Wallace et al 2024a - Revision history

https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Wallace_et_al_2024a Wallace et al 2024a - Revision history 2026-05-09T13:04:31Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Wallace_et_al_2024a&diff=302435&oldid=prev JSanchez: JSanchez moved page Draft Sanchez Pinedo 205360263 to Wallace et al 2024a 2024-06-10T08:56:16Z

<p>JSanchez moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Sanchez_Pinedo_205360263" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Sanchez Pinedo 205360263">Draft Sanchez Pinedo 205360263</a> to <a href="/public/Wallace_et_al_2024a" title="Wallace et al 2024a">Wallace et al 2024a</a></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 08:56, 10 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan='2' style='text-align: center;' lang='en'><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Wallace_et_al_2024a&diff=302434&oldid=prev JSanchez at 08:56, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T08:56:10Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 08:56, 10 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l3" >Line 3:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 3:</td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Any site characterisation relies on at least some laboratory tests, and some of those test results (often from basic tests such as Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit) are used in initial design calculations based on correlations. However, the reliability of those correlations is heavily dependent on the uncertainty in the results of those laboratory tests. There is an inter-laboratory proficiency testing scheme that has been running for over fifteen years in the UK, with many worldwide participants. This paper presents a compilation of the scheme’s findings to allow an assessment to be made regarding the reliability of different tests. As an example, repeatability within a single laboratory for the Liquid Limit test by cone penetrometer has been shown to be ± 1 %, but between different laboratories this has risen to ± 6 %. Similar ranges have been found in the Plastic Limits which, taken together with the uncertainties from the Liquid Limits, could give rise to significant concerns over using correlations based on the Plasticity Index.  Other examples of results from various test methods are given in this paper and it is argued that much of the uncertainty comes not from the test method itself, but from other factors including basic equipment maintenance, calibration, technician training and competence. It will be seen that laboratory proficiency testing schemes are crucial in highlighting these problems and giving an opportunity to allow better assessment of the quality of both test results and, arguably, the laboratories that produce them.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Any site characterisation relies on at least some laboratory tests, and some of those test results (often from basic tests such as Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit) are used in initial design calculations based on correlations. However, the reliability of those correlations is heavily dependent on the uncertainty in the results of those laboratory tests. There is an inter-laboratory proficiency testing scheme that has been running for over fifteen years in the UK, with many worldwide participants. This paper presents a compilation of the scheme’s findings to allow an assessment to be made regarding the reliability of different tests. As an example, repeatability within a single laboratory for the Liquid Limit test by cone penetrometer has been shown to be ± 1 %, but between different laboratories this has risen to ± 6 %. Similar ranges have been found in the Plastic Limits which, taken together with the uncertainties from the Liquid Limits, could give rise to significant concerns over using correlations based on the Plasticity Index.  Other examples of results from various test methods are given in this paper and it is argued that much of the uncertainty comes not from the test method itself, but from other factors including basic equipment maintenance, calibration, technician training and competence. It will be seen that laboratory proficiency testing schemes are crucial in highlighting these problems and giving an opportunity to allow better assessment of the quality of both test results and, arguably, the laboratories that produce them.</div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">== Full Paper ==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"><pdf>Media:Draft_Sanchez Pinedo_205360263315.pdf</pdf></ins></div></td></tr>  </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Wallace_et_al_2024a&diff=302432&oldid=prev JSanchez at 08:56, 10 June 2024 2024-06-10T08:56:09Z

<p></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <col class='diff-marker' /> <col class='diff-content' /> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 08:56, 10 June 2024</td> </tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td> <td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">                                </ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">==Abstract==</ins></div></td></tr> <tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr> <tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Any site characterisation relies on at least some laboratory tests, and some of those test results (often from basic tests such as Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit) are used in initial design calculations based on correlations. However, the reliability of those correlations is heavily dependent on the uncertainty in the results of those laboratory tests. There is an inter-laboratory proficiency testing scheme that has been running for over fifteen years in the UK, with many worldwide participants. This paper presents a compilation of the scheme’s findings to allow an assessment to be made regarding the reliability of different tests. As an example, repeatability within a single laboratory for the Liquid Limit test by cone penetrometer has been shown to be ± 1 %, but between different laboratories this has risen to ± 6 %. Similar ranges have been found in the Plastic Limits which, taken together with the uncertainties from the Liquid Limits, could give rise to significant concerns over using correlations based on the Plasticity Index.  Other examples of results from various test methods are given in this paper and it is argued that much of the uncertainty comes not from the test method itself, but from other factors including basic equipment maintenance, calibration, technician training and competence. It will be seen that laboratory proficiency testing schemes are crucial in highlighting these problems and giving an opportunity to allow better assessment of the quality of both test results and, arguably, the laboratories that produce them.</ins></div></td></tr>  </table>

JSanchez https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Wallace_et_al_2024a&diff=302431&oldid=prev JSanchez: Created blank page 2024-06-10T08:56:06Z

<p>Created blank page</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div></div>

JSanchez