Hysteresis and Instability in Some IPRT Sensors Within Temperature Ranges Extending from \(-196\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) to \(150\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\)

  • R. L. RusbyEmail author
  • D. Machin
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. TEMPMEKO 2016: Selected Papers of the 13th International Symposium on Temperature, Humidity, Moisture and Thermal Measurements in Industry and Science


Industrial platinum resistance thermometer (IPRT) sensors or probes suffer from some instability on cycling over significant ranges of temperature and, specifically, from hysteresis in which the resistance tends to follow different paths for increasing temperatures compared with decreasing temperatures. The effect is well known, and cases of quite large hysteresis have been reported in the literature. Therefore, in establishing calibration and measurement capabilities for IPRT calibrations it is important to include an assessment of the performance which can be expected of a ‘typical good’ IPRT and to include this in the overall uncertainty which the laboratory can expect to achieve in such calibrations, even though the effect itself is outside the laboratory’s control. This paper presents results which have been obtained in cycling IPRT probes from four sources within various temperature ranges of current interest at NPL, between \(-196\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) and \(150\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\), to see what levels of hysteresis may be expected. The cycles were carried out quite quickly in order to detect the hysteresis before it was mitigated by relaxation effects, but the time dependence was not itself studied. In most cases, hysteresis was \({<}0.0025\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) between \(0\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) and \(100\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\), and \({<}0.0035\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) when the range extended down to \(-80\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) or up to \(150\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\). Greater instability occurred when the sensors were cooled to \(-196\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\).


Calibration Hysteresis ITS-90 Platinum resistance thermometer 



This work was funded by the UK National Measurement System for Engineering and Flow Metrology. The authors are grateful to Dr. C. J. Elliott and to the journal reviewers for many helpful comments and suggestions for improvements to this paper.


  1. 1.
    IEC 60751:2008, Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers and Platinum Temperature Sensors (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.J. Berry, Metrologia 19, 37 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.J. Curtis, in Temperature Its Measurement and Control in Science and Industry, vol. 5, AIP (1982), pp. 803–812Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.R. White, C.L. Jongenelen, P. Saunders, Int. J. Thermophys. 31, 1676 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Žužek, V. Batagelj, J. Bojkovski, Int. J. Thermophys. 31, 1771 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.S. Gam, I. Yang, Y.-G. Kim, Int. J. Thermophys. 32, 2388 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Document 0808B, Error Sources That Affect Platinum Resistance Thermometer Accuracy: Part 5—Hysteresis (Burns Engineering Inc., 2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.L. Rusby, G.J.M. Sutton, L.R. Stanger, R.I. Veltcheva, Int. J. Thermophys. 35, 657 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Physical LaboratoryTeddingtonUK

Personalised recommendations