Table 7.

Summary of the state parameter interpretation error; Δψ from each method

Number of tests withΔψ< 0.04Number of tests withΔψ< 0.07Percentage of tests withΔψ< 0.04Percentage of tests withΔψ < 0.07
Sand/methodsTotal number of testsPaCEEQRPCEEQRPCEEQRPCEEQR
Da Nang38613021323303015.834.2055.384.286.8078.9
Erksak1412101091413141285.771.471.464.310092.910085.7
Hilton Mines20984013134345.040.020.0065.065.020.015.0
Hokksund5132365204139153762.770.69.839.280.476.529.472.5
Ottawa30282917103030231993.396.756.733.310010076.763.3
Syncrude oil tailings85722585562.587.525.025.062.510062.562.5
Ticino 46847502655965431669.173.538.27.486.895.663.223.5
Ticino 992643487522.266.744.433.344.488.977.855.6
Toyoura 160413934025404023195.182.9061.097.697.64.975.6
Sum/Average279180193689523824911315864.569.224.434.185.389.240.556.6
a

P for Plewes et al. (1992), CE for cavity expansion (Shuttle and Jefferies, 1998 and Ghafghazi and Shuttle, 2008), EQ for the simplified equations of Shuttle and Jefferies (1998), and R for Robertson (2010) 

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal