Laserfiche WebLink
<br />29 <br /> <br />UG3:44 <br /> <br />Table 12. Comparison of the reliability of the Single Transect <br />R-2 Cross and IFG4 methods for predicting field velo- <br />city measurements. <br /> <br /> R-2 Cross IFG4 <br /> Number of Percent of Number of Percent of <br /> predicted predicted predicted predicted <br />Range 0 f velocities velocities velocities velocit ies <br />error in in error in error in error in error <br />percent bracket bracket bracket bracket <br />0.0 - 10 29 29.9 33 35.5 <br />10.1 - 20 20 20.6 23 24.7 <br />20.1 - 30 12 12.4 9 9.7 <br />30.1 - 40 14 14.4 10 10.8 <br />40.1 - 50 2 2.1 6 6.5 <br />50.1 - 60 5 5.2 4 4.3. <br />60.1 - 70 5 5.2 3 3.2 <br />70.1 - 80 0 0.0 1 1.0 <br />80.1 - 90 1 1.0 0 0.0 <br />90.1 - 100 2 2.0 0 0.0 <br />100.1 - 500 7 ~ 4 4.3 <br /> - <br />TOTAL 97 100.0 93 100.0 <br /> <br />Table 13. Comparison of the R-2 Cross and 1FG4 methods for relative <br />accuracy in predicting field measured velocities. <br /> <br />Number <br />(%) <br /> <br />Mean % <br />error <br /> <br />Range of <br />error (%) <br /> <br />Overestimations <br />Underestimations <br />Perfect estimations <br /> <br />R-2 CROSS <br /> <br />75 (77.3) <br />22 (22.7) <br /> <br />44.8% <br />-17.8% <br /> <br />0.7% - 500% <br />-0.5% - -34% <br /> <br />IFG4 <br /> <br />(INCREMENTAL METHOD) <br /> <br />29 01. 2) 36.4% <br />62 (66.7) -20.5% <br />2 (2.1) 0.0% <br /> <br />1. 9% - 135% <br />-0.8% - -64% <br /> <br />Overestimations <br />Underestimations <br />Perfect estimations <br />