INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME - Textiles...

Page 1 of 1

INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME

ON

“Testing of Mechanical parameters

in Textile Material”

TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012-13

Conducted by

PPPrrrooofffiiiccciiieeennncccyyy TTTeeessstttiiinnnggg PPPrrrooovvviiidddeeerrr

LLLaaabbbooorrraaatttooorrriiieeesss

TEXTILES COMMITTEE (Ministry of Textiles, Government of India)

P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi Chowk, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554

E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected]

2012-2013

mailto:[email protected]


Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

OOnn

““TTeessttiinngg ooff MMeecchhaanniiccaall ppaarraammeetteerrss

iinn TTeexxttiillee MMaatteerriiaall””

TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012-13

Conducted by

PPPTTT PPPRRROOOVVVIIIDDDEEERRR

LLLaaabbbooorrraaatttooorrriiieeesss TEXTILES COMMITTEE

(Ministry of Textiles, Government of India) P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554

E-mail : [email protected]

2012-2013


Page 1 of 52

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PT PROVIDER PT Provider, Laboratory, TEXTILES COMMITTEE (Ministry of Textiles, Government of India) P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554, E-mail : [email protected]

CONTACT PERSONS (1) Shri Kartikay Dhanda, PT-Coordinator

Director(Laboratories), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Ph: 91 22 6652 7519, Fax: 91 22 6652 7554, E-mail : [email protected]

(2) Dr. K.S. Muralidhara, PT-Quality Manager Joint Director(Laboratories), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Ph: 91 22 6652 7542, Fax: 91 22 6652 7554,

E-mail : [email protected]

(3) Shri M.S. Shyamsundar, PT-Technical Manager Quality Assurance Officer (Laboratory), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Report prepared by: Shri M.S.Shyamsundar, PT – Technical Manager SCHEME : INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME -TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012-13 - TTeessttiinngg ooff MMeecchhaanniiccaall ppaarraammeetteerrss iinn TTeexxttiillee MMaatteerriiaallss DATE OF ISSUE: August 1, 2013

CONFIDENTIALITY : All the information furnished by the participants shall be kept confidential by the PT Provider and the same shall not be revealed to others. However, if the accrediting body, for example NABL, requests the PT provider to furnish the performance of any of the participants, the same shall be provided to them directly, after obtaining permission of the concerned participant.

COPY RIGHT: This report is property of Textiles Committee, the PT Provider. The copy right of this report is retained with Textiles Committee. This report should not be reproduced by others in full or partially in any form without obtaining the consent from Textiles Committee, in writing Disclaimer: The PT Programmes are meant for evaluation of performance of the participant for the specified tests undertaken in the programme only and are voluntary in nature. Further, it is clarified that reasonable care has been taken to meet the requirement of ISO/IEC 17043:2010, while designing and conducting the programmes. Participants are expected to exercise due diligence while carrying out the tests and meet all safety, statutory and accreditation body’s requirements. PT Provider and Textiles Committee will not be responsible for any claim/damages arising out of participating in this programme

Page 2 of 52

I N D E X

S. No. Contents Page No. 1 PT-Provider details

1

2 Index

2

3 Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

Preamble 3 Textiles Committee 3 PT-Provider 3 The Present Programme 4 Advisory Group 5 Participants 6 Proficiency Test Proceedings 6 Compilation of the Test Results 7 Determination Assigned Value 7 Detection and elimination of Trivial Outliers 9 Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment

9

Performance Evaluation of Participants 9 Interpretation of Performance Comment 10 Outliers and Stragglers 10 General Advise to the Laboratories on the performance

11

4 Annexure - Performance Evaluation of participants – Test wise

13

S.No. Table Page No. 1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider 4 2 Tests covered in TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012-13 4 3 Advisory Group 5 4 Assigned Values 8 5 Details of Eliminations of Trivial Outliers from

Analysis 9

6 Interpretation of Performance comments 10 7 Outliers and stragglers Analysis 11 8 List of outliers and stragglers 12

Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

Preamble: Increasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile

manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of any laboratory depends upon the result it produces. The test report given byshould be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be comparable. And also, the result obtained over testing a laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by performing the same test.

The repeatability and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s

competence in conducting the test which involves knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test method adopted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its own management system as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005Comparison (ILC) and/or Inter Laboratory Proficiency Testing Scheme (ILPT).

Inter laboratory Comparison is defined as’ of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with predetermined conditions.” The goal of the Interverification of each participating laboratory’s technical capability by obtaining a measurement that agrees with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment and man-power. The requirement for inter laboratory compand has been further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in the requirements of IS0/IEC 17025:2005.

Textiles Committee:

Textiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Government of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up laboratories throughout the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing & calibration Laboratories (NABL), India.

PT-Provider:

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory Testing (ILPT) schemes for the benefit of Textile Testing national accreditation agency, NABL noILPT schemes. The German Standards body, (PTB), Germany recognized the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored some laboratories of SAARC countries unde(QIDP) in SAARC countries. Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by Textiles Committee.

In order to offer ILPT schemes professionally as a PT Provider, the laboratory of

Textiles Committee at Mumbai has implemented the Management System in accordance with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted 14 schemes since 2007. The details are given in Table

Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

ncreasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of any laboratory depends upon the result it produces. The test report given by the laboratory should be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be comparable. And also, the result obtained over testing a representative sample in any laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by

ity and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s conducting the test which involves the testing equipment, the skill and

knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test pted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its

own management system as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005, to participate in Inter Laboratory Comparison (ILC) and/or Inter Laboratory Proficiency Testing Scheme (ILPT).

Inter laboratory Comparison is defined as’ “Organization, performance and evaluation of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with

The goal of the Inter-laboratory Comparisons (ILC) iverification of each participating laboratory’s technical capability by obtaining a measurement that agrees with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment

power. The requirement for inter laboratory comparisons remains in place today, and has been further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in the requirements of IS0/IEC 17025:2005.

extiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Government of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up

the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing &

boratories (NABL), India.

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory for the benefit of Textile Testing laboratories as PT Provider. T

national accreditation agency, NABL nominated Textiles Committee as nodal agency for two The German Standards body, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored SAARC countries under its Quality Infrastructure Development Project

Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by

In order to offer ILPT schemes professionally as a PT Provider, the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbai has implemented the Management System in accordance with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted

schemes since 2007. The details are given in Table – 1.

ncreasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of

the laboratory should be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be

representative sample in any laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by

ity and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s the testing equipment, the skill and

knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test pted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its

participate in Inter Laboratory

“Organization, performance and evaluation of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with

laboratory Comparisons (ILC) is to provide verification of each participating laboratory’s technical capability by obtaining a measurement that agrees with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment

arisons remains in place today, and has been further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in

extiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up 19

the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing &

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory Proficiency as PT Provider. The

minated Textiles Committee as nodal agency for two Technische Bundesanstalt

the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored Quality Infrastructure Development Project

Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by

In order to offer ILPT schemes professionally as a PT Provider, the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbai has implemented the Management System in accordance with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted

Table – 1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

S.No. Identity of the ILPT

1 TC/ILTS/MECH/01/07

2 TC/ILTS/CHEM/02/07









11 TC/ILTS/MECH/11/10-11

12 TC/ILTS/CHEM/12/10-11

13 TC/ILTS/Mech-1/2012-13

14 TC/ILTS/Chem-1/2012-13

The Present Program

Design: In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by the various textile testing laboratoriestesting - TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012the present PT Scheme are given in Table

Table – 2 : Tests covered in

S.No. Test parameter

1 Determination of Width of woven fabric

2 Determination of Recovery from creasing of textiles by measuring the angle of recovery.

3 Determination of twist of yarn removed from fabric

4 Determination of Dimensional

5 Determination of Stiffness of fabrics6 Determination of wool fibre diameter7 Determination of Linear Density of yarn spun in cotton

system

8 Determination of Strength of yarn

9 Breaking load and elongation at break of single strand

1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

Year Field PT

items

No. of test

parameters2007 Mechanical Fibre,

Yarn & Fabric

17

2007 Chemical Fabric 13

2008 Mechanical Fabric 11


2009 Mechanical Fabric 11

2009 Mechanical Yarn 12

2009 Mechanical Fibre 15




2010-11 Mechanical Fabric 10

2010-11 Chemical Fabric 10

2012-13 Mechanical Yarn and Fabric

13

2012-13 Chemical Fabric and metal clothing

accessory

12

Program me:

In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by textile testing laboratories, this Proficiency Testing Scheme for

2-13 was designed. The test parameters thus covered in the present PT Scheme are given in Table – 2.

2 : Tests covered in TC/ILTS/MECH-1/2012-13

Test parameter Standards suggested

Width of woven fabric IS1954:1990 ASTM D 3774:2008

Recovery from creasing of textiles by recovery.

IS 4681-1981 (RA 2004)

twist of yarn removed from fabric IS 832:1985 ISO 7211-4:1984 ASTM D 1423:02(RA 2008)

Dimensional change due to heat IS 11248:1995 IS 11815:1986

Stiffness of fabrics-cantilever Test IS 6490:1971 wool fibre diameter IS 744:2000 Linear Density of yarn spun in cotton IS 1315-1977 (RA 2010)

ISO 2060:1994 ASTM D 1907:2007

Strength of yarn IS 1671-1977 (RA 2008)ISO 6339:1988 ASTM D 1578:93

Breaking load and elongation at break of single strand IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007)

1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

parameters

No. of Labs

participated 70

70

60

60

50

31

14

51

45

20

65

70

42

56

In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by Scheme for Mechanical

parameters thus covered in

13

Standards suggested

1981 (RA 2004)

(RA 2008)

2010)

(RA 2008)

IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007)

S.No. Test parameter

10 Determination of twist in yarn

11 Unevenness of Textile strands using capacitance method

12 Imperfections of Textile Strands using capacitance method

However, participants were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for the testing of regular samples. Hence, validated in-house method which is equiva

Advisory Group:

As per the requirements stipulated in ILAC G13 : 2007 and ISO/IEC 17043:2010, an Advisory Group comprising the following internal and external experts having necessary expertise in testing of Textiles

Table

S.No Expert

1 Mr. Kartikay Dhanda Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai

2 Dr. G.S. Nadiger Ex-Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, MumbaiAssessor, NABL

3 Dr. P.V. Varadarajan Ex-Principal Scientific Officer, CIRCOT, Assessor, NABL

4 Mr. G.M. Fairoze Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai

5 Mr. K. Selvaraj Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, TirupurAssessor, NABL

6 Dr. P. Ravichandran Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, B

7 Mr. S. P. Singh, Asst. Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, KanpurAssessor, NABL

The terms of reference of the Advisory Group were as follows:

a) Planning requirements b) Identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in

maintenance of homogeneous proficiency test items, or in the provision of stable assigned value for a proficiency test item;

c) Preparation of detailed instructions for participantsd) Comments on any technical difficulties raised by participe) Provision of advice in evaluating the performance of participants

Test parameter Standards suggested

Determination of twist in yarn IS 832:1985(RA 2011)ISO 2061:2010 ASTM D 1423:02(RA 2008)

Unevenness of Textile strands using capacitance ISO 16549:2004, ASTM D 1425:88(RA 2008)

Imperfections of Textile Strands using capacitance ISO 16549:2004 or validated inhouse method

were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for the testing of regular samples. Hence, participants could adopt any equivalent standard

house method which is equivalent to the suggested standards

As per the requirements stipulated in ILAC G13 : 2007 and ISO/IEC 17043:2010, an comprising the following internal and external experts having

of Textiles and/or statistics was constituted

Table – 3 : Constitution of Advisory Group

Expert Affiliation Field of expertise

Textiles Committee, Mumbai Chairman Textile testing

Textiles Committee, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Principal Scientific Officer, CIRCOT, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Tirupur Member Textile testing &

Statistics

Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Bengaluru. Member Textile testing

Asst. Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Kanpur. Member Textile testing

The terms of reference of the Advisory Group were as follows:

Identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and maintenance of homogeneous proficiency test items, or in the provision of stable assigned value for a proficiency test item; Preparation of detailed instructions for participants Comments on any technical difficulties raised by participants Provision of advice in evaluating the performance of participants

Standards suggested

832:1985(RA 2011)

ASTM D 1423:02(RA 2008)

:88(RA 2008) ISO 16549:2004 or validated in-

were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for could adopt any equivalent standard or

As per the requirements stipulated in ILAC G13 : 2007 and ISO/IEC 17043:2010, an comprising the following internal and external experts having the

Field of expertise

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing & Statistics

Textile testing

Textile testing

the preparation and maintenance of homogeneous proficiency test items, or in the provision of stable

f) Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where appropriate, groups of participants or individual participants;

g) Provision of advice for participants (withiwithin the report;

h) Responding to feedback from participants; and i) Planning or participating in technical meetings with participants.j) Arbitration of any dispute(s) between participating laboratory(ies) an

Participants:

In all 42 participants from India, scheme.

Proficiency Test Proceedings

The laboratory of Textiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured quantity of fabrics and yarn (PT item) conducting Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme, on the basis of expected number of participants.

Preparation of PT items:prepared ensuring the quantityparameters included in the schemewere numbered serially, packed in polyethylene bags and labeled

Allotments of PT items:Sampling procedures adopted Homogeneity testing, Stability testing and for distribution among participantpart of the population was kept asHenceforth, the allotted PT items

Homogeneity testing: homogeneity testing was conductedLudhiana and Tirupur for the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the participants, the “between- samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a particular method was used for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO 13528:2005 was followed for conducting homogeneity testing.

Dispatch of PT items:respective participants on 17th April 2013

(a) Form for Acknowledging the receipt of PT items(b) Instructions to the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme (c) Form for reporting test results by the participants in the

Scheme The participant laboratories were requested to send the test results by 2

Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where appropriate, groups of participants or individual participants; Provision of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either individually or

Responding to feedback from participants; and Planning or participating in technical meetings with participants. Arbitration of any dispute(s) between participating laboratory(ies) and the PT provider.

from India, Bangladesh and Vietnam were participated in this

Proceedings :

extiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured (PT item) from a reputed textiles mill for designing and

conducting Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme, on the basis of expected number of

of PT items: On receipt of the procured materials, PT itemsthe quantity of each PT item is adequate for the testing of all the

included in the scheme. The PT items thus prepared from the material procuredpacked in polyethylene bags and labeled.

of PT items: Allotments of PT items were done by following appropriate procedures adopted by using Random Numbers generated by computer,

Homogeneity testing, Stability testing and for distribution among participants. The remainingpart of the population was kept as reserve for replacement in case of loss or damageHenceforth, the allotted PT items can be referred as sample.

To verify the homogeneity of the prepared was conducted at the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbaifor the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of

the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a

sed for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO

wed for conducting homogeneity testing.

Dispatch of PT items: The Proficiency Testing items were dispatched to the April 2013, along with the following:

Form for Acknowledging the receipt of PT items the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

Form for reporting test results by the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing

The participant laboratories were requested to send the test results by 29th April 2013.

Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where

n limits of confidentiality), either individually or

d the PT provider.

and Vietnam were participated in this

extiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured sufficient for designing and

conducting Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme, on the basis of expected number of

PT items were is adequate for the testing of all the

material procured

were done by following appropriate by using Random Numbers generated by computer, for

The remaining reserve for replacement in case of loss or damage.

prepared PT items at the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbai,

for the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the

samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a sed for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods

adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO

The Proficiency Testing items were dispatched to the

Inter Laboratory Testing

April 2013.

The participant laboratories were also requested to

� Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not aware that they are meant for PT purposes;

� Adopt the latest test method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the

testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated inmethod;

� Forward (i) copy of the in

parameter and also (ii) specify the standard method against which the validation has been done; and,

� Forward photo copy of Scope of

for the test method adopted (

The participants were informed thatparticipants’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned test parameter, although, performance of the laboratory will be evaluatedFurther, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded for calculation of summary statistics and perform

Compilation of the Test Results:

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, tindividual participant laboratories were given Code computer. Subsequently, the test results reported by the participant laboratories were tabulated and statistically analyzed for the basic Maximum, Minimum, Standard Deviation, etc.,inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculationstranspositions

Determination Assigned Value:

To ensure the measurement traceability, only considered for evaluating the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the accredited participants. However, this weightage is given only when the submitted their Scope of accreditation and accredited for the specific testis conducted

Initially, the robust average and the standard deviation of accredited participants (in respective testsaccordance with the procedure given in ISO 13528: 2005were calculated on the basis of the above. The test results of thosefound to be outliers (Z score more than +3 or less than of the remaining expert participantsthe assigned value for the concerned parameter

The Assigned Value of both the parameters thus arrived are given in

The participant laboratories were also requested to

Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not aware that they are meant for PT purposes;

the latest test method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated in

Forward (i) copy of the in-house method adopted (if applicable) for testing any (ii) specify the standard method against which the validation

Scope of accreditation certificate as a proof of accreditation for the test method adopted (applicable to accredited laboratories only)

The participants were informed that, in the absence of proof of accreditation, the ’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned

test parameter, although, performance of the laboratory will be evaluated for this parameter. Further, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded for calculation of summary statistics and performance evaluation of participants

Compilation of the Test Results:

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, tindividual participant laboratories were given Code numbers which are generated

he test results reported by the participant laboratories were tabulated and statistically analyzed for the basic statistics viz., Mean, Median, Mode, Maximum, Minimum, Standard Deviation, etc., While doing so, test results were checked foinappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations

Determination Assigned Value:

To ensure the measurement traceability, only accredited participants (experts)the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the

However, this weightage is given only when the participant submitted their Scope of accreditation and accredited for the specific test in which the ILPT

tially, the robust average and the standard deviation of values reported by the in respective tests) were determined for each parameter in

cedure given in ISO 13528: 2005. Subsequently, robust Z calculated on the basis of the above. The test results of those participants

found to be outliers (Z score more than +3 or less than -3) were deleted and Robust Average participants was again calculated. This Robust average is treated as

the assigned value for the concerned parameter

The Assigned Value of both the parameters thus arrived are given in Table–4 .

Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not

the latest test method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated in-house

house method adopted (if applicable) for testing any (ii) specify the standard method against which the validation

accreditation certificate as a proof of accreditation

in the absence of proof of accreditation, the ’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned

for this parameter. Further, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, the generated by using

he test results reported by the participant laboratories were viz., Mean, Median, Mode,

were checked for inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and

(experts) are the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the

participant had in which the ILPT

values reported by the ) were determined for each parameter in

. Subsequently, robust Z Score participants which were

3) were deleted and Robust Average verage is treated as

.

Page 8 of 52

Table 4: Assigned Values

S.No. Test

Ass

igne

d V

alue

Rob

ust S

D o

f A

ssig

ned

Val

ue

Unc

erta

inty

of

Ass

igne

d V

alue

No.

of

part

icip

ants

co

ntrib

uted

for

Ass

igne

d V

alue

Tot

al N

o. o

f A

ccre

dite

d pa

rtic

ipan

ts

avai

labl

e fo

r

the

Tes

t

Tot

al n

umbe

r of

pa

rtic

ipan

ts(1

)

1 Determination of Width of woven fabric (cm) 142 0.00 0.00 15 17 37

2 Determination of Recovery from creasing of textiles by measuring the angle of recovery. (°) Warp: Weft: Total:

122.0 113.7 239.7

16.8 10.3 30.9

8.6 5.3

15.8

6 6 6

6 6 6

15 15 15

3 Determination of twist of yarn removed from fabric (Cardinal number) Warp: Weft:

681 634

12.2 19.5

4.6 6.8

11 13

13 13

23 23

4 Determination of Dimensional change due to heat ( %) Warp: Weft:

0.9 0.3

0.19 0.24

0.14 0.2

3

3

3 3

22 22

5 Determination of Stiffness of fabrics-cantilever Test

a) Bending Length (cm) Warp Weft

b) Flexural Rigidity (mg-cm) Warp

Weft Overall

4.6 4.2

1781 1429 1587

0.432 0.30

398 319 340

0.20 0.14

188 151 161

7(2)

7

7 7 7

1 1

1 1 1

7 7 7 7 7

6 Determination of wool fibre diameter (Unit: µm)

21.5 0.19 0.10 5(2) 1 7

7 Determination of Linear Density of yarn spun in cotton system (Ne)

15.1 0.10 0.03 22 22 36

8A

Determination of Strength of yarn(lb)

348.3 11.87 3.83 15 15 25

8B

Count Strength Product 5263 206 64 16 16 26

9 Determination of Breaking load and elongation at break of single strand

a) Breaking load (cN) b) Elongation (%) c) Tenacity (cN/tex)

1079.2

12.4 27.8

7.69 0.00 0.64

3.04 0.00 0.22

10 9 13

14 14 14

26 26 26

10 Determination of twist in yarn (Cardinal number)

598.4 15.60 5.04 15 15 28

11 Unevenness of Textile strands using capacitance method (U%) 7.5 0.21 0.09 8 8 10

12 Imperfections of Textile Strands using capacitance method (cardinal number per km)

15.6 3.37 1.59 7 7 10

Remarks: (1) Total labs reported valid results in the respective method (2) For the tests Stiffness of fabric, Wool fibre diameter and Hairiness index of yarn, as very few accredited laboratories participated, the robust mean of all the participants is taken as assigned value.

Detection and elimination of Trivial

From the extreme values theSuspected extreme values which satisfy both of the following criteria are treated as Trivial Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one criteria, considered as ‘Qualified’

Criteria1: Suspected extreme value lies Criteria 2: Dixon’s Q test for detection of outlier

The list of such exclusions is placed in Table

Table 5: Details of Eliminations of Trivial

S.No. Test

1 Determination of wool fibre diameter

Total

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment (

The robust average and the robust standard deviation reported by the participants were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance with the procedure given in ISO 13528:2005deviation (SS)” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all the participants. If SS ≤ 0.3 σ1

robust standard deviation of aProficiency Testing. That is σ = σ

If SS > 0.3 σ1 , then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of the sample as stipulated in ISO 13528:2005, by using the formula

Performance Evaluation of Participants:

The performance of the individual laboratory was evaluated by adopting score technique given in ISO 13528:2005

where � is the test result reported by the individual laboratory; � is the standard deviation of the Proficiency Assessment.

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade compared to Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other results are taken as satisfactory.

Test wise performance evaluation is given in Annexure.

Detection and elimination of Trivial Outliers:

From the extreme values the Trivial Outliers were identified and eliminatedwhich satisfy both of the following criteria are treated as Trivial

Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one as ‘Qualified’ and included for performance evaluation

xtreme value lies outside of the interval of ± 25% of Assigned Valuefor detection of outlier at 5% level of significance

The list of such exclusions is placed in Table – 5.

: Details of Eliminations of Trivial Outliers from Analysis

Test Assigned Value

Result Reported

by the participant

wool fibre diameter 21.4

41.6 41.5

Total 2

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment (

The robust average and the robust standard deviation (σ1) of all qualified values were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance

with the procedure given in ISO 13528:2005. Subsequently, the “between-samples standard )” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all

, then the sample is considered as homogenous and the robust standard deviation of all the participants is treated as Standard Deviation for

= σ1.

, then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of the sample as stipulated in ISO 13528:2005, by using the formula

� � ��

Evaluation of Participants:

The performance of the individual laboratory was evaluated by adopting given in ISO 13528:2005, as per the following formula:

� � � ��

is the test result reported by the individual laboratory; � is the Assigned Value and standard deviation of the Proficiency Assessment.

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other results

Test wise performance evaluation is given in Annexure.

were identified and eliminated. which satisfy both of the following criteria are treated as Trivial

Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one

the interval of ± 25% of Assigned Value

Outliers from Analysis

Reported

participant

participants Code

13017 13036

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment ( σ):

qualified values were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance

samples standard )” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all

, then the sample is considered as homogenous and the ll the participants is treated as Standard Deviation for

, then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of

The performance of the individual laboratory was evaluated by adopting Robust Z

is the Assigned Value and

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other results

Interpretation of Performance comment:

Table – 6: Interpretation of Performance

Range

Objective Tests

│Z -

2 <│Z -

│Z -

Subjective Test

│Reported Value – Assigned Value

│Reported Value - Assigned Value

Outliers and Stragglers:

Overall performance of all the and far. The Outlier and Straggler Analysis is given in Table and stragglers are listed in Table

General Advise to the participants

If the participant is found to be taken after thorough investigation of the root cause of the problem. In case the found to be “Straggler”, the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / equipments, maintenance of environmentaensure that the test results being reported for the concerned t

Interpretation of Performance comment:

: Interpretation of Performance comment

Range Performance of Laboratory

- Score│≤ 2 Satisfactory

- Score│< 3 Straggler

- Score│≥ 3 Outlier

Assigned Value │≤ ½ grade Satisfactory

Assigned Value │> ½ grade Outlier

Outliers and Stragglers:

Overall performance of all the participants is good. Outliers and Stragglers are very rare The Outlier and Straggler Analysis is given in Table – 7. Parameter-wise the outliers

and stragglers are listed in Table-8.

participants on the performance:

is found to be “Outlier”, necessary corrective action should be taken after thorough investigation of the root cause of the problem. In case the

the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / equipments, maintenance of environmental conditions etc., are have to be reensure that the test results being reported for the concerned test parameters are satisfactory

Performance of Laboratory

Satisfactory

Straggler

Outlier

Satisfactory

Outlier

is good. Outliers and Stragglers are very rare wise the outliers

corrective action should be taken after thorough investigation of the root cause of the problem. In case the participant is

the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / l conditions etc., are have to be re-examined to

est parameters are satisfactory

Page 11 of 52

Table –7: Outlier and Straggler Analysis

S. No Test

No. of Labs Participated*

Valid Results

No. of Stragglers

% of Stragglers

No. of Outliers

% of Outliers

1 Width of fabric 37 37 0 0 0 0

2a Crease Recovery-Warp 15 15 2 13.3 0 0

2b Crease Recovery-Weft 15 15 0 0 0 0

2c Crease Recovery-Total 15 15 0 0 0 0

3a Twist of yarn in fabric-warp 23 23 0 0 1 4.4

3b Twist of yarn in fabric-weft 23 23 0 0 0 0

4a Heat Shrinkage Warp 22 22 0 0 0 0

4b Heat Shrinkage Weft 22 22 0 0 0 0

5a Bending Length Warp 7 7 0 0 0 0

5b Bending Length Weft 7 7 0 0 0 0

5c Flexural Rigidity Warp 7 7 0 0 0 0

5d Flexural Rigidity Weft 7 7 0 0 0 0

5e Flexural Rigidity Overall 7 7 0 0 0 0

6 Wool Fibre diameter 7 7 1 14.3 2 28.6

7 Linear Density of yarn Ne(2F) 36 36 1 2.8 0 0

8a Lea Br Strength(lb) 26 25 0 0 2 8

8b Count Strength Product 26 26 0 0 2 7.7

9a Single strand Br load(cN) 26 26 1 3.8 3 11.5

9b Elongation at break(%) 26 26 1 3.8 3 11.5

9c Tenacity 26 26 2 7.7 2 7.7

10 Twist Per Meter 28 28 2 7.1 0 0

11 Unevenness (%) 10 10 0 0 0 0

12 Imperfection Per Kilometer

12a Thin places 10 10 0 0 0 0

12b Thick places 10 10 0 0 0 0

12c Neps 10 10 0 0 1 10

12d Total 10 10 0 0 0 0

Total 458 457 10 2.2 16 3.5 *Inclusive of Gross error and other methods.

Page 12 of 52

Table – 8 List of Outliers and Stragglers

S. No Test Straggler Lab codes

Outlier Lab codes

1 Width of fabric Nil Nil 2a Crease Recovery-Warp 13017, 13036 Nil 2b Crease Recovery-Weft Nil Nil 2c Crease Recovery-Total Nil Nil 3a Twist of yarn in fabric-warp Nil 13030 3b Twist of yarn in fabric-weft Nil Nil

4a Heat Shrinkage Warp Nil Nil

4b Heat Shrinkage Weft Nil Nil

5a Bending Length Warp Nil Nil

5b Bending Length Weft Nil Nil

5c Flexural Rigidity Warp Nil Nil 5d Flexural Rigidity Weft Nil Nil 5e Flexural Rigidity Overall Nil Nil 6 Wool Fibre diameter 13029 13017,13036 7 Linear Density of yarn Ne(2F) 13027 Nil 8a Lea Br Strength(lb) Nil 13017,13036 8b Count Strength Product Nil 13017,13036 9a Single strand Br load (cN) 13004 13015, 3017,13036 9b Elongation at break(%) 13029 13001,13013,13020 9c Tenacity 13015, 13027 13017, 13036 10 Twist Per Meter 13017, 13036 Nil 11 Unevenness (%) Nil Nil

12

Imperfection Per Kilometer Nil Nil Thin places Nil Nil Thick places Nil Nil Neps Nil 13009 Total Nil Nil

Total Count 10 16

.

Page 13 of 52

Annexure

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PARTICIPANTS - TEST WISE

1. Determination of Width of woven fabric

Width of woven fabric

Lab code Reported

value (cm)

Test method adopted Z- Score Performance Remark

13001 142.0 ISO 22198:2006 0.0 Satisfactory


13003 142.4 ASTM 3774 2012 0.8 Satisfactory

13004 142.0 IS 1954:1990 (RA 2007) 0.0 Satisfactory






13011 142.2 ASTM D 3774:1996(RA 2008) 0.4 Satisfactory



13015 141.9 IS 1954:1990 (RA 2007) -0.2 Satisfactory








13024 142.3 ISO 22198 0.6 Satisfactory

13026 143.0 ASTM D 3774:1996(RA 2008) 2.0 Satisfactory











13037 142.2 ASTM D3774:1996(RA 2008) 0.4 Satisfactory





Page 14 of 52

No. of participants 37

Maximum 143.0

Minimum 141.9

Mean 142.2

Std Deviation 0.26

Median 142.0

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 142 cm Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.00 cm

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.1213 cm

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any (σ) = 0.12 cm

Heterogeneity Accounted

Assigned Value ( X ) = 142 cm SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.5 cm

Remark: As per IS 1954, the participants were instructed to report integer value (accuracy

1cm). Though, evaluation is carried out with received results containing upto one decimal, the Robust SD (σ1) is zero only. Hence, SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity (σ) is contributed by the between sample SD of homogeneity testing (SS) only. Since, SS value is 0.12cm is only 12% of instructed accuracy 1cm, and negligible with respect to the parameter value 142cm, the pivotal quantity for rounding i.e., 0.5cm is taken for σ and Z scores evaluated.

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

13

00

1

13

00

2

13

00

3

13

00

4

13

00

5

13

00

6

13

00

7

13

00

8

13

00

9

13

01

1

Z-S

core

13

01

2

13

01

3

13

01

5

13

01

6

13

01

7

13

01

8

13

01

9

13

02

0

13

02

1

13

02

2

13

02

4

13

02

6

13

02

7

13

02

8

13

02

9

13

03

0

13

03

1

Lab Code

Width of Fabric

Page 15 of 52

13

03

2

13

03

3

13

03

4

13

03

5

13

03

6

13

03

7

13

03

8

13

04

0

13

04

1

13

04

2

Page 16 of 52

2. Determination of Recovery from creasing of texti les by Measuring the angle of recovery

2a. Crease Recovery Angle (Warp)

Lab code Reported value (°) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

13001 117.0 IS 4681:1981(RA 2004) -0.6 Satisfactory



13007 134.0 IS 4681:1981(RA 2004) 1.4 Satisfactory



13017 142.0 IS 4681:1981(RA 2004) 2.3 Straggler







13036 141.0 IS 4681:1981(RA 2004) 2.2 Straggler


No. of participants 15 Maximum 142.0 Minimum 105.0 Mean 121.2 Std Deviation 11.50 Median 120.0

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 120.26°

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 8.66°

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 1.0°

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any (σ) = 8.66°

No heterogeneity observed

Assigned Value ( X ) = 122.0° SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 8.7°

Page 17 of 52

2b. Crease Recovery Angle (Weft)


Score Performance

Remark

















SUMMARY

Robust Average = 116.06°

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 12.02°





Page 18 of 52

2c.Crease Recovery Angle-Total


Score Performance

Remark

















SUMMARY

Robust Average = 236.43° Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 22.87°





-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

13

00

1

13

00

4

13

00

5

13

00

7Z-S

core

Crease Recovery Angle

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

1

1300

4

1300

5

1300

7

Z-S

core


-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

1

1300

4

1300

5

1300

7Z-S

core


13

00

7

13

00

9

13

01

5

13

01

7

13

02

4

13

02

6

13

02

7

13

02

8

13

02

9

Lab Code

Crease Recovery Angle - Warp

1300

7

1300

9

1301

5

1301

7

1302

4

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9Lab Code

Crease Recovery Angle - Weft

1300

7

1300

9

1301

5

1301

7

1302

4

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

Lab Code

Crease Recovery Angle -Total

13

03

0

13

03

6

13

04

2

1303

0

1303

6

1304

2

1303

0

1303

6

1304

2

Page 20 of 52

3. Determination of twist of yarn removed from fabric

3a. Twist of Yarn Removed from Fabric-Warp

Lab code Reported value (TPM) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

13001 700 IS 832:1985(RA 2011) 0.9 Satisfactory

13003 670 IS 832:1985(RA 2011) -0.5 Satisfactory












13026 713 ISO 7211-4-1984(E) 1.5 Satisfactory




13030 745 IS 832:1985(RA 2011) 3.0 Outlier






No. of participants 23 Maximum 745 Minimum 643 Mean 688.2 Std Deviation 22.49 Median 683.0

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 686.46 Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 18.77

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 10.5214

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any ( σ ) = 21.51


Assigned Value ( X ) = 681 SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 21.5

Page 21 of 52

3b. Twist of Yarn Removed from Fabric-Weft

Lab code Reported value (TPM)

Test method adopted

Z- Score

Performance Remark














13026 671 ISO 7211-4-1984(E) 1.3 Satisfactory










No. of participants 23 Maximum 688 Minimum 601 Mean 644.7

Std Deviation 25.33 Median 641.5

SUMMARY


Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing (SS ) = 9.0218 SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any ( σ ) = 29.27


Assigned Value ( X ) = 634

SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 29.3

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

1300

1

1300

3

1300

6

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

1301

3

Z-S

core

Twist of Yarn removed from Fabric

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

1

1300

3

1300

6

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

1301

3

Z-S

core

Twist of Yarn removed from Fabric

1301

3

1301

6

1301

8

1301

9

1302

1

1302

2

1302

4

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

4

Lab Code

Twist of Yarn removed from Fabric - Warp

1301

3

1301

6

1301

8

1301

9

1302

1

1302

2

1302

4

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

4

Lab Code

Twist of Yarn removed from Fabric - Weft

1303

4

1303

8

1304

1

1304

2

Warp

1303

4

1303

8

1304

1

1304

2

Page 23 of 52

4. Determination of Dimensional change due to heat

4a.Heat Shrinkage - Warp

Lab code Reported value (%) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

13001 1.2 IS 11248:1995 0.65 Satisfactory

13002 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13004 0.9 IS 11248:1995 0.00 Satisfactory

13005 0.4 IS 11248:1995 -1.09 Satisfactory

13009 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -1.52 Satisfactory

13010 1.0 IS 11248:1995 0.22 Satisfactory

13012 1.2 IS 11248:1995 0.65 Satisfactory

13015 0.9 IS 11248:1995 0.00 Satisfactory

13017 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13020 1.1 IS 11248:1995 0.43 Satisfactory

13021 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -1.52 Satisfactory

13024 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13027 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13028 0.5 IS 11248:1995 -0.87 Satisfactory

13029 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -1.52 Satisfactory

13030 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -1.96 Satisfactory

13031 0.3 IS 11248:1995 -1.30 Satisfactory

13034 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13035 1.1 IS 11248:1995 0.43 Satisfactory

13036 0.8 IS 11248:1995 -0.22 Satisfactory

13040 1.3 IS 11248:1995 0.87 Satisfactory

13042 0.1 IS 11248:1995 -1.74 Satisfactory


SUMMARY





Assigned Value ( X ) = 0.9 SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.46

Page 24 of 52

4b. Heat Shrinkage - Weft

Lab code Reported value (%)

Test method adopted Z- Score Performance

Remark

13001 0.8 IS 11248:1995 1.5 Satisfactory

13002 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13004 0.5 IS 11248:1995 0.7 Satisfactory

13005 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

13009 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

13010 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13012 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13015 0.5 IS 11248:1995 0.6 Satisfactory

13017 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -0.3 Satisfactory

13020 0.8 IS 11248:1995 1.5 Satisfactory

13021 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -0.3 Satisfactory

13024 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13027 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13028 0.3 IS 11248:1995 0.0 Satisfactory

13029 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

13030 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

13031 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

13034 0.4 IS 11248:1995 0.3 Satisfactory

13035 0.3 IS 11248:1995 0.0 Satisfactory

13036 0.2 IS 11248:1995 -0.3 Satisfactory

13040 0.8 IS 11248:1995 1.5 Satisfactory

13042 0.0 IS 11248:1995 -0.9 Satisfactory

No. of participants 22 Maximum 0.8 Minimum 0.0 Mean 0.32

Std Deviation 0.26 Median 0.35 SUMMARY

Robust Average = 0.31

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.26 Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.2014




-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

1300

1

1300

2

1300

4

1300

5

1300

9

1301

0

Z-S

core

Heat Shrinkage

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

1

1300

2

1300

4

1300

5

1300

9

1301

0

Z-S

core

Heat Shrinkage

1301

2

1301

5

1301

7

1302

0

1302

1

1302

4

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

4

1303

5

Lab Code

Heat Shrinkage -Warp

1301

2

1301

5

1301

7

1302

0

1302

1

1302

4

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

4

1303

5

Lab Code

Heat Shrinkage -Weft

1303

5

1303

6

1304

0

1304

2

1303

5

1303

6

1304

0

1304

2

5. Determination of Stiffness of fabrics

Lab code Reported value (cm)

13001

13017

13026

13028

13029

13030

13036

No. of participants Maximum Minimum

Mean Std Deviation

Median

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( S

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any

Remarks: As sufficient number of accredited participant isparticipants is taken as Assigned Value.

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

13001 13017

Z-S

core

Bending Length

5. Determination of Stiffness of fabrics -cantilever Test

5a. Bending Length - Warp

Reported value (cm) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

4.8 IS 6490:1991(RA 2004) 0.4 Satisfactory

4.3 IS 6490:1991(RA 2004) -0.6 Satisfactory






7 5.3 4.2 4.63 0.42 4.50

SUMMARY

Robust Average = Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) =




Assigned Value ( X ) = SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) =

number of accredited participant is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

13026 13028 13029 13030

Lab Code

Bending Length - Warp

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

4.61

0.432

0.3203

0.5379

4.6 0.54

Robust mean of all

13036

Lab code Reported value (cm)

13001

13017

13026

13028

13029

13030

13036

No. of participants

Maximum

Minimum Mean

Std Deviation Median


Between


Remarks: As sufficient number of accredited participants isparticipants is taken as Assigned Value.

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

13001 13017

Z-S

core

Bending Length

5b. Bending Length - Weft

Reported value (cm) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark








7 4.7 3.9 4.26 0.31 4.10

SUMMARY






of accredited participants is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

13026 13028 13029 13030

Lab Code

Bending Length - Weft

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

4.23 0.30

0.2887

0.4171

4.2 0.42

not available, the Robust mean of all

13036

Lab code Reported

13001

13017

13026

13028

13029

13030

13036


Mean 1854.22





Remark: As sufficient number of accredited participant laboratories isof all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

13001 13017

Z-S

core

Flexural Rigidity

5c. Flexural Rigidity - Warp

Reported value Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark








7 2769.1 1411.2 1854.22 492.24 1673

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 1780.83Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) =

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) =

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any ( σ ) =



number of accredited participant laboratories is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

13026 13028 13029 13030

Lab Code

Flexural Rigidity - Warp

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

1780.83 398.25

463

610.72

1781 611

not available, the Robust mean

13036

Lab code Reported

13001

13017

13026

13028

13029

13030

13036


Mean 1501.67

Std Deviation Median 1294.35




Remark: As sufficient number of accredited participant laboratories isof all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

13001 13017

Z-S

core

Flexural Rigidity

5d. Flexural Rigidity - Weft

Reported value Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark








7 2138.0 1046.9 1501.67 395.76 1294.35

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 1428.63Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) =





number of accredited participant laboratories is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

13026 13028 13029 13030

Lab Code

Flexural Rigidity - Weft

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

1428.63 319.23

375

492.48

1429 492

not available, the Robust mean

13036

5e

Lab code Reported value

13001 1729.0

13017 1390.2

13026 1941.0

13028 2312.4

13029 1215.5

13030 1455.0

13036 1390.2

No. of participants Maximum 2421.0

Minimum 1215.5

Mean 1701.90

Std Deviation 480.00

Median 1455.00




Remark: As sufficient number of accredited participant laboratories is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

13001 13017

Z-S

core

Flexural Rigidity

e. Flexural Rigidity - Overall

Reported value Test method adopted Z- Score Performance

Remark








7 2421.0 1215.5 1701.90 480.00 1455.00

SUMMARY






As sufficient number of accredited participant laboratories is not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value

13026 13028 13029 13030

Lab Code

Flexural Rigidity - Overall

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

1586.95 339.88

350

487.87

1587 488

As sufficient number of accredited participant laboratories is not available, the Robust mean

13036

Page 31 of 52

6. Determination of wool fibre diameter

6. Wool Fibre Diameter

Lab code Reported

value ( µm) Test method

adopted Z- Score Performance Remark

13015 21.4 IS 744:2000 -0.1 Satisfactory

13016 21.6 IS 744:2000 0.1 Satisfactory

13024 21.5 IS 744:2000 0.0 Satisfactory

13029 19.7 IS 744:2000 -2.3 Straggler

13031 21.7 IS 744:2000 0.3 Satisfactory


SUMMARY

Robust Average = 21.5 µm Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.19 µm

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.7624 µm

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any ( σ ) = 0.7851 µm


Assigned Value ( X ) = 21.5 µm SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.79 µm

Remarks: (1) As sufficient number of accredited participants are not available, the Robust mean of all participants is taken as Assigned Value.

(2)Extreme values reported by participants are detected as Trivial Outlier and hence, the same are excluded from Performance Evaluation. Details are given in the following table

Participant Laboratory

Code

Extreme Value reported by

the Participant

Criteria for Trivial Outlier

Test the reported value for the

criteria Conclusion Remark

13017 13036

41.6µm 41.5µm

Dixon’s Q Test Null Hypothesis: Extreme value is Not an Outlier

Q calculated = 0.913 Q n=6;α=5% (tabulated) = 0.642

Q cal > Q n=5;α=5%. Reject the Null Hypothesis.

Extreme value falls within ±25% of Assigned Value

Assigned Value:21.4 µm Acceptable Range 16.0 < x < 26.8

41.6 and 41.5 do not fall in the acceptable range. Hence, reject the values.

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

13015 13016

Z-S

core

Wool Fibre Diameter

13016 13024 13029

Lab Code

Wool Fibre Diameter

13031

Page 33 of 52

7. Determination of Linear Density of yarn spun in cot ton system

7. Linear Density of Yarn (Ne)

Lab code Reported value (Ne) (2F) Test method adopted Z- Score Performance Remark


13003 14.9 ISO 2060:1994 -1.7 Satisfactory







13011 15.0 IN HOUSE METHOD -0.8 Satisfactory












13026 15.0 ASTM D 1907:2007 -0.8 Satisfactory

13027 14.8 IS 1315:1977 (RA 2010) -2.5 Straggler









13037 15.2 IN HOUSE METHOD 0.8 Satisfactory


13039 15.0 ASTM D 1907:2007 -0.8 Satisfactory




Page 34 of 52

No. of participants 36

Maximum 15.3 Minimum 14.8

Mean 15.07

Std Deviation

0.11

Median 15.07

SUMMARY






-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

1

1300

3

1300

4

1300

5

1300

6

1300

7

1300

9

1301

0

1301

1

1301

2

Z-S

core

Linear Density

1301

3

1301

5

1301

6

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

2

1302

4

1302

5

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

Lab Code

Linear Density - Count of Yarn in Ne

Page 35 of 52

1303

2

1303

3

1303

5

1303

6

1303

7

1303

8

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

1304

2

Page 36 of 52

8. Determination of Strength of yarn

8a. Lea Breaking Strength (lb)

Lab code Reported value (lb) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark








13017 407.2 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) 4.4 Outlier




13026 355.8 ASTM D 1578:1993(2006) 0.6 Satisfactory








13036 407.2 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) 4.4 Outlier


13039 341.3 ASTM D 1578 -0.5 Satisfactory






Between sample SD of Homogeneity



Remark: The participant code No.: 13003 hasSince, no other laboratory followed the method inter laboratory comparison is not possible

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1300

1

1300

5

1300

6

1300

7

1300

9

1301

3

1301

5

1301

7

Z-S

core

Lea Breaking Strength

SUMMARY

Robust Average =

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) =




Assigned Value ( X ) =

SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) =

The participant code No.: 13003 has reported “Skein Breaking Strength” in kgf. Since, no other laboratory followed the method inter laboratory comparison is not possible

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

1303

5

1303

6

1303

8

1303

9

Lab Code

Lea Breaking Strength

352.19

13.35

1.5527

13.35

348.3

13.4

reported “Skein Breaking Strength” in kgf. Since, no other laboratory followed the method inter laboratory comparison is not possible

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

1304

2

Page 38 of 52

8b. Count Strength Product

Lab code Reported value Test method adopted Z- Score Performance

Remark

13001 5460 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) 0.9 Satisfactory

13003 5436 ISO 6939:1988 0.8 Satisfactory




13009 5087 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) -0.8 Satisfactory



13017 6189 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) 4.4 Outlier




13026 5337 ASTM D 1578:1993(2006) 0.4 Satisfactory








13036 6189 IS 1671:1977 (RA 2004) 4.4 Outlier


13039 5120 ASTM D 1578 -0.7 Satisfactory








-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1300

1

1300

3

1300

5

1300

6

1300

7

1300

9

1301

3

Z-S

core

Count Strength Product

SUMMARY






1301

5

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

6

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

1303

5

1303

6

Lab Code

Count Strength Product

5310.40 210.53

32.17

210.53

5263 211

1303

6

1303

8

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

1304

2

Page 40 of 52

9. Breaking load and elongation at break of single strand

9a. Single Strand Breaking Load

Lab code Reported value (cN) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark


13004 1140.0 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 2.4 Straggler






13015 1193.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 4.5 Outlier

13017 1241.8 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 6.4 Outlier





13027 1106.0 IS 1670:1991 1.0 Satisfactory








13036 1241.8 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 6.4 Outlier


13039 1096.6 ASTM D 2256 0.7 Satisfactory



No. of participants 26 Maximum 1242 Minimum 1064 Mean 1107 Std Deviation 48 Median 1095.2




No heterogeneity

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1300

1

1300

4

1300

5

1300

7

1300

9

1301

0

1301

3

Z-S

core

Single Strand Breaking Load

SUMMARY






1301

5

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

2

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

1303

3

1303

5

Lab Code

Single Strand Breaking Load

1096.30

25.58

1.4236

25.58

1079.2 25.6

1303

6

1303

8

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

Page 42 of 52

9b. Elongation at Breaking Load

Lab code Reported value (%) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

13001 14.3 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 5.0 Outlier






13013 10.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -5.8 Outlier




13020 13.8 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 3.7 Outlier



13027 12.8 IS 1670:1991 1.1 Satisfactory


13029 11.4 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -2.6 Straggler








13039 12.4 ASTM D 2256 0.0 Satisfactory





Between sample SD of



-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

1300

1

1300

4

1300

5

1300

7

1300

9

1301

0

1301

3

1301

5

Z-S

core

Elongation at Breaking Load

SUMMARY






1301

5

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

2

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

1303

3

1303

5

1303

6

1303

8

Lab Code

Elongation at Breaking Load

12.45

0.31 0.2323

0.3843

12.4 0.38

1303

8

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

Page 44 of 52

9c. Tenacity

Lab code Reported

value (cN/Tex)

Test method adopted Z- Score

Performance Remark

13001 28.3 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.6

13004 29.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 1.6

13005 28.5 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.8

13007 27.8 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.0

13009 27.3 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.6

13010 27.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.8

13013 28.7 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 1.1

13015 30.3 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 2.9 Straggler

13017 31.9 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 4.8 Outlier

13019 27.3 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.6

13020 27.4 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.5

13021 27.9 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.1

13022 27.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.7

13027 30.3 IS 1670:1991 2.9 Straggler

13028 27.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.7

13029 28.9 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 1.3

13030 28.1 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.4

13031 27.8 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 0.0

13032 28.7 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 1.1

13033 27.2 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.7

13035 27.6 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.2

13036 31.9 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) 4.8 Straggler

13038 27.4 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.5

13039 27.9 ASTM D 2256 0.1

13040 27.7 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.1

13041 27.6 IS 1670:1991 (RA 2007) -0.2






-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1300

1

1300

4

1300

5

1300

7

1300

9

1301

0

1301

3

1301

5

Z-S

core

SUMMARY






1301

5

1301

7

1301

9

1302

0

1302

1

1302

2

1302

7

1302

8

1302

9

1303

0

1303

1

1303

2

1303

3

1303

5

1303

6

1303

8

Lab Code

Tenacity

28.06

0.85

0.0364

0.8455

27.8 0.85

1303

8

1303

9

1304

0

1304

1

Page 46 of 52

10. Determination of twist in yarn

Twist Per Meter of Yarn

Lab code Reported value Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark









13017 548 IS 832:1985 (RA 2011) -2.3 Straggler







13026 581 ISO 2061:2010 -0.7 Satisfactory








13036 548 IS 832:1985 (RA 2011) -2.3 Straggler


13039 588 ASTM D 1423 -0.3 Satisfactory



No. of participants 28 Maximum 630 Minimum 548 Mean 593.8 Std Deviation 20.9 Median 592.0




-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1300

113

003

1300

613

007

1300

913

012

1301

313

016

Z-S

core

Twist per meter of Yarn

SUMMARY






1301

713

018

1301

913

021

1302

213

024

1302

513

026

1302

713

028

1302

913

030

1303

113

032

1303

413

036

Lab Code

Twist per meter of Yarn

594.65 20.62

5.4646

20.62

595 20.6

1303

613

038

1303

913

041

1304

2

11. Unevenness of Textile strands using capacitance met hod


13007

13009

13012

13021

13028

13029

13032

13035

13039

13041


Mean Std Deviation

Median

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( S


-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

Z-S

core

Unevenness (U%) in Yarn

Unevenness of Textile strands using capacitance met hod

Evenness of yarn (U%)

Reported

value Test method adopted Z- Score Performance

7.5 ASTM D 1425:2009 0.00 Satisfactory


7.0 ISO 16549:2004 -1.96 Satisfactory

7.3 ASTM D 1425M:2009 -0.77 Satisfactory

7.6 ISO 16549:2004 0.38 Satisfactory

7.4 ASTM D 1425M:2009 -0.38 Satisfactory



7.4 ASTM D 1425:2009 -0.38 Satisfactory

7.2 ASTM D 1425:2009 -1.15 Satisfactory

10 8.0 7.0 7.4 0.3 7.4

SUMMARY






1301

2

1302

1

1302

8

1302

9

1303

2

1303

5

Lab Code

Unevenness (U%) in Yarn

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

7.42 0.22

0.1338

0.26

7.5 0.26

1303

9

1304

1

12. Imperfections of Textile Strands using capacitance method

12a. Imperfections


13007

13009

13012

13021

13028

13029

13032

13035

13039

13041


Mean Std Deviation

Median

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants Between sample SD of


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

Z-S

core

Imperfections

Imperfections of Textile Strands using capacitance method

Imperfections : Thin Places per kilometer

Reported

value Test method adopted Z- Score

Performance Remark

0.0 IN HOUSE 0.0 Satisfactory










10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUMMARY






1302

1

1302

8

1302

9

1303

2

1303

5

1303

9

Lab Code

Imperfections - Thin places per km

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

0.00 0.00

0.1373

0.1373

0.00 0.13

1303

9

1304

1

12b. Imperfections


13007

13009

13012

13021

13028

13029

13032

13035

13039

13041

No. of participants Maximum

Minimum Mean


Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants Between sample SD of


-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

Z-S

core

Imperfections

12b. Imperfections : Thick Places per kilometer

Reported

value Test method

adopted Z- Score Performance

1.0 IN HOUSE -1.00 Satisfactory










10 5.0 0.0 2.7 1.8 2.7

SUMMARY






1302

1

1302

8

1302

9

1303

2

1303

5

1303

9

Lab Code

Imperfections - Thick places per km

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

2.73 1.99 0.9757

2.22

3.2 2.2

1303

9

1304

1

12c. Imperfections: Neps per kilometer


13007

13009

13012

13021

13028

13029

13032

13035

13039

13041


Mean Std Deviation

Median

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing


-1.50-1.00-0.500.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

Z-S

core

Imperfections

12c. Imperfections: Neps per kilometer

Reported

value Test method



25.0 IN HOUSE 3.47 Outlier









10 25.0 9.0 13.4 4.7 12.0

SUMMARY






1302

1

1302

8

1302

9

1303

2

1303

5

1303

9

Lab Code

Imperfections - Neps per km

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Outlier

Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

12.38 2.84 2.2593

3.6276

12.4 3.63

1303

9

1304

1

12d.


13007

13009

13012

13021

13028

13029

13032

13035

13039

13041


Mean Std Deviation

Median




-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1300

7

1300

9

1301

2

Z-S

core

Total Imperfections per km

. Total Imperfections per kilometer

Reported

value Test method












10 29.0 10.0 16.1 5.7 15.0

SUMMARY






1302

1

1302

8

1302

9

1303

2

1303

5

1303

9

Lab Code

Total Imperfections per km

Performance Remark

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

15.37 4.63

4.7

6.60

15.6 6.6

1303

9

1304

1

Date post:	29-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhkhanh
View:	237 times
Download:	1 times

INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME - Textiles...

Documents