Two 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.
A Comparison of Data-Reduction Methods for a Seven-Hole Probe
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the Fluids Engineering Division May 22, 2000; revised manuscript received November 21, 2001. Associate Editor: J. Bridges.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Sumner, D. (May 28, 2002). "A Comparison of Data-Reduction Methods for a Seven-Hole Probe ." ASME. J. Fluids Eng. June 2002; 124(2): 523–527. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1455033
Download citation file: