Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Formulation of a general gradation curve and its

transformation to equivalent sigmoid form to
represent grain size distribution

Bernard Martineau

To cite this article: Bernard Martineau (2015): Formulation of a general gradation curve and its
transformation to equivalent sigmoid form to represent grain size distribution, Road Materials
and Pavement Design, DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2015.1124048

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1124048

Published online: 29 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 18 January 2016, At: 10:09
 Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1124048

Formulation of a general gradation curve and its transformation to

equivalent sigmoid form to represent grain size distribution
Bernard Martineau ∗

Independent Scholar, Québec, (Québec), Canada G1G 1V4.

(Received 18 September 2014; accepted 19 November 2015 )

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

This paper proposes the trunk-additive equation to represent grain size distribution (GSD) also
called particle size distribution (PSD). The general form of the equation used in research can
be transformed to the sigmoid form observed in granular production. Proposed equation cov-
ers the whole granulometric canvas from powders but mostly from silts to large open-graded
curves. This paper also illustrates some of the capabilities of the trunk-additive equation. Pro-
posed equation of GSD allows staying as close as possible to the maximum density curve
while truncating fines in order to create a gap to release pore pressure and increase drainage.
Proposed equation also represents addition of fines particles to study clogging or plasticisation.
When combining two or more of these curves, one creates bimodal or multimodal curves.
Keywords: soil; aggregate; grain size distribution; GSD; PSD; curve; maximum density
curve; trunk-additive equation; modality; sigmoid

1. Introduction
Formulation of equations to represent grain size distribution (GSD) has been an important con-
cern for professionals and researchers for many years. Since the beginning of the twentieth
century, there were several attempts to achieve this objective. Characterising grain size distribu-
tion is particularly important for applications in granular soils, concrete mixes and asphalt mixes.
Many researchers and engineers such as Fuller and Thompson (1907); Talbot and Richart (1923);
Andersen and Johannsen (1991); Bolomey (1935); Broadbent and Callcott (1956); Cooper and
Nichols (1959); Barber (1959); Lowe (1964); Cedergren (1974); Martineau (1990); Funk and
Dinger (1994); Shakhmenko (2004); Sulaiman et al. (2008); Mangulkar and Jamkar (2013)
proposed general form of equations aimed to represent GSD. Others such as Weibull (1939);
Fredlund et al. (2000) and Haverkamp et al. (2002) proposed sigmoid forms of GSD while
Ahmed and Drzymala (2005) proposed fractal linearisation.
The first major attempt to represent maximum density curves in concrete mix design was made
by Fuller and Thompson (1907). The aim of this pioneer work was to minimise voids and save
on cement usage. Modifications to Fuller’s equation and some other equations allowed drawing
of three families’ curves such as maximum density curves, open-graded or parallel curves and
gap curves. However, none of these families were tied by a single equation. To the three exist-
ing families previously mentioned, we suggest adding a new family of trunk-additive curves
designed like the family of maximum density curves from which one may successively subtract
or add fine particles of, for instance, 80, 160 and 315 μm. Indeed, we propose one unique general

*Corresponding author. Email: passagou@hotmail.com

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 B. Martineau

Table 1. Sieves currently used in metric and imperial systems.

Gravel

80 mm 56 mm 40 mm 28 mm 20 mm 14 mm 10 mm
3 in. 2 in. 1.5 in. 1 in. .75 in. .5 in. .375 in.
Sand
5 mm 2.50 mm 1.25 mm 630 μm 315 μm 160 μm 80 μm
#4 #8 #16 #32 #64 #100 #200

equation and its transformation to sigmoid form to represent all four families of curves. This will
cover the entire granulometric canvas and enhance mathematical analysis.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

Table 1 lists the metric sieve series used in this presentation and the corresponding sieves
dimensions in Imperial and US customary measurement systems.
We measure the percentage passing 80 μm (#200) and neglect fines beyond that sieve unless a
sedimentation test is done for classification purpose.

2. General grain size distribution

Equations of curves currently in use and those that we present here are mostly dedicated to
research and design and are regarded as reference curves. Thus, they have “general” expressions
describing the grain size distribution. In all equations showed below, P d represents the percentage
of particles passing a sieve opening d and Dmax represents the maximum sieve opening of a series.

2.1. Maximum density curve

Originally, maximum density curves were needed for concrete application in order to minimise
voids in the granular matrix and save on cement usage. Fuller and Thompson (1907) developed
Equation (1) after many tests in laboratory.Fuller and Thompson (1907)
 0.5
d
Pd = 100 , {Dmax , 0.5}. (1)
Dmax
It was later shown by Talbot and Richart (1923) that Fuller and Thompson’s equation did not
give the maximum density. Hence, Talbot and Richart developed the Equation (2) by replacing
the exponent 0.5 in the Fuller and Thompson’s equation by a generic form n. The maximum
density in Talbot and Richart’s equation is achieved at n = 0.45, producing a perfect regular
curve with low fines. In fact, due to compaction, a granular mix made with washed aggregates at
n = 0.50 goes up to approximately n = 0.45, as shown in Figure 1. The introduction of factor n
extended the possibilities of the original Fuller and Thompson’s equation. However, except for
n = 0.45, these additional possibilities do not represent maximum density curves; so we will
call them Talbot and Richart’s equations. An equivalent equation was proposed by Andreassen
and Andersen (1930).
Talbot and Richart (1923)
 n
d
Pd = 100 , {Dmax , n}. (2)
Dmax
Bolomey (1935) also modified the Fuller and Thompson’s equation. He developed an analytical
process aimed to measure the impact of adding fine particles. Indeed, in Equation (3), an arbitrary
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 3
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

Figure 1. Maximum density curves with n = 0.45 and 0.50.

percentage A was imposed at the 80 μm sieve. First, the Fuller and Thompson’s curve was cut off
by a percentage A to maintain the shape of the original curve. Subsequently, the same percentage
A was added to restore full percentage scale.
Bolomey (1935)
 0.5
d
Pd = (100 − A) + A, {Dmax , 0.5, A}. (3)
Dmax
Cooper and Nichols (1959) developed a general Equation (4) improving previous versions. This
equation allows cutting off fine particles at certain sieve Dmin , creating a gap under the maximum
density curve. It also addresses the percentage PDmin passing through that sieve. Cooper’s curve
is illustrated in Figure 2(a).
Cooper and Nichols (1959)
 n 
d − Dminn
Pd = (100 − PDmin ) + PDmin ,
n
Dmax − Dmin
n

{Dmax , Dmin , n, PDmin }. (4)

Lowe’s equation (1964) differs from Cooper’s equation because it does not restore fine particles.
It hence creates and maintains a gap for drainage purposes (see Equation (5)). Lowe also devel-
oped the parallel gradation modelling technique, a family of curves having the same open-graded

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) Cooper’s distribution; (b) Lowe’s parallel curves, k = 16.

 4 B. Martineau

shape illustrated in Figure 2(b) with k = 16. These distributions can be produced physically by
using the two, three or four largest opening sieves of a series or even by assuming a ratio k
between the maximum and the minimum diameter expressed as
Dmax
k= , k = 2, 4, 8, 16.
Dmin
Lowe (1964)
 
dn − Dmin
n
Pd = 100 , {Dmax , Dmin , n}. (5)
n
Dmax − Dmin
n

An equivalent equation was developed by Funk and Dinger (1994).

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

2.2. Trunk-additive equations

The maximum density curves are designed to minimise voids and provide a grain-to-grain (stone
on stone) contact. The author of this paper, Martineau (1990, not published), developed and
tested the trunk-additive equation (Equation 6) designed to stay as close as possible to the max-
imum density curve in order to keep its structural strength while varying the amount of fine
particles.
Martineau (1990)
 n
d + CDT
Pd = 100 , {Dmax , C, DT , n}. (6)
Dmax + CDT

The truncation part of the equation, when C < 0, increases the size of the voids to release pore
pressure and improve permeability. The most frequent case is C = − 1, the equation truncates
fine particles to the size (DT ), which could be either 80, 160, 315 μm and so on, to reach the
diameter next to Dmax . In such case, we get an open-graded curve currently used for railroad
ballast (Raymond & Bathurst, 1987; Cambio & Ge, 2007).
Figure 3(a) shows a series of truncated curves with Dmax = 5 mm for C = 0, − 1 and
DT = 80 , 160 μm and a second series with Dmax = 20 mm for C = 0, − 1 and DT = 80, 160,
315, 630 μm. Equation (6) was mainly used in research to measure the influence of GSD trunca-
tion on Proctor test (density, water content, void ratio), California Bearing Ratio, permeability,
direct shear test in a 30.5 cm Wikeham-Farrance shear box and soil suction test on crushed
or round particles. Figure 8(b) shows the direct shear tests on round or ovoid gradations from
washed gravel with Dmax = 20 mm and the influence of truncating at DT = 80, 160 and 315 μm.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Truncated curves; (b) additive curves based on trunk-additive curves.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 5

The maximum shear stress declines with the truncature while the ultimate shear stress is about
the same for the four tests.
One observes that, in Cooper’s and Lowe’s equations, each term of the truncation is raised on
a power inside the brackets giving concave shapes. In the Martineau’s Equation (6) however, the
truncation is done inside the brackets before being raised on a power and gives convex as well
as concave shapes.
The Modified Andressen model (Mangulkar & Jamkar, 2013) is a particular case of the
proposed model with C = –1.
For C = 0, the Equation (6) simplifies to Talbot and Richart’s Equation (2) which become a
special case of the general Equation (6).
Moreover, the additive part of the Equation (6) when C > 0 adds fine particles to the max-
imum density curve increasing capillary voids to study clogging or plasticisation. Figure 3(b)
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

shows two series of additive curves with Dmax = 5 mm for C = 0, 1, 2 and DT = 80 μm or

DT = 20 mm for C = 0, 1, 2, 4, 6 and DT = 80 μm; Tutumluer and Seyhan (2000) and Mishra
and Butt (2009).

2.3. Open-graded curves

As mentioned previously for Lowe’s equation, these distributions can be produced physically
by using the two, three or four largest opening sieves of a series or assuming a ratio between
the maximum and the minimum diameter. Ultimately, when DT is next to Dmax, the graph is a
straight line. Figure 4(a) and 4(b) illustrate the difference between the trunk-additive curves and
parallel curves. Both series were produced with a ratio Dmax to DT equal to 4, that is, k = 4.

2.4. Combined gradations

No gradation found in nature or obtained by crushing of an aggregate have a perfect curve like
maximum density curve. Since that material retained on each sieve after screening has its own
modality, mixing materials from two or mor different sieves gives bimodality or multimodal-
ity. We demonstrate the bimodality of a gap curve having a discontinuity produced by mixing
two gradations indexed (i). The proportionality factor of each gradation is represented by Ki.
The combined percentage P C (dj ) is the sum, on each sieve (j ), of the product of Ki by the
corresponding percentage for that sieve P ij (dj ). This is expressed by the following equation:


i
PC (dj ) = Ki Pij (dj ). (7)

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Truncated curves, k = 4; (b) Lowe’s parallel curves, k = 4.

 6 B. Martineau

3. Sigmoid curve
A sigmoid shape curve (S-curve) related to GSD is obtained by field sieving. Field production
currently uses a control sieve whose mesh opening is the next size larger than the nominal size.
So, a GSD with Dmax = 20 mm, 100% of particles must pass through the 28 or 40 mm mesh. As
written previously particles passing 80 μm are measured and neglected unless a sedimentation
test is done. Experts and producers are mostly concerned by the shape, roundness and pitch of
the S-curve.
In Equation (8), the proposed trunk-additive formula is expressed as an S-curve. In this
equation, a general notation P max is used instead of 100, which gives more flexibility to the
equation and adds to its general aspect. For instance, P max allows one to take into account some
specificity of the soil and create proximity with related expertise such as capillarity and soil suc-
tion measurements expressed as sigmoiod. P R is an imposed residual percentage mostly equal to
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

0, φ is a factor equal to or smaller than 1 (which interacts with P max to fix the inferior limit) and β
is a dispersion factor whose values run between 1.00 and 2.00 because the current opening mesh
ratio between two screens is 2.00. All other terms in this equation have the same signification
as in the general form (Equation 6). In a general case, P max = 100%, P R is null, φ and β are
set to 1.00.
Martineau (2010)©
 n
ϕ
Pd = (Pmax − PR ) 1 − 
d+CDT
 + PR ,
β
10 Dmax +CDT
S − {Dmax , C, DT , n, φ, β, PR }. (8)

Figure 5(a) shows a series of S-curves for different values of Dmax = 1.25 mm, 2.5 mm, 5 mm,
10 mm, 20 mm for C = 0 and n = 0.8. For instance, to match 5 mm and 20 mm S-curves with
their respective general forms (see Figure 5(b)), one finds by iterations the parameters of the
respective equations listed in Table 2.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) S-curve curves based on trunk-additive curves, (b) maximum density curves fitted with their
S-curve form.

Table 2. Parameters to fit maximum density curves with their sigmoid form.

Dmax mm C DT μm n φ β

Maximum density 5 0 0 0.50

S-curve maximum density 5 2.0 80 0.88 1.0 1.0
Maximum density 20 0 0 0.50
S-curve maximum density 20 3.0 80 0.80 1.0 1.0
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 7

Figure 6. (a) Influence of the S-curve lower limit factorφ, (b) influence of the S-curve dispersion factor β.

Figure 6(a) shows the influence of the lower limit factor φ varying from 1 to 0 by steps of
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

0.20 for the S-curve {20, 0, 0, 0.8, 1, 1}. Figure 6(b) shows the influence of the dispersion factor
β varying from 1 to 2 by steps of 0.2 on the same curve. For two gradations having the same
factors, the limit of β is the ratio between two Dmax next from each other. One can notice that
the GSD with Dmax = 20 mm, C = 0 and β = 2.00 is the same as a GSD with Dmax = 10 mm,
C = 0 and β = 1.00. Also, the GSD with Dmax = 14 mm, C = 0 and β = 1.40 represents the
same curve as the GSD with Dmax = 10 mm, C = 0 and β = 1.00.
The equation (7) was used to create a gap curve by the combining 40% of an S-curve A
{1.25 mm, -0.9, 80 μm, 4, 1, 1} and 60% of an S-curve B {20 mm, − 0.9, 80 μm, 8, 1, 1}. The
resulting curve is presented in Figure 7(a). Figure 7(b) shows the evolution of original mixing
S-curves A and B at different proportions. The results are always gap curves because the two S-
curves A and B are too far away from each other. The plateau appears only if the two generating
curves are far enough from each other as illustrated in Figure 7(b).

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Gap curve produced by two curves, (b) influence of proportions of a 1.25 mm GSD and a
20 mm GSD on Gap curves mixes.

(a) (b)

Figure 8. (a) GSD produced by mixing two S-curve, (b) direct shear test on round or ovoid particles
(Gravel).
 8 B. Martineau

In the case that the two generating curves or S-curves are close enough to each other {5 mm,
0, 0, 0.8, 1, 1} and {28 mm, 0, 0, 0.8, 1, 1}, the plateau is not visible. This is illustrated in
Figure 8(a).
These were only some illustrations exhibiting the potential of the proposed equation and its
S-curve form. Many more can be obtained by further varying parameters {Dmax , C, DT , n, φ,
β, P R }.

4. Conclusions
Fuller and Thompson’s equation developed in 1907 as a reference for verifying properties and
performance of a GSD or a mix design has been modified since by many authors so as to improve
drainage. However, resulting equations cover only specific segments of the canvas, are not linked
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

together and are not representative of field operations. Many GSD can not be represented by these
equations and brought to an analytical process.
The proposed trunk-additive equation compensates these lacks; it includes Fuller and Thomp-
son’s equation as a particular case and gives a basic to an analytical process for addition or
truncation of fine particles to any structural matrix less than the practical size of 40 mm. It allows
exploring the influence of eliminating fines on pore pressure, drainage and contribution to shear
strength. Conversely, adding fines gives large possibilities to study clogging or plasticisation,
especially on concrete and asphalt pavement mix designs.
Moreover, the transformation of the general trunk-additive equation to its sigmoid form is
an innovative approach to link laboratory samples to field samples. Both equations have same
structure, same parameters except dispersion and lower limit factors added in the sigmoid form.
Finally, any GSD could be modelled by a trunk-additive curve or a combination of trunk-
additive curves.

Acknowledgements
I want to thank all my friends who, through the years, recognised the value of this concept and encour-
aged me to present it. Special thanks to Dr Zanin Kavasovic for his collaboration, criticism, support and
recommendations.

ORCID
Bernard Martineau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2757-2194

References
Ahmed, A. M. H., & Drzymala, J. (2005). Two-dimensional fractal linearization of distribution curves.
Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing, 39, 129–139.
Andreasen, A. H. M. & Andersen, J. (1930). Uber die Bieziehung zwischen Kornabstufung und Zwischen-
raum in Produkten aus losen Kornern (mit einigen Experimenten). Colloid & Polymer Science, 50(3),
217–228.
Andersen, P. J., & Johannsen, V. (1991). Materials science of concrete II. In J. Skalny & S. Mindness (Eds.),
Particles packing and concrete properties, material science of concrete: II (pp. 111–147). Westervill,
OH: The American Ceramic Society.
Barber, E. E. (1959). Sub-surface drainage and highways. HRB Bulletin 209.
Bolomey, J. (1935). Granulation et prévision de la résistance probable des bétons [GSD and prediction of
concrete probable capacity]. Travaux: 19(30), 228–232.
Broadbent, S. R., & Callcott, T. G. (1956). A matrix analysis of process involving particles assemblies.
Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society, 249, S-00-123.
Cambio, D. & Ge, L. (2007). Effects of parallel gradation on strength properties for ballast materials.
Denver, CO: ASCE, Geo Denver 2007 Advances in Modeling of Soil Behavior.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 9

Cedergren, H. R. (1974). Drainage of highways and airfield pavements. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan State
University.
Cooper, A. W. & Nichols, M. L. (1959). Some observations on soils compaction tests. Agricultural
Engineering 40, 264–267.
Fredlund, M. D., Fredlund, D. G. & Wilson, G. W. (2000). An equation to represent grain-size distribution.
Can Geotechnical Jersey, 37: 817–827. doi:10.1139/t00-015
Fuller, W. B., & Thompson, E. (1907). The laws of proportioning. ASTM Transactions LIX, 33, 67–118.
Funk, J. & Dinger, D. (1994). Predictive process control of crowded particulate suspension, applied to
ceramic manufacturing. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Haverkamp, R., Nimmo, J. R., & Reggiani, P. (2002). Property-transfer models. In J. H. Dane, and G. C.
Topp (Ed.) Methods of soil analysis, 4, Physical methods (pp. 766–771), Madison, WI: Soil Science
Society of America.
Lowe, J. (1964). Shear strength of coarse embankment dam materials. Proceedings of 8th International
Congress on Large Dams, 3, 745–761.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 10:09 18 January 2016

Mangulkar, M. N., & Jamkar, S. (2013). Review of particle packing theories used for concrete mix
proportioning. International Journal of Scientific Research, 4(5), 143–148.
Martineau, B. (1990). Granulométrie vs capacité portante. Laboratoire Central, Ministère des transports du
Québec.
Martineau, B. (2010). Distribution granulométrique générale réécrite dans une forme sigmoide. biblio-
thèque personnelle.
Raymond, G. P. & Bathurst, R. J. (1987). Performance of large-scale model single tie-ballast systems,
transportation research record 1131.
Shakhmenko, G. (2004). Investigation on concrete mix design and optimization for plastic concrete
(Doctoral thesis). Riga: RTU.
Sulaiman, M., Tsutsumi, D., Fujita, M., & Hayashi, K. (2008). Study on porosity of sediment mixtures
and a bed-porosity variation model. Kyoto University, Hodaka Sedimentation Observatory, Disaster
Prevention Research Institute.
Talbot, A. N., & Richart F. E. (1923). The strength of concrete, its relation to the cement aggregate and
water. University of Illinois, Engineering experiment station. Bulletin 136.
Tutumluer E., Mishra, D., & Butt, A. A. September 15 2009, Characterisation of Illinois aggregates for
subgrade replacement and subbase (Final Report, A deliverable of ICT R27–1 Project).
Tutumluer E., & Seyhan U. 2000. Effect of fines content on the anisotropic response and characterisation of
unbound aggregate base, Unbound Aggregate in Road Construction, Dawson (ed.) 2000 © Balkama,
Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5809 147 3.
Weibull, W. (1939). A statistical theory of the strenth of materials (Royal Sweedish Institute of Engineering
Research, No. 151). Stockholm, Suede.