TRACEABILITY OF TEST INSTRUMENTS
Leo J. Buckon
Meriam Instrument
A Scott Fetzer Company
10920 Madison Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44102
INTRODUCTION
Is a measurement being made good and is it as good as
the measurement that was made yesterday, a week ago,
or a year ago? The question of what is good measurement
is asked all the time. This paper reviews what constitutes
a good measurement. In addition it discusses the means
that have been established to give the individual doing
the measurement confidence that it is a good
measurement. First, it discusses test instrument selection.
The paper looks at characteristics of a test instrument
such as accuracy and repeatability. It discusses the effect
of temperature on accuracy and how traceability is
important to the ultimate goal of making a “good
measurement.” Second, it looks at the measurement
process and the factors that influence the collection of
data for measurement assurance. Finally, it reviews both
National and International Standards for maintaining
documented traceability
SELECTION OF INSTRUMENTS
Selecting the right instrument is one of the most important
tasks in making a “good measurement.” The selection
criteria for the correct instrument changes with the
application and what is defined as a good measurement
for that application. What are some of these criteria for
selecting an instrument? One criteria is the environment
where the instrument is to be used. Will the instrument
be used on a bench top in a controlled laboratory
environment or will it be carried, bounced and banged in
the back of a pickup truck and used in conditions that
vary from hot and humid in the summer to blustery cold
in the winter? Price is another important selection criteria.
Does the budget for this instrument have several hundred
or several thousand dollars in it? Will a simple pressure
measurement suffice or is a multi-pressure range, multi-
function calibrator required? And what accuracy is
needed? Is .005% of reading accuracy mandatory or will
0.25% of full scale be good enough for this measurement.
Since selection of an instrument is so application specific
an understanding of various manufacturers’ product
specifications will help in choosing the best instrument
for the job.
Example:
Instrument A is manufactured with a stated accuracy of
0.025% of it’s full scale range, at 70°F. As the temperature
changes the uncertainty of this instrument changes by
0.004% of full scale per degree F. Instrument B’s
accuracy is stated as 0.05% of full scale from 23°F to
120°F. Both instruments have a range of 0 to 200 PSI
and have essentially the same price. The decision on
which instrument to chose depends on the demands of
the particular application.
Consider an application that requires pressure
measurement from 1.0 PSI to 200.0 PSI. These
measurements are to be made in an environment where
seasonally the temperature can vary from 45°F to 105°F.
Calibration instrument A has a measurement uncertainty
of 0.05 PSI (200PSI X .00025) throughout its
measurement range of 200 PSI, at 70°F. Instrument B
has a measurement uncertainty of 0.1 PSI (200 PSI x
.0005) throughout its pressure range and operating
temperature range. Based solely on the basic accuracy
specification it would appear that more confidence can
be put in the measurement made by Instrument A.
However, Instrument A has a temperature component
added to the accuracy specification. At 80°F the
uncertainty of the measurement is an additional 0.04%
(10°F x .004). The total uncertainty for Instrument A is
0.065% (0.025 + 0.04) when operated at 80°F. The
uncertainty is 0.13 PSI for Instrument A compared to
0.1 PSI for Instrument B. The potential error increases
for Instrument A the greater the temperature deviates
from 70°F. What appeared to be a superior instrument
according to product specifications has been proven to
be superior in only a narrow range of applications. If all
the measurements are to be made in an air-conditioned
laboratory Instrument A would be the better choice.
However, if the measurements are to be made outdoors
Instrument B will provide superior, more consistent
performance.
When selecting an instrument careful consideration must
be given to all the applications it will be used in and how
the instrument’s specifications meet all those
applications. Selecting an instrument to make a particular
measurement is only part of the task. The more
requirements that will be put upon an instrument the more
careful the selection process has to be to insure that the
right instrument is chosen to make a “good
measurement.”
There are three general categories of instruments to
chose from, primary standards, transfer standards and
process measurement or field instruments. The most
accurate of these categories is the primary standard. A
primary standard makes a measurement using a
minimum number of components, all of which can be
independently and accurately verified by comparing them
2001 PROCEEDINGS PAGE 285
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF GAS MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY
 to a national standard. For example, a deadweight
tester’s two working components are the area of the
nozzle and the mass of the weights.
The next level is the transfer standard. A transfer standard
is typically four times less accurate than a primary
standard and is usually calibrated using a primary
standard. The transfer standard instrument’s accuracy
is still very good. The advantage that it has over a primary
standard is ruggedness and ease of use. This allows it
to be used in field applications where the more delicate
primary standard is not suitable. It is accurate enough
to be used as a calibration standard for the next level of
instrumentation.
The next level of instruments is referred to as process
measurement instruments or general lab or field
instruments. These instruments are typically 4 times less
accurate than transfer standards. They are selected for
applications where ruggedness and durability may be
as important as the measurement being taken.
The three levels discussed are general categories for
instrumentation. With the exception of primary standards
there can be several accuracy levels in each of the
instrument categories. However, one common element
that occurs across all these categories and levels is that
the instrument used to calibrate another instrument
should be at least four times more accurate.
Typically, as accuracy and repeatability of instruments
improve portability and ruggedness are reduced. The
instruments price increases dramatically as well with
increased accuracy. Finding the instrument that provides
the best price versus performance for your application
can often be the most difficult part of selecting an
instrument. Whatever type of instrument is selected the
single most important accuracy component is
repeatability. This ensures that the measurement will be
the same today, tomorrow and a year from now. Quality
instrumentation can be found at all levels of instruments.
Manufacturers of instrumentation will generally provide
a certification form that indicates the instruments
calibrated accuracy and can trace this accuracy to some
primary standard.
TRACEABILITY
What is traceability in an instrument and why is it
important to making a “good measurement?” Traceability
is an unbroken chain of instrument calibrations that link
one instrument’s calibration to the next. This chain goes
all the way to a national primary instrument standard.
Because of the cost of national primary standards and
the high level of maintenance they require, they typically
are found in national reference laboratories such as the
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST).
Primary instrument standards are also found in metrology
departments of companies where maintaining close
scrutiny over instrument accuracy is critical.
PAGE 286 2001 PROCEEDINGS
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF GAS MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY
Manufacturers of quality instrumentation typically send
the primary standards used to certify the accuracy of
the instruments that they manufacture to NIST or another
reference laboratory on a regular periodic basis. This
calibration trail from one instrument to another is
necessary to give the user of the instrument confidence
in its accuracy and in its ability to make a “good
measurement.”
Example:
A supplier of natural gas needs to monitor the pressure
of the natural gas that it delivers to an accuracy of 0.2%.
To make certain that the process pressure measurement
is accurate the natural gas company periodically checks
the calibration of the transmitters in the field. The
manufacturer of the transmitter provides certificates of
calibration when the instrument is delivered new.
However, the transmitter manufacturer does not make
an instrument that can be used to calibrate the
transmitters after installation. The natural gas company
needs a transfer standard with traceability to NIST to
insure that customers are being billed correctly for the
gas delivered.
The natural gas company purchases a transfer standard
calibrator from a manufacturer that specializes in digital
transfer standard instrumentation to calibrate
transmitters. The calibrators are certified accurate to
0.05%, which is 4 times more accurate than the
transmitters. This accuracy is traceable to a dead weight
tester made by yet another manufacturer.
The digital transfer standard manufacturer sends
certification with its unit to the natural gas company. This
certification form shows the calibration of the unit in terms
of how much it deviated from the standard. It also shows
the serial numbers of the standard that was used to
calibrate it. Finally, it recommends when the gas
company should return the unit for recalibration.
The deadweight tester manufacturer has provided the
digital calibrator manufacturer with a certificate stating
that the accuracy of its deadweight tester is 0.01%. This
certificate also recommends that the deadweight tester
be returned on a periodic basis for recalibration. The
deadweight manufacturer has certificates on file stating
that its calibration standards are calibrated using a
national primary standard located at NIST.
The natural gas supplier now has traceability of its
pressure measurements to a national primary instrument
standard. First this traceability is through the
manufacturer of the digital calibrator transfer standard.
The traceability chain continues through the
manufacturer of the deadweight tester to the national
primary standard at NIST.
The traceability back to a primary standard and periodic
recalibration serves several purposes. A degree of
confidence is provided that the measurement being taken
meets the accuracy requirements of the calibration.
Periodic recalibration allows the instruments
performance to be assessed over time. Repeatability of
the instrument from week to week, month to month or
year to year can be looked at. Should the instrument fail
to maintain its calibration accuracy these documented
records can help in determining when to replace an
instrument.
CALIBRATION STANDARDS
A detailed discussion of calibration standards is beyond
the scope of this paper. Therefore it will provide a general
overview of these standards and on the growing
emphasis on documentation and record control in
calibration.
Prior to February of 1995 the standard most followed for
calibration of equipment was MIL-STD 45662A : 1988,
Calibration Systems Requirement. However, ISO
standards have gained prominence in recent years and
this MIL standard was obsoleted. ISO-9000 (International
Standards Organization) standards are becoming the
standard for quality assurance word wide.
ISO-9001 and ISO-9002 : 1994 have devoted a complete
section to the documentation and calibration of
equipment. Paragraph 4.11, Control of Inspection,
Measuring and Test Equipment states “The supplier shall
establish and maintain documented procedures to
control, calibrate and maintain inspection, measuring,
and test equipment (including test software) used by the
supplier to demonstrate the conformance of product to
the specified requirements. Inspection, measuring and
test equipment shall be used in a manner which ensures
that the measurement uncertainty is known and is
consistent with the required measurement capabilities.”
This critical part of the ISO section indicates that
companies must document their calibration procedure
and demonstrate conformance to the procedure it has
specified. Further, the company must ensure that its
measurement capability is always known.
Although this ISO requirement puts forth general
requirements to maintain measuring instrument
traceability, it lacks the detail previously found in the MIL
standard. To compensate for the lack of detail, two
additional standards were added. These standards are
ISO Guide 25 : 1990 General requirements for the
competence of calibration and testing laboratories; and
ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 Calibration Laboratories and
Measuring and Test Equipment General Requirements
(American National Standard Institute/National
Conference of Standards Laboratories). The ISO Guide
25 set the requirements for calibration and testing
laboratories operations but does not cover requirements
of manufacturers or suppliers quality assurance
programs.
The ANSI/NCSL Z540-1 standard is a two part standard.
The first part of this standard encompasses the same
requirements for calibration and testing laboratories as
ISO Guide 25. The second part of this standard covers
the requirements of a supplier’s quality system to control
the accuracy of measuring and test equipment used to
assure compliance to its prescribed standard.
CONCLUSION
The ultimate goal of traceability of instrumentation is to
ensure the quality of measurements over time.
Traceability of instrumentation is a small part of the
documentation and quality assurance requirements that
are becoming a more significant part of every day
operating activities. As the ISO system for quality
assurance continues to gain worldwide acceptance, it
becomes more important for companies to show control
of measurement and process by maintaining records
documenting their instrument’s traceability.
Leo J. Buckon
2001 PROCEEDINGS PAGE 287
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF GAS MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY