PRESSUR

E GAUGE
LAB
REPORT
UNIVERSITY OF
SALFORD,
MANCHESTER
SIDHARTH SOHAN
THERROTH
@00410200

MSc. PETROLEUM AND GAS ENGINEERING

School of Computing, Science and Engineering

COURSE LECTURER: DR.ABOOBAKER ABBAS

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 15/05/2015

Contents
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................... 2
THEORY........................................................................................................... 4
APPARATUS..................................................................................................... 5
PROCEDURE.................................................................................................... 7
DATAS AND ANALAYSIS..................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................. 10
SOURCES OF ERROR..................................................................................... 11
REFERENCE................................................................................................... 11

List of Figur
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

1
2
3
4

DEAD WEIGHTS........................................................................................ 6
TESTER..................................................................................................... 6
(ACTUAL PRESSURE ) VS (GAUGE PRESSURE)..........................................8
(% ERROR) VS ( ACTUAL PRESSURE)........................................................9

List of TablesY
Table 1: PRESSURE GAUGE READING.....................................................................8
Table 2: % ERROR.................................................................................................. 9
Table 3: Avg. PRESSURE GAUGE DATA.................................................................10

ABSTRACT
Methodology that establishes a relation with two values on the same
equipment; one of them obtained from the measuring instrument and the
other which corresponds to the standardized data is known as
Calibration. Result of this helps in identifying the range of adjustment
required for the values obtained upon conducting an experiment.
Moreover, metrological properties can also be known like the effect of
other quantities it is associated with.
The calibrated observations are documented as calibration reports or
certificate. In order to obtain the indicated readings corresponding to the
measured quantity values, required adjustments are done after
calibrating the instrument.
At times, the instrument is recorded for zero adjustment corresponding
to a quantity of null value.

OBJECTIVE
Calibration of Pressure Gauge
THEORY
Working Principle of Dead Weight Testers
Pressure measured in bar/Pascal is given as
P=

FORCE
AREA

FORCE = Mass x 9.8067(~9.81m/s2)

The above principle is used to generate a very stable and accurate
pressure. A piston unit housed inside a cylinder is loaded upon by a
series of weights.
Area (effective) is an approximation of the avg.areas of both piston and
cylinder. The accuracy with which a piston and cylinder is manufactured
results in the performance of a tester. They must of very good surface
finish and accurate geometry. These are usually manufactured from high
chromium steels in order to prevent corrosion problems. Piston would
not be in compression when the weights are not accompanied by the air
supply.

Psupplied =

LOAD
DOWNWARD PRESSURE

Therefore applied load/weight is directly proportional to the obtainable

pressure gauge calibration meter readings.

APPARATUS
1. Pressure gauge able to measure up to 100 lb/in2bar
2. A pressure gauge calibrator consisting of piston-cylinder unit, two
control valves, standard gauge connection and some weights.
The apparatus can basically be divided into three elements:
- Piston-cylinder unit
- Weight
- Tester

Fig.1

Fig. 2

PROCEDURE
i.
ii.

iii.
iv.
v.

vi.
vii.
viii.

The test equipment has to be thoroughly cleaned for calibration to

avoid any slight errors or contamination of the gauge.
Based on the conversion table given, the required weight was
loaded on to the dead weight piston which already has a self
weight of 0.1 bar. This value had to be subtracted from the total
weight given in the table and the corresponding remaining weight
was added using the weights provided. (i.e. if the amount of weight
required was 0.69 bar from table, we would add weights equivalent
to 0.68 bar only as the piston already weighs 0.1 bar)
The valve to release pressure on the left had side was closed.
For rising pressure, slowly open the right-hand valve supplying
pressure and the increment in pressure was noted.
The weights were spun slowly as the desired pressure was
approached and right when the piston floats mid way b/w the two
stops, the gauge reading was taken. All the pressure was then
released.
For the fall in pressure, the valves were closed as previously and
after crossing the actual pressure, alternate valves were closed
and opened to validate pressure drop in the tester.
Repeat step 5 to obtain the data.
Remaining weights relating to the successor pressure reading was
weighed and the above methodology was followed to procure the
complete observation readings as instructed.

DATAS AND ANALAYSIS

Table 1: PRESSURE GAUGE READING

ACTUAL
PRESSU
RE
(psi)

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

LOAD
(bar)

0.69
1.38
2.07
2.76
3.45
4.14
4.83
5.52
6.21
6.9

PRESSURE INCREMENT

PRESSURE DECREMENT

GAUGE
PRESSURE
(psi)
9.4
19.6
29.1
39.2
48
58.6
69.3
78.4
89
97.7

GAUGE
PRESSURE
(psi)
9.5
19.2
28.9
39
48.1
58.8
69.2
78.5
89
98

ABSOLUT
E ERROR
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.8
2
1.4
0.7
1.6
1
2.3

ABSOLUT
E
ERROR
0.5
0.8
1.1
1
1.9
1.2
0.8
1.5
1
2

120
100
80

ACTUAL PRESSURE (psi)

60

decrement
increment

40
20
0
0

100 200

GAUGE PRESSURE (psi)

Figure 3 (ACTUAL PRESSURE ) VS (GAUGE PRESSURE)

Table 2: % ERROR

ACTUAL
PRESSURE
(psi)

% ERROR
INCREMENT

DECREMENT

6
2
1
1
0.4
1.16
0.85
0.25
0.33
1.2

5
2.5
2.3
1.5
0.8
1.16
1
1
0.55
1.4

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

% error =

error
x 100
actual pressure

7
6
5
4

Error % 3

Error (%) Decrement

Error (%) Increment

2
1
0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120

Actual Pressure (psi)

Figure 4 (% ERROR) VS ( ACTUAL PRESSURE)

Table 3: Avg. PRESSURE GAUGE DATA

ACTUAL
PRESSURE
(psi)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

AVG.
PRESSU
RE
9.45
19.55
29.5
39.5
49.7
59.3
69.35
79.5
89.6
98.7

ERRO
R
0.55
0.45
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.65
0.5
0.4
1.3

%ERROR (AVG.)

%
ERRO
R
5.5
4.5
5
5
3
7
6.5
5
4
1.3

4.68

CONCLUSION
Calibration experiment of the equipment was successfully conducted
and based on the result obtained, a deviation in readings of the
calibrated values was observed on comparison with the theoretical
values. A similarity was found in the readings obtained during varying
pressures of each load applied. However, the slight difference would be
due to human error. Error values tend to increase more for higher values
of the load applied due to the supply of air making it difficult to lift the
weights. Wear and usage has its effect on the equipment and this would
also catalyse for the deviation caused in the readings.
% error seemed to be greater for decrement readings than increment.
The average pressure reading does not lie within a safe limit denoting
that the instrument has to be corrected for any further use as the
calibration results show large variations.

SOURCES OF ERROR

Chances of any leakage in the air supplied through the valves.

Inaccuracy while noting the reading due to parallax error.
Application of external force/load while weight is spun.
Pressure loss in the hydraulic mechanism of the piston.
Improper calibration can cause variations in the readings obtained.

REFERENCE
1. E. Connor, Gas Quality Measuring Devices on Gas Measurement
University of Salford, 1969
2. DH- Budenberg, An-Introduction-to-Dead-Weight-Testers @
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18933664 (25th Nov, 2009)
3. Practical Manual on pressure gauge calibration, 2009.

10