Measurement Techniques

, Volume 62, Issue 9, pp 762–768 | Cite as

Analysis of Techniques for Verification of Coating Thickness Gauges

  • V. S. SekatskiiEmail author
  • O. A. Gavrilova
  • N. V. Merzlikina
  • V. N. MorgunEmail author

An analysis of the structure and content of verification technique MP 002.D4-14, extends to coating thickness gauges TM-2, TM-3, TM-4, and TM-4T, technique MP 159-261-2016 for verification of SaluTrjn coating thickness gauges, and a technique for verification of coating thickness gauges regulated by GOST 8.502–84 is performed. It is shown that the first two techniques do not take into account the random component of the error, while the third technique does take into account the random component but not correctly. These factors all lead to a high probability of a wrong identification of a model of a thickness gauge that is, in reality, defective to be, instead, a working model or, on the other hand working devices may be incorrectly identified as being defective. To increase the reliability of the results of a verification of coating thickness gauges, recommendations that suggest incorporating them into the content of a verification technique regulated by GOST 8.502–84 are proposed.


coating thickness gauges verification techniques analysis 


  1. 1.
    V. A. Syas’ko, Electromagnetic Methods and Devices for Monitoring the Thickness of Coatings and Walls of Articles: Auth. Abstr. Doct. Dissert. in Techn. Sciences, St. Petersburg (2013).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. E. Ivkin, Current Flow Methods of Measurement of the Thickness of Nonferromagnetic Electrically Conducting Coatings on Nonferromagnetic Electroconducting Bases: Auth. Abstr. Cand. Dissert. in Techn. Sciences, St. Petersburg (2013).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. L. Babadzhanova, Development of the Investigation of Measures of Coating Thickness for Verification of Magnetic Thickness Gauges: Auth. Abstr. Cand. Dissert. in Techn. Sciences, Moscow (2004).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. S. Babadzhanova and M. L. Babadzhanova, Metrological Assurance of Measurements of the Thickness of Coatings. Theory and Application, Izd. Standartov, Moscow (2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. S. Sekatskii, N. V. Merzlikina, and V. N. Morgun, “Comparison of quality indicators to the technical characteristics of coating thickness gauges,” Mezhdunar. Nauch.-Issl. Zh., No. 2–3 (56), 132–135 (2017).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. A. Gavrilova, M. I. Soboleva, and V. S. Sekatskii, “Comparative analysis of the thickness of coatings and range of measurements by means of magnetic and current flow thickness gauges,” in: Product Quality: Control, Management, 768 Increase in Product Quality, Planning: Proc. 5th Int. Youth Sci. Pract. Conf., Southwestern State Univ., Univ. Kniga, Kursk (2018), Vol. 1, pp. 164–168.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. S. Sekatskii, O. A. Gavrilova, N. V. Merzlikina, et al., “Two-point calibration of coating thickness gauges: what needs to be considered to improve measurement accuracy,” in: IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 537, 1–4 (2019).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sibirian Federal UniversityKrasnoyarskRussia
  2. 2.State Regional Center for StandardizationMetrology, and Testing Krasnoyarsk TsSMKrasnoyarskRussia

Personalised recommendations