Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparisons for the CSS samples

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

Gradation (mm)

Approaches used for comparison from the best fitting to the worst fitting

1 (best)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 (worst)

4.75–2

Slitcher

USBR

Terzaghi

A–S

Chapuis

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

2–1.18

USBR

Slitcher

Chapuis

Terzaghi

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

1.18–0.6

USBR

Slitcher

Chapuis

Terzaghi

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

0.6–0.425

USBR

Slitcher

Chapuis

Terzaghi

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

0.425–0.3

USBR

Slitcher

Chapuis

A–S

Terzaghi

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

4.75–0.075

Slitcher

Terzaghi

USBR

A–S

Chapuis

Breyer

NAVFAC

Hazen

K–C

2–0.075

Slitcher

Terzaghi

USBR

Chapuis

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

NAVFAC

K–C

1.18–0.075

Terzaghi

Slitcher

Chapuis

A–S

Breyer

USBR

Hazen

NAVFAC

K–C

0.6–0.075

Terzaghi

Chapuis

USBR

Breyer

A–S

Slitcher

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

0.425–0.075

Breyer

Terzaghi

Chapuis

A–S

Slitcher

Hazen

USBR

K–C

NAVFAC

0.3–0.075

Breyer

Terzaghi

Hazen

Chapuis

A–S

Slitcher

USBR

K–C

NAVFAC

4.75–0.6

Slitcher

Terzaghi

A–S

USBR

Chapuis

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

2–0.6

USBR

Slitcher

Terzaghi

Chapuis

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

4.75–0.425

Slitcher

Terzaghi

A–S

Chapuis

Breyer

Hazen

USBR

K–C

NAVFAC

2–0.425

Slitcher

USBR

Terzaghi

Chapuis

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC

1.18–0.425

USBR

Slitcher

Terzaghi

Chapuis

A–S

Breyer

Hazen

K–C

NAVFAC