Show simple item record

contributor authorDavid Sumner
date accessioned2017-05-09T00:07:52Z
date available2017-05-09T00:07:52Z
date copyrightJune, 2002
date issued2002
identifier issn0098-2202
identifier otherJFEGA4-27173#523_1.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/126982
description abstractTwo data-reduction methods were compared for the calibration of a seven-hole conical pressure probe in incompressible flow. The polynomial curve-fit method of Gallington and the direct-interpolation method of Zilliac were applied to the same set of calibration data, for a range of calibration grid spacings. The results showed that the choice of data-reduction method and the choice of calibration grid spacing each have an influence on the measurement uncertainty. At high flow angles, greater than 30 deg, where flow may separate from the leeward side of the probe, the direct-interpolation method was preferable. At low flow angles, less than 30 deg, where flow remains attached about the probe, neither data-reduction method had any advantage. For both methods, a calibration grid with a maximum interval of 10 deg was recommended. The Reynolds-number sensitivity of the probe began at Re=5000, based on probe diameter, and was independent of the data-reduction method or calibration grid spacing.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleA Comparison of Data-Reduction Methods for a Seven-Hole Probe
typeJournal Paper
journal volume124
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Fluids Engineering
identifier doi10.1115/1.1455033
journal fristpage523
journal lastpage527
identifier eissn1528-901X
keywordsPressure
keywordsFlow (Dynamics)
keywordsCalibration
keywordsProbes
keywordsMeasurement uncertainty
keywordsInterpolation
keywordsReynolds number AND Polynomials
treeJournal of Fluids Engineering:;2002:;volume( 124 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record