Abstract

In the frame of a continuous improvement of the performance and accuracy in the experimental testing of turbomachines, the uncertainty analysis on measurements instrumentation and techniques is of paramount importance. For this reason, since the beginning of the experimental activities at the Laboratory of Fluid Machines (LFM) located at Politecnico di Milano (Italy), this issue has been addressed and different methodologies have been applied. This paper proposes a comparison of the results collected applying two methods for the measurement uncertainty quantification to two different aerodynamic pressure probes: sensor calibration, aerodynamic calibration and probe application are considered. The first uncertainty evaluation method is the so-called “uncertainty propagation” method (UPM); the second is based on the “Monte Carlo” method (MCM). Two miniaturized pressure probes have been selected for this investigation: a pneumatic five-hole probe and a spherical fast-response aerodynamic pressure probe (sFRAPP), the latter applied as a virtual four-hole probe. Since the sFRAPP is equipped with two miniaturized pressure transducers installed inside the probe head, a specific calibration procedure and a dedicated uncertainty analysis are required.

References

1.
Cuneo
,
A.
,
Traverso
,
A.
, and
Shahpar
,
A.
,
2017
, “
Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Uncertainty Propagation and Quantification
,”
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2017: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition. Volume 2C: Turbomachinery
,
Charlotte
,
NC
,
June 26–30
, V02CT47A005. Paper No. GT2017-63238.
2.
Hölle
,
M.
,
Bartsch
,
C.
, and
Jeschke
,
P.
,
2016
, “
Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainties for Pneumatic Multi-Hole Probes Using a Monte Carlo Method
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
139
(
7
), p.
072605
.
3.
JCGM
,
2008
,
Evaluation of Measurement Data — Supplement 1 to the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” — Propagation of Distributions using a Monte Carlo method
,
JCGM
.
4.
American National Standard Institute
, and
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
,
2005
,
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1 – 2005 Maesurement Uncertainty
,
ASME
.
5.
International Organisation for Standardization
,
1995
,
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty Measurement, Supported by BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML
,
International Organisation for Standardisation
,
Geneva
.
6.
Figliola
,
R.
, and
Beasley
,
D.
,
2011
,
Theory and Design of Mechanical Measurements
,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
,
Hoboken, NJ
.
7.
Brouckaert
,
J. F.
,
2007
, “
Fast Response Aerodynamic Probes for Measurements in Turbomachines
,”
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A: J. Power Energy
,
221
(
6
), pp.
811
813
.
8.
Persico
,
G.
,
Gaetani
,
P.
, and
Guardone
,
A.
,
2005
, “
Design and Analysis of a New Concept Fast-Response Pressure Probes
,”
Meas. Sci. Technol.
,
16
(
9
), pp.
1741
1750
.
9.
Humm
,
H.
,
Gossweiler
,
C.
, and
Gyarmathy
,
G.
,
1995
, “
On Fast-Response Probes: Part 2—Aerodynamic Probe Design Studies
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
117
(
4
), pp.
618
624
.
10.
Kupferschmied
,
P.
,
Koppel
,
P.
,
Roduner
,
C.
, and
Gyarmathy
,
G.
,
2000
, “
On the Development and Application of the Fast-Response Aerodynamic Probe System in Turbomachines—Part 1: The Measuring System
,”
ASME J. Turbomach.
,
122
(
3
), pp.
505
516
.
11.
Zimmermann
,
T. W.
, and
Wirsum
,
M.
,
2016
, “
Calibration and Implementation of a Transient Sub Miniature 5-Hole Probe to Determine Complex Flow Structure in Turbomachines
,”
Proceedings of the XXIII Symposium on Measuring Techniques for Transonic and Supersonic Flows in Cascades and Turbomachinery
,
Stuttgart, Germany
.
12.
Treiber
,
M.
,
Kupferschmied
,
P.
, and
Gyarmathy
,
G.
,
1998
, “
Analysis of the Error Propagation Arising From the Measurements With a Miniature Pneumatic 5-Hole Probe
,”
14th Symposium on Measuring Techniques for Transonic and Supersonic Flows in Cascade and Turbomachines
,
Limerick, Ireland
.
13.
Hudson
,
S. T.
, and
Coleman
,
H. W.
,
1997
, “
A Detailed Uncertainty Assessment of Measurements Used in Determining Turbine Efficiency
,”
35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit
,
Reno, NV
.
14.
Heng
,
B. L.
, and
Hudson
,
S. T.
,
2002
, “
Evaluating Experimental Data Requirements for High Gradient Turbine Flowfields Through Uncertainty Analysis
,”
40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit
,
Reno, NV
.
15.
Hudson
,
S. T.
, and
Heng
,
B. L.
,
2003
, “
Evaluating Experimental Data Requirements for Spatially Varying Turbine Flowfields Through Uncertainty Analysis
,”
J. Propul. Power
,
19
(
4
), pp.
683
692
.
16.
Humm
,
H. J.
,
Gizzi
,
W. P.
, and
Gyarmathy
,
G.
,
1994
, “
Dynamic Response of Aerodynamic Probes in Fluctuating 3D Flows
,”
Proceedings of the XIIth Symposium on Measuring Techniques for Transonic and Supersonic Flows in Cascades and Turbomachinery.
,
Prague, Czech
.
17.
Dell’Era
,
G.
,
Mersinligil
,
M.
, and
Brouckaert
,
J.-F.
,
2016
, “
Assessment of Unsteady Pressure Measurements Uncertainty. Part 1: Single Sensor Probe
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
138
(
4
), p.
041601
.
18.
Dell’Era
,
G.
,
Mersinligil
,
M.
, and
Brouckaert
,
J.-F.
,
2016
, “
Assessment of Unsteady Pressure Measurements Uncertainty. Part II: Virtual Three-Hole Probe
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
,
138
(
4
), p.
041602
.
19.
Gaetani
,
P.
, and
Persico
,
G.
,
2019
, “
Technology Development of Fast-Response Aerodynamic Pressure Probes
,”
ETC2019-426, European Turbomachinery Conference
,
Lausanne, Switzerland
.
20.
McKay
,
M. D.
,
Beckman
,
R. J.
, and
Conover
,
W. J.
,
1979
, “
A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code
,”
Technometrics
,
21
(
2
), pp.
239
245
.
You do not currently have access to this content.