PDA

View Full Version : ISO Certification of measuring tools



davidh
02-04-2010, 09:15 AM
i have someone asking if i can or do i know someone that can certify their large mic's etc for their ISO requirment. can someone explain what might be involved in doing this or suggest where these things can be sent somewhere in the midwest to have the certification performed ?
thanks very much
davidh

Glenn Wegman
02-04-2010, 09:27 AM
Starrett/Webber is in Cleveland, OH.

form_change
02-05-2010, 01:45 AM
Certification for ISO purposes means that the item being certified should be able to be linked (eventually) back to a national/ international standard. In addition there will be various requirements on the the certifying body to demonstrate that their measurement techniques are repeatable and controlled.
For example, if someone wanted a micrometer certified, it would be checked against a set of slip gauges in a temperature controlled room to a set procedure. If it was within acceptable limits it could be certified as calibrated. However, part of that is that the slips that the micrometer was certified against would also have to be within calibration, so they would be sent off to be checked against ever more exact standards. This chain could be repeated a number of times until the comparison was made with a national or international standard.
The process is expensive to run because of the systems and certification involved. I would suggest looking in the yellow pages for calibration labs or something similar. Without being nasty, I would suggest that if you are asking how to do this, it's probably not something that you are ready (or able) to do - at least at the moment.

Michael

oldtiffie
02-05-2010, 02:58 AM
The problem here - apart from as mentioned - is that if the micrometer exists, there is a chance that it will not meet the DIN standards and getting to that stage on a "one off" basis may well be more than the micrometer is worth - even if it passes the tests. If it does not pass there is a lot of money spent for no net tangible result or benefit.

It is were me, and if it was that important, I'd buy a new one from Starrett with a certificate attached. That makes more sense when the time for re-test and re-calibration is due according to the QA/QC and contract conditions as it will be quicker, easier and cheaper when Starrett has to re-certify it - and make any necessary service - parts included.

This is a classic costs versus benefit versus risk scenario and needs a lot of thought and preparatory work.

There really is no "cheap" options - just most and least expensive.

This sort of question suggests that DIN9000 certification for QA/QC manuals and procedures is required and that is not given easily and can be canceled or suspended if a "non-compliance event" is considered to be serious enough by the/an External QA/QC Auditor.

Black_Moons
02-05-2010, 03:12 AM
Somewhere out there, there is a master standard...
And one could wreck havoc all over the world by fileing a few tenths off it!
Or maybe just droping it.

Bhwa bhwa bhwa, my plan for world domination is compleat.

1: Drop box of worlds master standards
2: ????
3: Profit!

luthor
02-05-2010, 03:40 AM
There is more to checking Micrometers than just comparing them to a known length standard, first the anvil faces need to tested for flatness and parallelism to each other and corrected if necessary before other tests and adjustments are made.

The procedure to lap anvil faces is quite simple for small size micrometers but gets a lot more difficult as the size increases and is just not practical or economical for large sizes as the OP mentioned

Greg Q
02-05-2010, 03:45 AM
The ISO micrometer standard (ISO 3611:1978) is available for purchase in PDF form for $50 USD from various vendors. I read that the standard is pretty much identical to the various national standards.

One perhaps different aspect of the ISO format is includes stated uncertainty values for the various factors that affect measurement such as temperature and the like.

I wonder? Is this requirement to support a job which is going overseas? Why else the ISO requirement?

The ISO9000 is a separate and unrelated issue.

Anyway...any good calibration outfit should do the job, or buy a set of Tesa ISOmasters with certificates.;)

On edit: Here's a link to the actual standard:http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my/lib/TPS/STAND/D009043E.PDF
ISO table of uncertainty can be found in this paper:http://www.hn-metrology.com/isogum.htm

oldtiffie
02-05-2010, 05:06 AM
i have someone asking if i can or do i know someone that can certify their large mic's etc for their ISO requirment. can someone explain what might be involved in doing this or suggest where these things can be sent somewhere in the midwest to have the certification performed ?
thanks very much
davidh

David.

If someone is seriously going down that track I am surprised that question both was asked and needed to be asked.

It suggests that compliance is both mandatory and must be maintained and assured.

And that suggests QA/QC for which accreditation is required.

oldtiffie
02-05-2010, 05:43 AM
The ISO micrometer standard (ISO 3611:1978) is available for purchase in PDF form for $50 USD from various vendors. I read that the standard is pretty much identical to the various national standards.

One perhaps different aspect of the ISO format is includes stated uncertainty values for the various factors that affect measurement such as temperature and the like.

I wonder? Is this requirement to support a job which is going overseas? Why else the ISO requirement?

The ISO9000 is a separate and unrelated issue.

Anyway...any good calibration outfit should do the job, or buy a set of Tesa ISOmasters with certificates.;)

On edit: Here's a link to the actual standard:http://www.standardsmalaysia.gov.my/lib/TPS/STAND/D009043E.PDF
ISO table of uncertainty can be found in this paper:http://www.hn-metrology.com/isogum.htm

Greg.

The ISO standard for micrometers that you posted relates specifically to micrometers with a 1mm or 0.5mm pitch screw - so the OP's requirement for a 6" micrometer excludes any inch micrometer.

I note too that Standard was not approved by the USA and Canada. Whether or not that means that a NIST standard certificate can be issued or accepted is a concern.

I found the table of uncertainty very interesting reading. I guess that all measuring equipment related to the test will have had to be similarly tested and certified.

This seems to be heading to a QA/QC environment to DIN standards as regards accreditation.

It does not mean that it is for a job in the metric country zone/s as it could quite easily be "called up" by a company or facility in the USA for its own purposes and reasons. Perhaps they need this so as to be "on par" with similar companies and institutions or facilities world-wide.

I have no idea of the back-ground to the OP's question, but in similar circumstances that I have been involved in all the tenderers - whether "invited" or by "expressions of interest" or by publicly sought tenders or from a "(pre-)approved panel", all had to be "pre-qualified" to be accepted to tender etc.

It was certainly the case where QA/QC was a core requirement of the tender and the contract process.

I do hope that it is easier than that in the case of the OP and the person who sought his advice.

Greg Q
02-05-2010, 06:10 AM
Tiffie:

1. Yes. ISO relates to the metric world, and inches are not recognised in their native form. You are perhaps aware that even in the US Federal inch is defined in terms of the metre, and that metric is the fundamental measurement scheme even in the USA, as enacted by congress in the 19th century.

1a. Since the 1950's the international standard is 25.4 mm/inch, which it wasn't universally before hand. As such, there is a simple algebraic conversion, and there is no stated objection to calling each 25.4 mm interval an "inch" if such strikes your fancy.

2. The ISO standards are pretty analogous to a U.N. resolution: You can object all you want, but the majority rules (and there are no vetoes). There are online examples of proposed revisions to 3611:1978 with several objecting nations

3.Well, that seems to be the case. NIST traceability is the fundamental feature of the US standards, and the ISO (and other) standards require the same kind of known (and certified) calibration aids and standards. Things like optical flats, light sources, gauge blocks, thermometers would all be in this category I expect.

4. Accreditation may be available, but from whom? If there is a QA/QC procedural requirement that might be covered by ISO9001, but the raw ISO 3611 spec does not have an accreditation citation nor stated requirement. I think the beauty of a spec means that anyone so equipped can comply or otherwise independent of process fidelity assurance. This is my opinion only, and of course the customer/end user's requirements will be controlling.

5. I am leery of process control accreditation standards such as ISO9000/9001 in untrained hands. As you know they are about documentation trails to ensure that processes are performed within a narrow range of variation, but do not address the suitability, effectiveness or any other attribute of the end product of the process. I could get my intestines certified because the process is the same day after day. Too bad the product is crap.

Greg

oldtiffie
02-05-2010, 07:06 AM
.........................

Tiffie:

1. Yes. ISO relates to the metric world, and inches are not recognised in their native form. You are perhaps aware that even in the US Federal inch is defined in terms of the metre, and that metric is the fundamental measurement scheme even in the USA, as enacted by congress in the 19th century.

You can believe that many here are aware that I am aware of the applicability of the inch, mm, litre etc. as regards the USA "inch" etc. being expressed in metric units!!

You can also believe that many in the US either or both don't like it or don't believe (in) it either!!!

I've banged the $hit out of that drum on numerous occasions here!!

1a. Since the 1950's the international standard is 25.4 mm/inch, which it wasn't universally before hand. As such, there is a simple algebraic conversion, and there is no stated objection to calling each 25.4 mm interval an "inch" if such strikes your fancy.

See my previous comment.

2. The ISO standards are pretty analogous to a U.N. resolution: You can object all you want, but the majority rules (and there are no vetoes). There are online examples of proposed revisions to 3611:1978 with several objecting nations.

Yeh - the UN (and its HQ) are pretty well a "State within a State" - with all the diplomatic rights and privileges - and many in the US are less than happy about it.

3.Well, that seems to be the case. NIST traceability is the fundamental feature of the US standards, and the ISO (and other) standards require the same kind of known (and certified) calibration aids and standards. Things like optical flats, light sources, gauge blocks, thermometers would all be in this category I expect.

As I understand it, accreditation by an approved list of NIST equivalents in other countries have reciprocal agreements as regards protocol and standards to the extent that approval or endorsement by one is accepted as applying and approved in all of those countries. Similar to OZ and NZ as regards Standards and NATA certification/s.

4. Accreditation may be available, but from whom? If there is a QA/QC procedural requirement that might be covered by ISO9001, but the raw ISO 3611 spec does not have an accreditation citation nor stated requirement. I think the beauty of a spec means that anyone so equipped can comply or otherwise independent of process fidelity assurance. This is my opinion only, and of course the customer/end user's requirements will be controlling.

The type and level of applicability as regards "Standards" is normally expressed in the Tender and Contract documents.

5. I am leery of process control accreditation standards such as ISO9000/9001 in untrained hands. As you know they are about documentation trails to ensure that processes are performed within a narrow range of variation, but do not address the suitability, effectiveness or any other attribute of the end product of the process. I could get my intestines certified because the process is the same day after day. Too bad the product is crap.

All too true. We had a(nother) Government Department tendering for our work and it was made clear to me (the Contact Administrator) that they thought it was "more of the same" - ie "never mind the work as specified, just do as we've always done - as we know best - as long as we've got a good excuse and the paper-work is OK - we are OK".

Needless to say, they got a BIG surprise and were "not happy" and I was as popular as the rats under the house.

We had mandatory requirements imposed on us to comply with OZ standards and to see that our own people and Contractors similarly applied - and needless to say we had to assure people senior to us who were in turn responsible to Government that the work was carried out to the specified standards - hence we had to ensure that out staff and contractors could and did "comply".

The poorer performers either did not get accredited and either were not on the tender "short list" or were referred to the auditors or were never allowed tender again.

The (usually) bigger and better Contractors thrived as they could see the commercial rewards and opportunities in a QA/QC environment. Some even had their own NATA facility and even "contacted out or in" to other contractors - even competitors - and to the great surprise of the skeptics it worked as it was very "arms length" with the required internal "Chinese Walls" established.

The "Client" had all up-to-date copies of the Contractors QA/QC procedures and compliance manuals - so bull-$hit was not the option it was previously.

There were "paper trails" everywhere to everything - and it worked very well - sure there were "holes" and "smarties" but once implemented it was vastly superior to the previous non-QC/QA environment.

Which I revelled in!!
Greg

JCHannum
02-05-2010, 07:31 AM
The ISO Standards being referred to have nothing to do with metric vs Imperial, so there is no point in belaboring that subject. They are the ISO9000 or whatever is being used as a means of documenting work done and standards used. They require measuring instruments used for inspection to be calibrated on a set frequency.

Buying a new mic with certification is very expensive, and would have to be repeated per the inspection cycle, usually one year or less. It is not something than can be done on a casual basis, specific documentation and equipment is needed along with proper certification of the testing agency and traceability.

Most large cities should have services to perform the certification, if one cannot be found in the Yellow Pages, they can check with their tool supplier, they will probably know a few in the area.

Hemihead2
02-05-2010, 11:26 AM
I used to work for a defense contractor where we built hi-tech reconnaissance/surveillance systems. Management decided we needed to be ISO 9001 certified and we mounted the effort to document and track all our processes. It made sense in the hardware side of the business for obvious reasons but was certainly odd when it came to software. How do you ensure all software engineers, many creative and quirky minds here, follow the same processes in designing and coding complex software. Rampant process variation that needed to be stabilized. Sadly there was too much gaming of the system for anyone to take it seriously.

davidh
02-05-2010, 11:48 AM
thanks for all the great input. it does seem to me that the iso thing is just a major "cover your a$$" deal making things more difficult for whomever.

of course im the eternal pessimest (sp). my wife calls me the king of negativity. geeze its hard to live up to that all the time.