How to select the required accuracy of an instrument?

AI Thread Summary
Selecting the required accuracy for a measuring instrument without specified tolerances involves estimating a reasonable accuracy based on the precision needed for the task. In the example of measuring a valve stem diameter of 5.973mm, a resolution of 0.001mm is necessary, but further accuracy may be required, potentially assuming a tolerance of +/-0.0005mm. A typical Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR) of 4:1 suggests that the instrument should have an accuracy of at least +/-0.000125mm. Additionally, factors such as environmental conditions and instrument traceability must be considered, as they can affect measurement outcomes. Ultimately, consulting relevant standards and specifications is crucial for ensuring compliance and accuracy in measurements.
fonz
Messages
151
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Instrument accuracy and precision
If I need to make a measurement to check compliance e.g. measuring component dimensions. How do I know what accuracy is required for the measuring instrument if the tolerance is not specified?

For example, during an engine rebuild, the manufacturer specifies the valve stem diameter to be 5.973mm. Clearly the instrument needs a resolution of at least 0.001mm, but is that enough?

I am aware that in most cases, where a tolerance is specified it is typical to aim for at Test Accuracy Ratio (TAR) of 4:1. In this case the tolerance is not specified so is it correct to assume the tolerance is +/-0.0005mm? Therefore the instrument must have an accuracy of at least +/-0.000125mm?

Thanks
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Paging @Ranger Mike, he probably has more direct knowledge than the below.

This will probably answer more questions than you thought existed!

GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement


https://www.bipm.org/documents/2012...f-3f85-4dcd86f77bd6?version=1.7&download=true

(above found with:
https://www.google.com/search?&q=G.U.M.+guide+to+measurement)

Have fun, it's 'only' 134 pages.

Cheers,
Tom

p.s. It has been years since I read that document, but your accuracy assumption seems reasonable for a 'failsafe', can't tolerate ANY failure, situation.
 
There may be more tolerance in one direction than in the other, too ##-## e.g. a machine screw that's a tiny bit too small could be tolerably loose for its intended purpose, but one that's by the same amount a bit too big might just plain not fit without damaging the threads ##-## I think that for engine rebuild purposes, it would be helpful if the spec sheet were to state the absolute and recommended tolerances, along with the target value ##-## @Mark44 has a great deal of actual experience in rebuilding engines ##-## e.g. see this thread (I think that for him that's more of a personal pursuit than a primary profession, as he's also a programming expert and professor, which I think is his primary occupation) and he may have some insights to offer in this matter, as he's a very insightful and helpful person . . . :wink:
 
Last edited:
If is a part that is supposed to adhere to a standards (or at least a technical specification) the answer would be to look up what it says in the standards document.
Yes, you can make assumption just based on the accuracy they are requesting, but the full standard is also likely to specify exactly HOW the measurement should be done and in what environment (in this case temperature would probably play a role).
Also, don't forget about the traceability of the instruments.
 
Last edited:
I realize your valve stem is more of an example, but... The important feature of the valve stem diameter is the clearance between the stem and the valve guide. Typical required clearance is on the order of a thousandths of an inch; say 0.001 inch or 0.025 mm. Nowhere near the 0.001 mm discussed. As @f95toli said, a diameter spec to 0.001 mm (0.00004 inch) would need a corresponding temperature value (holding the valve in you hand would warm the valve and change the diameter by more than 0.001 mm).
 
When no other tolerances are provided, the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Machining_industry&action=edit&redlink=1 uses the following standard tolerances:[3][4]

1 decimal place(.x):±0.2"
2 decimal places(.0x):±0.01"
3 decimal places(.00x):±0.005"
4 decimal places(.000x):±0.0005"
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_tolerance

So it would seem that for your case the tolerance is 0.005mm.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes sysprog and berkeman
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top