See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319287489

Improving the new ISO 6789:2017 for setting torque tools – Proposal

Article  in  Measurement · August 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.032

CITATIONS READS

3 5,312

2 authors, including:

K. M. Khaled
National Institute of Standards (Egypt)
22 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STANDARDS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. M. Khaled on 13 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Improving the new ISO 6789:2017 for setting torque tools – Proposal MARK
⁎
K.M. Khaled , Seif M. Osman
National Institute of Standards (NIS), Giza, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The current paper presents a proposal for improving the new torque tool calibration standard, ISO 6789:2017 by
Setting torque tool modifying the calibration scheme. The proposed calibration scheme based on experimental results cumulated by
ISO 6789 the National Institute of Standards (NIS), Egypt, as a result of daily calibration process. Validation for the
Calibration proposed calibration scheme was carried out by carrying intensive calibration for set of setting torque wrenches
Validation
according to the current calibration scheme in ISO 6789:2017 and according to the proposed calibration scheme,
results give the comparable values with lower uncertainties, in addition to the advantage of decreasing the time
required to perform the calibration of a torque tool by about 50% of the time consumed according to the ISO
6789:2017.

1. Introduction
Tightening by torque tools plays a vital role in our daily life. A
simple example for the importance of tightening torque is the vehicles
tire bolt which has to be tightened by a known tightening torque in
order to ensure that it will not lose during driving and cause accidents.
Toque tools are calibrated using torque devices/machines. Mostly, the
torque machines used for calibration of setting torque tools are consists
of a traceable reference torque transducer and a mechanical system
capable of applying smooth instantaneous torque on the reference
transducer and the calibrated torque tool. (see Fig. 1).
Different laboratories use ISO 6789:2003 in their daily work torque
tool calibration, now they are asked to upgrade their calibration pro-
cedure and measurement analysis to comply with the new version of
ISO 6789:2017 [1,2]. The loading sequence is three exercise loadings at
maximum torque value (or nominal value of certain tools), to allow re-
lubrication of the moving surfaces and settling of components in their
working positions, without recording followed by five recorded load-
ings at each of the three target values, (ten at the nominal or lowest
value for certain tools). The standard ISO 6789:2017 mentioned also
that for setting torque tools there must be five reading at each point and
it must always be approached from lower on the scale as shown in
Fig. 2.
NIS realizes that for setting torque tools, the first reading in each
measurement group was dispersed from the other four readings in the
same group. This conclusion was noticed and recorded for fifty-six
setting torque tools with different capacities over the past few months
(see Annex A). Table 1 shows the average of the deviations between
each reading and the average of the five readings, and the corre-
sponding standard deviation (SD) for the fifty-six setting torque tools.
The deviation is calculated from the following Equation:
Reading−Average of 5 readings
Deviation(%) = × 100
Average of 5 readings (1)
The standard deviation (SD%) represents here the standard devia-
tion of the average over deviations in (%).
Fig. 3 shows a representative graph for the deviations of each
reading over the average of the five readings.
Table 1 and Fig. 3 shows how results of the 1st readings are dis-
persed and how results of the other four readings, 2nd to 5th, are
condensed.
NIS investigates this phenomenon and returns it to the re-posi-
tioning of the contact mechanical components in the adjusting me-
chanism of the pre setting torque tools.
Setting torque tools (Fig. 4) design is usually based on using a spring
in a tube body. The setting torque tries to overcome the spring force
until making an action. This mechanical setup differs from one setting
torque point to another. And it may be why the first reading in each
measurement group is dispersed from the other four readings in the
same measurement group as it is a preliminary exercise for the me-
chanical parts at each setting position.
2. Proposed calibration scheme
The proposed calibration scheme will decrease the pre-loading
readings from three to two, followed by one loading and three loadings

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: khaled_fmmd_nis@yahoo.com (K.M. Khaled), seiflnasr_nis@yahoo.com (S.M. Osman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.032
Received 30 April 2017; Received in revised form 16 August 2017; Accepted 21 August 2017
Available online 24 August 2017
0263-2241/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman
Fig. 1. NIS 2500 N m Torque wrench calibration machine.
- total four loadings - at each of the three target values. These four
readings could be approached from upper on the scale, decreasing
order, as shown in Fig. 5.
The commonly supposed application of setting torque tools is in-
creasing setting but it is not limited due to practical observations. The
users who are intended to use these torque tools, in many cases, keep
the setting of the torque tool at the last setting of use not at the zero
torque and later on they adjust to the next setting which may be in up or
down from the previous setting. The mechanism of the torque tools isn't
supposed to show a significant change if reached from down or up sides.
The ISO scheme and the proposed scheme are compared together on
the time consumed base during calibration process. Two time factor
variables are defined in this comparison T1 and T2; T1 is the time factor
consumed during measurements, T2 is the time factor consumed to
adjust the torque tool on the measurements points.
By comparing the time consumed for calibrations according to the
two schemes we find that the proposed scheme save 23.5% of the
measurement time and 44.5% of adjusting time as shown in Table 2.
Therefore it is predicted to save a 50% of the calibration time quali-
tatively.
3. Design of experiment
NIS carry out investigating measurements by applying the proposed
calibration scheme on five – setting torque wrenches with different
capacities up to 1500 N m. The measurements were carried out on NIS
2000 N m torque wrench calibration machine, Model:ISO 2000,
Manufacturer: Norbar Torque Tools Ltd., (Fig. 1), using different re-
ference torque transducers calibrated on NIS 3000 N m vertical torque
standard machine [4,5], traceable to Physikalisch-Technisch Bunde-
sanstalt (PTB), which realizes SI units.
Capacity
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
3 Readings 5 Readings
at 100% at 20%
Fig. 2. Calibration scheme for torque tools according to ISO 6789:2017.
151
Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156
Table 1
Average of deviations of measurements and its standard deviation.
Order of readings 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Average of deviations (%) 0.24 −0.01 −0.04 −0.06 −0.13
SD (%) 2.98 1.06 1.04 1.05 0.96
Each torque wrench was calibrated according to ISO 6789:2017
calibration scheme (Fig. 2) and the proposed scheme (Fig. 5).
4. Results and discussion
Table 3 shows the measurements resulted from calibrating the
torque wrenches using ISO 6789:2017 and the proposed scheme re-
spectively.
In order to analysis the measurements data of the proposed cali-
bration scheme, there are two proposed approaches. The first approach
is consider the first reading in each of the three target values as a pre-
load and be excluded from the average of the measurements of the three
target values without adding uncertainty source. The second approach
is consider the first reading in each of the three target values as a pre-
load and be excluded from the average of the measurements of the three
target values with adding a new uncertainty source.
Such implications regarding the first approach may consider which
could be linked to the type of torque tool application. The first approach
is more appropriate for low accuracy torque applications and multiple
torque applications at the same setting. The user who is intended to
follow the first approach is advised to apply the first torque application,
for each torque setting, to a non-target torque receiver.
The ISO 6789:2017 defines the repeatability error as the difference
between the maximum and the minimum of the set of measurements
rather than the standard deviation as a well–known definition. For the
proposed two approaches the standard deviation as a repeatability
definition is strongly advised especially for the second approach due to
the fact that the dispersion of the measurements due to the first mea-
surement in each step introduced as a new uncertainty source.
5. Results analysis
ISO 6789:2017 provides a new section concerning uncertainty cal-
culations incompliance with JCGM-100 requirements. The relative ex-
panded uncertainty estimations were carried out according to the un-
certainty calculation in the ISO 6789:2017 which is in accordance with
JCGM-100 to cover the most relevant influencing parameters. The un-
certainty estimation of the first approach is the same used in ISO
6789:2017 for only three readings instead of five as in ISO 6789:2017.
While the second approach add a new uncertainty source coming from
the difference between the reading of the first reading and the average
Sequence
5 Readings 5 Readings
at 60% at 100%
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman
Fig. 4. Setting torque wrench [3].
of subsequent three readings with rectangular probability distribution.
Table 4 combines the results analysis of the ISO 6789:2017 and the two
approaches.
Setting torque tools are not working according to normal distribu-
tion. Therefore, the average value of the releases is of minor interest in
applications. In the standard, the average value is important for the
indicating tools and was kept for the setting tools only for harmonizing
reasons. However, the particular reason for averaging the results for the
setting torque tools in this investigation is attempting to find a datum
for examining the results of the ISO standard and the proposed one.
Table 4 shows qualitative comparable averages from the three al-
ternatives. The uncertainty of the first approach is mostly lower than
the other two alternatives because it omits the effect of the first reading
at each of the three target values. ISO 6789:2017 includes the effect of
the first reading while calculating the average and repeatability error/
uncertainty otherwise the second approach include the effect of the first
reading while adding the difference between the first reading and the
average of the three subsequent readings as source of error with
Capacity
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
2 Readings 1 Reading 3 Readings
at 100% at 100%
Fig. 5. Proposed calibration scheme for setting torque tools.
Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156
Fig. 3. Deviations of readings over average.
rectangle probability distribution to estimate the new uncertainty
source. Therefore, the uncertainty of the ISO 6789:2017 and the second
approach are comparable. The most advantage coming from the second
approach is to show the stability of the torque wrench, at the same
setting torque, over times of use through exclude the effect of the first
reading out of repeatability error.
6. Method validation
ISO 6789:2017 is a well-established calibration standard issued by
the International Standard Organization (ISO) while the proposed ca-
libration scheme in both two approaches needs verification in order to
add a real improvement to the standard. Therefore the two calibration
schemes are compared using two statistical methods; one is the nor-
malizing error and the second is the consistency check using chi-
squared test.
6.1. Normalizing error (En)
Results were compared to each other based on normalizing error
(En). (see Eq. (2))
xlab−Xref
En =
(Ulab)2 + (Uref )2 (2)
where Xlab and Xref are the average values resulted from each of the two
approaches and ISO 6789:2017 scheme respectively.
Ulab and Uref are the reported expanded uncertainty from each of the
two approaches and ISO 6789:2017 scheme respectively.
Sequence
1 Reading 3 Readings 1 Reading 3 Readings
at 60% at 20%
152
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156

Table 2
Time consumed per each calibration scheme.

Count of measurements T1 T2

20% 60% 100% Total

ISO 6789:2017 5 5 8 18 3(1) + 5(0.2) + 5(0.6) + 5(1) = 12 1(1) + 1(0.8) + 1(0.4) + 1(0.4) + 1 = 3.6
Proposed scheme 4 4 6 14 2(1) + 4(1) + 4(0.6) + 4(0.2) = 9.2 1(1) + 1(0.4) + 1(0.4) + 1(0.2) = 2

Table 3
Calibration results according to ISO 6789:2017 and the proposed scheme.

Torque wrench ISO 6789:2017 results Proposed scheme results

Code Setting torque 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Nm Nm Nm

TW- 1 40 37.37 37.07 37.09 37.02 37.07 39.16 38.70 38.62 38.62
120 119.42 117.64 117.65 117.34 117.29 119.91 117.89 118.14 117.89
210 205.37 207.16 209.72 211.54 210.58 209.72 211.54 210.58 210.53
TW-2 700 662.40 662.90 660.60 662.70 664.70 681.90 676.40 678.20 674.70
1100 1072.00 1061.20 1056.90 1059.30 1059.30 1082.60 1070.00 1070.60 1071.50
1500 1472.60 1451.20 1446.60 1451.00 1454.60 1454.60 1445.60 1454.60 1454.90
TW- 3 200 153.80 153.20 153.80 153.10 152.60 156.40 155.90 156.20 156.60
500 446.00 444.30 446.50 447.90 449.60 442.40 443.90 442.80 443.80
800 777.80 766.00 765.30 766.60 766.50 765.30 766.60 766.50 766.70
TW- 4 75 69.98 69.88 69.95 69.88 69.93 74.26 73.02 73.10 73.34
200 196.40 199.23 199.78 201.88 201.47 214.19 215.10 215.71 215.75
300 316.43 298.68 303.51 308.11 313.31 303.51 308.11 313.31 319.17
TW- 5 70 55.74 55.33 55.33 55.36 55.18 55.44 54.68 54.59 54.76
210 188.80 189.13 189.52 190.13 190.54 189.84 191.15 190.86 191.29
330 311.12 310.44 311.27 311.21 312.18 311.02 311.27 311.21 312.18

Table 4 Table 5
Average values and estimated uncertainty for ISO 6789:2017 and the two approaches. Evaluation of the results using the normalizing error (En) values.

Torque wrench ISO 6789:2017 First approach Second approach Torque wrench First approach analysis Second approach analysis
values values values
code Setting torque En Values Status En Values Status
code Setting Average ± Uexp Average ± Uexp Average ± Uexp Nm
torque torque torque torque
Nm Nm % Nm % Nm % TW- 1 40 3.80 Fail 2.87 Fail
120 0.07 Pass 0.05 Pass
TW- 1 40 37.04 0.85 38.56 0.65 38.56 1.11 210 0.52 Pass 0.52 Pass
120 117.62 1.15 117.73 0.51 117.73 1.18 TW-2 700 0.89 Pass 0.88 Pass
210 208.44 1.77 210.44 0.55 210.44 0.58 1100 0.49 Pass 0.46 Pass
TW-2 700 663.34 1.65 677.12 1.61 677.12 1.66 1500 0.15 Pass 0.15 Pass
1100 1062.44 1.35 1071.39 1.07 1071.39 1.23 TW- 3 200 0.50 Pass 0.50 Pass
1500 1455.63 1.34 1452.13 0.93 1452.13 0.94 500 0.47 Pass 0.47 Pass
TW- 3 200 153.26 2.74 156.19 2.67 156.19 2.67 800 0.17 Pass 0.17 Pass
500 446.43 1.23 443.08 1.04 443.08 1.04 TW- 4 75 0.45 Pass 0.44 Pass
800 767.12 1.17 765.29 0.71 765.29 0.71 200 1.97 Fail 1.96 Fail
TW- 4 75 69.78 7.33 73.00 7.01 73.00 7.08 300 0.39 Pass 0.36 Pass
200 199.33 3.05 215.07 2.43 215.07 2.44 TW- 5 70 0.12 Pass 0.12 Pass
300 307.34 3.75 312.85 2.65 312.85 3.16 210 0.25 Pass 0.24 Pass
TW- 5 70 55.27 7.42 54.56 7.50 54.56 7.56 330 0.05 Pass 0.05 Pass
210 189.23 2.27 190.70 2.20 190.70 2.22
330 310.57 1.43 310.88 1.41 310.88 1.41
6.2. Weighted mean

Evaluation criteria when: The weighted mean method is a well-known method used in inter-
|En| ≤ 1 the results are satisfactory. laboratory comparisons to compare participant’s measurements based
|En| > 1the results are unsatisfactory. on their uncertainty values [6]. The weighted mean method was used
Table 5 and Fig. 6a shows the evaluation results according to nor- here to check the consistency of each measurement point.
malizing error technique (En) for the two approaches. The weighted mean (y) is calculated using the inverses of the
Table 5 and Fig. 6b shows that thirteen measurements out of the squares of the stated standard uncertainties as the weights (see Eq. (3)).
fifteen measurements pass for the two approaches. Thus, indicates that
the proposed calibration scheme, both first and second approaches, and x1
+
x2
u2 (x 1) u2 (x2)
that of ISO 6789:2017 are satisfactory with percentage of 86.6%. Only y= 1 1
two measurements were failed and this may be due to instability during + (3)
u2 (x 1) u2 (x2)
measurements.
where: x1 and x2 are the average values resulted from each of the two
approaches and ISO 6789:2017 scheme respectively.

153
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156

Fig. 6a. Graphical representation for En values for the first

First approach
4 approach.
TW-1
TW-2
3 TW-3
TW-4
En value

TW-5
2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Torque (N·m)

Second approach Fig. 6b. Graphical representation for En values for the
second approach.
4
TW-1
TW-2
3 TW-3
TW-4
En value

TW-5
2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Torque (N·m)

Table 6
Evaluation of the results using weighted mean method.

Torque wrench First approach analysis Second approach analysis

Code Nom. torque Weighted mean (y) U(y) ν χ (ν), P = 0.05

2
χ obs
2
Consistency test Weighted mean (y) U(y) ν χ2 (ν), P = 0.05 χ2obs Consistency test
Nm Nm Nm Nm Nm

TW- 1 40 37.97 0.097 1 3.84 57.72 Failed 37.57 0.126 1 3.84 32.88 Failed
120 117.71 0.273 1 3.84 0.02 Passed 117.67 0.486 1 3.84 0.01 Passed
210 210.26 0.555 1 3.84 1.07 Passed 210.24 0.583 1 3.84 1.06 Passed
TW-2 700 670.26 3.869 1 3.84 3.17 Passed 670.06 3.926 1 3.84 3.08 Passed
1100 1067.90 4.494 1 3.84 0.94 Passed 1067.31 4.857 1 3.84 0.84 Passed
1500 1453.27 5.561 1 3.84 0.09 Passed 1453.28 5.571 1 3.84 0.09 Passed
TW- 3 200 154.74 1.479 1 3.84 0.98 Passed 154.74 1.480 1 3.84 0.98 Passed
500 444.46 1.769 1 3.84 0.87 Passed 444.46 1.771 1 3.84 0.87 Passed
800 765.78 2.322 1 3.84 0.12 Passed 765.78 2.326 1 3.84 0.12 Passed
TW- 4 75 71.39 1.809 1 3.84 0.79 Passed 71.37 1.818 1 3.84 0.79 Passed
200 208.39 1.979 1 3.84 15.45 Failed 208.34 1.986 1 3.84 15.36 Failed
300 310.97 3.365 1 3.84 0.60 Passed 310.51 3.752 1 3.84 0.53 Passed
TW- 5 70 54.91 1.449 1 3.84 0.06 Passed 54.92 1.454 1 3.84 0.06 Passed
210 189.98 1.500 1 3.84 0.24 Passed 189.98 1.506 1 3.84 0.24 Passed
330 310.73 1.560 1 3.84 0.01 Passed 310.73 1.562 1 3.84 0.01 Passed

u(x1) and u(x2) are the estimated standard uncertainty for the average Consistency check of the results is measured by applying a chi-squared
measurements of each of the two approaches and ISO 6789:2017 test through the following equations:
scheme respectively.
(x1−y ) (x −y )
The estimated uncertainty of the weighted mean u(y) is calculated 2
χobs = + 22
using Eq. (4): u2 (x1) u (x2) (5)

1 1 1 Assign the degrees of freedom

= 2 + 2
u2 (y ) u (x1) u (x2) (4) ν = N −1 (6)

154
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156

Regard the consistency check as failing if experimental and analytical studies with two different approaches for
2 setting torque tools as an improvement to the new ISO 6789:2017. The
Pr{χ 2 (ν ) > χobs } < 0.05
proposed scheme, two approaches, decreases the time consumed for
Table 6 shows that the same percentage of equivalence resulted carrying out calibration by nearly 50% of the current time consumed in
from the En value method and the two measurements which were failed calibration according to ISO 6789:2017. The first approach provides
are the same in the two approaches and that give us more confidence on lower uncertainty estimation rather than the new ISO 6789:2017. The
instability for these measurements. second approach introduces a new uncertainty source which is the ef-
fect of the first reading on the measurement results. Comparing the
7. Conclusion measurements resulted from the two calibration schemes give sa-
tisfactory results within 86%.
The current work proposes a calibration scheme enhanced by

Appendix A

Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 20% Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 20%
nominal torque at 20% nominal torque at 20%
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

T.W.1 100 102 97.29 97.48 97.17 97.27 T.W.29 68 62.27 61.48 61.4 61.29 61.86
T.W.2 70 60.59 62 61.95 61.86 61.97 T.W.30 68 61.03 61.05 61.33 61.24 61.27
T.W.3 15 16.54 14.96 14.38 14.51 14.72 T.W.31 68 62.14 61.74 61.59 61.62 61.58
T.W.4 2 1.845 1.821 1.823 1.82 1.834 T.W.32 25 22.14 21.75 22.39 23.12 22.84
T.W.5 200 181.2 180 179.9 179.4 179.2 T.W.33 40 37.12 37.13 37.06 37.02 36.98
T.W.6 200 159.6 159.7 160 159.9 160.3 T.W.34 80 73.07 73.55 75.02 75.34 75.57
T.W.7 170 143.1 143.8 143 143.4 143.1 T.W.35 50 47.82 48.74 49.35 49.04 49.58
T.W.8 160 153.1 152.7 152.7 152.8 152.3 T.W.36 10 8.65 8.55 8.61 8.45 8.53
T.W.9 170 143.1 143.8 143 143.4 143.1 T.W.37 10 8.79 9.46 9.38 9.36 9.36
T.W.10 200 159.6 159.7 160 159.9 160.3 T.W.38 20 19.93 20.06 20.1 20.06 20.06
T.W.11 200 181.2 180.6 179.9 179.4 179.2 T.W.39 10 9.19 9.27 9.22 9.16 9.33
T.W.12 2 1.905 1.732 1.62 1.717 1.739 T.W.40 10 9.07 9.22 9.13 9.12 9.15
T.W.13 20 20.84 19.83 20.87 20.61 19.78 T.W.41 150 143.9 141.6 144.6 144.3 144.7
T.W.14 160 152.1 152 152.3 156.7 156.4 T.W.42 150 158.9 158.3 158.1 158.4 159.2
T.W.15 71 72.69 72.08 71.62 71.3 71.6 T.W.43 110 105.3 106.5 105.9 105.3 105.1
T.W.16 4 3.957 3.742 4.184 4.208 3.96 T.W.44 110 103.1 104.2 105.4 105.6 105.4
T.W.17 100 107.26 107.53 107.47 107.12 107.16 T.W.45 300 284.8 283.1 284.4 283.8 282.4
T.W.18 1500 1485.2 1509.9 1506 1499.9 1504.3 T.W.46 300 256 258.7 258.9 259.1 259.5
T.W.19 40 41.9 41.53 41.6 41.5 41.46 T.W.47 300 291 291.5 291.8 293.3 294.8
T.W.20 30 30.7 30.48 30.7 30.7 30.58 T.W.48 110 96 94.7 94.8 95 93
T.W.21 70 68.27 68.01 67.81 67.89 67.84 T.W.49 110 107 108.5 108 108 108.3
T.W.22 70 76.31 75.14 74.35 74.36 74.05 T.W.50 63 55.7 52.17 51.2 50.74 50.61
T.W.23 20 20.15 19.34 19.3 19.44 19.43 T.W.51 25 20.72 20.69 20.54 20.56 20.59
T.W.24 750 738.3 735.1 735.3 734.8 731.7 T.W.52 42 34.49 32.4 33.72 33.74 33.58
T.W.25 750 749.3 734.4 730.7 728.6 729 T.W.53 196 174.3 171.3 167.5 168.2 167.1
T.W.26 700 732.6 700 695.1 693.2 699.1 T.W.54 200 160.4 159.6 159.6 159.7 159.4
T.W.27 900 946.4 914 912.4 935.6 922.2 T.W.55 200 184.9 185 184.7 184.1 184.3
T.W.28 700 802.6 805.6 809.4 807.7 816.1 T.W.56 1500 1504.6 1507.1 1505.7 1502.8 1504

Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 60% Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 60%
nominal torque at 60% nominal torque at 60%
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

T.W.1 300 287.42 280.76 284.97 280.3 283.03 T.W.29 204 199.51 199.92 199.95 199.64 199.37
T.W.2 210 191.3 194.49 190.98 188.81 187.63 T.W.30 204 198.27 198.86 198.75 198.37 198.61
T.W.3 45 45.27 45.09 45.37 45.29 45.44 T.W.31 204 200.94 201.36 201.46 201.37 200.9
T.W.4 6 5.811 5.732 5.779 5.783 5.803 T.W.32 120 112.8 109.55 111.85 112.26 112.51
T.W.5 480 411 405.6 404.6 404.6 404.9 T.W.33 120 119.48 119.79 119.55 118.86 118.98
T.W.6 480 450 452.9 454.2 453.9 454.8 T.W.34 240 248.79 248.91 248.68 247.21 248.15
T.W.7 491 442.5 456.4 456.8 458.6 459.5 T.W.35 240 223.78 224.59 224.86 226.11 226.81
T.W.8 480 484.3 470.8 467.8 467.7 468 T.W.36 30 28.41 28.41 28.4 27.31 28.28
T.W.9 491 442.5 456.4 456.8 458.6 459.5 T.W.37 30 29.01 29.51 29.39 29.3 29.23
T.W.10 480 450 452.9 454.2 453.9 454.8 T.W.38 60 62.03 61.63 61.52 61.52 61.41
T.W.11 480 411 405.6 404.6 404.6 404.9 T.W.39 30 29.08 29.05 28.95 28.91 28.88
T.W.12 5 4.768 4.669 4.679 4.739 4.617 T.W.40 30 28.9 28.77 28.77 28.73 28.74
T.W.13 60 63.65 62.93 62.09 61.77 61.04 T.W.41 450 436.5 430.8 430.6 428.8 429.3

155
K.M. Khaled, S.M. Osman Measurement 112 (2017) 150–156

T.W.14 480 459.6 466.1 463.6 463.9 461.2 T.W.42 450 475.7 464.9 465 464.3 464.4
T.W.15 209 210.51 211.38 211.6 211.68 210.77 T.W.43 330 327.3 325.2 323.5 322.1 322.2
T.W.16 12 12.25 12.36 12.14 12.03 12.06 T.W.44 330 334 329.8 328 329 331.4
T.W.17 300 275.81 284.37 285.6 283.97 286.09 T.W.45 660 695 669.1 665.6 666.2 665
T.W.18 2000 1996.7 1984.9 1986 2007.3 1977 T.W.46 660 634.5 632 632.1 632.8 632.8
T.W.19 120 121.25 120.99 120.64 119.79 120.51 T.W.47 660 665.9 658.3 656.7 657.4 658.2
T.W.20 80 82.52 81.32 81.4 81.9 81.87 T.W.48 330 345.8 343.4 344.5 344.1 342.7
T.W.21 210 208.52 208.32 208.35 208.29 208.79 T.W.49 330 332.3 330.6 328.9 326.8 325
T.W.22 210 219.82 219.9 220.26 220.19 220.02 T.W.50 175 189.64 187.41 185.47 185.69 184.88
T.W.23 60 54.93 55.11 55.19 55 54.96 T.W.51 80 72.55 72.24 72.01 72.02 72.08
T.W.24 1200 1220 1207.9 1211.7 1209.5 1207.6 T.W.52 120 115.86 113.19 113.36 113.23 113.57
T.W.25 1200 1200.6 1194.5 1189 1182.4 1181.5 T.W.53 588 561.2 548.4 543.8 534.3 532.1
T.W.26 1100 1129.8 1116.8 1128.6 1133.1 1128.2 T.W.54 600 504.9 556.5 555.7 553.1 554.1
T.W.27 1400 1443.9 1419.5 1428.4 1431.8 1422.4 T.W.55 600 622.3 619.1 620 611 610.4
T.W.28 1100 1264.9 1268.8 1257 1249.6 1267.9 T.W.56 2000 1974.3 1973.7 2000.4 1969.5 1967.8

Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 100% Torque wrench code/ Actual reading at 100%
nominal torque at 100% nominal torque at 100%
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

T.W.1 500 474.42 478.68 474.1 474.3 477.43 T.W.29 340 335.17 335.01 335.22 335.02 334.59
T.W.2 350 322.91 324.53 326.01 325.49 324.57 T.W.30 340 335.4 334.38 333.88 333.65 334
T.W.3 70 71.55 71.96 71.3 71.98 71.42 T.W.31 340 338.67 338.82 338.06 338.1 337.82
T.W.4 10 10.023 9.993 9.993 9.992 10 T.W.32 210 218.85 224.78 224.27 222.96 221.63
T.W.5 800 727.1 724.4 723.9 723.2 723.2 T.W.33 200 204.07 205.81 204.25 204.29 204.1
T.W.6 800 755.8 761.6 761.4 760.1 761.7 T.W.34 400 429.97 429.14 430.01 429.89 431.15
T.W.7 830 765.8 780.7 780.5 780.5 779.1 T.W.35 400 385.65 383.46 376.91 377.4 376.01
T.W.8 800 807.5 815.6 812.7 811.2 810.9 T.W.36 50 49.49 49.59 49.56 49.4 49.29
T.W.9 830 765.8 780.7 780.5 780.5 779.1 T.W.37 50 50.42 50.29 50.15 49.99 49.98
T.W.10 800 755.8 761.6 761.4 760.1 761.7 T.W.38 100 102.34 102.04 102.21 102.6 102.6
T.W.11 800 727.1 724.4 723.9 723.2 723.2 T.W.39 50 50.24 50.19 50.19 50.17 50.17
T.W.12 8 7.349 7.329 7.376 7.518 7.298 T.W.40 50 49.18 49.13 49.1 49.07 49
T.W.13 100 105.83 104.91 103.46 102.6 101.7 T.W.41 700 718.2 702.4 700.2 700 700.6
T.W.14 800 780.1 784.4 782.2 785.3 782.7 T.W.42 700 769.7 763.7 761.2 755.5 756.9
T.W.15 350 352.86 355.63 354.48 353.7 353.87 T.W.43 550 548.8 546.5 543.1 538.5 537.7
T.W.16 20 19.72 19.73 19.73 19.9 19.92 T.W.44 550 364.2 558.6 556.7 560 558.7
T.W.17 460 459.73 456.99 459.41 461.1 459.69 T.W.45 1000 1027.6 1025.2 1024.6 1023 1022.9
T.W.18 2500 2534.8 2486.2 2480.5 2472 2485.5 T.W.46 1000 1001 1001.4 1001.6 1005.7 1007.6
T.W.19 200 197.62 199.31 198.9 198.38 198.28 T.W.47 1000 1012.3 1012.7 1013 1013.7 1014.7
T.W.20 130 130.92 129.63 129.24 128.48 128.31 T.W.48 550 561.1 562.6 561.1 560.2 558.4
T.W.21 340 337.9 337.55 337.63 337.28 337.51 T.W.49 550 547.6 543.9 542.9 544.1 546.3
T.W.22 340 362.31 357.69 356.48 356.67 355.94 T.W.50 300 301.97 294.67 292.61 292.08 291.8
T.W.23 110 107.34 106.61 106.49 109.96 105.95 T.W.51 135 140.82 138.83 138.03 137.37 136.87
T.W.24 2000 2091.7 2031.4 2030.6 2022.4 2022.9 T.W.52 210 197.01 196.96 198.17 198.03 199.04
T.W.25 2000 2024.3 1999.8 1992.5 1988.4 1987.7 T.W.53 980 933.6 969.6 970.8 977 979
T.W.26 1500 1491.6 1498.3 1505.6 1512.3 1520.1 T.W.54 800 776.3 768.1 768.2 763.5 764.2
T.W.27 2000 2075.5 2049.2 2039.5 2039.2 2048.5 T.W.55 800 836.8 830.6 825.5 832 830.2
T.W.28 1500 1638.1 1638.9 1647.1 1648.2 1666.6 T.W.56 2500 2487.8 2468.7 2470.8 2467.9 2467.9

References typ_torque_wrench_Setting_range_1-6_Nm (March 2017).

[1] ISO6789-1:2017, Assembly Tools for Screws and Nuts – Hand Torque Tools – Part 1:
Requirements and Methods for Design Conformance Testing and Quality
Conformance Testing: Minimum Requirements for Declaration of Conformance.
[2] ISO6789-2:2017, Assembly Tools for Screws and Nuts – Hand Torque Tools – Part 2:
Requirements for Calibration and Determination of Measurement Uncertainty.
[3] https://www.hhw.de/en/Shop/Hand%20tools/Keys/51726097/1%2F4_in_click_
[4] Khaled Abdelaziz Mohamed, Design, Construction and Performance Evaluation of
Torque Standard Machine, Master Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,
July 2010.
[5] K.M. Khaled, G. Aggag, A.E. Abuelezz, M.G. Elsherbiny, The influence of misalign-
ment on the accuracy of torque standard machine, J. Metrology Soc. India MAPAN
26 (2) (2011) 153–157.
[6] M.G. Cox, The evaluation of key comparison data, Metrologia 39 (2002) 589–595.

156

View publication stats