1. 1 NCSLI 2006 Nashville Tennessee The CIPM Working Group on Metrology of Materials Seton Bennett & Graham Sims National Physical Laboratory Teddington, UK

2. 2 Metrology of materials: what is the problem?

3. 3  In physical metrology the uncertainty of measurement is affected by the measurement method, but in materials metrology the measurement method may affect the result as well as the uncertainty.  Traceability of measurements of materials properties may not be well defined or may be to a procedure rather than a physical standard.  Traceability may also depend on reference materials.

4. 4 Problem may be the characteristics of the materials  Unstable (kinetic) controlled systems During processing, during service  Microstructural and process sensitivity Grain sizes, fibre distributions  Level of accuracy varies according to application Minimise cost by being fit for purpose  Uncontrolled applied environmental conditions Corrosion, wear, fatigue  Extensive use of predictive modelling of properties MT data, micro-mechanics, stress corrosion, constitutive models  Close involvement with industry end-users Hard metals, composites, electronics  Traceability and calibration to national “primary” standards Force, temperature, electrical

5. 5 Standards may be based on three essential components:  a reference method (procedure)  reference instrumentation  certified reference materials (CRMs) Standards in materials metrology

6. 6 CRMs play an important role:  in reducing the uncertainty of measurement of materials properties  in establishing standards to provide equivalence and traceability in materials metrology  in dissemination of standards to industry Certified Reference Materials (CRMs)

7. 7 Background: timetable of meetings to date September 2004: Ad-hoc Meeting at NPL October 2004: Presentation and discussion at NMI Directors’ meeting and CIPM December 2004: ANMET Meeting at CENAM, Mexico February 2005: Workshop meeting at BIPM, Paris October 2005: Further discussion at NMI Directors’ meeting October 2005: Decision at CIPM in to establish ad hoc Working Group May 2006:First Working Group meeting at NPL - task groups established

8. 8 Five Task Groups established 1.Mechanical Properties (Bryan Roebuck – NPL) 2.Thermophysical Properties (Tetsuya Baba – NMIJ) 3.Composition and micro-structural properties (Richard Kayser – NIST) 4.Functional Properties (Graham Sims – NPL) 5.Electrochemical Properties (Jürgen Lexow – BAM)

9. 9 Working Group - Summary Terms of Reference 1.To identify scientifically and industrially important materials properties 2.To identify those properties not covered by Consultative Committees 3.To establish user needs 4.To investigate capabilities of participating laboratories 5.To develop tools and methodologies for establishing traceability 6.To define an ongoing programme in metrology for materials 7.To liaise with other interested organisations 8.To report to CIPM by October 2007

10. 10 Terms of Reference (1) To identify those material properties for which globally comparable, traceable measurement results are important for science, engineering and manufacturing technology  Prepare discussion paper  Survey prepared and sent to interested parties  Prepare inventory and prioritise at discussion workshop in May 2006  Identify in final report

11. 11 Terms of Reference (2) To identify those material properties for which the needs for traceable measurements are not covered by the activities of the Consultative Committees  Prepare discussion paper  Discuss coverage at discussion workshop in May 2006  Survey prepared and sent to interested parties

12. 12 Terms of Reference (3) To establish the user needs for activity in materials metrology  Prepare discussion paper  Identify key needs at discussion workshop in May 2006  Survey prepared and sent to interested parties  Specific enquiries to e.g. ILAC and OIML What are your needs?

13. 13 Terms of Reference (4) To investigate the existing capabilities of participating NMIs by initiating some pilot studies, including a small number of interlaboratory comparisons Develop projects (e.g.):  Dielectric materials  Thermal properties  Stress modulus  Fracture  Liquids  Nanomaterial properties Any suggestions?

14. 14 Terms of Reference (5) To develop tools and methodologies for establishing traceability in materials testing  Commission generic studies in May 2006  Sample tools development (May – July 2007)

15. 15 Terms of Reference (6) To define the objectives, aims and initial activities for an ongoing programme in metrology for materials, including recommendations for underpinning activities, such as the organisation of Key Comparisons and the development of Reference Materials and Reference Methods  Prepare outline programme on basis of experience gained  Suggest allocation of responsibilities to CCs or other committees  Include specific recommendations in final report

16. 16 Terms of Reference (7) To liaise closely with other interested organisations  Specific enquiries to e.g. ISO, ILAC and OIML  Develop formal interaction/ representation with: ILAC, VAMAS, ANMET, COST, EC/IRRM, ISO/CEN/ASTM.  Identify specific liaison partners for WG

17. 17 Terms of Reference (8) To report its conclusions to the CIPM by October 2007  Outline report circulated prior to WG meeting in May 2007  Final report by end of August 2007 That’s not long! Comments now please.

18. 18 Inventory of materials properties  structural measurements – grain size;  dielectric properties;  powders - size distribution, surface properties, shape, density;  agreed data for use in modelling;  thermodynamic properties - conductivity, heat transfer, phase analysis, expansion, heat capacity, emissivity, diffusivity;  density of porous materials;  mechanical properties - strength, hardness, modulus, creep, toughness, impact;  magnetic and optical properties;  wear, friction, lubrication and corrosion;  thin films – adhesion;  nano-structured materials;  multi-phased materials - composites, aerosols, gels;  properties of fluids – viscosity, density, calorific value.

19. 19 What are the questions?  What are the user requirements?  Is this property a directly or implied requirement in any regulative document?  Is this property needed in any accreditation procedure?  Is there a need for comparability of data?  Have any economic studies been undertaken of the impact of incorrect or inconsistent measurements?  Have any other studies been undertaken for this property? The first meeting (May 2006) identified priority areas and key questions about each property:

20. 20 Final comments  Overall aim is to improve consistency and traceability of measurements of materials properties  The scope of this study is potentially huge and needs to be constrained  We are achieving broad coverage with well-worked examples  The first meeting (May 2006) identified priority areas and key questions  Next meeting will be at NIST in Decemebr 2006  The 2007 CIPM meeting is not far off  Your answers will help us: seton.bennett@npl.co.uk

21. 21 NCSLI 2006 Nashville Tennessee The CIPM Working Group on Metrology of Materials Seton Bennett & Graham Sims National Physical Laboratory Teddington, UK