FLUIDS DYNAMICS LABORATORY

EXPERIMENT 1
FLOW VELOCITY MEASUREMENT USING PRESSURE PROBES

Introduction
The mapping of fluid flow fields is a fundamental process in experimental fluid mechanics. Such
velocity measurements are often used to check the predictions of theoretical models for a particular
flow situation, or to help develop theories for a flow of interest.
There are several methods of measuring the fluid flow velocity at a "point." The oldest and simplest
is by pressure measurement. This method is suitable for fluids of low viscosity. Although the
technique is simple, a great deal of care must be given to pressure probe construction,
installation/alignment and the subsequent pressure measurement.
Other more sophisticated methods of velocity "point" measurement include techniques such as Hot
Wire Anemometry and Laser Doppler Velocimetry. These methods give more accurate results
over a wider range of velocities, and can also be used to measure unsteady flows. Problems with
these techniques include the need for a Hot Wire Anemometer to be calibrated, over the range of
expected velocities, while Laser Doppler Velocimetry suffers from particle seeding problems and
the resulting velocity and statistical bias effects.
In this laboratory experiment, the student will investigate the response of a Pitot-static probe to
changes in velocity and angular alignment.
Nomenclature
a Speed of sound
B Bernoulli’s constant
cp𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 specific heat a constant pressure
𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 Specific heat at constant volume
���
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 differential streamline element
𝑔𝑔 local gravitational acceleration
𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 gravitational constant, 32.174 lbm-ft/lbf-sec 2 or 1.0 kg-m/N-sec 2 or 1.0 slug-ft/lbf-sec 2
l characteristic dimension
𝑀𝑀 Mach number, 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑉𝑉/�γ𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑉𝑉/𝑎𝑎
𝑝𝑝 pressure
1
𝑞𝑞 dynamic pressure, 𝑞𝑞 = 2 𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑙𝑙 Reynolds number based on some characteristic length, Ul/𝑣𝑣
𝑡𝑡 time
𝑈𝑈 fluid velocity, x-component
𝑉𝑉 velocity vector
Z manometer fluid level, increasing (positive) upwards
𝜌𝜌 density of fluid

Lab 1-1
𝜈𝜈 kinematic viscosity of fluid
𝛾𝛾 ratio of specific heats, 𝛾𝛾 = cp /cv

Subscripts
∞ denotes condition at infinity
o denotes stagnation condition
s denotes static condition
m denoted manometer property
a denoted manometer property 1
b denoted manometer property 2
atm denotes laboratory atmospheric condition
1 denotes condition at manometer location 1
2 denotes condition at manometer location 2
3 denotes condition at manometer location 3
4 denotes condition at manometer location 4

Theory
For an incompressible fluid, an equation that governs fluid flow is that attributed to Bernoulli.
Bernoulli's equation is a statement of the conservation of energy for a fluid particle. The equation,
whose form of interest is developed below, is for a steady, inviscid flow field with an irrotational
body force.
Bernoulli's Equation
The development of Bernoulli's equation starts with Euler's equation in differential vector form.
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕̄ 𝑉𝑉 2 1
+ 𝛻𝛻 � � − 𝑉𝑉̄ ∗ curl 𝑉𝑉̄ = 𝑓𝑓 ̅ − 𝛻𝛻𝛻𝛻 (1)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2 𝜌𝜌
If we assume steady flow and an irrotational (conservative) body force,namely,
𝜕𝜕 (𝑉𝑉)
=0 (2)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
and
𝑓𝑓 ̅ = 𝛻𝛻(−𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔) (3)
We can rewrite Euler's equation in the following form.
𝑉𝑉 2 𝑝𝑝
𝛻𝛻 � + + 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔� = 𝑉𝑉� × curl 𝑉𝑉� (4)
2 𝜌𝜌
In order to integrate this equation, we must take one of two paths. The first and less restrictive
approach, fewer conditions are imposed, is to integrate the equation along a streamline, Figure 1.
Integration along a streamline is accomplished by summing those vector components in the
���. That is, taking the dot product between Equation
direction of a streamline differential element, 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
4 and the differential element. If this is done, the right hand side of Equation 4 will disappear, since

Lab 1-2
��� ��� = 0. Hence we get after
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is parallel to 𝑉𝑉� , and 𝑉𝑉� × curl 𝑉𝑉� is normal to 𝑉𝑉� , then [𝑉𝑉� × curl 𝑉𝑉� ] ⋅ ds
integration,
𝑉𝑉 2 𝑝𝑝
+ + 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐵𝐵 (5)
2 𝜌𝜌
For any given streamline, a unique constant exists termed the Bernoulli constant, B. We can make
this a true constant if a second approach is used to integrate Euler's equation. The added condition
needed is that of an irrotational flow field, namely curl 𝑉𝑉̄ = 0. In this case, there is no need to
integrate the equation along a streamline and hence the constant B is a true constant and the same
at any location in the flow field.

Figure 1: Integration along a streamline

Manometer Relations
Bernoulli's equation can be used to relate fluid height to applied pressure in a liquid column
manometer. While pressure variations with height within liquid columns cannot be neglected, the
velocity of the fluid within the manometer can. We can use Equation 5, Bernoulli's relation, to
relate liquid height to applied pressure in a manometer.
We start with a general U-tube manometer and two applied pressures, Figure 2. By applying
Bernoulli's equation between the four fluid interfaces, in a strict mathematical sense, the pressure
difference between the two applied pressures can be determined.
We begin at location 1 and apply Bernoulli's equation between each set of points.
𝑝𝑝1 + 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧1 = 𝑝𝑝2 + 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧2 (6)
𝑝𝑝2 + 𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧2 = 𝑝𝑝3 + 𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧3 (7)
𝑝𝑝3 + 𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧3 = 𝑝𝑝4 + 𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏 𝑔𝑔𝑧𝑧4 (8)
At this point, we can make several assumptions in order to reduce the number of required
parameters. The first is that a U-tube manometer has legs of equal length, namely 𝑧𝑧1 = 𝑧𝑧4 . The
second is that the pressures applied at location 1 and 4 have the same relative magnitude and are
composed of the same gas or liquid. This allows us to equate the fluid densities, 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 = 𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏 . We can
now reduce Equations 6, 7 and 8 into one as follows.
𝑝𝑝4 − 𝑝𝑝1 = −(𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚 − 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 )𝑔𝑔(𝑧𝑧3 − 𝑧𝑧2 ) (9)

Lab 1-3
 Figure 2: Schematic Diagram of a General U-tube Manometer

For our current application in this laboratory experiment, the air magnitude of the pressures are
small and hence the density of the manometer fluid is several orders of magnitude greater than the
air (𝜌𝜌H2O =1.937 slugs/ft 3 ) at a standard temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit while 𝜌𝜌air =
0.002378 slugs/ft 3 at standard pressure and temperature). For this case the change in air pressure
over a short vertical distance within the manometer tube due to density variations can be neglected.
This may not always be the case. Hence, Equation 9 becomes
p4 − p1 = −𝜌𝜌m g(z3 − z2 ) (10)
Standard terminology has been developed in labelling the two pressure connections on a U-tube
manometer. Figure 3 shows the various labels that are used and reference should be made to
Equation 10 in order to understand their meaning.

Figure 3: Standard U-Tube manometer terminology

Velocity Determination
In order to calculate the magnitude of velocity at a given point, two pressure measurements are
required. One is the static pressure of the fluid at the point in question. This is usually measured
by a tube with an opening whose axis is at right angles to the flow. The other needed pressure is

Lab 1-4
the stagnation pressure. This is the pressure of the fluid at the point where the fluid is brought to
rest, by a tube with its opening facing the flow. The process of bringing the fluid to rest is assumed
to be an ISENTROPIC one (adiabatic + reversible), with viscosity corrections being made after
calculation of the velocity. These tubes direct the pressures to the pressure measurement devices,
the simplest being liquid-column manometers [Ref. 2, Ch. 6]. The two pressures may be measured
separately, as in Figure 4, or together using a Pitot-static tube [Ref. 2, Ch. 7], as in Figure 5.

Figure 4: General Velocity Determination via Pressure Measurement

Figure 5: Schematic of a General Pitot-static Probe with a Differential Manometer

Lab 1-5
For an incompressible fluid, along with the assumption of an isentropic process, we can use
Bernoulli's relation, Equation 5, to determine the relationship between the pressures at a given
point and the velocity at that same point. Since we will be using air as our working fluid, density
variations with height can be neglected, given low pressures, and we can make use of Bernoulli's
equation in the following form,
𝜌𝜌𝑉𝑉 2�
𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 = 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 + 2𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 (11)

𝜌𝜌V 2�
where the dynamic pressure is 𝑞𝑞 = 2g c . We include 𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 in this equation to assure that the units
are consistent.
For compressible fluids (not needed for this particular lab), we start from the energy equation in
the 1D steady state, adiabatic form. We assume a calorically perfect gas and then an isentropic
process to obtain a relationship for compressible ideal gas flows at subsonic speeds
𝑈𝑈12 𝑈𝑈22
ℎ1 + = ℎ2 + (12)
2 2
ℎ = 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇 (calorically perfect gas) (13)
Assuming total conditions at station 2, Equations 12 and 13 can be combined and reduced into the
following form,
2
𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 = 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 �1 + (𝛾𝛾 − 1) 𝑀𝑀 �2� (14)

An isentropic process can be defined in the following manner,

𝛾𝛾/(𝛾𝛾−1)
𝑝𝑝2 𝜌𝜌 𝛾𝛾 𝑇𝑇
�𝑝𝑝1 = � 2�𝜌𝜌1 � = � 2�𝑇𝑇 � (15)
1

Hence, Equation 14 becomes,

𝛾𝛾
(𝛾𝛾 − 1)𝑀𝑀2 𝛾𝛾−1
𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 = 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 �1 + � (16)
2
𝜌𝜌V 2�
It may be checked that for air at M = 0.1, the error in computation of 2g c using Equation 11
instead of Equation 16 is less than one percent. Additionally, it is found that for probe Reynolds
numbers greater than 500, viscosity corrections are not needed when using the above equations.
(Probe Reynolds number = 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉/𝜐𝜐, where r is the stagnation pressure probe radius).

Velocity Measurement via Manometer

From Equation 10, we have determined that a manometer can be used to measure the difference
between two applied pressures. From Equation 11, we know that the difference between the
stagnation and static pressures is the dynamic pressure, which is related to the velocity. If we now
make the following equalities:
𝑝𝑝4 = 𝑝𝑝 = 𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 (17)
Lab 1-6
and
𝑝𝑝1 = 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑝𝑝ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ = 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 (18)
we get,
𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 = −𝜌𝜌 𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔(𝑧𝑧𝑜𝑜 − 𝑧𝑧𝑠𝑠 )/𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 (19)

We include 𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐 in this equation to assure that the units are consistent. Knowing 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 and 𝜌𝜌, the
velocity V of the fluid may be determined from Equation 11.

Effect of Probe Misalignment

The above discussion on velocity measurement presumes that the axes of the static and stagnation
pressure tap holes are aligned normal and parallel to the flow direction exactly. If this is not the
case, the measured static and stagnation pressures, 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 and 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 , will differ from the true 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 and
𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 .
If, for example, in a plane containing the flow velocity vector, the axis of a Pitot-static tube makes
a yaw angle 𝜓𝜓 with the velocity vector, as shown in Figure 6, 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 and 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 may be compared with
𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 for different angles 𝜓𝜓. If the static tap(s) are symmetrically placed with respect to the plane
ABCD, the variation of measured static, stagnation and dynamic pressures will be symmetric about
𝜓𝜓 = 0. Typical variation for the simplest Pitot-static tube is shown in Reference 2, Chapter 7,
Section 15 entitled "Pressure Probes".

Figure 6: Schematic of the Probe Misalignment from the Velocity Vector

Several more sophisticated static and stagnation probes have been developed, some relatively
insensitive to probe misalignment, some self-aligning, some incorporating a correction for the
presence of the probe support, and so on. Surveys of such probes may be found in Reference 2, or
other books on measurement systems, References 3 and 4. The current laboratory experiment will
investigate the yaw angle sensitivity of both a Pitot-static probe and a Kiel stagnation pressure
probe (some more information on the Kiel probe HERE).

Lab 1-7
Instrumentation
The present experiment is meant to provide familiarity with velocity measurements from
manometer readings using a Pitot-static probe. In addition, a check of the variation of the pressures
with yaw angle is examined and comparisons made with a Kiel stagnation probe. A closed loop
subsonic wind tunnel will be used in this experiment. It is assumed that the flow enters the test
section with only one velocity component, U. Consult Reference 2 for information on manometers,
pressure probes, experimental methodology and reporting.

Experimental Setup
A subsonic wind tunnel capable of speeds up to 55 m/s will be used in this experiment. The tunnel
is open loop and uses a fan powered by an electric motor. The motor RPM is controlled via a
frequency controller and commanded by a computer.

Figure 7: General Setup to Investigate the Characteristics of Pressure Probes

A Pitot-static probe has been mounted in the test section of the wind tunnel. The probe has been
constructed with the Pitot tube extending forward of a tapered transition section where two static
ports are located, one on each side of the probe, Figure 8. The static and stagnation ports are
connected by tubing to the water micromanometer, whose working fluid is distilled water with a
green dye having a specific gravity of 1,000. The probes used in the experiment will be inserted
into the flow through a 6-inch port in the wall of the test section. The probes are attached to a plug
that rotates in the vertical plane, while the probes may be inserted or retracted. Through rotation
of the plug, the angular orientation of the probe can be changed. A stenciled protractor scale is
affixed to the wind tunnel wall and allows for accurate angular positioning. A pointer enables the
yaw angle to be measured. Two commercially available pressure probes will also have been
mounted in the port of the wind tunnel to investigate the performance of this Pitot-static probe.

Lab 1-8
 Figure 8: Detailed drawing of the pitot-static probe with attachment hardware installed in the wind tunnel

Experimental Procedure
A detailed schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Figures 9 and 10. The basic
measurement procedure is as follows. First, note the laboratory temperature and barometric
pressure of the atmosphere, for use in calculating air density from 𝑝𝑝 = 𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌. Our reference pressure
for the manometer will be the static tap on the wall, as it is the best equivalent to the true static
pressure of the flow within the tunnel.
Part I: Velocity Vector Determination
1. Zero the micromanometer.
2. Make all apparatus connections as shown in Figure 9. Stagnation pressure will be
connected to the high-pressure side of the manometer, while the wall tap will be connected
to the low pressure side.
3. Start up the Wind Tunnel fan via the START button and set speed to 25 m/s
4. First align the probe with the velocity vector by:
a. setting the yaw angle to approximately 25° from the zero angle, note 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 and the
position 𝜃𝜃1 of the pointer on the protractor scale,
b. rotate the probe through the zero yaw position to a yaw angle of about 25° on the
other side,
c. adjust the probe angle until your 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 readings are repeated,
d. record the protractor reading 𝜃𝜃2 . The velocity vector V � bisects the angle between
𝜃𝜃1 and 𝜃𝜃2 . Calculate this angle.

Lab 1-9
 Figure 9: Connection diagram for the pitot-static probe study

Figure 10: Diagram for Kiel total pressure probe

Part II: Velocity Measurement

1. Make all apparatus connections as shown in Figure 9. Stagnation pressure will be
connected to the high-pressure side of the manometer, while the static pressure from the
probe will be connected to the low pressure side.
2. Next, note the manometer levels corresponding to the dynamic pressure.
3. Repeat step 2 for different air velocities from 10 to 50 m/s.
Part III: Pitot-Static Probe Misalignment Study
1. Make all apparatus connections as shown in Figure 9. The wall tap will be the reference
for stagnation and static pressures, while dynamic will be connected as part II above.
2. Set the air velocity to 25 m/s.
3. Perform Step 4 of Part I above, if this has not been done already.

Lab 1-10
 4. Set the probe successively at different yaw angles, in 10° increments, from 𝜓𝜓 = 0° to 𝜓𝜓 =
50°, and at each setting note the manometer levels corresponding to total, static and
dynamic pressures.
Part IV: Kiel Probe Study
1. Make all apparatus connections as shown in Figure 10. Reference pressure will be the wall
tap.
2. Set the air velocity the same as in Part III.
3. Set the probe successively at different yaw angles, in 5° increments, from 𝜓𝜓 = 0°to 𝜓𝜓 =
60°, and at each setting note the manometer level corresponding to total pressure. Use the
same offset velocity vector angle as in Part I.
Reduce the fan speed to its lowest speed and turn off the power at the tunnel control panel. Switch
off all other components of the system.
Analysis
Where applicable, provide answers in both SI and Imperial units.
1. Use Equations 11 and 10 or Equation 19 to calculate the velocities from the data in Part II
of the experiment. Draw up a plot of velocity versus the manometric level difference Δz.
corresponding to 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠 .
2. From the plot, at which end of the velocity range is the Pitot-static probe more sensitive to
velocity changes.
3. What drawbacks of the present system can you point out if applied to the measurement of
unsteady velocities?
4. Using Equations 10 and 19 with the data from Part III of the experiment, tabulate and plot
measured static, stagnation and dynamic pressures, referenced to their true freestream
values, as fractions of true dynamic pressure, all versus yaw angle. For example, at a yaw
angle of 20°,
𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠@20𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑔𝑔 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠@0𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑦𝑦@20𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 =
𝑞𝑞@0𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Note that in the equation above, the true static gage pressure should be the wall tap, which
should be zero. Compare your plot with Reference [2], Figure 7-44. Note that the stagnation
pressure variation versus yaw angle is similar to that shown in Figure 7-40a of the same
reference. Also note that from Figure 7-44, our measured static pressure at 𝜓𝜓 = 0° is in
error. To detect this error, remember to compare with the static tap set in the wall as well.
The trend for static looks different, but is corrected if the delta is flipped in direction
(𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠@𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠@𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ). Comment on the results and provide possible reasons for any
discrepancies.
5. Reduce the Kiel probe data, Part IV, in a manner similar to that in item 4. Plot the results
alongside that obtained for the Pitot-static probe. Comment on the differences between
both measurement systems.

Applications
1) Watch the video on pitot-static instruments for aircraft (link HERE). Answer the following
questions:

Lab 1-11
 a) Why is it important to adjust the altimeter to the local barometric pressure? What could
happen if you do not?
b) How do you achieve a vertical velocity measurement? Describe the physical setup of the
instrument.
c) Name the two features of the pitot tube mentioned in the video that are designed to avoid
errors in measurement. Can you mention a particular concern or adjustment that may be
required on one of them?
2) Visit the two links from United Sensor on pitot probes (Link 1 & Link 2). Answer the following
questions:
a) Why would you want combine a pressure and temperature probe?
b) Show the calculations that indicate the lower accuracy limit is 70 ft/s if you have a
differential pressure of 1” of water.
c) Discuss why proximity to a boundary can cause errors in measurement and what
installation guidelines are recommended.
3) Two 737 MAX crashes have been linked to a failure of a single angle of attach sensor (AOA)
triggering powerful stabilizer trim nose-down which yielded to unrecoverable flight
conditions. The following link leads to the Lion Air 737 MAX Final accident report (Link).
Some sections include significant detail on the accident, so read with discretion. The report
mentions a range of contributing causes, from aircraft design, aircraft certification and risk
assessment, flight crew readiness, and airline crew and maintenance practices. We will focus
in some aspects of aircraft design.
a) Read the synopsis section. it indicates that erroneous AOA information resulted in multiple
error messages such as IAS DISAGREE (indicated airspeed) and ALT DISAGREE
(altitude). Based on what you learned in this lab, why would those messages be triggered?
Were those measurements really in error?
b) Read the Findings section, starting in page 204. Provide some thoughts as to what would
you do as engineers to modify the system and increase safety.
Additional comments
The synopsis section also mentions that part of the cause for the crash was that the crew was not
only dealing with MCAS triggered nose-down trim, but also with multiple messages of erroneous
flight data. Section 2.3.2 discusses Flight Crew Workload (p. 180).
Section 2.5.1.2 discusses the functional hazard assessment for the MCAS system, in which
erroneous activation of MCAS was deemed a major hazard, on a scale comprised by minor, major,
hazardous and catastrophic. Based on this classification, failure mode analysis was not required
and led to many possible problems not being considered. Page 195 indicates that since the possible
failure was considered only major, and not hazardous or catastrophic, “MCAS architecture with
redundant AOA inputs for MCAS could have been considered but was not required based on the
FHA classification of Major.” This highlights the importance of classification of possible failures
on the safety of flying vehicles.
References
1. Karamcheti, K., Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics, Krieger Publishing Company, 1980.
2. Holman, J.P. and Gajda, W.J., Experimental Methods for Engineers, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill,
1989.

Lab 1-12
3. Beckwith, T.G., Buck, N.L. and Marangoni, R.D., Mechanical Measurements, 3rd edition,
Addison-Wesley, 1982.
4. Bradshaw, P., Experimental Fluid Mechanics, 2nd edition, Pergamon Press, 1970.
5. www.unitedsensorcorp.com

Lab 1-13