Report No. 1178 Rocks Proficiency Testing Program Round 2

SD 2.12.18

Report No. 1178

Rocks Proficiency Testing Program

Round 2

February 2020

Acknowledgments

PTA wishes to gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance and sample supply provided for this program by Ms Gayani Samaradiwakara and Mr Stephen Durham of Golder Associates Pty Ltd, VIC.

© Copyright Proficiency Testing Australia, 2020

PO Box 7507 SILVERWATER NSW 2128, Australia

SD 2.12.18

CONTENTS

1. FOREWORD ........................................................................................................ 1

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM ......................................................................... 1

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES ........................................................................ 2

4. STATISTICAL DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM ...................................................... 2

5. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER’S COMMENTS ............................................... 5

6. OUTLIER RESULTS ............................................................................................ 7

7. REFERENCE ....................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX A – Results and Data Analysis

Point Load Strength Index

Is - Uncorrected Point Load Strength.............................................................................. …A1

Is(50) - Point Load Strength............................................................................................. …A2

P-Value…………………………………………………………………………………………… …A4

Uniaxial Compressive Strength

Uniaxial Compressive Strength..................................................................................... …A5

Moisture Content......................................................................................................... …A6

Density........................................................................................................................ …A8

Rock Moisture Content


Rock Deformability


Tangent Young's Modulus............................................................................................ …A12

Secant Young's Modulus…........................................................................................... ….A14

Poisson's Ratio............................................................................................................ …A15

Density….................................................................................................................... …A16


Splitting Tensile Strength

Mean Splitting Tensile Strength..................................................................................... …A19

SD 2.12.18

APPENDIX B – Homogeneity and Stability Testing

Homogeneity Testing................................................................................................ …B1

Stability Testing......................................................................................................... …B2 APPENDIX C – Documentation

Instructions to Participants........................................................................................ …C1

Results Sheet............................................................................................................ …C3

1

SD 2.12.18

1. FOREWORD

This report summarises the results of a proficiency testing program on the determination of selected tests in rocks. It constitutes the second round of an ongoing series of programs. The program was conducted in November-December by Proficiency Testing Australia (PTA). The aim of the program was to assess laboratories’ abilities to competently perform the prescribed analyses. The Program Coordinator was Dr Emilia Cincu and the Technical Advisers were Ms Gayani Samaradiwakara and Mr Stephen Durham of Golder Associates Pty Ltd, VIC. This report was authorised by Mrs Karen Cividin, PTA Quality Manager.

2. FEATURES OF THE PROGRAM (a) Participants were provided with two (1 x PTA Sample A and 1 x PTA Sample

B) or four plaster cylinders (2 x PTA Sample A and 2 x PTA Sample B), depending on the number of tests performed by the laboratory.

(b) A total of 19 laboratories received samples, comprising:

- 18 Australian participants; and

- 1 overseas participant from Mongolia.

Of these 19 laboratories, one was unable to submit all results by the due date. (c) Laboratories were provided with the Instructions to Participants and Results

Sheet (see Appendix C). Laboratories were requested to perform the tests according to their routine methods and to record their results on the Results Sheet.

(d) Prior to sample distribution, a number of randomly selected samples were

analysed for homogeneity. Based on the results of this testing (see Appendix B), the homogeneity of the samples was established.

(e) Each laboratory was randomly allocated a unique code number for the

program to ensure confidentiality of results. Reference to each laboratory in this report is by code number only. Please note that a number of laboratories reported more than one set of results and, therefore, their code numbers (with letter) could appear several times in the same data set.

(f) Results (as reported by participants) with corresponding summary statistics

(i.e. number of results, median, uncertainty of the median, normalised interquartile range, robust coefficient of variation, minimum, maximum and

2

SD 2.12.18

range) are presented in Appendix A (for each sample and for each of the analyses performed).

(g) A robust statistical approach, using z-scores, was utilised to assess

laboratories’ testing performance (see Section 4). Robust z-scores and z-score charts relevant to each test are presented in Appendix A.

(h) The document entitled Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (reference

[1]) defines the statistical terms and details the statistical procedures referred to in this report.

(i) A tabulated listing of laboratories (by code number) identified as having outlier

results can be found on page 7.

3. FORMAT OF THE APPENDICES

(a) Appendix A contains the analysis of results reported by laboratories for the

samples. This section contains the following for each determinant, where appropriate: - a table of results and calculated z-scores;

- a list of summary statistics; and

- ordered z-score charts.

(b) Appendix B contains details of the homogeneity and stability testing. (c) Appendix C contains copies of the Instructions to Participants and Results

Sheet.

4. STATISTICAL DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM (a) Outlier Results and Z-scores In order to assess laboratories’ testing performance, a robust statistical

approach, using z-scores, was utilised. Z-scores give a measure of how far a result is from the consensus value (i.e. the median), and gives a "score" to each result relative to the other results in the group.

A z-score close to zero indicates that the result agrees well with those from

other laboratories, whereas a z-score with an absolute value greater than or

equal to 3.0 is considered to be an outlier and is marked by the symbol “§”. (b) Results Tables and Summary Statistics

3

SD 2.12.18

Each of these tables contains the results returned by each laboratory, including the method used, and the robust z-score calculated for each result.

Results have been entered exactly as reported by participants. That is,

laboratories which did not report results to the precision (i.e. number of decimal places) requested on the Results Sheet have not been rounded to the requested precision before being included in the statistical analysis.

A list of summary statistics appears at the bottom of each of the tables of results and consists of:

- the number of results for that test/sample (No. of Results);

- the median of these results, i.e. the middle value (Median);

- the uncertainty of the median; a robust estimate of the standard deviation of the Median;

- the normalised interquartile range of the results (Normalised IQR);

- the robust coefficient of variation, expressed as a percentage (Robust CV) - i.e. 100 x Normalised IQR / Median;

- the minimum and maximum laboratory results; and

- the range (Maximum - Minimum).

The median is a measure of the centre of the data. The normalised IQR is a measure of the spread of the results. It is calculated by multiplying the interquartile range (IQR) by a correction factor which converts the IQR to an estimate of the standard deviation. The IQR is the difference between the upper and lower quartiles (i.e. the values above and below which a quarter of the results lie, respectively). For normally distributed data, the uncertainty of the median is approximated by:

n

normIQR

2

n = number of results

In this round, the CV values for UCS Moisture Content, Rock Moisture Content and Rock Deformability Moisture Content were considered inappropriate to calculate robust z-scores therefore a target coefficient of variation (CV) was used. The target standard deviation (SD) is calculated as the target CV multiplied by the median.

For these cases, the robust z-score (denoted by Z) for a laboratory’s sample A result was calculated as:

Z =

A – median(A) target SD(A)

4

SD 2.12.18

where A is a sample in a testing program. Please see reference [1] for further details on these robust summary statistics.

(c) Ordered Z-Score Charts On these charts each laboratory's robust z-score is shown, in order of

magnitude, and is marked with its code number. From these charts, each laboratory can readily compare its performance relative to the other laboratories.

These charts contain solid lines at +3.0 and -3.0, so that outliers are clearly

identifiable as those laboratories whose "bar" extends beyond these "cut-off" lines. The y-axis of these charts has been limited, so very large z-scores appear to extend beyond the chart boundary.

Further details of the construction and interpretation of these diagrams is given in reference [1]. Please also refer to this document for a glossary of terms.

The following table summarises the results submitted by participants for the program.

TABLE A: SUMMARY STATISTICS

Test No. of Results Median Normalised IQR


Is - Average Uncorrected Point Load Strength

21 0.830 0.089

Is(50) - Average Point Load Strength

21 0.810 0.089



13 5.300 0.645

Moisture Content 13 50.90 13.20

Density 11 1.480 0.059



Rock Deformability


7 4.800 0.653

Tangent Young's Modulus 7 1.660 0.464

Poisson’s Ratio 7 0.280 0.099

5

SD 2.12.18

Test No. of Results Median Normalised IQR

Rock Deformability

Density 7 1.500 0.032



Mean Splitting Tensile Strength

7 0.940 0.734

5. PTA AND TECHNICAL ADVISER’S COMMENTS Out of 19 participating laboratories, one was unable to submit all results in time to be included in the statistical analysis and final report. Results for laboratory code 6 were excluded from statistical analysis as testing was not performed according to the instructions provided by PTA.

Overall performance against prior expectations

A total of eight laboratories have been identified as having reported one or more outlier results, as depicted in Table B. From a total of 140 results, 18 outliers have been identified, representing 12.8%. All laboratories with outliers or an absolute z-score between 2.0 and 3.0, are encouraged to review their procedures.

Variation within and between participants

Statistical analysis for Secant Young’s Modulus could not be performed as only 5 results were returned for this test. In order to perform statistical analysis, a minimum number of 6 results are necessary.

Variation between methods and procedures

Most of the participants performed the required testing by either Australian standards or ASTM methods specified in the Instructions to Participants. The other test methods included were RMS T223 and RMS Q185. It was concluded that there were no major differences between the methods used.

Possible sources of error, suggestions for improvement of performance It is recommended that laboratories review their Rock Moisture determination processes. As stated in AS 4133.1.1.1 drying process should continue until the loss in the mass of the rock between successive drying period is less than 0.1% of initial mass of the wet rock.

6

SD 2.12.18

Other possible sources of error that might affect the outcome of the proficiency testing program include, but are not limited to:

Interpretation of test methods and procedures;

Calibration/condition of equipment;

Incorrect calculations;

Transcriptional errors;

Technician competency; and

Precision in calculations and reporting. Metrological Traceability and Measurement Uncertainty of Assigned Values Consensus values (median) derived from participants’ results are used in this program. These values are not metrologically traceable to an external reference. As the assigned value for this program is the median of the results submitted by the participants, the uncertainty of the median has been calculated and is presented below in Appendix A. Analysis of Results by Method Groups Methods AS 4133.4.1 and RMS T223 are technically equivalent, therefore results generated using these methods have been pooled for analysis.

7

SD 2.12.18

6. OUTLIER RESULTS

Laboratories reporting outlier results are listed in the following table:

TABLE B: SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL OUTLIERS

Test Laboratory

Code No.


Is - Average Uncorrected Point Load Strength

13, 14, 15B, 19

Is(50) - Average Point Load Strength

14, 15B, 19



-

Moisture Content 1, 15A, 15B

Density 7


Moisture Content 1, 15A, 15B, 16

Rock Deformability


-

Tangent Young's Modulus -

Poisson’s Ratio -

Density -

Moisture Content 15A, 15B, 16


Mean Splitting Tensile Strength

-

7. REFERENCE

[1] Guide to Proficiency Testing Australia, 2019 (This document can be found on the PTA website, www.pta.asn.au)

SD 2.12.18

APPENDIX A

Results and Data Analysis


Is - Uncorrected Point Load Strength.............................................................................. …A1

Is(50) - Point Load Strength............................................................................................. …A2

P-Value……………………………………………………………………………………………… …A4




Density........................................................................................................................ …A8



Rock Deformability


Tangent Young's Modulus............................................................................................ …A12

Secant Young's Modulus…........................................................................................... ….A14

Poisson's Ratio............................................................................................................ …A15

Density….................................................................................................................... …A16



Mean Splitting Tensile Strength..................................................................................... …A19

A1

SD 2.12.18

Is - Uncorrected Point Load Strength

(MPa - two significant figures)

Laboratory Code Average

Result

Robust

Z-Score Method

1 0.83 0.00 4133.4.1 (3.3)

2A 0.81 -0.22 #

2B 0.87 0.45 #

3 # N/A #

4A 0.75 -0.90 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

4B 0.76 -0.79 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

5A 0.86 0.34 AS 4133.4.1

5B 0.86 0.34 AS 4133.4.1

7 0.85 0.22 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

8 0.69 -1.57 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

9 # N/A #

10 0.80 -0.34 AS 4133.4.1

11 1.01 2.02 ? AS 4133.4.1-2007

12 0.92 1.01 AS 4133.4.1

13 1.1 3.04 § AS 4133.4.1 - 2007

14 1.2 4.16 § AS 4133.4.1 clause 3.3

15A 0.63 -2.25 ? AS 4133.4.1

15B 0.55 -3.15 § AS 4133.4.1

16 0.83 0.00 AS 4133.4.1 2007

17A 0.75 -0.90 AS 4133.4.1

17B 0.79 -0.45 AS 4133.4.1

19 1.2 4.16 § AS 4133.4.1

20 0.74 -1.01 T223

No. of Results 21

Median 0.830

Normalised IQR 0.089

Uncertainty of the Median

0.024

Robust CV 10.7%

Minimum 0.55

Maximum 1.20

Range 0.65

Notes:

"?" indicates an absolute z-score greater than 2.0 but less than 3, i.e. 2.0 < Ιz-scoreΙ < 3.0

“§” indicates an outlier, i.e. Ιz-scoreΙ ≥ 3.0

"#" indicates no response was provided by the laboratory

"N/A" indicates not applicable

A2

SD 2.12.18

Is(50) - Point Load Strength

(MPa - two significant figures)


Result

Robust

Z-Score Method

1 0.81 0.00 4133.4.1 (3.3)

2A 0.79 -0.22 #

2B 0.84 0.34 #

3 # N/A #

4A 0.69 -1.35 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

4B 0.69 -1.35 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

5A 0.84 0.34 AS 4133.4.1

5B 0.84 0.34 AS 4133.4.1

7 0.82 0.11 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

8 0.71 -1.12 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

9 # N/A #

10 0.81 0.00 AS 4133.4.1

11 0.92 1.24 AS 4133.4.1-2007

12 0.82 0.11 AS 4133.4.1

13 1.0 2.14 ? AS 4133.4.1 - 2007

14 1.1 3.26 § AS 4133.4.1 clause 3.3

15A 0.61 -2.25 ? AS 4133.4.1

15B 0.54 -3.04 § AS 4133.4.1

16 0.84 0.34 AS 4133.4.1 2007

17A 0.74 -0.79 AS 4133.4.1

17B 0.78 -0.34 AS 4133.4.1

19 1.1 3.26 § AS 4133.4.1

20 0.72 -1.01 T223

No. of Results 21

Median 0.810



0.024

Robust CV 11.0%

Minimum 0.54

Maximum 1.10

Range 0.56

Notes:





A3

SD 2.12.18

A4

SD 2.12.18

P value (KN - three significant figures)


Result Method

1 0.002 4133.4.1 (3.3)

2A 1.803 #

2B 1.990 #

3 # #

4A 1.293 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

4B 1.235 AS 4133.4.1 (Clause 3.3 Axial test)

5A 1.935 AS 4133.4.1

5B 1.943 AS 4133.4.1

7 1.838 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

8 1.958 AS 4133.4.1 Clause 3.3

9 # #

10 # AS 4133.4.1

11 # AS 4133.4.1-2007

12 1.348 AS 4133.4.1

13 # AS 4133.4.1 - 2007

14 2.053 AS 4133.4.1 clause 3.3

15A 1.350 AS 4133.4.1

15B 1.225 AS 4133.4.1

16 2.185 AS 4133.4.1 2007

17A 1.700 AS 4133.4.1

17B 1.744 AS 4133.4.1

19 1.948 AS 4133.4.1

20 1.551 T223

No. of Results 18

Notes:



A5

SD 2.12.18


(MPa-two significant figures)

Laboratory Code Result Robust

Z-Score Method

1 5.85 0.85 #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 3.97 -2.06 ? AS 4133.4.2

4A 5.3 0.00 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

4B 5.2 -0.16 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5A 5.6 0.47 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5B 5.8 0.78 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

7 6.3 1.55 AS 4133.4.2.2

8 # N/A #

9 5.92 0.96 #

10 # N/A #

11 4.8 -0.78 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 4.23 -1.66 AS 4133.4.2.2

15B 4.93 -0.57 AS 4133.4.2.2

16 5.23 -0.11 AS 4133.4.2.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 5.3 0.00 AS 4133.4.2.1

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 13

Median 5.300



0.224

Robust CV 12.2%

Minimum 3.97

Maximum 6.30

Range 2.33

Notes:




A6

SD 2.12.18

UCS - Moisture Content

(nearest 0.1%)


Z-Score Method

1 38.5 -3.25 § #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 57.5 1.73 AS 4133.4.2

4A 50.9 0.00 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

4B 50.3 -0.16 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5A 56.5 1.47 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5B 57.5 1.73 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

7 51.3 0.10 AS 4133.4.2.2

8 # N/A #

9 50.3 -0.16 #

10 # N/A #

11 58.3 1.94 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 32.1 -4.92 § AS 4133.4.2.2

15B 30.0 -5.47 § AS 4133.4.2.2

16 39.7 -2.93 ? AS 4133.4.2.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 58.5 1.99 AS 4133.4.2.1

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 13

Median 50.90



4.59

Robust CV 25.9%

Target CV 7.5%

Target SD 3.82

Minimum 30.0

Maximum 58.5

Range 28.5

Notes:





A7

SD 2.12.18

A8

SD 2.12.18

UCS - Density (t/m3)

(nearest 0.01)


Z-Score Method

1 1.36 -2.02 ? #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 1.48 0.00 AS 4133.4.2

4A # N/A AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

4B # N/A AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5A 1.47 -0.17 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

5B 1.47 -0.17 AS 4133.4.2.2, AS 4133.1.1.1

7 0.96 -8.77 § AS 4133.4.2.2

8 # N/A #

9 1.50 0.34 #

10 # N/A #

11 1.56 1.35 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 1.52 0.67 AS 4133.4.2.2

15B 1.51 0.51 AS 4133.4.2.2

16 1.40 -1.35 AS 4133.4.2.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 1.52 0.67 AS 4133.4.2.1

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 11

Median 1.480



0.022

Robust CV 4.0%

Minimum 0.96

Maximum 1.56

Range 0.6

Notes:




A9

SD 2.12.18

Rock Moisture Content (%)


Z-Score Method

1 38.5 -3.77 § #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 57.5 0.94 AS 4133.1.1.1

4A 50.9 -0.70 #

4B 50.3 -0.84 #

5A 56.5 0.70 AS 4133.1.1.1

5B 57.5 0.94 AS 4133.1.1.1

7 58.0 1.07 AS 4133.1.1.1

8 # N/A #

9 50.3 -0.84 #

10 # N/A #

11 58.3 1.14 AS 4133.1.1.1

12 # N/A #

13 59.5 1.44 AS 4133.1.1.1 - 2005

14 # N/A #

15A 28.7 -6.21 § AS 4133.1.1.1

15B 30.0 -5.88 § AS 4133.1.1.1

16 39.7 -3.48 § AS 4133.1.1.1 - 2005

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 58.5 1.19 #

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 14

Median 53.70



3.85

Robust CV 21.4%

Target CV 7.5%

Target SD 4.03

Minimum 28.7

Maximum 59.5

Range 30.8

Notes:





A10

SD 2.12.18

A11

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability - Uniaxial Compressive Strength



Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 5.6 1.22 AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 5.4 0.92 AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 4.5 -0.46 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 4.65 -0.23 AS 4133.4.3.2

15B 4.30 -0.77 AS 4133.4.3.2

16 4.8 0.00 AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 5.2 0.61 AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 4.800



0.309

Robust CV 13.6%

Minimum 4.30

Maximum 5.60

Range 1.3

Notes:



A12

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability - Tangent Young's Modulus

(GPa-two significant figures)


Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 1.1 -1.21 AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 1.0 -1.42 AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 1.8 0.30 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 1.47 -0.41 AS 4133.4.3.2

15B 1.66 0.00 AS 4133.4.3.2

16 2.55 1.92 AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 1.8 0.30 AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 1.660



0.220

Robust CV 27.9%

Minimum 1.00

Maximum 2.55

Range 1.55

Notes:



A13

SD 2.12.18

A14

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability - Secant Young's Modulus

(GPa-two significant figures)


Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 1.1 N/A AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 1.1 N/A AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 2.5 N/A AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A # N/A AS 4133.4.3.2

15B # N/A AS 4133.4.3.2

16 3.29 N/A AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 1.8 N/A AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 5

Notes:



Z-scores could not be calculated.

A15

SD 2.12.18

Poisson's Ratio


Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 0.34 0.61 AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 0.28 0.00 AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 0.33 0.50 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 0.21 -0.71 AS 4133.4.3.2

15B 0.20 -0.81 AS 4133.4.3.2

16 0.434 1.55 AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 0.24 -0.40 AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 0.280



0.047

Robust CV 35.4%

Minimum 0.20

Maximum 0.43

Range 0.23

Notes:



A16

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability - Density (as tested)

(t/m3 to the nearest 0.01)


Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 1.50 0.00 AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 1.49 -0.32 AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 1.55 1.59 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 1.49 -0.32 AS 4133.4.3.2

15B 1.52 0.63 AS 4133.4.3.2

16 1.41 -2.85 ? AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 1.53 0.95 AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 1.500



0.015

Robust CV 2.1%

Minimum 1.41

Maximum 1.55

Range 0.14

Notes:




A17

SD 2.12.18

A18

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability - Moisture Content

(nearest 0.1%)


Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 56.5 0.00 AS 4133.4.3.2

5B 57.5 0.24 AS 4133.4.3.2

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 60.0 0.83 AS 4133.4.2.2

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 28.7 -6.56 § AS 4133.4.3.2

15B 28.4 -6.63 § AS 4133.4.3.2

16 39.7 -3.96 § AS 4133.4.3.2 - 2013

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 57.1 0.14 AS 4133.4.3.2

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 56.50



9.86

Robust CV 36.8%

Target CV 7.5%

Target SD 4.24

Minimum 28.4

Maximum 60

Range 31.6

Notes:




A19

SD 2.12.18


(MPa- two significant figures)


Result

Robust

Z-Score Method

1 # N/A #

2A # N/A #

2B # N/A #

3 # N/A #

4A # N/A #

4B # N/A #

5A 0.57 -0.50 ASTM D3967-16

5B 0.56 -0.52 ASTM D3967-16

7 # N/A #

8 # N/A #

9 # N/A #

10 # N/A #

11 1.2 0.35 ASTM D3967

12 # N/A #

13 # N/A #

14 # N/A #

15A 1.91 1.32 Q185

15B 2.04 1.50 Q185

16 0.94 0.00 ASTM D3967-16

17A # N/A #

17B # N/A #

19 0.91 -0.04 ASTM D3967-16

20 # N/A #

No. of Results 7

Median 0.940



0.348

Robust CV 78.1%

Minimum 0.56

Maximum 2.04

Range 1.48

Notes:



A20

SD 2.12.18

SD 2.12.18

APPENDIX B

Homogeneity and Stability Testing

B1

SD 2.12.18

Homogeneity Testing The samples utilised in this program were supplied by Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Melbourne Laboratory. For this program, samples were cast on two separate days: Samples A on Day 1 and Samples B on Day 2. Eight random samples from each day were selected and tested for homogeneity. Statistical analysis showed that the samples were sufficiently homogeneous so that any results identified as outliers could not be attributed to sample variability. The homogeneity acceptance criteria are: 3% CV for the Density test and 5% CV for the

UCS test. The results of the homogeneity testing, along with the summary statistics are provided in the tables below.

Batch A DENSITY

(t/m3)

UCS

(MPa)

2 1.492 6.25

4 1.516 6.31

8 1.540 6.53

15 1.497 6.05

16 1.526 6.19

20 1.499 6.04

28 1.508 6.14

39 1.540 6.14

Mean 1.515 6.21

Standard Deviation 0.02 0.16

Coefficient of Variation 1.25% 2.57%

Lowest Value 1.492 6.04

Highest Value 1.540 6.53

Range 0.048 0.49

B2

SD 2.12.18

Batch B DENSITY

(t/m3)

UCS

(MPa)

2 1.525 6.25

4 1.536 6.22

8 1.549 6.13

15 1.537 6.33

16 1.526 6.34

20 1.524 6.08

28 1.520 6.21

39 1.518 6.3

Mean 1.529 6.233

Standard Deviation 0.01 0.09

Coefficient of Variation 0.68% 1.49%

Lowest Value 1.518 6.08

Highest Value 1.549 6.34

Range 0.031 0.26

Stability Testing As testing was indicated to be performed on the same day by all participants, stability testing was not considered necessary.

SD 2.12.18

APPENDIX C

Documentation

Instructions to Participants ……………………………………………………………… C1

Results Sheet ……………………………………………………………………………. C3

C1

SD 2.12.18

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

Proficiency Testing Program

ROCKS ROUND 2

INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS

PLEASE NOTE CYLINDERS ARE TO BE TESTED ON TUESDAY 26/11/2019

Keep them in their original packaging at room temperature till date of testing and test

as received condition.

Please read instructions carefully BEFORE commencing testing. To ensure that the results of this program can be analysed properly, participants are asked to carefully note the following:

1. Four cylinders (nominally 50 mm diameter x 150 mm length) have been supplied to each laboratory: two cylinders with identification A and other two B. Trim each cylinder at both ends to avoid the test results being affected by the end of core conditions when cutting into the correct lengths for testing.

2. AS 4133.4.1 Determination of point load strength index - (clause 3.3 Axial test) Use one cylinder with identification A. Please report the 4 results together with the average of 4 results.

3. AS 4133.4.2.2/1.1.1 Determination of uniaxial compressive strength/ Determination

of the moisture content

Use one cylinder with identification B. Specimen is to be tested at length to diameter ratio between 2.5 and 2.7.

4. AS 4133.4.3.2 Determination of deformability of rock in uniaxial compression

Use one cylinder with identification B. Specimen is to be tested at length to diameter ratio between 2.5 and 2.7.

5. ASTM D3967 Splitting tensile strength on intact rock specimen

Use one cylinder with identification A. Please report the 4 results together with the average of 4 results.

6. The results for all determinations are to be recorded on the results sheet to the accuracy

and reporting basis indicated where possible. Please ensure you check your rounding

details.

7. For this program your laboratory has been allocated the code number shown on the results sheet. All reference to your laboratory in reports associated with this program will be with this code number, thus ensuring confidentiality of results.

C2

SD 2.12.18

8. All laboratories must return the results sheet no later than 3 December 2019 to:

Emilia Cincu Fax: 02 9743 6664

Proficiency Testing Australia Email: [email protected]

C3

SD 2.12.18

PROFICIENCY TESTING AUSTRALIA

ROCKS 2 - Proficiency Testing Program Results Sheet

TEST DATE: TUESDAY 26/11/2019 Lab Code:

TEST (report to)

Value

Method


Is –Uncorrected Point Load Strength


Sub-

specimen

1

Sub-

specimen

2

Sub-

specimen

3

Sub-

specimen

4

Is –Average Uncorrected Point Load Strength


Is(50) –Point Load Strength Index


Sub-

specimen

1

Sub-

specimen

2

Sub-

specimen

3

Sub-

specimen

4

Is(50) – Average Point Load Strength Index



Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa-two significant figures)

Failure mode

Average Diameter (nearest 0.1 mm)

Average Height (nearest 0.1 mm)

Moisture Content (nearest 0.1%)

Density (as tested) (t/m

3 to the nearest 0.01)

Rate of displacement (mm/min)

Test duration (min)


Moisture Content (%)

C4

SD 2.12.18

Rock Deformability

Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa-two significant figures)

Tangent Young’s Modulus (GPa-two significant figures)

Secant Young’s Modulus (GPa-two significant figures)

Poisson’s Ratio

Methods of determination of Young’s Modulus and the axial stress level or levels

Failure Mode



Length to diameter ratio

Density (as tested) (t/m

3 to the nearest 0.01)

Moisture Content (nearest 0.1%)

Rate of displacement (mm/min)

Test duration (min)


Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa-two significant figures)

Sub-specimen 1

Sub-specimen 2

Sub-specimen 3

Sub-specimen 4

Mean Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa-two significant figures)



Loading rate (N/s)

Test duration (min)

Please ensure to check rounding details.

C5

SD 2.12.18

Date of receipt:

Moisture condition on receipt (SSD or dry):

Date of tests Signature:

Comments:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………...

Return no later than 3/12/2019 to:

Emilia Cincu

Proficiency Testing Australia

Phone: 02 9736 8397

Fax: 02 9743 6664 Email: [email protected]

SD 2.12.18

- End of Report -

Documents

Report No. 1178 Rocks Proficiency Testing Program Round 2