关于北欧的疲劳实验室的比较—测量结果不确定值的反映-翻译.doc

附录 附录1 英文原文 Reflections regarding uncertainty of measurement, on the results of a Nordic fatigue test interlaboratory comparison Magnus Holmgren, Thomas Svensson, Erland Johnson, Klas Johansson Abstract This paper presents the experiences of calculation and reporting uncertainty of measurement in fatigue testing. Six Nordic laboratories performed fatigue tests on steel specimens. The laboratories also reported their results concerning uncertainty of measurement and how they calculated it. The results show large differences in the way the uncertainties of measurement were calculated and reported. No laboratory included the most significant uncertainty source, bending stress (due to misalignment of the testing machine, “incorrect” specimens and/or incorrectly mounted specimens), when calculating the uncertainty of measurement. Several laboratories did not calculate the uncertainty of measurement in accordance with the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) [1]. Keyword： Uncertainty of measurement, Calculation, Report, Fatigue test, Laboratory intercomparison Definitions ：R Stress ratio Fmin/Fmax · F Force (nektons) · A and B Fatigue strength parameters · s and S Stress (megapascals) · N Number of cycles. Introduction The correct or best method of calculating and reporting uncertainty of measurement in testing has been the subject of discussion for many years. The issue became even more relevant in connection with the introduction of ISO standards, e.g. ISO17025 [2]. The discussion, as well as implementation of the uncertainty of measurement concept, has often been concentrated on which equation to use or on administrative handling of the issue. There has been less interest in the technical problem and how to handle uncertainty of measurement in the actual experimental situation, and how to learn from the uncertainty of measurement calculation when improving the experimental technique. One reason for this may be that the accreditation bodies have