Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Model for Optimization of Error and Uncertainty in the Generation of

Calibration Charts for Horizontal Storage Tank
To cite this article: J J Aguilar-Mamani and Z Villegas-Arroyo 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1826 012080

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 190.113.215.192 on 14/09/2021 at 06:28

10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

Model for Optimization of Error and Uncertainty in the

Generation of Calibration Charts for Horizontal Storage
Tank

J J Aguilar-Mamani1 and Z Villegas-Arroyo1

1
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Formales, Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de
Arequipa, Perú
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. In this paper, we propose a sequence of steps for optimization of error and uncertainty
in the generation of calibration charts in a horizontal tank. The calibration of the tank is carried
out by means of the volumetric method, but the number of fillings and height measurements have
been selected according to Chebyshev nodes and then the interpolation function of volume and
height has been modeled according to the geometry of the tank. The proposed approach has been
applied to 21 pairs of data, of which 11 pairs of data have been selected according before steps
and the remaining pairs of data have been used to prove our propose, so that the errors in volumes
have been less than maximum permissible errors (MPE) and the difference between remainder
data of the volume and the interpolation data of the volume have been less than the uncertainty.
The proposed approach has been calculated with two possible interpolation function of volume
and height, but both have fullfilled the aims.

Keywords: Optimization, error, uncertainty, calibration charts, tank.

1. Introduction
In the chemical and food industry is common to use horizontal tanks for the storage of products. During
inventory and transfer operations, the amount of liquid in the tanks must be known with accuracy and
precisión, since there are commercial and legal implications for any mistake that occurs during the
buying and selling process of stored products. This determines that all storage tanks require an increment
table of volume against the height of the liquid level, known as calibration charts.
This paper focuses on the optimization of the calibration process in the preparation of calibration
charts, presenting an alternative to other methods used, a set of steps is proposed that determine the
interpolation function for the calculation of the volumen of a horizontal tank that solve the problems
associated with compliance the máximum permissible errors (EMP) and expanded uncertainty (U).

2. Methodology

2.1. Number of fillings and height measurements

The calibration depends on the correct selection of the number of separate fillings and the capacity of
the reference metering vessels, because the tank cross section changes with height. Therefore, the value
of each fulling is selected using the Chebyshev node that a manner that minimize interpolation error. [1]

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

For an arbitrary interval [ℎ𝑜 , ℎ𝑓 ] can be used:

1 1 2𝑘−1
ℎ𝑘 = (ℎ𝑜 + ℎ𝑓 ) + (ℎ𝑓 − ℎ𝑜 )𝑐𝑜𝑠 (
2 2 2𝑁
𝜋) , 𝑘 = 1, . . , 𝑁 (1)

Where:
ℎ𝑜 : Minimun height.
ℎ𝑓 : Maximun height.
ℎ𝑘 : k - height.
2𝑁: Number of filling.

Table 1. Number of filling and percentage of

volume tank.
Approximate value of one filling, in %
Number of fillings
of the tank capacity
1 5
2 10
3 15
4 30
5 40
6 50
7 60
8 70
9 90
10 95
11 100

The table 1 can be used when take an approximate value of filling.

2.2. Mathematical model of the relationship between volume and height of horizontal storage tank
According to the cross-section diagram of the elliptical storage tank as shown in Figure 1, the elliptic
equation:

𝑥2 𝑦2
𝑎2
+
𝑏2
=1 (2)
L
(0,b) Reference point top (RPT)
0
height (C)
Ullage

dy
x
Liquid level
Reference height (H)
height (h)

(-a,0) (a,0)
h
Liquid

(0,-b) Reference point bottom (RPB)

Figure 1: Cross- section schematic of elliptic storage tank. Figure 2: View of elliptical storage tank.

The differential of volumen according to figures 1 and 2, 𝑑𝑉 = 2𝐿𝑥𝑑𝑦, and substitute (2), which can
obtain the following: 𝑑𝑉 = 2𝐿 (𝑎𝑏 √𝑏2 − 𝑦 2 ) 𝑑𝑦 and finally integrating the differential of volume, which
can obtain the following:
𝜋
𝑉(ℎ′ ) = 𝑎𝑏𝐿 ( + arcsin(ℎ′) + ℎ′ √1 − ℎ′2 )
2
(3)
ℎ
ℎ′ = −1
𝑏
(4)

2
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

According the equation (3) the appropriate basis functions for development the least squares method
are: 𝜑(ℎ𝑗′ ) = arcsin(ℎ𝑗′ ) and 𝜗(ℎ𝑗′ ) = ℎ𝑗′ √1 − ℎ𝑗′2 ,where ℎ𝑗′ = 𝑏ℎ − 1 therefore we can take a polynomial
𝑗

equation according the basis functions:

𝑉(ℎ𝑗′) = 𝐴0 + ∑𝑚 𝑛 ′ 𝑛 ′
𝑛=1 𝐵𝑛 𝜑 (ℎ𝑗 ) + 𝐶𝑛 𝜗 (ℎ𝑗 ) (5)

𝐴0 , 𝐵𝑛 , 𝐶𝑛 are constants and can be determined for the least squares method, using the following
system of equations in matrix form:

∑𝑉 𝑁 ∑𝜑 ∑ 𝜗 ⋯ ∑ 𝜑𝑚 ∑ 𝜗𝑚 𝐴0
∑ 𝑉𝜑 ∑𝜑 ∑ 𝜑2 ∑ 𝜑 𝜗 ⋯ ∑ 𝜑𝑚+1 ∑ 𝜑 𝜗𝑚 𝐵1
∑ 𝑉𝜗 ∑𝜗 ∑𝜗𝜑 ∑ 𝜗 2 ⋯ ∑ 𝜗 𝜑𝑚 ∑ 𝜗 𝑚+1 𝐶1
=
⋮
(6)
⋮ ⋮
∑ 𝑉𝜑𝑚 ∑ 𝜑𝑚 ∑ 𝜑𝑚+1 ∑ 𝜑𝑚 𝜗 … ∑ 𝜑2𝑚 ∑ 𝜑𝑚 𝜗 𝑚 𝐵𝑚
𝑚
[∑ 𝑉𝜗 ] [ ∑ 𝜗 𝑚 ∑ 𝜗 𝑚 𝜑 ∑ 𝜗 𝑚+1 … ∑ 𝜗 𝑚 𝜑𝑚 ∑ 𝜗 2𝑚 ] [ 𝐶𝑚 ]

Or in matrix notation
[𝐕] = [𝐗][𝐀] (7)

For calculating [𝐀]:

[𝐀] = [𝐗]−𝟏[𝐕] (8)

2.3. Error and uncertainty of the adjustment curve

The uncertainty of the adjustment curve is determined based on the residual errors of the adjustment
curve, evaluating the standard deviation of the residual errors, for all the interval: [2]

𝑢𝑝(𝑥𝑖 ) = 𝑠𝑒𝑟 [[𝑥][𝐗]−𝟏[𝑥]𝑇 ]1/2 (9)

Where:
1
𝑠𝑒𝑟 2 = ∑𝑁 (𝑣
𝑁−𝑚−1 𝑖=1 𝑖
− 𝑉(ℎ𝑗′ ))2 (10)

1 𝜑1 𝜗1 ⋯ 𝜑1𝑚 𝜗1𝑚
1 𝜑2 𝜗2 ⋯ 𝜑2𝑚 𝜗2𝑚
1 𝜑3 𝜗3 ⋯ 𝜑3𝑚 𝜗3𝑚
𝑥= ⋮ (11)
𝑚 𝑚
1 𝜑𝑁−1 𝜗𝑁−1 … 𝜑𝑁−1 𝜗𝑁−1
𝑚
1 𝜑𝑁 𝜗𝑁 … 𝜑𝑁 𝜗𝑁𝑚
[ ]
The function of optimization is:
𝐻
𝑓(ℎ𝑗′ )│𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ∑𝑁 ′ ∗ 2
𝑖=1(𝑣𝑖 − 𝑉(ℎ𝑗 (ℎ, 𝑏 )) ; 2
≤ 𝑏∗ ≤ 𝐻 (12)

We must find "𝑏∗ " by a numerical method where get a mínimum for 𝑓(ℎ𝑗′ ) and therefore 𝑉(ℎ𝑗′ (ℎ, 𝑏 ∗ ))
is the optimal polynomial equation then calculated percentage measurement error (%E) where must
fulfill:
%𝐸 < 𝑀𝑃𝐸 (13)

Table 2. Maximum permissible errors [3], [4].

Type Maximum permissible errors (MPE)
Static measuring system 0,50%
Transportable measuring 0,30%

3
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

In the case of the generation of calibration charts, the expanded uncertainty is obtained by applying
the following equation. [2], [6]
2 2
𝑈 = 𝑘 √𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 + 𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 (14)
Where:
𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 : Instrumental uncertainty.
𝑢𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒 : Adjustment curve uncertainty.
𝑘 : Coverage factor.
Instrumental uncertainty in the process of elaboration of capacity tables, the volumetric method will
be adopted, consisting of multiple discharges from a standard volumetric container [5].
Adjustment curve uncertainty is determined by evaluating the standard deviation of residual errors for
the entire interval.

Considering the sufficient number of points to make a suitable adjustment, the intermediate point
(not considered in the adjustment) will be consistent with the initial run when the difference between
this point and the initial interpolation is less than the expanded uncertainty (yellow cell data for
validation).

|𝑉𝑇𝑒𝑜 − 𝑉| ≤ 𝑈 (15)
Where:
𝑉𝑇𝑒𝑜 : Volume for polynomial equation.
𝑉 : Volume transferred
𝑈: Expanded uncertainty

2.4. Flowchart for mathematical model

The Mathematical Model for Optimization of Error and Uncertainty we call AMVA

Flowchart of approaching AMVA

Begin

Input data

Choose of data "h" and “V” by Chebyshev nodes

Choose grade of the polynomial of volume, eval,

seach f(b) minimun and find "b"

Calculate coefficients of the polynomial of volume

Calculate error (E) and uncertainty (U) of volume

E<Max. permissible error

End

Figure 3: Flowchart AMVA.

4
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

3. Example of calibration [7]

Example of calibration of a horizontal tank of maximum capacity 4000 L (static tank)

Elements used:
- Capacity volume pattern equal to 200 L
- Digital thermometer, minimum division 0,1 ° C

Table 3. Data for the calibration of a horizontal static tank.

PATTERNS C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

Nominal volume pattern 200 L Volume Total

Number Temp. Temp.
Volume Corrected Volume h
of Pattern Tank
(L) Transferred at 4°C (mm)
fillings (°C) (L)
Correction of volume pattern -0,02 L (L) (L)

Uncertainty of volume pattern 0,01 L 1 200,0 20,5 20,5 199,9 199,9 114

Expansion coefficient vol. pattern 5,16E-05 1/°C 2 200,0 20,8 20,5 199,9 399,7 206

Volume per division 0,1 L 3 200,0 20,8 20,5 199,9 599,6 278
Reference temperatura of volume
20,0 °C 4 200,0 20,7 20,5 199,9 799,4 343
pattern
Reading resolution 0,1 L 5 200,0 20,8 20,5 199,9 999,3 401

U enrase of pattern 0,05 L 6 200,0 20,6 20,5 199,9 1199,1 458

TANK 7 200,0 20,5 20,5 199,9 1399,0 511

Expansion coefficient 5,16E-05 1/°C 8 200,0 20,5 20,5 199,9 1598,9 563

Reference temperature 4,0 °C 9 200,0 20,7 20,5 199,9 1798,7 614

Water cubic expansion coefficient 2,10E-04 1/°C 10 200,0 20,7 20,5 199,9 1998,6 665

11 200,0 20,6 20,5 199,9 2198,4 715

ROD(DIP STICKS)
12 200,0 20,6 20,5 199,9 2398,3 765

The following data was considered: 13 200,0 20,6 20,5 199,9 2598,1 815

Uncertainty pattern 0,1 mm 14 200,0 20,8 20,5 199,9 2798,0 866

Reading resolution 1 mm 15 200,0 20,7 20,5 199,9 2997,9 918

Where: 16 200,0 20,7 20,5 199,9 3197,7 970

C1: Transfer number. C2: Obtained by volumen patter reading. 17 200,0 20,6 20,5 199,9 3397,6 1024

C3: Water temperature in volumen pattern. 18 200,0 20,3 20,5 199,9 3597,4 1081
C4:Water temperature in cooler. C5: Corrected volumen of each
19 200,0 20,0 20,5 199,9 3797,3 1141
transfer.
C6: Total volumen transferred in cooler. 20 200,0 19,8 20,5 199,8 3997,1 1206

C7: Reading in graduated rule during calibration. 21 200,0 20,0 20,4 199,8 4197,0 1282

In our example has been taken 11 data pairs from the table 3, according to Chebyshev nodes equation
(1) and choose 𝑛 = 1 and 𝑛 = 2 of equation (5)

5
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

Table 4. Data according Chebyshev nodes.

Volumen Total
Number of h
(v) a 4°C
data (mm)
(L]

1 114 199,9
2 206 399,7
3 278 599,6
4 343 799,4
5 511 1399
6 715 2198,4
7 866 2798
8 1024 3397,6
9 1141 3797,3
10 1206 3997,1
11 1282 4197

Table 5. Three-term and five-term polynomial.

AMVA Polynomial of AMVA Polynomial of

Constant
𝑛=1 degree 2 𝑛=2 degree 4

b 733,63 - 769,88 -
A 2272,6195 -290,852757 2417,38071 27,0473526
B 1347,4298 3,341666294 1305,85481 1,03280696
C 1585,3203 0,000179798 1769,17843 0,00430372
D - - -92,806981 -2,22E-06
E - - 0,29721553 1,66E-10

𝑉 = 𝐴 + 𝐵𝑥 + 𝐶𝑥 2 ( Polynomial of degree 2) (16)

𝑉 = 𝐴 + 𝐵. 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛(ℎ′ ) + 𝐶. ℎ′ √1 − ℎ′2 (AMVA n = 1; b = 733,63) (17)

𝑉 = 𝐴 + 𝐵𝑥 + 𝐶𝑥 2 + 𝐷𝑥 3 + 𝐸𝑥 4 ( Polynomial of degree 4) (18)

𝑉 = 𝐴 + 𝐵. 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛(ℎ′ ) + 𝐶. ℎ′ √1 − ℎ′ 2 + 𝐷. 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛(ℎ′ )2 + 𝐸. (ℎ′ √1 − ℎ′ 2 )2 (AMVA n = 2; b = 769,88) (19)

6
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

4. Analysis of Results

Table 6. Comparison with AMVA 𝑛 = 1 and normal polynomial of degree 2.

AMVA n = 1 equation (17) Polynomial of degree 2 equation (16)

Total
Volume U U
h Vteo Error(E) |VTeo-V|≤U Vteo Error(E) |VTeo-V|≤U
(V) E% MPE [L] E% MPE [L]
[mm] [L] [L] [L] [L] [L] [L]
4°C k=3,87 k=4,28
[L]
114 199,9 200,5 0,56 0,28 PASS 4,08 PASS 92,4 -107,47 -53,76 FAIL 268 PASS
206 399,7 398,9 -0,79 -0,20 PASS 4,08 PASS 397,5 -2,17 -0,54 FAIL 268 PASS
278 599,6 598,0 -1,57 -0,26 PASS 4,08 PASS 638,1 38,53 6,43 FAIL 268 PASS
343 799,4 801,5 2,12 0,26 PASS 4,08 PASS 855,3 55,94 7,00 FAIL 268 PASS
401 999,3 997,9 -1,41 -0,14 PASS 4,08 PASS 1049,2 49,86 4,99 FAIL 268 PASS
458 1199,1 1201,7 2,56 0,21 PASS 4,08 PASS 1239,6 40,53 3,38 FAIL 268 PASS
511 1399,0 1398,8 -0,23 -0,02 PASS 4,08 PASS 1416,7 17,74 1,27 FAIL 268 PASS
563 1598,9 1597,7 -1,17 -0,07 PASS 4,08 PASS 1590,5 -8,39 -0,53 FAIL 268 PASS
614 1798,7 1796,9 -1,84 -0,10 PASS 4,08 PASS 1760,9 -37,77 -2,10 FAIL 268 PASS
665 1998,6 1998,7 0,13 0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 1931,4 -67,24 -3,36 FAIL 268 PASS
715 2198,4 2198,2 -0,25 -0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 2098,4 -99,96 -4,55 FAIL 268 PASS
765 2398,3 2398,0 -0,32 -0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 2265,5 -132,78 -5,54 FAIL 268 PASS
815 2598,1 2597,1 -0,97 -0,04 PASS 4,08 PASS 2432,6 -165,49 -6,37 FAIL 268 PASS
866 2798,0 2798,4 0,42 0,02 PASS 4,08 PASS 2603,0 -194,97 -6,97 FAIL 268 PASS
918 2997,9 3000,5 2,64 0,09 PASS 4,08 PASS 2776,8 -221,10 -7,38 FAIL 268 PASS
970 3197,7 3198,2 0,48 0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 2950,6 -247,14 -7,73 FAIL 268 PASS
1024 3397,6 3397,2 -0,43 -0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 3131,0 -266,59 -7,85 FAIL 268 PASS
1081 3597,4 3598,4 1,01 0,03 PASS 4,08 PASS 3321,5 -275,91 -7,67 FAIL 268 FAIL
1141 3797,3 3798,0 0,66 0,02 PASS 4,08 PASS 3522,0 -275,31 -7,25 FAIL 268 FAIL
1206 3997,1 3996,2 -0,87 -0,02 PASS 4,08 PASS 3739,2 -257,90 -6,45 FAIL 268 PASS
1282 4197,0 4197,4 0,37 0,01 PASS 4,08 PASS 3993,2 -203,84 -4,86 FAIL 268 PASS

7
10th Brazilian Congress on Metrology (Metrologia 2019) IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1826 (2021) 012080 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1826/1/012080

Table 7. Comparison with AMVA 𝑛 = 2 and normal polynomial of degree 4.

With AMVA n = 2 equation (19) Normal Polynomial of degree 4 equation (18)
Total
U U
h Volume (V) Vteo Error(E) |VTeo-V|≤U Vteo Error(E) |VTeo-V|≤U
E% MPE [L] E% MPE [L]
[mm] 4°C [L] [L] [L] [L] [L] [L]
k=4,28 k=4,78
[L]
114 199,9 200,2 0,26 0,13 PASS 5,44 PASS 197,5 -2,44 -1,22 FAIL 18 PASS
206 399,7 399,3 -0,42 -0,11 PASS 5,44 PASS 403,4 3,65 0,91 FAIL 18 PASS
278 599,6 598,3 -1,33 -0,22 PASS 5,44 PASS 600,1 0,51 0,09 PASS 18 PASS
343 799,4 801,5 2,13 0,27 PASS 5,44 PASS 800,4 1,02 0,13 PASS 18 PASS
401 999,3 997,7 -1,58 -0,16 PASS 5,44 PASS 994,5 -4,78 -0,48 PASS 18 PASS
458 1199,1 1201,4 2,26 0,19 PASS 5,44 PASS 1197 -2,05 -0,17 PASS 18 PASS
511 1399,0 1398,4 -0,60 -0,04 PASS 5,44 PASS 1394 -5,03 -0,36 PASS 18 PASS
563 1598,9 1597,3 -1,56 -0,10 PASS 5,44 PASS 1594 -5,37 -0,34 PASS 18 PASS
614 1798,7 1796,5 -2,20 -0,12 PASS 5,44 PASS 1794 -4,84 -0,27 PASS 18 PASS
665 1998,6 1998,4 -0,16 -0,01 PASS 5,44 PASS 1997 -1,31 -0,07 PASS 18 PASS
715 2198,4 2198,0 -0,45 -0,02 PASS 5,44 PASS 2198 -0,05 0,00 PASS 18 PASS
765 2398,3 2397,9 -0,41 -0,02 PASS 5,44 PASS 2400 1,39 0,06 PASS 18 PASS
815 2598,1 2597,1 -0,95 -0,04 PASS 5,44 PASS 2600 1,93 0,07 PASS 18 PASS
866 2798,0 2798,5 0,55 0,02 PASS 5,44 PASS 2802 4,01 0,14 PASS 18 PASS
918 2997,9 3000,7 2,85 0,09 PASS 5,44 PASS 3004 6,23 0,21 PASS 18 PASS
970 3197,7 3198,4 0,73 0,02 PASS 5,44 PASS 3201 3,35 0,10 PASS 18 PASS
1024 3397,6 3397,4 -0,18 -0,01 PASS 5,44 PASS 3399 0,99 0,03 PASS 18 PASS
1081 3597,4 3598,6 1,18 0,03 PASS 5,44 PASS 3598 0,42 0,01 PASS 18 PASS
1141 3797,3 3798,0 0,69 0,02 PASS 5,44 PASS 3795 -1,89 -0,05 PASS 18 PASS
1206 3997,1 3996,1 -1,00 -0,03 PASS 5,44 PASS 3993 -3,85 -0,10 PASS 18 PASS
1282 4197,0 4197,4 0,36 0,01 PASS 5,44 PASS 4200 3,09 0,07 PASS 18 PASS

5. Conclusions

 According tables 6 and 7 our approach model (AMVA) uncertainty and error have been
reduced and fulfill Maximum Permissible Errors (MPE).
 Our polynomial adjustment proposal converges faster (see tables 6 and 7) than normal
polynomial adjustment, which minimizes uncertainty due to interpolation and error.
 Our proposal requires 11 points to obtain satisfactory results, minimizing the measurement
time.

References
[1] Kuan X 2016 The Chebyshev points of the first kind Elsevier 102 17
[2] Metas 2018 Linealidad, La Guía Metas
[3] OIML R 71 2008 Fixed storage tanks, General Requerements.
[4] OIML RI 80-1 2009 Metrological and technical requirements, Road and rail tank cars
[5] EURAMET 2013 Guidelines on the Calibration of Standard Capacity Measures using the
Volumetric Method
[6] BIPM, IEC 2008 Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in
Measurement.
[7] INTI 2011 Medición de volumen de leche cruda en tambo, Buenas Prácticas de diseño,
calibracion mantenimiento y operación de equipos de medición.