Lab Report Group 1
Lab Report Group 1
College of Engineering
ME 415 – ME LABORATORY 1
LABORATORY REPORT NO. 1: CALIBRATION OF PRESSURE GAUGE
SUBMITTED BY:
GROUP NO. 1
BAJIO, JIRAH B.
BALAZON, SHAINA MAE
EVANGELISTA, NATHAN
LINGERAS, JANET
MACARAIG, KYLHA SHAYNE D.
MAULLION, MARY JOY
PACIA, CYRILL JADE
VALDEZ, KIM ISAAC
VERGARA, JENAR JOSE
ME 3106
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JOMARIE G. MARIQUINA
INSTRUCTOR
College of Engineering
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the main instruments used for measuring are pressure gauges. They are widely
used in industries and a variety of sectors, used for something as simple as inflating car
device that measures the state of a liquid or gas by calculating the force that the fluid would
apply to a unit area if it were at rest, such as pounds per square inch or newtons per square
centimeter. Gauge pressure is the reading on a gauge that represents the difference between
two pressures. The total or absolute pressure is the sum of the gauge and atmospheric
Since this device is commonly used, it must be kept in adequate conditions and have its
maintenance for at least every 12 months. If it is left unattended, the equipment could stray
from its specifications, which would make it impossible to establish the instrument's past
performance and could have serious effects on production and process. Calibration is
required when an instrument has been subjected to an unexpected shock or vibration that
might have pushed it above its intended limitations. It could be necessary to send the
pressure gauge out for a second calibration if its look changed between calibrations, or if
accurately. It requires a handful amount of knowledge in the process, as such, this activity
is done to study how to calibrate pressure gauges and to test whether it works accurately.
College of Engineering
II. OBJECTIVES
3.3 Calculate the Final Results by Averaging Increasing and Decreasing Cycle.
Pressure Calibrator:
calibrate or check the reading of another pressure measuring equipment. These tools
are also known as pressure standards. The calibrator pressure must be more precise than
the device being calibrated. The standard calibration ratio is 4:1. Accordingly, the
College of Engineering
regulator that can regulate a supply pressure and maintain a precise pressure output may
be present, or it may include an internal pump that can produce the pressures needed
for calibration.
Motor Oil:
Engines have moving parts that rub against one another, wasting heat instead of kinetic
which can cause the engine to run less efficiently and become less reliable. In addition
to extending the life of engines, proper lubrication reduces fuel use and wasted power.
By separating the surfaces of adjacent moving parts with lubricating oil, frictional heat
College of Engineering
IV. PROCEDURE
1. Test Points from 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, to 100% should be noted down using tables.
2. Fix the Master Gauge and Unit on the Gauge Comparator under calibration.
3. Preload your device. Gently apply full-scale pressure to Test Gauge (UUC) and then
4. Keep an eye on the UUC and Master Gage readings at each test point during the
5. In order to stabilize the pressure, at least 30 seconds should pass before taking an
observation on each test site. Take pictures of the master gauge every reading to
avoid inaccurate information. List down all the data in the tables.
College of Engineering
Table 1 depicts the gathered data for the increasing cycle of pressure reading under
calibration points from 0% to 100% whereas it has been set under the test gauge or universal
unit calibration range the designated pressure extents that the calibrated readings would be
compared to. As perceived in the input, 0 psi corresponds to the least calibration point followed
by 15 psi for 25 % until it reaches 60 psi which is the maximum amount of pressure assigned
to the highest calibration point. Upon setting the dead weight apparatus and allotting 30 seconds
before recording the pressure, it can be discerned from the data the ascending order of the
calibrated readings of the master gauge specifically having readings from 0 psi, then 14.9 psi,
28.6 psi, 39.8 psi and 51.7 psi at the highest calibration point. This implies that with the
calibration points getting higher along with the assigned pressures under the test gauge, the
readings of the master gauge go higher as well in line with the increasing calibration points.
Considering the prevalence of pressure gauges in the process sector, it stands to reason
that these instruments would benefit from periodic calibration, just as would any other type of
measuring device. The fact that gauges are mechanical instruments also increases the
possibility that they will drift as a result of mechanical stress. Pressure gauges are divided into
different accuracy classes that specify the accuracy of the gauge as well as other attributes and
as for the activity performed, the reference points for the pressure used are 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60
psi. If we simplify the principle of a pressure gauge calibration to its minimum, we can say that
when we calibrate a pressure gauge, we provide a known accurate pressure input and read the
College of Engineering
indication on the gauge, and then document and compare these. The error is the numerical
disparity between the two measurements, and it must be less than the tolerance for the gauge.
The measurement uncertainties computed out of the reference and calibrated pressure readings
are also in increasing manner with 0 psi at the first calibration point, followed by ± 0.1 psi, ±
1.4 psi, ± 5.2 psi, and ± 8.3 psi for the calibration points, 25, 50, 75 and 100%, respectively.
The table above displays the pressure's decreasing cycle, which begins at the calibration
points' and test gauge's maximum pressure scale. The pressure on the equipment is reduced by
turning the wheel counterclockwise once it reaches its greatest measurement of pressure. The
pressure of the master gauge similarly drops when the test gauge does. First calibration point
is 100% which is the test gauge is at 60 psi and the master gauge reading is 39psi, we saw a
large discrepancy between the reading data compared to the test gauge reading for the reason
College of Engineering
that the equipment don’t have precise outcome, as a result the measure uncertainty is equal to
± 21 psi. Second calibration point is at 75% with a test gauge value of 45 psi, the master gauge
reading comes up to 45 psi, as a result the measure of uncertainty yields ± 5 psi. Third
calibration point is at 50% with a test gauge value of 30psi, the master gauge reading comes up
to 29.8 psi, as a result the measure of uncertainty yields ± 0.2 psi. We observed that there is a
small difference between the test gauge value and the master gauge reading. Fourth calibration
point is at 25% with a test gauge value of 15 psi, the master gauge reading comes up to 13.7
psi, as a result the measure of uncertainty is ± 1.3 psi. The final calibration point is at 0% with
a test gauge value of 0 psi, the master gauge reading comes up to 0 psi, as a result the measure
of uncertainty is at 0 psi. Moreover, the measurement of uncertainty initially starts at ±21 , and
goes to ±5 , then down to ±0.2, next is ± 1.3 psi until it reaches zero uncertainty.
College of Engineering
Table 3 displays the outcomes of the increasing and decreasing cycles. Calibration
points, test gauge, master gauge, and measurement uncertainty are the four columns in the
table. The pressure in the test gauge at the calibration point of 0% measures 0 psi, and the
average of the increasing and decreasing cycle in the master gauge also registers 0 psi, resulting
in a measurement uncertainty of 0 psi for the pressure result. The test gauge records a pressure
reading of 15 psi at the 25% calibration point, and the master gauge records an average pressure
of 14.3 psi for the cycle's increasing and lowering outcomes. The measurement uncertainty at
this point is ± 0.7 psi. At the 50% calibration point, the test gauge reads 30 psi, and the master
gauge reads 29.2 psi as the average of the increasing and decreasing cycle results. At this point,
the measurement uncertainty is 0.8 psi. The test gauge registers a pressure of 45 psi at the 75%
calibration point, while the master gauge registers an average pressure of 39.9 psi for both
cycles of increasing and decreasing pressure. At this point, the measurement uncertainty is 4.6
psi. The test gauge records a pressure of 60 psi at the point of 100% calibration, while the
master gauge records an average pressure of 45.35 psi throughout both cycles of increasing and
VI. CONCLUSION
To conclude, using a dead weight tester method and its apparatus to calibrate the pressure
gauge would give an overall good result but there are many effects that could change or
decrease the accuracy of the gauge. The results show a minimal measurement uncertainty.
These effects are due to some unstable position of the equipment and also upon driving the fine
College of Engineering
control screw press, the thread comes to short. This may also affect the position of the pointer
of the gauge. Air bubbles were also found inside the tubes which may also affect the gauge
reading. The result of the test gauge and master gauge are directly proportional to each other.
VII. DOCUMENTATION
College of Engineering
College of Engineering
College of Engineering