soil - plasticity 2018 (79) proficiency testing ......3.2 liquid limit & plastic limit these two...

www.labsmartservices.com.au

Soil - Plasticity 2018 (79)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

Soil Plasticity - Proficiency Testing Program - 2018(79)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Issued: July 2018 of 37

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

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 Please see our website for further details.

www.labsmartservices.com.au

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

Z-Score Summary Z-score summary for this program issued 5 June 2018

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

Version 1 – Issued 8 July 2018



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim

4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Program Summary

4 5

3. Technical Comment

3.1 Test Methods 3.2 Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit 3.3 Plasticity Index 3.4 Linear Shrinkage 3.5 Reproducibility & Repeatability

6 6 7 8 8

4. Sample A – Statistics: Z- Scores & Graph

4.1 Liquid Limit 4.2 Plastic Limit 4.3 Plasticity Index 4.4 Linear Shrinkage

10 12 14 16

5. Sample B – Statistics: Z- Scores & Graph

5.1 Liquid Limit 5.2 Plastic Limit 5.3 Plasticity Index 5.4 Linear Shrinkage

18 20 22 24

6. Program Information

6.1 Z-score Summary 6.2 Program Design 6.3 Sample Preparation 6.4 Packaging and Instructions 6.5 Quarantine 6.6 Sample Despatch 6.7 Homogeneity Testing 6.8 Participation 6.9 Statistics 6.10 Non-statistical outliers

26 26 28 28 28 28 30 30 30 32

7. Test Results Summary

7.1 Test Results Summary – Sample A 7.2 Test Results Summary – Sample B

33 34

Appendix A Instructions for testers

Appendix B Results log

35

37



1. Program Aim The proficiency program was conducted in May 2018 with Thirty-eight participants from around Australia. The program involved the performance of the following four tests. ▪ AS 1289 3.1.1 Determination of the liquid limit of a soil – Four point Casagrande method ▪ AS 1289 3.2.1 Determination of the plastic limit of a soil – Standard Method ▪ AS 1289 3.3.1 Calculation of the plasticity index of a soil ▪ AS 1289 3.4.1 Determination of the linear shrinkage of a soil – Standard Method

Testing to the relevant sections of AS 1289 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 6.9 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. A Z-score summary was issued to participants on the 5 June to facilitate early feedback on performance.

2. Performance 2.1 Identified Outliers There were 5 outliers identified across the tests performed. This represented 13% of the 38 participants who returned results in the proficiency testing program (Table 2.1A). 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 2.1A. 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. Those shown in brackets are sufficiently close that these participants should also review their result.



More detail on the robust statistics used can be found in section 6.9 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 Sample Units Investigate Review

Liquid Limit A

% - -

B - -

Plastic Limit A

% V5 -

B N7 (Z2)

Plasticity Index A

% D8 -

B B5 -

Linear Shrinkage A

% - -

B U8 (W5)

Table 2.1A Identified statistical outliers

2.2 Program Summary Overall a satisfactory level of testing was achieved by the majority (87%) of the 38 participants. There were 5 participants identified as having a statistical outlier (13%). Table 2.2A summarises the statistics from the proficiency program. The normalised IQR is an estimate of the standard deviation. The ranges shown for each test result exclude outliers. The variation in results observed were similar to previous proficiency testing programs. Laboratories and their clients need to be aware that as the magnitude of LL, PL and PI increases, the consistency between laboratories decreases. Overall the level of competency displayed by participants is within program expectations.

Sample Test Number

of Results

Units Median Normalised

IQR % CV Range

A

Liquid Limit 36 % 67.5 4.6 7 26.0

Plastic Limit 37 % 25.0 3.7 15 12.0

Plasticity Index 37 % 40.0 5.2 13 20.0

Linear Shrinkage 37 % 10.5 2.6 25 9.5

B

Liquid Limit 36 % 47.0 3.0 6 14.6

Plastic Limit 37 % 25.0 1.5 6 7.0

Plasticity Index 37 % 22..0 3.0 13 13.0


Table 2.2A Summary of program statistics. Results have been rounded. Range excludes outliers.



3.0 Technical Comment The performance by participants was good with a similar number of outliers to previous programs. The number of outliers was small. It is difficult to compare the spread or variation in results obtained because these are to some extent reflect the material properties and the characteristics of the program (see section 6.9.2). The variation in testing and other program statistics appeared to be about the same as previous plasticity programs. A number of participants appear to not have submitted all results. Greater care in checking would prevent oversights. 3.1 Test Methods All tests were performed to Australian test methods unless denoted otherwise in section 7.1 & 7.2. Only one participant (Y6) indicated that a different test method had been used but gave similar satisfactory z-scores. 3.2 Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit These two tests have a qualitative element as part of the test. Hence the results obtained are significantly affected by tester competency and material type. Also, some soil materials require more skill/experience to obtain reliable results than other materials. Because of the qualitative nature of the tests different proficiency testing programs with different soil materials and operator skills yield quite different outcomes in terms of the number of outliers and reproducibility of the test results. See “Reproducibility & Repeatability” below for more detail. Sample A, with larger LL values, was more difficult for participants to obtain consistent results than sample B. This is reflected in the spread of results obtained. The variation for sample A was much larger than sample B (See table 2.2A). The variation in results observed were similar to those from previous LabSmart Services proficiency testing programs. For example Table 3.2A shows results for the same material from two different programs. It should be noted that the larger the spread (variation) of results the fewer outliers that may be able to be detected. In other words, if there were more results around the median value representing the most skilled participants then it may have resulted in more participants falling into the “outlier” region. There are too many aspects of these two tests to list here that, if incorrectly performed, can affect the outcome. As proficiency samples should be retained until the program report is issued it is recommended that those with outliers use the retained material to repeat the test. It may help having a second, perhaps more experienced person; observe the test while you do so.



2018(79)

Sample Test Number

of Results


IQR % CV Range

A

Liquid Limit 36 % 67.5 4.6 7 26.0

Plastic Limit 37 % 25.0 3.7 15 12.0



2016(65)

Sample Test Number

of Results


IQR % CV Range

A

Liquid Limit 38 % 67.0 5.0 8 21.0

Plastic Limit 37 % 25.0 2.2 9 9.0



Table 3.2A Comparison of program statistics between current program and program 2016(65) for the same material. Range excludes outliers.

Curing

Approximately 68% of the participants used ‘potable water’ and around 22% used distilled water. Two participants used demineralised water and one de-ionized water. The test method accepts most water types provided it is potable (i.e. safe to drink). Not all “tap” water fits this requirement. The method also indicates that some ‘marginal’ potable water may influence test results. All participants used cure times greater than 48 hrs. There was a large range of curing times used. There does not appear to be any consistency as to the period of curing used by participants with the maximum time given as 11 days. See section 7.1 & 7.2 for cure times used. 3.3 Plasticity Index The ‘Plasticity Index’ is derived from both the ‘Liquid Limit’ and ‘Plastic Limit’ values. An outlier in either of these values does not automatically give rise to an outlier in the ‘Plasticity Index’ value. Similarly, a ‘Plasticity Index’ result may be an outlier without there being an outlier in either the ‘Liquid Limit’ and ‘Plastic Limit’ values. Calculations

A check was conducted to ensure data received was valid. PL calculations were checked, and the PI result checked based on the data submitted. The



following participants may need to check the results obtained. Some of the difference may be due to transcription errors or rounding variations.

Sample Code Participant LL Recalculated LL Participant PI Recalculated PI

A

S6 - - 47 48

N3 24 25 39 40

B

U5 27.5 28 - -

N3 25 26 20 21

L4 - - 26 22

Table 3.3A Participants where submitted data appears inaccurate.

Most of the variation was small except for participant L4 where the difference was 4. 3.4 Linear Shrinkage The variation in testing observed (Table 2.2A) for ‘Linear Shrinkage’ matched previous proficiency programs. Some participants used moulds shorter than preferred by the test method (250mm but not less than 100mm) but still within the test method requirements. The shorter moulds did not appear to affect the results in this instance. 150mm length mould, Sample A – T4, Z2 and Y6 Sample B – T4 125mm length mould, Sample A – U5 and Sample B – U5 The reason some participants chose to use different length moulds for sample A and B is unclear. As indicated in the results tabulated in section 7 there are a range of description relating to the type of shrinkage observed. Participants were split about 50/50 between no change and an observable change. As noted in previous proficiency testing programs it would appear that the description of shrinkage is not a very reliable indicator. As this is a qualitative measure more guidance by the test method may be needed. 3.5 Reproducibility & Repeatability The two different samples were provided for this program. This program does not generate any repeatability estimates. It is expected that in-house repeat testing (using the same sample, equipment and person) should lead to a decrease in the spread of results than the reproducibility estimates given by these proficiency testing programs. An indication of repeatability to be expected is given by the homogeneity test results (section 6.7).



While the proficiency program provides an estimate of reproducibility it should be noted that it is indicative only. The reproducibility generated is affected by the material selected and the skill level of those in the program. The ‘Plasticity Index’ is a reasonable overall measure and results reflect the average skill level over most States. The standard deviation estimates (normalised IQR) shown for ‘Plasticity Index’ (Table 2.2A) are generally within what has been historically observed in prior proficiency programs (by LSS and others). There is a trend between the PI value and the associated variation (NIQR). Increasing the magnitude of PI (and/or PL / LL) increases the NIQR (and range). The data is collect over many programs which causes the variation in results observed (see section 6.9.2). An example showing results from 2006 to 2018 for PI is shown below (Graph 3.1A, the 2018 results are circled). A linear trend line is also shown. As the value of the ‘Plasticity Index’ increases the reproducibility between laboratories tends to increase.

Graph 3.1A Plasticity Index (%) verses NIQR (%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50

NIQR (%)

PI (%)

Plasticity Index (%) vs. NIQR (%)



Z6 59 -1.83 R9 69 0.32

B5 55 -2.70 J5 63 -0.97

U9 70 0.54 N2 69 0.32

C3 65 -0.54 L4 69.0 0.32

E8 66 -0.32 E5 68 0.11

V6 55 -2.70 U8 70.0 0.54

W5 69 0.32 J4 64 -0.76

N7 67 -0.11 D8 81 2.91

S6 73 1.19 P2 71 0.76

Z2 65 -0.54 V5 73.4 1.27

A6 61 -1.40 Q7 61 -1.40

C5 69.0 0.32

U2 63 -0.97

Q5 63 -0.97

Y6 57.8 -2.09

B9 69 0.32

U5 76 1.83

Z3 72 0.97

M8 67 -0.11

Q9 64 -0.76

V3 64 -0.76

T4 70.6 0.67

P7 NR

N3 64 -0.76

R2 NR

D6 NR

E9 70 0.54

Q3 70 0.54

Number of results 36

Median 67.5

Median MU 0.97

First Quartile 63.8

Third Quartile 70.0

IQR 6.25

Normalised IQR 4.63

CV (%) 6.9

Minimum 55.0 ()

Maximum 81.0 ()

Range 26.0 ()

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 or N "R" 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. Particpants results that have been

corrected are shown in green.

4.1 Sample A - Liquid Limit: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.1 Sample A - Liquid Limit: Z - Score Graph

D8

U5

V5

S6

Z3

P2

T4

U9

E9

Q3

U8

W5

C5

B9

R9

N2

L4

E5

N7

M8

E8

C3

Z2

Q9

V3

N3

J4

U2

Q5

J5

A6

Q7

Z6

Y6

B5

V6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 31 1.62 R9 22 -0.81

B5 25 0.00 J5 24 -0.27

U9 22 -0.81 N2 22 -0.81

C3 30 1.35 L4 23.0 -0.54

E8 25 0.00 E5 23.0 -0.54

V6 24 -0.27 U8 22.0 -0.81

W5 24 -0.27 J4 27 0.54

N7 34 2.43 D8 23.0 -0.54

S6 25.03 0.01 P2 29 1.08

Z2 25 0.00 V5 40.3 4.13 #

A6 22 -0.81 Q7 27 0.54

C5 24.0 -0.27

U2 25 0.00

Q5 23 -0.54

Y6 29.4 1.19

B9 30 1.35

U5 28.0 0.81

Z3 30 1.35

M8 28 0.81

Q9 25 0.00

V3 26 0.27

T4 27.8 0.76

P7 NR

N3 24 -0.27

R2 22 -0.81

D6 NR

E9 27 0.54

Q3 28 0.81


Median 25.0

Median MU 0.76

First Quartile 23.0

Third Quartile 28.0

IQR 5.00

Normalised IQR 3.71

CV (%) 14.8

Minimum 22.0 (22.0)

Maximum 34.0 (40.3)

Range 12.0 (18.3)



shows a blank entry or "NR" 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. Particpants results that have been corrected

are shown in green.

4.2 Sample A - Plastic Limit: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.2 Sample A - Plastic Limit: Z - Score Graph

V5

N7

Z6

C3

B9

Z3

Y6

P2

U5

M8

Q3

T4

E9

J4

Q7

V3

S6

B5

E8

Z2

U2

Q9

V6

W5

C5

N3

J5

Q5

L4

E5

D8

U9

A6

R2

R9

N2

U8

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 28 -2.31 R9 47 1.35

B5 30 -1.93 J5 39 -0.19

U9 48 1.54 N2 47 1.35

C3 35 -0.96 L4 46.0 1.16

E8 41 0.19 E5 45.0 0.96

V6 31 -1.73 U8 48.0 1.54

W5 45 0.96 J4 37 -0.58

N7 33 -1.35 D8 58 3.47 #

S6 47 1.35 P2 42 0.39

Z2 40 0.00 V5 33.2 -1.31

A6 39 -0.19 Q7 34 -1.16

C5 45 0.96

U2 38 -0.39

Q5 40 0.00

Y6 28.4 -2.24

B9 39 -0.19

U5 48.0 1.54

Z3 42 0.39

M8 39 -0.19

Q9 39 -0.19

V3 38 -0.39

T4 42.8 0.54

P7 NR

N3 39 -0.19

R2 39 -0.19

D6 NR

E9 43 0.58

Q3 42 0.39


Median 40.0

Median MU 1.07

First Quartile 38.0

Third Quartile 45.0

IQR 7.00

Normalised IQR 5.19

CV (%) 13.0

Minimum 28.0 (28.0)

Maximum 48.0 (58.0)

Range 20.0 (30.0)






are shown in green.

4.3 Sample A - Plasticity Index: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.3 Sample A - Plasticity Index: Z - Score Graph

D8

U9

U5

U8

S6

R9

N2

L4

W5

C5

E5

E9

T4

Z3

Q3

P2

E8

Z2

Q5

A6

B9

M8

Q9

N3

R2

J5

U2

V3

J4

C3

Q7

V5

N7

V6

B5

Y6

Z6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 8.5 -0.77 R9 11.8 0.50

B5 8.5 -0.77 J5 12.0 0.58

U9 11 0.19 N2 12.5 0.77

C3 7.5 -1.16 L4 11.5 0.39

E8 8.0 -0.96 E5 12.5 0.77

V6 9.5 -0.39 U8 15.0 1.73

W5 6.0 -1.73 J4 12.0 0.58

N7 7.5 -1.16 D8 8.5 -0.77

S6 11 0.19 P2 8.5 -0.77

Z2 8 -0.96 V5 12.8 0.89

A6 6.5 -1.54 Q7 10 -0.19

C5 6.5 -1.54

U2 7.1 -1.31

Q5 11.5 0.39

Y6 10.4 -0.04

B9 10.5 0.00

U5 13.0 0.96

Z3 11.0 0.19

M8 12.5 0.77

Q9 5.5 -1.93

V3 9.5 -0.39

T4 11.4 0.35

P7 NR

N3 13 0.96

R2 10.5 0.00

D6 NR

E9 13 0.96

Q3 10.5 0.00


Median 10.5

Median MU 0.53

First Quartile 8.5

Third Quartile 12.0

IQR 3.50

Normalised IQR 2.59

CV (%) 24.7

Minimum 5.5 ()

Maximum 15.0 ()

Range 9.5 ()






are shown in green.

4.4 Sample A - Linear Shrinkage: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

4.4 Sample A - Linear Shrinkage: Z - Score Graph

U8

U5

N3

E9

V5

M8

N2

E5

J5

J4

R9

Q5

L4

T4

U9

S6

Z3

B9

R2

Q3

Y6

Q7

V6

V3

Z6

B5

D8

P2

E8

Z2

C3

N7

U2

A6

C5

W5

Q9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 43 -1.35 R9 48 0.34

B5 40 -2.36 J5 46 -0.34

U9 47 0.00 N2 47 0.00

C3 44 -1.01 L4 48.0 0.34

E8 45 -0.67 E5 48 0.34

V6 42 -1.69 U8 49.0 0.67

W5 45 -0.67 J4 46 -0.34

N7 48 0.34 D8 53 2.02

S6 50 1.01 P2 50 1.01

Z2 46 -0.34 V5 51 1.35

A6 45 -0.67 Q7 42 -1.69

C5 49.0 0.67

U2 45 -0.67

Q5 46 -0.34

Y6 NR

B9 49 0.67

U5 49.7 0.91

Z3 53 2.02

M8 47 0.00

Q9 43 -1.35

V3 46 -0.34

T4 54.6 2.56

P7 43 -1.35

N3 46 -0.34

R2 NR

D6 NR

E9 49 0.67

Q3 50 1.01


Median 47.0

Median MU 0.62

First Quartile 45.0

Third Quartile 49.0

IQR 4.00

Normalised IQR 2.97

CV (%) 6.3

Minimum 40.0 ()

Maximum 54.6 ()

Range 14.6 ()






are shown in green.

5.1 Sample B - Liquid Limit: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

5.1 Sample B - Liquid Limit: Z - Score Graph

T4

Z3

D8

V5

S6

Q3

P2

U5

C5

B9

E9

U8

N7

R9

L4

E5

U9

M8

N2

Z2

Q5

V3

N3

J5

J4

E8

W5

A6

U2

C3

Z6

Q9

P7

V6

Q7

B5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 28 2.02 R9 24 -0.67

B5 27 1.35 J5 27 1.35

U9 22 -2.02 N2 25 0.00

C3 26 0.67 L4 26.0 0.67

E8 24 -0.67 E5 25.0 0.00

V6 22 -2.02 U8 25.0 0.00

W5 26 0.67 J4 26 0.67

N7 32 4.72 # D8 25.0 0.00

S6 25.00 0.00 P2 28 2.02

Z2 29 2.70 V5 28 2.02

A6 22 -2.02 Q7 25 0.00

C5 25.0 0.00

U2 25 0.00

Q5 24 -0.67

Y6 NR

B9 27 1.35

U5 27.5 1.69

Z3 25 0.00

M8 26 0.67

Q9 25 0.00

V3 25 0.00

T4 27.8 1.89

P7 24.0 -0.67

N3 25 0.00

R2 23 -1.35

D6 NR

E9 27 1.35

Q3 27 1.35


Median 25.0

Median MU 0.30

First Quartile 25.0

Third Quartile 27.0

IQR 2.00

Normalised IQR 1.48

CV (%) 5.9

Minimum 22.0 (22.0)

Maximum 29.0 (32.0)

Range 7.0 (10.0)






are shown in green.

5.2 Sample B - Plastic Limit: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

5.2 Sample B - Plastic Limit: Z - Score Graph

N7

Z2

Z6

P2

V5

T4

U5

B5

B9

E9

Q3

J5

C3

W5

M8

L4

J4

S6

C5

U2

Z3

Q9

V3

N3

N2

E5

U8

D8

Q7

E8

Q5

P7

R9

R2

U9

V6

A6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 15 -2.36 R9 24 0.67

B5 13 -3.04 # J5 19 -1.01

U9 25 1.01 N2 22 0.00

C3 18 -1.35 L4 26.0 1.35

E8 21 -0.34 E5 23.0 0.34

V6 20 -0.67 U8 24.0 0.67

W5 19 -1.01 J4 20 -0.67

N7 16 -2.02 D8 28 2.02

S6 25 1.01 P2 22 0.00

Z2 17 -1.69 V5 23 0.34

A6 23 0.34 Q7 17 -1.69

C5 24 0.67

U2 20 -0.67

Q5 22 0.00

Y6 NR

B9 22 0.00

U5 22.0 0.00

Z3 28 2.02

M8 21 -0.34

Q9 18 -1.35

V3 21 -0.34

T4 26.8 1.62

P7 19 -1.01

N3 20 -0.67

R2 20 -0.67

D6 NR

E9 22 0.00

Q3 23 0.34


Median 22.0

Median MU 0.61

First Quartile 19.0

Third Quartile 23.0

IQR 4.00

Normalised IQR 2.97

CV (%) 13.5

Minimum 15.0 (13.0)

Maximum 28.0 (28.0)

Range 13.0 (15.0)






are shown in green.

5.3 Sample B - Plasticity Index: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

5.3 Sample B - Plasticity Index: Z - Score Graph

Z3

D8

T4

L4

U9

S6

C5

R9

U8

A6

Q3

E5

V5

Q5

B9

U5

E9

N2

P2

E8

M8

V3

V6

U2

N3

R2

J4

W5

P7

J5

C3

Q9

Z2

Q7

N7

Z6

B5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



Z6 6.5 -0.45 R9 7.9 0.81

B5 6.5 -0.45 J5 6.5 -0.45

U9 7.0 0.00 N2 8.5 1.35

C3 5.0 -1.80 L4 9.0 1.80

E8 6.0 -0.90 E5 9.5 2.25

V6 6.5 -0.45 U8 11.0 3.60 #

W5 4.0 -2.70 J4 6.5 -0.45

N7 6.0 -0.90 D8 5.5 -1.35

S6 8.0 0.90 P2 6.5 -0.45

Z2 6.5 -0.45 V5 9 1.80

A6 4.0 -2.70 Q7 5 -1.80

C5 6.8 -0.18

U2 6.3 -0.63

Q5 7.5 0.45

Y6 NR

B9 8.0 0.90

U5 9.5 2.25

Z3 8.0 0.90

M8 8.5 1.35

Q9 5.0 -1.80

V3 7.5 0.45

T4 9.0 1.80

P7 6.5 -0.45

N3 9 1.80

R2 7.0 0.00

D6 NR

E9 7 0.00

Q3 7.5 0.45


Median 7.0

Median MU 0.23

First Quartile 6.5

Third Quartile 8.0

IQR 1.50

Normalised IQR 1.11

CV (%) 15.9

Minimum 4.0 (4.0)

Maximum 9.5 (11.0)

Range 5.5 (7.0)






are shown in green.

5.4 Sample B - Linear Shrinkage: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



ReviewWeak

Consensus

Weak

ConsensusReview

Z-score

Strong Consensus

5.4 Sample B - Linear Shrinkage: Z - Score Graph

U8

U5

E5

T4

N3

L4

V5

M8

N2

S6

B9

Z3

R9

Q5

V3

Q3

U9

R2

E9

C5

Z6

B5

V6

Z2

P7

J5

J4

P2

U2

E8

N7

D8

C3

Q9

Q7

W5

A6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3



6.0 Program Information

6.1 Z-score Summary The proficiency program was conducted in May 2018. A ‘Z-score Summary’ summary was issued on the 5 June 2018. 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 6.9 ‘Statistics’.

6.2 Program Design 6.2.1 Design

The program has been designed to cover some of the tests associated with soil classification. The preferred methods are shown below but other equivalent methods were also acceptable. ▪ AS 1289 3.1.1 Liquid Limit ▪ AS 1289 3.2.1 Plastic Limit ▪ AS 1289 3.3.1 Plasticity Index ▪ AS 1289 3.3.1 Liner Shrinkage The program is held annually. The test requires a minimum skill level. Adherence to the test method is essential for consistent test results. It is expected that the level of experience/skill needed to perform these tests will present a reasonable assessment of the overall competency of the tester and industry performance. The program was designed to provide technical feedback regarding performance as well as possible improvements in performance. Other considerations involving the design of the program are detailed below. 6.2.2 Selection of material used in the program

The tests in this proficiency program are operator skill/experience dependant. In addition, certain types of materials require more knowledge to obtain consistent results than others. A processed naturally occurring material is used to reduce the variability associated with soils and to be able to select the plasticity required by the program. Different materials are selected for each program to mirror the range of materials encountered in practice. This program provides two samples that give results in the range that would be commonly tested by laboratories. 6.2.3 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. 6.2.4 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. See section 6.10 for further details. 6.2.5 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 this program, it was decided that the benefits of using additional decimal places would not significantly improve the aim of the proficiency testing program. Participants results were analysed as received regardless of whether there were ‘more or less’ significant figures than the number indicated by the test method. 6.2.6 Additional information requested

This program requested additional information as detailed in section 7 that may not usually be 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.



6.2.7 Data checks

As often observed ‘operator errors’ can occur in the result calculation process. Every participant’s results were verified as reasonable. ‘Plastic Limit’ and ‘Plasticity Index’ calculations were recalculated. Checks however are only as accurate as the raw data supplied by each participant. These checks also help ensure that the data is comparable. Any inconsistencies identified during this process are identified as possible feedback for participant improvement. In some cases, inconsistences identified may need to be investigated by participants. 6.3 Sample Preparation Two different materials were selected for the program of a homogeneous appearance. The dried material was then mixed to ensure as far as possible a homogeneous material throughout. Samples were drawn from the two materials and double sealed in a Ziploc plastic bag to form lots (A & B). The sample quantities used were approximately 480g. Ten samples were drawn from the lot A packaged samples and ten from lot B. These were then tested for homogeneity. Samples from the two lots were randomly selected to form program samples (i.e. sample A & B). A unique program code was assigned to each program sample. Each participant received a program sample randomly drawn from the lot. 6.4 Packaging and Instructions Participants received one box sealed in a plastic bag with two samples sealed in separate plastic bags marked Sample A and B. Instructions and a ‘results log’ sheet were enclosed as detailed in Appendix A & B. Participants were instructed to test according to the nominated test method and report to the accuracy indicated on the ‘results log’ sheet or test method. 6.5 Quarantine Samples meet quarantine requirements. 6.6 Sample Dispatch Samples were dispatched to participants on the May 2018 using Toll Priority. Dispatched samples are tracked from despatch to delivery for each participant by LabSmart Services.



Code Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index

Linear Shrinkage

% % % %

H1 75.2 25.5 49.7 10.2

H2 77.6 23.9 53.8 11.6

H3 75.7 25.5 50.2 9.6

H4 71.2 25.8 45.5 10.4

H5 73.4 26.0 47.5 9.6

Mean 74.6 25.3 49.3 10.3

SD 2.42 0.84 3.12 0.82

Max 77.6 26.0 53.8 11.6

Min 71.2 23.9 45.5 9.6

Range 6.4 2.1 8.3 2.0

CV (%) 3.2 3.3 6.3 8.0

Table 6.7A Homogeneity results – Sample A

Code Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index

Linear Shrinkage

% % % %

H1 48.5 24.4 24.1 6.4

H2 51.4 25.1 26.3 6.8

H3 50.7 25.1 25.6 6.7

H4 48.8 25.1 23.7 6.0

H5 48.8 24.0 24.8 5.5

H6 48.6 24.5 24.1 5.2

H7 49.6 24.7 25.0 6.3

H8 48.1 24.6 23.5 5.6

H9 48.7 25.6 23.1 6.4

Mean 49.3 24.8 24.5 6.1

SD 1.11 0.48 1.04 0.56

Max 51.4 25.6 26.3 6.8

Min 48.1 24.0 23.1 5.2

Range 3.3 1.6 3.1 1.6

CV (%) 2.3 1.9 4.2 9.2

Table 6.7B Homogeneity results – Sample B



6.7 Homogeneity Testing Analysis of the homogeneity testing results (Table 6.7A and 6.7B) indicated that the variability associated with the proficiency samples was satisfactory. Sample A had previously been used in a program. Five samples were selected. The results were similar to the previous homogeneity testing done for the 2016 program. Both programs used the same batch of material. The homogeneity in this case did display a wider variation than for the 2016 program. Results were slightly over the program 1 s.d in some cases. Sample B gave low variation with results lying within 1 s.d of the program variations for each test. The assessment of the homogeneity provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers. 6.8 Participation Thirty-nine participants entered the program. The nominated date for participants to return their results was 12 May 2018. Approximately 20% of participants were late with returning results. One participant did not return any results. 6.9 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 included. Use the graph to visually check statistically how you compare to other participants. The following bar (Figure 6.9A) 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 6.9A 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. 6.9.1 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 6.1 of the report. 6.9.2 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. 6.9.3 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. 6.9.4 Metrological traceability

The assigned median value used in this proficiency testing program is derived from participant performance and is not metrologically traceable. 6.10 Non-statistical Outliers One of the issues faced by proficiency testing providers is what to do with an incorrect result even if its z-score is satisfactory. In many cases they cannot be detected but still can have a significant impact on the statistics calculated. This can cause biased (or unfair) outcomes for other participants. To limit the effect of erroneous results have on a program additional information is requested to allow the main results to be recalculated. In some cases, results shown to be erroneous may be reject for inclusion in the program. If the result does not add any statistical bias it is left in the program. The result however is incorrect even though it may have a satisfactory z-score. To highlight that the participant needs to investigate erroneous results it is considered a ‘non-statistical outlier’. This may also be applied to non-compliance to program requirements e.g. incorrect reporting of results etc or incorrect partial calculations/data.



Cure

Time

hr

1 2 Report

1 Z6 >48 59 >48 31.3 30.7 31 28 Demineralised 250mm No change 8.5

2 B5 >48 55 >48 25.6 24.5 25 30 Demineralised 250mm No change 8.5

3 U9 72 70 72 21.9 22.1 22 48 Potable 254 11

4 C3 72 65 72 29.8 30.3 30 35 Potable 250 No change 7.5

5 E8 72 66 72 24.701 24.660 25 41 Potable 250 No change 8.0

6 V6 72 55 72 24.028 24.162 24 31 Distilled 250 No change 9.5

7 W5 >48 69 >48 24.07 24.38 24 45 Distilled 250 No change 6.0

8 N7 72 67 72 33.5 33.6 34 33 Potable 250 No change 7.5

9 S6 72 73 72 24.38 25.67 25.03 47 Potable 26 No change 11

10 Z2 48 65 48 25.00 24.82 25 40 Potable 150mm No change 8

11 A6 48 61 48 NR NR 22 39 Distilled 250 No change 6.5

12 C5 >49 69.0 >49 23.0 24.6 24.0 45 Distilled 254.0 No change 6.5

13 U2 11 days 63 11days 24.6 24.6 25 38 Potable 254 Cracking 7.1

14 Q5 144 63 144 22.79 22.87 23 40 Potable 250 Curling 11.5

15 Y6 24 57.8 24 29.6 29.2 29.4 28.4 Distilled 150mm Curling 10.4

16 B9 48 69 48 30.2 29.9 30 39 NR 250.3 Cracking 10.5

17 U5 116 76 52 28.3 27.8 28.0 48.0 De-ionized 125mm Curling 13.0

18 Z3 11 days 72 11 days 29.5 29.7 30 42 Potable 250 No change 11.0

19 M8 60 67 60 27 28 28 39 Distilled 250 No change 12.5

20 Q9 8 days 64 8 days 25.06 25.58 25 39 Potable 250 No change 5.5

21 V3 48 64 48 25.40 26.68 26 38 Potable 250 No change 9.5

22 T4 48 70.6 48 27.6 28.0 27.8 42.8 Potable 150.12 No change 11.4

23 P7 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Potable NR NR NR

24 N3 96 64 96 24.5 24.7 24 39 Potable 250 Curling 13

25 R2 >48 NR >48 22.01 21.81 22 39 Potable 250 No change 10.5

26 D6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

27 E9 6 days 70 6 days 26.957 26.935 27 43 Potable 254 No change 13

28 Q3 51.5 70 51.5 27.9 28.1 28 42 Distilled 254 Curling 10.5

29 R9 51.0 69 51.0 20.63 22.44 22 47 Distilled 254 Curling 11.8

30 J5 96 63 96 24.16 23.96 24 39 Potable 254 Curling 12.0

31 N2 96 69 96 22.31 21.90 22 47 Potable 253 Curling 12.5

32 L4 71 69.0 71 23.8 22.4 23.0 46.0 Potable 250 Curling 11.5

33 E5 >52 68 >52 23.2 22.0 23.0 45.0 Potable 251 Curling 12.5

34 U8 51 70.0 51 21.5 23.3 22.0 48.0 Potable 249 Curling 15.0

35 J4 72 64 72 26.53 26.52 27 37 Potable 30 Cracking 12.0

36 D8 >72 81 >72 23.57 22.73 23.0 58 Potable 250mm No change 8.5

37 P2 74 71 74 28.8 29.4 29 42 Potable 250 No change 8.5

38 V5 NR 73.4 NR NR NR 40.3 33.2 NR 250.49 Curling 12.8

39 Q7 7 days 61 7 days 26.3 27.5 27 34 Potable 250 No change 10

NOTES: A blank or NR shows where result not completed or completed incorrectly. Blue - indicates a corrected result.

Plasticity

Index %Water

Mould

Length

mm

Shrinkage

Linear

Shrinkage

%

Australian standard methods used unless shown otherwise above.

Plastic Limit %

7.1 Test Results Summary - Sample A

Liquid

Limit

%

Cure

Time

hr

CodeRow

No



Cure

Time

hr

1 2 Report

1 Z6 >48 43 >48 28.1 27.2 28 15 Demineralised 250mm No change 6.5

2 B5 >48 40 >48 27.7 25.6 27 13 Demineralised 250mm No change 6.5

3 U9 72 47 72 21.8 21.8 22 25 Potable 250 7.0

4 C3 75 44 75 25.3 27.0 26 18 Potable 250 Cracking 5.0

5 E8 72 45 72 24.010 24.091 24 21 Potable 250 No change 6.0

6 V6 72 42 72 22.179 21.924 22 20 Distilled 250 No change 6.5

7 W5 >48 45 >48 26.20 25.94 26 19 Distilled 250 No change 4.0

8 N7 72 48 72 32.1 31.9 32 16 Potable 249 Cracking 6.0

9 S6 72 50 72 24.11 25.21 25.00 25 Potable 21 No change 8.0

10 Z2 48 46 48 29.01 28.68 29 17 Potable 250mm No change 6.5

11 A6 48 45 48 NR NR 22 23 Distilled 250 No change 4.0

12 C5 >120 49.0 >120 25.9 25.01 25.0 24 Distilled 250.5 No change 6.8

13 U2 11 days 45 11 days 25.3 25.2 25 20 Potable 253 Cracking 6.3

14 Q5 144 46 144 24.57 24.21 24 22 Potable 250 Curling 7.5

15 Y6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR Distilled NR NR NR

16 B9 48 49 48 27.3 27.0 27 22 NR 250.2 Curling 8.0

17 U5 116 49.7 52 27.4 27.7 27.5 22.0 De-ionized 125mm Curling 9.5

18 Z3 11 days 53 11 days 24.6 25.1 25 28 Potable 250 Cracking 8.0

19 M8 60 47 60 26 26 26 21 Distilled 250 No change 8.5

20 Q9 8 days 43 8 days 24.72 25.51 25 18 Potable 250 Cracking 5.0

21 V3 50 46 50 24.80 25.66 25 21 Potable 250 No change 7.5

22 T4 48 54.6 48 27.7 27.9 27.8 26.8 Potable 150.10 No change 9.0

23 P7 24 43 24 24.50 23.80 24.0 19 Potable 250 Curling 6.5

24 N3 96 46 96 25.7 25.4 25 20 Potable 250 Curling 9

25 R2 >48 NR >48 23.28 23.39 23 20 Potable 250 Curling 7.0

26 D6 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

27 E9 6 days 49 6 days 27.131 27.656 27 22 Potable 254 No change 7

28 Q3 51.5 50 51.5 27.3 27.4 27 23 Distilled 254 Curling 7.5

29 R9 50.5 48 50.5 24.11 24.08 24 24 Distilled 254 Curling 7.9

30 J5 96 46 96 26.54 26.50 27 19 Potable 254 No change 6.5

31 N2 96 47 96 24.80 24.57 25 22 Potable 254 Cracking 8.5

32 L4 72 48.0 71 26.1 25.8 26.0 26.0 Potable 249 Curling 9.0

33 E5 >52 48 >52 25.5 25.2 25.0 23.0 Potable 251 Curling 9.5

34 U8 50 49.0 50 25.5 25.4 25.0 24.0 Potable 249 Curling 11.0

35 J4 72 46 72 26.35 26.26 26 20 Potable 17 Cracking 6.5

36 D8 >72 53 >72 25.59 25.08 25.0 28 Potable 250mm No change 5.5

37 P2 74 50 74 28.0 28.6 28 22 Potable 250 No change 6.5

38 V5 NR 51 NR NR NR 28 23 NR 250.61 Curling 9

39 Q7 7 days 42 7 days 25.4 24.6 25 17 Potable 250 Cracking 5

NOTES:

Australian standard methods used unless shown otherwise above.

A blank or NR shows where result not completed or completed incorrectly. Blue - indicates a corrected result.

7.2 Test Results Summary - Sample B

Row

No Code

Cure

Time

hr

Liquid

Limit

%

Plasticity

Index

%

Water

Mould

Length

mm

Shrinkage

Linear

Shrinkage

%

Plastic Limit %



79 Appendix A Plasticity - Instructions V1.8 2018.docx Page 1 of 2

LabSmart Services

Proficiency Testing Program

Soil - Plasticity – 2018 (79)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER

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

• Results Log

• Sealed plastic bag marked ‘Sample A’

• Sealed plastic bag marked ‘Sample B’

Contact LabSmart Services if the sample bags are damaged or any item is missing.

2. When can I start testing? As soon as you have read these instructions carefully and

your supervisor has indicated that you may do so.

3. How long do I have to do the testing? You need to have the results back to LabSmart Services by the 12 May 2018.

4. For condition of sample’ put ‘good’ if all is satisfactory of if not a comment such as ‘box

badly damaged’, ‘sample A bag leaking’ etc.

5. Due to the possibility of segregation during transit mix each sample prior to testing.

6. Use AS 1289 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.

7. Conduct the following tests.

• AS 1289 3.1.1 – Liquid limit – 4 point Casagrande

• AS 1289 3.2.1 – Plastic limit

• AS 1289 3.3.1 – Plasticity index

• AS 1289 3.4.1 – Linear shrinkage

8. If another test method is used write method on log sheet in the space below the

nominated AS method. Strikeout method not applicable. 9. A cure time of at least 48 hours is suggested. 10. For each test record the result on the enclosed “Results Log”. Report each result

according to the reporting requirements of the test method.

11. Please include a copy of each 4 point Liquid Limit graph.

12. Have a query? Contact Peter Young on 0432 767 706

Appendix A



79 Appendix A Plasticity - Instructions V1.8 2018.docx Page 2 of 2

13. Fax or e-mail the “Result Log” to LabSmart Services by 12 May 2018

Fax: (03) 8888 4987 OR

E-mail: [email protected]

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

sheet to indicate that it has been checked. 15. If more than one technician is involved in the testing then please ensure that the

laboratory’s records indicate which technician did which sample.

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

proficiency testing technical report for this program has been issued.

17. 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.

18. 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 program.



mailto:[email protected]

79 Appendix B Plasticity - Results Log V1.7 .docx)

LabSmart Services

Plasticity Proficiency Testing Program– 2018 (79)

RESULTS LOG

For xxxxx Participation Code: xx

Please fax or e-mail the completed results log by 12 MAY 2018

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

TEST METHOD RESULTS

Sample A Sample B

Date received

Condition of sample received

Colour of sample

AS 1289 3.1.1 (Liquid Limit)

Please attach the 4 point Liquid Limit graph for each sample to results sheet.

Please attach the 4 point Liquid Limit graph for each sample to results sheet.

Cure Time

Results

AS 1289 3.2.1 (Plastic Limit)

Cure Time

Results

1 2 Reported 1 2 Reported

AS 1289 3.3.1 (Plasticity Index)

Results

AS 1289 3.4.1 (Linear Shrinkage)

Length of shrinkage mould (mm)

Results

Describe Shrinkage i.e. curling, cracking, crumbling, no change

Type of water used (e.g. tap, distilled etc)

Name of tester

Date tested

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

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

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

Thank you for participating. Please retain a copy of this sheet for your records.

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]

soil - plasticity 2018 (79) proficiency testing ......3.2 liquid limit & plastic limit these two...

Documents