Abstract

This paper presents an investigation into the numerical and experimental calibration of a five-hole probe and effects of Reynolds number variations on the characteristics of the probe. The test object is a cone-type drilled elbow probe with a head diameter of 1.59 mm and a cone angle of 60 deg. The experimental calibration maps of four different probes of the same type and nominal geometry are compared. A significant variation of the curves can be observed especially at high yaw angles. This led to a visual inspection of the probes with a 3D measurement system. The actual geometry of the three used probes and the surface and radii in particular varied significantly from that of the unused spare probe. Furthermore, a numerical calibration map of the ideal probe was generated for a Mach number of Ma = 0.3. A comparison between the experimental and numerical calibration coefficients revealed that total pressure, yaw and pitch angle were reproduced reasonably well. The dynamic pressure coefficient, however, has a considerable offset. Finally, a parameter study of the effect of varying the Reynolds number over different yaw angles was conducted. The calibration Reynolds number is of the order of Re = 1 · 104 and was varied between 0.5 · 104 < Re < 6 · 104. While the results suggest that only minor measurement errors occur for yaw angle, total pressure and static pressure, a relatively large error was observed for pitch angle measurements.

References

1.
de Guzman
,
M. M.
,
Fletcher
,
C.
, and
Hooper
,
J. D.
,
1994
, “
Computational Investigation of Cobra Probe Operation
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow
,
4
(
5
), pp.
425
445
.
2.
Coldrick
,
S.
,
Ivey
,
P. C.
, and
Wells
,
R. G.
,
2004
, “
The Influence of Compressor Aerodynamics on Pressure Probes: Part 2—Numerical Models
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo
,
Vienna, Austria
,
June 14–17
, pp.
515
520
.
3.
Aschenbruck
,
J.
,
Hauptmann
,
T.
, and
Seume
,
J. R.
,
2015
, “
Influence of a Multi-Hole Pressure Probe on the Flow Field in Axial-Turbines
,”
Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Turbomachinery Fluid Dynamics & Thermodynamics
,
Madrid, Spain
,
Mar. 23–27
.
4.
Passmann
,
M.
, and
Joos
,
F.
,
2019
, “
Numerical Calibration of 3D Printed Five-Hole Probes for the Transonic Flow Regime
,”
Proceedings of the ASME–JSME–KSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference
,
San Francisco, CA
,
July 28–Aug. 1
.
5.
Sanders
,
C.
,
Terstegen
,
M.
,
Hölle
,
M.
,
Jeschke
,
P.
,
Schönenborn
,
H.
, and
Fröbel
,
T.
,
2017
, “
Numerical Studies on the Intrusive Influence of a Five-Hole Pressure Probe in a High-Speed Axial Compressor
,”
ASME Turbo Expo
,
Charlotte, NC
,
June 26–30
.
6.
Arguelles Diáz
,
K. M.
,
Fernandez Oro
,
J. M.
,
Blanco Marigorta
,
E.
, and
Barrio Perotti
,
R.
,
2010
, “
A Numerical 3-D Model of a Trapezoidal Three-Hole Pneumatic Pressure Probe for Incompressible Flow
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Conference
,
Montreal, Canada
,
Aug. 1–5
, pp.
159
167
.
7.
Li
,
Y.
, and
Bohn
,
D.
,
2000
, “
Numerical Investigation of the Influence of Reynolds Number on Probe Measurements
,”
Tsinghua Sci. Technol.
,
5
(
4
), pp.
400
403
.
8.
Dominy
,
R. G.
, and
Hodson
,
H. P.
,
1993
, “
An Investigation of Factors Influencing the Calibration of Five-Hole Probes for Three-Dimensional Flow Measurements
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
115
(
3
), pp.
513
519
.
9.
Lee
,
S. W.
, and
Jun
,
S. B.
,
2005
, “
Reynolds Number Effects on the Non-Nulling Calibration of a Cone-Type Five-Hole Probe for Turbomachinery Applications
,”
J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
,
19
(
8
), pp.
1632
1648
.
10.
Passmann
,
M.
,
Povey
,
T.
, and
Bermann
,
D.
,
2020
, “
Effect of Reynolds Number on Five-Hole Probe Performance: Experimental Study of the Open-Access Oxford Probe
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo
,
Virtual, Online
,
Sept. 21–25
.
11.
Treaster
,
A. L.
, and
Yocum
,
A. M.
,
1978
, “
The Calibration and Application of Five-Hole Probes
,” International Instrumentation Symposium, pp.
255
266
.
12.
Willinger
,
R.
, and
Haselbacher
,
H.
,
2003
, “
A Three-Hole Pressure Probe Exposed to Velocity Gradient Effects—Experimental Calibration and Numerical Investigation
,”
The 12th International Conference on Fluid Flow Technologies
,
Budapest, Hungary
,
Sept. 3–6
, pp.
413
420
.
13.
Ansys
,
2020
, “Ansys Fluent Mosaic Technology Automatically Combines Disparate Meshes With Polyhedral Elements for Fast, Accurate Flow Resolution,” Ansys—White Paper, November.
14.
Menter
,
F. R.
,
Lechner
,
R.
,
Matyushenko
,
A.
, and
Ansys German GmbH
,
2020
, “Best Practice: Generalized k-Omega Two-Equation Turbulence Model in Ansys CFD (GEKO),” Ansys—Technical Report.
You do not currently have access to this content.