Measurements infrastructure — futurological considerations
Abstract views: 20
PDF Downloads: 22
PDF Downloads: 31

ARTICLE PDF (English)
ARTICLE PDF (Ukrainian)

Keywords

Comprehensive Measurement Traceability Network
comparison of measurement standards
interlaboratory comparisons of measurement results
calibration
uncertainty

How to Cite

Samoilenko, O. (2022). Measurements infrastructure — futurological considerations. Measurements Infrastructure, (3). https://doi.org/10.33955/v3(2022)-012

Abstract

Futurology as science for predicting humanity progress is important for planning specific steps to be taken today.

Author made an attempt of scientific prediction concerning development of such important measurement infrastructure components as comparisons of measurement standards, interlaboratory comparisons of measurement results and calibration. Current state of this measurement infrastructure component should be improved to meet the challenges of a complicated and changeable environment. Comparisons of measurement standards are not performed often. Number of participants is limited. CMCs are difficult to obtain. Interlaboratory comparisons and calibrations are separated from comparisons, etc.

Idea of measurement infrastructure future improvement is substantiated. Global informatization provides advantages and opportunities for it.

The answer to modern challenges is seen in the creation of the Comprehensive Measurement Traceability Network (hereinafter — the Network). The Network is assumed to be the most automated and consequently, the fastest, the most dynamic and comprehensive. Various levels of comparisons for various measurement methods and submethods can be initiated fast, easy and without restrictions. They can be provided continuously, without interruptions. Interlaboratory comparisons and calibrations should be directly linked to comparisons of measurement standards in the Network. Interlaboratory comparisons initiated in the Network differ from comparisons of measurement standards only in the factor that they will be initiated for working measurement standards and instruments. Subjective human factors in initiating, planning, processing and analyzing measurement results will be significantly reduced in the Network.

The purpose, basic (but not all) tasks and principles of such Network future work are formulated. Its advantages are underlined.

https://doi.org/10.33955/v3(2022)-012
ARTICLE PDF (English)
ARTICLE PDF (Ukrainian)

References

Chu-Shik Kang 2019 APMP Guideline for the Use of Hybrid Comparisons as Evidence Supporting CMC Claims. Report at the 40th Meeting.

Kuzmenko Iu., Samoilenko O., Tsiporenko S. 2021 Multipurpose measurement models for adjustment by the least squares method. Measuring Equipment and Metrology. 82, 2, pp. 29-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23939/istcmtm2021.02.029

JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM).

Nielsen L. 2000 Evaluation of measurement intercomparisons by the method of least squares. Danish Institute of Fundamental Metrology, Technical Report DFM-99-R39.

Cox M. G. 2002 The evaluation of key comparison data. Metrologia. V. 39, pp. 589-595.

Nielsen L. 2003 Identification and handling of discrepant measurements in key comparisons. Measurement Techniques. 46 (5), pp. 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025373701977

Sutton C. M. 2004 Analysis and linking of international measurement comparisons. Metrologia. V. 41. IOPscience: http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/41/4/008

White D. R. 2004 On the analysis of measurement comparisons. Metrologia. V. 41. IOPscience: http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/41/3/003

Elster С., Chunovkina A. G., Woger W. 2010 Linking of a RMO key comparison to a related CIPM key comparision using the degrees of equivalence of the linking laboratories. Metrologia. V. 47. IOPscience: http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/10/010096

Koo A., Clare J. F. 2012 On the equivalence of generalized least-squares approaches to the evaluation of measurement comparisons. Metrologia. V. 49. IOPscience: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/49/3/340

Elster C., Toman B. 2013 Analysis of key comparison data: critical assessment of elements of current practice with suggested improvement. Metrologia. V. 50. IOPscience: http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-394/13/050549

Kuzmenko Yu., Samoylenko O. 2018 Processing by least square method of the measurement results for key, regional and supplementary comparison of the measurement standards [Опрацювання методом найменших квадратів результатів вимірювань за ключових, регіональних та додаткових звірень еталонів]. Metrology and Instruments. 70, pp. 3-13. [In Ukrainian]

Kuzmenko Yu., Samoylenko O. 2021 The measurements results adjustment by the Least Square Method. Measurement’s infrastructure. 1. https://mi-journal-online.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1/1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33955/v1(2021)-001

Samoilenko O. 2021 Alternative approach to international comparisons. Measurements infrastructure. 2. https://mi-journal-online.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1/2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33955/v2(2021)-009

Samoilenko O., Adamenko O., Kalinichenko V. 2018 The method and the results of the direct comparison of the laser interferometers Renishaw Xl-80 [Методика та результати прямих звірень пересувних лазерних інтерферометрів Renishaw XL-80]. Metrology and Instruments. 72, pp. 3–13. [In Ukrainian]

Samoilenko O., Adamenko O. 2019 Length measurement results processing for adjustment or calibration of distance meters and tachometers on the infield comparator. Geodesy, Cartography and Aerial Photography. 90, pp. 15-28.

ISO/IEC 17043:2010 Conformity assessment — General requirements for proficiency testing.

ILAC P 10:2002 ILAC Policy on traceability of measurement results. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, Sydney (2002).

ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

October 14, 1999 Mutual recognition of national measurement standards and calibration and measurement certificated issued by national metrology institutes. Paris, BIPM. p. 45.

CIPM MRA-D-04 March 2017 Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the context of the CIPM MRA. Version 5.

CCEM June 2017 Guidelines for Planning, Organizing, Conducting and Reporting Key, Supplementary and Pilot Comparisons. Version 2.1.

ISO 13528:2005 Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons.

JCGM 100:2008 Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.

JCGM 102:2008 Evaluation of measurement data — Supplement 2 to the «Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement» Extension to any number of output quantities.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.