Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
- Vortrag (1)
- Video (1)
- Posterpräsentation (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
- Forschungsdatensatz (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (6)
Schlagworte
- Round robin (6) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
These are four datasets that were made available to the participants of the Small-angle Scattering data analysis round robin. The intent was to find out how comparable results from different researchers are, who analyse exactly the same processed, corrected dataset.
In this repository, there are:
1) a PDF document with more details for the study,
2) the datasets for people to try and fit
3) an Excel spreadsheet to document the results.
Datasets 1 and 2 were modified from: Deumer, Jerome, & Gollwitzer, Christian. (2022). npSize_SAXS_data_PTB (Version 5) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5886834
Datasets 3 and 4 were collected in-house on the MOUSE instrument.
This is a remote presentation I gave at the 2022 Small-angle Scattering conference in Campinas, Brazil. The video has been obtained from the conference organisers with their explicit permission for use on YouTube. I've tried to spruce up the audio from the remote recording the best I could.
The conference abstract for this talk was:
"How much do we, the small-angle scatterers, influence the results of an investigation? What uncertainty do we add by our human diversity in thoughts and approaches, and is this significant compared to the uncertainty from the instrumental measurement factors?
After our previous Round Robin on data collection, we know that many laboratories can collect reasonably consistent small-angle scattering data on easy samples[1]. To investigate the next, human component, we compiled four existing datasets from globular (roughly spherical) scatterers, each exhibiting a common complication, and asked the participants to apply their usual methods and toolset to the quantification of the results (https://lookingatnothing.com/index.ph....
Accompanying the datasets was a modicum of accompanying information to help with the interpretation of the data, similar to what we normally receive from our collaborators. More than 30 participants reported back with volume fractions, mean sizes and size distribution widths of the particle populations in the samples, as well as information on their self-assessed level of experience and years in the field.
While the Round Robin is still underway (until the 25th of April, 2022), the initial results already show significant spread in the results. Some of these are due to the variety in interpretation of the meaning of the requested parameters, as well as simple human errors, both of which are easy to correct for. Nevertheless, even after correcting for these differences in understanding, a significant spread remains. This highlights an urgent challenge to our community: how can we better help ourselves and our colleagues obtain more reliable results, how could we take the human factor out of the equation, so to speak?
In this talk, we will introduce the four datasets, their origins and challenges. Hot off the press, we will summarize the anonymized, quantified results of the Data Analysis Round Robin. (Incidentally, we will also see if a correlation exists between experience and proximity of the result to the median). Lastly, potential avenues for improving our field will be offered based on the findings, ranging from low-effort yet somehow controversial improvements, to high-effort foundational considerations."
When it comes to higher accuracies, new technologies and real applications in additive manufacturing, there is one topic which cannot be avoided: The material response on the chosen processing parameters and its agreement and correspondence with literature data of the wrought material grade counterpart. In industrial Additive Manufacturing (AM) standards in terms of printing parameters, protection gas atmospheres or powder handling instructions are not obligatory. Therefore, the question must be answered whether the AM process is reproducible and reliable over different printing companies. This was the motivation to realize a round robin test between 8 European printing companies and academic partners. The consortium had printed and tested fatigue and tensile testing bars under plant-specific conditions. A commonly used cast aluminum alloy, AlSi10Mg, was chosen as test material for the PBF-LB/M process. Differences of the results between the partners and the scatter itself were discussed in detail.
When it comes to higher accuracies, new technologies and real applications in additive manufacturing, there is one topic which cannot be avoided: The material response on the chosen processing parameters and its agreement and correspondence with literature data of the wrought material grade counterpart. In industrial Additive Manufacturing (AM) standards in terms of printing parameters, protection gas atmospheres or powder handling instructions are not obligatory. Therefore, the question must be answered whether the AM process is reproducible and reliable over different printing companies. This was the motivation to realize a round robin test between 8 European printing companies and academic partners. The consortium had printed and tested fatigue and tensile testing bars under plant-specific conditions. A commonly used cast aluminum alloy, AlSi10Mg, was chosen as test material for the PBF-LB/M process. Differences of the results between the partners and the scatter itself were discussed in detail.
How much do we, the small-angle scatterers, influence the results of an investigation? What uncertainty do we add by our human diversity in thoughts and approaches, and is this significant compared to the uncertainty from the instrumental measurement factors?
After our previous Round Robin on data collection, we know that many laboratories can collect reasonably consistent small-angle scattering data on easy samples1. To investigate the next, human component, we compiled four existing datasets from globular (roughly spherical) scatterers, each exhibiting a common complication, and asked the participants to apply their usual methods and toolset to the quantification of the results https://lookingatnothing.com/index.php/archives/3274).
Accompanying the datasets was a modicum of accompanying information to help with the interpretation of the data, similar to what we normally receive from our collaborators. More than 30 participants reported back with volume fractions, mean sizes and size distribution widths of the particle populations in the samples, as well as information on their self-assessed level of experience and years in the field.
While the Round Robin is still underway (until the 25th of April, 2022), the initial results already show significant spread in the results. Some of these are due to the variety in interpretation of the meaning of the requested parameters, as well as simple human errors, both of which are easy to correct for. Nevertheless, even after correcting for these differences in understanding, a significant spread remains. This highlights an urgent challenge to our community: how can we better help ourselves and our colleagues obtain more reliable results, how could we take the human factor out of the equation, so to speak?
In this talk, we will introduce the four datasets, their origins and challenges. Hot off the press, we will summarize the anonymized, quantified results of the Data Analysis Round Robin. (Incidentally, we will also see if a correlation exists between experience and proximity of the result to the median). Lastly, potential avenues for improving our field will be offered based on the findings, ranging from low-effort yet somehow controversial improvements, to high-effort foundational considerations.
The classification of solid oxidizers according to the regulations on the transport of dangerous goods (based on the UN Recommendations/Model Regulations and accepted by all international organisations for the transport of dangerous goods as ADR, IMO, IATA) and in future also according to the GHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) is performed on the basis of the results of the UN test O.1 (UN test O.1 ―Test for oxidizing solids‖ described in chapter 34.4.1 in the Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods – Manual of Tests and Criteria, see [1]). This test was introduced into the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria in 1995 as a replacement for a similar test from 1986. Even if the UN O.1 test as described in the current 5th revised edition of UN Manual of Tests and Criteria gives some improvements compared to the old test, which had had many deficiencies, there are still some problems left with this test in terms of e.g. repeatability or reproducibility of test results, how to handle compacted or multilayer formulations like tablets, toxicity and partly significantly varying particle size distribution within defined fractions of 150 μm to 300 μm of the reference oxidizer potassium bromate (KBrO3). For this reason the IGUS EOS working group installed an ad-hoc working group in 2002 assigned with the task to propose solutions for the existing problems. The appropriateness of such proposed solutions has to be proved by the method of interlaboratory (round robin) tests before they are presented for the adoption to the UN Committee of Experts on the TDG and on the GHS with a proposal of a completely revised test procedure.