..

.,

;1,

U.S. nAVRL DRDRRUCE LABORATORY

c

NA

CALIFORNIA

Technical Memorandum
No, 63-1o6

24

October

1955

FACTORS AFFECTING
MEASUREMENT RELIABILITY
by
Jerry L. Hayes
Measurements Reliability Branch

Production Quality Division

Missile Evaluation Department

1
'\

TECH. MEH>. 63-106

FOREWORD

The increasingly' critical requirements of measurements

performed on guided missile parameters baa prompted a need tor
the improvement ot tbe reliability of missile :measurements.
Accord1ngly1 the Bureau of Ordnance recently assigned the Missile
Evaluation Department ot this laboratory the task ot improving
meuurement reliability through the study and establishment ot a
calibration program tor all BuOrd guided missile teat equipaent.

Thia memorandum diseussea the factors which intluence the

reliability of measurements and the controls which can be applied
to measuring processes to assure that reliable measurements are
performed.
The author acknowledges With tb&nks.the assistance rendered
by Mr. William G. Collins ot the Measurements Reliability Branch 1a
reviewing this memoran.dum1 especially in the phases devoted to
.-surement com;patability and usociat'4 prograa.

Head. 1 Production Quality Division

Released by:
G.R. Sama
Head. 1 Miasile Evaluation Department

U. S. NAVAL ORDNANCE LAOORATORY, CORONA

'I'. s. Atchison, Ph.D.
Technical Director

'I'. C. Manville, Capt., tBN

(!omma.nding Officer

Technic'1 Memorandum 24 October 1955

Bo. 6,-l.06
F.AC'l'ORS An'ECTIIO

MBASUREMUT RBLIABILI'l'r
by

Jerry L. Bqes

Measurements Reliability Branch

Production Quality Division
Missile Evaluation Department

Corona, California

FACTORS AFFECTIOO MEASUREMElfr R!t!ilILrrY

Jerry L, Hayes
?-U.ssile Evaluation Department
U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory
Corona, C&lifornia

I.

Tlle Need for Reliable Measurements .

T6e Vilue ol. a program aiilied at. improvUig
and e'suring the reliability of missiles is
degra4ed it the quality and proof teats to
which missile coaponente and systems
are
eubjeetod are . not in tbelllselves reliable.
Unlesa reliab:j.e.teats a.re performed, correlation; fsj.lure . diegnpsie,. surveillance
and
quality control data are always in doubt,
Unreliable testina proceasea n,.turally lead to
erroneous conclusioll.B, 1'&ulty,andineffective
quality control and relieibUJ,ty programs 1 and
missiles whose true relia~ility is either
unknown or dangeroual1 in error.
The Missile Evaluation Department of the
U.S. Ifaval Ordnanee Laborei.tory,. CQrona, Calif-

ornia, is responsible for the evaluation of

various types 01' missiles in.tbe Bureau of
Ordnance Guided Missile Pl'06ralll.
}.a a result
of our evaluation efforts to da'\e 1 we are
convinced that there is :an urgent need for a
critical , consideration qt the testing and
inspecting systema to "tlh:lch missiles
are
subjected.
This need exists throughout all
phases of missile development, production, and
field usage where test results are the measure
of quality or progres~.
It ia considered
imperative . that
all
individuaJ.s CODCerned With the establishment,
direction, and implementation of test programs
be ma.de fully aware of the factors wkich affect
the reliability of measurementa. Many of the
factot's to be presented fall in the realm of
COlllllQn knowledge, but their application and
linkace to leis knoWll factore is considered
necessary to the establishment of reliable
measuring procea15es.
II. 'l'he Relations~ of llj,t T!:>lerances,
Desi$ TOlerances,
~le Instrumentati Error

Thi. establishment of teeting tolerances

in J.1elationsh.J.p to <lesisn tolerances is an
impotltant ~actor to be cona1,deftld in the testing &)'Bilea~ since this relMonship not only
sets :the accuracy requirements of the measuring i.'1struments, but eata'blisb!lt. the probable
quantity of teated .products 'Which will be
erroneously accepted or rejected.
Knowledge
01' the anticipated rat's of erl'Qn6ous accept~ces or rejections
provides Controls to
ensure that reliable tests are ~ied out.
Any deviation of the relat_ionship b~ween t'st
tolerances, deoiBn tolerance a and tHe testinp
instruments accuracies will directly affect
the nwnber of products erroneously teated,

Considerable ~ttort hail been expendf'1 on

these relationshi~I by Mr. Alan R $agle M4
Dr. l'rank !. Grubbs '.
'f'hei:r writ bu resulted
in: a mathematical. expression tor the relationship between design ~ test tolerances and
allowable instrumentation error.
~e result
01' their work was applied, with minor lllOdifi
cation, in the developnent ot this paper;

----.....,
--
.....

~--,--------

Influence ot Teat Inetrwilpt

on Product Acceptability
Figure l illustrates "the influence ot ,test
instrument inaccuracy on the appareii.t;
acceptability of a tested product whose 4-ftsn tolerances and teat tolerances ;are identical. If a
product s ,true measurement lies just beyoncl the
upper toie~ potqt, it~ can be expect.a.. that
this pro4uct w~ ~ hJected by the testing
proceso. However, if the testing instrument 1e
reading in the shaded portion pf the inetl'Ul!lent
error distribution curve, the product would be
erroneously accepted.
or course the opposite
condition could e+lo occur Wherein an acceptable product ie .erroneousi, rejected. It ~
also be seen that any shifting of tho teat
tolerance in relatiop to the de1ie:n tolerance
would vary the number or erroneciua acCeptances

:tEagre 1 A. R. , 11A Method

of IJandling Errors in
Testing and .easurins", Industrial Quetity ~
trol, ~, 1954
20rubbs, P.E. and Coon, H~J., "on Se'!;ting Te9t
Limits Relative to. Specitication Lilllits"" Industrial Quality Control, March, 1954
-

and rejections as would a videning or na..rro1na

ot the instru.1J1ent error distribution curve.
A tainily ot curves, Figures 2 through
8
has been prepared to describe specifically the

MCIUllUTY Of'E~LY

relationship between the three

i~enCine;
tactors,
The equations necessary for the
development or the curves are presented i,n the
appendix.
These curves are based upon the
following assumptions:
,
,a. . 'l'be .. product uncler test . ii re.nd.oml.;y
4i1tri'but~ .. .. ..

.. .
.b . . tM (\esign :1;o1eraaclt .. J~ 1004t.ed at
the 2 aig11a c;ootidence .l"vl... on the product
cli1tribution: curve, .

c. ..!rl\e instrument error. h l-andoml.Y

distributed.
d.. 'l'he 1n1tnuaentation error.. is established at one st6ndard deviation of the instrument error distribution curve.

P-llLITY Of' E-ll&OUILY

ACCEPTM PllODUCTI DUE TO

TEITllM EMOlll

MICEPTllM l'llOOUCTIOUE
10 TEITIH lllllOlll

~l
1---~~'.t

---------1

t---1-lt-F~::+-~..q_.::_=+~=--lu

Ia
I

MI

- I T Y Of E-EOUILY
ACCEPTllll l'llllllUCll DUE TO

111t111t

EllllDM

__..._.-'---I.#

...

...

1
...

,.

.
'l'he a1111bola .used on tlul' cui:;ves (Fisures 2
throl.lih 8) a..-e described as J'bil.Ow.a:
' .
A.I,E, c Allowable lrurl;rumente.tion. Error
(the value obt<JJ.ned lrl.U be -~ ot the, total plus
to lllinua er~ e.J.lo~ 1.e. , A.t.E. ;~ mlita)
Design Toierance iviliue or the aiiowacle
variation a.bout a nominal des13n value.
ti : Fe.cto1:" to b.e multiJ?.~icd bT ft r-,g. to

2
determine locat fon at tect tolere.rice in rei.a.t19n to deei:;n tolert.nce. -+N locat~e the test
tol'!lrance outsid!I the' desi::;n, toi.ars.ilce end -:-?

loco.tes

it

inside,

j;

..

-I

~nerunuu

M,IU1-....CU ...

TutlM . . . .

To_ ..........i-4olo~L."1

t-""--"i.......,--f.;,.;._""+-J,_L~~..Ui.,'

.r

.I

~~l

It

-i---+-~i----.+-~___..

~~J

...,.__F"

:-.."; r

~ 1....

?.r:-

':

"

'~.

~,,~,

.:~

~ .... ~

~
;

: .. i_.;:

.4

'I

,! -~

~.. 1.:_

';;j,U

.,,,

'

1:

t--~+-~~:;..._.J.'---+.--.Ji!:__.Ll&.a

'

t-~-+~~~+..~~....,,J.:J,..;:,,L~~

,,_

...

,....
....,.. ....,.._,..
''*'
lUT-

;..

r-~~-:d--~...,.__"!"""--1-~~
-'~

.;{

.
~r

.;J
~

'~

'.

'I

'd'

.:~1

,.

_,_.f'-.. . . ~~~

~~~

...1
-:

~~~1
~"1

. .I

......
-'-"~-

.,! -

'!be curvea can be empl.oyed in the following manner to ensure that within 95.5fo of the
teata, a apecific teating riak or reliability
can be attained:
a. Determine ~.~9.aD!i.technical
data the proper comprca:lvblftveell Consumer and
Producer. R:l.k to yiel4 the aeiSli'ela. " testing
proceH r:Lek.
.
~. Atti~ that deiSn ~lerances have
been ',.a+,iblia'bed r8al.ia'Ucall. .and represent

rhie instrument, which is to b~ used to measure a 4oo cps. 100 volt parameter, has a range
~t 150 V. The selector assumes that at lOOY
he has a accuracy of 5'ti; however a f'u.ll scale
accuracy qi'~ results 1il an' error of 5~ x 150
7. 5 volts at 1501 ' 'l'hiB' error "at l.ooY results in all &CCUfacy'.9f:C"7~5yh~) 1;00 7.5 '/.
which is tar too great for an A;I.E. of 5.3.

t1'118

Error

2." l'allure to Account for

:tequ:l~nt.

4.

,~e:
The selector obtained a
60 cpj 1~ Which wa& not frequency
compen1ated or calibrated tor 4oo cps. The
error Of 'the .i~tl"Ullltnt at this frequency was
2.5~ of tul1 eCl.l:e due to, the ettect ot frequency~ aione..
'1qe -ewer-all accuraoy ot a 5~
selectt<l .. inatl'Ullleat woulA be reduced to as
much ao. 71 ~ full stale a,'t an operating frequency ~i' ~cps.

lllt.ablish

a reaaonabl,e ratio between

bMe4 on known
accuracy Um!tationa of the 11111198urhs iDBtrummte '.lavatl.e.
. i. - J:stablish the location ot the teat
tolerilce at ~ tnt~riection of the r:Lsk
level line and the
A.I.E.
line
'
2 x 1)i;sign 'l'Oiei'ance
(It ti.a "'1ost"tolel'ance-deaign tolerance relationalii11 . ~ ,. ben previousl.f eetabliahed,
detetfine 'u. The .intereection of the H line
and risk. bvel 11,ne denote the value
of
'i \ -~. From this value, A.I.E.
A..I.E. d

~ Deeign ~

Arfn!'!Qleran&e
'

2 x Dis

t ...\ '

\, ~

Since the fantily.of curves was established for a desiGD tolerance" .location at the 2
sigma confidence 1*1/el of' i;l::!e product d:!.strtbution clurve, a design to~$(:e which deviates i'roii this 2 sigma locatii:xl.~Quld require
a new i'alllilY of cur\tes.
" "

or

---wen

III. Components of the Allowable Instr.unent

Error
- - The interrelationship of the tolerances
and i~t errors previously . d~scussed
bear hca'/tly on the reliability of any measuring pr testill(J process. Ii' a valid' and realietic eelection ot 'd'e9,~$J'l li.l'i~, ~~wt. tolerances
has been male, the selectt.on pt the :proper measuring ~nst~nt would be the.only remaining
need itl meet1.ng the requirements of A.I.E.
One could assQme that if A.I.E; was determined
to btl :t:S.;;~ that he nee,d only select an inst:rum&itit~slight~y more accurate; ~ay 51", to
aclequ~ely meet the requirement. 'such might
be the casit, l::lut, ye:cy Gften,, unless the meas urement to be performed is criticelly examined
all tbe yaltie gained in the establishment of a
desire<\. risk level ma::/ be lost que to hasty
instrument selection.

J'lbe

"t ', Consider Pro

Instrument
ects
e:
. .instrument ' is to be
placed, in a panel~ &ucb a location as to be
influel:\ce4 by a large power transtormer. The
instruineni
can be, bhielded to combat the
accuracy decreasing ette~ts ot the field and
must be calibrated in S: ~ Whose thickness
is approximately that ot th,~:.; panel in which
the instrlunent will be locati!l ;;\;. Location and
size of instrument leads is all .J,ni'lucmtial
factor as
as the horizonta.1.
vertical
~rientation of illl! 1nl!ltrulnent 1 s &."CiB.
Failure
to consider and compensate for these.factors
further reduces the over-all accuracy of the
measuring system.

can b! rea4U1.obt~.)
.

.Frequency

4. . Failure to Con&14er; Snvironmental

Effects

:~ample:
The "fnstt'iliiit!ttt will be
operated in a field condition where extremes
of heat, hwhl.di ty, and. rough hendling are
e:>:pec~d.
Unless ruggidize.tion and temp2rature end humidity compensatiqn measures are
taken 9r alloved for, groaa errors can result.
I'he h:l.gb amount of heat dissipated by the
shunts and reai.stors of some instruments when
operating . ne&.r' ~h~ir rat~ current value may
produce significant
errors of indicatfon.
Unlesi adequate ~t dissipation measures have
been provided)' 1hstruments should be selected
to opero.te well below thc~r rated cut-rent .

. )

v,

?. Nlure to Consider Loading

fa.eto!'lf which contribute to

error reliultinS i'rol;i i1proper instrument selection
a follows {Some ot these seem to
be so si111Ple as to ap~ar absurd, put uni'ortuno.tlYt they occur al! too frequently):
M.jol'

of' thct Inetrwpent .

are

1~ffects

Disc~ssion:
The selection of an
:lnetrtinent ~~hose resistance we.a lolr cnou~h to
draw exceasiVe current from the meo.sured pare.meter ~ ~;tGuld redui:e 'the .meaau:i.-ed vbl tage and
thus introduce further '11\rrol',
The 1.r.ipedancc
ot the m$aouring syiitems inueit be so established as to load the 'Circuit t.o a r.>inimwn a."ld
concurrenU.y produce a desired sens~.tivity.

'l. Failure to APlllY' Accuracy Ils.ting of

Instrument correctly
!;<a111ple: Im .instrument those rated
accuracy is 5~ to o~lected for A.I,e. ').3{..

6. Failure t.o Consider Et:f'ects of Inatrument Scale Design and Mll'.i'ki!!a

Discussion: 'l'liis factor ia directly
linked With the ~ability ot the selected
instrument.
.Admittedly, ita ettect is generally negligible on il:l8~nts of the l~ to 5~
accuracy claaa.
Its ettect becomes more pronounced u accuracy requirements become increasingly critical. A bre&k4ovn ot the factors attec:ting an indic:ati.og inatrument s
rea4ebility i aa follows:
a, Resolution or definition ot scale
b,
per scale diviaion
c, Pointer dimensions
d, Scale diMndoos
e, Numeral di!lension1
.t, Mirrored. seal.ea

Numerous tests h&ve been conducted

over a period of years 1 ,2 to determine the
actual etfec:t theae factor had on instrument
roadability.
Aa a result ot these t~&ts,
opti111W11 diJ11enSion1 for lea.le and )i>Ointers Were
ev~lved and incorporated
into deaisn and
production by J1111UY instrument manufacturers.
Ilouever, one instrument scale design variable
that is difficult to maintain is that of the
Width of the smalleat scale division on a
scale,
Figure 9 illustrates the results of
this factor.

It should be pointed out that the

"Averaae Reading li!rror" ie baeed on teat results using highly trained operators with
years of experience in instrument reading,
Less experienced operators could easily double
this reading error,
The figure gives values
baaed only on the effect of diviaiOll width,
The effect of other factors fUrther incree.aea
reading erro:rs, A safe conclusion that ~ be
re"'ched 1'rolll the tests is that a properly
designed scale can se.ldom be read to arr accuracy better than two tenths of a scale .diviaion
except at, or midway between scale division
marks.
It a highly accurate rneuurement is
to be perfo:nued using an indicating inatrumen'\' 1 due oonsideration should be applied to
the selectiOll of an instrument whose res.ding
error is a min:l.mull and whose fUll scale
ranges and oca.le increments are moat nearly
in accord!'llce 'llith preferences stated in .ASA
C:59.l - 1951, "Standard for Electrical Indicating Instruments",
In all cases of indicating instrwnent usage 1 the upper thil'd of
the scale should be utilized, PercentqeWise,
errors of res.ding and indication become in.
creasingly excessive as lower portions of the
sea.le are used,
7, Failure to Consider the Require.vnts
for, or the Effects of Ca.libration
Discussion: SUppose that all of the
aforementioned facto.rs had been duly conaidered and compensated for. One could aaaume
that an instrument had been selected which
would ensure a reliable test or meaaurelllllllt
proeeBB,
However, if due attention ia not
given the ettects of calibration or l&c:k of
calibration, the value of the selection is
a.sain reduced, The complete lack of callbra
tion obviously results in highly questionable
measurements which over 1006 :Periods of usage
could, and probably would, be erroneous in
many respects,
For this reason, pGriodic instrument calibration.is highly necessary,
An integrated system to guarantee
that instrument error is contained ll'ithin
given limits is a solution to the problem.
The use of a selected instrument incorporated
into the calibration system would s.upposed.1.y
ensure the fact that the rated accuracy or
the instrument was maintained. However, if
the instrument in the calibration system is
checked for compliance With its accuracy
specifications by a more accurate instrument
which was idontically checked by a still more
accurate instrument, and so on, the selected
instrU.~ent
could have an ~rror in excess of
that spec:l.fied by the instrument manufacturer,
Suppose an instl'Wllent has its accuracy value
established at a confidf1ce level in error
distribution of 2 sigma by an instrument
identically estabwhose.accuracy value was
liabed,
Aasuming that
the
selected

1Woodaon, W.E.,

1 Indicates

uuta

...

llll'lllllllCID CIPlllAT-' . . . . .111111111

YI.

DIVlllON WIDTll

,...

'~ ....._

..

I
I
"'"'',..
_,,,_.,

that probably 95,5~ of instruments meet accuracy figure, Limited investigation has indicated that the confidence
leve~ of 2 sigma is norinally exceeded,

"lAwla.n Engineering Guide tor

Equipment DesiGllera"; University of California
~eas, 1954, pp 1-1 to 1-17
IIaids, F. I~. 1 "Electrical ?-Jeasurements ",
Wiley, 1~)2, pp 116 to 120

Conditions that !lll\Bt be fulfilled to

an i!Aeque.te. calibration lll'OgI'Sm an
as follows:

e., Detei-mination of the characteristics, accuracies, and. ranees reqttfred at

all levels of mee.su~nB processes.
b, Establishment of a suitable
calibration structure for the referral o't all
standards to a eommon reference,
c. SeleCti.on and designation ot
specific standards at 1t1.1 functional levellt'~
a. Establishment ot detailed calibration proce4ures and methOds at all functional levels.
e, Designation of specific calibration periods at all functionallevels.
f. Ane.lysitl ot calibration date. to
continually monitor the program and provide
for periodic revision.

instrument s accuracy wa.s :!:5~~ and the calibrat ion instruments accuracy was ~~' !t is logical. to assume that a portion, of the ';If, inetrument s error would be transmitted to the 5~
instrument,
In the most extreme case, the
two could combine' to yield an inaccuracy at
the seleeted instrument of 5+2 7'/.. However,
the combined accuracy computed to a 2 sigma
confidence levei (that which waa originally
eatabliehed for the instruments) is mathematically the square root of the awn of the
squares of the contributing errors or (52+~)t
5.~. Further contribution to the error
would be made by the instrument used in calibrating the
~ instrument, although its
e~ect would be
lesa .pronounced. Thus, it
would be necesaaey that the. calibration system
into which the selected instrument
18.
placed be considered from the standpoint of
ita effect on the aa1umed accuracy of the
inatrument.
Since the aim is to remain within the Allowable Instrumentation Error at all
times, such consideration should be
given
cautiously, It is understood that many alternate plans such as calibration carc1.s, checking
to t rated accuracy throughout, etc, could be
employed; however, it is believed that for
ease of operation, consideration of personnel
factors, dependability, etc,, the method set
forth is the most practicable for the majority
of instruments involved.
If any correlations
between like tests perf'o:nned at various locations arc expected,it is also necesear;r that
all selected instruments 'have a common reference .and be so integrated int:> the program as
to provide compa.ra.1lJ.~ t\a.ta. at var:l.ous levels
of tent and inspection.

este.blisl~

Condition a. can be fulfilled 1through

extensive ittudies'ot all testing equipment
presently
in use and ' that ''which will be
incorporated into test pro$r'e.ms in the near
future, These studies would be, of necessity,
a lengthy process and would .Aepend upon the
results of a portion of the compe.tability
program which will be discussed later.
Condition b. can be met through considerations based on anticipated
logistic
problems .
A normal structure would
establish
itself as follows:' test sets seoondary
transfer standards
secondary reference
standards - prime.l-y transfer standards - primary reference standards - National frimary
Standards (National Bureau of Standai-ds).

IV. Controls and 3yistelll6 to Ensure Measurement R~lii!.bii!ty

The need for the establishment of controls, systems and methods to ensure the
empJ.oyment of reHnble measurements t~rough
out all (:Uided missile tenting
proceeses
becomes apparent whe~ the co:nrilicationa of
weighing and applying the factors affecting
measurement reliability are fully encountered,

Condition . c. would be
tlil.filled
following
an analysis of the results of
conditions a and b. This analysis would yield
the data necessary to the selection of calibration instruments.
The instrument acc\lI'acy at the test
set" eschelon can be denoted as C. From the
results of the compatability program, the
value of the corresponding Allowable Instrumentation Error, A.I.E., would be provided.
'!'he seJ.ectiori ot , an e.pi)roprlate calibration
instrument
at
the "eeeonde.ry
transfer"
eschelon (whose aecura~t can be denoted ao D)
and the "secondary reference" eschalon (whose
acc\.\rany caa be denoted as A) would be !11a4e
by inltially considering the factors affectins
reliability th&t have been previously discussed in section III.

lie at the Haval Ordnance Lal)ore.tor;, believe that the problem can be contained within
reasonable limits tlu-oueh the implemt\ntation
of two carefully planned rrogrs.~s, clocely
coordinated for ma;:imum cooperation and il1terc;lwlge of int'orniation, and delicated to the
t~k of aasurillG reliable ;nco.surements.
These
are a calibration program and a compatability
progrolll,
l. Calibration Pro~ram
file miaaion . o the calibr~tion program is to ensure the !11&in~enance of accnracy
within the desiJn limits, of the r.ieasuring
systems emplo;o!ed in the test of all Dureau of
Ordnance guided missnea.
The calibration
'program must have flexibHity to provide tor
clw.ngine; iequireMents; must keep pace lTi th
!'.:lld evaluate the 1:t0at rccet cleveJ.opmenta in
~tandards, especially in arcan \There start<:.ards
are nebuloun; and r.1\1.at :irovide e. cott.1on reference for each cha:r>.cteriati-.: mee.sureQ.,

It would now appear that some syste111ati c method of relating A.I.E. to A,B, and C
would simplify the selection process lthen the
effects of calibration error transferral were
tmder consideration. Ae v~.s prevfously stated
i.f it. is e.sSt'J!IM that the hstI",U'.!!1tS I errors
have a nor;1l.l distribution fl."ld t;hc1r acet~O.C;f
re.t1!lge arc o.H l!etablis'1ed at least at ~he 2
sii;111 co.1:~:!.dcnce level, then th:;i \'oot sum of

The
inotrument
selection
graph
resulting fro:n the equation .is presented in
FiGUre 10. Onoo the value of R is established,
any point on the corresponding radius can be
selected to arrive at values for A and B which
are r.easonable and in lreepins with availabJ.e
calibration standards.

squares method can be applied.

Sfnce it is desired to contain the
errors transmitted by the test iristrur:.ent
within the limits of A.I.E , then the appli2
cation of the equation A:2+B2+e2 A.I.E.
should sati~ty the condition.
It is obvious that a great number of
combinations of A,B,C, and A.I.E. would be
present.
This complexity of combinations can
be reduced by assuming that the error of instrument B is equal to or less than one-half
the error of instrument C and that the error
ot instrwnent A is equal to or less than onehalt that of instrwDent B. It a graphic presentation of these combinations coul.d be presented, a simplified selection system would
result.

The effect on C of the errors in the

transfer and reference stani:lards is
negligible if a 2 to l e.c~cy increase is
maintained throughout t~ ei<fuel.on. If information regarding this effect 'ia
desired.,
Figu.r.e 1.0 can be used twice. The tint usege
would determine the amount of error (A.I.E.)
to be expected of the secondary reference
standard.
Employing this A.I.E, as the value
of A, the second use,ge would indicate the
value of A. I.E. that would result at the teet
set ~helon.
pri~

Condition d can be fulfilled throuch

the tedious process of consj.dering factors
such as the appropriate techniques or methods
to be used, calibre of personnel available
to perform calibration, and field proofing of
interim procedures and necessary
revisions
thereto, All of these factors should be commensurate with the over-all philooophy e.nd
calibration policies established.
Speci~-~
ce.ses of stringent accuracy requirements s.nd
extensions beyond the state of the ai-t would
require necessary deviations from nonllE'.l policies and techniques,

Condition
e
could be fulfilled
initially t}lrough the recommendations l!lBde b~
instrument
manufactur~rs,
statistical
interpretat:i.on of 3.Il.Y~ previous ce.libra:i;ion
data available, o.nd the experience of other
activities using similar instru.111ents in lilte
applications.
The expected environment into
lThich the instrwnents "1ll be placed weighs
heavily
in
the detel'l!lination
of initial
calibration periods.
The selection of proper
calibration periods is also highly ir~:portant
to the success of the prosrmn.
The safe
approach would be to establish peria<:.s between
calibrations which were shorter than estimates
actually ipdica.tc.
Analysis of calibration
data would provide information
tor cny
necesse.r,y nvill:l,ons to the periods,

..
--...

. . . , _ T llUCllOll-1

-...-.. ... '.!f-

... +.1

~..AtJl - ~t

Pll.10

The mathematical fol'llllllation ot

a
graph to allatf systematic selection of calibration standards is as foUowa:
l.

As before, A.I.E,2 A2+B2+q2

2. Let A equal a val1"e KA times

and B eque.J. a value 1()3 times C,

,,

Condition t is the ''we\teh do<:" tunction of the proaram and provides to~ rovisions
to calibration periods, methods and :;roce<lureo,
csl.ibration policies, stsnda.rV.s, and a.i.i other
elements associa.ted with the pro;p.aut, E::t91\
sive ll8e of calibratj,on data report fol'llU! and
other simpl!fying report fornl8 would provide a
be.sis for. these "revisions when screene4 tan4
analyzed by a central egency. 60111& 1'orm ot
periodic publication or CO!lllllllnica'vion from the
CC11;1.tral aaency to using calibration or~an1Z$
tions would advise as to ch?Jtges and revisions
in effect or forth-coming fl.a well aa other
information intended for co11tl:1itou::: improvement of th:;; proe;rar.1.

C,

2
'l'hef!., A.I.E22 - KA2c:+KB~c2+c
and, A.I.E. -1 lCA +KB

c2

It lll8iY occur quite o!'ten, especialJ.y

in the early stages ot th~ program, that the
determination of A.I.E. from design and test
tolerance relationships is impossible since
their original establishment was not such as
to provide a specific relationship or risk
level.
The determination of A.I.E. for test
instruments 1n design or proposal phases would
be accomplUshed through coordination with the
compatability program.
A solution to the
indeterminable A.I.E. would be to take a new
approach and atteqrt to determine the value ot
A.I.E. by disregarding the design - test tolerance relationship and select a desired risk
level due to the effects ot calibration alone.

COHIUllEll'I 111111DUE10 ULllllATION DlllOll

.,

'

...

....

...
...
0'4 ;

'

I
I

,IG.12

...

I
0

.. .. ..

.I
A.C.6.

a:rr.2.

Compatability Program
The success of the calibration program depends on the proper selection of test
instruments. A perfect calibration program
will not provide asurement reliability
unless controls are provided to guarantee the
adequacy of test instruments employed in measuring processes,
The calibration program
ensures the common referral and accuracy of
instruments used in test sets, but the efforts
involved will be wasted unless the instruments
are correctly chosen,

Influence of Calibration Instrument on

Calibrated Instruments Accuracy
Since the calibration policy ot checking alJ.
instruments at their rated accuracy point has
been established, we find a distribution situation (shown in P'igure ll) similar to that
existing between product and test error distributions, In this case the instrument :I.a
being tested in such a manner that the test
tolerance or calibration checkpoint equals
the design or rated accuracy tolerance. This
condition is equivalent to that ot N 0 on
Figures ' and 6.
Therefore, curves can be
drawn which provide a relationship between the
Instrument Error, I.E., and the A1lowable
Calibration Error, A.C.E, for a given risk
level. Thus by using Figures 12 and 1,, it is
possible to determine the value ot A.C,E, tor
a given risk level, A.C.E. when combined by
the root sum of aquares method with I.E. produces the value of A.I.E, such that A.C,E.2+
I.E.2 A.I.E,2,
From this determir.ation ot
A.I.E. based on risks due to calibration~ the
selection system of Figure 10 could be used
and appropriate standards designated,

The mission of the

compatability
program is to ensure proper 1nstrwnentation 1
correctly related test and design tolerances,
and consistent and appropriate tech.~iques a.~
procedures.
The 1'Ult11lment ot the missions
of the compatability and calibration programs
should guarantee that like tests performed on
a missile at one location can be faithfully
and consistently reproduced at other locations,
This fUlfillment gives further assurance that
valid intercompa.risans of test results a.re
posaible when measuring like parameters ot
different types of missiles,

The .conditions that must be fU.1.tilled

to establish an adequate compatability program
are as follows:
a. Assiu-ance that reasonable design
tolerances are specified,
b, Verification and establishment ot
fair and reasonable testing risk levels,

l'he curves shown in Figures 2 throuah 8.could

then be used to determine the proper balance
between test tolerances and allo\o.rable instrumentation error, Instrumentation lll'll1tationa
would dictate the variation in allowable instrumentation err0r and.the resultant span ot
test tolerances.
Final selection of' the test
instrument should be based on its suitability
to the parameter under test, applicability to
the calibration system, conai1tency with previous selections f'or like measurements,
and
compliance with the allowable instrumentation
error. Close coordination with the calibration
program would be necessary at this stace, since
proper calibration accuracy eachelon muat be
established or an existing one utilized to give
assurance that the allowable instrumentation
error is not exceeded when using a proposed
test instrument,
'nl.e instrument selection
curves shown in figure 10 can again be utilized
in this connection, Initially, trial and error
methods of' determining test tolerances, allowable instrumentation error, and auitable test
instruments would be necessary. As experience
in using the system was gained, each successive
selection would become more simplified,
Condition d, would be fulfilled
through study of' existing and proposed techniques and procedures, These studies should be
so conducted as to determine whether or not the
techniques and procedures, used were as follows:
(1) Sound and appropriate f'or the intended measurement,
( 2) Consistent trom measurement
to
measurement,
(}). Adapted to .tlie f!Xperience and
ability of' using personnel,
( l~) Stated concisely1 clearly, and
accurately,

c. Determination and verification of'

test tolerances and instrumentation in keeping
with related factors.
d. Aaaurance that
adequate
and
appropriate techniques and procedures
are
employed in each pbaae of' the testing procees.

~CP'S ltllK DUI TO CALlllRA110H EMOlt

14

I ..

II/ .....
J

II

..... /

.....

.. !!

.. .. .. ..

Condition a. can be :f'u.1.1'1lled by an

analysis of' the missile parameter under test
to determine its measureability from the standpoint ot parameter accuracy and range requirements,
Close coordination with missile and
test equipment designers would be of paramount
importance to the success ot this undertaking.
I
,
Condition b, could be tultilled by an
extensive atueq o"l the economics attached to
the testing process. A complete ~ii to
determine the coat to th'3 producer of' reJecting an acceptable product and the coat to the
conswner of accepting a reJectable product
would allow a reasonable testing risk to result. Considerations of' program exigencies,
type of' product usage intended, type ot teat
results desired, etc, would necessarily alter
the pure eCOnot\'f approach to the establishment
ot risk levels. One method could be that of'
selecting consumer and producer risk levels
such that the cost.to the conswner of' accepting bad products equaled the coat to the producer of' reJecting good products, Other methods could be utilized in which the awn of' the
costs is a minimwn or the sum of' 'the risks is
a minimum,

IV,

Conclusion
The factors which have bean presented
here as affecting the reliability of' measure. ments are not considered to be the only ones
which influence measurements, but they are
considered to represent the more important of
those generally encountered,
The systems of' selection and measurement
controls as established by the calibration
and compatability programs nave been set forth
in this paper as a means of pinpointing and
containing measurement problems 1 rather tha.'l
as a means of' eliminating the:u.
Neither the
compatability program nor the calibration procan operate separately, since oaa is dependent upon the other. The need f'or close
coordination of' ef'f'orts a.a well as for active
cooperation is essential to the development of
reliable measurements,

gram

Condition c, llOuld be :f'ulf'illed by

applying the results of conditions a. and b,

The implementation of' the

proposed
program f'or ensuring measurement reliability
is no overnight Job,
On the contrary, such a
study, hard
program will require extensive
work, perserverence, and a concentrated effort
by all concerned,
It is believed that thro11i.1h th~se efforts
the oft repeated que:t"J, "Wha;I; s in error - the
missile oi the test set?" will be '~eard nuch
less often,

MATHEMATICAL APPENDIX
The family ot curves . shown 1n tigures 2
through 8 were determined by use ot a computer.
A more tedious method involves the use ot an
autoistlc calculator and a table ot areaa under
the normal curve.

1.

Eagle, A.R., "A Method ot Ban4ling Errors

in 'l'estine; and Measuring",. Industrial Qualitx
Control, lla.l'ch 1954

2. Grubbs, P.E. 1 and Coon, B.J. 1 "On Setting

Test Limits Relative to Specitication Limits"

Induatria.l Quality Control, March 1954
3. 'ifb)d8on 1 W.E., "Jhunan Engineering Guide
tor Equipment Designers 11 Berkeley, tid.veraity
ot Ca.litomia Press 1 195
4. Institute tor Applied Experimental Pay
chology 1 TUfts College, "Bsndbook ot llmian Engineering Data, Ottice of Naval Research 1952
5. Barris, F. K. , "Electric.al. Meaaurements 11,
New York, Wiley, 1952
6. Whitehead, "Design and Use of Instrument
and Accurate. MecllBniSms", London, Dover Pub
licationa 1 1954
7. American Btande.ro Association, ''Code to&'
Electricity Meters", New York, BdillOll Electric
Institute, 1941, 4th Edition
8. "Electrical. Metermena Handbook", Rew York
Edison Electric Institute, 1950
9. Lawe, F.A., "Electrical Measurements", New
York, McGraw-Hill, 19'8

10. ASA C39.ll951, "AmeriQ&n Stan4arll

tor
Electrica.l Indicating Instrument" 1 New York,
American standards Association
11. Weaver, Frank D., "Notes on the Oare and
Use of Electrical Instruments 11 1 Instrument,
Vol. 23, No. 12
12. Spenser, J,, ''Maintenance and Servicing
of Electrical Instruments", Instruments Publ!.s hing Co. 1 1944

'l'he equations trom which plot points were

establiahed are aa toll.oWll:

lt

-t2

" eT

-1

Where:

r(k..t)-b

dtT.
-k

-(t2+s 2)/2

dsdt

-r{k+t )+b

koocontidence level ot the location

ot the design tolerance on the product distribution C\ir\re.

(2 sigma tor the case ot these
curves)
rmratio
erance.

ot A.I.E.

to design tol-

b-N, the number ot standard deviations ot A.I.E. the test tGJ.erance is displaced trom the design tolerance.
t and s selected tor specific
increments to attain desired accuracy ot computation.

ID