The imprecision, given as percent coefficient of variation (CV%), and total error (user plus analytical) calculated as bias% + 1.96CV% is given in Table 1.
In order to validate the analytical calculation, natural frequencies are calculated and compared to those obtained by Finite Element Method (FEM), giving relative errors below 10% for several circumferential and axial mode order combinations.
The measured solid holdup of each component in the column was compared with the analytical results calculated by a one-dimensional sedimentation-dispersion model.
values of ∼5 and can be compared to the analytical value calculated for a small circular pore in an infinite plane.
The time shift is due to the analytical model calculates delivery probability for the bundles which have not been delivered whereas the simulation model calculates the delivery probability based on the number of delivered bundles and number of generated bundles.
The analytical model calculates the critical buckling stress as a function of material properties, geometry parameters and current in-plane stress ratio.
The analytical recovery was calculated and found to be 97.3−101.5 ± 0.25−1.54%.
The intraassay precision of the analytical method was calculated by analyzing each concentration in triplicate per run.
The analytical accuracy was calculated according to Hem (1985) and Al-Hamadani (2009), accordingly, accuracy of results is accepted.
Depending on the 210Pb supported activities used and considering the analytical accuracy, the calculated sediment accumulation rates were in the range of 1.3 to 5.7 cm y−1.
