Status report of “Hybrid Comparisons as CMC Evidence” APMP 2018, Singapore DEC Meeting Status report of “Hybrid Comparisons as CMC Evidence” 25 November, 2018 Chu-Shik Kang (APMP Lead TC Chair)

Background CIPM MRA-D-04 … CMCs submitted be consistent with information from some or all of the following sources: Results of key and supplementary comparisons Documented results of past CC, RMO or other comparisons (including bilateral) Knowledge of technical activities by other NMIs, including publications On-site peer-assessment reports Active participation in RMO projects Other available knowledge and experience

Background (2) Long time intervals between international comparisons No international comparison (IC) for some simple calibration services Developing NMI wishes to participate in a bilateral comparisons not easy to find the partner Developed NMIs Already having to participate as link labs in many ICs on a voluntary basis Little benefit

Proposed Solution Developing NMI: Developed NMI: Use existing routine calibration services of other NMIs provided that it will be transparent and impartial Developing NMI: No need to find a partner for official bilateral comparison Fast Has to pay the calibration fee Developed NMI: (almost) No extra workload (“routine” calibration service)

Terms and Definition NMI Applicant NMI Issuing NMI Third party National metrology institute or designated institute Applicant NMI The NMI seeking CMC evidence and therefore requesting the calibration Issuing NMI the NMI receiving the calibration request from the applicant NMI and issuing the calibration certificate based on one of its routine customer services Third party An independent person receiving the calibration reports from the issuing NMI and the applicant NMI, acting as an impartial store of calibration results

The Sequence of Steps Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Basic sequence Artefact prepared by the applicant NMI Sequence 2 Same as Sequence 1 except that artefact is not prepared by applicant NMI Sequence 3 When the artefact requires stability check

15. Check and confirm comparison report 16. Submit comparison report Third party TC Chair 8. Send the calibration certificate (A) 11a. Send calibration certificate (B) 17. Ask TC members for review 4. Agree to be the Third party 3. Request the Third party 14. Send the comparison report 18. Approve and upload comparison report to open access area of APMP T`C website 5. Request approval for running the comparison 6. Approve running the comparison and assign a unique identifier 1. Request calibration 2. Agree to calibrate Applicant NMI Issuing NMI 9. Send the artefact 7. Perform calibration 10. Perform calibration 11b. Send calibration certificate (B) 13. Analyze data and write comparison report 12. Send back the artefact if required Figure 1. Basic flow chart (when the artefact is provided by the Applicant NMI)

Type of Evidence Other available knowledge and experience CIPM MRA-D-04 … CMCs submitted be consistent with information from some or all of the following sources: Results of key and supplementary comparisons Documented results of past CC, RMO or other comparisons (including bilateral) Knowledge of technical activities by other NMIs, including publications On-site peer-assessment reports Active participation in RMO projects Other available knowledge and experience

Ensuring Transparency and Impartiality If the applicant NMI derives its traceability from another NMI, the issuing NMI must not be the NMI that is the source of traceability Similarly, the artefact used for this procedure must not be involved in the applicant NMI’s traceability route It should not have been calibartedby other NMIs

Ensuring Transparency and Impartiality (2) If the artefact selected is usually supplied with a calibration certificate when purchased, artefact preparation must be performed by an organization that is independent of the applicant NMI This will often be the issuing NMI. The calibration certificate must be withheld from the applicant NMI until the entire procedure is completed.

Origin of any discrepancy Because the issuing NMI’s calibrations must be supported by current CMCs, any discrepancy between calibrations of two NMIs is fully attributed to the applicant NMI

Report Identifier The TC Chair will assign a unique identifier to the report for identification and filing purposes. The syntax is APMP.(AA)-H(N).(Year) Replace (AA) with the name of the TC. (N) is a serial number starting from 1. (Year) indicates the year when it is approved. for example, APMP.L-H1.2018

Difference of HC from KC/SC Not to be registered to KCDB Fast Calibration fee required Reference value determined from issuing NMI Any discrepancy is results will be attributed to applicant NMI

News since last APMP GA Presentation at the 39th JCRB meeting March 16, 2018, BIPM RMO representatives and BIPM staffs supported Presentation at the 4th CC Presidents’ meeting June 19, 2018, BIPM CC Presidents supported the idea Comments: Applicable when KC/SC is unavailable “Hybrid comparison” Now usable in all CCs!

Exercise run by NIM, China NIM used this procedure as a corrective action for a SC EURAMET.L-S24 (involute gear standards) Greyed out 1 CMC on helix standard Calibration of helix standard Applicant NMI: NIM, China Issuing NMI: PTB, Germany Third party: Chu-Shik Kang (KRISS) Applicant NMI Issuing NMI Third party, TCL Chair Configuration when started

Exercise run by NIM, China NIM used this procedure as a corrective action for a SC EURAMET.L-S24 (involute gear standards) Greyed out 1 CMC on helix standard Calibration of helix standard Applicant NMI: NIM, China Issuing NMI: PTB, Germany Third party: Chu-Shik Kang (KRISS) Applicant NMI Issuing NMI Third party TCL Chair Configuration when finished

Exercise run by NIM, China (2) Artefact prepared by NIM manufactured by a Chinese company Traceability of NIM comes from NIM Everything worked smoothly Final report approved by TCL Whole process took 6 months September 2017 - March 28, 2018 PTB measured in Jan 2018 Uploaded in the open access area of APMP TCL website Tentative identifier: APMP.L-C1.2017

Templates for Hybrid Comparisons Application form Finalized Report template NIM’s example used

Application Template (1)

Application Template (2)

Application Template (3)

Thank you for your attention!