Calculating wind pressure against a rigid wall

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SW VandeCarr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pressure Wall Wind
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the wind pressure exerted against a rigid wall by a wind blowing at 10 m/sec. Participants explore various approaches to this problem, including assumptions about incompressibility, momentum change, and energy density, while acknowledging the complexities involved in real-world scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes calculating pressure by equating kinetic energy density to pressure, suggesting a value of 600 Newtons/m² based on a cubic meter of air.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to consider the rate of change of momentum and questions how momentum is destroyed when the wall is perfectly rigid.
  • Some participants suggest using Bernoulli's equation to find velocity pressure, while others argue that it may not apply due to the specific conditions of the problem.
  • There are discussions about the assumptions of incompressibility and the implications of treating air as a solid mass impacting the wall.
  • One participant introduces a power calculation approach, relating it to force and velocity, while noting the need for a factor like the Betz coefficient for wind turbines.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of substituting energy density for pressure, with participants questioning whether this is appropriate given the problem's assumptions.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the kinetic energy density calculation, suggesting it should be 60 joules/m³ instead of 600 joules/m³.
  • There are references to drag coefficients and their relevance to the problem, with some participants noting that these coefficients may not apply uniformly across different scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on how to approach the problem, with no consensus reached on the validity of the various methods proposed or the assumptions made. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to calculate wind pressure against the wall.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their assumptions, such as the treatment of air as incompressible and the implications of instantaneous energy transfer. There is also uncertainty regarding the application of Bernoulli's equation and the relevance of drag coefficients in this context.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying fluid dynamics, wind pressure calculations, or related engineering fields, particularly in understanding the complexities and assumptions involved in theoretical models.

  • #61
Jeff Reid said:
Compare to a chamber connected to a static port that is at ambient pressure, or have a really good pressure gauge. The pitot probe is embedded into the center of the wall, so that it's just a flush mounted hole in the center of the wall. Basically it's just a static port mounted to the nose of an aircraft so it acts as a flat plate:

I think you missed what I was saying. That setup won't measure the total stagnation pressure because there is flow perpendicular to the wall face. Just look at the picture I posted and you can see the air flowing transverse to the free stream.

staticports.html

The hole is the end of a pipe connected to a pressure measuring chamber imbeddeded within the "wall".

You would just be measuring the static pressure at the wall face.

The real question would be if I mount a static port on the nose of an aircraft so it's essentially a flat plate, and compare it's pressure reading versus that of a conventional pitot tube (both would have pipes feeding internal chambers as usual), will the sensed pressure be different, and if so, by some approximate ratio? I assume there's some reason that static ports are flush mounted and pitot ports are extended tubes and not flush mounted.

They will both be wrong due to installation errors. They will absolutely be different from each other because the upwash/downwash at the wing will change the reading of the probe at that station. The reason why Pitot tubes are not in the nose is because that is prime real estate on an aircraft. People put things like radar and antennae in the nose.

I know that static ports need to be flush mounted because the end of a tube perpendicular to air flow experiences a vortice that reduces pressure greatly, enough to draw fluid up through a nozzle for the purpose of a spray pump. One of my pet peaves are the web sites or articles that use the end of straws in a cross flow to measure the "lower pressure" of air blowing across the end of the straw by drawing water up the straw to demonstrate Bernoulli. Stick the end of a straw in a spool of sewing thread to make a crude static port and the results are quite different. Drill a hole in a board and stick the end of the straw into the board so it's flush mounted or receded a bit, to make a better static port, and compare to having the end of the straw extended into the wind.

That's right. You don't want any burr from the end of the static port extruding into (or outside of) the boundary layer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
You might like to read this Jeff:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/596/pg1q.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9561/pg2.jpg

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7754/pg3p.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8629/pg4g.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
hole in center of wall
Cyrus said:
That setup won't measure the total stagnation pressure because there is flow perpendicular to the wall face.
Perhaps the center of a flat plate where the perpendicular flow is minimal (or perhaps this isn't possibe).

static pitot at nose of aircraft
They will absolutely be different from each other because the upwash/downwash at the wing will change the reading of the probe at that station.
Wing? I mentioned nose of aircraft.

The reason why Pitot tubes are not in the nose
Yet that's where they are on the Stratoliner in the example shown.

So the issue with the forward facing static port flat plate is that horizontal flow across the hole would be an issue. Since the static port is flush mounted, there is horizontal flow, but the hole "hides" behind a boundary layer that transitions from fuselage speed to free stream speed through viscous layers, and with proper installation it senses the ambient pressure of the freestream flowing across it.

Why isn't perpendicular flow (even if just a small amount) an issue for pitot tubes? Essentially the pitot tube's opening contains a cross section of air that is the equivalent of a tiny flat plate.
 
  • #64
Jeff Reid said:
Perhaps the center of a flat plate where the perpendicular flow is minimal (or perhaps this isn't possibe).

I don't know, but that's why I said you would have to vary the probe until you find a maximum reading of the dynamic pressure (if that's even possible).

Wing? I mentioned nose of aircraft.

I misread what you wrote, now I see what you mean.

Yet that's where they are on the Stratoliner in the example shown.

Well, it doesn't have radar in the nose: it's an old airplane. Ideally, you would like to put the Pitot probe on a boom extending out the nose, and many aircraft do this. My point is that sometimes things get in the way that take priority over the probe:

su-15_pic7.jpg


or this:

http://www.totalexperience.co.nz/img/Cessna%20nose.jpg

So the issue with the forward facing static port flat plate is that horizontal flow across the hole would be an issue. Since the static port is flush mounted, there is horizontal flow, but the hole "hides" behind a boundary layer that transitions from fuselage speed to free stream speed through viscous layers, and with proper installation it senses the ambient pressure of the freestream flowing across it.

Yes, that's right. The static port measures the static pressure inside the boundary layer because of the no slip condition.

Why isn't perpendicular flow (even if just a small amount) an issue for pitot tubes? Essentially the pitot tube's opening contains a cross section of air that is the equivalent of a tiny flat plate.

My estimation is that the component is so small it's ignored, but I'll think about this one some more. I want to say it's a matter of "Good enough". I know flows can be tracked using PVIs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_image_velocimetry" ) if you want very accurate measurements of flow properties. The guys in some of our labs use this method for rotorcraft flow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Jeff Reid said:
Why isn't perpendicular flow (even if just a small amount) an issue for pitot tubes? Essentially the pitot tube's opening contains a cross section of air that is the equivalent of a tiny flat plate.

Cyrus said:
My estimation is that the component is so small it's ignored, but I'll think about this one some more.
I was also thinking about the affect of AOA. An F16 fighter AOA can exceed 20 degrees (such as a 9 g turn). Wondering if the pitot tube is on a motorized mount to maintain it's orientation with the airstream or if it's just taken care via math in the electronics.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K