Module 10-

Control of measurements

Dr Konstantinos Athanasiadis
Introduction
This module will deal with the control of measurements
and specially for the calibration and the verification of
the measuring instruments such as:
• Mass (Non-automatic weighing instruments,
automatic weighing instruments)
• Volume (Petrol pumps, storage tanks)
• Pre-packaging
• Utility meters (electricity, gas, water)
• Medical, tire pressure gauges, vehicle speed, breathe
analyzers, etc.)
Some Definitions: CALIBRATION

Calibration – operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes

a relation between the quantity values with measurement uncertainties provided
by measurement standards and corresponding indications with associated
measurement uncertainties and, in a second step, uses this information to
establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication
 Note 1 A calibration may be expressed by a statement, calibration function,
calibration diagram, calibration curve, or calibration table. In some cases, it
may consist of an additive or multiplicative correction of the indication with
associated measurement uncertainty.
 Note 2 Calibration should not be confused with adjustment of a measuring
system, often mistakenly called “self-calibration”, nor with verification of
calibration.
 Note 3 Often, the first step alone in the above definition is perceived as being
calibration.
Some Definitions: CALIBRATION

From the definition of calibration:

 a calibrated operation does not entail any
conclusion of conformity or non-conformity to
a specification
 a calibrated instrument, even if its deviation
from the standard is big, can be used on
condition a correction is applied.
 a calibrated instrument cannot be used
without its calibration certificate.
Verification
Verification of a measuring instrument – conformity assessment procedure
(other than type evaluation) which results in the affixing of a verification mark
and/or issuing of a verification certificate
Verification of measuring instruments is an important parameter in regards to
transactions:
 When using meters or measuring equipment such as weights and scales for
purchases, sales or any other kind of transactions between you and your
customer, you are liable to ensure that the measuring instrument is legally
type approved and verified.
 As owner of the equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that the
instrument is type approved and verified.
 When your measuring instrument has been verified, it can be legally used
for transactions, and both you and your customer can be sure that the
transaction is based on correct measurements.
Verification
Verification of measuring instruments must be in compliance with
the legislation:

 A verification ensures that your measuring instruments comply

with the current legal requirements for type approval and with
the requirements for maximum permissible error and
measuring tolerances in general.
 You must ensure that initial verification has been performed
prior to putting your measuring instrument in use, and you
must ensure that re-verification is performed subsequently.
How often you need a re-verification depends on the type of
your measuring instrument.
The difference between calibration and verification

The calibration and verification is based on a practically

related procedures.
The difference is that while verification is investigation that
metrological characteristics of these instruments are in
compliance with officially established requirements,
particularly with the maximum permissible errors, the
calibration quantitatively determines the relationship
between the measured value and the nominal value set by
etalon benchmark. Both activities are a form of
metrological traceability of measuring instruments.
The difference between calibration and verification
measuring instruments must be calibrated and verified every year?

• Is it true that measuring instruments must be calibrated

and verified every year?
• No. There is no rule demanding that measuring
instruments must be calibrated once a year, unless
stipulated otherwise in the regulations. It is up to the user
to determine the interval between calibrations. Certain
usages may require an instrument to be calibrated several
times a year, or only once every 5 years. The only
requirement that is frequently found in the reference
standards is that the rules must be drawn up in order to
determine the interval between calibrations.
Methods for verifying measuring instruments

When the price of a product is determined on the basis of a

measurement, before the measuring instrument enters into
service, it is generally required to have either:
 a valid declaration of conformity as defined in the
Measuring Instruments Directive (MID) or the Non-
automatic Weighing Instruments Directive (NAWI). The
task of demonstrating compliance has to be assigned to a
notified inspection body;
or
 a valid type approval and verification issued by an
approved inspection body.
Inspection of Measuring Devices
• Benefits of Inspection of Measuring Devices
 Ensures accuracy of measuring instruments (scales, pumps etc.)
 Get what you pay for: right amounts, no overloading
 Brings you cost savings by minimizing risks due to incorrect
measurements
 
• Inspection is a special type of a calibration of a measuring
instrument comprising additional functional tests defined by the
Rules concerning metrological requirements. It can only be carried
out if the instrument has already been type tested in line with the
Rules concerning metrological requirements and a corresponding
type approval certificate has been issued.
Conformity of measuring instruments

• Requirements concerning the design and manufacture of measuring

instruments consist of the provisions of instrument-specific legislation and
standards or standard recommendations. According to the standards and
national laws, a measuring instrument shall be verified and fit for its
intended purpose.
• Requirements concerning the structure and markings of measuring
instruments need to be taken into account in the design of the instrument.
Co-operation with inspection bodies helps in avoiding wrong decisions.
• A key element in placing a measuring instrument on the market is an
assessment of its suitability for purpose. Those acting in different roles in the
trade industry need to know the measuring instruments they are selling.
• Manufacturers, importers, wholesale dealers and retail businesses can all
place measuring instruments on the market.
Level of Confidence in Regulated Measu-rements – Maximum Permissible Errors

• The MPE’s for new instruments are decided in instrument specific

legislation, the primary source being the directives. In the NAWI directive,
the directive itself prescribes that the MPE’s in-service shall be twice the
MPE’s for new instruments.

• In MID, the MPE’s in-service are left completely to the discretion of the
national authorities and while traditionally for many instrument categories
it has been usual to set the MPE’s inservice as twice the MPE’s for new
instruments, mostly for technical reasons. The time is now opportune for
authorities to consider the approach to MPE’s in-service as one based on
the assessment of acceptable risk and decide whether it may be more or
less than twice the MPE’s for new instruments. The way MPE’s in-service
are used is a fundamental consideration to be taken into account in
arriving at this decision.
Definition: Maximum Permissible Errors
Maximum Permissible Measurement Error, or maximum permissible
error, or limit of errors – extreme value of measurement error, with
respect to a known reference quantity value, permitted by specifications
or regulations for a given measurement, measuring instrument, or
measuring system
 NOTE 1 Usually, the term “maximum permissible errors” or
“limits of error” is used where there are two extreme values.
 NOTE 2 The term “tolerance” should not be used to designate
'maximum permissible error'.
• The maximum permissible error will be, at best, the accuracy
specified by the manufacturer of the equipment. Of course, this
specification should be confirmed by a calibration and before the end
of warranty period.
• After that, if the equipment does not have the accuracy specified by
the manufacturer, it is no longer his problem but yours.
Definition: Maximum Permissible Errors

the definition of the maximum permissible error will be a

compromise between:
 cost of equipment calibration;
 cost of its accuracy reduction, meaning, in a production
environment, the cost of rejecting materials or products that
are actually good;
 for electrical equipment, if calibration certificate includes
comparison with maximum permissible error.
Measurement uncertainty and decision-making

• As in general in conformity assessment, uncertainties

associated with measurement and sampling may need to be
evaluated and accounted for when making decisions about
conformity in the context of legal metrology. This is mainly
because test uncertainty can increase the risk of making
incorrect decisions, such as failing a conforming instrument or
passing a non-conforming instrument when the test result is
close to a specification limit.
• This is important for instruments in use and also for Notified
Bodies to have a uniform way of handling uncertainty so the
risk for the manufacturer of a measuring instrument is the
same regardless of which Notified Body is used.
General requirements on measurement uncertainty

In order to make a decision of conformity assessment based on

quantitative testing of an instrument, the result of a reading of a
particular measuring instrument should be accompanied by its
measurement uncertainty, usually a so-called ‘expanded’ uncertainty U.
The interval of measurement uncertainty is often y ± U.
 
The two main stages in handling uncertainty in decision-making:
i. setting a limit on a maximum permissible measurement
uncertainty (MPU);
ii. allowing for risks due to uncertainty by ‘sharing’ risks
 
The two main stages in handling uncertainty in decision-making
identified above can be applied to conformity assessment for both new
instruments and instruments in-service.
 measurement uncertainty in legal metrology

The following principles to deal with measurement uncertainty in legal

metrology are recommended:
1) A clear statement of how uncertainty has been treated in conformity
assessment shall be given
2) Measurement uncertainty shall be evaluated accounting for all relevant
contributions to the test result (including resolution and repeatability
of instrument under test).
When the parameter measured is the variability (repeatability) of an
instrument, the intrinsic reproducibility obviously should not be
accounted for when determining measurement uncertainty. This is also
the case when conducting several measurements, and the requirement
is that all of the measurements should be inside MPE.
3) Shared risk principle can be applied when MPU not greater than
MPE/3. (The uncertainty is then not taken into account when deciding
on the conformity)
 measurement uncertainty in legal metrology
In previous slide the shared risk principle is a general approach for
applications in trade but not necessarily applicable for
measurements in court cases or within the health sector.
• Where practically possible:
 
MPU ≤ MPE/3 at each measuring point, expanded uncertainty
(k = 2; 95%)(*)
 
In some cases the resolution of the instrument tested is large
(*)

compared to MPU, and MPU<1/3 MPE is not possible. While some

instruments can be set to a higher “test resolution” this is not always
possible or practical. In those cases it can be justified to not account
for resolution while determining total measurement uncertainty
Conclusions
• When it was first decided that regulation was necessary, we must assume
that some kind of considerations of acceptable risk for wrong measurements
was made. If there were no risk – or if the acceptance level is high – then
there would presumably be no need for regulations.
• So far, mainly the economic risk has been the issue for consideration. Today
we would also, for certain applications, consider the risk for health,
environment and juridical security. These, however, are more difficult to
calculate and quantify.
• In the same way, when trying to define an acceptable non-conformity rate,
we should start with defining the acceptable risk for wrong measurements
for the different parties involved (consumer, industry, authorities, others).
However, as we have information on the present non-conformity rate, it may
be easier to go the other way around: First to calculate the present non-
conformity rate and then decide, if this is acceptable or not.
Conclusions

The risk for wrong measurements or the acceptable

accuracy for a measurement depends on:
 the maximum permissible error, MPE, required
for new instruments (accuracy class if relevant)
 the MPE required for instruments in-service
 a possible acceptable non-conformity rate
 the way uncertainty in the conformity
assessment is accounted for
 THANK YOU

www.acp-eu.tbt.org

Project funded by the EU at the request of the ACP Group