Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 23
23
300
250
Coefficient of Variation, %
200
150 B/L
W/L
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Average Percent F&E, %
Figure 3. Pooled coefficient of variation for F&E tests versus average for
51 ratio (41).
conducted tests by the same operator on the same sample The AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory has also
using the same proportional caliper should not differ by more compiled statistics for the precision of flat and elongated
than 73.9% of their average. The multilaboratory coefficient aggregate tests performed on proficiency samples No. 117
of variation has been found to be 35.3%. Therefore, results and 118 (43). The results are shown in Table 6. The results
of two laboratories on identical samples of an aggregate are based on testing at the 51 ratio. Similar to the research
should not differ by more than 99.9% of their average. For by Prowell and Weingart (41), the results indicate the
comparison, the single operator and multilaboratory coeffi- tremendous variability of the test method.
cients of variation for the 21 ratio are 9.1% and 15.0%,
respectively.
A precision statement was not prepared for the 51 testing 2.3.4 Summary of Research Related to F&E
ratio because of the variability in the standard deviation and
the coefficient of variation as a function of the mean. The high A limited number of studies have been conducted to relate
within- and between-laboratory standard deviations and coef- the percentage of F&E to performance since the implemen-
ficients of variation call to question the value of using ASTM tation of the Superpave method. None of the studies have
D4791 for a specification limit unless the 21 ratio is used. addressed the relationship between F&E and performance
7
6
Standard Deviation, %
5
4
B/L
3 W/L
2
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Average Percent F&E, %
