Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles
Pneumatic probes such as five-hole probes (5HP) can conveniently measure three-dimensional flow angles, plus total and static pressure. In most applications, transducers are connected using pneumatic tubes, allowing the probe head to be highly miniaturized and robust. However, such “steady” probes a...
| Glavni autori: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Jezik: | English |
| Izdano: |
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2023
|
| _version_ | 1826311355096891392 |
|---|---|
| author | Coull, JD Ng, HC-H Dickens, T Serna, J Cengiz, K |
| author_facet | Coull, JD Ng, HC-H Dickens, T Serna, J Cengiz, K |
| author_sort | Coull, JD |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Pneumatic probes such as five-hole probes (5HP) can conveniently measure three-dimensional flow angles, plus total and static pressure. In most applications, transducers are connected using pneumatic tubes, allowing the probe head to be highly miniaturized and robust. However, such “steady” probes are often used in unsteady flows, where they measure a pneumatically averaged flowfield that can differ from the time mean. To better understand these pneumatic averaging effects, an analytical framework is constructed using a quasi-steady model. Total and static pressure coefficients have a symmetric response to both positive and negative incidence. When incidence fluctuates, there is therefore a bias in the pneumatic average. These errors are evident in a shedding wake experiment, where a 5HP overestimates total pressure loss by up to 44% compared to a Kiel probe. These effects can be predicted by coupling an unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes calculation with the quasi-steady model. By predicting pneumatic averaging errors, the quasi-steady model can be used to obtain like-for-like validation of calculations against experimental data. Measurement data can also be corrected, provided that flow angle fluctuations can be measured or estimated. This approach can be readily used to postcorrect the large body of historical data likely to have been corrupted by pneumatic-averaging errors. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:07:00Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:b30a82e4-fcbf-4839-973f-fcf4d045454c |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T08:07:00Z |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| publisher | American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:b30a82e4-fcbf-4839-973f-fcf4d045454c2023-11-06T16:16:44ZPneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow anglesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:b30a82e4-fcbf-4839-973f-fcf4d045454cEnglishSymplectic ElementsAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics2023Coull, JDNg, HC-HDickens, TSerna, JCengiz, KPneumatic probes such as five-hole probes (5HP) can conveniently measure three-dimensional flow angles, plus total and static pressure. In most applications, transducers are connected using pneumatic tubes, allowing the probe head to be highly miniaturized and robust. However, such “steady” probes are often used in unsteady flows, where they measure a pneumatically averaged flowfield that can differ from the time mean. To better understand these pneumatic averaging effects, an analytical framework is constructed using a quasi-steady model. Total and static pressure coefficients have a symmetric response to both positive and negative incidence. When incidence fluctuates, there is therefore a bias in the pneumatic average. These errors are evident in a shedding wake experiment, where a 5HP overestimates total pressure loss by up to 44% compared to a Kiel probe. These effects can be predicted by coupling an unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes calculation with the quasi-steady model. By predicting pneumatic averaging errors, the quasi-steady model can be used to obtain like-for-like validation of calculations against experimental data. Measurement data can also be corrected, provided that flow angle fluctuations can be measured or estimated. This approach can be readily used to postcorrect the large body of historical data likely to have been corrupted by pneumatic-averaging errors. |
| spellingShingle | Coull, JD Ng, HC-H Dickens, T Serna, J Cengiz, K Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title | Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title_full | Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title_fullStr | Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title_short | Pneumatic-probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| title_sort | pneumatic probe measurement errors caused by fluctuating flow angles |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT coulljd pneumaticprobemeasurementerrorscausedbyfluctuatingflowangles AT nghch pneumaticprobemeasurementerrorscausedbyfluctuatingflowangles AT dickenst pneumaticprobemeasurementerrorscausedbyfluctuatingflowangles AT sernaj pneumaticprobemeasurementerrorscausedbyfluctuatingflowangles AT cengizk pneumaticprobemeasurementerrorscausedbyfluctuatingflowangles |