| 雷晓妹,党选发,张海韬,潘卓卓.风速传感器实测风速不确定度评定对比研究[J].电子测量与仪器学报,2023,37(11):56-64 |
| 风速传感器实测风速不确定度评定对比研究 |
| Comparative study on uncertainty evaluation of measured wind speed of wind speed sensor |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 风速传感器 实测风速 GUM MCM 不确定度评定 |
| 英文关键词:wind speed sensor measured wind speed GUM MCM uncertainty evaluation |
| 基金项目:甘肃省自然科学基金(23JRRA845)、甘肃省信息中心 2023 年度科技创新基金(Ms202305)项目资助 |
|
|
|
|
| 摘要点击次数: 191 |
| 全文下载次数: 365 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 在风速传感器实测风速不确定度的评定中,传统方法是将实测风速测量模型简化后采用 GUM( guide to the expression
uncertainty in measurement)进行评定。 但 GUM 并不适用于复杂模型,为了研究实测风速不确定度评定的可靠方法,对风速传感
器分别采用 GUM 和 MCM(Monte Carlo method)进行不确定度评定,对比分析评定结果,并利用 MCM 评定结果验证 GUM 的适用
性。 结果表明,简化模型下 GUM 和 MCM 评定结果差异较小,但只有标准不确定度取一位有效数字时,GUM 评定方法通过验
证,评定结果一致性好;实测模型下 MCM 和简化模型下 GUM 评定结果对比得到,两者包络形状相似,但实测风速最佳估计值
明显偏大,GUM 评定方法不能通过验证;改变部分输入量分布时,两种方法得到实测风速最佳估计值非常接近,但 GUM 评定得
到包含区间比 MCM 明显增宽,概率分布相差较大,GUM 评定方法不能通过验证。 因此,应当根据模型的复杂程度、输入量分布
情况以及测量结果准确度的要求选择合适的评定方法,如果输入量分布均服从正态分布且对测量准确度要求不高,可使用
GUM 进行评定,反之建议使用 MCM 评定以提高观测结果的准确性和可靠性。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| In the uncertainty evaluation of wind speed measured by wind speed sensors, the traditional method is to simplify the
measured wind speed model and use guide to the expression uncertainty in measurement(GUM) to evaluate. However, GUM is not
suitable for complex model. In order to study reliable method for the uncertainty evaluation of measured wind speed, GUM and Monte
Carlo method (MCM) were used for uncertainty evaluation. On the basis of comparative analysis of results, the applicability of GUM was
verified using MCM evaluation. The results show that under the simplified model, the difference between GUM and MCM evaluation is
small, but only when the standard uncertainty is taken as one significant digit, GUM evaluation method is verified and evaluation is
consistent; MCM evaluation under the actual measurement model are similar in envelope shape compared to GUM evaluation under
simplified model, but the best estimate of measured wind speed is significantly larger, GUM evaluation method cannot be validated;
When changing the distribution of some input variables, the two methods evaluated best estimated values of measured wind speed are very
close. However, the inclusion interval of GUM evaluation is significantly wider than that of MCM, the probability distribution difference
is significant, and GUM evaluation method cannot be validated. Therefore, appropriate evaluation methods should be selected according
to the complexity of model, the distribution of input quantities and accuracy of measurement. If the distribution of input quantities follows
normal distribution and measurement accuracy is not high, GUM can be used for evaluation. On the contrary, MCM is recommended to
evaluate to improve the accuracy and reliability of observation results. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
