Abstract
Thermal hysteresis of platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) was investigated in the temperature range of −196 °C to 450 °C. The wider the measured temperature range of the PRT hysteresis, the higher the observed hysteresis effect of the PRT near the mid-point of the temperature range. The magnitude of the hysteresis, defined as the difference in the resistance converted to an equivalent temperature difference between heating and cooling processes has been observed to reach up to 100 mK in PRTs used over the full temperature range. However, some PRTs did not conclusively exhibit hysteresis even in the widest temperature range, and the upper bound of hysteresis corresponded to only a few millikelvin. Clear hysteresis of the PRTs in this work was repeatable at a quantitative level, and the hysteresis of the PRTs in a wider temperature range was larger than the value linearly scaled from the measured hysteresis in a narrower temperature range. Therefore, when assessing the uncertainty associated with the hysteresis of PRTs, hysteresis should be measured in the complete temperature range of the calibration process and the calibration process should be designed so as to give a reliable estimate of the hysteresis. During the investigation of the relaxation time scale, the PRTs were intentionally undercooled below the temperature of the designated measurement point in a controlled manner to assess the impact on hysteresis. It was observed that such deviation from the prescribed treatment of the PRT during hysteresis measurement could result in an underestimation of the hysteresis. Therefore, it is best to strictly abide by the supposed direction of temperature change to accurately obtain the upper bound of the hysteresis uncertainty in a given temperature range.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated or analyzed during the current study are included in this published article or available at Mendeley Data (http://doi.org/10.17632/8s2c6wghpy.1).
References
D.J. Curtis, in Temperature: Its Measurement and Control in Science and Industry. ed. by J.F. Schooley (AIP, New York, 1982), pp.803–812
Consultative Committee for Thermometry, CMC review protocol for calibration of industrial thermometers. https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cct/publications. Accessed 2 May 2023.
N.M. Ali, H. Othman, M.-K. Ho et al., Metrologia 54, 03001 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/54/1A/03001
D.R. White, C.L. Jongenelen, P. Saunders, Int. J. Thermophys. 31, 1676 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-010-0821-x
R.L. Rusby, D. Machin, Int. J. Thermophys. 38, 117 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-017-2250-6
W.E. Murdock, G.F. Strouse, NCSLI Meas. 5(1), 52 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/19315775.2010.11721505
V. Žužek, V. Batagelj, J. Bojkovski, Int. J. Thermophys. 31, 1771 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-010-0823-8
K.S. Gam, I. Yang, Y.-G. Kim, Int. J. Thermophys. 32, 2388 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-011-1041-8
S. Ljungblad, M. Holmsten, L.-E. Josefson, B. Klevedal, AIP Conf Proc. 1552, 421 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4819578
D. Zvizdić, D. Šestan, AIP Conf Proc. 1552, 445 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4819582
H. Preston-Thomas, Metrologia 27, 3 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/27/1/002
ASTM E644–11, Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance Thermometers (2019).
J.V. Nicholas, D.R. White, Traceable Temperature, 2nd edn. (Wiley, Chichester, 2001), pp.223–225
IEC 60751 Edition 3.0, Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers and Platinum Temperature Sensors (2022).
OIML R 84 Edition 2003(E), Platinum, Copper, and Nickel Resistance Thermometers (for Industrial and Commercial Use) (2003). https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_r/r084-e03.pdf. Accessed 7 Jul 2023.
I. Yang, Y.H. Lee, Dataset for hysteresis uncertainty of PRTs. Mendeley Data (2023). https://doi.org/10.17632/8s2c6wghpy.1
JCGM 100:2008, Evaluation of measurement data: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008). https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.
Funding
This work was supported by the Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science under the project “Research on Measurement Standards for Redefinition of SI Units” (Grant Number KRISS-2023-GP2023-0001).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by YHL. Data analysis was performed by IY. The first draft of the manuscript was written by IY, and both authors reviewed the subsequent versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, I., Lee, Y.H. Assessment of Hysteresis Uncertainty in the Calibration of Platinum Resistance Thermometers. Int J Thermophys 44, 122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-023-03229-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-023-03229-8