7th Aerodynamic Testing Conference 1972
DOI: 10.2514/6.1972-1003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of disturbance levels measured in hypersonic tunnels using a hot-wire anemometer and a pitot pressure probe

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…16, the angled acoustic disturbances (θ 120 deg) produce a much better match to experimental data than flow-parallel fast acoustic disturbances (θ 0 deg) [34]. The results suggest that, with judiciously imposed freestream disturbances, the method of computing the transfer function using DNS of flow around pitot probes holds the potential to ultimately be used to replace the unsteady approach of Stainback and Wagner [33] for recovering freestream disturbance spectrum from stagnation pressure spectrum for hypersonic pitot probes. Experiments and DNS also suggest an unexpected dependence of transfer functions on sleeve geometries and Reynolds numbers.…”
Section: Recovery Of Tunnel Freestream Disturbancesmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…16, the angled acoustic disturbances (θ 120 deg) produce a much better match to experimental data than flow-parallel fast acoustic disturbances (θ 0 deg) [34]. The results suggest that, with judiciously imposed freestream disturbances, the method of computing the transfer function using DNS of flow around pitot probes holds the potential to ultimately be used to replace the unsteady approach of Stainback and Wagner [33] for recovering freestream disturbance spectrum from stagnation pressure spectrum for hypersonic pitot probes. Experiments and DNS also suggest an unexpected dependence of transfer functions on sleeve geometries and Reynolds numbers.…”
Section: Recovery Of Tunnel Freestream Disturbancesmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Researchers have previously attempted to account for the difference between a pitot-probe-measured spectrum and a freestream spectrum, including the so-called quasisteady analysis by Harvey et al [32] and the unsteady analysis by Stainback and Wagner [33]. The quasisteady analysis was found to significantly underpredict the pitot-probe fluctuations.…”
Section: Recovery Of Tunnel Freestream Disturbancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A measurement of the normalized pitot pressure has been accepted as a standard method to characterize the freestream disturbance level in the test section [52]. As introduced by Beckwith and Moore [53], the freestream disturbance level in our experiment is evaluated by a Kulite XCQ-062-25 pressure transducer, which is flush-mounted in the tapered tip of a stainless steel rod and located at the center of the nozzle exit.…”
Section: A Test Facilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disturbances in hypersonic wind tunnels are dominated by sound waves, which are radiated by the turbulent boundary layers of the nozzle walls (Kovasznay 1953;Laufer 1961). A measurement of the normalized Pitot pressure is the standard method of characterizing the free-stream disturbance level in the test section (Stainback 1972). As introduced by Beckwith & Moore (1982), the free-stream disturbance level in our experiments was evaluated using a Kulite XCQ-062-25 pressure transducer that was flush-mounted in the tapered tip of a stainless steel rod and located at the centre of the nozzle exit.…”
Section: Facilitymentioning
confidence: 99%