NIST HDBK 150-2F Calibration Laboratories

National
Voluntary
Laboratory
Accreditation
Program
Calibration laboratories
Technical Guide
for Dimensional
Measurements
NIST HANDBOOK 150-2F
NIST
National Institute of
Standards and Technology
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
ll
# he National Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to “assist industry in
-M. the development of technology ... needed to improve product quality, to modernize manufacturing processes,
to ensure product reliability . . . and to facilitate rapid commercialization ... of products based on new scientific
discoveries.”
NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S. industry’s
competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the environment. One
of the agency’s basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national standards of
measurement, and provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science, engineering,
manufacturing, commerce, industry, and education with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal
Government.
As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department’s Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic and
applied research in the physical sciences and engineering, and develops measurement techniques, test
methods, standards, and related services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and
advanced technologies. NIST’s research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303.
Major technical operating units and their principal activities are listed below. For more information visit the NIST
Website at http://www.nist.gov, or contact the Publications and Program Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.
Office of the Director Chemical Science and Technology

• National Quality Program Laboratory
• International and Academic Affairs • Biotechnology
• Process Measurements
Technology Services • Surface and Microanalysis Science
• Standards Services • Physical and Chemical Properties2
• Technology Partnerships • Analytical Chemistry
• Measurement Services
• Information Services Physics Laboratory
• Weights and Measures • Electron and Optical Physics
• Atomic Physics
Advanced Technology Program • Optical Technology
• Economic Assessment • Ionizing Radiation
• Information Technology and Applications • Time and Frequency'
• Chemistry and Life Sciences • Quantum Physics'
• Electronics and Photonics Technology
Manufacturing Engineering
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Laboratory
Program • Precision Engineering
• Regional Programs • Manufacturing Metrology
• National Programs • Intelligent Systems
• Program Development • Fabrication Technology
• Manufacturing Systems Integration
Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Laboratory Building and Fire Research
• Microelectronics Laboratory
• Law Enforcement Standards • Applied Economics
• Electricity • Materials and Construction Research
• Semiconductor Electronics • Building Environment
• Radio-Frequency Technology1 • Fire Research
• Electromagnetic Technology1
• Optoelectronics' Information Technology Laboratory
• Magnetic Technology' • Mathematical and Computational Sciences2
• Advanced Network Technologies
Materials Science and Engineering • Computer Security
Laboratory • Information Access
• Intelligent Processing of Materials • Convergent Information Systems
• Ceramics • Information Services and Computing
• Materials Reliability' • Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing
• Polymers • Statistical Engineering
• Metallurgy
• NIST Center for Neutron Research
‘At Boulder, CO 80303.
‘Some elements at Boulder, CO.
NIST HANDBOOK 150-2F
National
Voluntary
Laboratory
Accreditation
Program
Calibration
Laboratories
Technical Guide
for
Dimensional
Measurements
C. Douglas Faison and
Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Editors
September 2003
U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary
Technology Administration
Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
NIST Handbook 150-2F
32 pages (September 2003)
CODEN: NIHAE2
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2003
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov
Phone: (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
NVLAP AND THE NVLAP LOGO
The term NVLAP (represented by the NVLAP logo)

is a federally registered certification mark of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology and
the federal government, who retain exclusive rights to
control the use thereof. Permission to use the term
and/or logo is granted to NVLAP-accredited
laboratories for the limited purposes of amiouncing
their accredited status, and for use on reports that
describe only testing and calibration within the scope
of accreditation. NIST reserves the right to control
the quality of the use of the term NVLAP and of the
logo itself.
Contents
Preface. v
Acknowledgments . vii
Summary.viii
1 General information.1
1.1 Purpose.1
1.2 Organization of handbook.1
1.3 Description of Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program .1
1.4 References .2
1.5 Definitions .4
1.6 NVLAP documentation .4
1.7 Assessing and evaluating a laboratory .5
2 Criteria for accreditation.10

2.1 Introduction.10
2.2 Technical criteria for dimensional calibrations.10
2.3 Gage blocks .14
2.4 Plain ring gages.16
2.5 Plain plugs and cylinders.17
2.6 Gage balls. 18
2.7 Roundness standards .19
2.8 Angle blocks.20
2.9 Polygons and indexing tables.21
2.10 Optical reference planes (flats) .22
2.11 Step gages.23
2.12 Ball bars.24
Preface
The Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program was developed by the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as a result
of interest from private industry and at the request of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories
(now the NCSL International). The goal of the program is to provide a means by which calibration
laboratories can be assessed for competency. This voluntary program is not designed to serve as a means of
imposing specific calibration procedures or minimum uncertainties on applicant laboratories; instead, the
program allows for all scientifically valid calibration schemes and requires that laboratories derive and
document their measurement uncertainties.
To accomplish this goal, NVLAP employs technical experts on a contract basis to serve as assessors in each
of the following eight fields of physical metrology calibration:
• electromagnetic dc/low frequency,

• electromagnetic rf/microwave frequency,
• time and frequency,
• ionizing radiation,
• optical radiation,
• dimensional,
• mechanical, and
• thermodynamics.
NIST Handbooks 150-2A through 150-2H are technical guides for the accreditation of calibration
laboratories, with each handbook corresponding to one of the eight fields of physical metrology calibration.
They are intended for information and use by:
• NVLAP technical experts in assessing laboratories,

• staff of accredited laboratories,
• those laboratories seeking accreditation,
• other laboratory accreditation systems,
• users of laboratory services, and
• others needing information on the requirements and guidelines for accreditation under the NVLAP
Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program.
NOTE The Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program has been expanded to cover chemical calibration for
the providers of proficiency testing and certifiers of spectrophotometric NTRMs. (See NIST Handbooks 150-19 and
150-21.) Other NVLAP handbooks in the chemical calibration area are expected in the future.
The assessor uses NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements, and the appropriate
guides (NIST Handbooks 150-2A through 150-2H) to validate that a laboratory is capable of performing
calibrations within the laboratory’s stated uncertainties. These technical guides and other relevant technical
information support assessors in their assessments of laboratories. Along with inspecting the facilities,
documentation, equipment, and personnel, the assessor can witness a calibration, have an item recalibrated,
and/or examine the results of measurement assurance programs and round-robins to collect objective
evidence.
NIST Handbooks 150-2 A through 150-2H supplement NIST Handbook 150, which contains Title 15 of the
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 285 plus all general NVLAP procedures, criteria, and policies.
The criteria in NIST Handbook 150 originally encompassed the requirements of ISO/IEC Guide 25:1990 and
v
the relevant requirements of ISO 9002 (ANSI/ASQC Q92-1987). These handbook criteria have been updated
to incorporate the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:1999. The entire series of Handbooks 150-2A through
150-2H comprises information specific to the Calibration Laboratories Program and neither adds to nor
detracts from requirements contained in NIST Handbook 150.
Any questions or comments on this handbook should be submitted to the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140; phone (301) 975-4016; fax (301) 926-2884; e-mail NVLAP@nist.gov.
vi
Acknowledgments
NIST Handbook 150-2 was first available as a draft covering all eight fields ofphysical metrology calibration
in one volume. It has been separated into eight handbooks to allow easier updating and electronic
downloading from the NVLAP web site. The preparation of these documents has been a joint effort, with
input from representatives of other government agencies, laboratories, and the private sector.
Acknowledgment of their efforts is in order; however, the listing of individual names is impractical. The
submissions by individuals and companies offering suggestions for improvement to this document were also
very welcome, as were the contributions of those who attended the public workshops.
Special recognition is made to the NIST measurement divisions for their work in writing or contributing to
the individual handbooks. Dr. Theodore D. Doiron deserves special thanks for his assistance with this
handbook for dimensional calibrations.
Additional thanks go to those who actively participated in the Technical Guide Workshop held November
1993 and to those who served as points of contact within fields of calibration. They include: Ms. Georgia
L. Harris, Mr. Norman B. Belecki, Dr. Theodore D. Doiron, Mr. Robert M. Judish, Mr. Thomas C. Larason,
Ms. Sally S. Bruce, and Dr. Donald B. Sullivan. A special thanks is owed to Mr. James L. Cigler for work
in developing the content and format of this guide, and to Ms. Vanda White for her editorial expertise in
making this a readable document.
Above all, we wish to thank Mr. Jon M. Cnckenberger, the editor of the first three drafts of this document,
for literally hundreds of hours of his work in creating this guide. It was he who tasked the contributors to
produce the technical content, assembled the results of their efforts into a consistent format, and provided
the general commentary. Without Jon's dedicated effort to this monumental task, this guide would never
have been published.
NVTAP has edited the individual handbooks and made changes resulting from comments by individuals to
earlier draft versions. This editing has been to a different extent for each parameter. Every effort was made
to include all pertinent information relevant to an ISO/IEC 17025-derived technical guide.
C. Douglas Faison and Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Editors

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140
vii
Summary
This guide presents the general technical requirements (i.e., on-site assessment and proficiency testing) of
the laboratory accreditation program for calibration laboratories along with specific technical criteria and
guidance applicable to dimensional measurements. These technical guidelines are presented to indicate how
the NVLAP criteria may be applied.
Any calibration laboratory (including commercial, manufacturer, university, or federal, state, or local
government laboratory) engaged in calibration in dimensional measurements listed in this handbook may
apply for NVLAP accreditation. Accreditation will be granted to a laboratory that complies with the criteria
for accreditation as defined in NIST Handbook 150. Accreditation does not guarantee laboratory
performance - it is a finding of laboratory competence.
Fields of calibration covered: Specific calibration parameters and related stimulus and measurement devices
in areas of dimensional measurement.
Scope of accreditation:
• Calibration parameter(s), range, and uncertainty level
• Types of measuring and test equipment
• Quality assurance system for measuring and test equipment
Period of accreditation: One year, renewable annually.
On-site assessment: Visit by an assessor(s) to determine compliance with the NVLAP criteria before initial
accreditation, in the first renewal year, and every two years thereafter. Preassessment and monitoring visits
are conducted as required. All calibration parameters or general areas of calibration within the specific scope
of accreditation requested will be assessed.
Assessors: Selected from technical experts with experience in the appropriate areas of calibration and
quality systems assessment.
Proficiency testing (measurement assurance): Each laboratory is required to demonstrate its capability to
successfully perform calibrations as part of on-site assessment or by documented successful completion of
an approved Measurement Assurance Program (MAP) or round-robin mtercomparison. Proficiency testing
may be required for initial accreditation, or where other evidence of measurement assurance is not evident,
and may be conducted annually thereafter. Advance notice and instructions are given before proficiency
testing is scheduled.
Fees: Payments are required as listed on the NVLAP fee schedule, including the initial application fee,
administrative/technical support fee, on-site assessment fee, and proficiency testing fee.
1 General information
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this handbook is to amplify the general requirements for accreditation by NVLAP of
calibration laboratories in the area of dimensional measurements covered by the Calibration Laboratories
Program. It complements and supplements the NVLAP programmatic procedures and general requirements
found in NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements. The interpretive comments
and additional guidelines contained in this handbook make the general NVLAP criteria specifically
applicable to the Calibration Laboratories Program.
This handbook does not contain the general requirements for accreditation, which are listed in NIST
Handbook 150, but rather provides guidelines for good calibration laboratory practices, which may be useful
in achieving accreditation.
1.2 Organization of handbook
The handbook is organized in two sections. The first section provides additional explanations to the general
procedures and requirements contained in NIST Handbook 150. The second section provides details and
guidance very specific for dimensional calibration laboratories.
1.3 Description of Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program
On May 18, 1992, as a result of the petition and public notice process, the Director of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to develop the Calibration
Laboratories Accreditation Program under the procedures of the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program . On June 2, 1994, the procedures and general requirements under which NVLAP
operates, Title 15, Part 285 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), were revised to:
a) expand the procedures beyond testing laboratories to include accreditation of calibration laboratories,
b) update the procedures to ensure compatibility with generally accepted conformity assurance and
conformity assessment concepts,
c) incorporate international changes, especially with relevant International Organization for

Standardization/Intemational Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/EEC) documents (e.g., ISO/EEC Guides
25 (now ISO/IEC 17025:1999), 38, 43, and 58, and the ISO 9000 series), and
d) facilitate and promote acceptance of the calibration and test results between countries to avoid barriers
to trade.
Calibration laboratory accreditation is offered in eight fields of physical metrology calibration covering a
wide variety of parameters and includes accreditation in multifunction measuring and test equipment
calibrations. Specific requirements and criteria have been established for determining laboratory
qualifications for accreditation following prescribed NVLAP procedures. The criteria address the
laboratory’s management organization, quality system, personnel, methods and method validation,
equipment, control of environmental effects, measurement traceability, sampling methods, handling of test
and calibration items, methods to assure the quality of its measurement results, reports, service to clients,
NIST Handbook 150-2F I September 2003

review of requests and contracts, subcontracting, purchasing, control of nonconforming work, handling of
complaints, document and record control, corrective and preventive actions, internal audits, and management
reviews.
On September 18, 1992, a public workshop was held at NIST Gaithersburg and attended by a mix of private
sector and government personnel. The workshop reviewed a draft handbook, which included general
requirements, as well as very specific technical requirements for dc voltage calibrations at all levels. As a
result of the workshop, the draft handbook was revised to take the form of a Calibration Laboratories
Program Handbook, which included the general requirements for laboratories (using ISO/IEC Guide 25 as
a basis), and eight companion Technical Guides covering the specific requirements for each field of
calibration offered for accreditation.
On May 18, 1993, a public workshop on the revised draft program handbook was held at NIST Boulder and
attended by more than 60 industry and government personnel. Comments from this workshop, as well as
responses to a survey/checklist mailing, were used to prepare the final draft of the handbook, now entitled
NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements (NIST Handbook 150), published in March 1994. NIST
Handbook 150 has since been revised to incorporate ISO/IEC 17025.
A public workshop for the Calibration Laboratories Technical Guides was held at NIST Gaithersburg, on
November 22 through 24, 1993. More than 60 industry and government personnel attended and provided
comments on the draft version of the Technical Guide for each of eight fields of calibration. As a result, the
eight Technical Guides were incorporated into a draft Handbook 150-2, Calibration Laboratories Technical
Guide, covering the fields being offered for accreditation. [In 2000, Handbook 150-2 (draft) was divided into
eight handbooks, one for each calibration area.]
The need for technical experts to serve as assessors was advertised, and the first group of assessors was
selected and trained during a four-day session held from November 16 through 19, 1993, in Gaithersburg,
using materials developed by NVLAP.
The Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program officially began accepting applications when
notification was given in the Federal Register dated May 11,1994. Applications are accepted and processed
following procedures found in NIST Handbook 150.
1.4 References
1.4.1 The following documents are referenced in this handbook.
a) NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements; available from:
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140
Phone: (301) 975-4016

Fax: (301) 926-2884
E-mail: nvlap@nist.gov
NVLAP Web site: http://www.nist.gov/nvlap
NIST Handbook 150-2F 2 September 2003

b) ISO/IEC/BIPM (BIPM is the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), 1993.
c) ISO/IEC 17025: 1999: General requirements for the competence oftesting and calibration laboratories.
d) ISO/IEC Guide 43: 1997, Proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons. Part 1 and Part 2.
e) ISO/IEC/BIPM International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology (VIM), 1993.
ISO documents b) through e) are available from:
Global Engineering Documents (paper copies)

Order phone: (800) 854-7179
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (electronic copies)

Electronic Standards Store
ANSI web site: http://www.ansi.org
f) NIST Technical Note 1297, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST
Measurement Results. Available on-line at http://physics.mst.gov/Document/tnl297.pdf.
g) NCSL International Recommended Practice RP-15: Guide for Interlaboratory> Comparisons, 1999.
h) ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, Calibration Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment—General

Requirements.
i) ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997, U.S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.
j) NCSL International Recommended Practice RP-7: Laboratory Design, 1993.
NCSL International documents g) through j) are available from:
NCSL International
1800 30th Street, Suite 305
Boulder, CO 80301-1026
Phone: (303) 440-3339
Fax: (303)440-3384
E-mail: orders@ncsli.org
Web site: http://www.ncsli.org
k) Ehrlich, C. D., and Raspberry, S. D., “Metrological Timelines in Traceability,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand.
Technol. 103, 93 (1998).
l) Croarkin, M. C., Measurement Assurance Programs, Part II: Development and Implementation, NBS
Special Publication 676-11 {U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1985).
m) ANSEASME B89.6.2, Temperature and Humidity Environment for Dimensional Measurements.
n) ANSEASME B89.7.3.1 -2001, Guidelines for Decision Rules: Considering Measurement Uncertainty
in Determining Conformance to Specifications.

1.4.2 Additional references specific to dimensional measurements are listed in Sections 2.2 through 2.12.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions found in NIST Handbook 150 apply, but may be interpreted differently or stated differently,
when necessary to amplify or clarify the meaning of specific words or phrases as they apply to specific
technical criteria.
1.5.1 Proficiency Testing: Determination of laboratory performance by means of comparing and

evaluating calibrations or tests on the same or similar items or materials by two or more laboratories in
accordance with predetermined conditions. For the NVLAP Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program,
this entails using a transport standard as a measurement artifact, sending it to applicant laboratories to be
measured, and then comparing the applicant's results to those of a reference laboratory on the same artifact.
1.5.2 Traceability: Property of the result of a measurement or the value of a standard whereby it can
be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, through an unbroken chain of
comparisons all having stated uncertainties. [See reference 1.4.1 e), section 6.10.]
A single measurement mtercomparison is sufficient to establish uncertainty relationships only over a limited
time interval (see reference 1.4.1 k)); internal measurement assurance (see reference 1.4.1 1)), using control
(check) standards, is required to fully demonstrate that uncertainties remain within stated levels over time.
For the purposes of demonstrating traceability for NVLAP accreditation, a laboratory must demonstrate not
only that there is an unbroken chain of comparisons to national standards, but also that this chain is supported
by appropriate uncertainties, measurement assurance processes, continuous standard maintenance, proper
calibration procedures, and proper handling of standards. In this way, traceability is related to these other
areas of calibration.
1.6 NVLAP documentation
1.6.1 Accreditation documents
Laboratories granted NVLAP accreditation are provided with two documents: Scope of Accreditation and
Certificate of Accreditation.
The Scope of Accreditation lists the "Best Uncertainty" that a given accredited laboratory can provide for
a given range or nominal value within a given parameter of measurement. This "Best Uncertainty" is a
statement of the smallest uncertainty that the laboratory has been assessed as capable of providing for that
particular range or nominal value. The actual reported value of uncertainty for any particular measurement
service that the accredited laboratory provides under its scope may vary depending on such contributors as
the statistics of the test and uncertainties associated with the device under test.
1.6.2 Fields of calibration/parameters selection list
The Calibration Laboratories program encompasses eight fields of physical metrology calibration, with
multiple parameters under each field. Each field is covered by a separate handbook (NIST Handbooks 150-
2A through 150-2H). (Fields of accreditation under Chemical Calibration are covered by separate
handbooks.) Depending on the extent of its calibration capabilities, a laboratory may seek accreditation to
all or only selected fields and parameters within the scope of the program. The fields of calibration and their
related parameters are given on the Fields of Calibration and Parameters Selection List, which is provided

to a laboratory seeking accreditation as part of the NVLAP application package for the program. Other fields
of calibration and/or parameters may be added to the Calibration Laboratories program upon request of
customer laboratories and/or if decided by NVLAP to be in the best interest of the Calibration Laboratories
Program.
The laboratory is requested to indicate on the Fields of Calibration/Parameters Selection List the parameter(s)
for which accreditation is desired, along with appropriate ranges and uncertainties. There is also provision
for an applicant laboratory to request accreditation for parameters not currently listed on the Selection List,
or for accreditation of the quality system employed for assuring Measurement and Test Equipment (M & TE)
used in support of product certification. Request for accreditation of quality assurance systems for M & TE
will be treated as a separate field of calibration for the purpose of setting appropriate fees. Once a laboratory
meets all the requirements for accreditation for the Fields of Calibration/Parameters Selection List, this
information will become the basis for the Scope of Accreditation document.
1.6.3 Checklists
Checklists enable assessors to document the assessment of the laboratory against the NVLAP requirements
found in NIST Flandbook 150. The NVLAP Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program uses the
NVLAP General Operations Checklist. The questions are applicable to evaluating a laboratory's ability to
operate a calibration program, and address factors such as the laboratory's organization, management, and
quality system in addition to its calibration competency.
The NVLAP General Operations Checklist is numbered to correspond to the requirements in NIST Handbook
150. Comment sheets are used by the assessor to explain deficiencies noted on the checklist. Additionally,
the assessor may use the sheets to make comments on aspects of the laboratory's performance other than
deficiencies.
1.7 Assessing and evaluating a laboratory
1.7.1 On-site assessment
1.7.1.1 The NVLAP lead assessor will schedule with the laboratory the date for on-site evaluation, and will
request the quality manual and documented quality and calibration procedures in advance of the visit to
reduce time spent at the laboratory; such materials will be returned by the assessor. NVLAP and the assessor
will protect the confidentiality of the materials and information provided. The laboratory should be prepared
to conduct routine calibrations, have equipment in good working order, and be ready for examination
according to the guidance contained in this handbook, the requirements identified in NIST Handbook 150,
and the laboratory's quality manual. The assessor will need time and work space to complete assessment
documentation while at the laboratory, and will discuss these needs at the opening meeting of the on-site
assessment.
1.7.1.2 NVLAP technical assessors are provided with the NVLAP General Operations Checklist to help
ensure the completeness, objectivity, and uniformity of the on-site assessment.
1.7.1.3 When accreditation has been requested for a considerable number of fields of calibration and
parameters, the assessment may range from observing calibrations in progress, requiring repeat
measurements on completed calibrations, to listening to laboratory staff describe the calibration process. The
depth into which the assessor performs the assessment depends on the number of fields of calibration and

associated parameters for which accreditation is requested and the time required to perform a given
calibration.
1.7.1.4 The assessor, or the assessment team, does the following during a typical on-site assessment:
a) Conducts an entry briefing with the laboratory manager to explain the purpose of the on-site visit and
to discuss the schedule for the day(s). At the discretion of the laboratory manager, other staff may
attend the briefing.
b) Reviews quality system manual, equipment and maintenance records, record-keeping procedures,
laboratory calibration reports, and personnel competency records. At least one laboratory staff member
must be available to answer questions; however, the assessor may wish to review the documents alone.
The assessor(s) does not usually ask to take any laboratory documents with him/her, and previously
supplied documents will be returned.
c) Physically examines equipment and facilities, observes the demonstration of selected procedures by
appropriate personnel assigned to perform calibrations, and interviews the personnel. The
demonstrations must include preparation for calibration of devices, and the setup and use of measuring
and test equipment, standards and systems.
d) Holds an exit briefing with the laboratory manager and staff to discuss the assessment findings.
Although the assessor does not make the final accreditation decision, he/she discusses the deficiencies
found with the laboratory and may even tentatively agree to deficiency resolutions by the laboratory.
Items that must be addressed before accreditation can be granted are emphasized, and outstanding
deficiencies require response to NVLAP within 30 days. Items that have been corrected during the
on-site and any recommendations are specially noted.
e) Completes an On-site Assessment Report, as part of the exit briefing, summarizing the findings. The
assessor(s) attaches copies of the completed checklists to this report during the exit briefing. The report
is signed by the lead assessor and the laboratory's Authorized Representative to acknowledge the
discussion. This signature does not necessarily indicate agreement; challenge(s) may be made through
NVLAP. A copy is given to the representative for retention. All observations made by the NVLAP
assessor are held in the strictest confidence allowed by applicable laws and regulations.
1.7.2 Proficiency testing
1.7.2.1 Background
Once the quality system review and on-site assessment steps have been satisfactorily completed, it is
necessary to gather another set of data points to aid in deciding whether or not the applicant laboratory is
competent to perform calibrations within the fields of interest to the uncertainties claimed. In the eight fields
of calibration covered by Handbooks 150-2A through 150-2H, there are approximately 85 parameters of
interest. Ther are several subsets under most parameters, referred to as ranges. For example, in the
dimensional arena, calibrations may include displacement, distance, position, form, and size over a range of
fourteen orders of magnitude (from picometers to 100 meters). Measurement technologies include laser
trackers, coordinate measuring machines (CMMs), gages, and several different types of scanned probe
microscopes. In view of the many possible combinations, proficiency testing could be conducted in hundreds
of areas. NVLAP reserves the right to test by sampling in any area; applicant laboratories must therefore be
prepared, with reasonable notice, to demonstrate proficiency in any of a number of parameters.

1.7.2.2 Proficiency testing vs. measurement assurance
There is an important difference between proficiency testing and measurement assurance. The objective of
proficiency testing is to determine through actual performance of a measurement process that the laboratory's
measurement results compare favorably with the measurement results of the audit laboratory (NIST or one
designated by NVLAP), taking into account the relative uncertainties assigned by both the applicant and
audit laboratories. The objective of proficiency testing is not to determine and certify the total uncertainty
of the applicant laboratory, as is done in a Measurement Assurance Program (MAP) with NIST, but to verify
(through the assessment process) that the uncertainty claimed by the applicant laboratory is reasonable, and
then use the claimed uncertainty to test that the measurement result obtained through the proficiency test is
acceptable.
It is neither the intention nor the mission of NVLAP to conduct MAPs or to otherwise provide traceability
for laboratories. Laboratories obtain these services from the NIST measurement divisions. NVLAP assesses
the implementation, application, and documentation of MAPs by laboratories. NVLAP accreditation
encourages the use of MAPs by the calibration laboratory community, and MAP results produce objective
evidence that NVLAP assessors look for as part of the assessment process.
1.7.2.3 Requirements
NVLAP's proficiency testing program uses a sampling approach. All applicant laboratories are required to
complete an annual proficiency test in one parameter under each field of calibration for which it has applied
to be accredited. For the purposes of the NVLAP Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program, the results
of the proficiency test are considered as objective evidence, along with the on-site visit, of a laboratory's
ability to perform competent calibrations. Proficiency testing is conducted annually using different
parameters in each field; however, those laboratories accredited in only one parameter within a field are
retested in the same parameter.
1.7.2.4 Uncertainty determination
The applicant laboratory is required to perform a measurement or series of measurements on an artifact using
the same calibration method, apparatus, and personnel that it uses to calibrate its customers’ equipment. The
laboratory must be able to identify and quantify all sources of uncertainty that affect the measurement. The
laboratory should attach an overall uncertainty to the measurement by combining all uncertainty
contributions, in their type A and type B components, in the root-sum-squared method as described in the
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (see reference 1.4.1 b)). The confidence limit k =
2 should be used, which is equivalent to a 95% confidence probability.
1.7.2.5 Pass/fail criteria
The performance of the proficiency test is judged by calculating the error of the measurement, normalized
with respect to the uncertainty of the measurement, using the following equation:

E_i = I (Valuelab - Valueref) / ( Uncertainty^2 + Uncertamtylab2)l/2 |
where
Enormai = normalized error of the applicant laboratory

Valuelab = the value as measured by the applicant laboratory
Valueref = the value as measured by the reference laboratory
Uncertaintyref = the uncertainty of the reference laboratory
Uncertaintylab = the uncertainty of the applicant laboratory
To pass the proficiency test, the applicant laboratory must have a value for Enomial less than 1 (i.e., Enormal < 1).
When there are sets of artifacts, such as gage block sets, that are part of the proficiency test, the laboratory
must have a value for Enora,al < 1 for more than 95% of the artifacts tested. The results may be plotted
graphically, with lines representing the limits of uncertainty of the measurements. The anonymity of each
applicant laboratory is always preserved.
1.7.2.6 Scheduling and handling
Proficiency testing is scheduled by NVLAP-designated reference laboratories. These sites are NIST
laboratories or NVLAP-accredited laboratories that have been found to have the ability to perform the
required proficiency tests to an uncertainty level appropriate for the laboratories they evaluate. The
proficiency test is scheduled independently and not required to correspond with the on-site visit. Applicant
laboratories are notified in advance as to the approximate arrival time of the measurement artifact.
Instructions for performing the test, reporting the results, communicating with the reference laboratory, and
shipping are included along with the artifact as part of the proficiency test package. Applicant laboratories
are instructed to perform all required measurements within a reasonable time and are told where to ship the
artifacts once the testing has been completed.
1.7.2.7 Notification of results
NVLAP notifies each laboratory of its own results in a proficiency test. If a laboratory has received its on-site
assessment prior to the completion of the proficiency test, the status of that laboratory’s accreditation is
contingent upon successful completion of proficiency testing. The laboratory's accreditation status may be
changed to reflect a partial accreditation, or may be completely suspended pending demonstration of the
laboratory's ability to successfully complete the proficiency test at a later date.
1.7.3 Traceability
1.7.3.1 Establishing traceability
Laboratories must establish an unbroken chain of comparisons leading to the appropriate international or
national standard, such that the uncertainties of the comparisons support the level of uncertainty that the
laboratory gives to its customers. Generally speaking, the uncertainties of the comparisons increase as they
move from a higher (international or national level) to a lower level standard. This uncertainty chain is the
evidence of traceability and must be documented accordingly. Traceability does not simply mean having
standards calibrated at the national laboratory, but must consider how a measurement, with its corresponding
uncertainty, is transferred from the national level to the calibration laboratory's customers.

1.7.3.2 Considerations in determining traceability
W ithout some type of measurement assurance process, one cannot be reasonably certain that the comparisons
have been transferred properly to the laboratory's customers. The measurement process itself must be verified
to be in control over time. Traceability is not a static concept that, once established, may be ignored; it is
dynamic. Process control exercised in each calibration provides the assurance that a valid transfer of the
international or national standard continues to take place. This assurance may be accomplished through the
use of tools such as check standards and control charts. Also, the laboratory's primary standards must be
maintained in such a way as to verify their integrity. Examples of this may be having more than one primary
standard to use for mtercomparisons, monitoring the primary standard with a check or working standard
(looking for changes), and verifying a primary standard on a well-characterized measurement/cahbration
system. Using scientifically sound measurement procedures to transfer the primary standard value to the
working level and the customer's item is essential to establishing traceability. Process control should be in
place and exercised in each calibration in order to ensure that the measurement results provided the customer
are traceable. Handling the laboratory's standards affects the measurement process, and therefore the ability
to transfer the standard's value to the customer. Examples of handling problems are dirty or improperly
cleaned standards, maintaining standards in an improper environment, not maintaining custody and security,
and improper handling of standards during the measurement process.
1.7.3.3 Relationship to existing standards
The above discussion illustrates how traceability is dependent on many aspects of the measurement process
and therefore must be considered in all phases of calibration. It is not just coincidental that the factors
addressed above are mam topics of concern in ISO/IEC 17025:1999.
1.7.4 Uncertainty
NVLAP recognizes the methodology for determining uncertainty as described in the Guide to the Expression
of Uncertainty in Measurement, published by ISO. To be NVLAP-accredited, a laboratory must document
the derivation of the uncertainties that it reports to its customers. These uncertainties will appear on the
scope issued to each accredited laboratory to an accuracy appropriate to the standards, procedures, and
measuring devices used.
NIST Handbook I50-2F 9 September 2003

2 Criteria for accreditation
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Applicant laboratories are assessed using the requirements in NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP
Procedures and General Requirements. This guide, NIST Handbook 150-2F, was developed from a NIST
measurement laboratory perspective and provides examples and guidelines, not requirements, to assessors
and interested calibration laboratories, on good laboratory practices and recommended standards. Therefore,
the guide language reflects this philosophy through the use of "shoulds" instead of "shalls" (along with other
less prescriptive language) when describing criteria. The requirements presented here are not absolute since
specific requirements depend on the measurement uncertainty for which an applicant laboratory wishes to
be accredited. This is a business decision for each laboratory and beyond the scope of NVLAP. Simply
stated, to be accredited, an applicant laboratory must have a quality system and be able to prove (and
document) that it is capable of doing what it says it does (i.e., correctly calibrate to a stated uncertainty)
within the framework of NIST Handbook 150. Accreditation will be granted, and therefore may be referenced
in calibration reports, etc., only for those specific parameters, ranges and uncertainties using calibration
methods and procedures for which a laboratory has been evaluated. Calibrations performed by a laboratory
using methods and procedures not considered appropriate for the level of measurements being made, and
which have not been evaluated by the accreditation process, are outside the scope of accreditation and may
not be referenced as "accredited" calibrations on calibration reports, etc.
2.1.2 Section 2.2 amplifies and interprets the general criteria of NIST Handbook 150 for selected
dimensional calibrations. Sections 2.3 through 2.12 cover the specific assessment criteria for the individual
parameters (i.e., standard artifacts) within the dimensional field of calibration. This guide is dynamic in that
new parameters may be added and existing criteria updated and improved.
2.2 Technical criteria for dimensional calibrations
2.2.1 Scope
2.2.1.1 This section contains specific technical criteria for a laboratory to be recognized as competent
to carry out calibrations of simple dimensional artifacts. The artifact calibrations currently included in the
accreditation program are:
a) Gage blocks and end standards,
b) Plain ring gages,
c) Plain plug gages, cylinder gages, and thread and gear wires,
d) Gage balls,
e) Roundness standards,
f) Angle blocks,
g) Polygons and indexing tables,
h) Optical reference planes (flats).

i) Step gages, and
j) Ball bars.
2.2.1.2 Measuring artifacts a) through j) above with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) is
acceptable as long as the uncertainty calculations are specific to the simple measurand. In this way a
complex instrument like a CMM is accredited for these specific measurements only, but not accredited for
“CMM measurement.” For an example, see 2.11.6.
2.2.2 Assuring the quality of test and calibration results
2.2.2.1 All sources of variability for the calibration should be monitored by subsystem calibration (e.g.,
thermometer, force gage calibration). Additionally, check standards to ensure that the calibrations are
carried out under controlled conditions are highly recommended. The laboratory should maintain and
document some form of systematic process monitoring commensurate with the uncertainty levels of the
calibration. While the use of check standards for statistical process control (SPC) is recommended for the
highest levels of accuracy, some check standard data is invaluable for documenting the calibration
uncertainty even if SPC is not used. The frequency and number of process control checks should be
appropriate for the number of calibrations as well as the level of uncertainty and reliability claimed for the
calibration.
2.2.2.2 The laboratory should have check standards which adequately span the range of materials and
sizes normally calibrated by the laboratory. Every measured value of each check standard should be
recorded and compared to its historical value to determine that the process is in control. The use of only
a few check standards at weekly intervals will produce values of the reproducibility of the calibration
process with excellent statistical validity.
2.2.3 Accommodation and environmental conditions
2.2.3.1 The temperature in the calibration area should nominally be 20 °C with a maximum variation and
rate of change depending on the materials and the uncertainty level needed for the calibration. If
measurements are made at temperatures other than 20 °C, the uncertainties of the appropriate thermal
corrections for the artifacts should be included in the total uncertainty. For comparison measurements, the
uncertainty component should reflect the uncertainty in the thermal corrections of both the master and
unknown artifacts, as well as the temperature difference between them, and the uncertainty of the
thermometer used.
2.2.3.2 The temperature stability of the environment should be sufficient for the gage and measurement
system to be in thermal equilibrium. Measurements may be made in slowly changing environments if a
suitable measurement model, which includes the effects of the drift, is used. Theoretical and experimental
verification of the model should be available.
2.2.3.3 For typical gages made of well-characterized materials (steel, carbide or ceramic), 1.0 x 106/ °C
should be used as the standard uncertainty of the thermal expansion coefficient unless there is
documentation of a lower value.
2.2.3.4 The relative humidity in the calibration room should not exceed 50 % to avoid corrosion. This
is critical because most dimensional measuring equipment is made of steel. While customer gages are in

the laboratory for only a short period, the laboratory equipment is there all the time! Appropriate protection
should be applied if the humidity ever exceeds 50 %.
2.2.3.5 Excessive vibration should be avoided in the calibration room. If an obvious source of vibration
exists, precautions should be taken to prevent adverse effects on the laboratory's measurements.
2.2.3.6 The laboratory should have a documented policy regarding responses to problems with the
environment.
2.2.4 Equipment
2.2.4.1 The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make auxiliary measurements on artifacts
(e.g., flatness of gage blocks, roundness of ring gages).
2.2.4.2 The laboratory should have temperature measuring capabilities suitable for the calibration
procedure and the desired measurement uncertainty. Calibrations involving direct comparisons of artifacts
of similar size and materials will, in general, have modest requirements. Absolute calibrations or
comparisons between artifacts of different sizes and/or materials will require more accurate temperature
measurement.
2.2.4.3 A laboratory that certifies artifacts to tolerance grades should consult with the customer which
tolerance rule is needed and how uncertainty will be used in the decision. Guidance is available in the
ASME B89.7.3 standard (see reference 1.4.1 n)).
2.2.4.4 A laboratory that makes mechanical comparisons of masters and test pieces of dissimilar materials
should have force measuring equipment to determine the force on the probe or probes. A correction for
differential probe penetration should be applied as long as the probe has maintained its desired geometry.
On old comparators, the probe radius may be worn down to the point where a correction would induce error.
It is necessary to accommodate probe tip geometry issues in the overall uncertainty, whether or not a
correction for differential probe penetration is applied.
2.2.4.5 A laboratory that makes absolute measurements using displacement measuring sensors, such as
interferometers or linear scales, should have environmental monitoring equipment appropriate to the sensor.
2.2.4.6 A laboratory that makes absolute measurements using a contact device should have force measuring
equipment to determine the force on the probe or probes. A correction for probe penetration should be
applied if appropriate (see 2.2.4.4 above).
2.2.4.7 A laboratory that makes interferometric measurements using a laser or spectral lamp for the scale
should have:
a) Equipment for making high-accuracy temperature measurements, and
b) Equipment for determining the index of refraction of air.
2.2.5 Handling of test and calibration items
2.2.5.1 Artifacts should be cleaned and stored in a manner to prevent accidental contact with material that
could damage the gaging surfaces.

2.2.5.2 Care should be taken to prevent steel artifacts from rusting. Steel artifacts should be coated with
a rust inhibiting grease whenever there is a potential for exposure to an environment over 50 % relative
humidity. If artifacts cannot be greased, other materials (e.g., rust inhibiting paper) or methods should be
used to inhibit rust.
2.2.5.3 After cleaning, artifacts should be allowed to come to adequate thermal equilibrium in the
calibration environment before measurement. Artifacts should be placed on a soaking plate or in position
on the measuring machine long enough to ensure that they are at the proper temperature. The soaking time
will depend on the size and the thermal properties of the artifacts and plate. Specific guidelines for soaking
times should be stated in the measurement procedure. The heating effects from optical radiation, body heat,
and system location should be minimized.
2.2.5.4 In general, to prevent thermal changes and corrosion of the gaging surfaces, artifacts should not
be handled with bare hands. Gloves or tongs should be used whenever possible.
2.2.6 Test and calibration methods and method validation
2.2.6.1 When calibrations are made by comparison to master gages of different nominal size, the
temperature control of the gages and the measurement environment should be increased.
2.2.6.2 The laboratory should have a manual outlining the procedures to be followed for each type of
calibration. For calibration of graded sets, the procedure should name the grades that are calibrated by the
procedure and how the decision is made that the gages meet the grade requirement.
2.2.6.3 The procedures used for related services, such as checks of roundness, relapping, repair, or
replacement of damaged or out-of-tolerance gages, should be clearly stated.
2.2.7 Records
2.2.7.1 All measurement data should be recorded. If corrections are applied by hand, the worksheets
should show the measurement data, corrections, and final answers. The master, control and test pieces,
temperature, operator, instrument, date and other pertinent process information should be included.
2.2.7.2 Information relating to the procedures, equipment, standards, results, and personnel involved for
a particular calibration should be maintained for a period of time specified in the quality manual.
2.2.7.3 Records associated with a particular standard or control should be kept during the lifetime of the
standard.
2.2.8 Reporting the results
2.2.8.1 All content of certificates or reports of calibration should conform to the requirements of ISO/IEC
17025 as set forth in NIST Handbook 150.
2.2.8.2 All certificates or reports of calibration should contain an uncertainty statement which is
scientifically determined from measurement data and which agrees with the laboratory's stated definition.
2.2.8.3 The uncertainty should be derived from a model of the measurement system that includes (as
applicable) the uncertainties caused by:

a) Master artifact calibration
b) Long-term reproducibility of measurement system
c) Thermal expansion correction for gages and measurement scales
1) Thermometer calibration
2) Thermal expansion coefficient
3) Thermal gradients (internal, gage-gage, gage-scale)
d) Scale
1) Uncertainty of scale
2) Environmental properties of scale (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.)
e) Instrument geometry
1) Abbe offset and instrument geometry errors
2) Scale and gage alignment (cosine errors)
3) Gage support geometry (anvil flatness, block fatness)
f) Probe deformation correction
g) Rotary axis errors (radial and axial displacements, tilt)
h) Analysis algorithms (data fitting, filtering)
i) Geometry of artifact under test
j) Other factors as appropriate.
2.2.8.4 The method used to affix the calibration items should be described in detail. In general, differences
in fixture configurations between calibration and use will introduce errors in the calibration.
2.3 Gage blocks
2.3.1 Scope
This section contains specific technical criteria that a laboratory should meet if it is to be recognized as
competent to carry out gage block calibrations or certifications to accuracy grade by interferometry or
mechanical comparison.

2.3.2 References
a) Federal Specification GGG-G-15C, Gage Blocks and Accessories (inch and metric).
b) ANSI/ASME B89.1.9M-1989, Precision Gage Blocks for Length Measurement (Through 20 in. and
500 mm).
c) ANSI/ASME B89.1.2M-1991, Calibration of Gage Blocks by Contact Comparison Method.
The laboratory should have control gage blocks that span the range of materials and sizes normally calibrated
by the laboratory. A number of appropriate control blocks should be measured each time a set is calibrated.
2.3.4.1 For all gage blocks calibrated by interferometry the immediate environment of the gage block
should be within 0.1 degree of 20 °C, and be measured with an accuracy of 0.02 °C. The measured length
should be corrected to 20 °C using the known thermal expansion coefficient of the material. Other
environmental conditions may be used as long as they are accounted for in the uncertainty determination.
Grade 0.5 blocks should be calibrated by interferometry, but may be calibrated by comparison if the
measurement uncertainty is acceptable to the customer.
2.3.4.2 For grade 1 and 2 gage blocks up to 100 mm long measured by comparison, the environmental
temperature fluctuation should be less than ± 0.25 °C over 24 hours and ±0.1 °C in any 1 -hour period. For
grade 3 or lower grade blocks the fluctuation should be less than ± 1 °C over 24 hours and ± 0.5 °C over any
1 -hour period. For comparison measurements of blocks of different materials, differential thermal expansion
corrections will be made.
2.3.4.3 For blocks over 100 mm calibrated by comparison, the temperature should vary less than ± 0.25 °C
over at least a 6-hour period before measurements are made.
2.3.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make required flatness and parallelism measurements.
Gage blocks may be measured by interferometry (wrung to a platen) or by comparison to calibrated gage
blocks. If a long range comparator is used to compare blocks with nominal sizes differing by more than
10 mm, environmental control approaching that for interferometry should be used.
For mechanical comparison the blocks should be manipulated using tongs with soft flexible contact surfaces.
Manipulation by hand causes unacceptable thermal changes in the blocks. For interferometry, blocks may
be wrung by hand, but the platen should be placed in the interferometer and a suitable waiting period should
be observed before measurement.

2.3.8.1 The calibration report should denote blocks that do not meet the grade tolerance. Blocks that are
replaced as out of tolerance need not be reported, but may be included at the discretion of the laboratory or
customer.
2.3.8.2 For gage blocks measured by comparison, the geometry of the anvil used to support the block
should be reported. For high accuracy measurements, the bottom sensor should not support the weight of
the block.
2.4 Plain ring gages
2.4.1 Scope
This section contains specific technical criteria that a laboratory should meet, if it is to be recognized as
competent to carry out ring gage calibrations, or certify gages to accuracy grade.
2.4.2 References
a) ANSI/ASME B89.1.7M-1984, Measurement of Qualified Plain Internal Diameters for Use as Master
Rings and Ring Gages.
b) ANSI/ASME B89.3.4M-85, Axes of Rotation, Methods for Specifying and Testing.
c) ANSEASME B89.3.1M-1972, Measurement of Out-of-Roundness.
d) ISO 4291-85, Methods for the assessment of departure from roundness - measurement of variation in
radius.
e) ISO 4292-85, Methods for the assessment of departure from roundness - measurement by two- and
three-point methods.
f) ISO 6318-85, Measurement of roundness - terms, definitions and parameters of roundness.
The laboratory should have control ring gages that span the range of materials and sizes normally calibrated
by the laboratory. A number of appropriate control gages should be measured during each measurement
session.
2.4.4.1 For grade XX and XXX gages measured by comparison, the temperature should vary less than
± 0.25 °C over 24 hours and ±0.1 °C in any 1-hour period. For comparison measurements of gages of
different materials, differential thermal expansion corrections should be made.
2.4.4.2 For lower accuracy grades the temperature variation should be less than ± 1 °C over 24 hours and
± 0.5 °C over any 1-hour period.

2.4.5 Equipment
2.4.5.1 The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make appropriate roundness measurements.
2.4.5.2 Ring gages can be calibrated by comparison to master ring gages or gage block stacks, along with
a variety of other techniques. Where applicable, the uncertainty in the length of the master artifact should
be documented.
Manipulation of rings to find the maximum diameter should be done with proper precautions to prevent
thermal changes.
2.5 Plain plugs and cylinders
2.5.1 Scope
This section contains specific technical criteria that a laboratory should meet, if it is to be recognized as
competent to carry out calibration of gage cylinders, gage wires, and plain plug gages by interferometry or
mechanical comparison, or certify gages to accuracy grade.
2.5.2 References
a) FED-STD-H28, Screw-Thread Standards for Federal Services.
b) ANSI/AGMA 2002-B88, Tooth Thickness Specification and Measurement.
c) ANSI/ASME B89.3.4M-85, Axes of Rotation, Methods for Specifying and Testing.
d) ANSEASME B89.3.1, Measurement of Out-of-Roundness.
e) ISO 4291-85, Methods for the assessment of departure from roundness - measurement of variation in
radius.
f) ISO 4292-85, Methods for the assessment of departure from roundness - measurement by two- and
three-point methods.
g) ISO 6318-85, Measurement of roundness - terms, definitions and parameters of roundness.
The laboratory should have control gages that span the range of materials, sizes and types of gages normally
calibrated by the laboratory. A number of appropriate control gages should be measured during each
calibration session. The laboratory may use suitably chosen cylindrical controls for all calibrations. Separate
controls for each type of thread or gear wire are not necessary.

2.5.4.1 For comparison measurements the temperature variation should be less than ± 1 °C over 24 hours
and ± 0.5 °C over any 1-hour period.
2.5.4.2 For absolute measurements the temperature variation should be less than ± 0.25 °C over 24 hours
and ±0.1 °C over any 1-hour period.
2.5.5 Equipment
2.5.5.1 The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make roundness and taper measurements
where required.
2.5.5.2 The laboratory should have force measuring equipment to determine the force on the probe or
probes. An appropriate correction for probe penetration should be applied.
2.5.6.1 In general a number of diameters at the gaging position should be measured and averaged. The
range of these measurements may be reported as a measure of the wire diameter fluctuation.
2.5.6.2 Multiple measurements of a specific diameter should be made only if the measured diameter is
clearly marked on the cylinder.
Wires and cylinders should not be handled with bare hands. For small gages light gloves should be worn.
For sizes over 5 mm handling techniques should be appropriate to the claimed uncertainty level.
2.5.8.1 The reported diameter for thread and gear wires will be the deformed diameter as specified in the
thread and gear standards.
2.5.8.2 The position of the measured diameter should be marked on the cylinder and recorded in the
calibration report.
2.6 Gage balls
2.6.1 Scope
competent to carry out gage ball calibrations or certifications to accuracy grade by interferometry or
2.6.2 References
a) ANSI/ASME B89.3.1M-1972, Measurement of Out-of-Roundness.

The laboratory should have control balls that span the range of materials and sizes normally calibrated by
the laboratory. A number of appropriate control balls should be measured each time a set is calibrated.
2.6.4.1 For comparison measurements the temperature variation should be less than ± 1 °C over 24 hours
and ± 0.5 °C over any 1-hour period.
2.6.4.2 For absolute measurements the temperature variation should be less than ± 0.25 °C over 24 hours
and ±0.1 °C over any 1-hour period.
2.6.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make roundness measurements.
2.6.6.1 The number and orientations of the diameters measured may be random, specified or agreed to by
the customer.
2.6.6.2 Two or more roundness traces along different longitudes of the ball should be used to characterize
the ball roundness.
Tongs should be used to move balls for high accuracy calibrations because manipulation by hand can cause
unacceptable thermal changes in gages.
The number and orientation of the diameters and roundness traces measured should be reported.
2.7 Roundness standards
2.7.1 Scope
competent to carry out roundness calibrations.
2.7.2 References
a) ANSFASME B89.3.1M-1972, Measurement of Out-of-Roundness.
b) ISO 4291-85, Methods for the assessment of departure from roundness - measurement of variation in
radius.
c) ISO 6318-85, Measurement of roundness - terms, definitions and parameters of roundness.
NIST Handbook 15 0-2F 19 September 2003

The laboratory should have a control roundness standard and/or measure roundness by multi-step methods.
Multi-step methods will provide a calibration of the spindle roundness, which can be used as the check
standard. A separate procedure must be used for determining the instrument scale magnification or gam
correction.
Temperature variation should be less than ± 1 °C over 24 hours and ± 0.5 °C over any 1-hour period.
2.7.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have appropriate magnification standards to span the range of amplifier magnification
used for calibrations.
2.7.6.1 Calibrations may be made by a number of methods. The gage may be calibrated by multi-step or
reversal methods that measure the spindle error as well as calibrate the roundness standard. The spindle error
may be measured and compensation made for the test gage. If the spindle error is very small or the calibration
is aimed at a modest uncertainty level, the error of the spindle may be characterized and treated as an item
in the uncertainty budget.
2.7.6.2 The response band (filter setting) of the instrument will be set as specified by the customer,
calibrating laboratory, or appropriate standard and noted in the calibration report.
2.7.6.3 The stylus force should be set at the minimum needed to maintain contact with the standard being
calibrated.
The standard being calibrated should be affixed so that there are no stresses which affect the roundness.
The report should note the response band of the calibration instrument and the method used to calculate the
center of rotation.
2.8 Angle blocks
2.8.1 Scope
competent to carry out angle block calibrations.

2.8.2.1 For comparison processes the laboratory should have control angle blocks that span the range of
sizes normally calibrated by the laboratory. A number of appropriate control blocks should be measured each
time a set is calibrated.
2.8.2.2 For closure measurements, the measured error in the indexing table may be used as the control
parameter.
Care should be taken to allow the blocks to come to thermal equilibrium before measurements.
2.8.4 Equipment
The laboratory should have facilities to measure the flatness of angle block faces.
The block should be affixed so that there are no residual stresses that would change either the angle or block
face flatness.
Gloves or tongs should be used when moving blocks to reduce thermal gradients within the blocks.
2.8.7.1 The face flatness should be reported if measured.
2.8.7.2 The brand and model of the autocollimator used should also be reported, as well as the size of the
area illuminated.
2.9 Polygons and indexing tables
2.9.1 Scope
competent to calibrate polygons and indexing tables by closure and comparison.
2.9.2.1 For calibrations made by comparison with a calibrated indexing or rotary table, the laboratory
should have a control polygon with enough sides to adequately span the range of angles normally calibrated
by the laboratory.
2.9.2.2 For closure measurements, the measured error in the indexing table may be used as the control
parameter.

The angles of a polygon are not affected by changes in temperature as long as there are no gradients. Care
should be taken to allow the polygon to come to thermal equilibrium before measuring.
2.9.4 Equipment
The laboratory should have the equipment needed to make flatness measurements.
2.9.5.1 The polygon or reference mirror should be affixed so that there are no residual stresses that would
change either the angle or face flatness.
2.9.5.2 The procedures used for measuring face flatness should be clearly stated.
The brand and model of the autocollimator used should also be reported, as well as the size of the area
illuminated.
2.10 Optical reference planes (flats)
2.10.1 Scope
competent to carry out optical flat calibrations or certifications to accuracy grade by interferometry or
2.10.2 References
a) Federal Specification GG-0-635A, Optical Flats.
The laboratory should have control flats that span the range of sizes normally calibrated by the laboratory.
2.10.4.1 Care should be taken to allow the flat to come to thermal equilibrium before measurements.
2.10.4.2 The beam path between the master optical surface and the flat to be calibrated should be protected
to reduce air turbulence.
2.10.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have fixtures that will accommodate flats of various geometries. The customer should
be consulted for information about how the flat is affixed or mounted when used so that it can be calibrated

in the same manner. If the calibration and customer fixtures are different the accuracy of the calibration will
be degraded.
Flats may be calibrated either vertically or horizontally, depending on their intended use. The calibration
may consist of the flatness of one or more diagonals or a map of the entire surface.
The method used to fixture and support the flat should be specified in the report of calibration.
2.11 Step gages
2.11.1 Scope
competent to conduct the calibration of step gages (one-dimensional, multiple-length gages).
2.11.2 References
a) ANSI/ASME B89.1.12M-1990, Methods for Performance Evaluation of Coordinate Measuring

Machines.
b) ISO 10360-2, Coordinate Metrology - Part 2: Performance Assessment of Coordinate Measuring

Machines (CMMs).
2.11.3.1 The laboratory should have control standards that span the range of materials and sizes normally
calibrated by the laboratory. A step gage, at least 80 % as long as the longest customer gage to be calibrated,
would be the most appropriate control standard, but alternatives such as sets of long end standards could be
substituted.
2.11.3.2 For calibration processes using coordinate measuring machines, the control standard may be placed
in close proximity to the customer gage and measured directly before the customer calibration. For other
systems that measure along only one line, a control standard should be measured in the place of the customer
gage before the customer calibration.
2.11.4.1 Step gages are high accuracy transfer standards, which demand good control over the temperature
of the gage and measuring machine. Particular attention should be given to the uncertainty associated with
the thermal expansion of the step gage. If the thermal expansion is not known to 0.1 * 10'6 ppm/ °C or better,
the measurement temperature should be very close to 20 °C.
2.11.4.2 The temperature of the step gage should be monitored at a number of places to assure adequate
characterization of the thermal state of the gage.

2.11.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have suitable equipment to monitor the environment. For laser based measuring
systems, the air temperature, pressure and humidity should be monitored during the calibration and
corrections applied for changes in the laser wavelength.
2.11.6.1 Each calibration should consist of multiple measurements of each calibrated interval of the gage.
The data should be analyzed for evidence of instrumental drift and repeatability.
2.11.6.2 For bidirectional step gage calibration using CMMs, the probe should be calibrated using a gage
block or equivalent one dimensional artifact.
2.11.6.3 For step gages using gage balls as reference points, the CMM probe should be calibrated using a
gage ball.
2.11.6.4 A separate technique for verifying the CMM scale accuracy should be developed and followed.
After cleaning, the gage should be placed on a soaking plate or the measuring machine to ensure thermal
stability. The soaking time will depend on the size and the thermal properties of the gage. Specific
guidelines for soaking times should be stated in the measurement procedure.
2.12 Ball bars
2.12.1 Scope
competent to carry out ball bar calibrations.
2.12.2 References
a) ANSEASME B89.1.12M-1990, Methods for Performance Evaluation of Coordinate Measuring

Machines.
2.12.3.1 The laboratory should have control standards that span the range of materials and sizes normally
calibrated by the laboratory. A check standard, at least 80 % as long as the longest customer gage to be
calibrated, would be the most appropriate control standard, but alternatives such as sets of long end standards
could be substituted.
2.12.3.2 For calibration processes using coordinate measuring machines, the control standard may be placed
in close proximity to the customer gage and measured directly before the customer calibration. For other
systems that measure along only one line, a control standard should be measured in the place of the customer
gage before the customer calibration.

The temperature of the ball bar should be monitored at a number of places to assure adequate characterization
of the thermal state of the bar.
2.12.5 Equipment
The laboratory should have suitable equipment to monitor the environment. For laser based measuring
systems, the air temperature, pressure and humidity should be monitored during the calibration and
corrections applied for changes in the laser wavelength.
2.12.6.1 Each calibration should consist of multiple measurements. The data should be analyzed for
evidence of instrumental drift.
2.12.6.2 For CMM calibrations, the CMM probe should be calibrated using a gage ball.
2.12.6.3 Care should be used in the fixturmg and support of the ball bar. Details of the fixturing methods
used should be included in the report of calibration.
After cleaning, the bar should be placed on the measuring machine and allowed to reach thermal equilibrium.
The soaking time will depend on the size and the thermal properties of the bar.

• I
NISTTechnical Publications
Periodical
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research
and development in metrology and related fields of physical science, engineering, applied mathematics,
statistics, biotechnology, and information technology. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major
emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included
from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute’s technical and scientific
programs. Issued six times a year.
Nonperiodicals
Monographs-—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute’s scientific and technical activities.
Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) devel¬
oped in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.
Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports, and
other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.
National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical
properties of materials, compiled from the world’s literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a
worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public
Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published
bimonthly for NIST by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscription orders and renewals are
available from AIP, P.O. Box 503284, St. Louis, MO 63150-3284.
Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building
materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and
performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety
characteristics of building elements and systems.
Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of
a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the
subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of
other government agencies.
Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce
in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized
requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of
the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program in support of the efforts of private-sector
standardizing organizations.
Order the following NIST publications—FIPS and NISTIRs—-from the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series
collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the
official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST pursuant to
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended. Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat.
1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of
Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
NIST Interagency or Internal Reports (NISTIR)—The series includes interim or final reports on work
performed by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial
distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is handled by sales through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in hard copy, electronic media, or microfiche form. NISTIR's
may also report results of NIST projects of transitory or limited interest, including those that will be
published subsequently in more comprehensive form.

NIST HDBK 150-2F Calibration Laboratories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIST HDBK 150-2F Calibration Laboratories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIST HDBK 150-2F Calibration Laboratories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National

NIST HANDBOOK 150-2F

Office of the Director Chemical Science and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

NVLAP AND THE NVLAP LOGO

The term NVLAP (represented by the NVLAP logo)

2 Criteria for accreditation.10

• electromagnetic dc/low frequency,

• NVLAP technical experts in assessing laboratories,

C. Douglas Faison and Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Editors

Period of accreditation: One year, renewable annually.

1.2 Organization of handbook

1.3 Description of Calibration Laboratories Accreditation Program

c) incorporate international changes, especially with relevant International Organization for

NIST Handbook 150-2F I September 2003

1.4.1 The following documents are referenced in this handbook.

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

Phone: (301) 975-4016

NIST Handbook 150-2F 2 September 2003

ISO documents b) through e) are available from:

Global Engineering Documents (paper copies)

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (electronic copies)

h) ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, Calibration Laboratories and Measuring and Test Equipment—General

i) ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997, U.S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

j) NCSL International Recommended Practice RP-7: Laboratory Design, 1993.

NCSL International documents g) through j) are available from:

m) ANSEASME B89.6.2, Temperature and Humidity Environment for Dimensional Measurements.

NIST Handbook 150-2F 3 September 2003

1.5.1 Proficiency Testing: Determination of laboratory performance by means of comparing and

1.6 NVLAP documentation

1.6.1 Accreditation documents

1.6.2 Fields of calibration/parameters selection list

NIST Handbook 150-2F 4 September 2003

1.7 Assessing and evaluating a laboratory

1.7.1 On-site assessment

NIST Handbook 150-2F 5 September 2003

1.7.2 Proficiency testing

NIST Handbook 150-2F 6 September 2003

1.7.2.4 Uncertainty determination

1.7.2.5 Pass/fail criteria

NIST Handbook 150-2F 7 September 2003

Enormai = normalized error of the applicant laboratory

1.7.2.6 Scheduling and handling

1.7.2.7 Notification of results

1.7.3.1 Establishing traceability

NIST Handbook 150-2F 8 September 2003

1.7.3.3 Relationship to existing standards

NIST Handbook I50-2F 9 September 2003

2.2 Technical criteria for dimensional calibrations

a) Gage blocks and end standards,

b) Plain ring gages,

g) Polygons and indexing tables,

h) Optical reference planes (flats).

NIST Handbook 150-2F 10 September 2003

2.2.2 Assuring the quality of test and calibration results