oiml bulletin january 2004 · 37 oiml certificate system: certificates registered by the biml,...

ISSN

047

3-28

12OIML

BULLETINVOLUME XLV • NUMBER 1

JANUARY 2004

Quarterly Journal

38th CIML Meeting, Kyoto: Opening Speeches

Organisation Internationale de Métrologie Légale

T H E O I M L B U L L E T I N I S T H E

Q U A RT E R LY J O U R N A L O F T H E

O R G A N I S AT I O N I N T E R N AT I O N A L E

D E M É T R O L O G I E L É G A L E

The Organisation Internationale de Métrologie Légale(OIML), established 12 October 1955, is an inter-governmental organization whose principal aim is toharmonize the regulations and metrological controlsapplied by the national metrology services of itsMembers.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Jean-François Magaña

EDITOR: Chris Pulham

2004 SU B S C R I P T I O N RAT E

60 €

I S S N 0473-2812

P R I N T E D I N F R A N C E

G R A N D E I M P R I M E R I E D E T R O Y E S

130, R U E G É N É R A L D E G A U L L E

10000 T R O Y E S

OIML PR E S I D I U M

A N D PR E S I D E N T I A L CO U N C I L

AC T I N G PR E S I D E N T

Manfred Kochsiek (GE R M A N Y)

VI C E-PR E S I D E N T

Lev K. Issaev (RU S S I A N FE D E R AT I O N)

CH A I R P E R S O N, DE V E L O P M E N T CO U N C I L

Ghaïet-El-Mouna Annabi (TU N I S I A)

ME M B E R S

Judith Bennett (AU S T R A L I A)Alan E. Johnston (CA N A D A)

Wang Qinping (CH I N A)Mitsuru Tanaka (JA PA N)

Gerard J . Faber (NE T H E R L A N D S)Stuart Carstens (SO U T H AF R I C A)

Charles D. Ehrl ich (UN I T E D STAT E S)

Jean-François Magaña (DIRECTOR OF BIML)

OIML SE C R E TA R I AT

BU R E A U IN T E R N AT I O N A L

D E MÉ T R O L O G I E LÉ G A L E (BIML)

11 R U E TU R G O T – 75009 PA R I S – FR A N C E

TE L: 33 (0)1 4878 1282FA X: 33 (0)1 4282 1727IN T E R N E T: www.oiml.org or www.oiml. int

BIML TE C H N I C A L AG E N T S

DI R E C T O R

Jean-François Magaña ([email protected])

AS S I S TA N T DI R E C T O R S

Atti la Szi lvássy ([email protected])Ian Dunmil l ( [email protected])

ED I T O R

Chris Pulham ([email protected])

EN G I N E E R S

Edouard Weber ([email protected])Jean-Christophe Esmiol ( [email protected])

AD M I N I S T R AT O R

Phil ippe Leclercq ([email protected])

OF F I C E MA N A G E R

Patricia Saint-Germain ([email protected])

AL B A N I A

AL G E R I A

AU S T R A L I A

AU S T R I A

BE L A R U S

BE L G I U M

BR A Z I L

BU L G A R I A

CA M E R O O N

CA N A D A

P. RE P. O F CH I N A

CR O AT I A

CU B A

CY P R U S

CZ E C H RE P U B L I C

DE N M A R K

EG Y P T

ET H I O P I A

FI N L A N D

FR A N C E

GE R M A N Y

GR E E C E

HU N G A RY

IN D I A

IN D O N E S I A

IS L A M I C RE P U B L I C O F IR A N

IR E L A N D

IS R A E L

ITA LY

JA PA N

KA Z A K H S TA N

KE N YA

DE M. P. RE P. O F KO R E A

RE P. O F KO R E A

MA C E D O N I A , TH E FO R M E R YU G O S L AV RE P U B L I C O F

MO N A C O

MO R O C C O

NE T H E R L A N D S

NE W ZE A L A N D

NO RWAY

PA K I S TA N

PO L A N D

PO RT U G A L

RO M A N I A

RU S S I A N FE D E R AT I O N

SA U D I AR A B I A

SE R B I A A N D MO N T E N E G R O

SL O VA K I A

SL O V E N I A

SO U T H AF R I C A

SPA I N

SR I LA N K A

SW E D E N

SW I T Z E R L A N D

TA N Z A N I A

TU N I S I A

UN I T E D KI N G D O M

UN I T E D STAT E S O F AM E R I C A

VI E T N A M

ZA M B I A

O I M LM E M B E R S T A T E S

O I M L C O R R E S P O N D I N G

M E M B E R S

AR G E N T I N A

BA H R A I N

BA N G L A D E S H

BA R B A D O S

BE N I N

BO S N I A A N D HE R Z E G O V I N A

BO T S WA N A

BU R K I N A FA S O

CA M B O D I A

CO M O R E S, IS L A M I C FE D. RE P. O F

CO S TA RI C A

ES T O N I A

FI J I

GA B O N

GH A N A

GU AT E M A L A

HO N G KO N G, CH I N A

IC E L A N D

JO R D A N

KU WA I T

LAT V I A

LI B YA

LI T H U A N I A

LU X E M B U R G

MA D A G A S C A R

MA L AY S I A

MA LTA

MA U R I T I U S

ME X I C O

MO L D O VA

MO N G O L I A

MO Z A M B I Q U E

NE PA L

NI C A R A G U A

OM A N

PA N A M A

PA P U A NE W GU I N E A

PA R A G U AY

PE R U

SE Y C H E L L E S

SI N G A P O R E

SY R I A

CH I N E S E TA I P E I

TH A I L A N D

TR I N I D A D A N D TO B A G O

TU R K E Y

UK R A I N E

UR U G U AY

UZ B E K I S TA N

B U L L E T I NVO L U M E XLV • NU M B E R 1

JA N U A RY 2004

K t e c h n i q u e

5 Moisture meters: A new certification approach Régine Gaucher and Estelle Saccardi

12 Uncertainty of measurement calculations for the “Weighing Performance Test” under OIML R 76 Richard Sanders and Christine Munteanu

K e v o l u t i o n s

20 The relationship between calibration, verification and metrological confirmation Dai Runsheng and Han Jianping

K s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0

23 The expanding scope of legal metrology and the changing role of the state in a globalization worldJohn Birch

25 Opportunities and future trends in legal metrology control of measuring instruments Sam Chappell

29 Measuring instrument technology and customers and contractors of legal metrology in the mid 21st centuryMitsuru Tanaka

32 The pattern approval process: The past, present and future as seen by US instrument manufacturers Darrell Flocken and Daryl Tonini

35 Measuring instruments invisibly connectedWim Volmer

K u p d a t e

37 OIML Certificate System: Certificates registered by the BIML, 2003.08 – 2003.10

43 Kyoto 2003 Introductory speeches

46 Reports: OIML TC 8/SC 1 Meeting

47 OIML TC 8/SC 3 & 4 Meeting

49 Future Aspects of Software and IT in Legal Metrology (FASIT)

52 New CIML Members; OIML Meetings; Committee Drafts received by the BIML

IN THIS BULLETIN: KYOTO OPENING SPEECHES. FULL ACCOUNT IN THE APRIL EDITION

OIML BULLETIN

VOLUME XLV • NUMBER 1

JANUARY 2004

K Contents

K t e c h n i q u e

5 Compteurs d’humidité: Une nouvelle approche de la certification Régine Gaucher et Estelle Saccardi

12 Incertitude des calculs de mesure pour “l’Essai de Performance de Pesage” conformément à OIML R 76Richard Sanders et Christine Munteanu

K é v o l u t i o n s

20 Relation entre étalonnage, vérification et approbation métrologique Dai Runsheng et Han Jianping

K s é m i n a i r e 2 0 2 0

23 Le domaine élargi de la métrologie légale et le rôle en évolution de l’état dans un monde de globalisation John Birch

25 Opportunités et tendances se dessinant pour le contrôle des instruments de mesure en métrologie légaleSam Chappell

29 Technologie, clients et fournisseurs des instruments de mesure dans le domaine de la métrologie légale au milieu du 21ème siècleMitsuru Tanaka

32 Le processus d’approbation de modèle: Le passé, le présent et le futur vus par les fabricants d’instruments des États-Unis d’Amérique Darrell Flocken et Daryl Tonini

35 Instruments de mesure sans-filsWim Volmer

K i n f o r m a t i o n s

37 Système de Certificats OIML: Certificats enregistrés par le BIML, 2003.08 – 2003.10

43 Allocutions d’ouverture de Kyoto 2003

46 Rapports: Réunion OIML TC 8/SC 1

47 Réunion OIML TC 8/SC 3 & 4

49 Futurs Aspects des Logiciels et IT en Métrologie Légale (FASIT)

52 Nouveaux Membres du CIML; Réunions OIML; Projets de Comité reçus par le BIML

K Sommaire BULLETIN OIML

VOLUME XLV • NUMÉRO 1

JANVIER 2004

K Editorial

...Looking Back Looking Forward ...

When on Friday 6 November 2003 I had the honor ofgiving my last speech as CIML President I felt bothcontented and grateful, and I know that this was

the right moment for me to step down. The OIML is in rather good shape: interest in legal

metrology is growing, and more countries are joining theOIML as Member States every year. The organization has awell-founded policy, a good action plan and is able to achie-ve its goals thanks to many highly committed metrologistsall over the world and the hard working, enthusiastic staffat the BIML.

I am very grateful for the kind words the new ActingPresident and the BIML Director said to me during theOIML Reception in Kyoto, which was my last as President.This role was the “icing on the cake” for me and I loved it.Nevertheless, there are many things I was not able toaccomplish. As I said in Kyoto, the OIML is making muchprogress, but is still too far from being a “champion” in legalmetrology. A huge amount of work still has to be done, andI think that high priority must be allocated to finalizing theupdate of the so-called “Model Law”, and of course to theactual implementation of the MAA, the adoption of whichwas for me one of the highlights of the Kyoto CIMLMeeting.

This work will never end - and must never end. Evenwhen the final goal is reached, namely a global and compre-hensive metrology system, this system will have to be upda-ted constantly in order to maintain it in line with all kindsof technological, political and other developments.

I will of course be closely following the activities of theOIML for as long as possible, and I offer my full support tothe future leaders of the OIML. It has been a pleasure wor-king with all of my legal metrology friends and colleagues,and a very memorable experience both personally and pro-fessionally. K

The outcome of the 38th CIML Meeting in Kyoto has ledto my taking on the role of CIML Acting President,albeit quite unexpectedly. My activities for the year of

presidency that lies ahead of me will basically be guided bythe Decisions and Resolutions of the Kyoto meeting underthe presidency of Mr. Faber, whom I again thank very muchfor his excellent leadership. I intend to prioritize the imple-mentation of the MAA, including how to finance it and howto make a choice of one or two initial categories of measu-ring instruments. Another important point is the so-called“Model Law” in cooperation with ILAC and the BIPM.

The evaluation of the Birch Report and the outcome ofthe 2020 Seminar held in Saint-Jean-de-Luz in 2002 willalso result in further actions in 2004, such as new projectsfor OIML Technical Committees in the fields of medicineand accreditation.

During the last years I have always personally stood upfor a global measurement system outside the OIML and Iwill of course continue these efforts as CIML ActingPresident. I will pay special attention to the interests andproblems of developing countries. Another topic is the pre-paration of the 12th Conference in Berlin in 2004, and oneor two workshops which might deal with trade facilitatormetrology and/or strengthening legal metrology in develo-ping countries. I will also contact CIML Members with aview to encouraging them to become more actively invol-ved, and try to convince other countries and economies tojoin the OIML.

The election of the CIML President in October 2004 hasto be successful. So that we are all prepared sufficiently inadvance, at this stage and while we still have slightly undera year in hand, I would like to invite all CIML Members toconsider whether they wish to submit their candidacy forthis election.

I look forward to this challenge and take the opportuni-ty to wish all our Members and Readers a very successfulNew Year for 2004. K

GERARD J. FABER MANFRED KOCHSIEK

Introduction

Moisture meters, which are instruments used for themeasurement of humidity of cereals in commercialtransactions in France, have been subject to legalmetrology control since 1973.

Since then their regulation has evolved, though it isstill based on the same principle of validation.

1 The principle of validation of moisture meters

1.1 The principles of measurement

In all cases, the indication of the water contentdisplayed by the moisture meter results from an indirectmeasurement obtained by converting a gross quantitywhich can be for example, according to the technologyused, the dielectric permitivity, the light absorbance, etc.

In its memory, each moisture meter contains alibrary of conversion curves which for each type of grainwill allow the gross measurement to be converted intoan indication of water content, also taking into accountother parameters such as the grain temperature.

In the case of a moisture meter based on electricalcapacitance:

H (%) = f(εr, t, ...)

Where H is the indication of water content,εr is the relative electrical permitivity of the

grain sample,t is the temperature.

In the case of a moisture meter using infraredabsorbance:

H (%) = f(∆φ, t, ...)

where ∆φ is the variation of the flux (luminous).

Introduction

L’humidimètre, instrument utilisé pour la mesure del’humidité des graines de céréale en France, dans lecadre des opérations de commerce, est réglementé entant qu’instrument de mesure depuis 1973.

Depuis cette date, cette réglementation a évoluécependant elle reste basée sur un même principe devalidation des instruments.

1 Le principe de validation des humidimètres

1.1 Les principes de mesure

Dans tous les cas, l’indication de la teneur en eau déli-vrée par l’humidimètre résulte d’une mesure indirecteobtenue par la conversion d’une grandeur dite brute quipeut être selon la technologie de l’humidimètre, parexemple, la permittivité diélectrique, l’absorbance, etc.

Chaque humidimètre va donc disposer en mémoired’une bibliothèque de courbes de conversion quipermettront, pour chaque espèce de grains, de convertirla mesure brute en une indication de titre en eau, entenant compte également d’autres paramètres tels que latempérature du grain.

Dans le cas d’un humidimètre capacitif:

H (%) = f(εr, t, ...)

Avec H l’indication de titre en eau,εr la permittivité relative de l’échantillon de

grain,t la température.

Dans le cas d’un humidimètre infrarouge:

H (%) = f(∆φ, t, ...)

avec ∆φ: la variation du flux lumineux

INDIRECT MEASUREMENTS

Moisture meters: A new certification approach Humidimètres: Une nouvelle approche dans la certification

RÉGINE GAUCHER & ESTELLE SACCARDI

LNE, France

ENGLISH TRANSLATION ORIGINAL FRENCH TEXT

5

t e c h n i q u e

O I M L B U L L E T I N V O L U M E X LV • N U M B E R 1 • J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 4

6

t e c h n i q u e


1.2 L’élaboration des courbes de conversion

L’élaboration de ces courbes de conversion s’effectue àpartir d’une détermination de valeur de référence del’humidité selon des méthodes normalisées telles quepar exemple la méthode de référence pratique définiedans la Norme Internationale ISO 712.

Cette méthode est appliquée sur des échantillons degrains d’humidité naturelle (voir Fig. 1).

Les échantillons qui servent à cette élaboration sontprélevés sur des récoltes en cours pour une espècedonnée à partir de différentes variétés de cette espèce etdans différentes régions.

Les conditions de prélèvement doivent en effetpermettre de tenir compte de différents paramètres telsque ceux donnés en a, b, et c ci-dessous:

a L’exhaustivité des variétés

Afin d’éviter de multiplier le nombre de courbes deconversion, la méthode consiste dans la mesure dupossible à se limiter à une courbe de conversion parespèce. Par exemple, une courbe de maïs qui pourra êtreutilisée pour la détermination de la teneur en eau desdifférentes variétés de maïs telles que maïs waxy, maïscorné denté, maïs denté. De ce fait on note l’importancede disposer du plus grand nombre possible de variétéspour l’élaboration de la courbe de conversion.

b L’influence des conditions géographiques

Chaque région a ses spécificités climatiques, afin d’avoirun maximum de teneurs en eau différentes pour

1.2 The elaboration of the conversion curves

The elaboration of these curves is done from adetermination of the reference value of humidityaccording to standardized methods such as for examplethe practical reference method defined in InternationalStandard ISO 712.

This method is applied to samples of grains withtheir natural humidity as shown in Fig. 1.

The samples which are used for this determinationare collected from crops in the process of beingharvested for a given type of grain, including differentvarieties of this type and emanating from differentregions.

The sampling process must take into accountdifferent parameters such as described in a, b, and cbelow:

a Exhaustivity of grain varieties

In order to avoid multiplying the number of conversioncurves, the method consists in using a single conversioncurve per type as far as possible. For example, a curvefor corn could be used for the determination of thewater content in different varieties such as waxy maize,flint dent maize, or dent maize. For this, it is necessaryto have as many varieties as possible for the elaborationof the conversion curve.

b Influence of geographical conditions

Each region has different climatic conditions. In orderto have as many different water contents as possible for

Figure 1

Sample / Échantillon

Sub-sample A / Sous échantillon A

Sub-sample B / Sous échantillon B

Moisture meter /Humidimètre

Standardized reference method /Méthode de référence normalisée

Hrefεr or / ou ∆φ

Conversion

7

t e c h n i q u e


élaborer les courbes de conversion, il est donc nécessaired’effectuer des prélèvements dans différentes régions.

D’autre part, la nature du sol de culture estégalement un paramètre d’influence qui justifie aussid’effectuer des prélèvements d’échantillons dans diffé-rentes régions.

c L’influence des variations climatiques

Les conditions climatiques: fortes pluies, sécheresse,modifient les caractéristiques des grains et plus particu-lièrement la répartition de l’humidité au sein de ceux-ci.Le prélèvement d’échantillons dans différentes régionsest nécessaire pour tenir compte de cette hétérogénéité.

En outre, ces variations climatiques vont être diffé-rentes d’une année sur l’autre. Ce qui conduit à ré-adapter périodiquement les courbes de conversion.

Le schéma en Fig. 2 représente la courbe d’exacti-tude d’un humidimètre pour une même espèce sur troisannées consécutives sans changement de la courbe deconversion.

Les courbes correspondantes aux différentes annéesmettent bien en évidence la nécessité de réadapter aumoins chaque année et le cas échéant plus fréquemmentles courbes de conversion.

Si on regarde la courbe correspondant à l’année derécolte 1998, les grandes dispersions constatées enparties hautes et basses de la courbe mettent en évidenceà la fois les facteurs liés aux disparités variétales etrégionales.

the elaboration of the conversion curves, it is necessaryto take samples in the various different regions.

In addition, the nature of the soil is also an influencefactor which also requires taking samples from differentregions.

c Influence of climatic variations

Climatic conditions such as heavy rain or dry weathermodify the characteristics of the grain, and especiallythe distribution of moisture inside the grains. This alsojustifies taking samples from different regions.

In addition, these climatic conditions vary each yearand so the conversion curves have to be updatedperiodically.

The graph in Fig. 2 represents the accuracy curve ofa moisture meter for a given type over three consecutiveyears without changing the conversion curve.

The curves corresponding to the different years showthe necessity to adapt the conversion curves each year,and potentially more frequently.

Looking at the curve established for the 1998 crop,the high dispersions that appear for low humidity andfor high humidity show the effect of the differentvarieties and different regions.

Figure 2 Curves for corn / Courbes maïs

Vari

atio

n (%

hum

idity

/ %

hum

idité

)

8

t e c h n i q u e


On note qu’il n’est pas possible aujourd’hui d’identi-fier la part de l’influence de chacun de ces deux facteurs.

En conclusion, on constate qu’il n’est pas possibled’avoir des courbes de conversion communes surl’ensemble du pays et constantes au cours du temps. Ilfaut donc prévoir une solution qui permette de tenircompte de la réalité du terrain.

2 Solutions possibles

Afin de s’affranchir de tous les paramètres d’influenceévoqués ci-dessus, deux solutions sont envisageables:

a Détermination de la teneur en eau directement àpartir de méthodes de référence (ISO 712 parexemple),

b Gestion optimisée des courbes de conversion et deleur évolution par un organisme central afin d’obtenirun retour d’expérience qui permettra de mieuxappréhender les facteurs d’influence.

L’utilisation des méthodes de référence telles quedéfinies ci-dessus est certes une solution fiable mais quise révèle lourde à mettre en œuvre dans le cas d’uneapplication systématique sur le terrain.

La solution proposée en b. nécessite de dissocier lavalidation de l’instrument lui-même (exactitude lamesure brute) de la validation des courbes de conver-sion. La validation de l’instrument pourrait alors êtreréalisée à partir d’une courbe de conversion type quiserait indépendante des facteurs liés aux variétés à larégion et au climat.

La validation des courbes de conversion serait alorsfaite par l’organisme central au moyen d’un humidi-mètre de transfert selon le schéma en Fig. 3.

3 Conclusion

Cette étude montre que les travaux d’évolution desexigences relatives aux humidimètres doivent êtrepoursuivis dans le sens: d’une séparation de la validationde l’instrument et de la validation des courbes deconversion et d’une coopération avec d’autres régions.

La France a engagé récemment une révision de saréglementation nationale en tenant compte des élémentsévoqués ci-dessus et sur la base des travaux en cours dela révision de la Recommandation OIML R 59 relativeaux humidimètres. K

The data available for analysis does not allow theinfluence of these two factors to be identified separately.

As a conclusion, it is not possible to have conversioncurves identical throughout the country and constantover time. It is then necessary to set up a system whichallows these factors to be taken into account.

2 Possible solutions

In order to eliminate all the influence factors describedabove, two solutions are possible:

a determining directly the water content, usingreference methods (ISO 712 for example),

b having optimized conversion curves established andtheir evolution followed up by a central body in orderto gain experience and better analyze the influencefactors.

The implementation of reference methods such asthose mentioned above is indeed a reliable solution butappears to be a heavy constraint in the field.

The solution proposed in b above requires thevalidation of the instrument itself (accuracy of the grossmeasurement) to be separated from the validation of theconversion curves.

The validation of the instrument might then becarried out with a standard conversion curve whichwould be independent from the factors related to thevariety of grain, region and climate.

The validation of the conversion curves would thenbe carried out by the central body, using a transfermoisture meter according to the scheme in Fig. 3.

3 Conclusion

This study shows that the work on the revision of therequirements applicable to moisture meters mustseparate the validation of the instrument from thevalidation of the conversion curves. Cooperationbetween the various regions is of great importance.

France has recently started to revise its regulation onmoisture meters taking into account the above-mentioned factors, and on the basis of the presentongoing revision of OIML R 59. K

9

t e c h n i q u e


Commentaires de J.F. Magaña (BIML)

Cet article sur les humidimètres montre la difficultérencontrée avec tous les instruments fournissant des mesuresindirectes, à savoir de mesurer une grandeur et de calculer uneautre grandeur plus ou moins en corrélation avec la première.

Parmi d’autres, il existe également les exemples suivantsde mesures indirectes:

J les réfractomètres, qui mesurent l’indice de réfraction dessolutions sucrées et indiquent la teneur en sucre (qui estensuite convertie en un pourcentage d’alcool probabledans les vins),

J les saccharimètres polarimétriques, qui mesurent larotation du plan de polarisation dans une solution sucréeet déterminent la teneur en saccharose dans la solution,

J les éthylomètres, qui mesurent la concentration decertains radicaux de l’air expiré et affichent la concentra-tion d’éthanol de l’air expiré (dans certains pays, ceséthylomètres la convertissent en concentration d’alcooldans le sang),

Comments by J.F. Magaña (BIML)

This article on moisture meters shows the difficulty raised byall instruments which provide indirect measurements, i.e.instruments which measure a quantity and then calculateanother quantity which is more or less correlated with the firstone.

Other examples of such indirect measurements, amongothers, are:

J refractometers, which measure the refractive index ofsugar solutions and give the sugar content (which is thenconverted into a probable alcohol percentage in wine),

J polarimetric saccharimeters, which measure the rotationof the polarization plane in a sugar solution and determinethe saccharose content in the solution,

J breath analyzers, which measure the concentration ofcertain radicals in the breath and display the concentrationof ethanol in the breath (in some countries, these breathanalyzers convert this into concentration of alcohol in theblood),

Figure 3



Transfer moisture meter /Humidimètre étalon

Moisture meter under test /Humidimètre terrain

Sub-sample A / Sous échantillon A

Sub-sample B / Sous échantillon B

Moisture meter /Humidimètre

Standardized reference method /Méthode de référence normalisée

Href

Htrue / Hvraie Hread / Hlue

No / Non

OK

Correlation examination, on criteria to be defined

Examen de correlation surcritères à définir

εr or / ou ∆φ

New determination /Nouvelle détermination

10

t e c h n i q u e


J les instruments mesurant la vitesse des véhicules et letemps écoulé entre deux véhicules et ainsi évaluant ladistance entre les véhicules,

J les compteurs d’énergie thermique, qui mesurent le débitet la température d’un fluide et affichent la perted’enthalpie dans un circuit à condition que le liquide soitde l’eau pure.

Évidemment, tout mesurage dans tout domaine de lamétrologie est indirect. Mais dans les cas mentionnés ici, unepropriété d’un produit est évaluée par le mesurage d’une autrepropriété (humidité à partir de la capacitance, etc.). Cela peuts’avérer très délicat avec les produits naturels qui sont trèsvariables.

Les mesurages indirects doivent être conduits avecbeaucoup de précautions dans le cadre de la métrologie légale.S’il y a une bonne corrélation entre la grandeur mesurée etcelle affichée, et si les facteurs d’influence ne peuvent altérersignificativement cette corrélation, les mesurages indirects neposent pas de problème. Sinon, la complexité des facteursd’influence peut se traduire par un manque de fiabilité de lamesure convertie. Le graphique du présent article indique quesi l’on ne tient pas compte des facteurs d’influence, la fiabilitédes mesures pour une humidité élevée ou une faible humiditésera sensiblement réduite par leur écart-type. Pour autreexemple, l’utilisation des éthylomètres est aussi sujette àcaution. Lorsque la réglementation doit faire des exceptionssur la validité de la mesure pour un grand nombre de gazpouvant être présents dans la respiration en raison decertaines maladies ou de certains médicaments, le niveau deconfiance dans les instruments n’est pas satisfaisant. Il fautaussi garder à l’esprit que si les facteurs d’influence ont uneffet dominant, cela peut inciter à la fraude.

Sans des précautions adéquates, les instruments exécutantdes mesures indirectes ne permettent pas de respecter leslimites d’erreur, à moins que les organismes de contrôle nedécident de prescrire des erreurs maximales toléréesexcessivement larges. Les résultats de mesure donnés par detels instruments peuvent être critiqués et mis en doute, et cescontestations pourraient ensuite s’étendre à l’ensemble dusecteur de la métrologie légale. Les autorités de métrologielégale doivent en permanence s’assurer que les comparaisonsentre les mesures indirectes par des instruments dont lesmodèles sont approuvés, et les mesures directes obtenues pardes méthodes de référence, prouvent que les mesuragesindirects sont acceptables.

En métrologie légale, deux alternatives seulement sontacceptables:

J soit le mesurage indirect n’est pas affecté de façonsignificative par des facteurs d’influence (par comparaisonavec l’erreur maximale tolérée), et cela doit être clairementdémontré,

J soit les facteurs d’influence peuvent avoir des consé-quences importantes, et doivent dans ce cas être pris encompte pour l’utilisation de l’instrument.

Un ensemble de courbes d’erreur de l’instrument, enfonction des valeurs du facteur d’influence, tel que proposédans cet article est une solution. On peut noter qu’il en estainsi pour les turbines de mesurage des liquides. Lorsque ces

J instruments which measure the speed of vehicles and thetime elapsed between two vehicles, and then calculate thedistance between them,

J heat meters, which measure the flow rate and temperatureof a fluid and display the enthalpy lost in a circuit,provided that the liquid is pure water.

Of course any measurement in any field of metrology isindirect. But in the cases mentioned here, a property of aproduct is evaluated by measuring another property (humidityfrom capacitance, etc.). This may be difficult with naturalproducts, which are very variable.

Legal metrology must be very careful with such indirectmeasurements. When the correlation between the measuredquantity and the displayed quantity is good and wheninfluence factors cannot significantly alter this correlation,indirect measurements do not raise problems. In other cases,the complexity of influence factors can result in poorreliability of the converted measurement. The graph in thisarticle shows that without taking influence factors intoconsideration, the standard deviation of the measurements athigh or low humidity significantly reduces their reliability.One example which is far from satisfactory is breath analysis.When regulations have to take exceptions in the measurementvalidity into account for a number of gases which might bepresent in breath due to diseases or medicines, the level ofconfidence in the instruments is not satisfactory. And whensuch influence factors have a dominant effect, this canencourage fraud.

Without adequate precautions being taken, indirectmeasuring instruments cannot stay within the prescribederror limits, or alternatively the regulators will have to setunacceptably large maximum permissible errors. Themeasurement results given by such instruments may becriticized and questioned, and such doubts could then beextended to the whole legal metrology field. Legal metrologyauthorities must continuously make sure that comparisonsbetween indirect measurements by type approvedinstruments, and direct measurements obtained by referencemethods, show the acceptability of the indirect measure-ments.

Only two alternatives are acceptable in legal metrology:

J either the indirect measurement is not significantlyaffected by influence factors (compared with themaximum permissible error), and this has to be welldemonstrated,

J or the influence factors may have important conse-quences, in which case they must be taken into account inthe use of the instrument.

A set of error curves for the instrument, depending on thevalues of the influence factors as proposed in this article, isone solution. One can note that this is done with turbines forliquid measurement. When these turbines are approved for awide range of viscosities, they have different error curves fordifferent viscosity ranges. The pulse value of the turbine or thecorrection curve has to be adjusted to the nature of the liquid,or the instrument has to detect the viscosity range and use theappropriate curve.

11

t e c h n i q u e


turbines sont approuvées pour une grande étendue deviscosité, elles sont caractérisées par des courbes d’erreurdifférentes pour les diverses étendues de viscosité. La valeurd’impulsion de la turbine ou la courbe de correction doit êtreajustée selon la nature du liquide, sinon l’instrument doitdétecter l’étendue de viscosité et utiliser la courbe appropriée.

Les corrélations doivent être démontrées et les facteursd’influence analysés. Cela peut s’avérer compliqué pour lesproduits naturels, et des méthodes statistiques sophistiquéespeuvent être nécessaires (analyse de variance, analyse encomposantes principales, etc.). Une expérimentation systéma-tique n’est généralement pas possible avec les produitsnaturels et des bases de données des mesures disponiblesdoivent être constituées. Une action de l’OIML pourraitfaciliter la mise en réseau de ces résultats pour diffusionauprès des États Membres, et mettre en place des basesinternationales de données de mesure et d’étalonnage, quiseraient alimentées par les instituts nationaux des ÉtatsMembres participants et permettraient d’effectuer les analysesen question. K

Correlations are to be demonstrated and influence factorshave to be analyzed. This may be quite difficult for naturalproducts, and advanced statistical methods may be necessary(analysis of variance, analysis of the main components, etc.).Systematic experimentation is generally not possible withnatural products, and databases of available measurementsmust be developed. This could be an OIML action to facilitatenetworking on these issues among Member States, and to setup international databases of measurement and calibrationdata, these databases being based on information supplied byparticipating national institutes of Member States andallowing such analysis. K

Abstract

This paper describes NWML’s approach to measurementuncertainty evaluation in the weighing performance testcarried out during type approval of nonautomaticweighing instruments under OIML R 76 [1]. The resultsshow that although the maximum permissible errors(mpe) for these instruments are generally sufficient tocater for the uncertainties encountered during the testing,care must be taken to ensure that the test methods do notintroduce excessive errors during the evaluation of theinstrument.

Introduction

Within Europe, laboratories carrying out EC typeexamination of nonautomatic weighing instrumentsmust meet the requirements of WELMEC Guide No. 4.1[2]. One of the requirements of the Guide is: ‘In view ofthe importance of test results at the type examination stagethe uncertainty of the system used in EC-type examinationshall not be greater than 1/5 of the maximum permissibleerror.’ Additionally, it is NWML’s policy to carry out typeapproval testing of nonautomatic weighing instrumentsin compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 [3]. This standardalso has a requirement that uncertainties are evaluated.

The general approach to evaluating and expressinguncertainty is based on the recommendations producedby the International Committee for Weights andMeasures or Comité International des Poids et Measures(CIPM). This is described in the Guide to the Expressionof Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [4].

1 Uncertainty evaluation for typeexamination testing

1.1 Background to uncertainties of measurement

In 1981 the need for an internationally acceptedprocedure for expressing measurement uncertainty ledto the international authority in metrology, the CIPM,approving brief outline recommendations submitted bya working group of representatives from the majornational standards laboratories. The InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation [ISO] was then giventhe task of developing a detailed guide applicable to alllevels of accuracy from fundamental research to shopfloor operations. The responsibility for the preparationof such a comprehensive document for this broadspectrum of measurements was assigned to a workinggroup of the ISO Technical Advisory Group onMetrology [ISO/TAG4/WG3]. The working groupproduced the ISO TAG4 Guide to the Expression of Un-certainty in Measurement (The “GUM”) in 1993; thisdocument was revised in 1995.

GUM 3.4.8 states: “Although this Guide provides aframework for assessing uncertainty, it cannot substitutefor critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and professionalskill. The evaluation of uncertainty is neither a routinetask nor a purely mathematical one; it depends on detailedknowledge of the nature of the measurand and of themeasurement. The quality and utility of the uncertaintyquoted for the result of a measurement thereforeultimately depend on the understanding, critical analysis,and integrity of those who contribute to the assignment ofits value.”

1.2 The importance of uncertainty of measurement

Basic to all science and engineering is that the makingof measurements and the collection of measurementresults is usually achieved by establishing a measure-ment procedure. Once the measurements have beenmade they must be organised, evaluated and the resultsinterpreted. It has long been recognised that mostmeasurements in calibration and testing work aresubject to errors which are not perfectly quantifiable

UNCERTAINTY

Uncertainty of measure-ment calculations for the"Weighing PerformanceTest" under OIML R 76RICHARD SANDERS

Assistant Director Type ApprovalNWML, Teddington, UK

CHRISTINE MUNTEANU

Senior Approvals EngineerNWML, Teddington, UK

12

t e c h n i q u e


13

t e c h n i q u e


Type A contributions are based on analysis of anumber of repeat readings, to obtain the standarddeviation. The number of observations must be largeenough to obtain the desired level of uncertainty. If theactual test is performed more than once, this standarddeviation is divided by the square root of ‘n’ where ‘n’ isthe number of times the particular test is carried out.This is because every time a test is repeated, knowledgeof the measurand increases.

Type B contributions are those obtained by nonstatistical methods, e.g. previous measurement data,experience or knowledge of the measurement systemand materials used, manufacturer’s specification,calibration certificates, quoted uncertainties of refer-ence data quoted in handbooks. Type A contributionsare usually gaussian distributions with n–1 degrees offreedom (where n is the number of repeatabilitymeasurements made). Type B are usually rectangular,occasionally triangular or gaussian with an infinitenumber of degrees of freedom if they are uncertaintiestaken from calibration certificates or the manufacturer’sspecifications.

All the standard uncertainty contributions of anuncertainty budget must be in the same units. In mostcases the input quantity will be in the same units as theassociated output quantity. However, this is not alwaysthe case. For example, how will a unit change in temp-erature affect the weight of an object? A sensitivitycoefficient has to be determined in these cases so that itis known that a unit change in the input quantity willproduce a known change in the output quantity. This isthen used as a factor by which the input quantity ismultiplied to obtain the effect in terms of themeasurement result. Sensitivity coefficients can bedetermined using formulae and partial differentiation orby numerical means, often with the help of spread-sheets.

1.5 Expanded uncertainty

All the contributions are combined by the root sumsquare combination to produce a standard uncertainty.The standard uncertainty is then multiplied by acoverage factor k usually ranging between 2 and 3calculated using statistical methods to give anuncertainty at a level of confidence of 95.45 % (approx-imately 95 %).

1.6 Calculation of the budget

Once all the contributions and sensitivity coefficientshave been established and the distribution types decided

and that, therefore, there is uncertainty associated withthe results of such measurements. A measurement resultis clearly incomplete, and of extremely limited use inresearch, development, conformity assessment, calibra-tion and production without a statement of the corres-ponding measurement uncertainty.

1.3 Reporting and evaluation of uncertainty

The complexity of tests may in some cases preclude arigorous evaluation of uncertainty. In such cases, at leasta list of the potential contributors to uncertainty can bemade and include reasonable estimates of the magni-tude of each component uncertainty. One of the mostimportant aspects of uncertainty evaluation is the needfor a detailed understanding of the measurementprocess and hence all potential sources of the measure-ment uncertainty. The identification of uncertaintysources begins by examining the measurement processin detail. There is a lot of thinking time during the earlystages of uncertainty formulation. All aspects of the testhave to be considered and any potential sources ofuncertainty identified. A clear grasp of the exact reasonfor the test and what it is trying to prove is required atthis stage so usually there are factors which are notimportant for the test result and so can be ignored.

1.4 Sources of uncertainty

The measurement procedure must be studied in detailand then an initial list of factors having an influence onthe test result noted down. Each aspect which influencesthe test will then be considered individually in moredetail and then the contribution type is decided upon.

Typical contributions would be:

J Environmental conditions;J Equipment calibration and acceptability factors;J Instrument resolution;J Drift;J Errors in values of constants used in correction

formulae;J Errors associated with formulae used to correct data;J Repeatability of the test using different observers;

andJ Assumptions or approximations made in the meas-

urement process.

There are two types of uncertainty contributionslabelled type A or type B.

14

t e c h n i q u e


Uncertainties have been evaluated at four points inthe weighing range (the mpe changes as one moves upthe weighing range):

J Zero (10 e);J 500 e;J 2000 e;J Max (3000 e).

2.2 Assessment of influences that may have aneffect on the accuracy of measurements

2.2.1 Calibration of weights

All weights used are calibrated with F2 uncertainties bya UKAS accredited calibration laboratory. Weight valuesare reviewed at each re-calibration to ensure that noweights are outside of M1 tolerances. Because we do notyet have satisfactory long-term drift figures, M1 errorlimit values are used in the uncertainty calculations (theF2 calibration uncertainty is small compared to the M1limit and is therefore ignored). This contribution isconsidered to be rectangular, as the value is an offsetfrom nominal.

M1 error limits:

J 10 g 0.002 e;J 500 g 0.025 e;J 2000 g 0.100 e; andJ 3000 g 0.150 e.

2.2.2 Tilt of instrument

The effect of tilt on the instrument is tested elsewhereduring the conformity assessment to OIMLR 76/EN45501. It is a requirement that the instrumentunder test is levelled before testing is commenced. Theeffect of tilt can therefore be disregarded.

2.2.3 Eccentricity of applied load

The effect of eccentric loading of the instrument is whatis being tested for during the random effect testingperformed and shown later in this report. All testengineers performing this test would have been trainedto place weights as close to the centre of the weighingplatform as possible, and to use the largest single weightavailable and not use multiple weights for each weighinglevel. This would be checked periodically during internal

upon, the budget can be calculated using the standardformulae contained in the GUM. A computer spread-sheet is well suited to perform the calculations.

1.7 Uncertainties in relation to pass/fail criteria of an instrument - the shared risk concept

In the field of legal metrology, measurement results,maximum permissible errors, and pass/fail criteria mustbe unambiguous so that they are not subject tochallenge in a court of law. The shared risk concept isthus applied. This is defined in WELMEC Guide 4.1 asfollows:

“The uncertainty of test results has to be handled in a uniformway. In accord with the general view and tradition in legalmetrology, the ‘shared risk concept’ will generally be applied.This means that provided the uncertainty of the test system issmall compared to the limits of error for instruments undertest, uncertainty is not considered when using the test resultfor the conformity assessment procedure. In this way therewill be an equally shared risk that a test result for aninstrument on the borderline of the tolerances will be insideor outside these limits.”

2 Example uncertainty budget calculation - R 76 Weighing Performance Test

2.1 Background to test

This uncertainty evaluation covers the weighingperformance test (A.4.4.1) under OIML R 76 on a ClassIII nonautomatic weighing instrument. The errors arereported in terms of “e”, the verification scale interval.The uncertainty of measurement will be expressed interms of “e”.

A scale with 3 kg Max, scale interval e = 1 g, and 3000divisions, with high-resolution capability has been usedfor random effect experiments. The “e” of this scale hasalso been used to enter all other uncertainties involvedin this test. Most weighing instruments now have high-resolution capabilities, but if this is not available,change point weights of 0.1 e are used.

R 76 requires that errors are evaluated “undernormal test conditions”, that is: “errors shall bedetermined under normal test conditions. When theeffect of one factor is being evaluated, all other factorsare to be held relatively constant, at a value close tonormal.” It should be noted that contributions obtainedexperimentally using a weighing machine, e.g. therepeatability standard deviation, may include a factordue to a change in instrument performance in additionto the variations due to the measurement procedure andthe test person.

15

t e c h n i q u e


ten times by one test person over a one-month periodwith different lengths of instrument warm-up and resetof instrument levelling on each occasion. The test wasthen performed five times by an experienced test personand five times by a new test person. This gave a finalfigure of twenty repeated tests. The standard deviationfor each weight level on both increasing and decreasingload was calculated and the largest of these figures usedfor the uncertainty.

Table 1 shows the results of measurements made bydifferent test persons and gave a highest standard devia-tion of:J 0 g at 10 e;J 0.022 g at 500 e;J 0.057 g at 2000 e; andJ 0.044 g at 3000 e.

2.2.9 Digital rounding error, comparison

If the error of indication is determined using the 0.1 edigit of the instrument display (which most modernelectronic scales have), then the standard uncertaintywould be 0.1 e/√6 = 0.04 e. The √6 divisor is used (i.e. atriangular distribution) as the results are determinedfrom two readings giving a comparison digital roundingerror in accordance with UKAS M3003, H4.4 [5].

2.2.10 Calibration of change-point weights

If the scale does not have the extra digit then up to 13change-point weights of 0.1 e may be used to determinethe error. The weights are calibrated to F2 uncertaintyand adjusted to the M1 tolerance window. Thiscontribution is included in the budgets below, althoughchange-point weights are not always used in practice.

M1 tolerance for 0.1 g = ± 0.000 5 e

The contribution, if there is no correlation betweencalibration of the change-point weights, would be theroot sum of squares of thirteen of ± 0.0005 e = ± 0.0018 e.However, to meet the requirements of OIML R 111 [6]B.2.2.2 (combinations of reference weights), the contribu-tion is the arithmetic sum of thirteen of ± 0.0005 e =± 0.0065 e.

2.2.11 Aerodynamics

Tests being performed in the controlled laboratoryenvironment are in still air so that little effect of laminarairflow or positive pressure would be seen. Also, the

and external audits of the test. The effect of eccentricloading is therefore ignored as a separate issue.

2.2.4 Stability of the table on which the test instrumentis placed

All tables used in the laboratory are made of solidconstruction and are therefore not liable to unsteadinessor flexing during weighing tests performed with the levelof masses applied to all scales being tested at tableheight. If large weights are used, the scale is placed onthe laboratory floor. The effect of table instability is zeroand is therefore disregarded.

2.2.5 Force applied when applying test weights

All testing requires that the load “is gently placed on theload receptor”. The effect of the force applied duringloading is probably minimal but is included in therandom effect testing influences shown later in thisreport.

2.2.6 Time dependence (creep)

The effect of creep on the results of a measurement canonly be accurately measured after the instrument issubjected to a creep test. This is because the assessmentof the effect of creep on the uncertainty of results of thistest, for all measurements, can only be assessed for thetime period of the test itself. The average time span ofthe test is 15 minutes and weights are not left on forlonger than this. The creep effect would therefore benegligible. The creep test is also performed at maximumload so as far as the uncertainty of measurement isconcerned, this effect will be disregarded.

2.2.7 Electrical disturbance during test

The electrical environment of the laboratory isconsidered to be “clean”. Also, the instrument is testedseparately for immunity to electrical disturbances sowill not be affected should disturbances arise. Thecontribution is therefore disregarded.

2.2.8 Random errors due to test person or testing method

This effect will also include repeatability of performingthis test. To assess this effect the testing was performed

16

t e c h n i q u e


3 Summary and recommendation

The uncertainty of measurement calculated for theweighing performance test on a Class III weighinginstrument having 3000 divisions has an expandeduncertainty at a confidence level of approximately 95 %as follows:

Test point Uncertainty Error limit 1/5 of the error limit

10 e 0.082 e 0.5 e 0.1 e

500 e 0.097 e 0.5 e 0.1 e

2000 e 0.182 e 1.0 e 0.2 e

3000 e 0.211 e 1.5 e 0.3 e

At each test point, the measurement uncertainty iswithin the target 1/5 of the mpe for this class andcapacity of instrument.

It should be noted that the uncertainty increaseswith increasing capacity of the weighing instrument.This is mainly due to the requirement that theuncertainty of the test weights must be summedtogether, and so the uncertainty will increase with thenumber of test weights used.

It is therefore recommended that the number of testweights used for the weighing performance test is keptto the minimum, consistent with being able to place a“steadily increasing/decreasing load” on the loadreceptor. Alternatively for a Class III instrument,consideration should be given to using F2 weights inplace of M1 weights. K

References

[1] OIML R 76-1 Nonautomatic weighing instrumentsPart 1: Metrological and technical requirements -Tests

[2] WELMEC 4.1 Guide for the assessing and operationof notified bodies performing conformity assessmentaccording to the Directive 90/384/EEC

[3] IS0/IEC 17025:2000 General requirements for thecompetence of testing and calibration laboratories

[4] PD 6461: Part 3: 1995 Vocabulary of metrologyPart 3. Guide to the expression of uncertainty inmeasurement

[5] UKAS M3003 The expression of Uncertainty andConfidence in Measurement

[6] OIML R 111 Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1,M2, M3

[7] G.W.C. Kaye & T.H. Laby Tables of Physical andChemical Constants and some MathematicalFunctions

effect of this at the accuracy levels tested at for Class IIIinstruments would be very small with the little airflowexperienced in the test areas. This effect is therefore notconsidered significant enough to enter an estimate ofuncertainty.

2.2.12 Variations in gravity ‘g’

The instrument is tested in the same position thereforethere is no variation in ‘g’ during the testing period. Theeffect is therefore disregarded.

2.2.13 Effect of air buoyancy

The effects of air buoyancy are included in the uncer-tainty of the mass calibrations and as testing isperformed in the controlled laboratory environment theeffect would, from figures obtained from Kaye & Laby[7], be very small compared to other influences. Thecombination of this would have no effect on theresultant uncertainty budget level. The effect is thereforenot included in the uncertainty estimation.

2.3 Calculation of the influences

The repeatability results are shown in Table 1 of theAnnex, and the uncertainty budget calculations of theinfluences for the selected weight denominations can beseen in Tables 2 to 5.

17

t e c h n i q u e


ANNEX

Test results of a scale with 3 kg Max, scale interval e = 1 g, and 3000 divisions, with high-resolution capability

Table 1 - repeatability measurements

10 g 20 g 40 g 100 g 500 g 1 kg 2 kg 3 kg 2 kg 1 kg 500 g 100 g 40 g 20 g 10 g

A 10 20 40 100 499.9 1000 1999.9 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

A 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 100 40 20 10

B 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 2999.9 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

B 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 2999.9 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

B 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 2999.9 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

B 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 2999.9 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

B 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 2999.9 2000 1000 500 100 40 20 10

C 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000 999.9 500 100 40 19.9 10

C 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 2000.1 1000.1 500.1 100 40 20.1 10

C 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 99.9 40 20 10

C 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 1000 500 100 40 20 10

C 10 20 40 100 500 1000 2000 3000 1999.9 999.9 500 99.9 39.9 20 10

sd 0 0 0 0 0.022 0 0.022 0.044 0.057 0.039 0.022 0.031 0.022 0.032 0

A = test person AB = test person BC = test person Csd = standard deviation

AA

18

t e c h n i q u e


Table 2 - Uncertainty calculation at 10 e

Root sum of squares (RSS) = 0.041 gCoverage factor k = 2Uncertainty at approximately 95 % = 0.082 g = 0.082 e


RSS = 0.049 gCoverage factor k = 2Uncertainty at approximately 95 % = 0.097 g = 0.097 e

19

t e c h n i q u e






20

e v o l u t i o n s


Abstract

Calibration is an important activity in both legal andindustrial metrology: it is the only way to effectivelycarry out traceability in both fields. Calibration is a tech-nical activity that has little to do with the managementof measuring instruments, and verification proceduresinclude calibration procedures. Verification and metro-logical confirmation respectively control the applicationof instruments in legal and industrial metrology.

Introduction

This article follows on from the paper published in theJanuary 2001 OIML Bulletin entitled Calibration andverification: Two procedures having comparable objectivesand results. Much has been learned from this paper, butto a certain extent the author of the present article has adifferent point of view concerning the relationshipbetween calibration and verification as described in thatpaper and wishes to open up the topic for further dis-cussion.

Calibration and verification are familiar terms inmetrology, but a new term metrological confirmation hasappeared since ISO 10012-1 was published. The authorfeels that clarification of the relationship between theseterms would be meaningful and of benefit to metrologyterminology, measurement management and communi-cation between metrologists. This paper will discuss therelationship between these terms.

1 The verification procedure includes the calibration procedure

Firstly, the relationship between these terms based ontheir definitions will be discussed.

The definition of calibration in the VIM is as follows[VIM 6.13]: A set of operations which establish, underspecified conditions, the relationship between values indi-cated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, orvalues represented by a material measure, and corre-sponding known values of a measured quantity.

Notes

1) The result of calibration permits either the assign-ment of measurand values to the indication, or thedetermination of corrections with respect to the indi-cations.

2) Calibration may also determine other metrologicalproperties such as the effect of influence quantities.

3) The calibration result may be recorded in a docu-ment, sometimes called a calibration certificate orcalibration report.

From this definition, we know that the purpose ofcalibration is the determination of the metrologicalproperties. It is a technical activity and has no manage-ment meaning (i.e. it has no technical or legal manage-ment requirements).

Definitions of verification of a measuring instru-ment are published in the following three documents:

i) VIML 2.13

Procedure (other than type approval) which includes theexamination and marking and/or issuing of a verificationcertificate, that ascertains and confirms that the measur-ing instrument complies with the statutory requirements.

ii) ISO/IEC Guide 25 (1990)

Confirmation by examination and provision of evidencethat specified requirements have been met.

Notes

1) In connection with the management of measuringequipment, verification provides a means for check-ing that the deviations between the values indicatedby a measuring instrument and correspondingknown values of a measured quantity are consistent-ly smaller than the maximum permissible errordefined in a standard, regulation or specificationwhich is specific to the management of the measur-ing equipment.

2) The result of verification leads to a decision either torestore to service, perform adjustments, repair,downgrade, or declare obsolete. In all cases, it is

TERMINOLOGY

The relationship betweencalibration, verification andmetrological confirmation

DAI RUNSHENG AND HAN JIANPING

AQSIQ, P.R. China

21

e v o l u t i o n s


2) Metrological confirmation is not achieved until andunless the fitness of the measuring equipment for theintended use has been demonstrated and document-ed.

3) The requirements for intended use include such con-siderations as range, resolution, maximum permissi-ble errors, etc.

4) Metrological confirmation requirements are usuallydistinct from and are not specified in productrequirements.

As ISO 10012 is widely accepted in industry, metro-logical confirmation is more and more familiar to us. Itis used in the management of industrial metrology andguarantees correctness of use of instruments in indus-trial metrology, just as verification is used in legalmetrology.

3 The relationship between calibration, verification and metrological confirmation

From the above discussion, we can show the relation-ship between calibration, verification and metrologicalconfirmation as in Fig. 1 (see page 22).

Summary

Calibration, verification and metrological confirmationare the important terms in metrology. Calibration is oneof the basic elements and forms the technical basis forverification and metrological confirmation, guarantee-ing traceability and measurement results both in legaland industrial metrology. Either in industrial metrologyor in legal metrology, it must follow the same principle.For example, in order to guarantee the correctness of theverification result, the uncertainty of verification mustbe less than one third of the maximum permissible errorof the instrument verified. The same applies to theuncertainty of calibration, which must be less than onethird of the tolerance of the instrument calibrated if onewishes to achieve a 99.7 % confidence level. Comparedwith metrological confirmation, verification adds somelegal requirements to the instrument in order to protectthe interest of customers, safeguard the environment,and increase safety. For example, it is necessary to addsome legal requirements such as measures designed toprotect against fraud, etc., when a flow meter is used asa gasoline dispenser. On the other hand, it is unneces-sary to add this kind of legal requirement for flowmeters used in industry. K

required that a written trace of the verification per-formed be kept on the measuring instrument’s indi-vidual record.

3) ISO/IEC Guide 25, 3.8, amended (quoted from ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994)

Evidence by calibration that specified requirements havebeen met.

Notes

1) The same applies as in Note 1 to ISO Guide 25 (1990)above.

2) The result of verification leads to a decision either torestore to service, perform adjustments, repair,downgrade, or declare obsolete. In all cases, docu-mentation of the verification performed shall be kepton the measuring instrument’s individual record.

From these definitions, it can be said that the verifi-cation procedure includes the calibration procedure,even though the word “calibration” is not mentioned inthe first and second definitions. What is stated in thefirst note to the second definition actually describes cal-ibration. And from OIML Recommendations, we knowthat there are three kinds of statutory requirements:metrological, technical and legal management. So, theword “examination” in the first definition also includescalibration. Calibration is a basic and key procedure inverification, and forms the technical basis thereof. Fromthe author’s point of view, it may be better and clearer ifthe definition of verification was amended as follows:

Evidence by calibration and checking of legal require-ments that the statutory requirements specified in the rel-evant regulations have been met.

The author believes that the word “examination” isnot as clear and accurate as the words “calibration” and“checking of legal requirements”.

2 Metrological confirmation strengthensinstrument management in industry

Now there is another expression, “metrological confir-mation”. The definition of metrological confirmationin FDIS ISO 10012 is as follows:

Set of operations required to ensure that measuring equip-ment conforms to the requirements for its intended use.

Notes

1) Metrological confirmation generally includes cali-bration, any necessary adjustment or repair, subse-quent recalibration, comparison with the metrologi-cal requirements for the intended use of the equip-ment, as well as any required sealing and labeling. AA

22

e v o l u t i o n s


[4] General requirements for the competence of cali-bration and testing laboratories: ISO/IEC Guide 25,1990.

[5] Handbook for the interpretation and application ofANSI/NCSL Z540-11994: October 1995.

[6] Measurement management system - requirementsfor measurement processes and measuring equip-ment: FDIS ISO10012, 2002.

References

[1] Calibration and verification: Two procedureshaving comparable objectives and results. OIMLBulletin, January 2001.

[2] International Vocabulary of Basic and GeneralTerms in Metrology: BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC,IUPAP, OIML, 1993.

[3] International Vocabulary of Terms in LegalMetrology: OIML, 2000.

Fig. 1

23

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


Introduction

Legal metrology developed over 5 000 years ago withthe development of civilizations which required consis-tency of a wide range of measurements used in every-day life. The relationship between the State and metrol-ogy was symbiotic. The State needed the informationprovided by measurements to be able to organise, plan,defend and tax with efficiency. Such accountingdepended on uniform measurements that could beaggregated across wide geographical areas and across abroad spectrum of farming and manufacturing prac-tices and work organisation. Metrology on the otherhand required the mandate of the State to ensure con-sistency of measurements.

As well as being a user of metrology the State wasalso required to provide the necessary trust and confi-dence in measurement by mandatory standards andrequirements. This ensured the integrity of commerceand was realised by the State enforcing measurementstandards and requirements and controlling fraud tounderpin market transactions.

What is clear from the history of metrology is thatits development was driven by a need of the State forinformation. Where the State was strong the need wasgreatest and there was a strong commitment to themetrology system. As the State declined metrologydeclined with it and over the centuries the nationalmetrology systems have ebbed and flowed with thepower of the State. In recent years a number of govern-ments in developed countries have reduced their com-mitment to their metrology system and placed greaterreliance on the market to resolve measurement dis-putes. However the World Bank in its 1997 WorldDevelopment Report on “The State in a ChangingWorld” [3] noted “an effective State is vital for the pro-vision of the rules and institutions that allow markets to

flourish. Without it sustainable development both eco-nomic and social is impossible”.

The expanding scope of metrology

The past three hundred years has seen a massive trans-formation of society resulting from the agricultural,industrial, demographic and urbanization revolutionsand, particularly for trade measurement, the transportrevolution, which transformed local markets intonational markets and national markets into internation-al markets. All of these influences greatly expanded thescope of legal metrology.

Weights and Measures originally developed to con-trol direct transactions of the sale of food by quantitybetween producer and consumer was challenged by amultiplicity of transactions through production, whole-saling, processing and retail trade, at each stage ofwhich measurements were central to the transactionand the range of commodities dealt in expanded withthe increasing wealth of society. In addition qualitymeasurements which determined unit price became animportant component of the transaction. The establish-ment of State water gas electricity and telephone utili-ties added a further layer of trade measurement trans-actions as did the provision of a wide range of servicescharged on the basis of measurement such as postalservices and freight. Finally globalisation has greatlyexpanded the application of trade metrology in theinternational market place.

More recently governments have made increasinguse of measurements for the regulation of a wide rangeof environmental and resource control, health and safe-ty and medical measurements. Because of the objectivenature of measurements there tends to be a higherdegree of confidence in such regulation compared tousing more subjective criteria.

Whilst the expanded scope of legal metrology isimpressive its development has occurred in a piecemeal fashion and has generally lacked legislative andadministrative coherence and co-ordination. The issuesare many and include:

1) During the industrial revolution craft based measurementsystems developed with units of measurement devised forspecific applications. Many of these units are still in usein industry transactions, but have not been incorporatedinto national measurement systems and rely upon indus-try standards and traceability.

2) Weights and Measures in many countries has limited itsscope to consumer protection. This again has encouragedthe development of industry standards and contractualarrangements which are often neither fair or transparentand lead to significant disputation and transaction costs.

3) Weights and Measures has also tended to limit its activi-ties to the control of measurements used for transactionswithin its jurisdiction. As a result measurement used for

The expanding scope of legalmetrology and the changingrole of the state in a globalised world

JOHN BIRCH

CIML Honorary Member, Australia

24

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


of legal metrology, but acting as a legislative andadministrative impediment to the development ofappropriate legislation

An important role of legislation is to define the com-mitment of government, and generally the commitmenthas not kept up with the development of metrology andits contribution to trade and commerce, industrialdevelopment, effective government regulation and itsuse in a wide range of community activities.Unfortunately this lack of commitment is now beingdisplayed in a decline in government funding formetrology.

Globalisation

Globalisation poses a number of questions for nationalmetrology systems viz:i) where traceability is required to national standards

what is the legal standing of measurements that aretraceable to other national standards?

ii) what is the legal standing of “overseas” calibrationcertificates?

iii) what are the legal difficulties in accepting and using“overseas” test reports?With regard to (i) and (ii) the answer will depend on

national law but generally there are likely to be eviden-tial problems where traceability has been defined in leg-islation in terms of national standards. Where such adefinition in legislation doesn’t exist it would be a mat-ter for the Courts to decide.

One way of overcoming these difficulties would beto have legal traceability requirements in terms of bothnational standards and equivalent standards as deter-mined by the BIPM Equivalence Agreement. Howeverthis would probably require the Agreement to havesome international legal standing eg a Treaty.

With regard to (iii) depending on how the metrologylegislation is worded there should be no legal impedi-ment to a National Pattern Approval CertifyingAuthority accepting and using “overseas” test reportsfor issuing national pattern approval certificates howev-er the Authority would then accept any legal liabilityarising from such use.

From the above analysis it is clear that the future ofmetrology is strongly dependent on re-establishing thecommitment of the State to this essential activity. Thiswill be achieved on a firm and continuing basis by mod-ernisation of national metrology legislation to establishthe commitment of government to the national mea-surement system and providing a sound evidential basisfor all measurements that are used for any legal pur-pose. A key element of such legislation would be aninternationally harmonised definition of traceabilityand provisions for certification of measurements whichwould be acceptable in a global measurement system. K

international trade are often not controlled by the trademeasurement authority, leading to practices in interna-tional trade that would be regarded as inadequate fortrade measurement. This jurisdictional issue is a signifi-cant challenge to establishing a global legal metrologysystem that will have a similar degree of trust and confi-dence to that which exists in national systems. Howeverthe legal structures and institutions that provide the trustat a national level do not exist at the international level.

4) Weights and Measures systems were traditionally basedon the control of quantity and many authorities havebeen reluctant to expand the scope of their activities tocontrol quality measures

5) The fundamental basis of a metrology system is that mea-surements are derived from a common standard with astated uncertainty. However many nations have not pro-vided a legislated definition of traceability leading todoubts about the legal standing of national standards ofmeasurement and difficulties in establishing a sound evi-dential basis for measurements that are carried out forlegal purposes.

6) Government regulations using metrological requirementshave usually been developed by the Department responsi-ble for the regulation and quite often without any discus-sion with the national legal metrology authority or refer-ence to existing metrology legislation. The problems asso-ciated with this lack of co-ordination was highlighted in apaper by Dr Mc Croubey of NBS on the future of LegalMetrology in the USA published in the OIML Bulletin in1980, in which he said:

“Our capabilities at all levels of government for provid-ing a basis for adequate measurement accuracy inthese new and important areas falls short of the legis-lated mandate. In fact, our institutionalised metrologyservices do not extend into these areas to a sufficientdegree.”

7) The resolution of these issues has been further complicat-ed by government policies on deregulation, privatisationand competitive markets. There is too often a lack ofrecognition among economists that a key role of metrolo-gy is to facilitate markets, and deregulation and competi-tive markets will have a greater need for measurement.

The concept of a national measurement system wasdeveloped in the 1960’s and was important for its sys-tems approach that gave coherence to the vast range oftechnical activities that comprise the system. The devel-opment of the SI system of units provided a focus forthis coherence but as indicated above there is still ahigh degree of fragmentation in the system.

The role of the State

The twentieth century was remarkable for a massiveexpansion in the science and technology of measure-ment, but at the same time a high degree of fragmenta-tion both institutionally and sectorially, and a lack ofdevelopment of metrology legislation. This is partlyexplainable by the existing Weights and Measures legis-lation not being able to encompass the expanding scope

25

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


Introduction

Currently, legal metrology control generally includestype evaluation and approval, and initial and subse-quent verification. In the future, one can envision legalmetrology control to also include:

K quality management systems for the production ofinstruments and the manufacturer’s declaration ofconformance of the individual instruments to therequirements of initial verification,

K subsequent verification of measuring instrumentscarried out in a manner to provide ‘market surveil-lance’, and

K exchange of field test information among nationsthat have established mutual acceptance arrange-ments with regard to ‘type evaluation’.

This future will require oversight by ‘nationalresponsible officials’ - legal metrology services - toensure the competence of instrument manufacturers aswell as that of participants and partners in the mutualacceptance arrangements. For maximum effectiveness,these processes should be implemented on a globalbasis. Thus, the OIML is expected to lead and play animportant, essential role.

Legal metrological control procedures

For measuring instruments, the following proceduresapply:

K Type evaluation and approval:- testing laboratories- certification bodies (issuing authorities)

K Initial verification:- field officials- manufacturer’s declaration

K Subsequent verification:- field officials- readjustment (calibration)- maintenance and repair

K Market surveillance:- individual instrument failures identified, record-

ed and notified- recall of instrument types displaying a record of

failures- requires manufacturers to implement adjust-

ments in the field or in production

Current and past practices

A view of the future reflects what is happening current-ly and what has happened in the recent past. The prin-ciples of determining the competence of calibration andtesting bodies were beginning to be discussed abouttwo decades ago and have been implemented at leastduring the last decade along with determining the com-petence of certifying bodies. These principles are beingapplied broadly. Out of these developments, the OIMLCertificate System for Measuring Instruments was devel-oped.

The OIML Certificate System has been a huge suc-cess since it was initiated in 1991. The challenge willnow be to complete and initiate the MAA and to reviseOIML D 19 on type evaluation and approval and D 20on initial and subsequent verification, along with devel-oping an OIML program for certifying individualinstruments. The basic tools necessary for accomplish-ing these tasks are in place.

An OIML Technical Subcommittee TC 3/SC 5 on‘Conformity assessment’ was established in 1999 underTC 3 ‘Metrological control’ that has responsibility forthe project for developing the framework for a mutualacceptance arrangement on OIML type evaluation(MAA).

The output from the various OIML TechnicalCommittees on specific Recommendations and theguidance documents on metrological control are

Opportunities and futuretrends in legal metrologycontrol of measuring instrumentsSAM CHAPPELL

CIML Honorary Member, USA

26

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


ities related to unifying and harmonizing the metrologi-cal control of measuring instruments globally.

The basis of these mutual arrangements and over-sight functions will be the principles of determiningcompetence that have been developed in internationalstandardization bodies such as ISO and the IEC andmember organizations. Such principles are containedin ISO/IEC Standard 17025 for calibration and testinglaboratories and in ISO/IEC Guide 65 for certifyingbodies. Competence of such bodies can be carried outby assessments, by accreditation bodies, or by peerassessment. That is:

K Bodies involved:- Issuing authorities- Testing laboratories

K Methods of assessment:- Accreditation- Peer assessment

K Considerations:- Availability of complete testing facilities- Qualified personnel- Training- Cost- Financial and human resources

It will be necessary for the OIML to incorporatesuch principles in those Documents directed towardsnational, regional, and international harmonization oflegal metrological control of measuring instruments.

Experience has shown that such principles will needto be updated and revised on a periodic basis. Thus, itwill also be necessary to revise accordingly thoseDocuments for which such principles have been adopt-ed in Documents for international application such asfields of legal metrology.

The principles that should be observed by interna-tional standards bodies in the development of their pro-jects are as follows:

Transparency – all essential information available tointerested parties.

Openness – participation open on a non-discrimina-tory basis.

Impartiality and consensus – consider all views andattempt to resolve differences.

Effectiveness and relevance – respond to needs andperformance rather than design based to promotedevelopment.

Coherence – avoid duplication and establish coopera-tion with relevant work of others.

Development dimension – consider the needs ofdeveloping countries.

expected to provide a firm basis for global implementa-tion and harmonization of national regulations.

Recommendations pertain mainly to type evalua-tion1 and incorporate the following principles providinga means for type approval and certification:

a) Metrological requirements:

K Accuracy classK Maximum permissible errors

- rated operating conditions, reference conditions- rated operating conditions, with influence fac-

torsK Influence factors

- climatic (temperature, humidity, etc.)- mechanical- electromagnetic

K Repeatability and reproducibilityK Discrimination and sensitivityK Reliability over timeK Mutual recognition and acceptance arrangements

b) Technical requirements

K Indication of the resultsK SoftwareK MarkingsK Operating instructionsK Suitability for use

c) Test program and procedures

d) Format of the test report

e) Certification or declaration of conformity

Mutual recognition and acceptance arrangements

Another significant development in the past decade hasbeen the mutual acceptance arrangement being carriedout under the Treaty of the Metre which focuses onphysical standards and calibrations. The successfulimplementation of this MRA that addresses the ‘equiva-lence’ of national physical standards could provide thenecessary confidence in the ‘traceability’ of calibrationsand measurement results. It would support OIML activ-

1 BIML Note: Most OIML Recommendations pertain also to verifi-cation, since initial and/or subsequent verificationsbelong to legal metrology activity and are thus sub-ject to national or regional regulations.

27

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


Future trends

The principles of a ‘Framework for mutual acceptancearrangement on OIML type evaluation’ (MAA) are inthe process of being finalized. Much has yet to belearned after the approval and implementation of theMAA. Based on the experience gained in its implemen-tation, the MAA will require continued developmentand maintenance.

In the harmonization of metrological requirementsin mutual arrangements for type evaluation, agreementwill need to be established on metrological and techni-cal performance requirements, examination and testingprocedures, and the format of the test report. Formetrological requirements, agreement should bereached on accuracy classes, maximum permissibleerrors under rated operating conditions at referenceconditions and under applicable influence quantities.For technical requirements, agreement should be onfeatures necessary for the instrument to perform cor-rectly and display accurately and should also includelabeling, except for some specialized national andregional requirements.

Trends in the field of verification are expected toinclude the use of remote monitoring of measuringinstruments in service. The use of Internet servicesshould facilitate much of this monitoring. However,local radio-wave devices may also be employed.Software specific to operating such services should alsobe available.

Future opportunities

A future challenge based on the experience gained inthe implementation of the MAA will be the developmentof an ‘OIML certification program for individual mea-suring instruments’. Such a program will have as itsbasis the existing principles provided in OIML D 27 oninitial verification based on the manufacturer’s qualitymanagement system.

The benefits of these efforts will be to facilitate themarketing of ‘type approved’ measuring instruments forcarrying out measurements under legal metrologicalcontrol globally. The areas affected will be equity intrade of the quantity of products, the protection of pub-lic health and worker safety, and the monitoring andprotection of the environment. These efforts will pro-vide protection of the consumer and establish broadconfidence in the quantity and quality of goods and ser-vices.

The areas of legal metrology control of instrumentsmay be summarized as follows:

K Equity in the quantity or quality of products mar-keted:

- buyer and seller- consumers of products- labeling of quantities of products in packages

K Public and worker health and safety:- medical diagnostic instruments- clinical instruments used in analysis- monitoring of workers’ exposure to potential

harmful conditions- monitoring of the workplace environment

K Environment:- monitoring pollutants in the air, water, and soil- determining the level of pollutants (contami-

nates) in food products- verifying and maintaining analytical instruments

used for analysis

Conclusions

Future developments in legal metrology control of mea-suring instruments will depend on the application ofthe principles laid down in significant publications.

Some of those publications that include vocabular-ies, requirements for competence for testing and cali-bration laboratories, requirements for bodies operatingcertification systems, quality management systems,type approval, initial and subsequent verification, andthe framework for a mutual acceptance arrangementfor type evaluation are as follows:

International vocabulary of terms in legal metrology(VIML) - OIML, 2000

International vocabulary of basic and general terms inmetrology (VIM)BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML, 1993

ISO/IEC Guide 2, 1996 Standardization and related activities – General vocabulary

ISO/IEC Guide 17025, 1999 General requirements for the competence of testing andcalibration laboratories

ISO/IEC Guide 65, 1996 General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems

ISO/IEC CD 17040, 2001 General requirements for peer assessment of conformityassessment bodies

28

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


OIML D 27, 2001 Initial verification of measuring instruments utilizing the manufacturer’s quality system

OIML P 1, 2003 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments

OIML Draft Document Framework for a mutual acceptance arrangement for OIML type evaluation (MAA)

OIML Draft Document Checklists used by issuing authorities and testing laboratories involved in type evaluation

ILAC-G10, 1996 Harmonized procedures for surveillance and reassessment of accredited laboratories

ISO 9000 SeriesQuality management systems

OIML D 19, 1988 Pattern evaluation and pattern approval

OIML D 20, 1988 Initial and subsequent verification of measuring instruments and processes

29

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


This presentation relates to what will doubtless benew territory for the OIML in 2020.Let us first briefly consider the relationship between

metrology and the activity of society’s economic players(individuals, industry, associations), who each havetheir own strategies. Metrology plays an important role,since measurement results allow evaluation. Then theplayers predict, and play according to their predictions.The results of their actions will be applied again to themeasurements which become optimized, and thissequence continues for as long as the players continueto play in the economy.

It is true that metrology is one of the most impor-tant techno-infrastructures for the intellectual activityof the economy, and broadens the individual activity ofthe players.

The increase in benefit for the economy, measuredby the increase in GNP for example, is limited when theplayers play independently. But once they are all tunedin to the techno-infrastructure together, their roles takeon similar directions and total economic productivityincreases.

As the economy grows, both the cost and speed ofsupply of the techno-infrastructure become more andmore important and its dependability, reliability oruncertainty for example, should be dependent on thecost the players can afford and the speed at which theycan play. This will be true for metrology too, and it isuseful to study this techno-infrastructure concept inmore depth.

It must be systematized for easy access of eachplayer, for flexibility in reacting to economic changes, fordevelopment and for maintenance, and systematizationmust be coordinated by legislation or formal regulations.

Metrology has a special place among many othertechno-infrastructures and consists of measurementstandards and legal metrology. Besides metrology, wehave another techno-infrastructure related to databaseand evaluation methods. The object of database andevaluation methods may be subject to economic policy.In the Japanese case, geological, biological and chemi-cal objects - and the quality of life - are regarded asbeing of importance because of the recent disasters inthese fields from which we have suffered.

What will the economy in the 21st century look like?Globalization can be described as “global dependabili-ty”. Non profit-making organizations will contribute tothe economy and new measures such as those designedto enhance the quality of life, should be applied for thebenefit of the economy.

The Japanese economy can be taken as an example.A player, in this case an industry, needed its own coope-rating industry to supply raw materials and services.The cooperating industry needed other cooperatingindustries and eventually, many industries were invol-ved in the activity of the first one. This arrangementworked well until the main banks started intervening.In order to pursue successful production, each groupconstructed its own independent techno-infrastructure.Then there were over 100 groups in our economy and,hence, 100 independent techno-infrastructures. Andthen the economy became corrupt and simultaneouslynational security was violated. With this, the Govern-ment started to devise a structure for its techno-infra-structure and reformed the institutes. A new Govern-ment department was set up with an office of weightsand measures for legal metrology and the institutionswere reorganized, the idea being to provide the playerswith well-coordinated techno-infrastructures (it shouldbe noted that the new division is in charge of ensuringthe coordination of the entire national R&D programfrom the view point of developing the techno-infra-structure). With it, all the economic players contributecoherently for the benefit of the economy.

Above all, the national metrology system will playthe basic and key role in the program, and then theplayers must enjoy free choice as far as the dependabili-ty, cost and delivery time are concerned.

Now let us consider the main subject pertaining tothe relationship between new technologies and legalmetrology in 2020.

The basic idea is the following: society in 2020 willstill have both an existing economy and also R&D foradvanced technology, which is “fuelled” by the econo-my. These will yield products, such as new tools andinstruments both for accelerating development and for

Measuring instrument technology and customersand contractors of legalmetrology in the mid 21st centuryMITSURU TANAKA

Deputy Director, NMIJ, JapanCIML Member (Japan)

30

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


of cost, time and dependability. Attention must also bepaid to global production and marketing systems, dere-gulation, and flexible certification for personal activity.

Now the metrological needs originating from suchnew technology can be discussed.

Conventional metrology involved the application ofobjects to measuring instruments, measuring instru-ments themselves, their operation, and the display andtransmission of the measurement data.

But new technology requires metrology to coverother processes in the players’ activity such as evalua-tion, prediction and action:

J Calibration for new sensing systems (micro TAS -Total Analytical Systems);

J Verification of software; J Immediate certification of the measurement and the

evaluation; J Certification of a number of measurements; J Rapid modification of measurement functions; andJ Systematic certification of modular measuring ins-

truments, families of measuring instruments, andsystem measuring instruments.

The provisions made available by these new techno-logies also have to be discussed.

Chip sensors in measuring instruments allow self-diagnosis of the instruments and enable their individualhistory to be recorded. Evidence supporting the enfor-cement of verification, calibration and maintenance canalso be transmitted accurately and in a timely manner.Database technology will additionally permit the auto-matic registration of measuring instruments, and willallow their performance to be diagnosed and their sta-tus reported on.

Software verification will use technical require-ments as a reference. There are many gaps between“natural” language and artificial software languagesand this process is irreversible, making it difficult toverify software. If development and verification arecoordinated, then the process will become much easier.

Artificial intelligence may provide the followingimprovements concerning metrology:

J Systematic software verification; J Technical requirements described not by their cha-

racter, but by video and audio media, which willenable quick and remote certification and sur-veillance;

J Systematic semantic analysis of “natural” languageand software language descriptions concerning tech-nical requirements;

J Artificial intelligence appraisal will contribute to theimpartial coexistence of certification and the pro-duction of measuring instruments or measurementsthemselves;

creating a new social system. The economy will evolveand its metrological needs will change. Certainly, newmetrology will benefit from new technology. The newsocial system and new metrology will be the contractorsof legal metrology.

The author points out three examples of new tech-nology (from among many other fields) with which rea-ders will already be familiar: information technology,environmental technology and biotechnology.

Information technology provides many other tech-nologies with economies of scale and faster processingspeeds. Typical products are telecommunicationsmedia, miniaturized devices, large-screen displays, wea-rable computing elements, or robotics with integratedsensors. It can be noted that current information tech-nology appears to be focused on the human interface.Besides hardware technology, information processingtechnology enables us to design intelligent devices suchas electronic signature and security features.

As for environmental technology, new technologytakes care of weather forecasting, the ocean or pollu-tion; the special feature of this technology will be todeal with complex multi-component systems within glo-bal environmental technologies, and simulation techno-logies ranging from nanoscopic to gigascopic scales.

In the biotechnology field, much innovative R&D isongoing in such fields as gene technology, directlyinfluencing the quality of life, including DNA appraisalfor both humans and whales. Specific metrologicalissues arise particularly in this field: for example thesystematization of metrology, the establishment of mea-surement traceability, and the certification of measu-ring instruments.

The author gives typical examples of new technolo-gy products, probably requiring changes in metrology:intelligent mobile phones incorporating sensor systems,wearable computers, robots, DNA chips, or micro chipsfor micro totalizing analytical systems, which consist oftiny manifold systems and multi-sensor systems; thefluid specimen is analyzed chemically and the resultsare fed into the computer.

Before discussing what possible future implicationsthese new R&D products will have on metrology, theauthor first describes those arising from the normalevolution of the economy itself.

Conventional metrology was supported for its fea-tures such as mass production and harmonized instruc-tions for the use of products, and measurements weremainly intended to ensure quality control for the uni-formity and stability of production.

Since the new economy will be based on such fea-tures as high value added product, market research,short technology life cycle and a wide product range,new metrology must meet these requirements in terms

31

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


J Simulation technology will improve both the preci-sion and speed of pattern evaluation; and

J Robotics and e-measurements (measurements basedon electronic information technology) will be useful inavoiding human errors in verification and testing.

If two players are involved in a transaction, theymay wish to evaluate each others’ products. However, itis difficult for each to evaluate the other alone and theassistance of a consultant might be sought so a transac-tion occurs between each player and their consultant.This continues until dependability is guaranteed by theauthority.

These new recursive certification structures willlead to new certification business, and measurementresults must be certified.

The activity of non-profitable organizations must bebased on impartial evaluation. Rigid application andhigh dependability should be taken care of by legal

metrology, while flexible and cost-oriented dependabili-ty should be taken care of by voluntary certification.

As for the contractor of new metrology, a globalmetrology system should be the ultimate contractor.However, private organizations should be countedamong these, if impartiality is guaranteed by new R&D.And the role of the government as a coordinator of legalmetrology players is very important.

As a conclusion, the author describes the tasks of aglobal legal metrology system.

So far, harmonization of technical requirements formeasuring instruments has been accomplished in thecontext of global legal metrology. But in the future, har-monization of measuring instrument control and certi-fication must also be discussed.

The estimation of the costs and fees policy formetrological control and accreditation, together withcertification modeling of calibration, testing and super-vision, must also be further discussed. K

32

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


What will the pattern approval process look like next yearor in the year 2020?

Will it be different than it is today?

No one person or individual organization can answerboth these questions with guaranteed accuracy, buteach of us will agree that it will be different than it istoday.

Leaders of the international metrology communitywho were present as a group at the 2020 Seminarshould be able to, can, and indeed must define the futu-re of the pattern evaluation process and what it shouldlook like. To do this we need to begin now. We need tolook at all the hard work that was put into developingthe current systems, and also at the efforts that many ofthe OIML Technical Committees and Subcommitteesare making in focusing their work in this direction.

The author spoke at the 2020 Seminar as a represen-tative of the US Scale Manufacturers’ Association, theobjective of which, as manufacturers, is not to undermi-ne the approval process, but rather to streamline it; notto ask for easier standards but to work towards develo-ping strong global standards. The Association’s goal isno different to that of manufacturers of any other pro-duct: to bring high quality, cost effective products, usingnew technology, to the marketplace faster with no brea-ch of any legal requirements and with a minimumconsumption of natural resources.

Those that attended must work together to definewhat legal metrology will look like in the year 2020, todefine the efforts needed to reach these goals, and beginworking on them today. The most effective way toaccomplish this is to look at where we were before,compared to where we are today. We need to identifyour successes and our failures and learn from both. Weneed to look at the needs of our customers and worktogether to meet them.

Beginning in the 1960’s and continuing into the1980’s, individual United States weights and measuresjurisdictions began to require that manufacturers pre-qualify their weighing instruments before allowingthem to enter their commercial marketplaces. Whilethese early evaluations were relatively informal andrudimentary, they met the needs of the day. In the mid1980’s, with some 15 or 16 individual state jurisdictionsrequiring certification, the National Conference onWeights and Measures (NCWM), in conjunction withthe National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST), developed the National Type EvaluationProgram (NTEP). The program was a national systemmanaged by the National Type Evaluation Committee,which relied on a small network of approved state andfederal laboratories. These laboratories conducted ins-trument evaluations and issued national Certificates ofConformance. Under the leadership of the NCWM, thisprogram continues to grow today with the goal of deve-loping common technical requirements designed tomeet global product needs.

The author gave an example of how two differentmembers of the metrology community have workedtogether to achieve a common goal, and one which didnot compromise any existing technical or legal require-ments associated with either country’s metrology requi-rements.

By the early 1990’s, the USA had a well-establishedevaluation program. US manufacturers then looked toexpand this program outside national borders. With theNIST taking the lead role, this effort resulted in discus-sions that led to a bilateral mutual acceptance agree-ment with Measurement Canada to recognize eachother’s test data. The program’s unique feature was thatthe US and Canada did not attempt to harmonize theirtechnical requirements; they “simply” reviewed andcompared the two sets of technical requirements andagreed to evaluate the instruments to the more strin-gent requirement. As a part of this process, the labora-tories on both sides of the border along with industryexperts worked out standardized test procedures toassure uniformity in the end product, the test report.The testing laboratory then shared the results of thisevaluation as evidence of compliance. Thus a single testsystem was developed which provided a single evalua-tion as the basis for issuing both US and Canadianapproval certificates.

The pattern approval process: The past, presentand future as seen by USinstrument manufacturersDARRELL FLOCKEN

Mettler-Toledo US Scale Manufacturers' Association

DARYL TONINI

SMA

33

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


Looking back, one can certainly feel a sense ofaccomplishment; a goal realized. Can we stop here? No!We need to look into the future. We need to set newgoals and realize new accomplishments. Everyone hasheard the statements “the world is getting smaller” and“the marketplace is more global”. That is true: obstaclessuch as time and distance are a fraction of the inconve-nience they were in the past. The obstacles of today areconsumption of natural resources, global standards,time to market for new technology, and limited marketpotential. Products that were once designed and manu-factured for a single national market are being replacedwith ones that meet the requirements of a global mar-ket. As members of the metrology community, we needto think along these same lines.

Some of this is already occurring. The exampleabove of the Canadian and US agreement is an indica-tion of global thinking without compromise to nationalrequirements. Other efforts in this area are the agree-ment between Australia and New Zealand to accepteach other’s test data, and the current effort of theOIML on the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)designed to permit acceptance of test data on a globallevel and open to anyone willing to participate.

Mutual acceptance of test data is a positive firststep, but it is only the first step. It clearly brings themetrology community and product evaluations to ahigher level but it still has many shortfalls. One labora-tory is reluctant to accept the test data from anotherbecause of a lack of confidence in the other laboratory’sabilities. While this is an understandable concern, itcauses delays in reaching an acceptance agreement. Inan extreme example, the cost involved in showing anacceptable level of confidence may prevent the agree-ment from ever being realized, and the first step fromever being reached.

Mutual acceptance of test data is a good idea but wemust ask ourselves if this approach will ever be the nor-mal mode of operation. Or, will the few examples thatcurrently exist be the exception?

We must also ask ourselves if the evaluation of asingle unit conveys satisfactory confidence in the manu-facturer’s ability to produce additional units to the sameperformance level as the one unit evaluated. If we havethat confidence, then why have initial verification? Typeor pattern approval should be enough. If we do nothave this confidence then why express so manyconcerns regarding the confidence in the ability ofother laboratories. We should focus on the big picture,i.e. initial verification, since this is where the problemslie.

We should also look to the manufacturer to help inthis area. Conformity assurance programs such as theone defined in the NAWI Directive of the EuropeanUnion and the Conformity Assessment (ProductionMeets Type) program of the US Scale Manufacturers’

Association go a long way in providing confidence inthe produced product. More confidence than the eva-luation of a single unit built for the reason of type orpattern evaluation.

What are the issues we should be looking at today?How do we adjust today’s approval process to overcometoday’s obstacles while preparing ourselves to addressnew ones in an effective and timely manner? Some ofthe author’s thoughts are discussed below.

We need to move technical standards to a global level.Some may think this is a large task, though from a tech-nical position it is not. As manufacturers we are alreadyaware of the many different technical standards thatexist today. We need to understand the written wordand how it applies to our products. We need to under-stand why the requirements exist so that we can com-municate them within our companies. Our experiencehas shown us that these technical standards have manymore similarities than differences. We need to be con-scious of our individual and national concerns, butshould not use them as a roadblock to a global stan-dard; we should list them along with similar concernsfrom others and find a common solution. We must alsolook at the benefits that a global standard will bring.

Common technical requirements will result in fewerinterpretation issues. Fewer interpretation issues willresult in better educational opportunities.

More education results in a higher level of productcompliance during the evaluation process and initialverification.

Develop a seamless approval system. A single manu-facturer spends a lot of time, money, and resources toobtain all the approvals necessary to place his producton major markets. If we add together all the manufac-turers’ approval efforts we soon see that large amountsof each are spent. For example, if a manufacturer’s goalis to place a product onto the global market he can beassured that at least two, and maybe as many as five,different approval organizations will be testing his pro-duct. To get his product to the marketplace in a timelymanner means that at least two to five samples will besent to various evaluation agencies. Each of thesesamples will undergo evaluation to very similar require-ments. This adds cost to the product, delays introduc-tion to local markets and wastes resources. We mustask ourselves why?

As mentioned before, we need to be aware of ourindividual and national concerns, but should not usethem as a roadblock to a seamless approval system. Wemust also look at the benefits that a seamless systemwill bring.

Eliminate repeated testing of the same product toreduce cost, time to market, and wasted naturalresources.

Allow national laboratories to apply knowledge tothe initial verification procedures and market sur-

34

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


provides benefit to the consumer and not to individualbusinesses. The benefits of a well-developed conformityassurance program are:

J Increase confidence that manufacturers move awayfrom the “golden unit” used for evaluation;

J Provide performance results to requirements thatcannot be obtained during initial verification tes-ting; and

J Improve initial verification compliance.

The world is truly becoming a smaller place; natio-nal laws and requirements are being adjusted to fit amore global world. Most of this work is being lead bythe higher levels of our governments. As members ofthe legal metrology community, we can either sit backand wait to be told what our future will look like or wecan begin working on it today and feel confident thatour efforts are directed to a common and global goal. K

veillance, resulting in increased confidence in produc-tion instruments.

New technology can be placed in the marketplacefaster by assisting and supporting local industries inmaximizing efficiency while minimizing cost, resultingin benefits to the local economy.

Develop an international conformity assurance pro-gram. As mentioned earlier, several members of thelegal metrology community have developed conformityassurance programs. These programs contain a com-mon theme, and ensure that continued productionrepresents that of the sample evaluated. These effortsshould continue, but on a global basis. We should takecare not to end up with two, three or five different pro-grams each having similar yet slightly different require-ments. This is where we are with type or pattern appro-val today and this is one of the reasons why the 2020Seminar was held. We need to learn from our expe-riences, and we need to develop a single program that

35

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


Based on concrete examples, this presentation outlinessome of the possible future problems metrologicalauthorities may face, and opens up discussions.

A conventional measurement system is outlinedwhich may be found in large refineries and chemicalplants. For example, a multitude of sensors are mount-ed in pipelines, and flow computers or indicatingdevices are connected to these sensors for volume mea-surement (the primary measurement). Temperature,pressure, density, etc. sensors also calculate the volumeunder base conditions or the mass. All the flow comput-ers are connected to printers which produce tickets todocument the transactions. Generally, all these plantshave automated data-collection systems and at the pre-sent time, legal metrology is not involved in this area.

Typical characteristics of such conventional systemsare that they comprise dedicated components: volumesensors, flow computers, printers, etc. which performspecific tasks in a certain order, and which are wellknown. Because of that it is possible to make a cleardistinction between the legal metrology and non legalmetrology parts. Also, such installations have mechani-cal seals for inspection officers who are required to beon site to perform their inspection, and measurementoperations require human intervention. Proof of thetransaction is usually in the form of a printed ticket. Alldedicated components are connected to one anotherusing cabling (which is often as expensive as the instru-ment itself).

Let us now look at some of the characteristics whichmay form the bases of measurement systems in thefuture.

Power will be generated locally by the sun or thewind, which will decrease the need for power supplycabling. Cables for communication will no longer be

needed because wireless networks will be installedeverywhere.

Devices will be less dedicated than in conventionalsystems. Multi-task PC-based systems will be used forlegal and non-legal metrology activities and it will bedifficult to make a distinction between legal and non-legal metrology software.

Proof of transactions will probably be available onlyelectronically, via e-mail or SMS messages on mobilephones.

In the future, measurement systems will be builtaround PC networks, performing many different tasksincluding weights and measures control software, con-trol settings and control log-files, to highlight humanintervention or any alteration of software settings.Neither the weights and measures office nor the cus-tomer will be physically connected to the PC system,nor will the various sensors. Communication with boththe customer and the weights and measures authoritieswill be wireless and electronic; this opens the way forweights and measures inspectors to perform inspectionfrom a distance: they can log onto the PC system, checkif any settings have been altered, and whether any elec-tronic seals have been broken. With online referenceequipment it will even be possible to perform calibra-tion testing at a distance.

Is this science fiction or not? As far back as in 1966,a certain television science fiction series contained gad-gets and technologies which were intended to predictthose that would be used in the year 2100–2200. Indeed,many of the computer applications imagined in 1966are already reality.

The future as described in this article is not sciencefiction, because some of the developments mentionedare already taking place now.

Batteries are improving constantly. Wireless com-munication is also improving and for new office build-ings it is cheaper nowadays to install a wireless networkthan a cable network. Also, most electronic devices nowconsume less power; data cables and power cables canbe combined, and the performance of solar cells ismuch more efficient than before.

What problems could legal metrology staff be facedwith?

When transmitted through wireless networks whichoperate via digital communication networks, measure-ment signals are, by definition, delayed. The instrumentreceives the signals, makes calculations and then sendsthe data to the central PC system.

Software sealing is not yet fully harmonized, andthere is at present no clear distinction between legalmetrology and non-legal metrology software.

Because of the development of multi-functionaldevices, huge amounts of software may be involved in awhole system and it would be helpful to know whichsmall part performs the legal metrology operation.

Measuring instrumentsinvisibly connected

WIM VOLMER

NMi Certin B.V., The Netherlands

36

s e m i n a r 2 0 2 0


in the measurement itself and in the recording of thetransaction.

But we do have some technological features whichwill help us. The instruments can be identified usingelectronic addresses so one knows which kind of deviceone is looking for.

Software modules can still be identified individuallyand each module may have a check-sum protection sothat one can verify that it is still intact, and that it is infact the same module that was checked say one monthago. Log files store data, and can be used as evidencethat the settings or measurement results have (or havenot) been altered. By their very nature, digital commu-nications may always be checked, so we do have sometechnological means to help us.

Weights and measures problems can be solved bytechnological means, but we will need to invest inknowledge of these new technologies; international har-monization on, for example, software sealing, will alsobe required in order to arrive at a solution to theseproblems. K

How will we handle the electronic proof of thetransaction, if it is transmitted via email or SMS mes-sage to a mobile phone?

With the exception of the initial analog to digitalconversion inside the instrument, all the measurementcharacteristics will be determined by the software. Theperformance of the measuring instrument, if this canstill be defined, will be far less dependent on hardwarethan it used to be and one will have a kind of approvaldocument with requirements to ensure guaranteedoperation such as which software and which PC-basedoperating system are used, and whether the PC in ques-tion has at least 128 Mb of RAM for example.

In view of the increasingly widespread use of soft-ware as opposed to hardware, will this tendency presentspecific problems to legal metrology professionals?

As approval authorities or certification bodies, weneed to offer some form of guarantee as to the accuracyof the measurements and the data processing after theapproval of the transaction. We need to have confidence

37

u p d a t e


E Issuing Authority / Autorité de délivrance

Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi)Certin B.V., The Netherlands

R60/2000-NL1-02.02Type 0765 (Class C)

Mettler-Toledo Inc., 150 Accurate Way, Inman, SC 29349, USA

This list is classified by IssuingAuthority; updated informationon these Authorities may beobtained from the BIML.

Cette liste est classée par Autoritéde délivrance; les informations à jour relatives à ces Autorités sontdisponibles auprès du BIML.

OIML Recommendation ap-plicable within the System /Year of publication

Recommandation OIML ap-plicable dans le cadre duSystème / Année d'édition

Certified pattern(s)

Modèle(s) certifié(s)Applicant

Demandeur

The code (ISO) of the Member State inwhich the certificate was issued, withthe Issuing Authority’s serial number inthat Member State.

Le code (ISO) indicatif de l'État Membreayant délivré le certificat, avec le numéro desérie de l’Autorité de Délivrance dans cetÉtat Membre.

For each Member State, cer-tificates are numbered in theorder of their issue (renum-bered annually).

Pour chaque État Membre, lescertificats sont numérotés parordre de délivrance (cettenumérotation est annuelle).

Year of issue

Année de délivrance

The OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments was introducedin 1991 to facilitate administrative procedures and lower costs asso-

ciated with the international trade of measuring instruments subject tolegal requirements.

The System provides the possibility for a manufacturer to obtain an OIMLCertificate and a test report indicating that a given instrument patterncomplies with the requirements of relevant OIML International Recom-mendations.

Certificates are delivered by OIML Member States that have establishedone or several Issuing Authorities responsible for processing applications

by manufacturers wishing to have their instrument patterns certified.

The rules and conditions for the application, issuing and use of OIMLCertificates are included in the 2003 edition of OIML P 1 OIML CertificateSystem for Measuring Instruments.

OIML Certificates are accepted by national metrology services on a volun-tary basis, and as the climate for mutual confidence and recognition of testresults develops between OIML Members, the OIML Certificate Systemserves to simplify the pattern approval process for manufacturers andmetrology authorities by eliminating costly duplication of application andtest procedures. K

Le Système de Certificats OIML pour les Instruments de Mesure a étéintroduit en 1991 afin de faciliter les procédures administratives et

d’abaisser les coûts liés au commerce international des instruments demesure soumis aux exigences légales.

Le Système permet à un constructeur d’obtenir un certificat OIML et unrapport d’essai indiquant qu’un modèle d’instrument satisfait aux exi-gences des Recommandations OIML applicables.

Les certificats sont délivrés par les États Membres de l’OIML, qui ont établiune ou plusieurs autorités de délivrance responsables du traitement desdemandes présentées par des constructeurs souhaitant voir certifier leurs

modèles d’instruments.

Les règles et conditions pour la demande, la délivrance et l’utilisation deCertificats OIML sont définies dans l’édition 2003 de la Publication P 1Système de Certificats OIML pour les Instruments de Mesure.

Les services nationaux de métrologie légale peuvent accepter les certificatssur une base volontaire; avec le développement entre Membres OIML d’unclimat de confiance mutuelle et de reconnaissance des résultats d’essais, leSystème simplifie les processus d’approbation de modèle pour lesconstructeurs et les autorités métrologiques par l’élimination des répéti-tions coûteuses dans les procédures de demande et d’essai. K

Système de Certificats OIML:Certificats enregistrés 2003.08–2003.10Informations à jour (y compris le P1): www.oiml.org

OIML Certificate System:Certificates registered 2003.08–2003.10Up to date information (including P1): www.oiml.org

38

u p d a t e



Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB),Germany

R51/1996-DE1-03.01ScanCheck RF5 50XX.YY for accuracy classes X(1) and Y(a)

Scanvaegt International A/S, P.O. Pedersens Vej 18, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark

R51/1996-DE1-03.07Ventocheck for accuracy class X(1)

Ventomatic SPA, Via G. Marconi 20, 24030 Valbrembo (Bergamo), Italy

R51/1996-DE1-03.09S 30 278x for accuracy classes X(1) and Y(a)

Soehnle-Waagen GmbH + Co., Wilhelm-Soehnle-Straße 2, D-71540 Murrhardt, Germany

R51/1996-DE1-03.10PAW 2000-H for accuracy classes X(1) and Y(a)

LEICH+MEHL+Co., GmbH Porschestrasse 7, D-71394 Kernen-Rommelshausen, Germany

R51/1996-DE1-03.11Types ES 6xyz / ES 7xyz for accuracy classes X(0.5), X(1)and Y(a)

Espera-Werke GmbH, Moltkestr. 17-33, D-47058Duisburg, Germany


National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML),United Kingdom

R51/1996-GB1-03.01WPL-5000 for accuracy classes X(1) and Y(a)

Ishida Co., Ltd. 44, Sanno-cho, Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-city 606-8392, Japan


Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi) Certin B.V.,The Netherlands

R51/1996-NL1-03.01BF 2D for accuracy classes X(1) and Y(a)

Garvens Automation GmbH, Kampstrasse 7, D-31180 Giesen, Germany

E Issuing Authority / Autorité de délivranceOIML Chinese Secretariat, State General Administration for Quality Supervisionand Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), China

R60/2000-CN1-03.03SB (Class C3)

Keli Sensor Manufacturing (Ningbo) Co. Ltd., No. 181,Canghai Road, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nongbo City 315040, P.R. China



R60/2000-DE1-03.05Type 640 (Class C3)

Revere Transducers Europe BV, Ramshoorn 7, NL-4824AG Breda, The Netherlands


DANAK The Danish Accreditation and MetrologyFund, Denmark

R60/2000-DK1-03.03SSB-PIAB-R2 (Class C)

PIAB Sweden AB, SE-18422 Akersberga, Sweden

INSTRUMENT CATEGORYCATÉGORIE D’INSTRUMENT

Metrological regulation for load cells (applicable to analog and/or digital load cells)Réglementation métrologique des cellules de pesée(applicable aux cellules de pesée à affichage analogique et/ou numérique)

R 60 (2000)


Automatic catchweighing instrumentsInstruments de pesage trieurs-étiqueteursà fonctionnement automatique

R 51 (1996)

39

u p d a t e



Centro Español de Metrologia, Spain

R60/2000-ES1-03.03TPP-3 (Class C)

Transdutec S.A., C/ Joan Miró 11, 08930 Sant Adrià de Besós, Barcelona, Spain

R60/2000-ES1-03.04TPP-4 (Class C)

Transdutec S.A., C/ Joan Miró 11, 08930 Sant Adrià de Besós, Barcelona, Spain



R60/2000-NL1-03.20SBH (Class C)

Ohaus Corporation, 19A Chapin Road, Pine Brook, New Jersey 07058, USA

R60/2000-NL1-03.21Type 115 (Class C)

Tedea Huntleigh International Ltd., 60 MedinatHayehudim, Herzliya 46120, Israel

R60/2000-NL1-03.22PW18i (Class C)

Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnic Wägetechnik GmbH, Im Tiefen See 45, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany

R60/2000-NL1-03.23FIT …. (Class C)

Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnic Wägetechnik GmbH, Im Tiefen See 45, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany

R60/2000-NL1-03.24SSP1022 (Class C)

Mettler-Toledo (Changzhou) Scale & System Ltd., 111 Changxi Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213001, P.R.China

R60/2000-NL1-03.253510 and 3510 B (Class C)

Vishay Tedea Huntleigh International Ltd., 5a Hatzoran St.,New Industrial Zone, Netanya 42506, Israel



R61/1996-DE1-03.01SWA2000C Class Ref (0.2)

B+L Industrial Measurements GmbH, Hans-Bunte-Straße 8-10, D-69123 Heidelberg, Germany

R61/1996-DE1-03.02MEC III Class Ref (0.2)

Haver & Boecker, Carl-Haver-Platz, D-59302 Oelde,Germany



R61/1996-NL1-03.01ADW-…. Ref, Class X(0.5)

Yamato Scale GmbH, Hanns-Martin-Schleyer Straße 13, D-47877 Willich, Germany


Automatic gravimetric filling instrumentsDoseuses pondérales à fonctionnement automatique

R 61 (1996)

AA

40

u p d a t e


E Issuing Authority / Autorité de délivranceOIML Chinese Secretariat, State General Administration for Quality Supervisionand Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), China

R76/1992-CN1-03.04SW-2, SW-5, SW10 and SW-20 (Class III)

Shanghai CAS Electronics Co. Ltd, No 448 Maixin Road, Xinqiao Zhen Songjiang Qu, 201612 Shanghai, P.R. China



R76/1992-DE1-00.07 Rev. 1DX BM 500 (Classes II, III and IIII)

Sartorius A.G., Weender Landstraße 94-108, D-37075Göttingen, Germany

R76/1992-DE1-00.09 Rev. 6iso-TEST (Classes I, II, III and IIII)

Sartorius A.G. Weender, Landstraße 94-108, D-37075Göttingen, Germany

R76/1992-DE1-03.03 Rev. 1PL…-S (Class II)

Mettler-Toledo A.G., Im Langacher, CH-8606 Greifensee,Switzerland

R76/1992-DE1-03.042790 (Classes III and IIII)

Soehnle-Waagen GmbH + Co., Fornsbacher Straße 27-35, D-71540 Murrhardt, Germany

R76/1992-DE1-03.05BD BP 10, BD BP 200 (classes I and II)

Sartorius A.G. Weender, Landstraße 94-108, D-37075Göttingen, Germany

R76/1992-DE1-03.06335x1, 336x1 (classes III and IIII)

Vogel & Halke GmbH & Co., Hammer Steindamm 9-25, D-22089 Hamburg, Germany


DANAK The Danish Accreditation and MetrologyFund, Denmark

R76/1992-DK1-03.03Scanvaegt System 8400 (Classes III and IIII)

Scanvaegt International A/S, P.O. Pedersens Vej 18, DK-8200 Aarhus N, Denmark



R76/1992-NL1-03.21RN20.. / Viva (Class III)

Mettler-Toledo (Changzhou) Scale & System Ltd., 111 Changxi Road, Changzhou, Jiangsu 213001, P.R. China

R76/1992-NL1-03.22SM-700.. (Class III)

Teraoka Weigh-System PTE LTD, 4 Leng Kee Road, #06-01 SIS Building 159088, Singapore

R76/1992-NL1-03.23AIN & ABW (Classes III or IIII)

Universal Weight Enterprise Co. Ltd., 2-5 Fl., No. 39 PaoShing Road, Hsin Tien City, Taipei Hsien 231, Chinese Taipei

R76/1992-NL1-03.24MP 30 (Class III)

Pitney Bowes Ltd, The Pinnacles, Harlow, Essex CM19 5BD,United Kingdom

R76/1992-NL1-03.25CT-series (Classes I and II)

Shinko Denshi Co., Ltd, 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0034, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.26Type RM-40.. (Class III)

Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co., Ltd., Tinglin IndustryDevelopmental Zone, Jinshan District, Shanghai 01505,P.R. China

R76/1992-NL1-03.27DS-682.. And DS-532.. (Class III)

Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co., Ltd., Tinglin IndustryDevelopmental Zone, Jinshan District, Shanghai 201505, P.R. China

R76/1992-NL1-03.28MS 2xxx series (Class III)

Metrologic Instruments Inc., 90 Coles Road, Blackwood, NJ 08012-4683, USA


Nonautomatic weighing instrumentsInstruments de pesage à fonctionnement non automatique

R 76-1 (1992), R 76-2 (1993)

41

u p d a t e


R76/1992-NL1-03.29PS-series (Class III)

SNOWREX International Co., Ltd., 2F No. 9, Lane 50 Sec.3, Nan-Kang Road, Taipei, Chinese Taipei

R76/1992-NL1-03.30MS2020 (Class III)

Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd., 13-12 Kugahara, 5-Chome Ohta-ku,Tokyo 146-8580, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.31 Rev. 1Azplus.. / AM.. (Class III)

ADAM Equipment Co. Ltd., Bond Avenue, Denbigh EastIndustrial Estate, Milton Keynes MK1 1SW, United Kingdom

R76/1992-NL1-03.32MS-2800 (Class IIII)

Charder Electronic Co., Ltd, 103, Kuo Chung Road, DahLi City, Taichung Hsien 412, R.O.C., Chinese Taipei

R76/1992-NL1-03.34WPT 20D (Class III)

Radwag Zaklad Mechaniki, 26-600 Radom ul., Grudniowa37/39, Poland

R76/1992-NL1-03.35DS-425.. (Class III)

Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co., Ltd., Tinglin IndustryDevelopmental Zone, Jinshan District, Shanghai 201505, P.R. China

R76/1992-NL1-03.36ASTRA-XT or AC-4000.. (Class III)

Ishida Co., Ltd., 44, Sanno-cho, Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-city 606-8392, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.37DC-300 (Class III)

Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd., 13-12 Kugahara, 5-Chome Ohta-ku,Tokyo 146-8580, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.38IPC series (Class III)

Ishida Co. Ltd., 44, Sanno-cho, Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-city 606-8392, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.40MNW 20LA (Class III)

ADAM Equipment Co. Ltd., Bond Avenue, Denbigh EastIndustrial Estate, Milton Keynes MK1 1SW, UnitedKingdom

R76/1992-NL1-03.41MS-2400 (Class IIII)

Charder Electronic Co. Ltd., 103, Kuo Chung Road, DahLi City, Taichung Hsien 412, R.O.C., Chinese Taipei

R76/1992-NL1-03.42MS-2800 (Class IIII)

Charder Electronic Co. Ltd., 103, Kuo Chung Road, Dah Li City, Taichung Hsien 412, R.O.C., Chinese Taipei

R76/1992-NL1-03.44Class III

Ishida Co. Ltd., 44, Sanno-cho, Shogoin Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-city 606-8392, Japan

R76/1992-NL1-03.46RM-40.. (Class III)

Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd., Tinglin IndustryDevelopmental Zone, Jinshan District, Shanghai 201505, P.R. China

R76/1992-NL1-03.47WAA xxx/C/2 (Class I)

Radwag Zaklad Mechaniki, 26-600 Radom ul., Grudniowa 37/39, Poland

R76/1992-NL1-03.48AAA xxxLA (Class I)

ADAM Equipment Co. Ltd., Bond Avenue, Denbigh EastIndustrial Estate, Milton Keynes MK1 1SW, United Kingdom

R76/1992-NL1-03.50DPS-4600 (Class III)

Teraoka Seiko Co. Ltd., 13-12 Kugahara, 5-Chome Ohta-ku,Tokyo 146-8580, Japan


Russian Research Institute for Metrological Service(VNIIMS) of Gosstandart of Russian Federation,Russian Federation

R76/1992-RU1-03.02Wagon scale (Class III)

JSWMC “TENSO-M” 38, Vokzalnaya str, KraskovoLyuberetskii district, Moscow region, 140050, Russia


Swedish National Testing and Research Institute AB,Sweden

R76/1992-SE1-03.017021 (Class III)

Optiscan Stathmos AB, Renvägen 1, SE-35245 Växjo,Sweden

42

u p d a t e




R85/1998-NL1-03.01971 with antenna F08, S06, S08, S10, S12 or W06 for accuracy class 2

Enraf B.V., Delftechpark 39, NL-2628 XJ Delft, The Netherlands


Inspecta Oy, Finland

R106/1997-FI1-03.01TRAPPER (accuracy class 0.2)

Pivotex Oy, Käärmesaarentie 3 B, PL 8, FIN-02161 Espoo, Finland

Updated information on OIML certificates:

www.oiml.org


Automatic level gauges for measuring the levelof liquid in fixed storage tanksJaugeurs automatiques pour le mesurage des niveauxde liquide dans les réservoirs de stockage fixes

R 85 (1998)


Automatic rail-weighbridgesPonts-bascules ferroviaires à fonctionnement automatique

R 106 (1997)



R117/1995-NL1-02.01 Rev. 4model SK700 for accuracy class 0.5

Gilbarco GmbH & Co. KG, Ferdinand-Henze-Straße 9, D-33154 Salzkotten, Germany

R117/1995-NL1-03.01 Rev. 1model ENCORE for accuracy class 0.5

Gilbarco GmbH & Co. KG, Ferdinand-Henze-Straße 9, D-33154 Salzkotten, Germany


Russian Research Institute for Metrological Service(VNIIMS) of Gosstandart of Russian Federation,Russian Federation

R117/1995-RU1-03.01MEB/MPD/MMS for accuracy class 0.5

Mercantile & Industrial Development Company Ltd., 39/44, Scheme 6, Road 2, Sion (East), 400022 Mumbai, India

R117/1995-RU1-03.02MIDCO for accuracy class 0.5

Mercantile & Industrial Development Company Ltd., 39/44, Scheme 6, Road 2, Sion (East), 400022 Mumbai, India


Fuel dispensers for motor vehiclesDistributeurs de carburant pour véhicules à moteur

R 117 (1995) + R 118 (1995)

43

u p d a t e


Along with the currency system, the measurementsystem is fundamental to economic and social activity,and is the basic system for all aspects of life. In Japan,the first systematic measurement system was intro-duced in the year 701, modeled on the system in use inChina. While refining the unique units of length inJapan, we established a metrology verification system.In response to the rapid globalization of economic trans-actions, the technical requirements for measuringinstruments used in Japan conform to the InternationalRecommendations of the OIML. Whatever the era andthe country, determining accurate measurement stan-dards is essential for safeguarding our daily life andimproving economic development - and indeed civiliza-tion as a whole.

The ever-increasing work carried out by the OIMLwith the objective of further increasing internationalcooperation is continuing to harmonize measurementsand measurement techniques in a large number of coun-tries, and the Organization continues to play an impor-tant role in reducing barriers to trade. This CommitteeMeeting will serve to review and further develop theOIML’s strategy in reaching these objectives.

Japan is well aware of the importance of interna-tional contributions in the area of legal metrology andcurrently holds the presidency of the Asia-Pacific LegalMetrology Forum. We plan to continue our internation-al contributions, including support to developing coun-tries, in the future.

Last but not least, I wish to express my sincere grati-tude to the CIML President, Mr. Faber, to all theMembers of the CIML, to Mr. Magaña and his staff andalso to the many other people involved for their tirelessefforts in making this important event become a reality.During this four-day meeting, I sincerely hope that youwill share your views on measurement systems in the21st century, and that you will also enjoy your stay inKyoto.

Thank you for your kind attention. K

38th Meeting of the

International Committee of Legal Metrology

November 5, 2003

Opening Address

by Mr. Hiroshi OgawaDirector General of Industrial Science & Technology Policy

& Environment Bureau (METI)

President Mr. Faber, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor for us to welcome you to Kyoto, oneof Japan’s most historical cities, and to open the Thirty-Eighth Meeting of the International Committee of LegalMetrology.

The year 2003 marks the Hundredth Anniversary ofthe inauguration of the Central Inspection Institute ofWeights and Measures in Japan, which was the firstorganized attempt to provide modern measurementstandards. In this significant year, it gives us great plea-sure to host the CIML Meeting for the first time inJapan.

I believe that the main objective of the legal measu-rement system is not only to provide standards forindustry and commerce but also to ensure the accuracyand reliability of transactions around the world.Moreover, the scope of legal metrology is continuouslyexpanding to respond to changing requirements overtime. As can be seen from the example of the researchtopic Mass Spectrometric Analyses of BiologicalMacromolecules chosen by the Nobel Laureate Mr.Koichi Tanaka, who works here in Kyoto, there is nodoubt that precise measurement is necessary for envi-ronmental protection, health and safety - all of whichare areas of great concern to many people.

38 CIML

Left to right: Mr. Ogawa, Dr. Ono and Mr. Faber

38th Meeting of the


November 5, 2003

Opening Address

by Mr. Gerard FaberCIML President

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my pleasure to welcome you to this Thirty-EighthMeeting of our Committee and I thank you in advancefor your participation which, I am sure, will be as posi-tive and fruitful as ever.

44

u p d a t e


discuss the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement in legalmetrology, and I am sure that the establishment of theMAA will be a huge step forward in meeting the needsthat have been highlighted in view of this modern trendtowards globalization. I am sure that the efforts thathave been made so far both by yourselves as CIMLMembers, as well as by your President, Mr. Faber, overthe last several years will be confirmed and rewarded asyou set out to react to this new challenge.

I hope not only that the Thirty-Eighth CIML Meetingwill represent another major step forward towards ourgoal, but also that you will all enjoy the autumn seasonin Kyoto, which certainly for me personally is the bestseason of the year.

Thank you very much. K

38th Meeting of the


November 5, 2003

Opening Address

by Dr. Akira OnoDirector

National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ)

Mr. Faber, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the National Metrology Institute of JapanI would like to welcome you to Kyoto, which as you mayknow was previously the capital city of Japan.

At the opening of this CIML Meeting, I would like tobriefly talk to you about the history of Japanese metrol-ogy. In ancient Japan, metrology was first establishedright here in Kyoto, from where it was disseminatedthroughout the country over a long period of time. Asyou are aware, ancient metrology was superseded bymodern metrology in 1875 with the establishment of theMetre Convention.

2003 is a special year for Japanese metrology. Justone hundred years ago in 1903, the former NRLM wasfounded in the new capital city of Japan, Tokyo, andpremises were also opened in Osaka. The name of theInstitute has since changed several times, but it has con-tinued to play its role and became the NationalMetrology Institute of Japan, or NMIJ. We are especial-ly pleased to host the CIML Meeting here in Japan in ourcentenary year.

Legal metrology is now becoming more and moreglobal, and I am well aware that the role of the OIML isincreasing year by year. It is very timely for the CIML to

38 CIML

38 CIML

45

u p d a t e


This is the first time that we have the privilege ofmeeting in Japan, and especially in such a beautiful cityas Kyoto, with its 1200 years of history. I was lucky tohave already had the honor of visiting this wonderfulplace and the surrounding area, and I have no doubtthat delegates will have the opportunity to appreciatethe cultural treasures that it offers to us. Holding ourMeeting in such a modern and impressive InternationalConference Center will certainly make our work easierand very productive, and I want to extend my sincerethanks to our Japanese hosts who have gone out of theirway to provide such superb facilities.

So according to tradition, I would like to start withsome words concerning our new Members.

We have great pleasure in welcoming two newMember States, New Zealand and Vietnam, who haveboth changed their position from CorrespondingMembers to full OIML Member States. The OIML nowtherefore comprises a total of 60 Member States, andthis increase in membership shows that ourOrganization is not only healthy but also that it contin-ues to answer the needs of the international community.

In reviewing the composition of our Committee,I have pleasure in welcoming the following newMembers:

For BULGARIA: Mrs Ani TodorovaFor KENYA: Mr. I.M. NgatiaFor SOUTH AFRICA: Mr. Stuart H. CarstensFor MACEDONIA: Mr. Danco PendovskiFor ITALY: Mrs Daniela PrimicerioFor POLAND: Mrs Barbara LisowskaFor SRI LANKA: Mr. Upananda SenaratneFor NEW ZEALAND: Mr. John BarkerFor VIETNAM: To be advised

I also welcome one new Corresponding Member,Nicaragua, and additionally those Participants in thismeeting who are in the process of becoming officiallyappointed CIML Members.

Our Meeting this year is one of the most importantmeetings we have had in recent years.

The OIML is increasingly linked with other interna-tional Organizations. I want to mention the work whichhas started this year concerning assistance to Devel-oping Countries, in a Joint Committee established withall the major Organizations in metrology, accreditationand standardization. I am very pleased to welcome Mr.Buck, from the IEC, with whom we have recently orga-nized some very successful Seminars for DevelopingCountries, on an initiative of the World TradeOrganization.

The issue of Developing Countries will be discussedin this meeting. The Task Group on DevelopingCountries, which was set up last year, has made a veryworthwhile contribution to the Organization. A number

of its proposals were included in the ongoing revision ofthe OIML Action Plan, information on which will begiven to you this week, and the Task Group also maderecommendations for a revised organization of the workon Developing Countries. These recommendations werediscussed at the Development Council Meeting and atthe Presidential Council Meeting, and will also be pre-sented to you so that the Bureau can prepare decisionsto be submitted to the Conference next year.

The technical work of the Organization over the pastyear has been quite fruitful and we have a number oftechnical documents to approve. The progression in ourmethods of work and in the organization of the Bureauis also advancing and a number of decisions will have tobe made and procedures approved. Among them are thenew Staff Regulations for the Bureau, and a preliminarypaper on the four-year budget, which has to be present-ed next year at the Conference.

Last, but not least, two essential issues for the futureof the OIML are on our agenda.

The Mutual Acceptance Arrangement, which was theobject of a very successful meeting in June this year, isnow being submitted for your approval. I think that thisdocument now answers the expectations of mostMembers and can reach the required consensus. I dohope that it will be approved and that we can startimplementing it as soon as possible.

The second issue is the election of a CIML President.The OIML will face crucial challenges over the nextyears in building a global legal metrology system, andthe role of the CIML President will be essential.

These are, my dear Colleagues, the major topics thatwe shall have to examine and/or decide upon during thismeeting.

So, at the end of my opening address, may I ask theBIML Director to proceed with the roll call of partici-pants before we embark on the various items on ouragenda.

Thank you for your attention, and may I wish you avery successful meeting. K

Full accounts of the Kyoto meetings willbe published in the April 2004 issue

of the OIML Bulletin

46

u p d a t e


The BEV Metrology Service recently took overresponsibility for the Secretariat of OIMLTC 8/SC 1, and so a kick-off meeting was held in

Vienna during the last two days of October with theobjective of starting work on the revision of a number ofOIML Recommendations.

12 participants from six P-member countries(Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia,Sweden) and one O-member country (Slovenia) attend-ed the meeting and the OIML Recommendations con-cerned were:

J R 71 (1985) Fixed storage tanksJ R 80 (1989) Road & rail tankersJ R 85 (1998) Automatic level gauges for measuring

the level of liquids in fixed storagetanks

J R 95 (1990) Ship tanksJ Project p2: Installation for gauging road & rail

tankers

The discussion focussed on project p2, for whichGermany had provided a comprehensive working paper.A presentation on the same topic was also given by aGerman company.

After intense discussion a procedure was adopted tocope with the workload of revising three or fourRecommendations simultaneously. It was proposed toset up two new Working Groups (WGs) which wouldbring the Recommendations up to date and render themsuitable for application within the OIML CertificateSystem, and these new WGs should be able to produce a1 CD within a year:

J OIML TC 8/SC 1 WG2 (10 participants so far) woulddeal with the revisions of R 85 and R 71, and

J OIML TC 8/SC 1 WG3 (9 participants so far) wouldtake on the revision of R 80, together with the adap-tation of p2.

The revision of R 95, originally planned by WG1, waspostponed.

A further meeting to discuss the output of WG2 andWG3 was scheduled to be held in December 2003, alsoin Vienna. K

OIML TC 8/SC 1 MEETING

Static Volume Measurement30–31 October 2003

Vienna, Austria

RICHARD GOBLIRSCH

BEV, Austria

OIML TC 8/SC 3 & SC 4 JOINT MEETING

Dynamic Volume Measurement

Dynamic Mass Measurement

6–9 October 2003

Paris, France

RALPH RICHTER

NIST, USA

47

u p d a t e


Introduction

A joint meeting of OIML TC 8/SC 3 Dynamic volumemeasurement for liquids other than water (Germany) andTC 8/SC 4 Dynamic mass measurement for liquids otherthan water (USA) was held from 6–9 October 2003.Hosted by the BIML at the Maison de la Chimie in Paris,the meeting was extremely productive and was very wellattended by 45 participants, including official represen-tatives from 17 Member States (17 P-Members ofTC 8/SC 3 and 15 P-Members plus 2 O-Members ofTC 8/SC 4). With participants from Japan, China,Australia, South Africa and Brazil, every continent wasrepresented!

The main purpose of the meeting was to holddetailed discussions on several critical issues involved inthe revision of OIML Recommendation R 117 Measuringsystems for liquids other than water. This Recommenda-tion is currently undergoing an extensive revision: newinstrument technologies are being incorporated and it isbeing merged with OIML R 86 Drum meters for alcoholand their supplementary devices and R 105 Mass flowmeasuring systems for quantities of liquids.

This new version of R 117 will include measuringsystems equipped with volumetric meters, turbinemeters, electromagnetic meters, ultrasonic meters,vortex meters, drum meters, and mass flow meters.

R 117 Project history

During a joint meeting of OIML TC 8/SC 3 andTC 8/SC 4 held in February 2000, it was decided toestablish two new working groups to revise and merge

OIML R 105 and R 117. At that meeting, it was agreedthat a new R 117-1 Measuring systems for liquids otherthan water, Part 1: Metrological and technical require-ments would be developed to replace R 105 (1993) andR 117 (1995). When that work was completed, a newR 117-2 Testing procedures and test report format for typeevaluation of fuel dispensers for motor vehicles would bedeveloped by TC 8/SC 3 WG1 to replace R 118 (1995).

Based on a questionnaire sent out in December 2000concerning drum meters for alcohol (currently coveredby OIML R 86), it was decided to not revise R 86.Instead, measuring systems equipped with drum metersfor alcohol will be included in the revised R 117-1, andR 86 will be withdrawn.

In June 2001, all 25 P-Members of TC 8/SC 3 wereinvited to participate in TC 8/SC 3 WG2 “Revision ofR 117”. Nineteen P-Members agreed to participate inthis working group and these same P-members alsoagreed to participate in TC 8/SC 4 WG1 “CombinationR 117/R 105”.

In May 2002, a first proposal for the revision ofAnnex A of the revised R 117 entitled Performance testsfor electronic measuring systems was sent for commentto the members of TC 8/SC 3 WG2.

The chairmen of the two Subcommittees and theconvenors of the two working groups made significantprogress on the R 117 revision during an informal meet-ing from 17 to 20 September 2002 at the PTB inBraunschweig, Germany. Discussions at this meetingwere based on an early draft of the revised/combinedR 117. The convenors of the two working groups, Mr.Ralph Richter (NIST, USA) and Mr. Aart Kooiman (NMi,The Netherlands), agreed to work closely together tocomplete the project on an aggressive (2002–2004) timeschedule.

According to the time schedule, the first and secondworking drafts were developed and discussed by theworking group convenors with the active participationof the national working groups of the United States andThe Netherlands over the period November 2002 toFebruary 2003. A third working draft (WD3) was drawnup, and in March 2003 the document was distributed tothe international working groups (IWGs) for review andcomment.

Over 540 comments on WD3 were received frommembers of the IWGs. Many of these comments werelengthy, technical, and thoughtful, often suggesting sig-nificant changes to entire sections of R 117-1. The con-venors worked closely together in an attempt to respondto every comment and make all appropriate changes andimprovements to the next draft of the document. Basedon these comments, the convenors prepared a firstCommittee Draft (1CD) and sent it to the members ofthe IWGs in August 2003. The 1CD was also sent to allParticipating and Observing members of OIMLTC 8/SC 3 and TC 8/SC 4.

48

u p d a t e


J Verification of checking facilities;J Severity levels for performance testing; andJ Documentation required to accompany an applica-

tion for a type approval certificate, and informationrequired on the certificate. Most of the discussions were lively and generally,

consensus was reached among participants. Proposedchanges to the R 117 text were made in real-time andwere projected for participants to view and discuss. Asrequired, some new terminology was added and otherterminology edited. A few issues on which there was alack of clear consensus were voted on by the quorum ofSubcommittee P-Members.

Participants expressed satisfaction with the produc-tivity and accomplishments of the meeting in workingtowards a new draft Recommendation R 117-1.

Next steps

A few participants at the Paris meeting accepted assign-ments to draft proposals for revised text in particularsections of the document. All other participants wereencouraged to send any additional comments or edits onthe 1CD to the WG convenors.

Based on consensus decisions at the Paris meetingand other comments received, the WG convenors plan tosend out the 2CD of R 117-1 for vote and comment inJanuary 2004. K

The meeting

Working from the 1CD of R 117 (August 2003), partici-pants at the 6–9 October 2003 Paris meeting successful-ly completed a lengthy and detailed agenda designed toresolve several key issues concerning the revision of thedocument. The meeting was chaired by Dr. DetlevMencke (PTB, Germany) with assistance from Mr.Richter and Mr. Kooiman.

In addition to the 17 P-Member countries, severalrepresentatives of major manufacturers of these systemsand liaison organizations actively participated in themeeting. These technical experts provided a depth ofexperience and technical expertise that proved highlyvaluable during the meeting.

Members of the IWGs were consulted before themeeting to help ensure that the most important issues inR 117 were given adequate discussion time early in themeeting. The following are just a few of the key issuesdiscussed:

J Conversion devices. An entire section of the 1CD wasrewritten to allow three different approaches toverify a conversion device;

J Electronic sealing. Convenors rewrote the entire sec-tion in the 1CD. After much discussion, the new sec-tion was accepted with minor editorial changes;

J Requirements for different types of gas eliminationdevices;

J Significant faults;

Participants at the October 2003 Joint Meeting of OIML TC 8/SC 3 and TC 8/SC 4

Introduction

An International Workshop on Future Aspects ofSoftware and IT in Legal Metrology (FASIT) took place onSeptember 25th and 26th in Ljubljana, Slovenia, jointlyorganized by the Metrology Institute of the Republic ofSlovenia (MIRS) and MID-Software (www.mid-soft-ware.org), a project within the EU 5th FrameworkProgram.

The aim of the MID-Software project is to supportthe implementation of the MID by preparing guidelineswhich will enable common interpretation of softwarerequirements among manufacturers and legal metrologybodies in Europe and by establishing mutual confidencein the results of software testing. The project consortiumconsists of six national metrology institutes (PTB, NMi,SP, NWML, GUM, IPQ, MIRS), two notified bodies(DELTA, LNE) and seven manufacturers of legal metrol-ogy instruments (HALE, Herbert and Sons, GILBARCO(former Marconi), Mettler Toledo, Sartorius, Landis &Gyr (former Siemens Metering)).

Background information

The project work is split into work packages (“WP”)which:

J Draw up requirements (WP 1.1, WP 1.2 and WP 1.3), J Draw up validation guidance (WP 2), J Analyze linkage between legal metrology require-

ments and existing international software and ITstandards (WP 3),

J Analyze future aspects of software in legal metrologyinstruments (WP 4), and

J Coordinate the project (WP 5).

The idea behind the Workshop stemmed from a pro-ject meeting in Ljubljana in October 2002, during thepresentation of WP 4 (Future aspects). The idea was toinvite manufacturers of legal metrology instruments andothers involved in software and IT in metrology to clearup and focus our vision of its future developments, sincethese developments already influence the work of legalmetrology institutions, and will continue to influence itmore and more in the future. WP 4 identified the fol-lowing aspects as being necessary for immediate furtherinvestigation:

J Remote meter operation via various communicationnetworks (internet, cable-TV network, power supply,mobile communication, etc.) - remote readout, iden-tification and authentication of participants in dataexchange, key infrastructure, software download,remote configuration and inspection, data security,integrity aspects, etc.

J Use of smartcards in legal metrology applications -readout, identification and authentication of partici-pants in data exchange, key infrastructure, softwaredownload, configuration and inspection, data securi-ty, integrity aspects, etc.

J Multi-purpose measuring instruments and intelli-gent sensors.

Workshop realization

The event took the form of a two-day Workshop with 16lectures, eight of which were given by representativesfrom industry. There were 57 participants from 13European countries and Japan. The workshop had threemain parts:

J Introduction related to technical legislation,J Technical presentations by manufacturers, andJ Technical presentations based in experience gained

in other fields that may be of use for legal metrology.

The contributions shown in the table on the nextpage were presented, and the presentations were fol-lowed by a panel discussion.

In addition to the presentations, a visit was orga-nized to the MIRS Laboratory for InformationTechnology in Metrology, MIRS Mass Laboratory andthe Laboratory for Metrology and Quality (LMK),Faculty of Electrical Engineering Ljubljana.

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP

Future Aspects of Softwareand IT in Legal Metrology(FASIT)

25–26 September 2003

Ljubljana, SloveniaTANASKO TASIC , MIRS

49

u p d a t e


50

u p d a t e


Dr. Ivan Skubic, Director of MIRS, Slovenia Introduction to the FASIT Workshop

Mr. Jean-François Magaña, Director of BIML OIML role and activities

Mr. Gerald Freistetter, Chairman of WELMEC, BEV, Austria WELMEC role and activities

Dr. Roman Schwartz, Chairman of the WELMEC The EU Directive on Measuring Instruments (MID);WG 7 “Software”, PTB, Germany Development and implementation

Prof. Dr. Dieter Richter, Project co-ordinator, MID-Software: Overview of the projectHead of Department 8.3: Metrological Information Technology, PTB, Germany

Ms. Barbara Leitner, Hale Electronic, Austria Advanced taximeter & organization solutions - integrating vehicle manufacturers, calibrationoffices and workshops

Mr. Samo Zorko, IskraEMECO, Slovenia DLC and RF based AMR System with ME/MT 351System Meters

Mr. Sandro Minuti, Gilbarco Veeder-Root, Italy Fuel service station today and tomorrow - A perspective from legal metrology’s point of view

Mr. Anton Rems, Ultra, Slovenia Application of modern IT and software approachesto measuring process in oil industry

Dr. Satoshi Matsuoka, National Institute of Integrity check of embedded software via internetAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Laboratory for Verification and Semantics, Japan

Prof. Dr. Janko Drnovsek, Chairman of Slovenian Presentation of the Metrology System of theNational Metrology Board, Laboratory for Metrology Republic of Sloveniaand Quality (LMK), Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Ljubljana

Mrs. Natasa Mejak Vukovic, Head of MIRS Legal Presentation of legal metrology activities Metrology Department in Slovenia

Dr. Norbert Zisky, Head of Section 8.32: Presentation of SELMA project [Sicherer Measurement Data Transfer Technology, PTB, Germany Elektronischer Messdaten Austauch]

Mr. David Pewter, Herbert & Sons, UK MID weigh to the future!

Mr. Tadej Vodopivec, HERMES SoftLab, Slovenia Useful experience from E-Banking and IT solutionsfor legal metrology

Mr. Roman Flegar, MIRS, Slovenia Supporting infrastructure of the system for implementation of the MID

Dr. Jovan Bojkovski & Mr. Valentin Batagelj, Laboratory Practical issues in transmission of measurementfor Metrology and Quality (LMK), Faculty of Electrical data via InternetEngineering, Ljubljana

Mr. Iztok Saje, Mobitel, Slovenia Transmission of telemetric data via public mobile network

Presentations given at the Workshop

51

u p d a t e


J Have additional functions related to measuring instru-ment or system components that will require carefulsoftware separation (inventory management, etc.);

J Require high-level skills to prevent fraud; andJ Require much higher level skills for fraud detection

and surveillance.

The event would have been even more successful ifthere had been more presentations from manufacturersof legal measuring instruments, or contributions fromthe meter provider community. Nevertheless, FASITgave a good overview and orientation of probable futuredevelopments. The FASIT idea was similar to that of the1999 OIML Seminar on software, and it is probablyuseful to consider the periodical organization of similarevents to keep those involved informed about developingtrends in this area. K

Conclusions

As Mr. Sandro Minuti from Gilbarco said, the develop-ment of legal measuring instruments began with the“iron age”, continued with the “electronic age” followedby the “software age” and now we are already in the“communication age”.

From the presentations given during the FASITWorkshop we learned that the development of legalmeasuring instruments is moving in the direction of (oralready is) distributed or “networked” measuring sys-tems, which will:

J Add additional functionality and flexibility in theoperation of measuring instruments (remote tariff orunit price change for taximeter, fuel dispenser, utilitymeter or scales, readout of utility meters, calibration,software update via download and other mainte-nance, etc.);

J Lead to measuring instruments actually being physi-cally distributed over several locations;

J Lead to the use of centralized databases in measur-ing systems for measurement data collection for issu-ing invoices and various other functions (tariff calcu-lation, maintenance, etc.);

Contact information:

Mr. Tanasko TasicLaboratory for Information Technology in Metrology (LITM)

Metrology Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (MIRS)Grudnovo nabrezje 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Tel: +386 1 24 42 710 K Fax: +386 1 24 42 714

E-mail: [email protected] K Web: www.mirs.si/fasit

52

u p d a t e


K OIML Meetings

2–5 February 2004 - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil(Date and venue to be confirmed)

TC 12 Instruments for measuring electrical quantities(WG Meeting: Revision OIML R 46)

25–29 October 2004 - Berlin, Germany

Development Council Meeting

39th CIML Meeting

12th International Conference on Legal Metrology

The OIML is pleased to welcome the following new

K CIML Members

K New Zealand

Mr. John Barker

K Indonesia

Drs. Amir Saharuddin Sjahrial

www.oiml.org

www.oiml.orgStay informed

K Committee Drafts Received by the BIML, 2003.08.01 – 2003.10.31

Revision R 35: Material measures of length for general use E 2 CD TC 7 UK

Revision R 117: Measuring systems for liquids other than water E 1 CD TC 8/SC 3 DE

Test Report Format for R 125 E 2 CD TC 8/SC 2 RU

Revision R 39: Rockwell hardness machines E 2 CD TC 10/SC 5 US

Revision D 1: Elements for a Law on Metrology E 3 CD TC 3 US

Newtonian viscosity standard specimens for E 1 CD TC 17/SC 5 RUcalibration and verification of viscometers

J Bulletin

J Calendar

J Certificates

J Events

J Liaisons

J Member Listings

J News

J OIML Structures

J Orders

J Publications

J TCs and SCs

Call for papers

K Technical articles on legal metrology related subjects

K Features on metrology in your countryK Accounts of Seminars, Meetings, ConferencesK Announcements of forthcoming events, etc.

ISSN

047

3-28

12OIML

BULLETINVOLUME XLV • NUMBER 1

JANUARY 2004

Quarterly Journal

38th CIML Meeting, Kyoto: Opening Speeches


OIML MembersRLMOs

Liaison InstitutionsManufacturers’ Associations

Consumers’ & Users’ Groups, etc.

The OIML Bulletin is a forum for the publication oftechnical papers and diverse articles addressing metrologicaladvances in trade, health, the environment and safety - fieldsin which the credibility of measurement remains achallenging priority. The Editors of the Bulletin encourage thesubmission of articles covering topics such as national,regional and international activities in legal metrology andrelated fields, evaluation procedures, accreditation andcertification, and measuring techniques and instrumentation.Authors are requested to submit:

• a titled, typed manuscript in Word or WordPerfect eitheron disk or (preferably) by e-mail;

• the paper originals of any relevant photos, illustrations,diagrams, etc.;

• a photograph of the author(s) suitable for publicationtogether with full contact details: name, position,institution, address, telephone, fax and e-mail.

Note: Electronic images should be minimum 150 dpi, preferably 300 dpi.

Papers selected for publication will be remunerated at therate of 23 € per printed page, provided that they have notalready been published in other journals. The Editors reservethe right to edit contributions for style, space and linguisticreasons and author approval is always obtained prior topublication. The Editors decline responsibility for any claimsmade in articles, which are the sole responsibility of theauthors concerned. Please send submissions to:

The Editor, OIML BulletinBIML, 11 Rue Turgot, F-75009 Paris, France

([email protected])

ISSN

047

3-28

12

OIML BULLETIN

VOLUME XLIV • NUMBER 4

OCTOBER 2003

Quarterly Journal

A series of international meetings - and the OIML welcomes two newMember States: New Zealand and Vietnam


ISSN

047

3-28

12

OIML BULLETIN


JULY 2003

Quarterly Journal

Complete 2020 Seminar Proceedings now available on CD-ROM

What Will LegalMetrology

be

in the Year 2020?


ISSN

047

3-28

12

OIML BULLETIN


APRIL 2003

Quarterly Journal


The Presidential Council met at the BIML on 24–25 February 2003