Compliant Calibration vs. Accredited 17025 Calibration - 1000ml Graduated Beaker

J

jmbhbf36

#1
I am being told that I need to have a 17025 type of calibration performed on a 500 ml and a 1000ml Graduated Beaker. I am having trouble finding a cal house to perform this cal so I need help with this. Second I have been offered a Compliant Cal instead of and Accredited 17025 cal. For items like these beakers, does 17025 really requier an accredited cal for a fixed device?
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Re: Compliant Cal vs Accredited 17025 Cal

I am being told that I need to have a 17025 type of calibration performed on a 500 ml and a 1000ml Graduated Beaker. I am having trouble finding a cal house to perform this cal so I need help with this. Second I have been offered a Compliant Cal instead of and Accredited 17025 cal. For items like these beakers, does 17025 really requier an accredited cal for a fixed device?
By whom? Some customers have specific requirements for the use of accredited labs. Reading and studying the customer-specific requirements (if any) would greatly help you. ISO 17025 spells out requirements for Laboratories, not necessarily calibration requirements for devices.

Stijloor.
 

Rustedamy

Starting to get Involved
#3
Re: Compliant Cal vs Accredited 17025 Cal

Hi!

You can still use them if they are not 17025 accredited. We have a piece of equipment that we send for calibration to the original manufactuer who has no intention of ever being accredited to calibrate but who supplies us with the necessary information.

The standard says you have to prove (document this process) they are competent to perform a subcontracted calibration (Sect. 4.5) and they can supply you with calibration results/reports that fulfill the calibration/ calibration for testing labs requirements in Sects. 5622 and 5621.

Select thoughtfully, as the note under 56221, does specify that the calibration requirements must be strictly followed if the calibration uncertainty is a big factor in the total uncertainty.

The standard also gives guidelines if you want to do the calibrations in-house.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Re: Compliant Cal vs Accredited 17025 Cal

Rustedamy is correct, they do not have to be accredited to be used, but if your organization is accredited then the documentation needs to reflect the process you went through to determine if there is an accredited provider near you, and on what basis you approved this supplier.

Remember, if you are accredited, then the calibration provider needs to be able to support your accreditation, so you need to have the evidence available that they meet the 5.6.2.1.1 requrements for a calibration provider: measurement capability, competence, and traceability.

For beakers, there are basically two ways to calibrate them: gravametric and volumetric.

Hope this helps.
 
P

Philthegr8

#5
If you were using 2 beakers to mix 2 different ingredients for your production process, do both beakers need to be "calibrated" according to ISO 9001:2000? What requirements are needed?
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted
#6
I might be missing something here... Back in the day when I did wet chemistry, the graduations on a beaker were really considered approximate. For measurement of liquid, you used a graduated cylinder, burette, etc.

Now, if you have graduated beakers, the next question is what is the tolerance of the process? You may or may not pass either calibration or gage r&r with a beaker...unless your recipe tolerance is, lets say, +/- 100 ml. So, that may be an issue.

If your tolerance is wide enough that a beaker ends up being OK, I would calibrate that bad boy in house. Get it on your lab scope. Get a calibrated graduated cylinder and run with it. I assume you do not use a graduated cylinder already because it is a pain to clean, hard to handle or some other reason, right?

I don't do wet chemistry anymore. Didn't like doing the dishes.:cool:
 
B

bwilk

#7
I would be very careful with trying to use a non-accredited vendor for something that there are basically 100's of accredited labs out there for.

I would also doubt you could obtain a tracability waiver for an intrument that can be calibrated accedited by so many labs. I would suggest searching a little more.

Keep in mind if you read all of 5.6.2.1 It staes that you must assure competence of the non accredited lab. This means that you would have to go there with a subject matter expert, and watch them preform this calibration. This is the main difference between ISO 17025, and other quality systems. It requires proof of technical competence. "I think I am therefore I am" doesn't get to far under a 17025 assessment.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted
#8
It requires proof of technical competence. "I think I am therefore I am" doesn't get to far under a 17025 assessment.
True, but the competence calibrating a broad side of a barn is less than a laser micrometer. You may find it in house. :cool:
 

BradM

Staff member
Admin
#9
Interesting question. Why are you having to have a beaker verified? What is ever going to change on it?

Why can you not just have it verified initially and go with that?

While I would say that 17025 is a first-line solution, it is not your only solution. Who is telling you that you require 17025?

I embrace quality calibration work; it's my life. But... I also believe in quality systems that embrace what is needed.;) Unless you have a contractual, industry, customer requirement, I fail to see the mandatory requirement for the 17025 accredited verification of a beaker.

BTW.... Welcome to the Cove! We're glad you dropped by!:bigwave:
 

True Position

Inactive Registered Visitor
#10
For the same reason some companies send scales out annually. To appease customers where the cost and hassle of the waver is greater then the cost of the calibration.

I had a customer who was demanding 30 piece GRRs on a CMM holding fixture.

I tried to explain why this was a huge waste of time and effort, 'Would you have me GRR a V-Block or a machine vice?', but just doing the GRR is easier even though it's mostly worthless.
 

Top Bottom