w \. ASME MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY AB. 8. Abernethy > Pratt w Wittney Atrera?t Company Henber ASHE RP, Benedict Westinghoure Clectr ie, Carporatiun Feltow ASKE RB. Dowde} University of Mhnde land None ASK awsTaacT The purpose of this paper is to introduce the new ASME neasurenent uncertainty mothnialagy whtrn fc the mack Tor" two new RIME/ANSE standards ond the RSME short course of the sate mane. Some’ background and history that Ted to the selection of this methodology are. discussed as well as {ts application tn current SAE, TSA, JAWIAF, RC, USAF, NATO ano 150 standaras, Aociments ahd short courses. “This ASME sethodology 1s aptly Becoming the national and international standard. ancxeRouNo The accuracy of test results has always concerned engineers and scientists, but for decades this subject nis been plagues oy conttoversy,. argument, ‘contuston tng even Snotion.. The absence of an uncertainty Calculation standard nade stanificant conparison of test resuTts between facilities, companies. and attempts, #. HI'tu oF NBS relates the following Ci}és “Dan Jonason, an old timer at the Bureau, told me. this story. "tn the 1930's, P. He Myers at AUS and his col sagues were Studying the specific heat oF Simonta. After several years of hard work, they Finally’ arrived ata value and reported the result Ing paper. “Towars the end of the paper, Wyere “we think our reported value ts good to one part in 10,000; we are willing £9 Bet our own Money at even dic that it te"earract ta ten naete dn fi Fartnermore, if Oy" any ‘chance our value 1 shown to bein error’sy more than one part in 1,000, we are Drepared to eat our apparatus and drink the Sowonta” * dunbers In brackets designate references at the end wistoay In the research that, led to the JAMAF (formerly renee [iva ete usar [5] membwehy $ poner fat Statistical tool, Monte Carlo simulation, was used to Select the best ietnods fron the many avatTabie.. J. Rosenblatt, h. i. Ky and d. M. Caneron of MBS provided ‘excel Lent constructive criticisn of these docunents Snd have continued to support industry in Enis, erfort.. The references to the NUS publications are particularly recommended to the reader. [ly 4y 5, 6). Oy we vave seventies, che unly mayor argument ena FPoadined was over how'to combine’ the bias error Tint t itn the precision error. Addition of the. two Components is recoomended in [2, 3, & T, 12, 13 and Ist. "Combination by the root-sin-iquare’sethad ¥< recomended in (8,-9, 10, 15, and 1a). This ergunent Could not be solved Conpietely by Nonte Carlo Simulation a5. 1t 15 Vargely a aatter of opinions However, these Simulations aided significantly in eratuacing ete Seatistical craractertsties OF tne ‘40 Uncertainty intervals. The argument. as to how tO Conbine bias and precision errors raged over many Comittees. in several societies, and most. participants Nelfeved it mould never bo cettied.. & compronise was suggested by the Wis group (6) in late 1980. Tt was Suggested that (1) if the bias and precision Components are propagated separately fran the measurements to the Final test result and (2) the fethod of combination 1s clearly stateds, then el ther the addition or root-sun-square cethod should be accopted ag it 1s the Tast step in the caTeulation and Ean easily de undone. Shortly thereafter, the ASME, AMowing the analyst to decide and state which lncertataty model (00 or ASS) was to De usedCURRENT ACTIVITIES ASME. The two ASME comitters are: [AUSI/ASHE PTC 19.1 - 1983 - Heasurenent Uncertainty = ‘MIST /ASME.WFC-2-1983 ~ Uncertainties in Flow Measurement — In addition, the ASHE Short Course on Measuring Uncertainty is scheduted for the 1983 ASKE-HAN, ‘The status of these ANSI/ASME documents 4s described in Tater sections of tris paper. SAL, Comittee £33 on “Aircraft. In-Flight pulsion Measurenent and Uncertainty," is drafting an SAE Aerospace Infornation Report (AIR Be) tieleg, acFtahe Trust Measure Uncertainty, which they hope to distribute for ‘naustry review in 1984, This docunent uses the sane uncertainty methodology as that of tis acer. The activities of this connittee are Sescribed in {IL}. SA, The Instrument Society of Anerica provides 2 slort course titled, Test Measuresent Accuracy, {it the International instrumentation Symposium fad other locations several tines a year. This course 15 identical to the ASME Short Course. TSH alzo has formed a Measurement Uncertainty Comittee to encourage and pronote the use of Imeasurenent uncertainty analysis. The United States Air Force Handbook (3] as been reprinted 150, 150 TC30 5¢9 approved the method described herein at theiy meeting in Leningrad in May 1982 and roquczted a revision of the ext sting world Standard 190 5168 [11]. The second draft was reviewed at their recent meeting in kashington, D.C. at the National Bureau of Standards in November 1902, MIOAP. The British Minfstry Industry Orag ‘Analysis Panel published their report, ‘Agaroyraph 2375-10 1979 Co]. Una Joint eeting held with SAE Committee £33 in England in Yay 1982, the uncertainty methodology was coordinated between these to groups. ASG. The AUSI Committee Z11 has commissioned an {SOC Kriting Group on Calibration Assurance. This Writing Group 1s drafting a national Standard on assuring the quality of calibration C15]. Although this standard treats only altbration error, it is consistent with the rethodology recomended herein, 7. MIC. At the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, a report titled, Sentscale Uncertainty Report: Methodology [14T, has deen written Tor te United States Huclear Regulatory Comission. This document uses the uncertainty. ‘sethodology descrited herein. Nuclear Material Control, Nase Calibration Techniques, AIST ‘MI5.18-1975, also is cons{stent with’ the recomended nethodology. 8. NATO. NATO AGARD PEP 15 conmittee on Uniform Engine Testing 15 conducting an interfactTity test of two Jet engines at NASA-LEVIS, USAF KEDC, USN MAPC, Britain's NGTE, France's. SACLAY FaciTity and a Turkish facility. This comittee, selected the recomended uncertainty methodology as their standard for this progran at their reeting in Toulouse, France in May 1981. 9. GRC. The Coordinating Research Council has “ecided to re-evaluate the test data fron thelr Atlantic City test progran on engine exhaust fenissions usina the recomended uncertainty ‘nethosotoay. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY Measurenent Error It 15 4 well-accepted principle in engineering that aNl seasurenants have errors (é]~ These errors. are the differences between the meaSurenents and the true value (see Figure 1). Furthermore, the total error ts usually expressed in terms of two Components: a Fixed (eas) corer (p Vy onda randaw (prectaten) error (og) such that grate w ave VALUE a roratation i vate Fue 1 MEASUREMENT ea908Precision Index The precision error is determined by taking N repeated ‘neasurements from the paraneter population, the Characteristics of which can be approxinated by the precision index (5)'defined by the familiar we o, - 04 vere T is the average value of X. ‘The precisfon index of the average of a set of rmeasurenents {5 always Tess than that of an individual rmeasurenent according to Se 7 o Bias Error ‘The bias error 1s the systematic error which 1s, considered to romain constant during a given test. Thus, in repeated measurenents of a given set, each seasuranent har the sana Bias. Thora He 0 Statistical equation, a5 (2) or (3), to define the bias Tinit, 8. Instead, 1t must be estimated, and this is not an easy matter since the true value 1s not known. Cal Brations helpy 22 docs a conparizon of Imeasurenents by independent methods, but in general the estimate of bias must be based on Judgnent. Coubining Errors Errors arise from many sources. These are divided arbitrarily into three categories: calibration errors, dale acquisition errors, and date reWuctton terrors: For each of these sources of error there wil) be Bias and precision components. To obtain te precision of a given paranever (11ke tenperature, pressure, or flow rate), the root sua ‘square (RSS) nethod 4% used to conbine the precision ‘indices fron the K sources of error. Thus saCsteste este . a Similarly, the bias of a given paraneter 1s given by se Catt at ee geT 2 st Uncertainty of a Parameter If a single nunber (U) is needed to express a reasonable limit of error for a given paraneter, then same model for combining the bias and precision errors ‘must be adopted, where’ the interval weu GC) represents a band within which the true value of the paraneter is expected to Tie, fora specified overage. Unite no rigorous confidence evel can be accnctatad with the uncertainty (U}, coverages analogous to the 85% and 99% confidence levels can be given for the two reconnended uncertainty models. Thus 9% coverage, (7) we and Uggs = (8% + (155141 provides 3) Uy = 8+ ESE provides 958 coverage. The Student t value 1s a function of the degrees of Freedom (y ) used in calculating S-. For large samples, (i.e, 1P30), t is set eqlal to 2, otherwise according to . a aeae cd Sut a a a AM, oO Bo Sy sho gO M5 sere Si represents the precision tnsies of he ‘degrees of Freedom oF these sane error’ sources. Uncertainty of a Result Errors in measurements of various paraneters (P) are propagated into a derived result (r) through the functional relattonship between the result and fts ‘independent’ paraneters. The relationship provides the sensitivity factors (0,), wich indicate the error propagated to the result because of unit error in the parsneter. Thus if = FPL, Py eee ND 10) where J 1s the nunber of paraneters involved, then -z 4- Ro. ayne tas ana precision errors of the paraneters are kept separate until the Tast step of computing the uncertainty of a resuTt. Thus, the precision index of a result 15 given by tb ts 83 1? ne en and the bias Vintt of a resute 4s given by 1 12 CE ty wea, 03) 4 The uncertainty of a result (5 agafn afven by the two models according’ to Y= + tS, 8 om an 300 and 12 uC a2 + tts)2 2 @ on, as) aS ‘The Student t value 1s a function of the degrees of freedon used in calculating S;. For large samples of all paraneters, (i.e., 130),"E 1s set equal to 2, Gthersise the lelch-Satterthwat te formula 1s used’ to provige v, according to ro) ASME PTC 19.1, MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY This committee was formed in 1979 to provide the Supplement’ on which to base Measurenent Uncertainty Analyses. This was for the use of the various Code and Suppienent writing committees. ‘This coomtttee has endorsed and contributed to the ‘ethodology of this paper, and has Just completed a draft for the PIC Board and Industry approval [16]. ‘The docunent includes a nomenclature and a glossary of terms that are in agreement with the various International Standards. A detatled review of the Imethods of this paper 5 Included, ay fs @ strony Section on Applied Considerations, This latter includes: miltiple test uncertainty, long versus short term tests, comparative versus absolute tests, Spacial variations, ovtl er treatment, regression uncertainty, weighting method, pre- and post-test analyses, and number of measurenents required. A step-by-step calculation procedure is given, as well 45 workea-our examples applying the method. AIL in all, we expect to satisfy the PTC requirements for an authoritative docunent on measurenent uncertainty that is casily understood and applied. ASME EC, FLUIO FLOW MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY ‘he ASHE Standards Consittee on the Heasurenent of Flutd Plow tn Cloced Conduite (HEC) war formed tn 1972 as a result of the recognition by those actively working in the field that there was a need for a Single national standard on this subject. In most Vestorn European countries, ational standards. on flow measurement have been in use for mary years. These fare usually promulgated by goverment supported agencies such as the British Standards Institute in Germany etc. "The First International Standard on Flow Measurement 1S0/RS41 was publishes in January 1967. This country has had no national standerd, but many authoritative documents on flow neasurenent existed such as the ASHE Report "Fluid Meters, Their Theory fand Application’ (17), PTC 19.5 0n Flow Measurement, ‘cA Report #3 on Gas Flow Measurement, ele. For Une Imost part, these documents were in agreesent on their methodology, coefficient values, required upstreae ‘engths, and calculation procedures. This was not true on the international scene, and the ‘initial 190 document contained many compromises between USA procedures and those in use throughout Western Curope- Differences Im required upstream lengths and coefficient values have not yet been resolved. ‘AN of uese publ teattons, those within the WA, tne European national standards, and the international Standards, address the question of the accuracy of a low measurement. However, each docunent created sts ‘om procedures for estimating the uncertainty ang values given were based on hunan judgeent usually biased by the individuals involved. ‘we Firse puov ication or a stanaara aevotea entirely to the estfmatfon of uncertainty of a flow rate ‘eeasurenent mas. 150/015 5168 published in 1976, Recognizing the inportance of this subject matter, the ASHE. Standards Committee MFC set up its first, Subcommittee, {.e., SCI with the charge to prepare a USA standara’‘on ‘Uncertainties in Flow Measurenent, It has taken many years, 10 to be exact, and much effort by the people involved, to produce the first ANSI/ASHE EC ~ 2H Standard on Uncertainties in Flow Neasurenent which was published in 1983 C18]. The methodology follows that of the preceding section of this paper ‘and should form the basis of some further, mare applied, or working documents on flow measurenent.,Soma Engineering judgnent and experience 1s stfl1 required When estimating bias or systematic errors but this 15 Clearly statea tn [1s] and all parties t0 a contract an agree beforehand to the values that should be used. Unfortunately we are stil] left with many unanswered (questions that ust be resolved fn the not-too-di stant. future.” For instance: How do ve interpret. statenents by the manufacturers of industrial Instrunentation that claim a device to be “accurate to within #0.5% of full scale"? That 1s: How such of this is blas error and how such should be attributed to random or precision error? Sintlarly, whan dealing with mater Coefficients: How do we interpret values given in LIM] for the 20 tolerance on the discharge coefficient? It is necessary that the concepts of thie paper be adnnted thrnaghout ATT eagmante af industry and one day we will have a uniform, unanbiguous method of estimating the uncertainty of not only a flow measurenent, but measuresents of all REFERENCES (17 HM ku, umceRTAINTY 18 ns's aUSiMEss, Presented to the NBS Advisory Panel, October 9, 1975. v2 Abernethy, et a ToRPG HANDBOOK FOR ESTIMATING THE UNCERTAINTY In| MEASUREMENTS. MADE WITH LIQUID PROPELLANT ROCKET ENGINE SYSTEMS, SNA (formerly ICRPG) Perforsance Standardization orking Group Report CPIA Wo, 100 (40 851 127), April 1969, [3]. R. Bs Abernethy, et al, HANDBOOK UNCERTAINTY IN hs TURBINE MEASUREMENTS, USAF Arnold Engineering Development. Center, Report AEDC-TR-73-5, February 1973. TOD te we May Cutan PRECESION REASUKEREN AND CALIBRATION, NBS'Special PusTication 300, Volune 1, 1969. 15) Rosenblatt and C. Ha Spiegelman, Novenber 1981. a 6] was POSTSCRIPT TO SPECIAL PUBLICATION 300, [71 MW. 0. Hersey, A DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF ERRORS WITH REFERENCE TD ECONOMY OF TIME, British Association for the Advancenent of Service, 1913, Reprinted by ChurchiT] Eisenhart, M85, Journal of Research, 1965. [8] 5. 0. Kline, Fe As MeClintock, DESCRIBING UICERTAINTIES iN SINGLE-SANPLE EXPERIMENTS, MECHANICAL Engineering, Volume 75, 1953. [9] MIOKP Study Group, GUIDE TO IN-FLIGHT TaRUST YEASUREHENT OF TURDOJETS AND. TURBOFANS, AGARDOGRAPH AG-237, January 1979. [10] 150 5168, MEASUREMENT OF FLUID FLOM -- ESTIMATION (OF UNCERTAINTY OF A FLOW-RATE MEASUREMENT, 1976, [11D &. @. Aherneehy, SAE IN-FLIGHT panpuLsioN MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE E93: ITS LIFE AND MORK, SAE in Aerospace Engineering Volume 1, No. sy uly 1981. [12] R. B. Abernethy, et al, Instrument Society of ‘America MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY HANDBOOK,” ISBN: 87664-483-3 Revised 1980, (13) RW. Golden, SEMISCALE UNCERTAINTY REPORT: NETHOOOLOGY, "prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, MUREG/CR-2459, Sept. 1982. [14] R. 8. Fe Schumacher, SYSTEMATIC. MEASUREMENT ERRORS, 'ASQE Journal of Quality Technology, January 1981. £15] ASQC writing Group Oraft, AMERICAN NATIONAL ‘STANDARD FOR CALTERATION SYSTEMS, 1963. (16) ASL/ASIE PTC 19.1, 1903, NEASURENENT UNCERTAINTY, (17] Fluid Neters, Tetr Theory and Application, 6th Eattion, 1971, puolisned by ASME. [18] ANSI/ASHE NFC-2, 1983, MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY FOR FLUID FLOM Ii CLOSED CONDUITS.