Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments
This is an experimental work on seventy load cells which aims to highlight the difference between results out of force, proving instruments calibration according to ISO 376:2011 and its practical use. It spots on the difference between the relative error of repeatability and reproducibility and th...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2021-05-01
|
| Series: | Universitas Scientiarum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/scientarium/article/view/29213 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850252316932833280 |
|---|---|
| author | Seif M. Osman Gouda M. Mahmoud Abdulelah A. Binown Hamad Alghamdi |
| author_facet | Seif M. Osman Gouda M. Mahmoud Abdulelah A. Binown Hamad Alghamdi |
| author_sort | Seif M. Osman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This is an experimental work on seventy load cells which aims to highlight the difference between
results out of force, proving instruments calibration according to ISO 376:2011 and its practical use.
It spots on the difference between the relative error of repeatability and reproducibility and their
contributions on load cells classifications, uncertainty estimation and calibration time. Results show
that there is no significant effect for relative error of repeatability on load cell classification, ignoring
the relative repeatability error in estimating the relative expanded uncertainty lead to decrease with
values between 1 ppm and 270 ppm in the range from 20% to 50% of load cell capacity and by values
between 1 ppm and 183 ppm in the range from 50% to 100% of the load cell capacity. It is concluded
that performing measurements to calculate the relative error of repeatability is not effective in the
normal calibration process for the examined seventy load cells, further measurements over subsequent
years are recommended to ensure results reproducibility aiming to generalize the conclusion and
recommend measurements for the relative repeatability error for load cell conformity assessment after
manufacturing. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-825fcd09c1bc41a88a3249c4b8f01a7d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 0122-7483 2027-1352 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-05-01 |
| publisher | Pontificia Universidad Javeriana |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Universitas Scientiarum |
| spelling | doaj-art-825fcd09c1bc41a88a3249c4b8f01a7d2025-08-20T01:57:40ZengPontificia Universidad JaverianaUniversitas Scientiarum0122-74832027-13522021-05-01261677710.11144/Javeriana.SC26-1.dbcaDifference between calibration and practical force proving instrumentsSeif M. Osman0Gouda M. Mahmoud1Abdulelah A. Binown2Hamad Alghamdi3National Institute of Standards, Force and Material Metrology Department, Giza 1221, Egypt. Saudi Standards, Metrology & Quality Org. – National Measurements & Calibration Center (SASO-NMCC), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.National Institute of Standards, Force and Material Metrology Department, Giza 1221, Egypt.Saudi Standards, Metrology & Quality Org. – National Measurements & Calibration Center (SASO-NMCC), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Saudi Standards, Metrology & Quality Org. – National Measurements & Calibration Center (SASO-NMCC), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.This is an experimental work on seventy load cells which aims to highlight the difference between results out of force, proving instruments calibration according to ISO 376:2011 and its practical use. It spots on the difference between the relative error of repeatability and reproducibility and their contributions on load cells classifications, uncertainty estimation and calibration time. Results show that there is no significant effect for relative error of repeatability on load cell classification, ignoring the relative repeatability error in estimating the relative expanded uncertainty lead to decrease with values between 1 ppm and 270 ppm in the range from 20% to 50% of load cell capacity and by values between 1 ppm and 183 ppm in the range from 50% to 100% of the load cell capacity. It is concluded that performing measurements to calculate the relative error of repeatability is not effective in the normal calibration process for the examined seventy load cells, further measurements over subsequent years are recommended to ensure results reproducibility aiming to generalize the conclusion and recommend measurements for the relative repeatability error for load cell conformity assessment after manufacturing.https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/scientarium/article/view/29213iso 376repeatabilityreversibilityuncertainty |
| spellingShingle | Seif M. Osman Gouda M. Mahmoud Abdulelah A. Binown Hamad Alghamdi Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments Universitas Scientiarum iso 376 repeatability reversibility uncertainty |
| title | Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| title_full | Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| title_fullStr | Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| title_full_unstemmed | Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| title_short | Difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| title_sort | difference between calibration and practical force proving instruments |
| topic | iso 376 repeatability reversibility uncertainty |
| url | https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/scientarium/article/view/29213 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT seifmosman differencebetweencalibrationandpracticalforceprovinginstruments AT goudammahmoud differencebetweencalibrationandpracticalforceprovinginstruments AT abdulelahabinown differencebetweencalibrationandpracticalforceprovinginstruments AT hamadalghamdi differencebetweencalibrationandpracticalforceprovinginstruments |