Final report on EURAMET.M.P-K4.2010: Key and supplementary comparison of national pressure standards in the range 1 Pa to 15 kPa of absolute and gauge pressure

Krajicek, Zdenek; Bergoglio, M.; Jousten, Karl; Otal, Pierre; Sabuga, Wladimir; Saxholm, Sari; Pražák, Dominik; Vičar, Martin

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/51/1a/07002

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible solution is a transportation of the whole primary standard to a partner laboratory, and to accomplish a direct comparison of the two standards. This solution was well proved during our comparison of low pressures; see [21][22][23]. That is why we designed the vacuum vessel with an emphasis on its portability; see figure 2.…”

Section: Vacuum Modification Of the Gfsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Gravimetric flow standard in the vacuum and hermetic modes

Vičar

Krajicek

Pražák

et al. 2018

Meas. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Czech national standard of low gas flow is based on the dynamic gravimetry principle, defining the flow rate as the mass loss of gas from a pressure bottle which is continuously weighed. This weighing is performed in ambient atmosphere, which brings two problems. First, the buoyancy corrections are the main and unavoidable source of uncertainty. Second, condensation of the water vapor on the pressure bottle can occur, due to its cooling below dew point at higher flow rates. A weighing carried out in a hermetically closed atmosphere suppresses the problematic buoyancy effects. A weighing in a vacuum does the same, and also eliminates any danger of water condensation. The paper describes the hermetic and vacuum mode modifications together with the relevant uncertainty analyses.

show abstract

Section: Vacuum Modification Of the Gfsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Gravimetric flow standard in the vacuum and hermetic modes

Vičar

Krajicek

Pražák

et al. 2018

Meas. Sci. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Above 1 kPa the official national primary standard is the mercury manometer of the pressure laboratory in Braunschweig, which was not used during this comparison. In the EURAMET.M.P-K4.2010 [13] (same range as this comparison) both laboratories of PTB took part with their respective standards being in full agreement, so that a sufficient link can be provided if necessary in the future.…”

Section: Laboratory Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Final report on the key comparison CCM.P-K4.2012 in absolute pressure from 1 Pa to 10 kPa

Ricker

Hendricks²,

Böck

et al. 2017

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The report summarizes the Consultative Committee for Mass (CCM) key comparison CCM.P-K4.2012 for absolute pressure spanning the range of 1 Pa to 10 000 Pa. The comparison was carried out at six National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), including National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Czech Metrology Institute (CMI), National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ), Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM), and DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM). The comparison was made via a calibrated transfer standard measured at each of the NMIs facilities using their laboratory standard during the period May 2012 to September 2013. The transfer package constructed for this comparison preformed as designed and provided a stable artifact to compare laboratory standards. Overall the participants were found to be statistically equivalent to the key comparison reference value.

show abstract

“…Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. standards in the pressure range 1 Pa-15 kPa are piston gauges (PGs) equipped with the non-rotating piston-cylinder assemblies (PCAs) [1][2][3][4][5]. In the present work, two of these devices are examined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present work, two of these devices are examined. The first one is the force-balanced piston gauge FPG8601, manufactured by Fluke, which is used by many National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and pres sure calibration laboratories as a reference instrument for both absolute and gauge modes [3,6]. The second one is the Furness Rosenberg standard (FRS), manufactured by Furness Controls [7], which is also used by various NMIs and calibration laboratories, and has been also proved as a reference and transfer standard for low absolute and gauge pressures [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the previous years, comparisons between NMIs have been performed targeting at the statement of equivalence between pressure standards [3,4,8], but only few attempts to characterize the FPG8601 or FRS as primary standards have been reported [9][10][11][12]. In order to metrologically characterize each device, all parameters that can affect the measurement have to be examined and quantified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computation of the effective area and associated uncertainties of non-rotating piston gauges FPG and FRS

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effective areas of three force-balanced piston gauges (FPGs) and two Furness Rosenberg standards (FRS) in the operating pressure range of each device varying for 1 Pa-15 kPa have been accurately computed both in the gauge and absolute modes. Geometrical data for the non-rotating piston-cylinder assemblies (PCAs) have been provided by the National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) of PTB, RISE, INRiM and CMI. Since the flow is in a wide range of the Knudsen number, simulations have been based on the Batnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) kinetic model equation, while the typical Dadson and CFD approaches have been complimentary applied only in the viscous regime. Furthermore, an uncertainty analysis has been performed. The effective area is strongly affected by the PCA geometry and the flow conditions, while its dependency on pressure may be different even for devices of the same type. The main source of uncertainty is the dimensional measurements of the piston and the cylinder, followed by the accommodation coefficient characterizing the gas-surface interaction, while the effect of other flow and modeling parameters is negligible. The total relative standard uncertainty of the effective area has been always found to be less than 1 • 10 −5 indicating that pressure measurements of high accuracy can be ensured. Since the effective area is estimated based solely on computations the FPG and the FRS assemblies may be characterized as primary pressure standards.

show abstract

Final report on EURAMET.M.P-K4.2010: Key and supplementary comparison of national pressure standards in the range 1 Pa to 15 kPa of absolute and gauge pressure

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Gravimetric flow standard in the vacuum and hermetic modes

Gravimetric flow standard in the vacuum and hermetic modes

Final report on the key comparison CCM.P-K4.2012 in absolute pressure from 1 Pa to 10 kPa

Computation of the effective area and associated uncertainties of non-rotating piston gauges FPG and FRS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About