Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

An examination of suitability of multi-hole pressure probe technique for skin friction measurement in turbulent flow
S.J. Lien , N.A. Ahmed
School of Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering, UNSW Sydney NSW 2052, Australia

article

info

abstract
The problems of misalignment to flow direction and the need to drill a tapping hole on a measurement surface to obtain total and static pressures make the use of Preston probe in skin friction measurement in a turbulent flow a cumbersome task. The suitability of a multi-hole pressure probe in a non-nulling mode to overcome these problems was, therefore, investigated. The near-wall effect on multi-hole pressure probe readings was examined both experimentally and theoretically. The results indicate that the presence of the wall had negligible overall effect. Experiments were carried out in a pipe, on a flat plate and on a swept forward facing step to simulate one-, two-, and three-dimensional turbulent flows. The skin friction coefficient determined using the multi-hole pressure probe was found to have good agreement with published data. Since the technique is based on similarity principle with probe diameter as a characteristic parameter, it is expected that the method would be effective with probe geometries of different sizes provided that they are small enough to be submerged in the boundary layer and that their calibration coefficients are accurately determined. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 24 March 2010 Received in revised form 8 January 2011 Accepted 30 January 2011 Keywords: Multi-hole pressure probe Skin friction Turbulent flow

1. Introduction Knowledge of skin friction is essential in the quest for a greater understanding of all wall-bounded shear flows. Such knowledge can also help towards aero shaping a body and methodologies and techniques to detect and control separation of flow in many technical applications of practical significance with improved performance such as the design of the wing of an aircraft with higher stall angle, rotors in turbo-machines or various fluid mechanical devices. Since real flows of significance are generally turbulent, highly complex and three dimensional, most methods relating to skin friction determination have relied solely on physical experimentation and subsequent empirical relationships or theoretical approaches supplemented by experimental correlation [1]. Various surveys on skin friction measurement [25] generally divided the various techniques into two categories: direct and indirect methods and suggest that the inadequacy of the available techniques which have remained largely confined to two-dimensional zero pressure gradient turbulent flows. Most indirect methods are intrusive, calibration dependent and generally provide skin friction measurement at a point. They are based on the measurement of several flow quantities that are then related back to skin friction. Consequently, the indirect methods

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: lien1122@hotmail.com (S.J. Lien), N.Ahmed@unsw.edu.au (N.A. Ahmed). 0955-5986/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2011.01.004

use a variety of analytical correlations to relate the measured property, for example, the total or static pressures or heat transfer to the skin friction value. The indirect methods can be performed by intrusive devices such as Preston probe [6], Stanton tube [7], Sublayer fence [8] and so forth. A key feature of the indirect methods is that they require similarity principle or the logarithmic law of the wall to remain valid in the boundary layer near the wall. Of these, the Preston method [7] appears to be the most reliable, particularly in simple onedimensional flows. However, the implementation of the Preston method in real situations of complex flows has not met with much success. A major limitation of the Preston method [8] is that it requires perfect alignment of the Preston probe with the flow direction. The extensive survey by Chue [9] for fluid measurement using pressure probe found that the total head probe, which is essentially what a Preston probe is, can obtain results with accuracies of 2% if the flow pitch angle is kept below 15. Also, the requirement of separate determination of the static pressure which is usually obtained by drilling a hole on the surface further adds to difficulties. Some extensions of the Preston method have been attempted. Nece and Smith [10] used a large Preston probe (3.8 cm diameter) and a separate static pressure tube to measure shear stress in rivers and estuaries but this device is impractical in most application where the wall boundary layers are smaller than the diameter of their device. Ackerman et al. [11] developed a modified version of Preston probe, which combined Preston and static tubes into a single measurement device. The critical features of their new device is that the shape of probe were related to the ratio of inner

154

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

to outer diameter of the Preston probe, which was stipulated to be greater than 0.6, and the ratio of the distance from the leading edge to the static tap (ls ) to the diameter of the dynamic tap (ls /d) to be greater than 2 to minimize the influence of the local pressure gradient generated by the tip of the syringe [12]. The result showed that this Preston-static tube provided slightly improved accuracy in wall shear stress measurement under laboratory conditions [13]. The recent advances [1417] in the theory and the use of multihole pressure measurement technique, particularly the accurate determination of total and static pressures in highly complex three -dimensional flows provide the argument that a multi-hole pressure probe in a non-nulling mode may overcome some deficiencies of the Preston method, and this proposition is explored in this paper. 2. Wall proximity effect on five-hole pressure probe readings Before the wall proximity effect on five-hole pressure probe readings can be considered, the effect of turbulence on the response of pressure -based probes requires some attention. This effect has been the subject of intense investigation for nearly a century [1820]. Most of these studies relate to response of pressure probe such as the Pitot-static probe or the yaw probe [20] in measurements conducted on the centreline of a turbulent jet flow where the turbulence effect is quite pronounced. The basis for a quantitative treatment of the problem was suggested by Hinze [21]. According to him, the theory of response of a Pitot probe in a turbulent stream, where the velocity vector fluctuates both in magnitude and direction could be formulated from a knowledge of the directional response in a laminar stream. On this basis, the calibration of multi-hole pressure probe can be attempted on the pipe wall, where the wall is expected to substantially damp out the effect of turbulence on pressure probe readings. Furthermore, the variation of static pressure caused by turbulence can be significant on conventional Pitot static probe. However, for multi-hole, such as five-hole, pressure probe, the readings are expected to be not significantly affected by the ratio of eddy size to tube size, because the pressure ports are so closely grouped that the disturbance pressure field that the disturbance pressure filed which determines the readings is always rather small compared to typical eddy sizes. Thus, if a multi-hole pressure probe is to be deployed, although it removes the need to obtain separately the static and total pressures and the difficulties associated with the aligning of the probe with the flow direction, the wall proximity effect requires detailed examination. The work of Treaster and Yocum [22] on fivehole pressure probe readings of on the effect of wall proximity is pertinent here. They found that as the probe approaches the wall surface, the readings of the five holes of the pressure probe are altered when the probe is approximately within two probe diameters to the wall and consequently the static pressure readings they deduced based on the five-hole pressure probe data become erroneous. These were reflected in the calibration characteristics in the wall region. They attributed these changes to probe-wall potential flow interaction as opposed to boundary layer effects. An implication of this interpretation is that the measurement of static pressure using a five-hole pressure probe in boundary layer near a wall may be suspect without some correction to the data. It is worth pointing out that Trester and Yocum [22] had limited their study to static pressure only and did not investigate the effect of the wall. 2.1. Experimental setup A test rig similar to Prestons experimental setup [6] was constructed at the aerodynamics laboratory of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) with the objectives to (i) ensure direct

comparison of the results of the present study and Prestons experimental data (ii) gain a quantitative description of the wall effect on each pressure readings of the multi-hole pressure probe, (iii) explore the viability of effectively measuring P or the difference between the total and static pressures using this probe and (iv) obtain the necessary calibration relations for reliable skin friction measurement. The general arrangement for Prestons rig flow measurement is shown in Fig. 1. Broadly speaking it is an experimental facility to simulate one-dimensional flow in a pipe with fully developed turbulent flow. Preston used an entry length of approximately eighty nine pipe diameter (89D) in his study. However, there appears some uncertainty about the minimum entry length that is required to ensure fully developed turbulent flow at the measurement station. Nikuradse [23], for example, examined turbulent flow in both smooth and rough pipe surfaces. By comparing the successive mean velocity profiles along the streamswise direction from the pipe inlet, he concluded that for the flow to become fully developed, it is also dependent on pipe roughness and the minimum entry length ranged from 25D to 40D. Other researchers have suggested much higher entry lengths. Patel and Head [24] and Abell [25], for example, recommend an entrance length lying between 71D and 86D. Considering this, the dimensions used by Preston in his experiment were adopted in the construction of the rig at UNSW for the present study. The test section was preceded by an entry length of 4521 mm (89D) and of a 51 mm internal diameter poly pipe. The static pressure tappings ps1 and ps2 were located 4521 mm and 4675 mm from the entry of the pipe and pressure tapping p0 was 76 mm downstream from ps2 tapping. The holes in the pipe wall were made smooth and free from burrs. A traverse system which allowed movements in two directions (x and y) with an accuracy of 0.01 mm was used in the investigation. For comparative purpose, a Preston probe as well as a five-hole pressure probe were inserted from points lying on the same circumference but located directly opposite to the p0 tapping. A Pitot static probe was located 686 mm downstream of the p0 station for recording the mean velocity of flow in the pipe. The end of the pipe was connected to a EURAPIPE centrifugal pump system. The velocity of the flow was regulated by the rotation speed of the motor through a FVR E9S variable control box. A Furness FCO510 micromanometer and a box consisting of seven channels of Honeywell transducers were used to measure the wind tunnel speed as well as the pressures of the Preston probe and the five-hole probe. The manometer and the pressure transducer provided measurement in the range that varied from 2000 Pa to 2000 Pa with an accuracy of 0.1 Pa. A Preston probe of 1.7 mm diameter and a five-hole pressure probe of 2.3 mm diameter were traversed at different radial heights of the pipe, from pipe wall to the centre at two free stream velocity settings corresponding to Reynolds number of 3.3 104 and 5.7 104 , respectively. To ensure a fully developed turbulent flow exists in the UNSW rig, the velocity profiles at the measuring station P0 were obtained using the Preston probe and the five-hole pressure probe and compared with Prandtls one seventh power law. The measured velocity profile was found to be in good agreement with Prandtls power law profile at the two Reynolds numbers investigated and the results are shown in Fig. 4. 2.2. Discussion of the results of the five-hole ports near a wall For analysis and discussion of wall effect on the reading of each pressure port, the data were deduced to the following nondimensional form: Cpn = pn p0
2 0.5 U

(2.1)

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

155

Fig. 1. General arrangement of pipe experiment.

Fig. 2. Various probes used in the investigation (a) Preston probe, d = 1.7 mm, (b) five-hole pressure probe, with hemi-spherical tip, d = 2.3 mm.

when the probe is away from the surface. But as the probe approaches the wall, the wall proximity effect would influence the reading of pressure port 4 more than the readings of other ports. This would invariably affect the values of static and the total pressures determined near a wall. For ease of understanding, the procedure [14] used in the determination of the total and static pressures is briefly outlined here. It involves reducing the raw data to a set of non-dimensional coefficients (Eqs. (2.2)(2.5)) where the normalizing denominator is the dynamic head of the flow only when the probe is fully aligned with the flow direction that is when P1 and pP are both tending towards Pt and Ps values respectively: Kppitch = Kpyaw =
Fig. 3. Schematic axis system of the five-hole pressure probe with spherical head and their nomenclature.

p4 p5 p1 pP p2 p3 p1 pP pP pstatic p1 pP p1 ptotal

(2.2) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5)

Kpstatic = Kptotal =

where n = 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 and the number refer to the pressure port location as shown in Fig. 3; n = s or t , with s and t referring to the static and total pressure. Fig. 5 shows a general schematic of a five-hole pressure probe at two heights, one at the wall and the other away from the wall. It would be reasonable to assume that in both cases the flow would be slowed down considerably towards the lower half of the probe head. Since the flow in the pipe is considered to be one dimensional, the reading at pressure port 1 would essentially be the same as the reading obtained by the total head probe of Preston. Also, the differential pressure recorded in the yaw plane, Cp2 and Cp3 , and in pitch plane, Cp4 and Cp5 (see Fig. 3), should approximately be of the same magnitude with the pitch and yaw angles being approximately of zero value. This would generally be the case

(p1 pP )
(p +p +p +p )

where pP = 2 234 4 5 . The probe is placed in a flow with known free stream velocity and three calibration charts are produced: (i) Kppitch versus Kpyaw by placing the probe to different pre-set angles of pitch ( ) and yaw ( ), (ii) Kpstatic versus for different , and (iii) Kptotal versus for different . In an unknown flow using the readings of the five-hole pressure ports, the corresponding Kppitch versus Kpyaw are obtained. From these values and using the Kppitch versus Kpyaw calibration chart, the corresponding values of and of the unknown flow are determined which in turn are used to determine the Kptotal and Kpstatic values using the calibration charts (ii) and (iii), respectively. To avoid confusion, these experimentally determined values are

156

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

Fig. 4. Velocity profiles in the pipe obtained by the Preston probe and five-hole pressure probe.

Fig. 5. A schematic illustration of the wall effect on pressure readings on the five-hole pressure probe.

Fig. 6. Pressure coefficient of the various holes on five-hole pressure probe 2 (2.3 mm).

denoted here by Kp total as well as Kpstatic , and using Eqs. (2.6) (2.8), the value of total, static and dynamic pressure at a point of measurement can then be determined:

ptotal = p1 Kp total (p1 pP ) pstatic = pP Kpstatic (p1 pP )

(2.6) (2.7)

ptotal pstatic = (p1 pP )(1 Kptotal + Kpstatic ).

(2.8)

Recalling that the denominator used in the normalizations of the Eqs. (2.2)(2.5) is essentially the dynamic head at the point of measurement in a one-dimensional flow, that is for the case when both and values are also zero. Hence, if wall proximity effect is to be present in the different port readings, it would ultimately affect and values determined from these readings and and are expected to be non-zero near the wall. The effect of the wall in the reading of each of the ports can be seen in Fig. 6 and how these

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

157

Fig. 7. Flow angle variation.

Fig. 8. Comparison of pressure coefficients in pipe flow.

readings are translated into changes in and values are shown in Fig. 7. It is clear from Fig. 6 that the pressure differential between ports 4 and 5 show significant departure from zero value compared to the pressure differential between ports 2 and 3 but hardly any changes in the pressure reading of port 1 is evident. This suggests that the wall proximity error is more pronounced in the reading of port 4 than on the readings recorded at the other ports. Consequently, the yaw and pitch angles deviate more from zero value as measurements are taken closer to the wall with yaw and pitch angles becoming 1.5 and 2, respectively. It may be stressed that the proposed skin friction measurement method requires the knowledge of the difference between total and static pressure ( P ) and this difference is deduced from the pressure readings from all the five-hole pressure ports. Hence, a plot of Cptotal and Cpstatic at different pipe radial heights is presented in Fig. 8 to explore the effect of the wall. From these readings, it appears that near the wall both Cptotal and Cpstatic values obtained from five-hole pressure probe are overpredicted when compared against corresponding values obtained from the Preston method. Since the over-prediction in computed values using five-hole pressure probe occur in both total and static pressures near the wall, the overall wall proximity effect is expected to be less significant when difference between the total and static pressure value is considered. This is evident where the variation of P obtained by five-hole pressure probe and the

Preston method are compared at different radial heights of the pipe as presented in Fig. 9. All the results presented in Figs. 69 were conducted at two Reynolds numbers. From this limited Reynolds number range, the trend observed appears to be independent of the Reynolds number. Also, the differences between the P /q value obtained by the two methods were found to be of the order of 0.6% and 0.3% near the wall and centre, respectively. 2.3. Theoretical error analysis of pressure readings near the wall for a five-hole pressure probe A theoretical analysis based on potential flow consideration was carried out to explore the wall proximity effect on five-hole pressure port readings. The potential flow around bluff bodies such as cylinder, sphere or hemi-sphere can be described by the combination of the free stream and singular functions like doublet, source or sink and the pressure distribution at any location on these surfaces can be expressed as follows: Kp( ) = E cos2 + F or Kp(, ) = E cos2 cos2 + F (2.9) where for three-dimensional flow cos = cos cos (refer to Fig. 3). The parameters E and F in Eq. (2.9) are dependent on the particular configuration of the probe head under consideration.

158
1 0.9 0.8 P/q = Cpt - Cps 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 y/R

Fig. 9. Comparison of dynamic pressure in the pipe.

Fig. 10. Experimental and theoretical pressure distribution on three different bluff body shapes.

For example, the theoretical values obtained for E and F using potential flow analysis are (4, 3), (2.25, 1.25) and (1.4, 0.4) for cylinder, sphere and hemisphere, respectively. Following Pisasale and Ahmed [14], the general theoretical pressure distribution of each of the five pressure ports (see Fig. 3) with any particular tip configuration can be summarized as follows: p1 (, ) = p + Eq cos2 () cos2 () + Fq p2 (, ) = p + Eq cos () cos ( + ) + Fq
2 2 2 2

Kp5 = E cos2 ( + ) cos2 () + F KpP = 1

(2.21)

(2.10) (2.11) (2.12) (2.13) (2.14) (2.15) (2.16)

p3 (, ) = p + Eq cos () cos ( ) + Fq p4 (, ) = p + Eq cos2 ( ) cos2 () + Fq p5 (, ) = p + Eq cos ( + ) cos () + Fq

2 2

pP (, ) = p + q = pt p = 1 2

1 4

(p2 + p3 + p4 + p5 )

2 U .

These pressures can also be re-expressed in non-dimensional forms by subtracting the static pressure, P , and dividing them by the dynamic pressure, q, to give the following port pressure coefficients: Kp1 = E cos2 () cos2 () + F Kp2 = E cos () cos ( + ) + F
2 2 2 2 2

(2.17) (2.18) (2.19) (2.20)

Kp3 = E cos () cos ( ) + F Kp4 = E cos ( ) cos () + F

2

(Kp2 + Kp3 + Kp4 + Kp5 ). (2.22) 4 A close inspection of the tip geometry of the five-hole pressure probe geometry used in this study (see Fig. 2(b)) suggests its shape to be hemispherical. A Nikon microscope system was used to determine the nominal hole location angle ( ) and this was found to be 40 1. Assuming manufacturing error to be present in producing the hemispherical shape, it is expected that the actual values of E and F would be different from their theoretical values. Hence, it was decided to obtain the values of E and F for the pressure probe used in this study from experimental data. This was done by exploring the pressure coefficient distribution on port 1. The five-hole pressure probe was placed in the wind tunnel [26] and both pitch and yaw angles were varied between 20 (i.e. 20 < (, ) < 20). From these results, a plot of Cp( ) versus cos2 were obtained for the five-hole probe geometry and presented in Fig. 10. From a linear curve fit, the values of E and F for the fivehole probe were determined to be 1.5 and 0.5, respectively. Also on this figure, the theoretical variation of Cp( ) for cylinder, sphere and hemisphere were superimposed. As expected, the curve for the five-hole probe appears to lie closer to the hemispherical shape which has 1.4 and 0.4 as the theatrical values of E and F , respectively. In an one-dimensional flow when the probe lies in the pipe centre, pressure reading of port 1 or the total pressure deduced from the five-hole pressure probe should ideally be equal in magnitude. These two pressures should also be equal to the pressure recorded by the Preston probe at the same location. Hence, the error of wall

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164 Table 1 Effect of wall proximity on pressure coefficients on the multi-hole pressure probe based on theoretical analysis. E = 1.5, F = 0.5 Pipe centre ( = 0, = 0, = 40) Kp1 Kp2 Kp3 Kp4 Kp5 KpP KPtotal Kpstatic Kpstatic Kptotal P /q Theoretical error relative to pipe centre 1.0000 0.3802 0.3802 0.3802 0.3802 0.3802 0.0000 0.6135 0.6135 1.0000 0% Near wall ( = 4, = 2, = 40) 0.9909 0.3244 0.4269 0.4806 0.2752 0.3768 0.0148 0.6135 0.6284 0.9909 0.46%

159

proximity can be calculated by the ratio of P1 and Pstatic at the pipe wall and the pipe centre. Using this logic, the typical error of the dynamic pressure recorded in the presence of the wall can now be quantified. From Eqs. (2.6) and (2.7), the non-dimensional expression of P /q can be easily obtained as follows: P = P1 Pstatic = (P1 Pp ) + Kpstatic (P1 Pp ) or P q

P1 Pstatic q

= (Cp1 Cpp )(1 + Kpstatic ).

(2.23)

From the tests conducted, when the probe approached the wall, the maximum pitch angle ( ) and yaw angle ( ) were found to be approximately 2 and 1.5, respectively. By extending the curves in Fig. 6, the maximum errors in and were assumed be approximately 4 and 2, respectively. Using the values of = 4 and = 2, the various pressure coefficients on the five -hole pressure probe with hemispherical tip at the wall were calculated. As the probe was placed at the pipe centre, the and values were expected to approach zero giving zero theoretical error. Since the manufacturing error contributes to the variation in constant E and F , the theoretical errors on the wall of P /q were computed for the cases were E = 1.5 and F = 0.5. The results are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen that the overall error was of the order of 0.5% 3. Determination of the functional relationships between and w P

all types of turbulent boundary flows. However, as George [31] points out, there is hardly any facility large enough to enable measurements at large Reynolds number at low wind speed to resolve the controversies. All measurements near the wall are also subject to inaccuracies. Under such circumstances, it was decided to opt for the universal log law of the wall. This does not, however, diminish the merit of the method of skin friction proposed here, only underlines the necessity for a better procedure for calibrating the probe. With the above rationale, the functional relationship between P and w was obtained in a manner similar to that adopted by Preston. Here, the charcteristic length is the radius of the probe so that the functional relationship in Eq. (4.1) can be expressed as follows:
log(w ) = M log( P ) + N

(3.1)
w d2 ,d 4 2

Having established that the wall proximity effects on multihole pressure probe can be adequately addressed, it was decided to proceed with the task of establishing the functional relationship between P and w for the method proposed in this paper. The issue that requires consideration here is the type of velocity profile that can be used to obtain a correlation of the turbulent skin friction co-efficient from the pressure measurements. The log law of the wall that originated from the classic work of Millikan [27] has long been accepted to be valid in turbulent boundary layer applications, since the available data appear to indicate that the wall layer variables universally described the streamwise mean velocity in the inner layer of smooth flat plate, pipes and channels at all Reynolds numbers. The boundary layer data by Purtell et al. [28] and Andreopoulos et al. (1984) and the channel flow data by Wei and Willmarth [29] are typical and covered a wide range of Reynolds numbers. The recent work by George and Castillo [30] and George [31] appear to question many of the underlying features and hence the universality of the log law and suggests Reynolds number dependence of the boundary layer. This would mean a difference in the inner region between flat plate boundary layers and fully developed channel flows which would raise some question marks on the wisdom of using pipe flow calibration data in turbulent skin friction measurement in

P = 4 2 , w is the diameter of the probe, E = and F are coefficients that need to be determined. The functional relationship obtained by the Preston method as given in the above form has been surveyed by several researchers. Preston [6] had recommended 0.875 and 1.396 as universal constants for M and N values for the total head probe with different diameters. However, doubts were expressed about the existence of such universal constants after experiments were performed at National Physics Laboratory [32] which showed that Prestons calibration predicted lower value for surface shear stress than the boundary layer in zero pressure gradient. Smith and Walker [33] calibrated the Preston probe in a channel flow and compared their results against the floating element technique. They concluded that with slightly modified calibration constants, the measured skin friction values by Preston probe were in good agreement with the floating element technique. In order to establish whether the similarity region exists close to the wall for different types of flows, Ferris [34] calibrated Preston probe in a channel flow. The finding was in favour of the existence of the similarity region; however, the calibration constants for the Preston probe were again found to differ slightly from Prestons original form. A possible reason for this discrepancy was thought to be the fact that different researchers employed different equipment and methods where some uncertainty is unavoidable in the overall data. Patel [35] conducted Preston probe calibration in pipes with different pipe diameters and probe diameters and characterised the limitations in the use of the Preston method for flows with both favourable and adverse pressure gradients. The various calibration relations are summarized in Table 2. The calibration expressions from most of the above works were found to have a slope (M ) similar to 0.875 or 7/8 value, which indicates that the velocity profiles are similar to 1/7 power law as suggested by Preston. However, as evident from Table 2,

where

Pd2

160

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

Table 2 Calibration expressions of the Preston probe method obtained by different authors. Author (s) Preston (Ref. [6]) Patel and Head (Ref. [24]) Purtell et al. (Ref. [28]) Abell (Ref. [25]) Longmuir and Ahmed (Ref. [26]) Calibration expression log
w d2 4
d2 d2 d2

Limit
Pd2

w log 4 w log 4 w log 4

log 40 log 40

d2

d2

= 0.875 log 4 2 1.396 Pd2 = 0.877 log 4 1.366 2 Pd2 = 0.889 log 4 2 1.4 Pd2 = 0.881 log 4 1.422 2 Pd2 = 0.5 log 4 2 + 0.037 Pd2 = 0.8287 0.1381 log 4 + 0.1437 log 2

Pd 4.10 log 4 2 6.50 Pd 5.00 log 4 2 7.50 Pd 3.70 log 4 2 5.30 Pd 4.79 log 4 2 6.38 Pd log 4 2 2.9 Pd 4 2
2 2 2 2

2 2

0.006 log

Pd 4 2

2 3

Pd 2.9 log 4 2 5.6

Fig. 11. Non-dimensional relationship of the calibration results for five-hole pressure probe.

Table 3 Experimental data for pipe flow (five hole probe). Raw data Ps1 Ps2 (Pa) 0.6 1.4 2.3 3.5 4.9 6.6 8.4 10.5 12.4 P1 (Pa) P2 (Pa) P3 (Pa) P4 (Pa) P5 (Pa) P = Pt Ps (Pa) 4.41 11.52 21.75 35.71 52.80 74.08 98.14 126.65 156.57 Calculated parameters

w (Pa)
0.05 0.11 0.18 0.28 0.40 0.53 0.67 0.84 0.99

Pd2 4 2

w d2 4 2

log

Pd2 4 2

log

w d2 4

19.3 41.8 72.7 111.9 160.0 215.6 278.9 349.1 425.9

23.1 51.5 91.3 142.2 205.1 278.9 363.3 457.6 560.3

21.7 47.8 83.9 129.8 185.4 251.1 325.4 408.8 498.8

22.8 50.8 89.3 139.3 200.5 272.5 354.1 446.9 546.0

22.2 49.9 88.1 137.6 198.2 269.3 350.1 441.2 540.3

19 453.73 50 857.47 96 035.64 157 641.23 233 102.77 327 041.57 433 241.15 559 107.24 691 203.02

230.93 492.53 816.31 1253.03 1748.00 2323.65 2970.40 3723.86 4391.38

4.29 4.71 4.98 5.20 5.37 5.51 5.64 5.75 5.84

2.36 2.69 2.91 3.10 3.24 3.37 3.47 3.57 3.64

the constants associated with the intercept (N ) of the functional relationship between that both these constants should be experimentally determined for each probe for more accurate skin friction measurements. Realising this, the constants M and N in the present study were determined from experimental calibration for the five-hole pressure probe. Here P , deduced from the five-hole pressure probe readings using Eq. (3.1) and procedure as outlined in Section 2.2 is used to find the correlation with the shear stress is obtained from the pressure differential recorded from pipe wall pressure tappings Ps1 and Ps2 . The raw and calculated data are also
w d2 given in Table 3 and following Preston [6], a logarithmic plot of 4 2 Pd2 and 4 2 is presented in Fig. 11. w d2 4 2

and 4 2 do not agree well. This implies

Pd2

The calibration constants, M and N , for the present data was found to be 0.866 and 1.474, respectively. The correlation thus obtained provides a means for calculating the skin friction. This facilitated further the examination of existence of the log law of the wall as given by Eq. (2.10) where

the values of A and B could be explored. Various investigators have found similar but somewhat different magnitudes for A and B values for pipe flow. Preston reported the values of these parameters A and B to be 5.5 and 5.8, respectively, whereas Smith & Walker reported A = 5.0, B = 7.15, and the Staff of the National Physical Laboratory reported A = 4.9, B = 5.9. Landweber [36] re-analysed the velocity profiled by Smith & Walker and found A = 5.5 and B = 5.45. Patel also reported A = 5.5 and B = 5.45 for pipe flow. Even though the value of A and B were scattered over a wide range, experiment conducted by other researchers such as Patel [35] and Head [37] show that values of A = 5.5 and B = 5.45 can be used to represent boundary layer in one-dimensional and two-dimensional flows adequately. In this paper, using the data from five-hole pressure probe, a plot of u versus log y as given by Eq. (2.10) was presented in Fig. 12 to explore the correlation parameters (A & B). A linear relationship was observed in this study and the parameters A and B were found to be 5.5 and 5.45 respectively (30 < y < 1000 approximately) which are also in good agreement with the

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164
30

161

25

20

15

10

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Fig. 12. Non-dimensional plotting of the results in the form of obtained from velocity traverses by five-hole pressure probe and Preston probe.
0.009 0.008 0.007 Cf 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 8.00E+04

1.80E+05

2.80E+05

3.80E+05

4.80E+05

5.80E+05 Rex

6.80E+05

Fig. 13. Local skin friction coefficient plot on the smooth flat plate; comparison between theory and measurement.

accepted values suggested by Landweber and Patel. Since the present correlation parameters A and B in the logarithmic region of the law of the wall are found to be 5.5 and 5.45, respectively, it also concluded that this can be used to determine skin friction in turbulent boundary layer flows. 4. Skin friction measurement using multi-hole pressure probe From the established skin friction correlation of the present five-hole pressure probe, skin friction measurements were conducted in both two- and three-dimensional turbulent flows. The two-dimensional turbulent flow was simulated by a flat plate while three-dimensional flow was represented by flow over a swept forward facing step. 4.1. Skin friction measurement in two-dimensional turbulent flow A smooth aluminium plate of 2.5 m in length was placed in the middle plane of the square closed test section open circuit wind tunnel in the aerodynamics laboratory of University of New South Wales to simulate the test condition for two-dimensional turbulent flow with zero pressure gradient. The measurements were obtained at the mid-section of the flat plate to minimize any wind tunnel wall effects. Skin friction obtained by the new method was first compared against skin friction calculated at six streamwise locations of the

flat plate using traditional Schlichting correlation [38]: Cf = 0.0576

U x

1/5

(4.1)

The skin friction by five-hole pressure probe using the calibration procedures outlined in Sections 3 and 4 were then obtained and presented in Fig. 13. The measured Cf values were found to be within 1.5% of the values derived from the empirical calculation as given by Eq. (4.1). The Reynolds number (Rex ) based on the distance measured from the leading edge ranged between 1.1 105 4.6 105 . Also as stated earlier in Section 3, when the probe is aligned with the incoming flow of the wind tunnel, the flow could be considered as one dimensional. To explore the suitability of the probe for measurements in two-dimensional flow, the probe was deliberately set at different yaw angles relative to the incoming flow. Seven yaw angles were examined in the present study. They were 0, 10, 20, and 30 with reference to free stream direction and at three different locations. The results are presented in Fig. 13. It was observed that the measured skin friction value tended to deviate further from the empirical values when , the yaw angle became larger. The error in the measured skin friction value was within 1.5% of the empirical value for 20 < yaw angle < 20, with an error of 2.5%, when 30 < yaw angle < 30. It is common to produce skin friction coefficient as a function of Reynolds number based on momentum thickness. To determine

162 Table 4 Experimental data for flat plate flow.

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

Skin friction from velocity profile and empirical calculation x (m) 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.5 0.6 Ue (m/s) 10.25 10.24 10.18 10.15 10.00 9.72 Rex 162 119.45 194 375.80 225 598.54 256 935.78 316 401.16 368 938.11

Skin friction from present method R 292.85 383.50 501.09 578.81 710.76 893.20 Cf (Eq. (4.1)) 0.00562 0.00522 0.00487 0.00469 0.00446 0.00422 Cf (Eq. (4.2)) 0.00523 0.00504 0.00490 0.00477 0.00457 0.00444 P (Pa) 5.8 5.5 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.3 Cf 0.00535 0.00509 0.00488 0.00480 0.00459 0.00439

(m)
0.000452 0.000592 0.000777 0.000901 0.001123 0.001453

Fig. 14. Local skin friction coefficient plot on the smooth flat plate.

the momentum thickness at a point, velocity traverses were performed to obtain velocity profiles at the same six locations of the flat plate, which were then used to calculate the skin friction coefficient by the correlation provided by Osterlund and Johansson [39], based on their oil film experiment in a 7 m long flat plate:

[
Cf = 2

1 S

ln(R ) + T

]2
(4.2)

where S and T were 0.384 and 4.08, respectively. The results are summarized in Table 4 and compared with the skin friction coefficient values obtained by the present method. In Fig. 14, the results from the present method together with the calculated values using Eq. (4.2) as presented. In view of experimental uncertainties and errors associated with the two experimental programs, it is not surprising that some of the compared data points appear to be slightly under predicted or over predicted over the Reynolds numbers considered. However, the two results appear to lie within the band of experimental errors and can be considered to agree reasonably well. 4.2. Skin friction measurement in three-dimensional turbulent flow The measurement in three-dimensional flow was conducted in a 0.96 m 0.96 m closed-circuit-closed test section wind tunnel of the aerodynamics laboratory of University of New South Wales. A 50 mm high rectangular step, swept at 45 was installed on the floor of the test section. The air used in the test section was nominally at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. The reference speed of 31.7 m/s was held constant for all tests and derived from the Pitot-static probe reading at 500 mm upstream of the first profile measurement station. The boundary layer was measured upstream of the step of the step and over the floor of the test section. A traversing gear, allows movement in both horizontal (X ) and vertical (Y ) direction was mounted on the top wall to hold the five-hole pressure probe. The setup of the experiment is also shown in Fig. 15. The air had to sweep up over the step, where was substantially greater mean streamline curvature than normal in the outer 3/4
Fig. 15. Schematic of test section and the swept forward facing step.

of a boundary layer. Therefore, strong gradients of static pressure normal to the wall occurred in the boundary layer, especially in the regions close to the separation line where the interesting threedimensional aspects of the flow were the largest. The profile of static pressure as well as the total pressure is necessary to be measured simultaneously to allow deduction of mean velocity profiles. Profiles of total pressure were measured with the five-hole pressure probe using the non-nulling method. To enable for direct comparison between the published results of Johnston, the results are presented in inches. The mean velocity profile deduced from the measured total and static pressure profile are shown in Fig. 16. The free stream velocity at the traversing stations is slightly greater than the upstream reference velocity due to the effective slow

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164

163

Fig. 16. Mean velocity profile at two measurement locations of X .

Fig. 17. Yaw angle variation at two measurement locations of X .

Fig. 18. Pitch angle variation at two measurement locations of X .

convergence of the test section area caused by floor, roof and side wall boundary layer growth. The experiment was repeated twice for a total of three sets of data. The average repeatability was within 2%.

Measurements of yaw angle and pitch angle were accomplished using a five-hole pressure probe. Fig. 17 shows the yaw angle at two different traverse locations and Fig. 18 presents the pitch angle at the same traverse locations.

164

S.J. Lien, N.A. Ahmed / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 22 (2011) 153164 [3] Hanratty TJ, Campbell JA. Measurement of wall shear stress. In: Fluid mechanics measurements. 1983. p. 559615. [4] Rechenberg I. Messung der turbulenten wandschnbspannung. Z Flugwiss 1963;11:42938. [5] Winter KG. An outline of the techniques available for the measurement of skin friction in turbulent boundary layers. Prog Aerosp Sci 1977;18:157. [6] Preston JH. The determination of turbulent skin friction by means of pitot tubes. J R Aeronaut Soc 1953;58:10921. [7] Stanton TE, Marshall D, Bryant CW. On the condition at the boundary of a fluid in turbulent motion. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 1920;97:41334. [8] Konstantinov NI. Comparative investigation of the friction stress on the surface of a body. Energomashinostroenie 1953;176:20113. [Translated 1960 DSIR RTS 1499]. [9] Chue SH. Pressure probes for fluid measurement. Prog Aerosp Sci 1975;16(2): 147223. [10] Nece RE, Smith JD. Boundary layer stress in rivers and estuaries. J. Waterw. Harbor Res. 1970;96:33558. [11] Ackerman JD, Wong L, Ethier CR, Allen DG, Spelt JK. Preston-static tubes for the measurement of wall shear stress. J Fluids Eng 1994;116:6459. [12] Bertelrud A. Total head/static measurements of skin friction and surface presure. AIAA J 1977;15:4368. [13] Bertelrud A. Preston probe calibration accuracy. AIAA J 1976;14:98100. [14] Pisasale A, Ahmed NA. Theoretical calibration for highly three-dimensional low-speed flows of a five-hole probe. Meas Sci Technol 2002;13:11007. [15] Pisasale A, Ahmed NA. A novel method of extending the calibration range of five hole probe for highly three dimensional flows. Flow Meas Instrum 2002; 13(12):2330. [16] Pisasale A, Ahmed NA. Examining the effect of flow reversal on seven-hole probe measurements. AIAA J 2003;41(12):24607. [17] Pisasale A, Ahmed NA. Development of a functional relationship between port pressures and flow properties for the calibration and application of multihole probes to highly three-dimensional flows. Exp Fluids 2004;36:42236. [18] Goldstein S. A note on the measurement of total head and static pressure in a turbulent stream. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 1936;155:5705. [19] Becker HA, Brown APG. Response of pitot probes in turbulent stream. J Fluid Mech 1974;62:85114. [20] Christiansen , Bradshaw . Effect of turbulence on pressure probes. J Phys E Sci Instrum 1981;14:9927. [21] Hinze JO. Turbulence. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1959. p. 136. [22] Treaster AL, Yocum AM. The calibration and application of five hole proves. ISA Trans 1979;18:2334. [23] Nikuradse J. Laws of turbulent flow in smooth pipes. NASA TT F-10, 1996. 1932. p. 359 [English translation]. [24] Patel VC, Head MR. Some observations on skin friction and velocity profiles in fully developed pipe and channel flows. J Fluid Mech 1974;25:181. [25] Abell CJ. Scaling laws for pipe flow turbulence. Ph.D. thesis. Australia: University of Melbourne; 1974. [26] Longmuir M, Ahmed NA. Commercial aircraft exterior cleaning optimization. J Aircr 2009;46(1):28490. [27] Millikan CB. A critical discussion of turbulent flows in channels and circular tubes. In: Den Hartog JP, Peters H, editors. Proc. 5th int. cong. appl. mech. NY: Wiley; 1939. p. 38692. [28] Purtell LP, Klebanoff PS, Buckley FT. Turbulent boundary layer at low Reynolds number. Phys Fluids 1981;24:80211. [29] Wei T, Willmarth WW. Reynolds number effect in the structure of a turbulent channel flow. J Fluid Mech 1989;204:5795. [30] George WK, Castillo L. Zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer. Appl Mech Rev 1997;50:689729. [31] George WK. Is there really a universal log law? Phil Trans R Soc A 2006;365: 789806. [32] Staff of aerodynmics division. N.P.L. On the measurement of local surface friction on a flat plate by means of Preston probes. A. R.C. R. & M. 3185. 1958. [33] Smith DW, Walker JH. Skin friction measurements in incompressible flow, NASA TR R-26. 1959. [34] Ferris DH. Preston tube measurement in turbulent boundary layers and fully developed pipe flow. In: Aero. res. council. London. R&M no. 26678. 1965. [35] Patel VC. Calibration of the Preston probe and limitations on its use in pressure gradients. J Fluid Mech 1965;23:185207. [36] Landweber L. Reanalysis of boundary layer data on a flat plate. In: Written discussion for ninth international towing tank conference. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. State University of Iowa. 1960. [37] Head MR, Rechenberg I. The preston probe as a means of measuring skin friction. J Fluid Mech 1962;14:117. [38] Schlichting H. Boundary-layer theory. McGraw-Hill Book company; 1979. p. 635644 [Chapter 11]. [39] Osterlund M, Johansson V. A note on the overlap region in turbulent boundary layers. Phys Fluids 2000;12(1). [40] Johnston JP. Measurements in a three-dimensional turbulent boundary layer induced by a swept forward facing step. J Fluid Mech 1970;42:82344.

Fig. 19. Skin friction coefficient at various locations.

Johnstons experimental data [40] is superimposed on the same graph. The estimated uncertainty in both yaw and pitch angle is approximately 0.5. Fig. 19 shows the skin friction as a function of distance from the step. The skin friction obtained by five-hole pressure probe, Johnstons experimental data [40] as well as Bradshaws calculated data are superimposed on Fig. 19. Good agreement was obtained as can be seen from the graph. The discrepancy of measurement data are around 1.5%. 5. Conclusion An examination of the suitability of using multi-hole pressure probe in turbulent skin friction measurement was conducted to overcome problems of the Preston method of misalignment and the need to determine static pressure separately. For a onedimensional flow in a pipe, the wall effect contributed to the departure of pitch angle and yaw angle from zero value by nearly 4 and 2, respectively, suggesting greater impact on pitch angle than yaw angle values. A theoretical error analysis provided similar finding. With 4 change in pitch angle and 2 change in yaw angle, the wall effect translated to around 0.3% error in P values when compared to the ideal case where pitch angle and yaw angle are both zero. It may be mentioned that Chue [9] found that the static pressure value remained unaffected in the Preston method. This may be taken to infer that the over-prediction in total pressure obtained by the Preston method as reported by Patel [26] is not compensated by similar over-prediction in the static pressure. Thus, the application of five-hole pressure probe in obtaining P appears to reduce the wall effect more than the Preston method. Since the application of multi-hole pressure probe is also based on the similarity principles, it is expected that the method would be equally effective with probe geometries of different sizes provided they are small enough to be submerged in the boundary layer and that their calibration coefficients are accurately determined. References
[1] Cebecci T, Smith AMO. Analysis of turbulent boundary layers. Academic Press; 1974. [2] Haritonidis JH. The measurement of wall shear stress. In: Advances in fluid mechanics and measurements. 1989. p. 229261.