CBR - 2014 (54) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT€¦ · · 2016-02-122.3 Test Methods . 3.4...

www.labsmartservices.com.au

CBR - 2014 (54)

PROFICIENCY TESTING

PROGRAM REPORT

Accredited for compliance with ISO/IEC 17043

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd

CBR Proficiency Testing Program - 2014(54)

Copyright: LabSmart Services Pty Ltd Report Issue V1 of 52

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 2015. 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

Acknowledgements LabSmart Services would like to thank Mr Norm Fieldew for his technical assistance with this program. Please note that any technical questions regarding this program are to be directed to the program coordinator. 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 16 February 2015



CONTENTS PAGE

1. Program Aim

4

2. Performance

2.1 Identified Outliers 2.2 Focus on Improvement 2.3 Overall Performance

4 4 5 6

3. Technical Comment

3.1 Missing Information 3.2 Statistical Reality 2.3 Test Methods 3.4 Reproducibility 3.5 General Performance 3.6 Errors 3.7 Testing Reality 3.8 Repeatability 3.9 Pre-compaction Curing 3.10 OMC & MDD 3.11 CBR Compaction 3.12 LDR & LMR 3.13 Applied Load & Penetration 3.14 Graphing and ‘Zero Correction’ 3.15 CBR Reporting

7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 15 16

4. Statistics: Z-Scores & Graph

4.1 Part A: CBR 4.2 Part A: CBR (Set SD Limit) 4.3 Part B: CBR 4.4 Part B: CBR (Set SD Limit)

18

18 20 22 24

5. Program Information

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

26

26 29 29 29 29 29 30 30

6. Participants’ Test Results

6.1 Part A 6.2 Part B

33

33 40

Appendix A Program Instructions Appendix B Program Results log

47 50



1. Program Aim The proficiency program was conducted in October 2014 with participants throughout Australia. Part A of the program involved the performance of AS 1289.6.1.1 (1998) – Determination of the California Bearing Ratio of a soil – Standard laboratory method for a remoulded specimen. Part B of the program involved performance of the same test but following aspects of the revised, 2014 test method. The program provides 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. This report has been prepared using a robust statistical approach. In addition 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.

2. Performance

2.1. Identified Outliers There were two parts to the CBR proficiency testing program. Part A used 53 blows per compaction layer while Part B used a target density approach. Along with CBR results participants were asked to record other information associated with the performance of the test. The results submitted by each participant are detailed in section 6.1 and 6.2. For both Part A and Part B the highest bearing ratio was at the 5.0 mm penetration and therefore also represents the unrounded CBR value. These results and associated robust statistics are shown in section 4.1 and 4.3. No outliers were identified using the usual robust statistics. This is not surprising considering the large spread in results. The observed large variation is however consistent with other proficiency programs conducted over the last decade. Industry has expressed concerns that from an engineering “End User” perspective that such large variations in CBR results are impractical. It is also unacceptable from a laboratory testing perspective. Unfortunately there is no published consensus within industry as to what is considered an acceptable CBR spread (variation).



2.2. Focus on Improvement 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 % of the median (coefficient of variation). Calculated values are shown in table 2.2A.

Part A (Section 4.2) Part B (Section 4.4)

Median CV (%) S.D. Limit Median CV (%) S.D. Limit

74.3 % 9.5 ± 7.1 % 61.3 % 9.5 ± 5.8 %

Table 2.2A Set S.D Limits. Bearing Ratio at 5.0 mm Please note that the following performance outcomes do not constitute an outlier in this program but provide one approach to determining which participant results may be improved on further review. There are alternative approaches that can be used. See also NATA “Information Paper 9 – Soils testing technical issues”. Part A and Part B BR results were recalculated using the above ‘Set SD Limits’ as detailed in section 4.2 and 4.4. Based on these limits, participants exhibiting statistically significant variation are shown in the table below.

Part A - CBR (%) Part B - CBR (%)

Z-score> 3 Z-score≈ 2.75 Z-score> 3 Z-score≈ 2.75

Z5, S6, D2, C7, E3, T2, T8, M9, G2, X8, J8, U7, Y4, M7, N6,

G6

Y9 Z5, M2, S6, U3, C7, E3, Y3, Y9, X8, J8,

Y4, E6(A), E6(B), R6, Z2, K3, Z6, G6, L4

H4, N9

Table 2.2B Statistically significant unrounded CBR results based on a “SD Limit”.

Participants shown above may find it beneficial to review the performance of this test. Those in bold text indicate an absolute z-score greater than 3 for both Part A and B. It should be noted that the program found that those not shown above also need to review and improve in regards to CBR testing. Further information that may assist with improvements in the performance of the testing can be found in section 3, Technical Comments.



2.3. Overall Performance The statistics used in all proficiency programs is there for guidance. Care needs to be exercised to avoid incorrect conclusions being drawn from the statistics. This is one of the reasons that LabSmart Services provides comprehensive technical comment for each program. The last CBR proficiency program (2013(46)) held saw a distinct improvement in participant performance of the test. However this has not been observed in this program. This may be due to a different set of participants perhaps with less experience. Although a ‘end user’ based performance target has been used the issues are more complex than this suggests. Much of the spread in results is due to the middle 50% of participants. What this means is that every participant should review the testing submitted and not just those highlighted by the ‘end user’ performance assessment. There are too many matters identified under technical comment (Section 3) to summarise. Much of the variation observed could be avoided by better checking, adherence to the test method, improved zero correction and more accurate graphing. With a new test method out (2014) retraining should be a priority as well as participation in more CBR proficiency programs. 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 participant’s to improve their competency with respect to CBR testing. A summary of the program statistics is shown in Table 2.3.

Statistic Part A - CBR

(%) Part B – CBR

(%)

53 Blows/layer Set SD Limit Target Density Set SD Limit

Report Section 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Number of participants 48 48 41 41

Median 74.3 74.3 61.3 61.3

Normalized IQR 23.1 25.5

Set SD 7.1 5.8

Minimum* 7.1 53.8 6.3 45.0

Maximum* 107.8 91.7 112.8 73.1

Range* 100.7 37.9 106.5 28.1

CV (%) 31.1 9.5 41.6 9.5

Table 2.3 Summary of statistics for the CBR program. *Min, Max & Range with outliers excluded.



3. Technical Comment The following sections give some feedback about performance of the test and ideas that may assist participants in the proficiency program to improve in the performance of this test. 3.1 Missing Information A large number of participants did not supply all the necessary information required by the proficiency program. Many of these participants had results that were at the extreme end of the range of results. The lack of information provided often means that the feedback that can be given in these cases is often very limited. Participants should contact the program coordinator if they require further explanation as to what information is required. The information requested is also used to validate the results obtained. Proficiency programs may reject results on this basis if they do not conform to the program requirements. 3.2 Statistical Reality It is easy to draw the wrong inference from statistics. This and previous CBR proficiency programs have tended to focus on feedback concerning those with results that seem either too high or too low. Indeed much of the feedback below is aimed at this group of participants. However the problem with CBR results having too large a spread is very much related to the middle 50% of participants. Within this group the results are also too spread out. The following comments further backup this assertion. As a consequence every participant should be trying to improve their performance in this test. 3.3 Test Methods The 1998 AS1289 CBR test method allows more than one approach and does not specify the variation allowed in achieving OMC/MDD for CBR compaction. To reduce some of the variation OMC and MDD has been set for this program. For Part A the allowed variation in meeting the desired OMC/MDD is also given as well as defining the compaction to be “53 blows per layer”. The 1998 AS1289 CBR test method was under review during the conduct of this program. The new version was issued just after completion of the program. The new version allows only the ‘target density’ approach. Part B CBR was based partly on the DRAFT available at the time and follows the new 2014 method closely. The major variation is the curing times have been better defined in the new method. Part B was optional for participants and gave an opportunity to perform testing to aspects of the new method and to see if there were any differences in the median result obtained. Only one participant (U7) indicated the use of a different method. U7 tested to Qld Main Roads method and should note it is different to the Australian Standard and it will give a different result.



3.4 Reproducibility As detailed in section 5.8 there are sound reasons for not comparing one CBR proficiency program with another. In previous programs an attempt has been made to do some comparison. However for this program it is not possible. There are simply too many variations/errors in testing that prevents any comment to be made. 3.5 General Performance 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 Understand the repeatability of CBR in your laboratory Reality check of results i.e. does it fit the type of material submitted

From the results submitted there was strong indication that many of the participants failed to achieve one or more of the above. If all participants meet the above there would be a significant reduction in the variation without any change in procedure. It raises the question that if participants are not meeting the above basic requirements then what other errors are occurring during testing. 3.6 Errors Errors may occur from a number of sources, an incorrect calculation, transcription error, wrong methodology used etc. Many of the comments below relate to errors. One participant reported the BR as a load in kN. Although some of these may have only a small impact they do accumulate and should not occur. Others have a large impact such as incorrect graphing technique and zero correction. As there have been so many errors identified it indicates a greater attention to checking is needed. 3.7 Testing Reality Most laboratories see a variety of CBR samples. From this a feel can be gained as to what CBR range a particular material will give. This knowledge should be used for everyday testing and proficiency testing as well. For the material suppled for this program a CBR greater than 50% may have been predicted. The opportunity to perform the test twice on the same material means that the results should have been close to each other. Knowledge of how close (repeatability) can be gained from the homogeneity in this program (see also NATA



Information Paper 9). Care needs to be exercised as Part A and B did use different methodology. As a ‘checker’ or ‘supervisor’ this type of knowledge can be applied as a ‘reality check’ on the results obtained. In many cases had this ‘reality check’ been applied by those in this program it would have highlighted a large number of the CBR results in need of further scrutiny. 3.8 Repeatability The same material was used for both Part A and B and although the methodology was slightly different results in the same ‘ball park’ were expected. Participants with differences in BR results between Part A and Part B of more than 20% may find it worthwhile to review these results. Table 3.8 highlights those participants with differences in BR of greater than 20%.

Code

Unrounded CBR (%)

Difference

Code

Unrounded CBR (%)

Difference Part A Part B

Part A Part B

1 Z5 20 12 8

25 J8 41.3 36.0 5.3 2 F3 67.2 61.3 5.9

26 U7 28.5 46.9 18.4

3 E2 86.0 NR NR

27 Y4 47.1 42.0 5.1 4 Z7 66.2 65.7 0.5

28 M7 39.5 52.3 12.8

5 M2 91.7 91.1 0.6

29 A8 80 70 10 6 S6 106.2 112.8 6.6

30 L3 80 60.0 20

7 U3 73.2 82.9 9.7

31 E6(a) 80 80 0 8 D2 98.1 73.1 25

32 E6(b) 90 90 0

9 L8 86.1 NR NR

33 W7 90 60 30 10 C7 47.9 86.5 38.6

34 H4 80.0 45 35

11 E3 7.1 6.3 0.8

35 N9 60 45 15 12 T6 79.7 66.5 13.2

36 S5 80 60 20

13 Q5 75.3 63.2 12.1

37 V4 60.0 50.0 10 14 Y3 81.6 84.8 3.2

38 R6 60.0 40.0 20

15 Q3 80 70 10

39 Z2 82.1 84.6 2.5 16 M6 83.8 70.8 13

40 K3 70 80 10

17 Q2 70 60 10

41 N6 51.3 NR NR 18 T2 45.0 NR NR

42 J4 55.4 NR NR

19 A4 90.0 NR NR

43 Z6 85.9 90.9 5 20 T8 38.2 NR NR

44 R3 78.3 52.4 25.9

21 M9 107.8 71.8 36

45 G6 107.3 110.8 3.5 22 G2 38.2 58.0 19.8

46 L4 73.2 40.4 32.8

23 Y9 53.8 37.1 16.7

47 R7 71.8 68.0 3.8 24 X8 32.6 34.7 2.1

48 U8 86.2 45.6 40.6

Table 3.8 Differences between Part A and Part B CBR values



3.9 Pre-compaction Curing All participants cured the sample prior to compaction for at least 48 hours. The new 2014 test method has some further comments on curing times. Curing times were considered satisfactory. Samples need to be in sealed containers and the material broken up and mixed regularly.

3.10 OMC & MDD Multiple test results for OMC & MDD 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 was determined by a previous proficiency program involving 38 participants. This information was supplied to participants (See instructions Appendix A) so that all participants used the same OMC & MDD values.

3.11 CBR Compaction CBR compaction is another area where variation from operator to operator and laboratory to laboratory occurs. The 1998 AS1289 method allowed two approaches which, based on previous PT programs, gave slightly different results. Again to reduce variation and to only compare ‘like with like’ the testing in this program for Part A was confined to using the ’53 blows’ per layer approach. Part B was aligned as far as possible with the new 2014 AS1289 method and uses the ‘target density’ approach. The new method adopted the second approach allowed by the 1998 AS1289 test method. Part B was optional with seven participants not providing results. Of the remaining 41 participants, 6 did not report the blows used. Neither the 1998 nor 2014 AS1289 test method require the number of blows to be recorded. Although the density obtained is determined and proving the correct compaction has been achieved recording the blows used is useful for checking purposes. However the particular approach used by participants may not be so clear. Many participants are familiar with one approach only. In performing a different compaction technique they may not be as skilled as those who regularly perform it that way. The other issue is how well participants followed the proficiency testing instructions. For Part B 14 participants (35%) indicated that each layer received 53 blows. This would indicate that they may not have used the ‘target density’ approach. Another potential source of variation between participants occurs in the pattern used for compaction. The new 2014 AS1289 method gives some guidance on this matter. All these differences in technique are likely to lead to greater variability in test results. For Part B if the mass per layer is the same then similar number of blows across the three layers would be expected. This was observed with the majority of participants. If the material is at ‘OMC’ and is uniform then the number of blows should be similar across all participants. The expectation here is that the same energy needs to be applied in each case. This was not observed.



How significant the above differences are in regards to the results obtained is hard to determine but the large spread in results would suggest there has been some impact. Retraining in the new 2014 AS1289 method would seem appropriate.

3.12 LDR and LMR Type of compaction All participants reported using standard compaction as require by the program. Two participants (Q2, M9) used auto compactors while the rest used manual compaction. 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.

• The Laboratory Moisture Ratio (LMR)

• The Laboratory Density Ratio (LDR) and Dry Density (before soaking) The reported LDR and LMR values were re-calculated using the reported moisture from clause 6(c) and density (before soaking). Those participants that reported starting moisture (i.e. moisture in sample as received) could not be checked. There were a significant number of participants that had difficulty in calculating these values. The participants listed in Table 3.12A showed inconsistencies in the values submitted and it may assist in improving the quality of testing to review these values.

Table 3.12A: Participants with inconsistencies in calculating LMR and LDR

Part A Part B

Moisture (Clause 6c) not reported L8 C7, M6, M9, H4, R3

Moisture (Clause 6c) appears to be MC as received E2, M2, U3. C7, M6, T2, A4, M9,

S5, R6 M2, M3

Reported LMR does not match reported moisture. J8, R3 Q5, L3

Dry density not reported - -

Reported LDR does not match reported dry density E2, L8, Y3, M6, Y9, A8, H4, R6, R3

Z5, A8, L3, S5, R6, R3, G6



Achievement of OMC & MDD Participants were requested to compact the sample to 100 % standard compaction within the preferred limits indicated by the program instructions. Small variations in OMC and MDD may have a large effect on the CBR result obtained. For this reason the limits on moisture are tighter for Part A than that indicated in AS 1289.6.1.1, Note 7 but similar to limits set by Road Authorities. Part B limits are less tight and fall in line with the new 2014 AS 1289 test method. Participants with results outside these limits as detailed in Table 3.12B may find it helpful to review the results obtained

OMC Range LMR Range Part A Part B

9.3 %

97 %

9.6 %

Z5, E3, T6, Y3, G2, Y9, X8, U7, Y4, A8, H4, N9,

L4

9.8 %

102 %

9.1

87.4

9.6 % U7

10.1

105.2

MDD Range LDR Range Part A Part B

2.196

99 %

2.218 t/m3 M9, E6(b), Z2, U8 X8, Y9, Z2, R3, U8

2.240

101 %

Table 3.12B: Participants that are outside the limits set for LMR and LDR.

3.13 Applied Load & Penetration A number of aspects related to testing practice and equipment used were reviewed. It is important that the performance characteristics of the CBR system setup will deliver the accuracy needed for the particular material under test. Load Cell The majority of participants in this program used load cells with four participants (Z5, F3, E3, Z2) using load rings. Two load cells were calibrated to ‘Class C’ with the rest calibrated to Class ‘A’ or a combination e.g. A/B/C. All participants used a 50kN load device except for two using a 40kN and one a 60kN. All systems in use appeared satisfactory and there was no observable correlation with the CBR results obtained.



An important consideration is the resolution at the lower end of the load scale in order 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 does 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. Seating Load The standard requires that the least amount of force be used for the seating load. Faced with an unknown sample a seating load of around 50 N would have been the most appropriate seating unless a participant was confident that the CBR value would be higher than 30 in which case a seating load of 250 N could be used. Many participants expected a CBR greater than 50% for the material supplied and used a seating load of 250 N. Overall there was a wide spread in the magnitude of the seating load used. Regardless of the value used the important aspect is 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. Inaccurate or varied assignment of the ‘zero point’ may contribute to the variation in CBR results. A number of participants (F3, A4, M9, G2) may not have corrected the raw data back to a zero point. These aspects of the test generally result in small changes. However sometimes small changes can have a significant effect and cause a CBR value to be rounded either up or down by 10%. Applied Loads All participants reported the applied load values obtained. The reported applied loads were evenly split between N and kN although load values were requested in N. The ‘zero penetration’ load value should either be the seating load used or if the recording system was reset then a zero load. If the load at 0.5 mm penetration is less than the seating load it may indicate that correct seating and hence the correct zero point was not obtained. Some participants had loads at zero extension other than the seating load. It may be worthwhile these participants checking their testing practices. Penetration Rate All participants (except U8) reported a penetration rate within the Australian Standard specified range of 1 ± 0.2 mm/min. A motorised platform was used by the majority of



participants with eight participants (Z5, T6, M6, X8, A8, N6, J4, L4) using a hand operated unit. Selected Penetration Load Values 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 12.5mm. 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). Both the 1998 and 2014 AS1289 methods give guidance on selection. The key word 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 use more points. 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 Have sufficient points above the curve section of the graph. Have sufficient points to be able to tell that you have an abnormal data point

The penetration/load values submitted for participant E2 were used to produce a graph and correction line. The results are shown below.

Correction (mm) Bearing Ratio (%)

Submitted Values 3.9 86.0

Recalculated Values 3.6 80.8

y = -2.5057x4 + 46.293x3 - 79.775x2 + 728.96x - 112.93 R² = 0.9997

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Appl

ied

Load

(N)

Penetration (mm)

BR Graph for Participant E2



Apart from the difference in the unrounded CBR value due to re-graphing there are insufficient data points. There are only two points not on the curve section of the graph. It is not evident from the above graph due to its reduced size. One of these may be abnormal but without other data points at the high penetration end it cannot be determined. Also to fit a straight line with any confidence more than two points is recommended.

3.14 Graphing and ‘zero correction’ In previous CBR programs participants were asked to supply graphs. In the last program it was observed that participants had improved considerably in graphing technique and it was felt that this no longer needed to be an aspect of this proficiency program. However a few participants have submitted graphs and most were found to be incorrect in regards to the zero correction. The accuracy of the graph is affected by many of the matters discussed above e.g. seating load, number of data points etc. The zero correction line needs to lie parallel to the straight part of the graph. As an example the graph and data supplied by participant A8 was used to re-graph and recalculate the CBR for part A.

Participant A8 - Part A Submitted Values Recalculated values

Zero correction (mm) 2.4 1.4

Unrounded CBR (%) 80 70

This is a significant difference in the CBR result. In addition the A8 result is in the middle 50% group of results and did not show as an outlier when the ‘SD Limit ‘was applied. It highlights the need for the middle group of participants to review their results as much as those with ‘SD Limit” outliers. For participant N6 which was an outlier when the ‘SD limit’ was applied the recalculated results are:

Participant N6 - Part A Submitted Values Recalculated values

Zero correction (mm) 0 2.1

Unrounded CBR (%) 51.3 73.9

In both cases the change is significant and closer to the median value of 74.3.



A further example:

Participant T2 - Part A Submitted Values Recalculated values

Zero correction (mm) 0 1.6

Unrounded CBR (%) 45.0 65.4

Overall every participant should revisit the graphing technique employed.

3.15 Reporting 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 easier to use and compare when grouped together i.e. takes out some of the fluctuation. Laboratories were asked for 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 with the CBR results will increase slightly if rounded results are used.

y = -0.2896x4 - 15.817x3 + 366.03x2 + 286.3x + 103.24 R² = 0.9999

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Appl

ied

Load

(N)

Penetration (mm)

BR Graph for Participant T2



This page has been left blank intentionally



Z5 20 -2.35 A8 80 0.25F3 67.2 -0.31 L3 80 0.25E2 86.0 0.51 E6(a) 80 0.25Z7 66.2 -0.35 E6(b) 90 0.68M2 91.7 0.76 W7 90 0.68S6 106.2 1.38 H4 80.0 0.25U3 73.2 -0.05 N9 60 -0.62D2 98.1 1.03 S5 80 0.25L8 86.1 0.51 V4 60.0 -0.62C7 47.9 -1.14 R6 60.0 -0.62E3 7.1 -2.91 Z2 82.1 0.34T6 79.7 0.24 K3 70 -0.18Q5 75.3 0.05 N6 51.3 -0.99Y3 81.6 0.32 J4 55.4 -0.82Q3 80 0.25 Z6 85.9 0.50M6 83.8 0.41 R3 78.3 0.18Q2 70 -0.18 G6 107.3 1.43T2 45.0 -1.27 L4 73.2 -0.05A4 90.0 0.68 R7 71.8 -0.11T8 38.2 -1.56 U8 86.2 0.52M9 107.8 1.45G2 38.2 -1.56Y9 53.8 -0.89X8 32.6 -1.80J8 41.3 -1.43U7 28.5 -1.98Y4 47.1 -1.18M7 39.5 -1.50

Number of results 48Median 74.3Median MU 4.2First Quartile 53.2Third Quartile 84.3IQR 31.2Normalised IQR 23.1CV (%) 31.1Minimum 7.1 ()Maximum 107.8 ()Range 100.7 ()

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.

4.1 Part A - CBR: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value



Review Weak Consensus

Weak Consensus Review

4.1 Part A - CBR: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

E3 Z5

U7 X8

T8 G2 M7

J8 T2

Y4 C7

N6

D2

J4 N9 V4 R6

Z7 F3

Q2 K3

U3 L4

Q5 R3 T6 Q3 A8 L3 E6(a) H4

Y3 Z2 M6

Z6

E2

S5

U8 A4 E6(b)

M2 W7

S6 G6 M9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

R7

Y9

L8



Z5 20 -7.69 # A8 80 0.82F3 67.2 -1.00 L3 80 0.82E2 86.0 1.67 E6(a) 80 0.82Z7 66.2 -1.14 E6(b) 90 2.23M2 91.7 2.47 W7 90 2.23S6 106.2 4.53 # H4 80.0 0.82U3 73.2 -0.15 N9 60 -2.02D2 98.1 3.38 # S5 80 0.82L8 86.1 1.68 V4 60.0 -2.02C7 47.9 -3.74 # R6 60.0 -2.02E3 7.1 -9.52 # Z2 82.1 1.11T6 79.7 0.77 K3 70 -0.60Q5 75.3 0.15 N6 51.3 -3.25 #Y3 81.6 1.04 J4 55.4 -2.67Q3 80 0.82 Z6 85.9 1.65M6 83.8 1.35 R3 78.3 0.57Q2 70 -0.60 G6 107.3 4.69 #T2 45.0 -4.15 # L4 73.2 -0.15A4 90.0 2.23 R7 71.8 -0.35T8 38.2 -5.11 # U8 86.2 1.69M9 107.8 4.76 #G2 38.2 -5.11 #Y9 53.8 -2.90X8 32.6 -5.90 #J8 41.3 -4.67 #U7 28.5 -6.49 #Y4 47.1 -3.85 #M7 39.5 -4.93 #

Number of results 48Median 74.3Median MU 1.3First Quartile 53.2Third Quartile 84.3IQR 31.2Set SD Limit 7.05CV (%) 9.5Minimum 53.8 (7.1)Maximum 91.7 (107.8)Range 37.9 (100.7)

Note: A # indicates where the z-score obtained is either greater then 3 or less than -3. These are not considered outliers but it may be beneficial to review these results. Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with z-scores greater than 3 or less than -3 excluded, those in brackets include all results.

4.2 Part A - CBR: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value





4.2 Part A - CBR: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

E3 Z5 U7 X8 T8 G2 M7 J8 T2 Y4 C7 N6 Y9 J4 N9 V4 R6 Z7 F3 Q2 K3

U3 L4

Q5 R3 T6 Q3 A8 L3 E6(a) H4 S5

Z2 M6 Z6 E2 L8 U8 A4 E6(b) M2

W7 S6 G6 M9

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

R7

Y3

D2



Z5 12 -1.93 A8 70 0.34F3 61.3 0.00 L3 60.0 -0.05E2 NR E6(a) 80 0.73Z7 65.7 0.17 E6(b) 90 1.13M2 91.1 1.17 W7 60 -0.05S6 112.8 2.02 H4 45 -0.64U3 82.9 0.85 N9 45 -0.64D2 73.1 0.46 S5 60 -0.05L8 NR V4 50.0 -0.44C7 86.5 0.99 R6 40.0 -0.84E3 6.3 -2.16 Z2 84.6 0.91T6 66.5 0.20 K3 80 0.73Q5 63.2 0.07 N6Y3 84.8 0.92 J4Q3 70 0.34 Z6 90.9 1.16M6 70.8 0.37 R3 52.4 -0.35Q2 60 -0.05 G6 110.8 1.94T2 NR L4 40.4 -0.82A4 NR R7 68.0 0.26T8 NR U8 45.6 -0.62M9 71.8 0.41G2 58.0 -0.13Y9 37.1 -0.95X8 34.7 -1.04J8 36.0 -0.99U7 46.9 -0.56Y4 42.0 -0.76M7 52.3 -0.35

Number of results 41Median 61.3Median MU 5.0First Quartile 45.6Third Quartile 80.0IQR 34.4Normalised IQR 25.5CV (%) 41.6Minimum 6.3 ()Maximum 112.8 ()Range 106.5 ()

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.

4.3 Part B - CBR: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value





4.3 Part B - CBR: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

E3 Z5

X8 J8 Y9

R6 L4 Y4

H4 N9 U8 U7

Q5

M7 R3

G2 Q2 L3

W7 S5

F3

Z7 T6 R7

Q3 A8 M6 M9 D2

E6(a) K3

Z2 Y3 C7

E6(b)

M2

U3

G6 S6

Z6

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

V4



Z5 12 -8.47 # A8 70 1.49F3 61.3 0.00 L3 60.0 -0.22E2 NR E6(a) 80 3.21 #Z7 65.7 0.76 E6(b) 90 4.93 #M2 91.1 5.12 # W7 60 -0.22S6 112.8 8.84 # H4 45 -2.80U3 82.9 3.71 # N9 45 -2.80D2 73.1 2.03 S5 60 -0.22L8 NR V4 50.0 -1.94C7 86.5 4.33 # R6 40.0 -3.66 #E3 6.3 -9.44 # Z2 84.6 4.00 #T6 66.5 0.89 K3 80 3.21 #Q5 63.2 0.33 N6 NRY3 84.8 4.04 # J4 NRQ3 70 1.49 Z6 90.9 5.08 #M6 70.8 1.63 R3 52.4 -1.53Q2 60 -0.22 G6 110.8 8.50 #T2 NR L4 40.4 -3.59 #A4 NR R7 68.0 1.15T8 NR U8 45.6 -2.70M9 71.8 1.80G2 58.0 -0.57Y9 37.1 -4.16 #X8 34.7 -4.57 #J8 36.0 -4.34 #U7 46.9 -2.47Y4 42.0 -3.31 #M7 52.3 -1.55

Number of results 41Median 61.3Median MU 1.14First Quartile 45.6Third Quartile 80.0IQR 34.4Set SD Limit 5.8CV (%) 9.5Minimum 45.0 (6.3)Maximum 73.1 (112.8)Range 28.1 (106.5)

Note: A # indicates where the z-score obtained is either greater then 3 or less than -3. These are not considered outliers but it may be beneficial to review these results. Codes for all participates are shown. The results column shows NR for those participants that did not submit a result for this test. Minimum, Maximum and Range are calculated with z-scores greater than 3 or less than -3 excluded, those in brackets include all results.

4.4 Part B - CBR - Set SD Limits: Z - Scores

CodeTest

Result %

Z Score CodeTest

Result %

Z Score

Statistic Value





4.4 Part B - CBR - Set SD Limits: Z - Score Graph

Strong Consensus

E3 Z5 X8 J8 Y9 R6 L4 Y4 H4 N9 U8 U7 V4 M7 R3 G2

Q2 L3

W7 S5

F3

Z7 T6 R7 Q3 A8 M6 M9 D2 E6(a) K3 U3

Y3 C7 E6(b) Z6 M2 G6 S6

Z2

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Z - Score

Q5



5. Program Details

5.1. Program Design Design This program is one of a series of CBR programs conducted by LabSmart Services over the last nine 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. Role of Proficiency Testing Proficiency testing enables participants to measure competency against others. It is also a measure of staff performance and the equipment used. Next to measurement uncertainty it is the next most useful tool a laboratory has in better understanding the performance of a test. 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. Participant Assessment Assessment of each participant is based on a z-score that is related to the program consensus value (median). Reporting of Outliers A “Z-Scores Summary” is issued soon after the majority of results are received. This 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 contains detailed technical feedback regarding the performance of tests. New Test Method During the running of this program the current version of AS1289.6.1.1 (1998) was under review. Part B was essentially to the new test method which was issued (November 2014) after this proficiency program was completed.



CBR - Compaction Previous proficiency programs indicated that there were possibly two approaches used by laboratories to compact CBR samples. Both are allowed under the 1998 test method. One approach uses ‘53 blows per compaction layer’. The other uses ‘variable blows to achieve the desired density per compaction layer’. For Part A the testing method (1998) was constrained to using the ‘53 blows per compaction layer’ approach. For Part B the testing used the ‘variable blows to achieve the desired density per compaction layer’ approach. The instructions provided meant that participants were performing the test to the new 2014 test method. Material Selection 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. 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 variation encountered. The previous program we provided a medium CBR material this program the material will give a large CBR value. 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. OMC & MDD The determination of OMC and MDD is usually an initial stage undertaken prior to performing a CBR. The determination of these two parameters can show a significant variation which in turn affects the variation obtained for CBR results. The intention was to try and minimise any 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 = 9.6%

• MDD = 2.218 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 provide the least variation. 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. 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. Data Checks 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. This information also helps with identifying any random or systematic errors associated with the test methodology. As observed in other proficiency programs ‘operator errors’ often creep into the result calculation process. Assessment of participants data was incorporated into this program to ensure data was comparable. The load-penetration values were requested from participants for this purpose. Additional data was also included to allow feedback of various aspects such as seating loads, penetration rates, graphing, LDR and LMR.



Some Bearing Ratio results are checked. Any inconsistencies identified during this process do not need to be investigated (as do outliers) but are identified as possible feedback for participant improvement.

5.2. Sample Preparation Sufficient soil 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 randomly generated unique program code was assigned to each sample.

5.3. Packaging and Instructions The plastic bags were sealed with a rubber band and placed into a sturdy box. Each participant received one box with a sealed sample labelled ‘CBR Sample’. The sample weighed approximately 15 kg. Instructions and a ‘results log’ sheet were enclosed. (See Appendix A & B) Participants were instructed to test and report according to AS 1289.6.1.1 where possible.

5.4. Quarantine There were no samples that required additional preparation in order to meet quarantine requirements.

5.5. Despatch Samples were dispatched via courier.

5.6. Homogeneity Testing 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 laboratory undertaking the homogeneity testing applied a ‘target density’ approach.



The overall variability associated with the proficiency samples was considered satisfactory. 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 5.1.

Code

Bearing Ratio Unrounded

CBR Rounded

CBR 2.5 mm 5.0 mm % %

H1 51.6 67.8 67.8 70

H2 50.0 64.6 64.6 60

H3 47.2 60.2 60.2 60

H4 49.4 63.6 63.6 60

H5 46.4 59.4 59.4 60

H6 48.5 62.7 62.7 60

H7 51.5 66.6 66.6 70

H8 47.7 62.6 62.6 60

H9 50.1 66.2 66.2 70

H10 47.6 59.1 59.1 60

Mean 49.0 63.3 63.3 63

Standard Deviation 1.80 3.07 3.07 5

Range 5.2 8.7 8.7 10

Coefficient of Variation (%) 3.7 4.8 4.8 8

Table 5.1 Homogeneity results.

5.7. Participation Fifty-four participants from around Australia entered the program. Forty-eight participants returned results. There were six participants whose results were not received in time to be included in this report.

5.8. 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. See section 4. The use of median and quartiles reduces the effect that outliers have on the statistics and other influences. As a consequence z-scores provide a more realistic or robust method of assessment.



Some results were reported by participants to more decimal places than requested as part of the proficiency program and by others to fewer decimal places. In all instances test results have been used as submitted by participants. Checks were undertaken to ensure the data calculated matched that reported by the participant and that the appropriate corrections had been applied if required. If inconsistencies were identified the data was removed but 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 approximates 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. The following bar (Figure 5.2) 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 5.2 Z-score interpretation bar

For example:

• A strong consensus (i.e. agreement) means that your test result is close i.e. within 1 standard deviation of the median.

• A weak consensus means that your test result is satisfactory and is within 2

standard deviations of the median.

• If you have obtained a test result that is outside 2 standard deviations then it may be worth reviewing your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. Only those obtaining a z-score approaching 3 (I.e. outside 2.75 range) have been highlighted in the report for review.

If you have obtained a test result that is outside 3 standard deviations then you will need to investigate your testing processes to ensure that all aspects are satisfactory. For further details on the statistics used in this proficiency program can be obtained from LabSmart Services or download the ‘Participant Guide’ from the LabSmart Services website.



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

• Type of material selected, • The number of participants, • Experience of participants, • Test methodology variations, • Equipment used, • Test methods used, • Experience of supervisors, • Range of organisations involved.

It is fair to say that proficiency testing results represent a ‘snap shot’ of the competency within the industry and hence provides an overview of the industry as a whole. The more participants involved in the program then generally the more representative the overview. 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.



Code Z5 F3 E2 Z7 M2 S6 U3

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.2 9.7 5.9 9.6 5.8 9.7 6.8Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 55/54/56 53/53/53 53/53/53 53Dry Density g/cm3 2.205 2.224 2.204 2.217 2.217 2.218 2.211Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.4 100.3 100.1 99.9 100.0 100.1 99.7Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 95.4 101.0 97.7 100.3 100 101.0 101.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 6 56.1 64.5 51.5 75.7 83.1 57.6BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 20 67.2 86.0 66.2 91.7 106.2 73.2CBR (%) 20 67.2 86.0 66.2 91.7 106.2 73.2Correction (mm) 0 3.7 3.9 1.6 3.4 NR NRSwell (%) 0.9 -0.6 -0.6 -0.2 -0.3 -0.11 -0.3Moisture ww 9.7 10.2 9.4 10.2 9.6 NR 10.1Moisture w30 9.6 10.1 10.2 9.7 10.1 10.1 10.1Moisture wr 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.7 9.6Date last calibrated 20/09/14 24/09/13 NR 16/01/14 9/09/14 NR 17/09/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 0-50kN NR 0-50kN 1-47.750 NR 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) R R NR C C NR CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A A NR A A NR NRHand driven (H) or motorised (M) H M NR M M NR MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0 mm/min NR 1.0 mm/min 1mm/min NR NRSeating load applied (N) NR 40N 250 0.15 250N NR -2Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y N Y Y Y NR YPeriod Cured (hours) 72 48 50 50 48 NR 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR C C NR C C NRCondition of material NR As Sampled NR Dry Good NR NRLoads in ( N or kN ) N N NR kN N kN kN

0 0 40 0 0 0 0.34 0.20.5 74 140 232 0.21 568 0.59 0.101 265 290 490 0.57 862 1.17 0.25

1.5 444 510 836 1.11 1374 2.21 0.512 779 800 1271 1.85 2040 3.69 0.86

2.5 1087 1190 1828 2.75 2590 5.50 1.353 1606 1710 2483 3.78 3302 7.57 1.98

3.5 2187 2340 NR 4.88 4172 9.77 2.904 2737 3050 3975 6.08 5178 11.91 3.61

4.5 3574 3890 NR 7.34 6286 13.98 4.695 4088 4820 5924 8.63 7568 16.06 5.816 6041 6990 NR 11.37 10424 19.99 8.31

7.5 8405 10390 12124 15.39 15050 25.48 12.558 12167 11750 NR 16.69 16649 NR 14.0110 17962 16130 20634 22.03 24130 33.19 19.30

10 512.5 NA 21720 25735 28.17 31792 40.31 25.01

Code Z5 F3 E2 Z7 M2 S6 U3Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Notes: (1) NR = No result returned

6.1 Part A - Particpants Test Results



Code D2 L8 C7 E3 T6 Q5 Y3

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 NilMoisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.5 NR 6.0 9.8 9.8 9.4 8.6Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 53 53/53/53 53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53Dry Density g/cm3 2.220 2.218 2.209 2.213 2.214 2.222 2.223Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.1 97.0 99.6 99.8 99.8 100.2 100.6Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 99.0 96.9 99.8 102.0 102.1 97.9 89.6BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 75.8 75.6 38.8 3.2 59.5 64.4 64.3BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 98.1 86.1 47.9 7.1 79.7 75.3 81.6CBR (%) 98.1 86.1 47.9 7.1 79.7 75.3 81.6Correction (mm) 2.5 0.0 0 0.5 2.5 2.8 1.7Swell (%) -0.2 -0.17 -0.55 -0.6 0 0.0 -0.1Moisture ww 10.1 11.0 9.6 10.0 NR 10.2 9.3Moisture w30 9.9 10.3 10.2 9.9 9.8 9.5 9.2Moisture wr 8.9 10.4 9.9 9.7 9.1 9.7 8.9Date last calibrated 4/03/14 NR 14/06/13 25/07/14 11/03/13 11/12/12 12/03/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.001-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C R C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A NR A C/A A A AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M H M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0 mm/min 1.05mm/minSeating load applied (N) 40N NR 0.45kN 45N 75N 0.0 80NSeating load set to zero (Y/N) Y NR Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48 48 48 48 96 48 50Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR C H NR NR NRCondition of material Damp Fine Good-moist 6.4% MC Moist Moist Dry of OMCLoads in ( N or kN ) N kN N N kN N N

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00.5 142 0.34 53 73 0.143 156 1621 380 0.74 135 134 0.354 263 396

1.5 814 1.49 242 207 0.676 553 8972 1470 2.21 383 305 1.126 980 1596

2.5 2398 3.24 593 427 1.724 1600 25353 3518 4.68 891 586 2.619 2440 3643

3.5 4950 5.94 1278 769 3.701 3412 49134 6580 7.05 1752 988 4.933 4628 6337

4.5 8220 9.07 2319 1196 6.404 5912 78715 10120 10.85 2993 1413 7.855 7357 94026 13990 13.58 4539 1815 11.123 10320 12695

7.5 19530 17.64 7079 2516 15.783 15290 177768 21340 19.72 7922 2692 17.246 16900 1941310 28050 23.52 11661 3382 23.008 23136 25189

10 512.5 36060 27.41 16394 3960 27.711 29731 33912

Code D2 L8 C7 E3 T6 Q5 Y3Number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14





Code Q3 M6 Q2 T2 A4 T8 M9

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.4 6.2 9.7 5.6 5.9 9.6 6.8Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M A M M M ACompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53Dry Density g/cm3 2.232 2.218 2.213 2.220 2.220 2.192 2.1909Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.6 100.4 99.8 100.1 100.0 NR 98.8Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.9 94.8 101.0 99.0 99.0 100.0 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 60 62.9 50 20.0 90.0 24.6 87.8BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 80 83.8 70 45.0 90.0 38.2 107.8CBR (%) 80 83.8 70 45.0 90.0 38.2 107.8Correction (mm) 2.0 1.1 1.9 0.0 0.005 Nil 0.005Swell (%) -0.38 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 0.18 -0.2 0.87Moisture ww 9.7 9.1 10.9 9.5 9.5 10.2 9.5Moisture w30 10.2 9.8 10.4 10.0 10.4 10.2 9.6Moisture wr 8.8 9.3 8.9 9.8 9.2 9.6 9.2Date last calibrated 6/05/14 22/05/14 23/01/14 12/07/13 21/07/14 13/09/13 16/09/14Calibrated range 0.001-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 200-40000N 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A A A/B/C AA/A/B/C A A AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M H M M M M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 0.993mm/min 1kN/min 1mm/min 1 mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/minSeating load applied (N) 250N 250 Yes 0.029kN 0.005 145N 0.005Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y N Y NPeriod Cured (hours) 48 48 48 52 72 72 72Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR NR NR NR NR NRCondition of material Good Moist Good Good Good NR GoodLoads in ( N or kN ) N N kN kN kN N kN

0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 0.0050.5 400 384 0.32 0.433 1.525 113 0.3361 799 1006 0.68 0.826 3.122 284 1.271

1.5 1335 1938 1.17 1.353 4.768 557 2.8802 2057 3190 1.88 1.972 6.472 914 4.904

2.5 2967 4756 2.76 2.731 8.106 1344 6.9983 4130 6466 3.80 3.736 9.868 1836 9.332

3.5 NR 7988 4.93 4.83 11.254 2420 11.5924 6963 9664 6.22 6.04 12.526 3051 13.656

4.5 NR 11358 7.50 7.35 13.988 3788 15.8225 10193 12992 8.79 8.636 15.980 4556 17.7716 NR 16270 11.56 11.211 17.645 6178 21.332

7.5 18044 20472 15.79 15.204 21.048 8.947 26.0958 NR 21804 17.20 16.259 22.240 9.944 27.29910 26240 27742 22.57 20.865 26.786 NR 32.277

10 512.5 33575 NR 29.09 NR 32.586 NR 37.656

Code Q3 M6 Q2 T2 A4 T8 M9Number 15 16 17 18 19 20 21





Code G2 Y9 X8 J8 U7 Y4 M7

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.8 9.3 9.0 9.4 10.0 10.2 9.5Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53Dry Density g/cm3 2.203 2.225 2.224 2.218 2.206 2.206 2.217Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.3 100.0 100.3 100.0 99.5 99.5 100.0Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 102.1 97 93.8 98.5 104.2 106.3 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 29.3 23.6 13.4 41.3 14.8 35.8 34.2BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 38.2 53.8 32.6 37.7 28.5 47.1 39.5CBR (%) 38.2 53.8 32.6 41.3 28.5 47.1 39.5Correction (mm) 3.0 0.0 0 2.5 0.5 2.1 2.6Swell (%) -0.3 0.0 0.6 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.7Moisture ww 10.0 10.3 9.5 9.5 NR 10.5 10.3Moisture w30 15.4 9.4 9.6 9.5 10.8 10.6 10.2Moisture wr 9.8 10.0 9.1 8.8 9.7 9.1 9.6Date last calibrated 6/09/13 25/07/13 09/13 16/09/14 18/10/13 5/08/14 5/08/14Calibrated range 0.045-50kN 0-40kN 0-50kN 0-50 0.04-50 50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C 31169519 C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) C/A A A A B/A B/A B/AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M H M M M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.02mm/min 1.02mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/minSeating load applied (N) Y 20 0.040kN 50N 45N 50 50Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 96 48 48 50 48 48 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR C NR NRCondition of material Bag unbrocken Dry Good Good Moist Moist MoistLoads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN kN N N N

0 0.051 0 0.0 0 0 0 -60.5 0.151 210 NR 0.097 228 293 1651 0.261 567 0.468 0.219 432 542 287

1.5 0.417 1149 0.808 0.391 694 859 4402 0.629 1995 1,292 0.632 1029 1270 640

2.5 0.898 3110 1.772 0.955 1444 1753 9053 1.229 4482 2.457 1.333 1949 2320 1194

3.5 1.609 6006 3.309 1.799 2539 3007 14764 2.097 7636 4.257 2.366 3211 3780 1813

4.5 2.586 9123 5.383 3.018 3953 4598 22375 3.183 10664 6.445 3.757 4735 5503 26806 4.525 13590 8.841 5.333 6585 7418 3648

7.5 6.754 17430 12.608 7.940 9370 10168 55548 7.495 18690 13.942 8.925 10323 11122 6228

10 10.558 23250 NR 12.777 NR 14688 913410 512.5 14.153 28590 NR 15.612 NR 18866 13002Code G2 Y9 X8 J8 U7 Y4 M7

Number 22 23 24 25 26 27 28





Code A8 L3 E6(a) E6(b) W7 H4 N9

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.8 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.8Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 41/41/41 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 49/54/52Dry Density g/cm3 2.218 2.220 2.212 2.183 2.217 2.220 2.218Density Ratio (LDR) % 99.8 100 99.7 98.4 100.0 100.3 100.0Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 102 98.0 99.2 100.2 100.0 102.0 102.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 70 60 60 70 70 60.0 45BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 80 80 80 90 90 80.0 60CBR (%) 80 80 80 90 90 80.0 60Correction (mm) 2.4 1.50-7.50 4.0 3.5 4.5 4.1 1.8Swell (%) -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5Moisture ww 10.3 10.1 NR NR 9.4 10.4 NRMoisture w30 10.2 9.8 10.7 10.5 9.5 9.9 10.1Moisture wr 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.3 8.6 9.4 9.3Date last calibrated 18/12/13 26/11/14 27/05/14 27/05/14 23/09/14 29/10/13 14/08/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.01-50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A/B A A A A A NRHand driven (H) or motorised (M) H M M M M M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min NRSeating load applied (N) 0.25 0.05kN 250N 250N 0.05 0.30 0.250Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48+ 72 96 96 48 88 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR NR NR C NR NRCondition of material Sealed Good Moist Moist NR Sealed good GoodLoads in ( N or kN ) kN kN kN kN kN N kN

0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0 00.5 0.50 0.57 0.41 0.43 0.30 50 0.261 1.05 1.44 0.97 1.05 0.71 140 0.62

1.5 1.73 2.00 1.75 1.97 1.31 290 1.122 2.52 3.07 2.76 3.16 2.16 520 1.71

2.5 3.50 4.46 3.93 4.58 3.23 820 2.463 4.56 5.70 5.27 6.20 4.45 1250 3.33

3.5 5.78 7.31 6.72 7.97 5.91 1820 4.294 7.14 8.66 8.26 9.76 7.52 2510 5.26

4.5 8.43 10.51 9.85 11.52 9.19 3300 6.525 9.85 12.44 11.40 13.25 11.01 4230 7.646 12.54 15.81 14.39 16.78 14.49 6450 9.93

7.5 16.60 20.95 18.91 21.74 19.61 10800 13.268 17.74 22.51 20.30 23.31 21.30 12200 14.3410 23.04 28.81 26.22 29.12 27.68 17700 18.86

10 512.5 28.90 36.34 33.13 36.07 35.17 23580 24.31

Code A8 L3 E6(a) E6(b) W7 H4 N9Number 29 30 31 32 33 34 35





Code S5 V4 R6 Z2 K3 N6 J4

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 6.1 9.8 6.2 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.6Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y S Std Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 53/53/53 53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53Dry Density g/cm3 2.218 2.220 2.210 2.240 2.218 2.221 2.216Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.0 99.8 101.0 100.0 100.1 99.9Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100.0 101.9 100.0 99.0 100.4 99.0 100.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 60 45.0 40.0 62.5 60 14.8 15.5BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 80 60.0 60.0 82.1 70 51.3 55.4CBR (%) 80 60.0 60.0 82.1 70 51.3 55.4Correction (mm) 1.3 2.6 0 1.9 2.4 0 0Swell (%) -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.3 -0.4Moisture ww 10.5 9.8 NR 9.7 9.7 9.6 10.1Moisture w30 10.0 9.5 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.9Moisture wr 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.1 9.3 9.7 10.0Date last calibrated 22/02/13 10/09/13 29/07/14 19/12/13 17/03/14 24/09/14 24/09/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 0-50kN 50000N 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C R C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) AA A Unsure A C A AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M H HRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/minSeating load applied (N) 74N 0.104 kN 250N 0.152kN 0.05kN 0.250kN 0.249Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 49 48 48 48 48 49 51Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCondition of material Moist Slightly Moist As recieved Moist Good Sealed SealedLoads in ( N or kN ) N kN N N N kN kN

0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.00 0.00000.5 336 0.140 305 363 150 0.129 0.1271 906 0.346 729 700 400 0.289 0.270

1.5 1737 0.638 1357 1290 810 0.327 0.5122 2796 1.044 2219 2006 1340 0.994 1.226

2.5 4090 1.499 3118 2974 2060 1.950 2.0443 5565 2.074 4094 4110 3000 3.085 3.679

3.5 7165 2.781 5081 5370 4110 4.186 4.9884 8890 3.610 6238 6839 5300 6.040 6.444

4.5 10465 4.516 7521 8432 6670 6.891 8.9905 12153 5.500 8939 10190 8070 10.150 10.9766 15570 7.616 11838 13698 11060 12.089 12.098

7.5 20554 10.962 16093 18608 15270 14.666 14.8108 22085 12.091 17439 20102 16670 15.788 16.00410 28325 16.424 22178 26346 21780 17.921 18.621

10 512.5 35768 21.850 28577 33582 28000 20.388 21.188

Code S5 V4 R6 Z2 K3 N6 J4Number 36 37 38 39 40 41 42





Code Z6 R3 G6 L4 R7 U8

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.2 9.5 9.5Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53 53 53/53/53Dry Density g/cm3 2.220 2.201 2.218 2.216 2.220 2.191Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.1 101.0 100.1 99.9 100.1 98.8Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 101.0 99.2 99.9 95.9 98.8 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 66.3 56.8 83.6 53.0 55.5 62.8BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 85.9 78.3 107.3 73.2 71.8 86.2CBR (%) 85.9 78.3 107.3 73.2 71.8 86.2Correction (mm) 1.7 0.75 1.5 11.1 1.6 2.5Swell (%) -0.3 -0.59 -0.3 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2Moisture ww 10.4 9.7 9.8 9.8 10.0 10.3Moisture w30 10.3 11.5 9.8 9.7 10.3 9.7Moisture wr 10.1 10.2 9.8 8.7 9.9 8.9Date last calibrated 22/08/14 23/05/13 21/05/14 03/13 27/05/13 18/10/13Calibrated range 0-60kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kN 0.05-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) C A A A/B A A/B/CHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.1mm/min 0.88mm/minSeating load applied (N) 30N 280N 250N 250N 110N 50NSeating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48 48 48 48 72 NRGraph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR C NRCondition of material Moist Dry Moist Good Satisfactory NRLoads in ( N or kN ) N kN N kN N N

0 0 0 0 0.0 0 00.5 297 0.612 320 0.250 480 1001 712 1.213 960 0.662 1010 259

1.5 1312 2.301 1840 1.308 1700 5432 2176 3.934 3060 2.266 2510 1011

2.5 3286 5.019 4570 3.390 3390 16963 4615 6.287 6450 4.744 4490 2646

3.5 6100 NR 8520 NR 5870 38554 7660 9.435 10600 7.650 7030 5238

4.5 9350 NR 12830 NR 8550 67815 11030 12.891 14970 11.038 9930 84166 14555 NR 18990 NR 12710 11974

7.5 19500 18.209 24640 17.352 16630 172008 20980 NR 26470 NR 18050 NR10 NR 21.315 33350 25.608 23050 25351

10 512.5 NR 22.457 41820 31.584 29210 33056

Code Z6 R3 G6 L4 R7 U8 0Number 43 44 45 46 47 48 49





Code Z5 F3 E2 Z7 M2 S6 U3

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 NR 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 10.1 9.6 NR 9.5 5.6 9.7 6.8Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M NR M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y NR Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 35/38/42 48/48/48 NR 53/53/53 53/53/53 53/53/53 NRDry Density g/cm3 2.200 2.217 NR 2.219 2.215 2.235 2.230Density Ratio (LDR) % 98.9 100.0 NR 100.0 99.9 100.7 100.6Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 104.9 100.0 NR 99.2 101.0 101.0 103.1BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 2.5 50.7 NR 49.2 77.4 86.7 72.0BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 12 61.3 NR 65.7 91.1 112.8 82.9CBR (%) 12 61.3 NR 65.7 91.1 112.8 82.9Correction (mm) 0 3.4 NR 1.7 3.6 NR NRSwell (%) 0.4 -0.5 NR -0.5 -0.5 -0.03 -0.27Moisture ww 10.4 10.1 NR 9.6 9.7 NR 11.2Moisture w30 10.3 9.9 NR 9.8 9.9 9.8 11.4Moisture wr 9.6 9.3 NR 9.7 9.2 10.0 10.6Date last calibrated 20/09/14 24/09/13 NR 16/01/14 9/09/14 NR 17/09/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 0-50kN NR 0-50kN 1-47.750 NR 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) R R NR C C NR CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A A NR A A NR NRHand driven (H) or motorised (M) H M NR M M NR MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1.0 m/min NR 1.0 mm/min 1mm/min NR NRSeating load applied (N) NR 40N NR 0.15 250N NR -2Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y N NR Y Y NR YPeriod Cured (hours) 72 48 NR 50 48 NR 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR C NR NR C C NRCondition of material NR As Sampled NR Dry Good NR NRLoads in ( N or kN ) N N NR kN N kN kN

0 0 40 NR 0 0 0.35 0.20.5 49 140 NR 0.16 492 0.53 0.271 74 310 NR 0.52 842 0.95 0.64

1.5 136 560 NR 1.04 1266 1.66 1.212 253 890 NR 1.76 1854 2.76 2.07

2.5 457 1330 NR 2.51 2346 4.34 3.153 661 1640 NR 3.41 3148 6.31 4.45

3.5 897 2460 NR 4.78 3976 8.45 5.774 1375 3180 NR 5.88 4980 10.74 6.85

4.5 1801 4020 NR 6.99 6078 13.01 8.795 2336 4930 NR 8.54 7360 15.21 10.306 3569 6940 NR 11.1 9896 19.56 13.20

7.5 5887 10050 NR 15.11 13976 25.78 17.078 7120 11260 NR 16.54 15379 NR 18.1910 9510 15480 NR 22.14 22994 34.48 21.47

10 5 NR12.5 NA 19960 NR 28.24 30370 42.47 24.97

Code Z5 F3 E2 Z7 M2 S6 U3Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


6.2 Part B - Particpants Test Results



Code D2 L8 C7 E3 T6 Q5 Y3

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 NR 0 0 0 0 NilMoisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.6 NR 0.0 9.5 9.4 9.6 8.7Compaction Hammer (M or A) M NR M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y NR Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/60/53 NR 53/53/53 53 53/53/53 53/53/53 53Dry Density g/cm3 2.229 NR 2.227 2.218 2.224 2.224 2.220Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.5 NR 100.4 100.0 100.3 100.3 100.1Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100.0 NR 99.0 99.0 97.9 96.9 90.6BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 55.8 NR 65.1 2.9 52.2 49.4 65.0BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 73.1 NR 86.5 6.3 66.5 63.2 84.8CBR (%) 73.1 NR 86.5 6.3 66.5 63.2 84.8Correction (mm) 2.9 NR 0 0.5 2.5 3.6 1.7Swell (%) -0.3 NR -0.43 -0.5 0.5 0.0 -0.1Moisture ww 10.0 NR 9.5 9.4 NR 9.3 9.5Moisture w30 9.4 NR 9.8 9.0 9.4 9.7 10.1Moisture wr 8.6 NR 9.5 10.0 8.7 9.2 9.1Date last calibrated 4/03/14 NR 14/06/13 25/07/14 11/03/13 11/12/12 12/03/14Calibrated range 0-50kN NR 0.001-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C NR C R C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A NR A C/A A A AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M NR M M H M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min NR 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0 mm/min 1.05mm/minSeating load applied (N) 40N NR 0.45kN 45N 75N 0.0 80NSeating load set to zero (Y/N) Y NR Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48 NR 48 48 96 48 50Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR C H NR NR NRCondition of material Damp NR Good-moist 6.4% MC Moist Moist Dry of OMCLoads in ( N or kN ) N NR N kN kN N N

0 0 NR 0 0 0 0 00.5 98 NR 66 0.037 0.117 117 2001 240 NR 182 0.072 0.285 185 542

1.5 439 NR 442 0.122 0.529 322 11872 838 NR 860 0.183 0.893 583 2043

2.5 1290 NR 1561 0.268 1.387 919 31173 1921 NR 2473 0.378 2.066 1350 4353

3.5 2738 NR 3648 0.512 2.982 1920 57394 3780 NR 5040 0.671 4.033 2590 7169

4.5 4920 NR 6573 0.854 5.313 3392 87825 6220 NR 8188 1.021 6.893 4246 103886 8990 NR 11623 1.434 9.357 6289 13778

7.5 13320 NR 16746 1.970 13.169 9761 186178 14750 NR 18355 2.207 14.405 11100 2019310 20010 NR 24450 2.981 19.012 16020 26192

10 5 NR12.5 26800 NR 31382 NR 23.038 21864 33029

Code D2 L8 C7 E3 T6 Q5 Y3Number 8 9 10 11 12 13 14





Code Q3 M6 Q2 T2 A4 T8 M9

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.4 0.0 9.4 NR NR NR 0Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M A NR NR NR ACompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y NR NR NR YNo. blows/ layer NR 54/51/53 53/53/60 NR NR NR 30/30/45Dry Density g/cm3 2.217 2.227 2.214 NR NR NR 2.2211Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 100.4 99.8 NR NR NR 100.1Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.9 94.8 97.9 NR NR NR 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 60 49.9 45 NR NR NR 55.8BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 70 70.8 60 NR NR NR 71.8CBR (%) 70 70.8 60 NR NR NR 71.8Correction (mm) 1.3 1.5 2.1 NR NR NR 0Swell (%) -0.5 -0.5 -0.4 NR NR NR -0.96Moisture ww 9.8 9.1 10.6 NR NR NR 9.5Moisture w30 9.7 9.7 9.7 NR NR NR 9.1Moisture wr 8.8 9.2 8.9 NR NR NR 8.3Date last calibrated 6/05/14 22/05/14 23/01/14 NR NR NR 16/09/14Calibrated range 0.001-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN NR NR NR 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C NR NR NR CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A A A/B/C NR NR NR AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M H M NR NR NR MRate of penetration (mm/min) 0.993mm/min 1kN/min 1mm/min NR NR NR 1mm/minSeating load applied (N) 250N 250 Yes NR NR NR 0.005Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y NR NR NR NPeriod Cured (hours) 48 48 48 NR NR NR 72Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR NR NR NR NR NRCondition of material Good Moist Good NR NR NR GoodLoads in ( N or kN ) N N kN NR NR NR kN

0 0 0 0 NR NR NR 0.0000.5 540 312 0.18 NR NR NR 0.0751 1155 670 0.40 NR NR NR 0.512

1.5 1920 1254 0.76 NR NR NR 1.3472 2899 2038 1.26 NR NR NR 2.517

2.5 4035 2890 1.93 NR NR NR 3.8403 5280 4030 2.80 NR NR NR 5.188

3.5 NR 5555 3.75 NR NR NR 6.5784 8142 6586 4.81 NR NR NR 8.052

4.5 NR 8062 5.96 NR NR NR 9.3855 10928 9554 7.17 NR NR NR 10.7406 NR 12282 9.71 NR NR NR 13.426

7.5 17898 16270 13.31 NR NR NR 17.0728 NR 17584 14.51 NR NR NR 19.25910 25088 22692 18.87 NR NR NR 22.888

10 5 NR NR NR12.5 31350 NR 24.14 NR NR NR 28.205

Code Q3 M6 Q2 T2 A4 T8 M9Number 15 16 17 18 19 20 21





Code G2 Y9 X8 J8 U7 Y4 M7

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0.0 0 0.09 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.4 8.6 9.2 9.7 10.3 9.9 9.5Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 32/33/32 25/25/25 30/35/35 53/53/53 20/20/20 NR NRDry Density g/cm3 2.221 2.239 2.184 2.208 2.202 2.204 2.216Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.2 101.0 98.5 99.6 99.3 99.4 99.9Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 97.9 90 95.8 100.6 107.3 103.1 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 47.5 33.7 13.8 36.0 28.5 31.8 39.1BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 58.0 37.1 34.7 28.9 46.9 42.0 52.3CBR (%) 58.0 37.1 34.7 36.0 46.9 42.0 52.3Correction (mm) 3.9 0.3 0 2.5 0.50 2.4 2.6Swell (%) -0.3 0.0 0.1 -0.2 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6Moisture ww 9.7 10.6 9.9 9.7 NR 10.2 10.1Moisture w30 13.7 10.2 9.8 8.4 10.4 10.3 9.7Moisture wr 9.8 10.1 9.5 8.9 9.9 9.3 9.1Date last calibrated 6/09/13 25/07/13 09/13 16/09/14 18/10/13 5/08/14 5/08/14Calibrated range 0.045-50kN 0-40kN 0-50kN 0-50 0.045-50 50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C ? C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) C/A A A A B/A B/A B/AHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M H M M M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.02mm/min 1.02mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/minSeating load applied (N) Y 20 0.040kN 50N 45N 50 50Seating load set to zero (Y/N) N Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 96 48 48 50 48 48 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR C NR NRCondition of material Bag unbrocken Dry Good Good moist Moist MoistLoads in ( N or kN ) kN N kN kN N N N

0 0.053 0 0.0 0 0 1 10.5 0.112 479 NR 0.064 383 313 1151 0.332 1228 0.277 0.146 763 549 279

1.5 0.469 2121 0.649 0.263 1281 839 4942 0.759 3074 1.174 0.437 1958 1194 831

2.5 1.098 3931 1.818 0.661 2784 1546 12973 1.624 4764 2.739 0.967 3771 1995 1831

3.5 2.164 5478 3.604 1.331 4777 2486 24024 2.883 6102 4.789 1.800 5879 3051 3113

4.5 3.628 6642 5.776 2.400 7023 3646 40295 4.458 7235 6.879 3.111 8156 4355 50646 6.397 8082 8.802 4.412 10434 5897 6873

7.5 9.148 9306 11.598 7.167 13859 8520 102468 10.367 9726 12.403 7.824 14850 9422 11206

10 13.918 11280 NR 11.261 NR 13115 1526410 512.5 18.543 13230 NR 15.333 NR 17917 20136Code G2 Y9 X8 J8 U7 Y4 M7

Number 22 23 24 25 26 27 28





Code A8 L3 E6(a) E6(b) W7 H4 N9

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.5 NR 9.7Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer 53/53/53 41/41/41 50/50/50 50/50/50 53/53/53 45/49/45 35/44/42Dry Density g/cm3 2.218 2.220 2.215 2.219 2.220 2.220 2.218Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.2 99.9 99.9 100.1 100.1 100.1 100.0Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 98.0 102.0 99.9 98.0 99 100.0 101.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 60 45.0 60 70 50 35 35BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 70 60.0 80 90 60 45 45CBR (%) 70 60.0 80 90 60 45 45Correction (mm) 2.2 5.50-12.50 4.0 3.0 7.0 4.4 2.1Swell (%) 0.0 -0.50 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -1.1 -0.5Moisture ww 10.1 10.2 NR NR 8.9 10.0 NRMoisture w30 9.9 9.3 9.8 10.4 9.4 9.9 10.0Moisture wr 9.2 8.9 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.8 9.3Date last calibrated 18/12/13 26/11/2014 27/05/14 27/05/14 23/09/14 29/10/13 14/08/14Calibrated range 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 0.01-50kN 0-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) A/B A A A A A NRHand driven (H) or motorised (M) H M M M M M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.0mm/min NRSeating load applied (N) 0.25kN 0.05kN 250N 250N 0.05 0.30 0.250Seating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48+ 72 96 96 48 88 48Graph computer or hand (C/H) C NR NR NR C NR NRCondition of material Sealed Good Moist Moist NR Sealed good GoodLoads in ( N or kN ) kN kN kN kN kN N kN

0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0 00.5 0.34 0.08 0.39 0.44 0.09 40 0.191 0.80 0.17 0.91 1.09 0.23 120 0.45

1.5 1.40 0.35 1.64 2.08 0.44 200 0.762 2.07 0.58 2.58 3.33 0.73 350 1.20

2.5 2.90 0.95 3.75 4.78 1.11 510 1.743 3.85 1.49 5.09 6.39 1.61 740 2.40

3.5 4.83 2.08 6.58 8.13 2.23 1040 3.074 6.06 2.60 8.19 9.87 3.00 1420 3.78

4.5 7.18 3.32 9.83 11.59 3.84 1820 4.555 8.42 4.13 11.47 13.16 4.81 2320 5.346 10.62 6.04 14.63 16.39 6.93 3480 7.12

7.5 14.14 9.16 19.16 20.93 10.51 5700 9.898 15.42 10.24 20.61 22.36 11.72 6620 10.6710 19.93 14.87 26.22 28.32 16.17 10120 14.44

10 512.5 25.80 20.75 33.17 34.98 21.12 13950 18.67

Code A8 L3 E6(a) E6(b) W7 H4 N9Number 29 30 31 32 33 34 35





Code S5 V4 R6 Z2 K3 N6 J4

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 NR NRMoisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.6 9.8 8.8 9.4 9.5 NR NRCompaction Hammer (M or A) M M A M M NR NRCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Std Y NR NRNo. blows/ layer 53/57/55 26/26/26 53 51/51/51 53/53/53 NR NRDry Density g/cm3 2.431 2.210 2.230 2.240 2.218 NR NRDensity Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 99.7 100.3 101.0 100.0 NR NRMoisture Ratio (LMR) % 100.3 101.6 92.0 97.9 99.4 NR NRBR @ 2.5 mm (%) 40 45.0 30.0 64.4 60 NR NRBR @ 5.0 mm (%) 60 50.0 40.0 84.6 80 NR NRCBR (%) 60 50.0 40.0 84.6 80 NR NRCorrection (mm) 2.1 3.2 0 1.8 2.4 NR NRSwell (%) -0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 NR NRMoisture ww 10.2 9.8 NR 9.7 9.4 NR NRMoisture w30 9.6 9.9 9.3 9.6 9.9 NR NRMoisture wr 8.9 9.6 9.1 9.0 8.8 NR NRDate last calibrated 22/02/13 10/09/13 29/07/14 19/12/13 17/03/14 NR NRCalibrated range 0-50kN 0-50kN 50000N 0-50kN 0-50kN NR NRLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C R C NR NRCalibration Class (A, B, C) AA A Unsure A C NR NRHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M M M NR NRRate of penetration (mm/min) 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min NR NRSeating load applied (N) 74N 0.180 kN 250N 0.152kN 0.05kN NR NRSeating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y NR NRPeriod Cured (hours) 49 48 48 48 48 NR NRGraph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCondition of material Moist Slightly Moist As recieved Moist Good NR NRLoads in ( N or kN ) N kN N N N NR NR

0 0 0.000 0 0 0 NR NR0.5 166 0.153 208 320 380 NR NR1 384 0.341 532 70 690 NR NR

1.5 714 0.619 855 1206 1140 NR NR2 1158 0.914 1358 2006 1710 NR NR

2.5 1719 1.341 1984 3016 2510 NR NR3 2429 1.851 2680 4236 3490 NR NR

3.5 3215 2.436 3419 5622 4560 NR NR4 4136 3.040 4268 7175 5880 NR NR

4.5 5194 3.749 5139 9186 7210 NR NR5 6278 4.516 6058 10441 8660 NR NR6 8477 6.188 8038 13823 11740 NR NR

7.5 11883 8.999 10778 18857 16100 NR NR8 13021 9.998 12096 20392 17440 NR NR10 17289 13.856 15411 26223 22430 NR NR

10 5 NR NR12.5 22779 18.940 19509 33131 28430 NR NR

Code S5 V4 R6 Z2 K3 N6 J4Number 36 37 38 39 40 41 42





Code Z6 R3 G6 L4 R7 U8

Mass Retained on 19 mm sieve (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0Moisture-Before compaction, Cl 6(c) (%) 9.6 0.0 9.6 9.9 9.7 9.5Compaction Hammer (M or A) M M M M M MCompaction Method Standard (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y YNo. blows/ layer ≈ 50/50/50 NR 30/30/30 ? 30/30/30 43/44/47Dry Density g/cm3 2.219 2.212 2.218 2.207 2.215 2.185Density Ratio (LDR) % 100.0 102.5 99.7 99.5 99.9 98.5Moisture Ratio (LMR) % 100.0 99.7 100.4 103.6 101.2 99.0BR @ 2.5 mm (%) 69.7 38.0 110.8 26.4 52.2 35.3BR @ 5.0 mm (%) 90.9 52.4 89.7 40.4 68.0 45.6CBR (%) 90.9 52.4 110.8 40.4 68.0 45.6Correction (mm) 1.7 2.5 0.5 9.1 1.3 3.3Swell (%) -0.4 -0.7 -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5Moisture ww 10.4 9.8 8.9 10.3 10.2 10.2Moisture w30 9.9 9.3 9.6 9.4 9.9 9.5Moisture wr 10.0 8.7 8.8 8.6 10.0 8.9Date last calibrated 22/08/14 23/05/13 21/05/14 03/13 27/05/13 18/10/13Calibrated range 0-60kN 0-50kN 0-50kN 50kN 0-50kN 0.05-50kNLoad cell (C) or ring (R) C C C C C CCalibration Class (A, B, C) C A A A/B A A/B/CHand driven (H) or motorised (M) M M M H M MRate of penetration (mm/min) 1.0mm/min 1.0mm/min 1mm/min 1mm/min 1.1mm/min 0.92mm/minSeating load applied (N) 30N 50N 250N 250N 140N 50NSeating load set to zero (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y YPeriod Cured (hours) 48 48 48 48 72 NRGraph computer or hand (C/H) NR NR NR NR C NRCondition of material Moist Dry Moist Good Satisfactory NRLoads in ( N or kN ) N kN N kN N N

0 0 0 0 0.0 0 -20.5 286 0.112 840 0.152 640 751 678 0.263 5930 0.320 1190 173

1.5 1302 0.520 9750 0.632 1900 3242 2185 0.780 11680 1.042 2850 537

2.5 3339 1.189 13230 1.538 3850 8243 4810 1.705 14540 2.130 4930 1201

3.5 6430 NR 15580 NR 6150 16644 8190 3.180 16460 3.492 7380 2208

4.5 10005 NR 17080 NR 8670 27655 11810 5.013 17560 5.128 10090 34496 15445 NR 18260 NR 12700 5023

7.5 20700 10.370 18590 9.708 16570 75978 22220 NR 18690 NR 17880 NR10 NR 15.950 18630 14.176 22760 12125

10 512.5 NR 20.965 19120 18.474 28930 16653

Code Z6 R3 G6 L4 R7 U8Number 43 44 45 46 47 48





54 App A CBR PT Instructions V1.8

LabSmart Services

Proficiency Testing Program

California Bearing Ratio – 2014 (54)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTER

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

Instructions (for tester) Results Log Approximately 15 kg of soil sealed in a plastic bag labelled ‘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 27 October 2014.

4. Due to the possibility of segregation during transportation mix the sample thoroughly

prior to testing.

5. Sieve the sample over the 19 mm sieve to determine the amount of oversize present. Record this as a % on the results log. Discard the oversize material.

6. The same person should preform both Part A and B.

7. You do not need to be accredited for AS 1289 6.1.1. You may use other equivalent

methods but it is preferable that AS 1289 6.1.1 be used. Part A

8. Conduct the CBR test to AS 1289 6.1.1 using the following information. This may mean you have to change your current practice to the following aspects of the test method.

Use an OMC of 9.6 % (see note below). Adjust the moisture of the sample mixing thoroughly at intervals and cure for

48 hours. This should be done in a plastic bag with the end tied/folded over. Take a sample to determine final moisture content (w1) achieved.

Sample to be remoulded at 100% standard compaction. Please use 53 blows per layer (standard compactive effort).

Use a MDD of 2.218 t/m3 (see note below). Apply a 4.5 kg surcharge. Soak the sample as per the method for 4 days. Swell is to be determined. Take additional load readings at 3.5, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.0 mm penetration.

Note: It is preferable that the LMR be within 97 to 102 % and the LDR be within 100 ± 1%

Page 1 of 3

Appendix A




Part B Part B is not part of proficiency assessment. It is included to provide feedback on technique and an aid to reducing the spread of test results.

9. Conduct a second CBR test using a target wet density approach to achieve layer

heights within the ranges specified in AS 1289 6.1.1 and according to the following: Do not reuse material from Part A.

Use an OMC of 9.6 %

Obtain sufficient material to do the test. Dry back to zero moisture and add weighed water to bring to OMC within ± 0.5 %.

Mix thoroughly and cure for 48 hours. This should be done in a plastic bag

with the end tied/sealed. Take a sample to determine the final moisture content (w1) achieved.

Use a MDD of 2.218 t/m3 Sample to be remoulded using a standard compaction hammer and target

height. Calculate the amount of wet material needed per layer based on mould volume and OMC/MDD. Compact to the height specified in the test method. To achieve the desired height using a predefined layer mass# the number of blows will need to vary.

Apply a 4.5 kg surcharge.

Soak the sample as per the method for 4 days.

Swell is to be determined.

Take additional load readings at 3.5, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.0 mm penetration.

Note: The LMR may be different to that achieved in Part A. Please report the actual LDR/ LMR achieved as this will be used in the report. # Mass of material (in grams) for each layer can be derived from: [ V x MDD x (100 + OMC) ] / (100 x N) where N= number of layers e.g. 3 V = volume of mould in cm3 e.g. π x r2 x h where typically h = 11.7 cm and r = 15.2 / 2 = 7.6 cm OMC = moisture in % i.e. 9.6 or actual moisture of prepared material used MDD = dry density in t/m3 i.e. 2.218 t/m3 Tester may need to adjust values used above depending on individual equipment and test circumstances. May need to add a small amount of material to the final layer so that a flat surface is achieved after striking off.

Other Instructions

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.

Page 2 of 3




12. The Laboratory Manager or person responsible for checking should 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 27 October 2014.

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 3 of 3



54 App B CBR PT Results Log V1.8

LabSmart Services

Proficiency Testing Program

California Bearing Ratio – 2014 (54)

RESULTS LOG for xxxx

Participation Code: xx

Please fax or e-mail the completed results log by 27 October 2014 E-mail: [email protected] or Fax: (03) 8888 4987

1. Part A - CBR Test

Report To Result Test Method

Used

Tested By: Name

Mass retained on the 19 mm Sieve 1 %

Moisture (Clause 6[c]) (w1) (before compaction)

0.1 %

Compaction Manual or Auto

Compaction Method Standard (Y/N)

Number of blows 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.

Page 1 of 3

Appendix B



mailto:[email protected]


2. Part B - CBR Test

Report To Result

Tested by Name

Mass retained on the 19 mm Sieve 1 %

Moisture (Clause 6[c]) (w1) (before compaction)

0.1 %

Compaction Manual or Auto

Compaction Method Standard (Y/N)

Number of blows 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.

3.

Please describe the characteristics of the CBR machine:

Last date 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?

Page 2 of 3




4.

Please attach worksheet detailing the penetration/load readings recorded OR

Record the penetration/ load readings below (cross out and change if other penetration values are used).

Penetration

(mm) Load – Part A

(N) Load – Part B

(N) Penetration (mm)

Load – Part A (N)

Load – Part B (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

5. Condition of material as received………………………… Seating load used......................... Has the seating load been set to zero? (Y/N)............. Period cured for? (hours).............

COMMENTS: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

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

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

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

Have a query? Contact Peter on 0432 767 706.

________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3



CBR - 2014 (54) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT€¦ · · 2016-02-122.3 Test Methods . 3.4...

Documents

Transcript of CBR - 2014 (54) PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM REPORT€¦ · · 2016-02-122.3 Test Methods . 3.4...