IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement - September 2023 - 11

0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
a=0.1
b=0.55
a=0.3
b=0.4
as long as possible. However, in practice, the duration of
such intervals must result from the tradeoff between the
metrology-related costs and those resulting from growing
Consumer's and Producer's risks, which may greatly
and unpredictably grow when non-conforming measuring
equipment is used. Different policies to review the duration
of metrological confirmation intervals exist. Among them,
the so-called staircase methods can provide good flexibility
and performance, provided they are characterized and designed
properly.
10 20 30 40 50
60
70
No. of calibrations
Fig. 4. Theoretical (solid lines) and Monte Carlo simulation-based (dashedlines)
probability curves of meeting the metrological confirmation requirements
as function of the number of calibration when the time-to-out-of-conformity is
modeled by a Weibull distribution with parameters α = 0.0006 and β = 2.
It is worth noting that the previous analysis is performed as
a function of the number of calibrations. A dual reliability analysis
as a function of calendar time in the very same conditions
(Weibull distribution with " adjust always " policy at calibration)
reveals that the asymptotic limit of the probability to meet
the metrological confirmation requirements is different from
(5) and it is given instead by:
lim () ≅
R r
t→∞
b
ab
+
Although further studies are needed to validate this limit
from the theoretical point of view, (6) could be also used as
an alternative design criterion for the SRM method, when the
calendar-time rather than the number of calibrations is considered
in the analysis.
Conclusions
Industrial metrology is essential to meet the wanted quality
requirements of smart manufacturing companies and
to improve their competitiveness in a global scenario. The
ISO Standard 9001:2015 clearly states that measurement
and monitoring activities have to permeate the industrial
processes and must be used to support decisions. As a consequence,
the Quality Management Systems (QMS) should
also rely on suitable Measurement Management Systems
(MMS), ensuring not only that the measurement processes
are implemented correctly, but also that the measurement
results meet the uncertainty requirements specified
by the market, the customers or existing regulations. To
achieve this goal, metrological confirmation plays a crucial
role. The metrological confirmation process essentially
relies on periodic verification and calibration operations
with instrument adjustment and repair if needed. Due
to the high potential costs of MMS implementation and
calibration services (especially when large amounts of instruments
are considered), apparently the time interval
between subsequent metrological confirmation should be
September 2023
(6)
80
90 100
References
[1] E. Savio, L. De Chiffre, S. Carmignato, J. Meinertz, " Economic
benefits of metrology in manufacturing, " CIRP Annals, vol. 65,
no. 1, pp. 495-498, 2016.
[2] " The Economic Contribution of Standards to the UK Economy, "
Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEPR), BSI. Jun.
2015.
[3] Quality management systems - Requirements, ISO 9001:2015,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
[4] G. D'Emilia, A. Gaspari and E. Natale, " Mechatronics applications
of measurements for smart manufacturing in an industry 4.0
scenario, " IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 35-43, Apr.
2019.
[5] International Vocabulary of Metrology - Basic and General Concepts
and Associated Terms (VIM), OIML V 2-200, 3rd Edition,
International Organization of Legal Metrology, Paris, France,
2007.
[6] ISO 10012:2003, Measurement management systems - Requirements
for measurement processes and measuring equipment, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2015.
[7] P. Carbone, D. Macii, and D. Petri, " Measurement uncertainty
and metrological confirmation in quality-oriented organizations,
Measurement, Vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 263-271, 2003.
[8] D. Macii, P. Carbone, and D. Petri, " Management of measurement
uncertainty for effective statistical process control, " IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1611-1617, Oct. 2003.
[9] D. Macii and D. Petri, " Guidelines to manage measurement
uncertainty in conformance testing procedures, " IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 33-40, Jan. 2009.
[10] General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration
laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2017, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
[11] ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008, Uncertainty of measurement - Part
3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2008.
[12] Uncertainty of measurement - Part 3: Guide to the expression
of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995) - Supplement 1:
Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method, ISO/IEC
Guide 98-3:2008/Suppl 1:2008, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
[13] Uncertainty of measurement - Part 3: Guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995)-Supplement 2: Extension to
any number of output quantities, ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008/Suppl
2:2011, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
[14] D. Petri, L. Mari, and P. Carbone, " A structured methodology for
measurement development, " IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 64,
no. 9, pp. 2367-2379, Sep. 2015.
IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine
11
Rn
IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement - September 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement - September 2023
