Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

The positioning inuence of dial gauges on their

calibration results
Marcelo Kobayoshi
a

a,1

, Queenie Siu Hang Chui

b,*

Centro SENAI de Metrologia do Departamento Regional de Sao Paulo, Rua Bento Branco de Andrade Filho 379,
Sao Paulo, SP, CEP 04757-000, Brasil
b
Universidade Sao FranciscoPPGECM, Itatiba, Sao Paulo, Rua Alexandre Rodrigues Barbosa,
45, Itatiba, SP, CEP 13.251-900, Brasil
Received 17 July 2003; received in revised form 24 November 2004; accepted 10 December 2004
Available online 29 April 2005

Abstract
In Brazil dial gauges are among the mostly used measurement instruments in industrial dimensional metrology. The
objective of this work is to study the positioning eect of the dial gauge in the vertical position and in the horizontal
position on the uncertainty of their results in tests and measurements. By using a system with optical solution (laser),
with an interferometer method of displacement control, calibrations were performed in six new dial gauges, from two
dierent manufacturers, with scale interval of 0.01 mm and measuring range of 10 mm. All dierences between the
obtained values were below the values of the calculated uncertainties of the involved calibration processes. No meaningful dierences are noticed, when the dial gauge is either in vertical or horizontal position. This factor produces an
eect that does not deserve being considered as a source of meaningful contribution to the nal uncertainty of the
results of measurements.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dial gauges; Mechanical comparator; Measuring instrument; Dimensional metrology; Measuring uncertainty

1. Introduction
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 11 4534 8025; fax: +55 11

4524 1933.
E-mail addresses: marcelokobayoshi.sbm@metrologia.org.
br (M. Kobayoshi), queenie.hang@saofrancisco.edu.br (Q.S.H.
Chui).
1
Tel.: +55 11 5641 4072.

Mechanical dial gauges belong to the category

of dimensional measuring instruments known as
mechanical indicators [1,2], which are among the
mostly used instruments in the metal mechanic
producing area, as well as electro-electronics, plastics and construction [3].

0263-2241/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2004.12.001

68

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

In studies for a new materials, when a favorable

combination of properties is required, such as tensile strength, compression, toughness, exibility,
wear resistance and hardness, dial gauges are used
in their characterization tests with the purpose of
detecting the presence of eventual dimensional
variations [4].
It is known that in most of its applications,
either for research and development or for industrial purposes, the positioning of the dial gauge,
regarding the direction of the action of gravity, depends on the conditions of physical space for its
assembly, usually performed with devices, bases
and supports.
Regarding its calibration, it is oered to the
Brazilian market [5] a remarkable variety of equipment that makes possible the calibration of dial
gauges. Most of these systems follow an orientation positioning parallel or close to the direction
of the action of gravity (vertical), or an orientation
orthogonal to the direction of gravity (horizontal).
Analyzing the procedures adopted by the Laboratories of Calibration of dial gauges belonged to
the Brazilian Calibration NetworkRBC, that is
cordinated by the National Metrology Institute
INMETRO in Brazil, it is observed that the
positioning of the dial gauge during its calibration
is normally dened according to the type and
model of calibration equipment available in the
laboratory.
Moreover, technical standards and reference
documents from dierent countries cover the
methods of production and calibration of the dial
gauges, but there is no consensus relating their
positioning during the calibration.
The Brazilian standard NBR 6388 [6] mentions
in its item 6, sub-item 6.1 that: All the test
requirements should be guaranteed for any positioning of the movable stem regarding the
direction of gravity. In the ocial document
DOQ-DIMCI-004Orientations for the performance of calibrations in the area of dimensional
metrology [7] the standard JIS B7503 [8], is mentioned as a reference for the determination of these
points and states in its item 8Methods of measuring of performance, Table 2, the following orientation: Holding the plunger of the dial gauge
vertically and downward, carry out the following

procedure. . .. It is noticed therefore the application of dierent concepts regarding the positioning
requirements of the dial gauges during their
calibration.
Other standards and international recommendations such as ISO R463 [9], DIN 878 [10] and
ASME/AINSI B89.1.10M [11], do not either present a consensus about this subject making clear
the nonexistence of an unique criterion regarding
the positioning procedure during the calibration.
The present work aims at pursuing a discerning
study about the variability of the calibration results of a dial gauge as a function of its vertical
and horizontal positioning.

2. Methodology
In the study mechanical and analogical dial
gauges were used, with a scale interval of
0.01 mm and a measuring range of 10 mm. Three
model 2046F dial gauges, manufactured by Mitutoyo Corporation, made in Japan and three gauges
model 3025-481, manufactured by Starret Industria e Comercio Ltda and assembled in Brazil,
were utilized. All these dial gauges complied with
the maximum permissible error required by the
DIN 878 standard for each of the parameters:
the span of error, fe 6 15 lm, the total span of
error, fges 6 17 lm and the hysteresis error,
fu 6 3 lm.
By ethical reasons, and also because it was not
the focus of this work to evaluate possible dierences between the products used, it was decided
to do not identify the manufacturer of each dial
gauge assessed. It was only stated that the dial
gauges were identied by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4,
5 and 6.
The experiments were performed at the Laboratory of Metrology of the Escola Suco-Brasileira, belonging to the Servico Nacional de
Aprendizagem Industrial (SENAI), Brazilian
National Service of Industrial Learning.
For the development of the calibration apparatus, the following premises were adopted:
Develop an apparatus that minimizes the possibility of the occurrence of variations in the
obtained results, due to the positioning of its

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

components regarding the action of gravity. The

use of an optical system was the chosen option.
The temporal stability should be studied for the
validity of the results obtained during the whole
phase of the experiments.
Possible errors due to positioning aws, rigidity
lack, misalignment, clearances and others should
previously be studied and solutions should be
proposed to avoid them.
The reference conditions of the laboratory
should be provided, in order to guarantee the
minimum necessary requirements. Deviations to
the ideal conditions should be corrected.
The remaining items of possible inuence, such
as alignment aws, reference point variations and
temperature gradients should be studied, corrected
or considered in the mathematical equation and
consequently in the uncertainty analysis and
calculations.
Once these pre-requirements were identied, efforts were devoted to the development and assembly of the apparatus, for which the following items
were considered:
A device for the measurement of coordinates,
where its main contributions to the apparatus are
its mechanical rigidity, the straightness of the displacements and the orthogonality between the axes
X and Z.
A displacement measurement system operating
by laser interferometry, where its main contribution is the accuracy of the displacement indication,

69

which should be adequate or superior to the one

studied. Fig. 1 shows schematically the measurement system being applied to the spindle of a
machine.
Devices for the positioning and fastening of the
reecting mirrors, interferometers and the reference points and the studied objects should be
manufactured with the necessary accuracy for
their application, allowing the best adequacy of
the available physical space and eventual positioning adjustments and alignments.
Fig. 2 shows the apparatus that is mounted and
congured for the calibration of a dial gauge in
horizontal position aiming to minimize the Abbe
oset.
The vertical position is shown in Fig. 3.
The calibrations were performed at the Laboratory of Metrology/SENAI Suco-Brasileira
located at Sao Paulo, Brasil. The results obtained
in the experiments were determined with three
measurement cycles, in the increasing and decreasing directions within the measuring range of
the instruments. The parameters fe, fges and fu
(Fig. 4) were determined according to the instructions of the DIN 878 standard [10] and for
the determination of the measurement points
the JIS B7503 standard [8] was followed, according to the guidelines of the document DOQDIMCI-004Orientations for the performance
of calibrations in the area of dimensional
metrology [7].

Fig. 1. Scheme of the measurement system.

70

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

Fig. 2. Apparatus mounted and congured for the calibration with a dial gauge in the horizontal position.

Fig. 3. Apparatus mounted and congured with a dial gauge in the vertical position.

3. Results
3.1. Assessment of the temporal stability of the
apparatus
Once the experiments involved an assembly of
dierent metrological systems and auxiliary elements, it was considered necessary to carry out
the analysis of the stability of the results supplied
by the calibration apparatus along the time. Thus,
it was investigated the presence of a drift that
might inuence the data obtained within the time
period of the experiments.

Two calibrations were made in the dial gauges

identied by the numbers 1 and 6. The apparatus
was congured at the vertical position for the rst
calibration and at the horizontal position for the
second calibration. Both calibrations were performed and repeated after an interval of 15 days,
in the dates that marked the beginning and the
end of the experiments.
The assessment of the temporal stability was
accomplished by means of the comparison between the shape and the positioning of the two
bias curves obtained in the dierent dates. The
evaluation took also into account the analysis of

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

71

fu
fe

10.00

8.00

9.00

7.00

5.00

6.00

4.50

3.00

3.50
4.00

2.50

1.90

2.00

1.70

1.80

1.60

1.40

1.50

1.30

1.10

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.90

0.70

0.60

0.40

0.50

0.30

fges

0.20

15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15

0.00
0.10

Bias ( m)

Graph of Bias

Measured Value (mm)

Decreasing

Increasing

Fig. 4. Graph exemplifying the determination of the fe, fges and fu, parameters, according to instructions of the standard DIN 878.

the dierences obtained between the values found

for the parameters the span of error (fe), the total
span of error (fges) and hysteresis error (fu), at the
beginning and at the end of the experiments.
Fig. 5 compares the bias curves of the calibrations performed in the two dates, with the dial
gauge # 1, with the apparatus congured at the
vertical position.
Analyzing the graphs obtained it was observed
the similarity of the shape and the position between the appraised bias curves, both for the
vertical and the horizontal calibrations.
With the values obtained for the parameters fe,
fges and fu, it was observed that no meaningful
dierences were found that could indicate the nonstability of the system during the whole period

of performance of the experiments, because the

deviations presented during the period indicated
by the dates of the beginning and of the end of
the experiments involved in the calibrations
remained within the range of expanded uncertainties.
Therefore, it was possible to conclude that the
apparatus was shown to be properly stable during
all the period of the performance of the experiments, and it did not present any drift mistakes
that might inuence the results obtained.
3.2. Method validation
The reliability of the measuring results obtained
with this apparatus was veried by comparing our

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

2.50

3.00

2.00

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.20

0.30

0.10

15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15

0.00

Indication Error ( m)

Repeatability Study of the Calibration Results

Gauge # 1 at the Vertical Position

Indication (mm)
March 8, 2002 Increasing
March 22, 2002 Increasing

March 8, 2002 Decreasing

March 22, 2002 Decreasing

Fig. 5. Bias curves demonstrating the temporal stability of the apparatus congured for calibrations performed at the vertical position.

72

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

experimental results with the results obtained by

two laboratories accredited by INMETRO and
belonging to the Brazilian Calibration Network
RBC.
The evaluation considered the dierences of the
values obtained for the parameters of the span of
error (fe), the total span of error (fges) and the
hysteresis error (fu), in the calibrations carried
out by the three dierent laboratories.
Fig. 6 shows the bias curves of gauge # 1,
obtained in our experiments and at the
INMETRO accredited laboratories (RBC-031
and RBC-087).
Analyzing the obtained graphs it was observed
that all the other gauges presented a similarity of
shape and positioning in regard to the three bias
curves.
The values obtained in the parameters fe, fges
and fu demonstrated that there were no dierences when compared to the values obtained by
the other two laboratories. Only one evaluation
parameter of one of the gauges analyzed presented a deviation higher than the expanded uncertainties determined in the calibration results
involved. As it deals with divergences found between results from two laboratories of RBC, this
will not be discussed here since it is out of the
scope of this work. Therefore, it was possible to
conclude that the assembled system was satisfactorily appropriate for the performance of the
experiments.

3.3. Evaluation of the results obtained in the two

positions
The calibrations were made in the vertical position and in the horizontal position. This decision
took into account the fact that most of the commercially available calibration systems followed a
positioning orientation of the dial gauge that was
either parallel to the direction of the action of
the gravity (vertical), or orthogonal to the direction of the action of the gravity (horizontal).
The study was accomplished by means of the
comparison of the shape and the relative position
of the bias curves obtained in the calibrations of
the experiments.
Fig. 7 presents the comparison of the bias
curves of gauge # 1, obtained in the calibration
experiments, carried out in the vertical and horizontal positions.
Similarly to the gauge # 1 it was observed that
all the bias curves of remaining gauges presented a
similarity of shape and position in the vertical and
horizontal positions.
The dierences obtained for the parameters of
maximum deviation in the direction of advancement (fe), maximum deviation in the two directions (fges) and hysteresis error (fu), in the
calibrations were observed with the dial gauges
in the two dierent positions.
For the determination of the uncertainties of
the results recommendations for the expression

9.00

10.00

7.00

8.00

6.00

4.50

5.00

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.20

1.30

1.10

1.00

0.80

0.90

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Indication Error ( m)

Comparison between the Calibration Results - Gauge # 1

15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15

Indication (mm)

Vertical Increasing

Vertical Decreasing

RBC-087 Increasing

RBC-087 Decreasing

RBC-031 Increasing

RBC-031 Decreasing

Fig. 6. Bias curves of the gauge # 1 obtained in the experiments and in other two calibration laboratories accredited by INMETRO.

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

73

9.00

10.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Indication Error ( m)

Comparison between the Calibration Results - Gauge # 1

15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
-5
-7
-9
-11
-13
-15

Indication (mm)

Vertical Increasing
Horizontal Increasing

Vertical Decreasing
Horizontal Decreasing

Fig. 7. Bias curves of the gauge # 1 obtained with the calibrations made in the vertical and horizontal positions.

of the uncertainty of measurement [12,13] were

followed.
Eq. (1) was determined as representing the various factors that could inuence the nal uncertainty to be associated to the experimental
measuring result.
I ins I pad Dpad Dres.i Dres.p Dalin Dzer
Dtem dtem

where Iins, indication in the instrument under

calibration (dial gauge); Ipad, indication in the
standard (laser interferometer system); Dpad,
correction due to standard errors; Dres.i, correction due to the resolution presented by the instrument; Dres.p, correction due to the resolution
presented by the standard; Dalin, correction due
to the alignment error between the instrument
and the standard; Dzer, correction due to the
error upon the return to the point zero; Dtem, correction due to the deviation to the reference
temperature; and dtem, correction due to the temperature dierence between the instrument and
the reference.
By considering these terms the combined standard uncertainty, uc, was calculated using equation
(2), as the sum of squared relative standard
uncertainties:

uc

where uA and uB indicate respectively the type A

and type B evaluation of standard uncertainties;
the expanded uncertainty (U = kuc) was obtained
by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty
with a coverage factor (k) as recommended by ISO
GUM instructions.
Table 1 presents the results obtained for each of
the inuence factors and the estimation of
measurement uncertainties for the gauge # 1 in
the vertical position.
It was assumed a rectangular distribution for the
terms Dres.p, Dzer, Dtem and dtem; for Dres.i a triangular; for Dalin a U type and for Dpad, the normal
distribution as it was indicated on a calibration certicate issued by a calibration laboratory.
It can be noted that the type A evaluation of
standard uncertainty was a dominant term followed by the resolution of the gauge readouts
when assessing type B standard uncertainties.
The same calculation was performed for all the
six gauges in both calibration positions, although
the details are not being presented in this paper.
Table 2 presents the values of each parameter in
the two positions, obtained with the six gauges and
their respective calculated uncertainties.
Observing the results obtained for the gauge # 1
for the span of error (fe), it is noticed that
the dierence between the results of 12.4 lm

q
u2A u2BDpad u2BDres.i u2BDres.p u2BDalin u2BDzer u2BDtem u2Bdtem

74

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

Table 1
Uncertainties budgetgauge # 1 in vertical position
Symbol

Source of uncertainty

Probability
distribution

Standard
uncertainty

Sensitivity
coecients (ci)

Uncertainty
(ui) lm

Degrees of
freedom (mi)

Ipad
Iins
Dres.i
Dres.p
Dalin
Dzer
Dtem

Uncorrected standard errors (type B)

Repeatability (type A)
Instrument resolution (type B)
Standard resolution (type B)
Alignment error (type B)
Return to the point zero (type B)
Deviation to the reference
temperature (type B)
Temperature dierence between the
instrument and reference (type B)
Combined standard uncertainty
Expanded uncertainty
Parameters uncertainty

Normal
Normal
Triangular
Rectangular
U type
Retangular
Rectangular

0.01 lm
0.61 lm
0.43 lm
0.03 lm
0.003 lm
0.29 lm
0.57735 K

1
1
1
1
9.9895
1
0.000135

0.01
0.61
0.43
0.03
0.03
0.29
0.08

1
5

Rectangular

0.11547 K

0.000115

0.01

0.80
1.7
2.4

14

dtem
uc
U95
U95

Normal
Normal (k = 2.1)

1
1
1
1

Table 2
Resultsa of the calibration experiments of the six gauges in the horizontal and vertical positions
Calibration (lm)

Span of error, fe

Total span of error, fges

Hysteresis error, fu

Gauge 1

H
V

12.4 2.5
12.8 2.4

12.4 2.5
12.8 2.4

2.2 2.5
2.6 2.4

Gauge 2

H
V

8.9 2.5
8.4 2.4

9.1 2.5
9.4 2.4

2.4 2.5
2.6 2.4

Gauge 3

H
V

8.3 2.5
8.2 2.2

11.2 2.5
10.6 2.2

2.7 2.5
3.3 2.2

Gauge 4

H
V

4.7 2.4
4.8 2.0

5.2 2.4
5.2 2.0

1.2 2.4
1.0 2.0

Gauge 5

H
V

7.4 2.2
7.6 1.9

8.1 2.2
8.1 1.9

1.4 2.2
1.7 1.9

Gauge 6

H
V

6.5 2.4
6.8 2.3

7.5 2.4
7.2 2.3

1.5 2.4
1.8 2.3

H = Horizontal position; V = Vertical position.

a
Results expressed with respective expanded uncertainties.

(horizontal) and 12.8 lm (vertical) is of 0.4 lm,

value that is smaller than the uncertainties of
2.5 lm obtained in the former position and
2.4 lm obtained in the latter position.
Fig. 8ac demonstrate the variations in each
one of these parameters in the calibrations performed with gauge # 1. Similar responses were obtained for the other ve gauges, although they are
not presented.

4. Discussion and conclusion

It is observed that the bias curves demonstrate a
similarity of shape and position, in the vertical and
in the horizontal positions.
The results in the horizontal position for both
parameters fe and fges are within the (9.9
14.9 lm) interval. For the vertical position, the results are within the (10.415.2 lm) interval.

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

20

75

Gauge # 1 - Total Span of Error (fges)

18

Deviation (m)

16
14
12
10

15.2

14.9
12.4

12.8

9.9

10.4

8
6
4
2
0

a
20

Horizontal

Vertical

Gauge # 1 - Total Span of Error (fges)

Deviation (m)

18
16
14

14.9

12

12.4

12.8

10

9.9

10.4

15.2

8
6
4
2
0

Horizontal

Vertical

Gauge # 1 - Hysteresis Error (fu)

10

Error (m)

8
6
4.7

2
0

5.0

4
2.2

0.0

Horizontal

2.6

0.2

Vertical

Fig. 8. (a) Comparison between the values of the (fe) parameter of gauge # 1 obtained with the calibrations in the horizontal and
vertical positions. (b) Comparison between the values of the (fges) parameter of gauge # 1 obtained with the calibrations in the
horizontal and vertical positions. (c) Comparison between the values of the (fu) parameter of gauge # 1 obtained with the calibrations
in the horizontal and vertical positions.

The result of the measurement in the horizontal

position for the parameter fu is within the (0
4.7 lm) interval. For the measurement in the vertical position, the result is within the (0.25 lm)
interval.
As it occurred with the gauge # 1, it is observed
that, for all the other gauges studied, the values of
the evaluation parameters, fe, fges and fu, in the
vertical and horizontal positions are comparable.
In other words, they are within the respective
intervals presented; consequently it can be under-

stood that they are not each other dierent. For

all studied gauges, in both conditions, the dominant uncertainty terms were represented by the
resolution of the gauge readouts (type B evaluation standard uncertainty) and the random error
of measurements (type A evaluation standard
uncertainty).
Therefore, it can be understood that there were
no dierences that indicated that the variation of
the vertical or horizontal positioning for the performance of the calibration of these dial gauges

76

M. Kobayoshi, Q.S.H. Chui / Measurement 38 (2005) 6776

could inuence the results; the deviations found

were smaller than the expanded uncertainties
determined in the involved calibration processes
and were also smaller than the maximum permissible error required by the DIN 878 standard.
Due to the magnitude of the values of the
uncertainties obtained in the calibrations, it can
be understood that, when dial gauges presenting
characteristics similar to the ones studied in this
work are used, the dierent positions used in their
assembly (vertical or horizontal) do not represent
uncertainty sources that need to be taken into account for the determination of the nal uncertainty of the results of measurements.

Acknowledgement
To Mitutoyo Corporation and Starrett
Industria e Comercio Ltda for the dial gauges.
To the two accredited laboratories by
INMETRO coded as RBC-031 and RBC-087.

References
[1] F.F. Farago, M.A. Curtis, Handbook of Dimensional
Measurements, third ed., Industrial Press, New York,
1994, 580 p.
[2] J.A. Bosch, Coordinate Measuring Machines and Systems,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995, 444 p.

[3] M. Kobayoshi, Calibracao de relogios comparadores,

relogios apalpadores e comparadores de diametros internos, SENAI, Sao Paulo, 2002, 106 p.
[4] R.S. Figliola, D.E. Beasley, Theory and Design for
Mechanical Measurements, John Wiley & Sons, Republic
of Singapore, 1991, 516 p.
[5] MITUTOYO SUL AMERICANA. Departamento de
planejamento. Estudo da participacao nas vendas da
famlia dos relogios comparadores. Electronic publication
eletronica [personal communication]. Message received
from <marck@ipt.br> on July 23, 2001.
[6] ABNT (Associacao Brasileira de Normas Tecnicas), NBR
6388 : Relogios comparadores com leitura de 0,01 mm,
1983, Sao Paulo, 6 p.
[7] INMETRO (Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalizacao e Qualidade Industrial), DOQ-DIMCI-004: Orientacoes para a realizacao de calibracoes na area de
metrologia dimensional. Rev. 00.[s.l], Rio de Janeiro, 1999,
6 p.
[8] JIS (Japanese Industrial Standard), JIS B7503: Dial
gauges.Tokyo:JSA, 1997, 14 p.
[9] ISO (International Organization for Standardization), ISO
R463: Dial gauges reading in 0.01 mm, 0.001 in and
0.0001 in, Switzerland, 1965, 8 p.
[10] DIN (Deutsches Institut fur Normung), DIN 878: dial
gauges, Berlin, 1983, 5p.
[11] ASME & ANSI (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), ASME/ANSI B89.1.10M: Dial indicators (for
linear measurements), New York, 1987, 14 p.
[12] ISO (International Organization for Standardization), ISO
GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement First Edition 1993 (corrected and reprinted,
1995), 91p.
[13] INMETRO (Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalizacao e Qualidade Industrial), Expressao da incerteza de
medicao na calibracao. Rio de Janeiro, 1999, 34 p.