Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager Panasonic Users Meeting June 2001.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager Panasonic Users Meeting June 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP 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 N 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

7 ANSI/HPS

8 ANSI/HPS N |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: |P i |> L for only 1 of 15 dosimeters tested

9 ANSI/HPS N 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 N 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

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 (u c ) 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 = ku c )

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 : “Standard Practice (SP) for Use of Thermoluminescence- Dosimetry (TLD) Systems for Radiation Processing” ASTM E “Standard Guide (SG) for Estimating Uncertainties in Dosimetry for Radiation Processing”

16 See Also: ASTM E “SP for Application of Thermoluminescence-Dosimetry (TLD) Systems for Determining Absorbed Dose in Radiation-Hardness Testing of Electronic Devices” ASTM E “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 137 Cs 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 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 Also mentioned in N

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 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 Also mentioned in N

22 Sources of Uncertainty 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 Also mentioned in N

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?


Download ppt "Key Concepts in Evaluating Overall System Uncertainty Carroll S. Brickenkamp NVLAP Program Manager Panasonic Users Meeting June 2001."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google