108

Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 15 (1998) 108111

Conversion Factors to Convert Particle Size Distributions

Measured by One Method to Those Measured by Another Method
Leonard G. Austin*
(Received: 18 October 1997)

Abstract
It is shown that the conversion of size distributions measured
with a laser diffractometer or sedimentometer to equivalent sieve
size distribution depends not only on a mean shape factor but
also on the size distribution being measured. An equation is
given for calculating an overall conversion factor when the

cumulative sieve size distribution is of the Schuhmann form

Px x=km . The technique is illustrated using results from a
laser diffractometer and the X-ray Sedigraph, and gives the
conversion factors from diffractometer to sedigraph and vice
versa.

1 Introduction

sieve size. Figure 1 illustrates the process and defines the fractions
which fall into the five size intervals as k2 , k1 , k0 , k1 and k2 .
Austin and Shah [2] have shown
p experimentally that these mass
fractions do not depend on the 2 sieve interval chosen, providing
there is no change in the shapes of particles with size. Cho et al. [3]
have shown that the values also do not change significantly
p with
the shape of the size distribution curve from which the 2 sieve
fraction is taken.

It is common knowledge that the definition of particle size as

determined by a laser diffractometer is different from that of size
as determined by a sedimentometer, and both are different to the
definition of size measured by sieve analysis. This fact makes it
difficult to compare results between different methods. In
particular, although sieve analysis is by far the most widely used
method of size analysis in industry [1], it is often desired to extend
the analysis below 38 mm material. To extend the sieve size
distribution of a sample to below 38 mm, it is not sufficient simply
to measure the sub-sieve size material in a diffractometer or
sedimentometer, as the two size distributions do not join smoothly
because of the different definitions of size. To make them join it is
necessary to multiply the size measured by the instrument by a
factor, the apparent mean shape factor. This communication will
show that this factor depends not only on the true mean shape
factor but also on the size distribution being tested. It gives a
methodp
ofcalculating
the factor based on calibrating an instrument

with a 2 sieve size fraction and shows how it can be used to

connect size distributions which have the Schuhmann form of
cumulative size distribution of Px x=km .

2 Theory
p
The first step is to prepare a 2 sieve size fraction from the
material by careful wet screening with standard sieves to ensure
p
that fine particles are not adherent to the particles within the 2
sieve range. Typically, the sample will be the 270 by 400 mesh
(58 38 mm), or the 230 by 35 mesh (63 45 mm) fraction.
This is dispersed and tested in the sub-sieve size analyzer. The
resulting instrumentpsize
distribution will normally spread

primarily over five 2 size intervals and have a 50%-passing

size different from the geometric mean sieve size of the tested
sample. This is due to the range of shapes of particles of a given

* Prof. L. G. Austin, Department of Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, PA 16802 (USA).
q Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69469 Weinheim, 1998

Fig. p
1: Illustration of material in a
five 2 instrument size intervals.

p
2 sieve size interval appearing in

The next step is to prepare the test sample of fine material,

typically by wet sieving at 400 mesh, although any convenient
sieve size can be used. Let the separating sieve size be denoted by
x3 and let the sieve size distribution of the material be represented
by the function P(x), where x is sieve size and P(x) is the mass
fraction below size x. This can be put as the vector defined by
the sieve sequence down to a small size, p
that
is, the vector Px
p3,
Px4 , Px5 ; :Pxn , where x4 x3 = 2; xn xn1 = 2,
and Px3 1. Now let the size distribution on this sample as
measured by the instrumentpbe
this as Qx1 ,
Q(x). Express
p
Qx2 ; :Qxn , where x2 2 x3 , x1 2 x2 , and Qx1 . 1.
Consider size xi where n 3 $ i $ 1. A mass balance on
material which appears less than size xi as measured by the
instrument is
Qxi Pxi k1 k2 pi k2 pi1
k1 k2 pi1 k2 pi2

where pi is the fractional mass of particles in the sieve size interval

indexed by i, pi Pxi Pxi1 . The additional information is
0934-0866/98/0204-0108 $5.00.25/0

109

Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 15 (1998) 108111

that Px1 Px2 Px3 1, that is, p1 p2 0 and p1

p0 0. Starting at i 1, Qx1 1. For i 2, Qx2
1 k2 p3 , and so on. The material in the finalpnth
sieve internal
which ispsent
to the next two larger instrument 2 intervals is not
from a 2 sieve interval and also k1 , k2 0, so the balance can
not be extended to the three smallest size intervals.
The problem is now Given the vector of Qxi values, what is
equivalent set of Pxi values? In principle, this could be done by
simultaneous or sequential solution of the sets of equations of
equation 1, but due to experimental and model error the solution
will normally be unstable and produce some negative values of pi .
Cho et al. [3] have given two search procedures to overcome this
problem, one method assuming a functional form for P(x), and the
other a constrained search to obtain the sets of pi values. However,
a much simpler procedure is available in the common case where
the values of Q(x) give an extended region which fits a relation of
Qx axm , as follows:
Consider a cumulative sieve size distribution which has the form
Px x=km , or has a substantial region which fits this form. The
values of Pxi are given by
Pxi xi =km :

particle size as measured by sieving is denoted by x, r x=X

where QX Px. This is equivalent on log-log Schuhmann
plots to sliding the Q(X) curve to the right by a factor to obtain the
equivalent sieve size distribution (see Figure 2). The connection
between K and r is clearly QX KPX KX=km and
QX rX=km , giving
9
r K1=m >
=
or
m

Kr

>
;

p
Let R be the sieve ratio 1= 2. Then each value of Pxi is related to
the values at two intervals larger and two intervals smaller by
9
Pxi2 R2m Pxj >
>
>
>
>
Pxi1 R1m Pxi >
=

Pxi R0m Pxi >:

>
>
Pxi1 R1m Pxi >
>
>
;
2m
Pxi
Pxi2 R

By substituting pi Pxi Pxi1 in Eq. (1) and collecting terms

it becomes (using 1 k1 k2 k1 k2 k0 ),
Qxi k0 Pxi k2 Pxi2 k1 Pxi1
k2 Pxi2 k1 Pxi1 :

1a

Substituting from Eq. (3) gives


Qxi k0 k2 R2m k1 Rm k2 R2m k1 Rm gPxi

Fig. 2: Calculated size distributions for a sieve size distribution of Pxi

xi =63 mm): K1 0:87 for crystalline quartz in a Microtrac; K1 1:06 in
Sedigraph.

Since Eq. (4) shows that K is a function of m it is clear that r is also

a function of m. Thus, a mean shape factor r defined by x rX is
not unique to the material but depends on the size distribution
being examined, so it is better to call it an apparent shape factor.
This shape factor can only be compared between different
materials or different instruments for the particular case when
m 1, in which case
h
p
pi
r1 k0 2k2 k1 2 k2 =2 k1 = 2 :

or
Qx KPx Kx=km :

4a

Thus it is proved that Q(x) is also a power function with the same
exponent m but changed in magnitude by a constant factor K.
If the instrument size distribution Q(x) is plotted versus x as a
Schuhmann log-log plot, the slope will be m and the equivalent
sieve size distribution P(x) will be a parallel line, higher if K < 1
and lower if K > 1, over the particle size region where Q(x) is a
straight line. In addition, Px3 1 is known, since the top sieve
size of the tested sieve sample x3 is known. The shift factor K
cannot apply to the top two sieve size intervals or the two size
intervals above the top sieve size. In principle, estimates of Px4 ,
Px5 , etc., can be made by sequential solution down to the x value
where Q(x) versus x becomes a power function, but normally
errors accumulate rapidly in this computation.
It is common [4] to define a mean shape factor as the factor r by
which the instrument size must be multiplied to give the sieve size
at which the same mass percentage less than size is obtained. If the
particle size as measured by the instrument is denoted by X and the

A corresponding unique value of K applicable for m 1 is

symbolized by K1 , where K1 r1 .

3 Experimental Results
The values of k for irregular particles of quartz and coals as
measured in the Microtrac laser diffractometer instrument [5] have
already been reported [2, 6], and are shown in Table 1. The result
shows that the particle size measured by the instrument is larger
than the geometric mean sieve size, that is, the instrument size
distribution must be moved up (K < 1) to obtain the sieve size
distribution. If the diffractometer size distribution over a
substantial range of size intervals has a slope of 1 the values of
Q(x) must be multiplied by 1.15 ( 1=K1 to obtain the equivalent
sieve size distribution. In terms of sliding the curve in the size
scale, the Microtrac size scale must be multiplied by 0.87. There is
a significant effect of the slope m on K. A diffractometer size
distribution with a flat slope of 0.5 would have to be slid by a factor

110
Table 1:

Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 15 (1998) 108111

Dispersion factors k for

p
2 sieve interval fractions of crystalline quartz tested in the Microtrac laser diffractometer and the X-ray Sedigraph.

Instrument

Tested size: mesh

k2

k1

Microtrac

170 230}
230 325}

0.03

Sedigraph

270 400

0.01

k0

k1

k2

0.10

0.31

0.37

0.19

0.5
1.0
2.0

0.92
0.87
0.86

0.85
0.87
0.96

0.25

0.55

0.18

0.01

0.5
1.0
2.0

1.02
1.06
1.18

1.04
1.06
1.09

Conversion factors Microtrac to Sedigraph

m

0.5
1.0
2.0

1.11
1.22
1.37

1.24
1.22
1.17

of 0.85 in the size scale, but only 0.96 for a steep slope of m 2.
The Sedigraph [7] results showed that the mean instrument size
(the 50%-passing size) was almost equal to the geometric mean
sieve size. However, the vertical shift factors K were greater than
1, and the horizontal shift factors r were also greater than 1, so that
size measured by the instrument is less than sieve size. The
conversion factors from Microtrac to Sedigraph are quite large and
vary significantly with m.

4 Discussion and Conclusions

To obtain reproducible results for the shift factors it is necessary to
perform careful wet-screening to ensure that fines are washed off
the coarser material, and to perform sufficient tests to get a reliable
set of k values. The shift factor K translates the region of the
instrument data which fits Qx ~ xm to an equivalent sieve size
distribution by Px Qx=K. Since the top sieve size of the test
sample is known (x3 ) it is often possible to interpolate from this
region to x3 where Px3 1.
In practice, because of the asymmetric nature of the k values there
may be some
psmall fraction of material which falls in the third
instrument 2 size interval above (or below) the top sieve size
interval. However, it is normally sufficient to consider only five k
values, although the corresponding Equation 4 for seven intervals
is easily derived. Attempts to back-calculate P(x) from Q(x) values
by direct sequential solution (or matrix inversion) of the Equation
1 set are not normally successful due to accumulation of errors and
a constrained search procedure is necessary [3] if the size
distribution is not of the form Px x=km .
For the crystalline quartz tested here, the Sedigraph particle size
is quite close to the sieve size but the Microtrac size is
considerably larger, for a slope of the tested size distribution
close to 1. On the other hand, for a slope of 2 the Microtrac particle
size is still larger than the sieve size and the Sedigraph size
smaller, but the Microtrac size is now actually closer to the sieve
size than the Sedigraph size, in the region of constant slope, see
Figure 3.
The shift factors K or r depend not only on the particular
instrument and material tested but also on the shape of the size
distribution of the sample being measured. Thus it is not surprising
that the consistent comparison of size distributions measured by
one technique with those measured by another has proved difficult.
Calibration of instrument and material by
reproducipdetermining

ble values of the dispersion k values on 2 sieve samples would

be a step forward.

Fig. 3: Calculated size distributions for a sieve size distribution

of Pxi xi =63 mm)2 : K 0:86 for the Microtrac and 1.18 for the
Sedigraph.

5 Symbols and Abbreviations

i
k
k2

k0
k2
K
K1
m
n
pi
P(x)
Q(x)
r
r1
R
x
xi
X

p
an integer indexing a 2 size interval ()
the value of x in Px x=km at p
which
Px 1 mm
the mass fraction
pof material in a 2 sieve size which
appears in a 2 instrument size interval two intervals
larger ()
in the same size interval ()
two intervals smaller ()
the vertical shift factor defined by Qx KPx ()
value of K for m 1 ()
the exponent in Px x=km ()
the number of size intervals ()
p
the mass fraction of material in the 2 sieve size interval
indexed by i ()
the cumulative mass fraction of material less than sieve
size x ()
the cumulative mass fraction of material less than size x as
determined by the instrument ()
a size scale shift factor defined by QX PrX ()
a shape
p factor defined by the value of r for m 1 ()
1= 2
particle size (mm) p
the upper size of the 2 interval indexed by i ()
a particle size measured by an instrument corresponding to
a sieve size x, where QX Px (mm)

Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 15 (1998) 108111

6 References
[1] K. Leschonski: Sieve Analysis, the Cinderella of Particle Size
Analysis Methods? Powder Technol. 24 (1979) 115124.
[2] L. G. Austin, I. Shah: A Method for Inter-Conversion of Microtrac
and Sieve Size Distributions. Powder Technol. 35 (1983) 27128.
[3] H. Cho, K. Yidilrim, L. G. Austin: The Conversion of Sedigraph
Size Distributions to Equivalent Sub-Sieve Screen Size Distributions. Powder Technol. 95 (1998) 109117.

111
[4] T. Allen: Particle Size Measurement, 4th Ed. Chapman and Hall,
New York 1990, p. 169.
[5] Leeds and Northrup, Microtrac Model 7991-01.
[6] L.G. Austin, O. Trass, T.F. Dumm, V.R. Koka: A Rapid Method for
Determination of Changes in Shape of Comminuted Particles
using a Laser Diffractometer. Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 5 (1988)
1315.
[7] Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, Sedigraph Model 5100.

# WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, D-69451 Weinheim, 1998. Printed in Germany. Editor-in-Chief: Prof Dr.-Ing. Kurt Leschonski, Institut fur Mechanische
Verfahrenstechnik und Umweltverfahrenstechnik, Technische Universitat Clausthal, Leibnizstrae 19, D-38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany: Advertising Manager:
Marion Schulz, D-69451 Weinheim; published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH, Pappelallee 3, P.O. Box 101161, D-69451 Weinheim, Germany. Particle & Particle Systems
Characterization publishes book reviews: books submitted for review should be sent to the Editors. All rights reserved (including those of translations into other languages).
No part of this issue may be reproduced in any form by photoprint, microlm or any other means or transmitted or translated into a machine language without permission
in writing of the publisher. This journal was carefully produced in all its parts. Nevertheless, authors, editors and publisher do not warrant the information contained therein
to be free of errors. Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements, data, illustrations, procedural details or other items may inadvertently be inaccurate. Valid for users
in the USA: The appearance of the code at the bottom of the rst page of an article in this journal indicates the copyright owner's consent that copies of the article may be made
for personal or internal use, or for the personal or internal use of specic clients. This consent is given on the condition that the copiers pay the stated percopy fee through the
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., for copying beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying,
such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purpose, for creating new collective work, or for resale. For copying from back volumes of this journal
see ``Permission to Photo-Copy; Publisher's Fee List'' of the CCC.