1 / 23

Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager

Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager. Panasonic Users Meeting June 2001. Uncertainty & Traceability. “Uncertainty” underlies definition of “traceability”

irish
Download Presentation

Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System UncertaintyCarroll S. BrickenkampNVLAP Program Manager Panasonic Users Meeting June 2001

  2. Uncertainty & Traceability • “Uncertainty” underlies definition of “traceability” • unbroken chain of measurements, with stated uncertainty of measurement results at each link in chain • To conform to ISO 17025, accredited testing labs must estimate uncertainty

  3. Uncertainty for Testing Labs • “Testing labs shall have and shall apply procedures for estimating uncertainty of measurement.” • “In certain cases, the nature of the test method may preclude rigorous, metrologically and statistically valid, calculation of uncertainty of measurement.” • “…identify all components of uncertainty and make reasonable estimation...”

  4. Does Test Method Specify Limit? • “…where a well recognized test method specifies limits to the values of the major sources of uncertainty…and specifies the form of presentation of calculated results, the lab is considered to have satisfied this clause by following the test method and reporting instructions.”

  5. ANSI/HPS N13.11-1993 • Tolerance Level = 0.3 = uncertainty in interpretation of dose equivalent (or absorbed dose) in vicinity of maximum permissible levels under fixed irradiation geometries and fixed lab ambient conditions • Tolerance level on bias plus standard deviation = 0.5 for all but accident categories • Tolerance level on bias plus standard deviation = 0.3 for accident categories

  6. ANSI/HPS 13.11-1993

  7. ANSI/HPS 13.11-2001

  8. ANSI/HPS N13.11-2001 • |B| + S  L • L = 0.3 for accident cat I • L = 0.4 for cat II - VI • Performance Quotient Limit (PQL) for cat II, III, IV, V: • |Pi|> L for only 1 of 15 dosimeters tested

  9. ANSI/HPS N13.11-1993 • Sources of error specifically not included in performance tests • Geometry of radiation incidence • Ambient temperature before, during, after irradiations up to time of processing • Ambient humidity • Time intervals between dosimeter issue, irradiation, and processing

  10. ANSI/HPS N13.11-1993 • Additional sources of error specifically not included in performance tests • Exposure to visible, UV • Position of dosimeter on body • Bias introduced by processor’s awareness of being tested • Are any of these MAJOR SOURCES of uncertainty?

  11. Guidance on Uncertainty • ISO “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” • See NIST Website for NIST Tech Note 1297 http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/index.html

  12. Steps in obtaining an “Expanded Uncertainty” • Type A evaluation of uncertainty • statistical analysis of series of observations • Type B evaluation • evaluation by means other than statistical analysis

  13. Steps in obtaining an “Expanded Uncertainty” • Combined uncertainty (uc) either: • Combine Type A and B by root mean square (if independent sources), or • Combine Type A and B by sum (if sources of error are related) • Coverage Factor (k = 2 for 95 % confidence level) • Expanded Uncertainty (U = kuc)

  14. Sources of Uncertainty (from ISO 17025) • Sampling (part of standard and part of process) • Incomplete definition • Imperfect realization of the definition • Inadequate knowledge or measurement of environmental effects • Instrument resolution • Values assigned to measurement standards • Approximations in measurement method • Variations in repeated observations under apparently identical conditions

  15. What other standards might contain useful guidance? • ASTM E 1956-98 : “Standard Practice (SP) for Use of Thermoluminescence-Dosimetry (TLD) Systems for Radiation Processing” • ASTM E 1707-95 “Standard Guide (SG) for Estimating Uncertainties in Dosimetry for Radiation Processing”

  16. See Also: • ASTM E 668-00 “SP for Application of Thermoluminescence-Dosimetry (TLD) Systems for Determining Absorbed Dose in Radiation-Hardness Testing of Electronic Devices” • ASTM E 1261-00 “SG for Selection and Calibration of Dosimetry Systems for Radiation Processing”

  17. Sources of Uncertainty (ASTM E 1707) • Uncertainty in absorbed dose received by the dosimeters during system calibration • Response of primary or reference standard • 137Cs source calibrated dose value (type A & B) • Irradiation time • Fading correction (type A & B) readout time after irradiation must be controlled • Decay corrections • Non-uniformities in standard radiation field • Corrections for attenuation and geometry • directional dependence

  18. Sources of Uncertainty Also mentioned in N13.11-93 Also mentioned in N13.11-93 • Analysis of dosimeter response • Intrinsic variation in dosimeter response • time between prep and readout • temperature, humidity, ambient light dependence • energy dependence • absorbed dose rate dependence • Variation in thickness of individual dosimeters • measurement of thickness of individual dosimeters • Variations in readout equipment

  19. Sources of Uncertainty • Fit of data to calibration curve • Variation in response of dosimeters • reproducibility of individual dosimeter response (type A) • Analytical function used in fit • determination of calibration curve (type A & B)

  20. Sources of Uncertainty in Measurement of Absorbed Dose • Variation in response of a group of dosimeters irradiated to same dose level • Dosimeter system analytical instrumentation • variation in absorbance reading • Irradiation source decay correction for given data • Calibration of radiation source used to irradiate dosimeters during calibration

  21. Sources of Uncertainty in Measurement of Absorbed Dose Also mentioned in N13.11-93 • Dosimeter response dependence on geometrical effects • Dosimeter response dependence on differences in energy spectrum between calibration and wearer’s exposure • Calibration of dosimetry system analytical equipment

  22. Sources of Uncertainty Also mentioned in N13.11-93 Also mentioned in N13.11-93 • Routine use of dosimeters in facility • Deviations in environment from calibration conditions • Reproducibility in placement of dosimeter on wearer • Orientation of dosimeters to source of radiation

  23. Where Do We Go from Here? • Problem is worthy of a group approach • What information, data, estimates do you have for the different components? • Which are significant and which are not? • How would you like to see information disseminated?

More Related