1

ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22

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

Group Assignment 7 Statistics

1. The concrete for the central core of a high-rise building is required to have a
modulus of elasticity, E, of 40 GPA for deflection control. The concrete supplier
has carried out a series of tests on successive batches of a potential concrete and
obtained the following values for E:
41.0, 40.0, 39.9, 39.6, 42.7, 41.9, 41.6, 41.4, 40.4, 38.9, 39.2, 42.6, 40.4, 40.8,
42.2, 41.7 GPa
a) Can the results be considered as being normally distributed?
b) Examine the hypothesis that the mean value of E is significantly higher
than the required value.
c) Determine the characteristic value of E.
2. Two concrete plants are being assessed for the supply of concrete to a large
construction project. The compressive strengths of successive batches of
nominally identical concrete produced by two concrete plants are given in table 1.
a) Evaluate the significance of the differences between these two sets of results
b) Discuss any action that you could take if you were the technical manager with
responsibility for these two plants.
Table 1
batch no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

28 day concrete strengths

(MPa)
plant 1
plant 2
49.0
41.0
39.5
41.0
50.5
45.0
44.5
46.5
54.5
44.0
42.0
46.5
54.0
44.5
49.0
46.5

3. You have been asked to evaluate the performance of two laboratories in

measuring the properties of Portland cement. To assist you in this, you have
asked each laboratory to carry out repeat tests (to BS EN 196-1) on cement
samples taken from a single batch of cement. The values of initial set and 28 day
compressive strength obtained by each laboratory are given in table 2.
What conclusions can you draw from these results?

Page 2 of 24

3
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22

Table 2

Page 3 of 24

initial set (mins)

Laboratory
1
Laboratory 2
130
124
132
123
130
126
126
116
134
124
135
125
131
131
135
120
123
123
138
120

28 day strength (MPa)

Laboratory 1
47.4
53.0
36.9
46.0
35.4
51.6
40.3
38.3
52.1
45.7
39.6
55.5

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

1. Statistical analysis on results obtained from testing concrete

samples for modulus of elasticity.....................................................6
1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................6
1.2 x..........................................................................................................................6
1.3 x .........................................................................................................................7
1.3.1 x.......................................................................................................................8
1.3.1.1 x....................................................................................................................8
1.3.1.2 x....................................................................................................................9
1.3.1.3 x....................................................................................................................10
1.4 x..........................................................................................................................12
1.4.1 x.......................................................................................................................12
1.4.2 x.......................................................................................................................15
1.4.3 x.......................................................................................................................17

Page 6 of 24

7
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22

Table of Contents cont:

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

1. Statistical analysis on results obtained from testing concrete

samples for modulus of elasticity.
1.1 Introduction
The modulus of elasticity required for a high-rise building is 40 GPa. This E value is
required for deflection control. Statistical evaluation should be done to prove both
normal distribution of the data

2. Analysis on reproducibility between two concrete plants.

2.1 Introduction
3. Repeatability and Reproducibility tests on setting times and 28 day strengths of a
single batch of cement using two different laboratories.
28 Days Concrete
Strengths(Mpa)

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) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

0.130542
1.859548
0.261085
2.306004

2 .(a).2 Comparison population of means

HO : X1

H1

X2

: X 1 X2

Plant 1
SE = /n
= 5.85/7
as n=7 = 2.21

The null hypothesis - they are the same streng

The alternative hypothesis - they are
different
Plant 2
SE = /n
2.66/
= 9
as n = 9 = 0.887

Assuming ,the 95% confidence interval at 5%

level
Plant 1 ,t value = 7 -1
= 6
therefore 't'value for
5% of freedom
(2,6)
= 5.14

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 re-trained.
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

Statistical analysis of the data

Considering that in both laboratories, 10 observations were made on initial setting

time and 12 observations were made on 28 day strength, the data will be analyzed
by T-test and F-test. Below is the data presentation.
Table 1: Observation for Lab 1 & Lab 2
Initial set (mins)

28 day strength (Mpa)

Laboratory

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

The graphical presentation of the observation above follows;

Page 12 of 24

13
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22

Figure 1: Comparison of Initial set for Lab 1 & Lab 2

According to EN 196-1, the initial set for the cement had to greater than 60 minutes
(Ref), both laboratories have shown that the cement is clearly above its initial set
time.
Considering for T-test and F-test;
Null hypothesis:

The means from the laboratories are equal (T-test)

Alternative hypothesis:
Null hypothesis:

The means from the laboratories are not the equal

The variances from both laboratories are equal (F-test)

Alternative hypothesis:

The variances from both laboratories are not equal

In both cases = 0.05 for 95% confidence level

Testing the data as paired T-test, the following results were obtained;
Table 2: t-Test Paired Two Samples of Means
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

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) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

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

Figure 2: Comparison of the two laboratories 28 day strengths

Following the same null and alternative hypotheses mentioned above, the paired ttest gives the following results are obtained;
Table 3: t-Test paired two sample for 28 day strength means
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
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.

Testing the variance using the F-test we find the following;

For initial set;
Table 4: F-test Two - Sample Initial Set Variance
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances
Lab 1
131.4
20.04444444
10
9
1.239010989
0.377371596
3.178893105

Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) one-tail
F Critical one-tail

Lab 2
123.2
16.17777778
10
9

And for 28 day strength;

Table 5: F-test Two-Sample 28 day Variances
F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Mean
Variance
Observations
df
F
P(F<=f) one-tail
F Critical one-tail

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

Discussion and Conclusion

The table below shows a summary of the situation

Table 6: Summary of t-test and F-test analysis
T-test out come
Comparison of lab 1 and Significantly the
lab 2 on initial set

means

Comparison of lab 1 and Significantly

lab 2 on 28 day strength

F-test out come

same Significantly

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 F-test 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

b)The standard deviation for Plant 1 is too high,compared to Plant 2.

Therefore the following will have to be done.
Batch records will have to be evaluated for compliance.
Scales and plant equipment will have to be calibrated.
Raw materials will have to be sampled and tested.
Trial mixes will be done to assess water demand
Plant personnel will have to be re-trained
Truck mixer inspection will have to be conducted.
Page 17 of 24

18
ASSIGNMENT 7: STATISTICS (November 2012), GROUP 22

Compliance to sampling ,cube making and crushing procedures will have to

be assessed.
Laboratory staff will have to be re-trained.

4. Concrete made with the same Aggregate and the same Portland
cement.
When producing site and ready-mixed 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 10-20%. (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

Table XXX Low water cement ratio

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

Figure XXX Low water cement ratio

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

Table XXX High water cement ratio

Figure XXX High water cement ratio

Conclusions:
Page 19 of 24

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

4.b.ii.Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and compressive strength.

mix proportions (kg/m3)
cube strength
(MPa)
ceme
free
3
28
nt
water
w/c
days
days
545
205
0.38
22.8
47.9
500
190
0.38
31.5
56.5
545
225
0.41
23.5
49.5
390
195
0.50
13.2
35.2
390
200
0.51
20.4
40.2
390
205
0.53
29.1
44.6
310
175
0.56
13.8
37.5
310
175
0.56
23.1
37.5
310
195
0.63
14.9
30.8
255
170
0.67
19.8
30.1
225
165
0.73
7.2
18.2
285
210
0.74
10.1
17.5
255
190
0.75
15.5
22.5
225
170
0.76
9.2
18.7
Table XXX UPV at 28Day strength

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

Figure XXX 28Day UPV against W/C ratio

Figure XXX 28Day Cube strength against W/C ratio

There is obviously a need for a reliable non-destructive test method to
complement or replace the existing destructive means of verifying the
strength of concrete in question on site. The UPV is however not currently
used as the primary method of testing, but used as a supplementary
indicator of the quality of concrete in structures. This is because the
relationship between compressive strength of concrete and UPV is not
simple. (KK Phoon, 199)

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

KK Phoon, T. W. (199). Developement of statistical quality assurance criterion for

concrete using UPV methods. ACI Materials Journal , 568-573.
Sear, L. (2003). Quality control. In B. S. J. Newman, Advanced Concrete
Technology (pp. 9/1-9/24). Oxford: Butterworth-Heimann.
Y. Lin, C. L. (2003). Prediction of UPV in concrete. ACI Materials Jurnal , 21-28.
Z. Sun, T. V. (2005). Temperature effects on strength evaluation of cement baced
with ultrasonic wave reflection technigue. ACI Materials Journal , 272-278.

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