| Zugriffsnummer | 30706 |
| Dokumenttyp | Zeitschriftenartikel |
| Peer Review | unbekannt |
| Sprache | Englisch |
| Titel | Final report on APMP.L-K8: International comparison of surface roughness |
| Autor(in); Institution |
Baker, Andrew; National Measurement Institute Australia (NMIA), AUSTRALIA
Tan, S. L.; National Metrology Centre (NMC, A*STAR), SINGAPORE
Leach, Richard; National Physical Laboratory (NPL), UK
Jung-Albrecht, Lena; 5.1, Oberflächenmesstechnik, PTB-Braunschweig
Wong, S. Y.; Standards and Calibration Laboratory (SCL), CHINA
Tonmueanwai, A.; National Institute of Metrology, Thailand (NIMT), THAILAND
Naoi, K.; National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ), JAPAN
Kim, J.; Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS), KOREA
Renegar, T. B.; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA
Chaudhary, K. P.; National Physical Laboratory India (NPLI), INDIA
Kruger, O.; National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA), SOUTH AFRICA
Amer, M.; National Institute of Standards (NIS), EGYPT
Gao, Sai; National Institute of Metrology (NIM), CHINA
Tsai, L.; National Measurement Laboratory (CMS), Chinese Taipei, CHINA
Anh, N.; Vietnam Metrology Institute (VMI), VIETNAM
Drijarkara, A.; Kalibrasi Instrumentasi dan Metrologi Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (KIM-LIPI), INDONESIA
|
| Quelle/Jahr | Metrologia: 50 (2013), 1A, Tech. Suppl., 1 - 74 |
| Artikelnummer | 04003 |
| Availability | [online only] |
| ISSN | 0026-1394 |
| DOI | |
| URL | |
| Verlag | Bristol: IOP |
| Freie Schlagworte | surface texture ; key comparison of surface rougness ; surface roughness calibration sevices |
| Zusammenfassung | Surface roughness calibration services of sixteen countries from four metrology regions are compared through measurements of roughness and step height standards. The artefacts circulated include three steps of nominal depths 0.4 µm, 2.4 µm and 10 µm, whereas the roughness sections of both type C and type D profiles have nominal Ra values of 0.2 µm, 0.95 µm, 1.5 µm and 3.1 µm. Two softgauges were also circulated for comparison of software independent of hardware. For the steps, parameter d is reported, while for the type C and type D standards and softgauges, fourteen different roughness parameters are reported between them. Concluding measurements from the pilot in general show good standard stability, however, for some parameters on the artefacts of larger roughness, stability may be considered less certain and this may be an issue in additional outliers in results from the last few laboratories in the schedule. For each parameter, a key comparison reference value (KCRV) is determined using a weighted mean with outliers excluded based on the Birge ratio method until all accepted values form a statistically consistent population. For the five artefacts, out of thirty-five separate parameters, only ten have good agreemen of all submitted results. Where some parameters had to be excluded from the KCRV, some laboratories had consistent problems with particular types of parameter over the different artefacts, while for other laboratories the types of parameters excluded seemed to be random. Comparison of softgauge results and artefact results has proven to be inconclusive. |
Zitierung
Baker, A., Tan, S. L., Leach, R., Jung-Albrecht, L., Wong, S. Y., Tonmueanwai, A., Naoi, K., Kim, J., Renegar, T. B., Chaudhary, K. P., Kruger, O., Amer, M., Gao, S., Tsai, L., Anh, N., & Drijarkara, A. (2013). Final report on APMP.L-K8: International comparison of surface roughness. Metrologia, 50(1A, Tech. Suppl.), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/50/1a/04003