Non-nulling protocols for fast, accurate, 3-D velocity measurements in stacks

References

• Azartash-Namin, K.S. 2017. Evaluation of low-cost multi-hole probes for atmospheric boundary layer. Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, July.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, H.W., and W.G. Steele. 1999. Experimentation, validation and uncertainty analysis for engineers. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, C.J., I. Iosif, I.I. Shinder, and M.R. Moldover. 2013. The effect of turbulence on a multi-hole Pitot calibration. Flow Meas. Instrum. 33:106–09, ISSN 0955-5986. doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2013.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dominy, R.G., and H.P. Hodson. 1992. An investigation of factors influencing the calibration of 5-hole probes for 3-D flow measurements. Volume 1: Turbomachinery. doi:10.1115/92-gt-216.
   Google Scholar
• Dudzinski, T.J. and L.N. Krause. 1969. Flow-direction measurement with fixed-position probes in subsonic flow over a range of Reynolds numbers, NASA TM X-1904.
   Google Scholar
• Friedlingstein, P., M.W. Jones, M. O'Sullivan, R.M. Andrew, D.C.E. Bakker, J. Hauck, C.L. Quéré, G.P. Peters, W. Peters, J. Pongratz, et al. 2021. Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. [preprint]. doi:10.5194/essd-2021-386, in review.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallington, R.W. 1980. Measurement of very large flow angles with non-nulling seven-hole probes. Aeronautics Digest, Spring/Summer 1980. USAFA-TR-80-17, USAF Academy, Colorado 80840, 60–88.
   Google Scholar
• Gentry, M. 2019. Airflow science corporation, personal communication, April 5.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, K.T., J.C. Brenner, A.L. Ross, J.D. Jacob, and V.A. Natalie. 2021. Development of low cost, rapid sampling atmospheric data collection system: Part 1 – fully additive-manufactured multi-hole prob: AIAA scitech 2021 Forum. AIAA SciTech Forum, January 4. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2021-0332
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. 1996. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, K.B., and R.S. Davis. 1984. A primer for mass metrology. National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, A.N., I.I. Shinder, B.J. Filla, J.T. Boyd, R. Bryant, M.R. Moldover, and T. Martz. 2020. Faster, more-accurate stack-flow measurements. J. Air Waste Manage. 20 (3):283–91. doi:10.1080/10962247.2020.1713249.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, A., I.I. Shinder, B.J. Filla, J.T. Boyd, R. Bryant, M.R. Moldover, T. Martz, and M, Gentry. 2019. Non-nulling measurements of flue gas flows in a coal-fired power plant stack. Flomeko 18th International Flow Measurement Conference, Portugal, Lisbon. https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=928168.
   Google Scholar
• Kjelgaard, O.S. 1988. Theoretical derivation and calibration technique of a hemispherical-tipped, five-hole probe, Technical Report. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, United States, December 1. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19890004025/downloads/19890004025.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Norfleet, S.K., L.J. Muzio, and T.D. Martz. 1998. An examination of bias in method 2 measurements under controlled non-axial flow conditions. Report by RMB Consulting and Research, Inc., May 22.
   Google Scholar
• Passmann, M., S.A. der Wiesche, T. Povey, and D. Bergmann. 2021. Effect of Reynolds number on five-hole probe performance: Experimental study of the open-access Oxford probe. J. Turbomachinery 143 (9). doi:10.1115/1.0003091v.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, A.R., R.R. Upadhyay, and A. Jain. 2011. A Novel calibration algorithm for five-hole pressure probe. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Tech. 3 (2). doi:10.4314/ijest.v3i2.68136.
   Google Scholar
• Pisasale, A.J., and N.A. Ahmed. 2002. A Novel method for extending the calibration range of five-hole probe for highly three-dimensional flows. Flow Meas. Instrum. 13 (1–2):23–30. doi:10.1016/s0955-5986(02)00011-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pisasale, A.J., and N.A. Ahmed. 2004. 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 36 (3):422–36. doi:10.1007/s00348-003-0740-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinder, I.I., C.J. Crowley, B.J. Filla, and M.R. Moldover. 2013. Improvements to NIST’s air speed calibration service. 16th International Flow Measurement Conference, Flomeko 2013, Paris, France, September 24-26.
   Google Scholar
• Shinder, I.I., C.J. Crowley, B. James Filla, and M.R. Moldover. 2014. Improvements to NIST׳S air speed calibration service. Instrum 44:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2014.11.005.
   Google Scholar
• Shinder, I.I., J.R. Hall and M.R. Moldover. 2010. Improved NIST airspeed calibration facility. Proceedings Measurement Science Conference, Pasadena, CA, USA, March 22–26.
   Google Scholar
• Shinder, I.I., A.N. Johnson, and B.J. Filla. 2022. Non-nulling gas velocity measurement apparatus and performing non-nulling measurement of gas velocity parameters (U.S. Patent No. 11,525,840). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, December 13. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/02/02/US-11525840-B2_I.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Shinder, I.I., M.R. Moldover, B.J. Filla, A.N. Johnson, and V.B. Khromchenko. 2021. Facility for calibrating anemometers as a function of air velocity vector and turbulence. Metrologia 58 (4):045008, July. doi:10.1088/1681-7575/ac0a92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B.N. and C.E. Kuyatt. Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. NIST TN 1297, 1994 edition. https://emtoolbox.nist.gov/publications/nisttechnicalnote1297s.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Treaster, A.L., and A.M. Yocum. 1979. The calibration and application of five-hole probe. Instrum. Soc. Am. Trans. 18:23–34.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. 40 CFR appendix a to part 60 determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate (type S pitot tube). EPA Method 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017b. 40 CFR appendix a to part 60 determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate with three-dimensional probes. EPA method 2F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017c. 40 CFR appendix a to part 60 determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate with two-dimensional probes. EPA Method 2G. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Wallen, G. 1983. Reynolds number effects of a cone and a wedge type pressure probe. Proceedings of 7th Symposium on Measuring Techniques in Transonic and Supersonic Flows in Cascade and Turbomachines, Aachen.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, M.A. 1970. The evaluation of a simplified form of presentation for five-hole spherical and hemispherical pitometer calibration data. J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 3 (5):356. doi:10.1088/0022-3735/3/5/305.
   Google Scholar
• Yeh, T.T., and J.M. Hall. 2007. Airspeed calibration service NIST special publication SP 250-79. Gaithersburg, Maryland: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication250-79.pdf.
   Google Scholar