Aggregates - 2018 (82) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT LabS… · Flakiness index T7, D5,...

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Aggregates - 2018 (82)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

Aggregates - Proficiency Testing Program - 2018(82)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Issue V1 Page 1 of 66

Program 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, February 2019. 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 15 January 2019. This technical program 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 More details regarding our proficiency testing services can be found on our website.

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 4 March 2019



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim

4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Overall Performance

4

4 5

3. Technical Comments

3.1 Particle Size Distribution 3.2 Material Finer Than 75 um 3.3 Particle Shape Proportional Calliper 3.4 Flakiness Index 3.5 Average Least Dimensions 3.6 Particle Density 3.7 Water Absorption 3.8 Summary of test results (unrounded)

7

7 17 17 18 18 22 24 25

4. Statistics: Z- Scores & Graph

4.1 PSD (% Passing) – 13.2 mm PSD (% Passing) – 9.5 mm PSD (% Passing) – 6.7 mm PSD (% Passing) – 4.75 mm 4.2 Material finer than 75 µm 4.3 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) 4.5 Flakiness index 4.6 Average least dimensions 4.7 Apparent particle density 4.8 Particle density on a dry basis 4.9 Particle density on a saturated – surface dry basis 4.10 Water absorption

26

26 28 30 32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

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 Matters

50

50 50 53 53 53 53 53 54 54 57

Appendix A Instructions for testers

Appendix B Results log

Appendix C Calculated PSD ‘% Retained’

58

60

52



1. Program Aim The proficiency program was conducted in October\November 2018 with 76 participants throughout Australia. The program involved the performance of the following nine tests.

▪ AS 1141 11 Particle size distribution ▪ AS 1141 12 Material finer than 75 µm ▪ AS 1141 14 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) ▪ AS 1141 15 Flakiness index ▪ AS 1141 20.1 Average least dimensions ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Apparent particle density ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Particle density on a dry basis ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Particle density on a saturated–surface dry basis ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Water absorption

Testing to the relevant sections of AS 1141 was preferred but other equivalent methods were accepted.

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.

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers

There were 38 outliers identified across the nine tests performed. These were spread across 21 participants. This represented 28% of the 76 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.

Test

Investigate

Review

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm - R3

9.5 mm R3, B2, N4 C3, W6, T2

6.7 mm R3, B2, Z2, W2, N4, A5, W6, W7

(E2), A3, C8, F4

4.75 mm

R3, B2, A3, Z2, T7, J3,

W2, N4, F4, W6, W7, F9 C8

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) A2, A5, C8, F9 -

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) S4 G5

Flakiness index T7, D5, U9 -

Average least dimensions (U3) (M5)

Apparent particle density J3 (A2), M8, (G7)

Particle density on a dry basis T2 -

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis J3, T2 M8, (F9)

Water absorption T2, U4 -

Table 2.1A Participant codes where further action is recommended based on z-scores. Those codes shown in brackets are very close to 2.75. U3 had a result that was rejected and M5, while less than 2.75, was the only other high z-score and has been included for review.

2.2 Overall Performance

Overall a satisfactory level of performance(1) was achieved by the majority (72/%) of participants with 28% having one or more outliers(2). The performance by participants is very good overall and compares favourably with previous aggregate proficiency programs.



The number of outliers were fewer than 2017 but the program indicates that there is room for improvement by several participants.

Outliers are not the only indicator of satisfactory performance in a proficiency program. This report identifies inaccurate and incorrect calculations in several instances. These should be viewed as outliers. In the many instances these matters could have been picked up with better laboratory practices using check sums and general checking by a supervisor.

Many of the outliers in this program would have been avoided had the results been fully checked.

The proficiency program was a useful exercise, allowing laboratories to have greater confidence in their results while for others providing an opportunity to improve their competency with respect to the tests in this program. The following is a summary of the test results obtained (Table 2.2A). Unrounded statistics for the program are shown in section 3.8.

Test

Units Participants

Median

Normalized IQR

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm

%

76

67 1.5

9.5 mm 39 1.0

6.7 mm 18 0.9

4.75 mm 4.6 0.6

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) % 71 4.0 0.3

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) % 41 12.7 3.4

Flakiness index % 58 8.6 1.8

Average least dimensions mm 42 6.2 2.2

Apparent particle density t/m3 42 2.73 0.02

Particle density on a dry basis t/m3 42 2.53 0.02

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis t/m3 42 2.60 0.02

Water absorption % 42 2.9 0.3

Table 2.2A Summary of rounded test results from the program.

(1) Overall performance outcomes can vary from one aggregate program to another and should not be taken as either an improvement or deterioration in industry performance. Variation in program outcomes may be attributed to the difficulty of the material under test or where participants overall in one program may have more experience or greater skill levels than those in another program. Evaluation of industry performance endeavors to balance these issues. Industry outcomes and individual performance outcomes are detailed in section sections 2.2 and 3.

(2) Statistics relating to the number of outliers or participation rates are intended as an overview only

for the aggregates program. They are calculated based on the total number of participants, however not all participants perform each test.



3 Technical Comments The more often a participant’s code appears during the following feedback the greater the need to investigate testing practice in general. A participant code shown in bold indicates an outlier or is associated with an outlier.

Note:

(1) Some participants did not indicate that they had used the nominated test method shown on the log sheet. This report has assumed, in these instances, that the nominated test method has been used.

(2) The term “absolute” is used when discussing z-scores e.g. absolute z-score of 3. This means it may be either -3 or +3 etc.

‘% Retained ’ – Appendix C

Mass retained results are often helpful in understanding issues associated with testing. Therefore, ‘% Retained’ and associated z-scores have been calculated for information purposes only and are shown in Appendix C. Participants do not have to investigate the z-scores greater than 3 in Appendix C. In many cases if the ‘retained mass’ was incorrect to begin with then it will result in a z-score greater than 3. For the retained results to correlate with the ‘% Passing’ then most participants need to supply “% retained” results or retained masses.

Appendix C is missing ‘% retained’ results for nineteen participants. Eight of these did not return any ‘% passing’ results. Eleven participants did not supply enough information to allow calculation of ‘% Retained. All eighteen participants have the participant code shown in orange in Appendix C.

Rows shown in green with the code shown in ‘bold’ correspond to “% Passing” PSD outliers and identified as possibly having a high z-score for other fractions.

Rows in yellow show “% mass retained” results where the z-score was greater than three and corresponds to a ‘% passing’ z-score around 2.75. It may indicate an issue with the mass data submitted or inaccurate calculations.

Codes shown in ‘orange’ indicate were participants did not supply sufficient data to calculate the ‘% retained ‘values. The “% mass retained” data detailed in Appendix C may be reference throughout section 3 of this report.

3.1 Particle Size Distribution

General

The performance of the sieve analysis by participants was good with the variation (s.d) at around 1.5% or less for most fractions. There were 76 participants in the PSD test.

There were 5 participants that had some material retained on the 19.0mm sieve. See table 3.1C. Z-scores have not been calculated for this aperture size due to both the low number of participants involved and the small amount retained on this fraction. The amounts are small and have minimal impact on the analysis and z-score calculated for the remaining fractions. Participants with material on the 19.0mm sieve should check



that sieving had been thoroughly carried out. It the sieve is in a new condition it is possible that a stone may be retained in the 19.0mm sieve.

With the PSD test errors can flow through multiple fractions leading to multiple outliers as shown in table 3.1A.

Fifteen participants (20%) were identified with one or more outliers for the PSD and material finer than 75µm tests. In total, there were 27 outliers. Some of these participants also had high z-scores for some other fractions. It is recommended that these participants investigate the results obtained.

Particle Size Distribution (% Passing)

CODE 13.2

mm

9.5

mm

6.7

mm

4.75

mm

<75

um

R3

B2

N4

Z2

W2

A5

W6

W7

A3

T7

J3

F4

F9

C3

T2

E2

C8

A2

Table 3.1A PSD outliers (green) and near outliers (yellow) combined.

There were three participants (C3, T2 and E2) where z-scores were close-to or greater than 2.75. In these cases, it may be beneficial for these participants to review their results. The following comments refer to Appendix C and the section ‘Sieve Diameter’. There was one participant (A5) that had a z-score greater than absolute 3 in the ‘% Retained’ and ‘% Passing’ data. There were three other participants (E2, C8, T2, C8) that had close to absolute 3 in the ‘% Passing’ and greater than absolute 3 in the ‘% Retained’ data. This suggests that there may be an issue with sieving technique, the incorrect recording of a mass or a transcription error.



There are 3 participants (W6, W7, F9) with outliers in the program but where the ‘% Retained’ z-scores looked fine (i.e. under 1.0). This may mean the ‘% Passing’ result has been incorrectly calculated. Also look at the ‘% Retained’ results where the z-score is increasing or decreasing over several fractions. See if this may account for the observed outlier for one or more of the ‘% Passing’ fractions. This could indicate a calculation error or incomplete/over sieving.

Other participants with PSD ‘% Passing’ outliers in the program should investigate as detailed above. Most will have absolute z-scores above 2 for the ‘% Retained’ (see also ‘Sieve Diameter’ below.

The following feedback is provided for laboratories who wish to improve their testing practices or investigate outliers.

Sieve Diameter

Most participants used 300 mm diameter sieves. S e v e n participants did not indicate which sieve diameter sieve set was used. Seven (R3, C3, N4, A5, C8, D5, W7) used 200 mm diameter sieves (10%). Most (in bold) had one or more outliers associated. This may mean that the whole sample was not used but a split portion only. How well the sample was mixed and then split could be an issue. The instructions indicated that the whole sample was to be sieved. Reported start masses indicate that the whole sample was used.

Sieve Overload

From table 3.1B those using a 200mm diameter sieve set would need to have sieved in two passes.

Normally the sample could have been split and a portion sieved but the proficiency testing instructions indicate that the whole sample was to be sieved.

Sieve

Typical retained mass on 300 mm diameter sieve

g

300 mm overload

values g

200 mm overload

values g

13.2 490 900 400

9.5 430 600 250

6.7 320 500 225

4.75 210 400 200

Table 3.1B ‘Sample A’ average mass per sieve and sieve overload limits.

Five of the participants (R3, N4, A5, C8, W7) used 200mm diameter and had outliers suggesting something may have gone astray with the splitting/calculation process.

The need to sieve in more than one pass or split complicates the calculation process and the possibility of an incorrect calculation increases. Thorough checking is important. It is recognized that this is a difficult task in ‘one person’ laboratories.



Splitting

The program supplied a 1.5 kg of ‘Sample A’ for PSD with all participants appearing to use this amount for the test.

Participants that use significantly different starting masses can influence a participant’s performance in relation to other participants. Therefore, the program instructions indicated to use all ‘Sample A’ for the test.

A poorly mixed sample or poor splitting technique may have a significant impact on the results. Depending on the diameter of the sieves used overloading or calculation errors may also contribute to different performance outcomes.

Washing

Some participants (T7,J3,W 6,E5) did not supply a ‘Material finer than 75 μm’ result even through ha v in g pe r f o rmed the PS D. A low ‘Material finer than 75 μm’ result may indicate poor washing techniques. Most appear to have washed the sample but those with very high pan amounts may not have, or calculations may need reviewing. For further discussion see ‘Pan’ in this section and section 3.2.

Drying

Nine participants (R2, K9, Q4, X6, R7, G8, Y4, U2, U9) indicated using a ‘hot plate’ rather than an oven to dry the material. The test method does allow for this but only in cases where it can be shown not to affect the results and whether a correlation needs to be performed. This generally applies to material where the history is known such as in a quarry for example. For unknown material such as in a proficiency program it is recommended that the standard oven method should be used. Approximately four participants (T3, D2, N8, E5) did not indicate the drying method used.

% Passing

For each participant the ‘% Passing’ values were also recalculated from the mass retained data submitted and compared to each participant submitted ‘% Passing’ results. Most participant’s calculations were identical to the recalculated ‘% Passing’ or within an acceptable rounding tolerance (i.e. <0.5%).

The value 0.5 % was chosen as the point where such a difference could affect the result reported when rounded. It should be noted that such errors can be cumulative and if occur on larger aperture sieves it can flow through to the smaller aperture sieves.

Participant’s results where one or more ‘% Passing’ results were greater than 0.5 % are shown in table 3.1C in yellow highlight. In many cases they were significantly ‘out’ and showed as outliers in the program.

There were around 18% identified as having an incorrect ‘% Passing’ result based on what was submitted. This is around the same percentage as the last two programs. Those shown in bold also had outliers identified for PSD.



I.e. R3, B2, A3, Z2, W2, N4, A5, C8, F4, W6, Z5, V4, R8 & U9 Participants with codes highlighted in blue (17%) failed to supply some aspect of the raw data requested and the results could not be recalculated, many had outliers. (see ‘Incomplete or inaccurate results’).

Check Sums

Particle size distribution calculations should have “check sums” as an aid to detecting errors. Several approaches can be used for ‘hand calculated’ results. For computer spreadsheets a single check sum that adds all the weights and compares it to the starting mass is usually sufficient. If a check sum does not agree it may mean that there has been an incorrect reading of the balance, transcription error, incorrect calculation or possibly lost material. The sign associated with the difference gives a clue as to where to begin.

Participant’s masses were added and checked against the start mass. Several participants did not supply the mass retained results, so checks could not be performed (see table 3.1C – codes shown in blue).

It is desirable that any ‘unaccounted mass’ be less than 1%. Most participants ‘unaccounted mass’ was very low, less than 0.5 %. This is a very good outcome.

Participants K9, C8, Z5, V4, Y5, R8 & Q2 check mass unaccounted values were higher than 1%. These participants may benefit from reviewing the data and calculations submitted.

There were several participants (W4, Z2, T7, R2, A2, G5, D5, E8, G4, P2, W9, E5) where the “check sums” yielded abnormal numbers suggesting that some aspect of the data submitted was incorrect.

Pan

Assessment of the pan contents depends largely on the knowledge of the material as to what is acceptable. The material used for this program broke down a little during sieving. Pan amounts around 10g could be expected i.e. less than 1% retained.

Most participants had pan amounts around 1% retained or less. Overall the breakdown in material had minor influence on the ‘% passing’ results obtained.

The following participants were significantly outside the expected range based on other participants pan results.

High - A5, C8, W9, F9, and Q2

Low – Z5, W4 and R2 Those participants with low pan amounts (i.e. less than 5g) may have lost material during sieving or washing, not sieved long enough or there has been a calculation/transcription error. Participants with high pan amounts may have over sieved, not washed completely or there has been a calculation/transcription error. Some participants may have sieved without washing.



Pan amounts are important in the checking process. Although in this program they do not constitute an outlier they can affect the ‘material finer than 75 µm’ result.

Four participants (A2, D5, E8, G4, P2) did not submit values for material retained in the pan. It is good practice to record this amount for use it in the “Checksum” process.

Several participants did not submit results for “material finer than 75um” but from the pan amounts it was apparent that the aggregate had been washed. Even if a participant does not perform the “material finer than 75um” test participants still need to wash the sample. Retained dust on the aggregate may affect the ‘% passing Results” by 1 or 2% on various fractions.

Incomplete or inaccurate results

Many participants only supplied some of the data requested. For example, often the following was missing:

• Initial dry mass

• Washed mass

• Both washed and dry mass

• Mass retained

• All of the above Participants with incomplete data (17%) where ‘% Passing’ could not be calculated are shown in table 3.1C with codes shaded blue. There were thirteen participants (T7, J3, R2, A2, G5, D5, Z5, V4, E8, G4, W9, W7, E5) with incomplete data. Those with code shaded pink supplied no test results. Incomplete data means only limited feedback can be given. Based on the data supplied there were several possibly incorrect calculations identified in table 3.1C. Participants with significant differences are highlighted in yellow “N” in the table.

Some participants dropped trialing zeros i.e. 64 instead of 64.0. This is poor practice. It is unknown to the person checking if indeed the zero has been left off or a figure not recorded. The result may have been incorrectly rounded. The result shown as 64 may have been 64.0, 64.3, 64.9 or 63.8 etc.



19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

Code %

Passing Recalculated % Passing

Difference

<0.5 %

% Passing Recalculat

ed % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

% Passing Recalculated % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

E2 100 64.4 64.4 0.0 Y 36.5 36.5 0.0 Y 15.4 15.4 0.0 Y 4.2 4.2 0.0 Y

Q6 100 65.6 65.6 0.0 Y 39.4 39.4 0.0 Y 17.9 17.9 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

Y9 100 67 67.4 -0.4 Y 39 38.6 0.4 Y 19 18.6 0.4 Y 5 4.9 0.1 Y

R3 99 99.3 -0.3 Y 63 64.5 -1.5 N 35 37.9 -2.9 N 14 17.8 -3.8 N 0 4.4 -4.4 N

A6 100 67.5 67.5 0.0 Y 38.8 38.7 0.1 Y 17.8 17.7 0.1 Y 4.4 4.3 0.1 Y

B2 100 64.8 66.5 -1.7 N 35.4 38.5 -3.1 N 14.6 18.7 -4.1 N 0.5 5.4 -4.9 N

Z6 100 64.0 64.0 0.0 Y 38.9 38.9 0.0 Y 17.9 17.9 0.0 Y 4.5 4.5 0.0 Y

M5 100 65.8 65.8 0.0 Y 38.6 38.6 0.0 Y 17.9 17.9 0.0 Y 4.8 4.8 0.0 Y

P6

Y2 100 65.4 65.4 0.0 Y 38.6 38.6 0.0 Y 17.6 17.6 0.0 Y 4.5 4.5 0.0 Y

A3 97.6 97.7 -0.1 Y 65.4 67.0 -1.6 N 36.7 39.6 -2.9 N 15.2 19.0 -3.8 N 0.9 5.3 -4.4 N

C9

W4 100 66.9 66.9 0.0 Y 39.7 39.7 0.0 Y 18.4 18.4 0.0 Y 4.9 4.9 0.0 Y

Z2 100 67.7 68.9 -1.2 N 38.6 40.8 -2.2 N 14.7 17.8 -3.1 N 0.6 4.2 -3.6 N

N6

X9

U8 100 67 67.5 -0.5 Y 40 40.0 0.0 Y 18 18.0 0.0 Y 5 4.7 0.3 Y

T7 100 66 39 16 2

J3 100 68 39 16 2

S4 100 63.49 63.5 0.0 Y 38.83 38.8 0.0 Y 18.09 18.1 0.0 Y 4.62 4.6 0.0 Y

U3 100 66.97 67.0 0.0 Y 38.33 38.3 0.0 Y 17.17 17.2 0.0 Y 4.54 4.5 0.0 Y

N5 100 69.0 69.0 0.0 Y 40.6 40.4 0.2 Y 18.6 18.6 0.0 Y 4.9 4.9 0.0 Y

T3 100 65.5 65.5 0.0 Y 39.1 39.1 0.0 Y 18.0 17.9 0.1 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

R2 100 64.8 38.4 17.1 4.6

K9 100 67.3 67.3 0.0 Y 39.3 39.3 0.0 Y 16.9 16.9 0.0 Y 4.0 7.4 -3.4 N

C3 100 70 69.7 0.3 Y 42 42.2 -0.2 Y 19 19.4 -0.4 Y 5 5.3 -0.3 Y

A2 100 65.8 65.8 0.0 Y 38.3 38.3 0.0 Y 17.2 17.2 0.0 Y 4.2 4.2 0.0 Y

Table 3.1 C Variation in results compared to those calculated based on data submitted



Code

19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

% Passing

Recalculated % Passing

Difference

<0.5 %


ed % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

L6

W2 100 66.9 68.0 -1.1 N 37.7 39.8 -2.1 N 14.8 17.6 -2.8 N 0.4 3.8 -3.4 N

N4 100 65.9 67.2 -1.3 N 34.9 37.4 -2.5 N 14.4 17.7 -3.3 N 0.5 4.3 -3.8 N

D2 100 70.3 70.3 0.0 Y 41.0 41.0 0.0 Y 19.2 19.2 0.0 Y 5.5 5.5 0.0 Y

A5 100 67.9 69.5 -1.6 N 38.6 41.7 -3.1 N 14.8 19.0 -4.2 N 3.8 8.7 -4.9 N

C8 100 66.5 72.4 -5.9 N 37.4 45.0 -7.6 N 15.4 24.2 -8.8 N 2.9 12.4 -9.5 N

U7 100 66.4 66.4 0.0 Y 38.3 38.3 0.0 Y 17.2 17.2 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

Q4 100 66.8 66.8 0.0 Y 39.2 39.2 0.0 Y 18.4 18.4 0.0 Y 4.7 4.7 0.0 Y

X6 100 67.2 67.2 0.0 Y 38.6 38.6 0.0 Y 17.4 17.4 0.0 Y 4.3 4.3 0.0 Y

R7 100 67.9 67.9 0.0 Y 38.7 38.7 0.0 Y 17.0 17.0 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

G8 100 65.6 65.6 0.0 Y 39.1 39.1 0.0 Y 17.3 17.3 0.0 Y 4.2 4.2 0.0 Y

Y4 100 67.2 67.2 0.0 Y 38.1 38.2 -0.1 Y 17.3 17.3 0.0 Y 4.7 4.7 0.0 Y

U2 100 70.2 70.2 0.0 Y 40.7 40.7 0.0 Y 18.4 18.4 0.0 Y 5.1 5.1 0.0 Y

G5 100 66.3 38.7 17.2 4.4

F4 100 66.3 67.5 -1.2 N 38.3 40.5 -2.2 N 15.3 18.4 -3.1 N 1.3 4.8 -3.5 N

V7 100 68 68.1 -0.1 Y 40 39.6 0.4 Y 19 19.1 -0.1 Y 6 5.6 0.4 Y

L2 100 66 38 17 5

D5 NR 66 37 17 5

E7 100 68.9 68.9 0.0 Y 40.1 40.1 0.0 Y 19.4 19.4 0.0 Y 5.2 5.2 0.0 Y

W6 100 65 66.1 -1.1 N 36 38.2 -2.2 N 14 17.5 -3.5 N 0.3 4.4 -4.1 N

P5 100 69.1 69.1 0.0 Y 38.8 38.8 0.0 Y 18.2 18.2 0.0 Y 4.5 4.5 0.0 Y

B9 100 66.9 66.9 0.0 Y 39.8 39.8 0.0 Y 18.9 18.9 0.0 Y 5.9 5.9 0.0 Y

E3 100 67.2 67.2 0.0 Y 39.0 39.0 0.0 Y 18.2 18.2 0.0 Y 4.3 4.3 0.0 Y

X2 100 68.2 68.2 0.0 Y 38.3 38.3 0.0 Y 18.2 18.2 0.0 Y 5.4 5.4 0.0 Y

M8 99.2 99.2 0.0 Y 68.4 68.4 0.0 Y 41.4 41.4 0.0 Y 18.4 18.4 0.0 Y 5.3 5.3 0.0 Y

L4

E6 100 68.4 68.4 0.0 Y 39.7 39.7 0.0 Y 17.8 17.9 -0.1 Y 4.5 4.5 0.0 Y




Code

19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

% Passing


Difference

<0.5 %


ed % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

W3 100 67.1 67.1 0.0 Y 40.4 40.4 0.0 Y 17.8 17.8 0.0 Y 4.8 4.8 0.0 Y

Z5 100 67.9 97.9 -30.0 N 39.4 95.9 -56.5 N 18.5 94.5 -76.0 N 5.1 93.6 -88.5 N

V4 99.4 100.0 -0.6 N 66.8 97.8 -31.0 N 39.5 95.9 -56.4 N 17.9 94.5 -76.6 N 4.3 93.6 -89.3 N

J5 100 67.9 67.9 0.0 Y 39.5 39.5 0.0 Y 18.1 18.1 0.0 Y 5.4 5.4 0.0 Y

C2 100 69 68.7 0.3 Y 40 39.6 0.4 Y 19 18.7 0.3 Y 5 4.8 0.2 Y

Y5 100 70 69.6 0.4 Y 41 40.9 0.1 Y 19 19.0 0.0 Y 6 5.6 0.4 Y

P4 100 67.7 67.7 0.0 Y 39.5 39.5 0.0 Y 18.3 18.3 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

T2 100 70.12 70.1 0.0 Y 41.87 41.9 0.0 Y 18.29 17.6 0.7 N 4.75 4.1 0.7 N

Y3 100 68.12 68.1 0.0 Y 40.24 40.2 0.0 Y 19.21 19.2 0.0 Y 4.69 4.7 0.0 Y

B4 100 69.5 69.5 0.0 Y 39.7 39.7 0.0 Y 17.9 17.9 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

E8 100 67.2 39.9 17.7 4.2

G4 100 68.2 41.0 18.9 5.5

P2 98.7 98.7 0.0 Y 69.6 69.6 0.0 Y 39.6 39.6 0.0 Y 18.0 18.0 0.0 Y 4.3 4.3 0.0 Y

N9 100 67.7 67.6 0.1 Y 39.0 39.0 0.0 Y 18.7 18.6 0.1 Y 4.9 4.9 0.0 Y

R8 100 67.73 97.8 -30.1 N 38.99 95.9 -56.9 N 17.53 94.5 -77.0 N 4.60 81.6 -77.0 N

W9 100 69.8 39.7 19.0 6.0

N7 100 67.91 67.9 0.0 Y 39.69 39.7 0.0 Y 18.57 18.6 0.0 Y 4.71 4.7 0.0 Y

S2 100 67.0 67.0 0.0 Y 37.7 37.7 0.0 Y 17.6 17.6 0.0 Y 4.2 4.3 -0.1 Y

W7 100 66.7 36.9 14.1 0.4

P8

N2 100 67.9 67.9 0.0 Y 39.2 39.2 0.0 Y 19.0 19.0 0.0 Y 5.3 5.3 0.0 Y

G7 100 66.8 66.8 0.0 Y 38.1 38.1 0.0 Y 17.2 17.2 0.0 Y 4.8 4.8 0.0 Y

U4 100 65 65.5 -0.5 Y 38 38.3 -0.3 Y 18 17.5 0.5 Y 4 4.3 -0.3 Y

N8 99.0 99.0 0.0 Y 65.8 65.8 0.0 Y 39.2 39.2 0.0 Y 17.7 17.7 0.0 Y 4.6 4.6 0.0 Y

F9 0 68.4 68.4 0.0 Y 41.3 41.3 0.0 Y 19.9 19.9 0.0 Y 6.7 6.7 0.0 Y

B6

E5 100 66.8 39.3 18.0 4.7




Code

19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

% Passing


Difference

<0.5 %


ed % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Q2 100 65.7 65.7 0.0 Y 36.8 36.8 0.0 Y 17.8 17.8 0.0 Y 4.8 4.8 0.0 Y

M7 100 68.2 68.2 0.0 Y 39.6 39.6 0.0 Y 17.8 17.8 0.0 Y 4.9 4.9 0.0 Y

U9 100 68 67.4 0.6 N 39 38.9 0.1 Y 18 17.7 0.3 Y 5 4.9 0.1 Y




3.2 Material finer than 75 μm Participants’ overall performance was reasonable for this test with several participants identified where improvement could be made. In addition to the z- scores calculated all calculations were checked using the supplied participant data.

Several participants did not report to the number of decimal places requested. This unfortunately reduces the quality of the feedback that can be provided, particularly where some are outliers.

There were four participants that had washed the material but did not report a result (Z5, V4, R2, E5) but would have had satisfactory z-scores.

There were a few participants that did not supply sufficient data to check the result obtained. This unfortunately reduces the feedback that can be provided, particularly where some are outliers.

There were four outliers identified (A2, A5, F9 and C8) where the participants need to investigate the result. It is unclear as to the cause of these outliers. A5, F9 and C8 had large amounts retained in the pan. Calculations may need to be checked.

There were several participants (B2, X2, Y5, P4) that had significant differences between the result reported and the recalculated ‘material finer than 75µm’ value.

3.3 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1 & 3:1) Proportional calliper tests are most likely going to give a wide spread of results. The spread of results (variation) will depend on the particular grade of aggregate, time produced and manufacturer. The method of manufacturing aggregate has limited ability to control the particle shape. The coefficient of variation is typically around the 20% mark for 2:1 and higher for 3:1. The results normally would be taken as indicative. However, the results are important and useful to both manufactures and users of aggregate. This year the 3:1 proportional calliper test has been dropped from the program as it is, from a proficiency testing perspective, a duplicate of the 2:1 test and reduces the testing required by participants. Most participants used AS 1141.14 with two participants (Z5, V4) using T213. From section 4.3, one outlier was identified (S4) for the 2:1 test that needs to be investigated. There were two participants results (R2, G5) that were outside of the z-score range ± 2. Theses participants need to review the results obtained. Most participants had z-scores within the z-score range of ± 2 with the majority within the z-score range of ± 1. Overall the performance by participants was very good for the proportional calliper test. The variation in results (2018(82) CV 27%) was consistent for the test with past programs (2016(68) CV 27%). Some stones are difficult to measure due to their shape. Participants need to be sure that the width and thickness are correctly identified. This accounts for some of the variation observed.



Correct splitting of the sample to obtain the 100 or more stones is by far the most significant source of error or variation for this test. The sample needs to be well mixed and showing no signs of segregation prior to splitting. The number of stones used also has an impact. For homogeneity testing around 300 stones are used per fraction.

3.4 Flakiness Index Unlike grading the testers skill has little influence over the outcome of the test. Provided the test is performed correctly a tester should be able to retest each fraction and get essentially the same result. The spread of results observed may be more indicative of the manufacturing process than that of the participants. So, unlike the other tests the standard deviation should reflect the manufacturing process rather than the precision of the testers. The proficiency testing program therefore will only pick up gross departures from the median result. This is satisfactory from a proficiency program perspective; it just means that an outlier is possibly outside both the testing confidence interval and the materials natural variation associated with production. The spread of results obtained for the flakiness test is generally less than the proportional calliper test. There were three outliers (T7, D5, U9) identified shown in section 4.4. Those with outliers were well out indicating that an error in calculation or a transcription error may have occurred. The remaining participants having a z-score within ± 2 s.d which is a very good outcome. Those participants with z-scores above 1.0 or below -1.0 may benefit from reviewing their test practice. This may involve checking that particles are not missed during the testing process. Particles that are more rounded may need to be manipulated several ways before it will eventually pass through the slot. Other aspects of the test methodology that may cause inaccurate results to be obtained include:

• Incorrect performance of PSD

• Failure to mix and split sample correctly

• Worn gauge

• Incorrect slot used

• Insufficient manipulation of stone to check all orientations

• Forcing stones through gauge

• Loss of stones, both before and during testing

• Incorrect weighing

• Balance inaccuracy

3.5 Average Least Dimensions This test produced results with a small variation across most of the 43 participants.

Participants performed the test to AS1141.20 or 20.3 except participant A6 who used

WA215.1 (slotted sieve).



One participant’s result (U3) as an erroneous result by the program coordinator. See under ‘Method 20.3’ for more detail. Another participant (M5), while not an outlier, had a higher z-score (2.31) compared to all other participants and should be reviewed. A vernier was used but a significantly higher result was obtained compared to other vernier users results.

As with flakiness the tester’s skill should have little influence over the outcome of the test. Provided the test is performed correctly a tester should be able to retest the sample and get essentially the same result. However, there is some variation associated with the different equipment that can be used for this test e.g. slotted, vernier etc.

The spread of results observed may be more indicative of the manufacturing process rather than that of the participants. So unlike the other tests the standard deviation is more likely to reflect the manufacturing process rather than the precision of the testers. The proficiency testing program therefore will only pick up gross departures from the median result. This is satisfactory from a proficiency program perspective; it just means that any outlier is possibly outside both the testing confidence interval and the materials natural variation associated with production.

Table 3.5A Comparison of ALD statistics for 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015 programs

Consequently, both the homogeneity and participants results and statistics should be quite similar. However, it should be noted that it is very dependent on having a representative sample to begin with and how well the sample is split down to obtain the 100 or more stones needed for the test. The test method indicates 100 stones as a minimum. The higher the number of stones used the greater the confidence in the result obtained as well as reducing the impact of any stones incorrectly ‘sized’ during testing. Previous programs have indicated that there is very little difference between using a f lat bed, slotted gauge or vernier callipers. Table 3.5A compares the variation.

Program

Statistics

All

Flatbed

Slotted

Vernier Calculated

(20.3)

2018(82)

No Participants 42 10 13 9 10

Average 6.9 5.8 6.4 6.4 9.2

Standard Deviation 1.7 1.0 0.9 2.1 0.2

2017(75)


Average 8.1 8.0 7.7 8.0 9.1


2016(68)


Average 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.4 9.2

Standard Deviation 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 -

2015(60)


Average 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.7




The statistics for this program yielded similar outcomes to previous programs in terms of variation in results as shown in Table 3.5A. Both sets of statistics have had the outliers removed (and M5). Care should be taken when reviewing these comparisons as the numbers indicated for some categories (i.e. around 10) are low.

Code

Average Least Dimensions

All Flatbed Slotted Vernier Calculated

(20.3)

E2 4.2 4.2

Y9 6.7 6.7

A6 5.5 5.5

B2 4.1 4.1

M5 11.3 11.3

A3 9.5 9.5

W4 6.2 6.2

Z2 9.3 9.3

U8 6.2 6.2

S4 9.4 9.4

U3

N5 5.9 5.9

T3 5.9 5.9

R2 9 9

K9 9.1 9.1

C3 6.5 6.5

A2 6.9 6.9

W2 6.1 6.1

N4 6 6

G5 9.2 9.2

F4 5.9 5.9

V7 6.1 6.1

E7 6.1 6.1

W6 9.4 9.4

P5 6.5 6.5

B9 6.2 6.2

E3 6 6

X2 3 3

M8 6.1 6.1

Z5 6 6

V4 6 6

J5 5.9 5.9

P4 5.8 5.8

B4 9 9

N9 9.1 9.1

R8 8.9 8.9



W9 9.3 9.3

S2 6.1 6.1

N2 6.4 6.4

G7 6.1 6.1

F9 6.4 6.4

Q2 7.2 7.2

U9 6.3 6.3


Average 6.9 5.8 6.4 6.4 9.2

Standard Deviation

1.7 1.0 0.9 2.1 0.2

Table 3.5B ALD results. Outliers and results with high z-scores shown in blue.

Code

Average Least Dimensions

All

Flatbed

Slotted

Vernier

Calculated

(20.3)


Average 6.8 5.8 6.4 5.8 9.2


Table 3.5C ALD results less M5 results.

Method 20.3

Eleven participants choose to use the calculation method. The method tends to give very consistent results i.e. very little variation.

One participant’s result (U3) was rejected as it was visually an outlier and considered an erroneous result by the program coordinator. U3 result appears to be a partial result in the calculation process for method 20.3, perhaps the log of the MS value Previous proficiency programs have indicated that there has been little if any difference regardless of whether AS 1141: 20.1 or 20.3 is used. The homogeneity was undertaken using both the slotted gauge and calculation method with close agreement with the program results. The calculation method has with past programs tended to give rise to results that are higher than the slotted gauge but still close to one standard deviation of the median. However, for this program the difference is much greater. This can be seen from table 3.5A and 3.5B as well.

Despite the homogeneity displaying smaller variation for the calculated ALD (method 20.3), it may not be as accurate as using direct measurement (method 20.1). If the measurement uncertainty was to be calculated for both methods, it may be larger for method 20.3 as it uses several other test results (parameters) to derive the ALD value



(i.e. ‘% Passing’ and FI). A further draw back with method 20.3 is that any inaccuracies with the parameters used to calculate the ALD will also affect the result obtained.

3.6 Apparent Particle Density

Particle Density on a Dry Basis

Particle Density on a Saturated-surface-dry Basis

The material used in this program was selected to give reasonably consistent results across all three tests. There were 42 participants that performed the tests to AS 1141.6.1. The tests involve operations that require skilled technicians to obtain accurate and consistent results. The test, as intended, is sensitive to surface irregularities and internal voids. However, the more surface irregularities the harder it is to determine the “surface dry” state. This may influence the spread of results observed depending on the skill level of the overall group of participants. The more homogenous the material under test (i.e. with the same surface and voids in each stone) the smaller the variation is likely to be.

Particle density test

Program

Apparent density Dry basis SS dry basis

Median Normalized

IQR Median

Normalized IQR

Median Normalized

IQR

t/m3 t/m3 t/m3 t/m3 t/m3 t/m3

2013(45) 2.98 0.015 2.95 0.015 2.96 0.015

2014(49) 2.81 0.022 2.62 0.022 2.69 0.037

2015(60) 2.84 0.023 2.65 0.020 2.72 0.017

2016(68) 2.84 0.030 2.67 0.028 2.73 0.015

2017(75) 2.81 0.023 2.64 0.030 2.70 0.015

2018(82) 2.73 0.015 2.53 0.022 2.60 0.015

Table 3.6A Comparison of previous and current program statistics

Overall the variation was similar to previous programs. (Table 3.6A). The spread of results was within the range expected for this test. Of the 42 participants there were 4 outliers identified (see section 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9) involving 2 participants (J3, T2) for the density test only (5%). Those with outliers need to investigate the results obtained.



Participants with a z-score result outside ± 2 s.d should review these results Most participants had z-scores within the z-score range of ± 2 with a large number within the z-score range of ± 1. Overall the performance by participants was very good with fewer outliers than previous programs. Participants with outliers need to look at all three tests in relation to each other when reviewing the outcome as detailed in Table 3.6B. The z-scores across all three tests should also be considered.

Z-scores for the AS1141.6.2 test

J3 T2 M8 (A2) (G7) (F9) U4

Apparent particle density -3.37 0.67 2.77 -2.70 2.70 1.28 1.37

Particle density on a dry basis -2.16 -9.80 1.75 -0.81 0.09 2.25 -2.16

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis

-3.37 -9.44 2.77 -1.35 1.35 2.70 -1.35

Water Absorption 0.00 13.8 0.00 -0.67 1.41 -1.73 3.17

Table 3.6B Outliers (shown in bold & pink) for the particle density test to AS 1141 – 6.1. Those in brackets indicate high z-scores (shown in yellow).

Two participants (J3, T2) had outliers identified across a few of the tests. All the particle density results were on the low end (i.e. lower than the median value). This would indicate a possible systematic issue affecting all three tests possibly a calculation, rounding or weighing error. Material not being fully dried is another possibility. Possible sources of variation in results include:

• Transcription errors

• Incorrect calculations

• Weighing error

• Not removing 4.75 retained

• Trapped fines in basket. Need to remove fines after washing and absorption period – some stones break up.

• Insufficient washing

• Loss of stones during testing

• Basket touching side of bucket

• Incorrect taring of balance with bucket in water



• Over or under drying

• Incorrect temperature correction

• Sample not dry after drying to constant weight

• Trapped bubbles

• Stones trapped in basket

• Bucket not filled to the same spot with water

For particle density on ‘dry’ and ‘saturated-surface dry’ basis the drying to a ‘surface-dry’ state is critical to the accuracy of the test results. An outlier at either the low or high density may indicate either the material being too wet or too dry. Correct oven drying is also critical.

3.7 Water Absorption

Forty-two participants performed the test to AS 1141.6.1. All participants indicated that

AS 1141.6.1 was used except for participants S4 and U3 who used Q214B (same as

6.1). Participant G5 used the pycnometer method, AS 1141.6.2.

There were two outliers identified (T2 & U4) both with high absorption result. P a r t i c i p a n t U 4 w o u l d a p p e a r t o h a v e judged the “Surface Dry” condition as being too far on the dry side of “Surface Dry”. An error in calculations or the recording of a test parameter could have occurred for participant T2. Participants with a very low absorption values (i.e. below z-score -2) have probably judged the “Surface Dry” condition as being too far on the dry side of “Surface Dry”. The z-score graph shows that those on the low side were under an absolute z-score of 2. This is a very good outcome.

Variation in the performance of this test is strongly influenced by the skill of the tester (ability to determine surface dry) and the type of material under test (number of voids, porosity, etc.). Performing the test in both a controlled environment and in the same manner is important. Changes in drying material or technique, temperature, wind, humidity and lighting can have a significant effect.

Material with a “honey combed” appearance compared to smooth material will have a greater surface area and therefore influence the result obtained. It also makes it harder to determine “Surface Dry”.

The spread is about what is normally attributed to this test as shown below. Most participants were within ± 2 s.d with many within ± 1 s.d which was a very good outcome.

Program Year Standard Deviation

2018 0.28

2017 0.27

2016 0.37

2015 0.21

Table 3.7A Variation in water absorption results for the past 4 years.



3.8 Summary of test results (unrounded)

Test

Units

Participants

Median

Normalized IQR

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm

%

76

67.2 1.50

9.5 mm 39.0 1.04

6.7 mm 17.9 0.92

4.75 mm 4.6 0.59

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) % 71 4.00 0.28

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) % 41 12.7 3.4

Flakiness index % 58 8.55 1.83

Average least dimensions mm 42 6.20 2.21

Apparent particle density t/m3 42 2.730 0.015

Particle density on a dry basis t/m3 42 2.528 0.022

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis t/m3 42 2.600 0.015

Water absorption % 42 2.90 0.28



This page has been left blank intentionally.



E2 64.4 -1.83 A2 65.8 -0.90 L4 NR F9 68.4 0.83

Q6 65.6 -1.03 L6 NR E6 68.4 0.83 B6 NR

Y9 67 -0.10 W2 66.9 -0.17 W3 67.1 -0.03 E5 66.8 -0.23

R3 63 -2.76 N4 65.9 -0.83 Z5 67.9 0.50 Q2 65.7 -0.96

A6 67.5 0.23 D2 70.3 2.09 V4 66.8 -0.23 M7 68.2 0.70

B2 64.8 -1.56 A5 67.9 0.50 J5 67.9 0.50 U9 68 0.56

Z6 64.0 -2.09 C8 66.5 -0.43 C2 69 1.23

M5 65.8 -0.90 U7 66.4 -0.50 Y5 70 1.89

P6 NR Q4 66.8 -0.23 P4 67.7 0.37

Y2 65.4 -1.16 X6 67.2 0.03 T2 70.12 1.97

A3 65.4 -1.16 R7 67.9 0.50 Y3 68.12 0.64

C9 NR G8 65.6 -1.03 B4 69.5 1.56

W4 66.9 -0.17 Y4 67.2 0.03 E8 67.2 0.03

Z2 67.7 0.37 U2 70.2 2.03 G4 68.2 0.70

N6 NR G5 66.3 -0.56 P2 69.6 1.63

X9 NR F4 66.3 -0.56 N9 67.7 0.37

U8 67 -0.10 V7 68 0.56 R8 67.73 0.39

T7 66 -0.76 L2 66 -0.76 W9 69.8 1.76

J3 68 0.56 D5 66 -0.76 N7 67.91 0.51

S4 63.49 -2.43 E7 68.9 1.16 S2 67.0 -0.10

U3 66.97 -0.12 W6 65 -1.43 W7 66.7 -0.30

N5 69.0 1.23 P5 69.1 1.30 P8 NR

T3 65.5 -1.10 B9 66.9 -0.17 N2 67.9 0.50

R2 64.8 -1.56 E3 67.2 0.03 G7 66.8 -0.23

K9 67.3 0.10 X2 68.2 0.70 U4 65 -1.43

C3 70 1.89 M8 68.4 0.83 N8 65.8 -0.90

Number of results 76

Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 2.03

Normalised IQR 1.50

CV (%)

Minimum ()

Maximum ()

Range 7.3 ()

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.1 % Passing 13.2 mm: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

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 calculated by the program coordinator. Minimum,

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

Statistic

2.2

68.0

66.0

67.2

0.22

63.0

70.3



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.1 % Passing 13.2 mm: Z - Score Graph

D2U2T2C3Y5W9P2B4P5N5C2E7M8E6F9X2G4M7Y3J3V7U9N7A5R7Z5J5N2R8Z2P4N9A6K9X6Y4E3E8

W3Y9U8S2U3W4W2B9Q4V4G7E5W7C8U7G5F4T7L2D5N4M5A2N8Q2Q6G8T3Y2A3W6U4B2R2E2Z6S4R3

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 36.5 -2.41 A2 38.3 -0.67 L4 NR F9 41.3 2.22

Q6 39.4 0.39 L6 NR E6 39.7 0.67 B6 NR

Y9 39 0.00 W2 37.7 -1.25 W3 40.4 1.35 E5 39.3 0.29

R3 35 -3.85 # N4 34.9 -3.95 # Z5 39.4 0.39 Q2 36.8 -2.12

A6 38.8 -0.19 D2 41.0 1.93 V4 39.5 0.48 M7 39.6 0.58

B2 35.4 -3.47 # A5 38.6 -0.39 J5 39.5 0.48 U9 39 0.00

Z6 38.9 -0.10 C8 37.4 -1.54 C2 40 0.96

M5 38.6 -0.39 U7 38.3 -0.67 Y5 41 1.93

P6 NR Q4 39.2 0.19 P4 39.5 0.48

Y2 38.6 -0.39 X6 38.6 -0.39 T2 41.87 2.77

A3 36.7 -2.22 R7 38.7 -0.29 Y3 40.24 1.19

C9 NR G8 39.1 0.10 B4 39.7 0.67

W4 39.7 0.67 Y4 38.1 -0.87 E8 39.9 0.87

Z2 38.6 -0.39 U2 40.7 1.64 G4 41.0 1.93

N6 NR G5 38.7 -0.29 P2 39.6 0.58

X9 NR F4 38.3 -0.67 N9 39.0 0.00

U8 40 0.96 V7 40 0.96 R8 38.99 -0.01

T7 39 0.00 L2 38 -0.96 W9 39.7 0.67

J3 39 0.00 D5 37 -1.93 N7 39.69 0.66

S4 38.83 -0.16 E7 40.1 1.06 S2 37.7 -1.25

U3 38.33 -0.65 W6 36 -2.89 W7 36.9 -2.02

N5 40.6 1.54 P5 38.8 -0.19 P8 NR

T3 39.1 0.10 B9 39.8 0.77 N2 39.2 0.19

R2 38.4 -0.58 E3 39.0 0.00 G7 38.1 -0.87

K9 39.3 0.29 X2 38.3 -0.67 U4 38 -0.96

C3 42 2.89 M8 41.4 2.31 N8 39.2 0.19


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 1.40

Normalised IQR 1.04

CV (%)

Minimum (34.9)

Maximum (42.0)

Range 6.0 (7.1)






Statistic

2.7

39.7

38.3

39.0

0.15

36.0

42.0

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score


Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


C3T2M8F9D2Y5G4U2N5W3Y3E7U8V7C2E8B9W4E6B4W9N7P2M7V4J5P4Q6Z5K9E5Q4N2N8T3G8Y9T7J3E3N9U9

R8Z6S4A6P5R7G5M5Y2Z2A5X6R2U3A2U7F4X2Y4G7L2U4W2S2C8D5W7Q2A3E2W6B2R3N4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 15.4 -2.70 A2 17.2 -0.76 L4 NR F9 19.9 2.16

Q6 17.9 0.00 L6 NR E6 17.8 -0.11 B6 NR

Y9 19 1.19 W2 14.8 -3.35 # W3 17.8 -0.11 E5 18.0 0.11

R3 14 -4.22 # N4 14.4 -3.78 # Z5 18.5 0.65 Q2 17.8 -0.11

A6 17.8 -0.11 D2 19.2 1.41 V4 17.9 0.00 M7 17.8 -0.11

B2 14.6 -3.57 # A5 14.8 -3.35 # J5 18.1 0.22 U9 18 0.11

Z6 17.9 0.00 C8 15.4 -2.70 C2 19 1.19

M5 17.9 0.00 U7 17.2 -0.76 Y5 19 1.19

P6 NR Q4 18.4 0.54 P4 18.3 0.43

Y2 17.6 -0.32 X6 17.4 -0.54 T2 18.29 0.42

A3 15.2 -2.92 R7 17.0 -0.97 Y3 19.21 1.42

C9 NR G8 17.3 -0.65 B4 17.9 0.00

W4 18.4 0.54 Y4 17.3 -0.65 E8 17.7 -0.22

Z2 14.7 -3.46 # U2 18.4 0.54 G4 18.9 1.08

N6 NR G5 17.2 -0.76 P2 18.0 0.11

X9 NR F4 15.3 -2.81 N9 18.7 0.87

U8 18 0.11 V7 19 1.19 R8 17.53 -0.40

T7 16 -2.05 L2 17 -0.97 W9 19.0 1.19

J3 16 -2.05 D5 17 -0.97 N7 18.57 0.72

S4 18.09 0.21 E7 19.4 1.62 S2 17.6 -0.32

U3 17.17 -0.79 W6 14 -4.22 # W7 14.1 -4.11 #

N5 18.6 0.76 P5 18.2 0.32 P8 NR

T3 18.0 0.11 B9 18.9 1.08 N2 19.0 1.19

R2 17.1 -0.87 E3 18.2 0.32 G7 17.2 -0.76

K9 16.9 -1.08 X2 18.2 0.32 U4 18 0.11

C3 19 1.19 M8 18.4 0.54 N8 17.7 -0.22


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 1.25

Normalised IQR 0.92

CV (%)

Minimum (14.0)

Maximum (19.9)

Range 4.7 (5.9)






Statistic

5.2

18.4

17.2

17.9

0.13

15.2

19.9

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score


Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


F9E7Y3D2Y9C3V7C2Y5W9N2B9G4N9N5N7Z5W4Q4U2M8P4T2P5E3X2J5S4U8T3P2U4E5U9Q6Z6M5V4B4

A6E6W3Q2M7E8N8Y2S2R8X6G8Y4A2U7G5G7U3R2R7L2D5K9T7J3E2C8F4A3W2A5Z2B2N4W7R3W6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 4.2 -0.67 A2 4.2 -0.67 L4 NR F9 6.7 3.54 #

Q6 4.6 0.00 L6 NR E6 4.5 -0.17 B6 NR

Y9 5 0.67 W2 0.4 -7.08 # W3 4.8 0.34 E5 4.7 0.17

R3 0 -7.76 # N4 0.5 -6.91 # Z5 5.1 0.84 Q2 4.8 0.34

A6 4.4 -0.34 D2 5.5 1.52 V4 4.3 -0.51 M7 4.9 0.51

B2 0.5 -6.91 # A5 3.8 -1.35 J5 5.4 1.35 U9 5 0.67

Z6 4.5 -0.17 C8 2.9 -2.87 C2 5 0.67

M5 4.8 0.34 U7 4.6 0.00 Y5 6 2.36

P6 NR Q4 4.7 0.17 P4 4.6 0.00

Y2 4.5 -0.17 X6 4.3 -0.51 T2 4.75 0.25

A3 0.9 -6.24 # R7 4.6 0.00 Y3 4.69 0.15

C9 NR G8 4.2 -0.67 B4 4.6 0.00

W4 4.9 0.51 Y4 4.7 0.17 E8 4.2 -0.67

Z2 0.6 -6.74 # U2 5.1 0.84 G4 5.5 1.52

N6 NR G5 4.4 -0.34 P2 4.3 -0.51

X9 NR F4 1.3 -5.56 # N9 4.9 0.51

U8 5 0.67 V7 6 2.36 R8 4.60 0.00

T7 2 -4.38 # L2 5 0.67 W9 6.0 2.36

J3 2 -4.38 # D5 5 0.67 N7 4.71 0.19

S4 4.62 0.03 E7 5.2 1.01 S2 4.2 -0.67

U3 4.54 -0.10 W6 0.3 -7.25 # W7 0.4 -7.08 #

N5 4.9 0.51 P5 4.5 -0.17 P8 NR

T3 4.6 0.00 B9 5.9 2.19 N2 5.3 1.18

R2 4.6 0.00 E3 4.3 -0.51 G7 4.8 0.34

K9 4.0 -1.01 X2 5.4 1.35 U4 4 -1.01

C3 5 0.67 M8 5.3 1.18 N8 4.6 0.00


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 0.80

Normalised IQR 0.59

CV (%)

Minimum (0.0)

Maximum (6.7)

Range 3.1 (6.7)






Statistic

12.9

5.0

4.2

4.6

0.09

2.9

6.0

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score


Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


F9V7Y5W9B9D2G4X2J5M8N2E7U2Z5Y9U8C3L2D5C2U9W4N5N9M7M5W3G7Q2T2N7Q4Y4E5Y3S4Q6T3R2U7R7P4B4R8N8

U3Z6Y2P5E6A6G5X6E3V4P2E2A2G8E8S2K9U4A5C8T7J3F4A3Z2B2N4W2W7W6R3

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 3.89 -0.40 A2 1.27 -9.82 # L4 NR F9 5.16 4.17 #

Q6 4.25 0.90 L6 NR E6 3.95 -0.18 B6 NR

Y9 4.5 1.80 W2 3.3 -2.52 W3 3.908 -0.33 E5 NR

R3 4.13 0.47 N4 3.82 -0.65 Z5 4.20 0.72 Q2 4.58 2.09

A6 3.68 -1.15 D2 4.01 0.04 V4 3.98 -0.07 M7 3.99 -0.04

B2 4.08 0.29 A5 5.07 3.85 # J5 4.72 2.59 U9 3.93 -0.25

Z6 3.9 -0.36 C8 5.65 5.94 # C2 3.63 -1.33

M5 4.14 0.50 U7 4.10 0.36 Y5 3.92 -0.29

P6 NR Q4 4.12 0.43 P4 3.80 -0.72

Y2 3.80 -0.72 X6 3.8 -0.72 T2 4.04 0.14

A3 4.50 1.80 R7 3.87 -0.47 Y3 3.80 -0.72

C9 NR G8 3.76 -0.86 B4 3.5 -1.80

W4 4.0 0.00 Y4 3.8 -0.72 E8 4.0 0.00

Z2 3.62 -1.37 U2 4.13 0.47 G4 3.9 -0.36

N6 NR G5 3.94 -0.22 P2 3.75 -0.90

X9 NR F4 3.6 -1.44 N9 3.55 -1.62

U8 3.77 -0.83 V7 4.46 1.65 R8 3.66 -1.22

T7 NR L2 4.30 1.08 W9 3.81 -0.68

J3 NR D5 4.19 0.68 N7 4.04 0.14

S4 4.1 0.36 E7 4.30 1.08 S2 3.8 -0.72

U3 4.04 0.14 W6 NR W7 3.95 -0.18

N5 4.21 0.76 P5 4.13 0.47 P8 NR

T3 4.03 0.11 B9 4.69 2.48 N2 4.40 1.44

R2 3.90 -0.36 E3 4.19 0.68 G7 4.2 0.72

K9 3.6 -1.44 X2 3.9 -0.36 U4 4.0 0.00

C3 4.02 0.07 M8 4.16 0.58 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 0.38

Normalised IQR 0.28

CV (%)

Minimum (1.27)

Maximum (5.65)

Range 1.42 (4.38)






Statistic

6.9

4.18

3.80

4.00

0.04

3.30

4.72

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.2 Material finer than 75 µm: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.2 Material finer than 75 µm: Z - Score Graph

C8F9A5J5B9Q2Y9A3V7N2L2E7Q6N5Z5G7D5E3M8M5R3U2P5Q4S4U7B2U3T2N7T3C3D2W4E8U4

M7V4E6W7G5U9Y5W3Z6R2X2G4E2R7N4W9Y2X6Y4P4Y3S2U8G8P2A6R8C2Z2K9F4N9B4W2A2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 14.2 0.44 A2 14.9 0.65 L4 NR F9 9.8 -0.85

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 10.5 -0.65 B6 NR

Y9 12.8 0.03 W2 14.1 0.41 W3 NR E5 NR

R3 NR N4 NR Z5 10.3 -0.70 Q2 17.0 1.26

A6 NR D2 NR V4 8.4 -1.26 M7 NR

B2 15.12 0.71 A5 NR J5 8.8 -1.14 U9 NR

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 16.8 1.20

M5 NR U7 NR Y5 13.5 0.23

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 18.4 1.67

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 13.1 0.12

A3 12.5 -0.06 R7 NR Y3 12.7 0.00

C9 NR G8 NR B4 13 0.09

W4 NR Y4 NR E8 9.9 -0.82

Z2 NR U2 NR G4 12 -0.21

N6 NR G5 22.1 2.76 P2 12.4 -0.09

X9 NR F4 14.0 0.38 N9 8.0 -1.38

U8 10.8 -0.56 V7 NR R8 12.6 -0.03

T7 10.3 -0.70 L2 NR W9 9.8 -0.85

J3 9.9 -0.82 D5 NR N7 13.3 0.18

S4 29.0 4.78 # E7 NR S2 15.9 0.94

U3 NR W6 NR W7 NR

N5 NR P5 12.3 -0.12 P8 NR

T3 12.5 -0.06 B9 NR N2 15.6 0.85

R2 21.1 2.46 E3 NR G7 11.0 -0.50

K9 16.3 1.06 X2 10.0 -0.79 U4 NR

C3 9.5 -0.94 M8 13.4 0.21 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 4.6

Normalised IQR 3.4

CV (%)

Minimum (8.0)

Maximum (29.0)

Range (21.0)

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.3 Particle Shape - Proportional Calliper (2:1): Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score






Statistic

27

14.9

10.3

12.7

0.67

8.0

22.1

14.1



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.3 Particle Shape - Proportional Calliper (2:1): Z - Score Graph

S4

G5

R2

P4

Q2

C2

K9

S2

N2

B2

A2

E2

W2

F4

Y5

M8

N7

T2

B4

Y9

Y3

R8

A3

T3

P2

P5

G4

G7

U8

E6

T7

Z5

X2

J3

E8

W9

F9

C3

J5

V4

N9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 11.2 1.44 A2 7.0 -0.84 L4 NR F9 NR

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 NR B6 NR

Y9 8.5 -0.03 W2 7.1 -0.79 W3 NR E5 NR

R3 12 1.88 N4 8.6 0.03 Z5 NR Q2 8.6 0.03

A6 10.7 1.17 D2 10.0 0.79 V4 NR M7 9 0.25

B2 7.8 -0.41 A5 NR J5 NR U9 57.2 26.52 #

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 9.5 0.52

M5 10 0.79 U7 NR Y5 8.5 -0.03

P6 NR Q4 8.1 -0.25 P4 5.3 -1.77

Y2 10.5 1.06 X6 7.3 -0.68 T2 6.5 -1.12

A3 6.3 -1.23 R7 7.1 -0.79 Y3 8.0 -0.30

C9 NR G8 9.0 0.25 B4 10 0.79

W4 11.9 1.83 Y4 9.5 0.52 E8 8 -0.30

Z2 6.6 -1.06 U2 7.8 -0.41 G4 6 -1.39

N6 NR G5 9.4 0.46 P2 7.4 -0.63

X9 NR F4 7.3 -0.68 N9 8.0 -0.30

U8 11.1 1.39 V7 9 0.25 R8 10.3 0.95

T7 49.30 22.21 # L2 NR W9 5.3 -1.77

J3 NR D5 0 -4.66 # N7 8.9 0.19

S4 7.5 -0.57 E7 9.7 0.63 S2 11.3 1.50

U3 9.2 0.35 W6 8.0 -0.30 W7 NR

N5 7.5 -0.57 P5 8.2 -0.19 P8 NR

T3 8.9 0.19 B9 8.4 -0.08 N2 7.7 -0.46

R2 11.0 1.34 E3 10.2 0.90 G7 11.2 1.44

K9 7.6 -0.52 X2 NR U4 8.0 -0.30

C3 11.0 1.34 M8 NR N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 2.48

Normalised IQR 1.83

CV (%)

Minimum (0.0)

Maximum (57.2)

Range (57.2)

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.4 Flakiness index: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score






Statistic

21

10.00

7.53

8.55

0.30

5.3

12.0

6.7



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.4 Flakiness index: Z - Score Graph

U9T7R3W4S2E2G7U8R2C3A6Y2R8E3M5D2B4E7Y4C2G5U3G8V7M7T3N7N4Q2

Y9Y5B9P5Q4W6Y3E8N9U4B2U2N2K9S4N5P2X6F4W2R7A2Z2T2A3G4P4W9D5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 4.2 -0.91 A2 6.9 0.32 L4 NR F9 6.4 0.09

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 NR B6 NR

Y9 6.7 0.23 W2 6.1 -0.05 W3 NR E5 NR

R3 NR N4 6.0 -0.09 Z5 6.0 -0.09 Q2 7.2 0.45

A6 5.5 -0.32 D2 NR V4 6.0 -0.09 M7 NR

B2 4.1 -0.95 A5 NR J5 5.9 -0.14 U9 6.3 0.05

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 NR

M5 11.3 2.31 U7 NR Y5 NR

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 5.8 -0.18

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 NR

A3 9.5 1.50 R7 NR Y3 NR

C9 NR G8 NR B4 9.0 1.27

W4 6.2 0.00 Y4 NR E8 NR

Z2 9.3 1.41 U2 NR G4 NR

N6 NR G5 9.2 1.36 P2 NR

X9 NR F4 5.9 -0.14 N9 9.1 1.31

U8 6.2 0.00 V7 6.1 -0.05 R8 8.9 1.22

T7 NR L2 NR W9 9.3 1.41

J3 NR D5 NR N7 NR

S4 9.4 1.45 E7 6.1 -0.05 S2 6.1 -0.05

U3 0.1191 R W6 9.4 1.45 W7 NR

N5 5.9 -0.14 P5 6.5 0.14 P8 NR

T3 5.9 -0.14 B9 6.2 0.00 N2 6.4 0.09

R2 9.0 1.27 E3 6.0 -0.09 G7 6.1 -0.05

K9 9.1 1.31 X2 3.0 -1.45 U4 NR

C3 6.5 0.14 M8 6.1 -0.05 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 2.98

Normalised IQR 2.21

CV (%)

Minimum ()

Maximum ()

Range ()






Statistic

35.6

8.98

6.00

6.20

0.43

3.0

11.3

8.3

Code

Test

Result

mm

Z Score

4.5 Average least dimensions: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

mm

Z Score Code

Test

Result

mm

Z Score Code

Test

Result

mm

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.5 Average least dimensions: Z - Score Graph

M5

A3

S4

W6

Z2

W9

G5

K9

N9

R2

B4

R8

Q2

A2

Y9

C3

P5

N2

F9

U9

W4

U8

B9

W2

V7

E7

M8

S2

G7

N4

E3

Z5

V4

N5

T3

F4

J5

P4

A6

E2

B2

X2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 2.74 0.67 A2 2.69 -2.70 L4 NR F9 2.749 1.28

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 2.76 2.02 B6 NR

Y9 2.72 -0.67 W2 2.76 2.02 W3 2.698 -2.16 E5 NR

R3 NR N4 2.74 0.67 Z5 NR Q2 2.71 -1.35

A6 NR D2 NR V4 NR M7 2.72 -0.67

B2 2.73 0.00 A5 NR J5 2.73 0.00 U9 NR

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 2.70 -2.02

M5 NR U7 NR Y5 2.73 0.00

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 NR

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 2.74 0.67

A3 2.71 -1.35 R7 NR Y3 NR

C9 NR G8 NR B4 2.73 0.00

W4 NR Y4 NR E8 2.72 -0.67

Z2 NR U2 NR G4 2.75 1.35

N6 NR G5 2.74 0.67 P2 2.76 2.02

X9 NR F4 NR N9 2.739 0.61

U8 2.72 -0.67 V7 2.74 0.67 R8 2.71 -1.35

T7 2.72 -0.67 L2 NR W9 2.72 -0.67

J3 2.68 -3.37 # D5 NR N7 NR

S4 2.70 -2.02 E7 NR S2 2.72 -0.67

U3 2.726 -0.27 W6 2.70 -2.02 W7 2.70 -2.02

N5 2.73 0.00 P5 2.73 0.00 P8 NR

T3 2.74 0.67 B9 NR N2 2.75 1.35

R2 NR E3 NR G7 2.77 2.70

K9 NR X2 2.72 -0.67 U4 2.75 1.35

C3 2.73 0.00 M8 2.771 2.77 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR

Normalised IQR

CV (%)

Minimum (2.68)

Maximum (2.77)

Range (0.09)






Statistic

0.5

2.74

2.72

2.73

0.003

2.69

2.77

0.08

0.020

0.015

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

4.6 Apparent particle density: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.6 Apparent particle density: Z - Score Graph

M8

G7

W2

E6

P2

G4

N2

U4

F9

E2

T3

N4

G5

V7

T2

N9

B2

N5

C3

P5

J5

Y5

B4

U3

Y9

U8

T7

X2

E8

W9

S2

M7

A3

R8

Q2

S4

W6

C2

W7

W3

A2

J3

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 2.52 -0.36 A2 2.51 -0.81 L4 NR F9 2.578 2.25

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 2.54 0.54 B6 NR

Y9 2.52 -0.36 W2 2.53 0.09 W3 2.510 -0.81 E5 NR

R3 NR N4 2.56 1.44 Z5 NR Q2 2.49 -1.71

A6 NR D2 NR V4 NR M7 2.54 0.54

B2 2.54 0.54 A5 NR J5 2.51 -0.81 U9 NR

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 2.51 -0.81

M5 NR U7 NR Y5 2.53 0.09

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 NR

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 2.31 -9.80 #

A3 2.53 0.09 R7 NR Y3 NR

C9 NR G8 NR B4 2.51 -0.81

W4 NR Y4 NR E8 2.52 -0.36

Z2 NR U2 NR G4 2.55 0.99

N6 NR G5 2.56 1.44 P2 2.53 0.09

X9 NR F4 NR N9 2.541 0.58

U8 2.52 -0.36 V7 2.53 0.09 R8 2.51 -0.81

T7 2.50 -1.26 L2 NR W9 2.54 0.54

J3 2.48 -2.16 D5 NR N7 NR

S4 2.53 0.09 E7 NR S2 2.51 -0.81

U3 2.526 -0.09 W6 2.52 -0.36 W7 2.53 0.09

N5 2.51 -0.81 P5 2.52 -0.36 P8 NR

T3 2.53 0.09 B9 NR N2 2.54 0.54

R2 NR E3 NR G7 2.53 0.09

K9 NR X2 2.52 -0.36 U4 2.48 -2.16

C3 2.54 0.54 M8 2.567 1.75 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR

Normalised IQR

CV (%)

Minimum (2.31)

Maximum (2.58)

Range (0.27)






Statistic

0.9

2.540

2.510

2.528

0.004

2.48

2.58

0.10

0.030

0.022

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

4.7 Particle density on dry basis: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.7 Particle density on dry basis: Z - Score Graph

F9

M8

N4

G5

G4

N9

B2

C3

E6

W9

N2

M7

A3

S4

T3

W2

V7

Y5

P2

W7

G7

U3

E2

Y9

U8

W6

P5

X2

E8

N5

A2

W3

J5

C2

B4

R8

S2

T7

Q2

J3

U4

T2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 2.60 0.00 A2 2.58 -1.35 L4 NR F9 2.640 2.70

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 2.62 1.35 B6 NR

Y9 2.59 -0.67 W2 2.61 0.67 W3 2.580 -1.35 E5 NR

R3 NR N4 2.62 1.35 Z5 NR Q2 2.57 -2.02

A6 NR D2 NR V4 NR M7 2.60 0.00

B2 2.61 0.67 A5 NR J5 2.59 -0.67 U9 NR

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 2.58 -1.35

M5 NR U7 NR Y5 2.60 0.00

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 NR

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 2.46 -9.44 #

A3 2.60 0.00 R7 NR Y3 NR

C9 NR G8 NR B4 2.59 -0.67

W4 NR Y4 NR E8 2.60 0.00

Z2 NR U2 NR G4 2.62 1.35

N6 NR G5 2.62 1.35 P2 2.61 0.67

X9 NR F4 NR N9 2.613 0.88

U8 2.59 -0.67 V7 2.61 0.67 R8 2.58 -1.35

T7 2.58 -1.35 L2 NR W9 2.61 0.67

J3 2.55 -3.37 # D5 NR N7 NR

S4 2.59 -0.67 E7 NR S2 2.59 -0.67

U3 2.599 -0.07 W6 2.59 -0.67 W7 2.59 -0.67

N5 2.59 -0.67 P5 2.60 0.00 P8 NR

T3 2.61 0.67 B9 NR N2 2.62 1.35

R2 NR E3 NR G7 2.62 1.35

K9 NR X2 2.59 -0.67 U4 2.58 -1.35

C3 2.61 0.67 M8 2.641 2.77 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR

Normalised IQR

CV (%)

Minimum (2.46)

Maximum (2.64)

Range (0.18)






Statistic

0.6

2.610

2.590

2.600

0.003

2.57

2.64

0.07

0.020

0.015

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

4.8 Particle density on saturated - surface dry basis: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.8 Particle density on saturated - surface dry basis: Z - Score Graph

M8

F9

N4

G5

E6

G4

N2

G7

N9

B2

T3

C3

W2

V7

P2

W9

E2

A3

P5

Y5

E8

M7

U3

Y9

U8

S4

N5

W6

X2

J5

B4

S2

W7

T7

A2

W3

C2

R8

U4

Q2

J3

T2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



E2 3.23 1.16 A2 2.71 -0.67 L4 NR F9 2.41 -1.73

Q6 NR L6 NR E6 3.1 0.71 B6 NR

Y9 2.8 -0.35 W2 3.15 0.88 W3 2.78 -0.42 E5 NR

R3 NR N4 2.54 -1.27 Z5 NR Q2 3.32 1.48

A6 NR D2 NR V4 NR M7 2.68 -0.78

B2 2.70 -0.71 A5 NR J5 3.29 1.38 U9 NR

Z6 NR C8 NR C2 2.76 -0.49

M5 NR U7 NR Y5 2.93 0.11

P6 NR Q4 NR P4 NR

Y2 NR X6 NR T2 6.8 13.8 #

A3 2.58 -1.13 R7 NR Y3 NR

C9 NR G8 NR B4 3.2 1.06

W4 NR Y4 NR E8 2.9 0.00

Z2 NR U2 NR G4 2.9 0.00

N6 NR G5 2.66 -0.85 P2 3.39 1.73

X9 NR F4 NR N9 2.845 -0.19

U8 2.87 -0.11 V7 2.90 0.00 R8 3.00 0.35

T7 3.10 0.71 L2 NR W9 2.54 -1.27

J3 2.9 0.00 D5 NR N7 NR

S4 2.59 -1.09 E7 NR S2 3.0 0.35

U3 2.90 0.00 W6 2.69 -0.74 W7 2.51 -1.38

N5 3.08 0.63 P5 2.98 0.28 P8 NR

T3 2.94 0.14 B9 NR N2 3.04 0.49

R2 NR E3 NR G7 3.3 1.41

K9 NR X2 2.95 0.18 U4 3.80 3.17 #

C3 2.72 -0.63 M8 2.9 0.00 N8 NR


Median

Median MU

First Quartile

Third Quartile

IQR 0.38

Normalised IQR 0.28

CV (%)

Minimum (2.41)

Maximum (6.80)

Range 0.98 (4.39)

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.9 Water absorption: Z - Scores

Value

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score






Statistic

9.8

3.10

2.71

2.90

0.055

2.41

3.39



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.9 Water absorption: Z - Score Graph

T2

U4

P2

Q2

G7

J5

E2

B4

W2

T7

E6

N5

N2

R8

S2

P5

X2

T3

Y5

J3

U3

V7

M8

E8

G4

U8

N9

Y9

W3

C2

C3

A2

B2

W6

M7

G5

S4

A3

N4

W9

W7

F9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



5. Program Information

5.1 Z-score Summary The proficiency program was conducted over October and November 2018. A ‘Z-score Summary’ summary was issued on the 15 January 2019 and posted on the LabSmart Services web site. The summary was also e-mailed to participants. The summary is intended as an early indicator of participant performance. The proficiency testing program report supersedes the z –score summary. Further information can be found in section 5.9 ‘Statistics’. Several additional results were added to the pool of participants results after the z-score summary was issued. The statistics shown in this, the final report, will consequently differ slightly to those shown in the z-score summary report. The performance outcomes however shown in both reports remain the same. The same participants that had outliers in the z-score summary have the same outliers in the final report.

5.2 Program Design 5.2.1 Design

It is expected that the level of experience/skill need to perform these tests will present a reasonable assessment of the overall competency of the tester and industry performance. Part of the design of each program involves determining what information needs to be requested to allow for the correct analysis of the data collected. This allows the best possible feedback to be offered to enable participants to improve in the performance of this test. The ‘retained weights’ for PSD are used for this purpose. In designing a proficiency program, it is sometimes necessary to minimise the effect of some inherent test method variability. Other considerations involving the design of the program are detailed below. 5.2.2 Selection of material used in the program

Materials are selected to mirror the range of materials encountered in practice. Participants who work in a quarry may find that the material supplied is different to what they normally test. The test method does not stipulate a particular ‘quality of material’ be used for testing purposes so all testers need to be able to test accurately a range of aggregate materials. The material supplied was made up of known fractions. See sample preparation (section 5.3) for more detail. The fractions were as large as possible to ensure any breakdown of material was small compared to the retained mass. In addition, as all participants had the same proportion of



material then any breakdown of material while under test would be similar across all participants. Participants were instructed to use the same sample size for PSD which mitigated the effect different sample size can have on the particle distribution results. Unaccounted material losses or gains (lost material, binding, material break down etc) have a greater effect the smaller the sample size. Two samples (A & B) were used. Each had different fractions so that if the samples were mixed up by a participant the samples could be readily identified. See sample preparation (section 5.3) for more detail. 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. 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 Appendix C not usually 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 PSD data checks

A secondary function of proficiency testing is to provide feedback that can help those with outliers identify possible areas to investigate as well as assist all participants to improve. This information also helps with identifying any random or systematic errors associated with the test methodology. Every participant’s PSD results are recalculated. Checks however are only as accurate as the raw data supplied by each participant. These checks also help ensure that the data is comparable. Any inconsistencies identified during this process do not need to be investigated (as do outliers) but are identified as possible feedback for participant improvement. 5.2.8 Role of % Retained

The sieving component of this proficiency program is based on ‘% Passing’ results as normally reported by laboratories. The ‘% Passing’ involves a cumulative calculation which can at times give rise to misleading outliers, particularly on smaller aperture sieves. In such cases an outlier may not necessarily be attributed to the sieve size on which the outlier occurred. Participants need to be aware of this should they need to undertake any investigation. To provide feedback ‘% Retained’ is normally either requested or calculated for each participant (Appendix C). Increasing the number of significant numbers that results are reported also aids accurate analysis and feedback. It should be noted that if the mass retained results submitted are themselves not correct then this will show as z-scores greater than 3. This may be the case even if no outlier was obtained for the % passing results. To perform a comparison there needs to be a ‘one for one’ % passing correspondence to the



% retained for the analysis to be statistically valid. That is the accuracy of the analysis is dependent on most participants suppling mass retained results. 5.3 Sample Preparation Two samples were prepared (A & B). Sample A consisted of approximately 1.5 kg while sample B consisted of 2.5 kg of aggregate. An unwashed bulk sample was obtained and sieved into its constituent fractions. Each fraction was then thoroughly mixed. 100 samples were prepared in the laboratory by weighing out set fractions of a known weight and bagged. Sample B was prepared from a bulk sample. It had different fractions to that of sample A. Samples were numbered and laid out in the order prepared. Ten samples were selected at approximately equal intervals from the set of A and B prepared samples. These were used for homogeneity testing. Each participant received randomly drawn samples from the remaining A and B samples. A unique participation code was assigned to each sample set (combined A and B sample). 5.4 Packaging and Instructions Each sample was sealed in a plastic bag, labelled with the program name and whether sample A or B. Samples were packed into a sturdy box. 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 sent to Western Australia (WA) are subject to quarantine regulations that require treatment of the aggregate prior to importation into WA. Samples sent to WA are heat treated and compliance certificates enclosed with samples. Where necessary additional information regarding handling and preparation of the sample may be included. 5.6 Sample Dispatch Samples were dispatched to participants in November 2018 using Toll Priority. Dispatched samples are tracked from despatch to delivery to each participant by LabSmart Services. 5.7 Homogeneity Testing Samples for homogeneity testing were packed in the same way as those for participants. Ten samples were selected at approximately equal intervals



throughout the set of samples. The same instructions were given to the laboratory performing the homogeneity testing. Analysis of the homogeneity testing results indicated that the variability associated with the proficiency samples was satisfactory (Table 5.7A). The assessment of the homogeneity provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers. 5.8 Participation Eighty-four participants entered the program. The nominated date for participants to return their results was 22 November 2018. There were eight participants (9%) who were unable 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. Therefore, 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. Assessment of participant’s data is undertaken to ensure results are statistically comparable. Checks are undertaken to ensure the results calculated matches that reported by the participant and that the appropriate corrections etc. have been applied if required. The level of checking required varies from program to program. If significant inconsistencies are identified the results may be removed or amended with the discrepancy highlighted. 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 5.9A) is shown at the bottom of each graph. This helps to quickly visualize where each participant’s result falls.



Sample A

Test Results Average Minimum Maximum Range s.d

Particle Size Distribution (% Passing) Units H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10

13.2 mm % 67.2 68.8 68.2 67.1 68.6 67.9 67.8 68.9 67.7 67.4 67.94 67.09 68.9 1.8 0.65

9.5 mm % 39.2 39.5 39.3 39.1 39.5 39.5 39.3 40.0 39.9 39.8 39.50 39.10 40.0 0.9 0.29

6.7 mm % 18.4 18.5 18.3 18.4 18.2 18.4 18.5 19.0 18.8 18.7 18.52 18.22 19.0 0.8 0.25

4.75 mm % 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.64 4.42 5.04 0.6 0.19

Material finer than 75 µm (By Washing) % 3.98 3.97 3.98 4.02 4.10 4.14 4.09 4.35 4.31 4.21 4.12 3.97 4.35 0.38 0.14

Flakiness index % 7.0 8.3 5.5 7.8 6.9 5.6 7.7 7.4 5.8 4.9 6.7 4.9 8.3 3.4 1.16

Average Least Dimension - 20.1 mm 6.5 6.1 - 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.2 0.2 0.16

Average Least Dimension - 20.3 mm 9.2 9.0 9.3 9.1 9.1 9.3 9.1 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.0 9.4 0.3 0.11

Sample B

Test Results Average Minimum Maximum Range s.d

Units H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10

Apparent particle density t/m3 2.755 2.736 2.733 2.740 2.739 2.732 2.769 2.768 2.759 2.761 2.749 2.732 2.769 0.037 0.015

Particle density - dry basis t/m3 2.539 2.535 2.535 2.518 2.526 2.552 2.556 2.541 2.553 2.556 2.541 2.518 2.556 0.038 0.013

Particle density - saturated-surface dry t/m3 2.617 2.608 2.607 2.599 2.604 2.600 2.633 2.623 2.627 2.630 2.615 2.599 2.633 0.034 0.013

Water Absorption % 3.08 2.89 2.85 3.21 3.07 3.02 3.00 3.22 2.92 2.90 3.02 2.85 3.22 0.37 0.13

Proportional Calliper 2:1 % 11.1 15.0 16.7 10.8 14.5 12.9 12.7 12.7 16.5 12.7 13.6 10.8 16.7 5.9 2.0

Table 5.7A Homogeneity results for sample A & B



Review Weak

Consensus Strong Consensus

Weak Consensus

Review

Figure 5.9A 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. Participant assessment is not based purely on statistical analysis. Compliance to proficiency program requirements including the correct calculation of results and adherence to program 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. 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 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 (MU) 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 Matters 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 may 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’ matter. This may also be applied to non-compliance to program requirements e.g. incorrect reporting of results etc or incorrect partial calculations/data. Non-statistical matters were not used as part of the assessment process for this program.



82 Appendix A -Instructions.docx Page 1 of 2

LabSmart Services Helping laboratories to work smarter!

Proficiency Testing Program

Aggregates – 2018 (82)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER

1. Please check that the package you have received contains:

• Results log sheet.

• Plastic sample bag marked Sample A – approximately 1.5 kg

• Plastic sample bag marked Sample B – approximately 2.5 kg Contact LabSmart Services (0432 767 706) if material has escaped from the bags or any item is missing. Please do not mix sample A and B as they are different aggregate samples.

2. Read all the instructions and examine the results log sheet prior to testing. Follow

these instructions carefully during testing.

3. Use AS 1141 test methods unless you are unable to do so. Complete those tests that you can perform. You may perform a test even if you are not NATA accredited for the test.

4. Sample A (1.5 kg)

❖ Use all of Sample A. It has been specially prepared for this proficiency program to ensure consistency and is smaller than normally expected for this size aggregate.

❖ Oven dry and wash the sample to perform the “Material finer than 75 micron” test. Oven dry and perform the PSD test.

❖ Record the diameter of the sieve set used and the method of drying.

❖ Do not lose any of the sample from the PSD test. Keep the fractions obtained separated.

❖ From the PSD test use the information gained and the fractions to perform

the Flakiness Index determination. Save the material tested.

❖ Do not lose any of the sample. ❖ Next perform the ALD using the saved material.

❖ Circle on the results log whether a slotted gauge or vernier calliper etc was

used for the average least dimensions test.

Appendix A



82 Appendix A -Instructions.docx Page 2 of 2

5. Sample B (2.5 kg) ❖ Perform the density and absorption tests plus particle shape on sample B.

❖ Separate over a 4.75 mm sieve. Retain all material.

❖ Wash the sample to remove loose particles and dust coatings.

❖ Testing of the fine aggregate to AS 1141.5 is not required.

❖ Perform the density and absorption tests.

❖ Save all the 2.5 kg sample and oven dry.

❖ Perform the ‘Particle shape by proportional calliper’ for the 2:1 ratio only. 6. Record all information and calculations as per the proficiency testing results log sheet

and to the accuracy shown on the results log sheet. In many cases a greater reporting accuracy is required compared to that nominated by the test method standard.

7. The Laboratory Manger or person responsible for checking should sign the log

sheet to indicate that it has been checked. 8. If more than one technician is involved in the testing, then please ensure that the

laboratory’s records indicate which technician did each test.

9. It is recommended that the entire sample following testing be retained until the

proficiency testing technical report for this program has been issued.

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

11. Please fax or e-mail the “Results Log” to LabSmart Services by 22 Nov 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.

13. Proficiency testing can also form part of a laboratories training records for the

technician who performed the test.

Thank you for participating in this proficiency testing program.



Aggregates PT Results log – 2018(82) V5 Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Page 1 of 2

LabSmart Services Helping laboratories to work smarter!

Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program – 2018 (82)

RESULTS LOG Participation Code: XX Laboratory:

Please fax (03) 8888 4987 or e-mail ([email protected]) the completed results log by

22 November 2018

Date proficiency sample received:

Condition of samples: A B

Sample A - Tests Report to: Result Method

AS 1141 Tick or enter method used

Particle Size Distribution, Initial Dry Mass (g)

Nearest 0.1*

11.1

Dry mass after washing (washed mass, g)

Mass

Retained (per sieve, g)

% Passing

19.0 mm

13.2 mm

9.5 mm

6.7 mm

4.75 mm

Pan

Diameter of sieves used (mm)

Materials finer than 75 μm (by washing) Nearest 0.01 % * 11.1,12

Method of drying

Flakiness index (FI) Nearest 0.1 %

15 Mass of sample used Nearest 1 g

Method of drying

Average least dimension (ALD)

Slotted Gauge OR

Nearest 0.1 mm

20.1 Flatbed Tray Gauge OR

Vernier Calliper/ Dial Gauge

*Only if balance has appropriate accuracy

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]

Aggregates PT Results log – 2018(82) V5 Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Page 2 of 2

Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program – 2018 (82)

Sample B - Tests Report to: Result Method

AS 1141 Tick or enter method used

Apparent particle density Nearest 0.01 t/m3

6.1

Particle density on a dry basis Nearest 0.01 t/m3

Particle density on a saturated-surface-dry basis

Nearest 0.01 t/m3

Water absorption Nearest 0.01 %

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) Nearest 0.1 % 14

Tested by:

*Only if balance has appropriate accuracy

COMMENTS: …………………………………………..............………………………

...................…………………………………………..............………………………

...................…………………………………………..............………………………

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

In signing the above, I acknowledge that the above results have been 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 proficiency program.

Thank you for participating. Please retain these sheets for your records.

________________________________________________________________________

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



1 E2 35.6 2.52 27.9 -0.34 21.1 0.02 11.2 -4.82 #

2 Q6 34.4 1.51 26.3 -2.01 21.5 0.44 13.3 -0.05

3 Y9 32.6 0.08 28.8 0.57 20.0 -1.40 13.7 0.80

4 R3 34.7 1.83 26.6 -1.65 20.1 -1.29 13.4 0.06

5 A6 32.5 0.00 28.7 0.55 21.0 -0.14 13.4 0.07

6 B2 33.5 0.76 28.0 -0.22 19.8 -1.70 13.3 0.00

7 Z6 36.0 2.90 25.0 -3.29 # 21.0 -0.17 13.4 0.16

8 M5 34.2 1.38 27.2 -1.07 20.7 -0.52 13.1 -0.54

9 P6

10 Y2 34.6 1.75 26.7 -1.54 21.1 -0.10 13.0 -0.67

11 A3 30.7 -1.49 27.4 -0.85 20.6 -0.72 13.7 0.78

12 C9

13 W4 33.1 0.49 27.2 -1.08 21.3 0.21 13.5 0.35

14 Z2 31.1 -1.15 28.1 -0.17 23.0 2.39 13.6 0.60

15 N6

16 X9

17 U8 32.5 -0.02 27.5 -0.74 22.0 1.15 13.3 -0.15

18 T7

19 J3

20 S4 36.5 3.30 # 24.7 -3.68 # 20.7 -0.49 13.5 0.33

21 U3 33.0 0.41 28.6 0.44 21.2 0.03 12.6 -1.57

22 N5 31.0 -1.30 28.7 0.48 21.7 0.76 13.7 0.88

23 T3 34.5 1.61 26.5 -1.81 21.1 -0.03 13.4 0.11

24 R2

25 K9 32.7 0.11 28.0 -0.20 22.4 1.66 9.4 -8.88 #

26 C3 30.3 -1.87 27.5 -0.69 22.7 2.03 14.2 1.97

27 A2 34.2 1.38 27.5 -0.74 21.1 -0.10 13.1 -0.60

28 L6

29 W2 32.0 -0.48 28.2 0.02 22.2 1.33 13.8 1.18

30 N4 32.8 0.20 29.8 1.66 19.7 -1.81 13.4 0.14

31 D2 29.7 -2.32 29.2 1.03 21.8 0.86 13.8 1.03

32 A5 30.5 -1.71 27.9 -0.36 22.6 1.90 10.4 -6.67 #

33 C8 27.6 -4.07 # 27.4 -0.86 20.8 -0.39 11.8 -3.50 #

34 U7 33.6 0.88 28.1 -0.11 21.1 0.00 12.6 -1.72

35 Q4 33.2 0.58 27.6 -0.63 20.7 -0.51 13.8 0.99

36 X6 32.8 0.19 28.6 0.44 21.2 0.09 13.1 -0.58

37 R7 32.1 -0.37 29.2 1.02 21.7 0.71 12.4 -2.02

38 G8 34.4 1.51 26.5 -1.74 21.8 0.88 13.0 -0.64

39 Y4 32.8 0.22 29.1 0.86 20.8 -0.36 12.6 -1.64

40 U2 29.8 -2.28 29.5 1.30 22.3 1.53 13.3 -0.07

41 G5

42 F4 32.5 -0.06 27.0 -1.27 22.2 1.34 13.5 0.46

43 V7 31.9 -0.54 28.5 0.27 20.6 -0.70 13.4 0.26

44 L2 33.9 1.14 28.0 -0.20 20.8 -0.48 12.6 -1.73

45 D5

46 E7 31.1 -1.19 28.8 0.62 20.7 -0.57 14.2 1.98

47 W6 33.9 1.11 27.9 -0.29 20.7 -0.55 13.1 -0.44

48 P5 30.9 -1.34 30.3 2.12 20.6 -0.63 13.7 0.76

49 B9 33.1 0.44 27.1 -1.17 21.0 -0.22 13.0 -0.70

50 E3 32.8 0.2 28.2 0.02 20.8 -0.47 13.9 1.28

Appendix C - % Retained

Code

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score



51 X2 31.8 -0.61 29.9 1.69 20.2 -1.22 12.8 -1.14

52 M8 30.8 -1.44 27.0 -1.31 23.0 2.42 13.0 -0.67

53 L4

54 E6 31.6 -0.74 28.7 0.49 21.8 0.86 13.4 0.12

55 W3 32.9 0.29 26.7 -1.58 22.6 1.87 13.1 -0.59

56 Z5

57 V4

58 J5 32.1 -0.32 28.4 0.14 21.4 0.37 12.6 -1.58

59 C2 31.3 -1.06 29.1 0.95 20.9 -0.31 14.0 1.46

60 Y5 30.4 -1.77 28.7 0.45 22.0 1.06 13.4 0.23

61 P4 32.3 -0.19 28.2 0.02 21.2 0.08 13.6 0.67

62 T2 29.9 -2.20 28.2 0.03 24.3 3.97 # 13.5 0.49

63 Y3 31.9 -0.54 27.9 -0.35 21.0 -0.12 14.5 2.72

64 B4 30.5 -1.67 29.8 1.64 21.8 0.83 13.3 -0.15

65 E8

66 G4

67 P2 29.1 -2.86 30.0 1.85 21.6 0.62 13.6 0.72

68 N9 32.4 -0.15 28.7 0.46 20.3 -1.00 13.8 1.01

69 R8

70 W9

71 N7 32.1 -0.37 28.2 0.00 21.1 -0.01 13.9 1.21

72 S2 33.0 0.35 29.3 1.11 20.1 -1.30 13.4 0.08

73 W7 32.0 -0.43 28.6 0.42 21.9 0.99 13.1 -0.51

74 P8

75 N2 32.1 -0.36 28.7 0.46 20.2 -1.18 13.7 0.87

76 G7 33.2 0.52 28.7 0.55 20.8 -0.37 12.5 -1.89

77 U4 34.5 1.63 27.2 -1.10 20.8 -0.39 13.2 -0.30

78 N8 33.2 0.54 26.7 -1.61 21.5 0.47 13.1 -0.46

79 F9 31.6 -0.77 27.1 -1.13 21.4 0.32 13.2 -0.22

80 B6

81 E5 33.2 0.52 27.5 -0.73 21.3 0.21 13.4 0.09

82 Q2 34.3 1.44 28.9 0.72 19.0 -2.70 13.0 -0.74

83 M7 31.8 -0.62 28.6 0.41 21.8 0.90 12.9 -1.06

84 U9 32.6 0.04 28.6 0.35 21.1 0.02 12.8 -1.12

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Appendix C - % Retained (Continued)

Code

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score



Statistic

Number of results 65 65 65 65

Median 32.5 28.2 21.1 13.3

First Quartile 31.6 27.4 20.7 13.0

Third Quartile 33.2 28.7 21.8 13.6

IQR 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.6

Normalised IQR 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.4

CV (%) 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.3

Minimum 29.1 26.3 19.0 12.4

Maximum 36.5 30.3 23.0 14.5

Range 7.4 4.0 4.0 2.1

Appendix C - % Retained

Note: "% retained" results have been calculated by the program coordinator based on submitted mass retained

results. A # indicates where the z-score calculated is either greater then 3 or less than -3. Values above 3 are not

outliers and do not need to be investigated but help identify sieves that have amounts retained that differ

significantly from others in the program. This assists those with outliers from the "% Passing" to identify sieves

that may have contributed to the outlier. Codes for all participates are shown. Codes shown in orange denote

participants that did not supply sufficient data for the '% Retained ' to be calculated or participants that did not submit

any results for this test. Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with values greater than 3 or -3 excluded.

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm





Date post:	19-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Aggregates - 2018 (82) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT LabS… · Flakiness index T7, D5,...

Documents