1 Key Comparison CCM.FF-K6b Comparison of the Primary (National) Standards of Low Pressure Gas Flow WGFF meeting, June, 19, 2012, Colorado Springs, USA Mirka Benkova CMI, Stefan Makovnik SMU

Breef introduction The comparison :  was introduced during the last WGFF meeting in Taipei, in October 2010  was initiated as CCM Key Comparison K6b (K6 – low pressure gas flow up to 13 m3/h)  Transfer standard was from France and it was the same as by Euramet project E1180 (not has finished yet)  Pilot laboratory and organisation - SMU Slovakia, CMI Czech Republic with the support of PTB Germany

Participants AFRIMETSAPMPEURAMETCOOMETSIM Japan China Taiwan Australia Korea Germany Slovak Rep. France Rep.of UkraineMexico USA 11 countries took part in the comparison

4 The transfer standard Inside the body Actaris Delta 2050 was inserted a new model of S-Flow meter Size G65, DN 65, Qmin – Qmax: (2 – 100)m3/h The transfer standard was packed in the plastic box (610 × 510 × 510) mm : weight 65 kg (meter 53 kg)

5 The transfer standard stability The transfer standard was measured several times during 2009 up to The average of stability is better then 0,04%.

Temperature influence Temperature influence on the flow meter was tested in three temperatures by PTB Germany 6

7 Testing procedure Range of flow rates – 15 points from 2 m 3 /h to 100 m 3 /h or according to possibility of the participating laboratory 24,56,69,113, Points from K6 The laboratories could use their usual calibration procedures Reference conditions the calibration medium will be air - temperature: (20  5)  C, ambient relative humidity range: 25 % to 75 %, ambient atmospheric pressure range: 86 kPa to 106 kPa (0,86 bar to 1,06 bar)

8 Time Schedule of last loops of K6b Slovakia Jan 2012 Germany May 2011 Australia July 2011 USA Oct 2011 Dec 2011 Mexico Nov 2011 Korea March 2012 China April 2012 Taiwan May 2012 Japan Jun 2012 Slovakia July 2012 France July 2012 Loop starting May 2011 Loop starting February 2012 ATA Carnet was lost We are here

9 Preliminary results – K6b

10 Temperature (°C)

11 Expanded uncertainty (%)

12 Evaluation  The reference value will be determined separately for each flow rate.  For determination of the Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV) and the respective uncertainty only results from independent laboratories will be taken into account - all laboratories in K6b are independent laboratories  The determination of the KCRV based on the independent laboratories will include a consistency check according to M. G. Cox.  Then linking between KCRV and Euramet reference value will be provided

13 Conclusion – time schedule ACTIVITYSTARTFINISHNumber of measuments 1. loop December 2010 February Slovakia, Republic of Ukraine Slovakia 2. loop May 2011 January Germany, Australia USA, Mexiko, Slovakia 3. loop February 2012 July Korea, China, Chinese Taiwan, Japan, Slovakia Germany, France Calculation August 2012 September 2012 Draft A October 2012 December 2012 Thank all participants for their co-operation !