EURAMET.M.P-S9: comparison in the negative gauge pressure range −950 to 0 hPa

Abstract

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).