Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Asphalt: Acceptability of Marshall Flow Test Results

Asphalt: Acceptability of Marshall Flow Test Results

Asphalt: Acceptability of Marshall Flow Test Results

I have to determine whether Marshall Flow values from three pucks prepared from the same sample of hot mix asphalt are acceptable according to the provisions of ASTM D6927 and ASTM C670. The three pucks were prepared by the same operator. The Marshall Flow values are 15, 21 and 26 (0.25mm).

The average of the flows is 20.7 (0.25mm)
The standard deviation is 5.51
The co-efficient of variance of individual measurements is 26.6%

From ASTM D6927 and C670:
Number of samples = 3
Multiplier for Table 2 = 5.7
Co-efficient of variance for acceptance, 1s% = 9%
Maximum acceptable range as a percentage of mean = 51.3%

My question pertains to the calculation of the range as a percentage of the mean.

Method 1

Is the range calculated as the difference between the highest and the lowest values, that is, 11 (=26-15), and then the range as a percentage of the mean is 11/20.7*100 = 53.1%? Therefore, in this case, the range as a percentage of the mean (53.1%) is outside of the maximum acceptable range (51.3%), and the results can be considered suspect.

Or is the range calculated as follows.

Method 2

Flow (0.25mm)
Range as a percentage of mean
27.5% (=(20.7-15)/20.7*100))
1.4% (=(21-20.7)/20.7*100))
25.6% (=(26-20.7)/20.7*100))

In this case, the range as a percentage of mean (1.4% to 27.5%) is within the maximum acceptable range (51.3%) and the results can be considered acceptable.

Any guidance on the above query will be sincerely appreciated.

Thank you.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


eBook - Efficient and Effective Production Support with 3D Printed Jigs and Fixtures
Jigs and fixtures offer manufacturers a reliable process for delivering accurate, high-quality outcomes, whether for a specific part or feature, or for consistency across multiples of parts. Although the methodologies and materials for producing jigs and fixtures have evolved beyond the conventional metal tooling of years past, their position as a manufacturing staple remains constant due to the benefits they offer. Download Now
Overcoming Cutting Tool Challenges in Aerospace Machining
Aerospace manufacturing has always been on the cutting edge, from materials to production techniques. However, these two aspects of aerospace machining can conflict, as manufacturers strive to maintain machining efficiency with new materials by using new methods and cutting tools. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close