© copyright 2013, ncsl international april 2013 : metrologist 1 table of contents pg. 16 pg. 14 pg....

NCSLI WORLDWIDE NEWS

Publisher NCSL InternationalEditor Linda Stone, NCSL InternationalContributing Editors Prof. Horst Czichos, BHT Berlin, University of Applied SciencesGeorgia Harris, NISTMark Kuster, Pantex MetrologyMichael Lombardi, NISTEditorial Committee Craig Gulka, NCSLI Executive DirectorRoger Burton, Sandia National Laboratories How to Reach Us:NCSL International2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107Boulder, CO 80301-5404 USAPhone 303-440-3339 • Fax 303-440-3384

© Copyright 2013, NCSL International. Permission to quote excerpts or to reprint any articles should be obtained from NCSL International. NCSLI, for its part, hereby grants permission to quote excerpts and reprint articles in this magazine with acknowledgment of the source. Individual teachers, students, researchers, and libraries in nonprofit institutions and acting for them are permitted to make hard copies of articles for teaching or research purposes. Copying of articles for sale by document delivery services or suppliers, or beyond the free copying allowed above is not permitted. Reproduction in a reprint collection, or for advertising or pro-motional purposes, or republication in any form requires permission from NCSL International.

®

Publication ISSN #1940-2988Vol. 6, No. 2, April 2013

Metrologist is published byNCSL International and distributedto its member organizations.

www.ncsli.org April 2013 : Metrologist 1

table of contents

pg. 16

pg. 20pg. 14

CONTENT

2 from the President

3 from the boardroom

4 ncslI new Members

5 Upcoming events

7 ncslI Workshop & symposium

14 World Metrology Day

16 learning and Development

32 ncslI technical exchange and testing summit

38 committee news

42 Regional news

46 International news

48 Advertisers’ Index

FEATURES

20 Ambassador to a New Generation Mons lee

26 Toward a Metrology Information Infrastructure Mark Kuster

30 Shopping For a New Calculator? christopher l. Grachanen

36 ILAC P-14 Marlene Moore

World Metrology Day

2 Metrologist : April 2013 www.ncsli.org

by lonnie spires, ncslI President

Greetings everyone! It is truly an honor to

serve as President of NCSL International,

and I am appreciative of the support I have

received. In February we held our first 2013

Board of Directors meeting in Charlotte,

North Carolina, at which time Georgia Har-

ris completed her two-year term and passed

the gavel to me. I would like to personally

thank Georgia for the hard work and ded-

ication she has invested and continues to

invest into this great organization.

NCSLI held the second annual NCSLI

Technical Exchange in Charlotte, North

Carolina in February followed by our first

Testing Summit. There were eight tutorials

offered during the two day event. These

workshops provided attendees the ability

to have hands-on training and direct inter-

actions with the course experts. The Test-

ing Summit was held to open the doors of

communication to improve understanding

between the testing and calibration labora-

tory communities. Both events were very

successful! We look forward to the 2014

Technical Exchange and Testing Summit,

which will be held in Raleigh, North Caro-

lina on February 5-7, 2014. Check the NCS-

LI website for more information about the

Technical Exchange.

World Metrology Day is Monday, May

20th. Each year World Metrology Day is

organized and celebrated jointly by the

International Bureau of Weights and Mea-

sures (BIPM) and the International Organi-

zation of Legal Metrology (OIML) with the

participation of the national organizations

responsible for metrology. It is an annual

event during which more than 80 coun-

tries celebrate the impact of measurement.

Stephen Patoray, Director of the BIML and

Martin Milton, Director of the BIPM state

that “their aim is to cooperate with the me-

trology community to raise awareness of

the important role that metrology plays in

all of our lives.” The 2013 theme is “Mea-

surements in Daily Life.” How will your

company or organization celebrate World

Metrology Day?

Also up and coming is our annual con-

ference, and we will be in Nashville, Ten-

nessee at the Gaylord Opryland Conven-

tion Center. This year’s NCSLI Workshop

& Symposium theme is “Metrology in a

Fast Paced Society.” We welcome keynote

speaker Peter Unger, President and CEO of

the American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation (A2LA). Peter has been in-

volved with national laboratory accredita-

tion since 1978. He also serves as Chair of

the International Laboratory Accreditation

Cooperation (ILAC) for 2010-2014. His

keynote address will include some history

on accreditation and future directions of

accreditation in the U.S. and worldwide.

An overview of current ILAC requirements

for accreditation of calibration laboratories

will also be given.

In our swiftly changing world, adapta-

tion seems to be essential to having a suc-

cessful business. This year’s conference will

give measurement scientists a chance to ex-

change ideas on how to stay competitive in

a rapidly shifting economy. A broad spec-

trum of topics will be covered with 23 tu-

torial workshops, over 70 technical papers,

expert panels, a plenary session, and a new

sponsor track. Our new sponsor track pro-

vides an opportunity for companies who

sponsor the conference to showcase their

products and services.

While attending this year’s conference

please join us for the annual Banquet Night

as we float down the Cumberland River for

dinner and entertainment on the stately

General Jackson Showboat. All in all, there

will be many opportunities for learning,

networking, exhibition of businesses and

products. Registration is open and avail-

able online at www.ncsli.org. On behalf of

the Board of Directors we look forward to

seeing you there.

[email protected]

fRoM tHe PResIDent


fRoM tHe boaRDRooM

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINAby Dana leaman, ncslI secretary

The NCSLI Board of Directors held the

winter board meeting at the beginning of

February in Charlotte, North Carolina. A

group of 19 board members and five guests

were in attendance. The first board meet-

ing of 2013 was one of transition with the

passing of the gavel to the new incoming

president, Lonnie Spires. Board apprecia-

tion was noted to the outgoing president,

Georgia Harris, as she completed her two-

year term. Appreciation was also expressed

to those retiring from the Board – Bill Hin-

ton, from NextEra Energy, and Jim Allred,

from Idaho National Laboratory (retired).

In other board changes, several new ap-

pointments and a shift in some of the vice

presidential position responsibilities were

made which included filling the Interna-

tional Division, Vice President position;

reinstatement of the Vice President of Mar-

keting position; and the Canadian Division

Vice President position was added. Dr.

Alan Steele, National Research Council of

Canada, accepted the International Divi-

sion Vice President position. Also accept-

ing positions to the board were Jim Kaylor,

from Agilent Technologies, as Vice Presi-

dent of Marketing; Paul Packebush, from

National Instruments, as Central US Divi-

sion Vice President; Ingrid Ulrich, from Ul-

rich Metrology, Inc., as Canadian Division

Vice President, and Georgette MacDonald,

from National Research Council of Canada,

as the NRC Representative to NCSLI.

Shifts in responsibilities included Jim

“Smitty” Smith, The Boeing Company,

moving into the Vice President of Labora-

tory Operations position; Robert Sawyer,

Consumers Energy Laboratory Services

moved into the Industrial Programs Vice

President position; Jack Somppi, Fluke Cal-

ibration, moved into the Western US Divi-

sion Vice President position; and finally,

Dana Leaman, from NVLAP, to the NCSLI

Secretary position.

This year’s winter meeting was again

held in conjunction with the 2013 NCSLI

Technical Exchange and Testing Summit.

The board meetings were held over the first

two days with additional workshops being

held during the course of the Technical

Exchange meetings. Subjects of discussion

included a focus on key organizational

measures for continued success of the or-

ganization, workshops on international

topics, marketing topics and conference

topics, and approval of the new Techni-

cal Publications Style Guide. The meeting

also saw the approval of revisions to RP-15

Laboratory Comparisons, and RP-12 Measure-

ment Uncertainty Analysis.

The remainder of the 2013 board meet-

ings are scheduled for May in Vail, Col-

orado; July in Nashville, Tennessee and

November in Vancouver, BC, Canada. The

board meetings are open to everyone and

we would welcome your attendance.

[email protected]

charlotte Meeting.


neW MeMbeRs

WELCOME NCSLI NEW MEMbERS

Sika USAStertevaut, Wisconsin 53177 USA Contact: Andrew Buchanan 262-886-2695 [email protected] Gmbh is a global manufacturer of high-precision instruments, sensors & cali-brators for measuring temperature, pressure, level & flow. The company has major centers in Germany, France, USA, China & S. Korea, in addition to over 40 worldwide dealer agen-cies. Sika has served the world of measure-ment & metrology for over 110 years thru its many varied instruments & products in scientific and commercial ventures involving research & measurement laboratories, indus-trial testing and calibration. New products being introduced this year are magnetic & ul-tra-sonic flow meters, with no moving parts. The quality assurance system of the SIKA cor-porate group is certified in accordance with ISO 9001.

AbbVie1401 Sheridan Road North Chicago, Illinois 60064 USA Contact: Rodica Caratas 847-935-0979 [email protected]

Conventry UniversityPriory Street Coventry, England CV1 5FB United Kingdom Contact: Petar Stojic +44 (0)24 7688 7688 [email protected]

National Association for ProficiencyTesting901 Twelve Oaks Center Dr., Ste. 920 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 USA Contact: Charles Ellis 952-303-6126 [email protected]

AccuMac Corporation1490 S. Price Road, Suite 211C Chandler, Arizona 85233 USA Contact: Feng Liu 480-634-0603 [email protected] Platinum Resistance Thermometers (SPRTs), Secondary Reference PRTs, Precision Industrial PRTs, Precision Thermometers, Thermocouples and Accessories.

Intel Corporation 2501 NW 229th Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 USA Contact: Patrick W. Armstrong 503-696-8080 [email protected]

Lufthansa Technik Component Services 7424 East 30th Street North Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115 USA contact: John Blackman 918-831-7724 [email protected]

Royal Saudi Air Defense ForcesLaboratory PO Box 5380, Jeddah 21422, Saudi Arabia Contact: Waleed Al-Faris, Sr. +96626674688, [email protected]

Alliance Calibration 11402 Reading Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45241 USA Contact: Phil Wiseman 513-769-1200 [email protected]


Wayzata MN, Boca Raton FL: 612 308 2202 • Medina, OH: 330-328-4400 • EUR: 44 (0)1227 636 674 • www.wptraining.com

•Pre-Audit and Gap Analysis •Achieving Accreditation•17025/Z540.3

CONSULTING

TRAINING

•E-learning •Hands-On Workshops•A2LA/WPT Live Instructor-Lead Web Events

Now featuring onlineOJT Mentors Jesse and Dilip

All WPT courses qualify for ASQ recertification units

Authorized Supplier

UPcoMInG events

NCSLI Workshop & SymposiumJuly 14-18 Gaylord opryland convention center nashville, tennesseeMake your Hotel Reservations!1-877-351-5021

NCSLI board MeetingsMay 6-8, 2013vail, colorado lodge at vail

July 13,14 and 19, 2013nashville, tennessee Gaylord opryland convention center

November 5-7, 2013vancouver, canada sheraton Grand

NCSLI Region MeetingsMay 10, 2014ncslI Mid-Western Region Meetingcourtyard by Marriott – fort Wayne Downtown 1150 south Harrison street fort Wayne, In 46802 Matthew Denslow 740-788-7129, [email protected]

NCSLI Training EventsMay 9, 2013ncslI Mid-Western training eventcourtyard by Marriott - fort Wayne Downtown 1150 south Harrison street fort Wayne, In 46802 Ryan fischer 260-637-2705, [email protected] sponsor contact: lloyd baker 810-225-4601, [email protected]

May 9, 2013ncslI Mid-atlantic training event Rob Knake 301-644-3218, [email protected] Morehouse Instrument company1742 sixth avenueYork, Pa 17403Henry Zumbrun 717-843-0081, [email protected]

May 15, 2013Upstate new York section Meetingtranscat 35 vantage Point Drive Rochester, nY 14624Marcus Mcneely, ncslI Division vP sarah Wallace 585-352-9720 x3757, [email protected]

Get Registered for the Conference!

for complete meeting information visit:the ncslI Metrology and calibration events calendar at www.ncsli.org.

July 2012 : Metrologist 13www.ncsli.org

Inspiring the Next GenerationWe seek to inspire the next generation of mea-surement scientists by introducing them to the diverse opportunities of careers in metrology.

Promoting Measurement ScienceMeasurements are the foundation of our global economy. Everything we purchase, create, de-sign, and build depends on metrology. Our goal is to promote the value of metrology’s impact in our everyday lives.

Educating to Meet Workforce ChallengesWe are committed to cultivating life-long edu-cation and professional development through scholarships, training opportunities, publica-tions, networking, collaboration and support of professional certification.

Investing in Measurement Science We strive to identify, secure, and invest the financial resources necessary to reach our strategic learning and development goals: inspire, promote and educate the next genera-tion of metrologists.

N C S L I N T E R N A T I O N A L

2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107 | Boulder, CO 80301 | www.ncsli.org | 303-440-3339

Conference SponsorsConference Sponsors

T u T o r i a l a n d T e c h n i c a l P r o g r a m i n s i d e !

Number Date Time Title

T1 Friday, July 12, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Train the Trainer: Creating an Excellent Training Program

T2 Friday, July 12, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Train the Trainer: Making Effective Presentations

T3 Saturday, July 13, 2013 Sunday, July 14, 2013

Sat: 8:00am — 5:00pmSun: 8:00am — 5:00pm

An Introduction to Instrument Control and Calibration Automation in LabVIEW

T4 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm ASTM E617: Standard Specification for Laboratory Weights and Precision Mass Standards

T5 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Fundamentals of Calibration in Dimensional Metrology

T6 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Understanding ISO/IEC 17025 Requirements and Most Common Deficiencies

T7 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Fundamentals of Gas Flow Measurement

T8 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Pressure Metrology

T9 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Running the Effective Laboratory Better — Data Driven Improvements that Matter

T10 Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Microwave Network Analysis and Power Calibrations

T11 Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Root Cause Analysis

T12 Saturday, July 13, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Control Charts and Stability Analysis for Calibration Laboratory Reference Standards

T13 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Measurement Uncertainty

T14 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Fundamentals of Temperature Calibration

T15 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Calibration of Microwave Power Sensors

T16 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Applying LEAN Techniques in a Calibration Laboratory Environment

T17 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Auditing, Traceability, and Auditing Traceability

T18 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Intermediate Dimensional Metrology

T19 Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:00am — 12:00pm Fundamentals of Torque Calibration

T20 Sunday, July 14, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Measurement Decision Risk

T21 Sunday, July 14, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Force Calibration

T22 Sunday, July 14, 2013 1:00pm — 5:00pm Fundamentals of Radiation Thermometry Calibration

T23 Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:00am — 5:00pm Pipette Calibration, Use, and Uncertainty for the Metrologist, Assessor and Laboratory User

WorkshoP & symPosium TuTorial Program overvieWFriday, Saturday and Sunday, July 12 — 14, 2013

For comPleTe WorkshoP & symPosium Program: WWW.ncsli.org

Conference SponsorsConference Sponsors

TRACkS: Learning and Development

Management / Quality

Metrology Skills – Technician / Bench Applications

Metrology Concepts

New Sponsor Track

SESSION TITLES: Chemical Metrology

Dimensional - Thread Gage Metrology

Electrical – Oscilloscopes

Electrical – Resistance

Electrical - Theory

Healthcare Metrology

Laboratory Management: Automation and Software

Laboratory Quality

Mass Metrology

Measurement Evaluation

Metrology Skills and Knowledge Transfer

Pressure

Proficiency Testing

Temperature

Risk Mitigation

Uncertainty

Workplace Development

PLENARy SESSION: ThE NEw SIHow to Weigh Everything from Atoms to Apples Using the Revised SI

Towards a Final NRC Value for the Planck Constant

Mass Traceability in Vacuum towards Redefinition of the Kilogram

PANELS:

Educators’ Forum This is a session to share ideas with and

for metrology educators. Educators will

share information about their programs,

gather input and creative ideas from other

educators, and gather input from industry

and government participants about what

new students need in the workplace.

Calibration and Measurement Services 2020 This panel will discuss what to expect

from and how to plan for the changes to

measurement service laboratories and their

customers in the year 2020 and beyond. A

broad spectrum of views will be presented,

to include instrument manufacturers, large

and small third party calibration laboratories

and the biomedical sector.

Traceability Without Uncertainty This Panel will examine issues surrounding

how metrological traceability can still be

obtained, in a cost-effective manner, for

legacy measurement systems.

Vibration Traceability Without NIST This session will discuss traceability in

vibration metrology should NIST go through

with their plans to discontinue vibration

calibration services.

Calibration Point Selection Practices Calibration point selection is important for

assuring comprehensive calibrations and

reliable measurements. However existing

quality standards do not directly address

this topic. The intent of this panel is to

identify quality issues and gaps associated

with selection of calibration points. Panelists

will share their perspectives on the topic and

time will be devoted to soliciting expertise

and opinions from the audience. Audience

comments on concerns, issues and best

practices will be captured for publication.

There are many important and exciting changes

occurring in measurement science. Attending the

annual NCSL International Workshop & Symposium is

a great way for measurement science professionals

to stay competitive in today’s fast-paced economy.

Join Us

Technical Program overvieWMonday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, July 15 — 18, 2013

Friday, July 12 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT1 — Train the Trainer: Creating an Excellent

Training ProgramGeorgia Harris, NIST, Weights and MeasuresThis session will cover the elements associated with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) standard and the associated activities of several organizations in moving toward compliance with this benchmark. Resources and examples will be shared for each element of the standard. This session will be especially useful for training directors and leaders in the metrology training community to become more familiar with this standard and then to develop and implement compliant programs.

Friday, July 12 1:00 PM — 5:00 PM T2 — Train the Trainer: Making Effective PresentationsDilip Shah, E = MC3 SolutionsTechnical subject matter experts are frequently required to train a broad spectrum of individuals, including co-workers. They frequently think that facts, statistics and data speak for themselves. Facts require analysis, assessment, and evaluation. Facts require translation and interpretation from their knowledge base to that of the audience. The key to successfully presenting complex information is not what they say or do but what their audience hears and sees. Their ability to communicate simply, passionately and clearly will often determine whether the audience understands the content being delivered. This workshop shall demonstrate some effective presentation techniques with hands-on exercises that will change the way one makes their presentations in the future.

Saturday, July 13 and Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM, 2-DayT3 — An Introduction to Instrument Control

and Calibration Automation in LabVIEW™Logan Kunitz, National InstrumentsAutomation of instrument calibration improves repeatability of service, reduces manpower requirements, and improves service margin. Many calibration laboratories understand the benefits of automation, but feel they lack the appropriate software development skills to perform coding tasks. Modern programming environments and tools are extremely powerful, but can seem daunting to laboratory engineers. Alleviating these concerns, a number of software companies supply simplified tools and libraries to ease the interactions between calibration standards and automation software. Additionally, programming tools exist that are designed with the automation engineer in mind. During this two day hands-on tutorial, session participants will explore the LabVIEW™ environment, learn to develop, instrument control, data-logging, and measurement analysis applications. At the end of the course, they will be able to create applications using basic design templates and architectures to automate processes, acquire, process, display, and store real-world data.

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM T4 — ASTM E617: Standard Specification for Laboratory

Weights and Precision Mass Standards Mark Rueffenacht, Heusser Neweigh and Val Miller, NISTMass reference standards are used daily in metrology laboratories for calibration of weights, torque devices, force gauges, balances, and other gravimetric applications; and used extensively in measurement assurance and quality control programs for intermediate checks of weighing instruments for accuracy and proper functioning.

Peter Unger is President and CEO of the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA).

Mr. Unger has been involved with national laboratory accreditation since 1978. Prior to attaining his current position in April 1996, Mr. Unger served as Vice President of the Association and prior to that, was Associate Manager of Laboratory Accreditation at the National Bureau of Standards.

Mr. Unger serves as Chair of the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) for 2010-2014. Mr. Unger has a BS degree in systems engineering from Princeton University and a masters in environmental management from George Washington University.

How important is Accreditation in a Fast Paced Society?

How important is Accreditation in a Fast Paced Society?Calibration service providers, office sales teams, directors, managers, they’re all working fast and competitively to provide timely and cost effective services, how does all this play out? Does accreditation matter?

By the 1980s calibration laboratory accreditation was well established in Europe, Asia and Australia (Australasia). In the United States, however, it was non-existent. Since then, accreditation has grown dramatically in the U.S. as well as worldwide and continues to be a hot topic with ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. The NCSLI played a leading role in this by developing accreditation in North America and providing 17025 supplements and the Z540 Standards. Accreditation to calibration documentary standards has driven requirements for accredited calibration services, thus stimulating the growth of accreditations.

With technology moving at the fastest pace in a decade, industry too has had to keep up. We’re modeling uncertainties on our phones; we’re exchanging data over the internet. Customers are verifying accreditation and scope 24/7. Corporations must continue to respond and adapt to this globally. The need for authenticating metrological traceability is a driving force. ILAC and BIPM have established principles for the determination of internationally acceptable paths for metrological traceability and technical barriers to trade.

This keynote address will provide some history on accreditation and the future development of accreditation in the U.S. and worldwide including the roles played by industry organizations and industry groups. Although not a panacea, accreditation has been helpful in improving calibration services. I will provide an overview of current ILAC requirements for accreditation of calibration laboratories, how accreditation requirements should be specified and my thoughts on accreditation becoming a de facto credential for providing calibration services to the marketplace.

keynoTe address TuTorial Program

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 5:00 PMT5 — Fundamentals of Calibration in Dimensional

MetrologyJim Salsbury, Amosh Kumar, Gordon Skattum, Mitutoyo CorporationThis tutorial provides an overview of calibration techniques and key issues in dimensional metrology. This tutorial will include a variety of hands-on practical calibration exercises. All the major types of dimensional calibrations will be discussed. We will start by studying the calibration, use, and traceability issues of the standards used in the field, such as gage blocks, ring gages, optical flats, thread wires, and length standards. We will then discuss the calibration of common small measuring tools such as micrometers, calipers, dial indicators, and height gages. Hands-on exercises in the calibration of small tools will include procedures, worksheets, and certificates. We will also discuss the field calibration of major instruments such as optical comparators and coordinate measuring machines. In addition to presenting specific calibration methods, a goal of the tutorial is on developing understanding of the principles behind the dimensional calibration methods thereby giving the attendee the necessary tools to extend the tutorial concepts to other types of calibrations. With that goal in mind, not only will recommended procedures be presented, but also optional methods, sources of errors and methods to reduce them, and techniques for estimating the uncertainty of measurement.

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM T6 — Understanding ISO/IEC 17025 Requirements and

Most Common DeficienciesPam Wright, A2LAThis full-day tutorial covers ISO/IEC 17025 requirements as well as the ten most commonly cited deficiencies for laboratories that are currently accredited, are in the process of obtaining their ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation or for those who are interested in applying the ISO/IEC 17025 requirements in their laboratory. Learning objectives for this full day workshop include:• Introduction of the conformity assessment hierarchy• Introduction of important words and phrases of the

ISO/IEC 17025 standard • Introduction of the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025• Applying ISO/IEC 17025 requirements in the laboratory

through team exercises• Introduction of the most common ISO/IEC 17025

deficiencies and their root causeThis workshop is targeted for anyone who is interested in an overview of the ISO/IEC 17025 standard and how it is applied in an audit setting.

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT7 — Fundamentals of Gas Flow MeasurementBob DeRemer, CSA InternationalThe main thrust of the “Fundamentals of Gas Flow Measurement” tutorial will be the comparison of volumetric flow meters and mass flow meters used in gas flow measurement applications. Specific topics that will be covered will include principles of operation of various types of flow meters, factors that influence when to choose a mass flow meter or a volumetric flow meter, how to interpret performance specifications, how the various types of meters are calibrated, and an example of measurement uncertainty.

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 5:00 PMT8 — Pressure MetrologyMike Bair, Fluke CalibrationThis full-day tutorial covers all the fundamental challenges of calibrating pressure instruments. The first half of the tutorial concentrates on the physics that have an effect on pressure measurement, including measurement modes, engineering units, the equation for a dead weight pressure gauge, the ideal gas law, surface tension and viscosity. The discussion includes practical considerations such as hardware selections, environmental concerns and data acquisition for all modes, fluids and ranges. The second half applies those concepts to hands-on exercises with equipment supplied by the instructor. All participants will have the opportunity to take low pressure gas and high pressure oil calibrations. Error analysis and sources of uncertainties are discussed that are relevant to the hands on exercises.

Saturday, July 13 8:00 AM — 5:00 PMT9 — Running the Effective Laboratory Better –

Data Driven Improvements that MatterJesse Morse, Morse Metrology and Malcolm Smith, WesCan CalibrationToday’s business and organizational climates have usurped traditional “seat-of-the-pants” calibration management by insisting on continuous improvement and the use of data based management decisions. Caught up in this new paradigm are independent calibration companies and calibration laboratories operating within and servicing their own organizations. This “How To” tutorial focuses on getting your calibration operation to maximum operational effectiveness, which will lead you directly to improvements in efficiencies. The tutorial covers five areas where performance measurement is critical in running an effective calibration operation. The five areas are: 1) customer satisfaction, 2) quality, 3) service levels, 4) productivity, and 5) finance. You will learn a range of necessary metrics and tools to help establish baselines and laboratory performance over time, which you can use to establish goals and monitor performance in each of the five mentioned areas. Suggestions on how you might use these tools in practice will be provided. Also, the tutorial includes examples of measurements you need for process improvement projects, along with examples of real life, practical experiences in implementing the many new ways of thinking associated with the paradigm. Anyone involved in or responsible for calibration management should take this tutorial.

Saturday, July 13 1:00 PM — 5:00 PMT10 — Microwave Network Analysis and Power CalibrationsBart Schrijver, Agilent TechnologiesThis tutorial will focus on an introduction to microwave measurement concepts and specifically on network analysis and RF power measurement. The measurement architecture of both types of measurements will be shown and described in detail. In addition, topics like signal flow diagrams, S-parameters, network analyzer calibration, calibration techniques, uncertainty analysis and traceability for both network analysis and power measurements will be reviewed.

Saturday, July 13 1:00 PM — 5:00 PM T11 — Root Cause AnalysisRob Knake, A2LAThis half-day tutorial will provide tips and tools that can be used to identify the true root cause for identified problems/nonconformities. Many standards such as ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 9001 require your quality management systems have a procedure for investigating and eliminating the root cause

of a nonconformance during the corrective action process. Learning objectives for this half-day workshop include:• Tips on how to start a Root Cause Analysis (RCA)• Principles of RCA• How to identity the different types of causes• General process for performing a RCA• Tools and techniques for performing a RCA• Pitfalls to avoid when performing a RCA• Examples of RCAsThis workshop is targeted for anyone who is interested in improving their Root Cause Analysis techniques to ensure that their corrective actions are effective and resolve the identified problems/nonconformities.

Saturday, July 13 1:00 PM — 5:00 PM T12 — Control Charts and Stability Analysis for

Calibration Laboratory Reference StandardsJeff Gust, Fluke CalibrationThis tutorial provides instruction on how to develop control charts for reference standards utilized in the calibration laboratory. The tutorial will primarily discuss electrical standards, but the application is valid for any metrological discipline. The primary focus will be an in-depth discussion of using linear regression to have a more complete understanding of all sources of uncertainty associated with reference standards. The tutorial also provides ideas about using control charts for daily use of check standards for calibrations that may perform a single measurement such as gage blocks. Real world examples of Laboratory Reference Standards will be used during the tutorial. • The mathematics of linear regression• The mathematics to determine the uncertainty of the

regressed value• The mathematics to estimate the uncertainty for

predicted values based on linear regression• How to build your own spreadsheets and control charts

in Excel• Analyzing data from a regression analysis• Outlier detection and data purging techniques• Consideration for accounting for uncertainty of

reference standards that do not appear to be stable• Using control charts in daily work for a more complete

understanding of the measurement uncertainty for a given process.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT13 — Measurement UncertaintySuzanne Castrup, Integrated Sciences GroupThis half-day tutorial provides an overview of important uncertainty analysis principles and methods contained in NCSLI RP-12-2013 Determining and Reporting Measurement Uncertainty. Best practices, procedures and guidelines for applying these principles and methods will be discussed and illustrated. This tutorial is intended for metrology and quality assurance personnel responsible for estimating and reporting measurement uncertainty.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT14 — Fundamentals of Temperature CalibrationMike Coleman, Fluke CalibrationThis presentation is a review of the fundamentals of temperature calibration. Topics include calibration equipment, calibration techniques, curve fitting issues, and the mathematics important to thermometry. Types of thermometers covered include platinum resistance thermometers, thermistors, thermocouples, and combined thermometer/readout systems. This segment is intended for those who are new to temperature calibration, those who need to validate what they already know, or those who just have some nagging questions that need to be answered.

Friday, July 12, Saturday, July 13 and Sunday, July 14

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM T15 — Calibration of Microwave Power SensorsAndy Brush, Tegam CorporationSensors that measure low-power (below 100 mW) levels of guided RF energy in the frequency range from 100 kHz to over 100 GHz have a wide range of industrial uses. Traceability of these sensors to the SI units is complicated, involving conversion of RF energy to thermal energy and substituting DC energy. Additionally, measurement of RF scattering parameters is required to reduce error in calibration transfer. When the measurand is calculated from complex scattering parameters, DC voltage and DC resistance, the propagation of uncertainty is particularly involved. This tutorial starts with a theoretical basis for the transfer of RF power, then explains the practice of actually calibrating and adjusting RF power sensors, including the measurement of power nonlinearity. After a theoretical foundation is established, practical examples will be worked, showing students how to create their own uncertainty budgets for RF power calibrations. Multiple methods for estimating uncertainty will be presented. To cap the tutorial, a common RF power sensor will be calibrated and adjusted using commercial automation software, and the setup and output will be explained from the perspective of the lab technician. This class is suitable for most technicians or engineers with a basic knowledge of RF equipment. Complex numbers and differential calculus are briefly employed, however skill with these concepts is not required for this course.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM T16 — Applying LEAN Techniques in a Calibration

Laboratory EnvironmentDean Williams, Duke Energy and Tom Knight, Invistics CorporationThis hands-on and practical interactive one day tutorial provides participants with a basic knowledge of the history and principles of LEAN and how those principles might apply to a calibration laboratory environment. The tutorial will also present examples of actual recent LEAN initiatives applied at the Duke Energy Standards Lab which reduced waste and calibration turn times while streamlining overall operations. The participants will then use this background knowledge to identify and develop strategies for application to their own specific calibration operation. All participants will be provided with a student workbook which documents the information that was presented, contains useful exercises, and provides a list of helpful resources for future reference and study.The participants will be able to:• Identify the basic tenants of LEAN• Define key LEAN terminology (e.g. Jidoka, Muda, Mura)• Create and evaluate simple Value Stream Maps• Identify the different types of “waste” within their laboratory• Apply basic PULL and related LEAN principles to improve

throughput and reduce turn times and inventory needs.• Optimize inventory levels of various instrument types

using LEAN methods, to prevent excessive testing requirements while ensuring availability of all necessary instruments

• Utilize existing data to improve flow and implement LEAN pull methods.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM – 5:00 PMT17 — Auditing, Traceability, and Auditing TraceabilityBarbara Belzer and Kari Harper, NVLAP, Isabelle Amen, SCC This tutorial will be of interest to managers and staff of laboratories with new or mature quality systems. It will cover what constitutes objective evidence by stepping through the internal audit process, including skills that

an auditor needs to have to be effective. The tutorial will emphasize the importance of records for all aspects of the management system including reference documents, method validation and their interdependency with metrological traceability and reporting results. Using the described internal audit process prior to an on-site assessment companies new to the accreditation process as well those with mature quality systems will be able to prepare better for an upcoming on-site assessment.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT18 — Intermediate Dimensional MetrologyTed Doiron, NISTThere are a large number of books on dimensional metrology, and a few classes and tutorials, but nearly all of them are at the beginner level — how to use the instruments for inspection. Thermal expansion, elastic deformation, stability, refractive index of air, closure and reversal methods, and the large collection of tricks-of-the-trade that make up Dimensional Metrology are generally ignored. This tutorial will be an overview of important techniques and concepts not covered in books and classes. Each concept will be presented with examples of how the techniques make measurements more accurate, and in some cases, more efficient.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 12:00 PMT19 — Fundamentals of Torque CalibrationHenry Zumbrun and William Lane, Morehouse InstrumentsThis presentation is a review of the fundamentals of torque calibration. Topics include an overview of torque standards including ASTM-E2428 and BS7882, uncertainty of torque calibration standards, Type A and B uncertainty analysis, torque calibration equipment, calibration and testing of torque transducers, proper calibration techniques, error sources associated with torque calibration, and why proper torque measurement is more than just a traceable length and mass calibration. This segment will cover torque transducers as well as proper torque wrench use. There will be a “hands-on” demonstration on how to properly use a torque wrench and the errors associated with improper handling. This segment is intended for those who are involved with torque calibration, those wanting to minimize the errors associated with improper use of torque equipment, and for those who have questions that need to be answered.

Sunday, July 14 1:00 PM — 5:00 PMT20 — Measurement Decision RiskDr. Howard Castrup, Integrated Sciences GroupThis tutorial presents methods for the analysis of measurement decision risk (MDR). These methods include classical analysis, Bayesian analysis and confidence level analysis. In addition to MDR analysis methods, a number of special topics are outlined, including estimating alternative measurement quality metrics, the development of test guardbands, the analysis of “true” vs. “observed” in-tolerance probability, developing risk-based confidence limits, uncertainty growth and MDR during use. A brief summary of related uncertainty analysis concepts and methods is also presented.

The tutorial is built around NCSLI’s RP-18, Estimating and Evaluating Measurement Decision Risk. It is intended for individuals with a need to develop and apply tools for the control of MDR, with attention given to compliance with Z540.3. Although some college level math will be employed, related concepts will be fleshed out to ensure comprehension by attendees with moderate mathematical training.

Sunday, July 14 NCSLI Workshop & Sympos ium 2013, Nashv i l le

Sunday, July 14 1:00 PM — 5:00 PMT21 — Force CalibrationMike Tovey, Tovey EngineeringForce calibration is a special discipline with many considerations not common to other areas of metrology. Often measurement uncertainties are underestimated due to the omission of significant error sources. Metrologists must consider both mechanical and electrical boundary conditions to achieve calibrations with low measurement uncertainties. Factors such as second order material responses, and interaction of undesired parasitic loading due to fixture characteristics, misalignment of load frame components, stiffness, etc. can have significant influence on the measurement result. This tutorial will cover the characteristics of force transducers, force calibration methods, force calibration standards (E74 and ISO 376) and measurement uncertainty models for primary standards, secondary standards and field transfer standards. The tutorial begins at a basic level and leads to discussion of more complex issues.

Sunday, July 14 1:00 PM — 5:00 PMT22 — Fundamentals of Radiation Thermometry

CalibrationFrank Liebmann, Fluke CalibrationThis presentation is an overview of the basic knowledge necessary to perform radiation thermometer calibrations. The presentation is divided into two parts. The first part is a lecture covering the basics of radiation temperature measurement and infrared thermometry calibration. The second part is a hands-on portion which covers the steps necessary to make a calibration measurement, plus a number of tests to determine measurement uncertainty, and the computation of uncertainties following international standards. The attendee will be provided with a spreadsheet to facilitate the computation of uncertainty. The type of radiation thermometer covered in this presentation is an infrared thermometer with a thermopile detector and an 8 to 14 µm bandwidth. However, the principles taught are applicable to other classifications of radiation thermometers to include radiation thermometers with pyroelectric detectors and thermal imagers. The presentation is geared to those who are new to radiation thermometer calibration, those who need a refresher on the subject, and to those who would like to perform better calibrations.

Sunday, July 14 8:00 AM — 5:00 PMT23 — Pipette Calibration, Use, and Uncertainty for

the Metrologist, Assessor and Laboratory UserPipettes and other Piston Operated Volumetric Apparatus (POVA) are taking an increasingly important role in the laboratory for accurate small volumetric measurements. These devices are numerous, relatively inexpensive and deceptively simple in appearance and function. Experience shows many misconceptions and inconsistencies in use, calibration and uncertainty analysis of pipettes.

This hands-on workshop will address proper pipette usage, pipette calibration, volume measurement methods, and uncertainty analysis. Participants will learn and practice proper pipetting technique, and investigate the impact that technique variation has on accuracy and precision of dispensed volume.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:00 PM — 10:00 PM | General Jackson Showboat

Attire: Casually comfortable Tickets: $50; Guest Tickets: $90

2013 NCSLI workshop & Symposium Registration Rates

Early Rate Ends March 1

Regular Rate Ends May 31

Late Rate Begins June 1

Full Conference Registration (Member / Non-Member)

$1,015 / $1,240 $1,065 / $1,290 $1,165 / $1,390

One Day Registration $450

Extra Luncheon Tickets $35

Banquet Tickets (attendees) $50

Guest Banquet Tickets $90

2013 Tutorial Program Rates

Regular Rate Ends May 31

Late Rate Begins June 1

Two Day Tutorial Rate (Member / Non-Member) $700 / $800 $750 / $825

Full Day Tutorial Rate (Member / Non-Member) $425 / $550 $450 / $575

Half Day Tutorial Rate (Member / Non-Member) $250 / $375 $275 / $400

NCSLI hQ hotel: Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center 2800 Opryland Dr, Nashville, Tennessee 37214 • 1-877-351-5021

Group Rate Group Code

Main Group $184 NCSL International

Government Group $107 NCSL International

Join us on the General Jackson Showboat the world’s grandest showboat offering delicious meals and world-class entertainment while cruising down the majestic Cumberland River in Nashville, Tennessee. You’ll have an unforgettable time aboard this historic 300-foot-long showboat taking you on a fun-packed journey featuring four decks and music born in Tennessee. Catch everything from bluegrass to soul, a little gospel and, of course, country music! NCSLI will bus you to the dock and back to the hotel.

BANquet NightncslincslincsliregisTer Today! WWW.ncsli.org

A2LA - American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

AcuCal

AccuMac Corporation

Additel Corporation

Agilent Technologies

AIAG-Automotive Industry Action Group

A.K.O. Inc. Torque Specialties Division

Alliance Calibration

Ametek Test & Calibration Instruments

Andeen-Hagerling, Inc.

ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board/ACLASS

ASQ-MQD

AssetSmart

BAE Systems, Inc.

Bionetics Corporation, Newark Metrology Ops.

Bios International Corporation

Bruel & Kjaer North America Inc.

Burns Engineering

Condec

Data Proof

Edison ESI/Southern California Edison

Essco Calibration Laboratory

Exelon PowerLabs

FasTest, Inc.

Flexium Americas Corporation

Fluke Calibration

GE Measurement & Control

Guildline Instruments

Heusser Neweigh

ICL Calibration Laboratories, Inc.

IEEE

Infinite Integral Solutions, Inc.

INSCO Metrology, Inc.

Interface, Inc.

International Accreditation Service

Isotech North America

International Test and Evaluation Association (ITEA)

JM Test

K&S Associates, Inc.

Kaymont Consolidated Industries, Inc.

King Nutronics Corporation

Laboratory Accreditation Bureau

Lockheed Martin Global Training & Logistics

Lockheed Martin Technical Operations

Mahr Federal, Inc.

Martel Electronics Corporation

Measurements International

Measurement Science Conference (MSC)

MEATEST s.r.o.

Mensor Corporation

Mettler-Toledo, Inc.

Michell Instruments, Inc.

Mitutoyo America Corporation

Morehouse Instrument Company

National Association for Proficiency Testing

National Instruments Corporation

National Metrology Institute of Japan (AIST)

National Research Council Canada

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)

NCSL International

NIST – National Institute of Standards and Technology

Northrop Grumman Corporation

Norway Labs

Ohm-Labs, Inc.

On Time Support, Inc.

Pond Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems

Precision Environments, Inc.

Quality Magazine

Quality Vision Services, Inc.

Quest Metrology, LLC

Radian Research, Inc.

Ralston Instruments

RH Systems, LLC

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Rotronic Instrument Corporation

Sartorius Mechatronics Corporation

Sika USA

SIM

Simco Electronics

Tegam

Tektronix, Inc.

TestEquity, LLC

The Boeing Company

The Modal Shop

Thunder Scientific Corporation

Tovey Engineering, Inc.

Transcat, Inc.

Transmille Calibration

Trescal

TRIMOS S.A.

Vaisala, Inc.

Vibration Research Corporation

Western Environmental Corporation

WorkPlace Training

ExhibitorsExhibitors

2013 Conference Rates

Tutorial Program Rates

Hotel Rates

2013 Conference Rates

Tutorial Program Rates

Hotel Rates


2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107 | Boulder, CO 80301 | www.ncsli.org | 303-440-3339


Pause for a moment and think of a typical day, yesterday perhaps.

How many times did you do something that required a measure-

ment? You would surely not normally ask yourself that question,

but reflect for a moment. Did you look at your watch (you mea-

sured time), buy food or produce (you measured mass), fill your

car with fuel (you measured volume) or have your blood pressure

taken (the pressure was measured)? These along with countless

other activities in our daily lives involve some sort of measure-

ment; we are so used to this, that we take many measurements

for granted.

There are many aspects to the use of these measurements. We

make decisions based on their results, just as simply and automat-

ically as pushing the brake pedal in a car when the speed is over

the limit, or cutting down on sweet food if our blood sugar level

is too high. The price of much of what we buy is calculated from

measurements - electricity, water, food, fuel, to name but a few.

You may well be surprised at just how important accurate mea-

surements are in your daily life. Sometimes we do consciously

think about it, but mostly measurements form such an integral

part of our lives that we rely on them without even noticing. How-

ever, with the role modern technologies now play in our lives, the

accuracy and reliability of these measurements require continuous

improvement. But possibly only those of us who are involved in

measurement are aware of how our modern high-tech world relies

on the international system which, in turn, ensures that we are

able to reliably make the measurements we need.

As Directors of the two world metrology Organizations (the

BIPM and the BIML), our aim is to join together and work with

you to raise awareness of the important role that metrology plays

in all of our lives. May 20, the anniversary of the signing of the

Metre Convention in 1875, is the day on which the world me-

trology community celebrates World Metrology Day. For 2013, we

have chosen the theme Measurements in daily life, in order to

draw attention to the impact of the measurements that we as citi-

zens come across in our daily lives.

Join us in celebrating the 2013 World Metrology Day: we invite

those involved in the metrology arena to commemorate this im-

portant date with us, and help those around us to recognize the

contribution of the intergovernmental and national organizations

that work throughout the year on their behalf.

Stephen PatorayDirector the BIML

Martin MiltonDirector of the BIPM

Message from the DirectorsWORLD METROLOGY DAY 2013

Measurements in daily life

WoRlD MetRoloGY DaY


Measurements in daily lifeIn the course of a typical day it is surprising

how often measurements come into play,

whether (among many possible examples)

checking the time, purchasing food or pro-

duce, filling up a vehicle with fuel, or un-

dergoing a blood pressure check.

These, and countless other activities in

daily life, require measurements of one sort

or another. Yet accurate measurements are

taken for granted nowadays. Not surpris-

ingly, most people are unaware that in the

background there is a worldwide commu-

nity specializing in metrology, the science

of measurements, making sure it all works.

Everybody depends on this community do-

ing its job, and doing it well.

Across the world, national metrology in-

stitutes continually advance measurement

science by developing and validating new

measurement techniques at whatever level

of sophistication is needed. They also par-

ticipate in comparisons coordinated by the

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures

(BIPM) to ensure the reliability of measure-

ment results worldwide.

Many measuring instruments are con-

trolled by law or are subject to regulato-

ry control, for example the scales used

to weigh goods in a shop, instruments to

measure environmental pollution, or me-

ters used to bill energy. The International

Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

develops international Recommendations,

the aim of which is to align and harmo-

nize requirements for these types of instru-

ments worldwide.

World Metrology Day recognizes and

celebrates the contribution of all the peo-

ple that work in intergovernmental and

national organizations throughout the

year on behalf of all.

About the BIPMThe signing of the Metre Convention in

1875 created the BIPM and for the first

time formalized international cooperation

in metrology. The Convention established

the International Bureau of Weights and

Measures and laid the foundations for

worldwide uniformity of measurement in

all aspects of our endeavors, historically fo-

cusing on and assisting industry and trade,

but today just as vital as we tackle the

grand challenges of the 21st Century such

as climate change, health, and energy. The

BIPM undertakes scientific work at the

highest level on a selected set of physical

and chemical quantities. The BIPM is the

hub of a worldwide network of national

metrology institutes (NMIs) which contin-

ue to realize and disseminate the chain of

traceability to the SI into national accredit-

ed laboratories and industry.

About the OIMLIn 1955 the International Organization of

Legal Metrology (OIML) was established as

an Intergovernmental Treaty Organization

in order to promote the global harmoniza-

tion of legal metrology procedures with the

Bureau International de Métrologie Légale

(BIML) as the Secretariat and Headquarters

of the OIML. Since that time, the OIML has

developed a worldwide technical structure

whose primary aim is to harmonize the

regulations and metrological controls ap-

plied by the national metrological services,

or related organizations.

Further information, including a message

from the Directors,

posters, and a list of events, is available at

www.worldmetrologyday.org

Contact: [email protected]

WoRlD MetRoloGY DaY


by Georgia L. Harris, NIST Office of Weights and Measures, Contributing Editor

This article provides some answers to questions a number of in-

structors and speakers have asked about the various NCSLI training

events – whether the event is the annual Workshop & Symposium

tutorials, the Technical Exchange tutorials, Regional Training

Events, or even presentations at the annual conference or a region/

section meeting.

What is the difference between a presentation and training?

Ideally, all of our NCSLI events are training and learning events –

whether they are branded as a presentation or a tutorial. Education

and training are part of our NCSLI mission and reason for exis-

tence. But, what is the difference between a basic presentation and

a training event? Barbara Busey says1 that “there are three primary

forms of being in front of a group: presenting, training and facilitating.

There is certainly an overlap in skill sets - such as dynamic delivery

skills, a good stage presence, a high likeability level, the ability to “read”

the audience. But while they are similar skills, they’re not interchange-

able. It’s valuable to explore the differences among the three processes,

so the trainer or presenter or facilitator knows how to accommodate the

different situations.

• Presenting: The objective is to present information in a dynamic,

interesting way;

• Training:Theobjectiveis,usingengagingdelivery,toincreasepartic-

ipants’ level of knowledge or skill; and

• Facilitating:Theobjectiveistomanagethestructureandfocusofa

team’s decision-making process.”

From an NCSLI perspective, when considering training, a trainer

should present metrology or measurement concepts that enable

the participants to have a better understanding of laboratory man-

agement, measurement quality, better skills in measurement anal-

ysis, or better hands-on measurement skills that they can apply on

the job. A 20 to 30 minute conference presentation can certain-

ly be designed as an engaging training event. However, it needs

to specify the expectations of what participants should be able to

know or do as a result of what you cover. For example, many con-

ference presentations are about current state-of-the-art research. If

presented in a typical presentation style, a participant might say

“yeah, that’s interesting” at the end! If it is presented in a train-

ing style, the participant might be thinking, “I could recreate that

approach and procedure in my laboratory to make improvements

in our service.”

Thus, a key difference between a presentation and training

event is that the speaker needs to consider the audience, level of

instruction, and what they hope the participant will be able to

know or do as a result. That is, participants must be able to know

or do something as a result of the training.

How should I define or target the audience and level

of instruction?

There are a number of answers to this question. Many of the an-

swers are up to the instructor. Some answers are going to be based

on the constraints of the events. The presenter needs to know the

typical or desired audience at an event, how much time is avail-

able, and whether a specific level has been requested. For example,

in the annual conference tutorials, an instructor might have one

half of a day, a full day, or maybe two days. What is achievable in a

given amount of time might be more or less depending on the goal

or objectives for the participants, the participant’s background and

level, as well as how many activities will be incorporated into the

event. The annual conference typically has several levels available

for participants to select the ones most suited to their needs. One

goal for the NCSLI Technical Exchanges and the Regional Training

Train The Trainerso you want to teach at an ncslI event?

1 Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3082833.

leaRnInG + DeveloPMent


Events is to provide tutorials designed at specific levels to reach

target audiences, such as the technician level.

But, the target audience for a learning event might be “manag-

ers”, “researchers”, “metrologists/engineers” or “technicians”. The

elephant in the room is that there continue to be disagreements

in the measurement community about what each of these levels

means. To one member of our community, a technician will have

an advanced physics or engineering degree. To other members of

the community, a technician might have a high school education,

with or without an additional 15 to 20 years of hands-on experi-

ence. So, it is a good idea to use some descriptive terms to clarify

what is meant when declaring an intended audience (and design-

ing the training) so that the description and resulting material is

most useful to participants and their managers. Instructors can

also refer to the NCSLI Human Resources Handbook and use the

levels and terminology for potential audiences that are described

there. In any case, it is critical to identify the expected audience

before designing the instructional approach and refining the ex-

pected learning objectives.

What are Learning Objectives again (and why do

I need them)?

There have been several Train the Trainer articles in the past that

have addressed the writing of learning objectives. For each con-

ference tutorial or presentation, or even for each region/section

meeting, speakers are asked to identify the expected learning ob-

jectives. This is NOT the same as an agenda or overview of a pre-

sentation. It is also not what the instructor would like to cover in

the allotted time. There is a documented standard for what consti-

tutes learning objectives. Information is available on two links on

the NCSLI website (ncsli.org, Learning and Development, Trainer

Resources AND Conference, Manuscript Instructions).

The ANSI/IACET standard for continuing education units iden-

tifies four categories related to Learning Objectives.

1. They are written from the perspective of the learner, reflecting

what the learning will achieve.

2. Learning objectives must be clear, specific, concise, and measur-

able (with four sub components):

1) They state the performance the learner should be able to

accomplish. (Behavior)

2) They specify the conditions under which the learner is to

perform. (Conditions)

3) They specify the criteria for acceptable performance.

(Criteria)

4) They are directly related to the subject matter and content

of the learning event.

3. Learning outcomes are established for each session within a

large event, conference, or convention.

4. Instructional delivery includes discussion of learning outcomes.

The standard format might look something like this: At the end

of this “tutorial,” using “notes and the resources provided during

the class,” along with hands-on opportunities to practice, you

(participants) will be able to “do x, y, or z” to be able to “accurately

calibrate an a, b, c.” Then, we all need to make sure they are sub-

mitted and presented in the abstract or announcement, presented

during the event (for example, your second slide after the title),

and that student performance is measured against this. If the in-

structor said they will be able to DO something, have participants

been given an opportunity to PRACTICE during the session, and

then are they assessed on whether they CAN DO it?

What kinds of activities are possible or appropriate for a

training event?

Learning objectives, activities, and assessment methods must align

to each other for a training event to be effective. Sitting in a pre-

sentation for 30 minutes or even an hour and a half is one thing,

but subjecting adults to a half-day “lecture” format with a few dis-

cussions thrown in will not likely lead to a measurable ability of

the participants to be able to apply something effectively back on

the job.

If the learning objectives indicate that someone will be able to

perform a calibration as a result of the event, reading a procedure

is not an effective activity. Having a chance to actually perform a

hands-on calibration during the event is a more appropriate activ-

ity. If the learning objectives indicated that participants would be

able to program a software interface, the activity needs to include

hands-on programming. If the learning objectives indicated that

participants would be able to perform an uncertainty analysis us-

ing a spreadsheet that is provided, the activity should include ac-

tually practicing that analysis with the spreadsheet as a part of the

event. Activities can be incorporated into in any length event, but

the learning objectives, intended audience, and timing constraints

will determine the most appropriate activity.

Case studies are an effective way to engage learners when the

number of learners or attendees isn’t too large. A group of twenty

or so can easily be broken up into smaller “teams”; then a team

leader can present the results for each team for the entire group

to discuss.

Selecting the best activities is up to the instructor. But, it is also

important to coordinate space, power, and audio visual require-

ments with the program chair, coordinator, or host for the specific

event – during the planning phase!

Do I have to give a test?

No! That is, a test is not required in the traditional sense. But, some

form of feedback demonstrating that your intended message was

received by participants is necessary. If a presentation has a goal of

informing the audience, an instructor may simply ask if there are

any questions at the end of the presentation. If the presentation

was being considered “training” then pointed questions could be

directed to any and all members of the audience. Correct answers

provide some assurance that the information was received and

incorrect answers offer opportunities to expand the learning en-

vironment. Depending on the length of an event, questions and

discussions can be used throughout the presentation or at each

major break in subject. Considering adult learners and the desired

achievement level, an actual sit-down test may not be the best

method for assessing learning. So, while a traditional test is not

required, some form of evaluation should be incorporated within

the presentation or training event.


What Audio/Visual resources will be

available?

This is up to the instructor! If a computer

projector and three flip charts are needed,

this needs to be defined up front during

planning. If extra tables and power are

needed to set up equipment for hands-on

activities, it must be defined and planned.

Each of the coordinators, hosts, or program

chairs will ask what is needed. It is critical

for each instructor to specify their require-

ments during the planning phase to ensure

a successful learning event.

What are attendees expected to bring

besides themselves?

The instructor needs to communicate pre-

requisites and technology requirements

to the attendees. For example, it may be

essential that participants bring a calcula-

tor or laptop (with appropriate software)

to work on exercises. Clear expectations

on student participation should be pro-

vided before they attend the workshop to

enhance the learning outcomes. Event pre-

work may include any pre-workshop exer-

cise or research that they are expected to

complete in advance. If there is a pre-req-

uisite for a certain competency level, it

should be clearly communicated so that

the attendee is not surprised.

Most negative feedback from attendees

comes from the fact that the material cov-

ered was “way over their head” or “too ba-

sic.” The lack of alignment between the level

at which a course is taught and the student

expectations may be due to the lack of clarity

in the workshop description, poor identifica-

tion of the intended audience, lack of clarity

in the expected competency level, and/or

failure to present good learning objectives.

How long should the training event be?

The typical lengths of NCSLI training ses-

sions (whether at a conference, Technical

Exchange, Regional Training Event, or re-

gion/section meeting) are: one half day,

one full day, or two days. A number of tu-

torial instructors have said that they scale

their offerings at the NCSLI events based

on longer format or additional training op-

portunities offered by their organizations.

That is, the NCSLI event becomes a “sam-

pler” or “teaser” for a full course you offer

– and still provides value-added learning

objectives based on the time available. It is

up to each instructor, in coordination with

the event chair, to establish which of these

formats is most achievable based on the

intended audience and learning objectives.

But, the learning objectives and activities

must be adjusted to fit whatever time is

available. It is important not to try and

squeeze content from a week-long course

into a half-day session.

Are certificates issued to participants for

successful completion?

Certificates of attendance are available at

all NCSLI Workshop & Symposium tutori-

als and Technical Exchange tutorials. Cer-

tificates can also be provided upon request

for NCSLI Training Events and region/sec-

tion meetings upon request.

What else do I need to do?

Instructors need to make sure they include

handouts and class materials for the stu-

dents. This can be in any practical, useful

format, but is usually provided as “paper”

even if electronic resources (e.g., CD or

USB media) are provided. Paper copies will

enable students to take notes during the

session and correctly recall what was cov-

ered at a later time (for example, providing

complex information to students in slides

or handouts can help ensure that partici-

pants don’t reference an incorrect equation

in their notes). If proprietary software is

used for training, it should be provided.

Exercises conducted with spreadsheet soft-

ware templates should be backwards com-

patible with prior versions of software to

accommodate different versions installed

on individuals’ laptops.

Instructors need to show up early, pre-

pare their space, interact well with the par-

ticipants, and teach effectively. One of the

additional responsibilities is to take and

monitor attendance during the session.

Issuing certificates of attendance at the be-

ginning of a training event, or at the end

of the event (when the student left during

the first break and came back to get their

certificate) does not provide evidence of

successful completion and should not be

rewarded. Many instructors do not like

this aspect of monitoring adult attendance.

Yet, if the learning objectives indicate that

at the end of the session a participant will

be able to know or apply something, why

would any instructor sign and hand out a

certificate where proficiency has not been

demonstrated at some level?

A standard NCSLI course evaluation will

be available to hand out to participants to

gather feedback on their satisfaction re-

lated to the event, logistics, content, and

instruction, as well as to provide input on

what they learned and intend to apply

back on the job.

There is a point of contact for each

NCSLI event. It is critical for all instruc-

tors to work with the contact person, as a

member of the program team, to ensure

successful learning events. Education and

Training is an important part of NCSLI’s

mission. Let’s all be a part of ensuring con-

tinuing success!

[email protected]

To schedule an on-sitedemonstration, please email us at:sales@transmillecalibration. com or call: 1-802-846-7582

transmillecalibration. com

DC Voltage = 4ppm,AC Voltage = 150ppm

Ohms = 8ppm, DC Current = 7ppm,AC Current = 300ppm

Plus Frequency, Temperature,Pressure, and more





LocaL

HeroMike cruz

by Mike CadenheadUSAF Primary Standards Laboratory,Bionetics Corporation

As part of a celebration of diversity and

Hispanic Heritage Month Mike Cruz, for-

mer member of NCSLI, was honored in

mid-September 2012 as a “Local Hero”

by KPBS public radio in partnership with

Union Bank in San Diego, California. Mike

was recognized for his involvement with

and outreach to area youth as well as his

long-standing involvement with the San

Diego chapter of the Society of Hispanic

Professional Engineers (SHPE). Mike reg-

ularly shares his talents with San Diego

youths in area middle schools and high

schools while promoting the importance of

STEM disciplines. It was also acknowledged

that, while working with the Navy, Mike

served on the Navy’s Advisory Committee

on Hispanic Employment and served on

the board for the Greater San Diego Indus-

try / Education Council and YMCA Youth

& Family Services.

Mike graduated from San Diego State

University where he majored in math and

carried a minor in electrical engineering.

He was later the Chief Metrologist for

NAVAIR, a division director, and then was

promoted to the position of Director of

the Navy Primary Standards Laboratory at

North Island. He was also a former Chair

of NCSLI’s Committee 142 Measurement

Comparison Program, laying a lot of the

ground work for the committee.

In addition to his involvement detailed

above, Mike is an avid bike rider. He has

ridden his bicycle up and down all four

quadrants of the United States. For ex-

ample, early in his riding career, he rode

from Southern California following the

Pacific Coast Highway on to Washington

State. Another example is the 2500 mile

trip from Duluth, Minnesota to Rockport,

Maine that took just over 50 days. These

are only two examples of the many trips

you can read about at https://sites.google.

com/site/bikecruz22/home. Keep in mind

that these trips lasted weeks or months

while hauling enough supplies to weather

storms, sleep in a tent when necessary, and

sustain his energy.

Way to go Mike! We all

hope you have many more adventures. To

read the KPBS article on Mike Cruz please

go to: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/

sep/13/michael-v-cruz.

[email protected]

Mike Cruz, former member of NCSLI, was honored in mid-September 2012 as

a “Local Hero” by KPbS public radio.

AmbAssAdorto A New GeNerAtioN

Inspiring theNext Generation ofMeasurement Scientists!

by Mons Lee

Last December I had the opportunity to be a metrology ambassador for a metrology outreach event at a

local elementary school’s 6th grade class. For those of you who don’t know what a metrology ambassador

is, NCSLI’s website states a metrology ambassador is “a measurement scientist who volunteers in their

community to educate students, parents, educators, and others about basic measurement science

principles and about career opportunities in Metrology.” Being a measurement scientist who gets

excited at the chance to explain what metrology is and that it has nothing to do with attempting to

predict the weather, I jumped at the opportunity to inform a new generation about what metrology is

and why it is important, along with giving them a hands on experiment to work through.




The last time I set foot in to a 6th grade

classroom was nearly 20 years ago. Upon

entering the classroom where I would be

performing my metrology outreach event,

I observed the classroom was similar to

what I remember of a 6th grade classroom:

lines of desks stuffed full of random papers,

pencils, crayons, rulers and maybe a snack,

each with a unique, colorful student cre-

ated nametag attached to its front. There

were posters created by the students hang-

ing from the walls that displayed hand

drawn images of the different layers of the

earth’s crust or atmosphere. Two things

that stood out as being different from what

I remember were the numerous desks with

hand sanitizer dispensers and reusable wa-

ter bottles.

The 6th grade teacher of the class, who

happened to be an old college roommate,

helped get my experimental station setup,

and once finished I took a seat behind the

station and waited for the students to begin

arriving for class. As the kids started walk-

ing through the door of the classroom, you

could sense their energy and enthusiasm

about life, along with their curiosity about

who this man was sitting in the corner

of their classroom and why he was there.

Once the students were seated, the teacher

introduced me to the class and since it was

a Monday, each student in the class had

the chance to share with the class what

they spent their weekend doing. Activities

ranged from skiing to slumber parties to

playing video games and basketball.

It was then my turn to present them

with a glimpse into the vast world that is

metrology. I began by presenting the word

metrology to them, by breaking it into its

Greek roots “metr” and “log” and asking

them what each part meant. After receiv-

ing a variety answers and some nudging

from me, the students eventually narrowed

in on the correct meaning of metrology,

the science of measurement. I then pre-

sented examples of things they would be

familiar with that get measured and what is

used to measure them, such as length and a

ruler, temperature and a thermometer, and

weight and a scale.

When working within the field of me-

trology, we as metrologists become inti-

mately familiar with the jargon of our field.

Terms like accuracy, precision, measurand,

standards, calibration, traceability, and

uncertainty are a part of our daily lives.

In order for the students to get a sense of

what goes into our field, I went through

each of these terms and many pictures to

help them visualize and retain what each

term means, asking and answering many

questions along the way. For accuracy and

precision, I presented them with a variety

of dart boards that showed examples of

good accuracy and precision, poor accura-

cy and good precision, and poor accuracy

and poor precision. For traceability, I pre-

sented them with our traceability pyramid

and a chain to illustrate that traceability

is an unbroken chain of comparisons that

builds up the pyramid, and that each link

in the traceability chain must have an as-

sociated measured value and measurement

uncertainty associated with it. They were

fascinated that everything that is measured

eventually gets traced back to the seven SI

base units: the kilogram, the meter, the

second, the mole, the ampere, the candela,

and kelvin.

Since these students are just beginning

their academic careers, I wanted to empha-

size how important their education is to

their lives and a potential career in metrol-

ogy. Besides metrology, the three subjects

I wanted to spark their curiosity in were

physics, mathematics, and engineering due

to all three being important to our field.

When speaking about physics, I presented

them with the famous image of Albert Ein-

stein sticking his tongue out at the camera.

“As thekids started

walkingthrough the

door of the classroom,

you couldsense theirenergy and

enthusiasm about life.”

Physicists study theinteraction between mass and energy over time. this leads to an analysis and mea-surement of the natural world.



The entire class chuckled at the image of Einstein and recognized

who he was, but did not necessarily know he was a physicist. I

explained to them how physicists study the interaction between

mass and energy over time, and how this leads to an analysis and

measurement of the natural world. For mathematics, I presented

them with a variety of mathematical symbols, some of which they

were familiar with and some they wouldn’t see till their senior year

in high school and beyond. I had them tell me about the symbols

they recognized, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and

division, and gave brief and simple explanations of some the sym-

bols they didn’t recognize, such as ∫ for the integral, Σ for the sum,

and ∞ for infinite. I emphasized that when performing a measure-

ment, mathematics is very important to analyzing measurement

results and quantifying the error or uncertainty in a measurement.

When speaking of engineering, I had the students tell me the dif-

ferent types of engineering they knew about and what those engi-

neers do. We talked about electrical, mechanical, structural, civil,

and chemical engineering, the importance of each, and how engi-

neers can apply scientific and mathematical principles to design,

build, and maintain a measurement process.

After giving the students an introduction to what metrology

is and why their education is important to metrology, we moved

on to why metrology is important to their daily lives. We talked

about the medicine they take when they are sick and why it is

critical to their health and safety that the medicine has the cor-

rect concentration of active ingredients. We talked about how

important it is for the scales at the grocery store or the gas pumps

at the gas station to measure correctly so that people pay the cor-

rect amount for the products they buy. Regarding manufacturing,

we talked about how important it is for everyone to use the same

“ruler” when manufacturing a product. If everyone engaged in the

manufacturing process were using a different ruler, the pieces that

make up the product wouldn’t fit or work together properly, sac-

rificing the quality of the product, and in some cases the safety of

the people using it.

For the final part of my metrology outreach event with the 6th

grade class, I had the students conduct a simple experiment on

the reflectivity of light. To give them some background on the ex-

periment, the final part of my presentation consisted of the basic

science of light, reflection, and color. We began by talking about

how light can be thought of as a wave having a wavelength and

period. I told them how you can determine the speed of light be

dividing its wavelength by its period, and the result in vacuum is

671 million miles per hour. They were amazed how a beam of light

would take just over a second to travel around the circumference

of the earth and light from the sun takes eight minutes to reach the

earth. Next, we talked about how “white” light is actually com-

posed of all of the colors in the rainbow. Using an image of Pink

Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album cover, I illustrated the idea of

refraction and how a prism can be used to separate white light into

the colors of the rainbow. This led into my discussion on reflectiv-

ity and why certain things appear to be certain colors. Using the

bright colors of the students’ clothing, I told them how the white

light coming from a light bulb is reflected off their clothing, and

how the dyes within their clothing are good at absorbing certain

colors and reflecting other colors out of the white light. The result

is their clothing appears to be a certain color because that color in

the light coming from a light bulb is reflected from their clothing

and into someone’s eye where it is interpreted as a certain color. I

then posed the question to the class, “Why do certain things ap-

pear white and while other things appear black?” To my surprise

the students immediately knew the answer; white things appear

white because they reflect all of the colors equally, while black

things appear black because they absorb all of the colors equally.

I finished my presentation with explaining that the measurement

of the color composition of a “white” light, the absorptivity and

reflectivity of light, and color all fall within the subfield of pho-

tometry within metrology and how color measurements allow for

the color consistency of the video games they play, the clothes

they wear, and the cars and planes they ride in.

Upon finishing my presentation, the students broke up in to

groups of four to five students, with each group having the chance

to rotate through my reflectivity of light experiment station. Part

of the experimental apparatus used by the students consisted of

a “white” light, along with a variety of colored sheets of paper, a

white sheet of paper, a black sheet of paper, and a piece of alumi-

num foil. The measurement part of the experiment consisted of a

light sensor and a handheld Vernier computer interface provided

by NCSLI for metrology outreach events. The experiment was to

have the group choose two colored pieces of paper, measure the

intensity of the light reflected off of the aluminum foil, the white,

black, and colored sheets of paper for a certain period of time, and

using the aluminum foil as our assumed 100 % reflective material,

calculate the reflectivity of the different pieces of paper relative to

the aluminum foil.

I began the experiment by talking with the group of students

about the scientific method and asking them questions about it.

My experimental procedure consisted of a simple scientific meth-

od where the students would make guesses at ranking the reflectiv-

ity the different sheets of paper used in the experiment, perform

the reflectivity measurements, calculate the percent reflectivity

relative to the aluminum foil, and see how the results agreed with

their initial guess. Each student had a chance to operate the Ver-

nier computer interface to perform a reflectivity measurement,

and every student completed the lab procedure and performed

the percent reflectivity calculations for all of the sheets of paper


“white” light is actually composed of all of thecolors in the rainbow.


measured. While waiting for the data to

come in during measurements I had the

opportunity to discuss with the groups of

students basic statistics, such as the mean,

median, and the mode, and how they are

important to a measurement. At the end

of each data set, we would use the Verni-

er computer interface to obtain the mean

light intensity value and use this value in

the reflectivity calculations. The result was

most kids guessed correctly that the white

sheet of paper would have the highest re-

flectivity and the black paper would have

the lowest reflectivity, along with learning

that brightly colored sheets of paper may

not always have a higher reflectivity than

more muted colored sheets of paper.

In acting as a metrology ambassador, I

learned a variety of things about conduct-

ing a successful metrology outreach event.

The first lesson I learned is that kids love

to answer and ask questions, and that guid-

ed questions can be used to help students

figure out the ideas and material for them-

selves. You have to be careful though when

asking kids many questions and allowing

them to ask you many questions, because

they can pull you off on a tangent where

you are no longer discussing the material

that is being presented. I learned that if you

see this start to happen, make sure to get

back on subject as soon as possible. The

second lesson I learned is to make sure that

every child that wants to answer or ask a

question gets the chance to. If you see a

child that hasn’t been raising their hand

finally garner the courage to raise it, make

sure to call on them to get their question or

answer. The third lesson I learned is that

you need to be careful of how much time

you allot to the activities you have planned.

The first group I had for the reflectivity of

light experiment spent five minutes per

measurement. I quickly realized this was

far too long of a time frame when the chil-

dren have a tight schedule for getting every-

thing they need to get done over the course

of their busy day. By the end of the day I

was having the experiment groups take data

for two minutes. The last lesson I learned is

to determine whether there are any special

needs children that will be participating in

a planned activity and work the activity

with them one on one. This allows special

needs children to get the attention they de-

serve to fully complete the activity.

Seeing children learn about what we do

and having them genuinely interested in it

is a fulfilling experience. The students came

away with a good understanding of what

metrology is, where they can see its appli-

cation in their daily lives, how to perform

a measurement, and hopefully a desire to

pursue it as a career option in their futures.

If you have the desire to be a metrology

ambassador and plan a metrology outreach

event, NCSLI is a great resource that will

help you with your endeavor. Their website

contains valuable information and tips for

conducting an event, and can provide you

with a Vernier measurement kit in case you

want to perform an experiment. Acting as

a Metrology Ambassador is a rewarding ex-

perience and I would highly recommend it

to any of my fellow metrologists.

[email protected]

Choose the 9190A Ultra-Cool Field Metrology Well.The 9190A is the most stable ultra-cold temperature dry-block calibrator you can buy. When your temperatures stay stable throughout calibration, you can be confi dent your results are accurate. • Wide temperature range: -95 °C to 140 °C• Best-in-class stability: ± 0.015 °C full range

Get the details and request a quote at:www.fl ukecal.com/9190A

When your dry-block must be ultra-cold, stable, and portable…

©2013 Fluke Calibration. 4264908A_EN

Get the details and request a quote at:www.fl ukecal.com/9190A

Electrical Temperature Pressure SoftwareFlowRF

4264908A_EN_9190_Ultra_Cool_Half_Page_Ad.indd 1 2/14/13 2:35 PM


Each February the Central Georgia Technical College Foundation

holds a Donor Appreciation Event to honor higher level donors for

contributions to their Foundation. This year NCSL International

was one of the recipients to receive an “Appreciation Award.” As

pictured the award is a beautifully engraved granite stone express-

ing appreciation for “outstanding and dedicated

support.” This refers to the grants that NCSL In-

ternational has awarded to Central Georgia Tech-

nical College over the years.

The NCSLI Financial Resources Committee,

chaired by Beverly Garcia, solicits applications

from institutions of higher learning to receive

grants from NCSLI. In 2012 alone the NCSLI

Board of Directors approved $16,000 of grant

money to be disbursed to seven colleges and uni-

versities. The institution must have a measure-

ment science curriculum and the funds must be

disbursed within that curriculum.

According to Tonya L. McClure, Assistant Vice

President in the Office of Institutional Advance-

ment, “Each year the Central Georgia Technical

College Foundation gives out over $50,000 in scholarship awards

to our students, encompassing all of our credit and non-credit pro-

grams. Thanks to NCSLI, we have been able to help secure the

future of our metrology students as they pursue their educational

goals. We hope this small token of our appreciation will let NCSLI

know how much we value and are thankful for our partnership.

Because of NCSLI grants, we are changing lives every day.”

The Central Georgia Technical College Foundation coordinates

the solicitation of funds, grants, and properties from corporations,

government agencies and private sources. The

Foundation provides private funding to CGTC for

capital expansion and improvements, equipment,

staff and faculty development, scholarships, and

endowments. CGTC has been providing quality ed-

ucation and meeting the demands of central Geor-

gia’s workforce for over 40 years. They offer more

than 190 degree, diploma, and certificate programs

to over 9,000 students annually. Central Georgia

Technical College is accredited by the Southern As-

sociation of Colleges and Schools Commission on

Colleges to award associate degrees.

As the NCSLI Vice President of Learning and

Development, I take great pride in the recognition

the Central Georgia Technical College Founda-

tion has bestowed upon us and I hope you feel

the same. NCSLI is able to provide grants through the generous

donations of our membership.

[email protected]

NCSLIReceives Awardby vernon alt, ncslI learning and Development vice President

FOUNDATION

CEN

TRA

L GEORGIA TECHNICAL CO

LLEGE




The Center for Precision Metrology is an

interdisciplinary association of UNC Char-

lotte faculty and student researchers, allied

with industrial partners in the research, de-

velopment and integration of precision me-

trology as applied to manufacturing. Work-

ing with dimensional tolerances on the

order of 10 parts per million or better, pre-

cision metrology encompasses the methods

of production and inspection in manufac-

turing, measurement, algorithms, tolerance

representation, and the integration of me-

trology into factory quality systems.

Originally supported as a National Sci-

ence Foundation Industry/University Co-

operative Research Center (NSFI/UCRC),

the Center for Precision Metrology is

charged with breaking new ground in pre-

cision metrology through addressing re-

al-world industrial concerns. Through the

associated Affiliates Program, industrial and

Center researchers collaborate on projects

that involve generic and specific manufac-

turing metrology problems. In support of

the Center’s research efforts, affiliate mem-

bers contribute funds and equipment that

are directly applied to student projects and

research assistantships.

Additional specific research is funded

through contracts with industrial partners

to address proprietary application and de-

velopment projects. Government funding

is solicited for sponsoring fundamental and

large-scale metrology projects. Additionally

the Center is partnered with lead universi-

ty UCLA as an NSF Nanoscale Science and

Engineering Center for Scalable and Inte-

grated Nanomanufacturing (SINAM) along

with the University of California, Berkeley;

Stanford University; University of Califor-

nia, San Diego; and HP labs.

During the 2013 NCSL International

Technical Exchange that was held in Char-

lotte, North Carolina, several participants

were able to attend tours of the University

laboratories. On Friday, February 8, Vernon

Alt, the NCSLI VP for Learning and Devel-

opment, and Georgia Harris, Immediate

Past President took an opportunity to tour

the UNC-C laboratories with Ed Morse of

the university, who many in the NCSLI

community will know from his regular at-

tendance and presentations at the annual

conferences.

During the visit, tour participants were

also able to attend a student chapter meet-

ing of the American Society for Precision

Engineering, chaired by the 2012 Joe D.

Simmons Memorial Scholarship winner,

Kang Ni. During the meeting, scholarships

from the NCSL International grant funds

were awarded to three students. The 2013

grant of $2000 was distributed as scholar-

ship awards supporting graduate research to

Liangyu He ($1000), Jacob Chesna ($600),

and to Vasishta Ganguly ($400). Vernon

was able to present the plaque to two of the

awardees as the second place winner was

away at the National Physical Laboratory

(NPL) in the United Kingdom working on

graduate research. Vernon was also able to

congratulate the winner of the ASPE out-

standing service award: Mohamed Saad.

The University of North Carolina at

Charlotte is the home of the world’s pre-

mier university metrology lab. Located on

the University’s Charlotte Research Insti-

tute Campus, the Metrology Lab is one of

the core facilities of the Center for Preci-

sion Metrology. The Lab is central to the

education and research efforts in the areas

of precision engineering and metrology at

UNC Charlotte, and with the wide variety

of high-end measurement instruments,

provides measurement services to the Uni-

versity community and local industry.

In order to sustain research, devel-

opment, and training in metrology, fa-

cilities are maintained to manufacture

components at the required levels. For crit-

ical measurement, many instruments are

housed in a 1500 sq. ft. controlled environ-

ment, 20 °C ± 0.1 °C, class 10,000 metrol-

ogy laboratory. Other laboratories include

computer-aided design, manufacturing,

and modeling, precision motion systems,

precision electro-optical systems, mecha-

tronics, scanned probe microscopes, and

instrument development, supported by a

precision machine shop and an electronics

shop. Laboratories and offices currently oc-

cupy over 33,000 square feet of the 100,000

square feet in Duke Centennial Hall.

Get additional information about the

Center for Precision Metrology here:

http://cpm.uncc.edu/.

University of North Carolina, Charlotte Center for Precision MetrologyNCSLI Scholarship Awards supporting graduate research.

scholarship 1st place: liangyu He.

scholarship 3rd place: vasishta Ganguly.

outstanding service award: Mohamed saad.


by Mark Kuster, Pantex Metrology

SPECIAL FEATURESpecial Feature

Greetings, everyone!In this installment we continue the last article’s MII discussion–

standards, data structures, and communication protocols for

advertising, communicating, sharing and using metrology infor-

mation. The Measurement Science Conference has since come

and gone and hopefully everyone who attended or had a repre-

sentative attend derived some benefit from it. As promised, the

MSC Proceedings include a paper1 offering some mathematics that

might underlie the analytical MII elements–traceability and instru-

ment models.

A number of other MSC papers and live sessions addressed stan-

dardization and automation: Gerhard Mihm described a system

for capturing instrument requirements, specifications and admin-

istrative data to standardize and automate calibration systems

across multiple locations. Marcus McNeely emphasized how even

small automation benefits add up for repetitious tasks. Andrew

Brush, Dean Standiford, Michael Bair, Edward Morrell, Jim Wang,

and even several students modeled instruments, predicted results

and verified predictions via measurements, often combined with

uncertainty budgets or automation. Finally, Nghiem Nguyen, Azi-

ta Belashi and Mohammad Amin discussed a variety of automated

measurement systems.

In future columns we will see some detail on how an MII might

capture such valuable work under a common framework. For now

though, let us turn to our centerpiece document, the ubiquitous

test report or calibration certificate and its evolution from paper

through paperless to true machine-comprehensible (MII) content.

A Standard Certificate?One basic quality program element entails getting the right data

on test and calibration reports. Quality standards such as ISO-IEC

17025 and ANSI-NCSLI Z540.3 lay out minimum reporting re-

quirements for their adherents in the test and calibration world,

though some industries still cling to their own regulations and or-

ders. Such quality documents set the bars for content and format,

but leave plenty of creative room when it comes to the certificate’s

actual layout and appearance as well as flexibility to handle any

measurement.

Sometimes that maneuvering room causes problems though;

multiple formats create confusion, maintenance pain and mis-

take opportunities. Some fifteen years ago, my own organization

adapted a standard database-driven report for all internal labs to

relieve those issues. Afterward, no matter the calibration type, you

always found similar information in the same place on the page–a

common “look and feel” in today’s parlance. Maintainers update

and assessors review one format rather than fifty. One such format

would not work for everyone of course. At a recent conference, Jeff

Gust announced Fluke Corporation’s own standard certificate to

cover its many calibration sites; Richard Ogg at Agilent and other

companies and organizations have done likewise over the years

and no doubt each has its own preferences.

However, given the technology available to us, we shouldn’t

restrain ourselves from higher achievement. Paper, standard for-

mat or not, has obvious shortcomings, so, for instance, Jay Bucher

and others have long since led migrations to paperless certificates.

No doubt many of you already use laboratory management sys-

tems that generate or store paperless certificates. While we might

hesitate to take away a calibration service’s only tangible product,

customers will also recognize the many benefits and savings pa-

perless certificates offer regarding easy storage, security, access and

retrieval, as Jay and others have extolled.

1 “Metrology: Standardize and Automate!”

Toward a MetrologyInformation InfrastructureSmart Calibration Certificates

by Mark Kuster, Pantex Metrology, Contributing Editor


Raising the AnteHow might an MII further enhance certificates? To answer that,

consider first what information certificates provide:

• Thevendoranditsaccreditationstatus

• Thecustomer,UUT,andmeasurementmethod

• Dates, personnel, procedures and deviations, miscellaneous

info, amendments

• Measurementresults,uncertainties,specifications,conformance

statements, traceability evidence

• Samplingdetail,environmentalconditions,otherqualifiers

Next consider how we use certificates. Whether paper or pa-

perless, a person reviews the certificate to validate the vendor, its

accreditation status, ID numbers, traceability, and the other perti-

nent administrative detail. Later, someone might verify that the

reported measurements match the requested measurements, un-

certainties suffice, tested specifications equal the expected specifi-

cations, etc. If we employ a rigorous closed-loop program, some-

one will check to see whether conformance-tested instruments

fell in tolerance before adjustments or that newly reported values

match previously reported values within the stated uncertainties,

and take the appropriate nonconformance actions if appropriate.

Finally, we may actually use the measurement results (heaven for-

bid!), so someone transcribes the reported results to various cali-

bration programs, data files, entry fields in our lab management

system, and various affected uncertainty budgets.

How much do we spend annually just processing certificates?

What if our systems read, wrote, and understood electronic cer-

tificates as easily as all our devices read and write pdf files (now

the open document standard ISO 32000-1)? What if we exchanged

certificates as easily as we do addresses, photos, and contacts from

phone to phone to PDA (Does anyone else still use those?) to cam-

era to PC to Cloud to Mac to Linux machine? We all have software

and devices that understand standard picture and vCard or hCard

formats, or at least know what to do with data tagged as a name, ad-

dress, phone number, image resolution, image size, email address,

etc. Why don’t we do the same for traceable measurement data?

We might instead think to build and train expert systems to

read and interpret the same information humans read, either from

a paperless certificate or a scanned and OCR-processed paper certif-

icate. However, this strategy would also suffer the same constraints

we mentioned last time that human-readable content currently

imposes. Also, it likely would exhibit low reliability and require

frequent human intervention, especially when certificate formats

or nomenclature inevitably change. If you feed your bookkeeping

software through a receipt scanner, ponder how often it picks up

the wrong (or no) vendor, total, tax, or date. Also picture yourself

hand feeding the scanner—no fun.

As a more effective option, why not encode the appropriate data

into an electronic certificate file? Fluke’s latest certificates offer a

QR code that may contain limited data, even on paper. Paperless

proponents embed cryptographically-protected electronic person-

nel signatures into their pdf files. If we carry the signature idea one

step further and take advantage of existing certificate authorities

used every day to verify web site identities and encrypt communi-

cations, an accredited lab might include a cryptographically veri-

fiable accreditation mark. Yes, that embossed accreditation stamp

feels real nice on your paper certificate, but …

In fact, pdf files will now encapsulate other files with arbitrary

content. We might use that existing infrastructure to carry a file

with a defined standard certificate data structure, perhaps similar

to a vCard structure, containing the unrounded full-precision re-

sults that computers love and humans ignore. That would work

more like downloading transactions straight from your bank ac-

count, but with more detail. As a calculus professor used to say

after whipping out an example: “Problem over.” Well, not exactly;

truth lies in the detail. In the real world, it will take significant

investment in developing and maintaining the enabling standards

and software.

The result? Real, substantive electronic certificates, not paper,

not simply paperless, but certificates with importable meaning

and structure attached to the data, with our nice human readable

format up top. Now your software reads and stores the certificate

transmitted directly from the vendor. It automatically validates

the vendor, accreditation, administrative content, dates, and ID

numbers. It checks the measurements, uncertainties and specs

against your requirements and the vendor’s accreditation scope.

It notifies you of any discrepancies. It also detects accuracy devi-

ations and initiates any out-of-tolerance notices. Finally, it stores

the measurement and uncertainty data where your measurement

systems and uncertainty budgets expect it, and the next time you

use the calibrated equipment, the traceability information will

flow seamlessly into the certificates you roll out for customers.

Labs and customers anywhere in the world effortlessly exchange

data. The standards and software investment would pay off.

sPecIal featURe

A Laboratory Management System communicates through a Business-to-Business module with Accreditation Bodies, Vendor Labs, and the Key Comparison Database to locate an appropriate vendor, set up a calibration contract, schedule the physical work, transmit calibration requirements, receive and verify the MII certificate, and pass key information to measurement systems.


Smokeless TraceabilityThe MII certificate would solve another problem also. As we brief-

ly mentioned before, our current traceability documentation does

not quite measure up to recommendations, if to requirements; i.e.,

“…to err on the side of providing too much information rather

than too little.”2 and “[Certificates] shall include all the informa-

tion requested by the customer and necessary for the interpreta-

tion of the test or calibration results and all information required

by the method used.”3 Currently, as a practical matter given our

computing void, we rarely include all the appropriate traceabili-

ty detail on certificates, specifically the identification of and de-

pendence on individual upstream error sources. Actually, we don’t

often comply to the degree our traceability system already sup-

ports—when did you last see correlation coefficients for multiple

values across a range reported to you on the same certificate? As a

result, when we combine uncertainties from different or even the

same traceability sources, we do not know their correlation and we

calculate neither uncertainties nor degrees of freedom accurately.

For example, if you use two voltage standards in a measurement

and different labs calibrated the standards, it may or may not

happen that both labs obtained their traceability from a common

source, perhaps from the same NMI SI realization or from a low-

er level measurement. Probably, the intervening traceability steps

have added enough independent error sources to swamp out the

small common factor and you effectively have zero correlation be-

tween the two standards–no harm done if you plan to RSS the un-

certainties. On the other hand, you might use two 1 kg mass stan-

dards to make a measurement, either from the same mass set or

two sets that the same vendor certified. If, as commonly happens,

the vendor’s mass standard uncertainty dominates its calibration

process uncertainties, then the vendor passes nearly the same error

to both your standards, leaving them strongly correlated. In that

case you should not RSS their uncertainties!

In general, our traceability system does not tell us where we

stand between those two extremes, so our uncertainty calculations

degrade accordingly. Speaking harshly, this seems akin to burning

calibration data and selling the smoke. We get a certificate that

tells us the smoke’s mass but leaves us to guess at the incinerated

data’s shape and composition. Without knowing the data’s shape,

we don’t know how to fit it to other puzzle pieces, so we arbitrarily

decide to treat it as an all-too-convenient cube. Unfortunately, an

incorrect uncertainty estimate may cost us money, either driving

us to non-value-added expensive equipment to compensate, or

causing consequence costs for false measurement decisions or in-

appropriately loose accreditation scopes or product specs.

An MII certificate would easily rectify that problem: The em-

bedded file would “accumulate” and uniquely identify all relevant

error sources as labs pass results down the traceability chain. Your

system or software might access any data in the chain from the

NMI level on down. Uncertainty sources redundantly appearing

in separate traceability chains would stand up and account for

themselves by their common identifier. The MSC paper details

one simple structure and calculation method by which we might

accomplish that. Essentially, the method boils down to recording

the relationship of each uncertainty in the chain to uniquely iden-

tified upstream fundamental uncertainties. It would all happen be-

neath the surface and software would handle the detail to prevent

biological information overload. Other models that do not discard

information would work also. If a given organization doesn’t take

advantage of the MII certificate, the normal human-readable con-

tent delivers backwards compatibility to manual methods.

Though many would prefer full transparency, the model might

also allow intervening labs a bypass option to alleviate confiden-

tiality concerns, while still linking rigorously to upstream provid-

ers. Legitimate confidentiality concerns may not exist regarding

uncertainty though, given our traceability requirements and the

VIM traceability definition. Give us a shout if you have insight on

that subject.

Cyber TalkThe technology to improve our operations and convey more value

to customers exists now. We lack only putting it into action. The

next time you conduct a transaction on the Web, think about what

happens behind the scenes: The vendor’s software strikes up con-

versations with certificate authorities that vouch for identities and

encrypt communications, chats up the bank (or PayPal, BitCoin,

…) that handles your account, and communicates with its own in-

ventory and accounting system. Provided that everything checks

out, your transaction goes through without a single person’s inter-

vention, and the vendor’s recommendation system even convinc-

es you to buy a related product it thinks you will like. Everyone

profits from that infrastructure; B2B4 commerce wouldn’t function

without standardized services and transaction formats. Why not

build and profit from an MII also?

As always, please send your thoughts, ideas and suggestions.

NCSLI would like to serve the entire measurement community, so

perhaps we should call our framework a Measurement Information

Infrastructure to more explicitly include the larger testing commu-

nity. Let us know what you think. And if you would like to help

develop the data model for certificates, by all means let us know.

See you in July - here in Metrologist, and in Nashville.

[email protected]

sPecIal featURe

2 “Evaluation of measurement data–Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement,” JCGM 100:2008

3 ISO/IEC 17025:2005

4 Business-to-Business in the original electronic transaction sense


www.mintl.com

The MI product you’ve been waiting for...

fall 2013

®

Humidity Generation System

Humidity Generation System

Low Humidity Generation System

Mini/Mobile “Two-Pressure”Humidity Generator Self containedhumidity calibration standardNIST traceable certificate of calibrationcertified at ±0.5%RH accuracy.

Benchtop/Mobile "Two-Pressure"Humidity Generator self containedhumidity calibration standardNIST traceable certificate of calibrationcertified at 0.5%RH accuracyControLog® automation software.

"Two-Pressure Two-Temperature"Low Humidity Generator.NIST traceable certificate of calibration,certified at 0.1 °C Frost Point,over the range of -95 °C FP to +10 °C DP.

Model 1200

Model 2500

Model 3900

Thunder Scientific providesinstrument calibration forvirtually any humiditymeasurement device ordew-point hygrometer withas found and as left datawith uncertainties.

Thunder’s Calibration Laboratory OffersAccredited Humidity Calibration Services

NVLAP Lab Code 200582-0

Ph: 505-265-8701 Fax: 505-266-6203

www.thunderscientific.com Sales Service [email protected]

Humidity Parameter Range Uncertainty

Volume ratio, V (PPM)0.1 to 3 PPM 4.0% of value3 to 200 PPM 2.0% of value200 to 400000 PPM 0.1% of value

Dew/Frost Point Temperature-90 to -70 °C ±0.2 °C-70 to -20 °C ±0.1 °C-20 to 70 °C ±0.05 °C

Relative Humidity (0 °C to 70 °C) 0% to 99% 0.3% RH

sPecIal featURe


calculator


s h o p p i n g f o r a n e w

by Christopher L. Grachanen

Recently my son needed help with some calcu-

lus homework problems. I was eager to help and

took out my trusty Hewlett-Packard 1990’s vintage

48SX calculator. Before I could even keystroke the

first derivative my son commented that that’s not

the calculator they use at school and that if I want-

ed to be of help I needed to use the same type of

calculator so he could see how to enter and solve

problems like he would need to do during a class-

room test.

OK, maybe it was time for me to update my

calculator. To tell the truth, being an engineer,

I was a little ‘geeky’ at the prospect of getting a

new calculator even though I was also somewhat

apprehensive about having to learn the idiosyn-

crasies of a new calculator. I knew from my own

formal education that academia seemed to favor

Texas Instruments (TI) calculators. Since I was al-

ready a longtime fan of the no longer supported

TI Derive mathematical software package I figure I

would start my new calculator quest by Googling

“TI Calculators.”

Photo used with permission from TI. http://education.ti.com


sPecIal featURe

Reviewing the TI Calculator website at

(http://education.ti.com/calculators/prod-

ucts/US/home/) I was intrigued to learn

about the TI-NSpire CX CAS calculator. I am

sure some readers are familiar with TI-NSpire

calculators which academia has enthusi-

astically embraced as an education tool of

choice for teaching mathematics, physics,

statistics, etc. The TI-NSpire CX CAS calcu-

lator has a big color display (finally a cal-

culator I can actually read without having

to squint), an ergonomic user interface and

logical software menu scheme which does

not require a long learning curve to be able

to access its many capabilities. CAS stands

for Calculator Algebraic System which gives

it its ability to perform symbolic compu-

tations without having to define numer-

ic values for variables. At the heart of the

TI-NSpire CX CAS calculator environment

are its two operating modes; scratchpad and

document. The scratchpad invokes a calcu-

lator or graph application without affecting

a document. A TI-NSpire document can in-

clude text, pictures, scratchpad calculator

and graphing applications, geometry ap-

plications, list and spreadsheets, basic pro-

grams, data and statistics applications as well

as applications for collecting and analyzing

data from sensors or probes connected to

the calculator (TI-NSpire probe and sensors

can be found at http://www.vernier.com/).

It would take many pages beyond the scope

of this article to adequately describe the ca-

pability, functionality and versatility of the

TI-NSpire CX CAS calculator so suffice it to

say that it’s “not your daddy’s calculator.” A

review of the TI-NSpire CX CAS calculator

may be found at (http://www.techpowered-

math.com/ti-nspire-cx-review/).

I would be amiss if I didn’t relate what

I find to be one of the TI-NSpire CX CAS

calculator’s greatest features: the student

software that can be purchased with the cal-

culator. This software mirrors the functions

of the calculator and provides a PC develop-

ment environment for writing and editing

programs as well as creating documents as

they would appear on the calculator. I use

this software to test drive applications and

create documents before exporting them to

the calculator. To summarize, if it’s been a

while since you visited calculator technolo-

gies, the TI-Nspire CX CAS calculator is defi-

nitely worth investigating.

[email protected]


Sixty seven attendees registered for the two-day NCSLI Technical

Exchange, held on February 6 and 7, 2013 in Charlotte, North

Carolina. The Technical Exchange was developed by NCSL In-

ternational. The event was designed to provide regional access to

low-cost, high-quality metrology training solutions. The Techni-

cal Exchange provides a forum for exchanging ideas, measurement

techniques, best practices and innovations with others interested

in metrology industry trends. The program was designed to build

or enhance specific hands-on skills in the calibration of measure-

ment and test equipment, and teach best practices along with in-

troducing new and innovative calibration hardware, software and

calibration services.

Mahr Federal sponsored a tour of the Joe Gibbs Racing Nascar

team headquarters, located in Huntersville, North Carolina for all

NCSLI Technical Exchange attendees. Thank you Mahr Federal, it

was a great success! Exhibitors included: Ametek, Consumers Ener-

gy, Laboratory Accreditation Bureau, The Modal Shop and Trescal.

NCSL International2013 Technical Exchange

laboratory accreditation bureau.

consumers energy.

ametek.

trescal.

the Modal shop.

Mahr Federal - let us demonstrate our complete line of dimensional gages. Contact: Mahr Federal Inc., Providence, RI,

Phone 800-343-2050, Fax 401-784-3246, E-mail: [email protected], Internet: www.mahr.com

++--

Gage Calibration SystemsAccuracy - Innovation - Value

Measurement of gage blocks, rings, threads, calipers, mics, etc.

Long-range glass-scale based calibration systems are less impacted by environment than laser based systems

Linear I00 and Linear II series for work-floor calibration and gage setting

ULM Series Univesal Length Measurment system for calibration labs

PLM 600-2 and 828 CiM 1000 for primary standards calibration

Manufactured and supported by Mahr, the global leader in Precision Length Metrology Systems

•

•

•

130B gage block calibrators for maintaining gage block accuracy


On February 8, 2013, NCSL International

hosted its first Testing Summit following

the NCSLI Technical Exchange held in

Charlotte, North Carolina. The Summit

was held to open the doors of communi-

cation to improve understanding between

the testing and calibration laboratory com-

munities. Currently, differences in termi-

nology between the communities often

result in miscommunication or difficulty

in understanding the measurement issues

being faced in both areas.

Marlene Moore, NCSLI Testing Com-

mittee Chair from Advanced Systems, Inc.,

led the discussions which included an ex-

change of ideas spanning topics including

measurement uncertainty in relation to

calibration of equipment, quality control,

and traceability.

The topic of measurement uncertainty

opened the day’s conversations. In order to

get the discussions rolling, questions were

asked such as “When is measurement un-

certainty needed if equipment is calibrated

but the equipment is not used in the direct

measurement and the influence quantity

is not known?” and “What if the measure-

ment is not traceable to the SI or reference

standard what other means are used to es-

timate the uncertainty?” Thoughts on de-

termining the degree of rigor to place on

an uncertainty calculation and the incon-

sistencies in application of the uncertainty

process among regulators and accreditation

bodies factored into this discussion as well.

Focusing on what could be deemed “good

enough” lead to a consensus that this is

an area of improvement on many levels.

The discussions also included thoughts on

quality control through some form of sta-

tistical process control (SPC). Testing lab-

oratories utilize SPC on many levels and it

was agreed that more communication and

understanding among the two communi-

ties would provide mutual benefit in terms

of uncertainty estimation.

Traceability was also discussed among

those in attendance. Many find that

traceability is difficulty when you begin

to consider chemical and biological type

measurements. It was noted that ISO/IEC

17025 General Requirements for the compe-

tence of testing and calibration laboratories

does address instances when traceability

to the International System of Units (SI) is

not possible. Many noted areas where an

agreed consensus standard may be used as

a means to establish traceability for a mea-

surement or measurement process. Pub-

lication of the revised ILAC P10:01/2013

ILAC Policy on Traceability of Measurement

Results may offer some challenges and

solutions as it is implemented by the ILAC

accreditation bodies.

The forum wrapped up with general

thoughts on future ideas for additional

summit topics as well as what outcomes

might result from the discussions. Future

actions based on the Summit will be a

planned discussion.

[email protected]

NCSLI HostsTesting Summit

Uncertainty of Measurements

n  The degree of rigor needed to meet ISO/IEC 17025 • What are you doing and how does it

help improve your data quality? • Is it useful? • How often do you calculate? • When is it necessary?

NCSL INTERNATIONAL SERVING THE WORLD OF MEASUREMENT SINCE 1961

Traceability of Measurements

n  Purity or identity of reference materials are not clearly stated by producer • No uncertainty • No reference defined • Only part of the reference traceable

n  Mass but not purity (amount)

NCSL INTERNATIONAL SERVING THE WORLD OF MEASUREMENT SINCE 1961

Marlene Moore.

by Marlene Moore, NCSLI Testing Laboratories Chair


INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF

METROLOGY

16

www.metrologie2013.com I [email protected]

I I I I I I I I I I I I ParIs I France I I I I I I I I II 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I october I 2013 I I I I I I I I I I

th

I measure I I innovate I perform I

European Association of National Metrology Institutes

Held jointly with

21,27x27,62_Métrologie.indd 1 28/11/12 15:13


Implementing the new ILAC Policy for Un-

certainty in Calibration (ILAC P14:11/2010)

has been challenging for most Accreditation

Bodies (ABs) and the American Association

for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) is no

exception. The issues encountered by A2LA,

however, were wholly unexpected and

ranged in nature from international inter-

pretation of the policy to an unanticipated

number of customers with contracts that

ran counter to the requirements of P14. In

this article, I want to share one accreditation

body’s experience in implementing ILAC

P14 and the unexpected challenges encoun-

tered along the way.

When the new ILAC P14 was published,

A2LA consulted our Measurement Adviso-

ry Committee, a technical committee that

advises A2LA on the technical aspects of

calibration accreditation, along with our

Criteria Council, which approves all new

accreditation policies, in order to design an

implementation plan for this new policy.

During the course of the discussions a myr-

iad of questions arose on how this policy

would be implemented for contract exclu-

sions, statements of compliance and implic-

it uncertainty statements (such as a Test Un-

certainty Ratio). For example, would it still

be acceptable to include only an implicit

uncertainty statement on an endorsed cal-

ibration certificate (those that contain the

A2LA Accredited symbol)? Or, would it still

be acceptable to include only a statement of

compliance on an endorsed calibration cer-

tificate, such as pass/fail?

The biggest concern to A2LA was whether

to allow our calibration laboratories to “opt-

out” of any or all of the requirements of P14

via a contract with their customer; and if

so, under what circumstances. When mak-

ing our decision A2LA weighed this option

against the goals of P14 which are:

• toensuretheGuide to the expression of un-

certainty in measurement (GUM) and the

Calibration and Measurement Capability

(CMC) were applied uniformly by ILAC

signatory members; and

• to ensure metrological traceability is es-

tablished in accordance with the JCGM

200:2008 International vocabulary of me-

trology — Basic and general concepts and

associated terms (VIM) that defines metro-

logical traceability as:

“property of a measurement result whereby

the result can be related to a reference through

a documented unbroken chain of calibra-

tions, each contributing to the measurement

uncertainty”

After careful consideration A2LA decided

that allowing an “opt-out” for any P14 re-

quirements by means of a customer con-

tract would not meet the intent of metro-

logical traceability. For A2LA customers, this

means that a calibration certificate that is

endorsed with the A2LA Accredited symbol

is required to also include the measurement

result and measurement uncertainty in ac-

cordance with ILAC P14.

Although A2LA did not expect that the

transition to ILAC P14 would be simple, the

problems we encountered once P14 was im-

plemented were surprising. These include:

• varying interpretation of section 6.1 of

ILAC P14 among ABs around the world;

and

• implementationrequiringourcustomers

to make changes to their automated pro-

cesses; and

• an unexpected number of laboratories

who had contracts with their clients to

exclude measurement uncertainty.

In speaking to the first issue, not all Accred-

iting Bodies that are signatories to the ILAC

Mutual Recognition Arrangement could

agree on the interpretation of section 6.1

of P14.

• Section 6.1 states, “ISO/IEC 17025 requires

calibration laboratories to report, in the cal-

ibration certificate, the uncertainty of mea-

surement and/or a statement of compliance

with an identified metrological specification

or clauses thereof. Accredited calibration

laboratories shall report the uncertainty of

measurement, in compliance with the require-

ments in 6.2 – 6.5 of this section.”

Some ABs felt this language still allowed for

either the inclusion of the measurement

uncertainty or a statement of compliance

with a specification in accordance with

ISO/IEC 17025:2005, while others felt it

clearly mandated the inclusion of the un-

certainty of measurement on calibration

certificates to support the 2008 version of

the VIM. Because of the confusion over the

language of the policy some ABs delayed im-

plementation of ILAC P14 until clarification

was made. While this disagreement seemed

contrary to the intent of the policy – that

of ensuring that the GUM and CMC are

applied uniformly among ILAC signatory

members it was important to clarify the

meaning of this section so that all ABs could

be in harmony when enforcing the policy.

Recently the new version of ILAC

P14:01/2013 was released with an addition

to section 6.1 that states:

By exception, and where it has been established

during contract review that only a statement


On Implementing ILAC P14: OneAccreditation Body’s Perspectiveby Pam Wright, A2LA Calibration Accreditation Manager


of compliance with a specification is required,

then the measured quantity value and the mea-

surement uncertainty may be omitted on the

calibration certificate.

The following shall however apply:

• Thecalibrationcertificateisnotintendedto

be used in support of the further dissemina-

tion of metrological traceability (i.e. to cali-

brate another device);

• AsspecifiedinISO/IEC17025:2005clause

5.10.4.2, the laboratory shall determine the

uncertainty and take that uncertainty into

account when issuing the statement of com-

pliance; and

• Thelaboratoryshallretaindocumentaryevi-

dence of the measured quantity value and the

uncertainty of measurement, as specified in

ISO/IEC 17025 clauses 5.10.4.2 and 4.13,

and shall provide such evidence upon request.

This revision seems to have resolved the

matter in dispute and implementation

of this new version should be made by

January 2014.

The next challenge for A2LA was the un-

expected impact on the automated process-

es of our customers. Calibration certificate

templates that originally only reported a

statement of compliance, such as pass/fail,

needed to be changed to accommodate

for reporting measurement uncertainty.

Similarly, calibration software used to cal-

culate measurement uncertainty had to

be amended for the prescriptive rounding

rules (among other things) called for in

ILAC P14. Accomplishing these changes

by our customers involved a significant in-

vestment of resources depending on how

many templates were involved and how

many uncertainty calculations were im-

pacted. In many cases our customers didn’t

have the appropriate resources allocated in

their budget and/or enough manpower to

make the necessary changes in the time al-

lotted by ILAC for implementation.

The remaining issue in implementing

ILAC P14 was the number of customers

who had existing contracts with their cli-

ents that allowed for the exclusion of mea-

surement uncertainty from the calibration

certificate. Implementing the requirements

of P14 meant that this exclusion was no

longer allowed. Many of the clients of our

customers that did not want measurement

uncertainty were very vocal in informing

their calibration provider that they wanted

it removed from their certificates. A great

deal of time and effort has been made to

educate our customers and their clients on

the new policy and why it’s important that

the measurement uncertainty be reported

on the calibration certificate.

Despite the challenges and setbacks en-

countered by A2LA when implementing

ILAC P14, the majority of our customers

have successfully transitioned to meet this

new policy and our remaining customers

are well on their way to being in compli-

ance. Looking ahead A2LA is currently

working on how we plan to implement

the latest version of ILAC P14 and we an-

ticipate our implementation plan will be

forthcoming later this year. For more in-

formation on implementation of ILAC P14,

please contact your Accreditation Body.

[email protected]

IAS Laboratory Accreditation to ISO/IEC Standard 17025The International Accreditation Service (IAS) offers laboratories Accreditation Service Plus+

+ Quick scheduling and efficient assessments

+ On demand responsiveness

+ True affordability

+ Global recognition by ILAC

+ Proof of compliance with ISO/IEC 17025

Learn about the Benefits of IAS Accreditationwww.iasonline.org/met 866-427-4422

11-05611


RP-21 ASSESSMENT OF THE REqUIREMENTSOF ANSI/NCSL Z540.3 SUb-CLAUSE 5.3by Ryan fischer, ncslI accreditation Resources & liaison committee chair

A few years ago I was approached by Steve

Doty, NCSLI 171 Committee Chair at

the time, to see if I would be interested

in forming a working group to develop a

recommended practice for assessment of

ANSI/NCSL Z540.3 sub-clause 5.3. The 171

committee had developed the Handbook for

the Application of ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006

(Handbook) but Steve felt a document was

needed to assist with preparing for, and

performing, assessments to the require-

ments of sub-clause 5.3. I eagerly accepted

the task of assembling and chairing work-

ing group 3 of the 171 committee for the

purpose of developing the recommended

practice (RP-21).

Accreditation to ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006

sub-clause 5.3

ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 (Z540.3 or the

Standard) is a National Standard that “pre-

scribes requirements for a calibration sys-

tem to control the accuracy of the mea-

suring and test equipment used to ensure

that products and services comply with

prescribed requirements.” Competent cal-

ibration services are a vital element in a

compliant calibration system, but there are

additional requirements in Z540.3 for the

overall organization or the owner and user

of the measuring and test equipment. As

such, Z540.3 was not initially intended to

be applied in the accreditation of calibra-

tion service providers. However, perspec-

tives of specifiers, regulators and customers

evolved with time and the notion that cal-

ibration service providers be accredited to

Z540.3 became increasingly common. To-

day, within the US, laboratories of an orga-

nization can become accredited to meet the

requirements of the Standard. For more in-

formation, contact your Accreditation Body

for sector specific technical requirements.

Why sub-clause 5.3?

Z540.3 requires that all calibration servic-

ing components, such as a calibration or

standards laboratory, or facilities associated

with the calibration of measuring and test

equipment that are included in a calibra-

tion system, be competent. Competency

includes either meeting the full require-

ments of Z540.3 or being suitably accredit-

ed to, or found to be in conformance with,

the requirements of ANS/ISO/IEC 17025

(17025), including meeting the require-

ments of overall Z540.3 sub-clause 5.3.

Z540.3 sub-clause 5.3, Calibration of Mea-

suring and Test Equipment, prescribes the

requirements for a calibration system to

control the accuracy of the measuring and

test equipment used to ensure that prod-

ucts and services comply with prescribed

requirements. Included are the require-

ments for calibration of the measuring and

test equipment by a calibration servicing

component of that system. Sub-clause

5.3 acknowledges that accreditation to

ANS/ISO/IEC 17025 may be an acceptable

means to recognize a calibration service’s

competence provided that the scope of the

accreditation is compatible with the specif-

ic measuring and test equipment calibra-

tion requirements and the additional re-

quirements of the sub-clause are included

in the accreditation process.

Why an RP?

A common concern that arises with inter-

nal audits and third-party accreditation is

a noticeable lack of consistency between

auditors and assessors. Such inconsisten-

cy results from diverse understanding and

interpretation of requirements within

any standard and affects all aspects and

stakeholders involved in preparing for or

conducting assessments and audits. The

NCSLI 171 Committee Calibration System

Resources is made up of such stakeholders,

including specifiers, calibration laboratory

managers, test equipment manufacturers,

accrediting bodies, government organi-

zations, metrology experts, and other in-

terested and motivated parties. The com-

mittee membership acknowledged that

successful operation and assessment of cal-

ibration laboratories to the requirements

of 17025, as extended by those of Z540.3,

would be greatly facilitated by providing

“common ground” or consistent guidance

to assess the organizational competence of

the laboratories.

RP-21 provides for assessment of the re-

quirements of sub-clause 5.3 considering a

baseline of objective evidence; discussion

and guidance; and applicable examples to

assist assessors when reviewing compliance

with Z540.3 sub-clause 5.3. The RP also

includes information on selected topics in

the Standard such as, measurement decision

risk, probability of false accept, test uncer-

tainty ratio, and guard banding, which are

not commonly treated in generally avail-

able accreditation publications. Much of

this type of methodology is presented in

the Handbook which may be used as basic

application guidance. The supplemental

information in the RP is intended primarily

for use by: 1) technically trained assessors

assigned the responsibility of assessing cal-

coMMIttee neWs


ibration-servicing components to meet the

requirements of Z540.3 sub-clause; and, 2)

calibration laboratory personnel desiring

to prepare for an assessment.

The RP Design

RP-21 was developed with the same design

and structure as the Handbook so the user

can essentially line up the documents for

the application and assessment of the re-

quirements of the Standard. The RP identi-

fies the following:

• Requirement of the Standard. The exact

verbiage of Z540.3 has been inserted into

the RP.

• Assessmentoftherequirement.Thissec-

tion provides a thumbnail sketch that

quickly identifies and briefly describes

the requirements of the Standard that

should be addressed as part of the overall

assessment. Some of the details identi-

fied in this section include the type, na-

ture, and typical location of the objective

evidence needed to substantiate organi-

zational competence and achievement of

the requirement. If the clause is general

or indefinite in nature, this section ref-

erences other sub-clauses in the Standard

that describe the assessment require-

ments in greater detail.

It is important to remember that assess-

ment to Z540.3 supplements an assess-

ment to 17025. While the Standard might

not explicitly require a policy, procedure,

or record in sub-clause 5.3, it is implicit

that the requirements of 17025, as they

apply to sub-clause 5.3 of the Standard,

shall be met and are, by default, required.

References to sub-clauses 17025 and the

Standard are also included to aid in de-

scribing an overall requirement and to

facilitate the assessment.

• Discussion and Guidance. This section

is intended to aid in understanding the

assessment requirement in the overall

context of the Standard. It provides in-

formational tools to assist the assessor

and others in:

• locating and evaluating various

types of objective evidence, and

• understanding the concepts and

requirements.

When beneficial, references are made

to the Handbook to provide amplifying

details of a requirement. Alternatively,

brief passages of the Handbook may be

included to facilitate the use of this RP.

References are also made to other infor-

mative documentation, i.e., 17025 and

other sub-clauses of the Standard, where

improved understanding of the concept

and context are necessary.

• Examples. Where needed, examples

are included in either the “Assessment

of Requirements” or “Discussion and

Guidance” sections to further clarify the

information being provided. The exam-

ples are either representative of typical

assessment situations, documentation,

records, etc., or intended to aid in clarify-

ing subtle or more difficult matters. The

purpose of the examples is to improve,

but not limit, the understanding of ac-

ceptable methodologies used to achieve

the requirement. Where examples are

included, they are provided as guidance

only and are neither interpretive nor pre-

scriptive.

• Checklist.Theinformationintheappen-

dix serves as a sample assessment record

and checklist. It is provided to aid in pre-

paring for and conducting an assessment

to Z540.3 sub-clause 5.3.

Excerpt from RP-21

5.3.2 Measurement assurance procedures

Measuring processes incorporating mea-

surement assurance methods, such as sta-

tistical process control, shall use a measure-

ment assurance procedure. This procedure

shall be systematically applied and include

stated measurement uncertainty or reliabil-

ity goals, control criteria, and methodology

to verify that the goals and criteria are be-

ing attained. The controls shall be adjusted

when the results of the previous measure-

ments indicate that such action is appro-

priate to maintain acceptable measurement

uncertainty or reliability. Measurement as-

surance controls may be based on the use

of calibrated check standards, usage, and/

or time since the last performance. The

measurement assurance procedure shall in-

clude mandatory instructions to preclude

the use of the measuring process that ex-

ceeds its controls.

The measurement assurance procedure

and any associated measuring and test

equipment shall be documented as a cali-

bration procedure in accordance with the

provisions of this National Standard.

Assessment of Requirement

The Standard requires that organizations

utilizing measurement assurance methods

are to use a measurement assurance pro-

cedure related to the M&TE and be docu-

mented similar to a calibration procedure,

as applicable. (See sub-clause 5.3.1.) Al-

though the Standard does not require mea-

surement assurance methods to be used,

when they are used they are to meet the

requirements of this sub-clause. Assess-

ment of a measurement assurance process

should include review of the process goal

and/or performance criteria, the adequacy

of check standards used, the collection and

use of measurement data, and the means

employed to establish and maintain mea-

surement traceability.

Examples of the types of objective evi-

dence for meeting the requirements of this

sub-clause include:

a) Measurement assurance procedures

b) Records that measurement assurance

procedures have been reviewed for stat-

ed goals, validated, and approved for use

c) Documentation and records of the use

and results of measurement assurance

procedures

d) Criteria to verify that stated goals are at-

tained

e) Records of results, control and adjust-

ment of controls

Discussion and Guidance

Measurement assurance is a quality assur-

ance process directed at specific quality as-

pects of the measurement system and can

be performed in many ways. Sub-clause 3.4

defines measurement assurance as: “The

result of a process to provide adequate

confidence that a measurement will satis-

fy stated requirements,” and requires that

processes meeting the definition be doc-

umented in a procedure. As stated above,

the process includes criteria to verify that

stated goals are attained. The organization

must ensure that the procedure is followed

and that corrective measures are taken

when a measurement process exceeds its

control limits.

Calibration services often participate in

carefully designed and documented mea-

surement assurance programs (MAPs),

round robins, proficiency tests, or other

types of interlaboratory comparison pro-

grams to increase confidence in processes

and procedures. These, as well as many

process control systems would apply to

coMMIttee neWs


coMMIttee neWs

the area of sub-clause 5.3.2 and should be

documented as such. Check standards and

control charts are useful tools to achieve

measurement assurance.

Additional information concerning profi-

ciency testing is available in ISO/IEC 17043,

Conformity assessment – General requirements

for proficiency testing. See also NCSL Inter-

national RP-15, Guide for Interlaboratory

Comparisons. Additional guidance on mea-

surement assurance processes, round rob-

ins, check standard use, etc., are found in

the Z540.3 Handbook, sub-clause 5.3.2 and

Appendix B.

RP Availability

NCSLI Recommended Practice RP-21 For the

Assessment of ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006

Sub-clause 5.3, is available both in hard

copy and electronic format. To obtain a

copy, contact the NCSLI business office

(303-440-3339) or find it online at ncsli.org.

Acknowledgement

As the chair of the NCSLI 171 Calibration

System Resources Working Group 3, I wish

to thank the members of the working

group for their hard work and dedication

throughout the development of RP-21. I

especially want to thank and acknowledge

Del Caldwell for not only contributing to

the development but for also guiding the

working Group through the tedious edit-

ing process. Throughout this effort, the ex-

plorations and discussions were open and

candid with each member working to ful-

fill the goal of providing the measurement

community with an exemplary and useful

document.

Working Group Membership

This RP-21 was prepared by Working Group

3 of the NCSL International Committee

171, Calibration System Resources.

[email protected]


The new edition of RP-12 is a recommend-

ed practice for implementing the meth-

ods of the GUM and applying uncertainty

analysis methodologies established since

the GUM’s publication. In addition to

methods for estimating uncertainty, the

RP includes detailed uncertainty analysis

procedures, the evaluation and application

of uncertainty estimates and real-world un-

certainty analysis examples.

The new RP-12 edition was developed

by the NCSLI 173.5 Uncertainty Analysis

Committee to provide a recommended

practice for estimating and reporting mea-

surement uncertainty that clearly explains

key concepts and methods and that builds

a comprehensive framework for develop-

ing relevant, informative and useful uncer-

tainty estimates. To this end, the following

have been included:

• Descriptions and guidance for use of

specific error distributions in estimating

measurement uncertainty.

• A clear and concise description of the

variance addition rule and its application

to combining uncertainties.

• Step-by-step procedures for estimating

uncertainties in both direct and multi-

variate (indirect) measurements.

• Expandedandsystematizedmethodsfor

obtaining Type B uncertainty estimates.

The GUM defines a Type B estimates as

one “based on scientific thinking and

technical experience” in the absence of a

sample(s) of data. RP-12 implements this

definition through the use of formats for

elucidating and entering the necessary

information in a consistent way.

• Rigorous method for estimating Type B

degrees of freedom based on Eq. (G.3) of

the GUM and employing a method de-

veloped since the GUM’s publication.

• Amethodforestimatingtheuncertainty

in the output of a measurement system

whose “signal path” involves the prop-

agation of uncertainty through system

modules.

• Descriptionsofavarietyofmeasurement

scenarios and objectives, providing ex-

plicit guidance for estimating measure-

ment uncertainty within the context of

each.

• Guidanceforobtaining,interpreting,de-

veloping and using equipment specifica-

tions applicable to uncertainty analysis.

• Guidelinesonapplyinguncertaintyesti-

mates to establish tolerance limits.

• Measurementdecisionriskestimation.

• Calibration interval analysis estimation

and adjustment.

• Measurementmethodselection.

• Measurementequipmentselection.

• Hypothesistesting.

• Processmonitoringandcontrol.

• Communicatingtechnicalvariables.

• Developingcapabilitystatements.

• Guidelines for implementing an uncer-

tainty analysis capability.

• Guidelinesforreportinganalysisresults.

• Errorprobabilitydistributionsandselec-

tion criteria for uncertainty analysis.

• Thefundamentalsofthestatisticalanal-

ysis of sampled data.

• The development of expanded uncer-

tainties as confidence limits providing

relevance to uncertainty statements.

• A brief discussion of the Taylor series

used in estimating combined uncertain-

ties for multivariate measurements.

• A derivation of the Bayesian uncertain-

ty analysis method with expressions for

estimating the biases and bias uncertain-

ties of measurement references and UUT

attributes.

• Fundamentals of regressions analysis as

applied to estimating uncertainty, with a

method for estimating uncertainty over a

range of parameter values.

[email protected]

Services Calibrated to the standard of

Right! It’s a standard that de�nes the

industry and re�ects our work.

At Laboratory Services, right is a guiding principle

and a promise we’ve delivered to

customers since 1910.

For all your testing needs, you can

count on us to do it one way - Right.

To see how Laboratory Services does it right, visit us

at www.laboratory services.com

or call toll free at(800) 736-4147.

RIGHT

135 W. Trail StreetJackson, MI 49201

see scope for accreditation

NEW RP-12 EDITION AVAILAbLE NOW!by suzanne castrup, ncslI Measurement Uncertainty analysis committee chair

coMMIttee neWs


TWIN CITIES SECTION 1311by Harry spinks, twin cities section coordinator

The Twin Cities NCSLI Section met on

February 21 at the Saint Louis Park Recre-

ation Center in (you guessed it!), St. Louis

Park, Minnesota. The event was sponsored

by Technical Tools Products (TTP), a new

supporter of the local chapter. This was

Technical Tools first NCSLI section meet-

ing they have attended, and we appreciate

them sponsoring our event. At this daylong

event, we had four presentations and three

vendors displaying their equipment. The

vendors were Atlas Copco, Additel, and Am-

etek Land Instruments via Control House.

We had 92 attendees, which is just about

average for our winter meeting. Typically,

the winter meeting has our lowest atten-

dance. The spring meeting is usually our

largest with up to 120 attendees.

The meeting began with the introduction

of the section steering committee members.

This is the team that makes our meetings so

successful! Currently, we have 12 members

from multiple industries and businesses.

After the introduction, TTP’s President

John Quinn, and Regional Sales Manager

Jake Majerus, provided the sponsor and

host Presentation. They are an indus-

try-leading provider of manufacturing

solutions. I see John and Jake every week

at the assembly plant where I work. They

have provided many solutions for us, par-

ticularly in torque.

The first presentation was by John Ryn-

ertson, of Sturtevant Richmont, on “Torque

Wrench and Torque Tester Measurement

Uncertainty.” John covered the calibra-

tion and uncertainty budget for a primary

torque standard, torque tester/sensor cal-

ibration, and torque wrench calibration.

Many of the attendees calibrate torque in

one form or another. The presentation was

very in-depth and John provided many ex-

amples of what to “watch out for” when

performing torque calibrations. This is es-

pecially helpful to the attendees who cal-

ibrate their own torque standards. There’s

a lot more to torque that most technicians

are aware of. Calibrating a torque transduc-

er (cal standard) can be very tricky. There

are many variables that can affect your

measurement uncertainty that you may

not be taking into account. John’s presen-

tation was very detailed in that area.

The second presentation was by Dave

Mueller, Control House Inc., on “Tem-

perature Measurements with Radiation

Thermometry (IR).” The original presenter

from Ametek Land was unable to make it to

the meeting, so Dave was gracious enough

to present the material. He also had equip-

ment there for demonstration. This presen-

tation began with the very basics of IR ther-

mometry and progressed to more detail on

Miguel Decos.

Mingjian Zhao.

ncslI ReGIonal neWs


its application. There were a lot of detailed

diagrams and pictures (which is really help-

ful to calibration technicians). Many of us

have seen the IR temperature measurement

“guns.” These are very basic compared to

an IR “Camera.” One of the more complex

factors with IR thermometry is Emissivi-

ty. Dave went into a lot of detail on this.

Some of the factors which effect emissivity

are surface condition, wavelength, viewing

angle, and temperature. Accurate IR tem-

perature measurement is not as simple as

pointing an IR gun at the source and taking

a reading. There’s a lot of science and setup

behind accurate IR measurement.

The third presentation was by Mingjian

(Jack) Zhao, Additel Corporation, on “Im-

proving Field Pressure Calibration.” Jack’s

presentation identified some causes of er-

ror with field calibrations and how to im-

prove them. Two huge issues are tempera-

ture influences and leakage. Some of the

solutions identified are using screw press

technology instead of a check valve, an iso-

thermal bellows chamber, and hand-tight

quick connectors. The use of a pump with a

screw press reduces error when calibrating

hysteresis (down-pressure versus up-pres-

sure). Contamination is also an issue with

field pressure calibrations – you never

know what the owner was using the gage

for! Liquid, moisture and particulate traps

are needed to significantly reduce errors

and potential harm from contaminants.

Hand-tight quick-connectors are also ben-

eficial when in the field. No more tape! Or

wrenches! Hooray!

The fourth presentation was by Miguel

Decos, On Time Support, on “Technician

Qualification through Automated Random

Sampling of Completed Work.” Miguel’s

presentation provided an example of using

a preferred random sampling technique,

implemented using capabilities inherent

in most databases (i.e. Sybase ASA, Oracle,

Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, etc.), in se-

lecting completed work for continuously

monitoring technician competence. Con-

cepts include providing ideas in develop-

ing types for classification of equipment

(e.g. by discipline, model number family,

service location, etc.) and methods for ty-

ing the classification directly to the orga-

nization’s training program. Additional

information on how to implement these

methods, regardless of the database plat-

form used, was also provided. The methods

employed in this discussion are applicable

in calibration or testing laboratory envi-

ronments.

Miguel provided very useful informa-

tion on why some of the other techniques

would not be as effective as this one. One

of those processes that wasn’t very effec-

tive (efficient) was used by the Air Force

PMEL’s. It was the multi-level random sam-

pling method. Ah, the fond memories that

brought back, shaking a container of coins

to see how many turned up heads. If you

were very skilled (lucky) you were at Level

4, the ultimate in quality. But, how many

of you former PMEL QA Inspectors remem-

ber having someone at Level 1? (Was there

a level 0?) I thought the procedure was

effective at identifying technicians who

needed more “training.” Unfortunately,

it took one to two full time inspectors (in

a Type II) lab to keep up with all the in-

spections. It’s been a long time (seems like

decades, but it’s only been 20 years) since

I was in an Air Force PMEL, what are they

doing now?

As always, we close out our meeting with

the Door Prize Finale!

Our spring 2013 meeting will be in May

and is sponsored by Atlas Copco one of

our vendors at this meeting. Check the

NCSLI website www.ncsli.org, [Regions /

Central US / Twin Cities Section] for more

information.

Many thanks to our steering committee

members who make this a super successful

event three times a year!

[email protected]

ncslI ReGIonal neWs

twin cities Meeting.


ALbUqUERqUE SECTION 1324by Hy tran, ncslI section coordinator

For the spring 2013 NCSLI Albuquerque

section meeting, Dilip Shah kindly agreed

to give a tutorial on measurement uncer-

tainty, sponsored by ASQ Measurement

Quality Division.

We selected March 25, 2013 as the meet-

ing date, thinking that coordinating travel

with the end of the Measurement Science

Conference (MSC) would help Dilip’s trav-

el—unfortunately, the airlines were not co-

operative, so Dilip had to fly from LA back

to Cleveland, then, back to Albuquerque.

The spring meeting had 42 pre-registered

attendees; 40 signed-in.

The meeting was hosted by Professors

John Wood and Ron Lumia, of the Mechan-

ical Engineering Department at the Univer-

sity of New Mexico (UNM). They provided

a large conference room in UNM’s Science

and Technology Park, at no charge to NCS-

LI. Attendees included a mix of students,

management, measurement technologists,

engineers, and uncategorized attendees.

Dilip gave an excellent presentation, in-

cluding hands-on experiments with the at-

tendees, until lunch. Paul Packebush from

National Instruments, the NCSLI Division

Vice President, gave an update from the

NCSLI Board of Directors just before lunch.

A run for pizza was organized for lunch,

with 75 % of the attendees participating.

After lunch, Dilip finished his tutorial,

including extensive calculations of the

parameters necessary in estimating the

uncertainty of measurement of the unit-

under-test brought by Dilip, with measure-

ment tools provided by Hy Tran, NCSLI

section coordinator.

After the tutorial concluded, the partic-

ipants talked about the next meeting. The

following requests were made for topics

for the next section meeting: Cables and

connectors; grounding and shielding; cal-

ibration intervals. Drawings were made for

door prizes (four of the door prizes, and

the speaker gift, were hand-made by my-

self, Hy Tran). Other door prizes included

NCSLI 50th anniversary insulated cups and

NCSLI notebooks.

I would like to express my appreciation

to Dilip and ASQ/MQD for Dilip’s travel.

I would also like to express my apprecia-

tion to the UNM Mechanical Engineering

Department and Manufacturing Program

for sponsoring the meeting venue; to Mark

Benner at Sandia for arriving early to help

set up; to NCSL International; to Paul

Packebush for traveling to Albuquerque to

provide the Board of Directors update; Jon

Sanders at Fluke for trying to come (but

having his flight cancelled); and to Gwen

Sorensen at Sandia for typing all the certif-

icates of attendance.

[email protected]

Dilip shah talks about uncertainty.

Hy tran, ncslI section coordinator, presented his hand made pens as door prizes and as the speaker gift. the second pen from the right, in mesquite, was presented to Dilip shah.

ncslI ReGIonal neWs


SOUTH FLORIDA SECTION 1226by Randy farmer, ncslI section coordinator

In September of 2012 the NCSL Interna-

tional 1200 Southeastern Division opened

the “South Florida Section 1226,” a brand

new section. We held our first event on

September 13, 2012 at Quality Systems

Labs in Boca Raton, Fl. The event was

sponsored by Ed Brown, Quality Systems

Laboratory Managing Director, and South

Florida Section co-chair along with the new

South Florida Section coordinator, Ran-

dy Farmer, Biotest Pharmaceuticals. Event

sponsorship was also supported by Jeff Ste-

vens of Southern Marketing Associates and

Bob Smallwood from Fluke Calibration.

The initial meeting focused on an intro-

duction of the NCSLI organization, estab-

lishing a section 1226 core group, discus-

sion of future events and training topics.

Training was given on “Intro to Measure-

ment” as well as “Metrology 101”. Fluke

provided additional training in electronics

and uncertainties associated with electron-

ic standards.

The mixed quality and metrology partic-

ipants were active and engaged in the train-

ing topics and enjoyed the provided tour of

a 17025 accredited lab as well as mini work

station lectures for several measurement

disciplines. The catered lunch provided by

QSL ensured that everyone had a chance to

enjoy themselves in a no-stress no pressure

environment that encouraged questions

and promoted networking.

The next event is planned for the spring

with an April timeline, and will build upon

the work station concept that we intro-

duced during the first event. The plans

are to get participants actively involved in

taking real time measurements with actual

field and lab training standards. The event

will also provide a round robin discussion

topic format as well as a structured presen-

tation on “Certificates of Calibration.”

We anticipate another great turnout and

encourage everyone to follow the NCSLI

website, and Facebook page, for updated

information pertaining to the next event.

[email protected]

ncslI ReGIonal neWs

south florida Meeting.

InteRnatIonal neWs

Last year’s NCSLI Workshop & Symposium had the title The Busi-

ness End of Metrology: Quality and Testing. The term “quality” can be

interpreted pragmatically as “fitness for purpose,” and this includes

functionality, reliability and safety of technical products. To mon-

itor functional performance and structural integrity of technical

products and systems and to examine symptoms of faults and fail-

ures, the methods of Technical Diagnostics can be applied. This let-

ter outlines the scope of this important tool for quality control and

describes the contents of a new Handbook of Technical Diagnostics.

quality Assessment and Technical DiagnosticsQuality is the watchword and password for success in this era

of globalization and liberalization. Quality assurance during

fabrication, pre-service and in-service assessment using techni-

cal diagnostics techniques are essential for safe, reliable and long

term performance of components and structures. Technical Diag-

nostics is the examination of symptoms to determine the nature

of faults or failures of technical objects (ISO 13372), and there are

four basic methodologies:

1) Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a structured proce-

dure to determine equipment functions and functional failures,

with each failure mode being assessed to the cause of the failure

and the effects of the failure on the system.

2) Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) attempts to model and analyze failure

processes. As a deductive approach, FTA starts with an undesired

event, such as failure of an engine, and then determines (de-

duces) its failure causes using a systematic, backward-stepping

process.

3) Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) is the process of imple-

menting a damage detection and characterization strategy for

engineering structures. The objective of Structural Health Mon-

itoring is to monitor the in-situ behavior of a structure accurate-

ly and efficiently, to assess its performance under various ser-

vice loads, to detect damage or deterioration, and to determine

the health or condition of the structure.

4) Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) is the umbrella term for

non-invasive methods of testing, evaluation and characteriza-

tion based on physical principles of sensing and assessment.

Nondestructive evaluation is an important method for perfor-

mance control and condition monitoring.

A summarizing overview of the concepts, methods and tech-

niques of Technical Diagnostics with key words of their defini-

tions is given in the following table.

Metrological parameters as indicators intechnical diagnosticsThe control of a parameter of a technical system, such that a sig-

nificant change is indicative of a developing fault is called Condi-

tion Monitoring the application of conditional monitoring allows

maintenance to be scheduled, or other actions to be taken to avoid

the consequences of failure, before the failure occurs. Examples of

performance parameters of technical systems of different machine

types are exemplified in the following table.


Letter from EuropeQuality Assessment andTechnical Diagnostics

Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA)

• inductiveconcept:considerationofpotentialfailurecauses

and failure effect analysis

Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)

• deductiveconcept:postulationoffailureandbackward

stepping failure cause analysis

Structual Health Monitoring (SHM)

• detectionandassesmentoffault/failuresymptomswith

structure-integrated sensors

Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE)

• non-imvasiveexaminationofmaterialsflaws/defectsas

symptoms of faults or failures

by Prof. Horst CzichosbHT berlin, University of Applied Sciences, Contributing Editor


letteR fRoM eURoPe

Condition monitoring measurment parameter

Technical öbject of condition monitoring (machine type)

Electric motor Gas turbine Pump CompressorElectric gener-ator

FanInternal combus-tion engine

Temperature

Torque

Pressure

Speed

Vibration

Voltage

Current

Air Flow

Fluid Flow

Fuel Flow

Oil Presueure

Input power

Output power

indicates condition monitoring measurement parameter is applicable

Changes of performance parameters observed in condition monitoring can indicate symptoms of fault occurrence as illustrated in the

following table for the example of technical diagnostics of a reciprocating internal combustion engine.

Condition monitoring measurement parameter change

Indicated faultEnginetemperature

Cylinder pressure Fuel flow Vibration Output power Oil consumption Oil debris

Air inlet blockage

Fuel injector fault

Ignition fault

Cooling module fault

Seal leakage

Piston ring fault

Gear defects

Bearing wear

indicates symptoms of a fault

Handbook of Technical DiagnosticsA new Handbook of Technical Diagnostics is now available (springer.

com, search Czichos) which is organized in five parts:

1) Part A introduces the scope and application of technical diagnos-

tics and gives a comprehensive overview of the physics of failure.

2) Part B presents all relevant methods and techniques for diag-

nostics and monitoring: from stress, strain, vibration analysis,

nondestructive evaluation, thermography and industrial radiol-

ogy to computed tomography and subsurface microstructural

analysis.

3) Part C cores the principles and concepts of technical failure

analysis, illustrates case studies, and outlines machinery diag-

nostics with an emphasis on tribological systems.

4) Part D describes the application of structural health monitor-

ing and performance control to plants and the technical infra-

structure, including buildings, bridges, pipelines, electric power

stations, offshore wind structures, and railway systems.

5) Part E is an excursion on diagnostics in arts and culture.

The Handbook integrates knowledge

of basic sciences and engineering

disciplines with contributions from

research institutions, academe, and

industry, written by internationally

known experts from various parts of

the world, including Europe, Can-

ada, India, Japan, and the US. The

book presents concepts, methods

and techniques to examine symp-

toms of faults and failures of struc-

tures, systems and components and

to monitor functional performance

and structural integrity.

[email protected]


Thank You Advertisers

ADVERTISERS’ INDEX

additelwww.additel.com Page 31

collége français De Metrologiewww.metrologie2013.com Page 35

fluke calibrationwww.fluke.com Page 23

laboratory serviceswww.laboratoryservices.com Page 41

International accreditation servicewww.iasonline.org/met.com Page 37

MaHR federalwww.mahr.com Page 33

Measurements Internationalwww.mintl.com Page 15 & 29

Mensor corporationwww.mensor.com Page 40

ncslI education the Way forwardwww.ncsli.org Page 6

ncslI Membershipwww.ncsli.org Inside front cover

ncslI 2013 expand Your Reachwww.ncsli.org Inside back cover

ncslI 2013 Workshop & symposiumwww.ncsli.org back cover

Thunder Scientific Corporationwww.thunderscientific.com Page 29

transmillewww.transmillecalibration.com Page 18

trescalwww.trescal.com Page 4

WorkPlace trainingwww.wptraining.com Page 5

METROLOGY

METROLOGY

GAYLORD OPRYLAND CONVENTION CENTER

Workshop & Symposium

in

METROLOGY

NCSL INTERNATIONAL

WORKSHOP& SYMPOSIUM

JULY 14-182013

A


2995 Wilderness Place, Suite 107 | Boulder, CO 80301

www.ncsli.org | 303-440-3339

PACED SOCIETY

PACED SOCIETY

PACED SOCIETY

PACED SOCIETY

NASHVILLE, TN

© copyright 2013, ncsl international april 2013 : metrologist 1 table of contents pg. 16 pg. 14 pg....

Documents