Probe/anemometer for measuring flow speed and direction?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of measuring flow speed and direction in the wake of a bluff body within a wind tunnel environment. Participants explore various types of probes and anemometers that could potentially address the limitations of existing equipment, particularly in measuring backflow and maintaining spatial resolution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about probes or anemometers capable of measuring both flow speed and direction, expressing concerns about the limitations of the cobra probe in measuring backflows.
  • Another suggests using multiple hot wire anemometers to triangulate flow direction, though this may compromise spatial resolution.
  • A participant proposes using a mass-flow sensor with a bead thermistor, questioning its ability to measure flow direction.
  • 3D Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) is mentioned as a potential solution, but concerns about setup costs and equipment availability are raised.
  • One participant suggests a wind vane combined with a rotary optical sensor to determine flow direction, though size constraints are noted.
  • Discussion includes the idea of using a multi-wire hot-wire system to measure velocity components, but acknowledges that it cannot measure reverse flow due to probe blockage.
  • A split film sensor is introduced as a method to measure flow direction, with a note on its complexity and calibration requirements.
  • A 3D ultrasonic anemometer is proposed as a possibility for low obstruction measurements and good 3D velocity data.
  • Concerns about the trade-offs between using probes that may block flow and the potential for performing Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) with lower Reynolds numbers are discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various ideas and suggestions, but there is no consensus on a single solution. Multiple competing views and approaches remain, reflecting the complexity of the measurement challenges presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the spatial resolution and the impact of probe size on measurements. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific experimental setups and the unresolved nature of certain technical details.

MUfluids
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm trying to measure the steady state velocity field behind the wake of a bluff body in the wind tunnel. My uni is equipped with 4-hole cobra probes which is capable of receiving flow within a 45 degree cone of acceptance. As the base of a bluff body dominated with re-circulating flow, cobra probe has difficulty measuring back flows (out of acceptance angle).

So my question is:
- Is there any probe/anemometer that measures the flow speed and flow direction (velocity) at a certain point in space. (capable of measuring back flow also)
- My first thought was the hot wire anemometer, but that only measures the flow speed and not the flow direction, is that right?

edited: Also I'd like to add, the probe need to be small.

Any suggestion will be greatly appreciated, thank you!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I know absolutely nothing about this, but that's never stopped me from chirping up before. Could you use multiple "hot wire" anemometers and some sort of device to measure the time differential between events to "triangulate" the direction?
 
Danger said:
I know absolutely nothing about this, but that's never stopped me from chirping up before. Could you use multiple "hot wire" anemometers and some sort of device to measure the time differential between events to "triangulate" the direction?
Hi, thank you for your response. Yes, that is a possible option, although the main concern with that is the reduced spatial resolution. As testing is conducted on a 1/15th sized train wagon model, I'm hoping not to sacrifice too much spatial resolution. But I will still look into this idea, thanks a lot!

Baluncore said:
You could use a mass-flow sensor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass_flow_meter
I would probably use a bead thermistor and monitor the current needed to maintain a fixed resistance and so temperature.

You might also consider 3D Laser Doppler Velocometry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Doppler_velocimetry
Hi, thanks for the input! Having a quick read on bead thermistor, that is still an omnidirectional measuring device, is that correct? So it will tell me the magnitude of flow speed based on the current needed to maintain the temperature in the thermistor, but it will not tell me the direction of the flow?

In regards to the LDV, the setup cost for that will be quite high, as our wind tunnel currently isn't equipped for that. I am considering in using the water channel and the PIV equipment that is available. Although, I will then have to deal with the significantly lower Reynolds number in the water channel.
 
MUfluids said:
a 1/15th sized train wagon model
Yeah, that's pretty small alright. Hey now, though...
What about a "wind vane" like on a barn roof mounted on a mouse-type rotary optical sensor to determine which way it's facing?
 
Danger said:
Yeah, that's pretty small alright. Hey now, though...
What about a "wind vane" like on a barn roof mounted on a mouse-type rotary optical sensor to determine which way it's facing?
Yea, that is still a bit big. I should clarify, the cross section of the model is like 171mm by 438mm, so it's really small. The probe I was using before looks like this. which has really good spatial resolution, except it doesn't pick up flow beyond 45degree acceptance angle.
upload_2014-12-2_15-30-45.png
 
Okay then... hmmm...
I'll think on it some more, but that's probably all I've got. :redface:
 
Danger said:
Okay then... hmmm...
I'll think on it some more, but that's probably all I've got. :redface:
Thanks a lot tho, appreciate it.
 
The problem is that no matter what, you will have a probe body blocking any reverse flow. A multi-wire hot-wire system can measure all three velocity components in the spatial resolution you need without any problems, but it will still not give you reversed flow since there will be a probe body there. The right tool for the job would be PIV.

The closest I think you will get is to use something like an http://www.aeroprobe.com/probes/view/omniprobes and maybe insert the probe from the side so that it can at least get you 360 degrees of measurements in the plane of interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Another possibility is a split film which is very similar to a hot wire. The difference is that rather than a conductive wire, you have a thin conductive coating on a non conducting cylindrical substrate. A split film simply splits this coating in half, so that half of the cylinder is one sensor while the other half is another sensor. You can arrange the split film to either measure velocity in the x-y plane, or by rotating it 90 deg you can measure forward or reversed flow. If I recall correctly I believe the split film in this configuration can only resolve whether the velocity is forwards or reversed but if you use a triple split film then you can measure any velocity on the x-y plane (all 360 degrees). This type of probe is expensive and requires a detailed calibration but it would give you better spatial resolution and frequency response then PIV (in most cases).
 
  • #11
A 3D ultrasonic anemometer is also a possibility. By using a MHz ultrasonic signal and a miniature array you could get low obstruction of the measured airflow and good 3D velocity measurements.

It might also be possible to implement a PRBS ranging, transit time or differential phase system where you have a single mobile transmitter in the flow with three or more external sensors in fixed positions. Travel time or phase differences would be due to the integral of flow velocities along the paths. Given receive data from many transmitter locations in the flow you could construct an image of the 3D flow field. Orientation polarisation of Tx and Rx would need to be sorted out.
 
  • #12
boneh3ad said:
The problem is that no matter what, you will have a probe body blocking any reverse flow. A multi-wire hot-wire system can measure all three velocity components in the spatial resolution you need without any problems, but it will still not give you reversed flow since there will be a probe body there. The right tool for the job would be PIV.

The closest I think you will get is to use something like an http://www.aeroprobe.com/probes/view/omniprobes and maybe insert the probe from the side so that it can at least get you 360 degrees of measurements in the plane of interest.

Yea, most likely I will be performing PIV in the near future. That Omniprobe you suggested looks interesting, I will look into that, thanks. I guess it really comes down to a compromise between do I want higher Reynolds number and test with a probe and suffer some blockage, or do I want to do PIV with lower Reynolds number. Thanks a lot for your advice.

RandomGuy88 said:
Another possibility is a split film which is very similar to a hot wire. The difference is that rather than a conductive wire, you have a thin conductive coating on a non conducting cylindrical substrate. A split film simply splits this coating in half, so that half of the cylinder is one sensor while the other half is another sensor. You can arrange the split film to either measure velocity in the x-y plane, or by rotating it 90 deg you can measure forward or reversed flow. If I recall correctly I believe the split film in this configuration can only resolve whether the velocity is forwards or reversed but if you use a triple split film then you can measure any velocity on the x-y plane (all 360 degrees). This type of probe is expensive and requires a detailed calibration but it would give you better spatial resolution and frequency response then PIV (in most cases).

That's sounds like a possibility. I will go research into that. Probably will need to be really careful given how delicate it sounds. Wind speed at 30m/s with any impurities might be enough to damage it. Cheers.
Baluncore said:
A 3D ultrasonic anemometer is also a possibility. By using a MHz ultrasonic signal and a miniature array you could get low obstruction of the measured airflow and good 3D velocity measurements.

It might also be possible to implement a PRBS ranging, transit time or differential phase system where you have a single mobile transmitter in the flow with three or more external sensors in fixed positions. Travel time or phase differences would be due to the integral of flow velocities along the paths. Given receive data from many transmitter locations in the flow you could construct an image of the 3D flow field. Orientation polarisation of Tx and Rx would need to be sorted out.

Thanks, for the reply. It might be just me, but from some quick digging into ultrasonic anemometers, they all seem quite bulky and big? Do you know how small those devices come in?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
MUfluids said:
Yea, most likely I will be performing PIV in the near future. That Omniprobe you suggested looks interesting, I will look into that, thanks. I guess it really comes down to a compromise between do I want higher Reynolds number and test with a probe and suffer some blockage, or do I want to do PIV with lower Reynolds number. Thanks a lot for your advice.

You have a PIV system for said water tunnel it seems. Why can't you just use that system in a wind tunnel and just do the PIV in air?
 
  • #14
boneh3ad said:
You have a PIV system for said water tunnel it seems. Why can't you just use that system in a wind tunnel and just do the PIV in air?
Unfortunately, our equipment isn't quite capable of resolving the particles moving at higher speed in the wind tunnel.
 
  • #15
Now you're just getting picky... :p
 
  • #16
MUfluids said:
Unfortunately, our equipment isn't quite capable of resolving the particles moving at higher speed in the wind tunnel.

What's the weak point in trying to do that? Laser power? Camera framerate?
 
  • #17
boneh3ad said:
What's the weak point in trying to do that? Laser power? Camera framerate?
Mainly camera's speed at capturing two frame fast enough. Water channel maximum flow speed is around 0.5m/s, in comparison, wind tunnel testing speed is at 30m/s. The cost of setting up PIV in the wind tunnel is the main hinderance really.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
962