| Zugriffsnummer | 29711 |
| Dokumenttyp | Konferenzartikel in Zeitschrift |
| Sprache | Englisch |
| Titel | Recommendation for unified rules for key comparison evaluation |
| Autor(in); Institution |
Härtig, Frank; 5.3, Koordinatenmesstechnik, PTB-Braunschweig
Bosse, Harald; 5, Fertigungsmesstechnik, PTB-Braunschweig
Krystek, Michael; 5, Fertigungsmesstechnik, PTB-Braunschweig
|
| Quelle/Jahr | Measurement technology and intelligent instruments IX. Key Engineering Materials: 613 (2014), 26 - 33 |
| ISSN | 1013-9826 |
| ISBN | 978-3-03835-112-2 |
| Verlag | Durnten-Zurich [u.a.]: Trans Tech Publications |
| Konferenzangaben | The 11th International Symposium on Measurement Technology and Intelligent Instruments, Aachen and Braunschweig, 01-05, July, 2013, Germany |
| Freie Schlagworte | key comparison ; evaluation rules ; En-value ; reference value ; weighted mean ; degree of equivalence ; En-number ; consistency |
| Zusammenfassung | Comparison measurements are the backbone for validating the calibration competence of national metrology institutes among each other. These comparisons are either based on bilateral comparisons (providing so-called degrees of equivalence (DoE)) or alternatively on comparisons with a key comparison reference value (KCRV). Procedures for the preparation and execution of key comparisons as well as supplementary comparisons are described in corresponding guideline documents of the BIPM mutual recognition arrangement (MRA) and many other documents. However, the BIPM/MRA guidelines leave it open to the different CIPM consultative committees to deciede on a proper choice of calculation rules for the determination of reference values for the different comparisons. This openness caused that different formulae for the calculation of key comparison reference values were proposed in the past. It would, however, be preferable to have uniform evaluation rules to allow unambiguous calculations of key comparison reference values and their associated uncertainties. The aim of this paper is to review existing evaluation procedures, compare them concerning their applicability and give recommendations for unified evaluation precedures taking into account the recommendations of the BIPM/MRA as e.g. a coverage probability of 95 %. The usability of the En-value as a quality criterion for the assessment of comparison measurements will be discussed as well. Graphical presentation of the results of comparisons will be dealt with, too. Moreover, it will be discussed how to treat individual measurement results which differ significantly from the others. Besides the formal description numerical examples are presented. |
