Instrumentation (and Error

&
Process Control) Uncertainty
Fall 1393
Bonab University
 Error

Measurement Uncertainty - Error

&
Uncertainty

• Measurement errors are impossible to avoid

• We can minimize their magnitude by
• Good measurement system design
• Appropriate analysis and processing of measurement data
• All error sources: How to eliminate or reduce their magnitude

• Errors:
• Arise during the measurement process *
• Arise due to later corruption of the measurement signal (by induced noise during transfer of the signal)
• In any measurement system it’s important to:
• Reduce errors to the minimum possible level
• quantify the maximum remaining error that may exist in output reading
• What if system final output is calculated by combining together two or more measurements?
• How each separate measurement error be combined  best estimate of the final output error

• Error main categories:

• Systematic
• Random
2
 Error

Measurement Uncertainty - Error

&
Uncertainty

• Systematic:
• Describe errors in the output readings that are consistently on one side of the correct
reading, that is, either all errors are positive or are all negative
• System disturbance during measurement
• The effect of environmental changes
• Bent needles, use of uncalibrated instruments, drift, poor cabling, …
• The remaining is quantified by the quoted accuracy
• Random:
• (precision errors) are perturbations of the measurement in either side of the true value
caused by random and unpredictable effects, such that positive errors and negative errors
occur in approximately equal numbers
• mainly small, but large perturbations occur from time to time
• Human observation of analog device + interpolation
• Electrical noise
• Can be largely removed by: many measurements  averaging or other statistical techniques
• The best way is to express them in probabilistic terms (say, 95% CI)
3
 Error

Sources of Systematic Error

&
Uncertainty

• Disturbance of the measured system by the act of measurement

• Mercury-in-glass thermometer
• Orifice plate
• General rule: the process of measurement always disturbs
system being measured
• Accurate understanding of the mechanisms of
system disturbance is needed to minimize it
• Case: Electric circuits:
• The´venin’s theorem *
• Rm acts as a shunt
• Rm increase  the ratio = 1
• Practical issues (increasing moving-coil instrument’s Rm)
• Solve: changing the spring constant
• Ruggedness changes, and needs better friction
• So, usually improving one aspect  introduce another problem
• Using active devices improves this limit
• Case: measuring instrument in a bridge circuit
4
 Error

Sources of Systematic Error

&
Uncertainty

• Example:
R1 = 400 O; R2 = 600 O; R3 = 1000 O;
R4 = 500 O; R5 = 1000 O
The voltage across AB is measured by a voltmeter whose internal
resistance is 9500 O. What is the measurement error caused
by the resistance of the measuring instrument?

• Solution:
RAB=500 

measurement error = EO – Em = EO(1-9500/10000) = 0.05 EO  5%

5
 Error

Sources of Systematic Error

&
Uncertainty

• Environmental disturbances (modifying inputs)

• static and dynamic characteristics specified for measuring instruments are only valid for
particular environmental conditions
• These specified conditions must be reproduced during calibration
• Its magnitude quantified by:
• sensitivity drift
• zero drift (both included in the specifications)
• Env. Disturbance is difficult to determine
• Example: A small closed box (0.1 kg)  scale says 1kg
(a) a 0.9 kg rat in the box (real input)
(b) an empty box with a 0.9 kg bias on the scale due to a temperature change (environmental input)
(c) a 0.4 kg mouse in the box together with a 0.5 kg bias (real þ environmental inputs)
• Thus, the magnitude of any environmental input must be measured before the value of the
measured quantity (the real input) can be determined from the output reading of an instrument
• Designers’ choice:
• Reduce the susceptibility of measuring instruments to environmental inputs
• Quantify the effects of environmental inputs and correct for them in the instrument output reading

6
 Error

Sources of Systematic Error

&
Uncertainty

• Changes in characteristics due to wear in instrument components (with time)

• Systematic errors can frequently develop over a period of time because of wear in
instrument components
• Recalibration often provides a full solution

• Resistance of connecting leads

• Example: a resistance thermometer

• Often thermometer is separated by 100 meters (20-gauge copper wire is 7 Ω)
• Also: a temperature coefficient of 1 mΩ/oC
• Care:
• Cross section (resistance)
• Route (not to pick up noise)

7
 Error

Reduction of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Prerequisite : a complete analysis of the measurement system that identifies all

sources of error
• Simple faults: bent meter needles, poor cabling practices…
• other error sources require more detailed analysis and treatment
• Careful Instrument Design
• Reducing the sensitivity (strain gauge to temperature)  cost
• Calibration
• All instruments suffer from drift in their characteristics  it depends on:
• environmental conditions
• Frequency of use
• More frequent calibration = lower drift-related error
• Method of Opposing Inputs
• compensates : effect of an environmental input by introducing an equal and opposite
environmental input that cancels it out

8
 Error

Reduction of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Method of Opposing Inputs

• Example:
• If the coil resistance Rcoil is sensitive to temperature,
environmental input ( temperature change) will alter
the value of the coil current for a given applied voltage
 alter the pointer output reading
• Compensation: introducing a compensating resistance Rcomp
where Rcomp has a temperature coefficient equal in
magnitude but opposite in sign to that of the coil

• High-Gain Feedback
• Unknown voltage Ei is applied to
• A motor of torque constant Km
• Resistance spring constant Ks
• Effect of environment on motor/spring = Dm/DS

9
 Error

Reduction of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• High-Gain Feedback
• No environment input: displacement Xo = KmKsEi , but changes with environment

• But if we close the loop:

• Adding amplifier: Ka
• Feedback device: Kf

 high Ka 

• Only Kf !  we have to be concerned only with Df

• Signal Filtering
• corruption of reading by periodic noise
• often at a frequency of 50 Hz caused by pickup through the close proximity to apparatus or
current-carrying cables
• High frequency noise (mechanical oscillation/vibration)
• Appropriate filter (LP, BP, BS) reduces noise amplitude
10
 Error

Reduction of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Signal Filtering
• Example: passive RC LP filter

• Manual Correction of Output Reading

• Errors due to
• system disturbance during the act of measurement
• Environmental changes
• a good measurement technician reduce errors
• by calculating the effect of such systematic errors
• making appropriate correction to readings
• Not easy (needs all disturbances quantified)

• Intelligent Instruments
• Contain extra sensors that measure the value of environmental inputs
• Automatically compensate the value of the output reading
• ability to deal very effectively with systematic errors (explained later)
11
 Error

Quantification of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Do all practical steps have been taken to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of
systematic errors?  quantify the maximum likely systematic error

• Quantification of Individual Systematic Error Components

• first complication: exact value for a component = ?  use best estimate:

• Environmental condition errors

• Environment effect?
• Assume midpoint environmental conditions
• specify maximum measurement error as ±x% of the output reading
• If fluctuations occur over a short period of time (random draughts of hot or cold air) this is a
rather a random error

• Calibration errors
• The maximum error just before the instrument is due for recalibration becomes the
basis for estimating the maximum likely error

12
 Error

Quantification of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Calibration errors
• Example (a pressure transducer ):
• Recalibration frequency: once the measurement error has grown to +1% of the full-scale
• Range: 0 to 10 bar
• How can its inaccuracy be expressed in the form of a ±x% error in the output reading?

• Solution:
• Just before recalibration: error grown to +0.1 bar (1% of 10 bar)
• Half this maximum error, 0.05 bar, should be subtracted from all measurements
• Error:
• just after calibration: -0.05 bar ( -0.5% of FSR)
• just before the next recalibration: +0.05 bar (+0.5% of FSR)
• Inaccuracy due to calibration error: ±0.05% of FSR

• System disturbance (as well as loading) errors

• Maximum likely error = 2x (worst-case system loading)  Likely error: ±x  ±y% FSD

13
 Error

Quantification of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Calculation of Overall Systematic Error

• Total systemic error: often composed of several separate components
• measurement system loading
• Environmental factors
• Calibration errors

• worst-case prediction of maximum error: simply add up each separate systematic error
• Example: 3 components of systematic error with a magnitude of ±1% each, a worst-case prediction
error: sum of the separate errors = ±3%
• However, it is very unlikely that all components be at their max/min simultaneously
• Usual course of action: combine separate sources root-sum-squares method

• n components:

• Warning: manufacturers data sheets  measurement uncertainty/inaccuracy = best

estimate (manufacturer gives) about performance
• When it’s new, used under specified conditions, and recalibrated at the recommended
14
frequency
 Error

Quantification of Systematic Errors

&
Uncertainty

• This can only be a starting point in estimating the measurement accuracy

(achievable in use)
• Many sources (systematic error) may apply in a particular situation (not
included in the accuracy calculation in the manufacturer’s data sheet)

• Example:
• 3 separate sources of systematic error are identified in a measurement system
• After reducing the magnitude of these errors as much as possible, the magnitudes of the three errors
are estimated:
• System loading: +1.2% (Xm-Xt)
• Environmental changes: 0.8%
• Calibration error: 0.5%
• Calculate the maximum possible total systematic error and the likely system error by the root-sum-
square method.

• Solution:
• The maximum possible system error = ±(1.2 + 0.8 + 0.5)% = ±2.5%
• Applying the root-sum-square: likely error = ± √1.22 + 0.82 + 0.52 = ±1.53%
15
 Error

Sources and Treatment of Random Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Caused by unpredictable variations (precision errors)

• Human observation
• electric noise
• random environmental changes (draught), etc.

• Small perturbations either side of the correct value (positive & negative errors
occur in approximately equal numbers)  largely eliminated by averaging
• (but ≠ 0, reason: finite number of measurements)

• The degree of confidence (how close mean value is to the correct value)?
• can be indicated by standard deviation or variance
• parameters describing distribution about the mean value

16
 Error
&
Statistical Analysis of Measurements Subject to Random Errors Uncertainty

• Mean and Median Values

• average value of a set of measurements of a constant quantity:

• Median (was easier for a computer to find)  even number  midway

• Mean (slightly closer to the correct value)

• Example:
• length of a steel bar (mm) is measured by a number of different observers

Set Mean Median

398 420 394 416 404 408 400 420 396 413 430 409 408 • Which one more
A confidence?
B 409 406 402 407 405 404 407 404 407 407 408 406 407 • Low-Spread: say range
409 406 402 407 405 404 407 404 407 407 408 406.5 406 430-394=36 vs 409-402=7
C
406 410 406 405 408 406 409 406 405 409 406 407 • Median closer
to mean

17
 Error
&
Statistical Analysis of Measurements Subject to Random Errors Uncertainty

• Standard Deviation and Variance

• Spread = range between the largest and the smallest value  not a very good way of
examining distribution
• Much better: variance or standard deviation  start with deviation (error)
• di = xi – xmean
• Variance:
• Standard deviation: 
• Definitions: infinite number of data  not in practice
• Finite measurements: xmean ≠ true mean (µ)
• A better prediction: Bessel correction
• Finite number:
_ _
• Example:
Set Mean Median spread V σ
• Previous sets of measurement
A 409 408 36 137 11.7

B 406 407 7 4.2 2.05

C 406.5 406 8 3.53 1.88

18
 Error
&
Statistical Analysis of Measurements Subject to Random Errors Uncertainty

• Graphical Data Analysis Techniques—Frequency Distributions

• Simplest: Histogram
• Bands/bins of equal width across the range of measurement # Measurements
• # measurements within each band
• Finding the # of bands/bins (Sturgis Rule):

• Example: 23 measurements in set-C

• Bins: 5
• Span: 402-410mm
• Width?  2mm works
• Care in choice of boundaries:
• No measurements on the boundary
• Say, put the middle bin on the Mean (406.5)

• Large enough # of measurement & truly

Random error  symmetry mm
• Usually, error is of most concern  deviation
19
 Error

Gaussian (Normal) Distribution

&
Uncertainty

• Measurement sets that only contain random errors  a distribution with a

particular shape that is called Gaussian

• Frequency of small deviations from the mean >>

the frequency of large deviations

• Measurements in a data set subject to random

errors lie inside deviation boundaries of ±σ
 68%

• Lie inside deviation boundaries of ±2σ

 95.4%

• Lie inside deviation boundaries of ±3σ ±1.96σ  95% (Very common)

 99.7%
20
 Error

Standard Error of the Mean

&
Uncertainty

• We examined: how measurements with random errors are distributed about the
mean
• However, we know: error exists (mean value of a finite set - true value)

• The standard deviation of mean values of a series of finite

sets of measurements relative to the true mean = standard
error of the mean  α

• Question:
Mean of 10
• if we use the mean value of a finite set of measurements to
predict the true value  what is the likely error?
• S.d. of error = α  68% of deviations around true value within ±α

21
 Error

Standard Error of the Mean

&
Uncertainty

• Question:
• if we use the mean value of a finite set of measurements to
predict the true value  what is the likely error?
• S.d. of error = α  68% of deviations around true value within ±α
• Means: with 68% certainty that the magnitude of the error
does not exceed |α|
• For data set C , n = 23, σ = 1.88  α = 0.39
• The length (average): 406.5 ± 0.4 (68% confidence limit)

Not so good

• ±2α  length : 406.5 ± 0.8 (95.4% confidence limit)

Mean of 10

• ±3α  length : 406.5 ± 1.2 (99.7% confidence limit)

22
 Error
&
Estimation of Random Error in a Single Measurement (n=1) Uncertainty

• Usually, not practical (repeated measurements  find average)

• Or measured quantity is not constant
• What: likely magnitude of error?
• Often: calculate the error within 95%confidence limits  ± 1.96σ
• However, it was only maximum likely deviation from calculated mean
• Not the true value
• Add: standard error of the mean to the likely maximum deviation value (95%)

• Example:
• A standard mass is measured 30 times (same instrument), σ=0.46  α=0.08
• Now, measure an unknown mass 105.6 kg, how should the mass value be expressed?
• Solution:
• ± 1.96(σ+α) = ±1.06  mass: 105.6±1.06 kg
23
 Error

Rogue Data Points (Data Outliers)

&
Uncertainty

• Very large error measurements sometimes occur (random & unpredictable)

• Error magnitude: much larger than the expected random variations
• Sources:
6 5 4 3 2 1
• Sudden transient voltage surges 0
• Incorrect data recording Post Boxplot
Pre
20
• Accepted practice: 0
• Discard these data points
40

• Threshold: ±3σ 60

• Practical problem: 80 20
• When a new dataset is measured (S.D. is not known)
100
• It’s possible to have outlier in measurements
• Simple solution:
120 40

• Any new set of measurement  Histogram

• Examine to spot outliers
140
**
*
160
• Exclude if any  calculate ±3σ to test future measurements
Group Worsened(5)/No-Change(6)
60
24
 Error

Aggregation of Measurement System Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Usually, 2 or more sources of measurement error

• Total likely error in output reading?
• Forms of aggregation:
• A measurement have both: systematic (±x) & random errors (±y)
• Often likely maximum error:

• A measurement system have several measurement each with separate errors

• Say, different instruments/transducers  add, subtract, multiply, divide

• Example: as S = y + z

• Problem: error term is not expressed as percentage of calculated value for S

25
 Error

Aggregation of Measurement System Errors

&
Uncertainty

• Problem: error term is not expressed as percentage of calculated value for S

• Statistical analysis:

• Example: A circuit requirement for a resistance of 550 (2 resistors of nominal values 220
and 330 in series)
• If each resistor has a tolerance of ±2%, the error in the sum?

• It can be shown that the error (e) for subtraction is the same
26