Tests and/or test items can sometimes be expensive, unique, or only performed in a few laboratories. There can be cases where assigned values are unknown, there is no information, or only poor information on the probability density function attributed to the test result. Sometimes there are neither reference materials nor the ability to establish consensus values due to a lack of experts. It can be impossible to repeat a test on the same item because it is destroyed during the test itself, or the homogeneity of tested items is unknown and no criteria can be established. Specified technical requirements concerning proficiency testing and interlaboratory comparison schemes are generally not applicable in this situation. However, interlaboratory comparison could allow laboratories to have more confidence in their results. The present paper discusses three statistical methods of assessing interlaboratory comparison results obtained in such conditions. Two methods are based on an assigned value determined from participant results through robust analysis. The third is based on the compatibility of results assessed using the ζ parameter. This paper focuses on an interlaboratory comparison for two laboratories, each testing three samples. The use of statistical methods turns out to be high risk, particularly in terms of falsely accepting results. Additionally, is shown that methods dedicated to small samples are also not efficient in detecting discrepancies of test results.

This paper attempts to compare three methods of testing floor slip resistance and the resulting classifications. Polished, flamed, brushed, and grained granite slabs were tested. The acceptance angle values (α_ob) obtained through the shod ramp test, slip resistance value (SRV), and sliding friction coefficient (μ) were compared in terms of the correlation between the series, the precision of each method, and the classification results assigned to each of the three obtained indices. It was found that the evaluation of a product for slip resistance was strongly related to the test method used and the resulting classification method. This influence was particularly pronounced for low roughness slabs. This would result in risks associated with inadequate assessments, which could affect the safe use of buildings facilities.

The laboratory testing of the construction materials and elements is a subset of activities inherent in sustainable building materials engineering. Two questions arise regarding test methods used: the relation between test results and material behavior in actual conditions on the one hand, and the variability of results related to uncertainty on the other. The paper presents the analysis of the results and uncertainties of the simple two independent test examples (bond strength and tensile strength) in order to demonstrate discrepancies related to the ambiguous methods of estimating uncertainty and the consequences of using test methods when method suitability for conformity assessment has not been properly verified. Examples are the basis for opening discussion on the test methods development direction, which makes possible to consider them as ‘sustainable’. The authors address the negative impact of the lack of a complete test models taking into account proceeding with an uncertainty on erroneous assessment risks. Adverse effects can be minimized by creating test methods appropriate for the test’s purpose (e.g., initial or routine tests) and handling with uncontrolled uncertainty components. Sustainable test methods should ensure a balance between widely defined tests and evaluation costs and the material’s or building’s safety, reliability, and stability.

The paper refers to the importance of test results uncertainty in the assessment of the construction product performance. Uncertainty understood as dispersion attributed to any value which is result of the tests, calculations or other evaluations, occurs at every level of assessment (material, product, construction). Authors presented the various approaches to uncertainty estimation, especially in situation of small number of tests results which is characteristic for testing of construction products. Effects of uncertainty on final assessment of construction product was analyzed using the example of bearing capacity of thin-walled structure obtained by numerical calculation. Different values of material tests uncertainty resulting from different approaches to its assessment was taken into account. It was demonstrated that the difference in the results of strength tests of a material, which falls within the limits of uncertainty, may result in a very significant difference in the evaluation of a structure.

A growing popularity of profiles made of natural fibre-reinforced polymer composites in civil engineering encourages determining test methods relevant for building performance assessment. Weathering resistance is among the key aspects that condition the durability of building structures. The paper includes a comparative analysis of two artificial weathering resistance test methods. Polyvinyl chloride and wood flour composite profiles were tested. They were subjected to UV and spraying (X-exposure) and UV, spraying and wetting by condensation (F-exposure), both at different exposure times. The influence of the applied weathering procedures on the composite’s microstructure and its mechanical characteristics were analysed. No changes in the microstructure of brittle fractures were observed. However, surface morphology changes were revealed, noticeably greater following X-exposure than F-exposure. F-exposure exerted significant influence on the mechanical properties of brushed profile, including, but not limited to, flexural modulus. Whereas X-exposure exerted more influence on the mechanical properties of non-brushed profile.

The implementation of a standard should be preceded by research work aimed at developing the test method, particularly in validation experiments. Is it actually so? Numerous experiences of producers and labs and an increasing number of scientific works prove the opposite. It turns out that some standard methods are very poorly suited to assessing the performance of construction products. This is related both to the specificity of the methods and the tested products. This article presents some product assessment problems and the risk of using test methods that have not been fully validated. The risk seems relatively low if laboratories account for their own uncertainty. However, in some cases, additional components that both laboratories and product manufacturers might fail to consider can significantly increase the risk. This indicates the need for continuous work in the reference area.