Wei Mingming, Wen Chunhua, Cheng Yinbao, Yao Shun, Hong Ling, Zhou Taocheng
Jiangxi Provincial Meteorological Observation Center, Nanchang 330096, China.
Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Climate Change Risk and Meteorological Disaster Prevention, Nanchang 330096, China.
Rev Sci Instrum. 2025 Mar 1;96(3). doi: 10.1063/5.0233766.
Addressing the oversight in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty for traditional aneroid barometers, where the performance of calibration equipment (in particular, the temperature coefficient calibration box, henceforth termed the coefficient box, and the indication calibration box, referred to as the indication box) and the uncertainty associated with the temperature coefficient are frequently neglected, this paper introduces an enhanced evaluation framework. The objective of this framework is to achieve a more precise evaluation of measurement uncertainty and to enhance the accuracy of calibration outcomes. Initially, a comprehensive calibration methodology is devised, accounting for the impact of the coefficient box's performance on the temperature coefficient and the influence of the indication box's performance on the indication error. By executing this methodology, detailed empirical test data are procured. Subsequently, incorporating various factors that affect the measurement outcomes, the measurement uncertainty is evaluated utilizing the collected data. The evaluation results reveal that the uncertainty of the temperature coefficient is U = 0.004 hPa/°C (k = 2), and the uncertainty of the indication error is U = 0.12 hPa (k = 2). For comparison, the traditional calibration approach yields an uncertainty of the temperature coefficient of U = 0.004 hPa/°C (k = 2) and an uncertainty of the indication error of U = 0.09 hPa (k = 2). Through a comparative analysis, it is evident that the coefficient box's performance has little effect on the temperature coefficient's uncertainty; however, neglecting the performance of the indication box and the temperature coefficient's uncertainty can result in the evaluation of the indication error's uncertainty deviating from actuality. Consequently, it is recommended that the effects of the indication box's performance and the temperature coefficient's uncertainty be thoroughly considered when evaluating the measurement uncertainty of an aneroid barometer's indication error. By doing so, more authentic and reliable evaluation results can be obtained, ultimately enhancing the accuracy of the aneroid barometer's calibration outcomes.
针对传统无液气压计测量不确定度评估中的疏漏，即校准设备（特别是温度系数校准箱，以下简称系数箱，以及示值校准箱，简称示值箱）的性能和与温度系数相关的不确定度常被忽视的情况，本文引入了一个强化评估框架。该框架的目标是实现对测量不确定度更精确的评估，并提高校准结果的准确性。首先，设计了一种全面的校准方法，考虑系数箱性能对温度系数的影响以及示值箱性能对示值误差的影响。通过执行该方法，获取了详细的实证测试数据。随后，结合影响测量结果的各种因素，利用收集到的数据评估测量不确定度。评估结果显示，温度系数的不确定度为U = 0.004 hPa/°C（k = 2），示值误差的不确定度为U = 0.12 hPa（k = 2）。相比之下，传统校准方法得出的温度系数不确定度为U = 0.004 hPa/°C（k = 2），示值误差不确定度为U = 0.09 hPa（k = 2）。通过对比分析可知，系数箱的性能对温度系数的不确定度影响不大；然而，忽略示值箱的性能和温度系数的不确定度会导致示值误差不确定度的评估偏离实际情况。因此，建议在评估无液气压计示值误差的测量不确定度时，充分考虑示值箱性能和温度系数不确定度的影响。这样做可以获得更真实可靠的评估结果，最终提高无液气压计校准结果的准确性。
