Particle Roundness and Sphericity from Images of

Assemblies by Chart Estimates and Computer Methods

Roman D. Hryciw, M.ASCE 1; Junxing Zheng, S.M.ASCE 2; and Kristen Shetler, S.M.ASCE 3

Abstract: Soil particle roundness (R) and sphericity (S) are two important intrinsic properties that govern a soil’s mechanical behavior.
Although R and S have well-established mathematical definitions dating back to the 1930s, the values are much more typically estimated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using charts developed in the 1940s and 1950s. The charts, are based on the earlier mathematical definitions. Using these charts, a class of
undergraduate civil engineering students at the University of Michigan were asked to estimate (Rc and Sc ) from images of twenty geologically
and geographically diverse sands spanning a range of actual R and S values. The images were of three-dimensional (3D) assemblies of the
sands as they would be found in images taken remotely or in situ. The students’ estimates were statistically analyzed and compared with
rigorously determined R and S using a recently developed computational geometry algorithm. Overall, the students’ estimates were scattered,
particularly for natural sands exhibiting intermediate values of R and low values of S. On average, the students underestimated Rc and Sc .
Reasons for the diverse responses and underestimates of the actual R and S are proposed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001485.
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
It is well-established that particle roundness (R) and sphericity (S)
affect most macroscale mechanical properties of soil, including
strength, compressibility, small-strain modulus, shear wave veloc-
ity, packing density, and the critical state parameters. Such relation-
ships have been investigated by Morris (1960), Kolbuszewski
and Fredrick (1963), Eisma (1965), Koerner (1970), Oda (1972),
Holubec and d’Appolonia (1973), Youd (1973), Edil et al. (1975),
Oda et al. (1978), Sladan et al. (1985), Vepraskas and Cassel
(1987), Moroto and Ishii (1990), Sukumaran and Ashmawy
(2001, 2003), Yasin and Safiullah (2003), Santamarina and Cho
(2004), Cho et al. (2006), Rouse et al. (2008), Bareither et al.
(2008), Azami et al. (2010), Maeda et al. (2010), Cavarretta et al.
(2010), Chapuis (2012), Cabalar et al. (2013), Shin and Santamar-
ina (2013), Kandasami and Murthy (2014), Oh et al. (2014), and
many others. Another body of literature related to aggregate in
pavements is summarized by Masad et al. (2007). It reveals the
critical effects that aggregate shape (sphericity) and roundness have
on the performance of concrete and hot-mix asphalt mixtures.
With rapid advances in the ability to obtain high resolution im-
ages of geomaterials remotely, for example, by airborne drones or
in situ using subsurface probes such as the Vision Cone Penetrom-
eter or even in the laboratory following sedimentation (Ohm and
Hryciw 2014), a need has developed to detect and analyze grain
shapes from images of three-dimensional (3D) particle assemblies.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Michigan, 2366 GG Brown, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 (corresponding
author). E-mail: romanh@umich.edu
2
Graduate Student Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, 2340 GG Brown, Ann Arbor, MI
48109-2125. E-mail: junxing@umich.edu
3
Asssitant in Research, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Michigan, 2340 GG Brown, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125. E-mail:
kshetler@umich.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 15, 2015; approved on
December 16, 2015; published online on April 26, 2016. Discussion period
open until September 26, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
This paper compares the results of particle sphericity and roundness
estimation from such captured images as performed by individuals
using standard charts to results obtained by recently developed
computer methods that precisely determine R and S by their rig-
orous mathematical definitions.
It is emphasized at the outset that estimating R and S from
images of particle assemblies is not the conventional method
that would examine the physical, single-detached particles.
However, when a physical soil specimen is unavailable, computer
image analysis and visual comparison to charts are the only
options.
Definitions of Roundness and Sphericity
Wadell (1932) defined roundness as the ratio of the average radius
of curvature of the corners of a particle (ri where i = corner num-
ber) to the radius of the maximum inscribed circle (rins ), as shown
in Fig. 1. It is the most common definition of R and has been used
widely in a variety of disciplines (Eisma 1965; Edil et al. 1975;
Frossard 1979; Vepraskas and Cassel 1987; Sagga 1993; Santamar-
ina and Cho 2004; Chapuis 2012; Shin and Santamarina 2013;
Cabalar et al. 2013; Kandasami and Murthy 2014).
Krumbein and Sloss (1951) defined sphericity (S) as the ratio of
particle width (d2 ) to particle length (d1 ) as shown in Fig. 1. Other
definitions of S have been proposed by Cox (1927), Tickell (1931),
Wadell (1933), Riley (1941), Kuo and Freeman (2000), Santamar-
ina and Cho (2004), Cho et al. (2006), and Altuhafi et al. (2013).
However, Zheng and Hryciw (2015) found the Krumbein-Sloss
definition to be the most practical and easy to determine. For these
reasons, this paper uses the Wadell (1932) definition of R and the
Krumbein-Sloss (1951) definition of S.
Chart Methods for Estimating Roundness
and Sphericity
Determinations of R and S require considerable manual effort. In
Wadell’s (1935) original procedure for determination of R, the par-
ticle outline was traced on paper and compared with transparent
templates to find the maximum-sized circle that would fit inside
each corner. The maximum inscribed circle was found similarly.

© ASCE 04016038-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Definitions of (a) roundness (R); (b) sphericity (S)

Fig. 2. Chart for estimating particle roundness (Rc ) [reprinted from Krumbein 1941, with permission from SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology)]

To accelerate this process and reduce the required effort, standard
charts were developed by Krumbein (1941), Krumbein and Sloss
(1951), and Powers (1953) to estimate R and S. These charts are
shown in Figs. 2–4.
The Krumbein (1941) chart, shown in Fig. 2, contains 81
particles redrawn from pebbles for which R had been determined
by Wadell’s method. Krumbein placed the particles in 9 bins with R
ranging from 0.1 to 0.9 in increments of 0.1. Several broken par-
ticles are also shown in the figure to indicate the effects of breakage
on R. Compared with the other two charts, Krumbein’s provides
more reference particles and thus more opportunities for visual
comparisons. The Krumbein–Sloss (1951) chart, shown in Fig. 3,
provides 20 reference particles having S from 0.3 to 0.9 and R from
0.1 to 0.9, both in increments of 0.2. The Krumbein–Sloss chart
pointed out that R and S are independent parameters because
one could vary without change in the other. The Krumbein–Sloss
chart may be the most widely used chart because it provides an
opportunity to simultaneously estimate both R and S. The Powers
(1953) chart separates soil particles having Wadell roundness val-
ues from 0.12 to 1.00 into six classes, as shown in Fig. 4. The ratio
of the upper limit to the lower limit of R in each class is approx-
imately 1.4. Each R range is exemplified by two particles: one with
high S and one with low S. The Powers chart may have inspired the
word descriptions of R in the current ASTM D2488 (ASTM 2009)

© ASCE 04016038-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Chart for estimating roundness (Rc ) and sphericity (Sc )
(reprinted from Krumbein and Sloss 1951, with permission)
specification. However, the Powers chart only gives qualitative
descriptions of R and S and is less commonly used in quantitative
applications. Therefore, the present research used only the
Krumbein (1941) and Krumbein–Sloss (1951) charts.
The mathematical definition of S implies a range of 0.0 to 1.0.
Although occasional individual grains of sand, and more so gravel,
could have S below 0.5, occurrences of average S < 0.5 for an en-
tire sand specimen are extremely rare unless the specimen is arti-
ficially created by crushing the material and/or sorting out the
elongated particles. The average S of even the individual low sphe-
ricity particles, shown in Fig. 4, is approximately 0.60. Estimation
of R and S by the charts is subjective, as discussed by Folk (1955)
and Muszynski and Vitton (2012). Nevertheless, many researchers
including Santamarina and Cho (2004), Cho et al. (2006), Chapuis
(2012), Shin and Santanmarina (2013), Cabalar et al. (2013), and
others have continued to successfully use them, particularly the
Krumbein-Sloss chart. However, if using images captured remotely
or in situ, the level of complexity increases considerably. Although
it is relatively straightforward to compare individual grains with
particle silhouettes (such as in Figs. 2, 3, or 4), when confronted
with an image containing hundreds of particles in a 3D assembly,
rapid but reliable estimation of R and S can be very challenging.
This leads to two important questions when using images of
particle assemblies:
Fig. 4. Chart for qualitatively describing roundness (Rc ) and sphericity (Sc ) [reprinted from Powers 1953, with permission from SEPM (Society for
Sedimentary Geology)]
© ASCE 04016038-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038
1. How much variation will exist in the estimates of R and S by
different chart users?
2. How accurate will the chart-based estimates be compared with
results by rigorous computer procedures?
These two questions have remained unanswered until today be-
cause of the immense effort required to collect both a statistically
valid data set of R and S measurements and a reasonable database
of chart-based estimates for a variety of soils. This paper will begin
to answer the questions posed previously by overcoming these two
impediments. A computational geometry method, recently devel-
oped by Zheng and Hryciw (2015), was used on images of soils
in assemblies to obtain thousands of R and S measurements,
whereas a class of geotechnical engineering students used the same
images to estimate the Rc and Sc values using the charts. The super-
script, c, will be used to distinguish the students’ chart-based
estimates from the rigorously determined R and S values.
Computational Geometry Methods for Roundness
and Sphericity
Sphericity is still occasionally determined by caliper measurements
of d1 and d2 , such as specified in ASTM D4791 (ASTM 2010).
However, optical-computational methods have been developed
for determination of S by Sukumaran and Ashmawy (2003),
Tutumluer et al. (2005), Masad et al. (2007), Altuhafi et al. (2013),
Hryciw and Ohm (2012), and Zheng et al. (2014). By contrast,
determination of Wadell’s R by numerical methods was a challeng-
ing problem which was only recently overcome. Aware of the
continuing popularity and usage of Wadell’s R, Zheng and Hryciw
(2015) developed a computational geometry algorithm that suc-
cessfully automated Wadell’s procedure. The algorithm digitizes
the outline of a particle, based on a small threshold value that limits
the distance from the cord connecting the points to the actual
particle edge. As such, the points are not equally spaced. The algo-
rithm then searches for occurrences of three or more consecutive
points that define a concave inward section of the perimeter (i.e., a
corner). It then fits appropriate circles to all of the identified
corners. Finding the maximum inscribed circle is somewhat easier.
Its center is defined by the location on the particle interior that is
farthest from any edge and its radius is the distance to that edge
location. The two particles shown in Figs. 5(a and c) were origi-
nally used to demonstrate the evaluation of R and S by Wadell’s
(1935) procedure. The new computational algorithm was also used
on these two particles by Zheng and Hryciw (2015). The results are
shown in Figs. 5(b and d). The radii of the corner circles and the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparison of Wadell’s manual method and computational geometry results for roundness (reprinted from Zheng and Hryciw 2016, with
permission)

maximum inscribed circles are also displayed in Fig. 5, in which
Wadell’s results are in millimeters whereas Zheng and Hryciw’s are
in pixel units. Comparisons of results show that the positions and
sizes of the circles were identical; the computer-generated circles
were perfectly fitted to the corners. As a result, the values of R by
the two methods were also in excellent agreement.
Zheng and Hryciw (2016) also computed Wadell’s R value
for the particles shown in the three standard charts in Figs. 2–4. Their
results were again remarkably similar to the Rc and Sc values in the
original charts. Readers can refer to Zheng and Hryciw (2015, 2016)
for details of the computational algorithms and comparisons of the
computationally determined R and S values with the chart values,
Rc and Sc .
the sands were sieved to a narrow size range to create relatively
uniform-sized specimens. Each was prepared on a flat surface.
A 36.3-megapixel Nikon D800 SLR camera with different magni-
fying lenses, which could provide 2, 4, and 8× magnifications, was
used to photograph the soils. Each image was 7,360 by 4,912 pix-
els. For this paper, small square patches were cropped from each
image and compiled in Fig. 6. Each of these patches represents be-
tween 20 and 25% of a full image. Table 1 provides the origin,
specific gravity, D50 , Cu , color, and translucency of the original
collected soils. It also lists the number of fully visible particles
in each image, the corresponding D50 and Cu values of this sub-
group, and their average computed R and S values.

Chart-Based Estimation of Roundness and

Sands Used in the Study
Twenty sands exhibiting a wide range of particle shapes were an-
alyzed. The set included three crushed materials and glass beads to
stretch the ranges of R and S as widely as possible. Because visual
comparison may be complicated by wide particle size distributions,
Sphericity of the 20 Sands
Procedure for Estimating R c and S c
Thirty-eight undergraduate civil engineering students at the Univer-
sity of Michigan taking an introductory geotechnical engineering

© ASCE 04016038-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

 1. Michigan 30A 2. Brady, TX 3. Capitola, CA 4. Michigan Class IIA
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6. Fused Aluminum 7. Michigan Crushed

5. Fort Davis, TX Oxide Gabbro 8. Glass Beads

10. Chesterton, 11. Chesterton,

9. Griffin, IN IN Beach IN Dunes 12. Michigan Dunes

13. Muskegon, MI 14. Nevada Sand 15. New Madrid, MO 16. Oakland Co., MI

20. Upper peninsula,

17. Ottawa 20 - 30 18. Rincon, NM 19. Scott Valley, CA MI

Fig. 6. Patches of the 20 soil images evaluated in this study

course were asked to estimate the Rc and Sc values of the 20
soils using the Krumbein (1941) and Krumbein-Sloss (1951)
charts. Each student was provided with a booklet containing 20
(8.0 × 10.5-in.) color images of the specimens and the two
charts. The Sc values were determined using the Krumbein–Sloss
chart. Although Rc could be determined from either chart, the students
were encouraged to use Krumbein’s to obtain more precise Rc esti-
mates. Only one significant digit was to be reported for both Rc
and Sc .
Because the particles were in 3D assemblies, some showed a full
outline of their projected perimeter although others were partially
occluded by foreground particles. The students were told to use
only the particles whose outlines were fully visible to make their
estimates. The number of particles per image to be considered by
the students for evaluation was not specified. However, the students
were encouraged to consider as many particles as they felt were
necessary to obtain good estimates of Rc and Sc . The students were
given one hour of a two-hour lab period to complete the assign-
ment. All of the students worked independently.
Results of Chart-Based Estimates of R c and S c
Histograms of the chart-based estimates of Rc and Sc for each soil
are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The estimates follow
normal distributions as shown by the solid curves superimposed
over the histograms. The mean values of the estimates are denoted
by Rc and Sc and their standard deviations (σR and σS ) were com-
puted from the normal distributions.
The standard deviations quantify the spreads in the chart-based
estimates. As such, they reflect the uncertainties in the students’
estimates of Rc and Sc . Fig. 9(a) plots Rc
σR with increasing
Rc , and Fig. 9(b) shows Sc
σS with increasing Sc for each soil.
The figures also show the full range of estimates from Rcmax to Rcmin
and from Scmax to Scmin . Except for the glass beads, the estimated Rc
and Sc values are quite scattered.
Discussion of Chart-Based Estimates of R c and S c
Before presenting the computer-based results, this paper pauses to
analyze the students’ estimates alone. Having observed the spreads

© ASCE 04016038-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

 Table 1. Origins, Colors, and Intrinsic Properties of the Original Sands and the Analyzed Subset
Original soil Analyzed subset
Particles
Soil name Origin Color and translucency Gs D50 (mm) Cu analyzed D50 (mm) Cu R S
Michigan 30A Crushed iron blast Light brown to gray, opaque 2.84 0.58 7.0 135 0.92 1.8 0.20 0.70
furnace slag
Brady, Texas Silica sand mined for White, semi-opaque 2.63 0.61 1.4 124 0.76 1.1 0.67 0.78
fracking
Capitola, California Soquel Creek alluvium Multicolored, 2.60 0.35 1.6 115 0.52 1.1 0.47 0.74
multitranslucent
Michigan class IIA Glacial sieved natural Multicolored, opaque 2.65 0.21 1.9 229 0.36 1.8 0.55 0.73
aggregate
Fort Davis, Texas Weathered volcanic Reddish brown, opaque 2.67 0.44 8.6 119 1.12 2.1 0.33 0.77
colluvium
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fused aluminum oxide Coarse commercial abrasive Brown mottled, opaque 3.86 1.80 1.6 125 2.20 1.2 0.30 0.69
Michigan crushed gabbro Crushed igneous rock Gray to brown, opaque 3.30 0.80 5.5 134 1.50 2.3 0.23 0.62
Glass beads Synthetic silica spheres Translucent and reflective 2.53 0.97 1.1 125 0.97 1.1 0.96 0.93
Griffin, Indiana Quarried glacio-fluvial Multicolored, opaque 2.66 0.74 4.3 198 1.02 1.5 0.54 0.74
deposit
Chesterton, Indiana beach Recent beach sand Multicolored, opaque 2.65 0.64 2.9 120 0.86 1.7 0.56 0.72
Chesterton, Indiana dune Recent eolian deposit brown to white, 2.68 0.26 1.3 125 0.28 1.1 0.62 0.76
semi-opaque
Michigan dunes Recent eolian deposit Brown to white, 2.68 0.30 1.5 119 0.40 1.1 0.52 0.78
semi-opaque
Muskegon, Michigan Lake Michigan beach sand Multicolored, semi-opaque 2.66 0.40 1.6 159 0.52 1.2 0.56 0.77
Nevada sand Fine eolian silica dune sand White, semi-translucent 2.65 0.16 1.3 169 0.20 1.1 0.62 0.76
New Madrid, Missouri Old Mississippi river Multicolored, semi opaque 2.59 0.32 2.2 102 0.42 1.4 0.57 0.78
alluvium
Oakland County, Michigan Glacial Tan to multicolored, 2.63 0.31 1.6 101 0.39 1.5 0.56 0.77
semi-opaque
Ottawa 20–30 Silica mined from St. Peter’s White, semi-translucent 2.65 0.71 1.4 139 0.75 1.1 0.75 0.85
Sandstone
Rincon, New Mexico Recent roadside eolian White to tan, 2.61 0.36 3.0 117 0.62 1.5 0.49 0.73
deposit semi-translucent
Scotts Valley, California Weathered and eroded White, opaque 2.85 0.33 1.5 108 0.43 1.1 0.45 0.74
seabed sandstone
Upper Peninsula, Michigan Glacial Brown, opaque 2.72 0.60 2.8 112 0.78 1.6 0.47 0.73

and standard deviations in the students’ chart-based estimates of
Rc and Sc , it is useful to consider why they occurred. There are
several factors that may have contributed including time constraints
and task fatigue, diligence, analyzing images of 3D particle assem-
blies, and the ability to resolve chart differences by eye. We con-
sider each of these potential factors in turn.
Time Constraints and Task Fatigue
All students were given an hour to complete the assignment
and were not permitted to leave early. Therefore, there was neither
incentive nor pressure to finish in a shorter period of time.
They were permitted to take breaks as needed and none reported
having inadequate time to complete the task. Virtually all of the
students finished the assignment in under an hour then waited
for the lab section to be dismissed. This suggests that time was
not a factor.
Diligence
The students were instructed to look at as many particles as necessary
to obtain good estimates. They were told that the assignment would be
graded and that the students whose estimates of Rc and Sc were, on
average, closest to the computer-determined R and S would obtain
small prizes (approximately 25% of the students later received gift
certificates to a local coffee shop). However, these incentives may
not have been sufficient. Disinterested students are likely to have
studied only a few particles, whereas more diligent students inspected
more.
Analyzing Images of 3D Particle Assemblies
The students were provided with the same images as the computer
analyzed. Furthermore, they were instructed to focus their attention
on the particles whose full perimeters were in view, as these are the
particles that the computer would be analyzing. As such, despite the
fact that the particles were in a 3D assembly, the students were
observing exactly the same particles in precisely the same orienta-
tion as the computer did. Theoretically, the other particles in the
background should have no effect on the student’s estimates of
Rc and Sc , however, it is very difficult to avoid being distracted
by the surroundings of the particle being analyzed. It is also pos-
sible that students’ attention was drawn to the more unusual par-
ticles and, therefore, their estimates could have been more heavily
influenced by such odd-shaped particles.
Ability to Resolve Chart Differences by Eye
The standard deviations in the students’ Rc estimates were smallest
for soils having either very high or very low particle roundness.
This is most easily observed in Fig. 9(a). By contrast, σR and
the overall ranges of estimates were largest for soils in the inter-
mediate (Rc ¼ 0.4 to 0.6) range. This may be explained by refer-
ence to Figs. 2 and 3, which show that it is easier to visually

© ASCE 04016038-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

 20 20 20 20
1. Michigan 30A 2. Brady, TX 3. Capitola, CA 4. Michigan Class IIA
16 R c = 0.21 16 R c = 0.67 16 R c = 0.34 16 R c = 0.39
σR = 0.08 σR= 0.08 σR= 0.11 σR= 0.16
12 12 12 12

8 8 8 8

4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 50
5. Fort Davis, TX 6. Fused Aluminum Oxide 7. Michigan Crushed
16 R c = 0.20 16 R c = 0.25 16 Gabbro 40 8. Glass Beads
σR = 0.09 σR = 0.11 R c = 0.22 R c = 0.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 12 12 σR = 0.09 30 σR = 0.02

8 8 8 20

4 4 4 10

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 30 20 20
Number of Responses

9. Griffin, IN 10. Chesterton, IN Beach 11. Chesterton, IN Dunes 12. Michigan Dunes
16 25 16 R c = 0.58 16 R c = 0.50
R c = 0.55 R c = 0.50
σR = 0.10 20 σR = 0.09 σ = 0.14 σR = 0.11
12 12 R 12
15
8 8 8
10
4 5 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 20
13. Muskegon, MI 14. Nevada Sand 15. New Madrid, MO 16. Oakland Co., MI
16 R c = 0.54 16 R c = 0.56 16 R c = 0.45 16 R c = 0.50
σ = 0.12 σR = 0.14 σR = 0.11 σR = 0.10
12 R 12 12 12

8 8 8 8

4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 20
17. Ottawa 20-30 18. Rincon, NM 19. Scotts Valley, CA 20. Upper Peninsula, MI
16 R c = 0.80 16 R c = 0.34 16 R c = 0.37 16 R c = 0.45
σR = 0.07 σR = 0.09 σR = 0.11 σR = 0.18
12 12 12 12

8 8 8 8

4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c
Chart-based Roundness, R

Fig. 7. Students’ chart-based estimates of roundness (Rc )

distinguish very angular from angular particles and rounded from
well-rounded than it is to distinguish subangular from subrounded
or subrounded from rounded.
There is a general trend of increasing σS and range of Sc with
decreasing S. Sands with very spherical particles are relatively
easy to identify and they tend to also be more uniform in
shape. As a particle’s elongation increases, estimating the ratio
of its dimensions becomes more difficult. Furthermore, as the
average sphericity of a sand decreases, the range of actual sphe-
ricities of individual particles within the specimen also surely
increases. Therefore, an average value becomes more difficult
to estimate.

© ASCE 04016038-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

 20 20 20 20
1. Michigan 30A 2. Brady, TX 3. Capitola, CA 4. Michigan Class IIA
16 S c = 0.63 16 S c = 0.72 16 S c = 0.55 16 S c = 0.58
σS = 0.09 σS = 0.10 σS = 0.14 σS = 0.14
12 12 12 12

8 8 8 8

4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 80
5. Fort Davis, TX 6. Fused Aluminum Oxide 7. Michigan Crush Gabbro
16 S c = 0.68 16 S c = 0.63 16 S c = 0.37 8. Glass Beads
60
σS = 0.15 σS = 0.15 σS = 0.15 S c = 0.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 12 12 σS = 0.02
40
8 8 8
20
4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 25
Number of Responses

9. Griffin, IN 10. Chesterton, IN Beach 11. Chesterton, IN Dunes 12. Michigan Dunes
16 S c = 0.62 16 S c = 0.58 16 S c = 0.69 20 S c = 0.69
σS = 0.13 σS = 0.14 σ = 0.14 σS = 0.08
12 12 12 S 15

8 8 8 10

4 4 4 5

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 20
13. Muskegon, MI 14. Nevada Sand 15. New Madrid, MO 16. Oakland Co., MI
16 S c = 0.74 16 S c = 0.77 16 S c = 0.59 16 S c = 0.61
σS = 0.12 σS = 0.12 σS = 0.14 σS = 0.10
12 12 12 12

8 8 8 8

4 4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

20 20 20 20
17. Ottawa 20-30 18. Rincon, NM 19. Scotts Valley, CA 20. Upper Peninsula, MI
15 S c = 0.83 16 S c = 0.62 16 S c = 0.64 16 S c = 0.67
σS = 0.07 σS = 0.12 σS = 0.13 σS = 0.13
12 12 12
10
8 8 8
5
4 4 4

0 0 0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
c
Chart-based Sphericity, S

Fig. 8. Students’ chart-based estimates of sphericity (Sc )

Computational Geometry Results for R and S
The same 20 images that were provided to the students were also
evaluated for R and S by computer. In each image, all particles with
full perimeters in view were manually selected and labeled. For
example, the 124 particles in the image of the Brady, TX sand
are shown in white in Fig. 10(a). The computer program automati-
cally identifies the labeled particles (white areas) and computes the
R and S for each. The fitted maximum inscribed circles (shown in
dashed lines) and corner circles (shown in solid lines) are super-
imposed over the original image in Fig. 10(b). Two select areas
are enlarged in Figs. 10(c and d).

© ASCE 04016038-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Summary of students’ chart-based estimates for (a) roundness (Rc ); (b) sphericity (Sc )

Figs. 11 and 12 show the cumulative R and S distributions for
each soil. The number of particles that were used from each soil
image is provided in Table 1. The mean sphericity values (S̄)
are plotted versus the mean roundness (R̄) for the 20 sands in
Fig. 13. The R̄ values fall in a range approximately between
0.20 and 0.95; the S̄ values fall between approximately 0.60 and
0.95. The crushed sands (Michigan 30A, Fused Aluminum Oxide,
and Michigan Crushed Gabbro) are typically angular (0.20 ≤
R̄ ≤ 0.30) and of relatively low sphericity (0.60 ≤ S̄ ≤ 0.70). This
is attributed to the brittle fracturing in formation of these materials.
The rounded and well-rounded sands (Brady TX, Ottawa 20-30,
and Glass Beads) have roundness values 0.67 ≤ R̄ ≤ 0.96 and
are of high sphericity (0.78 ≤ S̄ ≤ 0.93). Finally, the natural sands
span a wide range of R (from 0.30 to 0.70) but a very narrow range
of S (from 0.70 to 0.80).
Evaluation and Comparison of Chart-Based
Estimates and Computed Values of Roundness
To quantify the spread in the computed values of R for each
soil individually, this paper defines roundness uniformity as

© ASCE 04016038-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Identification of 124 Brady, TX sand particles with full perimeter projections and fitting of corner circles and maximum inscribed circles

Michigan 30A Fused Aluminum

100 (135 )
100 Oxide (125)
Brady, TX Michigan Crushed
Particles with smaller R (%)

Particles with smaller R (%)

(124) Gabbro (134)

80 Capitola, CA 80 Glass Beads
(115) (125)
Michigan Griffin, IN
60 Class IIA (229) 60 (198)
Fort Davis, TX Chesterton,
(119) IN Beach (120)
40 40

20 20

0 0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
(a) R (b) R

100 100
Chesterton, Oakland CO., MI
Particles with smaller R (%)

Particles with smaller R (%)

IN Dunes (125)
(101)
80 Michigan Dunes 80 Ottawa 20-30
(119)
(139)
Muskegon, MI Rincon, NM
60 (159) 60 (117)
Nevada Sand Scotts Valley, CA
(169)
(108)
40 New Madrid, MO 40 Upper Peninsula, MI
(102) (112)

20 20

0 0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
(c) R (d) R

Fig. 11. Roundness distributions by computational geometry

U R ¼ R90 –R10 , where R90 ¼ R value from a distribution curves at 10% (90 and 10%, respectively) of particles are excluded from de-
the 90% level; and R10 = value from the distribution curves at the fining the spread because these particles often have exceptional
10% levels. The 10 and 90% thresholds coincide with the levels at shapes compared with the majority of the particles, and therefore,
which the R distribution curves, shown in Fig. 12, often transition the lengths of the tails at both ends of the curve could be controlled
from being relatively flat to more steep. The highest and lowest by just a few unusual but inconsequential particles.

© ASCE 04016038-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

 100 100
Michigan 30A Fused Aluminum

Particles with smaller S (%)

Particles with smaller S (%)

(135) Oxide (125)
80 Brady, TX 80 Michigan Crushed
(124) Gabbro (134)
Capitola, CA Glass Beads
60 (115) 60 (125)
Michigan Griffin, IN
Class IIA (229) (198)
40 Fort Davis, TX 40 Chesterton,
(119) IN Beach (120)

20 20

0 0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
(a) S (b) S
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100 100
Chesterton, Oakland CO., MI
Particles with smaller S (%)

Particles with smaller S (%)

IN Dunes (125) (101)
80 Michigan Dunes 80 Ottawa 20-30
(119)
(139)
Muskegon, MI
Rincon, NM
60 (159) 60 (117)
Nevada Sand Scotts Valley, CA
(169)
(108)
40 New Madrid, MO 40 Upper Peninsula, MI
(102)
(112)

20 20

0 0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
(c) S (d) S

Fig. 12. Sphericity distributions by computational geometry

The relationship between U R and R̄ is shown in Fig. 14(a). The (R̄>0.65) soils. On average, σR was 0.09 for very angular soils,
crushed and well-rounded sands generally possessed uniform R 0.13 for subangular to rounded soils (natural sands), and 0.08 for
distributions (U R is approximately 0.2), whereas the natural sands well-rounded soils (excluding the glass spheres). Figs. 14(a and b)
were more variable in roundness and thus had U R ranging from show that U R and σR were similarly related to R̄. As such, a strong
approximately 0.25–0.45. correlation should also be expected between σR and U R , as con-
Various correlations between the students’ chart-based estimates firmed by Fig. 14(c). This logically suggests that chart users have
and the values determined by computational geometry for round- a more difficult time estimating Rc when particles in a specimen
ness are shown in Figs. 14(b–d). The standard deviations (σR ) in the exhibit a larger range of R values. Soil No. 6 Fused Aluminum
students’ chart-based estimates of Rc were plotted against the com- Oxide (FAO) is a unique material because it is manufactured to
puter R̄ in Fig. 14(b). As previously discussed, relatively small σR be very angular and similar in its angularity, as evidenced by its
values were observed for angular (R̄<0.25) and for well-rounded steep cumulative R distribution curve in Fig. 11(b). Because of this
manufacturing process, the FAO does not fit the trend of the other
soils and was left out of the trend bounds in Fig. 14(c).
Finally, Fig. 14(d) compares the mean of the students’ chart-
based estimates of roundness ( Rc ) to the mean values by computa-
tional geometry (R̄). Despite the large σR values in estimates by the
students [as shown in Figs. 14(b and c)], 75% of the sands’ Rc val-
ues were within 0.10 of R̄, and 100% were within 0.15, as indicated
by the dashed lines in Fig. 14(d). The differences were smallest for
angular and very rounded soil particles. For the natural soils, the
differences were larger and the students almost always underesti-
mated roundness. As discussed previously, the authors suspect that
a student’s eye is naturally drawn to the more unusual angular par-
ticles and tends to compare these more angular particles to those in
the charts.

Evaluation and Comparison of Chart-Based

Estimates and Computed Values of Sphericity

Similarly, as was done for roundness, the spread in the values of

Fig. 13. Mean roundness and mean sphericity pairs for the 20 sands
S for each soil was characterized by the sphericity uniformity,

© ASCE 04016038-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Summary and comparison of chart-based estimates and computational geometry values for roundness
U S ¼ S90 –S10 , in which S90 and S10 were obtained from the S dis-
tribution curves. As with the R distribution curves, S10 appears to
typically coincide with the transition from a steep to a flatter portion
of the curve. However, no such transition occurred at the high S
end. This is logical as some particles with length to width ratios
approaching 1.0 will always exist in a natural sand. Nevertheless,
the authors used S90 for consistency with the previous definition of
U R . Fig. 15(a) confirms that less spherical sands display a much
wider range of S (larger U s ) than spherical particles do. As a prac-
tical matter, this indicates that fewer spherical particles are needed
to establish statistically valid values of S.
Correlations between the students’ chart-based estimates for sphe-
ricity and the values determined by computational geometry are
shown in Figs. 15(b–d). The σS ’s are plotted versus the mean com-
puter value, S̄, in Fig. 15(b). The average standard deviation for the
natural sands was 0.13. Just as with roundness, the very strong cor-
relations between U S and S̄ and between σS and S̄ lead to the similarly
strong correlation between σS and U S as shown in Fig. 15(c).
As expected, these figures indicate that S is more difficult to
estimate by charts when particles are elongated (i.e., low sphericity)
than when the soils are spherical. For the majority of soils exhibit-
ing S̄ in a range of 0.7 to 0.8, the σS ranged narrowly between
approximately 0.12 and 0.15.
Finally, Fig. 15(d) compares the mean chart-based estimates of
sphericity ( Sc ) with the mean values by computational geometry
(S̄). The trends are as expected: Sc diverges very significantly from
S̄ when soil becomes elongated (low sphericity). The students
clearly overestimated the elongation of particles. This supports
the authors’ previous hypothesis that the students’ attentions were
drawn to the more unusual particles in the images, even when they
were less abundant.
© ASCE 04016038-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038
Practical Significance of Findings
The results of this study show that chart estimates of Rc using im-
ages of 3D particle assemblies were in error by as much as 0.3 to
0.5 for subangular to subrounded and even rounded natural sands,
as observed in Fig. 9. When estimates performed by 38 students in
a laboratory setting were averaged, the Rc values underpredicted R
by up to 0.15, as shown in Fig. 14(d). Such misestimates of particle
roundness can be significant, even costly. Santamarina and Cho
(2004) showed that for every 0.10 change in R, the angle of repose,
which is approximately the residual or constant volume angle of
internal friction, changes by approximately 1.7°. Thus, underesti-
mates of R of even 0.15 translate to overestimates of friction angle
by 2–3° degrees. The implications of the larger, individual mises-
timates of 0.3 to 0.5 can lead to friction angle misestimates of up to
5–9° degrees.
This study also showed that S of natural sands was underesti-
mated by as much 0.15 or more, as shown in Fig. 15(d). Further-
more, the spreads in Sc estimates, as observed in Fig. 10, are even
larger than they were for Rc. Sands having low sphericity particles
can exhibit significant fabric and, therefore, strong anisotropic
behavior. Azami et al. (2010) showed that the friction angle of fine
to medium sand, consisting of elongated crushed limestone par-
ticles, varied by 12° depending on the orientation of the particles.
It would be logical to conclude that, with all other factors being
equal, the range of friction angles would depend on the sphericity
of the particles. Particles approaching perfect spheres (S ¼ 1.0)
should display virtually no range because such soils would not
exhibit anisotropy. As sphericity decreases, three things actually hap-
pen: undeprediction of Sc becomes larger [observed in Fig. 15(d)];
the range of Sc estimates increases [observed in Fig. 15(b)]; and the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Summary and comparison of chart-based estimates and computational geometry values for sphericity
range of potential friction angles, because it depends on fabric ori-
entation, increases. In other words, the uncertainties are compounded
as S decreases.
Discussion
Attributable to the complex, subjective, and tedious nature of the
task, the previously demonstrated accuracy of the computer meth-
ods, and the results of this study, it should be evident that computers
will do a better job of determining R and S from 3D assemblies of
particles than human evaluators could. In the end, computers are
actually computing R and S whereas humans, regardless of their
experience and training, are estimating these parameters from
charts. Nevertheless, the authors are not experts in cognitive sci-
ence and do not profess to be conducting research in engineering
education. As such, the results of this study should not be quanti-
tatively extrapolated to other populations such as different groups
of students, laboratory technicians, and more experienced engi-
neers or geologists. It would be interesting to repeat this exercise
with such groups and the results may (or may not) be better
(i.e., closer to computer results) than obtained by undergraduate
geotechnical engineering students.
Conclusions
Computer algorithms using computational geometry were devel-
oped to automate and replace the laborious manual task of meas-
uring, or crudely estimating from charts, values of soil particle
roundness, R, and sphericity, S. Images of 20 different soils in
© ASCE 04016038-13
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038
3D assemblies (possessing a range of particle shapes) were col-
lected, and a group of 38 undergraduate civil engineering students
were asked to estimate the values of Rc and Sc using the chart
method. The results were compared with results by the previously
proven computer methods. Significant differences between the
computer and student-estimated Rc values were observed for par-
ticles in the mid-range of Rc , between 0.30 and 0.65. The differ-
ences were smaller for very round and angular particles. This is
because very round and angular particles show greater visually per-
ceptible changes with incremental changes in R. Particles in the
0.30 to 0.65 range appear to be more similar to the human eye.
For S, the agreement between computer and student-estimated val-
ues was best at the highest values of S and logically decreased as S
decreased. For both R and S, the differences between computer and
student-estimated values increased as the range of actual R and S
values increased. Finally, students tended to underestimate both R
and S of natural soils. It was hypothesized that when observing an
image containing several hundred particles in a 3D assembly, at-
tention may be drawn to the more unusual (more angular and less
spherical) particles, even when such particles may be less abundant.
The practical implication of misestimating Rc is that the mechanical
properties of sands could be significantly mispredicted. Computer-
based methods that analyze images of soils are much faster and can
analyze many more particles to obtain more accurate distributions
and average values of R and S.
Acknowledgments
This material is based on work supported by the U.S. National
Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI 1300010. Any
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations ex-
pressed in this material are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
ConeTec Investigations Ltd. and the ConeTec Education Founda-
tion are acknowledged for their support to the Geotechnical Engi-
neering Laboratories at the University of Michigan.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d1 = length of a particle;
d2 = width of a particle;
R = roundness;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Rc = chart-based estimate of roundness;
Rc = mean chart-based estimate of roundness;
ri = radius of a circle fitted to the i-th particle corner;
rins = radius of the maximum inscribed circle;
S = sphericity;
Sc = chart-based estimate of spericity;
Sc = mean chart-based estimate of sphericity;
U R = roundness uniformity;
U S = sphericity uniformity;
σR = standard deviation for roundness; and
σS = standard deviation for sphericity.
References
Altuhafi, F., O’Sullivan, C., and Cavarretta, I. (2013). “Analysis of an im-
age-based method to quantify the size and shape of sand particles.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000855,
1290–1307.
ASTM. (2009). “Standard practice for description and identification of soils
(visual-manual procedure).” ASTM D2488-09a, West Conshohocken,
PA.
ASTM (2010). “Standard test method for flat particles, elongated particles,
or flat and elongated particles in coarse aggregate.” ASTM D4791-10,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Azami, A., Pietruszczak, S., and Guo, P. (2010). “Bearing capacity of
shallow foundations in transversely isotropic granular media.” Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 34(8), 771–793.
Bareither, C. A., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., and Mickelson, D. M. (2008).
“Geological and physical factors affecting the friction angle of com-
pacted sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2008)134:10(1476), 1476–1489.
Cabalar, A. F., Dulundu, K., and Tuncay, K. (2013). “Strength of various
sands in triaxial and cyclic direct shear tests.” Eng. Geol., 156(1),
92–102.
Cavarretta, I., O’sullivan, C., and Coop, M. (2010). “The influence
of particle characteristics on the behaviour of coarse grained soils.”
Géotechnique, 60(6), 413–423.
Chapuis, R. P. (2012). “Estimating the in situ porosity of sandy soils
sampled in boreholes.” Eng. Geol., 141–142(19), 57–64.
Cho, G.-C., Dodds, J., and Santamarina, J. C. (2006). “Particle shape ef-
fects on packing density, stiffness, and strength: Natural and crushed
sands.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2006)132:5(591), 591–602.
Cox, E. P. (1927). “A method of assigning numerical and percentage values
to the degree of roundness of sand grains.” J. Paleontol., 1(3), 179–183.
Edil, T., Krizek, R., and Zelasko, J. (1975). “Effect of grain characteristics
on packing of sands.” Proc., Istanbul Conf. on S.M. and F.E., Istanbul
Technical Univ., Istanbul, Turkey, 46–54.
Eisma, D. (1965). “Eolian sorting and roundness of beach and dune sands.”
Neth. J. Sea Res., 2(4), 541–555.
Folk, R. L. (1955). “Student operator error in determination of roundness,
sphericity and grain size.” J. Sediment. Res., 25(4), 297–301.
© ASCE 04016038-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038
Frossard, E. (1979). “Effect of sand grain shape on interparticle friction;
indirect measurements by Rowe’s stress dilatancy theory.” Géotechni-
que, 29(3), 341–350.
Holubec, I., and D’Appolonia, E. (1973). “Effect of particle shape on the
engineering properties of granular soils.” Proc., Symp. on Evaluation
of Relative Density and Its Role in Geotechnical Projects Involving
Cohesionless Soils, Vol. 523, ASTM, Philadelphia, 304–318.
Hryciw, R. D., and Ohm, H.-S. (2012). “Feasibility of digital imaging to
characterize earth materials.” Research Rep. No. RC1557, Michigan
Dept. of Transportation, Lansing, MI.
Kandasami, R., and Murthy, T. (2014). “Effect of particle shape on the
mechanical response of a granular ensemble.” Proc., Geomechanics
from Micro to Macro, Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon, U.K.,
1093–1098.
Koerner, R. M. (1970). “Effect of particle characteristics on soil strength.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 96(4), 1221–1234.
Kolbuszewski, J., and Frederick, M. (1963). “The significance of particle
shape and size on the mechanical behaviour of granular materials.”
Proc., European Conf. on the Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erd-und Grundbau e.V., Essen,
Germany, 253–263.
Krumbein, W. C. (1941). “Measurement and geological significance
of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles.” J. Sediment. Res.,
11(2), 64–72.
Krumbein, W. C., and Sloss, L. L. (1951). Stratigraphy and sedimentation,
W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Kuo, C.-Y., and Freeman, R. (2000). “Imaging indices for quantification of
shape, angularity, and surface texture of aggregates.” Transp. Res. Rec.,
1721(1), 57–65.
Maeda, K., Sakai, H., Kondo, A., Yamaguchi, T., Fukuma, M., and Nuku-
dani, E. (2010). “Stress-chain based micromechanics of sand with grain
shape effect.” Granular Matter, 12(5), 499–505.
Masad, E., Al-Rousan, T., Button, J., and Little, D. (2007). “Test methods
for characterizing aggregate shape, texture, and angularity.” National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Rep. 555, National
Cooperative Highway Research, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC.
Moroto, N., and Ishii, T. (1990). “Shear strength of uni-sized gravels under
triaxial compression.” Soils Found., 30(2), 23–32.
Morris, H. C. (1960). “Effect of particle shape and texture on the strength of
noncohesive aggregates.” Proc., Symp. on Time Rates of Loading in Soil
Testing, ASTM, Philadelphia, 350–364.
Muszynski, M. R., and Vitton, S. J. (2012). “Particle shape estimates of
uniform sands: Visual and automated methods comparison.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000351, 194–206.
Oda, M. (1972). “Initial fabrics and their relations to mechanical properties
of granular material.” Soils Found., 12(1), 17–36.
Oda, M., Koishikawa, I., and Higuchi, T. (1978). “Experimental study
of anisotropic shear strength of sand by plane strain test.” Soils Found.,
18(1), 25–38.
Oh, T., Joo, G., Yun, K., and Cho, G. (2014). “Crush characteristics of
abrasive particles during abrasive waterjet rock cutting.” Proc., Geome-
chanics from Micro to Macro, Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon,
U.K., 1577–1581.
Ohm, H.-S., and Hryciw, R. D. (2014). “Size distribution of coarse-grained
soil by sedimaging.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001075, 04013053.
Powers, M. C. (1953). “A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles.” J.
Sediment. Res., 10.1306/D4269567-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D,
117–119.
Riley, N. A. (1941). “Projection sphericity.” J. Sediment. Res., 11(2),
94–97.
Rousé, P. C., Fannin, R. J., and Shuttle, D. A. (2008). “Influence of round-
ness on the void ratio and strength of uniform sand.” Géotechnique,
58(3), 227–231.
Sagga, A. M. S. (1993). “Roundness of sand grains of longitudinal dunes in
Saudi Arabia.” Sediment. Geol., 87(1–2), 63–68.
Santamarina, J. C., and Cho, G.-C. (2004). “Soil behaviour: The role of
particle shape.” Proc., Advances in Geotechnical Engineering: The
Skempton Conf., Thomas Telford, London, 604–617.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Shin, H., and Santamarina, J. C. (2013). “Role of particle angularity on the
mechanical behavior of granular mixtures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000768, 353–355.
Sladen, J. A., D’Hollander, R. D., and Krahn, J. (1985). “The liquefaction
of sands, a collapse surface approach.” Can. Geotech. J., 22(4),
564–578.
Sukumaran, B., and Ashmawy, A. K. (2001). “Quantitative characterization
of the geometry of discrete particles.” Géotechnique, 51(7), 619–627.
Sukumaran, B., and Ashmawy, A. K. (2003). “Influence of inherent particle
characteristics on hopper flow rate.” Powder Technol., 138(1), 46–50.
Tickell, G. F. (1931). The examination of fragmental rocks, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Tutumluer, E., Pan, T., and Carpenter, S. H. (2005). “Investigation of ag-
gregate shape effects on hot mix performance using an image analysis
approach.” Transportation Engineering Series No. 137, Federal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Hacettepe Universitesi on 06/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Vepraskas, M. J., and Cassel, D. K. (1987). “Sphericity and roundness of
sand in coastal plain soils and relationships with soil physical proper-
ties.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 51(5), 1108–1112.
Wadell, H. (1932). “Volume, shape, and roundness of rock particles.”
J. Geol., 40(5), 443–451.
© ASCE 04016038-15
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 04016038
Wadell, H. (1933). “Sphericity and roundness of rock particles.” J. Geol.,
41(3), 310–331.
Wadell, H. (1935). “Volume, shape, and roundness of quartz particles.”
J. Geol., 43(3), 250–280.
Yasin, S., and Safiullah, A. (2003). “Effect of particle characteristics on the
strength and volume change behaviour of sand.” J. Civ. Eng., 31(2),
127–148.
Youd, T. L. (1973). “Factors controlling maximum and minimum densities
of sands.” Proc., Evaluation of Relative Density and Its Role in
Geotechnical Projects Involving Cohesionless Soils, ASTM, Reston,
VA, 98–102.
Zheng, J., and Hryciw, R. D. (2015). “Traditional soil particle sphericity,
roundness and surface roughness by computational geometry.”
Géotechnique, 65(6), 494–506.
Zheng, J., and Hryciw, R. D. (2016). “Roundness and sphericity of soil
particles in assemblies by computational geometry.” J. Comput. Civ.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000578, 04016021.
Zheng, J., Hryciw, R. D., and Ohm, H.-S. (2014). “Three-dimensional
translucent segregation table (3D-TST) test for soil particle size
and shape distribution.” Proc., Geomechanics from Micro to Macro,
Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon, U.K., 1037–1042.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.