Intercomparison of National Hydraulic Pressure Standards up to 500 MPa

In order to provide inputs for improving the quality of measurements, achieving objective evidences of the technical competence and to build-up and maintain mutual confidence of national hydraulic pressure standards, an extensive in-house laboratory intercomparison is carried out in a systematic manner. The present paper describes the summary of the results thus obtained in this in-house laboratory intercomparison exercise of eight numbers of national hydraulic pressure standards, designated as NPL28MPA, NPL100MPN, NPL100MPA, NPL140MPA, NPL200MPN, NPL280MPA, NPL500MPN, NPL500MPA. The intercomparison of these pressure standards is carried out using an internationally accepted method of cross-floating of pressure balances. The uncertainty in area and pressure measurements is computed as per ISO, WECC and EAL guidelines. The compatibility, uniformity and affirmation of results is re-established by comparing the values of zero pressure effective area (A 0) and distortion coefficient (Λ) with the values obtained during bilateral and international key comparisons sponsored by BIPM, CCM, APLAC, LNE (France) and NIST (USA). The metrological characteristics thus obtained establish a very good agreement within the limits of uncertainty budgets of bilateral and international key comparisons.

[1]  J. Sharma,et al.  AN INTERCOMPARISON BETWEEN NPL (INDIA) AND NIST (USA) PRESSURE STANDARDS IN THE HYDRAULIC PRESSURE REGION UP TO 26 MPA , 1994 .

[2]  A. K. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Realization of a national practical pressure scale for pressures up to 500 MPa , 1999 .

[3]  J. Legras,et al.  Final Results of an International Comparison in the Pressure Range 20 MPa to 100 MPa , 1991 .

[4]  V. Bean,et al.  Effects of viscosity, temperature, and rate of rotation on pressure generated by a controlled‐clearance piston gauge , 1984 .

[5]  L. Finkelstein,et al.  The pressure balance — Theory and practice: Robert S. Dadson, Sylvia L. Lewis, Graham N. Peggs National Physical Laboratory, London: HMSO, pp xii + 290 , 1983 .

[6]  A. K. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Establishment of the mercury fixed point around 0°C using volumetric method , 1993 .

[7]  A. K. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  International intercomparison of pressure standards in the pneumatic pressure region 0.4-4.0 MPa between NPL (India) and PTB (FRG) , 1988 .

[8]  K. Jain,et al.  Intercomparison of hydraulic pressure measurements to 28 MPa using a single-piston gauge in the controlled-clearance, reentrant, and simple configurations , 1992 .

[9]  A. K. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Characterization of a Controlled Clearance Piston Gauge Using Different Working Fluids up to 5 MPa , 1988 .

[10]  P. Heydemann,et al.  CHAPTER 4 – Part 3. Piston Gages , 1975 .

[11]  G. F. Molinar,et al.  Intercomparison of pneumatic differential pressure measurements at 30-150 kPa at high line pressure up to 7.5 MPa , 1989 .

[12]  J. Sharma,et al.  Use of strain gauge pressure transducer as working pressure standard up to 500 MPa , 1987 .