| Título: | SIM Regional Supplementary Comparison : SIM.L-S6. Calibration of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison |
| Fuente: | Metrología, 52 |
| Autor/es: | Viliesid, M.; Colín Castellanos, C.; Chávez, T.; Chaudhary, K. P.; Dvořáček, F.; Stoup, John; Santos Barros, W.; Vaudagna, L.; Morales, R.; Acquarone, A.; Carrasco, J.; Vega, M.; Salazar, M.; Gil, V.; Dimas, J.; Reyes, E.; Hamilton, F.; Reddock, T.; Durga, S.; Burton, T. |
| Materias: | Sistema Interamericano de Metrología; Metrología; Calibración; Ensayos mecánicos; Interferometría; Patrones |
| Editor/Edición: | IOP Publishing;2015 |
| Licencia: | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ |
| Afiliaciones: | Viliesid, M. Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM); México Colín Castellanos, C. Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM); México Chávez, T. Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM); México Chaudhary, K. P. National Physical Laboratory (NPL); India Dvořáček, F. Czech Metrology Institute (CMI); República Checa Stoup, J. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados Unidos Santos Barros, W. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); Brasil Vaudagna, L. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial (INTI); Argentina Morales, R. Laboratorio Nacional de Longitud (DICTUC); Chile Acquarone, A. Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay (LATU); Uruguay Carrasco, J. Servicio Nacional de Metrología (INDECOPI); Perú Vega, M. Instituto Boliviano de Metrología (IBMetro); Bolivia Salazar, M. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización (INEN); Ecuador Gil, V. Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio (SIC); Colombia Dimas, J. Centro Nacional de Metrología de Panamá (CENAMEP); Panamá Reyes, E. Laboratorio Costarricense de Metrología (LACOMET); Costa Rica Hamilton, F. Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards (TTBS); Trinidad y Tobago Reddock, T. Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards (TTBS); Trinidad y Tobago Durga, S. Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ); Jamaica Burton, T. Bureau of Standards Jamaica (BSJ); Jamaica |
|
|
|
| Resumen: | This supplementary comparison concerns the calibration of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison, which is a technique of paramount importance as it is at the highest level in the traceability chain of length for most countries of the American Continent. This comparison is designed to support the submitted CMC claims of these countries. The measurand is the central length of several gauge blocks as defined in ISO 3650 and the circulated gauge blocks were used for two comparisons carried out in two stages: the first stage, SIM.L-K1:2007, Calibration of gauge blocks by optical interferometry (2007–2010); the gauge blocks were also measured by mechanical comparison for those NMI also participating in SIM.L-S6:2007; the second stage, SIM.L-S6:2007, Calibration of gauge blocks by mechanical comparison (2010–2011) for the participants that measured only by mechanical comparison. In this second comparison there were 16 participants, 14 from the Americas, and 2 invited NMIs from other regions. The circulation in the second stage had 10 participants. |
|
Descargar |
Ver+/-
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
1 / 29
Centro Nacional de Metrología
SIM Regional Supplementary Comparison
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
Final Report
October 2014
M. Viliesid CENAM, Centro Nacional de Metrología
C. Colín CENAM, Centro Nacional de Metrología
T. Chávez CENAM, Centro Nacional de Metrología
K.P. Chaudhary NPLI, National Physical Laboratory INDIA
F. Dvořáček CMI, Czech Metrology Institute
J. Stoup NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology
W. Santos INMETRO, Instituto Nacional de Metrologia
L. Vaudagna INTI, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial
R. Morales DICTUC, Laboratorio Nacional de Longitud
A. Acquarone LATU, Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay
J. Carrasco INDECOPI, Servicio Nacional de Metrología
M. Vega IBMETRO, Instituto Boliviano de Metrología
M. Salazar INEN, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización
V. Gil SIC, Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio
J. Dimas CENAMEP, Centro Nacional de Metrología de Panamá AIP
E. Reyes LACOMET, Laboratorio Costarricense de Metrología
F. Hamilton TTBS, Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards
T. Reddock TTBS, Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards
S. Durga BSJ, Bureau of Standards Jamaica
T. Burton BSJ, Bureau of Standards Jamaica
Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM) km 4.5 Carretera a Los Cués, El Marqués, Querétaro 76246, MEXICO
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
2 / 29
1. Introduction
The Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the Conférence Internationale des Poids et Mesures (CIPM) signed by the National Metrology Institutes (NMI) of different nations provides mutual recognition among the NMI of their national standards and their calibration services. A database has been set up by the Bureau Interantional des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) at its website where the Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMC) of each NMI are posted. To support the CMC claims of the NMI, the MRA requires, among other things, that they participate on a regular basis in Key Comparisons (KC) that test key measuring techniques. This would prove their technical competence, that they can provide this calibration service with the claimed uncertainty of the corresponding CMC and that they have metrological equivalence with the other signatory NMI that provide the same service.
The CIPM has therefore instructed the different CC (Comité Consultatif) to identify key techniques in order to define KC, as it is, for example, the calibration of Gauge Blocks (GB) by optical interferometry, identified as a key measuring technique by CCL ( CC de Longueurs). Additionally, the CC as well as the regions may also identify other important comparisons called supplementary and identified with an S. The SIM region has identified the Calibration of GB by Mechanical Comparison as one if this comparisons. The Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM) was designated by SIM as pilot laboratory and CENAM has carried out this exercise under the name of SIM.L-S6:2007.
The calibration of GB by Mechanical Comparison is indeed a technique of paramount importance as it is at the highest level in the traceability chain of length for most countries of the American Continent. This comparison is meant to support the submitted CMC of these countries.
The measurand is the central length of the GB as defined in [1] and the circulated GB were used for two comparisons carried out in two stages:
First stage, SIM.L- K1:2007, Calibration of GB by Optical Interferometry. Circulation from 2007-11-01 to 2010-04-25. The GB were also measured by Mechanical Comparison for those NMI also participating in SIM.L-S6:2007.
Second stage, SIM.L-S6:2007, Calibration of GB by Mechanical Comparison. Circulation from 2010-03-02 to 2011-05-06 for the participants that measured only by Mechanical Comparison, this dates included two control measurements by interferometry.
In this second comparison there were 16 participants, 14 from the Americas, and 2 invited NMI from other regions. The circulation in the second stage had 10 participants. It should be noted that the circulation took relatively short time for the large number of participants thanks to the hand delivery from one NMI to the following one in nine out of the 10 steps so that customs clearance was simplified or avoided.
2. Participants
This comparison had 16 participants. Table 1 shows the participating NMI and their corresponding contact person and information.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
3 / 29
Contact Carlos Colín Castellanos
K. P. Chaudhary
Ing. Vladimir Stezka Ing. Frantisek Dvořáček
NMI CENAM, Centro Nacional de Metrología km 4.5 Carretera a los Cués, El Marqués CP 76241, Querétaro, MÉXICO. NPLI, National Physical Laboratory INDIA Dr. K,S. Krishnan Road, New Delhi 110012, INDIA. CMI, Czech Metrology Institute Slunecna 23 460 01 Liberec CZECH REPUBLIC.
Information Tel. +52 442 211 0500 Fax +52 442 211 0577 e-mail: ccolin@cenam.mx Tel. +91 11 25732865 Fax +91 11 25726938 e-mail: kpc@mail.nplindia.ernet.in Tel. +42 485 107 532 Fax +42 485 104 466 e-mail: vstezka@cmi.cz
fdvoracek@cmi.cz
Leandro Vaudagna
Wellington Santos Barros
John Stoup
Roberto Morales
Alejandro Acquarone Luis Mussio Janet Carrasco Tuesta María del Carmen Vega Amonzabel Manuel Salazar
Victor Hugo Gil
Julio Dimas
Eduardo Reyes
Theodore Reddock Francis Hamilton
Tomokie Burton Carlton Thomas Siew Durga
INTI, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial Tel. +54 34 92440471
División de Metroplogía Dimensional-Rafaela km 227,6 Ruta Nac. No 34
Fax +54 34 92422804 e-mail: vaudagna@inti.gov.ar
CP 2300, Rafaela, Santa Fé, ARGENTINA
INMETRO, Instituto Nacional de Metrologia,
Tel. +55 21 2679-9271
Normalização e Qualidade Industrial.
Fax +55 21 2679-9207
Av. N.Sra. das Graças, 50 – Villa Operária –
e-mail: wsbarros@inmetro.go.br
Xerém – Duque de Caixas – RJ. CEP 25250-
020, BRASIL.
NIST, National Institute of Standards and
Tel. +1 301 975 3476
Technology
Fax + 1 301 869 0822
Room B113, Metrology Building
e-mail: John.Stoup@nist.gov
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001 USA
DICTUC, Laboratorio Nacional de Longitud
Tel. 56 2 3544624
Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860 – Macul –
Fax 56 2 3544624
Santiago – (edificio nº 9 metrología), CHILE.
e-mail: metrologia@dictuc.cl
LATU, Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay
Tel. 598 2 601 3724 ext 298
Avenida Italia 6201, Montevideo, URUGUAY.
Fax 598 2 601 8554
CP 11500
e-mail: lmussio@latu.org.uy
aacqua@latu.org.uy
INDECOPI, Servicio Nacional de Metrología
Tel. 51 1 224 7800 1618
Calle de la Prosa 138, San Borja
Fax 51 1 224 7800 1264
Lima 4,1 PERÚ.
e-mail: jcarrasco@indecopi.gob.pe
IBMETRO, Instituto Boliviano de Metrología
Tel. 591 2 2372046
Av. Camacho No. 1488
Fax 591 2 2310037
La Paz, BOLIVIA.
e-mail: mvega@ibmetro.gob.bo
INEN, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalización
Tel. 593 2 2343716
Casilla: 17-01-3999
Fax 593 2 2344394
Quito – ECUADOR.
e-mail: msalazar@inen.gov.ec
SIC, Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio Tel. 571 3153265 - 69
División de Metrología
Fax 571 3153292
COLOMBIA.
e-mail: vgil@correo.sic.co
CENAMEP, Centro Nacional de Metrología de Tel. 507 – 517-0081
Panamá AIP, Edificio 215, Ciudad del Saber,
Fax 507 – 517-0019
PANAMÁ.
e-mail: jdimas@cenamep.org.pa
LACOMET, Laboratorio Costarricense de
Tel. 506 - 2283 - 6580
Metrología.
Fax 506 - 2283 - 5133
Apartado Postal 1736 – 2050, San Pedro de
e-mail: ereyes@lacomet.go.cr
Montes de Oca, San Jose. COSTA RICA.
TTBS, Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of
Tel. 868-662-8827
Standards
Fax 868-663-4335
Century Drive Trincity Industrial Estate Macoya, e-mail: Theodore.Reddock@ttbs.org.tt
Tunapuna, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO.
e-mail:Francis.Hamilton@ttbs.org.tt
BSJ, Bureau of Standards, Jamaica
Tel.: 926-3140-5 ext. 1102
6 Winchester Rd.,
Fax: 929-4736
Kingston 10. JAMAICA.
e-mail: cthomas@bsj.org.jm
e-mail: TBurton@bsj.org.jm
Tabla 1. List of participants in comparison SIM.L-S6:2007.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
4 / 29
3. Circulation Schedule
As we mentioned, nine out of the ten participants in the second circulation stage delivered the artifacts by hand to the following participant which made the circulation time relatively short. Table 2 shows the circulation schedule for the two circulation stages. LACOMET retained 13 weeks the GB because of end-of-the-year holidays and internal administrative problems, they mentioned.
NMI
NPLI CMI NIST INMETRO INTI
DICTUC LATU
INDECOPI IBMETRO
INEN SIC CENAMEP LACOMET TTBS BSJ CENAM (Pilot)
Dates
Reception
Shipment
Stage One Circulation
2008-03-02
2008-06-09
2008-06-16
2008-08-05
2009-04-20
2009-07-15
2009-08-11
2009-09-08
2009-11-13
2010-01-11
Stage Two Circulation
2010-04-29
2010-05-18
2010-06-11
2010-07-06
2010-07-06
2010-07-30
2010-08-02
2010-08-18
2010-08-18
2010-09-13
2010-09-13
2010-10-13
2010-10-13
2010-11-09
2010-11-09
2011-02-09
2011-02-14
2011-03-16
2011-03-16
2011-04-27
2011-04-28
Reception of results
2009-08-07 2008-10-17 2010-03-02 2009-09-21 2010-01-11
2010-06-15 2010-07-21 2010-08-12 2010-09-24 2011-05-16 2010-11-10 2011-01-28 2011-04-01 2011-04-13 2011-06-09 2011-05-25
Tabla 2. SIM.L-S6:2007 dates of reception and shipment of artifacts and reception of results by the pilot laboratory.
4. Comparison Artifacts
A total of 14 grade K (according to [1]) rectangular GB were selected for the exercise. Seven steel GB and seven ceramics GB covering the range of short GB (from 0.5 mm to 100 mm). The specifications on the GB are shown in tables 3 and 4. The associated Coefficients of Thermal Expansion (CET) shown in the tables are those quoted by the manufacturer.
Nominal Length (mm) 1.000 5 5 7 10 50 75 100
Serial Number
010223 000482 010764 001329 012254 010630 010850
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10-6 K-1 )
10.9 1 10.9 ± 1 10.9 1 10.9 ± 1 10.9 1 10.9 1 10.9 1
Manufacturer
Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo
Table 3. Steel Gauge Blocks.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
5 / 29
Nominal Length (mm) 1.000 5 5 7 10 50 75 100
Serial Number
000288 051836 010323 052351 011002 010370 010773
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10-6 K-1 )
9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1 9.3 1
Manufacturer
Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo Mitutoyo
Table 4. Ceramics Gauge Blocks.
5. Measurement Protocol
Detailed instructions were included in the technical protocol. Participants were invited to perform the measurements according to their own calibration procedures, used to calibrate the GB of their customers.
The measurement was performed in all cases with a double probe GB comparator and in the vertical position as indicated in [1]. The method determines the difference in central length, lc, of two GB of same nominal length set beside in the comparator platen as illustrated in Figure 1. The first GB is the laboratory’s reference GB, calibrated by optical interferometry; and the test GB which is under circulation.
Figure 1. Illustration of the calibration method of GB by mechanical comparison showing the different variables of influence (taken from [9]).
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
6 / 29
6. Measuring Instruments
All participants measured with double probe electromechanical GB comparators with a resolution of 10 nm. Table 5 shows the makes, models and characteristics of the different instruments.
NMI
Manufacturer Model
CENAM NPLI
CMI
TESA Mahr
TESA
TESAUPC Not indicated
TESAUPC
NIST INMETRO
INTI
Mahr/Federal TESA Mahr
130B-24
TESAUPC
826E
DICTUC
TESA
TESAUPC
LATU
Mahr
826
INDECOPI IBMETRO
Mahr Steinmayer
INEN
Mahr
SIC CENAMEP
TESA Mitutoyo
LACOMET
TESA
TTBS
TESA
826 PC
EMP II
826
UPD GBCD-
250 TESAUPC
TESAUPC
Measuring range mm 0 - 102 0 – 175
0 – 100
0 -102 0 - 102 0 - 175
0 - 100
0 - 100
0 – 175 0 – 100 0 - 170 0 - 500 0 - 250 0.5 - 100
0.5 - 100
Traceability
To SI standards of CENAM via GB calibrated by interferometry
Not indicated
To the Czech National Standard of Length (He-Ne/I2
633nm, He-Ne/I2 543.5nm, fs comb)
NIST maintained IodineStabilized Laser
To SI standards of INMETRO via GB calibrated by interferometry
To SI standards of INTI via GB calibrated by interferometry
To SI standards of PTB via GB calibrated by interferometry
Comparator to SI standards of PTB via GB calibrated by interferometry and to SI
standards of CENAM via GB calibrated by interferometry To SI standards of CENAM via GB calibrated by interferometry To SI standards of PTB via GB
grade 0 Not indicated, only mentioned that their GB are calibrated by
interferometry To SI standards of METAS via GB calibrated by interferometry To SI standards of CENAM via GB calibrated by interferometry
To SI standards of PTB and CENAM via GB calibrated by
interferometry To SI standards of METAS and
NPL via GB calibrated by interferometry
Temperature variation range
during measurements
(°C) 19.32 – 19.60
19.5 – 20.5
Not indicated
20.08 – 20.17
20.0 – 20.5
20 ± 0.5 Steel 19.91 –
20.05 Ceramics 19.85 –
20.16
19.68 – 20.50
20.0 ± 0.5 19.95 – 20.15
19 – 21
20 – 20.3 20.3 – 20.6
0.34
0.018
JBS
Mahr-Federal 2247386
1 - 100
To SI standards of NIST
19.60 – 20.20
Table 5. GB comparators, measurement range, traceability and temperature variation of the participant laboratories.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
7 / 29
7. State and Behavior of Artifacts
7. 1 State of the Artifacts upon Reception
The participants were to inspect the state of the artifacts upon reception and inform the pilot according to the protocol. Although the selected GB were not brand new, they were in good conditions. They suffered some damage after the circulation, but the stability and the results obtained in the comparison prove the damages did not hamper or alter the measurements and the pilot laboratory was able to wring them all to a measurement platen without problems after circulation. Figures 1 through 11 show the physical conditions of some of the steel GB upon reception at the pilot laboratory at the end of the exercise. The steel GB ended-up with quite a few scratches and specifically, the 5 mm GB, also presented rust spots.
Figures 1, 2 and 3. Aspect of the measuring faces of the 1.000 5, 5 and 7 mm Steel GB at the end of circulation.
Figures 4, 5 and 6. Aspect of the measuring faces of the 10, 50 and 75 mm Steel GB at the end of circulation.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
8 / 29
Figure 7. Aspect of the measuring faces of the 100 mm Steel GB at the end of circulation.
Four out of the seven ceramic GB suffered some damage on one of their measuring faces as shown in Figures 8 to 11, which consisted of burs or chipped edges. However, this condition did not hamper the wringing or caused any variation in length as it was proved by the control measurements performed at the end by the pilot laboratory by interferometry as well as by mechanical comparison.
Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11. Aspect of the measuring faces of the 10, 50, 75 and 100 mm Ceramic GB at the end of circulation.
7. 2 Stability of the Standards
The GB were measured by interferometry several times by the pilot laboratory to verify their stability: when they were purchased (2002), two years before starting the comparison (Nov. 2005), before circulating them (Nov. 2007), after the round by interferometry (April 2010) and at the end of the circulation (May 2011). Table 6 shows the deviations from nominal length determined at these different occasions for the steel GB, including the stated values on the certificates of the manufacturer. Graphs 1 through 7 show these values for each GB.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
9 / 29
Serial Number
010223 000482 010764 001329 012254 010630 010850
Nominal length (mm)
1.000 5 5 7 10 50 75
100
Manufacturer certificate 2001
0 40 30 50 60 -50 20
Deviation from nominal value (nm)
2002 2005 2007
2010
5
3
-4
-9
14
11
35
20
19
13
-5
1
31
22
37
21
46
3
7
-3
-54
-104
-100
-107
18
-50
-51
-64
2011
-2 27 -10 31 8 -106 -50
Table 6. Pilot Laboratory measured values of the steel GB at different occasions.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
10 / 29
Table 7 shows the deviations from nominal length determined at these different occasions for the ceramics GB, including the stated values on the certificates of the manufacturer. Graphs 8 through 14 show these values for each GB.
Serial Number
000288 051836 010323 052351 011002 010370 010773
Nominal length (mm)
1.0005 5 7 10 50 75
100
Manufacturer certificate 2001
0 ---50 ---90 100 -60
Deviation from nominal value (nm)
Manufacturer
2002 certificate
2007
2010
2005
-6
----
-14
7
----
13
12
8
46
----
57
48
----
3
-13
-19
95
----
139
117
110
----
118
124
-42
----
-34
-36
2011
-17 14 35 -29 97 123 -41
Table 7. Pilot Laboratory measured values of the ceramics GB in different occasions.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
11 / 29
8. Measurement Results of Participants
All laboratories sent their results by e-mail. All information was received on the specified formats from appendices A, B, C, D and E of the Technical Protocol.
8.1 Measurement of the Central Length
Tables 8 and 9 and graphs 16 through 22, show the deviations of the central length with respect to nominal values and the claimed standard measurement uncertainties of each participant for the seven steel GB. Additionally, graph 15 shows the claimed standard uncertainties of all participants.
Nominal Value
Deviation (eij) from nominal length for Steel GB nm
mm
NPLI
CMI
NIST INMETRO INTI LATU DICTUC INDECOPI
1.000 5
-20
20
-27
20
-12
-35
-15
20
5
10
60
27
62
-4
4
5
20
7
-40
20
2
21
-38
-12
-35
10
10
10
70
39
24
12
39
20
40
50
-30
80
15
11
-11
13
-10
0
75
60
-50
-107
-93
-127 -126 -110
-80
100
10
40
-67
-60
-66
-68
-60
10
Table 8A. Measurement results of the participants for the Steel GB.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
12 / 29
Nominal Value mm
IBMETRO
Deviation (eij) from nominal length for Steel GB nm
INEN SIC CENAMEP LACOMET TTBS
BSJ
1.000 5
-40
-10 -27
-13
5
0
10 -6
-3
22
30
Not reported
46
70
11
7
-40
-30 -38
-13
27
20
-37
10
20
20 -7
31
66
20
15
50
-10
10
0
-10
36
200
-26
75
-130
-140 -127
-143
-83
-40
-295
100
-70
40 -23
-112
-68
290
-47
Table 8B. Measurement results of the participants for the Steel GB.
CENAM
-2
23 6 24 14 -109 -33
Nominal Value
Claimed standard uncertainties, u(eij), Steel GB nm
mm
NPLI
CMI
NIST INMETRO INTI
LATU DICTUC INDECOPI
1.000 5
26
23
13
29.5
23.0
26.0
27
27
5
28
23.1
13
29.8
23.0
26.0
27
27
7
29
23.1
13
29.8
23.0
26.0
27
27
10
30
23.3
13
29.8
23.0
26.0
27
27
50
53
29.2
15
35.2
35.0
38.0
29
36
75
67
35.5
20
41.4
46.0
40.0
34
45
100
81
42.7
30
49.1
58.0
47.0
36
55
Table 9A. Claimed standard uncertainties of the participants for the Steel GB.
Nominal Value mm
IBMETRO
Claimed standard uncertainties, u(eij), Steel GB nm
INEN SIC CENAMEP LACOMET TTBS
BSJ
CENAM
1.000 5
34
55.4 23
12
5
35
57.2 23
12
25.3 25.4
52
Not reported
53
28
14.5 14.7
7
35
58
23
12
36.7
53
29
14.9
10
36
59.3 24
13
36.9
77
31
15.2
50
44
76.5 34
35
43.7
160
71
27.6
75
50
87.3 44
51
43.8
170
100
38.1
100
55
98
55
66
54.4
170
130
49.2
Table 9B. Claimed standard uncertainties of the participants for the Steel GB.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
13 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
14 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
15 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
16 / 29
Tables 10 and 11 and graphs 24 through 30, show the deviations of the central length with respect to nominal values and their claimed standard measurement uncertainties of each participant for the seven ceramic GB. Graph 23 shows the claimed standard uncertainties of the participants.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
17 / 29
Nominal
Value
mm
NPLI
Deviation (eij) from nominal length for Ceramics GB nm
CMI
NIST INMETRO INTI LATU DICTUC INDECOPI
1.000 5
-40
0
-27
-32
-9
-37
-17
-15
5
0
30
14
-14
10
-29
-17
-15
7
10
50
58
34
35
13
13
25
10
-80
0
-9
-24
-15
-18
-32
-25
50
20
140
116
97
89
103
65
55
75
40
150
148
89
122
111
101
135
100
-80
10
-5
-55
16
-53
-65
-15
Table 10A. Measurement results of the participants for Ceramics GB.
Nominal Value
Deviation (eij) from nominal length for Ceramics GB nm
mm
IBMETRO INEN SIC CENAMEP LACOMET TTBS
BSJ
1.000 5
310
-10 -5
-12
5
340
-20 -10
-1
-9
60
Not reported
-16
80
-36
7
370
20 32
38
44
90
-18
10
320
-10 -40
-18
-15
Not reported
-68
50
460
140 138
103
84
480
-16
75
480
170 155
164
102
480
-140
100
360
40 40
2
8
660
-195
Table 10B. Measurement results of the participants for Ceramics GB.
CENAM
-10 -6 65 -20 100 127 -12
Nominal Value
Claimed standard uncertainties, u(eij), Ceramics GB nm
mm
NPLI
CMI
NIST INMETRO INTI
LATU DICTUC INDECOPI
1.000 5
26
23
13
32.5
23
26
27
27
5
28
23.1
13
33.2
23
26
27
27
7
29
23.1
13
32.7
23
26
27
27
10
30
23.3
13
32.7
23
26
27
27
50
53
29.2
15
38.1
33
36
28
38
75
67
35.5
20
44
42
45
35
48
100
81
42.7
30
50.6
52
47
34
59
Table 11A. Claimed standard uncertainties of the participants for Ceramics GB.
Nominal Value
Claimed standard uncertainties, u(eij), Ceramics GB nm
mm
IBMETRO INEN SIC CENAMEP LACOMET TTBS
BSJ
CENAM
1.000 5
34
55.4 23
12
5
35
57.2 23
12
25.3 25.4
58
Not reported
19.0
58
39
19.2
7
35
58
23
12
25.5
58
40
19.4
10
36
59.3 24
13
25.7
Not reported
43
19.9
50
44
76.5 34
34
43.5
160
99
34.5
75
50
87.3 44
50
43
170
140
47.1
100
56
98
55
66
55.3
180
182
60.6
Table 11B. Claimed standard uncertainties of the participants for Ceramics GB.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
18 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
19 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
20 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
21 / 29
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
22 / 29
9. Reference Value (RV) and equations to determine the performance of participants
All usual parameters of the central tendency were calculated: the median, the simple mean and the inverse-variance weighted mean. All of these values appear in Annex A. However, the Supplementary Comparison Reference Values were obtained from the Regional Key Comparison SIM.L-K1:2007, as the artifacts were the same. These RV were calculated as the simple mean for all consistent results of the interferometric comparison [2].
The Reference Values, ̅ and their Expanded Uncertainties, ( ̅ ) for the different GB j of both materials are shown in Table 13.
Supplementary Comparison Reference Values (RV)
Nominal Length
mm
Steel
Ref. Value, ̅
( ̅ )
Ceramics
Ref. Value, ̅
( ̅ )
1.005
-9.3
8.2
-3.9
7.8
5
26.4
8.3
10.6
7.9
7
-2.6
8.3
51.7
7.9
10
36.2
7.8
-14.3
8.1
50
4.9
12.5
105.9
11.3
75
-105.6
17.0
136.2
13.9
100
-42.0
17.1
-23.1
15.6
Table 13. Reference values (simple mean of largest sub-set of consistent results of SIM.L-K1:2007 comparison) as deviations from Nominal Value and corresponding Expanded Uncertainty for both
steel and ceramic GB. All values in nanometers.
For each laboratory, i, which measures each gauge block, j, let the measured deviation from nominal length be denoted by dij and calculated as,
= − ̅
(1)
Statistical consistency of the results with their associated uncertainties can be verified by calculating the normalized error En.
=
| |
(2)
√ 2( )+ 2( )
If En is greater than 1 it is considered that the result is inconsistent.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
23 / 29
10. Participants Results of the Comparison
The reported measurement results were analyzed by simple statistical means to allow identification of any significant bias. Tables 14 and 15 show the differences of the results of the participants with respect to the RV of each GB j, dij, and the corresponding Normalized Error, En calculated from equation (2). Note that the uncertainties in this equation are expanded uncertainties.
NMI (i→)
NPLI
CMI
NIST
INMETRO
INTI
LATU
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 -10.7 0.20 29.3 0.63 -17.7 0.65 29.3 0.49 -2.7 0.06 -25.7 0.49
5
-16.4 0.29 33.6 0.72 0.6 0.02 35.6 0.59 -30.4 0.65 -22.4 0.43
7
-37.4 0.64 22.6 0.48 4.6 0.17 23.6 0.39 -35.4 0.76 -9.4 0.18
10
-26.2 0.43 33.8 0.72 2.8 0.10 -12.2 0.20 -24.2 0.52 2.8 0.05
50
-34.9 0.33 75.1 1.26 10.1 0.31 6.1 0.09 -15.9 0.22 8.1 0.11
75 165.6 1.23 55.6 0.76 -1.4 0.03 12.6 0.15 -21.4 0.23 -20.4 0.25
100
52 0.32 82 0.94 -25 0.40 -18 0.18 -24 0.20 -26 0.27
Table 14A. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Steel GB for the first six participants.
NMI (i→)
DICTUC
INDECOPI IBMETRO
INEN
SIC
CENAMEP
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 -5.7 0.10 29.3 0.54 -30.7 0.45 -0.7 0.01 -17.7 0.38 -3.7 0.15
5
-21.4 0.39 -6.4 0.12 -26.4 0.37 -16.4 0.14 -32.4 0.69 -29.4 1.16
7
-32.4 0.59 12.6 0.23 -37.4 0.53 -27.4 0.24 -35.4 0.76 -10.4 0.41
10
-16.2 0.30 3.8 0.07 -16.2 0.22 -16.2 0.14 -43.2 0.89 -5.2 0.19
50
-14.9 0.25 -4.9 0.07 -14.9 0.17 5.1 0.03 -4.9 0.07 -14.9 0.21
75
-4.4 0.06 25.6 0.28 -24.4 0.24 -34.4 0.20 -21.4 0.24 -37.4 0.36
100
-18 0.24 52 0.47 -28 0.25 82 0.42 19 0.17 -70 0.53
Table 14B. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Steel GB for the next six participants.
NMI (i→)
LACOMET
TTBS
BSJ
CENAM
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 31.3 0.61 39.3 0.38
Not reported
Not reported
7.3
0.24
5
19.6 0.38 43.6 0.41 -15.4 0.27 -3.4 0.11
7
29.6 0.40 22.6 0.21 -34.4
0.59
8.6 0.28
10
29.8 0.40 -16.2 0.11 -21.2 0.34 -12.2 0.39
50
31.1 0.35 195.1 0.61 -30.9 0.22
9.1 0.16
75
22.6 0.25 65.6 0.19 -189.4 0.94 -3.4 0.04
100
-26 0.24 332 0.98
-5
0.02
9 0.09
Table 14C. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Steel GB for the last four participants.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
24 / 29
NMI (i→)
NPLI
CMI
NIST
INMETRO
INTI
LATU
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 -36.1 0.69 3.9 0.08 -23.1 0.85 -28.1 0.43 -5.1 0.11 -33.1 0.63
5
-10.6 0.19 19.4 0.41 3.4 0.13 -24.6 0.37 -0.6 0.01 -39.6 0.75
7
-41.7 0.71 -1.7 0.04 6.3 0.23 -17.7 0.27 -16.7 0.36 -38.7 0.74
10
-65.7 1.09 14.3 0.30 5.3 0.19 -9.7 0.15 -0.7 0.01 -3.7 0.07
50
-85.9 0.81 34.1 0.57 10.1 0.32 -8.9 0.12 -16.9 0.25 -2.9 0.04
75
-96.2 0.71 13.8 0.19 11.8 0.28 -47.2 0.53 -14.2 0.17 -25.2 0.28
100 -56.9 0.35 33.1 0.38 18.1 0.29 -31.9 0.31 39.1 0.37 -29.9 0.31
Table 15A. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Ceramics GB for the first six participants.
NMI (i→)
DICTUC
INDECOPI IBMETRO
INEN
SIC
CENAMEP
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 -13.1 0.24 -11.1 0.20 313.9 4.59 -6.1 0.05 -1.1 0.02 -8.1 0.32
5
-27.6 0.51 -25.6 0.47 329.4 4.68 -30.6 0.27 -20.6 0.44 -11.6 0.46
7
-38.7 0.71 -26.7 0.49 318.3 4.52 -31.7 0.27 -19.7 0.42 -13.7 0.54
10
-17.7 0.32 -10.7 0.20 334.3 4.61 4.3 0.04 -25.7 0.53 -3.7 0.14
50
-40.9 0.72 -50.9 0.66 354.1 3.99 34.1 0.22 32.1 0.47 -2.9 0.04
75
-35.2 0.49 -1.2 0.01 343.8 3.41 33.8 0.19 18.8 0.21 27.8 0.28
100 -41.9 0.60 8.1 0.07 383.1 3.39 63.1 0.32 63.1 0.57 25.1 0.19
Table 15B. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Ceramics GB for the next six participants.
NMI (i→)
LACOMET
TTBS
BSJ
CENAM
Nominal Length (j↓)
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
dij
En
1.000 5 -5.1 0.10
5
-26.6 0.52
63.9 69.4
0.55 0.60
Not reported
-46.6
Not reported
0.59
-6.1 -16.6
0.16 0.42
7
-7.7 0.15 38.3 0.33 -69.7 0.87 13.3 0.34
10
-0.7
0.01
Not reported
Not reported
-53.7
0.62
-5.7
0.14
50
-21.9 0.25 374.1 1.17 -121.9 0.61 -5.9 0.08
75
-34.2 0.39 343.8 1.01 -276.2 0.99 -9.2 0.10
100 31.1 0.28 683.1 1.90 -171.9 0.47 11.1 0.09
Table 15C. Deviation from reference value for each GB, dij (nanometers) and Normalized Error, En, of the Ceramics GB for the last four participants.
Table 16 shows the Root Mean Square (RMS) values of the deviations of the participants,
RMS, with respect to the RV. It gives a general idea of the deviations of each participant with respect to RV. It is determined as:
RMS
n
( eij e j )2
i 1
n
(3)
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
25 / 29
Where: eij – Deviation from nominal of laboratory i on GB j, ̅ – RV of GB j, n – Number of GB
NMI
RMS (nm)
Steel GB Ceramics GB
NPLI
69.5
62.5
CMI
52.2
20.9
NIST
12.4
13.0
INMETRO
21.9
27.1
INTI
24.1
18.2
LATU
18.6
28.6
DICTUC
18.4
32.5
INDECOPI
25.2
24.7
IBMETRO
26.5
340.3
INEN
36.3
34.4
SIC
27.6
31.3
CENAMEP
32.8
16.1
LACOMET
27.5
22.1
TTBS
149.7
350.0
BSJ
80.8
147.5
CENAM
8.1
10.5
Table 16. RMS Values of the deviations with respect to the RV,RMS, of the participants.
In this case, as the RV is determined external to the comparison, it is not possible calculate Birge ratio.
11. Discussion and Conclusions
11.1 Discussion
The comparison was linked to a previous interferometric comparison that measured the same artifacts. This was an advantage as the RV were obtained from the interferometric stage providing low uncertainty RV for the Mechanical Compariosn exercise. Not only were the RV obtained by a metrological superior technique, but it was the result of the measurement of several participants that measured by this technique.
In the second stage of circulation which included only those NMI that measured exclusively by mechanical comparison (10 laboratories), the timing of circulation (from 2010-04-15 to 2011-04-28) was short thanks to the hand-delivery of the artifacts to the following participant. We would like to thank the participants for having taken this trouble and we suggest adopting this transport option whenever possible as it reduces the time of circulation and the risk of damage to the artifacts during transport.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
26 / 29
There was also some time saving during circulation in the first stage, as the NMI that participated in both exercises received the artifacts only once and measured by both techniques during the same period.
Declared standard uncertainties among participants spread over a 6 fold range, going from 10 nm to 60 nm for the shortest GB and from 25 nm to 180 nm for the 100 mm GB.
A few participants had the same traceability source because their master GB were calibrated at a same laboratory. However, we consider the influence of these correlations minimal and they were not taken in account in the present analysis.
11.2 Conclusions
From Section 7 we observe that there were no appreciable changes on the measurements performed by the pilot laboratory of the ensemble of the GB of both materials over the last five years. Even though some drift may be appreciated on the steel GB during their first years of their history, the values shown prove they reached stability since 2005 approximately. Therefore, it can be assumed that the artifacts behaved adequately during the comparison exercise and that the exercise was valid.
It may not be asserted that there was more consistency in one material or another and results were similar for both materials.
From the comparison of the simple mean and weighted mean presented in Appendix A with the RV for all GB, we observe that both means are always pretty close to the RV. We do not identify either any systematic effect between the Interferometric mean or RV and the mechanical comparison mean.
Once Expanded Uncertainties are considered, the performance of most of the participants for the steel GB was good, even though three results had normalized errors greater than one: NPLI on the 75 mm, CMI on the 50 mm and CENAMEP on the 5 mm; and BSJ did not present results for the 1.000 5 mm GB.
IBMETRO presented inconsistent results for the ceramic GB. As they obtained consistent results for the steel GB, we presumed their “raw” measurements of the Ceramic GB were probably good, but that they applied a wrong correction for comparing GB of two different materials. In effect, they informed us after circulation of DRAFT A, they made such a mistake and they are already amending the miscalculation in the procedures of their Quality Management System.
Also for the ceramic GB TTBS obtained inconsistent results for the three longer ones; and TTBS and BSJ did not present results for two nominal values.
For the rest of the participants their results are judged satisfactory which proves their technical competence.
12. Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge: SIM WG.4 Length and SIM Technical Committee for having funded the purchase of the fourteen GB to carry this comparison.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
27 / 29
In an anonymous way, the technicians and colleagues from our different institutions that contributed directly or indirectly to the measurements of the artifacts in this comparison.
13. References
1. ISO 3650:1998(E), Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) – Length Standards – Gauge Blocks, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
2. C. Colín, M. Viliesid, et.al. SIM Regional Key Comparison SIM.L-K1:2007. Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Optical Interferometry. June 2012.
3. Thalmann R., CCL-K1 Final report, Calibration of gauge blocks by interferometry, Wabern, Switzerland, November 2000. At BIPM website, http://www.bipm.fr.
4. Viliesid M., Comparison CCL-K6 “Calibration of Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) Two-dimensional (2-D) Artifacts (Ball plates and Bore Plates)” Final Report, 2008- 10-27 At BIPM website, http://www.bipm.fr.
5. Cox, M.G., 2002, The evaluation of key comparison data, Metrologia, 2003, 39, pp 589-595.
6. Beissner, K., 2002, On a measure of consistency in comparison measurements, Metrologia, 2003, 39, pp 59-63.
7. Kacker, R., Datla, R., Parr, A., 2002, Combined result and associated uncertainty from interlaboratory evaluations based on the ISO Guide, Metrologia, 2003, 39, pp 279-293.
8. Decker J., Ulrich A., Lapointe A., Viliesid M., Pekelsky J. R., Two-part Study towards Lowest Uncertainty Calibration O Ceramic Gauge Blocks: Interferometry And Mechanical Comparison Techniques, in Recent Developments in Traceable Dimensional Measurements, Proceedings of SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering, Vol. 4401 presented at Munich, Germany, June 2001.
9. Decker J., Pekelsky J. R., Uncertainty of Gauge Block Calibration by Mechanical Comparison: A Worked Example – Case 1: Gauges of Like Materials, NRC Doc 39998, presented at National Conference of Standards Laboratories, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
28 / 29
Annex A Calculation of Alternate Statistical Parameters.
Statistical estimator Reference Value, RV Standard uncertainty Simple arithmetic mean Standard uncertainty Birge Ratio Weighted mean Standard uncertainty Birge Ratio Median Observed chi-squared Degrees of freedom
{ 2( ) > 2 }
Reduced chi-squared
Steel gauge blocks / Nominal length, mm
1.000 51
5
7
10
502
-9.3
26.4
-12.5
36.2
4.9
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.9
6.3
-5.9
20.9
-11.1
27.7
0.1
7.7
7.6
7.8
8.7
11.7
0.77
0.83
0.83
0.57 0.40
-10.2
16.9
-8.8
29.7
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.5
5.7
8.6
0.87
0.97
0.94
0.76 0.44
-11.0
10.5
-12.5
22.0
0.0
10.7
17.3
14.6
10.1
2.6
14
15
15
15
13
0.71
0.30
0.94
0.82 1.00
0.76
1.16
0.97
0.67 0.20
753 -105.6
8.5 -104.6 17.1 0.50 -104.9 10.5 0.62 -109.5
5.0 13 0.976 0.38
1004 -42.0 8.6 -50.3 17.6 0.54 -54.9 13.8 0.56 -60.0 4.6
12 0.97 0.39
1 BSJ not considered in the statistical parameter calculations as they did not measure. 2. CMI and TTBS were eliminated from the statistical parameter calculations. 3. NPLI and BSJ were eliminated from the statistical parameter calculations. 4 CMI, INEN and TTBS were eliminated from the statistical parameter calculations.
2014-10-29
SIM.L-S6
Calibration of Gauge Blocks by Mechanical Comparison
29 / 29
Statistical estimator
Ceramics gauge blocks / Nominal length, mm
1.000 55
56
76
107
508
Reference Value, RV
-3.9
10.6
51.7 -14.3 105.9
Standard uncertainty
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
5.7
Simple arithmetic mean
-11.6
-2.0
33.9 -26.7 96.2
Standard uncertainty
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.0
11.2
Birge Ratio
0.78
0.89
0.82
0.75 0.87
Weighted mean
-16.1
-0.5
39.8 -20.6 102.8
Standard uncertainty
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.9
8.6
Birge Ratio
0.64
0.79
0.86
0.77 0.91
Median
-11.0 -10.0
34.0
-19.0 100.0
Observed chi-squared
9.8
12.5
14.7
8.9
10.1
Degrees of freedom
13
14
14
13
12
{ 2( ) > 2 }
Reduced chi-squared
0.71
0.57
0.40
0.78 0.61
0.75
0.89
1.05
0.69 0.84
759 136.2 7.0 131.2 13.7 0.56 132.4 11.1 0.62 131.0 4.4
11 0.96 0.40
1008 -23.1 7.8 -13.0 16.3 0.66 -17.5 13.6 0.73 -5.0 6.6
12 0.88 0.55
5 IBMETRO and BSJ were not considered for the statistical parameter calculations. 6 IBMETRO was not considered for the statistical parameter calculations. 7 IBMETRO and TTBS not considered for the statistical parameter calculations. 8 IBMETRO, TTBS and BSJ not considered for the statistical parameter calculations. 9 NPLI, IBMETRO, TTBS and BSJ were eliminated from the statistical parameter calculations.
2014-10-29
Ver+/- |
