IFME 3010 Lab 1 – Pressure Gauges

Prepared for: Dave Springford

Prepared by: Zachary Heuss

Date performed: Monday January 14th, 2019

Group Members: Bawi Lavawng, Daniel Boudreau, Edward Williams, Tarantej Sandhu
Objective
In this lab the calibration of two types of pressure gauges was evaluated by means of a Dead-Weight

Gauge Tester.

Experimental Data
Pressures were read from both the Bourdon-tube and Digital Gauges (See Figure 5: Experimental Data

in Appendices). These pressures were obtained by adding weights to a Dead-Weight Gauge Tester.

Measuring the piston rod diameter to be 0.505” the cross-sectional area was calculated to be:

𝜋 2 𝜋
𝐴𝐶𝑆 = 𝐷 = (0.505)2 = 5 𝑖𝑛2
4 4

Page | 1
Analysis of Results
The Dead-Weight Gauge Tester works by creating a fluid system in equilibrium. As more weight is

added to the Calibrated Weight Table the pressure increases. The Handcrank Piston is cranked in to

increase the system pressure until the Calibrated Weight Table is completely supported by the oil.

Figure 1: Dead-Weight Gauge Tester

Using weights of 5, 10, and 25 lb, the theoretical pressure was calculated for each increase having

calculated the ACS of the piston to be 5 in2. The indicated pressures were compared to the theoretical

pressures and the %error was taken with respect to both the known pressures and the full-scale

pressures for both gauges.

Page | 2
The data in Figure 2: Indicated vs Known Results shows that both gauges measure closer to the ideal

value around 100 psig. This indicates that the output will tend to diverge from the ideal at the outsides

of the range.

Indicated Pressures vs Known Pressure

210
200
190
180
170
160
150 Bourdon-tube
Gauge
Indicated Pressure [psig]

140
130
120 Digital Gauge
110
100
90 Ideal
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Known Pressure [psig]

Figure 2: Indicated vs Known Results

The data in Figure 3: %Error w.r.t. Known vs Known Results shows that the gauge readings for the

Bourdon-tube Gauge were found to be within 10% error over the range of 50-200 psig. The readings

from the Digital Gauge were found to be within 10% error over the range of 30-200 psig. This shows

that both gauges perform poorly at lower pressures and that the Digital gauge is slightly more accurate

at higher readings.

Page | 3
 %Error w.r.t. Known Pressure vs Known Pressure
10.00%
5.00%
% Error w.r.t. Known Pressure

0.00%
-5.00% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
-10.00% %Error Known
Bourdon-tube
-15.00%
%Error Known
-20.00% Digital
-25.00% ideal
-30.00%
-35.00%
-40.00%
-45.00%
Known Pressure

Figure 3: %Error w.r.t. Known vs Known Results

The data in Figure 4: %Error w.r.t. Full-Scale Maximum Pressure shows that the accuracy of the

Bourdon-tube Gauge tends to decrease as the measured pressures approach the extremes of the

gauge’s range, reaching peak accuracy around the range of 100 psig. The Digital gauge was found to

maintain a stead accuracy of ~0.6% error over 77% of the tested range. This shows that the digital

scale is more accurate overall and less prone to errors when measuring away from the ideal range.

%Error w.r.t. Full-Scale Maximum

3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
%Error w.r.t. Full-Scale Maximum

2.0%
1.5%
%Error Full-Scale
1.0%
Bourdon-tube
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 %Error Full-Scale
-1.0% Digital
-1.5%
-2.0%
-2.5%
-3.0%
-3.5%
Known Pressure

Figure 4: %Error w.r.t. Full-Scale Maximum Pressure

Page | 4
Discussion
The results have shown that the gauges are calibrated effectively for their desired ranges of

measurement. The Bourdon-tube Gauge is calibrated accurately (>3% error) when measuring in the

range of 70-140 psig and the Digital Gauge is accurately calibrated when measuring in the range of

100-200 psig (with a trend of continued accuracy at pressures greater than 200 psig). This shows that

the Bourdon-tube Gauge has a lower (and possibly smaller when compared with higher pressures)

ideal range than the Digital Gauge, which is to be expected since the Digital Gauge has a much higher

Full-Scale Maximum.

The results have also shown that the Digital Gauge will vary less (Figure 4) than the Bourdon-tube

Gauge when looking at its entire range.

Conclusion
In conclusion the various weights were added to a Dead-Weight Gauge Tester and the corresponding

pressures were noted and compared with theoretical values. The results proved that the gauges were

effectively calibrated when looking within ranges of 70-140 psig for the Bourdon-tube Gauge and 100-

200+ psig for the Digital Gauge.

Page | 5
References
- Chandlereng.com. (2019). Deadweight Testers and Gauges Instruction Manual. [online]

Available at: https://www.chandlereng.com/-

/media/ametekchandlereng/files/pdfs/deadweight%20testers%20%20gauges%20manual.pdf

[Accessed 21 Jan. 2019].

- Mott, R. and Untener, J. (2016). Applied fluid mechanics. 7th ed. Boston u.a.: Pearson.

- Wika.ca. (2019). Bourdon Tube Pressure Gauge | WIKA Instruments Canada - WIKA Canada.

[online] Available at:

https://www.wika.ca/landingpage_bourdon_tube_pressure_gauge_en_ca.WIKA [Accessed 21

Jan. 2019].

Page | 6
Appendices
Test Date Bourdon-tube Gauge Digital Gauge
Full-Scale Maximum of Gauge = 250psi Full-Scale Maximum of Gauge = 500psi

add
Disk Pressure Known Error = Error = Error %
Indicated Error % of Error % of Indicated Error % of
Weight due to Test Indicated Indicated of
Pressure Known Full Scale Pressure Full Scale
Added Weight Pressure - Known - Known Known
Table

[psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig]

0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.0% -2 -2 0.00% -0.4%
0 5 5 0 -5 -100.00% -2.0% 2 -3 -60.00% -0.6%
+5 5 10 0 -10 -100.00% -4.0% 7 -3 -30.00% -0.6%
+5 5 15 0 -15 -100.00% -6.0% 12 -3 -20.00% -0.6%
+5 5 20 12 -8 -40.00% -3.2% 17 -3 -15.00% -0.6%
+5 5 25 18 -7 -28.00% -2.8% 22 -3 -12.00% -0.6%
+5 5 30 24 -6 -20.00% -2.4% 27 -3 -10.00% -0.6%
+5 5 35 29 -6 -17.14% -2.4% 32 -3 -8.57% -0.6%
+5 5 40 35 -5 -12.50% -2.0% 37 -3 -7.50% -0.6%
+5 5 45 40 -5 -11.11% -2.0% 42 -3 -6.67% -0.6%
+5 5 50 46 -4 -8.00% -1.6% 47 -3 -6.00% -0.6%
+10 5 60 56 -4 -6.67% -1.6% 57 -3 -5.00% -0.6%
+10 5 70 68 -2 -2.86% -0.8% 67 -3 -4.29% -0.6%
+10 5 80 78 -2 -2.50% -0.8% 77 -3 -3.75% -0.6%
+10 5 90 89 -1 -1.11% -0.4% 87 -3 -3.33% -0.6%
+10 5 100 100 0 0.00% 0.0% 97 -3 -3.00% -0.6%
+10 5 110 112 2 1.82% 0.8% 107 -3 -2.73% -0.6%
+10 5 120 123 3 2.50% 1.2% 117 -3 -2.50% -0.6%
+10 5 130 132 2 1.54% 0.8% 127 -3 -2.31% -0.6%
+10 5 140 144 4 2.86% 1.6% 137 -3 -2.14% -0.6%
+10 5 150 155 5 3.33% 2.0% 148 -2 -1.33% -0.4%
+10 5 160 166 6 3.75% 2.4% 158 -2 -1.25% -0.4%
+10 5 170 176 6 3.53% 2.4% 168 -2 -1.18% -0.4%
+10 5 180 186 6 3.33% 2.4% 177 -3 -1.67% -0.6%
+10 5 190 198 8 4.21% 3.2% 188 -2 -1.05% -0.4%
+10 5 200 208 8 4.00% 3.2% 199 -1 -0.50% -0.2%

Figure 5: Experimental Data

Page | 7