Ultrahigh temperatures, those near and above roughly 3000°C, present an interesting problem to accurate pyrometry. The issues are related to calibration, interference, and inherent error. SpectroPyrometers enjoy advantages in these three areas that result in superior performance at ultrahigh temperatures.
The problem is that sources of known temperature and emissivity beyond 3000°C are rare and costly. Where they do exist, they are necessarily calibrated at a maximum of 2700°C (the upper temperature limit for the calibration of a radiation thermometer by NIST). This means that virtually all pyrometer measurements above 2700°C are based on extrapolation. Extrapolated measurements are less reliable than those that are interpolated, and extrapolation errors continue to grow with temperature.
|
Standard, °C |
Spectro-
Pyrometer,
°C |
DT °C |
DT/T ± %
absolute |
|
995.5 |
996.0 |
0.5 |
0.02 |
|
1198.1 |
1200.9 |
2.8 |
0.09 |
|
1492.1 |
1493.5 |
1.4 |
0.04 |
|
1982.6 |
1983.5 |
0.9 |
0.02 |
|
2184.0 |
2182.0 |
2.0 |
0.04 |
|
averages |
1.5 |
0.04 |
|
Interference from process offgas, epitomized in the spectrum above as the absorption between roughly 580 and 700 nanometers, has been described in detail elsewhere on these pages. The interference at these wavelengths visually overshadows that in the rest of the spectrum, which is by no means clean. The obvious dip at 760 – 780 nanometers is one case in point, but the entire spectrum is noisy. The absorption phenomenon worsens with increasing temperature; at ultrahigh temperatures it can affect huge sections of the thermal spectrum. Pressure enhances the interference, as might be expected, by packing more of the absorbing species into the optical path (the lines of absorption are also broadened by quantum effects). Carbon materials, especially graphite, are known to be sources of the absorbing species. At ultrahigh temperatures graphite is the refractory of choice, ensuring that such interference is widespread.
|
Input |
SpectroPyrometer Output, °C,
with |
|
|
Temperature, °C |
5% noise added |
10% noise added |
|
1000 |
1001.6 ± 8.1 |
1001.8 ± 12.7 |
|
1400 |
1400.4 ± 6.6 |
1402.9 ±
6.7 |
|
1800 |
1799.1 ± 6.7 |
1801.8 ± 13.3 |
|
2200 |
2201.6 ± 2.8 |
2194.8 ± 17.2 |
|
2600 |
2600.6 ± 5.6 |
2607.3 ± 24.2 |
|
3000 |
3004.5 ± 8.4 |
2980.5 ± 31.6 |
|
Average error: |
0.07% |
0.24% |
Imagine holding a straight rod parallel to the ground directly in front of you, with your arms a shoulder's width apart. You support the rod loosely in the circle between each thumb and forefinger. Now your assistant comes along and wiggles the rod up and down as much as they can without breaking your grip. At any point between your hands the rod can't move very much. The up-and-down excursion of the rod is analogous to the error in temperature caused by interpolation between two imperfectly-known end locations. Now slide one hand to the center of your body so that only one hand is near the end of the rod and the other is near its center. Your assistant again does their stuff. The excursion out near the unsupported end of the rod is now substantially greater, even though the circle of your fingers is the same (the temperatures are still known to the same imperfect accuracy). It's clear that the farther you extend the length of the rod, the greater the uncertainty in the position of the end point becomes due to extrapolation. That is, the greater the difference between the temperature to be determined and the last calibration point of a conventional pyrometer, the larger the error.