EURAMET Project Form “Report”
Status:
1.
progress report
final report
Ref. No.:882
2. Subject Field:Length
3.
Type of collaboration:
Comparison
3A.
In the case of a comparison:
Registered as Key comparison (KC) or Supplementary Comparison (SC) in the KCDB:
no
yes
If yes: No. of KC/SC:L-K7
4.
Participating Partners:
4A
EURAMET members or associates (Institute’s standard acronym with country code in
brackets)
BEV (AT), CEM (ES), CMI (CZ), DMDM (RS), EIM (GR), GUM (PL), HMI/FSB-LPMD (HR), INM
(RO), INRIM (IT), LNMC (LV), METAS (CH), MIKES (FI), MIRS/UM-FS/LTM (SI), NCM (BG), NML
(IE), NPL (GB), OMH (HU), PTB (DE), SMU (SK), VSL (NL)
4B
Institutes not being EURAMET members or associates (Institute’s full name and name
of the country)
Centro nacional de metrologia (CENAM) Mexico, National Metrology Center A*Star (A*Star NMC) Singapore, Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalizacao e Qualidade (INMETRO) Brazil,
national Institute of Metrology (NIM) China, Ntional Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) USA, National Scientific Center "Institute of Metrology (NSCIM) Ukraine, National
Physical Laboratory (NPLI) India, Institute for National Measurement Standards (NRC) Canada,
All-Russian Institute for Metrology (VNIIM) Russia
5.
Title:
Calibration of line scales EUROMET.L-K7
6.
Progress:
The intention of this comparison was to determine and to document capabilities of the
participating NMIs to carry out line scale calibrations on high quality line scales produced for
industrial purposes. The line scales used for the comparison were designed and produced by
NPL in UK. Two scales of same design and very similar quality were kindly donated by NPL.
The idea for the comparison arised at the Euramet TCL meeting in October 2005.
The comparison started in July 2006 and the last measurement was performed in December
2008. The project is finished, final report is available in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison
database kcdb.bipm.org/. Executive report was written in november 2011. The results were
published in Metrologia, Vol. 49 (2012).
Originally, 31 NMIs expressed interest for participating in the comparison. During the
comparison, two laboratories decided not to perform measurements due to technical reasons
and one new laboratory was approved to take part. At the end, 30 laboratories reported their
results.
Participating laboratories were divided into 2 groups in accordance with their geographical
position (in order to minimize travel times and expenses for the transportation of the
standards). Linking laboratories between the groups were chosen among participants in Nano3
project (NPL and METAS).
Although the standards traveled through a large number of laboratories, no significant damages
were noticed. Some laboratories reported some dirt and scratches, but no significant influence
on the results were indicated. The comparison ran quite well within the schedule in spite of
some customs problems.
Results were evaluated for each group separately and also after linking groups by using
Bayesian statistics. The performance of the participants was evaluated by using En value as the
acceptance criterion. The reference value was calculated as the weighted mean of reported
results for each measuring point. The Birge criterion and Chi-test were used for approving
calculated reference values.
In the conclusion it can be summarised that the comparison was successful and has shown
realistic picture about calibration and measurement capabilities of participating laboratories.
7.
Coordinator´s name: Bojan Acko
Address:
8.
University of Maribor – Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Laboratory for Production Measurement
Smetanova 17
SI – 2000 Maribor
Slovenia
Telephone: +386 2 220 7581
Fax:
E-mail:
bojan.acko@uni-mb.si
Completion Date:
30. 11. 2011
Notes for completion of the form overleaf
+386 2 220 7586
9. Date
31 August 2012
NOTES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE FORM
(numbers refer to boxes overleaf)
IMPORTANT:
Forms are to be send to the EURAMET Secretariat (secretariat@euramet.org) as word or pdf file by
TC Chair or coordinator of the project with copy to TC Chair.
1
Ref. No. The project reference number which is assigned by the EURAMET Secretariat and on
which progress is being reported.
2
Subject Field The field specified on the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”
3
Type of collaboration The field specified on the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”
4A
EURAMET members or associates Any institutes which have participated in the
collaboration should be indicated in alphabetical order using their standard acronyms and
country codes.
4B
Institutes not being EURAMET members or associates should be indicated with
full name in alphabetical order. See country codes in the last section of the directory. Every
effort should be made to establish potential partners prior to completing a Proposal Form.
5
Title The title given in the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”.
6
Progress A brief description of the progress should be entered in the space provided.
Comments on the advantages of undertaking the work collaboratively through EURAMET
would be useful. Completion of this Report is not deemed as publication of the work.
Collaborators are encouraged to publish their work through normal channels, mentioning it
was undertaken as a EURAMET collaboration.
7
Coordinator The Coordinator is the person who is appointed as the contact point for the
project detailed overleaf. The name, full postal address, telephone and fax numbers and
e-mail address of the coordinator should be given.
8
Completion Date If the progress of a project is being reported on this form then an
estimate of the completion date should be made. If the project has now been completed then
the actual date of completion should be given. For permanent agreements (e.g. development
of primary standards) "ON-GOING" should be entered.
9
Date of transmission to EURAMET Secretariat.