Measurement 46 (2013) 43284331

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Differential pressure comparison from 5 Pa to 500 Pa with a

liquid column manometer between CENAM (Mexico)
and INTI Fisica y Metrologia (Argentina)
Jorge Torres-Guzman a,, Juan Forastieri b
a
b

Centro Nacional de Metrologa, km 4.5 carr. a Los Cus, El Marques Quertaro, Mexico
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologa Industrial, Av. General Paz y Albarellos, San Martn Pcia, de Buenos Aires, Argentina

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 11 August 2013
Keywords:
Differential pressure
Comparison

a b s t r a c t
A differential pressure comparison was performed between CENAM (Mexico) and INTI
(Argentina) by means of a liquid column manometer. The measuring range was 5
500 Pa. CENAM calibrated the transfer standard at the beginning and at the end of the
comparison. The transfer standard used was a Dwyer liquid column manometer model
Microtector with an accuracy class of 0.013% of the reading. The compared pressure points
were (5, 75, 125, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500) Pa. The uncertainty sources to be evaluated included at least the following: (a) Uncertainty due to the standard used by the laboratory; (b) Uncertainty due to repeatability; (c) Uncertainty due to resolution; (d)
Uncertainty due to hysteresis; (e) Uncertainty due to zero drift. The criteria used to compare the results obtained were the normalized error equation (En). The results obtained by
the laboratories were compatible according to the criteria |En| 6 1.
2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

2. Comparison conditions

A differential pressure comparison has been carried out

between the National Metrology laboratories form Mexico
(CENAM) and Argentina (INTI Fsica y Metrologa) by
means of a liquid column manometer. The measuring
range was from 5 Pa to 500 Pa; the comparison took place
from October 2010 to February 2011. CENAM calibrated
the transfer standard at the beginning and at the end of
the comparison, in accordance to international references
[13]. The transfer standard used for this comparison
was a Dwyer liquid column manometer model Microtector
with an accuracy class of 0.013% of the reading. Eleven differential pressure points were compared. The comparison
is registered at SIM as supplementary comparison
SIM.M.P-S6.

2.1. Transfer standard (TS)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 442 2110572; fax: +52 442 2110578.
E-mail address: jorge.torres@cenam.mx (J. Torres-Guzman).
0263-2241/$ - see front matter 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.023

The transfer standard (TS) used for the comparison is

shown in Fig. 1 and its general specications in Table 1.

2.2. Procedure
The procedure used for the comparison consisted of
the TS calibration by measuring 11 differential pressure
points distributed on the instrument range (5, 75, 125,
200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500) Pa. Six series of measurements were taken, both ascending and descending
order. The procedure was the SIM technical protocol,
supplementary comparison SIM.M.P-S6 in low pressure
50500 Pa send for registration and approval to the
SIM MWG7 (SIM working group 7, mass and related
quantities).

4329

J. Torres-Guzman, J. Forastieri / Measurement 46 (2013) 43284331

Fig. 2. CENAMs reference system.

Table 3
INTIs reference standard.
Manufacturer

Junkalor, Dessau, D

Type

Diving Bell

Fig. 1. Transfer standard, liquid column manometer.

Table 1
Transfer standard general specications.
Instrument

Liquid column manometer

Make
Model
Serial number
Range
Accuracy class

Dwyer
M1430
S48H
150 mm H2O
0.013% of the reading

Table 2
CENAMs reference differential pressure measurement system.

Manufacturer
Model
Serial number

Piston cylinder
(differential)

Piston cylinder
(reference)

DH Instruments
PC-7607-5
231

DH Instruments
PC-7607-5
216 A

Fig. 3. INTIs calibration standard.

2.3. Laboratories standards used

CENAM used a measurement system consisting on 2
high accuracy pressure balances (piston cylinder assemblies of 50 mm diameter). One pressure balance maintains
the static pressure and the second balance generates the
differential pressure. Details of the system used are shown
in Table 2. Fig. 2 shows a photo of the system.
Details of INTIs reference standard is shown in Table 3.
Fig. 3 shows a photo of the standard.

3. TS characterization
s calibrations. Results for
Table 4 shows the two CENAM
each measured pressure included error and uncertainty.
Fig. 4 shows a graph of the measurements presented in
Table 4.

Table 4
Transfer standard uncertainty and error of the 2 calibrations made by
CENAM.
Differential
pressure
(Pa)

TS error
1st cal
(Pa)

TS error
2nd cal
(Pa)

TS U (k = 2)
1st cal (Pa)

TS U (k = 2)
2nd cal (Pa)

50
100
125
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

0.04
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.03

0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.02

0.19
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.12
0.13

0.16
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.18
0.12
0.14
0.16

4330

J. Torres-Guzman, J. Forastieri / Measurement 46 (2013) 43284331

Fig. 4. Transfer standard uncertainty and error of the 2 calibrations made

by CENAM.
Fig. 5. TS error and U used by CENAM.

From the calibrations made to the TS and presented in

Table 4 and Fig. 4, it is considered that the TS is adequate
for the purposes of this comparison and the drift is of no
signicance for the level of uncertainties compared.
4. Laboratories calibration results
The calibration results made by the laboratories are in s data used for this comparison is the
cluded here. CENAM
average of the two calibrations performed.
s TS calibration
Table 5 shows the data used as CENAM
(the average of the two calibrations performed). In Fig. 5
the results are presented in a graph including errors and
uncertainties for each differential pressure of the range
compared.
Table 6 shows the results of the TS calibration made by
INTI Fsica y Metrologa.
Fig. 6 shows INTIs results. The graph includes errors and
uncertainties for each measured pressure.

Table 6
INTIs transfer standard error and uncertainty.
TS pressure

TS error

U (k = 2)

50
100
125
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

0.00
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.00

0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30

5. Comparison results
The calibration results from CENAM and INTI are shown
in Fig. 7. The graph shows the results of both laboratories
for each pressure point and includes the associated uncertainty in the range, 50500 Pa.
5.1. Uncertainty and comparison criteria
The uncertainty sources to be evaluated included at
least the following: (a) Uncertainty due to the standard
used by the laboratory; (b) Uncertainty due to repeatabil-

Fig. 6. Transfer standard calibration results from INTI.

Table 5
Transfer standard error and U used by CENAM.
TS pressure

TS error

U (k = 2)

50
100
125
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

0.04
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.02

0.17
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.18
0.12
0.13
0.14

Fig. 7. Transfer standard error and uncertainty (k = 2) from the calibrations made by CENAM and INTI.

J. Torres-Guzman, J. Forastieri / Measurement 46 (2013) 43284331

Table 7
Normalized error between the laboratories.
Differential pressure
(Pa)

Normalized
error

50
100
125
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

0.14
0.03
0.06
0.26
0.10
0.69
0.04
0.17
0.18
0.43
0.07

6. Conclusions
The calibration of the differential pressure transfer
standard obtained by CENAM (Mexico) and INTI (Argentina) in the range from 50 Pa to 500 Pa clearly shows that
there is compatibility between the two laboratories. The
results of the comparison were |En| < 1 in all pressure
points compared, which meets the criteria of compatibility.
Acknowledgements
CENAM and INTI Fsica y Metrologa want to thank
their pressure laboratories people for their involvement
and collaboration in this comparison.

ity; (c) Uncertainty due to resolution; (d) Uncertainty due

to hysteresis; and (e) Uncertainty due to zero drift.
The criteria used to compare the results obtained by the
two laboratories were the normalized error equation (En),
which is calculated from Eq. (1).

xINTI  xCENAM
En q
U 2INTI U 2CENAM

4331

where xCENAM is the error calculated by CENAM, xINTI is the

error calculated by INTI, UCENAM is the expanded uncertainty (k = 2) estimated by CENAM, and UINTI is the
expanded uncertainty (k = 2) estimated by INTI.
Table 7 shows the En results between the two
laboratories.

References
[1] A. Calcatelli, F. Arrhen, M. Bergoglio, J. Greenwood, R. Kangi, K.
Jousten, J.-C. Legras, M. Rantanen, J. Verbeek, C. Matilla, D. Szaulich,
Results of the regional key comparison EUROMET.M.P-K1.a in the
pressure range from 0.1 Pa to 1000 Pa, Metrologia 42 (Tech. Suppl.)
(2005) 07004.
[2] J.C. Torres-Guzman, S. Ruiz, P. Olvera, Ma. Nieves Medina, Differential
pressure comparison from 20 Pa to 3 500 Pa between CEM-Spain and
CENAM-Mexico, Memories of XIX IMEKO World Congress
Fundamental an Applied Metrology, Lisbon, Portugal.
[3] J.C. Torres-Guzman, S. Ziga, P. Olvera, Caracterizacin de un
manmetro diferencial digital usado como patrn de transferencia a
3.5 kPa [Characterization of a digital differential manometer used as
transfer standard at 3.5 kPa], in: Simposio de Metrologia 2008,
Queretaro, Mexico, October 2008.