Aggregates - 2016 (68) PROFICIENCY TESTING … · AS 1141 15 Flakiness index ... test data has been reviewed for ... The performance of the sieve analysis by participants was very

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Aggregates - 2016 (68)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(68)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Issued - 12 June 2017 Page 1 of 62

Program Report This report is available on the LabSmart Services website. The issue of this proficiency report was authorised by Peter Young, Director, LabSmart Services Pty Ltd, June 2017. Contact Details

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0432 767 706 Fax: (03) 8888 4987

Program Coordinator The program coordinator for this program was Peter Young, Director, LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Contact Details

Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0432 767 706 Fax: (03) 8888 4987

Please note that any technical questions regarding this program are to be directed to the program coordinator.

Z-scores Summary A z-scores summary for this program was issued in December 2017. This technical program report supersedes the z-sores summary.

Accredited Proficiency Testing Provider LabSmart Services is accredited by NATA to ISO/IEC 17043, Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing. Accreditation number 19235. The accreditation provides additional assurance to participants of the quality and importance we place on our proficiency testing programs.

LabSmart Services More details regarding our proficiency testing services can be found on our website.

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Copyright This work is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, transmitted or stored in any repository (e.g. mechanical, digital, electronic or photographic) without prior written permission of LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Please contact LabSmart Services should you wish to reproduce any part of this report.

Amendment History Reports may be downloaded from the LabSmart Services website.

Version 1 – Issued 12 June 2017



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim

4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Overall Performance

4

4 5

3. Technical Comments

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

7

7 15 16 16 17 20 21 22

4. Statistics: Z- Scores & Graph

4.1 PSD (% Passing) – 13.2 mm PSD (% Passing) – 9.5 mm PSD (% Passing) – 6.7 mm PSD (% Passing) – 4.75 mm 4.2 Material finer than 75 µm 4.3 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) 4.4 Particle shape by proportional calliper (3:1) 4.5 Flakiness index 4.6 Average least dimensions 4.7 Apparent particle density 4.8 Particle density on a dry basis 4.9 Particle density on a saturated – surface dry basis 4.10 Water absorption

24

24 26 28 30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

5. Program Information

5.1 Z-score Summary 5.2 Program Design 5.3 Sample Preparation 5.4 Packaging and Instructions 5.5 Quarantine 5.6 Sample Dispatch 5.7 Homogeneity Testing 5.8 Participation 5.9 Statistics

50

50 50 52 53 53 53 53 55 55

Appendix A Instructions for testers

Appendix B Results log

Appendix C Calculated ‘% Retained’

57

59

61



1. Program Aim The proficiency program was conducted in October\November 2016 with 75 participants throughout Australia. The program involved the performance of the following ten tests.

▪ AS 1141 11 Particle size distribution ▪ AS 1141 12 Material finer than 75 µm ▪ AS 1141 14 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) ▪ AS 1141 14 Particle shape by proportional calliper (3:1) ▪ AS 1141 15 Flakiness index ▪ AS 1141 20.1 Average least dimensions ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Apparent particle density ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Particle density on a dry basis ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Particle density on a saturated–surface dry basis ▪ AS 1141 6.1 Water absorption

Testing to the relevant sections of AS 1141 was preferred but other equivalent methods were accepted. The program provides confidence to the construction materials testing industry regarding the competency of participants (and the industry) to perform these tests. Each participant’s performance is statistically assessed and used as a measure of competency relative to all those who participated. Other measures of performance are also used. This report has been prepared using robust statistics. Information regarding the conduct and design of the program can be found in section 5. Comprehensive technical comment (section 3) is provided to assist participants improve the overall performance of these tests. In addition, test data has been reviewed for consistency and additional feedback regarding aspects of the test are provided.

2. Performance 2.1 Identified Outliers There were 32 outliers identified across the ten tests performed. These were spread across 24 participants. This represented 34% of the 70 participants who returned results in the proficiency program (Table 2.1). Participant’s test results are tabulated in section 4 along with the robust statistics and a z-score graph. The z-score indicates how far away a participant is from the program’s median value. A z-score of zero indicates a strong consensus with respect to all other participants and represents a very good outcome. The z-score graph gives a quick visual indication of how a result compares to others in the program. Outliers are where a z-score value is greater than 3 or less than -3. It is recommended that participants with outliers investigate their performance of the test. Participants with outliers are detailed in table 2.1.



Those participants with z-scores greater than 2 or less than -2 may wish to review their testing methodology. Only those approaching a z-score of 3 (i.e. outside ± 2.75) have been specifically identified in table 2.1A as feedback. More detail on the robust statistics used can be found in section 5. Technical comment and feedback in section 3 is provided to assist participants investigate or review their results as well for those seeking to improve their testing performance.

Test Investigate Review

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm Y7 C7

9.5 mm Y7 D6

6.7 mm Y7 L6, J2

4.75 mm L6, G6, Y8, E9, Q5, J2, Y7, P7, N3, T5, J7, T4

-

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) Z3, A9 (Z6)

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) T4, C7 -

Particle shape by proportional calliper (3:1) N2, W5 -

Flakiness index - -

Average least dimensions Q7, M8 -

Apparent particle density Q7, P9 -

Particle density on a dry basis P9 L9

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis L9, C6, P9, U5 -

Water absorption Z3, Q7 -

Table 2.1A Participant codes where further action is recommended based on z-scores.

2.2 Overall Performance Overall a satisfactory level of performance(1) was achieved by the majority (66%) of participants with 34% having one or more outliers(2). The performance by participants is very good overall and compares favourably with previous aggregate proficiency programs. There were 75 participants registered for the program with 70 participants(2) (93%) returning results.



There were more outliers shown with this group or participant then the 2015(60)-proficiency program. It indicates that there is room for improvement. Section 3 provides comments on possible ways to improve. The proficiency program was a useful exercise, allowing laboratories to have greater confidence in their results while for others providing an opportunity to improve their competency with respect to the tests in this program. The following is a summary of the test results obtained (Table 2.2A). Unrounded statistics for the program are shown in section 3.8.

Test Units Participants Median Normalised

IQR

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm

% 70

72 1.0

9.5 mm 33 1.5

6.7 mm 8 1.0

4.75 mm 2 0.4

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) % 63 2.0 0.2

Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1) % 32 13.1 3.5


Flakiness index % 46 10 2

Average least dimensions mm 46 8.1 1.0

Apparent particle density t/m3 33 2.84 0.03

Particle density on a dry basis t/m3 30 2.67 0.03

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis t/m3 33 2.73 0.02

Water absorption % 33 2.5 0.4

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

(1) Overall performance outcomes can vary from one aggregate program to another and should not

be taken as either an improvement or deterioration in industry performance. Variation in program outcomes may be attributed to the difficulty of the material under test or where participants overall in one program may have more experience or greater skill levels than those in another program. Evaluation of industry performance endeavours to balance these issues. Industry outcomes and individual performance outcomes are detailed in section sections 2.2 and 3.

(2) Statistics relating to the number of outliers or participation rates are intended as an overview only for the aggregates program. They are calculated based on the total number of participants, however not all participants perform each test.



3 Technical Comments The more often a participant’s code appears during the following feedback the greater the need to investigate testing practice in general. A participant code shown in bold indicates an outlier or is associated with an outlier. Participants are reminded that they can update their results up until the z-score summary is issued. Many participants or supervisors on reflecting on the results forwarded realize that there is an error. These changes can be accepted. Changes to results after the z-scores have been published however cannot be accommodated. Note: Some participants did not indicate that they had used the nominated test method shown on the log sheet. This report has assumed that the nominated test method has been used.

3.1 Particle Size Distribution General

The performance of the sieve analysis by participants was very good with the variation (s.d) at 1% or less for most fractions. There were 70 participants in the PSD test. There were eight participants (T7, D6, Y8, F5, C6, E9, Z5 and F2) that had some material retained on the 19.0mm sieve. See table 3.1C. Z-scores have not been calculated due to both the low number of participants involved and the small amount retained on this fraction. The amounts are small and have minimal impact on the analysis and z-score calculated for the remaining fractions. With the PSD test ‘errors’ can flow though multiple fractions leading to multiple outliers as shown in table 3.1A. Twelve participants (17%) were identified with one or more outliers for the PSD test. In total, there were 15 outliers. It is recommended that these participants investigate the results obtained. Most participants with outliers appeared to have satisfactory “% mass retained” results (Appendix C). This would suggest the issue may involve the calculation of “% passing” rather than any issue with the raw data. There were four participants (C7, D6, L6, J2) where z-scores were greater than 2.75. In these cases, it may be beneficial for these participants to review their results. There were two participants (D6 & C7) that were indicated as needing their results reviewed that had z-scores greater than 3 in the “% mass retained” data shown in Appendix C. This suggests that there may be an issue with the participants raw data. Participant L6 obtained an outlier for the fraction 4.75. Participant L6 advised prior to the issue of the final report that the outlier was due to a calculation error. The recalculated results were 100.0, 73.4, 32.5, 6.2 and 2.1 “% Passing”. The z-scores for these results when recalculated are all satisfactory.



Particle Size Distribution (% Passing)

13.2 mm Y7 (C7)

9.5 mm Y7 (D6)

6.7 mm Y7 (L6) (J2)

4.75 mm Y7 L6 J2 G6, Y8, E9, Q5, P9, N3, T5, J7, T4

Table 3.1A PSD outliers and near outliers (shown in brackets) combined.

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

Mass retained results are often helpful in understanding issues associated with testing. Therefore, ‘% Retained’ and associated z-scores have been calculated for information purposes only and are shown in Appendix C. Participants do not have to investigate the z-scores greater than 3 in Appendix C. In many cases if the ‘retained mass’ was incorrect to begin with then it will result in a z-score greater than 3. For the retained results to correlate with the ‘% Passing’ then the majority of participants must supply “% retained” results or retained masses. Only four did not supply sufficient information (shown in orange) in Appendix C to allow calculation of “% mass retained”. Rows shown in green correspond to “% Passing” PSD outliers or identified as having a high z-score. Rows in yellow show “% mass retained” results were the z-score was greater than three. In most cases it indicates an issue with the mass data submitted. The “% mass retained” data detailed in Appendix C may be reference throughout section 3 of this report. Sieve Diameter

The majority of participants used 300 mm diameter sieves. Seven participants did not indicate which sieve diameter sieve set was used. Of the rest 14 (20%) used 200 mm diameter sieves. Sieve Overload

From table 3.1B those using a 200mm diameter sieve set would need to have split the sample. Even those using a 300mm diameter set were very close to the limit on the 9.5mm fraction.



To handle the ‘overload’ the sample could have been sieved in two passes. This also avoids the possibility of segregation when splitting. Alternatively the sample could have been split and a portion sieved.

Sieve Typical retained mass on 300 mm diameter sieve

g

300 mm overload values

g

200 mm overload values

g

13.2 400 900 400

9.5 600 600 250

6.7 430 500 225

4.75 140 400 200

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

Four of the participants (P7, N3, T5, J7) used 200mm diameter and had outliers suggesting something may have gone astray with the splitting/calculation process. The need to sieve in more than one pass or split complicates the calculation process and the possibility of an incorrect calculation increases. Thorough checking is important. It is recognised that this is a difficult task in ‘one person’ laboratories. Splitting

The program supplied a 1.5 kg of ‘Sample A’ for PSD with all participants using this amount for the test. All participants provided a start mass which was better than previous programs. Participants that use significantly different starting masses can influence a participant’s performance in relation to other participants and hence the program instructions indicated to use all of ‘Sample A’ for the test. A poorly mixed sample or poor splitting technique may have a significant impact on the results. Depending on the diameter of the sieves used overloading or calculation errors may also contribute to different performance outcomes. Washing

Seven participants (X3, T7, M9, N8, Y8, F5, J2) did not provide ‘Material finer than 75 μm’ results, however a ‘washed mass’ was supplied by the majority of participants. Three participants did not supply a ‘washed mass’ but the amount retained in the pan for one participant indicated that the sample had been washed. Drying

Six participants (D6, B2, A7, E4, J3, W5) indicated using a ‘pan’ rather than an oven to dry the material. The test method does allow for this but only in cases where it can be shown not to affect the results. This generally applies to material where the history is known such as in a quarry for example. For unknown material such as in a proficiency



program only the standard oven method should be used. Six participants did not indicate the drying method used. % Passing

For each participant the ‘% Passing’ values were also recalculated from the mass retained data submitted and compared to each participant’s submitted ‘% Passing’ results. The majority of participant’s calculations were identical to the recalculated ‘% Passing’ or within acceptable rounding tolerance (i.e. <0.5%). The value 0.5 % was chosen as the point where such a difference could affect the result reported when rounded. It should be noted that such errors can be cumulative and if occur on larger aperture sieves it can flow through to the smaller aperture sieves. Participant’s results where one or more ‘% Passing’ results were greater than 0.5 % are shown in table 3.1C in yellow highlight. In many cases they were significantly ‘out’ and showed as outliers. There were 16 or 23% identified as having an incorrect ‘% passing’ result based on what was submitted. I.e. Z3, V9, G6, B2, Z4, Y8, Q5, J2, Z5, Y7, P7, N3, T5, J7, F2, T4 Those shown in bold also had outliers identified for PSD. Some participants may have transcribed incorrect raw data (Z5). For another participant (L7) there was a calculation or transcription error. The results obtained were satisfactory but what was written for % passing was significantly different. For others, some other part of the test process has been in error. In general, the recalculated results were closer to the median value. Many were outliers, e.g. G6, Y8, Q5, J2, Y7, N3, T5, J7, T4. Participants with codes highlighted in blue (10 or 14%) failed to supply some aspect of the raw data requested and the results could not be recalculated. (see ‘Incomplete or inaccurate results’).

There is a possibility that, due to the number and magnitude of the variations incurred, that they could cause a shift in the z-scores statistics. Check Sums

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



Participant’s masses were added and checked against the start mass. A large number did not supply the mass retained results so checks could not be performed (see table 3.1C). It is desirable that any ‘unaccounted mass’ be less than 1%. The majority of participants ‘unaccounted mass’ was very low, less than 0.5 %. This is a very good outcome. Participants S4, Q5, Z5, A7, X9 and A2 check mass values were higher than 1%. These participants may benefit from reviewing the data and calculations submitted. There were a few participants (Z3, Y8, Z5, Y7) where the “check sums” yielded absurd numbers suggesting that some aspect of the data submitted was incorrect. Pan

Assessment of the pan contents depends largely on the knowledge of the material as to what is acceptable. The material used for this program broke down a little during sieving. Pan amounts up to 15g could be expected i.e. less than 1%. The majority of participants had pan amounts less than 1 %. Overall the breakdown in material had minor influence on the ‘% passing’ results obtained. Participants’ T7 and M9 had high pan amounts. These participants did not submit “material finer than 75 µm” results. The pan amounts were in the range expected for non-washed material. Five participants (C4, Q7, Z5, Y7, and F2) did not submit values for material retained in the pan. It is good practice to record this amount and use it in the “Checksum” process. Several participants did not submit results for “material finer than 75um” but from the pan amounts it was apparent that the aggregate had been washed. Even if a participant does not perform the “material finer than 75um” test participants still need to wash the sample. Retained dust on the aggregate may affect the ‘% passing Results” by 1 or 2% on various fractions. This may have been the case for participants T7 and M9 “% passing” results.



19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

Code % Passing

Recalculated % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %

Passing Recalculated % Passing

Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

X3 100 71.2 30.99 7.95 2.72

T7 99.3 99.3 0.0 Y 74.2 74.2 0.0 Y 31.8 31.8 0.0 Y 7.1 7.1 0.0 Y 2.7 2.6 0.1 Y

M9 100.0 74.4 74.4 0.0 Y 33.8 33.7 0.1 Y 7.5 7.4 0.1 Y 2.8 2.8 0.0 Y

U3 100 72.8 72.8 0.0 Y 33.1 33.1 0.0 Y 7.0 7.0 0.0 Y 2.5 2.5 0.0 Y

D6 99.2 99.2 0.0 Y 73.2 73.2 0.0 Y 37.3 37.3 0.0 Y 8.6 8.6 0.0 Y 2.9 2.9 0.0 Y

B8 100.0 72.8 72.8 0.0 Y 34.2 34.2 0.0 Y 7.4 7.4 0.0 Y 2.3 2.3 0.0 Y

M7

Q2 100 73.1 73.0 0.1 Y 32.3 32.3 0.0 Y 7.8 7.8 0.0 Y 2.7 2.7 0.0 Y

D8 100.0 72.5 72.5 0.0 Y 32.6 32.6 0.0 Y 7.8 7.7 0.1 Y 2.2 2.2 0.0 Y

F4 100 72.36 72.4 0.0 Y 32.92 32.9 0.0 Y 7.88 7.9 0.0 Y 2.60 2.6 0.0 Y

L6 100.0 72.9 31.2 4.5 0.3

Z3 100 71.58 87.3 -15.7 N 32.07 47.8 -15.7 N 6.41 22.1 -15.7 N 2.13 17.9 -15.7 N

X7 100.0 71.0 71.0 0.0 Y 33.6 33.6 0.0 Y 6.6 6.6 0.0 Y 2.2 2.2 0.0 Y

C2 100.0 72.7 72.7 0.0 Y 33.4 33.4 0.0 Y 8.1 8.1 0.0 Y 2.5 2.5 0.0 Y

R8 100.0 72.1 72.0 0.1 Y 33.8 33.8 0.0 Y 7.5 7.5 0.0 Y 2.4 2.4 0.0 Y

Q4 100.0 72.6 72.6 0.0 Y 36.6 36.6 0.0 Y 7.7 7.7 0.0 Y 2.6 2.6 0.0 Y

V9 100.0 71.7 71.6 0.1 Y 34.1 34.1 0.0 Y 5.6 7.2 -1.6 N 1.8 2.6 -0.8 N

K3 100.0 72.9 72.9 0.0 Y 33.1 33.1 0.0 Y 8.1 8.1 0.0 Y 3.0 3.0 0.0 Y

L7 100.0 73.2 73.2 0.0 Y 33.3 33.3 0.0 Y 7.2 7.2 0.0 Y 2.3 2.3 0.0 Y

V8 100 70.2 70.2 0.0 Y 31.7 31.7 0.0 Y 6.8 6.8 0.0 Y 2.0 2.0 0.0 Y

Y2 100.0 72.7 72.7 0.0 Y 32.2 32.2 0.0 Y 7.1 7.1 0.0 Y 2.6 2.6 0.0 Y

T9

G6 100 71.5 72.0 -0.5 Y 29.5 30.8 -1.3 N 5.4 7.1 -1.7 N 0.4 2.3 -1.9 N

X4 100 72.5 72.5 0.0 Y 33.0 33.0 7.5 7.5 2.4 2.4

U9 100 72.8 32.6 7.9 2.6

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



19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

Code %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

C4 100.0 72.3 72.3 0.0 Y 33.1 33.1 8.3 8.3 2.6 2.6

W8 100.0 70.8 70.8 0.0 Y 31.9 31.9 6.6 6.6 2.4 2.3

A9 100.0 73.1 73.1 0.0 Y 32.0 32.0 0.0 Y 7.1 7.0 0.1 Y 1.7 1.7 0.0 Y

R2 100 71.5 71.5 0.0 Y 34.1 34.1 0.0 Y 7.0 6.9 0.1 Y 2.4 2.4 0.0 Y

Y4 100 72 71.5 0.5 Y 31 31.3 -0.3 Y 6 6.1 -0.1 Y 2 1.8 0.2 Y

N8 100 72.6 35.0 8.6 2.9

B2 100 73 72.3 0.7 N 33 32.7 0.3 Y 8 7.2 0.8 N 3 2.1 0.9 N

V3 100 73.7 73.7 0.0 Y 33.7 33.7 0.0 Y 8.3 8.3 0.0 Y 2.6 2.6 0.0 Y

Q7 100 71.4 32.7 6.8 2.3

Z4 100 73.7 73.7 0.0 Y 34.0 7.7 26.3 N 7.6 -84.7 92.3 N 2.6 -182.1 184.7 N

Y8 99.3 99.3 0.0 Y 70.3 71.0 -0.7 N 32.1 33.6 -1.5 N 6.0 8.1 -2.1 N 0.3 2.6 -2.3 N

F5 99.5 99.5 0.0 Y 72.0 72.0 0.0 Y 35.9 35.9 0.0 Y 8.2 8.2 0.0 Y 2.2 2.2 0.0 Y

L8 72.5 33.5 8.1 2.5

Y6 100 73.4 34.5 8.1 2.5

L9 100 73 34 8 3

F3 100.0 69.7 69.7 0.0 Y 29.9 29.9 0.0 Y 6.2 6.3 -0.1 Y 2.1 2.1 0.0 Y

C6 98.8 98.8 0.0 Y 70.8 70.7 0.1 Y 31.7 31.4 0.3 Y 6.1 5.7 0.4 Y 2.5 2.1 0.4 Y

S7 100 71 70.7 0.3 Y 29 28.7 0.3 Y 6 6.4 -0.4 Y 2 1.8 0.2 Y

M6 100.0 72.5 72.5 0.0 Y 35.2 35.3 -0.1 Y 8.2 8.2 0.0 Y 2.7 2.7 0.0 Y

E9 99.4 99.4 0.0 Y 72.3 72.3 0.0 Y 34.1 34.1 0.0 Y 8.6 8.6 0.0 Y 4.8 4.8 0.0 Y

Q5 100.0 70.1 70.8 -0.7 N 30.7 32.4 -1.7 N 5.4 7.6 -2.2 N 0.3 2.7 -2.4 N

J2 100.0 71.37 72.2 -0.8 N 30.82 32.5 -1.7 N 4.57 6.8 -2.2 N 0.04 2.4 -2.3 N

D3 100.0 73.2 73.2 0.0 Y 32.8 32.8 0.0 Y 8.2 8.2 0.0 Y 2.7 2.7 0.0 Y

U7 100.0 72.0 72.0 0.0 Y 34.8 34.9 -0.1 Y 8.0 8.1 -0.1 Y 2.5 2.6 -0.1 Y

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



19.0 mm 13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

Code %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 % %


Difference

<0.5 %

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

N2 100 71 71.4 -0.4 Y 32 32.2 -0.2 Y 7 7.0 0.0 Y 2 2.3 -0.3 Y

Z6 100.0 73.7 73.7 0.0 Y 34.6 34.6 0.0 Y 8.5 8.5 0.0 Y 3.0 3.0 0.0 Y

B3 100.0 72.3 72.3 0.0 Y 32.9 32.9 0.0 Y 7.7 7.7 0.0 Y 2.8 2.8 0.0 Y

X8 100 71.0 71.0 0.0 Y 29.9 29.9 0.0 Y 7.2 7.2 0.0 Y 2.3 2.2 0.1 Y

A7 100 72 72.4 -0.4 Y 33 33.0 0.0 Y 7 7.3 -0.3 Y 2 2.2 -0.2 Y

P9 100 72.3 72.3 0.0 Y 31.8 31.8 0.0 Y 7.1 7.1 0.0 Y 1.8 1.8 0.0 Y

E8

K2

S8 100.0 72.4 72.4 0.0 Y 31.9 31.9 0.0 Y 7.8 7.8 0.0 Y 2.4 2.4 0.0 Y

Z5 99 99.4 -0.4 Y 72 71.5 0.5 N 33 4.7 28.3 N 7 -87.7 94.7 N 2 -185.0 187.0 N

Y7 100.0 89.0 72.8 16.2 N 72.8 32.4 40.4 N 32.4 7.0 25.4 N 7.0 2.2 4.8 N

E4 100 73 72.9 0.1 Y 33 33.0 0.0 Y 8 7.8 0.2 Y 2 2.6 -0.6 N

T8 88.5 73.0 73.0 0.0 Y 33.3 33.3 0.0 Y 8.7 8.7 0.0 Y 2.5 2.5 0.0 Y

M4

U5 100 72.8 72.8 0.0 Y 32.4 32.4 0.0 Y 7.7 7.7 0.0 Y 2.7 2.7 0.0 Y

J3 100.0 72.0 32.2 6.8 2.5

W5 100 72.8 72.8 0.0 Y 34.3 34.3 0.0 Y 7.6 7.6 0.0 Y 2.5 2.5 0.0 Y

P7 100.0 72.4 73.0 -0.6 N 32.2 33.5 -1.3 N 6.0 7.9 -1.9 N 0.8 2.8 -2.0 N

N3 100 71.6 72.0 -0.4 Y 30.7 31.8 -1.1 N 5.0 6.5 -1.5 N 0.8 2.3 -1.5 N

T5 100 72.3 72.8 -0.5 N 31.6 32.8 -1.2 N 6.1 7.9 -1.8 N 0.5 2.4 -1.9 N

J7 100 72.0 72.5 -0.5 N 31.7 33.0 -1.3 N 6.4 8.2 -1.8 N 0.7 2.6 -1.9 N

F2 98.3 98.3 0.0 Y 72.5 72.5 0.0 Y 30.0 33.0 -3.0 N 8.4 8.4 0.0 Y 2.7 2.7 0.0 Y

M8 100 73.4 34.4 7.7 2.3

P3 100.0 73.6 73.6 0.0 Y 33.1 7.4 2.5

T4 100 71.0 71.5 -0.5 N 29.0 30.2 -1.2 N 5.3 6.9 -1.6 N 0.5 2.2 -1.7 N

C7 100 69.5 69.5 0.0 Y 30.4 30.4 0.0 Y 6.7 6.7 0.0 Y 2.6 2.6 0.0 Y

Table 3.1C Variation in results to those calculated based on data provided.



Incomplete or inaccurate results

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

• Initial dry mass

• Washed mass

• Both washed and dry mass

• Mass retained

• All of above Participants with incomplete data (10 or 14%) are shown in table 3.1C with codes shaded blue. Incomplete data means only limited feedback can be given. Some participants dropped trialling zeros i.e. 64 instead of 64.0. This is poor practice. It is unknown to the person checking if indeed the zero has been left off or a figure not recorded. The result may have been incorrectly rounded. The result shown as 64 may have been 64.0, 64.3, 64.9 or 63.8 etc. 3.2 Material finer than 75 μm Participants’ overall performed very well in this test. There were two outliers identified (Z3 & A9) where the participants need to investigate the result. Participant Z3 appears to have put the decimal place in the wrong spot leading to a transcription error. Participant A9 had a very low retained mass indicating perhaps material has been lost or washing was incomplete. All calculations were checked using the supplied participant data. The following participants passed the statistical analyse but may benefit from rechecking the results submitted. It is suggested that Z6 review the result obtained. “% retained“ results shown in appendix C indicated that the raw data was fine. May point to a calculation error. The result for participant E4 indicated a difference of 0.6% between the submitted value and the recalculated value. The difference in submitted results and recalculated for participants Q4, Q7, Z5 and N3 were much smaller and would not affect a rounded result as per the test method but it does suggest an error somewhere in the testing process. Several participants did not report to the number of decimal places requested. This unfortunately reduces the feedback that can be provided.



3.3 Particle shape by proportional calliper (2:1 & 3:1) Proportional calliper tests are most likely going to give a wide spread of results. The spread of results (variation) will depend on the particular grade of aggregate, time produced and manufacturer. The method of manufacturing aggregate has limited ability to control the particle shape. The coefficient of variation is typically around the 20% mark for 2:1 and higher for 3:1. The results normally would be taken as indicative. However the results are still important and useful. Participants’ with abnormally high or low results show up as outliers. The variation in results was similar to previous proficiency programs. There were two outliers identified (T4 & C7) for the 2:1 test and two for the 3:1 test (W5 & N2). These participants need to investigate the reason for the outlier. The majority of participants had z-scores under ± 1. Overall the proficiency by participants was very good for the proportional calliper test. 3.4 Flakiness Index Unlike grading the testers skill has little influence over the outcome of the test. Provided the test is performed correctly a tester should be able to retest each fraction and get essentially the same result. The spread of results observed is indicative of the manufacturing process rather than that of the participants. So unlike the other tests the standard deviation reflects the manufacturing process rather than the precision of the testers. The proficiency testing program therefore will only pick up gross departures from the median result. This is satisfactory from a proficiency program perspective; it just means that an outlier is outside both the testing and production confidence interval. The spread of results obtained for the flakiness test is generally less than the proportional calliper test. There were no outliers for this test with all participants having a z-score below ± 2 which is a very good outcome. It is reasonable however, for this test, to expect participants results to be very similar to the homogeneity test results. As this is not the case it suggests that the spread in results, while statistically satisfactory, may not be acceptable on a practical basis. Participants generally need to improve in the performance of this test. Those participants with z-scores above 1.0 or below -1.0 may benefit from reviewing their test practice. This may involve checking that particles are not missed during the testing process. Particles that are more rounded may need



to be manipulated a number of ways before it will eventually pass through the slot. 3.5 Average Least Dimensions

This test produced results with a small variation across the 44 participants representing a very good outcome. Two outliers (Q7 & M8) were identified. As with flakiness the tester’s skill has little influence over the outcome of the test. Provided the test is performed correctly a tester should be able to retest the sample and get essentially the same result. The spread of results observed is indicative of the manufacturing process rather than that of the participants. So unlike the other tests the standard deviation reflects the manufacturing process rather than the precision of the testers. The proficiency testing program therefore will only pick up gross departures from the median result. This is satisfactory from a proficiency program perspective; it just means that any outlier is outside both the testing and production confidence interval.

Aggregate 2015(60) PT Program - ALD

Statistics All Slotted and

Vernier Slotted Vernier

Calculated (20.3)

No Participants 33 23 17 6 9

Average 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.7

Standard Deviation 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.9 2.9

Aggregate 2016(68) PT Program - ALD

Statistics All Slotted

and Vernier

Slotted Vernier Calculated

(20.3)


Average 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.4 9.2

Standard Deviation 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 -

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

Consequently, both the homogeneity and participants results and statistics should be quite similar. However, it should be noted that it is very dependent on having a representative sample to begin with and how well the sample is split down to obtain the 100 or more stones needed for the tests. The test method indicates 100 stones as a minimum. The higher the number of stones used the greater the confidence in the result obtained as well as reducing the impact of any stones incorrectly ‘sized’ during testing.



Previous program have indicated that there is no statistical difference between using a slotted gauge or vernier callipers. Table 3.5A indicates the variation comparison. The statistics for this program yielded similar outcomes to the 2015 program shown in Table 3.5A. Both sets of statistics have had the outliers removed.

Code

Average Least Dimensions

All Slotted

and Vernier


(20.3)

U3 8.9 8.9 8.9

D6 9.7 9.7 9.7

B8 8.0 8.0 8.0

Q2 7.6 7.6 7.6

Z3 9.28 9.28

R8 8.3 8.3 8.3

Q4 7.9 7.9 7.9

G6 7.9 7.9 7.9

X4 7.9 7.9 7.9

U9 9.2 9.2 9.2

C4 9.1 9.1 9.1

W8 9.2 9.2 9.2

A9 7.6 7.6 7.6

R2 5.8 5.8 5.8

Y4 8.6 8.6 8.6

N8 8.3 8.3 8.3

B2 9.4 9.4 9.4

V3 8.0 8.0 8.0

Q7 16.2 16.2 16.2

L8 9.5 9.5 9.5

Y6 8.1 8.1 8.1

L9 7.0 7.0 7.0

S7 7.7 7.7 7.7

M6 7.6 7.6 7.6

E9 7.8 7.8 7.8

Q5 7.1 7.1 7.1

U7 6.7 6.7 6.7

N2 8.6 8.6 8.6

B3 7.7 7.7 7.7

X8 8.4 8.4 8.4

P9 8.3 8.3 8.3

S8 7.8 7.8 7.8



Z5 7.7 7.7 7.7

Y7 9.2 9.2 9.2

E4 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2

T8 8.4 8.4 8.4

U5 9.0 9.0 9.0

J3 9.0 9.0 9.0

W5 9.0 9.0 9.0

P7 7.6 7.6 7.6

N3 7.7 7.7 7.7

T5 7.7 7.7 7.7

J7 7.6 7.6 7.6

F2 7.4 7.4 7.4

M8 12.2 12.2 12.2

P3 8.0 8.0 8.0


Average 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 9.2


Table 3.5B ALD results

Code

Average Least Dimensions

All Slotted

and Vernier


(20.3)


Average 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.4 9.2


Table 3.5C ALD results less outliers

Method 20.3

Only two participants choose to use the calculation method. Consequently, no statistics could be calculated for this group or any specific conclusions reached. Previous proficiency programs have indicated that there is little if any difference regardless of whether AS 1141: 20.1 or 20.3 is used. The homogeneity was undertaken using both the slotted gauge and calculation method. The calculation method gives results that are higher than the slotted gauge but still within one standard deviation of the median. This can be seen from table 3.5A and 3.5B as well. Despite the homogeneity displaying smaller variation for the calculated (method 20.3) ALD it is still not as accurate as using direct measurement (method 20.1). If the measurement uncertainty was to be calculated for both methods it would



be much larger for method 20.3 as it uses a number of other test results (parameters) to derive the ALD value (i.e. ‘% Passing’ and FI). A draw back with method 20.3 is that any inaccuracies with the parameters used to calculate the ALD will affect the result obtained. 3.6 Apparent Particle Density

Particle Density on a Dry Basis

Particle Density on a Saturated-surface-dry Basis

The material used in this program was selected to give reasonably consistent results across all three tests. All but one of the 33 participants performed the tests to AS 1141.6.1. The tests involve operations that require skilled technicians to obtain accurate and consistent results. The test, as intended, is sensitive to surface irregularities and internal voids. However, the more surface irregularities the harder it is to determine the “surface dry” state. This is likely to increase the spread of results observed. The more homogenous the material under test (i.e. with the same surface and voids in each stone) the smaller the variation observed is likely to be. The affect can be seen in the increased variability compared to the 2013(45)-proficiency program (no voids), table 3.6A.

Particle density test Units

2013(45) 2014(49) 2015(60) 2016(68)

Median Normalised

IQR Median

Normalised IQR

Median Normalised

IQR Median

Normalised IQR

Apparent t/m3 2.98 0.015 2.81 0.022 2.84 0.023 2.84 0.030

Dry basis t/m3 2.95 0.015 2.62 0.022 2.65 0.020 2.67 0.028

SS dry basis t/m3 2.96 0.015 2.69 0.037 2.72 0.017 2.73 0.015

Table 3.6A Comparison of previous and current program statistics

Overall the increase in variation was slightly larger than previous programs. (Table 3.6). The particle density on a saturated surface-dry basis was particularly good. The spread of results was well within the range expected for this test. Participants with outliers need to look at all three tests in relation to each other. Table 3.6B. Shaded results indicate outliers. The z-scores across all three tests should also be considered.



Z - scores

Participant code Q7 P9 L9 C6 U5

Apparent particle density -19.2 -31.4 -2.36 -0.34 -1.01

Particle density on a dry basis 0.36 -30.6 -2.88 2.16 -2.16

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis

-1.35 -58.7 -5.40 5.40 -3.37

Table 3.6B Outliers for density tests to AS 1141 – 6.1

Participant (Q7) had an outlier with a low result for “apparent particle density”. Loss of material while weighing submerged, a transcription error or an incorrect calculation may lead to low results. One participant (P9) had outliers identified across all three tests. All results were on the low end. This would indicate a possible systematic issue affecting all three tests possibly a calculation, rounding or weighing error. Material not being fully dried is another possibility. Participant (L9) had a low result for the apparent particle density on a dry basis test. Loss of material while weighing submerged, a transcription error or an incorrect calculation may lead to low results. There was low result for the ‘dry basis’ test and an outlier for the ‘surface saturated’ test. This would indicate a possible systematic issue affecting the two tests possibly a calculation, rounding or weighing error. Material not being fully dried is another possibility. Participant (C6) had an outlier with a high result for the saturated surface dry basis test. This would indicate a calculation, rounding or weighing error. The “dry sate” determined was too wet. Material not being fully dried is another possibility. One participant (U5) had results that tended to be on the low side with an outlier for particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis. Possibly a systematic issue affecting all three tests. Calculation, rounding or weighing error. The “dry sate” determined was too dry. For particle density on ‘dry’ and ‘saturated-surface dry’ basis the drying to a ‘surface-dry’ state is critical to the accuracy of the test results. An outlier at either the low or high density may indicate either the material being too wet or too dry. Correct oven drying is also critical. 3.7 Water Absorption Thirty-three participants performed the test to AS 1141.6.1. There were two outliers identified (Z3 & Q7) with a very low absorption result. Insufficient oven drying (i.e. not achieving a constant mass) will cause a lower absorption result to be obtained. An error in calculations or the recording of a test parameter



could have occurred. Allowing the material to be too dry as to when “Surface Dry” has been achieved would also cause a low result. Participants with a low absorption values (i.e. below 2.0 %) have probably judged the “Surface Dry” condition as being too far on the dry side of “Surface Dry”. Variation in the performance of this test is strongly influenced by the skill of the tester (ability to determine surface dry) and the type of material under test (number of voids, porosity, etc). Performing the test in both a controlled environment and in the same manner is important. Changes in drying material or technique, temperature, wind, humidity and lighting can have a significant effect. Material with a “honey combed” appearance compared to smooth material will have a greater surface area and therefore influence the result obtained. It also makes it harder to determine “Surface Dry”. The spread is about what is normally attributed to this test. The variation was slightly higher for this program (s.d of 0.37) compared to the 2015 program with a s.d of 0.21. Most participants were within ± 2 s.d which was a very good outcome. 3.8 Summary of test results (unrounded)

Test Units Participants Median Normalised

IQR

Particle size distribution (% Passing) 13.2 mm

% 70

72.4 1.03

9.5 mm 32.9 1.48

6.7 mm 7.5 1.04

4.75 mm 2.4 0.44

Material finer than 75 µm (by washing) % 63 1.93 0.24



Flakiness index % 46 9.85 1.50

Average least dimensions mm 46 8.05 0.96

Apparent particle density t/m3 33 2.840 0.030

Particle density on a dry basis t/m3 30 2.670 0.028

Particle density on a saturated-surface dry basis t/m3 33 2.730 0.015

Water absorption % 33 2.49 0.37



This page has been left blank intentionally.



X3 71.2 -1.16 W8 70.8 -1.55 X8 71.0 -1.36

T7 74.2 1.75 A9 73.1 0.68 A7 72 -0.39

M9 74.4 1.94 R2 71.5 -0.87 P9 72.3 -0.10

U3 72.8 0.39 Y4 72 -0.39 E8

D6 73.2 0.78 N8 72.6 0.19 K2

B8 72.8 0.39 B2 73 0.58 S8 72.4 0.00

M7 V3 73.7 1.26 Z5 72 -0.39

Q2 73.1 0.68 Q7 71.4 -0.97 Y7 89.0 16.11 #

D8 72.5 0.10 Z4 73.7 1.26 E4 73 0.58

F4 72.36 -0.04 Y8 70.3 -2.04 T8 73.0 0.58

L6 72.9 0.49 F5 72.0 -0.39 M4

Z3 71.58 -0.80 L8 72.5 0.10 U5 72.8 0.39

X7 71.0 -1.36 Y6 73.4 0.97 J3 72.0 -0.39

C2 72.7 0.29 L9 73 0.58 W5 72.8 0.39

R8 72.1 -0.29 F3 69.7 -2.62 P7 72.4 0.00

Q4 72.6 0.19 C6 70.8 -1.55 N3 71.6 -0.78

V9 71.7 -0.68 S7 71 -1.36 T5 72.3 -0.10

K3 72.9 0.49 M6 72.5 0.10 J7 72.0 -0.39

L7 73.2 0.78 E9 72.3 -0.10 F2 72.5 0.10

V8 70.2 -2.14 Q5 70.1 -2.23 M8 73.4 0.97

Y2 72.7 0.29 J2 71.37 -1.00 P3 73.6 1.16

T9 D3 73.2 0.78 T4 71.0 -1.36

G6 71.5 -0.87 U7 72.0 -0.39 C7 69.5 -2.81

X4 72.5 0.10 N2 71 -1.36

U9 72.8 0.39 Z6 73.7 1.26

C4 72.3 -0.10 B3 72.3 -0.10

Number of results 70

Median 72.40

Median MU 0.15

First Quartile 71.59

Third Quartile 72.98

IQR 1.39

Normalised IQR 1.03

CV (%) 1.4

Minimum 69.50 (69.50)

Maximum 74.40 (89.00)

Range 4.90 (19.50)

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.

Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.1 % Passing 13.2 mm: Z - Scores

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.1 % Passing 13.2 mm: Z - Score Graph

M9T7

V3Z4Z6P3

Y6M8

D6L7D3Q2A9B2L9E4T8L6K3U3B8U9U5W5C2Y2Q4N8D8X4L8M6F2S8P7

F4C4E9B3P9T5R8Y4F5U7A7Z5J3J7

V9N3Z3G6R2Q7J2

X3X7S7N2X8T4

W8C6

Y8V8Q5

F3C7

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Y7



X3 30.99 -1.29 W8 31.9 -0.67 X8 29.9 -2.02

T7 31.8 -0.74 A9 32.0 -0.61 A7 33 0.07

M9 33.8 0.61 R2 34.1 0.81 P9 31.8 -0.74

U3 33.1 0.13 Y4 31 -1.28 E8

D6 37.3 2.97 N8 35.0 1.42 K2

B8 34.2 0.88 B2 33 0.07 S8 31.9 -0.67

M7 V3 33.7 0.54 Z5 33 0.07

Q2 32.3 -0.40 Q7 32.7 -0.13 Y7 72.8 26.91 #

D8 32.6 -0.20 Z4 34.0 0.74 E4 33 0.07

F4 32.92 0.01 Y8 32.1 -0.54 T8 33.3 0.27

L6 31.2 -1.15 F5 35.9 2.02 M4

Z3 32.07 -0.56 L8 33.5 0.40 U5 32.4 -0.34

X7 33.6 0.47 Y6 34.5 1.08 J3 32.2 -0.47

C2 33.4 0.34 L9 34 0.74 W5 34.3 0.94

R8 33.8 0.61 F3 29.9 -2.02 P7 32.2 -0.47

Q4 36.6 2.50 C6 31.7 -0.81 N3 30.7 -1.48

V9 34.1 0.81 S7 29 -2.63 T5 31.6 -0.88

K3 33.1 0.13 M6 35.2 1.55 J7 31.7 -0.81

L7 33.3 0.27 E9 34.1 0.81 F2 30.0 -1.96

V8 31.7 -0.81 Q5 30.7 -1.48 M8 34.4 1.01

Y2 32.2 -0.47 J2 30.82 -1.40 P3

T9 D3 32.8 -0.07 T4 29.0 -2.63

G6 29.5 -2.29 U7 34.8 1.28 C7 30.4 -1.69

X4 33.0 0.07 N2 32 -0.61

U9 32.6 -0.20 Z6 34.6 1.15

C4 33.1 0.13 B3 32.9 0.00


Median 32.90

Median MU 0.22



IQR 2.00

Normalised IQR 1.48

CV (%) 4.5

Minimum 29.0 (29.0)

Maximum 37.3 (72.8)

Range 8.3 (43.8)





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score


Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


D6Q4

F5M6N8U7Z6Y6M8W5B8V9R2E9Z4L9

M9R8V3X7L8C2L7T8U3K3C4X4B2A7Z5E4F4B3

D3Q7D8U9U5Q2Y2J3P7Y8Z3A9N2W8S8T7P9V8C6J7T5

L6Y4X3J2Q5N3

C7F2F3X8

G6S7T4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Y7



X3 7.95 0.43 W8 6.6 -0.87 X8 7.2 -0.29

T7 7.1 -0.39 A9 7.1 -0.39 A7 7 -0.48

M9 7.5 0.00 R2 7.0 -0.48 P9 7.1 -0.39

U3 7.0 -0.48 Y4 6 -1.45 E8

D6 8.6 1.06 N8 8.6 1.06 K2

B8 7.4 -0.10 B2 8 0.48 S8 7.8 0.29

M7 V3 8.3 0.77 Z5 7 -0.48

Q2 7.8 0.29 Q7 6.8 -0.67 Y7 32.4 23.99 #

D8 7.8 0.29 Z4 7.6 0.10 E4 8 0.48

F4 7.88 0.37 Y8 6.0 -1.45 T8 8.7 1.16

L6 4.5 -2.89 F5 8.2 0.67 M4

Z3 6.41 -1.05 L8 8.1 0.58 U5 7.7 0.19

X7 6.6 -0.87 Y6 8.1 0.58 J3 6.8 -0.67

C2 8.1 0.58 L9 8 0.48 W5 7.6 0.10

R8 7.5 0.00 F3 6.2 -1.25 P7 6.0 -1.45

Q4 7.7 0.19 C6 6.1 -1.35 N3 5.0 -2.41

V9 5.6 -1.83 S7 6 -1.45 T5 6.1 -1.35

K3 8.1 0.58 M6 8.2 0.67 J7 6.4 -1.06

L7 7.2 -0.29 E9 8.6 1.06 F2 8.4 0.87

V8 6.8 -0.67 Q5 5.4 -2.02 M8 7.7 0.19

Y2 7.1 -0.39 J2 4.57 -2.82 P3

T9 D3 8.2 0.67 T4 5.3 -2.12

G6 5.4 -2.02 U7 8.0 0.48 C7 6.7 -0.77

X4 7.5 0.00 N2 7 -0.48

U9 7.9 0.39 Z6 8.5 0.96

C4 8.3 0.77 B3 7.7 0.19


Median 7.50

Median MU 0.16

First Quartile 6.60

Third Quartile 8.00

IQR 1.40

Normalised IQR 1.04

CV (%) 13.8

Minimum 4.50 (4.50)

Maximum 8.70 (32.40)

Range 4.20 (27.90)


Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


T8D6N8E9Z6F2C4V3F5M6D3C2K3L8Y6B2L9U7E4X3U9F4Q2D8S8Q4B3U5M8Z4W5M9R8X4

B8L7X8T7Y2A9P9U3R2N2A7Z5

V8Q7J3C7X7W8Z3J7

F3C6T5Y4Y8S7P7

V9G6Q5T4

N3J2L6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Y7



X3 2.72 0.72 W8 2.4 0.00 X8 2.3 -0.22

T7 2.7 0.67 A9 1.7 -1.57 A7 2 -0.90

M9 2.8 0.90 R2 2.4 0.00 P9 1.8 -1.35

U3 2.5 0.22 Y4 2 -0.90 E8

D6 2.9 1.12 N8 2.9 1.12 K2

B8 2.3 -0.22 B2 3 1.35 S8 2.4 0.00

M7 V3 2.6 0.45 Z5 2 -0.90

Q2 2.7 0.67 Q7 2.3 -0.22 Y7 7.0 10.34 #

D8 2.2 -0.45 Z4 2.6 0.45 E4 2 -0.90

F4 2.60 0.45 Y8 0.3 -4.72 # T8 2.5 0.22

L6 0.3 -4.72 # F5 2.2 -0.45 M4

Z3 2.13 -0.61 L8 2.5 0.22 U5 2.7 0.67

X7 2.2 -0.45 Y6 2.5 0.22 J3 2.5 0.22

C2 2.5 0.22 L9 3 1.35 W5 2.5 0.22

R8 2.4 0.00 F3 2.1 -0.67 P7 0.8 -3.60 #

Q4 2.6 0.45 C6 2.5 0.22 N3 0.8 -3.60 #

V9 1.8 -1.35 S7 2 -0.90 T5 0.5 -4.27 #

K3 3.0 1.35 M6 2.7 0.67 J7 0.7 -3.82 #

L7 2.3 -0.22 E9 4.8 5.40 # F2 2.7 0.67

V8 2.0 -0.90 Q5 0.3 -4.72 # M8 2.3 -0.22

Y2 2.6 0.45 J2 0.04 -5.31 # P3

T9 D3 2.7 0.67 T4 0.5 -4.27 #

G6 0.4 -4.50 # U7 2.5 0.22 C7 2.6 0.45

X4 2.4 0.00 N2 2 -0.90

U9 2.6 0.45 Z6 3.0 1.35

C4 2.6 0.45 B3 2.8 0.90


Median 2.40

Median MU 0.07

First Quartile 2.00

Third Quartile 2.60

IQR 0.60

Normalised IQR 0.44

CV (%) 18.5

Minimum 1.70 (0.04)

Maximum 3.00 (7.00)

Range 1.30 (6.96)





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score


Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus


E9K3B2L9Z6

D6N8

M9B3

X3T7Q2M6D3U5F2

F4Q4Y2U9C4V3Z4C7U3C2L8Y6C6U7T8J3W5R8X4W8R2S8

B8L7Q7X8M8D8X7F5

Z3F3

V8Y4S7N2A7Z5E4

V9P9

A9P7N3

J7T5T4

G6L6Y8Q5

J2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Y7



X3 W8 1.96 0.12 X8 1.83 -0.41

T7 A9 1.19 -3.02 # A7 1.71 -0.90

M9 R2 1.96 0.12 P9 1.59 -1.39

U3 1.99 0.25 Y4 1.58 -1.43 E8

D6 2.28 1.43 N8 K2

B8 1.93 0.00 B2 1.57 -1.47 S8 2.00 0.29

M7 V3 2.11 0.74 Z5 1.87 -0.25

Q2 2.29 1.47 Q7 1.95 0.08 Y7 1.9 -0.12

D8 1.80 -0.53 Z4 1.53 -1.64 E4 1.56 -1.51

F4 2.1 0.69 Y8 T8 1.67 -1.06

L6 1.81 -0.49 F5 M4

Z3 0.019 -7.81 # L8 2.0 0.29 U5 2.25 1.31

X7 1.86 -0.29 Y6 1.88 -0.20 J3 1.78 -0.61

C2 2.08 0.61 L9 2.28 1.43 W5 1.7 -0.94

R8 2.00 0.29 F3 1.90 -0.12 P7 2.01 0.33

Q4 2.02 0.37 C6 1.92 -0.04 N3 1.53 -1.64

V9 1.53 -1.64 S7 1.5 -1.76 T5 1.88 -0.20

K3 1.84 -0.37 M6 2.05 0.49 J7 1.98 0.20

L7 1.50 -1.76 E9 2.12 0.78 F2 2.13 0.82

V8 1.68 -1.02 Q5 2.4 1.92 M8 1.92 -0.04

Y2 1.96 0.12 J2 P3 1.9 -0.12

T9 D3 2.2 1.10 T4 1.69 -0.98

G6 1.88 -0.20 U7 2.34 1.68 C7 1.94 0.04

X4 2.23 1.23 N2 2.06 0.53

U9 2.07 0.57 Z6 2.57 2.62

C4 2.24 1.27 B3 2.42 2.00


Median 1.93

Median MU 0.04

First Quartile 1.75

Third Quartile 2.08

IQR 0.33

Normalised IQR 0.24

CV (%) 12.7

Minimum 1.50 (0.02)

Maximum 2.57 (2.57)

Range 1.07 (2.55)

4.2 Material finer than 75 µm: Z - Scores

Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.2 Material finer than 75 µm: Z - Score Graph

Z6B3Q5

U7Q2D6L9

U5C4X4D3

F2E9V3F4C2U9N2M6Q4P7R8L8S8U3J7Y2W8R2Q7C7B8

C6M8F3Y7P3G6Y6T5Z5X7K3X8L6D8J3

A7W5T4V8T8

P9Y4B2E4V9Z4N3L7S7

A9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z3



X3 W8 X8 12.3 -0.23

T7 A9 12.0 -0.31 A7

M9 R2 9.0 -1.17 P9 10.5 -0.74

U3 Y4 5.7 -2.11 E8

D6 N8 12.9 -0.06 K2

B8 11.2 -0.54 B2 13.3 0.06 S8 10.8 -0.66

M7 V3 Z5 14.6 0.43

Q2 16.0 0.83 Q7 Y7 14.3 0.34

D8 Z4 E4 13.9 0.23

F4 16.2 0.89 Y8 T8 12.7 -0.11

L6 14.9 0.51 F5 M4

Z3 L8 U5

X7 Y6 20.2 2.03 J3 17.5 1.26

C2 L9 18.0 1.40 W5 14.4 0.37

R8 F3 P7

Q4 16.8 1.06 C6 N3

V9 S7 17 1.11 T5

K3 M6 12.5 -0.17 J7

L7 E9 14.7 0.46 F2

V8 Q5 9.3 -1.08 M8 10.6 -0.71

Y2 J2 P3 11.4 -0.49

T9 D3 T4 1.6 -3.28 #

G6 16.6 1.00 U7 8.6 -1.28 C7 1.4 -3.34 #

X4 N2

U9 Z6

C4 B3 15.3 0.63


Median 13.1

Median MU 0.8

First Quartile 10.8

Third Quartile 15.5

IQR 4.7

Normalised IQR 3.5

CV (%) 27

Minimum 5.7 (1.4)

Maximum 20.2 (20.2)

Range 14.5 (18.8)

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

Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

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

Y6

L9

J3

S7

Q4

G6

F4

Q2

B3

L6

E9

Z5

W5

Y7

E4

B2

N8

T8

M6

X8

A9

P3

B8

S8

M8

P9

Q5

R2

U7

Y4

T4

C7

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



X3 W8 0.9 -0.13 X8 1.7 0.92

T7 A9 1.1 0.13 A7

M9 R2 0.2 -1.05 P9 1.9 1.18

U3 1.5 0.66 Y4 0.4 -0.79 E8

D6 0.9 -0.13 N8 1.9 1.18 K2

B8 0.4 -0.79 B2 2.0 1.32 S8 0.5 -0.66

M7 V3 Z5 0.5 -0.66

Q2 Q7 Y7 1.7 0.92

D8 Z4 E4 0.9 -0.13

F4 0.9 -0.13 Y8 T8 0.9 -0.13

L6 0.4 -0.79 F5 M4

Z3 L8 U5

X7 Y6 1.5 0.66 J3 0.5 -0.66

C2 L9 1.8 1.05 W5 4.7 4.87 #

R8 F3 P7

Q4 2.5 1.97 C6 N3

V9 S7 1 0.00 T5

K3 M6 1.7 0.92 J7

L7 E9 1.1 0.13 F2

V8 Q5 0.4 -0.79 M8 1.7 0.92

Y2 J2 P3 1.3 0.39

T9 D3 T4 1.0 0.00

G6 1.8 1.05 U7 0.6 -0.53 C7 0.7 -0.39

X4 N2 8.7 10.13 #

U9 Z6

C4 1.0 0.00 B3 0.7 -0.39


Median 1.0

Median MU 0.16

First Quartile 0.68

Third Quartile 1.70

IQR 1.0

Normalised IQR 0.8

CV (%) 76

Minimum 0.2 (0.2)

Maximum 2.5 (8.7)

Range 2.3 (8.5)

4.4 Particle Shape - Proportional Calliper (3:1): Z - Scores

Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.4 Particle Shape - Proportional Calliper (3:1): Z - Score Graph

W5

Q4

B2

N8

P9

G6

L9

M6

X8

Y7

M8

U3

Y6

P3

A9

E9

C4

S7

T4

D6

F4

W8

E4

T8

B3

C7

U7

S8

Z5

J3

B8

L6

Y4

Q5

R2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

N2



X3 W8 9.5 -0.23 X8 7.9 -1.30

T7 A9 9.3 -0.37 A7 9.9 0.03

M9 R2 8.9 -0.63 P9 9.5 -0.23

U3 9.9 0.03 Y4 10.7 0.57 E8

D6 9.5 -0.23 N8 7.9 -1.30 K2

B8 8.0 -1.23 B2 10.6 0.50 S8 11.3 0.97

M7 V3 12.2 1.57 Z5 10.8 0.63

Q2 11.0 0.77 Q7 7.7 -1.43 Y7 11.2 0.90

D8 11.5 1.10 Z4 E4 9.9 0.03

F4 7.3 -1.70 Y8 T8 9.0 -0.57

L6 11.2 0.90 F5 M4

Z3 8.3 -1.03 L8 12.1 1.50 U5 10.8 0.63

X7 Y6 9.7 -0.10 J3 11.7 1.23

C2 L9 9.7 -0.10 W5 9.0 -0.57

R8 F3 P7

Q4 C6 N3

V9 S7 12 1.43 T5

K3 M6 9.8 -0.03 J7

L7 9.7 -0.10 E9 F2

V8 11.7 1.23 Q5 9.8 -0.03 M8 7.9 -1.30

Y2 12.7 1.90 J2 8.70 -0.77 P3 10.5 0.43

T9 D3 T4

G6 10.3 0.30 U7 10.5 0.43 C7

X4 7.1 -1.83 N2 12.7 1.90

U9 8.0 -1.23 Z6

C4 9.9 0.03 B3 8.3 -1.03


Median 9.85

Median MU 0.28

First Quartile 8.93


IQR 2.03

Normalised IQR 1.50

CV (%) 15.2

Minimum 7.1 ()

Maximum 12.7 ()

Range 5.6 ()





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score

4.5 Flakiness index: Z - Scores

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.5 Flakiness index: Z - Score Graph

Y2

N2

V3

L8

S7

V8

J3

D8

S8

L6

Y7

Q2

Z5

U5

Y4

B2

U7

P3

G6

U3

C4

A7

E4

M6

Q5

L7

Y6

L9

D6

W8

P9

A9

T8

W5

R2

J2

Z3

B3

B8

U9

N8

X8

M8

Q7

F4

X4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



X3 W8 9.2 1.19 X8 8.4 0.36

T7 A9 7.6 -0.47 A7

M9 R2 5.8 -2.33 P9 8.3 0.26

U3 8.9 0.88 Y4 8.6 0.57 E8

D6 9.7 1.71 N8 8.3 0.26 K2

B8 8.0 -0.05 B2 9.4 1.40 S8 7.8 -0.26

M7 V3 8.0 -0.05 Z5 7.7 -0.36

Q2 7.6 -0.47 Q7 16.2 8.46 # Y7 9.2 1.19

D8 Z4 E4 9.2 1.19

F4 Y8 T8 8.4 0.36

L6 F5 M4

Z3 9.28 1.28 L8 9.5 1.50 U5 9.0 0.99

X7 Y6 8.1 0.05 J3 9.0 0.99

C2 L9 7.0 -1.09 W5 9.0 0.99

R8 8.3 0.26 F3 P7 7.6 -0.47

Q4 7.9 -0.16 C6 N3 7.7 -0.36

V9 S7 7.7 -0.36 T5 7.7 -0.36

K3 M6 7.6 -0.47 J7 7.6 -0.47

L7 E9 7.8 -0.26 F2 7.4 -0.67

V8 Q5 7.1 -0.99 M8 12.2 4.31 #

Y2 J2 P3 8.0 -0.05

T9 D3 T4

G6 7.9 -0.16 U7 6.7 -1.40 C7

X4 7.9 -0.16 N2 8.6 0.57

U9 9.2 1.19 Z6

C4 9.1 1.09 B3 7.7 -0.36


Median 8.05

Median MU 0.18

First Quartile 7.70

Third Quartile 9.00

IQR 1.30

Normalised IQR 0.96

CV (%) 12.0

Minimum 5.8 (5.8)

Maximum 9.7 (16.2)

Range 3.9 (10.4)

4.6 Average least dimensions: Z - Scores

Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

mm

Z Score Code

Test

Result

mm

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

mm

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.6 Average least dimensions: Z - Score Graph

M8

D6

L8

B2

Z3

U9

W8

Y7

E4

C4

U5

J3

W5

U3

Y4

N2

X8

T8

R8

N8

P9

Y6

B8

V3

P3

Q4

G6

X4

E9

S8

S7

B3

Z5

N3

T5

Q2

A9

M6

P7

J7

F2

Q5

L9

U7

R2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Q7



X3 W8 2.86 0.67 X8 2.86 0.67

T7 A9 2.902 2.09 A7

M9 R2 2.89 1.69 P9 1.91 -31.4 #

U3 Y4 2.791 -1.65 E8

D6 N8 K2

B8 B2 S8 2.82 -0.67

M7 V3 Z5 2.86 0.67

Q2 Q7 2.27 -19.2 # Y7 2.83 -0.34

D8 Z4 E4

F4 2.85 0.34 Y8 T8 2.84 0.00

L6 2.79 -1.69 F5 M4

Z3 2.794 -1.55 L8 U5 2.81 -1.01

X7 Y6 2.88 1.35 J3

C2 L9 2.77 -2.36 W5

R8 F3 P7

Q4 2.838 -0.07 C6 2.83 -0.34 N3

V9 S7 2.84 0.00 T5

K3 M6 2.86 0.67 J7

L7 E9 2.87 1.01 F2

V8 Q5 2.850 0.34 M8 2.83 -0.34

Y2 J2 2.848 0.27 P3

T9 D3 2.87 1.01 T4 2.83 -0.34

G6 2.85 0.34 U7 2.82 -0.67 C7 2.83 -0.34

X4 N2

U9 2.86 0.67 Z6

C4 2.87 1.01 B3 2.86 0.67


Median 2.840

Median MU 0.006



IQR 0.040

Normalised IQR 0.030

CV (%) 1.0

Minimum 2.770 (1.910)

Maximum 2.902 (2.902)

Range 0.132 (0.992)





Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

4.7 Apparent particle density: Z - Scores

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.7 Apparent particle density: Z - Score Graph

A9

R2

Y6

C4

E9

D3

U9

W8

M6

B3

X8

Z5

F4

G6

Q5

J2

S7

T8

Q4

C6

Y7

M8

T4

C7

U7

S8

U5

Z3

Y4

L6

L9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Q7

P9



X3 W8 2.68 0.36 X8 2.66 -0.36

T7 A9 2.697 0.97 A7

M9 R2 2.69 0.72 P9 1.82 -30.6 #

U3 Y4 2.652 -0.65 E8

D6 N8 K2

B8 B2 S8 2.69 0.72

M7 V3 Z5 2.65 -0.72

Q2 Q7 2.68 0.36 Y7 2.67 0.00

D8 Z4 E4

F4 2.66 -0.36 Y8 T8 2.68 0.36

L6 2.65 -0.72 F5 M4

Z3 2.690 0.72 L8 U5 2.61 -2.16

X7 Y6 2.67 0.00 J3

C2 L9 2.59 -2.88 W5

R8 F3 P7

Q4 2.641 -1.04 C6 2.73 2.16 N3

V9 S7 2.65 -0.72 T5

K3 M6 2.67 0.00 J7

L7 E9 2.66 -0.36 F2

V8 Q5 2.645 -0.90 M8 2.68 0.36

Y2 J2 2.66 -0.36 P3

T9 D3 2.70 1.08 T4 2.66 -0.36

G6 2.65 -0.72 U7 2.67 0.00 C7 2.67 0.00

X4 N2

U9 2.72 1.80 Z6

C4 2.69 0.72 B3 2.67 0.00


Median 2.670

Median MU 0.006



IQR 0.038


CV (%) 1.0

Minimum 2.590 (1.820)

Maximum 2.730 (2.730)

Range 0.140 (0.910)





Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

4.8 Particle density on a dry basis: Z - Scores

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.8 Particle density on a dry basis: Z - Score Graph

C6

U9

D3

A9

Z3

C4

R2

S8

W8

Q7

T8

M8

Y6

M6

U7

B3

Y7

C7

F4

E9

J2

X8

T4

Y4

L6

G6

S7

Z5

Q5

Q4

U5

L9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

P9



X3 W8 2.74 0.67 X8 2.73 0.00

T7 A9 2.767 2.50 A7

M9 R2 2.76 2.02 P9 1.86 -58.7 #

U3 Y4 2.702 -1.89 E8

D6 N8 K2

B8 B2 S8 2.73 0.00

M7 V3 Z5 2.72 -0.67

Q2 Q7 2.71 -1.35 Y7 2.72 -0.67

D8 Z4 E4

F4 2.73 0.00 Y8 T8 2.73 0.00

L6 2.70 -2.02 F5 M4

Z3 2.727 -0.20 L8 U5 2.68 -3.37 #

X7 Y6 2.74 0.67 J3

C2 L9 2.65 -5.40 # W5

R8 F3 P7

Q4 2.711 -1.28 C6 2.81 5.40 # N3

V9 S7 2.72 -0.67 T5

K3 M6 2.74 0.67 J7

L7 E9 2.73 0.00 F2

V8 Q5 2.717 -0.88 M8 2.73 0.00

Y2 J2 2.73 0.00 P3

T9 D3 2.76 2.02 T4 2.72 -0.67

G6 2.72 -0.67 U7 2.73 0.00 C7 2.73 0.00

X4 N2

U9 2.77 2.70 Z6

C4 2.75 1.35 B3 2.74 0.67


Median 2.730

Median MU 0.003



IQR 0.020


CV (%) 0.5

Minimum 2.700 (1.860)

Maximum 2.770 (2.810)

Range 0.070 (0.950)

4.9 Particle density on a saturated - surface dry basis: Z - Scores





Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score Code

Test

Result

t/m3

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

t/m3

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

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

C6

U9

A9

R2

D3

C4

W8

Y6

M6

B3

F4

E9

J2

U7

X8

S8

T8

M8

C7

Z3

G6

S7

Z5

Y7

T4

Q5

Q4

Q7

Y4

L6

U5

L9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

P9



X3 W8 2.41 -0.22 X8 2.71 0.59

T7 A9 2.6 0.30 A7

M9 R2 2.57 0.22 P9 2.52 0.08

U3 Y4 1.9 -1.59 E8

D6 N8 K2

B8 B2 S8 1.70 -2.13

M7 V3 Z5 2.67 0.49

Q2 Q7 1.16 -3.59 # Y7 2.1 -1.05

D8 Z4 E4

F4 2.54 0.13 Y8 T8 2.09 -1.08

L6 1.93 -1.51 F5 M4

Z3 1.38 -2.99 L8 U5 2.75 0.70

X7 Y6 2.63 0.38 J3

C2 L9 2.56 0.19 W5

R8 F3 P7

Q4 2.61 0.32 C6 2.92 1.16 N3

V9 S7 2.5 0.03 T5

K3 M6 2.52 0.08 J7

L7 E9 2.82 0.89 F2

V8 Q5 2.7 0.57 M8 2.1 -1.05

Y2 J2 2.45 -0.11 P3

T9 D3 2.17 -0.86 T4 2.20 -0.78

G6 2.54 0.13 U7 1.91 -1.56 C7 2.18 -0.84

X4 N2

U9 1.8 -1.86 Z6

C4 2.35 -0.38 B3 2.49 0.00


Median 2.49

Median MU 0.08

First Quartile 2.10

Third Quartile 2.60

IQR 0.50

Normalised IQR 0.37

CV (%) 14.9

Minimum 1.38 (1.16)

Maximum 2.92 (2.92)

Range 1.54 (1.76)

4.10 Water absorption: Z - Scores

Statistic Value





Code

Test

Result

%

Z Score Code

Test

Result

%

Z ScoreCode

Test

Result

%

Z Score



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.10 Water absorption: Z - Score Graph

C6

E9

U5

X8

Q5

Z5

Y6

Q4

A9

R2

L9

F4

G6

M6

P9

S7

B3

J2

W8

C4

T4

C7

D3

Y7

M8

T8

L6

U7

Y4

U9

S8

Z3

Q7

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



5. Program Information

5.1 Z-score Summary The proficiency program was conducted over October and November 2016. A ‘Z-score Summary’ summary was issued on the 20 December 2016 and posted on the LabSmart Services web site. A summary was e-mailed to participants. The summary is intended as an early indicator of participant performance. The proficiency testing program report supersedes the z –score summary. Further information can be found in section 5.9 ‘Statistics’.

5.2 Program Design 5.2.1 Design

It is expected that the level of experience/skill need to perform these tests will present a reasonable assessment of the overall competency of the tester and industry performance. Part of the design of each program involves determining what information needs to be requested to allow for the correct analysis of the data collected. This allows the best possible feedback to be offered to enable participants to improve in the performance of this test. In particular requesting ‘retained weights’ for PSD is used for this purpose. In designing a proficiency program, it is sometimes necessary to minimise the effect of some inherent test method variability. Sufficient sample was provided to allow a large sample size in order to reduce the variability associated with variable sample size. Unaccounted material losses or gains (lost material, binding, material break down etc) have a greater effect the smaller the sample size. Other considerations involving the design of the program are detailed below. 5.2.2 Selection of material used in the program

Materials are selected to mirror the range of materials encountered in practice. Participants who work in a quarry where the source rock is of good quality may find the material selected for this program unusual. The test method however does not stipulate a particular ‘quality of material’ be used for testing so all testers need to be able to test accurately a range of materials. A material with soft stone and some voids was selected. The material supplied was made up of known fractions. See sample preparation (section 5.3) for more detail. The fractions were large to ensure any breakdown of material was small compared to the retained mass. In addition, as all participants had the same proportion of material then any breakdown of material while under test would be similar across all participants.



Two samples (A & B) were used. Each had different fractions so that if the samples were mixed up by a participant the samples could be readily identified. See sample preparation (section 5.3) for more detail. 5.2.3 Role of proficiency testing

The determination of outliers is an important task of this proficiency program. A secondary function is to provide feedback that can help those with outliers identify possible areas to investigate as well as assist all participants to improve. In addition to the statistics, proficiency programs often obtain other information that is not normally available to a laboratory. It allows for a better understanding of the testing and can provide information that can lead to improvements in the testing process or test method. Proficiency testing enables participants to measure competency against others. It is also a measure of staff performance and the equipment used. Apart from ‘measurement uncertainty’ it is the most useful tool a laboratory has in better understanding the performance of a test. 5.2.4 Participant assessment

Assessment of each participant is based on a z-score that is related to the program consensus value (median). This is used to determine any statistical outliers. Compliance to proficiency program requirements including the correct calculation of results and adherence to program and test method requirements may also be used as part of the assessment process. Participants may also be asked to investigate any discrepancies detected with the paperwork submitted. 5.2.5 Reporting of results - Significant figures

The number of decimal places (significant figures) reported for a test has a bearing on the statistical analysis and therefore the interpretation of the results. There is a need to strike a balance between what is desirable from a statistical viewpoint while recognising how the results are used in practice. Too few decimal places (e.g. due to rounding) can cause an increase in the observed spread of results. Increasing the number of decimal places (with respect to normal reporting) can distort the observed spread of results compared to that encountered in actual practice. Large numbers of similar, rounded results can also cause a distortion in the analysis. For example, rounding to 0.5 % means that any number between 10.75 and 11.25 will be 11.0%. If the largest value is 10.75 in a set of results it is pushed out to 11.0 through rounding. Rounded results are useful from “an end user” perspective but are not as useful when considering laboratory performance. The test method acknowledges additional decimal places may be used for statistical purposes. For this program, it was decided that the benefits of using additional decimal places would complement the aim of the proficiency program.



Participants results were analysed as received regardless of whether there were ‘more or less’ significant figures than the number requested by the program. 5.2.6 Additional information requested

This program requested additional information as detailed in Appendix C not usually reported. The additional information is however consistent with the performance of the test and the records the test method requires laboratories to maintain. The additional information is used to interpret participant’s performance and assist with providing technical comment including feedback on outliers and possible participant improvement. 5.2.7 PSD data checks

The determination of outliers is an important function of this proficiency program. A secondary function is to provide feedback that can help those with outliers identify possible areas to investigate as well as assist all participants to improve. This information also helps with identifying any random or systematic errors associated with the test methodology. Every participant’s PSD results are recalculated. Any inconsistencies identified during this process do not need to be investigated (as do outliers) but are identified as possible feedback for participant improvement. 5.2.8 Role of % Retained

The sieving component of this proficiency program is based on ‘% Passing’ results as normally reported by laboratories. The ‘% Passing’ involves a cumulative calculation which can at times give rise to misleading outliers, particularly on smaller aperture sieves. In such cases an outlier may not necessarily be attributed to the sieve size on which the outlier occurred. Participants need to be aware of this should they need to undertake any investigation. To provide feedback ‘% Retained’ is normally either requested or calculated for each participant (Appendix C). Increasing the number of significant numbers that results are reported also aids accurate analysis and feedback. It should be noted that if the mass retained results submitted are themselves not correct then this will show as z-scores greater than 3. This may be the case even if no outlier was obtained for the % passing results. To perform a comparison there needs to be a ‘one for one’ % passing correspondence to the % retained for the analysis to be statistically valid. That is the accuracy of the analysis is dependent on the majority of participants suppling mass retained results. 5.3 Sample Preparation Two samples were prepared (A & B). Sample A consisted of approximately 1.5 kg while sample B consisted of 2.5 kg of nominal 20 mm, coarse graded aggregate.



An unwashed bulk sample was obtained and sieved into its constituent fractions by a NATA accredited laboratory. Each fraction was then thoroughly mixed. Eighty-five samples were prepared in the laboratory by weighing out set fractions of a known weight and bagged. Sample B was prepared in a similar way but with different fractions. Samples were numbered and laid out in the order prepared. Ten samples were selected at approximately equal intervals from the bulk A and B samples. These were used for homogeneity testing. Each participant received randomly drawn samples from the remaining A and B samples. A unique participation code was assigned to each sample set (A plus B sample). 5.4 Packaging and Instructions Each sample was sealed in a plastic bag, labelled with the program name. Sample A and B were packed into a sturdy box. Participants were instructed to test according to the nominated test method and report to the accuracy indicated on the ‘results log’ sheet. See ‘Appendix A’ for a copy of the instructions issued to participants and ‘Appendix B’ for the log sheet used. A set of instructions and log sheet were placed in the box prior to sealing and despatch. 5.5 Quarantine Samples sent to Western Australia (WA) are subject to quarantine regulations that require treatment of the soil prior to importation into WA. Samples sent to WA are heat treated and compliance certificates enclosed with samples. Where necessary additional information regarding handling and preparation of the sample may be included. 5.6 Sample Dispatch Samples were dispatched to participants in October 2016 using Toll Priority. Dispatched samples are tracked from despatch to delivery to each participant by LabSmart Services. 5.7 Homogeneity Testing Samples for homogeneity testing were packed in the same way as those for participants. Ten samples were selected at approximately equal intervals throughout the set of samples. The same instructions were given to the laboratory performing the homogeneity testing. Analysis of the homogeneity testing results indicated that the variability associated with the proficiency samples was satisfactory (Table 5.7A). The average value for each homogeneity test lies within 1 s.d of the participant’s median value. The assessment of the homogeneity provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers.



Sample A

Test Results Average Minimum Maximum Range s.d

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

13.2 mm % 72.46 72.80 73.34 71.74 73.12 72.68 73.16 73.13 72.93 72.81 72.82 71.74 73.3 1.6 0.46

9.5 mm % 32.82 32.87 33.39 32.79 33.36 32.29 33.37 33.50 32.86 33.56 33.08 32.29 33.6 1.3 0.41

6.7 mm % 7.86 7.83 8.18 7.91 7.91 7.81 8.23 7.78 7.79 7.89 7.92 7.78 8.2 0.5 0.16

4.75 mm % 2.22 2.28 2.43 2.36 2.33 1.96 2.47 2.30 2.28 2.58 2.32 1.96 2.6 0.6 0.17

Material finer than 75 um (By Washing) % 1.90 1.85 1.98 1.94 2.00 1.96 1.91 1.91 1.89 1.85 1.92 1.85 2.00 0.15 0.05

Flakiness index % 8.7 8.4 8.9 7.3 7.7 - 8.5 9.2 8.1 7.4 8.2 7.3 9.2 1.9 0.67

Average Least Dimension - 20.1 mm 8.2 7.7 7.6 7.8 8.5 8.5 8.0 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.6 8.5 0.9 0.31

Average Least Dimension - 20.3 mm 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.3 9.2 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.4 0.4 0.11

Sample B

Test Results Average Minimum Maximum Range s.d

Units H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10

Apparent particle density t/m3 2.859 2.851 2.846 2.836 2.841 2.842 2.839 2.836 2.887 2.863 2.850 2.836 2.887 0.051 0.016

Particle density - dry basis t/m3 2.669 2.659 2.654 2.632 2.642 2.648 2.643 2.649 2.687 2.671 2.655 2.632 2.687 0.055 0.016

Particle density - saturated-surface dry t/m3 2.735 2.726 2.721 2.704 2.712 2.716 2.712 2.717 2.756 2.738 2.724 2.704 2.756 0.052 0.015

Water Absorption % 2.488 2.525 2.526 2.711 2.634 2.568 2.598 2.568 2.580 2.507 2.571 2.488 2.711 0.223 0.066

Table 5.7A Homogeneity results for sample A & B



5.8 Participation Seventy-five participants entered the program. The nominated date for participants to return their results was 16 November 2016. There were 5 participants (7%) who were unable to return their results in time for inclusion in the final report. 5.9 Statistics Z-Scores were calculated for each test and used to assess the variability of each participant relative to the consensus median. A corresponding z-score graph was produced for each test. The use of median and quartiles reduces the effect that outliers have on the statistics and other influences. 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 participant’s result 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. 5.9.1 Z-score summary

A “Z-Scores Summary” is issued soon after most results are received. It gives participants early feedback as to any program outliers. The summary is usually available on the LabSmart Services website up until the final report is issued. The final report supersedes the z-score summary. The final report contains detailed technical feedback regarding the performance of tests and revised z-scores. The inclusion of late results or corrections are at the discretion of the program coordinator. In some instances, this may change some of the z-scores slightly but generally the performance outcome remains the same. If there is any impact it will be discussed within section 5.1 of the report. 5.9.2 Comparing statistics from one program to another

The statistics generated from one proficiency program are not usually comparable to those from another proficiency testing program. Only very general comparisons may be possible. The reason statistics from one program may not be compared to another is due to the range of variables that differ from one proficiency program to another. These variables include:

• Type of material selected

• The number of participants

• Experience of participants

• Test methodology variations

• Equipment used

• Test methods used

• Experience of supervisors

• Range of organisations involved

• Program design and the statistics employed The program outcome represents a ‘snap shot’ of the competency within the industry and hence provides an overview of the industry. The more participants involved in the program then the more representative the overview. 5.9.3 Measurement uncertainty

The statistics detailed in this program do not replace the need for laboratories to separately calculated measurement uncertainties associated with each test when required by the client or NATA. The proficiency program does give information useful for calculating the MU and bench marking the MU calculated. 5.9.4 Metrological traceability

The assigned median value used in this proficiency testing program is derived from participant performance and is not metrologically traceable.



68 Appendix A R170515.docx Page 1 of 2

LabSmart Services Helping laboratories to work smarter!

Proficiency Testing Program

Aggregates – 2016 (68)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER

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

• Results log sheet.

• Plastic sample bag marked Sample A – approximately 1.5 kg

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

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

these instructions carefully during testing.

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

4. Sample A (1.5 kg)

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

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

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

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

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

the Flakiness Index determination.

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

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

for the average least dimensions test.

Appendix A



68 Appendix A R170515.docx Page 2 of 2

5. Sample B (2.5 kg) ❖ Ensure sample is well mixed.

❖ Perform the density and absorption tests on sample B.

❖ Do not lose any of the sample.

❖ Save the sample and oven dry.

❖ Perform the ‘Particle shape by proportional calliper’ test using this material.

6. Record all information and calculations as per the proficiency testing results log sheet

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

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

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

laboratory’s records indicate which technician did each test.

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

proficiency testing technical report for this program has been issued.

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

11. Please fax or e-mail the “Results Log” to LabSmart Services by 16 Nov 2016

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

12. Please retain the completed “Results Log” as this contains your participation code that will identify your results in the technical report covering the proficiency testing program. It is also recommended that a copy of completed worksheets be kept with the results log in your proficiency file.

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

technician who performed the test.

Thank you for participating in this proficiency testing program.



Aggregates PT Results log – 2016(68) V3 Copyright: LabSmart Services Page 1 of 2

LabSmart Services Helping laboratories to work smarter!

Aggregates Proficiency Testing Program – 2016 (68)

RESULTS LOG Participation Code: XX Laboratory:

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

16 November 2016

Date proficiency sample received:

Condition of samples: A B

Sample A - Tests Report to: Result Method

AS 1141 Tick or enter method used

Particle Size Distribution, Initial Dry Mass (g)

Nearest 0.1*

11.1

Dry mass after washing (washed mass, g)

Mass

Retained (per sieve, g)

% Passing

19.0 mm

13.2 mm

9.5 mm

6.7 mm

4.75 mm

Pan

Diameter of sieves used (mm)

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

Method of drying

Flakiness index (FI) Nearest 0.1 %

15 Mass of sample used Nearest 1 g

Average least dimension (ALD)

Slotted Gauge OR

Nearest 0.1 mm

20.1 Vernier Calliper

*Only if balance has appropriate accuracy

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]

Aggregates PT Results log – 2016(68) V3 Copyright: LabSmart Services Page 2 of 2

Sample B - Tests Report to: Result Method

AS 1141 Tick or enter method used

Apparent particle density Nearest 0.01 t/m3

6.1

Particle density on a dry basis Nearest 0.01 t/m3

Particle density on a saturated-surface-dry basis

Nearest 0.01 t/m3

Water absorption Nearest 0.01 %

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

14

Particle shape by proportional calliper (3:1) Nearest 0.1 %

Tested by:

*Only if balance has appropriate accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

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



1 X3 28.8 1.59 40.3 0.63 23.0 -2.15 5.2 0.22

2 T7 25.1 -3.00 # 42.4 2.65 24.7 -0.60 4.4 -1.07

3 M9 25.6 -2.39 40.7 1.03 26.3 0.87 4.6 -0.72

4 U3 27.2 -0.37 39.6 0.04 26.1 0.71 4.5 -0.97

5 D6 26.0 -1.91 35.9 -3.49 # 28.7 3.04 # 5.8 1.06

6 B8 27.2 -0.33 38.5 -0.99 26.8 1.37 5.1 -0.04

7 M7

8 Q2 27.0 -0.61 40.6 0.98 24.5 -0.77 5.1 -0.02

9 D8 27.5 0.00 39.9 0.26 24.9 -0.44 5.6 0.77

10 F4 27.6 0.18 39.4 -0.14 25.0 -0.30 5.3 0.30

11 L6

12 Z3 12.7 -18.8 # 39.5 -0.08 25.7 0.27 4.3 -1.28

13 X7 29.0 1.86 37.4 -2.06 27.0 1.50 4.5 -0.98

14 C2 27.3 -0.27 39.3 -0.30 25.3 -0.04 5.6 0.83

15 R8 28.0 0.57 38.2 -1.30 26.3 0.87 5.1 -0.02

16 Q4 27.4 -0.15 36.0 -3.39 # 28.9 3.25 # 5.1 -0.02

17 V9 28.4 1.08 37.6 -1.90 26.9 1.41 4.5 -0.86

18 K3 27.1 -0.46 39.8 0.21 24.9 -0.42 5.2 0.12

19 L7 26.8 -0.87 39.9 0.27 26.1 0.68 5.0 -0.20

20 V8 29.8 2.95 38.4 -1.09 24.9 -0.42 4.8 -0.45

21 Y2 27.3 -0.32 40.6 0.94 25.1 -0.24 4.4 -1.02

22 T9

23 G6 28.0 0.64 41.2 1.50 23.7 -1.56 4.8 -0.38

24 X4 27.5 0.01 39.5 -0.11 25.5 0.15 5.1 0.04

25 U9 27.2 -0.36 40.2 0.56 24.7 -0.63 5.3 0.31

26 C4 27.7 0.22 39.2 -0.35 24.8 -0.50 5.7 0.94

27 W8 29.2 2.12 38.9 -0.65 25.3 -0.02 4.2 -1.37

28 A9 26.9 -0.71 41.1 1.43 24.9 -0.41 5.4 0.45

29 R2 28.5 1.31 37.4 -2.10 27.1 1.64 4.6 -0.84

30 Y4 28.5 1.25 40.2 0.62 25.1 -0.21 4.3 -1.17

31 N8

32 B2 27.7 0.29 39.6 0.00 25.5 0.15 5.1 0.00

33 V3 26.3 -1.47 40.0 0.35 25.4 0.02 5.7 1.03

34 Q7 28.6 1.39 67.3 26.4 # 93.2 62.7 # 97.7 146 #

35 Z4 26.3 -1.49 66.0 25.1 # 92.4 62.0 # 97.4 146 #

36 Y8 28.3 1.07 37.4 -2.13 25.5 0.12 5.6 0.76

37 F5 27.5 0.02 36.0 -3.41 # 27.8 2.24 5.9 1.33

38 L8 27.5 0.00 39.0 -0.52 25.4 0.07 5.6 0.80

39 Y6 26.6 -1.20 38.9 -0.70 26.4 0.94 5.6 0.81

40 L9 26.7 -1.01 39.8 0.18 25.4 0.00 5.3 0.39

41 F3 30.3 3.55 # 39.8 0.18 23.6 -1.59 4.1 -1.50

42 C6 28.2 0.85 39.3 -0.31 25.7 0.32 3.6 -2.34

Appendix C - % Retained

Code

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

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

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

from others in the program. This assists those with outliers from the % passing to identify sieves that may have

contributed to the outlier. Codes for all participates are shown. 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 values

greater than 3 or -3 excluded.



43 S7 29.3 2.29 42.0 2.27 22.4 -2.78 4.5 -0.88

44 M6 27.5 -0.06 37.3 -2.21 27.0 1.54 5.5 0.68

45 E9 27.0 -0.62 38.2 -1.31 25.5 0.12 3.9 -1.94

46 Q5 29.2 2.18 38.4 -1.12 24.8 -0.56 4.9 -0.24

47 J2 27.8 0.42 39.7 0.09 25.7 0.29 4.4 -1.04

48 D3 26.8 -0.87 40.4 0.76 24.6 -0.72 5.5 0.63

49 U7 28.0 0.57 37.2 -2.30 26.8 1.31 5.5 0.72

50 N2 28.6 1.41 39.2 -0.34 25.1 -0.20 4.8 -0.52

51 Z6 26.3 -1.52 39.1 -0.50 26.1 0.67 5.5 0.68

52 B3 27.7 0.27 39.4 -0.22 25.3 -0.11 4.9 -0.31

53 X8 29.0 1.94 41.1 1.41 22.7 -2.42 4.9 -0.22

54 A7 27.6 0.16 39.4 -0.17 25.6 0.23 5.1 0.07

55 P9 27.7 0.24 40.5 0.87 24.7 -0.62 5.3 0.39

56 E8

57 K2

58 S8 27.6 0.06 40.6 0.94 24.1 -1.17 5.4 0.49

59 Z5 27.9 0.5 66.8 25.8 # 92.4 61.95 # 97.3 146 #

60 Y7 27.2 -0.43 40.4 0.77 25.4 0.05 4.8 -0.39

61 E4 27.1 -0.53 39.9 0.28 25.3 -0.10 5.2 0.18

62 T8 27.0 -0.60 39.7 0.09 24.6 -0.70 6.1 1.67

63 M4

64 U5 27.2 -0.41 40.4 0.82 24.6 -0.69 5.0 -0.11

65 J3

66 W5 27.2 -0.40 38.5 -1.05 26.7 1.26 5.1 0.06

67 P7 27.0 -0.58 39.4 -0.17 25.7 0.28 5.1 -0.02

68 N3 28.0 0.61 40.2 0.61 25.3 -0.07 4.2 -1.43

69 T5 27.2 -0.39 40.0 0.35 25.0 -0.37 5.5 0.64

70 J7 27.5 -0.02 39.5 -0.07 24.8 -0.56 5.6 0.79

71 F2 25.8 -2.14 39.5 -0.11 24.6 -0.67 5.6 0.88

72 M8 26.6 -1.21 39.1 -0.48 26.6 1.16 5.5 0.63

73 P3 26.4 -1.37 40.4 0.81 25.7 0.35 4.9 -0.34

74 T4 28.5 1.27 41.3 1.62 23.3 -1.93 4.7 -0.62

75 C7 30.5 3.78 # 39.1 -0.44 23.7 -1.52 4.1 -1.60

Statistic

Number of results 67 67 67 67

Median 27.5 39.6 25.4 5.1

First Quartile 27.0 39.0 24.8 4.7

Third Quartile 28.1 40.4 26.2 5.5

IQR 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.9

Normalised IQR 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.6

CV (%) 2.9 2.7 4.3 12.4

Minimum 25.6 37.2 22.4 3.6

Maximum 29.8 42.4 27.8 6.1

Range 4.2 5.2 5.4 2.5

Appendix C - % Retained (Continued)

Code

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

%

RetainedZ Score

13.2 mm 9.5 mm 6.7 mm 4.75 mm



Documents

Aggregates - 2016 (68) PROFICIENCY TESTING … · AS 1141 15 Flakiness index ... test data has been reviewed for ... The performance of the sieve analysis by participants was very