, NASA

CR
2920
C.1
,.
1 (

NASA Contractor Report 2920

I7 LOAN C 9 - V : RETI..lF,
AFWL TFr! '?'fCfi1.. LIBRARf ._
KIRTLAND AFB, N. M. - -
Calibration of Transonic *.?
-
and Supersonic Wind Tunnels

T. D. Reed, T. C. Pope, and J. M. Cooksey

CONTRACT NAS2-8606
NOVEMBER 1977

NASA
 ~-

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

NASA Contractor Report 2920

Calibration of Transonic
andSupersonic Wind Tunnels

T. D. Reed, T. C. Pope, and J. M. Cooksey

Vought Corporation
Dallas, Texas

Prepared for
AmesResearch Center
under Contract NAS2-8606

National AeroMubics
and Space Administration
Scientific andT e c h i d
Information Office

1977
-
" ..
 FOREWORD

In April, 1970 a r e p o r t was issuedbyan ad hoc NASA-USAF groupontran-

s o n i cs c a l ee f f e c t s and t e s t i n gt e c h n i q u e s .T h i sr e p o r ta s s e s s e dt r a n s o n i c
t e s t i n gt e c h n i q u e s and recommended, among o t h e rt h i n g s ,t h a tat r a n s o n i cw i n d -
t u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n manualbe w r i t t e nw h i c hr e v i e w e dt h es t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t .T h i s
was viewedasanecessarysteptowardthedevelopment o f more a c c u r a t e and
s t a n d a r d i z e dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o np r o c e d u r e s .

For t h i s purpose,thepresent manual was j o i n t l y fundedby: (1) t h e

U. S. Navy throughtheOfficeofNavalResearch, (2) t h e U. S. A i r Forcethrough
t h e Air Force F l i g h t Dynamics L a b o r a t o r y and A r n o l d Research O r g a n i z a t i o n , (3)
NASA throughtheWashingtonHeadquarters and theLewis,Langley and Ames Research
Centers. The c o n t r a c t was administered by NASA Ames. Mr. F. W. S t e i n l es e r v e d
as t e c h n i c a lm o n i t o r .

A rough d r a f t o f t h i s manual was reviewed by personnel o f NASA Ames

ResearchCenter and ArnoldResearchOrganization. The comments o ft h ev a r i o u s
reviewerswerecompiledby Mr. F. W. Steinleat Ames and M r . F. M. Jackson a t ARO.
Themanual was improvedconsiderablybytheconstructive comments t h a t were
received, and we w i s h t o t h a n k a l l t h o s e i n v o l v e d f o r t h e i r t i m e and e f f o r t s .

Our thanks go t o M r . C. J. Stalmach o f t h e Vought C o r p o r a t i o n f o r t h e

d i s c u s s i o no fh o tw i r e s and f i l m sw h i c hi sg i v e ni n Appendix 1 . F i n a l l y , we
w i s ht o acknowledgethesuperiortyping and s e c r e t a r i a la s s i s t a n c ep r o v i d e d
by Ms. F. H. Deason.

...
I l l
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sect ion

1 . INTRODUCTION ...................... 1

A . Gackground ................... 1
B.
c.
. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
H i s t o r i c a lS k e t c h
Calibration Procedures
2
4
References
It . TUNNEL VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A . Types o f Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B . OperationalParameters ............
1 . PressureControl . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
8
8
2 . C a l i b r a t i o n Accuracy. Flow U n i f o r m i t y and
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Model T e s t i n g . . . . . . . 12
References
C . Flow Parameters and U n c e r t a i n t yR e l a t i o n s h i p s . 22
1 . Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2 . Temperature ................ 34
3 . Mach Number ................ 36
4
5
.. .......
Flow A n g u l a r i t y and Curvature
Reynolds Number ..............
40
42
6.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ..
Unsteadiness.Turbulence. and Noise 47
7. Humidity 52
8. T e s t Mediums ............... 56
References

111 . CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTATION ....... 59

A . S e t t l i n g Chamber Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 59
References
B. T o t a l Temperature ............... 63
References
C. P i t o tP r e s s u r e s ................ 68
References
D. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
T e s tS e c t i o nS t a t i cP r e s s u r e s
1 TransonicSurveyPipes
78
79
.. 2
3
TransonicStaticPressure
SupersonicStaticPressure
......
Probes
.....
Probes
86
105
. 4 Orifice-InducedStaticPressureErrors ... 110
. 5 GeneralPurpose StaticPressureProbe
References
... 116

E. Measurement o f Flow A n g u l a r i t y ......... 124

.. 1
2
D i f f e r e n t i aP
DifferentiaP l ressure
.. .. ..
l r e s s u r eY a w e t e r s :
Yawmeters: 3-0
2-D 124
128
. 3 Hot W i r e / F i l m Yawmeters .......... 134
. 4 ForceBalance Yawmeters .......... 137
References

V
 Sect ion Page

.
. . . . .. .. .. ..
." ~ .;r
.... F Measurement o f UnsteadyFlowDisturbances 144
.
"

1 DynamIc Pressure Measurements 147

References
G. TransonicTunnelBoundaryConditionsand
W aI n . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
l lt e r f e r e n c e 162
..1
2
C o n v e n t i o n aVl e n t i l a t e d
Adaptive Wall
Walls
. . . . . . . . . . .. ..
Studies
162
165

H.
.3
Standard
Boundary Layers andWall Generated Noise
. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......
Models
169
174
.. 1
2
AGARD Force Models
TransonicPressureModels: ....... 2-0
174
175
. 3 TransonicPressureModels:
References
....... 3-0 175
1.
.. 1
. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
O p t i c a l Methods
Supersonic Tunnels
182
182

.
2 Transonic
3 Newer Methods
References
. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Tunnels 182
183

J. Humidity Measurements
References
.............. 185

IV . ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY CALIBRATION MEASUREMENTS . . . .

IN 189

A . Random E r r o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
B. F i x eEd r r o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
C . Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
.. . .
D . ErrorPropagation ................ 192
References

.... v. . .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 195

A . Summary o f S t a t e - o f - t h e - A r t o f Transonic and

B . Transonic
Tunnel s . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Supersonic Wind Tunnel C a l i b r a t i o n 195
198
C . Supersonic
Tunnels 202

APPENDICES

.. 1 . AND HOT WIRES

. . . ..... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... . .
HOT FILMS
Nomenclature
203
217
References

I1 . LASER
DOPPLER
VELOCIMETERS ................ 222
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
References
Ill . PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EFFECTS OF VIBRATION OF A CIRCULAR CYLINDER ON STATIC
255
. .
IV . FACILITIES WHICH RESPONDED TO QUESTIONNAIRE
A .
Table 1 : Facilities . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. 260
B .
Table I I : T e sSt e c t i o n
CharacteristIcs 267

vi
 "

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
-.
Fiqure . Title Page

1.c.1 Data
and E r r oFrl o w ..........
Diagram,
Ref. 1 5
2. B. 1 Jackson's Flow Quality Criteria for Transonic
Tunnels,
Ref. 1 .................... 14
2. B. 2 A l l o w a b l e L i n e a r MachNumber Gradient Over
Model L e n g t hf o r BouyancyDrag C o e f f i c i e n t
C o n t r i b u t i oonf 0.0001, .................. 17
2. B. 3 Effects of Reynolds Number o n C a l i b r a t i o n o f t h e
PWT-16T Tunnel a t Mm = 0 . 6 and 0 . 8 f o r ew = 0 and
~ = 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. B. 4 MachNumber Gradient OverModel LengthasPercent
o f Average MachNumber f o r Bouyancy D r a g . C o e f f f c I e n t
o f 0.0001 ....................... 19
2. c. 1 Afterbody DragData a t anAverage MachNumber of
0.95.... ...................... 23
2.c.2 AfterbodyDragDataWithTunnel MachNumber Given
t o ThreeDecimals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
. The U n c e r t a i n t y o f P i t o t - t o - S t a t i c P r e s s u r e
2.c.3
F u n cot ifo n Number
Mach . . . . . . as. .a . . . . 27.
2.C.4 The S e n s i t i v i t y o f Dynamic P r e s s u r e t o S t a g n a t i o n
PressureError,TransonicOperation .......... 29
2.c.5 The S e n s i t i v i t y o f Dynamic P r e s s u r e t o S t a t i c P r e s s u r e
Error,TransonicOperation. .............. 31
2.C.6 The S e n s i t i v i t y o f Dynamic Pressure t o MachNumber
Error,
Supersonic Operation .............. 32

2.C.7 The R e l a t i o n o f S t a g n a t i o n t o S t a t i c T e m p e r a t u r e a s
a Function o f MachNumber ............... 35
2.C.8 The S e n s i t i v i t y o f MachNumber
and Stagnation Pressure Error .t o.S.t a.t i c.P.r e.s s.u r.e . . . . 38
2.C.9 The S e n s i t i v i t y o f MachNumber t o S t a t i c P r e s s u r e
and StagnationPressures. ............... 39
2.c. 10 Change i n F l o w D i r e c t i o n W i t h Increment o f Mach
Number, Ref. 3 ..................... 41

vii
' Flgure Title Page
2.c. 1 1
Pressure Error. ....................
The'Sensitlvity of Unit .Reynolds Number to Statfc
43
The Sensitivity of Unit Reyno1,ds Number to Stagnation
Pressure Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.c.12
44
2.C. I3 The Sensitivity of Unit Reynolds Number to Stagnation
Temperature Error . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.C.14 The Sensltlvity of Unlt Reynolds Number to Mach Number
Error......................... 46
2.C.15 Flow Disturbances in Transonic Tunnels, Ref. 5 .... 49
2.C. 16 Flow Disturbances in Supersonic and Hypersonic
Tunnels, Ref. 5 ................... 50
17 The Ratio of Relative Humidity in the Stream to
........
2.C.
Reservoir as a Function of Mach Number. 53
2.C. I8 Reservoir TemperatureRequired to Avoid
Condensation, Ref. 1 0. .... . . . . .. ...... 54
3.8.1 Total Temperature Probes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.C. 1 Isentropic Stagnation Pressure Probe, Ref. 8. . . . . .
70
3.C.2 AEDC Supersonic Mach Number Probes. . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.c.3 Mach Number Probe forSmall Pilot LEHRT Facilities,

Ref.9.... ..................... 73
3.0.1 R.A.E. Subsonic Static-Pressure Probe . . . . . . . . . 83
3. D. 2 Typical Pressure Distributions Along Probeat Two
z
Locations on Tune1 Center1 ine,M = 0.74 (choked),
R/L = 19.7 x 10 per meter. .............. 84
3.0.3 Variation of Static-Pressure ReadingWith Position
of Static Holes and Nose Shape at I4 = 1.6, Ref. 8 . .. 87
3.D.4 Transonic Pressure Distributions on a 20 deg Cone-
Cylinder Wtth 0.008% Blockage, Ref. 12 ........ 90

3. D. 5 Transonic Pressure Distributionson a 20 deg Cone-

Cy1 inder , Ref. 20................... 93
3.D.6 Dimensions of the R.A.E. Static Pressure Probes . . . . 96
3-0.7 Transonic Characteristics of the Two R.A.E. Probes. . . 97
3.D.8 Effect of Orifice Location Utilizinga Double Wedge
Support Strut, Ref. 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

viii
 F I qure Title Paqa

3.D.9 General C r i t e r i a for ProbeSurvey Rakes, Ref. 33. ... 104

3.D.10 O r i f i c e - I n d u c e dS t a t i cP r e s s u r eE r r o r s , Ref. 50 . . . '. 113

3.0.11 Transonic/SupersonicStaticPressure Probe. . . . . . . 117

3.E. 1 Two DimensionalYameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

3. E. 2 PyramidYameter. ................... 129

3.E-3 S e n s i t i v i t y o f 60 degConical Yawmeter. . . . . . . . . 131

3.E.4 S p l i t Hot Film, 20 Wedge Probe C a l l b r a t i o n B r . i d g e

V o l t a g eD l f f e r e n c ev s F l o w Angle,Ref. 23 . . . . . . . 136

3.E.5 Geometry o f AEDC ForceBalance Yawmeter . . . . . . . . 138

3.E.6 S e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e AEDC ForceBalanceYameter. .... 139

3. F. 1 FrequencySpectra o f Noise from a Turbulent Boundary

Layeron a S o l i dW a l l , Ref. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

3. F. 2 Noise FrequencySpectra for Some E x i s t i n g C o n t i n u o u s

Windtunnels a t M- = 0 . 8 0 , Ref. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Small P i e z o e l e c t r i c Dynamic Pressure Probe,Ref. 14 . . 154

APPENDIX I

A.l.l CorrelationofConvective Heat T r a n s f e r f r o m

Transverse Cy1 inders, Ref. 3. ............. 206

A. 1.2 F l u c t u a t i o n Diagram f o r 1 Percent Mass Flow

F l u c t u a t i o n s w i t h V a r y i n q Degrees o f C o r r e l a t i o n ,
Ref.7.. ....................... 206

A. 1.3 F l u c t u a t i o n Diagrams f o r 1 PercentTurbulent

V e l o c l t yF l u c t u a t i o n s( V o r t i c i t y Made),Ref. 7. 209

A. 1.4 F l u c t u a t i o nD i a g r a mf o r 1 PercentTemperature
S p o t t i n e s s( E n t r o p y Mode), Ref. 7 ........... 209

A. 1.5 F l u c t u a t i o n Diagram f o r SoundWaves thatareAlmost

Mach Waves Having I % P r e s s u r eF l u c t u a t i o n s , Ref. 7. .. 21 0

A.1.6 F l u c t u a t i o n Diagram f o r U n c o r r e l a t e d Modes a t

M11.75; TemperatureSpottinessof 0.1 PerCent:
TurbulentVelocityFluctuationsof 0.2 Percent;
SoundWaves (Detectable) 0.1 P e r c e n t o f Mass Flow
F l u c t u a t i o n s .( D o t t e dL i n e s Show S e p a r a t eC o n t r i -
butions.)Ref. ....................
7. 21 0

fx
 Fiqutc Title Page
1
A.1.7 Comparison of Pitot Probe and Hot-wire
.Measurements of Free-Stream Pressure
Fluctuations in a Conventional, Mach 5
Nozzle, Ref. 14 ... ..............
1 214

APPENDIX I I
A.II.l Dual Beam Laser Doppler Velocimeter, with
Optional Forward and Backscatter Modes. ...... 224

A. 11.2 Generation of Interference Fringesin Measur-

ing Volume of Dual Beam Laser Doppler Velocimeter. . 225

A. 11.3 Light Scattered by a Small Particle . . . . . . . . . 226

A. 11.4 Laser Anemometer Signal From Photodetector. . . . . . 226

A. 11.5 Effect of Particle Diameteron Frequency Response . . . 238

A. 11.6 Time Constant Asa Function of Particle Diameter
=
For Various Mach Numbers, Particle Density
1 gm/cc ....................... 240

A.11.7 Maximum Frequency ForNo More Than 5% Attenuation

of Sinusoidal Velocity Variations, Particle
Density- 1 gm/cc. ................. 240

A. 11.8 Effect of Velocity Biasing on Mean Velocity

Measurements in Turbulent Flow ........... 243
A. 11.9 Sensitivity CoefficlentrFor Determination of
Mach Number From Velocityand Stagnation
Temperature Measurements. .............. 248

APPENDIX I l l
A.lll.1 Pressure Distribution ona Circular Cylinder
in Crossf low,Ref. 1 ................ 258

X
 . .. ..
NOMENCLATURE*

A a m p l i t u d eo fs i n u s o i d a lo s c i l l a t i o n , or p r o b ei n t e r f e r e n c e
f u n c t i o ni n t r o d u c e di n Eq. (3.0.1)

0 f u n c t i o ni n t r o d u c e di n Eq. (3.D.l) as a measure o f probe-

c r o s s f l o wi n t e r f e r e n c e

fixederror 1 imit f o r Mach number, Eq. (4.0.2)

*M

BY

Chapman-Rubesin v i s c o s i t y parameter

AC dragcoefficientincrementproduced by a l i n e a rp r e s s u r e .
DG g r a d i e n ti nt h et e s ts e c t i o n

RMS v a l u e o f f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t i c p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t

RMS f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t i c p r e s s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t p e r u n i t band
widthatfrequency n.

D d i a m e t e ro f a t r a n s v e r s e ,c y l i n d r i c a l ,p r o b es u p p o r t

DS
d i s t a n c e between c e n t e r so fs l o t si nt u n n e lw a l l

d diameterofstaticpressureprobe

dl d i a m e t e ro fP i t o tp r o b e

orifice diameter

F (n) n o n d i m e n s i o n a ls p e c t r a lf u n c t i o nw h i c hi s ameasure o f t h e
i n t e n s i t y o f s t a t i cp r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n sp e ru n i t band w i d t h
a tt h ef r e q u e n c y n,

ACp = 1; F(n)dn

f o s c i lf lraeotqfi oune n c y

frequencyofstaticpressurefluctuations
fP

fr f i n e n erpa
so
rstofi ob e nose
(2Ln/d)
H t o t a l head or s t a g n a t p
i or n
e s tsseu
ies
nrctet i o n

*Separate lists of symbolsappear i n Appendices I and I I .

xi
 t o t a l head i n s e t t l i n g chamber

Pitot pressure at a = 0 (eithersubsonicorsupersonic)

time-averaged, t o t a lp r e s s u r eb e h i n d a normalshock

RMS o f f l u c t u a t i n g t o t a l p r e s s u r e b e h i n d a normalshock

s l o t parameter, Eq. (3.6.7)

model l e n g t h

nose 1 eng t h

d i s t a n c e from c o n e - c y l i n d e r j u n c t u r e t o n e a r e s t s t a t i c
pressure orifice

a d i s t a n c ef r o m a s t a t i c p r e s s u r e o r i f i c e t o b e g i n n i n g o f a
probeenlargement,e.g., f l a r e or support

Mach number based on s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i n plenum chamber

Machnumber i nt e s ts e c t i o n

mass f l o w p e r u n i t a r e a t h r o u g h v e n t i l a t e d w a l l

mass f l o w p e r u n i t a r e a i n f r e e s t r e a m o f t e s t s e c t i o n

n r e d u c e df r e q u e n c yo fs t a t i cp r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n s , fpwT/u,

"d g e n e r a ld e s i g n a t i o nf o rd i r e c t i o nn o r m a l to a w a l l

P s t a t i cp r e s s u r ei nf r e e s t r e a mo ft e s ts e c t i o n

<P' > RMS o f f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t i c p r e s s u r e

measured, unsteady s t a t i c p r e s s u r e

s t a t i cp r e s s u r ei ns e t t l i n g chamber

t r u e ,u n s t e a d ys t a t i cp r e s s u r eo fu n d i s t u r b e df r e e s t r e a m

time-averaged, t r u es t a t i cp r e s s u r e

s t a t i cP r e s s u r e measuredona probe o r t u n n e l s i d e w a l l

i n d i c a t e d dynamicpressure, HI-P

incompressible definition of dynamicpressure, H-P

dynamic p r e s s u r e i n s e t t l i n g chamber

dynamic p r e s s u r e o f f r e e s t r e a m i n t e s t s e c t i o n

porosityparameter, Eq. (3.G.5)

xi i
 viscous parameter for flow through slots
RS

number
ReynoldsRe

Rex Reynolds number based on wetted length

S wingreferencearea,orwidthof a strutsupportfor a probe

compressible yameter sensitivity. Eq. (3.E.2)

SY
sy* incompressible yameter sensiflvity, (3.E.l)
Eq.
T period o f sinusoidal
oscillation

t time

u(t1 total,
unsteady
velocity
along a probe
axis

ut4 toea1
uncertainty
Interval for Mach
number, Eq. ( 4 . 0 . 3 )
"m velocity of freestream in test
section

us veloclty of sound source

112
U
T
turbulent
friction
velocity, (T~IP)
v mode 1 vo 1 ume

Vn(t) total,unsteadyvelocitynormal to a probeaxis

vn average velocity normal to a ventilated wall

WS width of slots

WT square root of
cross-sectional
area o f test
section
X Cartesian
coordinate
measured along
the
tunnel
axis

Y Cartesian
coordinate
measured normal to
the
tunnel
sidewalls

2 Carteslan
coordinaee
measured
normal
to
the
top
and
bottom
walls of tunnel

Greek Letters

a angle of attack

8 (I" 2 1 112

Y ratio of specific
heats
6 angle
between orifice planes
of a yameter

ll azmuthal
angle
polar
orcoordinate
angle

xiii
e semi-vertex angle of a cone

9w tunnel wall angle (positive for divergent walls)

e' viscosity coefficient at edgeof boundary layer

W'
viscosity coefficient at wall temperature

0 density of gas

a
m
standard deviation in Mach number along tunnel centerline

T wall porosity

TW
shear stress ata solid wall

$ perturbation velocity potential, Eq. (3.6.1)

rlr yaw angle

0 angular velocity, rad/sec

xiv
I-
1. INTRODUCTION

1 .A. Background

The use of a wind tunnel for aerodynamic measurements requiresa knowledge

of the test environment. Furthermore, a definite relationship obviously exists
between the accuracy with which the test conditions are known and the uncertainty
in the final results. The demand for increased wind tunnel data accuracy fol-
lows naturally from the demand for improved full scale vehicle performance and
accuracy of performance prediction. A sustained effort has been directed toward
improving the accuracyof test data from existing wind tunnel facilitfcs. In
addition, requirements have been established for new wind tunnel facilities with
more complete simulation capabilities.

The results of one of the first comprehensivetest programs to study the

correlation of wind tunnel data from several transonic facilitieswere reported
by Treon et al. in Ref. ( I ) . Since the same model, instrumentation and support
sting were used in each of the three tunnels, this unique series of tests allowed
a comparative evaluation of the effects of facility flow environment
and calibra-
tion upon data agreement. The results of this series of tests, using state-of-
but deficient
the-art techniques and instrumentation, were considered good
relative to current goals.

The purpose of this reportis to review the current state-of-the-art

of .
wind tunnel calibration techniques and instrumentation, evaluate the expected
results and, where possible, recommend improvements. This program was carried
out by ( 1 ) acquiring information from eighty-eight wind tunnel facilitiesby
means of a c.omprehensive questionnaire,(2) a detailed literature search, (3)
personal visits and telephone conversations,and (4) independent analyses.

This report documents the results of these investigations. In addition

to the above background information, SectionI also presents ( I ) a brief
historical sketch of attemptsto improve wind tunnel flow quality and calibra-
tion procedures and (2) a sumnary of tunnel cal ibrat ion tasks.Section I I
discusses tunnel variables and how uncertaintyin the measurementsof various
flow quantities affect test results. The details of measuring staticand total
pressures, temperature, flow angularity, flow unsteadiness, and humidity are
all discussed in Section 1 1 1 . This section also includesa review of the

I
 t r a n s o n i c - w a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c ep r o b l e m ,t h eu s eo fs t a n d a r dm o d e l s , and t h e r o l e
w h i c ho p t i c a l methodscanhave d u r i n gt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n s .S e c t i o n IV discusses
thevarioustypes o f e r r o r s i n c a l i b r a t i o n measurements and t h e i r e f f e c t s on
f i n a lr e s u l t s . In a d d i t i o nt op r e s e n t i n gc o n c l u s i o n s and r e c m e n d a t l o n s , a
summary o f t h eq u e s t i o n n a i r er e s u l t si sg i v e ni nS e c t i o n V. Themanual concludes
w i t h four appendfces.Appendices I and t i r e v i e w ,r e s p e c t i v e l y ,t h eu s eo fh o t - ,
w i r t s / f i l m s and laserDopplervelocimeters.Appendix 1 1 1 d i s c u s s e st h ee f f e c t s
o f v i b r a t i o no n a c y l i n d r i c a l ,s t a t i cp r e s s u r e probe. F i n a l l y , Appendix IV
sumnarizesthecharacteristicsoftunnelsforwhichquestionnaireswerereceived.

1 .B. H i s t o r i c aS
l ketch

The need f o r good f l o w q u a l i t y i n w i n d t u n n e l was recognizedbythe

e a r l i e s ti n v e s t i g a t o r s . As r e p o r t e db yP r i t c h a r di n Ref.(21, t h e Counci 1 o f
theRoyalAeronauticalSocietyagreed i n 1870 t o p r o v i d e f u n d s f o r t h e c o n s t r u c -
t i o n o f 'la s u i t a b l e and w e l l - f i n i s h e d i n s t r u m e n t h a v i n g t h e means o f i n s t a n t l y
settingvariousplanesurfacesat any desired angle and capable o f r e g i s t e r i n g
b o t hh o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l f o r c e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f o r a l l degrees o f i n c l i n a -
tion. The r e s u l t s t o b ep u b l i s h e df o rt h eb e n e f i to ft h eS o c i e t y . ' ' As a
result of this action,the first wind tunnel was c o n s t r u c t e d by Wenharn and Browning,
anda seriesoftests on f l a t p l a t e s wereundertaken.

A laterreport ontheresultsnotedthat"theseexperimentswould have been

more s a t i s f a c t o r y hada steady and c o n t i n u o u s c u r r e n t been o b t a i n e d , b u t t h e
f l u c t u a t i o n sc a r r i e db y each arm ofthefan,as it revolved,exerted an a p p r e c i a b l e
i n f l u e n c eo nt h er e s u l t , " Theneed f o r improved f l o w q u a l i t y was a l s or e c o g n i z e d
by l a t e re x p e r i m e n t o r s , e.g.,see Ref. (3).
Dr. Ludwig Mach (son o f E r n s t Mach) c o n s t r u c t e d a t u n n e la tV i e n n ai n 1893
with a test section of I 8 x 25-cm which was used f o r flow o b s e r v a t i o n and
photography.Thisapparatusused a w i r es c r e e no v e rt h ei n l e tt os t r a i g h t e n
t h ef l a w .I n 1896, Sir Hiram Maxim c o n s t r u c t e d a 91 x 91-cm tunnel and used a
form o f honeycomb t o remove f a n - i n d u c e d s w i r l and s t r a i g h t e nt h ef l o wu p s t r e a m
o ft h et e s ts e c t i o n . The W r i g h tb r o t h e r s t' u n n e l ,c o n s t r u c t e di n 1901, included
bothscreens anda honeycomb. A t u n n e lc o n s t r u c t e d by D r . A . F. Zahm a t Washington
i n 1901 i n c l u d e ds c r e e n so fc h e e s ec l o t h and w i r e t o smooth t h e i n l e t f l o w .

2
 Dr. Zahm also was concerned with flow uniformity
and the accuracy o f
calibration of thetunnel velocity. He developed an extremely sensitive
manometer for measuring the pressures generatedbv a.Pitot-statlc tube which
was used for velocity measurements. In describing this instrument, he used
the term "wind tunnel" for the first time in the literature. Zahm also used
a toy balloon moving with the flowto obtain a time-of-flight measurement o f
the velocity.
Another calibration procedureused by Zahm involved measurement of the
force on a llpressure plate" or drag plateat the same time the flow velocity
was measured. This method allowed determination of the flow velocityduring
.later testsby observing the forceon the pressure plate,Ref. 4.
Add i t iona 1 discussion of early wind tunnels and measurement techniques
is
also given in an article by Goin -(Ref. 5).

From the beginning, the development of wind tunnel facilities has usually
been a precursor of improved flight vehicles as outlined by Goethert in Ref. 6.
The development of new and improved wind tunnels has, in turn, required new
calibration procedures, techniques and instrumentation in the struggle to
provide experimental data with the accuracy requiredby vehicle designers.

3
 I.C. CalibratioP
n rocedures

Both the quality of, t h e w i n d t u n n e l f l o w e n v i r o n m e n t and t h e a c c u r a c y w i t h

whichthisenvironmentis known c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e a c c u r a c y o f a e r o d y n a m i c
measurements. The t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y i n aerodynamicdata i st h er e s u l t of a
l a r g e number o f e r r o r sources, as i s discussed i n S e c t i o n s 11.8.2 and I V .

F i g u r e I . C . 1 , from Ref. (71, i l l u s t r a t e s t h e many sources o f e r r o r and

t h e manner i n w h i c he r r o r sp r o p a g a t e to a t y p i c a l t e s t r e s u l t suchasdrag
c o e f f i c i e n t .C o n s i d e r i n gt h et o t a l number o f e r r o r s o u r c e s ,t h en e c e s s i t yt o
minimizethose due t ot u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o ni so b v i o u s .T h i sf l o wd i a g r a mi s
h e l p f u ls i n c e i t i s o l a t e st h ef a c i l i t yf l o we n v i r o n m e n t and c a l i b r a t i o n elements
whicharediscussedherein.

Boththequalityoftheflow and t h e a c c u r a c y w i t h w h i c h t h e f l o w
conditionsare known a r e c o n s i d e r e d as p a r t o f t h e c a l i b r a t i o n c o n t r i b u t i o n .
I t i s s u g g e s t e dt h a tt h ec a l i b r a t i o ne f f o r ti n c l u d et h ef o l l o w i n ge l e m e n t s :

1. Initial evaluation of performancecharacteristics and f l o w q u a l i t y ,

and d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o need f o r c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n .

2. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f optimum tunneloperationalparameterssuchas
w a l la n g l e and p o r o s i t y ,c o n t r o l systemperformance,etc.

3. D i a g n o s t i c measurements t o i n v e s t i g a t e a specificflowproblem or
deficiency.

4. Measurement o f mean, unsteady and s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t e s t

s e c t i o nf l o wc o n d i t i o n sf o rt h es e l e c t e dt u n n e lc o n f i g u r a t i o n and
v a r i o u so p e r a t i n gc o n d i t i o n s .

5. Standard model t e s t s f o r i n t e r - f a c i l i t y comparisons.

6. P e r i o d i cr e - e v a l u a t i o no fb a s i ct u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o nf o rc o n t r o l or
monitoringpurposes.This may be accomplished i n p a r tb yt e s t so n
a s t a n d a r d f a c i 1 it y model.

Consideringthe above t a s kd e s c r i p t i o n s , i t can be observedthatflow

q u a l i t y improvements, v e r i f i c a t i o n t e s t s and b a s i ct u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n sa r e
i n t i m a t e l yr e l a t e d . The accuracyrequirements may vary,depending upon t h e
typeofcalibrationtask and theprimarypurpose of the facility, but are
most s t r i n g e n t f o r i t e m s 4 and 6 s i n c ee r r o r si nt h e measurements can c o n t r i b u t e
directly to the random or f i x e d e r r o r i n t h e f i n a l d a t a .

4
 0
FACILITY

1 FORCE
I' PRESSURE &
TEMPERATITRF: TRANSIENTS
I

Figure l . C . 1 . DATA
AND ERROR FLOW DIAGRAM, Ref. 7
 R . J.: " F u r t h e rC o r r e l a t i o no f Data From I n v e s t i g a t i o n so f a H i gh
Subsonic-Speed T r a n s p o r t A i r c r a f t Model i n ThreeMajor Wind Tunne 1
A l A A Paper 71-291, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1971-

2. P r i t c h a r d , J. L.:
"The Dawn o f Aerodynamics,''Journal o f theRoyal
A e r o n a u t i c aS
l ociety, V . 61, March 1957.

3. Randers-Pehrson, H. H. : "PioneerblindTunnels," V. 93, No. 4, Smithsonian

M i s c e l l a n e o u s C o l l e c t ions.

4. B i r d , K. D.: "Old Tyme Wind Tunnels,"Perspective Sept.-OCt., 1957,

Cornel1AeronauticalLaboratories,Inc.

5. Goin, K. L.: "The H i s t o r y ,E v o l u t i o n , and Use o f Wind TunneIs,"

A l A A StudentJour., Feb. 1971.

6. Goethert, B. H . : Transonic Wind TunnelTesting, pp 2-31, Perrnagon P r e s s ,

New York, 1961.

7. P i c k l e s i m e r , J. R . , Lowe, W. H., and Cumrning, D . P. : ''A Study o f

Expected Data P r e c i s i o n i n The Proposed AEDC H l R T F a c i l i t y , " AEDC-TR-
75-61, August, 1975.

6
 I I. TUNNEL VARIABLES

II.A.l Types of Tunnels

The m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d w i n d t u n n e l s o p e r a t i n g
i n t h e Machnumber range from 0.4 t o 3.5. Themodes o f o p e r a t i o n of t h e
v a r i o u sf a c i l i t i e ss u r v e y e di n c l u d e : (1) continuousflow, (2) blowdown, and
(3) i n t e r m i t t e n t .
I n thecase of i n t e r m i t t e n t t u n n e l s , e.g., a Ludwiegtube,thevery
s h o r tr u nt i m e sr e q u i r es p e c i a lp r o v i s i o n sf o r measurement and r e c o r d i n g
systems. Pressure measurementscanbeaccomplishedusing e i t h e rh i g h - r e s p o n s e
p r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r so r a capture system which permits measurements o f
p r e s s u r ea f t e rt h er u n . However, t h e same basicproceduresmustbefollowed
i n o r d e rt oc a l i b r a t et h ef a c i l i t y as f o r a l o n g - r u n - t i m ef a c i l i t y . Thus, t h e
s p e c i a lp r o b l e m sa s s o c i a t e dw i t ht h es h o r tr u nt i m e so fi n t e r m i t t e n tt u n n e l s
a r en o td i s c u s s e d ,b u tt h eg e n e r a ld i s c u s s i o n so fc a l i b r a t i o np r o c e d u r e sa r e
applicable.

A l t h o u g ht r a n s o n i ct u n n e l sw i t hh i g h - a s p e c t - r a t i o (2-D) t e s t s e c t i o n s
a r eg e n e r a l l yo p e r a t e da th i g h e r Reynolds numbers, t h i st y p eo ft u n n e li sn o t
d i s c u s s e ds e p a r a t e l y becausetheysharethe same c a l i b r a t i o n problemsas sym-
m e t r i c atl u n n e l s .

Discussionsofthevarioustopicsare o f a generalnaturewherepossible.
S u b d i v i s i o n si n t ot r a n s o n i c and supersonicareasare made where d i c t a t e d b y
t h ep e c u l i a r i t i e so ft h e s er e g i o n s .F u r t h e rs u b d i v i s i o n sa r e made, as
a p p r o p r i a t e ,i nd i s c u s s i o n s o f details.

7
 1I.B. OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS

II.B.l Pressure Control

Pressure controls are incorporatedin some form in all wind tunnels (with
the possible exception of supersonic,indraft tunnels). The methods of control
are obviously different for transonic and supersonic wind tunnels and for
intermittent, blowdown and continuous wind tunnels. This section is limited
to discussions of pressure control systems as they influence tunnel calibra-
tion programs and the effects of variations introduced
by these systems on
tunnel flow quality and measurement accuracy.

Continuous Wind Tunnels

Continuous wind tunnels m a y be either pressure tunnelsor atmospheric-
vented tunnels. For the pressure or variable density wind tunnel, the stagnation
pressure is determined by the static or wind-off pressure and the pressure
added by the fan or compressor drive system. The drive system pressure ratio
may be controlled by v a r y i n g compressor speed, blade angle,
or auide-vane
ang 1 e.

Vented tunnels usually operate at atmospheric stagnation pressure,but

some facilities of t h i s type operate at atmospheric test section static pres-
sure or theatmospheric vent may be located at some other part of the tunnel
circuit so that neither the stagnation nor the static pressureis atmospheric.
The drive system is controlled by the same techniquesa s for the pressure
tunnel to achieve the desired pressure ratio across the nozzle
and test section.

For supersonic tunnels the Mach number(and all Mach dependent test
b y the nozzle geometry and stagnation con-
section conditions) are determined
ditions. The supersonic nozzle is not normally considered a static pressure
control (although it does perform that function). Several tunnels include
automatic control o f nozzle geometry. The pressure control is simplest for
the atmospheric-stagnation-pressure, supersonictunnel since the prime function
of the drive systemis to create the pressure ratio necessary to start
and
maintain nozzle flow. For pressure tunnels, both the tunnel pressurization and
main drive system control the stagnation pressure.

8
 T r a n s o n i ct u n n e lo p e r a t i o nr e q u i r e sa d d i t i o n a lc o n t r o lo ft h et e s ts e c t i o n
s t a t i cp r e s s u r e .I na d d i t i o nt oc o n t r o lo f compressorpressure r a t i o ,t h es t a t i c
p r e s s u r ei sc o n t r o l l e d by some t y p eo f plenum evacuation system. A t supersonic
Mach numbers aboveabout 1.4 a v a r i a b l e geometry,convergent-divergentnozzle
i s u s u a l l y used. Also, a s p e c i f i e d Yach number can be a t t a i n e do v e r a range o f
t u n n e lp r e s s u r er a t i o s b yo t h e rc o n t r o lv a r i a b l e s .T u n n e l. p r e s s u r er a t i o may
t h e r e f o r e beone o ft h ev a r i a b l e si n v e s t i g a t e df o rt u n n e lf l o wo p t i m i z a t i o n ,i n
terms o f b o t h f l o w u n i f o r m i t y and minimum power consumption. Plenum evacuation
canbeaccompli shedby ejectorflapswhich usethemainstreamflowto pump t h e
plenum, o r a u x i 1 i a r y pumping systemscan beused.

Almost a l l o ft h ec o n t i n u o u st u n n e l sr e s p o n d i n gt ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e use
ma nua 1 con t r o 1 o f t o t a l and s t a t i cp r e s s u r e ,a l t h o u g hs e v e r a l haveava i l a b l e
automatic systems t o i n d i c a t e t h e measured t e s t c o n d i t i o n s t o t h e o p e r a t o r s , and
a f e wi n c l u d ec l o s e d - l o o p ,a u t o m a t i cc o n t r o l . The response o f a continuous
t u n n e l ,p a r t i c u l a r l y a l a r g e one, t oc o n t r o li n p u t si si n f l u e n c e d by thetime
constantsinvolved. These t i m ec o n s t a n t sa r e a f u n c t i o no ft h ec i r c u l a t i n ga i r
mass, t h e r o t a t i o n a l i n e r t i a o f t h em a i nd r i v e ,e t c . , and a r eg e n e r a l l yl a r g e .
A b e n e f i c i a le f f e c t o f t h el a r g et i m ec o n s t a n t si st h a ts h o r t - t e r md i s t u r b a n c e s
tend t o be h e a v i l ya t t e n u a t e d andsmoothed. Precise, smooth c o n t r o li sp o s s i b l e
by manual c o n t r o l ,b u t changes i n l e v e l r e q u i r e a l o n g e rp e r i o dt h a nf o rs m a l l
timeconstant systems. F l u c t u a t i o n si nt h ec o n t r o l l e dp r e s s u r et e n dt oo c c u r
a tt h e system naturalfrequency,which i s t h ei n v e r s e o f thetimeconstant.
The p e r i o d o f t h e s ef l u c t u a t i o n s can be verylong - up t o 10-15 seconds. In
ordertoobtain a measurement o f t h e mean v a l u e o f t u n n e l f l o w c o n d i t i o n s , measure-
mentsover atleast one p e r i o da r er e q u i r e d .

Blowdown Wind Tunnels

The c o n t r o l systems f o r blowdown windtunnelscanhave a significanteffect
o nt u n n e lf l o wq u a l i t y .I na d d i t i o nt ot h ea u t o m a t i cs t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ec o n -
t r o l system, a u t o m a t i cc o n t r o l systems a r e used i n a m a j o r i t y o f t h e t r a n s o n i c ,
blowdown w i n dt u n n e l sf o r Mach number c o n t r o l a l s o .

The s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e c o n t r o l f o r ablowdown windtunnel uses a c o n t r o l

v a l v e between t h es t o r a g er e s e r v o i r and t h e s t i l l i n g chamber t o c o n t r o l p r e s s u r e
i nt h e chamber. Constantstagnationpressureisthenormal mode o fo p e r a t i o n ,

9
 but the system can also be computer or program c o n t r o l l e d t o m a i n t a i n c o n s t a n t
Reynolds number a s t h e s t a g n a t i o n t e m p e r a t u r e d r o p s d u r i n g t h e r u n , or t h e
pressure may be i n c r e a s e d l i n e a r l y w i t h t i m e t o i n v e s t i g a t e R e y n o l d s number
e f f e c t s ,e x p l o r ef l u t t e rb o u n d a r i e s ,e t c .I ng e n e r a l ,t h ef u n c t i o n a lc a p a b i l i t y
ofthestagnationpressure system has become more s o p h i s t i c a t e d w i t h t h e i n t r o -
duction of digital computer c o n t r o l .

From t h e f l o w q u a l i t y s t a n d p o i n t , t h e mostimportantperformanceparameter
ofthe system i s t h e a c c u r a c y o f p r e s s u r e c o n t r o l o r , i n more s p e c i f i ct e r m s ,
t h ev a r i a n c eo ft h es t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ea b o u tt h e mean l e v e l . The p e r i o d o f
thisvariationistypically about 1 secondand t h ec u r r e n ts t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t
appears t o be about a 0.1 percentstandarddeviation; much l a r g e r p e r t u r b a t i o n s ,
up t o 1/2%, can e a s i l y r e s u l t due t o e l e c t r i c a l n o i s e , m e c h a n i c a l f r i c t i o n or
misadjustment o ft h ec o n t r o l computer. The s t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ec o n t r o ls y s t e m
must o p e r a t e c o n t i n u o u s l y t o overcome the disturbance created by the decreasir 9
r e s e r v o i rp r e s s u r e . Thusa c o n t r o l l e ro fh i g h e ro r d e rt h a nt h a t used for a
c o n t i n u o u st u n n e lp r e s s u r ec o n t r o li su s u a l l yr e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v et h ed e s i r e d
accuracy. A simpleregulatorisnormallyinadequate.

The shocksystemgenerateddownstream oftheblowdown-wind-tunnelControl

v a l v e may i n t r o d u c ee x c e s s i v ef l o wu n s t e a d i n e s s .T e s t - s e c t i o nf l o wa n g u l a r i t y
may a l s o v a r y w i t h v a l v e p o s i t i o n (and t h e r e f o r e ,t i m e ) . Thus, t h e e n t i r e f l o w
channel,fromthestoragereservoirtothestilling chamber, mustbeconsidered
when d e s i g n i n gt h es t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ec o n t r o l system. Considerablework has
been accomplished i n r e c e n t y e a r s t o i d e n t i f y and c o r r e c t flow problemscaused
b yt h es t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ec o n t r o l system. C o r r e c t i v e measureshave included
choked-flowdevices i n s e r i e s downstream o f t h e v a l v e , s p e c i a l i z e d v a l v e s ,
a c o u s t i cs i l e n c e r s and honeycombs i n t h e s t i l l i n g chamber.

A second pressurecontrolsystem used i nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s ,t h e Mach

number c o n t r o l , f u n c t i o n s t o m a i n t a i n a d e s i r e d Mach number by c o n t r o l l i n g
s t a t i cp r e s s u r e as a f u n c t i o no fs t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r e .A l m o s ta l l blowdown,
t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l su s e a choked t h r o a t downstream o f t h e t e s t s e c t i o n t o c o n t r o l
subsonic Mach numbers.The primaryadvantage ofthiscontrol mode i s t h a t t h e
Machnumber i s determinedbythetestsectiongeometry(at a f i x e d model a n g l e
o fa t t a c k ) and i s t h e r e f o r e independent o f f l u c t u a t i o n si ns t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r e .

10
A u t o m a t i cc o n t r o l of t h e downstream t h r o a t a r e a i s used i n anumber of facili-
t i e s .A u t o m a t i cc o n t r o li sh i g h l yd e s i r a b l ei no r d e rt om a i n t a i nc o n s t a n t Mach
number d u r i n g model a t t i t u d e v a r i a t i o n s and simultaneouslymaintain optimum
plenumevacuation.Moresophisticatedoperational modes a r e a v a i l a b l e under
computer c o n t r o l , suchas Machnumber sweeps, e t c . The performance o f t h i s
system a l s o d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e s t h e v a r i a t i o n of the test section Machnumber.
Currentbestperformanceappears t o be 'about 0.001. butlargervariationsare
possibleatsubsonic speeds, p a r t i c u l a r l y a t h i g h m o d e l - p i t c h r a t e s .

I n t h e absence o f p e r t u r b a t i o n s i n t r o d u c e d by t h e Mach o r s t a t i c p r e s s u r e
c o n t r o ll o o p ,s m a l lv a r i a t i o n si ns t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r ec a n n o tn e c e s s a r i l y be
takenintoaccountbysimultaneous measurement of t h e twopressuresbecause of
phase l a g and a t t e n u a t i o n e r r o r s .

An i m p o r t a n tp r o c e d u r a ld i f f e r e n c ei nm a k i n gc a l i b r a t i o n measurements i n
a blowdown tunnel i s thatrunsshould be made a t each c a l i b r a t e d Machnumber
where a l l t u n n e l v a r i a b l e s a r e h e l d c o n s t a n t d u r i n g an e n t i r e blowdown, in
o r d e rt od e t e c tt i m eo rv a l v ep o s i t i o n dependent e f f e c t s . If a traversing
a n g u l a r i t yp r o b ei s moved a l o n g t h e t u n n e l c e n t e r l i n e d u r i n g t h e r u n , f o r example,
time-dependent e f f e c t s will be o b s c u r e d b y t h e s p a t i a l v a r i a t i o n s and v i c ev e r s a .

I n t e r m i t t e n t( I m p u l s e ) Wind Tunnels
I n t e r m i t t e n tw i n dt u n n e l sa r ec o n s i d e r e dt o b et h o s et h a to p e r a t ei n a
b a s i c blowdown mode, b u t w i t h a r u nt i m eo fa b o u t 4 t o 5 seconds or less. The
Ludwieg t u n n e li s a t y p i c a lf a c i l i t yo ft h i sc l a s s . The Ludwieg p r i n c i p l e
canbeapplied to e i t h e r a supersonicor a transonicwindtunnel.Pressure
c o n t r o li sl i m i t e dt ot h ei n i t i a lc h a r g et u b ep r e s s u r e and i st h e r e f o r er e l a -
t i v e l ys t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . An advantage o f theLudwiegtunnel i st h a tt h es t a g n a -
t i o np r e s s u r e downstream o ft h ei n i t i a le x p a n s i o nt u b ei sc o n s t a n t( n e g l e c t i n g
v i s c o u se f f e c t s ) . The p r i m a r yc a l i b r a t i o n measurement problemsassociated
withthe L u d w i e gt u n n e lo b v i o u s l ya r i s e from t h e s h o r t t e s t d u r a t i o n .

11
 ll.B.2 C a l i b r a t i o nA c c u r a c y , Flow U n i f o r m i t y and R e l a t i o n s h i pt o Model T e s t i n g

The c a l i b r a t i o n o f a t r a n s o n i c w i n d t u n n e l i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t
than calibration of a supersonictunnel due p r i m a r i l y t o t h e v e n t i l a t e d t e s t
s e c t i o nw a l l s . The v e n t i l a t e d w a l l s and t h e b a s i c n a t u r e o f t r a n s o n i c flow
p r e v e n tt h ed e t e r m i n a t i o no ft e s ts e c t i o nc o n d i t i o n s from t u n n e l o r n o z z l e geom-
e t r ya l o n e , as i s t h ec a s ew i t h a c a l i b r a t e ds u p e r s o n i ct u n n e ln o z z l e . A
measurement o f t e s t s e c t i o n s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , i n a d d i t i o n t o s t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r e ,
i sr e q u i r e dd u r i n gc a l i b r a t i o n and r o u t i n et e s to p e r a t i o n s .F u r t h e r ,f o rf i x e d
t e s ts e c t i o n geometry,the model o r o t h e r a p p a r a t u s i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n can i n f l u -
ence t h e Mach number. These f a c t o r sr e q u i r et h a tt h et u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o np r o v i d e
a r e l a t i o n between t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n anda
r e f e r e n c ep r e s s u r e measured i n t h e plenum chamber o r o n t h e v e n t i l a t e d w a l l .

T r a n s o n i ct u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o ni sf u r t h e rc o m p l i c a t e d by t h ea d d i t i o n a ld e g r e e s
of freedom providedby a ventilatedwall, i.e., a t each Mach number, t h e optimum
w a l la n g l e ,w a l lp o r o s i t y( f o ra d j u s t a b l ep o r o s i t yw a l l s ) , plenum e v a c u a t i o nf l o w
r a t e ,t u n n e lp r e s s u r er a t i o , and choke c o n t r o l p o s i t i o n must a l l be determined.
Criteria for optimum a d j u s t m e n t i n c l u d e u n i f o r m i t y o f Mach number and, a t super-
sonic speeds, shock and expansion-wave c a n c e l l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h a r e
u s u a l l ye v a l u a t e d based on t e s t so fc o n e - c y l i n d e r models. A t subsonic speeds, in
additiontominimizingvariationsin Mach number d i s t r i b u t i o n , o t h e r c r i t e r i a f o r
o p t i m i z a t i o na r et u n n e ln o i s el e v e l and f o r c e s ona standardmodel. A recent
r e p o r t byJackson(Ref. I ) p r o v i d e s a comprehensivediscussionoftheprocedures
employed i ns e l e c t i n at r a n s o n i ct u n n e lp a r a m e t e r st om i n i m i z e Machnumber varia-
tions.

Many o ft h et r a n s o n i ct u n n e l ss u r v e y e dd e t e r m i n et h ew a l la n g l e basedon
shock and expansion wave c a n c e l l a t i o n a t s u p e r s o n i c speeds, and t h i s a n g l e i s
oftenmaintainedconstantatall Mach numbers, w h i l e o t h e r s a d j u s t t h e w a l l
a n g l ea c c o r d i n gt o a Machnumber schedule. I ng e n e r a l ,a d j u s t m e n to fw a l la n g l e
w i t h Machnumber will p r o v i d e amore uniformflow.

A t y p i c a lo p t i m i z a t i o np r o b l e ma ts u b s o n i c Mach numbers i s b a l a n c i n g o f
plenum evacuation and chokeareafor a c h o k e - c o n t r o l l e d blowdown tunnel. The
a v e r a g et e s ts e c t i o n Mach number can be a t t a i n e d w i t h an i n f i n i t e number of
c o m b i n a t i o n so f plenum pumpingand chokearea.Forexample,the criterion
u s u a l l y chosen i s t o m i n i m i z e downstream Mach number increasesordecreasesfrom

12
 theupstreamvalue. Downstream d i s t u r b a n c e si n Machnumber a r eu n d e s i r a b l e
becausetheycancreatebouyancyeffectsfurther upstream.Sincethedisturb-
ancemagnitude i se x t r e m e l ys e n s i t i v et o changes i n plenumpumping a t subsonic
Mach numbers belowabout 0 . 8 5 , t h e optimumpumping i s d e t e r m i n e dd u r i n gc a l i b r a t i o n
and m a i n t a i n e dc o n s t a n tf o rr o u t i n et e s t i n g . The t e s ts e c t i o n Machnumber is
c o n t r o l l e d by v a r y i n g t h e chokeareawhichdoesnot alter the downstream d i s t u r b -
ance.

A s i m i l a ru p s t r e a md i s t u r b a n c eo c c u r sa t Mach numbers near 1.0. Therefore,

one o f thepurposes o f a c a l i b r a t i o n program i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e g i o n o f flow
alongthetestsectionwithinwhichthe Machnumber d e v i a t i o n does n o t exceed
v a r i o u sl i m i t ss u c ha s +O.OOl, 20.002, etc.Jackson(Ref. I ) hassuggested the
followingcriteria beadopted as a ni n d u s t r ys t a n d a r df o r "good f l o w q u a l i t y " i n
transonictunnels.Forsubsonicflows, 2a d e v i a t i o n si nc e n t e r l i n e Mach
number
shouldbelessthan 0.005 and lessthan 0.01 i nt h e case o f supersonicflows. Of
course,the minimum Machnumber deviationisindicativeofthebestdistribution
and t h e r e f o r e f l o w q u a l i t y f o r a g i v e nt e s ts e c t i o nl e n g t h and s e t o f t u n n e l
c o n d i t i o n s .J a c k s o n ' sf l o wq u a l i t yc r i t e r i aa r e shown i nF i g . 2.8.1 as a
f u n c t i o no f Machnumber. Recent c a l i b r a t i o nd a t a from t h e AEDC-PWT 16T
TransonicTunnel i sa l s oi n c l u d e df o r comparison.

M o r r i s and Winter(Ref.2) havesuggestedevenmore s t r i n g e n tr e q u i r e m e n t s

for supersonictunnels. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s havesuggestedthe maximum a l l o w e d
variations in ( I ) -
f l o w a n g u l a r i t y be+0.1 degand (2) Machnumber be 20.003 a t
M = 1.4, +0.005 a t M = 2, - I= 3 .
+0.01 a t !

I t should be n o t i c e d t h a t c r i t e r i a based o nt h es t a n d a r dd e v i a t i o n do n o t
d i s t i n g u i s h between random o r p e r i o d i c v a r i a t i o n s and mean f l o w g r a d i e n t s . Thus,
i n a d d i t i o n to s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n c r i t e r i a , c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be g i v e n t o empty-
t u n n e ls t a t i cp r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t s . The s t a t i c p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a l o n g t h e
t e s ts e c t i o n mustbe e i t h e rc o n s t a n t( w i t h i na c c e p t a b l el i m i t s )o r any g r a d i e n t
mustbe known a n d r e p e a t a b l e t o a sufficiently high degree o f accuracy so t h a t
bouyancy c o r r e c t i o n s c a n b e made t o a t t a i n t h e r e q u i r e d a c c u r a c y i n measurements
o f model drag. I t i st h e r e f o r eo fi n t e r e s tt oi n v e s t i g a t e ,i n a systematic
manner, t h e e f f e c t s of testsectionpressuregradientondrag measurement accuracy
and how t h i s r e l a t e s t o f l o w q u a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s .
 0.024

0.020
l-
0.01 6 -
z -0 AEDC-PWT 16T DATA
-
0
,/
I- "JACKSON S CR I T E R I A FOR "GOOD"
->
a "

FLON QUAL 1 T Y /

-"
:0 . 0 12

I
u
a
I:
0.008
t
.'3 "

0.004

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
TESTSECTIONMACHNUMBER, Mm

F i g u r e 2.8.1 JACKSON'S FLOW Q U A L I T YC R I T E R I A FORTRANSONICTUNNELS,Ref. 1.

 The bouyancy d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t r e s u l t i n g from a l i n e a r s t a t i c p r e s s u r e
g r a d i e n t (Ref. 3) can be s t a t e d as

AC = -

qw
dP/dx , (2.8.1)
DG
where V i s t h e model volume, S i s wingreferencearea, qm i st h ea v e r a g et e s t
s e c t i o n dynamicpressure, dP/dx i st h ep r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t and AC i st h e
DG
d r a gc o e f f i c i e n ti n c r e m e n tp r o d u c e d by t h ep r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t .

U t i l i z i n gt h e above equation,lsaacs (Ref. 4) i n v e s t i g a t e dt h ee f f e c t s of

bouyancyon thedragoftypical,transportaircraft models i n a 2.44-111 ( 8 - f t )
windtunnel. Based onmodel valuesoftheparameter V/S ranging from 0.069 t o
0.208 meter (0.23 t o 0.68 f t ) , lsaacs determined that -qd,x -dP should be known t o
an a c c u r a c yo f 0.00047 t o 0.0014 permeter (0.00014 t o 0.00043 per f t ) i n o r d e r
to know AC t o an a c c u r a c yo f 0.0001, i .e. , one dragcount.
DG
I n a studyof bouyancy e f f e c t s on drag measurement accuracy i n supersonic
w i n dt u n n e l s ,M o r r i s andWinter(Ref. 2) d e t e r m i n e dt h ea l l o w a b l ep r e s s u r e
g r a d i e n tf o r a bouyancydrag o f 1% o f t h e model drag. Based on an assumed,
r e c t a n g u l a r - w i n g ,a i r c r a f t modeland Eq. 2.8.1, t h ea l l o w a b l ep r e s s u r e

M -
g r a d i e n ti nt e r m so f
1.4 t o 0.0005 a t M = 3.0.The
AP/H overthe

model l e n g t h was approximately 0.4% o ft h ea v e r a g e

model l e n g t h was foundtorangefrom
corresponding Machnumber
Mach number.
0.002 a t
g r a d i e n to v e rt h e
The estimated
dragcoefficient o f t h ec o n f i g u r a t i o nc o n s i d e r e di n d i c a t e d 1% o f ACD was 0.00023
a t M = 1.4 and0.00013 a t ?l= 3.0. On a p e r - d r a g - c o u n tb a s i s ,t h ea l l o w a b l e Mach
number g r a d i e n t , i n p e r c e n t of average Mach number, was then 0.17% a t M = 1.4
and 0.31% a t M -- 3.0.
Bouyancy e f f e c t s may be e v a l u a t e d i n a g e n e r a l i z e d way by t a k i n g i n t o
accountboth model c o n f i g u r a t i o nv a r i a b l e s and Mach number e f f e c t s . Assuminga
specificheatratioof 1.4, t h er e l a t i o n s

P
- x
H
(1 + 0.2 M 2) -3.5 (2.B.2)

qW
- D 0.7 M 2 ( 1 + 0.2 M2 -3.5 (2.B.3)
H

15
may beused t o w r i t e Eq. (2.6.1)as
#-

2
-
(2. e.4)
M (1+0.2 Hz)

Where H and qm areconsideredconstantattheiraveragevalues. I f t h e Mach num-

dM
bergradientis assumed t o be 1 inear, =may be w r i t t e n as AM/Ax w i t h Ax takenas
the model length, .L, AM i s thenthe Mach
number v a r i a t i o np e r model length.
Eq. (2.6.4) becomes

AC
DG
= "[
SLm M(I+O.Z )
2
'M
] AM . (2.6.5)

The parameter V/SLm i s a nondimensionalconfigurationparameter and i s t h e r e -

foreindependent o f model scale.Figure 2.8.2 shows t h ea l l o w a b l e Mach
number
gradient,overthe model l e n g t h ,f o r a b o u y a n c y - i n d u c e d ,d r a gc o e f f i c i e n te r r o r
o f 0.0001 as a f u n c t i o no ft h ec o n f i a u r a t i o np a r a m e t e r Owing t o t h i s
V/SL
m'
extreme s e n s i t i v i t y o f d r a g measurements a c c u r a t e t o w i t h i n one c o u n t , t h e r e
a r e anumber o f problems i na c h i e v i n gt h i sg o a l .F o r example, i f t h e random,
s h o r tw a v e l e n g t hv a r i a t i o n si n Machnumber a r et o ol a r g e ,t h e mean g r a d i e n t
may be obscured and d i f f i c u l t t o def.ine. One approach i s t o useempty-tunnel
p r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s , measured d u r i n g c a l i b r a t i o n s , t o i n t e g r a t e Over t h e model
length. However, t h i s procedurecanbe i ne r r o r because o fl a c ko fe x a c t
r e p e a t a b i l i t yo ft u n n e lf l o wc o n d i t i o n s . lrt thecase o ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s ,t h e
model may inducedeparturesfromempty-tunnelcalibrations, e.g., Parker(Ref. 5)
I na d d i t i o n , Jackson(Ref. 1 ) has foundthat a chanqe i n u n i t Reynolds number
6 6
from 4.1 x 10 t o 15.8 x 10 (permeter)cancauseanincrease o f 0.003 i nt u n n e l
Mach number, see F i g . 2.6.3. T h i s i s an e f f e c tt h a ti sf r e q u e n t l yi g n o r e d
d u r i n gt r a n s o n i ct u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n s .

The d a t a o f F i g . 2.6.2 a r ea l s o shown i n F i g . 2.B.4 withthe Machnumber

gradientexpressedinpercentoftheaveraae Mach
number. P o i n t sd e r i v e df r o m
the criteria suggestedby M o r r i s and Winter'(Ref. 2) f o r s u p e r s o n i c flow are
shown onFig. 2.8.4 f o r comparison.Thiscomparisonindicatesthe model
c o n f i g u r a t i o n used by M o r r i s and W i n t e r t o e s t a b l i s h f l o w u n i f o r m i t y c r i t e r i a
hada value o f approximately 0.05 f o r V/SLm.

16
 "
V -
sLm

L/

2
3
T E S TS E C T I O N MACH NUHEER

~ l ~ u 2r . 8e. 2 ALLOWABLE LINEAR MACH NUMBER GRADIENT

OVER MODELLENGTH FOR BOUYANCYDRAG
C O E F F I C I E N TC Q N T R I B U T I O N OF 0.0001

17
 0.020

0.016

0.012

Hm - Mc

0.008

0.004 -

0
0 1 .o 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Re x 10-6/ft

I~ 1 I 1 1 1
0 4 8 12 16 20
Re x 10'6/m

Flgure 2.8.3 EFFECTS OF REYNOLDSNUMBER ON C A L I B R A T I O N OF THE PWf-16T

TUNNELAT M _ = 0.6 AND 0.8 FOR Ow = 0 AND T = 6%

18
I

0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

TESTSECTIONMACHNUMBER, M

F i g u r e 2.8.4. MACH
NUHHER
GRADIENT O V E R NOOELLENGTHASPERCENT OF AVERAGE
MACH
NUMBER FOR RQUYANCY DRAG C O E F F I C I E N TO F 0.0001
 The v a l u eo ft h ep a r a m e t e r V/SLm f o r s e v e r a l a i r c 2r. a f t t y p i c a l OF fighter,
a t t a c k and t r a n s p o r t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e l i s t e d below.

Aircraft W/SL
-m

F-1 5 0.054
F-16 0.048
YF-17 0.043
A-7 0.071
oc-8 0.061
DC-9 0.088
DC-IO 0.083
8-741 0.065
8-727-100 0.076
8-727-200 0.056
C-141A 0.055
C -5A 0.078

The above d a t a d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e v a r i a t i o n i n V/SLm w i t h a i r c r a f t t y p e

i s n o tl a r g e ,a tl e a s t F o rc o n v e n t i o n a lc o n f i g u r a t i o n s , and t h a tt h e model
c o n f i g u r a t i o ns e l e c t e d by H o r r i s and Winter (Ref.2) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v eo f
s u p e r s o n i cf i g h t e ra i r c r a f t . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e dt h a t V/STOL c o n f i g u r a t i o n s
would have a l a r g e rv a l u eo f V/SL, t h a nt h ea i r c r a f tl i s t e d above and would
t h e r e f o r e be more s e n s i t i v e t o Hach number q r a d i e n t e f f e c t s .

*
Due totheapproximatevalues used f o r some o f t h e a i r c r a f t volumes, the
valuesof W/SL, shouldberegarded as approximate.

20
 I I .D. P.eferences

1. Jackson, F. M.: " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e AEDC-PWT 1 6 - F t TransonicTunnel at

TestSection \,la11 P o r o s i t i e s o f Two. Four, and SixPercent." AEDC-TR-76-13,
Jan. 1976.

2. M o r r i s , 0. E. and & l i n t e r , K. G . : "Requirements f o rU n i f o r m i t yo f Flow

i n Supersonic \,!ind Tunnels," RAE Tech Note A E R O 2340 ( l ? 5 4 ) .

3. Glauert, H.: "Wind Tunnel I n t e r f e r e n c e on

Vinqs,
Yodies and A i l e r o n s , "
A.R.C. R&M 1566 (1933).

4. Isaacs, 0 . : " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e R.A.E. Bedford 8 - f t . x 3 - f t . Wind Tunnel

a t Subsonic Speeds, I n c l u d i n o a Discussion of t h eC o r r e c t i o n sA p p l i e d to
the Measured P r e s s u r e D i s t r i b u t i o n t o Allow f o r t h e D i r e c t and Crlockaae
E f f e c t s due t ot h eC a l i b r a t i o n Probe Shape,': A.R.C. R&M 3583 (1569).

5. Parker, P.. L.: "Flow G e n e r a t i o nP r o p e r t i e s o f FiveTransonic Wind Tunnel

TestSectionWallConfiaurations," AEOC-TR-75-73, Aug. 1975.
 1I.C. FLOW PARAMETERS AND UtKERTAlNTY RELATIONSHIPS

The proper measurement o f stream properties to allow the accurate

determination of the various flow parameters is necessary for the meaningful

interpretation o f wind tunnel test results. For example, the desirability o f

a Mach number accuracy of 0.001 has been suggested (i.e., Ref. I). The neces-

sity of such a requirement may be illustrated

by the afterbody dataof Fig. 2.C.I.

This data appearsto have substantial scatter but may be correlated using Mach
number measurements with a precision of 0.001 as shown in Fig. 2.c.2.* It

also may be noted that for a typical fighter aircraft configuration the tran-

o f 0.001 is "equivalent"
sonic drag riseis such that a Mach numt.er uncertainty
to 0,0002 (2 counts) in drao coefficient. Similarly. other parameters must be

computed to high degrees o f accuracy. The sensitivities o f the several flow

parameters to the various measurements are presented in this section
to illus-

trate the consequencesof measurement uncertainty on accuracy.

II.C.1.
Pressures

The pressure o f a fluid is one of its most significant properties, The

knowledge o f static and stagnation pressuresin a wind tunnel is necessary

to define characteristic flow conditions such as Mach number and Reynolds number

and to properly normalize the various data coefficients.The following discus-

sion concerns the measurement
of these two pressures.

Static Pressure: During transonic operation static pressure is obtained from a

reference pressure (wall or plenum) and a predetermined relation (calibration)

of this pressure to the test section static pressure. During supersonic opera-
tion static pressure is usually obtained from stagnation pressure and the Mach

o f the facility w i t h the particular

number previously obtained during calibration

-
nozzle setting.

Figures 2.C.l and 2 were obtained through private communication with Mr. Jack
Runkel. NASA Langley Research Center. This requirement for a Mach number accuracy
O f at least 0.001 i s also substantiated by the recent nozzle-afterbody tests
reported by Spratley and Thompson (Ref. 1 7 ) .
22
 NASALANGLEY
TAILINTERFERENCE MODEL
M = .95

.28

cD
.24

1 2 3 4 5 6
"jdP

Figure 2.C.l AFTERBODY DRAG DATA A T AN

AVERAGE MACH
NUMBER OF 0.95
h)
W
 NASA LANGLEY
T A I LI N T E R F E R E N C E MODEL

.2a

.24

.20

.16

Figure 2 . C . 2 AFTERBODYDRAGDATA WITHTUNNEL MACH

NUMBER GIVEN TOTHREEDECIMALS
 Inthetransonicregion a staticpressureprobe,orarray o f probes

may beused t or e l a t et h er e f e r e n c e and t e s ts e c t i o ns t a t i cp r e s s u r e s .W i t h

regard t o t h eh i g h e r Mach numbers it has been i l l u s t r a t e d ( R e f .2 ) ,t h a tt h e

uncertaintyin Mach number may be r e l a t e d t o u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n s t a t i c P-,

i s e n t r o p i ct o t a l , Hs, and P i t o t , H2, p r e s s u r e sb yt h ef o l l o w i n gr e l a t i o n s

(assuming t h e r a t i o o f s p e c i f i c h e a t s i s 1.4):

" - a H2
aHS

HS H2
= aM[ 35 (M2
(M2 + 5) (7M2
112-
1) -
3 (2.c.1)

I f it i s assumed t h a tt h et o t a lp r e s s u r ei s measured i n t h e s t i l l i n g

(2.c.2)

a nd

S o l v i n g for -
H
i nt h ef i r s te q u a t i o n and s u b s t i t u t i n gi n t ot h el a t t e r ,

t h ef o l l o w i n ge x p r e s s i o ni so b t a i n e d .

"aH2 5 (M2-1)2 -
'Pm
= o (2.C.4)
H2 M2 ( 7M2- 1 ) Po0
which yields

aH2 H2 2. 2
- I -
5 (M - 1 ) (2.C.5)
a pm M2(7M2-l) '

3.5
Since -
"2
pm
= [F]
2
[4"] 7H - 1
2.5
,then -
aH2
a pm
(2.C.6)

canbe s i m p l i f i e d to:

Hence t h e r a t i o o f u n c e r t a i n t y o f P i t o t - t o - s t a t i c p r e s s u r e becomes a simple

f u n c t i o no f Mach number and i s shown i nF i g . 2.C.3. It may benotedthatthe

r a t i o becomes 1 near M 1.6. Thus, f o r a s p e c i f i e de r r o ri n Mach number a t an

M 1.6, t h ee r r o ri ns t a t i cp r e s s u r e may be g r e a t e rt h a n, . t h ee r r o ri n
*
P i t o tp r e s s u r e .F o r Mach numbers g r e a t e rt h a n 1.6 t h er e v e r s ei st r u e .T h i s
occursbecausethe staticpressure becomes v e r y s m a l l a t h i g h Mach numbers,

andsmallabsoluteerrors i n t h e .measurement of Pm produce r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e

e r r o r si nc a l c u l a t e d Mach number. For example, Fig. 2.C.3 shows t h a t a t

Mach 3 theabsoluteerrorinPitotpressure canbe approximately seven times

t h es t a t i cp r e s s u r ee r r o rf o rt h e same e r r o r i n c a l c u l a t e d Mach number. Thus

the use o f s t a t i c p r e s s u r e f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f Mach number i s g e n e r a l l y

r e s t r i c t e d to Mach numbers l e s s t h a n 1.6; w h i l e P i t o t p r e s s u r e i s employed

(withstagnationpressure)athigher Mach numbers.

*Also see Fig. 2.C.9,p.39.

26
5

2
StagnationPressure: The pressure o f t h e t e s t medium i s measured w i t h t h e

fluld at rest either in the settling chamber o r by means of a t o t a l headtube.

The s e t t l i n g chamber ( i s e n t r o p i cs t a g n a t i o n )p r e s s u r e , Hs, i s g e n e r a l l y

used for b o t h t r a n s o n i c and supersonicoperation. Because o f t h e a f o r e -

mentioned s e n s i t i v i t y o f Mach number t o s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , a f t e r - s h o c k t o t a l

( p i t o t )p r e s s u r e , H2, i s employedaboveanominal 1.6 Mach number.

Dynamic P r e s s u r e : Dynamic pressure, q, i s perhapsthe most f r e q u e n t l y employed

flow parameterused tonormalizewindtunneldata. Thus t h ea c c u r a c yo f q is

d i r e c t l yr e f l e c t e di nt h ea c c u r a c yo fc o e f f i c i e n td a t a .I n mostinstances,

afterstaticpressure hasbeen obtained bymeasurement (transonic)or by

inference(supersonic) it i s used w i t h Mach number t o compute q from

q = M2Pm . (2.c.8)

I nt h et r a n s o n i c range,both Pm and !i
S
a r e measured. E r r o r si ne i t h e ra f f e c t

Mach number. F i g . 2.C.4

shows t h es e n s i t i v i t yo f q t o HS w h i c hr e s u l t ss o l e l y

from Mach number e r r o r a s d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e f o l l o w i n g .

2
Since q+pm ,

= YMP- -
aM , (2.C.9)
aHS a HS

and ( aq/q )/(aHS/Hs) -5 q aHs

= - = 2
(aM/M)/(aHS/Hs) .

I t will subsequently be i l l u s t r a t e d (seeSection Il.C.3) that

aM/(aHS/Hs) 31 7~5 (1 + .2M

2
,

(2.C. IO)

28
I

C
-5 1.0 1.5 2 .o
Mach Number

Figure 2.C.4 THE SENSITIVITY OF DYNAbEC PRESSURE To STAGNATION

PRESSURE ERROR, TRANSONIC OPERATION
Equation 2.C.10may b es u b s t i t u t e di n t ot h ep r e c e d i n ge q u a t i o n to o b t a i n

(2.c.11)

Errors i n Pm a f f e c t q by means o f t h e Pm term and theerroneous Mach number

as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 2.C.5. From q = 7
Y M 2 Pm :

a
= yMPm -
aM
a
+ -$ M 2 (2.c.12)

1
(2.C.13)

I -
M
(aM/(aPm/Pm)) + I . (2.C. 14)

It will beshown i nS e c t i o n Il.C.3 t h a t

aM/ (aPJP,) = - -
7M ( 1 +.2M )
2
, (2.C.15)

which upon s u b s t i t u t i o n y i e l d s

(aq/q)/(aPm/Pm) 1 - 2
7 ~ z(M2+5) . (2.C.16)

D u r i n gS u p e r s o n i co p e r a t i o n ,c a l i b r a t e d Mach numbers a r e known f o r t h e

f a c i l i t y geometry s e t t i n g and a r e employed w i t h HS f o rqd e t e r m i n a t i o n . .

However, an e r r o r i n d e f i n i n g t h e c a l i b r a t e d Mach number will a f f e c t q as

shown i nF i g . 2.C.6. The f u n c t i o ni l l u s t r a t e di nt h i sf i g u r e was obtained

as f o l l o w s :

30
 1

I I
0 I I
05 1.0
Mach er

-2

-3

-4

Figure 2.C.5
I
THE Sli3KLTIVITY OF DYNAMIC PRESSURE
PRESSURE ERROR, TRANSONIC OPERATION
'K) STATIC

31
2

\ Mach Number

-1

-2

-3

-4

Figure 2.c.6 THE SENSITIVITY OF DYNAMIC PRESSURE To MACH NUMBER

ERROR, SUPERSONIC OPERATION
 (2.C.'17)

(2.C. 18)

= 2 + ( a P /P ) / , ( ~ M / M )
W O D
(2.C. 19)

As shown i nS e c t i o n ll.C.3,

aM/(aPw/Pw) = - -5
7M ( 1 + 2
.2M ) , (2.C.20)

hence
2
(aM/M)/(aP w
/P w 1 = - - ( I + .2M ) - (2.C.21)
7M2

Then

(2.C.22)

or

(2.C.23)

I n a s i m i l a r manner, e r r o r s i n HS canbe shown t o havea o n e - t o - o n er e l a t i o n s h i p

w i t h errors i n q.

A t lowsubsonic Mach numbers, t h e p r e s s u r e r a t i o Pw/HS approaches u n i t y ,

s o that determination of the Mach number anddynamic pressure from measure-

ments o ft h ei n d i v i d u a lp r e s s u r e s becomes increasinglyInaccurate. A t these

low Mach numbers (belowabout 0.4)a p r e f e r r e dp r o c e d u r e i s t o measure t h e

d i f f e r e n t i a l (Hs - )P, directlywith a o

lw rangetransducer and t o compute the

dynamicpressurefrom:

(2.C.24)

33
A t low Mach numbers, o n l y t h e f i r s t t e r m of t h e ' s e r i e s i s u s u a l l y r e q u i r e d .

For example, t h e e r r o r i s o n l y 0.14 percent a t M = 0 . 5 u s i n g o n l y t h e f i r s t

term. A t M = 1.0,the firstthree terms y i e l d r e s u l t s a c c u r a t e t o 0.1 per-

cent.

I I .C.2 Temperature

As a fundamental s t a t ep r o p e r t y ,s t r e a m( s t a t i c )t e m p e r a t u r ei so f

s u b s t a n t i a li m p o r t a n c ei ne s t a b l i s h i n gt h ec h a r a c t e r o f t h ef l u i df l o w .

Thus a na c c u r a t ev a l u eo ft e m p e r a t u r ei sr e q u i r e di nw i n dt u n n e lt e s t i n gt o

d e t e r m i n es e v e r a lc o r r e l a t i o np a r a m e t e r sw h i c hd e f i n et h en a t u r eo ft h ef l o w .

The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s t a t i c t e m p e r a t u r e i n a gasstreamconventionally

i n v o l v e sa ni n d i r e c t measurement. Stagnationtemperature i s a convenient

measurement t o make s i n c e i t i s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o o b t a i n , and t h e r e a r e

e s t a b l i s h e dp r o c e d u r e sf o rc o m p u t i n gs t a t i ct e m p e r a t u r e from t h es t a g n a t i o n

value and f l o w Mach number. F i g u r e 2.C.7 i l l u s t r a t e st h er e l a t i o no f

s t a g n a t i o n - t o - s t a t i ct e m p e r a t u r ef o r a p e r f e c t gas ( y = 1.4) i n an a d i a b a t i c

process. This relation'(To/T = 1 + 2y-1 M 2) i s used i n wind tunnels which

operateatmoderatepressures and temperatures and where r e a l gas e f f e c t s

a r en e g l i g i b l e . I t can beseen t h a t an e r r o r i n t h e measurement o f stagna-

t i o n temperature, To, isdirectlyreflectedinthestatic temperature.

34
Mach Number
 I I . C. 3 t,iach Number

As p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d Mach number i s computedusi.ng s e t t l i n g chamber

pressure and e i t h e r s t a t i c p r e s s u r e o r a f t e r - s h o c k ( P i t o t ) s t a g n a t i o np r e s -

sure. I nt h et r a n s o n i cr e g i o n , Mach number i s computedfrom

(2.C.25)

The sens it i v i t y o f Mach number t o s e t t l i n g chamber pressure measurementcan

be d e r i v e d b y o b t a i n i n g t h e p a r t i a l de r i v a t i v e o f t h e above e x p r e s s i o n w i t h

respectto HS, i.e.,

(2. C .27)

T h i se x p r e s s i o n may be n o n - d i m e n s i o n a l i t e d t o o b t a i n

2
aM/(aHS/Hs) = -
7M
( -"45 7 (2.C.28)
pW

or

Similarly,thenon-dimensionalsensitivity of Mach number t o Poo i s found t o

be

aH/(aPw/Pw)= - -
7M
( 1 + .2M )
2
, (2.C.30)

which i 1 l u s t r a t e s t h a t
":$,;.
. . ..
aM/(aPw/Pw) = - aM/(aHS/Hs) . (2.C.31)
 The r e l a t i o n o f s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e b e h i n d a normalshock, H2, t o HS

as aMach number f u n c t i o n i s :

(2.C.32)

Thisrelation will n o t y i e l d an e x p l i c i t e x p r e s s i o n f o r Mach number,

therefore,thesensitivityof Machnumber t o H2 was evaluatedusing a

numer i c a l ,f i n i t ei n t e r v a l approach. A s p r e v i o u s l y shown

(2.C.33)

These s e n s i t i v i t i e s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fig. 2.C.8.

Thisfigureconsistently showsa l a r g e r Machnumber e r r o rp e rp e r c e n t

e r r o ri n Hs and H2 t h a np e rp e r c e n te r r o ri n H S and Pa . However, when

nominalvalues o f HS, PW and H

2 a r es u b s t i t u t e da p p r o p r i a t e l y ,t h er e l a t i v e
magnitude o f Machnumber errorper N/m2 errorinthe measurement i l l u s t r a t e s

thesuperiorityof H2 over PIP a t supersonic speeds (seeFig. 2.C.9).

37
2.4

2 .o

1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

f o r M = f ( H S , P,)

0
1 2 3 4 5
Mach Number

Figure 2.C E. l THE SENSITIVIm OF h4ZH NUMBER TO STATIC

PRESSURE ANI) STAGNATION PRESSURE ERROR
 Hs = 2.75 x 105 N/m2

-1600

-1300

"200

-1OOO
x lo6 N/m2

-800

-600

-400

-2oc
L
C
1 2 3 4 5
Mach Number

Figure 2 .c. 9 THE SENSITMTY OF MACH NUMBER "0 STATIC

PRESSW AND STAGNATION PRESSURES
 I 1 .C.4 F l o wA n g u l a r i t y and C u r v a t u r e

F low angu l a r i t y and c u r v a t u r e c a n r e s u l t from n o z z l e c o n t o u r e r r o r s ,

ir r e g u l a r i t i e s o r d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n t h e i n t e r n a l s u r f a c e s o f a tunnel,

in-floworout-flow due t o leakage, and s w i r l or curvaturepropagated from

upstream o f t h en o z z l eo rc o n t r a c t i o n . The r e s u l t i n gn o n - u n i f o r m i t yp r o -

duces l o c a lp e r t u r b a t i o n si nt h ef l o ww h i c hr e s u l t in gradients or varia-

t i o n si nf l o wp r o p e r t i e si n c l u d i n gs t a t i c pressure and t h e r e f o r e , Mach

number (seeFig. 2.C. 10). Thus s t e p sa r e t a k e nt o dissipatethesedisturb-

ancesby means a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a rt u n n e l configuration. These

c o r r e c t i v ea c t i o n si n c l u d en o z z l ec o n t o u r c o r r e c t i o n s ,i n s t a l l a t i o n of

honeycombs i n r e g i o n s o f l o w Machnumber f l o w , and more r e c e n t l y , p e r f o r a t e d

p l a t e si nr e g i o n s wherean u n c o n t r o l l e d ,h i g h - p r e s s u r e - r a t i o shockdown would

g e n e r a t ea d d i t i o n a lu n d e s i r a b l ep e r t u r b a t i o n s( R e f . 4).

Because o f t h e a c u t e s e n s i t i v i t y o f c e r t a i n model c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t o

n o n - u n i f o r m i t yo ff l o w suchas l o c a lf l o wd i r e c t i o n and Mach number, i t

i s necessary t o d e f i n e v i a c a l i b r a t i o n any flowanomaliesthat may e x i s t

i nt h et e s ts e c t i o n . Probes f o r m e a s u r i n gf l o wa n g u l a r i t ya r ed i s c u s s e di n

Section I I1.E.

40
 0.6

0.5

cu

0, 0.2
2
Ed
F
u

0.1

c &
2 3 4 5 6 7
Mach Number

Figure 2.C .10 CHANGE IN F L O W D I I E C T I O N WIT)i INCRplENT OF MACH

B E R , Ref. 3

41
 I I .C.5 Reynolds Number

The r a t i o o f i n e r t i a l t o v i s c o u s f o r c e s i n t h e t e s t medium i s

o b t a i n e d from wind-tunnel measurements asadimensionalunitReynolds

number g i v e n by

R/E = -
PU
lJ (2.C.34)

Thiscan be expressed i n u n i t s o f m-l i n terms o f To, M and Pm as f o l lows:

6 P,,H
-( 1
R/I1 = 2.29 x 10
To2
+ .2M )
2, 2, ( 1,.:
I, (2.C.35)

6 HSM
R/E = 2 . 2 9 x 10
TZ ( 1 + .2H 2 ) 1.5

Since P,/Q i s al i n e a rf u n c t i o n of Pa and H S , t h es e n s i t i v i t yt ot h e s e

parameters i s one-to-one;that i s , ag i v e n error i n e i t h e r o f , t h e s e will

be r e f l e c t e di nt h e same p e r c e n te r r o ri n R/R. However, i nt h et r a n s o n i c

range poo and H a r e used t o o b t a i n Mach number which i s a l s o a v a r i a b l e i n

S

theaboveexpressions. Thus e r r o r s i n P,, and Hs can be r e f l e c t e d i n R/%

t h r o u g he r r o r si n M. F i g u r e s 2.C.11 and 2.C.12 i l l u s t r a t e these s e n s i t i v i t i e s

f o rs e l e c t e du n i t Reynolds numbers (5, 25,50

6
C 100 x 10 /meter) a t anominal

stagnationtemperature o f 311 OK (100 OF). The s e n s i t i v i t y Df .?eynolds number

t o measurements o f stagnationtemperature i s shown i n F i g . 2.C.13.

Intunnels where c a l i b r a t e d Mach numbers a r e o b t a i n e d andconsidered

constantfor subsequentoperationwiththe same f a c i l i t y c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , any

errors in Machnumber due t o c a l i b r a t i o n or a d i s s i m i l a r c o n f i g u r a t i o n will con-

t r i b u t et oe r r o r si n R/Q . T h i se f f e c t i s shown i nF i g . 2.C.14.

42
Figure 2. C .11 TI& SENSITiVI!iT OF UNIT REYNOLDS NUMBER TO
STATIC PRESSURE EHROR

43
 100

x
60

40

20

I I I
1 2 3 4 5
h c h ,Jwnber

Figure 2 .C .12 THE SENSITIVITY OF UNIT REYPIOLDS F W E R TO

STAGNATiON PRESSURE ERRCR

44
 To = 3UoK
-160
2- \ \

-40

I I I I
I
1 2 3 4 5
Mach Number

45
 1 2 3 4 5
Mach Number

Figure 2 .C .14 THE SENSITIVITY OF UNIT REYNOLDS NUMBER To

MACH NUMBER ERROR

46
 ll.C.6. Unsteadiness,Turbulence and Noise

Large,continuousflowtunnelsoftenhavesmall-amplitude,low-frequency

o s c i l l a t i o n si nt h e mean f l o wc o n d i t i o n s .F o r example, the11-FtTransonic

Tunnel a t NASA Ames has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p e r i o d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 seconds.

O f course, thistypeofvariationshould be c a l i b r a t e d and used t o e s t a b l i s h

r o u t i n et e s t i n gp r o c e d u r e s .

AccordingtoJestley(Ref. 5), measurements i n AEDC, Langley, and Modane

w i n dt u n n e l si n d i c a t et h e maximum a x i a l and t r a n s v e r s et u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t i e s

areapproximately 1.0% and 0.4% f o r Mach numbers near one. I nP a r t 11.2 o f

Ref. 6 , i t i s notedthatwindtunnelturbulence hasbeen used a t MLR (Netherlands)

and ONERA (France) t o e x c i t e model f l u t t e r modes. However, T i m e (Ref. 7 )

c a u t i o n s ,t h a tt u r b u l e n c en o to n l y can mask t h e i n i t i a t i o n of f l u t t e r , b u t may

also e x c i t e response modes w h i c ha r en o tt r u ef l u t t e r modes. A l s o ,T i m e

p o i n t so u tt h a t Mabey (RAE) f o u n dt h et r a n s o n i cb u f f e tb o u n d a r yt o be v e r y sen-

s i t i v et of l o wu n s t e a d i n e s s ,I na d d i t i o n ,f r e e s t r e a mt u r b u l e n c ei n t r o d u c e s

e r r o r si ns t a t i cp r e s s u r e measurements (seeSection 1 I I . D ) and a f f e c t s bounda r y

l a y e rt r a n s i t i o n ,s e p a r a t i o n phenomena a tl e a d i n g and t r a i l i n g edges, and shock-

b o u n d a r yl a y e ri n t e r a c t i o n s .

The f o l l o w i n g a r e known t o be sources o fn o i s ei nt r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e l s :

1. porous wa 11s which can g e n e r a t e d i s t i n c t f r e q u e n c i e s known as

edgetones and/ororgantones,

2. slottedwallswhichgeneratebroad-banddisturbances due t o

s h e a r i n gi nt h es l o t s between themovino airinthetest

s e c t i o n and t h e a i r i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g plenum chamber,

*A preferred procedure would appear to be a c o n t r o l l e d e x c i t a t i o n o f t h e model

v i a e i t h e r a m e c h a n i c a le x c i t o r ,p r e s s u r ep u l s eg e n e r a t o r , or loudspeakers.

47
 3. r e v e r b e r a t i o n o f t u n n e lw a l l s ,

4. plenum chamber surges,

5. t u r b u l e n t boundary l a y e r s a l o n g t h e t u n n e l w a l l s ,

6. d i f f u s e rf l o wi n s t a b i l i t y ,

7. compressors i nc o n t i n u o u sw i n dt u n n e l s ,

8. c o n t r o lv a l v e si n blowdown windtunnels,

9. v i b r a t i o no ft u n n e ls i d e w a l l s ,

10. w o r k i n gs e c t i o nc u t o u t s , and

11. model supports and s t r u t s .

,The n o i s es o u r c e s ,w h i c hu s u a l l yd o m i n a t ea tv a r i o u s Mach numbers, a r e i n d i c a t e d

i n Figs. 2.C.15 and 16.

I t i s noted i nt h er e v i e w paper
by
b!estiey
(Ref. 5) t h a t CL buffet
max
onset, t r a n s o n i cd r a gr i s e , b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r a n s i t i o n and separati.on, sk n.

f r i c t i on drag, shock shapes and locat.ions, etc.,, m.a y a l i be.affected by

. I

I .

t u n n e l -generatednoise. Hence, windtunneldata will n o t be r e p r e s e n t a t ve

of f r e e - f l i g h tc o n d i t i o n s i n caseswherethis, i st r u e . Our p r e s e n ts t a t e of

knowledge does n o t a l l o w a quantitative definition of the complex i n t e r a c t i o n s

between t u r b u l e n c e ,n o i s e , and aerodynamic t e s t i n gi nw i n dt u n n e l s . The funda-

m e n t a lo b j e c t i v e o f c u r r e n tr e s e a r c hi nt h i s a r e ai st oo b t a i n
.
a
.
b e t t e ru n d e r -

s t a n d i n g o f t h i s phenomena v i a a s y s t e m a t i c t e s t i n g programwhichusesstandardized

instrumentation. P. l i s t o f 25 recommendationsconcludesthe paDer by Westley

(Ref. 5). Theserecommendations m a i n l yc o n s i s to f :

(1)decisionswhich need t o be made t os t a n d a r d i z ei n s t r u m e n t a t ion

and t e s tp r o c e d u r e s , and

(2) new experimental

programs.
 TRANSONIC

I I
Y

M,< 0.3 TUR.BULENCE u C Dominant Souta

(valves. compressor 1
H
DIFFUSER p 4- "
I

0.3 < M<, I

1
WALL HOLE
RESONANCE

JET No'SE
IIC+ "
II
I

Figure 2.C.15 F I x l W DISTURBANCES IN TRANSONIC TUNNELS, R e f . 5

 M,. I -3
SUPERSONIC
I
- HYPERSONIC
I
- Usually
Dominant
-

M, = 3 IO - RADIATED NOISE .( c Usuolly

20 (cold flow)
""Dominant
-
M, > IO ENTROPY
Arc tunnels
Shock 9
MHD .
Pigure 2.c.16 i!TQW DISTURBANCES IN SUPERSOKIC AND HYPERSO1:IC TUNNELS, Ref. 5
One o f t h e p r i m a r y recamnondations i s thatstandardInstrtnnentation beadopted

to measure free-streamdisturbances.This p r o b i m o f noise measurements i n

transonictunnels i s discussedInSection 1II.F.

51
 I I. C , 7 Humidity

The a c c e l e r a t i o n o f a i r f r o m r e s t i n v o l v e s t h e r e d u c t i o n o f s t a t i c
pressure and temperature. Such expanslon t o evenmoderate speeds r e s u l t s
i nt h er a p i da p p r o a c h to water-vaporsaturation.Figure 2.C.17 illustrates
this condltion in terms o f t h e r a t i o o f t h e r e l a t i v e h u m i d i t y o f t h e s t r e a m
tothatofairatrest as i n a r e s e r v o i r . The e x t e n t o f t h e e f f e c t o f conden-
sationon aerodynamic t e s t d a t a , and thusthe amount ofcondensationwhich
can be t o l e r a t e d , has n o t been f i r m l ye s t a b li s h e d( R e f . 8). Forexample, the
i n v e s t i g a t i o nr e p o r t e d by N o r t o n ,e ta l . (Ref. 9) i n d i c a t e sv e r y little
d i f f e r e n c ei nd a t ao b t a i n e d on t h e same model i n m o i s t a i r ascompared with
thatobtainedindryair.

Inthe absence o f a w a t e r s u r f a c e o r a precipitant(such as a d r o p l e t o r

f o r e i g nn u c l e i ) , humid a i r can be c o o l e dw e l l beyond t h et h e o r e t i c a ls a t u r a -
t i o np o i n tb e f o r ec o n d e n s a t i o no c c u r s .T h i si s because theprocess i st i m e
dependent and t h e r a t e o f e x p a n s i o n ( w h i c h d e f i n e s t h e t e m p e r a t u r e h i s t o r y o f
t h ef l o w and i s u s u a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e t u n n e l s i z e ) d e f i n e s t h e amount o f
0
s u p e r c o o l i n gt h a t can be a t t a i n e d .S u p e r c o o l i n go fa s much as 100 C hasbeen
0
e x p e r i m e n t a l l y measured usingsubstantialtemperaturegradients(100 C/cm),
e.g., Ref. 10;and t h e o r e t i c a l work hasbeen a c c o m p l i s h e dw h i c hi n d i c a t e st h a t
t h es a t u r a t i o n vaporpressure may beexceeded by a f a c t o r o f 4, Ref. 1 1 . It
hasbeen demonstratedthatsupercooling o f 30 OC can be accomplished w i t h
n e g l i g i b l el i k e l i h o o do fc o n d e n s a t i o n , Ref. 12. However, even w i t ht h i s
tolerance, i t may be seen i n F i g u r e 2.C.18 thatfor an a r b i t r a r y dew p o i n t
of 2 OC extremereservoirtemperatureswould be r e q u i r e d t o a v o i d condensat i o n
at o
lw supersonlc Mach numbers. Therefore, i t i sg e n e r a l l yn o tp r a c t i c a l
(because o f a i r s t r e a m s t a g n a t i o n t e m p e r a t u r e 1 i m i t s , suchasthose o f Ref. 8)
t o employ r e s e r v o i rh e a t i n g as a means f o ra v o i d i n gc o n d e n s a t i o n .I np r a c t i c e ,
air dryers are usually used t o reduce dew p o i n t s t o as lowas practical ;
a l t h o u g ht h i s may be above t h es t r e a mt e m p e r a t u r e ,t h et o t a lw a t e rc o n t e n ti s
small, and c o n d e n s a t i o n e f f e c t s a r e n e g l i g i b l e .

As noted by Pope and Goin(Ref.12),theeffectwhichhumidity has on

tunnel Mach
number depends onwhethertheflowissubsonicorsupersonic.In
t h e case o f subsonicflow,watervaportends toincreasethe Mach number and

52
100

10

Mach Number
Figure 2 .C .17 THE RATIO OF RELATIVE HUM DIY I N THE STREAM TO
IT
RESERVDIR AS A FUNCTION OF MACH NUMBER

53
 Assumptions:
Dew Point Temperature = 2 c
Allowable Supercooling = 30 C
Allowable Stream Temperature = -29 c

1 2 3 4
Mach Number
Figure 2 .c .l8 RESERVOIR TEMPERATLTRE: REQUIRED TO AVOID
CONDEXSATION, Ref. IO

54
 reduce s t a t i cp r e s s u r e ; whereas, t h eo p p o s i t eo c c u r si ns u p e r s o n i cf l o w .T h i s
e f f e c t has a l s o been s u b s t a n t i a t e db ya n a l y s e sa t AEDC.* These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e
a n e g a t i v e Machnumber g r a d i e n to c c u r s when m o i s t u r e condenses i n supersonic
flow.

The absence o f c o n d e n s a t i o n d u r i n g t u n n e l c a l i b r a t i o n (i.e.,empty tunnel)

- d o e sn o tp r e c l u d et h ep o s s i b i l i t yo fl o c a lc o n d e n s a t i o ni np r o x i m i t yo fa model
d u r i n gp r o d u c t i o nt e s t i n g . It has been observed i n t h e AEDC Aerodynamic Wind
Tunnel 4T (Transonic 4T) t h a tt r a n s o n i c . f o r c ed a t ai su n a f f e c t e d bymoisture
c o n t e n tu n t i lc o n d e n s a t i o nc a nb e seen (anominalwater-vaporcontent o f 0.002
gm/gm o f a i r ) . However, t e s t si n v o l v i n gs u r f a c ep r e s s u r e measurements a r e more
s e n s i t i v e , and e x p e r i e n c ea t AEDC i n d i c a t e s t h i s t y p e o f t r a n s o n i c t e s t i n g
**
shouldbeconducted w i t hh u m i d i t y -
< 0.0015 gm H20/gm a i r . An a d d i t i o n a l
procedure f o r r e d u c i n g t h e e f f e c t o f h u m i d i t y i n t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s i s t o a d j u s t
w a l la n g l ea c c o r d i n gt ot h et e s t medium dew p o i n t , e.g.,Ref. 8. I nt h es u p e r -
sonicregime,experience a t NASA Ames has shown t h a t 0.0004 gm H20/gm o f a i r i s
a good r u l e - o f - t h u m bf o r model t e s t sw i t h M 3.5.' Forexample, mass f l o w
through an i n l e t model i s found t ov a r ya b o u t 1% a t M = 3.0 when t h em o i s t u r e
c o n t e n tv a r i e sf r o m 0.0002 t o 0,001. Because o f t h e f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e s w h i c h
a f f e c tt h ea l l o w a b l em o i s t u r ec o n t e n t , it i s d e s i r a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e l e v e l
whichcan be t o l e r a t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r f a c l l i t y by c o n d u c t i n g t e s t s on arepre-
s e n t a t i v ec o n f i g u r a t i o n and v a r y i n go n l yh u m i d i t y .T h i st y p eo ft e s t was included
i nt h e workreportedbyCorson,etal.(Ref. 8).

* Privatecommunication, Mr. J. D. Gray, AEDC.

ff
Privatecommunication, Mr. J. Gunn, AEDC.
' Privatecommunication, Mr. F. W. S t e i n l e , NASA Ames.
55
 I I .C.8 Test Mediums

Air i s a l m o s t , u n i v e r s a l l y usedas thetest medium i n t r a n s o n i c and

s u p e r s o n i cw i n dt u n n e l s .A l t h o u g ht h e s ef a c i l i t i e sh a v ed i f f e r e n to p e r a t i n g

characteristicswiththeairbeingsubjectedtodifferentpressure and tempera-

t u r el e v e l sd u r i n gt h ev a r i o u sc y c l e s , i t i sg e n e r a l l ya l l o w a b l et oc o n s i d e r

t h e gas t o beideal.Realgaseffects may become r e l e v a n t a t e x t r e m ec o n d i t i o n s

such as i n a Ludwiegtube f a c i l i t y (Ref. 6). Departures from t h ei d e a l gas

r e l a t i o n s may occur when o t h e r t e s t mediums a r e employed.However, i t has been

found t h a t t h e i d e a l r e l a t i o n s a r e s u i t a b l e f o r t h e v e r y l o w t e m p e r a t u r e

n i t r o g e n used intheLangleyIO-MeterTransonicCryogentcTunnel(Ref. 14).

R e c e n tt r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e lt e s t so fa i r f o i l s have i n d i c a t e da ne f f e c to f

varying y , Refs. 15 and 16. A l t h o u g hn oe f f e c t was d e t e c t e d for s u b c r i t i c a l

f l o w s , a s y s t e m a t i cr e d u c t i o ni nl o c a l peak Mach numbers was observedfor

s u p e r c r i t i c a lf l o w s .T u t l a ,e ta l . (Ref. 16) suggest t h i st r e n di sa s s o c l a t e d

w i t ht h ee f f e c t so f y on transonic-shock/boundary-layer i n t e r a c t i o n s .T h i si s

relevanttothecalibrationof empty, t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s i f a conventional,

s t a t i c - p r e s s u r ep r o b ei s used t o measure freestream Mach number i n d i f f e r e n t

t e s t gases, As discussed i nS e c t i o n lll.D.2, a t r a n s o n i c shock alwaysforms

ona conventionalstatic-pressureprobe. I f v a r i a t i o n si n y can a f f e c t super-

. .cr,itical pressure distributions, this may a l s o change t h e l o c a t i o n o n a probe

a tw h i c hf r e e s t r e a mp r e s s u r ee x i s t s .R e s e a r c ho nt h i s phenomena i sc o n t i n u i n g

a t NASA Ames.

56
 1 I .C. References

1. H i 1 1, Jacques A. F. e t a l , "MachNumber Measurements i n High SpeedWind

Tunnels," MIT, NavalSupersonicLaboratoryTechnicalReport 145,
Februaty 1956.

2. Thompson, J.. S. and Holder, D. Y., "Noteson Wind TunnelPressure

Measurements from t h e O p e r a t o r ' s P o i n t o f View," RAE TN Aero.2547,
February 1958.

3. Raney, D. J., "Flow D i r e c t i o n Measurements i n Supersonic Wind Tunnels,"

Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , London 1956.

4. Cooksey, J. M. and Arnold,J. W., "Flow q u a l i t y Improvements i n a Blowdown

Wind TunnelUsinga M u l t i p l e Shock Entrance Diffuser,'' A l A A Journal,
Vol. 10, No. 9, September 1973.

6. MiniLaWsWorking Group, "A F u r t h e r Review o f C u r r e n t Research Aimed a t t h e

Design and FunctionofLargeWindtunnels," AGARD-AR-83, Sept. 1975.

7. T i m e , A., " E f f e c t so fT u r b u l e n c e and Noise onWind-TunnelMeasurements

A t Transonic Speeds , I ' AGARD-R-602, Apr i 1 1973.

8. Corson, Blake, W., e ta l ." C a l i b r a t i o n so ft h eL a n g l e y1 6 - f o o tT r a n s o n i c

Tunnel w i t h T e s t S e c t i o n Air Removal," NASA TR R-423, August 1974.

9. Norton,Harry T. Jr., Runckel,Jack F., and Pendergraft,Odis C. Jr., "Tran-

sonicPerformance o f Two Convergent-DivergentEjectorNozzlesDesigned
f o rC o r r e c t e d SecondaryFlows o f 3 and 9.4 Percent," NASA TM X-909, 1964.

IO. Lundquist, G. A., "Recent Experimental Work a t NOL on Condensation

i n Compressible Flows,"GeophysicalResearchPaper No. 37, ARDL, J u l y 1955.

57
 14. Adcock, J e r r y B . , Kilgore,Robert A. an'd
Ray, Edward J., "CryogenicNitrogen
asaTransonic Wind TunnelTest Gas," AlAA Paper 75-143, January 1975.

IS. Gross, A. R. and S t e i n l e , F. W.: "PressureDatafrom a 64010 A i r f o i l a t

Transonic Speeds i n Heavy Gas Media o f R a t i o o f S p e c i f i c Heatsfrom 1.67 t o

1.12 ,'I NASA TH X-62468, Aug. 1975.

16. Tuzla, K.; Wai,

J. C.; and Russell, 3. A.: "y-Effectson2-DimensionalTransonic

Aerodynamics,"Proc. A I M 9 t h Aerodynamic TestingConference, June 1976.

17. S p r a t l e y , A. B., Thompson, E. R., and Kennedy, T. L.: l'Reynolds Number and

and N o z z l e A f t e r b o d y C o n f i g u r a t i o n E f f e c t s on Model Forebody and Afterbody Drag,"

A I A A Paper77-103, January 1977.

58
 111. CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND lNSTRUMENTATlON

A. S e t t l i n g Chamber Pressure

As discussed i n S e c t i o n 11 .A., the re'servoi r t o t a l p r e s s u r e i s a fundamental

variablewhichisusually measured d i r e c t l y i n t h e s e t t l i n $ c h a m b e r s o f b o t h
t r a n s o n i c and supersonictunnels. The Machnumber and dynamic pressure i n t h e
s e t t l i n g chamber aredetermined by t h e c o n t r a c t i o n r a t i o , Ao/A
* , where A. is
t h ec r o s ss e c t i o n a la r e aa tt h es e t t l i n g chamber and A* i s t h e choked t h r o a t a r e a
c o r r e s p o n d i n gt ot h et e s ts e c t i o n Mach number. The maximum s t i l l i n g chamber
Mach number n o r m a l l yo c c u r sa t Mach 1.0 i n a transonic-supersonictunnel. At
a contraction ratio of IO,.for example, t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t i l l i n g chamber Mach
number i s 0.058. The f l o w may be consideredincompressible and t h e r a t i o o f
dynamic t o s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e d e t e r m i n e d frbm

-
qS = "5 - ps = 1 - (-+,p S
HS HS S

where (PS/Hs) i sd e f i n e d by t h e s e t t l i n g chamber Mach number. A t a contraction

ratio of 10, t h e s t i l l i n g chamber dynamic p r e s s u r e i s 0.235 p e r c e n t o f t h e
s t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r e . Thus, t h ee r r o ri n measured t o t a l head, inducedbyusing a
static orifice in place of a P i t o t probe,wouldbe 0.235 percent.Thiswould
c o n t r i b u t e a Mach number e r r o r o f 0.002. Therefore, i f a Mach number accuracy
o f 0.001 i s t o be achieved and s t a t i c o r i f i c e s a r e used t o measure s e t t l i n g
chamber p r e s s u r e , t h e e r r o r must be e l i m i n a t e d v i a c a l i b r a t i o n w i t h P i t o t probes.

When u s i n g a P i t o t probe t o c a l i b r a t e t o t a l p r e s s u r e i n a s e t t l i n g chamber,

theprobemust be l o c a t e d downstream o f anyscreens, honeycombs, e t c . , s i n c e
theseitemscancause s i g n i f i c a n tp r e s s u r e losses, Ref. 1. Also,the chamber
crosssectlonshould be surveyed for v a r i a t i o n si nt o t a lp r e s s u r e . If a single
v a l u eo ft o t a lp r e s s u r e i s t o be used(as i s comnonlydone)and itscontribution
t o Machnumber error is to be l e s st h a n 0.001, then 2a o f s p a t i a l v a r i a t i o n s i n
t o t a lp r e s s u r e must be lessthan 0.05 percent (EAM = 0.0005 a t M = 0 . 8 0 ) . Un-
fortunately,thisisnotonlynearthestate-of-the-art o f pressure measurement
accuracy, it i s a l s o v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o a c h i e v e t h i s u n i f o r m i t y i n p r a c t i c e .
Thus, t h e d e c i s i o n a s t o what i s an acceptable amount o f n o n u n i f o r m i t y in
s e t t l i n g chamber pressure mustbe l e f tt oi n d i v i d u a l judgment. T h i sd e c i s i o n

*
The t e r m s " S e t t l i n g chamber"and " s t i l l i n g chamber" a r e usedinterchangeably.
59
 should be based on t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s * and t h e t y p e o f
t e s t sw h i c ha r ec o n d u c t e di nt h a tf a c i l i , t y .

Once t h e s p a t i a l v a r i a t i o n s i n s e t t l i n g chamber p r e s s u r e a r e j u d g e d t o be
acceptable, i t i s suggested t h a t an a p p r o p r i a t ea v e r a g e be d e f i n e d basedon
measurements i nt h ec e n t r a lp o r t i o no ft h ef l o w .F o r example, i nt h e 16 f t .
TransonicTunnelat NASA L a n g l e y ,f o u rP i t o tp r o b e s have beenmounted inthe
c e n t r a lp o r t i o no ft h ef l o wt od e f i n e anaverage(Ref. 2). I ng e n e r a l ,i n - i t i a l
c a l i b r a t i o n s r e q u i r e more measurements i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a s u i t a b l e average.
However, o n c et h ea v e r a g et o t a lp r e s s u r ei sd e t e r m i n e df o rt h er a n g eo fo p e r a t i n g
c o n d i t i o n s , a s i m p l ew a l l mounted tube (or a s t a t i c o r i f i c e ) can be c a l i b r a t e d
torelateits measurements t o t h e average. By f o l l o w i n gt h i sp r o c e d u r e ,r o u t i n e
test,ingcan be accomplishedwithoutanyunnecessaryobstructions in the central
portionoftheflow.

Although a w i d e v a r i e t y o f P i t o t p r o b e nosegeometrieshave been used i n

o
w
l speed f l o w s ,s i m p l es t e e lt u b i n gw i t h an i n t e r n a lt oe x t e r n a ld i a m e t e r
ratio -B 0 . 5 and a square-cut nose will measure t o t a l p r e s s u r e i n t h e s e t t l i n g
chamber w i t hn e g l i g i b l ee r r o r .
** A P i t o t probe w i t ht h i sd i a m e t e rr a t i oi s
unaffectedbyflowanglesof 10 degrees or less, Ref. 3. Assumina t h a t
reasonablecareistakentoaligntheprobewiththeflow,thistypeofprobe
will provideadequateaccuracyeven i f c o n s i d e r a b l et u r b u l e n c ee x i s t si nt h e
s e t t l i n g chamber. T h i sc o n c l u s i o ni ss u b s t a n t i a t e d b yt h ef o l l o w i n gd i s c u s s i o n .

The problem o f P i t o t probe measurements i n an i n c o m p r e s s i b l e ,t u r b u l e n t

f l o w hasbeen examined by Becker and Brown (Ref. 4). These authors have
a n a l y z e dd a t af o rf o u rd i f f e r e n tp r o b eg e o m e t r i e s : ( 1 ) spherical-nosed
probe(asphere ona t u b u l a rs u p p o r t ) , (2) a hemispherical-nosedtube, (3) a
square-nosedtube, and (4) sharp-1ippedprobes made by c o n i c a l l y t a p e r i n g t h e
e x t e r i o ro f a tube. The r e s u l t so ft h e i rs e m i - e m p i r i c a la n a l y s i sf o rs q u a r e -
nosed p r o b e si n d i c a t e st h ef o l l o w i n g .I n an i s o t r o p i c ,t u r b u l e n tf l o ww i t h
a turbulenceintensityof 5 percent, a square-nosedprobe w i t h a diameterratio

*A number o f s u p e r s o n i c t u n n e l s have f i x e d - c o n t o u r , s l i d i n g b l o c k n o z z l e s w h i c h
a r er o u t i n e l yo p e r a t e do f fd e s i g n . These n o z z l e sc a nh a v es i g n i f i c a n tt o t a l
pressurelosseswhichcanonly be determined by P i t o t surveys w i t h i n t h e t e s t
section. However, t h ea v e r a g et e s ts e c t i o nt o t a lp r e s s u r ec o u l d be r e l a t e d
t o s t i l l i n g chamber p r e s s u r e v i a c a l i b r a t i o n t e s t s .
A*
T h i s assumes the nose i s f r e e o f b u r r s . F i n i s h i n g o f o r i f i c e s i s b r i e f l y
discussed i n S e c t i o n I 11.0.4.

60
of 0 . 5 will c a p t u r e t h e t o t a l p r e s s u r e w i t h a n e r r o r o f 0.56 x 10 q.
-4 For a
given amount o f t u r b u l e n c e , t h e e r r o r d e c r e a s e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i a m e t e r r a t i o .
Thisaccuracy i s more than ample f o r most t u n n e l s s i n c e h o t - w i r e measurements
a t AEDC i n t h e s e t t l i n g chamber o ft h e Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel (4T), Ref. 5, 3.

indicatethelongitudinal component o f t h e t u r b u l e n c e i n t e n s i t y i s of theorder,

o f one p e r c e nf o
t r 0.3 M 1.2. Assuming i s o t r o p itcu r b u l e n c et ,h i s means I .

t h et o t a lt u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t yi sa p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.73 percent. Thus, t h e

suggestedsquare-nosedprobecan be used i n most s e t t l i n g chambers w i t hc o n f i - ;

dence.

The above d e s c r i b e d a c c u r a c y a n a l y s i s i g n o r e s a number o f o t h e r p o s s i b l e '

sources o fe r r o r . I t i s assumed theprobenose i sl o n g enough t oi s o l a t e
it from any e f f e c t s o f downstreamgeometry.Becker and Brown (Ref. 4) suggests
t h e nose l e n g t h be g r e a t e rt h a ns i xp r o b ed i a m e t e r s .A l s o ,t h ee f f e c to f
;i.
changes i nt h ei n t e r n a d
l i a m e t e ri si g n o r e d I. no r d e rt oe l i m i n a t ei n t e r n a l
geometry asa v a r i a b l e , Becker and Brown suggesttheinternaldiameter be con-
s t a n tf o r a d i s t a n c eo ft h r e ep r o b ed i a m e t e r s .I na d d i t i o n ,t h ep r o b es h o u l d
be l o c a t e d more t h a nt w od i a m e t e r sf r o mt h en e a r e s tw a l li no r d e rt oa v o i d a
r e d u c t i o ni n measured pressure (e.g.,Ref. 3 , p. 12).
Finally,theprobeshould be designed and mounted t o m i n i m i z e v i b r a t i o n .
W i n t e r n i t z( R e f . 6) has presented a s i m p l i f i e dp r o c e d u r ef o rd e s i g n i n gc a n t i -
l e v e r e d ,c i r c u l a rc y l i n d e r st oa v o i do s c i l l a t i o n si n d u c e d by vortexshedding.
Ower and Pankhurst(Ref. 7, p. 54) o b s e r v et h a tf o r a c y l i n d e rw i t h a diameter
o f 0 . 8 cm ( 9 1 6 i n . )t h ev o r t e xs h e d d i n gf r e q u e n c yi n a i r i s 40 Hz a t 1.5 m/sec
and 160 Hz a t 6 m/sec. Hence, theyconcluderesonancebetweenvortexfrequency
and t h en a t u r a lf r e q u e n c y o f theprobe isunlikelyin most w i n dt u n n e la p p l i c a -
tions. However, i n some cases t h i sc o u l d be a problem a t t h e low speeds c h a r a c t e r -
isticofstilling chambers. Thus,probes f o r measurements i n t h e s t i l l i n g
chamber should be designed t o a v o i d t h i s phenomenon.

f:
The problem o f i n t e r n a l geometry changes c a u s i n g b i a s i n g o f measured mean
p r e s s u r e si nf l u c t u a t i n gf l o w si sb r i e f l yd i s c u s s e di nR e f . 3 , p.105.
 1II.A. References

1. Loehrke, R. 1 . and Nagib, H. M.: "Experimentson Management o f

Free-StreamTurbulence," AGARD-R-598, Sept. 1972.

2. Corson, B. W., Jr. ; Runckel, J. F. ; and Igoe, #. B. : " C a l i b r a t i o n of

the Langley l6-Foot Transonic Tunnel with Test Section Air Removal , ' I
NASA TR-R-423,
Aug. 1974.

3. Bryer, D. W. and Pankhurst, R. C . : Pressure-Probe

Methods f o rD e t e r m i n i n g
WindSpeedand F l o wD i r e c t i o n ,N a t i o n a lP h y s i c a lL a b o r a t o r y , Her M a j e s t y ' s
S t a t i o n e r yO f f i c e , London, 1971.

4. Becker, H. A. and
Brown, A. P. G.: "Response o f P i t o t Probes i nT u r b u l e n t
Strearns,l'Jour. F l u i d Mech., Vol. 62, P a r t 1 , 8 Jan. 1974.

5. Credle, 0. P.: "An EvaluationoftheFluctuatingAirborneEnvironment

i n t h e AEDC-PWT 16-Ft TransonicTunnel ,I1 AEDC-TR-69-236, NOV. 1969.

6. W i n t e r n i t z , F. A. L.: " E f f e c t so fV i b r a t i o no nP i t o t Probe

Readings,"
The Engineer, 1/01. 201, 30Mar. 1956, pp. 273-275and 6 A p r i l 1956,
pp. 228-290,London.

7. Ower, E. and Pankhurst, R. C.: The Measurement o f Air Flow, Pergamon

Press, London, 1966.

62
 III . B. TOTAL TEMPERATURE

The t o t a l t e m p e r a t u r e i s n o r m a l l y m o n i t o r e d . i n t h e s t i l l i n g chamber d u r i n g
r o u t i n et u n n e lo p e r a t i o n .S i n c et h ed i f f e r e n c eb e t w e e nt o t a l and s t a t i c tempera-
t u r e i s s m a l la t low v e l o c i t i e s , a shielded,high-recoverythermocoupleprobe
i sn o tu s u a l l yn e c e s s a r y .I nf a c t ,d a t ao b t a i n e d by Stickney(Ref. 1) f o rt h e s e
twotypes o f probes show t h a tt h er e c o v e r yf a c t o r sa r en e a r l yi d e n t i c a l ("0.999)
f o r temperaturesnearambient and M < 0.2. Thus, Pope and Goin(Ref. 2) note
thatin many cases t h et o t a lt e m p e r a t u r e can bemeasured in the stilling chamber,
w i t hs a t i s f a c t o r ya c c u r a c y , by u s i n g a simplebare-wirethermocouplejunction.
*
A schematic o f t h i s t y p e o f t e m p e r a t u r e p r o b e i s shown i n t h e upper p a r t o f
F i g u r e 3.8.1. Measurements
by Stickney(Ref.1)indicatethatsuchunshielded
temperatureprobeshave amuch shorterresponsetime compared t o more e l a b o r a t e ,
s h i e l d e dp r o b e s .I nt h ec a s eo f blowdown tunnelswheretotaltemperaturecan
v a r yr a p i d l y ,t h i si s an essentialadvantage.Forexample, i f t e s t sa r e con-
ductedatconstantReynolds numbers, t h et o t a lt e m p e r a t u r e mustbe monitored
c o n t i n u o u s l y s o t h a tt o t a lp r e s s u r e canbe c o n t r o l l e da u t o m a t i c a l l y . Also,
s m a l lw i r et h e r m o c o u p l e sw i t ht i m ec o n s t a n t so ft h eo r d e ro f 0.1 sec. a r e
t y p i c a l l yr e q u i r e d .F o r example, a 0.13 mm (0.005 i n . )d i a m e t e rw i r e has a
*>*:
t i m ec o n s t a n ot 0f . 1s e c i.na i a
rt ambienttemperature and pressure and
a v e l o c i t yo f 19.8 m/sec (65 f t / s e c ) . Whereas, f o r t h e same c o n d i t i o n s , a
0.53 mm (0.021")diameterwire has a 1.0sectimeconstant,e.g.,Ref. 4.

I n response t ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h em a j o r it y o f t u n n e lo p e r a t o r si n d i ca ted
they do i n f a c t use thebare-wirethermocouple f o r t o t a l temperature measurements.
E s t i m a t e da c c u r a c i e sv a r i e df r o m +0.56"C t o 2 1 . 1 " C (21F t o2 2 F ) . Based on
t h er e l a t i o n sp r e s e n t e di nS e c t i o n l l . C . 2 , an u n c e r t a i n t yi nt o t a lt e m p e r a t u r e
o f 1 C will cause, a t M = 1 , a maximum u n c e r t a i n t y o f 0.5 p e r c e n t a t a Reynolds num-
berpermeter of 33 m i l l i o n .F o r most t e s t i n g purposes t h i s i s acceptable. However,
f e wt u n n e l s( t r a n s o n i co rs u p e r s o n i c )a p p e a rt o havebeen calibratedfor tempera-
t u r eg r a d i e n t sw h i c h may e x i s t a c r o s s and a l o n gt h ef l o w .

*A c o m p r e h e n s i v ed i s c u s s i o no ft h e r m o c o u p l ep r i n c i p l e s ,c i r c u i t s ,e l e c t r o m o t i v e
f o r c et a b l e s ,s t a b i l i t y and c o m p a t i b i l i t yd a t a ,i n s t a l l a t i o nt e c h n i q u e s ,e t c .
may be found i n Ref. 3.
IA
r. I.

The timeconstant i s h e r ed e f i n e d as t h et i m er e q u i r e dt or e a c h 63.2% of an

instantaneoustemperature change.
63
 Typical Bare-Wire Probe

/Two-hole ceramic
holder .229 O.D. x .033 W a l l t
A l l Dimensions In Centimeters

Probe (Ref. 5
AEDC-IWT 1 6 ~
.635 O.D. x .089 Wall
7
v 1.12 R
-.+ 1.27 h
v 30.48

.478 O.D. x .081 W a l l

L 4equally
Vent holes(0.17)
spaced

Figure 3 .B. 1 TOTAL !E!&PEMTUFU3 PROBES

 One o f t h e most complete and e x t e n s i v e c a l i b r a t i . o n o f t e m p e r a t u r e g r a d i e n t s
i n a t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l has beendone i nt h e AEDC P r o p u l s i o n Wind Tunnel (16T),
Ref. 5. The t e m p e r a t u r ec a l i b r a t i o n was done t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f a
special-purpose,cryogeniccoolingsystemwhichconsists o f a l i q u i d n i t r o g e n sys-
tem t o c h i l l t h e c o o l a n t i n t h et u n n e lc o o l e r and a l i q u i d a i r system for d i r e c t
i n j e c t i o ni n t ot h et u n n e la i r s t r e a m . A rectangulararrayofshieldedtempera-
tureprobes was l o c a t e di nt h en o z z l ec o n t r a c t i o nr e g i o n and i n t h e t e s t
section. A schematic o f a t y p i c a lp r o b e i s shown i nF i g u r e 3.8.1.*Since
t h er e c o v e r yf a c t o ro fa l lt h e r m o c o u p l ep r o b e s need t o be c a l i b r a t e d f o r Mach
and Reynolds number e f f e c t s (Ref. l ) , t h e raw temperaturedatawere first
c o r r e c t e df o rt h e s ee f f e c t s by Robson (Ref. 5 ) . Subsequently,thetemperature
o ft h ef l o wt h r o u g ht h ec e n t r a lp o r t i o no ft h en o z z l ee n t r a n c es e c t i o n was d e f i n e d
byanaverage o ft h i r t e e nt e m p e r a t u r e s measured over a 2 x 3.5 m (6 x 1 1 f t )
r e c t a n g u l a rr e g i o n . The t e m p e r a t u r eo ft h et e s ts e c t i o nf l o w was d e f i n e d by
an average o f 17 temperaturesobtainedover a2 x 2 m (6 x 6 f t ) p o r t i o n o f
thecore. The d i f f e r e n c e betweenthesetwotemperatures was used t od e f i n e
a t e m p e r a t u r ec a l i b r a t i o np a r a m e t e rw h i c hr e l a t e st e m p e r a t u r ea tt h en o z z l e
e n t r a n c et ot e s ts e c t i o nt e m p e r a t u r e .I nt h i s case, t h et e s ts e c t i o nf l o w was
found t o be approximately 1 . 1 " C (2F)lowerthanthenozzleflow.Deviations
of 28F wereobtainedacrossboththenozzle and t h e t e s t s e c t i o n o v e r a Mach
number range0.2 t o 0.8 and -22C < To < 21C. These d e t a i l e dt e m p e r a t u r e
measurements were made because o f t h e a n t i c i p a t e d n o n u n i f o r m i t i e s p r o d u c e d by
the
special
cooling
system.
Although
,. temperaturegradientsusually
smaller
-1. .L
I\

e x i s ti nt u n n e l sw i t h o u ts p e c i a lc o o l i n g o r heatingsystems,this example
i l l u s t r a t e st h ep r o c e d u r er e q u i r e dt oa c c u r a t e l yc a l i b r a t ew i n dt u n n e l tempera-
tures. For r o u t i n et e s t i n g , a singletemperatureprobecan be r e l a t e dt ot h e
average s t i l l i n g chamber t e m p e r a t u r e v i a c a l i b r a t i o n i n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e t h e
disturbingeffectsof anunnecessarythermocouplegrid.

.L

"Robson (Ref. 5) statesthatthecopper-constantanthermocouples used i n

t h i s p r o b ea r eg e n e r a l l yc o n s i d e r e dt o have a s y s t e m a t i c e r r o r o f +2.2"C
(24F).
-8. I
I.I
.

Temperatures i n t h e 1/3-MeterTransonicCryogenicTunnel a t NASA Langley

havealso,beensurveyedusing a g r i d o f thermocoupleprobes,Ref. 6.

65
 Additionalinformation on thedesign and c a l i b r a t i o no ft o t a lt e m p e r a t u r e
probescanbefound i n Refs.7-10.Also,Bate(Ref. 1 1 ) has reviewedthe
problem o f e r r o r s i n thermocouple measurements basedon e x p e r i e n c ei nt h e DFVLR
windtunnels i n WestGermany.

66
I

I I I . 6. References

1. Stickney, T. M.: "Recovery and Time-Response C h a r a c t e r i s t i c so fS i x

ThermocoupleProbes i n SubsonicandSupersonicFlow," NACA TN 3455,
J u l y 1955.

2. Pope, A. and Goin, K. L.:High-speed Wind TunnelTesting,Wiley, New York,

1965.
3. A m e r i c a nS o c i e t yf o rT e s t i n g and M a t e r i a l s (ASTM), Committee E20: Manual
onthe Use o f Thermocouples i n Temperature Measurement, ASTM Special
T e c h n i c a lP u b l i c a t i o n No. 470, P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa., 1974.
4. The Omega Temperature Measurement Handbook, Omega Engineering,Inc.,Stamford,
Conn., 1975.

5. Robson, G. D.: "TestSectionTemperatureCalibratlonofthe AEDC PWT 16-Ft

TransonicTunnel a tS t a g n a t i o n Temperaturesfrom-30 t o 3OoF," AEDC-TR-69-2,
Feb. 1969.

6. Polhamus, E. C . ; K i l g o r e , R . A. ; Adcock,J. 6. ; and Ray, E. J. : "The Langley

HighReynolds Number Wind-Tunnel Program," A s t r o . 5 Aero.,Oct. 1974.
7. Benedict, R. P . : Fundamentals of Temperature,Pressure, and Flow Measurements,
Wiley, New York, 1969.
8. Baker, H . D.; Ryder, E.A.; and Baker, FI. H.: Temperature Measurement i n
Engineering,Vol. I I , Wiley, New York, 1961.

9. V o l l u z , R. J.: "Handbook o f SupersonicAerodynamics,Section 20, Wind

TunnelInstrumentation and Design," NAVORD Rept. 1488 ( V o l .6 ) , 1961.

10. Dean, R. C., Jr.:Aerodynamic Measurements,

MIT Gas Turbine Lab., Eagle
E n t e r p r i s e s , New York, 1953.

11. Bate, J.: "Temperature Measurements i n Wind Tunnels," RAE L i b T

. ransl. No.
1736, AD 922 120, Farnborough,Hants,England,June 1974.

67
 1II.C. PITOT PRESSURES

Use o f P i t o t Pressures f o r C a l i b r a t i o n
As d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n II.C.l, when M > 1.6 t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n c a l c u l a t e d
t e s ts e c t i o n Mach number i s l e s s i f t h ec a l c u l a t i o ni s based on P i t o t p r e s s u r e
r a t h e rt h a nf r e e s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e . Thus, mostsupersonictunnelshave been
c a l i b r a t e dv i aP i t o tp r o b es u r v e y s and assumingan i s e n t r o p i ce x p a n s i o nf r o m
t h es t i l l i n g chamber. I nt h ep a s t ,i n v e s t i g a t o r s such as Hill (Ref. 1) and Hill,
e ta l . (Ref.2)have r e p o r t e dt h a t measurements i ns m a l l ,s u p e r s o n i ct u n n e l s
(<0.5 m) o f t h e r a t i o o f t o t a l p r e s s u r e i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n t o r e s e r v o i r p r e s -
sure exhibit a range o f 0.998 -
+ 0.003. This type of resul t leads t o t h e con-
elusion t h a t n o n i s e n t r o p i c e x p a n s i o n e f f e c t s a r e n e g l i g i b l e a t normaloperating
temperatures and p r e s s u r e si n a properlydesignedsupersonictunnel,i.e., one
i n whichthe empty t u n n e li sf r e eo f shocks. However, l a r g ec o n t i n u o u st u n n e l s
a r eo f t e no p e r a t e da tr e l a t i v e l yh i g hh u m i d i t yl e v e l si no r d e rt oi n c r e a s et h e
o p e r a t i n gt i m ep r i o rt od r y e rs a t u r a t i o n . For example,Maxwell and H a r t l e y
(Ref. 3) found i n t h e AEDC-PWT 165 Tunnel t h a t when t h eh u m i d i t y was 0.002 gm
H20/gm o f d r y a i r , t h e average t o t a l p r e s s u r e o f t h e t e s t s e c t i o n was 2 t o 6%
lowerthanthereservoirpressure.Thisloss was reduced 50%by decreasing
t
t u n n e lh u m i d i t yt o 0.001.

Inadditiontowatervaporcondensation,obliqueshocks and r e a l gas

e f f e c t s cancause a l o s si nt o t a lp r e s s u r e .A l s o ,l a r g et u n n e l sc a n havenon-
u n i f o r m i t i e si nt o t a lp r e s s u r e causedbyincompletemixing inthestilling
chamber,
** and smalltunnelscanhavelossescaused by a x i a lv e l o c i t yg r a d i e n t s
(e.g., Ref. 4). W i t ht h i s number o fp o s s i b l e causes o ft o t a lp r e s s u r ev a r i a t i o n ,
it i s recommended t h a to p e r a t o r s o f b o t ht r a n s o n i c and supersonictunnels make
c a l i b r a t i o n measurements t o v a l i d a t e t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f u n i f o r m t o t a l p r e s s u r e .
T h i s can be accomplished i n s u b s o n i cf l o wv i a a P i t o t probe,since it can be
used d i r e c t l y t o compare t e s t s e c t i o n t o t a l p r e s s u r e w i t h r e s e r v o i r p r e s s u r e .
Insupersonicflow,anotherindependentpressure must be measured suchasfree-
s t r e a ms t a t i c ,s u r f a c ep r e s s u r eo n , a cone o r wedge, or P i t o t p r e s s u r e b e h i n d an
o b l i q u e shock. Once a c h o i c ei s made, t h e two pressures and t h e r a t i o o f s p e c i f i c

?t 2
These r e s u l t s w e r e o b t a i n e d w i t h 2 .o < M < 4.75, 3 .1 Wcm2 < Hs < 9.1 N/cm ,
55 OC < To < 78 OC.
A*
T h i s can be d e t e r m i n e d d u r i n g s e t t l i n g chamber c a l i b r e t i o n ,S e c t i o n 1II.A.

68
heatscanbeused tocalculatethetest-section Machnumber and t o t a
pressure.

Barry(Ref. 5 ) has d i s c u s s e di nd e t a i lt h e e r r o r s t h a to c c u ri n computed

Mach numberwhen usingpressures measured w i t h t o t a l , s t a t i c , c o n i c a , and
wedge probes. A s i g n i f i c a n tc o n c l u s i o n ,o b t a i n e d by Barry(Ref. 5) and Thompson
and Holder(Ref. 6 ) , i s t h a tt h e Mach number computed from a p r e s s u r e r a t i o
i n v o l v i n gt h ei s e n t r o p i cs t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r e i s l e s ss e n s i t i v et o measurement
errors. For t h i s reason,anisentropicstagnationpressureprobe has been
designed and t e s t e d by Goodyer (Ref. 7 ) . The p r o b ec o n s i s t so f a P i t o tt u b e
mountedon t h es u r f a c eo f a c u r v e dc y l i n d e ro fc i r c u l a rc r o s ss e c t i o n . The
P i t o t tubesensestheimpactpressureof a streamtubewhich has beenslowed
t os u b s o n i c speedby isentropiccompressionalongtheleading edge o f t h e
c u r v e dc y l i n d e r . A s k e t c ho tf h ep r o b e i s shown I nF i g u r e 3.C.l. The independent
e x p e r i m e n t a lr e s u l t so f 8) i n d i c a t et h a tt h i st y p eo fp r o b ep e r m i t s
Couch (Ref.
measurements o f a b s o l u t e s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e s w i t h a n a c c u r a c y o f 99.8 percent
in a
Mach
number range of 1.4 t o 2.2. Beyond
a
Mach
number o f 2.2, t h ep r e s s u r e
recoverydecays and theprobe ceases t o o f f e r any a d v a r , t q eo v e r a conventional
probe. However, f o r Mach numbers lessthan 2.2 thestagnationpressureprobe
canbe used f o r d i r e c t measurement of t o t a lp r e s s u r el o s s .A l s o ,f o rt h e case
o f e q u a lu n c e r t a i n t yi n measured pressures and 1.6 M < 2.2, t h ea n a l y s i so f
Barry(Ref. 5) i n d i c a t e st h e most a c c u r a t e c a l i b r a t i o n o f Mach number would be
o b t a i n e d by u s i n gt h ei s e n t r o p i cp r o b ei nc o n j u n c t i o nw i t h a c o n v e n t i o n a lp i t o t
probe.

I f a s u p e r s o n i ct u n n e le n g i n e e re l e c t sn o tt o use a Goodyer probebecause

o f i t s l i m i t e d Mach number range,thenext most a c c u r a t et u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n
procedure i s t o measure P i t o tp r e s s u r e si nt h ef r e e s t r e a m and on awedge,
Ref. 5. Thisprocedure has beenused a t anumber offacilitieswith success.
Perhaps t h e most s o p h i s t i c a t e d use of t h i s method has been developed a t t h e
AEDC P r o p u l s i o n Wind Tunnel,Ref. 3. A v a r i a b l ea n g l e wedge w i t h a movable
p i t o t tubeneareachsurface i s used i n t h e 16s f a c i l i t y . The purpose o ft h e
v a r i a b l ea n g l ef e a t u r e i s t oo p t i m i z et h e wedge angle and t h e r e b ye l i m i n a t e
u n c e r t a i n t yi ne f f e c t i v ea n g l e caused by changes i n boundary l a y e rg r o w t h .
I ne f f e c t ,t h i sf e a t u r ee l i m i n a t e s wedge a n g l eu n c e r t a i n t yi nt h ec a l c u l a t i o n
o f Mach number. The complete Mach number probeincludestwoconventionalPitot
 Dimensions In Centimeters

Straight Section

Dia .

Figure 3 .C .l. ISENTROPIC STAGNATION PRESSURE PROBE, Ref. 8

probeslocatedoutboard and a l i g n e dw i t ht h el e a d i n g edge o f t h e wedge. A
planview o f t h i s Mach number probe i s shown on t h e r i g h t i n F i g . 3.C.2. One
o f theseprobeshas been usedon a sting to calibrate the empty t e s t s e c t i o n
of 165. These same data have beenused t oc a l i b r a t e a r e t r a c t a b l ev e r s i o no f
theprobewhich i s mounted i n t h e c e i l i n g o f t h e t e s t s e c t i o n . When f u l l y
extended,the wedge c e n t e r 1 i n e i s 58.4 cm (23 in.) from t h e c e i l i n g . T h i s
permitsroutine Mach number measurements w i t h o u t t h e u n c e r t a i n t y o f an i s e n t r o p i c
expansionassumption. The i n t e r e s t e dr e a d e r may r e f e r t o Reference 3 f o ra d d i -
t i o n a ld e t a i l s .

A second t y p e o f Mach number probehas been employed i n Tunnel A a t t h e

AEDC Von Karman F a c i l i t y . T h i s p r o b e measures s t a t i c p r e s s u r e onthesurface
of a r e t r a c t a b l e d i s k . The s u p p o r t i n g arm 1s a 15 deg included-angle wedge and
hasa s m a l lP i t o tp r o b e mounted belowthedisk. A schematic o f t h i s probe i s
shown onthe l e f ti nF i g u r e 3.C.2. A l t h o u g ht h i sp r o b ei ss u s c e p t i b l et ol e a d i n g
edgeand angleofattackerrors, i t may be c a l i b r a t e d by c o n v e n t i o n a l , s t i n g
3:
mounted probes and has t h ei m p o r t a n tf e a t u r eo fs i m p l i c i t y .

I nt h e case o f i n t e r m i t t e n t t u n n e l s , e.g., a Ludwieg Tube, a d i f f e r e n t t y p e

o f Machnumber probe i s r e q u i r e d because o ft h es h o r tr u n - t i m e and t h ep o s s i -
bilityofrapid changes i nt e s t - s e c t i o nf l o w . The AGARD TechnicalWorking Group,
which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e l e c t i o n and design o f theLargeEuropeanHigh-Reynolds-
Number TransonicWindtunnel (LEHRT), has recommended theprobe shown i nF i g . 3.C.3.
As reportedby ROSS and Hartzuiker(Ref. g ) , t h i sm i n i a t u r ep r o b eu t i l i z e sh i g h -
frequency-responsepressuretransducersfor measurement o f b o t h P i t o t and s t a t i c
pressures and i s designed t o be used i n t h e s m a l l - s c a l e p i l o t LEHRT f a c i l i t i e s .
The primarypurposeofthisprobe i s tomonitortemporal changes i n mean Mach number.
Dougherty (AEDC) has p o i n t e do u tt ot h ep r e s e n ta u t h o r st h a t measurements o f s t a t i c
pressurefluctuationswiththisprobe will have a limitedfrequencyresponse and
thusshouldnot be used t o c a l i b r a t e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e f l u c t u a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
noiseand/orturbulence. However, t h ef l u c t u a t i n gP i t o tp r e s s u r e s can be used f o r
t h i s purpose; see Section 1 I I . F . f o rf u r t h e rd i s c u s s i o no f measurements o f un-
steady f 1 ow d is turbances.

P i t o t ProbesforFreestreamCalibration

Although a w i d e v a r i e t y of P i t o t nosegeometrieshave been used, t h e s i m p l e

cylindricaltubewithsquare-cut nose i s adequate f o r f r e e s t r e a m c a l i b r a t i o n s .
For an i n t e r n a l t o e x t e r n a ld i a m e t e rr a t i o of 0.125, t h et e s t so f Gracey(Ref. IO)
R
Compared t o t h e o t h e r two Machnumber probes, t h i s t y p e o f p r o b e hasan a d d i t i o n a l
disadvantage. Barrys analysis
(Ref. 5) shows t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n c a l c u l a t e d Mach
number i s g r e a t e r when t h e r e i s equal u n c e r t a i n t y i n measured pressures.
71
1.
7-A
t
10
'
Tunnel A

Figure 3.C .2.

.051 o r i f i c e

II.' P itot

D i s kn o tp r e s e n t l yC a l i -
bra ted w i t h C, probe d a t a .

1.

2.
,
31 75

Variableangle
Tunnel 16 S

(10'-26') p i t o t wedge probe

mounted on c e i l i n g ; e x t e n d s c e n t e r
58.4 cm from ceiling.
C a l i b r a t e dw i t hi d e n t i c a l
tunnel G,

Dimensions In Centimeters

AEDC SUPERSON I C MACH NUMBER PROBES

.
of wedge

wedge located a t
 Scale 4:l Pitot and Static Measuring Transducers are K u l l t e CQL-062-50.
Type, Mounted in Silastimer Compound i n Probe.

.!, Static Holes 0.5 dia

d
1-
r

I
.
I
I
t?-"3"
-

-1
Scale 1:l f-

8 d

U
W
d e m o n s t r a t e dt h a tt o t a lp r e s s u r e measurements w i t h t h i s p r o b e will be i n
e r r o r by 0.01q' a t anangle of attack of 1 1 degrees and M , = 0.26 and1.62.
T h i s same accuracy was a t t a i n e d a t a = 2230 , M = -
0.26 and a = +29O, M = 1.62
by i n c r e a s i n g t h e d i a m e t e r r a t i o t o 0;96. The a n g l e o f a t t a c k r a n g e was
increasedeven moreby usinginternal.bevellingtoincreasethediameter
ratioto near one. However, s i n c ef l o wa n g u l a r i t yi n empty t e s ts e c t i o n s
seldomexceeds 1 or 2 degrees, a t u b e w i t h a s t r a i g h t impactopening and a
diameterratioof 0.5, o r more, will p r o v i d e i m p a c t p r e s s u r e s w i t h n e g l i g i b l e
error. (Of course, t h i s assumes theprobe i sf r e eo fb u r r s . )

E f f e c t so fV a r i o u sP a r a m e t e r s on P i t o t Probes

-
Size:
E a r l ye x p e r i m e n t sw i t hP i t o tp r o b e s showed measuredpressures t o be
independent o f probesize, e.g., Ref. 11. Thus, s i z i n gi su s u a l l yg u i d e d
by the size of facility and Machnumber atwhichtheprobeisto be used.
When t o t a lp r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t sa r ep r e s e n t , a P i t o t probesenses an impact
pressurecorresponding t o a displacementtowardsthehigherpressure,Ref. 12.
Thiseffect decreases w i t h p r o b es i z e and w i t h i n c r e a s i n a w a l l t h i c k n e s s .
However, Livesey(Ref. 13) foundthat a c o n i c a l nose P i t o t , w i t h a sharp edge
a tt h e opening, isbestfor use i n a t r a n s v e r s ep r e s s u r eg r a d i e n ts i n c e it
e x h i b i t s a n e g l i g i b l ed i s p l a c e m e n te r r o r . Butsinceconescannot be used
veryclosetowalls, two dimensionalboundarylayer measurements a r e u s u a l l y
made w i t h P i t o t probeshavingverysmall,flattened-ovalopenings anda
square-cutnose, e.g., Refs. 1 1 and 12.

A n a l y s i so fd a t af o rt h es i m p l e ,c i r c u l a rP i t o tt u b ei n d i c a t e st h e
measured pressure i s independent o f Reynolds number (based on i n s i d e r a d ius
o f theopening) when i t i s g r e a t e rt h a n 100, Ref. 12.

Mach number:
In dry air, the Pitottube has a e n e r a l l y been found t o be i n s e n s i t i v e t o
Machnumber and w i l 1 r e l i a b l yp r o v i d e t h e f r e e s t r e a m s t a g n a t i o n p r e s s u r e a t
subsonic speedsand t h es t a g n a t i o n pressurebehind a normalshock a t super-
son ic speeds.

Tu r b u 1ence :
The i n c o m p r e s s i b l ea n a l y s i so f Becker and Brown (Ref. 14) i n d i c a t e st h a t
a circulartubePitotwithsquare-cut nose i s r e l a t i v e l y i n s e n s i t i v e t o t u r b u -
lence. However, theseauthorssuggestthatthelengthoftheconstantdiameter

74
opening be a tl e a s tt h r e ed i a m e t e r s . The i n t e n t i s t o e l i m i n a t e s u r g i n g o f t h e
flow, in response t o t u r b u l e n c e , and t h u s a s s u r e t h e e x i s t e n c e of stagnation
c o n d i t i o n sp r i o rt o changes i n i n t e r n a l geometry. When. t h e r e s u l t s o f Becker and
Brown a r e viewed i n l i g h t o f t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d byGracey(Ref. lo), which demon-
strates decreasing flow angle sensitivity of Pitot probes w i t h i n c r e a s i n g Mach
number, one may c o n c l u d e t h a t c i r c u l a r t u b e P i t o t probesareunaffected by o
w
l
l e v e l so ft u r b u l e n c e .S i n c et h et u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t yi n most empty t u n n e l s i s
lessthan two p e r c e n t ,t h e recommended P i t o t p r o b e s( i . e . ,c i r c u l a rt u b e sw i t h
i n t e r n a l j e x t e r n a ld i a m e t e rr a t i o s > 0.5) can be used w i t h c o n f i d e n c e t o c a l i b r a t e
t r a n s o n i c and supersonicwindtunnels.

Rakes, Arrays and Supports,:

Insubsonicflows,impactpressure can be s u c c e s s f u l l y measured w i t h an

orificein a c i r c u l a rc y l i n d e r mounted normal t o t h e flow, e.g., Ref. 12. Thus,
P i t o t p r o b e sa r eg e n e r a l l yc o n s i d e r e dt o be i n s e n s i t i v et os u p p o r ta r r a n g e m e n t s .
However, near Mach one t h e bow shockgeneratedby a support could conceivably
i n t e r f e r ew i t ht h ep r o b e shock. The r e s u l t i n gp r e s s u r e measuredbehindtheshock
i n t e r a c t i o n sw o u l d be expected t o d i f f e r from thenormalshockpressure. Thus,
attransonic speeds t h e nose o f t h e P i t o t probeshouldextendfar enough forward
t oa v o i dt h i s problem. A t u b el e n g t ha tl e a s t 12 t i m e st h es u p p o r tt h i c k n e s si s
recommended. A t subsonicspeeds,Dudtiniski and Krause(Ref. 15) haveobserved
thattheeffectofproximityof a transversecylindricalsupportingstrutis
negligible i f the strut is two o r more s t r u t d i a m e t e r s downstream from t h e P i t o t
t u b et i p .F o rs u p e r s o n i ca p p l i c a t i o n s , Pope and Goin(Ref. 16, p. 353) n o t et h a t
thePitottubelengthisusually I 5 t o 20 tubediameters.
When s e v e r a l P i t o t p r o b e s a r e used i n a r a k e o r an a r r a y , t h e measured
pressures may be a f f e c t e d by i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e bow waves on adjacenttubes.
Bryer andPankhurst(Ref.12)notethatexperiments a t H = 1.6 i n d i c a t et h e gap
between P i t o t probes may be assmallas one d i a m e t e r w i t h o u t c a u s i n g s i g n i f i c a n t
error. AsMach number decreasestoward one, theseparationdistancemust be
increased. I n s u b s o n i cf l o w ,t h es p a c i n go fP i t o tp r o b e si sg e n e r a l l yn o tc o n -
s i d e r e d t o be c r i t i c a l , e.g., Ref. 17.

75
 I I .C. References

1. Hill, J. A. F.: "On t h e Cal

Aero. Sci ., Vol . 22, No. 6,

2. Hill, J. A. F.; Baron, J. R. Schindel', L. H.: "Mach

Number Measurements
i n High-speed Wind Tunnels,"HITNavalSupersonicLaboratory Tech. Rept.
145, Jan. 1956 ( A l s o a v a i l a b l e as AGARDograph 22,Oct. 1956).
3. Maxwell, H. and H a r t l e y , M. S. : "Aerodynamic C a l i b r a t i o nR e s u l t sf o rt h e
AEDC-PWT 16-Ft.SupersonicTunnel a t MachNumbers from 1.50 t o 4.75 ,I'

AEDC-TR-69- 102, May 1969.

4. Murphy, J. S . : "Evidences o f an I n h e r e n tE r r o ri n Measurement o f Total-Head

Pressure a t Supersonic Speeds," Aero.Engr. Rev.,Nov. 1953.

5. Barry, F. W.: "Determination o f Mach

Number From Pressure Measurements,''
Trans. ASME, A p r i l 1956.

6. Thompson, J. S. and Holder, D. W. : "Notes on Wind TunnelPressure Measure-

mentsfromtheOperator'sPointof View," R.A.E. Tech. NoteAero. 2547,
Feb. 1958.

7. Goodyer, M. J.: "A New Probe f o rt h eD i r e c t Measurement o f Stagnation

Pressure i n Supersonic Flow," R.A.E. Tech. Rept. 73122, March 1974.

8. Couch,L. H.: " E f f e c t so fG e o m e t r i cV a r i a b l e s on thePerformance of a

Probe f o r D i r e c t Measurement o f Free-StreamStagnationPressure i n Super-
sonic Flow," NASA TN 0-7887, May 1975.

9. Ross, R. and H a r t z u i k e r , J. P.: "Recommended Flow Q u a l i t y Measurements i n

LEHRT P i l o t F a c i l i t i e s , " AGARD TechnicalWorking Group AC/243 (PG.7/WG. 1)
A c t i o n 61, June 2, 1975.
10. Gracey, W.: "Wind-Tunnel I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a Number o f T o t a l - P r e s s u r e Tubes
a t High Angles of Attack," NACA Rept. 1303, Jan. 1956.

11. Folson, R. G.: "Review o ft h eP i t o t Tube," Trans ASME, Oct. 1956.

12. Bryer, D. W. and Pankhurst, R. C.: Pressure-Probe Methods f o rD e t e r m i n i n g

WindSpeed and F l o wD i r e c t i o n ,N a t i o n a lP h y s i c a lL a b o r a t o r y , Her M a j e s t y ' s
S t a t i o n e r yO f f i c e , London, 1971.

76
13. Livesey, J. L.: "The Behavior o f Transverse Cy1 i n d r i c a l and ForwardFacing
TotalPressureProbes i n TransverseTotalPressureGradients,"Jour.Aero.
Sci., Vol. 23, p. 949, Oct. 1956.

14. Becker, H. A. and Brown, A. P. G . : "Response o f P i t o t Probes i n T u r b u l e n t

Streams,'' Jour. F l u i d Mech., Vol. 62, P a r t 1, 8 Jan.. 1974.
15. D u d z i n i s k i , T. J. and Krause, L; N.: " E f f e c t o f I n l e t Geometry.onFlow-Angle
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f MiniatureTotal-Pressure Tubes," NASA TN 0-6406, July
1971.
16. Pope, A. and Goin, R . L . : High-speed Wind TunnelTesting,Wiley, 1965.

17. Chew, W. L . , Jr.: " C a l i b r a t i o n of FiveTotalPressure and Temperature

Survey Rakes a t Speeds from M = 0.2 t o 1.0," AEDC TN-59-37, May 1959.

77
 I I I.D. TEST
SECTION
STATIC PRESSURES

As discussed i n S e c t i o n I I . C . l , measurement o f s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i s

fundamental t ot r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n . I t i sc u r r e n t l ys t a n d a r d

p r a c t i c e t o measure s e t t l i n g chamber pressure and empty-tunnel s t a t i c to

c a l i b r a t es u b s o n i c and t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s when M < 1.6. T y p i c a l l y , anaverage

o fs t a t i cp r e s s u r ed a t a , measured a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e , i s used t o c a l i b r a t e

a r e f e r e n c ep r e s s u r e .i no r d e rt oa v o i di n t e r f e r e n c e , it i s g e n e r a l l y

considered good p r a c t i c e n o t t o measure t h i s r e f e r e n c e p r e s s u r e w i t h a probe

permanently mounted i nt h et e s ts e c t i o n . Thus, t h er e f e r e n c ep r e s s u r ei s

u s u a l l y measured e i t h e r i n t h e plenum chamber or a t s i d e w a l l o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d

i nt h ef o r w a r dp o r t i o no ft h et e s ts e c t i o n . Once c a l i b r a t e d ,t h er e f e r e n c e

p r e s s u r ei s used t o c o n t r o l Machnumber d u r i n gr o u t i n eo p e r a t i o n .

The b e s t l o c a t i o n t o measure t h e r e f e r e n c e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e appears t o

be a m a t t e ro fo p i n i o n . All o f t h el a r g e rt u n n e l s ( > 2.4 m ) , whichresponded

t ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e ,u s e plenum chamber measurements.The s u r v e yi n d i c a t e d

s m a l l e rt u n n e l su s ee i t h e ru p s t r e a mo r i f i c e so r plenum chamber measurements.

A totalofthe responsesindicated a m a j o r i t yo fa p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:l p r e f e r r e d

t o use plenum chamber measurements.

Advantages o fu s i n q plenum chamber d a t aa r e : (I) i t i sr e l a t i v e l y

i n s e n s i t i v et ol o c a t i o na tw h i c ht h ep r e s s u r ei s measured, and (2) i t a v o i d s

h a v i n gt oc o n t e n dw i t he r o s i o na n d / o rc o n t a m i n a t i o no fo r i f i c e s . However,

e x p e r i e n c ew i t ht u n n e lw a l lp i e z o m e t e rr i n g si n a number o ft u n n e l s has proven

o r i f i c ed e t e r i o r a t i o ni sn o t a s i g n i f i c a n t problem. A t supersonic Mach numbers,

t h e plenum chamber pressure i s g e n e r a l l yl o w e rt h a nf r e e s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e ,

and t h ed i f f e r e n c ei n c r e a s e sw i t hi n c r e a s i n gt l a c h number,becoming increasingly

more s i g n i f i c a n ta t Mach numbers exceeding 1.4. I nc o n t r a s t ,t e s t - s e c t i o n - w a l l

78
pressuresaregenerallyhigherthanfreestreamstaticpressureatsupersonic Mach

numbers. I nt h e VoughtHigh Speed Wind Tunnel ( w i t hw a l l ss l i g h t l yc o n v e r g e d ) ,

tunnel-wallpressureIsclosertofreestreamstaticthan plenum pressure when

1 < M < 1.6. Thus, t h i st u n n e li sc a l i b r a t e du s i n gt u n n e l - w a l lp r e s s u r e s because

smaller departures from f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c o f f e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f g r e a t e r

accuracy I n Machnumber c a l i b r a t ion. In general, a more a c c u r a t e t u n n e l c a l ibra-

t i o n may beexpected when t h e r e f e r e n c e p r e s s u r e i s c l o s e r t o f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c

pressure.

I nt h ec a s eo fs u b s o n i c Mach numbers, t e s t - s e c t i o n - w a l l and plenum pres-

s u r e sg e n e r a l l ya g r e ev e r yc l o s e l y . A p o s s i b l ee x c e p t i o nt ot h i sg e n e r a l con-

c l u s i o ni st h a t models, w i t hl a r g eb l o c k a g er a t i o s( i . e . , > 2 % ) , may reduce

plenum chamber p r e s s u r eb e l o wt h ec a l i b r a t e d ,e m p t y - t u n n e lv a l u e sa th i g h

subsonic Mach number, e.g., Parker(Ref. 57). As i sw e l l known, i n c l i n e d

holes, suchasused i n t h e AEDC t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s , a r e d e s i g n e d t o i n h i b i t

e x c e s s i v ei n f l o w from t h e plenum t o t h e t e s t s e c t i o n , b u t v e n t i l a t e d t u n n e l s

with slots or normalholesare more v u l n e r a b l e t o t h i s t y p e o f d e p a r t u r e f r o m

e m p t y - t u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n .I na d d i t i o n ,t h e plenum chamber pressure may l a g

f r e e s t r e a mp r e s s u r ed u r i n gr a p i d changes i n model o r i e n t a t i o n .

III.D.l. Transonic
Survey
Pipes

Responses t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n d i c a t e t h a t 31 o u t o f 53 t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s

haveusedlongpipes t os u r v e yc e n t e r l i n es t a t i cp r e s s u r e . The r e s u l t s o f t h e

centerlinestaticpressuresurveyareusuallyaveragedover one o r more l e n g t h s

o ft h et e s ts e c t i o n and used t o c a l i b r a t e a r e f e r e n c ep r e s s u r e .I nr o u t i n e

t e s t s , a c a l i b r a t e dl e n g t hi ss e l e c t e dw h i c h most c l o s e l y matches t h e l o c a t i o n

and l e n g t h o f a p a r t i c u l a r model. An a l t e r n a t ep r o c e d u r ei st oc o n s t r u c t a

number o f c a l i b r a t i o n c u r v e s t o r e l a t e t h e r e f e r e n c e p r e s s u r e t o s e v e r a l s t a -

t i o n sa l o n gt h ec e n t e r l i n e . By l o c a t i n g t h e aerodynamiccenter o f a model a t

79
 I 1 I

a station which has been calibrated, the local Mach number at that station
A
can be used in data reduction. This method is used in transonic tests at
f*
NASA Ames And is considered to be important for measurements o f Mach num-

ber at which a model encounters transonic drag rise. In low supersonic

tests (M < l . 6 ) , the nose o f the model is usually located at one o f the

calibrated stations for more accurate wavedrag measurements. In either case

a n averaae along
(i.e., calibrations of the reference static pressure with

the centerlineor with pressures measured at particular locations), buoyancy

corrections are usually appliedby using centerline pressure measurements

obtained in the empty tunnel.

Guidelines for the installation of a long survey pipe are presentedin

Reference 1. Some rules o f thumb are:

1. The nose of the pipe shouldbe a sma.11 angle cone or ogive and

should be located well upstream in t,he subsonic portion of the

tunnel nozzle, e.g., in the 11-ft. Transonic Tunnel at NASA Ames

the nose o f the pipe extends into the settling chamberand is

supported under tension.

2. In order to minimize pipe sway, the pipe should be loaded with a

large tensile force, and if appropriate, an upward moment should

be applied a t the downstream support.

* In cases where a measured-average is used to calibrate a tunnel, a

variation on this procedure would be to account for- local departures
from the average.
.. Private
.L .
Jn

communication, Mr. F. .!b Steinle, NASA Ames.

80
 3. I nt h ec a s eo fv e r yl o n gp i p e s ,t h r e eo rf o u rc a b l e ss h o u l db e

attachedtofurthercontrolpipe sagand vibration.

4. A l l s u p p o r tc a b l e ss h o u l db ef r e eo fo b s t r u c t i o n s , and a l l t u r n -

buckles and c a b l ea t t a c h m e n tf i x t u r e ss h o u l db el o c a t e db e h i n dt h e

t u n n e lw a l l s .

5. Cablesnearor w i t h i nt h et e s ts e c t i o ns h o u l d be sweptback at

an angle of approximately 30 deg t o t h e c e n t e r l i n e .

Although a number o f t u n n e l c a l i b r a t i o n s have been conducted w i t h t h e nose

ofthepipelocated,inthetestsectionnearthebeginningofuniformventila-

t i o n (e.g.,Refs. 1 and 2 ) , t h ep r e f e r r e d arrangement i s w i t h t h e nose w e l l

upstream so t h a t i t i s always i n subsonicflow,Ref. 3. Thisarrangement

minimizesdisturbances caused by t h e nose (e.g., no bow shock) and assures

t h a t no t r a n s o n i c shockpassesover theorifices.

A properly-designed,static-pressuresurveypiperequires no t r a n s o n i c

c a l i b r a t i o nc u r v e
* and s u p p l i e ss i m u l t a n e o u sd a t at h r o u g h o u tt h el e n g t ho f

t h et e s ts e c t i o n .I nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s ,b o u n d a r yl a y e rg r o w t ho nt h ep i p e

does n o tu s u a l l yi n d u c e any l o n g i t u d i n a l Mach-number g r a d i e n t s because o f

**
t h ev e n t i l a t e dw a l l sf e a t u r e .I nc o n t r a s t ,t h ed i s a d v a n t a g e so ft h el o n g

pipe are:

1. sag c a nc a u s et h ep i p et o be i n c l i n e dt ot h ef l o ww h i c h

i n t u r n cancauseerroneous staticpressuredata,

2. v i b r a t i o n caninduceerrors,seeAppendix Ill,

* T h i sc o n c l u s i o ni so f t e ns u s t a i n e d bydemonstrationthat a plotofpipe
measured s t a t i c p r e s s u r e v e r s u s plenum chamber pressure i s smooth through
t r a n s o n i c Mach numbers.
**However, as a r u l e o f thumb, t h e b l o c k a g e r a t i o o f t h e p i p e s h o u l d be kept
l e s st h a n 0 . 5 % , Ref. 6.

81
 3. disturbancesgeneratedbysupports may i n t r o d u c ee r r o r s , and

4. i t sb u l k makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o use f o r surveys o f f c e n t e r l i n e

*
Orificesare a source o f e r r o r , w h i c h i s o f t e n o v e r l o o k e d when us i n g a

l o n gf i x e dp i p e . An example o fs i g n i f i c a n to r i f i c e - i n d u c e de r r o r hasbeen

discussedbylsaacs(Ref. 5). T h i st u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o np r o b ei s shown i n

Fig. 3.D.l. The o r i f i c e s havea diameter of 0.076 cm (0.030 i n . ) and were

ground and deburred w i t h p a r t i c u l a r c a r e t o preventchamferoftheopening.

However, s t a t i c p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n s a s l a r g e as 0.3% o f t h e dynamicpres-

surewereobserved. The f a c t t h a t t h e e r r o r s wereindeed orificeerrors

was ascertainedbymovingtheprobealongthetunnelcenterline. A repeatable

p a t t e r ni nt h ev a r i a t i o no f measured s t a t i cp r e s s u r e was observed.Figure

3.D.2 shows a comparison o f d a t a o b t a i n e d a t two d i f f e r e n t t u n n e l l o c a t i o n s

w i t h M = 0.74.

T h i s example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e need f o r c a u t i o n when u s i n g a f i x e d , s t a t i c

Pressuresurveypipe;particularly when t h e p r e s s u r e a t a g i v e nt u n n e l

s t a t i o ni so b t a i n e d w i t h o n l y one o r i f i c e . It i s suggested t h a tt u n n e l

o p e r a t o r s , who usesuch p i p e s ,c h e c kt h eo r i f i c ep r o b l e mb yt r a n s l a t i n gt h e

p i p ef o ra tl e a s t one highsubsonic andone supersonic Mach number. If a

problem i s d e t e c t e d , t h i s s o u r c e o f e r r o r may be reducedbymanifoldingfour

o r more o r i f i c e s t o g e t h e r a t a g i v e ns t a t i o n . A second a l t e r n a t i v e i s

totranslatethepipeeitherforward or rearward and t a k e s e v e r a l measure-

ments a t a g i v e n s t a t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t o r i f i c e s . E i t h e r o f t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s

wouldimprovetheaccuracy o fs t a t i cp r e s s u r ec a l i b r a t i o n s . A l s o , it i s

*A second pipe, mountedon t h e f l o o r , hasbeen used f o r s u b s o n i cC a l i b r a t i o n

measurements i n t h e 11-FootTransonic Wind Tunnel a t NASA Ames,

82
 Dimensions In Centimeters

QUADRANT

S T I N GF A I R I N G
25 STATICPRESSURE
HOLES AT :Oa.'076'ID,
5.1 CM SPACING

STATICPRESSUREPROBE MOUNTED
ON CALIBRATION GEAR S T I N G
(FAC I L I T Y FOR TRANSLATI ON ALONG
TUNNELCENTERLINEOVER -229 CM)

Figure 3.D.1. R.A.E.

SUBSONIC
STATIC-PRESSURE
PROBE

Q)
W
 I Hole No. 2
P-Pw

Hs-Pn Hole N o . 2
-0.005

-0.010
-127
t
L I
-102 -76
I
I

-51
I
-25 0
I

25
I

x - cm, distance downstreamfrom tunnel datum

(a) PROBEDATUM53 CM UPSTREAM OF TUNNELDATUM

P -Pw

Hs-Pw

-0.010 I 1 I i I I I
-178 -127 -102 -76 -51
- -152 -25
x cm, distance downstream from
tunnel datum

(b) PROBEDATUM 104m UPSTREAM OF TUNNELDATUM

Figure 3.D.2. T Y P I C A LP R E S S U R ED I S T R I B U T I O N S ALONGPROBE A T TWO LOATIONS

ON TUNNELCENTERLINE, M = 0.74 (choked), R/R =19-7 x los PERMETER
g e n e r a l l yc o n s i d e r e d good p r a c t i c e n o t t o p l a c e o r i f i c e s d i r e c t l y i n l i n e

w i t h each o t h e r , s i n c e a disturbance at an upstream orifice canpropagate

downstreamand induceerrorsat adownstream orifice.

As notedby Pope and Goin(Ref. 6 ) , t h es t a t i cp i p ei s seldom

used t oc a l i b r a t ec l o s e d - w a l ls u p e r s o n i ct u n n e l s . The p i p en o to n l y

altersthe Machnumber because o f t h e reducedarea ratiobutalsointer-

fereswiththeexpansionpatternwhichisrequired for u n i f o r m f l o w .
*

A
However,a s t a t i c p i p e hasbeenused quitesuccessfullyfor Mach numbers up
t o two a t AEDC i nt h e Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel(4T),Ref. 7. Forexample, a t
M = 1.6 t h e 2 (I v a r i a t i o n i n measured c e n t e r l i n e Mach numbers was o n l y .007
and a t M = 1.99 was 0.008. Thisapplicationof a s t a t i c p i p e was made pos-
s i b l eb yt h eu n i q u ef e a t u r e so ft h i st u n n e l ,v i z . ,a d j u s t a b l ep o r o s i t y (0-10%),
w a l la n g l e , andplenumpumping.

85
 lll.D.2. T r a n s o n i cS t a t i cP r e s s u r eP r o b e s

I n caseswhere v a r i a t i o n s o f Mach number t r a n s v e r s e t o t h e f l o w hadbeen

c a l i b r a t e d ,r e s p o n d e n t st ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r ei n d i c a t e dt h a t such v a r i a t i o n s

a r eo f t e nl a r g e rt h a nl o n g i t u d i n a lv a r i a t i o n sa l o n gt h ec e n t e r l i n e . These

data were o b t a i n e dw i t hc o n v e n t i o n a lp r o b e sw h i c h ,a sd i s c u s s e dl a t e r ,a r e

s u b j e c tt oa s y m m e t r i c a lw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e when moved o f f c e n t e r l i n e and

M exceeds 0.85. A l t h o u g ht h e s et r a n s v e r s ev a r i a t i o n s may be p a r t l y t h e r e s u l t

oftransonicwall-probeinterference,thecalibrationof such v a r i a t i o n s i s

o b v i o u s l yi m p o r t a n t ,p a r t i c u l a r l yf o rt e s t i n g wingedmodels. I nt h ep a s t ,

t r a n s o n i ct u n n e lo p e r a t o r s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y concludedthat i f (1) t h et u n n e l

w a l lp a r a m e t e r sa r es e tt om i n i m i z e Mach number v a r i a t i o n s a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e

and ( 2 ) theaverage ofthecenterlinepressuresagreescloselywiththe plenam

chamber p r e s s u r e( f o r M < 1 1 , t h e nt h et r a n s v e r s ev a r i a t i o n si n Yach number

a r en e g l i g i b l e .T h i sc o n c l u s i o ni s basedon thecomparisonbetweentwoaverages,

and, i ng e n e r a l , does n o t j u s t i f y t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f n e g l i g i b l e t r a n s v e r s e

gradients. Thus, w i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o ns h o u l di n c l u d eo f f - c e n t e r l i n e measure-

mentsas a s t a n d a r dp a r to ft h ec a l i b r a t i o np r o c e d u r e .F o rt h i sr e a s o n , one o f

theprimaryadvantages o f c o n v e n t i o n a ls t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b e s i s m o b i l i t y as

c o n t r a s t e dt ot h el o n g , s t a t i cp r e s s u r e , s u r v e yp i p e .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r er e s u l t sa l s or e v e a lt h a tt h e most p o p u l a r t r a n s o n i c s t a t i c

pressureprobe i s a 10 deg a p e x - a n g l ec o n e - c y l i n d e rw i t ho r i f i c e sl o c a t e dt e n

o r more c y l i n d e rd i a m e t e r s( c a l i b r e s ) downstream o ft h es h o u l d e r .T h i sc r i t e r i o n

for orifice location appears t o have o r i g i n a t e d w i t h t h e t e s t s c o n d u c t e d b y

Holdere
,at l (. R e f . 8). These i n v e s t i g a t o r sc o n d u c t e d a s y s t e m a t i ce
, xperi-

mentalstudy oftheeffects o f nosegeometries and o r i f i c e l o c a t i o n on s t a t i c

pressure measurement a t !I= 1.6. A summary o ft h e s ed a t ai sp r e s e n t e di nF i g . 3.D.3.

The c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h e measured s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i s w i t h i n 0.5% o f t h e r e f e r -

ence pressure when 1 > 10d. A s n o t e di nt h ef i g u r e ,t h er e f e r e n c ep r e s s u r e ,

0 -

36
 External Diameter d = O . Z O ~ C M

Four 0.0LSCI)I Diameter

a t 90' Intervals Collar Soldered eo
Static Tuk

(a) Long Ogive (b) Short Oglve

(c) Cone (b) Hemisphere (e) Square

General arrangement of the static tubes and the nose shapes tested.

P
p
po
. Messured static Prusure
= Static prusure mlssured by '40 kbc
-
10

1- dl
b*
[ H = Total Head o f Prcr Sirearn
L,. Distance of stscic holes Dshind smulder
d = Diameter of static tuoe
-

0 5 I5

Figure 3.D.3
-
VARIATION OF STATIC-PRESSURE READING WITH POSITION OF STATIC
HOLES AND NOSE SHAPEA T H 1.6, Ref. 8
which wasassumed t o be t r u e f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c , was o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e l o n g

o g i v a ln o s e and o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d 40 c a l i b r e s downstream.

Highsubsonic (H = 0 . 6 t o 0 . 9 ) d a t ai n d i c a t e p r o b e p r e s s u r e g e n e r a l l y

r e t u r n s t o f r e e s t r e a ml e v e l s( w i t h i n 0.5% o f q) a t l o / d v a l u e s of 4 to 6

c a l i b r e s , Ref. 9. The e x a c tl o c a t i o ni s dependentonnosegeometry. For

example, t r a n s o n i cd a t ap r e s e n t e db yR i t c h i e (Ref. IO) f o r a s t a t i cp r e s -

s u r ep r o b e ,w i t h a nosecorresponding t ot h el o n go g i v e shown i n Fig. 3.0.3,

i n d i c a t e n e g l i g i b l e measurement e r r o r when o r i f i c e s a r e l o c a t e d o n l y two

c a l i b r e s downstream o f t h e n o s e - c y l i n d e r j u n c t u r e .

However, s i n c et h eo v e r e x p a n s i o na tt h es h o u l d e re x t e n d sf a r t h e r

downstream i nt h es u p e r s o n i c case,Gracey (kef. 9) c o n c l u d e do r i f i c e s

l o c a t e d 10 or more diametersdownstreamwouldsensefreestreampressurewith

"small-error" a t bothsubsonic and low supersonic speeds.Theconsensus of

t r a n s o n i ct u n n e lo p e r a t o r s seems t o a g r e e w i t h Gracey.

As noted by Davis and Graham (Ref. 1 1 1 , i nt h ep a s tt h ed a t ao b t a i n e d

byEstabrooks(Ref. 12) f o r a cone-cy1 i n d e r hasbeen used,almostuniversally,

as a s t a n d a r df o rt r a n s o n i ci n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e ed a t a .A l t h o u g ht h ep u r p o s eo f

these measurements was t o i n v e s t i g a t e w a l l effects,theresultsarealso

p e r t i n e n tt op r o b ed e s i g n and performance.Estabrooksobtaineddataon a 20

apex a n g l ec o n e - c y l i n d e ri nt h e AEDC-PWT 16T t u n n e l w i t h a model blockage r a t i o

o f 0.008% and M = 0.7 t o 1.4. A c u r s o r ye x a m i n a t i o no ft h e s ed a t ai n d i c a t e s

orificeslocated seven c a l i b r e s downstream o f t h e c o n e - c y l i n d e r j u n c t u r e , will

a l l o w a c c u r a t e measurements o f f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e t h r o u g h o u t t h e

t r a n s o n i c speed regime. The datawereunaffectedbyvaryingfreestreamReynolds

number permeter from 4.5 t o 12.7 mill i o n (1.36 x IO 6 < Re/ft < 3.87 X 106 ).

The f a c t t h a t f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e c a n n o t bemeasured a t anyone location,

as M + 1.0, will b e e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n .

88
 When t h e same c o n e - c y l i n d e r model was t e s t e d i n t h e AEDC-PWT 1T

tunnel,blockage was 28, and i n t h i s c a s ec o n s i d e r a b l ew a l li n t e r f e r e n c e

was observed. I nt h e Machnumber range o f 0.95 t o 1 .OS, Estabrboks

c o n c l u d e dt h ed o m i n a n tw a l li n t e r f e r e n c ee f f e c t was r e f l e c t i o n s o f s u p e r -

sonicexpansion waves ( o r i g i n a t i n g a t t h e s h o u l d e r ) back t o t h e model as

compression waves. In o r d e r t o e x p l a i n t h i s phenomena, a d i s c u s s i o n was

g i v e nc o n c e r n i n gt o o o
w
l a resistancetoinflowfromthe plenum t o t h e

testsecti,on.Unfortunately,Estrabrooksappeared t o be unaware o f t h e

transonicshockwhichformsneartheshoulder of this type of body and

moves.rearward w i t hi n c r e a s i n g Mach number. Althoughcompression waves

(generatedbyinflow) may have been p r e s e n t ,i n t e r p r e t a t i o no ft h i sd a t a

must
account f o r passage o f a transonic
shock when 0.90 M 1.05. Thus,

the effects of this shockonthe measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s weremis-

i n t e r p r e t e d as s o l e l yw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e .F o r example, t h ee x i s t e n c eo f a

shockimnediately a f to ft h es h o u l d e ri sc l e a r l yi n d i c a t e d( F i g . 3.D.4) for

t h e 20 deg c o n e - c y l i n d e ra t M - 0.95. Data f o r t h i s c o n f i g u r a t i o n a t

M = 0.975 a r e l e s s d e f i n i t i v e p o s s i b l y because o f a b i f u r c a t e d shock o r

boundarylayerseparation,eitherofwhichreducesthepressuregradient
f:
produced by t h e shock. As t h e Mach number i s increased t o one, t h e shock

moves rearward and o f ft h ei n s t r u m e n t e dp o r t i o no ft h ec y l i n d e r .T h i st y p e

*AlthoughtheReynolds number based o n w e t t e d l e n g t h i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2.55 x

6
10 nearx/d = 4, it i sn o tc l e a rt h a tt h e boundary l a y e r i s t u r b u l e n t
because o f t h e s h o u l d e r e x p a n s i o n w h i c h t h i n s and s t a b i l i z e s t h e boundary
layer. However, even i f theboundarylayer i st u r b u l e n t ,t h et r a n s o n i c F
shockcancauseseparation i f t h e l o c a l Mach number exceeds 1.3 (e.g.,
Refs. 13 and 14). The measured p r e s s u r er a t i oa tt h es h o u l d e r doesindeed
i n d i c a t e a l o c a l Machnumber near 1.3. It i s a l s or e l e v a n tt oh e r en o t e
thatHsieh(Ref. 15) foundthe.laminarboundaryona.hemisphere-cylinder
separatednear M = 0.80.

89
H, 0.950 a - 0.0

0.975 - 0.0

1 .ooo 0 - 0.0

.I

.2

*3

.4

.5

.6

0 2 4 6 8 10
x/d, Distance from Nose i nC a l i b e r s

Figure 3.0.4 TRANSONIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS ON A 20 DEG

CONE-CYLINDER WITH 0.008% BLOCKAGE, Ref. 12

90
of phenomena may be c l e a r l y seen i n t h e s c t i l l e r e n p h o t o g r a p h s p r e s e n t e d

by Page (Ref. 16) f o r a 14 deg apex cone-cy1 inder with a blockage rat lo

o f 0.005%. A r a t h e rg e n e r a lc o n c l u s i o ni st h a tt h et r a n s o n i c shock will

move o f f a c y l i n d r i c a l probeas M +l,and merge w i t h t h e s t i n g and/orsup-

p o r t shocks,providedthere i s no w a l li n t e r f e r e n c e .

Movement o f a transonicshockonaxisymmetrlcbodiescan now be c a l -

c u l a t e dv i at h e computerprogram o f South and Jameson (Ref.17).This

programprovides a solutiontothecompletepotentialequatlons for steady

t r a n s o n l cf l o w . Thus, i no r d e r f o r t h e s es o l u t i o n s t o be a p p l i c a b l e to

r e a lb o d i e st h e r e must be noboundarylayerseparation (e.g., Ref. 15).

and i n t h e case o f windtunnelprobes,the body must be f r e e o f w a l l

interference.

The e x i s t e n c e o f b o u n d a r yl a y e rs e p a r a t i o no nc o n e - c y l i n d e r si n

transonicflow has been investigatedbyRobertson and Chevalier(Ref. 18).

Cone-cylinder mode 1s w i t h a b l o c k a g e r a t i o o f 0 . 5 % and 1.2% weretested

w i t h M = 0 . 5 t o 1. 17 i nt h e AEDC-PWT 1T tunnel. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s

foundthattheboundarylayerseparatedatthecone-cy1inderjuncture when

t h e cone apex angle was 40 deg or more and tl < 0.85. I ng e n e r a l ,a s cone

apex angleincreased,the Mach number f o r boundarylayerattachmentincreased

Although surface pressures were only measured a d i s t a n c e o f f o u r c a l i b r e s

downstream o f t h e s h o u l d e r , t h e f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e was a t t a i n e d i n

mostcases w i t h i nl e s st h a nf o u rc a l i b r e s .T h i s was found t o be t r u e for

both sizes of models w i t h apex angles ranging from 20 t o 60 deg.

The p r i m a r ye x c e p t i o n t o t h i so b s e r v a t i o no c c u r s when a transonic

shock locatesnear an o r i f i c e . I f t h e shock i s f o r w a r d o f t h e o r i f i c e ,

91
t h e measured s t a t i cp r e s s u r e will t e n dt o be higherthanfreestream. The

exact amountdepends on s t r e n g t h o f t h e shock and d i s t a n c e from o r i f i c e .

Correspondingly,thepressure will be low i f t h e shock i sl o c a t e dn e a r ,b u t

downstream o f ,t h eo r i f i c e .S i n c et h et r a n s o n i cs h o c k moves rearward w i t h

i n c r e a s i n g Mach number, a l l s t a t i o n s a l o n g a probe's stem a r e a f f e c t e d .

For example, schlierenphotographsobtained by RobertsonandChevalier

show thetra'nsonicshock ona20deg cone-cy1inder model i n i t i a l l y forms

near t h es h o u l d e ra t M = 0.8, and i n c r e a s e s i n s t r e n g t h and moves rearward

as Machnumber increases. The r a t e o f movement o f t h i s shock i s a f f e c t e d

bymodel blockage and t h e e x t e n t o f t h e s u p e r s o n i c zone ona g i v e n model.

The e f f e c t o f windtunnelblockage on movement o f t h e t r a n s o n i c shock

may be seen i n t h e M = 1 dataofEstabrooks(Ref.12). By v a r y i n gt h e

sizeofcone-cylinder models t o o b t a i n w i n d t u n n e l b l o c k a g e r a t i o s from 0.5%

to 4%, thetransonicshock moved forwardfromx/d = 5 t ol e s st h a n 4 at

M =i 1. T h i se f f e c to fb l o c k a g e may a l s o beseen i nt h es c h l i e r e np i c t u r e s

o f Page (Ref. 16) which compare t h et r a n s o n i cs h o c kl o c a t i o n s on t h e same

model i n two d i f f e r e n t s l o t t e d - w a l l t u n n e l s w i t h b l o c k a g e r a t i o s of 0.25%

and 0.005%. Furtherevidence o f t h i s phenomena may a l s o be found i nt h e

d a t ao f Capone and Coates(Ref. 19) and Couch and Brooks(Ref. 20). For

example, t h es u r f a c ep r e s s u r ed a t a of Capone and Coatesprovideanexcellent

i l l u s t r a t i o no ft r a n s o n i c shock movement on a 20 deg c o n e - c y l i n d e r .I nt h i s

case,the model was testedintheLangley16-FootTransonicTunnel andhada

b l o c k a g er a t i oo f 0.198%. A sample o ft h i sd a t ai sr e p r o d u c e di nF i g . 3.0.5.

Here we see the transonic shock move fromx/d = 3.25 a t M = 0.90 back t o x / d 3

10.5 a t M = 1.025. Measurements a tt h en e x th i g h e r Mach number, M - 1.04,

*
i n d i c a t e dt h e shock had moved p a s t t h e i n s t r u m e n t e d p o r t i o n o f t h e c y l i n d e r .

*R e f l e c t i o n o f t h e bow shockbackontothecylinder was notobserved until

M 2 1.10.

92
M = 0.90 0

M = 0.95 0

M = 1.00 0

M = 1.0250

x/d

Figure 3.0.5 TRANSONICPRESSUREDISTRIBUTIONS ON A 20 DEG

CONE-CYLINDER,
REF. 20.

93
 ... . . .. .
...." ..
.. ... . .

S i m i l a r measurements f o r a 40 degcone-cy1inder, with the same blockage,

showed theshock was a t x/d = 10.5 when M =I 1 .Ob. Thus, t h el a r g e re x p a n s i o n

atthecone-cylinderjuncture and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l a r g e r p o c k e t o f s u p e r -

sonicflowresultedin a r e t a r d e d movement ofthetransonicshock.

Based o n t h e s e v a r i o u s r e s u l t s , i t appearsthat a 20 degapexcone-

c y l i n d e r must have a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a la r e al e s st h a n 0.01% o ft h et u n n e la r e a

inordertoavoidretardingtherearward movement o f a t r a n s o n i c s h o c k w i t h

i n c r e a s i n g Mach number. T h i sc o n c l u s i o ni s based on measurements made o n l y a t

t u n n e lc e n t e r l i n e s . When theprobe i s moved o f fc e n t e r l i n e ,c l o s e rt o a wall,

f
even smallersizeswould be necessary t oa v o i dw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e .A l s o , some

asymmetry o f t h e shock may be expected. Thus,a n o n - p e r t u r b i n gf l o w measure-

menttechnique,such asa laserDopplervelocimeter,appearsto be v e r y

d e s i r a b l ef o rt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n si nt h er a n g e 0.95 < M < 1.05.

Recently,Neman and Klunker(Ref. 2 1 ) and South and K e l l e r (Ref. 22)

h a v ep e r f o r m e dc a l c u l a t i o n sf o rt r a n s o n i cf l o w sa b o u ta i r f o i l s and axisym-

m e t r i cb o d i e sw h i c hi n c l u d ew i n dt u n n e lw a l l si nt h eb o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o n s . These

c a l c u l a t i o n s show theshock moves forward when t h e o p e n - j e t b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n

isapplied,i.e., Pw - Poo . Similarly,the shock moves rearward, compared

tothefree-airsolution, when t h e s o l i d w a l l boundary c o n d i t i o n i s a p p l i e d .

I nl i g h to ft h ef o r e g o i n gd i s c u s s i o n ,t h i si m p l i e st h a te i t h e rs l o t t e do r

p e r f o r a t e dw a l l sa c t more l i k e o p e n - j e t s as t h e s i z e o f t r a n s o n i c models i s

increased.This phenomenon i sa p p a r e n t l y a r e s u l to fl a r g e rp o c k e t so fs u p e r -

s o n i cf l o ww h i c hi m p r e s sl o w e rp r e s s u r e sa tt h ew a l l s .T h i si nt u r n draws i n

more a i r fromtheplenum chamber and a p p a r e n t l y s h i f t s t h e model f l o w p a t t e r n

towardtheopen-jetboundarycondition.

* T h i s may p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n t h e t r a n s v e r s e Mach number g r a d i e n t s r e p o r t e d by

some o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s .

94
 A s r e g a r d ss t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b ed e s i g n ,s m a l la n g l e conescan be used

t om i n i m i z es t r e n g t ho ft h et r a n s o n i c shock. I na d d i t i o n ,t h es m a l l e re x -

pansionangle will g e n e r a t e l e s s w a l l i n t e r f e r e n c e f o r a givenprobediameter

and t h e boundary l a y e r will r e m a i na t t a c h e da tt h ec o n e - c y l i n d e rj u n c t u r e .

A separatedboundarylayer i su n d e s i r a b l e because it i n t r o d u c e sd i s t u r b a n c e s
whichareconvecteddownstream a-nd cancause additionalerrorsinstaticpres-

sure measurements (see Eq. 3.D.1, p. 9 8 ) . Thus, i nt h ep a s tt h e IO deg apex

anglecone-cylinderprobehasservedas a convenientcompromisebetweenoptimum

transonic performance and ease o f c o n s t r u c t ion.;:

The problem o f o r i f i c e - t r a n s o n i c shock interference,which i s character-

isticofcone-cylinder probes, may be a v o i d e d b y l o c a t i n g o r i f i c e s on v e r y

small-angle cones. T h i s was demonstrated by Sutton(Ref. 24) who compared

t h et r a n s o n i cs u r f a c ep r e s s u r e s on a 3 deg included-angle cone w i t h a conven-

t i o n a l IO deg c o n e - c y l i n d e rh a v i n g 0.021% tunnelblockage. These probes a r e

shown i nF i g . 3.D.6. The correspond i n g s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e s a r e shown i n F i g . 3.D.7.

f o r 0.9 c M < 1.02.

"
The o s c i l l a t i o n i n c a l c u l a t e d Mach number,based on t h e

c y l i n d e rs u r f a c ep r e s s u r e ,i s caused bypassage o ft h et r a n s o n i c shock. However ,

i t isrelevanttonotethattransonic shock e f f e c t s can be c o n f i n e d t o a srna 1 1

Machnumber range(e.g., AM = 0.02) when u s i n g a c a r e f u l l yd e s i g n e d 10 deg cone-

c y l i n d e rp r o b e at * t u n n e lc e n t e r l i n e .I nc o n t r a s t ,t h e 3 deg cone p r o v i d e s
a m o n o t o n i c a l l yi n c r e a s i n gp r e s s u r e and decreasing Mach number throughoutthe

transonicrange.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,t h e 3 deg cone i sr e p o r t e d by Gracey(Ref. 9) t o be

sensitive to flow misalignment. For angles of attack between -
+ I deg, pressure

* The AGARD needleprobedescribedinReference 23 hasa cone apex a n g l e o f

approximately 12 degand f o u r 0.3 mm o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d 11.3 c a l i b r e s down-
stream o f t h e s h o u l d e r .

95
 4 HOLES, 0.061 DIAMETER

d = 0.305

(a) CONE-CYLINDER
STATIC HEAD

3 HOLES 0.036 DIA. 1.3'

3"

T I P DIAMETER
-
0g015
DIMENSIONS
ARE tN (XN'TmERS

(b) 3" CONE STAT1 C HEAD

Figure 3.0.6. DIMENSIONS OF THER.A.E.STATIC PRESSURE

PROBES
 +o .02 - '

AM
0'.90 0.b2
-
0.44
-
0.96 0.'98 1.60
1.b2
MR
'' = MACH NUMBER
DEDUCED FROM
PLENUM CHAMBER
0- "
- STAT I C PRESSURE
= M -M 155 cm FROM
H C 6
R e = 15.7 x 10 per meter THROAT.
I I I I I I I
-0.02
(a) '01 CONE-CYLINDER STATIC HEAD = MACHNUMBER
MH DEDUCED FROM
S T A T I C HEAD
+o .02
An
1 1

0.90 0.92 0.94

I I

0.96
I

0.98 1.00
I I

1.02 I PRESSURE

= fl -M
H C 6
R e = 10.6 x 10 per meter
I I I I I I I
-0.02
(b) 3" CONE S T A T I C HEAD

Figure 3.D.7. TRANSONICCHARACTERISTICS OF

THE TWO R.A.E. PROBES
measurementson a 3 deg cone I n t h e L a n g l e y 8 - f t . TransonicTunnelindicate

v a r i a t i o n so fa p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.02 qinear M = 1. These r e s u l t s were t h e same

for a 0.033 cm (0.013 i n . )o r i f i c el o c a t e de i t h e r 12.7 o r 17.8 cm (5 o r 7 in.)

f r o mt h et i p . Thus,a small-angle conecan be used t o c a l i b r a t e w i n d t u n n e l s

near M = 1 , b u t i t s s e n s i t i v i t y t o f l o w a n g u l a r i t y can make i t d i f f i c u l t

t o r e s o l v e Mach number v a r i a t i o n s a s s m a l l a s 0.001.n

Effects of Various Parameters on Static Pressure Probes

Size:

As foundby Couch and Brooks(Ref. 2 0 ) , cone-cy1inderbodieswith a tunnel

blockage ratio of only 0.03% canhave cylindersurfacepressureswhichdepart

s i g n i f i c a n t l yf r o mf r e e s t r e a ms t a t i cn e a r M = 1. T h e r e f o r e ,f o ra c c u r a t e

tunnelcalibrationsalongthecenterline and near M = 1, s t a t i c p r e s s u r e p r o b e s

w i t h b l o c k a g er a t i o sl a r g e rt h a n 0.01% a r en o t recommended. The w a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e -

f r e ep e r f o r m a n c eo f suchprobescan be c a l u c l a t e d u s i n g t h e S o u t h and Jameson

computerprogram(Ref. 17). I f f o r some reason a l a r g e rp r o b ei sr e q u i r e d ,

c e n t e r l i n eb l o c k a g ee f f e c t s can be estimated by t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s , e.g.,

Refs. 21,22 and 26. W a l lr e f l e c t e dd i s t u r b a n c e sc a na l s ob ed e t e c t e d by having

o r i f i c e s a t more t h a n o n e s t a t i o n and checking monotonicity of the data with

i n c r e a s i n gd i s t a n c e from t h e nose. Pope and Goin(Ref. 6) suggestmovingthe

model o f f c e n t e r l i n e and/orusing a s c h l i e r e n system.

Once t h e p r o b e d i a m e t e r i s s e l e c t e d , a t l e a s t f o u r o r i f i c e s w i th a

d i a m e t e v o f 0.051 cm (.02 in.)shouldbelocated IO o r more c a l i b r e s downstream

o f t h en o s e - c y l i n d e rj u n c t u r e .F i n a l l y ,e r r o r si n d u c e d by o r i f i c e s i z e a r e

discussed i nS e c t i o n lll.D.4.

A
A d d i t i o n a l t r a n s o n i c measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y w i t h a 3 deg c o n i c a l
probearereported by W r i g h t ,e ta l .( R e f . 25).

98
Reynolds .Number:

' A t Reynolds numbers c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s ( i . e . , Re/m > 5

million),staticpressureprobesareusuallyunaffected by t h i s v a r i a b l e ,

p r o v i d e dt h ep r o b eb o u n d a r yl a y e ri sa t t a c h e d .

:
Tu r b u 1 ence

In contrast to the Pitot probe, s t a t i c p r e s s u r e probedatacan be

a f f e c t e db yt u r b u l e n c e . The d e s i r e dq u a n t i t y 1s t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e a s s o -

c i a t e dw i t ht h e mean f l o w .B r y e r and Pankhurst(Ref. 27) n o t et h a t when t h e

turbulencescaleislarge, compared t o t h e p r o b e d i m e n s i o n s , t h e measured

s t a t i c p r e s s u r e will t e n d t o be low and i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e dynamic

p r e s s u r eo ft h et u r b u l e n c en o r m a lt o an o r i f i c e . I f t h et u r b u l e n c es c a l ei s

s m a l l ,t h e measured s t a t i cp r e s s u r e will be high. The f o l l o w i n ge q u a t i o n

has been d e r i v e d by Siddon(Ref. 28) t o r e l a t e t h e e r r o r i n measured,mean

staticpressuretothe dynamic pressuregeneratedby a turbulentflow.

2
-
Pm - Pt = A p ( U + (ut)')+ (3.D. 1)

If t h e o r i f i c e s a r e l o c a t e d so t h e r e a r e no noseand/or supportstem-induced

e r r o r s ,t h e n A = 0. B i s ameasure o ft h ec r o s s f l o w - i n d u c e de r r o ri n measured

s t a t i cp r e s s u r e . When a probe i s i n c l i n e d a t an angle a i n a steadyflow,

Eq. (3.0.1) may

be w r i t t e n as

Pm -
2
Pt = 2q(Acos
2
a + B s i n a)

Thistypeof measurement was performed i n subsonic flow by Siddon w i t h

a standard,classicalprobe. The probe had: (1) a ne l l i p s o i d a l nose, (2)

a diameter o f 0.305 cm (0.12 in.), and (3) s i x o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d 8 1/2diam-

e t e r s downstream from t h e nose. For t h i s probe, B was found t o be - 0 . 5 5 .

99
 A specialprobe,designedto measure unsteadycrossflow and f l u c t u a t i n g

s t a t i cp r e s s u r e , was a l s ot e s t e db y Siddon. T h i s probe,which hada circum-

f e r e n t i a l s l i t forsensingstaticpressure, was found . t o havea B v a l u eo f

-0.23. A c c o r d i n gt oS i d d o n ,t h ed i f f e r e n c ei n B values i s p r i m a r i l y causedby

t h ed i f f e r e n c ei no r i f i c e arrangement.Additional measurements i n a r o t a t i n g -

i n c l f n e dn o z z l e , a t u r b u l e n tc h a n n e lf l o w , anda r o u n dt u r b u l e n tj e ti n d i c a t e d

B variedovertherange -0.46 t o -0.35. Thus, t h em a g n i t u d eo fc r o s s f l o w -

inducederrorsvarieswithprobedesign and t u r b u l e n c e s c a l e and i n t e n s i t y .

Bryer and Pankhurst(Ref. 27, p. 43) suggestthatprobes be c a l i b r a t e d i n

flowswithturbulencecloselymatchingthoseinwhichtheprobe will beused.

Thisisobviously anareawhich needs f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .

-
Yaw:

When s e v e r a l o r i f i c e s (4 o r more) arelocatedaroundtheprobeclrcum-

ference, flow a n g u l a r i t y causes t h e measured s t a t i c p r e s s u r e t o below. This

can be r e a d i l y seen from t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a b o u t a circularcylinder

normal t o a f l o w (e.g.,see Appendix I I I ) . Bryer and Pankhurst(Ref. 27)

notethattheyaw-inducedstaticpressureerrorofthistypeofprobeis

t y p i c a l l y 0.01 PaDwhenyawed 3 deg. The e r r o r , i n a p a r t i c u l a r case, is

dependentonnosegeometryand o r i f i c el o c a t i o n .R i t c h i e( k e f . 10) r e p o r t e d

yaw-induced e r r o r sg e n e r a l l yi n c r e a s ew i t h Mach number.Thus, f o r a given

allowederrorin measured s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , t h e p e r m i s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n i n f l o w

misalignmentdecreases.Gracey(Ref. 91, R i t c h i e (Ref. 101, and Rittenhouse

(Ref. 29) have r e p o r t e d on s t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b e sd e s i g n e d t o minimize yaw

sensitivity. These probes u t i 1 i z e o n l y two orificeslocated 30 to 40 degrees

from thewindward-meridian.Althoughtheseprobes h a v es m a l le r r o r sa t

t r a n s o n i c speedsand yaw angles up t o 28 deg, t h e y r e q u i r e knowledge o f t h e

s t r e a md i r e c t i o n .S i n c et h i si sn o tu s u a l l y known d u r i n gw i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a -

t i o n s ,t h i st y p eo fp r o b ec a n n o t be recommended. Hence, theconventional

100
probe with four or more orificesis preferred. Particularly since the flow

angularity in the central core ofmany contemporary transonic and supersonic

tunnels is less than one degree, the conventional probe will usually have

negligible error due to yaw.* For example, Ritchie (Ref. IO) found a two

degree angle o f attack caused less than 0.2% error in measured static pressure

through-out the transonic Mach number range. (These results were obtained

with a probe having an ogival nose (f

r = 12) and orifices located 12 1/2 calibres
from the nose.) However, this is another reason for minimizing flow angularity

in the empty tunnel, i.e., not only will model testing results be more represen-

tative of free-flight phenomena, but the tunnel calibration will be more accurate.

Lakes and Support Interference:

The effects of a support flare on base pressures have been investigated

by Chevalier (Ref. 30) over a Mach number range of 0.70 to 1.60. Based on

the experimental resultsat M = 1 , a flare located approximately I 5 flare

diameters downstream of the orifices will not interfere with static pressure

probe readings. A n I I deg flare (semiangle) located at t h i s distance from the

orifices will have negligible effect on the flow at the orifices throughout

the transonic speed regime. The required distance for no interference de-

and increasing Mach number.

creases with smaller flare angles

Interference caused by a cylindrical strut normal to the probe axishas

been investigated by Krause and Gettelman (Ref. 31) for M = 0.3 to 0.9.

These authors foundthat a distance of 14 strut d iameters between static

liqible interference at
probe orifices and the strut was required for neg

these .
speeds

* Itis conceivable that a static pressure probe couldbe calibrated for yaw
errors. Static pressure readings could then be corrected for measured flow
angles. However, most tunnels do not have sufficient flow angularity to
warrant this procedure, and few operatorswould consider i t practical.
101
 Perhaps t h e most s t r i n g e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d i s t a n c e between o r i f l c e s

anda s t r u t have been reportedbyNichols(Ref. 32). Forthecase of a

staticpressureprobe mountedon a double wedge s t r u t s u p p o r t , t h e t r a n s o n i c

measurements o f N i c h o l s i n d i c a t e o r i f i c e s s h o u l d belocated 32 strutdlameters

ahead o f t h e s t r u t . These d a t aa r e shown i nF i g . 3.0.8.

General c r i t e r i a f o r p r o b e s u r v e y r a k e s have been suggestedbyGray

(Ref. 33) and a r ep r e s e n t e di nF i g . 3.D.9. The s e p a r a t i o nc r i t e r i o nf o r

a d j a c e n ts t a t i c and p i t o t probes i n s u b s o n i c f l o w i s based o nt h ed a t ao f

Krause and Gettelman(Ref. 31). Insupersonicflows, Gray reconmends spacing

adjacentprobes so t h a t t h e n e i g h b o r i n g bow shock i n t e r s e c t s a s t a t i c p r e s -

sureprobe 15 probediametersdownstream oftheorifices. The o b j e c t i v e is

t op r e v e n td i s t u r b a n c e s caused by shock-wave/laminar-boundary-layer inter-

a c t i o nf r o ma f f e c t i n gt h ep r e s s u r e measured a t t h e o r i f i c e s . S i n c e t h e

c r i t e r i o n becomes i m p r a c t i c a l when M 2, Gray reconmends t h ef l o wd e f l e c t i o n

a c r o s st h eP i t o t shock be k e p tl e s st h a n 3 deg a t i t s i n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h t h e
s t a t i c probe, and furthermore,theprobesshould be spaced so t h e l n t e r -

section is 5 o r more s t a t i c probediametersdownstream of the orifices.

il
For Mach numbers between 0.9 and 1.2, rakesmust be used w i t h c a u t i o n

because o fi n c r e a s e db l o c k a g e and near-normalshock waves. Also,rakesare

notoriousforinducingcrossflowintheplaneoftherakeathighsubsonic

Mach numbers, see Section I I 1 . E . I nt h i s Mach number r a n g et h ef o l l o w i n g

a l t e r n a t i v ei s recommended: employ a s i n g l e ,s t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b e( o r

c o m b i n a t i o nP i t o t - s t a t i cp r o b e * f o r v a l i d a t i n gt h ei s e n t r o p i ce x p a n s i o n

assumption)with a s l e n d e ro g i v a l (L = ad) or v e r ys m a l la n g l ec o n i c a l
n
(x 5 deg)nose anda stingtypesupportwhichsatisfiesthecriteria

suggestedby Gray.

.L
Here i t i s r e l e v a n t t o n o t e B r y e r and Pankhurst (Ref. 27, p. 41) a r e o f t h e
o p i n i o nt h a tc o m b i n a t i o np r o b e sa r ei ng e n e r a ll e s sa c c u r a t et h a ns i n g l e -
purposeinstruments.

102
 0.4

0.3

-
p
w -
-P
q 0- m H

0.2 a - 0.90
A - 1.00

0.1

-0.1
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
I /S, DISTANCE FROM O R I F I C E To STRUT SHOULDER
d

0
W Figure 3.D.8 EFFECT OF ORIFICELOCATION U T Z I Z I U G
A DOUBLE- WEDGE SUPFORT STRUT, REF. 32
.. ,. ..- I
.
..
_
..
.
. I _,, , , . . -.
.
I .I,.

lo for M > l1.6

16 d for
11 e6

Cylindrical
support

For negligible support interference:

l/D -
> 14, all valuesof M
For negligible adjacent probe interference:
M < 0.9: dd1> 6 /
M- > 1.2:
Determined by the
intersection of bow
wave with static probe

Figure 3. D. 9 GENERAL CRITERIA FORPROBE SURVEY

RAKES, Ref. 33

104
 lll.D.3. SupersonicStaticPressureProbes

AlthoughBarry (Ref.34) has shown t h a ts u p e r s o n i c Mach number c a l c u l a -

t i o n s basedon P i t o t and f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e a r e n o t as accurateas

t h e Mach probesdescribed i nS e c t i o n I I I . C , t h i s approach i s o f t e n used

because of i t s f a m i l i a r use i n subsonic flows and i t s ease o f c o n s t r u c t i o n .

In addition, i t does p r o v i d e amethod for calculating H wh i c h does n o t depend

on theassumption o f an i s e n t r o p i c e x p a n s i o n from s t i l l i n g chamber t o t e s t

section.

Walter and Redman (Ref. 35) measured p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s on a 7 deg

includedanglecone-cy1inderat Mach numbers 1.55 and 2.87." These data

indicatethesurfacepressureonthecylinderreturnstofreestreamstatic

beyond IO c a l i b r e sf r o mt h es h o u l d e r .I ng e n e r a l , as Mach numher increases

theoverexpansionincreases and longerdistancesfromtheshoulderarere-

q u i r e d .I n c r e a s i n g cone angle hasa s i m i l a re f f e c t .

Pressuredistributiondata on c o n e - c y l i n d e r - f l a r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t

speeds up t o M = 4.5 have been r e p o r t e d by Washington and Humphrey (Ref.36).

Data o b t a i n e d on a b l u n t nosed, 10.3 deg c o n e - c y l i n d e r a t M = 4.5 and zero
yaw i n d i c a t e t h e s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e r e t u r n s t o w i t h i n two percent o f freestream

static at nine calibres downstream o f t h e s h o u l d e r .

Inthecaseof yaw, t h e d a t a o f Reference 36 show t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l y

averagedpressure i s b e l o wf r e e s t r e a ms t a t i c .F o r a g i v e n yaw a n g l e ,t h e

averagepressuredecreasesfurther as Machnumber i n c r e a s e s .I ng e n e r a l ,

increasingthe number o f o r i f i c e s about the circumference will decrease yaw

sensitivity. However, Gray (P.ef. 37) and o t h e r s have n o t e dt h a ts u r f a c e

* T h i sd a t ai sa l s op r e s e n t e di nR e f e r e n c e 6.
105
 pressure on long cy1 inders, measured approximately 240 deg c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l y

from t h e windwardlocation,provides a c l o s ea p p r o x i m a t f o nt of r e e s t r e a m

s t a t i c for M lessthan 4.0. Thus, t h i s t y p e o f p r o b e canbeused to e l i m i n a t e

yaw-induced e r r o r s i n s t a t i c p r e s s u r e .

As discussedpreviously,sincemosttunnelshavesmallflowangularity

inthe empty t e s t s e c t i o n , it isunlikelythat yaw induced e r r o r s will be

significant. But t h i s must be determinedbytheuser., I f s t a t i cp r e s s u r e

i s b e i n g used t o c a l i b r a t e Mach number andan accuracyof 0.1% i s d e s i r e d ,

thensmallyaw-inducederrors may be important.Inwhichcase, a static

probe w i t h two o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l y 70 - 80 deg a p a r t canprovide

amore accurate measurement. Thiscanbeaccomplishedbyrotatingtheprobe

t ol o c a t et h e windwardgenerator(highestpressure)andthenrotatingthe

probe u n t i l t h e two o r i f i c e s agree."

Inordertoavoidsupport-interference,Gray(Ref. 37) recomendsthe

cylinderdiameter be c o n s t a n t f o r a t l e a s t 8 diametersdownstream of the

orifices. Any subsequentenlargement i nd i a m e t e rs h o u l d be r e s t r i c t e d t o

no more than a 10 deg f l a r e ( s e m i a n g l e ) .A d d i t i o n a lc r i t e r i af o rr a k e

arrangementsaregiven i nF i g . 3.D.9.

I nt h ep a s t ,P i t o tp r e s s u r e s and surfacepressures on conicalprobes

have f r e q u e n t l y been used i n s u p e r s o n i c f l o w s t o c a l c u l a t e Mach number,

e.g., Refs. 38 and 39. A l s o , an e x t r e m e l ya c c u r a t ec o n i c a ls t a t i cp r e s s u r e

probe i s briefly discussed by Pope and Goin(Ref. 6). Thisprobedesign

has a s h o r t (1.78 cm) 8 deg c o n i c a lt i pf o l l o w e d by a long(16.26 cm) 1 deg

i n c l u d e d - a n g l ec o n e .O r i f i c e se n c i r c l et h e 1 deg cone a t t h r e el o c a t i o n s .

"T h i s assumes no o r i f i c e - i n d u c e d e r r o r s .

106
 The e r r o r i n measured s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i s r e p o r t e d t o be o f t h e o r d e r o f 0.1%

o ft r u ef r e e s t r e a mp r e s s u r e when M = 1.8 t o 3.5. Thus, thesedatarepresent

some o f t h e m o s t a c c u r a t e s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e measurements i n supersonic flow.

However,Gray (Ref. 37) has r e c e n t l yr e v i e w e dt h em e r i t s and l i m i t a t i o n s

o fs u p e r s o n i cs t a t i c - p r e s s u r e probes.Cone-cy1 inder,sharp cone,and planar

probeswereconsidered. Based on t h e e f f e c t s of Mach number, a n g l e o f a t t a c k ,

and Reynolds number, G r a yc o n c l u d e dt h a tt h ec o n e - c y l i n d e rp r o b ei s ,i ng e n e r a l ,

s u p e r i o r for use a t Mach numbers below 4.

I n t h i s Mach number range, t h e Reynolds numbers o f most supersonictunnels

a r el a r g e enough f o rv i s c o u sc o r r e c t i o n st o be n e g l i g i b l e .T h i se f f e c t canbe

e s t i m a t e db yc a l c u l a t i n gt h ee q u i v a l e n ti n v i s c i dp r e s s u r e from anexpression

suggestedbyGray(Ref. 37) for cone-cyl indersprobes i n flowswith Mach number

lessthan 5.

(wmeas = 1 + 0.25 , (3.0.3)

(w) i n v i s c i d

where -x 3
E M / (Rel /C) 1 /2
0

C Z ( p /p ) (T /T ) , Chapman-Rubesin v i s c o s i t yp a r a m e t e r .
w e w

For a g i v e n c o n f i g u r a t i o n , t h e v i s c o u s i n t e r a c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t d e c r e a s e s w i t h

i n c r e a s i n g Mach number. For example, thehypersonicexperiments o f Peterson

*
andGeorge(Ref. 40) i n d i c a t e a c o e f f i c i e n t o f 0.08 i sa p p r o p r i a t ef o r a

20 deg cone-cylinder probe at M = 7.2 and 14.0.

*These i n v e s t i g a t o r s , among o t h e r s , ,havenotedthatstatic-pressureprobes

s h o u l dn o t beused inflowswithlargeaxial or transversepressuregradients.
 I no r d e r t o s i m u l t a n e o u s l ym i n i m i z et h ee f f e c t so fv i s c o u si n t e r a c t i o n

and noseoverexpansion a t supersonic speeds, it i s recommended t h a t o r i f i c e s

be l o c a t e da tl e a s t 16 c a l i b r e s downstream o f theshoulder.Incases where

c o r r e c t i o n i s judged t o be n e c e s s a r y , t h e i n t e r e s t e d r e a d e r may r e f e r , t o

G r a y ' s d i s c u s s i on(Ref. 37) o f a procedure for c o r r e c t i n gt h e measured

p r e s s u r e f o r v i scous i n t e r a c t i o n and o b t a i n i n g a b e t t e r e s t i m a t e o f t h e

i n v i s c i d ,s t a t i c pressure.

S i n c ec o n e - c y l i n d e rp r o b e sa r er e l a t i v e l yl o n g ,t h e yn o to n l y havesmall

r i g i d i t yb u ta l s o cannotbeused i np r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t s .I na d d i t i o n ,t h e y

a r es e n s i t i v e t o yaw. F o rt h i sr e a s o n ,s h o r t e rs u p e r s o n i cs t a t i cp r e s s u r e

probeshavebeeninvestigated, e.g., Refs. 41, 42, and 43. Thiswork has

focused on t h e i d e a o f d e s i g n i n g a probe t o have a t l e a s t one s t a t i o n where

t h ec i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l ya v e r a g e ds u r f a c ep r e s s u r er e m a i n s a constantfraction

of freestreamstaticregardlessof Machnumber or a n g l e o f i n c i d e n c e .

The probesdesignedbyDonaldson and Richardson(Ref. 41) and Pinckney

(Ref. 42) a r ec o n v e n t i o n a , lb o d i e so fr e v o l u t i o n , whereas theprobesofSmith

andBauer(Ref. 43) have n o n c i r c u l a rc r o s s - s e c t i o n s . Measurements a t M = 0.2

i n d i c a t et h en o n c i r c u l a rp r o b e so fS m i t h and 3auer a r e c o m p l e t e l y i n s e n s i t i v e

to flow angles of -
+6 deg.Beyond this angle of attack ranqe,boundary layer

s e p a r a t i o n becomes
a f a c t o r , a n de r r o r si n c r e a s er a p i d l y .S i n c et h e yaw sensi-

tivityofconventional,circularprobesincreasewith !lath number, theseprobes

may or may n o t o f f e r anadvantage f o rs u p e r s o n i ca p p l i c a t i o n s .P i n c k n e y

reportsfreestreamstaticpressure c a nb ed e t e r m i n e dw i t hh i sc a l i b r a t e dp r o b e

t o w i t h i n 2 p e r c e n tf o ri n c i d e n c ea n g l e so f 27 deg and M = 2.5 and 4.0. Better

r e s u l t s have been r e p o r t e d by Dona ldson and Richardson.Using a 50 deg i n -

cluded angle cone-cylinder probe w' 4 t h 24 or i f i c e s l o c a t e d 0.88 diameters

108
downstream o f theshoulder,theseinvestigatorsfoundtheprobe measured

0.793 POD,and t h e f r e e s t r e a m s t a t i c p r e s s u r e c o u l d be determined to w i t h i n

1.2 p e r c e n to v e rt h e Machnumber range 1 . 1 t o 2.5. These r e s u l t s were

o b t a i n e d f o r z e r o yaw.
By a d j u s t i n gt h e i rc a l i b r a t i o nf a c t o rt o 0.763, f r e e -
s t r e a ms t a t i cc o u l d be c a l c u l a t e d t o w i t h i n 3 p e r c e n t f o r incidenceangles

up t o 18 deg i n anyplane.Thisrepresentsthesmallest yaw s e n s i t i v i t y o f

a n ys u p e r s o n i cs t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b e known t o t h e a u t h o r s . *

As i s w e l l known, t h e o r e t i c a ls o l u t i o n sf o rs u r f a c ep r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u -

tionsonprobescanassisttheplacementoforifices t o measure f r e e s t r e a m

s t a t i cp r e s s u r e . Based oncomparisons o f measuredand p r e d i c t e ds u r f a c e

pressureson a hemisphere-cylinderprobe,Hsieh(Ref. 44) concludedthe

South and Jameson program(Ref.17) canbe used s u c c e s s f u l l y up t o M = 1.3.

Beyond t h i s Mach number, a method o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l g o r i t h m i s recommended

foraxisymmetricprobes. A r a t h e rl a r g e number o f suchprograms a r ec u r r e n t l y

available. For examples, t h ei n t e r e s t e dr e a d e r may r e f e rt ot h ep a p e r

byHsieh(Ref. 44). Fornon-axisymmetricprobes, a

number offinitedif-

f e r e n c es o l u t i o n sf o rt h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l ,s u p e r s o n i c ,i n v i s c i df l o w sa r e

a v a i l a b l e , e.g.,
Marconi, e ta l . (Ref. 4 5 ) .

F i n a l l y ,t h e use o fm u l t i p l ep r o b e si nr a k e arrangements f o rs u r v e y i n g

s u p e r s o n i ct u n n e l si sw e l l known.
Rakes can be s u c c e s s f u l l y employed to

c a l i b r a t es u p e r s o n i ct u n n e l s by a p p l y i n g t h e d e s i g n c r i t e r i a o f Gray, F i g .

3 . 0 . 9 , and a v o i d i n g r e f l e c t i o n s o f how shock waves o f f t h e t u n n e l w a l l s .

* DonaldsonandRichardsonalsofound a c o n v e n t i o n a l ,s i n g l eb o r e ,i n t e r n a l
plenum p r o v i d e d less yaw s e n s i t i v i t y t h a n an a n n u l a r plenum.

109
 lll.D.4. O r i f i c e - I n d u c e dS t a t i cP r e s s u r eE r r o r s

E r r o r si ns t a t i cp r e s s u r e measurements,causedby variationsinorifice

geometry,have been i n v e s t i g a t e di n a number o fs t u d i e s , Refs. 46-52. The

r e l e v a n tg e o m e t r i cv a r i a b l e sa r e : (1) h o l ed i a m e t e r , (2) r a t i oo fh o l ed e p t h

t od i a m e t e r , (3) therelativesizeofthecavityortubeconnectingtothe
hole, (4) i n c l i n a t i o no fh o l ea x i sr e l a t i v et ot h es u r f a c en o r m a l , (5) t h e
conditionoftheholeentry, i.e.,whethertheedgesaresquare,rounded,

chamfered, o r have b u r r s .

I d e a l l y ,t h em e a s u r i n gh o l es h o u l d be i n f i n i t e s i m a l l y s m a l l so as t o

n o td i s t u r bt h ea d j a c e n tf l o w . Shaw (Ref. 47) n o t e dt h a tt h eb a s i ce r r o r

caused by f i n i t e - s i z e do r i f i c e sc o n s i s t e do ft h r e ec o n t r i b u t i o n s .F i r s t l y ,

dippingofthestreamlinesintotheorifice causes a d i v e r g e n c e o f s t r e a m -

l i n e sw h i c hr e s u l t si n a higherpressureinsubsonicflow.Secondly,an

eddy (orsystem o fe d d i e s )i sg e n e r a t e dw i t h i nt h eh o l e . (An approximate

a n a l y s i s by N e s t l e r( R e f . 51)has shown how t h e t u r n i n g o f such aneddy

cangenerateincreasedpressures.) And f i n a l l y , a P i t o te f f e c to c c u r sa tt h e

downstream edge o ft h eh o l e . These t h r e e phenomena causethe measured pres-

s u r et o be t o oh i g h .A l t h o u g ht h es e v e r i t yo ft h e s e phenomena decrease w i t h

h o l es i z e ,R a i n b i r d( R e f . 49) o b s e r v e dt h a th o l e sw i t hd i a m e t e r sl e s st h a n

0.038 cm (.015in.)are difficult to produce w i t h sharp edgesand negligible

b u r r s .A l s oi ns h o r td u r a t i o nt u n n e l s ,t h et i m er e q u i r e df o rp r e s s u r e

e q u i l i z a t i o ni nt y p i c a l measurement systems becomes excessive.

Based ona s t u d yo fo r i f i c ee r r o r si nt u r b u l e n tp i p ef l o w , Shaw (Ref. 47)

and F r a n k l i n and Wallace(Ref. 50) have v e r i f i e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f h o l e s i z e

s c a l e sw i t ht h el o c a lw a l l shear s t r e s s ( T ~ )and f l u i d d e n s i t y (p) and v i s -

c o s i t y (p), v i z . ,

110
 'meas
- 'true = do ,-
?w )
(3.0.4)
T P
W

In add i t i o n , t h e a c t u a l m a g n i t u d e o f e r r o r s a r e a f u n c t i o n o f anumber of

otherparameters. For example, Shaw (Ref. 47) and Livesey, e t a l . (Ref. 48)
f o u n dt h er e l a t i v ed e p t ho ft h e ,h o l et oa l s o be a s i g n i f i c a n tp a r a m e t e r .I n

general,the measured p r e s s u r e d e c r e a s e s t o w a r d s t h e t r u e v a l u e a s t h e r a t i o

o f h o l el e n g t h t o diameterdecreases. However, as holelength/diameter

decreasesbelow 2 , L i v e s e y ,e ta l .n o t e d a relativelylargeCavity (14 do)

*
b e h i n dt h eh o l e caused a n e g a t i v ee r r o ri n measured s t a t i cp r e s s u r e . I n con-

t r a s t ,R a i n b i r d (Ref. 49) and Shaw b o t h used a c a v i t yb e h i n dt h eh o l ew i t h a

d i a m e t e ro fo n l y 2d0. W i t ht h i sa r r a n g e m e n t , Shawls d a t ai n d i c a t e a decreasing

statlcpressureerror as t h e l e n g t h o f t h e h o l e d e c r e a s e s from 1 . 5 do t o

0 . 5 do.
Shaw
** a l s os y s t e m a t i c a l l ys t u d i e dt h ee f f e c t so fb u r r s and d i s -

coveredthatburrsoftheorder of do/127cancause errorsaslarge as o c c u r

w i t hv a r i a t l o n si n smooth h o l es i z e ,i . e . ,t h es o l i dc u r v ei nF i g . 3.0.10.

Rayle(Ref. 46) found,asexpected, i n c l i n i n gt h ea x l so fh o l e st o w a r d

t h e oncoming f l o wi n c r e a s e st h e measured pressure. By i n c l i n i n gt h eh o l e

downstream, a reducedpressure i s measured. R a y l ea l s os t u d i e dt h ee f f e c t s

o f v a r y i n g edges o f an o r i f i c e .I ng e n e r a l ,r o u n d i n go ft h e edges r e s u l t e d

i nh i g h e rp r e s s u r e ; whereas,chamferingproducedsmallnegativeerrors. As

observedbyBenedict(Ref. 53), t h ef l o wo v e r a roundededgedoes not

i m e d l a t e l ys e p a r a t eb u ti n s t e a d i s g u i d e di n t ot h eh o l ew i t h a resulting

recovery o f p a r t o f t h e dynamicpressure. I nt h ec a s e o f a chamfered or

countersunkhole,theflow will separateattheupstreamsharp edge, b u t

* S i m i l a r l y ,L i v e s e y ,e ta l .a l s on o t et h a t a c o n t r a c t i o ni nt u b i n gd i a m e t e r
(e do) will cause a higherpressure.

** R a i n b i r d used a f i x e d r a t i o o f h o l e l e n g t h to o r i f i c e d i a m e t e r o f 3.

111
it a l s o a c c e l e r a t e s a l o n g t h e s l o p i n g downstreamedge whichresultsin a

reduced pressure.Rayleconcluded a0.076 cm (0.030 in.) h o l e w i t h a 0.038 cm

(0.015 in.)deep c o u n t e r s i n ks h o u l dp r o v i d e a staticpressurenearthetrue

va 1ue. Finally,Rayle'sexperiments.withwater and a i r f l o w s c o v e r e d a

Machnumber range o f 0 t o 0.8. Thisdatademonstrates o r i f ce-induced

errorsincreasewith Machnumber.

A summary o f subsonic data obtained hy Frank1 in and Wa lace(Ref. 50)

and thesupersonicdataobtained on a 25' apex-angleconebyRainbird(Ref. 49)

i s p r e s e n t e di nF i g . 3.0.10. R a i n b i r d s u g g e s t e dt h es c a t t e ri nh i sd a t ac o u l d

be attributed to variations in the ratio o f holediameter t o boundary l a y e r

displacementthickness. However, t h es u b s o n i cd a t ao fF r a n k l i n and Wallace

f a i l e dt oi n d i c a t e any e f f e c to ft h i sr a t i o .F u r t h e r m o r e ,N e s t l e r( R e f . 51)

d e m o n s t r a t e do r i f i c e - i n d u c e de r r o r sc o u l dn o t be c o r r e l a t e d by t h e r a t i o of hole

diametertoboundarylayer momentum t h i c k n e s s . The problem i s compounded

f u r t h e r by thehypersonic w ind tunneldatadiscussed byCassanto(Ref.52).

Inthis case,thediameters of square-edgedandchamfered (60) o r i f ices on

an 18 degconewere v a r i e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,f r o m 0.076 - 0.635 crn ( 0 . 0 3 - 0.25 in.)

and 0.152 - 0 . 6 3 5 cm (0.06 0.25 i n . )F

. or a freestream Mach
number of 8

= 6.37),the measured p r e s s u r e was i n s e n s i t i v e t o o r i f i c e d i a m e t e r

('local
( d e c r e a s i n gs l i g h t l y - lessthan 3 percent - w i t hi n c r e a s i n gd i a m e t e r ) . Thus,

theeffects o f Machnumber on o r i f i c e - i n d u c e d e r r o r s i n s t a t i c p r e s s u r e needs

a d d i t i o n arl e s e a r c h .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r er e s u l t si n d i c a t es t a t i co r i f i c ed i a m e t e r st y p i c a l l yr a n g e

from 0.025 cm (0.01 in.) onsmall-anglecones t o 0.228 cm (0.09 in.)onwind

t u n n e lw a l l s .I no r d e rt om i n i m i z es t a t i ch o l ee r r o r s * , i t i s recommended

t
O f course, a flush-mountedpressuretransducer i s p r e f e r a b l e whenever p o s s i b l e .

112
I

0
I
0. 0
0
0 A
d
d
d 0
0

7
W Franklin : M < @ 5
8s
Wallace

W / V
M of Rainbird ' 8 Cone Data

I
t h a t a square-edge o r i f i c e w i t h a diameter o f 0.051 cm (0.020 in.)beadopted

asanindustrystandard. S inceRainbird(Ref. 49) hasdemonstrated thissize

o f o r i f i c e canbeused with s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s i n ablow-down tunnel, it

can be used.- i n most f a c i l i t es. I d e a l l y ,t h el e n g t ho ft h eh o l es h o u l d be

restricted to the order of /2 o f an o r i f i c ed i a m e t e r , Ref. 47. However, such

t h i nw a l lo r i f i c e sa r ef r a g i l e and, t h u s ,s u b j e c tt o damage. Hence, Gray

(Ref. 33) recomnends t h e h o l e l e n g t h be g r e a t e r t h a n t w o o r i f i c e d i a m e t e r s .

The diameterof a c o n n e c t i n gl i n e ,b e h i n dt h eh o l e ,s h o u l d be r e s t r i c t e d t o

theorderof two o r i f i c e d i a m e t e r s , Refs. 47, 49, 50 and 33.

O f c o u r s e ,t h e s el a s tt w oc r i t e r i ap r e s u p p o s ea ni n s t a l l a t i o nw h i c hi s

a c c e s s i b l e from thebackside, e.g., a t u n n e lw a i l .I nt h ec a s eo f a long,

staticpressuresurveypipe,tubingoftheappropriatesizeis swaged or

sweat s o l d e r e d i n a r e c e i v i n gh o l e and thenground or machined down f l u s h

w i t ht h eo u t s i d es u r f a c eo ft h ep i p e . Hereagainan orificediameterof

0.051 cm (0.020 in.)can be used, and l a r g e rd i a m e t e rc o n n e c t i n gl i n e s may

be used to reduceresponsetime.

Inthecaseof a conventionalstatic-pressureprobe, a ratio of hole

d e p t ht oo r i f i c ed i a m e t e ro fl e s st h a n one i s n o t o n l y p o s s i b l e b u t i s frequently

t h e case. For example, a p r o b ew a l lt h i c k n e s so f 0.033 cm (0.013 i n . )i st y p i c a l

f o r 0.318 cm (1/8 in.) OD s t a i n l e s ss t e e lt u b i n g .T h e r e f o r e ,t h e recommended

o r i f i c e s i z e wouldprovide a h o l el e n g t ht od i a m e t e rr a t i oo f 0.65. Also,

staticpressureerrorsofprobes may be reducedbydesigning them t o have

laminarflowattheorifices.Althoughtheexistingcorrelationsoforifice

errorsare f o r t u r b u l e n tf l o w s , i t appearsprobablethat a l a m i n a rf l o w will

* O f course, a flush-mountedpressuretransducer i s p r e f e r a b l e whenever pos-

sible.
d i p into an orifice less than a turbulent flow. A laminar flow probe can

be obtained by properly sizing the probeand polishing the external sur-

face to 0.25 microns (1011 in.). For example, a 0.318 cm (1/8 in.) diameter

probe, with orifices located 10 calibres downstream, would have

a local

Reynolds number of 1.25 million for a freestream unit Reynolds number of

39.4 million per meter. In general, if noise data is available for a given
Benek.and High (Ref. 54) can be used to
facility, the correlation of

in
estimate Reynolds numbers at which boundary layer transition occurs

order to judge whether a laminar flow probe is feas ible.

Since the data of Shaw (Ref. 47) indicate static pressure measurements

be taken to assure a
are very sensitive to burrs, considerable care must
smooth, sharp-edged orifice. This may be done by beginning the hole with

drill bits several sizes smaller than the desired final hole size and
progressively increasing the hole size. Also, short flute drill bits should

be used to minimize flexing and a drill guide (of the same metal) clamped

over the orifice location can be of considerable help. Finally, slower rates

of dri 1 1 feed will produce smaller burrs,and pressurizing the hole, during

final drilling, with compressedair will aid the removal o f burrs. Finishing
o f the orifice can be done with a d r i l l shank and an appropriate polish.

The finished orifice should be inspected for burrs with a microscope, and

when possible, measured objectively,e.g., a Talysurf instrument.

Consideration should be given to the possibility using

of an electrical

discharge machine or a laser to manufacture smooth orifices. To the authors'

for production of
knowledge, no comparative study of different processes

orifices has been made.

115
 lll.D.5. A GeneralPurpose S t a t i cP r e s s u r eP r o b e

As d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n III.D.l, thelong,staticpressuresurveypipe,

w i t h nose l o c a t e d i n t h e s e t t l i n g chamber, i s p r e f e r r e d for c e n t e r l i n e c a l i b r a -

t i o n so ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s .T h i sa r r a n g e m e n tn o to n l yp r o v i d e sal a r g e amount

o f simultaneousdatabutalsopreventsthe passage o f a t r a n s o n i c shock over

t h eo r i f i c e s . However, t h eq u e s t i o n n a i r er e s u l t si n d i c a t eal a r g e number o f

t r a n s o n i ct u n n e lo p e r a t o r s( p r i m a r i l ys m a l l e rf a c i l i t i e s )c o n t i n u et o use

conventionalprobes. As m e n t i o n e dp r e v i o u s l yi nS e c t i o n 111.0.2,an advantage

o f i n e x p e n s i v e ,c l a s s i c a lp r o b e si st h e i rm o b i l i t y and theconsequentease

o f performingflowsurveys o f f centerline. For t h eb e n e f i to ft u n n e lo p e r a t o r s

who w i s h t o c o n t i n u e u s i n g t h i s t y p e o f p r o b e , t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b e d e s i g n i s

suggested for c a l i b r a t i n g t r a n s o n i c and supersonictunnels.

The basicprobedesign i s presented i nF i g . 3.0.11. An o g i v e nose w i t h

a ne f f e c t i v ef i n e n e s sr a t i oo f 12 i s suggested f o r tworeasons:(1)over-

expansion a t t h e nose i s m i n i m a l (e.g.,see Fig. 3.0.3) w h i c ha l s om i n i m i z e s

theextentofthesupersonicpocketatsupercritical speedsand t h u sw a l l

i n t e r f e r e n c e , (2) a ts u p e r s o n i c speeds, the bow shock i s a t t e n u a t e d byan ogive

noseshape (e.g.,Ref. 1 9 ) ;t h u s ,t h i sd e s i g na l s or e d u c e sw a l li n t e r f e r e n c ea t

supersonic speeds.

It s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e n o s ed e s i g ns p e c i f i e sad i s t r i b u t e d

roughness f o r b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r i p p i n g . The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s f e a t u r e i s t o

preventshock-induced,boundarylayerseparation a t a l l speeds. An a d d i t i o n a l

b e n e f i ti sr e d u c e ds e n s i t i v i t yt oR e y n o l d s number.Examples o f aboundarylayer

t r a n s i t i o n s t r i p on t h i s t y p e o f p r o b e may be found i n t h e r e p o r t by R i t c h i e

(Ref.
10). The s i ze o f g r i t and l e n g t h o f s t r i p r e q u i r e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r

a p p l i c a t i o n canbe designed v i a t h e c r i t e r i a o f Braslow and Knox (Ref. 55)

and Braslow, e t a 1. (Ref. 56).

116
 PROBE DIAHETER SHOULO BESELECTEDTOOBTAINATUNNEL
-
BLOCKAGE < 0.005% FOR TRANSONICAPPLICATIONS

RECOPAENOEO O R I F I C ES I Z E - 0.051 CPl (0.020 IN.)

-
e D l STR I BUTED ROUGHNESS

LC/+ PATTER&WE3VIWUEDBACKTO
FROM OGIVE-CYLINDERJUNCTURE
30d

A
3
0
'

30'

VIEW VIEW
8-14 B-B VIEW C-C VIEW 0-0
O R I FSI6CI NEOGRLI E
FICES O R I F6
SI C
IN
OEG
R LI FEI C E S
ROTATED 3 0' FROM VIEWA-A ROTATED 30'
60' APART FROM VIEW 8-8

F i g u r e 3.0.11 VRAWSONIC/SUPERSONlC S T A T I C PRESSURE PROBE

 An orifice diameter of 0.051 cm (0.020 cm) is recomnended for static pres-

sure ports along the cylinder.* The probe is designed to obtain primary static

pressure data at stations having six orificesin order to average out the

effects of any probe asymmetries,orifice errors, and small flow inclinations.

The purpose of the single orifices is to assist in locating the position of

either a transonic shock and/or the reflection

of a bow shock (or any other

disturbances) back onto the probe. The additional data will aid determination

of where surface pressure equals freestream static. This feature will allow
the probe to be used off centerline where wall interference increases.

Finally, the flare angle should be 10 deg or less in order to minimize

interference near Mach one. The effectsof this flare, as we11 as the wall-

interference-free transonic performance of this probe, can be calculated

via the South-Jameson computer code (Ref.17). I n the Mach number range of

0.95 to 1.00, it is necessary to keep probe blockage <O.Ol% in order to

realize wall-interference-free performance ata tunnel centerline. I f the

probe is used with higher blockage and/oroff centerline, wall proximity

effects on shock locationand surface pressure distribution canbe estimated

using the computer program of South and Keller (Ref. 2 2 ) . In the case o f

supersonic applications (H > 1 . 3 ) . probe blockage can be two orders

o f magni-

tude larger without any deleteriouseffects. It is only necessary to apply

the criteria of Gray (Fig.3 . 0 . 3 ) and avoid wall reflections o f bow shocks.

The interference-free performance canbe computed w i t h a number of existing

asisymmetric method of characteristics codes.

ij

A hardened, stainless steel is recommended for durability and corrosion

resistance in order to maintain orifice integrityand minimize long-term
abrasion by particles in the flow.
 1II.D. References

1. Dlck, R . 5 . : "The I n f l u e n c e o f SeveralCable-TypeSupports Upon t h eS t a t i c

PressuresAlongtheCenterline Tube i n a Transonic Wind Tunnel,"AEDC-TN-54-26,
Feb. 1955.

2. Jackson, F. M . : "Supplemental C a l i b r a t i o nR e s u l t sf o rt h e AEDC P r o p u l s i o n

Wind Tunnel (16T) ," AEDC-TR-70-163,Aug. 1970.

3. Jacocks, J. L. and H a r t l e y , M. 5 . : " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e AEDC-PWT 4-Ft.

TransonicTunnelwithModifiedWails," AEDC-TR-69-134, June 1969.

4. Jackson, F. M.: " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e AEDC-PIJT 16-FtTransonicTunnel at

TestSectionUallPorositiesof 2 , 4, and 68." AEDC TR-76-13, Jan. 1976.
5. Isaacs. 0.: " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e R. A. E. Bedford 8 ft. x 8 f t . Wind Tunnel
a t Subsonic Speeds, I n c l u d i n g a D i s c u s s i o n of t h e C o r r e c t i o n s A p p l i e d to
t h e Measured P r e s s u r e D i s t r i b u t i o n t o A l l o w f o r t h e D i r e c t andBlockage
E f f e c t s Due t o t h e C a l i b r a t i o n Probe Shape." ARC R. t M. No. 3583, Feb.1968.

6. Pope, A. and Goin, K. L . : High-speed Wind TunnelTesting,Wiley, 1965.

7. Gunn, J. A. and Maxwell, H.: " C a l i b r a t i o no ft h e AEOC-PWT Aerodynamic Wlnd

Tunnel(4T) MachNumbers 1.6 and 2 . 0 NozzleBlocks." AEDC-TR-72-Ii1,
Sept. 1972.

8. Holder, 0. W . ; North, R . J.; andChinneck, A.: "Experiments w i t hS t a t i c

Tubes i n a SupersonicAirstream,Parts i and 1 1 , " A.R.C. R. t M. No. 2782,
J u l y 1950.

9. Gracey, W . : "Measurement o f S t a t i cP r e s s u r e on A i r c r a f t , " NACA TN 4184,

Nov. 1957, and NACA Report 1364, 1958.

10. R i t c h i e , V. 5.: "Several Methods f o r AerodynamicReductionofStatic-

P r e s s u r eS e n s i n gE r r o r sf o rA i r c r a f ta tS u b s o n i c ,N e a r - S o n i c and Low
Supersonic Speeds," NASA TR R-18, Feb. 1959.

11. Davis, J . W. and Graham, R. F.: "blind-Tunnel b l a l i I n t e r f e r e n c eE f f e c t s for

2
0
' Cone-Cylinders," A l A A Jour.Spacecraft and Rockets,Oct. 1973.

12. Estabrooks. B. B.: " W a l l - I n t e r f e r e n c eE f f e c t s on AxisymmetricBodies in

Transonic Wlnd Tunnels w i t h P e r f o r a t e d W a l l T e s t S e c t i o n s , " AEDC-TR-59-12,
June 1959.

1I9
13. Gadd, G. E.: "Interactions Between Normal Shock Llaves and Turbulent
Boundary Layers,'' ARC R & t4 No. 3262, Feb. 1961.

14. Albers, E. E . ; Bacon, J. W.; and Nason, B . 5 . : "An Experimental Inesti-

gation o f Turbulent Viscous-Inviscid Interactions," AIAA Paper
No. 71-565,
June 1971.

15. Hsieh, T.: "Hemisphere-Cylinder in Transonic, M_ = 0.7-1.0," AlAA Jour.,

Oct. 1975.

16. Page, W. A . : "Experimental Study of the Equivalence of Transonic Flow

about Slender Cone-Cylindersof Circular and Elliptic Cross Section,"
NACA TN 4233, Apri 1 1958.

17. South, J. C., Jr. and Jameson, A.: "Relaxation Solutions for Inviscid
Axisymmetric Transonic Flow Over Elunt
or Pointed Bodies," Proc. AlAA
Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, J u l y 1973.

18. Robertson, J. E. and Chevalier, H. L.: "Characteristics of Steady-State

Pressures on the Cylindrical Portlon of Cone-Cylinder Bodies
at Transonic
Speeds," AEDC-TDR-63-104, Aug. 1963.

19. Capone, F. J. and Coates, E . M., Jr.: "Determination of Boundary-Reflected-

TN
Disturbance Lengths in the Langley 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel," NASA
0-4153, Sept. 1967.

20. Couch, L. M. and Brooks, C. W., Jr.: "Effect of Blockage Ratio on Drag and
Pressure Distributions for Bodies
of Revolution at Transonic Speeds,"
NASA TN 0-7331, NOV. 1973.

21. Nebman, P. A. and Klunker. E. E.: "Numerical Modelina of Tunnel-\.la11 and Body-
Shape Effects on Transonic Flow Over Finite Lifting Wings," Aerodynamic
Analyses Requiring Advanced Computers, Part1 1 , NASA SP-347, Mar. 1975.

22. South, J. C . , Jr. and Keller. J. D.: "Axisymmetric Transonic Flow Including
Wind-Tunnel Wall Effects,'' AerodynamicRnalyses Requiring Advanced Computers,
Part 1 1 , NASA SP-347, Mar. 1975.

23. Sieverdling, C.; Maretto, L.; Lehthaus, F . ; and Lawaczeck: "Design and
Calibration of Four Probes for Use
in the TransonicTurbine Cascade Testlng,"
Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Tech. Note 100, May1974.

120
 I

24. Sutton, E. P.: "The Development of Slotted Working-Section Liners for

Transonic Operation of theR.A.E. Bedford 3-Ft. Wind Tunnel," A.R.C.
R. E; M. No. 3085, Mar. 1955.
25. Wright, R. H.; Ritchie, V. S.; and Pearson, A. 0.: "Characteristics of
the Langley 8-Ft. Transonic Tunnel with Slotted Test Section,''NACA
Report 1389, July 1958.

26. Keller, J. D. and Wright, R. H.: "A Numerical Method o f Calculating the
Boundary-Induced Interference in Slotted or Perforated Wind Tunnels o f
Rectangular Cross Section,'' NASA TR R-379, Nov. 1971.

27. Bryer, D. W. and Pankhurst, R. C.: Pressure-Probe Methods for Determining

Wind Speed and Flow Direction, National Physical Laboratory, Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, London, 1971.

28. Siddon, T. E . : "On the Response of Pressure Measuring Instrumentation in

Unsteady Flow," UTIAS Report No. 136 (AD-682 2961, Jan. 1969.

29. Rittenhouse, L. E.: "Transonic Wind Tunnel Results for Five Pressure
Probes Designed to Minimize Static-PressureSensing Errors," AEDC-TDR-62-48,
March 1962.

30. Chevalier, H. L.: "Calibration of the PWT 16-Ft. Transonic Circuit with a
Modified Model Support Systemand Test Section," AEDC TN-60-164,
Aug. 1960.

31. Krause, L. N. and Gettelman, C. C.: "Effect o f Interaction Among Probes,

Supports, Duct Walls and Jet Boundaries on Pressure Measurements
in Ducts
and Jets , ' I I . S.A. Jour., Vol . 9, Sept. 1953.
32. Nichols, J. H . : "Rake Interference Studies at Transonic Speeds,'' AEDC-TH-
56-1, Feb. 1956.

33. Gray, J. D.: "A Compendium of Flow Measurement Methods and Techniques,"
for a short course
AEDC von Karman Gas Dynamics Facility, Notes prepared
Tenn., Nov. 1973.
at the University of Tennessee Space Institute, Tullhaoma,

34. Barry, F. W.: 88Determinationof Mach Number from Pressure Measurements,"

ASME Trans., A p r i i 1956.

35. Walter, L. W. and Redman, E. J.: "Needle Static-Pressure Probes Insensitive

to Flow Inclination in a Supersonic Stream,'' NAVORD Report 3694, March 1954.

121

I
36. Washington, W. D. and Humphrey, J. A.: "Pressure Measurements onFour
Cone-Cy1 i n d e r F l a r e C o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t S u p e r s o n i c Speeds,"RD-TM-69-11
(AD 699 3591, Oct. 1969.

37. Gray, J. D.: "Eva1uation.of Probes f o r M e a s u r i n gS t a t i c . P r e s s u r ei n

Supersonic and Hypersonic Flow," AEDC-TR-71-265, Jan. 1972.

38. N o r r i s , J. D.: " C a l f b r a t i o no fC o n i c a P

l ressure Probes f o rD e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f Local Flow Conditions a t MachNumbers from 3 t o 6," NASA TN 0-3076,
Nov. 1965.

39. Vahl, W. A. and Weirich, R. L . : " C a l i b r a t i o no f 30 Included-Angle Cone

forDeterminingLocalFlowConditions i n MachNumberRange of 1.51 t o
3.51.," NASA TN 0-4679, Aug. 1968.

40. Peterson, C . W. and

George, 0 . L.: "Wind
Tunnel
Pressure
Probes: New
Calibrations for New Geometries and FlowEnvironments," A I A A Jour.,
Vol. 13, No. 10, Oct. 1975.
41. Donaldson, 1. S. and Richardson, D. J.: "A S h o r tS t a t i cP r o b ew i t h Good
I n c i d e n c eC h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t Supersonic Speed,'' A.R.C. Current Paper
No. 1099, 1970.

42. Pinckney, S. Z.: "A ShortStatic-PressureProbeDesign for Supersonic

Flow," NASA TU 0-7978, J u l y 1975.

43. Smith, A. H. 0 . and Bauer, A. D.: "Static-Pressure Probes t h a ta r e

TheoreticallyInsensitivetoPitch, Yaw and MachNumber," J o u r .F l u i d
Mech., Vol. 44, P a r t 3, pp. 513-528, 1970.

44. Hsieh, T.: "Hemisphere-Cy1 i n d e ri n Low Supersonic Flow," A l A A Jour.,

Dec. 1975.

45. Marconi, F.; Yaeger, L. and Hamilton, H.:

H. "Computation o f High-
Speed I n v i s c i d FlowsAboutReal Configurations," NASA SP-347,Mar.1975.

46. Rayle, R. E.: " I n f l u e n c eo fO r i f i c e Geometry on S t a t i cP r e s s u r e Measure-

ments," ASME Paper No. 59-A-234, Dec. 1959.
47. Shaw, R.: "The I n f l u e n c eo fH o l e Dimensionson S t a t i cP r e s s u r e Measure-
ments," Jour. F l u i d Hech., Vol. 7, P t . 4, A p r i l 1960.

122
48. Livesey, J. L.; Jackson, J. D.; and Southern, C. J.: "The S t a t i cH o l e
E r r o r Problem: An E x p e r i m e n t a lI n v e s t l g a t i o n Holes
o f E r r o r sf o r
o f VaryingDiameters andDepths,'' A i r c r a f t Engr., Yo1 34, Feb. 1962.

49. Rainbird, W. J.: " E r r o r si n Measurement o f Mean S t a t i c P r e s s u r e o f a

Moving F l u i d Due t o Pressure Holes," DME/NAE Q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t l n
No. 1967 (3) , Nat ' 1 . Res.Counc.Canada, Oct. 1967.

50 , F r a n k l i n , R. E. and Wallace, J. M.: "Absolute Measurements o f Static-'Hole

Error UsingFlushTransducers,"Jour.Fluid Mech., Vol 42, P t . 1,
June 1970.

N e s t l e r , D. E.: " S t a t i cP r e s s u r eP o r tE r r o r si nH y p e r s o n f cT u r b u l e n t
Flow," A l A A Paper No. 71-270, Mar.1971.

Cassanto, J. M . : "An Assessment ofPressurePortErosionEffects," AlAA

Paper No. 75-150, Jan. 1975.
Benedict, R. P . : Fundamentals o f Temperature,Pressure, and Flow
Measurements, Wiley, New York, 1969.

Benek, J. A. and High, M. D . : "A Method F o rt h eP r e d i c t i o no ft h eE f f e c t s

o f Free-Stream D i sturbances on Boundary-Layer T r a n s i t i o n,I' AEDC-TR-73-158,
Oct. 1973, a l s o A l A A Jour., P. 1425,Oct. 1974.

55. Braslow, A. L. and Knox, E. C.: "Simp1 i f i e d Method f o rD e t e r m i n a t i o no f

CriticalHeight o f D i s t r i b u t e d Roughness P a r t i c l e s f o r Boundary-Layer
T r a n s i t i o n a t MachNumbers from 0 t o 5," NACA TN 4363, 1958.

56. Braslow, A . L.; Hicks, R. M . and H a r r i s , R. V., Jr.: "Use ofGrit-Type

Boundary-Layer-Trans it i o n T r i p s on Wind-Tunnel Model s ,I1 NASA TN 0-3579,
1966.

57 Parker, R. L., Jr.: l t F l 0 w GeneratipnPropertiesofFiveTransonic Wind

funnelTestSection Mal 1 Configurations,'' AEOC-TR-75-73, Aug- 1975.
 . . I l l . E. MEASUREMENT OF FLOW
ANGULARITY

The term yawmeter w i 1 1. beused herein' to denote probes designed to measure

f l o wa n g u l a r i t yi ne i t h e r two o rt h r e ed i m e n s i o n a lf l o w s . A w i d ev a r i e t yo f
yawmetershavebeenused o v e rt h ey e a r sf o rd i f f e r e n ta p p l i c a t i o n s . The ones
r'
whishhavebeenused i nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s may be d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e g e n e r a l
types:(1)pressureprobes, (2) h o tw i r eo r film probes,(3)force models
I

i n s t r u m e n t e dw i t h a v e r ys e n s i t i v ef o r c eb a l a n c e . " A d i s c u s s i o no fp r e s s u r e
probes i s g i v e n f i r s t and i s f o l l o w e d b y a brief description of twoexamples

of thelattertypesof yawmeter.
A r e c e n tr e v i e wo ft h ev a r i o u st y p e so fp r e s s u r ep r o b e s and a d i s c u s s i o n
o ft h ep r o s andcons o f each a r eg i v e n by Bryer and Pankhurst(Ref. 2). These
a u t h o r sc l a s s i f yp r e s s u r ep r o b e yawmeters i n t o two categories:(1)those
c o n s i s t i n go f an arrangement o f open-ended tubes, and ( 2 ) thosehaving a body
w i t hp r e s s u r es e n s i n go r i f i c e s . These may be subdividedintoprobesdesigned
t o measure f l o wa n g l e si n one plane (2-D) o r two(3-D).

III.E.l. D i f f e r e n t i aP
l ressure Yawmeters: 2-D

F o rf l o wd i r e c t i o n measurements i n oneplane,threetypesof yawmeter

geometriesare most common, v i z . , twopressuretapsonthesurfacesofeither
awedge o r a c i r c u l a rc y l i n d e r and twotubes w i t hs l a n t e di n l e t s . A large
v a r i e t yo f suchprobesareavailablefromcommercialmanufacturers. The
circularcylinder yawmeters a r en o t recommended f o r t r a n s o n i c f l o w s because
o ft h e i rc o m p a r a t i v e l yl a r g ei n t e r f e r e n c ew i t ht h ef l o w and c o n s i d e r a b l e
s e n s i t i v i t yt o Mach number, Ref. 2. B o t ht h ec y l i n d e r and
wedge have,greater
susceptibilitytoerror i n thepresence of velocitygradients because o f t h e
l a r g e rs e p a r a t i o no fo r i f i c e s .A l s o ,S i e v e r d i n g ,e ta l .( R e f . 3 ) havefound
t h a t a 30 ( t o t a la n g l e ) wedge-shapedyawmeter i s Reynolds number dependent
i nt h e Machnumber range 0.8 t o 2.2. In c o n t r a s t ,t h et w o - t u b et y p eo f yaw-
m e t e r ,g e n e r a l l yr e f e r r e d to as a Conradprobe, provides: ( 1 ) minimum f l o w
d i s t u r b a n c e ,( 2 )a d e q u a t es e n s i t i v i t yw h i c hi sr e l a t i v e l yf r e e o f Machnumber
and Reynolds number e f f e c t s (Refs. 4 and 5). and ( 3 ) o r i f i c e sw h i c ha r ec l o s e
togetherfornearlypoint measurement o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y .

124
 References 3 and 5 c o n t a i n c a l i b r a t i o n r e s u l t s f o r s m a l l t u b e t y p e
yawmeterswhichweredesigned to investigate the flow out of transonic
t u r b i n e cascades and compressors. The o b j e c t i v e o f S i e v e r d i n g , e t a l .
k.
(Ref. 3) was t oi n v e s t i g a t es e v e r a lp r o b eg e o m e t r i e s and arrangementswhich
i
couldbe used t o s i m u l t a n e o u s l y measure t o t a l , s t a t i c , and d i r e c t i o n a l
.. .

pressures. The two-tube yawmeter, shown i nF i g . 3.E.1, was mounted on a r a k e

ofrectangularcrosssection (2.3 mn thicknessnormal t o f l o w and 6.0 m
p a r a 1l e 1t of l o w ) . The yawmeter was a r r a n g e d t o measure f l o w a n g u l a r i t y
normal t ot h ep l a n eo ft h er a k e . A smalldiameter (1.7 mm), truncated,2S0'.'
t o t a l apex-angleconeprobe was a l s o mountedon therake. The s e p a r a t i o n
d i s t a n c e between t h e yawmeter and theconicalprobe was 16 mm and bothnose
t i p s werelocated 22 mm ahead of therake. The probes, w i t ht h i sa r r a n g e -
ment,were calibratedinthe DFVLR/AVA Transonic Wind Tunnel ( I m x l m ) .
The r e s u l t i n g s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e yawmeter i s presented i n F i g . 3.E.l.
0.8 M 2.2.
*
"

A combinationPitotprobe andyawmeter was a l s o c a l i b r a t e d w i t h a

s i m i l a r arrangement,buttwodifferent companion probeswere used. In
0
one case,thecompanionprobe was a 15 coneneedleprobe(1.5 mm OD) f o r
measuring s t a t i c p r e s s u r e , and t h e secondcompanion probe was a 30' cone
probe (1.5 mm OD). The s e n s i t i v i t yo ft h en e e d l ep r o b e was found t o be
l i n e a ro v e rt h el a r g e s tr a n g eo fa n g l e so f yaw (%loo). The corresponding
s e n s i t i v i t yd a t aa r ea l s o shown i nF i g . 3.E.1. The d i f f e r e n c ei nt h ea n g l e
sensitivityofthetwo-tube yawmeterand thecombinationprobe may be
a t t r i b u t e dt ot h ed i f f e r e n c ei nt h ei n l e ta n g l e .

S i e v e r d l n g ,e ta l .( R e f .3 )a l s ot e s t e dt h ey a m e t e r and needleprobe
c o m b i n a t i o ni nt h es m a l l (135 rnm x 50 mm) V K I High Speed Cascade Tunnel C-2.
Staticpressure measurements a l o n g t h e w a l l of t h i s f a c i l i t y , w i t h and w i t h -
o u tt h ep r o b e s ,i n d i c a t e ds i g n i f i c a n tb l o c k a g e whenMachnumber exceeded 0.30;
whereas,a s i n g l e AGARD needleprobe (12.3O cone and 1.5 mm OD) w i t h a standard
elbowtypesupport (3 mn OD) l o c a t e d 48 probediametersdownstream showed .
n e g l i g i b l eb l o c k a g e . Hence, theseauthorsconclude: i f yawmeter
a (and/or
o t h e rp r o b e s )a r et o be used i nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s ,t h ep r o b e s and support

A l t h o u g ht h e s ea u t h o r sd i dn o ts t a t et h ei n s i d ed i a m e t e r o f t h et u b i n g ,. t h e
r a t i o o f I . D . t o 0 . 0 . should be keptgreaterthan 0.6 i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e
loss o r change o f s e n s i t i v i t y w i t h i n c r e a s i n g f l o w a n g u l a r i t y , e.g., p. 19
o f Ref. 2.

125
 0.06

0.05

1J

0.04
a 1- Probe,Ref.3
Combination

S :t
Y
0.03 .
a ,
.\
J 3 Tubes 0.8 mm OD

0.02

\ Two Tube Probe, Ref. 3

0.01 - Tubing - 1.575 mrn OD x 0.254 rnm Wall Lp=j 6 = 80"

2 Tubes 1 .O mm OD

0 I I I I I I I I I

0.8 0.6 0.4 1 .o 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

M
Figure 3 . E. 1 . TWO D I MENS I ONAL YA\JMETERS
 mechanism_sh.oy.jd
.~ . - .be.c,a!ib_r_ated i n a t u n n e l o f s i z e s i m i l a r t o w h i c h i t i s
... . ~ to
be used. And most i m p o r t a n t l yf o rt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n s ,e x t r e m ec a r e mustbe
taken
. , i n d e s i g n i n g ya.wmeter s u p p o r t s i n o r d e r t o a v o i d i n d u c i n g e x t r a n e o u s
. ...~ "

flowangularity.

The f l o wa n g l es e n s i t i v i t yd a t ao fB u z z e l l( R e f . 5 ) , o b t a i n e dw i t h a combi-
n a t i o nP i t o tp r o b e and yawmeter, i s a l s o shown i n F i g . 3.E.1 f o r M = 0.4, 0.6,
and 0.8. These d a t aw e r eo b t a i n e dw i t h a c o b r a - s t y l e dr a k ew i t ht h r e e cornbina-
tion
*
p r o b e sa l t e r n a t i n gw i t hf o u rs i n g l eP i t o t u b e s .A g a i n ,t h i si n v e s t i g a t o r
f o l l o w e dt h ea c c e p t e dp r a c t i c eo fl o c a t i n gt h ep r o b et o measure anglesnormal to
t h ep l a n eo ft h er a k e . Mach number s e n s i t i v i t y checks i n d i c a t e dn e g l i g i b l e change
i n yawmeter s e n s i t i v i t y f o r 0 . 4 1 5 M 5 0.81. Afterthis was a s c e r t a i n e d ,e i g h t
rakesweretested a t a mean
Mach number of0.6. The r e s u l t i n gs p r e a di nd a t a
a r e shown i nF i g . 3.E.1.

V i d a l ,e ta l . (Ref.6)haverecentlyreportedusing a two-tube yawmeter

t o measure f l o wa n g u l a r i t yi n asmal 1 (30.5 cm) t r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e l . The
o b j e c t i v eo ft h e s et e s t s i s t o compare measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y and
s t a t i cp r e s s u r ew i t hc a l c u l a t e di n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e et r a n s o n i cf l o ws o l u t i o n sf o r a
givenmodel, and t h e r e b yp r o v i d e a c r i t e r i o nf o ra d j u s t i n gt u n n e lw a l lp o r o s i t y
t oa t t a i nw a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e ef l o w . A p l a n a r yawmeter was usedbecause an
a i r f o i l , which spans t h et u n n e l , i s being used f o r developmentaltesting. The
yawmeter i s s i m i l a rt ot h e one shown i nt h el o w e rr i g h tp o r t i o no fF i g .3 . E . l . a n d
was c o n s t r u c t e do f 0.0635 cm (0.025 i n . ) O D t u b i n gw i t h each i n l e t chamfered
a t 45". These a u t h o r sc l a i mt h a tt h e i rf l o wa n g l es e n s i t i v i t y i s such t h a t w i t h
a p r e s s u r er e s o l u t i o no f 0.0007 N/cm2 (0.001 p s i )t h e y can " i n p r i n c i p l e "
*+
r e s o l v ea n g l e st ow i t h i n0 . 0 3 "i nt h e Mach number range 0.55 t o 0.725.

As noted by Bryer and Pankhurst(Ref.2), yawmeter s e n s i t i v i t y i n low

speed f l o w s has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been d e f i n e d as
A

S" a(AP/q)/a$ (3.E.1)

Y
where AP i st h ep r e s s u r ed i f f e r e n c ea c r o s st h e yawmeter. However, these

+These rakesweredesigned toplacesixof them C i r C U m f e r e n t i a l l Yi nt h e

s t a t o rd i s c h a r g ep l a n eo f a compressor.
**S i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l w r i t i n g
of this section, the calibration anduse o f a new
yawmeter design has come t oo u ra t t e n t i o n ,L i n d (Ref. 28). T h i s 2-D y a m e t e r
c o n s i s t s o f a two-hole, d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e s s u r e p r o b e p l a c e d a t t h e v e r t e x of
a forward-sweptwing. A y a m e t e r s e n s i t i v i t y o f 0.163 and anaccuracy o f 0.01
deg i s claimed f o r low-speedflows (M, < 0.17). -
127
a u t h o r sn o t et h a t ,f o rc o m p r e s s i b l ef l o w s ,l e s sv a r i a t i o ni ns e n s i t i v i t yw i t h
Mach number i s o b t a i n e db yu s i n gt h ef o l l o w i n gd e f i n i t i o n .

An example o f t h i s may befound i nt h e paper by Spaid, e t a l . (Ref. 7). In

t h e i re x p e r i m e n t sw i t h a m i n i a t u r e ( 1 mm t o t a l span)combination P i t o t probe
and yawmeter, s e n s i t i v i t y , as d e f i n e d i n Eq. (3.E.21, d i dn o tv a r yw i t h 0.8 5 M s
1.0 and -30" 5 3, 5 30". I na d d i t i o n ,t h es u p e r s o n i cd a t ai nF i g . 3.E.1 show
much l e s sv a r i a t i o nw i t h Mach
number
when S i s used.Thus, thecompressible
Y
d e f i n i t i o no f yawmeter s e n s i t i v i t y , Eq. (3.E.2), i s p r e f e r r e df o rt r a n s o n i c and
supersonicapplications.

!ll..2. D i f f e r e n t i aPl r e s s u r e Yawmeters: 3-D

Forthegeneralcase of f l o w a n g u l a r i t y c a l i b r a t i o n i n anempty t u n n e l( t r a n -
sonicand/orsupersonic), a pyramid yawmeter i s recommended. The pyramidgeometry
has two primaryadvantages compared t o a c o n i c a l or hemispherical yawmeter. ~ i r s t l ~ ,
thepyramidprobeperformance i s l e s ss e n s i t i v et op o s i t i o n i n go ft h eo r i f i c e s .
Secondly, i t i s r e l a t i v e l yf r e eo fi n t e r f e r e n c e betweensimultaneousmeasure-
ments o f p i t c h and yaw. I na d d i t i o n ,t h ei n c o m p r e s s i b l ef l o w measurements o f
d.
B r y e r ,e ta l . (Ref. 8) i n d i c a t e S" f o r a pyramidprobe i s comparativelyinsen-
Y
sitiveto Reynolds number and i n c r e a s e ss l i g h t l y( " 6 % )w i t hi n c r e a s e dt u r b u -
1 ence.

A typicap
l yramid yawmeter i s shown i nF i g . 3.E.2.Here, t h er a t i oo fo r i f i c e
diametertoprobestemdiameter i s 0.16. I ng e n e r a l , i t i s recommended t h a t
t h i sr a t i o be keptlessthan 0.20. An a d d i t i o n a l ,s u g g e s t e dc o n s t r a i n t is
t h a tt h ed i a m e t e ro ft h eo r i f i c e s be no smallerthan 0.508-mm ( 0 . 0 2i n . )i n
.9-

o r d e rt oa v o i dc l o g g i n g and excessivetimelagproblems. The apex angle

was chosen t o conformwiththerecommendation o fB r y e r andPankhurst(Ref. 2).
These authorssuggestthat a yawmeterbe designed s o t h a t t h e bow shock wave
remainsdetached o ra t t a c h e dt h r o u g h o u tt h er a n g eo f Mach numbers w i t h i n w h i c h
measurements a r e t o bemade. Thus, an apexangle o f 66" will m a i n t a i n a
detachedshock f o rt r a n s o n i c Mach numbers up t o 1.6. ( A Mach number o f 1.6

* S m a l l e ro r i f i c e s (0.25 mm) have been used a t low speeds (Ref. 9) andsuper-

s o n i c speeds (Ref. 2, P. 57). However, no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i np e r f o r -
mance i s gained, and c l o g g i n g and decreasedresponsetime can make theprobe
more e x p e n s i v et o use.

128
-
D = 0.3175crn

,/
/
/
330
&

d = 0.16 D
I
b 1 6 D " I

Figure 3.E.2. P Y R A M I D YAWMETER

 I s chosenbecause t h i sr e p r e s e n t st h eu p p e r limit o f o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e m a J o r l t y
o ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s . ) Beyond t h i s speed regime,the bow shock will be a t t a c h e d ,
and theprobecan be used i ns u p e r s o n i cf l o w s . The p u r p o s eo ft h i sd e s i g n
f e a t u r ei st oa v o i dt h e sudden changes t h a t canoccur i nt h ep r e s s u r er e s p o n s e
o f sharp-nosedprobesneartheshockattachment Mach number. Furthermore,
Bryer and Pankhursthavenotedthatthe maximum s e n s i t i v i t y o f most p o i n t e d
ymeters is obtained with an apex a n g l e between 60 and 70 degrees.

F l n a l l y ,f o ru s ei nt r a n s o n i cf l o w st h ep r o b e stemshouldextend down-
streamfor a d i s t a n c eo fa tl e a s t 16 diameters. Downstream of t h i s s t a t i o n ,
0
thestemcansafely be enlargedby a IO c o n i c a lf l a r et o mate w i t h t h e a v a i l -
ableprobesupport.Provided a massive,transverseprobesupport i s n o t used,
t h i sd e s i g n wlll a v o i di n t e r f e r e n c e betweenprobe and support a t t r a n s o n i c
speeds.

The o
f
l w a n g l es e n s i t i v i t y , a(AP/HS)/aY, o fc o n i c a l and hemispherical-nose
probeshave been found t o i n c r e a s e w i t h Mach number and reach a maximum ofabout
0.025 a t M - 1.5 (e.9..Ref. IO andRef. 2 ) .F u r t h e ri n c r e a s e si n Mach number
r e s u l ti nd e c r e a s i n gs e n s l t i v i t y .F o r example, d a t af o r a hemispherical yaw-
meter w i t h o r i f i c e s l o c a t e d 45' from thenoseindicate a 50% loss i n s e n s i t i v i t y
a t H = 2.7, Fig. 35 o f Ref. 2. S i m i l a r l y ,t h e o r e t i c a lc a l c u l a t i o n sf o r a 6
0'
c o n i c a ly a m e t e ri n d i c a t e a 70% loss a t M = 3.5, F i g . 3.E.3.
* I f we assume
s i m i l a rb e h a v i o r for thepyramidprobe and a maximum s e n s i t i v i t y o f 0.025, the
s m a l l e s t change inflowanglewhichcan be detected by a pressuremeasuring
system w i t h a r e s o l u t i o n
of 3.45 x N/cmZ (0.005 p s i ) i s

I nt h e case o f a t r a n s o n i ct u n n e lw i t h T = 37.8OC. Re/m = 19.7 x 10

6, and
S
2
H = 1.0, t h es e t t l i n g chamber pressure i s 13.79 N/cm (20 p s i a ) .S u b s t i t u t i n g
t h i sv a l u ef o r H S i n Eq. (3). we f i n d t h a t a f l o wa n g l eo f 0.01 degreecan
t h e o r e t i c a l l y be r e s o l v e d .I np r a c t i c e ,t h ee f f e c t so fp r o b ea n d f o rs u p p o r t
d e f l e c t i o n s ,n o n i d e n t i c a li n t e r n a l geometry o f t h e t u b i n g and passageswhich

* For t h i s reason,Barry(Ref. 11) and Zumwalt (Ref. 12) exploredtheuseof

P i t o t probeslocatednearthesurfaceof wedges and cones t op r o v i d ei n c r e a s e d
s e n s i t i v i t ya th i g hs u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers.However, f o r most a p p l i c a t i o n s ,
t h ec o n v e n t i o n a ls u r f a c ep r e s s u r ey a m e t e r sp r o v i d ea d e q u a t es e n s i t i v i t y up t o
H = 3.5.

I30
.030 I I I I I I I I I

-I

P
.025

a EXPERIMENTALDATA (Ref. 25
/
,020 \ - CURVE FROM R e f . 10 -I

.005

0
0 I .o 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

MACH
NUMBER

Figure 3.E.3. S E N S I T I V I T Y OF 60" CONICAL

YAWMETER
 connect two o r i f i c e s t o a d i f f e r e n t i a lp r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r ,v i b r a t i o n ,t u r b u l e n c e ,
etc., may p r e v e n tt h ea t t a i n m e n t o f suchaccuracy. However, thepyramidprobe
can p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e a n y l e r e s o l u t i o n f o r c a l i b r a t i o n of mostwindtunnels.
E s p e c i a l l yi nl i g h to ft h ef a c tt h a tt h em a j o r i t yo ft u n n e lo p e r a t o r sa r e
s a t i s f i e d with a c a l i b r a t i o n o f ( t u n n e l - e m p t y ) f l o w a n g l e s a c c u r a t e t o w i t h i n
0.1
degree.

If l e s s - a c c u r a t e , f l o w a n g u l a r i t y measurements a r e s a t i s f a c t o r y and a
simultaneous measurement o f P i t o tp r e s s u r ei sd e s i r e d ,t h e nose o f the
pyramid yawmeter may be t r u n c a t e d a n d a n o r i f i c e p l a c e d i n t h e c e n t e r of the
nose,;: e.g.,Ref. 9. I nt h ec a s eo fs u b s o n i ct u n n e l s ,t h i sw o u l dp r o v i d e a
convenientcheck on the u n i f o r m i t yo ft o t a lp r e s s u r e . I n the case o fs u p e r s o n i c
t u n n e l s ,t h i sp e r m i t s Mach
number t o be determinedsimultaneously,e.g.,Refs.
1 4 and 15. Such a p r o b en o to n l ym i n i m i z e sc a l i b r a t i o nt i m eb u t also eliminates
any u n c e r t a i n t y i n l o c a l Mach number a tw h i c hf l o wa n g l e sa r e measured.

I n summary, thesuggesteddimensional c r i t e r i a for a pyramid yawmeter

s h o u l dr e s u l ti n a probewhich:

I. has a flow a n g l es e n s i t i v i t yw h i c hi sr e l a t i v e l yi n s e n s i t l v et o
extraneous flow v a r i a b l e ss u c h as Reynolds number and turbulence,

2. i s small enough t o map f l o w a n g u l a r i t yi n most t u n n e l sw i t hh i g h

r e s o l u t i o n and minimum i n t e r f e r e n c e , " "

3. has f a s t enough pressureresponse for m o s t a p p l i c a t i o n s ,

4. has
adequate s t r u c t u r a sl t i f f n e s s , and

5. can be used t o c a l i b r a t eb o t ht r a n s o n i c and supersonictunnels.

* I t i s recommended t h a tt h el i pt h i c k n e s s be k e p tt h i n ( 0.005 cm) andthe

o r i f i c e be beveled a t an angleof 1 5 " or more i n o r d e r t o m i n i m i z e s e n s i t i v i t y
of t h e P i t o t probe t o f l o w a n g u l a r i t y .
;::In l a r g et u n n e l s &3 f t ) where h i g hr e s o l u t i o n o f t h e f l o w a n g u l a r i t y f i e l d
i sn o tr e q u i r e d ,t h e recommended pyramidprobe may be scaled up t o l a r g e r
s i z e s .I n any event,probeblockageshould be lessthan 0.1 p e r c e n tf o r
g e n e r a lc a l i b r a t i o n so ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s . However, near M = I values an
orderofmagnitudesmaller may be necessary i n o r d e r t o a v o i dp r o b e - w a l l
i n t e r f e r e n c e , seeRef. 13.
 YaKmgJer
. .
C a l i b r a t i o n , Rake
""" . .
Interfer-ence, and Blockage

As notedby Pope and Goin(Ref. 10, P. 134), a1 1 r e a l yawmetershave

asymmetriesand i m p e r f e c t i o n sw h i c h cause t h ep r o b et oi n d i c a t e a nonzero
AP a t $ = 0 . Thus, a yawmeter s h o u l da l w a y sb ec a l i b r a t e di n flow c o n d i t i o n s .
s i m i l a rt ot h o s ei nw h i c h it is to be used. The c a l i b r a t i o np r o c e d u r ef o r
d i f f e r e n t i a lp r e s s u r e yawmeters i s d e s c r i b e di nR e f s . 10, 14, and 15 and will
not berepeatedhere. However, i t i sr e l e v a n t t o sound a n o t e o f c a u t i o nh e r e .
When c a l i b r a t i n g a yawmeter, t h e c e n t e r o f r o t a t i o n s h o u l d b e a t t h e n o s e t i p .
A l s o ,c a r e f u l measurements o ft h ea n g l e sb e t W eenyawmeter a x i s and t u n n e la x i s
a r ee s s e n t i a ls i n c et h e s em u s t be s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e f l o w a n g l e s r e l a t i v e t o
theprobe i no r d e rt od e t e r m i n ef l o wa n g u l a r i t yw i t hr e s p e c tt ot h et u n n e l
center1 ine.

I no r d e rt or e d u c et u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n t I me, most o p e r a t o r sp r e f e rt o
useprobes i n rakes o ra r r a y s . However, H a r t l e y and Nichols(Ref. 16)
c o n d u c t e dt e s t si nt h e A E D C 16T Tunnel w i t h f i v e 7.62 cm (3 i n . )d i a m e t e r
hemispherical yawmetersmountedon a 2.44 m . ( 8 f t ) widerake. The rake
c o n s i s t e do f a 22" ( t o t a l - a n g l e ) wedge w i t h a 7.62 cm ( 3 i n . )w i d e base and
was c e n t e r mountedon a s t i n gs u p p o r t . The yawmetersweremounted0.61 m
(2 f t ) a p a r t w i t h t h e nose locatedapproximatelyfourdiameters ahead o f t h e
l e a d i n g edge o f t h e wedge. The t o t a lw i n d - t u n n e lb l o c k a g eo ft h er a k e was
approximately 1%. These i n v e s t i g a t o r sf o u n dt h a t h er a k ei n d u c e ds i g n i f i c a n t
o u t f l o wt o w a r dt h et i p so ft h er a k e . The i n d u c e df l o wa n g u l a r i t y ,a tt h et i p s
o ft h er a k e ,i n c r e a s e df r o ma b o u t 0 . 5 " a t M = 0.6 t o over 1 " a t M = 1 . 1 . As
Mach number increased f r o m 1 . 1 t o 1.2,theinducedflowangularitydecreased
s h a r p l y and e x h i b i t e d n e a r - i n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r 1.2 5 M 5 1.5.
A w a l l - m o u n t e ds t r u ts u p p o r t ,w i t ht h e same wedge a n g l e o f 22", was a l s o t e s t e d
and found t o induceevenlargeroutflowfromthe w a l l t o w a r dt h et i p .

In bothcases,thesupport-inducedflowangularity was ascertainedby

mounting a s i n g l ep r o b eo n a l o n gs t i n g . The f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h e s t i n g had
a d i a m e t e ro f 5.715 cm (2.25in.) and a l e n g t ho fa p p r o x i m a t e l y 16 probe
diameters. The second s e c t i o n o f s t i n g had a diameter o f 7.62 cm (3.0in.)
and a l e n g t h o f o v e r 20 probediameterswhichsubsequentlyjoined a conical
f l a r e and t h e r e s t o f t h e s t i n gs u p p o r t mechanism. The s t i n gs u p p o r ts y s t e m
e n a b l e dv e r t i c a lt r a v e r s e s w i t h t h es t i n ga tz e r oa n g l e of a t t a c k .I na d d i t i o n ,
t h eb l o c k a g e o f t h es i n g l e p robe was o n l y 0.013%. Thus, t h e arrangementassured

133

I
 as near-interference-free,flow a n g u l a r i t y measurementsascan be expected i n
a windtunnel.

An a d d i t i o n a lc o n c l u s i o nr e a c h e db yH a r t l e y and N i c h o l s (Ref. 16) i s t h a t

t h er a k e had n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t on flowanglesnormal totheplaneoftherake
(;.e., withtherakevertical,the yaw datawereVal i d and w i t h t h e r a k e
h o r i z o n t a l ,t h ep i t c hd a t a wereVal id). Thus,basedontheseandothersimilar
results, i t i s p o s s i b l et o useyawmeters i n a c a r e f u l l yd e s i g n e dr a k ea r r a n g e -
ment t o make twodimenslonal measurements."However, f o rg r e a t e s ta c c u r a c y ,
a s i n g l ep r o b ej o i n e dt o a l o n gs t i n g w i t h a supportwhichissymmetricalabout
t h et u n n e lc e n t e r l i n e i s recommended.""

F i n a l l y ,w i t hr e g a r dt ow i n dt u n n e lb l o c k a g ea t Mach numbers near 1 .O,

t h ed a t ao f Couch and Brooks(Ref. 13) i n d i c a t et h a t even w i t he x t r e m e l y
smallvalues o f model blockage (<0.0003) w a l il n t e r f e r e n c eo c c u r s . Thus,
yawmeters f o r measurements near Mach onemust be d e s i g n e dw i t ht h eu t m o s tc a r e ,
viz.,smallprobes and l o n gs t i n g s , and t h er e s u l t i n gd a t as h o u l d be s c r u t i n i z e d
f o r anysudden o r unexpectedvariationsaround M = 1.0.

III.E.3. Hot-Wire/Film
Yameters

Two h o t - w i r e s i n c l i n e d a t a na n g l ew i t hr e s p e c tt oe a c ho t h e r and t h e
mean f l o w havelong been used i n low speed flows t o measure f l o w a n g u l a r i t y
(Ref.17).Three-wireprobeshavealsobeenusedextensively t o simultaneously
measure p i t c h and yaw i nt h r e ed i m e n s i o n a lf l o w s .I nt h ep a s t ,h o t - w i r e s have
n o t been used i nt r a n s o n i cf l o w s becausetheyare so e a s i l yb r o k e n . However,
Hortsman and Rose (Ref. 18) have r e c e n t l yd e m o n s t r a t e dt h a tl o wa s p e c tr a t i o
(,f/d-lOO) tungstenwireprobes can be used i nt r a n s o n i cf l o w sw i t h o u t a
p r o h i b i t i v e breakageproblem.Alsorecently, Johnson
and Rose (Ref. 19) have
r e p o r t e du s i n g an X - a r r a yh o t - w i r et o measureReynolds s t r e s si n a supersonic
boundary l a y e r and i n a shock-wave/boundary-layer i n t e r a c t i o n (Ref. 20).
Thus, a l t h o u g h m a t c h i n g t h e s e n s i t i v i t i e s o f two o r more w i r e s f o r a c c u r a t e

;bDudzinskiand Krause(Ref. 4 ) p o i n to u tt h a t a r a k ew i t hc i r c u l a r arms i s

u n a f f e c t e d by a n g l e so fa t t a c k . Whereas when nonzero yaw a n g l e se x i s ti n
s u b s o n i ca n d / o rt r a n s o n i cf l o w s ,n o n c i r c u l a r arms c a ni n d u c el a r g e rf l o w
angularityatthe nose o f t h e yawmeter and a l s o c r e a t e u n d e s i r a b l e s i d e
f o r c e s on therake.
**Another a l t e r n a t i v e wouldbe t o c a l i b r a t e a rakefollowingthe procedure of
Ref. 16.
 m a n flow measurements canbe a problem,
* thereappears t o be no p r o h i b i t i v e
reason why two and three-wireprobescannot be used asyawmeters. I no r d e r
t o avoid the problem o f matching sensitivities of more than one w i r e , Rosenberg
(Ref.22)has s u c c e s s f u l l y used a s i n g l e w i r e p r o b e mounted i n a r o t a t a b l e h o l d e r .
By r o t a t l n g an i n c l i n e d - w i r e a b o u t t h e a x i s o f t h e p r o b e s stem and t a k i n g d a t a
a t two d i s t i n c t o r i e n t a t i o n s , t h e t h r e e components o f v e l o c i t y and mass f l u x
canbe determined a t a p o i n t i n a generalthree-dimensionalflow.

In a studyoftheeffectsofcontouringslottedwallstoreducetransonic-
w a l l - I n t e r f e r e n c e , Weeks (Ref.23)hasused a h o t - f il m p r o b e f o r a c c u r a t e mea-
surement o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y . T h i s w o r k i n v o l v e d t h e u s e o f a i r f o i l modelswhich
spanned t h e t e s t s e c t i o n o f t h e AFFDL T r i s o n i c Gasdynamics F a c i l i t y . The
required planar measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y wereobtainedwlth a split-film,
22O t o t a l - a n g l e wedge which was manufactured by Thermo Systems, Inc.,according
to an AFFDL design.Thisprobeconsists o f a q u a r t zr o d 0.152 cm (0.06 i n . )i n
d i a m e t e rw i t ht h et i p ground t o a symmetrical wedge. As i n d i c a t e di nF i g . 3.E.4,
therodextendsforward 1.27 cm (0.5 in.)from a0.3175 cm (0.125 in.)diameter
supporttube. A p a i r o f p l a t i n u m f i l m s , 0.102 cm (0.04 in.)long,aredeposited
on each s i d e o f t h e apex o f t h e wedge. Four g o l d - f i l m l e a d s a r e used t o complete
t h e twoseparate anemometer b r i d g e c i r c u i t s . The c a l i b r a t e d yaw s e n s i t i v i t y
of this probe is shown i n F i g . 3.E.4 f o r 0.85 < M < 0.95.
Weeks c l a i m s t h a t
t h i s probe will r e s o l v ef l o wa n g l e st ow i t h i n 42 minutes o f a r c (0.03O). The
primarylimitationisstatedto be p r o b ev i b r a t i o nw h i c h was d e t e r m i n e de x p e r i -
mentally to induce errors 5 0.5 minutes o f arc.

I n summary, s i n c eh o t - f i l mp r o b e sa r e (1) less d e l i c a t e , (2) lesssuscep-

t i b l e t o contamination because o f t h e i r l a r g e r s i z e , and ( 3 ) canhave corrosion
r e s i s t a n tc o a t i n g s ,h o t - f i l m yawmeters a r es u p e r i o rt oh o t - w i r e yawmeters.Both
h o t - w i r e s and h o t - f i l m s r e q u i r e s p e c i a l i z e d d a t a p r o c e s s i n g equipmentwhich may
be considered a d i s a d v a n t a g eb yp o t e n t i a lu s e r s . However,based on t h e r e s u l t s
obtained by Weeks, h o t - f i l m yawmetersappear to offer a viable alternative to
d i f f e r e n t i a lp r e s s u r e yawmeters.

The uses o f h o t - w i r e s and h o t - f i l m s a r e d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Appendix 1 .

* Reference 21 a l s o d i s c u s s e s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c a l i b r a t i o n of a h o t - w i r e i s
s u s c e p t i b l e t o change w i t h t i m e because o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n and c o r r o s i o n . T h i s
may r e q u i r e f r e q u e n t c a l i b r a t i o n checks.
** A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r s a r e n o t aware o f any t r a n s i e n t measurements o f f l o w a n g l e s
w i t h a h o t - w i r e / f i l m ,t h e r ei sn oi n h e r e n tr e a s o n why t h i s t y p e o f yawmeter can
n o t be used i n a c o n t i n u o u s - t r a v e r s e mode. Thiswouldprovidetheadvantage of
r e d u c e dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o nt i m e , e.g.,see d i s c u s s i o n o f f o r c eb a l a n c e yawmeters.
135
 To Separate Anemometer
D I MENS IONS I N CENT IMETERS Bridge C i r c u i t s

Figure 3 . E . 4S. P L I T HOT F I L M , 20" WEDGE PROBE CALIBRATION

BRIDGE
VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE vs FLOW ANGLE, REF. 23
136
ForceBalanceYaweters
The basicprocedure o fr u n n i n g a windtunnelforce model u p r i g h t and
invertedtodeterminetheaveragepitchangleiswell known and i s standard
p r a c t i c ei np r o f e s s i o n a lw i n dt u n n e lt e s t i n g . However, theuse o f a small
wedge mounted on a s e n s i t i v e f o r c e b a l a n c e t o o b t a i n a measure o f tunnel-empty
f l o wa n g l e si s new.
Maxwe1.1 and Luchuk(Ref.25)have r e c e n t l yr e p o r t e dt h e
r e s u l t s o f t r a n s o n i ct e s t sw i t ht h i st y p eo f yawmeter.The p r o b ec o n s i s t so f
a 20' included-angle wedge, w i t h a 14.73 cm (5.80 in.) span,mounted on a
specially-designed, two-component forcebalance,Fig. 3.E.5. The f o r c e
balance was designed t o measurenormal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment w i t h v e r y
t h i n ,s t r a i n - g a u g e ds e c t i o n sf o r maximum s e n s i t i v i t y .

The probe was t e s t e d i n t h e AEDC Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel (4T) o v e rt h e

Machnumber range o f 0.6 t o 1.3. The c a l i b r a t e d f l o w a n g l e s e n s i t i v i t i e s ,
based on v a r i a t i o n s o f normal f o r c e and p i t c h i n g moment, a r e shown i n F i g . 3.E.6.
Althoughthe yaw s e n s i t i v i t y o f thepitching-moment mode i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50%
l a r g e r , Maxwell and Luchukfound t h a tf l o wa n g l e measurements obtained from
e i t h e r mode were o f equalaccuracy.

The wedge was supported by t h e 4T s i x - d e g r e e - o f - f r e e d o m , c a p t i v e t r a j e c t o r y

system. T h i sp e r m i t t e dt h ep r o b et o be moved c o n t i n u o u s l y w i t h a v a r i e t y o f
movements. Maxwell and L u c h u kc o n c l u d et h a tf l o wd i r e c t i o nd a t ac a n be
o b t a i n e d" w i t h an a b s o l u t e a c c u r a c y t h a t i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from theaccuracy
w i t hw h i c ht h ep r o b ei sa l i g n e d . "F u r t h e r m o r e , based oncomparisons o fd a t a
obtainedwiththeprobeatrest and i n m o t i o n , r e l i a b l e and r a p i d measurements
can be made w i t h t h e p r o b e m o v i n g c o n t i n u o u s l y w i t h combined l i n e a r and r o l l i n g
motion. The estimated rms d e v i a t i o n s f r o m a mean v a l u e o f flow a n g l e was
I 0.023O a t a l l measured p o i n t s . However, 2
4
' sweeps i n p i t c h and yaw produced
larger variations, viz., -
+O.O8O and -
+0.25', respectively. These data were
obtainedwithpitch and yaw r a t e s w h i c h v a r i e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , from 1.16 t o 1.28
and 1.01 t o 1.36 deg/sec.

137
 t L

DIMENSIONSINCENTIMETERS

14.73
\I' I """""""
1.67 D i a .
7 I

- " - I
"

"_ ""_ $ "_

-L

2-COMPONENTBALANCEINSTALLEDHERE
I

\J ?

LOCATION OF GAGE SECTIONS

20

Figure 3 . E . 5 . GEOMETRY OF AEDC

FORCE
BALANCE YAWMETER
 0.5 0.14

I
CJ
W
n
-0.12
zU
V
.
I

irr
n W
0 n.
A C
0.3 i0:lO

J
f CNa

-
LL
LL
8 U

~0.08
V
W
0
rr
0
LL

z- 0.1
I
0
k
n

0 0.04
L 5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 .o 1,1 1.2 1.3

FREESTREAM MACH NUMBER, M

Figure 3 . E . 6 . S E N S I T I V I T Y OF THE AEDC
FORCE
BALANCE YAmETER
 Unfortunately,theReynolds number dependence o f t h i s yawmeter was n o t
investigated. However,.some v a r i a t i o no ft o t a lp r e s s u r ea t M = 0.6 i n d i c a t e d
a d e c r e a s i n gs e n s i t i v i t yw i t hi n c r e a s i n gu n i t Reynolds number. A t t h i sp o i n t ,
there'ader may r e c a l lt h a tS i e v e r d i n g ,e ta l .( R e f . 3 ) a l s or e p o r t e dt h e i r
wedge shapedyawmeter e x h i b i t e d a Reynolds numberdependence.* T h i si m p l i e s
t h a t wedge shapedyawmetersshould be c a l i b r a t e d as a f u n c t i o n o f Machnumber
andReynolds number.Hence, t h i st y p eo f yawmeter will bemore t e d i o u st o
use. A d d i t i o n a ld i s a d v a n t a g e so ft h e wedge f o r c eb a l a n c e yawmeter i s h i g h e r
initialcosts and p i t c h and yaw mustbemeasured separately.** However, a
f o r c eb a l a n c e canbe c a l i b r a t e dt or e l a t ea n g u l a rd e f l e c t i o no f modeland
s u p p o r tt o changes i nl o a d i n g .T h i sp r o v i d e s a d i s t i n c t advantageover
d i f f e r e n t i a lp r e s s u r e and h o t - w i r e / f i l m yawmeters. I nc o n c l u s i o n ,t h ef o r c e
balanceyawmeter'sadvantageofrapid,continuous measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y
appears tooutweighthedisadvantages.

* N e i t h e r o f these yawmeters hada b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r a n s i t i o ns t r i p . Thus,

dependence o f wedge-yawmeter s e n s i t i v i t y on Reynolds number c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y
bereducedby u t i l i z i n g a g r i t - t y p e , b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r i p .
**A d o u b l e ,i n t e r s e c t i n g wedge probe w i t h four component f o r c eb a l a n c e has
more r e c e n t l y been c o n s t r u c t e d and t e s t e da t AEDC (Summers, Ref. 26). T h i s
y a m e t e re n a b l e sp i t c h and yaw d a t a t o be o b t a i n e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n even
less time. An improveddesign,which i sl e s ss e n s i t i v e t o unsteadytransonic
f l o w , s p e c i f i e s a small,symmetricalcenterbodywith f l a t p l a t e wingsattached
i no r t h o g o n a lp l a n e s , Ref. 27. R e c e n te x p e r i e n c ew i t ht h i st y p eo f yawmeter
i n t h e AEDC 4T Tunnel indicatessimultaneous measurements o f p i t c h and yaw
c a nb eo b t a i n e da t 225 p o i n t s i n l e s s t h a n s i x m i n u t e s and w i t h anaccuracy
of 0.01 degree.

140
 I l l . E. References

1. Lennert, A. E.; Hornkohl, J. 0. and Kalb, H. T.: " A p p l i c a t i o n o f Laser

V e l o c i m e t e r sf o r Flow Measurements," I n s t r u m e n t a t i o nf o r
A i r b r e a t h i n gP r o p u l s i o n ,P r o g r e s si nA s t r o n a u t i c s and Aeronautics,
A I M Vol. 34, M I T Press, 1972.

2. Bryer, D. W. and Pankhurst, R. C.: Pressure-Probes Methods f o rD e t e r m i n i n g

Wind Speed and Flow D i r e c t i o n , Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e ,
London, 1971.

3. Sieverding, C.; Maretto,L;Lehthaus, F. and Lawaczeck, 0.: "Design and

Calibrationfor FourProbes f o r Use i n t h e T r a n s o n i c T u r b i n e
Cascade T e s t i n g , I ' VKI TN 100 (AD 922 286) , May 1974.

4. Dudzlnski, T. J. and Krause,

L. N.: " F l o w - D i r e c t i o n Measurement w i t h
F i x e d - P o s i t i o n Probes," NASA TM X-1904, Oct. 1969.

5. B u z z e l l , W. A . : " C a l i b r a t i o nR e s u l t sf o S
r t a t i o n a r yP r e s s u r e Rakes Sensing
Yaw Angle Downstream o f an A x i a l Compressor Stage," ARL TR 75-0104,
A p r i 1 1975.

6. V i d a l , R. J.; Erickson, J. C . and C a t l i n , P . A . : "Experiments w i t h a S e l f -

C o r r e c t i n g Wind Tunnel," Windtunnel
." . " Deslgn and Testing Techniques,
~~

AGARD-CP- 174, Oct. 1975.

7. Spaid, F. W.; Hurley, F. X . and Hellman, T. H.: " M i n i a t u r eP r o b ef o r
T r a n s o n i cF l o wD i r e c t i o n Measurements," A l A A Jour.Vol. 13, No. 2,
Feb. 1975, P . 253.

8. Bryer, D. W . ; Walshe, D . E . ; and Garner, H. C . : "Pressure

Probes
Selected
f o r Three-DimensionalFlow Measurement," R.&M. No. 3037, 1958.

9. Schulze, W. M.; Ashby, J r . , G. C.; and Erwin, J. R . : "Several

Combination
Probes f o r S u r v e y i n g S t a t i c and T o t a lP r e s s u r e and F l o wD i r e c t i o n , "
NACA TN 2830, Nov. 1952.

10. Pope, A.; and Goin, K. L: High-speed

." - ~Wind Tunnel Testing, Wiley,
~ " 1965.
11. Barry, F. W.: "Comparison o F
f low-Direction Probes a t Supersonic Speeds,"
J. Aero. S c i . , Sept. 1961, P. 750-752.

141
12. Zumwalt, G. W.: "ConicalProbes f o rD e t e r m i n a t i o n of Local Mach
Numbers
and Flow D i r e c t i o n i n S u p e r s o n i c Wing Tunnels," SCTM 355-60(71),
SandlaCorp., Nov. 1960.

14. Vahl, W. A. and Weirich, R. L . :" C a l i b r a t i o no f 30"Included-Angle Cone

f o rD e t e r m i n i n gL o c a lF l o wC o n d i t i o n sI n MachNumberRange of
1.51 t o 3.51," NASA TN D-4679, August 1968.

15. N o r r i s J, . D.: " C a l i b r a t i o noC

f o n i c aP
l r e s s u r eP r o b e sf o D
r etermlnation
o f LocalFlow Cond i t i o n s a t MachNumbers from 3 t o 6," NASA TN D-3076,
Nov. 1965.

16. H a r t l e y , M. S.; and N i c h o l s , J. H.: " E f f e c t so f Rake BlockageonFlow

A n g u l a r i t y Measurements a t T r a n s o n i c MachNumbers i n t h e AEDC-PWT
16-FootTransonicTunnel,"Twenty-FifthSupersonicTunnel Assoc.
Meeting, NASA LangleyResearchCenter, May 1966 (referenced w i t h ,
a u t h o r ' sp e r m i s s i o n ) .

19. Johnson, D. A. and Rose, W. C.: "LaserVelocimeter and Hot-wire Anemometer

Comparison I n a SupersonicBoundaryLayer," A i A A Jour.(Tech.Notes),
Vol. 13, No. 4, A p r i l 1975.

20. Rose, W. C. and Johnson, D. A . : "Turbulence i n Shock-Wave

a Boundary-Layer
I n t e r a c t i o n , " A i A A Jour.,Vol. 13, No. 7, J u l y 195
21. HotWire-HotFilm-Ion Anemometer Systems, CAT/FORM 6560375,
Thermo-Systems
inc., 1975.

22. Rosenberg, R. E.: "A Three

DimensionalHot-wire Anemometry Technique
Employing a S i n g l eW i r e Probe," ARL 71-0039, March 1971.

23. Weeks, T. M.: "Reduction o T

f r a n s o n i cS l o t t e dW a l il n t e r f e r e n c e by Means
o f S l a tC o n t o u r i n g , " AFFDL-TR-74-139, March 1975.

142
24. Maxwell, H. andLuchuk, W.: "Evaluation o f a Wedge on a ForceBalance
as aFlowAngle Probe," AEDC-TR-74-110,Feb. 1975.
25.
Raney, D. J . : "Flow D i r e c t i o n Measurements i n Supersonic Wind Tunnels,"
Aero. Res.
Coun. Lond. , Current Papers No. 262, 1956.

26. Summers, W. E.; personalcomnunication, AEDC, Feb. 1976.

27. Luchuk, W.: "Flow Angle Measurements Using a 2-Inch Span Cruciform-Wing
Force Model," presented at 45th Semi-Annual STA meeting,Albuquerque,
N.M., A p r i l 1976 ( r e f e r e n c e dw i t ha u t h o r ' sp e r m i s s i o n ) .

28. Lind, I . A. : "A S e n s i t i v eF l o wT r a n s i t i o n Probe," KTH Aero Memo FI 175,

TRITA-FPT-019, l n s t i t u t l o n e nf o rF l y g t e k n i k Stockholm, Sweden,
J u l y 1975.
 1II.F. MEASUREMENT OF UNSTEADY FLOW DISTURBANCES

Theneed f o r measurements o f f l o w u n s t e a d i n e s s was b r i e f l y reviewed i n

S e c t i o n ll.C.6. The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f n o i s e c a l i b r a t i o n o f a windtunnel
i s t o o b t a i n a measure o f t h e f l u c t u a t i o n s in s t a t i c p r e s s u r e and flow angu-
laritythatexistinthe empty t e s ts e c t i o n . Here a r e v i e w will be g i v e n
o ft h ei n s t r u m e n t a t i o nt h a t hasbeenused to obtainthistypeofdata. How-
ever,beforediscussingsensors, it is germain t on o t et h ea m p l i t u d e s and
frequencies o f unsteadystaticpressurewhichcharacterizetransonictunnels.

Inthecenteroftransonictestsectionsthefluctuatingpressurecoef-
f i c i e n t ,d e f i n e d as

- <PI>
AC = - x 100 percent,
P q

may range from 0.5% t o 5% dependingonthetunnelconfiguration, Mach number,

and Reynolds number. Dougherty, e t a l . (Ref. 1) havenoted a v a l u e o f 0.45%
corresponds t o a l e v e l o f sound which i st y p . i c a I l yr a d i a t e df r o mt u r b u l e n t
b o u n d a r yl a y e r so ns o l i dt e s ts e c t i o nw a l l s . However, H a r t z u i k e r ,e ta l . (Ref. 2)
have p o i n t e do u tt h a t AC a c t u a l l yd e c r e a s e sw i t hi n c r e a s i n gR e y n o l d s numberand
P 6 8
rangesfrom 0.5% a t Re
X
= 5.7 x IO t o anestimated 0.2% a t Rex = 1.1 - 1.7 x IO ,
see F i g . 3.F. I . McCanless and
Boone (Ref. 3) havereviewednoise measurements
made i nb o t hp e r f o r a t e d and s l o t t e dt e s ts e c t i o n s . These a u t h o r sn o t et h a ti n
p e r f o r a t e d - w a l lt u n n e l sc e n t e r 1i n e measurements o f AC tend t o be lower (40-609;)
P
t h a nw a l l measurements;whereas, t h eo p p o s i t et r e n d i s found i n s l o t t e d - w a l l t u n -
nels.Generally,theedgetonesgeneratedbyperforated-walltunnelstendto make
these
tunnels
n o i s i etrh a n
s l o t t e d - w a ltlu n n e l sF. o r
* example, AC d a t af o r
P
twelveperforated-walltunnelsrange from 1% t o 7.4%; whereas, d a t a f o r f i v e
s l o t t e d - w a l lt u n n e l s show
a range of 0.5% t o 2%) Ref. 3. A peak i n AC is
P
u s u a l l y measuredbetween M = 0.70and 0.80 f o rb o t hp e r f o r a t e d and s l o t t e d - w a l l
tunnels. The f r e q u e n c ys p e c t r ao fn o i s ea t M = 0.80 i s presented i nF i g . 3.F.2
f o rn i n ed i f f e r e n t ,c o n t i n u o u st u n n e l s , Ref:2. These d a t aa r er e p r e s e n t a t i v e
o fs o l i d ,p e r f o r a t e d , and s l o t t e d - w a l lt u n n e l s and arepresentedinterms of t h e
Mabey spectrumparameterwhich i s discussednext.

*Recentresearchindicatesthereare anumber o f ways t o r e d u c et h el e v e lo f

noiseqeneratedbyedgetones,Refs. 1 and 4..

1 44
6

.OM

.m

F i g . 3.F.1
FREQUENCY
SPECTRA OF N O I S E FROM TURBULENT
A
BOUNDARYLAYER ON A S O L I DW A L L R
, ef. 2

,014

,010

.w1

.ffl

F i g . 3.F.2 NOISE
FREQUENCY
SPECTRA
FOR SOME E X I S T I N G
CONTINUOUSWINDTUNNELSAT HaD= 0.80, R e f . 2
 As n o t e d b y H a r t t u i k e r , e t a l . (Ref. 2)
*, flowqual it y can a f . f e c t t h e
r e s u l t s o f t e s t s on: (1)dynamic stability, (2) s t a t i cf o r c e s and moments,
(3) b u f f e t , and (4) f l u t t e r .T e s t so ft h e s eq u a n t i t i e sg e n e r a l l yi n v o l v e
i n c r e a s i n g l yh i g h e rf r e q u e n c i e s I n t h eo r d e rl i s t e d .A p p a r e n t l y ,l i t t l e
work hasbeendone t o measure f l u c t u a t i o n s i n f l o w a n g u l a r i t y and c o r r e l a t e
t h e s ew i t hp r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n s . However, Mabey (Refs. 5-7) and H a r t t u i k e r ,
etal. (Ref.2)havefoundthe e f f e c t so n model t e s t so fb o t hp r e s s u r e and
incidencefluctuationscan be c o r r e l a t e d by u s i n g a s p e c t r u m f u n c t i o n d e f i n e d
as f o l l o w s :

Here AC2 i s t h e mean-squared v a l u e o f t h e f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t l c p r e s s u r e c o e f -

P 2
f i c i e n t , and F(n) i s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o AC p e ru n i tb a n d w i d t ha tt h er e d u c e d
P
frequency n.
Mabey hassuggested

canbeused t o measure windtunnelflowunsteadiness i f t h e reducedfrequency

i s chosen t o c o r r e s p o n d t o a naturalfrequencyofthe model, e.g., fundamental
wingbending mode, t o r s i o n mode, etc. A varietyoftests have shown t h e t
g r e a t e r model e x c i t a t i o nf o l l o w si n c r e a s e si nn F ( n ) . Thus, c r i t e r i a for
acceptableflowquality canbe establishedforvarioustypesoftests bysuc-
c e s s i v e l yr e d u c i n gn F ( n )u n t i lt h er e s u l t sa p p r o a c h anasymptoteandcease to
v a r ys i g n i f i c a n t l yw i t ht u n n e lf l o wq u a l i t y .F o r example, a n a l y s e so fb u f f e t
measurements on a i r c r a f t models w i t h d i f f e r e n t n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c i e s l e d Mabey
(Ref. 7) t o c o n c l u d et h a t an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f f l o w u n s t e a d i n e s s f o r t h e
d e t e c t i oolnifg hbtu f f e t i nigs e 0.002. T e s taostt h ef a
r cilities
have confirmed the usefulness of Mabey'sspectrumparameter for correlating a
v a r i e t y o f dynamicmodel t e s t s , e.g., H a r t z u i k e r ,e ta l . (Ref. 2 ) . Unfortunately,
a preciseboundarycannot bedrawn toseparateacceptable from unacceptable
l e v e l so ff l o wu n s t e a d i n e s s .R a t h e r ,t h e r ei s a " g r a yr e g i o n "s e p a r a t i n gf l o w
qualitiesthatareeitheracceptableornotfor a giventypeoftest.

*Reference 2 i s mainlyconcernedwithestimatingtheflowqualitythat will be

necessary t o make t h e LEHRT c o s t - e f f e c t i v e i n l i g h t o f t h e p l a n n e d 10 sec r u n
t ime.
146
 in tunnel
However, the utility of including fluctuating pressure measurements
calibration i s now well established.

IO deg transition cone,in

Condenser microphone measurements on the AEDC
98 percent of the energy
six different transonic tunnels, indicate of back-
ground pressure fluctuations are contained within0-20 KHz, Ref. 8. However,
since there i s presently no criterion for an upper limit
on frequency beyond
which boundary layer transition is unaffected, Westley (Ref. 9) recommends
of noise measurements extendat least up to 30 KHz.
that the frequency range

Thus, acoustic calibration of transonic tunnels requires instrumentation

that can measure dynamic pressures with these ranges of amplitudes and frequen-
cies. The sensors employed should also be relatively insensitive to vibrations
not to be easily damagedby either
of the mounting surface and durable enough
particles in the ,flow or overloading.

III.F.1. Dynamic Pressure Measurements

A rather wide variety of instrumentation has been used to measure unsteady

flow disturbances in wind tunnels. Condenser microphones, strain gage,and
piezoelectric dynamic pressure transducers have been employed for noise measure-
ments in stilling and plenum chambers, dlffusers, and on test section walls, and
models and probes located on the centerline, Refs. 10-15. In addition, hot-wire
anemometers have beenused to measure flow disturbancesin stilling chambers
(e.g., Ref. 13) and in the test section of transonic tunnels(e.g., Refs. 9 and
16) and supersonic tunnels (e.g., Ref. 17). Also, laser Doppler velocimeters
(LDV) are being used to measure turbulence by an ever increasing number of tunnel
operators, Ref. 9.

Unfortunately, this lack of standardization makesit difficult to compare

measured levels of flow disturbances. For example, Lewis andDods (Ref. 18)
noted significant variations in the frequency responseof 12 different micro-
phones and dynamic pressure transducers. In general, Lewis and Dods found
small diameter transducers (0.1 to 0.3 cm) gave higher power-spectral-density
values, at all frequencies, than larger diameter transducers (0.5 to 1 cm).
Also, the high frequency portion of the spectrumof pressure fluctuations varles
with the particular sensor,and as is well known, the rms valueswill be under-
estimated when a significant portion of thehigh frequencies are attenuated. In

1 47
a d d i t i o n , when measuring v o r t i c i t y w i t h h o t - w i r e s , h o t - f i l m s , o r an LDV, the
data may a l s o v a r y because o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r e q u e n c y response.

The comparisonproblem i s compounded f u r t h e r b y t h e c h o i c e o f s e n s o r

mounting. Ideally,acousticpressuresshould be measured w i t h no r e l a t i v e
motion between sensor and t h et e s t medium, Ref. 19. However, s i n c et h i s is
n e i t h e rp r a c t i c a ln o rr e l e v a n tt o windtunnel model t e s t i n g , some representa-
tivelocation on aprobe, model or t u n n e lw a l l must be selected.

The f i r s t measurements o f w a l l p r e s s u r e f l u c t u a t i o n s b e n e a t h t u r b u l e n t
boundary l a y e r s i n awindtunnel were reported by W i l l m a r t hi n 1956 (Ref.20).
W i l l m a r t h (Ref.21) has recentlyreviewedtheproblemsof dynamic pressure
measurements a t t u n n e l w a l l s and n o t e s t h a t most o f t h e s e measurementshave
been made withflush-mountedtransducers.Hanly(Ref.22) has r e c e n t l ys t u d i e d
the effect of sensor flushness on fluctuating-surface-pressure measurements a t
M = 1.68, 2.0, and 2.5. These t e s t s show spectralpressure measurements a r e
extremelysensitivetoflushnesswithprotrusioncausinggreatererrorthan
submergence. Hanlyconcludesthat more repeatabledata canbe o b t a i n e dw i t h
transducers mounted approximately 0.0254 cm (0.0l"in.).beneathasurface orifice.
Thus, it is r e c m e n d e dt h a ta c o u s t i c measurements a tt u n n e lw a l l sc o n f o r mt o
this criterion.

Also, it i s r e l e v a n t t o n o t e h e r e t h a t two or more wall-mountedtransducers

canbeused t od e t e r m i n eu s e f u lc o r r e l a t i o n s between disturbanceswhich may
e x i s ti n atunnel, e.g., Refs. 1 1 and 25. I na d d i t i o n , Boone andMcCanless
(Ref. 1 I ) have n o t e d t h a t w a l l d a t a canbeused t oe x t r a p o l a t e ,t h r o u g h M = 1,
measurements o b t a i n e d a t t h e c e n t e r l i n e w i t h probes o r modelswhich may be
subjecttooscillating shocksand/or othermodel-inducedunsteadinessnear Mach
one. However, experience(Ref. 8 ) w i t h microphone measurementson a 10 degcone
indicates ( 1 ) thisisnot aproblem and ( 2 )t h er e a la d v a n t a g eo f awall-mounted
sensor i s t h a t i t can be c a l i b r a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e n t e r l i n e measurementsand
usedasapermanent m o n i t o rf o ra s s e s s i n g anysubsequent changes i n t u n n e lf l o w
unsteadiness.

Concerninginstallationof sensors i n p e r f o r a t e d w a l l s , C r e d l e and Shadow

(Ref.24) mounted a 0.635 cm (1/4 i n . )p i e z o e l e c t r i c microphone i n t h e c e n t e r
o f anareawhich was f i l l e d andsandedsmooth.The r a d i u so ft h ea r e a was

148
approximately 40 microphonediameters. These i n v e s t i g a t o r ss t a t e d :

"Thisinstallationtechniqueprecludedthe measurement o f p u r e l y n e a r -
field influence of the mostadjacentupstreamholes and a l l o w e d f o r t h e
measurement o f what m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e r a d i a l l y i n t e g r a t e d
averagevalue o f p r e s s u r e f l u c t u a t i o n s a t t h e w a l l s u r f a c e . "

Credle and Shadow a l s o i n s t a l l e d an i d e n t i c a l ,b u ts h i e l d e d ,m i c r o p h o n ei nt h e

w a l li no r d e rt om o n i t o rm i c r o p h o n er e s p o n s et ow a l lv i b r a t i o n .I ng e n e r a l ,
it i s c o n s i d e r e d good t e s t i n g p r a c t l c e t o a s c e r t a i n t h e component o f a m i c r o -
phone'soutputwhich i s due t ov i b r a t i o n .F i n a l l y ,q u e s t i o n n a i r er e s u l t s
i n d i c a t e dt h a ts t r a i n - g a g et r a n s d u c e r sa r e most o f t e n used f o r a c o u s t i c measure-
ments a t w i n dt u n n e lw a l l s .P r e s u m a b l y ,t h i si s because t h ei n s t r u m e n t a t i o n
r e q u i r e dt op r o c e s st h es i g n a lf r o m a s t r a i n gage i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a t most
wind tunnel s.

I na d d i t i o nt ot u n n e lw a l l measurements, t u n n e ln o i s ec a l i b r a t i o n sr e q u i r e
dynamic p r e s s u r ed a t an e a rt h ec e n t e ro ft h et e s ts e c t i o n . Some o f t h e f i r s t
such measurements i n a transonictunnelwerereported by C h e v a l i e r and Todd
(Ref.
25). I nt h e s ei n i t i a lt e s t s , dynamic pressuretransducers were mounted
ona wedge, a wingprobe, and an o g i v e - c y l i n d e r .L a t e ra c o u s t i c measurements
i n t h e AEDC-PWT 16T and 165 t u n n e l s wereperformed w i t h condensermicrophones
and s t r a i n gage transducers mounted on a 10 deg included-anglecone,Ref. 10.

A v a r i e t yo fo t h e rp r o b eg e o m e t r i e s have a l s o been used.Forexample,

an o g i v e - c y l i n d e r anda flat plate have been used i n some o f t h e NASA Ames
tunnels,Ref. 23. A 10 deg cone-cylinderprobe hasbeen used i nt h e 8 x 6-ft.
Supersonic Wind Tunnel a t NASA Lewis,Ref. 26. As p a r t o f a r e v i e wo fp r o b e s
f o ra c o u s t i cc a l i b r a t i o n , Boone and McCanless (Ref. 1 1 ) consideredslendercones,
wedges, f l a t p l a t e s , hemispheres, and s h a r p - t i p p e d ,f l o w - t h r u ,c i r c u l a rc y l i n -
ders. These a u t h o r s recommended a 10 deg apex-angleconicalprobeforwind
t u n n e la c o u s t i c measurements because:

1. cones a r e n o t as s e n s i t i v e t o t i p f l o w as wedges and f l a t

plates,
2. t h et r a n s o n i c Machnumber range,whereunstableshock waves
occur, i ss m a l l e rf o rs l e n d e r cones t h a n f o r f l a t p l a t e s , f l o w -
t h r u c y 1 inders , and hemi spheres,
3. a s l e n d e rc o n ei n t r o d u c e sm i n i m a ld i s t u r b a n c et ot h ef l o w .

As noted by Credle and Shadow (Ref. 24), a s m a l l e ra n g l e cone i s p r e f e r r e d ,

b u t a 10deg cone i s aboutthe minimum anglewhich will a l l o w i n s t a l l a t i o n of
 instrumentationunder a laminarboundarylayer.These same a u t h o r sa l s or e -
portedthat by 1970 t h e IO deg cone had become a s t a n d a r d d e v i c e a t AEDC f o r
c a l i b r a t i n gw i n dt u n n e lf l o wd i s t u r b a n c e s .

Up t o t h i s t i m e t h e AEDC a c o u s t i c c a l i b r a t i o n cone had two f l a t s , l o c a t e d

180 deg a p a r t ,f o rf l u s hm o u n t i n go fs e n s o r s . By 1970 e x p e r i e n c ew i t ht h i s cone
indicatedsatisfactorynoise measurements could probably be made w i t h a c o m p l e t e l y
symmetricalcone and two 0.635 cm (1/4 in.)condensermicrophones.Furthermore,
t h es u r f a c eo ft h e cone was p o l i s h e dt o an rms f i n i s h o f 3 microns
* anda
traversingPitotprobe mechanism was mounted a f t o f t h e cone f o r boundarylayer
t r a n s i t i o ns t u d i e s ,R e f . 27. Thissubsequently became
known asthe AEDC t r a n s i -
t i o n cone andhas now been used t o measuredynamic f l o w qua 1 it y i n over I8
domestic and f o r e i g nt u n n e l s , Refs. 8, 28 and 29.

The work o f Dougherty w i t h t h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone and t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s

o f Pate and Schueler (Ref. 30) and Benek and High(Ref. 31) have e s t a b li s h e d
a d i r e c tr e l a t i o n s h i p and b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r a n s i t i o n .I na d d i t i o n
between AC
P
toproviding a common measure o f dynamic f l o w q u a l i t y , Treon, e t a l . (Ref.32)
reporteddatafromthe AEDC t r a n s i t i o n coneenabledbetteragreement t o be
o b t a i n e di n a s e r i e so ft e s t s on a t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t model. I nt h e s et e s t s ,
t h e same model was t e s t e d i n t h e AEDC-PWT 16T, t h e NASA Ames 1 1 - f t . Transonic
Wind Tunnel, and theCalspan 8 - f t . TransonicTunnel, and d i f f e r e n c e s i n d r a g
c o e f f i c i e n t s , measured atzero-normal-force,werefoundto be l e s s when a
correctionfactor was used t o a c c o u n tf o rr e l a t i v eR e y n o l d s number e f f e c t s
between f a c i l i t i e s . An e f f e c t i v e Reynolds number f o rt h eC a l s p a n and Ames
tunnels,relativetothe AEDC 16T t u n n e l , was d e f i n e d on t h e b a s i s o f a common,
b o u n d a r y - l a y e r - t r a n s i t i o nl e n g t h . Thus, t h e u t i l i t y o f a standardacoustic
c a l i b r a t i o nd e v i c e hasbeen demonstrated.Subsequent t o a planned f l i g h t
c a l i b r a t i o n ,t h i sd e v i c e will a l s o be u s e f u l i n c o r r e l a t i n g t u n n e l and f r e e - f l i g h t
conditions.

Because ofthedemonstrated utility of the AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone and i t s

pastuse i n a number o fm a j o rf a c i l i t i e s ,W e s t l e y( R e f . 9) recommends n o i s e and
t u r b u l e n c el e v e l si nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s bemeasured w i t h two 10 deg cones f i t t e d ,
r e s p e c t i v e l y ,w i t h :

*A p p a r e n t l y ,t h es u r f a c ef i n i s h was l a t e r improved t o 0.25 microns,Ref. 8.

I50
 1. s k i n - f r i c t i o n gages t od e t e r m i n et r a n s i t i o nR e y n o l d s numbers
and flush-mountedmicrophones t o measure n o i s e l e v e l s onthe
test section centerline,

2. a c r o s s e dh o t - w i r e anemometer mountedon t h et i p (an ONERA

design) .
The p r o p o s a l t o e l i m i n a t e t h e t r a v e r s i n g p r o b e mechanism will reduceprobe
inducednoise
* and windtunnelblockage.AlthoughWestley'srecommendation is
n o ts p e c i f i c , it i s assumed t h a t he i s n o t recommending f l o a t i n g - e l e m e n ts k i n -
f r i c t i o n b a l a n c e sb u tr a t h e rh e a tt r a n s f e rd e v i c e s suchas t h i n - f i l m s or thermo-
couples for t r a n s i t i o nd e t e c t i o n , e.g., Refs. 11, 34 and 35. W i t hr e g a r dt o
h o t - w i r e measurements,Westleyexpresses a concensus t h a tt h e s ei n s t r u m e n t s
a r ei d e a lf o rm e a s u r i n gd i s t u r b a n c e si n a w i n dt u n n e lt e s ts e c t i o n . Because
ofthis importance and t h e f a c t t h a t r e c e n t r e s e a r c h has demonstratedhot-wires
can be used e f f e c t i v e l y i n some t r a n s o n i ct e s ts e c t i o n s( R e f . 161, t h e ya r e
discussedseparatelyinAppendix 1.

AlternateAcousticCalibration
-
=-.
Probes

Not o n l y w o u l d t h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone be expensivetoreproduce,but

n o i s e measurementson it a r e s u s c e p t i b l e t o a number o f probe-inducederrors.
Credle and Shadow (Ref. 24) o b s e r v e dt h a tp r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t se x i s to n a cone
a t subsonic and t r a n s o n i c speeds, andhence a c o u s t i c measurements a r e i n f l u -
enced b yb o t hs t a t i c and t o t a lp r e s s u r eg r a d i e n t s . A laminarboundarylayer may
modulateacousticdisturbanceswhich passthrough i t t o an underlyingsensor,
Ref. 9. Also,Siddon(Ref. 36) has shown t h a tb o t ha x i a l and l a t e r a lf l u c t u a -
t i o n s cancause e r r o r si n measurements o f AC w i t h probes. Hence, otherprobe
P
a l t e r n a t i v e s may o f f e r some advantages f o r a c o u s t i c c a l i b r a t i o n o f w i n d t u n n e l s .

The f o l l o w i n gc o n c i s e summary ofSiddon'swork(Ref. 36) i s e x t r a c t e d from

Willmarth'sarticle (Ref.21). ---" Siddon has r e p o r t e dc o n s t r u c t i o no fa n
e x c e l l e n tp r o b ef o ru n s t e a d ys t a t i c - p r e s s u r e measurements, and hehas calibra-
ted i t i n v a r i o u s c o n t r i v e d f l o w s t o r e m w e t h e e r r o r s causedby t h ei n t e r a c t i o n

*Credle(Ref. 33) n o t e de a r l i e rt h a tt h et r a v e r s i n gp r o b es u p p o r ts t r u c t u r e
appeared t o g e n e r a t e a d d i t i o n a l n o i s e , basedon comparisons w i t h a c o u s t i c
data obtained on an ogive-cylinder and t h e AEDC 10 deg cone w i t h f l a t s .

151
o f t h e body o f t h e p r o b e with streanwiseandcross-flowvelocityfluctuations.
The p r e s s u r e i s t r a n s m i t t e d t o thediaphragm o f a miniaturecondensormicro-
phone(0.25 dm diam.) i n s i d et h ep r o b e (0.305 cm diam.) throughanannular
s l i t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 diametersdownstreamfromthe t i p o f thebalsa wood,
venose. A 0.318 cm (1/8 i n . )c o l l a ra r o u n dt h ep r o b e , downstream o f t h e
s l t, was c a r e f u l l y p o s i t i o n e d t o make t h e s t e a d y p r e s s u r e a t t h e s l i t e q u a l
t o t h ef r e e - s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e when t h e r e i s n oc r o s sf l o w . The probe-
co l a r compensation was checked a t z e r o a n g l e o f a t t a c k i n a flowwithsinu-
so d a l a x i a l v e l o c i t y f l u c t u a t i o n s and was foundadequate.

"Siddon'suniqueachievement isthe development o f a compensation scheme

t o c a n c e lt h ep r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n sp r o d u c e db yc r o s s - f l o wf l u c t u a t i o n s . His
scheme i s based uponan e a r l i e rt r a n s d u c e ri nw h i c hp i e z o e l e c t r i cf o r c e - s e n s i n g
elementswereused t o measure l i f t f l u c t u a t i o n s o f a smallairfoil,whichare
p r o p o r t i o n a lt ov e l o c i t yf l u c t u a t i o n s normal t o t h e a i r f o i l when t h ea n g l e - o f -
a t t a c kf l u c t u a t i o n sa r es m a l l .I nt h ep r e s e n t caseSiddonusedanarrangement
o f f o u rp i e z o e l e c t r i c Bimorph p l a t e e l e m e n t s i n anI-beam configurationto
measure theorthogonalbending moments producedbycross-flow-inducedtransverse
f o r c e s on t h e nose o f theprobe. I f quasi-steady,slender-body,aerodynamic
t h e o r yi sa p p l i c a b l e ,t h et r a n s v e r s ef o r c e will be p r o p o r t i o n a lt ot h ei n s t a n -
t a n e o u st r a n s v e r s ev e l o c i t ya tt h en o s e . The two e l e c t r i c a ls i g n a l sr e p r e s e n t i n g
theorthogonal components o f t r a n s v e r s e v e l o c i t y wereeachsquaredand summed
withanalog-computerelements t o o b t a i n a s i g n a lp r o p o r t i o n a l t o thesquare of
t h et r a n s v e r s ev e l o c i t y . A f r a c t i o no ft h i ss i g n a l was added t ot h ep r e s s u r e
measuredby thecondensormicrophone t og i v e( a p p r o x i m a t e l y )t h et r u es t a t i c -
p r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n st h a tw o u l d have e x i s t e d i n t h e absence o f t h e p r o b e .

"Siddon c a l i b r a t e dt h ep r o b ei n a flow produced by a j e t o f a i r passed

through a r o t a t i n g i n c l i n e d n o z z l e . The probe s l i t was p l a c e d a t t h e p o i n t
where t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e i s c o n s t a n t (theintersectionofthenozzleaxis and
t h ea x i so fr o t a t i o n ) . A t t h a tp o i n t any f l u c t u a t i n g p r e s s u r e s i g n a l s f r o m t h e
condensormicrophonewere assumed t o b e p r o d u c e d b y c r o s s - f l o w i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h
theprobe. These s i g n a l s werecancelled by a d d i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r f r a c t i o n o f
thesquareofthetransversevelocity.
 " S i d d o nc o n c l u d e dt h a tt h ee r r o ri nt h ep r e s s u r ep r o d u c e d by c r o s s - f l o w
i n t e r a c t i o ni nt u r b u l e n c e was lessthan 20 p e r c e n t . Thus, reasonablyaccurate
measurements o f f l u c t u a t i n g p r e s s u r e c o u l d be made as l o n g as theassumption of
quasi-steadyflow was n o t v i o l a t e d and t h et i m el a g between t h et r a n s v e r s e - f o r c e
signalfromtheprobe noseand thepressure measured a t t h e a n n u l a r s l i t was
n o ti m p o r t a n t .g e n e r a l l y ,t h . i sr e q u : i r e st h a tt h es p a t i a ls c a l eo ft h ep r e s s u r e
f l u c t - u a t i o n s be much larger than the probe dimensions.*
" As a r e s u l t o f h i s
workSiddon was a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t i n many p r a c t i c a lc i r c u m s t a n c e s where
o n l y root-mean-squarepressurefluctuationswere measured w i t h p r o b e s 1i k e
Strasberg's(Ref. 37), t h e . c o r r e c t i o n f o r c r o s s - f l o w i n t e r a c t i o n i s 1 kelyto
be s m a l l . Owing t od i f f e r e n c e si nt h ec o r r e c t e d and uncorrected wave forms, one
mustuse thecorrectedpressure when instantaneous values are desi red even
when t h ec o r r e c t e d and uncorrectedroot-mean-squarepressuresarethe same."

Thus, f o r anumber o f aerodynamics and acousticreasons, as w e l l as

s i m p l i c i t y and economy, Westley(Ref. 9) n o t e st h a t anumber o f opera o r s o f
t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c t u n n e l s a r e m e a s u r i n g f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t i c and p i tot
pressures. He recommends thatthesetypesofacousticprobes bedeve opedand
standardized. Dynamic s t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b e ss h o u l d be developed f o r h i g h
speed f l o w s and probablyshouldfollowtheSiddontypedesign.

Inthe case o f dynamic P i t o t probes, a s e r i e s o f d e s i g n s t u d i e s a t NASA

Langley has culminated i n a designwhichappears t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r
a c o u s t i cc a l i b r a t i o no fw i n dt u n n e l s , Refs.38, 35 and 14. A schematic o f t h e
p r o b er e p o r t e di nR e f . 14 i s shown i nF i g . 3.F.3. B r i e f l y , i t c o n s i s t so f
two0.318 cm ( 1 / 8i n . )d i a m e t e rp i e z o e l e c t r i ct r a n s d u c e r s mounted i n tandem.
The probediameterof 0.635 cm (1/4 i n . ) was s e l e c t e d because mean pressure
measurements i n d i c a t et h ep r e s s u r ei sn e a r l yc o n s t a n ta c r o s st h ec e n t e ro f a
f l a t - f a c e dd i s ki ns u p e r s o n i cf l o w . The diaphragm o f t h e exposedtransducer is
c o v e r e dw i t h a thin coating of RTV rubber t o reduce v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o damage by
p a r t i c l e si nt h ef l o w . The purpose o ft h es h i e l d e dr e a rt r a n s d u c e ri st o
serve as an a c c e l e r a t i o n( o rv i b r a t i o n )m o n i t o r . The s i g n a lf r o mt h i st r a n s d u c e r
i ss u b t r a c t e df r o mt h e exposedtransducer inordertoaccountfortheeffects

nThe u n d e r l i n i n g was i n s e r t e d by t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r s t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e s i z e
o f t h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone may i n d u c e e r r o r s i n n o i s e measurements.

153
 A U Dimensions in Centimeters

r E m s e d tnnrduccr

Figure 3 .F. 3 . SMALL PIEZOF&EC!i'RIC DYNAMIC

PRESSURE PROBE, Ref. 14
o f p r o b ev i b r a t i o n . *I no r d e rf o rt h i st e c h n i q u et o be v a l i d , Anders, e t a l .
(Ref.14)notedthatthetwotransducers mustbe matched t o g i v e i d e n t i c a l
outputsforgivenaccelerationlevels.

Inconjunctionwiththeprobe, a h o t w i r e was a l s o used i n t h e s t i l l i n g

chamber and t e s t s e c t i o n o f a small Mach 5 w i n d t u n n e l a t NASA Langley.
Assuming p u r e l y a c o u s t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e s , t h e f o l l o w i n g r e l a t i o n was used t o
relatethefluctuatingstaticpressuresobtainedfromthehotwiretofluc-
tuatingPitotpressures.

Here < H I 2 > i s t h e rms f l u c t u a t i n gt o t a lp r e s s u r eb e h i n d a normalshock,

<PIoD> i s the rms f l u c t u a t i n g ,f r e e s t r e a ms t a t i cp r e s s u r e , and
u i st h e
S
sound-source v e l o c i t yd e t e c t e d by t h eh o tw i r e . The r e s u l t sf r o mt h i s equa-
t i o n gave e x c e l l e n t agreement w i t h t h e f l u c t u a t i n g P i t o t p r o b e d a t a , e.g., see
Appendix I , Fig. 7. It i sr e l e v a n t t o noteheretheconclusionreachedby
Anders, e ta l . (Ref.14).

"The h o t w i r e and P i t o t p r o b e g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e t h e same t r e n d and

l e v e lw i t hr e s p e c tt ot h e Reynolds number. T h i s agreement i s o f g r e a t
p r a c t i c a li m p o r t a n c es i n c et h ep i e z o e l e c t r i cP i t o tp r o b ei s a much more
ruggedinstrumentwithsimplerdatareductionproceduresthanthehot-
w i r ep r o b e .F o rd i a g n o s t i cs t u d i e s ,t h eP i t o tp r o b e ca,n provideessen-
t i a l l y t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n as t h eh o t - w i r ep r o b e. w i t h much l e s s e f f o r t .
However, t h eh o tw i r e does have one p a r t i c u l a r advantage i n t h e p r e s e n t
i n v e s t i g a t i o n .T h a ti s ,i n a pure sound f i e l d t h e h o t w i r e can d i s t i n g u i s h
betweenmovingsources and f i x e d sources."

A s i m i l a r comparison o f h o t w i r e d a t a w i t h f l u c t u a t i n g P i t o t p r o b e d a t a
hasbeen r e p o r t e d byGrandeand Oates(Ref. 39). However,a 1.78 rnm (0.070 i n . )
diameterstrain gage transducer was employed and d a t a w e r e o b t a i n e d f o r
1.1 < M < 2.25. Nondimensionalized power s p e c t r a ld e n s i t i e so b t a i n e di n a
t u r b u l e n t boundary l a y e r and inthefreestreamwerefoundtoagreeremarkably

*Dougherty and S t e i n l e( R e f . 8) r e p o r tt h a tt h ea c c e l e r o m e t e r used i n t h e AEDC

t r a n s i t i o n cone has n o td e t e c t e d any s i g n i f i c a n t v i b r a t i o n e f f e c t s d u r i n g
t e s t s i n a number o ft u n n e l s . However, S t a i n b a c k ,e ta l .( R e f . 35) d i dr e p o r t
significant probe vibration effects.

155
we1 1. These a u t h o r sc o n c l u d et h a t" t h ef r e q u e n c yr e s p o n s ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
t h es t a g n a t i o np r e s s u r es e n s o ra r ei d e n t i c a lt ot h o s e of t h eh o tw i r e ,i . e . ,
it c a nb ec o n s i d e r e da ni d e a lp o i n ts e n s o rf o rf l u c t u a t i o n sw i t hs p a t i a ls c a l e s
somewhat largerthantheprobediameter.''

To summarize theadvantages and disadvantages o f f l u c t u a t i n g P i t o t probes,

thefollowingpointsarenoted.

D isadvan tages :
1. c a n n o ts e p a r a t et h et h r e ep o s s i b l ef l o wd i s t u r b a n c e modes o f
entropy,vorticity and p r e s s u r e .

2. cannot deduce w h e t h e rd i s t u r b a n c es o u r c e sa r es t a t i o n a r yo r
movi ng.

3. s h o c km o d u l a t i o no fd i s t u r b a n c e s may be unknown i n some cases

(e.g.,see Ref. 39 ) .
Advantages :

1. r e l a t i v e l yi n e x p e n s i v e and o f f - t h e - s h e l f , commercialtransducers
are readi ly available.

2. speedandease o f measurement.

3. s i m p l e rd a t ar e d u c t i o n .

4. durable,;.e., f a rl e s ss u s c e p t i b l et op a r t i c l e damage compared

to hot wires.

5. h i g hs i g n a lt on o i s er a t i o .

6. reduced i n f l u e n c e o f f l o w p e r t u r b a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f i n i t e
p r o b es i z e (compared w i t h t h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o nc o n e ) .

7. minimum w a l l - p r o b e i n t e r f e r e n c e .

8. e a s i l y moved about t o s u r v e y e n t i r e t e s t s e c t i o n .

I nc o n c l u s i o n ,r e c e n tr e s e a r c hw i t hf l u c t u a t i n gP i t o tp r o b e si n d i c a t e s
theseinstruments may be adequate f o r i n i t i a l c a l i b r a t i o n o f f l o w d i s t u r b a n c e s
i nt r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i ct u n n e l s .T h i st y p eo f measurement couldserve as
aconvenient and inexpensivestandardto compare tunnelnoiselevels. I t 1s
a l s or e l e v a n tt on o t et h a t Doughertyof thePropulsion Wind Tunnelgroup at
AEDC plansto use af l u c t u a t i n gP i t o tp r o b et om o n i t o rf r e e s t r e a md i s t u r b a n c e
l e v e l sd u r i n gf l i g h tt e s t sw i t ht h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone.

1 57
 1II.F.
References

1. Dougherty, N. S. ; Anderson, C. F.; and Parker, R. L. : "An Experimental

I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Techniques t o SuppressEdgetonesfromPerforated Wind
Tunnel Wa 1 1 s , I ' AEDC-TR-75-88, Aug . 1975.
2. Hartzuiker, J. P. ; Pugh, P. G . ; Lorenz-Meyer, W. ; and Fasso, G . E. : "On
theFlowQualityNecessary for theLargeEuropeanHigh-Reynolds-Number
TransonicWindtunnel LEHRT," AGARD-R-644, March 1976.

3. McCanless, G. F. and Boone, J. R.: "NoiseReduction i n Transonic Wind

Tunnels ,I1 J. Acoust. SOC. Am., Vol . 56, No. 5, Nov. 1974.

4. Schutzenhofer, L. A. andHoward, P. W. : "Suppression o f BackgroundNoise

i n aTransonicWind-TunnelTestSection,'' A l A A Jour., Nov. 1975.

5. Mabey, D. G.: "FlowUnsteadiness andModel V i b r a t i o ni n Wind Tunnels a t

Subsonic and Transonic Speeds," C.P. No. 1155, Aero. Res.Coun., 1971.

6. Habey, D. G . : ' # A nH y p o t h e s i sf o rt h eP r e d i c t i o no fF l i g h tP e n e t r a t i o n of
Wing B u f f e t i n g from Dynamic Testson Wind TunnelModels," RAE TR 70189,
Oct. 1970.

7. Mabey, D. G . : "The I n f l u e n c e o f FlowUnsteadiness on WindtunnelMeasure-

ments a tT r a n s o n i c Speeds," RAE Tech. Memo. Aero. 1473, 1973.

8. Dougherty, N. S . and S t e i n l e , F. W.: " T r a n s i t i o nR e y n o l d s Number

Comparisons i n SeveralMajorTransonicTunnels," A I A A Paper No. 74-627,
J u l y 1974.

9. Westley, R.: "Problems o f Noise Measurement i n Ground-Based F a c i l i t i e s

w i t h Forward-Speed Simulation(High-speed Wind TunnelNoise) ,I1 Appendix 5
o f AGARD-AR-83, Sept. 1975.

IO. R i d d l e , C. D.: " I n v e s t i g a t i o no f F r e e - S t r e a mF l u c t u a t i n gP r e s s u r e si nt h e

16-Ft. Tunnels o f t h e P r o p u l s i o n Wind Tunnel F a c i l i t y , " AEDC-TR-67-167,
Aug. 1967.

11. Boone, J. R. and McCanless, G . F.: " E v a l u a t i o no ft h eA c o u s t i cS o u r c e so f

BackgroundNoise i n Wind Tunnel F a c i l i t i e s , ' # NASA CR-98155.
12. Boone, J. R. andMcCanless, G . F.: " A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Techniques for
E v a l u a t i n gt h eA c o u s t i c Sources o f Background Noise i n Wind Tunnel
Facilities," Tech. Rept. HSM-R05-69, C h r y s l e rH u n t s v i l l eO p e r a t i o n s ,
Mar. 1969.

13. Credle, 0 . P . : "An E v a l u a t i o no ft h eF l u c t u a t i n gA i r b o r n eE n v i r o n m e n t si n

t h e AEDC-PWT 4-Ft.Transonic Tunnel," AEDC-TR-69-236,Nov. 1969.

14. Anders, J. R. ; Stainback, P. C. ; Keefe, L. R. ; and Beckwith, I . E. : "Sound

and F l u c t u a t i n g D i s t u r b a n c e Measurements i n t h e S e t t l i n g Chamber and Test
Section o f a Small, Mach 5 Wind Tunnel," ICIASF '75, I n t ' l Congress on
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n i n Aerospace S i m u l a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s , Ottawa, Canada,
Sept. 22-24, 1975, publishedby IEEE, 345 E. 47th S t r e e t , New York.

15. Anders, J. B.; Stainback, P. C.; Keefe, L. R.; and Beckwith, 1 . E . :

"FluctuatingOisturbancesin a Mach 5 Wind Tunnel,"Proc. AIAA 9th
Aerodynamics TestingConference, June 1976.

16. Horstman, C. C. and Rose, bl. C.: "Hot Wire Anemometry i nT r a n s o n i c Flow,"
NASA TM X-62495,Dec. 1975.

17. Donaldson, J. C. and Wallace, J. P.: "Flow F l u c t u a t i o n Measurements a t

MachNumber 4 i nt h eT e s tS e c t i o n o f the12-InchSupersonicTunnel (D) ,I'

AEDC TR-71-143, Aug. 1971.

18. Lewis, T. L . and

Dods, J. B.: "Wind-Tunnel
Measurements o f Surface-Pressure
F l u c t u a t i o n sa t MachNumbers o f 1.6, 2.0, and 2.5 Using 12 D i f f e r e n t
Transducers," NASA TN D-7087, Oct. 1972.

19. Fuchs, H. V . : "Measurement o f PressureFluctuationsWithinSubsonic

TurbulentJets," J . Sound & Vib., Vol. 22, No. 3, 8 June 1972.

20. i 1 Imarth, W.
W W. : "Pressure Fluctuations Beneath Turbulent BoundaryLayers,"
AnnualReview o f F l u i d Mechanics,Vol. 7, Annual Review Inc.,Palo Alto,
Cal if., 1975.

21. i 1 Imarth, GI. W. :

W "Unsteady Force and Pressure Measurements , I ' Annual Review
o f F l u i d Mechanics, Vol. 3 , AnnualReviewInc., P a l oA l t o ,C a l i f . , 1971.

22. Hanly, R. D.: "EffectsofTransducerFlushnessonFluctuatingSurface

Pressure Measurements, A I A A Paper No. 75-534, Mar. 1975.

23. Dods, J. B. and Hanly, R. D . : "Evaluation o f Transonic and Supersonic Wind-

TunnelBackgroundNoise and E f f e c t s o f S u r f a c e P r e s s u r e F l u c t u a t i o n
Measurements," A l A A Paper No. 72-1004, Sept. 1972.

159
24. Credle, 0. P. and Shadow,
T. 0.: "Evaluation of t h eO v e r a l l Root-Mean-
Square F l u c t u a t i n g P r e s s u r e L e v e l s i n t h e AEDC PWT 16-Ft.TransonicTunnel ,I'

AEDC-TR-70-7,
Feb.
1970.

25 Chevalier, H. L. andTodd, H. E.: "Measurement o f t h eP r e s s u r eF l u c t u a t i o n s

intheTestSectionofthe 16-FootTransonicCircuitintheFrequency Range
from 5 t o 1000 cps," AEDC-TN-61-51 (AD 255 7631, May 1961.

26. b r a b i n u s , R. J. and Sanders, B. W. : "Measurements o fF l u c t u a t i n gP r e s s u r e s

i n 8-by6-FootSupersonic Wind Tunnel f o r MachNumberRange o f 0.56 t o
2.07,'' NASA TM X-2009, May 1970.

27 Credle, 0. P. and Carleton, W. E.: "Determination o f T r a n s i t i o n Reynolds

Number i n t h e T r a n s o n i c MachNumberRange,"AEDC-TR-70-218, Oct. 1970.

28. Dougherty, N. S . , Jr.: 'IPrepared Comment on Cone T r a n s i t i o n Reynolds

1
Number Data C o r r e l a t i o n Study,'l AGARD-CP-187, June 1975.

29. W h i t f i e l d , J. and Dougherty, N. S . , Jr.: "A Survey o fT r a n s i t i o n Reynolds

Number Work a t AEDC," t o be p r e s e n t e d a t AGARD F l u i d Dynamics Panel
Symposium onLaminar-TurbulentTransition, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 1977.

30 Pate, S . R. and Schueler, C. J.: "RadiatedAerodynamicNoiseEffects on

Boundary L a y e r T r a n s i t i o n i n S u p e r s o n i c and HypersonicMindTunnels ,'I

A l A A Jour.,Vol. 7, No. 7, Mar. 1969.

31 Benek, J. A. and High, M. D.: "A Method f o rt h eP r e d i c t i o n o f t h eE f f e c t s

o f Free-Stream Disturbances on Boundary-Layer Transit ion," AEDC-TR-73-158,
Oct. 1973, a l s o A l A A Jour., P. 1425, Oct. 1974.

32 Treon, S. L.; S t e i n l e , F. M.; Hagerman,J. R.; Black, J. A., and B u f f i n g t o n ,

R. J . :" F u r t h e rC o r r e l a t i o no f Data f r o mI n v e s t i g a t i o n so f aHigh-Subsonic-
Speed T r a n s p o r t A i r c r a f t Model i n ThreeMajorTransonic Wind Tunnels," AlAA
PaperNo.71-291, Mar. 1971.

33 Credle, 0. P.: "PerforatedWallNoise i nt h e AEDC-PWT 16-Ft. and 4-Ft.

Transonic Tunnel s , ' I AEDC-TR-7 1-21 6, Oct . 197 1 .
34. H e l l e r , H. H. andClemente, A . R.: " F l u c t u a t i n gS u r f a c e - Pressure
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s onSlender Cones i n Subsonic,Supersonic, and Hypersonic
Mach-Number Flow," NASA CR-2449, Oct. 1974.

160
35. Stainback, P. C. ; Wagner, R. D. ; Owen, F. K. ; andHorstman, C. C. :
"ExperimentalStudies o f HypersonicBoundary-Layer T r a n s i t i o n and
E f f e c t s o f Wind-Tunnel Disturbances," NASA TN D-7453, Mar.1974.
36. Siddon, T. E.: "On t h e Response o f PressureMeasuringInstrumentation
i n Unsteady Flow," UTlAS Rept. No. 136, I n s t i t u t e for AerospaceStudies,
Univ. of Toronto, Jan. 1969.
37. Strasberg, M.: "Measurements o ft h eF l u c t u a t i n gS t a t i c and Total-Head
Pressures i n a Turbulent Wake," DavidTaylor Model Basin Rept. 1779,
(AD 428 7001, Dec. 1963 (a1 so AGARD Rept.464).

38. Stainback, P. C. and Wagner, R. D.: "A Comparison ofDisturbanceLevels

Measured i n HypersonicTunnelsUsingaHot-wire Anemometer anda Pitot
Pressure Probe,'' A l A A Paper No. 72-1003,Sept. 1972.

39. Grande, E. and Oates, G. C.: I'Response o fM i n i a t u r eP r e s s u r eT r a n s d u c e r s

t oF l u c t u a t i o n si nS u p e r s o n i c Flow," I n s t r u m e n t a t i o nf o rA i r b r e a t h i n g

' ".P r o p u l s i o n Progress in c s Aeronautics, A l A A Vol. 34,

A s t r o n a u t iand
MIT Press, 1972.

161.
 .
I
. . , .... . . .. .. ... - .. . .. _.
. .._

111.6. TRANSONIC TUNNEL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND WALL INTERFERENCE

I I I.G.l. Conventional Ventilated Walls

The history of development of ventilated walls for transonic tunnels

has been reviewed by Goethert (Ref. 1). The three primary milestones in
this development wereas follows:
1. Theoretical analyses in Germany, Italy, and Japan during the
1930's indicated tunnel walls with proper arrangement of longi-
tudinal slots would provide wall-interference-freeflow simulation.
This work wasinterrupted by World War 1 1 .
2. During 1946, Wright and Ward (Ref. 2) developed a "subsonic theory
for solid-blockage interference in circular wind tunnels with
walls slotted in the direction of flow." Subsequently, a 12-in.
diameter tunnel was designed with ten evenly spaced slots providing
a total openness ratio of one-eighth. The tunnel was put into
operation in 1947. This design d i d indeed prevent choking and
enabled testing t h r u Mach one of a model with 8.5% blockage.
3. Unfortunately, the solid slats in slotted tunnels were found to
cause significant reflecticns of bow shocks and expansion waves at
supersonic speeds. Thus, around 1950 theoretical analyses at Cornel1
Aeronautical Laboratory* indicated better shock wave cancel lation
could be achieved with small-grain porous walls, Goodman (Ref. 3).
Unfortunately, exploratory testsshowed such walls clog easily, and
even worse, the porosity needed to vary with each change in Mach
number and/or shock strength. As an outgrowth of thiswork, the
as a convenient compromise.
now familiar perforated wall was selected

The early mathematical models of tunnel-wall-interference were

based on
the governing differential equation for perturbation velocity potential in subsonic,
compressible flow, e.g. ,'Baldwin, et el. (Ref. 4).

A
The current name of this facilityis Calspan.

162
I f the wa 1 1 is solid, the boundary conditionfor no flow through the wall is

wall. -a4
= 0 at solid (3-6.2)
an

In the case of an open-jet, there canbe no pressure difference across the

boundary; thus

-a4
= 0 at open boundary.
ax (3.G.3)

The corrections to measured valueso f model lift and pitching moment, which
result when solving Eq. (3.6.1) with either solid or open-wall boundary conditions,
are discussed in detail by Garner, et al. (Ref. 5). The theoretical results
generally agree with experiments. In order to facilitate applications ofthls
6) has compiled solutions in
type of boundary-induced corrections, Heyson (Ref.
and charts.
the form of curves

In the case of ventilated walls, the boundary conditions become more complex.
In fact, the centralproblem of theoretical analysis of transonic-wall-interference
is selection of the appropriate boundary conditions to use withEq. (3.G.l). This
is still an area of active research,and only a brief review of boundaryconditions
for ventilated tunnels wi 1 1 be given here.

A n approximate boundary condition for porous walls was derived

by Goodman
(Ref. 3, Part I I ) , viz.,

+ -1 0 at ideal, porous wall.

R

This boundary condition was derivedby assuming the average velocity normal to
(a linearized
the wall is proportional to the pressure drop through the wall
and that the pressure outslde
approximation to viscous flow through the wall),
the wall is equal to freestream static. The value of R, for a given wall, i s
usually determined experimentally by measuring pressure drop and the associated
mass flow througha wall sample (e.g. Ref. 71, i.e. ,
 An a p p r o x i m a t e , u n i f o r m b o u n d a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r s l o t t e d w a l l s was d e r i v e d
byBaldwin, etal. (Ref. 4).

-
a 4
ax
+ K - a20
axan
= 0 aitd e a ls, l o t t e dw a l l (3. G.6)

where K i s r e l a t e d t o s l o t geometry by

K = -
DS
lr
In {CSC (E -wS1 1 ,
DS

and

Ds = d i s t a n c e between s l o c
t enters,

Ws = w i d t ho sf l o t s .

I n anattempt t o account f o rv i s c o u se f f e c t s ,B a l d w i n ,e ta l .s u g g e s t e d
a d d i n gt h ep o r o u sb o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o nt o Eq. (3.6.6)and measuring R f o r t h e
slotofinterest.

-
a+
ax
+ K -
&
axan
+ -1 -
Rs
a4
an
= 0 at viscous, slotted wall
(3.6.8)

K e l l e r (Ref. 8) has r e c e n t l ys u g g e s t e dt h i sb o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o n be extended t o

includevaryingslotwidth by r e p l a c i n g l / R S w i t h l / R s + aK/ax.

A f t e r more thantwodecadesoftesting and comparisons o f t h e o r y w i t h

e x p e r i m e n t a lr e s u l t s , i t i s now g e n e r a l l yr e c o g n i z e dt h a ta p p l i c a t i o no ft h e
l i n e a r b o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o n s ,w i t hc o n s t a n t va l u e so f K and/or R, i s inadequate.
As an example o f t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , a b r i e f summary o f a t y p i c a l case i s
presentedhere.

Lowe (Ref. 9) measured t h ew a l lp o r o s i t y parameter f o r a w a l l w i t h 22.5%

p o r o s i t y and normalholes. The standardporosityparameter, R , was determined
e x p e r i m e n t a l l y by m e a s u r i n g t h e s t a t i c p r e s s u r e d r o p and mass f l o w a c r o s s a

164
9 - i n c hb y2 1 - i n c hs e c t i o no f a s i d e w a l l o f theGeneral Dynamics 4-footHigh
Speed Wind Tunnel.Datawereobtained for Mach numbers o f 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9
anda corresponding unit Reynolds number range o f 19.7 t o 37.7 mill ion (per
meter),Usingthe measured v a l u e s o f R and t h e r e s u l t s o f 1 i n e a rp e r t u r b a t i o n
t h e o r yo b t a i n e d byLo and O l i v e r( R e f . IO), t h e upwash and stream1inecurva-
turecorrectionsindicatedthewalldidnot have t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an
open j e t . T h i s c o n t r a d i c t e d t h e r e s u l t s o f t e s t s w i t h an a i r c r a f t f o r c e model
which,when correctedfor open-boundaryinterference,agreed withdataobtained
I
w i t ht h e same model i nt h eL a n g l e y 8 ' TransonicPressureTunnel(Ref. ll)*. !

Thus, t h e r e s u l t s o f Lowe, as w e l l a so t h e r s ,i n d i c a t et h e measurement o f R and

I
use o f t h e c l a s s i c a l , l i n e a r p e r t u r b a t i o n t h e o r y i s n o t v e r y u s e f u l f o r c a l i b r a t -
i n gt h ee f f e c t so ft r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e lw a l l s .I f , i ng e n e r a 1 , t h i sa p p r o a c ht o
c o r r e c t i n gf o rw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e had provensuccessful, measurements o f R f o r
porous and s l o t t e dt u n n e l sw o u l d have become a s t a n d a r dp a r to ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l
calibration.

The c u r r e n t consensus i s :t h et r u e ,t r a n s o n i c - t u n n e lb o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o n s
a r e dependent on t h el o c a lf l o wc o n d i t i o n sn e a rt h ew a l l .T h i s ,i nt u r n , means
adependence onbothtunneloperatingconditions@theparticular model
configuration, e.g., Newman and Klunker (Ref. 14). Recent e f f o r t st oo b t a i n
improvedboundaryconditionsforfixed(passive)wallconditionsincludethe
s t u d yo fv a r i a t i o n si n R between top and b o t t o mp e r f o r a t e dw a l l s , Ref. 15, and
n o n l i n e a rb o u n d a r yc o n d i t i o n sf o rw a l l sw i t hn o r m a lh o l e s , Ref. 16, and s l o t t e d
walls, e.g.,Refs. 17 and 18. Of c o u r s e ,t h eb a s i co b j e c t i v eo ft h e s es t u d i e s is
t oa t t a i nd a t ac o r r e c t i o np r o c e d u r e sw h i c h can r e l i a b l y account f o r t h e e f f e c t s o f
real,ventilatedwalls.

111.6.2. Adaptive
Wall
Studies

The d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a p p l y i n g t r a n s o n i c w a l l c o r r e c t i o n s , w h i c h do n o t
reduce to s i m p l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f speed and angle o f a t t a c k , a r e w e l l known.
A l s o , one o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l , l i n e a r t h e o r y of
walleffectsistheimpossibilityofusinguniformporositytosimultaneously

* -
The r e c e n t , s u p e r c r i t i c a l a i r f o i l t e s t s o f E l a c k w e l l and Pounds (Ref. 12)
i n d i c a t et h ea c t u a l boundary c o n d i t i o n s h i f t s t o w a r dt h ef r e e - j e ta sp o r o s i t y
increases,i.e.,thetransonicshock moves f o r w a r d f o r a g i v e n Mach number.
T h i s same t r e n d was alsoobserved asa r e s u l to fi n c r e a s e db l o c k a g ei nt h e
s u p e r c r i t i c a lc o n e - c y l i n d e rt e s t so f Page (Ref. 1 3 ) .

165
eliminatetheeffectsofwallinterferenceonbothnormalforce and p i t c h i n g
moment, Ref. 16.

Forthesereasons,otherprocedureshave been suggested and a r e c u r r e n t l y

b e i n gi n v e s t i g a t e d . The theorydeveloped by F e r r i and Baronti(Ref. 19) and
Sears(Ref. 20) seems t o o f f e rt h ep r o m i s eo fb e i n g more c o r r e c t . These a u t h o r s
suggestedthatthepressuredistribution and t h e s t r e a m l i n e d e f l e c t i o n a n g l e be
measured a l o n gt h et u n n e lw a l l s( o u t s i d et h eb o u n d a r yl a y e r )w i t h amodel in
place. The scheme t h e ni n v o l v e sc a l c u l a t i o no f ( I ) t h ef l o w - d e f l e c t i o na n g l e s
w h i c hc o r r e s p o n dt ot h e measured pressuredata and (2) t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
c o r r e s p o n d i n gt ot h e measured flow d e f l e c t i o na n g l e s . The d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e measuredand calculatedpressuredistributions andstreamlinedeflections
a r et h e n used t o accomplish one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :

1. d e t e r m i n et h ew a l lp o r o s i t yw h i c he l i m i n a t e sw a l l
i n t e r f e r e n c ef o r a g i v e ne x t e r n a lp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n ,
2. p r o v i d et h ec o r r e c tp r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o no u t s i d e
oftheporouswallfor a givenporositydistribution,
3. d e t e r m i n ew a l lc o n t o u r st oc o n f o r mw i t hf r e e - a i r
stream1 ines, o r
4. c a l c u l a t et h ew a l lc o r r e c t i o n st o be a p p l i e dt ot h e
e x p e r i m e n t a rl e s u l t s .

One o f t h e advantages o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s t h a t it o n l y r e q u i r e s t h e
l i n e a r i z e dp e r t u r b a t i o ne q u a t i o n st o be v a l i d n e a rt h ew a l l .T h i s means t h e
procedure may be v a l i d as long as supersonicpockets do n o t e x t e n d t o t h e
t u n n e lw a l l s . The primaryadvantage o ft h i sp r o c e d u r ei st h a t i t uses d a t a
t oe s t a b l i s ht h ea p p r o p r i a t e boundaryconditions. However, asnoted by F e r r i
and B a r o n t i ,t h ep r i m a r yd i s a d v a n t a g e sa r et h er e q u i r e m e n t sf o r" a c c u r a t e
measurements o f f l o w d e f l e c t i o n s and p r e s s u r e v a r i a t i o n s a t s e v e r a l a n g u l a r
p o s i t i o n s and a t many s t a t i o n s a l o n g t h e t e s t s e c t i o n . "

I nc o n j u n c t i o nw i t ht h et h e o r yo fF e r r i and Baronti,anexperimentalpro-
gram was begun i n t h e 15" T r i s o n i c Gasdynamics F a c i l i t y a t t h e Air F o r c e F l i g h t
Dynamics Laboratory.SinceStreamlineanglescan bemeasuredmore accurately
away from t h e w a l l , t h e t h e o r y was s u b s e q u e n t l y m o d i f i e d t o u s e f l o w a n g l e s and
s t a t i cp r e s s u r e s measured a t an i n t e r m e d i a t e" m i d f i e l d 1 'l o c a t i o n between t h e
modeland w a l l .F o ra n g u l a r i t y measurements, a new h o t - f i l m , 20 deg-wedge probe

166
was designed and f a b r i c a t e d .C a l i b r a t i o nt e s t s show it t o be capableof
resolving flow angles to within -
+2 minutes o f a r c (Ref.21).Thisprobe,
togetherwith a c o n v e n t i o n a l , cone-cylinder,static-pressure probe,provides
t h ei n p u tr e q u i r e d b yt h eF e r r i and Barontitheory.

Results of this workhavedemonstratedthe f e a s i b i l i t y o f changing

slotted-wallcontourtominimizetransonic-wall-interferencewiththeflow
o v e r 6% t h i c k b i c o n v e x a i r f o i l s a t z e r o a n g l e - o f - a t t a c k . As expected,the
r e s u l t sf o rn o n z e r oa n g l e s - o f - a t t a c ki n d i c a t et h ew a l lc o n t o u r will need t o be
changed as changes i n l i f t and/or model c o n f i g u r a t i o na r e made. The s t u d yo f
l i f t i n g a i r f o i l models i sc o n t i n u i n g . However,enough r e s u l t sa r e now a v a i l -
abletoconcludethatthisapproachoffers a decidedadvantageoverthepre-
viousapproach o f measuringpressuredrop and mass flow through a w a l l sample
and t h e n t r y i n g t o use l i n e a r boundaryconditions t o e s t i m a t e wa1l-model
interferencefactors.

Work i s a l s o underway a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Southampton(England),Ref. 22,

and ONERA (France),Ref. 23, on u s i n g a d j u s t a b l e , s o l i d w a l l s t o c o n f o r m w i t h
f r e e - a i rs t r e a m l i n e s .

V i d a l ,e ta l .( R e f . 24) have reportedonrecentprogresswiththeCalspan

o n e - f o o t ,s e l f - c o r r e c t i n gt u n n e l . The c o n c l u s i o n sr e g a r d i n gt r a n s o n i cc r o s s -
f l o wc h a r a c t e r i s t i c so fp e r f o r a t e dw a l l sa r eq u i t eI n t e r e s t i n g . The f o l l o w i n g
i s quotedfromtheirpaper.
"The u s u a lt h e o r e t i c a la p p r o a c h i s t o assume t h a tt h e normal v e l o c i t y
component i nt h ei n v i s c i ds t r e a mi sl i n e a r l yr e l a t e dt ot h ev e l o c i t y
t h r o u g ht h ew a l l ,w h i c hi sl i n e a r l yr e l a t e dt ot h ep r e s s u r ed r o pa c r o s s
t h ew a l l . Our r e s u l t s show t h a tn e i t h e rl i n e a rr e l a t i o ni sa p p l i c a b l e
and t h a tt h ew a l l b o u n d a r yl a y e ra m p l i f i e st h en o r m a lv e l o c i t yi nt h e
i n v i s c i ds t r e a mb y a f a c t o rr a n g i n ga tl e a s tf r o m 1.15 t o 6. I t does
n o t appear t o be f e a s i b l e t o c a l i b r a t e t h i s boundary l a y e r a m p l i f i c a -
t i o n because t h e l a t t e r will depend, inpart, on t h eu p s t r e a mh i s t o r y
o ft h e boundarylayer. The mainadvantage t ot h ef l o w m e t e rt e c h n i q u ei s
t h a t it i s n o n i n t r u s i v e anddoes n o tp r o d u c ed i s t u r b a n c e si nt h ef l o w f i e l d .
T h i s one advantage i s outweighed by t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s c i t e d above.
C o n s e q u e n t l y ,t h ef l o w m e t e rt e c h n i q u ef o ri n f e r r i n gt h en o r m a lv e l o c i t y
componenthasbeen discarded, and we a r e now u s i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l p i t c h
probes f o r t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . "
Thus, this i s another case which shows the linear boundary condition at venti-
lated, transonic walls is basically incorrect.

The basic technique used to correct wall porosity is as follows. First,

theoretical estimates of the unconfined, longitudinal, disturbance-velocities,
are made at a chosen distance f r o m the tunnel wall. The wall porosities are
initially set to provide these distributions
by monitoring the local static
pressures with a long survey pipe. Second, the normal velocity components, at
and used as input for
this same distance, are measured with small pitch probes
solutions of thc transonic, small-disturbance equation which assume unconfined
flow. The resulting solutions provide new approximations for the longitudinal
velocity distributions. The wall porosities and/or plenum pressures are then
adjusted to provide this new velocity distribution. Next, the normal com-
ponents are again measured,and the process continuesuntil the differences
between all the normal velocity components, measuredat successive iterations,
are less than 0.0005 Vm. At this point, unconfined flow conditions are assumed
to be achieved.

has shown that the convergence

Experience with this iterative procedure
criterion is unnecessarily stringent, and a better criterion is being con-
sidered. However, for the case of an NACA 0012 airfoil at M = 0.55, a = 4O

and 6O, and M = 0.725, a = 2O convergence was obtainedin five to seven

iterations. The significant result was the measured airfoil pressure distri-
bution, obtained in the one-foot tunnel with wall control, agreed very well with
data obtained with the same airfoil
in the 8-foot tunnel.

still a large
Although the Calspan results are encouraging, there are
cansimilarly
number of problems to overcome before three dimensional models be
tested, i.e., adequate theoretical modelso f 30 transonic flows and porosity
adjustment of all four walls.

*The perforated walls are dividedinto ten segments on the top and eight on the
bottom. The four central segments in the top wall and the two central segments
in the bottom wall are designed to provide a n adjustable porosity with linear
variation in the streamwise direction. Each segment has a separate plenum for
individual control of suction or blowing.

168
 Recently, Kemp (Ref. 25) has suggested a h y b r i d scheme. He hasproposed
u s i n gl i m i t e da d a p t i v e - w a l lc o n t r o lt or e d u c ei n t e r f e r e n c et oa n a l y t i c a l l y
, c o r r e c t a b l el e v e l s .I n sumnary, r e d u c t i o no tf r a n s o n i c - w a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e and
improveddata-correction methods a r e a r e a s o f a c t i v e r e s e a r c h i n t h e USA, Canada,
and Europe. Considerableprogress i sa n t i c i p a t e di nt h en e a rf u t u r e .

111.6.3. BoundaryLayers and WallGeneratedNoise

As notedbyPindzola, etal. (Ref. 161, s l o t t e d - w a l lt u n n e l sg e n e r a t el e s s

noisethan do p e r f o r a t e dw a l l s . An i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s
phenomena hasbeen g i v e n by Cumning and Lowe (Ref. 11). I nt h e i rt e s t s , anF-111
a i r c r a f t model was t e s t e d i n t h e same tunnel w i t h bothporous and s l o t t e d w a l l s .
Near-interference-free data and minimum drag were obtained over a Machnumber
o f 0.60 t o 0.80 w i t ht h es l o t t e dw a l l s .W i t ht r a n s i t i o nf r e e ,t h i sc o r r e s p o n d e d
t o anobservedrearward movement of boundary l a y e r t r a n s i t i o n compared t o t h e
p o r o u sw a l lt e s t s . Thus, t h i sp r o v i d e s a s p e c i f i c case o fw a l l - g e n e r a t e dn o i s e
f
a f f e c t i n g b o u n d a r yl a y e rt r a n s i t i o n onan a i r c r a f t model.

I n thesupersonic and hypersonic speed regimesPate(Ref. 27) and Dougherty

(Ref.28)havedeveloped c o r r e l a t i o n st or e l a t et u n n e lw a l l boundarylayer
p r o p e r t i e st or a d i a t e dn o i s e . " " And i nt h et r a n s o n i cr a n g e ,t h er e c e n tt e s t s
o fV i d a l ,e ta l . (Ref. 24) and S t a r r (Ref.29) r e a f f i r mt h ee s s e n t i a lr o l et h e
boundary l a y e rp l a y si nd e t e r m i n i n gw a l lc r o s s f l o wc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These t e s t s ,
among others,havealsodemonstratedthatmodel-inducedpressuregradientscan
s i g n i f i c a n t l ya l t e rw a l l - b o u n d a r y - l a y e r si nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s .T h i s means
empty-tunnelboundary-layersurveysmust be supplemented by t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l
surveyswithmodels i np l a c e( p a r t i c u l a r l y for h i g h l i f t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ) .I n
summary, w a l l boundarylayersurveysare a n e c e s s a r yp a r to fc a l i b r a t i n gb o t h
t r a n s o n i c and supersonictunnels.

A
The new N a t i o n a l T r a n s o n i c F a c i l i t y a t NASA Langley will have s l o t t e d w a l l s
becausetheygeneratelessnoise and i n t e r f e r e n c e a t s u b s o n i c speeds,Ref. 26.
Parker(Ref. 30) a l s o found s l o t t e d w a l l s , asopposed t op e r f o r a t e dw a l l s ,
p r o v i d e d amore u n i f o r m c e n t e r l i n e Machnumber d i s t r i b u t i o n up t o M
**Tunnelnoise
1.1. -
measurements a r ed i s c u s s e di ng r e a t e rd e t a i li nS e c t i o n I1I.F.

169
 A review of various means f o r measuring boundary layer profiles has been
g i v e n byKennerandHopkins(Ref. 31). These investigatorsobtainedboundary
l a y e r measurementsona supersonictunnelwail (2.4 < HOD,<3.4) with a s i n g l e
t r a v e r s i n g p r o b e ,t h r e ed i f f e r e n tr a k e s , and a 12 deg.wedge with orifices in
theleading edge. The i n t e r e s t e dr e a d e r may c o n s u l t t h i s r e f e r e n c e f o r d e t a i l s
o f boundary layerprobedesigns anda discussionoftheresultsthat can be
expected.Also,Allen(Ref. 32)has g i v e na g e n e r a ld i s c u s s i o no ft h ee f f e c t s
o f Machnumber on P i t o t probe measurement e r r o r s i n t u r b u l e n t boundarylayers.
 111.6. References

1. Goethert, E. H. : Transonic Wind Tunnel Testing, Pergamon Press, 1961.

2. Wright, R. H. and Ward, V. G.: "NACA Transonic Wind-Tunnel Test Sections,"

NACA Report 1231 , June 1955 (supercedesNACA RH L8J06, 1948).
3. Goadman, T.. R.: "The Porous Wall Wind Tunnel: Part I1 - Interference Effect
on a Cylindrical Body in a Two;Dimensional Tunnel at Subsonic Speed,"
Rept. No. AD-594-A-3, 1950, "Part 1 1 1 - Reflection and Absorption of Shock
Waves at Supersonic Speeds,I' Rept. No. AD-706-A-l , Nov. 1950, "Part IV -
Subsonic interference Problems in a Circular Tunnel," Rept. No. AD-706-A-2,
Aug. 1951, Cornel1 Aero. Lab., inc.

4. Baldwin, B. S . ; Turner, J. 8.; and Knechtel, E. D.: "Wall Interference in

Wind Tunnels with Slottedand Porous Boundaries at Subsonic Speeds,"
NACA TN 3176, May 1954.
5. Garner, H.C. ; Rogers, E. W. E. ; Acum, W. E. A. ; and Maskel 1 , E. C. : "Sub-
sonic Wind Tunnel Wall Corrections," AGARDograph 109,Oct. 1966.

6. Heyson, H. H.: "Rapid Estimation of Wind-Tunnel Corrections with Application

to Wind-Tunnel and Model Design," NASA TN 0-6416, Sept. 1971.
7. Pindzola, W. L.:
M. and Chew, "A Summary of Perforated Wall Wind Tunnel
Studies at the Arnold Engineering Development Center,'' AEDC-TR-60-9,
August 1960.

8. Keller, J. D.: "Numerical Calculation of Boundary-induced Interference in

Slotted or Perforated Wind Tunnels Including Viscous Effects in Slots,"
NASA TN 0-687 1 , Aug. 1 972.
9. Lowe, W. H.: "Subsonic Crossflow Calibration of a 22.5 Percent Perforated
Wall," HST-TR-355-3, General Dynamics, presented at39th STA Meeting, Mar.
1973.
10. Lo, C. F. and Oliver, R. H.: "Boundary Interference in a Rectangular Wind
,I@AEDC-TR-70-67, Apr 1 1
Tunnel with Perforated \Jal 1s 1970.
11. Cumming, D. P. and Lowe, W. H.: "Experimental Wall Interference Studies
in a Transonic Wind Tunnel," AlAA Paper No. 71-292, Mar. 1971.

171
12. Blackwell, J. A., Jr. andPounds, G . A.: "Wind TunnelWallInterference
Effects ona SupercriticalAirfoilatTransonic Speeds,'' Paper No.1,
Proc. A I M 9 t h Aerodynamic TestingConference,June 1976.

13. Page, W. A.: "ExperimentalStudy o ft h eE q u i v a l e n c eo fT r a n s o n i cF l o w

aboutSlenderCone-Cylinders of Circular and E l l i p t i c CrossSection,"
NACA TN 4233, A p r i 1 1958.

14. Newman, P. A. and Klunker, E. B.: "NumericalModeling o f Tunnel-Wall

andBody-Shape E f f e c t s on TransonicFlow Over F i n i t e L i f t i n g Wings,"
P a r t 1 1 of Aerodynamic A n a l y s i s R e q u i r i n g AdvancedComputers, NASA SP-
347, Mar. 1975.
15. Mokry, M.; Peake, 0. J.; andBowker, A. J. : "Wall I n t e r f e r e n c e on Two-
D i m e n s i o n a lS u p e r c r i t i c a lA i r f o i l s ,U s i n gW a l lP r e s s u r e Measurements t o
D e t e r m i n et h eP o r o s i t yF a c t o r sf o r Tunnel F l o o r and Ceiling," NRC-13894,
Nat'l. Aero.Estab.,Ottawa, Canada,
Feb. 1974.

16. Pindzola, M. ; Binion, T. W.; and C h e v a l li e r , J. P.: "Design o fT r a n s o n i c

WorkingSections," App. 8 o f A F u r t h e r Review o f Current"Research Aimed a t
theDesign and Operation o f Large WindTunnel-s., AGARD-AR-83, Sept. 1975.

17. Berndt, S . B. andSorensen, H.: "Flow P r o p e r t i e s o f S l o t t e dW a l l sf o r

TransonicTestSections," Paper No. 17, WindtunnelDesignandTesting
Techniques, AGARD-CP-174, Mar. 1976.

18. Barnwell, R. W. : "Improvements i nt h eS l o t t e d - W a l l Boundary Conditions,''

Paper No. 3, Proc. A l A A 9 t h Aerodynamic Test-ing-Conference, June 1976.

19. F e r r i , A. and B a r o n t i , P.: "A Method f o rT r a n s o n i c Wind-Tunnel Corrections,''

AIM Jour., Jan. 973.
20. Sears, W. R. : "Se f C o r r e c t i n g Wind Tunnels," AeronauticalJour.,Vol. 78,
Feb.-Mar. 1974.
21.
Weeks, T. M. : "Re du c t i o n o f T r a n s o n i cS l o t t e dW a l lI n t e r f e r e n c e by Means
o f SlatContouring,'' AFFDL-TR-74-139, Mar. 1975.

22. Goodyer, M. J.: "The Low

Speed SelfStreamliningWindtunnel," Paper No.
13, WindtunnelDesign and TestingTechniques, AGARD-CP-174, Mar. 1976-
23 C h e v a l li e r , J. P. : " S o u f f l e r i eT r a n s s o n i q u e A ParoisAuto-Adaptable,"
Paper No, 12, \ J i n d t~-
u n n e l ~ D e s i g nand TestingTechniques,
~ ~
AGARD-CP-174,
Mar. 1976.

24.

25 - Kemp, W. B., Jr.: "Toward t h eC o r r e c t a b l eI n t e r f e r e n c eT r a n s o n i c Wind

Tunnel , ' I Proc. A l A A 9 t h Aerodynamic-
- ~~ Testing Conference, June 1976.
~ ""

26. HcKinney, L. W. andHowell, R. R . : "The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c so ft h eP l a n n e d

N a t i o n a lT r a n s o n i cF a c i l i t y , ' ' Proc. -A
" l A A 9 t h Aerodynamic TestingConference,
June 1976.

27. Pate, S. R.: "Measurementsand C o r r e l a t i o n s o f T r a n s i t i o n Reynolds Numbers

onSharpSlender Cones a t H i g h Speeds," A l A A Jour.,Sept. 1971.

28. Dougherty, N. S.: " C o r r e l a t i o n of T r a n s i t i o nR e y n o l d s Number w i t h Aero-

dynamicNoiseLevels i n a Wind Tunnel a t MachNumbers 2.0 - 3.0," AlAA
Jour., Dec. 1975. .

29. Starr, R. F.: "Experiments t o Assess t h eI n f l u e n c e o f Changes i n t h e Tunnel

WallBoundaryLayeronTransonicWallCrossflowCharacteristics,'' W E
TunnelDesignandTestingTechniques, AGARD-CP-174, Mar; 1976-

30 Parker, R. L., Jr.: "Fiow G e n e r a t i o nP r o p e r t i e s o f F i v eT r a n s o n i c Wind

TunnelTestSectionWallConfigurations,'' AEDC-TR-75-88, Aug. 1975.

31. Keener, E . R. and Hopkins, E. J.:"Accuracy o f P i t o t - P r e s s u r e Rakes f o r

TurbulentBoundary-Layer Measurements i n SupersonicFlow," NASA TN D-6229,
Mar. 1971.

32. A l l e n , J. M.: " E f f e c t so f Mach

Number on Pitot-ProbeDisplacement in a
T u r b u l e n t BoundaryLayer ,I' NASA TN D-7466, June 1974 ( a l s o see A l A A Jour.,
PP. 949-590, J u l y 1975).

173
 1II.H. STANDARD
MODELS

III.H.l. AGARD Force

Models

Theneed f o r standardmodels was r e c o g n i z e d e a r l y b y t h e AGARD Wind Tunnel

andModel T e s t i n gP a n e l .I n 1952, t h i sp a n e la d o p t e d AGARD Models A and B for
thepurpose o f b u i l d i n g and t e s t i n g c a l i b r a t i o n models i n supersonictunnels,
Ref. 1. I t was t h o u g h tt h a tt h i sw o u l d b e" e x t r e m e l yu s e f u li ne s t a b l i s h i n g
standards o f comparisonbetweenwindtunnels." It w o u l da l s o be u s e f u l i n
s t u d y i n gt h ee f f e c t s o f changes i n Reynolds number, t u r b u l e n c e , model s i z e and
model f a b r i c a t i o nt o l e r a n c e s .

AGARD Model A was an e x i s t i n g r o c k e t body w i t h f i n s w h i c h had been designed

by NACA and had t h ep r i o rd e s i g n a t i o n o f RH-IO. AGARD Model B i s awing-body
c o m b i n a t i o nw h i c hc o n s i s t so f an o g i v e - c y l i n d e r anda deltawingwitha sym-
m e t r i c a l , 4% c i r c u l a r - a r c a i r f o i l . I n 1954, t h e AGARD Model B was m o d i f i e d
t o i n c l u d ev e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a lt a i ls u r f a c e s .T h i sc o n f i g u r a t i o n was desig-
nated AGARD Model C and was d e s i g n e d " p r i m a r i l y f o r t e s t i n g and c a l i b r a t i o n i n
t h et r a n s o n i c speedrange.'' The purpose o f t h e t a i l was t o have a model which
wouldbe more s e n s i t i v e t o flow c u r v a t u r e and wall r e f l e c t i o n s o f shockand/or
expansion waves.

The g e o m e t r i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r t h e v a r i o u s AGARD models a r e g i v e n i n

References 1 , 2 and 3. The associatedwindtunneldata i s presented i n Reference
4. Goethert(Ref. 5) a l s od i s c u s s e s some o f t h e e a r l y AEDC d a t ao b t a i n e df o r
AGARD Models B and C. The f o l l o w i n gc o n c l u s i o n was d e r i v e df r o mt h e s ee a r l y
tests. Based oncomparisons o f d a t af o r models h a v i n g 1.15% and 0.01% blockage
inthe PWT 16T TransonicTunnel, i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s
c o u l d beachieved i nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s i f a i r c r a f t models d i d n o t exceedabout
1% b l o c k a g er a t i o . Responses t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n d i c a t e t h i s r u l e o f thumb
has been a d o p t e da l m o s tu n i v e r s a l l y . However, f o rp r e c i s i o nt e s t i n g ,G o e t h e r t
(Ref. 5) recommended b l o c k a g er a t i o s be keptassmallas 0.5% and w i t h awing
span n o te x c e e d i n gh a l ft h et u n n e lw i d t h .

These e a r l y c o n c l u s i o n s werebasedon the results of testing force models.

The more r e c e n t t e s t i n g o f t h e p a s t Few years hasemployedmodels designed t o
measure p r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o n s . I t i s now known t h a t a i r c r a f t models w i t h 1%
t u n n e lb l o c k a g ec a ne x p e r i e n c ec o n s i d e r a b l ew a l li n t e r f e r e n c e ,e s p e c i a l l yn e a r

174
Mach
one, even i n t h eb e s tv e n t i l a t e dt u n n e l s . Thus, c u r r e n ts t u d i e s of tran-
sonicwallinterferencerequiretheuse of pressuremodels to providethe
necessary data.

lll.H.2. Transonic
Pressure
Models: 2-D

Inthepast, anumber o f a i r f o i l s have been used i n s t u d i e s o f t r a n s o n i c

w a l li n t e r f e r e n c e . What f o l l o w s i s a brieflistofairfoils whichhavebeen
employed r e c e n t l y .

Weeks (Ref. 6) hasused a s y m n e t r i c a l , 6% c i r c u l a r - a r c a i r f o i l t o study

w a l li n t e r f e r e n c e i n a c o n t o u r e d ,s l o t t e d - w a l tl u n n e l .I nF r a n c e ,a n NACA
64 A010 airfoil
* has beenused a t ONERA (Ref. 7) f o rt w o - d i m e n s i o n a ls t u d i e s of
s o l i d ,a d j u s t a b l ew a l l si nt r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s . Whereas, C a l s p a ns t u d i e so fw a l l s
w i t ha d j u s t a b l ep o r o s i t y have u t i l i z e d t h e s y m m e t r i c a l NACA 0012 a i r f o i l , Ref. 9.
A 15.2 cm (6 in.) chord modelhasbeen t e s t e di nt h eC a l s p a n 8 - f t Tunnel t o
p r o v i d eb a s e l i n ef o r c e and p r e s s u r ed a t aw h i c ha r ew a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e e .A l s o ,
this airfoil hasbeen found t o be l e s s s e n s i t i v e t o Reynolds number and tunnel
flow q u a l i t y . Thus, P i n d z o l a ,e ta l . (Ref. 10) have recommended t h e NACA 0012
a i r f o i l beadoptedas a standard 2-D model i n o r d e r t h a t t r a n s o n i c w a l l d e v e l o p -
ment work have a c m o n basis.

I I l.H.3. TransonicPressureModels: 3-0

A 20deg c o n e - c y l i n d e r hasbeenused i n anumber of transonic facilities

( p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r M > 1) t o s e l e c t o p e r a t i o n a l v a l u e s o f w a l l p o r o s i t y , w a l l
a n g l e and plenumpumping. Davis and Graham (Ref. 1 1 ) havedescribed a typical
c a s ew h i c hi l l u s t r a t e st h i sp r o c e d u r e . They have a l s or e v i e w e dt h ew a l l -
i n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e e ,t r a n s o n i cd a t aw h i c hi sa v a i l a b l ef o rt h i s model geometry.

A t onetime, i t was t h o u g h tt h a t if thewallparameterswereselected to

g i v e minimum i n t e r f e r e n c e on t h i s model,through Mach one, t h i s w o u l d b e s a t i s -
f a c t o r y for t e s t i n g a l l t y p e s o f models.However, anumber ofaircraft model
t e s t s have shown t h i si sn o tt h e case.Forexample,Davis'(Ref.12)transonic
t e s t sw i t ha n AGARD Model B i n d i c a t e db e t t e r agreement w i t h t h e AGARD r e f e r e n c e
datacouldbeobtainedwithdifferentwallsettings.
 Thus, c a r e must b ee x e r c i s e di ns e l e c t i n g a c a l i b r a t i o n model. I np a r t i c -
ular, it i s now r e c o g n i z e dt h a t a c a l i b r a t i o n model mustbe ' % i m i l a r l l t o models
w h i c ha r et o be t e s t e d .U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,p r e c i s ec r i t e r i af o r how s i m i l a r have
n o ty e t been defined. A l l t h a t may be s a i d a t t h i s t i m e i s : more than one type
o fs t a n d a r dc a l i b r a t i o n model i s necessary f o r v a l i d t e s t i n g o f m i s s i l e , a i r f o i l ,
and a i r c r a f t models i n e x i s t i n g t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s .

The t e s t s o f Treon, e t a l . (Refs. 13 and 14) e s t a b l i s h e dt h e need f o r

i d e n t i c a l models and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n when comparing r e s u l t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t t u n -
n e l s .I nt h i ss t u d y , a 0.0226-scale model o ft h e Lockheed C-5A was t e s t e di n
theCalspan 8-ft., t h e NASA Ames 11-by 1 1 - f t . , and t h e AEDC 1 6 - f t . (16T) t r a n -
sonicwindtunnels. The same c o m b i n a t i o no fm d e l - s u p p o r ts t i n g and i n t e r n a l
forcebalance was used i n each o f t h et u n n e l s .T h i sa l l o w e da n a l y s e s of s m a l l d i f -

ferences i n blockage,buoyancy and Reynolds number e f f e c t s w h i c h w o u l d n o t have

been p o s s i b l e i f d i f f e r e n t models hadbeenused. I na d d i t i o nt of o r c e s and
moments, seven o r i f i c e s onthefuselagewereused t o measure l o c a l s t a t i c p r e s -
sure.Thisenabledcomparisons o f buoyancyandmodel-induced changes i n
e f f e c t i v ef r e e s t r e a m Mach number. The r e s u l t i n g c o r r e c t i o n s f o r r e l a t i v e buoyancy
and e f f e c t i v eR e y n o l d s numberk reducedthespread inaxialforce by 75 percent
f o r Mach number b e l o w t h e d r a g r i s e v a l u e ? F i n a l l y , t h e s e t e s t s p e r m i t t e d
estimatesofthe"bestexpectancyagreement"betweendataobtained inthethree
facilities.

The u t i l i t y o f t h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone(Refs. 15-17) has been discussed

i nS e c t i o n 1 I I . F . and will n o t be repeatedhere. However, it should be noted
t h a tt h i ss t u d yo ft h ee f f e c t so ft u n n e le n v i r o n m e n t o nb o u n d a r yl a y e rt r a n s i t i o n
was a l s o basedon thefundamentalpremiseemployed by Treon, e t a l . Namely,
the same model, i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , and support mechanism a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r m e a n i n g f u l
results.

A s i m p l i f i e d ,b u tv e r s a t i l e ,a i r c r a f t modelhasbeen t e s t e di nt h e AEDC 16T

and 4T t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l s by Binion(Ref. 8). Themodel c o n s i s t so f twogeo-
m e t r i c a l l ys i m i l a r ,c e n t e r b o d i e sw i t hr e c t a n g u l a r - p l a n f o r m wings. The c e n t e r -
bodieshavepointed,ogive-typenoses and thewingshavethe NACA 63 A006 a i r f o i l
p r o f ile. The smal l e r body servedas a t a i 1 and was mountedona separateforce

* See
p. 150.
A*
Subsequent t o t h i s work,Binion and Lo (Ref. 15) showed, i n some cases,wall
i n t e r f e r e n c e canovershadow t h e e f f e c t s o f R e y n o l d s number v a r i a t i o n s .
balance and sting. Four different model arrangementswere tested in both tunnels,
viz., the wing by itself, the tall by itself, and the wing with tail mounted close
behind and at a more aft position.

and pressure distributions

After the force tests, the tests were repeated
and the wings.
were measured on the centerbodies Angles of attack were
repeated by duplicating the pressure difference across the model forebody which
was initially calibrated as a functlon of a in the 16T.

The conclusions reached by Binion include the following.

1. Flow angulari.tY can be induced into the tunnel flaw which is a function
of model configuration, model attitude, and tunnel configuration. This
flow angularity i s distinct from theusual upwash correctionand varies
nonlinearly with Mach numberand model incldence. No existing theo-
retical corrections can account forthis phenomena.

2. The movable tail feature confirmed the expected dependence of wall

interference on model configuration in the transonic regime. Also,
the more-aft tail position encountered wall-reflected disturbances
at supersonic Mach numbers.

3. The attainment of an interference-free value oflift does not ensure

an interference-free flow field.

4. There i s no value of porosity, with the present

AEDC 4T walls, which
this aircraft
will yield interference-free pressure distributions for
model (0.9% blockage) when extensive regionso f supercritical flaw
exists. The magnitude o f wall interference appears tobe a function
and the model-induced
of size and extent of supersonic pockets
pressure gradient at the wall.

A transonic transport model has been designed and developed at ONERA and
has been offered as a standard for transonic tunnel calibrations. A family
of five different sizeshas been fabricated so that an appropriate s i z e i s
available for even small tunnels. However, only the largest model provides
for measurements of wing pressure distributlons. An equivalent body of
revolution i s also available for thelarge model. A description of the model
geometry may be foundin Reference 19.

177
- .
 Two s i z e s o f t h i s model ( l a r g e M 5 and 1/4 s c a l es m a l l e r H3) have r e c e n t l y
been t e s t e d i n t h e AEDC 16T and 4T t u n n e l s and t h e NASA Ames 1 1 - f t t u n n e l as
p a r t o f a c o o p e r a t i v ep r o g r a mw i t h ONERA. The statedpurposes of thisstudy
were ' ' t o p r o v i d e an experimentaldatabase for (1) t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e o r e t i c a l
or e m p i r i c a l w a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r s and ( 2 ) t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
guidelinestoallowreasonableselectionofwind-tunnel-to-modelsizeratios
i nt h et r a n s o n i c speed regime.'' The t e s tr e s u l t s and e v a l u a t i o na r er e p o r t e d
by B i n i o n (Ref.19).

An unexpected r e s u l t o f t h e s e t e s t s was t h e o b s e r v e d s e n s i t i v i t y t o R e y n o l d s
number. I nf a c t ,t h e modelswerefound t o bemore s e n s i t i v et o Reynolds number
when boundary l a y e r t r a n s i t i o n was f i x e dt h a nw i t hf r e et r a n s i t i o n .A l s o ,
greatervariationofthedatafromtunnel-to-tunneloccurredwithfixedtransi-
tion. Wing pressuredata from t h e l a r g e r model showed t h e s ed i f f e r e n c e sw e r e
causedby d i f f e r e n c e si n shock-boundarylayerinteractions and t r a i l i n g edge
s e p a r a t i o n .F i n a l l y , even t h o u g hs t a t e - o f - t h e - a r tm a n u f a c t u r i n gt o l e r a n c e s
wereused t of a b r i c a t e ,t h em o d e l s ,t h e r ea p p e a r st o be s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a i l
incidence between t h e twomodels. Thisprecludedusefulmodel-to-modelcompari-
sons o f p i t c h i n g moment. I n summary, t h e ONERA modelswerefound t o be o v e r l y
s e n s i t i v e t o Reynolds number and t u n n e l f l o w q u a l i t y and e x h i b i t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t
model s i m i l a r i t yf o ra c c u r a t es t u d i e so fw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e . Thus, t h e
objectivesofthesetests were notachieved.

Based o n e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e AEDC s i m p l i f i e d a i r c r a f t modeland t h e ONERA

models, t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a haveevolved f o r amodel tostudytransonicwall-
interferenceproblems.*

1. The a i r c r a f t model shouldhave a s m a l lc y l i n d r i c a lc e n t e r b o d yw i t h

an o g i v e nose ( t h e c e n t e r b o d y musthouse a forcebalance and p r o v i d e
a passage f o r s u r f a c e p r e s s u r e 1 ines).
2. Surfacepressures on thecenterbodyshouldbeselected and c a l i b r a t e d
t o d i r e c t l y measure Mach number and a n g l e o f a t t a c k .
3. The wingshouldhave an NACA 0012 a i r f o i l , z e r o t a p e r , and should be
a l i g n e dw i t ht h ec e n t e r b o d ya x i s . A v a r i a b l e sweep f e a t u r ew o u l d be
desirableinordertostudytheeffectof l i f t o na x i a 1 , i n t e r f e r e n c e
gradients.
*Binion,
~ ~~ ~~~ ~

T. W.,
~

Jr., personalcommunication, AEDC, March 1977.

178
 4. The horizontal tail should be separately ins.trumcnted andgeometrically
similar to the wing.
5. Standardization of instrunentationand sting configuration i s essential.
6. Both model forces and pressure distributionson wings and centerbody
should be measured.

Work is continuing at AEDC to develop a model with these features.

In sunwnary, a satlsfactory aircraftmodel for calibrating transonicwind

tunnels does not yet exist. Until wall interference effects are clearly defined
a simplified aircraft
and separable from Reynolds number and flow quality effects,
model is required. Once this objective i s realized, more realistic aircraft
models, e.g., the ONERA transport models, canbe utilfzed much more effectively
for tunnel-to-tunnel comparisons.

179
 1II.H. References

1. "AGARD Wind Tunnel C a l i b r a t i o n Models,!' AGARD S p e c i f i c a t i o n 2, Sept. 1958.

. .

2. F a i l , R. and Garner, H. C.: " C a l i b r a t t o n Models f o r Dynamic Stabi 1 i t y Tests ,I'

AGARD Report 563,: 1968.

3. Curry, W. H . , ed.: "The F i r s t F i f t e e n ' Years o f t h e Supersoni c Tunnel

Association,''SandiaLaboratories,Sept. 1969.

4. H i l l s , R., ed.: "A.Review o f Measurements

on AGARD C a l i b r a t i on Model s ,'I
AGARDograph 64, Nov. 1961.

5. Goethert, B. H.: Transonic Wind

Tunne.1 Testing, Pergamon, 1961.

6. Weeks, T. M.: "Reduction o f TransonicSlottedWallInterference by Means

o fS l a tC o n t o u r i n g , " AFFDL-TR-74-139, March 1975.

7. C h e v a l li e r , J. P. : "SoufflerieTranssonique a' ParoisAuto-Adaptables,"

Wind TunnelDesign and T e s t i n g ~Techniques, AGARD-CP-174, March 1976.

8. Binion, T. W . , Jr.: "An I n v e s t i g a t i o no f Three-DimensionalWall Interference

i n a VariablePorosityTransonic Wind Tunnel ,'I AEDC-TR-74-74, Oct. 1974.

9. V i d a l , R. J.; Erickson, J. C., Jr.; and C a t l i n , P. A.: "Experiments w i t h

a S e l f - C o r r e c t i n g Wind Tunnel,'' Wind TunnelDesign and TestingTechniques,
AGARD-CP- 174, March 1976.

10. Pindzola, M.; Binion, T. W . , J r . ; and C h e v a l li e r , J. P. : "Design o f Tran-

sonicWorkingSections," A F u r t h e r Review o f C u r r e n t Research Aimed a t
theDesign and Operation o f Large Wind Tunnels, AGARD-AR-83, Sept. 1975

11. Davis,J. W. and

Graham, R. F.: "Wind-TunnelWall I n t e r f e r e n c eE f f e c t s
f o r 20 Cone-Cylinders," A l A A Jour.Spacecraft 5 Rockets, Oct. 1973
(a 1 so see NASA TN 0-7432).

12. Davis, J. W.: "AGARD Model B TransonicBlockageInvestigation," NASA

Marchall Space F l i g h tC e n t e r ,H u n t s v i l l e ,A l a . ,p r e s e n t e da t3 9 t h Semi-
Annual STA Meeting, Mar. 1973 ( r e f e r e n c e dw i t ha u t h o r ' sp e r m i s s i o n ) .

13. Treon, S. L.; Steinle, F. W.; H o f s t e t t e r , W. R.; and Hagerman, J. R . :

"Data C o r r e l a t i o n f r o m I n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f aHigh-Subsonic Speed Transport
A i r c r a f t Model i n ThreeMajorTransonic Wind Tunnels," A l A A Paper No.
69-794, J u l y 1969.
180
14. Treon, S. L. ; Steinle, F. W. ; Hagerman, J. R. ; Black, J. A. ; and Buffington,
R. J.: "Further Correlation of Data From Investigations of a High-Subsonic-
Speed Transport AircraftModel in Three Major Transonic Wind Tunnels,"
A I M Paper No. 71-291, March 1971.
15. Binion, T. W., J r . and Lo, C. F.: "Appl fcation of Wall Corrections to
Transonic Wind Tunnel Data," AlAA Paper No. 72-1009, Sept. 1972.

16. Dougherty, N. S., Jr. and Steinle, F. W.: "Transition Reynolds Number
Ccnnpari sons in Several Ma Jor Transonic ,I' AlAA Paper No. 74-627,
Tunnels
July 1974.
17. Dougherty, N. S., Jr.: "Prepared Comment on Cone Transition Reynolds
Number Data Correlation Study,'' AGARD-CP-187, June 1975.

18. Whitfield, J. and Dougherty, N. S., J r . : "A Survey of Transition Reynolds

Number Work at AEDC," to be presented as Paper No. 25 at AGARD Fluid
Dynamics Panel Symposium on Laminar-Turbulent Transition, Copenhagen,
Denmark, May 2-4, 1977.

19. Binion, T. W.,Jr.: "Tests o f the ONERA Calibration Models in Three

Transonic Wind Tunnels," AEDC-TR-76-133, Novo 1976-

181
 111.1. OPTICAL METHODS

111.1.1. Supersonic
Tunnels

The use of s c h l i e r e n and shadowgraph flow-visualization-methods t o d e t e c t

unwantedshocks i n a n empty t e s t - s e c t i o n i s w e l l known (Ref. 1 ) and, i n f a c t ,
may be designated a c l a s s i c a lt e c h n i q u e
*. Obviously,theobservanceof a shock
i nt h e e m p t y - t u n n e li n d i c a t e sc o r r e c t i v ea c t i o ni sn e c e s s a r y . These means o f
flowvisualizationarealsohelpfulinassessingtheperformance af probesand
rakesand t h e i ri n t e r a c t i o nw i t hn e a r b yb o u n d a r i e s .H i g hq u a l i t yp i c t u r e sa l s o
enable flow separation on probes to be observed and t h e r e b y p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l
datatoguideimproveddesigns.

A third,classical method f o r f l o w v i s u a l i z a t i o n i s t h e Mach-Zehnder

interferometer. However, theseinstrumentsareseldom used f o rw i n dt u n n e l
c a l i b r a t i o n because o f t h e i r c o s t and h y p e r s e n s i t i v i t y t o v i b r a t i o n and a l i g n -
ment e r r o r s .

D e t a i l e dd i s c u s s i o n so ft h e s e methods may befound i n a r a t h e rl a r g e

number ofreferences.References 2 thru 4 a r er e p r e s e n t a t i v eo fb o t ho l d e r
and newer l i t e r a t u r e w h i c h d e a l s w i t h t h e s e t h r e e methods o f f l o w v i s u a l i z a -
tion.
111.1.2. Transonic
Tunnels

A s p r e v i o u s l yd i s u c s s e di nS e c t i o n III.D., movement o f a transonicshock

ona staticpressureprobeisstronglyaffected byblockage and w a l lc h a r a c t e r -
istics. For example, t h es c h l i e r e np h o t o g r a p h so f Page (Ref. 5) a r eq u i t e
i n s t r u c t i v e as t o t h e e f f e c t s ona probecaused by v a r y i n gt u n n e lb l o c k a g ef r o m
0.25% t o 0.005%.

In thecase of s u p e r c r i t i c a l f l o w a b o u t a hemisphere-cylinderprobe,the
shadowgraphs o f Hsieh(Ref. 6 ) w e r ev e r yh e l p f u li nd e t e c t i n g boundarylayer
s e p a r a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e measuredpressure distributions.

*Most o ft h er e s p o n d e n t st ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r ei n d i c a t e dt h e yr o u t i n e l y used
one or b o t h o f thesetechniques.

182
 A t lowsupersonicspeeds,schlierens andshadowgraphs a r ev e r yu s e f u l
in studiesoftheshock-cancellationpropertiesofventilatedwalls, e.g.,
Ref. 7. Also,Dougherty, e ta l . (Ref. 8) h a v ev e r ye f f e c t i v e l y used s c h l i e r e n
photographs t o s t u d y t h e sound f i e l d g e n e r a t e d by p e r f o r a t e d w a l l s when ex-
posed t oh i g h - s u b s o n i cf l o w s .

111.1.3. Newer Methods

Newer o p t i c a l methods f o r f l o w v i s u a l i z a t i o n i n c l u d e l a s e r D o p p l e r
v e l o c i m e t e r s (LDV) , h o l o g r a p h i cv e l o c i m e t e r s (HV) , and h o l o g r a p h i ci n t e r f e r o m e t r y
( H I ) f o rd e n s i t y measurements. The primaryadvantage o f LDV'sandHV's istheir
p o t e n t i a l t o m e a s u r et h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a lf l o wf i e l d sw i t h o u td i s t u r b i n gt h e flow.
As
we have seen, t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t i n t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s near Mach
one.

The c u r r e n t s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t o f LDV'sand theirapplicationtotunnel

c a l i b r a t i o ni s reviewed i n Appendix I I . Sincetheaccuracyofcurrent LDV s y s -
tems i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.4 - 0.5%, t h e ya r en o ty e ts u p e r i o rt oc o n v e n t i o n a l
probeswhichprovidecomparableaccuraciesof 0.1%.

The fundamentals o f h o l o g r a p h i c v e l o c i m e t r y a r e r e v i e w e d b y S h o f n e r , e t a l .
(Ref. 9). A verycomprehensivereview ofthe use o f holography i n windtunnel
t e s t i n g hasbeen compiledby Havener (Ref. IO). Progress(up t o 1975) i na u t o -
mating H I d a t ar e d u c t i o n i s reportedby Hannah and
Havener (Ref.11).Since
this is still a developingtechnology,applicationsofholographytoempty-tunnel
c a l i b r a t i o n appears t o be i n t h e f u t u r e .

SparksandEzekiel(Ref. 12) have r e c e n t l yd e m o n s t r a t e dt h eu s e f u l n e s so f

LaserStreakVelocimetry (LSV) f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e measurements o f low-speed v e l o c i t y
f i e l d s nearmodels.Thistechnique has theadvantage o fp r o v i d i n g ,s i m u l t a n e o u s l y ,
v e l o c i t i e s on a planeas opposed t o t h e p o i n t - b y - p o i n t measurements r e q u i r e d w i t h
LDV's. However, theaccuracy o f LSV's i sc u r r e n t l yi n s u f f i c i e n tf o re m p t y - t u n n e l
c a l i b r a t i o n s .F i n a l l y , Sedney, e ta l . (Ref. 13) have g i v e n a r e v i e wo ff l o wt r a -
certechniques and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s i n s u p e r s o n i c - f l o w f i e l d d i a g n o s t i c s .

183
 111.1. References

1. pope,A.and Goin, K. L.: High-speed Wind TunnelTesting.,Wiley, 1965.

2. Ladenburg, R. W.; Lewis, B.; Pease, R. N.; and T a y l o r , H. S. (editors):

P h y s i c a l Measurements i n Gas Dynamicand Combustion, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1954.

3. Vasil'er, A. L.: S c h l i e r e n Methods, Transl.by A. Baruch, I s r a e l Program

forScientificTranslations, Jerusalem, New York andLondon, 1971.

4. Merzkirch, \J.: F l o w V i s u a l i z a t i o n , Academic Press, 1974.

5. Page, W. A.: "ExperimentalStudy o f theEquivalenceofTransonicFlow

AboutSlenderCone-Cylinders o f C i r c u l a r and E l l i p t i c CrossSection,''
NACA TN 4233,Apr i 1 1958.

6. Hsieh, T.: "Hemisphere-Cylinder i n TransonicFlow, Mm = 0.7

1.0," AlAA
Jour.,Oct. 1975 ( a l s o A l A A Paper No. 75-83, Jan. 1975).

7. Goethert, B. H.: Transonic Wind TunnelTesting, Pergamon, 1961.

8. Dougherty, N. S . , Jr.; Anderson, C. F.; and Parker, R. L., Jr.: "An

E x p e r i m e n t a lI n v e s t i g a t i o no fT e c h n i q u e s to SuppressEdgetones From
P e r f o r a t e d Wind Tunnel Mal Is," AEDC-TR-75-88, Aug. 1975.

9. Shofner, F. M . ; Menzel, R . ; and R u s s e l l , T. G.: "Fundamentals o f Holographic

Velocimetry," AFFDL-TR-68-140, Nov. 1968.

10. Havener, A. G.: "A UsersGuild on PulseLaserHolography f o r Wind Tunnel

Testing," ARL TR 75-0213,June 1975.

11. Hannah, B. W. and Havener, A. G.: " A p p l i c a t i o n so f Automated Holographic

I n t e r f e r o m e t r y , "I n t ' l Congress on I n s t r u m e n t a t i o ni n AerospaceSimulation
Faci 1 i ties, I EEE Pub. 75 CHO 993-6 AES , Sept. 1975.
12. Sparks, G. W., J r . and E z e k i e l , S . : "LaserStreakVelocimeterfor Two-
DimensionalFlows i n Gases," A l A A Jour.,Vol. 15, No. 1, Jan. 1977.

13. Sedney, R.; Kitchens, C. W . , Jr.; and Bush, C.:

C. "The Marriage o f O p t i c a l ,
Tracer and S u r f a c eI n d i c a t o rT e c h n i q u e si nF l o wV i s u a l i z a t i o n , " BRL R-1763,
USA B a l l i s t i c ResearchLaboratories, Feb. 1975.

184
 1II.J. Humidity Measurements

The e f f e c t s of moisture condensation and t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r air drying

have been discussed i nS e c t i o n Il.C.7. Measurement and m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e

m o i s t u r ec o n t e n to ft h et u n n e lf l o w 1s t h e r e f o r e an e s s e n t i a l pa r t o f t u n n e l

c a l i b r a t i o n and operation.

The m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t o f a gas i s expressed i n a number o f ways; r e l a t i v e

humidity(ratioofmoisturepartialpressuretosaturationpressure), dew

p o i n t (or f r o s tp o i n t )t e m p e r a t u r ea ta t m o s p h e r i cp r e s s u r e ,s p e c i f i ch u m i d i t y

(MSS o f water per mass o f d r y g a s ) , and volume r a t i o ( p a r t s o f w a t e r vapor

permillionpartsofair). The dew p o i n to ri c e - p o i n ta ta t m o s p h e r i cp r e s s u r e

i s t h e most commonly usedform o fe x p r e s s i o nf o rw i n dt u n n e lo p e r a t i o n s .

A number o f measurement systems a r e u t i l i z e d by f a c i l i t i e s r e s p o n d i n g

t ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e ,e x t e n d i n gf r o mt h ev i s u a lo b s e r v a t i o no ff o gi nt h e

t u n n e lf l o w t o completelyautomatic,continuouslyrecording dew p o i n t system5 .

All dew p o i n t measurement instruments can be c a l s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e bas i c

p r i n c i p l e s used.

One o f t h e more basicnon-continuous dew p o i n t measurement instruments

operatesontheprincipleofallowing a hand-pump p r e s s u r i z e d sample o f gas,

a t known pressure and temperature, t o expand t o room temperature(Ref. 1). If

theexpansionreducesthesampletemperature t o or belowthe dew p o i n t tempera-

tures,fogiscreatedwhich may beobserved visuallythrough a viewing window.

A t r i a l and e r r o r p r o c e d u r e i s r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i n i t i a l samplepres-

surewhich will expand t o c r e a t e a j u s t - v i s i b l e f o g - S i n c e a known r e l a t i o n -

s h i p e x i s t s between pressure and t e m p e r a t u r e r a t i o s , t h e dew p o i n t canbe

d e t e r m i n e du s i n ga m b i e n ta st h ef i n a lp r e s s u r e . These i n s t r u m e n t sa r el o wi n

cost, reasonably accurate and a r e w i d e l y used b o t h as p r i m a r y dew p o i n t m o n i t o r s

185
and for m o n i t o r i n gt h ea c c u r a c y o f l e s sb a s i ci n s t r u m e n t s . They p r o v i d e o n l y

p e r i o d i c or spot checks and are therefore not satlsfactory for f a c i l i t i e s

where r e l a t i v e l y sudd,en changes i n dew p o i n t canoccur. A 1 1 readings must

be manuallyrecorded.Heasurementsbelowabout -4OC a r e d i f f i c u l t t o make.

C o n t i n u o u si n d i c a t i n g and r e c o r d i n gh u m i d i t ys e n s o r si n c l u d et h eD u n m r e

typewhich changes r e s i s t a n c e i n a n o n - l i n e a r f a s h i o n w i t h r e l a t i v e h u m i d i t y .

A modifiedformrespdndsto dew po'int(Ref.' 2). Each sensor has a1i m i t e d

range, so t h a ts e v e r a la r er e q u i r e d i f thehumidltyrange i s large. The range

extends downward t o about-40 C.

An e l e c t r o l y t i c h u m i d i t y s e n s o r i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e . These sensors u t i l i z e

an element which electrolyzes water into hydrogen andoxygen,causingan

e l e c t r o l y s i sc u r r e n tt o flow. The e l e c t r o l y t i ci n s t r u m e n ti su s u a l l yc a l i b r a t e d

inpartspermillion, with fullscaleranges aslowas 0 to 100 p a r t s p e r m i l l i o n .

T h i si n s t r u m e n t ,l i k et h er e s i s t a n c ed e v i c e , canbe c o n f i g u r e dt ob o t hi n d i c a t e

h u m i d i t y and p r o v i d e an e l e c t r i c a l s i g n a l f o r an e x t e r n a lr e c o r d i n gd e v i c e .

Dew point t e m p e r a t u r e s c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d b y c o n t r o l l i n g a u t o m a t i c a l l y

thetemperatureofapolishedmetalmirrortothepointthatatrace film o f

c o n d e n s a t i o n( o rf r o s t )i sm a i n t a i n e d .S e v e r a il n s t r u m e n t s based on t h i s

p r i n c i p l e have been developed. More r e c e n tt y p e sa r es i m p l i f i e di nt h a tt h e

therm-electriccoolingeffect i s used t o c h i l l t h e mirror ( w i t h a u x i l i a r y

r e f r i g e r a t i o n If necessary). The condensation film i sa u t o m a t i c a l l ym a i n t a i n e d

byfeedbackcontrol ofthemirrortemperature,utilizinganopticalsource

reflectrylightfromthecooled mirror t o a p a i r o f p h o t o - d e t e c t o r s f o r m i n g a

bridge circuit. The dew pointtemperature i s measuredby athermocoupleor

186
r e s i s t a n c e - t e m p e r a t u r ed e t e c t o ra t t a c h e dd i r e c t l yt ot h em i r r o r . The dew

pointisindicated byameter o ro t h e rI n d i c a t o r , and thetemperaturesensor

o u t p u t may a l s o berecorded,suppliedtothewindtunneldatasystem,etc.

The rangecanextend t o aslow as 200 OK (-100 OF).

A continuous-recording, dew p o i n t m o n i t o r has obviousadvantagesboth

w i t hr e g a r dt om o n i t o r i n g and c o n t r o l o f - t u n n e l ineasurements.Theycan also

p r o v i d e Information ontheperformance of dryersand.othertunnelequipment.

 I I I . J. References

1. Pope, A. ; and Goin, K. L.: High Speed

Wind TunnelTesTing., pp. 223-226,

John Wiley and Sons, New York.

2. Doeblin, E. 0 . : Measurement
Systems; A p p l i c a t i o n and Design, pp. 596-'598,

McGraw-Hi 1 1 , New York.

3. Fraade, I). J.: "Measuring M o i s t u r ei n Gases," Instruments and Control

Systems, Apri 1 1963.

188
I

IV. ERROR AND UNCERTAINTY I N CALIBRATION MEASUREMENTS

Treatment o f accuracyandsources oferrorinexperimentaldatainvolves

p r i n c i p l e so fs t a t i s t i c s and p r o b a b i l i t y .U n f o r t u n a t e l y , eachbranch of

sciencetends t o d e v e l o ps p e c i a l i z e dt e r m i n o l o g y ,w h i c h impedes understanding

and communication i n comparing measurement r e s u l t s . An attempt will there-

f o r e be made t o d e f i n e and r e c m e n d b a s i c t e r m i n o l o g y w h i c h may be used t o

advantage i n e v a l u a t i n g , d e f i n i n g and c o m n u n i c a t i n gc a l i b r a t i o na c c u r a c y .

As a f i r s t s t e p , a d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f v a r i o u s t y p e s o f e r r o r s
will be stated.

1V.A. Random E r r o r

E r r o r s may be c l a s s i f i e d i n two generalcategories: random and f i x e d .

Random e r r o r i s f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o by t h ee n g i n e e ri nl e s sp r e c i s et e r m s

as"scatter,""noise,"etc., a l li m p l y i n gt h a tr e p e a t e d measurements do n o t

y i e l dt h e same value.Mostprocessesaresuchthat i f a s u f f i c i e n t l yl a r q e

number o f measurements a r e made and the frequency with which each v a l u e i s

measured i s p l o t t e d a g a i n s t t h e measured v a l u e ,t h er e s u l t i n gp l o t( t h ep r o b a -

bilitydensityfunction) will a p p r o a c ht h ef a m i l i a rb e l l - s h a p e dn o r m a ld i s t r i -

b u t i o nc u r v e .I nt h i sc a s e ,t h ea r i t h m e t i c mean v a l u e ,o r average,

N
-
xi
N (4.A .1)
i=l

o c c u r sa tt h e peak o ft h ec u r v e . When p l o t t e di nn o r m a l i z e df o r m ,t h ea r e a

underthecurve i su n i t y . The p r e c i s i o n ,w h i c hi sa measure o f t h e s c a t t e r

o r random e r r o r , i s s p e c i f i e d bythestandarddeviation,

(4.A.2)
a =
N-1
i=l
189
 if,the distribution is based on a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e number o f measurements,

68 p e r c e n t o f t h e measurements will l i e w i t h i n t h e +1 u
range - , 95.4 percent

w i t h i n +2 - u and 99.7 p e r c e n t w i t h i n 23 u . A wide!. f l a t d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e r e -

f o r ec o r r e s p o n d st o measurements w i t h a l a r g e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a large

amount o f s c a t t e r , a l a r g e random e r r o r , or a l a c k o f p r e c i s i o n , a l l o f

w h i c hr e f e rt ot h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e measurement.The random e r r o r

isquantativelystatedin terms o f t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n and e r r o rs t a t e m e n t s

shouldalways be s p e c i f i e d as 1 u ,2 u , etc.
1V.B. Fixed Error

A second f o r m o f measurement e r r o r i s r e f e r r e d t o a ss y s t e m a t i ce r r o r ,f i x e d

e r r o r or b i a s .T h i s component o f e r r o r will be t h e same i n each o f many repeated

measurements. The magnitude and s i g n o f t h e b i a s may n o t be known a p r i o r i s i n c e

thesecan be determinedonly by comparison w i t h t h e t r u e v a l u e o f t h e measured

quantity. A s one example, an undetected change i n t h e c a l i b r a t i o n o f an i n s t r u -

ment suchas a pressuretransducer will i n t r o d u c e a f i x e d b i a s o f unknown magni-

tude and sign. Upon d e t e c t i o n ,t h i sb i a s or f i x e de r r o r can beremoved by

r e c a l i b r a t i o n .S i n c e unknown f i x e de r r o r sa r en o tc o r r e c t a b l e ,u n l e s sd e t e c t e d ,

t h e i rm i n i m i z a t i o n depends (1) upon c a r e f u l mon t o r i n go fr e s u l t s , (2) r o u t i n e

p r e - a n dp o s t - t e s tc a l i b r a t i o n s o f instruments, n place, (3) end-to-end c a l i b r a -

t i o n s o f i n s t r u m e n t sp r i o rt o and d u r i n g t e s t s , etcT
. his same philosophycan

be a p p l i e d t o a basicinstrument suchas a pres S u r e t r a n s d u c e r or t o t h e t u n n e l -

f l o wc a l i b r a t i o n . The o b j e c t i v es h o u l d be t oe l i m i n a t ea l ll a r g e , unknown

f i x e de r r o r s .

Some t y p e s o f unknown f i x e d errors cannot be r e a d i l y e l i m i n a t e d by

c a l ib r a t i o n . An example m i g h t be t h e d r a g o f a standardmodel,where no " t r u e "

v a l u ei s known. F a c i l i t y - t o - f a c i l i t y comparisonsallowonly an e s t i m a t eo ft h e
probable maximum magnitude o f t h e b i a s . C o r r e c t i o n may b e p o s s i b l e o n l y t o t h e

extentthatthecomparisontestsallowdeterminationof and c o r r e c t i o n f o r t h e

cause(orcauses)ofthebias(or a p o r t i o nt h e r e o f ) .

The f i x e d e r r o r limit, whichnormallymust be e s t i m a t e d ,i st h eu p p e r

limit o n t h e f i x e d e r r o r o r b i a s , and may be symmetrical o r non-symmetrical,

i.e., i t may be 0, + o r 0, - rather than -

+.

1V.C. Uncertainty

The t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y i n t e r v a l f o r ameasurement r e p r e s e n t st h el a r g e s t ,

r e a s o n a b l y - e x p e c t e de r r o r( i . e . ,t h et r u ev a l u es h o u l df a l li nt h eu n c e r t a i n t y

i n t e r v a l ) and i s a combination o ft h ep r e c i s i o n( s t a n d a r dd e v i a t i o n ) and t h e

estimatedbias.

A method described by Abernathy, e t a l . (Ref. 1) and recornendedbythe

N a t i o n a l Bureau o f Standardsexpressestheuncertaintyastherangecentered

aboutthe mean value and d e f i n e d as

-
U p + (B+tg5u) (4.C.l)

Where U i st h eu n c e r t a i n t y , B t h eb i a s or f i x e de r r o r 1 imit, and t i st h e

95
9 5 t hp e r c e n t i l ep o i n tf o rt h eS t u d e n t "t" d i s t r i b u t i o n . The v a l u eo f t

depends onthe number o fv a l u e s used i n computing u ; f o r a l a r g e number o f

measurements theStudent t d i s t r i b u t i o ni si d e n t i c a lt ot h e normal d i s t r i b u -

tion. The use o ft h e t f a c t o ri n c r e a s e st h eu n c e r t a i n t y limit when small

95
samples a r e used t oc a l c u l a t e( o r , more a c c u r a t e l y ,t oe s t i m a t e ) d . Abernathy,

e ta l . recommended t h a t a v a l u eo f 2.0 be used f o r t f o r 3 1 o r moresamples

95
(compared t o 1.96 f o r an i n f i n i t e number).Reference ( 1 ) and most s t a t i s t i c s

t e x t s (e.g., Ref. 2 ) c o n t a i nt a b l e so fS t u d e n t ' s t d i s t r i b u t i o n sf r o mw h i c h

t g 5 can be o b t a i n e df o rl e s st h a n 30 samples. S t a t i s t i c a l methods employing

the t distribution are frequently called small-sample methods f o r o b v i o u s

191
 r e a s o n s .A l t h o u g ht h i s example I ss i m p l i f i e d , it canbeextended t oI n c l u d e

othererror terms.

An a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m i n a c c u r a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f measurement e r r o r ,

not discussedabove, isthatthe measured p r o p e r t i e s n o r m a l l y have small-

a m p l i t u d ev a r i a t i o n sw i t ht i m e .I na d d i t i o nt oo b t a i n i n g a statistically

adequate number o f samples, t h e sample i n t e r v a l must span a t l e a s t one com-

p l e t e c y c l e o f thelowest-frequency component o f tunnelunsteadiness,as

discussed by H u h l s t e i n and Coe, (Ref. 3).

1V.D. E r r oPr r o p o g a t i o n

In essentially all cases, c a l i b r a t i o np a r a m e t e r sa r ed e t e r m i n e df r o m

b a s i cp r o p e r t i e sw h i c ha r e measured and a known f u n c t i o n r e l a t i n g t h e measured

q u a n t i t i e s and thedesiredparameter. An obviousexamplewould be thedetermina-

t i o n o f Machnumber i nt h et e s ts e c t i o nf r o m measured pressures. Random error

s o u r c e sw o u l di n c l u d et h ep r e c i s i o n( s t a n d a r dd e v i a t i o n s )o ft h ep r e s s u r e

measurements. S t a t i cp r e s s u r ep r o b eu n c e r t a i n t yl i m i t s may be estimated as

a f i x e db i a si nt h e absence o f a c a l i b r a t i o n .A n o t h e rf i x e db i a sc o u l d be

t h ee s t i m a t e du n c e r t a i n t y in y . As an i l l u s t r a t i v e example, t h e random error

i n Mach number can be c a l c u l a t e d f r o m

(4.D.1)

where t h ev a r i a t i o n si n H and P a r et a k e nt o be u n c o r r e l a t e d . The f i x e d

S

e r r o r or b i a s limit can s i m i l a r l y be c a l c u l a t e d from

(4.D .2)

192
where and Bp a r et h ee s t f m a t e du n c e r t a i n t y 1 i m i t sf o rt h er a t i o of
Y
s p e c i f i c h e a t s and f o r t h e s t a t i c p r o b e e r r o r , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The r e s u l t s can be combined a c c o r d i n gt o Eq. (4.C.1) t od e t e r m i n et h e

t o t a lu n c e r t a i n t yi n t e r v a lf o r a s p e c i f i c( p o i n t ) Mach number measurement.

(4.D.3).

The u n c e r t a i n t y i n t e r v a l o f an i n d i v i d u a lp r o p e r t y measurement, suchas

, .

a pressure,canalso be estimated as above;where i n d i v i d u a le r r o rs o u r c e ss u c h

as t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h et r a n s d u c e r ,t h ee x c i t a t i o n power supply,the

i n s t r u m e n t a t i o na m p l i f i e r and t h e a n a l o g - t o - d i g i t a l c o n v e r t e r a r e a l l t a k e n

i n t o account.Normally,however,thecalibrationisperformedend-to-end

u t i l i z i n g a l l components so t h a t a l l o f t h e above f a c t o r s a r e t a k e n i n t o

accountand a t t r i b u t e dt ot h ep r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r .

193
 IV. Ref erences

1. Abernathy, R. B., e ta l and Thompson, J. W., Jr.: "Handbook; Uncertainty

i n Gas Turbine Heasuremcnts," AEDC-TR-73-5, February 1973 (also C P l A No. 180).

2. b e l , P. G . : I n t r o d u c t i o nt oH a t h e m a t i c a lS t a t i s t i c s , pp402-403,John

Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.

3. H u h l s t e i n , L. Jr., and Coe, C. F.: " I n t e g r a t i o n TimeRequired tG Extract

AccurateStatic and Dynamic Data From Transonic Wind TunnelTests," AlAA

Paper 75-142, Pasadena, Cal i f . , Jan. 1975.

194
 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

V.A. Summary o fS t a t e - o f - t h e - A r to fT r a n s o n i c and

Supersonic Wind Tunnel C a l i b r a t i o n

Reference hasbeen made t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s o f t h i s r e p o r t

toinformation,obtained from t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y , l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h and,
personalcontacts. A condensat.ion o f t h i si n f o r m a t i o n has
been presented
where a p p r o p r i a t e .P r i m a r i l y ,i n f o r m a t i o n hasbeensummarized i n anattempt
to define "best state-of-the-art" calibration accuracy. , A t t e n t i o n has been
focusedontheprimaryproblemswhichwereconsideredto bemeasurements of ,

s t a g n a t i o n and s t a t i c p r e s s u r e and c a i c u l a t i o n o f Mach number. A concluding

sumnary o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e for convenience.

Based onajudgment evaluationofdatareportedinthequestionnaires,

t h eb e s t ,c u r r e n t , pressure-measurementaccuracy(onthebasisofstandard
d e v i a t i o n )r a n g e s from 0.025 t o 0.10 percent. These accuracies were r e p o r t e d
f o rb o t h blowdownand continuoustunnels.

The survey showed t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w i c e as many transonictunnelsuse

plenumchamber p r e s s u r ef o r a r e f e r e n c et om o n i t o r Mach number, asopposed to
t e s t - s e c t i o n w a l l pressure. However, b o t ht y p e so f measurements a r e used and
b o t hr e q u i r e a calibration(s)torelatetheassociateddatatostaticpressure
measurements a l o n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e .

The most p o p u l a r s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e - p r o b e i s a 10 deg c o n e - c y l i n d e r w i t h

static orifices located ten or more c y l i n d e r d i a m e t e r s downstream o f t h e s h o u l d e r .
The ten-deg-coneappears t o bea t r a d e - o f f between t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s t o m i n i m i z e
disturbanceoftheflow and, simultaneously, be e a s i l y f a b r i c a t e d and durable
enough t o beused r e p e a t e d l y i n a windtunnelenvironment.Although athigh
subsonic speedsashockforms on t h e c y l i n d e r and accurate measurement o f t h e
staticpressurerequiresorifices a t severalstations,only afew o f theprobe
d e s i g n ss u b m i t t e dw i t ht h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e s have t h i sf e a t u r e . A smaller-angle
cone not o n l y hasa lower,shock-attachment Mach number b u t i t a l s o g e n e r a t e s a

195
weaker t r a n s o n i c s h o c k o n t h e c y l i n d e r and t h u s s m a l l e r d e v i a t i o n s f r o m f r e e -
streamconditions. O f t h ev a r i o u ss t a t i cp r o b ed e s i g n sd e s c r i b e di nr e s p o n s e
tothequestionnaire, a two-degree ( t o t a l - i n c l u d e da n g l e )c o n e was t h e s m a l l e s t .

An a d d i t i o n a l s o u r c e o f e r r o r i n c a l i b r a t i n g t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s is t h e
n e g l e c to fv a r i a t i o n st r a n s v e r s et ot h ef l o w .A l m o s tw i t h o u te x c e p t i o n ,i n
caseswheremeasurements had been made, t,he q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n d i c a t e d g r e a t e r
Mach number g r a d i e n t so c c u ra c r o s st h ef l o wt h a na l o n gt h et u n n e lc e n t e r l i n e .
T h i s may be most s i g n i f i c a n t . i . n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f d r a g d i v e r g e n c e a n d / o r
b u f f e to n s e tf o rt r a n s o n i ca i r c r a f t models. However, t h ep r e s e n ts t a t e - o f - t h e -
a r t o f wind'-tunneltesting i s t o use o f f - c e n t e r l i n e d a t a e x c l u s i v e l y a s a diag-
n o s t i ct o o lt od e t e c tu n a c c e p t a b l yl a r g ev a r i a t i o n s .I nw h i c hc a s en o z z l ea n d / o r
test section configurations are altered.

Themost p o p u l a rf l o w - a n g u l a r i t y - p r o b e sa p p e a rt o be t h e 30-deg-cone f o r
simultaneousmeasurements o f p i t c h and yaw.Wedges o fv a r i o u sa n g l e sa r eo f t e n
used for p l a n a r measurements. I t a p p e a r sf e a s i b l et od e s i g np r o b e so ft h i s
type (i.e., differential-pressure) which can resolve -
flow angles t o +0.01 degree.
( T h i s o b j e c t i v e was proposed i n 1970 bythe ad hoc A i r Force-NASA Committeeon
TransonicTestingTechniques.) The quotedaccuracy for f l o w a n g l e measurements
ranged from 0.01 deg t o 0.04 deg. A spatialvariation o f +1/4 deg was f r e q u e n t l y
mentioned.

Quoted stagnat ion-temperature accuracy usual l y ranged from 1 t o 2 OC.

The m a j o r i t y o f r e p o r t i n g f a c i l i t i e s do n o t c o n t i n u o u s l y m o n i t o r h u m i d i t y .
Inordertoachieve a Machnumber accuracyof 0.001, h u m i d i t y must be monitored
continuously.

Nearly 50% o f t h e t u n n e l s have made n o i s e measurements i n e i t h e r t h e

s t i l l i n g chamber, t h et e ss e c t i o na n d / o rt h e plenum chamber. I n mostcases,
either miniature strain gauge transducers or condensermicrophoneswereused
t o measure thenoisedata. The f o l l o w i n gt e c h n i q u e s have beenemployed to
measure f r e e s t r e a m d i s t u r b a n c e s i n t r a n s o n i c a n d / o r s u p e r s o n l c w i n d t u n n e l s .

1. High-frequency-responsepressuretransducers mounted near

the tip of cones t o measure f l u c t u a t i n g s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s
beneath a laminarboundarylayer.

I I I II
 2. Pressuretransducers mounted on wedges w i t h t h e measurement
surfacealignedwiththe flow.
3. Pressuretransducers mounted o nt h ec y l i n d r i c a lp o r t i o n of
ogive-cylinders. .
4. Pressuretransducers mounted i n P i t o t probes t o measure
f l u c t u a t i o n si nP i t o tp r e s s u r e .
5. Hot-wire and h o t - f i l m measurements.

Approximately 25% o f t h e t u n n e l s r e p o r t e d h a v i n g made h o t - w i r e o r h o t -

film measurements o ft u r b u l e n c e . However, i n t h e m a j o r i t y o f cases o n l yv e r y
l i m i t e d c e n t e r l i n e and/or w a l l boundarylayer measurements have been made.
Only afew' t u n n e l sr e p o r t e d measurements o f f l u c t u a t i n g P i t o t p r e s s u r e .

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e t u n n e l s r e p o r t e d t h a t S c h l i e r e n systemswere of
v a l u ei nd e t e c t i n g unwanted d i s t u r b a n c e si nt h et e s ts e c t i o n . When combined
withhigh speed photography, t h i s method a l s op r o v i d e sd a t a on f l o wu n s t e a d i -
ness.

Most o f t h e r e s p o n d i n g f a c i l i t i e s have used one or more s t a n d a r df o r c e

models d u r i n gc a l i b r a t i o n . However, comparisons w i t hr e f e r e n c ed a t aa r e
usuallyonlyqualitative and a r e o f l i m i t e d use i n p i n p o i n t i n g u n d e s i r a b l e f l o w
characteristics.

The w e l l known r u l e o f thumb t h a t t h e model c r o s ss e c t i o ns h o u l dn o t

exceed 1% o ft h et u n n e la r e af o rt r a n s o n i ct e s t i n ga p p e a r st o be u n i v e r s a l l y
accepted. A consequence o f t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s t h a t v e r y fewtunneloperators
a t t e m p tt oc o r r e c tf o rw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e .T h i sa l s or e f l e c t st h el a c ko f an
a c c e p t e dt h e o r yf o rc o r r e c t i n gf o rt r a n s o n i cw a l li n t e r f e r e n c e .

F i n a l l y ,t h e consensusonfrequency o f w i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o ni st h a t a
tunnelshould be r e c a l i b r a t e d o r a t l e a s t s p o t checkedwhenever:

1. t u n n ecl o n f i g u r a t i o n changes
occur,

2. s i g n i f i c a n ti n s t r u m e n t a t i o nm o d i f i c a t i o n sa r e made,

3. erroneousdata i s b e i n go b t a i n e d ,o r

4. i nt h e absence o f any o f t h e above,onceeachyear.

S t a t i c - p r e s s u r eo r i f i c e ss h o u l da l s o be i n s p e c t e db e f o r er e c a l i b r a t i n g .

197
 V.B. TRANSONIC TUNNELS

The goal o f Machnumber c a l i b r a t i o n s i n t r a n s o n i ct u n n e l ss h o u l db e to

achieveanaccuracy o f +O.OOl, particularlyinthetransonicdragriseregime:
. - < M < 1.0.
0.75 "
Foran airtest medium, t h i s r e q u i r e s t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s t r a i n t
o nt o t a le r r o r s i n t o t a l and s t a t i c p r e s s u r e measurements.

AH
" "AP < L
H P - M
23
5 + M

However,changes i n Reynolds number ( S e c t i o n 1 1 . 8 . 2 ) or h u m i d i t yl e v e l( S e c t i o n

Il.C.7) can e a s i l y cause Machnumber v a r i a t i o n ss e v e r a lt i m e sl a r g e rt h a n 0.001.
For t h i s reason,considerablecareshould betaken to c a l i b r a t ea ne m p t y - t u n n e l
o v e rt h ee n t i r er a n g eo f Reynolds numberand h u m i d i t yl e v e l sn o r m a l l ye n c o u n t e r e d
d u r i n gr o u t i n eo p e r a t i o n s . Once t h et u n n e li sc a l i b r a t e d f o r t y p i c a l ,o p e r a t i n g
h u m i d i t yl e v e l s , a c o n t i n u o u sm o n i t o r i n go fh u m i d i t yi sp r e f e r r e d , e.g.,a strip
r e c o r d e rf o r subsequentreference. I na d d i t i o n ,e x c e s s i v es p a t i a lv a r i a t i o n s of
total pressure ( i.e. , AHS/HS > 0.001) a c r o s s t h e s t i 1 1 i n g chamber may r e q u i r e
c o r r e c t i v ea c t i o n , e.g., a d d i t i o n a sl c r e e n s , honeycombs, e t c .F i n a l l y ,t h e
assumption o f an i s e n t r o p i c e x p a n s i o n f r o m t h e s t i l l i n g chamber t o t h e t e s t
sectionshouldbeevaluated by d i r e c t measurements i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n , b o t h on
and o f f - c e n t e r 1 i n e .

The long,static-pressure,surveypipe i sw e l le s t a b l i s h e d as thestandard

f o ro b t a i n i n gc e n t e r l i n e measurements. B e s tr e s u l t sa r ea c h i e v e dw i t ht h e nose
o ft h ep i p el o c a t e dw e l lu p s t r e a mi nt h es e t t l i n g chamber; t h i s i s necessary i n
o r d e rt op r e v e n t passage o f a t r a n s o n i c s h o c ko v e rt h el e n g t ho ft h ep i p e .I n
a l l c a s e s ,t h er e s u l t i n gd a t as h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y i n s p e c t e d f o r o r i f i c e - i n d u c e d
errors. Once t h ec e n t e r l i n ed a t a i'sdetermined t o befreeoforificeerrors
( S e c t i o nI I I . D . l . ) ,s t a n d a r dp r o c e d u r ei st ou s et h es t a t i cp r e s s u r ed a t at o
c a l i b r a t ee i t h e r plenum chamber p r e s s u r e or w a l ls t a t i ct a p s . I f plenumpres-
sure i s used f o r Machnumber control, the possibi 1 it y o f d e p a r t u r e s fromempty-
t u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n ss h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y examined i n cases o f (1) l a r g e (> 1%)
l i f t i n g models a th i g h - s u b s o n i c speeds and ( 2 ) r a p i d l y v a r y i n g Machnumber
c o n d i t i o n s suchasoccurduringrapid changes i n model o r i e n t a t i o n . If wall
statictapsare used f o r Machnumber control,atleast oneshould be l o c a t e d on

198
each w a l l , ahead o ft h e model l o c a t i o n , and averaged with a "piezometerring";
t h i s average i s p r e f e r a b l e t o u s i n g o n l y a singlewallstaticpressure.

Since a l o n g p i p e i s d i f f i c u l t t o move a b o u t t h e t e s t s e c t i o n and o f f -

c e n t e r l i n ed a t ai si m p o r t a n tf o ra i r c r a f t - m o d e lt e s t i n g , i t is recommended
t h a ts u p p l e m e n t a r y ,o f f - c e n t e r l i n ed a t a be o b t a i n e d w i t h a c o n v e n t i o n a l s t a t i c
pressure probe or r a k e o f suchprobes, when M is not near one (Sec. I I I .D. 2 ) .
Sincethewing span o f m o s t t r a n s o n i c a i r c r a f t models i s r e s t r i c t e d t o 60 per-
c e n t ,o rl e s s ,o ft h et u n n e lw i d t h ,b o t h Mach number and f l o w a n g u l a r i t y d a t a
s h o u l db eo b t a i n e do v e rt h i s span i n t h e v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a lp l a n e s .

Off-centerline measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y a r e s e n s i t i v e i n d i c a t o r s
o fe r r o r s causedby n o z z l ec o n t o u r ,w a l ls e t t i n g s ,s e a l e a k s ,e t c . The most
a c c u r a t e measurements o f f l o w a n g u l a r i t y can be o b t a i n e d i n t h e l e a s t amount o f
timewith a p r o b ec o n s i s t i n go f two,orthogonal,symmetricalwings and a f o r c e
balance housed i n a smallcenterbody."

In addition to measurinq Machnumber and f l o w a n g u l a r i t y o f f - c e n t e r l i n e ,

datashould be taken a tr e p r e s e n t a t i v ef o r w a r d ,c e n t e r , and a f t s t a t i o n s i n
t h eu s e a b l et e s ts e c t i o n . I t i s suggested t h a tt h er e s u l t i n gd a t a ,a t a
g i v e ns t a t i o n , be expressed i n terms o fs t a n d a r dd e v i a t i o nf r o mt h e mean o f
t h ec e n t e r l i n e measurements. T h i st y p eo fd a t a will p r o v i d e more complete
informationonflowquality and should be considered when s e l e c t i n g w a l l p o r o -
sity,wallangleor amount o f plenumevacuation.

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no g e n e r a l c o n s t r a i n t s e x i s t as t o what a r ea c c e p t a b l e
o f f - c e n t e r l i n ev a r i a t i o n s . Jackson ( A E D C ) has s u g g e s t e dt h ef o l l o w i n gc r i t e r i a
f o r ''good" un i f o r m i t y i n c e n t e r 1 i n e Machnumber :

2 aM 5 0.005 for M < 1 ,

2 UM 2 0 . 0 1 for M > 1

Inthepast, a criterionforacceptableflowangularityalongthecenterline
has n o t beenneeded because a g i v e n model i s u s u a l l y r u n u p r i g h t and i n v e r t e d
i no r d e rt oe s t a b l i s ht h ee f f e c t i v ea n g l eo fi n c i d e n c e .T h i si s a v a l i d and

*Acceptableaccuracycanalso be o b t a i n e d w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l , d i f f e r e n t i a l -
pressureprobes,seeSection 1II.E.

199
w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e dt e s t i n gp r a c t i c e ; however, f l o w a n g u l a r i t y i n t h e yaw p l a n e
i sf r e q u e n t l yi g n o r e d . To summarize, standard c r i t e r i a f o r f l o w u n i f o r m i t y
need t o be developed f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e( p r e f e r a b l ys t a n d a r d )m o d e l s in
v a r i o u sk i n d s o f t e s t s , =.g., f o r c e ,b u f f e t ,f l u t t e r ,e t c . These c r i t e r i a
shouldincludestandards for a c c e p t a b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n Machnumber and flow
angularity,both on and o f f - c e n t e r l i n e .

Unsteadydisturbance measurements i n t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s s h o u l d be a
s t a n d a r dp a r t o f t u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n . Recentuse o fh o t - w i r e si nt h et e s t
s e c t i o n o f a t r a n s o n i ct u n n e la t NASA Ames i n d i c a t e st h e s e may be u s e f u l f o r
u n s t e a d y - f l o wc a l i b r a t i o ni na tl e a s t some t u n n e l s . However, asdynamicpres-
sureincreaseshot-wires become more v u l n e r a b l e t o breakage and p r o b a b l y will
be i m p r a c t i c a l f o r u s e i n t h e new high-Reynolds-number f a c i 1ities(except in
t h es e t t l i n g chamber). Based on e x t e n s i v ee x p e r i e n c ew i t ht h e AEDC t r a n s i t i o n
cone i n twenty-onemajorwindtunnels oftheUnitedStates andWesternEurope,
t h i sd e v i c e has become an " u n o f f i c i a l " t u n n e l a c o u s t i c c a l i b r a t i o n modeland is
c u r r e n t l yc o n s i d e r e dt o be t h eb e s ta v a i l a b l ed i s t u r b a n c ec a l i b r a t i o ni n s t r u m e n t
However, t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t e need f o r a lessexpensiveinstrumentwhich canbe
e a s i l yr e p r o d u c e d and used i n a l l s i z e s o f f a c i l i t i e s . The development o f f l u c t u -
a t i n gP i t o tp r o b e sa p p e a r st o meet t h i s need ( S e c t i o n I 1 I . F ) . T h i st y p e of
instrumentcan be used t o measure c e n t e r l i n e n o i s e and t o c a l i b r a t e w a l l - m o u n t e d ,
dynamic pressuretransducers. A w a l lt r a n s d u c e r ( s )c a nt h e n beusedas a per-
manent m o n i t o ro ft u n n e ln o i s e . The w a l lt r a n s d u c e r ( s )s h o u l d bemounted approxi-
m a t e l y 0.025 cm (0.01 i n . )b e l o wt h ep l a n eo ft h et u n n e l w a l l and, p r e f e r a b l y ,
shouldhave a frequencyresponseoutto 30 kHz. By u s i n g two o r more w a l l -
mounted t r a n s d u c e r s , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p r o p a g a t i o n o f disturbancescan be a s c e r -
t a ined .
A l t h o u g ht h e r ea r e no g e n e r a l c r i t e r i a f o r a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s o f f l o w un-
steadiness, Mabey (RAE) has developed some n o i s eg u i d e l i n e sf o ri n t e r f e r e n c e -
f r e ef l u t t e r and b u f f e tt e s t s( S e c t i o n I I1.F.). The g o a lo ft r a n s o n i ct u n n e l ,
n o i s e - r e d u c t i o nr e s e a r c hi st or e d u c eu n s t e a d i n e s st ol e v e l sc h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
t u r b u l e n t boundarylayersonsolidwalls,i.e., < 0.005. AC
P
An accepted measure o f w a v e - c a n c e l l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f v e n t i l a t e d
wallsistoobtainpressuredistributiondata on a 20 deg c o n e - c y l i n d e r and com-
p a r et h er e s u l t sw i t hw a l l - i n t e r f e r e n c e - f r e ed a t a . It i s now a p p a r e n tt h a tt h e

200
 t r a d i t i o n a la s s u m p t i o n o f a l i n e a r boundary c o n d i t i o n a t v e n t i l a t e d , t r a n s o n i c
w a l l si s erroneous. Thus, t h i se x p l a i n st h ef a i l u r e o f p a s ta t t e m p t s t o theo-
r e t i c a l l yc a l c u l a t et h ee f f e c t s o f w a l li n t e r f e r e n c e on madel t e s t i n g . Measure-
ments o f t e s t - s e c t i o n - w a l l b o u n d a r yl a y e r s ,b o t hw i t h and w i t h o u t models i n s i t u ,
a r eb e i n g made i n e f f o r t s t o g a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of ventilated walls
and t h e i rc r o s s - f l o wc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .C u r r e n tr e s e a r c h on t r a n s o n i cw a l li n t e r -
f e r e n c ei sf o c u s i n go nt h r e ea r e a s : ( I ) t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f more exactboundary
conditions, (2) t h e development o f a s e l f - c o r r e c t i n g w i n d t u n n e l w l t h a u t o m a t i c
c o n t r o l of l o n g i t u d i n a l l yv a r y i n gv e n t i l a t i o n , and (3) v a r y i n gw a l lc o n t o u r s
to attain wall-interference-free f l o w aboutmodels.

The NACA 0012 a i r f o i l i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g usedas a standardpressure model

i n two-dimensionaltests. The ONERA t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t modelshave been t e s t e d
i n anumber oftransonictunnels and have been found t o be e x t r e m e l y s e n s i t i v e
t o f l o wq u a l i t y . AGARD has n o ty e t adopted a s t a n d a r d ,t r a n s p o r t - a i r c r a f t model.
There i s c u r r e n t l y a genuine need f o r a s t a n d a r d ,a i r c r a f t ,p r e s s u r e model ( o r
models) t oa i dt r a n s o n i cw i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n and datacomparisons between
tunnel s.

LaserDopplerVelocimetersare an i m p o r t a n t a d d i t i o n t o t h e t o o l s a v a i l a b le
f o rw i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n . The obviousadvantageofan LDV i s it does n o t
p e r t u r bt h e flow. A t Mach numbers nearone, t h i s i s an importantadvantage. In
addition,an LDV canbeused notonlyfor mean-flow v e l o c i t y measurements b u t
a l s oc a n measure f l o w a n g u l a r i t y and t u r b u l e n c e i n t e n s i t i e s g r e a t e r t h a n a b o u t
one. LDV measurements o f v e l o c i t y and f l o w a n g u l a r i t y a r e c u r r e n t l y o n l y 1/4 t o
115 as a c c u r a t e a s thebestconventionalprobesathighsubsonic and low super-
s o n i c speeds. However, near Mach onean LDV i s expected t op r o v i d es u p e r i o r
data. A t t h i st i m e ,t h e LDV i sn o tb e i n g used t o r o u t i n e l y c a l i b r a t e empty-
tunnels. However, we a n t i c i p a t e suchuse i nt h ef u t u r e .

201

I
 V . C. SUPERSONIC TUNNELS

Mach number i n s u p e r s o n i c t u n n e l s s h o u l d be c a l i b r a t e d bymeasuringtwo

independentpressures i nt h et e s ts e c t i o n .A c c u r a t er e s u l t s can be o b t a i n e d
bymeasuring Pitot pressures in the freestream andbehindthe bow shock o f a
wedge. However, f r e e s t r e a mP i t o t and s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s a r e p r e f e r a b l e t o o n l y
Pitot data and theassumption of isentropic flow from the settling chamber.

S i n c et r a n s v e r s eg r a d i e n t si n Mach number a r e t y p i c a l l y l a r g e r t h a n a x i a l
variations, it i s c o n s i d e r e d e s s e n t i a l t o c a l i b r a t e b o t h Mach number and f l o w
a n g u l a r i t yo f f - c e n t e r l i n e . A t l e a s tt h r e ec r o s s - s e c t i o n ss h o u l d be surveyed
neartheforward,center and a f t p o r t i o n s o f t h e u s e a b l e t e s t s e c t i o n . T h i s
type of data can be o b t a i n e d m o s t e a s i l y w i t h P i t o t and s t a t i c proberakes or
a r r a y s mounted on a t r a v e r s i n gs t i n g .T h i sd a t as h o u l d be used t o c a l i b r a t e
a permanent Machnumber probewhichshould be i n s t a l l e d i n s u p e r s o n i c t u n n e l s
f o rf r e q u e n t ,r o u t i n e checks on c a l i b r a t i o n . :ngeneral, a c a l i b r a t e d Mach
number accuracy o f 0.5 t o 1% i sc o n s i d e r e d good. Industrystandards need t o
be developed which define acceptable flow qual ity for particular kinds of
t e s t i n g , e.g., f o r c e and p r e s s u r e t e s t s o f m i s s i l e s and a i r c r a f t models.

As i n t r a n s o n i c t u n n e l s , c e n t e r l i n e n o i s e measurements shouldbeobtained
and used t o c a l i b r a t e one or more, wail-mounted,dynamic-pressuretransducers.
The AEDC t r a n s i t i o n cone i s c u r r e n t l y t h e o n l y f l o w d i s t u r b a n c e c a l i b r a t i o n
devicewhich has been t e s t e d i n a l a r g e number o ft u n n e l s . A smaller and l e s s
e x p e n s i v en o i s ec a l i b r a t i o nd e v i c ei s needed t os e r v e asa standard.Probes
designed to measure f l u c t u a t i n g P i t o t p r e s s u r e s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h i s
purpose. TraditionaP
l i t o ts u r v e y so ft u n n e l - w a l 1 b o u n d a r yl a y e r sn o to n l y
establishthesize and geometry o f t h e i n v i s c i d f lowbutalsoaidcorrelations
o f f a c i 1 it y n o i s e .

I na d d i t i o nt ok e e p i n gt h et o t a lt e m p e r a t u r eh i g h enough t o a v o i d l i q u e -
factionofthetest gas, t h e e f f e c t s o f t y p i c a l l e v e l s o f w a t e r v a p o r i n t h e
t e s t gasshould be c a r e f u l l y c a l i b r a t e d . As i s w e l l known, t h ep r i m a r ye f f e c t
o f watercondensation i s a loss o f t o t a l p r e s s u r e anda riseinstaticpressure.
Also, v a r i o u s o p e r a t o r s haveobserved thatpressuretestsare more s e n s i t i v e t o
h u m i d i t yl e v e l st h a nf o r c et e s t s .

The number o f surveys o f s u p e r s o n i c f l o w f i e l d s w i t h a iaser Doppler veio-

c i m e t e ri si n c r e a s i n g as some e a r l i e r problemshave been r e s o l v e d .I nt h ef u t u r e
t h i s new t o o l may enabie more a c c u r a t e c a l i b r a t i o n s of supersonictunnels.

202
 APPENDIX I

Hot Wires and Hot Films

*

Introduction

' A hot-wire anemometer is a means of measuring fluctuationsin localized

areas of the flow at frequencies up to 200 KHz. The sensor may be a small-
thin metallic film
diameter wire suspended between needle-like prongs a or
on an insulative substrate that may be shaped in various geometries. It
responds to cooling effectsand thus measures both kinematicand thermodynamic
fluctuations of the flow.

The hot-wire has been a generally accepted standard for measuring fluctua-
tions in wind tunnel flow since the work of Drydenand Kuethe in 1929 (Ref. l),
Its use can be very tedious and thus has often been avoided. However, it has
not been replaced because of its advantages that include: small sensor size,
high frequency response and sensitivity to pressure, vorticity, and entropy
fluctuations. Dr. Kovasznay (Ref. 2) opinioned in 1968 that the hot-wire
has not been replaced by other methods becauseof its unique characteristics.
Furthermore, significant developmentsin hot-wire methodology in the 1970's
indicate continued use of this instrumentin both specialized experiments and
in wind tunnel calibrations.
Reference 3 is a recent textbook on hot-wire technology. References 4
and 5 provide further background and extended lists of references relative to
measurements of fluctuating propertiesin wind tunnels. Reference 2 provides
summaries o f the early history and the technologyup to 1968.

Useful application of hot-wires to incompressible flow is commonly dated

as 1929 (Ref. 1). Experiments with hot wires in supersonic flows began in the
mid 1940's. However, equipment and analysis techniques were not considered
adequate until the mid 1950's (Refs. 6, 7, and 8 ) . Applications to transonic
in separating the components of the
flows encountered particular difficulty
output signal (Refs. 3 and 8). Recent reports of progress (Refs. 9 and 10)
in the high-subsonic and
have outlined approaches for practical applications
transonic test regime.

*This section has been contributed by C . J. Stalmach, Jr., Vought Corporation.

 Equ ipment Descr ip t i o nand Operat-ion

The sensor i s e l e c t r i c a l l y h e a t e d t o m a i n t a i n e i t h e r a constantcurrent

or c o n s t a n tt e m p e r a t u r e( r e s i s t a n c e ) .I nt h ec a s e o f c o n s t a n tc u r r e n t , compen-
s a t i o nf o rt h et h e r m a ll a g of thewireisobtainedbyanoutputamplifier
whose g a i n w i t h f r e q u e n c y i s a d j u s t e d ( d u r i n g a square wave h e a t i n gi n p u t ) to
compensate f o r decay o ft h eo u t p u tw i t hi n c r e a s i n gf r e q u e n c y . For l a r g ea s p e c t
ratios (Ud -
> 150) t h e w i r e e x h i b i t s a f i r s t o r d e r response that is simple to
compensate e l e c t r o n i c a l l y .A d j u s t m e n to ft h en o n - l i n e a r , compensating a m p l i f i e r
isrequiredfor eachchange i n mean f l o w c o n d i t i o n o r sensor.

Inthecaseof a constanttemperature anemometer, a high-gainfeedback

system p r o v i d e s power t o t h e w i r e i n r e s p o n s e to f l u c t u a t i o n s i n c o o l i n g
c a u s e db yt h ef l o ws u c ht h a tt h ew i r er e s i s t a n c e( t e m p e r a t u r e )r e m a i n se s s e n -
t i a l l yc o n s t a n t . The square o ft h ev o l t a g er e q u i r e dt om a i n t a i nc o n s t a n tw i r e
r e s i s t a n c e i s a d i r e c t measure o f t h e h e a t t r a n s f e r between thesensor and i t s
environment. The constanttemperature anemometer has severaladvantages compared
t o a c o n s t a n tc u r r e n ts y s t e mi n c l u d i n g :

1.' thermallagnot a problemsincesensortemperature i sc o n s t a n t ,

2. a u t o m a t i ca d j u s t m e n tt ol a r g e changes i n mean f l o wc o n d i t i o n s
whichreducesaccidentalburnouts and c o n t i n u e s d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n
d u r i n g mean f l o w changes,
3. d i r e c t DC outputas a f u n c t i o no f mean v e l o c i t y ,
4. c o m p a t i b l ew i t h film and low R/d w i r es e n s o r st h a t have
complexfrequencyresponsecharacteristics, and
5. o u t p u t may be l i n e a r i z e d and temperature compensated.

The constantcurrentapproach was i n i t i a l l y p r e f e r r e d because i t p r o v i d e d

higher-frequency-response and s i g n a l - t o - e l e c t r o n i c - n o i s er a t i o .S o l i ds t a t e
e l e c t r o n i c s , however,have p e r m i t t e dt h ec o n s t a n tt e m p e r a t u r e systems t o have
comparableperformance and a r et h e systems now g e n e r a l l yp r e f e r r e d . An excep-
t i o n i s measurement o f t e m p e r a t u r e f l u c t u a t i o n s i n d e p e n d e n t o f v e l o c i t y and
d e n s i t ye f f e c t s . Here a minimum w i r et e m p e r a t u r ei sr e q u i r e dt h a t i s best
a c h i e v e dw i t h a c o n s t a n tc u r r e n to p e r a t i o n . Moderncommercial u n i t sg e n e r a l l y
i n c o r p o r a t eb o t hc i r c u i t s .R e f e r e n c e 3 and l i t e r a t u r ef r o m commercialequip-
ment s u p p l i e r s p r o v i d e f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on t h e power systems and commonly used
sensor s t y 1 es.

204
Response t o Mean Flow

A wire or film sensorresponds t o changes i n f l o w c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t s

t h eh e a tt r a n s f e ro ft h es e n s o rt oi t se n v i r o n m e n t .F o rs t e a d yf l o wt h es e n s o r
response may be expressed a s

Nu -A+B & (1.1)

or
E2 - [C+D ( P U ) ~ ] (Tw - Te) (1.2)

where x=0.5 f o rc l a s s i c a la n a l y s i s( K i n g ' sl a w )o ff l o wa r o u n dh e a t e dc y l i n d e r s .

F i g u r e A.I.l shows theresponse o f a h o tw i r et ot h e mean flow.Forsupersonic
flow, theNussel t number i s evaluatedbehindthenormal shock(Ref. 6).
Response t o F l u c t u a t i o n s i n t h e Flow

The s i m u l t a n e o u s r e a c t i o n o f t h e h e a t e d s e n s o r t o d e n s i t y , v e l o c i t y and
temperature i s thekeybothtotheadvantages and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h e h o t - w i r e
anemometer approach t o m e a s u r i n gf l o wf l u c t u a t i o n s . I t i s an advantage t o
haveonesensormeasure bothkinematic and thermodynamic f l u c t u a t i o n s .I n
comparison, a l a s e rD o p p l e rv e l o c i m e t e r can o n l y measure t h e f l u c t u a t i n g v e l o c i -
t i e s and a microphone o rp r e s s u r es e n s o rr e s p o n d so n l yt ot h en e t sound o r
p r e s s u r ef l u c t u a t i o n s .S e p a r a t i o no ft h e modes composing t h eo u t p u to ft h e
heatedsensor i sn o ts i m p l e and, i ng e n e r a l ,r e q u i r e s a p r i o r i knowledge o f t h e
f l o wc h a r a c t e r i s t i c sb e i n g sampled.

The c h o i c eo ft e c h n i q u e sf o rs e p a r a t i n gt h e modes of a f l u c t u a t i n g h o t -
w i r es i g n a li s somewhat dependent on t h e Machnumber and Reynolds number o f
t h et e s t . A S i n d i c a t e di nt h e summary curve of Fig. A . I . l , w i r er e s p o n s et o
mean f l o wi sw e l ld e f i n e df o rt h ei n c o m p r e s s i b l e case.Forisothermal, incorn-
p r e s s i b l ef l o w , a h o t - w i r er e s p o n d so n l yt ov e l o c i t y changes. The sensorOut-
put i s w e l l behaved f o rs u p e r s o n i c Mach numbers asindicatedbythelowercurve
Of F i g . A.I.1. The sensoroutput, however i s Mach
number dependentbetween
thesetwobounds f o rt h el o w e rr a n g eo fw i r eR e y n o l d s number.

Testequipmentanddataanalysistechniquesaresufficientlydeveloped to
p e r m i tu s e f u la p p l i c a t i o n sf o rt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n so v e rt h e Mach range o f
i n t e r e s ti nt h i sr e p o r t (0.4 5 3.5). Research t o improveequipment and a n a l y s i s
s h o u l dc o n t i n u eh o w e v e r .I np a r t i c u l a r ,a d d i t i o n a lw o r k needs t o bedone in
t h ea r e a so ft r a n s o n i cf l o wa p p l i c a t i o n s and s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e s i g n a l i n t o i t s
component modes.

205
 (Ref. 3)
2.0

1.8
1.6

1.4

1.2

I
1 .o
t
.8
.6
.4
.2

0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 .O

F i g u r e A. 1.2 FLUCTUATIONDIAGRAM FOR 1 PERCENT

MASS FLOW FLUCTUATIONS AND 1 PER CENT
STAGNATION TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATIONSWITHVARYING DEGREES OF CORRELATION.
(Ref. 7)
206
Separation ofModes in Fluctuating Flow
In supersonic flow the fluctuating voltage aofheatedI wi re placed normal
to the flaw canbe expressed in terms of the fluctuating velocity, density and
total temperature (Refs. 3, 7, 8, and lo), (using the notation o f Ref. 10):

The sensitivity coefficients for constant temperature sensor operation are:

a Rn Nu
1
T
wr
a Rn Ret

a Rn N u t
1

T a R n ~ (I .5)
wr

Tt
=-
2 Asw
1
+-
2
(K - 1 - nt) + rn
t P
1 (sU
s +-
2
- sP) ( I .6j

For supersonic flow (M > 1.2), the heat loss is insensitive to Mach number,
and sensitivity to velocity and density are essentially equal (Refs.3, 6, 8).

:. su = s
P
= s
PU

Thus for supersonic flow, Eq.(1.3) may be simplified to (Ref. 7):

The root-mean-square of the sensor outputm a y be expressed as:

where the correlation coefficiento f mass flux and temperature is defined by:
Sensor o u t p u t , o b t a i n e d a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s e n s o r t e m p e r a t u r e s , and sensor
s e n s i t i v i t y ,o b t a i n e df r o mc a l i b r a t i o n ,c a np r o v i d es o l u t i o n s f o r t h et h r e e
unknowns <(pu)*>,<Ttc> and RpuT . The normal p r a c t i c e i s t o p l o t d a t a ,
o b t a i n e da ts e v e r a lw i r eo v e r h e a tr a t i o s ,i n modal diagramsasdevelopedby
Kovasznay(Ref. 7) and Morkovin(Ref. 8). A f l u c t u a t i o nd i a g r a mf o rv a r y i n g
degrees o f c o r r e l a t i o n i s g i v e n i n F i g . A.1.2.The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c modal diagrams
o f Kovasznay f o rf l u c t u a t i o n si nv e l o c i t y ,t e m p e r a t u r e , and sound a r e shown i n
Figs. A.1.3, A.1.4, and A.1.5.

Independent f l u c t u a t i o n s w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e f l o w f i e l d a r e t h e v o r t i c i t y
( t u r b u l e n c e ) ,e n t r o p y( t e m p e r a t u r es p o t t i n e s s ) , and p r e s s u r e( n o i s eo r sound)
modes.
The v o r t i c i t y ,e n t r o p y , and p r e s s u r es e n s i t i v i t yc o e f f i c i e n t sa r er e -
l a t e dt ot h e measured d e n s i t y , v e l o c i t y , and t o t a l t e m p e r a t u r e s e n s i t i v i t y
c o e f f i c i e n t s as f o l l o w s( R e f . 8):

Su + 8 ST (1.10)
t

sU = s P + U S T (1.11)
t
n
-
M
X Su + a (y-1) (l+nxM) ST (I.12)
t

Where nx i s t h e d i r e c t i o n c o s i n e o f t h e n o r m a l t o a p l a n e sound wave f r o n t

r e l a t i v et ot h ef l o wd i r e c t i o n . I f two o r more measureable sound s o u r c e sw i t h
d i s t i n c to r i e n t a t i o ne x i s t ,t h e n asound s e n s i t i v i t yc o e f f i c i e n t would be r e -
quiredfor each sound wave d i r e c t i o n .

Themodal diagramtechnique i s an accepted means o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e Pri-

mary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s e n s o r s i g n a l i n s u p e r s o n i c and c e r t a i nh y p e r s o n i c
flows. An i m p o r t a n ta p p l i c a t i o no ft h e modal diagram t o w i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a -
tionistodistinguish sound from a fixedsource(suchas causedbyroughness
o rh o l e si nt h ew a l l ) asopposed t o a moving sound source(suchaseminating
from a t u r b u l e n t boundarylayeronthetunnelwall).Thistechnique
* is
effectiveonly for f l o w s where thetemperaturespottedness isnegligible.
The diagram f o r a f i x e d s o u r c e o f soundhasan origin-intercept(seeFig. A. 1.5)
and t h ed i a g r a mf o r a movingsource o f soundhas a positiveordinate-intercept
s i m i l a r to thetemperaturediagramofFig. A.1.4.

* See Refs. 11, 12, 13, and 14 f o r examples.

208
 //I
-
<E' >

STt

-1 0 1 2 'Tt

F i g u r e A. I . 3 FLUCTUATIONDIAGRAM FOR 1 PERCENT TURBULENT

VELOCITYFLUCTUATIONS(VORTICITY MODE). (Ref. 7)

Figure A.1.4 FLUCTUATION

DIAGRAH FOR I PER CENT TEMPERATURE
SPOTTINESS (ENTROPY M O D E ) . (Ref. 7)
 2

0
-I 0 I 2

~l~~~~
A . I . ~ FLUCTUATIONDIAGRAM FOR
SOUND
WAVES THAT ARE
ALMOST MACH
WhVES HAVING
1 PER
CENT
PRESSUREFLUCTUATIONS ( R e f . 7)

.3

.2

0
-1 -.5 0 .5 I
sPusT
F i g u r e A.1.6 FLUCTUATIONDIAGRAM FOR UNCORRELATED MODES AT M = 1 . 7 5 ;
TEMPERATURE SPOTTINESS 0.1 PER CENT;TURBULENTVELOCITY
FLUCTUATIONS 0.2 PER CENT; SOUND WAVES (DETECTABLE) 0.1
PER CENT OF MASS FLOW FLllCTllATIONS. (DOTTEDLINES SHOW
SEPARATE
CONTRIBUTIONS.) ( R e f . 7)
21 0
 When thedominate mode i s sound, t h e f o i l c w i n g l s e n t r o p l c r e l a t i o n s
betweenpressure,density and t e m p e r a t u r ea r ea p p r o p r i a t e (Ref. 11):

(1.14)

The r e s u l t a n t h o t - w i r e e q u a t i o n and c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e f l u c t u a t i o n q u a n t i t i e s
i nt h ef r e e s t r e a ma r eg i v e ni n References 11 and 12.

I n Reference 15. an a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d i a g r a m a p p r o a c h i s shown which

i d e n t i f i e st e m p e r a t u r ef l u c t u a t i o n si nt h e wake of a wedge i n h y p e r s o n i cf l o w
where t h ea d j o i n i n gf r e e s t r e a ms i g n a l e v e li s low. I f bothtemperature
f l u c t u a t i o n s and moving sound s o u r c e sa r el i k e l yp r e s e n t (Ref. 161, t h eI n t e r p -
r e t a t i o n o f thedlagrams becomes more d i f f i c u l t . An example of a h o t - w i r e
o u t p u t , i n a casewhere a l l t h r e e modes,are p r e s e n t i s shown I n F i g u r e A . 1 . 6 .
I t i s r e a d i l y seen t h a t i n t h e absence o f onedominant mode, s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e
component modes canbe a problem.References 7. 8, and 12 may be consulted
f o r more d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e modal diagramtechnique.

TransonicFlows
The m d a l diagramapproachcannotbegenerallyappliedforcompressible
subsonicandtransonicflows(seeFig. A.l.1) where t h e d e r i v a t i v e s o f t h e
Nusselt number and r e c o v e r y f a c t o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o Mach number a r e n o t z e r o ,
and su # s forail o v e r h e a tr a t i o s (Refs. 3 , 8, and IO). Transonicopera-
P
tion at high dynamicpressuresalsoincreasesproblemswithwirebreakage.

The aboveproblems helpexplainthelimited usage o f h o t - w i r e systems i n

transonicwlndtunnels.Recentdevelopments,however,provideexamplesfor
overcomingthese difficulties. The sensor f a i l u r e problem may be a l l e v i a t e d
withtheuseofshorterwires(Ud - IOO), wireswithinsulativebackingor
film sensors(Ref. IO, 17, and 18). Heat l o s s e st o end s u p p o r t so rs u b s t r a t e
and p o s s i b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s n e c e s s i t a t e t h a t eachsensorbe calibrated
i n a representativeflowenvironment. The s e n s i t i v i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s Sp and Su

21 1
havebeen s y s t e m a t i c a l l y measured i nt r a n s o n i cf l o wb yi n d e p e n d e n t l yv a r y i n g
d e n s i t y and v e l o c i t y ( R e f s . 9 and I O ) . These r e s u l t se s t a b l i s ht h a t Sp and
Su a r ea p p r o x i m a t e l ye q u a lf o ra l l Mach numbers (includingthetroublesome
transonicrange) i f t h ew i r eo v e r h e a tr a t i oi sg r e a t e rt h a n 0.5 and t h e w i r e
Reynolds number i sg r e a t e rt h a n 20. O p e r a t i o nw i t h i nt h e s er e s t r i c t i o n sa g a i n
p e r m i t st h eu s eo ft h es i m p l i f i e de x p r e s s i o n o f Eq. (1.7).For many t r a n s o n i c
w i n dt u n n e l st h et o t a lt e m p e r a t u r ef l u c t u a t i o n sa r ex g i i g i b l er e l a t i v e to
themass-flux term. In t h i s c a s et h eh o t - w i r ed i r e c t l y senses t h ef l u c t u a -
t i o n s o f themass-flux. I f t h el e v e lo ft e m p e r a t u r ef l u c t u a t i o n Is unknown I n
a f a c i l i t y (such as a
new c r y o o e n i ct u n n e l )t h el e v e l may b ea s c e r t a i n e dw i t h a
sensoroperated a tc o n s t a n tc u r r e n t and neartherecoverytemperature.

R e d u c t i o no fm a s s - f l u x measurements i n a t r a n s o n i c f l o w i n t o i t s e l e m e n t s
requiresfurtherassumptions, e.g., possibleapplicationofthe modal diagrams
o r anindependent measurement w i t h a l a s e rv e l o c i m e t e r ,p r e s s u r et r a n s d u c e r or
a s p e c i a l h o t - f i l m geometry.Forboundary-layerflow.thepressurefluctuations
c a ng e n e r a l l yb en e g l e c t e dr e l a t i v e t o v o r t i c i t y .O p e r a t i n gw i t h i nt h e above
d e s c r i b e d w i r e and f l o w domain,boundary layerprofiles of v e l o c i t y . d e n s i t y
and Reynoldsshear s t r e s s weresuccessfullyobtainedinRef.10 for a nominal
Hach number of 0.8. For o p e r a t i o ni nt h et r a n s o n i cf r e e s t r e a m , i t a p p e a r st h a t
t h e p r i n c i p l e of modal diagramscanbe a p p l i e d t o high-Reynolds-number flow
b yo b t a i n i n gd a t aa ts e v e r a lo v e r - h e a tr a t i o s ,a l lb e i n gg r e a t e rt h a n 0.5.
Straightlinefairings OF t h ed a t a ,e x t r a p o l a t e d t o theordinate,wouldthen
provideinformationonthedominate mode a si nt h es u p e r s o n i c case. Another
approach for s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e f l u c t u a t i o n modes i s t o employ a yet-to-be
defined f i I m sensor t h a t has two (or more) f i l m s and a geometrysuch t h a t one
film responds t o themass-flux and a second f i l m responds t o pressure (geo-
m e t r i c a l l ys h i e l d e d from velocity). An a p p l i c a t i o n o f specialsensorgeometry,
fordirectcorrelation measurements,hasbeen r e p o r t e d for hypersonic,boundary-
l a y e r flow (Ref. 17).

Comparison o f Hot Wire t o Other Systems

Hot-wiredata have, i ng e n e r a l , compared w e l l w i t h measurementsfrom

otherdevices. Agreement o f v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e s o b t a i n e d w i t h hot w i r e and
l a s e r systems w i t h i n a shock-wave/boundary-layer i n t e r a c t i o n( R e f . 19) g i v e s
credence t o b o t h systems and tends t o v a l i d a t et h ea s s u m p t i o n s employed i n

21 2
d a t ar e d u c t i o n .I nt h ef r e e s t r e a mo f many t r a n s o n i c and supersonicwind
t u n n e l st h e sound mode generallydominates, and i n suchcases good agree-
menthasbeen o b t a i n e d between h o t - w i r e and pressuretransducer measure-
ments(Refs. 14and 20). An examplecomparison o f P i t o t and h o t - w i r e
measurements a t M = 5 i s shown i n F i g . A.1.7. F o rd i a g n o s t i c measurements
o f f l o w sw i t hn o i s ed n m i n a t e dd i s t u r b a n c e s , a dynamic pressuretransducer
may sensesuch f l u c t u a t i o n s w i t h much l e s s e f f o r t t h a n a h o t - w i r e system.
A dynamic P i t o t p r e s s u r e s u r v e y may s a t i s f y many w i n d t u n n - 1 c a l i b r a t i o n
requirements.Anotherwidely used C a l i b r a t i o n model i s t h e AEDC developed,
pressure-instrumented IOo cone. (See S e c t i o n 1 I I . F . 1 .).
I n summary, t h eh o t - w i r ec a np r o v i d e more i n f o r m a t i o nt h a n a dynamic
pressuretransducer, e.g., it can d i s t i n g u i s h betweenmoving and f i x e ds o u r c e s
o f sound w i t h a s i n g l e sensor. The w i r e a l s o p r o v i d e s a higherfrequencyre-
sponseand, i ng e n e r a l , has a more omnidirectionalresponsetonoisesources.
The smallersensorof a h o t - w i r e system i s i m p o r t a n t ( i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e
frequencyaspect) i f l o c a lf l u c t u a t i n g measurements i n a shock o r boundary
l a y e ra r er e q u i r e d .F u r t h e r ,t h ew i r e / f i l m sensor may be l o c a t e di na r e a s
hidden from t h e v i e w o f a laserDopplervelocimeter.

OtherDataAnalysisTechniques

O t h e rd a t a - r e d u c t i o nt e c h n i q u e sf o rt h ef l u c t u a t i n qs i g n a li n c l u d et i m e
( a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n ) and s p a t i a l( l o c a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n ) c o r r e l a t i o n s o f t h e
s i g n a l .S p e c t r a la n a l y s i sp r o v i d e st h ee n e r g yc o n t e n ta t eachfrequency.
These techniques and a s s o c i a t e d e l e c t r o n i c equipment a r e f a i r l y common and a r e
described i nt h el i t e r a t u r e . (Suggested r e f e r e n c e si n c l u d e 3 , 12, 14, and 21).
Sensor Choice and C a l i b r a t i o n Reouirements

Inthepast,thewire-breakageproblem had encouraged m i n i m i z i n g c a l i b r a -

t i o n time. Minimum c a l i b r a t i o n r e q u i r e s maximum use o f c o r r e l a t i o n s o f e x i s t -
ingcalibrationdata and e n d - l o s s c o r r e c t i o n s t o p r e d i c t t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a
w i r e (Refs. 8, 12,
22, and 23). A more recentapproach,thatpromisesimproved
datagatheringefficiency and dataaccuracy, i s t h e use o f more durable,rugged
sensors. A ruggedsensor may i n c l u d e a f i n e - d i a m e t e rs h o r tw i r e (E/d - loo),
a w i r e backedbyan i n s u l a t o r ,o r a l a r g e rd i a m e t e r f i l m sensor(Refs. IO, 17,
18 and24). The complexheatloss and p o s s i b l es u p p o r ti n t e r f e r e n c e s w i t h such
sensors r e q u i r e i n d i v i d u a l s e n s o r c a l i b r a t i o n s and theuse o f a c o n s t a n t tem-
p e r a t u r e system.
213
 Fully turbulent
nozzle wall
baundary layer

-+

I
3

-
aTa*nce
smt Oi
-turbulen
-First

I t J

Figure A. I .7 COMPARISON OF PITOT PROBE AM, HOT-WIRE

WSUREMENTS OF FREE-STREAM PRESSURE
FLUCTUATIONS IN A CONVENTIONAL, MACH 5
NOZZLE, Ref. 14.
214
 C a l i b r a t i o n o f a heatedsensor may, i n general, be o b t a i n e d i n s i t u b y
m a i n t a i n i n g a constant Machnumber and temperature and v a r y i n g t h e t o t a l
pressure (and therebyReynoldsnumber).Forsupersonicflow and f o r R > 20
i nt r a n s o n i cf l o w , S
P
= Su = S
PU
. Furtherdiscussionsonsuch mean f l o w
approaches t o c a l i b r a t i o n and more-refined dynamic c a l i b r a t i o n s a r e g i v e n
i n References 3 , 8, 9, 14, 18, 25, and 26.
Rose andHorstmanhave s u c c e s s f u l l y used t h er u g g e dc l a s so ft u n g s t e n
Yk
h o t - w i r e si n a t r a n s o n i cf l o wf o ro v e r 16 hourswithoutbreakage.Commercially
a v a i l a b l e f i l m sensors(suchas 0.002 t o 0.006-inchdiametercylinders)should
a l s or e c e i v ec o n s i d e r a t i o nf o rw i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o n because o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
advantages :

. s u p e r i o rr e s i s t a n c et op a r t i c l e damage,

. s u p e r i o rr e s i s t a n c et os u r f a c ec o n t a m i n a t i o n and s t r a i ng a g i n g ,

. highersensorReynolds numbers ( p a r t i c u l a r l yi m p o r t a n ti nt r a n s o n i c
flow).

Compared to t h e rugged c l a s so ft u n g s t e nw i r es e n s o r ,t h eP l a t i n u m - f i l m
Sensor has comparable c a p a b i l i t i e s i n maximum o v e r h e a tr a t i o (-one) and
frequency response ( - 150K Hz).

*Privatecommunication
Summary o f AdvantagesandDisadvantages o f HotWire System

The advantagesanddisadvantages o f u s i n g a hot-wiresystem t o measure

thefluctuatingflowpropertiesduring a w i n dt u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o na r e sum-
marized as f o l l o w s .

Advantages

1. Small
sensor
size

2. High
frequency
response

3. Higs
he n s i t i v i t y

4. S e n s i t i v et ob o t hk i n e m a t i c and thermodynamic f l u c t u a t i o n s

5. D i s t i n g u i s h betweenmovingand s t a t i o n a r yn o i s es o u r c e sw i t h a
s i n g l es e n s o r( i nf l o w s where temperaturespottedness i sn e g l i g i b l e )

6. Re1 i a b l e systemsandsensorscommerciallyavailable

7. Rugged s e n s o r sa v a i l a b l e ,p a r t i c u l a r l y film type

D i sadvan tages"
1. P o s s i b l ef r e q u e n tb r e a k a g eo ff i n e - w i r es e n s o r( d u et oa i rl o a d s ,
v i b r a t i o n s ,p a r t i c l e impingement, b u r n o u t o , x i d a t i o na, c c i d e n t se
, tc.)

2. P o s s i b l ef a l s es i g n a (l u s u a l l ya p p a r e n t l d u et os t r a i ng u a g i n g ,c o n t a m i n a -
t i o n ,o rv i b r a t i o no fp r o b e .

3. C a l i b r a t i o n may be r e q u i r e di ns i t u( f a c i l i t yt i m e may be expensive).

4. Separation o f s i g n ailn t oi n d e p e n d e n t modes requiresassumptions

c o n c e r n i n gf l o wc h a r a c t e r i s t i c so ri n d e p e n d e n t measurements

5. Analyses o fs i g n a lp a r t i c u l a r l yd i f f i c u l tf o rc o m p r e s s i b l es u b s o n i c
o rt r a n s o n i cf l o w ,u n l e s sr e s t r i c t e dt oh i g h e rR e v n o l d s numbers and
w i r et e m p e r a t u r e s .

f:
Sincetheoriginalwritingofthissection, a r e v i e w o f h o t - w i r e anemometry
by Comte-Bellot has been published(Ref. 27). T h i sr e f e r e n c ep r o v i d e s
a d d i t i o n a ld i s c u s s i o no fp r o b l e ma r e a s .

216
 NOMENCLATURE

constants

overheat
parameters, 1/2
a
a
En
En ,
R~

w i r e d iameter

E wire voltage

K2 time-averaged, t o t a lp r e s s u r eb e h i n d a normalshock
h heat-transfer coefficient
I wire current

k d i n Rw/d En
Tw

Kn Knudsen number, n/d

R w i r el e n g t h

m d Rn p/d Rn Tw

M Mach number

n d En k/d Rn Tw

"X
d i r e c t i o nc o s i n eo f normal t o sound plane
wave f r o n t r e l a t i v e t o f l o w d i r e c t i o n
hd
Nu Nusselt number, -k

staticpressure

resistance

Reynolds number, p u d h

correlation coefficient of mass-flux and t o t a l temperature

fluctuations,

sensor s e n s i t i v i t y c o e f f i c i e n t

temperature

a x i a lv e l o c i t y

exponent i n e q u a t i o n 2

217
a

Y ratio of specific heats,1.40 used for air

n recovery factor,
r'T t

x molecular mean freepath

U vi scos i ty

P dens i ty

'w r
temperature overheat, CTW - Tr)
Tr
root mean square

Superscripts

( 1' fluctuating value

( 7 time averaged

Subscripts

e environment

r recovery o f adiabatic wall

t total or stagnation conditions

t2 stagnation correction behind normal shock

T temperature

U velocity

W wire

U sound

P dens i ty

PU mass flux
0 entropy
T vorticity

218
 A. REFERENCES
1.

1. H. L. Dryden and A. M. Kuethe: " E f f e c to fT u r b u l e n c ei n Wind Tunnel

Measurements," NACA Tech, Rep. 342, 1930.

2. "Advances i n HotWire Anemometry, Proceedings o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Symposium onHotWire Anemometry," E d i t e d by W. L. M e l n i k and J. R.
Weske, U n i v e r s i t y o f Maryland, AFOSR
No. 68 - 1492, USAF O f f i c e o f
S c i e n t i f i c Research, J u l y , 1968.

3. V. A. Sandborn: Resistance Temperature'fransducers, MetropologyPress,

Fort Call ins, Colorado, 1972.

4. V. A. Sandborn: "A Review o f Turbulence Measurements i n Compressible -

Flow," NASA TH X-62,337, March 1974.
r

5. R. Westley:"Problems o fN o i s e Measurements I n Ground-Based F a c i l i t i e s

w i t h Forward-SpeedSimulation,"Appendlx 5 o f "A F u r t h e r Review o f Current
Research Aimed a t t h e D e s i g n and Operation of Large Wind Tunnels,'' Second
Report o f t h e M i n i l a w s Working Group,'AGARD-AR-83, Sept. 1975.

6. L. S. G . Kovasznay: "The Hot Wire Anemometer i n Supersonic Flow," Jour.

Aero. Sci., Vol. 17, No. 9, September, 1950.

7. L. S. G. Kovasznay: "Turbulence i n Supersonic Flow," Jour.Aero.Sci.,

Vol. 20, No. 10, October, 1953.

8. M. V. Morkovin:"Fluctuations andHot Wire Anemometry i n Compressible

Flows,'' AGARDograph,
24, November, 1956.

9. W. C. Rose and E. P. McDaid: "Turbulence Measurement i n Transonic Flow,"

Proc. A l A A 9 t h Aerodynamic TestingConference, June 1976.

10. C. C. Horstman and W. C. Rose: , "HotWire Anemometry i n Transonic Flow,"

NASA TM X-62,495, December 1975.
11. J. Laufer: "Aerodynamic NoiseinSupersonic Wind Tunnels,"Jour.Aero.
Sci.,Vol. 28, No. 9, September 1961.

12. J. C. Donaldson and J. P. Wallace:"FlowFluctuations Measurements a t

Machnumber 4 intheTestSectionofthe 12 InchSupersonicTunnel (D) ,'I

AEDC-TR-71-143, August 1971.

13. M. C. F i s c h e r and R. D. Wagner: " T r a n s i t i o n andHot H i r e Measuremen.ts i n

Hypersonic He1 ium Flow," A l A A Journal,Vol. 10, No. 10, October 1972.
14. J. B. Anders, P. C. Stainback, L. R. Keefe;
and 1. E. Beckwith: "Sound
and F l u c t u a t i n g D i s t u r b a n c e Mea'surements i n t h e S e t t l i n g Chamber and
TestSection," '75 Record, I n t ' l Congress,onInstrumentation
ICIASF in
Aerospace Simulation Faci 1 i t i e s , Ottawa, Canada Sept.22-24,: 1975, ,

published by IEE, 345 E. 4 7 t hS t r e e t , New York.

15. R. D. Wagner and L. M. Weinstein: "Hot Wire Anemometry i n Hypersonic

He1 iumFlow," NASA TN 0-7465,June 1974.
16. P. C. Stainback, e t a l : "ExperimentalStudiesofHypersonic Boundary -
Layer Transition and E f f e c t s o f Wind TunnelDisturbances," NASA TN D-7453,
NASA LangleyResearchCenter,March 1974.

17. V. M i k u l l a and C . C. Horstman: "TurbulenceStress Measurements i n a Non-

adiabaticHypersonic BoundaryLayer," A l A A Journal,Vol. 13, No. 12,
December 1975.

18. W. C. Rose:
"The Behavior o f a CompressibleTurbulent BoundaryLayer in
aShock-Wave-Induced AdversePressureGradient,'' NASA TN D-7092, NASA
Ames ResearchCenter,March 1974.
19. w. C. Rose and D. A. Johnson: "Turbulence i n a Shock-Wave Boundary-Layer
Interaction," A l A A Journal,Vol. 13, No. 7, J u l y 1975.

20. E. Grandeand G. C. Oates: "Response o fM i n i a t u r eP r e s s u r eT r a n s d u c e r s

t oF l u c t u a t i o n si nS u p e r s o n i c Flow," Instrumentation for A i r b r e a t h i n g
Propulsion, A I A A Series onProgress i n A s t r o n a u t i c s and Aeronautics,
Vol. 34, 1972.

21. R. K. Otnes and L. Enochson: D i g i t a l Time SeriesAnalysis,Wiley, New York,

1972-

22. W. Behrens: "TotalTemperatureThermocoupleProbe Based onRecovery

Temperature o f C i r c u l a rC y l i n d e r , "I n t . J.Heatand Mass Transfer,
Vol. 14, 1971.

23. C. F. Dewey, J r . : "Hot Wire Measurements i n Low Reynolds Number Hypersonic

Flows," ARS Journal,Vol. 28, No. 12,December 1961.

24. E. L. Doughman: "Development o f aHotWire Anemometer forHypersonic

Turbulent Flows,"TheReview o f S c i e n t i f i cI n s t r u m e n t s ,V o l . 43, No. 8,
August 1972.

220
25. R. F. Rosenberg: "Some AspectsonHotWire Anemometry Leading t o a
SpecialCalibration Method f o r HotWire Probes," ARL 71-0038, USAF
AerospaceResearchLaboratories,March 1971.

26. R. H. K l r c h h o f f and R. R. S a f a r i k ," T u r b u l e n c ec a l i b r a t i o no f a Hot Wire

Anemometer," A l A A Journal,Vol. 12, No. 5, May 1974.

27. Comte-Bellot, G.: "Hot-Wire Anemometry," Annual Reviews o fF l u i d

Mechanics,Vol. 8 , Palo Alto, C a l i f . 1976.

22 1
 APPEND I X I I
LASER
DOPPLER
VELOCIMETER
MEASUREMENTS

Thedevelopment ofthelaser was q u i c k l y f o l l o y e d b y i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to

t h e measurement o f t h e v e l o c i t y o f a moving o b j e c t b y o b s e r v i n g t h e D o p p l e r
s h i f t i n thefrequency o f t h ei n c i d e n tl a s e rl i g h t .L i q u i d flow v e l o c i t i e s
weremeasuredby Yeh and Cummins (Ref. 1) i n 1964, u t i l i z i n g D o p p l e rr a d i a t i o n
f r o ms m a l lp a r t i c l e se n t r a i n e di nt h ef l o w .I n 1965, t h et e c h n i q u e was r e f i n e d
andmeasurementswere made i n seededgas flowby Foreman,George andLewis
(Ref.2).Since t h a tt i m ev e r ys i g n i f i c a n t advanceshavebeen made b o t h i n
t h et h e o r e t i c a lu n d e r s t a n d i n go ft h et e c h n i q u e , and i n improved o p t i c a la r r a n g e -
ments and signalprocessors. The LaserDopplerVelocimeter (LDV) technique has
been a p p l i e d t o measurements o f mean v e l o c i t y , t u r b u l e n t i n t e n s i t y and f l o w
d i r e c t i o n i n a v a r i e t y o f f l o wf i e l d s and i n b o t h l i q u i d s andgases. By 1970
t h ev e l o c i t yr a n g eo v e rw h i c h measurementshadbeen made extended from 10 4
cm/sec t o 1000 m/sec (Ref. 3). T h i sr a p i dr a t eo f developmentcontinues.
L i t e r a t u r e on t h e s u b j e c t i s now e x t e n s i v e ; a b i b l i o g r a p h y (Ref. 4) p u b l i s h e d
i n 1972 c o n t a i n s 190 r e f e r e n c e s .

Laservelocimeter systemshave been operated i ns e v e r a lw i n dt u n n e l s ,

e.g., Refs. 3 , 5, 6, 7, 8, and t h e i ru n i q u ec a p a b i l i t i e s ,e s p e c i a l l y for
non-intrusivevelocity and turbulencesurveysaroundmodels i n t h et u n n e l ,
shouldinsuretheircontinueddevelopment and a p p l i c a t i o n .A l t h o u g h to the
present,the LDV has n o t been w i d e l y a p p l i e d t o b a s i c t u n n e l c a l i b r a t i o n
measurements, t h i s c a p a b i l i t y hasbeen demonstrated and t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y t o
thewindtunneloperator will probablylead t o t h i s use.The discussionhere-
i n will be r e s t r i c t e d p r i m a r i l y t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e LDV t e c h n i q u e f o r
application to basic facility flow calibration measurementssuchas mean
v e l o c i t y (Mach number) d i s t r i b u t i o n , t u r b u l e n c e i n t e n s i t y and f l o w a n g u l a r i t y .

B a s i cP r i n c i p l e s

C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f theadvantages and disadvantages o f l a s e r v e l o c i m e t e r

t e c h n i q u e sr e q u i r e some d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e system.

The p r i n c i p l e o f t h e LDV can be descr,ibedbyboththeDopplereffect and

b ya ni n t e r f e r e n c e - f r i n g e model.Sincebothapproaches y i e l dt h e same b a s i c
equationsdiscussed i nt h i sr e p o r t ,t h ef r i n g e model will beused s i n c e it
a i d sv i s u a l i z a t i o no ft h ep h y s i c a lp r i n c i p l e si n v o l v e d .S e v e r a lo p t i c a l
arrangements a r ep o s s i b l e ,b u tc o n s i d e r a t i o n s will be l i m i t e d t o t h e d u a l -

222
beam or d i f f e r e n t i a l - D o p p l e r systemmost commonly used for wind tunnel measure-
ments.

For a single-component,dual-beamsystem,Fig. A.II.l, a l a s e r beam i s

s e p a r a t e di n t o two p a r a l l e l beams o f e q u a li n t e n s i t ys e p a r a t e db y a distance
A. These beams e n t e r a lenswhichcauses them t o c r o s s a t t h e f o c a l p o i n t o f
t h el e n s where themeasuringorprobe volume i s formed. I nt h i sr e g i o n ,t h e
wavefrontsinterfereconstructively and d e s t r u c t i v e l y to form s t a t i o n a r y ,
a l t e r n a t ed a r k and b r i g h tr e g i o n s or f r i n g e s ,F i g . A.11.2. A p a r t i c l e moving
throughthemeasuringvolumecausesvariations intheintensityofthelight
s c a t t e r e db yt h ep a r t i c l e . The s c a t t e r e dl i g h ti sc o l l e c t e d and focusedby a
second l e n so n t o a p h o t o d e t e c t o r ,u s u a l l y a p h o t o m u l t i p l i e rt u b e .
r
The r e c e i v i n g o p t i c s and p h o t o d e t e c t o r may be l o c a t e d on t h e same s i d e o f
themeasurinqvolumeasthelaser and t r a n s m i t t i n g o p t i c s o r may be l o c a t e d on
t h eo p p o s i t es i d e . If l o c a t e do nt h e same s i d e ,t h e svstem u t i l i z e s l i g h t
s c a t t e r e di nt h e backward d i r e c t i o n by p a r t i c l e s i n t h e f l o w ( b a c k s c a t t e r mode).
I f l a s e r and r e c e i v i n g o p t i c s a r e on o p p o s i t es i d e so ft h em e a s u r i n g volume, t h e
system u t i l i z e s 1 i g h t s c a t t e r e d i n t h e f o r w a r d d i r e c t i o n ( f o r w a r d - s c a t t e r mode).
Obviousoperationaladvantagesareassociatedwiththebackscatter mode, p a r t i c -
u l a r l yf o rw i n dt u n n e la p p l i c a t i o n . However, s i n c e much more l i g h t i s s c a t t e r e d
i nt h ef o r w a r dd i r e c t i o n ,F i g . A.11.3, t h es i g n a l - t o - n o i s er a t i o i s significantly
h i g h e rw i t ht h ef o r w a r d - s c a t t e r system.

The p h o t o m u l t i p l i e rt u b eg e n e r a t e s an e l e c t r i c a l s i g n a l a t a frequency
d i r e c t l yp r o p o r t i o n a lt ot h ev e l o c i t y and i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e f r i n g e
spacing,Fig. A.11.4, a c c o r d i n qt ot h er e l a t i o n

where f di st h eD o p p l e rf r e q u e n c y , U t h ev e l o c i t y component normal t o t h e

f r i n g e s and p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e b i s e c t o r o f t h e beam angle, and 8 f is the
f r i n g es p a c i n g .

The f r i n g e s p a c i n g can be determined from t h e systemgeometryand the

wavelength o ft h el a s e ra s shown i n F i g s . A.II.l and 2, i.e.,

( I I .2)
 N
N
&
Ream

Collecting

/ i\

L Processor
I
imatomutiplier
Tube (Backscatter Mode)

Figure A . I 1 . 1 . DUAL BEAM LASERDOPPLER VELOCIMETER, WITH

CPPIOPIAL FORWARD AND MCKSCA!M!ER MODES
A-

Figure A. I I . 2 GENERATION OF INTERFERENCE FRINGES IN

MEASURING VOLUME OF DUAL BEAM LASER -
DOPPLER VELOCIMETER
 Forward
Scatter Scatter

Electrical
signal
Incident
Light _c c

Time

Figure A I I 3 LIGHT SCATTERED BY Figure A. I I . 4 LASER ANEMOMETER SIGNAL

A SMALL PARTICLE FROEl PHGT0DE;TECTOR

.
where X i s t h e w a v e l e n g t h o f t h e l a s e r and 0 i s t h e a n g l e between t h e i n t e r -
s e c t i n g beams.
From t h e above r e l a t i o n s :

The measured v e l o c i t y i s t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e o f t h e v e l o c i t y o f t h e p a r t i c l e
which i sn o tn e c e s s a r i l ye q u a lt ot h a t o f t h ef l u i d . The problems o f p a r t i c ' l e
l a g will be d i s c u s s e di n more d e t a i ll a t e ri nt h i ss e c t i o n . The ambiguity
w i t hr e g a r dt of l o wd i r e c t i o n becomes a problem i n t u r b u l e n t f l o w s a t l o w ,
mean-component v e l o c i t y where f l o wr e v e r s a l may be encountered,butcan be
overcome by i n t r o d u c i n g an a c o u s t o - o p t i cm o d u l a t o r( B r a g gc e l l )i n t o one of
t h et w op a r a l l e l a s e r beams. The Bragg c e l li n t r o d u c e s an a c c u r a t e l y known
frequencyshiftinto one o f t h e beams, w h i c hr e s u l t s i n a moving r a t h e rt h a n
a s t a t i o n a r yf r i n g e system.Zero p a r t i c l ev e l o c i t yt h e nc o r r e s p o n d st ot h e
f r e q u e n c ys h i f t ;h i g h e ro rl o w e rv e l o c i t i e sg e n e r a t eh i g h e ro rl o w e ro u t p u t
s i g n a lf r e q u e n c i e s .I nt h i s manner t h ed i r e c t i o n a la m b i g u i t y can be e l i m i n a t e d
and r e v e r s i n gf l o w s can be measured. Formain-stream,empty-test-section
measurements i n a w i n dt u n n e lt h ed i r e c t i o n a la m b i g u i t y will n o tn o r m a l l y be
a problem,buttheBraggcell may s t i l l be u s e f u la th i g hf l o wv e l o c i t i e st o '

d o w n - s h i f tt h es i g n a lf r e q u e n c yt o a range t h a t can be more r e a d i l y measured

by t h ee l e c t r o n i cs i g n a lp r o c e s s o r .

The measuring o r p r o b e volume is an e l l i p s o i d w h i c h may be defined by

t h ec o n t o u r where t h e l i g h t i n t e n s i t y decreases t o l / e t i m e s t h e maximum
i n t e n s i t ya tt h ec e n t e r o f theprobevolume, Ref. 9. The w i d t h and l e n g t h o f
t h e volume Fig. A.11.2 may be d e f i n e d by

where do i s t h e d i a m e t e r o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i n g l a s e r beams a t t h e f o c a l
p o i n t o f t h et r a n s m i t t i n gl e n s . The focuseddiameter,do,isrelated t ot h e
initiallaser beam diameter, Do, by

227
 (I 1.6)

where F i st h et r a n s m i t t i n gl e n sf o c a ll e n g t h .O t h e rr e l a t i o n s may be d e r i v e d
f o rt h ed i m e n s i o n so ft h ep r o b e volume,dependinq upon how t h e " e f f e c t i v e "
geometricboundariesaredefined(Refs. 3 , 10, 1 1 ) . The above e q u a t i o n demon
s t r a t e st h a t a l a r g e ,o r i g i n a l( o r expanded) laser-beamdiameter anda short-
f o c a l - l e n g t hl e n sy i e l dt h e minimum sizemeasuring or probe volume.The focal
l e n g t hi sa l s od e t e r m i n e d by t h e d i s t a n c e from t h e t r a n s m i t t i n g l e n s t o t h e
point of the flow where measurements a r e d e s i r e d .

The s e l e c t i o n o f t h e measuringvolume i s a designproblemduringwhich

c o n f l i c t i n gr e q u i r e m e n t s must be balanced. The i n i t i a lr e s t r i c t i o n sa r e
u s u a l l yd e t e r m i n e d by t h e minimum number o f f r i n g e s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s i g n a l
p r o c e s s o rt o measure thefrequencywithadequateaccuracy.Also,theDoppler
signalfrequency must n o t exceed t h e maximum whichcan be measuredby the
p r o c e s s o r :t h i sf r e q u e n t l yi s a f u n c t i o no ft h ef r i n g es p a c i n g and t h e m x i -
mum v e l o c i t y t o be measured, asdefinedby Eq. (11.1). The r e q u i r e d minimum
number of u s a b l e f r i n g e s canbeas o
lw as e i g h t w i t h a countersystem,but a
somewhat l a r g e r number i sn o r m a l l yp r e f e r r e d , The number o f fringescan be
determined from the width of the measuring volume, wv, d i v i d e d by t h e f r i n g e
spacing,bf, as definedby Eqs. (I1 . 2 ) , ( I 1.4) and (i1.6), i.e., .

0
8F s i n (F)
- (I 1.8)
TI Do

From t h e o p t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n , F i g . A.II.1, i t may be n o t e dt h a tt h e

angle (8/2) i s n o r m a l l y smal 1.

Here A i s t h e beam s e p a r a t i o nd i s t a n c ea tt h et r a n s m i t t i n gl e n s . From

Eqs. (II.8) and (II . 9 ) . the number o f f r i n g e s can be expressed i n terms o f
o n l yt h e beam s e p a r a t i o nd i s t a n c e and t h e i n i t i a l laser-beamdiameter.

Nfr = -
4
-
A
(11.10)
TI Do
228
A g a i nn o t et h a tt h e number o f f r i n g e s can be increased by r e d u c i n gt h e
unfocused beam diameter, Do, b u tt h i si nt u r ni n c r e a s e st h ep r o b ed i a m e t e r .
I n c r e a s i n gt h e beam separation, A , f o r a f i x e d t r a n s m i t t i n g l e n s f o c a l
length, i s aneffective means o fi n c r e a s i n gt h e number of f r i n g e s .

Based on thepreceedingequations, i t i so fi n t e r e s tt oc a l c u l a t et h e
dimensions o f t h e measuringvolume and o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a velocimeter
system.ConsideranArgonlaserwith a wavelength o f 514.5 nm andan input
beam diameter o f 1.5 mm. I f t h et r a n s m i t t i n gl e n sf o c a ll e n g t hi s 1.5 m and
t h e beam spacing i s 100 mm, t h e beam a n g l ei s 3.818". From Eq.' (11.6) t h e
focused beam diameter i s 0.65 mm which i s a l s o t h e maximum w i d t h o f t h e p r o b e
volume. The l e n g t ho ft h ep r o b e volume i s , from Eq. (11.5) , 19.7 mm. The
f r i n g es p a c i n g i s 7.7 and t h e maximum number o f r i n g e s i s 84. At a
v e l o c i t y o f 300m/sec., theDopplerfrequency (Eq. ( 1 1 . 1 ) w i l l be 38.96 MHz.
Thissystem i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t y p i c a l , b u t i t i l l u s t r a t e sa p p l i c a t i o no ft h e
system r e l a t i o n s h i p sd i s c u s s e dp r e v i o u s l y .

To t h i s p o i n t t h e measurement of a s i n g l e v e l o c i t y component (normal t o

t h ef r i n g ep a t t e r n ) has been described. The f r i n g ep a t t e r n o f a single-
component LDV can be r o t a t e db yr o t a t i n gt h et r a n s m i t t i n go p t i c s .T h i sp e r -
m i t s t h e measurement o f v e l o c i t y components a t two or more anglessuchas
-
+45 degrees t o t h e n o m i n a l t u n n e l c e n t e r l i n e . From t h e t w o v e l o c i t y component
measurements, t h ev e l o c i t yv e c t o ri nt h et u n n e lp l a n e normal t o t h e b i s e c t o r
o ft h ei n t e r s e c t i n g beams canbedetermined.Thus, flow a n g u l a r i t yc a n be
measured i n a d d i t i o n t o v e l o c i t y and t u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t y .

O p t i c a la r r a n g e m e n t st oy i e l ds i m u l t a n e o u s two-componentmeasurements can
be r e a l i z e d by u s i n g two p a i r s o f i n t e r s e c t i n g beams, u s u a l l yw i t ht h ep l a n e
d e f i n e d by t h e second p a i r o f beams normal t ot h a td e f i n e d bythe first
beam p a i r .S e p a r a t i o no ft h e two measurementscan be achieved by s p l i t t i n g
a l a s e r beam i n t o two p a i r s o f beams, each p a i r p o l a r i z e d 90" t o t h e o t h e r .
P o l a r i z e d f i l t e r s on t h e two p h o t o d e t e c t o r sa l l o w each d e t e c t o r t o see o n l y
t h el i g h ts c a t t e r e df r o mt h ef r i n g e s formed by two o ft h ef o u r beams a t t h e
i n t e r s e c t i o np o i n t . Two wavelengths o f l a s e r l i g h t can a l s o be used f o r two
componentmeasurements. The use o f an Argon i o nl a s e r i s p a r t i c u l a r l y con-
v e n i e n tf o rt h i s purposesince t w o s t r o n gc o l o r hands, 488 nm ( b l u e ) and
514.5 nm ( g r e e n )a r ea v a i l a b l e .O p t i c a lf i l t e r sa l l o ws e p a r a t i o n o f the
s c a t t e r e dl i g h t so eachphotodetector sees o n l y t h e l i g h t of interest.
 A t h i r d v e l o c i t y component, p a r a l l e l t o t h e b i s e c t o r o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i n g
beams, can a l s ob e measured simultaneously.Forexample,Orloffand Logan
(Ref. 12) havedescribedan LDV system f o r measuring a l l t h r e e v e l o c i t y
components which employs backscattering and a reference-beam method.

SignalProcessors

The o u t p u ts i g n a lf r o mt h ep h o t o m u l t i p l i e rt u b e , shown on F i g . A.11.4,

i s a f r e q u e n c y ' b u r s ta tt h eD o p p l e rf r e q u e n c yw i t ha m p l i t u d em o d u l a t e da c c o r d -
i n gt ot h ei n t e n s i t yd i s t r i b u t i o na c r o s st h ef r i n g e s .T h i sa m p l i t u d e - m o d u l a t e d
envelope i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o asthe"pedestal" and must be removed b yh i g h -
pass f i l t e r i n g o r o p t i c a l means beforeprocessing. The number o f c y c l e s of
t h ed o p p l e rs i g n a l and themodulationintensityaboutthepedestalenvelope
will v a r ya c c o r d i n gt ot h el o c a t i o na tw h i c ht h ep a r t i c l ec r o s s e st h ep r o b e
volume, t h e s i z e o f t h e p a r t i c l e and t h e number o f p a r t i c l e s p r e s e n t a t one
timewithintheprobevolume.Signalburstsofmeasurableamplitude and t h e
minimum r e q u i r e d number o f c y c l e s o c c u r a t random t i m ei n t e r v a l s , and phase
r e v e r s a l sd u r i n g a s i n g l es i g n a lb u r s t will occur when m u l t i p l e p a r t i c l e s a r e
present .

Several methods f o rp r o c e s s i n gt h ed a t af r o mt h ep h o t o m u l t i p l i e r have been

used.
These include:

spectrumanalyzers
p h o t o nc o r r e l a t o r s
f i l t e r banks
o f r e q u e n c yt r a c k e r s
0 counters

O n l yt h el a s t twotypes o f p r o c e s s o r sp r o d u c ee s s e n t i a l l yr e a l - t i m ev e l o c i t y
i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y and a r e c u r r e n t l y used f o r m o s tw i n dt u n n e la p p l i c a t i o n s .

The f r e q u e n c yt r a c k e r , as t h e name implies,convertstheDoppler

f r e q u e n c yr e c e i v e df r o mt h ep h o t o d e t e c t o ri n t o a p r o p o r t i o n a l ,a n a l o gv o l t a g e .
The t r a c k e r c i r c u i t i s implementedusingphase o rf r e q u e n c yl o c k e dl o o p s ,o r
a combination o ft h e two.Bothtypes o fl o o p sf u n c t i o n by comparingthe
outputfrequencyof a voltage-controlledoscillator ( V C O ) o r a v o lt a g e - t o -
frequencyconverter (V/F) t ot h ei n p u ts i g n a lf r e q u e n c y , and b o t h u t i l i z e t h e
differenceinfrequencytomodifyoradjusttheacinputvoltagetothein-
t e r n a lf r e q u e n c yg e n e r a t o r . The dc v o l t a g e i s t h e np r o p o r t i o n a lt ot h ei n p u t
f r e q u e n c y .A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,t h ei n t e r n a l l y - g e n e r a t e df r e q u e n c yc a nb ec o n v e r t e d
to a digital signal by means o f a counter.
 Trackerprocessorsarecharacterizedbythe maximum frequencyrange,
capturebandwidth,dynamicrange and s l e wr a t e . If t h e change i n v e l o c i t y
from one p a r t i c l e t o t h e n e x t exceeds thecapturebandwidthorcapture
range,thetracker will l o s el o c k and n o t t r a c k t h e p a r t i c l e o r o t h e r
particles which are outside the capture range.

Where D o p p l e rs i g n a lt r a c k i n g i s i n t e r r u p t e d bya d r o p - o u t ,t h el a s t
o u t p u tv o l t a g el e v e li sn o r m a l l yp l a c e di n "hold". I f t h es i g n a lr e t u r n s
d u r i n gt h eh o l dp e r i o d ,t r a c k i n gi s resumed. I f t h es i g n a li sn o tr e c a p -
t u r e dd u r i n gt h eh o l dp e r i o d ,t h es e a r c ho r sweepmode isactivateduntil
t h es i g n a li sr e - a c q u i r e d .S i g n a l sc a n be p r o v i d e dt oe x t e r n a ld a t a systems
torecord mean v e l o c i t y and ac o r t u r b u l e n t f l u c t u a t i o n s i g n a l s , e.g.,Ref.
13. Dopplerfrequenciescan bemeasured from 2kHz t o 50 MHz. Velocity
changes over a 200: 1 rangecan be f o l l o w e d , and i n t h e s e a r c h mode t h e
frequencyslewratecan be as h i g h as 400 MHz/ms. D a t a - v a l i d a t i o nf e a t u r e s
a r ea l s on o r m a l l yi n c o r p o r a t e d .F o r example, one s y s t e mr e q u i r e st r a c k i n g
f o r 8 Dopplercycles and h o l d i n g f o r 2 a d d i t i o n a lc y c l e sw i t h o u td r o p - o u ti n
o r d e rt o be considered a v a l i dd a t ap o i n t . Thus, f o rh e a v i l y seeded f l o w s ,
d a t ar a t e s up t o 1 x 106 per second can be processed.

The c o u n t e r o r b u r s t p r o c e s s o r f o r laser-anemometer s i g n a l s a c c u r a t e l y
measures t h et i m er e q u i r e df o r a particleinthe flow t o t r a v e l a c r o s s a
f i x e d number o f f r i n g e s i n t h e measuringvolume,i.e., a known distance.
From these two q u a n t i t i e s , a counterdeterminestheDopplerfrequency and
t h e r e b yt h ep a r t i c l ev e l o c i t y . The counter may be i n h e r e n t l y a d i g i t a l i n -
strument, so d r i f t and c a l i b r a t i o n problemswhich may be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
analogprocessors,such as trackers,areavoided.Counterprocessorsare
n o r m a l l yc o n f i g u r e dt oy i e l d a directdigitaloutput.

A c o u n t e rf u n c t i o n s by passing a l a s e rs i g n a lb u r s tt h r o u g h a thresh-
o l dl e v e ld e t e c t o rw h i c h , when t h ea d j u s t a b l ea m p l i t u d e - t h r e s h o l di se x -
ceeded, enables a z e r o - c r o s s i n gd e t e c t o r suchas a Schmidt t r i g g e r . Those
D o p p l e rs i g n a l s above t h ea m p l i t u d e - t h r e s h o l dl e v e la r et h e nc o n v e r t e di n t o
a t r a i n o f square waves, w i t h a f r e q u e n c ye q u a lt ot h eo r i g i a n ls i g n a l
frequency.
Many e l e c t r o n i c f r e q u e n c y - c o u n t e r s f u n c t i o n by c o u n t i n g each c y c l e
ofthe unknown s i g n a l f o r an a c c u r a t e l y - f i x e dt i m ep e r i o d , suchas 0.1,
1.0 or IO seconds.The r e a d i n g sa r et h e nc o n v e r t e dt ot h es i g n a lf r e q u e n c y

23 1
i nh e r t z .S i n c et h e maximum number o f c y c l e s a v a i l a b l e from t h e passage o f
a particleacrossthemeasuring volume o f a LDV i s e x t r e m e l y s m a l l , t h e a c c u -
r a c yo ft h ed i r e c tc o u n t i n gp r o c e d u r ew o u l d be t o t a l l y inadequate. To a v o i d
t h i s problemcounterprocessorsareperiod measurement devices,i.e.,pulses
from an a c c u r a t e , h i g h - f r e q u e n c y o s c i l l a t o r o r c l o c k a r e a c c u m u l a t e d i n a
r e g i s t e rd u r i n gt h et i m ei n t e r v a lc o r r e s p o n d i n gt o a f i x e d number o f p u l s e s
from t h eS c h m i d tt r i g g e r .A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,t h et i m ei n t e r v a l s canbe converted
t ov o l t a g ea m p l i t u d e sw h i c hc a n bemeasured digitally. The t i m er e s o l u t i o n
f o rt h e n periodrangesfrom 2 t o IO x 10-9 seconds,depending upon t h e c l o c k
frequency, e.g., 500 MHz corresponds t o 2 x 10-9 seconds r e s o l u t i o n . The
c o u n t e rp r o c e s s o ra l s on o r m a l l yi n c l u d e sc o m p u t a t i o n a lc a p a b i l i t i e st oc o n v e r t
theperiodinformationintoeitherfrequencyorvelocityunitsfordigital
display. The computationtime i st y p i c a l l y about 1 x I O m 6 sec so t h a t , even
athighvelocities where theDopplerfrequency i s IO t o 20 MHz, t h e t o t a l
a c q u i s i t i o n and c o m p u t a t i o nt i m ef o r one i n d i v i d u a l measurement can be asshort
as 2 t o 3 x 10
-6 sec.
Data a c q u i s i t i o nr a t e so f 100,000 readings/secare
t h e r e f o r et h e o r e t i c a l l yp o s s i b l e( b u tf a rf r o m common) w i t h moderateconcentra-
t i o no fp a r t i c l e s , Ref. 14.

Counterprocessorsincludeseveraldata-validationfeaturestoallowthe
rejectionofnoisebursts,detectthe loss o f a b i t o r c y c l e d u r i n g a process-
i n gc y c l e ,r e j e c ts i g n a l sf r o ml a r g ep a r t i c l e s ,e t c . The primarytechnique
u t i l i z e d t o rejectdata sequences i n which one o r more c y c l e s may be m i s s i n g
( c y c l ea m p l i t u d eb e l o wt h r e s h o l d )c o n s i s t s o f u s i n g two o r m r e r e g i s t e r s . The
c l o c kp u l s e sa r eg a t e di n t ob o t h a h i g h and o
lw r e g i s t e r on t h e f i r s t c y c l e .
The c l o c k p u l s e s t o t h e low r e g i s t e r a r e g a t e d o f f a f t e r NL c y c l e s , w h i l e t h e
h i g hr e g i s t e ra c c u m u l a t e s NH c y c l e s . A comparaterthen computes t h e r a t i o o f
t h e twotimeintervals,whichshould be e q u a l ,t ot h er a t i o NH/NL. If the
e r r o ri sw i t h i np r e - s e tl i m i t s ,t h e measurement i s v a l i d a t e d .

Asher(Ref. 14) demonstratestheadvantage o f an odd r a t i o , NL/NH, such

as 5/8 or 10/16 o v e re v e nr a t i o s . Odd r a t i o s suchas 5/8 a r e commonlyused.
A c o u n t e rp r o c e s s o ru s i n gt h r e ed i f f e r e n tr e g i s t e r s hasbeen used a t AEDC.
None o f thesesystemscompletelyrejectspurioussignals,buttheydogreatly
r e d u c et h ep r o b a b i l i t yo f such d a t ab e i n gc o n s i d e r e dv a l i d .L a r g ep a r t i c l e s ,
which may be l a g g i n g t h e f l u i d f l o w t o anexcessivedegree,can be detected
i f t h et o t a li n p u ts i g n a la m p l i t u d e( p e d e s t a lp l u sD o p p l e rf r e q u e n c y ) exceeds
a p r e - s e t limit. The a d j u s t a b l et h r e s h o l dl e v e l( r e q u i r e d to enable a zero-
c r o s s i n gd e t e c t o r )c a nb e used to r e j e c t s i g n a l s w i t h inadequate ~ i g n a 1 - t ~ -
n o i s er a t i o .S e t t i n gt h et h r e s h o l dl e v e lh i g h ,o nt h eo t h e r hand, c a nb i a s
t h ed a t aa c q u i r e d to l a r g ep a r t i c l e s by r e j e c t i n gl o w - l e v e ls i g n a l s fromsmall
particles.
Mostcounterprocessorsalsoincludefunctions suchas a d i g i t a li n d i c a t i o n
o fe i t h e rt h ed a t ar a t e( v a l i d a t e dd a t ap o i n t sp e r second) o r p e r c e n t o f t o t a l
d a t as i g n a l sp r o c e s s e dt h aat r ev a l i d a t e d . An o u t p u t i s n o r m a l l yp r o v i d e dt o '

i n d i c a t e eachtime a new d a t ap o i n ti sv a l i d a t e d andprocessed. A digital

outputcan be made a v a i l a b l e t o a l l o w i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e d a t a d i r e c t l y i n t o
a computer o ro t h e rd i g i t a lr e c o r d i n g system. An a n a l o gv o l t a g eo u t p u t i s also
normally available.

Due t ot h ed i f f e r e n c ei no p e r a t i n gp r i n c i p l e s ,t h ec o u n t e r i s n o tl i m i t e d
byslew r a t eo rt r a c k i n gr a t ep e r f o r m a n c e . The counter i s an extremelywide-
band i n s t r u m e n tw
, h i l et h et r a c k e r i s i n h e r e n t l y narrow-band. Assuming t h e
noisepresent i s b r o a d b a n d ,t h en o i s er e j e c t i o nc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h et r a c k e r
i s s u p e r i o rt ot h a to ft h ec o u n t e r . However, s i n c et h et r a c k e ro p e r a t e si n
thefrequency domain, i t i s responsivetoDopplerfrequencyspectrumbroadening
r e s u l t i n gf r o mt h ef i n i t ed u r a t i o no ft h es i g n a lb u r s t .T h i sb r o a d e n i n gi s
s i m i l a rt ot h em o d u l a t i o ns i d e b a n d sg e n e r a t e d when a c a r r i e r f r e q u e n c y is
amplitudemodulated. The presence o f m u l t i p l ep a r t i c l e si nt h ep r o b e volume
a l s og e n e r a t e s phase reversalswhichcausespectrumbroadening.Sincethe
s t a n d a r dd e v i a t i o na b o u tt h e mean v e l o c i t y i s a measure o f turbulence and i s
r e l a t e dt ot h ec o r r e s p o n d i n gD o p p l e rf r e q u e n c yd e v i a t i o nt h r o u g h Eq. (ll.l),
s p e c t r a lb r o a d e n i n gc a ni n t e r f e r ew i t ht u r b u l e n c e measurements.

-
P a r t i c l e S i z e and D i s t r i b u t i o n E f f e c t s
The s i z e ,s i z ed i s t r i b u t i o n ,c o n c e n t r a t i o n , and p h y s i c a lc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
ofthe'particlesin a t r a n s o n i co rs u p e r s o n i ct u n n e lf l o wf i e l da r eo fg r e a t
i m p o r t a n c e ,w h e t h e rt h ep a r t i c l e sa r en a t u r a l l yp r e s e n ti nt h ef l o wo rt h e
f l o wi s seeded. I nt h ep r e s e n c eo fv e l o c i t yg r a d i e n t so rt u r b u l e n c e , a signifi-
cantvelocitylag may e x i s t between t h e f l u i d m o t i o n and t h e p a r t i c l e m o t i o n .
Lag e f f e c t s a r e most s i g n i f i c a n t a t h i g hf r e q u e n c i e s and i n r e g i o n s o f r a p i d
fluid acceleration or deceleration, as across a shock o r expansion wave o r
along a streamlineapproaching a s t a g n a t i o np o i n t . These environments,of
i n t e r e s ti nf l o wf i e l ds u r v e y s ,w o u l dn o tn o r m a l l y be encountered i n empty t e s t
s e c t i o n c a l i b r a t i o n measurements, b u t t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r t i c l e s to f o l l o w
r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l mean v e l o c i t y p e r t u r b a t i o n s and respond t o low-to-moderate
l e v e l so ft u r b u l e n c ea r eo fi n t e r e s t .
233
 The upper limit on p a r t i c l e s i z e i s d e t e r m i n e d by i n e r t i a o r l a g e f f e c t s .
and thelower limit, forhighspeed:flows, may be determinedbythereduced
amount o f 1 i g h t s c a t t e r e d b y t h e p a r t i c l e w h i c h r e s u l t s i n an unacceptably
lowsignal-to-noiseratio.

Flowseeding may be r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n 'anadequate number o f p a r t i c l e s o f

c o n t r o l l e ds i z e ,e s p e c i a l l y i f a t r a c k e rp r o c e s s o ri s used.For measurements
w i t h a counterprocessor,naturallyoccuringparticlesintheflow may be
u t i l i z e d , Refs- 6 and 7. These p a r t i c l e sa r en o r m a l l ys p a r s e l yc o n c e n t r a t e d
and r e s u l t i n nomore than one p a r t i c l e i n t h e m e a s u r i n g volume a t t h e same
time. However, seeding may be employed w i t h a c o u n t e rp r o c e s s o rt oc o n t r o l
p a r t i c l es i z e and i n c r e a s et h ed a t ar a t e . Measurements i nt h e1 6 - f o o tt r a n s o n i c
t u n n e la t NASA LangleyResearchCenterhave been made usingatomized o i l to
seed theflow, Ref. 5. Seeding i n a continuouswindtunnel can c r e a t e contam-
inationproblemswhichencouragetheuse o f measurement p r o c e d u r e s a p p l i c a b l e
t o unseeded flows.

The m o t i o n o f a s p h e r i c a l p a r t i c l e i n a fluid flow hasbeen reviewedby

Hinze (Ref. IS). So0 (Ref. 16) alsoreviewed and
summarized t h ee q u a t i o n s
d e s c r i b i n gp a r t i c l em o t i o n . The completeequation, as givenbyHinzeis:

+ 3 dp2VT& l t d t '

t0
[%d r-7 ' %I+ Fe

The s u b s c r i p t g r e f e r s t o t h e gas andp totheparticle; dp i s t h e d i a m e t e r

oftheparticle (assumed t o be s p h e r i c a l ) , and t ' i s a dummy v a r i a b l e .

In this formthetermonthe left of the equality sign is the force re-

q u i r e dt oa c c e l e r a t et h ep a r t i c l e . The f i r s t t e r mo nt h er i g h ti st h ed r a g
f o r c e basedon Stokes' law. The second termaccounts for t h ep r e s s u r eg r a -
dient in the fluid aroundtheparticle causedby accelerationofthefluid.
The t h i r d term i s t h e f o r c e r e q u i r e d t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e a p p a r e n t mass o f t h e
particlerelativetotheambientfluid.

234
The f o u r t ht e r m( d e s i g n a t e dt h e "Basset"term)accounts forthedeviationof
t h ef l o wp a t t e r n from steadystate. The Vastterm, Fe, represents body
f o r c e s due t o g r a v i t y , L o r e n t z f o r c e on a charged p a r t i c l e i n an e l e c t r i c
f i e l d ,l a s e rp h o t o np r e s s u r e ,e t c . Base (Ref. 17) reviewsthecomplete
e q u a t i o n as g i v e n byHinzeabovebutemploys a morecomplex expressionfor
drag(Oseen'slaw) t o accommodate h i g h e rr e l a t i v eR e y n o l d s numbers*

According t o Hinze,the second, t h i r d and f o u r t ht e r m s on t h e r i g h t o f

Eq. (11.11) may beneglected if t h e d e n s i t y o f t h e f l u i d i s significantly
l e s st h a nt h ed e n s i t yo ft h ep a r t i c l e ,w h i c hi sn o r m a l l yt r u e .I nt h er a n g e
o f speeds encountered i n t r a n s o n i c and s u p e r s o n i c t u n n e l s , g r a v i t y e f f e c t s
a r en e g l i g i b l e compared t ot h ed r a gf o r c e .R e t a i n i n go n l yt h eS t o k e s 'l a wd r a g
term on t h e r i g h t s i d e , Eq. (11.11) may be w r i t t e n

( I 1.12)

T h i sd i f f e r e n t i a le q u a t i o n ,w h i c ha g r e e sw i t ht h a tg i v e n by So0 (Ref.
16), may b et r a n s f o r m e di n t ot h es t a n d a r dt r a n s f e rf u n c t i o n form

where S i st h eL a p l a c eo p e r a t o r , a n d T i st h et i m ec o n s t a n td e f i n e d by
P

(11.14)

The s t e a d ys t a t es i n u s o i d a la m p l i t u d e and phaseresponse of the particle with

r e s p e c t t o t h e gas may beexpressed i n thefrequency domainby substituting
j w f o r S, where j = 6.

Herew i st h ef r e q u e n c yo f gas m o t i o ni nr a d i a n sp e r second. The phaseangle,

4, bywhichtheparticlelagsthefluidmotionis

(11.16)

235
 The aboveequations based o n S t o k e s ' l a w a g r e e w i t h t h o s e g i v e n b y F e l l e r
and Meyers(Ref. 18) and o t h e r s . Mazumder, Hoyle and K i r s c h (Ref. 19) and
YantaandGates(Ref. 20) use a t i m e c o n s t a n t e x p r e s s i o n s i m i l a r t o Eq. (II. 14)
e x c e p tt h a t a c o r r e c t i o nt e r mi sa p p l i e dt ot h eS t o k e s 'd r a gc o e f f i c i e n tt o
extend i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h e range o f f l o w c o n d i t i o n s where t h e Knudsen
a.
number (Kn = - ) becomes appreciable.Epstein(Ref. 21) d e r i v e d a c o r r e c t i o n
dP
t e r mt oS t o k e s 'l a wf r o mt h ek i n e t i ct h e o r yv i e w p o i n t ,a si sd i s c u s s e db y
HappelandBrenner(Ref. 22), butvariousforms and e m p i r i c a lc o n s t a n t sh a v e
evolved. One o ft h es i m p l e rf o r m s , usedbyYanta and Gates(Ref. 201, results
i n a timeconstantexpressed as

where k i s t h e Cunningham c o n s t a n t (1.8 f o r a i r ) , and .9 i s t h e mean f r e e p a t h .

From Eq. ( l l . l 7 ) ,t h ee f f e c to fi n c r e a s i n g Knudsen number i s t o i n c r e a s et h e
timeconstant. The e f f e c t becomes s i g n i f i c a n t (18%) f o r a r a t i o o f mean f r e e
p a t ht op a r t i c l ed i a m e t e ro f 0.1. Sincethetimeconstantincreasecan be
s i g n i f i c a n tf o r low d e n s i t yf l o w s , Eq. (11.17) i s more a c c u r a t ef o ri n v e s t i -
g a t i n gp a r t i c l er e s p o n s ei nt h e s e cases. T h i s , o f course, assumes Stokes'
law t o be v a l i d . Thus, a t t h i s p o i n t , it i sa p p r o p r i a t e t o d i s c u s s some o f
thelimitations on t h e u s e o f S t o k e s ' l a w f o r p a r t i c l e d r a g i n c o m p r e s s i b l e
flows.

A more d e t a i l e d d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t e x p r e s s i o n f o r l a r g e - d i f f e r e n t i a l Mach
and Reynolds Number i s g i v e n byWalsh(Ref. 23) and i s based onexperimental
data. Walsh(Ref. 24) has
compared r e s u l t so b t a i n e du s i n gS t o k e s d
' r a gc o e f -
ficient equation with morecomplexexpressionswhichaccount f o r a widerange
o f d i f f e r e n t i a l Reynolds and
Mach numbers. Flow f i e l ds t u d i e si n c l u d e d
normalshocks i ns u p e r s o n i cf l o w and v e l o c i t y g r a d i e n t s u p t o 365 sec".
He concludesthattheuse o f S t o k e s 'l a wg e n e r a l l yy i e l d sc o n s e r v a t i v e
r e s u l t s compared t o t h e more a c c u r a t e d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t e x p r e s s i o n s , and i t
o v e r p r e d i c t st h ev e l o c i t yl a gb yl e s st h a n 10% for p a r t i c l ed i a m e t e r sl e s s
than 5 microns and v e l o c i t yg r a d i e n t s up t o 333 sec'l. T h i so v e r p r e d i c t i o n
decreasesasthe i n i t i a l gas v e l o c i t yi n c r e a s e s ,t h ev e l o c i t yg r a d i e n t de-
creases, and t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e decreases.Consideringotheruncertainties,
suchasthe shape o f t h e p a r t i c l e , t h e use o f S t o k e s ' d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t i s
considered t o beadequate for t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y ; t h e e x c e p t i o n b e i n g
l o wd e n s i t yf l o w s f o r which Eq. (11.17) i s recommended.

The t i m ec o n s t a n td e f i n e db y Eq. (11.14) i s an e x t r e m e l yu s e f u lq u a n t i t y

f o r s t u d y i n gt h ep a r t i c l el a gp r o b l e m . A s i n Eq. (I1.151, it canbeused to
definethefrequencyresponse o f t h ep a r t i c l e .I nt h et i m e domain, t h e
timeconstantis a measure o f p a r t i c l e t r a n s i e n t response. A s t e p change i n
v e l o c i t yl a g , f o r example, i s reduced t o I / e o f i t s i n i t i a l v a l u e i n onetime
2
c o n s t a n t ,I / ei nt w ot i m ec o n s t a n t s ,e t c . The r e l a x a t i o n 1 ength can also be
d e t e r m i n e db yt h ep r o d u c to ft h et i m ec o n s t a n t and t h e gas v e l o c i t y . As before,
i n onerelaxationlengththeparticlelag will reduce t o l / e o f i t s i n i t i a l
v e l o c i t y ,e t c .

A c c o r d i n gt o Eq. ( I l . l h ) ,t h ef i d e l i t yw i t hw h i c hp a r t i c l em o t i o nr e p r e -
s e n t sf l u i dm o t i o ni n a specificflowcondition(test gas v i s c o s i t y known) can
beimprovedbyreducingtheparticlediameter and density.Diameterreduction
i sp a r t i c u l a r l ye f f e c t i v es i n c et h et i m ec o n s t a n ti n c r e a s e sa c c o r d i n gt o diame-
t e r squared. As d i s c u s s e dp r e v i o u s l y , however, t h e minimum p a r t i c l ed i a m e t e r
is limited bythe minimum a c c e p t a b l e s i g n a l - t o - n o i s e r a t i o .

An average p a r t i c l e d e n s i t y t o 1 gm/cm3 i s commonly used f o r f l o w s e e d i n g a t

c o n d i t i o n st y p i c a lo ft h o s ee n c o u n t e r e di nt r a n s o n i c and supersonicwindtunnels.
S e e d i n ga g e n t si n c l u d ed i o c t y lp h t h a l a t e (DOP), siliconeoil, and p o l y s t y r e n e
l a t e x (Ref. 19). A r e v i e wo ft h es e v e r a lt y p e so fg e n e r a t o r sf o ri n t r o d u c i n g
s e e d i n gp a r t i c l e so fc o n t r o l l e ds i z ei sg i v e n by Mazumder, B l e v i n s and K i r s c h
(Ref.25).Forseedinghightemperature gas f l o w s ,p a r t i c l e sw i t hh l a h e rm e l t i n g
p o i n t sa r en e c e s s a r y .Z i r c o n i u md i o x i d e ( Z r Oz), which has a m e l t i n gp o i n t
above 3000 K and a d e n s i t v o f 5.9 gm/cm, and aluminum o x i d e (A12 03)have been
used forseedinghightemperature gas f l o w s , e.g., Ref. 26.

To d e m o n s t r a t e t h e e f f e c t s o f p a r t i c l e d i a m e t e r s , t h e f r e q u e n c y response
of p a r t i c l e s w i t h a d e n s i t y o f 1 gm/cm3 and diametersrangingfrom 0.5 pm t o
Io pm i s shown i n F i g . A.11.5 f o r Mach one f l o w and a stagnationtemperatureof
40 C e l s i u s( I 0 4 OF). Theseresponsedata c l e a r l yd e m o n s t r a t et h ed e s i r a b i l i t y
ofusing p a r t i c l e s w i t h a diameter of approximately 0 . 5 urn. The timeconstants
for p a r t f c l e s w i t h a dens it y o f 1 gm/cm3 a r e shown i n F i g . A.11.6 as a f u n c t i o n

237
N.
w
0
Mach No. 1.0
T, = 40 Celsius
Pp = 1 g/cc

1.0

0.5

0.1

Figure A . 1 1 . 5 EFFECT OF FARTICLE

DIAMETER ON FREQUENCY
PXSXINSE
of p a r t i c l ed i a m e t e r and w i t h Mach numbers r a n g i n g from 0.5 t o 3.0,. From
thisFigure it may be seen t h a t , for t h e assumed c o n s t a n ts t a g n a t i o n tempera-
t u r e ,t h et i m ec o n s t a n t does n o t change s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h Machnumber. More
effectwouldbeapparent a t Mach 2.0 and 3.0 f o r l o w d e n s i t y flow, i n accord-
ance w i t h Eq. (11.17).
Various criteria may bechosen todefinetherequireddegree of f l d e l i t y
offrequencyresponse. I f it i s assumed t h a t adequatemeasurementscanbe
made when t h e p a r t i c l e l a g s t h e f l u i d m o t i o n b y no more than 5%, i.e., V /V =
P f

0.0523
e -
T '
(11.18)
f0.95
P
where f o more than 5%
95 i s t h e upperfrequency
limit w i t h o u t r e a l i z i n g
attenuat ion of the particle velocity response to fluid mt i o nI.n
o Fig. A.11.7
t h i sf r e q u e n c y limit i s shown as a f u n c t i o n o f p a r t i c l e d i a m e t e r andMach
number, a g a i nf o r a p a r t i c l ed e n s i t yo f 1 gm/cm3. I nF i g s . A.11.6 and 7, it
i s d e m o n s t r a t e dt h a td i a m e t e r so ft h eo r d e ro f 1 Urn o rl e s sa r er e q u i r e df o r
measurements up t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10kHz, and t h a td i a m e t e r sl e s st h a n 0.5 pm
arenecessarytoextendaccurate measurements t o 100 kHz. These g u i d e l i n e s
a r e o b v i o u s l y dependenton f l o w c o n d i t i o n s and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of anaccept-
a b l e amount o f p a r t i c l e l a g , b u t t h e y a r e i n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h t h e con-
c l u s i o n so fs e v e r a li n v e s t i g a t i o n s , basedupon bothexperimental and a n a l y t i c a l
r e s u l t s .P e d i g o and Stevenson(Ref. 27) s t a t et h a tf o r a p a r t i c l et of o l l o w
transonicflowswithreasonableaccuracy,thediametershould be lessthan
1 vm. Asher(Ref. 1 4 ) , Mazumder, Hoyle and Kirsch(Ref. 19)
and Seasholtz
(Ref. 29) r e a c h s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s f o r r a t h e r w i d e l y v a r y i n g f l o w c o n d i t i o n s .

With r e g a r d to t u r b u l e n c e measurements i n boundarylayers,Yanta(Ref. 30)

f o u n dt h a t mean v e l o c i t y and t u r b u l e n c e i n t e n s i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n measurements
w i t h b o t h 1 pm and 5 pm d i o c t y l p h t h a l a t e p a r t i c l e s were i n v e r y c l o s e a g r e e -
ment.Thesemeasurementswere made i n aMach 3 f l o wc h a n n e lo p e r a t i n ga to n e
atmospherestagnationpressure.Yantapointsoutthat i nt u r b u l e n t boundary
l a y e r flow, dominatedby v o r t e xm o t i o n ,t h ep a r t i c l e sa r e moving w i t h t h e
v o r t i c e s andmustrespond t o changes i n v e l o c i t y i n a frame o f r e f e r e n c e moving
w i t h theflow(Lagrangian). A h o t ' w i r e mustrespond t o changes i n v e l o c i t y
w i t hr e s p e c t t o a f i x e d( E u l e r i a n ) frame o f reference. As
a consequence, larger
p a r t i c l e s canbeused forturbulence measurements w i t h o u t p a r t i c l e l a g e f f e c t s .

239
h)
&
0

l x

T
l x

l x

lx 1
30 0.1 1.0 10
Parkj.de Diameter, p m P a r t i c l e Diameter, Pm

Figure A . 11.6 TIMECONSTANTAS A FUNCTION F i g u r e A. I I .7 MAXIMUMFREQUENCYFOR NO

OF PARTICLEDIAMETER FOR MORE THAN 5% ATTENUATION
VARIOUS MACH NUMBERS,PARTICLE OF S I N U S O I D A LV E L O C I T Y
D E N S I T Y = 1 gm/cc V A R I A T I O N SP, A R T I C L E
D E N S I T Y = 1 gm/cc
I --

DataAnalysis and Accuracy

The d a t a n o r m a l l y o b t a i n e d w i t h a l a s e rv e l o c i m e t e ri n c l u d et h e mean
v e l o c i t y and t h et u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t yi n one, two or t h r e e components. By
s p e c i a la n a l y t i c a lt e c h n i q u e s ,t h es p e c t r u m o f t h et u r b u l e n c ec a na l s o be
derived .
An i n d i v i d u a l measurement o b t a i n e df r o mt h ev e l o c i m e t e r , Ui, i s taken t o
r e p r e s e n tt h e passage o f an i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c l e t h r o u g h t h e m e a s u r i n g volume
( i n d i v i d u a lr e a l i z a t i o n )s i n c et h i s occu'rence i s t y p i c a l o f high-speedflows and
counter-typeprocessors. The i n d i v i d u a l measurement can d e v i a t ef r o mt h et r u e
mean v e l o c i t y due t o t u r b u l e n c e ,n o i s e andsystem resolution. The a c q u i s i t i o n
o f a l a r g e number o f measurements a r e t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y t o i m p r o v e t h e
accuracy o f b o t h t h e mean v e l o c i t y and t u r b u l e n c e measurements.

The mean velocityasdeterminedfrom a l a r g e number o f i n d i v i d u a l measure-

ments i s
N
c ui
- = i= 1 (11.19)
U N 9

where ti i s t h e number o f v a l u e s measured f o r a s i n g l et e s tc o n d i t i o n , a n d U. i s

I
a s i n g l e v e l o c i t y measurement.

The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e v e l o c i t y p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n
is

( 1 I. 20)

If t h e e f f e c t s o f broadening o f theDopplerfrequencyspectrum due t o

f i n i t e sample l e n g t h andphase r e v e r s a l s( t r a c k e rp r o c e s s o r ) o r , i n general,
apparentvelocityfluctuations due: t o n o i s e , e t c . , a r e n e g l i g i b l y s m a l l ,
thestandardvelocitydeviationisequaltothe root-mean-squareturbulence
velocity

cu = u ' ; ( I 1.21)
-
where U = U + u ' , a n dt h et u r b u l e n c ei n t e n s i t yi s
U'
7 .
U

24 1
 Correction of the measured turbulence velocity for the effects of Doppler
spectral broadening (as occurs witha tracker processor) is discussed, for
example, by George in (Ref. 31)- The correction techniques for this type
of bias are based on the white noise or broad-band characteristics of the
intensity modulation of the Doppler frequency; whereas, the turbulence
is
band-limited.

Flack and Thompson(Ref. 32) have identified ten different biases which
of mean velocity
influence individual-realization, velocimetry measurements
and turbulence. Magnitudes of the individual biases range from less than
0.1% to 31% for the turbulence componentand from 0.1% to about 12% for the
mean velocity component. The larger errors are associated withhigh turbulence
intensities. The largest bias is due to the probability, in a turbulent flow,
that more high velocity particles will be measured than low velocity particles.

This bias occurs because the individual measurements are not randomly
distributed. I f the scattering particles are uniformly distributed in the
flow, the rate at which particles pass through the measuring volumeis weighted
linearly with velocity, Fig. A . 1 1 . 8 . T h i s form o f statistical bias is discussed
by Barnett and Bentley (Ref. 33) and by HcLaughl in and Tiederman (Ref. 34).

N

( I I .22)
U - N
c
-
1
ui
i=l

Barnett and Bentley derive the correction to the biased (arithmetic] meanin
terms of the turbulence intensity as

N
( I 1.23)

for velocity bias i s therefore

The correction to the arithmetic mean velocity
is large; a turbulent intensity
significant only when the turbulent intensity
of 10% would result in a 1% correction to the mean velocity. It should be
emphasized that Eqs. 11.22 and 11.23 are based on a one dimensional analysis
and may not be generally applicable to
all flows.

242
 Biased Average of Individual Measurements

f f
Individual Measurements
 The work t o d a t e o n i n d i v i d u a l r e a l i z a t i o n or v e l o c i t y b i a s i n g has a l s o
been r e s t r i c t e d t o c o n s t a n t - d e n s i t y , v e l o c i t y - f l u c t u a t i o n f l o w s suchasturbu-
l e n t boundarylayers.Thiswork assumes u n i f o r md e n s i t yo fs c a t t e r i n gp a r t i c l e s .
Furtherstudyis needed o f o t h e r f l o w f i e l d s where theunsteadinessisdominated
byunsteadyshocks,acousticsources,etc.Insuchcases,significantdensity
v a r i a t i o n so c c u r , and d e n s i t y and v e l o c i t y f l u c t u a t i o n s may be c o r r e l a t e d .F o r
e m p t y - t e s t - s e c t i o ns u r v e y so f mean v e l o c i t y i n w i n dt u n n e l s ,t u r b u l e n c ei ss u f -
f i c i e n t l y low t h a t t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f v e l o c i t y b i a s i n g t o t h e t o t a l measure-
ment e r r o r wouldappear t o be minor.

Yanta(Ref. 9) and Yanta and Smith,(Ref. 35) d i s c u s st h ep r o b l e mo f

d e t e r m i n i n gt h e sample s i z e , N, r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n a
measured value, such as mean v e l o c i t y , asa f u n c t i o no ft h et u r b u l e n c ei n t e n -
sity. For example,

(11.24)

When Z i s t h e number o f s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a d e s i r e dc o n f i -
dence l e v e l (1.645, 1.96 and2.58 f o r 90, 95 and 93-percentconfidence 1imits,
"

r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , AU/U istheerrorinthe mean value, and u l / r t h e t u r b u l e n c e

intensity.

The c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s f o r t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e v e l o c i t y p r o b -
abilitydistribution(the rms t u r b u l e n c e ,u l )i sg i v e n by

22
N = (11.25)
~(Au'/u')~
WhereAu' istheerrorinmagnitudeoftheturbulence, and Z and N a r e a s
previously defined.

I nt h e case o f w i n d t u n n e l c a l i b r a t i o n s , t h e measurement periodshould

be s u f f i c i e n t l y l o n g t o averagethelowestfrequency component o f t u n n e l f l o w
unsteadiness.Therefore,therequired measurement p e r i o d will extendfrom one
t o morethan 10 seconds,which may be o f t h e same o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e a s t h e
t i m er e q u i r e dt oo b t a i nt h en e c e s s a r y number o f l a s e r v e l o c i m e t e r measurements,

244

L
dependingonthedatarate. Some measurements i n t h e AEDC Tunnel 1-T r e q u i r e d
s e v e r a lm i n u t e sp e rs t a t i o n .

An e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e agreementbetween laservelocimeter and c o n v e n t i o n a l ,

w i n d - t u n n e l - c a l i b r a t i o n measurements can be made from t e s t s i n s e v e r a l w i n d
tunnels.Meyers,et.al.,inRef. (5) f o u n dt h a tf r e e s t r e a mv e l o c i t i e s meas-
ured i n t h e 4.9 m (16-foot)LangleyTransonicTunnel compared t o t h e t u n n e l '
t

c a l i b r a t i o n measurements w i t h i n 22%;where t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e v e l o c i t y
based o nt h et u n n e lc a l i b r a t i o ni ss t a t e dt o be +I%. A l t h o u g ht h ep a r t i c l e s
used t o seed t h e f l o w r a n g e d i n s i z e from 10 t o 15 m i c r o n s ,t h ea u t h o r sd i d
notconsiderparticlelagto be a problem i n t h e t e s t s e c t i o n ; a l t h o u g h s i g n i -
ficantlag was p r e s e n t i n t h e f l o w a c c e l e r a t i n g s e c t i o n o f t h e t u n n e l .

Measurements i n t h e 0.3 m ( I - f o o t ) AEDC Tunnel 1T i n t h e Machnumber

rangefrom 0.6 t o 1.5 a r er e p o r t e d by Smith e t a l . i n Ref. (8). The e r r o r
e s t i m a t ef o rt h ec o n v e n t i o n a lc a l i b r a t i o nd a t a rangesfromapproximatelytwo
p e r c e n ta t Mach0.6 t o 0.5 p e r c e n ta t Mach 1.5. f l u l t i p l e - p o i n ta x i a ls u r v e y s
ofcenterlinecalibrationdata, basedon pressuremeasurements,wereobtained
only at Mach numbers 0.6 and 0.8, w i t h a single-point,pressure-calibration,
v e l o c i t y measurement ( a t t h e same p o i n t o nt h et u n n e lc e n t e r l i n e )o f 2.5 t o
2.7 percent.Comparison o ft h ea x i a ld i s t r i b u t i o n so b t a i n e d bybothtechniques
at M = 0.6 showed t h e b e s t agreement w i t h an a v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e o f a b o u t 1.4
percent for a mean v e l o c i t y o f 216rnps, and t h e u n c e r t a i n t y bands overlapped.
A t Mach 0.8, t h ed i f f e r e n c e s ranged from about 0.3 t o 2.0 p e r c e n t a t a mean
v e l o c i t y o f approximately 280 mps. I n t e r e s t i n g l y ,a l l o f t h ev e l o c i t i e s meas-
u r e dw i t ht h el a s e rv e l o c i m e t e rw e r eh i g h e rt h a nt h ev e l o c i t i e sd e t e r m i n e d from
pressure and temperature measurements. No e x p l a n a t i o n was o f f e r e df o rt h e
d i f f e r e n c e ,b u to b v i o u s l yp a r t i c l el a g was n o t a f a c t o r . All measurements were
made w i t h n a t u r a l l y - p r e s e n t , l i g h t - s c a t t e r i n g p a r t i c l e s i n t h e f l o w .

F l o w a n g u l a r i t y measurements were a l s o made w i t h t h e 2-component l a s e r

velocimeter,whichdemonstratedtheabilityto make a n g u l a r i t y measurements
w i t hd e v i a t i o n sr a n g i n gf r o m 2.015degree t o 2.25 degrees. The d e v i a t i o n s a r e
a f u n c t i o no ft h e rms d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e component v e l o c i t i e s . No conventional
angularity data werepresentedforcomparison.
 This test demonstrated the capability for measuring the flaw angularity
andan average o f t h e f l o w f l u c t u a t i o n s i n b o t h m a g n i t u d e and d i r e c t i o n .

The two t e s t sd e s c r i b e ds h o u l d be regarded as o p e r a t i o n a l f e a s i b i l i t y

demonstrationsonly and s h o u l d n o t be regardedasthebestaccuracycurrently
a v a i l a b l e .F u r t h e r ,s i n c et h el a s e rv e l o c i m e t e rd a t aa r e compared t o conven-
-
t i o n a l c a l i b r a t i o n d a t a w i t h a s t a t e d a c c u r a c y o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50.5 t o +2.0
percent, an a b s o l u t e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e l a s e r v e l o c i m e t e r a c c u r a c y c a n n o t be
made f r o m t h e s e r e s u l t s .

Measurementsby 3 6 ) , Johnson and Rose (Ref. 371, Yanta and

Johnson(Ref.
Lee (Ref. 38) and B o u t i e r and Lefevre(Ref. 391, p r o v i d ea d d i t i o n a le v a l u a t i o n s
ofthe agreementbetween flow v e l o c i t y measurements b yt h el a s e rv e l o c i m e t e r
and by c o n v e n t i o n a lP i t o t and s t a t i c probes. These f r e e s t r e a mv e l o c i t y measure-
ments a r e somewhat l i m i t e d i n scope s i n c et h e ya r eo b t a i n e d from boundarylayer
v e l o c i t y p r o f i l e measurements; nevertheless,agreementwithin 0.5% i s demonstra-
ted.

The l a s e r v e l o c i m e t e r y i e l d s a d i r e c t measurement o f f l o w v e l o c i t y , w h i l e
t h e Mach number i s r e q u i r e d f o r c a l i b r a t i o n o f windtunnels. A second measure-
ment, thestagnationtemperature, i s thereforerequired.Usingtheenergy equa-
t i o n ,t h el o c a ls t a t i ct e m p e r a t u r e canthen .be determinedfromthemeasured
velocity

Where Tw i st h et e s ts e c t i o nt e m p e r a t u r ec o r r e s p o n d i n gt o Vm, To i st h es t a g -
nationtemperature, i st h es p e c i f i ch e a ta tc o n s t a n tp r e s s u r e ,
C R i st h e
P
gas c o n s t a n t , and y i s t h e r a t i o o f s p e c i f i c heats. The l o c a l Mach number
can then be determined from

VW

M = am

"W

"m

( I I .28)

246
 Sensitivity coefficients for measurements o f b o t h v e l o c i t y and s t a g n a t i o n

temperatureare shown i n F i g . A.II.9 f o r a s t a g n a t i o nt e m p e r a t u r eo f 40 Celsius.

From thesedata, measurement o f Mach numbers t o anaccuracy o f +_O.OOl requires
a v e l o c i t y measurement accuracyofabout 0.1% i n t h e t r a n s o n i c speed range.
Thisaccuracy i sn o tb e l i e v e dt o be w i t h i nt h es t a t e - o f - t h e - a r ta tp r e s e n t . v

i
Conclusions

The advantages and disadvantages of t h e l a s e r v e l o c i m e t e r may besummarized

as f o l l o w s :

Advantages

1. No p r o b eo ro t h e rd e v i c ei n t r o d u c e di n t ot h e flow, i .e ., non-
pertubing.
2. P r o v i d e sd i r e c t ,l i n e a r measurement o fv e l o c it y and ve l o c i t y f l u c t u a -
ti ns;no calibrationrequired.
3. Ab l i t y t o measure r e v e r s i n g f l o w s .
4. Ab l i t y t o separate mean and f l u c t u a t i n g v e l o c i t i e s i n t o components.
5. Po n t measurements can be approached by p r o p e r c o n t r o l o f m e a s u r i n g
vo ume.
6. Ca be r e a l i z e d as an i n h e r e n t l yd i g i t a li n s t r u m e n t .

-
D isadvantages
1. Complex, expensiveequipmentrequired
2. Measurement o f h i g h - v e l o c i t y f l o w s i n l a r g e t u n n e l s w i t h an a i r t e s t
medium p r e s e n t ss p e c i a lp r o b l e m sw i t hr e g a r dt os i n g l e - t o - n o i s er a t i o ,
frequencyresponse, and s e n s i t i v i t y o f equipment t o t u n n e l v i b r a t i o n ,
temperature,etc.

3. Furtherdevelopment needed t o i m p r o v es i g n a lp r o c e s s o r ,p a r t i c u l a r l y
withregardtodatavalidationfeatures,rejection of l a r g e p a r t i c l e s ,
etc.
4. Light-scattering particles of size needed for good s i g n a l may n o t
followflowinregionsofrapidvelocity change.
5. Signal-to-noise ratio may p r e c l u d e a c c u r a t e t u r b u l e n c e i n t e n s i t y
measurements a t lowlevels,i.e., 0.1 t o 1.0 percent.
6. Current accuracy attainable is not as good as w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l
techniques.
7. Takes e x c e s s i v e t i m e t o make t h e s u r v e y s r e q u i r e d f o r w i n d t u n n e l
calibration.

247
 .WO

.018

,016 To = 3UK
I
.014

.012

.010
--
"
aTo
1/OK

0.08

.006

0.04
.002

0
0 1 2 3 4
Mach No.
Figure A. I I -9 SENSITIVITY COEFFICIENTS FOR
DETERMINATION OF MACH NUMBER
FROM VELOCITY AND STAGNATION
248 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS
 Nomenclature

aaD sf trreaeecaomuvsetliocc i t y
specificheatatconstantpressure
=P
i n i t i a l diameter o f l a s e r beam
DO

d0 diameter o f l a s e r beams a t t h e f o c a l p o i n t o f t h e t r a n s m i t t i n g l e n s

d particle. diameter
P
F f o c a ll e n g t ho ft k a n s m i t t i n gl e n s

body f o r c e so np a r t i c l e (Eq. 11.11)

Fe

fd
Dopp 1 er frequency , Hz
frequency a t which p a r t i c l e m o t i o n i s a t t e n u a t e d 5% r e l a t i v e t o s t e a d y
fo. 95 s t a t es i n u s o i d a lf l u i dm o t i o n

m
Knudsen number

k Cunningham c o n s t a n t (Eq. I I . 17)

R mean f r e e p a t h

l e n g t h o f measuringvolume
llV

M Machnumber

N sample s i z e

Nf number o f f r i n g e s i n measu'r i n g volume

r
number o f p u l s e s c o u n t e d i n t h e h i g h . r e g i s t e r o f a counterprocessor
NH
number o f pulsescounted inthe low r e g i s t e r o f a counterprocessor
NL
R constant
gas

S Lap1
opera
ace tor

stagnationtemperature
TO

249
 t i m e c o n s t a n t d e f i n l n g p a r t i c l e response to v a r i a t i o n s i n f l u i d o
l
fw :
TP v e l o c i t y , seconds
. .

To3 freestream
temperature

t time,seconds

t' dumny v a r i a b l e (Eq. 11.11)

U v e l o c i t y component n o m 1 to f r i n g e p a t t e r n and t o b i s e c t o r o f
theangleformedby two I n t e r s e c t i n g l a s e r beams
-U mean v e l o c i t y
- mean v e l o c i t y , c o r r e c t e d for v e l o c i t y b i a s
uC

U' rms t u r b u l e n c e v e l o c i t y

Au I error i n magnitude o f t u r b u l e n c e v e l o c i t y
V gas o
f
lw v e l o c i t y
9
V particle velocity
P
"" f fees t ream ve 1oc it y

W width of measuring velocity

V

2 number o f s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a d e s i r e d c o n f i d e n c e
l e v e l (Eq. I I .24).

-
Greek

Y r a t i o of s p e c i f f c h e a t s

A beam s e p a r a t i o n d i s t a n c e a t t h e t r a n s m i t t i n g o p t i c s

f r i n g es p a c i n gi nm e a s u r i n g volume
bf

0 angle between l a s e r beams a t the.ir intersectionto formthe

measuringvolume

x wavelength o f l a s e r l i g h t

v i s c o s i t y o f gas

density of gas

density of particle
pP

a standard deviation of v e l o c i t y p r o b a b i l i t y - d i s t r i b u t i o n - f u n c t i o n

250
 .-;
. .
phase angle, degrees ..

angular velocity, radians per second

. .. .
I

25 1

I
 REFERENCES

1. Yeh, Y. and Cummins, H. Z.: " L o c a l i z e dF l u i dF l o w Measurements w i t h .an

He-Ne Laser
Spectrometer,'' Vo1. 4 pp 176-178, 1964. . .

2. Foreman, J., W. ; George, W. W. and'Lewis, R. 0.: "Measurement o f L o c a l i z e d

f l o w V e l o c i t i e s i n Gases With a Laser-DopplerFlowmeter,"AppliedPhysics
V, o
L le. t t e r s , 7, pp 77-80, 1965. . .

3. Lennert, A. E.; Bragton, D. B.; Crosswy, F. L., e t a l : "Summary Report

o f t h e Development o f a LaserVelocimeter t o be Used i n AEDC Wind Tunnels",
AEDC-TR-70-101, J u l y 1970.

4. Stevenson, W. H.; Pedigo, M. K. and Zamit, R. E.: "BibliographyonLaser

DopplerVelocimeters:Theory,DesignandApplications," U. S . Army
Report No. RD-TR-72-8, 1972.

5. Meyers,J. F.; Crouch, L. M.; F e l l e r , W

. V . and Walsh, M. J . : "Laser
Velocimeter Measurements i n a LargeTransonic Wind Tunnel,"Proceedings
o ft h eM i n n e s o t a Symposium on Laser Anemometry, U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a ,
1975.
6. Johnson, D. A.; Bochalo, W. D. and Modarress, D.: "LaserVelocimeter
Supersonic and Transonic Wind TunnelStudies,"Proceedings o ft h e
Minnesota Symposium on Laser Anemometry, U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1975.

7. Lo, C . F: "TransonicFlowField Measurements Using a LaserVelocimeter,"

Proceedings o f t h e M i n n e s o t a Symposium onLaser Anemometry, U n i v e r s i t y
o f Minnesota, 1975.

a.
A E D C - ~ ~ - 7 -11 65,
, .

9. Yanta, W. J. Turbulence Measurements w i t h a LaserDopplerVelocimeter,"

: I'

TR 73-94, Naval Ordnance Laboratory,White Oak, Md., 1973.

10. T r o l i n g e r ,J . D .: " L a s e rI n s t r u m e n t a t i o nf o rF l o wF i e l dD i a g n o s t i c s , "

AGARDograph No. 186, 1974.

11. Meyers,J. F.: " I n v e s t i g a t i o n on C a l i b r a t i o n so fB a s i cP a r a m e t e r sf o r

t h e A p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e LaserDopplerVelocimeter, NASA TN 0-6125, 1971.

12. Orloff,Ki and

Logan, S. E.: llCofocal BackscatterLaser
Velocimeter
w i t h On-Axis S e n s i t i v i t y , ' 'A p p l i e dO p t i c s , \ I . 12, No. 10, 1973.

13. Fridman,
J. D. Young, R. M.; Seavey, R. E. and O r l o f f , K. L.: "Modular
HighAccuracyTrackers f o r DualChannel LaserDopplerVelocimeter,''Pro-.
ceedings o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota Symposium onLaser Anemometry, 1975.
14. Asher,J. A.: "LaserVelocimeter SystemDevelopmentand Testinq."
Progress i nA s t r o n a u t i c s and Aeronautics, V.34 pp 141-166, Massachusetts
I n s t i t u t e o f Technology, 1974.
15- Hfnze, J. D.: T_u_rbglence,- A n . - I n t r o d u c t i o n t o i t s Mechanismand Theory,
pp. 354-355, McGraw H i 1 1, New York, 1959.

16. Soo, S. L.: F l u i d Dynamics o M

f ultiphase Systems, B l i a s d e lP
l ublishing
Co., Walthan, Mass., 1967.

17. Base, T. E.: "The M o t i o no fA e r o s o lP a r t i c l e si n a Computed Turbulent

F ~ O Model
W t o DeterminetheAccuracyof a L.D.V. System," Proceedings
of the Minnesota Symposium on Laser Anemometry, U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota,
1975.

18. F e l l e r , W.
W. andMeyers, J. F.: "Development of a C o n t r o l l a b l e P a r t i c l e
Generator f o r LV Seeding i n Hypersonic Wind Tunnels,"Proceedingsof
Minnesota Symposium onLaser Anemometry, U n I v e r s i t y o f Mfnnesota, 1975.

19. Mazumder, M. K.; Hoyle, B. D. and Kirsch, K. J.: "Generation and F l u i d

DynamIcs o f S c a t t e r i n g A e r o s o l i n LaserDopplerVelocimetry,"Proceedings
o f t h e Second I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop onLaserVelocimetry,Vol. I t , Purdue
U n l v e r s i t y , March 1974.

20. Yanta, W. J. and Gates, D. F.: "TheUse o f a LaserDopplerVelocimeter

I n Supersonic Flows," A l A A Paper71-287, Albuquerque, N.M., 1971.

21. Epstein, P. S.: Physical Review,V.23 (1324) p. 710.

22. Hoppel, T. and Brenner, H: Low Reynolds tJumber Hydrodynamics w i t h

S p e c i a lA p p l i c a t i o n st oP a r t i c u l a t e Media, pp 50-51, P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,
EnciewiSod C l i f f s , N. J., 1965.

23 - Walsh, M. J.,
Speed Flows,"
"Drag C o e f f I c i e n tE q u a t i o n s for Small P a r t i c l e si nH i g h
A I A A Journal, V 13, No. 11, Flov., 1575.

24. Walsh, M. J . :" I n f l u e n c eo f Drag C o e f f i c i e n tE q u a t i o n s on P a r t i c l e

Motion Calculations," Proceedings of the tlinnesota Symposium on Laser
Anemometry, U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1975.

25. Mazumder, M. K.; B l e v i n s , C. W

. and Kirsch, K. J . : I'Wind TunnelFlow
Seeding f o r LaserVelocImeterApplications,"ProceedingsoftheMinnesota
Symposium asLaserAnemmetry,UniversityofMinnesota, 1975.

26. S e l f , S. A . , "Boundary Layer Measurements i n H i g h V e l o c i t y H i g h Tempera-

t u r e MHD ChannelFlows," Proceedings o f t h e Second I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop
on LaserDopplerVelocimetry, Purdue U n I v e r s i t y , 1974.

27 Pedfgo, M. K. and Stevenson, W. H . , "The Design o f a LaserDopplerVeloci-

meter for TransonicFlows,''PurdueUniversity,Prepared f o r Army M i s s i l e
C m a n d , AD-774 302, October 1373.

28. H a e r t i g , J . , InformalPresentation,Proceedingsofthe Second I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Workshop onLaserDopplerVelocimetry,PurdueUniversity, 1974.

253
29 Seasholtz, R. G., "Laser Doppler Velocimeter Measurementsin a Turbine
Stator Cascade Facility," Proceedings of the Second International Work-
shop on Laser Doppler Velocimetry, Purdue University,1974.
30 Yanta, W. J . , "Laser Doppler Velocimeter Measurementso f Turbulence
Properties of a Mach 3 Turbulent Boundary Layer,'' Proceedings of the
Second International Workshop on Laser Velocimetry, Purdue University,
1974.
31. George, W. K., "The Measurement of Turbulence Intensities Using Real-Time
Laser Doppler Velocimetry," Proceedingsof the Second International Work-
shop on Laser Velocimetry, Purdue University,1974.

32. Flack, R.D. and Thompson, H. D., "The LVD's Potential in Understanding
Turbulent Structure,'' Proceedings of the Minnesota Symposiumon Laser
Anemometry, University of Minnesota, 1975.

33. Barnett, D. 0. and Bent ley, H. T., "Statistical Bias o f Individual

Realization Laser Velocimeters," Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop on Laser Velocimetry, Purdue University, 1974.

34. McLaughlin, D. K. and T iederman, W. G., "Biasing Correction for Individual

Realization of Laser Anemometer Measurementsin Turbulent Flows,ll The physics
of Fluids, Vol. 16, 1973.

35 Yanta, W. J. and Smith, R . A., "Measurement of Turbulence Transport Proper-

ties with a Laser Doppler Velocimeter,''AlAA Paper No. 73-169, Jan. 1973.

36. Johnson, D. A . , "Turbulence Measurements in a Mach 2.9 Boundary Layer

Using Laser Velocimetry," AIAA Journal V 12 No. 5, p p 711-714, M a y 1974.

37. Johnson, D. A. and Rose, GI. C., "Turbulence Measurements in a Transonic

Boundary Layer and Free-Shear Flow Using Laser Velocimetry and Hot-wire
Anemometry Techniques," AIAA 9 t h Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference,
Paper No. 76-399, J u l y 1976.

38. Yanta, W. J. and Lee, R. E., "Measurements of Mach 3 Turbulence Transport

Properties on a Nozzle Wall , I i AlAA Journal, V.14, No. 6, pp 725-729,
June 1976.

39. Boutier. H. and Lefevre, J.: "Some Applications of Laser Anemometry in

Wind-Tunnels," The Accuracy of Flow Measurements By Laser Doppler Methods,
LDA Symposium - Copenhagen, 1975.
"

Proceedings o f

254
 APPENDIX 1 1 1
EFFECTS OF VIBRATION OF A CYLINDRICAL PROBE
ON STATIC PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

I Intheprocessofcollectingmaterialforwritingabout mean s t a t i c
pressure measurements, t h eq u e s t i o na r o s e as t o how measured datawouldbe
a f f e c t e db yv i b r a t i o no f a probe. The problem o f e r r o r i n measured pressure
causedbyunsteadycross-flow has been previouslyconsideredbySiddon
(Ref. 1). The f o l l o w i n gd i s c u s s i o ni st a k e nf r o mt h i sr e f e r e n c e .

Some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e p r o b l e m o f a probe i n an unsteadycross-flow

can be o b t a i n e d by use o f an i d e a l i z e d f l o w model t h a ti g n o r e sv i s c o s i t y .
Consider a c y l i n d r i c a l p r e s s u r e p r o b e o f d i a m e t e r d , s u b j e c t e d t o a uniform,
u n s t e a d yc r o s s - v e l o c i t yV n ( t ) , see Fig. A.III.1. Any c o u p l i n ge f f e c to ft h e
a x i a lv e l o c i t yU ( t ) i s neglected. Assuming t h ef l o wt o be i r r o t a t i o n a l ,t h e
a p p r o p r i a t ep o t e n t i a lf u n c t i o ni s :

4 = Vn (r + r)
d2
COS n.

The unsteadyform of the Bernou l l i equat i o n g i v e s :

1
p (r, n, t ) - Pt(t) = "
2
p (vn2 - v
r
- v 2, +
n
p a4
at

where,

P ( t )i st h ep r e s s u r ew h i c hw o u l d have o c c u r r e da t r = 0 i nt h e absence o f
t
theprobe ( i . e . ,t h e' t r u e 'p r e s s u r e ) . A t t h es u r f a c eo ft h ep r o b e ( r = d/2) ,
t h ep r e s s u r ee q u a t i o n becomes:

P (Tl,t) - Pt(d = -
1 (1 - 4 Sin2n ) + p t n d Cos n - (111.1)
2 P 'n

The f i r s t t e r mo nt h er i g h t hand s i d ei sr e c o g n i z e d as t h ep r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u -
t i o nf o rs t e a d yp o t e n t i a lf l o w . The second t e r ma r i s e sf r o mu n s t e a d i n e s s .
For a p r e s s u r ep r o b ew h i c hr e g i s t e r st h ee x a c tc i r c u m f e r e n t i a la v e r a g e of
P(n,t), (e.g.,by means o f a c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l s l i t ) t h e e r r o r will be:
 P,(t) - Pt(t) = - $P vn 2 Y

.where P,(t) = measured unsteady s t a t i c p r e s s u r e .

I nt h i si d e a ls i t u a t i o nt h ep a r to ft h ep r e s s u r ed i s t r i b u t i o na s s o c i a t e d
withtheaccelerationterm Vn does n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e r r o r .

A realprobe will n o tt a k e an exactaverageover P(rl); therefore, an

a d d i t i o n a le r r o rp r o p o r t i o n a lt o in
may a r i s e .

P,(t) - Pt(t) = - 1 p Vn2 + K p ind

R o u g h l ys p e a k i n g ,t h ec o e f f i c i e n t K ( < 1 )r e p r e s e n t st h ef r a c t i o n a li n a c c u r a c y
o ft h ea v e r a g eo v e r P(n). I f we regard Vn as s i n u s o i d a l ,t h e \in e r r o r becomes
i n c r e a s i n g l yi m p o r t a n w
t i t hf r e q u e n c y (in - wVn). N e v e r t h e l e s s ,f o r a 0.318
cm ( 1 / 8i n . )d i a m e t e rp r o b ew i t h an averaginginaccuracy o f 5% and V 3.05
n
m/sec (10 f t / s e c ) , K p i n d i s lessthan 5% of t h e V n e r r o r a t 100 Hz.

Based onresponses t ot h eq u e s t i o n n a i r e , many i n v e s t i g a t o r s havelocated

a s i n g l e row o f o r i f i c e s on e i t h e r t h e t o p or sideof a l o n gp i p ef o rt u n n e l
c a l i b r a t i o n s . B yu s i n g Eq. (Ill-I) w i t h 11 = 0 ( o r i f i c e s on e i t h e r t o p o r bottom)
a n da s s u m i n gt h ep i p eo s c i l l a t e ss i n u s o i d a l l y , one can e s t i m a t e t h e e r r o r i n
measured, mean s t a t i cp r e s s u r e ,i . e . ,

P(0, t ) - P (t) =
t
T1 p Vn
2
(t) + p \ip(t)d. ( I 11.2)

Taking a timeaverageover one c y c l e r e s u l t s i n

-
P,(O) -
-
P
t
= -
2 T
1 T
V 2(t) dt +
O n
T
0
i n ( t d) t , ( I 11.3)

where T = p e r i o d o f o s c i l l a t i o n .

Before we canproceed any f u r t h e r , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f r e q u e n c y and amplitude

must be assumed. For c a l c u l a t i o np u r p o s e s we here assumea frequency o f 100Hz.

256
Since we have previously established thatit i s desirable to measure mean
static pressure to within 6.89 N/m2 (0.001 psi), the amplitude of pipe
-
Pm - Pt = 6.89 N/m 2
oscillation wi 1 1 be calculated for the case .
Hence, if the pipe oscillation is represented by

Displacemetjt E D = A sin wt;

then '8

' . Vn = b = Aw coswt

in = D = -AU
2 srnwt.

Substituting into Eq. ( 1 1 1 . 3 ) , we have

2 2
a*. 6.89 = - 2wt) d t - P A w (111.4)

It may be noted from Eq. ( 1 11-41 that the required amplitude increases as
frequency decreases. For the particular case ofw = 21rf = 2 0 0 ~and
5 2 2 4
p = 1.71 N sec2/m4 (0.00332 lbf sec /ft ) [Po = 2.41 x 10 N/m (35 psia),
T = 311K (560"R), M = 11, the amplitude required for significant pressure
0
error is

Therefore, a static pressure survey pipe with

a single row of orifices,
located on either the top or bottom, would have tooscillate at a frequency
of 100 Hz and an amplitude of 0.639 cm in order to cause the measured pressure
2
to be 6.89 N/m (0.001 psi) too high.
Figure A. I I I . 1 PFESSURE DISTRIBWION ON A CIRCULAR
CYLINDER IN CRoSSFIX)W, Ref. 1
I -

Goingthroughthe same p r o c e d u r e w i t h n = 90" ( o r i f i c e s o n s i d e o f p i p e ) ,

an a m p l i t u d e o f 0.368 cm (0.145 i n . ) i s p r e d i c t e d t o cause t h e measured,
2
s t a t i cp r e s s u r et o be low by 6.89 N/m (0.001 p s i ) .S i n c el a r g et e n s i o n or
compressionloadsareusuallyplaced on s t a t i c p r e s s u r e s u r v e y p i p e s t o m i n i -
mize sag, it appears u n l i k e l y t h a t p i p e v i b r a t i o n i s a s i g n i f i c a n ts o u r c eo f
e r r o r .A l t h o u g ht h i sc o n c l u s i o ni s based on
an i n v i s c i d ,i n c o m p r e s s i b l e
analysis, it i sc o n s i d e r e dt o be c o n s e r v a t i v e( i . e . ,g i v e s a lower bound
estimateof A) because o f t h e n e g l e c t o f pneumatic damping i n t u b i n g w h i c h
connect o r i f i c e s w i t h p r e s s u r e t r a n s d u c e r s .

A.III REFERENCES

1. Siddon, T. E., "On t h e Response o f PressureMeasuringInstrumentation

i n Unsteady Flow," U T l A S Report No. 136, AD 682296, January 1969.
 APPENOIX I V : FACILITIES RESPONDING TO OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Faci 1i t y
4' T r i s o n l c
Organlratlon
& ion
Locat M
Re/m x
@ H -
1.0
Productlon Testlng
Began

B 1owdown
24.6 - 60.7

26" Transonic
Farm1nadale.N.Y. 31 - 92 0.66 m Octagon 1957
16-Inch
.Supersonic W
ETH Zurich,
Swltz.
0 - 0.95
I . 2-2 (2.5) 7 - 7.5 Cont . 10.40 m s q . I 1935
( F i r s t . Cont. S.W.1

High Speed WT
NLR Amsterdam,
Hol land - .37 3.5 - 19 Cont. 1.6 x 2.0 m2 1959
Continuous
Supersonic WT II
nsert.5-1.2
1.2 -
5.8
(H = 1.2)
30 50 - Bd
Run Tlme
10.27 x 0.27 m
2
I 1960

Pilot WT II
0 - 1.0 14.1 Cont. 10.55 x 0.42 m21 I 1956
v m uIe
2
Supersonic WT II
1.2 - 4.0 21 - 54 Bd 1.2 x 1.2 m
n . s Y 1 . 7 nl2 1963
Supersonlc
Tunnel No. 1
U.S. Army
Aberdeen, Md. 1.25 - 5.0
(M = 1.25)
h - 71 Cont . 0.38 x 0.33 m
2
1956
T r l s o n l c G.F. USAF-FDL
10.3 - 1.2 - 0.38 x 0.38 m:
WPAB, Ohio 1.5 - 4.76 3.3 27 Cont.
0.61 x 0.61 m N.A.
Mach 3 Hi-Re USAF - ARL
2.97 - 3.0: 33 - 359 Bd .
WPAFB , Ohio 1970
Sandia Albuquer- 0.305 x2
12" T r ison i c
que, N.M.
0.5 - 2.5 16.4 Bd
0.305 m 1956
8' x 6' SwT NASA Lewis R.C.
Cleveland,Ohio
o.36 - 2.1 15

IO' x 10' SWT II

2.0 - 3.5 (M = 2.0)
- 11
1
Aero. Res. U n i t
18- Inch
Pretoria, S.Afr. o*6 - 4*2 12 - 30
. -
.. . ....
 APPENDIX I V : FACILITIES RESPONDING TO
OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

I Organlzatlon I Re/m x
I Production Testlng
Faci I i t v Location I M @ M = 1.0 Tvne,. Cross-Sect ion Began
I .2 m HSWT BAC 2
Preston, Eng. 0.4 - 4.0 21 - 74 1.22 x 1.22 m 1960

i d
2
30" x 16" NAE
S u c t l a n W . T . d a ,
0.4 - 2.0 15.1 Suction 0.76 x 0.41 m 1952

Tr i sonic 2
1964
t3lowdown Wf
II
0.1 - 4.4 Bd
1.52 x 1.52 m

HRN-PDT II
0.15 - 0.95 - Bd 0.38 x 1.52 m
2
1969
l / 3 m Trans. NASA Langley Res
0.05 - 1.2 13.45 - 341 Cont. 0.34 m Octagon 1974
Cryoqenic Tun. Ctr.Hampton, Va.
High Speed
7 ' x IO' Tun.
II
On2 - ( M = 0.9)
11.8 - 16.1 Cont. 2.0 x 2.92 m
2
1946
2
1.37 x 1.37 m 1948
6" x 28" 2
Transonic Wl
I'
0.3 - 1.20 32.8 - 98.4 Bd 15.2 x 72.4cm 1974
,
Transon ic (1.05-2.53) air '4.88 m x 4.88m
DynamicsTun. II
0 - 1.2 (8.04-19.7)Freon Cont. i 0.61 m corner 1960

Unitary 1.47 - 2.86 2.6 - 28 (k1.5) f i1 l e t s

Plan Wl
II
- 4.63 1.6 -
20("2.3)2.29 Conto 1.22 x 1.22In2 1955
I 6 l Transonic 11
0.2 - 1.3 I2 - 13.8 Cont. A.72 m Oct. 1950
T
I I I I I

8 ' Transonic
Pressure Tun.
II
0.2 - 1.3 1.3 - 15.3 Cont. '2.16 x 2.16 rn
2
1952

2 ' Trisonic
High Speed
4 Northrop
Hawthorne, Ca. 11.5
P i c a t i n n y Arsen-
0.20

0.2
-
-
- 1.3
3.0
0.76
7 0.28
(M = 0.6)
- 49 Bd 0.61 m sq. 1962

Subsonlc WT a l , Dover, N.J. 11.12

".
12.96. .- Induct ion '0.61 m. Diarn.
..
N.A.
 APPENDIX I V : F A C I L I T I E S RESPONDING TO OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Productlon Testing
TY Pe Cross-Section Began
2
Bd 0.42 x 0.41 m N.A.
2
Bd 0.71 x 0.51 m 1973
7
lndraft 10.2 x 12.7 cm" 1956

Bd 10.66 m sq. I 1965

Polysonic \-IT
Tunnel A ryz;
kcDonnel1-Doug 1as
U I S . Mo.
,G;:z
ac.AEDC/ARO
1

Cont. 11.02 m sq.

I
I
I
1958 I
I
II
Tunnel D
~ ~~ ~~

Ludwi eg 2
P i l o t HlRT
be
Tu !18*6x23*2 cm 1N.A. (Research Only)
Transon i c echn ion 1 Induction 0.8 x 0.6 m2 1968

30 cm WT i
I Bd 0 . 3 0 m Sa. 1960
40 x 50 cm S W l I 2
1 0.4 x 0.5 m 1968
ockwel I I n t .
? 3 k n ic
1 Sequndo. Ca. 2.13 I Bd m SQ. 1958

Transonic W bedford, Eng.

24' x 23' I II

SWr I Cont.
"
0.69x0.76
. . ,.. .
m2
" .. . .
1959
 APPENnlX I V : FACILITIES RESPONDING TO
OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Organization Re/m x Production Testing

Faci 1 it y & Location M @ M = 1.0 Type Cross-Section Began

Bd 0.305x0.406m2 1964

1956
WRE Salisbury, 0.4 - 1.0
3.3 - o.38 2 Cont. 0.38x0.38 m 1957
15-lnch SWT s. Aust. 1.4 - 2.8
(M = 2.8)
s3 Bd W l
I1
2.8 - 5.0
16.4 - 65.6 Bd 17.8x15.2 cm
2
1966

I I 1
ARLMe1 bourne, 2
3.28 - 6.56 Cont. 0.81x0.53 m 1957
2
wT
Transon ic WT V o l v oT r o l l h a t t e n
Aust.
Sweden
o,5
0.4 -- 1.5
1.4
23 - b9 Bd 0.5x0.5 m 1952

2
WT9 II
1.4 - 3.2 (M = 1.5)
29 -
55
Bd 0.5 x0.5 m 1962

Boe ing Boe ing (M = 1.2)

Supersonic WF. Seattle, Wash.
- 4*0 19.7 - 45.9 Bd 1.22x1.22 rn
2
1957
2
2D-TWT I1
0.2 - 1.25 26.25 - 77.1 Bd 0.305x0.91 m 1965

Boe ing 2.44 m x 3.668

II
0. - 1.11 Cont.
0.61 m corner 1944
Tranyznlc WT
Lockheed tr I l e t
Lockheed
Saugus, C a l i f . 0.2 - 5.0 14.8 - 67.9 Bd
1.22x1.22 m
2
Triqn,nic 19h0
HS - TWT Hawker-Siddeley
Hatfield.Enaland 0.5 - 1.1 10.2 - 11.5 Cont. 0.76x0.61 m
2
1954
8' Transonic Calspan
- 1.3 - 18 Cont. 6' low
w-r B u f f a l o , N.Y. 0 1-34
- -
Re; Interm. 2.44 m Sq. 1956
28 42
zg'"
Tube,
V a r i a b l e Dia,
0.81m-l.52m
. .
1966
 APPENDIX IV: FACILITIES RESPONDING TO OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Organization Re/rn x Testing Production

Faci 1 i ty @ M = 1.0 Type Cross-Section
Began
(M = 1.5)
20'' SGrr
0.47 23.6
Cont.-
3.51x0.46 rn
2
1950
High Speed W
VoughtCorp.
l Dal las. Texas 10.5 - 5.0
Aerodyn. WT
1T
-
Pro ulsion LIT Fac
AED!/ARO Tulla- 10.2 - 1.5 17 I Cont. 10.305 m Sq. I 1953 I
Aerodyn. WT -
,ho-.
-
4T
II 0.1
1.6 &
1.3,
7.0
1.3 - 22.5 Cont. 1.22 rn Sq. 1968
I
Propu 1 s ion Vf
-16T
It
0.2 - 1.6 1.3 - 23 Cont. 4.88 rn sq. 1957
Propulsion W l II
1.5 - 4.75 (M = 2.0)
16s 1.3 - 8.4 Cont. I961
4-tuLa3.q-
14" Trisonic NASA Marshall SFC
W
T Huntsvi 1 le,Ala. Bd 0.356 rn Sq. 1956
12' Pressure NASA Ames RC
wr Moffett Field,Ca.
0.- 0.98 2.1 - 5.4 I
Cont.
I
3.44 m Sq. I
1946 I
14' Transonic - 2
w-r
1 1 I Transonic
LIT
2' Transonic
w-r
1 II
0.4
0.2
- 1.4
- 1.4
12

6.7
12 -
-
16.5

23.5
32
Cont.

Cont.

Cont.
4.11x4.18 m

3.35 m
0.61 rn Sq.
Sq.
1956
1956

1951
Injector-Driw In 0 - 1.0,
Transonic W l II
1.2. 1.4
16.7 - 167 Con t 15.24 crn Dia. Pilot Model
9' x 7' Super
sonic WT
II
1.55 - 2.5
(M = 2.0)
7 - 71.7 Cont. 2.74 x 2.13 rn2 1956
8 ' x 7' Super
sonic WT
I1
2.45 - 3.5 (M = 2.5)
3 - . 17.
. , .. . . . . Con t .
2.44 x 2.13 rn2
- .. .. . - 1956
 APPENDIX IV: FACILITIES RESPONDING TO OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Organitat ion
Faci 1 i t y & Locat ion
61 x 61 Super-NASA Ames RC Mof-
sonic WT f eFt ti e l d , Ca.
1 ' x 3 ' Super- II

CWT

Supersonic Uaval Surf.Weapon

Tunnel No. 1 Zntr.,Silver Spg.
Supersonic
II
Tunnel No. 2
Boundary Layer II

1
NSWC Hyper- II

sonic Tunnel
Aero.Res.lnst.
Tunnel FFA-Sb (FFA)Stockholrn,Sb
Transon ic Tun-
II
I
n e l FFA-HT I

Tr isonic Tonne;
II
=FA-TVM 500
II
Tunnel FFA-S5

8 X 6-Ft TWT II

x 4-Ft* '* Royal Airc.Est.

Bedford.Enqland

DFVLR
x TWT
Gottingen,W.Ger.
APPENDIX IV: FACILITIS RESPONDING TO OUESTIONNAIRE
TABLE I

Production Testing
Began
:ross-Section
I
I

0 . 6 rn Sq. 1966
0.5 rn Sq.(M>I
0.6x0.34 rn2

0.25-0.50 m

0.81 m D l a . 1970
 APPENO I X IV (Cont Id)
TABLE I I : TEST
SECTION
CHARACTERISTICS

Venting of Plenum
Facllf t y Cross-Section Porosltv WallAnqle Chamber
1.27cm, 90 SW 20% sw
NAL (India) 1.22 m Sq. Perforated lot o -2O EJector Flaps
300 Top & Bot. 6%TsB
GAC (NY) 0.66 m Octagon
~
Slotted
~~
I 12% & 6% 0. oso -Ejector Flaps

ETH (Swi t z ) 0.4 m Sq. Sol i d

I

NLR (HST 2 Slotted

1.6 x2 m 5 cm,40cm 12% T E B 0.13' Fixed Ejector Slots
.Hal land) - (T & B)
NLR (CSST) 0.27 x.27
2
m Solid I
I

2 Slotted ,
NLR (PT) 0.55 x 0.42 m
(T & B) 0.525 cm, 5.25 cm ' l O % T &B 0.22O Flxed Ejector Slots
2
NLR (SST) 1.2 x 1.2 m
U . S . Army 2
0.38x0.33 m Sol i d
(SSTl)
WPAFB (TGF) 0.38 x 0.38 mL ~ 4 - 12% O0 'EJectorFlaps

I
t-
WPAFB (M3HR)

Sand i a (TWT)
20.3 x 20.3cm2

0.305 x 0.305 m2
I
I
Solid

Perforated [ 0.318 cm,

30' 6% lo EJectorFlaps

2.44 x 1.83 m2

3.05 x 3.05 m2
2
-"--Perforated 2.54 cm,

Sol i d I
30' ' 6% O0

I
~
Aux i 1 i a r y Pumps

ARU (SWT) 0.45x0.'45 m Perforated 0'.'6O T E B l A u x i l i a r y Pumps

 APPENDIX IV (Cont'd)
TABLE I I : TEST SECTION CHARACTERISTICS

Venting o f Plenum
Fac i Wall Anqle Chamber

BAC (HSWT) 1.22 x 1.22 m Perforated 1.6 cm,

90' 19% O0 E j e c t o rF l a p s

lJAE (Su WT) 0.76 x 0.41 m Slotted 0.58 cm, 4.7 cm lo

-0.5' to-.25' E j e c t o r F 1 aps

2 Perforated 20.5%
NAE (2DT) 0.38 X 1-52 m 1.27cm, 90' O0 Vent Inq to Atm.
(T B) T E B
9RA (TWT) 2.44 x 2.74 m2 P e r f o r a t e d cm,
1.27 '
0
9 22.5% O0 9ux i 1 i a r y Pumps

4 f M (SWT) 0.305 x 0.406 m2 Solid

1 20.3 x 22.9 cm2 1 Perforated 0.185 cm,

90' I 22% O0 E j e c t o rF l a p s

O0 E j e c t o r F 1 aps

0.5'
2 Slotted
Volvo (WTl) 0.5 x 0.5 m
(T G B) ? 4%T&B 0.21O E l e c t o rF l a p s
I I I

Volvo (Wr9) 1 0.5 x 0.5 m2 I Sol i d

Boeing (SWT) 1 1.22 x 1.22 m2 1 Sol i d

-
Boe 1 ng 2 Perforated 1.03 cm, 90
0.305 X 0.91 m 34.1% T&B O0 E j e c t o rF l a p s
(2D-TWT) (T & B)
 APPENDIX IV (Cont'd)
TABLE I I : TEST
SECTION
CHARACTERISTICS

HoleSize/Angle o r Venting o f Plenum

Faci 1 it y Cross-Section Wall Type Slot Width/Soaciu PorQsjtv WallAnqle Chamber

(TWT)
2.44 x 3*66 Slotted 7.45 cm,70.41 cm 11% 3.5% - O0 Ejector Flaps
tJithinsertsTdB 47.31 cm SW

Lockheed (TWT)
p;fleTscorner

1.22x1.22 m2 Perforated
'*''
cm* 'O0 22% '-0.75' A u x i l i a r y Pumps

Hawker S l o t t e d T&B 2.54 cm, 10.80 cm

Perf. InsertsO.10 cm, goo 3% -0.17' Ejector Flaps
0.067' SW
6.35 cm, 148.6 cm 4.4%
0.167OT~B Ejector Flaps

LRC (UPWT) 1.22 x 1.22 m Sol i d

LRC (16' TT)

LRC ( 8 ' TPT)

4.72 m Octagon

2.16 x 2.16 mz
-
Slotted

Slotted
p .62 cm, 1.95 rn

3.18 cm, 43.20 cm

3.9%

3-6% T&E
'0 -
0,083'
0.75'

SW
Auxi I i a r y Pumps

Tapered fromzero
no - o-,,h~TFR F i x e d E j e c t o r S l o t s
Ejector Flaps or
LRC(1/3mTCT) 0.34 m Octagon Slotted to 1.727 cm 14 cm 0-125; 0.083' Vent Ins t o Atm.
2.0 x 2 . 9 2 m Slotted 4.60 cm, 73.03 cm 4.8% A u x i l i a r y Pumps &
LRC
(HST) O0
TF.R Ejector Flaps

LRC (4' SPT) I . 37 x 1.37 m Solid

LRC (6" TWT) 15.2 x 72.4 cm2 Slotted 3.476 cm, 3.81 cm 12.5% O0 F i x e dS l o t s
TL R
Slotted 3.318 x 2.54 cm,
NC ( 2 l TWT) 0.61 m Sq. Holes 1.91 cm 10% -2/3' t o +lo E j e c t o r F l a p s
'

PA(HSSWT) 10.61 m Dia. I Solid I I IO0 10' I I

Va 1ve Cont r o 1 s
PA (''I' Tbn) 0.42 x 0.41 m * Perforated 0.48 cm,
30' 0.25 - 8% NA Diffuser Pumping
h,
4
0 APPENDIX I V (Cont I d )
TABLE I I : TEST SECTION CHARACTERISTICS

Venting of Plenum
Faci 1 i t y Cross-Section Wall Type Mal 1 Anqle C harnber
2
L-G (CFF) 0.71 x 0.51 m Perforated 0.635 cm, 30' 0- 10% 0.25' T&B E j e c t o rF l a p s

1 UM (4" x 5" 10.2 x 12.7 cm Sol i d

Perforated 0.635 cm, 90 23 oo to +.3O EjectorFlaps

MD (PSWT) 1.22 m Sq. Perforated 0.953 cm, 90' 25 -0.75' to Oo Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps
I I -
Sol i d

AEDC (Tunnel
0.305 m Sq. Sol i d
ol
AEDC ( P i l o t 2 E j e c t o r F l a p s and/
H I RT) 18.6 x 23.2 cm Perforated .305 cm, 3
0' 0- 10% O0 o r Exhaust t o A t m .
Techn i o n
(TIWT)
0.8 x 0.6 rn
2
Perforated .635 cm, YOo 1 21% TbB I +0.5' I E j e cF
t ol a
r ps

Techn ion
n0.3 m Sq. Sol i d
Techn ion
2 Sol i d
&haAm" 0.4 x 0.5 m
RI ( T U ) 2.13 m Sq. Perforated 0.635 cm, 90 19.7% O0 E j e c t o r F I.aps

A u x i l i a r y Pumps E
Perforated 1.27 cm, 90 22.7% O0 to 0*670 V e n t i n g t o Atm.

Perforated

2
JPL (SWT) 0.51 x 0.46 m Sol i d
 APPENDIX IV (Cont'd)
TABLE I t : TEST
SECTION
CHARACTERISTICS

HoleSize/Angle 01 Venting of Plenum

Facl 1 i t y Cross-Section Wall Type S l o t Width/SDacint Porositv WallAnqle Chamber
VC (HSWT) 1.22 m S q . Perforated 1.04
cm, 90' 22.5% 80.33: T&B
Ejector Flaps
Q-h' cw
AEDC (AWT- 1T)
6% and -0.67' t o 0.5' Ejector Flaps &
3.305 m , Sq. Perforated 0.318 cm,
30'
0 -10% TEB Steam Eiector SYS.
AEDC (Am-4T) 1.22 m Sq.
-
Perforated I 1.27
cm,
30' 0 - 10%
1 t o 0.55'
T&B
EjectorFlaps &
Aux I l l a r y Pumps

AEDC (PWT- 16T) 4.88 m Sq.

- Perforated I 1.905
cm,
30' 6% -1'
Ejector Flaps E
t o O.jOT&B Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps

AEDC (PWT-16s) 4.88 rn S q . Sol i d

NASA Marshall
0.356 m Sq. 03.4% Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps
(14'' TWT)

ARC (12' PWT) 3.44 m Sq. Sol i d

2
ARC (14' TWT) 4.11 x 4.18 m 'lottedb l . 7 4 cm,
26.4
cm 5.6% ).18O T&B EjectorFlaps
w i t hi n s e r t
ARC ( 1 I ' TWT) Ejector Flaps &
3.35 m Sq. 5.8% 1.19O sw A u x i l i a r y Pumps
ARC (2' TWT) 0.61 m S q . 22% w i t h
Throttle t o 0.35' Ejector Flaps
-Bars - bo
ARC ( I -D TWT) 0.152 m Dia. Sol i d

4RC (7 'x7 ' S W ) 2.74 x 2.13 m2

2
ARC(8Ix7' SWT) 2.44 x2.13 m Sol i d

N ARC (6'x6' SWT 1.83 m Sq. 'lotted T&B11.03 cm,

28
cm 5.1% O0 Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps
v, with insert
N
4
N
APPEND I X I V (Cont I d )
TABLE I I : TEST
SECT ION CHARACTERISTICs

Venting o f Plenum
Faci 1 1 t y Cross-Section

I NSWC (ST # I ) I 0.4 m Sq.

I NSWC(ST #2) I 0.4 m Sq. TransonicJozzle used i n ST.I#l isavail

Solid 1 0.86'

NSWC (HyT) 0.41 x 0.41 m Sol i d

I
FFA-Sb 0.92 x 0.90 m
-
Slotted I 2.5 cm, 30 cm I 6% TES 0.15' F
Eljaepcst o r
0.89 x 0.89 mL
FFA-HT Slotted 3.4 cm, 37 cm 9.2% O0 E j e c t o rF l a p s
Octaaona 1
d
'

FFA-TVM 500 0.5 m Sq. Perforated 0.5 cm,

30' 6% -6' t o 00 Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps

FFA-SS 0.46 x 0.48 m2 Slotted 0.21 cm, 5.3 cm 4% T&B 0.15' Ejector Flaps

v
RAE(8Ix6' TWT) 2.44 x 1.83 m2 -0.2' t o 0.45' A u x i l i a r y Pumps

RAE(3Ix4' SWr)l 0.91 x 1.22 m2 Sol i d -

1

Slotted 0.99 cm, 8.9 cm 9.75% -0.4' t o 0.9 Ejector Flaps

Perforatedl 1 cm, 3
0
' 1 6% 0' t o 0.5'
Auxi 1 i a r y Pumps

DFVLR (TT Exhausted t o

W 1 ) 0.6 m Sq. - P e r f o r a t e d 0.6 cm, 30' 6%
 APPENDIX IV (Cont'd)
TABLE I I : TEST
SECTION
CHARACTER ISTICS

HoleSite/Angle or Venting o f Plenum

Facll I t y Cross-section Wail Type Slot Width/- Porosftv Wall Anqlc Chamber
0.5 m sq. (M > 1 )
DFVLR (T-s WT) 0.6 x 0.34 rn2 Slotted 0.8 cm, 6.8 cm 1 - 10% 0.05' t o 0.1' Exhausted t o Atm.

DFVLR
(HGK)
0.25 - 0.50 m
so, id
x 0.30 .m
NASA Marshal 1 Varies 1-1 0::
0.81 m D i a . Perf. 1.27 cm, 30' along a x i s
00 Ejector Flaps
(HRNTT)
 1. Rmort No. 2. Gobwnmmr Accr*on No. 3. Rripient's cltabg No.
NASA CR-2920
4. Title rd Subtitle 5. Rem13 Date

"Calibration of Transonic and Supersonic Wind Tunnels"

November 197 7
6. F'erformingOrgmnization Coda

-
T.D. Reed, T.C. Pope and J.M. Cooksey
. 10. Work Unit
I

No.
9. M a m i n QOrp.nilrtion Narm ud

Vought Corporation
Ad&-

"11. Contract or Grant No.

-
Dallas, Texas NAS 2-8606
-
13. Type of Repon and Period Covered
12. Spotnoring A p n c v Nlnu md Address
Contractor Report
National Aeronautics E Space Administration 14. Smmroring Agmcy code
-
Washington, D.C. 20546
1
15. Supplemntarv Notes
I -

16. Abstraa
-
State-of-the art instrumentation and procedures for calibrating transonic (0.6 C M < 1.4) and
supersonic (M 5 3.5) wind tunnels are reviewed and evaluated. Major emphasis is given to
transonic tunnels. Background information was obtained via a literature search, personal contacts
and a questionnaire which was sent to 106 domestic and foreign facilities. Completed question-
naires were received for 88 tunnels dnd included government, industry and university-owned
facilities.
Continuous, blowdown and intermittent tunnels are considered. The required measurements of
pressure, temperature, flow angularity, noise and humidity are discussed, and the effects of
measurement uncertainties are summarized. Included is a comprehensive review of instrumentation
currently used to calibrate empty-tunnel flow conditions. The recent results of relevant research
are noted and reconmendations for achieving improved data accuracy are made where appropriate. lt
is concluded, for general testing purposes, that satisfactory calibration measurements can be
achieved in both transonic and supersonic tunnels. The goal of calibrating transonic tunnels to
within 0.001 in centerline Mach number appears to be feasible with existing instrumentation.
provided correct calibration procedures are carefully followed. A comparable accuracy can be
achieved off-centerline with carefully designed, conventional probes, except near Mach 1. In the
range 0.95 M < 1.05, the laser Doppler velocimeter appears to offer the most promise for improved
calibration accuracy off-centerline.
With regard to procedures. tunnel operators are cautioned to: (1) verify by measurements that
expansions from a settling chamber to a test section are indeed isentropic, and (2) obtain calibra-
tions over the entire range of reynolds number and humidity levels. Also, it is suggested that
calibration data should include off-centerline measurements of Mach number and flow angularity.
Finally, three problem areas for transonic tunnels are identified and discussed, viz. (1) the
lack of standard criteria for flow uniformity and unsteadiness, (2) the undesirable noise
generated by ventilated walls, and (3) wall interference.
-

I
Wind tunnels, Calibration, Testing
I
I
UNCLASSIFIED-UNLIMITED

STAR Category 09
19. Scurity Clrit. (of this v t t 20. S M i w a a i f . (of chis p e t 21. NO. of p.pa 22. Rice'
-
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 287 $9.25 -
'For ule bv thc N n i w l Tuhniul InfarmtionSmvii. Spriqtidd, Virginia 22161

*U.S. GOVEKtB.!ENT PRINTIKG OFFICE: 1977 - 735-078143