Final report on CIPM key comparison CCM.FF-K6.2011: Comparison of the primary (national) standards of low-pressure gas flow

Benková, Miroslava; Makovnik, Stefan; Mickan, Bodo; Arias, Roberto; Chahine, Khaled; Funaki, Tatsuya; Li, Chunhui; Choi, Hae-Man; Seredyuk, Denys; Su, Chun-Min; Windenberg, Christophe; Wright, John

doi:10.1088/0026-1394/51/1a/07004

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Here we have used a 1 instead of ṁ to avoid confusion. Equation (13) gives the uncertainty related to the fitting process, not the total uncertainty of the mass flow.) The quantity s(m) is the sample standard deviation of the mass fit residuals and Δt is the time interval between successive mass measurements.…”

Section: Rate Of Rise (Ror) Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Slope calculation and flow stability: similar to the rate of rise method, these components must be controlled by collecting data over a sufficiently long interval and prequalifying the data. It is based on the standard deviation of the residuals of the best fit equation as described in section 1.5 on the rate of rise method and equation (13).…”

Section: Dynamic Gravimetric Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shaw et al [133] used positive displacement and turbine meters with nominal diameters between 10 cm and 20 cm calibrated versus a gravimetric flow standard and estimated the reproducibility of the working standards to be <0.1% at the 95% confidence level. Benkova et al [13] used a positive displacement flow meter as the transfer standard in a key comparison for low pressure gas flow. The meter was calibrated versus a bell prover on seven occasions over 32 months and the uncertainty due to calibration stability was <0.06% at the 95% confidence level.…”

Section: Working Standard Flow Meters and Meters Used In Parallelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of comparisons are collected in reports that can be found in the Key Comparison Database (https://bipm.org/kcdb/). The most relevant comparison reports are [12][13][14][15][16][17] in which many of the piston provers, bell provers, PVTt, rate of rise, gravimetric, and working flow standards used as examples herein have successfully validated their uncertainty claims.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gas flow standards and their uncertainty

Wright¹,

Nakao²,

Johnson³

et al. 2022

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review primary and working gas flow standards that are used to calibrate gas flow meters. For each type of primary standard, we describe the principles and practical considerations of its operation and describe one example implementation. We identify the practical limits of the example's performance, and, in many instances, we provide an uncertainty budget for a typical flow. The reviewed standards span the flow range 2.2 × 10-7 g/s to 520 kg/s. The references point to standards that operate at higher and at lower flows. The reviewed standards include volumetric flow standards (piston and bell provers, pressure-volume-temperature-time standards, rate of rise standards), static and dynamic gravimetric flow standards, and velocity × area standards such as critical flow venturis, laser doppler anemometer surveys, and multipath-ultrasonic meters. Finally, we describe working standard flow meters used in parallel to attain higher flows than economically practical via primary methods.

show abstract

Section: Rate Of Rise (Ror) Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dynamic Gravimetric Standardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Working Standard Flow Meters and Meters Used In Parallelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gas flow standards and their uncertainty

Wright¹,

Nakao²,

Johnson³

et al. 2022

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reference value was determined for each flow meter separately. Results of all participants were considered for the determination of the reference value and the uncertainty of the reference value [7,8].…”

Section: Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparison of the gas flow secondary standard facilities at high pressure

Li¹,

Mickan²,

Li³

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the 19th International Flow Measurement Conference 2022 on Flow Measurement - FLOMEKO 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first formal comparison was organized in China for the purpose of determination of the degree of equivalence of the gas flow secondary standard facilities during 2016~2020. There were 4 participants from China, and PTB was invited as the link lab to connect this comparison with the serial key comparisons of CCM.FF.K5. Based on the flow range of the existing secondary standard facilities of participating laboratories, 3 turbine flow meters were used as transfer standards. Totally 298 sets of measured data were obtained with Reynolds number range of (6.3×10 4 ~1.4×10 7 ). Results of all participants were considered for the determination of the reference value and the uncertainty of the reference value. The operation conditions were represented by the Reynold number, while the measured value was represented by the relative error of the meter e in (%). The fitted curve based on the relationship between e and the Reynolds number for each single meter was obtained. The degree of equivalence of En was finally evaluated. Among all 298 sets of measured results, there were 282 sets of results with En≤1, while there were 9 sets of results with 1< En≤1.2.

show abstract

Explanatory power of degrees of equivalence in the presence of a random instability of the common measurand

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The degrees of equivalence are the main outcome in the analysis of key comparison data, and they are used for the approval of the calibration and measurement capabilities of the participating laboratories. Typically, the calibration and measurement capability of a participating laboratory is seen as being approved when the corresponding unilateral degree of equivalence does not differ significantly from zero.The relevance of degrees of equivalence may deteriorate in the presence of an instability of the common measurand. In order to quantitatively assess this deterioration we propose to consider the loss of power of a hypothesis test that can be associated with checking whether a degree of equivalence differs significantly from zero. Based on the resulting loss of power, one can decide whether the size of the instability of the common measurand may be tolerated. We illustrate the concept in terms of results obtained for the recent key comparison CCM. FF-K6.2011.

show abstract

Final report on CIPM key comparison CCM.FF-K6.2011: Comparison of the primary (national) standards of low-pressure gas flow

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Gas flow standards and their uncertainty

Gas flow standards and their uncertainty

The comparison of the gas flow secondary standard facilities at high pressure

Explanatory power of degrees of equivalence in the presence of a random instability of the common measurand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About