State Enterprise “Ukrmetrteststandard”, Ukraine
State Enterprise “Ukrmetrteststandard”
State Enterprise “Ukrmetrteststandard”
State Enterprise “Ukrmetrteststandard”

Interlaboratory comparisons (ILC) are used to evaluate and confirm measurements' accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility. ILCs are conducted for both testing and calibration laboratories (CL). They are comparing the results of measurements or calibrations obtained by different laboratories. The main stages of confirming the competence of laboratories include accreditation as the first step of such confirmation, as well as periodic participation in the ILCs. This is the basis for confirmation of the competence of laboratories and contributes to increasing confidence in the data obtained in these laboratories. The proposed approach to linking the results obtained by the laboratories in different rounds made it possible to jointly evaluate the CL results of two rounds of the ILC on the calibration of measures of electrical resistance on direct current. This provided confirmation of the competence of a larger number of CLs in the calibration of resistance measures. This approach can be applied to the evaluation of the laboratory results and a larger number of ILC rounds, but under the condition that the same CL is chosen as the reference laboratory. The majority of CLs, which participated in two rounds of the ILC for the calibration of resistance measures of nominal values of 1 Ω, 10 Ω, 100 Ω, received positive evaluation results using a modified criterion based on functioning statistics – the En number. They have confirmed their qualification in performing calibration for this measurand in accordance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 standard. Several CLs do not meet the requirements for the value of En, so they need to implement the necessary corrective measures.

  1. R. Radetić, M. Pavlov-Kagadejev, D. Brodić and N. Milivojević, “An Approach to the Low-Resistance Measurement,” Serbian Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol.  10,  2013,  no.  2,  pp.  293–307.  DOI:
  2. D. Böhm et al., “Analysis of electrical resistance measurements as a potential determination method for coating thickness on powders,” Surface and Coatings Technology, vol. 473, 2023, 129931. DOI:
  3. V. Pleština, V. Boras and H. Turić, “The Measurement Uncertainty in Determining of Electrical Resistance Value by Applying Direct-Comparison Method,” Energies, vol. 15, 2022, no. 6, pp. 2115. DOI: 10.3390/en15062115.
  4. Landry M., Turcotte O., Brikci F., “A complete strategy for conducting dynamic contact resistance measurements on HV circuit breakers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 2, 2008, pp. 710–716. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2008.917694.
  5. ISO/IEC     17025,     “General     requirements     for     the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” 2017. calibration-laboratories.html
  6. ISO/IEC 17043, “Conformity assessment – General requirements for the competence of proficiency testing providers,” 2023
  7. L. G. Bermanec, D. Zvizdic, “Interlaboratory comparison in the pressure range from 0 to 2 MPa for accredited calibration laboratories,” Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng., vol. 6, 2015, no. 3, 307. DOI: ijmqe/2015021.
  8. N. Furuichi et al., “Inter-laboratory comparison of small water flow calibration facilities with extremely low uncertainty,” Measurement, vol. 91, 2016, pp. 548-556.DOI:
  9. M. M. Poenaru et al., “Active power quality assessment through interlaboratory comparison,” 21st IMEKO TC4 International Symposium “Understanding the World through Electrical and Electronic Measurement”, Buda- pest, Hungary, 2016, pp. 224-228. publications/tc4-2016/IMEKO-TC4-2016-42.pdf
  10. Т. P. Petkova, et al., “Assessing technical competence through participation in interlaboratory mergers,” Information processing systems, 2013, no. 3 (110), pp. 82-85. cgiirbis_64.exe?I21DBN=LINK&P21DBN=UJRN&Z21I D=&S21REF=10&S21CNR=20&S21STN=1&S21FMT= ASP_meta&C21COM=S&2_S21P03=FILA=&2_S21STR=soi_2013_3_21
  11. F. Iacobescu, M. M. Poenaru, M.-A. Anghel, “Reactive Power Quality Assessment through Interlaboratories Comparison,” 22th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measurements”, Iasi, Romania, 2017, pp. 13-19.
  12. M. M. Poenaru, F. Iacobescu, M.-A. Anghel, “Length Calibration Quality Assessment through Interlaboratories Comparison,” 22nd IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measurements”, Iasi, Romania, 2017, pp. 20-26.
  13. M. M. Poenaru, F. Iacobescu, M.-A. Anghel, “Pressure Calibration Quality Assessment through Interlaboratories Comparison,” 22nd IMEKO TC 4 Symposium “Supporting World development through electrical and electronic measurements”, Iasi, Romania, 2017, pp. 27-32.
  14. J. Claudio, M. Costa, “Brazilian energy interlaboratory program applicative,” XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea, 6 p. 2012/IMEKO-WC-2012-TC4-P5.pdf
  15. I. Sandu, L. Dragomir, B. Pantelimon, “Interlaboratory comparison,” 15th IMEKO TC 4 Symposium on Novelties in Electrical Measurements and Instrumentations, Iasi, Romania, 2007, 4 p. publications/tc4-2007/IMEKO-TC4-2007-179.pdf
  16. Sousa J.J.L., Leitão L.T.S., Costa M. M., Faria M. C., “Considerations on the influence of traveling standards instability in an interlaboratory comparison program,” XX IMEKO World Congress “Metrology for Green Growth”, Busan, Republic of Korea, 2012, 4 p.
  17. Velychko O., et al., “Interlaboratory comparisons of the calibration results of time meters,” Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, Information and Controlling Systems, 2018, no. 1/9 (91), pp. 4–11. DOI:
  18. Velychko O., Gordiyenko T.: The Data Evaluation of Interlaboratory Comparisons for Calibration Laboratories, Applied Aspects of Modern Metrology, IntechOpen. (2022). DOI:
  19. ISO 13528, “Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparison,” 2022.
  20. JCGM 100, “Uncertainty of measurement. Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM),” 2008,                   2071204/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf/cb0ef43f-baa5-11cf- 3f85-4dcd86f77bd6.
  21. EA-04/02 М, “Evaluation of the Uncertainty of Measurement in Calibration,” 2013. documents/7020/635abf3f-262a-4b3b-952f-10336cdfae9e.
  22. UKAS M3003, “The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence      in             Measurement,”       UKAS,    2024. content/uploads/2023/05/M3003-The-expression-of- uncertainty-and-confidence-in-measurement.pdf.
  23. Velychko O., Kursin S., and Haman V., “Automation of evaluation of the interlaboratory comparisons results employing software,” Measurements Infrastructure, 2023, no. 5. https://