A.4.4.1 Results for RDX (M2-A)

For the RDX (10 m × 10 m DU) simulations, Tables A-5 through A-7 show the summaries from the evaluated simulations. The coverage, bias, number of increments, and number of ISs are used to create the coverage plot shown in Figure A-11. Figure A-12 shows the panel of t-UCL histograms for all 40 sampling patterns evaluated on the RDX 10 m × 10 m DU.

Table A-5. Discrete summary: RDX decision unit (M2-A)

Grid sampling type Number of increments Chebyshev UCL coverage t-UCL coverage Chebyshev RPD above mean t RPD above mean Chebyshev RPD below mean t RPD below mean
Random 9 67.20 55.80 596.67 334.23 57.02 61.88
Systematic 9 67.65 54.90 576.75 328.07 56.18 60.07
Random 16 79.25 64.50 431.13 229.60 45.61 49.98
Systematic 16 81.80 65.75 425.83 229.09 47.11 48.37
Random 30 84.60 67.75 292.69 145.30 34.17 40.99
Systematic 30 85.80 67.95 304.20 154.45 39.45 40.97
Random 100 97.50 84.50 182.32 81.15 13.70 20.02
Systematic 100 97.95 86.80 186.52 81.02 12.22 15.26

 

Table A-6. Standard ISM summary: RDX decision unit (M2-A)

Number of ISs Number of increments Chebyshev UCL coverage t-UCL coverage Chebyshev RPD above mean t RPD above mean Chebyshev RPD below mean t RPD below mean
2 16 82.95 86.35 279.99 373.67 37.86 36.14
3 16 88.15 81.95 219.34 157.50 27.98 30.40
4 16 92.35 82.25 199.60 122.60 24.52 26.07
5 16 94.00 82.45 177.73 99.96 20.89 22.80
2 30 82.35 86.70 192.10 257.12 31.80 31.52
3 30 90.50 83.90 150.90 105.86 23.31 24.57
4 30 93.65 83.95 135.61 78.51 20.59 21.45
5 30 95.85 82.95 119.96 64.14 16.60 17.27
2 49 87.85 90.55 147.00 200.34 25.16 23.89
3 49 93.20 88.30 128.19 89.26 16.46 17.75
4 49 96.45 88.40 111.83 64.84 15.40 15.31
5 49 96.85 88.90 101.49 53.30 14.40 15.13
2 100 88.10 91.10 100.46 136.07 16.05 16.26
3 100 94.80 90.80 85.38 59.17 9.62 11.27
4 100 97.60 92.70 76.04 43.07 7.87 10.39
5 100 98.30 91.70 67.41 35.27 8.17 7.79

 

Table A-7. Grouped ISM summary: RDX decision unit (M2-A)

Number of ISs Number of increments Chebyshev UCL coverage t-UCL coverage Chebyshev RPD above mean t RPD above mean Chebyshev RPD below mean t RPD below mean
2 16 90.55 93.00 408.76 560.08 41.12 42.40
3 16 94.90 90.75 380.21 261.11 31.43 31.17
4 16 95.75 88.45 277.75 159.09 21.51 25.65
5 16 97.95 92.50 297.41 152.63 17.43 23.42
2 30 96.05 97.85 372.63 516.93 29.51 34.85
3 30 98.90 96.15 334.96 223.28 21.55 19.55
4 30 99.35 95.65 239.38 128.93 13.45 18.42
5 30 99.80 96.20 267.77 131.54 13.41 14.40
2 49 99.75 99.95 375.05 528.31 8.90 3.84
3 49 100.00 100.00 342.29 222.02    
4 49 99.75 98.55 240.99 127.20 7.37 17.19
5 49 100.00 97.50 261.90 124.83   12.04
2 100 100.00 100.00 374.57 528.80    
3 100 100.00 100.00 336.40 217.67    
4 100 100.00 100.00 238.50 125.84    
5 100 100.00 100.00 266.15 126.93    

Figure A-11. Plot of the coverage statistics for each of the simulated sampling patterns as applied to the RDX DU. (Note: The different sampling patterns are displayed within the plot as well as UCL type).

Figure A-11. Plot of the coverage statistics for each of the simulated sampling patterns as applied to the RDX DU.
(Note: The different sampling patterns are displayed within the plot as well as UCL type).

Figure A-12. Panel of histograms of the distribution of t-UCL values for the 2000 simulations.  (Note: The red line identifies the true mean. The y-axis identifies the percent of 2000 simulations in each bin and is distorted to show the percentage in the low count bins.)

Figure A-12. Panel of histograms of the distribution of t-UCL values for the 2000 simulations.
(Note: The red line identifies the true mean. The y-axis identifies the percent of 2000 simulations in each bin
and is distorted to show the percentage in the low count bins.)

This site had the strongest small- and large-scale spatial heterogeniaty of the two DUs evaluated with a CV of 4.47. The mean is 71.36 with a standard deviation of 319.1. The coverage results for the standard IS perform reasonably well for the IS designs of 100 increments per IS. The grouped IS patterns were above the designed criteria of 95% for all but the IS composed of 16 increments. For this DU the grouped ISs are the only patterns that consistently met or exceded the designed 95% coverage but did have more bias in the mean than the standard IS or discrete methods.

Figure A-13 shows the distribution histograms for the 2000 estimated means from the grouped and standard sampling patterns. This plot is representative of the other simulated sites and shows a few important highlights. As more increments are included in each IS, the distribution of means becomes more normally distributed. Both the grouped and standard IS designs provide unbiased estimates of the mean (71.36) and have virtually identical distributions.

Figure A-13. A comparison of the distribution of means for grouped and standard IS designs using the RDX DU. (Note: Results are similar for all other DUs).

Figure A-13. A comparison of the distribution of means for grouped and standard IS designs using the RDX DU.
(Note: Results are similar for all other DUs).