Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T14:35:24.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of the GUM and Monte Carlo measurement uncertainty techniques with application to effective area determination in pressure standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2010

V. Ramnath*
Affiliation:
NMISA, Private Bag X34, Lynnwood Ridge, 0040, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

A common measurement model for a gas operated piston-cylinder based pressure standard effective area is the well known integral equation formulation originally developed by Dadson of the NPL. However a problem with directly applying this exact mathematical model is that it cannot be easily cast into a functional form suitable for application of the Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) which is reliant on the concept of sensitivity coefficients without various simplifications. In this paper, we examine the standard approximations that are currently necessary in order to directly apply the GUM for a pressure standard effective area uncertainty determination. We also compare and contrast this to the exact effective area uncertainty results obtained through the direct application of the Monte Carlo Method (MCM) which has recently been published as Supplement 1 to the GUM. Based on these investigations we also draw some preliminary conclusions on the relative merits on the extent to which the shape of the piston and cylinder radii and whose uncertainties may vary along the engagement length of the piston-cylinder may be modeled and incorporated into a piston-cylinder’s effective area uncertainty calculation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© EDP Sciences 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

R.S. Dadson, S.L. Lewis, G.N. Peggs, The Pressure Balance: Theory and Practice. HMSO (London, 1982)
G.N. Peggs, A Method for Computing the Effective Area of a Pressure Balance from Diametral Measurements, Technical Report (NPL, UK, 1977), MOM 23
N.D. Samaan, Mathematical Modeling of Instruments for Pressure Metrology, Ph.D. thesis, School of Engineering, City University of London, 1990
BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, and OIML, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. BIPM, 2nd edn. (1995), ISBN 92-67-10188-9
JCGM/WG1, Evaluation of Measurement Data – Supplement 1 to the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement – Propagation of Distributions using a Monte Carlo Method. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 1st edn. (2007)
M.G. Cox, P.M. Harris, Software Support for Metrology Best Practice Guide No. 6 – Uncertainty Evaluation, Technical Report (NPL, UK, 2004), ISSN 1471-4124
G. Buonanno, G. Ficco, G. Giovinco, G. Molinar, Ten Years of Experience in Modeling Pressure Balances in Liquid Media up to Few GPa (Universita degli Studi di Cassino, 2007), ISBN 978-88-8317-037-9
R.L. Burden, J.D. Faires, Numerical Analysis (Brooks/Cole, 2001), ISBN 0-534-38216-9
Willink, R., A Generalization of the Welch-Satterthwaite Formula for Use with Correlated Uncertainty Components, Metrologia 44, 340 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinar, G., Bergoglio, M., Sabuga, W., Otal, P., Ayildiz, G., Calculation of Effective Area A 0 for Six Piston-cylinder Assemblies of Pressure Balances. Results of the EUROMET Project 740, Metrologia 42, S197 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M.G. Cox, P.M. Harris, Software Specifications for Uncertainty Evaluation. Technical Report (NPL, UK, 2006), ISSN 1744-475
Cordero, R.R., Seckmeyer, G. , Pissulla, D. , Labbe, F., Uncertainty of experimental integrals: application to the UV index calculation, Metrologia 45, 1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar