Upload
lamkien
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.labsmartservices.com.au
CBR - 2016 (67)
PROFICIENCY TESTING
PROGRAM REPORT
Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 1 of 80
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, February 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 As well as proficiency testing programs LabSmart Services also offers a wide range of other services including consultancy, training and nuclear gauge calibration. Please see our website for further details.
www.labsmartservices.com.au
Copyright This work is copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, transmitted or stored in any repository (e.g. mechanical, digital, electronic or photographic) without prior written permission of LabSmart Services Pty Ltd. Please contact LabSmart Services should you wish to reproduce any part of this report.
Amendment History Reports may be downloaded from the LabSmart Services website.
Version 1 – Issued 28 February 2017
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 2 of 80
CONTENTS PAGE
1. Program Aim
5
2. Performance
2.1 Performance assessment 2.2 Identified outliers 2.3 Focus on improvement 2.4 Program summary
5 5 6 6 9
3. Technical Comment
3.1 General performance
3.1.1 Supply of program information 3.1.2 Errors
3.2 Statistical reality
3.2.1 Accuracy of data 3.2.2 Variation in CBR results 3.2.3 Set s.d limit 3.2.4 Repeatability
3.3 CBR results
3.3.1 Participant assessment 3.3.2 CBR results 3.3.3 Identification of inconsistencies and errors 3.3.4 Repeatability
3.4 Measurement uncertainty 3.5 Direct influences
3.5.1 Load cell 3.5.2 Seating load 3.5.3 Penetration rate 3.5.4 Test (penetration / load) data 3.5.5 Accuracy of the graph prepared 3.5.6 Zero-point correction 3.5.7 Rounding
3.6 Indirect influences
3.6.1 Pre-compaction curing 3.6.2 CBR compaction 3.6.3 OMC & MDD 3.6.4 LDR & LMR
3.7 Test method
11
11
11 12
12
12 13 13 14
14
14 15 15 16
17
19
19 20 21 23 24 25 27
29
29 29 31 31
33
4. Statistics: Z-Scores & Graph
4.1 CBR Z-scores : Sample A & B 4.2 Recalculated CBR results 4.3 Repeatability 4.4 Set SD limits
36
35 39 43 45
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 3 of 80
5. Program Information
5.1 Z-score summary 5.2 Program design
5.2.1 Design 5.2.2 Selection of material for program 5.2.3 OMC & MDD 5.2.4 Role of proficiency testing 5.2.5 Participant assessment 5.2.6 Reporting of results – significant figures 5.2.7 Additional information requested
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
5.9.1 Z-score Summary 5.9.2 Comparing statistics from one program to another 5.9.3 Measurement uncertainty 5.9.4 Metrological traceability
47
47 47
47 47 48 48 48 49 49
49 49 50 50 50 50 50
52 52 53 53
6. Participants’ Test Results
55
Appendix A Instructions for testers
Appendix B Results log
Appendix C Graph example
75
77
80
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 4 of 80
1. Program Aim
The proficiency program was conducted in September/October 2016 with participants
throughout Australia. The program involved the performance of:
AS 1289.6.1.1 (2014) – Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soil –
Standard laboratory method for a remoulded specimen.
The program’s intention is to provide feedback and confidence to the construction
materials testing industry regarding the competency of participants (and the industry)
to perform this test. 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. In addition, test data has been
reviewed for consistency and additional feedback regarding aspects of the test are
provided.
Comprehensive technical comment is provided to assist participants improve the
overall performance of this test (Section 3).
Information regarding the conduct and design of the program etc. can be found under
section 5.
2. Performance
2.1 Performance assessment The CBR test is a complex test from a measurement uncertainty perspective despite its apparent technical simplicity. Unfortunately, the CBR test method does not provide guidance about some aspects of the test such as reproducibility. There also appears a lack of guidance on both the performance and the interpretation of the test within the industry. The range of test results obtained in a proficiency program, for any given sample, has been far wider than is generally acceptable to the industry. These aspects add to the difficulty in interpreting CBR proficiency programs. In discussing the outcome of this program the following have broadly been used to determine outliers and areas for investigation/review.
Z-scores based on submitted CBR results (statistical outliers)
Identification of inconsistences, non-adherence to test method and errors
Accuracy of calculations
Repeatability Proficiency testing providers are obligated under their accreditation standard to remove results known to be incorrect or where a participant has not followed the test method including adherence to prescribed limits. Not providing all data requested,
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 5 of 80
particularly where it is used to assess the validity of the results obtained (e.g. compaction, MC) is also a valid reason to reject a CBR result. This is not however ‘black & white’ but where the ‘grey area’ becomes complex. Keeping results that may be suspect in the statistical pool may distort the statistical outcome. However, if all the results found to be inaccurate or not meet the test method etc. were rejected form this program there would be very little to analyse! A balance must be struck. This is discussed in more detail under technical comment (section 3.1 & 3.2).
2.2 Identified outliers
In most proficiency testing programs the identification of outliers is relatively straight
forward. This is not the situation with CBR testing due to the large range in CBR
results obtained.
Industry has expressed concerns that from an engineering “End User” perspective that
such large variations in CBR results are impractical. It is also undesirable from a
laboratory testing perspective.
As has been indicated in previous proficiency programs, it is the middle 50% of
participants results that is far larger than it should be. It is this group of results
therefore that is of primary interest.
Participants with statistical outliers, departure from the test method or errors
(Investigate) and those with significant departures compared to other participants
(Review) are shown in table 2.2A.
Participants where there is a concern regarding accuracy of the results are requested
to investigate their submissions. Others have been identified as able to benefit from
reviewing their submissions where it is felt the quality of testing may be improved.
In table 2.2A there are no participants listed e.g. ‘penetration rate’ and ‘test data’. This
is not because there are no concerns identified only that the test method does not
identify or address the issues affecting accuracy identified in this program.
The more times a participant’s code appears in the table 2.2A the greater the need for
follow up.
2.3 Focus on improvement Have laboratories improved? The answer is yes. The standard of CBR testing has
improved enormously over the last 5 to 7 years. Much of this can be attributed to
laboratories being prepared to participate in PT programs and being prepared to
improve on existing laboratory practices (e.g. move away from hand graphs to
computer generated graphs etc.).
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 6 of 80
Area Section Investigate Review
CBR results 3.3.2 V5, S7 -
Repeatability 3.3.4 F2, U7, R5, V5, S7, X3 -
Load cell 3.5.1 - Z6, W8, J7, X6, Z3, Y3 & M3
Seating load 3.5.2
M8, D8, U9, T9, L8, Z6, F2, W8, J7, B8, S6, T2, Y9, A2, X6, R5, N8, U3, S7, M4, U3, E9, J8, A3, K2, N3, L7, N9, X3, N5, Z3, P6, C4, Y3, Q5, C2, E4, M3, R6, G2, R7
-
Seating load set to zero 3.5.2 B8, S6, X8, Y9, R5, U3, N5, C2
-
Penetration rate 3.5.3 - -
Test data 3.5.4 - -
Accuracy of graph 3.5.5 Not in test method Majority of participants
Zero-point correction 3.5.6 D8, U9, K8, F2, J7, T2, W8, V5
-
Rounding 3.5.7
C6, C8, J6, B8, S6, X8, S7, D3, G4, C2, E4, R6, X7, G2, R7
-
Pre-compaction curing 3.6.1 - Z6, S6, X8, X6
CBR compaction 3.6.2 N4, T8, E5, X7 W8, S7, D8, C6, K8, J6, F2, X6, J8, N3, N9, X3, K4, M3
OMC & MDD 3.6.3 - -
LDR & LMR 3.6.4 P7, W8, X8, Y3, G2, Q7, X3
-
Inconsistent results and calculations
3.6.4
C8, X8, U3, D3, N4, T8, P7, W8, V3, Z3, Y3, Q7
-
Table 2.2A – Participants identified where investigation or review follow up is warranted.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 7 of 80
To the many out there “well done” and “thank you” for your participation.
The CV over this time has been around 30 % whereas this program has a CV of 21%. Note that the ‘gold’ highlighting shows programs conducted to the current 2014 test method. It shows that the spread (variation) in CBR test results are heading in the right direction.
Year Program Median CV
2016 67 155 21
2015 59 140 20
2014 54 74 31
2013 46 37 29
2012 37 44 20
2011 48 61 35
2009 16 30 32
Table 2.3A Comparison of CBR program results for the last seven years
Why is the middle 50% important? At present the spread of results is extremely large and affects the repeatability and reproducibility of the test. In other words, if it is too large the CBR results become meaningless. Based on this national proficiency program and others the CBR results appear of limited value to the end user. However, if put in context as to where the CBR results are used the situation may not be so bad. On a regional basis, where the CBR results are used, there may be much closer agreement. This may be due to similar training or better overseeing by a technical body etc. (e.g. Road Authorities) Has the CBR test results always been subject to the same large spread in results? Most likely it has. It may have been that it just was either not observed due to no national PT programs or seemed unimportant at the time. There is nothing in the test method that has changed substantially over the years to cause a change in the spread of results obtained. Staff are no better or worse trained then previously. What has changed over the last 50 years however is how results are interpreted and used. Road Authorities did much of the road construction work and testing so CBR results were basically in-house. Results were generally compared amongst those trained the same way using similar or same equipment. There was not the proliferation of small testing laboratories back then or the need to compare results from one State to another. National CBR proficiency programs for CBR were either not run or if so very infrequent. Today there are laboratories with quite diverse views on the CBR method and using quite different equipment. The test method allows considerable latitude in the performance of the test. It is not unexpected that the variation across Australia is as large as it is.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 8 of 80
How can improving the accuracy help. It was hoped that improving the accuracy of testing would significantly reduce the spread in results shown. This program has shown that this may not be the case. The accuracy of many of the test results was shown that they could be improved but it did not necessarily lead to a significant reduction in the spread of the middle 50% of participants. Accuracy of testing still needs to be improved and most laboratories are trying to do this. Graphing has a significant impact on the overall accuracy achieved. Section 3.5 focus on those aspects most directly affecting CBR accuracy. What aspects of the test affect the outcome indirectly? The test method puts limits on the indirect aspects of the test such as moisture, compaction, LDR and LMR etc. It would appear at present, that while these are important, the control of them and how it affects the outcome is difficult to predict or quantify. Most cannot be examined in isolation nor is it clear how they interact. See section 3.6. Removing those results that did not comply with the limits placed by the test method did not, in this program, lead to an improvement in the spread of results. Can changes to the test method help? The last change to the test method has seen a significant reduction to the spread of results obtained. Based on the technical comments (section 3.7) it appears that while incremental improvements are possible any major improvement may need a substantial rethink of the test method. How can laboratories improve? Proficiency testing programs that provide technical feedback assist laboratories to improve. All of the technical comment detailed in section 3 has this in mind and is aimed at helping laboratories to have a greater understanding of the test. 2.4 Program Summary There has been an observable improvement in CBR testing over the last six years as measured by the coefficient of variation (CV). Previous proficiency programs have highlighted the need to reduce the variation shown by the middle 50 % of participants. The technical comment indicates that there are ways to reduce this slightly but it may be that this spread is just reflecting the accuracy of this test. The program shows that there are several improvements that laboratories can make to improve the accuracy of their individual results. It is highly desirable as it will overall reduce the spread of results. Improvements in repeatability are also needed. Improvements in accuracy however may not directly transfer to a significant reduction in the spread in results.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 9 of 80
The program identified those aspects of the test that most affect accuracy (direct influences) and those aspects of the test that have less influence (indirect). There are aspects of the test method such as graphing and zero correction where further guidance is needed for the industry. The CBR graph is the only way of checking the validity of the results obtained. In most cases the graphs prepared do not adequately address this issue. Both these and other issues are identified as major contributors to CBR accuracy. The program showed that penetration rates may contribution significantly to the spread in results. Many participants were identified (>65%) as needing to review one or more aspects of testing. Therefore, test results for all sixty-five participants were recalculated based on the test data submitted. This allowed several conclusions to be drawn that previously had not been able to be answered in past programs. What this means is that every participant should review the testing submitted against the technical comments made in this report. Improvements to the test method, by better defining the test process, limits and expected outcomes would significantly improve the accuracy of the test. The statistics used in all proficiency programs is there for guidance. Care however needs to be exercised to avoid incorrect conclusions being drawn. This is one of the reasons that LabSmart Services provides comprehensive technical comment for each program. This proficiency program provides increased understanding of current test practices and potential sources of variation. It also allows monitoring of improvements in testing and provides the opportunity for participants to improve their competency. A summary of the program statistics is shown in Table 2.4A.
Statistic CBR A CBR B
Number of participants 61 63
Median 155 168
Normalized IQR 32 35
Minimum* 81 88
Maximum* 222 258
Range* 141 170
CV (%) 21 21
Table 2.4A Summary of statistics for the CBR program. Some results have been rounded. *Min, Max & Range
are with outliers excluded.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 10 of 80
The observed variation (based on CV) has improved compared to other proficiency programs conducted over the last decade.
3.0 Technical comment The feedback is extremely lengthy and for this we apologise. It is unlikely that such detailed feedback will be offered in the future. In today’s vernacular, it is a “conversation” that the industry needs to have. It is hoped that this report will contribute to that discussion. 3.1 General performance Proficiency program participants are expected to comply with the requirements of the program and meet basic laboratory standards. General performance covers those aspects of laboratory operations that are expected to be performed as part of good laboratory practice and in keeping with NATA accreditation. Some aspects that are particularly relevant for this program are:
Supervision of testing
Following the test method
Following proficiency testing instructions
Correctly filling out paperwork i.e. PT log sheet
Checking of results
Free of errors i.e. calculations correct
Reality check of results i.e. does it fit the type of material submitted
Compared to earlier CBR proficiency testing programs there has been significant improvement in most of the above areas. However as detailed in subsequent sections there is still a considerable way to go to improve the accuracy of testing. It raises the question that if participants are not meeting the above basic requirements then what other omissions or errors are occurring during testing that remain undetected. 3.1.1 Supply of program information
Several participants supplied all the testing details requested. This information is used
to provide the feedback given in the following sections and is an important part of the
program.
Participants are always welcome to contact the program coordinator if they require
further explanation as to what information is required or how to proceed.
The information requested is also used to validate the results obtained.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 11 of 80
Proficiency testing program providers may reject results on this basis if they do not
conform to the program requirements.
3.1.2 Errors
Errors may arise from several sources, an incorrect calculation, transcription error, wrong methodology used, not following the test method etc. Many of the comments in the following sections relate to errors. For example, participant 5-U9-A load /penetration results may have been entered the wrong way around on the log sheet. Or it could be that the CBR values are the wrong way around. Either way it corrupts the statistics used to assess the program outcome as well as being incorrect. Although some of these may have only a small impact they do accumulate and should not occur. Others can have a large impact such as incorrect graphing technique and zero correction.
Reduction in the number of errors detected in this program would significantly improve
the credibility of CBR testing and possibly reduce the variation (spread) in CBR results
obtained.
3.2 Statistical reality
The use of statistics are a very useful and practical means of analysing test data.
Those that use statistics everyday know the limitations and shortcomings of their use.
Unfortunately, they often do not get aired sufficiently to remind those who only
occasionally use statistics. This section addresses some of these aspects associated
with this report.
3.2.1 Accuracy of data
If the test data is in error, then any statistics calculated may also be error. Any
interpretations made, based on the statistics, may also be in error. Most proficiency
programs can handle a few inaccurate results without any concern about the validity
(accuracy and precision of the outcome) of the program. Most of the technical
comment concerns the accuracy of the CBR test results. The number of results that
are questionable does raise significant concern about the validity of many of the test
results.
3.2.2 Variation in CBR results
Often proficiency testing programs tend to focus on feedback concerning those with results that seem either too high or too low (outliers). While this is important sometimes other areas become just as important. The fundamental issue with CBR test results is that there is too large a spread shown by the middle 50% of participants. Within this group the results are too spread out.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 12 of 80
This means that identifying accurately a median value or outliers may be seriously compromised. It seriously affects the accuracy and precision of the test results. Without improvement or better understanding of CBR test results there is a strong risk
that the test may no longer be credible.
3.2.3 “Set s.d limit”
In previous CBR proficiency programs the z-score statistics have been recalculated
using a “Set s.d limit” or “Target s.d”. The purpose of which was to bring the variation
(spread) in results back to something useful to geotechnical engineers and other
clients. It is a very practical way of approaching the problem. There is no reason to
suspect that, based on the outcome of this program, any result within the middle 50%
is better than another result from the middle 50%. The “Set s.d limit” outcome then
does not give much useful information other than an exercise in setting a limit. It
becomes a bit of a ‘Round peg in a square hole’ approach.
If the accuracy of most test results is questionable along with the median value, then
results may lie above or below the set limits. It does not identify problems or inaccurate
results, worse, it will indicate results as being satisfactory when they are not.
It has still been used in this program mainly as an indicator as to where a reasonable
variation limit may lie. So long as it is not taken that anyone test result is more accurate
them another then it is reasonable to use this approach.
In previous CBR proficiency programs LabSmart Services has given some guidance
as to what could be used as an acceptable spread from an “End User” perspective. A
variation considered reasonable has been based on ± 9.5 % (coefficient of variation)
of the median. Calculated target values are shown in table 3.2.3A below for this
program. Results as submitted have been used.
See Section 4.4
Median CV (%) S.D. Limit
Sample A 155.2 % 9.5 ± 14.75 %
Sample B 167.8 % 9.5 ± 15.94 %
Table 3.2.3A Target S.D Limits. Bearing Ratio at 5.0 mm
Please note that the following “Set s.d limit” outcomes do not constitute an
outlier in this program but provide one approach to determining which participant
results may be improved on further review.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 13 of 80
Results were recalculated using the above ‘Set SD Limits’ as detailed in section 4.4
Based on these limits, participants exhibiting statistically significant variation are
shown in table 3.2.3B below.
Sample A - Review Sample B - Review
Z-score> 3 Z-score> 2.75 Z-score> 3 Z-score> 2.75
M8, U9, F2, X5, U7, B8, T2, U3, S7, T5,
N3, Z3, Y3, V5 K8
L8, J6, J7, T2, R5, N8, S7, K2, N3, P6,
Y3, V5 U7
Table 3.2.3B Statistically significant unrounded CBR results based on a set “SD Limit”.
Participants shown above may find it beneficial to review the performance of this test.
Also as all the CBR results shown in table 3.2.3B are very large from an engineering
perspective these may still be considered acceptable depending on the use of the
material.
3.2.4 Repeatability
If the spread of results both within and between participants is large it is hard to arrive
at a sensible repeatability and reproducibility outcomes. The accuracy of the results
also has a large impact. See section 3.3.4 for more detail on repeatability. Hopefully
future programs may result in better estimates of repeatability.
3.3 CBR Results
3.3.1 Participant assessment
Participant performance has been assessed in three ways:
Z-scores based on submitted CBR results (statistical outliers)
Identification of inconsistences, non-adherence to test method and errors
Accuracy of calculations
Repeatability
Participants need to be aware that the program coordinator performing the checks
may not have access to the full set of results for each participant. Also, due to the
large amount of data associated with this program it is entirely possible that the
coordinator may not have recalculated some participants results correctly.
Participants are asked to “investigate” matters that are statistical outliers and where
the test method has not been followed or are outside the limits set in the test method.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 14 of 80
Other maters identified are shown as “Review”. These are matters that would help
improve testing and it most cases would be considered outside normal testing
parameters. It is sometimes difficult to determine as the test method often does not
provide sufficient guidance.
As an aid to identifying usable limits “Set sd limits’ have been calculated but do not
form part of the assessment.
3.3.2 CBR results
Z-scores and associated statistics were calculated on the CBR results as submitted
and are detailed in section 4.1. The following statistical outliers were identified:
Sample A Sample B
Investigate Review Investigate Review
V5 - S7 -
Table 3.3.2A Participants identified as having statistical outliers in the program
For the CBR test the spread of results is very large over the middle 50% of participants.
Both sample A and B were the same material. The repeatability outcome was
statistically good but the accuracy of the data called the outcome into question (see
section 3.3.4 for more detail).
It makes it extremely difficult to draw accurate conclusions from the statistics. For
example, participant V5 had a high CBR result and was identified as an outlier for
sample A. However participant V5 had an even larger CBR result for sample B but it
was not identified as an outlier! The statistics are correct it is just a reflection of very
poor reproducibility and repeatability.
The construction industry may need to acknowledge, if improvement cannot be
established, that this is the accuracy and precision of the CBR test.
Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 explores this further.
3.3.3 Identification of inconsistences and errors
There are many steps within the conduct of the test (methodology) that can become a
source of error or where inconsistencies can occur. As well there are limits posed by
the test method itself that may also contribute. For example, compaction and moisture
content.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 15 of 80
To better understand the influence that these sources have on the variation of the test
they have been broken up into those that directly affect the CBR result and can be
measured and those where the impact on the CBR result cannot be easily measured
i.e. indirect. See section 3.4 for more information on determining direct and indirect
influences.
Direct influences generally involve participant errors in testing. These are discussed
in more detail in section 3.5.
The following calculation was used to determine if a submitted result required further
appraisal.
[ ( Load5.0 - Load2.5 )*100 ] / 2.5 where Load is in kN.
This could also be used by supervisors as a quick means of checking test data as it
does not need the graph.
This check was undertaken. As it showed a large number to check it was decided in
the end to recalculate everyone’s results. The outcome of this exercise is shown in
section 4.2.
The recalculated results have been used to determine performance in many instances.
This gave a more accurate appraisal and did not change the outlier outcome except
to show a better performance for some individuals.
Indirect influences generally involve non – compliance to the test method requirements
or limits. These are discussed in section 3.6.
3.3.4 Repeatability
The spread of results was much larger in earlier programs. Previously it was felt that
investigating methodology yielded better information then duplicate samples would
have. The test method was revised in 2014 and addressed some shortcomings in
relation to the compaction process. This led to changes in methodology for some
laboratories and improvement in the CBR variation i.e. CBR Proficiency Program
2015(59) CV was 20%.
The new test method has now had a reasonable period to ‘bed in’. As consequence
if was felt that it was appropriate to use duplicate samples for this program to measure
repeatability.
Unfortunately, the large spread in results obtained affects the repeatability outcome.
The number of participants where the CBR value calculated by participants was shown
to be inaccurate was quite high. Considering both these factors makes the estimate
of repeatability shaky. Z-score statistics are shown in section 4.3
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 16 of 80
An alternative approach would be to use the homogeneity data as an estimate.
However, this may also be a shaky estimate. The precision may be good (same
machine and pace rate) but the accuracy may be poor.
The repeatability was calculated (sample A and B combined) with the participants
results (section 3.3.2) as submitted and as corrected (section 3.3.3). Only the original
participant’s results are shown in section 4.3, repeatability for the recalculated results
has been omitted from the report (to reduce the report volume).
By using the recalculated CBR results it reduces the number of participants shown as
needing to either investigate or review their outcomes, table 3.3.4A.
Based on submitted CBRs Based on recalculated CBRs
Between laboratories Within laboratory Between laboratories Within laboratory
Investigate Review Investigate Review Investigate Review Investigate Review
V5 S7 F2, U7,
R5 X3 - -
U7, S7, X3
-
Table 3.3.4A Repeatability statistics summary for submitted results and recalculated
3.4 Measurement Uncertainty (1)
The intention is not to calculate MU for the CBR test. It is however necessary to
identify components that contribute to the MU broadly to better understand what
contributes and what can be controlled in regards to the spread of CBR results.
It is helpful to review a simple case first involving moisture content (MC). A simplified
MC calculation follows:
MC = (wet mass - dry mass) / dry mass X 100
The ‘100’, is used to convert to a percentage, it is a constant (i.e. does not change)
and has no uncertainty attributed to it.
The mass readings are principally affected by the uncertainty associated with the
balance used. Other smaller uncertainties associated with the measurements, such
as drying to constant mass, can be ignored in this instance.
The important feature to note is that each measurement (of mass) has an uncertainty
assigned that directly influences the overall moisture content result (MC) and the
uncertainty obtained.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 17 of 80
Note (1): In this section the intention is to convey the different ways a MU budget is considered. The
information detailed is a generalisation and a simplification. MU terminology and jargon has been kept
to a minimum as well as explanations to convey the general concept. The concept “direct” and “indirect”
are not normally used in MU but are introduced here as a means of demonstrating a concept.
CBR – MU involving - Direct Influences
The bearing ratio (BR) calculation can be expressed as:
BR = Load(@5mm) / 19.8 X 100
As with MC both “19.8” and “100 “are constants and have no uncertainty attributed to
them. There are several uncertainties that can be directly related to or directly
influence the “Load” measurement:
Accuracy of the load cell
Accuracy of seating load
Accuracy of penetration
Accuracy of the rate of penetration
Accuracy of recording force readings
Number of data points selected
Accuracy of the graph prepared
Accuracy of the zero correction
Rounding of results
The magnitude of these influences on a load can usually be directly measured or
calculated.
CBR – MU involving - Indirect Influences
The MU calculation involving ‘indirect influences’ is usually added to the formula, as
shown in ‘gold’.
MUBR = [ Load(@5mm) ± MUDI / 19.8 X 100 ] ± MUA ± MUB ± MUC etc.
The effect of indirect influences on the BR MU calculated normally cannot be
measured or directly calculated. Generally indirect influences are estimated or
determined experimentally.
To either estimate or determine experimentally usually requires that each influence
can be separated. For the CBR test it is neither practical (very costly) or possible in
most instances to do this. Indirect uncertainties for the BR relate to the determination
of:
OMC & MDD
Moisture content
LDR & LMR
And the associated effect on MU of:
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 18 of 80
Curing of sample
Compaction i.e. layer thickness, compaction pattern, number of blows, achievement of
LDR & LMR
Soil characteristics
A further difficulty in determining or isolating these indirect influences is that they can
interact with each other in unknown ways. For example, how a low MC with excessive
number of compaction blows affects the BR measurement is impractical to determine.
Another difficulty is that many of these measurements are subject to a natural variation
as well from one participant to another, compounding the problem of performing any
realistic comparison.
3.5 Direct Influences
The following sections cover many aspects of methodology. Of note is that even with
corrections resulting from re-graphed data and using unrounded results if has only a
marginal effect on the middle 50% of participants. In other words, the corrections are
totally random with some corrected CBR values increasing while others decrease.
See table below of relevant statistics taken from section 4.2.
Sample A Sample A
Submitted Recalculated Submitted Recalculated
Median 157.4 159.4 168.9 170.6
Third Quartile
136.6 138.0 150.0 151.2
First Quartile
180.2 176.7 197.5 199.3
IQR 43.6 38.7 47.5 48.1
N-IQR 32.3 28.7 35.2 35.7
Minimum 81.0 96.8 60.0 63.7
Maximum 252.4 222.7 258.1 232.8
Range 171.4 125.9 198.1 169.1
CV (%) 20.5 18.0 20.8 20.9
Table 3.5A Summary of statistics for ‘direct influences’ for both submitted and recalculated results
Overall it suggests that while the accuracy of testing can and should be improved there
may be little change to the overall spread of results obtained for the CBR test.
3.5.1 Load cell
In section 6 the load values are shown for each participant. In some cases, there is a
NR (not reported) for some penetrations. It should be noted that this may be due to
the upper limit of the load cell having been reached. It may also be due to values not
corresponding exactly to the penetrations requested. Some laboratories used more
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 19 of 80
data points than requested (great to see) but have not been included in the tabulated
results.
Most participants in this program used load cells with seven participants (S6, N5, C4,
Y3, V5, C2 & M3) using load rings. Most were calibrated to ‘Class ‘A’ or a combination
e.g. A/B/C. Most participants used a 50kN load device with the highest being 200kN.
Participants should be aware that as the cell range increases the accuracy will
decrease in many cases.
Selection of the correct load cell capacity is dependent on the experience of the
laboratory and where possible prior knowledge the of the material to be tested.
Unfortunately, due to the large range of results possible, warning cannot be given by
the program organisers prior to testing. Several participants exceed the capacity of
the load cell during testing. It is important that testing be stopped on approach to the
capacity of the load cell. Some participants exceed the maximum capacity of their cell
by a considerable amount (Z6, W8, J7, X6, Z3, Y3 & M3). This can cause permanent
damage particularly if it is a load ring.
Participants (L6, T5, V3, M7, E9 & L7) used a 25kN cell (Max CBR 120%) and found
that the CBR value was outside this range. Some reported the result while others
reported, correctly, no result. These have been corrected in the CBR data analysis.
Another consideration is the resolution at the lower end of the load scale to accurately
measure the seating load. For load cells used in this program that are on the larger
side (e.g. 50kN) it may be difficult to accurately measure small loads.
Often this is not a lack in ability of the load cell but a reflection of the normal calibration
practise where the calibration may not extend to the low load values required for
seating loads. Laboratories may need to request calibration facilities, where possible,
to specifically cover the seating loads required when undertaking the load cell
calibration.
3.5.2 Seating load
The standard requires that the least amount of force be used for the seating load. It
is important that the piston is in contact with a stable surface. The seating load is
considered the ‘zero point’ from which the load values and penetration commence.
In past programs participants had difficulty in determining the correct seating load to
use. For this program the instructions indicated that the CBR would be greater than
30% and, as specified in the test method, a seating load of 250 kN should have been
used.
The following participants did not follow the test method or program instructions and
incorrectly used a seating load of less than 50N.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 20 of 80
M8, D8, U9, T9, L8, Z6, F2, W8, J7, B8, S6, T2, Y9, A2, X6, R5, N8, U3, S7, M4, U3,
E9, J8, A3, K2, N3, L7, N9, X3, N5, Z3, P6, C4, Y3, Q5, C2, E4, M3, R6, G2 and R7
At high CBRs the seating load has only minimal effect on the CBR obtained but does
influence where the penetration points fall. For this type of material any effect of
incorrect assignment of the zero penetration is usually cancelled out with the zero-
point correction offset if performed correctly.
Setting the seating load to zero was done by most participants except (B8, S6, X8,
Y9, R5, U3, N5, C2). Not setting ‘back to zero’ again can lead to an inaccuracy in the
load scale creating an offset.
However, errors in both processes (seating load applied and resetting back to zero)
may influence the CBR result by up to ± 1.3% CBR. This may not seem much but in
the rounding process when reporting this may cause a difference of 10%.
3.5.3 Penetration rate
Test method indicates that the machine used must be capable of “….forcing the
penetration piston into the specimen at uniform (not pulsating) rate of 1.0± 0.2 mm/min
during the complete test….”. The penetration rate had in the past not been routinely
checked until NATA in recent years required it be checked every two years.
It is not entirely clear, based on input from participants, if the standard means an
‘average rate’ of if it means it must be met at ‘all times’. If it is taken as an average
rate then theoretically you could have half the penetration at 0.5 mm/min and the other
half at 1.5 mm/min and still arrive at the average rate of 1.0 mm/min.
For ‘hand’ operated devices it is hard to check other than an overall average. A
motorised platform was used by the majority of participants with seven participants
(K8, L5, U3, N3, Q5, K4, V5) using a hand operated unit.
With load cell units, they usually allow the rate to be checked as you go on a ‘per 0.5
mm of travel’ etc. This can be done on a ‘test by test’ basis so is a very good record
of meeting the requirements of the standard.
Participant J8 reported the penetration rates as detailed in table 3.5.3A. The average
value obtained of 0.84 mm/min meets the test method requirements. All participants
reported a penetration rate within the Australian Standard specified range of 1.0 ± 0.2
mm/min.
Very few reported penetration rates to this accuracy most participants appear to have
quoted just the test method requirements (i.e.1 mm/min) rather than stating a
calculated or measured average penetration rate. The test method does not ask that
this be done. It raises however the question as to whether most participants had
something different, more in keeping with what is shown in the table 3.5.3A.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 21 of 80
A load cell or ring may compress around 0.4 mm under high loads which contributes
to the penetration rate achieved. In future, the NATA ‘penetration checks’ may need
to be requested.
Penetration Penetration Rate
mm mm/min
0.50 0.69
1.00 0.86
1.50 0.82
2.00 0.79
2.50 0.78
3.00 0.79
3.50 0.80
4.00 0.80
4.50 0.87
5.00 0.91
5.50 0.88
6.00 0.87
6.50 0.89
7.00 0.95
7.50 0.95
Average = 0.84
Table 3.5.3A Penetration rates for participant J8
The penetration rate is linked to the slope of the force/penetration curve. It is therefore
significant in determining the CBR and hence the set limits placed on the rate of travel
by the test method.
Graph 3.5.3B Effect of applying the tolerance on the penetration rate 1.0 ± 0.2 mm/min
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Load
Penetration
Penetration at 4.8, 5.0 and 5.2 mm for CBR 160
1.2 mm/min 1.0 mm/min
0.8 mm/min
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 22 of 80
The rate can be interpreted in terms of time or penetration. If it takes 5 minutes to
penetrate 5 mm. It takes 6.25 minutes to penetrate 5 mm at a rate of 0.8 mm/min and
4.17 minutes to penetrate 5 mm at a rate of 1.2 mm/min. Alternatively, it can be viewed
as the load at 4.8, 5.0 and 5.2 mm as shown in graph 3.5.3B.
Regardless of the approach the outcome remains the same, for 5 mm penetration the
accuracy is therefore ± 0.2 mm. For a CBR of 162% this translates into approximately
± 6.6%. This is detailed in table 3.5.3C.
Penetration mm
Load kN
CBR %
Difference CBR %
CV %
4.8 30.7 155.0 -6.6 -4.1
5.0 32.0 161.6 0.0 -
5.2 33.3 168.2 6.6 4.1
Table 3.5.3C Variation in CBR for rate of 1.0 ± 0.2 mm/min.
For this program where the CV was 21 % a possible ± 4 % CV is significant. Improving
the accuracy of penetration would also reduce the spread of results obtained. Even
at lower CBR values the CV variation remains significant.
There is an assumption that the slope associated with penetration remains constant
regardless of the rate of penetration. This means that the soil offers the same
resistance no matter how quick or slow you push.
It is possible that for some soils pushing slowly may allow the soil to “move out of the
way” easier than if pushed faster against the soil. The stresses in the soil may be
different. The effect cannot be easily calculated. Some experimentation would be
needed to determine if there is a significant effect or not.
3.5.4 Test (penetration / load) data
The number of penetration points selected is extremely important. Many
laboratories recorded the requested additional load/penetration data. A few took less
than that requested for this proficiency program or terminated the test before 12.5 mm.
The test method specifies a minimum data set (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5,
10.0 and 12.5 mm penetrations).
The key word in the test method is “at least”. In other words if you know the material
well (i.e. have a CBR history of the material) then you should be able to use fewer
points otherwise you need to record loads at more points.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 23 of 80
Additional points are needed to:
Allow for the discount of an abnormal data value Have sufficient points left so that the discounting of a point does not
compromise the test result Have sufficient points to fit a straight line and a curve Have sufficient points above the straight section of the graph. Have sufficient points to be able to tell that you have an abnormal data point
Participant E5 was selected but there were many other participants with small data
sets. The penetration/load values submitted for participant E5 were used to produce
a graph and a zero-correction line. The results are shown below Graph 3.5.4A.
3.5.4A Load / penetration graph for participant E5, Sample B
Only the minimum data points have been collected. The graph shows that there was
one data point only between 5 mm and 10 mm (i.e. circled data in the graph above).
If the data point at 7.5 is out it can have a large effect on the CBR obtained. If more
points had been taken, then the uncertainty about this point would be removed.
It is evident that two few data points can have a measurable difference on the result
that is obtained. Greater confidence in the result and accuracy is obtained when more
points are taken.
3.5.5 Accuracy of the graph prepared
Graphing has been singled out due to its importance in deriving an accurate result and
being able to check the CBR result obtained. The CBR test method does not emphasis
this aspect.
y = 9.7868x4 - 255.62x3 + 2104.1x2 - 772.55x + 74.034R² = 1
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ap
plie
d L
oad
(N
)
Penetration (mm)
CBR Graph for Participant 66 - E5 - B
Data Values
Poly. (Data Values)
Correction
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 24 of 80
Graphing of results has been an issue for the last seven CBR proficiency programs (7
years). Overall graphing has improved vastly over this time but there is still
considerable room for improvement.
In nearly every case you can take the raw data from a AS 1289 test method and
everyone would calculate the same result. With CBR the raw data can be given to 12
or more laboratories and possibly get 12 different answers!
From a testing perspective, this is unacceptable but within the test method. This
is not the fault of laboratories but it is within their scope and ability to improve on
this.
Regardless of what graph is submitted to the client a detailed graph for use by the
laboratory is important as it is the primary method of checking that a reasonable
result has been obtained.
This is also how the program coordinator checked if participant’s results matched the
data submitted. Unfortunately, this is not conveyed by the test method. The test
method is also not very descriptive regarding the quality of the graph prepared.
In previous proficiency programs, considerable feedback has been given. An example
graph is given in Appendix C. This is the level of detail and quality that laboratories
should be aiming.
Participants are welcome to contact LabSmart Services and request a copy of the
recalculated graph.
The following sections expand on issues where better graphing practice would have
improved the accuracy of the result obtained.
3.5.6 Zero-point correction
Overall, most participants correctly calculated the zero-point correction and applied it. Seating load and zero correction combined generally result in small changes.
However sometimes small changes can have a significant effect and particularly when
a BR value is to be rounded either up or down to the nearest 10%. A variation of ±
20 % CBR is not unrealistic.
Not applying the zero-point correction does have a significant impact. For example,
participant (J7) did not correct the raw data back to a zero point. Participant (V5)
appears to have overestimated the correction needed.
Participants J7 and V5 data have been re-graphed (3.5.6A & B) and the bearing ratio
at 5 mm recalculated.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 25 of 80
3.5.6A Load / penetration graph for participant J7, Sample B
3.5.6B Load / penetration graph for participant V5, Sample A
y = 10.693x4 - 269x3 + 2270.2x2 - 1264.1x + 163.58R² = 0.9999
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
32,000
36,000
40,000
44,000
48,000
52,000
56,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ap
plie
d L
oad
(N
)
Penetration (mm)
CBR Graph for Participant 21 - J7 - B
Data Values
Poly. (Data Values)
Correction
y = 110.5x4 - 1331.7x3 + 5375.9x2 + 114.05x + 202.35R² = 0.9973
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ap
plie
d L
oad
(N
)
Penetration (mm)
CBR Graph for Participant 59 - V5 - A
Data Values
Poly. (Data Values)
Correction
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 26 of 80
Table 3.5.6C Submitted and recalculated results for CBR and zero-correction for participant J7
Similarly, for participant V5.
Table 3.5.6D Submitted and recalculated results for CBR and zero-correction for participant V5
The CBR graphs for all participants were re-graphed. Although every effort was made
to make these as correct as possible they could only be reproduced with the data
provided. See section 4.2.
For this program the difference between the submitted value and the recalculated
value was considered significant if the difference was 0.5 mm or greater. These
participants are shown in table 3.5.6E.
Difference in zero-correction greater than 0.5 mm
Investigate
Sample A Sample B
D8, U9, K8, F2, J7, T2, V5 K8, F2, W8, V5
3.5.4E Participants where the zero- correction is greater than 0.5 mm
It highlights the need for the middle group of participants to review their results
as much as those at the upper and lower edges. Overall every participant should
revisit the graphing technique employed.
3.5.7 Rounding of CBR
The reason for rounding is not entirely clear in the Australian Standard. It perhaps
acknowledges that CBR values are quite variable and rounding makes the results
Participant J7 – B Submitted Values Recalculated values Difference
Zero correction (mm) 0 1.3 1.3
Unrounded CBR (%) 119 162 43
Participant V5 - A Submitted Values Recalculated values Difference
Zero correction (mm) 1.3 0.4 -0.9
Unrounded CBR (%) 252 213 -39
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 27 of 80
easier to use and compare when grouped together i.e. takes out some of the
fluctuation.
Laboratories were asked for the unrounded Bearing Ratio rather than rounded CBR
results. Part of the design consideration of this program was to try and isolate as well
as minimise sources of variation. The process of ‘rounding’ was identified as adding
to the variation of determining CBR. The statistics associated and test variation with
the CBR results will increase slightly if rounded results are used. This is demonstrated
in the summary of the statistics detailed in table 3.5.7A.
Several participants supplied rounded results (C6, C8, J6, B8, S6, X8, S7, D3, G4,
C2, E4, R6, X7, G2, R7). Unrounded was required by the program due to the impact
on the statistics generated. These participants need to investigate the reason for
rounding the results.
Sample A Sample B
Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded
Number 61 60 63 60
Median 155.2 160 167.8 165
N-IQR 32.3 29.7 34.8 38.9
Minimum 81.0 80 60.0 60
Maximum 252.4 250 258.1 230
Range 171.4 170 198.1 170
CV (%) 20.8 18.5 20.8 23.6
Table 3.5.7A Effect on statistics for rounded and unrounded CBR results
3.6 Indirect Influences
As mentioned previously the following aspects of testing methodology are difficult to
relate to the final CBR test result. They can be measured individually but the influence
it has on the CBR result is more difficult due to the ‘unknown interactions’ they have
on each other.
Section 4.2 identifies, by colour coding, the ‘indirect influences’ that are discussed in
this section (i.e. compaction blows, LMC, LDR etc.). Results have been flagged that
show a significant departure from the test method. If these were to be deleted and
those left (not many) are analysed statistically the variation (spread) in results remains
much the same.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 28 of 80
Sample A Sample B
Submitted Less indirect Submitted Less indirect
Number 60 43 62 42
Median 157.4 161.7 168.9 163.9
Third Quartile 136.6 137.2 150.0 153.6
First Quartile 180.2 179.3 197.5 192.7
IQR 43.6 42.2 47.5 39.0
N-IQR 32.3 31.2 35.2 28.9
Minimum 81.0 100.6 60.0 108.5
Maximum 252.4 222.7 258.1 232.8
Range 171.4 122.1 198.1 124.3
CV (%) 20.5 19.3 20.8 17.7
Table 3.6 Effect on statistics for submitted CBR results and those less indirect
There is some change to the overall spread of results by deleting suspect results but
by no means large, due to the accuracy of results themselves, making the outcome
less assured.
It is clear however that more accurate measurement of these aspects of the test in
conjunction with better definition within the test method would assist with improving
the overall accuracy of the test.
3.6.1 Pre-compaction curing
There were a range of curing times used by participants. The majority used 48 hours and above. The curing times specified by the test method are minimums. More curing is better than less.
Participants (Z6, S6, X8, X6) used curing times of less than 24 hours. These curing
times are at odds with the rest of the participants and should be reviewed.
The process to be used when curing material does not appear to be documented.
Thus, there is a strong probability that many laboratories use quite different
approaches, some being more effective than others.
Samples need to be in sealed containers and the material broken up and mixed
regularly during curing. Water should be added as a mist to the largest surface area
possible. Condensation on the container side and lid needs to be monitored. Regular
mixing should avoid material on the bottom being wetter than the rest of the material.
3.6.2 CBR compaction
The proficiency program required participants to perform the CBR compaction using the OMC and MDD values provided and 100 % standard compaction.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 29 of 80
Test methods relating to compaction are very specific about the energy input into the process. This is largely governed by the spread of hammer blows and the number of blows used. The revised CBR method now stipulates the pattern to be used when compacting the CBR mould. The test method however does not specifically require the number of blows delivered to be recorded. As it is an important part of the test it should be recorded. It is expected that by compacting a calculated amount of material to a set height that the desired density will be achieved. The blows will vary depending on the material type and moisture. Depending on how this is done a variation in the number of blows per layer is the typical outcome. However, between layers these should remain reasonably close. For determination of OMC/MDD using standard compaction 25 blows per layer is used. To achieve the same energy input around 53 blows is required for the larger CBR mould. More or less blows than 53 may be needed for a variety of reasons.
Inaccuracy of the OMC and MDD initially
Blows not delivered in a regular pattern
Nature of the material may cause it to move around the mould excessively
Material added is higher or lower than the prescribed layer depth The blows delivered provides an insight into whether any of the above issues may have had an effect. Relying on the dry density calculated is useful but it is a calculated value and dependant largely on how representative and accurate was the moisture determination. How much variation is reasonable. This is at present unknown but for this program a variation of 40 to 60 has been used with a variation between layers of 5 blows. The following participants shown in table 3.6.2A do not meet this criterion. Most shown did so for both sample A and B except for those underlined.
Sample A Sample B
< 40 Blows per layer > 60 blows per layer < 40 Blows per layer > 60 blows per layer
W8, S7 D8, C6, K8, J6, F2,
X6, N3, N9, K4 W8, S7
D8, C6, K8, J6, F2, X6, J8, N3, N9, X3,
K4, M3
Table 3.6.2A Participants with high or low number of compaction blows.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 30 of 80
The bulk of participants, outside the limits set, used more than 60 blows per layer. It may not affect the dry density obtained but there is concern that it may have an effect such as;
orienting the soil particles,
segregation of particles
causing fissures,
breaking up of particles
uneven compaction, all of which could influence the CBR without affecting the dry density value achieved. CBR results may be higher or lower depending on the influence. As far as is known these issues have not been investigated in recent times. There is also the possibility that these results do not belong to the general population of test results for this program. If a modified compaction hammer was used, then the number of blows needed for equivalent energy using 3 layers is approximately 20 blows. Two participants (N4, T8) used modified compaction over 3 layers (instead of 5). Two others (E5, X7) indicated standard compaction but used blows consistent with modified compaction. As the results, do not comply with the test method or proficiency testing program requirements the results obtained do not belong to the general population of test results. 3.6.3 OMC & MDD
Different determinations of OMC & MDD by different laboratories will give rise to a
spread of results (Variation). To limit the effect of this variation on the CBR testing in
this proficiency program the OMC & MDD have been predetermined. This information
was supplied to participants (See instructions Appendix A) so that all participants used
the same OMC & MDD values.
3.6.4 LDR and LMR
Calculation of LDR & LMR
Participants were requested to submit:
The sample moisture immediately prior to compaction (w1) in accordance with
clause 6(c) of the standard.
Moisture content variation (wv)
The Laboratory Moisture Ratio (LMR)
The Laboratory Density Ratio (LDR) and
Dry Density (before soaking)
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 31 of 80
These intermediate results are noted in the test method as needing to be reported or
required to determine compliance with the test method.
The reported LDR and LMR values were re-calculated using the reported moisture
from clause 6(c) and density (before soaking). It is suspected that several participants
had incorrectly reported the moisture of the sample as being that of ‘as received’.
There were several participants that had difficulty in calculating the intermediate
results detailed above. There were also many participants that did not report LNR &
LDR to the correct number of decimals or had rounded incorrectly.
The participants listed in Table 3.6.4A showed inconsistencies in the values submitted
throwing doubt on compliance with the test method and should be investigated.
Information submitted Investigate
Sample A B
Moisture (Clause 6c) X8, N4, T8 P7, N4, T8,
Variation in moisture content reported C8, X8, U3, D3, N4, T8 P7, Q7, C8, X8, U3, D3,
V3, N4, T8
LMR does not match reported moisture P7, W8, V3, Z3 W8, X8
LDR does not match reported dry density X8, Y3 Q7
Table 3.6.4A: Participants with inconsistencies in calculating LMR and LDR
Achievement of OMC & MDD
Participants were requested to compact the sample to 100 % standard compaction. A
few indicated that modified compaction was used (see section 3.6.2)
Overall most participants achieved the desired range for OMC and MDD which was a
very good outcome. Achieving the LMR and LDR is a requirement of the test method
and must be met for the results to be valid and hence reportable.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 32 of 80
OMC
± 0.5%
Moisture
Range
%
LMR Range
%
Investigate
Sample A
Investigate
Sample B
P7, W8, X8, Y3, G2 P7, W8, X8, Y3. G2
8.1 94.2
8.6
9.1 105.8
MDD
t/m3
Density
Range
t/m3
LDR Range
± 1%
Investigate
Sample A
Investigate
Sample B
X8, X3, Y3 Q7, X8
2.237 99.0
2.260
2.283 101.0
Table 3.6.4B: Participants that are outside the limits set for LMR and LDR.
Participants with results outside these limits as detailed in Table 3.6.4B. It suspected
that in many cases LMR and LDR would have been achieved had the participant
calculated them correctly.
Results outside the permitted LMR and LDR ranges would normally be rejected from
the proficiency program. Participant codes shown in bold in table 3.6.4B may not meet
the test method requirements.
3.7 Test method
Often as part of a proficiency testing programs there is a need to discuss aspects of
the test that can be identified as contributing to the overall uncertainty of the test results
produced. It does not mean the test method needs to change only that it is important
for laboratories to know which aspects of the test, if not performed well, could add to
the variability of the outcome.
The need to change the method only arises if the accuracy and variability in the test
results is not within the expected range.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 33 of 80
Aspects of the test that contribute to improving the accuracy and possibly reducing the
variability are:
Need for more sample, so test can be repeated if required
Standardised approach to curing – e.g. spray or mist, sealed container etc.
Better definition of graphing and curve fitting
Background on using graph to validate CBR result.
Use of more penetration points
Guidance on suspect data values
Better definition as to what is meant by penetration rate
Actual measured penetration rate per 1 mm to be recorded for each test
Recording the number of blows, i.e. energy input
Limits on number of blows per layer and between layers
Better definition of zero correction and line fitting
Test performed in duplicate with limit on repeatability
Need for more background guidance to reduce variability of opinion on how to perform test
Limit FSD of load cell/ring to CBR value obtained. I.e. not use a 100kN load cell for a CBR of 15.
Requirement to standardise the test using a known material that gives a CBR of 100%
Define acceptable repeatability and reproducibility for the test.
Use the average of two samples to report the average value. Results must be within repeatability value.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 34 of 80
M8 205.5 1.56 T2 87.3 -2.10 X3 122.4 -1.01
D6 143.9 -0.35 Y9 140.5 -0.45 N5 173.0 0.55
D8 165.2 0.31 A2 146.0 -0.28 Z3 199.7 1.38
P7 154.6 -0.02 X6 159.6 0.14 P6 NR
U9 204.3 1.52 A7 191.9 1.14 C4 138.9 -0.50
C6 150 -0.16 R5 136.7 -0.57 Z9 NR
T9 171.7 0.51 N8 188.8 1.04 Y3 212.1 1.76
Q7 170.7 0.48 U3 218.6 1.96 Q5 135.2 -0.62
L8 115.2 -1.24 S7 100 -1.71 T7 NR
C8 140 -0.47 Q2 NR K4 162.3 0.22
Z6 171.1 0.49 M4 155.2 0.00 V5 252.4 3.01 #
K8 111.7 -1.35 D3 180 0.77 N4 126.1 -0.90
J6 180 0.77 G4 130.0 -0.78 T8 161.1 0.18
L5 167.8 0.39 U6 NR C2 180 0.77
F2 81.0 -2.30 T5 107.6 -1.47 E4 130 -0.78
X5 222.2 2.07 V3 125.8 -0.91 M3 180.8 0.79
D9 136.4 -0.58 M7 NR R6 150 -0.16
W8 189.9 1.07 E9 NR E5 189.9 1.07
U7 103.9 -1.59 J8 150.6 -0.14 X7 170 0.46
L6 NR A3 164 0.27 S4 NR
J7 152.0 -0.10 K2 181.7 0.82 G2 140.0 -0.47
B8 200 1.39 N3 216.7 1.90 R7 140.0 -0.47
S6 130 -0.78 L7 130.7 -0.76
X8 180 0.77 N9 145.5 -0.30
Number of results 61
Median 155.2
Median MU 5.2
First Quartile 136.4
Third Quartile 180.0
IQR 43.6
Normalised IQR 32.3
CV (%) 20.8
Minimum 81.0 (81.0)
Maximum 222.2 (252.4)
Range 141.2 (171.4)
4.1 Participant's CBR results - Sample A: Z - Scores
Statistic Value
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
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 35 of 80
57
68
59
16
32
46
55
1
5
22
51
29
18
66
31
45
64
13
24
36
62
50
7
11
8
67
14
3
44
58
61
28
ReviewWeak
Consensus
Weak
ConsensusReview
Z-score
Strong Consensus
4.1 Participant's CBR results - Sample A: Z - Score Graph
V5X5U3N3Y3
M8U9B8Z3
A7W8E5N8
K2M3J6X8D3C2
N5T9Z6Q7X7L5D8A3K4T8X6M4
P7J7J8C6R6A2N9D6Y9C8G2R7C4R5D9Q5L7S6G4E4
N4V3X3
L8K8T5
U7S7
T2F2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 36 of 80
M8 195.2 0.79 T2 88.3 -2.28 X3 196.0 0.81
D6 129.1 -1.11 Y9 150.0 -0.51 N5 170.6 0.08
D8 208 1.15 A2 150.0 -0.51 Z3 186.4 0.53
P7 154.6 -0.38 X6 151.5 -0.47 P6 226.3 1.68
U9 157.4 -0.30 A7 202.0 0.98 C4 170.7 0.08
C6 140 -0.80 R5 229.7 1.78 Z9 NR
T9 171.8 0.11 N8 216.6 1.40 Y3 218.7 1.46
Q7 186.9 0.55 U3 190.1 0.64 Q5 143.8 -0.69
L8 112.0 -1.60 S7 60 -3.09 # T7 NR
C8 150 -0.51 Q2 NR K4 204.9 1.06
Z6 171.1 0.09 M4 167.8 0.00 V5 258.1 2.59
K8 131 -1.06 D3 120 -1.37 N4 157.9 -0.28
J6 220 1.50 G4 160.0 -0.22 T8 157.5 -0.30
L5 155.5 -0.35 U6 NR C2 170 0.06
F2 160.9 -0.20 T5 126.5 -1.19 E4 130 -1.08
X5 202.0 0.98 V3 126.1 -1.20 M3 198.0 0.87
D9 141.4 -0.76 M7 NR R6 160 -0.22
W8 210 1.21 E9 NR E5 151.5 -0.47
U7 213.3 1.31 J8 203.8 1.03 X7 180 0.35
L6 184.6 0.48 A3 188 0.58 S4 NR
J7 119.1 -1.40 K2 229.7 1.78 G2 140 -0.80
B8 180 0.35 N3 218.2 1.45 R7 160.0 -0.22
S6 130 -1.08 L7 160.0 -0.22
X8 150 -0.51 N9 176.2 0.24
Number of results 63
Median 167.8
Median MU 5.5
First Quartile 150.0
Third Quartile 197.0
IQR 47.0
Normalised IQR 34.8
CV (%) 20.8
Minimum 88.3 (60.0)
Maximum 258.1 (258.1)
Range 169.8 (198.1)
4.1 Participant's CBR results - Sample B: Z - Scores
Statistic Value
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
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 37 of 80
59
30
45
52
13
55
46
31
19
18
3
58
43
16
29
64
49
1
32
44
8
51
20
22
67
48
7
11
53
50
62
35
ReviewWeak
Consensus
Weak
ConsensusReview
Z-score
Strong Consensus
4.1 Participant's CBR results - Sample B: Z - Score Graph
V5R5K2P6
J6Y3N3N8U7W8D8K4J8X5A7
M3X3M8U3A3Q7Z3L6
B8X7N9T9Z6C4N5C2M4
F2G4L7R6R7N4T8U9L5P7X6E5C8X8Y9A2
Q5D9C6G2
K8S6E4D6T5V3
D3J7
L8T2
S7
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 38 of 80
Zero
Correction
Revised
CorrectionDifference CBR
Revised
CBRDifference
Combined
CBR (3)
1 M8 1.2 1.1 0.1 205.5 198.8 -6.7 198.8
2 D6 0.3 0.1 0.2 143.9 140.9 -3.0 140.9
3 D8 1.0 0.5 0.5 165.2 153.4 -11.8 153.4
4 P7 2.4 2.2 0.2 154.6 149.9 -4.7 149.9
5 U9 0.7 0.2 0.5 204.3 150.3 -54.0 150.3
6 C6 4.5 4.7 -0.2 150 163.6 13.6 163.6
7 T9 0.5 0.2 0.3 171.7 163.1 -8.6 163.1
8 Q7 0.3 0.3 0.0 170.7 172.0 1.3 172
9 L8 0.8 0.9 -0.1 115.2 116.9 1.7 116.9
10 C8 0.3 0.5 -0.2 140 144.5 4.5 144.5
11 Z6 2.0 1.7 0.3 171.1 162.4 -8.7 162.4
12 K8 0.5 1.0 -0.5 111.7 125.9 14.2 125.9
13 J6 0.6 0.6 0.0 180 180.5 0.5 180.5
14 L5 0.5 0.2 0.3 167.8 162.9 -4.9 162.9
15 F2 0.5 1.3 -0.8 81 157.4 76.4 157.4
16 X5 0.5 0.5 0.0 222.2 222.7 0.5 222.7
17 D9 0.3 0.1 0.2 136.4 133.0 -3.4 133
18 W8 1.6 1.5 0.1 189.9 190.2 0.3 190.2
19 U7 1.2 0.9 0.3 103.9 100.6 -3.3 100.6
20 L6 NR NR NR
21 J7 0.0 0.8 -0.8 152 181.1 29.1 181.1
22 B8 1.1 0.8 0.3 200 190.3 -9.7 190.3
23 S6 3.0 2.9 0.1 130 127.8 -2.2 127.8
24 X8 NR 0.6 180 168.4 -11.6 168.4
25 T2 0.0 1.1 -1.1 87.3 109.3 22.0 109.3
26 Y9 1.3 1.2 0.1 140.5 139.2 -1.3 139.2
27 A2 0.5 0.9 -0.4 146 161.7 15.7 161.7
28 X6 1.0 1.0 0.0 159.6 160.6 1.0 160.6
29 A7 0.2 0.2 0.0 191.9 190.1 -1.8 190.1
30 R5 0.4 136.7 136.7
31 N8 0.4 0.3 0.1 188.8 218.6 29.8 218.6
32 U3 1.1 1.0 0.1 218.6 216.5 -2.1 216.5
33 S7 3.8 3.7 0.1 100 96.8 -3.2 96.8
34 NR
35 M4 0.4 0.3 0.1 155.2 152.7 -2.5 152.7
36 D3 0.7 0.5 0.2 180 163.5 -16.5 163.5
37 G4 0.3 0.2 0.1 130 125.3 -4.7 125.3
38 NR
39 T5 0.6 0.4 0.2 107.6 106.6 -1.0 106.6
40 V3 1.0 0.9 0.1 125.8 NR 17.0 NR
41 M7 0.3 0.3 0.0 NR NR NR
42 E9 0.6 0.6 0.0 NR NR NR
43 J8 0.6 0.3 0.3 150.6 147.4 -3.2 147.4
44 A3 NR 0.0 164 163.3 -0.7 163.3
45 K2 1.3 1.2 0.1 181.7 177.5 -4.2 177.5
46 N3 0.5 0.5 0.0 216.7 218.2 1.5 218.2
See Note (1)
4.2 Sample A - Recalculated CBR results
Code
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 39 of 80
47 L7 NR NR
48 N9 0.4 0.3 0.1 145.5 146.3 0.8 146.3
49 X3 0.0 0.1 -0.1 122.4 124.4 2.0 124.4
50 N5 173 173
51 Z3 1.0 0.8 0.2 199.7 197.5 -2.2 197.5
52 P6 0.8 0.7 0.1 NR NR NR
53 C4 1.0 0.9 0.1 138.9 137.6 -1.3 137.6
54 NR
55 Y3 212.1 NR NR
56 Q5 1.5 1.0 0.5 135.2 125.4 -9.8 125.4
57 NR
58 K4 1.0 0.9 0.1 162.3 159 -3.3 159
59 V5 1.3 0.4 0.9 252.4 213.2 -39.2 213.2
60 N4 NR 1.9 126.1 131.1 5.0 131.1
61 T8 NR 1.4 161.1 168.1 7.0 168.1
62 C2 1.0 0.7 0.3 180 174.1 -5.9 174.1
63 E4 130 130
64 M3 0.5 0.6 -0.1 180.8 182.4 1.6 182.4
65 R6 1.8 2.0 -0.2 150 156.4 6.4 156.4
66 E5 0.5 0.4 0.1 189.9 189.5 -0.4 189.5
67 X7 1.0 0.7 0.3 170 159.8 -10.2 159.8
68 NR
69 G2 0.8 0.8 0.0 140 146.1 6.1 146.1
70 R7 0.0 0.0 0.0 140 142.2 2.2 142.2
Note (2)
60 55 58
157.4 159.8 159.4
136.6 140.1 138.0
180.2 179.0 176.7
43.6 39.0 38.7
32.3 28.9 28.7
81.0 96.8 96.8
252.4 222.7 222.7
171.4 125.9 125.9
20.5 18.1 18.0
Notes:
1
2
3
3.6.4
Compaction blows either higher or lower than expected 3.6.2
The statistics are different from section 4.1 of the report as result for 47-L7 has been omitted as it
was past the range of the load cell used. Others that exceeded the load cell range are also shaded
green.
Some results could not be recalculated. The combined CBR are these results that could not be
recalculated plus the recalculated results.
Did not meet LDR limit
Did not meet LMR limit
Flagged as needing checking
Exceeded cell capacity - these results omitted
3.6.4
3.3.3
3.5.1
Number of results
See section in report
2.1, 2.4
3.5.7
No Issues
Submitted result had been rounded
Maximum
Range
CV (%)
Median
Third Quartile
First Quartile
IQR
N-IQR
Minimum
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 40 of 80
Zero
Correction
Revised
CorrectionDifference CBR
Revised
CBRDifference
Combined
CBR (3)
1 M8 1.2 1.2 0.0 195.2 193.9 -1.3 193.9
2 D6 0.5 0.3 0.2 129.1 126.9 -2.2 126.9
3 D8 0.5 0.6 -0.1 208 211.9 3.9 211.9
4 P7 1.8 1.8 0.0 154.6 154.0 -0.6 154
5 U9 0.4 0.7 -0.3 157.4 204.1 46.7 204.1
6 C6 4.1 4.3 -0.2 140 148.9 8.9 148.9
7 T9 0.0 0.1 -0.1 171.8 177.2 5.4 177.2
8 Q7 0.1 0.1 0.0 186.9 188.9 2.0 188.9
9 L8 0.8 1.0 -0.2 112 115.7 3.7 115.7
10 C8 0.2 0.4 -0.2 150 160.2 10.2 160.2
11 Z6 1.7 1.5 0.2 171.1 162.8 -8.3 162.8
12 K8 0.0 0.5 -0.5 131 144.6 13.6 144.6
13 J6 0.9 0.8 0.1 220 215.3 -4.7 215.3
14 L5 0.7 0.4 0.3 155.5 150.2 -5.3 150.2
15 F2 0.5 1.1 -0.6 160.9 183.2 22.3 183.2
16 X5 0.6 0.5 0.1 202 200.6 -1.4 200.6
17 D9 0.4 0.5 -0.1 141.4 142.4 1.0 142.4
18 W8 1.6 1.0 0.6 210 187.8 -22.2 187.8
19 U7 0.9 0.6 0.3 213.3 203.1 -10.2 203.1
20 L6 0.5 0.8 -0.3 184.6 NR NR
21 J7 0.0 0.4 -0.4 119.1 161.7 42.6 161.7
22 B8 1.2 1.1 0.1 180 174.2 -5.8 174.2
23 S6 3.4 3.1 0.3 130 122.8 -7.2 122.8
24 X8 NR 0.8 150 148.2 -1.8 148.2
25 T2 0.0 1.0 -1.0 88.3 108.5 20.2 108.5
26 Y9 1.5 1.5 0.0 150 148.3 -1.7 148.3
27 A2 0.5 0.9 -0.4 150 161.0 11.0 161
28 X6 0.7 0.7 0.0 151.5 152.1 0.6 152.1
29 A7 0.5 0.5 0.0 202 202.3 0.3 202.3
30 R5 0.5 0.8 -0.3 229.7 231.1 1.4 231.1
31 N8 0.3 0.3 0.0 216.6 217.2 0.6 217.2
32 U3 1.1 1.0 0.1 190.1 188.1 -2.0 188.1
33 S7 0.0 0.0 0.0 60 63.7 3.7 63.7
34 NR
35 M4 0.5 0.4 0.1 167.8 165 -2.8 165
36 D3 0.4 0.2 0.2 120 115.4 -4.6 115.4
37 G4 0.4 0.4 0.0 160 160.0 0.0 160.0
38 NR
39 T5 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.5 NR NR
40 V3 0.6 0.6 0.0 126.1 NR 14.0 NR
41 M7 NR NR NR
42 E9 NR NR NR
43 J8 0.0 0.0 0.0 203.8 203.2 -0.6 203.2
44 A3 NR 0.0 188 184 -4.0 184
45 K2 0.3 0.3 0.0 229.7 232.8 3.1 232.8
46 N3 0.6 0.5 0.1 218.2 216.3 -1.9 216.3
4.2 Sample B - CBR results zero-corrected and unrounded
Code
See Note (1)
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 41 of 80
47 L7 NR NR
48 N9 0.3 0.3 0.0 176.2 175.8 -0.4 175.8
49 X3 0.6 0.6 0.0 196 196.4 0.4 196.4
50 N5 170.6 170.6
51 Z3 0.8 0.8 0.0 186.4 188.1 1.7 188.1
52 P6 0.8 0.8 0.0 226.3 224.7 -1.6 224.7
53 C4 0.8 0.8 0.0 170.7 176.2 5.5 176.2
54 NR
55 Y3 0.9 0.9 0.0 218.7 221.3 2.6 221.3
56 Q5 0.9 0.5 0.4 143.8 137.0 -6.8 137.0
57 NR
58 K4 0.9 0.6 0.3 204.9 205.3 0.4 205.3
59 V5 1.5 0.5 1.0 258.1 217.8 -40.3 217.8
60 N4 NR 1.7 157.9 158.6 0.7 158.6
61 T8 NR 1.8 157.5 156.7 -0.8 156.7
62 C2 1.2 0.8 0.4 170 157.0 -13.0 157.0
63 E4 130 130
64 M3 0.7 0.7 0.0 198 197.9 -0.1 197.9
65 R6 1.4 1.4 0.0 160 159.9 -0.1 159.9
66 E5 1.3 1.3 0.0 151.5 152.6 1.1 152.6
67 X7 1.3 1.3 0.0 180 175.1 -4.9 175.1
68 NR
69 G2 0.8 0.8 0.0 140 136 -4.0 136
70 R7 0.4 0.3 0.1 160 157.9 -2.1 157.9
Note (2)
62 57 59
168.9 174.2 170.6
150.0 152.1 151.2
197.5 200.6 199.3
47.5 48.5 48.1
35.2 36.0 35.7
60.0 63.7 63.7
258.1 232.8 232.8
198.1 169.1 169.1
20.8 20.6 20.9
Notes:
1
2
3
Compaction blows either higher or lower than expected 3.6.2
Did not meet LMR limit 3.6.4
Flagged as needing checking 3.3.3
Exceeded cell capacity - these results omitted 3.5.1
See section in report
No Issues 2.1, 2.4
Did not meet LDR limit 3.6.4
N-IQR
Minimum
Maximum
Range
CV (%)
Number of results
The statistics are different from section 4.1 of the report as result for 47-L7 has been omitted as it
was past the range of the load cell used. Others that exceeded the load cell range are also shaded
green.
Some results could not be recalculated. The combined CBR are these results that could not be
recalculated plus the recalculated results.
Median
Submitted result had been rounded 3.5.7
Third Quartile
First Quartile
IQR
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 42 of 80
1 M8 206 195 1.4 -0.67 36 D3 180 120 -0.38 -2.76
2 D6 144 129 -0.85 -0.86 37 G4 130 160 -0.55 1.02
3 D8 165 208 0.90 1.56 38 U6
4 P7 155 155 -0.22 -0.24 39 T5 108 127 -1.53 0.55
5 U9 204 157 0.70 -2.21 40 V3 126 126 -1.22 -0.23
6 C6 150 140 -0.55 -0.66 41 M7
7 T9 172 172 0.38 -0.24 42 E9
8 Q7 171 187 0.63 0.44 43 J8 151 204 0.57 2.00
9 L8 115 112 -1.65 -0.37 44 A3 164 188 0.53 0.77
11 Z6 171 171 0.36 -0.24 46 N3 217 218 1.98 -0.18
12 K8 112 131 -1.38 0.57 47 L7 131 160 -0.54 0.99
13 J6 180 220 1.37 1.44 48 N9 146 176 0.00 1.05
14 L5 168 156 0.03 -0.76 49 X3 122 196 -0.06 2.85
15 F2 81 161 -1.39 3.12 # 50 N5 173 171 0.38 -0.34
16 X5 222 202 1.79 -1.09 51 Z3 200 186 1.13 -0.80
17 D9 136 141 -0.77 -0.03 52 P6
19 U7 104 213 -0.08 4.36 # 54 Z9
20 L6 55 Y3 212 219 1.91 0.04
21 J7 152 119 -0.88 -1.62 56 Q5 135 144 -0.75 0.12
22 B8 200 180 1.02 -1.08 57 T7
23 S6 130 130 -1.08 -0.24 58 K4 162 205 0.80 1.55
24 X8 180 150 0.15 -1.50 59 V5 252 258 3.30 # 0.00
25 T2 87 88 -2.55 -0.20 60 N4 126 158 -0.66 1.10
26 Y9 141 150 -0.55 0.16 61 T8 161 158 -0.05 -0.39
27 A2 146 150 -0.45 -0.07 62 C2 180 170 0.49 -0.66
28 X6 160 152 -0.19 -0.58 63 E4 130 130 -1.08 -0.24
29 A7 192 202 1.26 0.18 64 M3 181 198 1.00 0.48
30 R5 137 230 0.78 3.67 # 65 R6 150 160 -0.20 0.18
31 N8 189 217 1.46 0.93 66 E5 190 152 0.34 -1.85
32 U3 219 190 1.52 -1.44 67 X7 170 180 0.49 0.18
33 S7 100 60 -2.83 -1.92 68 S4
34 Q2 69 G2 140 140 -0.73 -0.24
35 M4 155 168 0.02 0.29 70 R7 140 160 -0.38 0.60
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. Results where only one value
was submitted have been left out. The results column shows a blank entry for those participants that did not perform this test. Minimum, Maximum and Range are
calculated with outliers excluded.
WithinSample A Sample B
Between Within
Laboratories Laboratory Laboratories Laboratory
4.3 CBR - Repeatability: Z - Scores
Code
Test Results (%) Z Score
Code
Test Results (%) Z Score
Sample A Sample BBetween
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 43 of 80
Statistic Sample A Sample B
Number of results 61 61
Median 155 161
First Quartile 136 150
Third Quartile 180 196
IQR 43.6 46.0
Normalised IQR 32.3 34.1
CV (%) 20.8 21.2
Minimum 81 60
Maximum 222 258
Range 141 198
4.3 CBR - Repeatability: Z - Scores
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 44 of 80
M8 205.5 3.41 # T2 87.3 -4.60 # X3 122.4 -2.22
D6 143.9 -0.77 Y9 140.5 -1.00 N5 173.0 1.21
D8 165.2 0.68 A2 146.0 -0.62 Z3 199.7 3.02 #
P7 154.6 -0.04 X6 159.6 0.30 P6 NR
U9 204.3 3.33 # A7 191.9 2.49 C4 138.9 -1.11
C6 150 -0.35 R5 136.7 -1.25 Z9 NR
T9 171.7 1.12 N8 188.8 2.28 Y3 212.1 3.86 #
Q7 170.7 1.05 U3 218.6 4.30 # Q5 135.2 -1.36
L8 115.2 -2.71 S7 100 -3.74 # T7 NR
C8 140 -1.03 Q2 NR K4 162.3 0.48
Z6 171.1 1.08 M4 155.2 0.00 V5 252.4 6.59 #
K8 111.7 -2.95 D3 180 1.68 N4 126.1 -1.97
J6 180 1.68 G4 130.0 -1.71 T8 161.1 0.40
L5 167.8 0.85 U6 NR C2 180 1.68
F2 81.0 -5.03 # T5 107.6 -3.23 # E4 130 -1.71
X5 222.2 4.54 # V3 125.8 -1.99 M3 180.8 1.74
D9 136.4 -1.27 M7 NR R6 150 -0.35
W8 189.9 2.35 E9 NR E5 189.9 2.35
U7 103.9 -3.48 # J8 150.6 -0.31 X7 170 1.00
L6 NR A3 164 0.60 S4 NR
J7 152.0 -0.22 K2 181.7 1.80 G2 140.0 -1.03
B8 200 3.04 # N3 216.7 4.17 # R7 140.0 -1.03
S6 130 -1.71 L7 130.7 -1.66
X8 180 1.68 N9 145.5 -0.66
Number of results 61
Median 155.2
Median MU 2.4
First Quartile 136.4
Third Quartile 180.0
IQR 43.6
Set SD 14.8
CV (%) 9.5
Minimum 111.7 (81.0)
Maximum 191.9 (252.4)
Range 80.2 (171.4)
4.4 CBR - Sample A - Set SD: Z - Scores
Statistic Value
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
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 45 of 80
M8 195.2 1.72 T2 88.3 -4.99 # X3 196.0 1.77
D6 129.1 -2.43 Y9 150.0 -1.12 N5 170.6 0.18
D8 208 2.52 A2 150.0 -1.12 Z3 186.4 1.17
P7 154.6 -0.83 X6 151.5 -1.02 P6 226.3 3.67 #
U9 157.4 -0.65 A7 202.0 2.15 C4 170.7 0.18
C6 140 -1.74 R5 229.7 3.88 # Z9 NR
T9 171.8 0.25 N8 216.6 3.06 # Y3 218.7 3.19 #
Q7 186.9 1.20 U3 190.1 1.40 Q5 143.8 -1.51
L8 112.0 -3.50 # S7 60 -6.76 # T7 NR
C8 150 -1.12 Q2 NR K4 204.9 2.33
Z6 171.1 0.21 M4 167.8 0.00 V5 258.1 5.66 #
K8 131 -2.31 D3 120 -3.00 N4 157.9 -0.62
J6 220 3.27 # G4 160.0 -0.49 T8 157.5 -0.65
L5 155.5 -0.77 U6 NR C2 170 0.14
F2 160.9 -0.43 T5 126.5 -2.59 E4 130 -2.37
X5 202.0 2.15 V3 126.1 -2.62 M3 198.0 1.89
D9 141.4 -1.66 M7 NR R6 160 -0.49
W8 210 2.65 E9 NR E5 151.5 -1.02
U7 213.3 2.85 J8 203.8 2.26 X7 180 0.77
L6 184.6 1.05 A3 188 1.27 S4 NR
J7 119.1 -3.06 # K2 229.7 3.88 # G2 140 -1.74
B8 180 0.77 N3 218.2 3.16 # R7 160.0 -0.49
S6 130 -2.37 L7 160.0 -0.49
X8 150 -1.12 N9 176.2 0.53
Number of results 63
Median 167.8
Median MU 2.5
First Quartile 150.0
Third Quartile 197.0
IQR 47.0
15.9
CV (%) 9.5
Minimum 120.0 (60.0)
Maximum 213.3 (258.1)
Range 93.3 (198.1)
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
4.4 CBR - Sample B - Set SD: Z - Scores
Statistic Value
Set SD
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 46 of 80
5. Program information 5.1 Z score Summary The proficiency program was conducted in September/October 2016. A ‘Z-score Summary’ summary was issued on the 12 December 2016. A copy was e-mailed to all participants who submitted results. The summary is intended as an early indicator of participant performance. This program report supersedes the z - score summary. Further information can be found in section 5.9 ‘Statistics’. The z-scores generally do not vary significantly between the “summary” and the “Final Report”. Following review of the submitted results several results were rejected but it did not significantly affect the statistics. 5.2. Program Design 5.2.1 Design
This program is one of a series of CBR programs conducted by LabSmart Services over the last ten years. Proficiency testing programs have shown that the CBR test produces a wide variation in results. Part of the design of each program involves asking for the right information. The correct analysis of the data collected then allows feedback to be offered to enable participants to improve in the performance of this test. 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. 5.2.2 Selection of material for the program
The test in this proficiency program is operator skill/experience dependant. Different materials are selected for each program to mirror the range of materials encountered in practice and hence the results obtained. This program provides a sample that gives results in the range that would be commonly tested by laboratories. The higher the CBR value the greater the variation encountered. Although a lower CBR material was desirable preliminary testing can be misleading as shown by the program outcome. For this material CBR results varying from 80 to 250% were possible. Comments under “Comparing Statistics” should be considered. 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.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 47 of 80
5.2.3 OMC & MDD
The determination of OMC and MDD is usually an initial stage undertaken prior to performing a CBR test. The determination of these two parameters can show a significant variation. In turn having an impact on the variation obtained for CBR results. The intention of the program is to minimise the influence on the CBR results that could arise from laboratories determining these values in-house and reduce the likelihood of different OMC and MDD values being applied. To assist in reducing this variation, participants were requested to use 100% standard compaction and use:
OMC = 8.6%
MDD = 2.260 t/m3. Although this has been the approach to try and minimise variation other aspect may still contribute to the variation observed. OMC/MDD values may vary from person to person but this may not be so important if the same person determines OMC/MDD and CBR. That is a low compaction on the OMC/MDD should give the same compaction on the CBR. Overall it is still considered that a set OMC/MDD will contribute the least variation. 5.2.4 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 next most useful tool a laboratory has in better understanding the performance of a test. 5.2.5 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.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 48 of 80
2.2.6 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 and test method accuracy 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 10 % means that any number between 45 and 55 will become 50%. If the largest value is 45 in a set of results it is pushed out to 50 through rounding. Rounded results may better reflect the repeatability and reproducibility of the test according to the rounding in the test method but are not as useful when considering laboratory performance. 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. 2.2.7 Additional information requested
This program requested additional information as detailed in Section 6 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.
5.3. Sample preparation Sufficient material of a homogeneous appearance was obtained for the proficiency program. The lot was partially dried then mixed to ensure, as far as possible, a homogeneous material throughout. The material was sampled and placed into numbered plastic bags. Ten samples were drawn at regular intervals from the lot for homogeneity testing. Each participant received a randomly drawn sample from the remaining samples. A unique program code was assigned to each sample.
5.4. Packaging and instructions Each plastic bag was sealed with a rubber band and placed into a sturdy box. Each participant received one box with a sealed sample labelled ‘2016 (67) CBR Sample’.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 49 of 80
The sample weighed approximately 14.8 kg. Instructions and a ‘results log’ sheet were enclosed (See Appendix A & B). Participants were instructed to test according to the nominated test method and report to the accuracy indicated on the ‘Results Log’.
5.5. Quarantine There were three samples that required additional preparation to meet WA quarantine requirements.
5.6. Sample despatch Samples were dispatched to participants between the 13 & 16 September 2016 via courier. Dispatched samples were tracked from ‘despatch to delivery’ for each participant.
5.7. Homogeneity testing Homogeneity samples were selected, evenly spaced, from the prepared participant samples. Samples for homogeneity testing were packed in the same way as those for all participants. The homogeneity samples were tested by an independent NATA accredited laboratory. To approximate the same conditions the same instructions were given to the laboratory performing the homogeneity testing. Ten samples were tested for homogeneity. The wide variation in results that arise from CBR testing can also occur with homogeneity testing particularly at high CBRs. One of the ten samples (H3) was very low and rejected on a statistical level. The result may have been affected by the soaking process. The overall variability associated with the homogeneity samples was considered satisfactory. The average of the homogeneity samples also lies within 1 s.d of the participant’s median value. This provides confidence that any outliers identified in the program represent statistically valid outliers. A statistical analysis of the homogeneity testing results is provided in table 5.7A.
5.8. Participation Seventy participants from around Australia entered the program. Sixty-five participants returned results. Participants were requested to return results by 12 October 2016.
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.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 50 of 80
The use of median and quartiles reduces the effect that outliers have on the statistics and other influences. Therefore, z-scores provide a more realistic or robust method of assessment.
Code
Bearing Ratio
CBR Rounded
CBR 2.5 mm 5.0 mm
% %
H1 101.7 136.0 136.0 140
H2 108.2 145.1 145.1 150
H3 R R
H4 112.4 150.6 150.6 150
H5 95.9 123.9 123.9 120
H6 101.1 135.8 135.8 140
H7 104.9 138.2 138.2 140
H8 101.8 137.7 137.7 140
H9 99.1 131.6 131.6 130
H10 94.1 122.3 122.3 120
Mean 102.1 135.7 135.7 137
Standard Deviation 5.7 9.1 9.1 11
Range 30.6 46.4 46.4 50
Coefficient of Variation (%) 5.6 6.7 6.7 8
Table 5.7A Homogeneity results
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. Assessment of participant’s data is undertaken to ensure data is statistically comparable. Checks are undertaken to ensure the data calculated matches that reported by the participant and that the appropriate corrections etc. have been applied if required. The level of checking required varies from program to program. If inconsistencies are identified the data may be removed or amended with the discrepancy highlighted.
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 are an approximate of the standard deviation. For each test a z-score graph is shown. Use the graph to visually check statistically how you compare to other participants.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 51 of 80
The following bar (Figure 5.9A) is shown at the bottom of each graph. This helps to quickly visualize where each participant’s results falls.
Review Weak
Consensus Strong Consensus
Weak Consensus
Review
Figure 5.9A 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. Participant assessment is not based purely on statistical analysis. Compliance to proficiency program requirements including the correct calculation of results and adherence to program 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. 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 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.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 52 of 80
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.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 53 of 80
This page has been left blank intentionally for formatting purposes.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 54 of 80
Code M8 D6 D8 P7 U9 C6 T9
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.5 8.4 8.7 5.9 8.5 8.5 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.1 -0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M A M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 43/38/46 53/55/57 100/100/100 53/53/53 NR 119/116/112 50/50/50
Dry Density g/cm3 2.259 2.257 2.258 2.254 2.281 2.262 2.261
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 100.9 100.1 100.1
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 98.8 97.7 100.7 100.0 98.8 98.8 99.0
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 174.7 121.2 131.8 117.5 157.3 120 166.7
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 205.5 143.9 165.2 154.6 204.3 150 171.7
CBR (%) 205.5 143.9 165.2 154.6 204.3 150 171.7
Correction (mm) 1.2 0.3 1.0 2.4 0.7 4.5 0.5
Swell (%) -0.1 -0.1 0 -0.5 0.0 -0.3 -0.2
Moisture ww 9.2 NR 9.8 9.3 8.7 10.7 8.9
Moisture w30 8.6 8.9 9.3 9.0 8.9 8.3 8.6
Moisture wr 8.4 8.3 NR 8.7 7.5 8.5 8.2
Date last calibrated 4/04/16 30/03/16 April 2016 8/06/16 2/07/15 26/11/15 30/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50,000N 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-100kN 0.01-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) C NR A C AA/A A AA
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.00mm/min 1.02mm/min 1mm/min 1.09mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 23N 250N 0.044kN 250N 4.5kg 0.240kN 35N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48+ 48 48 49 72 72
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C C NR C C
Condition of material Moist Good Dry Dry Good Good Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N kN kN kN kN kN
0 0 0 0.469 0 0.000 0.02 0
0.5 167 1573 2.387 0.047 1.4240 0.05 1.191
1 960 5321 4.159 0.226 4.0609 0.06 5.485
1.5 3870 8562 6.232 0.694 7.4279 0.09 12.338
2 8548 11666 8.817 1.678 10.9349 0.20 15.821
2.5 12910 14455 11.504 3.199 14.1340 0.33 18.771
3 17772 17298 14.646 5.199 17.466 0.45 21.626
3.5 21686 19827 17.882 7.865 20 0.84 24.111
4 25663 22339 21.002 10.940 23.4102 1.56 26.660
4.5 29011 24900 24.209 13.392 26 2.74 29.111
5 32766 27491 27.131 16.323 28.9849 4.38 31.424
6 39611 32643 33.150 22.563 33 9.50 36.104
7.5 48601 39682 40.649 31.091 41.3022 19.02 43.006
8 NR 42098 42.999 34.025 43 22.09 NR
10 NR NR 48.961 45.227 52.3948 33.39 NR10.512.5 NR NR NR NR 63.4330 47.04 NR
Code M8 D6 D8 P7 U9 C6 T9
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
D8 , Values provided above do not correspond to
penetration values shown here.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 55 of 80
Code Q7 L8 C8 Z6 K8 J6 L5
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.8 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.3
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.2 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/60 53/53/53 80/100/80 65/65/68 56
Dry Density g/cm3 2.283 2.256 2.261 2.266 2.263 2.266 2.265
Density Ratio (LDR) % 101.0 99.8 100.1 100.2 100.1 100.2 100.2
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 102.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.6 96.5
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 131.8 84.4 100 132.1 73.8 140 153.2
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 170.7 115.2 140 171.1 111.7 180 167.8
CBR (%) 170.7 115.2 140 171.1 111.7 180 167.8
Correction (mm) 0.3 0.82 0.291 2.0 0.5 0.6 0.5
Swell (%) 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.3 -0.4 0.0 -0.1
Moisture ww 8.6 8.4 8.6 9.0 8.6 NR 9.4
Moisture w30 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.7
Moisture wr 8.6 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.8
Date last calibrated 7/12/15 14/07/15 7/10/16 29/10/14 18/09/15 6/05/16 22/05/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.2-40kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A AA A/B/C A A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M H M H
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 246N 0.105 256 45N 0.25kN 250N 250kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 240 72 59 12 144 74 72
Graph computer or hand (C/H) H C C C NR C C
Condition of material Dry Good Moist Acceptable Good Sealed Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) N kN kN N kN kN N
0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.00 0.000
0.5 2096 0.561 1.28 221 1.0 1.62 1366
1 4895 1.557 3.40 819 2.32 3.97 4740
1.5 8290 3.179 6.50 2209 3.74 6.74 9342
2 11780 5.262 8.76 4314 5.55 10.30 13614
2.5 15320 7.456 11.20 6608 7.54 13.93 17304
3 18755 9.674 14.08 9200 9.74 17.52 20316
3.5 22235 12.058 17.00 11790 12.21 21.11 23040
4 25623 14.595 20.08 14624 14.76 24.53 25768
4.5 28975 17.062 23.20 17496 17.20 28.02 28660
5 32004 19.315 25.49 20810 19.62 31.53 31090
6 37850 23.549 31.40 27558 24.64 38.54 35550
7.5 46222 29.720 39.11 36998 32.12 47.79 42042
8 48970 31.503 41.65 40008 34.55 50.65 43708
10 NR 38.504 50.88 51412 NR NR NR10.512.5 NR 46.058 NR 62009 NR NR NR
Code Q7 L8 C8 Z6 K8 J6 L5
Number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 56 of 80
Code F2 X5 D9 W8 U7 L6 J7
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.7 8.4 8.4 6.4 8.7 8.4 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.2 -0.1 0.2 0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 66/67/64 53/55/56 40/40/40 30/28/31 NR 53 52/52/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.259 2.275 2.260 2.2598 2.246 2.262 2.259
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.7 99.9 100.0 99.4 100.0 100.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 101.2 97.7 98 100.0 101.2 97.7 98.6
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 81.0 181.8 121.2 147.2 90.4 180.4 93.5
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 130.9 222.2 136.4 189.9 103.9 NR 152.0
CBR (%) 81.0 222.2 136.4 189.9 103.9 NR 152.0
Correction (mm) 0.50 0.5 0.3 1.6 1.2 0.5 0
Swell (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1
Moisture ww 9.5 9.3 9.3 8.5 9.7 8.4 9.3
Moisture w30 9.3 8.7 8.6 8.7 9.0 8.6 8.9
Moisture wr 8.5 8.3 8.3 NR 8.4 9.7 8.2
Date last calibrated 22/12/15 11/10/14 9/10/15 27/04/16 16/05/16 22/07/15 May 2016
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0.001-50kN 0-40kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A/B A A A/B/C A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 0.99mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 45N 0.25kN 0.25kN 20N 250N 0.250 NR
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 70.5 148 48 96 48 48 56
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C C C C C
Condition of material Moist Good Good Sealed Good Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N N N kN N kN
0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.0 0
0.5 305 1280 1450 149 0.594 1862 0.748
1 1206 4480 4260 828 1.356 5588 2.357
1.5 2924 9180 7840 2138 2.513 10322 5.022
2 5163 14060 11290 4488 4.095 15240 8.625
2.5 7809 19240 14190 7334 6.189 19680 12.347
3 10689 23540 16910 11068 8.645 23810 15.981
3.5 13712 27650 NR 14880 10.928 27590 19.495
4 16646 32330 21400 22567 13.082 31140 23.022
4.5 19648 35980 NR 26420 15.014 34480 26.663
5 22693 39780 25760 30282 16.830 37530 30.095
6 29237 48800 NR 33680 19.947 NR 36.397
7.5 38597 NR 34010 43645 24.380 NR 45.328
8 41319 NR NR NR 25.746 NR 48.038
10 NR NR 41360 58025 31.394 NR 58.72510.512.5 NR NR 47120 NR 38.857 NR NR
Code F2 X5 D9 W8 U7 L6 J7
Number 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 57 of 80
Code B8 S6 X8 T2 Y9 A2 X6
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.5 8.5 6.0 8.63 8.6 8.4 8.4
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) -0.1 0.1 NR 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 55/44/44 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 44/55/60 80/75/75
Dry Density g/cm3 2.262 2.272 2.215 2.259 2.258 2.257 2.263
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.1 100.5 98 100.0 100.0 100 100.1
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 98.8 98.8 100 100.0 100.0 97.7 97.7
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 160 100 NR 48.9 109.5 108.0 116.3
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 200 130 180 87.3 140.5 146.0 159.6
CBR (%) 200 130 180 87.3 140.5 146.0 159.6
Correction (mm) 1.097 3.052 NR 0.0 1.3 0.5 1.00
Swell (%) 0.0 0.0 -2.5 0.0 -0.5 0.0 NR
Moisture ww 9.1 8.3 NR 108.8 8.7 9.7 8.5
Moisture w30 8.9 8.9 NR 100.9 8.6 9.1 8.5
Moisture wr 8.5 8.2 NR 98.3 8.1 8.6 8.5
Date last calibrated May 2015 3/06/16 25/05/15 6/01/15 1/03/15 June 2015 23/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50,000N 0-50kN 0.045-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C R C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) NR AA/B A A A/B/C A A/B
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.89 1.06 1 1.00mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.00mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.05kN 21 0.25kN 45 0 0.045 0
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N N N Y N Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 72 24 24 144 50 72 4
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C C C H H
Condition of material OK Damp Damp Good Good Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN N kN kN N
0 0.05 0.21 0.25 45 0.0 NR 0
0.5 0.78 0.68 1.34 194 0.19 0.390 660
1 2.68 1.40 3.36 731 0.98 1.600 1890
1.5 5.48 2.30 6.09 2000 2.45 3.800 3810
2 8.81 3.29 9.14 3980 4.69 7.150 6280
2.5 12.38 4.41 12.42 6460 7.16 10.600 9090
3 16.40 5.60 15.79 8780 9.95 14.400 12200
3.5 20.68 6.83 19.37 11180 12.63 17.500 15350
4 24.72 8.08 22.91 13320 15.52 20.700 18600
4.5 28.43 9.36 26.36 15390 18.40 23.800 22000
5 32.11 10.63 29.70 17280 21.22 26.500 25260
6 38.87 16.30 35.88 20870 26.27 32.250 31600
7.5 49.64 23.56 43.94 26670 33.40 40.000 40150
8 NR 26.18 46.69 28690 NR 42.300 42900
10 NR 35.61 NR 37240 43.95 NR 5300010.5 -76.1912.5 NR 44.40 NR 47890 NR NR 62800
Code B8 S6 X8 T2 Y9 A2 X6
Number 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 58 of 80
Code A7 R5 N8 U3 S7 Q2 M4
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.6
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.2 0.4 0.3 NR 0.3 0.0
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 50/50/50 41/42/44 56/56/57 53/53/53 25/39/30 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.260 2.270 2.265 2.259 2.264 2.260
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.3 100.2 99.9 100.2 100.1
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 95.3 96.5 97.7 96.1 99.9
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 155.3 94.9 153.6 176.0 80 124.2
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 191.9 136.7 188.8 218.6 100 155.2
CBR (%) 191.9 136.7 188.8 218.6 100 155.2
Correction (mm) 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.1 3.8 0.4
Swell (%) 0.1 0.0 -0.06 0.17 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww NR 9.0 9.3 8.8 9.5 NR
Moisture w30 7.8 8.9 8.8 9.6 9.0 8.9
Moisture wr NR 8.1 8.3 8.8 9.2 8.5
Date last calibrated 18/08/16 18/11/15 9/02/15 11/10/16 3/03/15 4/03/15
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.2-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A/B A AA A/B/C A A/B/C
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.25kN 50N 45N 0.04 0.1kN 0.050kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y N Y N Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48 48 48 50 48
Graph computer or hand (C/H) H H C C C C
Condition of material Good Moist Suitable Good Moist NR
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN kN kN kN N N
0 0.0 0.0 0 NR 0 0.000
0.5 1.79 0.64 1.133 0.39 164 2211
1 5.73 2.31 4.709 1.59 379 4432
1.5 10.22 4.97 9.386 4.24 585 7263
2 15.05 8.19 13.372 8.43 867 10475
2.5 19.02 11.35 17.275 13.16 1285 13899
3 22.78 14.69 20.959 17.89 1947 17023
3.5 26.42 17.50 24.480 22.32 2588 20236
4 29.78 20.30 27.827 26.53 3297 23189
4.5 33.69 23.40 31.238 31.12 4192 26083
5 36.06 26.07 34.725 35.04 5400 28717
6 42.00 31.62 41.047 42.68 8974 34099
7.5 50.00 39.06 49.787 NR 14795 42563
8 NR 41.55 NR NR 16679 45444
10 NR 49.96 NR NR 24062 NR10.512.5 NR NR NR NR 32034 NR
Code A7 R5 N8 U3 S7 Q2 M4
Number 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator. Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 59 of 80
Code D3 G4 U6 T5 V3 M7 E9
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 100.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 53/53/53 50 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/48
Dry Density g/cm3 2.260 2.260 2.261 2.259 2.264 2.261
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.2 100.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100 100.0 98.8 100.0 98.8 97.7
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) NR 100.0 94.7 114.1 135.2 164.7
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 180 130.0 107.6 125.8 NR NR
CBR (%) 180 130.0 107.6 125.8 NR NR
Correction (mm) 0.7 0.3 0.55 1.00 0.33 0.6
Swell (%) 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Moisture ww 9.6 9.4 NR NR NR 8.4
Moisture w30 9.0 8.9 9.3 8.8 9.0 8.5
Moisture wr 8.6 8.3 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.4
Date last calibrated 3/08/2016 19/11/15 3/06/16 10/06/16 3/06/16 20/07/16
Calibrated range (kN) 100kN 0-50kN 0.2.-250kN 0-250kN 0.2-250kN 0-25kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A AA A/AA C-AA A/AA AA
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 0.99mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 250N 0.250 250N 200N 250N 40N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48-50 48 72 72 72 50
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR C C C C
Condition of material Dry Sealed Moist Moist Moist Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N kN kN kN kN kN
0 9.93 0 -0.001 -0.001 0.000 0.009
0.5 1205.4 1.278 0.902 0.363 1.528 0.748
1 4224.3 3.914 2.325 1.488 4.938 3.661
1.5 10261.2 6.670 4.826 3.490 8.696 8.160
2 16659.6 9.279 7.564 6.229 10.687 12.802
2.5 20671.7 11.961 10.028 9.151 15.683 17.149
3 23238.1 14.423 12.318 12.091 19.096 21.071
3.5 25282.6 16.758 14.341 15.066 22.356 24.742
4 27012.1 19.188 16.190 17.913 25.091 24.377
4.5 28671.4 21.507 18.005 20.574 NR NR
5 30224.9 23.766 19.539 23.297 NR NR
6 33071.4 28.685 22.779 NR NR NR
7.5 36851.2 35.890 25.041 NR NR NR
8 38400.9 38.294 NR NR NR NR
10 43781.6 47.804 NR NR NR NR10.5 NR NR12.5 50200.1 NR NR NR NR NR
Code D3 G4 U6 T5 V3 M7 E9
Number 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator. Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 60 of 80
Code J8 A3 K2 N3 L7 N9 X3
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) -0.4 -0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0
Compaction (Manual or Auto) A A A A A A A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 60/60/60 53 53/53/53 73/73/73 53/53/53 70/70/70 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.239 2.260 2.259 2.260 2.256 2.257 2.209
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.1 100 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9 97.7
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 95.3 97 97.7 97.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 133.8 148 156.9 184.1 151.3 134.7 104.3
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 150.6 164 181.7 216.7 130.7 145.5 122.4
CBR (%) 150.6 164 181.7 216.7 130.7 145.5 122.4
Correction (mm) 0.61 NR 1.28 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0
Swell (%) -0.1 0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww NR NR 8.7 8.6 NR 9.0 6.9
Moisture w30 8.7 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.6 9.1 9.2
Moisture wr 9.0 8.2 NR NR 9.0 8.7 NR
Date last calibrated 19/09/16 19/09/16 1/04/16 14/03/16 8/08/16 10/08/16 19/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-25kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A B A/B/C A A/AA A/AA/B/C
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.99mm/min 0.99mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 0.98mm/min 0.94mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 4.5KG 4.5 50kN 50 200 197N 0.044kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48 48 49 54 160 90
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C H C C C
Condition of material Moist Moist Good Moist OK Moist Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN N kN N kN
0 0.00 NR 0.005 0 -0.004 NR -0.001
0.5 1.006 4582 0.088 1130 2.426 1612 2.646
1 3.060 8743 0.676 5200 6.254 5338 5.464
1.5 6.177 12780 2.679 10100 10.235 9350 8.275
2 9.827 16278 6.458 15100 13.879 12831 11.135
2.5 13.511 19504 10.850 19900 17.651 15863 13.690
3 16.992 22543 15.158 24300 21.027 18622 16.100
3.5 20.143 25312 18.941 28380 24.028 21156 18.217
4 22.962 27729 22.317 32200 25.886 23309 20.469
4.5 25.207 29925 25.528 35650 NR 25372 22.365
5 27.331 32371 28.750 39500 NR 27406 24.169
6 31.416 37165 34.444 NR NR 31567 27.947
7.5 36.125 43200 NR NR NR 37499 33.116
8 37.442 45811 NR NR NR 39080 NR
10 41.960 NR NR NR NR 45333 42.28710.512.5 47.201 NR NR NR NR NR NR
Code J8 A3 K2 N3 L7 N9 X3
Number 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 61 of 80
Code N5 Z3 P6 C4 Z9 Y3 Q5
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.5 8.3 8.7 8.5 7.7 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.1 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.9 0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 53 45 53/53/53 52/52/52 NR 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.259 2.268 2.259 2.260 2.455 2.256
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.4 100.0 100.0 100.9 99.8
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 99.0 95.9 101.5 98.8 89.5 98.8
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 125.1 161.0 227.3 106.1 167.4 111.5
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 173.0 199.7 NR 138.9 212.1 135.2
CBR (%) 173.0 199.7 NR 138.9 212.1 135.2
Correction (mm) 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.95 1.5
Swell (%) -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0
Moisture ww 9.2 8.8 8.6 9.4 8.5 9.7
Moisture w30 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.2 8.9
Moisture wr 8.5 NR 8.6 8.6 7.9 8.8
Date last calibrated 08/2015 9/06/15 23/04/15 11/2015 11/2015 31/10/14
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-60kN 0-60kN 0-40kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) R C C R R C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A AA A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M H
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.1mm/min 1mm/min 1.09mm/min 1.09mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.045kN Y 0.045kN 52N 52N 30N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N Corrected Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 50 48 142 72 48 65
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C H H C
Condition of material Good Satisfactory Moist Moist Moist Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N kN N N N
0 NR 0 0 0 1253 0
0.5 NR 1190 0.47 783 1253 395
1 NR 3040 3.32 2140 3184 1461
1.5 NR 5880 9.02 3967 6003 3210
2 NR 9550 15.0 6055 9500 5127
2.5 NR 13180 21.3 8509 13572 7389
3 NR 17000 26.9 11275 18009 9758
3.5 NR 21120 32.2 14123 NR 12450
4 NR 25500 36.9 16808 26987 14950
4.5 NR 29130 41.3 19679 NR 17370
5 NR 33000 45.6 22394 35026 20220
6 NR 40190 NR 27666 NR 25120
7.5 NR 49370 NR 34661 53348 30650
8 NR 52030 NR 36644 NR 32700
10 NR NR NR 45049 73654 3950010.512.5 NR NR NR NR 82267 NR
Code N5 Z3 P6 C4 Z9 Y3 Q5
Number 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 62 of 80
Code T7 K4 V5 N4 T8 C2 E4
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.1 8.3 0.29 0.12 8.4 8.6
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.5 0.3 NR NR 0.2 0.0
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Modified Modified Y Y
No. blows per layer 110/66/110 39/44/40 22 22 53/53/53 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.271 2.262 2.268 2.271 2.264 2.277
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.5 100.1 100.3 100.5 100.2 101.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 94.2 96.5 95.18 96.24 97.7 100.0
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 126.8 212.9 88.4 124.7 160 110
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 162.3 252.4 126.1 161.1 180 130
CBR (%) 162.3 252.4 126.1 161.1 180 130
Correction (mm) 1.0 1.3 NR NR 1.0 0
Swell (%) -0.3 0 -0.02 -0.02 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww 9.2 9.1 9.0 9.19 9.3 2.5
Moisture w30 8.7 9.3 8.29 8.62 8.4 8.7
Moisture wr 8.4 8.2 8.40 8.49 8.5 8.4
Date last calibrated 4/02/15 23/03/16 14/10/14 14/10/14 30/09/16 23/01/15
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 5-50kN 0-200kN 0-100kN 0-50kN 0-50000N
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C R C C R C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) B/A A B B A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) H H M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 250N 250N 250N 250N 0 200kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y N Y
Period Cured (hours) 50 73 48 48 48 48
Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR C C C C
Condition of material Satisfactory Moist Good Good Good Adequate
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N N N kN
0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NR
0.5 912 1745 260 334 0.89 NR
1 2350 4536 655 904 3.11 NR
1.5 4326 9337 1327 2070 6.13 NR
2 7028 10819 2462 4320 9.38 NR
2.5 9797 18557 4046 7380 13.88 NR
3 13137 22416 5940 10720 17.54 NR
3.5 16488 26200 8145 14240 21.14 NR
4 19650 29381 10560 17620 24.42 NR
4.5 22590 33241 NR NR 27.37 NR
5 25835 37961 15720 24040 30.32 NR
6 31935 49986 NR NR 36.10 NR
7.5 39825 NR 29200 38800 43.90 NR
8 42535 NR NR NR 46.31 NR
10 49898 NR 41080 52550 NR NR10.512.5 NR NR 51200 65200 NR NR
Code T7 K4 V5 N4 T8 C2 E4
Number 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 63 of 80
Code M3 R6 E5 X7 S4 G2 R7
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.5 7.8 8.2
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.4
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 90/90/90 55/55/55 22/22/22 25/25/25 53/53/53 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.249 2.264 2.263 2.260 2.262 2.255
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.5 100.0 100.1 100 100.1 99.8
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 96.6 98.0 98.6 99 90.7 95.3
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 135.5 110 156.7 140 120.0 120.0
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 180.8 150 189.9 170 140.0 140.0
CBR (%) 180.8 150 189.9 170 140.0 140.0
Correction (mm) 0.5 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 0
Swell (%) -0.2 -0.1 0.05 -0.2 -0.11 -0.31
Moisture ww NR 100.7 8.5 8.8 8.5 9.0
Moisture w30 8.2 8.1 8.7 8.6 8.8 9.2
Moisture wr 8.1 8.0 8.7 8.9 NR NR
Date last calibrated 11/12/15 13/04/16 15/06/15 24/05/16 21/04/16 21/04/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-100kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) R NR C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A A NR A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.9mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0 100N 250N 250N 150N 150N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 46 48 >48 48 52 52
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C NR H H
Condition of material Moist Moist Moist Moist Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN N N N
0 0.46 0 0.00 0 NR NR
0.5 1.71 440 1.72 770 698 2957
1 3.80 910 4.61 2450 2282 6283
1.5 6.68 1375 8.37 4870 4567 9490
2 10.35 2525 12.60 7790 7335 12587
2.5 14.16 4485 16.74 11090 10429 15677
3 17.88 6860 20.69 14550 13479 18546
3.5 21.36 9580 NR 18110 16550 21237
4 24.89 12470 28.05 21470 19422 23772
4.5 28.37 15480 NR 24620 22152 26138
5 31.81 18600 34.49 27550 24674 28256
6 39.19 25080 NR 33000 29729 32332
7.5 49.55 34400 NR 41150 36801 38520
8 52.94 37360 NR NR 38985 40378
10 65.06 48120 NR NR NR NR10.512.5 79.18 59650 NR NR NR NR
Code M3 R6 E5 X7 S4 G2 R7
Number 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample A
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 64 of 80
Code M8 D6 D8 P7 U9 C6 T9
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.4 8.4 6.0 8.6 8.4 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.2 0.2 -0.2 NR 0.0 0.2 -0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M A M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 46/42/44 53/54/53 100/100/105 53/53/53 NR 112/117/110 48/48/50
Dry Density g/cm3 2.270 2.257 2.265 2.252 2.243 2.264 2.269
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.4 99.9 100.2 99.6 99.2 100.2 100.5
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 97.7 97.5 101.2 100.0 97.7 99.0
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 155.4 109.1 154 116.5 129.3 110 133.9
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 195.2 129.1 208 154.6 157.4 140 171.8
CBR (%) 195.2 129.1 208 154.6 157.4 140 171.8
Correction (mm) 1.2 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.4 4.1 0.0
Swell (%) -0.1 -0.1 0 -0.5 0.0 -0.3 0.0
Moisture ww 9.4 NR 9.1 9.2 8.7 10.1 9.5
Moisture w30 8.6 8.7 8.6 9.0 8.8 8.4 8.9
Moisture wr 8.4 8.3 NR 8.7 8.3 8.4 8.2
Date last calibrated 4/04/16 30/03/16 April 16 8/06/16 2/07/15 26/11/15 30/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50,000N 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-100kN 0.01-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) C NR A C AA/A A AA
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.00mm/min 1.02mm/mm 1mm/min 1.09mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 25N 250N 0.044kN 250N 4.5kg 0.240kN 35N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48+ 48 48 49 72 72
Graph computer or hand (C/H) H C C C NR C C
Condition of material Moist Good Dry Dry Good Good Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N kN kN kN kN N
0 0 0 0.154 0 0 0.02 0.0
0.5 100 1273 2.241 0.086 1.0381 0.06 2998
1 813 3479 4.906 0.488 3.1426 0.06 6518
1.5 2801 6144 8.158 1.393 6.4154 0.12 10347
2 6349 8736 12.149 2.947 10.4782 0.25 14051
2.5 10491 11446 16.249 5.159 14.6381 0.34 17679
3 14635 14398 20.453 7.767 18.7945 0.51 21180
3.5 18643 16795 24.795 10.999 22 1.16 24798
4 22623 19292 29.057 13.699 26.9747 2.23 28172
4.5 26752 21860 33.172 16.632 31 3.77 31740
5 30179 23733 37.266 19.684 34.9003 5.77 34018
6 37209 27888 45.021 25.772 42 10.66 41448
7.5 45712 34241 55.331 34.872 53.6686 19.04 NR
8 48404 36632 NR 37.876 58 21.87 NR
10 NR 47124 NR 49.491 70.3965 32.57 NR10.512.5 NR NR NR NR 86.0589 44.72 NR
Code M8 D6 D8 P7 U9 C6 T9
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
D8 , Values provided above do not correspond to
penetration values shown here.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 65 of 80
Code Q7 L8 C8 Z6 K8 J6 L5
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.9 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.2
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 97.7 0.3 99.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 80/70/100 65/68/68 56
Dry Density g/cm3 2.297 2.253 2.260 2.265 2.261 2.258 2.257
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.8 99.7 100.0 100.2 100.0 99.9 99.9
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 103.5 99.7 100.0 97.7 97.7 95.3
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 148.5 83.6 110 133.4 86.8 170 147.4
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 186.9 112.0 150 171.1 131 220 155.5
CBR (%) 186.9 112.0 150 171.1 131 220 155.5
Correction (mm) 0.1 0.84 0.201 1.7 0 0.9 0.7
Swell (%) 0.0 -0.3 0.0 0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww 8.4 8.5 8.6 9.0 8.4 NR 9.5
Moisture w30 8.6 8.9 8.7 8.8 9.3 8.7 8.6
Moisture wr 8.4 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.2 8.5 8.7
Date last calibrated 7/12/15 14/07/15 7/10/16 29/10/16 18/09/15 6/05/16 22/05/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.2-40kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A AA A/B/C A A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M H M H
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 247N 0.120 263 45N 0.25kN 250N 250kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 240 72 59 12 144 74 72
Graph computer or hand (C/H) H C C C NR C C
Condition of material Dry Good Moist Acceptable Good Sealed Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) N kN kN N kN kN N
0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.00 0
0.5 3367 0.668 2.06 254 1.2 1.17 976
1 7183 1.797 4.49 977 3.4 3.30 3468
1.5 11252 3.450 7.36 2444 5.9 6.31 7276
2 15150 5.336 10.40 4607 8.55 10.04 11168
2.5 19000 7.316 13.20 7157 11.46 14.51 14594
3 23041 9.471 16.40 9864 14.34 18.83 18624
3.5 26870 11.652 19.82 12902 17.22 23.37 20356
4 30341 14.015 23.08 16147 20.39 27.65 23042
4.5 33721 16.345 26.00 19463 23.07 31.75 25530
5 36888 18.519 28.90 22965 25.93 35.85 27938
6 42321 22.801 35.58 29370 31.62 44.10 32402
7.5 49841 29.534 42.30 35642 39.31 NR 38248
8 NR 31.610 44.49 41615 41.50 NR 40462
10 NR 39.464 NR 52066 NR NR NR10.512.5 NR 47.710 NR 62456 NR NR NR
Code Q7 L8 C8 Z6 K8 J6 L5
Number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 66 of 80
Code F2 X5 D9 W8 U7 L6 J7
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.5 8.4 8.2 6.5 8.5 8.5 8.4
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 66/64/64 56/53/60 40/40/40 26/30/29 NR 53 52/52/52
Dry Density g/cm3 2.262 2.273 2.260 2.260 2.250 2.263 2.265
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.1 100.6 100.2 99.6 99.5 100.0 100.2
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 98.8 97.7 95.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.1
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 103.3 159.1 113.6 180 166.8 154.4 55.0
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 160.9 202.0 141.4 210 213.3 184.6 119.1
CBR (%) 160.9 202.0 141.4 210 213.3 184.6 119.1
Correction (mm) 0.50 0.6 0.358 1.6 0.9 0.5 0
Swell (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.3
Moisture ww 9.3 9.1 9.1 8.5 9.2 8.5 9.3
Moisture w30 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.4 8.5
Moisture wr 8.6 8.5 8.4 NR 8.5 9.5 8.4
Date last calibrated 22/05/15 11/10/14 9/10/15 27/04/16 16/05/16 22/07/15 May 2016
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0.001-50kN 0-40kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C. C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A/B A A A/B/C A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M. M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 0.99mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 45N 0.25kN 0.25kN 20N 250N 0.250 NR
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 70.5 148 48 96 48 48 56
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C C C C. C
Condition of material Moist Good Good Sealed Sealed Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N N N N N kN
0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.0 0
0.5 402 1450 1110 1148 2.689 2031 0.208
1 1634 4190 3410 2988 5.855 4788 1.043
1.5 3817 7990 6340 5468 9.677 8530 2.648
2 6644 12090 9610 8428 11.250 12600 4.625
2.5 9914 16570 12820 11480 14.111 16690 7.261
3 13639 20700 15720 14888 18.178 20380 10.255
3.5 17231 24840 NR 18520 22.575 24050 13.749
4 20923 28720 21420 22162 26.977 27490 16.978
4.5 24644 32640 NR 26228 31.448 30630 20.261
5 28357 36220 26410 30798 35.738 33640 23.590
6 35393 43250 NR 36948 43.481 39680 30.313
7.5 45226 NR 37850 49565 53.052 NR 38.694
8 NR NR NR NR 55.924 NR 41.304
10 NR NR NR 6222 67.028 NR 52.49710.5 9.512.5 NR NR NR NR 81.641 NR NR
Code F2 X5 D9 W8 U7 L6 J7
Number 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 67 of 80
Code B8 S6 X8 T2 Y9 A2 X6 S4
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.6 8.5 6.0 8.56 8.7 8.4 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.0 0.1 NR 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 44/44/44 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 44/55/70 80/75/75
Dry Density g/cm3 2.270 2.250 2.207 2.262 2.258 2.256 2.261
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.4 99.6 98 100.1 99.9 100 100.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100.5 98.8 100 100.0 101.2 97.7 98.8
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 140 100 NR 52.3 115.8 120.0 113.6
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 180 130 150 88.3 150.0 150.0 151.5
CBR (%) 180 130 150 88.3 150.0 150.0 151.5
Correction (mm) 1.190 3.384 NR 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.7
Swell (%) 0.0 0.0 -2.5 0.0 -1.0 0.0 NR
Moisture ww 9.1 8.3 NR 111.7 8.8 9.7 8.6
Moisture w30 9.1 8.7 NR 101.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
Moisture wr 8.5 8.7 NR 95.8 8.0 8.6 8.6
Date last calibrated May 2015 3/06/16 25/05/15 6/01/15 1/03/15 June 2015 23/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0 - 50,000N 0-50kN 0.045-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C R C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) NR AA/B A A A/B/C A A/B
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.92 1.06 1 1.00mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.00mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.05kN 16 0.25kN 45 0 0.045 0
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N N N Y N Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 72 24 24 144 50 72 4
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C C C H H
Condition of material OK Damp Damp Good Good Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN kN kN N kN kN ?
0 0.05 0.16 0.25 50 0.0 NR 0
0.5 0.67 0.60 1.20 236 0.20 0.260 960
1 2.19 1.32 2.78 770 0.89 1.700 2500
1.5 4.41 2.13 4.98 2540 2.18 4.000 4740
2 6.91 3.10 7.43 3980 4.13 7.40 7450
2.5 10.18 4.13 10.16 6910 6.50 11.100 10370
3 13.77 5.25 13.04 9070 9.14 15.00 13490
3.5 17.58 6.38 15.87 12390 11.94 18.600 16600
4 21.23 7.52 19.02 13420 15.00 22.800 19700
4.5 24.74 8.73 21.86 15560 17.94 23.800 22800
5 28.15 9.96 24.79 17490 20.96 27.000 25640
6 34.55 14.27 30.41 20820 26.67 33.100 31370
7.5 44.90 21.97 38.39 27210 34.82 41.600 39000
8 48.00 24.29 40.79 29340 NR 43.900 41440
10 NR 33.22 49.79 38160 46.87 NR 5068010.5 -76.1912.5 NR 43.02 NR 48680 NR NR 59000
Code B8 S6 X8 T2 Y9 A2 X6
Number 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 68 of 80
Code A7 R5 N8 U3 S7 Q2 M4
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.1 8.2 8.6 8.5 8.6
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.2 0.5 0.4 NR 0.1 0.0
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 50/50/50 42/40/43 57/56/57 52/52/52 30/25/35 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.260 2.270 2.272 2.260 2.262 2.260
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.4 100.5 100.0 100.1 100.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 94.2 95.3 100.0 99.1 100.2
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 155.3 195.0 170.2 152.9 50 140.9
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 202.0 229.7 216.6 190.1 60 167.8
CBR (%) 202.0 229.7 216.6 190.1 60 167.8
Correction (mm) 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.5
Swell (%) 0.1 0.0 -0.02 0.07 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww NR 8.9 9.4 8.9 9.8 NR
Moisture w30 8.2 8.3 8.6 9.4 9.5 8.7
Moisture wr NR 8.3 8.2 8.9 9.3 8.4
Date last calibrated 18/08/16 18/11/15 9/02/15 11/10/16 3/03/15 4/03/15
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.2-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A/B A AA A/B/C A A/B/C
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.25kN 50N 45N 0.04 0.1kN 50N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y N Y N Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48 48 48 50 48
Graph computer or hand (C/H) H C C C C C
Condition of material Good Moist Suitable Good Moist NR
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN kN N kN N N
0 0.0 0.00 0 NR 0 0.000
0.5 1.64 0.74 2032 0.34 1958 1539
1 3.74 2.92 6108 1.38 2948 4026
1.5 7.89 7.21 11005 3.69 3980 7405
2 12.16 12.26 15636 7.34 5086 11190
2.5 16.13 17.69 20184 11.42 6279 15091
3 20.50 22.47 24637 15.57 7563 18596
3.5 24.55 27.09 28965 19.42 8817 21783
4 28.45 31.26 33196 23.07 10121 24883
4.5 32.15 35.68 37198 27.05 11402 27731
5 36.05 39.71 41026 30.47 12788 30138
6 43.89 47.32 48023 37.08 15453 35968
7.5 50.00 NR NR NR 19109 44147
8 NR NR NR NR 20339 46897
10 NR NR NR NR 25585 NR10.512.5 NR NR NR NR 31609 NR
Code A7 R5 N8 U3 S7 Q2 M4
Number 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B 6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Section 1 of 8 Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 69 of 80
Code D3 G4 U6 T5 V3 M7 E9
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.6 8.4
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 99.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 53/53/53 50 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/50
Dry Density g/cm3 2.260 2.260 2.262 2.261 2.260 2.264
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.9 99.9 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.2
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100 100.0 98.8 100.0 100.0 97.7
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) NR 130.0 120.6 103.4 124.8 136.2
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 120 160.0 126.5 126.1 NR NR
CBR (%) 120 160.0 126.5 126.1 NR NR
Correction (mm) 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.60 0.16 0.8
Swell (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww 9.4 9.3 NR NR NR 8.4
Moisture w30 8.7 9.1 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.6
Moisture wr 8.6 8.3 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.4
Date last calibrated 3/08/16 19/11/15 3/06/16 10/06/16 3/06/16 20/07/16
Calibrated range (kN) 100kN 0-50kN 0.2-250kN 0-250kN 0.2-250kN 0-25kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A AA A/AA C-AA A/AA AA
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 0.99mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 250N 0.250 250N 200N 250N 40N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48-50 48 72 72 72 50
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR C C C C
Condition of material Dry Sealed Moist Moist Moist Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N kN kN kN kN kN
0 5.765 0 -0.007 -0.001 -0.001 0.001
0.5 1148.7 1.402 4.654 0.814 1.487 0.228
1 3364.7 3.948 7.881 2.421 5.405 1.726
1.5 6008.6 7.438 10.821 4.772 8.988 4.892
2 8638.7 10.722 13.431 7.498 12.406 8.772
2.5 11347.1 13.998 15.923 10.390 15.562 12.607
3 13805.7 17.398 18.092 13.131 18.697 15.914
3.5 16045.1 20.430 20.203 15.769 21.800 18.968
4 18008.9 23.505 22.228 18.493 24.642 21.815
4.5 20007.3 26.577 24.299 21.195 25.049 24.365
5 22053.4 29.670 25.038 23.824 NR 24.735
6 25867.2 35.097 NR 24.974 NR NR
7.5 31000.9 42.835 NR NR NR NR
8 32712.8 45.388 NR NR NR NR
10 38428.1 NR NR NR NR NR10.512.5 45434.5 NR NR NR NR NR
Code D3 G4 U6 T5 V3 M7 E9
Number 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator. Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 70 of 80
Code J8 A3 K2 N3 L7 N9 X3
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.8 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) A A A A A A A
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 65/65/65 53 53/53/53 73/73/73 53/53/53 70/0/70 71/71/71
Dry Density g/cm3 2.253 2.262 2.260 2.270 2.264 2.255 2.260
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.7 100 100 100.4 100.2 99.8 100.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.7 98 97.7 97.7 100.0 102.3 98.8
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 173.5 168 202.1 174.2 134.7 154.9 156.3
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 203.8 188 229.7 218.2 160.0 176.2 196.0
CBR (%) 203.8 188 229.7 218.2 160.0 176.2 196.0
Correction (mm) 0.0 NR 0.32 0.6 0.23 0.3 0.6
Swell (%) 0.0 0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Moisture ww NR NR 8.4 8.4 NR 8.9 8.5
Moisture w30 8.5 8.8 8.4 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.9
Moisture wr 8.5 8.5 NR NR 8.9 8.7 NR
Date last calibrated 19/09/16 19/09/16 1/04/16 14/03/16 8/08/16 10/08/16 19/08/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-25kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A B A/B/C A A/AA AA/A/B/C
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.99mm/min 0.99mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 0.99mm/min 0.85mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 4.5KG 4.5 50kN 50 200 228N 0.234kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 48 48 48 49 54 160 90
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C H C C C
Condition of material Moist Moist Good Moist OK Moist Moist
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN N kN N kN
0 0.00 0.062 -0.001 0 0.026 NR -0.003
0.5 3.739 6332 2.520 1210 1.654 1918 1.389
1 8.676 10922 7.368 4430 4.861 5750 3.801
1.5 13.897 14938 12.931 8800 8.653 10127 7.341
2 18.639 18669 17.954 13200 12.399 14325 11.372
2.5 22.574 22168 23.398 17800 16.181 18234 15.631
3 26.505 25315 28.214 22400 19.534 21560 19.810
3.5 30.191 28341 32.187 27000 22.728 24583 23.657
4 33.752 31333 35.947 31050 25.615 27298 27.317
4.5 36.951 34417 39.729 35000 28.179 30121 31.365
5 40.149 37098 43.359 39200 30.645 33052 34.814
6 45.917 42407 NR 46500 31.674 38258 41.581
7.5 NR 49342 NR NR NR 46113 NR
8 NR NR NR NR NR 48055 NR
10 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR10.512.5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Code J8 A3 K2 N3 L7 N9 X3
Number 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 71 of 80
Code N5 Z3 P6 C4 Z9 Y3 Q5
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.7 8.3 8.7 8.9 7.9 8.5
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 -0.7 0.1
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y3 Y
No. blows per layer 53 40 53/53/53 52/52/52 NR 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.255 2.266 2.260 2.266 2.280 2.266
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.8 100.3 100.0 100.3 100.6 100.3
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 101.0 96.3 101.5 103.5 91.9 98.8
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 116.3 143.6 185.6 128.8 173.5 121.4
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 170.6 186.4 226.3 170.7 218.7 143.8
CBR (%) 170.6 186.4 226.3 170.7 218.7 143.8
Correction (mm) 0.5 0.8 0.85 0.75 0.95 0.9
Swell (%) -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0 -0.1 -0.1
Moisture ww 9.4 9.0 9.3 9.6 8.8 9.5
Moisture w30 8.9 8.5 8.7 8.4 8.2 9.0
Moisture wr 8.6 NR 8.6 8.2 7.9 8.7
Date last calibrated 08/2015 9/06/15 23/04/15 11/2015 11/2015 31/10/14
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-60kN 0-60kN 0-40kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) R C C R R C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A AA A A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M H
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.1mm/min 1mm/min 1.09/min 1.09mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0.045kN Y 0.045kN 52N 52N 30N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N Corrected Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 50 48 142 72 48 65
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C H H C
Condition of material Good Satisfactory Moist Moist Moist Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N kN N N N
0 NR 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 NR 1070 0.33 835 887 989
1 NR 2940 2.21 2767 2558 3055
1.5 NR 5820 6.41 5377 5377 5421
2 NR 9220 11.3 8456 9292 8259
2.5 NR 12920 16.5 11849 13990 11940
3 NR 16690 21.6 15295 18949 13890
3.5 NR 20440 26.4 18814 NR 16710
4 NR 24220 30.8 22028 28136 19280
4.5 NR 28180 35.0 25718 NR 21880
5 NR 31790 38.9 29128 36540 24190
6 NR 38420 46.0 35994 NR 29060
7.5 NR 47810 NR 44840 54706 35250
8 NR 51000 NR 48168 NR 37280
10 NR NR NR 59143 75046 4060010.512.5 NR NR NR NR 81954 NR
Code N5 Z3 P6 C4 Z9 Y3 Q5
Number 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Notes: (1) NR = No result returned
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 72 of 80
Code T7 K4 V5 N4 T8 C2 E4
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.5 8.5 0.29 0.12 8.4 8.6
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.1 -0.1 NR NR 0.2 0.0
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y N Modified Y Y
No. blows per layer 99/88/121 50/51/48 22 22 53/53/53 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.249 2.252 2.266 2.271 2.264 2.277
Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.5 100.1 100.3 100.5 100.2 101
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 98.8 98.8 96.11 96.01 97.7 100
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 164.7 258.1 119.3 119.7 140 110
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 204.9 236.1 157.9 157.5 170 130
CBR (%) 204.9 258.1 157.9 157.5 170 130
Correction (mm) 0.9 1.5 NR NR 1.2 0
Swell (%) 0.1 -0.2 -0.01 -0.27 0.0 -1.0
Moisture ww 9.5 9.3 9.0 8.88 9.3 2.5
Moisture w30 8.4 9.3 8.49 8.19 8.6 8.6
Moisture wr 8.2 8.5 8.12 8.07 8.5 8.4
Date last calibrated 4/02/15 23/03/16 14/10/14 14/10/14 30/09/16 23/01/15
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 5-50kN 0-100kN 0-100kN 0-50kN 0-50000N
Load cell (C) or ring (R) C R C C R C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) B/A A B B A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) H H M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 250N 250N 250N 250N 0 200kN
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y N Y
Period Cured (hours) 50 73 48 48 48 48
Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR C C C C
Condition of material Satisfactory Moist Good Good Good Adequate
Loads in ( N or kN ) N N N N kN
0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NR
0.5 1228 2756 332 332 0.58 NR
1 3770 6059 876 868 2.26 NR
1.5 7225 9752 1799 1787 4.76 NR
2 11043 13297 3340 3234 7.68 NR
2.5 14998 17030 5425 5290 10.55 NR
3 18930 22279 8000 7735 14.74 NR
3.5 22515 30037 10960 10480 17.68 NR
4 26130 33787 14150 13670 20.70 NR
4.5 30710 36042 NR NR 23.69 NR
5 34444 38235 20660 19990 26.63 NR
6 41730 46766 NR NR 31.79 NR
7.5 NR NR 35840 35220 39.06 NR
8 NR NR NR NR 41.37 NR
10 NR NR 48680 48960 NR NR10.512.5 NR NR 60100 60600 NR NR
Code T7 K4 V5 N4 T8 C2 E4
Number 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 73 of 80
Code M3 R6 E5 X7 S4 G2 R7
Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.6 7.9 8.4
Moisture Content Variation (Wv) (%) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0 0.7 0.2
Compaction (Manual or Auto) M M M M M M
Compaction Method - Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. blows per layer 90/90/90 55/55/55 22/22/24 25/25/25 53/53/53 53/53/53
Dry Density g/cm3 2.261 2.263 2.256 2.260 2.266 2.237
Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.0 99.8 100 100.3 99.0
Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 96.8 96.3 102.5 100 91.9 97.7
BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 181.8 120 118.6 140 110 130.0
BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 198.0 160 151.5 180 140 160.0
CBR (%) 198.0 160 151.5 180 140 160.0
Correction (mm) 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.25 0.8 0.4
Swell (%) -0.2 -0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.16 -0.06
Moisture ww NR 101.4 8.8 8.9 8.5 8.8
Moisture w30 8.4 9.1 8.6 8.5 9.1 9.1
Moisture wr 8.3 7.7 8.6 9.4 NR NR
Date last calibrated 11/12/15 13/04/16 15/06/15 24/05/16 21/04/16 21/04/16
Calibrated range (kN) 0-50kN 0-100kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN
Load cell (C) or ring (R) R NR C C C C
Calibration Class (AA, A, B, C etc) A A A NR A A
Hand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M M
Rate of penetration (mm/min) 0.9mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min
Seating load applied (N) 0 100N 250N 250N 150N 150N
Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y
Period Cured (hours) 46 48 >48 48 52 52
Graph computer or hand (C/H) C C C NR H H
Condition of material Moist Moist Moist Moist Good Good
Loads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN N N N
0 0.46 0 0.00 0 NR NR
0.5 1.62 560 0.33 490 703 1601
1 3.57 1060 1.18 1550 2569 4369
1.5 6.50 1760 2.78 3320 4273 7407
2 9.89 3775 4.93 5830 6746 10620
2.5 13.88 6600 7.66 8800 9523 14022
3 17.83 9845 10.65 12320 12401 17325
3.5 21.87 13060 NR 16080 15287 20948
4 26.33 16490 16.97 19820 17771 23772
4.5 30.14 19650 NR 23320 20453 26490
5 33.57 22760 22.83 26710 22822 29226
6 40.77 29020 NR 32890 27853 34549
7.5 50.43 37540 35.79 42230 35328 42166
8 53.59 40160 NR 45000 37368 44432
10 65.34 49040 45.01 NR NR NR10.512.5 NR 58350 NR NR NR NR
Code M3 R6 E5 X7 S4 G2 R7
Number 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Section 1 of 8
6.0 Particpants Test Results - Sample B
Note: Blank or NR = No result returned, Green are calculated/corrected results by PT coordinator.
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 74 of 80
67 App A CBR PT Instructions.docx
LabSmart Services
Proficiency Testing Program
California Bearing Ratio – 2016 (67)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER
1. Please check that the package you have received contains the following:
Instructions (for tester) Results Log Approximately 14.8 kg of soil sealed in a plastic bag labelled ‘2016 (67) CBR Sample’
Contact LabSmart Services if the 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 October 2016.
4. Due to the possibility of segregation during transportation mix the sample thoroughly
prior to testing.
5. Split the sample into two equal portions, Sample A and Sample B. Keep in a sealed container.
6. There is no oversize material present in this sample. 7. You do not need to be accredited for AS 1289 6.1.1 (2014). You may use other
equivalent methods but it is preferable that AS 1289 6.1.1 (2014) be used.
8. Conduct the CBR test to AS 1289 6.1.1 (2014) using the following information.
Use an OMC of 8.6 %.
Adjust the moisture of the sample as per the test method mixing thoroughly at
intervals and cure for at least 48 hours. This should be done in a plastic bag
with the end tied/folded over.
As per clause 6(c) of the test method just prior to compaction take a sample to
determine final moisture content (w1) has been achieved i.e. OMC ± 0.5%.
Sample to be remoulded at 100% standard compaction.
Use a MDD of 2.260 t/m3
LDR be within 100 ± 1%
Apply a 4.5 kg surcharge.
Soak the sample as per the method for 4 days.
Swell is to be determined.
CBR is > 30 %
Take additional load readings at 3.5, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.0 mm penetration.
9. Repeat the test as per step 7 to obtain two sets of results. The same person should complete both tests.
Page 1 of 2
Appendix A
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 75 of 80
67 App A CBR PT Instructions.docx
10. Please study the “Results Log” carefully before beginning the test.
11. Record the results on the enclosed “Results Log”. Report each result according to the
log sheet. This will be different to the test method.
12. The Laboratory Manager or person responsible for checking must sign the log sheet to indicate that it has been checked.
13. Please retain any unused sample until the final report has been issued.
14. Have a query? Contact Peter Young at LabSmart Services. Phone. 0432 767 706
15. Fax or e-mail the “Result Log” to LabSmart Services by 12 October 2016.
Fax: (03) 8888 4987 OR
E-mail: [email protected]
16. Please retain the completed “Results Log” as this contains your confidential
participation code. You will need this code to 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.
17. 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.
Page 2 of 2
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 76 of 80
67 App B CBR PT Results Log.docx
LabSmart Services
Proficiency Testing Program - California Bearing Ratio – 2016 (67)
RESULTS LOG for xxxx
Participation Code: xx
Please fax or e-mail the completed results log by 12 October 2016
E-mail: [email protected] or Fax: (03) 8888 4987
1. Please follow the instructions carefully. The test is to be performed twice and the
results entered into sections 3 and 4 below.
2. Please describe the characteristics of the CBR machine used for the tests:
Date last calibrated
Calibrated range (I.e.0-50 kN)
Load Cell or Load Ring?
Calibration (Class A, B, C?)
Hand driven or motorised platform?
Rate of penetration?
Please complete the following regarding the performance of the test
Condition of material as received
Seating load used
Has the seating load been set to zero? (Y/N)
Period cured for? (hours)
3. Please attach a copy of the CBR graph for each test. 4. COMMENTS: (Please ensure all 6 sections are completed)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- --------------- 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 these sheets for your records.
________________________________________________________________________
Have a query? Contact Peter on 0432 767 706. Page 1 of 3
Appendix B
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 77 of 80
67 App B CBR PT Results Log.docx
5.
SAMPLE A Report
To Result
Test Method Used
Tested by: Name
Moisture (Clause 6[c]) (W1) (before compaction)
0.1 %
Moisture content variation (Wv) 0.1 %
Compaction Manual or Auto
Compaction Method Standard (Y/N)
Number of blows used per layer Number
Before Soaking
Dry density 0.001 g/cm3
Density Ratio (LDR)
0.1 %
Moisture Ratio (LMR)
0.1 %
BR @ 2.5 mm 0.1 %
BR @ 5.0 mm 0.1 %
Correction# 0.1 mm
Swell 0.1 %
After soaking
Moisture ww 0.1 %
Moisture w30 0.1 %
Moisture wr 0.1 %
# Enter zero if no correction is performed.
Please record the penetration/ load readings below (cross out and change if other
penetration values are used) OR attach worksheet for with penetration/load readings.
Penetration (mm)
Load (N)
Penetration
(mm) Load (N)
0 4.0
0.5 4.5
1.0 5.0
1.5 6.0
2.0 7.5
2.5 8.0
3.0 10.0
3.5 12.5
Page 2 of 3
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 78 of 80
67 App B CBR PT Results Log.docx
6.
SAMPLE B Report
To Result
Test Method Used
Tested by: Name
Moisture (Clause 6[c]) (W1) (before compaction)
0.1 %
Moisture content variation (Wv) 0.1 %
Compaction Manual or Auto
Compaction Method Standard (Y/N)
Number of blows used per layer Number
Before Soaking
Dry density 0.001 g/cm3
Density Ratio (LDR)
0.1 %
Moisture Ratio (LMR)
0.1 %
BR @ 2.5 mm 0.1 %
BR @ 5.0 mm 0.1 %
Correction# 0.1 mm
Swell 0.1 %
After soaking
Moisture ww 0.1 %
Moisture w30 0.1 %
Moisture wr 0.1 %
# Enter zero if no correction is performed.
Please record the penetration/ load readings below (cross out and change if other
penetration values are used) OR attach worksheet for with penetration/load readings.
Penetration (mm)
Load (N)
Penetration
(mm) Load (N)
0 4.0
0.5 4.5
1.0 5.0
1.5 6.0
2.0 7.5
2.5 8.0
3.0 10.0
3.5 12.5
Page 3 of 3
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 79 of 80
Calculate correction line from: Correction = 0.46 mm
Lower = 1.0 mm 118.2 % Unrounded CBR = 142.4 %
Upper = 3.0 mm 142.4 % CBR = 140.0 %CBR @ 5.0 mm =
CBR @ 2.5 mm =
y = 31.061x4 - 496.95x3 + 2435.6x2 + 1645x - 108.3R² = 0.9999
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
28,000
30,000
32,000
34,000
36,000
38,000
40,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ap
plie
d L
oad
(N
)
Penetration (mm)
CBR Graph for Participant D9B
Data Values
Poly. (Data Values)
Correction
CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2016(67)
Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issued - February 2017 Page 80 of 80