A primary dead-weight tester for pressures (0.05-1.0) MPa

Jain, Kamlesh; Bowers, Walter J.; Schmidt, James W.

doi:10.6028/jres.108.013

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To estimate the uncertainty in the pressure coefficient from elasticity theory we have started with a value calculated using simple analytical formulae, a measured value of Young's modulus and a literature value for Poisson's ratio [12]. In one instance the crevice pressure was modelled as half the system pressure.…”

Section: U(b)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary pressure standards based on dimensionally characterized piston/cylinder assemblies

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NIST has characterized two large diameter (35.8 mm) piston/cylinder assemblies as primary pressure standards in the range 0.05 MPa to 1.0 MPa with uncertainties approaching the best mercury manometers. The realizations of the artefacts as primary standards are based on the dimensional characterization of the piston and cylinder, and models of the normal and shear forces on the base and flanks of the piston. We have studied two piston/cylinder assemblies, known at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as PG 38 and PG 39, using these methods. The piston and cylinder of both assemblies were accurately dimensioned by Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). All artefacts appeared to be round within ±30 nm and straight within ±100 nm over a substantial fraction of their heights. PG 39 was dimensioned a second time by PTB, three years after the initial measurement, and showed no significant change in dimensions or effective area. Comparisons of the effective area of PG 38 and PG 39 from dimensional measurements, against those obtained with calibration against the NIST ultrasonic interferometer manometer (UIM), are in agreement within the combined standard (k = 1) uncertainty of the dimensional measurements and the UIM. A cross-float comparison of PG 38 versus PG 39 also agreed with the dimensional characterization within their combined standard uncertainties and with the UIM calibrations. The expanded (k = 2) relative uncertainty of the effective area is about 6.0 × 10 −6 for both assemblies.

show abstract

Section: U(b)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary pressure standards based on dimensionally characterized piston/cylinder assemblies

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The primary standard piston gauges were acquired from Ruska in 1989. More extensive details on the method for characterizing them can be found in [ 2 ] and [ 6 ]. They operate in both absolute and gauge mode, from 20 kPa to 1 MPa.…”

Section: Primary Standard Gas Piston Gaugesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A gas pressure scale based on primary standard piston gauges

Olson

Driver

Bowers

2010

J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has redefined its gas pressure scale, up to 17 MPa, based on two primary standard piston gauges. The primary standard piston gauges are 35.8 mm in diameter and operate from 20 kPa to 1 MPa. Ten secondary standard piston gauges, two each of five series of the Ruska 2465 type, with successively smaller diameters form the scale extending up to 17 MPa. Six of the piston gauges were directly compared to the primary standards to determine their effective area and expanded ( k = 2) uncertainty. Two piston gauges operating to 7 MPa were compared to the 1.4 MPa gauges, and two piston gauges operating to 17 MPa were compared to the 7 MPa gauges. Distortion in the 7 MPa piston gauges was determined by comparing those gauges to a DH Instruments PG7601 type piston gauge, whose distortion was calculated using elasticity theory. The relative standard uncertainties achieved by the primary standards range from 3.0 × 10 −6 to 3.2 × 10 −6 . The relative standard uncertainty of the secondary standards is as low as 4.2 × 10 −6 at 300 kPa. The effective areas and uncertainties were validated by comparison to standards of other National Metrology Institutes (NMIs). Results show agreement in all cases to better than the expanded ( k = 2) uncertainty of the difference between NIST and the other NMIs, and in most cases to better than the standard ( k = 1) uncertainty of the difference.

show abstract

“…The effect of the dimensional uncertainty on the standard uncertainty in A 0 was included by increasing or decreasing all piston and cylinder diameters by their standard uncertainty. A complete mathematical description of the models is given in [6].…”

Section: Force Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coefficient of thermal expansion for the combined piston and cylinder was measured in [6] for PG39, and is assumed the same for PG38. The result is:…”

Section: Comparisons Between Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

NIST calibration services for pressure using piston gauge standards

Olson¹

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary dead-weight tester for pressures (0.05-1.0) MPa

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Primary pressure standards based on dimensionally characterized piston/cylinder assemblies

Primary pressure standards based on dimensionally characterized piston/cylinder assemblies

A gas pressure scale based on primary standard piston gauges

NIST calibration services for pressure using piston gauge standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About