Published May 19, 2021


Google Scholar
Search GoogleScholar

Seif M. Osman

Gouda M. Mahmoud

Abdulelah A. Binown

Hamad Alghamdi



This is an experimental work on seventy load cells which aims to highlight the difference between results out of force, proving instruments calibration according to ISO 376:2011 and its practical use. It spots on the difference between the relative error of repeatability and reproducibility and their contributions on load cells classifications, uncertainty estimation and calibration time. Results show that there is no significant effect for relative error of repeatability on load cell classification, ignoring the relative repeatability error in estimating the relative expanded uncertainty lead to decrease with values between 1 ppm and 270 ppm in the range from 20 % to 50 % of load cell capacity and by values between 1 ppm and 183 ppm in the range from 50 % to 100 % of the load cell capacity. It is concluded that performing measurements to calculate the relative error of repeatability is not effective in the normal calibration process for the examined seventy load cells, further measurements over subsequent years are recommended to ensure results reproducibility aiming to generalize the conclusion and recommend measurements for the relative repeatability error for load cell conformity assessment after manufacturing.


ISO 376, repeatability, reversibility, uncertainty, reproducibility

[1] Kumar H, Sharma C, Kumar A, Arora PK. Retrospective Investigations of Force Measurement, MAPAN-Journal of Metrology Society of India, 30(4): 291-302, 2015.
doi: 10.1007/s12647-015-0148-y

[2] Osman Seif, Kumme R, El–Hakeem H, Löffler F, Hasan E, Ragaie Rashad M, Kouta F. Multicapacity load cell prototype, Acta IMEKO, 5(3):64-69, 2016.
doi: 10.21014/acta_imeko.v5i3.310

[3] ISO 376:2011, Metallic materials-Calibration of force proving instruments used for the verification of uniaxial testing machines. 2017

[4] ASTM E74-18, Standard Practices of Calibration of Force-Measuring Instruments for Verifying the Force Indication of Testing Machines. 2018

[5] OIML R60:2013, Metrological Regulation for Load Cells. 2017

[6] Kumar H, Pardeep, Kaushik M, Kumar A. Development and Characterization of a Modified Ring Shaped Force Transducer, MAPAN- Journal of Metrology Society of India, 30(1):37-47, 2015.
doi: 10.1007/s12647-014-0118-9

[7] Tegtmeier F, Gutsch W. Calibration of a 30 MN Material Testing Machine According to ISO 7500- 1 Using a Force-Transducer Build-Up System, Journal of Physics, Conference Series 1065, 2018.
doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1065/4/042018

[8] Kumme R, Tegtmeier F, Röske D, Barthel A, Germak A, Averlant P. Force Traceability Within the Meganewton Range, XXII World Congress Metrology, IMEKO, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa, 2014.

[9] Nobakht N, Askari M, Nikbakht A M, Ghorbani Z. Development of a Dynamometer to Measure All Forces and Moments Applied on Tillage Tools, MAPAN- Journal of Metrology Society of India, 32(4):311-319, 2017.
doi: 10.1007/s12647-017-0221-9

[10] European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP). 2008.

[11] Medina N. Validity of extrapolation based on polynomial approximations, XXII World Congress Metrology, IMEKO, Helsinki, Finland, 2017.

[12] Ferrero C, Marinari C, Martino E. Development and metrological characterization of a build-up force standard up to 3 MN, XVII World Congress Metrology, IMEKO, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2003.

[13] Wei L, Xiao-xiang Y, Jinhui Y. Rotation effects of force transducer on the output of the build-up system, Measurement-Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 138:659-671, 2019.
doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.01.071

[14] Tieping W, Xiao-xiang Y, Jinhui Y, Hang X. The influence of a balanced structure on the rotation effect of a build-up system, Measurement-Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 61:162-168, 2015.
doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.10.043

[15] Tegtmeier F, Röske D, Liang W. Practical Applications of an Enhanced Uncertainty Model For Build-Up Systems, XXIII World Congress Metrology, IMEKO, Helsinki, Finland, 2017.

[16] LiangW,Yang X, Yao J, Tegtmeier F. Investigation The Creep and Creep Recovery Behavior of Build-Up Systems, XXIII World Congress Metrology, IMEKO Helsinki, Finland, 2017.

[17] Brodyagin SV, Patokin EV. An experimental investigation of the error in measurement of a force by a group of dynamometers situated in parallel, Measurement Techniques, 51(6):627-631, 2008.
doi: 10.1007/s11018-008-9091-4

[18] Toshiyuki H, Kazunaga U. Experimental Verification of the Evaluation Method of Creep Uncertainty from Reversibility Error Prescribed in ISO 376:2011, 55th Annual Conference of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers of Japan (SICE), Tsukuba, JAPAN, 2016.
doi: 10.1109/SICE.2016.7749176

[19] Hoffmann K. Applying the Wheastone Bridge Circuit, Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH. Germany 2011.

[20] Hoffmann K. An Introduction to stress analysis and transducer design using strain gauges, Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH, Germany.

[21] Ferrero C. The measurement of parasitic components in national force standard machines, Measurement- Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 8(2):66-76,1990.
doi: 10.1016/0263-2241(90)90028-5

[22] Park Y Sawi M, Osman S, Titus S, Lee M. Final report on force key comparison APMP.M.FK2. a and APMP.M.F-K2.b (50 kN and 100 kN), Metrologia, 56(1A),Tech Supplement, 2019.

[23] Kumme R, Averlant P, Bartel T, Germak A, Knott A, Park Y, Roske D. Final report on the force key comparison CCM.F-K3, Metrologia, 56(1A), Tech Supplement, 2019.
doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/56/1A/07001

[24] Bray A, Barbato G, Levi R. Theory and practice of force measurement, Academic press limited, London 1990, ISBN:0-12-128453-0.

[25] EURAMET Cg-4, Uncertainty of Force Measurements, Calibration guide, Version 2.0
How to Cite
Osman, S. M., Mahmoud, G. M., Binown, A. A., & Alghamdi, H. (2021). Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments. Universitas Scientiarum, 26(1), 67–77.
Scientific and Industrial Metrology