Description: Due to the fact that an acceptable approach to determining the value of the amendment to the MM testimony for instability has not yet been developed, this issue is still relevant to specialists and heads of metrological services. One of the tasks solved in this case is to ensure the traceability of the measurement results by applying the SI calibration and introducing various corrections to their readings, including corrections for instability. In accordance with the above, this article describes models for estimating the value of corrections for instability of measuring instruments, and also analyzes their suitability using the annual data of the calibration results of the calibrator-gauge KISS-03, the light filter kit KNS-10.2 and the pressure calibrator CPH 6000. A comparative analysis of the methods by Monte-Carlo simulation was carried out, as well as an experimental study of the SI for the purpose of estimating the instability. A model was selected that adequately describes the instability of measuring instruments in accordance with RMG 115-2011. As a result, we obtained estimates of the average drift velocity of the error of measures and forecast using statistical models (average drift velocity averaged over several counts in accordance with the recommendations of RMG 74-2004, RMG 115-2011 and COOMET R / GM / 32: 2017; average drift velocity , estimated by the least squares method (OLS); average drift velocity, estimated using simple (SMA), weighted (WMA) or exponential (EMA) moving average methods for describing the instability selected for the SI study. It was concluded that the most appropriate prediction is provided by using the model of exponential (EMA) and weighted (WMA) moving averages.
Keywords: measurement instability, measure, measuring instruments, drift velocity, intervals between calibrations
1. Danilov, A.A. (2005), Methods of establishment and adjustment of calibration and calibration intervals of measuring in-struments, Chief metrologist, No. 6, pp. 29-36.
2. Berzhinskaya, M.V., Danilov, A.A. and Sputnova, D.V. (2016), Comparative analysis of methods of determination cor-rected for the instability, XXVI Nationalen taught Symposium with international participation “Metrology and metrologichna osigurava 2016”, pp. 85-89.
3. Danilov, A.A., Berzhinskaya, M.V., Golubinsky, Yu.M. and Sputnova, D.V. (2016), On the evaluation of instability of the measuring instruments used in calibration, Proc. Dokl. XIII international seminar “Measurement Uncertainty: scientific, legislative, methodological and applied aspects” (UM-2016), BelGIM, Minsk, pp. 53-56.
4. State Standard of the Russian Federation (2004), “74-2004: Metody opredelenyia mezhpoverochnykh y mezhkalybro-vochnykh yntervalov sredstv yzmerenyi” [74-2004: Methods for determining the intervals of verification and calibration of meas-uring instruments], available at: www.docs.cntd.ru/document/1200039109.
5. All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Metrology (2012), “RMG 115-2011. GSE Kalybrovka sredstv yzmerenyj. Alghorytmy obrabotky rezuljtatov yzmerenyj y ocenyvanyja neopredelennosty” [RMG 115-2011. GSE Calibration of measuring instruments. Algorithms of processing of results of measurements and uncertainty estimation], available at: https://www.twirpx.com/file/1991403/.
6. COOMET Recommendation (2017), “R/GM/32:2017 Kalybrovka sredstv yzmerenyj. Alghorytmy obrabotky rezuljtatov yzmerenyj y ocenyvanyja neopredelёnnosty” [R/GM/32:2017 Calibration of measuring instruments. Algorithms of processing of results of measurements and estimation of uncertainty], available at: https://www.coomet.net/fileadmin/user_files/DOCU-MENTS/COOMET_Documents/Pecommenda-tions/COOMET_R_GM_32_2017_ru.pdf.
7. Danilov, A.A. and Sputnova, D.V. (2018), “Analyz modelej opysanyja nestabyljnosty sredstv yzmerenyj” [Аnalysis of the models describing the instability of the measuring instruments], Instruments, No. 3, pp. 6-12.
8. Danilov, A.A. (2007), “Teoretycheskye osnovy slychenyja etalonov” [Theoretical bases of comparison of standards], Legislative and applied Metrology, No. 2, pp. 13-18.
9. Berzhinskaya, M.V. and Danilov, A.A. (2009), “Teoretycheskye osnovy eksperymentaljnogho opredelenyja poghresh-nosty ot vremennoj nestabyljnosty sredstv yzmerenyj” [Theoretical principles for the experimental determination of errors due to instability of measuring instruments over time], Measurement Techniques, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 220-222.
10. Agafonova, O.V., Berzhinskaya, M.V. and Danilov, A.A. (2013), “Ob ocenyvanyy nestabyljnosty sredstv yzmerenyj pry yspoljzovanyy razlychnykh ekzempljarov odnotypnykh etalonov” [On estimation of the instability of measuring tools when you use different instances of the same type of standards], Proc. Dokl.: Proceedings of the international Symposium “Reliability and quality”, Vol. 2, Penza, pp. 69-70.