ASTM-D4483 2011
$63.38
D4483-05a(2011) Standard Practice for Evaluating Precision for Test Method Standards in the Rubber and Carbon Black Manufacturing Industries
Published By | Publication Date | Number of Pages |
ASTM | 2011 | 60 |
1.1 This practice covers guidelines for evaluating precision and serves as the governing practice for interlaboratory test programs (ITP) used to evaluate precision for test methods as used in the rubber manufacturing and the carbon black industries. This practice uses the basic one way analysis of variance calculation algorithms of Practice E691 . Although bias is not evaluated in this practice, it is an essential concept in understanding precision evaluation.
1.2 This practice applies to test methods that have test results expressed in terms of a quantitative continuous variable. Although exceptions may occur, it is in general limited to test methods that are fully developed and in routine use in a number of laboratories.
1.3 Two precision evaluation methods are given that are described as robust statistical procedures that attempt to eliminate or substantially decrease the influence of outliers. The first is a General Precision procedure intended for all test methods in the rubber manufacturing industry, and the second is a specific variation of the general precision procedure designated as Special Precision , that applies to carbon black testing. Both of these procedures use the same uniform level experimental design and the Mandel h and k statistics to review the precision database for potential outliers. However, they use slight modifications in the procedure for rejecting incompatible data values as outliers. The Special Precision procedure is specific as to the number of replicates per database cell or material-laboratory combination.
PDF Catalog
PDF Pages | PDF Title |
---|---|
1 | Scope |
2 | Referenced Documents Terminology |
4 | Significance and Use |
5 | Precision Evaluation: General Precision and Special Precision |
6 | Steps in Organizing an Interlaboratory Test Program |
7 | Overview of General Precision Analysis Procedure TABLE 1 |
8 | FIG. 1 |
9 | General Precision: Analysis Step 1 |
10 | TABLE 2 TABLE 3 |
11 | General Precision: Analysis Step 2 |
12 | General Precision: Analysis Step 3 Special Precision Analysis—Carbon Black Testing TABLE 4 TABLE 5 |
13 | Format for Precision Table and Section or Clause in Test Method Standards TABLE 6 |
14 | Report for Precision Evaluation ITP |
15 | Keywords A1. DEFINITIONS FOR SELECTED TERMS CONCERNED WITH PRECISION AND TESTING A1.1 General Background A1.2 Basic Statistical Definitions |
16 | A2. STATISTICAL MODEL FOR INTERLABORATORY TESTING PROGRAMS A2.1 Introduction |
17 | A2.2 General Model A2.3 Specific Model Format |
18 | A2.4 Evaluating Process and Measurement Variance |
19 | A2.5 Relating the Bias and Random Terms to Measurement Precision |
20 | A3. CALCULATING THE h AND k DATA CONSISTENCY STATISTICS A3.1 General Background A3.2 Defining and Calculating the h Statistic A3.3 Defining and Calculating the k Statistic |
21 | A3.4 Identification of Outliers Using the Critical h and k Values A4. SPREADSHEET CALCULATION FORMULAS FOR PRECISION PARAMETERS, RECOMMENDED SPREADSHEET TABLE LAYOUT AND DATA CALCULATION SEQUENCE A4.1 Calculation Formulas TABLE A3.1 |
22 | A4.2 Table Layout for Spreadsheet Calculations |
24 | A4.3 Sequence of Database Calculations for Precision |
25 | A5. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING REPLACEMENT VALUES FOR DELETED OUTLIERS A5.1 Introduction A5.2 The Replacement Procedure |
26 | A5.3 A5.4 |
27 | A5.5 A5.6 A6. AN EXAMPLE OF GENERAL PRECISION EVALUATION—MOONEY VISCOSITY TESTING A6.1 Introduction |
28 | A6.2 Part 1: Outlier Replacement—Analysis Step 1 |
29 | FIG. A6.1 |
30 | A6.3 Part 1: Outlier Replacement – Analysis Step 2 FIG. A6.2 |
31 | FIG. A6.3 |
32 | FIG. A6.4 |
33 | A6.4 Part 1: Outlier Replacement—Analysis Step 3 A6.5 Part 2: General Precision Analysis—Option 1: Outlier Deletion A6.6 Part 2: Outlier Deletion—Analysis Step 2 FIG. A6.5 |
34 | A6.7 Part 2: Outlier Deletion—Analysis Step 3 A6.8 Discussion of Precision Results: Option 1 versus Option 2 |
35 | TABLE A6.1 |
36 | TABLE A6.2 TABLE A6.3 |
37 | TABLE A6.4 TABLE A6.5 |
38 | TABLE A6.6 |
39 | TABLE A6.7 |
40 | TABLE A6.8 TABLE A6.9 |
41 | TABLE A6.10 TABLE A6.11 |
42 | TABLE A6.12 |
43 | TABLE A6.13 |
44 | TABLE A6.14 |
45 | TABLE A6.15 TABLE A6.16 |
46 | TABLE A6.17 TABLE A6.18 |
47 | TABLE A6.19 TABLE A6.20 |
48 | TABLE A6.21 |
49 | TABLE A6.22 TABLE A6.23 |
50 | TABLE A6.24 TABLE A6.25 |
51 | TABLE A6.26 |
52 | TABLE A6.27 |
53 | TABLE A6.28 |
54 | TABLE A6.29 TABLE A6.30 |
55 | TABLE A6.31 TABLE A6.32 |
56 | TABLE A6.33 TABLE A6.34 |
57 | TABLE A6.35 |
58 | TABLE A6.36 |
59 | TABLE A6.37 TABLE A6.38 |
60 | REFERENCES TABLE A6.39 |