See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23720406

Evaluation of expanded uncertainties in luminous intensity and illuminance

calibrations

Article · December 2008

DOI: 10.1364/AO.47.005829 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

3 4,870

1 author:

Ferhat Sametoglu
The Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey
46 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ferhat Sametoglu on 13 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of expanded uncertainties in luminous
intensity and illuminance calibrations

Ferhat Sametoglu
TÜBİTAK-Ulusal Metroloji Enstitüsü (UME), Gebze, 41470 Kocaeli, Turkey, (ferhat.sametoglu@ume.tubitak.gov.tr)

Received 1 August 2008; accepted 12 September 2008;

posted 22 September 2008 (Doc. ID 99709); published 24 October 2008

Detector-based calibrating methods and expressions for calculation of photometric uncertainties related
to uncertainties in the calibrations of luminous intensity of a light source, illuminance responsivity of a
photometer head, and calibration factors of an illuminance meter are discussed. These methods permit
luminous intensity calibrations of incandescent light sources, luminous responsivity calibrations of
photometer heads, and calibration factors of illuminance meters to be carried out with relative expanded
uncertainties (with a level of confidence of 95.45%) of 0.4%, 0.4%, and 0.6%, respectively. © 2008 Optical
Society of America
OCIS codes: 120.0120, 120.5240.

1. Introduction value must be shown with a range of its reliability.

In photometry, light sources are calibrated by
measuring their related photometric quantities, such
as the luminous intensity (cd), the illuminance (lx),
the luminous flux (lm), and the luminance (cd=m2 ).
Photometry became a significant branch of optical
metrology in the early 18th century and ever since it
has maintained a tradition that the unit of luminous
intensity has been regarded as the fundamental
photometric quantity among the photometric quanti-
ties and other derived units. Modern calibrations of
the photometric quantities of a light source require
using a calibrated photometer of known illuminance
responsivity (A=lx or V=lx) because the detector-
based technique is preferable due to its repeatability,
reproducibility, transportation convenience, and
measurement convenience as compared to the
source-based technique.
To provide international validity of a photometric
calibration, the calibration process should be done
according to international standards. In addition
to this, calibrated values must be given according
to International System (SI) units, which are defined
by the meter convention by the General Conference
on Weights and Measures (CGPM), and the given
0003-6935/08/315829-19$15.00/0
© 2008 Optical Society of America
In other words, in the metrological point of view,
the statement of the result of a calibration or a mea-
surement is complete only if it contains both the
value attributed to the measurand and the uncer-
tainty of calibration associated with that value.
The photometric standard that is used by a labora-
tory (or a company) for giving calibration results
should be traceable to a national laboratory and it
is also preferred that the laboratory should be accre-
dited by an accreditation body according to the
International Organization for Standardization/
International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/
IEC) standard 17025 [1]. This international standard
contains the requirements for sound management
(Clause 4) and specifies the requirements for techni-
cal competence for the type of calibrations (or tests)
the laboratory undertakes (Clause 4). As specified in
Clause 5.46, a calibration laboratory shall have and
shall apply a procedure to estimate the uncertainty
of measurement for all calibrations and types of
calibrations. In essence, uncertainty is a measure
of the “trustworthiness” of the result of a measure-
ment [2]. The calculation of uncertainty for a photo-
metric calibration is an effort to set reasonable
bounds for the calibration result according to stan-
dardized rules [3]. The ideal method for evaluating
and expressing uncertainty in each the photometric
calibration should be capable of readily providing

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5829

such an interval, in particular, one with a coverage
probability or level of confidence that corresponds
in a realistic way with that required. To estimate a
calibration uncertainty in a photometric quantity it
is necessary to use the Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [4]. The GUM
provides general rules for evaluating and expressing
uncertainty in most fields of physical measurements
and for use within standardization, calibration, la-
boratory accreditation, and measurement services.
The GUM uncertainty framework has been adopted
by many organizations, is widely used, and has been
implemented in standards and guides on measure-
ment uncertainty [5,6].
To evaluate the uncertainty in a photometric cali-
bration, all sources of uncertainty that influence the
calibration result and relations between each source
should be known. Such relations are generally given
in the uncertainty budget, which is evaluated using a
procedure depicted in Fig. 1.
A selected calibration method should, first, be in-
ternationally acceptable in order to determine any of
photometric calibration quantity (Y) properly and
trustworthy. Present methods published in interna-
tional, regional, or national standards are generally
used as preferable methods in a calibration. Never-
theless, laboratory-developed and validated methods
may also be used if they are appropriate for the in-
tended use [1].
In most cases a measurand Y is not measured di-
rectly, but is determined from other influencing input
quantities (X i ). The knowledge about the calibration
process is to be represented by the so-called model
equation, which is a key element of modern uncer-
tainty evaluation [4]. The model is formed on physical
or empirical grounds and establishes the mathemati-
cal interrelation between the measurand Y and the
input quantities X 1, X 2 ; …; X N according to the func-
tional relationship, as given as an example below:


X1
Y¼f : ð1Þ
X 2 ðX 3 þ X 4 Þ
Values of some input quantities given in the model
equation are taken from measurements performed
during a calibration. These quantities are also used
as basic quantities that generate the uncertainty
model. Estimated value (y) of the output quantity
(Y) is then obtained by putting measured intrinsic va-
lues (x1 , x2 , x3 , and x4 ) of input quantities (X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ,
and X 4 ) into the model equation given in Eq. (1).
The reliability of a calibration depends not only on
basic input quantities, but also on other important
parameters that may affect calibration. They can
be classified as the long-term behavior of a reference
material that is used in calibration, stability of in-
struments, environmental conditions, alignments,
etc. These effects may be categorized into random
and systematic effects. In order to sense the influ-
ences of these factors on the output quantity (y) and
to estimate the output quantity more reliably, it is
5830 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008
necessary to analyze the calibration procedure more
precisely and use an improved model equation, as
given below, by taking into account all input quanti-
ties that may affect the y, whether significant or not:


x1
y¼f
x2 ðx3 þ x4 Þ
× ð1
δx5
δx6
δx7
…
δxN Þ: ð2Þ
The value of each input quantity xi and its stan-
dard uncertainty uðxi Þ , given in Eq. (2), is necessary
to form the uncertainty budget of a calibration. The
standard uncertainty associated with an estimate
must have the same dimension as the estimate.
The main input quantities given within the first par-
entheses are generally obtained from statistic com-
putations. Values of other input quantities, which
are presented within the second parentheses of the
uncertainty model, are obtained from statistical ana-
lysis or can be extracted from other sources (litera-
ture, books, articles, etc.). If there is no adequate
knowledge about the presented input quantity, the
value for that input quantity is estimated to be zero.
In general, knowledge about input quantities are
expressed by appropriate probability density func-
tions in accordance with the Bayesian probability
concept, based on the principle of maximum informa-
tion theory and the Bayes theorem [7,8]. The stan-
dard uncertainty of each the input quantity uðxi Þ
is evaluated using a Type-A or a Type-B method,
which are defined as the method of evaluating the
uncertainty by the statistical analysis (Type A)
and the method of evaluating the uncertainty by
means of other than the statistical analysis (Type B).
Type-A standard uncertainty is obtained from a
probability density function derived from an ob-
served frequency distribution, while Type-B stan-
dard uncertainty is obtained from an assumed
probability density function based on the degree of
belief that an event will occur, often called subjective
probability. Standard uncertainty of an input quan-
tity uðxi Þ obtained from a statistical analysis has a
normal type of probability distribution and is esti-
mated from the experimental standard deviation
sðxi Þ of the arithmetic mean of repeated measure-
ments. As it is stated in the GUM, the standard un-
certainty of an input quantity is equal to the
standard deviation of measurements if the standard
deviation is known from n ≥ 10 former measure-
ments (uðxi Þ ¼ sðxi Þ). To show how many measure-
ments (n) are considered for the estimation of such
an uncertainty evaluation, it is also necessary to de-
clare the degrees of freedom (vi ¼ n − 1). In uncer-
tainty analyses other than the statistical analysis,
the methods of rectangular, triangular, or U-shaped
probability distributions are used. Therefore, the de-
grees of freedom of the standard uncertainty uðxi Þ ob-
tained from a Type B may be taken to be
vi → ∞ [4]. The rectangular distribution is a reason-
able default model in the absence of any other infor-
mation. But if it is known that the values of the
quantity in question are more likely near the center
of the limits than close to the limits, a triangular or a
normal distribution may be a better model. On the
other hand, if values close to the limits are more
likely than values near the center, a U-shaped distri-
bution may be more appropriate.
The standard uncertainty uðyÞ of an output quan-
tity Y can now be roughly estimated using standard
uncertainties uðxi Þ of input quantities X i obtained
from Type-A or Type-B evaluations. This can be done
Fig. 1. Standard procedure necessary to constitute the uncertainty budget.
by using “the law of propagation of uncertainty”
method, which is known as the “root-sum-of-squares”
method of combining uncertainty components. How-
ever, in order to examine the standard uncertainty of
an output quantity more reliably, it is important to
investigate the contribution coefficient uci ðyÞ of each
input quantity to the standard uncertainty. Thus, the
sensitivity coefficient (ci ) for each input quantity
should be calculated by taking the partial derivative
of the model function developed for the uncertainty
1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5831
analysis [Eq. (2)] with respect to each input quantity
(ci ¼ ∂f =∂xi ) and the contribution coefficient is then
calculated by multiplying the sensitivity coefficient
of each input quantity to its standard uncertainty
(uci ðyÞ ¼ ci × uðxi Þ). This process is true when the
input variables X 1 ; …; X N are mutually uncorre-
lated. If two input quantities X i and X k are corre-
lated to some degree (mutually dependent), then
the degree of correlation is characterized by the cor-
relation coefficient rðxi ; xk Þ and the covariance asso-
ciated with the two estimates xi and xk have to be
considered as an additional contribution to the un-
certainty [4]. As a result, the standard uncertainty
associated with the measurement result uc ðyÞ is ob-
tained from the root sum square of all the uncer-
tainty contributions.
The reliability of the standard uncertainty as-
signed to the output estimate should be declared.
In metrology, the reliability of the standard uncer-
tainty of a calibration is represented by an expanded
uncertainty (U ¼ kuC ðyÞ), which is determined from
the product of the coverage factor (k) for the valid
probability distribution and the standard uncer-
tainty uc ðyÞ. It also defines a coverage interval
y − U ≤ Y ≤ y þ U (or Y ¼ y
U) that contains ex-
actly the specified proportion of probability distribu-
tion (the shortest interval between two quantities of
distribution for the output quantity values) or level of
confidence p [9]. The coverage factor is determined by
the effective degrees of freedom (veff ) of the standard
uncertainty, which depend on the size of the sample
on which it is based (vi ), using the Welch–
Satterthwaite formula [4,6,10]. Tabulated values
that show relations among the coverage factor k,
the effective degree of freedom veff , and the level of
confidence p are given in Annex G of the GUM docu-
ment [4]. If the coverage factor is k ¼ 2, expanded un-
certainty will be U ¼ 2uC ðyi Þ, which defines an
interval having a level of confidence of p ¼ ∼95%
and p ¼ 99% for U ¼ 3uC ðyi Þðk ¼ 3Þ.
The scope of this paper is as follows. In 2003, a new
candela was realized at Ulusal Metroloji Enstitüsü
(UME) using a set of filter radiometers with calibra-
tions of their responsivities based on the cryogenic
radiometer, and the old UME standard lamps-based
unit was replaced by the new detector-based unit
[11,12]. Therefore, the photometric calibration proce-
dures have been revised to utilize the detector-based
methods. Descriptions of the detector-based lumi-
nous intensity and illuminance calibration proce-
dures, evaluations of calibration uncertainties, and
established uncertainty budgets are presented in
Sections 2 and 3.
2. Uncertainty Evaluation in the Luminous Intensity
Calibration
Calibration of an Osram Wi41/G lamp was the most
popular calibration given by the laboratory on the lu-
minous intensity calibration. Therefore, the lumi-
nous intensity calibration of this lamp, operated at a
color temperature of 2856 K, and estimation of the
5832 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008
calibration uncertainty by evaluation of the uncer-
tainty budget are discussed here.
Calibration is described as the process of establish-
ing the relationship between values of quantities in-
dicated by a measuring instrument or system and
the values provided by measurement standards [4].
Luminous intensity calibration of a light source is
carried out at UME on a 6 m long optical bench sys-
tem by using a known standard calibration proce-
dure [11,13,14]. The base of the bench consists of
three, 2 m long marbles. The bench system contains
(i) an enclosed cabinet with a special lamp alignment
stage having 6° of freedom for geometric alignment of
a lamp under test (LUT), (ii) a rack containing digital
electronic equipment (a voltmeter, a power supply,
etc.) and a computer for operating and controlling
the electrical parameters of the LUT, (iii) a 6 m long
rail system with a movable carriage having an align-
ment stage that is mounted on the marbles for glid-
ing the working standard photometer from the light
source up to 6 m, (iv) a set of matte-black painted
baffles between the lamp and the photometer for re-
ducing the stray light, (v) a working standard photo-
meter head (WSPH) with a photocurrent meter, and
(vi) a laser diode and side-viewing transits for align-
ment of the LUT and electronic equipment, such as
the WSPH, the photometer head under test (PUT), or
luxmeters (Fig. 2).
The calibration procedure was started by mount-
ing the LUT to the lamp holder in the base-down
position and its orientation and position were accom-
plished by aligning the lamp so the lamp posts were
held vertically and the plane formed by the axes of
the posts was perpendicular to the optical axis of
the photometer. Then, the LUT was operated at a
specified color temperature (2856 K) and electrical
polarity (Fig. 3). After that, the WSPH was glided
to a distance of 4 m and the photocurrent generated
at the output of the WSPH was measured. Finally,
the average photocurrent of repeated measurements
(Pc ), the illuminance responsivity of the WSPH (sv ),
and the lamp-to-photometer distance (d) were used
to determine the luminous intensity (I x ðTÞ) of the
LUT according to the inverse-square law of illumina-
tion by using the following equation:
Pc
I T ðTÞ ¼ ccf · d2 ; ð3Þ
sv
where ccf is the color-correction factor of the WSPH.
Measurements were generally repeated six times by
closing and operating the lamp again and the lumi-
nous intensity value of the LUT was calculated by
taking their average.
Calibration equations, known also as physical
models, are used in a wide variety of applications
in measurement science and they are usually helpful
in determining the uncertainty model of calibrations
[15]. A univariate (scalar) uncertainty model is
Fig. 2. Luminous intensity and the illuminance calibration setups. WSPH and PUT are the working standard photometer head and
photometer under test, respectively, and WL and LUT are the working lamp and lamp under test, respectively.

m
developed by taking into account all input quantities ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ · U L i

that may affect the luminous intensity value, I x ðTÞ ¼

U L ðJÞ · Rð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ
whether significant or not. The uncertainty model

ðPc þ cPCM þ cPCMD Þ
developed on the basis of the calibration equation × ðd þ dp þ αSR ΔTÞ2 ×
for estimating the uncertainty in the luminous inten- ðsV þ svD Þ
sity calibration of a light source is × ccf × scf × M R × ð1 − Laε − Laφ − Paθ − PN Þ: ð4Þ

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic drawing of the lamp holder and connections for the measurement of electrical parameters, (b) assembled lamp
holder with a lamp. PS is the power supply, U L is the lamp voltage, R is the shunt resistor, and U L ðJÞ is the voltage drop across the
shunt resistor.

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5833

The first parentheses show estimated uncertainty
sources in the current stability of the LUT. It
includes uncertainties in (i) calibration factor
(cDVM ) of the digital voltmeter (DVM) that is used
for measuring the LUT current and its short-term
drift (cDVMD ) between recalibrations; (ii) the voltage
drop (U L ) across the reference shunt resistor (R) that
is used for monitoring the LUT current; (iii) the op-
erating current of the LUT (U L ðJÞ) assigned for a col-
or temperature of 2856 K; (iv) the resistance value
(R), short-term drift (RD ), and the temperature coef-
ficient (αRS ΔT) of the reference shunt resistor; and
(v) the exponent for changes of lamp current affecting
the luminous intensity (mi ). The second parentheses
show the estimated uncertainty components in the
distance measurement between the LUT and the
WSPH. They are (i) the measured photometric dis-
tance (d) between the center plane of the lamp fila-
ment and the outermost surface of the WSPH, (ii) the
offset distance (dp ) between the outermost surface of
the WSPH and the center of its aperture, and (iii) the
thermal expansion coefficient (αSR ΔT) of the stain-
less steel ruler that is mounted on the rail and used
for the photometric distance measurement. The third
parentheses show uncertainty sources in the illumi-
nance measurement of the lamp at the WSPH
surface. It includes uncertainties in (i) the photocur-
rent reading (Pc ), (ii) the calibration factor (cPCM ) of
the digital photocurrent meter (PCM) that is used for
measuring the photocurrent and its short-term drift
(cPCMD ) between recalibrations, and (iii) the illumi-
nance responsivity (sV ) and short-term drift (sVD )
of the WSPH. The last parentheses show other fac-
tors (supplementary input quantities) that affect
the luminous intensity (output quantity). It includes
uncertainties in (i) vertical (Laε ) and horizontal (Laφ )
alignments of the lamp filament, (ii) angular align-
ment of the WSPH (Paθ ), and (iii) the nonlinearity
(PN ) of the WSPH. There are also three correction
factors in the uncertainty model that are used for col-
or correction (ccf ), stray-light correction (scf ) and
measurement repeatability (M R ).
Table 1 gives the general outline of uncertainty
sources in the luminous intensity calibration of an
aged 180 W tungsten filament lamp of type Osram
Wi41/G performed at UME, which make up our gen-
eric uncertainty budget. They are divided into two
main groups: those related to the main factors of
the modeling equation and those caused by the other
estimated factors.
Description of both the estimated value and its
standard uncertainty for each input quantity are gi-
ven in Subsections 2.A–2.E and evaluation of the ex-
panded uncertainty is given in Subsection 2.F.
A. Current-Induced Uncertainty Sources
A specially designed lamp holder is used for operat-
ing the LUT at a fixed polarity (Fig. 3). The holder
has an E27 lamp socket and four separate contacts,
two for the power supply and two for voltage mea-
surements. The lamp was operated with a dc power
supply (under dc constant-current control) and at

Table 1. Uncertainty Budget Established at UME for the Luminous Intensity Calibration of an Osram Wi41/G Light Source

ui ðyÞ hðy; xi Þ
Xi xi uðxi Þ pdf ci (cd) (%)
cDVM 0.999992 0.000004 NTD 1762:65 cd 0.00705 0.02
cDVMD 0.000001 0.0000004 RTD 1762:65 cd 0.00071 0.0002
UL 0:584720 V 0:0000036 V NTD 3014:50 cd=V 0.01085 0.04
U L ðJÞ 5:8472 A 0:0006 A NTD −301:45 cd=A −0:18087 10.3
R 0:099994 Ω 0:0000020 Ω NTD −17627:44 cd=Ω −0:03525 0.4
RD −0:0000010 0.0000004 RTD −1762:64 cd −0:00071 0.0002
αRS ΔT 0.0 0.0000023 RTD −1762:64 cd −0:00407 0.01
mi 6.24 0.14 RTD −0:00662 cd 0.00096 0.0003
d 4:000 m 0:00018 m RTD 141:16 cd=m 0.02541 0.2
dP 0:00212 m 0:000021 m RTD 141:16 cd=m 0.00296 0.003
αSR ΔT 0.0 0.0000078 RTD 141:16 cd 0.00110 0.0004
Pc 221:12 nA 0:024 nA NTD 1:27 cd=nA 0.03007 0.3
cPCM 1.00033 0.00010 RTD 1:27 cd 0.00013 0.00001
PmD −0:000030 0.000012 NTD 1:27 cd 0.00002 0.0000001
sv 12:592 nA=lx 0:019 nA=lx NTD −22:44 cd · lx=nA −0:42391 56.3
svD −0:0006 0.0024 RTD −22:44 cd −0:05386 0.9
ccf 1.0000 0.0005 RTD 282:47 cd 0.14124 6.3
scf 0.9992 0.0004 NTD 282:70 cd 0.11308 4.0
MR 0.9998 0.00006 NTD 282:54 cd 0.01783 0.1
Laε 0:0° 0:00064° RTD −282:47 cd=° −0:18103 10.3
Laφ 0:0° 0:00064° RTD −282:47 cd=° −0:18103 10.3
Pθ 0:0° 0:00012° RTD −282:47 cd=° −0:03262 0.3
PN 0.0 0.00012 RTD −282:47 cd −0:03390 0.4
I x ðTÞ 281:20 cd combined uncertainty, k ¼ 1
0:56 cd
effective degree of freedom, veff >100
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2
1:13 cd
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2 0.4%

5834 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008

fixed polarity. The lamp voltage was measured di-
rectly between two contacts, whereas the lamp
current was measured as the voltage across a cali-
brated standard shunt resistor [11].
A high-precision PTN55 125-20 series dc power
supply, manufactured by a Heinzinger Electronics
GmbH, is used for operating the LUT at constant-
current mode. It provides dc up to 20 A and dc voltage
up to 125 V. The LUT has a flat filament with an in-
ert gas inside. The properties of incandescent lamps
are not very sensitive to thermodynamic conditions,
such as ambient temperature, air pressure, speed of
moving air, and humidity [16]. The lamp current is
automatically controlled by a computer feedback sys-
tem to keep the current variation within
0:002%.
The operating current required to achieve the color
temperature of the lamp at 2856 K has been deter-
mined as 5:8472 A
0:0006 A (coverage factor k ¼
1) by repeated measurements of the spectral irradi-
ance of the lamp [11,17]. The lamp current is ramped
up slowly (within 1 min) to the specified value and
allowed to stabilize (typical warm-up time is 15 min
for incandescent lamps). The operating current of the
LUT is monitored via the voltage drop across a cali-
brated dc current shunt (0:1 Ω) using a calibrated
Hewlett–Packard 3456A DVM. A digital multimeter
(Datron Wavetek 1271) is also used for monitoring
the LUT voltage. Data acquisition and measure-
ments are controlled by a computer program via
an IEEE-488 bus. A control program written in Lab-
View 6.0 is used to monitor the lamp current, voltage,
and standard deviation in the current setting during
the whole calibration period. As soon as the measure-
ment is finished, the electrical parameters of the
LUT are stored and the lamp current is ramped down
and is, finally, turned off.
The voltage drop across the reference shunt resis-
tor during the calibration process was obtained from
the arithmetic mean of 20 readings (v ¼ 19) as
0:584720 V (Table 2). Each reading was obtained
by subtracting the offset voltage (U L0 ) of the DVM
from the reading (U L ¼ U LR − U L0 ). Thus, the rela-
tive standard deviation of repeated measurements
(n ¼ 20) is used as the standard uncertainty
Table 2. Lamp Voltage, Photocurrent, and Stray Light Measurement
Results
Lamp
Measurement Voltage Photocurrent
№: n UL Pc
(V) (nA)
1 0.584718 221.16
2 0.584712 221.10
3 0.584723 221.09
4 0.584720 221.15
… … … …
18 0.584719 221.13
19 0.584720 221.09
20 0.584717 221.11
Mean 0.584720 221.12
sðU L Þ 0.0000036 0.024
[uðU L ÞÞ ¼ 0:0000036 V] assuming a normal type of
distribution (NTD), where the degree of freedom of
this estimate is equal to vV ¼ 19. The DVM used
for monitoring the lamp current has been calibrated
by the Voltage Standards Laboratory of UME. The
calibration has been performed by comparing read-
ings from the DVM with the reference calibrator
(Fluke 5720 A). The calibration certificate stated
that the calibration factor of the DVM for the voltage
level of 1 V is found to be cDVM ¼ 0:999992 with a re-
lative expanded uncertainty of 0.000008 (k ¼ 2).
Thus, the standard uncertainty assuming a NTD
(vi → ∞) and calculated as uðcDVM Þ ¼ ð0:999992×
0:000008=2Þ ¼ 0:000004. The DVM is recalibrated
annually, utilizing the same reference calibrator-
based calibration setup. The drift of the calibration
factor of the DVM since its last calibration was esti-
mated from its calibration history to be þ0:000001
with a standard deviation of sðcDVMD Þ ¼ 0:0000007.
Thus, the standard uncertainty of uðcDVMD Þ assum-
p a RTD and estimated as uðcDVMD Þ ¼ sðcDVMD Þ
ing
3 ¼ 0:0000004.
A precision four-terminal standard dc current
shunt operating in air, Guildline Instruments
9230/15, was used to monitor the current of the
LUT. The terminations of the shunt are specially de-
signed for giving low thermal emfs. The temperature
coefficient of the reference resistor is stated by the
manufacturer as 4 × 10−6 =°C. The environmental
conditions of the laboratory are stable and controlled
over time (the temperature of the laboratory, for ex-
ample, is 23 °C
1 °C). Thus, the resistance varia-
tion of the reference shunt resistor due to a
temperature variation (
1 °C) is estimated to be
within
0:000004 Ω using the known R ¼ R0 þ αðT −
T 0 Þ formula, which causes the standard uncertainty
of uðαΔTÞ ¼ 0:0000023 assuming a RTD. The resis-
tance value of the calibrated dc current shunt is R ¼
0:099994 Ω at the specified lamp current. The resis-
tor has been calibrated with a relative expanded un-
certainty of 0:000040 Ω (k ¼ 2) by the Impedance
Standards Laboratory of UME at the specified refer-
ence temperature of 23 °C. The calibration has been
performed by direct substitution using an 8½-digit
precision digital multimeter (HP 3458 A) and a cali-
brated four-terminal standard dc current shunt
(Guildline 9211 A) of the same nominal value. Thus,
Stray the standard uncertainty in the resistance value was
Light estimated as uðRÞ ¼ ð0:099994 × 0:000040=2Þ ¼
scf 0:0000020 Ω. The current shunt is recalibrated an-
nually utilizing the same reference dc current
0.9987
shunt-based calibration setup. The drift of the resis-
0.9991 tance value of the shunt since its last calibration was
0.9989 estimated from its calibration history to be
0.9992 −0:0000010 with a standard deviation of sðRD Þ ¼
0:0000007. Thus, the standard uncertainty of uðRD Þ
0.9993 assuming
p a RTD and estimated as uðRD Þ ¼ sðRD Þ
0.9996 3 ¼ 0:0000004.
0.9990 The spectral distribution and brightness of a tung-
0.9992
sten or a tungsten halogen lamp are functions of
0.0004
the filament temperature and, hence, the electrical
1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5835
current flowing through the filament. It is known
that current changes affect short-wavelength (0.2%
at 400 nm) radiation more than long-wavelength
(0.1% at 800 nm) radiation [18]. An approximate re-
lation for determining the change in the luminous in-
tensity of a lamp due to a current change in the lamp
is ðI=I R Þ ≈ ðJ=J R Þmi, where I and J are the changed
luminous intensity and current and I R and J R are the
rated values of luminous intensity and current, re-
spectively [19,20]. The exponent in the relation is
found to be 6:24
0:25 assuming an interval of
RTD, which form the standard uncertainty of
uðmi Þ ¼ 0:14. This means that an increase in current
of 1 mA in a lamp operating at 5:8572 A would give
ð5:8582=5:8572Þ6:24 ¼ 1:0011 or a change of about
0.11% in luminous intensity.
B. Distance-Induced Uncertainty Sources
In photometry, the area of the limiting aperture of
the photometer head and the lamp-to-photometer
distance define the solid angle over which light is col-
lected. On the other hand, the intensity of light or
other linear waves radiating from a point source (en-
ergy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is
inversely proportional to the square of the distance
from the source, which is known as the inverse-
square law. The departure from the inverse-square
law at short distances has influence on the accuracy
of calibration. Therefore, the photometric distance
for the luminous intensity calibration should be 10
times more than the dimensions of the lamp. The dis-
tance in the calibration was aligned exactly to 4 m by
measuring it in two stages: (i) the distance between
the filament plane of the lamp and the outermost
surface of the photometer (d) and (ii) the distance off-
set of the photometer (dp ). The first stage is mea-
sured mechanically by using a calibrated stainless
steel ruler attached to the bench. The overall length
of the ruler is 5 m and it has been calibrated at sev-
eral points by comparing it with a reference bench
system having a calibrated line scale of 6 m, which
has been developed by the Dimensional Standards
Laboratory of UME. The calibration certificate sta-
ted that the ruler was calibrated with an expanded
p The photocurrent generated at the output of the
uncertainty formula of Uðk ¼ 2Þ ¼ 0:052 þ
ð0:005 × LÞ mm. This means that the uncertainty
2
in the length scale is 4:000 m
0:054 mm (k ¼ 2).
The worst case was considered for uncertainty ana-
lysis (∼0:3 mm) because it was assumed that there
may be a deviation in the thickness of the line show-
ing the distance on the ruler. Thus, standard uncer-
tainty for the distance measurement was assuming p a
RTD and estimated as uðdÞ ¼ 0:0003= 3 ¼
0:00017 m. The thermal expansion coefficient
(αSR ΔT) of the stainless steel ruler is stated by the
manufacturer as 17 × 10−6 =°C. Thus, the length
variation of the stainless ruler due to a temperature
variation within the laboratory is estimated to be
within ∂L=∂T ¼
0:000014 m, which causes the neg-
ligible standard uncertainty of uðαSR ΔTÞ ¼
0:0000078 assuming a RTD. The second distance
5836 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008
measurement stage, which is equal to the distance
from the outermost surface of the WSPH and its
aperture plane (acceptance are of the WSPH), has
been measured at the Dimensional Standards
Laboratory of UME using a Coordinate Measuring
Machine and found to be 2:12 mm
0:02 mm
(k ¼ 2), which causes a standard uncertainty of
uðdp Þ ¼ 0:000021 m assuming a NTD.
C. Photometer-Induced Uncertainty Sources
The luminous intensity value of the LUT was
measured by using a thermostabilized commercial
WSPH, manufactured by PRC Krochmann GmbH
(TH15BA). The WSPH consists of a well-defined in-
put aperture having a nominal area of 0:5 cm2 that
defines the solid angle and the distance measure-
ment plane, the VðλÞ matching filter, and a Si photo-
diode. All these components are assembled in a
temperature-controlled cylindrical housing. Inside
the housing, the temperatures of the Si photodiode
and the filter are kept constant at 35 °C during op-
eration to eliminate the influence of the surrounding
temperature. The temperature regulation occurs
within the photometer head with special control elec-
tronics. The manufacturer’s specifications state
that the temperature coefficient of the WSPH is
f 6 < 0:2%.
The illuminance responsivity (sV ) of the WSPH is
sv ¼ 12:592 nA=lx. The photometer head has been
calibrated using the new detector-based UME illumi-
nance scale with an expanded uncertainty of 0.30%
(k ¼ 2) [21]. Thus, the standard uncertainty in the
illuminance responsivity value was estimated as
uðsv Þ ¼ 0:019 nA=lx. The WSPH is recalibrated an-
nually by comparing it with the absolutely calibrated
filter radiometers constructed for the realization of
the candela [22]. The drift of the illuminance respon-
sivity value of the WSPH since its last calibration
was estimated from its calibration history to be
−0:006 nA=lx (∼0:05%) with a standard deviation
of sðsvD Þ ¼ 0:0042. Thus, the standard uncertainty
of the drift value p assuming a RTD and estimated
as uðsvD Þ ¼ sðsvD Þ= 3 ¼ 0:0024 nA=lx.
WSPH was measured with a PRC-321 model digital
photocurrent-meter (PCM). A mechanical shutter
was used in front of the WSPH for taking real sig-
nals. The measured photocurrent was the average
of 20 readings (v ¼ 19) taken after the stabilization
of the LUT current (Table 2). Each reading was per-
formed with the shutter opened (Pso ) and closed
(dark signal, Psc ). In order to obtain the real photo-
current value (Pc ), the dark signal was subtracted
from the reading (Pc ¼ Pso − Psc ). The standard un-
certainty of the mean photocurrent reading of
221:12 nA was obtained as uðPc Þ ¼ 0:024 nA, which
is the standard deviation of 20 readings.
The PCM has been calibrated by Impedance Stan-
dards Laboratory of UME. A Decat resistor (Quad
Tech 1433 W), a DVM (HP 3458 A), a voltage calibra-
tor (Fluke 5500 A), and reference resistors (Guildline
9330=10 M and 9330=100 k) had been used in the
calibration. Desired currents from the calibrator
and reference resistor combination had been applied
to the input of the PCM and the calibration has been
performed by taking current readout from the PCM
display. The calibration certificate stated that the
calibration factor of the PCM for the current level
from 100 nA to 500 nA is found to be cPCM ¼
1:00033 with a relative expanded uncertainty of
0.02% (k ¼ 2). Thus, the standard uncertainty
assuming a NTD (vi → ∞) and it is calculated
as uðcPCM Þ ¼ ð1:00033 × 0:00020=2Þ ¼ 0:00010. The
PCM is recalibrated annually utilizing the same
calibration procedure. The drift of the calibration fac-
tor of the PCM since its last calibration was esti-
mated from its calibration history to be −0:000030
with a standard deviation of sðcPMCD Þ ¼ 0:000021.
Thus, the standard uncertainty of the drift value
p
was estimated as uðcPMCD Þ ¼ sðcPMCD Þ= 3 ¼
0:000012 assuming a RTD.
D. Correction-Induced Uncertainty Sources
There are three corrections that were used within
the uncertainty modeling. The first correction was
the ccf, which is a function of the spectral power dis-
tribution of a light source. It is known that an error
occurs when the photometer measures a light source
having a spectral power distribution different from
the calibrated source (CIE Illuminant A). The varia-
tions of the illuminance responsivities of the WSPH
Fig. 4. (a) Stray light measurement setup showing alignment procedures for the lamp filament and photometer head. (b) Perpendicularity
alignment of the WSPH.
depend on the spectral power distributions of several
types of light sources, including tungsten-filament
incandescent, fluorescent, high-pressure sodium,
and metal-halide light sources, and white/colored
light-emitting diodes have been investigated [23].
The ccf of the WSPH is equal to unity for the Osram
Wi41/G light source operated at 2856 K. The uncer-
tainty of the ccf has been calculated as uðccf Þ ¼
0:0005 using the square-root of the sum of the
squares of the two relative spectral measurements
on the detector and the lamp, as well (relative spec-
tral responsivity of the WSPH and the spectral dis-
tribution of the LUT) [23].
The second correction was the scf (unwanted light),
which is more problematic when a detector-based
method is used. The stray light is commonly mani-
fested as random scatter or directional reflection of
the light from its surroundings. The stray light is
generally obstructed by using a set of baffles between
the light source and the photometer (Fig. 4).
The baffles were placed so that when the lamp is
viewed with naked eyes in any bench position and
photometer circumference, no stray light can be seen.
At the front surface of the WSPH, a screen with a cir-
cular beveled aperture of diameter 25 mm (a little bit
more than the field of view of the WSPH) was used to
mask stray rays and to determine the scf. The
amount of stray light has been calculated as
0.9992 by taking the mean ratio of photometer sig-
nals at lamp-off and lamp-on conditions (Table 2).
1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5837
Thus, the experimental standard deviation of re-
peated measurements (n ¼ 20, vV ¼ 19) was used
as the standard uncertainty of stray light measure-
ments (uðscf Þ ¼ 0:0004) assuming a NTD.
The luminous intensity measurements were re-
peated six times by reoperating the LUT each time
to guarantee the measurement reliability. It is
known that the repeatability is the closeness of
the agreement between the results of successive
measurements of the same measurand carried out
under the same conditions of measurement. Mea-
surement results are shown in Table 3.
As can be seen from Table 3, there is good agree-
ment between the results (≤0:03%). The maximum
luminous intensity within repeated measurements
was 281:71 cd, which was used for normalizing mea-
surement results to unity. The repeatability was then
calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of normal-
ized luminous intensities (M R ¼ 0:99978). The ex-
perimental standard deviation of the normalized
results obtained under repeatable conditions (n ¼ 6)
was calculated as sðM R Þ ¼ 0:00015. Thus, the stan-
dard uncertainty of the repeatability measurements
was estimated from the pooled estimate
p of standard
p back from the mirror. The maximum error in the fall-
deviation as (uðM R Þ ¼ sðM R Þ= n ¼ 0:00015= 6 ¼
0:00006).
E. Other Uncertainty Sources
Alignment of a lamp or a detector is also a critical
point in optical measurements because their center
points must be at the same optical axis and their
planes must be perpendicular to each other. Both
the LUT and the WSPH are mounted on positioning
stages that allow adjustments of the rotations, hori-
zontal and vertical positions, and height. The laser
diode was used behind the LUT to define the optical
axis and the center of the lamp filament, which had
been aligned parallel to the optical axis [22]. After
that, the alignment of the LUT filament was started.
The LUT was mounted to the holder on the photo-
metric bench in the base-down position. The horizon-
tal (Laφ ) and vertical (Laε ) alignments of the filament
were performed using a side-viewing precision tran-
sit (Brunson, 76-RH190), shown in Fig. 4(a). The first
transit was set up and aligned along a horizontal axis
Table 3. Repeatability Results of the Luminous Intensity Calibrations
Luminous
Intensity
I x ðTÞ
Measurement
№: n (cd)
1 281.22
2 281.25
3 281.29
4 281.20
5 281.31
6
P
281.22
Mean value M R ¼ n1 ni¼1 I xnori ðTÞ
Standard
pP deviation sðM R Þ ffi¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n ðI
k¼1 xnori ðTÞ − M R Þ
1
n−1
5838 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008
perpendicular to the laser beam, where the second
one was set up on the optical axis and used for the
vertical alignment. Each transit has a precision
cross-axis telescope having a glass reticule with a
filar/bifilar pattern. Perpendicularity alignments of
the filament at both axes were performed using ob-
served images of the filament from the transits. The
manufacturer’s specifications stated that each the
transit has a resolution of 4:0 arc sec( 0:001°). This
means that the alignments of the filament of the
LUT were estimated to be 0° with limits
0:001°.
Thus, the standard uncertainty of each alignment
was estimatedp assuming a RTD as uðLaφ Þ ¼
uðLaε Þ ¼ 0:001= 3 ¼ 0:00064°.
The perpendicularity alignment of the photometer
head was performed before alignment of the lamp to
the optical axis. The photometer head was fixed on a
movable carriage. The perpendicular alignment of
the photometer head was performed by using a laser
diode having a 1 mm output aperture that was also
used for determining of the optical axis. The surface
of the WSPH was closed with a lid having an align-
ment mirror and then the laser beam was reflected
ing of the laser beam onto the output point of the
laser beam will inevitably/unavoidably be
0:5 mm
because the aperture used in front of the laser diode
has a diameter of 1 mm, causing back-reflection
[Fig. 4(b)]. The maximum error in adjustment of
the perpendicularity of the photometer head and
the laser diode aperture takes place Pθ ¼
2 × arctanð5000=0:5Þ ¼ 0:0002 due to the fact that
the distance between them is 5 m. Thus, the standard
uncertainty of the photometer head alignment
was estimated
p assuming a RTD as uðPθ Þ ¼
0:0002= 3 ¼ 0:00012°. The same type of side-
viewing transit was also used to check the alignment
of the WSPH.
A detector is said to be linear if its output signal is
directly proportional to the incident power. The lin-
earity of the WSPH has been measured using a flux-
addition technique [21]. Measurements had been
performed between the photocurrents of 2 nA and
2 mA by applying different neutral density filter com-
binations to the beam ways. To reduce the effects of
random noise, the measurements were repeated at
least ten times at each photocurrent level. Measure-
ment results indicated that the WSPH is linear over
an output current range of 10−9 A to 10−4 A, with a
standard uncertainty of 0.012% (k ¼ 1), which corre-
Luminous Intensity sponds to an illuminance range of 8 × 10−2 lx to
Normalized Ixnor ðTÞ 8 × 103 lx. Therefore, the WSPH can be used to mea-
0.9997 sure the luminous intensity of a light source between
0.9998 1:3 cd and 1:3 × 105 cd at 4 m.
0.9999
0.9996 F. Evaluation of the Expanded Uncertainty
1.0000 The next step for forming the uncertainty budget,
0.9997 after determining the standard uncertainties uðxi Þ,
0.9998 is to calculate the sensitivity coefficient (ci ) of each
0.00015
input quantity (X i ) by taking the partial derivative
of the model function f [Eq. (4)] with respect to the
input quantity (Table 1). The ci coefficients are essen-
tially conversion factors that allow one to convert the
units of an input quantity into the units of the mea-
surand and express mathematically how much f
changes given an infinitesimal change in xi . A de-
tailed description for calculating the ci coefficient
for each input quantity is described in Appendix A.
Afterward, the uncertainty contribution for each
quantity ui ðyÞ was calculated and then the combined
standard uncertainty uc ðyÞ was calculated, based on
the procedure given in Fig. 1, as uc ðI T ðTÞÞ ¼
0:56 cd
by taking the square root of the sum of the uncer-
tainty contributions. The expanded uncertainty of
the luminous intensity calibration was estimated as
UðI T ðTÞÞ ¼
1:13 cd with a level of confidence of
95.45% by multiplying the uc ðI T ðTÞÞ by a coverage
factor k ¼ 2 (veff > 100). This estimation shows that
the expanded uncertainty in the luminous intensity
calibration within the interval from 1:3 cd to 1:3 ×
105 cd is 0.4%.
3. Uncertainty Evaluations in the Illuminance
Responsivity and Illuminance Calibrations
The same detector-based calibration facility, which is
shown in Fig. 2, was used for calibrations of a com-
mercial photometer head (LMT P30SCT) and an illu-
minance meter (LMT B360) and to demonstrate
estimation of calibration uncertainties in illumi-
nance calibrations. An Osram Wi41/G lamp operated
at a color temperature of 2856 K was used as a work-
ing lamp in both calibrations. The detector-based
method has a greater advantage in the illuminance
calibrations. With this method, photometers and lux-
meters are calibrated by direct substitution with the
standard photometer by placing them on the same
illuminated plane. In such substitution methods,
many uncertainty factors, such as distance measure-
ments, lamp alignments, and the departure from the
inverse-square law, are canceled out [24].
To perform accurate illuminance calibrations, the
reference plane of a calibrated device must be known
precisely. When the reference plane is not correctly
defined, the deviation from the inverse-square law
causes the responsivity of the photometer to vary de-
pending on the distance to the source. The reference
plane plays a more important role if calibrations are
performed at shorter distances from the light source
[25]. It is not difficult to define the reference plane for
those photometers that have thin, flat diffusers.
However, for an illuminance meter equipped with
a dome-shaped or mesa-shaped diffuser, it is usually
difficult to define the correct reference plane and,
therefore, the plane is usually chosen to be at the
top of the diffuser [24,25].
Before both types of calibration, both the WSPH
and the PUT were placed on the linear translation
stage that acts perpendicular to the optical axis
and perpendicularity alignment of each the device
was performed (a detailed procedure for the align-
ments is given in Subsection 2.E). Then. the refer-
ence planes of both devices were aligned to the
same plane by using a digital height gauge. After this
study, the lamp was mounted to the lamp socket lo-
cated on the photometric bench and then operated.
After the lamp had stabilized (∼15 min after turn-
ing on), photocurrents generated at the outputs of
the WSPH and the PUT (PcR and PcT , respectively) at
various photometric distances were measured using
a substitution principle having a substitution
scheme of reference–test–test–reference. Instead of
the PUT, the lux values (ET ) were taken directly from
the read out of the illuminance meter under test
(IMUT). The illuminance responsivity of the PUT
(svT ðTÞ) and the calibration factor of the IMUT (kðTÞ)
were then calculated using the following equations:
PcT
svT ðTÞ ¼ svR ðTÞ · · ccf · ucf ; ð5Þ
PcR
PcR
E s ðTÞ
kðTÞ ¼ R ¼ vR · ccf · ucf ; ð6Þ
ET ET
where ucf is the uniformity of the lamp illumination
at the measured plane.
Univariate (scalar) uncertainty models [Eqs. (7)
and (8)] for both the PUT and the IMUT calibrations
were developed by taking into account all input
quantities that may affect the calibrations, whether
they are significant or not:

m
ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ · U L i
svT ðTÞ ¼
U L ðJÞ · Rð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ


PT
× ðsV þ svD Þ × × ccf × scf
ðPc þ cPCM þ cPCMD Þ
× ucf × M R × ð1 − PθR − PθT − RPa − PNR Þ; ð7Þ

m
ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ · U L i
kðTÞ ¼
U L ðJÞ · Rð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ


Pc þcPCM þcPCMD
sV þsvD
× × ccf × scf × ucf × M R
ET
× ð1 − PθR − IM φ − RPa − PNR Þ; ð8Þ
where PNR is the uncertainty in the nonlinearity of
the WSPH, RPa is the uncertainty in the reference
plane determination, and PθR , PθT , and IM φ are un-
certainties in the alignments of WSPH, PUT, and
IMUT, respectively.
Tables 4 and 5 give general outlines of uncertainty
sources in the illuminance responsivity calibration of
a LMT Lichtmesstechnik GmbH manufactured
photometer head (P30SCT) and the calibration factor
of a LMT B360 type of illuminance meter.
Descriptions of estimated values and their stan-
dard uncertainties in both illuminance calibrations
are given in Subsections 3.A–3.D. It should be noted
1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5839
 Table 4. Uncertainty Budget Established at UME for the Illuminance Responsivity Calibration of a LMT P30SCT Photometer Head

ui ðyÞ hðy; xi Þ
Xi xi uðxi Þ pdf ci (nA=lx) (%)
cDVM 0.999992 0.000004 NTD 118:95 nA=lx 0.000476 0.02
cDVMD 0.000001 0.0000004 RTD 118:95 nA=lx 0.000048 0.0002
UL 0:584720 V 0:0000036 V NTD 203:42 nA=lx · V 0.000732 0.04
U L ðJÞ 5:8472 A 0:0006 A NTD −20:34 nA=lx · A −0:012205 11.7
R 0:099994 Ω 0:0000020 Ω NTD −1189:52 nA=lx · Ω −0:002379 0.4
RD −0:0000010 0.0000004 RTD −118:94 nA=lx −0:000048 0.0002
αRS ΔT 0.0 0.0000023 RTD −118:94 nA=lx −0:000275 0.01
mi 6.24 0.14 RTD −0:000445 nA=lx 0.000064 0.0003
sv 1:8302 nA=lx 0:0027 nA=lx NTD 10.42 0.028616 64.4
svD −0:0015 0.0006 RTD 10:42 nA=lx 0.006254 3.1
PT 596:74 nA 0:131 nA NTD 0:03 nA=lx · nA 0.004197 1.4
PR 56:16 nA 0:0067 nA NTD −0:33 nA=lx · nA −0:002237 0.4
cPCM 1.00033 0.00010 NTD −0:33 nA=lx −0:000033 0.0001
PmD −0:000030 0.000012 RTD −0:33 nA=lx −0:000004 0.000001
ccf 1.0000 0.0005 RTD 19:06 nA=lx 0.009531 7.1
scf 0.9992 0.0004 NTD 19:08 nA=lx 0.007631 4.6
ucf 0.9992 0.00015 NTD 19:08 nA=lx 0.002862 0.6
MR 0.9997 0.00007 NTD 19:07 nA=lx 0.001430 0.2
PθR 0:0° 0:00012° RTD −19:06 nA=lx · ° −0:002201 0.4
PθT 0:0° 0:00012° RTD −19:06 nA=lx · ° −0:002201 0.4
RPa 0.0 0.00044 NTD −19:06 nA=lx −0:008387 5.5
PNR 0.0 0.00012 RTD −19:06 nA=lx −0:002287 0.4
svT ðTÞ 19:08 nA=lx combined uncertainty, k ¼ 1
0:04 nA=lx
effective degree of freedom, veff >100
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2
0:07 nA=lx
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2 0.4%

Table 5. Uncertainty Budget Established at UME for the Calibration Factor of a LMT B360 Illuminance Meter

hðy; xi Þ
Xi xi uðxi Þ pdf ci ui ðyÞ (%)
cDVM 0.999992 0.000004 NTD 6.32 0.0000253 0.01
cDVMD 0.000001 0.0000004 RTD 6.32 0.0000025 0.0001
UL 0:584720 V 0:0000036 V NTD 10:81 V−1 0.0000389 0.02
U L ðJÞ 5:8472 A 0:0006 A NTD −1:08 A−1 −0:0006489 5.0
R 0:099994 Ω 0:0000020 Ω NTD −63:24 Ω−1 −0:0001265 0.2
RD −0:0000010 0.0000004 RTD −6:32 −0:0000025 0.0001
αRS ΔT 0.0 0.0000023 RTD −6:32 −0:0000146 0.003
mi 6.24 0.14 RTD 0.000024 0.0000034 0.0001
PR 56:16 nA 0:0067 nA NTD 0:018 nA−1 0.0001189 0.2
cPCM 1.00033 0.00010 NTD 0.018 0.0000018 0.00004
PmD −0:000030 0.000012 RTD 0.018 0.0000002 0.000001
sv 1:8302 nA=lx 0:0027 nA=lx NTD −0:55 lx=nA −0:0015213 27.3
svD −0:0015 0.0006 RTD −0:55 −0:0003325 1.3
ET 30:79 lx 0:067 lx NTD −0:03 lx−1 −0:0022082 57.5
ccf 1.0000 0.0005 RTD 1.01 0.0005067 3.0
scf 0.9992 0.0004 NTD 1.01 0.0001521 0.3
ucf 0.9992 0.00015 NTD 1.01 0.0004057 1.9
MR 0.9994 0.00018 NTD 1.01 0.0001801 0.4
PθR 0:0° 0:00012° RTD −1:01°−1 −0:0001170 0.2
LX θ 0:0° 0:00012° RTD −1:01°−1 −0:0001170 0.2
RPa 0.0 0.00048 NTD −1:01 −0:0004864 2.8
PNR 0.0 0.00012 RTD −1:01 −0:0001216 0.2
kðTÞ 0.9838 combined uncertainty, k ¼ 1
0:0029
effective degree of freedom. veff >55
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2
0:0058
expanded uncertainty, k ¼ 2 0.6%

5840 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008

that the electrical parameters of the working stan- standard deviations of 20 repeated measurements
dard lamp and their uncertainties were taken from were taken as the standard uncertainty of the read-
Table 1 because the same type of light source was ings [uðET Þ ¼ 0:067 lx].
used in both calibrations. In the scope of repeatability measurements, the il-
luminance measurements for both the PUT and
A. Photometer (Illuminance Meter)-Induced Uncertainty IMUT calibrations were repeated six times. By tak-
Sources ing normalized values for each calibration, the re-
A PRC Krochmann GmbH manufactured cosine- peatability was calculated using an arithmetic
corrected photometer head (TH15 C) having the mean of the results in Table 7.
same configuration as described in Subsection 2.C As is shown in Table 7, the illuminance responsiv-
and a flat diffuser in its entrance hole was used as ity of the PUT varied within
0:05%. Obtained
the WSPH in both illuminance calibrations. The illu- results were normalized to the maximum illumi-
minance responsivity (svR ) of the WSPH is traceable nance responsivity value (1:2885 nA=lx) and the
to the illuminance scale of UME, which is equal to repeatability of the illuminance responsivity calibra-
svR ¼ 1:8302 nA=lx
0:0027 nA=lx (k ¼ 1). The tion was calculated as the mean value of the normal-
WSPH is recalibrated annually by comparing with ized results (M R ¼ 0:9997). The experimental
the absolutely calibrated reference filter radiometers standard deviation of the normalized results (n ¼
[21]. The drift of the illuminance responsivity value 6) was calculated as sðM R Þ ¼ 0:00018. Thus, the
of the WSPH since its last calibration was estimated standard uncertainty of the repeatability measure-
from its calibration history to be −0:0015 nA=lx ments
p was pestimated as (uðM R Þ ¼ sðM R Þ=
(∼0:08%) with a standard deviation of sðsvRD Þ ¼ n ¼ 0:00018= 6 ¼ 0:00007). The calibration factor
0:0011. Thus, the standard uncertainty of the drift of the calibrated illuminance meter varied more,
value assuming p a RTD and estimated as compared with the illuminance responsivity calibra-
uðsvRD Þ ¼ sðsvRD Þ= 3 ¼ 0:0006 nA=lx. tion of the photometer head (
0:12%). The repeat-
The PUT (LMT P30SCT) is a thermostatic stabi- ability of the calibration was calculated as the
lized type photometer head and contains a VðλÞ Si mean value of the normalized results (M R ¼
photoelement with a light sensitive surface of 0:9994) with an estimated
p standard uncertainty
30 mm diameter and a flat diffuser having opal glass of uðM R Þ ¼ 0:00044= 6 ¼ 0:00018.
material. The IMUT has a photometer head with a
B. Correction-Induced Uncertainty Sources
cosine correction and a 3½-digit display (6 measuring
ranges in decades). The device is capable of reading Light sources used in illuminance calibrations
the illuminance level from 10−2 lx to 105 lx, as stated should have a uniform illumination at the reference
by the manufacturer’s specifications. plane of measurement because the reference instru-
Photocurrents generated at the outputs of the ment and a device under calibration may have differ-
WSPH and PUT (Table 6) were measured using a ent sensing areas. Therefore, the illumination
PRC-321 and an LMT I-1000 SD photocurrent meter, uniformity of the light source has been measured
respectively. Measured real photocurrents of PR ¼ and used as a correction factor in the calculation.
56:16 nA and PT ¼ 596:74 nA at distance of 3 m from The measurement of the illuminance uniformity of
the lamp were taken from averages of 20 readings. the Osram Wi41/G lamp at a 3 m distance was car-
Therefore, standard uncertainties in both photocur- ried out using a surface scanning technique. The
rent measurements were taken as standard uncer- WSPH was mounted on a dual axis (x–y) translation
tainties of measurements (uðPR Þ ¼ 0:0067 nA and stage. By assuming that the maximum sensing area
uðPT Þ ¼ 0:131 nA). of the IMUT is within the area of 40 mm × 40 mm,
In the IMUT calibration, the device directly read both stages were moved by servo motors over a
the lux level (ET ) and the obtained experimental
Table 7. Repeatability Results of the Illuminance Responsivity and
Calibration Factor Calibrations
Table 6. Photocurrents and Illuminance Measurement Results
Photometer Head Illuminance
Photometer Photometer Head Illuminance
(PUT) Meter
Measurement Head (TH15 C) (P30SCT) Meter (B360)
№: n [PR ðnAÞ] [PT ðnAÞ] [ET ðlxÞ] Measurement normalized normalized
№: n svT ðTÞ svTn ðTÞ kðTÞ kn ðTÞ
1 56.15 596.7 30.8
2 56.17 596.9 30.7 1 1.2880 0.9996 0.9923 0.9992
3 56.16 596.8 30.8 2 1.2882 0.9998 0.9919 0.9988
4 56.17 596.4 30.8 3 1.2885 1.0000 0.9925 0.9994
… … … … 4 1.2880 0.9996 0.9922 0.9991
18 56.16 596.8 30.9 5 1.2878 0.9995 0.9928 0.9997
19 56.16 596.7 30.8 6 1.2881 0.9997 0.9931 1.0000
20 56.15 596.5 30.7 Mean 0.9997 0.9994
Mean 56.159 596.74 30.79 Standard 0.00018 0.00044
sðU L Þ 0.0067 0.131 0.067 deviation

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5841

40 mm × 40 mm area with step lengths of 1 mm and
controlled by a servo motor control unit with
repeatabilities of 12 and 17 μm in the x and y direc-
tions, respectively [26]. The illuminance uniformity
plot was then obtained by dividing measured illumi-
nances at each of the points to the maximum
value (Fig. 5).
After that, the correction factor for the nonunifor-
mity of the illumination was calculated as 0.9992,
which represents the mathematical mean of the nor-
malized results. This value means that the nonuni-
formity of the illumination at the reference plane is
∼0:7%. Measurements were repeated eight times
and the standard uncertainty of uniformity measure-
ments was estimated as uðucf Þ ¼ 0:00015, which is
the root square of obtained experimental standard
deviation of repeated measurements and the nonuni-
formity of the WSPH.
C. Other Uncertainty Sources
The nonlinearity of the WSPH as well as the perpen-
dicularity alignments of the WSPH, the PUT, and the
IMUT were performed in the same manner discussed
in Subsection 2.E. Therefore, the values of these in-
put quantities and their standard uncertainties were
taken from Table 1.
The reference plane is generally taken as outside of
a turbid material (generally opal glass) used in front
of the photometer. This plane was aligned mechani-
cally by using a Mututoyo manufactured with an ab-
solute digimatic height gauge (570-230) located on the
fine-adjustment carriage to feed the slider finely. The
height gauge has a built-in absolute linear encoder
that eliminates the necessity of setting the reference
point at every power-on. First of all, the reference
point was determined on the ruler at a distance of
3 m by the fiber probe joined to the gauge and then
the reference plane of the WSPH fixed to the holder
with a digital micrometer was adjusted. After comple-
tion of the steps stated above, provided that the gauge
probe tip remained at the reference point, the WSPH
was substituted for the PUT or the IMUT and the re-
ference planes of the WSPH, PUT, and IMUT were
aligned to the reference point at which the gauge
Fig. 5. Illuminance uniformity map of an Osram Wi41/G light
source used in the illumination calibrations at UME.
5842 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008
probe tip was settled. The adjustment process speci-
fied above was repeated 20 times and the standard de-
viations were estimated for the reference plane
alignments by using the standard deviations obtained
from the readout values of the micrometer. The uncer-
tainty values estimated for calibrations of the test
photometer and the test luxmeter were uðRPa Þ ¼
0:00044 and uðRPa Þ ¼ 0:00048.
D. Evaluations of Expanded Uncertainties in the
Illuminance Calibrations Performed
Before estimating the combined standard uncertain-
ties, the sensitivity coefficient for each input quan-
tity and then their uncertainty contributions were
calculated (Tables 4 and 5). A detailed description
for calculating the sensitivity coefficient for each in-
put quantity is described in Appendix B. As is shown
in Table 4, the combined standard uncertainty for the
illuminance responsivity calibration of the PUT was
estimated as uc ðsvT ðTÞÞ ¼
0:04 nA=lx, whereas the
calibration factor of the IMUT was estimated as
uc ðkðTÞÞ ¼
0:0029. These results cause the ex-
panded uncertainties of UðsvT ðTÞÞ ¼ 0:4% and
UðkðTÞÞ ¼ 0:6% with confidential levels of 95.45%,
respectively.
4. Conclusions
It is necessary to previously characterize the refer-
ence photometer head with the lowest standard
uncertainty and to define all the uncertainty compo-
nents that may affect the calibration result for the
realization of precision photometric calibrations. We
presented the detector-based luminous intensity and
illumination calibration procedures performed at
UME, estimated calibration uncertainties, and es-
tablished uncertainty budgets. By these budgets,
dominant and less important contributions to each
calibration quantity were detected. This study may
be helpful to a laboratory that wants to be accredited
on luminous intensity and illuminance calibration
capacities according to the European Norm ISO/
IEC 17025:2005 standard.
The uncertainty of luminous intensity calibration
is derived according to the uncertainty model based
on Eq. (4). The contribution coefficients (hðy; xi Þ),
which are calculated according to [27] and listed in
the last column of Table 1, show that the combined
standard uncertainty in the luminous intensity cali-
bration of a Osram Wi41/G incandescent lamp was
more influenced by the illuminance responsivity of
the WSPH (56.3%), the alignment of the LUT, and
its driving current (10.3%). The components that
may be affected more for other types of light sources
in luminous intensity calibration are the current sta-
bility of light source, the photocurrent readout, all
correction factors, and alignments.
Uncertainties of illuminance responsivity and ca-
libration factor calibrations are derived according
to the uncertainty model based on Eqs. (7) and (8),
respectively. The last columns of Tables 4 and 5 show
uncertainty contributions of each input quantity to
 ðd þ dp þ αSR ΔTÞ ¼ D; ðPc þ cPCM þ cPCMD Þ ¼ P; ð1 − Laε − Laφ − Paθ − PN Þ ¼ A;


ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ · U L ðA1Þ
¼ L:
U L ðJÞ · Rð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

Thus, the sensitivity coefficient of each input quantity will be calculated as follows:

1. Sensitivity coefficients for the calibration factor (cDVM ) and the short-term drift (cDVMD ) of the DVM:

∂I x ðTÞ ∂I ðTÞ ccf × D2 × mi × M R × P × A × scf × U L × L−1þmi

ccDVM ¼ ccDVMD ¼ ¼ x ¼ : ðA2Þ
∂cDVM ∂cDVMD U L ðJÞ × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsV þ svD Þ

2. Sensitivity coefficient for the voltage drop (U L ):

∂I x ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × D2 × mi × M R × P × A × scf × L−1þmi

cU L ¼ ¼ : ðA3Þ
∂U L U L ðJÞ × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsV þ svD Þ

3. Sensitivity coefficient for the operating current U L ðJÞ of the LUT:

∂I x ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × D2 × mi × M R × P × A × scf × U L × L−1þmi

cU L ðJÞ ¼ ¼− : ðA4Þ
∂U L ðJÞ U L ðJÞ2 × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsV þ svD Þ

4. Sensitivity coefficient for the resistance value (R) of the reference shunt resistor:

∂I x ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × D2 × mi × M R × P × A × scf × U L × L−1þmi

cR ¼ ¼− : ðA5Þ
∂R U L ðJÞ × R2 × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsV þ svD Þ

5. Sensitivity coefficients for the short-term drift (RD ) and the temperature coefficient (αRS ΔT) of the re-
ference shunt resistor:

∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × D2 × mi × M R × P × A × scf × U L × L−1þmi

cRD ¼ cαRS ΔT ¼ ¼ ¼− : ðA6Þ
∂RD ∂αRS ΔT U L ðJÞ × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ2 × ðsV þ svD Þ

combined standard uncertainties of the illuminance 6. Sensitivity coefficients for the exponent (mi ):
responsivity of the PUT and the calibration factor of
the IMUT, respectively. The dominant factors which
∂I x ðTÞ
affect the illuminance responsivity calibration when cmi ¼
the values are considered are the uncertainties com- ∂mi
ing from the illuminance responsivity of the WSPH ccf × D2 × M R × P × A × scf × Lmi × LogðLÞ
(∼64:4%) and the lamp current (∼11:7%). Addition- ¼ :
ðsV þ svD Þ
ally, the most effective factors on the combined uncer-
tainty obtained for the calibration of the IMUT are ðA7Þ
the uncertainties coming from the readout value
via the IMUT (∼57:5%) and the illuminance respon- 7. Sensitivity coefficients for the photometric dis-
sivity of the WSPH (∼27:3%). These uncertainty bud- tance (d), offset distance (dp ), and the thermal expan-
gets introduce the best measurement capability sion coefficient (αSR ΔT) of the ruler:
which our laboratory can carry out.

Appendix A ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ

cd ¼ cdp ¼ cαSR ΔT ¼ ¼ ¼
Determination of the sensitivity coefficients for lumi- ∂d ∂dp ∂αSR ΔT
nous intensity calibration is described here. The 2 × ccf × D × M R × P × A × scf × Lmi
sensitivity coefficient for each input quantity, given ¼ : ðA8Þ
in Table 1, was calculated by taking the partial ðsV þ svD Þ
derivative of the model function f with respect to
the input quantity using model Eq. (4). For the con- 8. Sensitivity coefficients for the photocurrent
venience of the equation, the following abbreviations reading (Pc ), calibration factor (cPCM ), and short-term
may be accepted: drift (cPCMD ) of the PCM:

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5843

 ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ 12. Sensitivity coefficient for the measurement
cPc ¼ ccPCM ¼ ccPCMD ¼ ¼ ¼ repeatability (M R ):
∂Pc ∂cPCM ∂cPCMD
ccf × D2 × M R × A × scf × Lmi ∂I x ðTÞ ccf × D2 × P × A × scf × Lmi
¼ : cM R ¼ ¼ : ðA13Þ
ðsV þ svD Þ ∂M R ðsV þ svD Þ
ðA9Þ
13. Sensitivity coefficients for vertical (Laε ) and
9. Sensitivity coefficients for the illuminance re- horizontal (Laφ ) alignments of the lamp filament, an-
sponsivity (sV ) and short-term drift (sVD ) of the gular alignment of the WSPH (Paθ ), and nonlinearity
WSPH: (PN ) of the WSPH:

∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ ∂I x ðTÞ

csv ¼ csvD ¼ ¼ cLaε ¼ cLaφ ¼ cPθ ¼ cPN ¼ ¼ ¼
∂sv ∂svD ∂Laε ∂Laφ ∂Pθ
ccf × D2 × M R × P × A × scf × Lmi ∂I x ðTÞ ccf × D2 × M R × P × scf × Lmi
¼− : ðA10Þ ¼ ¼− :
ðsV þ svD Þ2 ∂PN ðsV þ svD Þ
ðA14Þ
10. Sensitivity coefficient for the color-correction
factor (ccf ):
Appendix B
∂I ðTÞ D2 × M R × P × A × scf × Lmi Determination of sensitivity coefficients for illumi-
cccf ¼ x ¼ : ðA11Þ
∂ccf ðsV þ svD Þ nance responsivity and illuminance-meter calibra-
tions are described here. The sensitivity coefficient
11. Sensitivity coefficient for the stray-light-cor- for each input quantity, given in Tables 4 and 5,
rection factor (scf ): was calculated by taking the partial derivative of
the model function f with respect to the input quan-
∂I x ðTÞ ccf × D2 × M R × P × A × Lmi tity using model Eqs. (7) and (8). For convenience, the
cscf ¼ ¼ : ðA12Þ following abbreviations may be accepted:
∂scf ðsV þ svD Þ


ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ · U L
ðPR þ cPCM þ cPCMD Þ ¼ P; ð1 − PθR − PθT − PNR Þ ¼ A; ¼ L: ðB1Þ
U L ðJÞ · Rð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

Thus, the sensitivity coefficient of each input quantity will be calculated as follows:
1. Sensitivity Coefficients Given in Table 4
1. Sensitivity coefficients for the calibration factor (cDVM ) and short-term drift (cDVMD ) of the DVM:

∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ ccf × mi × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × U L × L−1þmi
ccDVM ¼ ccDVMD ¼ ¼ ¼ : ðB2Þ
∂cDVM ∂cDVMD U L ðJÞ × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

2. Sensitivity coefficient for the voltage drop (U L ):

∂svT ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × L−1þmi
cU L ¼ ¼ : ðB3Þ
∂U L U L ðJÞ × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

3. Sensitivity coefficient for the operating current U L ðJÞ of the LUT:

∂svT ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × U L × L−1þmi
cU L ðJÞ ¼ ¼− : ðB4Þ
∂U L ðJÞ U L ðJÞ2 × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

4. Sensitivity coefficient for the resistance value (R) of the reference shunt resistor:

∂svT ðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × U L × L−1þmi
cR ¼ ¼− : ðB5Þ
∂R U L ðJÞ × P × R2 × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ

5844 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008

 5. Sensitivity coefficients for the short-term drift (RD ) and the temperature coefficient (αRS ΔT) of the re-
ference shunt resistor:

∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ

cRD ¼ cαRS ΔT ¼ ¼
∂RD ∂αRS ΔT
ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × U L × L−1þmi
¼− : ðB6Þ
U L ðJÞ × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ2

6. Sensitivity coefficients for the exponent (mi ):

∂svT ðTÞ ccf × M R × PT × A × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × ucf × Lmi × LogðLÞ

cmi ¼ ¼ : ðB7Þ
∂mi P

7. Sensitivity coefficients for the illuminance re- 11. Sensitivity coefficient for the stray-light-cor-
sponsivity (sVR ) and short-term drift (svRD ) of the rection factor (scf ):
WSPH:

∂svT ðTÞ
∂s ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ cscf ¼
csv ¼ csvD ¼ vT ¼ ∂scf
∂svR ∂svRD ccf × M R × A × PT × ucf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
ccf × M R × PT × A × scf × ucf × Lmi ¼ :
¼ : ðB8Þ P
P ðB12Þ

8. Sensitivity coefficient for the photocurrent

reading (PT ) with the PUT: 12. Sensitivity coefficient for the uniformity-cor-
rection factor (ucf ):

∂svT ðTÞ
cPT ¼ ∂svT ðTÞ
∂PT cucf ¼
∂ucf
ccf × M R × A × scf × ucf × ðsvR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
¼ : ccf × M R × A × PT × scf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
P ¼ :
P
ðB9Þ
ðB13Þ

9. Sensitivity coefficients for the photocurrent

reading (PR ) with the WSPH, calibration factor 13. Sensitivity coefficient for the measurement
(cPCM ) and short-term drift (cPCMD ) of the PCM: repeatability (M R ):

∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ ccf × M R × PT × A × scf × ucf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
cPR ¼ ccPCM ¼ ccPCMD ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼− :
∂PR ∂cPCM ∂cPCMD P2
ðB10Þ

10. Sensitivity coefficient for the color-correction factor (ccf ):

∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ

cccf ¼ cM R ¼
∂ccf ∂M R
M R × A × PT × scf × ucf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi ccf × A × PT × scf × ucf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
¼ : ¼ :
P P
ðB11Þ ðB14Þ

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5845

 6. Sensitivity coefficients for the exponent (mi ):

∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × Lmi × LogðLÞ

cmi ¼ ¼ : ðB21Þ
∂mi ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

7. Sensitivity coefficients for the photocurrent reading (PR ) with the WSPH, calibration factor (cPCM ), and
short-term drift (cPCMD ) of the PCM:

∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × A × scf × ucf × Lmi

cPR ¼ ccPCM ¼ ccPCMD ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ : ðB22Þ
∂PR ∂cPCM ∂cPCMD ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

14. Sensitivity coefficients for angular alignment 8. Sensitivity coefficients for the illuminance re-
of the WSPH (PθR ) and PUT (PθT ), determination of sponsivity (sVR ) and short-term drift (svRD ) of the
the reference plane (RPa ), and nonlinearity (PN ) of WSPH:
the WSPH:

∂svT ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ

cPθR ¼ cPθT ¼ cRPa ¼ cPN ¼ ¼ csv ¼ csvD ¼ ¼
∂PθR ∂PθT ∂svR ∂svRD
∂s ðTÞ ∂svT ðTÞ ccf × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × Lmi
¼ vT ¼ ¼− : ðB23Þ
∂RPa ∂PN ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ2
ccf × M R × PT × scf × ucf × ðsVR þ svRD Þ × Lmi
¼− :
P 9. Sensitivity coefficient for the illuminance
ðB15Þ reading (ET ) with the IMUT:

2. Sensitivity Coefficients Given in Table 5

1. Sensitivity coefficients for the calibration factor (cDVM ) and short-term drift (cDVMD ) of the DVM:

∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ccf × mi × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × U L × L−1þmi

ccDVM ¼ ccDVMD ¼ ¼ ¼ : ðB16Þ
∂cDVM ∂cDVMD ET × U L ðJÞ × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

2. Sensitivity coefficient for the voltage drop (U L ):

∂kðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × L−1þmi

cU L ¼ ¼ : ðB17Þ
∂U L ET × U L ðJÞ × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

3. Sensitivity coefficient for the operating current U L ðJÞ) of the LUT:

∂kðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × U L × L−1þmi

cU L ðJÞ ¼ ¼− : ðB18Þ
∂U L ðJÞ ET × U L ðJÞ2 × P × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

4. Sensitivity coefficient for the resistance value (R) of the reference shunt resistor:

∂kðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × U L × L−1þmi

cR ¼ ¼− : ðB19Þ
∂R ET × U L ðJÞ × R2 × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

5. Sensitivity coefficients for the short-term drift (RD ) and the temperature coefficient (αRS ΔT) of the re-
ference shunt resistor:

∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ccf × ðcDVM þ cDVMD Þ × mi × M R × A × scf × ucf × U L × L−1þmi

cRD ¼ cαRS ΔT ¼ ¼ ¼− : ðB20Þ
∂RD ∂αRS ΔT ET × U L ðJÞ × R × ð1 þ RD þ αRS ΔTÞ2 × ðsVR þ svRD Þ

5846 APPLIED OPTICS / Vol. 47, No. 31 / 1 November 2008

 ∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × A × P × scf × ucf × Lmi 6. “Expression of the uncertainty of measurement in calibra-
cET ¼ ¼− : tion,” EA-4/02 (European Co-operation for Accreditation,
∂ET E2T × ðsvR þ svRD Þ 1999).
ðB24Þ 7. D. S. Sivia, “Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial”
(Oxford, 1996).
10. Sensitivity coefficient for the color-correction 8. W. Wöger, “Zu den modernen Grundlagen der Datanauswer-
tung in der Metrologie,” PTB Mitteilungen : [Amts- und
factor (ccf ):
Mitteilungsblatt der Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesan-
stalt Braunschweig-Berlin] 111, 210–225 (2001).
∂kðTÞ M R × A × P × scf × ucf × Lmi 9. R. Willink, “Coverage intervals and statistical coverage inter-
cccf ¼ ¼ : ðB25Þ
∂ccf ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ vals,” Metrologia 41, L5–L6 (2004).
10. F. E. Satterhwaite, “An approximate distribution of estimates
11. Sensitivity coefficient for the stray-light- of variance components,” Biometrics Bull. 2, 110–114
(1946).
correction factor (scf ):
11. F. Samedov, M. Durak, and O. Bazkir, “Filter-radiometer
based realization of candela and establishment of photometric
∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × A × P × ucf × Lmi scale at UME,” Opt. Lasers Eng. 43, 1252–1256 (2005).
cscf ¼ ¼ : ðB26Þ 12. F. Sametoglu, “New traceability chains in the photometric and
∂scf ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ
radiometric measurements at the National Metrology Insti-
tute of Turkey,” Opt. Lasers Eng., 45, 36–42 (2007).
12. Sensitivity coefficient for the uniformity-
13. R. L. Booker and D. A. McSparron, “NBS Measurement Ser-
correction factor (ucf ): vices: Photometric Calibrations,” Special Publication 250-15
(National Bureau of Standards, 1987).
∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × A × P × scf × Lmi 14. “The basis of physical photometry,” CIE Publication 18.2
cucf ¼ ¼ : ðB27Þ
∂ucf ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ (Comission Internationalle de I’Eclairage, 1983).
15. D. R. White and P. Saunders, “The propagation of uncertainty
with calibration equations,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 18,
13. Sensitivity coefficient for the measurement
2157–2169 (2007).
repeatability (M R ): 16. G. Sauter, D. Lindner, and M. Lindemann, “CCPR key compar-
isons K3a of luminous intensity and K4 of luminous flux with
∂kðTÞ ccf × A × P × scf × ucf × Lmi lamp as transfer standards,” PTB Report (Physikalisch Tech-
cM R ¼ ¼ : ðB28Þ
∂M R ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ nische Bundesanstalt, 1999).
17. M. Durak and F. Samedov, “Realization of a filter radiometer
based irradiance scale with high accuracy in the region from
14. Sensitivity coefficients for angular alignment
286 nm to 901 nm,” Metrologia 41, 401–406 (2004).
of the WSPH (PθR ) and IMUT (LX θ ), determination of 18. J. H. Walker and A. Thompson, “Improved automated current
the reference plane (RPa ), and nonlinearity (PNR ) of control for standard lamps,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.
the WSPH: 99, 255–261 (1994).
19. M. S. Rea, Lighting Handbook: Reference & Application,
∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ ∂kðTÞ 8th ed. (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America,
cPθR ¼ cPθT ¼ cRPa ¼ cPN ¼ ¼ ¼ 1993).
∂PθR ∂LX θ ∂RPa
20. J. W. T. Walsh, Photometry (Constable & Co., 1958).
∂kðTÞ ccf × M R × P × scf × ucf × Lmi 21. F. Sametoglu, “Establishment of illuminance scale at UME
¼ ¼− : with an accurately calibrated radiometer,” Opt. Rev. 13,
∂PNR ET × ðsVR þ svRD Þ
326–338 (2006).
ðB29Þ 22. F. Samedov and O. Bazkir, “Realization of photometric base
unit of candela traceable to cryogenic radiometer at UME,”
Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 30, 205–214 (2005).
23. F. Sametoglu, “Relation between the illuminance responsivity
of a photometer and the spectral power distribution of a
References source,” Opt. Eng. 46, 093607 (2007).
1. “General requirements for the competence of testing and cali- 24. C. DeCusatis, Handbook of Applied Photometry (Optical So-
bration laboratories,” ISO/IEC 17025 (International Organi- ciety of America, 1997).
zation for Standardization, 2005). 25. J. Hovila, M. Mustonen, P. Kärhä, and E. Ikonen, “Determina-
2. K. D. Sommer and B. R. L. Siebert, “Systematic approach to tion of the diffuser reference plane for accurate illuminance
the modeling of measurements for uncertainty evaluation,” responsivity calibrations,” Appl. Opt. 44, 5894–5898
Metrologia 43, S200–S210 (2006). (2005).
3. T. Doiron and J. Stoup, “Uncertainty and dimensional calibra- 26. F. Samedov, “Laser-based optical facility for determination of
tions,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 102, 647–676 (1997). refractive index of liquids,” Opt. Laser Technol. 38, 28–36
4. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 2nd (2006).
ed. (International Organization for Standardization, 1995). 27. R. Kessel, R. Kacker, and M. Berglund, “Coefficient of contri-
5. M. G. Cox and P. M. Harris, “Measurement uncertainty and bution to the combined standard uncertainty,” Metrologia 43,
traceability,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 17, 533–540 (2006). S189–195 (2006).

1 November 2008 / Vol. 47, No. 31 / APPLIED OPTICS 5847

View publication stats