Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T18:31:51.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of resolution on the measurement of grain ‘size’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

R. Dearnley
R. Dearnley*
Affiliation:
British Geological Survey, Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Measurements of fine-grained dolerites by optical automatic image analysis are used to illustrate the effects of magnification and resolution on the values obtained for grain ‘size’, grain boundary length, surface area per unit volume, and other parameters. Within the measured range of optical magnifications (× 26 to × 3571) and resolutions (1.20 × 10−3 cm to 8.50 × 10−6 cm), it is found that the values of all grain parameters estimated by chord size analysis vary with magnification. These results are interpreted in terms of the concepts of ‘fractal dimensions’ introduced by Mandelbrot (1967, 1977). For some comparative purposes the fractal relationships may be of little significance as relative changes of size, surface area, and other parameters can be expressed adequately at given magnification(s). But for many studies, for instance in kinetics of grain growth, the actual diameter or surface area per unit volume is an important dimension. The consequences are disconcerting and suggest that it may be difficult in some instances to specify the ‘true’ measurements of various characteristics of fine-grained aggregates.

Keywords

image analysisgrain size measurement
Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 49 , Issue 353 , September 1985 , pp. 539 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avnir, D., Farin, D., and Pfeifer, P. (1983) J. Chem. Phys. 79, 3566-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avnir, D., Farin, D., and Pfeifer, P. (1984) Nature, 308, 261-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, P. A. (1948) J. Appl. Phys. 19, 507-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, J. B. (1983) Am. J. Sci. 283A, 181–200.Google Scholar
Cahn, J. W., and Fullman, R. L. (1956) Trans. AIME, 206, 610-12.Google Scholar
Cauchy, A. (1850) Mere. Acad. Sci. Paris, 22, 3.Google Scholar
Crofton, M. W. (1869) Compt. Rend. 68, 1469.Google Scholar
Davies, C. N. (1962) Nature, 195, 768-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flook, A. G. (1978) Powder Technology, 21, 295-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostinsky, B. (1925) Publ. Fac. Sci. Univ. Masaryk, Brno, 50, 1-26.Google Scholar
Jakeman, E. (1984) Nature, 307, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joesten, R. (1983) Am. J. Sci. 283A, 233-54.Google Scholar
Keller, H. J. et al. (1976) In Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Stereology, Gaithersburg, U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Bureau Standards, Special Publications, 431, 409-10.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, S. (1982) Science, 216, 185-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1967) Ibid. 156, 636-8.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1977) Fractals, Form, Chance, and Dimension. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Olah, A. J. (1980) Pathol. Res. Pract. A166 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paumgartner, D., Losa, G., and Weibel, E. R. (1981) J. Miscroscopy, 121, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, P., and Avnir, D. (1983) J. Chem. Phys. 79, 3558-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L. F. (1961) Gen. Systems Yearbook, 6, 139-87.Google Scholar
Rigaut, J. P. (1983) J. Microscopy, 133, 41-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, H., and Exner, H. E. (1980) Powder Technology, 27, 207-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, E. E. (1961) Trans. AIME, 54, 743.Google Scholar
Weibel, E. R. (1979) Stereological Methods, 1, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar