Discussion between co-worker on tolerance and uncertainty and how to apply it. Thoughts? 17025

So a co-worker of mine and I are at odds on how to interpret this. To me it seems pretty clear, but maybe I am missing something.

For the sake of this discussion we will look at a differential pressure standard that we use regularly. We have one that has a range or 0-0.5"wc (5 digits after the decimal readout). Another that has a range of 0-3"wc (4 digits after the decimal). Both of them have a rated accuracy of ±0.07%FS. That would make the 0-0.5"wc standard be accurate to ±0.00035"wc while the 0-3"wc would have a rated accuracy of ±0.0021. Now my colleague is arguing that when we calibrated the 0-3"wc module, we got data showing that it was meeting the accuracy specs of the 0-0.5"wc module in that range, so "in a pinch" we could justify using that on a device under test that is actually rated as having a higher accuracy than the "standard" we would be using the calibrate it as long as we stay within the range that was shown to be accurate enough on the calibration certificate.

I take issue with this, because it doesn't account for drift of the instrument between calibration, the fact that the customer could easily look up the rated tolerance of our instrument which would put us in a bad spot of having to explain something we could have avoided in the first place. I'll even copy/paste some of their text so that I am not twisting their explanation at all (names redacted of course). They make an argument based on calculation of uncertainties etc. I still think its hogwash, but I really don't want to be hard headed and think of something wrongly for the sake of being right. I do want to learn and improve, so I'm open for feedback here. I'll add notes in RED so you know if I agree or not.

Saying “industry standard” is what we used to call a cop out.
Briefly - and this could be the meeting agenda:
  • 17025 requires us to know the accuracy of every measurement we take – and we do, but it is now called Uncertainty No complaints here
  • I have been around since before 4:1 TAR, understand what the intention was and how it has gotten misused - which is why the standards agencies (e.g. NIST) have gone to Uncertainty
  • Accuracy is not the same as tolerance I agree, but I don't know why this is important here since this is basic - especially for anything we call a standard. Tolerance is just the 1-year drift criteria. I don't think it's just the 1-year drift criteria. Sometimes is the best a manufacturer can rate a piece of equipment to over a given range. It can also account for drift, but as we all know, items will drift out of that tolerance too, so there is no guarantee that its just the "drift criteria." And if an instrument was at its limit after a year, we would shorten the interval - effectively cutting the tolerance in half I don't think you can arbitrarily cut the tolerance in half just because you decide to shorten the interval.
  • The implementation of 4:1 in eth example below assumes that accuracy and tolerance are the same and that the EQ is always off by its tolerance. This “lazy” interpretation can be assumed to be “worst case” – but less than 0.1% of measurements are at the extreme limit of accuracy. Logically I understand this argument, but it is simultaneously illogical to me.
  • The uncertainty of a 5” module is 0.001” (See attached cert from REDACTED.) The actual inaccuracy between 0 and 1” is 0.0005”. The way 4:1 TAR was originally intended was to be used with the actual error of 0.0005. So, for the example below: UUT with a tolerance of 0.01 and an STD with an actual accuracy of 0.0005, the TAR is 20:1. (The TUR is 10:1, btw.) Anyone been around long enough to confirm if this was the original intention of creating a 4:1 TAR?
Thanks for any and all input on this. I certainly have my biases and feelings on this, but I am honestly open to changing that ideology if I am wrong.

I went to Navy Cal School in Biloxi, MS, and we never got into this discussion there. But that was back in 2006, and things have changed some since.
Elsmar Forum Sponsor


Trusted Information Resource
When you are calculating measurement uncertainty one of the factors that must be included as a contributor is the accuracy / tolerance / uncertainty of the measuring instrument(s). Yes, there are many times when I know that a particular instrument is "better" than the published tolerance. But can I use my special knowledge of the goodness of my instrument?

Normally the published tolerance of the instrument is used in calculating measurement uncertainty. Why? Because the manufacturer is assumed to have done their due diligence in determining the expected accuracy of the instrument over a recommended time interval. And because it is supplied by the manufacturer it is assumed that you can trust that value (yes, I know the dangers of assuming tolerances to be true...), and thus you are able to enter it into your uncertainty budget calculation as a Type B contributor according to the GUM. This is a huge time and effort savings, because otherwise you will need to develop and justify your own specification as a Type A contributor. An auditor will be very suspicious if you come up with a tolerance that differs from the manufacturer, and for good reason.

So even though you know, with good certainty, that one gauge is better than it's specifications would indicate you must use that specification unless you are willing to do the work to come up with your own specification. And just showing how close it was during its last calibration is not adequate for that.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Minimum Samples for DFM discussion APQP and PPAP 10
E Discussion: How do you split up your Technical Documentation? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
L ASTM F88 Seal Strength of pouches - amount samples per pouch (discussion) Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 8
S Discussion on OBL and OEM test data for submission as per new EUMDR EU Medical Device Regulations 0
Edward Reesor ISO 19223 Discussion (Help) Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
S Flow meters discussion General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 8
A IRIS audit - Discussion about Special Processes General Auditing Discussions 11
J Covid discussion in other countries Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 22
R AMS2750 rev F discussion AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
T How do you define your Hazards? <a Risk Management discussion> ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 16
M Informational FDA discussion paper – Consideration of Benefit-Risk Approaches for Weight-Loss Devices Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
D How about another torque discussion? Assembly processes General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 9
Marc Search - Search for Discussion Threads started by a specific User Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 0
Marc Basic - How to Start a New Discussion Thread Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 1
Marc Printable Discussion Thread View Elsmar Xenforo Forum Software Instructions and Help 0
V Discussion of ISO 9001:2015 - "Quality Objectives" term ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 16
A Other Discussion Boards - Internal Auditor Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 5
H Dog and Pets Discussion Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 5
Marc How did you "get" a full-time job? (A 2017 discussion) Career and Occupation Discussions 11
Marc Food Processors and Blades - Weekend Discussion After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 12
Marc ASQ Linkedin Group - Microsoft Sharepoint discussion - June 2017 Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 0
B Discussion on TC 176 and ISO 9001:2015 8.7.1 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 22
A Microcontroller: Discussion about EASA CM - SWCEH - 001 EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 1
Marc Thoughts about Discussion Forums Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
M Plagiarism & Copyright Infringement Discussion Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 20
I Is there a Canadian Aviation Regulations discussion forum? Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 3
Marc Measurement Uncertainty Discussion Sub-Forum General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
A AS9101 Rev E AATT Course Discussion AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
M Routes to IEC 60601 Compliance: Discussion of Merits and Pitfalls IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
2 Discussion about Hospital Carts Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 7
Marc ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 - Changes Discussion ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
Marc Just for fun - How did you find the Elsmar Discussion Forum Forum News and General Information 9
C Discussion about Accessory definition in the proposal of new EU regulation EU Medical Device Regulations 2
BradM FAQ Thread Discussion - ISO 9001 Quality Systems ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
D Printed Circuit Board Assembly - General Discussion Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
Hershal Climate (This is NOT a political discussion) Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 27
D Electronic Paperless Documentation Software Discussion Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 10
M ISO 13485:2015 Pre-Release News and Discussion ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 169
P Survey's without Response Rate - Surveys distributed by discussion forums Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 8
Q Fast Response Boards - Questions and a Discussion Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3
S NADCAP AC7102 rev F (new) - Changes Discussion AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
D Setting up of a VD Max regime - VD Max 25 Discussion and Rationalisation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
BradM Strictly The Beatles - Discussion of a Legend Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 28
BradM New ASQ discussion board: Community forum ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 16
P Discussion with Plant Manager (on the basis of ISO/TS 16949) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
A I need help on Six sigma and TQM - Quality Management course discussion question Six Sigma 3
R Best and Worst Airports discussion Travel - Hotels, Motels, Planes and Trains 1
Hershal Reviving the discussion on ISO/IEC 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 4
A Brief discussion about ISO 9001:2000 clauses ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
S Corporate Culture - A general discussion Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 38

Similar threads

Top Bottom