Coverage interval estimation of the measurement of Gross Heat of Combustion of fuel by bomb calorimetry: Comparison of ISO GUM and adaptive Monte Carlo method

Theodorou, D; Zannikou, Y; Anastopoulos, G; Zannikos, F

dc.contributor.author	Theodorou, D	en
dc.contributor.author	Zannikou, Y	en
dc.contributor.author	Anastopoulos, G	en
dc.contributor.author	Zannikos, F	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:35:28Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:35:28Z
dc.date.issued	2011	en
dc.identifier.issn	00406031	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/21065
dc.subject	Adaptive Monte Carlo method	en
dc.subject	Bomb calorimetry	en
dc.subject	Coverage interval	en
dc.subject	Fuel	en
dc.subject	GUM	en
dc.subject	Uncertainty	en
dc.subject.other	Adaptive Monte Carlo method	en
dc.subject.other	Bomb calorimetry	en
dc.subject.other	Coverage intervals	en
dc.subject.other	GUM	en
dc.subject.other	Uncertainty	en
dc.subject.other	Bombs (ordnance)	en
dc.subject.other	Calorimeters	en
dc.subject.other	Calorimetry	en
dc.subject.other	Combustion	en
dc.subject.other	Diesel fuels	en
dc.subject.other	Estimation	en
dc.subject.other	Fuels	en
dc.subject.other	Probability density function	en
dc.subject.other	Probability distributions	en
dc.subject.other	Thermochemistry	en
dc.subject.other	Uncertainty analysis	en
dc.subject.other	Monte Carlo methods	en
dc.title	Coverage interval estimation of the measurement of Gross Heat of Combustion of fuel by bomb calorimetry: Comparison of ISO GUM and adaptive Monte Carlo method	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1016/j.tca.2011.09.004	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2011.09.004	en
heal.publicationDate	2011	en
heal.abstract	The Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement (GUM) approach and the adaptive Monte Carlo method (MCM) provide two alternative approaches for the propagation stage of the uncertainty estimation. These two approaches are implemented and compared concerning the 95% coverage interval estimation of the measurement of Gross Heat of Combustion (GHC) of an automotive diesel fuel by bomb calorimetry. The GUM approach, which assumes either a Gaussian or a t-distribution for the output quantity (GHC) gives half width intervals of 0.28 MJ kg-1 (Gaussian distribution) or 0.29 MJ kg-1 (t-distribution). On the other hand, MCM, which provides a reliable probability density function of GHC through numerical approximation, gives a half width interval of 0.32 MJ kg-1. Thus, the GUM approach underestimates the calculated uncertainties and coverage intervals by up to 7-12%. The main reasons of these differences are the approximations and the assumptions introduced by GUM approach, i.e. assumption for the GHC probability distribution and overestimation of effective degrees of freedom by the Welch-Satterwaite formula. Moreover, the estimation and the use of sensitivity coefficients and uncertainty budget within GUM and MCM approaches are examined. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.	en
heal.journalName	Thermochimica Acta	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1016/j.tca.2011.09.004	en
dc.identifier.volume	526	en
dc.identifier.issue	1-2	en
dc.identifier.spage	122	en
dc.identifier.epage	129	en