feedback on sanral / saace /safcec workshop on laboratory accreditation & management held on 28...

FEEDBACK ON

SANRAL / SAACE /SAFCEC WORKSHOP

ON

LABORATORY ACCREDITATION & MANAGEMENT

Held on 28 MARCH 2003

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

STANDARDISATION OF TEST METHODS – Barry Dumas

NATIONAL PROFICIENCY TESTING – Barry Dumas

INTERLAB CORRELATION – Russell Clayton Binders Cement stabilisation: new findings

MANAGEMENT OF SITE LABORATORIES – Wesley Weber

SANAS ACCREDITATION – Rob Damhuis Main Laboratory Site Laboratory – temporary accreditation

COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL – Johan Gillmer(Acceptance and Process Control)

COMBINED LABORATORIES: - Poens Venter The Contractors’ Perspective

SANAS ACCREDITATION Main Laboratory Site Laboratory – temporary accreditation

INTERLAB CORRELATION Binders Cement stabilisation: new findings

NATIONAL PROFICIENCY TESTING


MANAGEMENT OF SITE LABORATORIES


COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL(Acceptance and Process Control)

COMBINED LABORATORIES: The Contractors’ Perspective

MTC is responsible for the Standard MTC is responsible for the Standard Test Methods regarding:Test Methods regarding:

EvaluationEvaluation Upgrading Upgrading Publishing Publishing

http://Asphalt.CSIR.co.za/tmhhttp://Asphalt.CSIR.co.za/tmh

Although the members of MTC are Although the members of MTC are mainly from the Road Authorities the mainly from the Road Authorities the industry is nevertheless invited to partake industry is nevertheless invited to partake in the process of upgrading the Standard in the process of upgrading the Standard Test Methods.Test Methods.

All recommendations can be addressed All recommendations can be addressed to:to:

Although the members of MTC are Although the members of MTC are mainly from the Road Authorities the mainly from the Road Authorities the industry is nevertheless invited to partake industry is nevertheless invited to partake in the process of upgrading the Standard in the process of upgrading the Standard Test Methods.Test Methods.

All recommendations can be addressed All recommendations can be addressed to:to:

MTCThe SecretariatFax: 021 - 483-3620

Proficiency testing continues to be the best mechanism for ensuring that laboratory tests are being performed properly. This is also applicable to accredited laboratories, because proficiency testing on accredited laboratory tests is a vital component of the laboratory’s quality assurance program. Proficiency testing is a good risk management tool for the laboratory and provides confidence in the correctness of the results obtained.

Precision

A generic concept related to the closeness of agreement between test results obtained under prescribed like conditions from the measurement process being evaluated.

Data Representation

• Dry Density vs Moisture Content relationship

ASTM D1557 :– “plot the values and draw the compaction curve as a smooth curve through the points”.

Data Representation

• CBR vs Dry Density relationship

ASTM D1883 :– “plot the values and draw the compaction curve as a smooth curve through the points”.

CBR vs Compaction

Compaction (%)

CB

R

Compaction (%)

CB

R

Compaction (%)

CB

R

Compaction (%)

CB

R

Compaction (%)

CB

R

Scatterplot (CBRDenShale.STA 2v*87c)

DEN

CB

R

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1850 1950 2050 2150 2250 2350

SANRAL /SAACE/SAFCEC Workshop on Laboratory Accreditation

• Inter-Laboratory Correlation Testing of Binders• Curing of Cement Stabilized Laboratory Samples

By Russell Clayton

Ninham Shand Consulting


Binder Testing

• 3 BINDERS• 60-70 penetration grade• 80-100 penetration grade• Class SE-1 (RMB3)

• 2 TESTS• Softening point• Penetration

• TEST CONDITIONS• Normal test procedure• After 48hrs ageing in fridge


TESTER EXPERIENCE ON SOFTENING POINT

Test Results not affected by :Age

Years Testing Experience

Education and Tertiary Training

Industry Training

Test Results affected by :Years Binder Testing Experience

Younger (less experienced testers have more erratic results)

TESTER EXPERIENCE ON PENETRATION

No correlation could be determined by the following :

Age Years Testing Experience Years Binder Testing Experience Education and Tertiary Training Industry Training


Curing of Cement Stabilized Laboratory Samples

Reasons for the Investigation

Cement specification and behavior has changed Problems were being experienced with compaction Contractors being asked to rework material and re-

dose with cement because of low 24hrs UCS strengths

Some doubt regarding the appropriate laboratory design curing procedures


CONCLUSIONS

The 24 hrs curing under estimates the 7 day strengths

The 40 hrs curing predicts closer 7day UCS strengths

Higher ITS results are achieved with 40hrs curing but not as close to 7day strengths

Not shown.. But the same response has occurred with blends of crushed dolerite or sandstone,weathered dolerite and sandstone ROC


CONCERNS Long term strengths of 4.5MPa UCS are being achieved at 90days for

a C3 material..is this correct

Long term strengths of 500kPa ITS are being achieved at 90days for a C3 material..is this also correct

Stabilizer contents are being recommended on 24hrs curing. In the long term, over stabilization and cracking is likely to occur

Does our mechanistic analysis procedures consider this ?

We may be wasting money by over-dosing with cement


CONSTRUCION MATERIALS AND MANAGEMENT OF LABORATORIES

CONTENTS:

• Responsibility of Laboratory

• Responsibility for Quality Control

• Quality Assurance

• Responsibility of the Engineer

• Responsibility and duties of Materials Supervisory Staff

• Materials Staff Requirements and Training

Agenda1. Overview of SANAS

2. Accreditation of Base (main) labs to SABS ISO/IEC 17025

3. Accreditation of Site laboratories (SANAS R52-1 document)

COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL

Presented by : Johan GillmerPresented by : Johan Gillmer28 March 200328 March 2003

1. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION

2. HISTORY OF TESTING

3. COMBINED LABORATORY SPECIFICATION

3.1 Objectives

3.2 Contents

4. CASE STUDY

4.1 Procedural data

4.2 Monthly / accumulative cost to the contractor

4.3 Monthly / accumulative cost to the employer

5. CONCLUSION

0.00

20 000.00

40 000.00

60 000.00

80 000.00

100 000.00

120 000.00M

ON

THLY

PA

YM

EN

TS

(EX

CL.

VA

T)

DE

C. 2

001

JAN

. 200

2

FEB

. 200

2

MA

R. 2

002

AP

R. 2

002

MA

Y. 2

002

JUN

. 200

2

JUL.

200

2

AU

G. 2

002

SE

P. 2

002

OC

T. 2

002

NO

V. 2

002

DE

C. 2

002

MONTH

MONTHLY LABORATORY CONTRIBUTIONS

Employer's contribution Nett contractor's contribution

COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL CONCLUSION

The choice of a test laboratory remains with the contractor.

1. REGARDED AS A FAIR SPECIFICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :

The contribution of the contractor to the employer’s cost of having a site laboratory can be determined and is related to the actual process control testing required.

The employer is compensated for the additional cost to work outside normal working hours.

The system offers an incentive to the well organised and competent contractor who works according to a structured quality assurance system and produces work of quality.

COMBINED LABORATORY PROPOSAL CONCLUSION (continued)

• Feed back from employer / contractors / consultants should be addressed.

• Overtime classification should be clearly defined.

• Unit rates for testing (Schedule A) of samples should be market related.

• Hourly rates (Schedule B) of lab staff should be related to the consultants team for the specific site.

• The determination of the value of the approved contractors staff and equipment should be clearly defined.

2. REFINENMENT OF SPECIFICATION








COMBINED LABORATORIES: - Poens Venter The Contractors’ Perspective

• Payment for overtime worked by laboratory staff

• Consistency of testing

• Expensive laboratory assistants in stead of training local people

• Tariffs – where the Contractor has to pay for each process control test

ISSUES

ISSUES• Control/management of laboratories not

good.• Contractors are not tendering on equal

grounds• Assistance to Contractor with: -

– Testing of Materials from Commercial Sources– Finding Borrow Pits/Exploratory Testing– Process Experiments, e.g. Compaction effort

RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Employer and the Engineer should accept that a combined laboratory has a responsibility to ensure that the Contractor’s obligations to test in terms of COLTO98 are fully complied with. (Duty of Care)

• The management and control of the combined laboratory should be shared between the Engineer and the Contractor.

• Contributions to combined laboratories should be standardised to ensure that Contractors tender on an equal basis and to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Shifts should be introduced to overcome the issue of overtime and work

outside of normal working hours.

• SANRAL should consider appointing independent laboratories on site.

This would improve relationships on site and would reduce conflict

situations even further. Contractors would also have more faith that the

laboratory would be unbiased.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Alternatively, SANRAL could call for tenders from commercial laboratories to perform process, quality and acceptance control testing on sites in a combined laboratory arrangement and then include the cost of the total service in the tender documents to which the Contractor would contribute.

feedback on sanral / saace /safcec workshop on laboratory accreditation & management held on 28...

Documents

cbr slide

publishing slide

zatmh slide

cbr compaction

contractors perspective

cbr vs compaction compaction

laboratory proposal

accredited laboratory