Comparison of MCM and GUM Method for Evaluating Measurement Uncertainty of Wind Speed by Pitot Tube
- 57 Downloads
“The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” (GUM) method has many disadvantages when evaluating the uncertainty of wind speed measured by pitot tube, and the “Monte Carlo method” (MCM) is put forward to evaluate the uncertainty of wind speed. The measured quantity value of wind speed by the S-shaped pitot tube is the research object, and the uncertainty is evaluated by GUM and MCM, respectively, and the simulation test is carried out. GUM has errors due to its adoption of approximate linear model. MCM adopts real simulation strategy and has higher credibility than the GUM method, so the GUM method can be validated by the MCM method. When the partial input quantity is changed into triangular distribution, uniform distribution and arcsine distribution, the GUM method is found to be inapplicable. In the evaluation of MCM method, the complex calculation of sensitivity coefficient is avoided, and some uncertainty with small influencing quantity is not needed to be discarded. The evaluation result is more complete. Through comparing the uncertainty evaluation results of MCM before and after the water vapor correction term is discarded, the influence of the water vapor correction term is quantified. Therefore, compared with the GUM method, the MCM method has more advantages when wind speed is measured by pitot tube.
KeywordsMetrology Uncertainty Wind speed MCM GUM
This work is supported by Meteorological Science and Technology key project of Jiangxi Province (No. 2018127).
MW analyzed the data and wrote the paper. JM contributed to the literature review and helped to perform data analysis. CL analyzed the experiments and compiled the program. CW and XL reviewed and edited the manuscript. SX supervised the research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008, Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 3: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) (2008).Google Scholar
- 2.GUIDE 98-3/SUPP.1, Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 3/Supplement 1: Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method. ISO/IEC (2008).Google Scholar
- 4.M.L. Fravolini, G. del Core, U. Papa, P. Valigi and M.R. Napolitano, Data-driven schemes for robust fault detection of air data system sensors, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 99 (2017) 1–15.Google Scholar
- 5.H. Yin and R. Zivanovic, An application of probabilistic collocation method in wind farms modelling and power system simulation, Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT-Asia). IEEE (2016), pp. 681–686.Google Scholar
- 6.M. Amiri, B. Bagen and A.M. Gole, Probabilistic analysis of the effect of wind speed variations on power quality of power systems, International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS). IEEE (2016), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
- 11.L. Jun and Z. Ping, Sensor fault detection algorithm of flight control system under modeling uncertainty and noise disturbance, Navigation and Control Conference. IEEE (2014), pp. 1851–1855.Google Scholar
- 16.S. Sediva, M. Uher and M. Havlikova, Application of the Monte Carlo method to estimate the uncertainty of air flow measurement, International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC). IEEE (2015), pp. 465–469.Google Scholar
- 17.S.C.C. Bailey, M. Hultmark, J.P. Monty, P.H. Alfredsson, M.S. Chong, R.D. Duncan, J.H.M. Fransson, N. Hutchins, I. Marusic, B.J. McKeon and H.M. Nagib, Obtaining accurate mean velocity measurements in high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers using pitot tubes, J. Fluid Mech. 715 (2013) 642–670.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.ISO23966, Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits: Velocity 2 area method using pitot static tubes. International Organization for Standardization (1977), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar