WHAT DO I DO WITH THE

INFO ON THIS PTS

REPORT?

Test & Measurement Conference 2018

Out with the old & In with the new!Lord Charles Hotel & Conference Centre

Barry Pearce

8th October 2018

A B C orX Y Z ??

Discussion to include…

• Initial overview of data – the overall perspective

• What/how can I apply this info in my laboratory?

• Focus on AG results

• Basic test methods

• Additional x-checks

• Additional graphical & stats provided

• Conclusions

Initial overview of data – the overall

perspective

• Look thru full report &

take note of comments

• Locate & mark up your

position in each result

• Plot trend lines to see

how you’ve done this

time round

• Look at the various stats

• StDev

• Range

• CV

• If PTS used as part of

validation process

• Results within acceptable

z-scores confirms

validation

• If outside of acceptable

values – results are not

validated!!!

What / how can I apply this info in my

laboratory?

• How are you performing against the other labs

nationally?

• Comparison of staff

• Trending

• +1, -1, > ±1, OB, ….

• Basis used to compare acceptability of ILC

results with fewer participants

How are you performing against the other

laboratories nationally

• Check you overall

position

• How many OB’s do

you have?

• Put a plan into action so

it doesn’t take place

again.

• Analyse the report

• Provide evidence of

the evaluation

• Any interventions

implemented.

• If you’ve got a few labs

partaking

• sub-analyse your results

& compare to overall

stats

Comparison of staff

• Have you used a

different staff member in

this round?

• If so how did they compare

to previous rounds

• Possible assistance in

confirming competence

• Draw up a program to

allow comparisons to

take place with staff

performing each test

method

• Monitor their performance

• Good result – move on tho

next staff member

• Poor result – use same

member next time to

monitor effectiveness of

intervention

Trending

• Where do I fall within

the results

• +1, -1, > ±1, OB, ….

• Consistently –ve or +ve?

• Variable?

• Analyse & put in place

intervention

Basis for ILC results analysis with fewer

participants

• If you're undertaking

your own ILC’s

• Must have protocols

• Method of analysis,

• Full report to all

participants

• Where do your results

fall within ILC?

• All good

• Check your position against

NLA reports

• If you’re in the middle of

NLA analysis – all's

good.

• If you're on the outer

limits - this can be a

problem.

Focus on AG results

• FI

• ALD

• ACV

• 10% FACT

• SE

• AD crushed stone base

Focus on AG results – FI

Flakiness Index

• Flip to Word report for

data review

• 61 participants

• Check results

• 1,4 – 44,4 %

• 44,4 % - OB

• 1,4 – 21.1 %

• revised range

• Mean – 13,8 %

• StDev – 2,8 %

• Range – 19,9 %

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 20,1 %

Focus on AG results – ALD

Average Least Dimension • Flip to Word report for data review • 45 (37) participants

• Also need to look at• ALD by computation

• Sample mass

• # particles counted

• Check results• 5,8 – 14,0 mm

• 6,7 – 1 992,94 mm

• 14,0 & 0 mm – OB’s

• 1 992,94, 0,05 & 0 – OB’s

• 5,8 – 11,6 mm

• 6,7 – 10,6 mm

• revised range

• Mean – 8,9 mm (8,8 mm)

• StDev – 0.4 mm (0,3 mm)

• Range – 5,8 mm (3,9 mm)

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 4,1 % (3,2 %)

Focus on AG results – ACV

Aggregate Crushing Value

• Flip to Word report for

data review

• 41 participants

• Check results

• 0 – 12,4 %

• 0 % - OB

• 4,3 – 12,4 %

• revised range

• Mean – 6,6%

• StDev – 1,4 %

• Range – 8,1 %

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 20,6 %

Focus on AG results – 10% FACT

• Flip to Word report for

data review

• 39 participants

• 2 less than for ACV

• Report to nearest 5 kN

• Check results

• 0 – 784.3 kN

• 0 & 5,9 kN - OB

• 230 – 784.3 %

• revised range

• Mean – 564.8 kN

• StDev – 80.5 kN

• Range – 1554,3 kN

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 14,3 %

Focus on AG results - SE

Sand Equivalent

• Flip to Word report for

data review

• 43 participants

• Check results

• 0 – 94,1 %

• 0 % - OB

• 6 – 94,1 %

• revised range

• Mean – 69,2 %

• StDev – 12,7 %

• Range – 88,1 %

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 18,4 %

Focus on AG results

AD crushed stone base

• Flip to Word report for

data review

• 47 participants

• Check results

• 2,769 – 2846 kg/m3

• 2,769; 2,771; 1,782;

2,793 – 4# OB’s

• 2009 – 2846 kg/m3

• revised range

• Mean – 2765 kg/m3

• StDev – 29 kg/m3

• Range – 837 kg/m3

• (excluding OB)

• CV – 1,0 %

Focus on AG results

Additional x-checks

• ALD

• direct measure vs computation

• Sample mass vs # count

• FI

• Sample mass vs sample mass grading

• ACV vs 10% FACT

Additional x-checks

ALD direct vs computationLab code

AG-2Lab code

AG-3

ALD Directmm

ALD Computation

mmdifference ALD direct

vs Computation

awmsy 8.8 awmsy 8.8 0.00

e88jn 9.32 e88jn 9.32 0.00

f2peh 8.74 f2peh 8.74 0.00

hyx2g 8.9 hyx2g 8.90 0.00

sb2w8 8.9 sb2w8 8.9 0.00

tjd3d 8.7 tjd3d 8.7 0.00

r6zmc 9.42 r6zmc 9.49 0.07

69kgp 9.0 69kgp 9.1 0.10

ks6kt 8.7 ks6kt 8.6 0.10

w8mds 8.8 w8mds 8.9 0.10

dzk3j 8.7 dzk3j 8.8 0.10

whf7j 8.8 whf7j 8.7 0.10

xmb89 8.8 xmb89 8.7 0.10

epdkm 9.0 epdkm 8.8 0.20

jcpt9 9.1 jcpt9 8.9 0.20

p7ksy 9.2 p7ksy 9 0.20

m67dg 8.7 m67dg 8.9 0.20

vp5yb 8.9 vp5yb 8.7 0.20

ce5nz 8.4 ce5nz 8.7 0.30

wfkrq 8.7 wfkrq 8.400 0.30

zpd87 9.2 zpd87 8.9 0.30

xp2hp 8.8 xp2hp 9.2 0.40

8apve 8.8 8apve 8.4 0.40

bqugr 8.6 bqugr 9 0.40

dck4d 8.4 dck4d 8.8 0.40

4smdt 9.2 4smdt 8.7 0.50

bhx3q 9.3 bhx3q 8.8 0.50

j5pg5 8.7 j5pg5 9.2 0.50

ozpme 8.9 ozpme 9.6 0.70

smqav 9.3 smqav 8.6 0.70

n8msd 9.8 n8msd 10.6 0.80

rghr4 9.5 rghr4 8.7 0.80

fsbt9 9.0 fsbt9 6.7 2.30

akz6k 14.0 akz6k 0.05 13.95

• ASSUMPTION • Based on grading & FI

being representative

• 6 participants • 0 difference

• 12 participants • ≤ 0,2 mm difference

• 10 Participants • Between 0,3 & 0,5 mm

• 5 participants • > 5 mm

• 13.05 mm - OB

Additional x-checks - Sample mass vs

# particles counted

• Mean 0.270 mm

• Std Dev 0.254 mm

• Range 2.3 mm

• CV 94.2%

Lab code

AG-2

Lab code

AG-2

No of particles counted N°

Mass of test specimen

Average particle mass (g)

fsbt9 2328.49 fsbt9 755.2 0.32

jcpt9 256 jcpt9 593 2.32

smqav 255 smqav 610 2.39

m67dg 249 m67dg 600.1 2.41

ndc6z 252 ndc6z 618 2.45

f2peh 252 f2peh 636.6 2.53

xmb89 251 xmb89 635.6 2.53

gd9jw 237 gd9jw 601.9 2.54

bqugr 236 bqugr 601.4 2.55

ozpme 250 ozpme 646 2.58

tjd3d 273 tjd3d 706.4 2.59

j5pg5 232 j5pg5 601 2.59

awmsy 301 awmsy 781.9 2.60

bhx3q 244 bhx3q 635 2.60

wfkrq 218 wfkrq 569.4 2.61

r6zmc 289 r6zmc 756.85 2.62

ks6kt 242 ks6kt 634.1 2.62

zpd87 238 zpd87 630.3 2.65

8apve 230 8apve 614.0 2.67

vp5yb 302 vp5yb 806.4 2.67

dck4d 250 dck4d 668 2.67

sb2w8 239 sb2w8 640.0 2.68

egtma 224 egtma 601 2.68

hywqx 233 hywqx 625.4 2.68

whf7j 256 whf7j 688 2.69

4smdt 93 4smdt 250.8 2.70

ce5nz 247 ce5nz 669.8 2.71

p7ksy 221 p7ksy 610.9 2.76

epdkm 235 epdkm 654 2.78

w8mds 240 w8mds 673 2.80

hyx2g 250 hyx2g 701.4 2.81

e88jn 250 e88jn 724 2.90

mzqrs 200 mzqrs 582 2.91

rghr4 251 rghr4 752.9 3.00

tsm8g 220 tsm8g 660 3.00

akz6k 240 akz6k 757.7 3.16

ycm8r 189 ycm8r 678.1 3.59

jw39k 200.0 jw39k 732.0 3.66

n8msd 261 n8msd 1800 6.90

fmsdp 212 fmsdp 1588.5 7.49

69kgp 269 69kgp 2317 8.61

dzk3j 394 dzk3j 3424.8 8.69

dwg4m 216 dwg4m 3005 13.91

Additional x-checks - Comparison ACV

to estimated 10% FACT

Lab code

AG-10

ACV%

10% FACT

kN

Estimated 10% FACT

Difference from Estimated 10%

FACT

8apve 4.3 590 930.2 -340.2

w8mds 5.1 527 784.3 -257.3

j5pg5 4.6 630 869.6 -239.6

m67dg 6.5 415 615.4 -200.4

awmsy 5.6 580 714.3 -134.3

mzqrs 4.7 719 851.1 -132.1

dck4d 5.8 566 689.7 -123.7

xp2hp 5.2 657 769.2 -112.2

tjd3d 5.2 670 769.2 -99.2

n8msd 12.3 230 325.2 -95.2

jcpt9 5.9 610 678.0 -68.0

egtma 5.6 652 714.3 -62.3

vp5yb 6.0 605 666.7 -61.7

xmb89 6.3 581 634.9 -53.9

azpme 10.1 360 396.0 -36.0

zpd87 8.1 458 493.8 -35.8

69kgp 8.0 465 500.0 -35.0

mpb4r 7.1 530 563.4 -33.4

ycm8r 7.4 510 540.5 -30.5

4smdt 6.2 621 645.2 -24.2

Lab code

AG-10

ACV%

10% FACT

kN

Estimated 10% FACT

Difference from Estimated 10%

FACT

f2peh 7.7 500 519.5 -19.5

r6zmc 6.8 569 588.2 -19.2

tsm8g 6.8 570 588.2 -18.2

bhx3q 7.0 555 571.4 -16.4

sb2w8 6.2 636 645.2 -9.2

smqav 7.3 540 547.9 -7.9

fmsdp 7.5 530 533.3 -3.3

whf7j 7.0 570 571.4 -1.4

dwg4m 7.9 506 506.3 -0.3

wfkrq 5.1 784.3 784.3 0.0

e88jn 10 400 400.0 0.0

bqugr 6.0 667 666.7 0.3

ndc6z 7.3 550 547.9 2.1

ce5nz 6.9 598 579.7 18.3

hyx2g 7.1 605.0 563.4 41.6

ozpme 7.6 580 526.3 53.7

p7ksy 12.4 520 322.6 197.4

dzk3j 5.0 NULL 800.0

gd9jw 6.2 NULL 645.2

ks6kt 7.7 5.9 OB 519.5

Additional graphs & statistics provided

• Graphical plot of z-score

• ± 1,000

• ± 1,500

Additional participant statistics

Number of participants 45

Non-participants 19

OB 2

Statistics for Z-scores < ±1

Range 0,6Percentage of participants 67,4%

Reporting format

Participants reported to 1 mm 1 (OB)

Participants reported correctly to 0,1 mm 41

Participants reported to 0,01 mm 3

• Additional stats• Participants, non-participants

& OB’s

• Stats for z-scores < ±1

• Accuracy of reporting of results

Conclusions

• I trust this has helped you in better

understand & utilise the PTS reports

produced monthly.

• Any questions?