|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
![]() Measurement, Test and Calibration
![]() Measurement Uncertainty
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Measurement Uncertainty |
|
David A Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 2 |
Is there a simple way to determine or express the measurement uncertainty of a device, such as a 1% pressure gauge, 0-100 psi with .5 psi sub-divisions, calibrated against a dead-weight tester with a tolerance of .02% of reading. I referred to the NIST publication on Measurement Uncertainty and my head hurts. This is more informmation than anyone on this planet needs. IP: Logged |
|
Timothy Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 3 |
I don't know the answer, but your last sentence is well put... IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
I do not know if this will help, but you may want to try: Regards, [This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 01-30-99).] IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
You might want to try this as well. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
Excellent links, Don! Thanks! IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
Thanks, Marc, I do my best. No, seriously, I am still researching my MEA and R&R paper and stumble upon these during the search. If any more pop up, I will advise. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
Don Winton Forum Contributor Posts: 498 |
quote: Thanks and you to me as well. The R&R paper mentioned above is currently being proof-read (by a very nice IT lady) and should be ready in a couple of days. When I have it finished, I will forward for your review. If you deem it worthy (?), you can post after your review. Anything else I come across, I will be sure to keep the group informed. Regards, IP: Logged |
|
David A Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 2 |
Thanks Don, These links are a big help. David IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
From: ISO Standards Discussion Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:00:25 -0600 Subject: Re: Q: Measurement Uncertainty /Enop/Martins From: "Frans J.C. Martins" fjcm Hi Glover and group, > From: Pfscott2 Very briefly, measurement uncertainty can be explained as follows: In reality no measurement could be absolutely correct. There is always some doubt present regarding the true value of the measurement. This is generally caused by all sorts of factors, for example, drift, temperature, repeatability etc. Example: A digital gauge indicates a fluctuation of 0.999, 1.000 1.001, 0.999, 1.001, 1.000, The "true" value could be calculated by taking the average of all the readings, and then rounded to the correct resolution, in this case, 1.000, but, depending on the bias, the reading could just as well have been either 0.999 or 1.001! Thus the reported indication is 1.000 ± 1 LSD (least significant digit) In this example we only looked at one factor, which is resolution. Other factors previously mentioned also need to be taken into account to determine the total uncertainty of measurement. The components contributing to the total uncertainty can be classified as either Type A (determined statistically) or Type B (determined by other means other than statistically) All A and B components are then added through a process of Root Sum Squaring to determine the total uncertainty of the measurement. The total uncertainty of measurement MUST be reported for any given quantity on a certificate of calibration to in order to satisfy the requirements of ISO Guide 25 (ISO 17025) Hope this clarifies your query. Regards in Quality ---------snippo-------- From: ISO Standards Discussion From: pfrang (Doug Pfrang) Section 4.11.1, last sentence, states: "Inspection, measurement, and test equipment shall be used in a manner which ensures that the measurement uncertainty is known and is consistent with the required measurement capability." This means that if your specification requires a measurement to be within a certain tolerance -- say, 0.1 inches -- then your measurement equipment and measurement process must be capable of at least that level of certainty. It does no good to measure something with a 0.1 inch tolerance if your measurement equipment is only good to +/- 0.5 inches. -- Doug IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
See also: https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000047.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000072.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000076.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000120.html [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 13 November 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Yochio Ito unregistered |
When I receive new calibration certificates, I do something like a validation of the results: total uncertainty + max. error (data from the certificate) must be smaler than a criteria stabilished for each kind of instruments. Sometime ago, an auditor charged me if I was adding to this total uncertainty, the uncertainties of standards used for calibration. But I'm not, because I believe this uncertainties won't cause influence in my measures at production. Can anybody tell me if that is the correct procedure? Thanks, Yochio IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
As I understand it uncertainties are additive. But if you have one uncertainty item that is a factor of say 10 or 100 of the others I would say what you did - it's not significant to the total. IP: Logged |
|
Ryan Wilde unregistered |
quote: Uncertainties are a variation of additive. They are combined in a mind-reeling Root-Sum-of-the-Squares sort of fashion. The general rule for uncertainties is the factor of 10. If the particular contributor is less than 10% of the total uncertainty, then it is considered unimportant. Ryan Wilde IP: Logged |
|
Ryan Wilde unregistered |
I've read a few posts in this forum regarding measurement uncertainty. The sad fact is, there is no easy way to do uncertainty, unless you are a statistician moonlighting as a metrologist. The process is very statistics laden, with interpretive distributions, degrees of freedom, yada yada yada. I suggest taking a course. Not one of those week-long courses, just an introductory course. I took one, and like most things, it is relatively simple after you learn how. The first step is a big one, but after you actually undertand the concepts, it makes sense and isn't difficult. It is, however, time-consuming. Best of luck! IP: Logged |
|
Atul Khandekar Forum Contributor Posts: 21 |
Hello, While calculating Uncertainty of Measurement, we take into account the various sources of uncertainty. For example, Uncertainty due to resolution, due to repeatability & reproducibility , due to Standards used, due to temperature, and so on. I wonder if there exists a standard (if not exhaustive) list of the uncertainty sources and their frequency distributions (Rectangular/Triagular...) that must be considered for various types of instruments and gages. Any pointers? Thanx, -Atul. IP: Logged |
|
Ryan Wilde unregistered |
quote: Here you go Atul, here is a tad of what is generally accepted. These are dimensional examples, because that is what I generally deal with. - Repeatability and Reproduceability is a normal distribution. They are statistically derived, therefore they are calculated to a normal distribution. -Temperature is sinusoidal in nature, therefore it is a "u-shaped" distribution. Standard uncertainty - This is also a normal distribution. Actually, if your standards calibration was properly reported, it is two standard deviations. Standard / M&TE accuracy - If all you have to go on is a tolerance, then you have one of two options. Usually, you would use a rectangular distribution, because there is an equal probability that the actual accuracy is anywhere in that range. The exception is VERY STABLE GAGES from extremely reliable manufacturers. If you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your equipment was adjusted to nominal, and it has little to no drift, then you would use a triangular distribution. I have never had the opportunity to use this distribution. Thermal expansion uncertainty - This is added because although material expansion is characterized, it is not perfect. Example: The accepted formula for steel growth is APPROXIMATELY 11.5µm/m/¡C. Due to metallurgical imperfection, there is uncertainty involved in this number. I use 10%, because I tend towards the conservative side. This 10% would be expressed in a rectangular distribution, because you really have no idea where in that 10% the actual growth is. I hope this gives you just a bit more insight. Deciding on a distribution is somewhat subjective. You have to visualize how the error is likely to occur. Once you can do that, it gets to be quite easy to choose an appropriate distribution. Ryan Wilde IP: Logged |
|
mbruner Forum Contributor Posts: 11 |
Here is a website metrology forum (HP equip)that provides some down to earth explanations on measurement uncertainty (even for blondes as user Dawn has requested). In addition they give some info on how these concepts are generally implemented at their facility. DEAD LINK REMOVED IP: Logged |
