LOVELY HONOURS SCHOOL OFTECHNOLOGY

TYPES OF ERRORS

Term Paper
Date: 15/04/2013

SUBMITTED BY: SHIVAM KR. MAHESHWARI RM1010B46

SUBMITTED TO: MR. BALJEET SINGH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR MECHANICAL DEPT.

1|Page

CONTENTS:

Serial No. 1.

Title Name Acknowledgement

Page No. 3

2.

Introduction

4-6

3.

Measurement Accuracy

4.

Types Of Errors

8-11

5.

Quality Assured Measurement Specifications of Process & Measurement Capabilities Bibliography

12

6.

13-15

7.

16

2|Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I hereby welcome you all to make you all indulge to the world of ERRORS & MEASUREMENTS. Firstly I would like to thank my faculty member Mr. BALJEET SINGH who made me chose the topic Types of Errors and for his support so that I could be able to make the clear understanding about the topic and its real life applications in ease way. Apart of all, I pay my gratitude to my friends for their mental support and that lead in the successful completion of the term paper. I take this opportunity to present my votes of thanks to all those guidepost who really acted as lightening pillars to enlighten my way throughout this term paper that has led to successful and satisfactory completion of this study. I feel well privileged after getting the clear understanding about the topic and also desire to make all other ones aware about this topic through my term paper. This term paper presents few applications of typical types of errors that needed to be understood by everyone for bringing the accuracy in our work and I assure this will be helpful for everyone to a greater extent. Thank You. Shivam Kumar Maheshwari

3|Page

INTRODUCTION:

The true score theory is a good simple model for measurement, but it may not always be an accurate reflection of reality. In particular, it assumes that any observation is composed of the true value plus some random error value. But is that reasonable? What if all error is not random? Isn't it possible that some errors are systematic, that they hold across most or all of the members of a group?

Figure 1: Basic Description of True Error

Measurements are made in order to increase our knowledge about reality and to provide bases for decisions. The quality of the decisions is not normally better than the quality of facts they are based on. One difference between a measurement result and many other products, for example, nails, is that there is usually no prior specified value for a quantity. The measurement value should be as close as possible to a true but unknown value. As a consumer of measurement results, one has therefore often little opportunity to judge the quality of the measurement results. Instead one has to refer to the specifications of the producer (the laboratory). A measurement result should therefore contain such information about the uncertainty which is necessary for a correct interpretation and judgement in making a decision. The quality of a measurement result is thus determined both by the structure of errors for the measurement process used as well as our knowledge of this error structure.

4|Page

Figure 2: Quality Defined Measurement Value System

The particular part of the uncertainty which is relevant depends often on the actual use of the measurement results and to make the information useful it is obviously necessary that the customer knows how it should be used. Information about the measurement uncertainty which cannot be used by the customer in a real way does not contribute to the quality of the decisions to be made, that is, the information on the measurement uncertainty has to be related to both the customers needs and knowledge. In order to improve the quality of the measurement values, the possible errors involved have to be reduced and, to improve the quality of the estimates of measurement uncertainty; knowledge of the possible errors should be increased. Increased knowledge of the error structure can often lead to an increase in the estimated uncertainty since one appreciates that more sources of error have to be taken into consideration. A larger estimated uncertainty can indeed be more realistic and therefore has itself a higher quality. Regarding repeated measurements of a particular measurement object under given conditions, then the error can normally be divided into three components:

A component which varies randomly between measurements and is assumed to a mean value = 0. A component which is constant during the actual measurements, the systematic or locally systematic error A component which varies systematically during the actual measurement

Normally these components are only partially unknown and give contributions to the uncertainty of the measurement value. The random component has a real distribution with repeated measurement and since these errors can be predicted and the expectation value = 0 then no correction can be made. The uncertainty can appropriately be expressed as an interval (about 0) which covers a given proportion of the distribution.

5|Page

Figure 3: Measurement Uncertainties

If the systematic errors are known both the constant and systematically varying components then one of course can correct for them and they thus does not contribute to the uncertainty. If the systematic error has been estimated in some way, then it can also be corrected for, but residual uncertainties in these estimates must be included in the total uncertainty. In cases where it is impractical to make repeated estimates of systematic errors, it may still be possible to imagine doing it and thereby think of a plausible distribution of possible correction errors which may be treated mathematically as above. In these cases, if a guess estimate of the systematic error has been made, then no correction is usually made but allowance must still be made for a systematic error and even a contribution to the uncertainty. For instance, a correction of zero can be said to have been made, but this is an uncertain zero, which as earlier may have an associated correction error for which an uncertainty should be given.

6|Page

Measurement Accuracy

Figure 4: Accuracy & Precession

ACCURACY:

It is the closeness of agreement between a measured quantity value and a true quantity value of a measurand. Accuracy is thus determined as a combination of precision and trueness. PRECISION:

It is the closeness of agreement between indications or measured quantity values obtained by replicate measurements on the same or similar objects under specified conditions. Precision is a qualitative concept without a numerical value. Precision can be expressed numerically with its opposite, for example a standard deviation or variation coefficient (standard deviation divided by the mean value). TRUENESS:

It is the closeness of agreement between the averages of an infinite number of replicate measured quantity values and a reference quantity value. Trueness is expressed numerically in terms of its opposite, namely the systematic error or bias.
7|Page

Types of Errors:
Since errors are unwanted entities in any measurement process, it is imperative to interpret the results of quantitative measurements in an intelligent manner. Am understanding and thorough evaluation of errors is essential. A study of errors is the first step in finding ways to reduce them. Errors may arise from different sources and are usually classified as: 1. Gross Errors 2. Systematic Errors 3. Random Errors

1. Gross Error: Gross Error mainly covers human mistakes in reading instruments, and recording and calculating measurement results. The observer may grossly misread the scale. As long as some human beings are involved, some gross errors will definitely be committed. Complete elimination of gross errors is probably impossible. One should try to anticipate and correct them. Gross errors may be of any amount and, therefore, their total elimination is mathematically impossible. However, they can be avoided by adopting two means(a) Great care should be taken in reading and recording the data, (b) Two, three or more readings should be taken for the quantity under measurements. It is always advisable to take a large number of readings as a close agreement between readings assures that no gross error has been committed. These errors can further be classified according to various factors related to the measurements of physical means: a) Static Error These are the result of physical nature of various components of a measuring system, i.e. intrinsic imperfection or limitations of apparatus or instruments. They may occur due to existence of either characteristic errors or environmental errors or reading errors, as the environmental effects and other external factors influence the operating capabilities of an instrument or inspection procedure. This error can be reduced or eliminated by employing relatively simple techniques.

8|Page

Here, we can further classify static error in more classifications: o Reading Error These types of errors apply exclusively to instruments. These errors may be the result of parallax, optical resolution/ readability, and interpolation. Parallax error creeps in when the line of sight is not perpendicular to the measuring scale. The magnitude of parallax error increases if the measuring scale is not made flush to the components.

Figure 5: Parallax or Reading Error

o Alignment Error This error occurs if the checking of an instrument is not correctly aligned with the direction of the desired measurements. In the given figure, the dimension D is being measured with a dial indicator. But the dial indicator plunger is not held vertical and makes an angle with the line of measurement.

Figure 6: Alignment Error Using Dial Indicator & Ruler Scale

NOTE: While we are carrying out the discussion about alignment, so we should also be aware of PRINCIPLE OF ALIGNMENT also known as ABBES PRINCIPLE which states that the line of measurement (axis of scale) should be co-incident with the line of the dimension being measured (the axis of specimen whose dimension is being measured). It also
9|Page

states that if it is not possible to have the displacement measuring system in line with the functional point whose displacement is to be measured then either the slide-ways that transfer the displacement must be free of angular motion or angular motion data must be used to calculate the consequences of the offset. o Characteristics Error It is the deviation of the output of the measuring system from the theoretical predicted performance or from the nominal performance specifications. Linearity, Repeatability, Hysteresis and Resolution error are the examples of characteristics error. o Environmental Error These are the errors arising from the effect of the surrounding temperature, pressure and humidity on the measuring system. Magnetic and electrical fields, nuclear radiations, vibration or shocks may also lead to errors. These errors can be controlled by the atmospheric factors. b) Loading Error The part to be measured is located on the surface table. If the table is not flat or if foreign matter like dirt, chips gets entrapped between the datum and workpiece then error will be introduced while taking readings because poor contact between the working gauge or the instrument and workpiece causes an error. To avoid such error, an instrument with a wide area of contact should not be used while measuring irregular or curved surfaces and the correct contact pressure must be applied.

Figure 7: Loading Error

2. Systematic Errors: (BIAS)

10 | P a g e

These errors can be further classified as: a) Dynamic Error It is caused by time variation in the measurand. It is the result of incapability of the system to respond reliably to time-varying measurements. Inertia, damping, friction, or other physical constraints in sensing or readout or the display system are the main causes of dynamic errors. b) Controllable Error These are the controllable in both magnitude and sense. These types of errors are regularly repetitive in nature and are of similar form after systematic analysis is reduced effectively. Controllable Errors include the following categories of errors: o Calibration Error These are caused due to variation in the calibrated scale from its normal indicating value. The length standard, such as slip gauge, will vary from the nominal value by a small amount. This will cause a calibration error of constant magnitude. o Stylus Pressure Error The too small or too large pressure applied on workpiece while measuring, causes stylus pressure. This error causes an appreciable deformation of the stylus and the workpiece. o Avoidable Error These errors occur due to parallax, non-alignment of workpiece centres, and incorrect location of measuring instruments for temporary storage, and misalignment of the centre line of workpiece.

3. Random Error:
Random errors are accidental, non-consistent in nature and as they occur randomly, they cannot be eliminated since no definite cause can be located. It is difficult to eliminate such errors that vary in unpredictable manner. Small variations in the position of setting standards and the workpiece, slight displacement of lever joints in instruments, transit fluctuations in friction in measuring instruments are the likely sources of this type of error.

11 | P a g e

Quality-assured measurement

Metrological traceability

One key component of quality-assured measurement is traceability: this concept means and has the following consequences: a. Traceability: Property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty Traceability leads to measurement results that can be compared:

Under both repeatability and reproducibility Even different measurement quantities

This gives processes and products which have:

Interoperability Improved communication Can be traded, are safe and lie within specifications b. Calibration: gives trueness

Calibration is an operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the quantity values with measurement uncertainties provided by measurement standards and corresponding indications with associated measurement uncertainties and, in a second step, uses this information to establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication

12 | P a g e

Specifications of Process and Measurement Capabilities Since neither the production nor measurement processes are perfect, there will always be some dispersion in the observed product value either for repeated measurements of one item or for measurements of a series of items. Conformity assessment is focused on determining actual product errors: apparent dispersion due to limited measurement capability should normally be small.

a) Product specifications: The first step is to set tolerances on product:

Specification limits, USL and LSL, for the magnitude of a characteristic of any entity For any entity, the maximum permissible (entity) error, MPE.

For a symmetric, two-sided tolerance interval: MPE = (USL LSL)/2. For a one-sided interval: MPE = USL Nominal, for instance. Note that these specifications are normally set by the producer on the basis not only of what can be practically and economically produced, but also ultimately on what the customer or consumer requires in terms of product characteristics. A simple example is pre-packaged coffee. Consumer requirements aimed at ensuring a guarantee that each coffee packet is not sold at underweight obliges the producer to test that manufactured coffee packets of, say, nominal mass 500g weigh at least 485g. This one-sided, lower specification limit on the quality characteristic mass per packet has a corresponding MPE of 15g, as stipulated in current EU legislation for pre-packaged goods. Typically, a coffee producer might fill about 100000 packets 0.5 kg a day. Commodity value is typically 10 /kg when on the market, whilst production costs will be some fraction so that the producer can make a profit. These economic factors can be used to optimise production, by balancing these against the consequence costs associated with dissatisfied customers. Separating production & measurement errors In cases where measurement dispersion is comparable with actual product variation, it can be difficult to separate these.

Consequences of under-estimation and over-estimation of measurement dispersion

b) Metrological specifications: In order to assess an entity, according to the above product specifications, corresponding measurement specifications are often set. These are of two distinct kinds:

13 | P a g e

limits on maximum permissible measurement uncertainty (or, equivalently, minimum measurement capability) when testing product limits on maximum permissible error in the indication of the measurement equipment/system intended to be used in the measurements when testing product

c) Measurement system specifications: MPE Instrument setting limits on maximum permissible error in the indication of the measurement equipment/system intended to be used in the measurements when testing product can be viewed as a special case of general conformity assessment, where the entity subject to assessment is the measurement equipment/system and the quality characteristic can be:

indication of the display of the measurement instrument error associated with the chosen measurement method, operator etc.

Setting an MPE on the measurement system is one way of ensuring that, when measurements are actually performed when testing product, requirements on maximum permissible measurement uncertainty (MPU) are likely to be satisfied: Whether they will or not depends not only on instrument specifications but also on the actual metrological performance when measuring. A well-known example is legal metrology, as covered by the EU Directive Measuring Instrument Directive (MID), where instead of performing conformity assessment of all legally-important measurements in society (fuel, energy, commodities, water, environmental emissions etc.), one chooses instead to assess compliance of the measurement instruments and meters in use in society both by type approval, initial & subsequent verification. Typically, alongside more qualitative attribute requirements, such as inspection of correct instrument labeling and unbroken sealing of instruments, measurement specifications are also set by variable in terms of MPE, both for the main characteristic (e.g. indication of an electricity energy meter) as well as of any influence quantity (e.g. level of disturbing electromagnetic field, in EMC testing) to be tested through quantitative measurement. d) Capability factors The next steps are to fix specifications on the production process and measurement process capabilities needed to make product according to the product specifications. Limits on both process and measurement capabilities are traditionally set in terms of certain factors Cp and Cm, respectively which are fractions of the same product tolerances (specification limits, USL and LSL, for the magnitude of a characteristic of an entity) and maximum permissible product value errors, e.g. USL LSL. The process capability index, Cp, is defined in terms of estimated product variations as:

14 | P a g e

e) Process capability: With standard deviation Sp and where N = 6 (corresponding to a coverage factor, k = 3 and 99% confidence) in the famous six-sigma approach to statistical process control (SPC). Correspondingly, a measurement capability index, Cm, is defined in terms of estimated measurement variations as:

Measurement capability with standard measurement uncertainty um and typically M = 4 (corresponding to a coverage factor, k = 2 and 95% confidence). Limits on capability factors The maximum permissible uncertainty or target uncertainty, MPU = 1/Cm, min in terms of a corresponding minimum measurement capability. In various sectors of conformity assessment, different limits on measurement capability have become established, with Cm, min ranging from typically 3 to 10. A common limit to ensure

that measurement quality variations are small is

< 30%,

Measurement System Analysis (MSA) in the automobile industry for instance.

GPS Specification of demands on Measurement System

But many of these rules have a certain element of arbitrariness and limits vary, often with little motivation as to the actual consequences of incorrect decision-making in conformity assessment. Questions of appropriate rules for decision-making in conformity assessment with due account of measurement uncertainty raise questions which ultimately can be resolved by economic considerations.

15 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php http://www.metrology.wordpress.com Ernst Abbe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Precision Linear Measurements (Metrology) http://what-when-how.com/metrology/precision-linear-measurements-metrology/ http://www.esu.edu/~scady/parallax Metrology & Measurement by Anand K. Bewoor & Vinay A Kulkarni

16 | P a g e