【正文】 h included the failures On 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 total Variation 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 evaluation All 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 bined measurement uncertainty and the variation in material is About 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 remended by the ISO guide GUM. This is surprising, since European accreditation authorities have remended 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 parisons, 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 parison 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, . 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 ILACG17:2020, a document about the introduction of the concept of uncertainty of measurement in association with testing [10], will improve the situation. Conclusions The way to define, calculate, and interpret uncertainty of measurement and to use it in Whalercurve determination is poorly understood among the participants, in spite of the fact that they consist of a group with significant experience Of fatigue testing, and that some of them were also accredited for fatigue tests. An important overall tendency is that the laboratories only include uncertainty Sources that are easily obtained, . from calibrated gauges where calibration certificates exist. 中文翻譯 關于北歐的疲勞實驗室的比較 — 測量結果不確定值的反映 摘要 ：這篇論文介紹了關于疲勞檢測的不確定性的計算和報告的實驗。 A and B Fatigue strength parameters 關于測量的不確定性值的討論和鑒定與這個問題息息相關。所用的計算方法也要報告，關于工程測量的不確定性值的結果