EURAMET Project Form “Report”
Status:
1.
progress report
Ref. No.: 1019
final report
2. Subject Field:Mass and Related Quantities
3.
Type of collaboration:
Comparison
3A.
In the case of a comparison:
Registered as Key comparison (KC) or Supplementary Comparison (SC) in the KCDB:
no
yes
If yes: No. of KC/SC:EURAMET.M.D-K2
4.
Participating Partners:
4A
EURAMET members or associates (Institute’s standard acronym with country code in
brackets)
BEV (AT; pilot), PTB (DE), GUM (PL), IPQ (PT), CEM (ES), TUBITAK-UME (TR), INM (RO), INRIM
(IT), MIRES (FI), DZM (HR), JV (NO), MKEH (former OMH) (HU), LNE (FR), NPL (UK), SMU (SK)
4B
Institutes not being EURAMET members or associates (Institute’s full name and name
of the country)
5.
Title:
Comparison of density determinations of liquid samples
6.
Progress: final report:
Density determinations of liquid samples had been performed by laboratories to provide a
means of calibrating or checking liquid density measuring instruments. The aim of this
comparison was to compare the results of the density determinations of the participating
laboratories.
The main reason for this project was to establish a link to CCM.D-K2 “Comparison of liquid
density standards” carried out by the PTB and finished 2008.
In this comparison 8 reference values for the density of four liquids were determined: the
density of water at 20 °C, of pentadecane at 15 °C, 20 °C, 40 °C and 60 °C, of
tetrachloroethylene at 5 °C and 20 °C and of a viscosity oil at 20 °C. The measurements were
carried out at atmospheric pressure by hydrostatic weighing of a solid density standard.
The stability of the density at 20 °C and the homogeneity of the used liquids were monitored
over a time interval of one month by the pilot laboratory. The measurements of the participants
have been finished in 2008; Feb 2009, after receiving of the last results, the formal process for
the calculation and the visualization of the results started. Accompanied by discussions
regarding the scattering of the results, reasons for these deviations, and the best praxis for a
reference value the Draft A, the Draft B and the final draft of the report were communicated to
the participants and finally was agreed by them.
The analysis of the discrepancies in the results have shown, that in the most of the cases the
main cause of this scattering was not the method of the measurements itself, but rather the
inappropriate handling of the liquid samples before and after the weighing.
In order to calculate the reference values for this comparison, the measurement results of the
link laboratories (PTB and MKEH) have been corrected over their deviation to the reference
values of CCM.D-K2.
Conclusion: The determination of the density of 4 different liquids at different temperatures of
15 participants is showing compared to the mean uncertainty a high scattering. It seems that
the size of the deviation is completely different from laboratory to laboratory and depends more
on the handling routines than to the principal of the measurements.
With this EURAMET comparison a link to the CCM.D-K2 “Comparison of liquid density standards”
was successfully established. The measuring capabilities of the CMC claims based on this
project shall be carefully investigated due to the discrepancies.
7.
8.
Coordinator´s name:
Christian Buchner
Address:
8.
BEV-Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen;
(Federal Office of Metrology and Surveying)
Arltgasse 35,1160, Wien, Austria
Telephone: 0043 / 1 / 21 110 / 6361
Fax:
0043 / 1 / 21 110 / 6000
E-mail:
christian.buchner@bev.gv.at
Completion Date:
9. Date
June 2012
6th July 2012
Notes for completion of the form overleaf
NOTES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE FORM
(numbers refer to boxes overleaf)
IMPORTANT:
Forms are to be send to the EURAMET Secretariat (secretariat@euramet.org) as word or pdf file by
TC Chair or coordinator of the project with copy to TC Chair.
1
Ref. No. The project reference number which is assigned by the EURAMET Secretariat and on
which progress is being reported.
2
Subject Field The field specified on the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”
3
Type of collaboration The field specified on the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”
4A
EURAMET members or associates Any institutes which have participated in the
collaboration should be indicated in alphabetical order using their standard acronyms and
country codes.
4B
Institutes not being EURAMET members or associates should be indicated with
full name in alphabetical order. See country codes in the last section of the directory. Every
effort should be made to establish potential partners prior to completing a Proposal Form.
5
Title The title given in the EURAMET Project Form “Proposal”.
6
Progress A brief description of the progress should be entered in the space provided.
Comments on the advantages of undertaking the work collaboratively through EURAMET
would be useful. Completion of this Report is not deemed as publication of the work.
Collaborators are encouraged to publish their work through normal channels, mentioning it
was undertaken as a EURAMET collaboration.
7
Coordinator The Coordinator is the person who is appointed as the contact point for the
project detailed overleaf. The name, full postal address, telephone and fax numbers and
e-mail address of the coordinator should be given.
8
Completion Date If the progress of a project is being reported on this form then an
estimate of the completion date should be made. If the project has now been completed then
the actual date of completion should be given. For permanent agreements (e.g. development
of primary standards) "ON-GOING" should be entered.
9
Date of transmission to EURAMET Secretariat.