7. Propagation of error |
|
| The approach to uncertainty analysis that has been followed up to this point in the discussion has been what is called a top-down approach. Uncertainty components are estimated from direct repetitions of the measurement result. To contrast this with a propagation of error approach, consider the simple example where the area of a rectangular is estimated from replicate measurements of length and width. The area
can be computed from each replicate. The standard deviation of the reported area is estimated directly from the replicates of area. | |
This approach has the following advantages:
| |
The formal propagation of error approach is to compute:
and combine the two into a standard deviation for area using the approximation for products of two variables. The formula below is appropriate if there is no covariance between length and width measurements.
![]() | |
In the ideal case, the propagation of error estimate above will not differ from the estimate made directly from the area measurements. However, in complicated scenarios, they may differ because of:
| |
| Sometimes the
measurement of interest cannot be replicated directly and
it is necessary to estimate its uncertainty via propagation of
error formulas (Ku). The propagation of error formula for
a function of one or more variables with measurements, X, Z, ... gives the following estimate for the standard deviation of Y:
![]() where
| |
Covariance terms can be difficult to estimate if measurements are not made in pairs. Sometimes, these terms are omitted from the formula. Guidance on when this is acceptable practice is given below:
Generally, reported values of test items from calibration designs have non-zero covariances which must be taken into account if Y is a summation such as the mass of two weights, or the length of two gage blocks end-to-end, etc. | |
| The partial derivatives are the sensitivity coefficients for the associated components. | |