Report No. 1274 Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program ...

SD 2.12.19

Report No. 1274

Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program

Round 26

November 2021

Acknowledgments

PTA wishes to gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance provided for this program by Mr Alex Liu from Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd, Materials Technical Services Laboratory, NSW. Also our thanks go to Ms Denise Weier from Soil Engineering Services, Townsville, QLD for the supply and distribution of the samples.

© Copyright Proficiency Testing Australia, 2021

PO Box 7507 SILVERWATER NSW 2128, Australia

SD 2.12.19

CONTENTS

1. FOREWORD ........................................................................................................ 1

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM ......................................................................... 1

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES ........................................................................ 2

4. STATISTICAL DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM ...................................................... 2

Table A: Summary Statistics ............................................................................... 4

5. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER’S COMMENTS ............................................... 5

6. OUTLIER RESULTS ............................................................................................ 8

Table B: Summary of Statistical Outliers ............................................................. 8

7. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX A – Results and Data Analysis

Particle Density and Water Absorption of Fine Aggregate………………………….. A1

Apparent Particle Density (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)………………………………………….. A1

Particle Density on a Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)…………………………………… A3

Particle Density on a Saturated Surface-Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)……………. A5

Water Absorption (Nearest 0.1%)………………………………………………………. A7

Aggregate Soundness Test by Exposure to Sodium Sulphate……………………… A9

Total Weighted Loss (Nearest 0.1%)………………………………………….………… A9

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36mm (Nearest 0.1%)………………...…………………..………… A11


Fraction 1.18 to 0.600mm (Nearest 0.1%)……………...…………………..………… A14


Degradation Factor (Nearest 1%)………………..……...…………………..………… A18

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio (Nearest 1% or “Indeterminate”)……………..………… A20

Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar (Lighter or Darker Than Standard)………….. A22

APPENDIX B – Homogeneity and Stability Testing

Homogeneity Testing................................................................................................ … B1

Stability Testing......................................................................................................... … B4

SD 2.12.19

APPENDIX C – Documentation

Instructions to Participants........................................................................................ … C1

Results Sheet............................................................................................................ … C3

1

SD 2.12.19

1. FOREWORD

This report summarises the results of a proficiency testing program on the determination of Particle Density, Water Absorption, Soundness Test, Degradation Factor, Clay and Fine Silt and Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate. It constitutes the twenty-sixth round of an ongoing series of programs. This program is accredited to ISO/IEC 17043:2010 “Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency testing” by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ). The program was conducted in August-October 2021 by Proficiency Testing Australia (PTA). The aim of the program was to assess laboratories’ abilities to competently perform the prescribed analyses. The Program Coordinators were Mr N Fox and Dr E Cincu and the Technical Adviser was Mr A Liu from Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd, Materials Technical Services Laboratory, NSW. This report was authorised by Mrs K Cividin, PTA Quality Manager.

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM (a) Participants were provided with one 5 kg sample containing sand material. (b) A total of 28 Australian laboratories received samples. Of these 28

laboratories, one was unable to submit all results by the due date. (c) Laboratories were provided with the Instructions to Participants and Results

Sheet (see Appendix C). Laboratories were requested to perform the tests according to their routine methods and to record their results on the Results Sheet.

(d) Prior to sample distribution, a number of randomly selected samples were

analysed for homogeneity. Based on the results of this testing (see Appendix B), the homogeneity of the samples was established.

(e) Each laboratory was randomly allocated a unique code number for the

program to ensure confidentiality of results. Reference to each laboratory in this report is by code number only. Please note that a number of laboratories reported more than one set of results and, therefore, their code numbers (with letter) could appear several times in the same data set.

(f) Results (as reported by participants) with corresponding summary statistics

(i.e. number of results, median, uncertainty of the median, normalised interquartile range, robust coefficient of variation, minimum, maximum and range) are presented in Appendix A (for each sample and for each of the analyses performed).

2

SD 2.12.19

(g) A robust statistical approach, using z-scores, was utilised to assess laboratories’ testing performance (see Section 4). Robust z-scores and z-score charts relevant to each test are presented in Appendix A.

(h) The document entitled Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (reference

[1]) defines the statistical terms and details the statistical procedures referred to in this report.

(i) A tabulated listing of laboratories (by code number) identified as having outlier

results can be found on page 8.

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES

(a) Appendix A contains the analysis of results reported by laboratories for the

samples. This section contains the following for each determinant, where appropriate: - a table of results and calculated z-scores;

- a list of summary statistics; and

- ordered z-score charts.

(b) Appendix B contains details of the homogeneity and stability testing. (c) Appendix C contains copies of the Instructions to Participants and Results

Sheet.

4. STATISTICAL DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM (a) Outlier Results and Z-scores In order to assess laboratories’ testing performance, a robust statistical

approach, using z-scores, was utilised. Z-scores give a measure of how far a result is from the consensus value (i.e. the median), and gives a "score" to each result relative to the other results in the group.

A z-score close to zero indicates that the result agrees well with those from

other laboratories, whereas a z-score with an absolute value greater than or

equal to 3.0 is considered to be an outlier and is marked by the symbol “§”. (b) Results Tables and Summary Statistics Each of these tables contains the results returned by each laboratory,

including the code number for the method used, and the robust z-score calculated for each result.

3

SD 2.12.19

Results have been entered exactly as reported by participants. That is, laboratories which did not report results to the precision (i.e. number of decimal places) requested on the Results Sheet have not been rounded to the requested precision before being included in the statistical analysis.

A list of summary statistics appears at the bottom of each of the tables of results and consists of:

- the number of results for that test/sample (No. of Results);

- the median of these results, i.e. the middle value (Median);

- the uncertainty of the median; a robust estimate of the standard deviation of the Median;

- the normalised interquartile range of the results (Normalised IQR);

- the robust coefficient of variation, expressed as a percentage (Robust CV) - i.e. 100 x Normalised IQR / Median;

- the target coefficient of variation (Target CV) is a fixed value used to calculate the z-score when the spread of results is too large or too small

- the target standard deviation (Target SD) is calculated as the target CV multiplied by the median

- the minimum and maximum laboratory results; and

- the range (Maximum - Minimum).

The median is a measure of the centre of the data. The normalised IQR is a measure of the spread of the results. It is calculated by multiplying the interquartile range (IQR) by a correction factor which converts the IQR to an estimate of the standard deviation. The IQR is the difference between the upper and lower quartiles (i.e. the values above and below which a quarter of the results lie, respectively). For normally distributed data, the uncertainty of the median is approximated by:

n

normIQR

2

n = number of results

In this round, the CV value for Clay and Fine Silt results was considered inappropriate to calculate robust z-scores therefore a target coefficient of variation (CV) was used. The target standard deviation (SD) was calculated as the target CV multiplied by the median.

For these cases, the robust z-score (denoted by Z) for a laboratory’s sample A result was calculated as:

Z = A median(A)

target CV median(A) where A is a sample in a testing program.

4

SD 2.12.19

Please see reference [1] for further details on these robust summary statistics.

(c) Ordered Z-Score Charts On these charts each laboratory's robust z-score is shown, in order of

magnitude, and is marked with its code number. From these charts, each laboratory can readily compare its performance relative to the other laboratories.

These charts contain solid lines at +3.0 and -3.0, so that outliers are clearly

identifiable as those laboratories whose "bar" extends beyond these "cut-off" lines. The y-axis of these charts has been limited, so very large z-scores appear to extend beyond the chart boundary.

The following table summarises the results submitted by participants for the program.

TABLE A: SUMMARY STATISTICS

Test No. of

Results Median

Normalised

IQR Particle Density and Water

Absorption of Fine Aggregate

Apparent Particle Density (Nearest 0.01 t/m

3)

23 2.630 0.037

Particle Density on a Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m

3)

24 2.530 0.052

Particle Density on a Saturated Surface-Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m

3)

24 2.570 0.048

Water Absorption (Nearest 0.1%)

24 1.20 0.39

Aggregate Soundness Test by

Exposure to Sodium Sulfate

Solution

Total Weighted Loss (Nearest 0.1%)

6 0.90 0.52

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36mm (Nearest 0.1%)

0 N/A N/A


6 1.55 1.03


6 0.80 0.40


6 0.85 0.52

Degradation Factor (Nearest 1%)

8 93.5 1.1

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio (Nearest 1% or “indeterminate”)

16 4.0 0.9

Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar (Lighter or Darker Than Standard)

13 N/A N/A

5

SD 2.12.19

5. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER’S COMMENTS This round of the Aggregates program was the second round on fine aggregates organised by PTA, the first one being Aggregates round 23 (Report No. 1237). In this round, ~5kg of sand material was sent to 28 Australian laboratories. Of these 28 laboratories, one was unable to submit all results by the due date. In order to offer participating laboratories the opportunity to evaluate the consistency of their procedures, as well as to evaluate the improvements made by the laboratories that obtained outlier results in round 23, PTA has decided to use in round 26 samples from the same lot as in round 23. Therefore, the sand samples tested in round 26 were identical to the ones used in round 23. 7 out of 27 participating laboratories in round 23 also participated in round 26. An analysis of their performance was made by PTA with the following outcome:

Two laboratories that obtained outlier results in round 23 improved their performance and obtained correct results in round 26

One laboratory that obtained an outlier result in round 23 did not improve its performance for the respective test

One laboratory that obtained outlier results in round 23 improved its performance for the respective test, however obtained outlier results for other tests in round 26

Two laboratories obtained correct results in both rounds

Overall performance In total, 9 outliers were detected from the 156 results analysed, resulting in 5.8% of results classified as outliers. This represents an improvement in comparison to previous round that had 7.32% of results classified as outliers. All laboratories with outliers (“§”) or an absolute z-score between 2.0 and 3.0 (“?”) are encouraged to review their procedures.

Variation within and between participants, comparisons with previous PT

rounds or published precision data

Homogeneity results showed very low variation for Particle Density and Degradation Factor testing and relatively low variation for Water Absorption and Clay and Fine Silt results. Of the ten samples tested for Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar, two appeared to be the same colour as the colour reference with the remainder lighter. Results equal to the reference colour are reported as “Lighter than Standard” as per AS 1141.34:2018. Homogeneity results for Aggregates Soundness Test by Exposure to Sodium Sulfate Solution displayed higher variations. Whilst all three fractions had a range of results, it is noted that two fractions had significant outliers which resulted in higher

6

SD 2.12.19

coefficients of variation, 31.9% and 40%. This may be attributed to non-representative portions being taken. Disregarding these outliers, it can be concluded that overall homogeneity results indicate a homogenous material. Of the thirteen participants that performed the Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar testing, eleven produced a result of “Lighter than Standard” and two “Darker than Standard”. Being a visual assessment process, some variation can be expected, especially when the resultant solution colour is borderline. Participants are reminded to use representative portions for testing and freshly prepared test solutions from current reagents. Two participants have noticeable disparities in either their Particle Density or Water Absorption results. In these two cases, testing procedure and calculations need to be reviewed thoroughly. One miscalculation in a series of steps can affect multiple results. Participants are further encouraged to consider the validity of their results and investigate as required. Aggregate Soundness Testing by exposure to Sodium Sulfate Solution continues to produce a wide spread of results for Total Weighted Loss and across all fractions. Result variations in both rounds are significantly higher than those established during Homogeneity Testing. Participants are reminded to review their procedures.

Variation between methods or procedures In this round, all laboratories performed the testing according to the indicated Australian standards, therefore their results were pooled for analysis.

Possible sources of error, suggestions for improvement of performance All participants, not only those with outliers are encouraged to review their procedures. To eliminate errors, test methods should be followed precisely. All samples need to be split, cone or quartered accurately to provide a representative sample portion. Equipment needs to be maintained and calibrated as per requirements. All test and reference solutions should be prepared regularly as per the method and stored appropriately.

Advice/educational feedback for participants For this second round of testing it is encouraging to see an overall improvement/reduction in outlier results. Participants are encouraged to continue reviewing their procedures and testing techniques.

Situations where unusual factors make evaluation or results and commentary

on performance impossible If a test method requires “visual assessment” greater accuracy may be achieved by consulting colleagues.

7

SD 2.12.19

Metrological Traceability and Measurement Uncertainty of Assigned Values Consensus values (median) derived from participants’ results are used in this program. These values are not metrologically traceable to an external reference. As the assigned value for this program is the median of the results submitted by the participants, the uncertainty of the median has been calculated and is presented in Appendix A. Analysis of Results by Method Groups All participants used the same methods to test the material, therefore all results were pooled for analysis.

8

SD 2.12.19

6. OUTLIER RESULTS

Laboratories reporting outlier results are listed in the following table:

TABLE B: SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL AND NON-STATISTICAL OUTLIERS

Test Laboratory

Code No.

Particle Density and Water Absorption of Fine

Aggregate

Apparent Particle Density 24, 27D

Particle Density on a Dry Basis 24

Particle Density on a Saturated Surface-Dry Basis

24

Water Absorption 30

Aggregate Soundness Test by Exposure to

Sodium Sulfate Solution

Total Weighted Loss -

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36mm -




Degradation Factor -

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio 24, 32

Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar

9, 23

9

SD 2.12.19

7. REFERENCES

[1] Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (This document can be found on the PTA website, www.pta.asn.au)

[2] AS 1141.34:2018 Methods for sampling and testing aggregates - Organic impurities other than sugar

SD 2.12.19

APPENDIX A

Results and Data Analysis

Particle Density and Water Absorption of Fine Aggregate………………………….. A1

Apparent Particle Density (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)………………………………………….. A1

Particle Density on a Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)…………………………………… A3

Particle Density on a Saturated Surface-Dry Basis (Nearest 0.01 t/m3)……………. A5

Water Absorption (Nearest 0.1%)………………………………………………………. A7

Aggregate Soundness Test by Exposure to Sodium Sulphate……………………… A9

Total Weighted Loss (Nearest 0.1%)………………………………………….………… A9





Degradation Factor (Nearest 1%)………………..……...…………………..………… A18

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio (Nearest 1% or “Indeterminate”)……………..………… A20

Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar (Lighter or Darker Than Standard)………….. A22

A1

SD 2.12.19

Apparent Particle Density

(Nearest 0.01 t/m3)

Lab Code Result Z-Score Method

3 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

4 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

5 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

6 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

11 2.65 0.54 AS 1141.5-2000

13 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

14 2.61 -0.54 AS 1141.5

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

23 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

24 1.511 -30.19 § AS 1141.5

25 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

27A 2.63 0.00 AS 1141.5

27B 2.54 -2.43 ? AS 1141.5

27C 2.58 -1.35 AS 1141.5

27D 2.51 -3.24 § AS 1141.5

29 # N/A #

30 2.65 0.54 #

31 2.60 -0.81 AS 1141.5

32 2.58 -1.35 AS 1141.5-2000

35 2.54 -2.43 ? #

100 2.65 0.54 AS 1141.5

101 2.64 0.27 AS 1141.5

No. of Results 23

Median 2.630

Normalised IQR 0.037

Uncertainty of the Median 0.010

Robust CV 1.4%

Minimum 1.51

Maximum 2.65

Range 1.14

A2

SD 2.12.19

Notes:

"#" indicates no response was provided by the laboratory

"N/A" indicates Not Applicable

"?" indicates an absolute z-score greater than 2 but less than 3, i.e. 2 < Ιz-scoreΙ < 3

"§" indicates an outlier, i.e. Ι z-score Ι ≥ 3.0

A3

SD 2.12.19

Particle Density on a Dry Basis

(Nearest 0.01 t/m3)


3 2.60 1.35 AS 1141.5

4 2.56 0.58 AS 1141.5

5 2.53 0.00 AS 1141.5

6 2.58 0.96 AS 1141.5

7 2.54 0.19 #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 2.53 0.00 AS 1141.5

11 2.56 0.58 AS 1141.5-2000

13 2.55 0.39 AS 1141.5

14 2.51 -0.39 AS 1141.5

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 2.56 0.58 AS 1141.5

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 2.57 0.77 AS 1141.5

23 2.59 1.16 AS 1141.5

24 1.492 -20.00 § AS 1141.5

25 2.57 0.77 AS 1141.5

27A 2.55 0.39 AS 1141.5

27B 2.45 -1.54 AS 1141.5

27C 2.49 -0.77 AS 1141.5

27D 2.45 -1.54 AS 1141.5

29 # N/A #

30 2.43 -1.93 #

31 2.49 -0.77 AS 1141.5

32 2.50 -0.58 AS 1141.5-2000

35 2.47 -1.16 #

100 2.53 0.00 AS 1141.5

101 2.52 -0.19 AS 1141.5

No. of Results 24

Median 2.530



Robust CV 2.1%

Minimum 1.49

Maximum 2.60

Range 1.11

A4

SD 2.12.19

Notes:




A5

SD 2.12.19

Particle Density on a Saturated Surface-Dry Basis

(Nearest 0.01 t/m3)


3 2.62 1.04 AS 1141.5

4 2.59 0.42 AS 1141.5

5 2.57 0.00 AS 1141.5

6 2.60 0.62 AS 1141.5

7 2.58 0.21 #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 2.57 0.00 AS 1141.5

11 2.60 0.62 AS 1141.5-2000

13 2.58 0.21 AS 1141.5

14 2.55 -0.42 AS 1141.5

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 2.59 0.42 AS 1141.5

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 2.60 0.62 AS 1141.5

23 2.61 0.83 AS 1141.5

24 1.504 -22.12 § AS 1141.5

25 2.60 0.62 AS 1141.5

27A 2.58 0.21 AS 1141.5

27B 2.49 -1.66 AS 1141.5

27C 2.52 -1.04 AS 1141.5

27D 2.47 -2.08 ? AS 1141.5

29 # N/A #

30 2.52 -1.04 #

31 2.54 -0.62 AS 1141.5

32 2.53 -0.83 AS 1141.5-2000

35 2.50 -1.45 #

100 2.57 0.00 AS 1141.5

101 2.57 0.00 AS 1141.5

No. of Results 24

Median 2.570



Robust CV 1.9%

Minimum 1.50

Maximum 2.62

Range 1.12

A6

SD 2.12.19

Notes:





A7

SD 2.12.19

Water Absorption

(Nearest 0.1%)


3 0.5 -1.80 AS 1141.5

4 1.2 0.00 AS 1141.5

5 1.5 0.77 AS 1141.5

6 0.9 -0.77 AS 1141.5

7 1.5 0.77 #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 1.4 0.51 AS 1141.5

11 1.2 0.00 AS 1141.5-2000

13 1.2 0.00 AS 1141.5

14 1.4 0.51 AS 1141.5

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 1.1 -0.26 AS 1141.5

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 0.9 -0.77 AS 1141.5

23 0.8 -1.03 AS 1141.5

24 0.9 -0.77 AS 1141.5

25 1.0 -0.51 AS 1141.5

27A 1.2 0.00 AS 1141.5

27B 1.4 0.51 AS 1141.5

27C 1.5 0.77 AS 1141.5

27D 0.9 -0.77 AS 1141.5

29 # N/A #

30 3.4 5.65 § #

31 1.7 1.28 AS 1141.5

32 1.3 0.26 AS 1141.5-2000

35 1.1 -0.26 #

100 1.8 1.54 AS 1141.5

101 1.8 1.54 AS 1141.5

No. of Results 24

Median 1.20

Normalised IQR 0.39


Robust CV 32.4%

Minimum 0.5

Maximum 3.4

Range 2.9

A8

SD 2.12.19

Notes:




A9

SD 2.12.19

Aggregate Soundness Test

Total Weighted Loss

(Nearest 0.1%)


3 1.2 0.58 AS 1141.24

4 # N/A #

5 0.6 -0.58 AS 1141.24

6 1.2 0.58 AS 1141.24

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 0.3 -1.16 AS 1141.24

13 1.1 0.39 AS 1141.24

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 # N/A #

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 0.7 -0.39 AS 1141.24

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

A10

SD 2.12.19

Aggregate Soundness Test - Total Weighted Loss - Statistics

No. of Results 6

Median 0.90

Normalised IQR 0.52


Robust CV 57.4%

Minimum 0.3

Maximum 1.2

Range 0.9

Notes:



A11

SD 2.12.19


Individual Fraction Loss 4.75mm to 2.36mm

(Nearest 0.1%)


3 # N/A AS 1141.24

4 # N/A #

5 N/A ˂5% N/A AS 1141.24

6 # N/A AS 1141.24

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 # N/A AS 1141.24

13 # N/A AS 1141.24

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 # N/A #

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 # N/A AS 1141.24

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

No. of Results 0

Notes:



A12

SD 2.12.19



(Nearest 0.1%) Lab Code Result Z-Score Method

3 2.4 0.82 AS 1141.24

4 # N/A #

5 1.9 0.34 AS 1141.24

6 1.8 0.24 AS 1141.24

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 0.2 -1.31 AS 1141.24

13 1.3 -0.24 AS 1141.24

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 # N/A #

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 0.6 -0.92 AS 1141.24

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

No. of Results 6

Median 1.55

Normalised IQR 1.03


Robust CV 66.7%

Minimum 0.2

Maximum 2.4

Range 2.2

A13

SD 2.12.19

Notes:



A14

SD 2.12.19



(Nearest 0.1%)


3 0.9 0.25 AS 1141.24

4 # N/A #

5 0.4 -1.00 AS 1141.24

6 0.9 0.25 AS 1141.24

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 0.1 -1.75 AS 1141.24

13 1.1 0.75 AS 1141.24

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 # N/A #

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 0.7 -0.25 AS 1141.24

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

No. of Results 6

Median 0.80

Normalised IQR 0.40


Robust CV 49.9%

Minimum 0.1

Maximum 1.1

Range 1.0

A15

SD 2.12.19

Notes:



A16

SD 2.12.19



(Nearest 0.1%)


3 0.9 0.10 AS 1141.24

4 # N/A #

5 0.2 -1.26 AS 1141.24

6 1.2 0.68 AS 1141.24

7 # N/A #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 0.0 -1.64 AS 1141.24

13 0.9 0.10 AS 1141.24

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 # N/A #

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 0.8 -0.10 AS 1141.24

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

No. of Results 6

Median 0.85

Normalised IQR 0.52


Robust CV 60.8%

Minimum 0.0

Maximum 1.2

Range 1.2

A17

SD 2.12.19

Notes:



A18

SD 2.12.19

Degradation Factor

(Nearest 1%)


3 91 -2.27 ? AS 1141.25.3

4 # N/A #

5 # N/A #

6 # N/A #

7 # N/A #

8A 93 -0.45 AS 1141.25.3

8B 93 -0.45 AS 1141.25.3

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 94 0.45 AS 1141.25.3

15B 94 0.45 AS 1141.25.3

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 94 0.45 AS 1141.25.3

21 # N/A #

22 94 0.45 AS 1141.25.3

23 # N/A #

24 # N/A #

25 92 -1.36 AS 1141.25.3

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #

30 # N/A #

31 # N/A #

32 # N/A #

35 # N/A #

100 # N/A #

101 # N/A #

No. of Results 8

Median 93.5

Normalised IQR 1.1


Robust CV 1.2%

Minimum 91

Maximum 94

Range 3

A19

SD 2.12.19

Notes:




A20

SD 2.12.19

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio

(Nearest 1% or "Indeterminate")


3 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

4 # N/A #

5 2 -2.00 AS 1141.33

6 # N/A #

7 5 1.00 #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

10 5 1.00 AS 1141.33

11 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 2 -2.00 AS 1141.33

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 3 -1.00 AS 1141.33

20 # N/A #

21 # N/A #

22 3 -1.00 AS 1141.33

23 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

24 0.9 -3.10 § AS 1141.33

25 5 1.00 AS 1141.33

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

30 3 -1.00 #

31 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

32 1 -3.00 § AS 1141.33:2015

35 # N/A #

100 4 0.00 AS 1141.33

101 # N/A #

A21

SD 2.12.19

Clay and Fine Silt - C Ratio - Statistics

No. of Results 16

Median 4.0

Normalised IQR 0.9


Robust CV 23.2%

Target CV 25.0%

Target SD 1.00

Minimum 0.9

Maximum 5

Range 4.1

Notes:





A22

SD 2.12.19

Organic Impurities Other Than Sugar

(Lighter than standard or Darker than standard)

Lab Code Result Evaluation Method

3 Lighter Pass AS 1141.34

4 # N/A #


6 # N/A #

7 Lighter Pass #

8A # N/A #

8B # N/A #

9 Darker Fail AS 1141.34


11 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A #

15B # N/A #

17 # N/A #

18 # N/A #

20 # N/A #



23 Darker Fail AS 1141.34


25 # N/A #

27A # N/A #

27B # N/A #

27C # N/A #

27D # N/A #

29 # N/A #


31 # N/A #

32 Lighter Pass AS 1141.34:2018

35 # N/A #



No. of Results 13

No. of Results: Lighter 11

No. of Results: Darker 2

Notes:



SD 2.12.19

APPENDIX B

Homogeneity and Stability Testing

Homogeneity Testing................................................................................................ …B1

Stability Testing......................................................................................................... …B4

B1

SD 2.12.19

Homogeneity Testing

The homogeneity testing results for round 26 are identical to the ones presented in round 23.

Aggregates Round 23

and 26 SAMPLE

NO 11

SAMPLE

NO 17

SAMPLE

NO 29

SAMPLE

NO 39

SAMPLE

NO 41

SAMPLE

NO 52

SAMPLE

NO 63

SAMPLE

NO 68

SAMPLE

NO 69

SAMPLE

NO 75

Particle density and water

absorption of fine

aggregate

AS 1141.5

Apparent Particle Density (0.01 t/m

3)

2.65 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.65 2.66 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.65

Particle Density on a Dry Basis (0.01 t/m3)

2.54 2.58 2.57 2.55 2.56 2.54 2.56 2.57 2.58 2.57

Particle Density on Saturated Surface Dry Basis (0.01 t/m

3)

2.58 2.61 2.60 2.59 2.60 2.58 2.60 2.61 2.61 2.60

Water Absorption (0.1%) 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.1

Aggregates soundness

test by exposure to

sodium sulfate solution

AS 1141.24

Total weighted loss (0.1%) 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.3

Individual fraction loss (0.1%)

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36 mm # # # # # # # # # #

Fraction 2.36 to 1.18 mm 1.2 1.6 2.9 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.2

Fraction 1.18 to 0.600 mm 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.1

Fraction 0.600 to 0.300 mm 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.5 1.6

B2

SD 2.12.19

Aggregates Round 23 and 26 Mean Standard

Deviation

Coefficient of

Variation

Lowest

Value

Highest

Value Range

Particle density and water absorption

of fine aggregate

Apparent Particle Density (0.01 t/m

3)

2.66 0.01 0.4% 2.65 2.68 0.03

Particle Density on a Dry Basis (0.01 t/m

3)

2.56 0.01 0.6% 2.54 2.58 0.04

Particle Density on Saturated Surface Dry Basis (0.01 t/m

3)

2.60 0.01 0.4% 2.58 2.61 0.03

Water Absorption (0.1%) 1.4 0.24 17.1% 1.1 1.7 0.7

Aggregates soundness test by

exposure to sodium sulfate solution

Total weighted loss (0.1%) 1.22 0.24 19.6% 0.9 1.6 0.7

Individual fraction loss (0.1%)

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36 mm N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Fraction 2.36 to 1.18 mm 1.6 0.50 31.9% 1.2 2.9 1.7

Fraction 1.18 to 0.600 mm 1.1 0.28 25.3% 0.7 1.7 1.0

Fraction 0.600 to 0.300 mm 1.1 0.42 40.0% 0.3 1.6 1.3

B3

SD 2.12.19

Aggregates Round 23

and 26

SAMPLE

NO 11

SAMPLE

NO 17

SAMPLE

NO 29

SAMPLE

NO 39

SAMPLE

NO 41

SAMPLE

NO 52

SAMPLE

NO 63

SAMPLE

NO 68

SAMPLE

NO 69

SAMPLE

NO 75

Degradation factor AS 1141.25.3

Degradation factor (1%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Was wash water clear after using permitted 500ml? (Yes/No)

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Clay and fine silt AS 1141.33

C ratio (1% or “indeterminate”)

3.1 3.2 4.2 3.2 4.3 5.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.1

Organic impurities other

than sugar AS 1141.34

Test result (Lighter than standard or Darker than standard)

L L L L L L L L L L

Aggregates Round 23 and 26 Mean Standard

Deviation

Coefficient of

Variation

Lowest

Value

Highest

Value Range

Degradation factor

Degradation factor (1%) 90 0.00 0.0% 90 90 0

Was wash water clear after using permitted 500ml? (Yes/No)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Clay and fine silt

C ratio (1% or “indeterminate”) 3.8 0.69 18.4% 3.1 5.1 2

Organic impurities other than sugar

Test result (Lighter than standard or Darker than standard)

Comment: Appeared to be the same colour as reference glass

B4

SD 2.12.19

Stability Testing Due to the nature of the samples it was not considered necessary to perform stability testing.

SD 2.12.19

APPENDIX C

Documentation

Instructions to Participants ……………………………………………………………… C1

Results Sheet ……………………………………………………………………………. C3

C1

SD 2.12.19

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

AGGREGATES (ROUND 26) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM

INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

To ensure that results from this program can be analysed properly, participants are asked to adhere carefully to the following instructions: 1. One 5 kg sample of fine aggregate (sand) has been supplied to each

laboratory. 2. Before any testing, mix the sample and then cone and quarter or rifle

thoroughly using the whole sample.

3. Divide the sample to obtain representative sub-samples as required. 4. The following determinations are to be performed on the:

a) AS 1141.5 Particle density and water absorption of fine aggregate

b) AS 1141.24 Aggregate soundness test by exposure to Sodium

Sulphate

c) AS 1141.25.3 Degradation factor - Fine aggregate

d) AS 1141.33 Clay and fine silt - Settling method

e) AS1141.34 Organic impurities other than sugar 4. Alternative methods can only be used if they are technically equivalent and

identical in regards to reporting. 5. The results for all determinations are to be recorded on the results sheet to

the accuracy and reporting basis indicated on the results sheet. The method used is also to be recorded.

6. Participants are to treat the proficiency testing samples as they would a

routine sample tested in the laboratory.

C2

SD 2.12.19

7. Testing may commence as soon as the sample is received. All laboratories

must return the results sheet no later than

Friday 17 September 2021 to:

Nicholas Fox Proficiency Testing Australia Email: [email protected]

C3

SD 2.12.19

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

AGGREGATES (ROUND 26) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM

RESULTS SHEET

Lab Code

TEST REPORT TO RESULT METHOD

Particle density and

water absorption of fine

aggregate

Apparent particle density

nearest 0.01 t/m3

Particle density on a dry basis

Particle density on a saturated-surface-dry basis

Water absorption nearest 0.1%

Aggregates soundness

test by exposure to

Sodium Sulphate

Total weighted loss nearest 0.1%

Individual fraction loss

Fraction 4.75 to 2.36 mm

nearest 0.1%




Degradation factor

Degradation factor nearest 1%

Was wash water clear after using permitted 500ml?

Yes/No

Clay and fine silt

C ratio nearest 1% or “indeterminate”

C4

SD 2.12.19

TEST REPORT TO RESULT METHOD

Organic impurities other

than sugar

Test result Lighter than standard

or Darker than standard

Comments…………………………………………………………………..…………………………

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

………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….. Date of tests: Signature:

Please return by 17 September 2021 to: Nicholas Fox Proficiency Testing Australia Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

SD 2.12.19

- End of Report -

Report No. 1274 Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program ...

Documents

Transcript of Report No. 1274 Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program ...