The quality criteria for the traceability unit of measurement [Pa]

National Institute of Metrology

Alexei PIANÎH,
Head of the mass laboratory and masses
derivates of NMI,

e-mail: mase@metrologie.md
tel.: (+373) 22 903 139

Summary: This paper characterizes the national standard unit of pressure, emphasizing the
innovative technical features, reliability, high stability and sustainable over time. It pursues
the objective of confirming confidence in its measurement capabilities and their relevance. It
describes all quality criteria to be recorded for quality assurance measurement results as
required by international recommendations.
Key words: quality criteria, maintenance, intermediate verification, control chart,
calibration interval.

INTRODUCTION
National standard unit of pressureis a core element of the National Calibration System
(NES) for Moldova. Figure 1 shows the traceability scheme the unit of pressure. Features
standard measurement provides all the conditions for satisfying the country's economy.
Measuring ranges of measuring instruments used in industry are covered by the institute's
measurement capabilities.
Reference standard is intended for taking pressure measuring unit, preserving and
transmitting them to reference standards throughout the country. Reference standard consists
of two deadweights 7000 Series PG, PG 7601 and PG 7102-M.
 Figure 1. Scheme of traceability of the unit of pressure

National standard unit of pressure [Pa]

The unit of pressure is a derived measure of the International System of Units [1]. Usually
pressure is a deadweight reproduced in laboratories. Deadweight (figure 2) is mainly used as
a benchmark measuring instruments due to their outstanding performance.
Main characteristic of a deadweight represents the effective area of the piston (Ai). The
following analysis will be presented measurements made on the effective area of the piston.
Effective area at a certain pressure [2], it is estimated (1):

  ai    ai 
j ij    f 1       C
m  g  1    m  g 
Ai   j   f 
 1  ti  t r   a
pri   f   a  g  h
(1)
 Figure 2 Deadweight Tester
Stability of [Pa]
One of the usual quality criteria is to determine measurement stability.
Deadweights already been calibrated twice. Figures 3 and 4 are shown characteristics
for drifting while conventional true value. The x-axis is the presentation that was made years
calibration and y axis values are presented conventionally true of areas effective at 1: 10-4
m2. The maximum permissible error in the laboratory proposed does not exceed 0.005%.
This limit is two times lower than the maximum permissible error ordinary (LMA) for
deadwights. As for classical deadweights have class reference standards accurately
maximum of 0.01%. Also the graphics are shown at 1:1 scale expanded uncertainty obtained
conventionally true values of effective area.
It is noted that a linear stability over the time period considered satisfactory.
It follows that the third calibration allows confirmation of stability and calibration
frequency of ER 04: 2014 will be extended to a period exceeding four years.

0.49024
0.49023 effective area of the
piston, Nr. 1240
0.49022
0.4902086 maximum permissible
0.49021 error, -
0.4902103
0.49020 maximum permissible
error, +
0.49019
0.49018
0.49017
2008 2012

Stability effective area of the piston Nr. 1263 (x – ears, y – cm2) the composition deadweight
type PG 7601 Nr. 663
 0,49024
0,49023 Aria efectivă a
pistonului, Nr. 1240
0,49022 Limita maximă
0,4902086
0,49021 admisibilă a erorii, -
0,4902103
Limita maximă
0,49020
admisibilă a erorii, +
0,49019
0,49018
0,49017
2008 2012

Figure 4 Stability effective area of the piston Nr. 1240 (x – ani, y – cm2) the composition
deadweight type PG 7102-M Nr. 664

Is it enough proficiency in the measurement and accurate estimate of U to ensure

traceability [Pa] in actual society?
What are documentary evidence (their monitoring), in addition to external calibration, which
accumulate confidence in measurements of NIM?
But is it enough to analyze a single feature to have confidence in the quality results of a
benchmark? Of course not. The management system involves the analysis of all components
that can influence measurement process; some requirements are very fixed in section. 5.9.1
[3], but deciphering interventions every standard part however, requires a deep knowledge
of the principles of measuring and individual records. More actual is the problem for
laboratories that develop quality management system (QMS).
Intermediate verification (VI) is designed to maintain confidence in the calibration status of
equipment and calibration status. The aim is confirmation or denial of the validity of the last
standard calibration certificate owned. Depending on the specific standard VI is itself a
process of measuring, analyzing consistency through a technical / metrological primary to
standard laboratory chosen limits. Each laboratory procedures described in the confidence
limits for calibration certificate for believing that he still retains confidence in the results of
the latest calibration certificate (so described last state standard calibration certificate is the
same). Findings emerge from a metrological characteristic and / or technical standard
deviation of the average measurement results or even accordance factor En.

x m  x CE
En  (2)
U m  U CE
2 2

where: xm – checking intermediate result;

xCE – reference value (obtained from the last calibration certificate);
Um – estimated uncertainty interim verification;
UCE – the uncertainty associated reference value (estimated from the last
calibration certificate).
For a NIM laboratory are set as the maximum allowable limits of error being equal
80% confidence limits of standard [5]. And deviation error does not exceed 50% confidence
limits of the standard. Require intermediate verification report submissions, where further to
describe the applicability of the standard laboratory calibration or referral to other
appropriate action. It presents the results obtained from intermediate verification of special
difficulties in their composition. Figure 5 gives examples of five special weights.

Figure 5 Values and admissible limits of error for some special weights
However to have a full impression on the stability standard is proposed to apply
statistical techniques to analyze the results of their MM and detect potential trends in the
relevant unit standard reproduced in time - control chart (GC). GC is monitoring itself last
calibration certificate validity in the future to establish the mean their validity or calibration
interval. Figure 6 presents two cases of GC for a special weight of 5 kg. If "a" is obviously a
satisfactory stability measurement unit, so it will propose increasing the calibration interval
from one year to two years for conventional slope values (VC) is carried by a population of
measured values are not disperse or exceed the LMA. If "b" will propose reducing
calibration interval from one year to six months for conventional value is not stable and is ≥
LMA.

Figure 6 Example of control chart for a 5 kg weight

 CONCLUSIONS
The paper shows examples of performance (standards of measurement units Pa) for
difficult to grasp the condition of conformity to the ISO/IEC 17025 (intermediate
verification, control schedule, calibration interval). The objective sought for a long period
of this study are reflected in the desire to achieve greater confidence in the components of
the system Management Quality. Since some of the requirements of the standard in view of
the sometimes overlooked by experts laboratory. The theme is particularly relevant because
the area of private calibration in Moldova is a novelty.
This work will help to speed up the preparation of own quality management system
for private laboratories also serve as a recommendation for improving existing ones.

REFERENCES
[1] http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/base-units.html
[2]http://www.euramet.org/fileadmin/docs/Publications/calguides/EURAMET_cg-
3__v_1.0_Pressure_Balance_01.pdf
[3] EN ISO/CEI 17025:2005
[4] EN ISO/CEI 17020:2013
[5] OIML D 10 2007/ ILAC-G24 2007 http://www.iec-ilac-iaf.org/doc/1007a.pdf