Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

Similar documents
First International Involute Gear Comparison

TRACEABILITY STRATEGIES FOR THE CALIBRATION OF GEAR AND SPLINE ARTEFACTS

The National Unitary Institution "Belarusian State Institute of Metrology" (BelGIM)

Technical Protocol of the Bilateral Comparison in Primary Angular Vibration Calibration CCAUV.V-S1

Technical Protocol of the CIPM Key Comparison CCAUV.V-K5

Final Report On RMO VICKERS KEY COMPARISON COOMET M.H-K1

COOMET Project 277/UA/03 COOMET L.S-1 Conducting of comparisons of comparators with photoelectric microscopes. Final report

Annex to the Accreditation Certificate D-K according to DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005

COOMET Project 507/BY/10. Supplementary COMPARISON OF LENGTH STANDARDS FOR MEASURING GEAR PARAMETERS COOMET.L- S10. Final Report

Deutschen Kalibrierdienst D-K

Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt

AFRIMETS. Supplementary Comparison Programme. Calibration of Gauge Blocks. by Mechanical Comparison Method AFRIMETS.L S3.

Achieving traceability of industrial computed tomography

COOMET.M.V-S2 (587/RU-a/12) COOMET SUPPLEMENTARY COMPARISON IN THE FIELD OF MEASUREMENTS OF LIQUIDS KINEMATIC VISCOSITY

Bilateral comparison on micro-cmm artefacts. between PTB and METAS. Final report

Final Report On COOMET Vickers PTB/VNIIFTRI Key Comparison (COOMET.M.H- K1.b and COOMET.M.H- K1.c)

Appendix B1. Reports of SMU

Final Report on COOMET Supplementary Comparison of Capacitance at 100 pf (COOMET.EM-S4)

Project: CООМЕТ 390/BY/07. SUPPLEMENTARY COMPARISON OF STANDARDS OF THE UNIT FOR LENGTH (METRE) IN THE MEASUREMENT RANGE FROM 0,1 TO 100 mm

Document No: TR 12 Issue No: 1

382/RU/07 SUPPLEMENTARY COMPARISON

CCL-K5. CMM 1D: Step Gauge and Ball Bars. Final Report

This document is a preview generated by EVS

Final Report on APMP.M.M-K4.1 - Bilateral Comparison of 1 kg Stainless Steel Mass Standards between KRISS and A*STAR

Centre for Metrology and Accreditation, MIKES

Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine Terminology. R. Wielgosz and S. Maniguet

Centro Nacional de Metrología. CIPM Key Comparison CCL KC-6

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF PLATINUM RESISTANCE THERMOMETERS BETWEEN CHILE AND ECUADOR

R SANAS Page 1 of 7

METHODS TO CONFIRM THE MEASUREMENT CAPABILITY OF THE FORCE STANDARD MACHINES AFTER REINSTALLATION

SIM Regional Comparison on. The Calibration of Internal and External Diameter Standards SIM.L-K FINAL REPORT July 2012

ENG56 DriveTrain. Good practice guide. for surface parameter measurement strategies for form and diameter measurements for large bearings

Final Report on the EURAMET.PR-K1.a-2009 Comparison of Spectral Irradiance 250 nm nm

High pressure comparison among seven European national laboratories

DEVELOPMENT OF CALIBRATION METHODS FOR THE NANOINDENTATION TEST

Report on EURAMET.M.M-S9

BHARATHIDASAN ENGINEERING COLLEGE, NATTRAMPALLI. DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING FAQ

Certification of a High Capacity Force Machine for Testing of Load Cells According to OIML R60

ЕВРО-АЗИАТСКОЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫХ МЕТРОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЙ (KOOMET)

REPORT to the CCT on Comparison COOMET. T-K3 (COOMET theme No. 285/RU-а/03) Final Report

Available online at ScienceDirect. Andrej Godina*, Bojan Acko

Supplementary Comparison EURAMET.EM-S19 EURAMET Project No. 688

Traceability of on-machine measurements under a wide range of working conditions

Report on Key Comparison COOMET.AUV.A-K5: Pressure calibration of laboratory standard microphones in the frequency range 2 Hz to 10 khz

PTB- Bericht F-37. Calibration of a step gauge. Otto Jusko. Final Report of EUROMET Project #372. PTB-F-37 Braunschweig, September 1999

UNCERTAINTY SCOPE OF THE FORCE CALIBRATION MACHINES. A. Sawla Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Bundesallee 100, D Braunschweig, Germany

COOMET.PR-S3. Supplementary Comparison Refractive Index (COOMET project 438/RU/08)

AM Metrology at NPL. Stephen Brown. Tuesday 8 th December 2015

ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN HARDNESS MEASUREMENT OF RUBBER AND OTHER ELASTOPLASTIC MATERIALS

TR CRITERIA FOR LABORATORY ACCREDITATION IN THE FIELD OF DIMENSIONAL METROLOGY

High pressure comparisons between seven European National Laboratories

ISO/BIPM Guide: Uncertainty of measurement 1

Metallic materials Brinell hardness test. Part 3: Calibration of reference blocks

A comparison of primary platinum-iridium kilogram mass standards among eighteen European NMIs

CCM short note on the dissemination process after the proposed redefinition of the kilogram

Correct Traceability in Flexible and Complex Dimensional Metrology. Uncertainty in coordinate metrology: - Needs - Standards.

SAMM POLICY 5 (SP5) POLICY ON MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY REQUIREMENTS FOR SAMM TESTING LABORATORIES Issue 2, 28 February 2007 (Amd. 1, 11 August 2014)

Surface Roughness - Standards and Uncertainty R. Krüger-Sehm and L. Koenders

Final Report of COOMET.T-K7: Regional key comparison of water triple point cells (COOMET theme No 395/BY/07)

FORCE STANDARDS COMPARISON BETWEEN PTB (GERMANY) AND CENAM (MEXICO).

The Program. Wear measurement Page 5. Inspection of parts Page 6. Online certificate Page 7. DKD-calibration Page 8. Deviation analysis Page 11

Final Report on the Torque Key Comparison CCM.T-K2 Measurand Torque: 0 kn m, 10 kn m, 20 kn m Dirk Röske 1), Koji Ogushi 2)

Metrological Characterization of a Primary Vickers Hardness Standard Machine - NIS Egypt

ANNEXE 8. Technical protocols for the interlaboratory comparisons

Final Report on Comparison of Hydraulic Pressure Balance Effective Area Determination in the Range up to 80 MPa

Measurement & Uncertainty - Basic concept and its application

Quality assurance for sensors at the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD)

Euramet project 1187 Comparison of Instrument Current Transformers up to 10 ka. Technical protocol (March 2012)

A Unified Approach to Uncertainty for Quality Improvement

Final report on CCQM-K36.1 with erratum

Calibration and verification: Two procedures having comparable objectives and results

ERROR LIMITS AND MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY IN LEGAL METROLOGY

Final Report on COOMET Key Comparison of Capacitance at 10 pf (COOMET.EM-K4)

Recent Developments in Standards for Measurement Uncertainty and Traceability (An Overview of ISO and US Uncertainty Activities) CMM Seminar

Final Report. CCEM Comparison of 10 pf Capacitance Standards. Anne-Marie Jeffery Electricity Division NIST May 2000 Revised March 2002

EUROMET Project 702 EUROMET.M.D-K4

EA-10/14. EA Guidelines on the Calibration of Static Torque Measuring Devices. Publication Reference PURPOSE

RECENT ILC ACTIVITY IN ROMANIAN MASS MEASUREMENTS

Report on APMP Supplementary Comparison High precision roundness measurement APMP.L-S4. Final report

Comparison of measurement uncertainty budgets for calibration of sound calibrators: Euromet project 576

The new Closed Loop pigsar and its projected CMC. Jos van der Grinten, Detlef Vieth, Bodo Mickan

INVESTIGATION OF THE CALIBRATION CAPABILITIES OF A 1 KN M AND 10 KN M REFERENCE CALIBRATION MACHINE

Provläsningsexemplar / Preview INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO Second edition

Comparison of Results Obtained from Calibration of a Measuring Arm Performed According to the VDI/VDE, ASME and ISO Standards

Intercomparison of Thermal Expansion Measurements. EUROMET Project 275. Final Report

CCQM-K45: Sn in tomato paste key comparison

Essentials of expressing measurement uncertainty

Uncertainty of Calibration. Results in Force Measurements

Calibration of long gauge blocks. Technical protocol (Issue 1)

A SPRT Intercomparison at Hg, TPW, Ga, Sn and Zn ITS-90 Fixed Points between PTB and LATU with PTB as Pilot Laboratory

Guideline DKD-R 4-2. Sheet 3. Edition 7/2011.

INVESTIGATION OF TRANSFER STANDARDS IN THE HIGHEST RANGE UP TO 50 MN WITHIN EMRP PROJECT SIB 63 Falk Tegtmeier 1, Michael Wagner 2, Rolf Kumme 3

CCM Vickers key comparison. Final Report

Revision of CMM performance specifications

Metrology Principles for Earth Observation: the NMI view. Emma Woolliams 17 th October 2017

MASS AND VOLUME COMPARISONS AT MIKES

Project 887 Force Uncertainty Guide. Andy Knott, NPL EUROMET TC-M Lensbury, Teddington, United Kingdom 1 March 2007

Physikalisch- Technische Bundesanstalt

Final Report 06 July 2006 Frank Wilkinson, Gan Xu, and Yuanjie Liu

Comparison protocol EURAMET project

Transcription:

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt COOMET Supplementary Comparison COOMET.L-S18 (COOMET project: 673/UA-a/15) Involute gear measurement standards Final report September 2017 Coordinator: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Author: Dr. Karin Kniel, PTB, Germany Approved by: Dr. Vladimir S. Kupko, NSC Ukraine Makarevich Vladimir Bronislavovich, BelGIM, Belarus Prof. Valeriy Lysenko, VNIIMS, Russian Project duration: November 2015 October 2016

standards 2 Index of Contents 1 Organization... 3 1.1 Participants... 3 1.2 Schedule... 4 2 Description of the measurement standards... 5 2.1 Profile measurement standard... 5 2.2 Helix measurement standard... 6 2.3 Pitch measurement standard... 7 3 General measurement instructions... 8 3.1 Traceability... 8 3.2 Guidelines and standards... 8 3.3 Measurement uncertainty... 8 4 Measurement results... 9 4.1 Profile measurements... 9 4.2 Helix measurements... 9 4.3 Pitch measurements...10 5 Evaluation of the normalized error E n...11 5.1 General information...11 5.2 Results with respect to E n(k=2) evaluation based on expanded uncertainty...12 6 Conclusion...13 7 Acknowledgements...13 8 References...14 Anhang A: Measurement reports of the participants...15

standards 3 1 Organization The choice and the provision of the gear measurement standards were executed by the National Scientific Center (NSC) Ukraine. The list of participants and the circulation scheme were made by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Germany. With this information a technical protocol was written by the pilot National Metrology Institute (NMI), PTB, [1] and sent to the participants. 1.1 Participants From the beginning 4 NMIs with worldwide reputation for gear metrology participated at this international comparison. No. COUNTRY CONTACT PERSON / ADDRESS 1 GERMANY (Pilot) PTB 2 UKRAINE National Scientific Center (NSC) Institute of Metrology 3 REPUBLIC OF BELARUS Belarussian State Institute of Metrology (BelGIM) Karin Kniel Department Coordinate Metrology Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Bundesallee 100 38116 Braunschweig Germany Fon +49-531-592-5300 Fax +49-531-592-695300 Karin.Kniel@ptb.de Vladimir S. Kupko Kharkov State Research Institute of Metrology (KhSRIM) 42 Mironositskaya St. 61002 Kharkov Ukraine kupko@metrology.kharkov.ua Makarevich Vladimir Bronislavovich Production and research department of measurements of geometric quantities Starovilensky trakt, 93, Minsk 220053 Republic of Belarus Tel.: +375 (17) 233-35-82 Fax: +375 (17) 288-09-38 E-mail: makarevich@belgim.by

standards 4 4 RUSSIA Russian Research Institute For Metrological Service Table 1: List of all participants Prof. Valeriy Lysenko VNIIMS, Russian Research Institute For Metrological Service 46, Ozernaya st. Moscow 119361 Russia Tel.: +7 495 781 86 53 Email: lysenko@vniims.ru 1.2 Schedule An initial time schedule was drawn as shown in Table 2. The circulation of the standards was scheduled for 12 months starting on October 2016 with the participation of 4 NMIs. NMI Country Period 1 PTB Germany before project start 2 NSC Ukraine 2016-02-29 2016-05-30 3 BelGIM Republic of Belarus 2016-06-03 2016-08-03 4 VNIIMS Russia 2016-08-07 2016-10-10 Table 2: Initial timetable The measurement results were given partly delayed and only on demand. Furthermore, the evaluations were partly not made according to the determined standard (ISO 1328-1) as the effective guidelines and standards were clearly defined in the technical protocol. This led to false results. The participants were asked to check their results and give a feedback. Because the PTB (Germany) is the only participant in the present comparison who has successfully participated in the latest international comparison on gears EURAMET.L-S24, the calibration values of PTB will be used as reference values for this comparison. By this procedure, the results of this comparison can also be linked to the results of the prior comparison EURAMET.L-S24. A check for statistical consistency of the results with their associated uncertainties will be made by calculation of the normalized error E for each laboratory and for each measurand. n It must be pointed out that the gear parameters must be entered with the accuracy stated in the particular table of the measurement standards to avoid deviations due to rounding errors.

standards 5 2 Description of the measurement standards 2.1 Profile measurement standard Figure 1: Profile measurement standard (Involute): d 1 = 120 mm and d 2 = 300 mm, right flanks Gear Parameter: Profile measurement standard d 1 = 120 mm d 2 = 300 mm Helix angle 0 0 Modul m n 6.0977 mm 7.9827 mm Number of teeth z 21 40 Pressure angle n 20 20 Facewidth b 15 mm 15 mm Measurands The chosen measurands according the respective standards [2, 3] were: Profile slope deviation f H in μm Profile form deviation f f in μm Profile total deviation F in μm Measurement procedure The right flank profile had to be measured in the centre of the tooth flank. The measurement points should be distributed equidistantly over the length of roll. The stylus sphere used for probing should be close to 3 mm in diameter. The evaluation referred to the following parameters. d 1: d 2: Length of roll foot L αstart: 13.78 mm Length of roll tip L αend: 41.34 mm Length of roll foot L αstart: 32.0 mm Length of roll tip L αend: 64.0 mm

standards 6 References The datum face of the measurement standard was marked by the serial number (3-0). The reference axis of the measurement standard should be numerically determined. For this purpose, the reference bands (diameter approx. 20 mm for the upper circle and 36 mm for the lower circle) of the gear measurement standard should be probed in the centre. In each of these transversal planes at least 36 points, which were distributed equally spaced over the circumference, should be recorded. Through the points, a circle should be fitted using the least squares method to define the centre of the circle. The axis of the gear measurement standard should be defined from the centers of the two circles. The reference point for the height of the profile measurement should be determined on top of each of the tooth, 2 mm from the tip circle in the direction of the reference axis. During the measurement, the temperature should be as close to the reference temperature 20 C as possible. 2.2 Helix measurement standard Figure 2: Helix measurement standard (0, 15, 30, left- and right-hand, left flanks) Gear parameter: Helix angle 0 15 l+r 30 l+r Modul m n 4.0 mm 3.8637 mm 3.4641 mm Number of teeth z 25 25 25 Pressure angle n 20 20 20 Facewidth b 70 mm 70 mm 70 mm

standards 7 Measurands The chosen measurands according the respective standards [2, 3] were: helix slope deviation f Hß in μm helix form deviation f fß in μm helix total deviation F ß in μm Measurement procedure The helix measurements should be performed in the centre of the measurement standard on a measurement cylinder with d M = 100 mm. The stylus sphere should be close to 3.0 mm in diameter. The evaluation range is L ß = 56 mm (centric on the gear measurement standard). References The datum face of the measurement standard was marked by the engravings respective the calibration mark. The reference axis of the measurement standard should be numerically determined. For this purpose, the reference bands (diameter approx. 32 mm) of the gear measurement standard should be probed in the centre. In each of these transversal planes at least 36 points, which were distributed equally spaced over the circumference, should be recorded. Through the points, a circle should be fitted using the least squares method. The axis of the gear measurement standard should be defined from the centres of the two circles. During the measurement, the temperature should as close to the reference temperature 20 C as possible. 2.3 Pitch measurement standard Figure 3: Pitch measurement standard Gear parameter: Helix angle 0 Modul m n 3.0 mm Number of teeth z 34 Pressure angle n 20 Facewidth b Tip diameter d a 25,4 mm 108 mm

standards 8 Measurands The chosen measurands according the respective standards [2, 3] were: Cumulative pitch deviation F P in μm (left- and right flank) Single pitch deviation f P in μm (left- and right flank) Measurement procedure The measurement standard should be fixed with an internal three-jaw chuck at the inside hollow shaft. The pitch should be measured in the single-flank facility. The stylus sphere should be close to 3.0 mm in diameter. The diameter of the measurement circle is d M = 102 mm. References The reference side of the measurement standard was marked with the serial number 4693. The reference axis of the measurement standard should be numerically determined. For this purpose, two circles in the boring, one 6.2 mm from the reference surface (upper side) of the gear standard, the other one 26.2 mm from the reference surface, should be probed. In each case at least 36 points, which were distributed equally spaced over the circumference, should be recorded. Through these points, a circle should be fitted using the least squares method and the circle centre should be determined. The axis of the gear measurement standard should be defined from the centres of the two circles. During the measurement, the temperature should as close to the reference temperature 20 C as possible. 3 General measurement instructions 3.1 Traceability Length measurements should be independently traceable to the latest realization of the mètre as set out in the current Mise en Pratique [4]. This means that the length unit was transferred to the ball and bore plates with the CMM by one of the following methods: laser interferometer, gauge blocks, ball beams, ball bar or step gauges. Whatever the instrument or standard used, it should be traceable to the definition of the length unit through calibrations performed in house. Temperature measurements should be made using the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90). The mentioned measurands should be evaluated according to the following International Standards: 3.2 Guidelines and standards Following guidelines and written standards were taken into account: International Vocabulary of Metrology [5] ISO standards: 1328-1, 21771 [2, 6, 7] 3.3 Measurement uncertainty The uncertainty of measurement should be estimated according to the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement [8]. Due to differences of equipment, methods and procedures applied between laboratories, a complete list of uncertainty sources to be taken in account has not been given here.

standards 9 4 Measurement results All measurement results for profile, helix and pitch are summarized in the following tables. Moreover, the individual specified expanded uncertainty is presented. All participants assumed the standard measurement uncertainty with coverage factor on k = 2. 4.1 Profile measurements participant d 1 = 120 mm Profile slope deviation Profile total deviation Profile form deviation fhα in µm U in µm Fα in µm U in µm ffα in µm U in µm PTB Germany -2.16 0.70 4.63 0.90 3.60 0.50 NSC Ukraine -1.20 1.47 4.30 1.50 3.70 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -2.28 1.00 4.14 1.00 4.11 1.00 VNIIMS Russia -4.40 0.51 6.06 0.51 4.47 0.51 participant d 2 = 300 mm Profile slope deviation Profile total deviation Profile form deviation fhα in µm U in µm Fα in µm U in µm ffα in µm U in µm PTB Germany 0.37 0.70 0.85 0.90 0.68 0.50 NSC Ukraine -0.60 1.47 1.40 1.50 1.20 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -0.07 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 VNIIMS Russia -1.43 0.51 1.93 0.51 1.12 0.51 Table 3: Summarized results of all profile measurements 4.2 Helix measurements participant 0 helix Helix slope deviation Helix total deviation Helix form deviation fh in µm U in µm F in µm U in µm ff in µm U in µm PTB Germany 1.35 0.70 1.99 1.00 0.78 0.60 NSC Ukraine 1.40 1.61 2.50 1.70 1.70 1.40 BelGIM Belarus 1.46 1.00 2.09 1.00 0.95 1.00 VNIIMS Russia 1.64 0.91 2.11 0.91 0.97 0.90 Table 4: Summarized results of the 0 helix measurements 15 helix, left hand participant Helix slope deviation Helix total deviation Helix form deviation fh in µm U in µm F in µm U in µm ff in µm U in µm PTB Germany -3.23 0.80 3.41 1.10 0.99 0.60 NSC Ukraine -3.50 1.62 3.80 1.71 1.30 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -4.04 1.00 4.62 1.00 1.70 1.00 VNIIMS Russia 2.74 0.92 4.04 0.93 1.92 0.91 Table 5: Summarized results of the 15 helix, left hand measurements

standards 10 15 helix, right hand participant Helix slope deviation Helix total deviation Helix form deviation fh in µm U in µm F in µm U in µm ff in µm U in µm PTB Germany -0.93 0.80 1.87 1.10 1.44 0.60 NSC Ukraine -0.30 1.62 2.40 1.71 2.40 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -1.09 1.00 2.30 1.00 1.74 1.00 VNIIMS Russia -0.45 0.92 2.69 0.93 2.60 0.91 Table 6: Summarized results of the 15 helix, right hand measurements 30 helix, left hand participant Helix slope deviation Helix total deviation Helix form deviation fh in µm U in µm F in µm U in µm ff in µm U in µm PTB Germany -7.38 1.00 7.93 1.20 1.53 0.60 NSC Ukraine -8.80 1.64 9.10 1.72 1.30 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -7.21 1.00 7.95 1.00 1.75 1.00 VNIIMS Russia 5.92 0.97 7.04 0.96 3.02 0.91 Table 7: Summarized results of the 30 helix, left hand measurements 30 helix, right hand participant Helix slope deviation Helix total deviation Helix form deviation fh in µm U in µm F in µm U in µm ff in µm U in µm PTB Germany -1.80 1.00 2.59 1.20 1.88 0.60 NSC Ukraine -0.90 1.64 2.00 1.72 1.90 1.40 BelGIM Belarus -2.08 1.00 2.90 1.00 2.18 1.00 VNIIMS Russia -1.35 0.97 3.59 0.96 3.06 0.91 Table 8: Summarized results of the 30 helix, right hand measurements 4.3 Pitch measurements Pitch, left flank participant Single pitch deviation Cumulative pitch deviation f p max in µm U in µm pitch F p in µm U in µm pitch PTB Germany 2.06 0.5 3 6.30 0.5 22-1 NSC Ukraine 1.90 1.43 4 6.90 2.34 24-33 BelGIM Belarus 1.78 1.00 28 8.13 1.00 34-14 1 VNIIMS Russia 1.97 0.53 34 6.18 0.64 4-11 1 Table 9: Summarized results of the pitch, left flank measurements 1 The finally specified pitch numbers do not match the measurement results in the submitted reports.

standards 11 Pitch, right flank participant Single pitch deviation Cumulative pitch deviation f p max in µm U in µm pitch F p in µm U in µm pitch PTB Germany -2.91 0.5 32 7.92 0.5 25-2 NSC Ukraine -2.70 1.43 33 8.70 2.34 26-3 BelGIM Belarus -3.17 1.00 1 9.99 1.00 34-11 VNIIMS Russia -2.29 0.53 1 7.62 0.64 34-11 Table 10: Summarized results of the pitch, right flank measurements 5 Evaluation of the normalized error En 5.1 General information In case of this intercomparison the PTB operated as the reference laboratory due to this fact the PTB values are used as reference values. A check for statistical consistency of the results with their associated uncertainties can be made by calculation of the normalized error E for each laboratory and for each measurand. The n n E value indicates if the measurement value and its corresponding measurement uncertainty are comparable to the results of the reference laboratory. In detail that means that the E n value is the internationally agreed parameter which shows if the individual value x i together with its determined expanded measurement uncertainty U i and the expanded measurement uncertainty of the corresponding reference value U is reliable in comparison with the reference value x. The absolute value ref E n must be less than 1 to meet this quality criterion for indicating that the laboratory is in the position to obtain a qualified result. Due to prior agreement with the COOMET [1] and other experts and guidelines for measurement uncertainty evaluation [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14], the E n value was calculated according to the approach shown in equation 2: E n xi xref k 2 (2) U U 2 i 2 ref ref As recommended by the WG-MRA Guidance Document GD-1 [13] the calculation of the E value was based on the expanded measurement uncertainty. n

standards 12 5.2 Results with respect to E n(k=2) evaluation based on expanded uncertainty In total 28 measurands for all the standards (profile, helix and pitch) had to be measured by each participant. All received results were analysed and evaluated. In Table 11 the normalized error E for each parameter are listed. n Key to the colour: highlighted grey colour cells represent where the comparability value is not fulfilled profile d 1 = 120 mm profile d 2 = 300 mm helix 0 helix 15 left hand helix 15 right hand helix 30 left hand helix 30 right hand pitch left flank pitch right flank NSC BelGIM VNIIMS f H 0.59 0.10 2.59 f f 0.07 0.46 1.22 F 0.19 0.36 1.38 f H 0.60 0.36 2.08 f f 0.35 0.17 0.62 F 0.31 0.00 1.04 f Hß 0.03 0.09 0.25 f fß 0. 60 0.15 0.18 F ß 0.26 0.07 0.09 f Hß 0.15 0.63 4.90 f fß 0.20 0.61 0.85 F ß 0.19 0.81 0.44 f Hß 0.35 0.12 0.39 f fß 0.63 0.26 1.06 F ß 0.26 0.29 0.57 f Hß 0.74 0.12 9.55 f fß 0.15 0.19 1.37 F ß 0.56 0.01 0.58 f Hß 0.46 0.20 0.32 f fß 0.02 0.26 1.08 F ß 0.25 0.20 0.65 F P 0.25 1.64 0.15 2 f P 0.11 0.25 0.12 F P 0.33 1.85 0.37 2 f P 0.14 0.23 0.85 E n>1 0 2 10 Table 12: Measurement results based on the normalized error E n (k = 2) 2 Concerning the comparison of the results for the single pitch deviation (see Table 9 and 10): The maximum single pitch deviation fp max is defined as the maximum absolute value of the measured single pitch deviations fp which is signed. Due to this definition the comparison of the results is based on the absolute values.

standards 13 6 Conclusion Summarizing, the international comparison for involute gear standards organized by COOMET has been successfully conducted. It was the second international comparison on complex dimensional measurands as gear quality parameters. The comparison of the presented results however shows that discrepancies of the values of the compared measurands of some participating NMIs in some cases were too big and below the expectations, which leaves room for further improvement. 7 Acknowledgements All participants express gratitude for the support of COOMET that made the comparison a success. It is a great step forward in positive direction.

standards 14 8 References [1] COOMET Project 673/UA-a/15: Involute Gear Standards, TechnicalProtocol_Gear Comp_COOMET.L-S18 (673UA-a15)_2016-03-29.pdf [2] ISO 1328-1 (2013): Cylindrical gears - ISO system of flank tolerance classification - Part 1: Definitions and allowable values of deviations relevant to flanks of gear teeth [3] Mise en pratique: http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mep.html, Access: July 2011 [4] VDI/VDE 2612 (2000): Profil- und Flankenlinienprüfung an Zylinderrädern mit Evolventenprofil [5] VIM: International Vocabulary of Metrology Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms VIM, 3rd edition, JCGM 200:2008 [6] ISO 18653 (2003): Gears - Evaluation of instruments for the measurement of individual gears [7] ISO 21771 (2007): Gears - Cylindrical involute gears and gear pairs Concepts and geometry [8] JCGM 100 (2008): Evaluation of measurement data Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/ jcgm/ JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf, Access: July 2011 [9] DKD-Arbeitsanweisung DKD-AA-5 (2009), Ausgabe Nr. 5: Grundsätze und Verfahren für Vergleichsmessungen [10] Wöger, W.: Remarks on the En-criterion used in measurement comparisons. PTB- Mitteilungen 109, 1/99 [11] En-Toolkit: User s guide. http://inms.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/qde/montecarlo/entoolkit.html, Access: November 2011 [12] En-Toolkit: Presentation. http://inms.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/qde/montecarlo/entoolkit.html, Access: November 2011 [13] Lewis, A.: Running of MRA comparisons in length metrology and monitoring their impact on CMCs. CCL/WG-MRA/GD-1, March 2011 [14] Key Engineering Materials Vol. 613 (2014) pp 26-33: Recommendation for unified rules for key comparison evaluation, Trans Tec Publications, Switzerland

standards 15 Appendix A: Measurement reports of the participants The following measurement reports were prepared by each participant. They comprise the description of the measurement procedure as well as the measurement results. Each report is completely listed in this document.

standards 16 Participant 1: Germany (PTB)

standards 17

standards 18

standards 19

standards 20

standards 21

standards 22

standards 23

standards 24

standards 25

standards 26

standards 27

standards 28

standards 29

standards 30

standards 31

standards 32

standards 33

standards 34

standards 35

standards 36

standards 37

standards 38

standards 39

standards 40

standards 41

standards 42 Participant 2: Ukraine (NSC)

standards 43

standards 44

standards 45 The following table includes corrected values which were deliver later.

standards 46

standards 47

standards 48 Participant 3: Republic of Belarus (BelGIM)

standards 49

standards 50

standards 51

standards 52

standards 53 The following table includes corrected values which were deliver later.

standards 54 Participant 4: Russia (VNIIMS)

standards 55

standards 56

standards 57