Tawat Changpan’s research while affiliated with National Institute of Metrology (Thailand) and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (8)


Figure 2: Schematic drawing of the transfer standard.
Table 10 .
Table 16 .
Chronology of measurements in this comparison.
Example of data recording at 0 MPa.

+8

Final report on key comparison APMP.M.P-K7.3 in hydraulic gauge pressure from 10 MPa to 100 MPa
  • Article
  • Full-text available

September 2022

·

63 Reads

Padipat Wongthep

·

Hiroaki Kajikawa

·

Tawat Changpan

·

[...]

·

Main text This report describes the results of a key comparison among hydraulic high pressure standards that have been maintained by seven National Metrology Institutes (NMIs: NIMT, NMIJ/AIST, NPLI, RCM-LIPI, NMIM, VMI and NMLPHIL). This comparison was carried out during the period March 2016 to October 2017 within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to determine their degrees of equivalence in the pressure range from 10 MPa to 100 MPa, gauge mode. The pilot institute was the National Institute of Metrology (Thailand) (NIMT). All participating institutes used hydraulic pressure balance as their pressure standards. In order to ensure reliability, two high precision pressure transducers were used as the transfer standard. The sensing element of the transducers was a precision quartz crystal resonator attached to a small Bourdon tube. During the comparison, the transfer standard was calibrated at the pilot institute two times, before and after circulating the transfer standard to participants. From the two NIMT calibration results, the transfer standard was sufficiently stable to meet the requirements of the comparison. The long-term instability obtained from the two calibration results was taken into account as the uncertainty of the transfer standard for all participants. As the matter of fact NPL India and NMIM participated in this comparison as one of the linkage institutes and participating institutes, respectively. However, it was found later that the systems of hydraulic pressure balance reference standards used in this comparison were not functioning. Therefore, the comparison results were withdrawn. The degrees of equivalence of each national measurement standard were expressed quantitatively by deviations from the key comparison reference value of the corresponding CCM key comparison, CCM.P-K7 through the linkage institute, NMIJ/AIST. In conclusion, the hydraulic pressure standards in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa, gauge mode of the five participating NMIs were found to be equivalent within their claimed uncertainties. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

Download

APMP key comparison of absolute pressure from 10 kPa to 110 kPa (APMP.M.P-K9)

January 2020

·

31 Reads

This report describes the results of a key comparison of pneumatic pressure standards which was carried out at fourteen National Metrology Institutes (NMIs: NMIA, NSCL, PTB, NIM, VMI, CMS/ITRI, MSL, NMIJ/AIST, NMC A*STAR, NIMT, SCL, NIS, RCM-LIPI and KRISS) during the period of February 2010 to July 2012 within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to determine their degrees of equivalence at pressures in the range 10 kPa to 110 kPa in absolute mode. Among them, twelve NMIs' results were compared in the report. The pilot laboratory was Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS). The degrees of equivalence in this comparison were transferred to the corresponding CC key comparison, CCM.P-K2. National Measurement Institute, Australia (NMIA) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) that participated in the CC comparison agreed to be link laboratories. Most of the participating institutes used pneumatic pressure balances as their pressure standards while two link laboratories used laser interferometer mercury manometers. Precise absolute pressure gauges were used as transfer standards (TSs). The precision pressure gauge has two Quartz-Resonant Pressure Transducers (Q-RPTs) inside. Two identical transfer packages (TS-A and TS-B) were circulated independently to reduce the time required for the measurements. During the comparison, intermediate measurements of two circulated transfer standards were carried out in the pilot laboratory after one or two NMIs measurement and third transfer standard (TS-C) was monitored for the stability characterization, also. The pressures of the comparison were (10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 100, 110) kPa. From the calibration results, the behaviours of the transfer standards during the comparison period were well characterized and it was concluded that the performance of the transfer standards were sufficient in the comparison pressure range except 10 kPa. The TSs used in this comparison were not suitable for the low pressure measurement like 10 kPa because of low display resolution of TS (1 part in 10 ⁵ at 10 kPa). The degrees of equivalence of each national measurement standard were expressed quantitatively by two terms, deviations from the key comparison reference values (KCRVs) and pair-wise differences of their deviations together with the associated uncertainties. The pneumatic pressure standards in the range 30 kPa to 110 kPa for absolute mode of all participating NMIs were found to be equivalent within their claimed uncertainties. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).


Final report on key comparison APMP.M.P-K13 in hydraulic gauge pressure from 50 MPa to 500 MPa

December 2014

·

66 Reads

·

3 Citations

This report describes the results of a key comparison of hydraulic high-pressure standards at nine National Metrology Institutes (NMIs: NMIJ/AIST, NPLI, NMC/A*STAR, NIMT, NMIA, NIM, CMS/ITRI, KIM-LIPI, and KRISS) within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to determine their degrees of equivalence in the pressure range from 50 MPa to 500 MPa in gauge mode. The pilot institute was the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ/AIST). All participating institutes used hydraulic pressure balances as their pressure standards. A set of pressure balance with a free-deformational piston-cylinder assembly was used as the transfer standard. Three piston-cylinder assemblies, only one at a time, were used to complete the measurements in the period from November 2010 to January 2013. Ten participants completed their measurements and reported the pressure-dependent effective areas of the transfer standard at specified pressures with the associated uncertainties. Since one of the participants withdrew its results, the measurement results of the nine participants were finally compared. The results were linked to the CCM.P-K13 reference values through the results of two linking laboratories, NMIJ/AIST and NPLI. The degrees of equivalence were evaluated by the relative deviations of the participants' results from the CCM.P-K13 key comparison reference values, and their associated combined expanded (k=2) uncertainties. The results of all the nine participating NMIs agree with the CCM.P-K13 reference values within their expanded (k=2) uncertainties in the entire pressure range from 50 MPa to 500 MPa. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).


INVESTIGATION OF UNCERTAINTY FROM CREEP AND CREEP RECOVERY OF FORCE CALIBRATION RESULT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISO 376:2011

December 2013

·

28 Reads

International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series

This paper presents an investigation of the uncertainties from creep and creep recovery of force proving instruments calibrated at NIMT in year 2012 and 2013. In this study, the NIMT's 100kN deadweight force standard machine was used as a standard to calibrate force proving instruments (from various manufacturers and models) in accordance with ISO 376:2011. The comparison of creep uncertainties calculated from creep measured at maximum load (Cmax), creep recovery measured at zero load (Czero) and reversibility errors were also investigated. The results of this study show that, for most of the calibration results (>60%), the maximum value between WCmax/WCzero and WCzero/WCmax were larger than 2. Indicating that, WCmax and WCzero could not assume to be equal. For the comparison between creep uncertainties calculated from creep error and reversibility error, more than 80% of the calibration results, the creep uncertainties calculated from reversibility were larger than 3 time of the calculated values form creep measurement. These gave conclusion that, for the unknown history of creep and reversibility characteristic of instruments, it is more appropriate to estimate the uncertainty of creep from reversibility error.


DEVELOPMENT OF A MACHINE-VISION-BASED SYSTEM FOR RECORDING OF FORCE CALIBRATION DATA

January 2013

·

8 Reads

·

1 Citation

International Journal of Modern Physics Conference Series

This paper presents the development of a new system for recording of force calibration data using machine vision technology. Real time camera and computer system were used to capture images of the reading from the instruments during calibration. Then, the measurement images were transformed and translated to numerical data using optical character recognition (OCR) technique. These numerical data along with raw images were automatically saved to memories as the calibration database files. With this new system, the human error of recording would be eliminated. The verification experiments were done by using this system for recording the measurement results from an amplifier (DMP 40) with load cell (HBM-Z30-10kN). The NIMT's 100-kN deadweight force standard machine (DWM-100kN) was used to generate test forces. The experiments setup were done in 3 categories; 1) dynamics condition (record during load changing), 2) statics condition (record during fix load), and 3) full calibration experiments in accordance with ISO 376:2011. The captured images from dynamics condition experiment gave >94% without overlapping of number. The results from statics condition experiment were >98% images without overlapping. All measurement images without overlapping were translated to number by the developed program with 100% accuracy. The full calibration experiments also gave 100% accurate results. Moreover, in case of incorrect translation of any result, it is also possible to trace back to the raw calibration image to check and correct it. Therefore, this machine-vision-based system and program should be appropriate for recording of force calibration data.


KEY COMPARISON: Final report on APMP.M.PK6.1 pneumatic key comparison from 20 kPa to 105 kPa in gauge mode

January 2009

·

10 Reads

This report describes the key comparison APMP.M.P-K6.1 among the three national metrology institutes, Center for Measurement Standards–ITRI (CMS-ITRI, Taiwan), SPRING Singapore and National Institute of Metrology (NIMT), in the pressure range from 20 kPa to 105 kPa in gas media and gauge mode executed during the period April 2003 to April 2004. This comparison was conducted by CMS-ITRI and was based on the calibration procedure of APMP pneumatic pressure comparison APMP.M.P-K6. We intended to link to the CCM.P-K6 key comparison through the APMP.M.P-K6 key comparison by using the proposed linkage method in the APMP.M.P-K6 key comparison to determine a linking factor that can transform the quantities measured in the APMP.M.P-K6.1 key comparison. All three participating institutes used pneumatic piston gauges as their pressure standards. The Ruska 2465 gas-operated piston–cylinder assembly TL-1409 used as transfer standard offered by CMS-ITRI was calibrated three times by the pilot institute during the comparison period and showed that it was very stable after evaluation. The comparison was conducted on the basis of cross-float experiments to determine the effective area of transfer standards from the national standards of three institutes. The comparison results (as shown in Table 6) were equivalent to the CCM.P-K6 comparison and the relative bilateral degrees of equivalence between two laboratories were smaller than 39.7 × 10⁻⁶ from 20 kPa to 105 kPa. These results showed all participating institutes measuring the same quantity in the whole pressure range lay within their expanded uncertainty with confidence level 95%. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).


KEY COMPARISON: Final report on APMP.M.PK1.c.1: Pneumatic key comparison from 0.4 MPa to 4.0 MPa in gauge mode

January 2008

·

43 Reads

This report describes the key comparison APMP.M.P-K1.c.1 among the three national metrology institutes, Center for Measurement Standards-ITRI (CMS-ITRI, Chinese Taipei), SPRING Singapore and National Institute of Metrology (NIMT) in the pressure range from 0.4 MPa to 4.0 MPa in gas media and gauge mode executed during the period April 2003 to April 2004. This comparison was conducted by CMS-ITRI and was based on the calibration procedure of APMP Pneumatic Pressure Comparison APMP.M.P-K1.c. We intended to link to the key Comparison APMP.M.P-K1.c via the results of SPRING Singapore. All three participating institutes used pneumatic piston gauges as their pressure standards. The Ruska 2465 gas-operated piston-cylinder assembly V-1215 used as a transfer standard offered by CMS-ITRI was calibrated three times by the pilot institute during the comparison period and showed that it was very stable after evaluation. The comparison was conducted on the basis of cross-float experiments to determine the effective area of the transfer standard from the national standards of three institutes. The mean value of the results obtained by all participating institutes measuring the same quantity from 0.4 MPa to 4.0 MPa in gas media and gauge mode lay within their expanded uncertainty with a confidence level of 95%. Linking key comparison APMP.M.P-K1.c to key comparison APMP.M.P-K1.c.1 at two nominal pressures near 1 MPa and 4 MPa was established. Main text. To reach the main text of this Paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).


Final report on key comparison APMP.M.P-K7 in hydraulic gauge pressure from 10 MPa to 100 MPa

January 2005

·

182 Reads

·

19 Citations

This report describes the results of a key comparison of hydraulic high-pressure standards at 16 national metrology institutes (NMIs: NMIJ/AIST, NPLI, CSIR-NML, NIS, KRISS, SCL, SPRING, NMIA, VMI, NML-SIRIM, KIM-LIPI, NSCL, PTB, NIMT, CMS/ITRI and NIM) was carried out during the period October 2002 to July 2004 within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) in order to determine their degrees of equivalence at pressures in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa for gauge mode. The pilot institute was the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ)/AIST. All participating institutes generally used hydraulic pressure balances as their pressure standards. High-precision pressure transducers were used as transfer standards. The sensing element of the transducer was a precision quartz crystal resonator. To ensure the reliability of the transfer standard, two pressure transducers were used on a transfer standard unit. Three nominally identical transfer packages were circulated independently to reduce the time required for the measurements. During this comparison, the three transfer standards were calibrated simultaneously at the pilot institute 11 times in total. From the calibration results, the behaviours of the transfer standards during the comparison period were well characterized and it was presented that the capabilities of the transfer standards to achieve this key comparison were sufficient. The degrees of equivalence of each national measurement standard were expressed quantitatively by two terms, deviations from the key comparison reference values and pair-wise differences of their deviations. The degrees of equivalence in this comparison were also transferred to the corresponding CCM key comparison, CCM.M.P-K7. The hydraulic pressure standards in the range 10 MPa to 100 MPa for gauge mode of the 16 participating NMIs were found to be equivalent within their claimed uncertainties. Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).

Citations (1)


... This paper mainly focuses on quartz Bourdon-type pressure transducers [4], in which a quartz crystal resonator is attached to a Bourdon tube. These transducers are widely used in the field of precise pressure calibration and also for international comparisons [5,6]. Figure 1 shows the calibration procedure of 0-A-0 pressurization, in which pressure is released to atmospheric pressure after finishing each measurement at each calibration pressure. ...

Reference:

Reproducibility of calibration results by 0-A-0 pressurization procedures for hydraulic pressure transducers
Final report on key comparison APMP.M.P-K7 in hydraulic gauge pressure from 10 MPa to 100 MPa