Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.25
Kou Chunhong
The main products of Delta Electronics Co., Ltd. are fans and motors. Their common features are rotating components. The roundness of the components affect quite huge on the characteristics of the products. Therefore, our company is very concerned about the roundness measurement of the components. For this purpose, we purchased several roundness measuring instruments to assist the production line in measurement. Nevertheless, due to various instrument brands and models, it leads to measurement results of the same product in different roundness instrument may be not the same. This affects the quality of the products greatly. After detailed and deep analysis, we found that the main reason is due to the inconsistent of the measurement standards. Thus, we used a calibrated roundness standard to calibrate all the roundness measuring instruments. After that, we used a check standard to be measured its roundness by each roundness measuring instrument. We compared the measurement results of each instrument and found that the roundness measured results are very close. This implies that the use of consistent measurement standards is very important in measurement traceability. After a 5-year of continuously calibration for the roundness measuring instruments, the feature of our components and products is more consistent and the quality is furthermore promoted.
{"title":"Measurement Comparison for Product Roundness Testing","authors":"Kou Chunhong","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.25","url":null,"abstract":"The main products of Delta Electronics Co., Ltd. are fans and motors. Their common features are rotating components. The roundness of the components affect quite huge on the characteristics of the products. Therefore, our company is very concerned about the roundness measurement of the components. For this purpose, we purchased several roundness measuring instruments to assist the production line in measurement. Nevertheless, due to various instrument brands and models, it leads to measurement results of the same product in different roundness instrument may be not the same. This affects the quality of the products greatly. After detailed and deep analysis, we found that the main reason is due to the inconsistent of the measurement standards. Thus, we used a calibrated roundness standard to calibrate all the roundness measuring instruments. After that, we used a check standard to be measured its roundness by each roundness measuring instrument. We compared the measurement results of each instrument and found that the roundness measured results are very close. This implies that the use of consistent measurement standards is very important in measurement traceability. After a 5-year of continuously calibration for the roundness measuring instruments, the feature of our components and products is more consistent and the quality is furthermore promoted.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114817629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.03
P. Packebush
Improved accuracy, faster sampling, higher resolution, increased bandwidth; all key words used by instrument designers to describe new products. Custom software, embedded controllers, and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) are enabling instrument technologies that rarely get marketed. However, their use in embedded instruments leads to challenges in evaluating measurement accuracy and servicing products. The evolution of instruments from vendor defined functionality through user defined functionality in software is on the verge of another revolution. Continued improvements in embedded controllers and programming environments, coupled with engineers growing up programming, is leading to a new generation of embedded instruments. User defined and customized for specific applications these real time systems are showing in applications that range from medical and commercial to military.
{"title":"Advances in Instrumentation using FPGAs, Microcontrollers, and Embedded Instruments","authors":"P. Packebush","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.03","url":null,"abstract":"Improved accuracy, faster sampling, higher resolution, increased bandwidth; all key words used by instrument designers to describe new products. Custom software, embedded controllers, and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) are enabling instrument technologies that rarely get marketed. However, their use in embedded instruments leads to challenges in evaluating measurement accuracy and servicing products. The evolution of instruments from vendor defined functionality through user defined functionality in software is on the verge of another revolution. Continued improvements in embedded controllers and programming environments, coupled with engineers growing up programming, is leading to a new generation of embedded instruments. User defined and customized for specific applications these real time systems are showing in applications that range from medical and commercial to military.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126812165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.13
M. Fulop
This paper introduces an uncertainty model and analyzer tool being developed for one of the world’s largest space environmental test facilities—the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B•2) located at NASA Glenn Research Center’s Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio. The B•2 is the world’s only facility capable of testing full-scale upper-stage launch vehicles and rocket engines under simulated high-altitude conditions (NASA Glenn Research Center, Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B•2), http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/ Accessed Jan. 22, 2014). Developing an uncertainty tool for the data acquisition of a test facility of this scale presents unique metrology challenges. Not only must the uncertainty analyzer tool be versatile enough to accommodate a wide range of disciplines and measurement requirements (such as temperature, pressure, strain, vacuum, and acceleration), but it must provide a user-interactive platform for evaluating system measurement uncertainty based on customer-chosen measurement scenarios ranging from the most simplistic tests to the most complex ones. The uncertainty analyzer tool, which was developed in Microsoft’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) in Excel, will serve multiple purposes, including aiding in the optimal selection of measuring and test equipment, communicating capabilities to customers, and supporting all decisions based on measurements. This paper outlines the methodology followed, the features of this tool, and how the tool can be applied to the measurement processes of different facilities.
本文介绍了为世界上最大的空间环境测试设施之一——位于美国宇航局格伦研究中心位于俄亥俄州桑达斯基附近的梅溪站的航天器推进研究设施(B•2)开发的不确定性模型和分析工具。B•2是世界上唯一能够在模拟高海拔条件下测试全尺寸上层运载火箭和火箭发动机的设施(NASA格伦研究中心，航天器推进研究设施(B•2)，http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/于2014年1月22日访问)。为这种规模的测试设备的数据采集开发不确定度工具提出了独特的计量挑战。不确定度分析仪工具不仅必须足够通用，以适应广泛的学科和测量需求(如温度、压力、应变、真空和加速度)，而且必须提供一个用户交互平台，用于基于客户选择的测量场景(从最简单的测试到最复杂的测试)评估系统测量不确定度。不确定度分析仪工具是在微软的Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)中在Excel中开发的，将有多种用途，包括帮助测量和测试设备的最佳选择，与客户沟通的能力，以及支持基于测量的所有决策。本文概述了所采用的方法，该工具的特点，以及如何将该工具应用于不同设施的测量过程。
{"title":"Uncertainty Tool For Large Data Acquisition System","authors":"M. Fulop","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.13","url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces an uncertainty model and analyzer tool being developed for one of the world’s largest space environmental test facilities—the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B•2) located at NASA Glenn Research Center’s Plum Brook Station near Sandusky, Ohio. The B•2 is the world’s only facility capable of testing full-scale upper-stage launch vehicles and rocket engines under simulated high-altitude conditions (NASA Glenn Research Center, Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B•2), http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/b2/ Accessed Jan. 22, 2014). Developing an uncertainty tool for the data acquisition of a test facility of this scale presents unique metrology challenges. Not only must the uncertainty analyzer tool be versatile enough to accommodate a wide range of disciplines and measurement requirements (such as temperature, pressure, strain, vacuum, and acceleration), but it must provide a user-interactive platform for evaluating system measurement uncertainty based on customer-chosen measurement scenarios ranging from the most simplistic tests to the most complex ones. The uncertainty analyzer tool, which was developed in Microsoft’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) in Excel, will serve multiple purposes, including aiding in the optimal selection of measuring and test equipment, communicating capabilities to customers, and supporting all decisions based on measurements. This paper outlines the methodology followed, the features of this tool, and how the tool can be applied to the measurement processes of different facilities.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125745929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.02
D. Gray
Calibration is typically performed with large, expensive standards with multiple modes of operation. These standards can be expensive to ship and difficult to move around. This makes their use in field calibration both difficult and expensive. Modular instrumentation based on standard computer buses, such as PXIe, is now available with specifications which meet or exceed those needed for many calibrations. These modular instruments are typically smaller, more flexible, less expensive, and faster than the equivalent, standalone standard. This paper will analyze several common field service use cases and show the relative merits of both traditional and modular instruments as field calibration standards.
{"title":"Using Modular Instruments to Reduce Costs","authors":"D. Gray","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.02","url":null,"abstract":"Calibration is typically performed with large, expensive standards with multiple modes of operation. These standards can be expensive to ship and difficult to move around. This makes their use in field calibration both difficult and expensive. Modular instrumentation based on standard computer buses, such as PXIe, is now available with specifications which meet or exceed those needed for many calibrations. These modular instruments are typically smaller, more flexible, less expensive, and faster than the equivalent, standalone standard. This paper will analyze several common field service use cases and show the relative merits of both traditional and modular instruments as field calibration standards.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131812002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.40
Kok Jian Ling
Bandwidth measurement of a 63 GHz real-time bandwidth oscilloscope requires a new set of equipment with high frequency capability. The new measurement system setup requires thorough system validation, software development and validation, and measurement uncertainty evaluation. The substitution measurement method is applied in the bandwidth measurement by using a resistive power splitter to deliver an RF signal to two measurement arms. Both of the measurement arms are characterized by two power sensors to obtain the corrective factor for the tracking error of the splitter. The power sensor from one of the measurement arms is then replaced by the oscilloscope input to perform the bandwidth measurement. Uncertainty for mismatch and power sensor calibration factor are the major uncertainty contributors. The measurement uncertainty is evaluated and improved to an optimum value to minimize false reject risk.
{"title":"Measurement of Oscilloscopes Bandwidth","authors":"Kok Jian Ling","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.40","url":null,"abstract":"Bandwidth measurement of a 63 GHz real-time bandwidth oscilloscope requires a new set of equipment with high frequency capability. The new measurement system setup requires thorough system validation, software development and validation, and measurement uncertainty evaluation. The substitution measurement method is applied in the bandwidth measurement by using a resistive power splitter to deliver an RF signal to two measurement arms. Both of the measurement arms are characterized by two power sensors to obtain the corrective factor for the tracking error of the splitter. The power sensor from one of the measurement arms is then replaced by the oscilloscope input to perform the bandwidth measurement. Uncertainty for mismatch and power sensor calibration factor are the major uncertainty contributors. The measurement uncertainty is evaluated and improved to an optimum value to minimize false reject risk.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129968564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.30
E. Morse
Historically, coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) are delivered to a room provided by the customer, with environmental controls (primarily temperature) that meet the CMM manufacturer's requirements. More sophisticated compensation methods and the use of advanced materials have led to the ability to place CMMs on the factory floor, but there are still environmental limits which must be satisfied in order for the CMM to perform as specified. Performance testing of CMMs follows (in general) the rubric that the error observed in a length measurement of a reference artifact must not exceed the CMM specification, provided the required environmental conditions are met. If we consider portable coordinate measuring systems (CMSs), such as articulating arm CMMs and laser trackers, the same general guidelines pertain to performance testing. There are, however, two differences in these instruments that introduce ambiguity with respect to the testing and calibration of these instruments. The first difference is that these instruments use an operator to perform measurements, where a CMM is computer controlled and largely independent of the operator. It is possible that an inexperienced operator may have difficulty in successfully completing a performance test of the instrument. If a technician representing the instrument manufacturer can successfully complete the test, is this adequate? Or must it be possible for any properly trained operator to achieve a successful result? The second difference in portable CMS is that . due to their portability . they are often sent to an offsite laboratory for performance testing and calibration. These offsite laboratories often have very good temperature control, performing the tests at 20 .C ™} 2.C, while the instruments are specified to perform at (for example) .5 .C to +40 .C. How then is the user able to be confident that the instrument will perform as designed in their own environment? What avenues are available to determine that the instrument continues to remain in conformance to the manufacturer specifications?
{"title":"Issues in the testing of Portable Coordinate Measuring Systems (CMS)","authors":"E. Morse","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.30","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) are delivered to a room provided by the customer, with environmental controls (primarily temperature) that meet the CMM manufacturer's requirements. More sophisticated compensation methods and the use of advanced materials have led to the ability to place CMMs on the factory floor, but there are still environmental limits which must be satisfied in order for the CMM to perform as specified. Performance testing of CMMs follows (in general) the rubric that the error observed in a length measurement of a reference artifact must not exceed the CMM specification, provided the required environmental conditions are met. If we consider portable coordinate measuring systems (CMSs), such as articulating arm CMMs and laser trackers, the same general guidelines pertain to performance testing. There are, however, two differences in these instruments that introduce ambiguity with respect to the testing and calibration of these instruments. The first difference is that these instruments use an operator to perform measurements, where a CMM is computer controlled and largely independent of the operator. It is possible that an inexperienced operator may have difficulty in successfully completing a performance test of the instrument. If a technician representing the instrument manufacturer can successfully complete the test, is this adequate? Or must it be possible for any properly trained operator to achieve a successful result? The second difference in portable CMS is that . due to their portability . they are often sent to an offsite laboratory for performance testing and calibration. These offsite laboratories often have very good temperature control, performing the tests at 20 .C ™} 2.C, while the instruments are specified to perform at (for example) .5 .C to +40 .C. How then is the user able to be confident that the instrument will perform as designed in their own environment? What avenues are available to determine that the instrument continues to remain in conformance to the manufacturer specifications?","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132913693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.57
Jeremy Sims
Everyone in the field of metrology talks about traceability, what it means and how it relates to the calibrations they perform. How often do metrology labs talk about how it affects the customers? The customer is left to figure out what traceability means with little guidance from the people who are supposed to understand it the best, the metrology labs. Sure, there are papers that discuss traceability and many FAQ pages that attempt to help the customer understand the link to them. It’s understandable how the customer might be confused. We in the metrology field shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that a customer doesn’t understand what it means to be traceable to NIST especially since the phrases, “traceable to NIST” and “NIST traceable” are so deeply rooted in the US measurement community history. It isn’t a surprise when customers request copies of all the certs for all the assets used on their calibration because that is what they think is needed to show traceability even though the calibration lab may be accredited. We shouldn’t be surprised when customer’s look to us to help them understand. I can tell you first hand that pointing people to the NIST’s website of FAQs doesn’t help. In this paper, I will attempt to explain how the customer’s traceability is linked through the metrology lab process allowing the customer to understand how the traceability chain works and affects their process or product.
{"title":"Traceability - We forgot the customer!","authors":"Jeremy Sims","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.57","url":null,"abstract":"Everyone in the field of metrology talks about traceability, what it means and how it relates to the calibrations they perform. How often do metrology labs talk about how it affects the customers? The customer is left to figure out what traceability means with little guidance from the people who are supposed to understand it the best, the metrology labs. Sure, there are papers that discuss traceability and many FAQ pages that attempt to help the customer understand the link to them. It’s understandable how the customer might be confused. We in the metrology field shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that a customer doesn’t understand what it means to be traceable to NIST especially since the phrases, “traceable to NIST” and “NIST traceable” are so deeply rooted in the US measurement community history. It isn’t a surprise when customers request copies of all the certs for all the assets used on their calibration because that is what they think is needed to show traceability even though the calibration lab may be accredited. We shouldn’t be surprised when customer’s look to us to help them understand. I can tell you first hand that pointing people to the NIST’s website of FAQs doesn’t help. In this paper, I will attempt to explain how the customer’s traceability is linked through the metrology lab process allowing the customer to understand how the traceability chain works and affects their process or product.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133617087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.010
Jui-Hsiang Cheng
The control of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission is one of the most critical environmental challenges facing all countries worldwide. CO2, the most representative greenhouse gas, is the primary GHG emitted through human activities, and the regulation of its emission has been an international issue. However, certain non-CO2 GHGs possess global warming potentials (GWPs) as high as tens to even ten thousands times that of CO2. For example, fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs), including CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F8, CHF3, CH2F2, SF6, NF3 and so on, have been widely used as etching process or chamber cleaning gases in semiconductor-related industries. Due to their high GWPs, F-GHGs are the most potent and longest lasting type of anthropogenic GHGs. Therefore, it has been an international goal to reduce the emissions of F-GHGs as well as other GHGs into the atmosphere. To evaluate the effectiveness of an F-GHG abatement system, measurement standards are needed for accurate and reliable quantification of the F-GHG emissions. CMS/ITRI is developing primary reference gas mixtures (PRMs) for high GWP GHGs, such as CF4, SF6 and NF3, to achieve the highest metrological qualities in gas concentration measurement. The production of gas mixtures follows ISO 6142: 2001, and the quality system is in compliance with ISO Guide 34: 2009. These PRMs can be used as primary standards to calibrate analyzers, and can act as the source of metrological traceability when performing instrument certification or validation. They can also be applied to check the accuracy of commercial infrared spectra installed in Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers for quantification to evaluate the destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) of F-GHG abatement equipment in electronics manufacturing.
{"title":"Development of Greenhouse Gases Measurement Standards to Achieve High Metrological Qualities for Evaluation of Pollutant Efficiency","authors":"Jui-Hsiang Cheng","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.010","url":null,"abstract":"The control of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emission is one of the most critical environmental challenges facing all countries worldwide. CO2, the most representative greenhouse gas, is the primary GHG emitted through human activities, and the regulation of its emission has been an international issue. However, certain non-CO2 GHGs possess global warming potentials (GWPs) as high as tens to even ten thousands times that of CO2. For example, fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs), including CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F8, CHF3, CH2F2, SF6, NF3 and so on, have been widely used as etching process or chamber cleaning gases in semiconductor-related industries. Due to their high GWPs, F-GHGs are the most potent and longest lasting type of anthropogenic GHGs. Therefore, it has been an international goal to reduce the emissions of F-GHGs as well as other GHGs into the atmosphere. To evaluate the effectiveness of an F-GHG abatement system, measurement standards are needed for accurate and reliable quantification of the F-GHG emissions. CMS/ITRI is developing primary reference gas mixtures (PRMs) for high GWP GHGs, such as CF4, SF6 and NF3, to achieve the highest metrological qualities in gas concentration measurement. The production of gas mixtures follows ISO 6142: 2001, and the quality system is in compliance with ISO Guide 34: 2009. These PRMs can be used as primary standards to calibrate analyzers, and can act as the source of metrological traceability when performing instrument certification or validation. They can also be applied to check the accuracy of commercial infrared spectra installed in Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers for quantification to evaluate the destruction or removal efficiency (DRE) of F-GHG abatement equipment in electronics manufacturing.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127893736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.51
Ed Hass
This paper was prepared for the National Conference of Standards Laboratories International Workshop and Symposium scheduled for 2014. It shares what was learned by CMS Energy’s Laboratory Services and its Metering Technology Center in regards to testing and certification verification of advanced metrology. It also defends the position that accredited laboratories are best suited to perform product testing as part of their services because those who have accreditation are accustomed to applying reference standards to secure, sustain, and accelerate acceptance of advanced technologies. In 2008, CMS Energy, the 4th largest energy utility company in the United States, temporarily transferred three employees from its accredited calibration laboratory to work at its testing facility to test high tech • newly designed Smart Grid Meter products. To this end, CMS constructed its own testing laboratory to verify vendors’ advertised claims that products adhered to C12 American National Standards Institute specification standards. In preparation for testing, CMS made the decision to upgrade its Alternating Current kilowatt-hour meter test equipment and today is uniquely recognized as the first laboratory in the United States accredited to calibrate electrical energy standards. Specific Company testing requirements are expected to subside in 2015 and CMS is looking for other new product assessment opportunities. Workforce synergies were gained and metrology dollars were prudently invested at CMS to assure capital intensive asset purchases were made wisely. What CMS learned in this process can be transferred to your facility to insure your investments are energy efficient and environmentally advanced.
{"title":"Metering Technology Center Values Laboratory Services","authors":"Ed Hass","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.51","url":null,"abstract":"This paper was prepared for the National Conference of Standards Laboratories International Workshop and Symposium scheduled for 2014. It shares what was learned by CMS Energy’s Laboratory Services and its Metering Technology Center in regards to testing and certification verification of advanced metrology. It also defends the position that accredited laboratories are best suited to perform product testing as part of their services because those who have accreditation are accustomed to applying reference standards to secure, sustain, and accelerate acceptance of advanced technologies. In 2008, CMS Energy, the 4th largest energy utility company in the United States, temporarily transferred three employees from its accredited calibration laboratory to work at its testing facility to test high tech • newly designed Smart Grid Meter products. To this end, CMS constructed its own testing laboratory to verify vendors’ advertised claims that products adhered to C12 American National Standards Institute specification standards. In preparation for testing, CMS made the decision to upgrade its Alternating Current kilowatt-hour meter test equipment and today is uniquely recognized as the first laboratory in the United States accredited to calibrate electrical energy standards. Specific Company testing requirements are expected to subside in 2015 and CMS is looking for other new product assessment opportunities. Workforce synergies were gained and metrology dollars were prudently invested at CMS to assure capital intensive asset purchases were made wisely. What CMS learned in this process can be transferred to your facility to insure your investments are energy efficient and environmentally advanced.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"388 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116329071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.15
Dennis W.K. Lee, Y.K. Yan, W.M. Leung
Load cells are force measurement transducers which form integral parts of systems for measurement of weight, torque, impact, acceleration and other quantities. Particularly in the construction industry, load cells are extensively used for calibrating force machines and determining the strengths of construction materials. Load cells are calibrated against standard masses using standard force machines based on principles of deadweight or hydraulic amplification. For international recognition purpose, load cells are calibrated in accordance with international or national standards such as ISO 376, BS 1610, EN 10002-3. However, these standards do not provide guidelines for evaluation of measurement data and expression of measurement uncertainty. There is another complication. Load cells are transducers that give out deflection values in response to the applied forces. A load cell is calibrated at specific test points only and the behavior of the test unit is expressed graphically by plotting the indicated output value against the applied force (known as a response curve). Hence, measurement results for load cells are expressed in terms of calibration coefficients, which are used to reproduce the response curve. This made the evaluation and expression of measurement uncertainty a complicated process. The document JCGM 100 "Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM)" provides a framework for uncertainty evaluation. However, the GUM does not provide specific guidelines for uncertainty estimates for load cells, in particularly, to deal with errors concerning curve fitting and interpolation. It is also known that GUM has certain limitations which render it unreliable when there is prominent nonlinearity in the model or there are dominant uncertainty contributions. In this paper, we not only demonstrate how to use the GUM framework to estimate uncertainties of a load cell but also apply the method stipulated in the "Supplement 1 to the GUM - Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method (JCGM 101)" to validate the GUM uncertainty framework.
称重传感器是力测量传感器，是测量重量、扭矩、冲击、加速度和其他量的系统的组成部分。特别是在建筑行业，测力元件被广泛用于校准测力仪和确定建筑材料的强度。根据自重或液压放大原理，使用标准测力机对标准质量进行校准。出于国际认可的目的，称重传感器是根据国际或国家标准进行校准的，如ISO 376, BS 1610, EN 10002-3。然而，这些标准并没有为测量数据的评定和测量不确定度的表示提供指导。还有另一个复杂因素。测压元件是一种传感器，它根据施加的力给出挠度值。称重传感器仅在特定的测试点进行校准，测试单元的行为通过绘制指示输出值与施加的力(称为响应曲线)的图形表示。因此，测压元件的测量结果以校准系数表示，校准系数用于再现响应曲线。这使得测量不确定度的评定和表示成为一个复杂的过程。文件JCGM 100“测量数据评估-测量不确定度表达指南(GUM)”提供了不确定度评估的框架。然而，GUM并没有为测压元件的不确定性估计提供具体的指导方针，特别是处理与曲线拟合和插值有关的误差。我们还知道，当模型中存在显著的非线性或存在主要的不确定性贡献时，GUM具有一定的局限性，使其不可靠。在本文中，我们不仅演示了如何使用GUM框架来估计称重传感器的不确定性，而且还应用了“GUM补充1 -使用蒙特卡罗方法传播分布(JCGM 101)”中规定的方法来验证GUM不确定性框架。
{"title":"Uncertainty Estimation for Force Measurements","authors":"Dennis W.K. Lee, Y.K. Yan, W.M. Leung","doi":"10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51843/wsproceedings.2014.15","url":null,"abstract":"Load cells are force measurement transducers which form integral parts of systems for measurement of weight, torque, impact, acceleration and other quantities. Particularly in the construction industry, load cells are extensively used for calibrating force machines and determining the strengths of construction materials. Load cells are calibrated against standard masses using standard force machines based on principles of deadweight or hydraulic amplification. For international recognition purpose, load cells are calibrated in accordance with international or national standards such as ISO 376, BS 1610, EN 10002-3. However, these standards do not provide guidelines for evaluation of measurement data and expression of measurement uncertainty. There is another complication. Load cells are transducers that give out deflection values in response to the applied forces. A load cell is calibrated at specific test points only and the behavior of the test unit is expressed graphically by plotting the indicated output value against the applied force (known as a response curve). Hence, measurement results for load cells are expressed in terms of calibration coefficients, which are used to reproduce the response curve. This made the evaluation and expression of measurement uncertainty a complicated process. The document JCGM 100 \"Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM)\" provides a framework for uncertainty evaluation. However, the GUM does not provide specific guidelines for uncertainty estimates for load cells, in particularly, to deal with errors concerning curve fitting and interpolation. It is also known that GUM has certain limitations which render it unreliable when there is prominent nonlinearity in the model or there are dominant uncertainty contributions. In this paper, we not only demonstrate how to use the GUM framework to estimate uncertainties of a load cell but also apply the method stipulated in the \"Supplement 1 to the GUM - Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method (JCGM 101)\" to validate the GUM uncertainty framework.","PeriodicalId":446344,"journal":{"name":"NCSL International Workshop & Symposium Conference Proceedings 2014","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130255173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：