![Page 1: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure
measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa
H. Yoshida1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1, S. S. Hong2, H.W. Song2
1 NMIJ/AIST: The National Metrology Institute of Japan / the National Institute of
Advanced Science and Technology, Japan
2 KRISS: Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science, Republic of Korea
![Page 2: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Abstract
The results of a key comparison of ultra-high vacuum standards at two National
Metrology Institutes (NMIJ/AIST and KRISS) are reported. This bilateral comparison
was carried out from May 2010 to October 2010 within the framework of the
Asia-Pacific Metrology Programme (APMP) to determine their degrees of equivalence
at pressures in the range from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa. The pilot institute was
NMIJ/AIST. Two spinning rotor gauges and two hot cathode ionization gauges were
used as the transfer standards. NMIJ/AIST used two calibration systems; the dynamic
expansion system (NMIJ-DES) and two-stage flow-dividing system (NMIJ-TFS).
KRISS used the dynamic expansion system. The transfer standards were sufficiently
stable to meet the requirements of the comparison compared with those of previous
international comparisons owing to some improvements of the protocol and the transfer
standards. The ultra-high vacuum standards of NMIJ/AIST and KRISS were found to be
equivalent within their claimed uncertainties in the range from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa.
The NMIJ-DES results, which have smaller uncertainty than NMIJ-TFS, were
transferred to the corresponding CCM key comparison, CCM.P-K3, in the range from
3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa and it is shown that the NMIJ values were equivalent to the
CCM KCRV within the claimed uncertainties.
2
![Page 3: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Introduction
The National Metrology Institute of Japan / the National Institute of Advanced
Science and Technology (NMIJ/AIST), Japan, has developed a high vacuum standard in
the rage form 10-6 Pa to 10-4 Pa using dynamic expansion system (DES). NMIJ/AIST
also developed another calibration system, the two-stage flow-dividing system (TFS),
for routine calibrations of vacuum gauges in the rage from 10-7 Pa to 10-2 Pa. This
system is typically used for calibration of partial pressure analyzers.
The Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS) of Korea
successfully participated in the CCM comparison, CCM.P-K3 [1], in the range form
3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa using two spinning rotor gauges (SRGs) and several ionization
gauges (IGs) as the transfer standard. A bilateral comparison was planned by the both
laboratories using two SRGs and two IGs.
This bilateral comparison was identified as APMP.M.P-K3 by Asia-Pacific Metrology
Programme (APMP). APMP.M.P-K3 is linked to the CCM key comparison, CCM.P-K3,
which has a same pressure range as APMP.M.P-K3. The results of this comparison will
be submitted to the Key Comparison Database (KCDB) of BIPM following the rules of
CCM and can be used to establish the degree of equivalence of national measurement
standard by National Metrology Institutes (NMIs).
3
![Page 4: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Before the comparison, two IGs were tested for the viewpoint of the stability as
transfer standards at TFS in NMIJ/AIST. A protocol was prepared based on results of
the test by NMIJ/AIST in cooperation with KRISS with reference to the protocol of
CCM.P-K3.
2. Participating institutes and their calibration systems
Two NMIs participated into this comparison, which are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 List of participants and the standards used for the calibration. NMI Standard
Dynamic expansion system (DES)
NMIJ / AIST (Pilot institute) Japan
Two-stage flow-dividing system (TFS)
KRISS Korea
Dynamic expansion system
2.1 Dynamic expansion system (DES) at NMIJ/AIST
In a dynamic expansion system at NMIJ/AIST, standard pressures are generated by
producing a gas flow with known flow rate, which passes through an orifice with known
conductance. This high vacuum standard consists of a flowmeter and a vacuum chamber
with an orifice. The full calibration range of the standard is 10-7 Pa to 10-3 Pa. The gas
4
![Page 5: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
flow generated by the flowmeter is determined from the product of the pressure and the
volume change rate [2]. The vacuum chamber is approximately 286 mm in diameter and
429 mm long. The chamber is evacuated with a turbomolecular pump (TMP). The upper
and lower chambers normally communicate through a 20 mm diameter orifice. The
conductance of the orifice is calculated from the dimension [3]. In addition, the
influence of the effective pumping speed of the TMP and the pressure distribution of the
calibration chamber are estimated and included in the determination of the standard
pressure.
2.2 Two-stage flow-dividing-system (TFS) at NMIJ/AIST
The two-stage flow-dividing system is used for routine calibrations of vacuum gauges
in the pressure range from 10-7 Pa to 10-2 Pa [4]. This system has two advantages: its
simple structure neither does require any flow meter nor a precise measurement of the
geometry of the orifice, and the easy operation due to the computer control for the
generated pressure, although its uncertainty of the generated pressure is a little bit larger
than that of the dynamic expansion systems.
The system consists of four chambers; a first chamber V0, a flow divider V1, a
calibration chamber V2, and an evacuation chamber V3. The calibration chamber V2 is
5
![Page 6: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
evacuated through an orifice (30 mm in diameter) by the main TMP (550 L/s). The flow
divider V1 is also evacuated by a subsidiary TMP (220 L/s). Chambers V0 and V1,
chambers V1 and V2, and chambers V2 and V3 are connected to each other with a
capillary, a sintered filter, and an orifice, respectively.
The pressure in the first chamber p0 is maintained at a pressure from 103 Pa to 105 Pa
using a pressure controller. Corresponding to stabilizing the p0, both the pressure in the
flow divider p1 and that in the calibration chamber p2 are kept constant from 10-3 Pa to
10 Pa and from 10-6 Pa to 10-2 Pa, respectively. The standard pressure p2 is proportional
to p1 because the conductances of both the sintered filter C2 and the orifice Cmain become
constant by realizing a molecular flow. Therefore, p2 is calculated from p1 using the
constant conductance ratio, C2/(C2 + Cmain) [4].
2.3 Dynamic expansion system at KRISS
The primary standard for the ultra high vacuum (UHV) at KRISS used for this
comparison is an orifice-type dynamic expansion system. It consists of two dynamic
calibration systems: one for high vacuum (HV) from 10-5 Pa to 10-2 Pa, and the other for
UHV from 10-7 Pa to 10-5 Pa. The UHV system is connected to the HV by a porous plug
with a very small conductance (6.36×10-3 L/s in N2 at 23 ºC) and a by-pass line whose
6
![Page 7: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
conductance is higher than porous plug. During calibration at low pressures, the path
containing the porous plug is used. However, at comparatively high pressures, the
porous plug is isolated and the by-pass line is used. Gas is supplied to the high vacuum
system from a constant pressure-type flowmeter, some of which flows through the
porous plug into the UHV chamber. The HV system is evacuated using a TMP with a
pumping speed for N2 of 345 L/s, and the UHV system is evacuated using a closed loop
helium refrigerator-type cryopump with a pumping speed for N2 of 1500 L/s. Further
details of the systems and a full uncertainty analysis are given in [5].
3. Transfer standards
The transfer standard package consisted of two spinning rotor gauge sensor heads
(SRG-CE6 and SRG-CE8) and two ionization gauges (Stabil-ion gauge (SIG) and
Miniature gauge (MG)). Table 2 lists characteristics of gauges and controllers that were
supplied with the package. Setting parameters of SRGs and IGs, and specifications of
the transfer thermometers are listed in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, respectively. The
pressure readings of SRGs were compensated by the chamber temperature at the process
of data analysis after measurements.
7
![Page 8: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Table 2 Transfer standards used in APMP.M.P-K3.
Gauge description Gauge Identifier
Pressure range for calibration / Pa
Gauge head Controller Manufacturer
SRG-CE6 9×10-4 Spinning rotor gauge sensor head, 4.50 mm diameter stainless steel rotor
None provided
SRG-CE8 9×10-4 Spinning rotor gauge sensor head, 4.50 mm diameter super invar rotor
None provided
MKS Instruments, Inc.
SIG 3×10-6 to 9×10-4
Metal enclosed Bayard-Alpert ionization gauge (Stabil-Ion gauge)
Model 370 ion gauge controller
Brooks Automation, Inc.
MG 3×10-6 to 9×10-4
Metal enclosed Bayard-Alpert ionization gauge (Miniature gauge)
Miniature gauge controller M-430HG
Canon ANELVA corp.
8
![Page 9: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Table 3 Input parameters of SRGs
SRG CE-6 SRG CE-8 Ball density [g/cm3] 7.700
(Stainless steel)
8.200 (Super invar)
Ball diameter [mm]
4.500
Accommodation coefficient
1.000
Molecular weight [u]
39.95
Temperature [K]
295.4
Duration of each measurement [s]
30 (NMIJ), 10 (KRISS)
Table 4 Setting parameters of IGs
SIG MG Filament number
1 1
Gauge scale factor or Sensitivity
1 6
Emission current [mA]
4 1
Cathode (Filament)
+ 30 + 45
Anode (Grid)
+ 180 + 180
Electric potential [V]
Ion corrector
0 0
9
![Page 10: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Table 5 Specification of transfer thermometers
Number
2
Manufacturer, model
T and D cooperation, TR-71Ui
Channel
2
Temperature range
− 60 oC to 150 oC
Resolution
0.1 oC
Accuracy
0.5 oC
Five improvements of the protocol and the transfer standards were tried from those of
CCM.P-K3. First, an isolation all-metal valve was attached to each gauge head of the
SRG and the IG to keep the inside of it in vacuum during the transfer from NMIJ/AIST
to KRISS, and vise versa (Fig. 1). In addition, the rotor heads of SRGs did not detach
from their thimbles to keep the rotor stationary by the magnet in the rotor head. These
procedures were performed to decrease the change in sensitivity of these gauges during
the transfer as low as possible. Similar treatments were also applied on the key
comparison Euromet.M.P-K1.b [6] and CCM.P-K14 in progress. Second, stainless steel
rotor and super invar rotor were applied for SRG-CE6 and SRG-CE8, respectively.
10
![Page 11: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
(a) SRG-CE6
MG
SIG
(b) SRG-CE8
(c) SIG and MG
(a) SRG-CE6
MG
SIG
(b) SRG-CE8
(c) SIG and MG
Fig.1 Photographs of transfer standard packages. The photographs of (a) SRG-CE6, (b) SRG-CE8, and (c) SIG and MG are shown.
Stainless steel has high reliability and high stability for use in vacuum. Super invar has
about 30 times smaller thermal expansion coefficient than that of stainless steel. In our
experience, the stability of the effective accommodation coefficient (σeff) against the
11
![Page 12: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
change in temperature became better because of smaller change in the diameter of rotor
by thermal expansion. Invar rotor was also applied on the regional key comparison
Euromet.M.P-K1.b [6]. Third, in addition to SIG used at CCM.P-K3, MG was
employed as a transfer standard because it has wide linear response range. Fourth, no
bake-out was allowed for transfer gauges to decrease the change in the characteristics.
The protocol of CCM.P-K14 in progress also requires no bake-out for the transfer SRGs.
Fifth, two simple thermometers were also transferred to check the temperature
differences between the calibration chambers and the gauge heads. Temperature
measurements are important for the comparisons because pressure readings of both
SRGs and IGs depend on the temperatures. Figure 2 shows positions where the
temperature was measured.
Upperchamber
Lowerchamber
Vacuumpump
Flowmeter
TFM
Tchamber1
Troom
SIGMIG
SRG
TSIG
TMIG
Tchamber1
Tchamber2
Own thermometers
Transferred thermometers
Upperchamber
Lowerchamber
Vacuumpump
Flowmeter
TFM
Tchamber1
Troom
SIGMIG
SRG
TSIG
TMIG
Tchamber1
Tchamber2
Own thermometers
Transferred thermometers
Fig.2 Positions where the temperature was measured. SIG, MG and two SRGs were
actually mounted at the same horizontal plane, although this schematic diagram does not show that.
12
![Page 13: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
4. Results of pretests for two ionization gauges as transfer standards
Before the comparison, the stabilities of SIG and MG were simultaneously tested at
TFS in NMIJ/AIST.
4.1 Fluctuation and drift of pressure reading
Changes in pressure readings of SIG and MG were measured while the pressure in
the calibration chamber maintained using Ar at 3×10-6 Pa, 3×10-5 Pa, and 9×10-4 Pa for
1 hr. No significant fluctuations and drifts over 0.5 % were observed for both SIG and
MG. This result indicates that there is no significant influence on the difference of the
time interval from gas introduction to pressure measurements for calibrations.
4.2 Effect of power supply voltage
The power supply voltages in NMIJ/AIST and KRISS are AC100 V and AC120 V,
respectively. Therefore, the effect of power supply voltage on the pressure readings of
SIG and MG were examined. Changes in pressure readings of SIG and MG were less
than 0.5 % against the change in a power supply voltage from AC100 V to AC120 V at
the pressure of 3×10-6 Pa.
13
![Page 14: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
4.3 Effect of changing in chamber temperature and gauge temperature
An inverse of correction factor, a0, as defined by eq.(1) often used to show the
sensitivity of IGs.
ref
BGreading0 P
PPa
−= , (1)
where Preading and PBG are pressure readings of IG during calibration and at background,
respectively. Pref is the reference pressure, for example, generated by the primary
standard.
The a0 is proportional to the inverse of the chamber temperature because of the
change in the gas density [7,8]. To confirm this characteristic about SIG and MG, 11
calibrations were performed by changing the chamber temperature from 296 K to 303 K.
The results showed that the a0 of SIG and MG were proportional to inverse of chamber
temperature within ±1 %.
The gauge temperature also influences the pressure readings of IGs by thermal
transpiration effect [8,9]. The gauge temperature of MG was changed from 316 K to
290 K by cooling water during keeping the chamber temperature at 302 K ± 1 K. The
results showed that the pressure reading of MG was proportional to the inverse of the
14
![Page 15: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
square root of the gauge temperature within ±1 %.
4.4 Effect of bake-out, Switching off/on, disconnecting/connecting,
closing/opening each isolation valve, and removing the gauge head from the
vacuum chamber and re-mounting
Figure 3 shows the change in a of SIG and MG depending on a bake-out, switching
off/on, disconnecting/connecting, closing/opening each isolation valve, and removing
the gauge head from the vacuum chamber and re-mounting. a is the temperature
compensated inverse of the correction factor by calculated using eq.(2).
ref
chamber0 T
Taa ⋅= , (2)
where Tchamber and Tref are the chamber temperature and reference temperature (23 oC),
respectively. The results were summarized below.
1) The effect of switching off/on and disconnecting/connecting the cable is negligible
(see (i)).
2) a of SIG increased by a bake-out (see (ii), (iii), and (iv)) and only operating in
ultrahigh vacuum (~10-7 Pa) for several days (see (v) and (ix)). The magnitude of
15
![Page 16: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
the change in a of SIG was about 6 %.
3) a of MG also increased by a bake-out. But it recovered the original value within
1 % at the second calibration from the bake-out (see (ii), (iii), and (iv)). Although
no influence was observed by operating in ultrahigh vacuum (see (v) and (ix)), a
tended to decrease with the number of calibration. Such a tendency is often
observed for the characteristics of IGs [10-13]. The magnitude of the change in a
of MG was about 1 % ~ 2 %.
4) No influence was observed by closing/opening each isolation valve for both SIG
and MG (see (vi) and (vii)). However, significant decrease of a was observed for
SIG by removing the gauge head with the isolation valve and remounting it (see
(viii)). Although the inside of the gauge heads kept in vacuum by each isolation
valve, a little amount of air in the dead volume between the isolation valve and one
equipped to the calibration chamber was exposed to the inside of the gauge head
when it was remounted. No significant change was observed for MG in spite of the
same condition.
5) These results indicate that a of SIG is sensitive to the surface condition of the
inside of gauge head, but a of MG is insensitive to that. Therefore, MG seemed to
be more suitable to use as a transfer standard than SIG.
16
![Page 17: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
3x10-6 Pa9x10-6 Pa3x10-5 Pa9x10-5 Pa3x10-4 Pa9x10-4 Pa
(a) SIG
Cha
nge
in a
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of calibration
(b) MG
(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
(v)(vi)
(vii)(viii)
(ix)0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
3x10-6 Pa9x10-6 Pa3x10-5 Pa9x10-5 Pa3x10-4 Pa9x10-4 Pa
(a) SIG
Cha
nge
in a
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Number of calibration
(b) MG
(i)(ii)
(iii)(iv)
(v)(vi)
(vii)(viii)
(ix)
- Closing the isolation valve after switching off- Removing the gauge heads with the isolation valves from the calibration chamber- Keeping the gauge heads in a shelf for 2 days- Remounting the gauge head to vacuum chamber- Evacuation for 1 day
(viii)
Evacuation for 3 days(ix)Closing the isolation valve for 1 day after switching off(vi)
Evacuation for 3 days(v)
Closing the isolation valve for 1 day after switching off, which is same as (vi)
Bake-out at 200~220 oC for 4 hour(iv)
(vii)
Bake-out at 200~250 oC for 4 hour(iii)
Bake-out at 150 oC for 1 hour(ii)
Switching off / onDisconnecting / connecting the cable(i)
- Closing the isolation valve after switching off- Removing the gauge heads with the isolation valves from the calibration chamber- Keeping the gauge heads in a shelf for 2 days- Remounting the gauge head to vacuum chamber- Evacuation for 1 day
(viii)
Evacuation for 3 days(ix)Closing the isolation valve for 1 day after switching off(vi)
Evacuation for 3 days(v)
Closing the isolation valve for 1 day after switching off, which is same as (vi)
Bake-out at 200~220 oC for 4 hour(iv)
(vii)
Bake-out at 200~250 oC for 4 hour(iii)
Bake-out at 150 oC for 1 hour(ii)
Switching off / onDisconnecting / connecting the cable(i)
Fig.3 Change in a of SIG and MG depending on a bake-out, switching off/on, disconnecting/connecting, closing/opening each isolation valve, and removing the gauge head from the vacuum chamber and re-mounting.
17
![Page 18: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
5. Chronology of the measurements
Table 6 shows the chronology of the measurements made with the transfer standard
during the comparison loop. The sensor heads (rotor head, thimble, and rotor) of SRGs
and the gauge heads of IGs were hand carried. The controllers of IGs, cables, and the
thermometers were shipped.
Table 6 Chronology of the measurements, gauges, and number of calibrations during the comparison.
Participants Start date End date Number of
calibration runNumber points per run
Number of points Nijm
DES1
25-May-2010 16-Jun-2010 5 11 55 NMIJ /AIST
TFS
28-Jun-2010 2-Jul-2010 8 9 72
KRISS
3-Sep- 2010 8-Sep-2010 3 3 9
NMIJ /AIST
DES2 1-Oct- 2010 27-Oct-2010 5 11 55
6. General calibration procedure
6.1 Preparation for calibration
The two SRGs and two IGs were mounted to the calibration chamber at the same
horizontal plane. Following the installation of vacuum standards, the vacuum chambers
18
![Page 19: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
were evacuated to a pressure bellow 10-4 Pa, and each isolation valve was fully opened.
The setting parameters of transfer standards were verified or set to the values as shown
in Table 3 and Table 4.
The calibration chambers and the transfer standards did not allow to be baked to
prevent the σ of SRGs and a of IGs change owing to changing the surface condition of
gauge heads. No degassing of IGs also required for the same reason.
6.2 Calibration of the gauges
The IGs were calibrated in argon at six target pressure steps (PT) at the values 3×10-6
Pa, 9×10-6 Pa, 3×10-5 Pa, 9×10-5 Pa, 3×10-4 Pa, and 9×10-4 Pa. The purity of Ar in a
bottle was higher than 99.9999 %. Each pressure was generated a minimum of three
times in the calibration. The SRGs were calibrated at 9×10-4 Pa. The generated pressure
was required to be within 10 % of the target pressure.
7. Analysis of the reported data
7.1 Correction for zero pressure offset
The gauge pressure are first corrected for their “zero” reading with the vacuum
chamber evacuated and at the base pressure:
19
![Page 20: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
ijmkijmkijmk ppp G0G −= . (3)
Here, pGijmk is the uncorrected gauge reading, pG0ijmk is the zero-pressure gauge reading,
and pijmk is the gauge reading for zero-pressure offset. Meanings of indices for
abbreviated terms are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Meanings of indices for abbreviated terms.
Index Meaning i Transfer standard gauges
1 SRG-CE6 2 SRG-CE8 3 SIG
4 MG j Institute and calibration system
1 NMIJ-DES 2 NMIJ-TFS
3 KRISS m Number of calibration cycle k Individual reading of gauges
pG0ijmk for SRGs and IGs corresponds to the offset of SRG (poffset) and the background
pressure of IG (pBG), respectively. Table 8 shows the typical values the standard
deviations of poffset for SRGs and those of pBG for IGs, respectively. Since the duration of
20
![Page 21: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
10 s was employed for the measurement of SRGs at KRISS, the standard deviations of
SRGs were larger than those of NMIJ/AIST.
Table 8 Typical values of the offset (poffset) for SRGs and of the background pressure (pBG) for IGs measured by each calibration system. Their standard deviations σ are also shown.
SRG-CE6 SRG-CE8 SIG MG
poffset or pBG
/ Pa 2.5053 E-04 3.8354 E-04 9.40 E-08 1.84 E-07 NMIJ-DES1
σ / Pa 6.43 E-07 9.29 E-07 6.17 E-10 1.05 E-09
poffset or pBG
/ Pa 2.9100 E-04 6.6205 E-05 1.73 E-07 2.84 E-07 NMIJ-TFS
σ / Pa 4.87 E-07
1.13 E-06 1.09 E-09 1.65 E-09
poffset or pBG
/ Pa 2.3932 E-04 3.3858 E-04 6.14 E-07 9.55 E-07 KRISS
σ / Pa 7.84E-06
7.33E-06 No change No change
poffset or pBG
/ Pa 5.8898 E-04 2.0130 E-04 9.11 E-08 2.09E- 07 NMIJ-DES2
σ / Pa 7.61E-07 1.02 E-06 5.88E-10 1.21E-09
7.2 Temperature compensations of pressure reading of SRGs and IGs
Pressure readings of SRGs and IGs should be compensated by the chamber
temperature for the precise comparison because these depend on the chamber
21
![Page 22: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
temperature owing to the change in gas density [7,8]. In addition, pressure readings of
IGs depend on the gauge temperature due to thermal transpiration effect [8,9]. Therefore,
pijmk is compensated by using eq. (4).
),IGs(4,3for'
),SRGs(2,1for'
gref
gauge
cref
chamberTTTC
input
chamberSRG
===
===
−−
iTT
TTpccpp
iT
Tpcpp
ijmkijmkijmk
ijmkijmkijmk
(4)
where pijmk’ is the temperature compensated gauge pressure reading, cSRG is the
correction factor for the SRG, cTC and cTT are the correction factors for IGs owing to the
chamber temperature and the thermal transpiration effect, respectively. Tinput is the input
temperature of SRG (295.4 K (22.25 oC)). Tchamber is the measured chamber temperature,
Tref-c is the reference chamber temperatures of 296.15 K (23 oC), Tgauge and Tref-g are the
measured gauge temperatures of IGs and the reference gauge temperatures of 347.15 K
(74 oC) for SIG and 317.15 K (44 oC) of MG, respectively. Table 9 lists the room
temperature, the chamber temperature, and the gauge temperatures at each calibration
system. No discrepancy was observed between temperatures measured by own
thermometers and the transfer thermometers. The temperature correction factors, cSRG,
cTC, and cTT are also shown. The calibrations of NMIJ-TFS were performed at two
22
![Page 23: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Table 9 Summary of the results of temperature measurements at each calibration system. The room temperature, the chamber
temperature, and the gauge temperatures at each calibration system are listed. The temperature correction factors, cSRG, cTC, and cTT are also shown. The calibrations of NMIJ-TFS were performed at two different temperature conditions.
Own thermometers Transfer thermometers Correction factors
Troom / K
Tchamber1 / K
Tchamber2 / K
Tgauge of SIG / K
Tgauge of MG / K
cSRG cTC for IGs
cTG of SIG
cTG of MG
NMIJ-DES1 296.0 296.7 297.0 296.8 345.3 316.6 1.002 1.002 0.997 0.998
Thigh 296.5 300.4 300.2 299.7 346.6 318.2 1.008 1.014 0.999 1.003NMIJ -TFS
Tlow 292.0 295.9 295.8 295.0 341.1 313.0 1.001 0.999 0.991 0.987
KRISS 294.5 294.8 294.8 294.5 335.3 308.2 0.999 0.995 0.983 0.972
NMIJ-DES2 296.0 296.8 297.0 296.8 345.3 316.6 1.002 1.002 0.997 0.998
![Page 24: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
different temperature conditions.
The magnitudes of corrections were less than 0.1 % for SRGs and 3 % for IGs. The
corrections for IGs are, however, canceled by normalization using the calibration results
of SRG as shown in appendix A.
7.3 Calibration ratio at 9×10-4 Pa based on the SRGs
The SRGs are normally linear devices, and the ratio of the transfer standard pressure
reading to the standard pressure will be independent of the pressure around the target
pressure of 9x10-4 Pa. For SRG i, calibration system j, cycle m, reading k, the average
calibration ratio (commonly referred to as accommodation coefficient for SRGs) is
∑∑==
==ijmijm N
k jmk
ijmk
ijm
N
kijmk
ijmijm P
pN
aN
a11
'11 (5)
i has the value 1 (SRG-CE6) and 2 (SRG-CE8). N1jm = N2jm.
Figure 4 shows the calibration ratio (aijm) for the two SRGs as determined by all the
cycles of all the participants. The x-axis shows the chronological progression in the
comparison. The calibration ratio for SRG-CE8 was higher than that for SRG-CE6 for
all the calibration systems. Maximum relative difference was 2.9 % for between
24
![Page 25: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
NMIJ-TFS and KRISS. Table 10 shows the shift in the calibration ratio of SRG-CE6
and SRG-CE8 for the two calibration cycles at NMIJ-DES for the estimation of the
uncertainty of the long-term shift
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-TFS KRISS NMIJ-DES2
a ijm
a1jm (SRG-CE6)
a2jm (SRG-CE8)
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-TFS KRISS NMIJ-DES2
a ijm
a1jm (SRG-CE6)
a2jm (SRG-CE8)
Fig.4 Calibration ratio (aijm) for the two SRGs as determined by all the cycles of all the participants.
Table 10 Shift in the calibration ratio aijm measured by SRGs at NMIJ-DES at the pressure of 9×10-4 Pa.
NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-DES2 aij2 − aij1 a1jm (SRG-CE6)
1.0103 1.0150 -0.0047
a2jm (SRG-CE8)
1.0281 1.0287 -0.0006
25
![Page 26: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
7.4 Calibration ratio at 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa based on the IGs
The average calibration ratio aijm (commonly referred to as inverse of the correction
factor for IGs) is also calculated for SIG and MG by eq. (5). Figure 5 shows aijm of SIG
and MG as determined by all the cycles of all the participants.
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35NMIJ-DES1
NMIJ-TFS
KRISS
NMIJ-DES2
a3jm
(SIG)
4.2%
1.36
1.4
1.44
1.48
1.52
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
NMIJ-DES1
NMIJ-TFS
KRISS
NMIJ-DES2
Pressure (Pa)
2.8%
a4jm
(MG)a ijm
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35NMIJ-DES1
NMIJ-TFS
KRISS
NMIJ-DES2
a3jm
(SIG)
4.2%
1.36
1.4
1.44
1.48
1.52
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
NMIJ-DES1
NMIJ-TFS
KRISS
NMIJ-DES2
Pressure (Pa)
2.8%
a4jm
(MG)a ijm
Fig.5 Calibration ratio (aijm) of SIG and MG as determined by all the cycles of all the participants.
26
![Page 27: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The hot cathode ionization gauges are also normally linear devices. aijm of SIG, however,
increased at the pressure higher than 10-4 Pa, while aijm of MG was almost constant
against the change in pressure. The better linearity of MG should be caused by the
smaller emission current of MG than that of SIG. The increase of aijm of SIG was caused
by space charge effect, which increases with the emission current.
Figure 6 shows the calibration results (aijmk) for SIG and MG reported by each
calibration system. The x-axis shows the chronological progression in the comparison.
The change in ajimk of MG was much smaller than that of SIG as expected from the
results of pretests. aijmk of SIG increased during each calibration cycle and decrease after
the transportation. The magnitude of the change in aijm for SIG was 13.5 % at maximum.
On the other hand, that for MG was 2.6 % at maximum, which observed at NMIJ-TFS.
This fluctuation of data was caused by the change in temperature condition; first three
points and the last one were calibrated at high chamber temperature of 300.3 K (27.2
oC) and the rests were calibrated at low chamber temperature of 295.9 K (22.8 oC).
Although the origin of this difference was unclear, it might be caused by the change in
the temperature distribution of the calibration chamber. aijmk of MG tended to decrease
with the number of calibrations.
27
![Page 28: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
1.341.361.381.4
1.421.441.461.48
1.5%
MIG1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.251.3
1.35
1.4
3x10-6 Pa9x10-6 Pa
3x10-5 Pa9x10-5 Pa
3x10-4 Pa9x10-4 Pa
4% SIG
NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-TFS NMIJ-DES2KRISS
Thigh
Tlow
a ijm
k
MG
1.341.361.381.4
1.421.441.461.48
1.5%
MIG1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.251.3
1.35
1.4
3x10-6 Pa9x10-6 Pa
3x10-5 Pa9x10-5 Pa
3x10-4 Pa9x10-4 Pa
4% SIG
NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-TFS NMIJ-DES2KRISS
Thigh
Tlow
a ijm
k
MG
Fig.6 Calibration results (aijmk) for SIG and MG reported by each calibration system.
Comparisons for the pressure range (3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa) are based on the result of
MG only because better linearity of aijm, better stability, and no discrepancy of results
between SIG and MG in practice. Table 11 shows the shift in aijm of MG for the two
calibration cycles at NMIJ-DES to estimate the uncertainty of the long-term shift. As a
reference, those of SIG are also shown. The uncertainty of the long-term shift, uLTS(pij),
are summarized in Table 12.
28
![Page 29: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Table 11 Shift in the calibration ratio aijm measured by SIG and MG at NMIJ-DES at
the pressure from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa. PT / Pa NMIJ-DES1 NMIJ-DES2 aij2 − aij1
3×10-6 1.199 1.168 0.030 9×10-6 1.199 1.170 0.029 3×10-5 1.200 1.172 0.029 9×10-5 1.181 1.157 0.024 3×10-4 1.236 1.217 0.020
a3jm (SIG)
9×10-4 1.307 1.296 0.011 3×10-6 1.427 1.415 0.012 9×10-6 1.419 1.411 0.008 3×10-5 1.423 1.410 0.013 9×10-5 1.420 1.404 0.016 3×10-4 1.417 1.411 0.006
a4jm (MG)
9×10-4 1.420 1.410 0.009
Table 12 Relative uncertainty of the long-term shift, uLTS(pij)/pij, for SRG-CE6, SRG-CE8, and MG.
PT / Pa uLTS(p1j)/p1j
(SRG-CE6) uLTS(p2j)/p2j (SRG-CE8)
uLTS(p4j)/p4j (MG)
3×10-6 - - 0.42 % 9×10-6 - - 0.28 % 3×10-5 - - 0.45 % 9×10-5 - - 0.56% 3×10-4 - - 0.20 % 9×10-4 0.23 % 0.03 % 0.32 %
29
![Page 30: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
8. Results of the comparison
Three vacuum standards were compared by the same manner of CCM.P-K3 [1]. The
mean gauge pressure reading, pjU, is calculated from the average calibration ratio aijm for
three vacuum standards. The key comparison reference value (KCRV, or the reference
pressure pR) and the degree of equivalence are evaluated from pjU of each vacuum
standard. The calculation procedure is summarized in appendix.
8.1 Results at 9×10-4 Pa using the two SRGs
Results at 9×10-4 Pa using the two SRGs are summarized in Tables 13a and 13b. The
largest component of uc(pijm) is ustd for NMIJ-DES and NMIJ-TFS. However, uoffset is
the largest component for KRISS because of the short sampling time for SRGs. The
mean gauge reading (pjU) and its uncertainty (u(pjU)) calculated from results of two
SRGs are listed in Table 14.
30
![Page 31: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Table 13a Results for SRG-CE6 (i=1) for each cycle at each calibration system for 9×10-4 Pa. Listed are calibration ratio (aijm), predicted gauge reading (pijm), relative standard uncertainty contributions to uc(pijm), and the combined standard uncertainty uc(pijm).
Relative standard uncertainty a1jm p1jm
/ Pa
uA ustd uoffset uT uLTS uc
uc(pijm) / Pa
NMIJ -DES1
1.0103 9.0927E-04
0.18 %
0.40 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
0.23 %
0.51% 4.60 E-06
NMIJ -TFS
1.0044 9.0398E-04
0.23 %
1.37 %
0.05 %
0.17 %
0.23 %
1.42 %
1.28 E-05
KRISS 1.0298 9.2684E-04
0.53 %
0.47 %
0.85 %
0.01 %
0.23 %
1.13 %
1.05 E-05
NMIJ -DES2
1.0150 9.1347E-04
0.11 %
0.40 %
0.08 %
0.05 %
0.23 %
0.49 %
4.46 E-06
Table 13b Results for SRG-CE8 (i=2) for each cycle at each calibration system for
9×10-4 Pa. Listed are calibration ratio (aijm), predicted gauge reading (pijm), relative standard uncertainty contributions to uc(pijm), and the combined standard uncertainty uc(pijm).
Relative standard uncertainty a2jm p2jm
/ Pa
uA ustd uoffset uT uLTS uc
uc(p2jm)/ Pa
NMIJ -DES1
1.0281 9.2529E-04
0.13 %
0.40 %
0.10 %
0.05 %
0.03 %
0.44 %
4.07 E-06
NMIJ -TFS
1.0219 9.1972E-04
0.05 %
1.37 %
0.12 %
0.17 %
0.03 %
1.39 %
1.28 E-05
KRISS 1.0514 9.4623E-04
0.47 %
0.47 %
0.77 %
0.01 %
0.03 %
1.02 %
9.66 E-06
NMIJ -DES2
1.0287 9.2584E-04
0.06 %
0.40 %
0.11 %
0.05 %
0.03 %
0.43 %
3.95 E-06
31
![Page 32: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Table 14 Summary of results at 9×10-4 Pa target pressure based on calibrations of the SRGs Listed are mean gauge pressure reading (pjU), uncertainty in mean gauge pressure reading (u(pjU)), and its relative uncertainty u(pjU)/ pjU.
PT / Pa Participants pjU / Pa u(pjU) / Pa u(pjU)/ pjU
NMIJ-DES 9.1846E-04 3.87E-06 0.42 % NMIJ-TFS 9.1185 E-04 1.27 E-05 1.39 %
9×10-4
KRISS 9.3654 E-04 7.80 E-06 0.83 %
8.2 Results from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa using MG
Results from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa using MG are summarized in Table 15. Ion
gauge calibration ratios Kjm(PT) obtained by participants are shown graphically in Fig 7.
The largest component of uc(pijm) is typically ustd for all calibration system. The mean
gauge reading (pjU) and its uncertainty (u(pjU)) are listed in Table 16.
0.99
1
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
NMIJ-DES1NMIJ-TFSKRISSNMIJ-DES2
Ion
gaug
e ca
libra
tion
ratio
, Kjm
Pressure (Pa)
Fig.7 Ion gauge calibration ratios Kjm(PT) obtained by APMP.M.P-K3 participants.
32
![Page 33: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Table 15 Results for MG for each cycle at each NMI, as a function of target pressure (PT). Shown are ion gauge inverse correction factor (aijm), and its relative Type A standard uncertainty (u(aijm)/ aijm), calibration ratio (Kjm), predicted gauge reading (pjm), relative standard uncertainty contributions to uc(pjm), and uc(pjm).
Relative standard uncertainty on pjm PT
/ Pa a4jm
u u u u u
u(a4jm)/ aijm
Kjm Pjm / Pa
uA std T uBG SRG LTS c
uc(pjm) / Pa
3×10-6 1.4271 0.27 % 1.0259 3.078
E-06 0.32 % 0.47 % 0.10 % 0.04 % 0.12 % 0.42 % 0.73 % 2.24
E-08
9×10-6 1.4187 0.17 % 1.0198 9.178
E-06 0.25 % 0.41 % 0.10 % 0.01 % 0.12 % 0.28 % 0.58 % 5.33
E-08
3×10-5 1.4225 0.15 % 1.0226 3.068
E-05 0.23 % 0.41 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.45 % 0.67 % 2.04
E-07
9×10-5 1.4200 0.10 % 1.0208 9.187
E-05 0.21 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.56 % 0.74 % 6.76
E-07
3×10-4 1.4165 0.17 % 1.0183 3.055
E-04 0.25 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.20 % 0.54 % 1.64
E-06
NMIJ -DES1
9×10-4 1.4196 0.18 % 1.0205 9.185
E-04 0.18 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 %
NMIJ -TFS
3×10-6 1.4358 0.37 % 1.0201 3.060 E-06
0.39 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.04 % 0.25 % 0.42 % 1.55 % 4.73
E-08
33
![Page 34: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
9×10-6 1.4288 0.39 % 1.0151 9.136 E-06
0.41 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.01 % 0.25 % 0.28 % 1.52 % 1.39
E-07
3×10-5 1.4263 0.27 % 1.0133 3.040 E-05
0.30 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.00 % 0.25 % 0.45 % 1.53 % 4.65
E-07
9×10-5 1.4183 0.29 % 1.0077 9.069 E-05
0.31 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.00 % 0.25 % 0.56 % 1.57 % 1.42
E-06
3×10-4 1.4248 0.20 % 1.0123 3.037 E-04
0.24 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.00 % 0.25 % 0.20 % 1.47 % 4.45
E-06
9×10-4 1.4261 0.13 % 1.0132 9.119 E-04
0.13 % 1.37 % 0.34 % 0.00 %
3×10-6 1.4319 0.49 % 1.0435 3.131 E-06
0.52 % 1.39 % 0.02 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.42 % 1.68 % 5.27
E-08
9×10-6 1.4216 0.40 % 1.0361 9.324 E-06
0.44 % 0.96 % 0.02 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.28 % 1.29 % 1.20
E-07
3×10-5 1.4077 0.16 % 1.0259 3.078 E-05
0.22 % 1.03 % 0.02 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.45 % 1.34 % 4.12
E-07
9×10-5 1.3824 0.26 % 1.0075 9.067 E-05
0.31 % 1.22 % 0.02 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.56 % 1.54 % 1.39
E-06
3×10-4 1.4445 0.54 % 1.0527 3.158 E-04
0.57 % 0.45 % 0.02 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.20 % 1.02 % 3.21
E-06
KRISS
9×10-4 1.4279 0.16 % 1.0406 9.365 E-04
0.16 % 0.47 % 0.02 % 0.00 %
34
![Page 35: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
3×10-6 1.4150 0.08 % 1.0238 3.071
E-06 0.12 % 0.47 % 0.10 % 0.04 % 0.12 % 0.42 % 0.66 % 2.04
E-08
9×10-6 1.4106 0.21 % 1.0207 9.186
E-06 0.23 % 0.41 % 0.10 % 0.01 % 0.12 % 0.28 % 0.57 % 5.27
E-08
3×10-5 1.4098 0.09 % 1.0201 3.060
E-05 0.13 % 0.41 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.45 % 0.64 % 1.95
E-07
9×10-5 1.4042 0.54 % 1.0160 9.144
E-05 0.55 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.56 % 0.89 % 8.18
E-07
3×10-4 1.4109 0.05 % 1.0208 3.062
E-04 0.11 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 % 0.12 % 0.20 % 0.49 % 1.50
E-06
NMIJ -DES2
9×10-4 1.4104 0.10 % 1.0205 9.185
E-04 0.10 % 0.40 % 0.10 % 0.00 %
35
![Page 36: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Table 16 Summary of results at target pressures from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa based
on calibrations of the MG. Listed are mean gauge pressure reading (pjU), uncertainty in mean gauge pressure reading (u(pjU)), and its relative uncertainty u(pjU)/ pjU.
PT / Pa Participants pjU / Pa u(pjU) / Pa u(pjU) / pjU
NMIJ-DES 3.075E-06 1.80E-08 0.59 % NMIJ-TFS 3.060E-06 4.73E-08 1.55 %
3×10-6
KRISS 3.131E-06 5.27E-08 1.68 % NMIJ-DES 9.182E-06 4.55E-08 0.50 % NMIJ-TFS 9.136E-06 1.39E-07 1.52 %
9×10-6
KRISS 9.324E-06 1.20E-07 1.29 % NMIJ-DES 3.064E-05 1.64E-07 0.54 % NMIJ-TFS 3.040E-05 4.65E-07 1.53 %
3×10-5
KRISS 3.078E-05 4.12E-07 1.34 % NMIJ-DES 9.166E-05 5.87E-07 0.64 % NMIJ-TFS 9.069E-05 1.42E-06 1.57 %
9×10-5
KRISS 9.067E-05 1.39E-06 1.54 % NMIJ-DES 3.059E-04 1.39E-06 0.45 % NMIJ-TFS 3.037E-04 4.45E-06 1.47 %
3×10-4
KRISS 3.158E-04 3.21E-06 1.02 %
8.3 Degree of equivalence
The degree of equivalence of participants to the reference value is summarized in
Table 17. The results are shown graphically in Fig. 8. The pair-wise degree of
equivalence between the participants is summarized in Table 18. Shaded cells indicate
results where there is a lack of equivalence at k=2 level. The vacuum standard of the
three participants were found to be equivalent within the claimed uncertainty in the
36
![Page 37: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
range from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa. The lack of equivalence was shown at the pressure
of 3×10-4 Pa and 9×10-4 Pa between NMIJ-DES and KRISS, although the result of
9×10-4 Pa was marginal. The results of NMIJ-DES and NMIJ-TFS show good
equivalence at all pressures in spite of the different method.
Table 17 Summary of results at target pressures from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa. Listed
are corrected mean gauge reading (pj), difference (dj) between pj and reference pressure (pR), and associated standard uncertainties. U(dj) = 2u(dj). Shaded cells indicate results where |dj|/U(dj) exceeds 1.0.
PT / Pa
Participants pj / Pa
u(pj) / Pa
dj / Pa
u(dj) / Pa
dj / PR dj / U(dj)
NMIJ-DES 2.973E-06 1.74E-08 -2.707E-08 2.69E-08 -0.90 % -0.502NMIJ-TFS 2.959E-06 4.57E-08 -4.097E-08 5.31E-08 -1.37 % -0.386
3×10-6
KRISS 3.027E-06 5.10E-08 2.707E-08 2.69E-08 0.90 % 0.502 NMIJ-DES 8.931E-06 4.43E-08 -6.917E-08 6.26E-08 -0.77 % -0.553NMIJ-TFS 8.886E-06 1.35E-07 -1.138E-07 1.49E-07 -1.26 % -0.383
9×10-6
KRISS 9.069E-06 1.17E-07 6.917E-08 6.26E-08 0.77 % 0.553 NMIJ-DES 2.993E-05 1.61E-07 -6.636E-08 2.17E-07 -0.22 % -0.153NMIJ-TFS 2.970E-05 4.55E-07 -3.017E-07 5.04E-07 -1.01 % -0.300
3×10-5
KRISS 3.007E-05 4.02E-07 6.636E-08 2.17E-07 0.22 % 0.153 NMIJ-DES 9.049E-05 5.79E-07 4.869E-07 7.46E-07 0.54 % 0.326 NMIJ-TFS 8.953E-05 1.40E-06 -4.671E-07 1.59E-06 -0.52 % -0.147
9×10-5
KRISS 8.951E-05 1.37E-06 -4.869E-07 7.46E-07 -0.54 % -0.326NMIJ-DES 2.952E-04 1.34E-06 -4.796E-06 1.69E-06 -1.60 % -1.420NMIJ-TFS 2.931E-04 4.30E-06 -6.906E-06 4.62E-06 -2.30 % -0.748
3×10-4
KRISS 3.048E-04 3.10E-06 4.796E-06 1.69E-06 1.60 % 1.420 NMIJ-DES 8.912E-04 3.75E-06 -8.768E-06 4.22E-06 -0.97 % -1.038NMIJ-TFS 8.848E-04 1.23E-05 -1.518E-05 1.30E-05 -1.69 % -0.583
9×10-4
KRISS 9.088E-04 7.57E-06 8.768E-06 4.22E-06 0.97 % 1.038
37
![Page 38: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-4 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-4 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
9x10-4 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISS
d j / p R
3x10-4 Pa
Fig. 8 Degree of equivalence of APMP.M.P-K3 participants to the reference value
from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa. Plotted is relative difference (dj/pR) of corrected mean gauge pressure reading (pj) from reference value (pR), with expanded (k=2) uncertainty in relative difference shown as error bars.
38
![Page 39: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Table 18 Summary of degree of equivalence to reference value (dj, U(dj)) and pair-wise degree of equivalence between the participants (djj, U(djj’)). Expanded uncertainty U given at k=2. Shaded cells indicate results where |dj|/U(dj) exceeds 1.0 or |djj’|/ U(djj’) exceeds 1.0.
NMIJ-DES NMIJ-TFS KRISSPT
/ Pa Partici- pants
dj / Pa
U(dj) / Pa
djj / Pa
U(djj’) / Pa
djj / U(djj’)
djj / Pa
U(djj’) / Pa
djj / U(djj’)
djj / Pa
U(djj’) / Pa
djj / U(djj’)
NMIJ-DES -2.71E-08 5.39E-08 1.39E-08 1.19E-07 0.117 -5.41E-08 7.62E-08 -0.711
NMIJ-TFS -4.10E-08 1.06E-07 -1.39E-08 1.19E-07 -0.117 -6.80E-08 1.19E-07 -0.571
3×10-6
KRISS 2.71E-08 5.39E-08 5.41E-08 7.62E-08 0.711 6.80E-08 1.19E-07 0.571
NMIJ-DES -6.92E-08 1.25E-07 4.47E-08 3.22E-07 0.139 -1.38E-07 1.77E-07 -0.781
NMIJ-TFS -1.14E-07 2.97E-07 -4.47E-08 3.22E-07 -0.139 -1.83E-07 3.22E-07 -0.568
9×10-6
KRISS 6.92E-08 1.25E-07 1.38E-07 1.77E-07 0.781 1.83E-07 3.22E-07 0.568
NMIJ-DES -6.64E-08 4.33E-07 2.35E-07 1.10E-06 0.215 -1.33E-07 6.13E-07 -0.2173×10-5
NMIJ-TFS -3.02E-07 1.01E-06 -2.35E-07 1.10E-06 -0.215 -3.68E-07 1.10E-06 -0.336
39
![Page 40: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
KRISS 6.64E-08 4.33E-07 1.33E-07 6.13E-07 0.217 3.68E-07 1.10E-06 0.336
NMIJ-DES 4.87E-07 1.49E-06 9.54E-07 3.51E-06 0.272 9.74E-07 2.11E-06 0.462
NMIJ-TFS -4.67E-07 3.18E-06 -9.54E-07 3.51E-06 -0.272 1.99E-08 3.51E-06 0.006
9×10-5
KRISS -4.87E-07 1.49E-06 -9.74E-07 2.11E-06 -0.462 -1.99E-08 3.51E-06 -0.006
NMIJ-DES -4.80E-06 3.38E-06 2.11E-06 9.83E-06 0.215 -9.59E-06 4.78E-06 -2.008
NMIJ-TFS -6.91E-06 9.23E-06 -2.11E-06 9.83E-06 -0.215 -1.17E-05 9.83E-06 -1.190
3×10-4
KRISS 4.80E-06 3.38E-06 9.59E-06 4.78E-06 2.008 1.17E-05 9.83E-06 1.190
NMIJ-DES -1.58E-05 8.55E-06 -7.49E-06 5.62E-05 -0.133 -3.16E-05 2.42E-05 -1.308
NMIJ-TFS -8.32E-06 2.68E-05 7.49E-06 5.62E-05 0.133 -2.41E-05 5.62E-05 -0.429
9×10-4
KRISS 1.58E-05 8.55E-06 3.16E-05 2.42E-05 1.308 2.41E-05 5.62E-05 0.429
40
![Page 41: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
8.4 Discussion of the lack of equivalence between NMIJ-DES and KRISS at the
pressure of 3×10-4 Pa and 9×10-4 Pa.
The final report of CCM.P-K3 [1] shows that the KRISS results were in good
agreement with other NMIs. In general, KRISS system has no problem because KRISS
used the same system and the same measurement procedures as that of CCM.P-K3.
NMIJ/AIST believes, however, that the NMIJ/AIST results are consistent because the
sensitivity of MG should be almost constant at the pressure of lower than 10-3 Pa from
typical characteristics of hot cathode ionization gauges [14-17]. The ion gauge
calibration factor Kjm in Fig. 7 obtained in NMIJ/AIST shows a linear characteristic. In
addition, the results of CCM.P-K12 show that the flowmeter of NMIJ/AIST, whose
uncertainty is the dominant factor of that of NMIJ-DES, were in good agreement with
other NMIs [18].
It should be noted that the dynamic expansion system of KRISS has two paths of the
gas for high flow rate and low flow rate, and the path was changed between 9×10-5 Pa
and 3×10-4 Pa. It means that equivalent was observed when KRISS used the path for
low gas flow rate and was not achieved after changing the path. This might influence
the results of the comparison. Another possibility of the non-equivalence is owing to the
instability of the effective accommodation coefficient of SRGs or the difference of the
41
![Page 42: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
condition and/or the procedure for calibrations.
After all, the reason of the lack of the equivalence at the pressure of 3×10-4 Pa and
9×10-4 Pa is unclear. This non-equivalence must be solved in cooperation between
KRISS and NMIJ/AIST in the near future.
9. Linking key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 to key comparison CCM.P-K3
The results of NMIJ-DES, which have smaller uncertainties than that of NMIJ-TFS,
are used as those of NMIJ/AIST, and are linked to the corresponding CCM key
comparison, CCM.P-K3, using the results of KRISS that participated in both
comparisons. The linking were performed in the range from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa, in
which the calibration results of KRISS show an almost linear characteristics. The
calculation procedures are shown in appendix.
The degree of equivalence of NMIJ/AIST to the reference value of CCM.P-K3 is
summarized in Table 19. The results are shown graphically in Fig. 9. Error bars in this
figure show the relative expanded (k=2) uncertainty U(dj)/pR. When error bars cross
x-axis, there is equivalence to the reference value. The pair-wise degree of equivalence
between the participants of CCM.P-K3 and NMIJ/AIST is summarized in Table 20. The
NMIJ/AIST results were equivalent to the reference values and participants of
42
![Page 43: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
CCM.P-K3 within the claimed uncertainties.
Table 19 The degree of equivalence of NMIJ/AIST to the reference value of CCM.P-K3 at target pressures from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa. Listed are the deviations from the difference of CCM.P-K3 to that of APMP.M.P-K3 for KRISS (D3 − d3), the difference of NMIJ/AIST values to the CCM.P-K3 reference value (D1), and associated standard uncertainties. Expanded uncertainty U given at k=2. No cells indicate results where |dj|/U(dj) exceeds 1.0.
Standard uncertainty on D1 / Pa PT /
Pa D3 − d3
/ Pa D1 / Pa
u(p1-APMP) u(pR-CCM) u(p3-CCM) u(D1)
Dj / pR Dj/U(Dj)
3×10-6 -1.878
E-08
-4.585
E-08
5.32
E-08
5.32
E-08
5.96
E-08
6.63
E-08
-1.53 % -0.385
9×10-6 -1.312
E-07
-2.003
E-07
1.15
E-07
1.15
E-07
1.31
E-07
1.46
E-07
-2.23 % -0.765
3×10-5 -3.304
E-07
-3.967
E-07
3.50
E-07
3.50
E-07
4.12
E-07
4.54
E-07
-1.32 % -0.482
9×10-5 -4.561
E-07
3.080
E-08
8.24
E-07
8.24
E-07
1.11
E-06
1.20
E-06
0.03 % 0.014
43
![Page 44: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
3x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
9x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
3x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
9x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
3x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
9x10-6 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
3x10-5 Pa
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
NIST PTB NPL NPLI KRISS NMIJ/AIST
Dj /
p R
9x10-5 Pa
Fig.9 Degree of equivalence of CCM.P-K3 participants and NMIJ/AIST to the reference value from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa. Plotted is relative difference (dj/pR) of corrected mean gauge pressure reading (pj) from reference value (pR), with expanded (k=2) uncertainty in relative difference shown as error bars.
44
![Page 45: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Table 20 Summary of pair-wise degree of equivalence between NMIJ/AIST and participants of CCM.P-K3. Expanded uncertainty U given at k=2. No cells indicate results where |djj’|/ U(djj’) exceeds 1.0
NMIJ/AIST PT / Pa NMIs
D1j / Pa U(D1j’) / Pa D1j / (D1j’) NIST -1.285E-08 7.66E-08 -0.084 PTB 3.605E-08 8.36E-08 0.216 NPL -8.375E-08 8.51E-08 -0.492 NPLI -3.255E-08 8.58E-08 -0.190
3×10-6
KRISS -5.414E-08 8.50E-08 -0.318 NIST -1.745E-07 1.67E-07 -0.522 PTB 3.766E-08 1.84E-07 0.102 NPL -3.143E-07 1.87E-07 -0.839 NPLI -1.736E-07 1.90E-07 -0.457
9×10-6
KRISS -1.383E-07 1.86E-07 -0.373 NIST -4.294E-07 5.14E-07 -0.418 PTB 3.803E-07 5.65E-07 0.337 NPL -6.537E-07 5.75E-07 -0.568 NPLI -3.707E-07 5.89E-07 -0.315
3×10-5
KRISS -1.327E-07 5.74E-07 -0.116 NIST 1.568E-07 1.32E-06 0.060 PTB 2.571E-06 1.41E-06 0.913 NPL -6.722E-07 1.43E-06 -0.235 NPLI -3.352E-07 1.51E-06 -0.111
9×10-5
KRISS 9.738E-07 1.45E-06 0.335
10. Conclusions
KRISS and NMIJ/AIST participated into this APMP key comparison of ultra-high
45
![Page 46: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
vacuum pressure standards from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa. NMIJ/AIST used two
calibration systems; the dynamic expansion system and the two-stage flow-dividing
system. KRISS used the dynamic expansion system.
The transfer standard was sufficiently stable to meet the requirements owing to five
improvements of the protocol and the transfer standards. In other words, the uncertainty
of the vacuum standard ustd became the dominant factor of that of the corrected gauge
pressure reading, pj, typically.
The ultra-high vacuum standards of NMIJ-DES and NMIJ-TFS were found to be
equivalent with KRISS within their claimed uncertainties in the range from 3×10-6 Pa to
9×10-5 Pa and from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa, respectively. The NMIJ-DES results in the
range from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-5 Pa were transferred to the corresponding CCM key
comparison, CCM.P-K3, and it is shown that the NMIJ values were equivalent to the
CCM KCRV within the claimed uncertainties. The lack of equivalence between
NMIJ-DES and KRISS at the pressure of 3×10-4 Pa and 9×10-4 Pa is the problem to be
solved in the near future, although the bias at 9×10-4 Pa was marginal.
Acknowledgements
The invaluable advice from Dr. Woo, the chairperson of the Technical Committee on
Mass and Related Quantities (TCM) of APMP, is gratefully acknowledged.
46
![Page 47: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Contributions by several of the staff in the pressure and vacuum standards section at the
NMIJ/AIST, in particular Dr. Kobata, are gratefully acknowledged for their help and
encouragement.
47
![Page 48: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Appendix The calculation procedure for the comparison
A.1 Determination of mean gauge pressure reading, pjU
A block diagram to determinate the mean gauge pressure reading, pjU, from the
average calibration ratio aijm is shown in Fig. A1. Details are summarized in below.
Reported calibration results
SRG-CE6 SRG-CE8 SIG MG
Inverse of the correction factor from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa
Average calibration ratio, aijm
Effective accommodation coefficient at 9×10-4 Pa
Predicted gauge reading, p1jm
p2jm
pjmU
Mean cycle gauge pressure reading, pjmU
Mean gauge pressure reading, pjU, at 9×10-4 Pa
Ion gauge calibration ratio, Kjm
Normalization
pjU from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa
pjm
Fig. A1 Block diagram for the determination of mean gauge pressure reading, pjU.
48
![Page 49: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
A.1.1 pjU at 9×10-4 Pa determined from the calibration ratios of two SRGs
The calibration ratio aijm is used to calculate a predicted gauge pressure reading on
SRG i when each vacuum standard of participants j (j=1, 2, and 3 mean NMIJ-DES,
NMIJ-TFS, and KRISS, respectively) at calibration cycle m is set to target pressure, PT.
TPap ijmijm = . (A1)
The predicted gauge reading of eq. (A1) (designated by the inclusion of subscripts j and
m) is not the same as pijmk’; pijm is the actual reading of the SRG when the vacuum
standard is set to pressure PT.
A single gauge “pressure” is useful to compare the pressures of the calibration
systems to a reference pressure and to each other. For each calibration cycle of each
calibration system, a mean cycle gauge pressure reading pjmU was calculated as the
simple arithmetic of the predicted gauge readings of the two SRGs:
221
Ujmjm
jm
ppp
+= , (A2)
49
![Page 50: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
where the subscript U denotes that the gauge readings are uncorrected to the target
pressure (explanation to follow), and m refers to the cycle of the calibration cycle.
For the NMIJ-DES, a single value pjU was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the
two cycle values:
∑=
=2
1UU 2
1m
jmj pp . (A3)
For NMIJ-TFS and KRISS, the subscript m can be dropped in eq. (A2) to define pjU as
the mean gauge pressure reading, as these calibration systems had only one calibration
cycle.
A.1.2 pjU from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa determined from the calibration ratios of MG
The calibration ratio of MG from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa is normalized by that of
SRG at 9×10-4 Pa. This normalization comes from assuming the generated pressure of
the vacuum standard, at 9×10-4 Pa, was the same whether it was being measured with an
IG or an SRG. The ion gauge calibration ratio, Kjm(PT), is defined as
50
![Page 51: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
( ) ( )( ) R
U4
4
T4T 109 p
pa
PaPK j
jm
jmjm ⋅
×= − , (A4)
where pjU is determined from the SRGs at 9×10-4 Pa, and pR is numerically equal to
9×10-4 Pa. As mentioned before, this normalization cancels the temperature correction
using eq. (4) for pijmk of MG. Figure 7 shows the Kjm(PT) obtained by participants as a
function of the target pressure PT.
The predicted gauge pressure reading for MG is calculated by
( ) TT PPKp jmjm ⋅= . (A5)
Mean gauge pressure readings of pjU from 3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa are calculated from
pijm by the similar procedure shown above.
A.2 Estimation of the uncertainty of pjU at 9×10-4 Pa based on the SRGs and from
3×10-6 Pa to 3×10-4 Pa based on the MG.
The standard uncertainty in the mean gauge pressure readings, uc(pjU), at 9×10-4 Pa
51
![Page 52: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
based on the SRGs are calculated by eq. (A6) for the NMIJ-TFS and the KRISS:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )2/12
1
2LTS
2A
2offset
2T
2stdUc 4
1
++++= ∑
=iijijijjjj pupupupupupu . (A6)
For the NMIJ-DES, pjU is the mean of 4 values of pijm (2 gauges, 2 cycle):
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )2/12
1
2
1
2LTS
2A
2offset
2
1
2T
2stdU 16
141
++++= ∑∑∑
= == m iijijij
mjjjc pupupupupupu .
(A7)
Here, ustd is the uncertainty of the vacuum standard, uT is that of temperature, uoffset is
that of the offset, uA is the Type A uncertainty, in other wards the standard deviation, of
calibration results at the cycle m, and uLTS is the uncertainty owing to the long-term shift
of aijm.
The standard uncertainty in the mean gauge pressure readings, uc(pjU), from 3×10-6 Pa
to 3×10-4 Pa based on the MG are calculated by eq. (A8) for NMIJ-TFS and KRISS:
52
![Page 53: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )( )
2
4
4A
2
T
TA2A
2/12LTS
2A
2BG
2T
2SRG
2stdc
109109
×
×+
=
+++++=
−
−
ij
ij
ij
ij
ij
ij
ijijijjjjjU
SSu
PSPSu
ppu
pupupupupupupu
. (A8)
For NMIJ-DES, pjU is the mean of 2 values of pijm (1 gauge, 2 cycles):
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )( )
2
4
4A
2
T
TA2A
2/12
1
2LTS
2A
2BG
2T
2SRG
2stdUc
109109
41
×
×+
=
+++++=
−
−
=∑
ijm
ijm
ijm
ijm
ijm
ijm
mijmijmijmjjjj
SSu
PSPSu
ppu
pupupupupupupu
.
(A9)
Here, uSRG is the standard uncertainty in the mean gauge pressure from the SRGs at
9×10-4 Pa, which is calculated by eq. (A10):
( ) ( ) ( )jUjUj pupupu 2std
2cSRG −= . (A10)
The uncertainty of the long-term shift, uLTS(pij), is calculated from the difference of
calibration results before and after shipping at NMIJ-DES by eq. (A11):
53
![Page 54: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
( ) ( )1
1211LTSLTS
21
i
ii
ij
ij
ij
ij
aaa
aau
ppu −
⋅== . (A11)
Table 12 shows the relative uncertainties of long-term shift, uLTS(pij)/pij, for SRG-CE6,
SRG-CE8, and MG. These values of SRGs are comparable or a little smaller than the
previous comparisons [1,8] and the value of MG is smaller than the previous one [1].
A.3 Estimation of the key comparison reference value and the degree of
equivalence
A block diagram to estimate the key comparison reference value (KCRV, or pR) and
the degree of equivalence is summarized in Fig. A2.
The uncorrected reference pressure as pRU is determined by the arithmetic mean
between p1U (NMIJ-DES) and p3U KRISS:
2U3U1
RUppp +
= . (A12)
Here, p2U (NMIJ-TFS) is not included because it has a correlation with p1U
(NMIJ-DES).
54
![Page 55: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
p1U for NMIJ-DES p2U for NMIJ-TFS p3U for KRISS
Uncorrected reference pressure, pRU
Scaling factor, fc
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p1
Difference, d1 Difference, d2 Difference, d3
Degree of equivalence
Expanded uncertainty in the difference, U(d1)
U(d2) U(d3)
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p2
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p3
Reference pressure, pRU
p1U for NMIJ-DES p2U for NMIJ-TFS p3U for KRISS
Uncorrected reference pressure, pRU
Scaling factor, fc
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p1
Difference, d1 Difference, d2 Difference, d3
Degree of equivalence
Expanded uncertainty in the difference, U(d1)
U(d2) U(d3)
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p2
Corrected mean gauge pressure reading, p3
Reference pressure, pRU
Fig. A2 Block diagram for the estimation of the key comparison reference value (KCRV, or pR) and the degree of equivalence.
The scaling factor, fc, which sets the reference pressure is numerically equal to the target
pressure, is determined by eq. (A13):
RU
Tc p
Pf = . (A13)
55
![Page 56: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
The reference pressure and its uncertainty are determined by eq. (A14):
( ) ( ) ( )( ) 2/13
2c1
2cR
U3U1cRUcR
21
2
pupupu
ppfpfp
+=
+=⋅=
. (A14)
The scaling factors and reference pressure uncertainties are listed in Table A1.
Table A1 Uncorrected reference pressure, pRU, scaling factor, fc, reference pressure (KCRV), pR, and standard uncertainty in reference pressure, u(pR) as a function of target pressure.
PT / Pa pRU / Pa fc pR / Pa u(pR) / Pa u(pR) / pR 3×10-6 3.103E-06 0.9669 3.000 E-06 2.69E-08 0.898 % 9×10-6 9.253E-06 0.9726 9.000 E-06 6.26E-08 0.695 % 3×10-5 3.071E-05 0.9769 3.000 E-05 2.17E-07 0.722 % 9×10-5 9.116E-05 0.9872 9.000 E-05 7.46E-07 0.829 % 3×10-4 3.108E-04 0.9651 3.000 E-04 1.69E-06 0.563 % 9×10-4 9.275E-04 0.9703 9.000 E-04 4.22E-06 0.469 %
The corrected mean gauge pressure reading obtained by each participant and its
56
![Page 57: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
uncertainty can be expressed as:
( ) ( Uc
Uc
jj
jj
pufpu
pfp
⋅=
⋅=
). (A15)
The degree of equivalence is defined as the difference of the laboratory result from
the reference value along with the uncertainty of the difference. The difference, dj, is:
Uppd jj −= , (A16)
and its uncertainty for NMIJ-DES and KRISS is:
( ) ( Rpudu j = )
)
. (A17)
For NMIJ-TFS, the uncertainty is:
( ) ( ) ( )( 2/12
2cR
2 pupudu j += . (A18)
57
![Page 58: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Equivalence to the KCRV is evaluated by comparing the difference dj to the expanded
(k=2) uncertainty in the difference 2u(dj). There is equivalence if:
( ) ( ) 0.12
≤=j
j
j
j
du
d
dU
d. (A19)
Degree of equivalence between participants and its uncertainty are given by pair-wise
difference in the deviation from the reference pressure and the associated uncertainty:
( ) ( ) ( )( 2/1'
2c
2c'
'''
jjjj
jjjjjj
pupudu
ppddd
+=
−=−=
) . (A20)
There is equivalence if:
( ) ( ) 0.12 '
'
'
'≤=
jj
jj
jj
jj
du
d
dU
d. (A21)
A.4 Method for linking key comparison APMP.M.P-3 to key comparison
CCM.P-K3
58
![Page 59: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
The results of NMIJ-DES were used as those of NMIJ-DES. The degrees of
equivalence of NMIJ/AIST can be transferred to CCM.P-K3 comparison using:
1331 ddDD +−= , (A22)
where D1 and d1 are the differences of NMIJ/AIST values from the reference values of
CCM.P-K3 and APMP.M.P-K3, respectively, and D3 and d3 are those of KRISS.
The expansion of eq. (A22) is:
( ) ( ) ( )( )
3CCMAPMP1
APMP3CCM3CCMAPMP1
APMPAPMP1APMPAPMP3CCMCCM31
ppppppp
ppppppD
R
R
RRR
∆+−=−+−=
−+−−−=
−−
−−−−
−−−−−−
, (A23)
where p3-CCM, p3-APMP, and ∆p3 are the corrected mean gauge pressure reading of KRISS
at CCM.P-K3 and at APMP.M.P-K3, and their difference, respectively, p1-APMP is the
corrected mean gauge pressure reading of NMIJ/AIST at APMP.M.P-K3, and pR-CCM
and pR-APMP are the reference pressure of CCM.P-K3 and of APMP.M.P-K3,
respectively.
The D1 is calculated from eq.(A22). The uncertainties of D1 are calculated to be:
59
![Page 60: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )32
CCMR2
APMP12
11 22 pupupuDuDU ∆++== −− , (A24)
from eq.(A23). Although ∆p3 is the difference between p3-CCM and p3-APMP, it is assumed
that the u(∆p3) is equal to the u(p3-CCM) to avoid double-counting because there is a
correlation between p3-CCM and p3-APMP. u(p3-CCM) is comparable or a little bit larger than
the u(p3-APMP).
The pair wise differences between the participants of CCM.P-K3 and NMIJ/AIST
were also calculated by the similar method shown in the section 3 of the
appendix.
60
![Page 61: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Reference
[1] D.A. Olson, P.J. Abbott, K. Jousten, F.J. Redgrave, P. Mohan, S.S. Hong, “Final
report of key comparison CCM.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from
3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa”, Metrologia 47 (2010) Tech. Suppl. 07004.
[2] Kenta Arai, Hitoshi Akimichi and Masahiro Hirata, “Development of a Constant
Pressure Type Flowmeter for the Vacuum Standard”, Journal of the Vacuum Society of
Japan, Vol. 53 (2010) No. 10, pp.614-620
[3] Hajime Yoshida, Masanori Shiro, Kenta Arai, Hitoshi Akimichi, Masahiro Hirata,
“Calculation and uncertainty evaluation of conductance of a precise orifice for
orifice-flow method”, Vacuum 84 (2010) 277–279.
[4] Hajime Yoshida, Kenta Arai, Hitoshi Akimichi, and Masahiro Hirata, “Two-stage
flow-dividing system for the calibration of vacuum gauges”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 26
(1) (2008) 128-132.
[5] Hong, S.S., Shin, Y.H., and Chung, K.H., “Measurement uncertainties for vacuum
standards at Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A
24(5) (2006) 1831-1838.
[6] Karl Jousten, Mercede Bergoglio, Anita Calcatelli, Jean-Noel Durocher, John
61
![Page 62: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Greenwood, Rifat Kangi, Jean-Claude Legras, Carmen Matilla, Janez Setina, “Final
report on the regional key comparison Euromet.M.P-K1.b (Euromet Project 442, Phase
B) in the pressure range from 3·10-4 Pa to 0.9 Pa”, Metrologia 42 (2005) Tech. Suppl.
07001.
[7] Karl Jousten, “Temperature corrections for the calibration of vacuum gauges”,
Vacuum 49 (1998) 81–87.
[8] Masahiro Hirata, “Effect of Room Temperature and Wind on the Sensitivity of a Hot
Cathode Ionization Gauge”, Sinku 37 (1994):224–227 [in Japanese].
[9] P. J. Abbott, J. P. Looney, P. Mohan, “The effect of ambient temperature on the
sensitivity of hot-cathode ionization gauge”, Vacuum 77 (2005) 217-222.
[10] K. F. Poulter, C. M. Sutton, “Long term behavior of ionization gauge”, Vacuum 31
(1981) 147–150.
[11] S.D. Wood, C. R. Tiflord, “Long-term stability of two types of hot cathode
ionization gauges”, J Vac Sci Technol A 3 (1985) 542–545.
[12] Detian Li, Karl Jousten, “Comparison of the stability of hot and cold cathode
ionization gauges”, J Vac Sci Technol A 21 (2003) 937–946.
[13] Hajime Yoshida, Kenta Arai, Hitoshi Akimichi, Masahiro Hirata, “Stability tests of
ionization gauges using two-stage flow-dividing system”, Vacuum 84 (2010) 705–708.
62
![Page 63: Final report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 … report of key comparison APMP.M.P-K3 absolute pressure measurements in gas from 3×10-6 Pa to 9×10-4 Pa H. Yoshida 1, K. Arai1, H. Akimichi1,](https://reader031.vdocument.in/reader031/viewer/2022022117/5c9de46688c993b4368bb514/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
[14] C. R. Tiford, “Reliability of high vacuum measurements”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A
1(2) (1983) 152-162.
[15] L. Warshawsky, “Calibration stability of some hot-cathode ion gauges”, J. Vac. Sci.
Technol. A 3 (2) (1985) 430-432.
[16] P. Nash, “Some observations on the calibration of two types of ultrahigh vacuum
ion gauges”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 5 (5) (1987) 3247-3248.
[17] M. Hirata and M. Ono, “Pressure dependence of the sensitivity of a triode gauge”,
Vacuum, Vol. 41, 2093-2095 (1990)
[18] Karl Jousten, “Draft A report of key comparison CCM.P-K12 flow rate of helium
leak artifacts”, [unpublished].