CIPM MRA COMPARISON REPORTS

EURAMET.L-S2.2.n01

Gauge block calibration by mechanical comparison

J.S. Eensalu , A. Pärn , A. Lewis , M. Matus , B. Acko , D. Bulku , D. Tamakyarska , G. Szikszai , R. Hanrahan , L. Svedova ... , A. Braguta , T. Božović , L. Chaleckiene

Citation J.S. Eensalu et al 2026 CIPM MRA Comparison reports 04008

https://doi.org/10.59161/HBFM4577

Authors

Jako Siim Eensalu Central Office of Metrology (AS METROSERT) Estonia

Allar Pärn Central Office of Metrology (AS METROSERT) Estonia

Andrew Lewis National Physical Laboratory (NPL) United Kingdom

Michael Matus Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen (BEV) Austria

Bojan Acko MIRS/University of Maribor, Faculty for Mechanical Engineering/Laboratory for Production Management (MIRS/UM-FS/LTM) Slovenia

Defrim Bulku Drejtoria e Pergjithshme e Metrologjise/General Directorate of Metrology (DPM) Albania

Denita Tamakyarska Bulgarian Institute of Metrology (BIM) Bulgaria

Gábor Szikszai Government Office of the Capital City Budapest (BFKH) Hungary

Rory Hanrahan NSAI National Metrology Laboratory (NSAI NML) Ireland

Larisa Svedova LNMC Metrology Bureau (LATMB) (LATMB) Latvia

Alexandru Braguta The National Metrology Institute of the Republic of Moldova (NMI (MD)) Moldova, Republic of

Tomo Božović Bureau of Metrology (Montenegro) (BMM) Montenegro

Lilija Chaleckiene Center for Physical Sciences and Technology (FTMC) Lithuania

Abstract

The supplementary comparison EURAMET.L-S2.2.n01 on gauge block calibration by mechanical comparison, was organized within the EURAMET Technical Committee for Length to support new and existing Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) for this method. A set of gauge blocks was circulated among participating laboratories, and the measurement results were evaluated to determine the degree of equivalence between participants and the suitability of their declared measurement uncertainties. The comparison was completed successfully, with a total of 5,6 % of deviation from nominal central length results considered outliers and 0 % of variation results considered outliers. The CMC claims for all participants except NMI (MD) and NPL are supported by the results of this comparison.

Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/.

The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCL, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

Download

Retour aux CIPM MRA Comparison reports