Comparative analysis of repeatability and reproducibility of compaction testing

McLain, Kevin W.; Bumblauskas, Daniel; White, Donald J; Gransberg, Douglas D.

doi:10.1080/24705314.2018.1461545

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The repeatability reached by the method was good, being within the ranges expected for soil tests (McLain et al, 2018;Vaughan, 2018). The coefficient of variation (12%) implies that the probability of two replicate measurements differing by a factor of 1.5 or more is <0.025 (Reed et al, 2002).…”

Section: Methods Limitationssupporting

confidence: 69%

Development and application of tests for microplastic detection in soil

Santander¹,

Alfonso²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China 20 Plastic mulch Sludge Flotation (NaCl) Visual sorting & μ-FTIR 78 ±13 63 ±13 PP PE PET * Polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), polybutylene (PB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyurethane (PUR). ** The 'visual sorting' test requires a stereomicroscope to look for microplastics. 1 Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry. 2 Ding et al. (2020) did the visual sorting with a metallographic microscope. 3 Transmission electronic microscopy. 4 Pyrolysis coupled to gas chromatography and mass spectrometry.

show abstract

Section: Methods Limitationssupporting

confidence: 69%

Development and application of tests for microplastic detection in soil

Santander¹,

Alfonso²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It follows that these variations would affect any other parameter calculated from the defection data (i.e., modulus and ISM). Mazari et al (2013) and McLain et al (2018) discuss further the LWD's variability. Therefore, future use of the LWD needs to consider if the variation in measurements on these snow surfaces is from the snow or the LWD itself.…”

Section: Deflection Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the light weight deflectometer to assess groomed snow and ice surfaces

Wieder¹,

Shoop²,

Barna³

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) was designed to test the compaction or bearing capacity of in-place aggregate base-course materials. This study evaluated the potential of the LWD to also characterize groomed snow and ice surfaces as the ability to characterize the strength, or bearing capacity, of winter surfaces is crucial for evaluation of vehicle mobility in cold climates.LWD tests were run on a variety of groomed snow and ice surfaces over asphalt pavement, gravel, and soil in the winter of 2018 in both Montana and Michigan. The LWD measures load and deflection, enabling calculation and backcalculation of stiffness parameters for the test surface layers. The initial results were reasonable for the snow layers analyzed. The Impulse Stiffness Modulus, calculated as the impact load divided by the deflection response, presents as a reasonable property for analysis, requiring no assumptions about other snow layer properties. However, the LWD components, specifically the rubber load buffers, may have issues with the effects of low temperature testing. These effects need to be considered when testing snow and ice surfaces. Additionally, the stress and compaction levels that most represent the conditions of interest for mobility purposes need to be determined. Specific and consistent LWD equipment configuration and test procedures need to be determined and implemented in further testing of winter surfaces.

show abstract

“…Asplund and Lin [13] conducted a Gage R&R study to evaluate the capability of the wheel profile measurement system in CBM applications. This technique has been employed to investigate the capability of various measurement systems and to identify the root causes of measurement inconsistencies in diverse fields [14][15][16][17][18]. However, there can be misjudgement in cases when a sensor experiences partial malfunction, yet remains capable of transmitting signals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated approach to evaluate the measurement capability and acceptability of acoustic emission sensors

Chen,

Lin,

Chen

et al. 2023

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic Emission (AE) is a pivotal technique in Condition-based Maintenance (CBM) and recent years have witnessed a significant surge in the deployment of AE sensors in industrial applications. With this increase in availability, there comes a substantial challenge: evaluating the measurement capability of sensor within specific applications. As such, this study identifies a critical need for a structured approach to evaluate the measurement capabilities of AE sensors and subsequently judge their acceptability against guideline criteria. To address this need, we present an integrated approach that systematically guides the capability evaluation of AE sensors, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis aims to scrutinize the accuracy of sensors by assessing the detectability of features critical for diagnostics. The quantitative analysis leverages the Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (Gage R&R) to statistically evaluate sensor characteristics. A comprehensive experimental study further investigates the impact of measurement sources on the sensors' accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility. This study illustrates the qualitative findings regarding sensor accuracy in both time and frequency domains, revealing promising performance in diagnostic-based evaluations. In quantitative analysis, we demonstrate the results of sensor capability in terms of repeatability and reproducibility, providing the variations of different sources in statistics-based evaluations. We thoroughly investigate the influence of significant factors, quantifying their contributions to sensor’s measurement capability. Furthermore, we introduce metrics designed to assess sensor’s acceptability, according to explicit acceptance and rejection criteria. Our experimental results affirm that Root Mean Square (RMS) measurements are within acceptable ranges for both sensors, while Spectral Entropy (SE) measurements for PK15I sensor satisfy the acceptable level. For HZ136I sensor, however, SE measurements are deemed conditionally acceptable. Ultimately, the proposed approach provides a robust framework for the comprehensive evaluation of AE sensor measurement capabilities, offering invaluable guidance for sensor selection and enhancement in industrial applications.

show abstract

Comparative analysis of repeatability and reproducibility of compaction testing

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Development and application of tests for microplastic detection in soil

Development and application of tests for microplastic detection in soil

Using the light weight deflectometer to assess groomed snow and ice surfaces

An integrated approach to evaluate the measurement capability and acceptability of acoustic emission sensors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About