Professional Documents
Culture Documents
21
22
Major sources of measurement uncertainty can be grouped into the following categories.
1) Uncertainty due to the calibration equipment and calibration processes
2) Uncertainty of the Testing Machine as
calibrated
3) Uncertainty of the Testing Machine
during use
4) Uncertainty of the Test Results
It must be understood that the uncertainty values presented in these examples are
representative of a particular uncertainty
analysis and do not represent all material
testing machines of any specific type and or
configuration. It should also be recognized
that various interpretations related to error
sources and their statistical contributions
may vary depending on the method of analysis applied.
provides information so that adequate adjustments can be made if required. Performing a calibration does not always require an
adjustment.
Uncertainty Static Calibration:
Usc = v 0.052 + 0.252 + 0.042 + 0.022 +
0.022 = 0.26%
(Root Sum Squared Method RSS)
Source
Primary Force Calibration
Force-Proving Device
Long Term Drift of Calibration Device
Environment
Process Repeatability
Uncertainty (3)
0.05% Class 1 (5)
0.25% Class 1
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
Distribution (4)
normal
normal
rectangular
rectangular
normal
Primary Force Proving Devices are calibrated in compliance with well documented
practices. Although many countries have
developed there own calibration/verification
procedures, it is likely that most countries
will soon adopt ISO 376 as a common guide
when calibrating force-proving devices.
Table 1, shows the parameters evaluated
during an ISO 376 calibration and associated
classification criteria. (6)
I believe that most countries will also be
adopting ISO 7500-1 as a guide when calibrating the static force indicating performance of the testing machine. Table 2,
shows the measurement parameters and
23
(6)
(7)
(8)
Uncertainty
%
Class
of reproducibility
of repeatability
of interpolation
of zero
of reversibility
calibration
force %
00
0.05
0.025
0.025
0.012
0.07
0.01
0.5
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.025
0.15
0.02
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.30
0.05
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.50
0.10
The uncertainty of the calibration force is obtained by combining the random and systematic errors of the calibration force.
Table 1
accuracy
q
zero
fo
Relative
resolution
a
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.05
0.25
1.0
1.0
1.5
0.1
0.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
0.2
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.5
0.3
1.5
Table 2
24
(9)
25
Uncertainty
0.20%
0.20%
Distribution
rectangular
rectangular
26
Uncertainty
.04%
.1%
.5%
N/A
.1%
Distribution
rectangular
rectangular
rectangular
Uncertainty
.01%
N/A
Distribution
rectangular
Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Distribution
Uncertainty
.1%
N/A
.5%
.2% to > 10%
Distribution
rectangular
rectangular
Environment
Source
Temperature
Power Fluctuations
Specimen Alignment
Source
Testing Machine and Grips
Damage to the machine
(12)
I have not included the uncertainty contribution values for Errors in reading displays or
for Test Speed because I have included a
fairly large value for resolution. Depending on
the type of evaluation and testing being performed, one of the other sources of resolution error may become the dominate contributor resulting in a value less than or greater
than 0.5%.
normal
rectangular
27
Environment
Temperature during a test may be significantly different than the temperature during
calibration. An evaluation of the effect of
this difference should be performed. Where
applicable, test results may be corrected
due to temperature differences. Temperature
changes during the test may also affect the
test results. These gradients should be
known and included in the uncertainty analysis.
A typical load cell temperature coefficients specification.(13)
Effect on Output - %/C Maximum: 0.0015
Effect on Zero - %RO/C Maximum: 0.0015
We have found in our testing that as long
as the load cell temperature remains at or
very near to the temperature at which the
test is started, the error due to the temperature being significantly different than the
temperature at the time of calibration is minimal. Because the system load cell is normally zeroed at the beginning of a test, if the
temperature then changes during the test,
28
Specimen Alignment
Good specimen alignment can be critical
to the life of the specimen being tested
and thus important to the data characterizing a particular material property. Testing
Machines and Grips are manufactured to
apply and maintain good alignment. Again, it
is difficult to put an uncertainty value to this
contributor because the value would be only
significant for a specific type of specimen
and test. Some manufacturers produce
alignment devices that are easy to use and
can be adjusted with force applied. I have
found these to work well when good alignment is critical.
Damage to the machine can occur at
any time. Inspection of the system is critical
to maintaining operational performance. A
damaged machine can induce an out of
alignment condition. Poorly maintained systems can lead to seal friction problems,
which can result in loss of hydraulic pressure
and oil leakage during cyclic testing. ServoHydraulic systems require a clean oil supply
in order to operate optimally. Most manufacturers will offer oil sample testing. Poorly
maintained or damaged electro-mechanical
testing machines may have excessive gear
play and or drive belts that are stretched.
This can cause excessive backlash and start
up lag times. Assigning a value for measurement uncertainty due to machine wear and
or damage is difficult.
With all potential sources of measurement uncertainty in this section thus far,
round robin testing between different testing
machines and if possible between different
laboratories using adequate reference materials can provide evidence that the combined
measurement uncertainty due to these contributors are minimized and with in adequate
control limits.
pre-travel before force was applied. The brittle nature of the polycarbonate specimen
resulted in a test duration that lasted only 0.2
second. There were two basic problems with
this test. The test engineer assumed that the
crosshead would be moving at the expected
speed when the failure occurred. Specimen
failure was defined as the peak force at
which the component physically came apart.
Speed (in./min)
29
15
10
5
0
0
45
85
125
165
225
milliseconds
Force (N)
Force (N)
2106
187
8.9
2301
195
8.5
2507
206
8.5
1919
30
It is important to note that this test resulted in errors that where conservative in
nature. The actual peak forces required to
cause the specimen to fail were much
greater than the test results would indicate.
Therefore related to safety and liability this
was an overly safe test.
This system was not capable of performing the test with in the expected design
specifications. There are a couple of things
that could have been done in order to run
this test closer to the design criteria. In order
for the crosshead to be moving at the
desired speed when the event occurs, the
system needs sufficient time to overcome
ramp up conditions. This could be accomplished by designing fixtures that let the
crosshead move a distance prior to the
application of force on the specimen. In
order to acquire test data with in the desired
5% specification, the systems data acquisition system would need to sample much
faster. The system had sufficient static resolution but dynamically it could not acquire
The equipment used to validate the testing protocol consisted of a certified traceable
high-speed data acquisition system capable
of 100,000 samples per second with 16 bits
of resolution. The data acquisition system
was connected to a certified force-proving
device fixtured in the load train during the
test. I wrote custom software to use with the
system in order to acquire and present the
results.
Recommendations
One method of determining the uncertainty of test results is to obtain the standard
deviation of a series of tests performed with
one particular set of control samples (Ucsr)
on the same machine. The standard uncertainty will include data scatter attributed to
the samples. If reference material samples
are available, tests can be run and the standard deviation derived (Urmsr). These values
are very dependent on the type of materials
and tests performed. The range of values
can easily range from 0.1% to 1.0% and
greater. For the purpose of this exercise I will
assign 1.0% to Ucsr and 0.5% to Urmsr.
31
32
Bibliography
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997,
U.S. Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement.
[6]
[7]
[8]
EAL-G22, Uncertainty of
Calibration Results in Force
Measurements
[9]