Evaluation of actual and estimated hydraulic conductivity of sands with different gradation and shape

SpringerPlus

Table 5 Comparisons for the NS samples

Gradation (mm)	Approaches used for comparison from the best fitting to the worst fitting
Gradation (mm)	1 (best)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9 (worst)
4.75–2	Slitcher	Terzaghi	USBR	K–C	Hazen	A–S	Chapuis	Breyer	NAVFAC
2–1.18	Slitcher	USBR	Terzaghi	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	Hazen	K–C	NAVFAC
1.18–0.6	USBR	Slitcher	Terzaghi	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	Hazen	K–C	NAVFAC
0.6–0.425	USBR	Slitcher	Terzaghi	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	Hazen	K–C	NAVFAC
0.425–0.3	USBR	Slitcher	Terzaghi	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	Hazen	K–C	NAVFAC
4.75–0.075	Slitcher	Terzaghi	NAVFAC	USBR	K–C	A–S	Chapuis	Hazen	Breyer
2–0.075	Slitcher	Terzaghi	NAVFAC	USBR	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	K–C	Hazen
1.18–0.075	Terzaghi	Slitcher	Chapuis	A–S	NAVFAC	Breyer	USBR	Hazen	K–C
0.6–0.075	Terzaghi	Chapuis	USBR	A–S	Breyer	Slitcher	Hazen	NAVFAC	K–C
0.425–0.075	Chapuis	Breyer	Terzaghi	A–S	USBR	Slitcher	Hazen	NAVFAC	K–C
0.3–0.075	Breyer	A–S	Chapuis	Terzaghi	Hazen	Slitcher	USBR	K–C	NAVFAC
4.75–0.6	Slitcher	Terzaghi	K–C	A–S	USBR	Hazen	NAVFAC	Chapuis	Breyer
2–0.6	Slitcher	Terzaghi	USBR	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	Hazen	K–C	NAVFAC
4.75–0.425	Slitcher	Terzaghi	K–C	NAVFAC	A–S	Hazen	Chapuis	Breyer	USBR
2–0.425	Slitcher	Terzaghi	USBR	Chapuis	A–S	Breyer	NAVFAC	Hazen	K–C
1.18–0.425	Slitcher	USBR	Terzaghi	Chapuis	A–S	Beryer	Hazen	NAVFAC	K–C