Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3795/KSME-B.2014.38.7.647

Comparison of ISO-GUM and Monte Carlo Method for Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty  

Ha, Young-Cheol (Gas Quality and Flow Measurement Lab, R&D Division, Korea Gas Corporation)
Her, Jae-Young (Gas Quality and Flow Measurement Lab, R&D Division, Korea Gas Corporation)
Lee, Seung-Jun (Gas Quality and Flow Measurement Lab, R&D Division, Korea Gas Corporation)
Lee, Kang-Jin (Gas Quality and Flow Measurement Lab, R&D Division, Korea Gas Corporation)
Publication Information
Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B / v.38, no.7, 2014 , pp. 647-656 More about this Journal
Abstract
To supplement the ISO-GUM method for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty, a simulation program using the Monte Carlo method (MCM) was developed, and the MCM and GUM methods were compared. The results are as follows: (1) Even under a non-normal probability distribution of the measurand, MCM provides an accurate coverage interval; (2) Even if a probability distribution that emerged from combining a few non-normal distributions looks as normal, there are cases in which the actual distribution is not normal and the non-normality can be determined by the probability distribution of the combined variance; and (3) If type-A standard uncertainties are involved in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty, GUM generally offers an under-valued coverage interval. However, this problem can be solved by the Bayesian evaluation of type-A standard uncertainty. In this case, the effective degree of freedom for the combined variance is not required in the evaluation of expanded uncertainty, and the appropriate coverage factor for 95% level of confidence was determined to be 1.96.
Keywords
Monte-Carlo Method(MCM); Uncertainty; Calibration; Propagation of Distribution;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 ISO GUM, 1993, "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement," International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
2 JCGM 100, 2008, "Evaluation of Measurement Data-Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement," BIPM.
3 Satterthwaite, F. E., 1946, "An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components," Biometrics Bulletin 2, pp. 110-114.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Welch, B. L. 1947, "The Generalization of "Student's" Problem When Several Different Population Variances are Involved," Biometrika 34, pp. 28-35.
5 Park, C. H., 2004, "Random Processes," ISBN 89-7050-390-0.
6 Robert, C. P., Casella, G., 2005, "Monte Carlo Statistical Methods," Springer New York, ISBN 0387212396.
7 Hellekalek, P., 1998, "Good Random Number Generators are (not so) Easy to Find," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 46, pp. 485-505.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 James F., 1990, "A Review of Pseudorandom Number Generators," Computer Physics Communications, Vol. 60, pp. 329-344.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-Muller_transform.
10 JCGM 101, 2008, "Evaluation of Measurement Data-Supplement 1 to the "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement"-Propagation of Distributions using a Monte Carlo Method," BIPM.
11 Gelfand, A. E. and Smith, A. F. M., 1990, "Sampling-Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities," The Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, pp. 398-409.   DOI   ScienceOn