Assignment 7: Statistics
Group 22 Members:
Benedicto Munthali
Roelof Jacobs
Kevin Volmink
Tholly Vezi
John Roxburgh (TL)
Words
Tables
Figures
Total
Word Count

150
6446
Abstract
This report looks at four different case studies to demonstrate different
statistical analysis functions. The following statistical concepts are
investigated. Normal distribution, stastistical difference from a mean,
significance of difference between a set of two results, reproducibility,
repeatability, and correlation between dependent results. It also explores
errors and measurement uncertainties. Results are related to what could be
expected from concrete.
Page 1 of 24
2
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Page 2 of 24
3
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Table 2
Page 3 of 24
Laboratory 2
48.1
48.8
45.4
45.0
46.2
51.5
47.0
46.8
49.7
48.5
52.8
48.1
4
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
4. The results in Table 3 have been obtained on tests on a set of concretes made
with the same aggregates and the same Portland cement.
a. What conclusions can you make about the use of strength tests at 3 days
for predicting 28 day strength for quality control purposes?
b. Compare and contrast the relationships between
i. the mix proportions and the measured properties
ii. the ultrasonic pulse velocity and compressive strength
with expected or typical relationships.
Table 3
mix proportions (kg/m3)
cement
free
water
aggregat
e 4/20
(SSD)
aggregat
e 0/4
(SSD)
slump
(mm)
500
545
545
390
390
390
310
310
310
285
255
255
225
225
190
205
225
195
200
205
175
195
175
210
190
170
165
170
1110
1110
1110
1140
1140
1140
1150
1150
1150
1140
1140
1140
1165
1165
540
540
540
620
620
620
705
705
705
760
760
760
850
850
75
125
collapsed
65
120
175
40
85
50
180
60
30
30
20
properties
cube strength ultrasonic pulse
(MPa)
velocity at 28
28
days
3
(km/sec)
days
days
31.5
56.5
4.83
22.8
47.9
4.70
23.5
49.5
4.72
13.2
35.2
4.65
20.4
40.2
4.65
29.1
44.6
4.75
13.8
37.5
4.62
14.9
30.8
4.55
23.1
37.5
4.72
10.1
17.5
4.32
15.5
22.5
4.52
19.8
30.1
4.45
7.2
18.2
4.35
9.2
18.7
4.38
[Note: You may find the graph plotting and curve fitting (regression) functions in
Excel useful (but not essential) in answering this question.]
Page 4 of 24
5
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
 In your answers you should clearly set out your reasoning, calculations and
assumptions etc. throughout.
Overall maximum length 7000 words (excluding report title page, contents,
reference list and appendices, but including words in tables) with each diagram,
figure etc. within the main text to count as 150 words.
Key diagrams, figures etc. should not be relegated to appendices.
Number of words or word equivalents should be declared on the title page.
NOTE:
This assignment consists of a progressive set of questions, and therefore we
suggest that all members of the group focus on each question in turn, and agree on
the answers before proceeding to the next question.
Page 5 of 24
6
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Table of Contents:
Page
Page 6 of 24
7
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Page
2xxxxx.............................................................................................. 18
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................18
2.2 xx....................................................................................................................18
2.2.1 xx.................................................................................................................18
2.2.1.1 x................................................................................................................18
2.2.1.2 x................................................................................................................19
2.2.1.3 x................................................................................................................20
2.2.2 x ..................................................................................................................21
2.3 x......................................................................................................................26
2.3.1 x...................................................................................................................26
2.3.2 x...................................................................................................................27
2.3.3 x...................................................................................................................27
2.4 Conclusion. ..................................................................................................29
References:..........................................................................................................30
Page 7 of 24
8
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Batch No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plant 1
49
39.5
50.5
44.5
54.5
42
54
Plant 2
41
41
45
46.5
44
46.5
44
49
46.5
49
7
5.85
39.5
54.5
15
44.5
9
2.66
41
49
8
Median
Count
SD
Smallest
Largest
df
Plant 1:
Distribution
Curve
Plant
1 Bin
Plant 2:
Distribution
Curve
Frequen
cy
Plant
1 Bin
Frequen
cy
39.5
1 41
42
1 41.5
Page 8 of 24
9
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
44.5
1 42
47
0 42.5
49.5
0 43
52
0 43.5
54.5
1 44
45.5
46
46.5
47
47.5
48.5
49.
Table 2.
Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
Page 9 of 24
Variable 1
48
34
7
0
8
1.209260
Variable 2
45
7
9
10
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
P(T<=t) onetail
t Critical onetail
P(T<=t) twotail
t Critical twotail
0.130542
1.859548
0.261085
2.306004
H1
X2
: X 1 X2
Plant 1
SE = /n
= 5.85/7
as n=7 = 2.21
Plant 2 ,t
value =
=
therefore
't'value for
5% of
freedom
=
9 1
8
(2,8)
4.46
t value x SE
t value x SE = 5.14 x 2.21
= 4.46 X 0.887
11.36 ,for plant
3.96,for
therefore 1
= plant 2
therefore it follows that the estimate of the population mean from the sample mean;
Page 10 of 24
11
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
For Plant 1 is 48
 11.36
that is ranges from 36.64 to
 59.36
For Plant 2 is 45
 3.96
that is ranges from 41.04 to
 48.96
The ranges for Plant 1 and Plant 2 do not overlap at the 95% confidence level and therefore o
conclude that population means are different,eg. there is a significant difference in the concre
So we reject the Null Hypothesis.
2.b) As per analysis done above ,the standard deviation and population mean for Plant 1 is too hig
Concrete quality will be compromised and this can increase production costs, because target str
by characteristic strength plus standard deviation times k factor.
Batch records must be retrieved and evaluated for compliance.
Scales and plant equipment will to be calibrated
Raw materials at the plant must be sampled and tested.
Trial mixes must done to assess water demand.
Batch Plant personnel must be retrained.
Truck mixer inspections must the done
Compliance to sampling ,cube making and crushing procedures will have to be assessed
Laboratory staff will have to be retrained
3.0 Introduction
3 Assumptions
The following are the assumptions for this question;
The cement sample taken from the batch follows a normal distribution curve
The cement sample provided to both laboratories has the same mean and
standard deviations
The equipment in both laboratories is of the same quality and same ISO
certification
Page 11 of 24
12
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
3.1
Sample
#
Laboratory 1
Laboratory 2
Laboratory 1
130
124
47.4
48.1
132
123
53.0
48.8
130
126
36.9
45.4
126
116
46.0
45.0
134
124
35.4
46.2
135
125
51.6
51.5
7
8
131
135
131
120
40.3
47.0
38.3
46.8
123
123
52.1
49.7
10
138
120
45.7
48.5
11
39.6
52.8
12
55.5
48.1
Page 12 of 24
13
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Alternative hypothesis:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
Mean
Variance
Page 13 of 24
Lab 1
Lab 2
131.4
123.2
20.04444444 16.17777778
14
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) onetail
t Critical onetail
P(T<=t) twotail
t Critical twotail
10
10
0.05059585
0
9
4.421143701
0.00083421
1.833112923
0.001668419
2.262157158
From the calculation above, P(T<=t) two tail is less than 0.05 (), we therefore
accept the null hypothesis. The two means are equal hence significantly the same.
For 28 day strength, below is the graphical presentation;
Page 14 of 24
15
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) onetail
t Critical onetail
P(T<=t) twotail
t Critical twotail
Page 15 of 24
Lab 1
45.15
48.10090909
12
0.364589786
0
11
1.612971013
0.067523441
1.795884814
0.135046882
2.200985159
Lab 2
48.15833333
5.475378788
12
16
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Since P (T<=t) is greater than 0.05 (), we reject the null hypothesis and the means
are not equal hence significantly different.
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) onetail
F Critical onetail
Lab 2
123.2
16.17777778
10
9
Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) onetail
F Critical onetail
Page 16 of 24
Lab 1
Lab 2
45.15 48.15833333
48.10090909 5.475378788
12
12
11
11
8.784946385
0.000572283
2.81793047
17
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
For the initial set, we reject the null hypothesis, the variances are significantly
different and for the 28 day strength, we accept the null hypothesis, the variances
are significantly the same (equal).
3.2
means
different
variances
different Significantly
means
the
same
variance
Going back to figures 1 and 2 we see that for the initial set (fig 1), both laboratories
and uncontrollable variances which agrees with the Ftest findings. This might have
been because both laboratories had inexperienced technicians carrying out the test.
From fig 2, 28 day strength, we see that laboratory 2 had a better controlled series of
results than laboratory 1. The variance is well controlled and consistency is
maintained in lab 2. This is why; the means of the two laboratories differ. It could be
interpreted that lab 2 had competent personnel to carry out this test or had a better
quality control monitoring system as compared to lab 1.
Based on the above evidence, both laboratories have poor monitoring systems
or/and less competent personnel to carry out initial set tests and laboratory 2 has a
better monitoring system or/and competent personnel to carry out 28 day strength.
Question 3
18
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
4. Concrete made with the same Aggregate and the same Portland
cement.
When producing site and readymixed concrete there needs to be process
control systems in place. The nature of the raw material used in the
manufacture and the large number of factors, which affect the strength of
the concrete, makes it a high variable product with a coefficient of
variation of between 1020%. (Sear, 2003)
By using concrete that has an inherent high degree of variability due to
the constraints on production and the consistency of the raw material
there can be sudden changes in the concrete performance. If the concrete
supplier only waits for 28day strength results he might have a 28days of
bad concrete that has been produced.
Thus it is important to get an indication early on so that changes can be
made to the mix design when low results are detected.
4. a. Using 3 day to predict 28 day cube results:
On predicting the strength gain between 3 day and 28 day there will
usually be a split in the predictions for different strength classes. In this
example between high water/cement ratio of higher than 0,55 W/C and
low W/C ratio that is lower than 0,55 W/C.
cube strength
(MPa)
3
28
days
days
22.8
47.9
31.5
56.5
cemen
t
545
500
free
water
205
190
W/C
0.38
0.38
545
390
390
225
195
200
0.41
0.50
0.51
23.5
13.2
20.4
49.5
35.2
40.2
390
205
0.53
29.1
44.6
Page 18 of 24
slump
(mm)
125
75
collaps
ed
65
120
175
Averag
e
Streng
th
Gain
48%
56%
47%
38%
51%
65%
SD on
streng
th
gain
51%
9.29
19
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
cemen
t
310
310
310
255
225
285
255
free
water
175
175
195
170
165
210
190
W/C
0.56
0.56
0.63
0.67
0.73
0.74
0.75
225
170
0.76
cube strength
(MPa)
3
28
days
days
13.8
37.5
23.1
37.5
14.9
30.8
19.8
30.1
7.2
18.2
10.1
17.5
15.5
22.5
9.2
18.7
slump
(mm)
40
50
85
30
30
180
60
20
Averag
e
Streng
th
Gain
37%
62%
48%
66%
40%
58%
69%
49%
SD on
streng
th
gain
53%
11.89
20
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
There is a deafened correlation between the early age strength and the
28day strength of concrete. However the 3day result has a big variability
due to factors like the slump. The using a 7 day results as a prediction is
more widely used in industry.
The use of statistical programs that work different design strength back to
one design strength like a 25MPa is also used. This allows the quality
person to more easily see if there is a problem with the concrete.
4.b.i. Mix proportions and measured properties
Page 20 of 24
properties
ultrasonic pulse velocity at 28 days
(km/sec)
4.7
4.83
4.72
4.65
4.65
4.75
4.62
4.72
4.55
4.45
4.35
4.32
4.52
4.38
21
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
Page 21 of 24
22
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
The aggregate type and the amout of aggregate that is suspended in the
concrete has a big effect on the results that are acheaved with the UPV
methods. (Y. Lin, 2003)
When having a look at the 28day UPV and the 28day strength compared to
the w/c one can see a distinct relationship.
Conclusion:
There is a indication that the UPV can be used for the prediction of the
28day strength on site. There is however a few short fallings:
a. The UPV will have to be calibrated on a section of known concrete of
the same material and composition.
b. The relationship between curing and the temperature at which it
happens also plays a part in the variability. (Z. Sun, 2005)
c. The location and distribution of your reinforced steel in the structure.
d. Compaction of the concrete member
By taking into consideration all the different parameters I would use the
UPV systems only as an indication and a verification system or to identify
a possible problematic area in your structure.
a.
Bibliography
Page 22 of 24
23
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
5 Conclusion.
Page 23 of 24
24
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22
References:
Page 24 of 24