Results for pressure distortion coefficients (λ) obtained by five national metrology institutes with finite element methods (FEM) for PTB and LNE 1 GPa piston-cylinder units are presented. For the PTB unit they demonstrate good agreement of the FEM and the experimental distortion coefficients but rather large differences in the uncertainties, pressure distributions, gap profiles and piston fall rates. The reasons for differences between the theoretical real-gap and experimental λ obtained for the LNE unit require further clarification. The uncertainty of the gap geometry is identified as the main uncertainty source.
This report describes a CCM key comparison of hydraulic pressure standards of nine National Metrology Institutes that was carried out in the period from November 2002 to June 2004 in order to determine their degrees of equivalence in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa of the gauge pressure. The pilot laboratory was PTB. The primary pressure standards were pressure balances of different design equipped with piston-cylinder assemblies operated in freedeformation, controlled-clearance or re-entrant operation mode. The transfer standard was a pressure balance equipped with a piston-cylinder assembly and a mass set. The pressuredependent effective areas of the transfer standard at specified pressures were reported by the participants and led to the reference values calculated as medians. All participants' results agree with the reference values and with each other within the expanded uncertainties calculated with a coverage factor 2, most of them even within their standard uncertainties. In addition, the results were analysed in terms of the zero pressure effective area and the pressure distortion coefficient. Also for them agreement within expanded uncertainties (k=2) is observed. The results of the comparison demonstrate equivalence of the laboratory standards and support their measurement capability statements.
In mass metrology, the standards currently used are calibrated by a chain of comparisons, performed using mass comparators, that extends ultimately from the international prototype (which is the definition of the unit of mass) to the standards in routine use. The differences measured in the course of
To meet the needs of industries using high pressure technologies, in traceable, reliable and accurate pressure measurements, a joint research project of the five national metrology institutes and the university was carried out within the European Metrology Research Programme. In particular, finite element methods were established for stress-strain analysis of elastic and nonlinear elastic-plastic deformation, as well as of contact processes in pressuremeasuring piston-cylinder assemblies, and high-pressure components at pressures above 1 GPa. New pressure measuring multipliers were developed and characterised, which allow realisation of the pressure scale up to 1.6 GPa. This characterisation is based on research including measurements of material elastic constants by the resonant ultrasound spectroscopy, hardness of materials of high pressure components, density and viscosity of pressure transmitting liquids at pressures up to 1.4 GPa and dimensional measurements on pistoncylinders. A 1.6 GPa pressure system was created for operation of the 1.6 GPa multipliers and calibration of high pressure transducers. A transfer standard for 1.5 GPa pressure range, based on pressure transducers, was built and tested. Herewith, the project developed the capability of measuring pressures up to 1.6 GPa, from which industrial users can calibrate their pressure measurement devices for accurate measurements up to 1.5 GPa.
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.