Take a sneak peek at the new NIST.gov and let us know what you think!
(Please note: some content may not be complete on the beta site.).
NIST Authors in Bold
|Author(s):||John D. Wright; Aaron N. Johnson; Gina M. Kline; Christopher J. Crowley; Jodie G. Pope; Vern E. Bean;|
|Title:||A Comparison of 12 US Liquid Hydrocarbon Flow Standards and the Transition to Safer Calibration Liquids|
|Published:||April 01, 2012|
|Abstract:||During 2010 and 2011, NIST piloted a 12-laboratory comparison of hydrocarbon liquid flow calibration standards spanning the range 3.8 L/min to 38 L/min. The laboratories were in mutual agreement within the expected 0.3 % uncertainty, which is approximately half as large as the differences measured in a similar 1988 comparison. The transfer standard (a pair of turbine flow meters in series) introduced an uncertainty of 0.17 % into the comparison. The comparison protocol used methods that were developed during international comparisons including: using uncertainty weighting to generate a best fit a comparison reference curve, using statistical criteria to remove discrepant results from the fit, assessing and including in the data analysis the uncertainty contributed by the transfer standard, and reporting a standardized degree of equivalence between the participants. Several laboratories used mixtures of propylene glycol and water (PG + W) instead of Stoddard solvent (the commonly used surrogate for jet fuel) because the PG + W mixtures are safer and cheaper to manage environmentally. This comparison and other studies show that there is no significant difference in the calibration results between Stoddard solvent and a PG + W mixture with the same kinematic viscosity. Therefore, NIST is changing its calibration fluid to PG + W and encourages other laboratories to do the same.|
|Citation:||Cal Lab: International Journal of Metrology|
|Keywords:||comparison, flow, propylene glycol, Stoddard solvent, transfer standard, turbine|
|Research Areas:||Flow, Calibrations|
|PDF version:||Click here to retrieve PDF version of paper (874KB)|