CCM key comparison in the pressure range 50 kPa to 1000 kPa (gas medium, gauge mode). Phase A2: Pressure measurements

Legras, J C; Sabuga, Wladimir; Molinar, G F; Schmidt, James W.

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/36/6/35

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supplementary results contributed by the PTB to the report on the results of the CCM pressure key comparison in the 1 MPa range [4] show that the effective areas derived for the D&H transfer standards from pressure measurements with the standard pistoncylinder assembly No. 6222 from the PTB differ from the reference values by no more than 5 10 -6 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the national pressure standards of the Russian Federation (VNIIM), Germany (PTB) and Slovakia (SMU) in the pressure range 1 MPa to 3 MPa (COOMET project 115/RU/95)

et al. 1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison between the D. I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM, Russian Federation), the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB, Germany) and the Slovak Institute of Metrology (SMU, Slovakia) was organized by the VNIIM as the coordinator and pilot laboratory of a COOMET project that started in 1995 and finished in 1998. The comparison was realized on the basis of cross-float experiments with two transfer standards -5 cm 2 piston-cylinder assemblies for pressure balances -manufactured by, and belonging to, the VNIIM. The transfer standards and the methods applied to determine their effective areas, , are described and the comparison results presented. With the equivalence criterion for the agreement between any two participants taken to be ( being the standard uncertainty of the effective area of the transfer standard used), the national standards of the participants for the pressure range covered by the comparison experiments may be considered to be equivalent. As one of the participants in the present comparison (PTB) used the same primary standards in comparisons organized by EUROMET* and by the Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities (CCM), the participants in this COOMET project can indirectly compare their pressure standards with those of other European countries, Japan, and the United States.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assembly No. 6222 was also used in phase A2 -pressure measurements -of the CCM key comparison in the 1 MPa range to provide supplementary information [4]. The properties of the oil-operated assembly No.…”

Section: National Pressure Standards Of Participating Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the national pressure standards of the Russian Federation (VNIIM), Germany (PTB) and Slovakia (SMU) in the pressure range 1 MPa to 3 MPa (COOMET project 115/RU/95)

et al. 1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even if it is accepted that this is a primary method, it requires some hypothesis concerning the line pressure. In addition, the repeatability of this method-a few hundredths of a pascal-is worse than that of the CDG [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Metrological characterization of a new standard, in absolute and gauge pressure modes, in the range 1 Pa to 15 000 Pa

Otal¹,

Legras²

2005

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The metrological characterization of a new standard in absolute and gauge pressure modes, in the range 1 Pa to 15 000 Pa, is described. Its effective area has been determined in gauge and absolute modes by direct comparison with a 20 cm 2 simple piston pressure balance. The relative difference in the effective area between the two modes is 1.2 × 10 −6 . No significant effect has been observed between the two modes for pressures down to 5 kPa. Correction coefficients have been calculated to take into account the initial condition changes. The evaluation has also provided an estimate of repeatability and linearity at low pressure.The pressure measurement uncertainty budget for this standard is presented along with some results from the calibration of working capacitance diaphragm gauges. The estimated expanded uncertainty is 8 mPa + 2.4 × 10 −5 × p in gauge mode and 13 mPa + 2.3 × 10 −5 × p in absolute mode.

show abstract

“…The connection to the TS was realised with an liquid-gas interface. Total relative standard uncertainty of А 0 (10 -6 ) 5.0 4.1 Pressure distortion coefficient (10 -12 Pa -1 ) 4.0 1.47 Reference temperature (°С) 20 Pressure-transmitting medium Nitrogen Participation in previous comparisons COOMET 115, EUROMET 305, CCM.P-K1, EUROMET M.P-K3, APMP.M.P-K1c References [1,3] The zero-pressure effective areas were determined from dimensional measurements and from measurements against a primary mercury manometer. The pressure distortion coefficients (λ) of these piston-cylinder assemblies were determined from their dimensions and the elastic constants of their materials using Lamé equations.…”

Section: Standards Of the Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Final report on key comparison COOMET.M.P-K1 in the range 0.05 MPa to 0.5 MPa of pneumatic gauge pressure

Kiselev¹,

Sabuga²,

Dapkeviciene³

et al. 2008

Metrologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report describes a COOMET key comparison of pneumatic pressure standards of six National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) that was carried out in the period from September 2004 to June 2006 in order to determine their degrees of equivalence in the range 50 kPa to 500 kPa of the gauge pressure. The pilot laboratory was VNIIM. The pressure standards of the participating NMIs were pressure balances of different design. The transfer standard was a 5 cm 2 piston-cylinder assembly accompanied by a mounting post and a weight carrier supplied by VNIIM. The pressure-dependent effective areas of the transfer standard at specified pressures were reported by the participants. The reference values were calculated as weighted means of the results of VNIIM and PTB which were primary and independent laboratories in this comparison. The results of this comparison were linked to the 1 MPa comparison CCM.P-K1.b using the results of the PTB obtained in both comparisons. Results by all but one participants agree with the reference values and with each other within the expanded uncertainties calculated with a coverage factor 2, roughly a half of the reported results demonstrate agreement within their standard uncertainties. With the exception of one laboratory, the results of the comparison demonstrate equivalence of the laboratory standards and support their measurement capability statements. For laboratories whose CMCs are not presented in the KCDB yet, this comparison provides a basis for submissions for the range 50 kPa to 500 kPa of pneumatic gauge pressure.

show abstract

CCM key comparison in the pressure range 50 kPa to 1000 kPa (gas medium, gauge mode). Phase A2: Pressure measurements

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Comparison of the national pressure standards of the Russian Federation (VNIIM), Germany (PTB) and Slovakia (SMU) in the pressure range 1 MPa to 3 MPa (COOMET project 115/RU/95)

Comparison of the national pressure standards of the Russian Federation (VNIIM), Germany (PTB) and Slovakia (SMU) in the pressure range 1 MPa to 3 MPa (COOMET project 115/RU/95)

Metrological characterization of a new standard, in absolute and gauge pressure modes, in the range 1 Pa to 15 000 Pa

Final report on key comparison COOMET.M.P-K1 in the range 0.05 MPa to 0.5 MPa of pneumatic gauge pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About