NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

2972

A STUDY OF THE CEMENT TESTING PROGRAM

OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

By

W* S, Connor and W, H. Cl at worthy

U. $. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Sinclair Weeks, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

A. V. Astin, Director THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The scope of activities of the National Bureau of Standards is suggested in the following listing of

the divisions and sections engaged in technical work. In general, each section is engaged in specialized research, development, and engineering in the field indicated by its title. A brief description

of the activities, and of the resultant reports and publications, appears on the inside of the back

cover of this report.

Electricity. Resistance Measurements. Inductance and Capacitance. Electrical Instruments. Magnetic Measurements. Applied Electricity. Electrochemistry.

Optics and Metrology. Photometry and Colorimetry. Optical Instruments. Photographic

Technology. Length. Gage.

Heat and Power. Temperature Measurements. Thermodynamics. Cryogenics. Engines and

Lubrication. Engine Fuels. Cryogenic Engineering.

Atomic and Radiation Physics. Spectroscopy. Radiometry. Mass Spectrometry. Solid State

Physics. Electron Physics. Atomic Physics. Neutron Measurements. Infrared Spectroscopy.

Nuclear Physics. Radioactivity. X-Rays. Betatron. Nucleonic Instrumentation. Radiological Equipment. Atomic Energy Commission Instruments Branch.

Chemistry. Organic Coatings. Surface Cheipistry. Organic Chemistry. Analytical Chemistry.

Inorganic Chemistry. Electrodeposition. Gas Chemistry. Physical Chemistry. Thermochemistry. Spectrochemistry. Pure Substances.

Mechanics, Sound. Mechanical Instruments. Aerodynamics. Engineering Mechanics. Hydraulics. Mass. Capacity, Density, and Fluid Meters. Organic and Fibrous Materials. Rubber. Textiles. Paper. Leather. Testing and Specifications. Polymer Structure. Organic Plastics. Dental Research.

Metallurgy. Thermal Metallurgy. Chemical Metallurgy. Mechanical Metallurgy. Corrosion.

Mineral Products. Porcelain and Pottery. Glass. Refractories. Enameled Metals. Concreting Materials. Constitution and Microstructure. Chemistry of Mineral Products.

Building Technology. Structural Engineering. Fire Protection. Heating and Air Conditioning. Floor, Roof, and Wall Coverings. Codes and Specifications.

Applied Mathematics. Numerical Analysis. Computation. Statistical Engineering. Machine

Development,

Electronics. Engineering Electronics. Electron Tubes. Electronic Computers. Electronic

Instrumentation.

Radio Propagation. Upper Atmosphere Research. Ionospheric Research. Regular Propagation Services. Frequency Utilization Research. Tropospheric Propagation Research. High

Frequency Standards. Microwave Standards.

Ordnance Development. These three divisions are engaged in a broad program of research

Electromechanical Ordnance, and development in advanced ordnance. Activities include

Ordnance Electronics. basic and applied research, engineering, pilot production, field testing, and evaluation of a wide variety of ordnance materiel. Special skills and facilities of other

NBS divisions also contribute to this program. The activity is sponsored by the Department of

Defense.

Missile Development. Missile research and development: engineering, dynamics, intelligence,

instrumentation, evaluation. Combustion in jet engines. These activities are sponsored by the

Department of Defense. • Office of Basic Instrumentation © Office of Weights and Measures.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

ms PROJECT MBS REPORT

3737-60-0002 15 December 1953 2972

A STUDY OP THE CEMENT TESTING PROGRAM

OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

By

W. S. Connor

¥ . H • 01 atit ort hy

Statistical Engineering Laboratory

<NBS>

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The publication, repr Approved for public release by the

unie8»permisiioni*o Director of the National Institute of

25,o.c. Suchperm standards and Technology (NIST)

cally prepared If tha 0 n October 9, 2015

part, Is prohibited

idards, Washington

irt has bean spedlt-

»rt for Its own use,

FOREWORD

This report illustrates a statistical approach of wide

applicability, and was prepared in the Statistical Engineering

Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, for the information and use of the Bureau’s Mineral Products Division.

Churchill Eisenhart

Chief, Statistical

Engineering Laboratory

A. V* Astin

Director

National Bureau of Standards
,
A STUDY OP THE CEMENT TESTING PROGRAM

OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

By

W. S, Connor and W. H. Cl atworthy

Page

1.

2 .

3 .

4 .

5.

6 •

7.

Introduction

Conclusions and recommendations ----------

The testing plan described and applied to a

particular plant ------------------

A, Grab samples -----------------

B. Car samples _________________

Appli cation of the proposed plan for grab samples to

nine plants

Miscellaneous suggestions and comments --------

A. Individual samples --------------

B. Relation between the size of a lot and

the variation within the lot ---------

C. Change of sampling rate -----------

D. Autoclave expansion -----------

E. Specifications on 3CA and 3CS --------

F. Summary of miscellaneous suggestions - - - - - Evaluation of the proposed plan for grab samples - -

Acknowledgment ---------------- --

References

Tables

2

4

10

12

Ik

14

lb

16

17

18

19

19

20

21

22
V •

.

,
2 -

1. Introduction. This report describes the application

of a new testing plan to 2,1|. million barrels of cement produced

by ten plants, compares the results with those from the current

testing program, and suggests changes in the current sampling rate.

The ten plants divide into two groups, one of nine plants from

which grab samples were taken and the other of one plant from which

car samples were taken. The report is mainly concerned with

the group of nine plants.

This study has been made in accordance with the suggestion

of the Technical Committee on Cement, Lime, and Plaster, which at

its meeting on July 6, 1953 at the National Bureau of Standards

discussed the plan as described in [1]*“ and requested further

study of the plan to include all kinds of chemical and physical

teste which are currently made on various types of cement.

The data studied in this report were supplied by the

Concreting Materials section of the Mineral Products division of

* V* “V i” the National Bureau of Standards. They were taken from the files

of the testing laboratories in San Francisco, Seattle, Allentown,

and Washington.

* Numbers in square brackets refer to references listed at the

end of the text.

2HC- The data studied were too extensive to be included in the

report. However, the data and relevant calculations are on

file in the Statistical Engineering Laboratory.
'
- 3

-

For each of the plants a long period of production for

federal purchasing was studied, usually longer than a year. The

data include all tests which were made during the period, with

the order of testing preserved.

Only portland cement was investigated. The types included

in the study were Type I, Type II (low alkali), and cement

satisfying the specifications for both Types I and II.

A sample consists of about one quart of cement drawn from

500 barrels. Except for one plant from which railroad car samples

were taken, all samples were grab samples, drawn from the flow

of cement into the bins.

The plants investigated were about equally divided between

the eastern and western regions of the country. The left- fbin)

sizes varied greatly, from lots as small as 200 barrels to as

large as 36,000 barrels. General information about the plants

is given in Table 6.

The chemical tests made on the cement were determinations

of the per cent silicon dioxide (SiO^), aluminum oxide (Al^O^),

ferric oxide (Fe20^) , calcium oxide (CaO), magnesium oxide (MgO),

sulfur trioxide (S0^), total alkali (Alk)> loss on ignition (Loss),

insoluble residue (Res), tricalcium aluminate (3CA), and tricalcium

silicate (3CS). The physical tests were determinations of the per
5£

* ' " * ' v- /

'xacr. eii-t 'to srio i: j Arrjrvrvta • -v ^

• — ' - • •

• < s •• ;

fd 10 arxo i \f-.n t'tan&$i ~ z
- k -

cent autoclave expansion (Auto), three-day compressive strength

(3-day) and seven-day compressive strength (?-day) measured in

pounds per square inch, air-entrainment (Air) measured in per cent

fineness

volume, Blaine air permeability^ APF) measured in square centimeters

per gram, initial (IS) and final (FS) setting time measured in

hours and minutes, and false set (F Set) measured In millimeters.

The specifications for these properties are given in [2].

It is convenient to distinguish between a test and a set

of tests on a sample . A determination on one of the above properties

will be called a tesc, and determinations on all the properties

for a given type of cement will be called a set of tests.

For some of the properties tests were made on the "individual”

samples of one quart from $00 barrels of cement. This is true

of air permeability fineness and Initial and final setting times.

For the other properties tests were made on "composite” samples

only, where a composite sample is a mixture of two, three, or

four Individual samples, usually four.

Although the philosophy of the testing clan considered In

this report is the same as that In [1], some of the details have

been changed. These modifications have the effect of simplifying

the plan and of making it more sensitive to changes in the quality

of production. The plan as modified for grab and car samples

is described and illustrated by application to particular plants

in section 3»
.

I

'

•

..

I
Section 4 contains a discussion of the results of applying

the plan to grab samples from nine plants, section 5 contains miscellaneous suggestions and comments, and section 6 gives an

evaluation of the plan.

The principal conclusions ad recommendations drawn from the

study are contained in the next section.

2. Conclusions and recommendations . The main conclusion

of this report is that the present sampling and testing programs

require unnecessarily large numbers of samples and tests. To

rectify this situation it is suggested that

(1) The grab sampling rate be changed from one sample per

500 barrels to one sample per 2,000 barrels.

(2) The testing plan described herein for grab samples be

adopted

.

The suggested sampling rate would reduce the number of samples

drawn to about one-fourth the present number. The proposed testing plan would reduce the number of tests performed to about per

cent of the present number.

Application of the oroposed testing plan to a large sample

of production showed that it is 92 per cent as effective in detecting

violations of the specifications as the present plan.
-

'
3. _ The testing plan described and applied to s. particular

pi ant

.

A, Grab samples . The plan used In this report for testing

grab samples is a modification of the plan proposed In [Ij. In

order to make the modified plan clear It Is applied In this

section to plant A.

The outline of the plsn for a property with a maximum

specification Is as follows. Past data are used to determine

a number F, which Is called the H frequent number” because It is used

to decide whether ^frequent’* or ” Infrequent” testing is to be done.

Frequent testing refers to testing as It now Is being done (though

a different definition is suggested In section p) and Infrequent

testing refers to one test per lot (bin). The first sample for a

lot is tested and the result of the test is compared with F. If

the result Is less than F, no more tests are run for the lot, rat if

or larger than F

the result is as large as F/^the remaining samples from the lot are

tested. The changes In this description required for a property

with a. minimum specification are apparent.

A very important aspect of the plan Is that the decision

about whether to do frequent or infre event testing for a lot

Is made on the basis oi a sample from that lot. It is evident that

this procedure will cause some delay in deciding whether or not

a lot is satisfactory. Accordingly, It might be thought preferable

7

to use the results from the preceding' lot to decide whether or

not to test the lot frequently. However, such a plan is inferior

since it would not predict the quality of the lot with as much

accuracy as the proposed plan,

The property which requires the longest testing time is

Jssday strength. Presumably the other tests could be completed

in 7 days or less. Hence a delay in evaluating a lot would occur

only when f«day strength required frequent testing. Such a delay

would have occurred in I4.3 per cent of the lots studied from nine

plants. This large percentage was due to relatively weak cement

in 3 plants, for which a delay would have occurred for 67 per cent

of the lots. For the remaining 6 plants a delay would have occurred

for 16 per cent of the lots*

We now turn to the calculation of F for a particular property.

For this purpose thirty-two test results from recent samples are

used. If possible these should be the last thirty-two, arranged in

chronological order. Beginning with the oldest, the test results

are divided into four groups of eight each and the range r (i.e.,

the difference between the largest and smallest) for each group is

computed. These four ranges are added and their sum 'Sr, is

multiplied by 0.3, yielding a number . 3 2r which for convenience

we shall call d. If the property has a maximum specification, F
'

. ; i

.

'

.

, \

.

.
- 8 -

Is obtained by subtracting _d from the specification! if a minimum,

by adding d to the specification.

Data from plant A will be used to illustrate the proposed

plan. Tables 1 through 5 contain relevant

information about plant A. Table 1 gives the lot sizes in barrels

and the sampling dates. Tables 2 and 3 present the test results

and Tables 4 and 5 show the detailed calculations needed for setting

up the plan.

The details of the plan will be discussed for property

A1 0 • The test results are given in Table 2, lot 1 being the

2 3

oldest. Suppose that it had been decided to install the new plan

immediately after lots 1 through 10 had been tested,, At that time

^ results

exactly 32 test* would have been available for calculating F,

results

According to the procedure already described, these testA would

have been grouped and the ranges computed in the follox^ing ways

G-roup

Range (r)

1

6.0

2

.478

J.

579

,k

6.0

6.0 5.6 6.5 6.0

6.1 5.8 6.3 5.8

6.0 5.9 6.2 5.6

6.3 5.7 6.2 5.5

6.4 5.5 6.0 5.6

6.3 5.6 6.1 5.3

6.1 6.0 6.0 5.5

.4 .5 • 6 .7

Further,

2r = .)_[ + . 5+ .6+.7 = 2.2, d = „32r = .66

- 9

-

and since the specification, 7 . 5

5

is a maximum.

F = 7*5 - .66 = 6.8Lj.,

and upon rounding, F = 6.8.

Beginning with lot 11 the nei^ plan would have been put into

effect. The first sample for the lot would have been tested and

the result 5.1|. compared with F = 6.8. Since S •h- is less than

6.8 no further samples for lot 11 would have been tested. Proceeding

in this way through successive lots, only one sample per lot would

have been tested under the new plan, or a total of 18 samples for

lots 11 through 28, Instead of the I4.5 samples which actually were

tested under the existing plan. Since no failures occurred for

during the period, of course none would have been missed by

the proposed plan.

It should be noted that the property 3CA Is computed from

A1,_0„ and Fe 0 , instead of being directly determined [2]. Accord2 P 2j

ingly when the proposed plan requires frequent tests for 3CA, it is

necessary to test both Al^O^ and Fe^O frequently, ..regardless of 23 23

whether such tests are required by applying the plan to them

individually. Except for those properties used in calculating the

compounds 3CA and 3CS, frequent testing of one propertjr for a

particular lot does not require that frequent testing be done on

all properties for that lot. For instance a particular lot may

require 16 tests of air permeability fineness and only one for

autoclave expansion.

- 10

Although in practice the plan would net be applied to the

32 sets of tests used to calculate F, in this study it was applied

to all data, including the 32 , since for some plants the amount

of data was scanty* One could imagine that the plan had been set

up from data obtained previous to that of this study and that the

plan went into effect x^ith the testing of lot 1*

The compound 3CA required frequent testing of lots 2,3 ,1|, and

8, thus requiring more frequent testing of properties Al^O^ anc^ Fe^O^ than would have been required by considering them alone.

For plant A the proposed plan would have required L\.%0 tests instead

of the 1726 tests which actually were made. There were no violations

of specifications in any of the data for plant A.

It is desirable that some provision be made for possible

future changes in the variation among samples. Accordingly, after

a suitable lapse of time, F could be recomputed from the most

recent data* From the study of the data It does not appear that

F need be recomputed frequently.

B. Car samples . For testing railroad car samples which

now are taken at the rate of one per car a different plan Is

proposed. Since there is no logical grouping of cars into lots,

the plan described for grab samples seems Inappropriate, and instead it is suggested that a slight modification of the original

plan of [1] be used*

11

For a property with a maximum specification a reasonable

plan is as follows. From 32 recent test results 2r is computed

exactly as described previously. Then 2r is multiplied by .2,

instead of .3, to obtain a number d. Next d_ is subtracted from

the specification to determine F. Further, an infrequent number,

I, is calculated by subtracting _d from F.

The plan is put into effect by observing the test result

from the first new car sample. If this result is as large as F,

frequent testing is begun; if smaller than F, infrequent testing is

begun. By frequent testing i-s meant testing one sample per car,

as in current practice* By infrequent testing is mean testing a

sample from every fifth car, say. When frequent testing is in

progress it is continued until a test result as small as I is obtained,

and then infrequent testing is done. Similarly, when infrequent

testing is in progress it is continued until a result as large as

F is obtained, and then frequent bests are made. The changes needed

in this description for a property itfith a minimum specification are

apparent

This plan was applied to the only data available for car

samples, the data for plant K. There were 64 cars each of

approximately 400 barrels and one sample per car. The cement

was type I. Unfortunately there were no violations of specifications

- 12

in the data, so that it was impossible to evaluate the plan. A

proper evaluation of the plan would require that data containing

25 to 30 violations of the specifications be studied so that a

good estimate of the percentage of violations detected by the

new plan could be obtained.

The application of the plan to plant K revealed that the

new plan would have required 196 tests instead of the 896 tests

which actually were made.

4. Application of the proposed plan for grab samples to

nine plants . This section presents results as to the effectiveness

of the plan in eliminating tests while still detecting violations.

The plan has been applied to grab samples from 2.4 million barrels

of cement produced by nine different plants. The nine plants were

chosen by the Concreting -Materials section as typical of the

population of plants under consideration. It is believed that

the plants chosen constitute a representative sample, and since the

sample is such a large one if should provide an excellent basis

for evaluating the testing plan*

From the 2.4 million barrels 4*779 samples were taken and

29,888 chemical and physical tests were made on these samples*

Of the 307 lots in the study there were 33 lots which contained

one or more violations of the specification for at least one

property*
.

.
- 13 -

General information about the plants is recorded in Table 6.

Table 7 gives values of frequent numbers for all properties and

all plants.

Using the present testing plan as the criterion, it was

found that about 11 per cent of the lots violated the specification

for at least one property. The number of lots which contained

one or more violations is presented by plants and properties in

Table 10. According to the table there were 37 such lots altogether,

but these lots were not all distinct since there were two lots

which violated the specification for more than one property. In

fact, a lot from plant E violated the specifications for both

S0_^ and 3CS and one from plant P for S0^, Loss, APP, and 7-^ay

strength. Hence there were 33 distinct lots with violations.

Prom the point of view of tests rather than lots, there

were 59 test results which violated the specifications. Since

there were 29,888 tests altogether, only about 2 tests in 1,000

revealed violations.

Of the 37 lot violations which were detected by the current

testing plan, 34 would have been detected by the proposed plan.

Thus, the proposed plan would have detected 92 per cent as many

violations as the current plan. The detections by plants and

properties are shown in parentheses in Table 10.
'
- ILl -

The proposed plan as described in section 3 would have

reduced the number of tests from 29,888 to 10 , 722 , thereby

eliminating 6k*0 per cent of the tests* For chemical tests alone

the reduction would have been from 12,083 to 6,608 tests, a

saving of 45.3 per cent; and for physical tests alone from 17,805>

tests to 4,161+ tests, a saving of 78*6 per cent* A detailed break

\ down of testing frequencies by plants, properties, and testing

plans is given in Table 8,

These savings can be somewhat further increased if suggestions

made in section 5 are incorporated in the plan.

5* Miscellaneous suggestions and comments * In this section

further modifications of the existing testing plan are proposed.

These changes have the effect of reducing the number of samples

taken, of further reducing the number of tests performed, and of

making the tests more sensitive to the quality of the cement.

These changes would fit easily into the proposed testing plan*

A. I nd iv 1 dual s amp 1 e

s

* It is suggested, that tests for

all properties be made on individual samples instead of composite

samples. This suggestion is based on the observation that

individual samples are more sensitive to quality changes than

are composite samples. Though this is intuitively reasonable,

data supporting this observation are supplied in Tables 2 and
I

'

:

:

'
- 15 -

6 of [1], Comparisons of the average ranges for composites

and individuals in those tables show that the former tend to

be smaller. Composite samples tend to conceal the variation

within a lot and hence to defeat the purpose of the testing

program.

If tests on individual samples were adopted for properties

ivhich now require composite samples, 32 sets of tests on individual samples would have to be run from which to calculate the

F numbers prior to putting the plan into effect,

B , Relation between the size of a lot and the variation

within the lot . There has been considerable interest in the

effect of the size of a lot on the variation within a lot.

To throw some light on this matter the data from plant H were

studied. The data included lots of a wide variety of sizes,

from 3,500 barrels to 36,000 barrels. Certain of these lots wer

e

selected, and for each property the standard deviation within

the lot estimated. These estimates are shown In Table 11,

Perusal of them indicates that the variation within a lot does

not depend on the size of the lot.

From this study it appears that the number of tests needed

to evaluate a lot is more or less independent of the size of the

lot

- 16

C. Change of sampling rate . It is apparent from the

study of the nine plants that the variation within lots Is small

as compared with the variation between lots. This was illustrated

in Table Jj_ of [!]• Hence it is wasteful to do extensive testing

within a lot.

The uselessness of excessive testing Is convincingly

illustrated by a study of initial and final, setting times, which

usually were determined for individual samples. Of the 4*392

determinations made on each of initial and final setting times,

not one violated the specification.

For most properties the current plan requires that four or

fewer individual samples be composited and that the composite

samples be tested. This means that one test is performed per

2,000 barrels of cement (except for the three oroperties requiring

one test every £00 barrels). For lots of moderate size it is

suggested that only one sample be drawn per 2,000 barrels and that

this sample be tested as an individual according to the instructlons given by the proposed plan. This procedure would not alter

the rate of testing of those properties which presently require

composite samples. However, for properties presently requiring

individual samples, it would reduce the testing rate to almost

one-fourth the present rate. Perhaps most important, it would

cut the number of individual samples drawn to approximately

one-fourth the current number.
.

'

'

,

'
- 17 -

In view of the discussion of paragraph B it seem,' inadvisable

In the case of large lots to test one sample per 2,000 barrels.

For a 36,000 barrel lot, for example, this would require 18

tests, many more than are needed for a sound evaluation of the

lot. It therefore appears that consideration should be given to

a sampling and testing scheme which takes lot size Into account,

providing proportionate]^ fewer tests the larger the lot.

Such a plan might consist of drawing one sample every

2,000 barrels but testing according to the following schedule:

(1) for lots containing not more than 10,000 barrels test one

sample per 2,000 barrels, and (2) for larger lots test an additional

sample for each additional 10,000 barrels. Thus, for example,

for a 36,000 barrel lot 18 samples would be drawn from which 8

wou1 d be tested

.

This schedule x^ould be followed only when frequent tests

are required. Infrequent testing would still require only one

test per lot. It is to be noted that the suggested sampling rate

is always one sample per 2,000 barrels, regardless of the testing

rate .

D. Autoclave expansion. Also of interest Is whether or

not autoclave expansion can be tested under the proposed plan.

Certain rare lots have been enoointered in the experience of the

Concreting Materials section in which autoclave expansion greatly

1 o - _LO

exceeds the specification for one or more samples from the lot,

though not necessarily from all samples. The data in this

study do not contain a single instance of such behavior. In

fact there was only one lot which contained violations of the

specification and these violations were small. The proposed plan

would have detected them. In view of the fact that the proposed

plan would eliminate 73 per cent of the tests on autoclave expansion

and would detect most of the violations, it appears desirable to

adopt the plan for this property also. It should be borne In

mind that no plan can detect all rare, unpredictable, wild

violations in segments of a lot,

E. Specifications on 30A and 303 , Another matter which

should be considered is whether or not the specifications on 30A

and 303 can be relaxed. Since they are computed from determinations

on other chemicals [2], the testing plan for the other chemicals

is dependent on their behavior. Thus, for example, if 303 requires

frequent testing for a lot, so does SiO^ since it enters the

computation of 303. For the nine plants the proposed testing

plan would have required 26? tests on SiO^ considered without

regard to 303, but 7H tests because of frequent tests required

on 30

S

0 Table 9 compares the numbers of tests required by

SICm, A1 '0-,, Fe- Ch, and SO when the proposed testing plan is

2 2 J 2 3 3

applied, to them individually with the numbers required when 30A

and 303 are taken into account

- 19 -

F. Summary of miscellaneous suggest Ions . In summary it

is recommended that in setting up the proposed testing plan

consideration be given to the following suggestions?

1) The rate of drawing samples be changed from one sample

per £00 barrels to one sample per 2,000 barrels,

2) Testing of composite samples be discarded and testing

done on Individual samples only.

3) A frequent testing scheme which gives consideration to

the size of the lot be adopted, the scheme to provide for

proportionally fewer samples the larger the lot,

h.) An investigation of the possibility of relaxation of the

specifications for properties 3CA and 3CS be made. Such relaxation

might result in a substantial reduction in the frequency of

testing related properties.

5) Autoclave expansion be tested in the same manner as the

ether properties.

6. Evaluation of the proposed plan for grab samples . In

this section the proposed plan for grab samples Is examined with

regard to the protection which It provides, the potential savings,

and the possible new costs.

As was seen In section 4* the proposed testing plan is 9

2

per cent as effective in detecting violations as the present

plan. This, coupled with the impression that the present plan

is a very stringent one, indicates that the proposed plan would

furnish very good protection.
.
20

Because exact cost figures are not available to the writers,

no attempt has been made to evaluate the annual savings which

would be realized by adoption of the plan* However it is believed

that adoption of the suggestion that one-fourth as many samples

be drawn would greatly reduce the cost of sampling. Also it has

been seen that the proposed testing plan would eliminate at least

6I| per cent of the current tests, thereby considerably reducing

the testing expense.

Added costs of the new plan are small. To set up the plan

calculations must be made from past data. It is estimated that

one worker could take the necessary observations from the files

and made the calculations for one plant in four hours,

t Adoption of the proposed sampling and testing plans would

result in sizeable savings with no serious decrease in protection,

7, Acknowledgment , The authors wish to acknowledge the

generous and invaluable assistance of D, N. Evans of the Concreting

Materials section. He furnished the data on which the report is

based as well as very helpful advice about the technical aspects

of the current sampling and testing program.
.

.
21

REFERENCES

[1] Clatworthy, W. H. , Connor, ¥„ S., and Evans, D. N*,

,T A testing plan for cement’’, National Bureau of

Standards Report 2560, June, 1953*

[2] " Federal specification, cements, portland”, SS-C~192a,

U. S, Government Printing Office, April 22, 1952®

Table 1

BIN SIZES AND SAMPLE DATES

,

PLANT A

Lot

NOo B BinNo.

Lot Size

(barrels)

Sample

Date

1 6-5 4,000 1/28-29/52

2 7-4 3,000 2/21-22/52

3 6-6 4,000 3/31/4/1/52

4 9-10 4,000 4/14-15/52

5 11-15 4„ooo 4/28-29/52

6 22-6 9,000 5/12-14/52

7 9-11 4,000 5/14-15/52

8 22-7 8,500 6/16-18/52

9 21-4 9,000 6/30-7/1/52

10 22-8 8,500 7/21-23/52

11 21-6 8,500 8/11-12/52

12 22-9 8,000 8/18-20/52

13 21-7 8,000 9/15-16/52

111 22-10 8,000 10/6-7/52

15 8-9 4,000 10/20-21/52

16 10-7 4,000 10/27-28/52

17 7-5 4,000 11/19-20/52

18 6-7 4,000 12/3-4/52

19 10-8 4,ooo 1/26/53

20 7-6 4,000 3/9-10/53

21 10-9 4,ooo 4/2/53

22 4-4 4,ooo 4/6/53

23 10-10 4,ooo 5/1-2/53

24 4-5 4,ooo 5/25-26/53

25 6-8 4,000 6/15-16/53

26 7-7 4,ooo 7/7-8/53

27 8-10 4,ooo 7/27-28/53

28 6-9 4,000 8/31/53

TEST

RESULTS,

COMPOSITE

SAMPLES

COlArOACNCNCO O-Cf <£> OCMCM-CfCM_3-.CtC— CMOnC-~On<A

O C''- C"~- C*“\r\Xr\ CA CM 0-0 CA LA -Ct -Cf _Cf o -O tTN-d’-Ct-d'-Zf-d' f^\ m

1>0 G

CDU

-P

CO

5? o

&

CA

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CO o\ CM_=f H <A <A u\ co _3- H in co co oo la cA.-ct co NH ^HiaO O -O CN i>- CO C^- 0\r^-_3-vC On H CO 0-00 CN H O O-CO Oco O O H OnH CMCMCMCMCMCMOMCMCMCMCMfA CMCNJCMCMCAOACMCMCMCMCAfACACMcn

OOOOOOqOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO C^»-Cje^_=J-OJ CM CA CO co ON 0~ Oco O _0t CM On CM vO O- O-IACO -CMA CM -cI-cJ'LAXA'OnO C— -O '-A O-co O- O- C—- co On co UN O UN O O- ON CO CO nHHHHrlrlHHHHH —iHHHHHHHHHHHHH

0

1

co CM On Os-Ct OJrl^NCKOOOsCOCO WOOWCMO4Ha\0H0 CMCMHHCMCMCMHCMCMCMCMHHHCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMHCMCMCM

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

K

<c

$!

3

<A

CO

CD K

to

COo

WCMCOCJfOfOfOCMCMrlCMCMHHHCMCVinrOrOf'OCMWCMCMCOCM HHHHHrlHHHHHrlHHHrlHHrlrlrlHrlrlrlHrl

CMCMnncMWCOCMnCOCMCMHCMCM -Cj\A CM H H H CM CA CM CM CM CM ®»ss •»»•••»»«»«*•* sooaeo®*® OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

CO ISCOCO NMnHCOH O On CO EA- t^-O H 0\0 OnOnO CNOnCO O O »**»oc«ae«e 6 *o«©ooeooo<>«ooo OOOOOOHHOHHOOOOHHOHOOHOOOHH

fA

o

CO 0\'0'OcOQnOC--COCMLACOOOnC'— oe«cce>a»eceooooo««oaoooe»ae 0\0\CMC“,-nO£'"CO£'-0-OOOOOncO

HHHHHWHHCMCMrlCMrlHHHCMHHHHHHHHHrl

O

I?

CMWHOOOsNM^^O oo oia O cm CM n o cm cm j cm cococnnc^CM CM cm oa fA oa oa pa ca ca oACArAOAoAOAOACAeArACAOA

o

<A

CM

CD CMCMHCMCMCMmf^OOHnWWriHHCMWCMCMriWCMCMCMH e«*a 9 ««*ce«ecose«eec»ecoae«

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM cm CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM

o

OA

CM o OHO rc\ J- cnHC0 >Cc00\^U\>0 O OnIA (c\cj cm o H o OOco

• tc«t««te«ooa««ooo«»e««€««o

sOvO OvO 0^0 sO ^OlA^LAiALAirxlA^OirN^O vO vO O OMD nO'O

'Po OS

Vl

CM «"A lA \0 CO On

1990
.

.

'

-

• • 1

.
Table

2

(Continued)

- 2ij. “

t'

a

pH K'S -P nj co n

i cn

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O XA O Q CA CM rH CM XA O CO OO CA CM H NO sO CO c— r«- CA O- CA CM rH MD C'~- NO

1 O', r- O On CO NO IA CA Pt Pt CM CM CM rH CM pt vO Pt Pt XA XA <A PT Pt CA OA

l>-» CM CM CA CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

o

-p3

3

CA

CQ &

'Vo

cn OCOObD S

CD

<A

5CM

AD

CM

O ^

ONoooo»e«o«eoooooc On CM CM CNI sO C- CM r4 Pf OO .Pt !>- C-- O r*H (H

CM CM CA CA CA CA CM CA CA CA CM CM CM CM NO MD \0 NO •

C— Lf\ C— NO Pt O o © © o © © <A MD o cm

8 0000000000000000000000000 H On CM Pj O ON CM Pf Pt XA CO no On CO CO Pt CO O-pf Pt OO CM UN CM o- i^- o- ao ouuoi-^^nnnnnmAiAirvj^j^tmiMAn-d- HHHrlHrlHrlHrlrlHHHHrlHrlHHrlHHHrlH

lAINb-co C'-iAPtXAXAPtcACM H cm CMPj-cA<AXAPfPtfAC--XAt^-NO

I _l I —I ,—I I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I —I »—I I I

I —I I r HHHHHrlHHHHHHHHHHrlrlH _j • •eo*«»oe«aoocoooeoOo_ft O O O o OOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

!—I i

1 O r-| O O O H o |—]

,—] O O j—[

i—I i—I

s—i O ! I O O O On O O HHHHrlHrlHHrlHHrlrlHHHHHHHH 1—I H

cMCMnnncMCMCMcvKMjnnnHHHrinncMnojcMPocM «oo* 9 »oaooe»o«oeooooo*eoo« OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOc ooooooooooooooooooooooooo* 0 C0 O\HCN 0NCOHnOiOO 4 OriHOOHOHc0 O

1—I

*—I1—| O O O 1—I O O O 1—I

;—i O j—| rH i—Is1—I i—I

>—I;—! i—I —I

,—I i—! O j

C"~ooooooooooao O O <—I co On On On On co On On C- OOnHOnOCOOnOc<~iOOcOCO --- o 0OO*‘'“‘ HCMCMCMHHHHHrl'HHHCMHCMHCMrlHCMCMCMC'JrlH

H o r- n o o \0 ia cm nn cm cm cm cAPt-cAPtcMPfrncAC'-co c^~ c

oeoooooocooooocooeooooooo©

n cm cm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

pfetoooofttoooeoocoooeooeeoeo Jpf CACA Jcr\CACOtr\(niA 'OlA-CtcAfn<ncM H H H H CM H H

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

O^A «£) CAlAPf <M W \OPt^O 'JDPtUVK) 1SIA1ACM vO H CM H OO O O oaoooooo«roe©oooooooooooooo

XAXAXAXAXAXAiAXAXAXAXAXAXAiAiAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAPtXAXA

9

CMH H

pt

iH XA O

H
I
'able

2

(Continued)

Air H. ® W, ^ °. H» W, °i ^^XTnW4^^4^444444^44 CM,^ W 'O W N IS tA ^ ON CO IA ^ H O

Strength

3-Day

7-Day Ilsllllgllllilllllllllii

Is3siilllll§llllslll||g|

Auto 2 OJ C'- O'— CM CM CM CM MO MO _rt- 3

H. H. -1 -i H. lH

. ^

H. H H H HHHH H^4n 0000000000000000000*°° ° o O o

inued)

3CA 3

ON<^S S 9 4 3 S ^4 Pi S S

°

O CD ° «

<^^^

t^

r1

r^

C^

r^

C

i Ci°i H0 CMCXJ *4 1-^<^ <^HCMCM !^CMCM oooooooooooooooooooooo o' o'

Table

2

Loss 4

° °^ '° ^

-OOHCMcmoxOcocmOcoO osoo H o ON o

H H O O O O O O H H 4 O* 4 O* 4 4 O 4 O 0° 4 4 O ,4

r

OS °i °) c

°. ^ °°„ °°, ^ ^

O, 'C ^

O O liMn >0 OO N ffi MO 0~ tA vO H -1 H H lH H H H H CM- 4 4 4 cm° 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

MgO ON CO ON ON SO C-sO IAVO so O O r>-4 CM TMN CM CM t- O IV c^ono d n ^ n cm cm c^on,-^ ^4444444444

o

CM 0

°)°) H.‘"« ^WWnnwW^COOOWCMHHONONHH

Hc-icm ' j ,-mcmcmcmcmcmcmcmhhcmcmcmcmcmcm4 4cmcm

o

CM <

"4 4 4 °. 4

° °„ -=J ^ l>-lrx cn-o HHCOONONNOH

-4 j- -4 1A UN umtn 4VN 444444 444.4 444 4

HL « 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28
-
- 26 ” Table 3

TEST RESULTS, INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES p PLANT A

Lot

.Mjl.

Lot

4

5

APF IS FS No. . APF IS FS

3070 3 : 20 6:30 6 3400 4:05 6:50

3070 3:15 6:25 3450 4:00 6:45

3200 3:15 6:25 3380 4:00 6:45

3280 3:40 6:50 3400 3:55 6:4o

3230 3:35 6:45 3480 3:55 6 s 40

3230 3 ’30 6:40 3590 3:50 6:35

3260 3’ 30 6:40 3400 3:45 6:30

3230 3*30 6:40 3380 3:45 6:30

3380 3 s 10 6:20 3450 3:45 6:30

314.00 3:05 6:20 3350 3:50 6:35

3310 3:05 6:15 3280 3:45 6:30

3280 3:00 6:15 3230 3:40 6:25

3430 3:25 6:30 3350 3:45 6:30

3450 3:25 6:30 3350 3:40 6:25

3350 3:35 6 : 40 3430 3:50 6:35

3380 3:35 6:40 3280 3:40 6:25

34-00 3:30 6:35 3280 3:35 6:20

3330 3:30 6:35 3280 3:40 6:25

3500 3:25 6:30 7 3280 3:05 5:55

3430 3:25 6:30 3430 3:00 5:55

3330 3:25 6:30 3430 3:00 5:50

3430 3:25 6:30 3520 2:55 5:45

3640 3:30 6:25 3480 2:50 5:45

3640 3:20 6:25 3540 2:50 5:40

3570 3:15 6:20 3680 2:50 5:40

3520 3:15 6:20

8

3480 2:45 5:40

3640 3:10 6:15 3500 3:10 6:00

3540 3:10 6:15 3750 3:05 5:55

3590 3:10 6:15 3330 3:05 5:55

3590 3:10 6:15 3450 3:00 5:50

3280 2:55 5:35 3400 3:00 5:50

3310 3:10 6:00 3400 2:55 5:45

3380 3:05 6:00 3350 2:55 5:45

3350 2:45 5:25 3330 2:50 5:40

3400 2:45 5:25 3380 2:50 5:40

3350 2 % l\$ 5:25 3310 2:55 5:45

3450 2:© 5:25 3520 2:50 5:40

3400 2:55 5:50 3330 2:50 5:40

3330 2:50 5:40

3380 2:45 5:35

of* Tahl p. 3310 2:55 5°45

3390 2:45 5:35

3350 2:45 5:35

- 27 - Table 3 (Continued)

Lot

"I9.

Lot

10

APF IS FS N9. APF IS FS

3400 3:50 6:10 11 3180 4:00 7:05

3330 3:50 6:03 3260 3:55 7:05

3400 3:45 6:05 3330 3:55 7:00

3480 3:45 6:00 3330 3:50 7:00

3430 3 «4-0 6:00 3330 3:50 6:55

3380 3:40 5:50 3330 3:40 6:50

3450 3:35 5:50 3280 3:40 6:45

3380 3:35 5:50 3200 3:40 6:45

3350 3:35 5:45 3260 3:35 6:45

3500 3:40 6:00 3260 3:45 6:55

3480 3:35 5245 3310 3:35 6:40

3430 3^30 5:45 3280 3:35 6:4o

3380 3.“30 5:45 3310 3230 6:4o

3400 3230 5:40 3350 32 30 6:35

3260 3:40 5:55 3310 3:45 6:50

3520 3:30 5:4o 3200 3230 6:35

3450 3230 5:40 3200 3:30 6:35

3400 3:25 5:35 12 3130 4:05 7:00

3280 42 20 7:35 3200 4:00 6:55

3200 4:20 7230 3310 3:55 6:55

3280 4:15 7:25 3180 3:55 6:50

3330 4210 7:25 3310 3:50 6:45

34oo 4210 7:20 3260 3:45 6:40

3280 4:00 7:15 3200 3:40 6:35

3280 4200 7:15 f 3130 3:40 6:35

3380 4200 7:10 / 2910 3:45 6:45

3350 4200 7:10 / 3200 3:35 6:35

3350 4:05 7:15 3260 3:35 6:35

3330 3:55 7:10 3180 3:35 6:30

3310 3:55 7:10 3200 3:35 6:30

3310 3:55 7:05 3200 3:45 6:40

3540 3:55 7:05 1 3260 3:30 6:30

3380

34oo

3310

4:05

3:50

3:50

7:15

7:05

7:00

^—3180 3:40 6:35

Table 3 (Continued)

Lot

Nq . 13

15

APF IS FS

Lot ^ No. v. APF IS

3300 4soo 5:55 16 3360 3:50

3280 4 s 00 5:55 3360 3:45

3380 3:45 5:35 3440 3:40

3230 3:45 5:35 3300 3:35

344-0 3:25 5:35 3330 3:30

344o 3s4o 5:25 3410 3:30

3330 3:30 5:35 3300 3:30

3380 3:30 5:30 3300 3:25

3410 3:10 5:20 17 3280 4:05

3330 3:20 5:35 3280 4:00

3440 3:10 5:20 3250 4s00

3440 3:25 5:25 3300 3:55

3440 3:10 5:25 3170 3:50

3440 3:35 5:15 3220 3:50

3380 3:40 5:30 3220 3:45

3440 3:20 5:15 3220 3:40

3360 3:25 6:10 18 3230 3:50

3380 3:25 6 : 10 3280 3:45

3380 3:20 6 s 05 3280 3:45

3380 3:20 6s05 3170 3:40

3460 3:15 6:00 3170 3:35

3520 3:10 5:55 3400 3:30

3380 3:05 5:55 3250 3:30

3540 3:05 5:50 3200 3:25

3440 3:05 5:50 19 3260 3:50

3460 3:10 6s00 3180 3:50

3460 3:05 5:50 3150 3:45

3380 3°.00 5:45 3040 3:45

3360 3:00 5:45 3o4o 3:45

3540 3:00 5:45 3300 3:40

3520 3:10 5:55 3370 3:40

3460 3:00 5:45 3260 3:40

3280 3:25 5:55 20 3070 3:25

3520 3:25 5:55 3220 3:25

3380 3:20 5:50 3250 3:20

32.80 3:15 5:50 3160 3:15

3380 3:15 5:45 3440 3:15

3420 3:15 5:45 3330 3:15

3300 3:10 5:40 3130 3:15

3300 3:10 5:40 3160 3:15

PS

5:55

5230

5:5o

5:40

5:4o

5:35

£«35

5^35

5:45

5:4o

5:40

5=35

500

5:25 5 ? 25 5 s 20

6slO

6so5 6 s 05

6sOO

5? 55 5 s 5o 5 s 50 5 s 45 6 s 10 6 slO 6 s 05

6s05

6s05 6 s 00

6sOO

6sOO 6 s 30 6 s 25

6s25 6 s 20 6 s 20 6 s 20 6 s 20 6 s 20

Table 3 (Continued)

Lot

No „

21

22

23

24-

25

Lot

APP IS PS No* APF IS PS

355o 2:50 5:20 26 3160 3:40 6:15

34io 2:50 5:20 3110 3:35 6:15

348° 2:45 5:15 3340 3:35 5:55

3480 2:45 5:15 3290 3:30 5:50

3350 2:45 5:15 3210 3:30 6:05

3560 2:4-5 5:15 3160 3:30 6:05

3560 2;4-0 5:10 3160 3:30 6:05

3380 2:4-0 5:10 3340 3:25 6:00

3270 3:25 6; 10 27 3260 3:10 6:05

3300 3 : 20 6:05 3390 3:05 6:05

3300 3:20 6:05 3290 3:05 6:00

3430 3:20 6:05 3390 3:00 5:55

3430 3:15 6:00 3340 3:00 5:55

3350 3:15 6:00 3340 2:55 5:50

3250 3:15 6:00 3340 2:55 5:50

3250 3:15 6:00 ' 3340 2:50 5:45

3060 3:15 6:05 28 3160 3:20 5:50

3060 3:10 6:00 3190 3:20 5:45

3030 3:10 6:00 3260 3:15 5:45

3120 3:05 5:55 3130 3:10 5:40

3060 3:05 5:55 3260 3:10 5:40

3150 3:00 5:50 3260 3:10 5:4-0

3150 3:00 5:50 3190 3:10 5:35

3150 3:00 5:50 324-0 3:05 5:35

3310 4.:00 6:50

3290 4.:00 6:50

3210 3:55 6:45

3210 3:55 6:4-5

3190 3:55 6:45

3260 3:50 6 : 4-0

3260 3:50 6:4.0

3190 3:50 6:4.0

3290 3:50 6:15

3260 3:50 6:10

3260 3:45 6:10

3290 3:45 6:05

3340 3:40 6:05

3340 3:40 6:00

3310 3:35 6:00

3340 3:35 5:55

Air permability fineness (APP) is measured in cm /g and

initial set (IS) and final set (PS) are in hours and minutes*

CALCULATION

OFF

FOR

COMPOSITES,

PLANT

A

- 30 -

LA CM CO -3 fA O IA -3- rH 1 vO

•H • a o • © • S a -3 fA CM H CA S CO

CM

!>» S3

ClJ 1 3T* O O 8 O o -3 o o

T N LA -3 On OO CA t o CA

CM vO LA (A c

LA t CO CA

rEj C"-

Tfl

S3

rH rH I pH CM

0

S-r CM

-P f>> S3 CO cfl ' jrl O O O O O LA 1 o O

7

On CO CA LA LA CA &> o CA

CM fA -3 CA -3 -3 r

i Ov CA CA rH rH iH

o

•p 07 11 o

1 COO 31 OnO

o

LA 1 id

p • O • • • a e 3 a < Vi

>3 LA LA 1 CA o

Vi H rH rH CM LA • rH 1 !—

1

CA H I

ra r— LA J LA 0 iH CA -3 rH On CM IV- 1 a (3 Vi o • • • • • a s o

CO vO -d- CM CM -3 -3 O 1 vO o • • • • • 0 a 1 a PI Vi i—

1

O CA I CM

<A CO vO -3 CM [>- 1A i CO O • • • • • • • i a CO Vi CM o CM i rH

9) IA J- -3 c— O vO O i -3

• • • • • • a a s Vi CM o LA 3-

ca

ca

3CM Vi

3

O CM CA H CA Ov CA O (V ON

CM 0 Vi

• © • • a O

a O

• vO

a A o'

a

CM A vO

CM CA _3"

SH

CM

« CM

V-o

&CAO

"LA ! CO

• I • C- » vO

©

•H O

0

o< CO

o

0

a

toa

id

&

n<

n t

(A

O

II A*

o--3

CM

- 31

Table 5

CALCULATION OF F FOR INDIVIDUALS . PI. ANT A

APF

( cm

2

/g)

r 210

1

r

2

170

r 310

3

r 360

k

Zr 10^0

i

0.3 Zr. 31 s

Max. Spec. —

Min. Spec. 2600

F 2920

IS

inutes)

FS

(minutes)

25 25

35 25

10 10

20

90 105

27 32 — 600

60

87 568

Table 6

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT PLANTS

Type of

Plant Cement

Period

Sampled

No. of

Barrels

No . of

Lots

No. of

Samples

No. of

Tests

A I 1/28/52-3/31/53 146,500 28 293 1,726

B I 2/26/52-7/10/53 101,200 15 200 1,227

C I 7/29/52-3/13/53 64,500 13 129 744

D i4n 4/5/53-8/28/53 300,000 28 600 3,302

E i$ii 11/8/51-8/24/53 303,000 29 606 3,508

F i+ii 4/11/52-3/5/53 249,500 53 499 3,616

G i$ii 7/23/52-3/29/53 302,163 28 605 3*656

H ii

1 OX'J alkali

8/12/52-10/6/53 578,000 40 1,156 7,358

J II

low alkali

3/26/52-9/13/53 342,100 73 691 4,751

Totals 2,386,963 307 4,779 29,888

33

Table 7

VALUES OP FREQUENT 1KTMBER (F)

\Plants

Tests'^

i A B c D

A* Chemical Tests

S 0

mm m. rrr mm mm rnrnmm 21.7

i 2

A1 0 6.8 7.0 7.0 5.4

2 3

Fe 0

2 3

5.7 5,8 5.8 5.7

MgO 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.8

SO

3

1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6

Aik — — —

Loss 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8

Res o.5 0.6 0.5 0.6

3 CA 13 14 14 7

3 GS

B. Physical Tests

— 46

APF 2920 3040 3120 3350

Auto .la , .26 .37 .45

IS 87 81 117 87

FS 568 567 51)1 573

3-day 1330 11)50 1480 1490

7-day 2330 2700 2540 2630

Air 8.6 10.0 9.4 10.1

TP

111 F G H J

21.5 21.5 21.4 . 0 CM C\J 22.0

5.6 5.5 5.6 5.3 5.7

5.7 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7

4.7 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5

1.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5

.1)9 ---- .51 .52

2.7 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.6

0.6 o.5 0.7 0.6 0.7

6 6 7 6 7

45 46 45 41 43

3230 3830 3170 3390 3440

.44 .43 .43 .47 .43

93 76 78 87 ill

568 564 582 542 564

1080 11)70 1195 1400 1250

2160 2370 2315 2500 2190

8.2 10.2 11 oO 10.4 10.1

F Set 46 OB — — mm 31 mm mm mm mm 32.

COMPARISON

OF

NUMBER

OF

TESTS

UNDER

THE

PRESENT

AND

PROPOSED

PLANS

cfV -

-po

£H

I"D

Vi. Vi. Vi. Vi.

-Pt 1—

1

CO 1.N- -=f H E*- CO NO O- o O c— UN ON MO CO CO j—

I

• o e O CO • o -Ct 0 o CM • nO On H F- C

-— CO o O CO o o CO CO -ct CO f—

1

CO MO i—1

l—

1

CO i—

1

i CM r-1 H CM H o- rH H H

r— co E

CO r— CO cCO c- CM C— NO

l

i UN r—1 UN rH UN !—

I

o- tH o H CO

cm H CM i-! CM 1—

1

CM CM CM CM

MD Uj- MO ST* NO h MO o NO CO NO CO On cm CK F- ON r*~ On -Cf On On ON O'- CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

CO UN CO NO CO NO co h co co 1 1 UNCO UN CM UN CM UN MO UN O 1 1 rH iH H H H i—

1

r—1 rH a i

CO CM CO UN CO UN co co CO -Cf a a MO O NO UN lO UN nO UN •O UN i i rH rH rH rH <H H iH rH H i i

oo On CO On CO On CO ON CO C CO On UN O UN O UN O UN CM UN. UN CM rH H rH iH rH r—

1

rH rH H rH

CM CO CM CM CM CM CM CO CM O I 1 UO CO UN ut UN-Cf UN CM UNCO 1 1 H rH H H H i—

1

rH i i

On C- On C'- On On UN I 1 co CM CO CM co rH co CO a i

t s

! rH O-UN C— UN [n- r~- 1 8

1

1 IjO CM UN rH hoh UNUN

l \

9 1 C— UN IN— UN l CO c--=t !

• 1 1 a i O- CO In- oo IN- CM o- UN i i i i

TJ •3 !§ T5 , "n S .. rH § H o i—1 o £

HI Q

TJ £ T3 'S O O 1—1 o H ®

^

1 '' ' —r O O^ O C5 CO co

CM o o O CM CM O co

•H

CO 3

<1) 1? SO 5j

Loss

(old)

77

57

39

152

153

163

153

296

217

1307

(new)

28

15

13

28

29

57

28

k9

73

320 75.5%

Res

(old)

77

57

39

152

153

163

153

296

217

1307

(new)

28

15

15

28

29

63

28

U9

73

328

7k*9%

Table

8

(Continued)

- 3 $ -

in

-po

Eh

K

O

F3

Q

O

CQ

'fea CA CO b O- CO Os 3 H O NO A O On 0 CA H • OOH^N »> « co in- CM NO A.

F-1 (A H CA H i"

t— 00 O- CO O CM H HI »- H A IN- H •

C\J CM H H WH CM 1 Aj-

•JO O MO MO- O ON On

On cm CK CM ^O iiH ® CM CM CM CM On in- CM H -d

A CM A1A c- -0" 0

lA O LA CO C— .3 e H H H CA INA

H 3

AA CA CM in-A H MO A •O O •O On • H H rl s—

1

«d“ On cm H <A A On A On A O

OCO Mt A CM A CM 0

!—

1

H H LA £ CM H XA

CM CM CM CA 0 a 0

1A ~=t LA CA 40 A ® H H H ANO CM H Av

On C— 1 1 A INA

CA CM

i S IN- LA ® CM H CM 3

C "LA f i OnAK A H i 9 t 8 Cn A ® A H HA

INA

1 1 On A A A- A 8 1

1 1 A _d 0 CM ~dA

• /— —

s

c-s /A, g

AO \s T* £ TO Js H H <0 O d S3 0 § ^ —/ v / CO m O 0 W +3 A CA H W

tf CD *P EH 0

Eh fed

m

l-p

co

0) Eh

O

’H

CO L&

cu

CQ

'sa

IK- ACO IN- A CO IN- Md A 0-00 N4OJ4 O UN, • O CO • O CM • O _1 • 3 CM •

('A CAW A -d- CM AC—-d'AAAACMA H O' H ‘Oh 3 H MAHO

f— A

HCM

IN- H H A CMIN- A

&I3

A A

H »-

CM 3 r- A CO 3 CM A O A 3 CM A H A A CM H

A C— A 3CM CM A O A 3 CM

CM A; A 3 H CM A 3 A A

«H AA A CM H

A O AA

rH AA A CM H

AACO 1—

|

A

A A A AHA CM A CO H

AAA A

H iH A A A AH

A H

33

A A A CM

iH A A A CM H

A C

A A

H

A A

H

162 7

CM CO A CM iH

CM AAA

H

CM A A A

H

CM ON A CM H

O ACM (N- H

On C A H AAah AAA H A A ah A A CM _d H

C— A AA

INA

AH 57 21 IN- UN ah 200 106

IN— CO

(N- CM

IN- O

IN- A

IN- ININ- A A CO

IN- CM A CO A CM

CM

X* £ TO £

/ TO te H §

j—! 0^ H O X* £ TO O £ 0 a .—1 ^ H e 0 a V—X'w' 0 C ' r

6^ t>* —* ^—

c ctf • CO’ • 13 T£ (H

Oh

<3 A CO 0- CO <*!

-

Table

8

(Continuted)

IQ ^

VI

la d O NO Vi X) A Vi A l— o CM O LA On CM o CO^H^NO X) A- O

-P On O • On on, o j- cm •

t A <A CA CM d~d MD

X> A- ®

,o CA CA r d no «\ «Nd

Pi d On

d On H c O'. O MD a H

A CA cm (A LA CM pH CO CA H O LA

A> O A- XA

O A- HON

LA CM H

CO On 0 <-A On H d H • A- CM CA

CM no *\ ®iXA d a

ffi H ^ I 1 _dNO

D IAIA

ON H ® CACO H

X) dvo

tLA CA ® o O i 1 CA XA XA

i—

1

rH d CO c\ V\‘MD A- A

LA CO xa co co -d On-la O MD On ACD O CM O cm _d-d A-MD • LAO © MD 'O i—1 i—) A! :Ad O H On A CO « «svO <A H

On CA On -A (9 On H On MD A- A

CnXA On LA 11 d-d ® H ca 0 d -d i i H co o MD co On A NO «v d <A H

W

On On On On no MD CO XA nO O CA H XA CM XA CM OO CO A- CO ® ° 5=i • XA XA CN A LA LA O H

_1 CO «N A~ CA H

O CO O CO II d CO NO A d A- o O CM O CM Si ‘A C— • o CA ® NO NO t J ON A XA

rH CO CA

CA CA <A CA 1 ! H XA CA o On H On sH C— OA • d A CO d On • A- A O

1 I 4H fl

NO

APQ 00 St, O LA 3 ! :o O O A CA O

° H i

! Ad® A On * CM A 1 1 O AjH «vCA CO H no CACO CACO e s in- A- vo MD O On

On CM ON CM 19 O O • A XA 0

«=J CM CM 3 1 —I A A C -d CA H co r» 0—

H

T5 Js • •

/ N/—

\

H 05 TJ \s d £ o d •X3 £ —j CD O C 45> m , g /

H O

o a ^ § d V /v—X (J) •—' "v—

o d

rt / CO CQ >

n—' cq CO £ h

IQ 40 to -P io/m

/ -p H ^ 8

d h m

3 W CD / w -P Eh ra p Eh / CD O in O

f Eh Eh Vi CD Eh Vi

- 9 £ -

- 37 - Table 9

EFFECT OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR 3CA AND 3CS ON THE

FREQUENCY OF TESTING OF Si0

2

, A1 0 , 2 3

’ Fe 0 , AND

2 3*

SO

3

Tests

Plantl^-^^ S

i°2 A1 0

2 3

Fe 0

2 3

so

3

A(TT ~3F 33~ 54

( 2 ) 28 28 54

B (1

)

21 15 57

( 2 ) — 21 15 57

C(l) 27 27 35

( 2 ) 17 13 35

D(1

)

33 1i[2 14.2 80

( 2 ) 28 28 28 75

E(l) 109 109 109 147

( 2 ) 29 29 29 135

p(D 102 155 155 154

( 2 ) 53 53 53 148

G(l) 85 126 126 103

(2) 34 28 2.8 58

H(l) 22k 271 271 293

(2) 50 4-9 40 224. j(D 158 158 158 202

(2) 73 73 73 184

Total No. Tests ( old) 1134 1307 1307 1307

II U 11 ( 1 ) 711 1044 1038 1125

It It II ( 2 ) 267 326 307 970

*f Tests Elim.

' %

" «

( 1 ) 37.3 20 .1 20,6 13.9

( 2 ) 76.5 75.1 76.5 25.8

Note - Numbers opposite (1) give testing

ies

frequenc/ under proposed plan with present

specifications on 3CA and 30S, while numbers

ies

opposite (2) give testing frequenc/ under proposed plan when specifications on 30A and 3Cs are

Ignored.

3S

Table 10

NUMBER OP LOTS FOR WHICH ONE OR MORE TESTS VIOLATED THE

SPECIFICATIONS AND NUMBER DETECTED BY THE PROPOSED PLAN

(Numbers in parentheses denote bad lots detected,,)

\KLants

Tests

V'Ss\A. B c D E F G H J Totals

A, Chemical Tests

S 0

mm mm mm mm 0 0 0 1(0) 0 0 1(0)

i 2

A3. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 3

Fe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 3

MgO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SO 0 0 0 1(1) 7(7) 4(4) 1(1) 0 1(1) i4(i4)

3

Aik — — —*- .0 . --- 0 0 0

Loss 0 0 0 0 0 1(1) 0 0 0 1(1)

Res 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3- CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 CS — 0 1(1) 1(1) 0 2(2) 1(1) 5>( 5>)

B* Physical Tests

Auto 0 0 0 0 0 0 1(1) 0 0 Ki)

3-day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7-day 0 0 0 0 3(2) 1(1) 0 0 0 4(3)

Air 0 0 0 1(1) 0 0 0 0 0 Ki)

APF 0 0 1(1) 0 0 1(0) 0 0 0 2(1)

IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FS •6 0 o ... 0 -0— . ® r. —•-•-O'—, .< 0 0

F Set — '—— 3(3) id) -

4(4) 8(8)

Totals 0 0 1(1) 2(2) 14(13) 8(7) 4(3) 2(2) 6(6) 37(34)

- 39

Table H

ESTIMATES OP WITHIN LOTS STANDARD DEVIATION, PLANT H

No. of tests

per lot>

Si0

2

O 300 Fe 0

_2„J„

CaO MgO s°

3

Aik Loss Res

2 J-i-0 .089 .18 ,089 .22 .018 .22 eOkk

3 .039 .12 .030 .059 .030 .059 .021 . 0 vnvO .089

6 .22 .13 .11 .25 .066 .12 .028 .17 .039

9 .33 .15 .11 .26 .090 .18 .021 .13 .023

17,18 .25 .12 CO co . O .22 .055 .17 .033 .11 .028

Table 11 (Continued)

No. of tests

per lot

30A 30S Auto 3-day 7-day Air

2 •44 2.66 .0044 212.8 288.1 .80

3 .30 1.18 .0030 103.4 227.4 .44

6 .39 2.89 .0067 152.6 182.8 .59

9 .56 2.58 .010 220.0 231.2 .74

17,18 .41 2.21 * 0 ro 164.4 207.2 .87

The- number of barrels of cement per lot can be estimated

by njultiplying the number of tests per lot by 2,000 0

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Functions and Activities

The functions of the National Bureau of Standards are set forth in the Act of Congress, March

3, 1901, as amended by Congress in Public Law 619, 1950. These include the development and

maintenance of the national standards of measurement and the provision of means and methods

for making measurements consistent with these standards; the determination of physical constants and properties of materials; the development of methods and instruments for testing materials,

devices, and structures; advisory services to Government Agencies on scientific and technical

problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; and the

development of standard practices, codes, and specifications. The work includes basic and applied

research, development, engineering, instrumentation, testing, evaluation, calibration services, and

various consultation and information services. A major portion of the Bureau’s work is performed

for other Government Agencies, particularly the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy

Commission. The scope of activities is suggested by the listing of divisions and sections on the

inside of the front cover.

Reports and Publications

The results of the Bureau’s work take the form of either actual equipment and devices or published papers and reports. Reports are issued to the sponsoring agency of a particular project or program. Published papers appear either in the Bureau’s own series of publications or in the

journals of professional and scientific societies. The Bureau itself publishes three monthly periodicals, available from the Government Printing Office: The Journal of Research, which presents

complete papers reporting technical investigations; the Technical News Bulletin, which presents

summary and preliminary reports on work in progress; and Basic Radio Propagation Predictions,

which provides data for determining the best frequencies to use for radio communications throughout

the world. There are also five series of nonperiodical publications: The Applied Mathematics

Series, Circulars, Handbooks, Building Materials and Structures Reports, and Miscellaneous

Publications.

Information on the Bureau’s publications can be found in NBS Circular 460, Publications of

the National Bureau of Standards ($1.00). Information on calibration services and fees can be

found in NBS Circular 483, Testing by the National Bureau of Standards (25 cents). Both are

available from the Government Printing Office. Inquiries regarding the Bureau’s reports and

publications should be addressed to the Office of Scientific Publications, National Bureau of Standards, Washington 25, D. C.