×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Vibrations Analyser Uncertainty Evaluation

Vibrations Analyser Uncertainty Evaluation

Vibrations Analyser Uncertainty Evaluation

(OP)
Hello,

I built a vibrations analyser using Labview and a National PCI Board. Now I want to evaluate it's behavior according to the recomendations of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), published by ISO or ANSI.

I have taken sensors, conditioning units and DAQ board's uncertainty data to compute the combined uncertainty of the measurement chain (composed by: PCB Accelerometer -> PCB Signal Conditioner -> National DAQ -> FIR Band Pass -> Hanning Windowing). However, I have some trouble in dealing with the uncertainty of the FIR bandpass filter and the hanning window error. The filter has a amplitude ripple in the passband of 1 db higher or 1 dB lower the input value. In addition, the hanning window adds 1.42 dB of "worst case error". I don't want to calibrate the system in the hole range I intend to use it. Instead of doing this, I would like to determine a combined uncertainty that includes these uncertainty of the FIR and Hanning algoritms.

For the FIR filter, it seems to be easy, and I assumed 1 dB higher or lower of uncertainty, but in hanning I don't know how to put it in my counts.

What is this 1.42 dB "worst case error" and how does it apear in the measurements results? Is this an error that can assume higher or lower values inside this range (1.42 dB)? Or is this an error that has an absolute deviation of 1.42 dB (I mean, 0.71 higher and 0.71 lower the real value)?

Thankyou a lot,

Marco

RE: Vibrations Analyser Uncertainty Evaluation

I believe the nature of any finite windowing error is that it will take a discrete single-frequency peak and "spread" it across a range of frequencies.

(Multiplication by window function corresponds to convolution in the frequency domain).

The error lies in the fact that the energy can be spread across multiple bins, making the spectral peak appear lower than it actually is.

So, in my opinion this error will always be in a direction to make indicated vib less than or equal to actual.

Note this error only applies if you are concerned with the amplitude of a given peak. Different story if you are talking about an overall.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Vibrations Analyser Uncertainty Evaluation

http://www.dataphysics.com/support/library/downloads/articles/DP-Windowing.pdf

Look near the bottom of the 2nd column on first page.

If the actual frequency falls midway between bins the worst case error of 15% (1.4db) occurs.  The "reported" (indicated) is less than the actual.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources