• Journal of the Korean Society of Tobacco Science
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 2000

This study was carried out to evaluate the uncertainty in the analysis of menthol content from the mentholated cigarette. Menthol in the sample cigarette was extracted with methanol containing an anethole as an internal standard, and then analyzed by gas chromatography. As the sources of uncertainty associated with the analysis of menthol, were the following points tested, such as the weighing of sample, the preparation of extracting solution, the pipetting of extracting solution into the sample, the preparation of standard solution, the precision of GC injections for standard & sample solution, the GC response factor of standard solution, the reproducibility of menthol analysis, and the determination of water content in tobacco, etc. For calculating the uncertainties, type A of uncertainty was evaluated by the statistical analysis of a series of observation, and type B by the information based on supplier's catalogue and/or certificated of calibration. Sources of uncertainty were subsequently included and mathematically combined with the uncertainty arising from the assessment of accuracy to provide the overall uncertainty. It was shown that the main source of uncertainty came from the errors in the reproducibility of menthol and water determination, the purity of menthol reference material in the preparation of standard solution, and the precision of GC injections for sample solution. The errors in sample weighing and volume measurement contributed relatively little to the overall uncertainty. The expanded uncertainty in the mentholated cigarettes, Korean and American brand, at 0.95 level of statistical confidence was $\pm$0.06 and $\pm$0.07 mg/g for a menthol content of 1.89 and 2.32 mg/g, respectively.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.111-121
• /
• 2017

Verification of dose distribution is an essential part of ensuring the treatment planning system's (TPS) calculated dose will achieve the desired outcome in radiation therapy. Each measurement have uncertainty associated with it. It is desirable to reduce the measurement uncertainty. A best approach is to reduce the uncertainty associated with each step of the process to keep the total uncertainty under acceptable limits. Point dose patient specific quality assurance (QA) is recommended by American Association of Medical Physicists (AAPM) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for all the complex radiation therapy treatment techniques. Relative and absolute point dose measurement methods are used to verify the TPS computed dose. Relative and absolute point dose measurement techniques have a number of steps to measure the point dose which includes chamber cross calibration, electrometer reading, chamber calibration coefficient, beam quality correction factor, reference conditions, influences quantities, machine stability, nominal calibration factor (for relative method) and absolute dose calibration of machine. Keeping these parameters in mind, the estimated relative percentage uncertainty associated with the absolute point dose measurement is 2.1% (k=1). On the other hand, the relative percentage uncertainty associated with the relative point dose verification method is estimated to 1.0% (k=1). To compare both point dose measurement methods, 13 head and neck (H&N) IMRT patients were selected. A point dose for each patient was measured with both methods. The average percentage difference between TPS computed dose and measured absolute relative point dose was 1.4% and 1% respectively. The results of this comparative study show that while choosing the relative or absolute point dose measurement technique, both techniques can produce similar results for H&N IMRT treatment plans. There is no statistically significant difference between both point dose verification methods based upon the t-test for comparing two means.

• Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.689-698
• /
• 2004

Uncertainties generated from the individual measured variables have an influence on the uncertainty of the experimental result through a data reduction equation. In this study, a performance test of a single stage axial type turbine is conducted, and total-to-total efficiencies are measured at the various off-design points In the low pressure and cold state. Based on an experimental apparatus, a data reduction equation for turbine efficiency is formulated and six measured variables are selected. Codes are written to calculate the efficiency, the uncertainty of the efficiency, and the sensitivity of the efficiency uncertainty by each of the measured quantities. The influence of each measured variable on the experimental result is figured out. Results show that the largest uncertainty magnification factor (UMF) value is obtained by the inlet total pressure among the six measured variables, and its value is always greater than one. The UMF values of the inlet total temperature, the torque, and the RPM are always one. The uncertainty percentage contribution (UPC) of the RPM shows th, lowest influence on the uncertainty of the turbine efficiency, but the UPC of the torque has the largest influence to the result among the measured variables. These results are applied to find the correct direction for meeting an uncertainty requirement of the experimental result in the planning or development Phase of experiment, and also to offer ideas for preparing a measurement system in the planning phase.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.8 no.3
• /
• pp.78-82
• /
• 1993

The object of research is detecting and eliminating the unsafty factor in shortest time through a decision making simulation under uncertainty using simulation method The decision making simulation using C language Is used to analyze data from several factors which affects the crane breakdown under unsafe situation. Through this research, the following conclusions are obtained. first, the safety manager or the person can estimate the time required to handle the unsafe factors. Secondly, The decision making can be accomplished by minimizing the time required under uncertainty by analyzing them.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering
• /
• v.29 no.5
• /
• pp.494-499
• /
• 2012

Reliable results can't be derived without the notion of measurement uncertainty. The reason is that the measured value includes a lot of uncertain factors. Finding the factor that affect the measurement of parameter is important for estimation of measurement uncertainty. In this paper, the evaluation of uncertainty analysis about positioning accuracy measurements of high precision feed mechanism is presented to evaluate the important factors of uncertainty.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Manufacturing Process Engineers
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.55-61
• /
• 2012

Very important content in performance evaluation of machine tool is positioning accuracy and repeatability precision measurements of feed mechanism. A study analyses the measurement method and uncertainty factors by ISO-based test method. Reliable results can't be derived without the notion of measurement uncertainty. The reason is that the measured value includes a lot of uncertain factors. Finding the factor that affects the measurement of parameter is important for estimation of measurement precision. In this paper, the evaluation of uncertainty analysis about positioning accuracy and repeatability precision measurements of high precision feed mechanism is presented to evaluate the important factors of uncertainty.

• Journal of the military operations research society of Korea
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.45-71
• /
• 1997

There has been considerable research recently on uncertainty handling in the fields of artificial intelligence and knowledge-based system. Various numerical and non-numerical methods have been proposed for representing and propagating uncertainty in knowledge-based system. The Bayesian method, the Dempster-Shafer's Evidence Theory, the Certainty Factor model and the Fuzzy Set Theory are most frequently appeared in the knowledge-based system. Each of these four methods views uncertainty from a different perspective and propagates it differently. There is no single method which can handle uncertainty properly in all kinds of knowledge-based systems' domain. Therefore a knowledge-based system will work more effectively when the uncertainty handling method in the system fits to the system's environment. This paper proposed a framework for selecting proper uncertainty handling methods in knowledge-based system with respect to characteristics of problem domain and cognitive styles of experts. A schema with strategic/operational and unstructured/structured classification is employed to differenciate domain. And a schema with systematic/intuitive and preceptive/receptive classification is employed to differenciate experts' cognitive style. The characteristics of uncertainty handling methods are compared with characteristics of problem domains and cognitive styles respectively. Then a proper uncertainty handling method is proposed for each category.

• The KSFM Journal of Fluid Machinery
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.42-47
• /
• 2011

Measurement uncertainty analysis of fuel flow using turbine flowmeter was performed for the case of altitude engine test. SAE ARP4990 was used as the fuel flow calculation procedure, as well as the mathematical model for the measurement uncertainty assessment. The assessment was performed using Sensitivity Coefficient Method. 11 parameters involved in the calculation of the flow rate were considered. For the given equipment setup, the measurement uncertainty of fuel flow was assessed in the range of 1.19~1.86 % for high flow rate case, and 1.47~3.31 % for low flow rate case. Fluctuation in frequency signal from the flowmeter had the largest influence on the fuel flow measurement uncertainty for most cases. Fuel temperature measurement had the largest for the case of low temperature and low flow rate. Calibration of K-factor and the interpolation of the calibration data also had large influence, especially for the case of very low temperature. Reference temperature, at which the reference viscosity of the sample fuel was measured, had relatively small contribution, but it became larger when the operating fuel temperature was far from reference temperature. Measurement of reference density had small contribution on the flow rate uncertainty. Fuel pressure and atmospheric pressure measurement had virtually no contribution on the flow rate uncertainty.

• The Journal of Korean Institute of Electromagnetic Engineering and Science
• /
• v.18 no.2 s.117
• /
• pp.166-176
• /
• 2007

Measurement uncertainty assessment is very important in measurement and calibration. RRL provides antenna calibration services for EMI test. Reliability of EMI test depends on accurate antenna calibration. Antenna calibration results have to be accompanied with measurement uncertainty for its better reliability. In the late of 2005, CISPR issued the CISPR/A/644/C which describes the antenna calibration and measurement uncertainty. In this paper, on the basis of CISPR/A/644/C, we provide the measurement uncertainty values for dipole antenna calibration at the Calibration Test Site(CALTS) of Icheon. The antenna calibration method is 3-antenna height-scanning-averaging method, which measures the free-space antenna factor. We also considered all uncertainty sources that can affect measurement results during calibration.

• The Transactions of the Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers B
• /
• v.51 no.11
• /
• pp.622-627
• /
• 2002

The power comparison techniques have implemented power measurements, in which a power comparator is used to balance ac against a dc power obtained from known values. The developed power standard system using the comparison techniques consists of dc sources, ac source, control switches, resistive voltage dividers, resistive shunts and a power comparator. The total uncertainty of the power standard system was proved by analysis of the component instruments. Its expanded(k=2) uncertainty is evaluated to be less than 30 uW/VA at unit power factor and 42 uW/VA at power factor 0.5