RESEARCH METHODS PAPERS
PLOTTING EQUATION FOR GAUSSIAN PERCENTILES AND A SPREADSHEET PROGRAM FOR
GENERATING PROBABILITY PLOTS
JAMES H. BALSILLIE1, JOSEPH F. DONOGHUE 2, KENJI M. BUTLER 2, AND JENNIFER L. KOCH 2
1 Geological Investigations Section, The Florida Geological Survey, 903 W. Tennessee St., Tallahassee, Florida 32304-7700, U.S.A.
2 Department of Geosciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, U.S.A.
e-mail: Jim.Balsillie@dep.state.fl.us
ABSTRACT: Two-dimensional plotting tools can be of invaluable assistance in
analytical scientific pursuits, and have been widely used in the analysis and
interpretation of sedimentologic data. We consider, in this work, the use of
arithmetic probability paper (APP). Most statistical computer applications do
not allow for the generation of APP plots, because of apparent intractable non-
linearity of the percentile (or probability) axis of the plot. We have solved this
problem by identifying an equation(s) for determining plotting positions of
Gaussian percentiles (or probabilities), so that APP plots can easily be computer
generated. An EXCEL example is presented, and a programmed, simple-to-use
EXCEL application template is hereby made publicly available, whereby a com-
plete granulometric analysis including data listing, moment measure calcula-
tions, and frequency and cumulative APP plots, is automatically produced.
INTRODUCTION
Sediment grain-size data are used in many geologic and engineering applications. The
grain-size distribution of a sediment sample provides information on the relative energy
level present in the environment under which the sediment was transported and deposited.
It also contributes practical information of engineering importance. For instance, in beach
restoration projects, the mean grain size and standard deviation using composite statistics
(see Balsillie and Tanner 1999) of the grain-size distribution are used in calculations to
determine the suitability of local sand deposits as borrow material for nourishment, as
well as in predicting the maintenance renourishment needs of a project (e.g. Krumbein
1957; James 1975; Hobson 1977; U. S. Army 1984).
Standard methods of quantifying sediment textural data employ statistical mea-
sures (mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis), grain-size distribution dia-
grams, and frequency and cumulative frequency probability plots. Probability con-
siderations are based on the underlying concept that sediments conform to the ‘‘Nor-
mal’’ or Gaussian density distribution function. The Gaussian distribution plays a
central role in all of statistics. It is, perhaps, the most ubiquitous distribution utilized
in all the sciences. Results from statistical application of the Gaussian distribution
are best plotted using arithmetic probability paper (APP). The usefulness of APP is,
among informed practitioners, of unequaled practical importance when compared to
other plotting options. The graph paper has one arithmetic axis that represents quan-
JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARY RESEARCH, VOL. 72, NO. 6, NOVEMBER, 2002, P. 929–943
Copyright q 2002, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/02/072-929/$03.00
tifiable data (e.g., sediment grain size) plotted against the cumulative percent oc-
currence (or cumulative probability), which is a nonlinear axis. Typically, the arith-
metic axis is the horizontal axis representing grain size. The nonlinear (Gaussian)
axis is the vertical axis and represents the cumulative percent weight from the sieve
fractions. The cumulative probability distribution of the paper has commonly been
termed the ‘‘normal’’ distribution. It should not be so designated, however, because
‘‘normal’’ is applied in too many applications. Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–
1855) was its originator, and it should properly be referred to as the Gaussian
distribution or Gaussian probability density distribution (GPDD). APP, constructed
so that the ogive (S-shaped curve on arithmetic paper) plots as a straight line, was
developed in 1913 by Hazen (1914), and is acknowledged as a milestone in statis-
tical graphic applications (http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/
sec7.html). There are three fundamental properties of the GPPD that when plotted
on APP require understanding.
First, if the quantified data, in general, conform to the Gaussian distribution, any
one sample shall, if it is precisely Gaussian, plot as a straight line on APP. Second,
are the natural data of any one sample precisely equivalent to the GPDD? Most are
not, nor would we wish them so, for it is the deviation from the Gaussian that tells
us something about the sample. This is especially true for sediment grain-size dis-
tributions. Third, natural data plotted on APP may, in many applications, be made
up of several straight-line segments. These segments are often attributable to some
identifiable natural cause or process. For instance, Tanner (1991) found, by analysis
of over 11,000 sediment samples from all types of environments, that the geometry
of straight-line segments for sediment distributions can definitively identify whether
the latest transportation–depositional history of the sediment sample was due to
eolian, littoral, fluvial, settling processes, etc., or even combinations of processes
(Balsillie 1995). Balsillie (1999) found that they may be related to storm- and hur-
ricane-induced erosion.
Arithmetic-arithmetic, logarithmic-logarithmic, arithmetic-logarithmic (semilogarith-
mic), and other plotting media have been used to display analytical GPDD results. The
above three properties will invariably not be evident except where APP is used.
PLOTTING EQUATION
Statistical packages commonly provide the numerical values of standard textural
parameters, and can plot distribution diagrams, which typically have arithmetic co-
FIG. 1.—Gaussian percent plotting position on
APP versus Gaussian plotting position on an
arithmetic scale. Solid line represents measured
data, circles represent fitted data from Equation 1.
930 J.H. BALSILLIE ET AL.

FIG. 2.—Arithmetic-arithmetic (right axis) and

arithmetic probability (left axis) plots, precise
Gaussian fit generated using EXCEL, and
segment analysis of a sediment sample.

ordinates. The probability plot is, however, with very few exceptions not available in which X is the Gaussian percentage (G P) when 0.01% , G P # 50%, and X 5
in standard statistical packages. Very few computer statistical applications allow for (100 2 G P) when 50% # G P , 99.99%. Alternatively, Y9 can be determined from
plotting on APP because the cumulative percent occurrence (or cumulative proba- a modification of a plotting equation given by Zelen and Severo (1965), given by
bility) axis is nonlinear and, ostensibly, intractable.
If one inspects APP, it becomes apparent that the cumulative percent axis is symmet-
rical about the 50th percentile (or 0.5 probability). This makes quantification somewhat
simpler, because only half requires quantification, which can then be applied to the other
half. A mathematical investigation was undertaken by one author (JHB) to discover a
Y9 5 49.99 2 13.41 t 2
[ 2.30753 1 2.27061t
1.0 1 0.9929t 1 0.04471t 2 ] (2a)

in which
sufficiently precise quantifying relationship. The best representation was found using a
fifth-order transcendental polynomial. The equation is given by

! ln (0.01X)
1
t5 (2b)
550 1 (50 2 Y9)
Y9 when 0.01% , G p # 50% 2
Y5 (1a)
when 50% # G p , 99.999% Either equation for determining Y9 will suffice for plotting purposes, although in
this work we use Equation 1.
in which Y is the linear plotting position of the Gaussian percentage on an arithmetic The goodness of fit of the plotting position equation (Equation 1) is illustrated in
scale, G P is the Gaussian percentage, and Y9 is given by Figure 1, which has a Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient exceeding
0.9999. On the average, the absolute difference between actual and predicted per-
Y9 5 exp{2.9315 1 0.2663 ln X 2 0.01462(ln X) 2 centiles is 0.049%, with a maximum difference of 0.179%. Actual plotting positions
1 0.003297(ln X) 3 2 0.001252(ln X) 4 were determined by physically measuring the probability axis on a piece of proba-
bility paper. Hence, there is to be expected some measurement error in the actual
1 0.00282(ln X) 5 } (1b) data. This does not compound the error, and the statistically fitted equation is sound.
 GAUSSIAN PERCENTILE PLOTTING EQUATION 931

FIG. 3.—Example of worksheet DATA of the EXCEL application GRANPLOTS.xls.

In fact, the differences shown in Figure 1 lie well within the width of a fine pencil
line for an APP plot on letter-size paper. The predicted percentiles, therefore, suc-
cessfully represent Gaussian percentiles for plotting purposes.
AN APPLIED EXAMPLE
The method is demonstrated using a granulometric example. Figure 2 is an EX-
CEL application where an APP plot has been constructed. There is, however, one
significant note. Equation 1 is applicable where the Gaussian percent, PG, is in the
range 0.01 , PG , 99.99, because these are the limits specified on standard APP.
The lower limit should not pose a problem. However, if the last arithmetic percent
is 99.99 and Equation 1 is applied it will result in a Gaussian value of 99.07%,
which is incorrect. That is, 99.99% should also be the Gaussian value. Conversely,
if the last arithmetic percent is 99.998, the Gaussian value will be 99.9896% using
Equation 1. If the last arithmetic percent is less than 99.99%, which might occur
because of sample truncation or filtering (Tanner 1964), then the result derived from
the equation is correct.
It was noted above that APP allows for straight-line segment analysis. A surface
sediment grab sample from Cedar Key, Florida (Fig. 2) illustrates the usefulness of
APP. It is apparent from Figure 2 that the arithmetic-arithmetic plot (triangles) shows
a typical S-shaped curve (ogive) with no straight-line segments. For the APP plot
(circles), one can discern relative to the straight-line segment representing the central
portion of the distribution, several straight-line segments. The segment from 0.325
w to 1.75 w, because of the relative low angle of departure from the central segment,
identifies a transportation–depositional history possibly due to wave activity. The
segment from 20.625 w to 0.325 w, because of its larger departure of angle from
932 J.H. BALSILLIE ET AL.
the central trend, identifies the coarse tail, which may be due to either a fluvial or
a tidal transportation–depositional history (in this case it is undoubtedly tidal). There
is a third history of moderate settling represented by the fine tail, apparently under
still-water conditions. These histories are all consistent with known nearshore marine
conditions at the sampling site on the low-energy Florida Gulf coast. For other
signatures of transportation–depositional histories for other environments, the reader
is referred to the works of Tanner (1991; see also Balsillie 1995).
GRANPLOT
Using Equation 1 we constructed an EXCEL spreadsheet application named
GRANPLOTS.xls for classified sieved data, and GRANPLOTT.xls for unclassified
settling tube data. They are available at no charge from the Florida Geological
Survey website at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/. We describe here some char-
acteristics of the application for sieved data, bearing in mind that modifications
might be made. Detailed instructions are contained in the worksheet entitled READ-
ME. The worksheet CALCULATIONS contains programming statements and data;
it should not be tampered with unless one is familiar with the EXCEL language.
Worksheet DATA and chart ACUMPLOT contain output results. In the upper right-
hand corner of worksheet DATA (Fig. 3) are four items that require user input; (1)
start (finest) sieve size, (2) end (coarsest) sieve size, (3) pan size, and (4) sieve size
interval (the latter because this application is for grouped data). Once these initial
FIG. 4.—Example of chart ACUMPLOT of the
EXCEL application GRANPLOTS.xls providing
the arithmetic probability plot.
constraints are specified, the first two columns of the left-hand table are automati-
cally constructed by the program. The only other input required are the weights (i.e.,
mass in grams) for each specified sieve interval in the third column. All output
automatically appears upon data entry. This includes moment measures for the mean,
standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, relative dispersion, and the frequency plot.
The arithmetic probability plot is also automatically generated in chart ACUMPLOT
(Fig. 4). Users should not attempt to change the vertical size of the chart within
EXCEL unless they are prepared to alter the position of ordinate values. Users can
and may need to change scale values for the abscissa. One can, however, export the
EXCEL plot to other applications and change its size without corrupting the plot.
Worksheet DATA currently allows for input of up to 41 data points to the table.
Note, however, that this application can be used for data other than granulometric
purposes; auditing information, column headers for the table, and plot axes simply
would require respecification.
CONCLUSION
This paper has presented an equation for identifying plotting positions of Gaussian
percentiles (or probabilities). Using the equation, a programmed EXCEL application
template has been made publicly available, whereby a complete granulometric anal-
ysis including data listing, moment measure calculations, and frequency and cu-
mulative APP plots, is automatically produced. The EXCEL application includes
 PROCESSING UNDISTURBED MARINE SAND SEDIMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTING FABRIC AND POROMETRY
two programmed spreadsheets, one for sieved data (GRANPLOTS) for classified
data, and the other for settling tube data (GRANPLOTT) for unclassified data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Walter Schmidt, State Geologist, Florida Geological Survey, for his
valuable editorial comments on the manuscript.
REFERENCES
BALSILLIE, J.H., 1995, William F. Tanner on environmental clastic granulometry: Florida Geo-
logical Survey, Special Publication 40, 145 p.
BALSILLIE, J.H., 1999, Volumetric beach and coast erosion due to storm and hurricane impact:
Florida Geological Survey, Open File Report 78, 37 p.
BALSILLIE, J.H., AND TANNER, W.F., 1999, Suite versus composite statistics: Sedimentary Ge-
ology, v. 125, p. 225–234.
HAZEN, A., 1914, Storage to be provided in impounding reservoirs for municipal water supply:
American Society of Civil Engineers, Transactions, v. 77, p. 1529–1669.
A TECHNIQUE FOR PROCESSING UNDISTURBED MARINE SAND SEDIMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTING
FABRIC AND POROMETRY
KENNETH J. CURRY1, MARITZA ABRIL1, JANA B. AVANT1, CONRAD CURRY 2, RICHARD H. BENNETT 2, AND MATTHEW H. HULBERT3
1 University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, U.S.A.
2 SEAPROBE, Inc. Picayune, Mississippi 39466, U.S.A.
3 Research Dynamics, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380, U.S.A.
e-mail: kenneth.curry@usm.edu
ABSTRACT: Study of marine sediment pore fluid pathways and porometry re-
quires careful analysis of the fabric of ‘‘undisturbed’’ sediment samples. A
novel solution to the preservation of the interstitial organic material and the in
situ fabric or sedimentary structure is the application, with little modification,
of well-established biological techniques employing agar infiltration. The solid-
ified agar preserves fabric during subsequent epoxy impregnation. Once im-
pregnated, porosity of the samples can be measured using image analysis of
polished surfaces of the microfabric and/or a gravimetric–volumetric technique.
Porosity was about 10% higher with image analysis, apparently because of
problems in visualizing carbonates and edges of grains. Tortuosity was mea-
sured as a function of pathlength ratios taken in stacked planes of microfabric
images. The technique allowed us to detect variability in directional tortuosity
as a function of orthogonal pathlength ratios. Three-dimensional stacking of
digitally acquired wireframe images of sequential planes through the microfa-
bric allows visualization of long continuous pores, some with 2.6 mm length.
INTRODUCTION
The microfabric of sediment is defined by the three-dimensional particle arrange-
ments and particle associations of the individual grains of a sedimentary deposit.
Study of the microfabric and porometry provides important information on funda-
mental sediment properties including porosity, permeability, pore fluid pathways,
sediment bulk density, acoustic properties, and stress–strain behavior (Bennett et al.
1989; Bennett et al. 1996). The study of microfabric of undisturbed marine sand has
been confounded by the degree of difficulty encountered in both collecting and
processing of sediment without altering its in situ configuration. Efforts to examine
the microfabric of marine sands and particle associations face the problems of pre-
serving the three-dimensional configuration of the microenvironment and avoiding
major disturbances of the microorganisms and extracellular materials intimately as-
sociated with the pore structure also present in fine-grained sediment (Bennett et al.
1999).
Perhaps the earliest work and techniques of embedding fine-grained marine sed-
iment samples with Spurr’s epoxy resin for microfabric study were developed by
Bennett (1976) and Bennett et al. (1977). These techniques were later expanded for
the study of organo-clay microfabric studies (Baerwald et al. 1991; Bennett et al.
1999). These samples were critical-point dried and impregnated under vacuum with
the low-viscosity Spurr’s epoxy resin for later ultra-thin sectioning with a diamond
933
HOBSON, R.D., 1977, Review of design elements for beach-fill evaluation: U.S. Army, Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Technical Paper 77–6, 51 p.
JAMES, W.R., 1975, Techniques in evaluating suitability of borrow material for beach nourish-
ment: U.S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum 60, 81 p.
KRUMBEIN, W.C., 1957, A method for specification of sand for beach fills: U.S. Army, Beach
Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum 102, 82 p.
TANNER, W.F., 1964, Modification of sediment size distributions: Journal of Sedimentary Pe-
trology, v. 34, p. 156–164.
TANNER, W.F., 1991, Suite statistics: the hydrodynamic evolution of the sediment pool, in
Syvitski, J.P.M., ed., Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis: Cam-
bridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, p. 225–236.
U.S. ARMY, 1984, Shore Protection Manual: U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engi-
neering Research Center, Washington, D.C., 2 vols., 1272 p.
ZELEN, M., AND SEVERO, N.C., 1965, Probability functions, in Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I.,
eds., Handbook of Mathematical Functions, with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Ta-
bles: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, p.
925–995.
Received 18 September 2001; accepted 4 April 2002.
knife. Later, Jim (1985) reviewed similar techniques for embedding sediment sam-
ples and Lavoie et al. (1996) described a mini-core technique for subsampling fine-
grained sediment.
We solved the sampling-disturbance problem for noncohesive sediments (sand)
by gently impregnating the sand in the field with liquid agar (very low viscosity of
1.002 centipoise at 208C comparable to that of water) using an infiltration pressure
of about 0.254 kPa (0.037 psi). Agar is a polysaccharide agarose in which the
hydrogen bonds of the hydroxyl groups cross link as the solution cools to room
temperature, thus solidifying and stabilizing the sand particles. The particles were
then held together sufficiently for subsequent infiltration with a series of miscible
fluids and epoxy resin. Once the resin was cured, a series of polished sand surfaces
were successively precision ground from the surface of the epoxy embedded spec-
imens so that the two-dimensional microfabric of each surface could be imaged and
studied. The purpose of this paper is to describe our procedure and techniques in
detail with examples of the data and observations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field Work.—Sand sediments saturated with seawater were carefully collected
(i.e., undisturbed) by divers during July 17–18 and October 23–24 (1999) offshore
Panama City and Fort Walton Beach, Florida, respectively, in thin-walled stainless
steel metal cores of 7.2 cm internal diameter by 15 and 30 cm in length and plastic
cores of 9 cm internal diameter by 25 cm in length. The cores were processed on a
research vessel at sea near the collecting locations with minimal handling. The cores
were kept in a water bath for at least 45 minutes until they reached 558C. Three
subcores of 14 mm diameter by 9 cm in length were taken from each core using a
brass tube. The subcores were slowly infiltrated by pouring 2% liquid agar with the
agar remaining in a liquid state at 558C (Fig. 1A). The large core was removed from
the water bath without removing the subcores and allowed to cool for 45 to 90
minutes while the agar in the subcores solidified. The sediment subcores were gently
removed from the brass tubes with a plunger that fit the inside diameter of the tubes.
The subcores were cut into 1 cm length sections (Fig. 1B) and their orientation and
position (depth below the sediment–water interface) in the original core was noted.
Solidified agar plugs are easy to handle for subsequent processing. India ink was
applied to one side of each plug to mark its orientation for subsequent stereology
and 3-D reconstruction.
Infiltration Techniques.—The agar-infiltrated sediment plugs were fixed to sta-
bilize organic material in the pores with 2% formaldehyde and 2.5% glutaraldehyde