Evaluation of measurement uncertainty for handheld differential pressure anemometer

IF 2.3 3区工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2025.102826

Mingming Wei , Yan Qi , Xiushu Pu , Shun Yao , Ling Hong

{"title":"Evaluation of measurement uncertainty for handheld differential pressure anemometer","authors":"Mingming Wei , Yan Qi , Xiushu Pu , Shun Yao , Ling Hong","doi":"10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2025.102826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to evaluate the uncertainty of calibration results of the handheld differential pressure anemometer (HDPA) to guarantee its measurement accuracy and reliability. In this study, an HDPA was calibrated to acquire experimental data, and GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) and MCM (Monte Carlo Method, including single-run MCM and adaptive MCM(AMCM)) were employed to evaluate its uncertainty. The high accuracy of MCM was utilized as a benchmark to verify the applicability of the GUM method in this domain. Comparative analysis results indicated that the GUM method failed to meet the requirements in certain situations, particularly when pursuing high accuracy in the scene. The MCM method demonstrated more prominent advantages. Additionally, the evaluation results of single-run MCM and AMCM were highly consistent, but AMCM was significantly superior to the former in terms of evaluation efficiency. This study not only confirmed the applicability of GUM and MCM in the evaluation of calibration uncertainty of HDPA but, more importantly, revealed the limitations of the GUM method for the first time and highlighted the unique advantages of AMCM in improving evaluation efficiency and accuracy. Therefore, new insights and practical suggestions are provided for the field of high-precision measurement of HDPA; namely, the more efficient AMCM method should be given priority in uncertainty evaluation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50440,"journal":{"name":"Flow Measurement and Instrumentation","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 102826"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Flow Measurement and Instrumentation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955598625000184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the uncertainty of calibration results of the handheld differential pressure anemometer (HDPA) to guarantee its measurement accuracy and reliability. In this study, an HDPA was calibrated to acquire experimental data, and GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) and MCM (Monte Carlo Method, including single-run MCM and adaptive MCM(AMCM)) were employed to evaluate its uncertainty. The high accuracy of MCM was utilized as a benchmark to verify the applicability of the GUM method in this domain. Comparative analysis results indicated that the GUM method failed to meet the requirements in certain situations, particularly when pursuing high accuracy in the scene. The MCM method demonstrated more prominent advantages. Additionally, the evaluation results of single-run MCM and AMCM were highly consistent, but AMCM was significantly superior to the former in terms of evaluation efficiency. This study not only confirmed the applicability of GUM and MCM in the evaluation of calibration uncertainty of HDPA but, more importantly, revealed the limitations of the GUM method for the first time and highlighted the unique advantages of AMCM in improving evaluation efficiency and accuracy. Therefore, new insights and practical suggestions are provided for the field of high-precision measurement of HDPA; namely, the more efficient AMCM method should be given priority in uncertainty evaluation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 工程技术-工程：机械

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

13.60%

发文量

123

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Flow Measurement and Instrumentation is dedicated to disseminating the latest research results on all aspects of flow measurement, in both closed conduits and open channels. The design of flow measurement systems involves a wide variety of multidisciplinary activities including modelling the flow sensor, the fluid flow and the sensor/fluid interactions through the use of computation techniques; the development of advanced transducer systems and their associated signal processing and the laboratory and field assessment of the overall system under ideal and disturbed conditions. FMI is the essential forum for critical information exchange, and contributions are particularly encouraged in the following areas of interest: Modelling: the application of mathematical and computational modelling to the interaction of fluid dynamics with flowmeters, including flowmeter behaviour, improved flowmeter design and installation problems. Application of CAD/CAE techniques to flowmeter modelling are eligible. Design and development: the detailed design of the flowmeter head and/or signal processing aspects of novel flowmeters. Emphasis is given to papers identifying new sensor configurations, multisensor flow measurement systems, non-intrusive flow metering techniques and the application of microelectronic techniques in smart or intelligent systems. Calibration techniques: including descriptions of new or existing calibration facilities and techniques, calibration data from different flowmeter types, and calibration intercomparison data from different laboratories. Installation effect data: dealing with the effects of non-ideal flow conditions on flowmeters. Papers combining a theoretical understanding of flowmeter behaviour with experimental work are particularly welcome.