Final Report of the APMP Water Flow Key Comparison ... Report of the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC Final Report of the APMP Water Flow Key Comparison (APMP.M.FF-K1 KC) Kwang-Bock Lee1, Sejong Chun1,

Final Report of the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC

Final Report of the APMP Water Flow

Key Comparison (APMP.M.FF-K1 KC)

Kwang-Bock Lee1, Sejong Chun1, Yoshiya Terao2, Nguyen Hong Thai3,

Cheng Tsair Yang4, Meng Tao5, Mikhail B Gutkin6

January 17, 2011

1 KRISS, Korea (Pilot Lab.)

2 NMIJ, Japan

3 VMI, Vietnam

4 CMS, Taiwan

5 NIM, China

6 VNIIM, Russia

Abstract

The key comparison, APMP.M.FF-K1 KC, was undertaken by APMP/TCFF, the Technical

Committee for Fluid Flow (TCFF) under the Asia Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP).

One objective of the key comparison was to demonstrate the degree of equivalence

among six participating laboratories (KRISS, NMIJ, VMI, CMS, NIM and VNIIM) in water

flow rate metrology by comparing the results with the key comparison reference value

( ) determined from CCM.FF-K1 KC. The other objective of this key comparison was

to provide supporting evidence for the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMC),

which had been declared by the participating laboratories during this key comparison.

The Transfer Standard Package (TSP) was a Coriolis mass flowmeter, which had been used

in the CCM.FF-K1 KC.

Because the -factors in the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC were slightly lower than the -

factors of the CCM.FF-K1 KC due to long-term drifts of the TSP, correction value was

introduced to correct the -factors. was given by a weighted sum between two

link laboratories (NMIJ and KRISS), which participated in both the CCM.FF-K1 KC and the

APMP.M.FF-K1 KC. By this correction, the -factors were laid between 12.004 and 12.017

at either low ( = 254,000) or high ( = 561,000) flow rates.

Most of the calibration data were within expected uncertainty bounds, however,

some data showed undulations, which gave large fluctuations of the metering factor at

= 561,000. Calculation of showed that all the participating laboratories had

deviations between -0.009 and 0.007 pulses/kg from the CCM.FF-K1 at either the

low or the high flow rates. In case of calculation, all the participating laboratories

showed values less than 1, indicating that ’s of all the laboratories were equivalent with

the at both = 254,000 and 561,000. When and from two participating

laboratories were compared, all the numbers of equivalence showed values less than 1,

indicating equivalence of measuring the -factors.

List of symbols

Correction value [pulses/kg]

Difference of two K-factors between the CCM.FF-K1 KC and the APMP.M.FF-K1

KC [pulses/kg]

Number of equivalence between -th participating laboratory and the

Number of equivalence between -th and -th participating laboratories

Reynolds number

K-factor from -th participating laboratory [pulses/kg]

Corrected value of K-factor from -th participating laboratory [pulses/kg]

The K-factor measured by a link laboratory in the CCM.FF-K1 KC [pulses/kg]

The K-factor measured by a link laboratory in the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC [pulses/kg]

Mean value of [pulses/kg]

Key comparison reference value from the CCM.FF-K1 KC [pulses/kg]

Temperature [℃]

Mass flow quantity by the primary standard in the -th participating

laboratory [kg]

Expanded uncertainty of the primary standard in the -th participating

laboratory [%]

Expanded uncertainty of [pulses/kg]

Degree of equivalence between and , [pulses/kg]

Degree of equivalence between -th and -th participating laboratories,

[pulses/kg]

Output pulse by the TSP (Transfer Standard Package) [pulses]

Coverage factor with confidence level of about 95 %

Number of measurement

Standard uncertainty of , [pulses/kg]



Type A uncertainty of , [pulses/kg]

Type B uncertainty of , [pulses/kg]




Standard uncertainty of [pulses/kg]

Weighting coefficient obtained from at each link laboratory

1. Introduction

The key comparison, entitled, APMP.M.FF-K1 KC, has been undertaken by APMP/TCFF,

which represents the Technical Committee for Fluid Flow (TCFF) under the Asia Pacific

Metrology Programme (APMP). KRISS was the pilot laboratory for this key comparison in

the year 2009 – 2010. One objective of the key comparison was to demonstrate the

degree of equivalence among six participating laboratories in water flow rate metrology

by comparing the results with the key comparison reference value ( ), which was

determined from the CCM.FF-K1 KC [1]. The other objective of this key comparison was

to provide supporting evidence for the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMC),

which had been declared by the laboratories participating in this key comparison.

The final report for the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC was prepared to share necessary

information among the participating laboratories and to draw concluding remarks from

the calibration results with the Coriolis mass flowmeter. The final report was written in

accordance with the Guidelines for CIPM Key Comparisons and the Guidelines on

Conducting Comparisons (APMP-G2) [2, 3].

2. Organization

The participating laboratories were KRISS (Korea), NMIJ (Japan), VMI (Vietnam),

CMS/ITRI (Chinese Taipei), NIM (China) and VNIIM (Russia), in the order of testing

schedule. At the initial phase of the key comparison, the five laboratories except VNIIM

were planning the test schedules. Later, VNIIM joined participating to this key

comparison, so that the test schedules were rearranged for all the six participating

laboratories. The finally-decided test schedules were arranged as shown in Table 1.

3. Transfer Standard

3.1. Definition of transfer standard

A Coriolis mass flowmeter (Promass 83F1H with S/N 5604D0702000, Endress+Hauser

Inc., U.S.A), which had been used as a part of the Transfer Standard Package (TSP) for

CCM.FF-K1 KC, was also used as the TSP for this key comparison. The Coriolis mass

flowmeter had a nominal diameter of 4 inches. The end connections of the flowmeter

were raised face flanges according to the ANSI 150 lb standards. The mass flowmeter

was contained in a rugged box. The total weight, including the box, was about 130 kg.

More detailed information on the TSP is described in both Figure 1 and Table 2.

Before starting the key comparison, the following information was given to the

participating laboratories for an efficient progress according to the test schedule.

- The uncertainty level of the mass flowmeter is 0.1 % with reproducibility of

0.05 %.

- The TSP should be transported between the participating laboratories with

sufficient care that the metrological characteristics of the transfer standards are

maintained as determined by the Pilot laboratory.

- All the participating laboratories should arrange and pay the expenses for

transport of the TSP with proper insurance to the next participating laboratory.

The extra expenses for local custom inspection, if applicable, should also be paid

by the participating laboratory.

- After arrival of the TSP, the participating laboratories should check the equipment

for any damages and report these to the pilot laboratory.

- The participating laboratories are responsible for transporting the TSP to the next

participating laboratory according to the circulation scheme. The shipping date

should be provided to each participating laboratory at least one week before the

end of date. Before dispatching the TSP, each participant must inform the

transport of the TSP to both the next participating and the pilot laboratories.

3.2. Calibration procedure

During the key comparison, the calibration procedure was defined as follows to

report calibration data with the same format among the participants.

1) Be sure to check flow directions, before installing the TSP in the test section.

2) Check the Reynolds number of the flows in the test section, whether the values

are either 254,000 or 561,000 based on the inner pipe diameter of 101.6 mm and

the mean flow velocity within the conduit in the test section. Note that the

above-stated Reynolds numbers are the same values as defined in the CCM.FF-K1

KC.

3) Set the low flow rate ( = 254,000) in the test section and measure metering

data from the TSP by counting pulses with an appropriate instrument. Record the

collected pulses, the collected volume or weight and the water temperature as

well during the flow metering. Repeat the measurements five times.

4) Set the high flow rate ( = 561,000) in the test section and measure the

metering data from the TSP, as described in 3).

5) Repeat the same tests described in 3) and 4) one more time. By doing this, total

number of 20 data points should be collected to complete the KC test.

6) Check whether the calibration results are recorded according to Tables 3 and 4.

3.3. Definition of -factor

The definition of -factor is as follows.

(1)

Here, is the -factor of -th participating laboratory [pulses/kg], is the counted

pulses from the TSP [pulses] and is the mass flow quantity by the primary standard

established in the -th participating laboratory [kg]. The standard uncertainty of is

defined in the following equation.

(2)

Here, is the standard uncertainty of [pulses/kg], is the type A

uncertainty of [pulses/kg], is the type B uncertainty of [pulses/kg], is

the mean value of [pulses/kg], is the number of measurements at a specified

Reynolds number (254,000 or 561,000), is the expanded uncertainty of the primary

standard established in the -th participating laboratory [%] and is the coverage factor

( = 2). The type B uncertainty introduced by the TSP was neglected for this uncertainty

analysis.

The should be converted into to conform its unit with [pulses/kg]. All

the necessary information on the -factors are specified in Table 5.

As shown in Figures 2 to 7, is distributed between 11.98 and 12.01, over the test

Reynolds numbers. The distribution is slightly lower than the -factors from the

CCM.FF-K1 KC [1].

KRISS indicated almost the same values of , regardless of the Reynolds numbers.

NMIJ and CMS, as shown in Figures 3 and 5, showed very good stability in measuring .

For the case of VNIIM, there were quite recognizable data scatterings at around 11.99

when = 561,000.

3.4. Definition of KCRV

During the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC, the long-term drift of the -factor of the TSP, which

had been served for the CCM.FF-K1 KC [1], was shown. To link the calibration data in

Table 5 with the CCM.FF-K1 KC results, correction value was calculated as shown in

Terao et al. (2010) [4].

(3)

(4)

(5)

Here, is the difference of two -factors between the CCM.FF-K1 KC and the

APMP.M.FF-K1 KC by link laboratories [pulses/kg], i.e., KRISS and NMIJ, which participated

in both key comparisons. is the weighting coefficient obtained from of

each link laboratory [4~7]. The CCM.FF-K1 KCRV and its corresponding correction value

was summarized in Table 6. The -factors of the two link laboratories were also shown

with their error bars in Figures 8 and 9.

4. Calibration Results

4.1. Comparison of -factors to the CCM.FF-K1 KCRV

The for each participating laboratory was corrected according to the following

formula to compare their results to the KCRV of the CCM.FF-K1 KC.

(6)

Here, is the corrected -factor to harmonize it with the CCM.FF-K1 KC results

[pulses/kg]. Degree of equivalence was calculated by comparing with the CCM.FF-K1

KCRV.

(7)

(8)

Here, indicates the degree of equivalence between and [pulses/kg],

is the standard uncertainty of [pulses/kg], is from the CCM.FF-K1 KCRV

[pulses/kg] and is the standard uncertainty of [pulses/kg] [1]. Number of

equivalence was calculated as follows.

(9)

Here, defines the number of equivalence. is equal to 2 with the confidence level

of about 95 %. Some of the KC results compared with were summarized in Table 7

and Figures 10 to 13.

The corrected -factor, is displayed in Figures 10 and 11. The error bars are

defined as the expanded uncertainty with confidence level of about 95 % according to

the guide to uncertainty expression [7].

(10)

Here, is the expanded uncertainty of [pulses/kg]. Note that the has

smaller error bars compared with those of participating laboratories. It is found that most

of calibration results were comparable with the .

Degree of equivalence indicated in Figures 12 and 13 explains the offset value of the

-factors of participating laboratories from the . At = 254,000, is distributed

between -0.012 and 0.015 pulses/kg. At = 561,000, is seemed to be more

dispersed between -0.020 and 0.015 pulses/kg. Calculation of showed that all the

participating laboratories had deviations between -0.009 and 0.007 pulses/kg from the

CCM.FF-K1 at the specified Reynolds numbers in Table 7. All the error bars extend

to crossing the zero line. This implies that every participating laboratory can reproduce

with relevance to the , based on the expanded uncertainty declared by each

participating laboratory.

In case of , the two -factors between and the , are thought to be

equivalent, whenever 1. This means that the error bars of for each participating

laboratory extend to crossing the zero line of . At = 254,000 in Figure 14, all the

participating laboratories show to be less than 1, which ensures the equivalence of

CMC of the primary standards established by participating laboratories. Both CMS and

VNIIM indicate the closest equivalence to the . At = 561,000 in Figure 15, all

the participating laboratories also show to be less than 1, which indicates

equivalence of to the . NIM shows the closest equivalence to the at this

. It is noticed that some laboratories show dramatic changes with different

between 254,000 and 561,000 by more than 0.5. This might be because of the

characteristics of their primary standards operating at the participating laboratories.

4.2. Comparison of -factors between two participating laboratories

To ascertain the degree and the number of equivalence with the corrected -factors

among the participating laboratories, definitions regarding measuring equivalence were

modified as follows [1, 4~7].

(11)

(12)

(13)

Here, is the difference of -factors between -th and -th participating laboratories,

is the combined uncertainty between and , is the

corresponding number of equivalence. Comparison results among the participating

laboratories were summarized in Tables 8 and 9 for = 254,000 and in Tables 10 and

11 for = 561,000. Note that all the among the participating laboratories are

less than 1.

One of the major assumptions for this KC was that the characteristics of the TSP

were constant during the KC periods. This enabled to construct the supporting evidence

that all the participating laboratories meet the equivalence of the CMC of their primary

standards.

5. Conclusions

The APMP.M.FF-K1 KC was performed by employing a Coriolis mass flow meter,

which had been a part of the transfer standard packages during the CCM.FF-K1 KC. The

TSP was circulated among the six participating laboratories. The -factor was

corrected into to link the KC results with the CCM.FF-K1 KCRV, according to the

literature [4~7]. Based on the corrected -factors, the degree of equivalence and the

number of equivalence could be calculated.

The two test Reynolds numbers of = 254,000 and 561,000, were defined by the

mean velocity and the inner diameter of the pipe flows. It was because the same

Reynolds numbers were defined in the CCM.FF-K1 KC.

values were laid between 12.004 and 12.017 pulses/kg on the two test Reynolds

number regions. Most of the calibration data were within uncertainty bounds, however,

some data showed undulations, which gave large fluctuations of the metering factor at

= 561,000. Calculation of showed that all the participating laboratories had

deviations between -0.009 and 0.007 pulses/kg from the CCM.FF-K1 at the

specified Reynolds numbers. In case of calculation, all the participating laboratories

showed values within 1, indicating that ’s of all the laboratories were equivalent with

the at both = 254,000 and 561,000.

When and from two participating laboratories were compared, all the

numbers of equivalence showed values less than 1, indicating equivalence of measuring

-factors.

References

[1] J. S. Paik, K. B. Lee, P. Lau, R. Engel, A. Loza, Y. Terao and M. Reader-Harris, 2007, “Final

report on CCM.FF-K1 for water”, Metrologia, Vol. 44, Technical Supplement, 07005

[2] Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 2003, “Guidelines for CIPM key

comparisons”, March 1999 (Revised in October 2003) (http://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-

mra/guidelines_kcs/)

[3] Asia Pacific Metrology Programme, 2003, “APMP-G2: The Guidelines on conducting

comparisons”, March 2003 (http://www.apmpweb.org/apmp_docs.html)

[4] Y. Terao, Y. M. Choi, M. Gutkin, W. Jian, I. Shinder and C. –T. Yang, 2010, “Final report

on the APMP air speed key comparison (APMP.M.FF-K3)”, Metrologia, Vol. 47, Technical

Supplement, 07012

[5] F. Delahaye and T. J. Witt, 2002, “Linking the results of key comparison CCEM-K4 with

the 10 pF results of EUROMET Project 345”, Metrologia, vol. 39, technical supplement

01005

[6] M. Ojanen, M. Shpak, P. Kärhä, R. Leecharoen and E. Ikonen, 2009, “Uncertainty

evaluation for linking a bilateral key comparison with the corresponding CIPM key

comparison”, Metrologia, vol. 46, pp. 397 – 403

[7] C. Elster, A. G. Chunovkina and W. Wöger, 2010, “Linking of a RMO key comparison to

a related CIPM key comparison using the degrees of equivalence of the linking

laboratories”, Metrologia, vol. 47, pp. 96 – 102

[8] International Standard Organization, 2008, “Uncertainty of measurement, Part 3: Guide

to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995)”, ISO/IEC Guide 98-

3:2008, Geneva, Swiss

Table Captions

Table 1. Shipping addresses, contact points and testing schedule for APMP.FF-K1 KC

Table 2. The List of TSP

Table 3. Measurement points for calibration

Table 4. Calibration data format

Table 5. Calibration data for APMP.M.FF-K1 KC

Table 6. of the CCM.FF-K1 KC and the corresponding correction value

to harmonize between CCM.FF-K1 KC and APMP.M.FF-K1 KC[1]

Table 7. Corrected calibration data for APMP.M.FF-K1 KC

Table 8. Degree of equivalence on the corrected calibration data at = 254,000

Table 9. Number of equivalence on the corrected calibration data at = 254,000



Figure Captions

Figure 1. Transfer Standard Package (TSP)

Figure 2. Calibration data at KRISS

Figure 3. Calibration data at NMIJ

Figure 4. Calibration data at VMI

Figure 5. Calibration data at CMS

Figure 6. Calibration data at NIM

Figure 7. Calibration data at VNIIM

Figure 8. -factors given by two link laboratories at = 254,000,

where is defined by Paik et al.[1]



Figure 10. Comparison of the corrected -factors at = 254,000,




Figure 12. Degree of equivalence at = 254,000,

where is defined as


where is defined as

Figure 14. Number of equivalence at = 254,000,

where is defined as

Figure 15. Number of equivalence at = 561,000,

where is defined as

Table 1. Shipping addresses, contact points and testing schedule for APMP.FF-K1 KC

# Country/

(Institute) Shipping Address Contact Information Schedule

1 Korea

(KRISS)

Korea Research Institute of Standards and

Science

1 Doryong-dong, Yuseong-gu,

Daejeon, 305-340, Korea

Kwang Bock LEE

[email protected]

Tel: +82-42-868-5316

2 Japan

(NMIJ)

National Metrology Institute of Japan

AIST North 15, 1497-1 Kashiwayama,

Teragu, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-4201, Japan

Yoshiya TERAO

[email protected]

Tel: +81-29-861-3816

06 APR 09

~ 09 MAY 09

3 Vietnam

(VMI)

Vietnam Metrology Institute

Volume and Flow Laboratory

8 Hoang Quoc, Hanoi, Vietnam

Nguyen Hong THAI

[email protected]

Tel: +84-4-8362-030

11 MAY 09

~ 20 JUN 09

4

Chinese

Taipei

(CMS/ITRI)

Industrial Technology Research Institute

Center of Measurement Standards

G200, CMS/ITRI, 30 Ta Shueh Road,

Hsinchu, Taiwan 300, R.O.C.

Cheng-Tsair Yang

[email protected]

Tel: +886-3-574-1206

Fax: +886-3-571-0335

22 JUN 09

~ 25 JUL 09

5 China

(NIM)

National Institute of Metrology

Division of Thermometry and Material

Evaluation

No.18 Beisanhuan Donglu, Beijing, 10001

3, P.R.China

Meng TAO

[email protected]

Tel: +86-010-64525127

27 JUL 09

~ 29 AUG 09

6 Russia

(VNIIM)

D.I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology

Laboratory for Fluid Flow Rate and Speed

St. Petersburg, Russia 190005 Moskovsky

prospect 19

Mikhail B. GUTKIN

[email protected]

Tel: +7-812-422-12-73

31 AUG 09

~ 03 OCT 09

7 Korea

(KRISS)

Korea Research Institute of Standards and

Science

1 Doryong-dong, Yuseong-gu,

Daejeon, 305-340, Korea

Kwang Bock LEE

[email protected]

Tel: +82-42-868-5316

05 OCT 09

~ 07 NOV 09

mailto:[email protected]






Table 2. The List of TSP

Item

No. Description of goods

Number of

Pieces

Weight

(kg)

Value

(US$)

Country

of origin

1 Mass Flowmeter (E+H Promass

83F1H with S/N 5604D702000) 1 set 97.0 4,500 U.S.A

Net weight

Gross weight (including the carrying case)

97.0

150.0

Table 3. Measurement points for calibration

Test flow (Reynolds No.) Data points

Low Flow (254,000) 5

20

High Flow (561,000) 5

Low Flow (254,000) 5

High Flow (561,000) 5

Table 4. Calibration data format

Run Test Meter Rd. Flowrate Reynolds -factor Avg Room

No. Flow [pulses] [℃] [㎥/h] No. [pulses/kg] [℃]

1 L

2 L

3 L

4 L

5 L

6 H

7 H

8 H

9 H

10 H

11 L

12 L

13 L

14 L

15 L

16 H

17 H

18 H

19 H

20 H

Table 5. Calibration data for APMP.M.FF-K1 KC

Submitted uncertainty

for APMP.M.FF-K1 KC = 254,000 = 561,000

NMI

[%]

[pulses/kg]

[pulses/kg]

[pulses/kg]

[pulses/kg]

KRISS 0.080 2 11.9979 0.00021 11.9976 0.00025

NMIJ 0.038 2 11.9959 0.00008 12.0027 0.00008

VMI 0.080 2 11.9986 0.00086 12.0059 0.00062

CMS 0.060 2 11.9928 0.00018 11.9994 0.00027

NIM 0.050 2 11.9973 0.00062 11.9998 0.00018

VNIIM 0.090 2 11.9917 0.00065 11.9921 0.00212

Table 6. of the CCM.FF-K1 KC and the corresponding correction value to

harmonize between CCM.FF-K1 KC and APMP.M.FF-K1 KC[1]

[pulses/kg]

[pulses/kg]

[pulses/kg]

254,000 12.0101 0.0005 0.0178

561,000 12.0123 0.0009 0.0115

Table 7. Corrected calibration data for APMP.M.FF-K1 KC

= 254,000 = 561,000

NMI

KRISS 12.0157 0.0056 0.0048 0.5799 12.0091 -0.0032 0.0049 0.3270

NMIJ 12.0137 0.0036 0.0023 0.7694 12.0142 0.0019 0.0024 0.3847

VMI 12.0164 0.0063 0.0049 0.6399 12.0174 0.0051 0.0049 0.5142

CMS 12.0106 0.0005 0.0036 0.0736 12.0109 -0.0014 0.0037 0.1944

NIM 12.0151 0.0050 0.0031 0.8090 12.0113 -0.0010 0.0031 0.1595

VNIIM 12.0095 -0.0006 0.0055 0.0551 12.0036 -0.0087 0.0059 0.7402


NMI KRISS NMIJ VMI CMS NIM VNIIM

KRISS 0.0020 0.0053 -0.0007 0.0069 0.0051 0.0060 0.0006 0.0057 0.0062 0.0073

NMIJ -0.0020 0.0053 -0.0027 0.0054 0.0031 0.0043 -0.0014 0.0038 0.0042 0.0059

VMI 0.0007 0.0069 0.0027 0.0054 0.0057 0.0061 0.0013 0.0058 0.0069 0.0073

CMS -0.0051 0.0060 -0.0031 0.0043 -0.0057 0.0061 -0.0045 0.0047 0.0011 0.0065

NIM -0.0006 0.0057 0.0014 0.0038 -0.0013 0.0058 0.0045 0.0047 0.0056 0.0062

VNIIM -0.0062 0.0073 -0.0042 0.0059 -0.0069 0.0073 -0.0011 0.0065 -0.0056 0.0062



KRISS 0.1889 0.0491 0.4219 0.0510 0.4275

NMIJ 0.1889 0.2490 0.3585 0.1870 0.3557

VMI 0.0491 0.2490 0.4732 0.1088 0.4707

CMS 0.4219 0.3585 0.4732 0.4743 0.0872

NIM 0.0510 0.1870 0.1088 0.4743 0.4505

VNIIM 0.4275 0.3557 0.4707 0.0872 0.4505


KRISS NMIJ VMI CMS NIM VNIIM

NMI

KRISS -0.0051 0.0053 -0.0083 0.0068 -0.0018 0.0060 -0.0022 0.0057 0.0055 0.0075

NMIJ 0.0051 0.0053 -0.0032 0.0054 0.0033 0.0043 0.0029 0.0038 0.0106 0.0062

VMI 0.0083 0.0068 0.0032 0.0054 0.0065 0.0060 0.0061 0.0057 0.0137 0.0076

CMS 0.0018 0.0060 -0.0033 0.0043 -0.0065 0.0060 -0.0004 0.0047 0.0072 0.0068

NIM 0.0022 0.0057 -0.0029 0.0038 -0.0061 0.0057 0.0004 0.0047 0.0077 0.0065

VNIIM -0.0055 0.0075 -0.0106 0.0062 -0.0137 0.0076 -0.0072 0.0068 -0.0077 0.0065



KRISS 0.4760 0.6044 0.1455 0.1936 0.3640

NMIJ 0.4760 0.2972 0.3882 0.3802 0.8465

VMI 0.6044 0.2972 0.5379 0.5310 0.9088

CMS 0.1455 0.3882 0.5379 0.0475 0.5294

NIM 0.1936 0.3802 0.5310 0.0475 0.5879

VNIIM 0.3640 0.8465 0.9088 0.5294 0.5879

Figure 1. Transfer Standard Package (TSP)

Transport Box: 1,360 mm (W), 760 mm (D), 550 mm (H)

Figure 2. Calibration data at KRISS

Figure 3. Calibration data at NMIJ

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]

number of measurement

Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]


Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000

Figure 4. Calibration data at VMI

Figure 5. Calibration data at CMS

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]


Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]


Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000

Figure 6. Calibration data at NIM

Figure 7. Calibration data at VNIIM

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]


Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000

11.95

11.97

11.99

12.01

12.03

12.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

K-f

act

or

[puls

es/

kg]


Re = 254,000

Re = 561,000





11.99

12.00

12.01

12.02

12.03

KRISS NMIJ KRISS NMIJ KCRV

K' i

[puls

es/

kg]

link laboratories

11.99

12.00

12.01

12.02

12.03

KRISS NMIJ KRISS NMIJ KCRV

K' i

[puls

es/

kg]

link laboratories

CCM.FF.K1-KC APMP.M.FF.K1-KC

CCM.FF.K1-KC APMP.M.FF.K1-KC





11.99

12.00

12.01

12.02

12.03

KRISS NMIJ VMI CMS NIM VNIIM KCRV

K' i

[puls

es/

kg]

participating laboratories

11.99

12.00

12.01

12.02

12.03

KRISS NMIJ VMI CMS NIM VNIIM KCRV

K' i

[puls

es/

kg]



where is defined as

Figure 13. Degree of equivalence at = 561,000

where is defined as

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03


di[p

uls

es/

kg]


-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03


di[p

uls

es/

kg]


Figure 14. Number of equivalence at = 254,000

where is defined as

Figure 15. Number of equivalence at = 561,000

where is defined as

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50


En

i


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50


En

i


Documents

Final Report of the APMP Water Flow Key Comparison ... Report of the APMP.M.FF-K1 KC Final Report of the APMP Water Flow Key Comparison (APMP.M.FF-K1 KC) Kwang-Bock Lee1, Sejong Chun1,