Hubbry Logo
CalibrationCalibrationMain
Open search
Calibration
Community hub
Calibration
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Calibration
Calibration
Calibration
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In measurement technology and metrology, calibration is the comparison of measurement values delivered by a device under test with those of a calibration standard of known accuracy. Such a standard could be another measurement device of known accuracy, a device generating the quantity to be measured such as a voltage, a sound tone, or a physical artifact, such as a meter ruler.

The outcome of the comparison can result in one of the following:

  • no significant error being noted on the device under test
  • a significant error being noted but no adjustment made
  • an adjustment made to correct the error to an acceptable level

Strictly speaking, the term "calibration" means just the act of comparison and does not include any subsequent adjustment.

The calibration standard is normally traceable to a national or international standard held by a metrology body.

BIPM Definition

[edit]

The formal definition of calibration by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) is the following: "Operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the quantity values with measurement uncertainties provided by measurement standards and corresponding indications with associated measurement uncertainties (of the calibrated instrument or secondary standard) and, in a second step, uses this information to establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication."[1]

This definition states that the calibration process is purely a comparison, but introduces the concept of measurement uncertainty in relating the accuracies of the device under test and the standard.

Modern calibration processes

[edit]

The increasing need for known accuracy and uncertainty and the need to have consistent and comparable standards internationally has led to the establishment of national laboratories. In many countries a National Metrology Institute (NMI) will exist which will maintain primary standards of measurement (the main SI units plus a number of derived units) which will be used to provide traceability to customer's instruments by calibration.

The NMI supports the metrological infrastructure in that country (and often others) by establishing an unbroken chain, from the top level of standards to an instrument used for measurement. Examples of National Metrology Institutes are NPL in the UK, NIST in the United States, PTB in Germany and many others. Since the Mutual Recognition Agreement was signed it is now straightforward to take traceability from any participating NMI and it is no longer necessary for a company to obtain traceability for measurements from the NMI of the country in which it is situated, such as the National Physical Laboratory in the UK.

Quality of calibration

[edit]

To improve the quality of the calibration and have the results accepted by outside organizations it is desirable for the calibration and subsequent measurements to be "traceable" to the internationally defined measurement units. Establishing traceability is accomplished by a formal comparison to a standard which is directly or indirectly related to national standards (such as NIST in the USA), international standards, or certified reference materials. This may be done by national standards laboratories operated by the government or by private firms offering metrology services.

Quality management systems call for an effective metrology system which includes formal, periodic, and documented calibration of all measuring instruments. ISO 9000[2] and ISO 17025[3] standards require that these traceable actions are to a high level and set out how they can be quantified.

To communicate the quality of a calibration the calibration value is often accompanied by a traceable uncertainty statement to a stated confidence level. This is evaluated through careful uncertainty analysis. Some times a DFS (Departure From Spec) is required to operate machinery in a degraded state. Whenever this does happen, it must be in writing and authorized by a manager with the technical assistance of a calibration technician.

Measuring devices and instruments are categorized according to the physical quantities they are designed to measure. These vary internationally, e.g., NIST 150-2G in the U.S.[4] and NABL-141 in India.[5] Together, these standards cover instruments that measure various physical quantities such as electromagnetic radiation (RF probes), sound (sound level meter or noise dosimeter), time and frequency (intervalometer), ionizing radiation (Geiger counter), light (light meter), mechanical quantities (limit switch, pressure gauge, pressure switch), and, thermodynamic or thermal properties (thermometer, temperature controller). The standard instrument for each test device varies accordingly, e.g., a dead weight tester for pressure gauge calibration and a dry block temperature tester for temperature gauge calibration.

Instrument calibration prompts

[edit]

Calibration may be required for the following reasons:

  • a new instrument
  • after an instrument has been repaired or modified
  • moving from one location to another location
  • when a specified time period has elapsed
  • when a specified usage (operating hours) has elapsed
  • before and/or after a critical measurement
  • after an event, for example
    • after an instrument has been exposed to a shock, vibration, or physical damage, which might potentially have compromised the integrity of its calibration
    • sudden changes in weather
  • whenever observations appear questionable or instrument indications do not match the output of surrogate instruments
  • as specified by a requirement, e.g., customer specification, instrument manufacturer recommendation.

In general use, calibration is often regarded as including the process of adjusting the output or indication on a measurement instrument to agree with value of the applied standard, within a specified accuracy. For example, a thermometer could be calibrated so the error of indication or the correction is determined, and adjusted (e.g. via calibration constants) so that it shows the true temperature in Celsius at specific points on the scale. This is the perception of the instrument's end-user. However, very few instruments can be adjusted to exactly match the standards they are compared to. For the vast majority of calibrations, the calibration process is actually the comparison of an unknown to a known and recording the results.

Basic calibration process

[edit]

Purpose and scope

[edit]

The calibration process begins with the design of the measuring instrument that needs to be calibrated. The design has to be able to "hold a calibration" through its calibration interval. In other words, the design has to be capable of measurements that are "within engineering tolerance" when used within the stated environmental conditions over some reasonable period of time.[6] Having a design with these characteristics increases the likelihood of the actual measuring instruments performing as expected. Basically, the purpose of calibration is for maintaining the quality of measurement as well as to ensure the proper working of particular instrument.

Intervals

[edit]

The exact mechanism for assigning tolerance values varies by country and as per the industry type. The measuring of equipment is manufacturer generally assigns the measurement tolerance, suggests a calibration interval (CI) and specifies the environmental range of use and storage. The using organization generally assigns the actual calibration interval, which is dependent on this specific measuring equipment's likely usage level. The assignment of calibration intervals can be a formal process based on the results of previous calibrations. The standards themselves are not clear on recommended CI values:[7]

ISO 17025[3]
"A calibration certificate (or calibration label) shall not contain any recommendation on the calibration interval except where this has been agreed with the customer. This requirement may be superseded by legal regulations.”
ANSI/NCSL Z540[8]
"...shall be calibrated or verified at periodic intervals established and maintained to assure acceptable reliability..."
ISO-9001[2]
"Where necessary to ensure valid results, measuring equipment shall...be calibrated or verified at specified intervals, or prior to use...”
MIL-STD-45662A[9]
"... shall be calibrated at periodic intervals established and maintained to assure acceptable accuracy and reliability...Intervals shall be shortened or may be lengthened, by the contractor, when the results of previous calibrations indicate that such action is appropriate to maintain acceptable reliability."

Standards required and accuracy

[edit]

The next step is defining the calibration process. The selection of a standard or standards is the most visible part of the calibration process. Ideally, the standard has less than 1/4 of the measurement uncertainty of the device being calibrated. When this goal is met, the accumulated measurement uncertainty of all of the standards involved is considered to be insignificant when the final measurement is also made with the 4:1 ratio.[10] This ratio was probably first formalized in Handbook 52 that accompanied MIL-STD-45662A, an early US Department of Defense metrology program specification. It was 10:1 from its inception in the 1950s until the 1970s, when advancing technology made 10:1 impossible for most electronic measurements.[11]

Maintaining a 4:1 accuracy ratio with modern equipment is difficult. The test equipment being calibrated can be just as accurate as the working standard.[10] If the accuracy ratio is less than 4:1, then the calibration tolerance can be reduced to compensate. When 1:1 is reached, only an exact match between the standard and the device being calibrated is a completely correct calibration. Another common method for dealing with this capability mismatch is to reduce the accuracy of the device being calibrated.

For example, a gauge with 3% manufacturer-stated accuracy can be changed to 4% so that a 1% accuracy standard can be used at 4:1. If the gauge is used in an application requiring 16% accuracy, having the gauge accuracy reduced to 4% will not affect the accuracy of the final measurements. This is called a limited calibration. But if the final measurement requires 10% accuracy, then the 3% gauge never can be better than 3.3:1. Then perhaps adjusting the calibration tolerance for the gauge would be a better solution. If the calibration is performed at 100 units, the 1% standard would actually be anywhere between 99 and 101 units. The acceptable values of calibrations where the test equipment is at the 4:1 ratio would be 96 to 104 units, inclusive. Changing the acceptable range to 97 to 103 units would remove the potential contribution of all of the standards and preserve a 3.3:1 ratio. Continuing, a further change to the acceptable range to 98 to 102 restores more than a 4:1 final ratio.

This is a simplified example. The mathematics of the example can be challenged. It is important that whatever thinking guided this process in an actual calibration be recorded and accessible. Informality contributes to tolerance stacks and other difficult to diagnose post calibration problems.

Also in the example above, ideally the calibration value of 100 units would be the best point in the gauge's range to perform a single-point calibration. It may be the manufacturer's recommendation or it may be the way similar devices are already being calibrated. Multiple point calibrations are also used. Depending on the device, a zero unit state, the absence of the phenomenon being measured, may also be a calibration point. Or zero may be resettable by the user-there are several variations possible. Again, the points to use during calibration should be recorded.

There may be specific connection techniques between the standard and the device being calibrated that may influence the calibration. For example, in electronic calibrations involving analog phenomena, the impedance of the cable connections can directly influence the result.

Manual and automatic calibrations

[edit]

Calibration methods for modern devices can be manual or automatic.

Manual calibration - US serviceman calibrating a pressure gauge. The device under test is on his left and the test standard on his right.

As an example, a manual process may be used for calibration of a pressure gauge. The procedure requires multiple steps,[12] to connect the gauge under test to a reference master gauge and an adjustable pressure source, to apply fluid pressure to both reference and test gauges at definite points over the span of the gauge, and to compare the readings of the two. The gauge under test may be adjusted to ensure its zero point and response to pressure comply as closely as possible to the intended accuracy. Each step of the process requires manual record keeping.

Automatic calibration - A U.S. serviceman using a 3666C auto pressure calibrator

An automatic pressure calibrator [13] is a device that combines an electronic control unit, a pressure intensifier used to compress a gas such as Nitrogen, a pressure transducer used to detect desired levels in a hydraulic accumulator, and accessories such as liquid traps and gauge fittings. An automatic system may also include data collection facilities to automate the gathering of data for record keeping.

Process description and documentation

[edit]

All of the information above is collected in a calibration procedure, which is a specific test method. These procedures capture all of the steps needed to perform a successful calibration. The manufacturer may provide one or the organization may prepare one that also captures all of the organization's other requirements. There are clearinghouses for calibration procedures such as the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) in the United States.

This exact process is repeated for each of the standards used until transfer standards, certified reference materials and/or natural physical constants, the measurement standards with the least uncertainty in the laboratory, are reached. This establishes the traceability of the calibration.

See Metrology for other factors that are considered during calibration process development.

After all of this, individual instruments of the specific type discussed above can finally be calibrated. The process generally begins with a basic damage check. Some organizations such as nuclear power plants collect "as-found" calibration data before any routine maintenance is performed. After routine maintenance and deficiencies detected during calibration are addressed, an "as-left" calibration is performed.

More commonly, a calibration technician is entrusted with the entire process and signs the calibration certificate, which documents the completion of a successful calibration. The basic process outlined above is a difficult and expensive challenge. The cost for ordinary equipment support is generally about 10% of the original purchase price on a yearly basis, as a commonly accepted rule-of-thumb. Exotic devices such as scanning electron microscopes, gas chromatograph systems and laser interferometer devices can be even more costly to maintain.

The 'single measurement' device used in the basic calibration process description above does exist. But, depending on the organization, the majority of the devices that need calibration can have several ranges and many functionalities in a single instrument. A good example is a common modern oscilloscope. There easily could be 200,000 combinations of settings to completely calibrate and limitations on how much of an all-inclusive calibration can be automated.

An instrument rack with tamper-indicating seals

To prevent unauthorized access to an instrument tamper-proof seals are usually applied after calibration. The picture of the oscilloscope rack shows these, and prove that the instrument has not been removed since it was last calibrated as they will possible unauthorized to the adjusting elements of the instrument. There also are labels showing the date of the last calibration and when the calibration interval dictates when the next one is needed. Some organizations also assign unique identification to each instrument to standardize the record keeping and keep track of accessories that are integral to a specific calibration condition.

When the instruments being calibrated are integrated with computers, the integrated computer programs and any calibration corrections are also under control.

Historical development

[edit]
Main article: History of measurement

Origins

[edit]

The words "calibrate" and "calibration" entered the English language as recently as the American Civil War,[14] in descriptions of artillery, thought to be derived from a measurement of the calibre of a gun.

Some of the earliest known systems of measurement and calibration seem to have been created between the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley, with excavations revealing the use of angular gradations for construction.[15] The term "calibration" was likely first associated with the precise division of linear distance and angles using a dividing engine and the measurement of gravitational mass using a weighing scale. These two forms of measurement alone and their direct derivatives supported nearly all commerce and technology development from the earliest civilizations until about AD 1800.[16]

Calibration of weights and distances (c. 1100 CE)

[edit]
See also: Weights and Measures Act
An example of a weighing scale with a 1⁄2 ounce calibration error at zero. This is a "zeroing error" which is inherently indicated, and can normally be adjusted by the user, but may be due to the string and rubber band in this case

Early measurement devices were direct, i.e. they had the same units as the quantity being measured. Examples include length using a yardstick and mass using a weighing scale. At the beginning of the twelfth century, during the reign of Henry I (1100-1135), it was decreed that a yard be "the distance from the tip of the King's nose to the end of his outstretched thumb."[17] However, it wasn't until the reign of Richard I (1197) that we find documented evidence.[18]

Assize of Measures
"Throughout the realm there shall be the same yard of the same size and it should be of iron."

Other standardization attempts followed, such as the Magna Carta (1225) for liquid measures, until the Mètre des Archives from France and the establishment of the Metric system.

The early calibration of pressure instruments

[edit]
Direct reading design of a U-tube manometer

One of the earliest pressure measurement devices was the Mercury barometer, credited to Torricelli (1643),[19] which read atmospheric pressure using Mercury. Soon after, water-filled manometers were designed. All these would have linear calibrations using gravimetric principles, where the difference in levels was proportional to pressure. The normal units of measure would be the convenient inches of mercury or water.

In the direct reading hydrostatic manometer design on the right, applied pressure Pa pushes the liquid down the right side of the manometer U-tube, while a length scale next to the tube measures the difference of levels. The resulting height difference "H" is a direct measurement of the pressure or vacuum with respect to atmospheric pressure. In the absence of differential pressure both levels would be equal, and this would be used as the zero point.

The Industrial Revolution saw the adoption of "indirect" pressure measuring devices, which were more practical than the manometer.[20] An example is in high pressure (up to 50 psi) steam engines, where mercury was used to reduce the scale length to about 60 inches, but such a manometer was expensive and prone to damage.[21] This stimulated the development of indirect reading instruments, of which the Bourdon tube invented by Eugène Bourdon is a notable example.

Indirect reading design showing a Bourdon tube from the front
Indirect reading design showing a Bourdon tube from the rear
Indirect reading design showing a Bourdon tube from the front (left) and the rear (right).

In the front and back views of a Bourdon gauge on the right, applied pressure at the bottom fitting reduces the curl on the flattened pipe proportionally to pressure. This moves the free end of the tube which is linked to the pointer. The instrument would be calibrated against a manometer, which would be the calibration standard. For measurement of indirect quantities of pressure per unit area, the calibration uncertainty would be dependent on the density of the manometer fluid, and the means of measuring the height difference. From this other units such as pounds per square inch could be inferred and marked on the scale.

See also

[edit]
Look up calibration in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Crouch, Stanley & Skoog, Douglas A. (2007). Principles of Instrumental Analysis. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole. ISBN 0-495-01201-7.
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Calibration

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Calibration is the operation that, under specified conditions, establishes a relation between the values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a material measure or material, and the corresponding known values of a measurand. This documented comparison against a traceable standard of higher accuracy determines the relationship between the device's indicated values and known values. As defined in , the process may be followed by adjustments to the device if discrepancies are found, or result in the issuance of a certificate confirming its performance. In scientific, industrial, and regulatory contexts, calibration is essential for verifying the precision and reliability of instruments, thereby supporting , safety, and compliance with standards such as ISO/IEC 17025. It prevents measurement errors that could lead to faulty products, environmental risks, or financial inaccuracies, making it a cornerstone of modern across sectors like , healthcare, and . The calibration procedure typically begins with an "as-found" test, where the device under test (DUT) is compared to a reference standard to assess initial accuracy. If deviations exceed acceptable limits—quantified by and a recommended 4:1 test ratio—adjustments may be performed as a separate step, followed by an "as-left" verification to confirm compliance. Results are recorded in a calibration certificate, which documents through an unbroken chain of comparisons linking back to national institutes, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States or the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM). Calibration encompasses diverse types tailored to specific parameters and applications, including electrical (e.g., voltage and current), mechanical (e.g., and ), temperature (e.g., thermocouples), pressure, and flow measurements. These can be performed in accredited laboratories, on-site by field technicians, or using automated systems, with intervals determined by factors like usage intensity, environmental conditions, and regulatory mandates—often annually for critical instruments. to the (SI), maintained by BIPM, ensures global consistency and comparability of measurements.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Purpose

Calibration is the process of evaluating the accuracy of a measuring instrument by comparing its output to a known standard under specified conditions, which may identify discrepancies between the instrument's indications and true values and can lead to adjustments if needed. This enables the detection of systematic errors, ensuring that subsequent measurements align closely with established benchmarks for reliability and precision. The primary purpose of calibration is to maintain accuracy, ensure to international standards, and facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements across industries, ultimately supporting , , and the validity of scientific and outcomes. By establishing a verifiable link between an instrument's readings and accepted references, calibration mitigates risks associated with erroneous data, which could otherwise compromise decision-making in critical applications. to the (SI) underpins this process, linking local measurements to global metrological frameworks. According to the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) published by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the Joint Committee for Guides in (JCGM), calibration is defined as "operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the values with uncertainties provided by standards and corresponding indications with associated uncertainties and, in a second step, uses this information to establish a relation for obtaining a result from an indication." This two-step approach distinguishes calibration from adjustment, which involves operations to alter a measuring instrument's metrological properties to achieve prescribed results within specified uncertainties, such as tuning a device to eliminate biases without re-evaluating against standards. Poor calibration can lead to severe consequences, including production of defective parts in that fail inspections and result in unreliable products reaching consumers. In healthcare diagnostics, calibration errors in analyzers, such as blood gas instruments, may introduce biases of 0.1–0.5 mg/dL in calcium measurements, potentially causing misdiagnosis of conditions like and leading to unnecessary surgeries or delayed treatments.

Key Principles of Metrology

Metrology, the science of , underpins calibration by ensuring that measurements are reliable, consistent, and comparable across contexts. Core principles include metrological comparability, which refers to the degree to which measurement results can be compared based on their relation to stated references, typically through to the (SI), allowing for equivalence or order assessments. , a key aspect of measurement , is defined as the closeness of agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement, emphasizing the stability and reliability of instruments and methods. These principles are essential for calibration, as they enable the verification and adjustment of measuring instruments to minimize discrepancies and support standardized outcomes. The hierarchy of standards in establishes a structured framework for maintaining accuracy, consisting of primary standards at the highest level, which realize the SI units with the utmost precision through fundamental physical constants; secondary standards, calibrated against primary ones for dissemination; and working standards used in routine calibrations. Primary standards, such as those for or , are maintained by national metrology institutes (NMIs) and serve as the pinnacle of this hierarchy, ensuring global uniformity. This tiered system supports calibration by providing a cascade of references that progressively adapt high-level accuracy to practical applications, with each level contributing to the overall . Measurement errors are fundamental to and calibration, classified broadly into systematic and random types to guide error analysis and correction. A is the difference between the measured value and the conventional of the measurand, serving as a component in uncertainty evaluation. Systematic arise from identifiable causes that affect all measurements consistently, such as instrument or environmental factors, and can often be corrected if known, though unknown ones persist as biases. In contrast, random result from fluctuations in repeated measurements under the same conditions, characterized by statistical variability around the average, and are typically quantified through standard deviation. This basic classification aids in distinguishing correctable biases from inherent variability, informing calibration strategies to enhance accuracy. Traceability chains form the backbone of metrological reliability in calibration, consisting of an unbroken sequence of comparisons linking a measurement result to a reference standard, such as SI units, with documented uncertainties at each step. These chains originate from international references realized by organizations like the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and extend through NMIs, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States and the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in , which calibrate secondary and working standards for national use. For instance, NIST provides for U.S. measurements by disseminating SI realizations via calibrations and standard reference materials, ensuring alignment with global prototypes or constants. This interconnected system guarantees that calibration results worldwide are intercomparable and credible. The International System of Units (SI), overseen by the BIPM, plays a central role in defining calibration baselines by establishing seven base units—metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, mole, and candela—derived from fixed physical constants since the 2019 revision, eliminating reliance on physical artifacts like the international prototype kilogram. This constant-based definition ensures long-term stability and universality, allowing calibrations to reference invariant quantities for precise realization of units. NMIs like NIST and PTB realize these SI units through primary standards, enabling traceability chains that underpin all metrological activities, from laboratory instruments to industrial processes. By providing a coherent framework for expressing measurements, the SI facilitates accurate calibration and fosters international consistency in scientific and technical endeavors.

Calibration Processes

Step-by-Step Procedure

The calibration process in follows a structured sequence designed to verify and, if necessary, adjust the accuracy of a measuring instrument by comparing it against a known reference standard. This procedure ensures that the instrument's outputs align with established values within acceptable tolerances, maintaining reliability for subsequent measurements.

Preparation

The initial phase involves setting up the instrument under test (IUT) and the calibration environment to minimize external influences. Inspect the IUT for physical damage, cleanliness, and functionality, and consult the manufacturer's manual for specific setup requirements. Select a reference standard that is at least three to four times more accurate than the IUT to ensure reliable comparisons. Stabilize the environment by controlling factors such as (typically 20–25°C) and (40–60% relative humidity), as variations can introduce errors in readings. Tools commonly used include reference artifacts, such as precision voltage sources or weights, and test rigs like environmental chambers for condition control. Ensuring to national institutes, such as NIST, is essential during this setup.

Comparison

Apply known inputs from the reference standard to the IUT across its operating range, recording multiple readings to account for variability. For instance, in calibrating a , connect it to a calibrated DC at points like 0 V, 1 V, 10 V, and 100 V, comparing the displayed values against the source's certified outputs. This step identifies deviations, such as offset or gain errors, using tools like precision calibrators (e.g., Fluke 5522A) and data logging software. Environmental challenges, including thermal drift or , can skew results; mitigation involves using shielded setups and allowing sufficient warm-up time (often 15–30 minutes) for stabilization.

Adjustment

If deviations exceed predefined tolerances (e.g., ±0.5% for many electrical instruments), perform adjustments to align the IUT with the reference. This may involve mechanical tweaks, such as settings for zero and span, or software recalibration per the manual. Adjustments are made iteratively, reapplying inputs after each change to confirm corrections. Reference standards and specialized adjustment tools, like trimpots or updaters, facilitate this phase. Proceed only if the IUT is designed for user adjustment; otherwise, flag it for repair or replacement.

Verification

Conduct post-adjustment tests by repeating the across the full range to verify that the IUT now meets , often using additional check points not involved in adjustments. For a example, after tuning for DC voltage, test AC voltage at 60 Hz and frequencies up to 1 kHz to ensure comprehensive accuracy. Record as-found and as-left data to quantify improvements. If verification fails, repeat adjustments or deem the instrument out of service. This step employs the same tools as comparison, emphasizing statistical of readings for intervals.

Reporting

Document all steps, including environmental conditions, reference standards used (with details), , calculations of , and calibration status (e.g., in-tolerance or adjusted). Issue a calibration certificate compliant with standards like ISO/IEC 17025, including signatures and dates, and affix a to the IUT indicating the next due date. This record supports and legal compliance. Software tools or templates streamline reporting, ensuring . As an illustrative for a simple device like a digital , begin by preparing a controlled workspace and a traceable voltage calibrator. Zero the with shorted leads, then compare and adjust at multiple DC levels (e.g., 0–100 V), verify with AC inputs, and generate a report summarizing deviations reduced from, say, 1.2% to 0.1%. This process typically takes 1–2 hours and highlights the importance of environmental control to avoid false adjustments due to humidity-induced drift.

Manual and Automated Methods

Manual calibration involves operator-dependent steps where skilled technicians perform hands-on adjustments and verifications using physical standards and gauges. For instance, in calibrating stopwatches, operators manually synchronize devices with traceable audio signals from a shortwave receiver or GPS master clock, recording elapsed times over intervals like 1 to 24 hours and calculating corrections to account for human response biases. Similarly, for railroad track scales, technicians inspect components, apply drop-weights or counterpoise masses up to 100,000 lb, and zero-balance the system using sliding poises or calibrated weights, ensuring equilibrium through visual and tactile checks. These methods offer flexibility for unique setups, such as custom environmental conditions or non-standard equipment, allowing real-time adaptations that automated systems may not accommodate easily. Automated calibration employs software-driven systems that integrate with programmable logic controllers (PLCs) or to execute precise, repeatable measurements without constant human oversight. In these setups, robotic arms or automated handlers position instruments against reference standards, while software algorithms control , comparison, and adjustment, as seen in coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) interfaced with PLCs for inline process monitoring. Key benefits include enhanced through consistent execution of calibration sequences, minimizing variations from operator fatigue or inconsistencies, and reduced in high-volume or precision-critical tasks. Efficiency gains are notable, with cycle times dropping from hours to seconds in optical scanning applications, thereby increasing throughput and lowering scrap rates in environments. Hybrid methods combine manual oversight with automated elements, such as semi-automated systems where operators initiate processes but software handles and adjustments. These approaches balance the flexibility of manual intervention for complex setups with the precision of for routine verifications. Since the , transition trends toward hybrid and fully automated calibration have accelerated with the rise of digital tools like vision-based CMMs, driven by demands for higher throughput in and the integration of computational modeling for error compensation. A representative in manufacturing illustrates these advantages through the Automated Recipe Builder (ARB) for overlay calibration. In compound production, ARB automates optimization using and tool-induced shift corrections on optical systems, integrating with device layouts to calibrate alignment across multiple layers like metal 1 (M1), base collector (BC), and collector via (CV). This software-driven process, which builds on basic calibration steps like standard positioning and measurement, reduced photolithography rework by 93%, tightened overlay distributions by 25-62% across layers, and improved process capability indices (Cpk) via enhanced and error minimization.

Scheduling and Intervals

Calibration intervals refer to the time periods between successive calibrations of measuring instruments, designed to ensure ongoing reliability and accuracy while balancing operational costs and risks. Determining appropriate intervals is essential for maintaining metrological and minimizing measurement errors that could impact , , or compliance. Organizations typically establish these intervals through a of empirical and standardized approaches to adapt to the instrument's over time. Several factors influence the selection of calibration intervals. Usage rate plays a key role, as instruments subjected to frequent or intensive operation experience accelerated wear and drift, necessitating shorter intervals to prevent out-of-tolerance conditions. Environmental exposure, such as fluctuations, , , or corrosive conditions, can exacerbate instability, prompting more frequent calibrations in harsh settings compared to controlled environments. Regulatory requirements further guide intervals; for instance, laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 must calibrate equipment at intervals sufficient to maintain fitness for purpose, often determined by risk assessments to ensure measurement reliability without fixed durations specified in the standard. Methods for determining calibration intervals emphasize data-driven and analytical techniques. Risk-based assessment evaluates the potential consequences of measurement errors, weighing factors like criticality of the application, cost of failure, and historical performance to set intervals that achieve targeted reliability levels, such as 95-99% confidence in staying within tolerance. Statistical analysis of drift rates involves examining historical calibration data, such as trends in measurement deviations over time, using tools like control charts to predict when an instrument is likely to exceed acceptable uncertainty limits and adjust intervals accordingly. These methods allow for dynamic adjustments, extending intervals for stable instruments or shortening them based on observed variability. Calibration prompts or triggers initiate unscheduled or adjusted calibrations beyond routine intervals. Out-of-tolerance events, detected during routine checks or use, signal immediate recalibration to restore accuracy and investigate root causes like drift or damage. Manufacturer recommendations serve as an initial trigger, providing baseline intervals derived from design specifications and testing, which organizations refine with their own data. Predictive maintenance signals, generated from real-time monitoring or analytics of instrument performance trends, can forecast impending drift and prompt proactive calibration to avoid disruptions. Guidelines from established standards provide frameworks for scheduling. The ANSI/NCSL Z540.1-1994 standard requires organizations to establish and maintain periodic calibration intervals based on factors like manufacturer data, usage, and stability, ensuring equipment remains suitable for its intended purpose. Similarly, the International Society of Automation's RP105.00.01-2017 recommends assessing process accuracy needs to determine calibration frequencies in industrial systems, integrating and performance data for optimized scheduling. In the , directives such as the Measuring Instruments Directive 2014/32/EU imply periodic verifications for certain instruments to maintain conformity, often aligned with ISO 17025 practices for interval determination. Proper documentation of interval decisions supports and compliance audits.

Standards and Quality Assurance

Traceability to Reference Standards

Traceability in calibration refers to the property of a measurement result that can be related to a stated reference, typically the International System of Units (SI), through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty. This ensures that calibrations performed at various levels maintain consistency and reliability by linking back to authoritative standards, enabling global comparability of measurements. The hierarchy of calibration standards forms the foundation of this , structured in levels from primary to working standards. Primary standards represent direct realizations of SI units, maintained by international bodies like the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) or designated national institutes (NMIs), and serve as the highest reference for calibrating secondary standards. Secondary standards, often held by NMIs such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States, are calibrated against primary standards and used to calibrate tertiary or working standards in industrial and laboratory settings. Tertiary standards, also known as working standards, are practical references employed routinely for calibrating everyday measuring instruments, ensuring the chain remains intact while accounting for propagated uncertainties at each step. Traceability protocols mandate an unbroken chain of calibrations, where each link documents the comparison process, associated uncertainties, and the competence of the performing laboratory. This chain must be verifiable, with records detailing the methods, environmental conditions, and uncertainty budgets to support the validity of subsequent measurements. Such protocols are essential in metrology to prevent drift and ensure that instrument calibrations reflect the accuracy of the reference hierarchy. The CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA), signed in 1999 by directors of NMIs from 38 member states of the , establishes international equivalence of national measurement standards and calibration certificates by requiring participants to demonstrate comparability through key and supplementary comparisons. This arrangement facilitates global trade and scientific collaboration by affirming that calibrations traceable to different NMIs are mutually acceptable, provided they meet the outlined equivalence criteria. Accreditation bodies, coordinated internationally by the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), play a critical role in verifying by assessing and calibration laboratories against standards like ISO/IEC 17025, ensuring they maintain documented chains to SI or equivalent references. ILAC's Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC MRA) promotes confidence in accredited results worldwide by requiring signatory bodies to evaluate laboratories' metrological as a . Through peer evaluations and policy implementation, these bodies help uphold the integrity of the traceability hierarchy across borders.

Measurement Uncertainty and Accuracy

Measurement uncertainty is defined as a parameter associated with the result of a measurement that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand. This concept, formalized in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), provides a standardized framework for evaluating and expressing to ensure the reliability of calibration results. The components of measurement uncertainty are categorized into Type A and Type B evaluations. Type A uncertainty arises from statistical analysis of repeated observations, reflecting random variations through methods like standard deviation of the mean. Type B uncertainty, in contrast, is derived from other sources such as prior knowledge, manufacturer specifications, or assumptions about probability distributions, addressing non-statistical or systematic contributions. These components are combined to yield the standard uncertainty, typically using the law of for a measurement model y=f(x1,x2,…,xN)y = f(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_N), where the combined standard uncertainty uc(y)u_c(y) is approximated as: uc(y)=∑i=1N(ciu(xi))2u_c(y) = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^N (c_i u(x_i))^2}
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.