CCM key comparison CCM.D-K4 'Hydrometer'
Authors: Lorefice S , Becerra L O , Lenard E , Lee Y J , Lee W G , Madec T , Meury P A , Caceres J , Santos C , Vamossy C , Man J , Fen K , Toda K , Wright J , Bettin H , Toth H 
Published: February 2016

This report presents the comparison philosophy, methodology, analysis and the results of the designed CCM.D-K4 key comparison that covered the calibration of high resolution hydrometers for liquid and alcoholometers in the density range 600 kg/m3 to 2000 kg/m3 at the temperature of 20°C. The main purpose of this comparison was not only to evaluate the degree of equivalence in the calibration of high accuracy hydrometers between NMI participants, but also to link, were it is possible, the results of previous comparisons to Key Comparison Reference Values (KCRVs) of CCM.D-K4. Eleven NMI laboratories took part in the CCM.D-K4 divided in two groups (petals).
With the CCM.D-K4 purpose, two similar sets consisting of three hydrometers for liquid density determinations and an alcoholometer were circulated to the NMI participants as a travelling standard in the time interval from January 2011 to April 2012.
Twelve Key Comparison Reference Values (KCRVs) for each petal have been obtained at the density values related to the tested density marks of the transfer standards by the results of participants. The KCRVs and corresponding uncertainties were calculated by the weighted mean in the case of consistent results, otherwise the median was used.
The degree of equivalence (DoE) with respect to the corresponding KCRV was determined for each participant and, in this particular comparison, the Weighted Least Squares (WLS) method was used to link the individual DoE of each participant by a continuous function.
Significant drift of the transfer standards was not detected.
This report also gives instructions on calculating pair-wise degrees of equivalence, with the addition of any information on correlations that may be necessary to estimate more accurately as well as the procedure for linking international comparisons to the CCM.D-K4. Finally an example of linkage to the CCM.D-K4 is given by dealing with the results of the bilateral comparison between INRiM and NMIA, which was added to this comparison so that all participants were engaged after the breakage of the 9340171 artefact.
A particularly good agreement was found among the results provided by most of the participants, even if some systematic differences and either underestimated or overestimated uncertainties of the submitted results can be identified with respect to the KCRVs. In general the deviations of the laboratory results to the KCRVs are within of 1/3rd to 1/4th of a scale division and the uncertainty at 95% is usually within half a division. During the analysis of the submitted results, a systematic difference between the first and last immersed mark was also noted, possibly due to a temperature gradient along the stem and/or wetting of the stem around the tested mark, and therefore a corrected claimed uncertainty from each laboratory is expected. However this comparison may help the laboratories to solve some residual or marginal problems as well as to better understand the uncertainty components.
The comparison fully supports the calibration measurement capabilities table in the BIPM key comparison database (KCDB). The results can be used to link regional comparisons to this CCM key comparison

Main text

To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).