Revision of the ‘<i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i>’

Bich, Walter; Cox, M G; Dybkær, René; Elster, Clemens; Estler, William T.; Hibbert, Brynn; Imai, Hidetaka; Kool, Willem; Michotte, C; Nielsen, L.H.; Pendrill, Leslie; Sidney, Steve; Veen, Adriaan M. H. van der; Wöger, Wolfgang

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/49/6/702

Cited by 93 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current GUM's approach to deriving coverage intervals 1 has been recognized as lacking in generality, but users are apt to make unwarranted assumptions rather than deviate from the given "script" [28,29].…”

Section: Recognized Limitations Of Established Uncertainty Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Rational Foundation for Software Metrology

Flater¹,

Black²,

Fong³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Recognized Limitations Of Established Uncertainty Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Rational Foundation for Software Metrology

Flater¹,

Black²,

Fong³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These techniques appear to have been de-emphasised in the latest released version, yet they may have an important place within a PLM context where historical records and expert opinion could be systematically captured and used. Moreover, future revisions of the GUM are expected to extend the use of the Bayesian approach [16], lending support to the idea of using multiple uncertainty evaluation techniques, so long as they improve the current state of knowledge.…”

Section: Measurement Uncertainty Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 98%

An Exploration into Measurement Consistency on Coordinate Measuring Machines

Saunders¹,

Wilson²,

Orchard³

et al. 2014

Procedia CIRP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In high precision industry, the measurement of geometry is often performed using coordinate measuring machines (CMMs). Measurements on CMMs can occur at many places within a long and global supply chain. In this context it is a challenge to control consistency, so that measurements are applied with appropriate levels of rigour and achieve comparable results, wherever and whenever they are performed. In this paper, a framework is outlined in which consistency is controlled through measurement strategy, such as the number and location of measurement points. The framework is put to action in a case study, demonstrating the usefulness of the approach and highlighting the dangers of imposing rigid measurement strategies across the supply chain, even if linked to standardised manufacturing processes. Potential mitigations, and the requirements for future research, are outlined.

show abstract

“…If none is given, ∞ is assumed. (Note: for principal reasons the concept of degree of freedom is undefined in presence of covariance and it is in general a questionable concept [12]. Anyway it will not be taken into account for the analysis.)…”

Section: Measurement Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of gauge blocks by interferometry

Matus¹,

Haas²,

Pirée³

et al. 2016

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The key comparison EURAMET.L-K1.2011 on gauge blocks was carried out in the framework of a EURAMET project starting in 2012 and ending in 2015. It involved the participation of 24 National Metrology Institutes from Europe and Egypt, respectively. 38 gauge blocks of steel and ceramic with nominal central lengths between 0.5 mm and 500 mm were circulated. The comparison was conducted in two loops with two sets of artifacts. A statistical technique for linking the reference values was applied. As a consequence the reference value of one loop is influenced by the measurements of the other loop although they did not even see the artifacts of the others. This influence comes solely from three "linking laboratories" which measure both sets of artifacts. In total there were 44 results were not fully consistent with the reference values. This represents 10% of the full set of 420 results which is a considerable high number. At least 12 of them are clearly outliers where the participants have been informed by the pilot as soon as possible. The comparison results help to support the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs) of the laboratories involved in the CIPM MRA. 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 CCL, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

show abstract

Revision of the ‘Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement’

Cited by 93 publications

References 1 publication

A Rational Foundation for Software Metrology

A Rational Foundation for Software Metrology

An Exploration into Measurement Consistency on Coordinate Measuring Machines

Measurement of gauge blocks by interferometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About