ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE METROLOGIE LEGALE

1st Committee Draft OIML

Date: 2019-04-16
Reference number: TC4/P9/N011

Supersedes document: 3rd WD

Supersedes OIML document: OIML D 10

Circulated to P- and O-members and liaison

OIML/TC 4 international bodies and external organisations for:

Title: OIML D 10:20XX discussion at (date and place of

meeting): .......................................

TITLE OF THE WD (English):

Guidelines for the determination of
Comments by:
recalibration intervals of measuring
P-members and O-members of TC 4. X
equipment used in testing laboratories

TITLE OF THE WD (French): 

- as forwarded for conversion to 1DR by
BIML
Secretariat: SLOVAKIA
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

Contents

Foreword .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 4
3 Terms and definitions ................................................................................................................... 4
4 General aspects ............................................................................................................................. 6
5 Initial choice of recalibration intervals ....................................................................................... 12
6 Methods of reviewing recalibration intervals ............................................................................. 13
7 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 16

2
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

Foreword

The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) is a worldwide, intergovernmental organization whose
primary aim is to harmonize the regulations and metrological controls applied by the national metrological services, or
related organizations, of its Member States. The main categories of OIML publications are:

 International Recommendations (OIML R), which are model regulations that establish the metrological
characteristics required of certain measuring instruments and which specify methods and equipment for checking
their conformity. OIML Member States shall implement these Recommendations to the greatest possible extent;
 International Documents (OIML D), which are informative in nature and which are intended to harmonize and
improve work in the field of legal metrology;
 International Guides (OIML G), which are also informative in nature and which are intended to give guidelines
for the application of certain requirements to legal metrology;
 International Basic Publications (OIML B), which define the operating rules of the various OIML structures
and systems; and

OIML Draft Recommendations, Documents and Guides are developed by Project Groups linked to Technical Committees
or Subcommittees which comprise representatives from OIML Member States. Certain international and regional
institutions also participate on a consultation basis. Cooperative agreements have been established between the OIML and
certain institutions, such as ISO and the IEC, with the objective of avoiding contradictory requirements. Consequently,
manufacturers and users of measuring instruments, test laboratories, etc. may simultaneously apply OIML publications
and those of other institutions.

International Recommendations, Documents, Guides and Basic Publications are published in English (E) and translated
into French (F) and are subject to periodic revision.

Additionally, the OIML publishes or participates in the publication of Vocabularies (OIML V) and periodically
commissions legal metrology experts to write Expert Reports (OIML E). Expert Reports are intended to provide
information and advice, and are written solely from the viewpoint of their author, without the involvement of a Technical
Committee or Subcommittee, nor that of the CIML. Thus, they do not necessarily represent the views of the OIML.

This publication - reference ILAC-G24 / OIML D 10, Edition 20XX - was developed by the ILAC Accreditation
Committee and by OIML TC 4 Measurement standards and calibration and verification devices. This version supersedes
OIML D 10 (Edition 2007). It was approved for final publication by ILAC in 20XX and by the International Committee
of Legal Metrology in 20XX.

OIML Publications may be downloaded from the OIML web site in the form of PDF files. Additional information on
OIML Publications may be obtained from the Organization’s headquarters:

Bureau International de Métrologie Légale

11, rue Turgot - 75009 Paris - France
Telephone: 33 (0)1 48 78 12 82
Fax: 33 (0)1 42 82 17 27
E-mail: biml@oiml.org
Internet: www.oiml.org

3
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

1 Introduction
This Guidance Document is a revision of OIML D 10. It was developed by the OIML
(International Organization of Legal Metrology) and ILAC (International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation) as a joint venture and is published as such.

It is important to point out that:

a) it is not the responsibility of accreditation bodies to teach testing laboratories how to run
their business;
b) it is the responsibility of each individual testing laboratory to choose to implement any or
none of the methods described in this Document based on its individual needs and its
individual assessment of risks; and
c) it is also the responsibility of testing laboratory to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented
method(s) and take responsibility for the consequences of the decisions taken as a result of
the method(s) chosen.

2 Scope
The purpose of this Document is to give testing laboratories or any other relevant parties,
particularly while setting up their calibration system, guidance on how to determine
recalibration intervals of measuring equipment. This Document identifies and describes the
methods that are available and generally accepted for the evaluation of recalibration intervals.

3 Terms and definitions

The terms and definitions listed below apply to this publication.

3.1 measurement uncertainty, uncertainty of measurement, uncertainty

non-negative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to
a measurand, based on the information used

Note 1 Measurement uncertainty includes components arising from systematic effects, such
as components associated with corrections and the assigned quantity values of
measurement standards, as well as the definitional uncertainty. Sometimes estimated
systematic effects are not corrected for but, instead, associated measurement
uncertainty components are incorporated.
Note 2 The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation called standard measurement
uncertainty (or a specified multiple of it), or the half-width of an interval, having a
stated coverage probability.
Note 3 Measurement uncertainty comprises, in general, many components. Some of these may
be evaluated by Type A evaluation of measurement uncertainty from the statistical
distribution of the quantity values from series of measurements and can be
characterized by standard deviations. The other components, which may be evaluated
by Type B evaluation of measurement uncertainty, can also be characterized by
standard deviations, evaluated from probability density functions based on experience
or other information.
Note 4 In general, for a given set of information, it is understood that the measurement
uncertainty is associated with a stated quantity value attributed to the measurand.
A modification of this value results in a modification of the associated uncertainty.

(OIML V2-200, 2.26 [1])

4
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

3.2 calibration
operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the
quantity values with measurement uncertainties provided by measurement standards and
corresponding indications with associated measurement uncertainties and, in a second step, uses
this information to establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication

Note 1 A calibration may be expressed by a statement, calibration function, calibration

diagram, calibration curve, or calibration table. In some cases, it may consist of an
additive or multiplicative correction of the indication with associated measurement
uncertainty.
Note 2 Calibration should not be confused with adjustment of a measuring system, often
mistakenly called “self-calibration”, nor with verification of calibration.
Note 3 Often, the first step alone in the above definition is perceived as being calibration.

(OIML V2-200, 2.39 [1])

3.3 measurement result, result of measurement

set of quantity values being attributed to a measurand together with any other available relevant
information

Note 1 A measurement result generally contains “relevant information” about the set of
quantity values, such that some may be more representative of the measurand than
others. This may be expressed in the form of a probability density function (PDF).
Note 2 A measurement result is generally expressed as a single measured quantity value and
a measurement uncertainty. If the measurement uncertainty is considered to be
negligible for some purpose, the measurement result may be expressed as a single
measured quantity value. In many fields, this is the common way of expressing a
measurement result.
Note 3 In the traditional literature and in the previous edition of the VIM, measurement result
was defined as a value attributed to a measurand and explained to mean an indication,
or an uncorrected result, or a corrected result, according to the context.

(OIML V2-200, 2.9 [1])

3.4 instrumental drift

continuous or incremental change over time in indication, due to changes in metrological
properties of a measuring instrument

Note Instrumental drift is related neither to a change in a quantity being measured nor to a
change of any recognized influence quantity.

(OIML V2-200, 4.21 [1])

3.5 maximum permissible measurement error, maximum permissible error, limit of error
extreme value of measurement error, with respect to a known reference quantity value,
permitted by specifications or regulations for a given measurement, measuring instrument, or
measuring system

Note 1 Usually, the term “maximum permissible errors” or “limits of error” is used where
there are two extreme values.
Note 2 The term “tolerance” should not be used to designate ‘maximum permissible error’.

(OIML V2-200, 4.26 [1])

5
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

3.6 reference quantity value, reference value

quantity value used as a basis for comparison with values of quantities of the same kind

Note 1 A reference quantity value can be a true quantity value of a measurand, in which case
it is unknown, or a conventional quantity value, in which case it is known.
Note 2 A reference quantity value with associated measurement uncertainty is usually
provided with reference to
a) a material, e.g. a certified reference material,
b) a device, e.g. a stabilized laser,
c) a reference measurement procedure,
d) a comparison of measurement standards.

(OIML V2-200, 5.18 [1])

3.7 measuring instrument

device used for making measurements, alone or in conjunction with one or more
supplementary devices

Note 1 A measuring instrument that can be used alone is a measuring system.

Note2 A measuring instrument may be an indicating measuring instrument or a material
measure.

(OIML V2-200, 3.1 [1])

3.8 measuring equipment

measuring instrument, software, measurement standard, reference material or auxiliary
apparatus, or a combination thereof, necessary to realize a measurement process

(ISO 10012: 2003, 3.3 [5])

3.9 calibration and measurement capability (CMC)

is a calibration and measurement capability available to customers under normal conditions:

a) as published in the BIPM key comparison database (KCDB) of the CIPM MRA; or
b) as described in the laboratory’s scope of accreditation granted by a signatory to the ILAC
Arrangement.

(CIPM MRA-D-04 [2])

3.10 testing laboratory

body that performs determination one or more characteristics of testing object
Note Testing typically applies to materials, products or processes.

4 General aspects
4.1 An important aspect for maintaining the capability of testing laboratory to produce traceable
and reliable measurement results is a determination of the maximum period that should be
permitted between successive calibrations (recalibrations) of the measuring equipment used.
Various international standards take this aspect into account, e.g.:

6
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

─ ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [3] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 6.4.6: “Measuring equipment shall be calibrated when:

─ the measurement accuracy or measurement uncertainty affects the

validity of the reported results, and/or
─ calibration of the equipment is required to establish the
metrological traceability of the reported results.

NOTE Types of equipment having an effect on the validity of the

reported results can include:
─ those used for the direct measurement of the measurand, e.g. use
of a balance to perform a mass measurement;
─ those used to make corrections to the measured value, e.g.
temperature measurements;
─ those used to obtain a measurement result calculated from
multiple quantities”.

Subclause 6.4.7: “The laboratory shall establish a calibration programme, which shall
be reviewed and adjusted as necessary in order to maintain confidence
in the status of calibration“.

Subclause 6.4.8: “All equipment requiring calibration or which has a defined period of
validity shall be labelled, coded or otherwise identified to allow the
user of the equipment to readily identify the status of calibration or
period of validity“.

Subclause 6.4.10: ” When intermediate checks are necessary to maintain confidence in

the performance of the equipment, these checks shall be carried out
according to a procedure“.

Subclause 6.4.13: “Records shall be retained for equipment which can influence
laboratory activities. The records shall include the following, where
applicable:

e) calibration dates, results of calibrations, adjustments, acceptance

criteria, and the due date of the next calibration or the calibration
interval;“

Subclause 6.5.1: “The laboratory shall establish and maintain metrological traceability
of its measurement results by means of a documented unbroken chain
of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty,
linking them to an appropriate reference.

NOTE 1 In ISO/IEC Guide 99 [14], metrological traceability is defined

as the "property of a measurement result whereby the result can be
related to a reference through a documented unbroken chain of
calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty''.
NOTE 2 See Annex A for additional information on metrological
traceability“.

Subclause 6.5.2: “The laboratory shall ensure that measurement results are traceable

7
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

to the lnternational System of Units (Sl) through:

a) calibration provided by a competent laboratory; or

NOTE 1 Laboratories fulfilling the requirements of this document are

considered to be competent.”

Subclause 7.7.1: “The laboratory shall have a procedure for monitoring the validity of
results. The resulting data shall be recorded in such a way that trends
are detectable and, where practicable, statistical techniques shall be
applied to review the results. This monitoring shall be planned and
reviewed and shall include, where appropriate, but not be limited to:

e) intermediate checks on measuring equipment;

f) replicate tests or calibrations using the same or different methods;
g) retesting or recalibration of retained items;”

─ ISO 9001:2015 [13] contains the following requirement:

Subclause 7.1.5.2: “When measurement traceability is a requirement, or is considered by

the organization to be an essential part of providing confidence in the
validity of measurement results, measuring equipment shall be:
a) calibrated or verified, or both, at specified intervals, or prior to use,
against measurement standards traceable to international or
national measurement standards; when no such standards exist, the
basis used for calibration or verification shall be retained as
documented information;”

─ ISO/IEC 17020:2012 [15] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 6.2.6: "Where appropriate, measurement equipment having a significant

influence on the results of the inspection shall be calibrated before
being put into service, and thereafter calibrated according to an
established programme".

Subclause 6.2.8: "Reference standards of measurement held by the inspection body shall
be used for calibration only and for no other purpose. Reference
standards of measurement shall be calibrated providing traceability to
a national or international standard of measurement".

Subclause 6.2.9: "Where relevant, equipment shall be subjected to in-service checks

between regular recalibrations".

Subclause 6.2.15: "Relevant information on the equipment, including software, shall be

recorded. This shall include identification and where appropriate,
information on calibration and maintenance".

─ ISO/IEC 17043:2010 [16] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 3.11: "proficiency testing scheme

proficiency testing designed and operated in one or more rounds for a

8
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

specified area of testing, measurement, calibration or inspection”

NOTE A proficiency testing scheme might cover a particular type of

test, calibration, inspection or a number of tests, calibrations or
inspections on proficiency test items".

Subclause 4.4.5.2: "Proficiency testing schemes in the area of calibration shall have
assigned values with metrological traceability including measurement
uncertainty".

─ ISO 15189:2012 [17] contains the requirement:

Subclause 5.3.1.4: „The laboratory shall have a documented procedure for the calibration
of equipment that directly or indirectly affects examination results. This
procedure includes:

b) recording the metrological traceability of the calibration standard

and the traceable calibration of the item of equipment;
d) recording the calibration status and date of recalibration;
e) ensuring that, where calibration gives rise to a set of correction
factors, the previous calibration factors are correctly updated”.

─ ISO 17034: 2016 [18] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 6.3.3: “The RMP shall ensure that equipment and consumable materials are
not used until they have been inspected, calibrated or otherwise verified
as complying with the specifications or requirements defined for the RM
production activities.".

Subclause 6.4.1 “The RMP shall ensure that all laboratory facilities, calibration and
testing areas (if applicable), material handling. storage, processing
and packaging areas, energy sources, lighting, humidity, temperature,
pressure and ventilation are such as to facilitate proper material hand
ling, storage, processing and packaging, as well as proper
performance of calibration and testing activities (if applicable)”.

Subclause 6.4.2 “When the environmental conditions could have an adverse effect on
the RM, the environmental conditions in which the RM production
activities are undertaken shall be monitored with appropriately
calibrated equipment, and shall be controlled and recorded, such that
results and processes are not adversely affected”.

Subclause 7.2.3 “The RMP shall address, during the planning stage, the following:
g) verification and calibration of measuring equipment;

Subclause 7.7 “The RMP shall ensure that measuring equipment used in RM
production is used in compliance with the relevant requirements of
ISO/IEC 17025.

NOTE Additional information on the management of measurement

systems, including information on equipment that is found to drift

9
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

outside acceptable limits, can be found in ISO 10012”.

Subclause 7.9.5 “For studies in which the values need to be traceable to a higher order
reference system (e.g. characterization studies with measurements
under reproducibility conditions), it shall be ensured that the
measurements are calibrated with standards with metrologically
traceable values”.

─ ISO 10012:2003 [5] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 6.3.1: “All measuring equipment necessary to satisfy the specified

metrological requirements shall be available and identified in the
measurement management system. Measuring equipment shall have a
valid calibration status prior to being confirmed”.

Subclause 7.1.2: “The methods used to determine or change the intervals between
metrological confirmation shall be described in documented
procedures. These intervals shall be reviewed and adjusted when
necessary to ensure continuous compliance with the specified
metrological requirements”.

Each time nonconforming measuring equipment is repaired, adjusted

or modified, the interval for its metrological confirmation shall be
reviewed”.

Subclause 7.3.2: “The management of the metrological function shall ensure that all
measurement results are traceable to SI unit standards”.

“Traceability to SI units of measurement shall be achieved by reference

to an appropriate primary standard or by reference to a natural
constant, the value of which in terms of the relevant SI units is known
and recommended by the General Conference on Weights and
Measures and the International Committee for Weights and Measures”.

“Where agreed to, consensus standards used in contractual situations

shall only be used when SI unit standards or recognized natural
constants do not exist”.

“Records of traceability of measurement results shall be maintained for

as long as required by the measurement management system, the
customer, or by statutory and regulatory requirements”.

─ ISO/IEC 17065:2012 [19] contains the following requirements:

Subclause 6.2.1: “For testing, it shall meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC
17025; for inspection, it shall meet the applicable requirements of
ISO/IEC 17020; …“

Subclause 6.2.2.1 “For testing, it shall meet the applicable requirements of ISO/IEC
17025; for inspection, it shall meet the applicable requirements of
ISO/IEC 17020; …“

10
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

4.2 The purposes of periodic calibration of measuring equipment are:

─ to improve the estimation of the deviation between a reference value and the value obtained
using a measuring equipment, and the uncertainty in this deviation, at the time the
measuring equipment is actually used;
─ to validate the stated least uncertainty that can be achieved with the measuring equipment;
and
─ to confirm whether or not there has been any alteration of the measuring equipment which
could introduce doubt about the results delivered in the elapsed period.

4.3 One of the most significant decisions regarding the calibration is “When to do it” and “How
often to do it”. A large number of factors influence the time interval that should be allowed
between calibrations and should be taken into account by the testing laboratory. The most
important factors are:

─ uncertainty of measurement required or declared by the testing laboratory;

─ risk of a measuring equipment exceeding the limits of the maximum permissible error
when in use;
─ trend data obtained from previous calibration records;
─ recorded history of maintenance and servicing;
─ risk assessment analysis regarding the consequences if the measuring equipment is out of
calibration (it is not traceable anymore);
─ type of measuring equipment and its inner components;
─ manufacturer’s recommendation;
─ tendency to wear and drift;
─ extent and severity of use;
─ significance of the measuring equipment to the quality of the test, measurement or
calibration result;
─ environmental conditions (climatic conditions, vibration, ionizing radiation, etc.);
─ frequency of cross-checking against other reference standards or measuring instruments;
─ frequency and quality of intermediate checks;
─ transportation arrangements and risk; and
─ degree to which the operating staff are trained and implementing the established
procedures.
4.4 The previous calibration records can be used for determination of the recalibration interval
when subsequent calibration is to be performed by a laboratory with appropriate CMC and/or
several different laboratories with similar CMC.

4.5 Although the cost of calibration cannot normally be ignored in determining the recalibration
intervals, the increased measurement uncertainties or a higher risk in terms of measurement
quality and services arising from longer intervals may mitigate against the apparently high cost
of a calibration.

4.6 The process of determining recalibration intervals is a complex mathematical and statistical
process requiring accurate and sufficient data taken during the calibration process. There
appears to be no universally applicable single best practice for establishing and adjusting the
recalibration intervals. This has created a need for better understanding of the recalibration
interval determination. As no single method is ideally suited for the whole range of measuring
equipment, some of the simpler methods of assigning and reviewing the recalibration interval
and their suitability for different types of measuring equipment are covered in this Document.
The methods have been published in more detail in certain standards (e.g. ISO 10012-1:1992

11
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

[4] is a standard containing useful details, which have been amended by standard ISO
10012:2003 [5], which however contains only general information related to confirmation
intervals), or by reputable technical organizations (e.g. [8], [9], [10]), or in relevant scientific
journals.

4.7 The methods can be used for the initial selection of recalibration intervals and the readjustment
of these intervals on the basis of calibration trend and experience. Testing laboratory-
developed methods or methods adopted by the testing laboratory may also be used if they are
appropriate and if they are validated.

4.8 The testing laboratory should select appropriate methods and should document those used.
Calibration results should be collected and retained as historical data, in order to form the basis
of future decisions for recalibration intervals of the measuring equipment.

4.9 Independently from the determined recalibration intervals, the testing laboratory should have
an appropriate system of intermediate checks to ensure the proper functioning and calibration
status of the measuring equipment used between calibrations (see ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [3],
6.4.10 and 7.7.1).

4.10 The laboratory should check whether the results from external calibration and/or internal tests
fall within predetermined set limits prior to approving the measuring equipment for further
use.

5 Initial choice of recalibration intervals

5.1 The initial decision in determining the recalibration interval is based mainly on the following
factors:

─ the required uncertainty of measurement;

─ the measuring equipment manufacturer’s recommendation (e.g. when the uncertainty of
measurement required or declared by the testing laboratory is based on the accuracy of
instrument);
─ maximum permissible errors (e.g. by legal metrology authorities);
─ expected extent and severity of use;
─ influence of the environment;
─ adjustment of (or change in) the individual measuring equipment;
─ influence of the measured quantity (e.g. high temperature effect on thermocouples);
─ risk assessment analysis in relation to consequences in incorrect determining of the
recalibration interval;
─ pooled or published data about the same or similar devices; and
─ legal requirements.

5.2 The decision should be made by a person or by persons with general experience of
measurements, or knowledge of the particular measuring equipment to be calibrated, and
preferably also with knowledge of the intervals used by other laboratories. An estimate should
be made for each measuring equipment or group of measuring equipment as to the length of
time the measuring instrument is likely to remain within set limits (i.e. maximum permissible
error, accuracy requirements) after calibration.

12
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

6 Methods of reviewing recalibration intervals

6.1 General principles

6.1.1 Once calibration on a routine basis has been established (based on a defined number of
consecutive results), adjustment of the recalibration intervals should be possible in order to
optimize the balance of risks and costs as stated in the introduction. It will probably be found
that the intervals initially selected do not give the desired optimum results due to a number of
reasons, for example:

─ measuring equipment may be less reliable than expected;

─ the extent of usage and care in maintenance may not be as anticipated;
─ for certain measuring equipment it may be sufficient to carry out a limited calibration
instead of a full calibration; and
─ the instrumental drift determined by the recalibration of the measuring equipment may
show that longer calibration intervals may be possible without increasing risks, etc.

6.1.2 A range of methods is available for reviewing the recalibration intervals. The method chosen
differs according to whether:

─ measuring equipment is treated individually or as groups (e.g. by manufacturer’s model

or by type);
─ the measuring equipment’s performance exceeds set limits (i.e. maximum permissible
error, accuracy requirements) due to drift over time or by usage;
─ measuring equipment shows different types of instabilities;
─ measuring equipment undergoes adjustments; and
─ data are available and importance is attached to the history of calibration of the measuring
equipment.

6.1.3 It is recommended for new measuring equipment to be calibrated more frequently at the
beginning, so as to establish behavioural trends. After analysis the behavioural trends the
periodicities of recalibration intervals may be re-evaluated.

Note: It is recommended for new measuring equipment to collect calibration data at least
from three successive calibration periodicities to establish behavioural trend.
6.1.4 The so-called “engineering intuition” which fixed the initial recalibration intervals, and a
system which maintains fixed intervals without review, are not considered as being sufficiently
reliable and are therefore not recommended.

6.2 Method 1: Automatic adjustment or “staircase” (calendar-time)

6.2.1 Each time a measuring equipment is calibrated on a routine basis, the subsequent recalibration
interval is extended if it is found to be within an appropriate defined percentage of the
maximum permissible error (or any other set of limits as required) that is required for
measurement, or reduced if it is found to be outside this percentage of maximum permissible
error (or any other set of limits as required). It is recommended that appropriate decision
criteria for extension or reduction of the recalibration interval of measuring equipment are
specified for individual cases (e.g. the subsequent recalibration interval may be extended or
unchanged if it is found to be within 80 % of the maximum permissible error that is required
for measurement, or reduced if it is found to be outside 80 % of the maximum permissible
error). This “staircase” response may produce a rapid adjustment of intervals and is easily

13
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

carried out without administrative effort. When records are maintained and used, possible
trouble with a group of measuring equipment indicating the need for a technical modification,
or preventive maintenance, will be known.

Note: RP-1 [9] describes the similar Simple Response Method (Method A1). Although
inexpensive to implement, essentially random events (errors falling within or outside
the set limits) drive the interval changes, thus compromising the results. Among other
problems, the assigned interval approaches the correct interval slowly and may not
maintain the correct interval once achieved. A similar point of view may therefore also
apply to Method 1 herein.

6.2.2 A disadvantage of systems treating measuring equipment individually may be that it is difficult
to keep the calibration workload smooth and balanced, and that it requires detailed advanced
planning.

6.2.3 It would be inappropriate to take a recalibration interval to extremes using this method. The
risk associated with withdrawing large numbers of certificates issued, or repeating a lot of
work, may ultimately be unacceptable.

6.3 Method 2: Control chart (calendar-time)

6.3.1 Control charting is one of the most important tools of Statistical Quality Control (SQC) and
well- described in various publications (e.g. [6], [7], [11]). In principle, it works as follows:
Significant calibration points are chosen and the results are plotted against time. From these
plots, both dispersion of results and the instrumental drift are calculated, the instrumental drift
being either the mean drift over one recalibration interval, or in the case of very stable
measuring instruments, the drift over several intervals. From these figures, the optimum
interval may be calculated.

6.3.2 This method is difficult to apply (in fact it is very difficult to apply in the case of complex
measuring equipment) and can virtually only be used with automatic data processing. Before
calculations can commence, considerable knowledge of the variability properties of measuring
equipment is required. Again, it is difficult to achieve a balanced workload. However, a
considerable variation of the recalibration intervals from those prescribed is permissible
without invalidating the calculations; reliability can be calculated and in theory at least gives
the efficient recalibration interval. Furthermore, the calculation of the dispersion of results will
indicate whether the manufacturer’s specification limits are reasonable and the analysis of
instrumental drift found may help in indicating the cause of drift.

Note: This method is not suitable for calibrations of measuring equipment without an
instrumental drift. This method is suitable for measurand with single value, for
example calibration of gauge blocks or standard resistance.

6.4 Method 3: “In-use” time

6.4.1 This is a variant on the previous methods. The basic method remains unchanged but the
recalibration interval is expressed in hours of use, rather than in months. The measuring
equipment is equipped with a device which indicates the elapsed time and is returned for
calibration when the indication reaches a specified value. Examples of such measuring
instruments are thermocouples, used at extreme temperatures, dead weight testers for gas
pressure, and length gauges (i.e. measuring instruments that may be subject to mechanical

14
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

wear). The major advantage in principle of this method is that the number of calibrations
performed and therefore the cost of calibration varies directly with the length of time that the
measuring equipment is used.

6.4.2 Furthermore, there is an automatic check on measuring equipment utilization. However, there
are many practical disadvantages in using an automatic check, including when:

─ it is difficult to use the method with passive instruments (e.g. attenuators) or standards
(resistance, capacitance, etc.);
─ it should not be used providing that a measuring equipment is known to drift or deteriorate
when it is on the shelf, or handled, or subjected to a number of short on-off cycles;;
─ the initial cost of the provision and installation of suitable timers is high, and since users
may interfere with them, supervision may be required which again will increase costs;
─ it is even more difficult to achieve a smooth flow of work than with the methods mentioned
above, since the testing laboratory has no knowledge of the date on which the recalibration
interval will terminate.

6.5 Method 4: In service checking, or “black-box” testing

6.5.1 This is a variant on methods 1 and 2 and is particularly suitable when an easy and quickly
calibration of a reference part of measuring equipment is possible. Critical parameters are
checked frequently (once a day or even more often) by portable calibration gear, or preferably,
by a “black box” designed specifically to check the selected parameters. If the measuring
equipment is found to be outside the maximum permissible error (or any other set of limits as
required) by the “black box”, it is returned for a full calibration.

Note: Measuring instruments suitable for this method are e.g. density meters (resonance
type), Pt-resistance thermometers (in combination with calendar-time methods),
dosimeters (source included) and sound level meters (source included).

6.5.2 The major advantage of this method is that it provides maximum availability for the measuring
equipment user. It is very suitable for measuring equipment which are geographically distant
from the testing laboratory, since a complete calibration is only done when it is known to be
required. The difficulty is in deciding on the critical parameters and designing the “black box”.

6.5.3 Although the method is in principle very reliable, this is slightly ambiguous, since the
measuring equipment may be failing on some parameter that is not measured by the “black
box”. In addition, the characteristics of the “black box” itself may not remain constant, thus
requiring a choice and periodic review of the black box interval. This may or may not prove
more effective than evaluating the original measuring equipment’s interval.

6.6 Method 5: Other statistical approaches

6.6.1 Methods based on statistical analysis of an individual measuring equipment or measuring

instrument type can also be a possible approach. These methods are gaining more and more
interest, especially when used in combination with adequate software tools. An example of
such a software tool and its mathematical background is described by A. Lepek [12].

6.6.2 When large numbers of identical measuring instruments (i.e. groups of measuring instruments)
are to be calibrated, the recalibration intervals can be reviewed with the help of statistical
methods (see e.g. [10]). Detailed examples are presented for example in RP-1 [9].

15
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

6.7 Comparison of methods

6.7.1 No one method is ideally suited for the full range of measuring equipment encountered (see
Table 1), and a testing laboratory may choose to use different methods using different
measuring instruments or on different locations. Furthermore, it should be noted that the
method chosen will be affected by whether the laboratory intends to introduce planned
maintenance. There may be other factors which will affect the laboratory’s choice of method.
The method chosen will, in turn, affect the form of records to be kept.

6.7.2 For comparison of methods, see Table 1.

Table 1 - Comparison of methods of reviewing recalibration intervals

Method

Performance Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 1)

“staircase” control “in-use” time “black other
chart box” statistical
approaches
Reliability medium high medium high medium
Effort of application low high medium low high
Work-load balanced medium medium bad medium bad
Applicability with respect
to particular devices medium low high high low

Availability of measuring
equipment medium medium medium high medium

1) Better grading is achieved when an appropriate software tool is used.

7 Bibliography
[1] OIML V 2-200 International Vocabulary of Metrology - Basic and General Concepts and Associated
Terms (VIM), 3rd edition, Edition 2012 (E/F), (Edition 2010 with minor corrections)

[2] CIPM MRA-D-04:2017 Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the context of the CIPM MRA
(Version 5)

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

[4] ISO 10012-1:1992 Quality Assurance Requirements for Measuring Equipment; Management of
Measuring Equipment

[5] ISO 10012:2003 Measurement management systems – Requirements for measurement processes
and measuring equipment

[6] Montgomery, D. C.: Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, John Wiley & Sons, 7th ed., 2012

[7] ANSI/ASQC B1-B3-1996: Quality Control Chart Methodologies

16
TC4/P9/N011 OIML D 10:20XX

[8] Methods of reviewing calibration intervals, Electrical Quality Assurance Directorate Procurement
Executive, Ministry of Defense United Kingdom (1973)

[9] Establishment and Adjustment of Calibration Intervals, NCSL Recommended Practice RP 1, 2010

[10] AFNOR FD X07-014:2006 Métrologie - Optimisation des intervalles de confirmation métrologique

des équipements de mesure

[11] Garfield, F.M.: Quality Assurance Principles for Analytical Laboratories, AOAC Int., 3rd Edition,
2000

[12] Lepek, A.: Software for the prediction of measurement standards, NCSL International Conference,
2001

[13] ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements

[14] ISO/IEC Guide 99: 2007 International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concepts and
associated terms (VIM)

[15] ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Conformity assessment – Requirements for the operation of various types of
bodies performing inspection

[16] ISO/IEC 17043:2010 Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing

[17] ISO 15189:2012 Medical laboratories – Requirements for quality and competence

[18] ISO 17034:2016 General requirements for the competence of reference material producers

[19] ISO/IEC 17065:2012 Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies certifying products,
processes and services

17