Share This Article:

Parametric Study of Calibration Blackbody Uncertainty Using Design of Experiments

Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:1613KB) PP. 109-119
DOI: 10.4236/jasmi.2012.23020    3,372 Downloads   6,126 Views   Citations


NASA is developing the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) mission to provide accurate measurements to substantially improve understanding of climate change. CLARREO will include a Reflected Solar (RS) Suite, an Infrared (IR) Suite, and a Global Navigation Satellite System-Radio Occultation (GNSS-RO). The IR Suite consists of a Fourier Transform Spectrometer (FTS) covering 5 to 50 micrometers (2000-200 cm-1 wavenumbers) and on-orbit calibration and verification systems. The IR instrument will use a cavity blackbody view and a deep space view for on-orbit calibration. The calibration blackbody and the verification system blackbody will both have Phase Change Cells (PCCs) to accurately provide a SI reference to absolute temperature. One of the most critical parts of obtaining accurate CLARREO IR scene measurements relies on knowing the spectral radiance output from the blackbody calibration source. The blackbody spectral radiance must be known with a low uncertainty, and the magnitude of the uncertainty itself must be reliably quantified. This study focuses on determining which parameters in the spectral radiance equation of the calibration blackbody are critical to the blackbody accuracy. Fourteen parameters are identified and explored. Design of Experiments (DOE) is applied to systematically set up an experiment (i.e., parameter settings and number of runs) to explore the effects of these 14 parameters. The experiment is done by computer simulation to estimate uncertainty of the calibration blackbody spectral radiance. Within the explored ranges, only 4 out of 14 parameters were discovered to be critical to the total uncertainty in blackbody radiance, and should be designed, manufactured, and/or controlled carefully. The uncertainties obtained by computer simulation are also compared to those obtained using the “Law of Propagation of Uncertainty”. The two methods produce statistically different uncertainties. Nevertheless, the differences are small and are not considered to be important. A follow-up study has been planned to examine the total combined uncertainty of the CLARREO IR Suite, with a total of 47 contributing parameters. The DOE method will help in identifying critical parameters that need to be effectively and efficiently designed to meet the stringent IR measurement accuracy requirements within the limited resources.

Cite this paper

N. Phojanamongkolkij, J. Walker, R. Cageao, M. Mlynczak, J. O’Connell and R. R. Baize, "Parametric Study of Calibration Blackbody Uncertainty Using Design of Experiments," Journal of Analytical Sciences, Methods and Instrumentation, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2012, pp. 109-119. doi: 10.4236/jasmi.2012.23020.


[1] J. A. Anderson, et al., “Decadal Survey Clarreo Mission,” Clarreo Workshop, Adelphi, 2007.
[2] Clarreo Team, “Clarreo Mission Overview,” NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, 2011.
[3] G. Ohring, “Achieving Satellite Instrument Calibration for Climate Change,” US Department of Commerce, 2008.
[4] National Research Council, “Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond,” National Academies Press, 2007.
[5] J. A. Dykema and J. G. Anderson, “A Methodology for Obtaining On-Orbit SI-Traceable Spectral Radiance Measurements in the Thermal Infrared,” Metrologia, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2006, pp. 287-293. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/43/3/011
[6] F. A. Best, D. P. Adler, C. Pettersen, H. E. Revercomb, P. J. Gero, J. K. Taylor and R. O. Knuteson, “On-Orbit Ab-solute Radiance Standard for Future IR Remote Sensing Instruments,” The 2011 Earth Science Technology Forum, Pasadena, 2011. http://esto
[7] P. J. Gero, J. A. Dykema and J. G. Anderson, “A Blackbody Design for SI-Traceable Radiometry for Earth Observation,” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Vol. 25, No. 11, 2008, pp. 2046-2054. doi:10.1175/2008JTECHA1100.1
[8] D. C. Montgomery, “Design Analysis of Experiments,” 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2009.
[9] S. M. Ross, “Simulation,” 4th Edition, Elsevier, Inc., Houston, 2006.
[10] Minitab Version, Minitab, Inc., State College, 2007.
[11] B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results,” NIST Technical Note, Vol. 1297, 1994.
[12] I. Gertsbakh, “Measurement Theory for Engineers,” Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[13] H. W. Coleman and W. G. Steele, “Experimentation, Validation, and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers,” 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 2009. doi:10.1002/9780470485682
[14] M. P. Taylor, and Newell, “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2006,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 80, No. 2, 2008, pp. 633-730. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.633

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.