In \citet{Chauhan2010} the method used to lend credibility to the splitting test method involved placing two strain gauges  perpendicular to splitting test cut as can be seen in Figure \ref{496153}. Here that experiment was repeated using the computer models over the various populations outlined. Figure \ref{832874} shows a high correlation and low difference distribution standard deviation between the two gauges and the splitting test, as is expected given the experimental design. However when two randomly (evenly spaced) orientated strain gauges are used to predict the real mean surface strain (Figure \ref{481059}) it can be seen there is a large associated error (larger than when the splitting test is used to predict it), indicating that this method is not a good method to test how reliably the splitting test estimates the real mean surface strain.