The Determination of Uncertainties in Charpy Impact Testing

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Determination of Uncertainties in Charpy Impact Testing"

Transcription

1 Manual of Codes of Practice for the Determination of Uncertainties in Mechanical Tests on Metallic Materials Code of Practice No. 06 The Determination of Uncertainties in Charpy Impact Testing M.A. Lont TNO Institute of Industrial Technology P.O. Box AM Apeldoorn THE NETHERLANDS Issue 1 September 2000

2 CONTENTS 1 SCOPE 2 SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS 3 INTRODUCTION 4 A PROCEDURE FOR THE ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CHARPY IMPACT TEST ENERGY Step 1- Identifying the parameters for which uncertainty is to be estimated Step 2- Identifying all sources of uncertainty in the test Step 3- Classifying the uncertainty according to Type A or B Step 4- Estimating the standard uncertainty for each source of uncertainty Step 5- Computing the combined uncertainty u c Step 6- Computing the expanded uncertainty U Step 7- Reporting of results 5 REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX A Fundamental aspects and mathematical formulae for calculating uncertainties in Charpy Impact Test Energy APPENDIX B A worked example for calculating uncertainties in Charpy Impact Test Energy

3 1. SCOPE This procedure covers the evaluation of uncertainty in the determination of Charpy impact test energy and related quantities according to the European standard EN 10045: Metallic materials - Charpy impact test. Part 1: Test method. (1990). Part 2: Verification of the testing machine (pendulum impact). (1993). This European standard specifies the impact test according to Charpy (U- and V-notch) for determining the impact strength of metallic materials. For certain special metals and applications the Charpy impact test may be subjected to specific standards or special regulations. 2. SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS For a complete list of symbols and definitions of terms on uncertainties, see Section 2 of the main Manual 1. It should be noted that not all the symbols and definitions of terms on uncertainties used in this Code of Practice are consistent with the GUM 2. In a few cases there are conflicts between the symbols used in the above mentioned test standards and the GUM. In such cases the test Standards are given preference. The following list gives the symbols and definitions used in this procedure. A S c i c T COD CoP CRM d v e As e A1 e ABCR e BCR E E mean E BCR h k indicated energy on the impact machine sensitivity coefficient sensitivity coefficient of temperature coefficient of determination Code of Practice Certified Reference Material divisor used to calculate the standard uncertainty error on the indicated energy of impact machine from calibration certificate error of impact machine determined from testing CRM specimen uncertainty of testing a batch of five CRM specimens uncertainty of the Certified value of CRM value of absorbed energy from a batch of reference Charpy-V specimens mean value of E from five CRM specimens Certified value for the energy of a batch of reference Charpy-V specimens height of test piece coverage factor used to calculate the expanded uncertainty (corresponding to a 95% confidence level) where a normal probability distribution can be assumed Page 1 of 17

4 k p KU KV l n p s T u u c u T U V w coverage factor used to calculate an expanded uncertainty (normally corresponding to 95% confidence level) ) where a normal probability distribution cannot be assumed (see Ref. [1], Section 2) energy absorbed, U-type notched test piece energy absorbed, V-type notched test piece length of test piece number of repeat measurements confidence level experimental standard deviation (of a random variable) determined from a limited number of measurements, n nominal test temperature (in degrees Celsius or Kelvin, as indicated) standard uncertainty combined standard uncertainty uncertainty in temperature expanded uncertainty value of the measurand width of test piece x 2 mean value of measurements on n 2 test specimen ν eff effective degrees of freedom used to obtain k p (see Ref. [1], Section 2) ν i degrees of freedom of standard uncertainty u (see Ref. [1], Section 2) 3. INTRODUCTION It is good practice in any measurement to evaluate and report the uncertainty associated with the test results. A statement of uncertainty may be required by a customer who wishes to know the limits within which the reported result may be assumed to lie, or the test laboratory itself may wish to develop a better understanding of which particular aspects of the test procedure have the greatest effect on results so that this may be controlled more closely. This Code of Practice (CoP) has been prepared within UNCERT, a project funded by the European Commission s Standards, Measurement and Testing programme under reference SMT4-CT to simplify the way in which uncertainties are evaluated. The aim is to produce a series of documents in a common format which is easily understood and accessible to customers, test laboratories and accreditation authorities. This CoP is one of seventeen produced by the UNCERT consortium for the estimation of uncertainties associated with mechanical tests on metallic materials. The Codes of Practice have been collated in a single manual [1] that has the following sections: 1. Introduction to the evaluation of uncertainty 2. Glossary of definitions and symbols 3. Typical sources of uncertainty in materials testing 4. Guidelines for the estimation of uncertainty for a test series 5. Guidelines for reporting uncertainty Page 2 of 17

5 6. Individual Codes of Practice (of which this is one) for the estimation of uncertainties in mechanical tests on metallic materials This CoP can be used as a stand-alone document. For further background information on measurement uncertainty and values of standard uncertainties of the equipment and instrumentation used commonly in material testing, the user may need to refer to Section 3 of the Manual [1]. The individual CoPs are kept as simple as possible by following the same structure; viz: The main procedure Details of the uncertainty calculations for the particular test type (Appendix A) A worked example. (Appendix B) This CoP guides the user through the various steps to be carried out in order to estimate the uncertainty in Charpy Impact Energy. 4. A PROCEDURE FOR THE ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CHARPY IMPACT TEST ENERGY Step 1. Identifying the Parameters for Which Uncertainty is to be Estimated The first step is to list the quantities (measurands) for which the uncertainties must be calculated. Table 1 shows the parameters that are usually reported as results from the test procedure. Often intermediate measurands are recorded by the laboratory, but are not necessarily reported to the customer. Both types of measurand are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Measurand, their units and symbols within EN Reported Measurand Unit Symbol Energy absorbed J KV or KU Other Measurements Height of test piece mm h Width of test piece mm w Length of test piece mm l Notch geometry: - Height below notch - Radius of curvature - Angle of notch mm mm Test temperature C T The energy absorbed is measured directly by the impact testing machine (pendulum type). The testing machine should be calibrated according to EN The specimen dimensions should be within the specification according to EN Page 3 of 17

6 Step 2. Identifying all Sources of Uncertainty in the Test In Step 2, the user must identify all possible sources of uncertainty which may have an effect (either directly or indirectly) on the test. The list cannot be identified comprehensively beforehand as it is associated uniquely with the individual test procedure and apparatus used. This means that a new list should be prepared each time a particular test parameter changes (e.g. when a plotter is replaced by a computer). To help the user list all sources, four categories have been defined. Table 2 lists the four categories and gives some examples of sources of uncertainty in each category. It is important to note that Table 2 is NOT exhaustive and is for GUIDANCE only - relative contributions may vary according to the material tested and the test conditions. Individual laboratories are encouraged to prepare their own list to correspond to their own test facility and assess the associated significance of the contributions. In the case of measuring the absorbed energy from impact testing it is very difficult to calculate the influence of each source of uncertainty. The approach of calibration by using a Certified Reference Material (CRM), and considering errors in the accuracy, CRM repeatability and test sample repeatability is probably the best approach. For the indirect verification of a Charpy impact machine 10 tests (5 x 2 sets of specimens) must be carried out periodically using a single CRM. However, for a laboratory making impact tests on a range of alloys, more classes of material toughness have to be considered. Five CRMs are available from BCR to cover this range (similar CRMs are available from USA). From this indirect verification the error of the test system is determined. The other measurements from Table 1 are taken to check if the specimen dimensions and the temperature is within the limits of tolerance. If they are not, these measurements are not used for correcting the energy values, but it is reported that: the measured impact energy is measured on a specimen with different dimensions, or the measured impact energy is measured at a different temperature. Table 2 Typical sources of uncertainty and their likely contribution to the uncertainties on the measurand and measurements for a Charpy impact energy (1 = major contribution, 2 = minor contribution, blank = insignificant (or no) contribution, * - affected indirectly) Source of uncertainty Type KV or h w l T KU 1.Test Piece Micrometer / operator errors in measuring A or B 2* specimen dimensions Shape tolerance, edge effects B 2* Shape tolerance of notch, notch depth B 1* 2. Test system Stiffness of the machine, fastening on B 1* foundation Accuracy of calibration energy measurement A 2* Page 4 of 17

7 Error of the test system A 1 Adjustment of specimen anvils and supports, horizontal position of specimen with respect to B 1* the centre of strike Temperature measurement, calibration B Environment Poor control of ambient temperature B 2* Takes too long time, specimen temperature B 1* change Poor control of specimen temperature B 1* Test Procedure Incorrect adjustment of machine or specimen B 1* position Incorrect read out of energy B 2* see Step 3 To simplify the calculations it is advisable to group the significant sources of uncertainty in Table 2, in the following categories: 1 Uncertainty in Charpy input energy due to test piece and notch geometry. 2 Uncertainty in the test system. 3 Uncertainty in the environment. 4 Uncertainty in the test procedure. Step 3. Classifying the Uncertainty According to Type A or B In this third step, which is in accordance with Reference 2, 'Guide to the Expression of Uncertainties in Measurement', the sources of uncertainty are classified as Type A or B, depending on the way their influence is quantified. If the uncertainty is evaluated by statistical means (from a number of repeated observations), it is classified Type A, if it is evaluated by any other means it should be classified as Type B. The values associated with Type B uncertainties can be obtained from a number of sources including a calibration certificate, manufacturer's information, or an expert's estimation. For Type B uncertainties, it is necessary for the user to estimate the most appropriate probability distribution for each source (further details are given in Section 2 of Ref. [1]). Step 4. Estimating the Standard Uncertainty for each Source of Uncertainty In this step the standard uncertainty, u, for each input source identified in Table 2 is estimated (see Appendix A). The standard uncertainty is defined as one standard deviation and is derived from the uncertainty of the input quantity divided by the parameter, d v, associated with the assumed probability distribution. The divisors for the typical distributions most likely to be encountered are given in Section 2 of Ref. [1]. Page 5 of 17

8 The individual influences of each source of uncertainty on the energy absorbed is very complex and not practical. The simplest way is to use a CRM to calibrate the whole system, and consider the errors, CRM repeatability and test sample repeatability. The remaining sources of uncertainty and their influences on the evaluated quantities are summarised in Table 3, with a more complete explanation of their derivation appearing in Appendix A. Appendix B gives a worked example. Table 3 Typical worksheet for uncertainty calculations in Charpy-V absorbed energy measurement Symbol EBCR Source of Uncertainty Value [J] or [%] Probability distribution Divisor dv ci ui(kv) [J] ebcr uncertainty of the Certified value of CRM 1) normal 2 1 eas Emean eabcr uncertainty of CRM testing 2) normal ea1 x2 ex2 Certified value of CRM error of impact machine from calibration certificate: Mean of 5 measurements on CRM error of impact machine determined from testing 5 CRM specimen 3) Measure on a material with n2 = 3 mean value error of the impact machine for the mean value x2 u3 standard deviation from n2 specimen 4) normal u4 effect of error of reading 5) rectangular 3 1 u5 effect of specimen dimensions 6) rectangular 3 1 vi or veff uc combined standard uncertainty 7) normal U expanded uncertainty 8) k p = normal 1) see Section A1 2) includes all variation of the machine and adjustments at that time 3) the error is a percentage of the absorbed energy, determined from a higher energy level 4) includes all contributions of the material 5) divisor is 3 for analogue and 12 for digital readouts 6) includes specimen dimensions within specification 7) see Step 5 8) see Step 6 Page 6 of 17

9 Step 5. Computing the Combined Uncertainty u c Assuming that individual uncertainty sources are uncorrelated, the measurand's combined uncertainty of the measurand, u c (y), can be computed using the root sum squares: N 2 c (y) = [ci.u( i)] i= 1 u where c i is the sensitivity coefficient associated with i. This uncertainty corresponds to plus or minus one standard deviation on the normal distribution law representing the studied quantity. The combined uncertainty has an associated confidence level of 68.27%. (1) Step 6. Computing the Expanded Uncertainty U The expanded uncertainty, U, is defined in Reference 2 as the interval about the result of a measurement that may be expected to encompass a large fraction of the distribution of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand. It is obtained by multiplying the combined uncertainty, u c, by a coverage factor, k, which is selected on the basis of the level of confidence required. For a normal probability distribution, the most generally used coverage factor is 2, which corresponds to a confidence interval of 95.4% (effectively 95% for most practical purposes). The expanded uncertainty, U, is therefore, broader than the combined uncertainty, u c. Where a higher confidence level is demanded by the customer (such as for aerospace, electronics,...), a coverage factor of 3 is often used so that the corresponding confidence level increases to 99.73%. In cases where the probability distribution of u c is not normal or where the number of data points used in Type A analysis is small, the value of k should be calculated from the degrees of freedom given by the Welsh-Satterthwaite method (see Reference 1, Section 4 for more details). Step 7. Reporting of Results Once the expanded uncertainty has been estimated, the results should be reported in the following way: V= y ± U (2) where V is the estimated value of the measurand, y is the test (or measurement) mean result, U is the expanded uncertainty associated with y. An explanatory note, such as that given in the following example should be added (change when appropriate): Page 7 of 17

10 The reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty multiplied by a coverage factor, k = 2, which for a normal distribution corresponds to a coverage probability, p, of approximately 95%. The uncertainty evaluation was carried out in accordance with UNCERT CoP 06:2000. Page 8 of 17

11 5. REFERENCES 1. Manual of Codes of Practice for the determination of uncertainties in mechanical tests on metallic materials. Project UNCERT, EU Contract SMT4-CT , Standards Measurement & Testing Programme, ISBN , Issue 1, September BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, OIML, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland, ISBN , First Edition, [This Guide is often referred to as the GUM or the ISO TAG4 document after the ISO Technical Advisory Group that drafted it.] BSI (identical), Vocabulary of metrology, Part 3. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, PD 6461: Part 3 : 1995, British Standards Institution. 3. Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials. ASTM Designation: E EN 10045: Metallic materials Charpy impact test. Part 1: Test method (1990) Part 2: Verification of the testing machine (pendulum impact) (1993) 5. ISO 5725: Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurements methods and results Part 1: General principles and definitions (1994) Part 2: Basic method for the determination (1994) Part 3: Intermediate measures of the precision of a standard measurement method Part 4: Basic methods for the determination of the trueness of a standard measurement method (1994) Part 5: Alternative methods for the determination of the precision of a standard measurement method (1998) Part 6: Use in practice of accuracy values (1994) 6. Pauwels, J., Gyppaz, D., Varma, R. and Ingelbrecht, C., European Certification of Charpy Specimens: Reasoning and Observations, Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century of Progress, ASTM STP 1380, T.Siewert and M.P. Manahan, Sr., Eds., American Society for Testing Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, Page 9 of 17

12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was written as part of project Code of Practice for the Determination of Uncertainties in Mechanical Tests on Metallic Materials. The project was partly funded by the Commission of European Communities through the Standards, Measurement and Testing Programme, Contract No. SMT4-CT The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments made by many colleagues from UNCERT and TNO. Many thanks are also due to Mr. C. Ingelbrecht of the Reference Materials Unit, EC-JRC-IRMM. Page 10 of 17

13 APPENDIX A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS AND MATHEMATICAL FORMULAE FOR CALCULATING UNCERTAINTIES IN CHARPY IMPACT TESTING Assessment of the individual influence of each source on the energy absorbed is very complex and not practical. Therefore we use indirect verification with a Certified Reference Material as the only reasonable approach. Indirect verification accounts for the total energy absorbed at fracture of the specimen. The remaining sources of uncertainty and their influences on the evaluated quantities are summarised in Table 3 of the CoP. The calibration certificate for the direct verification includes the error in the indicated energy of the impact machine. EN specifies that impact toughness machines should be certified by using the BCR certified reference Charpy specimens or other specimens traceable to the latter, whereas ASTM E-23 requires the use of verification specimens with reference values determined by NIST. CRMs have been made available by BCR at the following five nominal energy levels: 30 J, 60 J, 80 J, 120 J, and 160 J. CRMs are available from NIST at three ranges of energy ( J, J, J). Because it is not common practice to correct for the systematic error of the machine, this error is taken into account linearly to the expanded uncertainty. According to NIST, calibration or correction curves should not be used because the source(s) and magnitude of the errors in the measured values at one energy level may not be the same at different energy levels. A1. Uncertainties In The Certified Value Of CRM The certified values of the CRM, which are given in the certificate belonging to the specimen, are the mean value E BCR and the uncertainty of the certified value of the CRM e BCR. The uncertainty mainly includes the effect of the variation between samples. The ISO 5725 standard is additional to the GUM. The methods described in it have long been used in test environments. They are based on the principles of a standardised method, reference material, comparison and inter- or intra-laboratory variance. These methods, although seemingly very different from that of the GUM, can be considered as a determination of uncertainty by a type A method: experiments carried out by a wide range of laboratories with very similar specialisation and statistical processing of the results. The values generally published are: - r: repeatability limit: The value less than or equal to which the absolute difference between two test results obtained under repeatable conditions may be expected to be with a probability Page 11 of 17

14 of 95% (results are obtained with the same method on identical test items in the same laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment). - R: reproducibility limit: The value less than or equal to which the absolute difference between two test results obtained under reproducible conditions may be expected to be with a probability of 95% (results are obtained with the same method on identical test items in different laboratories with different operators using different equipment). R If the R of a standardised method is published, then σ = can be taken as the 2 2 standard deviation of a measurement carried out scrupulously in accordance with the method, by approximating In other cases we use σ = e BCR / 2. The following uncertainties have to be considered: 1) Uncertainty from standard deviation of a measurement on a CRM: 2) The uncertainty due to testing the CRM specimens u 1 = e BCR / 2 2 (4) The error of the impact machine e A1 is calculated as E mean E BCR, where: E mean = (E 1 + E 1 + E 1 + E 1 + E 1 ) / 5 (5) E BCR = the certified value of the absorbed energy from a single batch of reference Charpy- V specimens. BCR did not follow the GUM in the uncertainty calculation until end of 1999, in the example in Appendix B the value d v = 2 is used. For new samples from BCR the value d v = 2.8 should be used. It is not common practice to correct for the systematic error of the machine, therefore this error is taken into account linearly with the expended uncertainty. Calibration or correction curves should not be used according to NIST, because the source(s) and magnitude of error for energy values at one energy level may not be the same at different energy levels. A2. Uncertainty In Energy Values Obtained From Test Specimens The following uncertainties have to be considered: 1) Uncertainty due to testing n specimens 2) Uncertainty due to the error of reading of the energy value, associated with the grade mark on the energy scale: Page 12 of 17

15 tolerance limit u = (6) d v The divisor d v is 3 for analogue readouts and 12 for digital readouts. A3. Uncertainty Due To Specimen Dimensions As the measured impact energy is not corrected for the specimen cross-section, the dimensions of the cross-sectional area below the notch directly influences the energy absorbed. The calculated uncertainty due to the uncertainty in cross-sectional area caused by variations in the specimen dimensions, including the depth of the notch, is assumed to vary linearly with the cross-sectional area. Probably this is not a conservative approach. Table X1.1 of ASTM E23 [3] shows the effect of varying the notch dimensions on standard specimens. From this table it can be calculated that changing the notch depth by 1.5% can give energy changes up to about 5 to 8%, depending on the mean energy value. This is based on a few measurements only and the reproducibility of the mean value is about the same order of magnitude. As long as more data are not available, the proposed influence is the most practical approach. Uncertainty due to specimen dimensions, assuming a linear relationship according (6). The tolerance limit is about 1%, with a rectangular probability distribution. A4. Uncertainty Due To Test Temperature The measured energy depends directly on the specific test temperature at which the test was performed. The stated temperature should be corrected for uncertainty and in that case no uncertainty for temperature should be added. If the impact energy is required for a specified temperature, at which the test is done, then the uncertainty due to temperature should be included. Special attention should be paid to select the right value for the sensitivity coefficient c i, especially if the temperature is in the transition range of the material being tested. The uncertainty is: u = c T. u T / d v (7) where c T is the sensitivity coefficient, u T is the uncertainty in temperature and d v depends on the distribution of the temperature uncertainty. A5. Uncertainty Due To Specimen Notch Geometry The influence of the specimen notch geometry is strong, especially outside the allowable tolerances of the standards. This influence is not covered by the use of a CRM as they are always supplied in machined form and therefore any comparison does not include these effects. It can be predicted that a sharper notch will give a lower energy level, and a more blunt notch will give a higher one. The effect of the notch geometry is dependent on material, mean level of energy (temperature), the sharpness of the fabrication tool and probably the roughness of its cutting edge. Using a blunt tool can induce a degree of work hardening at the Page 13 of 17

16 notch which can conceivably influence the impact energy, particularly when this energy level is on the lower shelf for steel specimens. Page 14 of 17

17 Appendix B Worked example for calculating uncertainties in Charpy Impact Test Energy A customer asked a laboratory to obtain the Charpy Impact Energy of a material at a specific temperature, tested according to EN The laboratory has a certified impact testing machine, which was verified both with the direct and indirect verification according to EN The sources of the uncertainty measured on the CRM specimens are known, and given in Table B1.1. Suppose three steel Charpy-V specimens were tested at T = 10 C. The impact energy values are given in Table B1.2. and the mean value and standard deviation from the three specimens can be calculated. Now the uncertainty can be calculated according the outline and formulae given in Table 3 of the CoP. In the example worksheet Table B2, the data from Table B1 were used to calculate the individual uncertainties which contribute to the total uncertainty. 1. Uncertainty from BCR reference specimens (CRM) Certified value of reference specimen E BCR J Uncertainty Testing five CRM specimen on the impact machine. energy absorbed E [J] specimen specimen specimen specimen specimen sum E mean repeatability = E max - E min 10.8 J 8.7% (< 15%) error e A1 = E mean - E BCR 7.12 J 5.8% (< 10%) 2. Uncertainty from three test specimens Material: steel energy absorbed E [J] specimen specimen specimen sum Mean x residual residual sum Test temperature T = -10 C residual residual sum s J Table B1 Input data for the example worksheet for uncertainty calculation. s 1 Page 15 of 17

18 Table B2 Example worksheet for uncertainty calculations in Charpy-V absorbed energy measurements. Symbol Source of Uncertainty Value [J] or [%] EBCR Certified value of CRM Probability distribution Divisor dv ci ui(kv) [J] ebcr uncertainty of the Certified value of CRM 1) 4.5 normal eas 1 Emean eabcr uncertainty of CRM testing 2) 4.77 normal error of impact machine determined from ea1 5.8% testing 5 CRM specimen 3) x2 mean value 83.8 ex2 error of impact machine from calibration certificate: Mean of 5 measurements on CRM Measure on a material with n2 = 3 error of the impact machine for the mean value x2 u3 standard deviation from n2 specimen 4) 7.56 normal u4 effect of error of reading 5) 2.00 rectangular u5 effect of specimen dimensions 6) 1% rectangular uc combined standard uncertainty 7) normal U expanded uncertainty 8) k p = 2.66 normal vi or veff 8) A coverage factor of 2.66 was obtained from the student s t-distribution table by interpolation for ν eff = 4.9. The expended uncertainty: *5.5 = 19.5 J. 9) u CRM = 4.5 / 2 = ) u ABCR = 4.77 / 5 = ) e A1 = ( )/123.8 = 5.8% 12) u 3 = 7.56 / 3 = ) u 4 = 2 / 3 = ) u 5 = 83.8 / 100 / 3 = ) u c = ( ) = The effective degrees of freedom, ν eff, was calculated according to Eqn.7 in Ref. [1], Section 2, viz.: 16) ν eff = Page 16 of 17

19 Reported result The mean Charpy Impact Energy from three specimens is 84 ± 20 J. The above reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty multiplied by a coverage factor k = 2.66, which for a normal distribution and ν eff = 4.9 corresponds to a coverage probability, p, of 95%. The uncertainty evaluation was carried out in accordance with UNCERT COP 06:2000. Page 17 of 17

The Calibration of Torque Measuring Devices to British Standard BS 7882:2008.

The Calibration of Torque Measuring Devices to British Standard BS 7882:2008. Barry C. Pratt Head of Laboratory Norbar Torque Tools Ltd Beaumont Road Banbury Oxfordshire OX16 1XJ United Kingdom Phone:

G104 - Guide for Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty In Testing. December 2014

Page 1 of 31 G104 - Guide for Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty In Testing December 2014 2014 by A2LA All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without

(Uncertainty) 2. How uncertain is your uncertainty budget?

(Uncertainty) 2 How uncertain is your uncertainty budget? Paper Author and Presenter: Dr. Henrik S. Nielsen HN Metrology Consulting, Inc 10219 Coral Reef Way, Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 849 9577,

Measurement Uncertainty in Material Testing: Differences and Similarities Between ISO, CEN and ASTM Approaches

Measurement Uncertainty in Material Testing: Differences and Similarities Between ISO, CEN and ASTM Approaches Fathy Kandil EuroTest Solutions Ltd PO Box 1226, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 5YJ, United

UNCERTAINTY AND CONFIDENCE IN MEASUREMENT

Ελληνικό Στατιστικό Ινστιτούτο Πρακτικά 8 ου Πανελληνίου Συνεδρίου Στατιστικής (2005) σελ.44-449 UNCERTAINTY AND CONFIDENCE IN MEASUREMENT Ioannis Kechagioglou Dept. of Applied Informatics, University

Introduction to method validation

Introduction to method validation Introduction to method validation What is method validation? Method validation provides documented objective evidence that a method measures what it is intended to measure,

EA guidelines on the expression. in quantitative testing

Publication Reference EA-4/16 G:2003 EA guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to harmonise the evaluation of uncertainties associated

SPECIFIC CRITERIA for CALIBRATION LABORATORIES IN MECHANICAL DISCIPLINE : Verification of Impact Testing Machine

NABL 122-14 NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR TESTING AND CALIBRATION LABORATORIES SPECIFIC CRITERIA for CALIBRATION LABORATORIES IN MECHANICAL DISCIPLINE : Verification of Impact Testing Machine Reviewed

Raad voor Accreditatie (Dutch Accreditation Council RvA) Explanation on ISO/IEC "Calibration Certificates"

Raad voor Accreditatie (Dutch Accreditation Council RvA) Explanation on ISO/IEC 17025 "Calibration Certificates" Document code: A RvA-information document gives information about the policy and/or the

The Determination of Uncertainties in Dynamic Young s Modulus

Standards Measurement & Testing Project No. SMT4-CT97-65 UNCERT COP 3: 000 Manual o Codes o Practice or the Determination o Uncertainties in Mechanical Tests on Metallic Materials Code o Practice No. 3

IAS CALIBRATION and TESTING LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAMS DEFINITIONS

REFERENCES NIST Special Publication 330 IAS CALIBRATION and TESTING LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAMS DEFINITIONS Revised October 2013 International vocabulary of metrology Basic and general concepts and

Validation and Calibration. Definitions and Terminology

Validation and Calibration Definitions and Terminology ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA: The specifications and acceptance/rejection criteria, such as acceptable quality level and unacceptable quality level, with an

OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT

OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT PA/PH/OMCL (12) 77 7R QUALIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT ANNEX 8: QUALIFICATION OF BALANCES Full document title and reference Document type Qualification

Guidelines on the Calibration of Static Torque Measuring Devices

European Association of National Metrology Institutes Guidelines on the Calibration of Static Torque Measuring Devices EURAMET cg-14 Version.0 (03/011) Previously EA-10/14 Calibration Guide EURAMET cg-14

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT SD-4 Measurement Uncertainty for Purity Determinations in Seized Drug Analysis FOR PART IVC Quality Assurance/Uncertainty

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT SD-4 FOR PART IVC Quality Assurance/Uncertainty Table of Contents A Example 1: Control Chart Method... 2 A.1 Sampling Uncertainty Considerations... 3 A.2 Methodology... 3 A.3 Uncertainty

Estimating Uncertainties in Testing

Estimating Uncertainties in Testing An Intermediate Guide to Estimating and Reporting Uncertainty of Measurement in Testing Keith Birch British Measurement and Testing Association At least two numbers

Measurement Uncertainty

Guide to Measurement Uncertainty for Construction Materials Testing A Simplified Approach NATA 2011 Page 1 of 30 GUIDE TO MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.

Calibration Certificate

P.O. Box 87-0087 Phone:856-686-1600 Fax:856-686-1601 www.troemner.com e-mail: troemner@troemner.com SECTION 1: Page 1 of 7 Pages SECTION 2: APPROVED SIGNATORY Joseph Moran SECTION 3: PERSON PERFORMING

Guide to Method Validation for Quantitative Analysis in Chemical Testing Laboratories

Guide to Method Validation for Quantitative Analysis in Chemical Testing Laboratories Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2, Ireland Tel +353 1 607 3003 Fax +353 1 607 3109 E-mail inab@inab.ie Web

Determining Measurement Uncertainty for Dimensional Measurements

Determining Measurement Uncertainty for Dimensional Measurements The purpose of any measurement activity is to determine or quantify the size, location or amount of an object, substance or physical parameter

Influence of Striking Edge Radius (2 mm versus 8 mm) on Instrumented Charpy Data and Absorbed Energies

Influence of Striking Edge Radius (2 mm versus 8 mm) on Instrumented Charpy Data and Absorbed Energies Enrico Lucon SCK CEN, Institute for Nuclear Material Science Mol (Belgium) * Full paper accepted for

General and statistical principles for certification of RM ISO Guide 35 and Guide 34

General and statistical principles for certification of RM ISO Guide 35 and Guide 34 / REDELAC International Seminar on RM / PT 17 November 2010 Dan Tholen,, M.S. Topics Role of reference materials in

Uncertainties and Error Propagation

Uncertainties and Error Propagation By Vern Lindberg 1. Systematic and random errors. No measurement made is ever exact. The accuracy (correctness) and precision (number of significant figures) of a measurement

Schedule of Accreditation issued by United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2 Pine Trees, Chertsey Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 3HR, UK

2 Pine Trees, Chertsey Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 3HR, UK Unit 7 Contact: Mr S C Sparks Solent Industrial Estate Tel: +44 (0)1489 790296 Hedge End Fax: +44 (0)1489 790294 Southampton E-Mail: info@southcal.co.uk

Measurement. Stephanie Bell. Issue 2

No. 11 Measurement Good Practice Guide A Beginner's Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement Stephanie Bell Issue 2 The National Physical Laboratory is operated on behalf of the DTI by NPL Management Limited,

DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES

DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES Introduction This Technical Document shall be applied to the quantitative determination of a Threshold Substance in a Sample

AP Physics 1 and 2 Lab Investigations

AP Physics 1 and 2 Lab Investigations Student Guide to Data Analysis New York, NY. College Board, Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement Program, AP, AP Central, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks

Biostatistics: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: 2, VARIABILITY

Biostatistics: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: 2, VARIABILITY 1. Introduction Besides arriving at an appropriate expression of an average or consensus value for observations of a population, it is important to

99.37, 99.38, 99.38, 99.39, 99.39, 99.39, 99.39, 99.40, 99.41, 99.42 cm

Error Analysis and the Gaussian Distribution In experimental science theory lives or dies based on the results of experimental evidence and thus the analysis of this evidence is a critical part of the

JCGM 101:2008. First edition 2008

Evaluation of measurement data Supplement 1 to the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method Évaluation des données de mesure Supplément

What Are the Differences?

Comparison between the MSA manual and VDA Volume 5 What Are the Differences? MSA is short for Measurement Systems Analysis. This document was first published by the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG)

MARK INTEGRITY PROGRAM UL Calibration Requirements: Equipment Used for UL/C-UL/ULC Mark Follow-Up Services UL defines minimum requirements for calibration of inspection, measuring and test equipment (IMTE)

Don t forget the degrees of freedom: evaluating uncertainty from small numbers of repeated measurements

Don t forget the degrees of freedom: evaluating uncertainty from small numbers of repeated measurements Blair Hall b.hall@irl.cri.nz Talk given via internet to the 35 th ANAMET Meeting, October 20, 2011.

CALIBRATION HOW IT WORKS

PHOTO DETECTORS HIGH POWER SOLUTIONS POWER DETECTORS ENERGY DETECTORS At Gentec-EO, we understand that the essence of our business since 40 years has been delivering accuracy. There are no half measures:

Machine capability and cutting process influence the shape and position deviation. The results are measured based on profiles.

1 Parameters of water jet cutting 1.1 General Due to the cutting process the shape and position deviation, cutting angle, edge geometry, entry and exit points as well as roughness are influenced. 1.2 Shape

Method to Calculate Uncertainties in Measuring Shortwave Solar Irradiance Using Thermopile and Semiconductor Solar Radiometers

Method to Calculate Uncertainties in Measuring Shortwave Solar Irradiance Using Thermopile and Semiconductor Solar Radiometers Ibrahim Reda NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy,

INTRODUCTION TO ERRORS AND ERROR ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION TO ERRORS AND ERROR ANALYSIS To many students and to the public in general, an error is something they have done wrong. However, in science, the word error means the uncertainty which accompanies

QUANTIFYING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY A SIMPLIFIED PRACTICAL APPROACH

QUANTIFYING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY A SIMPLIFIED PRACTICAL APPROACH Thomas W. Vetter National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393 Gaithersburg,

Gravimetric determination of pipette errors

Gravimetric determination of pipette errors In chemical measurements (for instance in titrimetric analysis) it is very important to precisely measure amount of liquid, the measurement is performed with

How to calibrate an RTD or Platinum Resistance Thermometer (PRT)

How to calibrate an RTD or Platinum Resistance Thermometer (PRT) Application Note Introduction There are two types of calibrations applicable to PRTs characterization and tolerance testing. The type of

ISO GUM, Uncertainty Quantification, and Philosophy of Statistics

ISO GUM, Uncertainty Quantification, and Philosophy of Statistics Gunnar Taraldsen NTNU and SINTEF January 21th 2015 1 2 Abstract and history In 1978, recognizing the lack of international consensus on

European cooperation for EAL-G23 THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN QUANTITATIVE TESTING. The Expression of Uncertainty in Quantitative Testing

European cooperation for EAL-G23 THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN QUANTITATIVE TESTING Accreditation of Laboratories Publication Reference EAL-G23 The Expression of Uncertainty in Quantitative Testing

Schedule of Accreditation issued by United Kingdom Accreditation Service 21-47 High Street, Feltham, Middlesex, TW13 4UN, UK

code Location code Customers Sites locations: 21-47 High Street, Feltham, Middlesex, TW13 4UN, UK Calibration Centre Bolkiah Garrison BB3510 Negara Brunei Darussalam Contact: Mr Lim Tiong Thai Tel: +673-2-386475

Figure 1. A typical Laboratory Thermometer graduated in C.

SIGNIFICANT FIGURES, EXPONENTS, AND SCIENTIFIC NOTATION 2004, 1990 by David A. Katz. All rights reserved. Permission for classroom use as long as the original copyright is included. 1. SIGNIFICANT FIGURES

Mechanical Property Changes in Steel during the Pipe Making Process Brent Keil 1

381 Mechanical Property Changes in Steel during the Pipe Making Process Brent Keil 1 Abstract Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) is arguably the most widely utilized pipe material for the transmission of water throughout

Error and Uncertainty

Error and Uncertainty All that any experimental procedure can do is to give a for the result that we can say may be near the true. We can never say that we know the true result, only that we have a result

Simple Linear Regression Inference

Simple Linear Regression Inference 1 Inference requirements The Normality assumption of the stochastic term e is needed for inference even if it is not a OLS requirement. Therefore we have: Interpretation

Validation of measurement procedures

Validation of measurement procedures R. Haeckel and I.Püntmann Zentralkrankenhaus Bremen The new ISO standard 15189 which has already been accepted by most nations will soon become the basis for accreditation

Australian Standard. Geometrical product specifications (GPS) General concepts and requirements for GPS measuring equipment

AS ISO 149782007 ISO 14978:2006 AS ISO 149782007 Australian Standard Geometrical product specifications (GPS)General concepts and requirements for GPS measuring equipment This Australian Standard was prepared

Metrology Society of Australia MSA Test Method Calibration of Pressure Calibrators, Indicators and Transducers

Metrology Society of Australia MSA Test Method 1-2008 Calibration of Pressure Calibrators, Indicators and Transducers Revision No. 5 June 2008 Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Scope 3. Desired outcomes of

Northumberland Knowledge

Northumberland Knowledge Know Guide How to Analyse Data - November 2012 - This page has been left blank 2 About this guide The Know Guides are a suite of documents that provide useful information about

Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement

EURACHEM / CITAC Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement Second Edition QUAM:000.P1 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement Second Edition Editors S L R Ellison

How to Verify Performance Specifications

How to Verify Performance Specifications VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS In 2003, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) updated the CLIA 88 regulations. As a result of the updated

GLOSSARY FOR DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

GLOSSARY FOR DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS Adaptation provenant du site Internet http://www.mathoptions.com ANOVA -- An acronym for "ANalysis Of VAriance," a statistical technique that separates the variation

Objective To conduct Charpy V-notch impact test and determine the ductile-brittle transition temperature of steels.

IMPACT TESTING Objective To conduct Charpy V-notch impact test and determine the ductile-brittle transition temperature of steels. Equipment Coolants Standard Charpy V-Notched Test specimens Impact tester

COMMUNICATING using MEASUREMENTS In Engineering we use a great many measuring instruments.

COMMUNICATING using MEASUREMENTS In Engineering we use a great many measuring instruments. Scales Verniers Micrometers Gauges Comparators Thermometers Thermistors + Indicator Thermocouples + Indicator

REPORT OF CALIBRATION N 1ST Test No. 821/

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899- REPORT OF CALIBRATION N 1ST Test No. 821/275185-07 For: (I) NIST Committee Meter Bar Page

Analytical Method Validation

Analytical Method Validation A. Es-haghi Ph.D. Dept. of Physico chemistry vaccine and serum research institute a.eshaghi@rvsri.ir http://www.rvsri.ir/ Introduction Test procedures for assessment of the

Experiment: Mechanical Testing- Impact & Hardness Testing

Experiment: Mechanical Testing- Impact & Hardness Testing Objective The main objective of this experiment is to introduce two important basic mechanical property tests; hardness (using Rockwell testing)

Model: Flow 8730 950 2000 mm. Height adjustable table 23 mm MDF with laminate and metal frame. EN 527-2:2002 and EN 527-3:2002.

Cube Design A/S Vadstedvej 212 DK-8450 Hammel Order no. 687480-5 Appendices 3 Test Report Material: Model: Flow 8730 950 2000 mm Type: Materials: Height adjustable table 23 mm MDF with laminate and metal

Date Supersedes document --

COMMITTEE DRAFT ISO/CD 13225-1 COMMITTEE DRAFT Date 2005-06-03 Supersedes document -- Reference number ISO/TC 213 N 760 WARNING: This document is not an International Standard. It is distributed for review

Content Sheet 7-1: Overview of Quality Control for Quantitative Tests

Content Sheet 7-1: Overview of Quality Control for Quantitative Tests Role in quality management system Quality Control (QC) is a component of process control, and is a major element of the quality management

Check-list for auditors. Audit visit at candidate registered laboratories

Check-list for auditors Audit visit at candidate registered laboratories 1 Contents Introduction Laboratory documentation required by the standard(s), available for inspection by the auditor Items to be

Experimental Errors and Uncertainty

Experimental Errors and Uncertainty No physical quantity can be measured with perfect certainty; there are always errors in any measurement. This means that if we measure some quantity and, then, repeat

OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT

OMCL Network of the Council of Europe QUALITY MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT PA/PH/OMCL (15) 16 3R MANAGEMENT OF VOLUMETRIC GLASSWARE Full document title and reference Management of Volumetric Glassware PA/PH/OMCL

HOW ACCURATE ARE THOSE THERMOCOUPLES?

HOW ACCURATE ARE THOSE THERMOCOUPLES? Deggary N. Priest Priest & Associates Consulting, LLC INTRODUCTION Inevitably, during any QC Audit of the Laboratory s calibration procedures, the question of thermocouple

APPENDIX N. Data Validation Using Data Descriptors

APPENDIX N Data Validation Using Data Descriptors Data validation is often defined by six data descriptors: 1) reports to decision maker 2) documentation 3) data sources 4) analytical method and detection

Estimating Weighing Uncertainty From Balance Data Sheet Specifications

Estimating Weighing Uncertainty From Balance Data Sheet Specifications Sources Of Measurement Deviations And Uncertainties Determination Of The Combined Measurement Bias Estimation Of The Combined Measurement

LARGE MEASUREMENT RANGE MECHANICAL COMPARATOR FOR CALIBRATION OF LONG GAUGE BLOCKS

XVII IMEKO World Congress Metrology in the 3rd Millennium June 22 27, 2003, Dubrovnik, Croatia LARGE MEASUREMENT RANGE MECHANICAL COMPARATOR FOR CALIBRATION OF LONG GAUGE BLOCKS Tanfer Yandayan TUBITAK-Ulusal

JCGM 106:2012. Evaluation of measurement data The role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment

Evaluation of measurement data The role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment Évaluation des données de mesure Le rôle de l incertitude de mesure dans l évaluation de la conformité October

DMS 680. Universal length measuring system gauge inspection for»iso 9000«requirements

DMS 680 Universal length measuring system gauge inspection for»iso 9000«requirements Universal length measuring system DMS 680 Wide range of applications For periodic inspection of gauges, reference gauges,

Balance Calibration A Method for Assigning a Direct-Reading Uncertainty to an Electronic Balance

INL/CON-10-18643 PREPRINT Balance Calibration A Method for Assigning a Direct-Reading Uncertainty to an Electronic Balance 2010 NCSL International Workshop and Symposium Michael Stears July 2010 This is

Description of mechanical properties

ArcelorMittal Europe Flat Products Description of mechanical properties Introduction Mechanical properties are governed by the basic concepts of elasticity, plasticity and toughness. Elasticity is the

The new ISO standard 17123-8 for checking GNSS field measuring systems

The new ISO standard 1713-8 for checking GNSS field measuring systems Hans Heister Institute for Geodesy - Geodetic Metrology - UniBw München D-85577 Neubiberg h.heister@unibw.de FIG Working Week - Stockholm

Uncertainties for S-parameter measurements in coaxial line and waveguide

Uncertainties for S-parameter measurements in coaxial line and waveguide Nick Ridler NPL, United Kingdom Email: nick.ridler@npl.co.uk WORKSHOP WSF13 (EuMC/EuMIC) Determining Accuracy of Measurements at

Evaluation of Quantitative Data (errors/statistical analysis/propagation of error)

Evaluation of Quantitative Data (errors/statistical analysis/propagation of error) 1. INTRODUCTION Laboratory work in chemistry can be divided into the general categories of qualitative studies and quantitative

Implementing ISO Measurement Uncertainty Requirements in Software

Implementing ISO 17025 Measurement Uncertainty Requirements in Software Matt Nicholas Staff Software Engineer Calibration Division Fluke Corporation Abstract ISO/DIS 17025, "General Requirements for the

Steel Reinforcing Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete

Construction Standard CS2:2012 Steel Reinforcing Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 政 府 The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region The Government of the Hong Kong Special

J&G Technology

1 J&G Technology Gary C. Meyer, ASQ CCT/CQE 2 Uncertainty Reporting Requirements What is an Uncertainty Budget? Steps for Creating an Uncertainty Budget Review of Distributions Understanding the Numbers

EXPRESSION DE L INCERTITUDE DANS LE CAS D ESSAIS QUANTITATIFS

BELAC 2-108 Rev 0-2007 EXPRESSION DE L INCERTITUDE DANS LE CAS D ESSAIS QUANTITATIFS Mise en application: 01.01.2008 BELAC 2-108 Rev 0-2007 - 1/ 4 BELAC 2-108 Rev 0-2007 - 2/ 4 HISTORIQUE DU DOCUMENT EA-4/16

EXPERIMENTAL ERROR AND DATA ANALYSIS

EXPERIMENTAL ERROR AND DATA ANALYSIS 1. INTRODUCTION: Laboratory experiments involve taking measurements of physical quantities. No measurement of any physical quantity is ever perfectly accurate, except

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

Page 1 of 12 The examples provided are intended to demonstrate ways to implement the A2LA policies for the estimation of measurement uncertainty for methods that use counting for determining the number

INTRODUCTION. The impact test equipment can be provided with several options:

INTRODUCTION Impact tests are performed to measure the response of a material to dynamic loading. The most common laboratory test configurations are the pendulum machine and the drop tower. However, other

T 489. WORKING GROUP CHAIRMAN Ann Timberlake SUBJECT RELATED

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT of a TAPPI Standard in ballot. Although available for public viewing, it is still under TAPPI s copyright and may not be reproduced or distributed without permission of TAPPI. This

Experimental Uncertainties (Errors)

Experimental Uncertainties (Errors) Sources of Experimental Uncertainties (Experimental Errors): All measurements are subject to some uncertainty as a wide range of errors and inaccuracies can and do happen.

EUROLAB 25 years. The role of metrology and testing to characterize materials and products. EUROLAB 25th Anniversary Seminar

EUROLAB 25 years The role of metrology and testing to characterize materials and products April 9, 2015, Odense Danmark 1 Origin of Conformity Assessment The New Approach for the European Economic Community

Simple Regression Theory II 2010 Samuel L. Baker

SIMPLE REGRESSION THEORY II 1 Simple Regression Theory II 2010 Samuel L. Baker Assessing how good the regression equation is likely to be Assignment 1A gets into drawing inferences about how close the

JCGM 100:2008 GUM 1995 with minor corrections. Evaluation of measurement data Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement

JCGM 100:008 GUM 1995 with minor corrections Evaluation of measurement data Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement Évaluation des données de mesure Guide pour l expression de l incertitude

Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements

Addendum 1 March 2007 Effective Date: September 1, 2007 Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements ANSI/API SPECIFICATION 7-1 FIRST EDITION, MARCH 2006 EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPTEMBER 2006 ISO 10424-1:2004

ICH Topic Q 2 (R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology. Step 5

European Medicines Agency June 1995 CPMP/ICH/381/95 ICH Topic Q 2 (R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Step 5 NOTE FOR GUIDANCE ON VALIDATION OF ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES: TEXT AND

QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN VETERINARY TESTING LABORATORIES

CHAPTER 1.1.3. QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN VETERINARY TESTING LABORATORIES SUMMARY Valid laboratory results are essential for diagnosis, surveillance, and trade. Such results are achieved by the use of good

CMMs and PROFICIENCY TESTING

CMMs and PROFICIENCY TESTING Speaker/Author: Dr. Henrik S. Nielsen HN Metrology Consulting, Inc. HN Proficiency Testing, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana, USA hsnielsen@hn-metrology.com Phone: (317) 849 9577;

Summary of ISO additional requirements

ISO 15189:2012 Clause 4.1.1.3.d 4.1.1.4 4.1.2.1h 4.1.2.4 4.2.1 4.3 4.6 4.9 4.1 4.11 4.13 Summary of ISO 15189 additional requirements Ethical conduct Procedures to deal with disposal of human samples,

STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINES: EVIDENTIAL BREATH ALCOHOL INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION

Directive from the Scientific Director Page 1 of 16 STANDARD OPERATING GUIDELINES: EVIDENTIAL BREATH ALCOHOL INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION 1 Scope To describe the procedure for breath alcohol instrument calibration

Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Forged Steel versus Ductile Cast Iron Crankshaft: A Comparative Study (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

Fatigue Performance Evaluation of Forged Steel versus Ductile Cast Iron Crankshaft: A Comparative Study (EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) Ali Fatemi, Jonathan Williams and Farzin Montazersadgh Professor and Graduate

Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement

EURACHEM / CITAC Guide CG 4 Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement Third Edition QUAM:01.P1 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement Third Edition Editors S L

Using Equotip Hardness Test Blocks Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Verification of Leeb hardness testers according to standards

Using Equotip Hardness Test Blocks Heinz-Horst Pollok, consultant for material testing and instrument electronics (Cologne, Germany) Dr. Ralph T. Mennicke, product manager for material testing, Proceq

In this chapter, you will learn to use descriptive statistics to organize, summarize, analyze, and interpret data for contract pricing.

3.0 - Chapter Introduction In this chapter, you will learn to use descriptive statistics to organize, summarize, analyze, and interpret data for contract pricing. Categories of Statistics. Statistics is