Compaction 2014 (51) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT · these 39 participants returned results...

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Compaction 2014 (51)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

Compaction Proficiency Testing Program - 2014(51)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report V1 September 2014 of 27

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, September 2014. 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

Acknowledgements LabSmart Services would like to thank Mr Norm Fieldew of Geotechnical Testing Services Pty Ltd for his time and technical assistance in the running of this program. Please note that any technical questions regarding this program are to be directed to the program coordinator. LabSmart Services As well as proficiency testing programs LabSmart Services also offers a wide range of other services including consultancy, training and nuclear gauge calibration. Please see our website for further details.

www.labsmartservices.com.au Copyright This work is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, transmitted or stored in any repository (e.g. mechanical, digital, electronic or photographic) without prior written permission of LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Please contact LabSmart Services should you wish to reproduce any part of this report. Amendment History Version 1 – Issued 26 September 2014



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim

4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Overall Performance

4 4 5

3. Technical Comment

3.1 Part A 3.2 Part B

6 6 7

4. Statistics: Z – Score & Graph

4.1 Part A - Maximum Dry Density (MDD) 4.2 Part A - Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) 4.3 Part A - Maximum Dry Density (MDD) 4.4 Part A - Optimum Moisture Content (OMC)

10

10 12 14 16

5. Program Information 5.1 Program Design 5.2 Sample Preparation 5.3 Packaging and Instructions 5.4 Quarantine 5.5 Sample Dispatch 5.6 Homogeneity Testing 5.7 Participation 5.8 Statistics

18

18 19 20 20 20 20 20 21

Appendix A Instructions for testers Appendix B Results log Appendix C Participant supplied test Information

24

25

27



1. Program Aim The proficiency testing program was conducted in June 2014 with participants throughout Australia. The program involved the performance of the following tests.

Standard Maximum Dry Density (MDD)

Standard Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) AS 1289.5.1.1 was the preferred testing method but other equivalent methods were accepted. Each participant’s performance is statistically assessed and used as a measure of their competency relative to all those who participated. The program provides feedback and confidence to participants and the industry regarding the competency of laboratories to perform these tests. Details relating to the design and conduct of the program can be located in section 5.

2. Performance 2.1 Identified Outliers Overall a satisfactory level of testing was achieved by the majority of the 39 participants (90%). There were 4 participants identified as having one or more outliers (10%). Overall there were 7 outliers. 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 classified as z-scores where the z-score value was 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 2.1. Those participants with z-scores greater than 2 or less than -2 may wish to review their testing methodology. Only those approaching 3 (outside ± 2.75) have been specifically identified in table 2.1 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.



Proficiency Component Test Investigate Review*

Part A Soil Sample Maximum Dry Density (MDD) W7, S3 Z4

Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) T4 -

Part B Reference Data Maximum Dry Density (MDD) U8, T4 -

Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) U8, T4 -

* These are not considered outliers, but may wish to review their results. Only z-scores greater than 2.75 and less than -2.75 have been identified in the above table.

Table 2.1 Identified outliers

2.2 Overall Performance There were 45 participants that applied for the proficiency testing program. Of these 39 participants returned results in time to be included in the final report. The majority of participants (90 %) performed well in this program. The spread of results was very small with standard deviations within the ranges expected. The overall spread of the program compares favourably to the precision suggested by the standard for MDD and slightly higher for OMC. Laboratories should consider plotting air voids on compaction graphs and check that air voids when plotted are meaningful. The following is a summary of the results obtained. Normalized IQR values approximate standard deviations.

Statistic Part A - Soil Sample Part B - Reference Data

MDD OMC MDD OMC

t/m3 % t/m3 %

Number of participants 38 38 39 39

Median 2.218 9.6 1.927 12.1

Normalized IQR 0.014 0.43 0.003 0.15

CV (%) 0.7 4.4 0.2 1.2

Min* 2.179 8.6 1.922 11.7

Max* 2.260 10.3 1.936 12.5

Range* 0.081 1.7 0.014 0.8

* Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with outliers excluded.

Table 2.2 Summary Statistics

The proficiency testing program indicates a satisfactory level of testing and within industry expectations.



The proficiency program was a useful exercise, allowing participants to have greater confidence in their results while for others providing an opportunity to improve their competency with respect to the test methods covered.

3. Technical Comment Test Methodology Participants were requested to provide a number of additional details about the testing performed. These details may be used to help analyse the proficiency program results. In addition the information can help with the investigation of outliers arising from the program. See Appendix C for participants responses. All participants nominated the test methods used as AS 1289.5.1.1 and AS 1289.2.1.1. All participants reported that they used the ‘A’ sized mould. The majority of participants (95%) indicated that the oversize was 0%. Approximately 5% (2 participants) used mechanical compaction. Participants on the whole (85%) used the same graphing technique for both Part A & B. 3.1 Part A Six participants (M7, C2, M9, Z9, T3 & G8) did not return results. Maximum Dry Density (MDD) & Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) Participant U8 returned results for Part B and only the intermediate results for Part A. From the submitted information the MDD would be 2.230 and OMC of 7.8%. This equates to a z-score of 0.86 and 0.47 respectively. It is unclear why U8 did not calculate the final result but had it been submitted it would have been a satisfactory result. There were 2 outliers (W7 & S3) for MDD that need to be investigated with one result (Z4) where it is recommended that the result be reviewed. For OMC there was one outlier (T4) that needs to be investigated. The results for W7 graphed satisfactorily. The range of moisture contents in the set of MDD/MC results were reasonable (approximately 6%) as was the interval used (2%) compared to other participants. Start and end moistures were slightly high. Checking density calculations and compaction technique may provide a reason for the outlier. The results for S3 graphed satisfactorily. The range of moisture contents in the set of MDD/MC results were reasonable (approximately 4.5%) as was the interval used (1.5%) compared to other participants. Start and end moistures were slightly high. Checking density calculations and compaction technique may provide a reason for the outlier.



The results for Z4 graphed satisfactorily. The range of moisture contents in the set of MDD/MC results were reasonable (approximately 6%) as was the interval used (2%) compared to other participants. Start and end moistures were slightly high. In reviewing the results it is recommended that density calculations and compaction technique be considered particularly the density value obtained at 9.1% MC. Participant T4 showed as an outlier for OMC. The results graphed satisfactorily however the curve is not as would be expected. The DD/MC data set do not appear to be reasonable. The range of moisture contents in the set of MDD/MC results were reasonable (approximately 5%) as was the interval used (<2%) compared to other participants. Start and end moistures were slightly high. Although the outlier was for OMC compaction may need to be investigated further. Precision AS 1289.5.1.1 under section 6 indicates the general precision expected for this test. For MDD it is ± 2% of the average value and for OMC it is ± 10% of the average value (i.e. Range 4% and 20% respectively at 95% confidence level). Based on the test method precision and the median values shown in Table 2.2 the expected range for this program should lie within: MDD 2.218 ± 0.044 t/m3 and for OMC 9.6 ± 1% Using the IQR shown in table 2.2 the range from this program is: MDD 2.218 ± 0.042 t/m3 and for OMC 9.6 ± 1.29% There is good agreement for MDD with OMC showing a greater range than outlined in the test method. Graphing Unlike previous proficiency programs this program did not specifically request worksheets or graphs to be submitted. The graphing technique used is predominately done via software. The quality of graphing has improved considerably over the last five years. There is still however an element of judgement involved and also the chance that the software used has not produced the best outcome. For these reasons ‘Part B’ is an important aspect of the program. Some participants did however submit graphs for Part A and B. This raised some issues that are covered under Part B, ‘Compaction Graph’. 3.2 Part B Data Analysis and Graphing Part B provided participants with a standard set of data and requested that the MDD & OMC be determined. The outcomes reflect only the variation associated with the graphing and interpretation component of the graph.



Although the variation is small (see table 2.2) it could contribute significantly to the overall variation in the test (up to 25%). See also “Precision” on page 7. Two participants (U8 & T4) had outliers for Part B. Both need to investigate the cause of these outliers. It is strongly recommended that participants with z-scores greater than 2 or less than -2 should also investigate the graphing approach used. The standard data supplied for ‘Part B’, while suitable for the purpose of this proficiency program, did not match an air voids line. Only a few participants commented on this and as a consequence it has resulted in the following comments on compaction graphs. Compaction Graph The compaction graph gives a visualization of the test results. It is useful as a quick means of determining how well the test has been performed. This is conveyed through the “fit” of the curve and spacing of the compaction points. An “air voids line” can be a useful addition. The air voids line slope is determined by the soil particle density (See graph 3.2-A). It is important to note that it curves. The soil particle density may have been determined experimentally or as approximated via the ‘Note’ under clause 5(d) of AS 1289.5.1.1. Soil particle density = 1 / [ {(100 x (1 - (A/100))) - (B x C)} / (B*100) ] A = 0% Air Voids B = Dry density of the wettest compaction point C = Moisture at wettest compaction point plus 1% The test method note indicates that a 2% void line when plotted using this particle density should lie close to the compaction curve produced.

Graph 3.2-A

1.401.501.601.701.801.902.002.102.202.302.402.502.602.702.802.903.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dry

Den

sity

(t/m

3)

Moisture Content (%)

Zero Air Voids

Soil particle density 2.8

Soil particle density 2.6



Void lines can be plotted at various amounts of entrapped air. See graph 3.2-B. Often 0 %, 2% or 5 % air void lines are useful.

Graph 3.2-B The ‘wet leg’ of a compaction curve should run approximately parallel to the 0 % air void line. The compaction curve plotted must also lie to the left of the 0% air void line. Compaction curves not corresponding to this should be investigated. Many laboratories plot one or more air void lines using an assumed particle density. This often does not convey the information needed to fully interpret the plotted results. Soil particle densities lie generally between 2.6 and 2.8. The use of the equation as noted in the test method gives a more meaningful 2 % air void line. It is recommended that laboratories should consider showing air void lines. The air void line should be identified and the particle density used shown. Compaction graphs were not specifically requested as part of this proficiency program. The following participants however submitted graphs for Part A. Participant G5, W9 and P9 had good air void line as per the test method. F9 was satisfactory while E8 and X3 had graphs but no air void line. Participants R4 had air void lines that did not appear to be correct. Those participants that already detail air void lines on compaction graphs may consider checking these to ensure they are correctly shown on the compaction graph.

1.401.501.601.701.801.902.002.102.202.302.402.502.602.702.802.903.00

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dry

Den

sity

(t/m

3)

Moisture Content (%)

Air Voids - Soil Partcle Density of 2.60

0 % Air Voids

2 % Air Voids

5 % Air Voids



S6 2.250 2.25 Q7 2.223 0.38A3 2.199 -1.28 M9P4 2.226 0.59 P8 2.244 1.83M7 K2 2.20 -1.21C5 2.228 0.73 B3 2.23 0.86L8 2.216 -0.10 F5 2.230 0.86R4 2.179 -2.66 U8D7 2.208 -0.66 X3 2.222 0.31R2 2.213 -0.31 E8 2.219 0.10B5 2.191 -1.83 Z9L9 2.194 -1.63 V5 2.247 2.04A6 2.210 -0.52 T3W7 2.1728 -3.09 # K6 2.222 0.31F9 2.210 -0.52 G8J7 2.208 -0.66 U4 2.210 -0.52M8 2.226 0.59 G5 2.213 -0.31E4 2.197 -1.42 T4 2.188 -2.04J2 2.210 -0.52W9 2.230 0.86C2S3 2.170 -3.29 #Y5 2.225 0.52Q6 2.222 0.31T7 2.216 -0.10P9 2.230 0.86Z4 2.260 2.94W8 2.220 0.17N2 2.234 1.14

Number of results 38Median 2.218Median MU 0.003First Quartile 2.208Third Quartile 2.228IQR 0.019Normalised IQR 0.014CV (%) 0.7Minimum 2.179 (2.170)Maximum 2.260 (2.260)Range 0.081 (0.090)

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 for those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with outliers excluded, those in brackets include outliers.

4.1 Part A - Maximum Dry Density: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result t/m3

Z Score CodeTest

Result t/m3

Z Score

Statistic Value



Review Weak Consensus

Weak Consensus Review

4.1 Part A - Maximum Dry Density: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

R4

T4

B5

L9

E4

A3

K2

D7

J7

A6

Q6

J2

U4

R2

G5

L8

T7

E8

W8

X3 K6

Q7

Y5

P4

M8

C5

W9

P9

B3

N2 P8

V5

S6

Z4

F5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

F9

W7 S3



S6 9.6 0.00 Q7 9.2 -0.94A3 10.0 0.94 M9P4 9.3 -0.70 P8 9.6 0.00M7 K2 9.5 -0.23C5 9.4 -0.47 B3 9.8 0.47L8 9.8 0.47 F5 9.3 -0.70R4 10.1 1.17 U8D7 9.5 -0.23 X3 8.6 -2.35R2 9.9 0.70 E8 8.9 -1.64B5 9.8 0.47 Z9L9 10.1 1.17 V5 9.4 -0.47A6 9.6 0.00 T3W7 10.27 1.57 K6 9.3 -0.70F9 9.2 -0.94 G8J7 10.0 0.94 U4 9.1 -1.17M8 10.0 0.94 G5 9.7 0.23E4 10.0 0.94 T4 11.1 3.52 #J2 9.9 0.70W9 9.4 -0.47C2S3 10.0 0.94Y5 9.4 -0.47Q6 9.6 0.00T7 9.9 0.70P9 9.6 0.00Z4 9.1 -1.17W8 9.4 -0.47N2 9.3 -0.70



4.2 Part A - Optimum Moisture Content: Z - Scores

Code Test Result % Z Score Code

Test Result

%Z Score

Statistic Value





4.2 Part A - Optimum Moisture Content: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

X3

E8

Z4

U4

F9

Q7

P4

N2

F5

K6

C5

W9

P8

W8

V5

D7

K2

S6

A6

Q6

P9

G5 L8

B5

B3

R2

J2

T7

A3

J7

M8

E4

R4

L9

W7 T4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

S3

Y5



S6 1.927 0.00 Q7 1.928 0.30A3 1.925 -0.60 M9P4 1.925 -0.60 P8 1.927 0.00M7 K2 1.93 0.90C5 1.925 -0.60 B3 1.93 0.90L8 1.925 -0.60 F5 1.929 0.60R4 1.927 0.00 U8 2.23 90.83 #D7 1.925 -0.60 X3 1.925 -0.60R2 1.927 0.00 E8 1.925 -0.60B5 1.928 0.30 Z9L9 1.925 -0.60 V5 1.927 0.00A6 1.925 -0.60 T3W7 1.9244 -0.78 K6 1.930 0.90F9 1.922 -1.50 G8J7 1.925 -0.60 U4 1.927 0.00M8 1.925 -0.60 G5 1.934 2.10E4 1.925 -0.60 T4 2.188 78.24 #J2 1.930 0.90W9 1.930 0.90C2S3 1.925 -0.60Y5 1.936 2.70Q6 1.922 -1.50T7 1.922 -1.50P9 1.923 -1.20Z4 1.930 0.90W8 1.924 -0.90N2 1.928 0.30



4.3 Part B - Maximum Dry Density: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result t/m3

Z Score CodeTest

Result t/m3

Z Score

Statistic Value





4.3 Part B - Maximum Dry Density: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

F9 Q6 T7

P9 W8

W7 A3 P4 C5 L8 D7 L9 A6

J7 M8 E4 S3 X3 E8

S6 R4

P8 V5 U4

B5 N2 Q7

F5 J2 W9 Z4

K2

K6 G5

Y5

U8

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

B3

R2

T4



S6 12.0 -0.67 Q7 12.1 0.00A3 12.2 0.67 M9P4 12.2 0.67 P8 12.1 0.00M7 K2 12.0 -0.67C5 12.2 0.67 B3 12.2 0.67L8 12.2 0.67 F5 11.9 -1.35R4 12.0 -0.67 U8 9.1 -20.23 #D7 12.2 0.67 X3 12.2 0.67R2 11.9 -1.35 E8 12.2 0.67B5 12.1 0.00 Z9L9 12.2 0.67 V5 12.1 0.00A6 12.2 0.67 T3W7 12.20 0.67 K6 12.1 0.00F9 12.2 0.67 G8J7 12.0 -0.67 U4 12.1 0.00M8 12.2 0.67 G5 11.9 -1.35E4 12.2 0.67 T4 11.1 -6.74 #J2 11.7 -2.70W9 12.1 0.00C2S3 12.5 2.70Y5 12.1 0.00Q6 12.1 0.00T7 12.1 0.00P9 12.3 1.35Z4 12.1 0.00W8 12.0 -0.67N2 11.9 -1.35



4.4 Part B - Optimum Moisture Content: Z - Scores

Code Test Result % Z Score Code

Test Result

%Z Score

Statistic Value





4.4 Part B - Optimum Moisture Content: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

J2 R2 N2 F5 G5

S6 R4 J7

W8 K2

B5 W9 Y5 Q6 T7 Z4 Q7 P8 V5

U4 A3 P4 C5 L8 D7 L9 A6 W7 F9

M8

B3 X3 E8

P9 S3

T4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

K6

E4

U8



5. Program Overview

5.1 Program Design Proficiency Testing Proficiency testing enables participants to measure competency against others. It is also a measure of staff performance and the equipment used. Next to measurement uncertainty it is the next most useful tool a laboratory has in better understanding the performance of a test. 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. Participant Assessment Assessment of each participant is based on a consensus value (median) and the associated z-scores. Program Features In designing a proficiency program it is sometimes necessary to minimise the effect of some inherent test method variability. E.g. By providing the OMC and MDD value to be used for a CBR program. At other times the use of different materials gives a better indication of performance than using a single “easy” material. Test methods often have more than one area where skill and technique have an effect. Where possible a proficiency testing program may be designed to test different aspects of the method. In this program the overall performance of the test is covered by ‘Part A’. The skill associated with graphing and data interpretation has been separated out by giving the same test results to all participants in ‘Part B’. This gives a measure of the variably associated with just this part of the test method. Selection of Soil Used in the Program The test in this proficiency program is operator skill/experience dependant. In addition certain types of soils require more knowledge to obtain consistent results than others. Different materials are selected for each program to mirror the range of materials encountered in practice. This program provides a sample that gives results in the range that would be commonly tested by laboratories. 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.



Samples The material selected was typical of a manufacture quarried product. The material did not undergo any further processing prior to mixing and sampling. 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 may better reflect the repeatability and reproducibility of the test but are not as useful when considering laboratory performance. The test method acknowledges this indicating 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. Additional information requested This program requested additional information as detailed in Appendix B 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 Sample Preparation Samples for the program were drawn and packaged from a single, well mixed, lot. Samples were laid out in the order prepared. Ten samples were selected at approximately equal intervals from the set of samples. These were used for homogeneity testing. Each participant received randomly drawn samples from the remainder. A unique participation code was assigned to each sample.



Each sample was placed in a plastic bag, sealed using a rubber band, labelled with the program name and packed into a sturdy box prior to dispatch. 5.3 Packaging and Instructions Each participant received one sealed plastic bag, marked ‘Soil Compaction Proficiency Program – 2014 (51) Sample’, containing approximately 16 kg of soil. 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. 5.4 Quarantine Samples sent to Western Australia are subject to quarantine regulations that require treatment of the soil prior to importation. Samples sent to WA were heat treated and compliance certificates enclosed with samples. 5.5 Sample Dispatch Samples were dispatched to participants on the 3 June 2014 using Toll Priority. Dispatched samples are tracked from despatch to delivery to each participant by LabSmart Services. 5.6 Homogeneity Testing Samples for homogeneity testing were packed in the same way as those for participants. To approximate the same conditions as participants the same instructions were given to the homogeneity testers. Analysis of the homogeneity testing results (Table 5.1) indicated that the variability associated with the proficiency samples was satisfactory. This provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers. 5.7 Participation Forty-five participants entered the program with a total of 39 results received. The nominated date for participants to return their results was 27 June 2014. There were six participants unable to return their results in time for inclusion in the final report.



Homogeneity Sample MDD OMC

t/m3 %

H1 2.217 9.9

H2 2.217 9.9

H3 2.214 10.0

H4 2.216 10.2

H5 2.224 9.7

H6 2.206 10.2

H7 2.232 10.2

H8 2.211 10.3

H9 2.213 9.8

H10 2.231 9.3

Average 2.218 10.0

Standard Deviation 0.008 0.30

Minimum 2.206 9.3

Maximum 2.232 10.3

Range 0.026 1.0

Coefficient of Variation (%) 0.4 3.0

Table 5.1 Homogeneity Results 5.8 Statistics Z-Scores were calculated for each test and used to assess the variability of each participant relative to the consensus median. A corresponding z-score graph was produced for each test. The use of median and quartiles reduces the effect that outliers have on the statistics and other influences. As a consequence z-scores provide a more realistic or robust method of assessment. Some results were reported by participants to more decimal places than requested as part of the proficiency program and by others to fewer decimal places. In all instances test results have been used as submitted by participants. A z-score is one way of measuring the degree of consensus with respect to the grouped test results. The z-scores in this report approximate standard deviations. For each test a z-score graph is shown. Use the graph to visually check statistically how you compare to other participants.



The following bar (Figure 5.2) is shown at the bottom of each graph. This helps to quickly visualize where each participants results falls.

Review Weak Consensus Strong Consensus Weak

Consensus Review

Figure 5.2 Z-score interpretation bar

For example:

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

• A weak consensus means that your test result is satisfactory and is within

2 standard deviations of the median.

• If you have obtained a test result that is outside 2 standard deviations then it may be worth reviewing your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. Only those obtaining a z-score approaching 3 (I.e. outside 2.75 range) have been highlighted in the report for review.

If you have obtained a test result that is outside 3 standard deviations then you will need to investigate your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. For further details on the statistics used in this proficiency program can be obtained from LabSmart Services or download the ‘Participant Guide’ from the LabSmart Services website. Z-score Summary A ‘Z-score Summary’ is prepared after all of the participants’ results have been submitted. The z-score summary was posted on the LabSmart Services web site on 6 August 2014. Participants were notified of its availability. The summary is intended as an early indicator of participant performance. The program report supersedes the summary once it is issued. Comparing statistics from one proficiency testing program to another The statistics generated from one proficiency program are not usually compared against 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



The results represent a ‘snap shot’ of the competency within the industry and hence provides an overview of the industry as a whole. The more participants involved in the program then the more representative the overview. Measurement Uncertainty The statistics detailed in this program do not replace the need for laboratories to separately calculated measurement uncertainties associated with each test when required by the client or NATA.



Appendix A - PT Instructions V1.9 Compaction 2014(51)

LabSmart Services

Soil Compaction Proficiency Testing Program – 2014(51)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTERS

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

• Instructions (for testers) • Results Log • Approximately 16 kg soil sample sealed in a plastic bag.

Contact Peter on 0432 767 706 if the bag is damaged or any item is missing.

2. Please read and follow these instructions carefully. Examine the results log sheets.

There is a Part A and a Part B to the proficiency program. 3. Please do not discuss aspects of this program with other organisations or other staff

within your own organisation who may also be testing a sample from this program. Confidentiality is important in order to ensure statistically valid measures of participant performance.

PART A

4. Due to segregation during transit please ensure the sample is thoroughly mixed prior

to starting.

5. AS 1289 test methods are the preferred test methods.

6. You may perform the test even if you are not NATA accredited for the test. The use of mechanical compaction is allowed.

7. Sieve the sample over the 19.0 mm sieve. Thoroughly mix the material passing the

19.0 mm sieve and use for the compaction test.

8. Record all information and calculations as per the proficiency testing results log sheet and to the accuracy shown on the results log sheet. A greater reporting accuracy is required compared to that nominated by the standard.

PART B 9. Use the moisture/dry density data shown under ‘Part B’ of the results log sheet. 10. Calculate the OMC and MDD for this data set using the same procedure as used in

‘Part A’ if possible. Enter your results onto ‘Part B’ of the results log. 11. If you are unable to use the same procedure as used in ‘Part A’ then use an

alternative (e.g. manually graph etc).

Please fax or e-mail the “Results Log” to LabSmart Services by 27 June 2014

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

Thank you for participating in this proficiency program. Page 1 of 1

Appendix A



mailto:[email protected]

Appendix B - Results Log V1.9 Compaction 2014(51)

LabSmart Services

Soil Compaction Proficiency Testing Program – 2014 (51)

RESULTS LOG for LABORATORY

Participation Code: XX

Please fax (03) 8888 4987 or e-mail ([email protected]) the completed results log by 27 June 2014 PART A

Date sample received:

Condition of sample received:

Tested by:

Name of Laboratory:

Test Report to: Result Method

Recommended Tick or enter method used

Standard Maximum Dry Density (MDD) Nearest 0.001 t/m3 AS 1289.5.1.1

Standard Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) Nearest 0.1 % AS 1289.5.1.1

Method used to determine moisture AS 1289.2.1.1

Data used to construct curve Dry Density Moisture

Report to Nearest 0.001 t/m3 Report to Nearest 0.1 %

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Additional test details Report Result

% Oversize (19.0 mm sieve) Nearest 1 %

Has a mechanical compactor been used? (Yes or No)

Mould size used A or B

Number of blows used per compaction layer Blows

Page 1 of 2

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]

Appendix B - Results Log V1.9 Compaction 2014(51)

PART B

Data used to construct curve Dry Density Moisture

Sample 1 1.781 8.7

Sample 2 1.865 10.3

Sample 3 1.922 12.5

Sample 4 1.815 14.1

NOTE: If you are only able to use a three point method then use data for samples 2, 3 and 4 only.

Test Report Result

Standard Maximum Dry Density (MDD) Nearest 0.001 t/m3

Standard Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) Nearest 0.1 %

Method of determining OMC & MDD same as Part A? (Yes or No)

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

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

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

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

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.

Thank you for participating ________________________________________________________________________

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

Page 2 of 2



S6 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

A3 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

P4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A No

M7 NR NR NR NR NR NR

C5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

L8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

R4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

D7 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

R2 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

B5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

L9 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % Yes A Yes

A6 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

W7 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

F9 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

J7 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

M8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

E4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

J2 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

W9 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

C2 NR NR NR NR NR NR

S3 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A No

Y5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

Q6 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 6 % No A No

T7 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 5 % No A No

P9 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A No

Z4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

W8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

N2 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

Q7 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

M9 NR NR NR NR NR NR

P8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

K2 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % Yes A Yes

B3 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A NR

F5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A No

U8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

X3 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

E8 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

Z9 NR NR NR NR NR NR

V5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

T3 NR NR NR NR NR NR

K6 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

G8 NR NR NR NR NR NR

U4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

G5 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A Yes

T4 AS 1289.5.1.1 AS 1289.2.1.1 0 % No A NR

Appendix C - Particpant Supplied Test Information

Code MDD Method MC Method Oversize Mechanical Compaction

Mould Size Used

Graph method same for Part A & B



Compaction 2014 (51) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT · these 39 participants returned results...

Documents

Transcript of Compaction 2014 (51) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT · these 39 participants returned results...