As opposed to SPRTs, the IPRTs succumb to hysteresis when submitted to change of temperature. This uncertainty component, although acknowledged as omnipresent at many other types of sensors (pressure, electrical, magnetic, humidity, etc.) has often been disregarded in their calibration certificates' uncertainty budgets in the past, its determination being costly, time-consuming and not appreciated by customers and manufacturers. In general, hysteresis is a phenomenon that results in a difference in an item's behavior when approached from a different path. Thermal hysteresis results in a difference in resistance at a given temperature based on the thermal history to which the PRTs were exposed. The most prominent factor that contributes to the hysteresis error in an IPRT is a strain within the sensing element caused by the thermal expansion and contraction. The strains that cause hysteresis error are closely related to the strains that cause repeatability error. Therefore, it is typical that PRTs that exhibit small hysteresis also exhibit small repeatability error, and PRTs that exhibit large hysteresis have poor repeatability. Aim of this paper is to provide hysteresis characterization of a batch of IPRTs using the same type of thin-film sensor, encapsulated by same procedure and same company and to estimate to what extent the thermal hysteresis obtained by testing one single thermometer (or few thermometers) can serve as representative of other thermometers of the same type and manufacturer. This investigation should also indicate the range of hysteresis departure between IPRTs of the same type. Hysteresis was determined by cycling IPRTs temperature from 100 °C through intermediate points up to 600 °C and subsequently back to 100 °C. Within that range several typical sub-ranges are investigated: 100 °C to 400 °C, 100 °C to 500 °C, 100 °C to 600 °C, 300 °C to 500 °C and 300 °C to 600 °C . The hysteresis was determined at various temperatures by comparison calibration with SPRT. The results of investigation are presented in a graphical form for all IPRTs, ranges and calibration points.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
11 September 2013
TEMPERATURE: ITS MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL IN SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY, VOLUME 8: Proceedings of the Ninth International Temperature Symposium
19–23 March 2012
Los Angeles, California, USA
Research Article|
September 11 2013
Hysteresis of thin film IPRTs in the range 100 °C to 600 °C
D. Zvizdić;
D. Zvizdić
Laboratory for Process Measurements, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture Ivana Luèiæa 5, 10000 Zagreb,
Croatia
Search for other works by this author on:
D. Šestan
D. Šestan
Laboratory for Process Measurements, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture Ivana Luèiæa 5, 10000 Zagreb,
Croatia
Search for other works by this author on:
AIP Conf. Proc. 1552, 445–450 (2013)
Citation
D. Zvizdić, D. Šestan; Hysteresis of thin film IPRTs in the range 100 °C to 600 °C. AIP Conf. Proc. 11 September 2013; 1552 (1): 445–450. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4819582
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Citing articles via
Social mediated crisis communication model: A solution for social media crisis?
S. N. A. Hamid, N. Ahmad, et al.
The effect of a balanced diet on improving the quality of life in malignant neoplasms
Yu. N. Melikova, A. S. Kuryndina, et al.
Design of a 100 MW solar power plant on wetland in Bangladesh
Apu Kowsar, Sumon Chandra Debnath, et al.
Related Content
Bilateral comparison of an IPRT between KRISS and SIC
AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2013)
A Simplified Method for Calibration of PRTs Used in Heat Meters
AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2003)
Investigation of W(T90) Functions for Low‐α PRTs in the Sub‐ranges above 0 °C
AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2003)
Stability test of industrial platinum resistance thermometers at 450 °C for 1000 hours
AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2013)
Comparison between classical GUM and Bayesian uncertainty estimation approaches in SPRT calibrations
AIP Conference Proceedings (September 2013)