Vol. 22, No.

2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
 The Standard
Vol 22, No. 2, June 2008
Managing Editor and Publisher
Jay L. Bucher
6700 Royal View Dr.
De Forest, WI 53532-2775
Voice: 608-846-6968
Email: yokota-69@charter.net
Advertising
Submit your draft copy to Jay Bucher, with a
request for a quotation. Indicate size desired.
Since The Standard is published ‘in-house’
the requester must submit a photo or graphic
of their logo, if applicable. The following
rates apply:
Business card size ............................ $100
1/8 page ........................................... $150
1/4 page ............................................ $200
1/3 page ............................................ $250
½ page ............................................. $300
Full page .......................................... $550
Advertisements will be accepted on a ‘per
issue’ basis only; no long-term contracts will
be available at present. Advertising must be
clearly distinguished as an ad. Ads must be
related to measurement quality, quality of
measurement, or a related quality field. Ads
must not imply endorsement by the Measure-
ment Quality Division or ASQ.
Letters to the Editor
The Standard welcomes letters from mem-
bers and subscribers. Letters should clearly
state whether the author is expressing opin-
ion or presenting facts with supporting infor-
mation. Commendation, encouragement,
constructive critique, suggestions, and alter-
native approaches are accepted. If the con-
tent is more than 200 words, we may delete
portions to hold that limit. We reserve the
right to edit letters and papers.
Information for Authors
The Standard publishes papers on the qual-
ity of measurements and the measurement of
quality at all levels ranging from relatively
simple tutorial material to state-of-the-art.
Papers published in The Standard are not
referred in the usual sense, except to ascer-
tain that facts are correctly stated and to as-
sure that opinion and fact are clearly distin-
guished one from another. The Editor re-
serves the right to edit any paper. Please sin-
gle space after sentences and use Times New
Roman, 12 pt font.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chair’s Corner ................................................................................. 3
ASQ Measurement Quality Division Liaison Report ..................... 4
Woodington Award presentation, MSC 2008 ................................. 5
The Learning Curve ........................................................................ 7
So Your Laboratory is Accredited...Now What? .......................... 11
MQD Officers and Committee Chairs .......................................... 18
MQD Regional Councilors ........................................................... 19
MQD participation at WCQI ........................................................ 21
Changes Come to Gage Blocks..................................................... 23
FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR/PUBLISHER
The front cover: A picture from MSC 2008 of the
MQD booth being manned by some distinguished
individuals - Back row, left to right are Dilip Shah,
MQD’s current Chair, and Graeme Payne, our im-
mediate Past Chair. In the front sitting down, the
illustrious and often imitated but never duplicated
bald dude is none other than…. Phil Painchaud.
Simply by being in the right place at the right time
(just pulling booth duty, that’s all), I was privileged to be in this photo.
Speaking of MSC 2008, I’d like to send a special thank you out to all of the
individuals who attended my tutorial workshop on A Quality Calibration
Program for Biotech and Pharmaceutical Companies. It was indeed a
pleasure to meet and interact with
each and every one of you. It is
hoped that everyone took some-
thing of value away from the
workshop, and that they can use
the information to make their
calibration programs as effective
and productive as possible. As of
this writing, ten people have
signed up for the same tutorial
workshop at the 2008 NCSLI
Workshop & Symposium in Or-
lando, FL. See you there.
The Standard is published quarterly by the Measurement Quality Division of
ASQ; deadlines are February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15. Text infor-
mation intended for publication can be sent via electronic mail as an attachment in
MS Word format (Times New Roman, 11 pt). Use single spacing between sen-
tences. Graphics/illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format.
Photographs of MQD activities are always welcome. Publication of articles, prod-
uct releases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorsement
by MQD or ASQ. While The Standard makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of articles, the publication disclaims responsibility for statements of fact or opinion
made by the authors or other contributors. Material from The Standard may not be
reproduced without permission of ASQ. Copyrights in the United States and all
other countries are reserved. Website information: MQD’s homepage can be found
at http://www.asq.org/measure. © 2008 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.
MQD Page 3

CHAIR’S CORNER Community. Do you know such an individual?

Someone who consistently demonstrates dedica-
By Dilip Shah tion, unquestioned competence, and commitment?
Spring is upon us and Has this individual demonstrated noteworthy Pro-
between the two issues fessional achievements that have warranted na-
of The Standard, the tional and/or international recognition?
Measurement Quality
Division participated in The Woodington Award, since its inception in
two conferences. The 1978, has been an annual award under the aegis of
Measurement Science the Measurement Science Conference. It is
Conference (MSC) that awarded by the Conference to recognize a member
we co-sponsor was again of the Measurement Community who represents
a big success. I just re- the highest level of professionalism and dedication
turned from our own to the Metrology Profession. Candidates for the
ASQ’s World Confer- Woodington Award shall have exhibited notewor-
ence on Quality and Improvement (WCQI) in thy noteworthy Professional achievement in the
Houston. Metrology Professional.”

First, let us talk about the MSC. Our Division was This year, the Woodington Award was posthu-
busy conducting the first Certified Calibration mously awarded to DeWayne Sharp who was the
Technician (CCT) Exam refresher workshop first editor of our newsletter, The Standard and
(Graeme Payne and I teaching) as I had talked out. one of the founding members of this division. As
We had a total of 38 attendees signed up to take the most of you know, DeWayne unfortunately passed
workshop and a total of 19 attendees sit for the away in 2006. We were glad to see the award ac-
CCT exam following the workshop on Wednesday. cepted by Duane’s son and daughter at the MSC
Out of the 19 that took the exam, 11 passed. The (please see page 5 and 6).
exam was proctored by Duane Allen (Past MQD
Chair – 2001-2003). The exam results were avail- At the ASQ’s WCQI in Houston, Graeme Payne
able on Friday thanks to the expedited submission and I did booth duty and met some of you who at-
of exams to HQ by Duane and hard work of ASQ tended the conference. We are always glad to see
certification staff at HQ. Many thanks go out to you and talk with you. Many thanks go out to Elias
Mary Martin of certification department for being Monreal for taking the photographs during the
an excellent coordinator on all fronts. WCQI. MQD also had one paper session at the
WCQI which I presented. During the Saturday
Our local (Phil Painchaud, Duane Allen) and re- leadership events, the division also got the Division
mote (Jay Bucher, Graeme Payne, Robert Graham Management Program (DMP) Silver Award. The
and myself) team of MQD volunteers really made awards are given for the division’s last year per-
the job of MSC participation easy. formance, so the credit goes to last year’s division
leadership team for achieving this award.
This past year our noted Columnist Phil Painchaud
was appointed the Woodington Award Committee Next, we shall be exhibiting in Orlando at the
Chair. He promptly formed a committee from a NCSL International conference. We hope to see
diverse group of metrology professionals (He many of you there. Please plan on attending our
asked me to serve on this committee too and I division meeting on August 6, 2008 at 6:00 PM
obliged). The MSC web Site describes the Wood- EDT if you are attending the NCSL International
ington Award as: Conference in Orlando.

“The Woodington Award is intended to honor This will be my last column for The Standard as
those individuals who personify the highest level of (Continued on page 4)
Professionalism and Dedication to the Metrology

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 4

(Continued from page 3)

MQD Chair. Craig (Woody) Niemann assumes the Chair position starting July 1, 2008. I will still be
around as Chair-elect and Program Chair and shall be contributing articles to The Standard, ASQ publi-
cations and doing other public relations work for the division with other professional societies. I want to
thank the leadership team for their support. At the same time, I extend a call out to our membership to
seek out volunteers for the division leadership. The work is fun and the experience is priceless. We have
many exciting plans for the division in the coming year.

Sincerely,

Dilip Shah
MQD Chair

ASQ Measurement Quality Division Liaison Report

By Christopher L. Grachanen

At the 2008 Measurement Science Conference (MSC), the Certified Calibration Technician (CCT)
exam was proctored for the first time at a Metrology conference with the following stats;

Date of Sat for Passed %

Exam Exam Exam Passed
3/13/2008 19 11 57.89%

Offering the exam at the upcoming 2008 NCSLI conference is a wonderful opportunity for NCSLI con-
stituents to take advantage of this convenience and help employers justify the cost for sending their tech-
nicians to the conference. It is hoped that we will see similar success at the 2008 NCSLI conference.

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 5

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 6

DeWAYNE BURLE SHARP

AUGUST 12, 1926—OCTOBER 31, 2006

Posthumously awarded the Woodington Award at MSC 2008

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 7

THE LEARNING CURVE ences. He was so taken with what I had written
that he asked my permission to publish it as part of
By Phil Painchaud his column. Naturally, I granted the request and it
was shortly thereafter in print. He was so pleased
This is the fifty-fourth install-
with the response that he received that he asked me
ment in an uninterrupted ho-
if I could comment on more of his columns.
mologous series of gratuitous
tractates ostensibly charted to be
He had written a column entitled “HOW HOT is
on the general subject of Me-
HOT” concerning temperature measurement via
trology Education. We have for
thermocouples. I had had some interesting experi-
nearly seventeen years been
ences in that area. So I wrote him a long rambling
writing these in the format of
narrative of one of my experiences with thermo-
open letters to our honorable
couples. He was about to incorporate it in his col-
Boss, the Managing Editor of
umn when he suddenly passed away. So it never
this gazette. Of late we have frequently found it
got into print.
necessary as in this iteration, to deviate from our
charted subject because of a lack breaking news
I have decided to subject you to it here:
items of metrological education interest. At such
times, such as this, it becomes necessary for us to
Mr. Philip Stein
become tutorial on metrological topics (some of
400 Oak Street
which may be of dubious interest some readers as
Pennington, NJ. 08534-3316
well this one may). As usual this one will be in the
format of an open letter.
Phil:
I read your article “How Hot is Hot?” in
Dear Boss:
QUALITY PROGRESS with considerable interest
and nostalgia. If I appear to be slow in getting
During the early years of our Division, the Meas-
back to you, I am—however, you are probably
urement Quality Division, we had a brilliant, well
aware of the problems I have had lately. Now for
educated, articulate leader, one who also had vast
the nostalgia:
experience, in Phil Stein. He had the ability to
write articles in a manner that were not only techni-
Thermocouples were never one of my areas
cally above reproach, but at the same time were
of technological strength—my knowledge and ex-
done in a very folksy readable style. He was a pe-
perience in that area had been poor to mediocre—
riodic contributor to QUALITY PROGRESS the
that is up until the time in 1956 I received the as-
official journal of our parent organization, the
signment to establish the first Metrology organiza-
AMERICAN SOCIETY for QUALITY. His cus-
tion at XXXXX Corp, YYYYY Division. With so
tomary column, entitled “MEASURE for MEAS-
many details to attend to in creating a completely
URE” was a “Nuts and Bolts” discussion some
new function from scratch, thermocouples were
aspect of a particular measurement discipline. It
among the least of my concern—or so I thought!
was always written in a style such that the greenest
neophyte in our profession could comprehend and
I was soon called in on a vexing problem
still not be insulting to the most learned and experi-
manufacturing problem. Our division, under a sub
enced. His unexpected and untimely demise put an
-contract was fabricating the aerodynamic control
end to that style.
surfaces for the ZZZZ missile. These were two
pieces of plate stock aluminum alloy milled to air-
At one time he published a column (I do not recall
foil contours and with considerable empty hollow
the title of that particular column) explaining the
space when they were joined. To provide the addi-
intricacies of the proper measurement of land. I
tional rigidness required controlling the airflow of
was quite interested as I had been involved in ge-
odesy during some of my earlier years. I wrote to (Continued on page 8)
him a letter describing some of these early experi-
Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD
(Continued from page 7)
a vehicle traveling at still classified velocities, a
non-metallic honeycomb material was bonded
within this hollow space. This bonding also held
the two-airfoil surfaces together. Bonding was
accomplished by use of a thermo-setting adhesive;
one with a critical setting temperature (I don’t re-
call the temperature or the tolerance, I do remem-
ber that they were both critical and tight.) There
was no way to test the effectiveness of the bonding
short of a totally destructive test. To assure com-
plete and effective bonding, Army Missile Com-
mand specifications required that a large number
(about a dozen as I recall) of iron-constantan ther-
mocouples be cemented to each surface during the
bonding process. All thermocouple outputs were to
be constantly monitored during the process to as-
sure that temperature gradients across either sur-
face did not exceed some very small value (again, I
do not recall the specified value, but it was in the
order of one or two degrees in a ambient of about 5
-700 degrees (I don’t remember the exact tempera-
ture) . The manufacturing production lots of con-
trol surfaces were sampled for destructive testing
by the customer and were failing miserably—the
bonding was spotty and ineffective.
I immediately asked if the thermocouples
had been calibrated and where were they being
made. I was told that they were being made by
another division of the company, the aircraft divi-
sion who had “lots of experience for over 20 years
in thermocouple fabrication, and that they were
being made from wire pairs certified by the manu-
facturer.” Normally this should have been good
enough, but not for me. Since I was heading a
brand new organization, we had not as yet ac-
quired any temperature calibration equipment, we
jury-rigged a calibration furnace and use some
platinum thermometers we had for references. I
was astounded, in a fresh lot of thermocouples the
voltage outputs for the same applied temperatures
varied the equivalent of +/-10 or more degrees!
Continued testing also showed that many of the
thermocouples were exhibiting a substantial hys-
teresis upon reversing the direction of the applied
temperature. This hysteresis was frequently in the
order of magnitude of the variations between ther-
mocouples, sometimes even more!
Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality
Page 8
This caused an intensive literature search
on the subject of thermoelectricity. In some dusty
tome I have since forgotten, we found a reference
indicating that hysteresis could exist particularly if
impurities existed in the metals of the wires. This
scrap of information intrigued me as I had never
heard of hysteresis in thermocouples before and it
gave me a chance to apply some of my chemical
and metallurgical experience of many years before.
I had our stoichiometric laboratory run
wet and spectrographic analyses on the wires.
They proved to be pretty much as the manufacturer
had certified. I then had them run the same tests
on the welded beads at the working end of the ther-
mocouples. We were prepared for finding a simple
fusion of the copper and the nickel (from the con-
stantan—45% Ni, 55% Cu) and the Iron. We were
not prepared for what we actually found—a “Heinz
57” mixture of unusual alloys, intermetallic com-
pounds, amalgams, and large quantities of en-
trapped metallic mercury and mercury compounds!
Where did the mercury come from? Moreover, and
more intriguing, how were the intermetallics
formed? The Process Control Laboratory (the
stoichiometric organization) people and I were
both dumbfounded.
Next came a trip to the other division; the
aircraft division instrument shop. These folks had
been instrumenting aircraft, including thermocou-
ple type instruments, since the company was
founded nearly twenty years before. They were the
ones furnishing the iron-constantan couples to our
division for this operation. “How are you welding
the beads on these thermocouples?”, I asked. “We
don’t weld here. By union contract all welding in
this division, without exception, must be done in
the Welding Shop by members of the Weldors Un-
ion. We will try to get permission for you to go
over there and observe what they do, but their un-
ion contract gives them considerable authority in
this area”, was the reply.
Permission was granted for us visitors
from far away; and over to the welding shop we
went just in time to see another batch of our iron-
constantan thermocouples being prepared. The
wire, cut to proper lengths; insulation skinned,
(Continued on page 9)
June 2008
MQD Page 9

(Continued from page 8) do with it? Fabricate the thermocouples in Plant

leads nicely twisted together arrived from the in- Maintenance”. “We can’t do that. Maintenance
strument shop. “This is where we take over,” an- people are charged ‘Indirect’ and this is produc-
nounced our guide, the shop foreman. The twisted tion type job and must be charged ‘Direct’.” “
ends were then dipped in what appeared to be a Who made that rule?” “The Accounting Depart-
flux of some sort. “I don’t recall any fluxing being ment”. “Have the General Manager order the Ac-
in the specifications for these thermocouples?”, I counting Department to change the rule so that it
asked. “WE determined years ago that all iron- reflects reality and not something those stupid
constantan welds required a special flux which we MBA’s learned at Harvard Business School”.
have devised.” (A secret sauce?) Next we were “What are we to do about the Weldor’s Union and
taken to the welding stand where our guide proudly the rules they have in the other division? We could
explained, “Here we have a welding fixture espe- start a political war”. “That might be fun, but it
cially designed for us for this job, by a welding probably would take too much time. Why not tem-
engineer over in the Engineering Department.”. porarily BORROW one of their union weldors for
the duration of this job? He would then be work-
This fixture proved to be small tank ing here under the supervision of the Maintenance
(teacup size) of liquid mercury with a device for Department. He would be subject to specifications
holding the prepared thermocouple wire, lowering issued by Process Engineering and approved by
it into the mercury, and then withdrawing it. The Process Control and Metrology.” Miracles do
tank and the holding device were each attached to happen; they did exactly that.
the output of a very large welding source. There
was no instrumentation on the system, but from the I then got the specifications redrafted to
general size of things, I would assume that the cur-preclude the use of flux and all welding to be done
rent could be in the order of many kilo-amperes. by oxy-acetylene torch. The first batch of thermo-
We witnessed a wire pair being dipped into and couples proved to be a decided improvement over
removed from the mercury pool. There was a loud those built by the other division. But, they still
explosion, clouds of mercury vapor (fortunately it were not good enough for me. Back the same
was within a hood), and lo-and-behold a “perfect” route— stoichiometric analysis. This showed the
thermocouple. There was our answer; the tem- mercury contamination gone as well as most of the
peratures (and possibly the pressures) produced in intermetallics, but now there was the presence of
the nano-volume surrounding the wire tip must several oxygen bearing metallic compounds. Hav-
have reached something resembling that of a ing worked in the copper industry at one time, I
thermo-nuclear explosion. Under those conditions, knew that oxygen could raise hob with the charac-
our common rules of inorganic chemistry disap- teristics of copper. Observing the weldor at work,
pear and who knows what can happen? I found that he was using an oxygen rich, intensely
hot flame. I suggested trying a reducing flame
Back at home base, the Process Control (oxygen starved). This proved to be too much the
Chief and I started to ask some very pointed ques- other way. The thermocouples were still not good
tions of Management (mostly old aircraft types) as enough for me. Spectrographic analysis showed
to why was such a critical job subbed-out to the the presence of various iron-carbon compounds
other division to be handled in such an incompe- dissolved in the iron wire. Then I remembered that
tent manner? This resulted in the following dialog: iron forms many complex compounds with carbon;
“They are THE aircraft division; THE “Main and excess carbon is abundant in a reducing flame.
Plant”; they have been building airplanes long
before this division came into existence. (Does I wanted to try Heli-arc welding (which
that make them smarter than us? Airplanes have incidentally, had been invented by my company)
been crashing for years. Bite my lip). “Why don’t but was told that this was an ironclad part of the
we make our own thermocouples here?” “We Weldor’s Union contract; only they could do Heli-
don’t have a welding shop in Manufacturing, only arc welding within the company. So now, it be-
in Plant Maintenance.” “What does that have to (Continued on page 10)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 10

(Continued from page 9) tional Mueller Bridge for reading the Platinum
came a cut-and-try process to get the oxy-acetylene Thermometers. All of these items were of course
ratio just right. We finally solved the problem and useful for many other measurements other than the
produced a long series of thermocouples with con- thermocouple project.
sistent characteristics. However, while these new
thermocouples were consistent and closely Several metallic melting point baths were
matched each other the hysteresis problem was still in the planning stages when, because of the soaring
there, albeit to a much lesser degree (just as our production rate, the customer for the control sur-
ancient tome had suggested). faces became so saturated with the units that they
called a halt to the production. By then, we needed
This was solved by a rigid calibration pro- those baths badly as our fame had spread and
cedure, which took the devices under calibration other divisions, including “The Main Plant” were
slowly and monotonically up through the specified coming to us for calibrations of their critical de-
temperature range, recording the specified points vices. But that is another story.
as they were encountered. Then they were brought
down in temperature through the same points the By the way, my spelling of “Weldor” is not
same way; again fully monotonically with no stops, incorrect. That is what they called themselves and
and particularly no reversals. The new values for was so written into their contract.
those same points were recorded. A copy of the
calibration data form with actual values accompa- Phil Painchaud
nied each thermocouple along with a permanently
attached metal serial number tag. Naturally, this Well Boss that is a long story, but every bit of it
resulted in dual values for each thermocouple that happened. It proved the worth of building a Me-
could make it difficult for a typical production trology organization around a very competent core
worker running the bonding process. The Produc- of educated Metrologists rather than one based
tion Engineering Department solved this by devel- upon Calibrators and/or Metrology Technicians.
oping a Manufacturing Procedure which permitted
the use of only mono-directional bonding tempera- If any of you care to argue, or comment, or com-
tures. mend, I am still at the same old stand:

Failures of the control surfaces ceased

completely, to my knowledge there was never again Phil Painchaud
a failure attributed to faulty bonding, and of course 1110 West Dorothy Drive
the production rate soared. And what did I get out Brea, CA 92821-2017
of it? For one thing, creditability for my new or- Phone: 714-529-6604
ganization and two; budget for the best set of tem- Cell: 714-928-6084
perature calibration equipment that at that time FAX: 714-529-1109
money could buy or we could devise. These in- E-mail: painchaud4@cs.com or
cluded a custom built to our specifications (by olepappy@juno.com
L&N) calibration furnace with many different sta-
bilizing blocks; along with funds to purchase com-
ponents to build a temperature control system we
had designed ourselves, and a scanning recording
device we had also designed. We were also able to
purchase a set of three L&N Standard Platinum
Thermometers with the full NBS Calibrations, to
use as references along with a Triple Point of Wa-
ter Reference. We were also able to purchase a
KDE-8 Otto Wolff Nanovolt-Potentiometer that we
felt would be more useful than the more conven-

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 11

SO YOUR LABORATORY IS ACCREDITED ….. NOW WHAT?

By Christopher L. Grachanen
With commentary by Dilip Shah

Over the past 15 years there has been a lot of progress towards
accrediting test and calibration facilities throughout the U.S and
abroad. These activities are generally perceived as necessary
for getting everybody working from the same page with the
intent of harmonizing measurement uncertainty analysis per the
recommendations of ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncer-
tainty in Measurement (commonly referred to as the ‘GUM’).
To this end, accrediting bodies in the U.S. have written many
guidance publications and checklists in an attempt to gain uni-
formity in the requirements for initial accreditation as well as
the criteria for evaluating subsequent compliance. This article
will examine laboratory accreditation in the context of opportunities for improvement and explore a pro-
posal beyond accreditation in an attempt to change the status quo.

Laboratories Attributes

The number of laboratory accreditation bodies in the U.S. is limited to a small handful. Given such a low
number of accreditation bodies, one could reasonably assume that variability regarding attributes for test
and calibration laboratories, satisfactorily assessed for compliance, would be small. For some of these
attributes this is not always the case. Laboratory attributes, evaluated in an accreditation assessment,
may be categorized as technical and non-technical. Technical topics characteristically deal with the sci-
ences and mathematics associated with a laboratory’s products and services such as data acquisition and
analysis and measurement uncertainty determination. Non-technical topics generally deal with a labora-
tory’s management structure, laboratory logistical processes and documentation.

The Quality System

A laboratory’s quality manual, business plan, and corporate policies and procedures provide the essential
guidelines for laboratory personnel to conduct their activities congruent with industry accepted practices
as well as positioning a laboratory to meet critical business needs. Despite the endless variety of busi-
ness guises and departmental configurations, non-technical laboratory attributes are normally the most
consistent when it comes down to the basic premise of, ‘say what you do’, ‘do what you say’, within the
margins of accreditation requirements. Sure, one laboratory’s quality manual may be concise and easily
understood while another may be poorly written and difficult to understand but each must address stan-
dardized accreditation subject matter in order to be satisfactorily assessed for accreditation.

Accreditation bodies evaluate test and calibration laboratories against published standards such as ISO
17025:2005, ‘General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories’ and de-
termine their compliance. This would suggest accredited laboratories, upon becoming accredited, should
be very similar in the way they conduct laboratory activities. In broad brush strokes this is very often
true mainly in part to the industry accepted practice for test and calibration laboratories to have a quality
manual. A laboratory’s quality manual is the main documentation accreditation assessors evaluate in
order to determine whether a laboratory is in compliance with established accreditation criteria. The pur-
(Continued on page 12)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 12

(Continued from page 11)

pose of a laboratory’s quality manual is to provide guidance for addressing major topics such as docu-
mentation control, management reviews, assuring quality of products and services, etc., as well as defin-
ing managerial responsibilities and personnel qualifications. A laboratory’s quality manual normally
provides only essential information which doesn’t change very often so that revisions and sign off ac-
ceptance activities are kept to a minimum. To laboratory personnel this means ‘first order’ type quality
questions often can be easily answered by referencing the appropriate section in their quality manual.

Underlying a laboratory’s quality manual are lower level documents and procedures such as standard
operating procedures (SOPs), laboratory shop practices (LSPs) and maintenance / service / operation
procedures. These lower level documents, as one would expect, can vary considerably from laboratory
to laboratory in both substance and syntax but more often than not are very similar in intent in order to
be able to support a laboratory’s quality manual which we have already said must address standardized
accreditation subject matter in order for a laboratory to be successfully assessed for accreditation. Lower
level procedures give instructional detail for addressing day to day scenarios such as how to process a
customer’s complaint with appropriate closure, what to do if a calibration standard is found to be out of
tolerance, how to perform a specific test, etc. Without lower level documents and procedures in place
laboratory activities can vary significantly which may result in discrepant / sub-standard products and
service, wasted resources, longer customer queues, etc. So given that a laboratory’s quality manual ad-
dresses standardized subject matter in order for a laboratory to be successfully assessed for accreditation
and that its lower level documents and procedures support the laboratory’s quality manual it can be rea-
sonably argued that with proper execution and oversight, most accredited laboratories conduct non-
technical activities to some acceptable degree of homogeneity.

Technical Attributes

This leads us to the topic of test and calibration laboratories technical attributes. One of the main techni-
cal activities common to both test and calibration laboratories is making measurements and determining
how accurate those measurements are for a given application. Accreditation for test and calibration labo-
ratories requires that measurement uncertainties be determined for each measurement parameter they are
accredited for. A listing of measurement parameters and their associated measurement uncertainty are
listed in an accredited laboratory’s scope of accreditation (SOA). A laboratory’s SOA is compiled for
the best (lowest) measurement uncertainties the laboratory can reproduce for a particular measurement
parameter. Uncertainty analysis for determining a measurement parameter’s uncertainty normally fol-
lows the recommendations contained with in the GUM.

GUM recommendations fall short of specifying what uncertainty sources should be included in an un-
certainty analysis as well as what values should be assigned to these sources for a particular measure-
ment application (any attempts to include such a listing in the GUM would be a monumental effort).
Rather, the GUM gives general guidance as to some common sources of uncertainty such as ambient
environmental changes, repeatability, reproducibility, etc. In addition to technical variability regarding
uncertainty source inclusion there exist other problems apparent when scrutinizing laboratory SOAs
such as impracticable claims of uncertainty values given the equipment listed. The experience and
knowledge of the person performing the uncertainty analysis are key in determining which sources of
uncertainty should be included in the analysis and what uncertainty values should be assigned to them.
Note: Experience and knowledge do not in themselves constituent technical competency when it comes
to performing uncertainty analysis but rather are critical components which when coupled with the ap-
propriate skill sets increases the likelihood of performing analysis correctly. Regularity of performing
uncertainty analysis and the depth to which one grasps a particular measurement application / scenario
(Continued on page 13)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 13

(Continued from page 12)

are other components which can influence technical competency.

Accreditation assessors are tasked with evaluating test and calibration laboratories uncertainty analysis
based on their own knowledge, experience and applicable skill sets. A word that comes to mind at this
stage of the discussion is subjective. Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines subjective as ‘modified
or affected by personal views, experience, or background’. Evaluating uncertainty analysis for inclusion
of a certain parameter in a test and calibration laboratory’s SOA is at the discretion of the accreditation
assessor (or in some cases a panel of assessors) when determining if a submitted uncertainty analysis
satisfactorily addresses all significant sources of uncertainties and that uncertainty value source assign-
ments are accurate and credible. This scenario, as one would expect, leaves open the possibility for dif-
ferent interpretations of the same uncertainty analysis for a given measurement parameter as reflected in
test and calibration laboratory’s SOA.

Technical Attribute Variability

The following 45 minute exercise was performed to give an example of this technical variability. Ac-
creditation body websites were researched to compile a listing of uncertainty statements from calibration
laboratory SOAs for 10VDC generation and measurement. To keep the playing field level only uncer-
tainty statements which specified the 10VDC generation source as a Fluke 5700A Multifunction Cali-
brator and the 10VDC measurement device as an Agilent (formally Hewlett-Packard Company) 3458A
precision DMM with option 02 were included in the listing. 10VDC was selected for being easily com-
parable to higher accuracy voltage standards and the test equipment for their simplicity of use, popular-
ity and longevity in calibration laboratories. Special attention was given to SOA notes and qualifiers
(such as calibration intervals and options) to help insure an apples to apples comparison. Also, only the
first ten uncertainty statements meeting the aforementioned qualifiers were evaluated so as not to ‘cherry
pick’ for a worst or best case scenario.

One can see from table 1.0 (next page) that the percentage change for both the 10VDC Generate and
10VDC Measure is greater than 70%. This is disconcerting when one considers that for accredited test
and calibration laboratories essentially only SOAs distinguish one laboratory from another from the in-
formation provided by accreditation bodies. This point can not be over emphasized; SOAs are primarily
the only readily available means to distinguish one accredited laboratory from another. Unlike non-
technical accreditation evaluations which requires standardize subject matter to be addressed, uncer-
tainty analysis, the foundation for laboratory SOAs, is in large part subjective. There needs to be other
ways customers can gauge the caliber of test and calibration laboratory technical prowess.

From an accredited laboratory perspective there is also a different dilemma in the guise of a lack of in-
centives for improvement beyond ‘pacifying’ assessment auditors, keeping customer complaints to a
minimum, decreasing internal costs and increasing the throughput of widgets serviced by the laboratory.
Outside of laboratory personnel pride (which can not be praised enough) there are few motivators one
can easily identify to incite a laboratory to engage in improvement orientated activities and/or enhance
existing improvement activities unless there is an accreditation requirement or financial incentive. Ac-
tivities such as random audits, proficiency tests and continuing personnel education and training are
typically not visible to customers and as such are often only pursued (if pursued at all) to the extent nec-
essary to meet the minimum of requirements. There’s got to be motivation to incite test and calibration
laboratories to go beyond ‘going through the motions’ as this mentality ‘does not a laboratory improve’.

(Continued on page 14)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 14

(Continued from page 13)

Changing the Status Quo

With these questions in mind I chanced to hear an EBay advertisement on the radio about seller's feed-
back scores used to measure seller's relative experience and success as an eBay user. I thought how
something like this may be used to help customers distinguish one test and calibration laboratory from
another as well as giving incentive to laboratories to 1) engage in improvement orientated activities 2)
make the outcome of these activities as positive as possible. For accredited test and calibration laborato-
ries the following information seems suited for this purpose.

(Continued on page 15)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 15

(Continued from page 14)

Proficiency Tests, Interlaboratory Comparisons (ILCs), Round Robins, Measurement Assurance
Programs (MAPs)

Test providers (if applicable)

Test dates, parameters and target accuracies (uncertainties)
Test results (En number if applicable)

Audits
Audit agency (also include company internal audits)
Audit dates
Audit results

Employee Qualifications
Education
Training
Certifications

Customer Feedback
Testimonials
Satisfactory record with the Best Business Bureau (BBB)

I am sure readers can come up with other items to be added to this list as this is meant to be a starting
point for discussion. Three questions quickly come to mind 1) who would compile the aforementioned
information 2) who would administer this information 3) what means would be used to disseminate this
information to the general public. As we are talking about accredited test and calibration laboratories,
accreditation bodies, as a public service and value add for their customers, may be persuaded to develop
standardized templates that laboratories fill out and keep updated. Accreditation bodies would then
make these completed templates available from their websites (likened to the service they provide in
listing laboratory SOAs on their websites for on-line viewing and downloading). In addition, as a public
service to customers, laboratories may also be allowed to provide template information about their op-
erations such as whether it is a commercial or internal captive laboratory, if they provide on-site ser-
vices, website URL, etc.

A system as generally described above would of course be voluntary for an accredited laboratory to par-
ticipate in as there are no mandates which require a laboratory to publicly divulge the aforementioned
information. It is acknowledged that no laboratory would, in their right mind, be amenable to posting
their ‘dirty laundry’ in public. It is also acknowledged there may be temptation to ‘cherry pick’ informa-
tion to make their laboratory look good. But it must also be pointed out that the absence and/or scarcity
of information could be a potential flag for prospective customers to ask questions such as: What profi-
ciency tests have you participated in within the last 2 years? Are any of your technicians certified? When
was your laboratory’s last audit performed?, etc.

(Continued on page 16)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 16

(Continued from page 15)

So your laboratory is accredited ….. Now what? The benefits of the aforementioned system would be
three fold:

Provide more information to customers so they can make better informed decisions.
Increase the motivation for laboratories to successfully engage in (and/or ramp up) improvement
orientated activities by making these activities visible to potential customers in addition to pro-
moting healthy competition in the market place.
Provide a ready means for laboratories to document improvement activities for assessment auditors
to evaluate as well as helping increase awareness of these activities to upper management (both
a real plus for internal, non-commercial laboratories).

Accreditation has helped hundreds of test and calibration laboratories improve their documentation,
processes and services. An accredited laboratory, like any other business, is subject to complacency. Be-
ing accredited does not mean a laboratory should ‘rest on its laurels’ and get by with minimum improve-
ment orientated activities in order to maintain accreditation status. Motivation is key to continuous labo-
ratory improvement and incentives help create motivation. So your laboratory is accredited ….. Now
what?

Editor’s Note: This article was previously published in Cal Lab Magazine. We would like to thank Carol
Singer and Chris Grachanen for letting us reprint the article in The Standard.

A commentary offered by Dilip Shah:

The speed limit on the state highway is analogous to the ISO 17025 standard. It is a STANDARD. When
we drive on the highway, we claim that we comply with the speed limit (The Standard). When the state
highway trooper aims the radar gun at our car and measures our speed, he or she assesses us to our
claims of compliance. Unfortunately, this is only a snapshot of our driving on the highway, the same as a
laboratory assessment by an accrediting body’s assessor(s) who may visit a facility once ever two years
(an audit is a sample of the process being audited). To add to the dilemma, the radar gun has its own un-
certainty as all assessors have their own subjectivity.

It would be nice to have a “black box” recorder to show to the state trooper that for the most part we
were complying with the speed limit except for that downhill stretch of the highway where they were
conveniently located and aimed their radar gun at our vehicle.

How can the laboratories have a “black box” recorder? The ISO 17025:2005 Sections 5.5.10, 5.6.3.3,
5.9.1 and 5.9.2 require the laboratories to conduct and record “black box activities” so they can plead
their case to the appropriate accrediting body just as they would plead their case to the judge for the
speeding ticket.

Appropriate statistical analysis techniques can do wonders to support the claims of measurement uncer-
tainty, consistency of test and calibration activities and improvement efforts. In many cases, statistical
data provides better estimation of uncertainty than that based on manufacturer’s specifications. In addi-
tion, the statistical data makes measurement uncertainty analysis easier (and realistic) as it is a compos-
ite result of all the contributors to measurement uncertainty.

Accrediting bodies may require results of such activity to be posted along with a scope of accreditation
to show that laboratories are engaging in continual improvement activities. (Accrediting bodies can im-
(Continued on page 17)

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 17

(Continued from page 16)

pose additional requirements as a condition for accreditation)

For other feedback, laboratories are now required to seek active feedback from their customers (ISO
17025:2005 Section 4.7.2). Wouldn’t it be nice for the customers to post the feedback (based on a stan-
dardized set of questions) on a third party web site (sort of a J.D. Powers opinion poll) for a prospective
customer to peruse?

Many laboratories view the activities as additional work beyond minimum requirements for accredita-
tion. However, in the long term, these activities provide a basis for improvement (another new require-
ment in ISO 17025:2005 Section 4.10), preventive actions and real cost savings in addition to providing
real value to the customer.

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 18

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Chair, Program Chair Standards Committee Representative
Dilip A. Shah Robert M. Graham
E = mc3 Solutions Primary AC Standards Lab
197 Great Oaks Trail #130 Sandia National Laboratories
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215 P.O. Box 5800, M.S. 0665
Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 Albuquerque, NM 87185-0665
E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com Phone: (505) 845-0434
Fax: (505) 844-6096
Chair-Elect E-mail: rmgraha@sandia.gov
Craig (Woody) Niemann
1489 Pheasant Run Dr. Examining Chair
Newark, OH 43055-8046 Duane Allen
Voice (740) 788-5034 U. S. Navy
E-mail: Craig.Niemann@afmetcal.af.mil P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11
Corona, CA 92878-5000
Secretary, Certification Chair, Website Voice (909) 273-4783 / Fax (909) 273-4599
Manager, NCSL International Representative E-mail: duane.allen@navy.mil
Christopher L. Grachanen
Manager, Houston Metrology Group HP Membership Chair
P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 Elias Monreal
Houston, TX 77269-2000 Industrial Tool Die & Engineering
Voice (281) 518-8486 / Fax (281) 518-7275 (www.itde.com)
E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com 4765 S. Overland Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85714
Treasurer, Publication Chair, Newsletter Voice (520) 241-0478
Editor/Publisher, Share Point Administrator E-mail: emonreal@hotmail.com
Jay L. Bucher
Bucherview Metrology Services Historian
6700 Royal View Dr. Keela Sniadach
De Forest, WI 53532-2775 Promega Corp.
Voice (608) 846-6968 5445 East Cheryl Parkway
E-mail: yokota-69@charter.net Madison, WI 53711
Voice (608) 298-4681 / Fax (608) 277-2516
Immediate Past Chair, Nominating Chair E-mail: keela.sniadach@promega.com
Graeme C. Payne
GK Systems, Inc. ASQ Division Administrator
4440 Weston Drive SW, Suite B Ms. Leta Thrasher
Lilburn, GA 30047 USA Voice (800) 248-1946, x7423
Voice: (770) 931-4004 / Fax (866) 887-9344 E-mail: lthrasher@asq.org
E-mail: Graeme@gksystems.biz

Joe Simmons Scholarship

Norm Belecki
7413 Mill Run Dr
Derwood, MD 20855-1156
Voice (301) 869-4520
E-mail: n.belecki@ieee.org

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 19

ASQ MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION REGIONAL COUNCILORS

Regional Councilors represent the Division to members and Sections in their

geographic areas. Regional Councilors are appointed for renewable two-year
terms, and are advisory members of the Division leadership team.
Region 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) Region 9 (IN, KY, OH)
Mr. Jun Bautista Mr. Ryan Fischer, ASQ CCT
Genzyme Laboratory Accreditation Bureau
Cambridge, MA 02142 New Haven, IN 46774
E-mail: Jun.Bautista@genzyme.com E-mail: rfischer@l-a-b.com

Region 2 (NJ, NY, PA) Region 10 (OH, MI)

Volunteer Opportunity! Mark J. Schoenlein
E-mail: Mark.Schoenlein@us.o-i.com
Region 3 (CT, NJ, NY)
Region 11 (NC, SC, TN, VA)
Mr. Eduardo M. Heidelberg
Volunteer Opportunity!
Pfizer
Parlin, NJ 08859
E-mail: eheidelb@yahoo.com Region 12 (IL, MN, ND, SD, WI)
Jay L. Bucher, ASQ Sr. Member, CCT
Region 4 (Canada) Bucherview Metrology Services, LLC
Mr. Alexander T. C. Lau De Forest, WI 53532
ExxonMobil E-mail: yokota-69@charter.net
Whitby, ON L1R 1R1
E-mail: alex.t.lau@exxonmobil.com Region 13 (CO, IA, KS, MO, NE, SD, WY)
Region 5 (DC, DE, MD, PA, VA) Volunteer Opportunity!
Mr. Richard A. Litts Region 14 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX, part of
Litts Quality Technologies Mexico)
Downington, PA 19335
E-mail: info@littsquality.com Mr. R. Keith Bennett
TRANSCAT
Region 6 (AK, CA, HI, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, Kingwood, TX 77339
WY) E-mail: kbennett@transcat.com
Volunteer Opportunity!
Region 15 (AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, Puerto Rico)
Region 7 (AZ, CA, NV, part of Mexico) Mr. E. Bryan Miller
Elias Monreal ASQ Fellow
Industrial Tool Die & Engineering Bryan Miller Consulting
Tucson, AZ 85714 Florence, AL 35633
E-mail: emonreal@hotmail.com E-mail: milleb@mindspring.com

Region 8 (OH, PA) Region 25 (all other countries)

Dilip A. Shah Volunteer Opportunity!
E = mc3 Solutions
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-8215
E-mail:emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
MQD Page 20

Vol. 22, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2008
  

Measurement Quality Division participation at WQCI

Measurement Quality Division(MQD) representatives, Dilip Shah and Graeme Payne, were present at the
62nd annual World Conference on Quality and Improvement on May 5-7, 2008. Dilip and Graeme were
our ambassadors to attendees’ queries at the MQD booth. We hope to see you at next year’s conference in
Minneapolis on May 18-20, 2009. Enclosed are photos of them, the booth and various participants at the
conference.

L-R: Graeme Payne, Dilip Shah

MQD Meeting L-R: Graeme Payne, Dilip Shah, Leta Thrasher, Jay Bucher on telecon.

<= Measurement Quality Division Membership Distribution

Certified Calibration Technician Distribution =>

  
 

Measurement Quality Division participation at WQCI

MQD Booth L-R: Elías Monreal(CCT), Graeme Payne

<= Measurement Quality Division Membership Distribution

Certified Calibration Technician Distribution =>

 
Quality Measurement: Changes Come to Gage Blocks

By Dewey Christy

August 1, 2005

Consistent with the

philosophy behind the new
standards, the computer has
become the heart of this
comparator.

Source: Mahr Federal Inc

Ten years ago, if a box of Grade 2 gage blocks was sent to an outside lab for calibration, there would have
been little need for discussion about what a company needed. If that same box was sent today, without
any instructions, a company could be headed for trouble. While a box of Grade 2 gage blocks has not
changed, the standards for defining their length has changed.

In January 2002, ASME issued B89.1.9-2002 with the objective of bringing U.S. gage block calibration
practice more in line with international standards. It also accommodates important shifts in the use of
gage blocks and reflects current trends in the use of measurement uncertainty. The basic criteria used by
the committee was to adhere as closely as possible to ISO 3650, Geometrical Product Specifications
(GPS)—Length Standards—Gage Blocks, while allowing for standard measuring practice in the United
States. Incorporating specifications for inch-system gage blocks was the least of these allowances.

So now, when sending out a box of Grade 2 blocks, the calibration lab should know:

• Whether these are new Grade 2 blocks or old Grade 2 blocks

• Whether the blocks should be calibrated to the new standard or the

old standard

For example, under the old standard, the length tolerance on a 0.1-inch Grade 2 block was +4/-2
microinches. On a new Grade 2 block, that same tolerance is ±18 microinches. In fact, the closest
equivalent to an old Grade 2 is a new Grade 0 which has a length tolerance of ±5 microinches. The
differences are substantial, and rest not only in dimensions, but also in the basic philosophy behind the
calibration process.

The older version of ASME B89.1.9, issued in 1984—and revised in 1997—was based on an even older
standard, GGG-G-15C, a military specification dating back to 1974. The thrust of these standards—the
traditional American approach—was to make blocks as close to exact size as possible. Under the
European way of thinking, so long as a block is within a certain size range, it does not matter exactly what
its size is, as long as it is measured well and characterized correctly.

Under this new scheme, measurement is as important as manufacturing. If the variation is known, it can
be allowed for. But by the same token, while size tolerances are not very tight under the new ASME
standard, form tolerance—how flat the blocks should be and how parallel their surfaces should be—can
be very tight.

Under the old standard, the size tolerance applied only at the center of the block, at what was known as
the reference point. Under the new standard, size tolerance applies everywhere. This implies that the
calibration lab should check a representative number of points on the block’s surface, not just the central
point.

This fundamental difference in the idea of and approach to calibration has ramifications for everyone
involved in the process, from part manufacturers seeking calibration, to labs doing calibration and even
for manufacturers that make gage block calibration equipment.

Standard changes

Users of gage blocks are not required to change anything. Many manufacturers have hundreds of sets of
gage blocks, some many years old and still perfectly good. They also have processes based on these
blocks and the standards for calibrating them that are still perfectly acceptable. However, even if they
ignore the new standard, users will need to be aware of this new practice and make sure their blocks are
being calibrated correctly. And if they acquire new blocks, or adopt new processes, they will have to be
equally aware that Grade 2 is no longer the same.

To make this process a bit less confusing, ASME has done a couple things. First, they have added the
prefix “AS” to Grades 1 and 2 to help avoid misidentification with the old Grade 1 and 2. Second, while
the committee “basically agreed with the logic” behind the size tolerance issue, they also added a Grade
00 with tolerances near those of the old U.S. Grade 1 for those who still feel more comfortable with a
high-accuracy gage block.

For calibration labs, in addition to the requirements for clearer customer communication, the new
standard requires basic changes in their calibration and reporting procedures. While the old standard
suggested that gage blocks be checked “in several places,” as a matter of common practice, measurements
were typically made and certified at a single reference point near the center of the block.

The new standard strongly recommends multiple checks, suggesting in Section 8.4.4 that, “variations
between readings at the reference point and at the four corners of the measuring face, approximately 1.5
millimeters or 0.060 inch from the side faces could be regarded as representative.” That these points are
not mandated allows flexibility for existing commercial practice, but the section goes on to stipulate that
if other points are used, “their position shall be described.”

As a practical matter, this means that calibrations will take longer, and perhaps be more costly. It also
means that many labs will have to upgrade their equipment as existing comparators in most American
labs might not have the capability to measure blocks at the corners.

Herein lies what is perhaps the biggest change occasioned by the new standard: the need for equipment
manufacturers to redesign and upgrade their high-end gage block comparators.

Dimensional measurement for gage block calibration is possibly the most precise mechanical
measurement process on the planet. The environmental conditions under which it is done are as controlled
as possible, and the equipment used is the absolute best that can be made. Thus, changes to that
equipment are not undertaken lightly.

Penetration coefficients

These are examples of skeletonized microinterferograms of

diamond stylus tips showing surface discontinuities. The
micrograph is a “contour map” of the tip so that all points on a
given ring are equidistant from the reference optical flat. Source:
Mahr Federal Inc.

But the most interesting advances, in terms of metrology, are in the area of penetration coefficients. It has
been known for many years that contact between a spherical probe tip and a plane surface under an
applied force will result in a deformation of that surface. In terms of gage block calibration, this
deformation is small, but of significant magnitude. If the blocks being compared are of different
materials, a deformation correction—defined by Hertz—needs to be applied to the measurement. Such
corrections have long been included in the calibration process, and penetration coefficients for the various
block materials are maintained in the system software.

However, in his book, The Gauge Block Handbook, Dr. Ted Doiron, acting group leader of the
Engineering Metrology Group at NIST, has shown that the problem is not quite that simple. Not only is
the amount of deformation dependent on block material, probe radius (area) and gaging force, but Doiron
has shown it also is dependent on probe material, and more specifically, on probe tip geometry and
surface finish. Of all of these variables, probably the effective probe radius is the most difficult to
measure directly.

Using a series of microinterferograms of diamond stylus tips, Doiron has shown that tiny discontinuities
in tip geometry can significantly affect the contact area, calling into question the Hertzian correction
factors. Further, according to Doiron, “It is very difficult to produce a perfectly spherical surface on
diamond because the diamond hardness is not isotropic, i.e., there are ‘hard’ directions and ‘soft’
directions, and material tends to be lapped preferentially from the ‘soft’ directions.”

As a result, tungsten carbide may be used to make the contacting probes because it can be polished to a
more consistently spherical shape. The effect of the actual probe radius and surface finish can be
calibrated, if a manufacturer has gage blocks of different materials but of the same nominal size that have
been carefully calibrated. By comparing these blocks to one another, the effect of the different penetration
shows up as small differences from the calibrated values.

The voluntary integration of any new standard is a slow process. Change is costly and typically not
undertaken until there is some absolute requirement or justifiable return. Long term, however,
implementation of B89.1.9-2002 with its emphasis on measurement will serve to reduce uncertainty,
allow even tighter tolerances on manufactured parts and further improve quality. Q
All user functions are displayed and controlled on screen, and the
system provides resolution of 0.1 microinch and repeatability of 0.2
microinch. Source: Mahr Federal Inc.

Dewey Christy is product manager, precision length metrology for Mahr Federal Inc. (Providence, RI).
He can be reached at dewey.christy@mahr.com or (401) 784-3271.

Reprinted with permission of Quality Magazine, copyright 2005

Quality Assurance Professionals
Complete your Bachelors Degree!

Now Enrolling!
• Bachelor of Science in Quality Assurance
• Bachelor of Science in Quality Assurance with
Measurement Science Option

Completely Online!
No Campus Attendance Required!

For further information:

www.csudh.edu/bsqa
bsqa@csudh.edu
310-243-3880