, as well as at the step corresponding to
the nal stabilization of matrix grain size for each sample. The matrix
grains are considered to have stabilized when their average grain size
and size distribution no longer uctuate with increasing MCS, despite
some residual uctuation for individual grains. The m values of the
samples are generally close to 0.5 when they have reached a stabilized
state (see below for a discussion of the two exceptions, 023 and 024).
We have grouped samples with the same fraction and grain shape of
second-phase particles (e.g., samples 006, 007, and 008). Within
each group, the spatial distribution is the unique factor controlling
the pinning effect.
The samples with clustered second-phase particles (i.e., with low
CI in Table 1) show two distinctive features. First, it takes a longer
time (MCS in Table 2) for the growth of the matrix grains to reach
the stable state than it does for samples with dispersed particles.
For the clustered samples with a very low fraction of second-phase
particles, such as samples 023 and 024, their m value is smaller than
0.5 and the matrix grains do not reach the stable state at all, even
when using a high MCS. Second, there is a bimodal pattern to the
size distribution of the matrix grains in the samples with clustered
second-phase particles, whereas that of the samples with distributed
particles shows a normal (bell-shaped) distribution (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Histograms representing size distribution of matrix grains in the samples simulated at 6000 (early) and 10,000 (middle) MCS (Monte Carlo steps) and at the stabilized
stage. The detailed parameters of the samples are shown in Table 2.

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

The effect of the second-phase particle shape on the grain growth

of the matrix grains is signicant; samples 028* and 029*, with their
needle-shaped particles, show a smaller size distribution for matrix
grains than do the equivalent samples (020 and 023) with round
second-phase particles. This nding indicates the occurrence of
limited matrix grain growth when the second-phase particles are
needle-shaped, even though the CI values of the particles are similar
to that of dispersed grains. In summary, the simulations of grain
growth show that the spatial distribution and shape of second-phase
particles as well as their fraction are important factors governing
their pinning effect on grain growth of the main phase.
To determine if the present 2-D simulations of grain growth with
impurities are applicable to natural rocks, we analyzed a micaceous
quartzite using the proposed method. The quartzite experienced
post-tectonic thermal metamorphism (for a detailed description of
the sample, see Park et al., 2001). We selected six areas within the
sample for analysis, each with a different fraction and distribution
pattern of muscovite impurities and microstructural properties
(Fig. 12). The results, including the Zener parameter (Herwegh and
Berger, 2004), are listed in Table 3. Assuming a value of 1 for the
Zener drag constant (C) yields a geometric factor (m) of about 1/3 for
each area (Table 3). This result implies that the matrix quartz grains
reached a stable state, since their m values are similar regardless of
the spatial distribution and fraction of muscovite.
Fig. 13 shows the size distribution of the main phase, quartz, in
each area. With increasing fraction of muscovite, or decreasing
Zener parameter, the quartz grains show a narrower size distribution
and a higher frequency, indicating that the pinning effect is controlled
mainly by the fraction of secondary particles (muscovite). Areas 02
and 05 have the same muscovite fraction, but different CI values.

183

Table 3
Parameters and analyzed results of the quartzite.
Sample

fp

dp

np

SD

NSD

dg

ng

CI

Area_01
Area_02
Area_03
Area_04
Area_05
Area_06

0.016
0.034
0.079
0.026
0.037
0.055

40.66
40.26
49.24
43.51
46.80
43.75

67
134
199
92
110
182

0.0041
0.0092
0.0141
0.0054
0.0078
0.0123

0.139
0.170
0.130
0.125
0.131
0.150

163.8
136.2
115.8
164.6
144.7
130.9

217
315
424
217
274
327

0.47
0.36
0.38
0.46
0.43
0.37

2.48103
1.19103
6.27102
1.69103
1.25103
7.94102

0.34
0.36
0.34
0.36
0.34
0.38

fp: fraction of particles, dp: diameter of particles (unit: m), np: number of particles, SD:
standard deviation, NSD: normalized standard deviation, dg: diameter of grains (unit: m),
ng: number of grains, CI: clustering index, Z: Zener parameter, m: geometric factor of particles.

The size distribution of area 02, which has a lower CI value, is more
asymmetrical than that for area 05, and it has a higher frequency of
small grains (Fig. 14). However, the difference in size distributions
between these areas is not as signicant as that obtained in the
simulations above, possibly due to complications arising from
measuring objects which appear to be generally needle-shaped in
2-D but are actually plate-shaped in 3-D.
5.3. Phase distribution analysis of a poly-phase rock
Jerram and Cheadle (2000) analyzed the spatial distribution of
major minerals in a granulite using the CLHCA method, which is
based on the grain-center distribution technique. They interpreted a
random distribution for pyroxene and scapolite, but clustering for
sphene. They attributed the clustering to restrictions on sphene
growth imposed by pyroxene and scapolite grains. We analyzed the
images of Jerram and Cheadle (2000) using the proposed method

Fig. 12. (a) Photomicrograph of the quartzite sample used for the analysis. (b) Manual traces of grain boundaries and the analyzed areas.

184

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Fig. 13. Histograms representing size distributions of quartz grains in analyzed areas. fp: fraction of mica. CI: clustering index. Z: Zener parameter.

(Fig. 15), yielding CI values for pyroxene and scapolite of 0.27 and
0.25, respectively, indicating that these grains are strongly clustered
(Table 4). The sphene grains, in contrast, are weakly clustered with
a CI of 0.42. Thus, our results conict with those obtained by the
CLHCA method, probably because the proposed method focuses on
the proximity of grains rather than their positions. This point is
discussed in the following section.
6. Discussion
Analytical methods for calculating the spatial distribution of a
phase can be classied into two types: position- and proximitybased methods. The position-based methods use the coordinates of
an object's center to dene its position without consideration of its
size or shape. These methods include the nearest-neighbor (or Big
R; Clark and Evans, 1954; Jerram et al., 1996) and CLHCA (Jerram

Fig. 14. Comparison of the size distribution for Areas 2 and 5. The size distribution of
Area 2 is more asymmetric when compared to that of Area 5.

and Cheadle, 2000) methods. Proximity-based methods are based

on the density of objects in a certain area, or the distance between
the boundaries of the objects; therefore, they consider the size and
shape as well as the position of the objects. These methods include
DLCA (density linkage cluster analysis; Jerram and Cheadle, 2000),
wavelet methods (Darrozes et al., 1997; Gaillot et al., 1997, 1999),
and the proposed MADM method. Position-based methods are used
to extract a simple index of the spatial distribution, which makes
them useful in studies of crystal nucleation, such as in a magma
body. Proximity-based methods are not appropriate for generating a
simple index of spatial distribution, because of the complications
arising from the controlling factors (fraction, and size and shape of
objects). However, these complications give the proximity-based
methods an advantage in studies of metamorphic and/or deformed
rocks (Higgins, 1996). Thus, if the purpose of study is an understanding
of the spatial occupancy of grains, the MADM method will give better
results than the CLHCA method, as shown for the quartzite sample
discussed above and illustrated in Fig. 13.
The MADM method differs from other proximity-based methods
in that it can produce a single index for the spatial distribution of a
phase. The MADM method consists of several analysis steps, and
each step produces its own value for the spatial distribution. Depending
on the purpose of analysis, the appropriate step and corresponding
index value can be chosen. For example, when the identication of
individual grains is not important, the analysis may be stopped once
the NSD value has been obtained; however, if grain clustering is
relevant, then the individual grains should be identied and the CI
value should be used for this purpose.
In proximity-based methods, a sample with a high fraction of a
given phase will be more strongly clustered than a sample with a
lower fraction. In other words, the spatial distribution of a phase is
strongly dependent on its fraction in proximity-based methods. In
the MADM method, however, the NSD value is independent of the
fraction of the phase because it is normalized by the maximum SD
for a perfectly clustered sample for a given fraction of the phase.
In the MADM method, CI values are ideal for recognizing individual
grains in samples with a unimodal grain-size distribution; they can
also be used for samples with a uniform grain-size distribution.

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

185

Fig. 15. Separated phase images and constructed MADM for the sample used in Jerram and Cheadle (2000). (a) pyroxene, (b) scapolite, (c) sphene, and (d) manually traced image
of the sample.

Table 4
Analyzed results of the sample of Fig. 15.
Mineral

Fraction

SD

NSD

CI

Sphene
Pyroxene
Scapolite

0.05
0.57
0.49

0.010
0.055
0.063

0.141
0.222
0.244

0.42
0.27
0.25

SD: standard deviation, NSD: normalized standard deviation, CI: clustering index.

However, it would be problematic to obtain a CI value for samples

with a bimodal grain-size distribution.
The MADM method, as described above, does not consider the
shape of individual grains or grain aggregates. For example, the two
samples in Fig. 16 have the same size, shape, and fraction of grains;
they also have the same CI value, despite the alignment of the grain
aggregates in Fig. 16a. This result arises because the shape of the
template of the MADM method is circular (isotropic); however, if
we use an anisotropic template (e.g., ellipsoidal), the CI values of

the two samples will be different, reecting the shape-preferred

orientation of grain aggregates.
We tested the validity of anisotropic templates using samples 020,
023, 028*, and 029* (see Fig. 10 for their shapes and distributions).
The anisotropic template chosen is ellipsoidal with an axial ratio of
1:2. The long axis of the ellipsoidal template was set to horizontal
for some tests and to vertical for others. The NSD values calculated
for both long-axis orientations of the elliptical template, and the
circular template, are shown in Table 5. For sample 020, which
shows a random distribution with no shape-preferred orientation of
grains or grain aggregates, the NSD values of each of the three
templates are similar to one another. In contrast, for sample 028*,
which shows a random distribution with a shape-preferred orientation of individual needle-shaped grains, the NSD value of the elliptical
template with a horizontal long-axis oriented parallel to the orientation of the grains, is higher than that of the other templates. Thus, an
appropriately shaped anisotropic template can be used for a better
quantication of the spatial distribution for samples with grains or
grain aggregates that show a shape-preferred orientation. If samples

Fig. 16. Effect of preferred orientation of aggregates on spatial distribution for layered (a) and locally clustered (b) samples. Both samples have the same size, shape and fraction of
objects. (c) Box plots for density values of the two samples.

186

S. Kim, J.-H. Ree / Tectonophysics 522523 (2012) 176186

Table 5
Analyzed results with anisotropic templates for some samples in Fig. 10.

NSD

CIR
HOR
VER

HOR/CIR
VER/CIR
HOR/VER

Sample 020

Sample 023

Sample 028*

Sample 029*

0.0101
0.0106
0.0105
105%
103%
101%

0.0407
0.0517
0.0281
127%
69%
184%

0.0088
0.0103
0.0079
118%
91%
130%

0.0407
0.0517
0.0279
127%
69%
185%

NSD: normalized standard deviation, CIR: circular template, HOR: elliptical template
with horizontal long axis, VER: elliptical template with vertical long axis.

have a layered conguration, however, the result of anisotropic

template is not much different from that of isotropic template as
shown in samples 023 and 029* (Table 5 and Fig. 10). Finally, the
MADM method may also be extended to a 3-D analysis by using a
cubic-shaped grid le and a spherical template.
7. Conclusions
The multiple area density map (MADM) method, a proximitybased method, produces quantitative indices for the spatial distribution of a phase based on an overlay analysis of a sample image. The
normalized standard deviation (NSD) calculated from this image
analysis can represent the spatial distribution of a specic phase,
but it does not identify individual grains within grain aggregates.
The clustering index (CI) characterizes the spatial distribution of the
individual grains within grain aggregates by using their average
grain size and the NSD. The CI enables us to distinguish between
clustered (CI b 0.5) and random (CI between 0.5 and 0.75) distributions of a phase. The CI value decreases with increasing degree of
clustering.
Computer simulations that examined the pinning effect of secondphase particles on the grain growth of a main phase reveal that the
spatial distribution of particles, as well as their fraction and size, can
signicantly inuence the growth of the main phase grains. In
particular, lower CI values (i.e., increased clustering) of particles
results in an increase of the stabilization time of the grain growth of
the matrix phase with an asymmetrical size distribution. The
application of the proposed method to a muscovite-bearing quartzite
yielded similar results to those of the simulations. The software for
our 2-D multiple-area density map method is available at Google
Code (http://code.google.com/p/multiple-area-density-map).
Acknowledgments
We thank Paul Bons and an anonymous reviewer for constructive
comments and Fabrizio Storti for editorial handling. We also appreciate
the invaluable advice by Jason Gruber on the use of Mesoscale
Microstructure Simulation Project (MMSP) codes (http://matforge.
org/cmu/wiki/mmsp). This work was supported by the National
Research Foundation of Korea fund 2010-0024206 to Ree.

References
Clark, P.J., Evans, F.C., 1954. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445453.
Darrozes, J., Gaillot, P., De Saint-Blanquat, M., Bouchez, J.L., 1997. Software for multiscale image analysis: the normalized optimized Anisotropic Wavelet Coefcient
method. Computers & Geosciences 23, 889895.
De Bresser, J.H.P., Peach, C.J., Reijs, J.P.J., Spiers, C.J., 1998. On dynamic recrystallization
during solid state ow: effects of stress and temperature. Geophysical Research
Letters 25, 34573460.
De Bresser, J.H.P., Ter Heege, J.H., Spiers, C.J., 2001. Grain size reduction by dynamic recrystallization: can it result in major theological weakening? International Journal
of Earth Sciences 90, 2845.
Etheridge, M.A., Wilkie, J.C., 1979. Grainsize reduction, grain boundary sliding and the
ow strength of mylonites. Tectonophysics 58, 159178.
Evans, B., Renner, J., Hirth, G., 2001. A few remarks on the kinetics of static grain growth
in rocks. International Journal of Earth Sciences 90, 88103.
Gaillot, P., Darrozes, J., deSaintBlanquat, M., Ouillon, G., 1997. The normalised optimised
anisotropic wavelet coefcient (NOAWC) method: an image processing tool for
multi-scale analysis of rock fabric. Geophysical Research Letters 24, 18191822.
Gaillot, P., Darrozes, J., Bouchez, J.L., 1999. Wavelet transform: a future of rock fabric
analysis? Journal of Structural Geology 21, 16151621.
Gruber, J., Miller, H.M., Hoffmann, T.D., Rohrer, G.S., Rollett, A.D., 2009. Misorientation
texture development during grain growth. Part I: simulation and experiment. Acta
Materialia 57, 61026112.
Heilbronner, R., Keulen, N., 2006. Grain size and grain shape analysis of fault rocks. Tectonophysics 427, 199216.
Herwegh, M., Berger, A., 2004. Deformation mechanisms in second-phase affected microstructures and their energy balance. Journal of Structural Geology 26,
14831498.
Higgins, M.D., 2000. Measurement of crystal size distributions. American Mineralogist
85, 11051116.
Higgins, M.D., 2006. Quantitative Textural Measurements in Igneous and Metamorphic
Petrology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York. ix, 265 p.
Hobbs, B.E., Means, W.D., Williams, P.F., 1976. An Outline of Structural Geology. Wiley,
New York. xviii, 571 p.
Jerram, D.A., Cheadle, M.J., 2000. On the cluster analysis of grains and crystals in rocks.
American Mineralogist 85, 4767.
Jerram, D.A., Cheadle, M.J., Hunter, R.H., Elliott, M.T., 1996. The spatial distribution of
grains and crystals in rocks. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 125, 6074.
Jerram, D.A., Cheadle, M.J., Philpotts, A.R., 2003. Quantifying the building blocks of igneous rocks: are clustered crystal frameworks the foundation? Journal of Petrology
44, 20332051.
Miyake, A., 2001. New criterion on zener pinning in 2-D systems. Scripta Materialia 45,
10091015.
Morishita, R., Obata, M., 1995. A new statistical description of the spatial-distribution of
minerals in rocks. Journal of Geology 103, 232240.
Olgaard, D.L., 1990. The role of second phase in localizing deformation. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 54, 175181.
Olgaard, D.L., Evans, B., 1986. Effect of second-phase particles on grain growth in calcite. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 69 C-272C-277.
Panozzo, R.H., 1983. Two-dimensional analysis of shape-fabric using projections of digitized lines in a plane. Tectonophysics 95, 279294.
Park, Y., Ree, J.H., Kim, S., 2001. Lattice preferred orientation in deformed-thenannealed material: observations from experimental and natural polycrystalline aggregates. International Journal of Earth Sciences 90, 127135.
Philpotts, A.R., Shi, J.Y., Brustman, C., 1998. Role of plagioclase crystal chains in the differentiation of partly crystallized basaltic magma. Nature 395, 343346.
Saltzer, R.L., Chatterjee, N., Grove, T.L., 2001. The spatial distribution of garnets and pyroxenes in mantle peridotites: pressuretemperature history of peridotites from
the Kaapvaal craton. Journal of Petrology 42, 22152229.
Song, W.J., Ree, J.-H., 2007. Effect of mica on the grain size of dynamically recrystallized
quartz in a quartz-muscovite mylonite. Journal of Structural Geology 29, 18721881.
Srolovitz, D.J., Anderson, M.P., Grest, G.S., Sahni, P.S., 1984. Computer simulation of grain
growth-III. Inuence of a particle dispersion. Acta Metallurgica 32, 14291438.
Trauth, M.H., 2007. MATLAB Recipes for Earth Sciences. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 289 p.
Weygand, D., Brchet, Y., Lpinoux, J., 2000. Inhibition of grain growth by particle distribution: effect of spatial heterogeneities and of particle strength dispersion. Materials Science and Engineering A 292, 3439.