1
$\begingroup$

I'm calculating the inclusive graphic standard deviation for sediment from a cumulative frequency graph, with this formula:

But when I plug in the numbers, I get a negative value, because my ranges at 5, 16, 84 and 95 span the 0φ boundary. What does this mean? Does this mean it is very well sorted, or have I made a calculation error?

My data:

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ This is the PDF with the formula: core.ecu.edu/geology/rigsbyc/rigsby/Sedimentology/… (feel free to edit in to main question :)) $\endgroup$
    – Metasomatism
    Commented Apr 1, 2016 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe I do not understand the question: According to pages 2 and 3 of the document, negative Phi values are not unexpected. The order of the Q values needs to be inverted: The 95% percentile needs to correspond to the lowest Phi value. $\endgroup$
    – daniel.heydebreck
    Commented Apr 1, 2016 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @daniel.neumann Ahh. I'm a bit silly... So my actual number should be 0.004545455? $\endgroup$
    – Metasomatism
    Commented Apr 1, 2016 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ How do you get 0.004545455? According to the plot on the right, one of the columns in the table on the right needs to be inverted - meaning that Q95 = 2.2, Q84 = 1.8, Q16 = 0 and Q5 = -1.2. Putting these values in the formula we get (1.8+0)/4 + (2.2-(-1.2))/6.6 = 0.45 + 1.7/3.3 = 0.9652. Thus, it is moderately sorted. $\endgroup$
    – daniel.heydebreck
    Commented Apr 1, 2016 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ @daniel.neumann That -1.2 should be -0.8? But yes, I'd inverted them all, not just the 5 95. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Metasomatism
    Commented Apr 1, 2016 at 18:01

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.