Greetings

I have several questions relating to ISO 17025, and specifically uncertainty budgets for construction material testing laboratories.

Any help in resolving these questions or forwarding links to the answers would be greatly appreciated.

This query relates to ISO 17025, section 5, clauses relating to MU (measurement uncertainty).


As a CMT lab performing tests using A.S.T.M. methods and complying with note 2 of clause 5.4.6.2, do the other clauses relating to uncertainty (specifically 5.4.6.1, 5.4.6.2, and 5.4.6.3) apply?


We do not develop test methods or calibration procedures (all critical test equipment is calibrated by a 17025 accredited calibration facility).


Does compliance with note 2 in clause 5.4.6.2 eliminate the need for compliance with the main body of clause 5.4.6.2?


Is it the determination of ISO that there is a requirement for procedures to be developed and proof of the ability to perform uncertainty budgets (MU) if the facility in question complies with note 2 (section 5.4.6.2), and as stated clause 5.4.6.1 & 5.4.6.3 are not applicable to our facility?


Also do the notes in 17025 (specifically the above referenced note 2 of section 5.4.6.2) have the same "authority" as the clause themselves?

Any help in resolving these questions would be appreciated.


Thanks

Backscatter:
If I understand your question(s) correctly, your lab can use (for example) any uncertainty estimations contained in the test methods, where these are available. If you don't perform any calibrations then the lab doesn't have to comply with that requirement - in this case, 5.4.6.1.

By employing the uncertainty estimation methods/results which are embodied in the test method, is the way in which you comply with 5.4.6.2 - the note is an explanation of that specific circumstance you're in.

The notes are simply clarification and guidance, so have no 'authority' in terms of requirements. This so for most ISO standards.

It seems fairly simple to me, but I hope it is for you too........

I hope this old file is still useful for you.

Welcome Backscatter. Puget sound reminds me of Tacoma Bridge and my students days doing some lab work on construction materials.

Thank you andyn and harry, I appreciate your responses (and the link).

My understanding and interpretation of 17025 for CMT labs MU requirements would indicate no requirement to perform uncert. budgets (with the paramiters already stated).

I am being asked to prove the capability to perform budgets, so if a client asks for it we can provide one. We perform tests using ASTM methods, and have critical test equipment calibrated by an accredited (MRA) 17025 calibration facility.

I can find no such requirement in 17025 to prove the capability, when clause
5.4.6.2 (note 2) is satisfied, and budgets are NOT even an issue with our clients.

Again, test methods and calibration procedures are not developed, and test procedures are ASTM test methods.

I am just trying to find my way through this situation, and throwing this out for possible solutions and discussion, and to see if others have run into this situation.


P.S.
harry
tried to link the webcam shots of the new Narrows bridge for you, but alas I'm still a newbie here (less than 5 posts).

P.S.
harry
tried to link the webcam shots of the new Narrows bridge for you, but alas I'm still a newbie here (less than 5 posts).

Hi Backscatter,

Is this (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr16narrowsbridge/webcams/) the correct link?

Stijloor.

Interesting! I think it's fairly realistic that someone in the lab can demonstrate some competencies when it comes to uncertainty, just as part of doing normal lab 'business'.
:2cents:

P.S glad to be of assistance!

Stijloor, I was able to send link in email, though I appreciate the assist.

Stijloor, I was able to send link in email, though I appreciate the assist.

Thanks! Glad to lend a hand....

Stijloor.

Thank you andyn and harry, I appreciate your responses (and the link).

My understanding and interpretation of 17025 for CMT labs MU requirements would indicate no requirement to perform uncert. budgets (with the paramiters already stated).

I am being asked to prove the capability to perform budgets, so if a client asks for it we can provide one. We perform tests using ASTM methods, and have critical test equipment calibrated by an accredited (MRA) 17025 calibration facility.

I can find no such requirement in 17025 to prove the capability, when clause
5.4.6.2 (note 2) is satisfied, and budgets are NOT even an issue with our clients.

Again, test methods and calibration procedures are not developed, and test procedures are ASTM test methods.

I am just trying to find my way through this situation, and throwing this out for possible solutions and discussion, and to see if others have run into this situation.


P.S.
harry
tried to link the webcam shots of the new Narrows bridge for you, but alas I'm still a newbie here (less than 5 posts).

Many thanks for providing the link to the new bridge. I had not seen it before.

I am attaching an APLAC document - INTERPRETATION AND GUIDANCE ON THE ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT IN TESTING. See page 9&10 for guide on construction material testing.

Another file - EXAMPLE FOR ESTIMATING THE MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
IN BUILDING MATERIALS TESTING (AGGREGATES) is also attached for your reference.

Greetings

I have several questions relating to ISO 17025, and specifically uncertainty budgets for construction material testing laboratories.

Any help in resolving these questions or forwarding links to the answers would be greatly appreciated.

This query relates to ISO 17025, section 5, clauses relating to MU (measurement uncertainty).


As a CMT lab performing tests using A.S.T.M. methods and complying with note 2 of clause 5.4.6.2, do the other clauses relating to uncertainty (specifically 5.4.6.1, 5.4.6.2, and 5.4.6.3) apply?


We do not develop test methods or calibration procedures (all critical test equipment is calibrated by a 17025 accredited calibration facility).


Does compliance with note 2 in clause 5.4.6.2 eliminate the need for compliance with the main body of clause 5.4.6.2?


Is it the determination of ISO that there is a requirement for procedures to be developed and proof of the ability to perform uncertainty budgets (MU) if the facility in question complies with note 2 (section 5.4.6.2), and as stated clause 5.4.6.1 & 5.4.6.3 are not applicable to our facility?


Also do the notes in 17025 (specifically the above referenced note 2 of section 5.4.6.2) have the same "authority" as the clause themselves?

Any help in resolving these questions would be appreciated.


Thanks

This is an excellent series of questions.....

The short answer is that 5.4.6.1 to 5.4.6.3 apply.....

HOWEVER, you mention you are running ASTM Methods and don't develop any.....so the Note 2 approach is simple.....

IN THE INSTANCES WHERE ASTM PROVIDES AN ACTUAL PRECISION AND BIAS STATEMENT.....because they don't always.....then you simply go with that and according to Note 2, that is acceptable.

Where ASTM does NOT provide a P&B statement then 5.4.6.2 and 5.4.6.3 apply.....

Now, one more caveat.....talk to your chosen accrediting body, get their specific point of view, as each AB has a slightly different view of this approach.....

Also, if you don't already have someone trainined in uncertainty calculations, send someone for training right away.....

Now, 5.4.6.1 applies if you are a cal lab (you stated you are not) OR if you are a test lab doing internal calibration.....if you are doing internal calibration, you MUST do the uncertainties for that.....

Hope this helps.

Hershal