ASTM E2653-14
(Practice)Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine Precision Estimates for a Fire Test Method with Fewer Than Six Participating Laboratories
Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine Precision Estimates for a Fire Test Method with Fewer Than Six Participating Laboratories
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 ASTM regulations require precision statements in all test methods in terms of repeatability and reproducibility. This practice is used when the number of participating laboratories or materials being tested, or both, in a precision study is less than the number specified by Practice E691. When possible, it is strongly recommended that a full E691 standard protocol be followed to determine test method precision. Precision results produced by the procedures presented in this standard will not have the same degree of accuracy as results generated by a full E691 protocol. This procedure will allow for the development of useful precision results when a full compliment of laboratories is not available for interlaboratory testing.
5.2 This practice is based on recommendations for interlaboratory studies and data analysis presented in Practice E691. This practice does not concern itself with the development of test methods but with a standard means for gathering information and treating the data needed for developing a precision statement for a fire test method when a complete E691 interlaboratory study and data analysis are not possible.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice describes the techniques for planning, conducting, analyzing, and treating results of an interlaboratory study (ILS) for estimating the precision of a fire test method when fewer than six laboratories are available to meet the recommended minimum requirements of Practice E691. Data obtained from an interlaboratory study are useful in identifying variables that require modifications for improving test method performance and precision.
1.2 Precision estimates developed using this practice will not be statistically equivalent to precision estimates produced by Practice E691 because a small number of laboratories are used. The smaller number of participating laboratories will seriously reduce the value of precision estimates reported by this practice. However, under circumstances where only a limited number of laboratories are available to participate in an ILS, precision estimates developed by this practice will provide the user with useful information concerning precision for a test method.
1.3 A minimum of three qualified laboratories is required for conducting an ILS using this practice. If six or more laboratories are available to participate in an ILS for a given fire test method, Practice E691 shall be used for conducting the ILS.
1.4 Since the primary purpose of this practice is the development of the information needed for a precision statement, the experimental design in this practice will not be optimum for evaluating all materials, test methods, or as a tool for individual laboratory analysis.
1.5 Because of the reduced number of participating laboratories a Laboratory Monitor shall be used in the ILS. See Standard Guide E2335.
1.6 Field of Application—This practice is concerned with test methods that yield numerical values or a series of numerical values for different fire-test response properties. The numerical values mentioned above are typically the result of calculations from a set of measurements.
1.7 This practice includes design information suitable for use with the development of interlaboratory studies for test methods that have categorization (go-no-go) allocation test results. However, it does not provide a recommended statistical practice for evaluating the go-no-go data.
1.8 This fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2653 − 14 AnAmerican National Standard
Standard Practice for
Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine Precision
Estimates for a Fire Test Method with Fewer Than Six
Participating Laboratories
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2653; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision.Anumber in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 1.6 Field of Application—This practice is concerned with
test methods that yield numerical values or a series of
1.1 This practice describes the techniques for planning,
numericalvaluesfordifferentfire-testresponseproperties.The
conducting,analyzing,andtreatingresultsofaninterlaboratory
numerical values mentioned above are typically the result of
study (ILS) for estimating the precision of a fire test method
calculations from a set of measurements.
when fewer than six laboratories are available to meet the
1.7 This practice includes design information suitable for
recommended minimum requirements of Practice E691. Data
use with the development of interlaboratory studies for test
obtainedfromaninterlaboratorystudyareusefulinidentifying
methods that have categorization (go-no-go) allocation test
variables that require modifications for improving test method
results.However,itdoesnotprovidearecommendedstatistical
performance and precision.
practice for evaluating the go-no-go data.
1.2 Precision estimates developed using this practice will
1.8 Thisfirestandardcannotbeusedtoprovidequantitative
not be statistically equivalent to precision estimates produced
measures.
by Practice E691 because a small number of laboratories are
used. The smaller number of participating laboratories will
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the
seriously reduce the value of precision estimates reported by safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
this practice. However, under circumstances where only a
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
limitednumberoflaboratoriesareavailabletoparticipateinan priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
ILS, precision estimates developed by this practice will pro-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
vide the user with useful information concerning precision for
2. Referenced Documents
a test method.
2.1 ASTM Standards:
1.3 A minimum of three qualified laboratories is required
E176Terminology of Fire Standards
for conducting an ILS using this practice. If six or more
E177Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in
laboratories are available to participate in an ILS for a given
ASTM Test Methods
firetestmethod,PracticeE691shallbeusedforconductingthe
E178Practice for Dealing With Outlying Observations
ILS.
E456Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
1.4 Since the primary purpose of this practice is the devel-
E691Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to
opmentoftheinformationneededforaprecisionstatement,the
Determine the Precision of a Test Method
experimental design in this practice will not be optimum for
E1169Practice for Conducting Ruggedness Tests
evaluatingallmaterials,testmethods,orasatoolforindividual
E2335Guide for Laboratory Monitors
laboratory analysis.
3. Terminology
1.5 Because of the reduced number of participating labora-
3.1 Definitions—For formal definitions of statistical terms,
tories a Laboratory Monitor shall be used in the ILS. See
Standard Guide E2335. seeTerminologyE456.Forformaldefinitionsoffireterms,see
Terminology E176.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E05 on Fire
Standards and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E05.31 on Terminology
and Services / Functions. For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2014. Published December 2014. Originally contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 2009 as E2653-09. DOI: Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
10.1520/E2653-14. the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2653 − 14
3.2.1 protocol, n—in this practice, directions given to the study, and they shall be selected to reflect the range of
laboratories for conducting the interlaboratory study (ILS). performance of test specimens normally evaluated by the test
method.Aminimumofthreereplicatesshallbetestedforeach
3.2.2 repeatability (of results and measurements),
test material selected. If a standard reference material is
n—quantitative expression of the random error associated with
available for the test method, the material shall be included as
successive measurements of the same measurand carried out
a specimen in the interlaboratory study. If a standard reference
subject to all of the following conditions: the same measure-
material is not available, a test specimen that consistently
ment procedure, the same observer, the same measuring
produces low variability test results shall be selected as a
instrument, used under the same conditions, the same location,
reference material for the interlaboratory study.
and repetition over a short period of time.
3.2.2.1 Discussion—Repeatability deals with results in a
5. Significance and Use
single laboratory while reproducibility deals with results ob-
5.1 ASTM regulations require precision statements in all
tained in different laboratories.
test methods in terms of repeatability and reproducibility. This
3.2.3 reproducibility (of results of measurements),
practice is used when the number of participating laboratories
n—quantitative expression of the random error associated with
or materials being tested, or both, in a precision study is less
successivemeasurementsofthesamemeasurandcarriedoutby
than the number specified by Practice E691. When possible, it
operators working in different laboratories, each obtaining
is strongly recommended that a full E691 standard protocol be
singleresultsonidenticaltestmaterialwhenapplyingthesame
followed to determine test method precision. Precision results
method.
produced by the procedures presented in this standard will not
3.2.3.1 Discussion—Repeatability deals with results in a
havethesamedegreeofaccuracyasresultsgeneratedbyafull
single laboratory while reproducibility deals with results ob-
E691 protocol. This procedure will allow for the development
tained in different laboratories.
of useful precision results when a full compliment of labora-
3.2.4 test method, n—in this practice, description of the
tories is not available for interlaboratory testing.
actual measurement process as well as written description of
5.2 This practice is based on recommendations for inter-
the process.
laboratorystudiesanddataanalysispresentedinPracticeE691.
3.3 For further discussion of the terms discussed above, see
This practice does not concern itself with the development of
PracticeE177andtheformaldefinitionsinTerminologyE456.
test methods but with a standard means for gathering informa-
tion and treating the data needed for developing a precision
4. Summary of Practice
statement for a fire test method when a complete E691
4.1 The procedure presented in this practice consists of interlaboratory study and data analysis are not possible.
three basic steps: planning the interlaboratory study, guiding
PLANNING THE ILS
thetestingphaseofthestudy,andanalyzingthetestresultdata.
The analysis evaluates the consistency of the data through the
6. Planning
use of numerical estimates of precision of the test method
6.1 Task Group—Either the task group that developed the
pertainingtobothwithin-laboratoryrepeatabilityandbetween-
test method or a special task group appointed for the purpose
laboratory reproducibility.
must have overall responsibility for the ILS, including funding
4.2 Planning of the interlaboratory study will include a
whereappropriate,staffing,thedesignoftheILS,anddecision-
review of the test procedure to be used in the interlaboratory
making with regard to questionable data. The task group shall
study.Thisreviewwillidentifyportionsofthetestmethodthat
decideonthenumberoflaboratories,materials,andtestresults
appear to contribute to a loss in precision. Special interlabora-
for each material. In addition, it shall specify any special
tory instructions or modifications to the test method wording
calibration procedures and the repeatability conditions to be
are made as needed to clarify these sections and often result in
specified in the protocol.
a modification to the test method following the interlaboratory
6.2 ILS Coordinator—The task group must appoint one
study.
individual to act as overall coordinator for conducting the ILS.
4.3 A manager for the interlaboratory study and an inter-
Thecoordinatorwillsupervisethedistributionofmaterialsand
laboratory test monitor shall be selected. The same person is
protocols to the laboratories and receive the test result reports
allowed to conduct both functions.
fromthelaboratories.Scanningthereportsforgrosserrorsand
4.4 Parties conducting an interlaboratory precision study of checking with the laboratories, when such errors are found,
a test method will acquire participation agreements with as will also be the responsibility of the coordinator. The coordi-
manylaboratoriesaspossiblethatarewillingtotakepartinthe nator will consult as needed with a statistician in questionable
interlaboratory study and have the capability to run the test cases.
method of interest. A minimum of three laboratories shall
6.3 Laboratory Monitor—The task group must appoint one
participateintheprecisionstudy.Precisionresultswillincrease
individual to act as a laboratory monitor for the ILS. The
in quality with a larger number of participating laboratories.
laboratorymonitorwilldevelopanILSchecklistspecifictothe
4.5 The types of materials and number of test specimens test method, inspect the test laboratories for equipment con-
shall be selected for the interlaboratory study. No less than formity and operator training, verify compatibility of the data
three test specimens shall be selected for the interlaboratory acquisition system, and based on the Checklist and inspection
E2653 − 14
results report to the sponsoring ASTM Subcommittee. Com- knowledge of the materials and the property to be tested. The
pletedetailsforthefunctionofalaboratorymonitorarelocated method shall contain safety and calibration procedures, details
in Guide E2335. on control related limits that potentially cause test result
variability, and specify how test results are to be reported.
6.4 Statistician—The task group shall obtain the assistance
of a person skilled in the use of statistical procedures, the test
ILS TESTING
method being studied, and with the materials being tested in
ordertoensurethattherequirementsinthispracticearemetin
9. Pilot Run
an efficient and effective manner. This person will conduct the
9.1 Prior to beginning testing for the formal ILS a prelimi-
data analysis using procedures given in this standard and will
nary laboratory evaluation study shall be carried out using a
assist the task group in interpreting results from the data
well characterized test material of known performance. This
analysis.
preliminary study is managed by the ILS Coordinator and
7. Basic Design
Laboratory Monitor and is used to determine if each of the
participating laboratories are capable of conducting tests as
7.1 Keep the ILS design simple in order to obtain estimates
specified by the written ILS test method. These preliminary
of within-and between-laboratory variability that are free of
tests conducted in the participating laboratories are typically
secondary effects. The basic design is represented by a two-
observed by the Laboratory Monitor as a part of the laboratory
way classification table in which the rows represent the
qualification process.
laboratories, the columns represent the materials, and the cell
(the intersection of a row and column) contains the test results
9.2 Thepilotrunresultsgivethetaskgroupanindicationof
made by a particular laboratory on a particular material (see
how well each laboratory will perform in terms of promptness
Table 1).
and following the protocol. Laboratories with poor perfor-
mance are encouraged and helped to take corrective action.
7.2 An ILS using this practice shall include enough labora-
tories to represent a reasonable cross-section of the population
9.3 All steps of the procedures described in this practice
of qualified laboratories. A minimum of three laboratories is
shall be followed in detail to ensure that these directions are
necessary for carrying out an ILS using this practice.
understood, to disclose any weakness in the protocol or test
method.
8. Test Method
8.1 Of prime importance is the existence of a valid, well-
10. Full Scale Run
written test method that has been developed in one or more
10.1 Materials Preparation and Distribution:
competentlaboratories,andhadbeensubjectedtoaruggedness
10.1.1 Sample Preparation and Labeling—Prepare enough
test prior to the ILS.
of each material to supply at least 50% more than needed by
8.2 The ruggedness test is a screening procedure for inves-
the number of laboratories committed to the ILS. Label each
tigating the effects of variations in environmental and other
test unit or specimen with a letter for the material and a
conditions in order to determine how control of such test
sequential number. Thus, for three laboratories and three
conditions shall be specified in the written description of the
results for each laboratory the test units for materials B would
method. Details for ruggedness testing are found in Guide
be numbered from B1 to B14.
E1169.
10.1.2 Randomization—For each material independently,
8.3 Awritten version of the test method must be developed
allocate the specified number of test units or test specimens to
for the ILS (but not necessarily published as a standard
each laboratory, using a random number table, or a suitable
method). This draft shall describe the test apparatus and
computerized random number based program.
procedure in terms that are easily understood and followed in
10.1.3 Shipping—Ensure that the test specimens are pack-
anyproperlyequippedlaboratorybycompetentpersonnelwith
aged properly to arrive in the desired condition. Clearly
indicate the name of the person who has been designated as
TABLE 1 Examp
...
This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E2653 − 09 E2653 − 14 An American National Standard
Standard Practice for
Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine Precision
Estimates for a Fire Test Method with Fewer Than Six
Participating Laboratories
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2653; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This practice describes the techniques for planning, conducting, analyzing, and treating results of an interlaboratory study
(ILS) for estimating the precision of a fire test method when fewer than six laboratories are available to meet the recommended
minimum requirements of Practice E691. Data obtained from an interlaboratory study are useful in identifying variables that
require modifications for improving test method performance and precision.
1.2 Precision estimates developed using this practice will not be statistically equivalent to precision estimates produced by
Practice E691 because a small number of laboratories are used. The smaller number of participating laboratories will seriously
reduce the value of precision estimates reported by this practice. However, under circumstances where only a limited number of
laboratories are available to participate in an ILS, precision estimates developed by this practice will provide the user with useful
information concerning precision for a test method.
1.3 A minimum of three qualified laboratories is required for conducting an ILS using this practice. If six or more laboratories
are available to participate in an ILS for a given fire test method, Practice E691 shall be used for conducting the ILS.
1.4 Since the primary purpose of this practice is the development of the information needed for a precision statement, the
experimental design in this practice will not be optimum for evaluating all materials, test methods, or as a tool for individual
laboratory analysis.
1.5 Because of the reduced number of participating laboratories a Laboratory Monitor shall be used in the ILS. See Standard
Guide E2335.
1.6 Field of Application—This practice is concerned with test methods that yield numerical values or a series of numerical
values for different fire-test response properties. The numerical values mentioned above are typically the result of calculations from
a set of measurements.
1.7 This practice includes design information suitable for use with the development of interlaboratory studies for test methods
that have categorization (go-no-go) allocation test results. However, it does not provide a recommended statistical practice for
evaluating the go-no-go data.
1.8 This fire standard cannot be used to provide quantitative measures.
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E176 Terminology of Fire Standards
E177 Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods
E178 Practice for Dealing With Outlying Observations
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E05 on Fire Standards and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E05.15E05.31 on Furnishings and
ContentsTerminology and Services / Functions.
Current edition approved April 1, 2009Dec. 1, 2014. Published May 2009December 2014. Originally approved in 2008. Last previous edition approved in 20082009 as
E2653-08.-09. DOI: 10.1520/E2653-09.10.1520/E2653-14.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2653 − 14
E456 Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
E691 Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method
E1169 Practice for Conducting Ruggedness Tests
E2335 Guide for Laboratory Monitors
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions—For formal definitions of statistical terms, see Terminology E456. For formal definitions of fire terms, see
Terminology E176.
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 testprotocol, method n—and protocol—in this practice, the term “test method” is used both for the actual measurement
process and for the written description of the process, while the term “protocol” is used for the directions given to the laboratories
for conducting the ILS.interlaboratory study (ILS).
3.2.2 repeatability (of results and reproducibility—measurements), n—these terms deal with the variability of test results
obtained under specified laboratory conditions. Repeatability concerns the variability between independent test results obtained
within a single laboratory in the shortest practical period of time by a single operator with a specific set of test apparatus using
test specimens (or test units) taken at random from a single quantity of homogeneous material obtained or prepared for the ILS.
Reproducibility deals with the variability between single test results obtained in different laboratories, each of which has applied
the test method to test specimens (or test units) taken at random from a single quantity of homogeneous material obtained or
prepared for the ILS.quantitative expression of the random error associated with successive measurements of the same measurand
carried out subject to all of the following conditions: the same measurement procedure, the same observer, the same measuring
instrument, used under the same conditions, the same location, and repetition over a short period of time.
3.2.2.1 Discussion—
Repeatability deals with results in a single laboratory while reproducibility deals with results obtained in different laboratories.
3.2.3 reproducibility (of results of measurements), n—quantitative expression of the random error associated with successive
measurements of the same measurand carried out by operators working in different laboratories, each obtaining single results on
identical test material when applying the same method.
3.2.3.1 Discussion—
Repeatability deals with results in a single laboratory while reproducibility deals with results obtained in different laboratories.
3.2.4 test method, n—in this practice, description of the actual measurement process as well as written description of the
process.
3.3 For further discussion of the terms discussed above, see Practice E177 and the formal definitions in Terminology E456.
4. Summary of Practice
4.1 The procedure presented in this practice consists of three basic steps: planning the interlaboratory study, guiding the testing
phase of the study, and analyzing the test result data. The analysis evaluates the consistency of the data through the use of numerical
estimates of precision of the test method pertaining to both within-laboratory repeatability and between-laboratory reproducibility.
4.2 Planning of the interlaboratory study will include a review of the test procedure to be used in the interlaboratory study. This
review will identify portions of the test method that appear to contribute to a loss in precision. Special interlaboratory instructions
or modifications to the test method wording are made as needed to clarify these sections and often result in a modification to the
test method following the interlaboratory study.
4.3 A manager for the interlaboratory study and an interlaboratory test monitor shall be selected. The same person is allowed
to conduct both functions.
4.4 Parties conducting an interlaboratory precision study of a test method will acquire participation agreements with as many
laboratories as possible that are willing to take part in the interlaboratory study and have the capability to run the test method of
interest. A minimum of three laboratories shall participate in the precision study. Precision results will increase in quality with a
larger number of participating laboratories.
4.5 The types of materials and number of test specimens shall be selected for the interlaboratory study. No less than three test
specimens shall be selected for the interlaboratory study, and they shall be selected to reflect the range of performance of test
specimens normally evaluated by the test method. A minimum of three replicates shall be tested for each test material selected.
If a standard reference material is available for the test method, the material shall be included as a specimen in the interlaboratory
E2653 − 14
study. If a standard reference material is not available, a test specimen that consistently produces low variability test results shall
be selected as a reference material for the interlaboratory study.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 ASTM regulations require precision statements in all test methods in terms of repeatability and reproducibility. This practice
is used when the number of participating laboratories or materials being tested, or both, in a precision study is less than the number
specified by Practice E691. When possible, it is strongly recommended that a full E691 standard protocol be followed to determine
test method precision. Precision results produced by the procedures presented in this standard will not have the same degree of
accuracy as results generated by a full E691 protocol. This procedure will allow for the development of useful precision results
when a full compliment of laboratories is not available for interlaboratory testing.
5.2 This practice is based on recommendations for interlaboratory studies and data analysis presented in Practice E691. This
practice does not concern itself with the development of test methods but with a standard means for gathering information and
treating the data needed for developing a precision statement for a fire test method when a complete E691 interlaboratory study
and data analysis are not possible.
PLANNING THE ILS
6. Planning
6.1 Task Group—Either the task group that developed the test method or a special task group appointed for the purpose must
have overall responsibility for the ILS, including funding where appropriate, staffing, the design of the ILS, and decision-making
with regard to questionable data. The task group shall decide on the number of laboratories, materials, and test results for each
material. In addition, it shall specify any special calibration procedures and the repeatability conditions to be specified in the
protocol.
6.2 ILS Coordinator—The task group must appoint one individual to act as overall coordinator for conducting the ILS. The
coordinator will supervise the distribution of materials and protocols to the laboratories and receive the test result reports from the
laboratories. Scanning the reports for gross errors and checking with the laboratories, when such errors are found, will also be the
responsibility of the coordinator. The coordinator will consult as needed with a statistician in questionable cases.
6.3 Laboratory Monitor—The task group must appoint one individual to act as a laboratory monitor for the ILS. The laboratory
monitor will develop an ILS checklist specific to the test method, inspect the test laboratories for equipment conformity and
operator training, verify compatibility of the data acquisition system, and based on the Checklist and inspection results report to
the sponsoring ASTM Subcommittee. Complete details for the function of a laboratory monitor are located in Guide E2335.
6.4 Statistician—The task group shall obtain the assistance of a person skilled in the use of statistical procedures, the test method
being studied, and with the materials being tested in order to ensure that the requirements in this practice are met in an efficient
and effective manner. This person will conduct the data analysis using procedures given in this standard and will assist the task
group in interpreting results from the data analysis.
7. Basic Design
7.1 Keep the ILS design simple in order to obtain estimates of within-and between-laboratory variability that are free of
secondary effects. The basic design is represented by a two-way classification table in which the rows represent the laboratories,
the columns represent the materials, and the cell (the intersection of a row and column) contains the test results made by a particular
laboratory on a particular material (see Table 1).
TABLE 1 Example, ILS Test Result Data
Laboratory A B C D E
1 35.3 31.2 38.9 34.0 27.2
34.0 31.0 35.0 35.5 31.1
35.5 35.1 50.8 63.1 27.3
2 10.7 12.9 20.6 19.9 15.0
12.7 15.0 8.0 16.2 8.2
13.3 12.2 16.2 8.1 12.3
3 36.0 28.0 32.1 32.1 25.1
36.0 32.1 36.0 32.0 25.0
29.0 28.0 32.2 32.0 21.2
4 40.9 36.8 32.8 36.7 24.5
36.7 32.7 28.6 32.7 24.4
28.6 32.7 32.6 32.7 28.5
5 41.6 37.6 33.2 41.6 29.0
41.7 25.1 29.2 37.5 29.1
46.0 29.3 29.0 37.3 29.2
E2653 − 14
7.2 An ILS using this practice shall include enough laboratories to represent a reasonable cross-section of the population of
qualified laboratories. A minimum of three laboratories is necessary for carrying out an ILS using this practice.
8. Test Method
8.1 Of prime importance is the existence of a valid, well-written test method that has been developed in one or more competent
laboratories, and had been subjected to a ruggedness test prior to the ILS.
8.2 The ruggedness test is a screening procedure for investigating the effects of variations in environmental and other conditions
in order to determine how control of such test conditions shall be specified in the written description of the method. Details for
ruggedness testing are found in Guide E1169.
8.3 A written version of the test method must be developed for the ILS (but not necessarily published as a standard method).
This draft shall describe the test apparatus and procedure in terms that are easily understood and followed in any properly equipped
laboratory by competent personnel with knowledge of the materials and the property to be tested. The method shall con
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.