Uncertainty analysis of steady-state measurements with a hot-filament type calorimetric emissometer

•Formulae for uncertainty propagation developed for a hot-filament calorimetric emissometer.•Data on Hastelloy X, A387 Gr. 91, A508/A533B, and SS 347 were analyzed.•Relative uncertainties of less than 2.5% for emissivities from 0.16 to 0.81.•Electric current and specimen temperature were main sources of uncertainty in emissivity.•Higher-order Taylor expansions offered no improvement to uncertainty calculation. Calorimetric emissometers measure total hemispherical emissivity by measuring the heat transferred from a heated sample to its surroundings under a vacuum. The accuracy of emissometers standardized by the ASTM C835-06 are well understood. This work uses the Guide to the Evaluation of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) for the propagation uncertainties for an ASTM compliant emissometer. The GUM method was able to develop a measurement model and expressions to determine the uncertainty for other emissometers of this type. Data on ‘as-received’ Hastelloy X was used to develop a detailed uncertainty analysis of the emissivity measurement. Data on ‘as-received’ SS 347 and sandblasted A387 Gr. 91 and previous data by the group on A508/A533B were used to determine uncertainty over the ranges 0.16 to 0.81. For all samples, relative uncertainties in emissivities varied from 0.77% to 2.5% when using a fluxgate magnetometer sensor (FMS) to measure the DC heating current. Data on Hastelloy X using a Hall-effect sensor for DC current and low alloy steel showed the DC current and voltage across the test section to be dominate sources of uncertainty. When these sources were reduced, the specimen temperature and the surface area of the test sections were main sources of uncertainty in the emissivity, especially at higher temperatures. As thermal expansion of the surface was considered in the calculations, correlation between specimen temperature and surface area was examined. It was found to be a small contribution to emissivity's uncertainty despite the differences in linear CTE and its uncertainty for the materials analyzed in this study. For low temperatures, the chamber temperature can be a significant source of uncertainty if not sufficiently cooled. The GUM was also briefly compared to uncertainty from the 2nd and 3rd expansions of the Taylor series. The results were the same when rounding to two significant figures.