A Comparison of Two Balance Calibration Model Building Methods

Abstract

Simulated strain-gage balance calibration data is used to compare the accuracy of two balance calibration model building methods for different noise environments and calibration experiment designs. The first building method obtains a math model for the analysis of balance calibration data after applying a candidate math model search algorithm to the calibration data set. The second building method uses stepwise regression analysis in order to construct a model for the analysis. Four balance calibration data sets were simulated in order to compare the accuracy of the two math model building methods. The simulated data sets were prepared using the traditional One Factor At a Time (OFAT) technique and the Modern Design of Experiments (MDOE) approach. Random and systematic errors were introduced in the simulated calibration data sets in order to study their influence on the math model building methods. Residuals of the fitted calibration responses and other statistical metrics were compared in order to evaluate the calibration models developed with different combinations of noise environment, experiment design, and model building method. Overall, predicted math models and residuals of both math model building methods show very good agreement. Significant differences in model quality were attributable to noise environment, experiment design, and their interaction. Generally, the addition of systematic error significantly degraded the quality of calibration models developed from OFAT data by either method, but MDOE experiment designs were more robust with respect to the introduction of a systematic component of the unexplained variance.