0
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Comparison of Data-Reduction Methods for a Seven-Hole Probe

[+] Author and Article Information
David Sumner

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A9 Canada

J. Fluids Eng 124(2), 523-527 (May 28, 2002) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1455033 History: Received May 22, 2000; Revised November 21, 2001; Online May 28, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
(a) Flow angle nomenclature; (b) sectoring scheme, based on hole numbers 1 through 7
Grahic Jump Location
Measurement uncertainty, Re=3200: (a) pitch angle; (b) yaw angle. High flow angles: ▪, polynomial curve fit; □, direct interpolation. Low flow angles: ▴, polynomial curve fit; ▵, direct interpolation.
Grahic Jump Location
Measurement uncertainty, Re=3200: (a) total pressure; (b) dynamic pressure. High flow angles: ▪, polynomial curve fit; □, direct interpolation. Low flow angles: ▴, polynomial curve fit; ▵, direct interpolation.
Grahic Jump Location
Reynolds number sensitivity of the seven-hole probe. Calibration at Re=6500 with a 9.0 deg grid spacing. Pitch angle uncertainty (all sectors): ▪, polynomial curve fit; □, direct interpolation. Velocity magnitude uncertainty (all sectors): ▴, polynomial curve fit; ▵, direct interpolation.

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In