It was decided at the EURAMET TC-M meeting in Torino in 2006 to realize a comparison in gauge and absolute pressure up to 200 kPa as it would allow establishing a link to the CCM.P-K6 and CCM.P-K2 comparisons. This project from the beginning interested a lot of laboratories with participants, 22 of which have submitted results. The circulation of the transfer standard began on July 2009 and lasted until January 2012. No major problem occurred during the transport.The mesurand of the comparison is the effective area of a piston-cylinder determined in gauge and absolute pressure from 25 kPa to 200 kPa with pressure steps of 25 kPa. The transfer standard is a gas lubricated tungsten carbide piston-cylinder with an effective area of ~9.8 cm 2 , fabricated by DH Instruments and compatible with a PG-7601 pressure balance. Some participants used their own pressure balance while a pressure balance with a reference vacuum sensor has been circulated for the participants not equipped with this system.One participant (SMU, Slovakia) has never provided the measurement results and another participant (FORCE Technology, Denmark) submitted a revised set of measurement results after the pilot laboratory mentioned that the equivalence was not met.After the determination of the reference value, all the 22 participants who delivered the results in gauge pressure demonstrated equivalence respective to the reference value on most of the range. In absolute pressure the equivalence is demonstrated, for all nominal pressures, by all 17 participants who submitted results.
A comparison in the negative gauge pressure range was arranged in the period 2011 - 2012. A total of 14 laboratories participated in this comparison: BEV (Austria), CMI (Czech Republic), DANIAmet-FORCE (Denmark), EIM (Greece), HMI/FSB-LPM (Croatia), INM (Romania), IPQ (Portugal), LNE (France), MCCAA (Malta), METROSERT (Estonia), MIKES (Finland), MIRS/IMT/LMT (Slovenia), NSAI (Ireland) and UME (Turkey). The project was divided into two loops: Loop1, piloted by MIKES, and Loop2, piloted by LNE. The results of the two loops are reported separately: Loop1 results are presented in this paper. The transfer standard was Beamex MC5 no. 25516865 with internal pressure module INT1C, resolution 0.01 hPa. The nominal pressure range of the INT1C is −1000 hPa to +1000 hPa. The nominal pressure points for the comparison were 0 hPa, −200 hPa, −400 hPa, −600 hPa, −800 hPa and −950 hPa. The reference values and their uncertainties as well as the difference uncertainty between the laboratory results and the reference values were determined from the measurement data by Monte Carlo simulations. Stability uncertainty of the transfer standard was included in the final difference uncertainty. Degrees of equivalences and mutual equivalences between the laboratories were calculated. Each laboratory reported results for all twelve measurement points, which means that there were 168 reported values in total. Some 163 of the 168 values (97 %) agree with the reference values within the expanded uncertainties, with a coverage factor k = 2. Among the laboratories, four different methods were used to determine negative gauge pressure. It is concluded that special attention must be paid to the measurements and methods when measuring negative gauge pressures. There might be a need for a technical guide or a workshop that provides information about details and practices related to the measurements of negative gauge pressure, as well as differences between the different methods. The comparison is registered as EURAMET project no. 1170 and as a supplementary comparison EURAMET.M.P-S9 in the BIPM key comparison database. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
A pressure comparison in the negative gauge pressure range was arranged in 2009. The participating laboratories were CMI/Czech Republic, FORCE Technology/Denmark, AS Metrosert/Estonia and MIKES/Finland. Negative gauge pressures are a common range for pressure calibrations although uncertainty requirements are generally not very high.The results from the four participating laboratories suggest that calibrations in the negative gauge pressure range are not as easy as expected. Some of the claimed uncertainties were perhaps too optimistic, and the large variation in the results made it difficult to generate consistent reference values. The agreement of the results at positive gauge pressures on the same transfer standard was much better. Obviously there is a need for further comparisons in the negative gauge pressure range.The transfer standard was a multifunction calibrator Beamex MC5 equipped with an internal pressure module for the range −100 kPa to 104 kPa in the gauge mode. The resolution of the display was 0.001 kPa. The stability of the transfer standard was good.The comparison was registered as EURAMET Project No. 1131 and as the supplementary comparison EURAMET.M.P-S8 in the BIPM key comparison database.Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by EURAMET, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
The regional supplementary comparison EURAMET.M.P-S13 for pressure measurements in liquid media from 10 MPa to 100 MPa was piloted by the TÜBİTAK UME Pressure Laboratory, Turkey. The transfer standard was a digital pressure gauge, serial number 116321, manufactured by Paroscientific Inc. Eighteen laboratories participated in this comparison. Fourteen laboratories are from EURAMET region; namely UME, MKEH, BoM, DPM, DMDM, MBM, GUM, IMT, HMI/FSB-LPM, VSL, VTT MIKES, FORCE Technology, IMBIH, NSAI NML. VMC is from COOMET and QAF, EMI, SASO NMCC are from GULFMET region. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.