Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison

Ojanen, Maija; Shpak, Maksim; Kärhä, Petri; Leecharoen, R.; Ikonen, Erkki

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/46/5/002

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The measurement uncertainty reported by the linking participant during the key comparison has two components u 2 i = u 2 uc,i + u 2 cor,i due to random and correlated sources of error, respectively. However, u uc,i affects the uncertainty of the key comparison reference value x ref , making the terms −X ref and E r,i dependent on each other in equation (7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parameter u i,r,BC describes the uncertainty associated with random effects for the link laboratory in the bilateral comparison and s BC the transfer uncertainty of the bilateral comparison. The original form of equation ( 15) in [2] was used in [1] to link the results of a bilateral key comparison of spectral irradiance to the corresponding CCPR key comparison. When using the correct equation, the largest reduction in the uncertainty of the linked participant's degrees of equivalence is given by a factor of 0.986 at the 290 nm wavelength.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corrigendum: Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison (2009 Metrologia 46, 397–403)

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrigendum: Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison (2009 Metrologia 46, 397–403)

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Report of the spectral irradiance comparison EURAMET.PR-K1.a.1 between MIKES (Finland) and NIMT (Thailand)

Ojanen¹,

Shpak²,

Kärhä³

et al. 2008

Metrologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bilateral comparison of the spectral irradiance scales between MIKES (Finland) and NIMT (Thailand) was carried out at 22 wavelengths between 290 nm and 900 nm. MIKES acted as the pilot and link to the results of the key comparison CCPR-K1.a. The spectral irradiance values measured by NIMT generally agree with the key comparison reference value within the expanded uncertainty. Only exceptions are results at wavelengths 300 nm, 450 nm, and 500 nm, where the ratios between the degree of equivalence (DoE) and the expanded uncertainty of DoE (k = 2) are 1.0, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively.

show abstract

Final report of the APMP water flow key comparison: APMP.M.FF-K1

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key comparison, APMP.M.FF-K1, was undertaken by APMP/TCFF, the Technical Committee for Fluid Flow (TCFF) under the Asia Pacific Metrology Program (APMP). One objective of the key comparison was to demonstrate the degree of equivalence among six participating laboratories (KRISS, NMIJ, VMI, CMS, NIM and VNIIM) in water flow rate metrology by comparing the results with the key comparison reference value (KCRV) determined from the CCM.FF-K1 key comparison. The other objective of this key comparison was to provide supporting evidence for the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs), which had been declared by the participating laboratories during this key comparison. The Transfer Standard Package (TSP) was a Coriolis mass flowmeter, which had been used in the CCM.FF-K1 key comparison.Because the K-factors in the APMP.M.FF-K1 key comparison were slightly lower than the K-factors of the CCM.FF-K1 key comparison due to long-term drifts of the TSP, a correction value D was introduced. The value of D was given by a weighted sum between two link laboratories (NMIJ and KRISS), which participated in both the CCM.FF-K1 and the APMP.M.FF-K1 key comparisons. By this correction, the K-factors were laid between 12.004 and 12.017 at either low (Re = 254 000) or high (Re = 561 000) flow rates.Most of the calibration data were within expected uncertainty bounds. However, some data showed undulations, which gave large fluctuations of the metering factor at Re = 561 000. Calculation of degrees of equivalence showed that all the participating laboratories had deviations between −0.009 and 0.007 pulses/kg from the CCM.FF-K1 KCRV at either the low or the high flow rates. In case of En calculation, all the participating laboratories showed values less than 1, indicating that the corrected K-factors of all the laboratories were equivalent with the KCRV at both Re = 254 000 and 561 000. When the corrected K-factors from two participating laboratories were compared, all the numbers of equivalence showed values less than 1, indicating equivalence.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).

show abstract

Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Corrigendum: Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison (2009 Metrologia 46, 397–403)

Corrigendum: Uncertainty evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key comparison (2009 Metrologia 46, 397–403)

Report of the spectral irradiance comparison EURAMET.PR-K1.a.1 between MIKES (Finland) and NIMT (Thailand)

Final report of the APMP water flow key comparison: APMP.M.FF-K1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About