Loading…

Final report on supplementary comparison APMP.M.P-S7.TRI in hydraulic gauge pressure from 40 MPa to 200 MPa

This report describes the results of a supplementary comparison of hydraulic high-pressure standards at three national metrology institutes (NMIs); National Metrology Institute of Japan, AIST (NMIJ/AIST), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA and National Institute for Standards...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Metrologia 2017-01, Vol.54 (1A), p.7017
Main Authors: Kobata, Tokihiko, Olson, Douglas A, Eltawil, Alaaeldin A
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This report describes the results of a supplementary comparison of hydraulic high-pressure standards at three national metrology institutes (NMIs); National Metrology Institute of Japan, AIST (NMIJ/AIST), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA and National Institute for Standards (NIS), Egypt, which was carried out at NIST during the period May 2001 to September 2001 within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to evaluate their degrees of equivalence at pressures in the range 40 MPa to 200 MPa for gauge mode. The pilot institute was NMIJ/AIST. Three working pressure standards from the institutes, in the form of piston-cylinder assemblies, were used for the comparison. The comparison and calculation methods used are discussed in this report. From the cross-float measurements, the differences between the working pressure standards of each institute were examined through an evaluation of the effective area of each piston-cylinder assembly with its uncertainty. From the comparison results, it was revealed that the values claimed by the participating institutes, NMIJ, NIST, and NIS, agree within the expanded ( k = 2) uncertainties. The hydraulic pressure standards in the range 40 MPa to 200 MPa for gauge mode of the three participating NMIs were found to be equivalent within their claimed uncertainties. 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).
ISSN:0026-1394
1681-7575
DOI:10.1088/0026-1394/54/1A/07017