Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (16) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (13)
- Deutsch (2)
- Mehrsprachig (1)
Schlagworte
- Correlation (2)
- Measurement uncertainty (2)
- Messunsicherheit (2)
- Reference methods (2)
- Bias handling (1)
- Covariances (1)
- Elementanalytik (1)
- Ergebnisunsicherheit (1)
- GUM approach (1)
- Kalibrierlösungen (1)
An der BAM wurde Anfang 1996 die GUM-konforme Ermittlung und Angabe der Unsicherheit quantitativer Prüfergebnisse eingeführt. Nach einem kurzen Überblick über die wesentlichen Schritte und die bisherigen Erfahrungen wird die Ermittlung der Unsicherheit an Beispielen aus zwei Schwerpunktsbereichen der Prüftätigkeit der BAM vorgestellt: atomspektrometrische Analyse anorganischer Materialien und mechanisch-technologische Werkstoffprüfung. Abschließend wird ein Ausblick auf die Ermittlung der Unsicherheit qualitativer Prüfergebnisse gegeben. Diese Arbeit ist ein ergänzender Beitrag zur Thematik des tm-Sonderheftes über GUM-konforme Auswertung von Messungen, das im Januar 2001 erschienen ist.
At BAM, GUM-compliant evaluation and expression of uncertainty for quantitative test results was introduced in early 1996. After a brief overview of essential steps and experience so far, uncertainty evaluation is presented for examples from two main fields of BAM´s testing activities: analysis of inorganic materials by atomic spectrometry and mechanical materials testing using tensile/compression testing machines. Finally, an outlook is given on the evaluation of uncertainty for qualitative test results. This paper is a supplementary contribution to the topic of the tm special edition on GUM-compliant evaluation of measurements published January 2001.
Generic issues and current approaches in the evaluation of bias studies with respect to estimation of measurement uncertainty are discussed, focusing on two main scenarios. In the first, for a within-laboratory assessment of a fully developed uncertainty budget, bias studies are carried out to verify the pre-established performance of a measurement procedure, and design corrective actions if necessary. In the second scenario, for an estimation of measurement uncertainty from within-laboratory validation data, bias studies are carried out to ldquocalibraterdquo the whole measurement procedure and evaluate its performance, more specifically to estimate the uncertainty of measurement by combination of bias and precision estimates.
Zusammenfassung
If the value of a derived measurement standard is assigned by comparison with a reference standard of the same quantity, the uncertainty is increased by the additional uncertainty on the difference measurement. This basic fact has lead to the general belief that the uncertainty of derived standards is always larger than that of the reference standards. However, if the value of a derived standard is assigned by comparison with several independent reference standards using an appropriate average, the increase of uncertainty due to the uncertainty on difference measurement may be counterbalanced by the the well-known decrease of uncertainty through averaging. The gain of accuracy made possible by this mechanism is restricted to second-generation standards. Further gain through iteration is prevented by correlation between standards derived from the same set of reference standards. As a consequence, the concept of metrological hierarchy levels, relating to traceability chains, becomes questionable for traceability networks.