无气压计测量的不确定度评定。第二部分:“蒙特卡罗法”。

IF 1.3 4区 工程技术 Q3 INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION
Mingming Wei, Yan Qi, Xingwang Chen, Taocheng Zhou, Jie Miao
{"title":"无气压计测量的不确定度评定。第二部分:“蒙特卡罗法”。","authors":"Mingming Wei, Yan Qi, Xingwang Chen, Taocheng Zhou, Jie Miao","doi":"10.1063/5.0233769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To further improve the accuracy of the measurement uncertainty evaluation results of the aneroid barometer and verify the applicability of the GUM evaluation of the aneroid barometer, the Monte Carlo method (MCM) is proposed to evaluate the measurement uncertainty of the calibration results of the aneroid barometer. An improved calibration technique for the aneroid barometer was utilized in this process, yielding more precise calibration data through a meticulously designed experimental program. Subsequently, single-batch MCM and adaptive MCM (AMCM) were applied separately for evaluation, and their results were compared and analyzed against the GUM method to verify the applicability of each approach. In addition, to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of the new methods, this study also conducted control evaluations using traditional methods that did not account for the effects of the coefficient box and indicator box performance. The results show that MCM is superior to the GUM method in accuracy and reliability and is also more efficient in execution. In particular, the evaluation results of single-batch MCM and AMCM are in good agreement, but AMCM shows a superior performance with fewer simulations and more efficient execution. When evaluating the uncertainty of the temperature coefficient, introducing the new method has little effect on the evaluation results; however, when evaluating the uncertainty of the indication error, introducing a new method can significantly improve the accuracy of the evaluation results. This indicates that the new method has significant advantages in improving the accuracy of the evaluation results. In addition, the GUM method was validated by MCM, and the results showed that the GUM method is still suitable for the measurement uncertainty evaluation of the indication error of the aneroid barometer. Therefore, it is recommended that MCM, especially AMCM, which is more efficient in implementation, should be preferred in the field of measurement uncertainty evaluation of the aneroid barometer; meanwhile, the GUM method, as the basic assessment method in this field, should be retained and continue to play its role.</p>","PeriodicalId":21111,"journal":{"name":"Review of Scientific Instruments","volume":"96 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertainty evaluation for aneroid barometer measurement part II: \\\"Monte Carlo method\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Mingming Wei, Yan Qi, Xingwang Chen, Taocheng Zhou, Jie Miao\",\"doi\":\"10.1063/5.0233769\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To further improve the accuracy of the measurement uncertainty evaluation results of the aneroid barometer and verify the applicability of the GUM evaluation of the aneroid barometer, the Monte Carlo method (MCM) is proposed to evaluate the measurement uncertainty of the calibration results of the aneroid barometer. An improved calibration technique for the aneroid barometer was utilized in this process, yielding more precise calibration data through a meticulously designed experimental program. Subsequently, single-batch MCM and adaptive MCM (AMCM) were applied separately for evaluation, and their results were compared and analyzed against the GUM method to verify the applicability of each approach. In addition, to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of the new methods, this study also conducted control evaluations using traditional methods that did not account for the effects of the coefficient box and indicator box performance. The results show that MCM is superior to the GUM method in accuracy and reliability and is also more efficient in execution. In particular, the evaluation results of single-batch MCM and AMCM are in good agreement, but AMCM shows a superior performance with fewer simulations and more efficient execution. When evaluating the uncertainty of the temperature coefficient, introducing the new method has little effect on the evaluation results; however, when evaluating the uncertainty of the indication error, introducing a new method can significantly improve the accuracy of the evaluation results. This indicates that the new method has significant advantages in improving the accuracy of the evaluation results. In addition, the GUM method was validated by MCM, and the results showed that the GUM method is still suitable for the measurement uncertainty evaluation of the indication error of the aneroid barometer. Therefore, it is recommended that MCM, especially AMCM, which is more efficient in implementation, should be preferred in the field of measurement uncertainty evaluation of the aneroid barometer; meanwhile, the GUM method, as the basic assessment method in this field, should be retained and continue to play its role.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Scientific Instruments\",\"volume\":\"96 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Scientific Instruments\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0233769\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Scientific Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0233769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了进一步提高无气压计测量不确定度评定结果的准确性,验证无气压计GUM评定方法的适用性,提出了蒙特卡罗方法(MCM)对无气压计标定结果的测量不确定度进行评定。在此过程中采用了一种改进的无气压计校准技术,通过精心设计的实验程序获得了更精确的校准数据。随后,分别应用单批MCM和自适应MCM (AMCM)进行评价,并将其结果与GUM方法进行对比分析,验证每种方法的适用性。此外,为了全面评估新方法的有效性,本研究还使用传统方法进行了对照评估,但未考虑系数盒和指标盒性能的影响。结果表明,MCM方法在精度和可靠性上优于GUM方法,在执行效率上也优于GUM方法。其中,单批MCM和AMCM的评价结果吻合较好,但AMCM的性能更优,仿真量更少,执行效率更高。在评定温度系数不确定度时,引入新方法对评定结果影响不大;然而,在评定示值误差的不确定度时,引入新方法可显著提高评定结果的准确性。这表明新方法在提高评价结果的准确性方面具有显著的优势。此外,通过MCM对GUM方法进行了验证,结果表明GUM方法仍然适用于无气压计指示误差的测量不确定度评定。因此,建议在无气压计的测量不确定度评定领域优先采用MCM,尤其是实施效率更高的AMCM;同时,应保留并继续发挥GUM方法作为该领域的基本评估方法的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncertainty evaluation for aneroid barometer measurement part II: "Monte Carlo method".

To further improve the accuracy of the measurement uncertainty evaluation results of the aneroid barometer and verify the applicability of the GUM evaluation of the aneroid barometer, the Monte Carlo method (MCM) is proposed to evaluate the measurement uncertainty of the calibration results of the aneroid barometer. An improved calibration technique for the aneroid barometer was utilized in this process, yielding more precise calibration data through a meticulously designed experimental program. Subsequently, single-batch MCM and adaptive MCM (AMCM) were applied separately for evaluation, and their results were compared and analyzed against the GUM method to verify the applicability of each approach. In addition, to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of the new methods, this study also conducted control evaluations using traditional methods that did not account for the effects of the coefficient box and indicator box performance. The results show that MCM is superior to the GUM method in accuracy and reliability and is also more efficient in execution. In particular, the evaluation results of single-batch MCM and AMCM are in good agreement, but AMCM shows a superior performance with fewer simulations and more efficient execution. When evaluating the uncertainty of the temperature coefficient, introducing the new method has little effect on the evaluation results; however, when evaluating the uncertainty of the indication error, introducing a new method can significantly improve the accuracy of the evaluation results. This indicates that the new method has significant advantages in improving the accuracy of the evaluation results. In addition, the GUM method was validated by MCM, and the results showed that the GUM method is still suitable for the measurement uncertainty evaluation of the indication error of the aneroid barometer. Therefore, it is recommended that MCM, especially AMCM, which is more efficient in implementation, should be preferred in the field of measurement uncertainty evaluation of the aneroid barometer; meanwhile, the GUM method, as the basic assessment method in this field, should be retained and continue to play its role.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Scientific Instruments
Review of Scientific Instruments 工程技术-物理:应用
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
758
审稿时长
2.6 months
期刊介绍: Review of Scientific Instruments, is committed to the publication of advances in scientific instruments, apparatuses, and techniques. RSI seeks to meet the needs of engineers and scientists in physics, chemistry, and the life sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信