关 键 词：

含CAD图纸和说明书等资料 黄山 煤矿 提升 晋升 设备 装备 选型 设计 cad 图纸 以及 说明书 仿单 资料

资源描述：

【温馨提示】 dwg后缀的文件为CAD图，可编辑，无水印，高清图，压缩包内含CAD图的预览图片，仅用于预览，压缩包内文档可直接点开预览，需要原稿请自助充值下载，请见压缩包内的文件及预览，所见才能所得，请细心查看有疑问可以咨询QQ：414951605或1304139763

内容简介：

徐州工程学院毕业设计（论文）任务书 机电工程 学院 机械设计制造及自动化 专业 设计（论文）题目 大黄山煤矿主井提升设备选型设计 学 生 姓 名 程旭 班 级 04机本2班 起 止 日 期 2008.2.25 2008.6.2 指 导 教 师 熊永超 教研室主任 熊永超 发任务书日期 2008 年 02 月 25 日1.毕业设计的背景： 一个现代化的矿井在提升设备的选型上尤为重要。因为提升设备选型的合理与否，直接关系到矿井的安全和经济性，因此确定合理的提升系统时，必须经过多方面的技术经济比较，结合矿井的具体条件选择合适的设备。 所以，本次设计任务就是根据矿井的年产量，年（日）工作时间,井深,以及矿井的本身的特点等重要指标来进行对提升机的合理选用。从而使得该矿井生产能力达到其最大的优化配置。2.毕业设计(论文)的内容和要求： 本次设计是针对为了使某矿井能够达到其最优化的生产而做出的对提升机的合理选型的一个主要过程。本次设计首先综合比较了各种类提升机的特点，并且根据经济效益和最大程度利用原则的实际情况选择了多绳摩擦式提升机。 其次，对多绳摩擦式提升机记性总体结构设计并对其可靠性和可行性进行合理分析。对提升机的主轴装置、联轴器、减速器、制动器等主要部件进行了技术分析和结构设计，完成了多绳摩擦式提升机的整体设计。此次设计的提升机主轴装置，减速器与制动系统是配套专用产品，电动机的选择可以灵活运用。最终的要求就是能够使提 升机的应用，维护，保养，测试等方面都能够正常的，系统的进行，从而有效的提高该矿井的整体工作效率。3.主要参考文献： 1 潘英矿山提升机机械设计徐州：中国矿业大学出版社，20012 葛世荣矿井提升机可靠性技术徐州：中国矿业大学出版社，19943 麻健,李勇忠提升机新型液压制动系统煤矿机械，19994 许福玲,陈晓明液压与气压传动北京：机械工业出版社，2004.75 孙玉蓉，周法孔.矿井提升设备. 煤炭工业出版社，19954.毕业设计(论文)进度计划(以周为单位)：起 止 日 期工 作 内 容备 注第1-2周第3-4周第5-6周第7-8周第9-10周第11-12周第13-14周第15-16周根据毕业设计任务书，进行实地实习和收集资料，完成开题报告，查阅外文翻译根据收集到的相关资料和实际情况确定方案设计根据已知数据对多绳摩擦式矿井提升机设备选型进行设计对已经选定的设备进行各种验算并绘制设备总装图草图绘制总装图图纸绘制减速器、主轴图纸并对图纸做出相应的改正按照规格和选型设计所计算的结果开始写说明提交说明书和图纸，复习设计内容，准备毕业答辩教研室审查意见： 室主任 年 月 日学院审查意见： 教学院长 年 月 日徐州工程学院毕业设计（论文）开题报告课 题 名 称： 大黄山煤矿主井提升设备选型设计 学 生 姓 名： 程旭 学号： 52号 指 导 教 师： 熊永超 职称： 教授 所 在 学 院： 机电工程学院 专 业 名 称： 机械设计制造及其自动化 徐州工程学院 2008年 03月 04 日说 明1根据徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文)管理规定，学生必须撰写毕业设计（论文）开题报告，由指导教师签署意见、教研室审查，学院教学院长批准后实施。2开题报告是毕业设计（论文）答辩委员会对学生答辩资格审查的依据材料之一。学生应当在毕业设计（论文）工作前期内完成，开题报告不合格者不得参加答辩。3毕业设计开题报告各项内容要实事求是，逐条认真填写。其中的文字表达要明确、严谨，语言通顺，外来语要同时用原文和中文表达。第一次出现缩写词，须注出全称。4本报告中，由学生本人撰写的对课题和研究工作的分析及描述，没有经过整理归纳，缺乏个人见解仅仅从网上下载材料拼凑而成的开题报告按不合格论。5. 课题类型填：工程设计类；理论研究类；应用（实验）研究类；软件设计类；其它。6、课题来源填：教师科研；社会生产实践；教学；其它课题名称大黄山煤矿主井提升设备选型设计课题来源模拟生产实际课题课题类型应用研究选题的背景及意义一个现代化的矿井在提升设备的选型上尤为重要。因为提升设备选型的合理与否，直接关系到矿井的安全和经济性，因此确定合理的提升系统时，必须经过多方面的技术经济比较，结合矿井的具体条件选择合适的设备。所以，本次设计任务就是根据矿井的年产量，年（日）工作时间以及井深等重要指标进行对提升机的合理选用。从而使得该矿井生产能力达到最大的优化配置。研究内容拟解决的主要问题需要解决的问题主要是以下几点：（1）提升钢丝绳的合理选用及维护；（2）提升机的合理选用，及主要制动装置的分析；（3）提升机与井筒的相对位置的计算；（4）矿井提升运动学及动力学计算；（5）多绳摩擦的安全传动及安全摩擦系数的计算；（6）电动机的选择，提升设备的电耗及效率的计算。研究方法技术路线首先要综合比较各种类型提升机的特点，根据经济效益和最大程度利用原则的实际情况选用适合本次设计的提升机。然后，对选好的多绳摩擦式提升机进行总体结构设计并对其可靠性和可行性进行分析。对提升机的主轴装置、联轴器、减速器、制动器等主要部件进行技术分析和结构设计，完成了多绳摩擦式提升机的整体设计。此次设计的提升机主轴装置、减速器与制动系统是配套专用产品，电动机的选择可以灵活运用。这样可以使提升机的应用、维护、保养、检测等方面系统环节能够正常有序的进行，从而有效提高矿井的工作效率。研究的总体安排和进度计划第1-2周：根据毕业设计任务书，进行实地实习和收集资料，完成开题报告，查阅外文翻译第3-4周：根据收集到的相关资料和实际情况确定方案设计第5-6周：根据已知数据对多绳摩擦式矿井提升机设备选型进行设计第7-8周：对已经选定的设备进行各种验算并绘制设备总装图草图第9-10周：绘制总装图图纸第11-12周：绘制减速器、主轴图纸并对图纸做出相应的改正第13-14周：按照规格和选型设计所计算的结果开始写说明第第15-16周：提交说明书和图纸，复习设计内容，准备毕业答辩主要参考文献1 潘英矿山提升机机械设计徐州：中国矿业大学出版社，20012 葛世荣矿井提升机可靠性技术徐州：中国矿业大学出版社，19943 麻健,李勇忠提升机新型液压制动系统煤矿机械，19994 许福玲,陈晓明液压与气压传动北京：机械工业出版社，2004.75 孙玉蓉，周法孔.矿井提升设备. 煤炭工业出版社，1995指导教师意 见 指导教师签名： 年 月 日 教研室意见学院意见教研室主任签名：年 月 日 教学院长签名： 年 月 日徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文 )I摘要矿山提升机是矿山大型固定机械之一，矿山提升机从最初的蒸汽机拖动的单绳缠绕式提升机发展到今天的交交变频直接拖动的多绳摩擦式提升机和双绳缠绕式提升机已经历了 170 多年的发展历史，它是矿山井下生产系统和地面工业广场相连接的枢纽，被喻为矿山运输的咽喉。因此矿山提升设备在矿山生产的全过程占有重要的地位。根据矿井提升机工作原理和结构的不同，可分为缠绕式提升机和摩擦式提升机。在国内外，多绳摩擦式绞车飞跃发展，其发展速度远远超过单绳缠绕式提升机，这是因为它有着许多单绳缠绕式提升机无法比拟的优点，如提升钢丝绳直径较小，主导轮直径及整个机器的尺寸都相应缩小了，设备重量也减轻了，不需要设置防坠器等。下面是我针对不同的矿井的地质、煤层等情况，进行综合计算分析后，本着安全、经济等原则对这两种提升设备系统进行的选型设计。一个现代化的矿井在提升设备的选型上尤为重要。因为提升设备选型的合理与否，直接关系到矿井的安全和经济性，因此确定合理的提升系统时，必须经过多方面的技术经济比较，结合矿井的具体条件选择合适的设备。关键词：关键词：提升机；多绳摩擦；制动器；选型设计徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文 )IIAbstractThe mine elevator is one of mine large-scale fixed machineries, the mine elevator the winding type elevator developed from initial steam engine draggings Shan Sheng to todays junction - - hands over the frequency conversion direct dragging the multi-rope friction type elevator and the double rope winding type elevator has experienced more than 170 year historical developments, it was the key position which the mine shaft production system and the ground industry square connected, is explained for mine haulages pharynx and larynx. Therefore the mine hoisting equipment holds the important status in the mine productions entire process. According to the mine pit elevator principle of work and the structure difference, may divide into the winding type elevator and the friction type elevator.In domestic and foreign, the multi-rope friction type winch leap development, its development speed goes far beyond the single rope winding type elevator, this is because it has the merit which many single rope winding type elevator is unable to compare, like the hoisting cable diameter was small, leads the wheel diameter and the entire machines size correspondingly reduced, the installation weight also reduced, did not need to establish against falls and so on. Below is I in view of different situations and so on mine pit geology, coal bed, after carrying on the synthesis computation analysis, in line with principles and so on security, economy the shaping design which carries on to these two kind of lift technique system. A modernized mine pit on lift techniques shaping especially important. Because of lift technique shaping reasonable or not, direct relation mine pit security and efficiency, therefore determined when reasonable lift system, must undergo various technical economy comparison, the union mine pit concrete term choice appropriate equipment. Keywords：Elevator The multi-ropes rub Brake Shaping design 徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文 )I目目 录录1 绪论.12 矿井提升设备概述.32.1 提升机的定义.32.2 提升机的分类.33 多绳摩擦式提升机的整体设计计算.103.1 设计依据.103.2 设计过程.10 3. .2.1 箕斗的选定.10 3.2.2 提升刚丝绳的选型.12 3.2.3 提升机卷筒的选择.14 3.2.4 提升机的选择.15 3.2.5 天轮的选择.17 3.2.6 计算提升机与井筒的相对位置.17 3.2.7 预选提升电动机.19 3.2.8 计算传动装置的总传动比配传动比.20i 3.2.9 主轴输入功率及轴径的确定.20 3.2.10 根据轴径确定主轴部分的安装轴承.21 3.2.11 减速器的设计.21 3.2.12 联轴器的设计.27 3.2.13 提升机各部分键的选择.283.3 制动器的设计.29 3.3.1 提升机制动器主要类型.31 3.3.2 盘式制动器的结构及工作原理.33 3.4 液压站工作原理.35 3.4.1 提升机液压站系统.35 3.4.2 液压站系统原理.35 3.4.3 液压站控制电路.364 提升设备的运动学及动力学计算.384.1 提升系统变位质量的计算.384.2 提升加速度的确定.394.3 提升减速提升减速度的确定.404.4 防滑计算.41 4.4.1 静防滑.41徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文 )II 4.4.2 动防滑.41 4.4.3 等速和减速阶段.42 4.4.4 提升重载发生紧急制动时.424.5 六阶段速度图参数的计算.434.6 提升设备的动力学计算.454.7 提升电动机容量的计算.464.8 提升设备的电耗及效率的计算.48结论.50致谢.51参考文献.52附录.53附录 1.53徐州工程学院毕业设计(论文 )3附录附录1英文原文Reflections regarding uncertainty of measurement, on the results of a Nordic fatigue test interlaboratory comparisonMagnus Holmgren, Thomas Svensson, Erland Johnson, Klas JohanssonAbstract This paper presents the experiences of calculation and reporting uncertainty of measurement in fatigue testing. Six Nordic laboratories performed fatigue tests on steel specimens. The laboratories also reported their results concerning uncertainty of measurement and how they calculated it. The results show large differences in the way the uncertainties of measurement were calculated and reported. No laboratory included the most significant uncertainty source, bending stress (due to misalignment of the testing machine, “incorrect” specimens and/or incorrectly mounted specimens), when calculating the uncertainty of measurement. Several laboratories did not calculate the uncertainty of measurement in accordance with the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) 1.Keyword： Uncertainty of measurement, Calculation, Report, Fatigue test, Laboratory intercomparisonDefinitions ：R Stress ratio Fmin/Fmax F Force (nektons) A and B Fatigue strength parameters s and S Stress (megapascals) N Number of cycles. IntroductionThe correct or best method of calculating and reporting uncertainty of measurement in testing has been the subject of discussion for many years. The issue became even more relevant in connection with the introduction of ISO standards, e.g. ISO17025 2. The discussion, as well as implementation of the uncertainty of measurement concept, has often been concentrated on which equation to use or on administrative handling of the issue. There has been less interest in the technical problem and how to handle uncertainty of measurement in the actual experimental situation, and how to learn from the uncertainty of measurement calculation when improving the experimental technique. One reason for this may be that the accreditation bodies have concentrated on the very existence of uncertainty of measurement calculations for an accredited test method, instead of on whether the calculations are performed in a sound technical way. The present investigation emphasizes the need for a more technical focus. One testing area where it is difficult to do uncertainty of measurement calculations is fatigue testing. However, there is guidance on how to perform such calculations, e.g. in Refs. 3, 4. To investigate how uncertainty of measurement calculations are performed for fatigue tests in real life, UTMIS (the Swedish fatigue network) started an interlaboratory comparison where one of the most essential parts was to calculate and report the uncertainty of measurement of a typical fatigue test that could have been ordered by a customer of the participating laboratories. For cost reasons, customers often ask for a limited number of test specimens but, at the same time, they request a lot of information about a large portion of the possible stress-life area from few cycles (high stresses) to millions of cycles (low stresses) and even run-outs. The way the calculation was made should also be reported. The outcome concerning the uncertainty of measurement from the project is reported in this article.ParticipantsSix Nordic laboratories participated in the interlaboratory comparison: one industrial laboratory, two research institutes, two university laboratories and one laboratory in a consultancy company. Two of the laboratories are accredited for fatigue testing, and a third laboratory is accredited for other tests. Each participant was randomly assigned a number between 1 and 6, and this notification will be used in the rest of this paper.Experimental procedureThe participants received information about the test specimens (without material data), together with instructions on the way to perform the test and how to report the results.The instructions were that tests should be performed as constant load amplitude tests, with R=0.1 at three different stress levels, 460, 430 and 400 Map, with four specimens at each stress level, at a test frequency between 10 and 30 Hz, with a run-out limit at cycles and in a normal laboratory climate ( and relative humidity). This was considered as a typical customer ordered test.The test results were to be used to calculate estimates of the two fatigue strength parameters, A and B, according to linear regression of the logs and long variables, i.e. The reported result should include both the estimated parameters A and B and the uncertainties in them due to measurement errors. The report should also include the considerations and calculations behind the results, especially those concerning uncertainty of measurement.Several properties were to be reported for each specimen. The most important one was the number of cycles until fracture or if the specimen was a run-out (i.e. survived for cycles).The tests were to be performed in accordance with ASTM E-46696 5 and ISO5725-2 6. ASTM E-466-96 does not take uncertainty of measurement into account;However, ASTM E-466-96 mentions that the bending stress introduced owing to misalignment must not exceed 5% of the greater of the range, maximum or minimum stresses. There are also requirements for the accuracy of the dimensional measurement of the test specimen.All participants used hydraulic testing machines. The test specimens were made of steel (yield stress 375390 Map, and tensile strength 670690 Map, tabulated values). The test specimens were distributed to the participants by the organizer.ResultsThe primary laboratory results that should be compared are the estimated Whaler curves. In order to present all results in the same way, the organizer transformed some of the results. The Whaler curves reported by the participants are shown in Fig. 1.It can be seen that there are considerable differences between laboratories. An approximate statistical test shows a significant laboratory effect. Material scatter alone cannot explain the differences in the Whaler curves. In order to investigate if the laboratory effect was solely caused by the modeling uncertainty, we estimated new parameters from the raw data with a common algorithm. We then chose to use only the failed specimens and to make the minimization in the logarithmic life direction. The results are shown in Fig. 2. A formal statistical significance test was then made, and the result of such a test shows that the differences between the laboratories shown in Fig. 1 could be attributed only to modeling.Uncertainty of measurement calculationsOne of the most important objectives with this investigation was to compare the observed differences between laboratory test results with their estimated uncertainties of measurement. The intention was to analyze the uncertainty analyses as such, and to compare them to the standard procedure recommended in the ISO guide: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) 1.The laboratories identified different sources of uncertainty and treated them in different ways. These sources are the load measurement, the load control, the superimposed bending stresses because of misalignment and the dimensional measurements. Implicitly, laboratory temperature and humidity, specimen temperature and corrosion effects are also considered. In addition, the results show a modeling effect. The different laboratory treatments of these sources are summarized in Table 1.Specific comments on the different laboratoriesAll laboratories gave their laboratory temperature and humidity, but did not consider these values as sources of uncertainty, i.e. the influence of temperature and humidity was neglected. This conclusion is reasonable for steel in the temperature range and humidity range in question 7.Laboratory 1. The uncertainty due to the applied stress was determined taking load cell and dimensional uncertainties into account. The mathematical evaluation was made in accordance with the GUM. Specimen temperature was measured, but was implicitly neglected. The modeling problem was mentioned, but not considered as an uncertainty source. Laboratory 2. The report contains no uncertainty evaluation. The uncertainties in the load cell and the micrometer are considered, but neglected with reference to the large material scatter. Specimen temperature was measured. Modeling problems are mentioned by a comment regarding the choice of load levels.Laboratory 3. The report contains no uncertainty evaluation. However, the accuracy of the machine is given and the load was controlled during the tests to be within specified limits. The bending stresses were measured on one specimen, but their influence on the fatigue result was not taken into consideration. Laboratory 4. The uncertainties in the load cell and the dimensional measurements are considered in an evaluation of stress uncertainty. The method for the evaluation is not in accordance with the GUM method, but was performed by adding absolute errors. The bending stress influence and the control system deviations are considered, but not included in the uncertainty evaluation. The failure criterion is mentioned and regarded as negligible, and corrosion is mentioned as a possible source of uncertainty. Laboratory 5. Uncertainties in the load cell and the load control were considered, and the laboratory stated in the report that the evaluation of the load uncertainty was performed according to the CIPM method. Laboratory 6. No report was provided, but only experimental results and a Whaler curve estimate.No laboratory reported the uncertainty in the estimated material properties, the Whaler parameters, but at most the uncertainty in the applied stress. The overall picture of the uncertainty considerations is that only uncertainty sources that are possible to estimate from calibration reports were taken into account in the final evaluation.Fig. 1 All experimental results and estimated Whole curves from the different laboratoriesNumber of cycles to failureOne important source that several laboratories mentioned is the bending stresses induced by misalignment in the testing machine, incorrectly mounted test specimens or “incorrect” specimens. The amount of bending stress was also estimated in some cases, but its influence on the uncertainty in the final Whole curve was not investigated.The results from this experimental investigation show that there are different ways of determining the Whole curve from the experimental result. One problem is the surviving specimens, the run-out results. Four laboratories used only the failed specimens results for the curve-fit, one laboratory neglected all results at the lowest level, and one laboratory included the run-outs in the estimation. Another problem is the mathematical procedure for estimating the curve. Common practice, and the recommendation in the ASTM standard, is that the curve should be estimated by minimizing the squared errors in log life, i.e. the statistical model is, (1)Where e is a random error, assumed to have constant variance, and where log stands for the logarithm with base 10. E can be interpreted as the combination of at least two types of errors: namely (1) a random error due to the scatter in the material properties, and (2) a measurement error due to uncertainties in the measurement procedures.Fig. 2 All experimental results and estimated Whole curves using the common procedureNumber of cycles to failureTable 1 Sources of uncertainty and laboratory treatmentC The laboratory report considers the source explicitly or implicitly, N the laboratory report neglects the source, A the laboratory report takes the source into account in the uncertainty of measurement calculationWhere e is a random error, assumed to have constant variance, and where log stands for the logarithm with base 10. E can be interpreted as the combination of at least two types of errors: namely (1) a random error due to the scatter in the material properties, and (2) a measurement error due to uncertainties in the measurement procedures. Stress was minimized, which led to a model discrepancy as discussed in the following.DiscussionExperimental resultsMost laboratories performed estimations of the Whaler curve parameters. Visual comparison of their estimated curves suggests differences, and a statistical test verified the conclusion that there is a statistically significant laboratory effect. A closer study of each participants procedure for determining the Whaler curve shows that the differences seem to be caused by different modeling of the curve.Since the test was intended to simulate a customer ordered test, some specific problems occurred. First, the number of test specimens is limited and therefore one should be careful when drawing conclusions from the results, since the scatter is considerable in fatigue and the number of specimens are limited.Another problem that occurred was that, since run-outs were wanted, two different failure criteria (failure mechanisms) were used to halt the test: fracture of the test specimen or cycles. In the latter case, the use of the equation may cause problems, see later.The investigator then looked at whether any laboratory differences remained after excluding the model interpretation effects. This was accomplished in two ways:Namely, firstly by direct comparison of the experimental fatigue lives obtained, and secondly by using the same estimating procedure on all data sets. This therefore tested whether any laboratory differences remained or not. The first comparison was done on the two higher load levels. For these, no statistically significant differences were found. The second comparison, which included the failuresOn the lowest level, verified the result. Since the variation between laboratories is larger than the variation within a laboratory no statistically significant variation within a laboratory can be distinguished from the totalVariation in material.The conclusion is that no systematic errors in measurements were detected, but different modeling techniques give significant differences in the results. This in fact indicates that when different fitting models are used different quantities are measured even though they have the same name. Before any agreement is reached about the way of reporting fatigue data, it is of utmost importance that the modeling procedure is clearly defined in the test report. It is very important for the laboratories customers to be aware of this fact and, when requesting a test, to ask for a preferred modeling procedure as well as to be aware of the modeling procedure used by the laboratory when using fatigue data in design.Uncertainty evaluationAll laboratories made some considerations regarding the uncertainties of measurement. However, none of them evaluated uncertainties for the resulting Whole parameters, but only for the applied stress. However, none of the measurement uncertainties reported are unrealistic considering the factors taken into account, this is based inexperience. Since the specimens were destroyed during the tests it is not possible to separate the material variation from the repeatability. An estimate of the combined measurement uncertainty and the variation in material isAbout 30% of the lifetime and the major contribution are from the material variation and therefore one conclusion is that the measurement uncertainty in this test could be neglected during this test. This is not true for all fatigue tests and it is therefore anyhow interesting to study how the participants treated measurement uncertainty.Only one participant used the method recommended by the ISO guide GUM. This is surprising, since European accreditation authorities have recommended the GUM for several years. Among the uncertainty sources that were identified by the laboratories, only load cell measurement uncertainties and dimensional measurement uncertainties were taken into account. Important sources such as misalignment and load control were identified by some participants but were not included in the evaluation of stress uncertainty. Apparently only calibrated devices were considered for the overall uncertainty, and other sources, more difficult to evaluate, were excluded. No motivation for these exclusions can be found in the reports. One participant rejected the uncertainty evaluation with reference to the large scatter in fatigue lives. Our overall conclusion from the laboratory comparisons, that there are no detectable systematic effects, may be seen as verification of this rejection, but it is questionable if this was an obvious result beforehand. In contrast, for instance, uncertainties due to misalignment are not obviously negligible in comparison with the material scatter, and should be considered in an uncertainty analysis. This investigation, together with other observations 8, 9, shows problems with the introduction of the ISO17025 requirement for uncertainty of measurement statements. The reasons for this may be that the uncertainty of measurement discussion during recent years has concentrated very much on which equation to use and on administrative aspects, e.g. whether the uncertainty of measurement should always be reported directly in the report, or only when the customer requests it, etc., instead of on the real technical issues. Hopefully, the introduction of the pragmatic ILAC-G17:2002, a document about the introduction of the concept of uncertainty of measurement in association with testing 10, will improve the situation.ConclusionsThe way to define, calculate, and interpret uncertainty of measurement and to use it in Whaler-curve determination is poorly understood among the participants, in spite of the fact that they consist of a group with significant experienceOf fatigue testing, and that some of them were also accredited for fatigue tests. An important overall tendency is that the laboratories only include uncertaintySources that are easily obtained, e.g. from calibrated gauges where calibration certificates exist.中文翻译关于北欧的疲劳实验室的比较测量结果不确定值的反映摘要：这篇论文介绍了关于疲劳检测的不确定性的计算和报告的实验。6个北欧实验室对钢性元件进行了疲劳实验，他们也报告了疲劳测量不确定性的结果和计算方法。实验结果表明大量的测量不确定性结果是可以计算和报告的。没有实验室包括最重要的不确定源，当它们进行不确定值的计算时，有几个实验室没有计算符合从指导到结果的测量的不确定性值。关键词：测量，计算，不确定性报告，疲劳测试，联合实验室介绍：计算和报告测量的不确定性值的最好或者正确的方法一直是许多年来讨论的问题,随着ISO(例如ISO17025)的引进这个问题更加突出。关于测量的不确定性值的讨论和鉴定与这个问题息息相关。在发展实验技术的时候已经有很少人对技术问题和在实验条件下如何处理测量的不确定性值和如何从测量的不确定性值可以学到什么感兴趣了。这种现象可能的一个原因是合格的物体已经集中在用精确的方法计算测量的不确定性值上，而不是集中在用这种方法是不是合理的问题上了。目前的方法集中在一种更加科学的方法上。对测量的不确定性值计算比较困难的一个领域是疲劳测量。但是，对于这样的计算有一个指导，研究如何确定测量不确定性值的方法是研究现实生活中物体的疲劳检测。瑞典疲劳网站开设了一家联合实验室公司，它的最重要的一部分就是计算和报告重要疲劳实验的不确定性值，这些实验是由实验室的参与者进行的。最重要的原因是顾客们索要有限个测量模型，同时，他们也需要大量的信息。所用的计算方法也要报告，关于工程测量的不确定性值的结果也在这篇文章中报告。 六个北欧的实验室都参加了这个联合实验室，一个工业实验室，两个研究院，两个大学实验室，一个咨询公司实验室。其中两个实验室研究疲劳实验，第三个研究其他的实验，每个参与者被随意指派16的编号，这个报告被用在这篇文章的其他部分。实验程序： 参与者收到了没有数据的材料模型，及其如何进行测量和如何报告结果的信息。要求是在固定载荷下进行多次实验，用半径为1mm的在三种压力（460，430，400MP）下，每种压力下都进行试验的4种模型，频率在10-30Hz之间，在室温下旋转5百万转。这就是客户要求的测量。 这种测量结果被用来计算两个物体的疲劳增长的参数，A和B,和由于测量错误而引起的不确定性值，报告的结果应该包括A和B的结果和这种不确定性值，在结果的后面尤其是这些不确定性值每个模型的这几种特性都应该报告。最重要的是模型达到疲劳时的周期数，或者是模型报废的周期数。做这个测量时ASTM E-466-96、ISO-5725-2.、ASTM E-466-96并没有考虑到测量的不确定性值，由于误差不能超过最大和最小值的范围的百分之五，所以，ASTM-466-96参照弯曲压力，对模型的测量也有一些精度要求。所有的参加者都用液压疲劳机，测量模型是由钢制成的，它的表面的压力范围是375-390Mp,拉伸力压强的范围是670-690Mp.测量模型由组织者分发给参加者。结果：为了用同一种方法表示出所有的结果，初级实验结果应该用Whole表格来进行比较，参与者报告的Whole表格见图1。它显示了各实验室之间的显著的差别。一个大概统计的实验结果表明了各实验室的显著差别，分散的材料不能单独解释Whole表格的区别，为了研究各实验室的差别是否是因为模型的不确定造成的，我们比较了由原始数据得出的新数据，当我们使用那些不合格的模型时，对结果进行对数运算后，结