In order to demonstrate the equivalence in calibration of mass standards among National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) of EURAMET this key comparison (KC) on 1 kg stainless steel mass standards has been carried out under the auspices of EURAMET. The comparison was undertaken with reference to the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK) as the definition of the unit of mass. The overall result shows good consistency among the participants. 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).
Main text At its meeting in October 2014, the EURAMET TC for Length, decided upon a key comparison on the calibration of diameter gauges, named EURAMET.L-K4.2015. Twenty National Metrology Institutes and one Designated Institute from Europe, Asia and South America participated in this comparison, which was carried out in two parallel groups. Twelve laboratories from EURAMET participated in group 1, while ten laboratories from EURAMET and two laboratories from GULFMET and SIM participated in group 2. To provide the link three laboratories, CEM, INRIM and METAS, participated in both groups and in the key comparison CCL-K4.2015. Two sets of gauges consisting of two rings, two plugs and a sphere were circulated in parallel in the two groups, the circulation started in November 2016 and completed in February 2018. The reference value (KCRV) was calculated on a gauge-per-gauge basis as the weighted mean of the submitted results of the diameter, roundness and straightness measurements. With group 1, inconsistent results (En> 1) gave a number of 5 out of 60 independent results for diameter and 7 out of 77 for roundness, while with group 2 a number of 6 out of 59 for diameter. These numbers are reflected in the comparison with reference values, while it is worth noting that with the two plugs of 100 mm diameter a decrement of 2 inconsistent results is achieved by introducing an uncertainty contribution related to the apparent change of length of these gauges. Furthermore, the KCRV was calculated by linking the two groups for the diameter of all the twin gauges and for the roundness of the twin spheres. When compared to those calculated independently for each group, minor changes of the KCRVs and associated uncertainties are observed from linking the groups. Consistency checks are satisfied for most of the gauges with the exception of the plugs 100 mm, which suffer from an apparent change in length during the circulation. With the linking, inconsistent results gave a number of 12 out of 119 independent results for the diameter and 1 out of 21 for roundness of the sphere. The comparison results help to support the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs) of the laboratories, while recommendations and actions were agreed with those having inconsistent results. 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 https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCL, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
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).
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.