Standardisation of pressure measurement using pressure balance as transfer standard

This paper describes the results of the interlaboratory comparison for pressure measurements of 9 laboratories that are accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration of Laboratories (NABL). The artifact used for the comparison was a pressure balance covering the pressure range (7 to 70) MPa. The primary objective of this comparison was to assess the laboratory’s technical competence to perform measurements and also to assess the compatibility of the results submitted by the laboratories. The comparison began during March 2008 and ended during April 2010. For assigning the reference values, the pilot laboratory (NPLI) carried out 3 calibrations of the transfer standard; the first one at the beginning, the second at the middle and the last one at the end of the programme. The comparison was carried out at 10 pressure points i.e. (7, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70) MPa throughout the entire pressure range of (7 to 70) MPa. The measurements were carried out by each laboratory with their own resources (personnel, calibration systems, environmental conditions in their installations). The deviations for each laboratory were compared against the reference values and the compatibility of the results was calculated using the normalized error value method. Out of the total 87 measurement results reported, 68 (78.2%) results are found in good agreement with the results of the reference laboratory. The normalized error (En) values of 5 laboratories out of the total 9 were found well within ± 1 over the entire pressure range. However, 2 other laboratories had shown good agreement with the reference values except one pressure point each. The En values of one of the participating laboratory were found beyond acceptable limits at all measurements points. Another laboratory had acceptable results only at 3 pressure points. The laboratories with unacceptable results have been advised to review their pressure measurement process. The deviations between laboratory values and of the reference values were found well within the uncertainty band of the reference values for 37% measurement results. The relative deviations for 82 measurement results were found well within 0.05%.

[1]  M. Bergoglio,et al.  Final report on key comparison CCM.P-K13 in the range 50 MPa to 500 MPa of hydraulic gauge pressure , 2005 .

[2]  Leonard Steinborn,et al.  International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories , 2004 .

[3]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Current Status of Pressure Standards at NPLI and Our Experiences with the Key Comparison Data Base (KCDB) , 2006 .

[4]  S. Yadav,et al.  Bilateral Comparison between NIST (USA) and NPLI (India) in the Hydraulic Pressure Region 40 MPa to 200 Mpa | NIST , 2006 .

[5]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Evaluation of laboratory performance through interlaboratory comparison , 2009 .

[6]  V. K. Gupta,et al.  The effect of pressure-transmitting fluids in the characterization of a controlled clearance piston gauge up to 1 GPa , 2007 .

[7]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Computer simulation of a 1.0 GPa piston–cylinder assembly using finite element analysis (FEA) , 2010 .

[8]  V. K. Gupta,et al.  Least squares best fit line method for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty with electromechanical transducers (EMT) with Electrical Outputs (EO) , 2010 .

[9]  Hyu-Sang Kwon,et al.  Final report on key comparison APMP.AUV.A-K3 , 2012 .

[10]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Evaluation of Interlaboratory Performance through Proficiency Testing using Pressure Dial Gauge in the Hydraulic Pressure Measurement up to 70 MPa , 2008 .

[11]  S. Yadav,et al.  Characterization of dead weight testers and computation of associated uncertainties: a case study of contemporary techniques , 2007 .

[12]  Taryana Suryana,et al.  iso/iec 17025 , 2009 .

[13]  V. K. Gupta,et al.  Standardization of pressure calibration (7-70 MPa) using digital pressure calibrator , 2010 .

[14]  V. K. Gupta,et al.  Proficiency testing through interlaboratory comparison in the pressure range up to 70 MPa using pressure dial gauge as an artifact , 2005 .

[15]  S. Yadav,et al.  Assessment of Laboratory Performance in External Proficiency Testing in the Pressure Range up to 60 MPa , 2009 .

[16]  S. Yadav,et al.  Final report on key comparison APMP.M.P-K13 in hydraulic gauge pressure from 50 MPa to 500 MPa , 2005 .

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

[18]  Henrik S. Nielsen.  Determining Consensus Values in Interlaboratory Comparisons and Proficiency Testing , 2003 .

[19]  Franco Pavese,et al.  Modern Gas-Based Temperature and Pressure Measurements , 2012 .

[20]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Intercomparison of National Hydraulic Pressure Standards up to 500 MPa , 2002 .

[21]  S. Yadav,et al.  Proficiency testing (PT) program under NABL in the pressure range 7-70 MPa using digital pressure calibrator (DPC) , 2005 .

[22]  Sanjay Yadav,et al.  Investigations on Measurement Uncertainty and Stability of Pressure Dial Gauges and Transducers , 2010 .