APMP PR-S3 B

APMP Supplementary Comparisons of
LED Measurements
APMP.PR-S3a Averaged LED Intensity
APMP.PR-S3b Total Luminous Flux of LEDs
APMP.PR-S3c Emitted Colour of LEDs
Final Report (July 2012)
Dong-Hoon Lee, Seongchong Park, and Seung-Nam Park
Division of Physical Metrology, Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS)
1 Doryong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 304-340, Rep. Korea
Correspondance to: dh.lee@kriss.re.kr

APMP.PR-S3b Total Luminous Flux of LEDs Final Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Comparison Protocol.................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Arttifact LEDs ................................................................................................................................................... 7
4. Measurement Capabilities of Participants........................................................................................... 9
4.1. KRISS .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2. MIKES ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
4.3. CMS-ITRI ................................................................................................................................................ 21
4.4. PTB ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
4.5. NMIJ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.6. CENAM ................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.7. LNE ........................................................................................................................................................... 48
4.8. METAS..................................................................................................................................................... 58
4.9. NMC-A*STAR ....................................................................................................................................... 68
4.10. VSL ....................................................................................................................................................... 72
4.11. NIST ..................................................................................................................................................... 79
4.12. VNIIOFI............................................................................................................................................... 89
4.13. INM...................................................................................................................................................... 89
5. Reported Results of Participants .......................................................................................................... 96

5.1. KRISS ....................................................................................................................................................... 96
5.2. MIKES ...................................................................................................................................................... 98
5.3. CMS-ITRI ................................................................................................................................................ 99
5.4. PTB ........................................................................................................................................................... 99
5.5. NMIJ....................................................................................................................................................... 100
5.6. CENAM ................................................................................................................................................. 100
5.7. LNE ......................................................................................................................................................... 101
2
5.8. METAS................................................................................................................................................... 101
5.9. NMC-A*STAR ..................................................................................................................................... 102
5.10. VSL ..................................................................................................................................................... 102
5.11. NIST ................................................................................................................................................... 103
5.12. VNIIOFI............................................................................................................................................. 103
5.13. INM.................................................................................................................................................... 104
6. Pre-draft A Process .................................................................................................................................. 104

6.1. Verification of Reported Results ............................................................................................... 105
6.2. Temperature Correction and Artifact Drift ........................................................................... 105
6.3. Review of Relative Data ................................................................................................................ 113
6.4. Review of Uncertainty Budgets ................................................................................................. 114
6.5. Identification of Outliers............................................................................................................... 114
7. Data Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 115

7.1. Calculation of Difference to Pilot ............................................................................................. 115
7.2. Calculation of Comparison Reference Value ....................................................................... 116
7.3. Calculation of Degree of Equivalence .................................................................................... 117
7.4. Data Analysis Spreadsheet .......................................................................................................... 117
8. Comparison Results ................................................................................................................................. 118

8.1. Red LEDs .............................................................................................................................................. 118
8.2. Green LEDs ......................................................................................................................................... 120
8.3. Blue LEDs ............................................................................................................................................. 121
8.4. White LEDs.......................................................................................................................................... 123
9. Discussion..................................................................................................................................................... 126
9.1. Test of Consistency ......................................................................................................................... 126
9.2. Accuracy of Color Correction ..................................................................................................... 126
10. Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 129
3
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................................. 129

Appendix A: Technical Protocol ................................................................................................................... 130
Appendix B: Review of Relative Data ........................................................................................................ 131
Appendix C: Comments from Review of Relative Data .................................................................... 132
Appendix D: Comments from Review of Uncertainty Budgets ..................................................... 133
Appendix E: Identification of Outliers ....................................................................................................... 134
Appendix F: Comments and Revision to Draft A Report ................................................................. 135
4
1. Introduction
With the recent growth of the solid state lighting and display industry, the interest and
importance of accurate measurement of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are increasing.
Photometric measurement of LEDs, however, is influenced by the specific properties of
individual LED such as spectral distribution, spatial emission profile, temperature
dependence, etc. In general, the measurement uncertainty of LEDs is larger than that of
the conventional incandescent lamps, and greater care is required to avoid or correct the
systematic errors related to the LED properties.
The Asia Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) Technical Committee of Photometry
and Radiometry (TCPR) decided at its meeting in December 2006 to conduct
supplementary comparisons on measurement of LEDs to test the metrological
equivalence among national metrology institutes (NMIs) under the CIPM Mutual
Recognition Arrangement (MRA)1. The participation was not limited to NMIs in APMP, but
also NMIs of other regional metrology organizations (RMOs). The Korea Research
Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS) of Republic Korea is designated as the pilot
laboratory.
Three measurement quantities of LEDs are selected for the comparisons, which are
listed as service categories for Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs):
averaged LED intensity in condition B defined by International Commission on
Illumination (CIE) 2 , total luminous flux, and emitted color expressed as chromaticity
coordinates (x, y) according to the CIE 1931 standard colorimetric system 3 . The three
comparisons are registered as APMP.PR-S3a, -S3b, and -S3c, respectively.
In this report, we summarize the results of the comparison S3b on total luminous
flux of LEDs.
2. Comparison Protocol
The organization, the artifact LEDs, and the guidelines for measurement and report of all
the three comparisons (S3a, S3b, S3c) are settled on one technical protocol before the
start of the comparisons. The protocol is drafted by the pilot lab, agreed by the
participants, and approved by the APMP TCPR in January 2008. The protocol is once
revised in November 2008, as the INM of Romania has joined as an additional participant.
1 http://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/
2 Measurement of LEDs, 2nd edition, CIE Technical Report 127-2007.
3 Colorimetry, 3rd edition, CIE 015:2004.
5
The final version of the technical protocol is included in 오류! 참조 원본을 찾을 수

없습니다. as an electronic file. Table 2-1 shows the final list of participants to the S3b
comparison with the measurement schedules planned and performed. We note that the
NPL of the UK listed on the technical protocol has withdrawn its participation in August
2009.
Table 2-1. List of participants and measurement schedules of APMP.PR-S3b.
measurement measurement results

NMI country contact person(s) LED set
planned performed reported
KRISS Seongchong Park,
Korea -- -- -- --
(pilot) Dong-Hoon Lee
NMC- Yuanjie Liu, June ~ Aug. 10 July ~ 28 Aug. 12 Jan.
Singapore #8
A*STAR Gan Xu 2008 2008 2009
(Pasi Manninen), March ~ May 7 April ~ 13 April 17 June
MIKES Finland #1
Tuomas Poikonen, 2008 2008 2008
Cameron Miller,
Aug. ~ Oct. 18 Feb. ~ 25 Feb. 31 July
NIST USA Yoshi Ohno, #3
2008 2009 2009
Yuqin Zong
CMS- Chinese March ~ May 26 May 2008 ~ 2 26 Oct
Cheng-Hsien Chen #2
ITRI Taipei 2008 Oct. 2009* 2009
Matthias
April ~ June 18 July
PTB Germany Lindemann, #3 May ~ July 2008
2008 2009
Robert Maass
Laura P. González,
May ~ July 17 July ~ 21 July 08 May
CENAM Mexico Anayansi Estrada, #5
2008 2008 2009
Eric Rosas
Kenji Godo, April ~ June 17 April ~ 22 01 Aug.
NMIJ Japan #4
(Terubumi Saito) 2008 June 2008 2008
June ~ Aug. 08 Sept ~ 17 Sept 07 April
METAS Switzerland Peter Blattner #7
2008 2008 2009
May ~ July 15 June ~ 13 July 15 April
LNE France Jimmy Dubard #6
2008 2008 2009
(Eric van der Ham),
The July ~ Sept. 13 Oct 2008 ~ 12 1 Oct
VSL M. Charl Moolman, #1
Netherlands 2008 Jan 2009 2009
Daniel Bos
Tatiana Gorshkova, Sept. ~ Nov. 28 Nov ~ 05 Dec 06 Feb.
VNIIOFI Russia #5
Stanislav Shirokov 2008 2008 2009
Nov. ~ Dec. 30 March
INM Romania Mihai Simionescu #7 Dec 2008
2008 2009
* The CMS-ITRI had the initial measurement in May 2008, but it had to repeat the measurement on the red
LEDs in Oct 2009 due to damages in the initial measurement.
The comparison was performed as a star-type circulation of multiple sets of artifact

LEDs. The round for each participant had the following sequence: (1) first measurement
by the pilot, (2) measurement by the participant, (3) second measurement by the pilot.
The results of the repeated measurement by the pilot are used to evaluate the stability of
the artifact LEDs.
6
3. Arttifact LEDs
Five different types of LEDs are used as comparison artifacts: RED (Nichia model
NSPR518S), GREEN (Nichia model NSPG518S), BLUE (Nichia model NSPB518S), WHITE
(Nichia model NSPW515BS), and DIFFUSER-TYPE GREEN (NSPG518S mounted in a
cylinder-type cap with an opal diffuser). All the bare LEDs had a lamp diameter of 5 mm
and were to be operated at a forward direct current of 20 mA. The detailed information
of the LEDs is included in the technical protocol (Appendix A). Note, however, the
diffuser-type green LEDs are not measured for the comparison S3b.
Each set of artifact LEDs consisted of three pieces of the red (R), green (G), blue (B),
and white (W) LEDs and two pieces of the diffuser-type green (D) LEDs. They were
packaged and identified as shown in Fig. 3-1. The pilot prepared eight sets of artifact
LEDs for the LED comparisons S3a, S3b, and S3c. Each artifact LED is designated in a
form #N-X-M with three codes:
- #N as the artifact set number: N = 1, 2, …, 8
- X as LED color and type code: X = R for red, G for green, B for blue, W for white, D for
diffuser-type green
- M as sample serial number for each type: M = 1, 2, 3
Fig. 3-1. Artifact LED set circulated in the LED comparisons S3a, S3b, and S3c.
7
The artifact LEDs are prepared based on the functional seasoning 4 that records
during the pre-burning the relative change of luminous intensity and spectral distribution
of each individual LED together with its junction voltage under the ambient temperature
periodically varied from 18 °C to 33 °C. From the recorded data, the temporal drift and
the temperature dependence of the optical characteristics of each LED could be
separately determined. Each artifact LEDs has passed a seasoning procedure over 300
hours.
Since the photometric properties of LEDs have a very high dependence upon
temperature, their comparison requires a sensitive control or monitoring of the junction
temperature. As the junction voltage Vj of a LED can be approximated as a linear
function of the junction temperature T in a small interval, say ±10 °C, around a reference
temperature of T0,5 we can model the temperature dependence of its total luminous flux
ΦLED as a third-order polynomial with three coefficients:
 LED T  2 3
1  a V j (T )  V j (T0 )   b V j (T )  V j (T0 )   c V j (T )  V j (T0 )  . (3-1)
 LED T0 
The coefficients a, b, and c of each artifact LED could be determined by fitting the
function of Eq. (3-1) to the functional seasoning data. With these results, the pilot was
capable to calculate a temperature correction factor for the measurement result of any
artifact LED to the same measurement condition, as long as the junction voltage at the
time of measurement is known. The uncertainty of this correction factor is estimated to
be less than 0.5 % as a relative standard uncertainty from the goodness of fit for the
coefficients.
In the comparison S3b, the measurement condition was specified with an ambient
temperature of 25 °C. In addition, the junction voltage of each LED was to be recorded
to monitor the junction temperature and to apply the aforementioned temperature
correction. In the chapters 오류! 참조 원본을 찾을 수 없습니다.~오류! 참조 원본을
찾을 수 없습니다., we will show and discuss this effect of the temperature correction to
the comparison results.
4 Seongchong Park et al., Metrologia 43, 299 (2006).

5 See, for example, E. F. Schubert, Light-Emitting Diodes (Cambrige University Press, 2003)
8
9
4. Measurement Capabilities of Participants

In this chapter, we summarize the information on measurement capabilities and
uncertainty budgets for total luminous flux of LEDs, which are reported by each
participant.
4.1. KRISS
4.1.1. Measurement setup
Fig. 4-1 shows the measurement setup of total luminous flux in KRISS. This setup is
implemented in a similar way to the NIST absolute integrating sphere method. The
integrating sphere has a diameter of 300 mm. There are 2 photometers: one (photometer
#1) is located outside the sphere for luminous flux measurement of a collimated
reference beam, and the other one (photometer #2) is attached to the sphere surface,
which acts a comparator of the illuminance between the reference beam and an LED. The
photometer #1 has a diameter of 15 mm (P15F0T made by LMT), and the photometer #2
has an aperture of 1 cm2 (P11S0Ts made by LMT).
For spectral mismatch correction, we use a CCD-mounted spectrograph-type
spectroradiometer (CAS140CT-153 made by Instrument Systems), of which the input
optics is composed of an 1.5” integrating sphere and fiber bundle. The aperture area of
the integrating sphere is 1 cm2. It covers 380 nm to 1050 nm, and its spectral bandwidth
(FWHM) is about 3 nm at 633 nm. The photometer #2 can be substituted by the
spectroradiometer input optics. Other geometry is shown in the right-side of Fig. 4-1.
The LED is driven by a source-meter unit (2400 Sourcemeter made by Keithley),
which provides both of current sourcing and voltage measuring function. The LED is
connected to the source-meter unit using 4-wire connection.
10
Collimated
QTH Lamp
REF. beam
z
65
baffle
40
photometer 2
35
photometer 1 y
test LED
Linear stage
x
Integrating
sphere
Fig. 4-1. LED total luminous flux measurement setup in KRISS.
4.1.2. Mounting and alignment

Normally, the LED holder is positioned as the right-side of Fig. 4-1, thus the LED tip is
aimed at 115° from z-axis. For spatial response distribution measurement, we use
another LED holder with an LED beam source, which enables to adjust the aiming angle
over nearly 4 solid angle. Based on the SRDF measurement, the spatial mismatch
correction is performed.
4.1.3. Traceability
The absolute spectral responsivity of photometer #1 and the relative spectral responsivity
of photometer #2 are calibrated using a KRISS working standard photodiode. The scale is
traceable to KRISS cryogenic radiometer. For the spectroradiometer, the relative spectral
responsivity is calibrated using a spectral irradiance standard lamp traceable to NIST
spectral irradiance scale.
4.1.4. Measurement uncertainty

Tables in the following are the detailed uncertainty budgets of total luminous flux
measurement for the LEDs used in this APMP LED comparison. The uncertainty
evaluation is carried out according to Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in
Measurement (GUM). Expanded uncertainty are evaluated at a confidence level of
approximately 95% with a coverage factor normally k = 2. Table 4-5 is the detailed
uncertainty budget of the junction voltage measurement.
Table 4-1. KRISS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
11
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contribut DoF Correl
Type
uncertaint distribution coefficient ion (%) ated?
y
sphere photometer repeatability 0.00 % A t 1 0.00 9 N
(DUT)
current feeding accuracy 0.05 % B rectangular 1 0.05  Y
near field reflection loss 0.50 % B rectangular 1 0.50  Y
external photometer repeatability 0.00 % A t 1 0.00 9 N
(REF)
(REF)
external photometer linearity 0.05 % B rectangular 1 0.05  Y
sphere photometer linearity 0.05 % B rectangular 1 0.05  Y
transfer procedure repeatability 0.01 % A t 1 0.01 9 N
spatial mismatch correction 0.75 % B normal 1 0.75  Y
luminous flux responsivity 0.46 % B normal 1 0.46  Y
stray light 0.20 % B rectangular 1 0.20  Y
color correction 0.24 % B normal 1 0.24  Y
reproducibility 0.33 % A t 1 0.33 >30 N
Combined standard normal 1.11 >20
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-2. KRISS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
uncertain distribution coefficient ion (%) ated?

ty
(DUT)
(REF)
(REF)
uncertainty (%)
12
Table 4-3. KRISS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
ty
(DUT)
(REF)
(REF)
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-4. KRISS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type

ty
(DUT)
(REF)
(REF)
13

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-5. KRISS uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

Type
uncertainty distribution coefficient ion (mV) ated?
sourcemeter calibration 0.05 mV B normal 1 0.05  Y

sourcemeter offset 0.10 mV B normal 1 0.10  Y
repeatability 0.04 mV A t 1 0.04 9 N
stray resistance 0.02 mV B rectangular 1 0.02  Y
Combined standard t 0.12 >10
uncertainty (mV)
4.2. MIKES
The total luminous flux of LEDs was measured using a 30-cm integrating sphere. The
sphere has three ports: a main port for the LED under calibration, a detector port for a
photometer head, and an auxiliary port for an auxiliary LED. An LED holder used for total
luminous flux and a 5-cm precision aperture for the luminous flux responsivity of the
sphere photometer can be attached in the main port. The photometer used was made
by PRC Krochmann and had good cosine response. The auxiliary port was utilized in the
self-absorption measurements of the LEDs and in the transfer calibration of the total flux
mode.
The integrating sphere photometer has been calibrated for the illuminance
responsivity with an external source (luminous intensity standard lamp) when the 5-cm
entrance aperture is mounted in the main port. The illuminance in the center of the
entrance aperture is measured with a reference photometer, and the corresponding
photocurrent is measured with the sphere photometer at the same distance (70 cm) from
the external source. A correction due to illuminance non-uniformity of radiation field at
the aperture plane has been made. The light beam of the LED under calibration hit the
sphere wall at the same angle of incidence as the reference light from the external
source. The obtained illuminance responsivity of the sphere with the 5-cm aperture has
been transferred to the total flux mode by measuring the signal from a white LED in the
auxiliary port with two cases: when the 5-cm aperture and the LED holder have been
14
attached in the main port.

For calculating the spectral mismatch correction factor of the LEDs, the relative
spectral responsivity of the photometer has been calibrated with a reference
spectrometer of MIKES, and relative spectral throughput of the integrating sphere and
spectral power distribution of the LEDs have been measured with a spectroradiometer of
type DM150 from Bentham inc.
The total luminous flux measurements for each LED were made with the
integrating sphere photometer. The self-absorption measurements were made with an
auxiliary 5-mm white LED used in the auxiliary port by measuring the signal of the
photometer with and without the LED under calibration. To calculate the spectral
mismatch correction factor, the relative spectral power distributions were measured by
steps of 1 nm within the wavelength range of 380-780 nm, and the relative spectral
responsivity of the used photometer and the relative throughput of the integrating
sphere were measured by steps of 2 nm and 5 nm within the wavelength range of the
380-780 nm. During the measurements, the ambient temperature was (23.0 ± 1.0) °C and
the relative humidity of air was (31 ± 5) °C.

The LED holder used in the total luminous flux measurements of the LEDs is shown in Fig.
4-2. The LED is located in the center of the integrating sphere. The sensitivity of the
system to the positioning of the LEDs was tested by repeating the LED mounting and
signal measurement. The V(λ)-corrected photometer used for luminous flux signal
measurements and the diffuser of the spectroradiometer for the spectral measurements
were mounted to the detector port one at a time.
Fig. 4-2. LED holder used in the measurements of the total LED luminous flux in MIKES.
4.2.3. Traceability
The illuminance responsivity of the photometer used is traceable to MIKES’ reference
photometer. The reference photometer includes a precision aperture, a V(λ) filter, and a
15
silicon trap detector. The absolute transmittance of the V(λ) filter used in the reference
photometer is traceable to the national standard of the regular transmittance [Calibration
certificate T-R 479]. The spectral responsivity of the trap detector is traceable to a
cryogenic electrical substitution radiometer at SP in Sweden [Calibration certificate
MTeP501362-025] and modeling the spectral shape [Calibration certificate INT-028]. The
determinations of the areas of the precision apertures are traceable to the realization of
the meter at MIKES [Calibration certificate M-07L193]. The spectral irradiance responsivity
of the spectroradiometer is traceable to the national standard of spectral irradiance
[Calibration certificate T-R 506]. The calibrations of the current-to-voltage converter
Vinculum SP042 and digital voltmeter HP 3458A are traceable to the national standards
of electricity [Calibration certificates INT-033, INT-032].

Uncertainty components for the total luminous flux and junction voltage of the LEDs
have been presented in Tables below. The sensitivity coefficients of the uncertainty
components have been calculated as the ratio between the relative standard uncertainty
of the component and the standard deviation of the probability distribution of the
component. The uncertainty components due to wavelength errors and relative spectral
responsivity are based on Monte Carlo simulations.
Table 4-6. MIKES uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contrib Deg. of Correl
uncertainty distribution coefficient ution freedo ated?
Type
(%) (%) m
Setup-related
Repeatability 0.41 A normal 1 0.41 11 X
Near-field absorption 1.00 B rectangular 1 1.00 ∞ O
Self-absorption correction 0.02 A normal 1 0.02 5 X

factor
Non-uniformity of sphere 0.20 B rectangular 1 0.20 ∞ O
wall
Photocurrent measurement 0.03 B rectangular 1 0.03 ∞ X
(flux signal)
Current feeding B rectangular 3– 0.03 ∞ O
5 %/mA
Integrating sphere
calibration
16
Illuminance responsivity of 0.20 B normal 1 0.20 ∞ O

photometer
Photocurrent measurement 0.01 A normal 1 0.01 19 X
(illuminance)
Drift of the external source 0.01 B rectangular 1 0.01 ∞ O
Long-term stability of 0.14 B rectangular 1 0.14 ∞ O

photometer
Distance setting of sphere- B rectangular 0.5 %/mm 0.06 ∞ X
photometer
Aperture diameter B rectangular 0.006 0.04 ∞ O
%/μm
Reflection from aperture B rectangular 1 0.05 ∞ O
land
Illuminance non-uniformity 0.02 A normal 1 0.02 8 X
correction
Calibration transfer factor 0.20 B rectangular 1 0.20 ∞ O
Repeatability of calibration 0.04 A normal 1 0.04 9 X
Spectral mismatch
correction
Wavelength error in LED B normal 0.05 – 0.02 ∞ O
spectrum 0.2 %/nm
Wavelength error in B normal 0.5 – 0.19 ∞ O
photometer response 4.7 %/nm
Relative spectral 0.20 B rectangular 1 0.20 ∞ O
responsivity of photometer
Throughput of integrating 0.50 B rectangular 1 0.50 ∞ O
sphere
Measurement geometry of 0.30 B rectangular 1 0.30 ∞ O
relative spectral response of
photometer
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 1.32 ∞ --
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-7. MIKES uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
(%) (%) m
Setup-related
17

factor
wall
(flux signal)
5 %/mA
Integrating sphere
calibration
photometer
(illuminance)

photometer
photometer
%/μm
land
correction
Spectral mismatch
correction
spectrum 0.2 %/nm
sphere
photometer
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-8. MIKES uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
18

Type
(%) (%) m
Setup-related

factor
wall
(flux signal)
5 %/mA
Integrating sphere
calibration
photometer
(illuminance)

photometer
photometer
%/μm
land
correction
Spectral mismatch
correction
spectrum 0.2 %/nm
19

sphere
photometer
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-9. MIKES uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type
(%) (%) m
Setup-related

factor
wall
(flux signal)
5 %/mA
Integrating sphere
calibration
photometer
(illuminance)

photometer
photometer
%/μm
land
correction
20
Spectral mismatch
correction
Wavelength error in LED B normal 0.05 – < 0.01 ∞ O
spectrum 0.2 %/nm
sphere
photometer
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-10. MIKES uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for red LEDs (R).
Type
(mV) m
Calibration of voltmeter B normal 1 0.02 ∞ O
Junction position B rectangular 1 0.03 ∞ X

dependence
Stability of junction voltage A normal 1 0.01 – 19 X
0.02
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 0.04 – ∞ --
uncertainty (mV) 0.045
Table 4-11. MIKES uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
(mV) m

dependence
0.04
uncertainty (mV)
Table 4-12. MIKES uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for blue LEDs (B).
21

Type
(mV) m

dependence
0.06
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 0.11 – ∞ --
uncertainty (mV) 0.12
Table 4-13. MIKES uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type
(mV) m

dependence
0.04
uncertainty (mV)
4.3. CMS-ITRI
As Fig. 4-3, the test LED is located within the integrating sphere centre. The integrating
sphere diameter is 1500 mm, include one auxiliary lamp for calculating absorption effect
and a optical detector for measuring optical signal. By substitute method, comparing the
output signal from the LED to that from the standard lamp in the integrating sphere.
Using the DC multiple standard resistor, two voltage meter and DC power supply that
give the LED current and monitor the current and voltage of the junction of LED. The
detector is the V(λ) optical detector connect the optical current meter for getting the
optical signal.
22
Alignment CCD
Detector
LED (100 mm2 circular
aperture)
100 mm
Alignment CCD
Fig. 4-3. Total Luminous Flux of LEDs measurement system in CMS-ITRI.

Fig. 4-4 is the vertical view of LED alignment. The LED at the centre of integrating sphere
and the beam direction is at the uniform area of the sphere that is flat spatial response
of distribution area. The LED is mounting by a holder that has two pins connect and has
two wires at the end of holder for power current connecting.
LED Baffle
Detector
Auxiliary
lamp
Baffle LED
holder
(Vertical view)
Fig. 4-4. The vertical view of LED alignment in CMS-ITRI.
4.3.3. Traceability
The traceability of LED total luminous flux is trace to the standard total luminous flux
lamp by total luminous flux measurement system. The standard total luminous flux lamp
is trace to the standard reference lamp then trace to NIST.
23
NIST
Standard
reference lamp
Total luminous flux

measurement
system
Standard total
luminous flux lamp
Total luminous flux

measurement
system
Test LED
Fig. 4-5. Traceability of measurement system in CMS-ITRI.

Uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement:
1. Repeatability of standard lamp:
The repeatability of standard lamp is record the optical current by using current meter
several times a day and measure several days. Calculate the standard deviation of all the
data.
2. Repeatability of test LED:
The repeatability of test LED is record the optical current by using current meter several
times a day and measure several days. Calculate the standard deviation of all the data.
3. Current ratio repeatability of standard lamp and LED:
Due to the different measurement condition between standard lamp and LED, such as
alignment angle, environment condition, and the small deviation of lamp, to consider the
optical signal ratio of repeatability of standard lamp and LED.
4. LED spatial light distribution:
Because of the geometrical structure in the integrating sphere, cause the non-uniform
distribution in the integrating sphere. Consider the deviation of LED alignment angle in
the relative uniform area, to calculate the deviation of LED.
5. Self-absorption factor:
24
The self-absorption factor is when turn on the auxiliary lamp to measure the optical
signal of standard lamp and LED lamp, then to calculate the both of two ratio.
6. Spectral mismatch correction:
Because of the correction of spectrometer which the wavelength shifts affect the spectral
correction factor (SCF). Consider the wavelength shifts cause the error of SCF.
7. Calibration of standard lamp:
The uncertainty of calibration of standard lamp is drive from the relative expand
uncertainty calibrated by National measurement laboratory (NML) in Taiwan.
Uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement:

1. Repeatability of test LED:
The repeatability of test LED is record the junction voltage by using voltage meter several
times a day and measure several days when measuring the LED averaged intensity.
Calculate the standard deviation of all the data.
2. Resolution of voltmeter:
To consider the drift when measure the junction voltage that is the maximum digit of
voltage meter.
3. Long-term drift of voltmeter:
Long-term drift of voltmeter is the drift of the traceability since the past. Calculate the
maximum deviation of the uncertainty drift.
4. Voltmeter calibration:
The uncertainty of voltmeter is drive from the relative expand uncertainty calibrated by
National measurement laboratory (NML) in Taiwan.
Table 4-14. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs
(R).
Type
(%) m
Repeatability of standard 0.002 A t 1 0.002 87 X

lamp
Repeatability of test LED 0.040 A t 1 0.040 87 O
Current ratio repeatability 0.156 A t 1 0.156 2 O

of standard lamp and LED
LED spatial light 0.664 B rectangular 1 0.664 200 X
distribution
25
Self-absorption factor 0.123 A t 1 0.123 89 O
Spectral mismatch 0.090 B rectangular 1 0.090 200 O

correction
Calibration of standard 0.920 B normal 1 0.920 5000 O
lamp
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 1.16 1264 --
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-15. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs
(G).
Type
(%) m

lamp

distribution

correction
lamp
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-16. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs
(B).
Type
(%) m

lamp

distribution
26

correction
lamp
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-17. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs
(W).
uncertainty Type distribution coefficient ution freedo ated?
(%) m

lamp

distribution

correction
lamp
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-18. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for red LEDs (R).
Type
(%) (%) m
Repeatability 0.020 A t 1 0.020 200 X
Resolution of voltmeter 0.003 B rectangular 1 0.003 200 O
Long-term drift of 0.026 B rectangular 1 0.026 200 O

voltmeter
Voltmeter calibration 0.001 B normal 1 0.001 5000 O

uncertainty (%)
27
Table 4-19. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for green LEDs
(G).
Type
(%) (%) m

voltmeter

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-20. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
(%) (%) m

voltmeter

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-21. CMS-ITRI uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement for white LEDs
(W).
Type
(%) (%) m
28

voltmeter

uncertainty (%)
4.4. PTB
Fig. 4-6 below shows the measurement setup in principle. To enable the measurement of
all the desired quantities, a special mechanism is needed. This allows the following
functionality: the alignment of the LED transfer standard to the optical axis of the system,
the rotation of the LED transfer standard around its horizontal axis φ and rotation
around its vertical axis θ. Furthermore, it allows the variation of the distance r between
the selected detector and the LED transfer standard. Opposite the LED transfer standard,
a rotating wheel is used for a quick detector selection. Additionally, there is a laser and a
CCD camera mounted to enable the easy alignment of the LED transfer standard. Due to
the rotation of φ angle, the interconnection between the power supply and the LED
under test prohibits an endless rotation.
Thus, in the case of luminous flux measurements after a little more than one
rotation, a stop is needed. The next movement will then be the turn back and so on.
The goniophotometer measured the zonal photocurrent (which is proportional to
the measured averaged illuminance) as a function of the angle θ where θ = 0 represents
the optical axis of the goniophotometer, which is also the mechanical axis of the LED
package in the direction of emittance. See Fig. 4-7 below.
29
Fig. 4-6. Measurement setup for total luminous flux in PTB.
Fig. 4-7. Geometry of the gonio-photometric measurement of LED total luminous flux in PTB.

Fig. 4-8 below shows the holder which was used to hold, align and operate each LED. A
high reflecting cone directly behind the installed LED allows for the indirect measurement
of the backward directed partial luminous flux of the LEDs, which also contributes to the
total luminous flux.
30
Fig. 4-8. Pictures of the LED holder used in the measurement of total luminous flux in PTB.
4.4.3. Traceability
The primary standards for the measured quantities are traceable to national standards.

The uncertainties are determined from up to 30 individual contributions originated in the
operation and alignment of an LED in thermal conditions influenced by the holder and
the environment. The specific properties of the measurement devices and their effects
are considered in detail. The estimated uncertainties of the contributions are maximum
for standard LED calibrations at PTB. They are listed and sorted in uncertainty budgets.
The components are treated as uncorrelated.
The next statement shows the formula to determinate luminous flux:
31
Table 4-22. PTB uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contribut Deg. Correl
uncertainty distribution coefficient ion (%) of ated?
Type
freedo
m
LED nominal current 0A 22.8679 0
Exponent LED current 0.36 B normal 9.98E-6 5.42E-4 13

correction
LED current reading 2.0E-6 A A normal -22.8683 -6.88E-3 10
Correction factor for 0 B normal 0.665126 0 20

spectral mismatch as
function of θ
Exponent LED voltage 1.6 B normal 1.0678E-3 0.25 13
correction
LED nominal voltage for 7.3E-4 V A normal 1.89755 0.21 9
25 °C
LED voltage reading 6.0E-4 V A normal -1.9006 -0.17 10
Correction factor for 0.00050 B normal 0.665219 0.050 10

straylight
LED backward emission 0.0010 B normal 0.664462 0.10 10
Straylight correction of 5.0E-5 B normal 0.665126 0.0050 50

spectrometer
Bandbass correction of 0.00011 B normal 0.665126 0.011 50
spectrometer
Distance 0.00050 m B rectangular 4.20966 0.32 10
Photometric sensitivity of 8.9E-11 A/lx B normal -2.4003E7 -0.32 10

photometer
Spectral mismatch 0.0078 B normal 0.648397 0.76 20
correction factor
Integrated photocurrent, 2.3E-10 A B normal 2.34488E7 0.82 90
solid angle weighted
32

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-23. PTB uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
freedo
m

correction
LED current reading 2.0E-6 A A normal -72.1751 -0.0051 10
Correction factor for 0 B normal 2.85823 0 20

function of θ
Exponent LED voltage 0.45 B normal 6.5639E-3 0.10 13
correction
LED nominal voltage for 0.0026 V A normal 1.32354 0.12 9
25 °C
LED voltage reading 0.0011 V A normal -1.32658 -0.052 10

straylight

spectrometer
spectrometer

photometer
correction factor
Combined standard -- - normal -- 1.12 135 --
uncertainty (%) -
Table 4-24. PTB uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
free
dom
33

correction

function of θ
Exponent LED voltage 0.10 B normal 0.0016 0.022 13
correction
25 °C
LED voltage reading 8.0E-4 V A normal -0.109743 -0.011 10

straylight
Straylight correction of 0.0010 B normal 0.775318 0.10 50

spectrometer
spectrometer
Photometric sensitivity of 8.9E-11 B normal -2.79797E7 -0.32 10

photometer A/lx
correction factor
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 1.24 157 -
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-25. PTB uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type
freedo
m

correction

function of θ
34
Exponent LED voltage 0.61 B normal 0.0026366 0.095 13

correction
25 °C
LED voltage reading 0.0011 V A normal -1.34223 -0.09 10

straylight

spectrometer
Bandbass correction of 4.0E-5 B normal 1.68244 0.0040 50
spectrometer

photometer
correction factor
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-26. PTB uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement of blue LED (example).
Type
(mV) m
Calibration of voltmeter 0.00005 B rectangular 3.44 0.17 10
Junction position 0.00052 V B rectangular -1 -0.52 10

dependence
Reproducibility 0.00058 V A normal 1 0.58 10

uncertainty (mV)
4.5. NMIJ
The measurement of LED luminous flux at NMIJ is based on the goniophotometric
method. The measurement distance is 1.15m. "f1' value" of a photometer for LED
luminous flux (LED-photometer) is 2.4. The Photometer and the LED mount socket were
35
installed on the automatic-move stage.
Fig. 4-9. Calibration facility for LED luminous intensity and total luminous flux in NMIJ.

a) The laser system and the telescope with CCD camera are used for LED alignment.
b) LED holder is mounted to the gonio-stage. (see Fig. 4-10)
c) Fig. 4-11 shows picture of the LED holder. (Pin socket is used to mount LED)
Fig. 4-10. LED mount socket mounted to the gonio-stage in NMIJ.
Fig. 4-11. LED mount socket in NMIJ.
36
4.5.3. Traceability
a) Illuminance responsivity of the LED photometer ⇒ luminous intensity standard at
NMIJ.
b) Relative spectral responsivity of the LED photometer ⇒ spectral responsivity
standard at NMIJ.
c) Relative spectral distribution of the test LED ⇒ spectral irradiance standard at NMIJ.

Table 4-27. NMIJ uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Type
(%) m
Calibration of illuminance B gaussian 1 0.32 1510 O

responsivity
Temperature dependence of 1.2 °C B rectangular 0.08 %/°C 0.09 ∞ O
illuminance responsivity
Linearity of illuminance B rectangular 1 0.05 ∞ O
responsivity
Reference plane of 0.62 mm B rectangular 0.17 %/mm 0.11 ∞ O
photometer
Distance alignment 0.21 mm B rectangular 0.17 %/mm 0.04 ∞ X
Current feeding accuracy B rectangular 1 < 0.01 ∞ O
DMM accuracy B rectangular 1 < 0.01 ∞ O
Axis alignment 0.29 mm B rectangular 0.62 %/mm 0.18 ∞ X
Optical center in LED B rectangular 1 0.61 ∞ X
Angle accuracy B rectangular 1 0.05 ∞ O
Repeatability of LED A t 1 0.13 6 X

lighting (including noise
and drift)
Stray light B rectangular 1 0.10 ∞ O
measurement angle step B rectangular 1 0.91 ∞ X

and angular resolution
Spectral mismatch correction factor
Spectral responsivity A gaussian 1 0.11 ∞ X
calibration (including +
37
repeatability) B
Spectral irradiance A gaussian 1 < 0.01 ∞ X

repeatability) B
Wavelength uncertainty of Random A gaussian -- 0.19 ∞ X
relative spectral 0.1 nm, + (random
responsivity systematic B factor),
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)
LED spectral distribution 0.1 nm, + (random
systematic B factor),
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)
Effect of slit function width B rectangular 1 0.04 ∞ X
Angular dependence of B rectangular 1 0.12 ∞ X

LED spectral distribution
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 1.2 >> --
uncertainty (%) 20000
Table 4-28. NMIJ uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
(%) m

responsivity
responsivity
photometer
38

and drift)

repeatability) B
repeatability) B
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)

uncertainty (%) 20000
Table 4-29. NMIJ uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
(%) m

responsivity
responsivity
photometer
39

and drift)

repeatability) B
repeatability) B
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)
Wavelength uncertainty of Random A gaussian -- < 0.01 ∞ X
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)

uncertainty (%)k=1 20000
Table 4-30. NMIJ uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type
(%) m

responsivity
40

responsivity
photometer

and drift)

repeatability) B
repeatability) B
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)
Wavelength uncertainty of Random A gaussian -- < 0.01 ∞ X
0.1 nm rectangular
(systematic
factor)r

uncertainty (%)k=1 20000
Table 4-31. NMIJ uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.
41

Type
(V) m
Calibration of DMM B gaussian 1 0.0001 ∞ O
Repeatability (including A gaussian 1 0.0001 4 X

effect of temperature ~
difference) 0.0033

uncertainty (V) k=1 ~
0.0033
4.6. CENAM
The measurement system used for Total Luminous Flux is conformed by a set of standard
incandescent lamps and a 1 m diameter luminous integrating sphere. The integrating
sphere includes a photometric detector coupled to the exit port of a satellite sphere, an
auxiliary lamp, a pair of baffles to avoid the direct incidence of light into the photometric
detector, and a lamp holder. The measurement system is completed with the electronic
instrumentation commonly used to measure photocurrents and other electric operating
parameters of the lamps. The measurement system used is shown in Fig. 4-12 and Fig.
4-13.
Fig. 4-12. Schematic diagram of the total luminous flux measurement setup in CENAM.
42
Fig. 4-13. 1 m diameter integrating sphere at CENAM.

In order to mount the LEDs artefacts inside the integrating sphere, an LED holder was
adapted to the lamp holder as shown in Fig. 4-14. No alignment was provided to the
LEDs.
Fig. 4-14. LED holders for integrating sphere in CENAM.
4.6.3. Traceability
The total luminous flux was measured by using a photometric detector and set of
standard lamps calibrated for this quantity by NIST. Fig. 4-15 shows the traceability chart
for the Total Luminous Flux measurements performed at CENAM, where the expanded
uncertainty presented correspond to a coverage factor of k = 2.
43
ampere ohm volt lumen

[A] [] [V] [lm]
SI units
Total Luminous Flux

NIST
Integrating Sphere
CNM-PNE-13 CNM-PNE-3 CNM-PNE-5 CNM-PNF-15

Electric DC Electric DC Total Luminous
Electric
Current Voltage Flux
Resistance
Electrical DC Resistance [] Voltage [V] Total Luminous Flux

current [A] Shunt Resistor Multimeter [lm]
Multimeter Res-61173 M-3457-883 Lamps
M-3458-334 0,0999965  M-3458-334 P486, P487
U ≤ 13 µA/A U ≤ 1,7µΩ/Ω U ≤ 13 µV/V U = 0.5 %
External
[V]
Multimeters
Total Luminous Flux
M-3457-8830,5 lm - 5 000 lm Services
M-3457-885 LED’S
U = 15µV U = 11%
/Ω
r
M-3457-881
Fig. 4-15. Traceability chart for the total luminous flux measurements performed at CENAM.

The total luminous flux of the LED led is determined by using Eq. (4.1):
 , (4.1)
where iled is the photocurrent of the photometer head when measuring the LED’s, led is
the LED self-absorption correction, ccf*(Sled) is the LED spectral mismatch correction
factor, ccf*(Sp) is the standard lamp spectral mismatch correction factor, p is the value of
the standard lamps total luminous flux, and T is the system transfer function given by
Eq. (4.2):
, (4.2)
where p is the standard lamps self-absorption correction and ip is the photocurrent of

the photometer head when measuring standard lamps.
The spectral mismatch correction factor used for the standard lamps and the
white LED’s is given by Eq. (4.3):
, (4.3)
where SA(λ) is the relative spectral power distribution of the CIE Illuminant A, Si(λ) is the
relative spectral power distribution of the source when located inside the integrating
44
sphere, V(λ) is the spectral luminous efficiency function and Rs(λ) is the relative spectral
responsivity function of the sphere system, that can be obtained by measuring the
relative spectral responsivity of the photometer head, Srel-df (, and the relative spectral
throughput of the integrating sphere Ts(λ) as in Eq. (4.4):
), (4.4)
The relative spectral throughput Ts(λ) of the sphere was obtained using a
spectrorradiometer and calculating the ratios of the spectral irradiance on the detector
port of the sphere to the spectral irradiance of the same lamp or LED measured outside
the integrating sphere, as shown in Eq. (4.5):
, (4.5)
For the red, green and blue LEDs, the spectral mismatch correction factor used is given
by Eq. (4.6):
, (4.6)
where SA(λ) is the relative spectral power distribution of the CIE Illuminant A, Srel-df () is
the relative spectral responsivity of the photometer head and SLED is the LED relative
spectral power distribution, which was simulated from the measured FWHM and peak
wavelength6.
Thus, the uncertainty estimation of the spectral irradiance was done by
considering the input and influence quantities presented in Fig. 4-16.
6Richard Y., Kathleen M.., Carolyn J., Quantifying photometric spectral mismatch uncertainties in LED
measurements, Proceedings of the 2nd Expert Symposium on LED Measurement, CIE, Genève, (2001).
45
 Total luminous flux reference value
Reading repeatibility
p Multimeter resolution
Multimeter error
T
Multimeter resolution
ip Reading repeatibility
Multimeter error
S rel Photometer head relative spectral

ccf* responsivity
standard Spectroradiometer error
lamps and
white LED’s S lamp Spectroradiometer repeatibility in the sphere
Spectroradiometer repeatibility out the sphere
i led Multimeter repeatibility
Multimeter error
Total Multimeter resolution

Luminous
Flux  led Multimeter repeatibility
Multimeter error
S rel Photometer head relative spectral responsivity

ccf*
red, green
and blue Spectroradiometer error
S lamp
LED’s
Spectroradiometer repeatibility in the sphere
V Resistance Multimeter repeatibility

Current
feeding Multimeter error
accuracy
R Resistance value
position vled   FLT

Voltage
junction Multimeter resolution
due to
position V LED Multimeter repeatibility
Multimeter error
Fig. 4-16. Total luminous flux uncertainty components in CENAM.
Table 4-32. CENAM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
uncertainty distribution coefficient ution freedom ated?
Type
(%) (%)
46
Luminous flux reference 0.25 B normal 1 0.25 200 X

value
System transfer function 0.11 B normal 1 0.11 200 X
Standard lamps spectral 2.22 B normal 1 2.22 200 X

mismatch correction
LED self-absorption 0.06 B normal 1 0.06 200 O
correction
LED readings repeatability 3.87 A normal 1 3.87 14 O
LEDs spectral mismatch 2.65 B normal 1 2.65 200 O

correction
0.012 A normal 1 0.012 14 X
Junction voltage
0.17 A normal 1 0.17 14 X
Current feeding accuracy
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-33. CENAM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs
(G).
Type
(%) (%)

value

mismatch correction
correction

correction
0.012 A normal 1 0.012 14 X
Junction voltage
1.24 A normal 1 1.24 14 X
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-34. CENAM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
47

Type
(%) (%)

value

mismatch correction
correction

correction
0.004 A normal 1 0.004 14 X
Junction voltage
0.31 A normal 1 0.31 14 X
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-35. CENAM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs
(W).
Type
(%) (%)

value

mismatch correction
correction

correction
0.009 A normal 1 0.004 14 X
Junction voltage
0.90 A normal 1 0.31 14 X
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-36. CENAM uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

48
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contrib Deg. of Cor

uncertainty distribution coefficient ution freedom rela
Type
(%) (%) ted?
Readings repeatability 0.01604 A normal 1 0.01604 14 O
Multimeter resolution 0.00001 B rectangular 1 0.00001 200 X
Multimeter error 0.00055 B normal 1 0.00055 200 X

uncertainty (%)
4.7. LNE
LNE has developed a measurement set-up to measure photometric and colorimetric
characteristics of LEDs. This set-up is based on a goniophotometer designed to meet the
requirements of the CIE127 standards for averaged intensity and total flux measurements.
It is optimised for high power white LEDs measurements and was adapted for the LEDs
in the framework of the APMP-S3 supplementary comparison. The schematic of the
goniophotometer is shown on Fig. 4-17. It is 2 m long and 1.8 m high.
49
Camera
Spectrocolorimeter
LED mount
Stepping
Photometer motor driver
Fig. 4-17. Goniophotometer for LEDs flux measurements in LNE.
The set-up is made of the following parts :

- Optical rails to set the main frame
- A multi-axis LED mount which allow the accurate alignment of the LED along the
horizontal optical axis and with respect to the photometric center of the
goniophotometer. This device is mounted onto a horizontal axis motorised
rotation stage that rotates the LED around the optical axis. A detailed schematic
of the LED mount is shown on figure 2.
- A vertical axis motorised rotation stage on which the multi-axis LED mount is
placed.
A camera placed above the LED allows us to adjust the position of the LED with
respect to the photometric center. The photometer is mounted on an optical rail. The
50
distance between the photometer and the LED can be adjusted to meet the
requirements of the measurement conditions. During the measurements the photometer
is kept steady. Laser beam is used to define the optical axis of the goniophotometer.
Fig. 4-18. LED mount in LNE.
Total flux  is determined from intensity measurements in any directions I(,)

and integration over 4 steradian according to the following equation:
 2
    I  , sin   d d
0 0
Intensity measurement is performed with a photometer, manufacturer LMT, type

P11S00, including a 11,3 mm diameter (1 cm²) sensitive area, with a very fine V()
correction (f’1  1%). Due to the geometry and size of the components of the bench the
angles in  is limited to 140°. To take into account backlight emission of the LED, a 5 mm
diameter white paper is put at the back of the LED. The reflectance factor of the white
paper is 0.8. The distance between the LED and the photometer is 350 mm. The
photometric center is aligned onto the LED chip. The angular resolution due to the size
of the sensitive area of the photometer is 2°. The angular measurement step is 5° in 
and 1° in .
The instruments used to perform the measurements are listed in Table 4-37.
Table 4-37. Instruments used on the LED photometric bench in LNE.
Instrument Manufacturer Type Function
V() photometer LMT P11S00 Illuminance
measurement
Picoammeter Keithley 486 Photometer current
measurement
51
LED power supply Agilent 3436A Stabilised LED power

supply
Shunt resistor AOIP 1000  / 228RE6 LED current
measurement
Multimeter Hewlett-Packard 3457A LED junction voltage
measurement

Alignment of the LED is performed using a luminancemeter, manufacturer LMT, type
L1009 with reflex viewing.
Fig. 4-19. LED holders in LNE.
4.7.3. Traceability
Photometer
The photometer is calibrated in illuminance at LNE using a set of three standard lamps
calibrated in luminous intensity at LNE-INM. The standards lamps are calibrated using
primary realisation of the candela through filter radiometer.
Electrical Instruments
All electrical instruments with critical impact on the measurements are calibrated by the
LNE electrical department which is COFRAC (Comité Français d’Accréditation) accredited.
COFRAC is the French accreditation body.
Length
The distance between the LED and the photometer is measured using a meter calibrated
by the LNE length department which is COFRAC accredited.
52
Flux measurement
Reading repeatability
This uncertainty is estimated from the standard deviation of 5 measurements performed
in the same operating conditions. The uncertainty associated to each colours are the
following:
- Red: 0.25 %
- Green: 0.10 %
- Blue: 0.10 %
- White: 0.20 %
This uncertainty includes also the uncertainty due to horizontal, vertical and
angular alignment of the LED.
Component due to distance between the LED and the photometer

The distance between the LED and the reference plane of the photometer is known with
an uncertainty of 100 µm. The associated contribution to the intensity measurement is
evaluated by measuring the changes in the photometer signal when the distance is
changed by 5 mm. The result is shown in the following table for the different LED
colours.
LED type Relative uncertainty due to distance
LED-photometer
(%)
Red 0.03
Green 0.03
Blue 0.03
White 0.03
Component due to current feeding accuracy.

The current is measured through a 1000  resistor using a voltmeter. The resistor is
calibrated with an uncertainty of 1. 10-5. The voltmeter is calibrated with an uncertainty
of 1. 10-5. Therefore the current is measured with an uncertainty of 1.4 10-5. The current
is adjusted with an offset of  0.001 mA which corresponds to a relative error of 5. 10 -5 .
The intensity is not corrected for this offset which is included in the uncertainty of the
current. The overall uncertainty on the current feeding is obtained from the uncertainty
due to the current measurement and the current offset, that is 5.2 10-5. The
corresponding uncertainty of the LED intensity measurement is determined from the
manufacturer’s data sheets. The results are summarized in the following table:
53
LED type Relative uncertainty due to

current feeding
(%)
Red 0.0052
Green 0.0042
Blue 0.0031
White 0.0042
Diffuser 0.0042
Component due to stray light in the optical bench

Stray light in the optical bench is evaluated by placing a mask on the optical path of the
beam at a distance of about 100 mm from the LED. The size of the mask is 10 mm. For
all types of LED the relative contribution of the stray light to the photometer signal is <
0.01 %.
Component due to ambient temperature

The measurements are performed at 23 °C  1 °C. The measurement uncertainty due to
the uncertainty on the ambient temperature is determined from the manufacturer’s data
sheets. The results are summarized in the following table:
LED type Uncertainty due to ambient temperature

(%)
Red 0.5
Green 0.25
Blue 0.25
White 0.2
Diffuser 0.25
Component due to angular resolution and computation

Flux measurement is performed with a step angle of 5° in  and 1° in . The uncertainty
due to the angular resolution is evaluated by comparing results of the measurement
performed with a 2° and 5° step in . The results show an uncertainty of 0.15%.
Component due to backward emission

Contribution of the backward emission of the LED is measured by placing a white
diffused paper at the back of the LED. The reflectance factor of the white paper is 0.8
with an uncertainty of 0.05. Assuming that backward emission represents 4% of the
forward emitted light the uncertainty due to the use of the white paper is 0.2%.
Component due to the calibration of the photometer
54
The photometer is calibrated with a relative uncertainty of 0.6%.
Component due to linearity of the photometer

The photometer is calibrated in linearity. The uncertainty associated to the photometer
linearity varies from 0.02 % to 0.1 %. Therefore the uncertainty on the flux measurement
is 0.1 %.
Component due to spectral mismatch correction

The photometer is calibrated in relative spectral response. The LED flux measurement
results are corrected for the spectral mismatch of the photometer. The uncertainty on the
relative spectral response of the photometer is used to determine the uncertainty on the
spectral mismatch correction. This uncertainty is calculated by taking the average of the
uncertainty of the relative spectral response weighted by the spectral distribution of the
LED. Works using Monte Carlo techniques are underway to take into account correlation
in determining uncertainty on spectral mismatch correction. The actual uncertainties are
the following:
- Red: 0.5 %
- Green: 0.4 %
- Blue: 1 %
- White: 0.2 %
Table 4-38. LNE uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Uncertainty Standard Probability Sensitivity Contribution Deg. of Correlated?
Type
Component uncertainty distribution coefficient (%) freedom

Reading 0.25 A t 1 0.25 4 X
repeatability
Distance 0.03 B rectangular 2 0.06 ∞ O
setting
Current 0.0052 B rectangular 1 0.0052 ∞ X
feeding
accuracy
Stray light 0.01 B rectangular 1 0.01 ∞ O
Ambiant 0.5 B rectangular 1 0.5 ∞ X
temperature
Angular 0.15 B rectangular 1 0.15 ∞ O
measurement
step and
computation
Backward 0.2 B rectangular 1 0.2 ∞ O
emission
55
Calibration 0.6 B normal 1 0.6 ∞ O

of
photometer
Non- 0.1 B rectangular 1 0.1 ∞ O
linearity
Spectral 0.5 B normal 1 0.5 ∞ X
mismatch
correction
Combined -- -- normal -- 1.0 ∞ --

standard
uncertainty
(%)
Table 4-39. LNE uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type

Reading 0.1 A t 1 0.1 4 X
repeatability
setting
Current 0.0052 B rectangular 0.8 0.00416 ∞ X
feeding
accuracy
temperature
measurement
step and
computation
emission
of
photometer
linearity
mismatch
correction

standard
uncertainty
(%)
Table 4-40. LNE uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
56

repeatability
setting
feeding
accuracy
temperature
measurement
step and
computation
emission
of
photometer
linearity
Spectral 1 B normal 1 1 ∞ X
mismatch
correction

standard
uncertainty
(%)
Table 4-41. LNE uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type

repeatability
setting
feeding
accuracy
temperature
measurement
step and
computation
emission
of
57
photometer

linearity
mismatch
correction

standard
uncertainty
(%)
Junction Voltage
Repeatability
This uncertainty is estimated from the standard deviation of 20 measurements performed
in the same operating conditions. For all type of LED the uncertainty is 0.02%.
Component due to the calibration of the voltmeter

The voltmeter used for the junction voltage measurement is calibrated with an
uncertainty of 0.001 %.
Component due to position of junction voltage measurement point.

The leads of the LED are made of iron for the red LED and of copper for the green,
blue and white LED. The 4-wires device used to measure the junction voltage is located
20 mm away from the LED chip. Taking into account the geometry of the leads (40 mm
long and 0.25 mm² area) and the conductivity of the material used for the leads we
determine the voltage drop due to the leads. The results are summarized in the following
table.
LED type Relative voltage drop @ 20 mA
(%)
Red 0.008
Green 0.0008
Blue 0.0008
White 0.0008
Diffuser 0.0008
Table 4-42. LNE uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement of red LEDs.
Type

Repeatability* 0.04 A normal 1 0.04 29 X
58
Calibration of 0.001 B normal 1 0.001 ∞ O

voltmeter
Junction 0.008 B rectangular 1 0.008 ∞ X
position
dependence*

standard
uncertainty
(%)
4.8. METAS
The measurements were performed in two steps. First the DUT-LED is used for
calibrating the luminous flux sensitivity of the integrating sphere. For this purpose the
LED is placed at 100 mm in front of a 100 mm2 aperture. A LED of same colour is used
inside the sphere in order to minimize self absorption effects. In the second step the LED
is placed inside the sphere and the flux of the DUT-LED is measured. The main
components of the system are listed in the following diagram.
100 mm
aperture
Keithley 100 mm2
Sourcemeter
2400, 4wires baffle
Keithley cos-corrected
Multimeter Photometer LMT 1-m integrating
2010 sphere, Czibula &
Grundmann GmbH,
BaSO4, ρ>0.98
Fig. 4-20. Schematic setup for LED total luminous flux in METAS.

The LED was mounted inside the integrating sphere in a way that the absorption of light
emitted on the back side of the LED is as small as possible. The output of the LED is
59
oriented in the same direction than the light beam generated during the sphere
calibration process. No mapping of the whole integrating sphere was made, but some
uniformity tests around the measurement and calibration direction were made.
Fig. 4-21. LED mount in the integrating sphere in METAS.
4.8.3. Traceability
All primary quantities (i.e. illuminance, length, current, voltage etc) and secondary
quantities (temperature, humidity, etc) are traceable to national standards realized at
METAS. The detailed view of the traceability of the primary quantities is shown in the
following diagram.
APMP-PR.S3a
(METAS)
METAS ULED, ILED

Electricity Averaged LED
Section intensity
Reference Integrating
METAS sphere
Length
Section
Distance,
Aperture
Luminous
METAS ULED, ILED, IPhoto
flux of LED
Electricity
Section
60

The uncertainty budgets are based on the recommendation of CIE TC2-43
“Determination of measurement uncertainty in photometry”, Draft 9, 2008, and thus
following the GUM.
For simplicity only the uncertainty budget for a green LED is illustrated explicitly
in the following. The estimated input quantities of the other LED’s are listed in their
description.
Model for total luminous flux:
 CS1 
Vm  Vm0   I CS1 AU G f 1  2d S1 / d SU  hS1 (S1 )   S1TaS1 
Vc  Vc 0   d SU
2  PCM DMC
 1  2dU / d SU   S 2 TaS 2 
Description of terms:
 CS1 output quantity: luminous flux of the LED at certified conditions.
Vm = 0.269054 V, DVM signal photometer, the DUT-LED is installed inside the

integrating sphere, n  10 independent readings, the SDM is taken as standard
MU u Vm   0.000004 V and is significantly larger than the resolution; Type A
with DOF v  9 , no correlation.
Vm 0 = 0.000054 V, DVM dark signal photometer, the DUT-LED is installed inside the
integrating sphere, n  10 independent readings, the SDM is taken as standard
MU uVm0   0.000001 V and is significantly larger than the resolution; Type A
with DOF v  9 , no correlation.
Vc = 0.299314 V, DVM signal photometer, the DUT-LED is installed outside the

integrating sphere (calibration), a dummy LED of same color is inside, n  10
independent readings, the SDM is taken as standard MU u Vc   0.000011 V and
is significantly larger than the resolution; Type A with DOF v  9 , no correlation.
Vc 0 = 0.000241 V, DVM dark signal photometer, the DUT-LED is installed outside

the integrating sphere (calibration), a dummy LED of same color is inside,
n  10 independent readings, the SDM is taken as standard MU uVc0  
0.000007 V and is significantly larger than the resolution; Type A with DOF
v  9 , no correlation.
I CS1 = 2.7951 cd, luminous intensity of the LED used for calibrating the sphere (c.f.
METAS report on APMP PR-S3.a); The standard MU Type B u ( I CS1) = 0.0224
with DOF v   , no correlation.
AU = 100 mm2, limiting entrance aperture used in front of the integrating sphere for its
61
calibration. The standard MU Type B u ( Au ) = 0.01 mm2 with DOF v   , no

correlation.
d SU = 0.100 m, distance between tip of the LED and the limiting entrance aperture of
the integrating sphere, interval ±0.00020 m with RPD, converted into standard
measurement uncertainty (MU) u (dSU ) = (0.00020/ 3 = 0.000115) m; Type B
with degree of freedom (DOF) v   , no correlation.
GPCM = , gain factor of the photometer when switching calibration to the
measurement certified with absolute standard MU uGPCM  = 0.2 ; Type B with
DOF v   , no correlation.
f DMC = 1.00 (spatial) distribution mis-match correction factor of the integrating when
switching from calibration to the measurement. No mapping of the whole
integrating sphere was made. But some uniformity tests around the measurement
and calibration direction were made. As a high reflectance integrating sphere is
used and the DUT is illuminating similar part of the integrating sphere the absolute
standard MU is estimated to u  f DMC  = 0.003 ; Type B with DOF v   , no
correlation.
dS1 dSU = (0 ± 0.2) mm/100 mm, distance alignment of LED tip within interval with
RPD, converted into standard MU u d P dSU  = 0.2/(100* 3 ) = 0.0012;
Type B with DOF v   , no correlation.
hS 1(S 1) = 0.0, angular misalignment of the LED within interval S 1  2° with RPD
converted into standard MU uhS 1(S1)  g 2  
2
20 = 0.0025;
Type B with DOF v   , no correlation. g  log( 0.5) / log(cos 0.5 ) = 9.0, is
determined from the FMHW 0.5 (datasheet of the green LED). For the other
LED’s the values are g (red) = 6.9, g (blue) = 9.0, g (white) = 3.2, g (diffuse)
= 1.0 . The uncertainty on g is neglected.
 S1 -1
= -0.0019 K , relative temperature coefficient of the green LED (based on the
datasheet) used during calibration procedure, with standard MU
u  S1  = (0.0002/2 = 0.0001) K ; Type B with DOF v   , no correlation. For
-1
other LED’s the temperature coefficient is estimated as:  S1 (red) = (-0.0074 ±

0.0005) K ,  S1 (blue) = (0.00175 ± 0.00020) K ,  S1 (white) = (0.0016
-1 -1
-1
± 0.0005) K
TaS1 = 0.0°C, above nominal ambient temperature near LED (outside the integrating
sphere, i.e. during the calibration procedure), with standard MU uTaS1  = (0.5/
3 =0.28) °C; Type B with DOF v  1000 , no correlation.
d U dSU = (0 ± 0.2) mm/100 mm, distance alignment of integrating sphere aperture

within interval with RPD, converted into standard MU u (d U dSU ) = 0.2/(100*
3 ) = 0.0012; Type B with DOF v   , no correlation.
62
 S2 =  S1 relative temperature coefficient of the green LED (based on the datasheet)

used inside the integrating sphere (i.e. during the measurement procedure).
TaS2 = 0.0°C, above nominal ambient temperature near LED inside the sphere
(measurement procedure), with standard MU uTaS2  = (0.5/ 3 =0.28)°C;
Type B with DOF v  1000 , no correlation.
The following quantities were ignored:

- The influence of the ambient temperature uncertainty on the photometer as a temperature
stabilized photometer was used.
- ageing of the DUT as no relevant information was available.
- variation of the output intensity as a change of electrical current (c.f. luminous intensity
report).
- Calibration factor and its uncertainty of the DVM (c.f. luminous intensity report).
- straylight effects (not estimated) during calibration.
- angular and directional misalignment of the integrating sphere during calibration.
- influence of the directional change of spectral distribution of LED (the sphere is calibrated
with an LED in CIE averaged intensity condition (100mm), therefore not all directions are
included during calibration process).
Sensitivity coefficients:
 CS1  CS1  CS1 
c1    9.344 lm/V c2    CS1  -9.344 lm/V
Vm Vm Vm0 Vm
 CS1   CS1  CS1

c3    CS1  -8.3993 lm/V c4    -8.3993 lm/V
VC VC VC 0 VC
 CS1  CS1  CS1  CS1

c5    0.8994 lm/cd c6    25140 lm/m2
I CS1 I CS1 AU AU
 CS1   CS1  CS1

c7   2 CS1  50.28 lm/m c8    0.0251 lm
d SU d SU GPCM GPCM
 CS1  CS1  CS1

c9    2.5140 lm c10   2 CS1  5.0281
f DMC f DMC (dS1 dSU )
lm
 CS1  CS1
c11    CS1  2.5140 lm c12    CS1TaS  0.000 lm K
hS 1(S 1)  S1
 CS1  CS1
c13    CS1 S1 = -0.004777 lm K-1 c14   2 CS1 
TaS 
 d U dSU  -
63
5.0281 lm
 CS1  CS1
c15    CS1TaS2  0.000 lm K c16    CS1 S2 =0.004777 lm K-1
S2 TaS2
Table 4-43. METAS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contribut Deg. of Correl
uncertainty distribution coefficient ion (%) freedo ated?
Type
m
Mean value photosignal 4E-6 V A t 1.1342 lm/V 0.006 9 X

Vm
Mean value dark 1E-6 V A t -1.1342 <0.001 9 X
photosignal Vm 0 lm/V
Mean value photosignal 1.1E-6 V A t -0.1341 -0.002 9 X
calibration VC lm/V
Mean value dark 7E-6 V A t 0.1341 lm/V <0.001 9 X
photosignal calibration
VC 0
Intensity of calib. LED at 0.0224 cd B normal 0.1190 lm/cd 0.69 ∞ O
normal current I CS1
Limiting entrance 1.0E-8 m2 B normal 822 lm/ m2 0.01 ∞ O
aperture AU
Distance LED to 0.000115 B rectangular -1.64 lm/m -0.23 ∞ X
integrating sphere d SU m
Gain switching factor of 0.2 B normal 0.00082 lm 0.20 ∞ O

the photometer GPCM
(Spatial) distribution 0.003 B normal 0.0822 lm 0.30 ∞ X
mismatch correction
factor f DMC
Relative distance 0.0012 B rectangular 0.1643 lm 0.24 ∞ X
variation of LED dS1 dSU
Angular misalignment of 0.0025 B rectangular 0.0822 lm 0.20 ∞ X
LED hS 1(S 1)
Temperature coefficient 0.0001 B normal 0 0 ∞ X
of LED  S1 and  S2
Temperature above 0.28 K B rectangular -0.000608 -0.21 ∞ X
nominal temp., calibration lm/K
TaS1
Temperature above 0.28 K B rectangular 0.000608 0.21 ∞ X
TaS2
Distance alignment of 0.0012 B rectangular -0.1643 lm -0.24 ∞ X
integrating sphere
aperture d U dSU
64
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 0.95 > 1000 --

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-44. METAS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs
(G).
Type
m
Mean value photosignal 4E-6 V A t 9.3440 lm/V <0.001 9 X

Vm
calibration VC lm/V
Mean value dark 7E-6 V A t 8.3993 lm/V 0.002 9 X
VC 0
Limiting entrance 1.0E-8 m2 B normal 25140 lm/ 0.01 ∞ O
aperture AU m2


the photometer GPCM
mismatch correction
factor f DMC
LED hS 1(S 1)
TaS1
TaS2
integrating sphere
aperture d U dSU
uncertainty (%)
65
Table 4-45. METAS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
m

Vm
calibration VC lm/V
Mean value dark 7E-6 V A t 0.1588 lm/V <0.001 9 X
VC 0
aperture AU

the photometer GPCM
mismatch correction
factor f DMC
LED hS 1(S 1)
TaS1
TaS2
integrating sphere
aperture d U dSU
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-46. METAS uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs
(W).
66

Type
m

Vm
calibration VC lm/V
Mean value dark 7E-6 V A t 2.3580 lm/V 0.005 9 X
VC 0
aperture AU

the photometer GPCM
mismatch correction
factor f DMC
LED hS 1(S 1)
TaS1
TaS2
integrating sphere
aperture d U dSU
uncertainty (%)
Model for junction voltage:

U L  cL  cC  1   L,rel  TaL  TaL0  U L1  U L0 
Description of terms:
67
UL output quantity: junction voltage of the LED at certified conditions.
cL = 1.0000, DVM calibration factor with absolute standard MU u (cL ) = 1E-5;

cC = 1.000, non-equivalence of the contact. We have tried different connectors. A
spread in junction voltages have been observed even with 4 wires connections. The
estimated absolute standard MU u (cC ) = 0.0020; Type B with DOF v   , no
correlation.
 L, rel = 0.000015, relative temp. coefficient according standard MU u( L, rel ) = 5E-6;
TaL = 22.6 °C, ambient temperature with ±0.5°C RPD, converted into standard MU
u (TaL ) = (0.5/ 3 = 0.29)°C; Type B with DOF v   , no correlation.
TaL0 = 23.0 °C, nominal ambient temperature, no uncertainty
U L1 = 1.94058 V, measured voltage (DVM), with standard MU of u U L1   = 0.00011

V, 361 readings, Type A with DOF v  360 , no correlation.
U L0 = 0.00002 V, measured zero voltage (DVM), with standard MU of u U L1   =

0.00011 V, 361 readings , Type A with DOF v  360 , no correlation.
Table 4-47. METAS uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

Type
(%) m
DVM mean value voltage 0.00011 V A t 0.99999 0.0055 360 X

U L1 V/V
DVM calibration factor 1.0E-5 B normal 1.94055 V 0.0010 ∞ O
cL
Relative temperature 5.0E-6 K-1 B normal -0.77622 -0.0002 ∞ X
coefficienct  L, rel VK
Ambient temperature TaL 0.29 °C B rectangular 0.00003 0.0004 ∞ X

V/°C
Offset voltage U L0 0.00011 V A t -0.99999 -0.0055 360 X

V/V
Non-equivalence of contact 0.0021 B rectangular 1.94055 V 0.21 ∞ X
cC
Combined standard -- -- Normal -- 0.21 >1000 --
uncertainty (V)
68
4.9. NMC-A*STAR
The measurement setup of the total luminous flux of LED is shown from Fig. 4-22 to Fig.
4-24. The LED is mounted at the centre of a 1-meter integrating sphere. The LED light in
the sphere is fed to a spectroradiometer (Model OL770 made by Optronic Laboratories,
see report for S3a) through an optical fibre as shown in Fig. 2. A baffle and an opal
glass diffuser are mounted in front of the tip of the optical fibre to avoid the direct
illumination from the LED.
Fig. 4-22. LED total luminous flux measurement setup in A*STAR.
Fig. 4-23. Relative spectral responsivity calibration;

Fig. 4-24. Absolute luminous flux calibration in A*STAR.
69

The LED holder has a flexible arm which allows the LED to be pointed to any direction of
the sphere to access the correction factor of the spatial non-uniformity of the integrating
sphere for each type of the LED.
4.9.3. Traceability
The relative spectral responsivity of the sphere spectroradiometer is calibrated by a
spectral irradiance standard lamp traceable to NMC’s spectral irradiance scale as shown
in Fig. 4-23 similar to Yoshi Ohno’s method. The stray light error of the spectroradiometer
is corrected using cut-on filters. The absolute luminous flux responsivity of the sphere
spectroradiometer is calibrated using a luminous flux standard lamp traceable to NMC’s
total luminous flux scale as shown in Fig. 4-24.
A 50 W tungsten halogen auxiliary lamp is used for substitution error
compensation affected by lamp holder, calibration lamps, test LED and any other items
used inside the sphere or at its opening port. The absorption corrections were carried
out over the whole wavelength range of 380 nm to 780 nm in 1 nm interval for both the
sphere calibration and the LED measurement.

Tables in the following are the detailed uncertainty budgets of total luminous flux
measurement for the LEDs used in this APMP LED comparison.
The uncertainty evaluation is carried out according to Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). The artefact-dependent uncertainties shown in the
table with * adopt the largest uncertainty values registered among the same type of LEDs
measured. Expanded uncertainty are evaluated at a confidence level of approximately 95%
with a coverage factor normally k = 2.
Table 4-48. A*STAR uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Type
(%) m
Calibration of flux standard B normal 1 0.450 ∞ Yes

lamp
Drift of flux standard lamp B rectangular 1 0.289 ∞ Yes
70
Sphere-radiometer transfer B rectangular 1 0.405 ∞ No

measurement (non-
linearity)*
Sphere spatial uniformity B rectangular 1 0.289 ∞ Yes
Calibration of current 0.0058 % B rectangular 0.8 0.005 ∞ Yes

feeding
LED holder absorption B rectangular 1 0.116 ∞ Yes
Wavelength scale of 0.2 nm B rectangular 2.17 %/nm 0.434 ∞ No

spectroradiometer*
stray light correction of B rectangular 1 0.208 ∞ No
spectroradiometer (20 % of
correction)*
Reproducibility A t 1 0.173 2 No

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-49. A*STAR uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs
(G).
Type
(%) m

lamp

measurement (non-
linearity)*

feeding

spectroradiometer*
correction)*

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-50. A*STAR uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
71

Type
(%) m

lamp

measurement (non-
linearity)*

feeding

spectroradiometer*
correction)*

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-51. A*STAR uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs
(W).
Type
(%) m

lamp

measurement (non-
linearity)*

feeding

spectroradiometer*
72

correction)*

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-52 is the detailed uncertainty budget of the junction voltage measurement,
representatively presented for the red LEDs. The artefact-dependent uncertainties shown
in the table with * adopt the largest uncertainty values registered among the same type
of LEDs measured.
Table 4-52. A*STAR uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

uncertainty distribution coefficient ion (V) of ated?
Type
freedo
m
Calibration of DVM B normal 1 9.50E-5 ∞ Yes
Position of junction (0.05 B rectangular 1 5.78E-4 ∞ No

Ω)
Drift of junction voltage B rectangular 1 1.73E-4 ∞ No
Reproducibility* A t 1 4.66E-4 5 No
Combined standard -- -- normal -- 7.7E-4 37 --

uncertainty (V)
4.10. VSL
The quantity for average LED intensity and total luminous flux of LEDs (as defined by the
key-comparison protocol) are measured with a goniometer facility specifically designed
and build for small single LED light sources. The facility is based on the method where
the light source is turned and the detector stands still. Therefore the facility consists out
of a detector platform and a turn-able light source unit. The light source unit includes
two rotation stages, a LED mounting unit and one linear translation stage. The linear
translation stage is applied to be able to change the distance between the turn-able
light source unit and the detector platform. The two rotation stages are perpendicular
mounted to each other so that the LED can be rotated exactly in the midpoint of each
73
stage.
The detector platform consists out of an illuminance meter with a circular
aperture with a surface of 100mm2 and an array-spectroradiometer (SRM). The SRM is
used to correct for colour mismatch introduced by the detector and the individual LED. In
order to reduce stray light a baffle was places between the detector platform and the
turn-able light source unit. The aperture of the baffle was large compare to the diameter
of the detector and the LED to be measured.
Fig. 4-25. Schematic drawing of LED goniometer facility at VSL.

The LED is fixed in a holder, which is mounted into a mounting unit. The mounting unit
is mounted on the turn-able light source unit consisting out of the two rotation stages.
The LED holder is shown in the following figure.
Fig. 4-26. VSL LED holder.
The LED holder clamps the two LED pins with two parallel copper plates. The
copper plates are connected to the current source which provides the LED with operating
74
current. The mounting unit allows one to translate the LED in both vertical as well as
horizontal direction, and also to tilt the LED. This alignment unit is in turn mounted to
the two rotation stages. The layout of the alignment system of the LED facility together
with the mounted holder is shown in the following figure.
Fig. 4-27. Turn-able light source unit of the LED goniometer facility at VSL.
In Fig. 4-27, one sees the LED mounted on the mounting unit fixed on a two axis
rotational system. The alignment of the LED with regards to the detector as well as axis
of rotation is done as follows:
1. A high resolution camera is placed perpendicular to the mounted LED.
2. The mounted LED is rotated and visually inspected by using the high resolution camera.
3. If the mounted LED is in the centre of the rotational axis, no movement is detected
with the camera, otherwise translation is observed. The mounted LED is then
iteratively adjusted until no translation of the mounted LED is visible with the camera.
This is iteratively repeated also for the polar rotation. When varying the polar angle the
alignment criteria was that the location of the LED tip remained constant.
4. The mounted LED and illuminance detector are then optically aligned with the double
alignment laser.
The nominal distance between LED and detector is brought to 100 mm by making
use of an electronic translation stage where the LED alignment axes are mounted on, as
well as a calibrated gauge block of nominal length 100 mm. The gauge block is placed
against the detector reference surface and the LED is translated precisely until contact is
made with the gauge block. This translation distance is recorded. The gauge block is
then removed and the LED is translated back to the correct position. The distance is then
100 mm between detector and LED. The following figure illustrates this graphically.
75
Fig. 4-28. Schematic drawing of the detector versus LED distance determination at VSL.
4.10.3. Traceability
The total luminous flux of a LED measurement at VSL has as the traceability route as
shown in Fig. 4-29.
Cryogenic radiometer VSL

Spectral responsivity scale
(A/W)
Electrical department
ACR facility VSL
for the traceability to
Illuminance responsivity Length
the national standard
(A/lx) department for the
of current and voltage
(A) and (V) traceability to the
national standard
LED Goniomter facility VSL of length
Average luminous intensity and total (m)
luminous flux
(cd) and or (lm)
Fig. 4-29. Traceability of LED total luminous flux measurement at VSL.
The spectral responsivity scale is derived from an Absolute Cryogenic Radiometer

(ACR) by using a double monochromator facility 7 . The same facility is used for the
determination of the illuminance responsivity by using a scanning beam method and the
relative spectral irradiance responsivity of the illuminance meter 8
. Knowing the
illuminance responsivity of an illuminance meter and using a calibrated gauge block one
can determine the luminous intensity of a LED. The gauge block is calibrated and
traceable to the national standard for length. Each measurement within the traceability
chain is conducted by using digital multimeters for measurement of detector current, LED
current and LED voltage. These measurements are traceable to the national standard for
current and voltage by the use of calibrated meters.
7 Comparison of monochromator-based and laser-based cryogenic radiometry, Metrologia 1998, 35, 431-435.
8 Novel calibration method for filter radiometers, Metrologia 1999, 36, 179-182.
76

After the LED and detector are aligned, the following steps are performed to measure
the total luminous flux of each of the twelve LEDs respectively:
1. The LED is brought to an operating current of nominal 20 mA.
2. The whole setup is enclosed by a thermal insulation box and allowed to stabilize for at
least 20 minutes.
3. The measurement of the illuminance at different angles are performed by varying the
polar angle of the LED from 0° to 125° in 5° increments, repeating this for an azimuthal
rotations from 0° to 360° in 5° increments, thereby effectively scanning a partial sphere
of 2.78π around the LED tip.
4. The stray light was measured by blocking light only on the optical axis and repeating
step 3. The light was blocked by using a strip with an effective area just greater then
the surface of the LEDs so no direct light from the LED was seen by the detector.
5. The dark signal was measured, by closing the baffle situated in front of the detector
completely and repeating step 3.
6. The illuminance of the LED at each goniometer position is calculated as described in the
report for S3a. The responsivity of the detector is corrected for the spectral mismatch
by using the spectral irradiance measurement conducted with the spectroradiometer
at polar position 0, 0.
7. Finally the total luminous flux of the LED is calculated using model equation below.
Model equation for the total luminous intensity:

 2  2 m
 n  
 v    E ( ,  )dA  r 2   E ( ,  ) sin  d d  r 2  ( )   E ( ,  )( )  sin( )
    i  1  
A is the surface area

E is the measured illuminance at a certain position
(ε,η)
r is the radius of the sphere
ε is the polar angle
η is the azimuthal angle
δ is step size for or azimuth or polar axis
m the amount of steps along the polar angle
n the amount of steps along the azimuth angle
The comparison protocol states that the participant describes the total uncertainty
in detail for the LEDs of each color. As the total uncertainty of each LED is depending on
individual components the uncertainty from one LED to one other is different. Knowing
77
this we chose to present a detailed uncertainty budget of that LED that has the lowest
uncertainty, instead of determining the average total uncertainty of the LEDs with the
same color. This was done since no information is given how to determine the average
uncertainty of a group of LEDs. The detailed uncertainty budgets are summarized in the
tables below.
Table 4-53. VSL uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contri- Deg. of Correlated
Type
uncertainty distribution coefficient bution freedom
(%) (%)
Spectral mismatch B normal 1 0.21 ∞ X
correction
Reproducibility B rectangular 1 0.45 ∞ X
Current feeding of LED B normal 1 0.01 ∞ O
Near-field absorption of B rectangular 1 0.29 ∞ O
backward emission
Stray light A normal 1 0.28 9 O
Missing emitted flux B rectangular 1 1.17 ∞ X
Alignment of LED A normal 1 0.10 28 X
Distance between LED and 0.27 B rectangular 2 0.55 ∞ O
detector
Responsivity of detector B normal 1 0.15 ∞ O
Detector readout A normal 1 0.03 9 O
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-54. VSL uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type

(%) (%)
correction
backward emission
detector
uncertainty (%)
78
Table 4-55. VSL uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
(%) (%)
correction
backward emission
detector
uncertainty (%)
Table 4-56. VSL uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type

(%) (%)
correction
backward emission*
Missing emitted flux** B rectangular 1 1.41 ∞ X
detector
uncertainty (%)
* The LED mount used in the measurements is black to absorb backwards emission i.e. rather than choosing
a highly reflective mount to include the backwards emission in the illuminance measurement. This means
that the backwards emission is filtered out from the goniometric illuminance measurements alternatively.
However some backwards emission may reflect of the black mount and contribute to the forward
illuminance measurement. As this leads to an uncertainty we have measured the flux emitted directly at the
backside of the LED to estimate the flux reflecting from the mount with taken into account the reflection
coefficient of the mount surface and the effective area illuminated by the reflected light. This then is taken
as the uncertainty for the near-field absorption of backwards emission.
** Do to the structure of the goniometer facility it is not possible to measure the total polar plane from 0° to
180°. Therefore the illuminance measured at polar angle 125° is extrapolated till 180°. The model for
extrapolation is based on the knowledge from a measurement directly behind the LED itself performed
outside the goniometer facility at a distance of 100 mm. The associated uncertainty for the extrapolation is
79
based on the estimated flux within the missing cone from 125° to 180°.
Table 4-57 is the detailed uncertainty budget of the junction voltage

measurement.
Table 4-57. VSL uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

Type
freedo
m
Calibration of DVM B normal 1 1.2E-5 ∞ O

dependence
Reproducibility* A t 1 0.0001 9 X

uncertainty (%)
4.11. NIST
The test LEDs were measured for total luminous flux with 4π geometry in the NIST 2.5 m
detector-based absolute integrating sphere (with 98 % reflectance barium sulfate coating)
with the scale realized in 2009. The schematic of the measurement setup is shown in Fig.
4-30. The reference standard of the 2.5 m absolute sphere system is the luminous flux of
the external source introduced into the sphere through a Ø50 mm precision aperture.
The illuminance of the external source at the precision aperture plane is measured by
two standard photometers to calculate the luminous flux entering into the sphere. For a
measurement of total luminous flux, the test LED and the external source illuminated
directly, in turn, a different part of the sphere wall on the equator. The error arising from
the spatial mismatch in comparison to an isotropic light source inside the sphere was
analyzed and corrected for both the LED and the external source. The details of the
measurement facility and procedures are described in Reference9.
9Ohno Y. and Zong Y., Detector-Based Integrating Sphere Photometry, in Proc. of 24th Session of the CIE, Vol. 1,
Part 1, 155-160. (1999) / Miller C. C., and Ohno Y., Luminous Flux Calibration of LEDs at NIST, in Proc. of 2nd
CIE Expert Symposium on LED Measurement, 45-48. (2001)
80
Fig. 4-30. Illustration of the setup for measurement of total luminous flux of the test LEDs
in NIST.
The test LED was operated on DC power at a constant current of 20 mA using a

four-wire connection. The wiring diagram for this measurement is shown in Fig. 4-31. The
operating current of the LED was measured with an 8.5 digit multimeter. The test LED
was measured after it was powered on for 10 minutes. The output signal of the sphere
photometer was simultaneously recorded with the LED current, LED voltage, sphere
ambient temperature, room temperature, and room humidity. Corrections were applied
for the dark reading, the self-absorption (automatically corrected), the spectral mismatch,
the spatial mismatch, and the sphere fluorescence (see next paragraph), to calculate the
total luminous flux of a test LED. Each LED was measured for a total of two lightings to
check its reproducibility. The mean value of the two measurements was reported, and the
variation was included in the uncertainty budget of the measurement.
Fig. 4-31. Wiring diagram for measurement of a test LED in NIST.
After the measurement of total luminous flux, each LED was measured in the
same 2.5 m integrating sphere for relative total spectral radiant flux using a CCD-array
spectroradiometer in order to correct the spectral mismatch error and sphere
81
fluorescence error. The measurement was based on the NIST spectral irradiance scale10
as described in Reference11. The sphere-spectroradiometer system, shown in Fig. 4-32,
was calibrated for total spectral radiant flux responsivity against two standard spectral
irradiance FEL lamps aligned in turn at 0.5 m away from the Ø50 mm precision aperture.
The two standard FEL lamps were calibrated in the direction of its optical axis for
absolute spectral irradiance at 0.5 m in the NIST Facility for Automated
Spectroradiometric Calibrations (FASCAL). The CCD-array spectroradiometer has a
bandpass of approximately 3 nm (FWHM) and the spectral range from 200 nm to 800
nm. A heat-absorbing optical filter (Schott KG-5) was inserted between the opal glass
diffuser and the optical fiber bundle to prevent the unwanted infrared radiation of the
standard spectral irradiance FEL lamp from entering into the spectroradiometer in order
to reduce stray light inside the spectroradiometer. The integrating-time nonlinearity and
signal-level nonlinearity of the spectroradiometer were both corrected. The
spectroradiometer was first characterized for spectral stray light12 and then was used to
measure a set of laser sources to characterize the fluorescence of the 2.5 m sphere
coating. The measured relative total spectral radiant flux of the test LED was corrected
for both spectral stray light of the spectroradiometer and the fluorescence of the 2.5 m
sphere, and was used to correct the spectral mismatch error. The error resulting from the
sphere fluorescence was analyzed and corrected based on the characterization result of
the sphere fluorescence.
10 J. H. Walker, R. D. Saunders, J. K. Jackson, and D. A. McSparron, Spectral Irradiance Calibrations, NBS Special
Publication 250-20. (1987) / Yoon H. W., Gibson C. E., and Barnes P. Y., Realization of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology detector-based spectral irradiance scale, Appl. Opt. 41, 5879-5890. (2002)
11 Zong Y., Miller C. C., Lykke K. R., and Ohno Y., Measurement of total radiant flux of UV LEDs, Proc. CIE, CIE
x026:2004, 107–110. (2004)

12 Zong Y., Brown S. W., Johnson B. C., Lykke K. R., and Ohno Y., Simple spectral stray light correction method
for array spectroradiometers, Appl. Opt., 45, 1111-1119. (2006)

82
Fig. 4-32. Schematic of the setup for measurement of relative total spectral radiant flux of
LEDs in NIST.

The test LED was mounted horizontally on the lamp post at the center of the NIST 2.5 m
integrating sphere by using a four-wire, C-shaped LED socket/holder for minimizing the
near-field absorption and for including any backward light. Fig. 4-33 is a photograph of a
test LED mounted at the center of the 2.5 m integrating sphere.
Fig. 4-33. Photograph of a test LED mounted at the center of the 2.5 m integrating sphere in
NIST.
The two standard photometers, mounted on the wheel (shown in Fig. 4-30), used to
measure illuminance of the external source were calibrated for spectral irradiance
responsivity in the NIST tuneable-laser-based SIRCUS facility. The calibration was done by
direct comparison of the photometer with two of the NIST trap detectors, which maintain
83
the NIST spectral irradiance scale and are periodically calibrated against the NIST
Reference Cryogenic Radiometer - Primary Optical Watt Radiometer (POWR).

The uncertainty budgets for measurement of total luminous flux of the red, green, blue,
and white LEDs are shown in the tables below, and the uncertainty budget for
measurement of junction voltage of the test LEDs is shown in Table 4-62. The NIST policy
on uncertainty statements is described in Reference13.
B. N. Taylor, and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST
13
Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note 1297. (1993)

84
Table 4-58. NIST uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
85
Table 4-59. NIST uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
86
87
Table 4-60. NIST uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
88
Table 4-61. NIST uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
89
Table 4-62. NIST uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement (typical).
4.12. VNIIOFI
Not submitted.
4.13. INM
A lumen-meter equipped with a 150 mm dia. integrating sphere provided with a
precision aperture was used (Fig. 4-34). It allowed for comparison of the LED under
calibration with a standard luminous intensity lamp basically using the substitution
method.
90
Fig. 4-34. LED total luminous flux measurement setup in INM Romania.
For electrical measurements, a four wire technique as described in the comparison

protocol was used in order to (almost) simultaneously measure the current fed into the
measured LED and the junction voltage. The LED current was generated by a finely
adjustable voltage supply and a current measurement shunt across which the voltage
was measured with a digital voltmeter. The LEDs junction voltage was measured with a
similar digital voltmeter.
A photometric head provided with a diffusing IR filter and calibrated in terms of
spectral responsivity was attached to the lumen-meter integrating sphere. The
photocurrent generated by the photometric head was fed into Current to Voltage
converter with a transimpedance factor of 1E6 V/A. The output voltage was measured
with a third digital voltmeter.
The measurement of the spectral densities of the emitted flux of the standard
lamp and of the LED under calibration was performed with a CCD spectrometer
providing a (1 ± 0.1) nm bandwidth. The spectrometer input fibre head was provided
with a diffusing IR filter.

The lumen-meter was calibrated in terms of luminous flux responsivity against the
luminous flux produced by a luminous intensity lamp. The calibration of the lumen-meter
as a whole was performed on the INM optical bench using the regular procedure for
photometers calibration (based on the distances inverse squares law).
Subsequently, the LEDs to be calibrated were mounted in the lumen-meter sphere
in such a position as to illuminate almost the same area previously illuminated by the
91
luminous intensity lamp during the lumen-meter calibration. In order to avoid the direct
illumination of the photometer, a shade was mounted in front of the photometer
transducer (Fig. 4-34).
The lumen-meter (including the 150 mm dia. integrating sphere, the photometer head,
the current to voltage converter and the associated multimeter) was calibrated against
a luminous intensity standard traceable to the national reference for luminous intensity
(group of absolute photometers) maintained by INM-RO. The calibration was performed
at several distances so that the lumen-meter photometric linearity could be checked to
be within ±0.5 %.
The lumen-meter transducer (IR filtered photo-diode) spectral responsivity was
characterised against the INM spectral responsivity references traceable to LNE-INM
primary reference (cryogenic radiometer).
The 150 mm dia. sphere wall was coated with multiple layers of BaSO 4 (>20
layers). The last 10 layers were sprayed without any binder. A test sample coated in a
similar manner was characterised in terms of spectral reflectance (0/d geometry) against
standards traceable to the INM reference standard (primary reflectance standard based
on the Taylor-Budde method).
The spectral densities of the standard lamp and of the LED under calibration were
measured with a fibre optic input spectrometer. The spectrometer wavelength scale was
calibrated against low pressure spectral Hg, Cd and He lamps traceable to the INM
reference for length measurements (stabilised He-Ne laser). For all wavelengths within
the visible range it was found to be accurate within ±0.3 nm.
The spectrometer irradiance scale was calibrated against an irradiance spectral
density lamp, traceable to the MIKES–TKK reference. The spectrometer photometric
linearity was calibrated and further checked against a set of spectral transmittance filters
(neutral glass of NG type), traceable to the INM reference spectrophotometer.
The length measurements (standard lamp-lumen-meter aperture plane, the
diameter of the lumen-meter sphere aperture) are traceable to the INM-RO national
reference for length (stabilised He-Ne laser).
All voltage measurements were traceable to the national references of Romania
(group of stabilised Zener diodes of Fluke 732 B). The shunt resistance used to generate
the feeding current was calibrated with traceability to the national references (group of
electrical resistors).
92
The temperature was measured with a digital thermometer calibrated with

traceability to the INM maintained SIT90 fixed points.

The total luminous flux ( x ) expression is:
I v ,e
 vx  C1  C2  C3  Csp  Rx   A (lm) (1)
d2
where: C1 is the lamp-LED illumination non-equivalence factor; C 2 is the LED feeding
Yx
current factor; C3 is the correction factor for the ambient temperature; Rx  with Yx
Yve
the output generated by the LED emitted flux and Yve the output generated by the
luminous intensity standard lamp; I v ,e is the value of the luminous intensity standard
lamp; A is the area of the integrating sphere aperture (1256,6 mm2); d is the standard
lamp-lumen-meter sphere aperture distance;
Csp is the spectral correction factor:
 2   2 
 r , e
S    s r , ph        S r , x    V     
 1   1 

C sp (2)
 2
  2

 S r , x    s r , ph        S r ,e    V     
 1   1 
where: Sr , e ( ) is the relative spectral density of the luminous intensity standard lamp;
S r , x ( ) is the relative spectral density of the LED under calibration; sr , ph ( ) is the
relative spectral responsivity of the lumen-meter; 1, 2 are the extreme wavelengths of
the visible spectrum; V ( ) is the relative responsivity of the CIE standard observer.
Tables in the following are the detailed uncertainty budgets of the total luminous
flux measurement for the LEDs used in this APMP LED comparison.
Table 4-63. INM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for red LEDs (R).
Type
(%) m
Lamp-LED illumination 0.060 B rectangular  vx 6.0 ∞ O

non-equivalence factor C1
LED feeding current factor 0.001 B normal  vx 0.1 ∞ X
C2
93
correction factor for the 0.001 B rectangular  vx 0.1 ∞ O

ambient temperature C3
Spectral correction factor 0.05 C sp B normal  vx / Csp 5.0 ∞ X
C sp
Output ratio Rx 0.010 R x B normal  vx / Rx 1.0 ∞ O
Value of the luminous 0.010 I v ,e B normal  vx / I ve 1.0 ∞ O

intensity standard lamp
I v ,e
Integrating sphere aperture 0.005 A B normal  vx / A 0.5 ∞ O
area A
Repeatability 0.010  vx A normal 1 1.0 ∞ X

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-64. INM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for green LEDs (G).
Type
(%) m

C2
C sp

I v ,e
area A
Repeatability 0.010  vx A normal 1.0 1.0 ∞ X

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-65. INM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for blue LEDs (B).
Type
(%) m
94

C2
C sp

I v ,e
area A

uncertainty (%)
Table 4-66. INM uncertainty budget of total luminous flux measurement for white LEDs (W).
Type
(%) m

C2
C sp

I v ,e
area A

uncertainty (%)
95
The junction voltage expression is:
V j  C1  C2  V read
V read : the mean reading ; C1 : temperature factor and C 2 : position factor

Table 4-67 is the detailed uncertainty budget of the junction voltage
measurement.
Table 4-67. INM uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

uncertainty Type distribution coefficient ion (%) of ated?
freedo
m
2E-5 V B normal 1 0.002 ∞ O

Mean reading V read
Temperature factor C1 0.0010 B rectangular 0.10 ∞ X
Vread
Position factor C2 0.0005 B rectangular 0.05 ∞ X
Vread
Repeatability A normal 1 0.05 ∞ X
0.0005 V j

uncertainty (%
96
5. Reported Results of Participants

In this chapter, the results of the comparison S3b are presented, which are reported by
each participant as the final version, i.e., after the verification in the pre-draft A process.
We note that, throughout this report document, the uncertainty values with a symbol U
indicate the expanded uncertainties for a confidence level of 95 % normally with a
coverage factor of k = 2, while the values with a symbol u indicate the standard
uncertainties.
5.1. KRISS
As the pilot laboratory of the comparison, KRISS measured each LED at most three times:
the first measurement before sending the LEDs for the first round, the second after
receiving the LEDs from the first round, and the third after receiving the LEDs from the
second round. The final control measurement of the first round is also regarded as the
initial control measurement of the second round. Note that the artefact sets #2, #4, #6,
and #8 are circulated only one round. The repeated measurements provide information
on the stability of the artefact LEDs, which will be discussed in Section 6.2.
Table 5-1 sumarizes the measurement results of KRISS of all the artefact LEDs. The
uncertainty values are not explicitly shown in this table but refered to the budgets in
Table 4-1 ~ Table 4-4. The laboratory conditions are kept at a temperature of (25 ± 2)
ºC and a relative humidity of (45 ± 15) %. The burning time of each measurement was
20 minutes in average.
Table 5-1. Measurement results of KRISS.
artifact 1. measurement 2. measurement 3. measurement

LED
set Φ (lm) Vj (V) Φ (lm) Vj (V) Φ (lm) Vj (V)
R-1 0.6757 1.8849 0.6730 1.8848 0.6710 1.8826
R-2 0.6781 1.8888 0.6755 1.8888 0.6750 1.8866
R-3 0.6506 1.9211 0.6481 1.9211 0.6493 1.9191
G-1 3.0107 3.2912 2.9976 3.2911 2.9756 3.3190
G-2 2.8639 3.4307 2.8467 3.4300 2.8258 3.4543
G-3 2.9543 3.3098 2.9450 3.3122 2.9262 3.3381
#1
B-1 0.7512 3.3723 0.7488 3.3731 0.7340 3.3994
B-2 0.7648 3.3744 0.7608 3.3751 0.7389 3.3991
B-3 0.7974 3.3412 0.7967 3.3435 0.7842 3.3671
W-1 1.5951 3.4358 1.6992 3.4371 1.6839 3.4561
W-2 1.5890 3.4568 1.5749 3.4574 1.5525 3.4788
W-3 1.7533 3.4123 1.7413 3.4124 1.7087 3.4320
97
R-1 0.6367 1.8886 0.6399 1.8932

R-2 0.6945 1.8981 0.6950 1.9024
R-3 0.7023 1.9020 0.7047 1.9064
G-1 2.7609 3.4710 2.8661 3.4689
G-2 2.8444 3.3910 2.8291 3.3889
G-3 2.9915 3.3017 2.9757 3.2996
#2
B-1 0.7438 3.4519 0.7321 3.4517
B-2 0.8121 3.3697 0.8045 3.3677
B-3 0.7318 3.3510 0.7259 3.3509
W-1 1.7008 3.3014 1.7061 3.2989
W-2 1.7136 3.4204 1.6983 3.4167
W-3 1.5545 3.4492 1.5425 3.4460
R-1 0.6749 1.8900 0.6675 1.8873 0.6724 1.8906
R-2 0.6887 1.8931 0.6811 1.8906 0.6856 1.8934
R-3 0.6864 1.8975 0.6796 1.8948 0.6845 1.8986
G-1 2.9676 3.5036 2.9421 3.4951 2.9298 3.5025
G-2 2.7133 3.3718 2.6977 3.3652 2.6758 3.3732
G-3 2.6582 3.3323 2.6377 3.3262 2.6189 3.3322
#3
B-1 0.7804 3.4291 0.7744 3.4237 0.7597 3.4286
B-2 0.8262 3.4177 0.8196 3.4108 0.7993 3.4141
B-3 0.6624 3.5096 0.6599 3.5033 0.6454 3.5102
W-1 1.7035 3.4353 1.6824 3.4262 1.6709 3.4321
W-2 1.6709 3.3377 1.6534 3.3291 1.6334 3.3348
W-3 1.7216 3.3060 1.7029 3.2992 1.6805 3.3024
R-1 0.7098 1.8982 0.7029 1.8957
R-2 0.6725 1.8946 0.6654 1.8923
R-3 0.6933 1.8961 0.6876 1.8938
G-1 2.9251 3.5108 2.8934 3.5034
G-2 3.1816 3.2985 3.1474 3.2946
G-3 2.9647 3.3586 2.9395 3.3527
#4
B-1 0.8849 3.4215 0.8801 3.4165
B-2 0.7567 3.4645 0.7523 3.4590
B-3 0.8270 3.4018 0.8229 3.3965
W-1 1.7656 3.4352 1.7270 3.4287
W-2 1.7379 3.3397 1.7039 3.3341
W-3 1.7825 3.4446 1.7491 3.4388
R-1 0.6827 1.9146 0.6868 1.9182 0.6896 1.9194
R-2 0.6829 1.9187 0.6881 1.9226 0.6885 1.9230
R-3 0.6495 1.8824 0.6542 1.8857 0.6537 1.8857
G-1 2.9119 3.2991 2.9171 3.3075 2.9012 3.3151
G-2 2.8201 3.4336 2.7947 3.4434 2.7550 3.4530
G-3 2.8484 3.3686 2.8501 3.3766 2.8421 3.3862
#5
B-1 0.7790 3.4020 0.7768 3.4097 0.7672 3.4168
B-2 0.8820 3.4045 0.8803 3.4130 0.8714 3.4204
B-3 0.8248 3.4180 0.8219 3.4268 0.8128 3.4352
W-1 1.6785 3.3057 1.6842 3.3123 1.6805 3.3206
W-2 1.7536 3.4314 1.7598 3.4387 1.7476 3.4460
W-3 1.7000 3.4379 1.7101 3.4475 1.6980 3.4544
R-1 0.6992 1.9041 0.6927 1.9005
#6
R-2 0.6610 1.8912 0.6530 1.8870
98
R-3 0.6906 1.9016 0.6818 1.8968

G-1 3.0411 3.3048 3.0086 3.2964
G-2 2.9213 3.3042 2.9000 3.2986
G-3 2.8715 3.3227 2.8551 3.3188
B-1 0.8924 3.4183 0.8908 3.4158
B-2 0.7632 3.3799 0.7599 3.3756
B-3 0.7932 3.3856 0.7904 3.3812
W-1 1.7634 3.4041 1.7047 3.4018
W-2 1.7206 3.4038 1.6762 3.4014
W-3 1.7303 3.4208 1.6969 3.4169
R-1 0.6559 1.9181 0.6570 1.9189 0.6619 1.9222
R-2 0.7196 1.9003 0.7234 1.9016 0.7254 1.9039
R-3 0.6466 1.9170 0.6483 1.9178 0.6527 1.9212
G-1 3.0373 3.2876 3.0222 3.2896 3.0194 3.2945
G-2 2.8805 3.3519 2.8689 3.3541 2.8643 3.3587
G-3 3.0100 3.2931 2.9972 3.2953 3.0015 3.2991
#7
B-1 0.8098 3.4509 0.8039 3.4523 0.7630 3.4596
B-2 0.7816 3.3859 0.7763 3.3896 0.7567 3.3942
B-3 0.7966 3.4154 0.7914 3.4159 0.7792 3.4243
W-1 1.6594 3.4605 1.6525 3.4638 1.6534 3.4698
W-2 1.5769 3.3495 1.5720 3.3502 1.5728 3.3579
W-3 1.5905 3.4025 1.5882 3.4036 1.5817 3.4085
R-1 0.6490 1.8866 0.6524 1.8876
R-2 0.6793 1.8904 0.6833 1.8918
R-3 0.7060 1.8953 0.7098 1.8968
G-1 2.8770 3.5206 2.8631 3.5245
G-2 3.0247 3.2848 3.0101 3.2875
G-3 2.8590 3.2859 2.8468 3.2899
#8
B-1 0.8507 3.4371 0.8449 3.4422
B-2 0.7713 3.3549 0.7665 3.3588
B-3 0.7712 3.4550 0.7641 3.4587
W-1 1.6656 3.4149 1.6645 3.4198
W-2 1.3472 3.4155 1.3425 3.4197
W-3 1.5594 3.4507 1.5509 3.4528
5.2. MIKES
MIKES of Finland measured the artifact set #1 in its first round from 07 April 2008 to 14
April 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (21.5 ± 1.0) ºC and
relative humidity of (31 ± 5) %. Table 5-2 shows the reported results of MIKES.
Table 5-2. Measurement results of MIKES.

artifact burning
LED Φ (lm) U(Φ) (lm) Vj (V) U(Vj) (V)
set time (min)
R-1 0.717 0.019 1.88996 0.00009 90
R-2 0.721 0.019 1.89352 0.00008 30
#1
R-3 0.691 0.018 1.92577 0.00008 30
G-1 3.080 0.077 3.30151 0.00025 90
99
G-2 2.922 0.073 3.44605 0.00026 30

G-3 3.028 0.076 3.31910 0.00026 30
B-1 0.765 0.043 3.38394 0.00024 150
B-2 0.775 0.043 3.38170 0.00023 30
B-3 0.811 0.045 3.35990 0.00022 30
W-1 1.771 0.067 3.44276 0.00042 160
W-2 1.659 0.063 3.46634 0.00042 90
W-3 1.822 0.069 3.41695 0.00042 70
5.3. CMS-ITRI
CMS-ITRI of Chinese Taipei measured the artifact set #2 in its first round from 6 May
2008 to 8 May 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (23.0 ±
1.5) ºC and relative humidity of (45 ± 10) %. During the measurement at CMS-ITRI,
however, all the three red LEDs were damaged so that the red LEDs of the set #2 had to
be completely replaced for the second round. On the agreement of the other
participants, CMS-ITRI repeated the measurement of the new red LEDs of the set #2 in
Sept. ~ Oct. 2009. Table 5-3 shows the reported results of CMS-ITRI.
Table 5-3. Measurement results of CMS-ITRI.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.638 0.015 1.896 0.002 35
R-2 0.694 0.016 1.905 0.002 35
R-3 0.703 0.017 1.909 0.001 35
G-1 2.777 0.067 3.516 0.005 35
G-2 2.868 0.069 3.430 0.004 35
G-3 3.008 0.073 3.337 0.005 35
#2
B-1 0.723 0.017 3.456 0.004 35
B-2 0.797 0.019 3.411 0.003 35
B-3 0.711 0.017 3.420 0.003 35
W-1 1.729 0.040 3.341 0.003 35
W-2 1.743 0.041 3.463 0.003 35
W-3 1.584 0.037 3.495 0.011 35
5.4. PTB
PTB of Germany measured the artifact set #3 in its first round from 16 June to 2 July
2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (25.0 ± 0.7) ºC and
relative humidity of (50 ± 10) %. Table 5-4 shows the reported results of PTB.
Table 5-4. Measurement results of PTB.

artifact LED Φ (lm) U(Φ) (lm) Vj (V) U(Vj) (V) burning
100
set time (min)

R-1 0.6652 0.0183 1.8945 0.0012 590
R-2 0.6758 0.0186 1.8976 0.0012 446
R-3 0.6757 0.0186 1.9024 0.0012 426
G-1 2.8550 0.0608 3.5230 0.0026 560
G-2 2.6163 0.0557 3.3894 0.0025 278
G-3 2.5650 0.0546 3.3503 0.0025 399
#3
B-1 0.7750 0.0206 3.4455 0.0017 574
B-2 0.8211 0.0218 3.4338 0.0017 213
B-3 0.6630 0.0176 3.5314 0.0017 410
W-1 1.6826 0.0372 3.4509 0.0025 495
W-2 1.6511 0.0365 3.3525 0.0025 495
W-3 1.6996 0.0376 3.3217 0.0024 395
5.5. NMIJ
NMIJ of Japan measured the artifact set #4 in its first round from 15 April 2008 to 22
June 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (23 ± 2) ºC and
relative humidity of (50 ± 30) %. Table 5-5 shows the reported results of NMIJ.
Table 5-5. Measurement results of NMIJ.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.701 0.017 1.8995 0.0007 527
R-2 0.663 0.016 1.8957 0.0007 494
R-3 0.685 0.016 1.8973 0.0006 499
G-1 2.9530 0.0508 3.5223 0.0065 374
G-2 3.2061 0.0551 3.3075 0.0053 371
G-3 2.9883 0.0514 3.3682 0.0065 378
#4
B-1 0.9373 0.0176 3.4340 0.0056 370
B-2 0.8020 0.0151 3.4724 0.0064 382
B-3 0.8746 0.0164 3.4087 0.0048 378
W-1 1.7788 0.0254 3.4469 0.0052 655
W-2 1.7441 0.0249 3.3505 0.0044 457
W-3 1.7897 0.0256 3.4562 0.0029 374
5.6. CENAM
CENAM of Mexico measured the artifact set #5 in its first round from 17 July 2008 to 21
July 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (22.7 ± 2.2) ºC and
relative humidity of (47.5 ± 8.0) %. Table 5-6 shows the reported results of CENAM.
Table 5-6. Measurement results of CENAM.

artifact burning
set time (min)
101
R-1 0.5350 0.0534 1.9228 0.0007 26

R-2 0.5367 0.0582 1.9271 0.0007 19
R-3 0.5245 0.0593 1.8898 0.0044 21
G-1 3.3739 0.2837 3.3208 0.0008 22
G-2 3.2135 0.2864 3.4362 0.0010 23
G-3 3.4003 0.2985 3.3913 0.0009 19
#5
B-1 0.9105 0.0951 3.4235 0.0009 21
B-2 0.9486 0.1179 3.4264 0.0009 18
B-3 0.8750 0.0889 3.4403 0.0015 20
W-1 1.7994 0.1850 3.3253 0.0012 25
W-2 1.8595 0.1760 3.4553 0.0010 22
W-3 1.8181 0.1670 3.4633 0.0015 19
5.7. LNE
LNE of France measured the artifact set #6 in its first round from 15 June 2008 to 13 July
2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (22 ± 2) ºC and relative
humidity of (50 ± 10) %. Table 5-7 shows the reported results of LNE.
Table 5-7. Measurement results of LNE.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.687 0.014 1.90903 0.00057 720
R-2 0.651 0.013 1.89522 0.00057 1080
R-3 0.680 0.014 1.90532 0.00057 720
G-1 2.972 0.053 3.3120 0.0013 900
G-2 2.870 0.052 3.3137 0.0013 1200
G-3 2.814 0.051 3.3359 0.0013 1230
#6
B-1 0.882 0.021 3.4343 0.0014 1440
B-2 0.755 0.018 3.3927 0.0014 720
B-3 0.785 0.019 3.3988 0.0014 1440
W-1 1.717 0.024 3.4182 0.0017 1410
W-2 1.689 0.024 3.4171 0.0017 2550
W-3 1.701 0.024 3.4346 0.0017 2130
5.8. METAS
METAS of Switzerland measured the artifact set #7 in its first round from 30 Sept. 2008
to 8 Oct. 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (25.0 ± 0.5) ºC
and relative humidity of (45 ± 5) %. Table 5-8 shows the reported results of METAS.
Table 5-8. Measurement results of METAS.

artifact burning
set time (min)
#7 R-1 0.5801 0.0114 1.9296 0.0082 290
102
R-2 0.6445 0.0127 1.9130 0.0082 101

R-3 0.5751 0.0115 1.9297 0.0082 103
G-1 2.5280 0.0519 3.2997 0.063 119
G-2 2.4159 0.0497 3.3643 0.063 82
G-3 2.5336 0.0510 3.3066 0.063 162
B-1 0.7186 0.0252 3.4650 0.075 135
B-2 0.7096 0.0246 3.3995 0.075 96
B-3 0.7079 0.0252 3.4310 0.075 104
W-1 1.3201 0.0237 3.4748 0.083 183
W-2 1.2496 0.0222 3.3635 0.083 88
W-3 1.2603 0.0226 3.4162 0.083 100
5.9. NMC-A*STAR
NMC-A*STAR of Singapore measured the artifact set #8 in its first round from 10 July
2008 to 28 August 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (23 ±
2) ºC and relative humidity of (60 ± 10) %. Table 5-9 shows the reported results of
NMC-A*STAR.
Table 5-9. Measurement results of NMC-A*STAR.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.661 0.012 1.8918 0.0016 51
R-2 0.692 0.012 1.8965 0.0016 39
R-3 0.719 0.013 1.9022 0.0016 62
G-1 2.832 0.045 3.5329 0.0033 50
G-2 2.987 0.048 3.2946 0.0033 38
G-3 2.834 0.045 3.2958 0.0033 54
#8
B-1 0.872 0.015 3.4500 0.0026 48
B-2 0.795 0.014 3.3650 0.0026 38
B-3 0.800 0.014 3.4684 0.0026 53
W-1 1.670 0.027 3.4273 0.0078 49
W-2 1.347 0.022 3.4273 0.0078 37
W-3 1.564 0.025 3.4617 0.0078 53
5.10. VSL
VSL of the Netherlands measured the artifact set #1 in its second round from 13 October
2008 to 12 January 2009. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (24.0
± 0.5) ºC and relative humidity of (45 ± 10) %. Table 5-10 shows the reported results of
VSL.
Table 5-10. Measurement results of VSL.

artifact LED Φ (lm) U(Φ) (lm) Vj (V) U(Vj) (V) burning
103
set time (min)

R-1 0.683 0.020 1.8870 0.0031 231
R-2 0.676 0.021 1.8913 0.0031 215
R-3 0.652 0.019 1.9239 0.0031 333
G-1 2.978 0.077 3.2986 0.0056 705
G-2 2.872 0.069 3.4396 0.0059 925
G-3 2.855 0.081 3.3170 0.0054 715
#1
B-1 0.769 0.020 3.3805 0.0055 292
B-2 0.790 0.021 3.3806 0.0058 285
B-3 0.809 0.023 3.3491 0.0055 620
W-1 1.737 0.055 3.4444 0.0057 270
W-2 1.575 0.058 3.4646 0.0059 267
W-3 1.767 0.070 3.4193 0.0059 352
5.11. NIST
NIST of the USA measured the artifact set #3 in its second round on 23 April 2009. The
laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of 25 ºC and relative humidity of
17 %. Table 5-11 shows the reported results of NIST.
Table 5-11. Measurement results of NIST.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.669 0.010 1.887 0.005 40
R-2 0.683 0.010 1.891 0.005 25
R-3 0.682 0.010 1.895 0.005 25
G-1 2.919 0.022 3.494 0.008 50
G-2 2.658 0.020 3.364 0.008 25
G-3 2.604 0.020 3.323 0.008 40
#3
B-1 0.789 0.019 3.421 0.008 40
B-2 0.831 0.020 3.409 0.008 25
B-3 0.672 0.016 3.500 0.009 25
W-1 1.668 0.012 3.423 0.008 40
W-2 1.629 0.012 3.326 0.008 25
W-3 1.680 0.013 3.295 0.008 25
5.12. VNIIOFI
VNIIOFI of Russia measured the artifact set #5 in its second round from 12 January 2009
to 20 January 2009. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of (22.0 ±
0.5) ºC and relative humidity of (62 ± 2) %. Table 5-12 shows the reported results of
VNIIOFI. We note that VNIIOFI reported two sets of results: the one based on the
goniophotometer method, and the other based on the integrating sphere method. We
use the integrating sphere results for the comparison, which had slightly lower
104
uncertainties.
Table 5-12. Measurement results of VNIIOFI.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.736 0.013 1.932 0.001 37
R-2 0.732 0.015 1.936 0.001 39
R-3 0.707 0.013 1.897 0.001 36
G-1 2.851 0.06 3.339 0.001 40
G-2 2.712 0.04 3.483 0.001 35
G-3 2.792 0.05 3.411 0.001 37
#5
B-1 0.738 0.016 3.441 0.001 36
B-2 0.839 0.016 3.443 0.001 36
B-3 0.816 0.015 3.458 0.001 37
W-1 1.715 0.04 3.345 0.001 36
W-2 1.789 0.04 3.476 0.001 39
W-3 1.745 0.04 3.487 0.001 37
5.13. INM
INM of Romania measured the artifact set #7 in its second round from 13 December
2008 to 16 December 2008. The laboratory conditions are reported as temperature of
(25.0 ± 0.2) ºC and relative humidity of (30 ± 5) %. Table 5-13 shows the reported
results of INM.
Table 5-13. Measurement results of INM.

artifact burning
set time (min)
R-1 0.63 0.04 1.926 0.006 5
R-2 0.69 0.04 1.906 0.006 5
R-3 0.61 0.04 1.924 0.006 5
G-1 2.71 0.17 3.300 0.010 5
G-2 2.69 0.17 3.367 0.010 5
G-3 2.76 0.17 3.306 0.010 5
#7
B-1 0.70 0.10 3.467 0.010 5
B-2 0.64 0.10 3.400 0.010 5
B-3 0.66 0.10 3.433 0.010 5
W-1 1.50 0.20 3.477 0.010 5
W-2 1.34 0.20 3.367 0.010 5
W-3 1.35 0.20 3.418 0.010 5
6. Pre-draft A Process
After the measurement process is completed, the preparation of the comparison report is
105
conducted according to the CCPR Guidelines. 14 The pre-draft A process consists of

verification of reported results, review of uncertainty budgets, and review of relative data.
In this chapter, we also describe the temperature-corrected results and the identification
of outliers.
6.1. Verification of Reported Results

The verification of reported results started in November 2009 after most of the
participants have submitted their results. The pilot sent to each participant the submitted
result values and the technical report including the uncertainty budgets. The participant
reviewed it to correct any error. After the participant confirmed the final version, no
correction is applied in the results and in the technical reports of the participants.
6.2. Temperature Correction and Artifact Drift

After the results are finalized by the verification, the pilot applied the temperature
correction based on the Eq. (3-1). By using the temperature sensitivity coefficients a, b,
and c of each LED and the measured junction voltages reported by the participants, all
the results could be converted to the values expected at the same junction voltage, i.e.,
at the same reference condition with a temperature of T0. We took the initial control
measurement of the pilot for each round as the reference condition for correction.
The tables below summarize the results before and after the temperature correction
for each measurement round. The relative differences of the participant’s results and of
the pilot’s results by the temperature correction are also calculated in the last two
columns to show the magnitudes of the correction. Note that the uncertainty of the
temperature correction was estimated to be 0.5 % as a relative standard uncertainty (see
Chapter 3), while all the participants claimed the uncertainty of the junction voltage
measurement much lower than this.
Table 6-1. Results of temperature correction for the round to MIKES.
1. meas. participant 2. meas.

temperature corrected relative relative
artifact of pilot lab of pilot
LED difference difference
set ΦP1 (lm) ΦL (lm) ΦP2 (lm) ΦL* (lm) ΦP2* (lm) ΦL* - ΦL ΦP2* – ΦP2
#1 R-1 0.6757 0.717 0.6730 0.7084 0.6732 -1.21% 0.02%
14CCPR Key Comparison Working Group, Guidelines for CCPR Comparison Report Preparation, Rev. 2 (Sept. 18,
2009), available at http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/ccpr/publications_cc.html
106
R-2 0.6781 0.721 0.6755 0.7130 0.6756 -1.12% 0.00%

R-3 0.6506 0.691 0.6481 0.6845 0.6482 -0.95% 0.01%
G-1 3.0107 3.080 2.9976 3.0646 2.9977 -0.50% 0.00%
G-2 2.8639 2.922 2.8467 2.9049 2.8475 -0.59% 0.03%
G-3 2.9543 3.028 2.9450 3.0151 2.9417 -0.43% -0.11%
B-1 0.7512 0.765 0.7488 0.7661 0.7488 0.14% 0.01%
B-2 0.7648 0.775 0.7608 0.7755 0.7608 0.06% 0.00%
B-3 0.7974 0.811 0.7967 0.8094 0.7964 -0.20% -0.04%
W-1 1.5951 1.771 1.6992 1.7636 1.6979 -0.42% -0.08%
W-2 1.5890 1.659 1.5749 1.6500 1.5744 -0.55% -0.03%
W-3 1.7533 1.822 1.7413 1.8172 1.7412 -0.27% 0.00%
Table 6-2. Results of temperature correction for the round to CMS-ITRI.

R-1 0.6367 0.638 0.6399 0.6256 0.6319 -1.99% -1.26%
R-2 0.6945 0.694 0.6950 0.6820 0.6875 -1.76% -1.09%
R-3 0.7023 0.703 0.7047 0.6904 0.6966 -1.83% -1.16%
G-1 2.7609 2.777 2.8661 2.7317 2.8688 -1.66% 0.09%
G-2 2.8444 2.868 2.8291 2.8224 2.8321 -1.62% 0.11%
G-3 2.9915 3.008 2.9757 2.9518 2.9798 -1.90% 0.14%
#2
B-1 0.7438 0.723 0.7321 0.7226 0.7322 -0.05% 0.00%
B-2 0.8121 0.797 0.8045 0.7917 0.8052 -0.67% 0.08%
B-3 0.7318 0.711 0.7259 0.7173 0.7259 0.87% 0.00%
W-1 1.7008 1.729 1.7061 1.6800 1.7097 -2.92% 0.21%
W-2 1.7136 1.743 1.6983 1.6928 1.7033 -2.97% 0.29%
W-3 1.5545 1.584 1.5425 1.5312 1.5468 -3.45% 0.28%
Table 6-3. Results of temperature correction for the round to PTB.

R-1 0.6749 0.6652 0.6675 0.6568 0.6730 -1.27% 0.82%
R-2 0.6887 0.6758 0.6811 0.6675 0.6862 -1.25% 0.73%
R-3 0.6864 0.6757 0.6796 0.6660 0.6849 -1.45% 0.77%
G-1 2.9676 2.8550 2.9421 2.8327 2.9521 -0.79% 0.34%
G-2 2.7133 2.6163 2.6977 2.5953 2.7053 -0.81% 0.28%
#3 G-3 2.6582 2.5650 2.6377 2.5390 2.6461 -1.03% 0.32%
B-1 0.7804 0.7750 0.7744 0.7741 0.7749 -0.12% 0.05%
B-2 0.8262 0.8211 0.8196 0.8198 0.8204 -0.15% 0.09%
B-3 0.6624 0.6630 0.6599 0.6610 0.6605 -0.31% 0.09%
W-1 1.7035 1.6826 1.6824 1.6624 1.6951 -1.21% 0.75%
W-2 1.6709 1.6511 1.6534 1.6324 1.6644 -1.15% 0.66%
107
W-3 1.7216 1.6996 1.7029 1.6788 1.7124 -1.24% 0.55%
Table 6-4. Results of temperature correction for the round to NMIJ.

R-1 0.7098 0.701 0.7229 0.6987 0.7077 -0.33% 0.68%
R-2 0.6725 0.663 0.6746 0.6610 0.6698 -0.30% 0.65%
R-3 0.6933 0.685 0.6979 0.6827 0.6923 -0.34% 0.68%
G-1 2.9251 2.9530 2.6238 2.9413 2.9008 -0.40% 0.26%
G-2 3.1816 3.2061 2.7930 3.1902 3.1540 -0.50% 0.21%
G-3 2.9647 2.9883 2.6636 2.9744 2.9479 -0.47% 0.29%
#4
B-1 0.8849 0.9373 0.9182 0.9378 0.8799 0.05% -0.02%
B-2 0.7567 0.8020 0.7942 0.8024 0.7521 0.05% -0.03%
B-3 0.8270 0.8746 0.8769 0.8753 0.8223 0.08% -0.07%
W-1 1.7656 1.7788 0.6897 1.7640 1.7352 -0.84% 0.47%
W-2 1.7379 1.7441 0.6846 1.7300 1.7111 -0.81% 0.42%
W-3 1.7825 1.7897 0.6991 1.7759 1.7561 -0.77% 0.40%
Table 6-5. Results of temperature correction for the round to CENAM.

R-1 0.6827 0.5350 0.6868 0.5251 0.6811 -1.89% -0.83%
R-2 0.6829 0.5367 0.6881 0.5267 0.6821 -1.91% -0.88%
R-3 0.6495 0.5245 0.6542 0.5142 0.6484 -2.01% -0.91%
G-1 2.9119 3.3739 2.9171 3.3360 2.9031 -1.14% -0.48%
G-2 2.8201 3.2135 2.7947 3.2099 2.7832 -0.11% -0.41%
G-3 2.8484 3.4003 2.8501 3.3646 2.8383 -1.06% -0.42%
#5
B-1 0.7790 0.9105 0.7768 0.9101 0.7761 -0.04% -0.09%
B-2 0.8820 0.9486 0.8803 0.9461 0.8785 -0.26% -0.21%
B-3 0.8248 0.8750 0.8219 0.8738 0.8207 -0.14% -0.15%
W-1 1.6785 1.7994 1.6842 1.7734 1.6759 -1.46% -0.50%
W-2 1.7536 1.8595 1.7598 1.8299 1.7510 -1.62% -0.51%
W-3 1.7000 1.8181 1.7101 1.7862 1.6984 -1.79% -0.69%
Table 6-6. Results of temperature correction for the round to LNE.

#6 R-1 0.7000 0.745 0.7136 0.7257 0.7076 -2.66% -0.84%
108
R-2 0.6563 0.692 0.6635 0.6740 0.6575 -2.67% -0.91%

R-3 0.7023 0.750 0.7144 0.7298 0.7082 -2.77% -0.88%
G-1 2.8398 2.985 2.8575 2.9632 2.8493 -0.74% -0.29%
G-2 2.7226 2.861 2.7450 2.8443 2.7372 -0.59% -0.29%
G-3 2.4871 2.603 2.4902 2.5850 2.4814 -0.70% -0.35%
B-1 0.9185 0.934 0.9231 0.9337 0.9224 -0.03% -0.08%
B-2 0.8098 0.816 0.8125 0.8158 0.8116 -0.03% -0.11%
B-3 0.8244 0.825 0.8236 0.8251 0.8228 0.01% -0.09%
W-1 0.6933 0.709 0.6739 0.7026 0.6716 -0.91% -0.34%
W-2 0.6828 0.702 0.6709 0.6941 0.6680 -1.13% -0.43%
W-3 0.7091 0.731 0.7016 0.7236 0.6986 -1.02% -0.44%
Table 6-7. Results of temperature correction for the round to METAS.

R-1 0.6559 0.5801 0.6570 0.5643 0.6556 -2.79% -0.21%
R-2 0.7196 0.6445 0.7234 0.6243 0.7208 -3.24% -0.36%
R-3 0.6466 0.5751 0.6483 0.5571 0.6469 -3.24% -0.22%
G-1 3.0373 2.5280 3.0222 2.5112 3.0185 -0.67% -0.12%
G-2 2.8805 2.4159 2.8689 2.4020 2.8657 -0.58% -0.11%
G-3 3.0100 2.5336 2.9972 2.5135 2.9930 -0.80% -0.14%
#7
B-1 0.8098 0.7186 0.8039 0.7182 0.8038 -0.06% -0.01%
B-2 0.7816 0.7096 0.7763 0.7091 0.7760 -0.06% -0.05%
B-3 0.7966 0.7079 0.7914 0.7058 0.7913 -0.29% -0.01%
W-1 1.6594 1.3201 1.6525 1.3047 1.6478 -1.18% -0.29%
W-2 1.5769 1.2496 1.5720 1.2348 1.5710 -1.19% -0.06%
W-3 1.5905 1.2603 1.5882 1.2459 1.5866 -1.16% -0.10%
Table 6-8. Results of temperature correction for the round to NMC-A*STAR.

R-1 0.6490 0.661 0.6524 0.6510 0.6506 -1.53% -0.28%
R-2 0.6793 0.692 0.6833 0.6792 0.6803 -1.88% -0.43%
R-3 0.7060 0.719 0.7098 0.7050 0.7066 -1.99% -0.45%
G-1 2.8770 2.832 2.8631 2.8190 2.8589 -0.46% -0.15%
G-2 3.0247 2.987 3.0101 2.9670 3.0040 -0.67% -0.20%
#8 G-3 2.8590 2.834 2.8468 2.8147 2.8385 -0.69% -0.29%
B-1 0.8507 0.872 0.8449 0.8701 0.8439 -0.22% -0.12%
B-2 0.7713 0.795 0.7665 0.7924 0.7653 -0.32% -0.16%
B-3 0.7712 0.800 0.7641 0.7991 0.7637 -0.12% -0.05%
W-1 1.6656 1.670 1.6645 1.6512 1.6568 -1.14% -0.47%
W-2 1.3472 1.347 1.3425 1.3340 1.3378 -0.97% -0.35%
109
W-3 1.5594 1.564 1.5509 1.5487 1.5480 -0.99% -0.19%
Table 6-9. Results of temperature correction for the round to VSL.

R-1 0.6733 0.683 0.6710 0.6795 0.6746 -0.52% 0.53%
R-2 0.6755 0.676 0.6750 0.6718 0.6787 -0.62% 0.55%
R-3 0.6477 0.652 0.6493 0.6482 0.6520 -0.59% 0.42%
G-1 2.9980 2.978 2.9756 2.9672 2.9373 -0.36% -1.30%
G-2 2.8473 2.872 2.8258 2.8613 2.8003 -0.37% -0.91%
G-3 2.9450 2.855 2.9262 2.8487 2.8932 -0.22% -1.14%
#1
B-1 0.7488 0.769 0.7340 0.7696 0.7369 0.08% 0.39%
B-2 0.7609 0.790 0.7389 0.7900 0.7398 0.01% 0.12%
B-3 0.7969 0.809 0.7842 0.8084 0.7822 -0.08% -0.25%
W-1 1.7017 1.737 1.6839 1.7291 1.6639 -0.45% -1.20%
W-2 1.5761 1.575 1.5525 1.5685 1.5327 -0.42% -1.29%
W-3 1.7439 1.767 1.7087 1.7593 1.6885 -0.44% -1.20%
Table 6-10. Results of temperature correction for the round to NIST.

R-1 0.6669 0.669 0.6724 0.6696 0.6657 0.08% -1.01%
R-2 0.6809 0.683 0.6856 0.6821 0.6799 -0.13% -0.84%
R-3 0.6791 0.682 0.6845 0.6816 0.6772 -0.05% -1.08%
G-1 2.9418 2.919 2.9298 2.9203 2.9213 0.05% -0.29%
G-2 2.6986 2.658 2.6758 2.6595 2.6667 0.05% -0.34%
G-3 2.6374 2.604 2.6189 2.6084 2.6107 0.17% -0.31%
#3
B-1 0.7744 0.789 0.7597 0.7893 0.7593 0.04% -0.05%
B-2 0.8204 0.831 0.7993 0.8313 0.7989 0.03% -0.05%
B-3 0.6601 0.672 0.6454 0.6724 0.6448 0.06% -0.10%
W-1 1.6872 1.668 1.6709 1.6725 1.6628 0.27% -0.49%
W-2 1.6575 1.629 1.6334 1.6331 1.6261 0.25% -0.45%
W-3 1.7063 1.680 1.6805 1.6859 1.6761 0.35% -0.26%
Table 6-11. Results of temperature correction for the round to VNIIOFI.

#5 R-1 0.6868 0.736 0.6896 0.7132 0.6878 -3.20% -0.26%
110
R-2 0.6881 0.732 0.6885 0.7104 0.6879 -3.04% -0.09%

R-3 0.6542 0.707 0.6537 0.6860 0.6537 -3.06% 0.00%
G-1 2.9171 2.851 2.9012 2.8122 2.8901 -1.38% -0.38%
G-2 2.7947 2.712 2.7550 2.6754 2.7448 -1.37% -0.37%
G-3 2.8501 2.792 2.8421 2.7554 2.8297 -1.33% -0.44%
B-1 0.7768 0.738 0.7672 0.7412 0.7672 0.44% 0.00%
B-2 0.8803 0.839 0.8714 0.8410 0.8709 0.24% -0.07%
B-3 0.8219 0.816 0.8128 0.8187 0.8126 0.33% -0.02%
W-1 1.6842 1.715 1.6805 1.6752 1.6701 -2.37% -0.62%
W-2 1.7598 1.789 1.7476 1.7463 1.7390 -2.44% -0.49%
W-3 1.7101 1.745 1.6980 1.7002 1.6899 -2.64% -0.48%
Table 6-12. Results of temperature correction for the round to INM.

R-1 0.6570 0.63 0.6619 0.6193 0.6565 -1.73% -0.81%
R-2 0.7234 0.69 0.7254 0.6822 0.7210 -1.14% -0.61%
R-3 0.6483 0.61 0.6527 0.6003 0.6469 -1.61% -0.91%
G-1 3.0222 2.71 3.0194 2.6948 3.0111 -0.56% -0.28%
G-2 2.8689 2.69 2.8643 2.6744 2.8581 -0.58% -0.22%
G-3 2.9972 2.76 3.0015 2.7429 2.9945 -0.62% -0.23%
#7
B-1 0.8039 0.70 0.7630 0.6998 0.7627 -0.03% -0.04%
B-2 0.7763 0.64 0.7567 0.6399 0.7565 -0.02% -0.03%
B-3 0.7914 0.66 0.7792 0.6580 0.7778 -0.30% -0.18%
W-1 1.6525 1.50 1.6534 1.4842 1.6452 -1.07% -0.50%
W-2 1.5720 1.34 1.5728 1.3213 1.5624 -1.41% -0.67%
W-3 1.5882 1.35 1.5817 1.3340 1.5750 -1.20% -0.43%
Based on the temperature-corrected results of the pilot, the drift of the artifact LEDs
could be analyzed. Each LED is measured by the pilot two or three times depending on
the measurement rounds. The relative changes of the total luminous flux measured by
the pilot for each artifact LED are shown in the following figures, separated to a plot
without temperature correction and to a plot after correction. They show that the effect
of the temperature correction is small because the laboratory condition of the pilot was
little changed during the comparison. The most of the artifact LEDs show a drift smaller
than ±1 % for each round that is comparable to the measurement uncertainty of the
pilot. However, a few LEDs underwent a large drift and should be excluded from the data
analysis. The exclusion of the non-stable artifact LEDs is decided by the participant
through the procedure of review of relative data.
111
Fig. 6-1. Drift of the artefact set #1.
112
113
6.3. Review of Relative Data

The review of relative data started in December 2009. The pilot sent to the participants a
document with the relative data of each participant, which are the data reduced to check
only the stability of the artifact LEDs and the internal consistency of each participant. The
document circulated for the review of relative data is included in Appendix B: Review of
Relative Data as an electronic file. Note that both the uncorrected and temperature-
corrected data are separately presented.
The review comments of the participants are collected by the pilot and their
summary is included in Appendix C: Comments from Review of Relative Data. As a result
of the review of relative data, the data of the following artifact LEDs will be excluded
from the analysis on request of the participants.
- #1-W-1 measured by MIKES (large drift)
- #2-G-1 measured by CMS-ITRI (large drift)
- #4-W-1 measured by NMIJ (large drift)
- #7-B-1 measured by INM (large drift)
114
6.4. Review of Uncertainty Budgets

The review of relative data started in March 2010 and completed in June 2010. The pilot
summarized the technical reports and uncertainty budgets of the participants to one
document and sent it to all the participants. We note that VNIIOFI could not participate
to the review process because their submission of the technical report was abandoned.
The discussion among the participants and the revisions of the budgets are conducted
according to the CCPR Guidelines. The review comments of the participants are collected
by the pilot and their summary is included in Appendix D: Comments from Review of
Uncertainty Budgets. The final version of the uncertainty budgets is summarized in
Chapter 4.
6.5. Identification of Outliers

For the identification of outliers that can significantly skew the reference value of the
comparison, the pilot prepared a document with the relative deviation data of each
participant from the simple mean values of all the participants without disclosing the
participant’s identity and the absolute results. The document sent to the participant in
June 2010 is included in Appendix E: Identification of Outliers. As a result of the
discussion, it was agreed in September 2010 that the data with a relative deviation of
more than ±10 % from the mean are to identify as outliers. As the measurements of
each type (color) of LEDs are taken as each separate comparison, the outlier will be
excluded only from the analysis for the related LED type.
115
7. Data Analysis
The data analysis is performed based on the example in Appendix B of the CCPR
Guidelines.15 The only difference was the sequence of each round: “pilot – participant –
pilot” in the LED comparison, while “participant – pilot – participant” in the example of
the Guidelines. In this chapter, the equations of each analysis step are described. The
complete data of the calculation is included as an electronic file (Excel spreadsheet) at
the end of the chapter. Note that the analysis is repeated for each type of LEDs, and also
for the data without and with the temperature-correction.
7.1. Calculation of Difference to Pilot

For each participant with index i and for each LED with index j, the two measurement
results of the pilot (index P), before (index P1) and after (index P2) the participant, are
averaged by
i , j P 
1
2
 i, j P1  i, j P 2  . (7-1)
The relative standard uncertainty of the pilot’s average value Φi,jP is calculated from the
relative standard uncertainty ur,corP of the correlated components (scale uncertainty) and
the relative standard uncertainty ur,ucP of the uncorrelated components (transfer
uncertainty) according to
urP,cor    ur ,uc  .

1 2 Pk 2
2
ur (  i , j P )  (7-2)
22 k 1
The values of ur,corP and ur,ucPk are determined by combing the related components in the
reported uncertainty budgets of the pilot in Table 4-1 ~ Table 4-4. Note that the pilot
reported and applied the upper boundary values for all the uncertainty components in
the budgets so that the relative standard uncertainty of each measurement remained the
same for each LED type.
The relative difference Δi,j between the participant i and the pilot (index P) for each
LED j is then calculated by
i , j
i , j  1 (7-3)
 iP, j
and its uncertainty by
u     u   u  
2 2 2
u (i , j )  r i, j
P
r ,uc r , add i, j . (7-4)
15CCPR Key Comparison Working Group, Guidelines for CCPR Comparison Report Preparation, Rev. 2 (Sept. 18,
2009), available at http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/ccpr/publications_cc.html
116
Here, ur,add(Φi,j) denotes the additional uncertainty in the measurement of LED j by the
participant i due to non-ideal characteristics of the artifact LEDs. For the results without
temperature correction, we used the drift of the LED for the corresponding round as the
value of ur,add(Φi,j), which is calculated from the relative difference of the two
measurement results of the pilot. For the results with temperature correction, the relative
standard uncertainty of the correction procedure of 0.5 % is additionally combined to
ur,add(Φi,j). The relative standard uncertainty of the participant ur(Φi,j) is determined from
the reported expanded results in Chapter 5.
Finally, the results of the multiple LEDs for each type are averaged for the participant
i by
1
i   i , j .
3 j
(7-5)
Under assumption that the results of multiple LEDs measured by the same participant are
strongly correlated, the uncertainty of the relative differences is calculated simply by
 u  i , j  .
1
u  i   (7-6)
3 j
For the pilot, we use now the index i = 0 and set Δ0 = 0. According to Eq. (7-4), the
uncertainty u(Δ0) for the pilot is the same as the total relative standard uncertainty
averaged over all the measurements by the pilot. For case of the temperature corrected
results, we added also the uncertainty of the correction to u(Δ0).
7.2. Calculation of Comparison Reference Value

The Reference Value (RV) of the comparison for each LED type is calculated using
weighted mean with cut-off. The cut-off value ucut is calculated by
ucut  averageur  i  for ur  i   median ur  i ; i  0,..., N . (7-7)
Note that the outliers are not included in the calculation of the RV so that the number N
denotes the number of the participants whose comparison results are not identified as
outliers (the pilot not counted as a participant here).
The total relative standard uncertainty ur(Φi) of each participant i, averaged over LEDs
with different j, is adjusted by the cut-off (i = 0, …, N):
ur ,adj  i   ur  i  for ur  i   ucut
(7-8)
ur ,adj  i   ucut otherwise
Also, the uncertainty of Δi is adjusted after cut-off by
uadj  i   u     u   
2 2
r ,adj i T i . (7-9)
117
Here, uT(Δi) denotes the transfer uncertainty component in u(Δi), which is separated by
uT  i   u     u   
2 2
i r i . (7-10)
These uncertainties are used to calculate the weights wi for each participant i given by
2
uadj  i 
wi  N
. (7-11)
u  
i 0
2
adj i
Finally, the RV is determined by

N
 RV   wi i . (7-12)
i 0
The uncertainty of the comparison RV is given by

N
u 2  i 

i  0 uadj   i 
4
u   RV   N
. (7-13)
u  
i 0
2
adj i
7.3. Calculation of Degree of Equivalence

The unilateral degree of equivalence (DoE) of the participant i is defined by
Di  i   RV . (7-14)
The DoE is calculated according to Eq. (7-13) also for the participants whose comparison
results are identified as outliers. However, the uncertainty of DoE is different. For the
participants whose results are included in the calculation of the RV, the uncertainty of
DoE is given, as an expanded uncertainty with a coverage factor k = 2, by
 u 2  i  N 
U i  k u  i   u   RV   2  2
2 2
 uadj  i 
 u    .
2
adj i (7-15)
i 0 
For the participants whose results are excluded in the calculation of the RV, the
uncertainty of DoE is simplified to
U i  k u 2  i   u 2   RV  . (7-16)
7.4. Data Analysis Spreadsheet

The Excel-file can be opened by a double-click on the icon below.
DoE_flux_rev.xlsx
118
8. Comparison Results
8.1. Red LEDs

The comparison RV for total luminous flux of red LEDs is calculated to be
 RV  0.01651, U r  0.80% (k  2) for the results without temperature correction, and
 RV  0.00083, U r  0.80% (k  2) for the results after temperature correction. Table 8-1
and Table 8-2 summarize the comparison results for red LEDs without and with
temperature correction, respectively. The last column of each table shows the En criteria
of each participant, which is defined as the absolute ratio of Di and U(Di). Note that the
results of CENAM and METAS are identified as outliers and not included in the
calculation of the RV.
Table 8-1. Comparison results for red LEDs without temperature correction.
participant Δi u(Δi) wi Di U(Di) En

MIKES 0.06423 1.41% 0.08441 0.048 0.027 1.778
CMS-ITRI -0.00078 1.27% 0.10341 -0.017 0.024 0.708
PTB -0.01098 1.77% 0.05333 -0.027 0.034 0.794
NMIJ -0.00810 1.56% 0.06876 -0.025 0.030 0.833
CENAM -0.21039 5.41% N.A. -0.227 0.108 2.102
LNE -0.01035 1.56% 0.06827 -0.027 0.030 0.900
METAS -0.11160 1.10% N.A. -0.128 0.023 5.565
NMC-
0.01576 1.10% 0.13038 -0.001 0.020 0.050
A*STAR
VSL 0.00753 1.55% 0.06978 -0.009 0.030 0.300
NIST -0.00036 1.12% 0.10546 -0.017 0.021 0.810
VNIIOFI 0.07135 1.03% 0.15859 0.055 0.019 2.895
INM -0.05148 3.19% 0.01638 -0.068 0.063 1.079
KRISS 0.00000 1.09% 0.14122 -0.017 0.020 0.850
Table 8-2. Comparison results for red LEDs after temperature correction.

MIKES 0.05266 1.50% 0.07649 0.052 0.029 1.793
CMS-ITRI -0.01332 1.59% 0.06800 -0.014 0.031 0.452
PTB -0.02768 1.54% 0.07237 -0.029 0.030 0.967
NMIJ -0.01458 1.37% 0.09185 -0.015 0.026 0.577
CENAM -0.22202 5.49% N.A. -0.223 0.110 2.027
LNE -0.02725 1.19% 0.12225 -0.028 0.022 1.273
METAS -0.13712 1.18% N.A. -0.138 0.025 5.520
NMC-
-0.00028 1.10% 0.12349 -0.001 0.021 0.048
A*STAR
VSL -0.00075 1.68% 0.06090 -0.002 0.033 0.061
NIST 0.00422 0.97% 0.12227 0.003 0.019 0.158
119
VNIIOFI 0.03970 1.14% 0.12521 0.039 0.021 1.857

INM -0.06182 3.23% 0.01655 -0.063 0.064 0.984
KRISS 0.00000 1.20% 0.12061 -0.001 0.022 0.045
The DoEs and its uncertainties for red LEDs are plotted in Fig. 8-1 as dot symbols
and error bars, respectively. The red lines indicate the expanded relative uncertainty of
the comparison RV.
Fig. 8-1. DoE for red LEDs without and with temperature correction.
120
8.2. Green LEDs

The comparison RV for total luminous flux of green LEDs is calculated to be
 RV  0.00650, U r  0.76% (k  2) for the results without temperature correction, and
 RV  0.01221, U r  0.84% (k  2) for the results after temperature correction. Table
8-3 and Table 8-4 summarize the comparison results for green LEDs without and with
results of CENAM and METAS are identified as outliers and not included in the
Table 8-3. Comparison results for green LEDs without temperature correction.

MIKES 0.02507 1.37% 0.07955 0.032 0.026 1.231
CMS-ITRI 0.00960 1.36% 0.08110 0.016 0.026 0.615
PTB -0.03270 1.34% 0.08381 -0.026 0.026 1.000
NMIJ 0.01349 1.36% 0.08074 0.020 0.026 0.769
CENAM 0.16523 4.39% N.A. 0.172 0.088 1.955
LNE -0.01622 1.25% 0.09578 -0.010 0.024 0.417
METAS -0.16056 1.16% N.A. -0.154 0.024 6.417
NMC-
-0.00998 0.98% 0.15190 -0.003 0.018 0.167
A*STAR
VSL -0.00596 1.52% 0.06463 0.001 0.029 0.034
NIST -0.00860 0.83% 0.12400 -0.002 0.016 0.125
VNIIOFI -0.02055 1.29% 0.09090 -0.014 0.024 0.583
INM -0.08144 3.15% 0.01518 -0.075 0.062 1.210
KRISS 0.00000 1.07% 0.13241 0.007 0.020 0.350
Table 8-4. Comparison results for green LEDs after temperature correction.

MIKES 0.02004 1.47% 0.08502 0.032 0.028 1.143
CMS-ITRI -0.00846 1.43% 0.09050 0.004 0.027 0.148
PTB -0.04258 1.30% 0.10855 -0.030 0.025 1.200
NMIJ 0.00764 1.30% 0.10952 0.020 0.024 0.833
CENAM 0.15880 4.49% N.A. 0.171 0.090 1.900
LNE -0.02291 1.17% 0.13367 -0.011 0.022 0.500
METAS -0.16574 1.32% N.A. -0.154 0.028 5.500
NMC-
-0.01490 1.21% 0.12361 -0.003 0.023 0.130
A*STAR
VSL -0.00365 2.31% 0.03444 0.009 0.045 0.200
NIST -0.00615 1.20% 0.09330 0.006 0.023 0.261
VNIIOFI -0.03176 1.62% 0.07027 -0.020 0.031 0.645
INM -0.08572 3.21% 0.01785 -0.074 0.064 1.156
KRISS 0.00000 1.18% 0.13326 0.012 0.022 0.545
121
The DoEs and its uncertainties for green LEDs are plotted in Fig. 8-2 as dot symbols
the comparison RV.
Fig. 8-2. DoE for green LEDs without and with temperature correction.
8.3. Blue LEDs

The comparison RV for total luminous flux of blue LEDs is calculated to be
122
 RV  0.01081, U r  0.96% (k  2) for the results after temperature correction. Table 8-5
and Table 8-6 summarize the comparison results for blue LEDs without and with
results of CENAM, METAS, and INM are identified as outliers and not included in the
Table 8-5. Comparison results for blue LEDs without temperature correction.

MIKES 0.01785 2.68% 0.03056 0.006 0.053 0.113
CMS-ITRI -0.01958 1.64% 0.08120 -0.031 0.031 1.000
PTB -0.00084 1.49% 0.09843 -0.013 0.028 0.464
NMIJ 0.06179 1.09% 0.16375 0.050 0.020 2.500
CENAM 0.10325 5.51% N.A. 0.091 0.111 0.820
LNE -0.00932 1.25% 0.14046 -0.021 0.023 0.913
METAS -0.10229 1.89% N.A. -0.114 0.039 2.923
NMC-
0.03487 1.16% 0.13661 0.023 0.022 1.045
A*STAR
VSL 0.03800 2.56% 0.03344 0.026 0.050 0.520
NIST 0.02806 2.54% 0.03397 0.016 0.050 0.320
VNIIOFI -0.02929 1.50% 0.09556 -0.041 0.028 1.464
INM -0.16231 7.97% N.A. -0.174 0.160 1.088
KRISS 0.00000 1.09% 0.18601 -0.012 0.020 0.600
Table 8-6. Comparison results for blue LEDs after temperature correction.

MIKES 0.01793 2.73% 0.03434 0.007 0.054 0.130
CMS-ITRI -0.01923 1.70% 0.08805 -0.030 0.032 0.938
PTB -0.00317 1.55% 0.10659 -0.014 0.029 0.483
NMIJ 0.06262 1.22% 0.15207 0.052 0.023 2.261
CENAM 0.10250 5.55% N.A. 0.092 0.112 0.821
LNE -0.00997 1.33% 0.14503 -0.021 0.024 0.875
METAS -0.10341 1.97% N.A. -0.114 0.041 2.780
NMC-
0.03316 1.32% 0.12349 0.022 0.025 0.880
A*STAR
VSL 0.03757 2.54% 0.03960 0.027 0.050 0.540
NIST 0.02885 2.65% 0.03641 0.018 0.052 0.346
VNIIOFI -0.02587 1.60% 0.09591 -0.037 0.030 1.233
INM -0.16322 8.02% N.A. -0.174 0.161 1.081
KRISS 0.00000 1.20% 0.17851 -0.011 0.022 0.500
The DoEs and its uncertainties for blue LEDs are plotted in Fig. 8-3 as dot symbols
123
the comparison RV.
Fig. 8-3. DoE for blue LEDs without and with temperature correction.
8.4. White LEDs

The comparison RV for total luminous flux of white LEDs is calculated to be
 RV  0.00284, U r  1.02% (k  2) for the results after temperature correction. Table
8-7 and Table 8-8 summarize the comparison results for white LEDs without and with
124
results of METAS and INM are identified as outliers and not included in the calculation of
the RV.
Table 8-7. Comparison results for white LEDs without temperature correction.

MIKES 0.04573 2.09% 0.04962 0.037 0.041 0.902
CMS-ITRI 0.01989 1.42% 0.10838 0.012 0.027 0.444
PTB -0.00672 1.63% 0.08196 -0.015 0.031 0.484
NMIJ 0.01351 2.09% 0.04879 0.005 0.041 0.122
CENAM 0.06501 4.86% 0.00922 0.057 0.097 0.588
LNE -0.00758 2.75% 0.02840 -0.016 0.054 0.296
METAS -0.20539 1.03% N.A. -0.214 0.023 9.304
NMC-
0.00342 0.98% 0.22825 -0.005 0.017 0.294
A*STAR
VSL 0.01885 2.40% 0.03770 0.011 0.047 0.234
NIST -0.00817 1.42% 0.08668 -0.016 0.027 0.593
VNIIOFI 0.02119 1.35% 0.12009 0.013 0.025 0.520
INM -0.12951 7.19% N.A. -0.138 0.144 0.958
KRISS 0.00000 1.04% 0.20093 -0.008 0.019 0.421
Table 8-8. Comparison results for white LEDs after temperature correction.

MIKES 0.04159 2.17% 0.05627 0.044 0.042 1.048
CMS-ITRI -0.01218 1.47% 0.12262 -0.009 0.027 0.333
PTB -0.02169 1.38% 0.13961 -0.019 0.026 0.731
NMIJ 0.00348 1.80% 0.07847 0.006 0.035 0.171
CENAM 0.05096 4.94% 0.01082 0.054 0.098 0.551
LNE -0.01950 2.58% 0.03883 -0.017 0.051 0.333
METAS -0.21406 1.21% N.A. -0.211 0.026 8.115
NMC-
-0.00518 1.23% 0.17513 -0.002 0.022 0.091
A*STAR
VSL 0.02059 3.33% 0.02382 0.023 0.066 0.348
NIST -0.00331 1.86% 0.06638 0.000 0.036 0.000
VNIIOFI -0.00095 1.72% 0.08976 0.002 0.033 0.061
INM -0.13775 7.32% N.A. -0.135 0.147 0.918
KRISS 0.00000 1.15% 0.19830 0.003 0.021 0.143
The DoEs and its uncertainties for white LEDs are plotted in Fig. 8-4 as dot symbols
the comparison RV.
125
Fig. 8-4. DoE for white LEDs without and with temperature correction.
126
9. Discussion
9.1. Test of Consistency

In order to test the consistency of the comparison results, the Birge ratio RB is calculated
by the equation
1 N i  RV 
2
RB  
N i 0 uadj2 (i )
, (9-1)
where N is the number of the participants, without counting the pilot, whose results are
used for the calculation of the RV. For this calculation, the data of the outliers are not
used. Note that the consistency is satisfied, if RB ≤ 1.
Table 9-1 shows the calculated Birge ratios of the comparison S3b without and with
temperature correction. The results of the white LEDs show the satisfactory consistency.
For the other LEDs, the values of RB range from 1.4 to 2.4, which indicate that the
uncertainties of the participants are underestimated. Table 9-1 also shows that the
temperature correction has the effect of decreasing the Birge ratios and, hence,
improving the consistency. This verifies that the temperature correction based on the
junction voltage measurement described in Chapter 3 is capable to correct the
systematic errors of the artifact LEDs due to different measurement conditions.
Table 9-1. Birge ratio of the comparison S3b.

Birge ratio Birge ratio after T
LED type
without T correction correction
Red 2.426 1.944
Green 1.437 1.469
Blue 2.087 1.894
White 0.976 0.938
9.2. Accuracy of Color Correction

The narrow spectral bandwidth of LEDs is another important source of systematic errors
in the photometric measurement of LEDs. If a photometer is used for LED measurements,
correction of spectral mismatch, often referred to as color correction, is essential to
achieve high accuracy, which requires both relative spectral distribution of the test LED
and relative spectral responsivity of the photometer. As we have circulated four different
colors of LEDs (R/G/B/W), analysis of the dependence of the comparison results upon the
LED colors can provide important information on the accuracy of color correction. Table
127
9-2 summarizes the DoEs of each participant for different colors of LEDs, which are
based on the temperature corrected data.
Table 9-2. DoEs for different LED colors (after temperature correction).
DoE for red DoE for green DoE for blue DoE for white
participant
LEDs LEDs LEDs LEDs
MIKES 0.052 0.032 0.007 0.044
CMS-ITRI -0.014 0.004 -0.030 -0.009
PTB -0.029 -0.030 -0.014 -0.019
NMIJ -0.015 0.020 0.052 0.006
CENAM -0.223 0.171 0.092 0.054
LNE -0.028 -0.011 -0.021 -0.017
METAS -0.138 -0.154 -0.114 -0.211
NMC-A*STAR -0.001 -0.003 0.022 -0.002
VSL -0.002 0.009 0.027 0.023
NIST 0.003 0.006 0.018 0.000
VNIIOFI 0.039 -0.020 -0.037 0.002
INM -0.063 -0.074 -0.174 -0.135
KRISS -0.001 0.012 -0.011 0.003
Fig. 9-1 shows plots of the data in Table 9-2. We classified the participants to three
groups. The first group shown on the top plot in Fig. 9-1 have only a weak (< 2 %)
dependence of DoE on the LED colors. The second group shown on the middle plot in
Fig. 9-1 have a moderate (3 % ~ 8 %) dependence of DoE on the LED colors. Especially,
the results of many participants have a maximum or a minimum for blue LEDs. The last
group shown on the bottom plot in Fig. 9-1 have a large dependence of DoE on the LED
colors or a too large offset. The results of Table 9-2 and Fig. 9-1 can be useful for the
participants to investigate the unknown systematic errors in their color correction.
128
Fig. 9-1. Plots of DoEs for different colors of LEDs (R, G, B, W). The participants are
classified to three groups.
129
10. Summary
The measurement of total luminous flux is compared by circulating four different types of
artifact LEDs (red, green, blue, and white) to 13 NMIs (including the pilot). The artifact
LEDs are prepared by the functional seasoning to enable a temperature correction based
on the junction voltage measurement. The comparison reference values and the
unilateral degrees of equivalence (DoEs) of each participant are calculated for each type
of LEDs from the reported measurement results. Table 10-1 shows the summary of the
DoEs and their uncertainties of each participant for each type of LEDs as the comparison
result.
Table 10-1. Summary of the unilateral DoEs and their uncertainties for APMP.PR-S3b
(temperature correction applied).
RED GREEN BLUE WHITE
NMI U of U of U of U of
DoE DoE DoE DoE
DoE DoE DoE DoE
MIKES 0.052 0.029 0.032 0.028 0.007 0.054 0.044 0.042
CMS-ITRI -0.014 0.031 0.004 0.027 -0.030 0.032 -0.009 0.027
PTB -0.029 0.030 -0.030 0.025 -0.014 0.029 -0.019 0.026
NMIJ -0.015 0.026 0.020 0.024 0.052 0.023 0.006 0.035
CENAM -0.223 0.110 0.171 0.090 0.092 0.112 0.054 0.098
LNE -0.028 0.022 -0.011 0.022 -0.021 0.024 -0.017 0.051
METAS -0.138 0.025 -0.154 0.028 -0.114 0.041 -0.211 0.026

NMC-
-0.001 0.021 -0.003 0.023 0.022 0.025 -0.002 0.022
A*STAR
VSL -0.002 0.033 0.009 0.045 0.027 0.050 0.023 0.066
NIST 0.003 0.019 0.006 0.023 0.018 0.052 0.000 0.036
VNIIOFI 0.039 0.021 -0.020 0.031 -0.037 0.030 0.002 0.033
INM -0.063 0.064 -0.074 0.064 -0.174 0.161 -0.135 0.147
KRISS -0.001 0.022 0.012 0.022 -0.011 0.022 0.003 0.021
Acknowledgement
The pilot work of this comparison is partly supported by the Korean Ministry of
Knowledge and Economy under the project of LED standardization, grant B0010209.
130
Appendix A: Technical Protocol

The pdf-file can be opened by a double-click on the image below.
131
Appendix B: Review of Relative Data

132
Appendix C: Comments from Review of Relative Data

133
Appendix D: Comments from Review of Uncertainty Budgets

134
Appendix E: Identification of Outliers

135
Appendix F: Comments and Revision to Draft A Report
Comments from PTB to Data Analysis Replies by the pilot on 17 June 2011
Results on 11 April 2011
Enclosed please find copies of your files I have checked them and corrected. Thank
with some marked blue cells. We think you!
there are some small bugs.
It is possible to refer this comparison to In principle yes. But the related KC, e.g. of
KCRV using link laboratories. luminous flux, was done with a different
artifact so that it cannot be directly
compared to this LED comparison. That is
also the reason why this is a
supplementary comparison. We can try to
do such a linkage as an interesting study,
but not as a part of the comparison report.
The resulting excel graphic looks a little bit I agree and I checked that this is also
strange. We feel is should look similar like common for KCs. I will modify the graphs
the following graphic (uDoE should be as you suggest.
plotted around DoE):
It may be helpful to calculate the Birge This is a good suggestion. I will surely try
ratio to get information about the to calculate both the Birge ratio and the En
consistency of the comparisons. It is values and include the results in the final
calculated from the internal and external report. This will provide valuable
136
consistency. A value of close to 1 or less information to the next version of the KC

indicates that the results are consistent. guidelines which should include a
Values greater than 1 are not. procedure of consistency check and of a
RB 
u ext
with better outlier selection.
uin
n
 [ Di / u ( Di )]2
uext  i 1
n
and
(n  1) u ( Di ) 2
i 1
1 / 2
 n 
uin    u 2 ( Di )  .
 i 1 
For luminous flux we found values around
2 for most cases. For luminous intensity
(without diffuse LEDs) we found values
around 1. Please see enclosed jpg files (I
apologize this jpg, but is takes a while to
get nice prints with mathematica). We also
calculated the criteria by
 DoEi 
En,i  Abs 
 2 u ( DoEi ) 
Values greater than 1 indicate a too small
uncertainty of the participant. So we
suggest to use specific enlargements of the
participant uncertainties in that way that
the Birge ratio is equal or less 1 and
criteria is close to 1. This procedure also
would solve the problem of outliers.
Comments from PTB to Draft A Report Replies by the pilot on 22 Nov 2011
on 19 Oct 2011
We found some typing errors in the draft I have checked the errors. But all the errors
A paper. Enclosed please find our errata you found were the corrections of the
ZIP-file. uncertainty budgets of PTB. These,
however, cannot be corrected in the draft
A report stage, because they are already
137
reviewed by the participants. This is

communicated via email on 21.10.2011.
PTB has acknowledged this and confirms
that these corrections do not affect the
comparison results. Therefore, the
corrections are not considered in the
revision of the draft A report.
The Plots Fig. 9-1 of S3a and S3b are very In case of S3c, the plots such as Fig. 9-1 of
helpful. It would be great to have these S3a and S3b were not easy because a 2
plots for S3c, too. dimensional plot is required to make
systematic effects visible. I will try to realize
this in the next revision of the S3c report,
but I should also manage the workload.
Based on the results data, however, each
participant can make such analysis to
investigate the systematic effect of his
results.
The appendices should include all I will make another appendix to record the
important comments, suggestions and comments during the draft A report
recommendations of the participants to procedure.
simplify future comparisons. For example
our Suggestions PTB.docx of 15.04.2011.
The tables in chapter 8 should include the I will consider this in the revision.
criteria
 DoEi 
En,i  Abs 
 2 u ( DoEi ) 
that would be helpful to evaluate the
stated uncertainty by each participants.
The Birge ratios stated in table 9-1 I agree that the large Birge ratio means
especially for S3a and S3a are often that the uncertainties of the participants
significant greater than 1. I think the are underestimated. I wrote this also in the
138
meaning of that is, that some stated report. Your statement will be documented
uncertainties are too small. Please, refer in the Appendix of the revised report.
the related En criteria.
Here we have an additional hint for that.
The first diagram from S3a (intensity)
shows a relative flat DoE around 0% of PTB
results. But the second diagram from S3b
(flux) shows relative big differences
between (R,G) and (B,W) LEDs. The
luminous flux values were determined by a
goniophotometer directly after the
luminous intensity measurement with the
same operation state of the LED and in the
same system without new alignment of the
LED. So there is no reason for that
difference. We know from hundreds of
measurements that the integration
capability of the goniophotometer has a
very high reproducibility.
So I think this a hint for an inconsistency

of the data as we know from the Birge
ratios.
139
List of Revisions from A-1 to A-2

Draft A-1 Draft A-2
Page 99, section 5.4, the first line: “June ~ Corrected to “from 16 June to 2 July 2008”
July 2008 (the exact dates not reported)” based on the result verification records.
Chapter 8, the first paragraph of each Addition of a sentence “The last column of
section. each table Table 8-2shows the En criteria of
each participant, which is defined as the
absolute ratio of Di and U(Di).”
Chapter 8, Table 8-1 ~ Table 8-8. Addition of a new column with the
calculated En criteria values.
After Chapter 10 Addition of <Acknowledgment> by the

pilot.
After Appendix E Addition of <Appendix F: Comments and

Revision to Draft A Report>
Statement of METAS to the results of S3b on 24 Jan 2012 (added to Draft B)

Comparison APMP.PR-S3a (averaged luminous intensity of single LEDs) has shown that
the photometric scale of luminous intensity and illuminance of METAS is in agreement
with the world mean value.
For the comparison APMP.PR-S3b (luminous flux of single LEDs) a new facility
was build based on a 1 m integrating sphere. The calibration was done directly traceably
through APMP.PR-S3a by determine the flux responsivity of the sphere using a LED of
known averaged luminous intensity and a precision sphere aperture positioned at 100
mm distance to the LED.
Analysing the situation we found different problems in the set up, mainly the
general reproducibility, sphere uniformity, linearity of the photometer, stability of the
photometer, and absorption problems of the LED holder system. Unfortunately no other
validation of the calibration capability was made prior to the APMP.PR-S3.b comparison.
140
No calibration services for the quantity luminous flux for single LEDs were ever
offered to costumers. METAS has no intention to do so in near future. No CMCs are
affected by the results of the APMP.PR-S3.b comparison. N.B. METAS is offering
measurement and calibration of luminous flux of diverse lamps and luminaires (including
LED luminaires). These measurements are performed on the METAS primary flux scale
realized by a goniophotometer. This quantity is directly traceable to the photometric
scale of METAS through calibrated illuminance meters. This competence has been shown
through the successful participation at the most recent CCPR comparison (CCPR-K4) and
are internationally accepted (CMCs on luminous flux).
No further corrective actions are foreseen in near future (no subsequential
comparison on that quantity).
- End of the Report -
141

APMP PR-S3 B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

APMP PR-S3 B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APMP Supplementary Comparisons of

APMP.PR-S3a Averaged LED Intensity

APMP.PR-S3b Total Luminous Flux of LEDs

APMP.PR-S3c Emitted Colour of LEDs

Final Report (July 2012)

Dong-Hoon Lee, Seongchong Park, and Seung-Nam Park

1 Doryong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 304-340, Rep. Korea

Correspondance to: dh.lee@kriss.re.kr

4.2. MIKES ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3. CMS-ITRI ................................................................................................................................................ 21

4.4. PTB ........................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.6. CENAM ................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.7. LNE ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

4.9. NMC-A*STAR ....................................................................................................................................... 68

4.10. VSL ....................................................................................................................................................... 72

4.11. NIST ..................................................................................................................................................... 79

5. Reported Results of Participants .......................................................................................................... 96

5.2. MIKES ...................................................................................................................................................... 98

5.3. CMS-ITRI ................................................................................................................................................ 99

5.4. PTB ........................................................................................................................................................... 99

5.5. NMIJ....................................................................................................................................................... 100

5.6. CENAM ................................................................................................................................................. 100

5.7. LNE ......................................................................................................................................................... 101

5.8. METAS................................................................................................................................................... 101

5.9. NMC-A*STAR ..................................................................................................................................... 102

5.10. VSL ..................................................................................................................................................... 102

5.11. NIST ................................................................................................................................................... 103

5.12. VNIIOFI............................................................................................................................................. 103

5.13. INM.................................................................................................................................................... 104

6. Pre-draft A Process .................................................................................................................................. 104

6.2. Temperature Correction and Artifact Drift ........................................................................... 105

6.3. Review of Relative Data ................................................................................................................ 113

6.4. Review of Uncertainty Budgets ................................................................................................. 114

6.5. Identification of Outliers............................................................................................................... 114

7. Data Analysis............................................................................................................................................... 115

7.2. Calculation of Comparison Reference Value ....................................................................... 116

7.3. Calculation of Degree of Equivalence .................................................................................... 117

7.4. Data Analysis Spreadsheet .......................................................................................................... 117

8. Comparison Results ................................................................................................................................. 118

8.2. Green LEDs ......................................................................................................................................... 120

8.3. Blue LEDs ............................................................................................................................................. 121

8.4. White LEDs.......................................................................................................................................... 123

9.2. Accuracy of Color Correction ..................................................................................................... 126

10. Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 129

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................................. 129

The final version of the technical protocol is included in 오류! 참조 원본을 찾을 수

Table 2-1. List of participants and measurement schedules of APMP.PR-S3b.

measurement measurement results

The comparison was performed as a star-type circulation of multiple sets of artifact

4 Seongchong Park et al., Metrologia 43, 299 (2006).

4. Measurement Capabilities of Participants

Fig. 4-1. LED total luminous flux measurement setup in KRISS.

4.1.2. Mounting and alignment

4.1.4. Measurement uncertainty

Uncertainty Component Standard Probability Sensitivity Contribut DoF Correl

uncertain distribution coefficient ion (%) ated?

uncertain distribution coefficient ion (%) ated?

reproducibility 0.41 % A t 1 0.41 >30 N

Table 4-5. KRISS uncertainty budget of junction voltage measurement.

sourcemeter calibration 0.05 mV B normal 1 0.05  Y

attached in the main port.

4.2.2. Mounting and alignment