1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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!

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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 March 28, 2018
PTB measured in Jan 2018
Uploaded in the open access area of APMP TCL website
Tentative identifier: APMP.L-C1.2017

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

19. Application Template (1)

20. Application Template (2)

21. Application Template (3)

22. Thank you for your attention!