What is calibration?

Calibration is the process of comparing a measuring instrument with a

measurement standard to establish the relationship between the
values indicated by the instrument and those of the standard.
Certificates showing the results from such a calibration commonly list
pressure values determined by a standard, the corresponding pressure
values indicated by the instrument being tested and the differences
between these values at a number of pressures. In some cases the
reported results are not in terms of pressure values but another
parameter - for example certificates of calibration for pressure
balances often report the effective area of an instrument's piston
cylinder and also a pressure dependent term that shows how the
effective area changes with pressure.

To provide confidence in the accuracy of calibration results the

measurements must have demonstrable traceability. This means that
all results associated with a calibration - including those relating to the
calibration of the measurement standard used - must be traceable
back to standards held at a national measurement institute, such as
NPL, through an unbroken chain of comparisons and where each link
has stated measurement uncertainties. In addition, it is important that
appropriate equipment and procedures are used in the calibration
process, and that they are used by trained and authorised personnel
operating in an adequate experimental environment. Essentially, to be
able to demonstrate formal traceability of measurements, the
calibrations should either be undertaken by a national metrology
institute such as NPL and/or a laboratory that has been independently
third-party accredited by, for example, the United Kingdom
Accreditation Service (UKAS).

Instruments usually need to be calibrated, whether they are simple

devices with modest performance or state-of-the-art systems, as it is
only by this process that their pressure measuring properties can be
determined. This often means that the whole system needs to be
calibrated and not just the sensor itself, as any associated electronics
are just as likely to change characteristics as the sensor.

How frequently should an instrument be calibrated?

The frequency with which calibrations should be carried out is an

important, if sometimes difficult, question; there are two main
considerations. Firstly, all measuring devices - whether they are
simple, 'fundamental', or sophisticated - change characteristics with
time; the issue is how much do they change? New devices should be
calibrated relatively frequently in order to establish their
reproducibility - essentially their metrological stability or the change in
their measuring ability between calibrations. Initial estimates of
reproducibility are sometimes made using type-test data from earlier
calibration results of similar instruments but the resultant uncertainty
of measurement has to be cautiously higher, until real data is
available.

Secondly, the required uncertainty of measurement should be

assessed. If the instrument's reproducibility is shown, by successive
calibrations, to be substantially better than the uncertainty required
then the interval between calibrations can be extended - perhaps even
up to 5 years or so, but at the other extreme - where the the
instrument's reproducibility approaches the uncertainty needed - the
calibration intervals should be much shorter, perhaps even daily in
some cases.

Do all measuring instruments need to be calibrated?

There are situations where an instrument need not be calibrated, for

example where its readings are 'for information only' and their
accuracy has little or no impact on the process or service being
provided. But in these circumstances it is important to be careful that
false assumptions are not accidentally built into the hand-waving
generalisations that sometimes accompany arguments for not
calibrating an instrument. Non-calibrated instruments can appear to be
working properly whilst being in error by large margins and
manufacturers' specification sheets should certainly not be taken as a
reliable guide.

The cost of a calibration is sometimes the main factor in deciding not

to have a device calibrated and clearly it is important to take economic
issues into account. But there can be hidden costs and significant risks
taken through not calibrating an instrument and hence not controlling
or understanding a process adequately - that ought to tip the balance.
For example using a calibrated instrument may reduce the number of
end-products rejected because they are outside acceptable tolerances.
It may also be that more products can be sold through having reduced
and more competitive tolerances, better reliability, or that a wider
customer base, including quality-controlled markets, can be better
accessed. An assessment of risks can help the decision; for example it
might be appropriate to calibrate even the most stable pressure
balance more than once every three years if by not doing so you are
potentially making yourself liable for large sums of money. There are,
of course, many health and safety, legal, and regulatory issues that
that should be considered too.

Level of and routes to calibration

Instrument calibrations should be made at an appropriate level. It is

not always necessary or desirable to have an instrument calibrated
against a national measurement standard but the importance of being
able to demonstrate traceability and understanding the degree of
measurement uncertainty needed in a particular application should
always be taken into account. There are several routes to obtaining a
calibration but only two are recommended: through a UKAS-accredited
laboratory (or equivalent accreditation scheme outside the UK) or
directly from a national measurement institute such as NPL. There are
non-accredited calibration services available but these are not
recommended because they cannot give the degree of confidence
provided by a third-party accredited laboratory. Of course you might
decide to undertake the calibrations in-house yourself but again the
confidence that can be placed on the results will be much greater if
your system is formally third-party accredited. Whichever route you
take it is well worth reviewing your expectation of an instrument
before requesting a calibration - just to ensure that the calibration is
likely to meet your needs.

Summary

• The only way to ensure that you know and continue to know the
measurement uncertainties associated with a measuring
instrument is to have it calibrated regularly (not necessarily
frequently) by an organisation that is formally third-party
accredited to do so.
• The frequency of calibration depends on the reproducibility of the
instrument in question (from its calibration history) and how this
relates to the overall uncertainty required in the measurements
you need to make with it.
• Purchasers of calibration services should review their expectation
of an instrument before requesting a calibration - to ensure that
the calibration is likely to meet their needs.
• If you don't have an instrument calibrated (or it is calibrated by
a non-accredited calibration provider) there can be very
substantial hidden costs and risks. Provided it is acted upon, the
information contained in a certificate of calibration is usually
worth considerably more than the cost of the calibration.