Abstract
Establishing the criterion for whether a device under test (DUT) operates correctly or not is a complex issue. For devices used in a military setting, it is essential to know if the equipment will perform accurately under adverse conditions. In this paper, the example of testing resistive temperature sensors demonstrates how to manage the evaluation of errors expressed as uncertainties and tolerances. These sensors’ errors are used to address the total standard uncertainty, to determine the effective degree of freedom and to determine the coverage probability for deriving the coverage factor to establish the Student’s quantile as the specific criteria relating to the DUT results.
Highlights
When evaluating the correct functioning of a sensor or measuring apparatuses, it is a standard procedure to compare the response of a Device Under Test (DUT) with the correct values produced under the specific conditions and appropriate standards
Rather than continue to be frustrated by DUT errors, this article presents an approach to appreciate the effect of errors accompanying a measurement on the measurement result reliability expressed as an expanded uncertainty attributed to the measurement result
As outlined in the article, the process was divided into several consecutive steps starting with the measurement function formulation for the quantities present
Summary
When evaluating the correct functioning of a sensor or measuring apparatuses, it is a standard procedure to compare the response of a Device Under Test (DUT) with the correct values produced under the specific conditions and appropriate standards. If the DUT meets the reference point requirements, it is assumed to function correctly across the specified measuring range even in variations of values affecting the quantities maintained within the limits by the DUT. Measurements carried out at measured values within a particular broad range, but in the reference point, a more intricate criterion must be determined for making a decision whether the DUT operates properly or not under less controlled conditions. Meeting such a criterion may be interpreted as a chance without sufficient metrological “certainty”. The following example outlines a way to formulate the proposed criterion
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
