2002
DOI: 10.1117/12.468170
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

<title>Investigations to assess the best accuracy attainable in accelerometer calibrations</title>

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Uncertainty evaluations for measurements using laser interferometry [ 4 ] had demonstrated that relative expanded uncertainties (k = 2) < 0.1 % can be attained, e.g., 0.028 % in a measurement of a displacement amplitude 2 µm, and 0.065 % in a measurement of an accelerometer sensitivity (magnitude) of 0.123 pC/(m/s²) at a vibration frequency of 800 Hz using the fringe-counting method. Experimental investigations [ 5 ], [ 7 ] verified such high accuracy (expanded uncertainties < 0.1 %) attainable in vibration measurements and calibrations. Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 demonstrate that in simultaneous vibration measurements using different methods and techniques, no bias (systematic deviation) could be found between the different standard methods (Methods 1, 2 and 3) specified in [ 12 ], [ 22 ] and [ 22 ] as well.…”
Section: Measurement Ranges and Accuracy (Uncertainty) Achievable Witsupporting
confidence: 50%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Uncertainty evaluations for measurements using laser interferometry [ 4 ] had demonstrated that relative expanded uncertainties (k = 2) < 0.1 % can be attained, e.g., 0.028 % in a measurement of a displacement amplitude 2 µm, and 0.065 % in a measurement of an accelerometer sensitivity (magnitude) of 0.123 pC/(m/s²) at a vibration frequency of 800 Hz using the fringe-counting method. Experimental investigations [ 5 ], [ 7 ] verified such high accuracy (expanded uncertainties < 0.1 %) attainable in vibration measurements and calibrations. Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 demonstrate that in simultaneous vibration measurements using different methods and techniques, no bias (systematic deviation) could be found between the different standard methods (Methods 1, 2 and 3) specified in [ 12 ], [ 22 ] and [ 22 ] as well.…”
Section: Measurement Ranges and Accuracy (Uncertainty) Achievable Witsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…To select the most appropriate method to compute the key KCRV and the degrees of equivalence relative to the KCRV under the given conditions of CCAUV.V-K1, five different methods were analyzed and compared which make use of weighted mean, model-based fit, (arithmetic) mean, median and maximum likelihood estimator [ 5 ], [ 13 ]. The weighted mean method is preferably used in key comparisons for various physical quantities and described in the following specifically for the vibration KC.…”
Section: Key Comparison Reference Values (Kcrv) Established In a Cipmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The accuracy that can be claimed for a vibrometer is limited by the accuracy of the calibration process because the precision of vibrometers is such high that no oscillation-reference with sufficient accuracy exists that could be used to measure the error limit. The national metrology institute of Germany, the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, has demonstrated 0.2% accuracy for such a calibration setup [10]. Figure 3 shows the noise floor of the vibrometer measurement.…”
Section: Specifications Of the Laser-doppler Vibrometermentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The photodiode cannot detect the oscillation frequency of the laser light and, thus, only the following mixing terms have to be considered for the computation ofthe detector current D 1D K[E1E2 cosfroht + (t))+ E1E3 cos(tvht + OØ )+ E2E3 cos(Ø(t)+ )1 (2) where K is the amplification of the detector. The time dependency of the phase shift (t) results from the time dependency of the optical path length generated by the oscillation of the specimen.…”
Section: Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%