Final report on Supplementary Comparison APMP.M.H-S1

Rugkanawan Kongkavitool, Koichiro Hattori, Vo Sanh, Lim Gin Yen
2007 Metrologia  
This report purposes the results of supplementary comparison APMP.M.H-S1 among four National Metrology Institutes (NIMT, NMIJ/AIST, VMI and SPRING). The comparison was carried out during October 2004 to January 2005 in order to determine the capability of the primary Rockwell hardness standard, including standard conditions, of each participant, to confirm the accuracy of Rockwell hardness scale C measurement declared by the participant, which includes the effect of each participant's primary
more » ... icipant's primary indenter and determine the degrees of equivalence of hardness scale measurement in the range 20 HRC to 60 HRC. Furthermore, the comparison were carried out by common indenter, which provided by the pilot institute, in order to determine the measurement capability of participant's primary machine without the influence of the indenter, as a study of scientific purpose. The pilot institute was the National Institute of Metrology (Thailand), NIMT. There were 2 sets of artifacts for the comparison. Each set composed of 9 hardness blocks; 20 HRC, 25 HRC, 30 HRC, 35 HRC, 40 HRC, 45 HRC, 50 HRC, 55 HRC, 60 HRC. The verification of participant's primary Rockwell hardness machine was carried out according to ISO6508-3 before making the measurement. The pilot institute made measurements in the beginning and the end of the comparison in order to monitor the stability of the artifacts. The degree of equivalence of each national primary hardness standard was expressed quantitatively by two terms, the deviation from KCRV and the uncertainty of this deviation at a 95% level of confidence. The n E parameter was calculated to express the equivalence between the measurements of participant as well. The degree of equivalence between pairs of participating institutes was expressed by the difference of their deviations from the key comparison reference value and the uncertainty of this difference at the 95% level of confidence.
doi:10.1088/0026-1394/44/1a/07004 fatcat:ffz7ttsnqzbtjn2352qd6frmqe