concrete - 2018 (80) proficiency testing program report · the coefficient of variation (cv) shown...

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Concrete - 2018 (80)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

Concrete Proficiency Testing Program - 2018(80)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Issued - August 2018 of 45

Report This report is available on the LabSmart Services website. The issue of this proficiency report was authorised by Peter Young, Director, LabSmart Services Pty Ltd, August 2018. Contact Details

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0432 767 706 Fax: (03) 8888 4987

Program Coordinator The program coordinator for this program was Peter Young, Director, LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Contact Details

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0432 767 706 Fax: (03) 8888 4987

Please note that any technical questions regarding this program are to be directed to the program coordinator.

Z-scores Summary A z-scores summary for this program was issued in 5 August 2018. This technical report supersedes the z-sores summary.

Accredited Proficiency Testing Provider LabSmart Services is accredited by NATA to ISO/IEC 17043, Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing. Accreditation number 19235. The accreditation provides additional assurance to participants of the quality and importance we place on our proficiency testing programs.

LabSmart Services Please see our website for further details.

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Copyright This work is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, transmitted or stored in any repository (e.g. mechanical, digital, electronic or photographic) without prior written permission of LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Please contact LabSmart Services should you wish to reproduce any part of this report.

Amendment History Reports may be downloaded from the LabSmart Services website.

Version 1 – Issued 30 August 2018



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim 4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Program Summary

4 4 6

3. Technical Comment

3.1 Compression Strength 3.2 Mass per Unit Volume

7 9 12

4. Statistics: Z-Scores & Graph

4.1 Sample A1 - Compressive Strength 4.2 Sample A1 - Mass per Unit Volume 4.3 Sample B1 - Compressive Strength 4.4 Sample B1 - Mass per Unit Volume 4.5 Sample A2 - Compressive Strength 4.6 Sample A2 - Mass per Unit Volume 4.7 Sample B2 - Compressive Strength 4.8 Sample B2 - Mass per Unit Volume

16

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

5. Program Information

5.1 Z-score Summary 5.2 Program Design 5.3 Sample Preparation 5.4 Packaging and Instructions 5.5 Quarantine 5.6 Sample Dispatch 5.7 Homogeneity Testing 5.8 Participation 5.9 Statistics 5.10 Non-statistical Outliers

32

32 32 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 38

6. Summary of Participant’s Results

6.1 Sample A1 and A2 6.2 Sample B1 and B2

39

39 41

Appendix A Instructions for testers Appendix B Results Log

43

44



1. Program Aim The proficiency testing program was conducted in June 2018 with 54 participants from around Australia. The program involved the performance of:

• AS 1012.9 – 2014, Determination of the compressive strength of concrete specimens and

• AS 1012.12.1 – 1998 (R2014), Determination of mass per unit volume. The program provides confidence to the construction materials testing industry regarding the competency of participants (and the industry) to perform these tests. Each participant’s performance is statistically assessed and used as a measure of competency relative to all those who participated. Other measures of performance are also used. This report has been prepared using robust statistics. Information regarding the conduct and design of the program can be found in section 5. Comprehensive technical comment (section 3) is provided to assist participants improve the overall performance of these tests. In addition, test data has been reviewed for consistency and additional feedback regarding aspects of the test are provided. A Z-score summary was issued to participants on the 5 August to facilitate early feedback on performance.

2. Performance

2.1. Identified Outliers There were 2 participants with outliers identified across the tests performed. This represented 4% of the 50 participants who returned results in the proficiency program (Table 2.1A). Participant’s test results are tabulated in section 4 along with the robust statistics and a z-score graph. The z-score indicates how far away a participant is from the program’s median value. A z-score of zero indicates a strong consensus with respect to all other participants and represents a very good outcome. The z-score graph gives a quick visual indication of how a result compares to others in the program. Outliers are where a z-score value is greater than 3 or less than -3. It is recommended that participants with outliers investigate their performance of the test. Participants with outliers are detailed in table 2.1A. Those participants with z-scores greater than 2 or less than -2 should review their testing methodology. Only those approaching a z-score of 3 (i.e. outside ± 2.75) have been specifically identified in table 2.1A as feedback. More detail on the robust statistics used can be found in section 5.



Technical comment and feedback in section 3 is provided to assist participants investigate or review their results as well for those seeking to improve their testing performance. Overall a satisfactory level of testing was achieved by most participants (96%).

Test

Investigate (Outliers)

Review

Sample Sample

A1 B1 A2 B2 A1 B1 A2 B2

Mass per unit volume

- - - - - - Q8 -

Compressive strength

K8, F5 - - Z6, U4 B4 - -

Table 2.1A Statistical Outliers

Some other participants whose results may not have shown as a statistical outlier may still need to investigate the result obtained if it is found to be a ‘non-statistical’ outlier. See table 2.1B below and section 3 for further detail.

Test

Investigate (Non-statistical Outliers)

Review

Sample Sample

A1 B1 A2 B2 A1 B1 A2 B2


M7, B8, D9, B4, P3, U5, G6

M7, B8, D9,

2xB4, P3, U5, G6

Z9, Q2

Q2 - - - -

Compressive strength

M7, B8, D9, B4, P3, U5, G6

M7, B8, D9, B4, P3, U5, G6

- - M5 A7 - -

Table 2.1B Results requiring further investigation or review (non-statistical)



2.2 Program Summary There were 50 participants in the program who returned results. The overall performance by most participants (96%) was very good. The spread of results (variation) was within industry expectations but slightly larger in some instances than the previous program in 2017. Greater care in completing proficiency testing log sheets and better checking by supervisors needs to be undertaken. Quite a few participants had compressive strength results within 1 s.d which was a good outcome. Those with a z-score below -2 or above 2 are strongly recommended to review their performance. The mass per unit volume results were within the expected variation for this test. The outcome was consistent with previous proficiency programs. Overall the results are within industry expectations and demonstrated that most participants were competent in performing these tests.

Statistic

Sample A1 Sample B1

Compressive Strength

MPa


kg/m3


MPa


kg/m3

No of participants 25 20 25 20

Median 52.8 2357 42.0 2300

N-IOR 1.5 29.7 2.1 27.1

CV (%) 2.8 1.3 4.9 1.2

Range * 8.5 80 10.1 109

Statistic

Sample A2 Sample B2


MPa


kg/m3


MPa


kg/m3

No of participants 25 23 25 23

Median 50.1 2348 52.0 2356

N-IOR 2.5 20.0 2.1 22.6

CV (%) 5.0 0.9 4.0 1.0

Range * 9.5 80 7.7 80

Table 2.2 Summary of test results statistics. Range* excludes outlier results. Some statistics

have been rounded.



3. Technical Comment General A summary of submitted results for all participants may be found in section 6. The reporting requirements under the Australian Standard are ‘compressive strength’ and ‘mass per unit volume’. Outlier assessment was undertaken based on these results, the robust statistical analysis of these can be found in section 4 of this report. The concrete samples were produced in batches with the intention of a sample A and B for the program. The homogeneity testing indicated that there was a small difference in the batches and therefore the participant samples were split into four batch samples (A1 & B1, A2 & B2). There were several participants that had results for sample A and B mixed up. This was corrected during data entry. Participants need to take more care as the sample reference number is important to the client. This has also been observed in previous programs

Coefficient of Variation (%)

Program Sample Mass per Unit Volume Compressive Strength

2018(80)

A1 1.3 2.8

B1 1.2 4.9

A2 0.9 5.0

B2 1.0 4.0

2017(70)

A1 0.6 5.7

A2 0.4 2.6

B1 0.7 5.8

B2 1.0 8.3

2016(63) A 0.8 4.9

B 0.6 4.9

2014(56) A 0.8 3.6

B 0.5 4.1

2013(43) A 0.4 7.1

B 0.6 4.0

2012(38) A 0.3 4.4

B 0.6 5.6

2012(34) A 0.5 1.9

B 0.6 2.9

2012(29) A 0.8 5.9

B 0.6 5.2

2010(17) A 0.4 5.2

B 0.5 5.2

2008(5) A 0.4 3.2

B 0.6 4.9

Table 3A Summary of CV for current and past programs



Outcome Overall there was very good agreement amongst participants for both the ‘Mass per Unit Volume’ and the ‘Compressive Strength’. The overall program statistics are similar to those obtained in previous programs. The coefficient of variation (CV) shown in table 3A is one way to broadly evaluate that participant performance is consistent from one program to another. That is the CV values are roughly in the same “ballpark”. It should be noted that the actual fluctuation in CV values may be attributed to a range of factors. Therefore, further conclusions should not be inferred from the fluctuations observed. See section 5.9 for further details. Missing Information Most participants provided all the information requested on the results log sheet. Thank you to all participants as this makes it far easier to provide informative feedback. Late Crushing Late crushing generally occurs when equipment or some other unforeseen factor prevents testing on the nominated day. In this instance delays were caused by the courier chosen to deliver the program samples. Cylinders were cured past 28 days prior to forwarding, so limited strength gain would be expected if cylinders were tested late. There were several participants that did not test on the nominated date of 21 June. Approximately seven were only a day late and would not have any discernible strength gain. Five were tested at vary times past the set date as detailed in table 3.1C.

Statistic C5 E4 B7 G5 V4

Sample A1 B1 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2 A2 B2

Days over 5 5 5 5 12 12 4 4 12 12

Result 51.1 37.9 45.9 49.0 50.3 53.3 53.4 54.6 52.0 51.5

Median 52.8 42.0 50.1 52.0 50.1 52.0 50.1 52.0 50.1 52.0

Z-score -1.15 -1.98 -1.67 -1.45 0.08 0.63 1.31 1.25 0.75 -0.24

Table 3.1C Late crushing results and z-scores

Additional curing would generally be expected to result in increased strength. The above table indicates that 50% of the participants had lower than the program median result. The remaining results were higher than the program medians but only slightly. All participant’s results were satisfactory and under 2 s.d. It is possible that an increase in strength masked a poorer than indicated performance, but this is considered unlikely looking at the spread of results in table 3.1C.



It is reasonable to infer, on balance, that the additional curing time did not affect either the participant’s performance outcomes or significantly affect the overall program statistics. 3.1 Compressive Strength Incomplete crushing It was noted during homogeneity testing that some cap failures caused the compression machine to register that maximum load had been reached. Further crushing yielded a higher strength. Some participants may have found this as well while some may not have been aware that this can occur. Calculation of compressive strength From the reported diameter and maximum force, the ‘Compressive Strength’ results can be determined. This was done for each participant and the calculated result compared to the reported compressive strength. Good agreement was obtained by most participants. Those showing a difference greater than 0.5 MPa. Sample A1 - M5 and Sample B1 – A7 For these participants, it may be worthwhile reviewing these results. Statistical Outliers K8 Participant K8 reported a low ‘compressive strength’ result for sample A1. The end was ground. Failure was listed as a normal, conical failure. Mass per unit volume was satisfactory. The compression result for sample B1 was within 1 s.d with failure listed as ‘shear failure’. It was also end-ground and the mass per unit volume was also satisfactory i.e. within 1 sd. Samples were ‘tropical’ conditioned. Centring of the specimens on the platens may have been a factor but is hard to check post testing similarly with end grinding. Check for transcription errors may be worth considering. If no issues can be found with testing practice, then the outcome would suggest an issue with sample A1 or some aspect of testing that cannot be checked e.g. platen catering, grinding etc. F5 Participant F5 reported a low ‘compressive strength’ result for sample A1. The end was sulphur capped. Failure was listed as a normal, conical failure. Mass per unit volume was satisfactory. The compression result for sample B1 was within 1 s.d with failure listed as ‘shear failure’. It was also sulphur capped and the mass per unit volume was also satisfactory i.e. within 1 sd. Samples were ‘tropical’ conditioned.



Centring of the specimens on the platens may have been a factor but is hard to check post testing similarly with levelling of sulphur cap. Check for transcription errors may be worth considering. If no issues can be found with testing practice, then the outcome would suggest an issue with sample A1 or some aspect of testing that cannot be checked e.g. platen catering, sulphur capping etc. Non-Statistical Outliers Several participants in this program and other proficiency programs frequently complete the log sheet incorrectly. In many cases this can be detected but when there are two results close in value it is almost impossible to detect. Unfortunately, it does influence the statistics but, due to the low number of participants involved, the impact is usually insignificant. In this program a few incorrect results were detected, due to a significant difference in magnitude of the two compressive strength results. It appeared that the results had been allocated against the wrong code (between A1 and B1). These were corrected as shown in section 4. There were seven participants that appeared to have made this error. Due to the number of participants involved if left uncorrected it would have seriously skewed the resulting statistics. These participants, M7, B8, D9, B4, P3, U5 and G6 need to investigate the reason for the mix up. These are considered non-statistical outliers. Failure Modes Approximately 12% reported either ‘cap’ or ‘shear’ failure during crushing. Table 3.1B are statistics for normal only and abnormal only compression results. The median values are very close to the combined results in section 4 regardless of the failure mode. The variation associated with an abnormal failure was not much different to those showing normal failure. It should be noted that, due to the lower numbers in these data sets s.d was used rather than z-scores. It also should be noted that s.d may not be accurate with less than ten in a data set. The comparisons drawn above have been observed in previous programs as well. There is no strong evidence to suggest that ‘Shear failure’ or ‘Cap’ values should be discounted or excluded from the data set. Equipment configuration, air voids, variability in compaction and aggregate distribution are only some of the factors that affect the mode of failure. Possible causes of abnormal failures might include capping and crushing practices, stability of the load frame (i.e. alignment, squareness and rigidity) as well as the correct working/alignment of platens



Compression Statistic MPa

Sample A1 Sample B1

Normal - Conical failure results only

Median 52.8 42.0

Estimated SD 1.41 2.60

Number 19 18


Sample A1 Sample B1

Abnormal - Cap or shear failure results only

Median 53.0 42.0


Number 6 7


Sample A2 Sample B2

Normal - Conical failure results only

Median 50.7 52.0


Number 16 20


Sample A2 Sample B2

Abnormal - Cap or shear failure results only

Median 50.0 51.5


Number 9 5

Table 3.1B Normal/Conical and Shear/Cap failure statistics for sample A1,B1 & A2,B2

The effect the mode of failure has on the compressive strength result is difficult to determine except in obvious instances where an unrealistically low result is obtained.



Capping Methods 35 participants used rubber caps (70%) with 8 participants (16%) using sulphur capping. There were 7 (14%) participants that cut or ground the end. In this program, it was not possible to determine, due to the relatively small numbers in some groupings, if there was any statistical variation due to the capping method employed. Previous proficiency programs have not encountered any adverse correlation between reported ‘compressive strength’ and capping method. For this program ‘rubber caps’, ‘sulphur capping’ and ‘end-cut’ were considered to yield equivalent results and were analysed as a group. Participants with outliers reported a variety of capping methods was used (rubber capping, sulphur and end grinding) as well as a range of failure modes. 3.2 Mass per unit volume Calculation of mass per unit volume

From the reported height, diameter and weight the ‘mass per unit volume’ result can be determined. All participants ‘mass per unit volume’ results were recalculated based on the intermediate data supplied. This was done for each result and compared to the reported ‘mass per unit volume’. Generally good agreement was obtained. Several participants (M5, Q3, Z6, F7, Z2, E4, W6, K5, J9) provided all the intermediate data but did not calculate the “Mass per unit volume’ result. Participants were requested to report to the nearest 1 kg/m3. Some participants reported results that may have been rounded to the nearest 20 kg/m3. This reduces the quality of feedback that can be given to participants. Other participants appeared to be rounding to the nearest 10 kg/m3. Recalculated results that differed by around 10 kg/m3 may require further review by participants (Table 3.1D). These are considered non-statistical outliers

Code

Mass per Unit Volume

Code


Submitted Recalculated Difference Submitted Recalculated Difference

A2-Z9 2331 2336 -5 B2-Z9 - - -

A2-Q2 2300 2330 -30 B2-Q2 2300 2353 -53

A1-B4 - - - B1-B4 2382 2371 11

Table 3.1D Recalculated ‘mass per unit volume’ results



The test method requires the ‘mass per unit volume’ result to be rounded to the nearest 20 kg/m3. In some cases, the differences detailed in table 3.1D may not have an impact on the result reported. Other times it can affect the rounding outcome and could cause the result to be 20 kg/m3 out. It is important that the calculation process is correct and accurate. Instructions on the calculation can be found in Section 8 of AS 1012.12.1. It states that the ‘mass per unit volume’ is the mass divided by the cylinder

volume. The volume of a cylinder is given by V= 𝜋ℎ𝑟2 where ‘h’ is the cylinder

height and ‘r’ is the average radius, (i.e. Half the average diameter). Measurements should be in metres to achieve the reported MPUV in kg/m3. Unrounded values for diameter and height should be used when calculating the volume. The value of pi used can also have an effect. Those using excel can use the pi() function. Those with calculators that do not have a pi function should use 333/106. The use of 22/7 does not have enough accuracy for this test. Statistical Outliers There were no statistical outliers detected for ‘Mass per Unit Volume’ for this program. There was one result that needs to be reviewed, participant Q8. Reporting of cylinder weights Some participants cylinder weights were reported in grams instead of kg (see section 6). Converted values are shown in section 6 of the report. Participants need to ensure they follow proficiency program instructions. Conversions were undertaken as these values were used to verify the participants reported MPUV results. Non-Statistical Outliers Several participants in this program and other proficiency programs frequently complete the log sheet incorrectly. In many cases this can be detected but when there are two results close in value it is almost impossible to detect. Unfortunately, it does influence the statistics but, due to the low number involved, the impact is usually insignificant. In this program a few results were detected, due to significant difference in magnitude of the two MPUV results, as being allocated against the wrong code (A1 and B1). These were corrected as shown in section 4.



There were seven participants that appeared to have made this error. Due to the number of participants involved if left uncorrected it would have seriously skewed the resulting statistics. These participants, M7, B8, D9, B4, P3, U5 and G6 need to investigate the reason for the mix up.



This page has been left blank intentionally.



M5 52.6 -0.13

Q3 51.9 -0.61

Z6 57.0 2.83

G9

J3 54.0 0.81

A7 53.0 0.13

F9 52.5 -0.20

X4 53.0 0.13

C5 51.1 -1.15

U4 48.5 -2.90

Y9 53.0 0.13

M7 52.8 0.00

L3 53.5 0.47

K8 47.0 -3.91 #

F5 46.4 -4.32 #

B8 54.2 0.94

D9 52.5 -0.20

J6 51.2 -1.08

F7 52.4 -0.27

P5

Z2 51.5 -0.88

B4 53.3 0.34

U6 53.0 0.13

N7 49.7 -2.09

P3 54.2 0.94

U5 55.0 1.48

G6 55.0 1.48

Number of results 25

Median 52.8

Median MU 0.37

First Quartile 51.50

Third Quartile 53.50

IQR 2.00

Normalised IQR 1.48

CV (%) 2.8

Minimum 48.5 (46.4)

Maximum 57.0 (57.0)

Range 8.5 (10.6)

Note: A # indicates an outlier where the z-score obtained is either greater then 3 or less

than -3. Codes for all participates are shown. The results column shows a blank entry or

'NR' for those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Result shown with a

"R" has been rejected as an erroneous result and is not part of the sample population.

Results in green have been either calculated or amended by the program coordinator.

Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets

include outliers.

4.1 Sample A1 - Compressive Strength: Z - Scores

Statistic Value

Code Z ScoreTest Result

MPa



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.1 Sample A1 - Compressive Strength: Z - Score Graph

Z6

U5

G6

B8

P3

J3

L3

B4

A7

X4

Y9

U6

M7

M5

F9

D9

F7

Q3

Z2

J6

C5

N7

U4

K8

F5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



M5 NR

Q3 NR

Z6 NR

G9 NR

J3 2320 -1.26

A7 2350 -0.25

F9 2360 0.08

X4 2382 0.83

C5 2355 -0.08

U4 2330 -0.93

Y9 2339 -0.62

M7 2363 0.19

L3 2380 0.76

K8 2341 -0.56

F5 2346.0 -0.39

B8 2369 0.39

D9 2352 -0.19

J6 2313 -1.50

F7 NR

P5 NR

Z2 NR

B4 2382 0.83

U6 2338 -0.66

N7 2361 0.12

P3 2388 1.03

U5 2384 0.89

G6 2393 1.20


Median 2357.5

Median MU 8.3



IQR 40.0

Normalised IQR 29.7

CV (%) 1.3

Minimum 2313 ()

Maximum 2393 ()

Range 80 ()



'NR' for those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Result shown with a "R"

has been rejected as an erroneous result and is not part of the sample population. Results

in green have been either calculated or amended by the program coordinator. Minimum,

Maximum and Range are calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets include

outliers.

4.2 Sample A1 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


kg/m3



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.2 Sample A1 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Score Graph

G6

P3

U5

X4

B4

L3

B8

M7

N7

F9

C5

D9

A7

F5

K8

Y9

U6

U4

J3

J6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



M5 42.0 0.00

Q3 41.3 -0.34

Z6 39.9 -1.01

G9 NR

J3 43.0 0.48

A7 41.9 -0.05

F9 44.5 1.20

X4 45.0 1.45

C5 37.9 -1.98

U4 44.1 1.01

Y9 42.1 0.05

M7 40.7 -0.63

L3 39.0 -1.45

K8 42.4 0.19

F5 42.6 0.29

B8 41.5 -0.24

D9 41.4 -0.29

J6 39.4 -1.25

F7 43.5 0.72

P5 NR

Z2 42.0 0.00

B4 48.0 2.89

U6 44.6 1.25

N7 39.5 -1.20

P3 38.8 -1.54

U5 45.8 1.83

G6 42.5 0.24


Median 42.0

Median MU 0.52



IQR 2.80

Normalised IQR 2.08

CV (%) 4.9

Minimum 37.9 ()

Maximum 48.0 ()

Range 10.1 ()







outliers.

4.3 Sample B1 - Compressive Strength: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


MPa



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.3 Sample B1 - Compressive Strength: Z - Score Graph

B4

U5

X4

U6

F9

U4

F7

J3

F5

G6

K8

Y9

M5

Z2

A7

B8

D9

Q3

M7

Z6

N7

J6

L3

P3

C5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



M5 NR

Q3 NR

Z6 NR

G9 NR

J3 2280 -0.76

A7 2250 -1.87

F9 2300 -0.02

X4 2332 1.16

C5 2236 -2.38

U4 2301 0.02

Y9 2272 -1.05

M7 2271 -1.09

L3 2280 -0.76

K8 2305 0.17

F5 2302.0 0.06

B8 2301 0.02

D9 2315 0.54

J6 2255 -1.68

F7 NR

P5 NR

Z2 NR

B4 2315 0.54

U6 2310 0.35

N7 2275 -0.94

P3 2277 -0.87

U5 2345 1.64

G6 2313 0.46


Median 2300.5

Median MU 7.6



IQR 36.5

Normalised IQR 27.1

CV (%) 1.2

Minimum 2236 ()

Maximum 2345 ()

Range 109 ()

Note: A # indicates an outlier where the z-score obtained is either greater then 3 or less than -

3. Codes for all participates are shown. The results column shows a blank entry or 'NR' for

those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Result shown with a "R" has been

rejected as an erroneous result and is not part of the sample population. Results in green have

been either calculated or amended by the program coordinator. Minimum, Maximum and

Range are calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets include outliers.

4.4 Sample B1 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


kg/m3



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.4 Sample B1 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Score Graph

U5

X4

D9

B4

G6

U6

K8

F5

U4

B8

F9

J3

L3

P3

N7

Y9

M7

J6

A7

C5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



R4 49.0 -0.44

E4 45.9 -1.67

B7 50.3 0.08

D5 53.1 1.19

W6 NR

X6 51.5 0.56

A8 53.5 1.35

K5 49.4 -0.28

Z9 46.6 -1.39

G5 53.4 1.31

V3 48.6 -0.60

R7 51.9 0.71

V9 51.0 0.36

K2 50.1 0.00

E5 48.9 -0.48

T4 50.0 -0.04

W7 52.5 0.95

S5 48.0 -0.83

L8 48.6 -0.60

S9 48.6 -0.60

Z5 55.5 2.14

Q2 48.20 -0.75

W9 53.7 1.43

S2 47.7 -0.95

Q8 51.0 0.36

J9 NR

V4 52.0 0.75


Median 50.1

Median MU 0.63



IQR 3.40

Normalised IQR 2.52

CV (%) 5.0

Minimum 45.9 ()

Maximum 55.5 ()

Range 9.6 ()



'NR' for those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Result shown with a

"R" has been rejected as an erroneous result and is not part of the sample population.

Results in green have been either calculated or amended by the program coordinator.

Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets

include outliers.

4.5 Sample A2 - Compressive Strength: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


MPa



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.5 Sample A2 - Compressive Strength: Z - Score Graph

Z5

W9

A8

G5

D5

W7

V4

R7

X6

V9

Q8

B7

K2

T4

K5

R4

E5

V3

L8

S9

Q2

S5

S2

Z9

E4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



R4 2360 0.60

E4 NR

B7 2370 1.10

D5 2350 0.10

W6 NR

X6 2357 0.45

A8 2350 0.10

K5 NR

Z9 2331 -0.85

G5 2363 0.75

V3 2320 -1.40

R7 2332 -0.80

V9 2336 -0.60

K2 2332 -0.80

E5 2338 -0.50

T4 2350 0.10

W7 2360 0.60

S5 2348 0.00

L8 2360 0.60

S9 2305 -2.15

Z5 2370 1.10

Q2 2300 -2.40

W9 2318 -1.50

S2 2356 0.40

Q8 2290 -2.90

J9 NR

V4 2340 -0.40


Median 2348.0

Median MU 5.2



IQR 27.0

Normalised IQR 20.0

CV (%) 0.9

Minimum 2290 ()

Maximum 2370 ()

Range 80 ()







outliers.

4.6 Sample A2 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


kg/m3



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.6 Sample A2 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Score Graph

B7

Z5

G5

R4

W7

L8

X6

S2

D5

A8

T4

S5

V4

E5

V9

R7

K2

Z9

V3

W9

S9

Q2

Q8

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



R4 54.5 1.20

E4 49.0 -1.45

B7 53.3 0.63

D5 54.6 1.25

W6 NR

X6 50.2 -0.87

A8 52.5 0.24

K5 51.0 -0.48

Z9 51.5 -0.24

G5 54.6 1.25

V3 50.7 -0.63

R7 53.3 0.63

V9 52.1 0.05

K2 51.5 -0.24

E5 50.7 -0.63

T4 54.0 0.96

W7 52.0 0.00

S5 47.4 -2.22

L8 49.2 -1.35

S9 54.2 1.06

Z5 53.5 0.72

Q2 48.90 -1.49

W9 55.1 1.49

S2 49.7 -1.11

Q8 52.0 0.00

J9 NR

V4 51.5 -0.24


Median 52.0

Median MU 0.52



IQR 2.80

Normalised IQR 2.08

CV (%) 4.0

Minimum 47.4 ()

Maximum 55.1 ()

Range 7.7 ()







outliers.

4.7 Sample B2 - Compressive Strength: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


MPa



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.7 Sample B2 - Compressive Strength: Z - Score Graph

W9

D5

G5

R4

S9

T4

Z5

B7

R7

A8

V9

W7

Q8

Z9

K2

V4

K5

V3

E5

X6

S2

L8

E4

Q2

S5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



R4 2370 0.62

E4 NR

B7 2380 1.06

D5 2370 0.62

W6 NR

X6 2376 0.88

A8 2380 1.06

K5 NR

Z9 2325 -1.37

G5 2358 0.09

V3 2340 -0.71

R7 2314 -1.86

V9 2347 -0.40

K2 2345 -0.49

E5 2365 0.40

T4 2380 1.06

W7 2350 -0.27

S5 2356 0.00

L8 2340 -0.71

S9 2372 0.71

Z5 2371 0.66

Q2 2300 -2.48

W9 2338 -0.80

S2 2367 0.49

Q8 2310 -2.03

J9 NR

V4 2350 -0.27


Median 2356.0

Median MU 5.9



IQR 30.5

Normalised IQR 22.6

CV (%) 1.0

Minimum 2300 ()

Maximum 2380 ()

Range 80 ()

Note: A # indicates an outlier where the z-score obtained is either greater then 3 or less than -3.

Codes for all participates are shown. The results column shows a blank entry or 'NR' for those

participants that did not submit a result for this test. Result shown with a "R" has been rejected

as an erroneous result and is not part of the sample population. Results in green have been

either calculated or amended by the program coordinator. Minimum, Maximum and Range are

calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets include outliers.

4.8 Sample B2 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Scores

Statistic Value


kg/m3



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.8 Sample B2 - Mass per Unit Volume: Z - Score Graph

B7

A8

T4

X6

S9

Z5

R4

D5

S2

E5

G5

S5

W7

V4

V9

K2

V3

L8

W9

Z9

R7

Q8

Q2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



5. Program Information

5.1 Z-score Summary The proficiency program was conducted in June 2018. A ‘Z-score Summary’ summary was issued on the 5 August 2018. The summary is intended as an early indicator of participant performance. A summary was e-mailed to participants and was also available on the LabSmart Services Website. The proficiency testing program report supersedes the z –score summary. Further information can be found in section 5.9 ‘Statistics’.

5.2 Program Design 5.2.1 Design

The program is held annually. Two concrete cylinders are required to be tested. The cylinders may be matched (same strength) or unmatched in strength (different strengths). The compressive strength also changes from year to year. The test requires a minimum skill level. Adherence to the test method is essential for consistent test results. Participant results are checked where possible. It is expected that the level of experience/skill needed to perform these tests will present a reasonable assessment of the overall competency of the tester and industry performance. The program was designed to provide technical feedback regarding performance as well as possible improvements in performance. Other considerations involving the design of the program are detailed below. 5.2.2 Selection of material used in the program

Materials used in the preparation of cylinders are selected to ensure that the desired characteristics such as finish, compressive strength etc are obtained. The concrete cylinders used for this program are made specifically for the program under controlled conditions to ensure uniformity in the strength of the cylinders provided. 5.2.3 Role of proficiency testing

The determination of outliers is an important task of this proficiency program. A secondary function is to provide feedback that can help those with outliers identify possible areas to investigate as well as assist all participants to improve. In addition to the statistics, proficiency programs often obtain other information that is not normally available to a laboratory. It allows for a better understanding of the testing and can provide information that can lead to improvements in the testing process or test method.



Proficiency testing enables participants to measure competency against others. It is also a measure of staff performance and the equipment used. Apart from ‘measurement uncertainty’ it is the most useful tool a laboratory has in better understanding the performance of a test. 5.2.4 Participant assessment

Assessment of each participant is based on a z-score that is related to the program consensus value (median). This is used to determine any statistical outliers. Compliance to proficiency program requirements including the correct calculation of results and adherence to program and test method requirements may also be used as part of the assessment process. Participants may also be asked to investigate any discrepancies detected with the paperwork submitted. See section 5.10 for further details. 5.2.5 Reporting of results - Significant figures

The number of decimal places (significant figures) reported for a test has a bearing on the statistical analysis and therefore the interpretation of the results. There is a need to strike a balance between what is desirable from a statistical viewpoint while recognising how the results are used in practice. Too few decimal places (e.g. due to rounding) can cause an increase in the observed spread of results. Increasing the number of decimal places (with respect to normal reporting) can distort the observed spread of results compared to that encountered in actual practice. Large numbers of similar, rounded results can also cause a distortion in the analysis. For example, rounding to 0.5 % means that any number between 10.75 and 11.25 will be 11.0%. If the largest value is 10.75 in a set of results it is pushed out to 11.0 through rounding. Rounded results are useful from “an end user” perspective but are not as useful when considering laboratory performance. The test method acknowledges additional decimal places may be used for statistical purposes. For this program, it was decided that the benefits of using additional decimal places would complement the aim of the proficiency program. Participants results were analysed as received regardless of whether there were ‘more or less’ significant figures than the number requested by the program. 5.2.6 Additional information requested

This program requested additional information as detailed in section 6 that may not usually be reported. The additional information is however consistent with the performance of the test and the records the test method requires laboratories to maintain. The additional information is used to interpret participant’s performance and assist with providing technical comment including feedback on outliers and possible participant improvement.



5.2.7 Data checks

As often observed ‘operator errors’ can occur in the result calculation process. Every participant’s results were recalculated. Both strength and unit mass results were recalculated based on the data provided. Such checks however are only as accurate as the raw data supplied by each participant. These checks help ensure that the data is comparable. Any inconsistencies identified during this process are identified as possible feedback for participant improvement. In some cases, inconsistences identified may need to be investigated by participants. 5.3 Sample Preparation Batches of concrete were prepared using the same mix design. For each batch there were approximately 50 cylinders cast. Cylinders were prepared, cast and cured. Each cylinder was individually numbered. Cylinders from each batch were selected for homogeneity testing. Samples were selected at evenly spaced intervals throughout the production process. A total of 28 samples were submitted for homogeneity testing. On removal from the curing tank each cylinder was wrapped in paper and double sealed in two plastic bags. One batch was marked as ‘Sample A’ and the other ‘Sample B’. Samples were drawn at random from each batch to make a pair. Each pair of cylinders was assigned a unique participant code. 5.4 Packaging and Instructions Each pair of cylinders was placed into a sturdy box with bubble wrap. The boxed samples weighed approximately 5 kg. Participants were instructed to test according to the nominated test method and report to the accuracy indicated on the ‘results log’ sheet. See ‘Appendix A’ for a copy of the instructions issued to participants and ‘Appendix B’ for the log sheet used. A set of instructions and log sheet were placed in the box prior to sealing and despatch. 5.5 Quarantine Samples meet quarantine requirements. 5.6 Sample Dispatch Samples were dispatched to participants on the 15 June 2018 using Toll Priority. Dispatched samples are tracked from despatch to delivery for each participant by LabSmart Services.



Sample A1 Sample B1


MPa


kg/m3


MPa


kg/m3

H1 53.0 2313 39.0 2246

H2 54.5 2348 39.0 2274

H3 54.5 2347 40.0 2293

H4 55.0 2352 41.5 2283

H5 58.0 2360 43.0 2332

H6 58.0 2361 44.5 2288

H7 56.0 2361 41.0 2285

Mean 55.6 2349 41.1 2286

Standard Deviation 1.9 17 2.1 26

Range 5.0 48 5.5 86

Coefficient of Variation (%) 3.4 0.72 5.0 1.1

Table 5.7A Homogeneity results.

Sample A2 Sample B2


MPa


kg/m3


MPa


kg/m3

H1 45.0 2314 47.5 2334

H2 44.5 2328 54.0 2361

H3 48.0 2342 55.0 2334

H4 52.5 2356 54.5 2352

H5 55.5 2356 55.0 2364

H6 53.0 2349 56.5 2361

H7 54.0 2337 55.0 2369

Mean 50.4 2340 53.9 2354

Standard Deviation 4.5 15 2.9 14

Range 11.0 42 9.0 35

Coefficient of Variation (%) 8.9 0.7 5.4 0.6

Table 5.7B Homogeneity results.



5.7 Homogeneity Testing Initial analysis of the homogeneity results indicated that group A1 and B2 were homogenous. However, group A2 and B1 were not sufficiently homogenous. There were insufficient grounds to reject any of the results either statistically or based on physical evidence. Therefore, the program was conducted as four separate groups. The four groups were each individually assessed for homogeneity. The ‘Mass per unit volume’ s.d indicated that batches A1, A2 and B2 were very consistent with batch B1 with a slightly higher s.d. The ‘Compressive Strength’ s.d for groups A1, B1 and B2 were very good. Group A2 showed a slightly higher s.d than what is normally expected. The average of the homogeneity samples all lie within 1 s.d of the participant’s median value. Analysis of the homogeneity testing results is shown in Table 5.7A and 5.7B. The assessment of the homogeneity provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers. 5.8 Participation Fifty-four participants entered the program. The nominated date for participants to return their results was 28 June 2018. Two participants failed to return results. One participant was not able to return their results in time for inclusion in the final report. 5.9 Statistics Z-Scores were calculated for each test and used to assess the variability of each participant relative to the consensus median. A corresponding z-score graph was produced for each test. The use of median and quartiles reduces the effect that outliers have on the statistics and other influences. As a consequence, z-scores provide a more realistic or robust method of assessment. Some results were reported by participants to more decimal places than requested as part of the proficiency program and by others to fewer decimal places. In all instances test results have been used as submitted by participants.

A z-score is one way of measuring the degree of consensus with respect to the grouped test results. The z-scores in this report approximate standard deviations. For each test a z-score graph is shown. Use the graph to visually check statistically how you compare to other participants. The following bar (Figure 5.2) is shown at the bottom of each graph. This helps to quickly visualize where each participant’s result falls.



Review Weak

Consensus Strong Consensus

Weak Consensus

Review

Figure 5.2 Z-score interpretation bar

For example:

• A strong consensus (i.e. agreement) means that your test result is close i.e. within 1 standard deviation of the median.

• A weak consensus means that your test result is satisfactory and is within 2 standard deviations of the median.

• If you have obtained a test result that is outside 2 standard deviations, then it

may be worth reviewing your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. Only those obtaining a z-score approaching 3 (I.e. outside 2.75 range) have been highlighted in the report for review.

If you have obtained a test result that is outside 3 standard deviations then you will need to investigate your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. For further details on the statistics used in this proficiency program can be obtained from LabSmart Services or download the ‘Participant Guide’ from the LabSmart Services website. 5.9.1 Z-score summary

A “Z-Scores Summary” is issued soon after most results are received. It gives participants early feedback as to any program outliers. The summary is usually available on the LabSmart Services website up until the final report is issued. The final report supersedes the z-score summary. The final report contains detailed technical feedback regarding the performance of tests and revised z-scores. The inclusion of late results or corrections are at the discretion of the program coordinator. In some instances, this may change some of the z-scores slightly but generally the performance outcome remains the same. If there is any impact it will be discussed within section 5.1 of the report. 5.9.2 Comparing statistics from one program to another

The statistics generated from one proficiency program are not usually comparable to those from another proficiency testing program. Only very general comparisons may be possible. The reason statistics from one program may not be compared to another is due to the range of variables that differ from one proficiency program to another.



These variables include:

• Type of material selected

• The number of participants

• Experience of participants

• Test methodology variations

• Equipment used

• Test methods used

• Experience of supervisors

• Range of organisations involved

• Program design and the statistics employed The program outcome represents a ‘snap shot’ of the competency within the industry and hence provides an overview of the industry. The more participants involved in the program then the more representative the overview. 5.9.3 Measurement uncertainty

The statistics detailed in this program do not replace the need for laboratories to separately calculated measurement uncertainties associated with each test when required by the client or NATA. The proficiency program does give information useful for calculating the MU and bench marking the MU calculated. 5.9.4 Metrological traceability

The assigned median value used in this proficiency testing program is derived from participant performance and is not metrologically traceable. 5.10 Non-statistical Outliers One of the issues faced by proficiency testing providers is what to do with an incorrect result even if its z-score is satisfactory. In many cases they cannot be detected but still can have a significant impact on the statistics calculated. This can cause biased (or unfair) outcomes for other participants. To limit the effect that erroneous results have on a program additional information is requested to allow the main results to be recalculated. In some cases, results shown to be erroneous may be reject for inclusion in the program. If the result does not add any statistical bias it is left in the program. The result however is incorrect even though it may have a satisfactory z-score. To highlight that the participant needs to investigate erroneous results it is considered a ‘non-statistical outlier’. This may also be applied to non-compliance to program requirements e.g. incorrect reporting of results etc or incorrect partial calculations/data.



CodeSample

ReceivedDamage Surface Conditioning Capping

Height

mm

Weight

kg

Mass per

unit

volume

kg/m3

Maximum

Force

kN

Compressive

Strength

MPa

Failure Date Tested

M5 18/06/2018 NA Wet Temperate End Grind 199 101.1 100.3 3.681 NR 413 52.6 Shear F 21/06/2018

Q3 21/06/2018 NR Wet Temperate Rubber 202 100.0 100.0 3.74 NR 408 51.9 Conical F 21/06/2018

Z6 19/06/2018 NR Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.0 3.76 NR 448 57.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

G9

J3 20/06/2018 Nil Dry Tropical Rubber 201 100.6 100.6 3.724 2320 430 54.0 Shear F 21/06/2018

A7 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 200 100.2 100.2 3.710 2350 418 53.0 Conical F 22/06/2018

F9 20/06/2018 Nil Dry Tropical Rubber 201 100.4 100.4 3.744 2360 417 52.5 Conical F 21/06/2018

X4 21/06/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Rubber 201 99.6 100.0 3.743 2382 413.1 53.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

C5 23/06/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Sulphur 200 100.3 100.0 3.714 2355 402.3 51.1 Conical F 26/06/2018

U4 19/06/2018 Nil Dry Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.2 3.667 2330 382 48.5 Cap Failure 21/06/2018

Y9 19/06/2018 Nil Dry Temperate Rubber 201 100.2 100.4 3.714 2339 419 53.0 Normal 21/06/2018

M7 19/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 99.6 100.0 3.553 2271 318.6 40.7 Normal 21/06/2018

L3 NR Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 202 99.5 99.7 3.747 2380 416.6 53.5 Conical F 21/06/2018

K8 20/06/2018 None SS Wet Tropical End Grind 197 100.2 100.4 3.647 2341 372 47.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

F5 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 200 100.3 100.4 3.713 2346.0 367.0 46.4 Normal 22/06/2018

B8 NR NR SS Wet Temperate Rubber 199 100.0 100.2 3.604 2301 327 41.5 Cap Failure 21/06/2018

D9 18/06/2018 NR SS Wet Temperate Rubber 197 100.2 100.0 3.589 2315 326 41.4 Shear F 21/06/2018

J6 20/06/2018 Nil Wet Tropical Rubber 201 100.4 100.8 3.696 2313 407 51.2 Normal 21/06/2018

F7 18/06/2018 None SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 99.8 100.0 3.694 NR 410.5 52.4 Failure 21/06/2018

P5

Z2 NR Good SS Dry Temperate Rubber 201 100.2 100.4 3.759 NR 408 51.5 Normal 21/06/2018

B4 20/06/2018 None Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.2 3.644 2315 377 48.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

U6 21/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.2 100.2 3.687 2338 418 53.0 Normal 21/06/2018

N7 20/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Sulphur 201 100.0 100.2 3.734 2361 391 49.7 Normal 21/06/2018

R4 20/06/2018 Air Voids SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 198 100.0 100.3 3.680 2360 386.0 49.0 Normal 21/06/2018

E4 NR Not Square Wet Tropical Rubber 197 100.2 100.2 3.6295 NR 362 45.9 Cap Failure 26/06/2018

B7 29/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 199 99.7 99.9 3.685 2370 393.5 50.3 Normal 3/07/2018

Note

Diameter

mm

6.1 Summary of participants results - Sample A1 & A2

Participants weight results converted to kg where necessary.



CodeSample


Height

mm

Weight

kg

Mass per

unit

volume

kg/m3

Maximum

Force

kN

Compressive

Strength

MPa

Failure Date Tested

D5 20/06/2018 NA Wet Tropical End Grind 195.0 100.0 100.2 3.613 2350 418 53.1 Normal 21/06/2018

W6 NR NR

X6 21/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 199 100.2 100.0 3.692 2357 405 51.5 Cap Failure 21/06/2018

A8 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 198 99.7 99.9 3.643 2350 417.1 53.5 Shear F 21/06/2018

K5 22/06/2018 NR SS Dry Tropical Rubber 199 100.6 100.4 3.659 NR 392 49.4 Shear F 22/06/2018

Z9 20/06/2018 Surface pitting SS Wet Temperate End Grind 196 100.3 100.2 3.614 2331 369 46.6 Conical F 22/06/2018

G5 25/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate End Grind 197 100.3 100.3 3.680 2363 422 53.4 Conical F 26/06/2018

V3 21/06/2018 NR SS Wet Tropical Rubber 199 100.2 100.0 3.645 2320 383 48.6 Cap Failure 22/06/2018

R7 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 199 100.0 100.6 3.666 2332 410 51.9 Conical F 21/06/2018

V9 20/06/2018 Not Square SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.2 3.676 2336 401 51.0 Cap Failure 21/06/2018

K2 20/06/2018 NR SS Wet Temperate Rubber 198 100.0 100.2 3.633 2332 394 50.1 Shear F 21/06/2018

E5 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 199 99.8 100.0 3.647 2338 383 48.9 Shear F 22/06/2018

T4 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical End Grind 197.4 99.8 100.2 3.640 2350 391 50.0 Shear F 21/06/2018

W7 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical End Grind 196.4 100.0 99.8 3.630 2360 410 52.5 Normal 21/06/2018

S5 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 200 100.0 100.0 3.688 2348 377 48.0 Failure 21/06/2018

L8 20/06/2018 1 Bubble >0.5 cm Dry Tropical Rubber 200 100 100 3.710 2360 382 48.6 Normal 21/06/2018

S9 18/06/2018 None Wet Temperate Rubber 199 100.4 100.2 3.625 2305 385 48.6 Conical F 21/06/2018

Z5 18/06/2018 NA SS Wet Temperate Sulphur 200 99.8 100.0 3.715 2370 435 55.5 Normal 21/06/2018

Q2 21/06/2018 None Temperate Rubber 199.00 100.00 100.00 3.642 2300 379 48.20 Conical F 22/06/2018

W9 20/06/2018 Small air void SS Wet Temperate Rubber 199.4 100.2 100.2 3.641 2318 423 53.7 Normal NR

S2 NR Not Square SS Dry Temperate Sulphur 197 100.0 100.2 3.652 2356 375.0 47.7 Normal 21/06/2018

Q8 21/08/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Sulphur 202 100.2 100.4 3.660 2290 404 51.0 Normal 21/06/2018

V4 3/07/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Rubber 199 100.2 100.2 3.672 2340 410.4 52.0 Normal 3/07/2018

P3 19/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 196 99.6 100.0 3.489 2277 304 38.8 Normal 21/06/2018


G6 19/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 198 100.0 100.0 3.595 2313 334 42.5 Normal 21/06/2018

Note Participants weight results converted to kg where necessary.

6.1 Summary of participants results - Sample A1 & A2 - Continued

Diameter

mm



CodeSample


Height

mm

Weight

kg

Mass per

unit volume

kg/m3

Maximum

Force

kN

Compressive

Strength

MPa

Failure Date Tested

M5 18/06/2018 Voids Wet Temperate End Grind 198 99.9 100.2 3.589 NR 330 42.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

Q3 21/06/2018 NR Wet Temperate Rubber 198 100.0 100.0 3.60 NR 325 41.3 Conical F 21/06/2018

Z6 19/06/2018 NR Wet Temperate Rubber 198 100.0 100.0 3.55 NR 313 39.9 Conical F 21/06/2018

G9

J3 20/06/2018 Nil Dry Tropical Rubber 199 100.2 100.2 3.579 2280 338 43.0 Shear F 21/06/2018

A7 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 200 100.2 99.8 3.532 2250 325 41.9 Conical F 22/06/2018

F9 20/06/2018 Nil Dry Tropical Rubber 200 100.0 100.2 3.614 2300 352 44.5 Conical F 21/06/2018

X4 21/06/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Rubber 199 99.8 100.0 3.635 2332 353.4 45.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

C5 23/06/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Sulphur 199 100.1 100.3 3.508 2236 299.1 37.9 Shear F 26/06/2018

U4 19/06/2018 Nil Dry Temperate Rubber 201 100.0 100.0 3.634 2301 346 44.1 Normal 21/06/2018

Y9 19/06/2018 Nil Dry Temperate Rubber 200 100.4 100.2 3.590 2272 333 42.1 Normal 21/06/2018

M7 19/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 201 99.6 100.2 3.723 2363 413.7 52.8 Normal 21/06/2018

L3 NR Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 198 99.6 99.6 3.513 2280 303.1 39.0 Conical F 21/06/2018

K8 20/06/2018 None SS Wet Tropical End Grind 195 100.0 100.2 3.540 2305 334 42.4 Shear F 21/06/2018

F5 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 199 99.8 99.9 3.588 2302.0 333.7 42.6 Shear F 22/06/2018

B8 NR NR SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.0 3.721 2369 428 54.2 Shear F 21/06/2018

D9 18/06/2018 NR SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.2 100.2 3.702 2352 413 52.5 Shear F 21/06/2018

J6 20/06/2018 Nil Wet Tropical Rubber 200 100.2 101.0 3.586 2255 313 39.4 Normal 21/06/2018

F7 18/06/2018 None SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 99.8 99.8 3.589 NR 340.2 43.5 Abnormal SF 21/06/2018

P5

Z2 NR Good SS Dry Temperate Rubber 200 100.2 100.2 3.577 NR 330 42.0 Normal 21/06/2018

B4 20/06/2018 None Wet Temperate Rubber 201 100.0 100.2 3.750 2382 419 53.3 Conical F 21/06/2018

U6 21/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 200 99.8 100.2 3.628 2310 350 44.6 Conical F 21/06/2018

N7 20/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Sulphur 200 100.0 100.2 3.580 2275 311 39.5 Normal 21/06/2018

R4 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 200 100.3 100.2 3.738 2370 431.6 54.5 Normal 21/06/2018

E4 NR NA Wet Tropical Rubber 200 100.0 100.2 3.7023 NR 385 49.0 Normal 26/06/2018

B7 29/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 200 99.7 99.5 3.715 2380 415.5 53.3 Normal 3/07/2018

Note

Diameter

mm

6.2 Summary of participants results - Sample B1 & B2

Participants weight results converted to kg where necessary.



CodeSample


Height

mm

Weight

kg

Mass per

unit volume

kg/m3

Maximum

Force

kN

Compressive

Strength

MPa

Failure Date Tested

D5 20/06/2018 NA Wet Tropical End Grind 195.0 99.8 100.0 3.621 2370 428 54.6 Normal 21/06/2018

W6

X6 21/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 199 100.2 100.2 3.728 2376 396 50.2 Cap Failure 21/06/2018

A8 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 199 99.9 100.0 3.712 2380 412.6 52.5 Shear F 21/06/2018

K5 22/06/2018 NR SS Dry Tropical Rubber 200 100.5 100.3 3.712 NR 404 51.0 Conical F 22/06/2018

Z9 20/06/2018 Surface pitting SS Wet Temperate End Grind 197 100.5 100.5 3.634 2325 408 51.5 Conical F 22/06/2018

G5 25/06/2018 Nill SS Wet Temperate End Grind 198 100.0 100.1 3.673 2358 430 54.6 Conical F 26/06/2018

V3 21/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Rubber 201 100.2 100.2 3.707 2340 400 50.7 Cap Failure 22/06/2018

R7 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 202 100.0 100.6 3.694 2314 421 53.3 Shear F 21/06/2018

V9 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.6 100.4 3.723 2347 413 52.1 Conical F 21/06/2018

K2 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 200 99.8 100.0 3.676 2345 404 51.5 Shear F 21/06/2018

E5 22/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Temperate Rubber 199 100.0 100.2 3.703 2365 399 50.7 Normal 22/06/2018

T4 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical End Grind 200 100.0 100.0 3.740 2380 423 54.0 Normal 21/06/2018

W7 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical End Grind 197.2 100.2 100.0 3.64 2350 409 52.0 Normal 21/06/2018

S5 20/06/2018 Nil SS Wet Tropical Sulphur 201 99.8 100.2 3.720 2356 372 47.4 Failure 21/06/2018

L8 20/06/2018 1 Bubble >0.5 cm Dry Tropical Rubber 201 100 100 3.690 2340 387 49.2 Normal 21/06/2018

S9 18/06/2018 None Wet Temperate Rubber 201 99.8 99.8 3.730 2372 425 54.2 Conical F 21/06/2018

Z5 18/06/2018 NA SS Wet Temperate Sulphur 201 100.0 99.8 3.735 2371 420 53.5 Normal 21/06/2018

Q2 21/06/2018 None Temperate Rubber 200.00 99.90 100.20 3.699 2300 384 48.90 Conical F 22/06/2018

W9 20/06/2018 NR Wet Temperate Rubber 199.8 99.8 99.8 3.652 2338 431 55.1 Normal NR

S2 NR NA SS Dry Temperate Sulphur 200 100.0 100.4 3.733 2367 392.0 49.7 Normal 21/06/2018

Q8 21/08/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Sulphur 204 100.4 100.6 3.732 2310 413 52.0 Normal 21/06/2018

V4 3/07/2018 Nil SS Dry Tropical Rubber 200 99.8 100.0 3.685 2350 402.9 51.5 Normal 3/07/2018

P3 19/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 199 100.0 100.0 3.731 2388 426 54.2 Normal 21/06/2018


G6 19/06/2018 Nil Wet Temperate Rubber 200 100.0 100.0 3.758 2393 432 55.0 Normal 21/06/2018

Note Participants weight results converted to kg where necessary.

6.2 Summary of participants results - Sample B1 & B2 - Continued

Diameter

mm



LabSmart Services

Concrete Compression Proficiency Program – 2018 (80)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER

1. Do not open the plastic bags until 21 June 2018. Store at room temperature away

from fluctuating temperatures and sunlight. 2. Please read these instructions carefully on receipt of samples. 3. Please check that the package you have received contains the following:

• Results Log

• Two nominal 100 mm Ø by 200 mm concrete cylinders sealed in plastic bags marked ‘Sample A’ and ‘Sample B’.

4. Inspect packaging on arrival for damage or leakage. Contact LabSmart Services if box is wet or damaged or anything is missing (Phone 0432 767 706).

5. It is strongly recommended that participants follow AS 1012, Method 9 when testing the

concrete cylinders but an alternative equivalent method may also be used.

6. On 21st June remove each cylinder from the plastic bag. Remove paper covering. Inspect each cylinder and record its condition on the proficiency testing results log sheet (AS 1012, clause 4.1 (a) to (h)). If surface bubbles appear excessive record but continue with the test. If cylinders show any chipping or damage caused by transport, please contact LabSmart Services before testing.

7. Within 10 minutes of opening the plastic bag immerse each concrete cylinder into the

curing tank. Allow the cylinders to pre-condition for at least three hours prior to capping and testing by full immersion in water at 23 ± 2o C temperate zone or 27 ± 2o C tropical zone.

8. Follow AS 1012, Method 9. Test both cylinders within 15 minutes of each other.

9. Record all information and calculations as per AS 1012, Method 9 on the proficiency

testing results log sheet but to the accuracy shown on the results log sheet.

10. Ensure to have the Laboratory Supervisor check & approve prior to signing the log sheet.

11. Please fax or e-mail the “Results Log” to LabSmart Services by 28 June 2018

Fax: (03) 8888 4987 OR E-mail: [email protected]

12. Please retain the completed “Results Log” as this contains your participation code that will identify your results in the technical report covering the proficiency testing program. It is also recommended that a copy of completed worksheets be kept with the results log in your proficiency file. Results can also be used as technical auditing or training.

13. Have a query? Contact Peter at LabSmart Services. Phone 0432 767 706.

Thank you for participating in this proficiency testing program. PT Instructions V1.9 (80).dox

Appendix A



LabSmart Services


RESULTS LOG

For xxxx Participation Code: xx

Please fax or e-mail the completed results log by 28 June 2018

E-mail: [email protected] OR Fax: (03) 8888 4987

TEST Sample A Sample B

Date samples received

Describe condition of samples

List defects, damage

SS Wet or Dry

Test Method used AS 1012.9 OR

Conditioning Temperate or Tropical

Capping Method # Rubber or Sulphur

Height Report to 1 mm

Diameter Report to 0.2 mm

Weight Report to 0.001 kg

Maximum Force Report to 1 kN

Compressive Strength Report to 0.1 MPa

Type of cylinder failure ❖ Normal – CON F Abnormal – SF, CAP F

Test Method used AS 1012.12.1 OR

Tested Capped or Uncapped

Weight Report to 0.001 kg

Mass per unit volume Report to 1 kg/m3

Date Tested

Tested by:

COMMENTS:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- --------------- Supervisor Name (Please Print) Signature Date

In signing the above I acknowledge that the above results are approved and have been checked. I will also ensure that the results are kept confidential both internal and external to the laboratory until the issue of the final technical report covering this program.

Thank you for participating. Please retain this sheet for your records

________________________________________________________________________

# If cylinder end grinding only is available please report. ❖ For description of cylinder failures please see reverse of this sheet.

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]

LabSmart Services


Concrete Cylinder Failure Modes

________________________________________________________________________

Have a query? Contact Peter Young at LabSmart Services. Phone: 0432 767 706

________________________________________________________________________

PT Results Log V1.6 (80)

“Normal”

OR

“Conical Failure”

“Shear Failure”

“Cap Failure”



concrete - 2018 (80) proficiency testing program report · the coefficient of variation (cv) shown...

Documents