Asia Pacific Metrology Programme APMP TCTF Working Group on the Mutual Recognition Agreement Louis Marais, NMIA Michael Wouters, NMIA APMP, Beijing, November 2015
Role of the WG MRA Co-ordinate both inter- and intra- RMO CMC reviews Interact with the CCTF WG MRA Provide guidance on writing CMCs TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 2
CMC review status Code NMI Status Date SIM.TF.11.2014 ICE-LMVE (Costa Rica) Published in KCDB 2014-12-08 SIM.TF.10.2014 INM (Colombia) Published in KCDB 2015-02-10 SIM.TF.12.2014 INTI (Argentina) Published in KCDB 2015-03-10 COOMET.TF.7.2014 KazInMetr (Kazakhstan) Published in KCDB 2015-03-13 APMP.TF.13.2014 TL (Chinese Taipei) Published in KCDB 2015-03-13 APMP.TF.14.2014 NICT (Japan) Intra-RMO review In progress APMP.TF.15.2015 NIMT (Thailand) Intra-RMO review In progress APMP.TF.16.2015 NMC (Singapore) Intra-RMO review In progress Thank you to Dr Wen-Hung Tseng (TL) for a smooth handover TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 3
Current peer reviewers KRISS KRISS MSL NICT NICT NICT NICT NIM NIM NPLI NMIA NMIJ NMIJ NMIJ NMIJ TL TL Taeg Yong Kwon Sang Eon Park Tim Armstrong Mizuhiko Hosokawa Yasuhiro Koyama Tsukasa Iwama Hiroyuki Ito Gao Xiaoxun Zhang Aimin Amitava Sen Gupta Michael Wouters Takeshi Ikegami Masaki Amemiya Tomonari Suzuyama Michito Imae Chia-Shu Liao Huang-Tien Lin The procedure is that you nominate an NMI and the TCTF Chair will select a peer reviewer in consultation with that NMI. TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 4
CCTF WG MRA: Review of the MRA Call for comments on the MRA in April, 2015 eg database, adequacy of comparisons, update of services, traceability issues, calculation of uncertainty, information in CMCs, impact of CMCs on stakeholders/customers, CMC review process, and suggestions for improvement Initially, no comments received from entire T&F community! Some comments from APMP after second call: expand CMC list to include vehicle speed measurement devices, guidelines needed on establishment of a primary standard and uncertainty evaluation, training course on the MRA desirable, streamlining of CMC approvals in some circumstances The MRA is working satisfactorily TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 5
Current CMC reviewer contacts Dr. Liu Yan Ying Dr. Dai-Hyuk Yu Dr. Tim Armstrong Dr. Ito Hiroyuki Dr. Zhang Aimin Mr. Somchai Nuamsettee Dr. Michael Wouters Dr. Suzuyama Tomonari Dr. Mohd Nasir Zainal Abidin Dr. Amitava Sen Gupta Dr. Samuel Ko Dr. Chia-Shu LIAO Mr. Nguyen Bang ASTAR KRISS MSL NICT NIM NIMT NMIA NMIJ NMLS NPLI SCL TL VMI Note: you can nominate someone else in your institution to do the review TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 6
CCTF WG MRA: UTC prediction uncertainty Published CMCs for UTC(k) prediction @ 20 days have uncertainties ranging from 20 ns to 200 ns. different time transfer methods white frequency noise y 14 7 10 Prediction uncertainty (2 sigma) at 20 days / [ns] 1 10 7 10 y 14 14 u[ns] u A [ns] u A [ns] 0.3 2.5 5 7.5 10 0.3 1 12 81 5.1 16 16 82 7.3 19 19 21 83 10.7 25 25 26 29 84 20.1 42 42 43 45 46 91 y A number of comments made by TL Document available on BIPM website www.bipm.org/utils/common/.../cctf-wgmra-guideline_5.pdf (but not updated yet) TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 7
Meeting of the CCTF WG on the MRA In attendance: E. Dierikx (VSL), H.-T. Lin (TL), C.S Liao (TL), M. Wouters (NMIA), C. Matthee (NMISA), M. Lopez (Chair), S. Picard (BIPM), G. Panfillo (BIPM), D. Olson (BIPM) Supplementary comparisons: EURAMET had organized a pilot comparison on measurement of time-interval, using cables as the measurement artefact. There were some problems though, and a better artefact is now almost ready. TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 8
APMP CMC review process QS documents TCQS Chair NMI All documents APMP Secretariat OK Publication in the KCDB CMC documents TCTF Chair WG MRA 3 reviewers 4 week response TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 9
CMC guidelines The WG MRA maintains a set of guidelines for preparation of CMC uncertainties Basic information Service category 1.1.2 Quantity Time scale difference Instrument or Artifact Local clock vs. UTC Instrument Type or Method Comparison against predicted UTC Measurand Level or Range -0.5 s to 0.5 s Measurement Conditions Sampling number 100 Input Slew Rate 0.5 V/ns Instruments RF Distribution amplifier Pulse Distribution amplifier Cable Time Interval Counter Measurement configuration HPDA-15RM-B (SpectraDynamics, Inc.) 10188 (TimeTech GmbH) FSJ1-50A (Andrew) SR620 (Stanford Research Systems) 1. UTC(NMI) Prediction Uncertainty (30days) a) calculation 1 Average 7.0 ns Standard deviation 10 ns u (prediction) 2 2 (Average) (Standard Deviation) 2 2 (7.0) (10) 12.2 ns < 13 ns Comments Calculated from an average and standard deviation of UTC-UTC(NMI) published in circular T 2010. In this calculation, we assume offset of UTC(NMI) is always zero and fractional deviation is treated as an uncertainty. b) calculation 2 Maximum difference between UTC-UTC(NMI) 23.4 ns (Maximum difference) u(prediction) 3 23.4 3 13.5 ns < 14 ns Comments We assume the distribution of the maximum value of time difference between UTC-UTC(NMI) as rectangular. c) calculation 3 Standard deviation of the frequency between UTC-UTC(NMI) at 30 days. 2.2E-15 u Prediction σ UTC-UTC(NMI) 30 86400 2.2 10 15 2592000 5.7 ns < 6.0 ns Comments When you use this calculation, you have to include last data of UTC-UTC(NMI) in the time scale difference calculation. http://www.apmpweb.org/fms/guidelines3.php?tc_id=tf TCTF WGMRA report APMP Beijing 2015 10